The URL can be used to link to this page

Committee of the Whole Packet 2012 07-10-12 J2 4 O � United City of Yorkville 4 800 Game Farm Road EST. 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 9 Fax: 630-553-7575 jLE Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda City Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Tuesday,July 10, 2012 Citizen Comments: Presentations: 1) Blackberry Creek Watershed Study Minutes for Approval: 1) May 15, 2012 Public Works Committee 2) June 12, 2012 Committee of the Whole Economic Development Committee Items: New Business: 1) EDC 2012-26 Downtown Business District 2) EDC 2012-27 Land Cash Study 3) EDC 2012-28 B.U.I.L.D. Program Extension 4) EDC 2012-29 Resolution Adopting the Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan Old Business: None Public Safety Committee Items: New Business: 1) PS 2012-15 Resolution Adopting the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2) PS 2012-16 Lightning Detectors for City Parks 3) PS 2012-17 Animal Ordinance Old Business: None Public Works Committee Items: New Business: 1) PW 2012-41 Jay Heap Appraiser Contract—Game Farm Road/ Somonauk Street Project 2) PW 2012-42 Road Maintenance Update 3) PW 2012-43 Capital Improvement Plan Old Business: None Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda July 10, 2012 Page 2 Administration Committee Items: New Business: 1) ADM 2012-41 Contractors' Registration and Licensing 2) ADM 2012-42 Biosolid Application Old Business: None Mayor's Report: Old Business: 1) CC 2012-48 Home Rule Referendum Resolution 2) CC 2012-49 Ordinance Regarding City Council Procedures Items Recommended for Consent Agenda: None Informational Items: 1) EDC 2012-30 Building Permit Report for June 2012 2) EDC 2012-31 Building Inspection Report Summary for June 2012 3) EDC 2012-32 Property Maintenance Inspection Report for June 2012 4) PS 2012-18 Monthly Police Reports for June 2012 5) PW 2012-44 Windett Ridge Mowing 6) PW 2012-45 Storm Cleanup Update 7) ADM 2012-30 Verizon Cell Phone Proposal 8) ADM 2012-43 Grant Spreadsheet Additional Business: Executive Session: 1) For litigation, when an action against, affecting, or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting. 2) For collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees. UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Tuesday, July 10, 2012 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENTATIONS: Blackberry Creek Watershed Study --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. May 15, 2012 Public Works Committee ❑ Approved ❑ As presented ❑ With corrections 2. June 12, 2012 Committee of the Whole ❑ Approved ❑ As presented ❑ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS 1. EDC 2012-26 Downtown Business District ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2012-27 Land Cash Study ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. EDC 2012-28 BUILD Program Extension ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. EDC 2012-29 Resolution Adopting the Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFEY COMMITTEE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS 1. PS 2012-15 Resolution Adopting the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PS 2012-16 Lightning Detectors for City Parks ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. PS 2012-17 Animal Ordinance ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS 1. PW 2012-41 Jay Heap Appraiser Contract—Game Farm Road/Somonauk Street Project ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PW 2012-42 Road Maintenance Update ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. PW 2012-43 Capital Improvement Plan ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS 1. ADM 2012-41 Contractors' Registration and Licensing ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. ADM 2012-42 Biosolid Application ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAYOR'S REPORT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS 1. CC 2012-48 Home Rule Referendum Resolution ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CC 2012-49 Ordinance Regarding City Council Procedures ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2012-30 Building Permit Report for June 2012 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2012-31 Building Inspection Report Summary for June 2012 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. EDC 2012-32 Property Maintenance Inspection Report for June 2012 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. PS 2012-18 Monthly Police Reports for June 2012 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. PW 2012-44 Windett Ridge Mowing ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. PW 2012-45 Storm Cleanup Update ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. ADM 2012-30 Verizon Cell Phone Proposal ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. ADM 2012-43 Grant Spreadsheet ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. D CO. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number v J Legal El Minutes #1 Finance EST. 1836 Engineer ❑ ~=� City Administrator ❑ Tracking Number d �I Human Resources ❑ 'f'► �C? Community Development ❑ '+ Police ❑ CLE ti�'� Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Minutes for Approval—May 15, 2012 Public Works Committee Meeting and Date: COW—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Minute Taker Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Page 1 of 7 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PUBLIC WORKS MEETING Tuesday, May 15, 2012 City Conference Room COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Alderman George Gilson Alderman Jackie Milschewski Alderman Diane Teeling Alderman Larry Kot Other City Officials in Attendance: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, AICP, Community.Dopment Direr.. Eric Dhuse, Public Works Director Bart Olson, City Administrator Brad Sanderson, EEI Other Citizens: Tony Scott, Kendall Record The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Alderman George Gilson Citizen Comments: None Minutes for Correction/Approval: The minutes for March 12, 2012 were approved. For April 17, 2012 there were 2 corrections from Alderman Kot and Alderman Gilson, the changes were made and a copy was sent to Lisa Pickering. The red line corrections for October 18, 2011,November 15, 2011 and January 17, 2012 were all approved. New Business: (below item moved forward in agenda) 1. PW 2012-28 Water Department Reports for February,March and April 2012 There were no questions on reports. Move to consent 2. PW 2012-29 Kendall Marketplace Improvements - Pay Request Mr. Sanderson said there is consideration of a payment request for ongoing work out in Kendall Marketplace. Alderman Gilson asked if there are going to be any added costs. Mr. Sanderson responded no, not at this point. Alderman Kot asked if this was going to come back after it has met Mr. Sanderson's approval. Mr. Sanderson said it will come back for a 3rd and final pay request after everything is addressed. Alderman Teeling asked if it has to come back through us for a pay request even if the work has been done. Mr. Sanderson said that's how they have done it in the past. Mr. Olson said because it's a large check. Mr. Sanderson says it keeps everyone up to speed. Page 2 of 7 Move to consent. 3. PW 2012-30 Game Farm Road Update Mr. Sanderson said that at the last meeting there was a request for additional information for Game Farm Road so just to update everyone we are targeting the November 2014 letting and to make the letting date,pre-final plans are due to IDOT no later than July 2014. The current plans are estimated to be 95% complete. The current construction cost estimate is $6.31 Million dollars. There will have to be some updates prior to finalizing the plans; for example along Route 47 the state is incorporating some of the improvements into their plans, so we will have to revise some of the plans for Game Farm Road. Alderman Gilson asked if there is an update on the appraisals and the acquisition offers from the last meeting. Mr. Sanderson said that he just received the updated plats from HR Green and should have the title searches soon. Once the title searches are received Mr. Sanderson will look them over and give theirs to our land acquisition specialist who will provide an updated proposal, which can be brought back to the June meeting for approval. After that it will be up to the land acquisition specialist to proceed with the land acquisition. Alderman Kot asked how much wider the road is going to be compared to what it is today. Mr. Sanderson said that it will be a 3 lane cross section. Right now it is 20-24 feet and it will expand to 36-39 feet. Alderman Kot also asked if the curve is going to be changed. Mr. Olson responded yes, less than slightly. Where Somonauk continues to the west, instead on being an offshoot it is going to be a 90 degree intersection. Mr. Olson added that Game Farm Road will be done in 3 construction seasons to keep the cost down. Although there will be construction on the entire roadway there will always be one entrance open to the High School. The construction schedule does take the school year into account and all the work should be done in the calendar year once it is constructed. Instead of having 2 entrances in and out the high school will go down to having 1 entrance in and out. It will pose some issues, but hopefully when there is the additional turn lane it will get rid of some of the problems for the morning and afternoon. 4. PW 2012-31 LOCBond Call Policy Ms. Noble started out by saying that in the past couple of meetings we have discussed our potential bond call policies and about changing it to a systematic approach. Ms. Noble broke the memo down in two parts. The first part of the memo is the educational part that explains what is a performance bond,what it covers, how it's used to secure development and what the difference is between a bond and a letter of credit and how much easier it is to get a letter of credit. The second part is how bond policies are set up through our Subdivision Control Ordinance and where we are now with the existing bond and letters of credit we have in place. Ms. Noble enclosed a spreadsheet that shows approximately 150 letters of credit(LOC) in place for 54 existing development projects in various phases of completion. Ms. Noble said that they did an analysis and what everyone is going to see in an executive session is a more detail analysis of individual Page 3 of 7 letters of credit for individual subdivisions and how we are going to move forward. Alderman Gilson said in order to streamline this conversation he asked everyone to go through all of the procedures. I. Revise Subdivision Control Ordinance to require completion of Subdivision within 4 years of initial construction. After discussing the items below and going back and forth on them Alderman Gilson said in order to streamline this conversation can we go through each one of these and make suggestions so that we can move forward. a. Revise the inconsistency/disconnect between the standard specifications for improvements requirements for acceptance (50%built out or 3-year after the roadway binder course) and roadway construction(no surface course until at least 70% of the adjacent, private improvements are complete but no longer than 3-years after binder course) with the Subdivision Control Ordinance requirements for completion of all improvements within 2 years from the date of approval of the final plat. Alderman Gilson's response to this was he feels this is taking a huge risk. This is dangerous no matter how many bonds or how many securities we have as this continues to sit we will not have enough securities to do a total replacement or to finish up the subdivisions; with that being said looking at the dollar amount, they are tremendous. There is no security that we have right now that may cover everything if we had to replace all of it today. Alderman Gilson thinks we should not extend this for 4 years. b. Clarify the distinction between "final plan" in section 11-5-1 and"final plan" in section 11-5-5 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance by referencing the "final engineering plan" and "final subdivision plat" respectively. Alderman Gilson was happy with this plan. c. Amend the Subdivision Control Ordinance to provide that "the failure to complete any infrastructure component is a violation of the code if such incomplete component may result in the harm to the system or potential failure of the system. Alderman Gilson was happy with this as well. Thought it was great. d. Extensions may be requested by the Developer and approved by either the City Administrator or City Council upon recommendation by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Alderman Gilson does oppose to this, he feels that the City Council should be involved with city extension. Alderman Kot also agreed with this. e. Extensions granted for no more than 1 year at a time and require: 1. submittal of a revised construction schedule; 2. updated engineer's estimate of probable cost for completion; 3. updated LOC or Bond with revised amounts. Alderman Gilson made a comment that these are good changes and that he is happy with all of the changes. f. Require an application fee for construction extension request. Alderman Gilson said that we need this and that it should be a set fee. Alderman Kot mentioned that there Page 4 of 7 will be staff time and that the tax payers don't need to pay for this. Alderman Milschewski made a comment that until we know that there is a check we don't approve it and until this is determined and they are going to do the job and put the money up front we don't approve it, Alderman Milschewski didn't know if they could do that. Ms. Noble suggested making it an application fee. Alderman Gilson asked Ms. Noble to make sure that the verbiage is correct and clear on everything, he also asked her to do some research on fees or to come up with what she thinks it should be. Everyone agreed that there should be some kind of fee. g. Enforce the current Subdivision Control regulations for roadways and surface course installed no later than 3 construction years. (There was a correction made on this, it did say "binder course" and Ms. Noble said it should have said "surface course"; also where it said no later than 3 years she added construction years at the end). Alderman Gilson agrees with this,he thinks it should be even tighter; he would like to see the subdivision done in 2 years. Alderman Teeling said that she understands about the problem not having it done,but once it is done, it could cause problems for us because we have to accept the subdivision and if they are not done building it out and they are driving down the road with their trucks and if it tears up the road we then have to fix it. Alderman Gilson said if they damage the road with their equipment and we need to put something writing to address this. II. Revise Subdivision Control Ordinance to require "Acknowledgement of Public Improvement Completion Schedule" a. Schedule outlines when the public improvements are to be completed and signed by the City&Developer. Alderman Gilson said that he is happy with this everyone else also agreed. b. Schedule states the City will place as a condition in the Final Plat of Subdivision approval Ordinance or PUD Agreement Ordinance that the development must have all streets, sewers, water mains, street lights, etc. installed in a workmanship like manner within 4 years of initial construction. Alderman Gilson said that he would push for 2 years, but that is just him. There were no remarks made from everyone else. c. Schedule will require the developer provide proof via a title search that all accepted infrastructure is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Alderman Gilson said thank goodness and that we need this in writing. d. Schedule states the developer will maintain the public improvements until they are approved and accepted by the city. Alderman Gilson said he is happy with this as well everyone also agreed. III. Quarterly tracking of letters of Credits and Bonds re: Expiration Dates a. Projects nearing 2 years into construction will receive status inquiry letters from City Engineer and require an updated Public Improvement Completion Schedule. (This Page 5 of 7 is the revised version, less than 40%built out was removed from this sentence). Ms. Noble will be revising this. Mr. Olson suggested that we just take out all the percentages a-d. Everyone agreed that this will make things easier. b. Projects nearing 3 years into construction will receive status inquiry letter from City Engineer with punch list and require an updated PIC Schedule. (Less than 50%built out was removed from this sentence). Ms. Noble will be revising this. c. Projects nearing 4 years into construction will receive status inquiry letter from City Engineer with punch list, require an updated PIC schedule and formal notification that the project will be in default if an extension is not requested/approved prior to 4 year construction deadline. (Less than 60%built out was removed from this sentence). Ms. Noble is to revise this. d. Projects over 4 years into construction will receive formal notification of default from City Engineer, at the City council direction, indicating that the LOC or Bond is subject to a demand for call within 60 days of date of notice should the developer not seek an extension for completion. (Less than 70%built out was removed from this sentence). Ms. Noble is to revise—.- IV. Revise Section 11-5-2 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance re: Contingency Requirement and Reduction of Bond Procedures * Increase the contingency requirement from ten percent (10%) to twenty percent (20%) contingency of the required improvements, as estimated by the engineer employed by the subdivider and approved by the city engineer, to assure the satisfactory installation of required improvements. Aldennan Gilson said that we need to do this. Ms. Noble said that this is consistent with a lot of communities. * Codify the currently practiced reduction and release of letter of credit/bonds procedures as part of the partial or final acceptance process for subdivision improvements. Alderman Gilson said that the reduction process needs to be codified. Alderman Milschewski asked if we are going to update or do a whole new ordinance and incorporate the two resolutions in. Ms.Noble responded, yes. Alderman Milschewski said that she noticed that some of the spreadsheets have expired. Ms. Noble said that they will be going over everything at the executive session and will be going over materials on how we are moving forward on the bonds. Alderman Kot asked as part of our quarterly tracking is it possible to receive these summaries like we receive our water bill?Ms. Noble said yes, you will start receiving summaries; this was the whole idea for the quarterly tracking. Page 6 of 7 Alderman Kot also asked that with all these new rules and things we are tracking, do we have enough staff to stay on top of this. Ms.Noble says she is just doing the tracking by years. Alderman Gilson had a couple of questions on the codifiers. When going through everything Ms. Noble said that a lot of this has been cleaned up or some of it taken out and that she will be getting it to Alderman Gilson as soon as possible. This is also to come back to next month's meeting for discussion. He would also like to discuss the extension fees. Old Business: Alderman Kot asked what is going on about the down town parking? Mr. Olson responded that it has been on hold. There was a contract saying we have to have replacement parking at the jail site by May 2013. IDOT said that they would look into an extension, but we put it on hold, we finished the design on it and told EEI to put a stop on things and that we were looking into other locations. Alderman Kot said that this is something he would like to see on some agenda, to see where we are going on this and to get an update. Alderman Kot also said that if we don't get an extension then this year is going to go by and he thinks we need to have some kind of plan on where we are going to go with this. Mr. Olson said that he will update everyone at the executive session. Alderman Milschewski asked if we can get an update on what's going on with the jail. Is someone working on it or is it just sitting again? Mr. Olson said that the haunted house committee has been doing some projects on it with the money they raised from the haunted house fundraiser. Harold Oliver is waiting to see what we are going to do with the parking lot and the building in general. Alderman Milschewski asked if someone can get in touch with him to see if we can get an update on what they are doing. Additional Business: Alderman Teeling said that the businesses at the riverfront asked if we could put it on the agenda to discuss having at least 2 parking spots down by their business for their customers. They love the kayakers, but they park there all day long and there is no parking for the businesses. Mr. Olson said that they will take a look at it. He knew that there was some conversation about having parking spaces dedicated for the businesses, but wanted to make sure that the kayakers had a parking spot. Alderman Teeling said it is affecting their business and that there is no parking for their customers. Why can't the kayakers drop off their stuff and then go and park somewhere else? Mr. Olson is going to look into it. Alderman Milschewski asked Ms. Noble about the tree at 406 Heustis that is bone dead and has branches falling off it. Ms. Noble said that they have fined the guy there and then gave him a 30 day extension to have the tree removed. Alderman Milschewski also said that she received a phone call from a resident in Heartland Circle about her ash trees being tagged. The resident asked if the city comes to Page 7 of 7 remove the trees, does she have to replace them. Mr. Dhuse said that because they are on city property, then the city will replace them. Alderman Milschewski then asked about the trees down on Clarks, are the trees going to come all the way down? A resident called her with a concern that subdivision covenants might have been broken. Alderman Milschewski would like a follow up. Is IDOT going to replace any of the trees over there? Mr. Dhuse believes that they are going to come all the way down. Alderman Milschewski asked if there is a way IDOT can maybe donate some of the trees like they did for the schools for Arbor Day. Alderman Milschewski asked about the sidewalk in front of Circle Center? Mr. Sanderson said that there will be a sidewalk in front of the school. Alderman Gilson asked about the way they are grounding up the stumps? Mr. Sanderson said that they are coming back with the leaf vac and then will put dirt down. We are currently only working with a two man crew. The meeting adjourned at 7:30pm. 'Www Minutes respectfully submitted by Kimberly Ryan, Minute Taker q\NQ6_ VIVO N. °.. x 4 . A. D CO. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number v J -n Legal El Minutes #2 Finance EST. 1836 Engineer ❑ ~=� City Administrator ❑ Tracking Number 0 �I Human Resources ❑ 'f'► �C? Community Development ❑ '+ Police ❑ CLE ti�'� Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Minutes for Approval—June 12, 2012 Committee of the Whole Meeting and Date: COW—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Minute Taker Name Department Agenda Item Notes: MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY ILLINOIS HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 800 GAME FARM ROAD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012, 7:OOPM Mayor Golinski called the meeting to order at 7:OOpm and led the attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Ward I Gilson Absent Colosimo Present Ward II Milschewski Present Kot Present Ward III Munns Present Funkhouser Present Ward IV Spears Present Teeling Present City officials present: City Administrator Bart Olson, City Attorney Kathy Orr, Public Works Director Eric Dhuse, Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Director of Finance Rob Fredrickson, Director of Parks and Recreation Laura Schraw, Chief of Police Rich Hart, Code Official Peter Ratos, Deputy Chief Larry Hilt, EEI Engineer Brad Sanderson, Other Guests: Lynn Dubajic-YEDC, Steve Lord-Beacon News, Tony Scott-Kendall County Record, Jillian Duchnowski-Yorkville Patch. See also guest lists. Mayor Golinski announced that the Rec Center would not be discussed at this meeting. CITIZEN COMMENTS: Lynn Dubajic commented on the Push for the Path progress. She said there are presently 75 "Power of I" Teams that have pledged to raise $1,000 for the bike path. As a result, $56,980 of the targeted amount of$75,000, has been raised. There have also been several fundraisers, raffles and t-shirt sales to raise money. The amount collected as of this date is $64,392 which is enough for the first 4 years of payments. Mark Johnson said he thought the Rec Center would be on the agenda and that it would be helpful to know prior to the meeting what actually would be discussed. But he asked to speak about uncontrolled spending. He said there had been a rally in the park to discuss taxes and also other topics were the Rec Center and Push for the Path. He related a story of a woman living on $10,000 social security and she had a 25%raise in her taxes. Due to this raise, the woman might be forced to move. He said property taxes help to pay Minutes of the Committee of the Whole—June 12, 2012 —Page 2 of 10 for the Rec Center. Mr. Johnson said his group would be taking a hard look at the County, school district and other organizations to make cuts. He said they will be rallying people to stop the spending. He stated it costs $500 per person to go to the Rec Center. He asked the Council to not allow the spending to go deeper. Mayor Golinski commented that there will be Rec Center discussions and Public Hearings at 3 future meetings and a vote will be taken in September. An unidentified citizen opened his comments by saying there is a website called "openthebooks.com"which shows various expenditures such as school administrator salaries. He also commented on several other issues as follows. He had attended the Illinois Republican convention in Tinley Park on the previous weekend. Political contribution amounts were also discussed. He noted a future 5%tax to use a satellite dish and a future $1.00 tax on cigarettes. He summarized by saying that all citizens must hold politicians accountable. Don Burks said he had attended a recent committee meeting to explore several options for the Rec Center including an agreement with the YMCA. He also added that about 15 activities do not occur at the Rec Center and said that several activities could take place at other locations. He said schools might be available to help save money. For the record, Mayor Golinski noted that the next Ad Hoc committee meeting regarding options will be held July 9m David Allen of Rosati's Pizza stated that he is in favor of the video gaming ordinance and the amendment to permit extended liquor sales. George Tsaliangos, a bar owner said closing the bars at 1:00am is too early and that patrons simply go to the next town where the bars are open until 2:00am. He said it is hard to maintain business with the current closing hours. Lisa Peterson thanked the Mayor for informing the attendees about upcoming Rec Center discussions. She also discussed the tax revolt day and said it was a great opportunity for elected officials to talk with citizens and noted that 2 Yorkville aldermen and 1 County official attended. She told of a River's Edge homeowner who was uninformed about his tax bill and unable to get help. She suggested that future County bills include a set of printed instructions telling how to get help with understanding the bills. She indicated that her own taxes have increased 70.8% since 2005. She concluded by saying that belts need to be tightened at all levels and citizens are starting to revolt. Tim Johnson stated the City should not make a business out of the Rec Center and that current users will continue to use it. He also reminded voters that some of the Aldermen will be up for re-election. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole—June 12, 2012 —Page 3 of 10 MINUTES FOR APPROVAL: 1) April 3, 2012 Economic Development Committee Approved as read by the Economic Development Committee members by voice vote. 2) May 3, 2012 Public Safety Committee Approved as read by the Public Safety Committee by voice vote. 3) May 15, 2012 Public Works Committee Corrections requested shown in bold: Page 1: New Business #2: sentence should read"Mr. Sanderson said there is consideration of a payment"... Page 2: 1St paragraph, last sentence should read"..revise some of the plans"... Page 4: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence should read"..Ms. Noble said it should have said".. Page 4: 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence should read "...because we have to accept the subdivision and if they.." Page 5: last paragraph, 1St sentence should read "...Alderman Kot asked as part..." Page 6: 1St paragraph, 2nd sentence should read"...Alderman Gilson as soon as possible." Page 6: 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence should read"...Harold Oliver is waiting.." Page 6: 6th paragraph, first sentence should read "..resident in Heartland Circle.." Page 6: last paragraph, the following should be inserted as 2nd sentence: "A resident called her with a concern that subdivision covenants might have been broken." Page 7: 1"paragraph, 2nd complete sentence should read: " ..asked if there is a way IDOT can..." The Public Works minutes were tabled until corrections are made and will be brought back next month for review. 4) May 17, 2012 Administration Committee Corrections requested shown in bold: Page 2: 2nd paragraph, 1St sentence should read"..or not we should allow employees.." Page 3: 6th paragraph, 3rd sentence should read"..city is doing with the B.U.I.L.D. program.." Page 4: 1St paragraph, 2nd sentence is questionable, committee members asked that tape be re-consulted to determine proper wording. Page 5: 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence is questionable, committee members asked that tape be re-consulted, to determine proper wording. Page 6: 3rd paragraph, 1St sentence should read"..Alderman Gilson.." The Administration minutes were then approved as corrected on a voice vote. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole—June 12, 2012 —Page 4 of 10 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ITEMS: New Business: 1. EDC 2012-19 OSLAD Grant Applications a. R iverfron t Park Development Grant Ms. Schraw said she has not received any word from the State if the money for the applications has been released yet. The next application is due July I't in the event the first one was denied, resulting in a short turnaround time. b. Land Acquisition Grant Ms. Schraw said OSLAD gives land and water conversation grants and these have been discussed with the Park Board to see if there is interest. The pending Riverfront Park was discussed and Ms. Milschewski asked if a second grant could be obtained. Ms. Schraw said it is the same grant. Alderman Colosimo questioned if the City is locked into using that money if the city gets the grant and the terms are not favorable during the negotiations. The City would not be locked in according to Ms. Schraw and she added that the landowner had to be agreeable to the appraisal value and the City must have the funds for the purchase. Ms. Spears asked about the letter of evaluation and if it is the current value. A new appraisal would be needed since the last one was in 2010 and would be dependent on whether or not the Council was in favor of such a purchase. Mr. Olson pointed out that a larger amount of a parcel could be purchased under the current land values. Alderman Spears also asked if there is a penalty associated with a grant if the City does not have the funds. There is a 2-year penalty if an awarded grant is not used, however, State money along with money from the Cor-Lands, would result in no capital outlay. This is a dedicated source of funding and if this funding is not paid out, no grants will be awarded either, according to Mr. Olson. It was agreed to move this item to the City Council consent agenda. 2. PC 2012-01 PUD Ordinance Amendment Ms. Barksdale-Noble said since 2010 the Zoning Commission has held meetings to review the current zoning ordinance and to propose revisions. The significant changes proposed for the PUD Chapter are as follows: 1. PUD's will revert to special uses rather than districts 2. Revise and streamline the review process 3. Eliminates Park Board review,but allows for a Park Board representative to have a vote on the Plan Commission 4. Establishes a deadline for final plat of approval with a proposal that construction begin no longer than 3 years from approval Attorney Orr added that Ms. Barksdale-Noble spent a huge amount of time in revising this needed amendment. Prior to the economy's downturn in 2008, a developer would rezone their property with no PUD. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole—June 12, 2012 —Page 5 of 10 Alderman Colosimo questioned how the voting Park Board member would be determined. The Park Board will determine which Board member will cast the vote according to Ms. Barksdale-Noble. Ms. Schraw added that the voting person would have a letter of consensus with them to document the Board's opinion. The committee members approved moving this item to the Council consent agenda. 3. EDC 2012-20 Ordinance for the Sale of Public Property Administrator Olson said this is a resolution for RFP for the bidding process for the old Post Office building. He said it can only be sold through open RFP, however all bids can be rejected. Alderman Colosimo had concerns about selling since it is prime property on the riverfront and will increase in value over time. His other concern is that the City might need the building depending on the rec center and other decisions about building uses. Mayor Golinski shared the same concerns and said the riverfront should be wide open like other towns. Alderman Milschewski said she supported Mr. Colosimo's opinion and that the City should wait. Sharing this opinion also, Mr. Funkhouser said he does not support liquidation and the viable property falls into the vision plan. Mr. Kot said the matter could be re-visited in 6 months and agrees that no action should be taken at this time. Old Business: None PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ITEMS: New Business: 1. PS 2012-11 Liquor Code Amendment—Hours of Sale"""~, Mayor Golinski asked to have this placed on the agenda after receiving many calls from bar owners. He said it does not make sense for bars to close at 1 am on weekends. Alderman Colosimo said he talked with establishments and residents and heard no objections about staying open later. He felt revenue should be kept in the City and the City should be business-friendly. Alderman Kot also supports this amendment. He suggested the police could monitor DUI and disorderly conduct calls for the extra hour they are open and he would like that reported to the Public Safety Committee. The stats will be monitored by Chief Hart who added that Yorkville has responsible bar owners. Alderman Funkhouser also supports later hours and noted that Yorkville has a noise ordinance in place. Ward 4 Alderman Spears also supports this and had no negative feedback from her ward. This item will move to the Council consent agenda. 2. PS 2012-12 Video Gaming Ordinance Many calls were received by the Mayor in reference to this ordinance. He noted the State wants machines in place by August 1. There is an application process, a $25 fee per machine and a license is required. There is a limit of 5 per establishment. Some neighboring towns will be discussing this and the County has already approved gaming. Alderman Colosimo said he is torn between being business-friendly or having the machines. Alderman Munns stated the City could test it and receive some of the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole—June 12, 2012 —Page 6 of 10 discretionary dollars being spent. Alderman Kot agreed with this opinion. Businesses want the machines according to Chris Funkhouser,but he said he has mixed feelings. Alderman Milschewski asked how many establishments could have these machines. All A-1 licensed businesses can have them, which is approximately 7 or 8 according to Mr. Olson. This item moves to the Council consent agenda. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ITEMS: New Business: 1. PW 2012-33 Route 34 Letter of Understanding Laura Schraw said that in 2010 the City had approved a letter of understanding that a trail would be built. In 2012 a letter of understanding was approved for a trail from Rt. 34 & 47 to Timber Ridge Road. The State will cost share at 80/20 which now reduces the local share of this project from $110,000. The City is committed to these trail projects by these letters, explained Mr. Olson. Mr. Colosimo said he could not support these trails since the money is not budgeted and he could not agree to more debt- e asked how many other letters of understanding are still in effect. t The cost of completed engineering was questioned by Alderman Spears. Mr. Olson said nothing has been spent for engineering, however, if the City rejects the trail, the City will receive an engineering bill. She asked where the money would come from. It will be budgeted according to Mr. Olson. Alderman Kot said he would support this project, while Alderman Funkhouser will not. This item will move to the Council non-consent agenda. 2. PW 2012-34 Countryside Center Road Maintenance and Snow Plowing Alderman Gilson requested this item be on the agenda to determine the status of the Countryside Center ring road and who will do the snowplowing. The property owner has proposed to close the roads except to the pool supply store. Alderman Milschewski asked about the medical offices there, but said there are alternative ways to get there. Mr. Funkhouser asked if the fire department had commented on this and it was stated the fire personnel can get to the backs of buildings. Mr. Olson said the city will encourage the owner to keep the roads open. This is information only. 3. PW 23012-35 MFT Resolution for 2012 Street Maintenance Program Mr. Sanderson stated the City has $50,000 to spend on the MFT maintenance program. He said Kennedy Road needs repair this fiscal year and he has a proposed resolution to take bids for project completion. Alderman Colosimo said the money would be better spent if it was used on roads that will not be torn up in the next 10 years. However, Mr. Dhuse said that Kennedy Road repair is tied to Autumn Creek building permits. A road Minutes of the Committee of the Whole—June 12, 2012 —Page 7 of 10 survey is also being done to determine areas needing repair. He added the City would not get favorable bids if repairs are scattered in various locations. This item will move to the Council consent agenda. 4. PW 2012-36 Parkway Tree Installation — Vendor Proposal As of May 10, 36 trees allocated for parkways for the Tree Planting Program were sold. Staff members have solicited estimates for additional trees for residents still wanting them. The best price found was $77.80 per tree. Alderman Milschewski said she received many calls from Heartland Circle wondering if there are other sources for trees. Ms. Schraw said Homeowners' Associations might get a better price if there was more business in a concentrated area. Mr. Olson added that there is still an outstanding grant application from Morton Arboretum that could result in reduced costs. Ms. Schraw will prepare materials and place the information on the city website. Old Business: 1. PW 2012-31 LOC Bond Call Policy Ms. Barksdale-Noble said there are approximately 150 letters of credits/bonds. She said staff has developed recommendations to implement new procedures and seeks direction from this committee for these specific questions: 1. Maximum completion times of subdivision improvements Committee recommends 4 years 2. Authorization to grant extensions for improvement completion 3. Fee requirement for extension request $500 fee agreed upon by committee, based on construction date, not calendar. Committee discussed whether or not the road completion is tied to houses being built. Mr. Olson said a Public Works discussion included a unanimous opinion that it's better to accelerate the maintenance and acceptance of a road 4. Deadline for final road surface coarse installation There was a proposal to tie each step of development to the percentage of buildout, however it was determined this was too cumbersome. Alderman Colosimo said the simpler, the better and recommended basing development on segments rather than percentages. Under this proposal, Ms. Barksdale- Noble said developers must provide a construction schedule. This will not affect current subdivisions. Alderman Teeling asked about bank-owned subdivisions and it was noted they would also have to follow the guidelines. Using staff recommendations, this item will move forward to the Council consent agenda for a vote. ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ITEMS: New Business 1. ADM 2012-35 Procedural Ordinance The concept of this ordinance is to have "strong" committees. Presently, the committee members do not have the authority to place items on the agenda and in the past, some Minutes of the Committee of the Whole—June 12, 2012 —Page 8 of 10 items died in committee. Alderman Kot asked if this ordinance violates State law. Attorney Orr said while there is no case law to prove this, she said there is a strong case for it. She said it gives power of veto to 3 people and minimizes the power given by State Statute. Mr. Kot asked if an item would remain in committee if 2 of 4 committee members are opposed to a certain item. He said other aldermen not on the committee might be in agreement. He does not support this ordinance. Alderman Munns added that if the current C.O.W. structure continues, this is a moot point. He also stated that committees might discuss an issue at length and that same discussion also occurs at a Council meeting. Ms. Orr said committees primarily are used to foster ideas, rather than kill them. Alderman Milschewski said she could not support this since some of the committees do not have equal ward representation. Ms. Olson said some communities use a system of 2 Aldermen and 4 citizens and more communities use the C.O.W. meeting than the committee system. It was decided to kill this item. Old Business 1. ADM 2012-19 Countryside Development Discussion Administrator Olson recommended against refinancing since the existing TIF money would be lost. YEDC Director Lynn Dubajic said she is working with a commercial developer who hopes to bring in a medium size business to this site. She added that the ability to phase in a development and the available $2 million in TIF incentives has helped accelerate interest in the site. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA: 1. PS 2012-13 Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances Adopting Hiring Standards for Part-Time Police Officers No discussion of the ordinance, however, Alderman Colosimo noted that June 14 is the Torch Run for Special Olympics for the Police Department. 2. ADM 2012-36 Prevailing Wage Ordinance This moves to consent agenda. 3. ADM 2012-37 Ordinance Amending City Code Regarding Musical Entertainments Bart Olson said no licenses have ever been issued under this ordinance. 4. ADM 2012-38 Monthly Treasurer's Report for May 2012 No discussion. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. EDC 2012-21 Building Permit Report for April&May 2012 2. EDC 2012-22 Building Inspection Report Summary for April&May 2012 3. EDC 2012-23 Monthly Property Maintenance Inspection Report No discussion on above 3 items Minutes of the Committee of the Whole—June 12, 2012 —Page 9 of 10 4. EDC 2012-24 Route 47 Update Bart Olson gave a brief update and said the City will probably spend $9600 more per fiscal year than budgeted, depending on change orders etc. The total cost share for the City is projected at $3.3 million. S. EDC 2012-25 Glen D. Palmer Dam Completion The State has turned over part of the maintenance and obligations to the City, but the State is still in litigation to have the banks and sidewalks completed. The City is mowing the grass at this time. Mayor Golinski asked about the island where kids jump on the slippery rocks and the potential danger. However, it was decided that signage would not prevent accidents. 6 PS 2012-14 Monthly Police Report for March, April& May 2012 No discussion. 7. PS 2012-10 Weather Warning Siren Update Chief Hart said Public Works saved the City about $10,000 on needed trenching. He said the process is nearly completed and Com Ed is to be out in about 10 days. Alderman Milschewski asked where the other new sirens are located. They are at Bristol Bay and on Kennedy Road/Autumn Creek by the school. Alderman Kot asked that the City look at the lightning detector for the parks. He said there should be a funding mechanism in place for the approximate cost of$5410,000. There also must be a service contract. Mayor Golinski said this would be a discussion for the Park Board. 8. PW 2012-37 Annual MFT Expenditure Statementfor General Maintenance No discussion. 9. PS 2012-38 Traffic Signal Maintenance Refund Eric Dhuse said the City came in under budget and$89,805 will go back to the MFT fund. 10. PW 2012-39 Annual NPDES Permit Report No discussion. 11. PW 2012-40 Safe Routes to School Update The City has met with state representatives to discuss the project. In the new updated plan, Heustis St. is not included due to the existing sidewalk which is outside of the City right-of-way and therefore, not eligible for funds. It is recommended to replace the sidewalk and there is a bid-letting in the fall for the project. Public meetings are recommended between now and mid-July prior to the bids. Alderman Milschewski asked if easements are needed and what will be done if there are plantings near the sidewalk. Easements will be needed and notifications will be sent to residents to trim vegetation in the parkway. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole—June 12, 2012 —Page 10 of 10 12. ADM 2012-39 Monthly Budget Report for May 2012 No discussion. 13. ADM 2012-40 Monthly Cash Statement for April 2012 No discussion on the above items. 14. COW 2012-01 Library Board 2011-2012 Annual Report Mayor Golinski said he informed Library Director Michelle Pfister that she did not need to be present to discuss this report. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: (moved up on agenda,prior to Executive Session) 1. Alderman Milschewski said she received a call from a resident on Gawne Lane asking whether or not Gawne is private or City-owned and that// it is in need of repair. Mr. Dhuse believes it is private and Mr. Olson added that GIS shows it is private, however, the City may have it paved at some point. .•`�`. 2. Ms. Schraw said the Relay for Life will be held in Sandwich on June 22-23. Additional info can be found on the City website or by contacting the Relay for Life Coordinator. On a motion by Alderman Milschewski and second by Alderman Munns, the Committee adjourned the regular meeting and moved to Executive Session at 9:32pm. Respectfully submitted by Marlys Young, Minute Taker n `,SAD C►p Reviewed By: �- Legal Agenda Item Number EST 1836 Finance El EDC—NB #1 1 Engineer ❑ City Administrator E Human Resources El Tracking Number ,*.M Community Development © El ALE /�'�` ❑ EDC 2012-26 Police Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Downtown Business District Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: `,SAD C►p 011% Memorandum To: City Council EST 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: .y� p fth. Date: July 3, 2012 QW* Subject: Downtown Business District LLE '► Summary Proposal to create a downtown business district over a group of properties owned by a single entity. Background Imperial Investments now owns all buildings and lots with Route 47 frontage between W Van Emmon Street and W Hydraulic Avenue. Imperial Investments also has a TIF agreement with the City for Cobblestone Bakery and Follies Theater, and the agreement contemplates inclusion of future properties and buildings owned by Imperial Investments. For inclusion in the TIF agreement, Imperial Investments must get an approved TIF plan for future properties. To date, no new TIF plans have been submitted to the City. While the City and Imperial Investments waits for the TIF reimbursement process to kick in' on Cobblestone Bakery and Follies Theater, the owner of Imperial Investments inquired about other ways to get incentives and assistance from the City sooner than TIF incentives. One such approach is to create a business district, which is explained in detail in the documents supplied by Attorney Orr and attached to this memo. The owner of Imperial Investments is willing to enact a business district on property that he owns, as long as 100% of the proceeds from the business district are forwarded to the owner. This is the exact same proposal that is in place in Kendall Marketplace. In Kendall Marketplace, a 1/2 percentage point business district sales tax was implemented at the request of Harlem Irving to fund on-site infrastructure 2. The owner of Imperial Investments has requested a 1/2 percentage point business district sales tax. Recommendation Because the business district and incremental sales tax has been requested by the property owner, staff recommends approval of the business district plan. The process for business district approval is discussed in the attached memo from Attorney Orr, and it includes a public hearing. 1 Because of the timing of the property tax payment system and assessment system,it is possible that Imperial Investments will not receive any TIF assistance from the City for another year. 2 Sales tax rate in Kendall Marketplace is 8.75%,elsewhere in the City the sales tax rate is 8.25%. LAW OFFICE KATHLEEN FIELD ORR&ASSOCIATES 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 935 Chicago,Illinois 60604 312.3 82.2113 312.382.2127 facsimile KATHLEEN FIELD ORR JAMES W.BINNINGER kfo@kfoassoc,com jwbkkfoassoc.com MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville From: Kathleen Field Orr, City Attorney Date: July 2, 2012 Subject: Consideration of Adoption of the Business District Development and Redevelopment Law(65 ILCS 11-74.3-1 et. seq.) I. Summary of the Law Business district development and redevelopment has been successfully assisted by the Business District Development and Redevelopment Law, 65 ILCS 11-74.3-1 et seq. ("BDD Law") which authorizes a municipality to impose an additional municipal sales tax up to one percent (1%) and an additional municipal hotel tax up to one percent (1%), but only if the proposed business district is found to be "blighted". The BDD Law defines blight as follows: "Blighted area" means an area that is a blighted area which, by reason of the predominance of defective, non-existent, or inadequate street layout,unsanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes, or any combination of those factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability, an economic underutilization of the area, or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. 65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-5. Experience has demonstrated that most older commercial areas meet this definition of blight and, therefore, are eligible to be designated as a"business district". The procedures required to implement the BDD Law in a given area are far less cumbersome that those mandated to adopt tax increment financing under the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1 et. seq.) (the "TIF Act"). As in the TIF Act, a redevelopment plan for the proposed business district must be prepared and, thereafter, a single public hearing is required. No notice, other than the notice of the public hearing in a 2 newspaper either published within the municipality or a newspaper having general circulation within the municipality, is mandated by the BDD Law. If the proposed business district is found to be a "blighted area", the municipality may impose the additional sales tax and hotel tax in .25% increments up to 1%. This additional tax is collected by each business operation within the business district, remitted to the Department of Revenue ("DOR") with its other sales tax or hotel tax collections and this additional tax is, thereafter, remitted to the municipality by the DOR as a separate revenue distribution. The additional taxes received by a municipality which adopts the BDD Law must be used for specific redevelopment project costs as defined by the BDD Law and within the business district boundaries; but, unlike the TIF Act, redevelopment project costs include new construction and do not include reimbursement of costs to either the school district or the library district as mandated by the TIF Act, or does the law permit reimbursement of a developer's interest costs. The experience overall of this additional sales tax or hotel tax has not been noted to deter shopping within the business district as most consumers are unable to track the differing rates of sales taxes applied within a region. The ease of imposition and collection of this revenue stream has resulted in a growing use of the BDD Law to spur redevelopment of many aging central commercial areas. II. Schedule The Ordinance adopting the BDD Law and imposing a sales tax or a hotel tax, if adopted and filed with the Illinois Department of Revenue on or before October 1St shall commence the 1St of January. A proposed schedule for the Downtown Yorkville BDD is as follows: A. Review of law and procedures at the Committee of the Whole on July 10, 2012 B. Adoption of the Ordinance on July 24, 2012 Setting the Date for the Public Hearing C. Public Hearing on September 11, 2012 D. Adoption of the Ordinance establishing the Yorkville BDD on September 28, 2012 111. Business District Plan Attached hereto is a draft of the Business District Development Plan which sets for the powers afforded to the City if the BDD Law is adopted as applicable to a defined area, the goals of the City in connection with the redevelopment of the area and the estimate of projects costs which may be financed with the taxes to be levied pursuant to the BDD Law. Resolution No. 2012- A RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE,KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, TO SET A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DOWNTOWN YORKVILLE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, and (the "City") as follows: Section 1. It is necessary and in the best interests of the City that a public hearing be held at least one week prior to the adoption of an ordinance or ordinances by the City Council approving the Downtown Yorkville Business District Development Plan (the "Business District Plan"), establishing the Downtown Yorkville Business Development District (the "Business District"), as legally described in Exhibit A, attached to and made a part of this Resolution, and imposing a retailers', service, and hotel operators' occupation taxes (the "Taxes"), in accordance with the Business District Development and Redevelopment Act, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-1, et seq. (the "Act"). Section 2. The Act grants the Village the power to establish by ordinance or resolution procedures for the planning, execution and implementation of business district plans; and pursuant to the Act, the Village desired to authorize the date for a public hearing (the "Public Hearing") on the proposed Business District Plan, proposed Business District, and the imposition of Taxes therein, and the publication of notice thereof. Section 3. It is hereby determined that the Public Hearing shall be held by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville on the 1 lth day of September, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., at the City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois. Section 4. Notice of the Public Hearing is hereby authorized to be given by publication in the Section S. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this Resolution shall be held invalid, the invalidity of such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the other provisions of this Resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this day of , A.D. 2012. CITY CLERK ROSE ANN SPEARS DIANE TEELING GEORGE GILSON JR. JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI CARLO COLOSIMO MARTY MUNNS CHRIS FUNKHOUSER LARRY KOT Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this day of 2012. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held on September 11, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. before the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois on the proposed Downtown Yorkville Business District Development Plan, establishing the Downtown Yorkville Business Development District and imposing a .5% retailers', service, and hotel operators' occupation taxes, all in accordance with the Business District Development and Redevelopment Act, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-1, et. seq. The proposed Downtown Yorkville Business Development District includes an area bounded on the north by West Hydraulic Avenue, on the east by Bridge Street (Illinois Route 47), on the south by West Van Emmon Street and on the west by the alleyway approximately 190 feet west of Bridge Street, and is legally described as: Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 in Block 1 of Blacks Addition to the Village of Yorkville, being a subdivision of part of section 32, Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian according to the plat recorded June 29, 1863 in Book 4, Page 8, Kendall County, Illinois. At the public hearing all interested parties shall be given the opportunity to be heard. Copies of the proposed Downtown Yorkville Business District Development Plan are available at the United City of Yorkville City Hall. /s/Beth Warren City Clerk UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN I. INTRODUCTION The Business District Development and Redevelopment Act, as from time to time amended (65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-1 et seq.) (the "BDD Act"), provides the means for municipalities to revitalize and redevelop commercial areas and has been most successfully used in aging central downtown districts which lack the structures, parking and improvements mandated by modern retailing and business operations. The objectives of the BDD Act are to attract sound and stable commercial growth; to reduce or eliminate blighting conditions in order to attract private investment; and, to assure opportunities for development and redevelopment thereby enhancing the tax base of the municipality and all affected taxing districts. The purpose of this document, entitled "United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, Downtown Business District Development Plan", is to provide a redevelopment Plan (the "Business District Plan"), for those properties included in the Yorkville Downtown Business District (the "Downtown Business District") legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and as depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Downtown Business District includes approximately acres and is characterized by structures at least fifty (50) years and older. The City has been advised that the Downtown Business District qualifies as a business district pursuant to the BDD Act, pursuant to an Eligibility Report attached hereto as a business district pursuant to the BDD Act and to an Eligibility Report attached hereto as Exhibit C, which report analyzes the blighting factors now found within the proposed Downtown Business District. The City believes that the Downtown Business District would benefit from the designation as a "business district" as such designation empowers the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville (the "Corporate Authorities"): 1. To approve all development and redevelopment proposals for a business district. 2. To exercise the use of the City's municipal powers for the acquisition of real and personal property for the purpose of a development or redevelopment project. 3. To acquire, manage, convey or otherwise dispose of real and personal property according to the provisions of a development or redevelopment plan. 4. To apply for and accept capital grants and loans from the United States and the State of Illinois, or any instrumentality of the United States or the State, for business district development and redevelopment. 1 5. To borrow funds as it may be deemed necessary for the purpose of business district development and redevelopment, and in this connection issue such obligation or revenue bonds as it shall be deemed necessary, subject to applicable statutory limitations. 6. To enter into contracts with any public or private agency or person. 7. To sell, lease, trade or improve real property in connection with business district development and redevelopment plans. 8. To employ all such persons as may be necessary for the planning, administration and implementation of business district plans. 9. To expend such public funds as may be necessary for the planning, execution and implementation of the business district plans. 10. To establish by ordinance or resolution procedures for the planning, execution and implementation of business district plans. 11. To create a Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission to act as agent for the municipality for the purposes of business district development and redevelopment. 12. To impose a retailers*occupation tax and a service occupation tax in the business district for the planning, execution, and implementation of business district plans and to pay for business district project costs as set forth in the business district plan approved by the municipality. 13. To impose a hotel operators* occupation tax in the business district for the planning, execution, and implementation of business district plans and to pay for the business district project costs as set forth in the business district plan approved by the municipality. 14. To issue obligations in one or more series bearing interest at rates determined by the corporate authorities of the municipality by ordinance and secured by the business district tax allocation fund set forth in Section 11-74.3-6 of the BDD Act for the business district to provide for the payment of business district project costs. (65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-3) 2 In order to impose a tax pursuant to item (12) or item (13) cited above, the Corporate Authorities shall undertake the following: 1. Hold public hearings at least one week prior to designation of the business district and approval of the business district development plan. 2. Affirms that the area proposed to be designated as a business district is contiguous and includes such parcels of real property as shall be directly and substantially benefitted by the proposed development. 3. Shall find that the proposed Downtown Business District is a blighted area and has not been subject to growth and development through private investment and without a business district development plan is not reasonably anticipated to be developed. Upon the finding that the proposed Downtown Business District is "blighted," as hereinafter defined, the Retailers' Occupation Tax may be imposed in quarter percent (.25%) increments at a total rate not to exceed one percent (1%) of the gross receipts from such sales made in the Downtown Business District in the course of selling tangible personal property, other than an item of tangible personal property titled and registered with an agency of the state's government. The Retailers' Occupation Tax may not be imposed for more than 23 years and may not be imposed on "food for human consumption that is to be consumed off the premises where it is sold (other than alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, and food that has been prepared for immediate consumption), prescription and non-prescription medicines, drugs, medical appliances, modifications to a motor vehicle for the purpose of rendering it usable by a disabled person, and insulin, urine testing materials, syringes, and needles used by diabetics for human use. A Service Occupation Tax may be imposed in a quarter percent (.25%) increments at a total rate not to exceed one percent (1%) of the selling price of tangible personal property so within the Business District incident to making sales of service. The Retailer's Occupation Tax and Service Occupation Tax shall hereafter collectively be referred to as "Sales Taxes." Sales Taxes, if imposed, shall be collected by the Illinois Department of Revenue and then disbursed to the City. The BDD Act defines a"blighted area" as: "Blighted area" means an area that is a blighted area which, by reason of the predominance of defective, non-existent, or inadequate street layout, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes, or any combination of those factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability, an economic underutilization of the area, or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare." 3 Given the Eligibility Report which concludes that the Downtown Business District is a blighted commercial area as defined by the BDD, the City desires to proceed with all other actions required under the BDD Act to impose such taxes as permitted thereby in order to implement this Business District Plan. 4 II. THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE The United City of Yorkville is located 50 miles southwest of Chicago in the Fox River Valley of Kendall County. The City is generally bounded on the north by the Villages of Montgomery and Sugar Grove; the Village of Oswego on the East, the City of Plano on the west and the City of Morris on the south. The town of Yorkville was originally settled in 1832 south of the Fox River as an agricultural business center with a downtown district along the Fox River on Bridge Street. From the beginning, the City was a growing area which was soon reinforced by the designation of Yorkville as the County Seat in 1859. Yorkville was incorporated as a village in 1874. Simultaneously, on the north bank of the Fox River, the town of Bristol was also growing and incorporated in 1861 until it combined with Yorkville in 1957, hence the name the "United City of Yorkville". Yorkville has grown from a population of 6,189, as of the census of 2000, to its current population of 16,921 per the 2010 census. During this decade, the City has annexed hundreds of acres for development as residential subdivisions while also developing new commercial corridors and an industrial park. Its attraction to tourists as a recreational destination has recently grown due to the opening of the Marge Cline Whitewater Course at the Glen D. Palmer Dam located at the City's Bicentennial Riverfront Park. 5 III. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT BOUNDARIES The proposed Downtown Business District encompasses some of the oldest properties and oldest structures of Yorkville in the City's historic downtown area which is a mixed use area with a wide range of commercial and retail uses, restaurants, residences, public and civic uses, and several industrial uses. The Downtown Business District constitutes a portion of the historic downtown bounded on the east by Bridge Street, on the south by Van Emmon Street, on the west by Main Street and on the north by Hydraulic Street. Until 1970, the historic downtown area was the City's only business district when the City annexed acres at US Route 34 and substantial retail development has occurred with major "big box" users coming to the City. As a result of this new development and general market changes, the historic downtown area has not benefitted from new private investment. With the improvements to Bicentennial Riverfront Park, a new interest in the historic downtown area has been sparked. In 2006, the City of Yorkville designated the Downtown Yorkville Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Project Area ("Downtown TIF District") pursuant to the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1 et seq.) (the "TIF Act") which includes approximately 200 acres inclusive of streets and rights-of-way. The benefits of the TIF Act remain to be realized but it is evidence of the City's commitment to recognize the changing requirements for development and redevelopment and to pursue all avenues to achieve opportunities for growth and redevelopment. The Downtown Business District is the City's effort to focus on the commercial development of a portion of the Downtown TIF District and to apply the benefits of the BDD Act to a specific commercial strip to increase the interest in this area and excitement to attract private investment in the entire district. A list of the parcels included in the Downtown Business District is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 6 IV. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT GOALS General goals for the Yorkville Downtown Business District include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ To create an environment that will contribute more positively to the health, safety and general welfare of the City; ■ To improve infrastructure that will provide safe and efficient access to the parcels and detention/retention to address stormwater needs; ■ To encourage new investment and development that will increase the value of properties within and adjacent to the Downtown Business District, improving the real estate and sales tax base; ■ To increase construction, part-time, and full-time employment opportunities for residents and non-residents of the City; ■ To maintain and enhance the viability of the City's historic downtown as a commercial center; ■ To eliminate the factors that qualified the Downtown Business District as a blighted area; and, ■ To provide a strong, positive visual image of the Downtown Business District through attractive and high-quality building design and site improvements, and landscaping. ■ To develop a land use pattern which promotes the highest degrees of health, safety and the well-being of the community. 7 V. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT PROJECTS The City proposes to achieve its development and redevelopment goals for the Downtown Business District through the use of public financing techniques and the imposition of Sales Taxes as authorized under the BDD Act to undertake the activities, improvements and projects described below. The City also maintains the flexibility to undertake additional activities, improvements and projects authorized under the BDD Act and other applicable laws, if the need for activities, improvements and projects changes as redevelopment occurs in the Downtown Business District, including: • Construct buildings and facilities; • Revitalize and upgrade buildings through site planning, fagade improvements, and construction methods that provide cohesive urban design features, provide focus to the streetscape and buildings in the Downtown Business District, and quality building materials; • Improve streetscape design, pedestrian access, distinctive lighting, signage and landscaping, and other appropriate site amenities; • Redesign site to improve access, which may require the demolition and replacement of buildings; • Provide and upgrade infrastructure to serve the development, including the construction of and improvements to utility and stormwater management infrastructure; • Create convenient parking areas as mandated by users no longer within walking distances; • Study of utility services to the Downtown Business District and the reconfiguration of such utility services to sufficiently serve the developments; • Construction of streetscape enhancements including new light poles; accent paving in crosswalks; street tree and ornamental vegetation plantings; and community banners and attractive features to attract pedestrian usage and provide increased safety for both pedestrians and motorists; • Site clearance and site preparation, such as subdividing or combing parcels for commercial use,to attract development; and, 8 • Make access improvements to provide safe, convenient, efficient and effective access to the business in the Downtown Business District for automobiles, trucks and delivery vehicles, public transportation,bicycles, and pedestrians. 9 VI. BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COSTS A. The BDD Act states: "Business district project costs" shall mean and include the sum total of all costs incurred by a municipality, other governmental entity, or nongovernmental person in connection with a business district, in the furtherance of a business district plan, including, without limitation, the following: (1) Costs of studies, surveys, development of plans and specifications, implementation and administration of a business district plan, and personnel and professional service costs including architectural, engineering, legal, marketing, financial, planning, or other professional services, provided that no charges for professional services may be based on a percentage of tax revenues received by the municipality; (2) Property assembly costs, including but not limited to, acquisition of land and other real or personal property or rights or interests therein, and specifically including payments to developers or other nongovernmental persons as reimbursement for property assembly costs incurred by that developer or other nongovernmental person; (3) Site preparation costs, including but not limited to clearance, demolition or removal of any existing buildings, structures, fixtures, utilities, and improvements and clearing and grading of land; (4) Costs of installation, repair, construction, reconstruction, extension, or relocation of public streets, public utilities, and other public site improvements within or without the business district which are essential to the preparation of the business district for use in accordance with the business district plan, and for use in accordance with the business district plan, and specifically including payments to developers or other nongovernmental persons as reimbursement for site preparation costs incurred by the developer or nongovernmental person; (5) Costs of renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, relocation, repair, or remodeling of any existing buildings, improvements, and fixtures within the business district, and specifically including payments to developers or other nongovernmental persons as reimbursement for costs incurred by those developers or nongovernmental persons; (6) Costs of installation or construction within the business district of buildings, structures, works, streets, improvements, equipment, utilities, or fixtures, and specifically including payments to developers or other nongovernmental persons 10 as reimbursements for such costs incurred by such developer or nongovernmental person; (7) Financing costs, including but not limited to all necessary and incidental expenses related to the issuance of obligations, payment of any interest on any obligations issued under this Law that accrues during the estimated period of construction of any development or redevelopment project for which those obligations are issued and for not exceeding 36 months thereafter, and any reasonable reserves related to the issuance of those obligations; and (8) Relocation costs to the extent that a municipality determines that relocation costs shall be paid or is required to make payment of relocation costs by federal or State law. B. Estimated Project Costs (1) Costs of studies, development plans engineering and professional services $ 500,000.00 (2) Land assembly $ 3,000,000.00 (3) Site preparation, including land clearance $ 2,000,000.00 (4) Repair and remodeling of existing buildings $ 3,000,000.00 (5) Improvements to public utilities $ 1,000,000.00 (6) Streetscape improvements $ 1,000,000.00 (7) Construction of improvements $ 3,000,000.00 (8) Interest costs $ 1,000,000.00 $14,500,000.00 The City reserves the right to exceed budgeted costs in particular estimated development project costs categories so long as the total estimated cost is not exceeded over the 23 year life of the Downtown Business District, unless otherwise amended. 11 VII. SOURCES OF FUNDS TO PAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COSTS Upon designation of the Downtown Business District by City ordinance, the City intends to impose the retailers+occupation within the Downtown Business District, at a rate not to exceed one percent (1%) of the gross receipts from sales made in the course of any business within the Downtown Business District. Such tax shall not be applicable to the sales of food for human consumption that is to be consumed off the premises where it is sold (other than alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, and food that has been prepared for immediate consumption), prescription and nonprescription medicines, drugs, medical appliances, modifications to a motor vehicle for the purpose of rendering it usable by a disabled person, and insulin, urine testing materials, syringes, and needles used by diabetics for human use. The City also intends to impose a service occupation tax upon all persons engaged within the boundaries of the Downtown Business District in the business of making sales of service at a rate not to exceed one percent (1%) of the selling price of all tangible personal property transferred by such serviceman as an incident to a sale of service. Such tax may not be imposed on food for human consumption that is to be consumed off the premises where it is sold (other than alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, and food that has been prepared for immediate consumption), prescription and nonprescription medicines, drugs, medical appliances, modifications to a motor vehicle for the purpose of rendering it usable by a disabled person, and insulin, urine testing materials, syringes, and needles used by diabetics for human use. The retailers' occupation tax and the service occupation tax shall be collectively referred to as the "Taxes." The proceeds of these Taxes shall be used during the term of the designation of the Downtown Business District (not to exceed 23 years from the date of adoption of this Business District Plan) for the planning, execution and implementation of the Business District Plan, the payment of business district project costs as set forth in the Business District Plan and permitted by the BDD and the payment of obligations of the City issued to provide for the payment of business district project costs. A City ordinance shall also be adopted by the Mayor and City Council to create a separate fund entitled the "Downtown Business District Tax Allocation Fund" in order to receive the revenues generated by the Taxes. Pursuant to the Business District Act, all funds received from the Taxes must be deposited into this special fund. Funds necessary to pay for business district project costs and to secure municipal obligations issued for such costs are to be derived primarily from the Taxes. Other sources of funds which may be used to pay for business district project costs or to secure municipal obligations are state and federal grants, investment income, private financing 12 and other legally permissible funds the City may deem appropriate. All such funds shall be deposited in the Downtown Business District Tax Allocation Fund. 13 VIII. ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS The City may issue obligations pursuant to the BDD Act and other authorities in order to pay for business district project costs. The obligations may be secured by the Downtown Business District Sales Taxes, and other sources that the City may deem appropriate. Additionally, the City may provide other legally permissible credit enhancements to any obligations issued pursuant to the BDD Act. All obligations issued by the City pursuant to this Business District Plan and the BDD Act shall be retired within twenty-three (23) years from the date of adoption of the ordinance approving this Business District Plan. One or more series of obligations may be issued from time to time in order to implement this Business District Plan. Obligations may be issued on either a taxable or tax-exempt basis, as general obligation bonds, general obligation debt certificates, alternate bonds or revenue bonds, or other debt instruments, with either fixed rate or floating interest rates; with or without capitalized interest; with or without deferred principal retirement; with or without interest rate limits except as limited by law; with or without redemption provisions, and on such other terms, all as the City may determine and deem appropriate. 14 IX. ESTABLISHMENT AND TERM OF THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT The establishment of the Downtown Business District shall become effective upon adoption of an ordinance by the Mayor and City Council adopting the Downtown Business District Plan and designating the Downtown Business District. Development agreements between the City and any developers or other private parties shall be consistent with the provisions of the BDD Act and this Business District Plan. Pursuant to the BDD Act, the Downtown Business District Sales Taxes described in Section VI may not be imposed for more than twenty-three (23) years pursuant to the provisions of the BDD Act. The Downtown Business District shall expire upon the termination of the imposition of the Downtown Business District Sales Taxes and the final payout of the same from the Downtown Business District Tax Allocation Fund, which shall be no later than 23 years from the date of adoption of the ordinance approving this Business District Plan. 15 X. FORMAL FINDINGS Based upon the information described in the attached Exhibit C, the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville finds and determines the following: (a) the Downtown Business District is a contiguous area and includes only parcels of real property directly and substantially benefitted by the proposed business district development or redevelopment plan; (b) the Downtown Business District Plan is consistent with the United City of Yorkville+s Comprehensive Plan for the development of the City as a whole; (c) the Downtown Business District is a blighted area as defined in the BDD Act by reason of the predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; (d) the Downtown Business District constitutes an economic liability to the City in its present condition and use; and, (e) the Downtown Business District on the whole has not been subject to growth and development by private enterprises or would not reasonably be anticipated to be developed or redeveloped without the adoption of the business district development or redevelopment plan. 16 XI. PROVISIONS FOR AMENDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN The Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville may amend this Business District Plan from time to time by adopting an ordinance providing for such amendment. 17 Exhibit A Legal Description Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Block I of Blacks Addition to the Village of Yorkville, being a subdivision of part of section 32, Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian according to the plat recorded June 29, 1863 in Book 4, Page 8, Kendall County, Illinois. '— - W Hydraulic Aue r ti r ,.R . „• r . 209 r i i m -- — 47 N W Van Emmon St United City The Data is provided without warranty or any representation of np y of Yorkville GIS accuracy,timeliness,or completeness.It is the responsibility of the �1?i Parcel Data and Aerial Photography "Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and w e Provided By Kendall County GIS appropriateness of its use. The United City of Yorkville makes no warranties,expressed or implied,to the use of the Data. s PIN# Address Property Owner 02-32-283-003 201-203 S. Bridge Street GRW Properties LCC 02-32-283-004 20S S. Bridge Street GRW Properties LLC 02-32-283-OOS 209 S. Bridge Street GRW Properties LLC 02-32-283-006 211S. Bridge Street Robert& Debra Dearborn 02-32-283-007 213S. Bridge Street Robert R. Dearborn,Jr 02-32-283-010 21S S. Bridge Street Robert R. Dearborn,Jr 02-32-283-008 -- United City of Yorkville (Pump House#3) 02-32-283-011 217S. Bridge Street Grundy Bank 02-32-283-012 219S. Bridge Street Grundy Bank 02-32-283-014 101 W. Van Emmon Road Grundy Bank% Imperial Investments, LLC 02-32-283-009 -- United City of Yorkville (Parking Area) 02-32-283-002 117 W. Van Emmon Road Janet L. Groner 02-32-283-001 1 116 W. Hydraulic Street I IL Bell Telephone (AT&T) ,SAD Co. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number i d01% Legal ❑ EDC—NB #2 Finance ❑ EST. 1836 Engineer ❑ - City Administrator ■ Tracking Number "- Human Resources ❑ "$ �© Community Development : EDC 2012-27 Parks&Recreation ALE �► � Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Land Cash Appraisal Meeting and Date: COW July 10, 2012 Synopsis: David W. Phillips & Co. provided staff with their land cash appraisal report. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Move forward to City Council. Submitted by: Laura Schraw Parks & Recreation Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Please see the attached memo, report from David W. Phillips, and the Land-Cash Ordinance Donation Survey by the University of Illinois. Park Board will be discussing this agenda item at their July 12 th meeting. o Memorandum EST. _ less To. Committee of the Whole From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director 0 ® ~ Laura Schraw, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator tE ��• Date: June 29, 2012 Subject: Land Cash Study Update (2012)Analysis Background Over the past several months, as part of staff's ongoing research and discussion of potential reductions in impact fees to spur the stalled development within the City, it was requested by the Economic Development Committee that the current land-cash ordinance be reviewed to see if it is consistent with current real estate market trends. As you know, the City's land-cash ordinance establishes the fair-market value for any parcel of residential land as a means of determining the per acre fee for cash-in-lieu of school and park land donations. Currently, Yorkville's land-cash value is $101,000 per acre for a residential development. The land-cash value has not been re-evaluated since its most recent amendment in 2006—during the height of the housing boom. While the City of Yorkville's current land-cash value is comparable to other local municipalities which range between $80,000/acre on the low end and upwards to nearly $323,600/acre, several developers have approached the City in revisiting this impact fee in hopes of reducing the valuation to allow previously planned and platted developments to be resold at a price more in-line with those of un-entitled properties. Although other communities, such as Plainfield and Oswego, have preliminarily discussed revising their "Land-Cash Donation" requirements, no community has formally revised or reduced its acre-valuation in response to stimulate development. Per the direction of the Economic Development Committee in March 2012, staff engaged the firm of David W. Phillips & Company to prepare the attached land valuation study on their opinion of fair-market value for a typical improved acre of residential land within the City of Yorkville based upon current market conditions for determining the cash contribution for new development. Land vs. Cash The first Land-Cash ordinance was adopted in 1977 with a valuation of$15,000/acre. It was subsequently revised over the next several years beginning in 1990 to $25,000/acre; then in 1996 to $45,000/acre; 2003 to $58,000/acre; 2004 to $73,500/acre; 2005 to $80,000/acre and most recently in 2006 to a value of $101,000/acre. The "fair market value" for each of these ordinances was determined by an appraiser, and is based on a development's future impact on services demanded by the population generated. This figure is derived from calculating the number of bedrooms (1, 2, 3, etc.) and house type (single family, multi family, duplex, townhome) proposed in the residential development. For every 1,000 residents generated by the development, the developer is required to donate either ten(10) acres of land and/or$101,000 in cash per acre. Should a developer feel the established valuation is not commensurate with the current local market, the Land-Cash Ordinance makes the following provision...... the developer shall submit an appraisal showing the `fair market value" of such improved land in the area of his development or other evidence thereof and final determination of said 'fair market value"per acre of such improved land shall be made by the City Council based upon such information submitted by the subdivider or developer and from other sources which may be submitted to the City Council by the School District or others."This re-evaluation would have to occur on a case-by-case basis, and to staff's knowledge has not been done. Most of the developers have opted to use fee/ordinance locks as part of their annexation agreement negations to ensure impacts such as land-cash remains consistent over the course of the project's build out. The impact of these"fee/ordinance locks" are discussed further later in this memorandum. Recap of Study The attached report, entitled "Land Valuation Study For: Cash Contribution in-Lieu-of Site Dedication United City of Yorkville, Illinois" as of May 1, 2012 prepared by David W. Phillips & Company, provides an opinion of appraisal for a residential improved parcel with a value of$30,000 per acre. This represents a $71,000 per acre reduction or approximately a 70% decrease per acre in land-cash value. This valuation is based upon local demographic considerations; comparison of recent land sales and real estate activity near and within the City of Yorkville over the last several years; potential development density based upon trends of previously approved and constructed developments; and pertinent city codes and ordinances (i.e., zoning ordinances, comprehensive plan, subdivision control ordinance). The general scope of the report focuses on estimating "what a typical purchaser would pay for representative acreage in the planning area" (Phillips & Company, 2012). The assumption of the valuation is that the property is fully entitled, zoned and platted, with no off- site improvements needed. The property also has street frontage and adequate access to all public utilities, either on-site or at the property line, per the requirements of the park site standards (Ord. No. 2009-50). The major assumptions used by the appraiser in rendering the opinion of land-cash value presumed 1.50 to 2.0 dwellings units to be constructed per gross acre of land predominately single- family detached residential in nature with the prevailing thought that there is likely to be greater demand for this type of land use when market conditions improve. Comparable sales used to assist in the evaluation are detailed in the report and include the following recently sold properties: DEVELOPMENT AREA PLANNED/PLATTED OVERALL SALE SALE (ACRE) NUMBER OF LOTS DENSITY PRICE PRICE/ACRE D Construction Property ±48.88 76 1.55 du/Ac $414,800 $8,486/Ac (Fox&Pavilion Rd.) Grande Reserve ±877.00 2,212 2.35 du/Ac $10,800,000 $12,315/Ac Hunt Club West ±51.67 58 1.12 du/Ac $645,875 $12,500/Ac (Oswego) Blackberry Woods ±59.51 105 1.92 du/Ac $1,647,500 $27,684/Ac 3663 Plainfield Road ±82.00 1.62 du/Ac $1,194,870 $14,572/Ac (Oswego Township) SWQ Naperville Road ±128.47 162 1.26 du/Ac $2,100,000 $16,346/Ac & 127h ST. (Plainfield) East Side of Ridge Road, SE of Plainfield ±125.72 -- 5.5 du/Ac $2,350,000 $18,692/Ac Road(Plainfield) NEC Dickson&Galena ±114.078 319 2.796 du/Ac $1,532,520 $13,434/Ac Roads(Montgomery) The preceding developments illustrated how the entitlement status, potential density, quality of the improvements to a property and its location affect the sales prices. Taking these factors along with those major assumptions and demographic conditions into consideration, the appraiser adjusted his opinion of valuation to reflect the most reasonable expected price for an acre of improved land within the City of Yorkville as of May 1, 2012 being $30,000.00. Practical Impact Below is staff's evaluation of the practical impacts of readjusting the current land cash valuation downward with emphasis placed on existing annexation agreement provisions and outstanding parkland obligations of the City. Existing Developments A spreadsheet is attached with an analysis of the current land cash values and where they stand per development. The following are highlights from the attached spreadsheet: • 12 developments have an expired fee lock, but have not yet started any part of development of the property. • 4 developments that have increased to the current land cash value only have 21 lots remaining (between all 4 developments). • 7 developments have fee locks and would not be affected by any change in land cash (any development whose fee lock is not expired could amend their annexation agreement to adopt the new land-cash value). Land cash fees paid by new developments fund park construction throughout the City. In most cases, the funds collected from a specific development fund the park in that development. However, in some cases, the funds will be used in another area of town. For example, Riemenscheider Park, which is part of the Menards development, was already paid for by an OSLAD grant. The $277,240 due at the time of the R-3 plat by Menards will help to fund a community park in another location. In developments that are already platted, the City will not have the option to take additional land in lieu of cash and in some cases might lose the funds that were allocated by Park Board during the development review and directive process to develop parks. The largest impact from revising the land-cash value is on developments that were planned with large tracks of homes and a large neighborhood or community park that the City remains obligated to develop. The park designs for these developments were often given to the developer/builder to display at their sales office and typically included a playground, sitting areas, a sports field or multi-purpose space, a shelter and landscaping. Construction costs have continued to rise, and the cost to build a park has not been reduced even with the current economic climate. The Park Board selectively took land or cash to meet the needs of park facilities per the Master Plan, but also fund park development through these funds. The board planned to fund park development with land-cash funds, and requested at time of development to have the land cash fees paid up front to guarantee the money was collected. Future Developments The potential reduction in land cash fees would not change the Master Plan for park locations and development in Yorkville. However, to give up 5 acres of land to receive $150,000 to develop a playground and sitting area would not be the best value for the City. In the future, the vast majority of developments would more than likely be requested to donate land that is approved and acceptable for a park per our Park Development Standards and the Master Plan. Staff Comments Several options are available to the City Council with regard to the recent land valuation appraisal and information provided in staff's memorandum. They are detailed as follows: 1. Adopt the Revised Land Valuation — this option would require adoption of the land cash valuation from the current $101,000.00 per acre of improved land to $30,000.00 per acre of improved land, as presented in the attached appraisal,. • Pros — This revised land cash valuation would benefit all residential developments regardless of fee locks and reflect the current trend in property value as of May 1, 2012, potentially spurring new interest in development of unfinished subdivisions in Yorkville. • Cons—Yorkville would be the first community within the area to reduce its land cash value. Further, this drastic decrease in cash value would inure to all residential developments regardless of fee locks and reduce the amount of funds available to the City to meet its parkland obligations. This option may prove difficult to administer, as it would require the recalibration of the land-cash valuation for every development with the potential for multiple Land-Cash contribution valuations within the same development 2. Partial Reduction with Subsequent Re-evaluation — this option would allow the City Council to reduce the land cash value to a level less than the current amount but not as low as proposed by the recent appraisal. Staff recommends a revised evaluation of$65,000.00 with the requirement to revisit the land cash value in 2 years. • Pros — This partial reduction in land cash valuation would address the downturn in property values and assist in the City meeting its previous obligations.. • Cons—same as those cons presented under"Adopt the Revised Land Valuation". 