Village board votes to reallocate fire department resources, combine commissions

Tuesday's Glenview Village Board meeting was all about consolidation.

The board voted unanimously to have village staff members make a plan that would look at reallocating the resources of Fire Station No. 13, 831 E. Lake Ave., to the village's four other stations.

In a preliminary reading, the board also went forward with a plan to consolidate four village commission into two new ones.

Both moves followed either a study in the case of the fire station, or prior examination by the Glenview Plan Commission in regard to streamlining the development commissions.

The action surrounding Fire Station No. 13 followed a fire response study of Glenview's five stations that public safety consultants Fitch & Associates delivered in September.

Among other things, it found that Glenview Fire Department response time exceeded industry standards, and 65 percent of calls are of medical nature rather than fire.

It also found that, during a 24-hour shift, personnel at Station No. 13 spent 36 minutes responding to calls in 2019, 24 minutes in 2020 - well below the 4 hours, 49 minutes by crews at the village's busiest station, No. 7, 3507 Glenview Road. That workload still remains well below the 7.2 hours recommended by professional agencies.

In April, Station No. 13's resources were reallocated to Glenview's four other stations for 15 weeks, and then again for four weeks starting Dec. 30. Public safety was not affected, according to the village.

The Fitch report and a prior review process, which began in 2019 by the board and fire department personnel, arrived at seven options. They included cross-staffing at Station No. 8, 1901 Landwehr Road, identifying partnerships with other departments and several options for Station No. 13. All drew trustees' interest.

The analysis indicated reallocating No. 13 resources to other stations would better align response to community needs without significantly lowering overall response time, particularly with the implementation of a Medical Priority Dispatch System.

Reallocation would offer a low level of risk and annually save roughly $1.25 million. The number of fire and emergency medical service personnel would remain unchanged.

"It seems to make the most sense to me to reallocate resources and have them better used where they're most effective," said trustee Chuck Gitles, representing board opinion.

In other matters, four development commissions have been combined into two.

In a restructuring proposal submitted by village staff members in August, three times thereafter the Plan Commission had reviewed a proposal to consolidate the Appearance, Historic Preservation and Plan commissions and the Zoning Board of Appeals into two commissions, for New Development and Development Adjustments. The latter commission would handle existing developments plus zoning variations for new single-family residences.

After amendments, on Jan. 26 the Plan Commission approved it 4-1 for board consideration.

"One of the biggest challenges we've had over the last couple of years is having so many people that say, 'Why do I have to go to so many meetings? Why can't we put all this together?'" Village President Jim Patterson said.

A new project would first be submitted to the New Development Commission, where it would be either recommended or denied. If recommended the proposal would advance to preliminary and second hearings before the board of trustees. If approved it would go back to New Development for any final polishing.

On Tuesday the board approved the measure 6-0. There was discussion over the number of members for each of the new boards, with trustees settling on nine four-year commissioners apiece.

Design guidelines would have to be updated prior to its July 1 effective date. If the streamlining does come to light a formal evaluation of the new process would happen 9 to 12 months later.

"This was as much a response in trying to put things together, to smooth things through, for the public," Patterson said. "From the petitioner's perspective, it was meant to put them in one place. It isn't meant to abbreviate the process. It is still meant to be every bit as thorough as possible in an effort to make sure that things are vetted."