3. Development Based Approach — this option proposes that each development is considered on a case-by-case basis for a consideration in reduction of Land-Cash Donation whereby the developer provides their own study of the land value based upon comparable sales and other physical attributes of similarly undeveloped/developed land (location, current infrastructure, topography, size). This approach is also consistent with the language of the original Land- Cash Ordinance adopted in 1977. • Pros — This option would allow each developer to undertake the upfront cost of funding an appraisal for their respective property and provide specific data to consider when evaluating the requested Land-Cash Donation reduction. • Cons - This will require each development to amend their annexation and/or development agreements individually and potentially have a great disparity in land-cash valuations for various developments throughout the City. 4. No change — this option proposes to keep the "Fair Market Value" at its present $101,000/acre amount. • Pros — This option requires no recalculation to Land-Cash Donations of current or future developments, or amendments to already approved annexation agreements. • Cons —May potentially prolong the stall in development entitled property within the City. The Park Board will be evaluating the land cash appraisal on Thursday, July 12th. It is staff's assumption that they will be requesting additional information prior to making a recommendation, as well as hearing the City Council's discussion on the appraisal value and directive to staff. Taking this into consideration, staff would like to request that no formal recommendation is made at the July 24th City Council meeting so that Park Board has additional time to request additional information, evaluate information provided, listen to City Council's comments, and then provide their opinion at their meeting in August or September. LAND VALUATION STUDY FOR: Cash Contribution in-Lieu-of Site Dedication United City of Yorkville,Illinois AS OF: May 1, 2012 BY: David W. Phillips&Company PREPARED FOR: Ms. Laura K. Schraw Interim Director of Parks and Recreation United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 DAVID W. PHILLIPS AND COMPANY REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS May 21,20112 Ms. Laura K. Schraw Interim Director of Parks and Recreation United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 Re: Land Valuation Study Cash Contribution in-Lieu-of Site Dedication United City of Yorkville, Illinois Dear Ms. Schraw: As you requested, we have prepared a Land Valuation Study in connection with the United City of Yorkville pertaining to Cash Contributions in-Lieu-of Site Dedication for new developments. The purpose of this Study is to provide our opinion of the fair market value for a typical improved acre of residential land within the boundaries of the Yorkville Parks Department. Our fair market wholesale value conclusion for a typical improved acre of residential land within the boundaries of the United City of Yorkville is as follows: $30,000 per acre THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER ACRE The above value is based on market conditions prevailing as of May 1, 2012. The value is subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in the report. 1601 BOND STREET . SUITE 208 . NAPERVILLE,IL 60563 . 630/357-8900 . FAX 630/357-8998 The following report describes the geographic area that is the subject of this study, sets forth the premises of the study, presents the data considered and communicates the analyses and reasoning leading to our value conclusion. Respectfully submitted, DAVID W. PHILLIPS &COMPANY Timothy J. Sullivan,MAI, SRA State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.000278 Expires September 30, 2013 12707-SUM TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PAGE TitlePage................................................................................................................................................i Letterof Transmittal..............................................................................................................................ii Tableof Contents..................................................................................................................................iii Certificationof Value............................................................................................................................ 1 PREMISES OF THE APPRAISAL Assumptions and Limiting Conditions..................................................................................................2 Definition of Market Value; Property Rights Appraised .....................................................................5 Scope, Purpose and Intended Use of the Appraisal..............................................................................6 Overviewof Our Assignment...............................................................................................................7 Definition of Improved Acreage...........................................................................................................8 AreaDescription....................................................................................................................................9 MarketConditions...............................................................................................................................12 VALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL IMPROVED ACREAGE Valuation Analysis Introduction.........................................................................................................15 Residential Acreage Land Sales..........................................................................................................16 Market Data Analysis and Value Conclusions ...................................................................................25 SupplementalAnalysis........................................................................................................................29 ADDENDUM Excerpts from Ordinance 2009-50 Site Dedication Standards Qualifications of the Appraiser 1 CERTIFICATION The undersigned do hereby certify that,to the best of our knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions,and are our personal,unbiased professional analyses,opinions,and conclusions. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client,the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. Based on our experience and knowledge with these property types, we are in compliance with the Competency Provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, Timothy J. Sullivan has completed the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this certification. Timothy J. Sullivan,MAI, SRA State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.000278 Expires September 30,2013 2 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for the legal description provided or for matters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the title thereto, nor does the Appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated in this report. 2. The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens and encumbrances unless otherwise stated in this report. 3. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless otherwise stated in this report. 4. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 5. Any sketch in this report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Maps and exhibits found in this report are provided for reader reference purposes only. No guarantee as to accuracy is expressed or implied unless otherwise stated in this report.No survey has been made for the purpose of this report. 6. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed unless otherwise stated in this report. 7. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Appraiser, and contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for the accuracy of such items furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser. 8. It is assumed that this property conforms to all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in this appraisal report. 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental, or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimates contained in this report are based. 3 10. It is assumed that the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in this report. 11. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the Appraiser. The Appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The Appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. Any comment by the appraiser that might suggest the possibility of the presence of such substances should not be taken as confirmation of the presence of hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Such determination would require investigation by a qualified expert in the field of environmental assessment. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The appraiser's value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value unless otherwise stated in the report. No responsibility is assumed for any environmental conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The appraiser's descriptions and resulting comments are the result of the routine observations made during the appraisal process. 12. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 13. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with the submitted plans and specifications. 14. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since we have no direct evidence relating to this issue, we did not consider non- compliance with the requirements of the ADA in estimating the value of the property,unless otherwise stated in the scope of this report. 15. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in any event, only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. 4 16. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media without prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 17. The Appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal of the property in question, unless arrangements for such testimony have previously been made. 5 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE Market Value is defined in Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), as well as the Federal Register 12 CFR Part 722 (Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines), as follows: "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale." This definition is compatible with the definition of market value in The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition,2010,p. 122,by the Appraisal Institute. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The subject property has been appraised as if owned in fee simple, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and special assessments. Fee Simple Estate is defined as "Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat." (Source: Appraisal Institute, Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Addition, 2010,p. 78.) 6 SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL The scope of the appraisal assignment defines the extent to which data is collected, confirmed and reported. In that regard,the scope of this appraisal has involved the following: 1. Collection of all necessary and pertinent factual data regarding the subject community,using public and private records. 2. Review regional, community and neighborhood factors and trends. 3. Extensive research, through various sources, to collect pertinent market data for the Sales Comparison Approach to value. Generally, at a minimum,the sales were confirmed through public records. In most instances, additional verification was made by a party to the transaction, i.e. buyer or seller, attorney,broker, etc. 4. Review and analysis of the market data in order to arrive at opinions of value by this approach. 5. Preparation of our findings into a Summary Appraisal Report, prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(b) of an appraisal performed under Standard 1. PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to provide our opinion of the fair market wholesale value for a typical improved acre of residential land within the boundaries of the United City of Yorkville. The intended use of this appraisal is to assist our client in determining the appropriate payments or fees in-lieu-of a land donation for new developments within the parks department geographic area. 7 OVERVIEW OF OUR ASSIGNMENT The United City of Yorkville is contemplating updating its ordinance that addresses requirements for new developments to dedicate park land to provide for the needs of the new population of these developments. In certain instances, it may not be practical for a developer to donate land, for a variety of reasons. In these instances, the ordinance has a provision to accept a cash contribution or derivative in lieu of actual land donations. In order to provide a fair basis for this cash contribution, estimation of a fair market value for representative improved acreage must be made. The focus of our assignment is to estimate what a typical purchaser would pay for representative acreage in the planning area. We assume the acreage is zoned,platted and improved, meaning no off-site improvements are required. Improved acreage means having street frontage and utilities at the property line (or actually into the site) offering immediate development capacity. We also assume the site is graded. Further,we assume the representative acreage has no extraordinary site features - either beneficial or detrimental to the development. It should be reiterated that our assignment does not involve a valuation of a specific subject property per se. Rather, it reflects what a representative purchaser would pay for acreage as defined above. One important factor with regards to defining representative residential acreage requires us to make certain assumptions relating to density. In order to do this, we have considered developments approved in the planning area over the last several years. We have also taken into account areas likely to be developed. We have reviewed the Yorkville Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Control Ordinance. Most developbale land is designated as Suburban or Estate for future land use. Based on our research, we believe the most likely density of representative residential acreage will be within a range of 1.50 to 2.0 units per gross acre. We recognize that some acreage may be developed with a higher density multi-family residential project,but that the vast majority will likely be single family residential in nature. To reiterate, a review of the comprehensive plan indicates that the majority of land suitable for redevelopment is slated for lower density use (Suburban or Estate). While there may be pressure to develop certain areas as buffer townhouse or condo style projects, detached single family development is more likely. In fact, there are numerous instances throughout the greater metropolitan area where developers are seeking (or have sought) to downzone previously higher density zoned land to single family detached zoning. The prevailing thought is that there is likely to be greater demand for single family detached residences when market conditions improve. 8 DEFINITION OF IMPROVED ACREAGE We have considered the requirements of park site dedications. These are clearly spelled out in City Ordinance No. 2009-50. They generally require sites to be improved. By this definition, sites are to be graded and include topsoil. They are to be serviced by appropriate drainage and erosion controls. Utilities are to be brought into the site. They are to include two street frontages with a minimum of 450 feet and the street improvements such as curbs, gutters and are to be in place. Excerpts from this ordinance can be found in the addenda. The above is the basis for our valuation. We have been further instructed to assume the land is legally zoned and platted. This essentially reflects what the particular district/department would have to pay for a site in the condition described above. 9 AREA DESCRIPTION Location The area in the study is the United City of Yorkville. The city is situated in the north central portion of Kendall County and is located +/- 50 miles southwest of downtown Chicago. Nearby communities include Montgomery and Oswego to the northeast;Plano to the west, and Sugar Grove to north. Unincorporated areas of Kendall County are immediately adjacent to Yorkville in all directions. These are primarily undeveloped land areas with potential for future annexation to the city. A significant natural asset is the Fox River which generally flows east to west through the city. Yorkville was incorporated in 1887. It is the county seat. Population and Housing Characteristics According to the U S Census, Yorkville had a population in 2010 of 16,921. This represented a 173% increase over the 2000 Census estimate of 6,189. The 2000 estimate represented a 58% increase over the 1990 population of 3,925. Yorkville had enjoyed steady growth during the early and middle years of the previous decade and was one of the fastest growing communities in one of the fastest growing counties in the country. Due to oversupply of residential properties, new construction is down significantly in the last four plus years. The census indicated that there were 6,353 total housing units of which 5,912 units were occupied. The 2010 census figures indicate the median household income was estimated at $82,007 and the median age was estimated to be 32.4 years. The average household size was reported as 2.84 persons. The average family size was reported as 3.11 persons. Yorkville is inhabited primarily by single family homeowners. Most homes have been built within the past 20 years and are situated in well planned tract subdivisions. Until the slowdown in the real estate market, extensive residential development had been taking place throughout the city. According to the multiple listing service, single family home prices ranged from $50,000 to $840,000 over the past 12 months. The average detached single-family home selling price is reported in the multiple listing service at$211,956 over the last 12 months. There are a number of multi-family developments located in town. Most apartments are found in 2 to 6 unit buildings scattered throughout town. Condominium and townhouses typically range in price from about $16,000 to $274,000, with an average selling price of$75,211 over the past 12 months as reported in the multiple listing service. 10 Commerce and Industry Yorkville has a relatively small downtown shopping district located along Bridge Street (Route 47) and the Fox River. Many of the older storefronts have been refurbished in recent years. The greatest concentration of commercial development is found near the intersection of Routes 34 and 47. This intersection is billed as the busiest in Kendall County. A Menard's anchors the northeast quadrant. In addition to the home improvement store, several outlots have been and are currently under development on the 269 acre total tract. The southeast quadrant features a new Jewel Foods Store anchored shopping center. Heading west on Route 34 are numerous new commercial ventures including the regional Kendall Marketplace with such major retailers as Target Superstore, Kohl's and Home Depot. Major shopping needs are further served by the Fox Valley Mall area in Aurora. There is a large Caterpillar Tractor plant located northeast of Yorkville near Montgomery. This plant employs over 3,200 people. There are industrial areas in the north and south end of town. Major employers include Wrigley- Amurol Confections and Boombah. The latter recently opened a 265,000 square foot facility on 21 acres. Being the county seat, there are a number of government offices in Yorkville, as well. Many of these are new, modern structures. Transportation Transportation is predominantly by private automobile. The East-West Tollway (Interstate 88) is located + 9 miles north of town. The tollway provides convenient access to Chicago and surrounding suburban communities. Interstate 55 is located about 11 miles from Yorkville with Interstate 80 being about 19 miles away. Other major access routes in the area include Route 34, Route 30, Route 71, and Route 47. Commuter train service is available via the Burlington Northern Railroad in Aurora. Aurora Airport is located +8 miles northwest of town. O'Hare International Airport is approximately 50 miles northeast and is easily accessible via the Illinois Tollway System. Also,Midway Airport is about 43 miles away from the city. Community FacilitiesNillage Services The community is served by Yorkville Community Unit School District 115. The average ACT score for Yorkville High School was above the statewide average. Places of worship of numerous denominations can be found within Yorkville or in nearby towns. There is a rescue squad and 911 service in the city. Rush-Copley Hospital is located ten miles northeast of town and several medical clinics also serve the area. We do note that Rush-Copley has a clinic and emergency room in Yorkville. The local park board administers numerous acres of parks and various other recreational facilities. The 38,000 square foot REC center houses an indoor track, lap pool,whirlpool, open gym and fitness equipment. Numerous classes are offered here. Nearby recreational facilities include 11 Silver Springs State Park and the Hoover Outdoor Education Center, a 406 acre facility operated by the Kendall County Forest Preserve. The Fox Valley Family YMCA, which is located just outside Yorkville, also sponsors a number of programs. Yorkville is home to Raging Waves which is the largest water amusement park in the state. The city's well water supply and treatment facility has significant excess capacity. Wastewater treatment facilities are provided by Yorkville Bristol Sanitary District by means of a secondary plant. Wastewater treatment facilities are also provided by the Fox Metro Sanitary District which has ample capacity. Electricity is provided by Commonwealth Edison; natural gas by the Northern Illinois Gas Company; and telephone service is provided by AT&T. Comcast is the cable provider. Yorkville provides full-time police protection. Fire protection is provided by f the Bristol-Kendall Fire Protection Department which covers the city and outlying areas. 12 MARKET CONDITIONS The real estate market is currently in a down cycle. Property values have been declining and demand has stalled, resulting in longer marketing times. This is due in part to the persistent sluggish national economy. High unemployment continues to persist. Supply far outweighs demand at this time. The exact time period as to when the real estate market will improve is unknown and opinions vary significantly among different professionals that are involved in the local and general real estate market. The present credit crunch has exacerbated the conditions. Project feasibility has diminished if it exists at all. Vastly insufficient returns, if any, do not provide the necessary incentive to attract and maintain a developer's interest. New development typically does not justify construction costs. Based on numerous conversations with market participants - such as brokers, developers, lenders and municipal officials, - the limited activity that is seen is for owner users or speculative investors. The latter typically require ample discounts due to the uncertainty and risk of when market conditions will improve. Continued reports in the media state statistics citing the re-pricing that is taking place and the increased marketing times. Some respondents refer to market conditions as a malaise with prices being in a freefall. Also, there is a significant inventory of surplus land, condominiums and houses in the Yorkville market area. Interviews with local brokers report that negotiations presently taking place reflect that buyers do not see improvement in demand any time in the near future. Accordingly, prices reflect the lengthier anticipated holding periods. Also, most lenders we talk to report more planned "workouts" for builders and developers struggling with cash flow. This situation is likely to put additional pressure on re-pricing currently taking place. This could come in the form of additional foreclosures. Many lenders took mortgaged land back from developers and builders in the last several years. Some of these lenders intended to hold these properties in their portfolios until improvement in market conditions. When this never materialized, they tired of the holding costs and many properties came on the market. In some improved subdivisions, holding costs could come in the form of not only real estate taxes but also association dues. For raw land, at least the properties could be farmed and continue to be assessed as farmland with their lower taxes. Many property owners are drowning in debt, lenders are not significantly lending and for many real estate investors, property income flows are declining. There is an unprecedented avoidance of risk. We believe that financial institutions will continue to be pressured into moving bad loans off balance sheets, using auctions to speed up the process. The current real estate market is changing and the economic recession we thought we had in early 2008 has turned out to be much deeper and longer and has inflicted much more damage to the commercial and residential real estate industries than anyone expected. 13 The overall real estate market is not likely to recover until the unemployment rate decreases significantly. According to the Illinois Department of Employment Security, Illinois had an unemployment rate as of March 2012 of 8.8%, which is down significantly from the March 2011 rate of 9.3%. Kendall County had an unemployment rate as of March 2012 of 8.3%, which is down slightly from the March 2011 rate of 8.5%. The following table summarizes pricing levels for single family detached residences in the Yorkville market over the last several years. The data was taken from the local multiple listing service. NUMBER OF YEAR SINGLE- AVERAGE AVERAGE MARKETING FAMILY SELLING PRICE TIME SALES 2007 234 $309,513 166 days 2008 203 $293,744 217 days 2009 206 $240,157 196 days 2010 260 $211,967 190 days 2011 211 $230,084 196 days 2012-4 54 $205,508 186 days months The overall price decline for single-family detached residences in Yorkville from 2007 through 2011 was about 25%. Like many communities, Yorkville appears to have a high percentage of foreclosure and short sale transactions relative to total sales of single-family homes. This trend has had a negative effect on values. There are currently 153 active single-family listings in Yorkville with an average marketing time of 199 days. The asking prices range from $40,800 to $1,299,000 with an average asking price of about$296,000 and a median price of$253,000. 14 Also, the amount of permit activity has dropped off significantly in Yorkville and nearby areas. SOCDS building permits database reports the following new construction building permit activity for the Yorkville, Oswego and Kendall County as a whole: Single Family Housing Unit Building Permits Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012-3 months Yorkville 413 158 64 42 43 13 Oswego 434 149 136 116 112 24 Kendall County 1,061 349 217 171 169 39 We have considered data presented by such firms as Metrostudy. This data generally indicates that the greater Yorkville area has significant inventory of developed lots and that absorption has been extremely slowed. This factor has put downward pressure on lot values as well as raw acreage values. We were provided sales figures for several ongoing single family developments in Yorkville by Metrostudy. These reflect house/lot packages. These absorption rates are tempered by the fact that sales within these developments began from 2002 thru 2007, which were more favorable real estate markets. Current absorption is lower within these developments. This is true not only of the Yorkville market area but also the metropolitan area as well. Some key statistics found in the first quarter data supplied by Metrostudy indicates that there are currently 2,137 vacant developed lots and 20,768 future lots in the Yorkville planning jurisdiction based on approved plats, potential annexations, etc. This could translate into a 20 year supply or higher. The vast majority of this actual and potential supply is slated for single family detached product. 15 VALUATION ANALYSIS In order to estimate the value of the representative acreage, we have utilized the Sales Comparison Approach. This is the primary and most recognized method utilized in valuing vacant land. In the Sales Comparison Approach, market value is estimated by comparing the subject property to similar properties that have recently sold, are listed for sale or are under contract. A major premise of the Sales Comparison Approach is that the market value of a property is directly related to the prices of comparable, competitive properties. This approach focuses on similarities and differences among properties that affect value. Adjustments for differences are made to the price of each comparable property to make the comparables similar to the subject on the effective date of the value estimate. The basic steps involved in the application of this approach are as follows: 1. Conduct research to obtain information on sales transactions, listings and pending offers for properties that are similar to the subject in terms of characteristics such as property type, date of sale, zoning,highest and best use, size and location. 2. Verify the information by confirming that the data obtained are factually accurate and that the transactions reflect arm's length considerations. 3. Analyze the data on the basis of a common and relevant unit of comparison, such as price per square foot or price per acre. 4. Compare the sale properties with the subject and adjust the sale price of each comparable for all significant differences that have an effect on value. 5. Summarize the analysis of the data and estimate a final value conclusion. The sales on the following pages were selected as the most comparable in order to arrive at a Market Value for the representative acreage. Pertinent data is presented for each sale property and is followed by an analysis of the sales and final conclusions regarding the value of representative acreage of improved residential land. 16 LAND SALE NO. 1 Evergreen Farm Estates SEC&NEC Fox Road and Pavillion Road(as extended) Kendall Township Yorkville PIN: 05-06-100-102 et. al Lot Size: 48.88 acres Zoning: R-2, One Family Residence District Planned No. of Lots: 76 (Concept) Density: 1.55 lots per acre Utilities: Require extensions Date of Sale: December 2011 Sale Price: $414,800 Sale Terms: Cash to seller Grantor: PB OREO LLC Grantee: Brandon Road Properties LLC Document Number: Not reported Sale Price per Acre: $8,486 Sale Price per Lot: $5,458 Comments: Bank owned property which consists of two parcels bisected by Fox Road. The northerly portion backs to railroad tracks. This was purchased as an investment. Parcel approved for subdivision but would have significant off-site improvement costs including utility recapture. 17 LAND SALE NO. 2 Grande Reserve Yorkville Bristol Township PIN(s): 01-36-201-013 Lot Size: ±877 acres (as reported by the buyer) Zoning: R-2, One Family Residence District PUD Planned No. of Units: 2,212 Density: 2.35 units per acre- Overall project Utilities: Immediately available (with most installed) Date of Sale: February 2012 Sale Price: $10,800,000 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: Bank of America Corporation Grantee: Avanti Properties Group. Document Numbers: R2012-059613 Sale Price per Acre: $12,315 Sale Price per Lot: N/A Comments: This sale involved the remaining land area of the Grande Reserve master planned community. The entire project included approximately 1,127 acres. The total number of units planned was 2,650 - which was to be comprised of mostly single family detached residences. The total project density was to be 2.35 units per acre. This includes acres of stormwater management, open space and trails. Portions of the project had been sold to different builders in the mid 2000s. This sale land acquisition was sold by the foreclosing lender. A significant portion of the land acquired in this transaction included finished lots. 18 LAND SALE NO. 3 Hunt Club West— West Side of Minkler Road Oswego Bristol Township PIN(s): 02-25-300-008 and 02-25-400-002 Lot Size: 51.67 Acres Zoning: R-2, Single Family Residence District Planned No. of Lots: 58 Density: 1.12 lots per acre Utilities: Immediately available Date of Sale: March 2012 Sale Price: $645,875 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: Hovsite Hunt Club LLC Grantee: Donald J. Harriman Document Number: R2012-00005989 Sale Price per Acre: $12,500 Sale Price per Lot: $11,136 Comments: This was part of a former Town and Country (Pinnacle Corporation) approved project. Land area includes an 11.3 acre stormwater management site and a 2.3 acre site. A number of annexation and infrastructure fees had been prepaid and credits exist for tap on fees. Asking price was $15,000 per acre. 19 LAND SALE NO. 4 Blackberry Woods Lots along Carly Circle et. al. Bristol Township Yorkville PIN(s): 02-29-123-015 et.al. Lot Size: 59.51 acres Zoning: R2 - One Family Residential Planned No. of Lots: 105 Density: 1.92 lots per acre project wide Utilities: Immediately available and some installed Date of Sale: June 2010 Sale Price: $1,647,500 Sale Tends: Cash to Seller, Grantor: Castle Bank N.A.. Grantee: Crestview Builders Document Number: 2010-00010916 Sale Price per Acre: $27,684 Sale Price per Lot: $15,690 Comments: This transaction involved the remaining unsold lots in the Blackberry Woods subdivision. About 62% of the lots were fully improved with the remainder platted but requiring the streets to be improved. It was sold on the basis of price per lot rather than price per acre. In fact, we have not been able to verify if the reported acreage is correct in Costar reporting service. We note that the majority of this property(100 lots)is back on the market with an asking price of$18,000 per lot. 20 LAND SALE NO. 5 3663 Plainfield Road Oswego Township Oswego P.O. PIN(s): 03-28-100-008 and 03-28-200-007. Lot Size: +/- 82 Acres Zoning: Agricultural Planned No. of Lots: 133 engineered Density: 1.62 lots per acre Utilities: Require extension Date of Sale: December 2011 Sale Price: $1,194,870 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: Melrose Holdings LLC Grantee: Brandon Road Properties LLC Document Number: 2012-00000679 Sale Price per Acre: $14,572 Sale Price per Lot: $8,984 Comments: This is a trapezoid shaped parcel adjacent to the village but not annexed. Reportedly, a concept plan was in place for 133 single family homesites. It appears that Morgan Creek traverses the southern portion of the property. 21 LAND SALE NO. 6 SWQ Naperville Road and 127"'Street Wheatland Township Plainfield PIN: 01-35-100-007 et. al. Lot Size: ±128.47 acres Zoning: R-1 Village Planned No. of Lots: 162 Density: 1.26 units per acre Utilities: At lot line Date of Sale: June 2011 Sale Price: $2,100,000 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: Wheatland Bank and Trust Co. Grantee: Riverstone Plainfield LLC Document Number: 2011-60787 Sale Price per Acre: $16,346 Sale Price per Lot: $12,963 Comments: This was sold by a foreclosing bank. It is an irregularly shaped parcel which is within the corporate limits and had received preliminary approval for 162 SFRs to be known as Riverstone. The Dupage River bisects parcel and the parcel has about 40%flood plain. 22 LAND SALE NO. 7 East side of Ridge Road, southeast of Plainfield Road Na-Au-Say Township Plainfield PIN(s): 06-01-400-002 Lot Size: 125.72 acres Zoning: R-1 Planned No. of Lots: See below Density: 5.5 units per acre potential Utilities: Require Extension Date of Sale: March 2011 Sale Price: $2,350,000 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: First Midwest Bank Grantee: S and E Investments LLC Series 5 Document Number: 2011-00007133 Sale Price per Acre: $18,692 Sale Price per Lot: N/A Comments: This is an irregularly shaped parcel which is mostly level. Significant building improvements with one being used for an Head Start facility. The improvements offer contributory value on an interim basis. No flood plain. Seller was a foreclosing lender. 23 LAND SALE NO. 8 NEC Dickson and Galena Roads Bristol Township Montgomery PIN(s): 02-11-151-002 and 02-10-251-004 Lot Size: 114.078 acres Zoning: R-3 and R5B PUD Planned No. of Lots: 319 including some townhouses Density: 2.796 units per acre Utilities: Available Date of Sale: December 2011 Sale Price: $1,532,520 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: Jericho Holdings LLC Grantee: Dickson Galena LLC Document Number: 2012-00000184 Sale Price per Acre: $13,434 Sale Price per Lot: $4,804 Comments: This parcel was sold by a builder who had previously obtained annexation and preliminary approval for 319 units. The site plan included 21 acres of open space as well as a donation of 25 acres to the forest preserve. Utilities are at the perimeter of the parcel but would have to be extended. 24 COMPARABLE ACREAGE LAND SALES MAP S ar G ve Hur lsl Ora f3rdst yf 64 r aT! $$ er — +,�{f o 3p KAN �r ^ DU83 ,{ Mgntgomery Hd 31 a ontgoM 29 Y a 24 t 1 ........ { ......................... 25 ......................• = 34 30 95t St rte' f x Nape iglu L I N 0 5 03rd St Stepping 04th St_ 13 ones Park r 9A 59 67 St- C. F g Park t _ ristol +' 14 1p �� —Oswegh W 1 1th St 11t St m. . 84 J v 6k Purcell Park ppY�� v 4 e 47 REP� D, ALL WILL 7 c n �,neide ark _— T C' v 4 4- �' Simo s Rd 12 h St• W 127t W 1 th St G r Melmon Lyn f i'1 Walker's Grove 22 Tot Park orkville 71 5th St r' J 69 ,126 ''> I Plairtfeld W Lockport Rd LLLnght G and P 1988-2010 Mcrosoft Corporation andlor is suppliers.A ri hts reserved. 126 25 MARKET DATA ANALYSIS AND VALUE CONCLUSIONS The preceding acreage sales have been analyzed and adjusted for varying features. Adjustments are made to the comparables to reflect what we feel would represent standard acreage with no outstanding parcel features. As stated before, Yorkville is a growing community with ample developable land remaining. It is surrounded by significant agricultural lands which offer potential development. Some of the sales cited are from outside Yorkville but are used here as supplementary data to support our value conclusion. These additional sales are comparable because they are generally in the same sub-market and appeal to the same potential buyers. It is important to note that extremely soft demand for residential lots has eliminated many potential builder buyers. Increasingly, buyers of land are investors taking advantage of relatively low prices compared to several years ago. In all cases, locational differences have been accounted for. We have attempted to cite sales in the last few years as they are considered most indicative of current market conditions. Older sales would have to be adjusted downward because of continued evidence of declining prices. Additionally, a key factor taken into account is the degree of the "improved" nature of the comparables. To the best of our knowledge, the reported acreage sizes of the comparables are net of any exterior street rights-of-way. The primary sales selected are summarized as follows: Sale No. Location No. Date of Sale Density— Sale Price per Sale Price per Acres Lots/Acre Acre Lot 1 Yorkville 48.88 December 2011 1.55 $8,486 $5,458 2 Yorkville 877 February 2012 2.27 $12,315 N/A 3 Oswego 51.67 March 2012 1.12 $12,500 $11,136 4 Yorkville 59.51 June 2010 1.62 $27,684 $15,690 5 Oswego PO 82 December 2011 1.62 $14,572 $8,984 6 Plainfield 128.47 June 2011 1.26 $16,346 $12,963 7 Plainfield 125.72 March 2011 N/A $18,692 N/A 8 Montgomery 114.078 1 December 2011 2.78 $13,434 $4.804 Most of the comparables involved some off-site costs. This is usually either in the form of extension of utilities to the perimeter of the site or road improvements to the existing street frontage. With most of the comparables, it is difficult to discern the breakdown of these type costs. However, we have reviewed a number of Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost opinions from proposed 26 subdivisions with which we are familiar. These generally range from$65,000 to $90,000 per acre. It is important to note that much of this is dated because little activity has taken place in recent years. However, the costs referenced above typically include installation of new streets and extension of utilities into the new streets. This total cost range has the majority of expenditures allocated to items that a developer dedicating a site would not be responsible for. In other words, only a small portion of the cost range is typically for"off-site"costs. We have analyzed the above referenced data and have allocated costs associated with installing curbs and gutters and grading. We have also referred to the Marshall Valuation Service, which is a nationally published cost manual utilizing data compiled by appraisers, estimators, and statisticians. The vast majority of sellers are lenders or troubled developers. While in stable market conditions this factor might require a "conditions of sale" adjustment, it does not hold true when it represents the predominant market activity. An interesting note is that agricultural or farmland prices are nearing or equal to speculative development land prices. Sale 1 is one of the local sales. It is more raw in nature than what we are considering as representative improved acreage. In other words, it is not improved to the same degree as what would be required under the dedication ordinance, i.e. as having utilities immediately available. It is adjusted considerably upward. Sale 2 is the largest sale cited. It is more regional in scope. While an upward adjustment is required for its massive size, this is partially offset by the fact that most of the lots are improved. The overall adjustment is upward. Sale 3 is a recent sale which is annexed and zoned but it requires an upward adjustment for its less finished condition. The net adjustment is upward. Sale 4 is the oldest sale cited. It is cited primarily because it is in the heart of the city. It requires a downward date of sale adjustment because of continued depreciation in land prices over the last two years. It sold in a stronger market. We reiterate that the 100 of the lots are back on the market at a higher asking price per lot and per acre. The majority of the lots are finished. Sale 5's overall location is considered slightly superior and a downward adjustment is required. It is adjusted upward for the added expense of utility extension. Also, it appears to be affected by some flood plain. The net adjustment is upward. Sale 6 is located in Plainfield and a downward location adjustment is warranted. This is more than offset by the reported flood plain. The river offers a view amenity. It is adjusted upward for the higher costs of utility extension. The net adjustment is upward. 27 Sale 7 is unincorporated but adjacent to the Village of Plainfield. It is not platted. The comprehensive plan shows this area as potential mid density residential. The configuration and topography of this parcel would likely result in a higher density than what we believe is representative. A downward adjustment is required for the contributory value of the existing building improvements. It is adjusted upward for the lack of adjacent utilities. A net upward adjustment is warranted. Sale 8 is a parcel with a greater density than what we have opined as representative. It is adjusted downward for this factor. It is adjusted upward for its required site improvement costs. The overall adjustment is upward. Summary The preceding sales range in sale price from $8,486 to $27,684 per acre. The lower end of the range is represented by less improved acreage. The upper end of the range is represented by sales in superior locations or having greater improvements. The preceding acreage sales have been analyzed and adjusted as noted above. After making this analysis, and taking into account current supply/demand conditions for residential land and all other pertinent factors, we are of the opinion that the market value of representative residential improved acreage, as defined, is $30,000 per acre. This is above the range of the sales but is considered appropriate based on our previous analysis and especially taking into account the defmition of the improved acreage (and its related cost to deliver such a property). Value per Lot Anal It should be noted that our valuation of $30,000 per acre reflects a value range of $15,000 to $20,000 per lot, based on our estimated representative density of 1.5 to 2.0 lots per acre. This value per lot range is above the parameters indicated by the comparable sales. The price per lot unit of comparison is typically very meaningful during stable market because a developer is usually more concerned with how many lots are possible,the potential sale price of the lots and/or homes and the profit potential per lot. In today's unstable market conditions, entitlements do not carry the weight that they once did. The price per acre is given primary emphasis in this assignment because it would be speculative to assume a specific density. Nevertheless, density is a pertinent factor and it has been given consideration in our price per acre analysis. However, it is not the only factor that affects single family land values. All pertinent elements of comparison have been taken into account. 28 Supplemental Analysis—Price per acre indicated by individual lot prices. We have also considered the sale of individual lots in the Yorkville area. The range of indicated sale prices per acre is $14,250 to $125,389. This is a very wide range but should be expected in unstable market conditions. The top end of the range is represented by the oldest sale cited. Prices have declined since this sale occurred. Many of these following sales are in well and septic areas. Thus, while improved for a residential structure, they do not meet the criterion of improved acreage as defined in this assignment. The smaller lots within the corporate limits do meet this criterion but are considerably smaller than the subject. Thus, they would be adjusted downward for this size differential. SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE LOT SALES Indicated Sale Indicated Sale Sale Sale S/F Acre Price per Sale Price No. Location Date Price Size Size S/F per Acre Comments 1979 Meadowlake Relatively standard lot 1 Country Hills Feb-12 $14,000 12,150 0.279 $1.15 $50,193 sold by foreclosing lender. Standard lot. Initial asking 362 Westwind price of$26,000, reduced 2 Briarwood Dec-11 $8,500 17,500 0.402 $0.49 $21,158 to$9,500. Standard lot. Reported 3 Lot 124 Country Hills Jul-11 $23,000 9,600 0.220 $2.40 $104,363 exercise of option. Lot 46 Audrey Lane Standard lot, well and 4 Rosehill Mar-12 $25,000 30,000 0.689 $0.83 $36,300 septic area. Golf course community, well and septic required. Allows walkout, backs to 7451 Fairway- golf course. Reported 5 Whitetail Ridge Mar-12 $34,000 33,000 0.758 $1.03 $44,880 short sale. Foreclosure sale of of in area of well and septic Lot 23 Tanglewood sites. Elevated lot 6 Trail Jan-12 $14,250 43,560 1.000 $0.33 $14,250 overlooks valley. Lot 43 Danielle Fields of Farm Short sale of lot in well 7 Colony May-12 $27,000 43,560 1.000 $0.62 $27,000 and septic area. Older sale of an infill lot. 461 Omaha Drive Bank owned -foreclosure. 8 Heartland Circle Jul-10 $30,000 10,422 0.239 $2.88 $125,389 75'foot frontage. 29 Also considered is an April 2012 sale of 14 improved lots along Cryder Way in the Grande Reserve planned unit development. Each lot is reportedly about one quarter acre, or 11,200 square feet. This bulk lot purchase sold for$70,000, or$5,000 per lot. The sale price per acre was $19,444. This was a bank owned property originally listed for sale at$98,000. The analysis of individual lots compared to acreage should not be construed as directly comparable. Nonetheless, we believe certain parallels exist and the analysis offers support for our conclusion found on Page 27. EXCERPTS FROM ORDINANCE 2009-50 IE 4: PARK-IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS A. lark Design:The following erittraa are considered desirable traits for a park to be acceptable to the United Cite of Yorkville, I. Size: Park size shall nwet the requirements of the Park Department Master Plan,and the approval of the Park Board. Plan must also be appraved per City Stoffcomment. 2. Location: Park loralion shall he close to the geographic center rf the population served,or as approved by the Park Board. 3. School/Park Site:Turk and school property located in the;none development may be Ideated and developed in the best interest of Wth parties, 4_ Service Area:Shall serve residential areas w khin one-half(!/3)mile radius from pedestrian barriers_A pedestrian barrier is defined as: a. Any street presently classified or planned by the United City ofYurkvitic, Kendall County,or State of 1 IIinois as major arterial street or highway, K Any street with speed limits over 34 miles per Imur. c, Collector streets with an average daily traffic count exceeding;3501 cars and stop sites or stop lights further than cone-half mile (�i)mile apart. d. Railroad tracks. e. Natural barriers. f. Lana use barriers. 5, Dimensions: Parrs shall havca minimum dimension of 450 feet on all sides if(lie acreage of the park allows. 6. Strut Frontagc: Street frontage shall be the full length ofthe park on a minimum of two of its sides,Said streets shall be local or collector streets within the nei "rhood.Additional access lots provided shall be a minimum of forty(40')feet in width.Where a school site is adjacent to a park site the schoaI site can be comidered as one or the two requited sttM frontages, Reasons f€trstrr<et frontage inc ltodc: a. Enhanced security and visibility. b. tin-stet parkin;availabi lily. c. Encourages users to access the park through trail for sidewalk connections. d. Encourages neighborhood to take ctrr`ncrship and responsibility for their park, 7. Adjoining Developments: Whenever pos-sible,the dedicated parcel shall he combined with dedications from adjoin ing developmvcnts. - It- B. liming of Dedication and Acceptanee:All requirements staled herein for acceptance:of th-e site shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City- 1, Final grading a. The City encourages, whenever possible.that at the time rough,grading,anti placement of topsoil is completed ern the first residential structure ufa particular unit development,the park site(s)should also be completed and ready for grading and seeding or sod diag. b. The City will veH6—that all requirerntiats have been met and tear site is rea-dy far Turf. Final acceptance of the site is determinate on the condition of the turFas stated herein these requirements. c. In cams or more than one park site.or I!near parkways.the developer shall determine a scheduk of completion with the approval of the City, I Boundaries: The developer shall be required to install permtGywrn metal bnundary markers at each corner or the pmrk site.Markers shall lac(if typicaI rederall style aluminum wwker four(4")inches in diameter that can be placed on top cif ti rebftr. 3. Natural State:The City tw the option to require conveyance of areas designated to be- maintained in a natural:slate prkwto commencement of any site work.A separate site-specific plat of conveyance shall be prepared and submitted prior to issuance of any permits.The developer is responsible for securing all areas to be conveyed in a natural state with temporary fencing From the time the areas are platted to conveyance of the remainder of the site. 4. Environmental Assessment: For all lands to be dedicated to the Civv.the developer shall provide a minimum of Phase I Environmental nssessme..r, produced by a recognized consultant_This assessment shall check for hidden,or Lm'1%_110 4'n enAronmental factors including.but not limited to,buried or cep at onwated sails and aquifers.underground storage tanks.and dump riles. C. Utilities: Unless otherwise authorized by the City,each park site shall he fully unproved with water.sanitary sewer.storm sewer.and electric service to a locatlon specified and approved by the City. I, At the time of installation of public improvements in the subdivision or planned unit de-,vlopment.The IocWon shall be approved by the City=and shown*n,the approved engineerling plans. 2, The site shall be free of all private prdeits,wotydpiles.saving sets,strap pump discharge plpts.and other items that give the impression that a portion of the site is part of the adjacent property.No sump primps shat I discharge directly onto the site. unless connected to a catch basin on the site irapproved by local authorities and the -12- United City pfYorkviIIt.No private utilities.water.sewer.or drainage lines shall be located on City property. Any overflow path Roust be approved by City Staff. 3- 'No blanket Public UIHity Drainage Eas inent.including storm sewer and overland st+prmwater mm—kagern!ent*can be located through or across a future park site.The park site cannot function as a slonri water control facility unless the site is a Jetention basin that is to be conveyed to the City or the developer is given City approval, 4- Per!rnetereas ment.s area allowed by Staffapprnval- D- Topsoil 1. Suitable materiel-. a. Topsoil shall be a loamy mixture SUS @A Loam.Sandy Loam.or Silty Loam soil) with an arg;anic+content between five(Plj) percent and ten.(M)percent. At least 44 mast pass the 2.00 nnrn(No, 10)sieve and the pH must be bctliv n, 5-0 and 9.0.from the``A horizon-of local sail profiles.Topsoil shall be capably ofsmpparting die Scruninatign of vcgetaWn, It shall not contain toxic suhsullwes harmfu9 to plant growth. b. Topsoil shall be typical of the locality of the wont. tilled to the sati5factien rXd city.free from large rc-lets.sticks.wends.brush.subsoil.clay lumps.or staiies larger th a one(l") inch in diameter or other litter and waste products. c. Subbase for paved surfaces(asphalt courls.paths,etc.)shall be clay that nets the requirements of Section 204 ol`the Standard SpecifiCations. It shall be free from topsoil.organic artattcr(rGot&tree stumps,ctc.)" nicks larger than three W)inches in size.and building debris. ?. Unsuitable material-, a. For paved areas, the soil i cannot be highly organic soil;contain topsoil.ructs.tree stunnps.vegetable matter.trash,and debris. b- Any unsuitable material found on the site must be rcinoved from the site and legally dispest l of. 3. Topsoil resprrading,: a. Topsail shall be spread to a Rninimum depth of six(67)inches across all lawns. clay and embankment filled areas.constructed berms.sledding hills,excavated areas.and aver backf'iJ led areas of all other construction. . t3. b. All irregularities or depressions in the surface clue to weathering or other causes ill be filled or leveled out be Fore the topsoil ;placed. All topsoil finish grades will provide positive drainage over all areas covered. c. IFthe existing surface has become hardened or crusted, it shall be tusked of raked (broken up)to provide a bond betw,°eeii the surface&nd the topsail to be applied. 4. soil stockpile, C=ontractor shall not stockpi le any topsoil or outer sail materials ern the park site without written authorization frprn the City- E. Grading/Filling I. All park areas small maintain a minimum stripe of two(2%)percent,or two(I.-)feet ii, 100 Feet, and a maximum slope of three L3 )percent.or three (Y)feet in 100 feet. The developer steal I submit gradiol;p law to the City for rc view during the geed ing approv4I process. ?. Drainage Wiles may be located on private propetty.either in the,yards of residential units that border the park or in homeowners association piroperty. 11w park site Should have a uniform slope from one end of the property 10 another. 3. There shall be absolutely no burying permitted of site debris-construction debris of rubbish.or any other excrancous nutter on the pant site(s),}areas to receive approved rill shall receive clean 1i11,free of large boulders.concrete.or other debris. The park site may not be used as a borrow pit. #. At a I I tunes during construction.the developer sh€tlI take appropriate precautions and prevent the d1schar&v aWor Clumping of hazardous wastes,liquid or solid.from his or other's operations car, :any sites within the development.including those to be dedicated to the Cily, Uc;ll Police and Fire;Dv+partrnents shall bi notified of any temporary stage of hw:ard ous materials duTing construction. 5, BivirCrnmental Assessrneiit- For al[ lar,els to be dedicated to the+City.the DeveIoper shall provide a minimum of Phases l Grivirarirnental Assessment.produced by a recognized eonsultont,This assessment shall check.For hidden.or unkripwri envirorroinentab/rectors including. but not limited to,buried or contaminated soils and aquifers. undM-round storage tanks.,and dump sites.. 6. An as-built of the final grading ofthe site is required upon completion,This includes The submittal of an AutoCAD druwir u in digital Format with grades shown in orrc t l') fact intervals within 60 days car a i.%ritten request by the City. F. Turf Grass . ra- QUALIFICATIONS OF TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN,MAI,SRA EXPERIENCE Real Estate Appraiser since 1978. President and owner of DAVID W. PHILLIPS & COMPANY, specializing in the appraisal of multi-family, commercial, industrial, and special use properties. Previous employment included Vice-President with Purcell & Phillips Appraisal Corporation, 1982 to 1991; Staff Appraiser, R. J. Schmitt and Associates, Inc., Real Estate Appraisers/Consultants, 1978 to 1982. EDUCATION University of Illinois at Urbana, Bachelor of Arts Degree in Finance, 1978. Specialized courses and seminars in real estate analysis and valuation include: University of Illinois Principles of Real Estate and Urban Economics Real Estate Investment and Analysis Real Estate Evaluation and Appraisal Appraisal Institute: Introduction to Appraising Real Property Principles of Income Property Appraising Narrative Report Writing Seminar Applied Residential Property Appraising Evaluating Residential Construction Capitalization Theory and Techniques,Parts A and B Standards of Professional Practice Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation Valuation Analysis and Report Writing Condemnation Appraising: Principles and Applications Various seminars sponsored by the Appraisal Institute, the Illinois Coalition of Appraisal Professionals, and other real estate organizations. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND AFFILIATIONS Member-Appraisal Institute -MAI designation awarded in 2000, SRA designation awarded in 1989. State Certified Real Estate Appraiser- State of Illinois Certificate No. 553.000278; Expires September 30, 2013 Registered Real Estate Broker- State of Illinois Land-Cash Donation Ordinance Survey Summary-Report of Findings Spring 2009 4m Ww �j x Prepared by: Office of Recreation and Park Resources Dina Izenstark and Robin Hall TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION....................................................................................3 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................6 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................25 APPENDIX........................................................................................................................26 2 INTRODUCTION The Office of Recreation and Park Resources (ORPR) at the University of Illinois conducted a survey on Land Dedication Ordinances in order to update the previous study conducted in June 2003 by Dr. Ted Flickinger and John Comerio for the Illinois Association of Park Districts. The purpose of the survey was to gain up-to-date information that would help assist agencies, communities and counties that are considering an ordinance gain valuable knowledge based on the experiences shared by the respondents as well as assist agencies with an adopted land cash donation ordinance to better understand how their ordinance compares to others. This report is broken up into two sections. The first section is background information that discusses the importance of Land Dedication Ordinances and provides a history of how they have developed. The second section describes the survey we conducted including the data collection, analysis, and discussions/conclusions. We truly appreciate all of the feedback and information that agencies provided us in order to make this report. If you have any question, comments, or suggestions please contact Robin Hall or Dina Izenstark at the ORPR. The contact information is listed below. Office of Recreation and Park Resources 104 Huff Hall 1206 S. Fourth St. Champaign, IL 61820 217/333-4410 http://www.ofpr.uiuc.edu/ 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION "City parks and open spaces improve our physical and psychological health, strengthen our communities, and make our cities and neighborhoods more attractive to live and work" (Sherer, 2003,p.6). Research has illustrated that parks and open spaces provide a number of benefits to community members both directly and indirectly. Recent studies have found park use directly benefits individuals psychologically, socially, and physically as it decreased stress, fostered social interaction and increased physical activity (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; Godbey et al., 1998; Kweon, 1998). In addition, parks indirectly improved individuals quality of life through the numerous environmental benefits provided to an area including reduced noise pollution, regulated microclimate, and improved air quality (Bolund &Hunhammar, 1999). As open land continues to be developed it is increasingly important to preserve and protect open spaces in the community. In order to maintain the high quality of life that parks and open spaces provide for present and future residents without raising taxes, cities can enact a Land Cash Donation Ordinance (also know as Land Dedication Ordinance) which allows communities to preserve open space for public parks and schools (Bernard &Nance, 1996). A Land Cash Donation Ordinance is a law enacted by a municipal body(that could state), "...any developer building within the city limits or 1.5 miles of the city line and seeking to annex to the city, as a condition of being granted zoning approval, had to dedicate land (in amounts to be determined by formula) to the school district and to the park district for new school sites and parks (Bernard&Nance, 1996, p.1)". The first agency to establish a land-cash donation ordinance was the Naperville Park District in 1972. In 2008, 95 agencies reported having adopted a land-cash donation ordinance within their community or county in the state of Illinois (Flickinger & Comerio, 2003; Hall, Huang, & Izenstark, 2008). Land-cash donation ordinances provide life long benefits to a community as many agencies have reported their value in developing parks, meeting the needs of the community, providing resources for capital improvements, and much more (Flickinger & Comerio, 2003). The amount of land that the developer donates is dependent upon terms set forth in the ordinance adopted by the city. The National Recreation and Park Association recommend that 10 acres of land is donated per 1,000 residents (Monson, 2006). In the cases in which it is impossible for the developer to donate land they are required to provide cash in lieu of land. The net worth of land is different among each town and city. However, in 2008 the Office of Recreation and Park Resources and IDNR conducted a survey and found 95 agencies adopted a Land-Cash Donation Ordinance and of the agencies that had a required amount of land developers were required to donate, 35% of agencies required 10 acres, 19% of agencies required 5.5 acres, and six agencies required 15 acres to be donated per 1000 residents in the population. Additionally, the average amount of dollars developers donated varied greatly from community to community and within different regions of the state. Please see attached appendix in order to get a better idea of the number of acres per dollar amount that land-cash donation ordinances 4 required developers to provide agencies (Flickinger& Comerio, 2003; Hall, Huang, & Izenstark, 2008). Agencies that have adopted a land-cash donation ordinance have provided many suggestions to other agencies considering adopting an ordinance. Some of the most common suggestions include: 1) land values should be regularly updated to ensure adequate funds are supplied to help meet parks and recreation demands of the community, 2) active use land is only acceptable which does not account for detention/retention land for credit, and 3) that park agency officials should be involved with the city in the planning process. One example, of a county taking advantage of these suggestions is in Kendall County. In 2001, Kendall County updated their counties land-cash ordinance from $45,000 per acre to $98,000 per acre (Scott, 2005). This means, if a developer wants to contribute cash to a taxing body instead of donating land they are required to contribute $98,000 per acre. Additionally, their previous ordinance required that developers donate "high and dry" land or land that isn't considered floodplain or wetlands, so the district can use it as park or forest preserve land. The new ordinance does not consider land in a flood plain worthy as a creditable land donation unless the district deems it valuable to them for some future project, such as a trail system (Scott, 2005, p.1). Overall, these findings clearly illustrate the importance of land-cash donation ordinances in preserving the quality of life in the community for a number of park and recreation agencies. 5 METHODOLOGY In Spring 2009, the Office of Recreation and Park Resources conducted a survey of 98 selected agencies that had previously indicated the adoption of a land dedication ordinance based on records from the IAPD. Using survey monkey, 98 agencies received an e-mail asking them to participate in the Land Dedication Ordinance survey on-line. Initially 41 agencies had responded to the survey. A follow-up e-mail was sent to all participants who had not yet responded resulting in 17 more agencies that participated in the survey. There were a total of 58 agencies that participated in the survey resulting in a 59% response rate. A complete list of the 58 agencies that had participated in the survey is included in the Appendix along with an updated chart of the 98 selected agencies that had previously indicated from past surveys the adoption of a Land Dedication Ordinance. A copy of the questionnaire is attached to the next page followed by an analysis of each survey question based on participant's results. 6 SURVEY Please take a few moments to answer the following questions; your input is most appreciated. 1. Does your agency still have a Land-Cash Donation Ordinance currently in place? la. If Yes, what year was it enacted? When was the last time it was updated? What was the result of the update? 2. Based on the ordinance, what acreage amount are developers required to donate per 1000 residents? 3. What is the total acreage of land your agency has accumulated as a direct result of this policy? 4. Based on the ordinance, what dollar amount are developers required to donate in lieu of an acre of land? 5. Does your agency figure the cost of land or the cost of land plus improvements in calculating the dollar amount for cash in lieu of? 6. Is your ordinance geared toward neighborhood parks, community or regional parks? 7. Do you have any trouble receiving city money or cooperation? 8. Please identify any limitations or conditions of the ordinance that impact your agency? 9. Do you have any suggestions for agencies considering a land-cash donation ordinance? 10. Please explain the value and benefits of the land-cash donation ordinance to your agency. 11. Would you like us to e-mail you a copy of the final report? 12. If you have a copy of your ordinance or any other supplemental information that you believe will assist us or other agencies please e-mail us a copy at rrhall @illinois.edu or send it to: ORPR-University of Illinois 104 Huff Hall 1206 S. Fourth St. Champaign, IL 61820 7 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY Question 1. Does your agency still have a Land-Cash Donation Ordinance currently in place? Fifty-eight organizations (59% response rate) responded to the survey indicating that their agency still had an active land dedication ordinance in their community. Question la. If Yes, what year was it enacted? When was the last time it was updated? What was the result of the update? Thirty-five organizations (61%) indicated when the land dedication was enacted while Sixty- three percent of the sample (n=36 agencies) indicated the last time the ordinance was updated. Results of the update entailed an increase in acreage, value of an acre of land, and/or an adjustment of fees. See below for respondent's responses. Increase in Money for Development • Increase in the fair market value of land for determining contributions in lieu of park land dedications from $205,000 (from 2004 revision) to $239,000 and to maintain the estimated cost of subdivision improvements per acre at$45,000 for a combined total of $284,000 • An increase to the amount... • Adjustment on the fee • An increase from$234,400 per acre to $323,600 per acre • Increased to $100,000 per acre, from$75,000 • To adjust land prices to market levels • An increase of 6% in the value of an acre of land to a total of$87,000 per acre • In 2008, the cash in lieu of land requirement was increased from 185,000 to 240,500 an acre for land located in the city. Outside the city, it is 175,000 per acre • Adjusted the cash value if cash in lieu of land • Increase "fair market value" of land • Increase of cash donation amount by $20,000 per acre but none of it is passed on the Park District. It is kept by the village • Donation is based on price land sold for • As a result of community being mostly built-out, land in lieu of was eliminated in favor of a process that better considered property in subdivisions. Now, cash only and dollar amounts were updated to per unit vs. per acre and revised to reflect current building trends (i.e., town homes, multi-family units) • An increase in the value of an acre of land • More specific guidelines and cost per acre 8 Results of Agencies most recent Land Dedication Ordinance Updates (Continued) Increase in Land and Amount of Money per Acre • Additional funds per size of the development • Increased acreage and cash contributions • Increase in cash value for land in lieu of land Increase in the amount of land to be donated more controls on what District would accept, or expect with the donation • Increased dollar per acre and land donation per person • Change in acreage requirement, update per acre $$ in lieu of amount, per acre initial improvements fee and population density table • Re-assessment of Land Values • 10 acres per 1,000 residents with a cash value of$110,000 per acre • Increase in the value per acre, increase in numbers of acres/1000 population as well as the inclusion of several other conditional requirements the developer is obligated to follow • Increase in fees and acreage • Increased acre value • Increase to acreage and land value 9 2. Based on the ordinance, what acreage amount are developers required to donate per 1000 residents? Thirty-nine agencies (67.4%)responded to this question and three of those responses were invalid. The majority of the sample indicated the required acreage was 10 acres per 1000 residents (17 agencies; 43.5%) or 15 acres per 1000 residents (5 agencies; 12.8%) per 1000 residents. Figure 1 indicates the respondents supplied acreage amounts from the survey. Figure 1. Sample Results of Acreage Amount Developers are Required to Donate per 1000 Residents v—_ 38 15 acres 13% Other 34% ❑ 15 acres ❑ 10 acres ❑5.5 acres El Other 5.5 acres 10 acres 45% 8% From the population of agencies that have land dedication ordinances according to IAPD records (n=98), the majority of agencies reported 10 acres per 1000 residents (40 agencies; 40%). Eleven out of the 99 agencies results were considered invalid due to outliers and/or results that were not available. Figure 2 indicates respondents supplied acreage amounts from all agencies that have reported having a Land Dedication Ordinance according to IAPD records. 10 Figure 2. Population Results Developers are Required to Donate per 1000 Residents N=99 15 acres Invalid Results 6% Other(7-15 12% acres) 15% Other(1-6.5 10 acres acres) 42% 9% 5-5.5 acres 16% 3. What is the total acreage of land your agency has accumulated as a direct result of this policy? Of the 36 respondents (62%) that answered this question there was a wide range of responses. 13 respondents indicated they did not know the total acreage of land that had been accumulated as a direct result of the Land Dedication Ordinance. The lowest number of acres that was accrued was .65 (Pleasant Dale Park District) while the highest number of areas accrued was 1,048 (Naperville Park District). A relationship between length of time since Land Dedication was enacted and number of acres accrued appeared to exist among many agencies. Please see Table 2 in the Appendix for exact figures among each agency. 4. Based on the ordinance,what dollar amount are developers required to donate in lieu of an acre of land? The dollar amount developers are required to donate in lieu of an acre of land severely differed among the agencies. Thirty-six respondents (62%) answered the question with a range of dollar amounts from$20,000 to $323,600. See Table 1 for exact figures among each agency. The answers to questions 1-4 from respondents are located in Table 1 on the next page. This chart illustrates the 99 agencies that had previously or currently indicated they had a land- dedication ordinance along with the year it was enacted, the year the ordinance was updated, the acreage amount developers are required to donate per 1000 residents, the dollar amount developers are required to donate in lieu of an acre of land, and the total acreage of land the agency has accumulated as a direct result of their Land Dedication Ordinance. 11 Table 1. Community Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County # Served 1 Arlington Heights Park District 1982 n/a 10 165,000 78000 Cook Aurora,Community Development(City) 1969(Last update n/a 10 71,608 175,952 Kane,DuPage, 2 4/2008) Kendall,Will Bartlett Park District 1976 n/a 10 250,000 41000 Cook,Dupage, 3 Kane Batavia Park District 1971 2000 10 100,000 27000 Kane 4 5 Beecher(Village) 1999 n/a 5 60,000 4108 Will Belvidere Park District 1989 2007 6.5 84,313 in County 32000 Boone 6 120,000 in City 7 Bloomingdale Park District 1994 No update 5.5 65,000/acre 24000 DuPage Bloomington Parks and Recreation 1987 n/a 10 Acres Market Value 75000 McLean 8 Department Bolingbrook Park District 1970s 2004 10 $160000 Total of which 71000 Will only$70,000 is given to the park district 9 Boone County Conservation District Originally in the n/a It varies This also varies depending 41786 Boone late 1980's by the on which entity's County ordinance is in place 10 11 Buffalo Grove Park District 1981 n/a 10 175,000 43700 Lake, Cook 12 Butterfield Park District 2006 n/a 5.5 350,000 10000 DuPage 13 Byron Park District 2001 2007 5 84,000 10000 Ogle 14 Carol Stream Park District 1980's n/a 4 125,000 47000 DuPage 15 Cary Park District Prior to 1994 n/a 10 150000 26252 McHenry 16 Channahon Park District March 2005 n/a 9 50000 17000 Will 17 Crete Park District 1991 n/a 5.5 n/a 7200 Will 18 Crystal Lake Park District Revised in 2005 n/a 10 135,000 58000 McHenry 19 Deerfield Park District 1993 Hasn't been 15 175,000 18500 Lake,Cook 20 Deer Park(Village) 2003 n/a 10 98,000 3100 Lake,Cook DeKalb County Forest Preserve District 2006 n/a 10 Present Land Prices 100,000 DeKalb 21 8,00012,000/acre 22 DeKalb Park District 2000 2007 11.5 100,000 45000 DeKalb 23 Downers Grove Park District 1975 n/a 10 110000 50000 DuPage 12 Table 1. Community Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County # Served Dundee Township Park District Unclear original 2007 10 110,000 53200 Kane date but prior to 24 1992 Edwardsville Parks and Recreation 2000 n/a 10%Of land for 12,500 25000 Madison Department green space must be included new 25 developments Elgin Parks and Recreation Department 1998 Value of an acre 10 87,000 104000 Kane of land updated 26 each year Elmhurst Park District 1993 2006 10.62 1,250 single family; 1,000 44000 DuPage town home;900 multi- 27 family Fox Valley Park District 1972-Aurora n/a 10 103000 220000 Kane,DuPage, 28 Kendall,Will 29 Frankfort Park District 2006 Revised n/a 10 130,000 16500 Will 30 Frankfort Square Park District 1997 2006 10 80,000 17000 Will 31 Genoa Township Park District 2003 n/a 10 105,000 7000 DeKalb 32 Glen Ellyn Park District 1979 2007 5.5 300,000 34000 DuPage Glendale Heights Park and Recreation 1959 1996 10 75,000 32400 DuPage 33 Department Glenview Park District Pre-1990 n/a 1 acre per 10,000 $40K per acre(The Glen) 57179 Cook &$400K per acre(all other locations) 34 35 Grayslake Community Park District 1991 2005 15 100,000 23000 Lake 36 Gurnee Park District 1979 n/a 10 100000 34170 Lake 37 Hanover Park Park District 1982 2004 10 Value of project land 32600 Cook,DuPage Highland Park,Park District of 12/9/03 n/a N/A N/A;Land contributions 31365 Lake Intergovernmental in lieu of development Impact Fee impact fee option 38 Agreement Hinsdale Park and Recreation Department 1999 2004 15 Cash equal to fair market 18000 DuPage,Cook value of the 15 acres plus 39 fees Homer Glen(Village) Adopted in 2001; n/a l Iacres/thousand 100,000/acre 25000 Will 40 amended in 2006 13 Table 1. Community Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County # Served 41 Homewood-Flossmoor Park District 1998 n/a 1 n/a 30000 Cook 42 Illiopolis Township 7/1/1981 n/a n/a 120 982 Sangamon 43 Itasca Park District n/a n/a 0.1 2,00,000 9200 Dupage Joliet Park District 1998 n/a 7.5 for every 333 86,586 Will 44 lots/units 145,000 Kane County Forest Preserve District 05/10/1994 n/a 10.00(1.25/school Based on"fair market 450000 Kane park; 1.00 value"-$80,000 per acre neighborhood park; 1.25 district-wide or play field;2.00 community-wide recreation park; and,4.50 County- wide forest 45 reserve) 46 Kendall County Forest Preserve District 1978 2006 10 110,554 96818 Kendall 47 Lake Bluff Park District Revised 2004 n/a 10 540,000 8000 Lake Lake Forest Parks&Recreation Unknown n/a 39588 15,668 per dwelling unit 20681 Lake 48 Department Lake in the Hills Parks&Recreation n/a n/a 10 n/a 29195 McHenry 49 Department Lake Villa(Village) Updated n/a 15 80,000 8602 Lake 50 10/23/2002 Lake Zurich Park and Recreation n/a 2005 15 Varies per unit size 18500 Lake Department Attached and Detached Single family/low and high density apts) 51 Lan-Oak Park District n/a n/a 5 Fair market of the 27000 Cook unimproved gross average 52 Lemont Park District 1995 2007 10 150,000 18700 Cook,DuPage, 53 Will 54 Lindenhurst Park District 1993 n/a 10 110000 15000 Lake 55 Lisle Park District 1999 n/a 5.5 varies 32000 DuPage Lockport Township Park District n/a 2004 10 Depends on school district 70000 Will that property is in. Ranges from$32,000 per 56 acre to$125,000 per acre 14 Table 1. Community Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County # Served 57 Manhattan Park District 2001 n/a 10.89 70000 9500 Will 58 Manteno(Village) 2005 n/a 8.8 40000 8200 Kankakee Matteson Parks and Recreation n/a n/a n/a n/a 17000 Cook 59 Department McHenry Parks and Recreation 1970 Original; n/a 15 107,586 24493 McHenry 60 Department 2007 revision Medinah Park District We operate within n/a all 3 are 5.5 Varies among 9300 DuPage 61 3 jurisdictions jurisdictions 62 Morton Grove Park District 1988 n/a 10 n/a 23000 Cook 63 Mount Prospect Park District Unknown n/a 9.16 3257(17,000,000/522) 57000 Cook Mundelein Park and Recreation District Unknown n/a ***$1,500 per n/a 36000 Lake 64 resident 65 Naperville Park District 1972 2007 8.6 323,600 142000 Dupage,Will 66 New Lenox Community Park District 1997-1998 n/a 1000 110000 58000 Will Normal Parks and Recreation Department 1975 n/a 10 acres 45,000;Depends on 50519 McLean 67 Development 68 Northbrook Park District 1998 n/a 5 $500000 32000 Cook Oakbrook Terrace Park District 1997 Hasn't been 5.5 125000+$31000(cost of 3000 DuPage 69 improvement) O'Fallon Parks and Recreation 2003 2007 6 1002 per lot 26000 St.Clair 70 Department Orland Park Recreation and Parks 1991 1996 Fair market 7 134,689 60000 Cook Department value and in 2008 for code 71 section Oswegoland Park District 1990 n/a 10 118,976 increasing 4% 35000 Kendall,Will 72 each Jan. 1 73 Ottawa Recreation Department 2006 n/a n/a n/a 18500 La Salle Palatine Park District 1977 2006 9.18 not including 135,000 83000 Cook 74 school acres Park Forest Recreation and Parks 1976 2005 10 30,000 for land plus 23462 Cook/Will Department 10,000 for initial 75 improvement Peoria Park District(Pleasure Driveway& 1972 n/a 1 $56/42/35 per 135000 Peoria Park District) single/attached/departmetn 76 77 Plainfield Township Park District 1988 n/a 10 139725 110000 Will,Kendall 15 Table 1. Community Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County # Served Pleasant Dale Park District 1985(with Burr 2005 5.5 Ridge only) $239,000 + cost of subdivision improvements per acre at $45,000 for a combined total of 78 $284,000 79 Rolling Meadows Park District n/a n/a n/a n/a 26000 Cook 80 Romeoville Recreation Department 1995 2004 10 70000 37000 Will 81 Roscoe(Village) 1992 n/a 7 93,997 9652 Winnebago Roselle Park District May-05 n/a 5.5 No less than 23000 DuPage 82 $175,000/Acre 83 Round Lake Area Park District 2003 n/a 15 80000 50000 Lake Saint Charles Park District 1989 2008 10 240,500 and 175,000 for 46000 Kane gq outside the city Schaumburg Park District Village Of n/a n/a $150 to$300 per unit 76000 Cook Schaumbrug 85 Ordinance South Elgin Parks&Recreation 1997 1999 10.5 20,000 22000 Kane 86 Department 87 Spring Grove(Village) n/a n/a N/A 30,000 4978 McHenry 88 Streamwood Park District n/a n/a 10A/1000 83,000.00/A 36500 Cook 89 Streator(City) 2006 n/a 5.5 34,800 14200 La Salle 90 Sugar Grove Park District 1995 n/a 10 80,000 11000 Kane Sycamore Park District 1995 2008 11.5 community 122000 14900 Dekalb Park 1.5 91 neighborhood Park 92 Vernon Hills Park District 1980's n/a 10 190,000 24000 Lake Warrenville Park District n/a 2006 10 261000 14000 DuPage 93 Wauconda Park District Recently updated n/a 15 100000 13000 Lake 94 in 2006 95 Waukegan Park District 1989 n/a 10 n/a 93500 Lake 96 West Chicago Park District 1995 n/a 10 230,000 33000 DuPage 97 Westmont Park District 1999 updated n/a 4 125,000 25000 DuPage 98 Wheaton Park District 2001 n/a 5.5 150000 61500 DuPage Yorkville Parks and Recreation 1996 n/a 10 102000 16000 Kendall 99 Department 16 Question 5. Does your agency figure the cost of land or the cost of land plus improvements in calculating the dollar amount for cash in lieu of? Thirty-five agencies (60.3%) responded to this question. Eighteen indicated the agency figures only the cost of land in calculating the dollar amount for cash in lieu of while seven agencies indicated they calculate the cost of land plus improvements. Nine agencies indicated that it was not up to the agency but determined by the City, village, or the school district while four respondents indicated no response available. Figure 3. Calculation of the Dollar Amount for Cash in Lieu of? Other 24% Cost of Land 49% I None 8% Cost of Land Plus Improvements 19% Additional Comments • From the agreement, "The cash contribution in-lieu-of-land shall be based on the "fair market value" of the acres of land in the development. It has been determined that the present "fair market value" of such improved land in and surrounding the Village is ..." • Land—we have a Real estate transfer Tax that helps in development of the park space • Park Districts have no legal authority to assess impact fees such as these. The authority comes from the municipality. Therefore our village sets the cash equivalent. It's based on the cost per acre • Fair market value of an acre of land in the area improved • Cost of land only for this figure. Another fee is charged for park development • Through annexation agreements we also require a capital impact fee to assist with development costs • Land only, but cash can be used for improvements if a neighborhood park already exists • It is a Village Ordinance and they negotiate with developers on our behalf • No. Ordinance only provides for acquisition, not development • No, it is calculated by the City of Oakbrook Terrace • Villages determine this. One village does both Calculated by the school district 17 Question 6. Is your ordinance geared toward neighborhood parks, community or regional parks? Of the 36 respondents who answered this question 72% (n=26) indicated their ordinance was geared toward both neighborhood and community parks. Twenty-two percent (n=8) reported the ordinance was geared toward only neighborhood parks. Five percent(n=2)indicated the ordinance was not geared toward parks but instead the organization was given cash donations for redevelopment because the community itself was mostly built out. Figure 4. Land Dedication Ordinances Utilization Towards Parks Neighborhood Cash ED Both Neighborhood and Parks 6 nation Community Parks 21% ■Neighborhood Parks ❑Cash Donation Both Neighborhood and Community Parks 73% 18 Question 7. Do you have any trouble receiving city money or cooperation? Of the 36 respondents who answered this question the majority indicated they had no trouble with receiving city money or cooperation (77%, n=28). The most common reasons for not having any trouble receiving city money or cooperation was because the organization was part of the city or village as a Parks and Recreation Department. Among the organizations that did have trouble reasons that were stated included: • On occasion. We would have liked it reviewed and updated more often • The first writing of the ordinance was a very long process that lasted over two years but updates have been very easy • The ordinance does not provide an adequate amount of funding for land acquisition • It was never received until the ordinance was enacted. We lost out on many land/cash opportunities • Some times the villages are so accommodating to the developer that full donation in land, which must be high and dry, is not always an option • We only collect fees and land donations for new development within the unincorporated areas of the County. Each municipality has its own donations requirements and not all of our communities have park districts. The cities do not collect on our behalf • The money is received from the developer. The city will not issue permits until proof of payment is presented • We cover three municipalities, each is different. One municipality has a recreation department that receives the donation negating the Park District from receiving anything. Another will not pass a land/cash ordinance. The third is very cooperative • City before 2006 took all the land cash funds for city parks. Now the funds and land are to go to park district. We are pretty much land locked now though • They believe it is their money and they can give it or keep it based on their needs in a particular area • No. Developer donations come to the Park District after the development is totally completed. 19 Question 8. Please identify any limitations or conditions of the ordinance that impact your agency? A total of 33 agencies (56% response rate) answered this question. Seven indicated that they did not have any limitations to identify. The limitations of 25 agencies that had responses are listed below and vary across a number of different issues mainly relating to not having full control over spending the money in relation to where they have determined the greatest need for the money. Appropriation of Money • All funds must be spent on capital outdoor improvement in the Village of Burr Ridge within 3 years of when we receive it. Since our district encompasses multiple cities, if we need the money for a park outside the Village boundaries, we have to petition to use it there • The village doesn't pass along the full amount of cash collected. They keep the lions share • The Village has a provision that they can put 1/3 of the money in an open space and wetland maintenance fund it they so determine the need • The Village negotiates on our behalf as well as the other taxing bodies • The city and or county enforce it at their discretion • Villages have the final say on what we will get. For the most part they listen to us, but they still want the development • All funds go to City. We must ask them in writing and state what project will be funded. City administrator approves • We do not control it Issues with Ordinance • Limitations are dictated by village ordinance • Be sure to update the ordinance regularly. It is easy to fall behind on land values • Part of our park district is located in an unincorporated area of Oakbrook Terrace. If the development is with the city limits, our ordinance requires us to purchase land within the city limits rather than in an unincorporated area • Ordinance does not provide an adequate amount of funding to provide present or future open space/park/recreation space • Age restricted communities are not clearly identified in the ordinance. Credit for private open space is not clearly defined. We have spent a large amount of money in legal fees related to these two issues Issues with Value of Land and/or Money Received • Open space is not the problem. Development and improvements are difficult • Value not keeping pace with inflation • The Park District does not believe the village dollar amount fairly reflects the price of an 20 • They can receive up to 50% credit for providing open space or neighborhood owned park to the neighborhood. It's usually small space that is not used much by residents • Quality and location of land donations • Our community is very built up, and very few opportunities for further development exist Additional Limitations • Assisted Living • If the land/development is already annexed, and there is a repurposing to residential we do not see any donation. We are impacted by population, but do not get land/resources to service this population • We are largely land locked and relatively land rich, so receive mostly cash for small and infill development • Parks and Recreation department is a part of the Village acre of ground in Palatine. Some parcels in Palatine are now priced at$750,000 per acre • The ordinance does not really have a benefit to my agency as we do not receive the benefit from the ordinance. The Forest Preserve District and School Districts are the primary beneficiaries. In some select instances a Park District might benefit, but more times than not the open space components goes to the county Forest Preserve District. Any limitations would affect the benefiting district and not my department. The use of the funds is limited to the purchase of land and or the construction of facilities (buildings, additions, on site improvements)that directly benefit the school (or open space areas and parks) that service the population within the subdivisions from which the funds were generated. Under the statutes governing their use, if the funds are not expended within ten years from the date on which they were paid or collected, the districts must return them • It is actually a City Ordinance adopted on behalf of the Park District. We have no limitations now, however could realize some if relations between the City and Park District were to sour. • Not being updated on a regular basis is a limitation, and we are basically a land-locked community. 21 Question 9. Do you have any suggestions for agencies considering a land-cash donation ordinance to your agency? Thirty-one agencies (53.4%) offered suggestions for agencies who are considering adopting a land-cash donation ordinance. Most advice pertained to maintaining a relationship with municipal officials, finance, and/or land. Relationship with Municipal Officials • Make sure you have a good working arrangement with the city/village. Everyone must work together or it won't work well • The city officials need to see a value for open space. With the economy, many are willing to be more forgiving in order to cater to developers • Work with your City/village, get as much as you can but make it reasonable for the developer so they do not have disincentive doing business. In land locked communities get cash. Do not take unwanted land as it likely has a problem for future development. • Try to be included as early in the planning process as possible and give the Planning Commission and City Council and County Board members copies of your Park Master Plan and Land Acquisition Plans • Work with village/city in regards to notifying developer of cash in lieu ordinance as well as collecting developer contributions • Yes, survey other surrounding districts. Get involved with the village and the developer during the initial planning process • Educate elected officials that create the ordinance on how this will benefit their community • Work very closely with your city when developing the ordinance and recruit their assistance and commitment to the tenants of the ordinance. Financial Advice • Take part land and part cash for development if funding is an issue • Make it as expensive as it would be allowed by your Board • If you need the land, get it. If not take the money to maintain the parks existing • Such an ordinance is a great tool for any Park and Recreation Dept. Allows capital money to go towards development rather than just acquisition • Make sure you conduct population generation studies and an analysis of land costs and acreage requirements of the benefiting districts so that the population/acreage ratios correlate directly to the impacts you are trying to offset • Develop a good relationship with your city council and city staff. GO for at least $ 261,000 per acre Land Advice • Do not include the value of wetlands or storm water management areas in your valuations. Don't accept the developer's wasteland as your open space donation • Make sure it specifies the quality of land to be donated, no credit for wetlands • I would recommend getting 10 acres per 1,000 22 • Develop a park plan to guide development 2. Review ordinance periodically • Make sure it is set up to provide acreage/1000 and that it provides both acquisition and development funding. Also, the land provided should not be the development outlets, gullies and stream buffers (undevelopable land under your present code). If the land is undevelopable for residential development, it probably is not very good land for any park use/development either • Set requirements high to start with. It's harder to amend the ordinance later • Make sure you have the ability to choose land or cash. Do not accept sub-par land (i.e. detention) • Make sure an accurate current land value is used and the ordinance needs to be either updated annually automatically through an agreed upon acceptable formula or at the minimum be adjusted every 5 years to reflect currently land value Additional Suggestions • Remove credit for private open space from your ordinance, since it is difficult to quantify. Add demographic tables for age-restricted communities. • Do it! • Should have one if any potential of developments • It's a must, even if you do not have a lot of development going on • Do it before the growth • Do your homework and be aware of any new developments early on when they are being proposed to the county or city. Green space may be incorporated within the development much easier in the early stages and prior to permitting. Too late and you end up with unusable land or cash • Have something • No recreation agency should be without one • Make it mandatory that Park Agency controls whether cash or land and that money must be turned over within the same Quarter it is collected • Do not hesitate. Get an ordinance in place and do not be shy about thinking out of the box when inserting your requests for developers. 23 Question 10. Please explain the value and benefits of the land-cash donation ordinance to your agency? Thirty-four respondents (60%)provided valuable input on what some of the major benefits of having a land-cash donation ordinance is to their agency. The responses were categorized into three sub-dimensions: land, money for development, and additional suggestions. Land • The ordinance has allowed the Park District to add parks in the event of a land donation or accumulate cash for land purchases over the years. This has extended the capabilities of the District to delivery quality recreational services • The ability to provide more neighborhood parks and amenities at fewer costs to the village/department • It provides open space simultaneously with the development of the community • Without it we would not be able to continue to provide parks and facilities to our growing community • We have parks in every neighborhood that might not otherwise be there. • Best way to expand parks at no cost to the taxpayer. We have received more that a two million in cash which has been parlayed with OSLAD grants • It is the only way to obtain park land in new subdivisions for development. We may negotiate taking dry bottom detention areas in exchange for additional cash for development • As a result of this ordinance, 15 parks are available for public use. Cash given has assisted in the development of many park areas • We have received 43 acres of park land in neighborhoods and hundred's of thousands of dollars for purchases of land • Helps to balance the impact of development. In the 1970's and early 80's, it was a good way to acquire park land • The ordinance has been a valuable tool in obtaining land/or cash that can be used to satisfy the open space needs of new neighborhoods quicker than they may have been satisfied without the ordinance • The ordinance has allowed our district to obtain land through out town that we would not have been able to buy with our limited funds • Guarantees parkland for everyone forever • It may help us save some green space that is the last undeveloped land within our community and provide a natural setting and buffer for residents as well as ensure that the ecosystems are not completely disturbed. It also provides "teeth" legally that developers will have to put aside a portion for parks and recreation • The ordinance supplements our Capital Improvement Fund, which has been severely impacted by tax cap legislation. It has allowed us to place parks in newer parts of our territory without impacting traditional Capital Improvement funds. Money for Development • The money brought in by this fund has enabled us to provide multiple park improvements (resurface tennis courts, resurface basketball courts, refurbish baseball fields, install 24 baseball field lights, resurface walking paths, install aerators in our ponds, install a new playground, etc.) • Land that we wouldn't normally have received, cash for projects on small pieces of land, etc. • Cash to make improvements and use with OSLAD grants • We are a small agency with a limited budget and are unable to provide capital dollars to purchase land or make improvements • We aver received significant dollars and hope to receive more • Monetary contributions have allowed for improvements in park(s) near the development • The present fee structure does not provide an adequate amount to be of any benefit • We have the ability to make big improvements when we get the donations • A fair and equitable way for new developers to pay their fair share of additional burdens • Much needed development capital that can be leveraged for OSLAD funding. Can only be used for the area and park site in question as interpreted by our Village. Additional Suggestions • The ordinance does not really have a benefit to my agency as none of the revenue generated goes into a general fund or other sources that would directly benefit this department. All monies collected go to the affected districts that can then use the funds to purchase land or construct improvements to benefit the residents of the developments from which the funds were generated • Recognizes the potential impact to the agency on services • While it has not produced large amounts of land or money, having the concept in place is important • Gives us flexibility • It is essential for our ability to serve the new residents • Per unit methodology works well in a built-out community that experiences resubdivisions rather than new development • Benefits are not to agency but to community • Only feasible way to include park systems through the community • We have received approximately 75,000 over a two year period 25 REFERENCES Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Mowen, A.J., & Cohen, D.A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health a conceptual model.American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 28, 159-168. Bernard, M. &Nance, E. (1996). Land Cash Donation Ordinances Naperville Revisited and Today. Preserving Public Land. Retrieved http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1996/ip960539.html. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293-301. Flickinger, T., &Comerio, J., (2003). Illinois Association of Park Districts Land-Cash Donation Ordinance Survey Summary, Unpublished report, Illinois Association of Park Districts, Springfield IL. Godbey, G., Roy, M., Payne, L., & Orsega-Smith, E. (1998). The Relation between Health and Use of Local Parks. National Recreation Foundation. Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W.C., &Wiley, A. (1998). Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environment Behavior, 30, 832-858. Monson, M. (2006, Jan 13). Required land gifts for parks criticized. The News-Gazette. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from www.news-gazette.com. Sherer, P. (2003). The benefits of parks: Why Americans needs more city parks and open space. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from The Trust for Public Land Web site: http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/parks_for_people_Ju12005.pdf. Scott, T. (2005). Updated Kendall land-cash law approved measure more than doubles developer cost for cash contributions. Ledger-Sentinel. 6/23/2005. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from Ledger-Sentinel Web site: http://www.ledgersentinel.com/article.asp?a=4138. 26 APPENDIX Figure 5. Number of Cities within each County that have a Land Dedication Ordinance 25 23 21 20 +_r 16 C) 1 O 5 Q) 10 9 � 4 6 5 Z 5 - - 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ono � o ��e ago moo ate\ ��o 5 �o G Oo`� JQ ,� �.�� o� �. 5 �a� 4V County 27 Table 2. Agencies that Responded to the Survey Agencies That Responded to the Survey Total Acres Accrued from Ordinance Arlington Heights Park District n/a Batavia Park District 150 of the current 358 they own Belvidere Park District 43 Bloomingdale Park District n/a Bolingbrook Park District 700 Boone County Conservation District n/a Buffalo Grove Park District n/a Byron Park District 1 Cary Park District n/a Channahon Park District n/a Deerfield Park District None DeKalb Park District n/a Downers Grove Park District n/a Dundee Township Park District 40 Elgin Parks and Recreation Department n/a Elmhurst Park District n/a Frankfort Park District 42 Genoa Township Park District n/a Glen Ellyn Park District n/a Glendale Heights (Village) n/a Glenview Park District n/a Grayslake Community Park District 180 Hanover Park Park District n/a Hinsdale Park and Recreation Department n/a Homewood-Flossmoor Park District n/a Joliet Park District 57 acres Kane County Forest Preserve District n/a Lake Zurich Park and Recreation Dept. n/a Lan-Oak Park District less than 2 Lemont Park District 14.5 Lindenhurst Park District n/a Lockport Township Park District 100+ Manteno (Village) n/a Matteson Parks and Recreation Department n/a McHenry Parks and Recreation Department n/a Mount Prospect Park District n/a Mundelein Park and Recreation District n/a Naperville Park District 1048 Oakbrook Terrace Park District n/a O'Fallon Parks and Recreation Department 10 Orland Park Recreation and Parks Department 150 Oswe oland Park District n/a Palatine Park District 37.5 Park Forest Recreation and Parks Department less than 5 Peoria Park District 25 Pleasant Dale Park District 0.65 Romeoville Recreation Department 184.5 28 Round Lake Area Park District 200 Saint Charles Park District 125 Schaumberg Park District n/a South Elgin Parks and Recreation Dept. 250 Spring Grove (Village) n/a Sycamore Park District 300+ Vernon Hills Park District n/a Warrenville Park District 0 Wauconda Park District n/a Westmont Park District n/a Wheaton Park District n/a 29 ,SAD Co. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number i d01% Legal ❑ EDC—NB#3 Finance ❑ EST. 1836 Engineer ❑ - City Administrator ❑ Tracking Number "- Human Resources ❑ "$ �© Community Development ■❑ EDC 2012-28 Police ALE �► � Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: B.U.I.L.D. Incentive Program Extension Request Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole/July 10, 2012 Synopsis: Direction for extension of the Buyers of Undeveloped Infill Lot Discount (BUILD) Incentive Program. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: 1/10/12 Action Taken: CC Approval of B.U.I.L.D. program Item Number: EDC #I Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Recommendation Submitted by: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble Community Development Director Name Department Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Cir y 2 O Memorandum EST. -1 1836 -�= To: Committee of the Whole pL I1 ® From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director C tys" CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator <kE Date: July 2, 2012 Subject: B.U.I.L.D. Incentive Program Extension Request Background & Request As the Committee of the Whole will recall, on January 10, 2012,the City Council approved a comprehensive incentive/stimulus package for new single-family detached residential construction to bolster development within Yorkville. The Buyers of Undeveloped Infill Lot Discount (B.U.I.L.D.) program allowed for delayed and reduced building per fees for builders, as well as a building permit fee rebate to homebuyers. As approved, the program is available to the first thirty (30) qualifying new single-family residential building permits submitted or until January 9, 2013. To date, the City has received twenty-four (24) B.U.I.L.D. permit applications. Due to this overwhelming response by new homebuyers and at the request of the homebuilder community, staff is seeking to gauge the Committee's interest in extending the B.U.I.L.D. initiative to permit an additional thirty (30) building permits to be issued as part of the program or until June 30, 2013, whichever is first. Below is an overall description of how the program actually works, its initial success, and the merits for continuing the incentive beyond its current term. Program Overview How it Works The B.U.I.L.D. program offers two (2)key benefits,which are: • To assist the developer/builder under the B.U.I.L.D. program, payment of building permit and impact fees are delayed until the issuance of the certificate of occupancy on the condition that the certificate is issued within one (1)year from building permit approval. • To assist the homebuyer, the City rebates a portion of the building permit fee, up to $5,000.00 with a matching contribution up to $5,000.00 from the builder/developer, and presents the homebuyer with a check for up to $10,000.00 after closing and upon issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. These incentives are in addition to the municipal building impact fee being reduced from $5,509.00 per residential unit to $1,759.00 per residential unit. To qualify for the B.U.I.L.D. program the property must be a new construction single-family detached structure. "Spec" houses, duplexes and townhomes are not eligible. The developer/builder must provide proof of sale or contract for sale of the lot prior to issuance of building permit, and changes in buyer or cancellation of sales contract must be reported to City immediately. Finally, the builder/developer must sign a "Developer Contribution Agreement" consenting to match, dollar for dollar, up to $5,000.00 the required contribution to be paid to the homebuyer at issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The builder's matching contribution is collected at the same time the building permit fees are due. The flexibility in the timing of the City receiving payment for permits allows builders to move forward with construction without this up-front expense. Additionally, in order to rebate the City's portion of the B.U.I.L.D. program incentive, staff collects the full amount of the building permit from the developer/builder, and refunds a portion of the permit cost back to the homeowner by rebating all or a some the following fees, listed in order of priority, to arrive at$5,000.00: CITY OF YORKVILLE BUILDING PERMIT FEE FEE AMOUNT FOR SF DWELLING UNIT Water Connection Fee $3,700 City Sewer Connection Fee $2,000.00 Building Permit Fee $650.00 plus$0.20 per square foot Public Works Fee $700.00 Myths &Misconceptions There seems to be a misconception that general fund revenues are being used to support the City's portion of the $5,000.00 which is rebated back to new homebuyers as part of the B.U.I.L.D. program's incentive. In reality, the funds provided to the homebuyer at time of final occupancy are essentially a partial refund of the building permit fee from the developer/builder. These funds are held in a separate escrow account which is not part of the revenue collected from real estate taxes. Therefore, no taxpayer dollars are being used to financially support the B.U.I.L.D. program, as it is self-funded. Rather than offer a stimulus such as reducing the building permit fees by $5,000.00, which would benefit the developer/builder, the City chose this method of rebating that amount at the back end to the homebuyer to ensure the reduction in cost was being directly passed on the residents (current or future) of our City. There are other building permits that the City issues which work similarly to the B.U.I.L.D. program, such as the "deposit" system for temporary signs (banners, grand openings, etc.) approved by the City Council in 2010 as a means of assisting local business owners. In this instance, instead of the City collecting a $50.00 fee, we require a $50.00 deposit with the temporary sign application which is then refunded back to the applicant after the removal of the sign. Again, no general fund revenues from real estate tax dollars are involved. Initial Success As stated previously, since the City Council's approval of the Buyers of Undeveloped Infill Lot Discount (B.U.I.L.D.) program this past January, the Building Department has received twenty- four (24) applications (see attached) for new single-family detached residences as part of the incentive. This is in addition to eighteen (18) regular new home start building permit applications, bringing the overall total of new residential construction permit applications to forty-two (42) since the beginning of the year. In six months, the City has nearly matched the 43 new single-family residential home starts issued for the entire calendar year of 2011. The bar chart below compares the number of B.U.I.L.D. permits to non-B.U.I.L.D. new single-family residential permits applied for between January 2012 and June 2012. In each month, with the exception of March, the B.U.I.L.D. permits have out-paced the traditional building permit applications. 10 s 6 ❑SFD 4 ❑B.U.1.L.D. 2 0 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Water Connection Fee of$3,700 became effective on June 15,2006. Merits of Program The B.U.I.L.D. program has been well-received from the building community and garnered significant interest from the public and press. Several articles in the Beacon News, Kendall County Record and soon in the Chicago Sun Times newspapers have been published about the program. Staff has also been asked to speak about the program to real estate developers and other municipal leaders at the Navigating the Real Estate Market in 2012 seminar hosted in April by the real estate law firm Dykema Gossett PLLC, housing market consultants Metrostudy Corporation and contractors and environmental consultants EnCAP, Inc. We have also been contacted from various local municipalities and a municipality in Minnesota about duplicating this program in their communities. WIIFY(What's In It for Yorkville)? So what are the benefits of the B.U.I.L.D. program for the residents of Yorkville and the City as a whole? Simply stated, the program increases roof-tops sooner in the City which might not have otherwise come, now or possibly ever. The new homes attract more commercial businesses which in turn generates increased sales tax revenue, thereby lessening the overall tax burden of all the residents within the City. The average construction value of the B.U.I.L.D. permit applications submitted was approximately $190K, and generated approximately $330,000.00 in permit fees. Less the $5,000 rebated for each of the 24 permits applied for, the City increased its revenue by over $200,000.00 in just six-months due to the B.U.I.L.D. program alone. Consequently, most of the builders who applied for permits through B.U.I.L.D. opted to pay the permits upfront rather than take advantage of the delayed payment until time of final occupancy. Program Feedback The participating builders of the B.U.I.L.D. program thus far include Pulte Homes Corporation, McCue Builders and Tim Greyer Builders. The permits being applied for under the program were for new single-family detached residences in the Bristol Bay (Pulte), Autumn Creek (Pulte), Blackberry Woods (McCue), Country Hills (McCue) and Heartland Circle (Greyer) subdivisions. Preliminary feedback from the builders has been overwhelmingly positive and they have felt the program provided the needed incentive to spur new residential development in the community. Some developers/builders have inquired about that other options for providing their matching contribution such as down-payment assistance to the buyer or dollar-for-dollar property upgrades. Currently, staff has issued four (4) B.U.LL.D. program $10,000.00 checks to new homebuyers after their closings and upon final certificate of occupancy. All were looking at other communities to either purchase or build a new home before choosing Yorkville, with most stating the program was easy to understand and would recommend a friend of family member interested in building a new home consider Yorkville specifically because of the B.U.I.L.D. program. Staff Comments Staff is seeking direction from the Committee of the Whole regarding the proposed extension of the Buyers of Undeveloped Infill Lot Discount (B.U.I.L.D.) program for an additional thirty (30) building permits or until June 30, 2013, whichever is first based. We will be available at Tuesday night's meeting to answer any questions from the Committee regarding this request. DATE: 07/02/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1 TIME: 15:01:44 PERMITS SUMMARY REPORT ID: PT420000.WOW PERMITS APPLIED FROM 01/01/2012 TO 07/02/2012 SPECIFIED TYPE CODE: BIP PERMIT # APPLIED FEE IMPROV- TYPE STATUS DATE LOCATION TYPE CODE VALUE CONTRACTOR MENT OF USE PERMIT FEE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20120018 02/13/2012 378 BERTRAM DR BIP *** 165,462.00 PULTE HOMES NEW RES 16,447.80 C OWNER: PULTE HOMES 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG, IL 60195 SUB: BRB LOT: 1034 20120028 02/17/2012 2279 LAVENDER WAY BIP *** 136, 851.00 PULTE HOMES NEW RES 13,376.49 C OWNER: PULTE HOMES 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG, IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 71 20120030 02/23/2012 1979 MEADOWLARK LN BIP *** 275,000.00 MCCUE BUILDERS NEW RES 20, 120.00 C OWNER: MCCUE BUILDERS PO BOX 354 BRISTOL,IL 60512 SUB: CNT LOT: 118 20120036 03/01/2012 1292 DEERPATH DR BIP *** 180, 000.00 Tim Greyer Builders NEW RES 14,032.20 I OWNER: HC LAND PARTNERS 6125 REDGATE LN YORKVILLE, IL 60560 SUB: HLC LOT: 227 20120077 03/27/2012 2557 EMERALD LN BIP *** 175,372.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13,578.69 I OWNER: PULTE HOMES 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG, IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 128 20120083 03/29/2012 1554 CRIMSON LN BIP *** 161, 636.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13,497.89 C OWNER: PULTE HOMES 1901 N ROSELE SCHAUMBURG, IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 301 20120100 04/05/2012 4612 PLYMOUTH AVE BIP *** 111,928.00 PULTE BRISTOL BAY NEW RES 16, 103.40 I OWNER: PULTE 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG,IL 60195 SUB: BRB LOT: 995 20120101 04/05/2012 2383 LAVENDER WAY BIP *** 106,046.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13, 170.89 I OWNER: PULTE 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG,IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 90 20120113 04/12/2012 1145 GRACE DR BIP *** 245,000.00 MCCUE BUILDERS NEW RES 8,956.20 I OWNER: MCCUE BUILDERS INC PO BOX 354 BRISTOL, IL 60560 SUB: HLC LOT: 67 20120125 04/18/2012 1562 CRIMSON LN BIP *** 175,372.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13,578.69 I OWNER: PULTE HOMES 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG, IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 201 20120126 04/18/2012 1092 CARLY DR BIP *** 318,240.00 MCCUE BUILDERS NEW RES 16,463.78 I OWNER: MCCUE BUILDERS PO BOX 354 BRISTOL,IL 60512 SUB: BBW LOT: 30 20120165 05/07/2012 1273 TAUS CIR BIP *** 180, 000.00 Tim Greyer Builders NEW RES 8,529.60 I OWNER: TIM GREYER BUILDERS 6125 REDGATE LN YORKVILLE, IL 60560 SUB: HLC LOT: 117 20120183 05/16/2012 827 GREENFIELD TURN BIP *** 270, 000.00 MCCUE BUILDERS NEW RES 15,321.80 I OWNER: MCCUE BUILDERS/GARY FRANCIS PO BOX 354 BRISTOL,IL 60512 SUB: CNT LOT: 51 20120184 05/17/2012 2441 EMERALD LN BIP *** 180,530.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13,578.69 I OWNER: PULTE 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG,IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 114 20120185 05/17/2012 1494 CRIMSON LN BIP *** 136,570.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13,327.49 I OWNER: PULTE HOMES 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG,IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 901 20120205 05/29/2012 1192 KATE DR BIP *** 220, 000.00 Tim Greyer Builders NEW RES 8,933.80 A OWNER: TIM GREYER BUILDERS 6125 REDGATE LN YORKVILLE, IL 60560 SUB: HLC LOT: 236 DATE: 07/02/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2 TIME: 15:01:44 PERMITS SUMMARY REPORT ID: PT420000.WOW PERMITS APPLIED FROM 01/01/2012 TO 07/02/2012 SPECIFIED TYPE CODE: BIP PERMIT # APPLIED FEE IMPROV- TYPE STATUS DATE LOCATION TYPE CODE VALUE CONTRACTOR MENT OF USE PERMIT FEE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20120217 05/31/2012 IN THE CIRCLE BIP *** 250, 000.00 SELF NEW RES 13,555.00 A OWNER: SCOTT SLEEZER I SUB: HLC 20120218 06/04/2012 1377 SPRING ST BIP *** 289,565.00 MCCUE BUILDERS NEW RES 14,012.40 I OWNER: MCCUE BUILDERS PO 354 BRISTOL,IL 60512 SUB: HLC LOT: 254 20120244 06/18/2012 1519 CRIMSON LN BIP *** 170, 850.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13,552.09 I OWNER: PULTE 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG,IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 1601 20120245 06/18/2012 1546 CRIMSON LN BIP *** 132, 668.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13,327.49 I OWNER: PULTE 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG, IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 401 1 20120275 06/26/2012 2420 SAGE CT BIP *** 153,578.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13,450.49 A OWNER: PULTE HOMES 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG,IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 3101 20120276 06/26/2012 1530 CRIMSON LN BIP *** 151, 810.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13,439.69 A OWNER: PULTE HOMES 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG,IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 601 20120277 06/26/2012 1511 CRIMSON LN BIP *** 175,372.00 PULTE AUTUM CREEK NEW RES 13,578.69 A OWNER: PULTE HOMES 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG, IL 60195 SUB: AC LOT: 1501 20120278 06/26/2012 4620 PLYMOUTH AVE BIP *** 126, 922.00 PULTE BRISTOL BAY NEW RES 13,293.69 A OWNER: PULTE HOMES 1901 N ROSELLE RD SCHAUMBURG, IL 60195 SUB: BRB LOT: 994 y DATE: 07/02/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3 TIME: 15:01:44 PERMITS SUMMARY REPORT ID: PT420000.WOW PERMITS APPLIED FROM 01/01/2012 TO 07/02/2012 SPECIFIED TYPE CODE: BIP CODE & DESCRIPTION # OF PERMITS CONSTRUCTION VALUE AVERAGE VALUE PERMIT FEES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: BIP BUILD INCENTIVE PROGRAM SFD 24 $4, 488, 772.00 $187,032.17 $327,226.95 IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY: NEW NEW 24 $4,488,772.00 $187, 032.17 $327,226.95 TYPE OF USE SUMMARY: RES RESIDENTIAL 24 $4, 488,772.00 $187,032.17 $327,226.95 STATUS SUMMARY: A APPLIED 6 $1, 077, 682.00 $179, 613.67 $76,251.36 C CLOSED FILE 4 $738, 949.00 $184,737.25 $63,442.18 I ISSUED 14 $2, 672, 141.00 $190,867.21 $187,533.41 SUBDIVISION SUMMARY: AC AUTUMN CREEK 12 $1, 856, 655.00 $154,721.25 $161,457.28 BBW BLACKBERRY WOODS 1 $318,240.00 $318,240.00 $16,463.78 BRB BRISTOL BAY 3 $404,312.00 $134,770.67 $45,844.89 CNT COUNTRY HILLS 2 $545,000.00 $272,500.00 $35,441.80 HLC HEARTLAND CIRCLE 6 $1,364,565.00 $227,427.50 $68,019.20 REPORT SUMMARY: 24 $4, 488,772.00 $187,032.17 $327,226.95 *** - Multiple Fee Codes Matched ,SAD Co. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number i 0 01% Legal ❑ EDC—NB #4 Finance ❑ EST. 1836 Engineer ❑ - City Administrator ❑ Tracking Number "- Human Resources ❑ "$ �© Community Development ■❑ EDC 2012-29 Police ALE �► � Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Resolution Adopting the Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole/July 10, 2012 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Vote Submitted by: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble Community Development Director Name Department Agenda Item Notes: See attached Resolution and Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan executive summary. The complete Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan can be viewed online at: http://foxriverecosystem.org/WatershedPlanning/B lackberry/Docs/BBC_FullPlan-Final.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 2012- RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BLACKBERRY CREEK WATERSHED ACTION PLAN WHEREAS,the Blackberry Creek Watershed Planning group, representing a diversity of watershed stakeholders, has been working in a collaborative manner since 2010 to prepare a comprehensive watershed-based plan for the Blackberry Creek Watershed in Kane and Kendall Counties, Illinois; and WHEREAS, stewardship of watershed resources including water quality is important to the prosperity of residents and landowners of the United City of Yorkville and elsewhere in the Blackberry Creek Watershed; and WHEREAS, a purpose of the Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan is to identify opportunities for watershed communities to integrate watershed management goals and objectives in local planning, natural resource protection, and development activities; and WHEREAS, a purpose of the Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan is to identify opportunities to protect and improve surface water and groundwater quality by implementing best management practices and programs; and WHEREAS, the Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan offers reasoned guidance to urban and rural landowners and decision-makers alike for conserving the land, soil, and water resources of the Blackberry Creek Watershed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United City of Yorkville supports a collective effort to implement the projects,programs, and policies recommended in the Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this day of , A.D. 2012. CITY CLERK CHRIS FUNKHOUSER DIANE TEELING LARRY KOT JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI CARLO COLOSIMO MARTY MUNNS ROSE SPEARS GEORGE GILSON, JR. Resolution No.2012- Page 1 Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this day of , A.D. 2012. MAYOR Resolution No.2012- Page 2 I r , At 9 i_r la em r ekr � ,Saw_ - _ _ aterw he Ctn Plan -4 r , Executive Summar X45 � ,�I � � + � � j I � � II�• ' F111 1 1 i 0 P k '`� rr � I 11 - rt, r ,�- ,•�'�. X11. , o.� , ��- 5L Decerber2011 F �,�t• , ,� ,u Planning to protect local water resources Beginning in fall 2oio,community members in south central Kane County and north central Kendall County met to participate in a planning opportunity to protect water resources in the Blackberry Creek Watershed.More than go local residents,community leaders,representatives of governmental agencies, organizations,businesses,and others participated in meetings and provided input for over a year.The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning(CMAP) developed a watershed action plan integrating local priorities for protecting water quality and watershed health. - r... r POW- (4, M PLANNING TO PROTECT LOCAL WATER RESOURCES 3 What is Watershed Planning? Watershed planningis avoluntary,collaborative public process involving local residents, The Conservation Foundation(TCF)and the Fox River Ecosystem Partnership(FREP) governmental agencies,organizations,businesses,and other interested community were both partners in the planning process.In coordination with CMAP and FREP, members.These"stakeholders"are the individuals or parties participating in the TCF served as the watershed coordinator,convened local stakeholders,and executed planning process,along with the interests they represent,since they all have a vested an information and outreach campaign during the planning process.FREP supported interest,or stake,in the overall health of the place in which they live,work,or play.The the outreach and education effort by upgrading their website,serving as a source planning process and resulting plan are informed by both local knowledge and science- of watershed planning news and information,and highlightingwatershed planning based information.Addressing nonpoint-source pollution to protect good water quality activities in their monthly Downstream e-newsletter.The Blackberry Creek Watershed or improve poor water quality is the primary purpose for developing a watershed-based Action Plan(Plan)can be found at http:ffifoxriverecos-.stern.org/blackberry htm and plan.However,other objectives also can be pursued,since they are often related to the http://cmap.illinois.gov/watershed-planningl. health of our water resources. Land Clearing A watershed is defined as the land area from which surface runoff from precipitation Agriculture , Dams Traditional Urban drains to a common point downhill: typically a stream,river,lake,or wetland.In this and • Development planning process,the watershed is used as an organizing principle for understanding the Livestock = - ° Air pollution interrelationships between the manyways that people view,impact,and interactwith — both land and water resources.When combined with an adaptive management approach '� -�� mot, to plan implementation,the plan and those who produced it offer a potentially effective _ framework for producing and evaluating project and policy recommendations to correct { water resource problems.It is from this viewpoint that the Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan was created. { The Blackberry Creek Watershed planning process was designed to be stakeholder- driven with assistance from CMAP and other partner agencies.As the project lead, -" CMAP facilitated monthly meetings from September zoio through December zou and provided technical assistance for the watershed-based plan.CMAP also facilitated a kick Pollutants Human impacts on our 1 and Spills off meeting in September zoio,held two evening open houses to give awidervariety of watersheds will increase stakeholders an opportunity to learn about and participate in the planning process,and with continued population growth and Septic met with local officials to discuss water resource planning and project opportunities in development. Fields their communities.Together these activities directed the development of the watershed- wells based plan based on stakeholder input and best professionaljudgment. Figure 2.Why do watersheds matter? Watersheds are important because what we Adapted from do on the land directly affects the quality of our Healthy watersheds,Healthy People, surface waters,drinking water supply,local Washington Department of Ecology,2008 economy,wildlife habitat,and recreational resources. 1 Information highlighted in the Executive Summary is documented comprehensively in the full plan. 4 BLACKBERRY CREEK WATERSHED ACTION PLAN Introduction: The Blackberry Creek Watershed A subwatershed of the Fox River Basin in Illinois,the Blackberry Creek Watershed spans south-central Kane and north-central Kendall Counties and has a drainage area of nearly 75 square miles.This watershed(Hydrologic Unit Code 0712,000702)includes portions of the Cities of Aurora,Batavia,and Yorkville; the Villages of Campton Hills,Elburn,North Aurora,Sugar Grove,Montgomery, and Oswego;and unincorporated areas in Kane and Kendall Counties including portions of Campton,Kaneville,Blackberry,Batavia,Geneva,Sugar Grove,and Bristol Townships. The watershed is located on the urban fringe of the Chicago metropolitan area.Kane and Kendall Counties are two of the fastest growing counties in Illinois(Kendall is the fastest and Kane is the fifth in growth rates as compared to the rest of the state.)The total population residing in the Blackberry Creek Watershed is approximately 6o,000. Table 1:Blackberry Creek Watershed-basic facts Size of watershed 74.7 square miles(47,797 acres) Counties,nunicipalities,&townships Kane&Kendall Counties; Cities of Aurora,Batavia,& Yorkville; Villages of Campton Hills,Elburn,North Aurora, Sugar Grove,Montgomery,&Oswego; Campton,Kaneville, Blackberry,Batavia,Geneva,Sugar Grove,Aurora,& Bristol Townships Population(2010) 63,279 people Incorporated&unincorporated land(2005) 18,817 acres(39%)/28,980 acres(61%) Land in residential use(2005) 9,047 acres(19%) Land in agricultural use(2005) 22,987 acres(48%) Land in open space(2005) 5,414 acres(11%) Length of stream network 66 miles Elevation range 1,016 to 570 feet above mean sea level Water supply source Groundwater Dominant soil type Silt loam or silty clay loam,hydrologic soils group B INTRODUCTION:THE BLACKBERRY CREEK WATERSHED 5 Figure 3. Blackberry Creek Watershed within the Fox River Basin F)x River Basin Cal ills Campton St Charles Wisconsin �Ix m m m - - �� r \� r Illinois �rt Lake Michigan Blackberry Creek Watershed r � � �� o 1 z 4 6 BLACKBERRY CREEK WATERSHED ACTION PLAN Purpose of the Plan Stakeholder Concerns and Goals The Plan provides a roadmap for protecting and improving local water quality and Asa first task in developing plan recommendations,stakeholders identified local water thus the quality of life for those that live,work,and playwithin the Blackberry Creek quality concerns.Alongwith the Illinois EPA-identified fecal coliform impairment in Watershed.Water quality is generally evaluated by the absence or presence of Blackberry Creek,stakeholders identified nutrients,sediment,and other pollutants certain elements(e.g.,water chemistry)or attributes(e.g.,aquatic biology,physical in runoff as potential concerns to creek health.They specifically noted soil erosion characteristics of stream network).Although many of these elements are naturally from land and streambanks,herbicides and pesticides from lawns,golf courses,and occurring and not innately harmful,it is their excessive concentrations that can agricultural land,large numbers of Canada geese alongvarious sections of the creek, negatively affect water quality.The table below provides a summary of common water and the presence of foam in a specific creek area.Stakeholders were also concerned quality indicators and associated sources or causes of impairment. with the water quality,habitat,and flooding impacts of channel modifications and constraining structures built across the creek(e.g.,bridges,culverts,dams). Table 2:Water quality characteristics Groundwater concerns focused on impacts to groundwater sources from additional pumping due to increased development. WATER QUALITY INDICATOR POTENTIAL PRIMARY SOURCES OF IMPAIRMENT The stakeholders then formulated goals toward protecting and improving Blackberry Chloride Road salt,water softeners Creek's quality.The final goals outlined here capture the desired outcomes for the Fecal coliform Potentially many,including failing septic systems,pet waste, watershed.Recommendations found throughout the Plan address each of these goals. waterfowl and other wildlife waste,manure,illicit sewer connections,etc. • Reduce fecal coliform contributions(an indicator of bacterial contamination) Dissolved oxygen Sediment oxygen demand,algal blooms/respiration, • Reduce nutrient loadings and other emerging pollutant loadings hydrologic modification Phosphorus Wastewater treatment plants,septic systems,urban& • Minimize sedimentation,siltation,streambank,and streambed erosion agricultural runoff including pet,waterfowl/wildlife,& • Reduce risk of floodingthrough initiatives to improve water quality livestock waste Nitrogen Wastewater treatment plants,septic systems,urban& • Protect groundwater resources agricultural runoff including pet,waterfowl/wildlife,& livestock waste * Promote awareness of watershed resources and threats Suspended sediments Erosion from streambanks,lakeshores,construction sites, As the only confirmed contaminant in Blackberry Creek,a target load reduction for fecal agricultural fields coliform was adopted by the stakeholders.Stakeholders set a fecal coliform target load reduction of 17%for the geometric mean of the number of fecal coliforms Regular testing of Illinois'streams and lakes for these and other water quality concerns per 100 mL,as determined from water samples collected in accordance with the is managed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency(EPA).Waterbodies are guidelines specified in the Illinois water quality standard for fecal coliform.This assessed for certain designated uses(e.g.,aquatic life,primary contact,water supply) pollutant-load reduction is derived from data collected by Illinois EPA compared with the and the results are reported every two years in the Illinois Integrated Water Quality Illinois water quality standard for fecal coliform. Report and Section 303(d)List(Integrated Report.)In the 2010 Integrated Report cycle, Blackberry Creek was assessed and determined to be in full support for the aquatic life designated use and in nonsupport for the primary contact(e.g.,swimming)designated use.Illinois EPA determined the cause of the primary contact nonsupport is due to fecal coliform(an indicator of bacterial contamination),but the particular source(s)of this impairment is unknown. PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 7 Plan recommendations In order to work towards achieving the pollutant-load reduction,Plan recommendations focus in part on reducing fecal coliform loadings from potential sources.Recommendations also address water quality protection more broadly, including planning,programs,and projects to reduce stormwater runoff volumes and nutrient and sediment loadings to the streams,lakes,and wetlands within the Blackberry Creek Watershed,as well as to protect and restore stream,lake,wetland, and riparian habitat. Policy and Planning/Programming The policy recommendations of the Plan focus mostly on actions that local units of Open Space Reserve government within the watershed can take or adopt that may protect or improve the In this category,an interconnected network of hubs and corridors are proposed for water quality by addressing potential sources of fecal coliform.A green infrastructure inclusion in an open space protection program that encompasses ecologically sensitive framework was used to shape watershed-wide recommendations with a specific focus lands.The goal of this network is to assure continued flood water storage,protect on land-use decisions that may impact water resources.Such an approach to water wetlands,provide habitat in the stream corridor,and preserve ecosystem functions that quality protection is defined by a range of natural and built systems that can occur at society values3 while minimizing stormwater runoff and nonpoint-source pollution. the regional,community,and site scales?At the regional scale,green infrastructure The hubs are composed of currently protected public and private open space and refers to a network of connected open space and natural lands and waters that provide proposed open space to be connected by the stream network and existing trails and important environmental functions.At the community and neighborhood scales, greenways. Ideally,and to provide the highest ecological functions,these lands are green infrastructure incorporates design approaches such as compact,mixed-use preserved and restored to native land coverwherever possible and realistic.The data that developments,urban forestry,parking reductions,and other strategies that reduce were analyzed to create the Open Space Reserve include the Blackberry Creek stream impervious(non-water absorbing)surfaces,such as conventional roofs,parking lots,and network,threatened and endangered species and the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory driveways.At the site scale,green infrastructure is manifested by practices that retain, sites,Phase II Wellhead Protection Areas,and greenways and trails corridors.These data infiltrate,and evaporate(through evapotranspiration)stormwater to mimic natural were then considered in the context of agricultural and vacant/wetland sites from the systems.Under this framework,lands in the watershed fall into four main categories: CMAP 2005 Land Use Inventory to identify open space protection opportunities(Figure 4). Open Space Reserve,Planned Development,Developed Lands,and Agricultural Lands. 2 U.S.EPA.Water Quality Scorecard:Incorporating Green Infrastructure Practices at the Municipal,Neighborhood,and Site Scales. EPA 231-B-09-001.Washington,DC:U.S.EPA,2009.http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/water_scorecard.htm (accessed Nov.8,2011). 3 Benedict,M.A.and E.T.McMahon.Green Infrastructure:Smart Conservation forthe 21st Century.Washington,DC:The Conservation Fund,2002.http://www.conservationfund.org/sites/default/files/Gi—SC21C.Pdf(accessed Nov.21,2011). 8 BLACKBERRY CREEK WATERSHED ACTION PLAN Planned Development Figure 4.Blackberry Creek Watershed Open Space Reserve This category includes currently undeveloped land,with certain characteristics,that is Watershed Planning Area zoned for future development.Planned Development includes developable land that falls r1 ADID Streams in one or more of the following distinctions:hydric,organic,and excessive permeability Existing open space soil locations,shallow aquifers with high contamination potential,existing oak stands, and proposed/potential greenways and trails. Open space Reserve r. Developed Lands This category represents the developed areas in the watershed where protection and restoration measures may be appropriate.These include implementing new stormwater a14 management practices in areas not currently served by such practices,as well as retrofitting existing BMPs to improve their water quality benefits. =; Agricultural Lands This category represents those lands currently managed for agricultural purposes such as crop and livestock production and equestrian uses.Policy,planning,and programming recommendations focus on pathways to help implement or enhance the various types of best management practices(BMPs)appropriate for agricultural areas.The U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation Service(USDA-NRCS)Field Office Technical Guides comprehensively document conservation practices applicable to the State of Illinois,as well as standards and specifications for these practices. F To better frame the policy recommendations while taking into account the local _ context,governmental representatives from the stakeholder group completed a code °--_ and ordinance review that was based on a worksheet developed by the Center for � W Watershed Protection.4 The worksheet provided scoring for the extent to which current land use and development codes and ordinances agreed with model principles in the categories of Residential Streets and Parking Lots,Lot Development,and Conservation of Natural Areas.As a result of this review,a policy and planning/programming recommendations matrix,based on the green infrastructure framework,was developed (see table below).Specific ordinances and programs that are pertinent to the status F"I of the Blackberry Creek Watershed are highlighted in the full plan document.Local governments are encouraged to incorporate recommended policies and codes within " their existing regulations to offer increased protection to water resources,and are encouraged to collaborate with the relevant entities to implement programs that may be beneficial to the watershed as a whole. 0 , z 4 4 Center for Watershed Protection(CWP).Better Site Design:A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community. �� ,- Chicago Metropolitan Ellicott City,MD:CWP,1998.http://www.cwp.org/categorybiog/101-better-site-design-.html. "!` Agency for Planning Sourees:Walarsheal Planning Area•ISWS (2006).Map Roads•ESRI(2000).VM*r Fealuw-National nyyddrrography Data sal. DSGS G 007r AD1D 544 om•NIPC and Irma Cal+rty(2004):9tRer Ilanois Streams- IEPA{30041:County Eouodaries-CI4AP (2009) PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 9 Table 3.Summary of policy and planning/programming recommendations for the Blackberry Creek Watershed GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK CATEGORY RECOMMENDATIONS Open Space Reserve Policy Planning/Programming •Open space protection ordinances •Conservation easements •Open space plan development •Farmland preservation ordinances •Purchase or transfer of development rights •Wellhead protection programs •Ordinances promoting interconnectivity of •Municipal buy-back programs for areas in the 100-year floodplain •Oak stand inventory currently protected open space •Creation of conservancies of volunteer land stewards for maintenance and restoration activities in forest preserve and park district properties Implementers Implementers Municipalities and Counties Municipalities and Counties,Land trust agencies,Forest Preserve and Park Districts,Townships,Landowners Planned Development Policy Planning/Programming •Overlay zones where BMPs are required for lands •Protection measures for pre-identified sensitive lands identified as critical to source water quality .Natural lawn care and sustainable landscape practices protection and recharge •Oak stand inventory •Minimum open space requirements for subdivisions,land-cash donation ordinances •Preservation of existing/mature trees •Conservation Design/LID regulations •Landowner stewardship programs •Bonus for/require stormwater retention in new development or redevelopment Implementers Implementers Municipalities and Counties Municipalities and Counties,Developers,Landowners Developed Lands Policy Planning/Programming •Pet waste pick-up ordinances •Natural lawn care and sustainable landscape practices •Urban greening/urban forestry programs •Water Use Conservation Ordinance •Detention basin inventories and retrofit programs •Oak stand inventory •Tree Preservation Ordinances •Rain garden and rain barrel cost-share programs •Landowner stewardship programs •Sustainable road salting and maintenance programs •Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program certification for golf courses Implementers Implementers Municipalities and Counties Municipalities,Counties,Forest Preserve and Park Districts,Landowners,Landscape companies,Golf course owners/operators icultural Lands Policy Planning/Programming Livestock facility siting laws/ordinances,animal •Agricultural BMPs: Expansion and better-funding for •Oak stand inventory waste management ordinances USDA-NRCS/SWCD livestock operations management programs .Sealing of abandoned wells •Soil conservation practices •Integrated nutrient and/or pest management planning Implementers Implementers State,Municipalities,and Counties Landowners,County Farm Bureaus,Soil&Water Conservation Districts,USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service,USDA-Farm Service Agency,County Health Departments,University of Illinois-Extension 10 BLACKBERRY CREEK WATERSHED ACTION PLAN On-The-Ground Projects Figure 5.Short-term project locations within the Blackberry Creek Watershed Based on the input of the stakeholders throughout the planning process plus focused 0 Watershed Planning Area meetings and discussions with staff and officials of municipalities,townships,counties, i 64 Interstate Hwy park and forest preserve districts,and homeowner associations,numerous opportunities i 1 Campton Hills f p US/State Hwy _ I-• were identified to implement projects throughout the watershed with the goal of Virgil Campton St.Charles Counties ! 38 38 t._..-_--_I Townships protecting and restoring Blackberry Creek and its tributaries.Potential projects were I 3 O Short Term Project Location divided into two categories depending on the time frame in which they might reasonably — — --- be implemented:short-term(within five years of Plan adoption)and long-term(within 2 five-ten years of Plan adoption).The short term best management practice(BMP) I Elburn r `� projects are identified in the accompanying figure and table below.They are not listed i GenevaT in any particular order,other than they are generally arranged by location from north to south.Educational signage projects are included in this"on-the-ground"BMP project atav Bia list,while education and outreach programs are highlighted in the section below.(The Kaneville 47 Blackberry long term project list can be found in the full Plan.)Both the short-term and long-term i BMP project lists are not intended to be limited only to those identified during the Batavia planning process,but to also provide examples that community members could use 14 to conceptualize other similar projects within the Blackberry Creek Watershed.The expectation is that BMP projects other than those listed in the Plan that provide similar 31 _ water quality benefits would be eligible for Nonpoint-Source Pollution Control Program North Aurora grant funding from Illinois EPA,among other grant programs offered by local,state,and 10 ss federal agencies and organizations. 67 1/1 9 8. ! i Big Rock 30 SugarGrie i Aurora Sugar Grove i Aurora I I Kane Co. 13 12 1 q 0 Montgomery 1 31 Kendall Co. N w t s Bristol 47 Miles Little Rock Oswego 0 1 2 4 Oswego Chicago Metropolitan 34 71 Agency for Planning Sources:Watershed Planning Area-ISWS (2005);Major Road'-ESRI(2000);Water Feature.-National Hydrography Datmet, Yorkville USGS(2007);ADID Stream.-NIPC and Kane Kendall L_ ------�,,�---- Count,(2004);Other Illinois Streams-IEPA and FOX I Na-Au-Say (2004);County, CMAA Township 00 Municipal ). PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 11 Table 4.Short-term projects within the Blackberry Creek Watershed PROJECT MAP# PROJECT NAME OR DESCRIPTION IEPA CATEGORY BMP TYPE LANDOWNERS PARTNERS 1 Headwaters Conservation Area Nonpoint Other Education(signage) Campton Township Source Education 2 North Street Bioswales Urban Bioswales Village of Elburn Consultant Other Education(signage) 3 Prairie Park Nonpoint Source Education Other Education(signage) Village of Elburn 4 Mirador Park Nonpoint Source Education Other Education(signage) Batavia Park District Homeowners association 5 Oak Hill Pond Shoreline Stabilization Hydrologic Shoreline Protection Homeowners association Village of North Aurora &Buffer Establishment Other Buffer Zone Enhancement/Installation 6 Hankes Road Bioswales Urban Bioswales Sugar Grove Township Prestbury Citizens Assoc., Consultant 7 Lake Blackberry Shoreline Stabilization Hydrologic Shoreline Protection Prestbury Citizens Assoc. Consultant &Buffer Establishment Other Buffer Zone Installation 8 Lake Prestbury Buffer Establishment Other Buffer Zone Installation Prestbury Citizens Assoc. Consultant &Shoreline Stabilization Hydrologic Shoreline Protection 9 Hankes Creek Stabilization& Hydrologic Streambank Protection Prestbury Citizens Assoc. Consultant Buffer Establishment Urban Urban Filter Strip 10 Mossfield Right of Way Natural Area Restoration Urban Natural Area Restoration Prestbury Citizens Assoc. 11 Walnut Lane Natural Area Restoration Urban Natural Area Restoration Prestbury Citizens Assoc. 12 Stuart Sports Complex BMPs for Runoff Reduction Hydrologic Wetland Restoration Fox Valley Park District Consultant &Water Quality Benefits Urban Naturalized Wet Detention,Naturalized Dry Detention,Bioswales,Permeable Pavers, Natural Area Restoration Other Education(signage) 13 Jericho Lake Park BMPs for Runoff Reduction Urban Bio-retention Facility,Bioswales, Fox Valley Park District Co &Water Quality Benefits Permeable Pavers,Natural Area Restoration, Revegetated Riparian Zone/Corridor (stream buffer) Hydrologic Shoreline Protection Other Education(signage) 12 BLACKBERRY CREEK WATERSHED ACTION PLAN Education and Outreach Research shows that a watershed plan will have a higher level of long-term support and Throughout the watershed planning process,the stakeholder group discussed the need success if stakeholders are involved in creating and implementing the plan.Through for education and outreach.To continue the momentum from the planning process,the the course of this planning process,several outreach efforts were completed including stakeholder group is considering the formation of a"Watershed Coalition"to oversee the publishing of two brochures and one poster,two open houses to inform the public plan implementation.The coalition will be best served by hiring a watershed coordinator, about the watershed plan,and a networking event hosted by the Fox River Ecosystem a position that may potentially be funded by the governmental entities in the watershed. Partnership(FREP)in which participants toured restoration sites in the Dick Young The watershed coordinator will provide a focused,local approach to watershed plan Forest Preserve in Kane County.Additionally,The Conservation Foundation created a implementation,taking into consideration regional activities and opportunities.A slide show presentation that was used to communicate the planning process to municipal summary of education/outreach recommendations follows: staff,boards,and committees.Awebsite describing the watershed planning process and i.The Watershed Coalition will partner with existing organizations to provide a other relevant resources has been hosted by FREP at http://foxriverecoustem.org/ Section Sig grant writingworkshop to assist lead implementers with applications. blackberry.htm. z.The Watershed Coalition will work with partnering organizations to raise awareness about all potential sources of fecal coliform bacteria in Blackberry Creek and its tributaries. 3.The Watershed Coalition will target landowners and homeowners'associations, especially those identified in the critical areas analysis for fecal coliform bacteria, about proper septic maintenance and warning signs of a failing system. 4.The Watershed Coalition will distribute U.S.EPA's Healthy Lawn care Practices and Reduce Runoff.Slow it Down,Spread it Out,Soak it In!DVDs to homeowners associations for use at meetings as an educational tool. ' 5.The Watershed Coalition will continuously work with municipalities to promote the use of the CMAP Model Water Use Conservation Ordinance in their respective municipalities. The Coalition will seek to maintain the current Blackberry Creek Watershed Plan website hosted by FREP as one of the tools to achieve the above five objectives.Additional tools include brochures,interpretive signs,and public service announcements as well as activities for targeted audiences such as classroom curricula,presentations for homeowners associations,and technical workshops for developers and land use planners on development practices that have minimal adverse impacts on water quality. Figure 6. FREP Noon Network participants spreading prarie plant seed at Dick Young Forest Preserve, Kane County(May 2011). PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 13 Expected Water Quality Benefits and Costs Timeline and Implementers Sediment or total suspended solids(TSS),total phosphorus,total nitrogen,and fecal A five-year schedule for plan implementation was developed for each recommendation coliform load reductions were calculated as applicable for each short-term BMP project. category(Policy and Planning,Projects,Education and Outreach)with the assumption Conceptual level engineering cost estimates were based on information available on the that the Plan will be updated every five years.It should be noted that implementation proposed BMP projects,typical design components required for such projects,and unit of projects and programs is based on a variety of factors including,but not limited to, cost information available from other,recently implemented projects in northeastern securing appropriate funding,receiving participation from willing landowners and local Illinois.The results are summarized in the tables below. governments,and availability of technical assistance resources. Table S.Short-term project benefits organized by category In addition to short-term projects,the watershed plan also describes numerous policy IEPA PROJECT SEDIMENT TSS PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN FECAL COLIFORM recommendations.Identified parties are encouraged to consider and implement the CATEGORY (tons/yr) (Ibs/yr) (Ibs/yr) (Ibs/yr) (counts/year) Plan's policy recommendations within five years from plan adoption.To help facilitate Hydrolog 51 476 1W 86 209 3E+11 these efforts,CMAP,other organizations,and consultants can provide assistance to - communities for those recommendations that are related to comprehensive planning, Other W 11 71,360 704 259 2E+12 codes and ordinances for water resource protection(e.g.,Model Water Use Conservation Urban 0 313 15 A+ Ordinance),conservation design,and stormwater best management practices. Totals 62 110,094 1,242 483 3E+12 Implementation of the outreach and education recommendations will be an ongoing effort among partnering organizations,agencies,local governments,businesses, homeowners associations,and other groups that are active within the watershed.It is Table 6:Short-term project costs encouraged that the Blackberry Creek Watershed Coalition(successor organization IEPA PROJECT CATEGORY ACCUMULATIVE COST OF SHORT-TERM PROJECTS facilitated by the services of awatershed coordinator)will continue to work with Hydrologi $211,879 watershed communities to support these efforts. Other $4,003,309 Urban $45,946 Additional Information Needs Total $4,261,133 Subbasin-specific water quality and pollutant loading data do not exist for Blackberry Creek.To address this gap in information,this watershed plan relies heavily on modeling results to estimate pollutant loads within the watersheds. By 2o16,a monitoring system should be implemented throughout the Blackberry Creek Watershed that captures water quality conditions at adequate spatial and temporal resolutions.Stakeholders can partner with the Fox River Study Group(FRSG)and Illinois State Water Survey(ISWS)to develop a more robust water quality monitoring scheme with a goal of achieving an improved understanding of the sources of fecal coliform within the watershed.After such monitoring data are collected and analyzed,the source of contamination in terms of origin(s)and geographic location(s)should be better understood.Watershed stakeholders can then reevaluate the Plan's recommendations and make appropriate adjustments to priorities at that point. 14 BLACKBERRY CREEK WATERSHED ACTION PLAN Acknowledgments This project was made possible by Section 604(b)of the Clean Water Act,as amended, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,Bureau of Water,which distributed funds to the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning(CMAP).CMAP,the regional planning agency for the seven counties of northeastern Illinois and the delegated authority for the region's areawide water quality management plan,led the planning process.Support was also provided by The Conservation Foundation and the Fox River Ecosystem Partnership. This planwas prepared for the Blackberry Creek Watershed Coalition that formed at the beginning of the planning process.The many contributors to this planning process include the Cities of Aurora,Batavia,and Yorkville;Villages of Elburn,Montgomery, North Aurora,and Sugar Grove;Kane County Development,Environment,Water Resoures,Transportation,and Health Departments/Divisions and Forest Preserve District;the Kendall County Planning and Transportation Departments and Forest Preserve District;the Kane-DuPage and Kendall County Soil&Water Conservation Districts;Blackberry,Campton,and Sugar Grove Townships;Sugar Grove Water Authority;Waubonsee Community College;Cannonball Trail Civic League;Prestbury Citizens Association;Batavia,Fox Valley,Geneva,and Sugar Grove Park Districts;Illinois DNR;and local consultants. About CMAP The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning(CMAP)is the region's official comprehensive planning organization.Its GO TO 2040 planning campaign is helping the region's seven counties and 284 communities to implement strategies that address transportation,housing,economic development,open space,the environment,and other quality of life issues.See www.cmap.illinois.gov for more information. c 1.' `° k , .:- -. •'. it A _ f _ .►_ - = _ _ _ - - - _ e . _ _ r , �.- ,. • _ w µ `a-. ..� ,`_ _.. .' s. ✓' Cam° °« r _4 -J - �. _ r..w+' 'u�, w f. >-.y _1 ,fix _ : '. ` ° `�=sd' - - •.-f-• - `* rte,. _ J _ter _� .. J.`— �! _ _ I i 4 �tid� ° r-•,�, � � � ,y 1-_ I' `X-f LL �r � n `` _ may°' .L r_- _ �y. Yellow-headed blackbird courtesy of Bob Andrini,Kane County Audubon. `➢mss ?�� Chicago tro Agency f la , 233 Sou Wacker e 8 ., Chic g ,JL60 254 040 @cmap.illinois. w.cm- .illinois. d ` r 3' i / _ '~'��, /,i - '� 4 4T.� - �',! f s• 'a 'rte. ,,. y + l r� A f' t .OW r A. D CO. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number v a .1% Legal ❑ PS —NB #1 Finance F-1 EST. � =` leas Engineer El~-� Tracking Number y City Administrator ❑ �0 Consultant ❑ PS 2012-15 CLE Chief of Police ■ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Resolution Adopting the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Meeting and Date: COW—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Chief of Police Hart Police Name Department Agenda Item Notes: RESOLUTION NO. 2012- ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the United City of Yorkville hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this day of , A.D. 2012. CITY CLERK Resolution No.2012- Page 1 CHRIS FUNKHOUSER DIANE TEELING LARRY KOT JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI CARLO COLOSIMO MARTY MUNNS ROSE SPEARS GEORGE GILSON, JR. Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this day of , A.D. 2012. MAYOR Resolution No.2012- Page 2 c� Jo Oaoiess Stephenson Unnebago Done McHenry Lake Carroll Ogle Dekalb Kane Gupage Cook Vlhiteside Lee ok Island Bureau VUII Henry La Salle Me roe r Orund y Harr irk Kankakee Multi- d e a P I� al fialn Plan Iroquois Ford Ftw Tazew ell 3n ck Oonough Fulton Mclean K Schuyler Logan Champaign an Dew ai itt Chat n 4krrrilion Adams Brown Cass Menard Piatt Ma con Morgan Sangamon Douglas Pike Scott Mou Edgar krie Ch ristian Coles Greene Shelby Mawupin Mantgomery rrberiand qa rk Ca h Jerse;r Nlla Effingham Fayette Jasper i}awford Bond dison Clay Pichland wrence Clinton hdarion St.Clair lllr3;me ba Vlhshington Jef#erson Edru rds Monroe Randolph Perry Harrilton White Franklin Jackson Gallatin'' VUlliamson Saline Lin n Hardin hnsan Pope p Alex�de ulas ssac The Polis Center Kendall County Sheriff's Southern Illinois University IUPUI Office Carbondale 1200 Waterway Boulevard 1102 Cornell Lane Department of Geology Suite 100 Yorkville,IL 60560 Sou them 206 Parkinson Laboratory Indianapolis,IN 46202 Carbondale Carbondale,IL 62901 Do—aewm Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Kendall County, Illinois Adoption Date: -- -- Primary Point of Contact Joseph T. Gillespie EMA Coordinator Kendall County Sheriffs Office 1102 Cornell Lane Yorkville, IL 60560 Phone: 630-533-7500 Fax: 630-553-1972 E-mail: JGillespie@co.kendall.il.us Secondary Point of Contact Tracy Page Executive Assistant to the Chief Deputy Phone: 630-533-7500 ext. 1115 Fax: 630-553-1972 e-mail: tpagekco.kendall.il.us Prepared by: Department of Geology Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 62901 and The Polls Center 1200 Waterway Boulevard, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46202 317-274-2455 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 2 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table of Contents Section 1 - Public Planning Process..............................................................................................5 1.1 Narrative Description..........................................................................................................5 1.2 Planning Team Information...............................................................................................5 1.3 Public Involvement in Planning Process ...........................................................................6 1.4 Neighboring Community Involvement..............................................................................7 1.5 Review of Technical and Fiscal Resources........................................................................7 1.6 Review of Existing Plans.....................................................................................................8 Section 2 -Jurisdiction Participation Information......................................................................9 2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body..................................................................................9 2.2 Jurisdiction Participation...................................................................................................9 Section3 -Jurisdiction Information...........................................................................................10 3.1 Topography........................................................................................................................10 3.2 Climate................................................................................................................................11 3.3 Demographics ....................................................................................................................11 3.4 Economy.............................................................................................................................12 3.5 Industry..............................................................................................................................12 3.6 Land Use and Development Trends.................................................................................14 3.7 Major Lakes, Rivers, and Watersheds............................................................................15 Section4 -Risk Assessment.........................................................................................................25 4.1 Hazard Identification/Profile .........................................................................................25 4.1.1 Existing Plans..............................................................................................................25 4.1.2 National Hazard Records...........................................................................................25 4.1.3 Hazard Ranking Methodology..................................................................................27 4.1.4 GIS and HAZUS-MH................................................................................................30 4.2 Vulnerability Assessment................................................................................................31 4.2.1 Asset Inventory..........................................................................................................31 4.2.1.2 Essential Facilities List...........................................................................................32 4.2.1.3 Facility Replacement Costs....................................................................................32 4.3 Future Development........................................................................................................33 4.4 Hazard Profiles................................................................................................................34 4.4.1 Tornado Hazard........................................................................................................34 4.4.2 Flood Hazard .............................................................................................................42 4.4.3 Earthquake Hazard....................................................................................................51 4.4.4 Thunderstorm Hazard...............................................................................................62 4.4.5 Winter Storm Hazard................................................................................................69 4.4.6 Hazardous Materials Storage and Transport Hazard............................................73 Section5 -Mitigation Strategy....................................................................................................86 5.1 Community Capability Assessment.................................................................................86 5.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)............................................................86 5.1.2 Stormwater Management Stream Maintenance Ordinance.................................87 5.1.3 Zoning Management Ordinance..............................................................................87 5.1.4 Erosion Management Program/ Policy ...................................................................88 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 5.1.5 Fire Insurance Rating Programs/ Policy.................................................................88 5.1.6 Land Use Plan............................................................................................................88 5.1.7 Building Codes...........................................................................................................89 5.2 Mitigation goals .................................................................................................................89 5.3 Mitigation Actions/Projects..............................................................................................89 5.4 Implementation Strategy and Analysis of Mitigation Projects.....................................91 5.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy........................................................................98 Section6 - Plan Maintenance......................................................................................................99 6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ............................................................99 6.2 Implementation through Existing Programs..................................................................99 6.3 Continued Public Involvement.........................................................................................99 Appendix A: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Meeting Minutes..............................................103 Appendix B: Local Newspaper Articles and Photographs.....................................................121 Appendix C: Adopting Resolutions ..........................................................................................123 AppendixD: NCDC Historical Hazards ..................................................................................136 Appendix E: Historical Hazard Maps......................................................................................155 Appendix F: Complete List of Critical Facilities.....................................................................156 Appendix G: Map of Critical Facilties................................................................173 Appendix H: USGS Stream Gauge Data.............................................................174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 4 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Section 1 - Public Planning Process 1.1 Narrative Description Hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made reducing hazards one of its primary goals; hazard mitigation planning and the subsequent implementation of resulting projects, measures, and policies is a primary mechanism in achieving FEMA's goal. The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) is a requirement of the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). The development of a local government plan is required in order to maintain eligibility for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding programs. In order for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) communities to be eligible for future mitigation funds, they must adopt an MHMP. In recognition of the importance of planning in mitigation activities, FEMA created Hazards USA Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH), a powerful geographic information system (GIS)-based disaster risk assessment tool. This tool enables communities of all sizes to predict estimated losses from floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and other related phenomena and to measure the impact of various mitigation practices that might help reduce those losses. The Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) has determined that HAZUS-MH should play a critical role in Illinois's risk assessments. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale (SIUC) and the Polis Center (Polis) at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) are assisting Kendall County planning staff with performing the hazard risk assessment. 1.2 Planning Team Information The Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Team is headed by Terry Tichava, who is the primary point of contact. Members of the planning team include representatives from various county departments, cities and towns, and public and private utilities. Table 1-1 identifies the planning team individuals and the organizations they represent. In December 2010, Terry Tichava retired and EMA Coordinator Joseph T. Gillespie replaced him. Table 1-1: Multi Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members Name Title Organization Jurisdiction Stan Laken Technology Director Kendall County Kendall County Dave Farris Director KenCom 911 Emergency Kendall County Communications Terry Tichava Chief Deputy and EMA Kendall County Sheriff Kendall County Director Department and Kendall County Jerry A. Dudgeon Director Kendall County Planning, Kendall County Building,and Zoning Joe Gillespie EMA Director Kendall County Sheriff Kendall County Department Tracy Page Executive Assistant Kendall County Sheriff Kendall County Department and Kendall County Jeff Spang Little Rock-Fox Fire Protection Kendall County Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 5 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Name Title Organization Jurisdiction District Jonathan Whowell LT Plano Police Department City of Plano Bill King Chief Sandwich Fire Department City of Sandwich Rich Hart Chief Yorkville Police Department The United City of Yorkville Michael Hitzemann Chief Bristol-Kendall Fire Department The United City of Yorkville Jackie Lemmerhirt-Kowalski Mayor of Millbrook Village of Millbrook Village of Millbrook Lowell Mathre Newark Fire Department Village of Newark Jim Jensen Captain Oswego Police Department Village of Oswego Villages of Oswego and Jeff Warren Lieutenant Oswego Fire Protection District Montgomery and Boulder Hill CDP William Dostor Chief Plainfield Police Department Village of Plainfield John Konopek Commander Plainfield Police Department Village of Plainfield Lynette Bergeron Assistant Director ommu nicat cions Emergency C Village of Plattville Commuat The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) planning regulations stress that planning team members must be active participants. The Kendall County MHMP committee members were actively involved on the following components: • Attending the MHMP meetings • Providing available GIS data and historical hazard information • Reviewing and providing comments on the draft plans • Coordinating and participating in the public input process • Coordinating the formal adoption of the plan by the county An MHMP kickoff meeting was held at the Kendall County Sheriff's Office on March 10, 2010. Representatives from Southern Illinois University explained the rationale behind the MHMP program and answered questions from the participants. The SIUC also provided an overview of HAZUS-MH, described the timeline and the process of the mitigation planning project, and presented Kendall County with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for sharing data and information. The Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee met on March 10, 2010, April 14, 2010, June 9, 2010, August 11, 2010 and October 13, 2010. Each meeting was approximately two hours in length. The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. During these meetings, the planning team successfully identified critical facilities, reviewed hazard data and maps, identified and assessed the effectiveness of existing mitigation measures, established mitigation projects, and assisted with preparation of the public participation information. 1.3 Public Involvement in Planning Process An effort was made to solicit public input during the planning process, and a public meeting was held on June 9, 2010 to review the county's risk assessment. Appendix A contains the minutes from the public meeting. Appendix B contains articles published by the local newspaper throughout the public input process. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 1.4 Neighboring Community Involvement The Kendall County planning team invited participation from various representatives of county government, local city and town governments, community groups, local businesses, and universities. The team also invited participation from adjacent counties to obtain their involvement in the planning process. Details of neighboring stakeholders' involvement are summarized in Table 1-2. Table 1-2: Neighboring Community Participation Person Participating Neighboring Jurisdiction Organization Participation Description DeKalb County Invited to participate in public Dennis J. Miller,Coordinator DeKalb County Emergency Services and meeting,reviewed the plan and Disaster Agency provide comments. Dupage County Office of Invited to participate in public Norman Sturm, Director Dupage County Homeland Security and meeting,reviewed the plan and Emergency Management provide comments. Kane County Office of Invited to participate in public Don Bryant Kane County meeting,reviewed the plan and Emergency Management provide comments. Grundy County Invited to participate in public Jim Lutz,Director Grundy County Emergency Management meeting,reviewed the plan and Agency provide comments. Will County Emergency Invited to participate in public Harold Damron, Director Will County Management meeting,reviewed the plan and provide comments. 1.5 Review of Technical and Fiscal Resources The MHMP planning team has identified representatives from key agencies to assist in the planning process. Technical data, reports, and studies were obtained from these agencies. The organizations and their contributions are summarized in Table 1-3. Table 1-3: Key Agency Resources Provided Agency Name Resources Provided Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Illinois 2008 Section 303(d)Listed Waters and watershed maps U.S.Census County Profile Information,e.g.Population and Physical Characteristics Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity Community Profiles Illinois Department of Employment Security Industrial Employment by Sector NOAA National Climatic Data Center Climate Data Illinois Emergency Management Agency 2007 Illinois Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Illinois Water Survey(State Climatologist Office) Climate Data United States Geological Survey Physiographic/Hill Shade Map,Earthquake Information, Hydrology Illinois State Geological Survey Geologic,Karst Train, Physiographic Division and Coal Mining Maps Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 7 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 1.6 Review of Existing Plans Kendall County and its local communities utilized a variety of planning documents to direct community development. These documents include land use plans, comprehensive plans, emergency response plans, municipal ordinances, and building codes. The planning process also incorporated the existing natural hazard mitigation elements from previous planning efforts. Table 1-4 lists the plans, studies, reports, and ordinances used in the development of the plan. Table 1-4: Planning Documents Used for MHMP Planning Process Author(s) Year Title Description Where Used Kendall County Describes the NFIP program,which FEMA 2009 Flood Insurance communities participates; provide regulatory Sections 4 and 5 Study floodplain maps Supervisor of 2009 GIS Database Parcel and Assessor Data For Kendall Section 4 Assessments County. State of Illinois This plan provides an overview of the Guidance on hazards Emergency 2007 Illinois Natural process for identifying and mitigating natural and mitigation measures 2007 Hazard Mitigation and background on Management Plan hazards in Illinois as require by the Disaster historical disasters in Plan Mitigation Act of 2000. Illinois. Kendall County The Comprehensive Resource Management Kendall County 2009 Resource plan is intended to provide guidance for Section 3;Land Use and Management future development in the Kendall County for Development Plans Concept Plan the next five to ten years. The Comprehensive Plan is intended to Village of Village of Oswego Section 3;Land Use and Oswego 2009 Comprehensive Plan provide guidance for future development in Development Plans Village of Oswego. DeKalb County 2003 Land Use Plan,City The Land Use Plan is intended to guide Section 3;Land Use and Government of Sandwich future development in the City of Sandwich. Development Plans United City of Kendall County Land The Comprehensive Plan is intended to Section 3;Land Use and Yorkville 2008 Resource provide guidance for future development in Development Plans Management Plan Yorkville. Village of Plainfield Village of Plainfield The Future Land Use Plan is intended to Section 3;Land Use and Community 2007 Future Land Use guide future development in the Village of Development Plans Development Plan Plainfield.. Department Village of The Land Use Plan is intended to guide Village of Montgomery Land Section 3;Land Use and Montgomery 2010 Use Development future development in the Village of Development Plans Plan Montgomery City of Plano 2005 Draft Future Land The Land Use Plan is intended to guide Section 3;Land Use and Use Plan future development in the City of Plano. Development Plans The Comprehensive Plan is intended to Village of Village of Minooka, Section 3;Land Use and Minooka 2005 Comprehensive Plan provide guidance for future development in Development Plans Village of Minooka. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 8 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Section 2 - Jurisdiction Participation Information The incorporated communities included in this multi jurisdictional plan are listed in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Participating Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Name Kendall County Boulder Hill CDP City of Plano City of Sandwich The United City of Yorkville Village of Lisbon Village of Millbrook Village of Montgomery Village of Newark Village of Oswego Village of Plattville 2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body The draft plan was made available on October 13, 2010 to the planning team for review. Comments were then accepted. The Kendall County hazard mitigation planning team presented and recommended the plan to the County Commissioners, who adopted it on <date adopted>. Resolution adoptions are included in Appendix C of this plan. 2.2 Jurisdiction Participation It is required that each jurisdiction participates in the planning process. Table 2-2 lists each jurisdiction and describes its participation in the construction of this plan. Table 2-2: Jurisdiction Participation Jurisdiction Name Participating Member Participation Description Kendall County Terry Tichava MHMP planning team member Boulder Hill CDP Jeff Warren MHMP planning team member City of Aurora Mike Doerzaph MHMP planning team member City of Plano Lt.Jonathan W. Howell MHMP planning team member City of Sandwich William R.King MHMP planning team member The United City of Yorkville Dave Delaney MHMP planning team member Village of Montgomery Jeff Warren MHMP planning team member Village of Newark Lowell Mathre MHMP planning team member Village of Oswego James Jensen MHMP planning team member All members of the MHMP planning committee were actively involved in attending the MHMP meetings, providing available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data and historical hazard information, reviewing and providing comments on the draft plans, coordinating and participating in the public input process, and coordinating the county's formal adoption of the plan. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 9 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Section 3 - Jurisdiction Information Kendall County was formed from LaSalle and Kane Counties in 1841. It was named after Amos Kendall who became the U.S. Postmaster General in 1835 and was an important advisor to President Andrew Jackson. The United City of Yorkville is the county seat. Kendall County is located in the northeastern portion of Illinois. The county has total land area of 323 square miles. It is bordered by Kane County in the north, DuPage County in the northeast, Will County in the east, Grundy County in the south, LaSalle County in the west, DeKalb County in the northwest. Figure 3-1 depicts Kendall County's location. Figure 3-1: Kendall County, Illinois ntgomer qurara older Hill __j PC Pte- - `` !oswego -- r 'Plano Legend piano � I � ,� _ State or U S Highway Sandwich Local Road r Yorkville - �� Railroad Streams r< � Lakes ;rl, Municipalities 79 I M Ilington Nreuva Z - 1 `1 _ , Kendall County .-_.� Miles 0 50 100 200 - Minooka: 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Sources:http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/archives/irad/Kendall.html; http://www.fedstats.gov/gf/states/17000.html;http://f`actfinder.census.gov;http://www.genealogytrails.com 3.1 Topography Kendall County is situated in the Central Lowland Province of the Till Plains Section. The northwestern part of the county is within the Bloomington Ridged Plain physiographic division, and the southeastern part of the county is within the Kankakee Plain physiographic division. The Bloomington Ridged Plain includes most of the Wisconsin Moraines, which are characterized by low, broad concentric ridges with intervening wide stretches of relatively flat or gently Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 10 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 undulating ground moraine. The Kankakee Plain is a level to gently rolling plain. The origin of this physiographic division is believed to be fluviolacustrine. The landforms commonly found on in this division include low moraine islands, glacial terraces, bars, and dunes. Figure 3-2 shows the major physiographic divisions in Kendall County and surrounding region. Figure 3-2 Physiographic Division in vicinity of Kendall County Legend PhysiographicRegmns r • Counties a Kendall County • i • • • ■ r of +,t Miles =M iles 0 2.5 5 10 15 20 0 25 50 100 150 200 oau sauces.inns cearpnc sn•ev.minas oewmem w nawra Resources.nmas oeoartmem a nanscar�ion 3.2 Climate Kendall County climate is typical of northern Illinois. The variables of temperature, precipitation, and snowfall can vary greatly from one year to the next. Winter temperatures can fall below freezing starting as early as September and extending as late as May. Based on National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) normals from 1971 to 2000, the average winter low is 10.5° F and the average winter high is 34.9° F. In summer, the average low is 55.7° F and average high is 84.2° F. Average annual precipitation is 38.39 inches throughout the year. 3.3 Demographics In 2000, Kendall County had a population of 54,544. According to American FactFinder (2008), Kendall County experienced a large population increase which almost doubled the population to 103,460 in 2008. The population is spread throughout 9 townships: Big Grove, Bristol, Fox, Kendall, Lisbon, Little Rock, Na-Au-Say, Oswego, and Seward. The largest community in Kendall County is Oswego, which had a population of approximately 13,326 in 2000. The breakdown of population by township is included in Table 3-1. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 11 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 3-1: Population by Township Township 2000 Population %of County Big Grove 1,526 2.80 Bristol 7,677 14.07 Fox 1,257 2.30 Kendall 4,636 8.50 Lisbon 851 1.56 Little Rock 7,662 14.05 Na-Au-Say 1,672 3.07 Oswego 28,417 52.10 Seward 846 1.55 Source:American FactFinder, 2000 3.4 Economy American FactFinder reported for 2000 that 83.5% of the workforce in Kendall County was employed in the private sector. The breakdown is included in Table 3-2. Manufacturing represents the largest sector, employing approximately 18.5% of the workforce. The 2000 annual per capita income in Kendall County is $25,188. Table 3-2: Industrial Employment by Sector Industrial Sector %Dist.In County (2000) Agriculture,forestry,fishing,hunting,and mining 1.3 Construction 9.0 Manufacturing 18.5 Wholesale trade 4.1 Retail trade 11.8 Transportation,warehousing and utilities 5.7 Information 2.7 Finance,insurance,real estate,and rental/leasing 8.5 Professional,technical services 8.2 Educational services,health care,and social assistance 16.3 Arts,entertainment,recreation 6.0 Public administration 3.5 Source:American FactFinder,2000 3.5 Industry Kendall County's major employers and number of employees are listed in Table 3-3. The largest employer is Caterpillar, which was established in circa 1930 and has approximately 2,200 employees. The Menard Distribution Center is the second largest nongovernmental employer, with 1,100 employees. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 12 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 3-3: Major Employers Company Name City/Town Year #of Employees Type of Business Established Manufacturing Plano Molding Plano 610 Plastic Manufacturing Fox Valley Molding Plano 140 Plastic Manufacturing Radiac Abrasives Oswego 1997 200 Industrial Abrasives, Diamond Cutting Robb Container Yorkville 80 Plastic Containers Wrigley Manufacturing Company Yorkville 355 Manufacturing Avtec Industries Oswego 1970 155 Food Service Equipment Manufacturing Catepillar Tractor Co. Oswego 1958 3200 Heavy Equipment Manufacturing Health Care Tillers Healthcare Oswego 1972 120 Nursing Home Hillside Healthcare Yorkville 90 Nursing Home Rush-Copley Healthcare Center Yorkville 100 Health Care Center Schools All Public Schools County Wide 1,600 Education • Oswego School Oswego 432 Education District • Oswegoland Park Oswego 1950 107 Education/Recreation District Other Menards Distribution Center County-wide 1,100 Building and Home Hardware Supplies Wal-Mart County-wide 520 Retail Fox River Foods Montgomery 395 Food Service Distributor Amuro Confections Yorkville 370 Bulk Candy Supplier Jewel/Osco County Wide 160 Super Markets Kendall County Yorkville 1841 260 County Government YMCA Plano 150 Human Services Seaboard Seed Montgomery 100 Agriculture AT&T Plano 80 Telecommunications Newleyweds Foods Yorkville 110 Food Service Distributor Raging Waves Water Park Yorkville 450 Entertainment Super Target Yorkville 175 Retail Kohls County-wide 120 Retail Source:Kendall County Planning Team Commuter Patterns According to American FactFinder information from 2000, approximately 29,697 of Kendall County's population are in the work force. The average travel time from home to work is 29.9 minutes. Figure 3-3 depicts the commuting patterns for Kendall County's labor force. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 13 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 3-3: Commuter Patterns for Kendall County ■Car,truck,or Wan--drove 1.1°1 4.8°f alone 2.1% ■Car,truck,or van-- carpooled ■Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ■Walked ■Other means ■Worked at home 3.6 Land Use and Development Trends Agriculture is the predominant land use in Kendall County with approximately 80% of the land used as pasture or for growing crops. Other significant land uses include manufacturing, commercial, residential, and tourism. Kendall County is home to several spacious parks for fishing, camping, hiking, and water sports. The parks include Yorkville Prairie Nature Preserve, Maramech Woods Nature Preserve, Houses Grove Forest Preserve, Saw Wee Kee Park, and Silver Springs State Park. Figure 3-4 shows the land cover throughout Kendall County. Figure 3-4: Kendall County Land Cover m 25 926 ]1 9] 4 Legend n Water =Developed-High intensity F-7 Mixed Forest Woody Wetlands 0 Developed-open Bpace ®RONEO AClap Grassland —Wetlands Developed-LM Intensity -Deciduous Forest Pasture L.._i Municipalities �� o -Developed-Medium Intensity -Evergreen Forest —Crops —State end U 6.High ey. —Roads s M Iles U 2.6 6 10 eei:USCS Il.il—1 L. l-over Da Set.301:Ii Roads Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 14 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Kendall County is one of the fasting developing counties in the United States. The County and nearly all of incorporated communities (Oswego, Plano, Minooka, Montgomery, Plainfield, Sandwich, and Yorkville) have either a comprehensive or a future land use plan (see Table 1-4). The purpose of these plans is to provide guidance for future development. Each plan calls for no development in floodplains and carefully considers placement of residential space in relation to industrial and commercial land uses. Figures 3-5 through 3-12 shows the planned land use in each these jurisdictions. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 15 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 3-5: Future Land Use Map for Kendall County KENDALL COUNTY • F • r� — ACS'+NVOKIL!SUD THARE&I nUBLIRBAN R HIDENTIhL .. .. R � ?ykl47kMMxW�c�AI!Va.rxw.l�i�+tR!'QM1ia+GU•�v� r I KUM REslkigKILAL .. - l _ " .4as¢^au.sce«rreso-aaouw�' 'A_ 1 -. © 1%n Urra�r�eD,13E iW. i L. S9t5lJN MYSOt RA EALLYEW r - �� WJID USE BUSIRBS r h# I} r 7 r ¢, .1i __ e TkkvaP[)RThTK)N MR:R�Lx I- PL:RLIGIm ITLrrK3xkL - RURAL 5E7 04ENTS r. PA4TL.RAL REPOURCEAREA.$ IL w 1 _ a Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 16 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 3-6: Future Land Use Map for City of Plano -_.- - KAN I � J A I- t, 1= - - r S 0 d i LEGEND 0 Agricultural M Transit Oriented Development 0 Estate Residential(0 to.5 DU/AC) Alternate Location for potential 0 Low Density Residential(.5 to 2.25 DU/ACI Transit Oriented Development = Medium Density Residential(2.26 to 6 DUPAQ D See City Center Plan for detailed area 0 High Density Residential(6DU/AC+) ••••• Plano School District 88 RecreationlPark Municipal Boundary •...+ ..• Plano Planning Area D Conservation/Private open space THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM ® Public/Institutional M Industrial/Office/Research Existing exo�ose Primary Arterial ■�r = General Business Secondary Arterial .=■ City Center Mixed Use Primary Collector .-. — Secondary Collector --- Proposed Grade --, Separated Crossing ij DRAFT FUTURE LAND USE ® a _000,pg Comprehensive Plan... Plano,Illinois- AP 2W5 L!l �a Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 17 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 3-7: Future Land Use Map for City of Sandwich [T -------- -- --- --- ---- ------ nil Rd ---------�... ------ ------- --- -------- ---.. -, - � a � I N C i r i i i 1 we�^ Od c IAiIIIh Rd 4750th Rd wawxrna�m . 3� S __ Rod rs Rtl 4859M Rtl 49N Rtl P¢" 6 455CN Rd Sandwich Future Land Use Plan 45h Rd 5n re ��f'dmc 4451M.�Rd fMpozcE Reud: _�. Snxn hms o 4� tarn Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 18 of 174 NMI A kip - of La 1 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 3-9: Future Land Use Map for Village of Minooka i ,. .. u �...... ........ — m f' y , iRE III QRA4 PNK ........ - _ .... - . �r LLL y._.3.......,v.... ... JiLt7 , :f 3 - !I �r:4� o I• ��•b � r. . `-,��y Mu.lYill 9�11 My MA4 kl e........... , e r o Z � o .ilk '_'• - ��a�ia Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 20 of 174 • 1 • . • • . • - • • • • Village of Montgomery 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Development Plan In OR��■�.�II�I■.� �� 1�llPlh._- 1^-1f"��f i at e II y i�if� ■■ + QL r ar • J `.: _:. se.= ��i�i•...Ili � _ — �.1 r ' I xl F 1 .r - •i Vil[age of ntgomery IL MO _ Ili g . '4 a J_�:!rQ,."■ L��L fi M t KF� _� h ��'^ ��G�i�llil��ifl1'■■L " � �� • 1 � i r1� FBI a R17 to HIM Mar � x�� •rwK •�r�' -� • .�a ' f� ter. 1, Aim, A ' * ■ Rall IF 1 1 , h • X111 JIIIL17 -■��k��1 •h IN e • � resimat AMA" r.lf:�"ice■■ � .r II � �� ..' �. �} I ■ -'IL: �I an LMr rr a- 11 —. ir.r F INrr Ali IN - Ad � Ell E.M1 - Li Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 3.7 Major Lakes, Rivers, and Watersheds Kendall County has a number of bodies of water including Lake Plano, Beaver Lake, Millhurst Lake, and Loon Lake. According to the USGS, Kendall County consists of two drainage basins: the Lower Fox (HUC 7120007) and the Upper Illinois (HUC 7120005). Figure 3-14 shows the location of the major water bodies and watersheds in Kendall County. Figure 3-14: Major water bodies and watersheds in Kendall County Keno Cwnly Montgomery Aurorae �0 Bould Witt � 47 _, 34 Legend Oswego Lakes r,. �� o Y ill na�courc, Rivers $a ch 34 Municipalities HUCs Major Roads a 126 Des Pfaines HUC �d,aue tunr; a c Millington 47 Joliet L N rk x w+f" 52 w 52 bon 47 Minooka J1 Lower Fox HUC - S Upper 11knois HUC Grundy County ®Mires 0 0,5 1 2 3 4 o zs so roa rso zoo Pia Seux IAners Gea�w Swey iMrs CeE,vrrcnr:M Flamal Reamrns rlems OepanmeM M Tranzpatarien Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 24 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Section 4 - Risk Assessment The goal of mitigation is to reduce the future impacts of a hazard including loss of life, property damage, disruption to local and regional economies, and the expenditure of public and private funds for recovery. Sound mitigation must be based on sound risk assessment. A risk assessment involves quantifying the potential loss resulting from a disaster by assessing the vulnerability of buildings, infrastructure, and people. This assessment identifies the characteristics and potential consequences of a disaster, how much of the community could be affected by a disaster, and the impact on community assets. A risk assessment consists of three components—hazard identification, vulnerability analysis, and risk analysis. 4.1 Hazard Identification/Profile 4.1.1 Existing Plans The plans identified in Table 1-3 did not contain a risk analysis. These local planning documents were reviewed to identify historical hazards and help identify risk. To facilitate the planning process, flood data for the Federal and State Government were used for the flood analysis. 4.1.2 National Hazard Records 4.1.2.1 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Records To assist the planning team, historical storm event data was compiled from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NCDC records are estimates of damage reported to the National Weather Service from various local, state, and federal sources. However, these estimates are often preliminary in nature and may not match the final assessment of economic and property losses related to given weather events. The NCDC data included 202 reported events in Kendall County between May 27, 1954 and the October 31, 2009 (the most updated information as of the date of this plan). A summary table of events related to each hazard type is included in the hazard profile sections that follow. A full table listing all events, including additional details, is included as Appendix D. In addition to NCDC data, Storm Prediction Center (SPC) data associated with tornadoes, strong winds, and hail were plotted using SPC recorded latitude and longitude. These events are plotted and included as Appendix E. The list of NCDC hazards is included in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Climatic Data Center Historical Hazards Hazard Tornadoes Severe Thunderstorms Drought/Extreme Heat Winter Storms Flood/Flash flood Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 25 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 4.1.2.2 FEMA Disaster Information Since 1965 there have been 55 Federal Disaster Declarations for the state of Illinois. Emergency declarations allow states access to FEMA funds for Public Assistance (PA); disaster declarations allow for even more PA funding including Individual Assistance (IA) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Kendall County has received federal aid for both PA and IA funding for seven declared disasters since 1965. Figure 4-1 depicts the disasters and emergencies that have been declared for Kendall County since 1965. Table 4-2 lists more specific information for each declaration that has occurred since 1965. Figure 4-1: FEMA-Declared Emergencies and Disasters in Kendall County (1965-present) Jo Davie.u E2erhenaon V"(1111"11 90 Boa-ie McHenry Lake Carroll Ogle De KalI, Kane -ru Page Cooks N4iteside Lee Kendall Rock Id+and Bureau VMI Hemp La Salle Mercer Grundy Putnam Stark Kankakee Marshall Knox: Henderson Vlk%rren Livingston I P"a V"bodford -- Iroquois Ford Han k cDonough Fu �,. Taxevrell McLean Sdiuyl actin Logan De'Ni4 Champaign v¢rmiiiroi ,ate am s 'Bro,:�,n Menard Piatt Macon Morgan Sangamon Douglas ik Smtt;� Moultrie — Eder Christian Coles G n Shdhy Macoupn Montgomery umhetland Clark Cal un rs Fayette Effingham r Jasper CraWord adi n Bond Clay Richland Lawrence Clinton Marian -lair V10yne ftbash VI@� ing<m Edv�ards Monroe Jefferson I Randolph Per Hamilton Mte 1 Count of FEMA Declared Disasters Franklin by County 1965-2009 JaJs ri VMliamson Saline Gallatin,..// 1-3 Hardin Union Jnhn,on 4-6 Pope 7 9 PulasA:i Ple>r�ridei Massac 0 10-12 13-15 _ 16-18 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 26 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-2: FEMA-Declared Emergencies in Kendall County(1965-present) Date of Incident Date of Declaration Declaration Disaster Description Type of Number Assistance April 27, 1973 373 Severe Storms and Flooding June 10, 1974 438 Severe Storms and Flooding August 28, 1990 August 31,1990 878 Tornadoes July 17, 1996 July 18, 1996 1129 Severe Storms and Flooding January 1, 1999 January 8, 1999 3134 Winter Snow Storm Public Dec. 10-31,2000 January 17,2000 3161 Severe Winter Storm Public Nov.30-Dec. 1,2006 Dec.29,2006 1800 Snow Public Sept. 13-Oct.5,2008 Oct.3,2008 373 Severe Storms and Flooding Public 4.1.3 Hazard Ranking Methodology Based on planning team input, national datasets, and existing plans, Table 4-3 lists the hazards Kendall County will address in this multi-hazard mitigation plan. In addition, these hazards ranked the highest based on the Risk Priority Index discussed in section 4.1.4. Table 4-3: Planning Team Hazard List Hazard Thunderstorms/High Winds/Hail/Lightning Tornado Transportation Hazardous Material Release Flood Winter Storms Fire/Explosion Earthquakes 4.1.4 Calculating the Risk Priority Index The first step in determining the Risk Priority Index (RPI) was to have the planning team members generate a list of hazards which have befallen or could potentially befall their community. Next, the planning team members were asked to assign a likelihood rating based on the criteria and methods described in the following table. Table 4-4 displays the probability of the future occurrence ranking. This ranking was based upon previous history and the definition of hazard. Using the definitions given, the likelihood of future events is "Quantified" which results in the classification within one of the four "Ranges" of likelihood. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 27 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-4: Future Occurrence Ranking Probability Characteristics Event is probable within the calendar year. 4-Highly Likely Event has up to 1 in 1 year chance of occurring.(1/1=100°/x) History of events is greater than 33%likely per year. Event is probable within the next three years. 3-Likely Event has up to 1 in 3 years chance of occurring. (1/3=33%) History of events is greater than 20%but less than or equal to 33%likely per year. Event is probable within the next five years. 2-Possible Event has up to 1 in 5 years chance of occurring.(1/5=20%) History of events is greater than 10%but less than or equal to 20%likely per year. Event is possible within the next ten years. 1 -Unlikely Event has up to 1 in 10 years chance of occurring.(1/10=10%) History of events is less than or equal to 10%likely per year. Next, planning team members were asked to consider the potential magnitude/severity of the hazard according to the severity associated with past events of the hazard. Table 4-5 gives four classifications of magnitude/severity. Table 4-5: Hazard Magnitude Magnitude/Severity Characteristics Multiple deaths. 8-Catastrophic Complete shutdown of facilities for 30 or more days. More than 50%of property is severely damaged. Injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent disability. 4-Critical Complete shutdown of critical facilities for at least 14 days. More than 25%of property is severely damaged. Injuries and/or illnesses do not result in permanent disability. 2-Limited Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than seven days. More than 10%of property is severely damaged. Injuries and/or illnesses are treatable with first aid. 1 -Negligible Minor quality of life lost. Shutdown of critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less. Less than 10%of property is severely damaged. Finally, the RPI was calculated by multiplying the probability by the magnitude/severity of the hazard. Using these values, the planning team member where then asked to rank the hazards. Table 4-6 identifies the RPI and ranking for each hazard facing Kendall County. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 28 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-6: Kendall County Hazards (RPI) Hazard Probability Magnitude/Severity Risk Priority Rank Index Thunderstorms/High Winds/Hail/Lightning 4-Highly Likely 2-Limited 8 1 Tornado 3-Likely 2-Limited 6 2 Transportation Hazardous Material Release 3-Likely 2-Limited 6 3 Flooding 4-Highly Likely 1 -Negligible 4 4 Winter Storms 3-Likely 1 -Negligible 3 5 Fire/Explosion 2-Possible 1 -Negligible 2 6 Earthquake 1 -Unlikely 2-Limited 2 7 4.1.5 Jurisdictional Hazard Ranking Because the jurisdictions in Kendall County differ in their susceptibilities to certain hazards—for example, The United City of Yorkville which is located on the Fox River floodplain is more likely to experience significant flooding than Lisbon or Joliet which are located on the uplands outside of any large stream's or river's floodplain which could potentially cause significant flooding—the hazards identified by the planning team were ranked by SIUC for each individual jurisdiction using the methodology outlined in Section 4.1.4. The SIUC rankings were based on input from the planning team members, available historical data, and the hazard modeling results described within this hazard mitigation plan. During the five-year review of the plan this table will be updated by the planning team to ensure these jurisdictional rankings accurately reflect each community's assessment of these hazards. Table 4-7 lists the jurisdictions and their respective hazard rankings (Ranking 1 being the highest concern). Table 4-7: Hazard Rankings by Jurisdiction Hazard Jurisdiction Tornado HAZMAT Earthquake Thunderstorms Flooding Winter Storms Fire/Explosion City of 2 3 7 1 6 4 5 Aurora* Boulder Hill 2 3 7 1 4 5 6 CDP* City of Joliet* 2 3 7 1 6 4 5 Village of 2 3 7 1 6 4 5 Lisbon* Village of 2 3 7 1 4 5 6 Millington* Village of 2 3 7 1 6 4 5 Minooka' Village of 2 3 7 1 4 5 6 Newark Village of 2 3 7 1 4 5 6 Oswego Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 29 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Hazard Jurisdiction Tornado HAZMAT Earthquake Thunderstorms Flooding Winter Storms Fire/Explosion City of Plano 1 4 7 3 2 6 5 City of Sandwich 2 3 7 1 4 5 6 The United City of 1 3 7 2 4 5 6 Yorkville Hazard ranking was completed by SIUC for this jurisdiction 4.1.6 GIS and HAZUS-MH The third step in this assessment is the risk analysis, which quantifies the risk to the population, infrastructure, and economy of the community. Where possible, the hazards were quantified using GIS analyses and HAZUS-MH. This process reflects a Level 2 approach to analyzing hazards as defined for HAZUS-MH. The approach includes substitution of selected default data with local data. This process improved the accuracy of the model predictions. HAZUS-MH generates a combination of site-specific and aggregated loss estimates depending upon the analysis options that are selected and the input that is provided by the user. Aggregate inventory loss estimates, which include building stock analysis, are based upon the assumption that building stock is evenly distributed across census blocks/tracts. Therefore, it is possible that overestimates of damage will occur in some areas while underestimates will occur in other areas. With this in mind, total losses tend to be more reliable over larger geographic areas than for individual census blocks/tracts. It is important to note that HAZUS-MH is not intended to be a substitute for detailed engineering studies. Rather, it is intended to serve as a planning aid for communities interested in assessing their risk to flood-, earthquake-, and hurricane-related hazards. This documentation does not provide full details on the processes and procedures completed in the development of this project. It is only intended to highlight the major steps that were followed during the project. Site-specific analysis is based upon loss estimations for individual structures. For flooding, analysis of site-specific structures takes into account the depth of water in relation to the structure. HAZUS-MH also takes into account the actual dollar exposure to the structure for the costs of building reconstruction, content, and inventory. However, damages are based upon the assumption that each structure will fall into a structural class, and structures in each class will respond in a similar fashion to a specific depth of flooding or ground shaking. Site-specific analysis is also based upon a point location rather than a polygon, therefore the model does not account for the percentage of a building that is inundated. These assumptions suggest that the loss estimates for site-specific structures as well as for aggregate structural losses need to be viewed as approximations of losses that are subject to considerable variability rather than as exact engineering estimates of losses to individual structures. The following events were analyzed. The parameters for these scenarios were created through GIS, HAZUS-MH, and historical information to predict which communities would be at risk. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 30 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Using HAZUS-MH 1. 100-year overbank flooding 2. Earthquake scenarios Using GIS 1. Tornado 2. Hazardous material release 4.2 Vulnerability Assessment 4.2.1 Asset Inventory 4.2.1.1 Processes and Sources for Identifying Assets The HAZUS-MH data is based on best available national data sources. The initial step involved updating the default HAZUS-MH data using State of Illinois data sources. At Meeting #1, the planning team members were provided with a plot and report of all HAZUS-MH critical facilities. The planning team took GIS data provided by SIUC-Polis; verified the datasets using local knowledge, and allowed SIUC-Polis to use their local GIS data for additional verification. SIUC GIS analysts made these updates and corrections to the HAZUS-MH data tables prior to performing the risk assessment. These changes to the HAZUS-MH inventory reflect a Level 2 analysis. This update process improved the accuracy of the model predictions. The default HAZUS-MH data has been updated as follows: • The HAZUS-MH defaults, critical facilities, and essential facilities have been updated based on the most recent available data sources. Critical and essential point facilities have been reviewed, revised, and approved by local subject matter experts at each county. • The essential facility updates (schools, medical care facilities, fire stations, police stations, and EOCs) have been applied to the HAZUS-MH model data. HAZUS-MH reports of essential facility losses reflect updated data. Kendall County provided SIUC with parcel boundaries and county Assessor records. Records without improvements were deleted. The parcel boundaries were converted to parcel points located in the centroids of each parcel boundary. Each parcel point was linked to an Assessor record based upon matching parcel numbers. The generated building inventory points represent the approximate locations (within a parcel) of building exposure. The parcel points were aggregated by census block. • The aggregate building inventory tables used in this analysis have not been updated. Default HAZUS-MH model data was used for the earthquake. • For the flood analysis, user-defined facilities were updated from the building inventory information provided by Kendall County. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 31 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Parcel-matching results for Kendall County are listed in Table 4-8. Table 4-8: Parcel-Matching for Kendall County Data Source Count Assessor Records 53,498 County-Provided Parcels 53,498 Assessor Records with Improvements 40,234 Matched Parcel Points 40,234 The following assumptions were made during the analysis: • The building exposure for flooding, tornado, and HAZMAT is determined from the Assessor records. It is assumed that the population and the buildings are located at the centroid of the parcel. • The building exposure for earthquake used HAZUS-MH default data. • The algorithm used to match county-provided parcel point locations with the Assessor records is not perfect. The results in this analysis reflect matched parcel records only. The parcel-matching results for Kendall County are included in Table 4-8. • Population counts are based upon 2.5 persons per household. Only residential occupancy classes are used to determine the impact on the local population. If the event were to occur at night, it would be assumed that people are at home (not school, work, or church). • The analysis is restricted to the county boundaries. Events that occur near the county boundaries do not contain damage assessments from adjacent counties. 4.2.1.2 Essential Facilities List Table 4-9 identifies the essential facilities that were added or updated for the analysis. Essential facilities are a subset of critical facilities. A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. Table 4-9: Essential Facilities List Facility Number of Facilities Care Facilities 2 Emergency Operations Centers 1 Fire Stations 13 Police Stations 7 Schools 45 4.2.1.3 Facility Replacement Costs Facility replacement costs and total building exposure are identified in Table 4-10. The replacement costs have not been updated by local data. Table 4-10 also includes the estimated number of buildings within each occupancy class. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 32 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-10: Building Exposure General Occupancy Estimated Total Buildings Total Building Exposure (X 1000) Agricultural 186 $32,461 Commercial 1,136 $610,725 Education 45 $34,942 Government 21 $15,967 Industrial 477 $239,889 Religious/Non-Profit 67 $47,585 Residential 20,646 $3,622,430 Total 22,563 $4,603,999 4.3 Future Development As the county's population continues to grow, the residential and urban areas will extend further into the county, placing more pressure on existing transportation and utility infrastructure while increasing the rate of farmland conversion; Kendall County will address specific mitigation strategies in Section 5 to alleviate such issues. Because Kendall County is vulnerable to a variety of natural and technological threats, the county government—in partnership with state government—must make a commitment to prepare for the management of these types of events. Kendall County is committed to ensuring that county elected and appointed officials become informed leaders regarding community hazards so that they are better prepared to set and direct policies for emergency management and county response. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 33 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 4.4 Hazard Profiles 4.4.1 Tornado Hazard Hazard Definition for Tornado Hazard Tornadoes pose a great risk to Illinois and its citizens. Tornadoes can occur at any time during the day or night. They can also happen during any month of the year. The unpredictability of tornadoes makes them one of the state's most dangerous hazards. Their extreme winds are violently destructive when they touch down in the region's developed and populated areas. Current estimates place the maximum velocity at about 300 miles per hour, but higher and lower values can occur. A wind velocity of 200 miles per hour will result in a wind pressure of 102.4 pounds per square foot of surface area—a load that exceeds the tolerance limits of most buildings. Considering these factors, it is easy to understand why tornadoes can be so devastating for the communities they hit. Tornadoes are defined as violently-rotating columns of air extending from thunderstorms to the ground. Funnel clouds are rotating columns of air not in contact with the ground; however, the violently-rotating column of air can reach the ground very quickly and become a tornado. If the funnel cloud picks up and blows debris, it has reached the ground and is a tornado. Tornadoes are classified according to the Fujita tornado intensity scale. The tornado scale ranges from low intensity FO with effective wind speeds of 40 to 70 miles per hour to F5 tornadoes with effective wind speeds of over 260 miles per hour. The Fujita intensity scale is described in Table 4-11. Table 4-11: Fujita Tornado Rating Fujita Number Estimated Path Width Path Length Description of Destruction Wind Speed Light damage,some damage to chimneys,branches 0 Gale 40-72 mph 6-17 yards 0.3-0.9 miles broken,sign boards damaged,shallow-rooted trees blown over. Moderate damage,roof surfaces peeled off,mobile 1 Moderate 73-112 mph 18-55 yards 1.0-3.1 miles homes pushed off foundations,attached garages damaged. Considerable damage,entire roofs torn from frame 2 Significant 113-157 mph 56-175 yards 3.2-9.9 miles houses,mobile homes demolished,boxcars pushed over, large trees snapped or uprooted. Severe damage,walls torn from well-constructed 3 Severe 158-206 mph 176-566 yards 10-31 miles houses,trains overturned,most trees in forests uprooted, heavy cars thrown about. Complete damage,well-constructed houses leveled, 4 Devastating 207-260 mph 0.3-0.9 miles 32-99 miles structures with weak foundations blown off for some distance,large missiles generated. Foundations swept clean,automobiles become 5 Incredible 261-318 mph 1.0-3.1 miles 100-315 miles missiles and thrown for 100 yards or more,steel- reinforced concrete structures badly damaged. Source:NOAA Storm Prediction Center Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 34 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Previous Occurrences for Tornado Hazard There have been several occurrences of tornadoes within Kendall County during the past few decades. The NCDC database reported 14 tornadoes/funnel clouds in Kendall County since 1954. The most recent recorded event occurred on July 27, 2003, during a chain of thunderstorms. The tornado touched down near the Hideaway Lake Camp near Yorkville, Illinois. Kendall County NCDC recorded tornadoes are identified in Table 4-12. Additional details for NCDC events are included in Appendix D. Table 4-12: Kendall County Tornadoes* Location or Date Type Magnitude Deaths Injuries Property Crop County Damage Damage Kendall County 5/27/1954 Tornado F2 0 0 25K 0 Kendall County 9/26/1959 Tornado F1 0 0 25K 0 Kendall County 4/6/1972 Tornado F1 0 0 25K 0 Kendall County 3/12/1976 Tornado F3 0 0 2.5M 0 Kendall County 6/30/1977 Tornado F 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 6/30/1977 Tornado F 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 4/27/1984 Tornado F3 0 0 2.51VI 0 Kendall County 6/5/1989 Tornado FO 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 8/28/1990 Tornado F5 0 0 2.5M 0 Lisbon 8/5/1995 Funnel Cloud N/A 0 0 0 0 Bristol 5/28/2003 Tornado FO 0 0 0 0 Millington 5/30/2003 Tornado FO 0 0 0 0 Millington 5/30/2003 Tornado FO 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 7/27/2003 Tornado FO 0 0 0 0 * NCDC records are estimates of damage compiled by the National Weather Service from various local, state, and federal sources. However, these estimates are often preliminary in nature and may not match the final assessment of economic and property losses related to a given weather event. Geographic Location for Tornado Hazard The entire county has the same risk for occurrence of tornadoes. They can occur at any location within the county. Hazard Extent for Tornado Hazard The historical tornadoes generally moved from southwest to northeast across the county. The extent of the hazard varies both in terms of the extent of the path and the wind speed. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 35 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Risk Identification for Tornado Hazard Based on historical information, the occurrence of future tornadoes in Kendall County is likely. Tornadoes with varying magnitudes are expected to happen. According to the RPI, tornadoes ranked as the number two hazard. RPI=Probability x Magnitude/Severity. _ Probability x Magnitude/Severity RPI 3 x 2 = 6 Vulnerability Analysis for Tornado Hazard Tornadoes can occur within any area in the county; therefore, the entire county population and all buildings are vulnerable to tornadoes. To accommodate this risk, this plan will consider all buildings located within the county as vulnerable. The existing buildings and infrastructure in Kendall County are discussed in Table 4-10. Critical Facilities All critical facilities are vulnerable to tornadoes. A critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the jurisdiction. These impacts will vary based on the magnitude of the tornado but can include structural failure, damaging debris (trees or limbs), roofs blown off or windows broken by hail or high winds, and loss of facility functionality(e.g. a damaged police station will no longer be able to serve the community). Table 4-9 lists the types and numbers of all of the essential facilities in the area. A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. Building Inventory The building exposure in terms of types and numbers of buildings for the entire county is listed in Table 4-10. The buildings within the county can all expect the same impacts, similar to those discussed for critical facilities. These impacts include structural failure, damaging debris (trees or limbs), roofs blown off or windows broken by hail or high winds, and loss of building function (e.g. damaged home will no longer be habitable causing residents to seek shelter). Infrastructure During a tornado the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. Since the county's entire infrastructure is equally vulnerable, it is important to emphasize that any number of these items could become damaged during a tornado. The impacts to these items include broken, failed, or impassable roadways, broken or failed utility lines (e.g. loss of power or gas to community), and railway failure from broken or impassable railways. Bridges could fail or become impassable causing risk to traffic. An example scenario is described as follows to gauge the anticipated impacts of tornadoes in the county, in terms of numbers and types of buildings and infrastructure. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 36 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 GIS overlay modeling was used to determine the potential impacts of an F4 tornado. The analysis used a hypothetical path based upon the F4 tornado event that ran for 18 miles southwest to northeast across the County impact portions of The United City of Yorkville and the Village of Oswego. The selected widths were modeled after a recreation of the Fujita-Scale guidelines based on conceptual wind speeds,path widths, and path lengths. There is no guarantee that every tornado will fit exactly into one of these six categories. Table 4-13 depicts tornado damage curves as well as path widths. Table 4-13: Tornado Path Widths and Damage Curves Fujita Scale Path Width(feet) Maximum Expected Damage 5 2,400 100% 4 1,800 100% 3 1,200 80% 2 600 50% 1 300 10% 0 150 0% Within any given tornado path there are degrees of damage. The most intense damage occurs within the center of the damage path with decreasing amounts of damage away from the center. After the hypothetical path is digitized on a map the process is modeled in GIS by adding buffers (damage zones) around the tornado path. Figure 4-2 and Table 4-14 describe the zone analysis. The selected hypothetical tornado path is depicted in Figure 4-3, and the damage curve buffers are shown in Figure 4-4. Figure 4-2: F4 Tornado Analysis Using GIS Buffers Zone 4: 10%expected damage 900 feet Zone 3: 50%expected damage 600 feet Zane 2: Pr 80%expected damage 300 feet one V 100°f expected damage An F4 tornado has four damage zones, depicted in Table 4-10. Total devastation is estimated within 150 feet of the tornado path. The outer buffer is 900 feet from the tornado path, within which buildings will experience 10% damage. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 37 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-14: F4 Tornado Zones and Damage Curves Zone Buffer(feet) Damage Curve 1 0-150 100% 2 150-300 80% 3 300-600 50% 4 600-900 10% Figure 4-3: Hypothetical F4 Tornado Path in Kendall County Legend Tornado Track 30 ur Roads Montgomery !BouldeYR1Il- _ Interstate zs, as _ J��lr _ - Highway 31 �— Railroads Yorkville''°' - Stream or River sa 0 Lake or Pond Municipalities 71 le 128 71 r on 47 lief N r 62 0 Minook. N Miles 0 2.5 5 10 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 38 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 4-4: Modeled F4 Tornado Damage Buffers in Kendall County Legend + Damaged Building -Zone 9 _ + ,;,. •+••• Roads -Zone ..N� �..: • '• , Interstate -7one3 - - �MM�••�• 47} �• _ Highway Zone 4 ,• •• -- -- Railroads Lake or Pond Yorkville • • r- -Stream or River 0 Municipalities �8 ! Mlles 0 025 05 1 § sa ao� _ our• w ,V S c� u !R. Mlles cw 0 025 0.5 1 The results of the analysis are depicted in Tables 4-15 and 4-16. The GIS analysis estimates that 1,560 buildings will be damaged. The estimated building losses were $140.4 million. The building losses are an estimate of building replacement costs multiplied by the percentages of damage. The overlay was performed against parcels provided by Kendall County that were joined with Assessor records showing property improvement. The Assessor records often do not distinguish parcels by occupancy class if the parcels are not taxable. For purposes of analysis, the total number of buildings and the building replacement costs for government, religious/non-profit, and education should be lumped together. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 39 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-15: Estimated Numbers of Buildings Damaged by Occupancy Type Occupancy Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Residential 250 244 462 485 Commercial 7 1 19 19 Industrial 3 3 3 3 Agriculture 2 6 4 4 Religious/Nonprofit 0 0 0 0 Government 8 6 15 9 Education 0 2 1 4 Total 270 262 504 524 Table 4-16: Estimated Building Losses by Occupancy Type (X 1000) Occupancy Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Residential $44,993,622 $34,226,789 $42,899,607 $9,269,148 Commercial $913,707 $103,632 $1,188,435 $215,663 Industrial $398,091 $830,357 $275,624 $44,399 Agriculture $151,968 $685,862 $341,763 $84,955 Religious/Nonprofit $0 $0 $0 $0 Government $0 $0 $0 $0 Education $0 $2,400,000 $750,000 $600,000 Total $46,457,388 $38,246,640 $45,455,429 $10,214,165 Critical Facilities Damage There are 36 critical facilities located within 900 feet of the hypothetical tornado path. The affected facilities are identified in Table 4-17, and their geographic locations are shown in Figures 4-5. Table 4-17: Estimated Essential Facilities Affected Name Fire Stations Little Rock Fire Station#2 School Facilities Churchill Elementary School Millbrook Junior High School Oswego East High School Circle Center Grade School Yorkville Intermediate School Southbury Elementary School Karl Plank Junior High School Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 40 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 4-5: Essential Facilities within Tornado Path in Kendall County 3 X47! 1 Yorkville �dpaJM f Legend • ❑amagetl Building -zone 1 126 ap. °Roatls -Zone 2 i �Mle.rate ®Zone 3 -Highway Zone 4 ftaAraatls I Lie or Pond -•°} -9ream or River 0 Muricipalltles 0 0.25 0.5 1 III os Oamagad Flre.Station j Bemagaa schod 0 a 25 as 1 Wles 71 ET AMA -� os go . c R� 1 ! 71, _fix^ a 0 025 05 1 vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Tornado Hazard The entire population and buildings have been identified as at risk because tornadoes can occur anywhere within the state, at any time of the day, and during any month of the year. Furthermore, any future development in terms of new construction within the county will be at risk. The building exposure for Kendall County is included in Table 4-10. All critical facilities in the county and communities within the county are at risk. A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. Analysis of Community Development Trends Preparing for severe storms will be enhanced if officials sponsor a wide range of programs and initiatives to address the overall safety of county residents. New structures need to be built with more sturdy construction, and those structures already in place need to be hardened to lessen the potential impacts of severe weather. Community warning sirens to provide warnings of approaching storms are also vital to preventing the loss of property and ensuring the safety of Kendall County residents. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 41 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 4.4.2 Flood Hazard Hazard Definition for Flooding Flooding is a significant natural hazard throughout the United States. The type, magnitude, and severity of flooding are functions of the amount and distribution of precipitation over a given area, the rate at which precipitation infiltrates the ground, the geometry and hydrology of the catchment, and flow dynamics and conditions in and along the river channel. Floods can be classified as one of two types: upstream floods or downstream floods. Both types of floods are common in Illinois. Upstream floods, also called flash floods, occur in the upper parts of drainage basins and are generally characterized by periods of intense rainfall over a short duration. These floods arise with very little warning and often result in locally intense damage, and sometimes loss of life, due to the high energy of the flowing water. Flood waters can snap trees, topple buildings, and easily move large boulders or other structures. Six inches of rushing water can upend a person; another 18 inches might carry off a car. Generally, upstream floods cause damage over relatively localized areas, but they can be quite severe in the local areas in which they occur. Urban flooding is a type of upstream flood. Urban flooding involves the overflow of storm drain systems and can be the result of inadequate drainage combined with heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt. Upstream or flash floods can occur at any time of the year in Illinois, but they are most common in the spring and summer months. Downstream floods, sometimes called riverine floods, refer to floods on large rivers at locations with large upstream catchments. Downstream floods are typically associated with precipitation events that are of relatively long duration and occur over large areas. Flooding on small tributary streams may be limited, but the contribution of increased runoff may result in a large flood downstream. The lag time between precipitation and time of the flood peak is much longer for downstream floods than for upstream floods, generally providing ample warning for people to move to safe locations and, to some extent, secure some property against damage. Riverine flooding on the large rivers of Illinois generally occurs during either the spring or summer. Hazard Definition for Dam and Levee Failure Dams are structures that retain or detain water behind a large barrier. When full or partially full, the difference in elevation between the water above the dam and below creates large amounts of potential energy, creating the potential for failure. The same potential exists for levees when they serve their purpose, which is to confine flood waters within the channel area of a river and exclude that water from land or communities land-ward of the levee. Dams and levees can fail due to either 1) water heights or flows above the capacity for which the structure was designed; or 2) deficiencies in the structure such that it cannot hold back the potential energy of the water. If a dam or levee fails, issues of primary concern include loss of human life/injury, downstream property damage, lifeline disruption (of concern would be transportation routes and utility lines required to maintain or protect life), and environmental damage. Many communities view both dams and levees as permanent and infinitely safe structures. This sense of security may well be false, leading to significantly increased risks. Both downstream of dams and on floodplains protected by levees, security leads to new construction, added Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 42 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 infrastructure, and increased population over time. Levees in particular are built to hold back flood waters only up to some maximum level, often the 100-year (1% annual probability) flood event. When that maximum is exceeded by more than the design safety margin, the levee will be overtopped or otherwise fail, inundating communities in the land previously protected by that levee. It has been suggested that climate change, land-use shifts, and some forms of river engineering may be increasing the magnitude of large floods and the frequency of levee failure situations. In addition to failure that results from extreme floods above the design capacity, levees and dams can fail due to structural deficiencies. Both dams and levees require constant monitoring and regular maintenance to assure their integrity. Many structures across the U.S. have been under- funded or otherwise neglected, leading to an eventual day of reckoning in the form either of realization that the structure is unsafe or, sometimes, an actual failure. The threat of dam or levee failure may require substantial commitment of time, personnel, and resources. Since dams and levees deteriorate with age, minor issues become larger compounding problems, and the risk of failure increases. Previous Occurrences for Flooding The NCDC database reported 17 flood events in Kendall County since 1996. One of the most recent significant events occurred during September 2008. The remnants of hurricane Ike moved across northern Illinois producing the second round of heavy rain in a 24 hour period. The heavy rain amounted to 6 to 11 inches across northern Illinois caused extensive and widespread flooding. Total property damage from this event was estimated at $2 million. Kendall County NCDC recorded floods are identified in Table 4-18. Additional details for NCDC events are included in Appendix D. Table 4-18: Kendall County Previous Occurrences of Flooding* Location or County Date Type Deaths Injuries Property Crop Damage Damage Kendall County 7/17/1996 Flash Flood 0 0 1.5M 0 Northern Illinois 2/20/1997 Flood 1 0 0 0 Kendall County 7/10/2000 Flash Flood 0 0 0 0 Plano 7/27/2003 Flash Flood 0 0 0 0 Central 5113/2004 Flash Flood 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/30/2004 Flash Flood 0 0 0 0 Plano 6112/2004 Flash Flood 0 0 0 0 Northern Illinois 1/13/2005 Flood 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 10/2/2006 Flood 0 0 0 0 Oswego 3/1/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0 Oswego 3/1/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0 Oswego 3/31/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0 Oswego 7/18/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 8/23/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0 Little Rock 9/14/2008 Flash Flood 0 0 2.OM 0 Little Rock 9/14/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0 Oswego 12/27/2008 Flash Flood 0 0 0 0 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 43 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 * NCDC records are estimates of damage compiled by the National Weather Service from various local, state, and federal sources. However, these estimates are often preliminary in nature and may not match the final assessment of economic and property losses related to a given weather event. Previous Occurrences for Dam and Levee Failure According to the Kendall County planning team, there are no records or local knowledge of any dam or certified levee failure in the county. Repetitive Loss Properties FEMA defines a repetitive loss structure as a structure covered by a contract of flood insurance issued under the NFIP, which has suffered flood loss damage on two occasions during a 10-year period that ends on the date of the second loss, in which the cost to repair the flood damage is 25% of the market value of the structure at the time of each flood loss. The Illinois Emergency Management Agency(IEMA) was contacted to determine the location of repetitive loss structures. Table 4-19 lists 2009 data for damages to these repetitive loss structures. Table 4-19: Kendall County Repetitive Loss Structures Jurisdiction Occupancy Type Number of Structures Number of Losses Kendall County Single Family 9 21 Kendall County Other Residence 1 5 City of Joliet Single Family 16 37 City of Plano Non Residential 2 7 The United City of Yorkville Other Residential 1 2 Village of Millington Single Family 1 2 Village of Plainfield Single Family 2 4 Geographic Location for Flooding Most river flooding occurs in early spring and is the result of excessive rainfall and/or the combination of rainfall and snowmelt. Severe thunderstorms may cause flooding during the summer or fall, but tend to be localized. The primary source of river flooding in Kendall County is the Wabash River. Flash floods, brief heavy flows in small streams or normally dry creek beds, also occur within the county. Flash flooding is typically characterized by high-velocity water, often carrying large amounts of debris. Urban flooding involves the overflow of storm drain systems and is typically the result of inadequate drainage following heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt. DFIRM was used to identify specific stream reaches for analysis. The areas of riverine flooding are depicted on the map in Appendix E. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service provides information from gauge locations at points along various rivers Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 44 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 across the United States. For Kendall County, one gage is located on the Fox River at Montgomery. Historic flood levels for this gage are provided in Appendix F. Geographic Location for Dam and Levee Failure HAZUS-MH identified three dams in Kendall County. The maps in Appendix F illustrate the locations of Kendall County dams. All three of these dams are low hazard dams (L) and they do not have an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). Table 4-20 summarizes the dam information. Table 4-20: National Inventory of Dams Dam Name River Hazard EAP Milhurst Lake Dam Tributary to the Fox River L No Yorkville Dam Fox River L No Black Berry Creek Dam Black Berry Creek L No A review of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and local records revealed no certified levees within Kendall County. * The dams and levees listed in this multi-hazard mitigation plan are recorded from default HAZUS-MH data. Their physical presences were not confirmed;therefore,new or unrecorded structures may exist.A more complete list of locations is included in Appendix F. Hazard Extent for Flooding The HAZUS-MH flood model is designed to generate a flood depth grid and flood boundary polygon by deriving hydrologic and hydraulic information based on user-provided elevation data or by incorporating selected output from other flood models. HAZUS-MH also has the ability to clip a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with a user-provided flood boundary, thus creating a flood depth grid. For Kendall County, HAZUS-MH was used to extract flood depth by clipping the DEM with the DFIRMs Base Flood Elevation (BFE) boundary. The BFE is defined as the area that has a 1% chance of flooding in any given year. Planning team input and a review of historical information provided additional information on specific flood events. Hazard Extent for Dam and Levee Failure When dams are assigned the low (L) hazard potential classification, it means that failure or incorrect operation of the dam will result in no human life losses and no economic or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the owner's property. Dams assigned the significant (S) hazard classification are those dams in which failure or incorrect operation results in no probable loss of human life; however it can cause economic loss, environment damage, and disruption of lifeline facilities. Dams classified as significant hazard potential dams are often located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas, but could be located in populated areas with a significant amount of infrastructure. Dams assigned the high (H) hazard potential classification are those dams in which failure or incorrect operation has the highest risk to cause loss of human life and significant damage to buildings and infrastructure. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 45 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 According to default HAZUS-MH data, the three dams in Kendall County are low hazard and do not have Emergency Action Plans (EAP). An EAP is not required by the State of Illinois but is strongly recommended by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Accurate mapping of the risks of flooding behind levees depends on knowing the condition and level of protection the levees actually provide. FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are working together to make sure that flood hazard maps clearly reflect the flood protection capabilities of levees, and that the maps accurately represent the flood risks posed to areas situated behind them. Levee owners—usually states, communities, or in some cases private individuals or organizations—are responsible for ensuring that the levees they own are maintained according to their design. In order to be considered creditable flood protection structures on FEMA's flood maps, levee owners must provide documentation to prove the levee meets design, operation, and maintenance standards for protection against the one-percent-annual chance flood. Risk Identification for Flood Hazard Based on historical information and the HAZUS-MH flooding analysis results, future occurrence of flooding in Kendall County is highly likely. According to the Risk Priority Index (RPI), flooding is ranked as the number four hazard. RPI=Probability x Magnitude/Severity. Probability x Magnitude = RPI /Severity 4 x 1 = 4 Risk Identification for Dam/Levee Failure Based on operation and maintenance requirements and local knowledge of the dams in Kendall County, the occurrence of a dam or levee failure is unlikely. However, if a high hazard dam were to fail, the magnitude and severity of the damage could be great. The warning time and duration of the dam failure event would be very short. Based on input from the planning team, the risk of dam and levee failure is insignificant, and dam and levee failure was not ranked as a risk. HAZUS-MH Analysis Using 100-Year Flood Boundary and County Parcels HAZUS-MH generated the flood depth grid for a 100-year return period by clipping the USGS 1/3 Arc-second (approximately 10-meter raster cell size) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) to the Kendall County flood boundary. Next, HAZUS-MH utilized a user-defined analysis of Kendall County with site-specific parcel data provided by the county. HAZUS-MH estimates the 100-year flood would damage 439 buildings with building related flood losses totaling approximately $32.1 million. The total estimated numbers of damaged buildings are given in Table 4-21. Figure 4-6 depicts the Kendall County parcel points that fall within the 100-year floodplain. Figure 4-7 highlights damaged buildings within the floodplain areas in urban areas. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 46 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-21: Kendall County HAZUS-MH Building Damage General Occupancy Number of Buildings Damaged Total Building Damage(x1000) Residential 247 $19,751,262 Commercial 17 $1,513,378 Industrial 0 $0 Agricultural 71 $10,830,106 Government\Non-Profit 104 $0 Education 0 $0 Total 439 $32,094,746 Figure 4-6: Kendall County Buildings in Floodplain (100-Year Flood) • .`� 7 mor,Altimery • 3U `7. asp IT— I 3y Plarm _ 1 rkwil I �R28 v� e7 `-- ollst IN 52 -- Legend — _- - -- 47 • Damaged Buiding 52 _ ,. Mlnooka i 00-Yea r Flood Boundary - i Miles 21 5 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 47 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 4-7: Kendall County Flood-Prone Urban Areas (100-Year Flood) - 0 0.5 _ 2 3 52 �Rti Miles -5 Millingto r+,e= Lisbon I Newark ' 0 0.2 0.4- - 0.8 1.2 Miles Montgomery ` urara } I _ - - t we o Plan V - rkVille ? EPldwlch - - 0 0.5 1 2 '14ri IMiles i Legend s' 77fi I Damaged Building -5 3 6 IN Mlle - t � 100-Year Fload Boundary Critical Facilities A critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as other buildings within the flood boundary. These impacts can include structural failure, extensive water damage to the facility and loss of facility functionality(e.g. a damaged police station will no longer be able to serve the community). A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. The analysis identified Plano Sewage Treatment Plant, the Oswego Pump House, and the Farnsworth House as the only critical facilities subject to flooding. Figure 4-8 shows the location of these three critical facilities. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 48 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 4-8: Boundary of 100-Year Flood Overlaid with Critical Facilities 1 � I :1,' w,m,Noovw 1 e � I 'Piano 34 I 1b I r Treatment Pia i- - Plano Sewage/ i Oswego g Y ...-J--- - --- —--- -° / Oswe Tower Pumpo Hous /fJ i qY!House Legend / .W. Potable Water Treatment Facility ■ User Defined Facility Waste Water Treatment Plant 100-Year Flood Boundary Miles Miles h' 0 0.25 0.5 1 / 0 0.25 0.5 1 Infrastructure The types of infrastructure that could be impacted by a flood include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. Since an extensive inventory of the infrastructure is not available for this plan, it is important to emphasize that any number of these items could become damaged in the event of a flood. The impacts to these items include broken, failed, or impassable roadways; broken or failed utility lines (e.g. loss of power or gas to community); or railway failure from broken or impassable railways. Bridges could also fail or become impassable, causing traffic risks. Vulnerability Analysis for Flash Flooding Flash flooding could affect any low lying location within this jurisdiction; therefore, a significant portion of county's population and buildings are vulnerable to a flash flood. These structures can expect the same impacts as discussed in a riverine flood. A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 49 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Vulnerability Analysis for Dam and Levee Failure An EAP is required to assess the effect of dam failure on these communities. In order to be considered creditable flood protection structures on FEMA's flood maps, levee owners must provide documentation to prove the levee meets design, operation, and maintenance standards for protection against the "one-percent-annual chance" flood. Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Flooding Flash flooding may affect any low lying or poorly drained location within the county; therefore many buildings and infrastructure are vulnerable to flash flooding. Currently, the Kendall County Planning, Building, and Zoning Department reviews new development within the unincorporated parts of the County for compliance with the County's Zoning ordinances. At this time no construction is planned within the area of the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, there is no new construction which will be vulnerable to a 100-year flood. Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Dam and Levee Failure The Kendall County Planning, Building, and Zoning Department reviews new development within the unincorporated parts of the County for compliance with the County's Zoning ordinances. Analysis of Community Development Trends Controlling floodplain development is the key to reducing flood-related damages. Areas with recent development within the county may be more vulnerable to drainage issues. Storm drains and sewer systems are usually most susceptible. Damage to these can cause the back up of water, sewage, and debris into homes and basements, causing structural and mechanical damage as well as creating public health hazards and unsanitary conditions. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 50 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 4.4.3 Earthquake Hazard Hazard Definition for Earthquake Hazard An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the earth's surface. For hundreds of millions of years, the forces of plate tectonics have shaped Earth as the huge plates that form the earth's surface move slowly over, under, and past each other. Sometimes the movement is gradual. At other times, the plates are locked together unable to release the accumulating energy. When the accumulated energy grows strong enough, the plates break free causing the ground to shake. Most earthquakes occur at the boundaries where the plates meet; however, some earthquakes occur in the middle of plates, as is the case for seismic zones in the Midwestern United States. The most seismically active area in the Midwest is the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Scientists have learned that the New Madrid fault system may not be the only fault system in the Central U.S. capable of producing damaging earthquakes. The Wabash Valley fault system in Illinois and Indiana shows evidence of large earthquakes in its geologic history, and there may be other, as yet unidentified, faults that could produce strong earthquakes. Ground shaking from strong earthquakes can collapse buildings and bridges; disrupt gas, electric, and phone service; and sometimes trigger landslides, avalanches, flash floods, fires, and huge destructive ocean waves (tsunamis). Buildings with foundations resting on unconsolidated landfill and other unstable soil and trailers and homes not tied to their foundations are at risk because they can be shaken off their mountings during an earthquake. When an earthquake occurs in a populated area it may cause deaths, injuries, and extensive property damage. The possibility of the occurrence of a catastrophic earthquake in the central and eastern United States is real as evidenced by history and described throughout this section. The impacts of significant earthquakes affect large areas, terminating public services and systems needed to aid the suffering and displaced. These impaired systems are interrelated in the hardest struck zones. Power lines, water and sanitary lines, and public communication may be lost; and highways, railways, rivers, and ports may not allow transportation to the affected region. Furthermore, essential facilities, such as fire and police departments and hospitals, may be disrupted if not previously improved to resist earthquakes. As with hurricanes, mass relocation may be necessary, but the residents who are suffering from the earthquake can neither leave the heavily impacted areas nor receive aid or even communication in the aftermath of a significant event. Magnitude, which is determined from measurements on seismographs, measures the energy released at the source of the earthquake. Intensity measures the strength of shaking produced by the earthquake at a certain location and is determined from effects on people, human structures, and the natural environment. Earthquake magnitudes and their corresponding intensities are listed in Tables 4-22 and 4-23. Source:http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/topicslmag_vs_intphp Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 51 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-22: Abbreviated Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Mercalli Intensity Description I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. II Felt only by a few persons at rest,especially on upper floors of buildings. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors,especially on upper floors of buildings.Many people do not recognize it III as an earthquake.Standing motor cars may rock slightly.Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck.Duration estimated. Felt indoors by many,outdoors by few during the day.At night,some awakened.Dishes,windows,doors IV disturbed;walls make cracking sound.Sensation like heavy truck striking building.Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V Felt by nearly everyone;many awakened.Some dishes,windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI Felt by all,many frightened.Some heavy furniture moved;a few instances of fallen plaster.Damage slight. VII Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction;slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures;considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures;some chimneys broken. Damage slight in specially designed structures;considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial VIII collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures.Fall of chimneys,factory stacks,columns,monuments,walls. Heavy furniture overturned. IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures;well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings,with partial collapse.Buildings shifted off foundations. X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed;most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. XI Few, if any(masonry)structures remain standing.Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. XII Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted.Objects thrown into the air. Table 4-23: Earthquake Magnitude vs. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Earthquake Magnitude Typical Maximum Modified Mercalli Intensity 1.0-3.0 1 3.0-3.9 II-III 4.0-4.9 IV-V 5.0-5.9 VI-VII 6.0-6.9 VII-IX 7.0 and higher VIII or higher Previous Occurrences for Earthquake Hazard Numerous instrumentally measured earthquakes have occurred in Illinois. In the past few decades, with many precise seismographs positioned across Illinois, measured earthquakes have varied in magnitude from very low microseismic events of M=1-3 to larger events up to M=5.4. Microseismic events are usually only detectable by seismographs and rarely felt by anyone. The most recent earthquake in northern Illinois—as of the date of this report—occurred on February 10, 2010 at 3:59:35 local time about 3.0 km (2 miles) east-northeast of Virgil, IL and measured 3.8 in magnitude. The consensus of opinion among seismologists working in the Midwest is that a magnitude 5.0 to 5.5 event could occur virtually anywhere at any time throughout the region. Earthquakes occur in Illinois all the time, although damaging quakes are very infrequent. Illinois earthquakes causing minor damage occur on average every 20 years, although the actual timing is extremely variable. Most recently, a magnitude 5.2 earthquake shook southeastern Illinois on April 18, Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 52 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 2008, causing minor damage in the Mt Carmel, IL area. Earthquakes resulting in more serious damage have occurred about every 70 to 90 years mainly in Southern Illinois. Seismic activity on the New Madrid Seismic Zone of southeastern Missouri is very significant both historically and at present. On December 16, 1811 and January 23 and February 7 of 1812, three earthquakes struck the central U.S. with magnitudes estimated to be 7.5-8.0. These earthquakes caused violent ground cracking and volcano-like eruptions of sediment (sand blows) over an area of>10,500 km2, and uplift of a 50 km by 23 km zone (the Lake County uplift). The shaking collapsed scaffolding on the Capitol in Washington, D.C., and was felt over a total area of over 10 million km2 (the largest felt area of any historical earthquake). Of all the historical earthquakes that have struck the U.S., an 1811-style event would do the most damage if it recurred today. The New Madrid earthquakes are especially noteworthy because the seismic zone is in the center of the North American Plate. Such intraplate earthquakes are felt, and do damage, over much broader areas than comparable earthquakes at plate boundaries. The precise driving force responsible for activity on the New Madrid seismic zone is not known, but most scientists infer that it is compression transmitted across the North American Plate. That compression is focused on New Madrid because it is the site of a Paleozoic structure—the Reelfoot Rift—which is a zone of weakness in the crust. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Center for Earthquake Research and Information (CERI) at the University of Memphis estimate the probability of a repeat of the 1811-1812 type earthquakes (magnitude 7.5-8.0) is 7%-10% over the next 50 years (USGS Fact Sheet 2006-3125.) Frequent large earthquakes on the New Madrid seismic zone are geologically puzzling because the region shows relatively little deformation. Three explanations have been proposed: 1) recent seismological and geodetic activity is still a short-term response to the 1811- 12 earthquakes; 2) activity is irregular or cyclic; or 3) activity began only in the recent geologic past. There is some dispute over how often earthquakes like the 1811-12 sequence occur. Many researchers estimate a recurrence interval of between 550 and 1100 years; other researchers suggest that either the magnitude of the 1811-12 earthquakes have been over-stated, or else the actual frequency of these events is less. It is fair to say, however, that even if the 1811-12 shocks were just magnitude –7 events, they nonetheless caused widespread damage and would do the same if another such earthquake or earthquake sequence were to strike today. [Above:New Madrid earthquakes and seismic zone modified from N.Pinter, 1993,Exercises in Active Tectonic history adapted from Earthquake Information Bulletin,4(3),May-June 1972.http://earthquake.usgs.govl regional/stateslillinoislhistory.php] The earliest reported earthquake in Illinois was in 1795. This event was felt at Kaskaskia, IL for a minute and a half and was also felt in Kentucky. At Kaskaskia, subterranean noises were heard. Due to the sparse frontier population, an accurate location is not possible, and the shock may have actually originated outside the state. An intensity VI-VII earthquake occurred on April 12, 1883, awakening several people in Cairo, IL. One old frame house was significantly damaged, resulting in minor injuries to the inhabitants. This is the only record of injury in the state due to earthquakes. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 53 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 On October 31, 1895 a large M6.8 occurred at Charleston, Missouri,just south of Cairo. Strong shaking caused eruptions of sand and water at many places along a line roughly 30 km (20 mi) long. Damage occurred in six states, but most severely at Charleston, with cracked walls, windows shattered, broken plaster, and chimneys fallen. Shaking was felt in 23 states from Washington, D.C. to Kansas and from southernmost Canada to New Orleans, LA. A Missouri earthquake on November 4, 1905, cracked walls in Cairo. Aftershocks were felt over an area of 100,000 square miles in nine states. In Illinois, it cracked the wall of the new education building in Cairo and a wall at Carbondale, IL. Among the largest earthquakes occurring in Illinois was the May 26, 1909 shock,which knocked over many chimneys at Aurora. It was felt over 500,000 square miles and strongly felt in Iowa and Wisconsin. Buildings swayed in Chicago where there was fear that the walls would collapse. Just under two months later, a second Intensity VII earthquake occurred on July 18, 1909, damaged chimneys in Petersburg, IL, Hannibal, MO, and Davenport, IA. Over twenty windows were broken, bricks loosened and plaster cracked in the Petersburg area. This event was felt over 40,000 square miles. On November 7, 1958, a shock along the Indiana border resulted in damage at Bartelso, Dale and Maunie, IL. Plaster cracked and fell, and a basement wall and floor were cracked. On August 14, 1965, a sharp but local shock occurred at Tamms, IL, a town of about 600 people. The magnitude 5 quake damaged chimneys, cracked walls, knocked groceries from the shelves, and muddied the water supply. Thunderous earth noises were heard. This earthquake was only felt within a 10 mile radius of Tamms, in communities such as Elco, Unity, Olive Branch, and Olmsted, IL. Six aftershocks were felt. An earthquake of Intensity VII occurred on November 9, 1968. This magnitude 5.3 shock was felt over an area of 580,000 square miles in 23 states. Damage consisted of bricks being knocked from chimneys, broken windows, toppled television antenna, and cracked plaster. There were scattered reports of cracked foundations, fallen parapets, and overturned tombstones. Chimney damage was limited to buildings 30 to 50 years old. Many people were frightened. Church bells rang at Broughton and several other towns. Loud rumbling earthquake noise was reported in many communities. Dozens of other shocks originating in Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Canada have been felt in Illinois without causing damage. There have been three earthquakes slightly greater than magnitude 5.0 and Intensity level VII which occurred in 1968, 1987 and 2008 and that were widely felt throughout southern Illinois and the midcontinent. Above text adapted from http://earthquake.usgs.govl regional/stateslillinoislhistory.php and from Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (Revised), C.W. Stover and J.L. Coffman, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527, United States Government Printing Office, Washington:1993. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 54 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Geographic Location for Earthquake Hazard Within Illinois, the two most significant zones of seismic activity are the New Madrid Seismic Zone and the Wabash Valley Fault System. There have been no earthquake epicenters recorded in Kendall County since 1974. Figure 4-9 depicts the following: a) Location of notable earthquakes in the Illinois region; b) Generalized geologic bedrock map with earthquake epicenters, geologic structures, and inset of Kendall County; c) Geologic and earthquake epicenter map of Kendall County. Figure 4-9 a, b, c: Kendall County Earthquakes A Legend lam • R.kf•rd EeetM1 Q4. nw sklc unn S uUW Fwdee MFwks Ceder Repko ChJ"n nwae = =mns �7 Qs Mofis G� 5-th Bnd K • -zn fir,,.e,-a �nwr•r. �G-nnie Fm �. snrF•w a- • � «naim m. gym..-rm �r..n.enod�.}s.dl,e �eala Fnn w.me Oh1O a _s 3.0 -� sn.i.fgg l�e.r,Flw.ww Illinois Indiana • o p DV. • �a ° ®s�weuera._I`e:�a F� SPai"Reid fn n nc.-.�..- KansasCltY a�fls • �i r,..,r a,,,,. �I.x.,,,..,, �uax r>n=o- mmP•ndenoe o � o m j n at.LWI U Il o o aa�nyf5roo Ni$souF'r, © C. elsvtlle _ Lwringirn item OKentucky F ,a&ll _ u o a n nrffinkrree Arkansas oo '°le•- p Tennessee o crest Hil • + Mempnls cn�nona 0©10 urr AR«t< O O • Jo'cr • oc � o o PAssissippi Alabama 0 i9 140 Mlles M emery .Aurora tt 47! Ider , 26 I �ipy 14 V 34 A - rJ 1 1 Yor 11' 71;1 J Made 11J��.. j nfl i, a7 axe 52 52 Mlnooka 5MIles Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 55 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Hazard Extent for Earthquake Hazard The extent of the earthquake is countywide. One of the most critical sources of information that is required for accurate assessment of earthquake risk is soils data. A National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) compliant soils map was used for the analysis which was provided by FEMA. The map identifies the soils most susceptible to failure. Risk Identification for Earthquake Hazard Based on historical information as well as current USGS and SIUC research and studies, future earthquakes in Kendall County are possible but, large ( >5.5 M) earthquakes that would cause catastrophic damage are unlikely. Severe to catastrophic earthquake damage is unlikely because of the large distance (>300 miles) between Kendall County and the major Midwestern seismic zones, the New Madrid Seismic Zone and the Wabash Valley Fault Zone. According to the RPI, earthquakes are ranked as the number seven hazard. RPI=Probability x Magnitude/Severity. _ Probability x Magnitude/Severity RPI 1 x 2 = 2 Vulnerability Analysis for Earthquake Hazard This hazard could impact the entire jurisdiction equally; therefore, the entire county's population and all buildings are vulnerable to an earthquake and can expect the same impacts within the affected area. To accommodate this risk, this plan will consider all buildings located within the county as vulnerable. Critical Facilities All critical facilities are vulnerable to earthquakes. A critical facility would encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the county. These impacts include structural failure and loss of facility functionality (e.g. a damaged police station will no longer be able to serve the community). A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. Building Inventory A table of the building exposure in terms of types and numbers of buildings for the entire county is listed in Table 4-10. The buildings within the county can all expect the same impacts, similar to those discussed for critical facilities. These impacts include structural failure and loss of building function which could result in indirect impacts (e.g. damaged homes will no longer be habitable causing residents to seek shelter). Infrastructure During an earthquake, the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. Since an extensive inventory of the infrastructure is not Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 56 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 available to this plan, it is important to emphasize that any number of these items could become damaged in the event of an earthquake. The impacts to these items include broken, failed, or impassable roadways, broken or failed utility lines (e.g. loss of power or gas to community), and railway failure from broken or impassable railways. Bridges could also fail or become impassable causing traffic risks. Typical scenarios are described to gauge the anticipated impacts of earthquakes in the county in terms of numbers and types of buildings and infrastructure. The SIUC-Polis team reviewed existing geological information and recommendations for earthquake scenarios. A deterministic and a probabilistic earthquake scenario were developed to provide a reasonable basis for earthquake planning in Kendall County. The deterministic scenario was a moment magnitude of 5.5 with the epicenter located in Kendall County along the Sandwich Fault Zone south of Yorkville. This represents a realistic scenario for planning purposes. Additionally, the earthquake loss analysis included a probabilistic scenario based on ground shaking parameters derived from U.S. Geological Survey probabilistic seismic hazard curves for the earthquake with the 500-year return period. This scenario evaluates the average impacts of a multitude of possible earthquake epicenters with a magnitude that would be typical of that expected for a 500-year return period. The following earthquake hazard modeling scenarios were performed: • 5.5 magnitude earthquake local epicenter • 500-year return period event Modeling a deterministic scenario requires user input for a variety of parameters. One of the most critical sources of information that is required for accurate assessment of earthquake risk is soils data. Fortunately, a National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) soil classification map exists for Illinois. NEHRP soil classifications portray the degree of shear- wave amplification that can occur during ground shaking. FEMA provided a soils map and liquefaction potential map that was used by HAZUS-MH. Earthquake hypocenter depths in Illinois range from less than 1.0 to —25.0 km. The average hypocenter depth, —10.0 km, was used for the deterministic earthquake scenario. For this scenario type HAZUS-MH also requires the user to define an attenuation function. To maintain consistency with the USGS's (2006) modeling of strong ground motion in the central United States, the Toro et al. (1997) attenuation function was used for the deterministic earthquake scenario. The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the earthquake. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 57 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Results for 5.5 Magnitude Earthquake in Kendall County The results of the initial analysis, the 5.5 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter along the Sandwich Fault Zone south of The United City of Yorkville, are depicted in Tables 4-24 and 4- 25 and Figure 4-10. HAZUS estimates that approximately 2,600 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is more than 12% of the total number of buildings in the region. It is estimated that 109 buildings will be damaged beyond repair. The total building related losses totaled $253.6 million; 14% of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies, which comprised more than 64% of the total loss. Table 4-24: Kendall County 5.5M Scenario-Damage Counts by Building Occupancy None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Count (%) Count {%] Count Count M)I Count M Agriculture 98 0.58 38 0.87 39 1.96 16 3.22 3 2.61 Commercial 660 423 230 526 177 8.89 59 t 1.68 10 9.51 Education 17 0.11 6 0.13 5 025 2 032 0 0 37 Government 10 0.07 4 0.10 4 022 1 0.28 0 036 Industrial 269 1.73 95 2.18 79 4.00 28 555 5 4.34 Other Residential 2,241 14.38 679 15.51 309 15.57 79 1563 18 16.81 Religion 40 026 13 030 10 049 3 0.67 1 062 Single Family 12,260 78.65 3,309 75-641 1,362 68.62 316 62.64 72 6537 Total 15,588 4.375 i 1,985 5051 1 110 Table 4-25: Kendall County 5.5M Scenario-Building Economic Losses in Millions of Dollars Category Area Single Other Commercial Industrial Others Total Family Residential Income Loses Wage 0.00 0.40 5.26 0.45 0.45 6.55 Capital-Related 0.00 0.17 5.03 0.27 0.10 5.57 Rental 2.54 1.00 3.31 0.16 0.16 7.16 Relocation 9.35 0.52 4.78 0.84 1.37 16.86 Subtotal 1 11.88 2.09 18.37 1.71 2.08 36.14 Capital Stock Loses Structural 19.71 1.10 6.84 239 2.38 32.41 Non_Struchiral 81.07 8.01 19.69 929 5.134 123.09 Content 34.62 272 12.55 6.73 3.43 6004 li Inventary 0.00 0.00 0.42 137 0.15 1.93 Subtotal 135.39 11.83 39.49 19.78 10.99 217.48 Total ' 147.28 13.92 57.86 21.49 13.07 253.62 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 58 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 4-10: Kendall County 5.5M Scenario-Building Economic Losses in Thousands of Dollars Legend 5.5 M Arbitrary Earthquake Scenario Building Damage by Tract Moutgom ry Total Loss in$1000 "'' ,401� 1 it ulder Hill _4,873-7,500 1111111/7,501-25,000 25,001-33,000 L�! 33,001-45,500 "i pie r 34 an i -45,501-67,000 San �ch Y �a! j = J n_� ,ry Epicenter •� (_h, � Fault ` "L� NewNewark sz 52 0 1.5 6Mlles I LIs6o 4 Kendall County 5.5M Scenario—Essential Facility Losses Before the earthquake, the region had 188 care beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that only 7 care beds (4%) are available for use by patients already in medical care facilities and those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 58% of the beds will be back in service. By day 30, 85%will be operational. Results 5.0 Magnitude 500-Year Probabilistic Scenario The results of the 500-year probabilistic analysis are depicted in Tables 4-26 and 4-27. HAZUS- MH estimates that approximately 183 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is more than 1% of the total number of buildings in the region. It is estimated that seven buildings will be damaged beyond repair. The total building-related losses totaled $8.64 million; 27% of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies, which made up more than 60% of the total loss. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 59 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-26: 500-Year Probabilistic Scenario-Damage Counts by Building Occupancy None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Count (%) Count N Count (%) Count N Count try Agriculture 174 0.80 8 1.51 3 2.12 0 2.12 0 128 Commercial 1,070 4.90 47 8.59 17 1(1_51 2 10.31 0 7.03 Education 28 0.13 1 0 24 0 0.31 0 0.30 0 0.33 Government 20 0.09 1 0.14 0 0.17 0 0.15 0 0.17 Industrial 449 2.06 20 3.60 7 4.56 1 4.41 0 2.62 Other Residential 3220 14.75 79 14.43 23 14.44 3 1421 0 15.02 Religion 63 029 3 0.48 1 0.65 0 066, 0 0.59 Single Family 16,806 76.99 390 71.02 106 67.18 16 67.83 1 72.86 Tota I 21,830 554 158 23 2 Table 4-27: 500-Year Probabilistic Scenario-Building Economic Losses in Millions of Dollars Category Area Single Other Commercial Industrial Others Total Family Residential Income Loses Wage 0.00 0.01 0.36 0.03 0.03 0.43 Capital-Related 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.02 0.01 0.36 Rental 0.16 0.06 025 0.01 0.01 0.49 Relocation ' 0.58 0.03 0.32 0.06 0.08 1.07 Subtotal 0.73 0.11 1.27 0.11 0.12 2,34 Capital Stack Loses Structural 127 0.08 0.45 0.15 0.13 208 Non Structural 2.36 0.21 0.56 0.18 0.12 3.44 Content 0.39 0.03 0.19 0.10 0.04 0.75 Inventory 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 r 0.03 4.03 0.31 1.21 0.45 0.30 6.29 4.76 0.43 2.48 0.56 0.41 8.64 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 60 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Figure 4-11: Kendall County 5.5M Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario-Building Economic Losses in Thousands of Dollars Legend 5.0 M Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario Building Damage by Tract Total Loss in$1000 W �Ikk 3� f�j _�� _ ? RA _2816-470 _ �� I- I 1 -471-800 801-1,300 1,301 -1,500 1 _J yPLAMO.CI I" IM 1,501 •2,200 N � Miles ORK 1 Y L ` a 1.25 25 5 ✓1 .� ... 7 iPLAINF 10 rAl K YO MILLIFIG70N 1, M • ., ii.l,. � 1 .S IPLATTVILLE Yo�JOLIET �r.. , 4rsabry MINQO" MINO{]KAMIMO=frlD�7KA. 500-Year Probabilistic Scenario—Essential Facility Losses Before the earthquake, the region had 188 care beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that only 113 care beds (61%) are available for use by patients already in medical care facilities and those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 98% of the beds will be back in service. By day 30, 100% will be operational. Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Earthquake Hazard New construction, especially critical facilities, will accommodate earthquake mitigation design standards. Analysis of Community Development Trends Community development will occur outside of the low-lying areas in floodplains with a water table within five feet of grade that is susceptible to liquefaction. In Meeting #4, the MHMP team discussed specific mitigation strategies for potential earthquake hazards. The discussion included strategies to harden and protect future, as well as existing, structures against the possible termination of public services and systems including power lines, water and sanitary lines, and public communication. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 61 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 4.4.4 Thunderstorm Hazard Hazard Definition for Thunderstorm Hazard Severe thunderstorms are defined as thunderstorms with one or more of the following characteristics: strong winds, large damaging hail, or frequent lightning. Severe thunderstorms most frequently occur in Illinois during the spring and summer months, but can occur any month of the year at any time of day. A severe thunderstorm's impacts can be localized or can be widespread in nature. A thunderstorm is classified as severe when it meets one or more of the following criteria. • Hail of diameter 0.75 inches or higher • Frequent and dangerous lightning • Wind speeds equal to or greater than 58 miles per hour Hail Hail is a product of a strong thunderstorm. Hail usually falls near the center of a storm, however strong winds occurring at high altitudes in the thunderstorm can blow the hailstones away from the storm center, resulting in damage in other areas near the storm. Hailstones range from pea- sized to baseball-sized, but hailstones larger than softballs have been reported on rare occasions. Lightning Lightning is a discharge of electricity from a thunderstorm. Lightning is often perceived as a minor hazard, but in reality lightning causes damage to many structures and kills or severely injures numerous people in the United States each year. Severe Winds (Straight-Line Winds) Straight-line winds from thunderstorms are a fairly common occurrence across Illinois. Straight- line winds can cause damage to homes, businesses, power lines, and agricultural areas, and may require temporary sheltering of individuals who are without power for extended periods of time. Previous Occurrences for Thunderstorm Hazard The NCDC database reported 37 hail storms in Kendall County since 1956. Hail storms occur nearly every year in the late spring and early summer months. The most recent reported occurrence was in October 2006 when severe thunderstorms developed over northeast Illinois. Kendall County hail storms are identified in Table 4-28. Additional details for NCDC events are included in Appendix D. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 62 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-28: Kendall County Hail Storms` Location or County Date Type Magnitude Death Injuries Property Crop Damage Damage Kendall County 3/6/1956 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 6/16/1973 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 6/20/1975 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 7/1/1983 Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 4/10/1995 Hail 0.50 in. 0 0 0 0 Plattville 4/19/1996 Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Plattville 4/19/1996 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Newark 6/10/1999 Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Newark 5/12/2000 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/12/2000 Hail 3.50 in. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 5/12/2000 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Millington 5/18/2000 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/18/2000 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Plano 9/11/2000 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 6/25/2002 Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Plattville 6/25/2002 Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Bristol 5/28/2003 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Plano 7/11/2003 Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 7/15/2003 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 8/1/2003 Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Boulder Hill 8/1/2003 Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/23/2004 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/23/2004 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 7/21/2004 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 3/30/2005 Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 3/30/2005 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Newark 3/30/2005 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 5/11/2005 Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 5/19/2005 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Plano 6/4/2005 Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 4/2/2006 Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Plano 4/14/2006 Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 4/14/2006 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Central 4/14/2006 Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 4/16/2006 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Lisbon 10/2/2006 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Lisbon 10/2/2006 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 * NCDC records are estimates of damage compiled by the National Weather Service from various local, state, and federal sources. However, these estimates are often preliminary in nature and may not match the final assessment of economic and property losses related to a given weather event. The NCDC database reported no occurrences of significant lightning strikes in Kendall County since 1954. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 63 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 The NCDC database identified 92 wind storms reported since 1957, the most recent of which was reported in August 2009 when storms produced wind gusts between 60 and 70 miles per hour. As shown in Table 4-29, wind storms have historically occurred year-round with the greatest frequency and damage between May and July. The following table includes available top wind speeds for Kendall County. Table 4-29: Kendall County Wind Storms* Location or Date Type Magnitude Death Injuries Property Crop County Damage Damage Kendall County 8/3/1957 Tstm Wind n/a 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 5/15/1968 Tstm Wind n/a 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 5/15/1968 Tstm Wind n/a 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 5/12/1970 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 6/30/1977 Tstm Wind n/a 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 7/9/1980 Tstm Wind 58 kts. 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 8/28/1990 Tstm Wind 80 kts. 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 7/2/1992 Tstm Wind n/a 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 8/23/1993 Tstm Wind n/a 0 0 0 0 Plattville 5/25/1994 Tstm Wind n/a 0 0 0 0 Northern Illinois 10/24/1995 High Wind n/a 2 0 0 0 Northern Illinois 3/25/1996 High Wind 48 kts. 0 0 0 0 Northwest 6/23/1996 Tstm Wind n/a 0 0 0 0 Oswego 7/24/1996 Tstm Wind n/a 0 0 0 0 Countywide 10/29/1996 Tstm Wind 57 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/18/1997 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Countywide 7/18/1997 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Northern Illinois 9/29/1997 High Wind 56 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/28/1998 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Sandwich 6/18/1998 Tstm Wind 64 kts. 0 0 0 0 Lisbon 6/28/1998 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Lisbon 6/29/1998 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 8/2411998 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Lisbon 9/20/1998 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Northern Illinois 11110/1998 High Wind 56 kts. 0 4 0 0 Countywide 11/10/1998 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 7/21/1999 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Sandwich 5/18/2000 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 0 0 Newark 5/18/2000 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0 0 0 0 Sandwich 8/6/2000 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 0 0 Northern Illinois 2/25/2001 Strong Wind n/a 0 0 0 0 Newark 6/14/2001 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 7/22/2001 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 9/6/2001 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Northern Illinois 3/9/2002 High Wind 51 kts. 4 4 200K 0 Yorkville 6/4/2002 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 64 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Location or Date Type Magnitude Death Injuries Property Crop County Damage Damage Yorkville 5/30/2003 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 7/7/2003 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plano 7/7/2003 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plano 7/11/2003 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 0 0 Lisbon 7/11/2003 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 7/17/2003 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Countywide 7/27/2003 Tstm Wind 57 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plano 7/31/2003 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 0 0 Northern Illinois 11/13/2003 High Wind 51 kts. 0 2 0 0 Yorkville 5/12/2004 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Oswego 5/12/2004 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Millbrook 5/13/2004 Tstm Wind 57 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plano 5/13/2004 Tstm Wind 58 kts. 0 0 0 0 Little Rock 5/13/2004 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 0 0 Bristol 5/13/2004 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/30/2004 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/30/2004 Tstm Wind 53 kts. 0 0 0 0 Countywide 5/30/2004 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plano 5/30/2004 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 1 0 0 Yorkville 7/22/2004 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Newark 3/30/2005 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/19/2005 Tstm Wind 55 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 5/19/2005 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Lisbon 8/2/2006 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plano 8/3/2006 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Newark 8/10/2006 Tstm Wind 55 kts. 0 0 0 0 Boulder Hill 10/2/2006 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 25K 0 Yorkville 10/2/2006 Tstm Wind 55 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plano 10/2/2006 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plano 10/2/2006 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Newark 3/31/2007 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 0 0 Bristol Station 3/31/2007 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plano 6/1/2007 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 5K 0 Yorkville 6/1/2007 Tstm Wind 56 kts. 0 0 5K 0 Plano 7/10/2007 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Boulder Hill 7/18/2007 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 7/18/2007 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plattville 8/23/2007 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Little Rock 6/15/2008 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 6/15/2008 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plano 6/28/2008 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 Plattville 7/10/2008 Tstm Wind 55 kts. 0 0 1 K 0 Lisbon Center 7/10/2008 Tstm Wind 55 kits. 0 0 0 0 Millbrook 8/4/2008 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 1 K 0 Plano 8/4/2008 Tstm Wind 56 kts. 0 0 4K 0 Bristol 8/4/2008 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 1K 0 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 65 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Location or Date Type Magnitude Death Injuries Property Crop County Damage Damage Plattville 6/19/2009 Tstm Wind 56 kts. 0 0 1 K 0 Yorkville 6/19/2009 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 1K 0 Oswego 6/19/2009 Tstm Wind 65 kts. 0 0 0 0 Yorkville 6/19/2009 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 1K 0 Boulder Hill 8/16/2009 Tstm Wind 54 kts. 0 0 0 0 * NCDC records are estimates of damage compiled by the National Weather Service from various local, state, and federal sources. However, these estimates are often preliminary in nature and may not match the final assessment of economic and property losses related to a given weather event. Geographic Location for Thunderstorm Hazard The entire county has the same risk for occurrence of thunderstorms. They can occur at any location within the county. Hazard Extent for Thunderstorm Hazard The extent of the historical thunderstorms varies in terms of the extent of the storm, the wind speed, and the size of hail stones. Thunderstorms can occur at any location within the county. Risk Identification for Thunderstorm Hazard Based on historical information, the occurrence of future high winds, hail, and lightning is highly likely. High winds with widely varying magnitudes are expected to happen. According to the RPI, thunderstorms and high wind damage ranked as the number one hazard. RPI=Probability x Magnitude/Severity. Probability x Magnitude = RPI /Severity 4 x 2 = 8 Vulnerability Analysis for Thunderstorm Hazard Severe thunderstorms are an equally distributed threat across the entire jurisdiction; therefore, the entire county's population and all buildings are vulnerable to a severe thunderstorm and can expect the same impacts within the affected area. This plan will therefore consider all buildings located within the county as vulnerable. The existing buildings and infrastructure in Kendall County are discussed in Table 4-10. Critical Facilities All critical facilities are vulnerable to severe thunderstorms. A critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the jurisdiction. These impacts include structural failure, damaging debris (trees or limbs), roofs blown off or windows broken by hail or high winds, fires caused by lightning, and loss of building functionality (e.g. a damaged police station will no longer be able to serve the community). Table 4-9 lists the types and numbers of Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 66 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 all of the essential facilities in the area. A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. Building Inventory A table of the building exposure in terms of types and numbers of buildings for the entire county is provided in Table 4-10. The buildings within the county can all expect the same impacts, similar to those discussed for critical facilities. These impacts include structural failure, damaging debris (trees or limbs), roofs blown off or windows broken by hail or high winds, fires caused by lightning, and loss of building functionality (e.g. a damaged home will no longer be habitable causing residents to seek shelter). Infrastructure During a severe thunderstorm, the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. Since the county's entire infrastructure is equally vulnerable it is important to emphasize that any number of these items could become damaged during a severe thunderstorm. The impacts to these items include broken, failed, or impassable roadways; broken or failed utility lines (e.g. loss of power or gas to community); or railway failure from broken or impassable railways. Bridges could fail or become impassable causing risk to traffic. Potential Dollar Losses for Thunderstorm Hazard A HAZUS-MH analysis was not completed for thunderstorms because the widespread extent of such a hazard makes it difficult to accurately model outcomes. To determine dollar losses for a thunderstorm hazard, the available NCDC hazard information was condensed to include only thunderstorm hazards that occurred within the past ten years. Kendall County's MHMP team then reviewed the property damages reported to NCDC and made any applicable updates. It was determined that since 1999, Kendall County has incurred $245,000 in damages relating to thunderstorms, including hail, lightning, and high winds. The events resulting in property damage are listed in Table 4-30. Table 4-30: Kendall County Property Damage (1999—Present) Location or County Date Type Property Damage 1999-2001 Subtotal $ Northern Illinois 03/09/02 High Wind $ 200,000 2002 Subtotal $ 200,000 2003-2005 Subtotal $ - Boulder Hill 10/02/06 Tstm Wind $ 25,000 2006 Subtotal $ 25,000 Plano 06/01/07 Tstm Wind $ 5,000 Yorkville 06/01/07 Tstm Wind $ 5,000 2007 Subtotal $ 10,000 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 67 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Location or County Date Type Property Damage Plattville 07/10/08 Tstm Wind $ 1,000 Millbrook 08/04/08 Tstm Wind $ 1,000 Plano 08/04/08 Tstm Wind $ 4,000 Bristol 08/04/08 Tstm Wind $ 1,000 2008 Subtotal $ 7,000 Plattville 06/19/09 Tstm Wind $ 1,000 Yorkville 06/19/09 Tstm Wind $ 1,000 Yorkville 06/19/09 Tstm Wind $ 1,000 2009 Subtotal $ 3,000 Total Property Damage $ 245,000 The historical data has not been collected systematically or confirmed. As a result, potential dollar losses for a future event cannot be precisely calculated; however, based on averages in the last decade, it can be determined that Kendall County incurs an annual risk of approximately $24,500 per year. Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Thunderstorm Hazard All future development within the county and all communities will remain vulnerable to these events. Analysis of Community Development Trends Preparing for severe storms will be enhanced if officials sponsor a wide range of programs and initiatives to address the overall safety of county residents. New structures need to be built with more sturdy construction, and those structures already in place need to be hardened to lessen the potential impacts of severe weather. Community warning sirens to provide warning of approaching storms are also vital to preventing the loss of property and ensuring the safety of Kendall County residents. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 68 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 4.4.5 Winter Storm Hazard Hazard Definition for Winter Storm Hazard Severe winter weather consists of various forms of precipitation and strong weather conditions. This may include one or more of the following: freezing rain, sleet, heavy snow, blizzards, icy roadways, extreme low temperatures, and strong winds. These conditions can cause human health risks such as frostbite, hypothermia, and death. Ice (glazing) and Sleet Storms Ice or sleet, even in small quantities, can result in hazardous driving conditions and can cause property damage. Sleet involves frozen raindrops that bounce when they hit the ground or other objects. Sleet does not stick to trees and wires. Ice storms, on the other hand, involve liquid rain that falls through subfreezing air and/or onto sub-freezing surfaces, freezing on contact with those surfaces. The ice coats trees, buildings, overhead wires, and roadways, sometimes causing extensive damage. The most damaging winter storms in southern Illinois have been ice storms. Ice storms occur when moisture-laden gulf air converges with the northern jet stream causing strong winds and heavy precipitation. This precipitation takes the form of freezing rain coating power and communication lines and trees with heavy ice. The winds will then cause the overburdened limbs and cables to snap; leaving large sectors of the population without power, heat, or communication. Snowstorms Significant snowstorms are characterized by the rapid accumulation of snow, often accompanied by high winds, cold temperatures, and low visibility. A blizzard is categorized as a snowstorm with winds of 35 miles per hour or greater and/or visibility of less than one-quarter mile for three or more hours. The strong winds during a blizzard blow about falling and already existing snow, creating poor visibility and impassable roadways. Blizzards have the potential to result in property damage. Illinois has repeatedly been struck by blizzards. Blizzard conditions cannot only cause power outages and loss of communication, but also make transportation difficult. The blowing of snow can reduce visibility to less than one-quarter mile, and the resulting disorientation makes even travel by foot dangerous if not deadly. Severe Cold Severe cold is characterized by the ambient air temperature dropping to around 0 F or below. These extreme temperatures can increase the likelihood of frostbite and hypothermia. High winds during severe cold events can enhance the air temperature's effects. Fast winds during cold weather events can lower the wind chill factor (how cold the air feels on your skin). As a result, the time it takes for frostbite and hypothermia to affect a person's body will decrease. Previous Occurrences for Winter Storm Hazard Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 69 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 The NCDC database identified 33 winter storm and extreme cold events for Kendall County since 1994. The most recent reported event occurred on January 14, 2009, when a small winter storm moved across northern Illinois. Snowfall amounts ranged from 6 to 7 inches. The NCDC winter storms are listed in Table 4-32. Additional details for NCDC events are included in Appendix D. Table 4-32: Winter Storm Events* Location or County Date Type Deaths Injuries Property Crop Damage Damage Northeast Illinois 1/26/1994 Ice Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 12/8/1995 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 2/2/1996 Extreme Cold 3 0 0 0 Statewide 1/15/1997 Winter Storm 5 0 0 0 Statewide 3/9/1998 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 0 Statewide 1/1/1999 Heavy Snow 1 0 0 0 Statewide 318/1999 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 0 Statewide 1/19/2000 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 0 Statewide 2/18/2000 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 0 Statewide 12/11/2000 Blizzard 0 0 0 0 Statewide 1/30/2002 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 3/2/2002 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 3/4/2003 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 5/3/2004 Frost/freeze 0 0 0 0 Statewide 1/4/2005 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 0 Statewide 1/21/2005 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 0 Statewide 11/30/2006 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 12/1/2006 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 2/6/2007 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 2/13/2007 Blizzard 0 0 0 0 Statewide 2/25/2007 Blizzard 0 0 0 0 Statewide 2/25/2007 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 1211/2007 Ice Storm 0 0 5K 0 Statewide 1/29/2008 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 21112008 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 12/18/2008 Ice Storm 0 0 0 0 Statewide 12/18/2008 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 Kendall County 1/14/2009 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 * NCDC records are estimates of damage compiled by the National Weather Service from various local, state, and federal sources. However, these estimates are often preliminary in nature and may not match the final assessment of economic and property losses related to a given weather event. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 70 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Geographic Location for Winter Storm Hazard Severe winter storms are regional in nature. Most of the NCDC data is calculated regionally or in some cases statewide. Hazard Extent for Winter Storm Hazard The extent of the historical winter storms varies in terms of storm location, temperature, and ice or snowfall. A severe winter storm can occur anywhere in the jurisdiction. Risk Identification for Winter Storm Hazard Based on historical information and input from the planning team, the occurrence of future winter storms is likely. Winter storms of varying magnitudes are expected to happen. According to the RPI, winter storms were ranked as the number five hazard. RPI=Probability x Magnitude/Severity. Probability x Magnitude RPI /Severity - 3 x 1 = 3 Vulnerability Analysis for Winter Storm Hazard Winter storm impacts are equally distributed across the entire jurisdiction; therefore, the entire county is vulnerable to a winter storm and can expect the same impacts within the affected area. The building exposure for Kendall County, as determined from the building inventory, is included in Table 4-10. Critical Facilities All critical facilities are vulnerable to a winter storm. A critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as other buildings within the jurisdiction. These impacts include loss of gas or electricity from broken or damaged utility lines, damaged or impassable roads and railways, broken water pipes, and roof collapse from heavy snow. Table 4-9 lists the types and numbers of the essential facilities in the area. A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. Building Inventory A table of the building exposure in terms of types and numbers of buildings for the entire county is listed in Table 4-10. The impacts to the general buildings within the county are similar to the damages expected to the critical facilities. These include loss of gas or electricity from broken or damaged utility lines, damaged or impassable roads and railways, broken water pipes, and roof collapse from heavy snow. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 71 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Infrastructure During a winter storm, the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. Since the county's entire infrastructure is equally vulnerable it is important to emphasize that any number of these items could become damaged during a winter storm. Potential impacts include broken gas and/or electricity lines or damaged utility lines, damaged or impassable roads and railways, and broken water pipes. Potential Dollar Losses for Winter Storm Hazard A HAZUS-MH analysis was not completed for winter storms because the widespread extent of such a hazard makes it difficult to accurately model outcomes. To determine dollar losses for a winter storm hazard, the available NCDC hazard information was condensed to include only winter storm hazards that occurred within the past ten years. Kendall County's MHMP team then reviewed the property damages reported to NCDC and made any applicable updates. Review of NCDC Database and other historical records revealed Kendall County has not incurred significant property damages over the last decade (1999-2009) from winter storms, including sleet/ice and heavy snow. Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Winter Storm Hazard Any new development within the county will remain vulnerable to these events. Analysis of Community Development Trends Because the winter storm events are regional in nature future development will be equally impacted across the county. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 72 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 4.4.6 Hazardous Materials Storage and Transport Hazard Hazard Definition for Hazardous Materials Storage and Transport Hazard Illinois has numerous active transportation lines that run through many of its counties. Active railways transport harmful and volatile substances between our borders every day. The transportation of chemicals and substances along interstate routes is commonplace in Illinois. The rural areas of Illinois have considerable agricultural commerce creating a demand for fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides to be transported along rural roads. These factors increase the chance of hazardous material releases and spills throughout the state of Illinois. The release or spill of certain substances can cause an explosion. Explosions result from the ignition of volatile products such as petroleum products, natural and other flammable gases, hazardous materials/chemicals, dust, and bombs. An explosion can potentially cause death, injury, and property damage. In addition, a fire routinely follows an explosion which may cause further damage and inhibit emergency response. Emergency response may require fire, safety/law enforcement, search and rescue, and hazardous materials units. Previous Occurrences for Hazardous Materials Storage and Transport Hazard Kendall County has not experienced a significantly large-scale hazardous material incident at a fixed site or during transport resulting in multiple deaths or serious injuries, although there have been many minor releases that have put local firefighters, hazardous materials teams, emergency management, and local law enforcement into action to try to stabilize these incidents and prevent or lessen harm to Kendall County residents. Geographic Location for Hazardous Materials Storage and Transport Hazard The hazardous material hazards are countywide and are primarily associated with the transport of materials via highway, railroad, and/or river barge. Hazard Extent for Hazardous Materials Storage and Transport Hazard The extent of the hazardous material hazard varies both in terms of the quantity of material being transported as well as the specific content of the container. Risk Identification for Hazardous Materials Release Based on input from the planning team, the occurrence of a hazardous materials accident is likely. According to the RPI, Hazardous Materials Storage and Transport ranked as the number three hazard. RPI=Probability x Magnitude/Severity. Probability x Magnitude = RPI /Severity 3 x 2 = 6 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 73 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Vulnerability Analysis for Hazardous Materials Storage and Transport Hazard Hazardous material impacts are an equally distributed threat across the entire jurisdiction; therefore, the entire county is vulnerable to a hazardous material release and can expect the same impacts within the affected area. The main concern during a release or spill is the population affected. The building exposure for Kendall County, as determined from building inventory, is included in Table 4-10. This plan will therefore consider all buildings located within the county as vulnerable. Critical Facilities All critical facilities and communities within the county are at risk. A critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the jurisdiction. These impacts include structural failure due to fire or explosion and loss of function of the facility (e.g. a damaged police station will no longer be able to serve the community). Table 4-9 lists the types and numbers of all essential facilities in the area. A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. Building Inventory A table of the building exposure in terms of types and numbers of buildings for the entire county is listed in Table 4-10. The buildings within the county can all expect the same impacts, similar to those discussed for critical facilities. These impacts include structural failure due to fire or explosion or debris and loss of function of the building (e.g. a damaged home will no longer be habitable causing residents to seek shelter). Infrastructure During a hazardous material release the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. Since an extensive inventory of the infrastructure is not available to this plan it is important to emphasize that any number of these items could become damaged in the event of a hazardous material release. The impacts to these items include broken, failed, or impassable roadways; broken or failed utility lines (e.g. loss of power or gas to community); and railway failure from broken or impassable railways. Bridges could fail or become impassable causing risk to traffic. In terms of numbers and types of buildings and infrastructure, typical scenarios are described to gauge the anticipated impacts of hazardous material release events in the county. The U.S. EPA's ALOHA (Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres) model was utilized to assess the area of impact for an anhydrous ammonia release at the intersection of Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad and Fox River Drive Road in Plano. The target area was selected for three primary reasons: 1) the high volume traffic, 2) the area is highly populated and 3) proximity to several critical facilities. Chlorine is a greenish yellow gas with a pungent suffocating odor. The gas liquefies at -35°C and room pressure or will liquefy from pressure applied at room temperature. Contact with Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 74 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 unconfined liquid chlorine can cause frostbite from evaporative cooling. Chlorine does not burn, but, like oxygen, supports combustion. The toxic gas can have adverse health effects from either long-term inhalation of low concentrations of vapors or short-term inhalation of high concentrations. Chlorine vapors are much heavier than air and tend to settle in low areas. Chlorine is commonly used to purify water, bleach wood pulp, and make other chemicals (NOAA Reactivity 2007). Source: http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/2862 ALOHA is a computer program designed especially for use by people responding to chemical accidents, as well as for emergency planning and training. Chlorine is a common chemical used in industrial operations and can be found in either liquid or gas form. Rail and truck tankers commonly haul Chlorine to and from facilities. For this scenario, moderate atmospheric and climatic conditions with a slight breeze from the west-southwest were assumed. The target area was chosen due to its proximity to the residential, commercial, and essential facility locations. The geographic area covered in this analysis is depicted in Figure 4-12. Figure 4-12: Location of Chemical Release 96 u W 30 31 x,. 91 Osweg L l s 47 _ C YoAME 1 IF y 77 1 _ 126 t 47 Joll®t y - Legend • Plume origin on Roads Min o Rivers i_ Miles Lakes 0 1.5 3 6 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 75 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Analysis The ALOHA atmospheric modeling parameters, depicted in Figure 4-13, were based upon a westerly wind speed of five miles per hour. The temperature was 70°F with 50% humidity and a cloud cover of five-tenths skies. The source of the chemical spill is a horizontal, cylindrical-shaped tank. The diameter of the tank was set to 10.4 feet and the length set to 53 feet (33,500 gallons). At the time of its release, it was estimated that the tank was 85% full. The chlorine in this tank is in its liquid state. This release was based on a leak from a 2.5-inch-diameter hole, 12 inches above the bottom of the tank. According to the ALOHA parameters, approximately 10,600 pounds of material would be released per minute. The image in Figure 4-14 depicts the plume footprint generated by ALOHA. Figure 4-13: ALOHA Plume Modeling Parameters SITE DATA: Location: PLANO, ILLINOIS Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0.48 (unsheltered single storied) Time:June 3, 2010 1515 hours CDT(using computer's clock) CHEMICAL DATA: Chemical Name: CHLORINE Molecular Weight: 70.91 g/mol AEGL-1(60 min): 0.5 ppm AEGL-2(60 min): 2 ppm AEGL-3(60 min): 20 ppm IDLH: 10 ppm Ambient Boiling Point: -30.1° F Vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature:greater than 1 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% ATMOSPHERIC DATA: (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wind: 5 miles/hour from WSW at 3 meters Ground Roughness: open country Cloud Cover: 5 tenths Air Temperature: 70° F Stability Class: B No Inversion Height Relative Humidity: 50% SOURCE STRENGTH: Leak from hole in horizontal cylindrical tank Non-flammable chemical is escaping from tank Tank Diameter: 10.4 feet Tank Length: 53 feet Tank Volume: 33,679 gallons Tank contains liquid Internal Temperature: 70° F Chemical Mass in Tank: 168 tons Tank is 85%full Circular Opening Diameter: 2.5 inches Opening is 12 inches from tank bottom Release Duration:ALOHA limited the duration to 1 hour Max Average Sustained Release Rate: 10,600 pounds/min (averaged over a minute or more) Total Amount Released: 322,402 pounds Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 76 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Note:The chemical escaped as a mixture of gas and aerosol (two phase flow). THREAT ZONE: Model Run: Heavy Gas Red : 5.1 miles --- (20 ppm =AEGL-3(60 min)) Orange: greater than 6 miles --- (2 ppm =AEGL-2(60 min)) Yellow: greater than 6 miles --- (0.5 ppm =AEGL-1(60 min)) Figure 4-14: Plume Footprint Generated by ALOHA miles 7.5 2.5 0 2.5 7.5 5 0 5 10 15 miles >-- 20 ppm = AEGL-3 (60 min) IM >- 2 ppm = AEGL-2 (60 min) >- 0.5 ppm = AEGL-1(60 min) Confidence Lines Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) are intended to describe the health effects on humans due to once-in-a-lifetime or rare exposure to airborne chemicals. The National Advisory Committee for AEGLs is developing these guidelines to help both national and local authorities, as well as private companies, deal with emergencies involving spills or other catastrophic exposures. As the substance moves away from the source, the level of substance concentration decreases. Each color-coded area depicts a level of concentration measured in parts per million (ppm). The image in Figure 4-15 depicts the plume footprint generated by ALOHA in ArcGIS. • AEGL 3: Above this airborne concentration of a substance, it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience life- threatening health effects or death. The red buffer (>20.0 ppm) extends no more than six miles from the point of release after one hour. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 77 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 • AEGL 2: Above this airborne concentration of a substance, it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape. The orange buffer (> 2.0 ppm) extends no more than six miles from the point of release after one hour. • AEGL 1: Above this airborne concentration of a substance, it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure. The yellow buffer (> 0.5 ppm) extends more than six miles from the point of release after one hour. • Confidence Lines: The dashed lines depict the level of confidence in which the exposure level will be contained. The ALOHA model is 95% confident that the release will stay within this boundary. Figure 4-15: ALOHA Plume Footprint Overlaid in ArcGIS Kane County 39 d Mo i no E 34 /7 ehlavl _ - - Y.0 47' _ r - Y.0 - _ 47 f Yorkville \'�- '✓ 126 I Legend y1 Plume Origin va AEGL 3—20.0 ppm l �ctMt l AEGL 22.0 ppm 120 AEGL 1—0.5 ppm -- Miles 0 95%Confidence Interval �1 0 1 2 4 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 78 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Results By summing the building inventory within all AEGL levels (AEGL 3: > 20.0 ppm, AEGL 2: > 2.0 ppm and Level 1: > 0.5 ppm.), the GIS overlay analysis predicts that as many as 3,486 buildings could be exposed at a replacement cost of $1.06 billion. If this event were to occur, approximately 9,100 people would be affected. The results are depicted in Figure 4-16. The Assessor records often do not distinguish parcels by occupancy class when the parcels are not taxable; therefore, the total number of buildings and the building replacement costs for government, religious/non-profit, and education may be underestimated. Figure 4-16: Kendall County Building Inventory Classified By Plume Footprint i Kane County i ao — i Mott �hi - "two"two and Santa 4e Ra51[oa. • L • . - t10 � gaclin0t�n1N n t '� • _Q" i Twine S4 r r+ `r�+ YO } 47 -L ! Legend Y �T Oskvirl6e -- AEGL 3 20.0 ppm ':.W. _ 12$ AEGL 2 2.0 ppm G- 71 _ i t —AEGL 1 0.5 ppm • AEGL1 BI i2sti o AEGL2_8I o AEGL3_BI ti\ 71 - Plume Origin = 47 Miles 95%Confidence Interval K'. _ _- 0 1 2 4 Building Inventory Damage The results of the analysis against the building inventory points are depicted in Tables 4-33 through 4-36. Table 4-33 summarizes the results of the chemical spill by combining all AEGL level. Tables 4-34 through 4-36 summarize the results of the chemical spill for each level separately. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 79 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 4-33: Estimated Exposure for all Level (all ppm) Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure Residential 8,120 3,248 $750,994,061 Commercial 0 171 $88,458,684 Industrial 0 18 $184,775,033 Agriculture 0 28 $12,712,362 Religious 0 0 $0 Government 0 8 $8,200,000 Education (1,009) 2 $19,037,700 Total 8,120 31475 $1,064,177,839 Table 4-34: Estimated Exposure for Level 3 (>=20 ppm) Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure Residential 3,880 1,552 $322,264,638 Commercial 0 101 $27,038,880 Industrial 0 15 $162,190,808 Agriculture 0 11 $4,857,168 Religious 0 0 $0 Government 0 2 $3,100,000 Education (489) 1 $8,283,000 Total 3,880 11682 $527,734,494 Table 4-35: Estimated Exposure for Level 2 (>=160 ppm) Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure Residential 3,053 1,221 $305,846,285 Commercial 0 63 $33,088,362 Industrial 0 3 $22,584,225 Agriculture 0 12 $5,711,604 Religious 0 0 $0 Government 0 2 $1,600,000 Education 0 0 $0 Total 3,053 1,301 $368,830,476 Table 4-36: Estimated Exposure for Level 1 (>=30 ppm) Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure Residential 1,188 475 $122,883,138 Commercial 0 7 $28,331,442 Industrial 0 0 $0 Agriculture 0 5 $2,143,590 Religious 0 0 $0 Government 0 4 $3,500,000 Education (520) 1 $10,754,700 Total 1,198 492 $167,612,870 (##)Number of students in effected school,not included in total population. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 80 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Critical Facilities Damage There are six critical facilities within the limits of the chemical spill plume. The affected facilities are identified in Table 4-37. Their geographic locations are depicted in Figure 4-17. Table 4-37: Essential Facilities within Plume Footprint Name Fire Stations Bristol Kendall Fire Station#2 Little Rock Fire Station#3 Little Rock Fox Fire Department#1 Police Stations Plano Police Department Schools Emily G.Johns School P H Miller Elementary School Figure 4-17: Essential Facilities within Plume Footprint Legend AEGL 1 0.5 ppm Kane County AEGL 2>=2.0 ppm AE=GL 3>=20 ppm 95%Confidence Interval Plume origin 30 Effected Essential Facilities Police Station - Mo i Fire Station f ° School j t na 1 s, -- 34 ehlarf -_-° 34 - 1 — "Yo 34 Yo a f" 4ze 71 428 � ✓ f 74 Males 0 1 2 4 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 81 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Hazardous Materials Storage and Transport Hazard Any new development within the county will be vulnerable to these events, especially development along major roadways. Analysis of Community Development Trends Because the hazardous material hazard events may occur anywhere within the county, future development will be impacted. The major transportation routes and the industries located in Kendall County pose a threat of dangerous chemicals and hazardous materials release. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 82 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 4.4.7 Fire Hazard Hazard Definition for Fire Hazard This plan will address three major categories of fires for Kendall County: 1) tire/scrap fires; 2) structural fires; and 3) wildfires. Tire Fires The state of Illinois generates thousands of scrap tires annually. Many of those scrap tires end up in approved storage sites that are carefully regulated and controlled by federal and state officials. However, scrap tires are sometimes intentionally dumped in unapproved locations throughout the state. The number of unapproved locations cannot be readily determined. These illegal sites are owned by private residents who have been continually dumping waste and refuse, including scrap tires, at those locations for many years. Tire disposal sites can be fire hazards, in large part, because of the enormous number of scrap tires typically present at one site. This large amount of fuel renders standard firefighting practices nearly useless. Flowing and burning oil released by the scrap tires can spread the fire to adjacent areas. Tire fires differ from conventional fires in the following ways: • Relatively small tire fires can require significant fire resources to control and extinguish. • Those resources often cost much more than Kendall County government can absorb compared to standard fire responses. • There may be significant environmental consequences of a major tire fire. Extreme heat can convert a standard vehicle tire into approximately two gallons of oily residue that may leak into the soil or migrate to streams and waterways. Structural Fires Lightning strikes, poor building construction, and building condition are the main causes for most structural fires in Indiana. Kendall County has a few structural fires each year countywide. Wildfires When hot and dry conditions develop, forests may become vulnerable to devastating wildfires. In the past few decades an increased commercial and residential development near forested areas has dramatically changed the nature and scope of the wildfire hazard. In addition, the increase in structures resulting from new development strains the effectiveness of the fire service personnel in the county. Previous Occurrences for Fire Hazard Kendall County has not experienced a significant or large-scale explosion at a fixed site or transportation route that has resulted in multiple deaths or serious injuries. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 83 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Geographic Location for Fire Hazard Fire hazards occur countywide and therefore affect the entire county. The forested areas in the county have a higher chance of widespread fire hazard. Hazard Extent for Fire Hazard The extent of the fire hazard varies both in terms of the severity of the fire and the type of material being ignited. All communities in Kendall County are affected by fire equally. Risk Identification for Fire Hazard Based on input from the planning team, a future occurrence of a fire or explosion is possible. According to the RPI, fire/explosion is ranked as the number six hazard. RPI=Probability x Magnitude/Severity. Probability x Magnitude = RPI /Severity 2 x 1 = 2 Vulnerability Analysis for Fire Hazard This hazard impacts the entire jurisdiction equally; therefore, the entire population and all buildings within the county are vulnerable to fires and can expect the same impacts within the affected area. Table 4-9 lists the types and numbers of all essential facilities in the area. A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. The building exposure for Kendall County, as determined from the building inventory, is included in Table 4-10. Because of the difficulty predicting which communities are at risk, the entire population and all buildings have been identified at risk. Critical Facilities All critical facilities are vulnerable to fire hazards. A critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the jurisdiction. These impacts include structural damage from fire and water damage from efforts extinguishing fire. Table 4-9 lists the types and numbers of essential facilities in the area. A map and list of all critical facilities is included as Appendix F. Building Inventory A table of the building exposure in terms of types and numbers of buildings for the entire county is provided in Table 4-10. Impacts to the general buildings within the county are similar to the damages expected to the critical facilities. These impacts include structural damage from fire and water damage from efforts to extinguish the fire. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 84 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Infrastructure During a fire the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. Since the county's entire infrastructure is equally vulnerable, it is important to emphasize that any number of these items could become damaged during a fire. Potential impacts include structural damage resulting in impassable roadways and power outages. Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Fire Hazard Any future development will be vulnerable to these events. Analysis of Community Development Trends Fire hazard events may occur anywhere within the county, because of this future development will be impacted. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 85 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Section 5 - Mitigation Strategy The goal of mitigation is to reduce the future impacts of a hazard including property damage, disruption to local and regional economies, and the amount of public and private funds spent to assist with recovery. The goal of mitigation is to build disaster-resistant communities. Mitigation actions and projects should be based on a well-constructed risk assessment, provided in Section 4 of this plan. Mitigation should be an ongoing process adapting over time to accommodate a community's needs. 5.1 Community Capability Assessment The capability assessment identifies current activities used to mitigate hazards. The capability assessment identifies the policies, regulations, procedures, programs, and projects that contribute to the lessening of disaster damages. The assessment also provides an evaluation of these capabilities to determine whether the activities can be improved in order to more effectively reduce the impact of future hazards. The following sections identify existing plans and mitigation capabilities within all of the communities listed in Section 2 of this plan. 5.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Kendall County, all its jurisdictions are members of the NFIP expect Boulder Hill. Boulder Hill does have an identified flood area but has chosen not to participate due to lack of interest or perceived need. Kendall County will continue to educate this jurisdiction on the benefits of the program. HAZUS-MH identified approximately 439 structures are located within the Kendall County Special Flood Hazard Area. However, 2,128 households paid flood insurance, insuring $300,563,000 in property value. The total premiums collected amounted to $1,368,412, which on average was $47,186 annually. From 1978 through 2007, 1,142 claims were filed totaling $9,814,877. The average claim was $8,594. The county and incorporated areas do not participate in the NFIP'S Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. As a result, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from the community actions meeting the three goals of the CRS: 1) reduce flood losses; 2) facilitate accurate insurance rating; and 3)promote the awareness of flood insurance. Table 5-1 identifies each community and the date each participant joined the NFIP. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 86 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 5-1: Additional Information on Communities Participating in the NFIP Community Participation Date FIRM Date CRS Date CRS Rating Floodplain Ordinance Kendall County 7/19/1982 2/4/2009 NA NA 12/16/2008 Boulder Hill CDP 2/4/2009 NA NA City of Aurora 6/15/1979 2/4/2009 NA NA 6/15/1979 City of Plano 9/30/1976 2/4/2009 NA NA 8/2411998 City of Sandwich 2/27/1984 2/4/2009 NA NA 12/2008 The United City of 6/1/1982 2/4/2009 NA NA 2/24/2009 Yorkville Village of Lisbon 6/11/1982 2/4/2009 NA NA Village of Millbrook 5/13/09 2/4/2009 NA NA Village of 8/15/1979 2/4/2009 NA NA Montgomery Village of Newark 6/1/1982 2/4/2009 NA NA Village of Oswego 9/4/1985 2/4/2009 NA NA Village of Plattville 2/4/2009 NA NA 5.1.2 Stormwater Management Stream Maintenance Ordinance The most recent Stormwater Management Ordinance for Kendall County was enacted in September of 2002. The overall goal of the Stormwater Management Ordinance is to have no change in runoff rate or volume from pre-development conditions. For every development project a stormwater management plan must be created. The stormwater management plan must address the following issues: minimization of increases in runoff volume and rates, water quality and multiple uses, release rates, detention basin outlet design and storage requirements, drainage system design and evaluation, methods of generating runoff hydrographs, wet detention basin design, wetland and dry detention basin design, detention in flood plains,wetland protection, urban area drainage, infiltration practices, and safety an maintenance considerations. Several other jurisdictions within Kendall County have similar stormwater management ordinances except for the Village of Lisbon and Boulder Hill CDP which is not available. 5.1.3 Zoning Management Ordinance The first zoning ordinance for Kendall County was passed on January 16, 1940. The Kendall County zoning ordinance was recently revised in October 19, 2010. The overall goal of the zoning ordinance, which still pertains today, is to promote the public health, safety, morals, comfort and the general welfare of the people of Kendall County. The full text of the zoning ordinance for Kendall County can be found on the county website along with several other ordinances. The website also has links to the other jurisdictions within Kendall County. Table 5-2 summarizes these ordinances and their adoption dates within the county. Table 5-2: Description of Zoning Plans/Ordinances Community Comp Zoning Control of Erosion Water Burning Seismic Bldg. Plan Ord Ord Control Water Ord Ord Stndrds Mgmt Kendall County 7-21-2009 10/19/201 10-21- 7-2006 9-2002 N/A N/A INTL 0 2008 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 87 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Community Comp Zoning Contb of Erosion Stater Burning Seismic Bldg. Plan Ord Ord Control Water Ord Ord Stndrds Mgmt Boulder Hill CDP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A City of Plano 7/28/1997 9/4/1962 1962 8/24/1998 8/24/1998 1979* N/A INTL City of Sandwich 1983 1983 1983 N/A 1983 1983 N/A INTL City of Yorkville 2008 1994 2004 2003 2010 1976 N/A INTL Village of Lisbon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Village of Millbrook N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Village of 2003 8-22-1998 2-1991 12-14- 11-14- 8-22- N/A INTL Montgomery 1998 2000 1998* Village of Newark 2008 N/A 8-9-06 N/A N/A N/A N/A INTL Village of Oswego 2009 11-2009 2-2008 1-15-2008 1-15-2008 11-2009* N/A INTL Village of Plattville N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A The date given is the most recent updated version of that ordinance. *The burning ordinance for these jurisdictions are present within either the zoning ordinance or the subdivision control ordinance. 5.1.4 Erosion Management Program/ Policy Kendall County, The United City of Yorkville, Village of Montgomery, and Village of Oswego have plans in place for erosion control and management. 5.1.5 Fire Insurance Rating Programs/ Policy Table 5-3 lists Kendall County's fire departments and respective information. Table 5-3: Kendall County Fire Departments, Ratings, and Number of Firefighters Fire Department Fire Insurance Rating(ISO) Number of Firefighters Bristol Kendall Fire Protection District City of Plano 5/8 70 City of Sandwich 4/8 35 Joliet Fire Station 3/9 212 Lisbon-Seward Fire Protection CO 2 9 31 Little Rock Fox Fire Department Little Rock Fox Fire Station#2 Little Rock Fox Fire Station#3 Newark Fire Protection District 6/9 55 Oswego Fire Protection District 4/9 77 The United City of Yorkville 5/9 77 Village of Millbrook 518 Village of Plattville 9 5.1.6 Land Use Plan Kendall County has a land use plan within the zoning ordinance. The cities of Sandwich, Plano and The United City of Yorkville along with the villages of Montgomery and Oswego address land use within their zoning ordinances as well. Village of Millbrook has a Comprehensive Plan that addresses Land Use issues & zoning. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 88 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 5.1.7 Building Codes Unincorporated Kendall County uses the International Building Code as their guide for building standards. All other jurisdictions within Kendall County also use the International Building Code except for the Village of Lisbon and Boulder Hill whose building codes are not available. 5.2 Mitigation Goals In Section 4 of this plan, the risk assessment identified Kendall County as prone to eight hazards. The MHMP planning team members understand that although hazards cannot be eliminated altogether, Kendall County can work toward building disaster-resistant communities. Following are a list of goals, objectives, and actions. The goals represent long-term, broad visions of the overall vision the county would like to achieve for mitigation. The objectives are strategies and steps that will assist the communities in attaining the listed goals. Goal 1: Lessen the impacts of hazards to new and existing infrastructure (a) Objective: Retrofit critical facilities and structures with structural design practices and equipment that will withstand natural disasters and offer weather-proofing. (b) Objective: Equip public facilities and communities to guard against damage caused by secondary effects of hazards. (c) Objective: Minimize the amount of infrastructure exposed to hazards. (d) Objective: Evaluate and strengthen the communication and transportation abilities of emergency services throughout the community. (e) Objective: Improve emergency sheltering in the community. Goal 2: Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community (a) Objective: Support compliance with the NFIP. (b) Objective: Review and update existing, or create new, community plans and ordinances to support hazard mitigation. (c) Objective: Conduct new studies/research to profile hazards and follow up with mitigation strategies. Goal 3: Develop long-term strategies to educate community residents on the hazards affecting their county (a) Objective: Raise public awareness on hazard mitigation. (b) Objective: Improve education and training of emergency personnel and public officials. 5.3 Mitigation Actions/Projects Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 89 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Upon completion of the risk assessment and development of the goals and objectives, the planning committee was provided a list of the six mitigation measure categories from the FEMA State and Local Mitigation Planning How to Guides. The measures are listed as follows: • Prevention: Government, administrative, or regulatory actions or processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built. These actions also include public activities to reduce hazard losses. Examples include planning and zoning, building codes, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection: Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, elevation, structural retrofits, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass. • Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about the hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Such actions include outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education programs. • Natural Resource Protection: Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. These actions include sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. • Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event. Services include warning systems, emergency response services, and protection of critical facilities. • Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Such structures include dams, levees, floodwalls, seawalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. After Meeting #3, held June 9, 2010, MHMP members were presented with the task of individually listing potential mitigation activities using the FEMA evaluation criteria. The MHMP members brought their mitigation ideas to Meeting #4 which was held August 11, 2010. The evaluation criteria(STAPLE+E) involved the following categories and questions. Social: • Will the proposed action adversely affect one segment of the population? • Will the action disrupt established neighborhoods, break up voting districts, or cause the relocation of lower income people? Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 90 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Technical: • How effective is the action in avoiding or reducing future losses? • Will it create more problems than it solves? • Does it solve the problem or only a symptom? • Does the mitigation strategy address continued compliance with the NFIP? Administrative: • Does the jurisdiction have the capability (staff, technical experts, and/or funding) to implement the action, or can it be readily obtained? • Can the community provide the necessary maintenance? • Can it be accomplished in a timely manner? Political: • Is there political support to implement and maintain this action? • Is there a local champion willing to help see the action to completion? • Is there enough public support to ensure the success of the action? • How can the mitigation objectives be accomplished at the lowest cost to the public? Legal: • Does the community have the authority to implement the proposed action? • Are the proper laws, ordinances, and resolution in place to implement the action? • Are there any potential legal consequences? • Is there any potential community liability? • Is the action likely to be challenged by those who may be negatively affected? • Does the mitigation strategy address continued compliance with the NFIP? Economic: • Are there currently sources of funds that can be used to implement the action? • What benefits will the action provide? • Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and likely benefits? • What burden will be placed on the tax base or local economy to implement this action? • Does the action contribute to other community economic goals such as capital improvements or economic development? • What proposed actions should be considered but be "tabled" for implementation until outside sources of funding are available? Environmental: • How will this action affect the environment(land, water, endangered species)? • Will this action comply with local, state, and federal environmental laws and regulations? • Is the action consistent with community environmental goals? 5.4 Implementation Strategy and Analysis of Mitigation Projects Implementation of the mitigation plan is critical to the overall success of the mitigation planning process. The first step is to decide, based upon many factors, which action will be undertaken first. In order to pursue the top priority first, an analysis and prioritization of the actions is Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 91 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 important. Some actions may occur before the top priority due to financial, engineering, environmental, permitting, and site control issues. Public awareness and input of these mitigation actions can increase knowledge to capitalize on funding opportunities and monitoring the progress of an action. In Meeting #4, the planning team prioritized mitigation actions based on a number of factors. A rating of high, medium, or low was assessed for each mitigation item and is listed next to each item in Table 5-5. The factors were the STAPLE+E (Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental) criteria listed in Table 5-4. Table 5-4: STAPLE+E planning factors S—Social Mitigation actions are acceptable to the community if they do not adversely affect a particular segment of the population,do not cause relocation of lower income people,and if they are compatible with the community's social and cultural values. T—Technical Mitigation actions are technically most effective if they provide a long-term reduction of losses and have minimal secondary adverse impacts. A—Administrative Mitigation actions are easier to implement if the jurisdiction has the necessary staffing and funding. P—Political Mitigation actions can truly be successful if all stakeholders have been offered an opportunity to participate in the planning process and if there is public support for the action. L—Legal It is critical that the jurisdiction or implementing agency have the legal authority to implement and enforce a mitigation action. E—Economic Budget constraints can significantly deter the implementation of mitigation actions.Hence,it is important to evaluate whether an action is cost-effective,as determined by a cost benefit review, and possible to fund. E—Environmental Sustainable mitigation actions that do not have an adverse effect on the environment,comply with federal,state,and local environmental regulations,and are consistent with the community's environmental goals,have mitigation benefits while being environmentally sound. For each mitigation action related to infrastructure, new and existing infrastructure was considered. Additionally, the mitigation strategies address continued compliance with the NFIP. While an official cost benefit review was not conducted for any of the mitigation actions, the estimated costs were discussed. The overall benefits were considered when prioritizing mitigation items from high to low. An official cost benefit review will be conducted prior to the implementations of any mitigation actions. Table 5-5 presents mitigation projects developed by the planning committee, as well as actions that are ongoing or already completed. Since this is the first mitigation plan developed for Kendall County, there are no deleted or deferred mitigation items. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 92 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Table 5-5: Mitigation Strategies Mitigation Item Goals and Objects Satisfied Hazards Jurisdictions Covered Priority Comments Addressed Goal: Improve emergency communications with the public Kendall County, All critical facilities are equipped with weather Require critical facilities to Tornado, Boulder Hill,Plano, radios.The county would like to develop a have weather radios Objective:Evaluate and strengthen Thunderstorm Sandwich,Yorkville, Ongoing program to distribute weather radios to the the communication and Lisbon, Montgomery, public as well and will solicit funding from IEMA transportation abilities of emergency Newark,Oswego and FEMA. services throughout the county. Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community New stream gauges are being installed on Install stream gauges Objective:Conduct new Flood Kendall County Ongoing tributaries to Fox River: Little Rock Creek,Big studies/research to profile hazards Rock Creek,Blackberry Creek and follow up with mitigation strategies. Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community Establish mutual aid Objective:Review and update Winter Storm, Kendall County Ongoing The county has mutual aid agreements in place existing,or create new,community agreements Hazmat for hazmat incidents and snow removal. plans and ordinances to support hazard mitigation. Goal: Develop long-term strategies to educate the community residents Tornado, Flood, Create a database for on the hazards affecting their county Earthquake, The county keeps a database for senior citizens Thunderstorm, with special needs.There are continued identification of special Winter Storm, Kendall County Ongoing attempts to create a similar database for non- needs population Objective:Improve education and Drought, senior residents. training of emergency personnel and Hazmat,Fire public officials. Goal: Develop long-term strategies to educate the community residents Conduct public education on the hazards affecting their county After 9-11,the county conducted extensive regarding nearby nuclear Hazmat Kendall County Ongoing public education. power plant Objective:Raise public awareness on hazard mitigation. Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards All state highways have snow fences.The to new and existing infrastructure county would like to build additional snow Build snow fences along fences along the following roads:Grover Road, roads to mitigate drifting Objective:Equip public facilities and Winter Storm Kendall County Ongoing Plainfield Road, Ridge Road,Wolf Road, County Line Road,and Plains Road. Funding snow communities to guard against will be sought from the highway department and damage caused by secondary ILDOT. If funding is available,implementation effects of hazards. will begin within three years. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 93 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Mitigation Item Goals and Objects Satisfied Hazards Jurisdictions Covered Priority Comments Addressed Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community The county has developed a number of Develop stormwater stormwater management ordinances(including management ordinances Objective:Review and update Flood Kendall County In for Ausable Creek)and updates them on a and plans existing,or create new,community Progress regular basis.The county will continue to use plans and ordinances to support local resources to develop stormwater management plans for each community. hazard mitigation. Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards on at risk populations. Plano,Sandwich, Establish warming and Drought,Winter Kendall County communities are equipped with cooling centers Storm Yorkville, Montgomery, Complete warming and cooling centers. Objective: Improve emergency Oswego sheltering in the community. Goal: Improve communication to the public. Tornado, Flood, Earthquake, Install Reverse 911 for mass Thunderstorm, Objective:Evaluate and strengthen Drought,Winter Kendall County Complete The county has a Reverse 911 system. notification the communication and Storm, Ha irate transportation abilities of emergency Fire services throughout the county. Goal: Improve First Responder communication. Establish a system to alert Tornado oulder Hill, Plano, First responders in the northern part of the o, first responders of Objective:Evaluate and strengthen Sandwich,Yorkville, Complete county are alerted by Skywarn in conjunction emergencies the communication and Thunderstorm Montgomery,Oswego with Chicago systems. transportation abilities of emergency services throughout the county. Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards Tornado, Flood, Kendall County, Earthquake, to the community. Boulder Hill, Plano, Establish safe rooms in Thunderstorm, Sandwich,Yorkville, Complete The county has safe rooms in all critical critical facilities Objective: Improve emergency Drought,Winter Lisbon, Montgomery, facilities. sheltering in the community. Storm, Hazmat, Newark,Oswego Fire Goal:Create new or revise existing Buy out homes in areas that plans/maps for the community Homes along Fox River in Montgomery have have frequent flooding Flood Montgomery Complete been bought out. Objective:Support compliance with the NFIP for each jurisdiction. Institute a buy-out plan for The County EMA and Floodplain Managers will repetitive loss properties in Goal:Create new or revise existing oversee the implementation of the project. Black Hawk Springs and plans/maps for the community Funding has not been secured as of 2010 but along Oswego Fox River Flood Kendall County High will be sought from funding sources such as and Blackberry Creek;move Objective:Support compliance with IEMA. Implementation, if funding is available,is Farnsworth House(historical the NFIP for each jurisdiction. forecasted to begin within five years. site)to a new location Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 94 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Mitigation Item Goals and Objects Satisfied Hazards Jurisdictions Covered Priority Comments Addressed The County and other jurisdictions will oversee the implementation of this project.Local Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards Tornado, Flood, Kendall County, resources will be used to determine which Purchase transfer switches to new and existing infrastructure Earthquake, Boulder Hill,Plano, facilities should receive generators.Funding to provide back-up power to Sandwich,Yorkville, High has not been secured as of 2010,but the pre- critical facilities Objective:Improve emergency Thunderstorm, Lisbon, Montgomery, disaster mitigation program and community sheltering in the community. Winter Storm Newark,Oswego development grants are possible funding sources. If funding is available,this project is forecasted to begin within one year. Goal: Develop long-term strategies Tornado, Flood, to educate the community residents Earthquake, The County EMA will oversee this project. Establish CERT teams and on the hazards affecting their county Thunderstorm, Funding will be sought from FEMA and IEMA. If procure funding for training Kendall County High and equipment Objective:Improve education and Winter Storm, funding is available,implementation will begin training of emergency personnel and Hazmat, Fire, within one year. public officials. Drought Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards to new and existing infrastructure Kendall County, Install lightning suppression, The County EMA will oversee this project. Plano, power conditioning,and Boulder Hill, Funding will be sought from community grants surge protection in critical Objective:Retrofit critical facilities Thunderstorm Sandwich,Yorkville, High and local resources.If funding is available, facilities with structural design practices and Lisbon, Montgomery, implementation will begin within five years. equipment that will withstand natural Newark,Oswego disasters and offer weather-proofing. Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards Tornado, Flood, to new and existing infrastructure Earthquake, The County EMA will work with first responders Implement Nixle for mass to implement Nixle.Funding for public media release via e-mail Objective:Evaluate and strengthen Thunderstorm, Kendall County High education may be sought from FEMA. If and text messages the communication and Winter Storm, resources are available,implementation will transportation abilities of emergency Hazmat, Fire, begin within one year. services throughout the county. Drought Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards The County EMA will work with engineers to to new and existing infrastructure Kendall County, oversee the implementation of this project. Tornado, Flood, Boulder Hill,Plano, Funding has not been secured as of 2010,but Establish secure mobile Objective:Retrofit critical facilities Earthquake, Sandwich,Yorkville, Medium federal,state,and community development classrooms with structural design practices and Thunderstorm, Lisbon, Montgomery, grants are possible funding sources. equipment that will withstand natural Winter Storm Newark,Oswego Implementation, if funding is available,will disasters and offer weather-proofing. begin within three years. Goal: Improve communications Tornado, Flood, The County EMA will oversee implementation between First Responders. Earthquake, of this project.Local resources will be used to Improve communications Thunderstorm, develop an interoperability plan. Funding for interoperability Objective:Evaluate and strengthen Drought,Winter Kendall County Medium exercises and training may be sought from the communication and state resources. If funding and resources are transportation abilities of emergency Storm, Hazmat,Fire available,implementation will begin within three services throughout the county. years. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 95 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Mitigation Item Goals and Objects Satisfied Hazards Jurisdictions Covered Priority Comments Addressed Goal: Improve communication with The County EMA and County Highway the public. Departments oversee the implementation of this Procure temporary signage project.Local resources will be used as much to use during power outages Objective:Equip public facilities and Flood Kendall County Medium as possible and additional funding will be or warn of road closure communities with means to guard sought from the PDM program. Implementation, against damage caused by if funding is available,is forecasted to begin seconda effects of hazards. within three years. Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards Conduct stream and ditch to new and existing infrastructure Boulder Hill,Plano, The County Engineer will oversee this project. maintenance along all Sandwich,Yorkville, The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the streams in developed areas Objective:Evaluate and strengthen Flood Lisbon, Montgomery, Medium DNR are potential funding sources. If funding is Newark O the communication and available,implementation will begin within three of the county transportation abilities of emergency ewar , swego years. services throughout the county. Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community The County EMA will work with the highway Conduct a commodity flow department to complete this project. Funding study Objective:Conduct new Hazmat Kendall County Medium will be sought from ILDOT.If funding is studies/research to profile hazards available,implementation will begin within three and follow up with mitigation years. strategies. Goal:Create new or revise existing Establish best practices for plans/maps for the community County officials will establish and document burying power lines in new Objective:Conduct new Winter Storm Kendall County Low best practices using local resources. If resources are available,implementation will subdivisions studies/research to profile hazards begin within five years. and follow up with mitigation strategies. Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards The County EMA and County Highway Procure emergency to new and existing infrastructure Tornado, Flood, Departments oversee the implementation of this operation system/switches Objective:Evaluate and strengthen Earthquake, Kendall County Low project.Funding will be sought from federal and for traffic signals(manual Thunderstorm, state agencies. Implementation,if funding is control) the communication and transportation abilities of emergency Winter Storm available,is forecasted to begin within five services throughout the county. years. Improve condition of Wolf Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards The County Highway Department will oversee to new and existing infrastructure Road by installing new Flood Kendall County Low this project.Funding will be sought from DNR, culverts and/or elevating the Objective:Minimize the amount of FEMA,and IEMA.If funding is available, road infrastructure exposed to hazards. implementation will begin within five years. Goal: Lessen the impacts of hazards The County EMA and County Highway Improve signage and signals to new and existing infrastructure Department oversee the implementation of this at intersections with frequent project.Funding will be sought from federal and accidents:34 and 30;71 Objective:Evaluate and strengthen Hazmat Kendall County Low state agencies. Implementation,if funding is and 34 the communication and transportation abilities of emergency available,is forecasted to begin within five services throughout the county. I years. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 96 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Mitigation Item Goals and Objects Satisfied Hazards Jurisdictions Covered Priority Comments Addressed Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community Plano currently has no evacuation plan.City Develop an evacuation plan Objective: Review and date Hazmat Plano Low resources will be used to develop and publicize up for hazmat incidents the plan. If resources are available, existing,or create new,community implementation will begin within five years. plans and ordinances to support hazard mitigation. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 97 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 The Kendall County Emergency Management will be the local champions for the mitigation actions. The County Commissioners and the city and town councils will be an integral part of the implementation process. Federal and state assistance will be necessary for a number of the identified actions. 5.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy As a part of the multi-hazard mitigation planning requirements, at least two identifiable mitigation action items have been addressed for each hazard listed in the risk assessment and for each jurisdiction covered under this plan. Each of the nine incorporated communities within and including Kendall County was invited to participate in brainstorming sessions in which goals, objectives, and strategies were discussed and prioritized. Each participant in these sessions was armed with possible mitigation goals and strategies provided by FEMA, as well as information about mitigation projects discussed in neighboring communities and counties. All potential strategies and goals that arose through this process are included in this plan. The county planning team used FEMA's evaluation criteria to gauge the priority of all items. A final draft of the disaster mitigation plan was presented to all members to allow for final edits and approval of the priorities. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 98 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Section 6 - Plan Maintenance 6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Throughout the five-year planning cycle, the Kendall County Emergency Management Agency will reconvene the MHMP planning committee to monitor, evaluate, and update the plan on an annual basis. Additionally, a meeting will be held during February 2011 to address the five-year update of this plan. Members of the planning committee are readily available to engage in email correspondence between annual meetings. If the need for a special meeting, due to new developments or a declared disaster occurs in the county, the team will meet to update mitigation strategies. Depending on grant opportunities and fiscal resources, mitigation projects may be implemented independently by individual communities or through local partnerships. The committee will review the county goals and objectives to determine their relevance to changing situations in the county. In addition, state and federal policies will be reviewed to ensure they are addressing current and expected conditions. The committee will also review the risk assessment portion of the plan to determine if this information should be updated or modified. The parties responsible for the various implementation actions will report on the status of their projects, and will include which implementation processes worked well, any difficulties encountered, how coordination efforts are proceeding, and which strategies should be revised. Updates or modifications to the MHMP during the five-year planning process will require a public notice and a meeting prior to submitting revisions to the individual jurisdictions for approval. The plan will be updated via written changes, submissions as the committee deems appropriate and necessary, and as approved by the county commissioners. The GIS data used to prepare the plan was obtained from existing county GIS data as well as data collected as part of the planning process. This updated HAZUS-MH GIS data has been returned to the county for use and maintenance in the county's system. As newer data becomes available, this updated data will be used for future risk assessments and vulnerability analyses. 6.2 Implementation through Existing Programs The results of this plan will be incorporated into ongoing planning efforts since many of the mitigation projects identified as part of this planning process are ongoing. Kendall County and its incorporated jurisdictions will update the zoning plans and ordinances listed in Table 5-2 as necessary and as part of regularly scheduled updates. Each community will be responsible for updating its own plans and ordinances. 6.3 Continued Public Involvement Continued public involvement is critical to the successful implementation of the MHMP. Comments from the public on the MHMP will be received by the EMA director and forwarded to the MHMP planning committee for discussion. Education efforts for hazard mitigation will be ongoing through the EMA. The public will be notified of periodic planning meetings through notices in the local newspaper. Once adopted, a copy of this plan will be maintained in each jurisdiction and in the County EMA Office. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 99 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 APPENDICES Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 100 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Glossary of Terms A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A AEGL—Acute Exposure Guideline Levels ALOHA—Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres B BFE—Base Flood Elevation C CAMEO—Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations CEMA—County Emergency Management Agency CEMP—Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan CERI—Center for Earthquake Research and Information CRS—Community Rating System D DEM—Digital Elevation Model DFIRM—Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DMA—Disaster Mitigation Act E EAP—Emergency Action Plan ERPG—Emergency Response Planning Guidelines EMA—Emergency Management Agency EPA—Environmental Protection Agency F FEMA—Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM—Flood Insurance Rate Maps FIS—Flood Information Study G GIS—Geographic Information System Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 101 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 H HAZUS-MH—Hazards USA Multi-Hazard HUC—Hydrologic Unit Code I IDNR—Illinois Department of Natural Resources IEMA—Illinois Emergency Management Agency IDOT-Illinois Department of Transportation M MHMP—Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan N NCDC—National Climatic Data Center NEHRP—National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NFIP—National Flood Insurance Program NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P PPM Parts Per Million R RPI Risk Priority Index S SPC—Storm Prediction Center SWPPP—Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan U USGS—United States Geological Survey Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 102 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Appendix A: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Meeting Minutes Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 103 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 IEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Assembly of the Kendall County Planning Team Meeting 1: Chairman: Terry Tichava, Emergency Management Director Plan Directors: SIUC Geology Department and IUPUI - Polis Meeting Date: March 10, 2010 Meeting Time: 1 pm Place: Kendall County Sheriff's Office: Public Safety Center, 1102 Cornell Lane, Yorkville, IL Planning Team/Attendance: Jonathan Remo SIUC Geology Megan Carlson SIUC Geology Lynette Bergeron Village of Plattville/Ken Com Dave Farris Kencom Public Safetly Dispatch William Dostor Plainfield PD John Konopek Plainfield PD Jim Jensen Oswego PD Terry Tichava Kendall Co. EMA Jeff Spang Little Rock-Fox Fire Protection District Jeff Warren Oswego Fire Protection District Lowell Mathre Newark Fire Michael Hitzemann Bristol Kendall Fire Jerry A Dugeon Kendall Co. PB&Z Rich Hart Yorkville PD Bill King Sandwich Fire Joe Gillespie Kendall Sheriffs/EMA Mike Doerzaph Aurora PD Jonathan Whowell Plano PD Tracy Page Kendall Sheriff/EMA Introduction to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Process The meeting is called to order Narrative: A power-point presentation was given by Jonathan Remo. He explained that this project is in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The project is funded by a grant awarded by FEMA. A twenty-five percent match will be required from the county to fund this project. The county match will be met by sweat equity and GIS data acquired from the County Assessor's Office. The sweat equity will be an accumulation of time spent at the meetings, on Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 104 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 research assignments, surveys, along with the time spent reviewing and producing the planning document. Jonathan Remo introduced the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Website to the planning team. A username and password was given to the planning team, which will grant them access to the web site. The web site is used to schedule meetings,post contact information and download material pertaining to the planning process. Jonathan Remo divided the planning project into five to six meetings. At the 1St meeting, the planning team will review critical facility maps. The planning team will be asked to research and verify the location of all critical facilities within the county. Jonathan stated that public participation is very important throughout the planning process. He explained that all of the meetings are open to the public but there will be a particular effort made to invite the public to the 3rd meeting. At that meeting, the SIUC Geology Department will present historic accounts of natural disasters that have affected this area. At the 2nd meeting the discussion will focus on natural disasters that are relevant to this area. These hazards will be given a probability rating and ranked by their occurrence and potential level of risk. Polis and SIUC Geology will research these hazards and present them to the planning team. The 3rd meeting is publicized in order to encourage public participation. Polis and SIUC Geology will produce a risk assessment in draft form; each planning team member will get a copy. Also they will present strategies and projects that FEMA and other counties have undertaken for the planning team to review. The 4th meeting consists of a brain storming session focused on disasters that were analyzed in the risk assessment report. The Planning Team will list strategies and projects that could be implemented to mitigate the potential hazards that threaten the county. FEMA requires that for every identified hazard, a strategy to mitigate the loss and damage must be in place. The strategies may range from educational awareness to hardening a building or building a levee. After the 4th meeting the plan will be in its final draft form. At the 5th meeting the planning team will need to review the plan prior to sending it to IEMA. IEMA will review the plan and will make recommendation to it as they see fit, then it is submitted to FEMA for review and approval. Once the plan has been submitted to FEMA, local governments are eligible to apply for grants to mitigate these established hazards. After FEMA approves the plan, it is sent back to the Planning Team. At the 6th meeting the Planning Team will present the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan to the County Board for adoption. Incorporated communities must either adopt the county plan or prepare its own plan, in order to access mitigation assistance from FEMA. The communities are encouraged to participate and contribute to development of the plan. Once the County Board has adopted the plan, each incorporated community will have the opportunity to adopt the plan as well. Jonathan Remo then introduced Megan Carlson of SIUC. Megan Carlson presented three maps that identified critical facilities in the county. She asked the planning team to come up to review the maps to identify any corrections that need to be made to the maps. She assigned research homework arranged by categories to individual planning team members to locate missing or incorrect critical facilities. Meeting was adjourned. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 105 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 t 1A. w Z Tj µ } kN ?C tr} z ir R 0 u (p� Ln r_. w4 4 V4 IN 17, m pfd � �G Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 106 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 IEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Assembly of the Kendall County Planning Team Meeting 2: Chairman: Terry Tichava,Emergency Management Director Plan Directors: SIUC Geology Department and IUPUI -Polis Meeting Date: April 14, 2010 Meeting Time: 1 pm Place: Kendall County Sheriff's Office: Public Safety Center, 1102 Cornell Lane, Yorkville, IL Planning Team/Attendance: Jonathan Remo SIUC Geology Megan Carlson SIUC Geology Stan Laken Kendall County Dane Farris Kencom 911 Emergency Communications Lowell Mathre Newark Fire Department Michael Hitzemann Bristol-Kendall Fire Department Lynette Bergeron Kencom/Village of Plattville Dave Delaney Yorkville PD Donald Schwartzkopf Yorkville PD Rich Hart Yorkville PD LT Jonathan Whowell Plano PD Chief T. Tichava Kendall SO/EMA John Konopek Plainfield PD/EMA Jerry A. Dudgeon Kendall County PBC James Jenson Oswego PD William R. King Sandwich Fire Department Jeff Spang Little Rock-Fix Fire Protection District Tracy Page Kendall County The meeting was called to order. Jonathan Remo began the meeting by re-introducing the objectives of the PDM Planning document. The planning document is mandated as a result of the"Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000". Jonathan stated that the objective of the meeting was to prioritize a list of disasters that are relevant to Kendall County. Jonathan Remo provided the planning team with a handout to direct the focus of the meeting discussion. As Jonathan began to conduct the prioritizing process, he described the risk assessment ranking that FEMA has established. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 107 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Narrative: The Planning Team was then asked to assess and rank the hazards that could potentially befall Kendall County using the risk priority index (RPI). The identified hazards were ranked as followed for Kendall County: #1: Thunderstorms/High Winds/Hail/Lightening #2: Tornado #3: Transportation Hazardous Material Release #4: Flooding #5: Winter Storms #6: Fire/Explosion #7: Earthquake Narrative: The planning team was then asked to analyze the historical weather events that have been plotted on a map of the county and communities therein. No corrections were noted by the planning team. The planning team agreed to complete any missing information pertaining to critical facilities by the next meeting. Meeting was adjourned. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 108 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ' U r Z f. , u . � cj {� 7 o , tr r A � � O i w r Ln L LI Lt A In 11 _-Z7 0 J rl r p ( O L3 t I W i r c _ 7G ti4 N A L Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 109 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 IEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Assembly of the Kendall County Planning Team Meeting 3: Chairman: Terry Tichava, Emergency Management Director Plan Directors: SIUC Geology Department and IUPUI - Polis Meeting Date: June 9, 2010 Meeting Time: 1 pm Place: Kendall County Sheriff's Office: Public Safety Center, 1102 Cornell Lane, Yorkville, IL Planning Team/Attendance: Jonathan Remo SIUC Geology Beth Ellison SIUC Geology Donald P. Scwartzkopf Yorkville PD Dave Delaney Yorkville PD Matt Schwy Kendall County Record Terry Tichava Kendall County SO/EMA Jerry H. Dudgeon Kendall County PBZ John Sterrett Kendall County PBZ Michael Hitzemann Bristol-Kendall Fire Department Don Clayton Kendall County Jim Jenson Oswego PD Jeff Warren Oswego Fire Department David Farris Kencom Jonathan Whowell Plano PD Jeff Spang Little Rock-Fox FPD Lynette Bergeron KencomNillage of Plattville The meeting was called to order. Jonathan Remo opened the meeting with an overview of the planning process and the roles of SIU and the Polis Center. Then he went on to explain the topics and objectives of the current meeting. Jonathan first presented the planning team with the list of hazards that the team had ranked by their level of risk from the previous meeting. He also presented a power point presentation of the history of Kendall County's past disasters. This included covering each hazard that the County had focused on, the history of each and then the mitigation strategies. He defined mitigation as the act of avoidance and preparedness. A draft of the Kendall County Mitigation Plan and a copy of Mitigation Ideas,produced by FEMA Region 5 in July 2002, were given to each of the planning team members for review. It was explained by Jonathan the contents of the booklet and that each of the planning team members should return to meeting 4 with three mitigation strategies for each of the hazards identified by the planning team. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 110 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Jonathan Remo then asked the audience for questions or comment. After some discussion about the plan and how it would affect the community and its residents, he thanked those who came and a closed the presentation. Meeting was adjourned. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 111 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 cbm in c t j N IL 7 rd ■ a G 4j it If 4 r k_� I - '_ , J r, 1 dro Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 112 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 IEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Assembly of the Kendall County Planning Team Meeting 4: Chairman: Terry Tichava, Emergency Management Director Plan Directors: SIUC Geology Department and IUPUI—Polis Meeting Date: August 11, 2010 Meeting Time: 1 pm Place: Kendall County Sheriff's Office: Public Safety Center, 1102 Cornell Lane, Yorkville, IL Attendance: Jonathan Remo SIUC Geology Beth Elision SIUC Geology John Buechler IUPUI—Polis John Sterrett Kendall County PBZ Michael Hitzemann Bristol-Kendall Fire Department Larry Hilt Yorkville PD Joe Gillespie Kendall County Dane Farris Kencom Lynette Bergeron KencomNillage of Plattville Lowell Mathre Newark Fire Department Bill King Sandwich Fire Department Don Clayton Kendall County GIS Tracy Page Kendall County Stan Laken Kendall County Tech Terry Tichava Kendall County SO/EMA Dave Delaney Yorkville PD Jon Whowell Plano PD James Jenson Oswego PD Jeff Spang Little Rock-Fox FPD The meeting was called to order. Jonathan Remo thanked everyone for attending the meeting and stated that if the planning team members needed extra mitigation strategy handbooks that they were available upon request. He introduced John Buechler from the Polis Center that was in attendance that day also. Jon Remo began by explaining that today's meeting would cover mitigation strategies that the planning team believed would prevent or eliminate the loss of life and property. He explained that the planning team should not make any reservations in the form of money or resources when developing this list. John Buechler stepped in to direct the mitigation ideas brainstorming period. Whenever possible, the planning team was directed to be specific about the location or focus area of a strategy, in respect to being within a municipality or county wide. Each hazard was addressed one at a time. The planning team listed new and current on-going mitigation Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 113 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 strategies in respect to each hazard. The planning team prioritized mitigation actions based on a number of factors. A rating of High, Medium, or Low was assessed for each mitigation item. Listed below are the New Mitigation Strategies that the Planning Team came up with: Mitigation Item Goals and Objects Satisfied Hazards Jurisdictions Covered Priority Addressed Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards to new and existing infrastructure Kendall County, Require critical facilities to Tornado, Boulder Hill,Plano, have weather radios Objective: Evaluate and strengthen Thunderstorm Sandwich,Yorkville, Ongoing the communication and Lisbon, Montgomery, transportation abilities of emergency Newark,Oswego services throughout the county. Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community Install stream gauges Objective:Conduct new Flood Kendall County Ongoing studies/research to profile hazards and follow up with mitigation strategies. Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community Establish mutual aid Winter Storm, agreements Objective: Review and update Hazmat Kendall County Ongoing existing,or create new,community plans and ordinances to support hazard mitigation. Goal: Develop long-term strategies Tornado, Flood, to educate the community residents Earthquake, Create a database for on the hazards affecting their county Thunderstorm, identification of special Winter Storm, Kendall County Ongoing needs population Objective: Improve education and Drought, training of emergency personnel and Hazmat, Fire public officials. Goal: Develop long-term strategies Conduct public education to educate the community residents on the hazards affecting their county regarding nearby nuclear Hazmat Kendall County Ongoing power plant Objective: Raise public awareness on hazard mitigation. Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards to new and existing infrastructure Build snow fences along roads to mitigate drifting Objective: Equip public facilities and Winter Storm Kendall County Ongoing snow communities to guard against damage caused by secondary effects of hazards. Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community Develop stormwater In management ordinances Objective: Review and update Flood Kendall County Progress and plans existing,or create new,community plans and ordinances to support hazard mitigation. Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards Establish warming and on at risk populations. Drought,Winter Plano,Sandwich, cooling centers Storm Yorkville, Montgomery, Complete Objective: Improve emergency Oswego sheltering in the community. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 114 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Mitigation Item Goals and Objects Satisfied Hazards Jurisdictions Covered Priority Addressed Goal: Improve communication to the public. Tornado, Flood, Earthquake, Install Reverse 911 for mass Thunderstorm, notification Objective: Evaluate and strengthen Drought,Winter Kendall County Complete the communication and Storm, Hazmat, transportation abilities of emergency Fire services throughout the county. Goal: Improve First Responder communication. Establish a system to alert Tornado, Boulder Hill,Plano, first responders of Objective: Evaluate and strengthen Sandwich,Yorkville, Complete emergencies the communication and Thunderstorm Montgomery,Oswego transportation abilities of emergency services throughout the county. Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards Tornado, Flood, Kendall County, Earthquake, to the community. Boulder Hill,Plano, Establish safe rooms in Thunderstorm, critical facilities Drought,Winter Sandwich,Yorkville, Complete Objective: Improve emergency Storm, Hazmat, Lisbon, Montgomery, sheltering in the community. Fire Newark,Oswego Goal:Create new or revise existing Buy out homes in areas that Plans/maps for the community have frequent flooding Flood Montgomery Complete Objective:Support compliance with the NFIP for each jurisdiction. Institute a buy-out plan for repetitive loss properties in Goal:Create new or revise existing Black Hawk Springs and plans/maps for the community along Oswego Fox River Flood Kendall County High and Blackberry Creek;move Objective:Support compliance with Farnsworth House(historical the NFIP for each jurisdiction. site)to a new location Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards Tornado, Flood, Kendall County, Purchase transfer switches to new and existing infrastructure Earthquake, Boulder Hill,Plano, to provide back-up power to Sandwich,Yorkville, High critical facilities Objective: Improve emergency Thunderstorm, Lisbon, Montgomery, sheltering in the community. Winter Storm Newark,Oswego Goal: Develop long-term strategies Tornado, Flood, to educate the community residents Earthquake, Establish CERT teams and on the hazards affecting their county Thunderstorm, procure funding for training Winter Storm, Kendall County High and equipment Objective: Improve education and Hazmat, Fire, training of emergency personnel and Drought public officials. Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards Install lightning suppression, to new and existing infrastructure Kendall County, power conditioning,and Boulder Hill,Plano, surge protection in critical Objective: Retrofit critical facilities Thunderstorm Sandwich,Yorkville, High facilities with structural design practices and Lisbon, Montgomery, equipment that will withstand natural Newark,Oswego disasters and offer weather-proofing. Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards Tornado, Flood, to new and existing infrastructure Earthquake, Implement Nixle for mass Thunderstorm, media release via e-mail Objective: Evaluate and strengthen Kendall County High and text messages the communication and Winter Storm, transportation abilities of emergency Hazmat, Fire, services throughout the county. Drought Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards to new and existing infrastructure Kendall County, Tornado, Flood, Boulder Hill,Plano, Establish secure mobile Objective: Retrofit critical facilities Earthquake, Sandwich,Yorkville, Medium classrooms with structural design practices and Thunderstorm, Lisbon, Montgomery, equipment that will withstand natural Winter Storm Newark,Oswego disasters and offer weather-proofing. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 115 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Mitigation Item Goals and Objects Satisfied Hazards Jurisdictions Covered Priority Addressed Goal: Improve communications between First Responders. Tornado, Flood, Earthquake, Improve communications Thunderstorm, interoperability Objective: Evaluate and strengthen Drought,Winter Kendall County Medium the communication and Storm, Hazmat, transportation abilities of emergency Fire services throughout the county. Goal: Improve communication with the public. Procure temporary signage to use during power outages Objective: Equip public facilities and Flood Kendall County Medium or warn of road closure communities with means to guard against damage caused by secondary effects of hazards. Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards Conduct stream and ditch to new and existing infrastructure Boulder Hill,Plano, maintenance along all Objective: Evaluate and strengthen Flood Sandwich,Yorkville, Medium streams in developed areas the communication and Lisbon, Montgomery, of the county transportation abilities of emergency Newark,Oswego services throughout the county. Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community Conduct a commodity flow Objective:Conduct new Hazmat Kendall County Medium study studies/research to profile hazards and follow up with mitigation strategies. Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community Establish best practices for burying power lines in new Objective:Conduct new Winter Storm Kendall County Low subdivisions studies/research to profile hazards and follow up with mitigation strategies. Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards Procure emergency to new and existing infrastructure Tornado, Flood, operation system/switches Objective: Evaluate and strengthen Earthquake, Kendall County Low for traffic signals(manual the communication and Thunderstorm, control) transportation abilities of emergency Winter Storm services throughout the county. Improve condition of Wolf Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards Road by installing new to new and existing infrastructure culverts and/or elevating the Flood Kendall County Low road Objective: Minimize the amount of infrastructure exposed to hazards. Goal:Lessen the impacts of hazards Improve signage and signals to new and existing infrastructure at intersections with frequent Objective: Evaluate and strengthen Hazmat Kendall County Low accidents: 34 and 30;71 the communication and and 34 transportation abilities of emergency services throughout the county. Goal:Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community Develop an evacuation plan for hazmat incidents Objective: Review and update Hazmat Plano Low existing,or create new,community plans and ordinances to support hazard mitigation. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 116 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 so r 4 T r M C7 r �4 v �7 J b a 7 � A Qj t w 3 1 cr -.f Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 117 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 IEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Assembly of the Kendall County Planning Team Meeting 5: Chairman: Terry Tichava,Emergency Management Director Plan Directors: SIUC Geology Department and IUPUI—Polis Meeting Date: October 13, 2010 Meeting Time: 1 pm Place: Kendall County Sheriff's Office: Public Safety Center, 1102 Cornell Lane, Yorkville, IL Planning Team/Attendance: Lynette Bergeron Kencom/Village of Plattville Cpt. James Jenson Oswego PD D.C. Dave Delaney Yorkville PD Chief Rich Hart Yorkville PD Lt. Don Schwartkopf Yorkville PD D.C. Larry Hilt Yorkville PD Terry Tichava Kendall County EMA Jeff Spang LRFFPD Bill Perkins Oswego FPA Dave Farris Kencom Don Clayton Kendall County GIS Stan Laken Kendall County Technical Tracy Page Kendall EMA Joe Gillespie Kendall EMA Jackie Lemmerhirt-Kowalski Village of Millbrook John Sterrett Kendall PBZ The meeting was called to order. Terry Tichava opened the meeting with an overview of what was to happen from this point on with the plan. He stated that the plan could be reviewed by the Planning Team members for about 2 weeks so everyone would have ample amount of time look at and review the plan for any discrepancies. He also stated that in approximately 3 weeks the plan would be sent to IEMA/FEMA. They would then review it and if everything is OK with the plan, then we should hear back from IEMA/FEMA hopefully by October for their approval. Terry then explained that once it comes back approved, then a Resolution will have to be passed by all municipalities. After they are passed, they needed to be returned Terry and he will forward them on to FEMA. Once FEMA gets the Resolutions, they will send notification that the municipality has a completed and approved plan. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 118 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 He also explained that once the plan is submitted to IEMA/FEMA for their review, the municipalities can begin formulating and putting together their projects for funding. . It was also explained to the planning team that FEMA will require a five-year update to the plan. Terry told the planning team that in another five years,the members should come together again, most likely under the direction of the ESDA Director, to review the plan and make any necessary changes to it. He explained that FEMA will probably send out a reminder as to when this is supposed to take place. After Terry explained the above process, he pointed out specific tables and places in the plan that needed clarification from the team members. After discussing a few changes, the planning team members looked at the plan for a while longer. Since there were no more comments about the plan, the meeting was adjourned. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 119 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 tZ tt r9 rA Illy 34 A i f"� s +�+ 4 3 4 v ' V 'j -1 a "J �J k r Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 120 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Appendix B: Local Newspaper Articles and Photographs Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 121 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 8 -ee Multi Hazard commi. 411 will hold planning session Ageticy �FEIYIA) now rcgwres each -unit. The Kendall Ct)urrty° Multi-Hazard of -overnmer l in Else United 'States to 1 iligatit.;R Ste�crilIg �'�*MInittCe will I)Mt h,av e a FE N1,A-approved MHSIP. a public itrf TIMat4)n and strategy 'The MHl+ ? will scree as frarneWOA planning -,es-swot RL I p.m. tan fOr developing h Ard. mitigation prgicL is 1yc(Aoe.ylay. June 9 at the Kendall County that will reduce the neglative impacts of &herifr�, orfitiu_ 1 It)'- Cornell Lane. future disasters on the communities and Yorkville. unincorporatcd areas of the covnt�- Through a grant, Kendall Courrty C xamples. of projects that have been H[Iiergenev M.Inagerrtent Agency has completed by SaLtrkme rummunities include foTTned in alliance '-wills The Polis Centt;r storm shelters, wartiing. sirens. flood of Indiana Univcrsity-Purdue t flkersity walls.and Eire prow.Li enhaneernenis,. Indianapolis OUPO) and S-Outhern The :steering contrnittee has identified 111.1n ris University-Car'tHAULtle 10 idcntifv the ftalltwrirt hazard~; tornadoes, potential natural haa.ards and T43 produce a thundcrstoTinsIhi winclslhail, hazardous mitigation plan wo addres,s the issues rtiatcrials release, dr Ll_-hI!eX(rtnte heal 'Fhe trnguing efforts of the paratcrship and severe winter storey _'1;he cornmitle.c will resv.lt in a hluki-Hazard �+d itiSatiod Ihett selectu d hazard-. ."Or The Nlis Center I'lano NEW), which will Lek To to madel, with FIAZU�- H, a GI -t sed identify potential nattaral hazards fOr risk tni igtaiun tool developed by Kendall CottrttY, acrd then establish a FEMA. HAZL!S-NIH is capable of tititiga;t[L)n rrleasure that is Ultemied to prc+ ictirkg the probable imp;3ct5 of reduce Or elimmate the negative impact specific disaster.: in terms of fi.natteial, that a parrieular hazard may hatrc on tla-z hutttan life, and sAfety impacts, a:3 well Irwalky. as various,pthrrs. ()vcr the last several rt Unths the Once the plan is completed, the ,'we ring c rttmittee lras been working commicter will submit it io FENIA for with Tl'W Polis Center and staff froal the approval- 'The cotmraittec will also ww•ork SJU-Carrbondale Geology Deparcment of to develfop funding for any mitigation develi,sp a lvlti-Hazard Mitigation Piro ac:tivides that are identified_ (N4HMP) f(jr the cl)unty to sulamit to the The public is invited to attend the June Federall Emergency "Ian gc!1nent gerioy 9 meeting and the steering Gonimittee is for approval. interested in receiving public input an The l;edcrai Emergency Mttreagemertt the plan. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 122 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Appendix C: Adopting Resolutions Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 123 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, Kendall County recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, Kendall County participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Commissioners hereby adopt the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Kendall County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2010. County Commissioner Chairman County Commissioner County Commissioner Attested by: County Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 124 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, Boulder Hill CDP recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, Boulder Hill CDP participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Boulder Hill CDP hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of 52010. City Mayor City Council Member City Council Member City Council Member City Council Member Attested by: City Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 125 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Aurora recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, the City of Aurora participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Aurora hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2010. City Mayor City Council Member City Council Member City Council Member City Council Member Attested by: City Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 126 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Village of Lisbon recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, the Village of Lisbon participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Lisbon hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Service and Disaster Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2010. Village President Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Attested by: Village Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 127 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Village of Millbrook recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, the Village of Millbrook participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Millbrook hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Service and Disaster Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2010. Village President Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Attested by: Village Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 128 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Village of Montgomery recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, the Village of Montgomery participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Montgomery hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Service and Disaster Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2010. Village President Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Attested by: Village Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 129 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Village of Newark recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, the Village of Newark participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Newark hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Service and Disaster Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2010. Village President Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Attested by: Village Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 130 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Village of Oswego recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, the Village of Oswego participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Oswego hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Service and Disaster Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2010. Village President Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Attested by: Village Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 131 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Plano recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, the City of Plano participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Plano hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of 12010. City Mayor City Council Member City Council Member City Council Member City Council Member Attested by: City Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 132 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Village of Plattville recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, the Village of Plattville participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Plattville hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Service and Disaster Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2010. Village President Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Village Council Member Attested by: Village Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 133 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Sandwich recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, the City of Sandwich participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Sandwich hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2010. City Mayor City Council Member City Council Member City Council Member City Council Member Attested by: City Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 134 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Resolution# ADOPTING THE KENDALL COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, The United City of Yorkville recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHERAS, The United City of Yorkville participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The United City of Yorkville hereby adopts the Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Kendall County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Illinois Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2010. City Mayor City Council Member City Council Member City Council Member City Council Member Attested by: City Clerk Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 135 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Appendix D: NCDC Historical Hazards Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 136 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Kendall County Picture Index FLOOD File Name: Flood 1954 Plano 1 Event: Flood Date: October 26, 1954 Description: Flood Causes Thousands of dollars of damage to Plano Disposal Plant. The torrential rain of 10 inches on the weekend of October 9 and 10 and the subsequent flood caused serious damage to the Plano disposal plant. Photo shows how the plant was surrounded by water when the creek poured over its bank. Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society File Name: Flood-1954—Plano-2 Event: Flood Date: October 26, 1954 Description: Flood Causes Thousands of dollars of damage to Plano Disposal Plant. The torrential rain of 10 inches on the weekend of October 9 and 10 and the subsequent flood caused serious damage to the Plano disposal plant. Photo shows the collapsed wall of the plant. The damage has been estimated between $40,000 and $70,00. Cities officials are now seriously pondering the problem... Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 137 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 a Irk s i File Name: Flood-1857—Aurora Event: Flood Date: February 5, 1857 Description: Looking west from east bank of Fox River after the flood of February 5, 1857. No. 1 was new Wilder House;No. 2 was Wm. A. Tanner house, now our Museum; No. 3 was original Episcopal Church; No. 4, the D. Valentine house;No. 5, the old swimming hole on Stalp Island;No. 6. B.F. Hall residence;No. 7, Millrace; No. 8, old ice house. Source: "The Aurora story"written and compiled by Vernon Derry for the Aurora Bicentennial Commission Found at Yorkville Public Library i File Name: Flood-1857—Aurora-2 Event: Flood Date: February 5, 1857 Description: Flood of 1857 covered Island, looking west from foot of old Main street (East Galena Blvd.) Eagle Mills was on site of Leath& Co. Arro points to original Church on Sacred heart. Aurora's first substantial Catholic Church building (1855-1869). After a bad fire, the parish built St. Mary's. Source: "The Aurora story"written and compiled by Vernon Derry for the Aurora Bicentennial Commission Found at Yorkville Public Library Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 138 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 I f y man ,": •Y File Name: Flood 1857—Aurora-3 Event: Flood Date: February 5, 1857 Description: Looking west downtown Aurora during flood of 1857 which inundated entire Stolp Island with water and ice. Blackhawk Mill was on site of present YWCA building. Note first story of Woodworth Wagon Works (arrow)under construction. Source: "The Aurora story"written and compiled by Vernon Derry for the Aurora Bicentennial Commission Found at Yorkville Public Library = u VV File Name: Flood-1887—Kendall Event: Flood Date: 1887 Description: Floods in Fox River damaged North Avenue bridge in 1887 Source: "The Aurora story"written and compiled by Vernon Derry for the Aurora Bicentennial Commission Found at Yorkville Public Library Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 139 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 5.:. s File Name: Flood—1937_Yorkville Event: Flood Date: 1937 Description: Yorkville fireman pump water out of the old millrace on the Blackberry Dam in this 1937 photo (Photo courtesy of Duane Hayden) Source: A Pictorial History of Yorkville, Illinois 1836-1968 Volume 1 Found at Yorkville Public Library WINTER STORM s a - n fff � U File Name: Snow_1943_Inscho Event: Snow storm Date: January, 1943 Description: A blizzard in January, 1943 left the Inscho School building surround by snow- and classes cancelled (Photo courtesy of Dorothy Chambers) Source: A History of Yorkville, Illinois 1836-1936 by Lucinda Tio and Kathy Farren Published for Yorkvill's Sesquicentennial July, 1986 Found at Yorkville Public Library Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 140 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 File Name: Snow 1967 Kendall 1 Event: Snow storm Date: January 27, 1967 Description: Snow piled up to unbelievable heights during the 1967 storm. Downtown Yorkville faced some tough parking problems when the snow was cleared off Rt. 47 onto the curbs. Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society �A .f s� File Name: Snow_1977_Kendall_2 Event: Snow storm Date: January 27, 1967 Description: Snow piled up to unbelievable heights during the 1967 storm. Art Thanepohn, then Kendall Township Highway Commissioner, provided us with this picture showing just how much snow he and his crews moved off area roads. Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 141 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 n File Name: Snow 1918 Kendall Event: Snow storm Date: 1918 Description: This view of a Fox and Illinois Union Railroad train with a snow attachment is from the collection of Gerbart Bierts. The snowy wither shown is a 1918 storm. Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society TORNADO File Name: Tornado_1968_Kendall_I Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: Damage was severe in Prairie View subdivision where most of the houses suffered some sort of damage Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 142 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 File Name: Tornado 1968 Kendall 2 Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: Damage was severe in Praire View subdivision where most of the houses suffered some sort of damage Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society File Name: Tornado-1968—Kendall-3 Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: Garage ruined in Yorkville Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 143 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 A File Name: Tornado 1968 Kendall 4 Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society ■s File Name: Tornado-1968—Kendall-5 Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: A freak of a storm. Albert Wykes points to a bean stock that pierced this tree on his property. The stalk blew from a field across the road. It is so imbedded that it is impossible to pull out. Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 144 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 . � s File Name: Tornado-1968—Kendall-6 Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: Paragon Pluming on Route 34 west of Plano lost the back end of its building to the storm. This portion of the building M. and Mrs. William Puckett, owners of the business, had stored a valuable collection of antiques. The wall on the left collapsed on them. Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society File Name: Tornado-1968—Kendall-7 Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: About 100 pigs were lost when this barn collapsed from the wind pressure. Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 145 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 File Name: Tornado 1968 Kendall 8 Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: This new bart is on Kennedy Road east of Route 47 Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society File Name: Tornado-1968—Kendall-9 Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: This home is in the Schumacher subdivision Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 146 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 1 V T �r File Name: Tomado_1968_Kendall_10 Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: In Yorkville this tree split two ways. One part hit the house and the other pit the car. Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society File Name: Tornado_1968_Kendall_I 1 Event: Tornado Date: May 15, 1968 Description: This is a section of a roof of a house in Rock Creek. The neighbors roof can be seen on the roof of a home across the street. Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 147 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 THUNDERSTORM/HAIL/WIND File Name: Hail 1965 Plano 1 Event: Hail/Wind Date: August 1965 Description: 100 M.P.H wind, rain, hail storm lashes Plano and surrounding area Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society 1 File Name: Hail_1965_Plano_2 Event: Hail/Wind Date: August 1965 Description: 100 M.P.H wind, rain, hail storm lashes Plano and surrounding area Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 148 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 '4 �,a• rte- ;' File Name: Hail 1965—Plano-3 Event: Hail/Wind Date: August 1965 Description: 100 M.P.H wind, rain, hail storm lashes Plano and surrounding area Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Ir' N,. File Name: Hail_1965_Plano_4 Event: Hail/Wind Date: August 1965 Description: 100 M.P.H wind, rain, hail storm lashes Plano and surrounding area Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 149 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 FIRE File Name: Fire-1887—Yorkville Event: Fire Date: March, 1887 Description: The Courthouse after the fire in March, 1887 Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society File Name: Fire-1972—Yorkville Event: Fire Date: October 1972 Description: $ 500,000 fire in Yorkville. Spectacular Blaze destroys box factory Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 150 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 File Name: Fire-1972—Yorkville-2 Event: Fire Date: October 1972 Description: $ 500,000 fire in Yorkville. Spectacular Blaze destroys box factory Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society OTHER File Name: Train_1970_Kendalll Event: Freight Train Derailment Date: July 1970 Description: Freight Train Derailed Source: Kendall County Record AND Kendall County Historical Society Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 151 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 WE c. n File Name: DamFailure_1978_Yorkville Event: Dam Failure Date: April 10, 1978 Description: The United City of Yorkville crews faced a tough job on April 10, 1978 when they had to repair a water leak under the river. A temporary dam was built across part of the river and Bristo-Kendall fireman helped pump water away from the area being repaired (Photo courtesy of the city) Source: A Pictorial History of Yorkville, Illinois 1836-1968 Volume 1 Found at Yorkville Public Library File Name: Train_1970_Yorkville_1 Event: Train Derailment Date: Description: Looking south of Main Street, this photo shows how fr off the tracks some of the derailed cars landed. (Photo courtesy of Lew Riley) Source: A Pictorial History of Yorkville, Illinois 1836-1968 Volume 1 Found at Yorkville Public Library Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 152 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 File Name: Train 1970 Yorkville—2 Event: Train Derailment Date: 1970 Description: Derailed train cars narrowly missed hitting the side of Haggerty's Department Store on Bridge Street. (Photo courtesy of Lew Riley) Source: A Pictorial History of Yorkville, Illinois 1836-1968 Volume 1 Found at Yorkville Public Library r File Name: Train_1970_Yorkville_3 Event: Train Derailment Date: 1970 Description: Track was torn up along the side of Haggerty's Store when the train derailed in 1970. (Photo courtesy of Lew Riley) Source: A Pictorial History of Yorkville, Illinois 1836-1968 Volume 1 Found at Yorkville Public Library Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 153 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 File Name: Train-1970—Yorkville-4 Event: Train Derailment Date: 1970 Description: One of the derailed cars slammed into the front of the Wunsch Clinic. (Photo courtesy of Lew Riley) Source: A Pictorial History of Yorkville, Illinois 1836-1968 Volume 1 Found at Yorkville Public Library Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 154 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Appendix E: Historical Hazard Maps -see attached map. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 155 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Appendix F: List of Critical Facilities Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 156 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Communication Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class Owner Function ReplaCost 1 WQDZ709 FRAZIER ROAD, 1 MILE WEST PLANO CDFLT A BEEP, LLC 0 2 WQDZ709 PLANO CDFLT A BEEP, LLC 0 2 MILES SOUTH OF RT.52 IN 3 WQK1908 SEWARD TOWNSHI SEWARD TOWNSHIP CDFLT A BEEP, LLC 0 4 WQK1908 SEWARD TOWNSHIP CDFLT A BEEP, LLC 0 5 KNKG720 10916 Walker Road YORKVILLE CDFLT AMS Spectrum Holdings, LL 0 6 KNKH915 10916 WALKER ROAD YORKVILLE CDFLT AMS Spectrum Holdings, LL 0 7 KSC271 2 3/4 MI SE SANDWICH CDFLT ANR PIPELINE COMPANY 0 8 KSD80 2.75 MI SE OF SANDWICH CDFLT ANR PIPELINE COMPANY 0 9 KSD90 5 1/4 MI SE OF AURORA CDFLT ANR PIPELINE COMPANY 0 CORNER OF RT 52&COUNTY 10 KOF387 LINE RD MINOOKA CDFLT BERNHARD, LEO 0 11 WQIY949 BNSF LS1 MP43.8 HBD Bristol CDFLT BNSF Railway Co 0 12 WPJY795 RAILROAD MILEPOST 43.8 BRISTOL CDFLT BNSF Railway Company 0 13 WQDM412 Yorkville CDFLT Bristol Kendall Fire Prot 0 14 WQDM412 Yorkville CDFLT Bristol Kendall Fire Prot 0 15 WQDM412 Yorkville CDFLT Bristol Kendall Fire Prot 0 16 WQDM412 Yorkville CDFLT Bristol Kendall Fire Prot 0 17 WQKY556 YORKVILLE CDFLT BRISTOL KENDALL FIRE PROT 0 18 WPJX890 9274 GALENA RD BRISTOL CDFLT BRUCHER& RICKLEFF BROS 1 0 19 WPJX890 BRISTOL CDFLT BRUCHER& RICKLEFF BROS 1 0 20 KNGH613 .7 S OF IL RT 71 ON IL RT 47 YORKVILLE CDFLT BRUMMEL, RICHARD A 0 21 WNVW548 RT 30 & RT 34 OSWEGO CDFLT CANNONBALL MECHANICAL INC 0 22 WNVW548 OSWEGO CDFLT CANNONBALL MECHANICAL INC 0 AURORA PLANT BLDG G RT 23 KAS496 31 AURORA CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE 1 0 24 KD42242 CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE 1 0 25 KD43452 CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE 1 0 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 157 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Owner Function ReplaCost 26 KFH244 RT 31 1/2 MI S OF RT 30 AURORA CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE 1 0 27 KFH244 AURORA CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE 1 0 28 KTF583 IL RT 31 1/2 MI S OF RT 30 AURORA CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE 1 0 29 WNUB208 CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE 1 0 30 WNXC682 CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE 1 0 31 WPKZ226 RT 31 .2 KM S OF RT 30 AURORA CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE 1 0 32 WPXJ707 AURORA CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE, 0 33 WPXJ707 YORKVILLE CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE, 0 34 WPXJ707 PLANO CDFLT CATERPILLAR OF DELAWARE, 0 35 WHA590 DOUGLAS RD OSWEGO CDFLT Chicago Comnet Corp 0 36 KNKA549 10916 WALKER RD YORKVILLE CDFLT Chicago SMSA LP 0 37 KNKA549 1650 W RT 126 PLAINFIELD CDFLT Chicago SMSA LP 0 38 KNKA549 7335 Rt. 71 Yorkville CDFLT Chicago SMSA LP 0 39 WQGK977 Ridge Road Water Tower Joliet CDFLT City of Joliet 0 40 WQFU769 PLANO CDFLT CITY OF PLANO IL 0 CLEARWIRE SPECTRUM 41 WQLB997 280 State Route 31 Oswego CDFLT HOLDIN 0 CLEARWIRE SPECTRUM 42 142 Kirkland CIR Oswego CDFLT HOLDIN 0 43 WPPY924 CDFLT COMBINED AGENCY RESPONSE 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON 44 WPQQ636 11440 Corniels Road Plano CDFLT COMPA 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON 45 WPSH227 1301 No County Line Rd Minooka CDFLT COMPA 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON 46 WSS47 11440 CORNIELS RD PLANO CDFLT COMPA 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON 47 WPSH227 1301 No County Line Rd Minooka CDFLT COMPA 0 Corner of Rt 52 and County Line COOK DUPAGE 48 WQEL763 Rd Minooka CDFLT TRANSPORTATIO 0 COOK DUPAGE 49 WQEL763 Minooka CDFLT TRANSPORTATIO 0 50 WPTG391 YORKVILLE CDFLT COUNTRYSIDE VETERINARY CL 0 51 WQGV722 1401 COUNTY LINE ROAD MINOOKA CDFLT DYNEGY IT INC. 0 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 158 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Owner Function ReplaCost 52 WQGV722 MINOOKA CDFLT DYNEGY IT INC. 0 53 WPIK959 2 MI S OF RT 52 SEWARD TOWNSHIP CDFLT ESP Wireless Technology G 0 54 WPIK959 SEWARD TOWNSHIP CDFLT ESP Wireless Technology G 0 2 MILES SOUTH OF RT.52 IN 55 WPBB463 SEWARD TOWNSHI SEWARD TOWNSHIP CDFLT FCI 900, Inc. 0 56 WPBB463 SEWARD TOWNSHIP CDFLT FCI 900, Inc. 0 2 MILES SOUTH OF RT.52 IN 57 WPTU725 SEWARD TOWNSHI SEWARD TOWNSHIP CDFLT FCI 900, INC. 0 58 WPTU725 SEWARD TOWNSHIP CDFLT FCI 900, INC. 0 59 WPWF734 RT 52 and County Line Rd Minooka CDFLT FCI 900, Inc. 0 60 WPWF734 Minooka CDFLT FCI 900, Inc. 0 61 WPWF782 2 Miles S of RT 52 Minooka CDFLT FCI 900, Inc. 0 62 WPWF782 Minooka CDFLT FCI 900, Inc. 0 63 WQHW626 280 State Route 31 Oswego CDFLT FCI 900, INC. 0 64 WQHW626 Oswego CDFLT FCI 900, INC. 0 65 WQHW716 6849 Rt. 34 Oswego CDFLT FCI 900, INC. 0 66 WQHW716 Oswego CDFLT FCI 900, INC. 0 67 WQHW965 9316 Rte 34 Yorksville CDFLT FCI 900, INC. 0 68 WQHW965 Yorksville CDFLT FCI 900, INC. 0 69 WQHX209 "Lot 4, Kendall Point Business Oswego CDFLT FCI 900, INC. 0 70 WQHX209 Oswego CDFLT FCI 900, INC. 0 Corner of Rt 52 and County Line 71 WPYR436 Rd Minooka CDFLT Ferrari Equipment Company 0 72 WPYR436 MINOOKA CDFLT Ferrari Equipment Company 0 73 WPJS421 1215 DEER ST YORKVILLE CDFLT First Student, Inc. 0 74 WPJS421 YORKVILLE CDFLT First Student, Inc. 0 JCT OF RT 34&WOLF 75 WPLE455 CROSSING OSWEGO CDFLT FOX BEND GOLF COURSE 0 76 WPLE455 OSWEGO CDFLT FOX BEND GOLF COURSE 0 FOX METRO WATER 77 KYX872 RT 31 S OSWEGO CDFLT RECLAMATI 0 78 WPUE362 1179 Wolf Rd Oswego CDFLT Frieders, Donald K 0 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 159 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Owner Function ReplaCost 79 WPUE362 Oswego CDFLT Frieders, Donald K 0 80 KNIX538 PRATT RD 1 MI W PLANO CDFLT FRIEDERS, GENE 0 81 WQFK332 OSWEGO CDFLT GAP INC 0 82 WNSK382 2 MI S OF RT 52 MINOOKA CDFLT GRAINCO FS INC 0 83 WNSK382 MINOOKA CDFLT GRAINCO FS INC 0 84 WQEH624 2353 CREEK RD PLANO CDFLT HINSDALE NURSERIES INCORP 0 85 WQEH624 PLANO CDFLT HINSDALE NURSERIES INCORP 0 86 WQHD876 3080 Route 34 Oswego CDFLT HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. 0 87 WQIU818 735 EDWARD LANE YORKVILLE CDFLT HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. 0 91 M W OF LEGION RD AT 88 WPKG583 EMMANUEL YORKVILLE CDFLT Illinois Public Safety Ne 0 89 KNIF498 13608 FOX RD PLANO CDFLT ILLINOIS, STATE OF 0 SILVER SPRINGS STATE 90 KV0604 PARK 2 MI S PLANO CDFLT ILLINOIS, STATE OF 0 91 WQHG919 FRAZIER RD 1M1 W PLANO CDFLT ILLINOIS-CENTRAL SCHOOL B 0 92 WQHG919 PLANO CDFLT ILLINOIS-CENTRAL SCHOOL B 0 93 KSA358 CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 COURT HOUSE RIDGE & 94 KSA358 MADISON STS YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 COUNTY JAIL MAIN & 95 KSA358 MADISON STS YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 COR OF LEGION RD AND 96 WNXD763 EMMANUEL RD KENDALL TOWNSHIP CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 97 WNXD763 KENDALL TOWNSHIP CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 COR OF LEGION RD AND 98 WNXJ276 EMMANUEL RD KENDALL TOWNSHIP CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 99 WNXJ276 KENDALL TOWNSHIP CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 100 WNXJ276 1580 ROUTE 34 OSWEGO CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 300 FT W OF INT LEGION & 101 WNYS788 EMMANUL RDS YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 102 WNYS788 YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 103 WPAK257 CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 160 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Owner Function ReplaCost 300 FT W OF INT OF LEGION 104 WPAK294 & EMMANUAL RDS YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 105 WPAK294 YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 106 WPB1878 1102 CORNELL ST YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 107 WPB1878 YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 108 WPWW497 YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 LEGION ROAD, 350 FT WEST 109 WPWW499 OF IMMANUAL RD YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 110 WPWW499 1102 CORNEL LANE YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 111 WPWW499 YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 112 WPWW499 1580 ROUTE 34 OSWEGO CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 113 WQLD369 804 W JOHN ST YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 114 WQLD369 YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 115 WQU458 1102 CORNELL LN YORKVILLE CDFLT KENDALL, COUNTY OF 0 116 WNVW778 9274 GALENA RD BRISTOL CDFLT L J DODD CONSTRUCTION INC 0 117 WNVW778 BRISTOL CDFLT L J DODD CONSTRUCTION INC 0 118 WQBM267 2623 Eldamain Rd Plano CDFLT Menards Inc 0 119 WQBM267 Plano CDFLT Menards Inc 0 120 WQBM267 Plano CDFLT Menards Inc 0 METROPOLITAN AREA 121 WQJD316 1349 A Faxon Rd Plano CDFLT NETWORK 0 METROPOLITAN AREA 122 WQJD317 6797 Route 34 Oswego CDFLT NETWORK 0 7150 Plainfield Rd. (Kendall METROPOLITAN AREA 123 WQJD318 Cnty Line# PLAINFIELD CDFLT NETWORK 0 16535 Ridge Road (Minooka METROPOLITAN AREA 124 WQJD323 #92112) MINOOKA CDFLT NETWORK 0 METROPOLITAN AREA 125 WQJD368 280 Rt. 31 Montgomery CDFLT NETWORK 0 METROPOLITAN AREA 126 WQJE749 142 Kirkland Circle Oswego CDFLT NETWORK 0 METROPOLITAN AREA 127 WQJE758 6980 Minkler Rd. Yorkville CDFLT NETWORK 0 METROPOLITAN AREA 128 WQJE759 6359 Route 47 Yorkville CDFLT NETWORK 0 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 161 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Owner Function ReplaCost 129 KPH987 ROUTE 1 PLANO CDFLT NELSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 0 130 WLF899 FRAXIER RD & LAURIE LN 'PLANO CDFLT NELSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 0 131 WL1620 FRAZIER& LAURIE LANE PLANO CDFLT NELSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 132 WPQQ601 1 BROADCAST CENTER PLANO CDFLT NELSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 133 WPUV819 One Broadcast Center Plano CDFLT NELSON MULTIMEDIA, INC. 134 KNKA760 7694 IMMANUEL ROAD YORKVILLE CDFLT NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS 135 KNKA760 47 STONEHILL DRIVE OSWEGO CDFLT NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS 136 WPFV582 CDFLT NEWARK AMBULANCE DISTRICT COR OF RT 52 AND COUNTY 137 KNAJ944 LINE RD MINOOKA CDFLT Nextel License Holdings 4 138 KNAJ944 MINOOKA CDFLT Nextel License Holdings 4 139 WNHJ780 8115 RT 47 YORKVILLE CDFLT Nextel License Holdings 4 140 WNIZ784 9274 GALENA ROAD BRISTOL CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 141 WNIZ784 BRISTOL CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 142 WPFF516 1 BRDCAST CTR FRAZIER RD PLANO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 143 WPFF516 PLANO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 144 WPOF253 ONE BROADCAST CENTER PLANO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 145 WPOF253 PLANO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 146 WPPJ352 6359 ROUTE 47 YORKVILLE CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 147 WPPJ352 YORKVILLE CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 148 WPPJ353 280 ROUTE 31 OSWEGO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 149 WPPJ353 OSWEGO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 150 WPPJ360 10318 GALENA ROAD BRISTOL CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 151 WPPJ360 BRISTOL CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 "LOT 4, KENDALL POINT 152 WPPJ454 BUSINESS" OSWEGO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 153 WPPJ454 OSWEGO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 154 WPPJ469 6849 RT. 34 OSWEGO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 155 WPPJ469 OSWEGO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 162 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Owner Function ReplaCost 156 WPSY696 5725 RTE 126 YORKVILLE CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 157 WPSY696 YORKVILLE CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 158 WPSY697 9316 RTE 34 YORKSVILLE CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 159 WPSY697 YORKSVILLE CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 160 WPSY698 13349 A FAXON RD PLANO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 161 WPSY698 PLANO CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 162 WPSY852 997 W. RTE.#126 PLAINFIELD CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 163 WPSY852 PLAINFIELD CDFLT NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4 164 WQB1303 1525 Harvey Rd. Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 165 WQB1303 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 166 WQB1303 61 Franklin St. Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 167 WQB1303 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 168 WQB1303 4250 Route 71 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 169 WQB1303 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 170 WQB1303 570 Colchester Drive Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 171 WQB1303 26923 W. Grande Park Blvd. Plainfield CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 172 WQB1303 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 173 WQB1303 Plainfield CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 174 WQB1303 440 BOULDER HILL PASS DR. OSWEGO CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 175 WQB1303 OSWEGO CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 176 WQBQ861 Montgomery CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 177 WQBQ861 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 178 WQBQ861 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 179 WQBQ861 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 180 WQBQ861 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 181 WQBQ861 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 182 WQBQ861 Montgomery CDFLT Oswego Community Unit Sch 183 WQEX644 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Fire Protection Di Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 163 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Owner Function ReplaCost 184 WQEX644 Oswego CDFLT Oswego Fire Protection Di 185 WPBG274 9274 GALENA RD BRISTOL CDFLT OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT 30 186 WPBG274 BRISTOL CDFLT OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT 30 187 WNVE268 113 S MAIN ST OSWEGO CDFLT OSWEGO, VILLAGE OF 188 WNVE268 OSWEGO CDFLT OSWEGO, VILLAGE OF 189 WNVE268 3525 RT 34 OSWEGO CDFLT OSWEGO, VILLAGE OF 190 WPOQ725 VARIOUS LOCATIONS OSWEGO CDFLT OSWEGO, VILLAGE OF 191 WQHV410 Yorkville CDFLT PDQLink 192 WQHV410 Yorkville CDFLT PDQLink 193 WQHV410 Yorkville CDFLT PDQLink 194 WQHV410 Yorkville CDFLT PDQLink 195 WQHV410 Oswego CDFLT PDQLink 196 WQHV410 Oswego CDFLT PDQLink 197 WQGM894 7 E. MAIN ST. PLANO CDFLT PLANO, CITY OF 198 WQGM894 1102 CORNELL LN. YORKVILLE CDFLT PLANO, CITY OF 199 WQGM894 PLANO CDFLT PLANO, CITY OF 200 WQF1655 2810 US HIGHWAY 34 OSWEGO CDFLT PORTILLO'S HOT DOGS, INC. 201 WPUC392 804 S HALE PLANO CDFLT PRECISION CARGO 202 WPUC392 PLANO CDFLT PRECISION CARGO 203 WPXX858 1855 MARKETVIEW DRIVE YORKVILLE CDFLT QSC MGMT. GROUP, INC. 204 WPFC911 PRATT RD 1 MI W PLANO CDFLT SANDWICH COMMUNITY UNIT S 205 WPFC911 PLANO CDFLT SANDWICH COMMUNITY UNIT S 206 KZJ603 RT 47&LEGION RD YORKVILLE CDFLT SCHMITT, RANDALL 207 WNQL213 9274 GALENA RD BRISTOL CDFLT SCHMITT, RANDALL Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 164 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Dams Report ID Name River City Owner Purpose Height[ft] ReplaCost 1 MILHURST LAKE DAM TRIB FOX RIVER MILLING W.W. Rice R 20 2 YORKVILLE DAM FOX RIVER YORKVILLE Illinois Department of Na R 12 3 BLACK BERRY CREEK DAM BLACK BERRY CREEK YORKVILLE IL DEPT OF CONSERVATION R 18 Electric Power Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class Function Stories YearBuilt ReplaCost 1 Dynegy Kendall Energy, LLC 1401 County Line Road Minooka EDFLT EOC Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class YearBuilt ShelterCap Stories ReplaCost 1 KENDALL COUNTY EOC 1102 CORNELL LANE YORKVILLE EFEO 1991 1 $130 Fire Station Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class Stories YearBuilt ReplaCost 1 Little Rock Fox Fire Department 5 E North ST Plano EFFS 2 2 Bristol Kendall Fire Protection District 103 E Beaver ST Yorkville EFFS 2 1999 5000 3 Lisbon-Seward Fire Protection CO 2 115 N Canal ST Newark EFFS 1 1989 200 4 Oswego Fire Protection District#1 3511 Wooley Oswego EFFS 2 2009 12000 5 Oswego Fire Protection District#2 2200 Weisbrook DR Oswego EFFS 1 1998 3000 6 Newark Fire Protection District 101 E Main ST Newark EFFS 2 1980 1300 7 Little Rock Fox Fire Station #2 22 Harris Ave Millbrook EFFS 1 2006 1600 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 165 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Stories Yearbilt ReplaCost 8 Little Rock Fox Fire Station #3 300 Mitchell Dr Plano EFFS 1 2007 1600 9 Bristol Kendall Fire Station #2 2101 McHugh Rd Yorkville EFFS 1 2004 3500 10 Bristol kendall Fire Station #3 4400 Rosenwinkle St Yorkville EFFS 1 2007 3500 11 Lisbon-Seward Fire Station #2 6410 Chicago Rd Plattville EFFS 1 2000 200 12 Oswego Fire Station #3 2200 Galena Rd Oswego EFFS 1 2004 3000 13 Jolet Fire Station #10 1599 N John D Paige Dr Joliet EFFS 1 2005 3000 14 Little Rock Fox Fire Department 5 E North ST Plano EFFS 2 Hazardous Materials Report ID Name Address City Class EPA ID Chemical Name 1 CATERPILLAR INC. RTE. 31 BOX 348 AURORA HDFLT ILD005070651 MANGANESE COMPOUNDS 2 CATERPILLAR INC. RTE. 31 BOX 348 AURORA HDFLT ILD005070651 PROPYLENE 3 CATERPILLAR INC. RTE. 31 BOX 348 AURORA HDFLT ILD005070651 XYLENE (MIXED ISOMER 4 CATERPILLAR INC. RTE. 31 BOX 348 AURORA HDFLT ILD005070651 ZINC COMPOUNDS 5 CATERPILLAR INC. RTE. 31 BOX 348 AURORA HDFLT ILD005070651 ETHYLENE GLYCOL 6 CATERPILLAR INC. RTE. 31 BOX 348 AURORA HDFLT ILD005070651 CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS 7 CATERPILLAR INC. RTE. 31 BOX 348 AURORA HDFLT ILD005070651 NAPHTHALENE 8 CATERPILLAR INC. RTE. 31 BOX 348 AURORA HDFLT ILD005070651 TOLUENE 9 CATERPILLAR INC. RTE. 31 BOX 348 AURORA HDFLT ILD005070651 DIETHANOLAMINE 10 TRU VUE 9400 W. 55TH ST. MC COOK HDFLT 000311744ACI HYDROGEN FLUORIDE 11 AVTEC INDS. INC. 120 KENDALL POINT DR. OSWEGO HDFLT ILD984791020 MANGANESE 12 PLANO METAL RTE. 34 PLANO HDFLT ILD054133079 TRICHLOROETHYLENE SPECIALTIES 13 PLANO METAL RTE. 34 PLANO HDFLT ILD054133079 COPPER SPECIALTIES 14 PLANO METAL RTE. 34 PLANO HDFLT ILD054133079 NICKEL COMPOUNDS SPECIALTIES 15 REMLINE CO. RTE. 47 N. OF CANNONBALL YORKVILLE HDFLT ILD005112420 N-BUTYL ALCOHOL TRAIL 16 WAYNE CIRCUITS 106 E. BEAVER ST. YORKVILLE HDFLT ILD046578241 COPPER INC. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 166 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class EPA ID Chemical Name 17 AAA COOPER 170 KENDALL POINT DR OSWEGO HDFLT ILD06711425 DIESEL FUEL TRANSPORT 18 ANR PIPELINE 6650 SANDY BLUFF RD SANDWICH HDFLT ILD006958581 ETHYLENE GLYCOL COMPANY 19 AT&T 866 ROCK CREEK ROAD PLANO HDFLT ILD006980800 LEAD COMMUNICATION 20 CATERPILLAR 2001 BASELINE RD MONTGOMERY HDFLT LEAD BATTERIES LOGISTICS 21 ELBURN 2219 ROUTE 47 NEWARK HDFLT ILD025441759 ANHYDROUS AMMONIA COOPERATIVE 22 NEWARK GRAIN 203 N JOHNSON ST NEWARK HDFLT DIESEL FUEL 23 GRAINCO FS, INC 17854 WABENA ST MINOOKA HDFLT ILD05415336 LEXAR 24 GRAINCO FS, INC 202 W RT 71 NEWARK HDFLT ILD054153036 ANHYDROUS AMMONIA 25 GRAINCO FS, INC 8115 RT 47 YORKVILLE HDFLT ILD054153036 ANHYDROUS AMMONIA 26 HINTZSCHE 60 RT 52 MINOOKA HDFLT ANHYDROUS AMMONIA FERTILIZER, INC 27 BELL TELEPHONE 227 E WASHINGTON ST OSWEGO HDFLT ILD108024050 SULFURIC ACID 28 BELL TELEPHONE 16 E MAIN PLANO HDFLT ILD108024050 SULFURIC ACID 29 BELL TELEPHONE HYDRAULIC ST YORKVILLE HDFLT ILD108024050 SULFURIC ACID 30 MEADOWVALE, INC 109 BEAVER ST YORKVILLE HDFLT ILD002986842 ANHYDROUS AMMONIA 31 PLANO MOLDING 431 E SOUTH ST PLANO HDFLT ILD005113014 SULFURIC ACID COMPANY 32 PLANO MOLDING 500 DUVICK AVE SANDWICH HDFLT ILD005113014 SULFURIC ACID COMPANY 33 PROBUILD 204 WHEATON AVE YORKVILLE HDFLT ILD025916800 TREATED LUMBER COMPANY 34 UPS FREIGHT, INC 175 KENDALL POINT DR OSWEGO HDFLT ILD005995071 DIESEL FUEL 35 VCNA PRAIRIE 3939 NEEDHAM RD PLANO HDFLT CALCIUM CHLORIDE 36 VERIZON 142 KIRKLAND CIRCLE OSWEGO HDFLT SULFURIC ACID WIRELESS Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 167 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Medical Care Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class Function Beds Stories ReplaCost 1 Tillers Nursing and Rehab Center 4390 Illinois 71 Oswego MDFLT NursHome 109 1 2 Hillside Rehab and Care Center 1308 Game Farm Rd Yorkville MDFLT NursHome 79 1 Natural Gas Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class Function Stories Year Built ReplaCost 1 ANR PIPELINE COMPANY MILLHURST &SANDYBLUFF RD SANDWICH GDFLT 1209.9 Police Station Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class Stories SheltCap Year Built ReplaCost 1 Newark Village Police Dept 101 W Lions St Newark EFPS 1554 2 County Sheriff Dept 1102 Cornell Ln Yorkville EFPS 2 1991 16000 3 Oswego Police Dept 3525 Us Highway 34 Oswego EFPS 2 1992 12000 4 Yorkville Police Adm 804 Game Farm Rd Yorkville EFPS 1 2000 8000 5 Plano Police Dept 9 E North St Plano EFPS 2 1500 6 Montgomery Police Dept 1460 SE River Rd Montgomery EFPS 1554 7 Millington Police Dept 206 Walnut St Millington EFPS 1554 Potable Water Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class Function Stories Year Built ReplaCost CITIZENS UTIL CO-VALLEY W/S ROUTE 31 1/S 1 MRNA ANCHOR OSWEGO PDFLT 36963 WELL#3 TREATMENT 2 FACILITY 512 TOWNHOUSE RD NEWARK PDFLT 1 1973 1515 ILLINOIS AMERICAN WATER 3 PLANT NEW SANDY BLUFF RD PLANO PDFLT Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 168 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Function Stories Year Built ReplaCost ILLINOIS AMERICAN WATER 4 PLANT MARLIN DR OSWEGO PDFLT OSWEGO TOWER & PUMP 5 HOUSE 340 S MADISON OSWEGO PDFLT 2 2009 1300 OSWEGO TOWER & PUMP 6 HOUSE LENNOX DR OSWEGO PDFLT 2 2000 1300 OSWEGO TOWER & PUMP 7 HOUSE OGDEN FALLS BLVD OSWEGO PDFLT 2 1998 1500 OSWEGO TOWER & PUMP 8 HOUSE 700 COLE AVE OSWEGO PDFLT 2 2006 2500 OSWEGO TOWER& PUMP 9 HOUSE TUSCANY TRAIL OSWEGO PDFLT 2 2009 3000 10 MINOOKA WATER FACILITY 1100 WILDEY ROAD MINOOKA PDFLT 2004 5000 11 OLD MILL HOUSE 751 E MAIN ST PLANO PDFLT 3 1850 1100 12 WELL 7 401 KRISTEN ST PLANO PDFLT 1 2008 1650 13 WATER TOWER 1 720 E MAIN ST PLANO PDFLT 1965 1000 14 WATER TOWER 2 4501 CUMMINS ST PLANO PDFLT 2004 1000 26619 GRANDE PARK 15 WATER TOWER BLVD PLAINFIELD PDFLT 2003 1664 16 WATER TOWER 750 DUVICK LANE SANDWICH PDFLT 1993 571.3 MONTGOME 17 PUMPING STATION NO 2 2199 BASELINE RD RY PDFLT 1 2007 600 Rail Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class Function Daily Traffic Year Built ReplaCost 1 AMTRAK W MAIN & S CENTER STREETS PLANO RDFLT PASSENGER 2663 School Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class Students Stories Year Built ReplaCost CHURCHILL ELEM 1 SCHOOL 520 SECRETARIAT LN OSWEGO EFS1 703 2005 15759.6 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 169 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Students Stories Year Built ReplaCost LONG BEACH ELEM 2 SCHOOL 67 LONG BEACH RD MONTGOMERY EFS1 619 1967 17588.8 OLD POST ELEMENTARY 3 SCHOOL 100 OLD POST RD OSWEGO EFS1 430 1996 12455.8 BOULDER HILL ELEM 4 SCHOOL 163 BOULDER HILL PAS MONTGOMERY EFS1 593 1957 15570.6 THOMPSON JR HIGH 5 SCHOOL 440 BOULDER HILL PAS OSWEGO EFS1 898 1976 35020.6 FOX CHASE ELEMENTARY 6 SCHOOL 260 FOX CHASE DR N OSWEGO EFS1 708 2001 16363 CENTENNIAL ELEM 7 SCHOOL 800 S WEST ST PLANO EFS1 360 1964 7294.8 8 P H MILLER ELEM SCHOOL 904 N LEW ST PLANO EFS1 489 1964 8283.3 9 PLANO HIGH SCHOOL 704 W ABE ST PLANO EFS1 602 1976 38081.23 10 PLANO MIDDLE SCHOOL 804 S HALE ST PLANO EFS1 322 1959 10511.2 11 NEWARK ELEM SCHOOL 503 CHICAGO RD NEWARK EFS1 120 1952 2869 MILLBROOK JUNIOR HIGH 12 SCHOOL 8411 Fox River Dr MILLBROOK EFS1 141 1967 3918 NEWARK COMM HIGH 13 SCHOOL 413 CHICAGO RD NEWARK EFS1 194 1937 9750 PRAIRIE POINT ELEM 14 SCHOOL 3650 GROVE RD OSWEGO EFS1 563 2005 15759.6 15 OSWEGO HIGH SCHOOL 4250 RTE 71 OSWEGO EFS1 1870 1964 85617.6 TRAUGHBER JR HIGH 16 SCHOOL 570 COLCHESTER OSWEGO EFS1 897 2008 37432.4 OSWEGO EAST HIGH 17 SCHOOL 1525 HARVEY RD OSWEGO EFS1 2090 2005 92860 KENDALL CO 18 OPPORTUNITY SCHOOL 33 E STONEHILL RD OSWEGO EFS1 61 1049.524 YORKVILLE MIDDLE 920 PRAIRIE CROSSING 19 SCHOOL DR YORKVILLE EFS1 794 2009 35000 20 LISBON GRADE SCHOOL 127 S CANAL ST NEWARK EFS1 125 1954 3500 YORKVILLE GRADE 21 SCHOOL 201 W SOMONAUK ST YORKVILLE EFS1 223 1952 6200 YORKVILLE HIGH SCHOOL 22 ACADEMY 702 GAME FARM RD YORKVILLE EFS1 419 1959 18000 23 BRISTOL GRADE SCHOOL 23 HUNT ST BRISTOL EFS1 232 1950 7000 24 YORKVILLE HIGH SCHOOL 797 GAME FARM RD YORKVILLE EFS1 992 1998 32000 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 170 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Students Stories Year Built ReplaCost CIRCLE CENTER GRADE 25 SCHOOL 901 MILL ST YORKVILLE EFS1 543 1968 12000 YORKVILLE 26 INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 103 SCHOOLHOUSE RD YORKVILLE EFS1 599 2004 12000 CROSS EV. LUTHERAN 27 SCHOOL 8535 RT 47 YORKVILLE EFS1 236 3480.388 ST MARY CATHOLIC 28 SCHOOL 817 CENTER AVE PLANO EFS1 207 1958 5000 PARKVIEW CHRISTIAN 29 ACADEMY 201 W CENTER ST YORKVILLE EFS1 120 1887 1327.267 ST LUKE LUTHERAN 30 SCHOOL 63 FERNWOOD RD MONTGOMERY EFS1 87 1069.187 CHARLES REED 31 ELEMENTARY SCH 2110 CLUBLANDS PKWY PLAINFIELD EFS1 788 13750 AUTUMN CREEK 2377 AUTUMN CREEK 32 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BLVD YORKVILLE EFS1 451 2009 14000 GRANDE RESERVE 33 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3142 GRANDE TRAIL YORKVILLE EFS1 504 2006 12000 BRISTOL BAY 34 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 427 BRISTOL BAY DR YORKVILLE EFS1 321 2008 14000 HUNT CLUB ELEMENTARY 35 SCHOOL 4001 HUNT CLUB DRIVE OSWEGO EFS1 484 2008 17313.8 LAKEWOOD CREEK 2301 LAKEWOOD CREEK 36 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DR MONTGOMERY EFS1 815 2004 18021.6 SOUTHBURY 37 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 820 PRESTON LANE OSWEGO EFS1 786 2008 17313.8 KARL PLANK JUNIOR HIGH 38 SCHOOL 510 SECRATARIAT LANE OSWEGO EFS1 880 2006 37432.4 GRANDE PARK 26933 GRANDE PARK 39 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BLVD PLAINFIELD EFS1 447 2007 14691.8 BROKAW EARLY 40 LEARNING CENTER 1000 5TH ST OSWEGO EFS1 542 2007 7895.2 41 EMILY G JOHNS SCHOOL 430 S MITCHELL DR PLANO EFS1 520 2007 10754.7 KENDALL CO SPEC ED 42 COOP 201 GARDEN ST YORKVILLE EFS1 PLAINFIELD SOUTH HIGH 43 SCHOOL 7800 CATON FARM RD PLAINFIELD EFS1 72000 AUX SABLE MIDDLE 2001 WILDSPRING 44 SCHOOL PARKWAY JOLIET EFS1 21000 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 171 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 ID Name Address City Class Students Stories Year Built ReplaCost THOMAS JEFFERSON 45 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1900 OXFORD WAY JOLIET EFS1 13750 Waste Water Facilities Report ID Name Address City Class Function Stories Year Built ReplaCost FOX METRO WATER 1 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 682 STATE RT. 31 OSWEGO WDFLT 500000 2 NEWARK SD STP P.O. BOX 534 NEWARK WDFLT 1982 6500 1001 SOUTH HALE 3 PLANO STP STREET PLANO WDFLT 1986 17250 YORKVILLE-BRISTOL SD 4 STP 304 RIVER STREET YORKVILLE WDFLT 1957 40000 AUX SABLE CREEK BASIN 5 WWTP 8300 BLACK RD JOLIET WDFLT 2006 26000 MINOOKA WASTEWATER 6 FACILITY 1490 HOLT RD MINOOKA WDFLT 2002 85 7 WALMART LIFT STATION 6800 W RT 34 PLANO WDFLT PUMPS 1996 90 8 KLATT ST LIFT STATION 4005 KLATT ST PLANO WDFLT PUMPS 2006 150 FOX METRO PUMP 9 STATION 3055 ORCHARD RD OSWEGO WDFLT PUMPS 1999 2500 10 FOX METRO LIFT STATION 165 HARRISON ST OSWEGO WDFLT PUMPS 1995 4000 11 FIFTH ST LIFT STATION 404 RT 30 MONTGOMERY WDFLT PUMPS 1998 150 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 172 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Appendix H: Map of Critical Facilities -See attached map. Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 173 of 174 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan February 14, 2011 Appendix H: USGS Stream Gauge Data: Top ten flood flows from the USGS Stream Gauge Data for Kendall County Station Yorkville, IL Fox, IL River Blackberry Creek Fox River Tributary No 2 Period of Record 1961 - 2008 1961 - 1980 Latitude 41040'18" 41036'28" Longitude 88 026'29" 88 028'43" Rank Year Discharge Year Discharge (cfs) (cfs) 1 1996 5,510 1978 320 2 2008 2,130 1975 304 3 1983 2,060 1970 242 4 1997 2,040 1965 218 5 1991 1,360 1972 192 6 1974 1,320 1974 147 7 1970 1,300 1980 125 8 1985 1,290 1966 96 9 2009 1,270 1976 64 10 1979 1,250 1971 57 Kendall County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 174 of 174 ,SAD Co. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number i �•t% Legal ❑ PS—NB #2 Finance ❑ EST. 1836 Engineer ❑ - City Administrator ■ Tracking Number "- Human Resources ❑ "$ �© Community Development : PS 2012-16 Parks&Recreation ALE �► � Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Lightning Detectors Meeting and Date: COW July 10, 2012 Synopsis: Estimates to install additional lightning detectors are attached. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Move forward to City Council for approval. Submitted by: Laura Schraw Parks & Recreation Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Please see attached memo written to Park Board. They will be reviewing and making a recommendation to City Council for the July 24th City Council meeting. ° ''`o Memorandum EST. ,Z 1836 To: Yorkville Park Board From: Laura Schraw, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation 0 L 00 CC: Tim Evans, Superintendent of Recreation ad O Scott Sleezer, Superintendent of Parks j<tE Date: June 29, 2012 Subject: Lightning Detectors Summary It has been requested that a lightning detector be installed at Bridge Park. Estimates are provided from ThorGuard, who has supplied our other lightning detectors and monitoring systems in town. ThorGuard lightning detection system measures the energy in the air to detect when the conditions are conducive to lightning. Product information is attached. Location Currently the City has a lightning detector at City Hall that is the home station. From that station, the signals are sent to the remote sensors at Riverfront and Circle Center. Staff received estimates for a variety of situations. At this time, the school has not notified staff if they would be participating in cost-sharing for the detectors at their facilities. The only location that is not listed below that would also be appropriate to consider is Raintree Park B. This park is the location of 4 tennis courts and is directly adjacent to the Middle School. The price would be a base station cost, and if the school wanted a remote horn or strobe one could be located there for an additional cost. Cost Estimates received were for a variety of locations/stations/remote sensors: Option 1 Bristol Bay Base Station $11,870 Remote Horn $3,900 Installation $4,500 $20,270 Option 2 Grande Reserve Base Station $11,870 Remote Horn @ Bridge $3,900 Remote Strobe @ Park $3,150 Installation $4,750 $23,670 Option 3 Bridge Park Base Station $12,195* Bristol Bay Park $3,900 Stepping Stones Park $3,900 Installation $4,000 $23,995 *The signal has to be transmitted further so it costs an additional $250 extra for a 12W transmitter. Upgrade of current system The current equipment is on AM and interference can occur. The cost to upgrade the existing system with FM radio equipment is as follows: 12 watt transmitter $750 Receiver $500 Base antenna kit $100 Receiver antenna kit $85 (2 needed) Total $1,520 Recommendation Staff recommends that Option 3 of Bridge Park base station and Bristol Bay Park/Stepping Stones Park remote signals would be beneficial in that we would cover the baseball fields at Bridge and 6 soccer fields/1 baseball field at Bristol Bay, as well as two schools. In addition, another station at Raintree Park B would be beneficial for our 4 lighted tennis courts and ballfield at this facility, as well as the Middle School. An upgrade to our existing system by transferring from an AM station to an FM station(City Hall/Riverfront/Circle Center School) would also guarantee that it would not malfunction due to interference. The total cost for the items recommended above are as follows: Option 3 (Bridge Base station with 2 remote transmitters): $23,995 Base station at Raintree Park B: $15,870 Upgrade to current system: $1,520 $41,385** **Installation prices may vary. Laura Schraw,ASLA June 28,2012 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville,Illinois 60506 Reference: Thor Guard Lightning Warning Systems. The following equipment is recommended for the park and school locations discussed this week. EQUIPMENT PRICE BASE STATION Bristol Bay Elementary School L 75R Computer Console and Sensor,THOR PCX Software*** $7,695.00 VOTBDFM5B Base Driver,5 Watt Transmitter/Horn Cluster/ Communication Cable&RF Antenna $3,500.00 Line Conditioner UPS(Uninterruptible Power Supply)* $ 250.00 Internal LED Strobe Light* $ 175.00 External Led Strobe Light* $ 250.00 EQUIPMENT COST $11,870.00 Freight Charges FOB Sunrise,Florida EQUIPMENT PRICE REMOTE HORNS Park At Bristol Bay VOTRCFMS Remote Receiver/Horn Cluster/ 12 Volt Solar Charged/ Antenna Kit $ 3,650.00 External LED Strobe Light Assembly* $ 250.00 EQUIPMENT COST $3,900.00 Freight Charges FOB Sunrise,Florida INSTALLATION COST Approximate $ 4,500.00 Based on normal installs in similar locations. The facility is responsible for supplying and installing a 6"x 6"x 20'wood pole for the remote unit if an appropriate building is not available.Only after a building inspection can an accurate fee be determined. Page 2. EQUIPMENT PRICE BASE STATION Grande Reserve School L 75R Computer Console and Sensor/THOR PCX Software *** $ 7,695.00 VOTBDFM513 Base Driver 5 Watt Transmitter/Horn Cluster/ Communication Cable/FM Antenna Kit $ 3,500.00 Line Conditioner UPS(Uninterruptible Power Supply) * $ 250.00 Internal LED Strobe Light* $ 175.00 External LED Strobe Light* $ 250.00 EQUIPMENT COST $11,870.00 Freight Charges FOB Sunrise,Florida EQUIPMENT PRICE REMOTE HORNS Bridge Park VOTRCFMS Remote Receiver/Horn Cluster/ 12 Volt Solar Charged/ Antenna Kit $ 3,650.00 External Strobe Light Assembly* $ 250.00 REMOTE STROBE Stepping Stone Park VOTRCNHFMS Remote Receiver/Strobe Light/ 12 Volt solar Charged/ Antenna Kit $ 3,150.00 (Small park close to school would hear horns,strobe for visual to alert people coming into park after horns have sounded.) EQUIPMENT COST,REMOTES $ 7,050.00 Freight Charges FOB Sunrise,Florida INSTALLATION COST Approximate $ 4,750.00 Based on normal installs in similar locations.The facility is responsible for supplying and installing a 6"x 6"x 20'wood pole for the remote unit if an appropriate building is not available.Only after a building inspection can an accurate fee be determined. *** * Located under optional items on the price list. The systems located at the schools can be upgraded to GENS systems. Guardian Emergency Notification.In an emergency lock down the system can give a different distinct audible tone notifying those out doors to go to designated areas.This is a one minute audible,strobes are turned on.They flash until given a signal to turn off. Page 3. OPTION 2 During our meeting it was mentioned you where not sure as to how much the schools would contribute to this project.I'm giving a second option for you to consider if they do not participate. EQUIPMENT PRICE BASE STATION Bridge Park L 75R Computer Console and Sensor,THOR PCX Software *** $ 7,695.00 VOTBDFMI2B Base Driver, 12 Watt Transmitter/Horn Cluster Communication Cable&RE Antenna $ 4,000.00 Line Conditioner UPS(Uninterruptible Power Supply) * $ 250.00 External LED Strobe Light Assembly $ 250.00 BRISTOL BAY PARK VOTRCFMS Remote Receiver/Horn Cluster/ 12 Volt Solar Charged/ Antenna Kit $ 3,650.00 External LED Strobe Light* $ 250.00 STEPPING STONES PARK VOTRCFMS Remote Receiver/Horn Cluster/ 12 Volt Solar Charged/ Antenna Kit $ 3,650.00 External LED Strobe Light* $ 250.00 EQUIPMENT COST $19,995.00 INSTALLATION COST Approximate $ 4,000.00 An inspection of the building is required. The facility is responsible for supplying and installing a 6"x 6"x 20'wood pole for each remote if an appropriate location is not available. Upgrade to existing system with FM radio equipment. 12 Watt Transmitter is$750. Each Receiver is$500.Base antenna kit is$100.Receiver antenna kit$85.00 each. To view our new applications for Thor Guard users go to www.thorguard.com click on software at the top and view 6 new features. Please call if you have any questions.Thank you for having an interest in THOR Guard. Regards, Walt Wynarczyk Territory Manager HOR __ GUARD, INC. April 17,2012 integrated Lightning Prediction and Waming Systems Ms. Laura Schraw United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60140 Dear Ms. Schraw: Thank you for requesting information on THOR GUARD integrated lightning prediction and warning systems. We manufacture these systems in southern Florida as we have for more than 30 years, and stand alone in offering the world's only true lightning PREDICTION system. No company has been manufacturing lightning warning systems for as long as THOR GUARD and no other system can approach our safety record. THOR GUARD uses a highly sophisticated sensor and computer to measure and analyze the electrostatic field in the atmosphere. Lightning originates within this field,thus allowing THOR GUARD to make calculations predicting its occurrence, even though there may be no visible evidence of lightning. Only THOR GUARD can provide advance warning of a first strike or the very dangerous side and back strikes. Unlike THOR GUARD, lightning "detection" systems require the occurrence of an actual lightning strike before a warning is given. According to the Severe Storms Laboratories in Norman, OK, 85% of all deaths and injuries occur away from a storm cell, so reacting to a strike which has already occurred within 5 to 10 miles is frequently too late! THOR GUARD's PREDICTION capability also minimizes false alarms without the use of filters, a significant departure from even the best detection systems, all of which are prone to unnecessary and costly shutdowns! THOR GUARD is the only stand-alone lightning warning device used by the USGA, AJGA, LPGA and the PGA of America Junior Series. We are the choice of Froward County, Hamilton County, OH, Park Ridge, IL, Orange County, FL, Paramus, NJ, Lewis, TX, Centennial Olympic Park, GA, Northern Virginia Regional Parks and more than 1,000 other city parks and municipalities in the United States. The flexibility of our system allows the client to choose the amount of advance warning time considered necessary for students, family and friends to proceed to a safe location. Couple our PREDICTION capability with a Voice of THOR horn/strobe light warning system or our one-piece THORGUARDIAN,you have a true,automatic advance warning package second to none! Responding to the call for an emergency notification system for schools and parks, THOR GUARD has introduced its Guardian Emergency Notification System (GENS). Available as a stand-alone device or built into our lightning prediction systems,the GENS will issue a one or two minute horn blast(very different than our lightning alerts)and facilitate email messaging instructions through our THOR PCX software. Already in use at many schools like University of Miami, the GENS will make your area safer with ease of use and efficient messaging. While single- purpose emergency systems cost considerably more than THOR GUARD, a cost-effective THOR GUARD/GENS system can be used every day for lightning prediction and the GENS accessed if you ever need more! THOR GUARD has provided accurate and dependable lightning protection for a broad base of clients since 1974. This represents literally hundreds of millions of hours of safe operations for clients that range from the U.S. Government, airlines, state and local agencies, the explosives industry, and schools, to a variety of recreational users.It is THOR GUARD's unique ability to PREDICT lightning that continues to make a reliably safe difference. Ms. Schraw, if you would like to take the next step towards a safer facility, contact me at Extension 104, or your local sales representative, Walt Wynarczyk, at(708)989-8273. Sincerely, Robert M. Dugan President 1193 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway . Sunrise, Florida 33323 . Tel: (954) 835-0900 . Fax: (954) 835-0808 www.thorguard.com I N N 0 V A T 1 0 N S Lightning Prediction InstantBths One year afftter er the deadly bolt struck John Scott Wade,the new system was installed and dedi- cated in his memory.Ironically, less than two hours after the ded- ication of the system,on June 20 1 of this year,the warning alarm was activated at Hinklev Park, B Y S T E V E N K M E Y E R interrupting organized baseball and volleyball games.Baseball officials and park district stab ALITI LE MORETHt1N ONE Bring all parks,schools and play- cleared the fields and courts as year ago,a tragic acci- T ing Fields. instructed.Ten minutes later, dent occurred on a soccer no= lightning stuck the middle of the field at Northeast Park in the # _ Decisions and Dollars baseball diamond, knocking out Park Ridge Recreation and Park _ Matters of zones,times of opera- a light pole and an irrigation District.After a short rain delay Novo tion,testing, noise levels and system.One boy who cleared the in the game,the skies started Master Alarm Control (MAC) installation procedures needed to baseball diamond said he felt the clearing and a referee decided to be worked out.The special pro- lightning from where he sought resume play.A rogue lightening jects technician for the parks shelter. bolt—some called it a"bolt out department became the district Had the warning signal not of the blue"--struck a young and in the air.Lightning is created liaison and worked on coordinat- been activated,had the system man named John Scott Wade. within the earth's invisible electro- ing installation. not been operational,would CPR and quick medical atten- static atmosphere.The charges, tion couldn't save him. which are invisible to the naked Four groups,the Park Ridge eye,always build prior to lightning Recreation and Park District, occurrences.When conditions Nnety-seven Youth Baseball,Indian Scours indicate that lightning is probable, and the Park Ridge Rotary Club a signal is sent to horns which percent of the time when the alarm system is formed a committee in an effort sound an eight-to-I2-minute to minimize lightening-related warning to clear the area and seek activated, lightning is visible within 15 injuries.Research on available shelter.Ninety-seven percent of the lightning detection and predic- time when the alarm system is acti- tion systems led them to a vated,lightning is visible within 15 to 30 minutes. system used at the Atlanta to 30 minutes.Other times light- Olympic Games and on golf ning is extremely probable.An all- The system would cover 18 there have been another tragic courses nationwide. clear signal announces when it's park and school sites in three f event?Three people were injured safe to return to the area. zones.The committee decided and one killed by lightning that Citywide Protection Although the company had the system should be operational night in the Chicago area. Committee members quickly con- never taken on a project of this from 8 a.m, to 11 p.m.on a Thankfully,due to the foresight curred that the Thor Guard system magnitude,Park Ridge agreed to daily basis from April to Novem- and planning of the committee was the best solution for Park be the first to test a city- ber,with horns and systems to be and the generous donations from Ridge.'fhesystem consists of wide lightning predic- tested monthly during the opera- the community, no one in Park sensors that mrI:,tre =. lion system tional period. Ridge was injured. electrostatic cov- The committee also began charges at Fund raising efforts to cover the Steven It: director of'ahe ground projected cost of$55,000.Sup- Park Ridge Recreation and Park levri - pQrt for the system was citywide. District in Park Ridge,Ill. Donations came from youth and adult sports teams,school dis- _ triers and 11TOs,service -W = �,,1 organizations,local tj hospitals,the x United Way and the z City itself. Remote bore cluster. N0V LM BF R1 ❑ L1' Lr1BF. R 1117 PUBLIC RISK 29 � I I LFl~■rl � Mfl Bolts From the Blue Some form of lightning prediction or detection Is better than none, experts say. Robert Esmail didn't know what hit him.One second,the 48-year-old was walking with his friend Steve Plutz on Elgin, Ill.'s Wing Park Golf Course; the next, he was abruptly thrown back by a deadly bolt of lightning. No bright flash. No sharp crack. Amazingly, Esmail remained conscious during the entire June 2 episode and later told the Chicago Tribune that the strike felt like a blow to the chest from either a base- ball bat or a linebacker. The bolt entered his right hip, where it left a three-inch-long "red and raw" mark, and exited his body via his foot.Plutz,who also was struck,died two days later from injuries to his brain, heart and Iungs. "It doesn't always take a tragedy to get officials to move; unfortunately, it takes a tragedy and a lawsuit," says Bob The incident, which occurred on city-owned property, Dugan, president of Sunrise, Fla.-based Thor Guard, the prompted Elgin municipal leaders to reconfigure their only manufacturer currently producing a lightning pre- priorities and move the planned installation of lightning diction system that identifies electrostatic energy condi- prediction systems to the top of their to-do list. By mid- tions conducive to lightning activity and emits an instant July, the city council approved spending $65,000 for warning. According to Dugan, facility operators are lightning prediction devices at The Highlands and Wing Park golf courses,as well as popular Lords Park. "A long often under the false impression that if they don't have blast signals that people should take cover. A series of any sort of protection, they can't be sued in the event of shorter blasts signals an all-clear," parks and recreation a strike. But the suits keep coming, and so do the dam- director Randy Reopelle told the Tribune. "We're going ages. "Most of those suits are settled out of court in favor to have to implement an education program to train peo- of the plaintiff," he says. "Relying on the ?act of God' ple how to react." defense doesn't work." I Lightning education has been a goal of outdoor sports Lightning, weather's most dangerous and frequently and recreation administrators for the past decade, ever encountered hazard, caused almost 500 deaths in the since Park Ridge, Ill., located 27 miles from Elgin, United States between 1995 and 2004--but fewer annu- became the first community in the country to introduce al fatalities have been reported in recent years,according lightning prediction technology to parks in 1997. That to the National Weather Service and the National initial $49,000 investment came after 20-year-old Scott Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By compari- Wade was struck by lightning while officiating a youth son, lightning struck and killed more than 3,235 individ- soccer game. uals between 1959 and 1994. Nowhere is lightning more prone to strike in the United The Georgia High School Association recently mandat States than Florida, which the U.S. National Lightning ed that all 402 member schools provide at least handheld Detection Network lists as having the most lightning devices for all outdoor activities during the 2006-07 flashes per square mile. That's one reason why Brevard school year, and some principals and athletic directors Public Schools in Viera, Fla., spent a reported $350,000 have upgraded to permanent systems instead. Schools during the summer to install lightning prediction systems were asked to determine how many handheld units they at all middle schools, high schools and athletic fields in needed(typically at least two or three)and find their own the district-17 sites in all. funding sources, says Gary Phillips, the GHSA's assis- Meanwhile, on the other side of Florida's Lake tant executive director. The association also purchased Okeechobee, the Broward County Parks and Recreation 14 handheld devices for use by its staffers at state tour- Division installed lightning prediction devices at six naments and other events. parks in 2005 and dedicated more than$92,000 to install systems at seven additional parks this year.The county is Phillips says the idea to equip schools with some sort of no stranger to lightning-related fatalities:On July 20,3 8- protection stems from the 2004 boys'state track and field year-old Edward Hidalgo was riding an ATV in the championships at Jefferson High School. When nasty Everglades when he became the ninth person since 1993 storms moved in that May weekend, lightning struck a to be felled by a lightning bolt within Broward County's transformer that exploded into a ball of fire and plum- borders. And the Broward County School District—fol- meted to the ground, injuring several spectators and lowing the October 2005 death of 15-year-old Monarch burning the hair off one coach's arm. "Here we were, High School junior varsity football player Schaffner asking schools to host all of these tournaments and out- Noel as his team took shelter during a game delay—was door activities, but we weren't helping them prepare for among the first organizations in the nation to subscribe sudden weather changes," Phillips says. "We needed to to Weatherbug?, a provider of live Iocal weather condi- do that. It's a minor imposition that in the end will make tions via the Internet and mobile communications venues safer for everybody." devices. It's not too early for facility operators to begin thinking Although grant money from various sources can be about next spring and how best to arm themselves—and applied to the purchase of a lightning prediction system, the individuals responsible for overseeing athletic and which generally sells for between $6,000 and $9,000, recreation events—against Mother Nature's electrical Weatherbug and similar services such as WeatherData? whims. Some form of detection or prediction is better provide some degree of protection for schools and other than none,experts say, because today's systems can alert organizations unable to make major financial commit- people in charge of games, practices and other outdoor ments to weather safety. Plus, unlike lightning-specific recreation activities to lightning threats not visible to the i equipment,the latter services alert subscribers to all vari- human eye.As Dugan warns, "Just because you don't see eties of pending weather emergencies—from blizzards to lightning doesn't mean it's safe." tornadoes. Just ask Robert Esmail. Other lower-cost alternatives are handheld lightning detection devices such as SkyScan? and ThunderBolt?, Michael Popke which range in price from around $100 to $500 each. Whereas lightning prediction systems assess atmospher- ic conditions likely to produce future lightning strikes within a given area, handheld detection units pinpoint where lightning strikes have occurred within a predeter- mined radius and estimate their range, approach speed, time of arrival and severity. HOR THORGUARDIAN ._'' UARDa INC. LIGHTNING PREDICTION SYSTEM The THORGUARDIAN is the first,totally integrated advance warning system for lightning. The sensor continuously monitors the atmosphere's electrostatic energy as far away as 15 miles and evaluates the potential for lightning within an area approximately 2 miles in radius. When the system determines a hazardous condition, the air-horns and strobe light -- provide necessary alerts. As a leader in lightning prediction, THOR GUARD has advanced its state of the art lightning prediction 1 technology by the development of its propriety L125 prediction computer. The entire system can be easily installed outdoors as a single unit, or the control box can be located HOR3wutUUn' separately.Under normal conditions,the air horns have a range of approximately 700 yards, in a 360' pattern. An external status LED indicates THORGUARDIAN is operational. FEATURES • THOR GUARD L125 lightning prediction computer. • LCD provides immediate lightning/ system status. • Sensor, Strobe, Air-horns, Mtg. Bar & Tripod included. • • User - hours of operation, selectable by day. • 12 selectable ranges permits desired sensitivity. • Designed for continuous unattended operation. !: I • Automatic system status ensures timer opetation • Automatic notification, both visual and audible, of "RED - ALERT" and "ALL - CLEAR" conditions. • Strobe light that remains on during "RED ALERT". • AC Power 0 20V) or Optional Solar Power. • RS232 port (DB9) allows interface to users computer providing data forTHOR GUARD's THORPCX(Optional) *W visual display and storm storage software. • Audible notification for low battery or test failure. • High performance long life rechargeable battery. ■ ■ SELECTED SPECIFICATIONS Models: THORGUARDIAN Power Requirement: Voltage: 120 Volts VAC,60 Hz,Single Phase Power: .25A,30 Watts »Optional Solar Power Using 40 Watt Panel } Power Supply. Wall Mounted Transformer, 120V,60 Hz Safety Requirements: UL,CSA,VDE Power Cord: UL,CSA,SJT 6 Ft.Grounded Hyperstatic AC Protection:Circuit Breaker/Switch Sensor Enclosure Control Box: Dimensions: 13"W x 6 112"D x 15 114"H Safety Requirements: UL,CSA,Type 4X Material:Sealed Gray Fiberglass Enclosure Weight:26 Lbs. Model L 125 THOR GUARD: Dimensions: 7.325"W x 6"D x 1.5'H Power: 12V DC(Supplied by System Battery) Safety Requirements: FCC Part, 15 Class B Hyperstatic Sensor. Dimensions:4'W x 13"H Weight: 2 Lbs. (Excluded Cable) Construction: PVC-Sealed Mounting: 1" Diameter Pipe VOT Horn Sensor Cable: West Penn 5992 (Optional Plenum Cable) 318" Dia. Double Shielded Triaxial with Teflon Core Standard Lengths Available 75ft., 125ft., 150 ft. (200 ft.Max. Length) VOT Air Horn Cluster. Dimensions: 19"W x 14.5"H Material: Fiberglass; Dome& Horn Mounting Plate Weight: 13 Lbs. (Excludes Cable) Cable: General Cable 234600 12AWG(UL)Type TC-ER Sound Output: 11 3d® 1 Oft., 700 Yard Radius,Typical Coverage Power: 12VDC,(Supplied By System Battery) TX Strobe Light: Manufacture:Whelen 51 Series(UL) Listed _T Dimensions:3.90"H x 5.2" Dia. _ Light Output: LED High Intensity Multi-Flash,Amber = - Cable:West Penn AQ224, 18AWG 2-Conductor Length:Standard 12 ft.,40 ft.(Additional Lengths Available) Weight: 1 Lb. LED Strobe (Specifications&features subject to change without notice) Light THOR GUARD, Inc. 1193 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Sunrise, FL 33323 Tel (954) 835-0900 (888) 571-1212 Fax (954) 835-0808 E-mail: sales@thorguard.com www.thorguard.com REV 11.1 `,SAD C►p Reviewed By: �- Legal Agenda Item Number EST 1836 Finance El PS—NB #3 1 Engineer ❑ City Administrator E Human Resources El Tracking Number , © Community Development PS 2012-17 Police ALE Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Dangerous/Exotic Animals Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Direction Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: `,SAD C►p 011% Memorandum To: City Council EST 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: .y� p Date: July 4, 2012 �.MQW* Subject: Exotic/dangerous animals LE Summary Discussion of potential amendments to the City code section on exotic and dangerous animals. Background This item was requested by Alderwoman Spears. Residents have expressed interest to her in expanding the list of prohibited exotic and dangerous animals in the City code (attached), based on complaints of an existing business in the City(Pets One). Since Pets One opening several months ago, the City has received various complaints about animals running at large, concerns over dangerous animals, and nuisance complaints about the smell of the building. The City has investigated each one of the complaints, and our enforcement activity has ranged from finding the complaint unwarranted(in the case of certain dangerous animals), to verbal warnings (for animals running at large), to successful citations and fines (for smell). The citation for smell was pinned to both the business owner(tenant) and property owner, for a nuisance violation. Both parties were fined several hundred dollars. The most recent concern expressed by residents to Alderwoman Spears has been that of non-native and dangerous animals being sold in the store. Staff has researched each one of the animals sold in the store over various months, and found them to be in compliance with City code—although this does not necessarily mean the animals are not dangerous,just that they are not listed in our City code as a dangerous animal. We do know that the Illinois Department of Agriculture has received complaints on the types of animals being sold, and has been out to inspect at least twice. At both inspections by the Illinois Department of Agriculture, all animals in the store have either had state permits to be sold(snow foxes) or were not prohibited by the state. The list of animals being sold in the store, according to its facebook page, is as follows: foxes, prairie dogs, hamster, gerbils, degas, ferrets, opossum, gliders, guinea pigs, hedgehogs, raccoon, chinchillas, kinkajou, lizards, snakes, geckos, chameleon, lobsters, iguana, blue degus, plecostomus. Staff has not further researched any of the more exotic animals on the list to determine whether other cities ban them, or whether they are considered"dangerous". We are aware that a few residents and experts are prepared to attend the COW meeting to opine on the danger associated with a few of the types of animals sold. Our attorneys have determined that the City does have the ability to ban the sale of certain types of animals within City limits that we consider dangerous. Pending direction from the City Council to proceed,we will research specific species. Recommendation Staff requests direction from the City Council on whether to proceed with research on expanding the exotic/dangerous animals list in City code. Sterling Codifiers,Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php Chapter 2 ANIMALS 5-2-1 : DEFINITIONS: As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry, and other farm animals. AT LARGE: Any animal shall be deemed to be at large when it is off the property of its owner and not under the control of a responsible person, or on the property of his owner and neither under the control of a responsible person nor under restraint. DANGEROUS DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Any domestic animal when unmuzzled, unleashed, or unattended by its owner or custodian that behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would believe poses a serious and unjustified imminent threat of serious physical injury or death to a person or a companion animal in a public place. DANGEROUS/EXOTIC ANIMAL: A lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, cougar, jaguar, panther, cheetah, margay, mountain lion, lynx, bobcat, jaguarundi, bear, bison, hyena, wolf, coyote, jackal, wild dog, any poisonous or life threatening reptile, monkey, gorilla, chimpanzee, or other nonhuman primate, any rodent weighing more than one pound with the exception of guinea pigs, any noncanine animal not native to North America and which can attain a weight of two hundred (200) pounds, or any feline animal which can attain a weight in excess of forty (40) pounds. DOG: All members of the canine family. DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats, and any other types of animals or fowl normally maintained as a household pet or guardian. IMPOUND: To take into the custody of the city police department or animal control officer. INOCULATION AGAINST RABIES: The injection, subcutaneously or otherwise, of antirabic vaccine as approved by the department of agriculture of the state of Illinois. OWNER: Any person who has a right of property in an animal, or who keeps or harbors an animal, or who has an animal in his/her care, or who acts as custodian of an animal, or who knowingly permits an animal to remain on or about any premises occupied by him/her. PERSON: Any individual, firm, association, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity, any public or private institution, or any municipal corporation or political subdivision of the city. RESPONSIBLE PERSON: A person who is familiar with the animal and has the size and experience to be able to keep the animal under complete control at all times. RESTRAINT: An animal is under restraint if it is confined by a fence of sufficient height and 1 of 7 7/5/2012 12:23 PM Sterling Codifiers,Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php security (which may be an electronic invisible fence system) to prevent it from leaving the encompassed area, on a leash under the control of a responsible person, or on a leash securely fastened to an inanimate object and of a length which prevents it from leaving the property of its owner or keeper. SERIOUS INJURY: Any physical injury that results in broken bones, lacerations, wounds, or skin punctures that require medical treatment. VICIOUS DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Any domestic animal that, without justification, attacks a person and causes serious physical injury or death or any individual animal that has been found to be a "dangerous domestic animal" upon three (3) separate occasions. (Ord. 2009-08, 2-10-2009; amd. Ord. 2009-25, 4-28-2009) 5-2-2: ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER: The mayor, with the advice and consent of the city council, shall have the authority to appoint an animal control officer and an assistant animal control officer whose duties shall be the enforcement of this chapter. Any reference to the animal control officer in this chapter shall also mean the assistant animal control officer. (Ord. 2009-08, 2-10-2009) 5-2-3: DANGEROUS/EXOTIC ANIMALS: A. No person shall have a right of property in, keep, harbor, care for, act as custodian of or maintain in his possession any dangerous/exotic animal within the corporate limits of the city. B. This section shall not apply to a properly maintained zoological park, federally licensed exhibit, circus, scientific or educational institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital, kennels, pounds, or animal refuge in an escape proof enclosure. C. It is no defense to a violation of this section that the violator has attempted to domesticate the dangerous/exotic animal. D. If there appears to be imminent danger to the public, any dangerous/exotic animal found not in compliance with the provisions of this section shall be impounded and may immediately be placed in an approved facility. Approved facilities include, but are not limited to, a zoological park, federally licensed exhibit, humane society, veterinary hospital, or animal refuge. 2 of 7 7/5/2012 12:23 PM Sterling Codifiers,Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php E. Upon the conviction of a person for a violation of this section, the animal with regard to which the conviction was obtained shall be impounded and placed in an approved facility, with the owner thereof to be responsible for all costs connected with the seizure and confiscation of such animal. Approved facilities include, but are not limited to, a zoological park, federally licensed exhibit, humane society, veterinary hospital, or animal refuge. (Ord. 2009-08, 2-10-2009) 5-2-4: DOMESTIC ANIMALS: A. Rabies Inoculation''': Any domestic animal, which the Illinois department of agriculture requires to be inoculated against rabies, must be inoculated against rabies in order to be owned or maintained in the city. B. Collar And Tags: Any dog within the corporate limits of the city shall wear a collar or harness with a suitable tag bearing the inscription of the name, address and phone number, if any, of the owner. C. Running At Large: No domestic animal shall be permitted to run at large, with or without a tag fastened to its collar, within the corporate limits of the city. Any domestic animal found upon any public street, sidewalk, alley or any unenclosed place shall be deemed running at large unless the domestic animal is firmly held on a leash or is in an enclosed vehicle. D. Dangerous Domestic Animals Or Vicious Domestic Animals: 1. The city police department or animal control officer is authorized to investigate any report of a dangerous or vicious domestic animal and make a determination, as to whether such animal is dangerous or vicious. Within five (5) days of such determination, a notice of ordinance violation must be issued to the owner in accordance with title 1, chapter 14 of this code. 2. Any domestic animal which exhibits any of the following behaviors shall be deemed dangerous: a. Causing an injury to a person or animal that is less severe than a serious injury; b. Without provocation, chasing or menacing a person or animal in an aggressive manner; c. Running at large and impounded or owner receiving notices of ordinance violations two (2) or more times within any twelve (12) month period; d. Acts in a highly aggressive manner within a fenced yard/enclosure and appears to a reasonable person able to jump over or escape; or 3 of 7 7/5/2012 12:23 PM Sterling Codifiers,Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php e. Attempts to attack any person or animal if it is restrained by a leash, fence, or other means and it is clear that only the presence of the leash, fence, or other means of restraint is preventing the domestic animal from immediate attack. 3. No domestic animal shall be declared dangerous or vicious if: a. The animal was used by a law enforcement official for legitimate law enforcement purposes; b. The threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person: (1) Who was committing, at the time, a wilful trespass or other tort upon the premises lawfully occupied by the owner of the animal; (2) Who was provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the animal or who can be shown or have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal; or (3) Who was committing or attempting to commit a crime. c. The animal was: (1) Responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its offspring; or (2) Protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the animal from an attack or assault. 4. If a domestic animal is deemed dangerous or vicious, the city police department or animal control officer may require: a. Special security or care requirements; b. Impoundment until satisfied that the owner will maintain the dangerous or vicious domestic animal on the owner's property except for medical treatment or examination; post a clearly visible written warning that there is a dangerous or vicious domestic animal on the premises (visible from a distance of 50 feet); or c. Order humane dispatch of the dangerous or vicious domestic animal, pursuant to the humane euthanasia in animal shelters act` upon a finding that the owner has failed to abide by the established conditions of security. 5. In the event of impoundment of a dangerous or vicious domestic animal, the animal shall not be released until satisfaction of the following: a. The owner of the dangerous or vicious domestic animal proves that the owner is a responsible person; b. The dangerous or vicious domestic animal has a current rabies vaccination, where applicable; c. The owner has a proper enclosure to prevent the entry of any person or animal and the escape of said dangerous or vicious domestic animal; 4 of 7 7/5/2012 12:23 PM Sterling Codifiers,Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php d. The dangerous or vicious domestic animal has been spayed or neutered; e. The dangerous or vicious domestic animal has been implanted with a microchip containing owner identification information. The microchip information must be registered with the animal control authority of the jurisdiction; and f. The dangerous or vicious domestic animal owner shall enter the animal in a socialization and/or behavior program approved by the city. 6. It shall be unlawful for an owner of a dangerous or vicious domestic animal to: a. Permit the animal to be outside a proper enclosure unless under the control of a responsible person, muzzled, and restrained by a lead not exceeding four feet (4') in length; the muzzle shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the animal or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any human being or animal; b. Fail to maintain a dangerous or vicious domestic animal exclusively on the owner's property, except as required for medical treatment or examination. When removed from the owner's property for medical treatment or examination, the dangerous or vicious domestic animal shall be caged or under the control of a responsible person, muzzled and restrained with a lead not exceeding four feet (4') in length, and having a tensile strength of at least two hundred (200) pounds. The muzzle shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the animal or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any human being or animal; c. Fail to notify the city police department: 1) immediately upon escape if a dangerous or vicious domestic animal is on the loose, is unconfined, has attacked another domestic animal, has attacked a human being, 2) within two (2) business days if the animal has died, and 3) within twenty four (24) hours if the animal has been sold or has been given away. If the dangerous or vicious domestic animal has been sold or given away, the owner shall also provide the city police department with the name, address, and telephone number of the new owner of the dangerous or vicious domestic animal; d. Fail to surrender a dangerous or vicious domestic animal for safe confinement pending a hearing when there is a reason to believe that the dangerous or vicious domestic animal poses an imminent threat to public safety; or e. Fail to comply with any special security or care requirements for a dangerous or vicious domestic animal determined by the city police department or animal control officer. 7. Any dangerous or vicious domestic animal running at large in the streets or public places of the city or upon private premises of any other person not the owner, shall be impounded in the manner provided by this chapter; provided, however, that if a dangerous or vicious domestic animal found at large cannot be safely impounded, that animal may be slain by any city police officer. E. Disturbing The Peace; Nuisance: 1. Any domestic animal within the corporate limits of the city which is continuously barking, howling, or whining, or making other distressing or loud or unusual noise on a consistent 5 of 7 7/5/2012 12:23 PM Sterling Codifiers,Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php basis, or in any other manner disturbing the peace or quiet of any place, neighborhood, family, or person within the corporate limits of the city, may hereby be declared a nuisance. 2. Upon complaint being made to the animal control officer or city police department, or upon a citizen of the city signing a written complaint with the city police department, said animal control officer or the city police department shall thereafter notify the owner or person having possession of such domestic animal, or the owner or occupant of the premises on which such domestic animal may be kept, that a complaint has been made. The person so notified shall immediately upon receipt of such notice abate the nuisance. F. Animal Waste: It shall be unlawful for any owner to allow a domestic animal to defecate on private property, without permission of the property owner, or any public street, sidewalk or park without properly disposing of such waste in a trash receptacle. G. Impoundment And Redemption Procedures: 1. Impoundment: Any domestic animal found upon any public street or highway within the corporate limits of the city running at large shall be impounded and shall be boarded at any existing or available animal control facility. If such domestic animal shall not have been redeemed within five (5) days after being impounded, it shall be humanely dispatched in the manner prescribed in this section. 2. Notice Of Impoundment: Upon impoundment, the animal control officer or the city police department shall notify the owner, if known, by telephone or mail, of such impoundment, and shall cite the owner of the domestic animal to answer charges of violation of this chapter. 3. Registry: The city police department or animal control officer shall immediately upon impounding any dangerous or vicious domestic animal make a complete registry thereof, entering the breed, color and sex of such animal and whether licensed, if known; and if licensed, shall enter the name and address of the owner or keeper and the number of the license tag, if known, and if bearing an inoculation tag the number of such tag shall be recorded. 4. Adoption And Redemption Of Domestic Animals; Fees: If the owner of any domestic animal impounded hereunder is unknown, such domestic animal shall be boarded for a period of five (5) days, and thereafter, if no claim has been made for such domestic animal, shall be humanely dispatched in accordance with this section; or released to any person desiring to adopt said domestic animal upon payment of a fee to be specified by the animal control officer, city police department, or the Kendall County animal control department; said fees to be paid during normal business hours at the city police department or the Kendall County animal control department. 5. Unclaimed Domestic Animals: Efforts shall be made hereunder to find suitable homes for any unclaimed domestic animals or domestic animals whose owners are unknown, either directly by the animal control officer or with the assistance of the animal welfare league. 6. Method Of Humane Dispatch: Whenever it shall become necessary to humanely dispatch a domestic animal, the method of humane dispatch shall be pursuant to the humane 6 of 7 7/5/2012 12:23 PM Sterling Codifiers,Inc. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php euthanasia in animal shelters acts. 7. Fees: The owner shall pay all fees charged for the impoundment of any animal under the provisions of this chapter. 8. Redemption Of Domestic Animal Not Inoculated Against Rabies: Any impounded domestic animal which has not been inoculated against rabies as required under this chapter, shall not be released to its owner until the animal is properly inoculated. 9. Humane Dispatch When Rabies Suspected: In the event an authorized health officer determines that there is or exists the danger of rabies, any impounded animal so endangered may be destroyed after a period of twenty four (24) hours of impoundment. (Ord. 2009-08, 2-10-2009) 5-2-5: AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS: A. Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code. (Ord. 2009-08, 2-10-2009) 5-2-6: RESISTING OR INTERFERING WITH OFFICERS: It shall be unlawful for any person to molest, resist, interfere with, hinder or prevent any city police officer or animal control officer, or person in the discharge of the duties or powers conferred upon them by this chapter. (Ord. 2009-08, 2-10-2009) 7 of 7 7/5/2012 12:23 PM ,SAD Co. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number i d01% Legal ❑ PW—NB #1 Finance ❑ EST. 1836 Engineer ■ - City Administrator ❑' Tracking Number "- Human Resources ❑ "$ �© Community Development ❑❑ PW 2012-41 Police ALE �► � Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Game Farm Road/ Somonauk Improvements Meeting and Date: COW—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: Land Acquisition Contract Consideration Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Co.f 1- Memorandum To: City Council EST. —_ 1836 From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator .h 1;1 Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. LE Date: July 2, 2012 Subject: Game Farm/ Somonauk Improvements—Land Acquisition Background The City in 2009 obtained quotes for land acquisition services for the above referenced project and ultimately entered into an agreement with Jay M. Heap and Associates, LTD on June 23, 2009 to perform appraisal and negotiator services for $85,000. All work associated with the original agreement was completed with the exception of the final settlements for the remaining parcels. The ending contract value was $75,000. Currently the City and IDOT have acquired 11 parcels out of the necessary 33 needed prior to construction (See attached summary). In order to keep the project on target for the planned November 2014 letting, it is recommended that the City continue with the land acquisition process. We have attached a proposed schedule for your information. The land acquisition is being funded with Federal (FHWA) and Local (MFT) funds (50150). Current Status Attached, please find a proposal in the amount of $75,000 from Jay M. Heap and Associates, LTD to complete the remaining works items related to the land acquisition, which include updating the appraisal reports to current state and federal regulations and negotiations. Since the original work was completed by Jay M. Heap and Associates, LTD and this is an extension of that work, it is in the City's best interest to continue with them on this project. The work associated with the proposal would be paid for out of Local MFT funds. There is a current MFT resolution for the project has been previously approved by the City Council that would cover this expense. A supplemental resolution will most likely need to be approved during the actual land acquisition process. The current cost estimates for the remaining work items as follows: Appraisals and Negotiations $75,000 (MFT) Land Acquisition $350,000 ($175,000 FHWA/$175,000 MFT) Construction Engineering $735,000 (Local) Construction $6,130,000 ($2,343,512 FHWA/$3,786,488 Local) Proposed Action At this time, we ask that the City Council consider approving the proposal so that the project can remain on schedule. If you have any questions or require additional information, please let us know. Memorandum To: Krysti Barksdale-Noble From: Jay Heap &Aaron Heap Date: June 21, 2012 Re: Game Farm/Somonauk Street Krysti, The following items are to be considered when discussing the new proposal: 1) The original reports are over 2 years old and not acceptable for project use. 2) Current IDOT/County/Municipal fees for Non-Complex Appraisal Reports are in a range of $1,500 to $3,500. 3) That the previously completed reports are not compliant with new changes to State & Federal regulations. 4) That the "waiver" appraisals designed to hold down costs for small takes and/or temporary easements are no longer permitted to be completed or utilized according to State & Federal regulations. Best Regards, ay JAY M. HEAP & ASSOCIATES, LTD REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS & CONSULTANTS 310W. JEFFERSON ST., MORRIS, IL 60450 Phone: (815) 942-2320 - Fax: (815) 942-2642 June 20, 2012 Ms. Krysti Barksdale-Noble United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, II. 60560 Re: Appraisal Proposal for Game Farm Road/Somonauk Street Appraisal/Appraisal Review and Negotiation Services Dear Ms. Barksdale-Noble: Pursuant to our meeting on June 18, 2012, we have arrived at a fee proposal for preparing market value appraisals, appraisal reviews and negotiations of real estate for the above referenced project. The effective date of value will be the date of inspection, unless otherwise specified. We reserve the right to change the type of reports proposed if after contacting the owner, completing the necessary analysis or changes in engineering occurs that could impact on values for the part taken, temporary easements or permanent easements, if any. Any report type changes would require approval in format and any fee increases or decreases by both the United City of Yorkville and Jay M. Heap &Associates, Ltd. of Morris, Illinois. The estimated total cost of this project is ($75,000) Seventy Five Thousand Dollars as shown on the attached spreadsheet, subject to being supplied premise plats, preliminary title work and other items required to complete this assignment. Based upon the data received, we would be happy to discuss our proposal in greater detail, if necessary. The appraisals will be prepared in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as promulgated by the Appraisal Foundation, the Illinois Department of Transportation and in conformance with the Standards of Professional Practice and the Code of Ethics of the Appraisal Institute. It is our understanding that the United City of Yorkville will receive one original and one copy of each report and our office will not communicate any part of our analysis or findings to any other parties without first receiving written authorization from you as our client. Furthermore, by agreeing to the terms of this proposal, the United City of Yorkville acknowledges its obligation to pay all invoices within 30 days of receipt. Ms. Barksdale-Noble June 20, 2012 Page 2 The anticipated time frame for completion of this assignment would be determined at the time of engagement and receipt of all documents from the United City of Yorkville or its representatives but not later than November 30, 2013. It is also necessary to quote you our hourly rate should any part of this project involve any special meetings, depositions, pre-trial conferences, court appearances, etc. They are all billed at $ 250 per hour or fractional part thereof for the appraiser, reviewer and negotiator and include out of pocket expenses. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to you. If you accept the terms of this proposal, please indicate so by signing below and returning to our office. Sincerely, JAY HE &ASSOCIATES, LTD. Jay . Heap, resident -t L- tate Certified/General No.: IL 553.000212 Expires: 09-30-13 Terms Accepted by: Name Title Dated: _ CITY OF YORKVILLE GAMEFARM ROAD-SOMONAUK STREET ROW AND TEMPORARY EASEMENT FEES PARCEL# NAME TAKE TE PE A F R F N F Totals GF009 Howard A. &Joyce E.Johnson YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF010 Robert Loftus YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF011 Yorkville Community School District#115 YES NO NO N/A N/A N/A N/A GF012 Bonnie A. Hausler NO YES NO $1,000 $500 $1,000 $2,500 GF013 Edward & Brenda G. Minick NO YES NO $1,000 $500 $1,000 $2,500 GF014 Teresa R. Berard NO YES NO $1,000 $500 $1,000 $2,500 GF015 David B. &Joni L.Angle YES YES NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF017 Robert J. &Ann J. McNelis YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF018 Michael L. & Katherine A. Heiman YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF020 Bristol-Kendall Joint Cemetery Association YES YES NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF021 Diane J. Conover YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF022 Diane J. Conover YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF023 Delores C. Lies,Gail C. Fisher, Gary L. & Diane Conover YES YES NO $2,000 $1,000 $2,000 $5,000 GF024 Harvey A. & Margaret E. Knell YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF025 Harvey A. & Margaret E. Knell YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF026 Brian D. & Kimberly E. Morris YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF027 Herbert E. & Pamela A. Kleinwachter YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF029 Martha L.Witt NO YES NO $1,000 $500 $1,000 $2,500 GF030 Martha L.Witt NO YES NO $1,000 $500 $1,000 $2,500 GF031 Gary L. Kritzbert YES YES NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF032 Gary L. &Susan Kritzberg YES NO NO $1,500 $750 $1,500 $3,750 GF033 Elite Yorkville, LLC YES YES NO $2,000 $1,000 $2,000 $5,000 $30,000 $15,000 $30,000 $75,000 TAKE- LAND& IMPROVEMENTS ACQUIRED TE -TEMPORARY EASEMENT *All Temporary Easements will be for(6)years PE - PERMANENT EASEMENT A/F -APPRAISAL FEE R/F - REVIEW FEE N/F - NEGOTIATION FEE (06/12) Jay M. Heap Associates, LTD Game Farm/Somonauk-ROW&Easement Costs 7/2/12 Acquired Parcels Appraised Value Offered Value Amount Parcel Address Owner Type ROW Temp.Esmt.(3 yrs) Total Remarks ROW Temp Esmt(6 yrs) Offered Agreed price 1 108 E.Somonauk Hight TE $0 $2,200 $2,200 Acquired $0 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 2 106 E.Somonauk Wheeler TE $0 $2,200 $2,200 Acquired $0 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 3 104 E.Somonauk Aters,Hyde TE $0 $800 $800 Acquired $0 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 4 102 E.Somonauk Buckner ROW $0 $0 $0 IDOT acquired 5 101 E.Somonauk Steinke ROW&TE $0 $0 $0 IDOT acquired 6 601 N.Bridge Reinboldt ROW $0 $0 $0 IDOT acquired 7 104 W.Somonauk WMSY Properties,LLC TE $0 $3,200 $3,200 Acquired $0 $6,400 $6,400 $6,400 8 106 W.Somonauk McCoy TE $0 $2,000 $2,000 Acquired $0 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 16 n/a Parkview Fdn. TE $0 $500 $500 Acquired $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 19 503 Game Farm Sullivan ROW $5,100 $0 $5,100 Acquired $5,100 $5,100 $5,100 28 1205 Game Farm Gallaino,Studer ROW $16,500 $0 $16,500 Acquired $16,500 $16,500 $16,500 Parcels to be Acquired Appraised Value Offered Value Amount Parcel Address Owner Type ROW Temp.Esmt.(3 yrs) Total Remarks ROW Temp Esmt(6 yrs) Offered Agreed price 9 105 W.Somonauk Wirth ROW $2,825 $0 $2,825 $2,825 $2,825 10 n/a Loftus ROW $4,665 $0 $4,665 Tower Lane $4,665 $4,665 11 n/a School Dist. ROW $0 $0 $0 Conveyance from school district $0 $0 12 203 W.Somonauk Hausler TE $0 $500 $500 $0 $1,000 $1,000 13 205 W.Somonauk Minick TE $0 $500 $500 $0 $1,000 $1,000 14 406 W.Somonauk Berard TE $0 $3,200 $3,200 $0 15 405 West Street Angle ROW&TE $7,000 $4,200 $11,200 $7,000 $7,000 17 403 W.Somonauk McNelis ROW $16,614 $0 $16,614 $16,614 $16,614 18 501 Game Farm Heiman ROW $3,100 $0 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 20 n/a Cemetary ROW&TE $15,000 $300 $15,300 $15,000 $600 $15,600 21 n/a Conover ROW $10,700 $0 $10,700 Just north of high school $10,700 $10,700 22 997 Game Farm Conover ROW $16,400 $0 $16,400 $16,400 $16,400 23 n/a Lies,Fisher,Conover ROW&TE $3,300 $2,800 $6,100 Conover Lane $3,300 $3,300 24 1011 Game Farm Knell ROW $14,000 $0 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 25 n/a Knell ROW $4,600 $0 $4,600 Private Road $4,600 $4,600 26 1105 Game Farm Morris ROW $12,500 $0 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 27 1201 Game Farm Kleinwachter ROW $19,600 $0 $19,600 $19,600 $19,600 29 1204 Game Farm Witt TE $0 $4,200 $4,200 $0 30 1206 Game Farm Damato TE $0 $2,200 $2,200 $0 31 1211 Game Farm Kritzberg G ROW&TE $22,400 $300 $22,700 $22,400 $600 $23,000 32 1217 Game Farm Kritzberg S ROW $8,000 $0 $8,000 valued as commercial property $8,000 $8,000 33 1308 Game Farm Elite Yorkville LLC ROW&TE $45,400 $60,200 $105,600 Nursing Home $45,400 $45,400 Totals $227,704 $25,000 $252,704 $43,400 City Cost @ 50% $113,852 $12,500 $126,352 Total paid to date $43,400 PROJECT SCHEDULE Engineering Enterprises,Inc. GAME FARM ROAD/SOMONAUK STREET IMPROVEMENTS • United City of Yorkville, IL May 9, 2012 DRAFT Year: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Month: M J J A S O N D J F M A M I J J I A S I O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A I S O N D J I F I M I A M J J A S O N D WORK ITEM City FY: 1 A • • Land Acquisition Final Design IEPA Permit Submittal and Review Pre-Final Plan Submittal Final Plan Submittal Joint and Phase III Construction Agreement Submittal : I � • - . Project Letting Project Award and Contracting Construction GAPublifforkville\201 1\YO1 1 13-C Game Farm Somonauk Improvements\Eng\[Project Schedule-5-12.x1s]Project Schedule Legend Land Acquisition Bidding and Contracting IEPA Submittal and Review Construction LFinal Design `,SAD C►p Reviewed By: �- Legal El Agenda Item Number EST 1836 Finance El PW—NB #2 1 Engineer E City Administrator E Human Resources El Tracking Number , © Community Developpolint F1 El PW 2012-42 ALE Public Works E Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Road Maintenance Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Direction Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: `,SAD C►p 011% Memorandum To: City Council EST 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: .y� p Date: July 4, 2012 �.MQW* Subject: Road maintenance update LE Summary Discussion on road maintenance funding for upcoming years. Background This item was requested by Alderman Gilson. He is interested in having a discussion on road maintenance funding, and has questions related to the MFT budget. Both our City-wide capital and MFT budgets are attached for the discussion. The first question posed by Alderman Gilson was related to unexpended money in the salt line-item within the MFT budget. Specifically, he wanted to know what happens to money the City saved this past winter when we used much less salt than budgeted. The simple answer is that the money simply rolls over within the MFT budget to the following year. The detailed answer can be illustrated with a look at the MFT budget. The MFT budget is a special revenue fund, meaning it is a stand-alone fund and the revenues in the fund are used for specific operations. In this case, the MFT budget is funded with motor fuel taxes (MFT) sent to the City by the State. The City receives a set amount of motor fuel taxes per year,based on our population. These motor fuel taxes can only be used for certain road maintenance related expenses, and the overall budget and individual expenses generally have to be pre-authorized by the State. Each year, the City puts forth an MFT budget that includes hot patching, cold patching, large-scale patching, sign replacement, salt, and other approved road projects. When one line-item is underspent, the entire budget benefits at the end of the year(i.e. it ends in surplus). This end-of-year surplus simply is transferred to the following budget year as a fund balance, and the MFT fund balance grows. The next year, the City Council could choose to spend down some of the MFT fund balance. Thus, any unexpended salt money from FY 12 could be used for any MFT purpose in FY 13 (pending City and State budget approval). Which means, the estimated $90,000 in FY 12 could be used for any MFT purpose in FY 13. It should be noted that the City plans on using MFT dollars for Game Farm Road expenses (—$4.5 million City cost)—so, the money from salt could be used to offset this cost. If the City Council wanted to use the leftover salt money on patching, it is recommended to wait for the spring construction season. The second component of road maintenance that Alderman Gilson wanted to discuss was future year's road funding. In the currently approved FY 13 budget, the City has $50,000 in the MFT budget for general patching in FY 13 and FY 14. In the city-wide capital budget, the City has $100,000 for road maintenance in FY 13, and$300,000 per year from FY 14 through FY 17. As you may recall, the $300,000 per year for road maintenance in the City-wide capital budget was based on the leftover funds from the non-home rule sales tax, after the City makes the Rob Roy refinancing bond payment each year. Currently, the non-home rule sales taxes are trending high, and it is possible that the leftover funds could be up to $250,000 higher than expected. If those figures materialized, the City would have an annual road maintenance budget of$550,000 from leftover non-home rule sales taxes. The City could make additional appropriations each year based on budget priorities. There are two important dates that should pass prior to the City Council considering an expansion of a road maintenance budget. The first is the completion of the FY 12 audit. Preliminary numbers are being calculated now, and the audit presentation will be in September or October. If the FY 12 numbers turn out to be better than expected, then an expansion could be considered. The second date is the completion of the comprehensive road maintenance study. We expect the report to be available in November and the presentation to City Council in December. The most important component of this study will be the analysis of different annual road maintenance funding levels on the road system. With that analysis, the City Council can then make effective budget decisions on road maintenance funding. Recommendation Discussion on MFT budget related to a supplemental general patching program in FY 13, and discussion on timing of road maintenance program funding consideration. FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Projected Adopted Projected Projected Projected Projected Motor Fuel Tax -15 15-000-41-00-4112 MOTOR FUEL TAX 409,576 425,971 355,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 15-000-41-00-4113 MFT HIGH GROWTH 24,687 24,674 20,000 39,197 39,197 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Based on IDOT Projections 15-000-41-00-4172 ILLINOIS JOBS NOW PROCEEDS - 73,122 142,000 73,122 - - - - - 15-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 779 837 1,000 350 350 350 350 350 350 15-000-46-00-4605 REIMB-OLD JAIL/DWTWN PARKING LOT - 151,000 493,000 - - - - - - 15-000-46-00-4690 REIMB-MISCELLANEOUS 38,057 11,580 - 15-000-48-00-4850 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 105 85 - - - - - - - Revenue 473,204 687,269 1,011,000 527,669 454,547 455,350 455,350 455,350 4559350 15-155-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 2,587 L - - - - - - - 15-155-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE 7,865 30,929 - - - - - - - 15-155-56-00-5618 SALT 170,268 132,777 220,000 220,000 231,000 242,550 254,678 267,411 280,782 5%increases per annum 15-155-56-00-5619 SIGNS 5,941 1,232 18,000 18,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 15-155-56-00-5632 PATCHING - 52,481 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - - - 15-155-56-00-5633 COLD PATCH 3,983 9,892 10,600 10,600 11,660 12,826 14,109 15,519 17,071 15-155-56-00-5634 HOT PATCH 11,011 7,658 13,000 13,000 14,300 15,730 17,303 19,033 20,937 15-155-56-00-5640 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE - 23,128 - - - - - - - 15-155-60-00-6072 DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT - 42,420 55,000 - - 15-155-60-00-6073 GAME FARM ROAD PROJECT 54,226 31,456 150,000 150,000 110,000 15-155-60-00-6074 FOX ROAD PROJECT 153,910 21,930 - - - 15-155-60-00-6075 RIVER ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT - - 25,000 - - - - - - 15-155-60-00-6079 ROUTE 47 EXPANSION 119,400 121,900 121,900 121,900 121,900 121,900 121,900 15-155-70-00-7799 CONTINGENCIES (38,685) - - - - - - - - 15-155-99-00-9923 TRANSFER TO CITY-WIDE CAPITAL - 96,000 - - - - - - - Expenditures 368,519 452,490 661,000 583,500 573,860 478,006 442,990 458,863 475,690 Surplus(Deficit) 104,685 234,779 350,000 (55,831) (119,313) (22,656) 12,360 (3,513) (20,340) Fund Balance 405,618 640,399 776,755 5849568 465,255 442,599 4549959 451,446 431,106 110.07% 141.53% 117.51% 100.18% 81.07% 92.59% 102.70% 98.38% 90.63% FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Projected Adopted Projected Projected Projected Projected City-Wide Capital-23 23-000-41-00-4176 STATE GRANTS-SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL 231,000 231,000 23-000-41-00-4178 STATE GRANTS-ITEP 178,700 IDNR Grant in 2017 for Construction 23-000-41-00-4179 STATE GRANTS-DCEO TAP OLD JAIL 64,000 - 23-000-42-00-4210 BUILDING PERMITS - 17,600 17,600 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400 23-000-42-00-4213 ENGINEERING CAPITAL FEE 6,200 3,100 3,000 3,500 - - - - - Moved to PW Capital,due to Julie locates 23-000-42-00-4214 DEVELOPMENT FEES - - 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 23-000-42-00-4216 BUILD PROGRAM PERMITS - - - - - - - - - 23-000-42-00-4222 ROAD CONTRIBUTION FEE 14,000 22,000 20,000 22,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 23-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS - 19 - 85 - - - - - 23-000-46-00-4690 REIMB-MISCELLANEOUS 54,600 1,200 J&D, 9,578 - 23-000-49-00-4900 BOND PROCEEDS - - - 4,500,000 Proposed FY 2015 Bond Proceeds 23-000-49-00-4905 LOAN PROCEEDS - - 600,000 Kendall County Loan-River Road Bridge 23-000-49-00-4901 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL 100,000 135,484 125,000 125,000 419,332 352,500 406,943 846,043 646,943 FY 2012-Library Capital Proceeds$332,500 23-000-49-00-4915 TRANSFER FROM MOTOR FUEL TAX - 96,000 - - - - - - - Revenue 174,800 321,803 416,600 197,763 1,303,732 405,900 4,960,343 899,443 879,043 23-230-54-00-5405 BUILD PROGRAM - - - - - - - - 23-230-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,740 - 100,000 - - - - Road Study-FY 2013 23-230-60-00-6015 ROAD RESURFACING - - 100,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Excess Non-HR Sales Tax proceeds 23-230-60-00-6023 OLD JAIL PURCHASE 161,549 - - - - - - 23-230-60-00-6041 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION 10,484 - 23-230-60-00-6070 VEHICLES - 4,000 - Moved to PW,due to Julie locates 23-230-60-00-6073 GAME FARM ROAD PROJECT - - - 4,500,000 Funded by bond proceeds in FY 2015 23-230-60-00-6075 RIVER ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT 600,000 - - 23-230-60-00-6089 CANNONBALL LAPP PROJECT - - 35,000 150,000 23-230-60-00-6092 SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROJECT 147 231,000 - - - - 23-230-60-00-6094 KENNEDY RD BIKE TRAIL - - 9,500 5,900 11,900 3,500 133,100 ITEP-Grant Proceeds 2015 Bond 23-230-81-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT - - - 143,443 149,898 156,643 23-230-81-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT - - 202,500 196,045 189,300 $4.5M-20 years at 4.5% Kendall County Loan-River Road Bridge 23-230-97-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT - - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $600K loan-6 years at 0.0%-thru FY 2019 pr Clark Property 23-230-97-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT 100,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 - - - - - Expenditures 100,000 302,773 360,000 129,147 1,040,500 405,900 5,292,843 899,443 879,043 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Projected Adopted Projected Projected Projected Projected Surplus(Deficit) 74,800 19,030 56,600 68,616 263,232 - (332,500) - Fund Balance (18,378) 652 51,537 69,268 332,500 332,500 - - - -18.38% 0.22% 14.32% 53.64% 31.96% 81.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Projected Adopted Projected Projected Projected Projected City-Wide Capital-23 23-000-41-00-4176 STATE GRANTS-SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL 231,000 231,000 23-000-41-00-4178 STATE GRANTS-ITEP - - 178,700 IDNR Grant in 2017for Construction 23-000-41-00-4179 STATE GRANTS-DCEO TAP OLD JAIL 64,000 - - - - 23-000-42-00-4210 BUILDING PERMITS - 17,600 17,600 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400 23-000-42-00-4213 ENGINEERING CAPITAL FEE 6,200 3,100 3,000 3,500 - - - - - Moved to PW Capital,due to Julie locates 23-000-42-00-4214 DEVELOPMENT FEES - - 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 23-000-42-004216 BUILD PROGRAM PERMITS - - - - - - - - - 23-000-42-00-4222 ROAD CONTRIBUTION FEE 14,000 22,000 20,000 22,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 23-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS - 19 - 85 - - - - - 23-000-46-00-4690 REUVIB-MISCELLANEOUS 54,600 1,200 9,578 - 23-000-49-00-4900 BOND PROCEEDS - - - - 4,500,000 Proposed FY2015 Bond Proceeds 23-000-49-00-4905 LOAN PROCEEDS - - - 600,000 Kendall County Loan-River Road Bridge 23-000-49-00-4901 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL 100,000 135,484 125,000 125,000 419,332 352,500 406,943 846,043 646,943 FY 2012-Library Capital Proceeds$332,500 23-000-49-00-4915 TRANSFER FROM MOTOR FUEL TAX - 96,000 - - - - - - - Revenue 174,800 321,803 416,600 197,763 1,303,732 405,900 4,960,343 899,443 879,043 23-230-54-00-5405 BUILD PROGRAM - - - - - - - - - 23-230-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,740 100,000 - - - - Road Study-FY 2013 23-230-60-00-6015 ROAD RESURFACING - 100,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Excess Non-HR Sales Tax proceeds 23-230-60-00-6023 OLD JAIL PURCHASE 161,549 - - - - - 23-230-60-00-6041 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION 10,484 - - 23-230-60-00-6070 VEHICLES - 4,000 4,000 - Moved to PW due to Julie locates 23-230-60-00-6073 GAME FARM ROAD PROJECT - - - 4,500,000 Funded by bond proceeds in FY 2015 23-230-60-00-6075 RIVER ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT 600,000 - - 23-230-60-00-6089 CANNONBALL LAPP PROJECT - - - 35,000 150,000 23-230-60-00-6092 SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROJECT 231,000 147 231,000 - - - 23-230-60-00-6094 KENNEDY RD BIKE TRAIL - - 9,500 5,900 11,900 3,500 133,100 ITEP-Grant Proceeds 2015 Bond 23-230-81-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT - - 143,443 149,898 156,643 23-230-81-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT - 202,500 196,045 189,300 $4.5M-20 years at 4.5% Kendall County Loan-River Road Bridge 23-230-97-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $600K loan-6 years at 0.0%-thru FY 2019 Clark Property 23-230-97-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT 100,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 - - - - - Expenditures 100,000 302,773 360,000 129,147 1,040,500 405,900 5,292,843 899,443 879,043 Surplus(Deficit) 74,800 19,030 56,600 68,616 263,232 - (332,500) - - Fund Balance (18,378) 652 51,537 69,268 332,500 332,500 - - - -18.38% 0.22% 14.32% 53.64% 31.96% 81.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ,SAD Co. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number i d01% Legal ❑ PW—NB #3 Finance ❑ EST. 1836 Engineer ■ - City Administrator OF Tracking Number "- Human Resources ❑ "$ �© Community Development ❑❑ PW 2012-43 Police ALE �► � Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Capital Improvement Program Meeting and Date: COW—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department Agenda Item Notes: D Cll o Memorandum S : " To: Bart Olson, City Administrator EST. 1Z _ leas From: Brad Sanderson, EEI {O L `` CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works =p Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk �dA C—,Iy <tE �� Date: July 2, 2012 Subject: Capital Improvement Program The purpose of this memo is to provide an update as to the status of the Capital Improvement Program(CIP). Attached please find the latest copy of the City's CIP plan. Please note that this was last updated in September 2010, and several developer initiated projects will be removed from our next updated version of the CIP. As we have discussed, Eric and I are planning on updating the CIP to coincide with the Comprehensive Street Maintenance Program (CSMP). The updated CIP will include proposed underground infrastructure improvements such as watermain replacement and work associated with the Inflow and Infiltration study that was completed by YBSD among other projects. The general thought is that when we are ready to tackle the roadway improvements in the CSMP, the most cost effective approach is to complete the utility improvements below those roadways at the same time. Accordingly, we expect that our suggested revisions to the CIP will be presented in December or January, after the CSMP is presented and around the same time as the FY 14 budget rollout. We are also planning on modifying the CIP format to a more comprehensive document. A sample of the proposed format is attached for your information. Summary of Capital Improvement Program 01-Sep-10 Funding Source Year Category General Fund Parks Water Sanitary YBSD MFT Developer Federal Other Grant Total 10-11 a) Water Improvements $0 b) Sanitary Improvements $0 c) Street Improvements $345,000 $430,000 $775,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $30,000 $30,000 Totals $30,000 $345,000 $430,000 $805,000 11-12 a) Water Improvements $915,000 $915,000 b) Sanitary Improvements $270,000 $55,000 $1,400,000 $1,725,000 c) Street Improvements $200,000 $205,000 $200,000 $605,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $265,000 $90,000 $750,000 $2,110,000 $3,215,000 Totals $465,000 $90,000 $915,000 $270,000 $55,000 $205,000 $2,150,000 $200,000 $2,110,000 $6,460,000 12-13 a) Water Improvements $455,000 $330,000 $785,000 b) Sanitary Improvements $775,000 $475,000 $1,250,000 c) Street Improvements $1,765,000 $885,000 $1,100,000 $580,000 $4,330,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $225,000 $13,200,000 $130,000 $13,555,000 Totals $1,990,000 $455,000 $775,000 $475,000 $885,000 $14,630,000 $580,000 $130,000 $19,920,000 13-14 a) Water Improvements $1,655,000 $4,450,000 $6,105,000 b) Sanitary Improvements $1,280,000 $420,000 $760,000 $2,460,000 c) Street Improvements $760,000 $96,000 $1,399,000 $70,000 $2,325,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $350,000 $350,000 Totals $1,110,000 $1,655,000 $1,280,000 $420,000 $96,000 $6,609,000 $11,240,000 14-15 a) Water Improvements $3,690,000 $9,750,000 $13,440,000 b) Sanitary Improvements $390,000 $140,000 $12,050,000 $12,580,000 c) Street Improvements $7,015,000 $584,000 $6,170,000 $4,371,000 $18,140,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $535,000 $535,000 Totals $7,550,000 $3,690,000 $390,000 $140,000 $584,000 $27,970,000 $44,695,000 15-16 a) Water Improvements $2,325,000 $7,550,000 $9,875,000 b) Sanitary Improvements $200,000 $5,350,000 $5,550,000 c) Street Improvements $3,310,000 $35,000 $3,740,000 $7,085,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $335,000 $335,000 Totals $3,645,000 $2,325,000 $200,000 $35,000 $16,640,000 $22,845,000 Total Cost of 6-year Program $14,790,000 $9,040,000 $2,915,000 $1,090,000 $2,150,000 $67,999,000 $1,210,000 $2,240,000 $105,965,000 Proposed Water Capital Improvement Program 01-Sep-10 included in Budget Memo Budgeted-FY 2013 Funding Source Completed Water Improvement Year Project &Expansion Fund Developer Total 10-11 a) None Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 11-12 a) Route 47 Watermain Relocation s 000 $650,000 $116K Budgeted FY 2013-17 for Expansion b)Pinewoods Apartments Watermain Replacement $150,000 $150,000 c) Radio-read meter retrofit(Phase I 115,000 115 000$10k budgeted in Equipment-FY 2013-17 Sub-Total $915,000 $915,000 12-13 a) Radio-read meter retrofit(Phase 2) JJW $115,000 $115,000$10k budgeted in Equipment-FY 2013-17 b) W.Ridge Watermam Replacement $140,000 $140,000 c) Shallow Well Siting Investigation $330,000 $330,000 d)Well No.6&Water Treatment Plant(Design) $200,000 $200,000 Sub-Total $455,000 $330,000 $785,000 13-14 a) S.Main Street Watermain Replacement $200,000 $200,000 b)River Road Watermain Replacement(Rt.47-King) $120,000 $120,000 c) Elizabeth Street Watermain Replacement $175,000 $175,000 d)Orange/Olsen Watermain Loop $60,000 $60,000 e) Washington Watermain Replacement(S.Main-Mill) $150,000 $150,000 f) Well#7 Standby Generator $350,000 $350,000 g)Well No.6 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 h)Well No.6 Treatment Plant $2,500,000 $2,500,000 h)Fox Hill Watermain Recapture $600,000 $600,000 i) South Water Improvements(partial design) $950,000 $950,000 Sub-Total $1,655,000 $4,450,000 $6,105,000 14-15 a) West Fox River Watermain Crossing $750,000 $750,000 b)Game Fann/Somonauk Road Watermains $65,000 $65,000 c) South Water Improvements(5 MG standpipe) $2,300,000 $2,000,000 $4,300,000 d) South Water Improvements(Shallow Well#1) $325,000 $325,000 e) Orange Street Watermain Replacement(S.Main-Mill) $150,000 $150,000 Olsen or Orange-says Olsen in Budget Memo f) Well No.3 Rehabilitation $100,000 $100,000 g) South Water Improvements(tower design) $150,000 $150,000 h) South Water Improvements(deep well) $800,000 $800,000 i) South Water Improvements(treatment plant) $6,800.000 $6,800.000 Sub-Total $3,690,000 $9,750,000 $13,440,000 15-16 a) South Water Improvements(Shallow Well#2) $325,000 $325,000 b)Well No.10 $870,000 $870,000 c) Well No.10 Treatment Plant $3,440,000 $3,440,000 d)Greenbriar Road Watermain Extension $730,000 $730,000 e) SW Water Tower(2.0 MG) $2,000,000 $1,900,000 $3,900,000 f) Chally Farm Booster Station $610,000 $610,000 Sub-Total $2,325,000 $7,550,000 $9,875,000 Water Total $9,040,000 $22,080,000 $31,120,000 Proposed Sanitary Capital Improvement Program 01-Sep-10 included in Budget Memo Budgeted-FY 2013 Funding Source =Completed San.Sewer Imp. Year Project &Expansion Fund YBSD Developer Total 10-11 None $0 $00 Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 11-12 a) South Side SSES Repairs(open cut-design) $55,000 $55,000 $110,000 b) Route 47 Sanitary Sewer Repairs $200,000 $200,000 $60k Budgeted FY2013-17 for Expansion c) SCADA System for Pump Stations-design $15,000 $15,000 Costs shown as$90k in Budget Memo d) Rob Roy Creek Interceptor(North Branch#2)-construction $1,400,000 $1,400,000 Sub-Total $270,000 $55,000 $1,400,000 $1,725,000 12-13 a) Route 47 Sanitary Sewer Repairs $200,000 $200,000 $60k Budgeted FY2013-17 for Expansion b) South Side SSES Repairs(open cut-construction) $420,000 $420,000 $840,000 c) South Side SSES Repairs(lining-design) $55,000 $55,000 $110,000 d) SCADA for pump stations-construction $100,000 $100,000 Costs shown as$90k in Budget Memo Sub-Total $775,000 $475,000 $1,250,000 13-14 a) 202 River Road Sanitary Sewer Replacement $100,000 $100,000 b) South Side SSES Repairs(lining-construction) $400,000 $400,000 $800,000 c) South Side SSES Repairs(manholes-design) $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 d) Aux Sable Creek Pump Station&Interceptors-Design $760,000 $760,000 e) Miscellaneous Repairs $50,000 $50,000 f) Fox Hill Sanitary Recapture $560,000 $560,000 f) Sewer Extensions $150,000 $150,000 Sub-Total $1,280,000 $420,000 $760,000 $2,460,000 14-15 a) Game Farm Road Sanitary Sewer Repairs $50,000 $50,000 c) South Side SSES Repairs(manholes-construction) $140,000 $140,000 $280,000 d) Miscellaneous Repairs $50,000 $50,000 e) Sewer Extensions $150,000 $150,000 f) SW Interceptor-Engineering $200,000 $200,000 g) SW Interceptor-Easement Acquisition $100,000 $100,000 h) Aux Sable Creek Forcemain-Contract IA $2,750,000 $2,750,000 i) Aux Sable Creek Pump Station-Contract 2 $4,550,000 $4,550,000 j) Aux Sable Creek Interceptor-Contract 3 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 k) Aux Sable Creek Interceptor-Contract 4 $2,150,000 $2,150,000 Sub-Total $390,000 $140,000 $12,050,000 $12,580,000 15-16 a) SW Interceptor-Contract 1 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 b) SW Interceptor-Contract 1(Forest Preserve Landscaping) $150,000 $150,000 c) SW Interceptor-Contract 2 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 d) Miscellaneous Repairs $50,000 $50,000 e) Sewer Extensions $150,000 $150,000 Sub-Total $200,000 $5,350,000 $5,550,000 Sanitary Total $2,915,000 $1,090,000 $19,560,000 $23,565,000 Proposed Street Capital Improvement Program 01-Sep-10 included in FY 2013 Bi Budgeted-FY 2013 Funding Source Completed Year Project General Fund MFT Developer Federal Total 10-11 a) Misc.Bituminous Patching $50,000 $50,000 b) Fox Road(Rt.47-Poplar)-construction $140,000 $430,000 $570,000 c) Misc.Guardrail Repairs $25,000 $25,000 rtion) $130,000 s/b completed inFY2011&FY2012 Sub-Total $345,000 $430,000 $775,000 11-12 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $50,000 $50,000 b) Crack Sealing $20,000 $20,000 c) River Road Bridge @ Blackberry Creek-Phase 1 Eng. $50,000 $200,000 $250,000 d) Rt.34/Sycamore-Permanent Traffic Signal(design) $30,000 $30,000 e) Cannonball Trail LAPP-engineering $30,00q Budgeted in FY2015-16 CW Capital I) Misc.Street Patching $150,000 $150,000 g) Powers Ct. $75,000 $75,000 Sub-Total $200,000 $205,000 $200,000 $605,000 12-13 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $50'000 $50,000$50k budgeted for patching??? b) Crack Sealing $20,000 $20,000 part of cold&hot patch line tiems??? c) Route 47 non-participating street costs $920,000 $200,000 $1,120,000$121,900 Budgeted FY2013-17 for (streetlights,traffic signals,sidewalks,Jefferson Street,6111111111111 1Expansion d) River Road Bridge @ Blackberry Creek-Phase 2 Engrg. $250,000 $250,000 e) Cannonball Trail LAPP-construction A I 0,000 _ $580,000 $780,000 Budgeted in FY 2015-16 CW Capital I) Countryside Parkway(Center-W.Kendall) $110,000 $110,000 g) Rt.34/Sycamore-Permanent Traffic Signal(construction) $200,000 $200,000 h) Kennedy Road(Christy to Grande Reserve) $200,000 $1,100,000 $1,300,000 i) Faxon Road extension to Route 47-ROW Acquisition $85,000 $85,000 j) Faxon Road extension to Route 47-design $15,000 $15,000 k) Strawberry Lane/ConoverCt $150,000 $150,000 1) W.Kendall Drive&Anderson Court $250,000 $250,000 Sub-Total $1,765,000 $885,000 $1,100,000 $580,000 $4,330,000 13-14 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $60,000 $60,000 b) Crack Sealing $25,000 $25,000 c) River Road Bridge @ Blackberry Creek-ROW acquisition $100,000 $100,000 d) Game Farm/Somonauk(balance ofROW/Esmt acquisition) $70,000 $70,000 $140,000 e) In-Town Road Program(Phases 3&4)-design $350,000 $350,000 I) Misc.Street Patching $50,000 $50,000 g) Faxon Road Extension to Rt.47-construction $1,000 $1,039,000 $1,040,000 h) SW Regional Roadway Improvements-design $160,000 $160,000 i) Wildwood Phase 1 streets $200,000 $200,000 j) Corneils Road(Beecher to Route 47)-design $200,000 $200,000 Sub-Total $760,000 $96,000 $1,399,000 $70,000 $2,325,000 14-15 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $60,000 $60,000 b) Crack Sealing $30,000 $30,000 c) Game Farm/Somonauk-Phase 3 Engineering $70,000 W $160,000 $230,000 d) Game Farm/Somonauk-construction $2,275,000 $6,025,000 FY 2015 Budget e Game Farm/Sommiauk-Streetlight design $25,000 $25,00% I) River Road Bridge @ Blackberry Creek-Phase 3 Eng. $44,000 $176,000 $220,000 g) River Road Bridge @ Blackberry Creek-construction $440,000 $1,760,000 $2,200,000 h) Route 47 streetlighting(Somonauk to Rt.126)-construction $280,000 $280,000 i) Wildwood Phase 2 streets $150,000 $150,000 j) Route 71(Rt.47 Walsh Drive to Rt.126)-city costs $200,000 $200,000 k) Kennedy Road(RR tracks to Galena) $1,430,000 $1,430,000 1) Mill Road(Kennedy to east end Grande Reserve) $2,640,000 $2,640,000 m) Greenbriar Road Extension $700,000 $700,000 n) Pavillion Road Improvements(Fox-Rt.71) $1,400,000 $1,400,000 o) In-Town Road Program(Phase 3)-construction $2,500,000 $2,500,000 p) Streetlight Construction(Various Locations) $50,000 $50,000 Sub-Total $7,015,000 $584,000 $6,170,000 $4,371,000 $18,140,000 15-16 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $60,000 $60,000 b) Crack Sealing $35,000 535,000 c) Misc.Street Patching $50,000 $50,000 Farm/Somonauk-streetlight construe $100,000 $100,000 included in FY2015 budget amounts??? e) Countryside Subdivision-Units 8&9 $200,000 $200,000 I) Route 71(Rt.47 Walsh Drive to Rt.126)-city costs $200,000 $200,000 g) In-Town Road Program(Phase 4)-construction $2,100,000 $2,100,000 h) Comeils Road(Caledonia to Route 47)-Construction $600,000 $600,000 i) Kennedy Road(Bristol Ridge to RR tracks) $2,540,000 $2,540,000 j) E.Kendall Drive&Mulhem Court $250,000 $250,000 k) Streetlight Construction(Various Locations) $50,000 $50,000 1) Freemont(Spring-Walnut)&Somonauk(Liberty-McHugh) $300,000 $300,000 m) Kennedy Road(Autumn Creek to Bristol Ridge Road) $600,000 $600,000 Sub-Total $3,310,000 $35,000 $3,740,000 $7,0859000 Streets Total $13,050,000 $2,150,000 $12,409,000 $5,651,000 $33,260,000 Proposed Miscellaneous Capital Improvement Program 01-Sep-10 included in Budget Memo Budgeted-FY 2013 Funding Source hNNEEIIJ Completed Year Project General Fund Parks Developer Grant Total 10-11 a) Town Square Sidewalk Replacement $25,000 $25,000 b) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program $5,000 $5,000 Sub-total $30,000 $30,000 11-12 a) Safe Routes to School(Grant 1)-design&construction $100,000,-CW Capital b) Purchase 1000 ton salt storage space @ County(Year 1 of 3) $15,000 $15,000 c) Police Station-Design $650,000 $650,000 d) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program $50,000 $50,000 e) Beecher Road-River Crossing Study $100,000 $100,000 f) Kennedy Road Trail(Rt.47 to future Mill Road) $1,575,000 $1,750,000"various amounts budgeted from FY 2013-17 CW Capita g) Boat Access&Riverfront parking lot $90,000 $435,000 $525,000 h) Parkway tree planting program $25,000 $25,000 Sub-total $265,000 $90,000 $750,000 $2,110,000 $3,215,000 12-13 a) Safe Routes to School(Grant 2)-design&construction CW Capital b) Purchase 1000 ton salt storage space @ County(Year 2 of 3) $15,000 $15,000 c) Police Station-Construction $11,000,000 $11,000,000 d) Rt.34 Bike Trail(Kendall County Campus frontage) $75,000 $75,000 e) Downtown Brownfield-Remediation $200,000 $200,000 f) Parkway tree planting program $25,000 $25,000 g) Game Farm/Somonauk-parkway tree landscaping $50,000 $50,000 h) Raymond Detention-construction $2,000,000 $2,000,000 i) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program $60,000 $60,000 Sub-total $225,000 $13,200,000 $130,000 $13,555,000 13-14 a) Purchase 1000 ton salt storage space @ County(Year 3 of 3) $15,000 $15,000 b) Bike Trail Construction-various locations $250,000 $250,000 c) Parkway tree planting program $25,000 $25,000 d) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program $60,000 $60,000 Sub-total $350,000 $350,000 14-15 a) Bike Trail Construction-various locations $250,000 $250,000 b) Route 47 right-of-way landscaping $200,000 $200,000 c) Parkway tree planting program $25,000 $25,000 d) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program $60,000 $60,000 Sub-total $535,000 $535,000 15-16 a) Bike Trail Construction-various locations $250,000 $250,000 b) Parkway tree planting program $25,000 $25,000 c) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program $60,000 $60,000 Sub-total $335,000 $335,000 Misc.Total $1,740,000 $90,000 $13,950,000 $2,240,000 $18,020,000 Summary of Capital Improvement Program 01-Sep-10 Funding Source Year Category General Fund Parks Water Sanitary YBSD MFT Developer Federal Other Grant Total 10-11 a) Water Improvements 50 b) Sanitary Improvements 50 c) Street Improvements $345,000 $430,000 $775,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements 530,000 $30,000 Totals 530,000 $345,000 5430,000 $805,000 11-12 a) Water Improvements $915,000 $915,000 b) Sanitary Improvements $270,000 $55,000 $1,400,000 $1,725,000 c) Street Improvements $200,000 $205,000 $200,000 $605,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $265,000 $90,000 $750,000 $2.110,000 $3,215,000 Totals $465,000 $90,000 $915,000 $270,000 $55,000 5205,000 $2,150,000 $200,000 $2,110,000 $6,460,000 12-13 a) Water Improvements 5455,000 $330,000 5785,000 b) Sanitary Improvements $775,000 $475,000 51,250,000 c) Street Improvements $1,765,000 $885,000 $1,100,000 $580,000 54,330,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $225,000 513,200,000 $130,000 $13,555,000 Totals 51,990,000 5455,000 $775,000 5475,000 $885,000 $14,630,000 $580,000 $130,000 $19,920,000 13-14 a) Water improvements $1,655,000 54,450,000 56,105,000 b) Sanitary Improvements $1,280,000 $420,000 $760,000 $2,460,000 c) Street Improvements $760,000 $96,000 $1,399,000 $70,000 $2,325,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $350,000 5350,000 Totals $1,110,000 $1,655,000 $1,280,000 $420,000 596,000 $6,609,000 $11,240,000 14-15 a) Water Improvements $3,690,000 $9,750,000 $13,440,000 b) Sanitary Improvements $390,000 $140,000 $12,050,000 $12,580,000 c) Street Improvements $7,015,000 $584,000 $6,170,000 $4,371,000 $18,140,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $535,000 $535.000 Totals $7,550,000 $3,690,000 $390,000 $140,000 $584,000 $27,970,000 $44,695,000 15-16 a) Water Improvements 52,325,000 $7,550,000 $9,875,000 b) Sanitary Improvements $200,000 $5,350,000 $5,550,000 c) Street improvements $3,310,000 535,000 53,740,000 $7,085,000 d) Miscellaneous Improvements $335,000 $335.000 Totals 53,645,000 52,325,000 $200,000 $35,000 $16,640,000 $22,845,000 Total Cost of 6-year Program 514,790,000 $9,040,000 52,915,000 $1,090,000 $2,150,000 $67,999,000 $1,210,000 $2,240,000 $105,965,000 Proposed Water Capital ImprovementProeram 01-Sep-10 Funding Source Water Improvement Year Proiect &Expansion Fund Developer Total 10-11 a) None ig $0 $0 Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 11-12 a) Route 47 Watermain Relocations $650,000 $650,000 b)Pinewoods Apartments Watennain Replacement $150,000 $150,000 c) Radio-read meter retrofit(Phase 1) $115.000 $115,000 Sub-Total $915,000 $915,000 12-13 a) Radio-read meter retrofit(Phase 2) $115,000 $115,000 b) W.Ridge Watermain Replacement $140,000 $140,000 c)Shallow Well Siting Investigation $330,000 $330,000 d)Well No-6&Water Treatment Plant(Design) $200.000 $20U00 Sub-Total $455,000 $330,000 $785;000 13.14 a) S,Main Street Watennain Replacement $200,000 $200;000 b) River Road Watermain Replacement(Rt.47-King) $120,000 $120,000 c) Elizabeth Street Watermain Replacement $175,000 $175,000 d)Orange/Olsen Watermain Loop $60,000 $60,000 e) Washington Watermain Replacement(S.Main-Mill) $150,000 $150,000 f) Well#7 Standby Generator $350,000 $350,000 g)Well No.6 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 h) Well No.6 Treatment Plant $2,500,000 $2,500,000 h)Fox Hill Watermain Recapture $600,000 $600,000 i) South Water Improvements(partial design) $950.000 $950,000 Sub-Total $1,655,000 $4,450,000 $6,105,000 14-15 a) West Fox River Watermain Crossing $750,000 $750,000 b)Game Fann/Somonauk Road Watenmains $65,000 $65,000 c) South Water Improvements(5 MG standpipe) $2,300,000 $2,000,000 $4,300,000 d)South Water Improvements(Shallow Well#1) $325,000 $325,000 e) Orange Street Watermain Replacement(S.Main-Mill) $150,000 $150,000 f) Well No.3 Rehabilitation $100,000 $100,000 g)South Water Improvements(tower design) $150,000 $150,000 h)South Water Improvements(deep well) $800,000 $800,000 i) South Water Improvements(treatment plant) $6,800,000 $6,800,000 Sub-Total $3,690,000 $9,750,000 $13,440,000 15-16 a) South Water Improvements(Shallow Well#2) $325,000 $325,000 b) Well No.10 $870,000 $870,000 c) Well No. 10 Treatment Plant $3,440,000 $3,440,000 d)Greenbriar Road Watermain Extension $730,000 $730,000 e) SW Water Tower(2.0 MG) $2,000,000 $1,900,000 $3,900,000 f) Chally Farm Booster Station $610,000 $610,000 Sub-Total $2,325,000 $7,550,000 $9,875,000 Water Total $9,040,000 $22,080,000 $31,120,000 Proposed Sanitary Capital Improvement Proeram 01-Sep-10 Funding Source San,Sewer Imp. Year Project &Expansion Fund YRSD Developer Total 10-11 None LO N to NO Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 11-12 a) South Side SSES Repairs(open cut-design) $55,000 $55,000 $110,000 b) Route 47 Sanitary Sewer Repairs $200,000 $200,000 c) SCADA System for Pump Stations-design $15,000 $15,000 d) Rob Roy Creek Interceptor(North Branch#2)-construction $1,400,000 $1,400,000 Sub-Total $270,000 $55,000 $1,400,000 $1,725,000 12-13 a) Route 47 Sanitary Sewer Repairs $200,000 $200,000 b) South Side SSES Repairs(open cut-construction) $420,000 $420,000 $840,000 c) South Side SSES Repairs(lining-design) $55,000 $55,000 $110,000 d) SCADA for pump stations-construction $100,000 $100,000 Sub-Total $775,000 $475,000 $1,250,000 13.14 a) 202 River Road Sanitary Sewer Replacement $100,000 $100,000 b) South Side SSES Repairs(lining-construction) $400,000 $400,000 $800,000 c) South Side SSES Repairs(manholes-design) $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 d) Aux Sable Creek Pump Station&Interceptors-Design $760,000 $760,000 e) Miscellaneous Repairs $50,000 $50,000 f) Fox Hill Sanitary Recapture $560,000 $560,000 I) Sewer Extensions $150,000 $150,000 Sub-Total $1,280,000 $420,000 $760,000 $2,460,000 14-15 a) Game Farm Road Sanitary Sewer Repairs $50,000 $50,000 c) South Side SSES Repairs(manholes-construction) $140,000 $140,000 $280,000 d) Miscellaneous Repairs $50,000 $50,000 e) Sewer Extensions $150,000 $150,000 f) SW Interceptor-Engineering $200,000 $200,000 g) SW Interceptor-Easement Acquisition $100,000 $100,000 h) Aux Sable Creek Forcemain-Contract 1 A $2,750,000 $2,750,000 i) Aux Sable Creek Pump Station-Contract 2 $4,550,000 $4,550,000 j) Aux Sable Creek Interceptor-Contract 3 $2,300,000 $2,300;000 k) Aux Sable Creek Interceptor-Contract 4 $2,150,000 $2,150,000 Sub-Total $390,000 $140,000 $12,050,000 $12,580,000 15-16 a) SW Interceptor-Contract 1 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 b) SW Interceptor-Contract 1(Forest Preserve Landscaping) $150,000 $150,000 c) SW Interceptor-Contract 2 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 d) Miscellaneous Repairs $50,000 $50,000 e) Sewer Extensions $150,000 $150,000 Sub-Total $200,000 $5,350,000 $5,550,000 Sanitary Total $2,915,000 $1,090,000 $19,560,000 $23,565,000 Proposed Street Capital Improvement Program 01-Sep-10 Funding Source Year Proiecl General Fund MFf Developer Federal Total 10-11 a) Mum wummous Pakidng $50.000 $50000 b) Fos Road(RI.47-Poplar)-construction 5140.000 $430-000 $570.000 c) Misc.Guardrail Repairs $25-000 $25000 d) Game Farm-Somonauk(most ROW/EsmL,acquisition) $130000 $130.000 Sub-Total $345.000 $430000 $775,000 11.12 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $50.000 550.000 b) Crack Scaling 520.000 $22000 c) River Road Bridged.Blackbcm Creek-Phase I Engrg. $50.000 $200.000 5250,000 d) RL34/S)camorc-Permanent Traffic Signal(design) $30.000 $30.000 e) Cannonball Trail LAPP-engineering $30.000 $30.000 H Misc,Street Patching $150000 $150,000 g) Powers Ct. 7$5.000 $75,000 Sub-Total $200.000 $205.000 $2000t0 $605,000 12.13 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $50000 550000 b) Crack Scaling $20.000 $20,000 c) Route 47 non-participating street costs $920000 $200.000 $I,1200110 (s(rectlighls.traffic signals.sidewalks.Jefferson Street-etc.) d) River Road Bridge(d,Blackbem Creek-Phase 2 Engrg 5250.000 $250000 c) Cannonball Trail LAPP-construction $202000 $580.000 $780.000 0 Countryside Parkwa)(Center-W Kendall) $110,000 $110,000 g) R1.34/Sycamore-Permanent Tm Me Signal(construct ion) $200,000 $200000 h) Kcnned%Road(Christ)'to Grande Reserve) $200.000 $1.100000 $1,300.000 i) Faxon Road cx(cnsion to Route 47-ROW Acquisition 585,000 $85,000 j) Faxon Road extension to Route 47-design S 15 000 $15,000 k) Strawbem Lane/Conover Ct $150.000 $150.000 H W Kendall Drive&Anderson Court $250.000 $250M0 Sub-Total $1,765,000 $885.000 $1,100.000 $580.000 $4,330,000 13.14 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $60.000 $60.000 b) Crack Scaling $25000 $25.000 c) River Road Bridge(d,Blackbem,Creek-ROW acquisition $100.000. $100,000 d) Game Famm/Somonauk(balance of ROW/Esml acquisition) $70.000 $70,000 $140.000 c) In-Town Road Program(Phases 3&4)-design $350,000 $350.000 H Misc Street Patching $50,000 $50,000 g) Faxon Road Extension to RL 47-construction $1,000 $1,039,000 S 1 0400110 h) SW Regional RoadwaS Improvements-design $160.000 $160000 i) WIM"nod Mare I stmd% $200.000 $200000 1) Comeils Road(Beecher to Route 47)-design 205 0.000 $200,000 Sub-Total $760,000 $96000 $1.399,000 $70.000 $2,325,000 M-15 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $60,000 $60000 b) Crack Sealing 530.000 $30.000 c) Game Famm/Somonauk-Phase 3 Engineering $70,000 $160000 $230.000 d) Game Farm/Somonauk-construction $3750.000 $2-275.000 $6.025,000 e) Game Famt/Somonauk-Sheet ight design $25000 $25000 0 River Road Bridge rd,Blackberry Creek-Phase 3 Engrg $44.000 $176,000 $220.000 g) Rim er Road Bridge(d,Blackberry Crcek-consWetion $440.000 $1760000 $2,200.000 h) Route 47 strwiligh ting(Somonauk to Rl 126)-construction $280.000 $280000 i) Wi ldwood Phase 2 streets 5150,000 $152000 j) Route 71(Rt 47 Walsh Drive to RL,126)-ci(v costs $200.000 $200.000 k) Kennedy Road(RR tracks to Galena) 51.430.000 $1.430000 q Mill Road(Kennedy to cast end Grande Reserve) S2-642000 $2,640.000 m) Greenbriar Road Extension $7000011 $700.000 n) Pavil Iion Road Improvements(Fox-Rl 71) $1-400.000 $1.400,000 o) In-Town Road Program(Phase 3)-construction $2-500.000 $2.500.000 p) Streetlight Construction(Various Locations) S50 000000 S50,00 00 Sub-Total $7,015.000 $584.000 $6.170-000 $4,371.000 $18,140,000 15.16 a) Asphalt Pavement Trcalmcnl $60000 $60,000 b) Crack Sealing $35.000 $35,000 c) Misc Street Patching $50.000 $50.0110 d) Game Farm/Somonauk-strwllight construction $100.000 $100,000 c) Countryside Subdivision-Units 8&9 S2000W $200,000 0 Route 71(R147 Walsh Drive to R4 126)-city costs $200,000 S200000 g) In-Town Road Program(Phase 4)-construction $2,100,000 $2,100000 h) Comeils Road(Caledonia to Route 47)-Construction $600000 $600.000 i) Kennedy Road(Bristol Ridge to RR tracks) $2540.000 $2.540.000 j) E,..Kendall Drive&Mulhem Court $250.000 $250.000 Q Streetlight Construction(Various Locations) $50.000 $50000 0 Freemont(Spring-Walnut)&Somonauk(Libert)-McHugh) $300.000 $300.000 m) Kennedy Road(Autumn Creek to Bristol Ridge Road) 605 0.000 $600.000 Sub-To(a1 $3.310.000 $35,000 $3740.000 $7,085,000 Streets Total $13.050000 $2.150.000 $12,409,000 $5.651.000 533,260,000 Proposed Miscellaneous Capital Improvement Proeram 01-Sep-10 Funding Source Year Project General Fund Parks Develope IQIant Total 10-11 a) Town Square Sidewalk Replacement $25,000 $25,000 b) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program 5 O00 K.000 Sub-total $30,000 $30,000 I1-12 a) Safe Routes to School(Grant l)-design&constriction $100,000 $100,000 b) Purchase 1000 ton salt storage space o County(Year 1 of 3) $15,000 $15,000 c) Police Station-Design $650,000 $650,000 d) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program $50,000 $50,000 e) Beecher Road-River Crossing Study $100,000 $100,000 f) Kennedy Road Trail(Rt-47 to future Mill Road) $175,000 $1,575,000 $1,750,000 g) Boat Access&Riverfront parking lot $90,000 $435,000 $525,000 h) Parkway tree planting program 25 000 25 000 Sub-total $265,000 $90,000 $750,000 $2,110,000 $3,215,000 12-13 a) Safe Routes to School(Grant 2)-design&constriction $130,000 $130,000 b) Purchase 1000 ton salt storage space o County(Year 2 of 3) $15,000 $15,000 c) Police Station-Constriction $11,000,000 $11,000,000 d) Rt,34 Bike Trail(Kendall County Campus frontage) $75,000 $75,000 e) Downtown Brownfield-Remediation $200,000 $200,000 IF) Parkway tree planting program $25,000 $25,000 g) Game Fann/Somonauk-parkway tree landscaping $50,000 $50,000 h) Raymond Detention-construction $2,000,000 $2,000,000 i) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program $60,000 $60,000 Sub-total $225,000 $13,200,000 $130,000 $13,555,000 13-14 a) Purchase 1000 ton salt storage space @ County(Year 3 of 3) $15;000 $15,000 b) Bike Trail Constriction-various locations $250,000 $250,000 c) Parkway tree planting program $25,000 $25,000 d) Sidewalk Rep]acement/Extension Program $60,000 $60000 Sub-total $350,000 $350,000 14-15 a) Bike Trail Construction-various locations $250,000 $250,000 b) Route 47 right-of-way landscaping $200,000 $200,000 c) Parkway tree planting program $25,000 $25,000 d) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program $60,000 $60,000 Sub-total $535,000 $535,000 15-16 a) Bike Trail Construction-various locations $250,000 $250,000 b) Parkway tree planting program $25,000 $25,000 c) Sidewalk Replacement/Extension Program 60 000 $60,000 Sub-total $335,000 $335,000 Misc Total $1,740,000 $90,000 $13,950,000 $2,240,000 518,020,000 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY2013-FY2017 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Project Project Future Total Code Title FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Years Cost WM01 SYSTEM CONNECTION WM 69,000 511,500 580,500 'WM02 'WELL NO.7&WTP ABANDONMENT - - 169,000 169,000 WM03 INDUSTRIAL DR.WM LOOPING 224,000 224,000 WM04 4&6-INCH WM REPLACEMENT 1,105.000 1.105.000 WM05 IWIEREC WM CONNECTION - - 66,000 66,000 WM06 I SCADA 3.000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 18,000 'WM07 JELM ST.EWST REPAINTING 339,000 - - - - 339,000 WM08 RTE 20 EWST REPAINTING 24,000 217,500 241,500 WM09 TUSCANY WOODS EWST REHABILITATION 14,000 14,000 WM10 BP/PRV&PRV REHABILITATION - 52,000 52,000 WM11 'WELL 9 PUMP REPAIRS 110.000 - 110,000 WM12 WELL 12 PUMP REMOVAL 35,000 35,000 WM13 WELL 13 REHABILITATION - - 152,000 152,000 WM14 WTP 9 REHABILITATION 40,000 - - - - 40.000 WM15 WTP 10/13 REHABILITATION - 60.000 60,000 DR01 CULVERT REPLACEMENT RTE 72&STATE 70.000 70,000 DR02 BRIER HILL ROAD CULVERT REPLACEMENT FY 15 WW01 2.76 WWTF LAUNDER COVERS 142,000 142,000 VJW02 RECOVERY BOND PROJECT 53,000 - - 53,000 WW03 OAKSTEAD LIFT STATION - 2,100 28,000 30,100 WW04 PRAIRIE STREET SANITARY SEWER - - - 107500 107,500 INW05 RINN STREET SANITARY SEWER 58,800 58.800 INW06 BROOK EDGE COURT SANITARY SEWER - - 114,000 114,000 WW07 NPDES PERMITTING-CREEK ANALYSIS - 25.800 - 26,550 - - 52,350 JVW08 SCADA 3,000 3,000 3,000 1 3,000 3,000 3,000 18,000 INW09 SANITARY SEWER REHAB/REPLACEMENT - - - 250,000 250,000 INW10 LIFT STATION REHABILITATION 91,200 46,800 48,100 51,000 - 237.100 INW11 JWWTF REHABILITATION 138,100 - 138,100 INW12 SSE UPDATE - 40,000 40,000 WW13 MEMBRANE ROOF 35.000 - 35.000 INW14 'VILLAGE HALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICE - INW15 LIFT STATION INSULATION IRW01 WARNER STREET-OVERLAY 139,300 - 139,300 RW02 TERWILLIGER AVENUE-OVERLAY 146,700 146.700 IRW03 RINN AVENUE-OVERLAY - 98,700 98,700 IRW04 EAST STREET-OVERLAY - 44.400 44,400 IRW05 PRAIRIE STREET-OVERLAY - 137,900 - 137,900 IRW06 JACKSON AVENUE-R&R 29.300 - 29,300 IRW07 GROVE STREET-OVERLAY_ - 90,000 90.000 IRW08 ALLEY RINN -OVERLAY 14,000 - 14.000 IRW09 ALLEY FIFTH-THIRD BANK -OVERLAY - 17,000 17,000 RW10 RTE 72&STATE SIGNALS - 21,300 21,300 IRW 11 RTE 72&ROMKE RD 170,000 - 170,000 IRW12 BRIER HILL ROAD LAPP - 30,000 120,000 - 150,000 RW 13 BIG TIMBER&US ROUTE 20 RW13 SIGN PROGRAM 13,500 13,500 13,500 13.500 13.500 13,500 81,000 11,RW 13 ICOMPREHENSIVE STREET EVALUATION UPDATE 42,000 - - - 42,000 OTHER 'VILLAGE HALL FURNACE - ANNUAL PROGRAM TOTALS 11 1,346,500 1 1,077.500 1 435,7001 285,350 253,500 2,335 000 1 5.733,550 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WM01 Project Description: System Connection Water Main Dept.: public Works ^7 Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement i Priority: Ongoing V BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering _ _64,000 _ 64,000 Construction Engineering 46,500 46,500 Land Acquisition 5_,000 5,000 Infrastructure Improvements 465,000 465,000 Building Improvements ' Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST 69,000 511,500 - - - 580,500 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 1 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs 1W TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capita(Project Request. This project consists of installing 16"water main along US Rte 20 to connect the north water system with the south water system.This project also includes the installation of a PRV station. Note: Design engineering includes estimated fees for geotechnical investigation,electrical subconsultant,wetland delineation, loan documentation and legal surveying. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing Potential Sources: IEPA Low Interest Loan 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WM02 Project Description: Well No.7 and WTP Abandonment Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: New Project ( Replacement/Maint. HExpansion ❑Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 10,000 10,000 Construction Engineering 12,000 12,000 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 147,000 147,000 Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST - - - - - 169,0001 169,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs V - TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of abandoning Well No.7 and demolishing the WTP. Work could only be done after the System Connection Water Main is constructed and operational. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - - I - Eliminates Well No. 7 and WTP annual O&M expenses as well as any schedules rehabilitation costs. Value TBD. Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WM03 Project Description: Industrial Drive Water Main Looping Dept.: Public Works Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion H.Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 22,000 22,000 Construction Engineering 17,000 17,000 Land Acquisition - - Infrastructure Improvements 185,000 185,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - - - - - I 224,000 224,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 1 Future Yrs r .. TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - 1.Briefly Describe and 2rovide justification for this Capital Prv'ect Request. This project consists of installing 12"water main in order to provide water main looping to Keyes Avenue and Industrial Avenue. Design Engineering includes wetland delineation. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: I WM04 Project Description: 4 &6 Inch Water Main Replacement Dept.: Public Works W Project Type: New Project HNon-CIP Replacement/Maint. HExpi nsion Item Fund: 130_CapitalImprovement q Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 85,000 85,000 Construction Engineering _ 80,000 80,000 Land Acquisition _ Infrastructure Improvements_ 940,000 94_0,000 Building Improvements 11� Machinery and Equipment _ _ _ Other/Miscellaneous 1 TOTAL COST - - - - - 1005,000 1,105,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs r. TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of repairing and replacing existing 4 and 6 inch water main on Mill,Terwilliger, Edgewood, Elm, South and the alley between Elm and Warner as shown in the IEPA Low Intereste Loan application (Water Works System Project Plan dated June 2009). Prices adjusted for future cost increases. The Village has approximately 50,000 feet to eventually be replaced. The Village must fund approx. $250,000 per year to replace over a 20 year period. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing Potential Funding: IEPA Low-Interest Loan 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: L WM06 Project Description: Wierec Water Main Connection Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: N New Project I J Replacement/Maint. H Expansion n Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement V Priority: Ongoing V BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 6,000 6,000 Construction Engineering 5,000 5,000 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 55,000 _ 55,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST - - - - - 66,000 66,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Re guest. This project consists of installing a 8"water main between the Middle School and Edgewood Court through Wierec easement. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WM07 Project Description: SCADA-WATER Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. HExpansion H Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement 1W Priority:1 Ongoing 1W BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering Construction Engineering _ Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 18,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment G — - Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 18,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 j Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. _ This project consists of maintenance and upgrading the existing SCADA system. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Pro ected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: I WM08 Project Description: Elm Street EWST Repainting Dept.: Public Works Project Type: New Project I Replacement/Maint. Expansion I Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 11,000 _ 11,000 Construction Engineering 23,000 23,000 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 305,000 305,000 Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST 339,000 - - - - 339,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 i Future Yrs W — - TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Re guest. Costs include high end overcoat system plus containment. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WM09 Project Description: US Rte 20 EWST Repainting Dept.: Public Works V I Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. HExpansion H Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement IV Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 7,600 7,600 Construction Engineering 16,400 16,400 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 217,500 , 217,500 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST 24,0001 217,500 - - - - 241,500 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Pmject Request. Costs include high end overcoat system. Excludes containment. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WM10 Project Description: Tuscany Woods EWST Rehabilitation and Maintenance Dept.: ' public Works Project Type: _ New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement V Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering - Construction Engineering Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 14,000 14,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment ° Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - - - 7_7 14,0001 14,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs i TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1. Briefly Describe and provide`ustification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of cleaning the Tuscany Woods EWST in FY 2017. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: r WMii Project Description: BP/PRV and PRV Rehabilitation, Maintenance and Replacement Dept.: Public Works Project Type: New Project �Replacement/Maint. N Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund:, 130-Capital Improvement W Priority: Cngaing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 5,200 5,200 Construction Engineering - Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 46,800 46,800 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment f J Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - 52,000 - - - - 52,000 Funding Sources FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of performing miscellaneous BP/PRV and PRV rehabilitation, maintenance, and replacement.The Tuscany Woods BP/PRV,Tamms Farm BP/PRV, Prairie Ridge PRV, and Brier Hill PRV will all receive maintenance in FY2014. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WM12 Project Description,Well No.9 Pump Repairs Dept.: Public Works Project Type: H— Expansion New Project e Replacement/Maint. Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement i Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 5,500 5,500 Construction Engineering 5,500 5,500 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 99,000 99,000 Building Improvements - _Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST 110,000 - I - i 110,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES . - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of removing, rehbilitating and reinstalling the existing pump and motor and column piping. Repairs assumed to be a result of sand wearing on the pumps and reducing their efficiency. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operatin Ex enses � 1 - � - i - I • � - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WM13 Project Description:.Well No. 12 Pump Removal Dept.: Public Works _ WWI Project Type: IJ New Project L�Replacement/Maint. Expansion ❑Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement w Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 2,500 2,500 Construction Engineering 2,500 2,500 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 30,000 j 30,000_ Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous ° TOTAL COST 35,000 - - - - - 35,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 ! FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of removing the pump assembly and column piping for well currently not in use. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3.Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: M14 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: LW Project Description: Well 13 Rehab, Maintenance and Replacement Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: B New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion 1 Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement 1W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 7,600 7,600 Construction Engineering { _ 7,600 7,600 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 136,800 136,800 Building Improvements _ - Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST I - - - - 152,000 - 152,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 i Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide'ust fication for this Capital Pro ect Request. This project consists of performing miscellaneous well rehabilitation and maintenance for Well 13. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operatin Expenses 1 - - - - 1 Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WM15 Project Description: WTP 9 Rehab, Maintenance and Replacement Dept.: Public Works v Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement IV Priority: Ongoing 1W BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 2,000 2,000 Construction Engineering 2,000 2,000 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 36,000 36,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST - 1 40,000 - - - - 40,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 1 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital'Project Request. This project consists of performing miscellaneous WTP rehabilitation, maintenance, and replacement. 5 year rehabilitation,which consists of inspection and maintenance of HVAC, control systems computers, and instrument systems computers,should be performed on WTP#9 in FY2014. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WM15 Project Description: WTP 10/13 Rehab, Maintenance and Replacement Dept-: V Project Type; HExpansion New Proje ct Replacement/Maint. p Public Works ) yp Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 3,000 3,000 Construction Engineering 3,000 3,000 Land Acquisition o Infrastructure Improvements 54,000 _5_4,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - - 60,000 - - - 60,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 j FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of performing miscellaneous WTP rehabilitation, maintenance, and replacement.5 year rehabilitation,which consists of inspection and maintenance of HVAC,control systems computers,and instrument systems computers,should be performed on WTP#10/13 in FY2015. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: DR01 Project Description Culvert Replacement- IL Rte 72 &State Dept.: Public Works � Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. Ld Expansion H Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement V Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 15,000 15,000 Construction Engineering 7,000_ _ 7,000 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 48,000 48,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous I TOTAL COST - - - - - 70,000 70,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1. Briefly Describe and provide'ustificatian for this Capital Project Request. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WW01 Project Description: Final Settling Tank Launder Covers(WVVTF) Dept.: Public Works Project Type: New Project ®Replacement/Maint. d Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement 1W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 9,000 9,000 Construction Engineering 9,000 9,000 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 124,000 124,000 Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST - - - I - - 142,000 142,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of installing Launder covers for the 2.76 MGD Final Settling Tank. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WW02 Project Description: Recovery Bond Project Dept.: Public Works W Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion iH Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering - Construction Engineering 4,000 4,000 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 49,000 49,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST 53,000 - ° - - - - 53,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs � I - TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Pro ect Request. The value represents the remaining costs to the current 2011 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation and Storm Sewer Improvements(i.e. Rinn) estimated as of 5/1/12. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WW03 Project Description: Oakstead Lift Station Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. H Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement V Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 500 5,000 5,500 Construction Engineering 5,000 5,000_ Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 1,600 18,000 19,600 Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - 2,100 - - 28,000 30,100 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs � i TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1, Brien y Describe and provide'us#ification for this Capita Pra'ect Request. Fy 15-The generator needs to be decommissioned every 5-years(due 12/14 or 1/15) Future Years-Costs associated with putting the LS on-line. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Pro ected O eratinq Expenses - - - - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WW04 Project Description: Prairie Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements (Rinn to Jefferson) Dept.: public Works � Project Type: H New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement IV Priority: Ongoing V BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 3,000 3,000 Construction Engineering 8,500 6,500 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 96,000 96,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - - - - - 107,5001 107,500 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs 1 V 1 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists upsizing the sanitary sewer from 8"to 12". Design completed as part of the 2011 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation and Storm Sewer Improvements(Rinn) 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: I WW05 Project Description: Rinn Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements(State to Alley) Dept.: Public Works " 1 Project Type: a New Project H Replacement/Maint. Expansion .—Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement W Priority: Ongoing _] BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 3,900 3,900 Construction Engineering 3,900 3,90_0 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 51,000 f[ 51,000 Building Improvements _p Machinery and Equipment _ - Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST 58,800 - - - - - 58.800 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs 1 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Pro 'ect Request. Involves pipe bursting to install new 12"sanitary sewer. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj.#: WW06 Project Description: Brook Edge Court Sanitary Sewer Improvements Dept.: Public Works V 1 Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion —H Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement _7,w] Priority: Ongoing qW BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 7,500 7,500 Construction Engineering 8,000 8,000 Land Acquisition ` Infrastructure Improvements 98,500 98,500 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - - - - - 114,000 114,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1. Briefly Describe and provide'ustificatinn for this Capital Project Request. This project consists upsizing the sanitary sewer from 8"to 12"or lining the existing 8"????. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj.#: WW07 Project Description: NPDES Permitting- Creek Analysis Dept.: public Works v Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. J Expansion HNon-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement V Priority: Ongoing 9V BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 1 4,150 . 4,250 8,400 Construction Engineering - Land Acquisition p Infrastructure Improvements y Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous 21,650 22,300 43,950 TOTAL COST - 25,800 - 26,550 - - 52.350 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs � f f - TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1.Briefly Describe and provide'ustification for this Capital Project Request. Hampshire Creek ecological study every 2 years per NPDES permit requirements 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - i - �, - I - i Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: wwos Project Description: SCADA-WASTEWATER Dept.: Public Works w Project Type: H New Project HReplacement/maint. Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement 1W Priority: Ongoing . BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering - Construction Engineering _ Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 18,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment _ - Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST 3,000 3,000 1 3,000 3,000 1 3,0001 3,000 18,000 Funding Source(s) j FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of maintenance and upgrading the existing SCADA system. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WW09 Project Description:j Sanitary Sewer Rehab/Replacement Dept.: 1, Public Works + Project Type: New Project qReplacement/Maint. H Expansion "Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement 1W Priority: Ongoing 1W BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering_ _ 16,000 16,000 Construction Engineering 17,000 17,000 Land Acquisition _ - Infrastructure Improvements 217,000 217,000 Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST - - - - - 250,0001 250,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of the replacement and repair of various amounts of clay tile sanitary sewer. A program of replacement and lining should be developed. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses i Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WW10 Project Description: Misc. Lift Station Rehab,_Maintenance, and Replacement Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: New Project H Replacement/Maint. HExpansion ,__;Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 4,600 . 2,400 2,400 2,500 11,900 Construction Engineering 4,600 2,400 2,400 2,500 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 82,000 42,000 43,300 46,000 213,300 Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST 91,200 46,8001 48.100 i - 51.000 - 225,200 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 ` FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of providing rehabilitation, maintenance, and replacement to the Higgins and McDonalds Lift Stations in FY2013, the Elgiloy Lift Station in FY2014, the Hampshire Prairie Lift Station in FY2015 and Lakewood Lift Station in FY2017 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - - i Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WW11 Project Description: Misc.WWTF Rehab, Maintenance, and Replacement Dept.: Public Works V 1 Project Type: New Project Ill Replacement/Maint. hL_. Expansion I Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement 1W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 6,900 6,900 Construction Engineering 6,900 6,900 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 124,300 1249300 Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - - 138,100 - - - 138,100 Funding Source(s) J FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 1 Future Yrs i i TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - 1.Briefly Describe and provide'ustification for this Capital Project Request. This project consists of providing rehabilitation, maintenance, and replacement on the 2.76 MGD WWTF-starting in FY2015. 2. Describe the,project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL r-o'ected Operating Expenses - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: EWW12 Project Description: SSE Update Dept.: Public Works 1W Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. I Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement I Priority: Ongoing IV BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering _ 40,000 40,000 Construction Engineering Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements _ Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment _ Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - - - - - 40,0001 40,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs _ f TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Pro'ect Request. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing Potential Sources: IEPA Low Interest Loan 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Pro ected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: WW13 Project Description: Membrane Roof Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: New Project i Replacement/Maint. H-Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement W Priority: Ongoing j BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering Construction Engineering Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 35,000 35,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST 35,000 - - - - 35,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs i TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Prv'ect Request. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing Potential Sources: IEPA Low Interest Loan 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected O e rating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: RWO1 Project Description: Warners Street(Panama to IL Rte 72) Dept.: Public Works v Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. H Expansion H Non-CIP Item Fund: 120-Motor Fuel Tax W Priority: Ongoing V BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 6,300 6,300 Construction Engineering 7,600 7,600 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 125,400 125,400 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST 139,300 - - - - - 139,300 Funding Sources FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. Crack sealing from Panama to Hillcrest Edge mill and overlay from Hillcrest to IL Rte 72 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: 1 RW02 Project Description: Terwilliger Avenue(Prairieview Pkwy to State St.) Dept.: Public Works 1W Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion e Non-CIP Item Fund: 120-Motor Fuel Tax - Priority: Ongoing 1 BREAK_DOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 6,600 _ 6,600 Construction Engineering 8,000 8,000 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 132,100 132,100 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST 1 146.7001 146,700 Funding Source(s) I FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. Crack sealing from State St.to Prairie Edge mill and overlay from Prairie to Prairieview Pkwy 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: RW03 Project Description: Rinn Avenue(Prairie St.to State St.) Dept.: Public Works V' Project Type: e New Project f Replacement/Maint. sion Expan Non-CIP Item Fund: 120-Motor Fuel Tax IV Priority: Ongoing 1W BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 4,500_ 4,500 Construction Engineering 5,300 5,300 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 88,900 88,900 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment ` Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - 98,700 - - - - 98,700 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. Mill and overlay 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj.#: RW04 Project Description: East Street(Rinn Ave.to Mill Ave.) Dept.: Public Works Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. H Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 120-Motor Fuel Tax 1W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 2,000 2,000 Construction Engineering 2,400 2,400 Land Acquisition 1 Infrastructure Improvements 40,000 40,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - 44,400 - - - - 44,400 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs � I - TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. Mill and overlay 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: RW05 Project Description: Prairie Street(Rinn Ave.to Terwilliger Ave.) Dept.: Public Works w Project Type: New Project I 'J Replacement/Maint. pansion n Ex Non-CIP Item Fund: 120-Motor Fuel Tax Priority: Ongoing V BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 1 _ 6,200 1 6,200 Construction Engineering _� 7,500 7,500 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 124,200 124,200 Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST - - 137,900 - - - 137,900 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs � II TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. Construct after sewer work complete. Change year? Mill and overlay Widening from Flinn to Jefferson 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operatin2 Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: RW06 Project Description: Jackson Ave.(Madison St.to east end) Dept.: Public Works w Project Type: H New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion H Non-CIP Item Fund: 120-Motor Fuel Tax V Priority: Ongoing IV BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 1,400 1,400 Construction Engineering 1,600 1,600 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 26,300 26,300 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous _ TOTAL COST C - - 29,3001 - - 29,300 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 1 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. _ Pavement removal and replacement 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: RW07 Project Description: Grove Avenue(Madison St.to east end) Dept.: public Works . Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. - H— Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 120-Motor Fuel Tax wl Priority: Ongoing r' BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 4,000 4,000 Construction Engineering �_ 5,000 5,000 Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements 81,000 81,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST - - - 90,000 - 90,000 FundIn2 Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 i Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. Mill and overaly 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL_ Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj.#: RW08 Project Description: Alley(Rinn to Jefferson) Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. H— Expansion HNon-CIP Item Fund: 120-Motor Fuel Tax 1W Priority: Ongoing V BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 1,000 1,000 Construction Engineering 1,000 1,000 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 12,000 12,000 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST j 14,0001 14,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 1 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1.Brief ly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project R2guest. Install binder and surface 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: RWO9 Project Description: Alley(Fifth-Third Bank) Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: e New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 120-Motor Fuel Tax Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 1,000 1,000 Construction Engineering 1,000 1,000 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 15,000 15,000 Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST - - - - 17,000 - 17,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs 1 1 i" TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. Resurface 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: RW10 Project Description: Rte 72 and State St. Signals Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. H Expansion HNon-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement Priority: ongoing V1 BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 2,800 2,800 Construction Engineering _ 1` Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 18,500 _ 18,500 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - 21,300 - - - - 21,300 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1. Briefly Describe and provide"ustificatian for this Capital Project Request. IDOT signalization of intersection. Local share required. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses I - - - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: RW11 Project Description: IL Rte 72 & Romke Road Improvements Dept.: public Works Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion e Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering _ _ - Construction Engineering 20,000 20,000 Land Acquisition _- Infrastructure Improvements 150,000 150,000 Building Improvements - Machinery and Equipment - Other/Miscellaneous - TOTAL COST 170,000 - - - - 170,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. $150,000 represents approximate difference between total construction cost and$100,000 security bond in place. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj.#: RW12 Project Description: Brier Hill Road LAPP Dept.: Public Works Project Type: u New Project Replacement/Maint. u Expansion Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement 1W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 30,000 _ 30,000 Construction Engineering l 13,800 13,800 Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 106,200 106,200 Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment _ Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST - - 30,000 120,000 - - 150,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1. Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. Local match=20% 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: 1 RW13 Project Description: Sign Program Dept.: Public Works V Project Type: New Project Replacement/Maint. Expansion ❑Non-CIP Item Fund:, 130-Capital Improvement 1W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering _ Construction Engineering Land Acquisition Infrastructure Improvements 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 81,000 Building Improvements ' Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST 13.500_ 13,5001 13,500 13,500 ! 13,500 137500 81,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs V TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 1.Briefly Describe and provide'ustification for this Capital Project Request. Local match=20% 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Pro ected Operating Expenses Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: 2011-2015 CAPITAL PROJECT SHEET Proj. #: RW 33 Project Description:'Comprehensive Street Evaluation Update Dept.: Public Works 1W Project Type: --�New Project Replacement/Maint. H Expansion e Non-CIP Item Fund: 130-Capital Improvement 1W Priority: Ongoing BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SOURCES Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Design Engineering 42,000 42,000 Construction Engineering - Land Acquisition - Infrastructure Improvements Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Other/Miscellaneous TOTAL COST 42,000 - - - - f - 42,000 Funding Source(s) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs 1W - TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - - 1.Briefly Describe and provide justification for this Capital Project Request. Re-evaluate all roads. 2. Describe the project status and completed work. 3. Describe any anticipated grants related to the project. Ongoing None 4.What impact will the project have on annual operating expenses? Please quantify and describe. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Future Yrs TOTAL Projected Operating Expenses - Map and/or pictures of Project/Project Area: `,SAD C►p Reviewed By: �- Legal Agenda Item Number EST 1836 Finance El ADM—NB #1 1 Engineer ❑ City Administrator E Human Resources El Tracking Number ,*.M Community Development © ALE /�'�` ❑ ADM 2012-41 Police Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Contractor's Registration and Licensing Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Direction Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: `,SAD C►p 011% Memorandum To: City Council EST 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator; Jeff Weckbach, Administrative Intern.y� p Date: July 4, 2012 �.MQW* Subject: Contractor's Registration and Licensing Summary Discussion on the creation of a contractor's licensing program. Background This item was last discussed by the Administration Committee in May. At that meeting, the Committee expressed interest in the creation of a contractor's licensing program if the program could be implemented with a neutral or positive fiscal impact and if it would not place us at a competitive disadvantage with surrounding municipalities. A contractor's licensing program is typically set up so that no contractor may do work in the City without having first obtained a license from the City. The most substantial part of a licensing program includes the requirement of a bond and proof of insurance prior to permit issuance—although, some municipalities do not require bonds and others only require bonds for certain types of work. Should the contractor not finish the job, the City could access the bond to complete the work. Should the City Council give staff the direction to proceed with setting up a contractor's license program, a far amount of research would have to be done on how and when the City can access the bond. The most frequently used protection component in the licensing program is that of having contact information for the company. The City would always know who is doing work in the City and the best way to get ahold of them. If the City encounters frequent or major issues with the same contractor, the license could be revoked or suspended. Our Code Official has worked with contractor's licensing in Freeport. He has made it known that the program tended to increase unpermitted work in whole because certain contractors would prefer not to pay for the license, or would prefer not to be licensed. His opinion is that the general benefits of the licensing program were outweighed by the increase in unpermitted work and the hassle of having to find the unpermitted work in the City and then enforce permits on the property. One of the issues with the business registration discussion(and then subsequently the contractor's licensing program) conducted at the May Administration Committee meeting was that of staff time for enforcement of the licensing. With a business license, the City must send out hundreds of letters and mailings each year in an effort to get businesses to renew their licenses. The result of that discussion was that the amount of money received by the businesses in licensing fees was equal to or less than the equivalent dollar amount of staff time spent on the administration of the business licenses. So, the idea of a business license was scrapped. Contractor's licensing programs could be administered the same way; annual mailings to known contractors encouraging them to renew their annual contractor's license. However, the nature of contractor's work gives us an additional option in license administration—we could completely skip the time intensive annual renewal letters because contractor's must come to us to receive a building permit prior to beginning work. So, that gives us a natural checkpoint for the administration of the contractor's licensing. If a contractor comes to us and asks for a building permit and is not registered, we can require them to get a contractor's license prior to issuance of building permit. With the issue of annual mailings settled, we must turn our attention to physical administration of the licensing program(costs and time spent on database creation, filing, permit supplies, etc.). Fortunately, the City's building permit software contains a module for contractor's licensing. Unfortunately, we have not previously purchased it, so we would have to inquire about the cost of the module. We've attached a survey of contractor licensing programs for surrounding municipalities. Of our list of 35 municipalities, 24 have some form of registration required of contractors. 18 of these 24 required registration for general contractors and most sub contractors. The average rate charged for a license was approximately $175 with a range of fees as low as $25 and as high as $260. Applying these fees to our average expected license numbers, the revenue generated to the City could be between $10,000 and$40,0000 (we would expect about 200 licenses to be issued). Although, this revenue estimate could be offset by a potential decline in overall permits (due to Mr. Ratos' experience with licensing). Nearly all municipalities required some form of state license for any roofing/plumbing/electric/irrigation/sprinkler work. The bond requirement was typically $20,000 or$10,000. Most also required some form of general liability insurance ranging from $300,000 to $2,500,000 with a median figure of $1,000,000. Workman's compensation insurance was also typically a requirement at either the IL state Law level of requirement or$500,000- $1,000,000. In regards to auto insurance the majority of agencies have no requirement however some do require $500,000 or$1,000,000. Recommendation Staff requests direction from the City Council on whether a contractor's licensing program should be created. CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION SURVEY Insurance MUNICIPALITY Registration Fee Type Bond Gen Liab WC Auto Other Aurora Yes $200 new,then$100 GC, Sign, HVAC, Elect, Roof 20,000 $1,000,000 IL Law none Arlington Heights Yes $130 or$60 All but no E, PL,Alarm only Dem&Swr none none none Background check by PD&crime? Bartlett Yes $100 GC;$50 Subs All $10,000 $1,000,000 IL Law none License for Electrician, roofing, plumbing Barrington Yes $75 All none only GC License for Electrician, roofing, plumbing Batavia No Bolingbrook Yes $260 GC; $160 Subs All $20,000 or 10% $300,000 none none License for Electrician, roofing, Irrigation Channahon Yes $150 GC; $100 Subs All none $300,000 IL Law none License for Electrician, roofing, Irrigation&plumbing Carol Stream No o u requires Crystal Lake bond $0 Certain trades 10,000 none none none State license for roofing&plumbing DeKalb Yes $250 then$50 Elect/Plumb/HVAC/ROW only 10,000 none none none Downers Grove Only Electrical $0 Elburn No License for roofing&plumbing Elgin No-license only $20,000 for HVAC&Sewer none none none License for Electrician, roofing, plumbing,fire sprinkler&hvac Geneva No Only ROW $1,000,000 State license for roofing&plumbing Huntley Yes $25+$10 for ea trade 1/2 after July 15th for all trades $10,000 for row or easements $1,000,000 Lemont Yes $200 GC;$75 Subs All(no chg for pl,elect, alarm Indscp) $25,000* 250000 injur not<$100,000 none $100,000 prop damage ins; License for Elect, roof, Irri , plum Lisle No Yes $125 All none yes certificate nothing else specified License for Electrician, roofing, plumbing-no charge Morris Yes $200 GC 20,000 $300,000 IL Law $300,000 $100 All Subs 10,000 $300,000 IL Law $300,000 Naperville Yes Elec$50; PL$25;ROW$30 Elect/Plumb/ROW only $10,000 Elect only Only Elect none License for Elec, plumbing and Engineer apprvl for ROW New Lenox Yes $150 All but no chg for pl or sprinkler 10,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 none License for roofing, plumbing&sprinkler Yes $150;$25 if state license All 20,000 yes certificate nothing else specified License required for Electrician, plumbing, roofing,sprinkler Yes $250 GC 20,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $100 All Subs 10,000 $1,500,000 $500,000 $200,000 License required for Electrician, plumbing, roofing Plainfield Yes $50 All but no chg for pl or sprinkler GC&roofer$10,000 $1,000,000 none none License required for Electrician, plumbing, roofing sprinkler Plano No Romeoville Yes $150 GC; $75 Subs; no pi All $10,000 except pl $300,OOOinj $1,000,000 none $25,000 prop damage ins; License for Elect, roof, plumber Sandwich No State license for roofing(commercial only)&plumbing South Elgin No Only state license copies St.Charles No Yes $165 ALL, but painters/floorin /Indscp maint$20,000 GC;$10,000 exc PL $2,000,000 IL Law $1,000,000 License for roofing/plumbing/electric/irrigation Sycamore No only$for elect test Elect City test&PI 055/058&PL# Warrenville Yes Only Elec$35 Elect/Roofers only $5,000 Elect. yes License required for Electrician and roofing West Chicago Yes $195 Initial;$145 Renewal All $10,000 $250,000 $1,000,000 $100,000 property damage insurance cert Wheaton Yes $25 All except pl, alarm, roof, irri , sprinklr or elect $10,000 $1,000,000** **Ins Cert for Irri , ROW, house moving Wilmington Yes $100 All but no chg for pl,sprinkler or roofer none yes certificate for liability&WC only License required for plumber and roofer Winfield Yes $250 GC; 1/2 after 8/1 $20,000 $1,000,000 IL Law $500,000 All renew 1/31 annually $100 sub; 1/2 after 8/1 All but elect$25; HVAC$40 and 0 if other license $10000 except pl $500,000 IL Law $500,000 All renew 1/31 annually Yorkville No *requires specific language in their bond. 7/4/2012 Holly Baker `,SAD C►p Reviewed By: �- Legal Agenda Item Number EST 1836 Finance El ADM—NB #2 1 Engineer ❑ City Administrator E Human Resources El Tracking Number ,*.M Community Development © ALE /�'�` ❑ ADM 2012-42 Police Public Works Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Biosolids Application Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Direction Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: `,SAD C►p 011% Memorandum To: City Council EST 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: .y� p Date: July 4, 2012 �.MQW* Subject: Biosolid application LE Summary Discussion on biosolid application operations with the City limits, and the prohibition of said operations. Background This item was requested by Alderman Gilson. Alderman Gilson is interested in discussing the prohibition of biosolid applications on land within City limits. An opinion from Attorney Binninger on our ability to prohibit biosolids in the City limits is attached. In short, it appears that as a non-home rule entity we would not be able to prohibit biosolids within City limits, but any attempt to do so would have to be part of the zoning code. Recommendation Direction from City Council on the proposed prohibition of biosolids within City limits. LAW OFFICE KATHLEEN FIELD ORR&ASSOCIATES 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 935 Chicago,Illinois 60604 (312)382-2113 (312)382-2127 facsimile KATHLEEN FIELD ORR JAMES W.BINNINGER kfo(a kfoassocxom jwbgkfoassoc.com MEMORANDUM To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Jim Binninger, Attorney for the City Date: June 7, 2012 Subject: IEPA and concurrent authority A request was received to provide the statutory authority of the City to restrict land applications to any entity which has received an IEPA permit to operate water pollution control facilities. A review of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (the "Act") reveals that there is some authority to local governments; however, such authority is limited to its zoning authority. Section 5/39 of the Act states: "Except for those facilities owned or operated by sanitary districts organized under the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act, and except for new pollution control facilities governed by Section 39.2, [those requiring local site review] and except for fossil fuel mining facilities, the granting of a permit under this Act shall not relieve the applicant from meeting and securing all necessary zoning approvals from the unit of government having zoning jurisdiction over the proposed facility." It is our understanding that the property to be the site for the pollution control facilities is currently zoned under the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance as an R-2 Residential District, with an authorization within the annexation agreement for the subdivision for uses related to A-1 Agricultural District. Within the permitted operations of an A-1 district is "planting and harvesting of crops" and accessory uses to that operation. Accessory uses are subordinate to and serve the principal use. It is reasonable to assume that the preparation of the soil for planting by the addition of soil conditioners such as fertilizers would be a permitted accessory use. The application of sewage and lime sludge, as is currently permitted by the IEPA, would therefore also be a permitted accessory use under the City's Zoning Ordinance as it is also a soil conditioner. In summary, although there is "concurrent" authority provided by the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and State law, it is clearly restricted to a municipality's zoning authority. Currently the City does not have zoning regulations that would prohibit the land application of sewage and lime sludge as an accessory use in permitted agricultural zones. Further, we are unsure as to whether such a restriction would be upheld by the courts. 7/5/12 Frequently Asked Questions I Sewage Sludge(Biosolids)I US EPA http://w ater.epa.gov/polw aste/w astew ater/treatment/biosolids/genga.cfm �by�E l.onmml�l hoeectan Water: Sewage Sludge(Biosolids) You are here:WaterwPollution Prevention&Control Wastewater Programs wTreatment�Sewage Sludge(Biosolids)*Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions 1)What are Biosolids? Theyare nutrient-rich organic materials resulting from the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment facility.When treated and processed,these residuals can be recycled and applied as fertilizer to improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth. 2)What is the difference between biosolids and sludge? Biosolids are treated sewage sludge.Biosolids are carefully treated and monitored and must be used in accordance with regulatory requirements. 3)Why do we have biosolids? We have biosolids as a result of the wastewater treatment process.Water treatment technology has made our water safer for recreation and seafood harvesting.Thirty years ago,thousands of American cities dumped their raw sewage directly into the nation's rivers,lakes,and bays.Through regulation of this dumping,local governments now required to treat wastewater and to make the decision whether to recycle biosolids as fertilizer,incinerate it,or bury it in a landfill. 4)How are biosolids generated and processed? Biosolids are created through the treatment of domestic wastewater generated from sewage treatment facilities.The treatment of biosolids can actually begin before the wastewater reaches the sewage treatment plant.In many larger wastewater treatment systems,pre-treatment regulations require that industrial facilities pre-treat their wastewater to remove many hazardous contaminants before it is sent to a wastewater treatment plant.Wastewater treatment facilities monitor incoming wastewater streams to ensure their recyclability and compatibility with the treatment plant process. Once the wastewater reaches the plant,the sewage goes through physical,chemical and biological processes which clean the wastewater and remove the solids.If necessary,the solids are then treated with lime to raise the pH level to eliminate objectionable odors.The wastewater treatment processes sanitize wastewater solids to control pathogens(disease-causing organisms,such as certain bacteria,viruses and parasites)and other organisms capable of transporting disease. 5)How are biosolids used? After treatment and processing,biosolids can be recycled and applied as fertilizer to improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth.The controlled land application of biosolids completes a natural cycle in the environment.Bytreating sewage sludge,it becomes biosolids which can be used as valuable fertilizer,instead of taking up space in a landfill or other disposal facility. 6)Where are biosolids used? Farmers and gardeners have been recycling biosolids for ages.Biosolids recycling is the process of beneficially using treated the treated residuals from wastewater treatment to promote the growth of agricultural crops,fertilize gardens and parks and reclaim mining sites.Land application of biosolids takes place in all 50 states. 7)Why are biosolids used on farms? The application of biosolids reduces the need for chemical fertilizers.As more wastewater plants become capable of producing high quality biosolids,there is an even greater opportunity to make use of this valuable resource. 8)What percentage of biosolids are recycled and how many farms use biosolids? About 50%of all biosolids are being recycled to land.These biosolids are used on less than one percent of the nation's agricultural land. 9)Are biosolids safe? The National Academyof Sciences has reviewed current practices,public health concerns and regulator standards,and has concluded that"the use of these materials in the production of crops for human consumption when practiced in accordance with e>asbng federal guidelines and regulations,presents negligible risk to the consumer, to crop production and to the environment" 10)Do biosolids smell? Biosolids mayhave their own distinctive odor depending on the type of treatment it has been through.Some biosolids may have onlya slight musty,ammonia odor.Others have a stronger odor that may be offensive to some people.Much of the odor is caused bycompounds containing sulfur and ammonia,both of which are plant nutrients. 11)Are there regulations for the land application of biosolids? The federal biosolids rule is contained in 40 CFR Part 503.Biosolids that are to be land applied must meet these strict regulations and quality standards.The Part 503 rule governing the use and disposal of biosolids contain numerical limits,for metals in biosolids,pathogen reduction standards,site restriction,crop harvesting restrictions and monitoring,record keeping and reporting requirements for land applied biosolids as well as similar requirements for biosolids that are surface disposed or incinerated.Most recently,standards have been proposed to include requirements in the Part 503 Rule that Iimitthe concentration of dio>an and diobn like compounds in biosolids to ensure safe land application. water.epa.gov/polwaste/wastewater/treatmenVbiosolids/genqa.cfm 1/3 7/5/12 Frequently Asked Questions I Sewage Sludge(Biosolids)I US EPA 12)Where can I find out more about the regulations? The biosolids rule is described in the EPA publication,A Plan English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule.This guide states and interprets the Part 503 rule for the general reader.This guide is also available in hard copy.In addition to the Plain English Guide,EPA has prepared AGuide to the Biosolids Risk Assessments for the EPA Part 503 Rule which shows the many steps followed to develop the scientifically defensible,safe set of rules(also available from EPA in hard copy.) 13)How are biosolids used for agriculture? Biosolids are used to fertilize fields for raising crops.Agricultural use of biosolids,that meet strict quality criteria and application rates,have been shown to produce significant improvements in crop growth and yield.Nutrients found in biosolids,such as nitrogen,phosphorus and potassium and trace elements such as calcium, copper,iron,magnesium,manganese,sulfur and zinc,are necessaryfor crop production and growth.The use of biosolids reduces the farmer's production costs and replenishes the organic matter that has been depleted over time.The organic matter improves soil structure byincreasing the soil's abilityto absorb and store moisture. The organic nitrogen and phosphorous found in biosolids are used veryefficiently bycrops because these plant nutrients are released slowly throughout the growing season.This enables the crop to absorb these nutrients as the crop grows.This efficiency lessens the likelihood of groundwater pollution of nitrogen and phosphorous. 14)Can biosolids be used for mine reclamation? Biosolids have been used successfully at mine sites to establish sustainable vegetation.Not onlydoes the organic matter,inorganic matrix and nutrients present in the biosolids reduce the bioavailability of toAc substances often found in highlydisturbed mine soils,but also regenerate the soil layer.This regeneration is very important for reclaiming abandoned mine sites with little or no topsoil.The biosolids application rate for mine reclamation is generally higher than the agronomic rate which cannot be exceeded for use of agricultural soils. 15)How are biosolids used for forestry? Biosolids have been found to promote rapid timber growth,allowing quicker and more efficient harvest of an important natural resource. 16)Can biosolids be used for composting? Yes,biosolids may be composted and sold or distributed for use on lawns and home gardens.Most biosolids composts,are highlydesirable products that are easy to store,transport and use. 17)Are there rules about where biosolids can be applied? To determine whether biosolids can be applied to a particular farm site,an evaluation of the site's suitability is generally performed bythe land applier.The evaluation examines water supplies,soil characteristics,slopes,vegetation,crop needs and the distances to surface and groundwater. There are different rules for different classes of biosolids.Class Abiosolids contain no detectible levels of pathogens.Class Abiosolids that meet strict vector attraction reduction requirements and low levels metals contents,only have to apply for permits to ensure that these verytough standards have been met.Class B biosolids are treated but still contain detectible levels of pathogens.There are buffer requirements,public access,and crop harvesting restrictions for virtuallyall forms of Class B biosolids. Nutrient management planning ensures that the appropriate quantity and quality of biosolids are land applied to the farmland.The biosolids application is specifically calculated to match the nutrient uptake requirements of the particular crop.Nutrient management technicians work with the farm communityto assure proper land application and nutrient control. 18)Are there buffer requirements or restrictions on public access to sites with biosolids? In general,exceptional quality(Class A)biosolids used in small quantities by general public have no buffer requirements,crop type,crop harvesting or site access restrictions.Exceptional Quality biosolids is the name given to treated residuals that contain low levels of metals and do not attract vectors.When used in bulk,Class A biosolids are subject to buffer requirements,but not to crop harvesting restrictions.In general,there are buffer requirements,public access,and crop harvesting restrictions for virtuallyall forms of Class B biosolids(treated but still containing detectible levels of pathogens). 19)Can anyone apply biosolids to land? Anyone who wants to use biosolids for land application must complywith all relevant federal and state regulations.In some cases a permit maybe required. 20)What will it mean for a wastewater treatment plant,biosolids manager or land applier to agree to follow an Environmental Management System(EMS)for Biosolids? Avoluntary EMS is now being developed for biosolids bythe National Biosolids Partnership(NBP).The NBP consists of members from the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agency,the Water Environment Federation,the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)and other stakeholders including the general public.Those facilities who pledge to follow the EMS are agreeing to follow comm unityfriendlypractices in addition to being in compliance with applicable state and Federal regulations. Community friendly practices refer to the control of odor,traffic,noise,and dust as well as the management of nutrients.Those who pledge to follow the EMS will be subjected to audit by impartial independent third parties. Last updated on Tuesday,March 06,2012 water.epa.gov/polwaste/wastewater/treatment/biosolids/genga.cfm 2/3 7/5/12 Frequently Asked Questions I Sewage Sludge(Biosolids)I US EPA water.epa.gov/polwaste/wastewater/treatment/biosolids/genqa.cfm 3/3 `,SAD C►p Reviewed By: �- Legal Agenda Item Number EST 1836 Finance ❑ Mayor's Report—OB #1 1 Engineer ❑ City Administrator E Human Resources El Tracking Number , © Community Development E] CC 2012-48 Police ALE Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Home Rule Referendum Resolution Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: `,SAD C►p 011% Memorandum To: City Council EST 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: .y� p Date: July 4, 2012 QW* Subject: Home Rule referendum resolution LLE '► Summary A resolution authorizing a binding referendum question on home rule authority for the November 2012 general election. Background This item was last discussed by the City Council at the June 26th City Council meeting. At that meeting, the City Council expressed the merits and detriments of home rule authority and a referendum question for home rule authority. No official City Council opinion was registered on either matter, although a majority of City Council members expressed acceptance of the resolution to authorize the referendum question. If the City Council wishes to authorize a referendum question on home rule authority for the November general election, the attached resolution may be approved. Any resolution authorizing a referendum question for the November general election must be approved by the City Council before mid-August, leaving the July 24th City Council meeting as the final regularly scheduled meeting prior to the deadline. If the attached resolution is approved, the staff would work to schedule at least three public meeting information sessions on home rule and non-home rule authority. We would suggest that the meetings could be held in the months of August, September and October,prior to the November 6th election. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing a binding referendum question on home rule authority for the November 2012 general election. Resolution No. 2012- A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORS OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, A REFERENDUM OF WHETHER THE CITY SHOULD BECOME A HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the "City") is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, Section 6(a) of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois provides that municipalities may elect by referendum to become home rule units; and, WHEREAS, Section 28-7 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/28-7)provides a method of submission of referendum which are authorized by Article VII of the Constitution and that such referendum may be initiated by the City Council by passage of a resolution requesting the submission of the referendum for consideration by the voters of the City; and, WHEREAS,the City Council hereby finds that it is in the best interest of the City to submit the referendum of whether the City shall become a home rule municipality to the electors pursuant to the Election Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. The City Council finds that the recitals set forth above are true and correct and includes the recitals in this Resolution. Section 2. The City Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City to provide for a referendum concerning the adoption of home rule. Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to immediately certify and submit the following public question to the Kendall County Clerk to be placed on the ballot for the general election to be held on November 6, 2012, in the following form: Shall the United City of Yorkville become a home rule unit of government Yes pursuant to Article VII, Section 6(a) of the Constitution of the State of Illinois? No Section 4. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. 1 Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this day of , A.D. 2012. CITY CLERK ROSE ANN SPEARS DIANE TEELING GEORGE GILSON JR. JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI CARLO COLOSIMO MARTY MUNNS CHRIS FUNKHOUSER LARRY KOT Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this day of , A.D. 2012. MAYOR 2 `,SAD C►p Reviewed By: �- Legal Agenda Item Number EST 1836 Finance ❑ Mayor's Report—OB #2 1 Engineer ❑ City Administrator E Human Resources El Tracking Number , © Community Development E] CC 2012-49 Police ALE Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Procedural Ordinance Amendment Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: `,SAD C►p 011% Memorandum To: City Council EST 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: .y� p Date: July 4, 2012 QW* Subject: Procedural ordinance LLE '► Summary Consideration of an amendment to the procedural ordinance regarding citizen comments sections. Background This item was last discussed by the City Council at the June 26th meeting. At that meeting,the City Council directed staff to remove time limits from the proposed changes to the procedural ordinance. The attached ordinance reflects that direction. If the ordinance is approved, the City Council and Committee of the Whole agendas will be amended so that there will be an agenda-item-based citizen comment section at the beginning of the meeting, and an open-topic citizen comment section at the end of the meeting. Ordinance No. 2012- AN ORDINANCE REGARDING CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the "City") is a duly organized and validly existing non-home-rule municipality created in accordance with Article VII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; and, WHEREAS,the City Council of the United City of Yorkville first passed a Procedural Ordinance on November 8, 2011 as Ordinance 2011-65, and revised said ordinance on April 24, 2012 as Ordinance 2012-09; and, WHEREAS,the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, in accordance with the Illinois Compiled State Statutes, has the right to determine procedures for organizing and conducting all meetings of the City Council acknowledging that the City is bound by certain state and federal laws as well as legal precedents which cannot be supplanted by City ordinance; and, WHEREAS, in keeping with this right, the City Council has adopted Roberts Rules of Order to outline the procedure to be followed during meetings and to regulate the actions of Council members and the public in attendance at such meetings; and, WHEREAS,the City Council has discussed implementing additional procedures to supplement Roberts Rules of Order regarding City Council meetings and the four standing committees of the City Council—Administration, Economic Development, Public Safety and Public Works. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. Procedures for City Council Meetings: Ordinance No.2012- Page 1 a. During the months of September through May, City Council Meetings shall be regularly scheduled to convene on the 2nd and4th Tuesday of each month_at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. For the months of June, July, and August, City Council Meetings shall be regularly scheduled to convene on the 4th Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. b. City Council Meetings shall be generally conducted according to the agenda template attached hereto (most recent template will be attached). c. Citizens in attendance at any meeting of the City Council shall be entitled to address the City Councile l one time f r no mofe than five (5` f Cites on any agenda item prior to the Council's consideration of the Consent Agenda in order to permit the work of the City Council to proceed. Citizens shall be entitled to address the City Council on any matter immediately_prior to adjournment. f r no more than five (54 mifmtes. transfer-his hef!time t.. .,.ldfess the City Couneil to ., othef! eitizen. Ed.No application presented during a public hearing shall be voted on during the same City Council meeting in which that public hearing is held. This provision may be waived by a supermajority of the City Council. City Council meeting agenda items may be added by the Mayor, consent of four (4) aldermen, or direction from a committee. €-:f. The Mayor shall preside over City Council meeting as the Chairman,unless the Mayor is unavailable, at which time the Mayor Pro Tem shall preside. fl.g_The City Council shall appoint the Mayor Pro Tem at the first City Council meeting each May. The appointment shall occur by calling for open nominations at the meeting, and then a roll call votes on the nominations. Section 2. Procedures for Committee of the Whole Meetings: a. During the months of June, July, and August Committee of the Whole meetings shall be regularly scheduled to convene on the 2nd Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. b. Committee of the Whole agenda items may be added by the Mayor or any alderman. c. Committee of the Whole Meetings shall be generally conducted according to the template attached hereto. d. Citizens in attendance at any meeting of the Committee of the Whole meeting shall be entitled to address the City Council one time f r re mere than fw �c' won any agenda item at the beginning of the meeting, pd^ � Ge,dneil' in order to permit the work of the City Council to proceed. Citizens shall be entitled to address the City Council on any matter immediately prior to adjournment. for- no more than. five (54 minutes. No eit* si�-xn of! transfer- his E)Y- her- tifne to address the City Getineil to anod+er--�� Ordinance No.2012- Page 2 d-.e.Each section of the Committee of the Whole meeting shall be presided over by the respective Committee's Chairman, or in the absence of the chairman, by the vice-chairman. e-.f. The intent of the Committee of the Whole is that each agenda item is discussed by the City Council as a whole, prior to its movement onto a subsequent City Council meeting (as directed by the Mayor or any four aldermen). Section 3. Procedures for Committee Meetings: a. During the months of September through May, Committee meetings shall be regularly held monthly, at the dates, times and locations as approved by the Committees. b. The Mayor shall be a non-voting member of all standing committees. c. The Mayor shall select committee rosters at the first City Council meeting in May following a municipal consolidated election (i.e. every two years). d. Committee rosters may be switched by mutual, unanimous consent of the aldermen trading seats and the Mayor. e. The Mayor shall select committee chairmen and vice-chairmen. f. Any alderman may add any agenda item to any committee agenda. g. Chairmen shall select liaisons to other organizations and boards by any means they deem necessary, provided that the other organizations by-laws may govern the selection of the liaison. h. The four committees shall be: i. Administration ii. Economic Development iii. Public Safety iv. Public Works i. Each committee shall be presided over by its chairman, or in the absence of the chairman, the vice-chairman. j. Committee meetings may be cancelled by the Chairman of the committee if there is a not a quorum of the members present, or there are no agenda items which require action by a committee. k. When moving items from the committee agenda to a City Council agenda, the committee shall make a recommendation whether that item should be on consent agenda or the committee's report. If on the committee's report, the committee shall make a recommendation whether the item is up for first reading, or is on the City Council agenda for action. Ordinance No.2012- Page 3 Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this Day of , A.D. 2012. CITY CLERK CHRIS FUNKHOUSER DIANE TEELING JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI LARRY KOT CARLO COLOSIMO MARTY MUNNS ROSE ANN SPEARS GEORGE GILSON, JR. Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this Day of , A.D. 2012. MAYOR Ordinance No.2012- Page 4 A. D CO. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number a� �+ Legal ❑ I1 #1 Finance F-1 EST. � =` leas Engineer ❑ ~-� Tracking Number y City Administrator ❑ �L7 Consultant El EDC 2012-30 aLE ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Building Permit Report for June 2012 Meeting and Date: COW—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: All permits issued in June, 2012 Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: N/A Item Number: N/A Type of Vote Required: Informational Council Action Requested: None Submitted by: D. Weinert Community Development Name Department Agenda Item Notes: clr, J2 ' i T UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE 1836.:= BUILDING PERMIT REPORT 0s ��'_ �o June 2012 L. lV�` TYPES OF PERMITS Number SFD B.U.I.L.D SFA Multi- Commercial Industrial Misc. Construction Permit of Single Farnily Single h7n dlr Single Family Family Includes all Permtls Cost Fees Permits ❑elached Detached Attached Apartmcnt.s lssued,forConunercial Program Begins Use 11112012 Z Condominiums June 2012 61 2 3 0 0 16 0 40 1,839,034.00 70,729.56 Calendar Year 263 18 18 0 0 51 0 176 9,316,100.00 454,787.72 2012 Fiscal Year 2012 129 7 7 0 0 26 0 89 4,064,428.00 171,763.59 June 2011 81 3 0 0 17 0 61 810,528.00 31,031.00 Calendar Year 304 15 0 0 61 0 273 7,878,562.00 173,869.50 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 175 9 0 0 36 0 130 6,432,644.00 99,261,.82 June 2010 74 4 0 0 10 0 60 1,772,777.00 53,563.00 Calendar Year 322 23 6 0 50 0 243 16,029,059.00 299,512.28 2010 Fiscal Year 2010 146 7 6 0 18 0 115 3,521,919.00 146,278.28 June 2009 67 8 0 0 18 0 41 2,600,630.00 93,161.68 Calendar Year 293 21 0 0 88 0 184 16,333,536.00 373,953.08 2009 Fiscal Year 2009 135 11 0 0 27 0 97 10,041,639.00 194,507.86 PABuilding Dept REPORTS\Building Permit Reports\Bldg Permit Report Jun 2012.doc Q cl s- Reviewed By: 0+ Legal El Agenda Item Number Finance E] 11#2 �sr =` leas Engineer ❑ ¢� y City Administrator ❑ Tracking Number 4 Consultant ❑ "`"`""��s'Z' ❑ EDC 2012-31 CLE tip' Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Building Inspection Report Summary for June 2012 Meeting and Date: COW—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: All inspections performed in the months of June 2012. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Informational Council Action Requested: none Submitted by: D. Weinert Community Development Name Department Agenda Item Notes: DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PR 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20100443 1415 ASPEN LN 88 06/05/2012 Commentsl: SUNROOM PR 11:00 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110003 204 W WHEATON AVE 3 06/04/2012 PR 11:30 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110056 608 RED TAIL CT 27 06/22/2012 Commentsl: BASEMENT FINISH PR 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110324 1415 ASPEN LN 88 06/05/2012 Commentsl: PAVERS PR 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110397 2321 HOBBS LN 161 06/29/2012 PWK 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20110464 4478 SARASOTA AVE 1040 06/29/2012 PR 011-SUM SUMP 20110470 2358 EMERALD LN 32 06/11/2012 PR 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 06/20/2012 PR 013-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/20/2012 PR 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/20/2012 PR 015-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 06/20/2012 PR 016-INS INSULATION 06/22/2012 PWK 016-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20110480 1101 KATE DR 36 06/01/2012 PR 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110487 4474 SARASOTA AVE 1041 06/25/2012 PR 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/25/2012 PWK 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/29/2012 PR 13:30 004-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20110565 2848 MCLELLAN BLVD 455 06/05/2012 PWK 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20110567 1332 CLEARWATER DR 252 06/01/2012 PR 13:00 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120015 1102 CLEARWATER DR 30 06/28/2012 PR 13:00 006-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/28/2012 PWK 016-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20120018 378 BERTRAM DR 1034 06/05/2012 PR 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 06/06/2012 PR 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/06/2012 DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PWK 014-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20120019 2447 EMERALD LN 115 06/13/2012 PR 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 06/13/2012 PR 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/13/2012 PR 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120020 2338 EMERALD LN 36 06/08/2012 PR 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/08/2012 PWK 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/08/2012 PR 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120021 2431 EMERALD LN 113 06/29/2012 PR 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/29/2012 PWK 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/29/2012 PR 015-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 20120023 2276 LAVENDER WAY 58 06/14/2012 PR 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 06/14/2012 PWK 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/14/2012 PR 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120024 182 BURNETT ST 1240 06/22/2012 PR 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/22/2012 PR 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/22/2012 PR 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120026 396 BERTRAM DR 1029 06/21/2012 PR 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/21/2012 PWK 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/21/2012 PWK 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/29/2012 PR 015-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 20120028 2279 LAVENDER WAY 71 06/14/2012 PR 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 06/14/2012 PWK 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/14/2012 PR 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120030 1979 MEADOWLARK LN 118 06/15/2012 PR 01.7-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/15/2012 DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PWK 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/19/2012 PR 11:01 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120031 2075 MARKETVIEW DR 06/07/2012 PR 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120036 1292 DEERPATH DR 227 06/11/2012 PR 015-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/11/2012 PWK 016-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/12/2012 PR 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120044 2395 IROQUOIS LN 3 06/15/2012 Commentsl: DRIVEWAY PR 017-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20120052 2575 EMERALD LN 131 06/06/2012 PR 018-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 06/06/2012 PWK 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/29/2012 PR 15:30 003-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 20120072 205 BEAVER ST 06/20/2012 Commentsl: BUILD OUT I PR 004-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 06/13/2012 PR 005-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/13/2012 PR 006-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 06/13/2012 PR 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120074 668 WHITE OAK WAY 34 06/13/2012 Commentsl: SHED PR 005-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20120077 2557 EMERALD LN 128 06/01/2012 PR 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 06/01/2012 i PR 007-STP STOOP 06/01/2012 PR 008-SUM SUMP 06/11/2012 PR PM 009-SUM SUMP 06/20/2012 PR 009-SUM SUMP 20120083 1554 CRIMSON LN 301 06/11/2012 PR 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 06/08/2012 PR 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/08/2012 PR 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 06/08/2012 DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PR 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/08/2012 PR 014-INS INSULATION 06/13/2012 PR 10:00 015-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 06/26/2012 PR 016-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 06/26/2012 PR PM 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120099 802 ADRIAN ST 06/12/2012 Commentsl: BATHROOM RENOVATION PR PM 005-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/12/2012 PR 011-INS INSULATION 20120100 4612 PLYMOUTH AVE 995 06/01/2012 PR AM 012-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 06/13/2012 PR AM 013-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 06/13/2012 PR 017-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20120101 2383 LAVENDER WAY 90 06/07/2012 PR 018-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 06/07/2012 PWK 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 06/29/2012 PR 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20120102 4638 PLYMOUTH DR 990 06/01/2012 PR 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/01/2012 PR 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 06/01/2012 PR 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/01/2012 PR 011-INS INSULATION 06/06/2012 PR 012-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 06/14/2012 PR 013-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 06/14/2012 PR AM 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20120113 1145 GRACE DR 67 06/13/2012 PR AM 007-STP STOOP 06/13/2012 PR 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 06/21/2012 PR 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/21/2012 PR 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 06/21/2012 I DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PR 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/21/2012 PR AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20120123 407 E KENDALL DR 06/04/2012 PR AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 06/07/2012 PR 010-SUM SUMP 20120125 1562 CRIMSON LN 201 06/11/2012 PR 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/18/2012 PR 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/18/2012 PR 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 06/18/2012 PR 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/18/2012 PR 015-INS INSULATION 06/21/2012 PR 10:00 016-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 06/26/2012 PR 017-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 06/26/2012 PR 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20120126 1092 CARLY DR 30 06/01/2012 PR 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 06/11/2012 PR 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 06/29/2012 PR 009-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/29/2012 PR 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 06/29/2012 PR 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/29/2012 PR 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120133 2032 PRAIRIE ROSE LN 108 06/21/2012 Commentsl: DECK PR 003-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20120142 407 COLTON ST 06/01/2012 PR 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20120149 2451 EMERALD LN 116 06/01/2012 PR 007-STP STOOP 06/01/2012 PR 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 06/01/2012 PR 009-SUM SUMP 06/11/2012 PR 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/27/2012 DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PR 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 06/27/2012 PR 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/27/2012 PR 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 06/27/2012 PR 014-INS INSULATION 06/29/2012 PR 009-SUM SUMP 20120150 1570 CRIMSON LN 101 06/11/2012 PR 09:00 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20120151 1638 SIENNA DR 56 06/04/2012 PR 007-STP STOOP 06/04/2012 PR 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 06/04/2012 PR 009-SUM SUMP 06/11/2012 PR PM 010-SUM SUMP 06/20/2012 PR 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/29/2012 PR 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 06/29/2012 PR 013-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/29/2012 PR 014-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 06/29/2012 PR AM 001-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 20120155 1282 MARKETPLACE DR 06/20/2012 Commentsl: STACK TEST PR _ AM 002-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/26/2012 Commentsl: 3RD FLOOR STACK TEST PR 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20120156 1322 MARKETPLACE DR 6 06/11/2012 PR 003-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/11/2012 PR 004-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 06/11/2012 PR 005-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/11/2012 PWK 10:30 013-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20120157 2386 AUTUMN CREEK BLVD 261 06/05/2012 PR 014-SUM SUMP 06/11/2012 PR 015-ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 06/14/2012 DATE: 07/03/2012 UNI.TED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PR 016-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 06/21/2012 PR 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 06/25/2012 PR 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 06/25/2012 PR 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120160 1587 SIENNA 84 06/01/2012 Commentsl: INSPECTOR WENT 3X HOLES NOT READY REINSP Comments2: ECTION FEE REQUIRED. PR 002-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 06/06/2012 PR PM 004-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20120165 1273 TAUS CIR 117 06/20/2012 PR AM 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/03/2012 PR AM 006-STP STOOP 07/03/2012 PR 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 06/29/2012 PR 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120167 2006 WILD INDIGO LN 86 06/15/2012 Commentsl: PAVER/PATIO PR 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120172 414 W KENDALL DR 4 06/05/2012 Commentsl: DECK PR AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120174 883 CANYON TRAIL 120 06/08/2012 Commentsl: WINDOW REPLACEMENT PR 002-BKF BACKFILL 20120178 2551 EMERALD LN 127 06/01/2012 PR 14:30 003-ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 06/04/2012 PR 14:30 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 06/04/2012 PR 005-SUM SUMP 06/11/2012 PR 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 06/08/2012 PR 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 06/11/2012 PR 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 06/11/2012 PR 009-STP STOOP 06/11/2012 PR 13:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120182 2762 HOBBS CT 149 06/01/2012 PR 15:00 001-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20120183 827 GREENFIELD TURN 51 06/07/2012 DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PR 002-ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 06/06/2012 PR AM 003-FTG FOOTING 06/13/2012 PR 004-BKF BACKFILL 06/26/2012 PR 002-BKF BACKFILL 20120184 2441 EMERALD LN 114 06/01/2012 PR 14:30 003-ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 06/04/2012 PR 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 06/04/2012 PR 005-SUM SUMP 06/11/2012 PR 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 06/08/2012 PR 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 06/11/2012 PR 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 06/11/2012 PR 009-STP STOOP 06/11/2012 PR 002-BKF BACKFILL 20120185 1494 CRIMSON LN 901 06/01/2012 PR 14:30 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 06/04/2012 Commentsl: STORM PR 004-SUM SUMP 06/11/2012 PR 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 06/08/2012 PR 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 06/11/2012 PR 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 06/11/2012 PR 008-STP STOOP 06/11/2012 PR PM 009-SUM SUMP 06/20/2012 PR 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120186 1224 WILLOW WAY 194 06/12/2012 Commentsl: AGP PR 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120187 2801 SILVER SPRINGS CT 241 06/14/2012 Commentsl: PAVER/PATIO PR AM 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20120189 512 FAIRHAVEN DR 52 06/04/2012 Commentsl: PERGOLA DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PR AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20120190 1847 COLUMBINE DR 71 06/05/2012 PR _ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 06/26/2012 Commentsl: DECK PR 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120194 722 GREENFIELD TURN 101 06/18/2012 PR 001-FTG FOOTING 20120198 352 PENSACOLA ST 1208 06/05/2012 PR 08:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120201 2309 EMERALD LN 101 06/01/2012 PR 001-FTG FOOTING 20120203 2352 EMERALD LN 33 06/11/2012 PR 002-BKF BACKFILL 06/19/2012 PR 15:30 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 06/20/2012 PR 004-SUM SUMP 06/20/2012 PR 08:00 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 06/29/2012 PR 08:00 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 06/29/2012 PR 08:00 007-STP STOOP 06/29/2012 PR 008-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/27/2012 PR 001-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20120204 1981 MEADOWLARK LN 117 06/15/2012 PR AM 001-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20120205 1192 KATE DR 236 06/07/2012 PR 12:00 002-FTG FOOTING 06/12/2012 PR 003-BKF BACKFILL 06/20/2012 PR 08:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120207 2306 LAVENDER WAY 99 06/01/2012 PR 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120208 2925 ALDEN AVE 300 06/14/2012 PR 13:00 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120209 2358 SUMAC DR 10 06/21/2012 Commentsl: PAVER PATIO PR 001-FTG FOOTING 20120212 1430 ASPEN LN 120 06/27/2012 PR 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20120214 2772 HOBBS CT 148 06/05/2012 PR 11:45 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120216 1064 HAMPTON LN 257-2 06/22/2012 DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PR 001-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20120218 1377 SPRING ST 254 06/18/2012 PR 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120219 3395 RYAN DR 11 06/14/2012 PR 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120220 1432 ASPEN LN 121 06/14/2012 Commentsl: SHED PR 001-RPZ PLUMBING - RPZ VALVE 20120222 949 HAYDEN DR 122 06/28/2012 PR 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120227 325 W KENDALL DR 1 06/14/2012 PR AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20120228 118 COLONIAL PKWY 06/28/2012 PR 11:00 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120230 1419 CANNONBALL TRAIL 06/13/2012 Commentsl: FINAL FOR OCCUPANCY PR 09:30 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20120234 2661 N BRIDGE ST 06/20/2012 PR 09:30 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 06/20/2012 PR 003-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 06/25/2012 PR 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20120240 1762 CALLANDER TRAIL 64 06/29/2012 PR 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20120243 807 W JOHN ST 06/19/2012 PR 001-FTG FOOTING 20120244 1519 CRIMSON LN 1601 06/26/2012 PR 001-FTG FOOTING 20120245 1546 CRIMSON LN 401 06/26/2012 PR 001-FTG FOOTING 20120246 1535 CRIMSON LN 1801 06/26/2012 PR 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120249 4549 GARDINER AVE 1097 06/29/2012 Commentsl: PAVER/PATIO PR 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120253 122 W VETERANS PKWY 06/18/2012 Commentsl: OCCUPANCY PR _ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20120255 1382 CHESTNUT CIRCLE 06/28/2012 Commentsl: ROOF PR 12:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120256 2452 EMERALD LN 19 06/27/2012 PR 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20120257 507 W KENDALL DR STE 4 4 06/21/2012 PR 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20120260 1144 FREEMONT ST 06/26/2012 PR 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20120271 378 BERTRAM DR 1034 06/29/2012 DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PR 001-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 20120281 407 DOVER CT NORTH 25 06/27/2012 DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: ADD ADDITION 1 AGP ABOVE-GROUND POOL 1 BDO COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT 3 BIP BUILD INCENTIVE PROGRAM SFD 81 BSM BASEMENT REMODEL 5 CCO COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT 2 CRM COMMERCIAL REMODEL 11 DCK DECK 7 DRV DRIVEWAY 1 ELE ELECTRICAL UPGRADE 1 FNC FENCE 12 GAR GARAGE 2 MIS MISCELLANEOUS 1 PLG PLUMBING 1 PRG PERGOLA 2 PTO PATIO / PAVERS 7 REM REMODEL 3 REP REPAIR 1 ROF ROOFING 1 RPZ RPZ - BACKFLOW PREVENTION 1 SDW SIDEWALK 1 SFD SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 83 SHD SHED/ACCESSORY BUILDING 2 WIN WINDOW REPLACEMENT 1 INSPECTION SUMMARY: BKF BACKFILL 6 BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 9 EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPECTION 17 EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 7 ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 4 ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WATER 7 FIN FINAL INSPECTION 35 FTG FOOTING 8 GAR GARAGE FLOOR 8 INS INSULATION 6 PH POST HOLES / PILES 1 PHD POST HOLE - DECK 5 PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 12 PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 15 PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 15 PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 6 PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 3 PWK PRIVATE WALKS 6 REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 12 RFR ROUGH FRAMING 14 RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 10 RPZ PLUMBING - RPZ VALVE 1 DATE: 07/03/2012 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13 TIME: 14:44:27 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT ID: PT4A000O.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 06/01/2012 TO 06/30/2012 INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STP STOOP 9 SUM SUMP 15 INSPECTOR SUMMARY: PR PETER RATOS 214 PWK PUBLIC WORKS 17 STATUS SUMMARY: A PR 3 C PR 57 C PWK 12 I PR 151 I PWK 5 T PR 3 REPORT SUMMARY: 231 ,SAD Co. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number i d01% Legal ❑ II#3 Finance ❑ EST. 1836 Engineer ❑ - City Administrator ❑ Tracking Number "- Human Resources ❑ "$ �© Community Development ■❑ EDC 2012-32 Police ALE �► � Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Property Maintenance Inspection Report for June 2012 Meeting and Date: COW—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: None - informational Submitted by: Krysti Barksdale-Noble Community Development Name Department Agenda Item Notes: PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS UNITED CITY OF YORKVLLE Comp# DATE ADDRESS PARCEL WARD COMPLAINT ACTION TAKEN VIOLATION 2012- 6/1/2012 Kennedy&Emerald 4 Construction Noise Spoke to project supervisor will comply No 6-001 6/5/2012 Vacant lot on Allegiance 4 Dumping Nothing visible,continue to monitor No 6-003 6/6/20212 Lumber Yard 02-33-155-006 1 Burning Seasoned hardwood allowable No 6-004 6/15/2012 Car Care 165 Fountain View Dr. 1 Debris Posted and cited 6/15/12 Yes 6/22/2012 Lot 2 Fountain Village 1 Debris Posted 6/22/12(Inspected for weeds 5-21 and cited 5-29) 6/26/2012 344 Tyler Creek Ct 02-31-282-003 2 hole, no fence Site visit,valid permits, no apparent violz No 6-012 Property Maintenance Violations May 2012 JUNE 2012 MOWING VIOLATIONS UNITED CITY OF YORKVLLE Comp# DATE ADDRESS PARCEL WARD COMPLAINT VIOLATION 2012- 1 6/5/2012 Entrance to Sunflower @ Walsh Dr 1 Tall Weeds Posted 06-002 2 6/12/2012 Vacant lots in Bristol Bay 4 Tall Weeds Cutting in progress 06-008 3 6/19/2012 2263 Meadow View Ln 02-20-253-014 3 Tall Weeds No violation 06-009 4 5 6/28/2012 335 E Van Emmon St 02-33-177-016 2 Weeds No violation 06-024 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Mowing Violations June 2012 A. D CO. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number a� �+ Legal ❑ I1 #4 Finance F-1 EST. � =` leas Engineer El~-� Tracking Number y City Administrator ❑ �0 Consultant ❑ PS 2012-18 CLE Chief of Police ■ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Police Reports for June 2012 Meeting and Date: COW—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Molly Schwartzkopf Police Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Yorkville Police Department - Overtime Manhour Utilization Report - June 30, 2012 This report is based on hours paid out per payroll period (bi-weekly). Does not include overtime taken as compensatory time. Date Court Training Relief Details I Admin 'Emerg I Inves# I OIC Pay Comm. Full Time Part Time 05/05/12 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50' 4.00 0.00 9.50 34.00 05/19/12 6.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 12.25 0.00 8.00 56.25 61.25 06/02/12 10.75 5.25 6.00 66.50 0.00 0.00 5.00 4.00 0.00 97.50 107.00 06/16/12 6.00 5.25 11.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.50 10.00 0.00 34.75 102.50 06/30/12 4.75 7.50 20.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 12.00 6.00 0.00 53.75 96.00 0.00 i 0.00 I 0.00 L.. ------- 0.00 0.00 _ + I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 j._.. 0.00 .. 0.00 f I 0.00 0.00 ;. I ... _. 0.00 -, 0.00 0.00 -- - - --j- - 0.00 I i 0.00 0.00 {. 0.00 0.00 FY10 11 Court Training Relief Details Admin Emerg Invest OIC Pay Comm. Fell Time Part Time Totals 29.50 28.00 37.00 66.50 0.00 25.50 33.25 24.00 8.00 251.75 400.75 Percents 12% 11% 15% 26% 0% 10% 13% 10% 3% 100% N/A Average 5.90 5.60 7.40 13.30 0.00 5.10 6.65 4.80 1.60 9.68 80.15 "Note: Part-Time Hours include Officers, Cadet, Evidence Custodian Prepared by Molly Schwartzkopf 7/2/2012 Pagel Yorkville Police Department Manhour Report This report is based on actual hours per month, not payroll periods. January February March April Through June 30, 2012 Regular OT Regular OT Regular OT Regular OT Administration Chief 173.33 n/a 173.33 n/a 173.33 n/a 173.33 n/a Deputy Chief(2) 346.66 n/a 346.66' n/a 346.66 n/a 346.66 n/a Records Staff Executive Assistant 173.33 n/a 173.33 n/a 173.33 n/a 173.33 n/a Records Clerk (2 F1 346.66 n/a 346.66 n/a 346.66 n/a 346.66 n/a Records Clerk (1 PI 22.75 n/a 13.00 n/a 14.50 n/a 20.25 n/a Investigations Detectives (2) 346.66 7.00 346.66 2.00 346.66 4.50 346.66 15.00 Drug Officer(1) 173.33 20.50 173.33' 13.00 173.33' 10.00 173.33 11.50 Community Policing School Resource (2 173.33 0.00 173.33' 5.00 346.66 n/a 346.66 4.00 Patrol Sergeants (4) 693.32 0.00 693.32 0.00 693.32 3.00 693.32 6.00 Officers (13) 2426.62 33.50 2426.62 44.50 2253.29 61.50 2253.29 73.00 Officers (PT - 5) 74.00 n/a 56.00 n/a 64.00 n/a 68.00 n/a Part-Time/Civilian BFPC Secretary 11.75 n/a 26.75 n/a 23.25 n/a 18.75 n/a Cadet(1 - Jan/Mar) 71.25 n/a n/a' n/a 35.00 n/a n/a n/a Crossing Guards (3) 57.00 n/a 60.00 n/a 51.00 n/a 60.00 n/a Evidence Custodian 26.50 n/a ,44.00 n/a 46.00 n/a 43.00 n/a Total Hours 5116.49 61.00 5052.99 64.50 5086.99 79.00 5063.24 109.50 **This column is the current month's manpower;it does not reflect prior month's manpower shifts. Yorkville Police Department Manhour Report This report is based on actual hours per month, not payroll periods. May June July August Through June 30,2012 Regular . OT Regular OT Regular OT Regular OT Administration Chief 173.33 n/a 173.33 n/a Deputy Chief(2) 346.66 n/a 346.66 n/a Records Staff Executive Assistant 173.33 n/a 173.33' n/a Records Clerk(2 F1 346.66 n/a 346.66 n/a Records Clerk(1 PI 18.00 n/a 17.50 n/a Investigations Detectives (2) 346.66 2.25 346.66 n/a Drug Officer(1) 173.33 39.00 173.33 n/a Community Policing School Resource(2 346.66 8.00 346.66 3.00 Patrol Sergeants (4) 693.32 30.00 693.32 2.00 Officers (13) 2253.29 78.00 2253.29 94.75 Officers (PT - 5) 122.75 n/a 161.00 n/a Part-Time/Civilian BFPC Secretary 2.00 n/a 10.00 n/a Cadet (1 - Jan/Mar) n/a n/a n/a n/a Crossing Guards (3) 36.00 n/a n/a n/a Evidence Custodian 59.50 n/al 47.50 n/a Q Total Hours 5091.49 157.251 5089.24 99.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 **This column is the current month's manpower;it does not reflect prior month's manpower shifts. Yorkville Police Department Incident Report Summary June 6, 2012 through June 30, 2012 `L Report #12-0774 to #12-0914 ILl E Report# Date Offense Location 2012-00000774 06/06/2012 9083-ASSIST AMBULANCE 2100 BLK. MUIRFIELD COURT 2012-00000775 06/06/2012 9020-SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES 200 BLK. BARRETT DRIVE 2012-00000776 06/06/2012 8041-ACCIDENT- HIT AND RUN 1200 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET 2012-00000777 06/06/2012 2890-ALL OTHER DISORDERLY COND 300 BLK. MORGAN STREET 2012-00000778 06/06/2012 9562-ACCIDENT- INJURY ROUTE 47/LANDMARK AVENUE 2012-00000779 06/06/2012 0860- RETAIL THEFT 200 BLK. E.VETERANS PARKWAY 2012-00000780 06/07/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 126/ROUTE 47 2012-00000781 06/07/2012 1130- FRAUD 400 BLK. S.BRIDGE STREET 2012-00000782 06/07/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 600 BLK. DENISE COURT 2012-00000783 06/07/2012 9063- LOST/STOLEN DL/PLATES 1000 BLK. HOMESTEAD DRIVE 2012-00000784 06/07/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 34/N.BEECHER ROAD 2012-00000785 06/07/2012 1310-CRIMINAL DAMAGE PROPERTY 1000 BLK. DALTON AVENUE 2012-00000786 06/07/2012 1730-CURFEW 100 BLK. COLONIAL PARKWAY 2012-00000787 06/08/2012 9562-ACCIDENT- INJURY ROUTE 47/ROUTE 34 2012-00000788 06/09/2012 5081- IN-STATE WARRANT ROUTE 34/MARKETPLACE DRIVE 2012-00000789 06/09/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 47/ROUTE 34 2012-00000790 06/09/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 47/APPLETREE COURT 2012-00000791 06/09/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROSENWINKEL STREET/GALENA ROAD 2012-00000792 06/09/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY E.VAN EMMON STREET/MILL STREET 2012-00000793 06/09/2012 9083-ASSIST AMBULANCE DESK REPORT 2012-00000794 06/10/2012 9562-ACCIDENT- INJURY ROUTE 34/ROUTE 47, 2012-00000795 .06/11/2012 9060-SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION DESK REPORT 2012-00000796 06/11/2012 0860- RETAIL THEFT 900 BLK. ERICA LANE 2012-00000797 06/11/2012 1310-CRIMINAL DAMAGE PROPERTY 300 BLK. E.PARK STREET 2012-00000798 06/12/2012 1310-CRIMINAL DAMAGE PROPERTY 1800 BLK. MARKETVIEW DRIVE 2012-00000799 06/12/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 47/GALENA ROAD 2012-00000800 06/12/2012 1310-CRIMINAL DAMAGE PROPERTY 3600 BLK. KENNEDY ROAD 2012-00000801 06/13/2012 4255- UNLAWFUL VISIT INTERFERE 500 BLK. CHESHIRE COURT 2012-00000802 06/13/2012 1137- IDENTITY THEFT 2300 BLK. LAVENDER WAY 2012-00000803 06/13/2012 5081- IN-STATE WARRANT 2200 BLK. BERESFORD DRIVE 2012-00000804 06/14/2012 9562-ACCIDENT- INJURY ROUTE 34/E.000NTRYSIDE PARKWAY 2012-00000805 06/14/2012 1110- DECEPTIVE PRACTICES 300 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET 2012-00000806 06/14/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUET 34/ROUTE 47 2012-00000807 06/14/2012 2480-SUSPENDED/REVOKED DL ROUTE 47/E.FOX ROAD 2012-00000808 06/14/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 47/ROUTE 34 2012-00000809 06/14/2012 9001-ASSIST CITY FIRE DEPT 700 BLK. EDWARD LANE 2012-00000810 06/14/2012 9008-ASSIST BUSINESS AGENCY 1400 BLK. CANNONBALL TRAIL 2012-00000811 06/15/2012 9020-SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES 900 BLK. E.SPRING STREET 2012-00000812 06/15/2012 9562-ACCIDENT- INJURY GALENA ROAD/CAN N 0 N BALL TRAI L 2012-00000813 06/15/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY _ROUTE 47/GALENA ROAD 2012-00000814 06/15/2012 9008-ASSIST BUSINESS AGENCY 1200 BLK. MARKETPLACE DRIVE 2012-00000815 06/15/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 500 BLK.TERI LANE 2012-00000816 06/15/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 200 BLK. E. PARK STREET 1 of 4 r y, Yorkville Police Department Incident Report Summary June 6, 2012 through June 30, 2012 L Report #12-0774 to #12-0914 Report# Date Offense Location 2012-00000817 06/15/2012 9083 -ASSIST AMBULANCE 1500 BLK. ORCHID STREET - - -. ---- ------- - -- 2012-00000818 06/16/2012 1730-CURFEW ROUTE- 47/E.HYDRAULIC AVENUE ----- .. . 2012-00000819 06/16/2012 0486- DOMESTIC BATTERY 1300 BLK. GAME FARM ROAD 2012-00000820 06/16/2012 0560-ASSAULT 100 BLK.WILLOUGHBY COURT 2012-00000821 06/16/2012 0820-THEFT UNDER 4000 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET 2012-00000822 06/16/2012 8041-ACCIDENT- HIT AND RUN 4000 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET 2012-00000823 06/16/2012 0860- RETAILTHEFT 900 BLK. ERICA LANE 2012-00000824 06/16/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY 1100 BLK.W.VETERANS PARKWAY 2012-00000825 06/17/2012 2480-SUSPENDED/REVOKED DL 100 BLK.W.FOX STREET - ---------- 2012-00000826 06/17/2012 2410- DUI ALCOHOL ROUTE 34/W.LYNCLIFF DRIVE - - - _--------- - 2012-00000827 06/17/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 47/CANNONBALL TRAIL 2012-00000828 06/17/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE'126/ROUTE 47 - ------- - - - --------- 2012-00000829 06/17/2012 9564-ACCIDENT PROPERTY 2000 BLK. MUIRFIELD DRIVE 2012-00000830 06/17/2012 9049- ROADWAY OBSTRUCTION ROUTE 47/E.HYDRAULIC AVENUE 2012-00000831 06/18/2012 1710- ENDANGER LIFE OF CHILD 1400 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET ----- ------- 2012-00000832 06/18/2012 9528-ARREST WARRANT DESK REPORT - __--- ---- -- ----- ------------- 2012-00000833 06/18/2012 9061- LOST ARTICLES 2900 BLK. ELLSWORTH DRIVE 2012-00000834 06/18/2012 2170 FOSS DRUG EQUIPMENT E.HYDRAULIC AVENUE/ROUTE 47 2012-00000835 06/18/2012 9005 ASSIST GOVERNMENT AGENCY DESK REPORT 2012-00000836 06/19/2012 9005 -ASSIST GOVERNMENT AGENCY DESK REPORT ----- ---- 2012-00000837 06/19/2012 0860- RETAILTHEFT 900 BLK. ERICA LANE - -- ---- -------- ----- --------- ----- 2012-00000838 06/19/2012 2220- ILLEGAL POSS ALCOHOL 4000 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET ----- --------- -- -- ----—-------------— - - -----------------------— —___. - -- - ------------ 2012-00000839 06/19/2012 0860- RETAIL THEFT 1600 BLK. N.BEECHER ROAD 2012-00000840 06/19/2012 9061- LOST ARTICLES 200 BLK. E.VETERANS PARKWAY 2012-00000841 06/19/2012 5081- IN-STATE WARRANT 2000 BLK. OLD GLORY DRIVE 2012-00000842 06/19/2012 9004-ASSIST OTHER POLICE DEPT 600 BLK. PARKSIDE LANE -2012-00000843 06/19/2012 5081- IN-STATE WARRANT 1600 BLK. N.BEECHER ROAD 2012-00000844 06/19/2012 0860- RETAILTHEFT 1600 BLK. N.BEECHER ROAD 2012-00000845 06/19/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 500 BLK. HEARTLAND DRIVE 2012-00000846 06/20/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 400 BLK.W.CENTER STREET 2012-00000847 06/20/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 400 BLK. W.CENTER STREET 2012-00000848 06/20/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 400 BLK. W.CENTER STREET 2012-00000849 _06/20/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 700 BLK.ARROWHEAD DRIVE 2012-00000850 06/20/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 500 BLK. HEARTLAND DRIVE 2012-00000851 06/20/2012 5000-CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTE 500 BLK.CHESHIRE COURT 2012-00000852 06/20/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 2700 BLK. CRANSTON CIRCLE 2012-00000853 06/20/2012 9060-SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION 300 BLK. MULHERN COURT 2012-00000854 06/20/2012 1811- POSS CANNABIS<30 GRAMS ROUTE 47/ROUTE 126 2012-00000855 06/20/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 800 BLK.TERI LANE 2012-00000856 06/20/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 600 BLK.TERI LANE 2012-00000857 06/20/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY 1800 BLK. MARKETVIEW DRIVE 2012-00000858 06/21/2012 2230- ILLEGAL CONSUMPTION E.SPRING STREET/TERI LANE 2012-00000859 06/21/2012 1310-CRIMINAL DAMAGE PROPERTY 100 BLK. E.HYDRAULIC AVENUE 2 of 4 Y Yorkville Police Department Incident Report Summary June 6, 2012 through June 30, 2012 Report #12-0774 to #12-0914 0 Report# Date Offense Location 2012-00000860 06/21/2012 1310-CRIMINAL DAMAGE PROPERTY 3600 BLK. KENNEDY ROAD 2012-00000861 .06/21/2012 2820-TELEPHONE THREAT 100 BLK. E.ORANGE STREET 2012-00000862 06/21/2012 5081- IN-STATE WARRANT 2800 BLK. CRANSTON CIRCLE 2012-00000863 06/21/2012 4870- DOMESTIC DISPUTE 1000 BLK.AUBURN DRIVE 2012-00000864 06/22/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY 1600 BLK. N.BEECHER ROAD 2012-00000865 06/22/2012 9062- FOUND ARTICLES CANYON TRAIL/WESTERN LANE 2012-00000866 06/22/2012 9008-ASSIST BUSINESS AGENCY 900 BLK. ERICA LANE 2012-00000867 06/22/2012 9562-ACCIDENT- INJURY FOX ROAD/PAVILLION ROAD 2012-00000868 06/22/2012 0460- BATTERY 900 BLK.CANYON TRAIL 2012-00000869 06/22/2012 0486- DOMESTIC BATTERY 400 BLK.SANDERS COURT 2012-00000870 06/23/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 300 BLK. E.FOX STREET 2012-00000871 06/23/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY MCHUGH ROAD/ROUTE 34 2012-00000872 06/23/2012 4387-VIOL ORDER OF PROTECTION 500 BLK. HEUSTIS STREET 2012-00000873 06/23/2012 9062- FOUND ARTICLES ROUTE 47/E.HYDRAULIC AVENUE 2012-00000874 06/24/2012 9569-ACCIDENT- PRIVATE PROP 100 BLK.STAGECOACH TRAIL 2012-00000875 06/24/2012 2480-SUSPENDED/REVOKED DL ROUTE 71/HIGHPOINT ROAD 2012-00000876 06/25/2012 0860- RETAIL THEFT 1600 BLK. N.BEECHER ROAD 2012-00000877 06/25/2012 0860- RETAIL THEFT 1600 BLK. N.BEECHER ROAD 2012-00000878 06/25/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 34/ROUTE 47 2012-00000879 06/25/2012 2480-SUSPENDED/REVOKED DL GALENA ROAD/ROSENWINKEL STREET 2012-00000880 06/26/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 200 BLK. E.MAIN STREET 2012-00000881 06/26/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY 1600 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET 2012-00000882 06/25/2012 9005-ASSIST GOVERNMENT AGENCY DESK REPORT 2012-00000883 06/26/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 400 BLK. MORGAN STREET 2012-00000884 06/26/2012 9008-ASSIST BUSINESS AGENCY 1100 BLK.W.VETERANS PARKWAY 2012-00000885 06/26/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 34/SYCAMORE ROAD 2012-00000886 06/26/2012 0760-,BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 900 BLK. MORGAN STREET 2012-00000887 06/26/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 2000 BLK. HEARTHSTONE AVENUE 2012-00000888 06/26/2012 0410-AGGRAVATED BATTERY 100 BLK.WILLOUGHBY COURT 2012-00000889 06/27/2012 1310-CRIMINAL DAMAGE PROPERTY 200 BLK. MILL STREET 2012-00000890 06/26/2012 9005-ASSIST GOVERNMENT AGENCY DESK REPORT 2012-00000891 06/26/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 700 BLK.STATE STREET 2012-00000892 06/27/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY 4000 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET 2012-00000893 06/27/2012 9562-ACCIDENT- INJURY GALENA ROAD/ROSENWINKEL STREET 2012-00000894 06/28/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY 300 BLK. E.VETERANS PARKWAY 2012-00000895 06/28/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY 1500 BLK.SYCAMORE ROAD 2012-00000896 06/28/2012 2480-SUSPENDED/REVOKED DL ROUTE 126/DEER STREET 2012-00000897 06/28/2012 9071-CITIZEN ASSIST 100 BLK.WILLOUGHBY COURT 2012-00000898 06/28/2012 1310-CRIMINAL DAMAGE PROPERTY 300 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET 2012-00000899 06/28/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY E.000NTRYSIDE PARKWAY/ROUTE4 7 2012-00000900 06/28/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY GALENA ROAD/KENNEDY ROAD 2012-00000901 06/28/2012 9020-SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES 4000 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET 2012-00000902 06/29/2012 9061- LOST ARTICLES 200 BLK. E.VETERANS PARKWAY 3of4 Yorkville Police Department Incident Report Summary - &K . June 6, 2012 through June 30, 2012 Report #12-0774 to #12-0914 t� Report# Date Offense Location 2012-00000903 06/29/2012 0460- BATTERY 100 BLK.WILLOUGHBY COURT 2012-00000904 06/29/2012 .1310-CRIMINAL DAMAGE PROPERTY 100 BLK.WILLOUGHBY COURT 2012-00000905 06/29/2012 4387-VIOL ORDER OF PROTECTION 1400 BLK. CHESTNUT LANE 2012-00000906 06/29/2012 1310-CRIMINAL DAMAGE PROPERTY 400 BLK. NORWAY CIRCLE 2012-00000907 06/29/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 126/ROUTE 47 2012-00000908 06/29/2012 5081- IN-STATE WARRANT 1200 BLK. N.BRIDGE STREET 2012-00000909 06/29/2012 0760- BURGLARY FROM VEHICLE 1100 BLK.SUNSET AVENUE 2012-00000910 06/29/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 47/KENNEDY ROAD 2012-00000911 06/30/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY ROUTE 47/E.VAN EMMO_N STREET 2012-00000912 06/30/2012 9564-ACCIDENT- PROPERTY 1500 BLK.WALSH DRIVE 2012-00000913 06/30/2012 9915 -ASSISTANCE CIVIL CATEGORY 2400 BLK.SUMAC DRIVE 2012-00000914 06/30/2012 9004-ASSIST OTHER POLICE DEPT DESK REPORT 4 of 4 `,SAD C►p Reviewed By: �- Legal Agenda Item Number Finance ❑ II#5 EST. 1838 Engineer ❑ City Administrator E Human Resources El Tracking Number , © Community Developpolint ❑El PW 2012-44 ALE Public Works E Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Windett Ridge Mowing Update Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: N/A Council Action Requested: Informational Item Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: `,SAD C►p 011% Memorandum To: City Council EST 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: .y� p Date: July 4, 2012 �.MQW* Subject: Windett Ridge mowing LE Summary An informational update on the status of Windett Ridge mowing violations. Background This agenda item was requested by Alderman Gilson. Since 2011, the City has issued three rounds of citations for mowing violations against every vacant lot in the Windett Ridge subdivision. The City has begun the administrative review process in the circuit court system to get the fines (in excess o $100,000) assessed by our administrative adjudication system transferred to liens against the property'. We expect judgment from the courts in the next 30 days. If we are successful,we will move to lien the property soon thereafter. Most of the vacant lots in the subdivision have not been mowed since 2010. The reason the City has not mowed the property and then liened2 for mowing costs is that the property is not graded finely enough to be mowed by City equipment without severe damage to the equipment. Although, recently the City did reinspect the topography of 11 lots at the west end of the subdivision at the request of a subdivision resident and determined the lots were in good enough condition to mow with City equipment. Subsequently, we mowed those lots and we are proceeding to lien them. The City has not opted to hire a company to mow the property because that would likely result in the City paying the contractor and then not receiving reimbursement. Because of the size of the property and the topography, a single round of mowing could be greater than $15,000. The most recent round of citations (May 2011) resulted in an open-ended citation and fine from the City's adjudicator. Staff has been directed to report back to the adjudicators on a weekly basis, and they intend to levy the final fine against the property when the property finally gets mowed. 'As a reminder,the requirement for us to go through the circuit court process to get these fines turned into liens is due to us being a non-home rule entity. If we were a home rule entity,we could immediately turn the fines from our own adjudication process into liens. 2 Of note,if a non-home rule municipality actually mows a property,we can lien the property for the cost of mowing without circuit court approval. `,SAD C►p Reviewed By: �- Legal ❑ Agenda Item Number Finance ❑ II#6 EST. 1838 Engineer ❑ City Administrator E Human Resources El Tracking Number , © Community Developpolint ❑El PW 2012-45 ALE Public Works E Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Storm Cleanup Update Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: N/A Council Action Requested: Informational Item Submitted by: Alderman Gilson Name Department Agenda Item Notes: D Cll o Memorandum I, n To: Mayor and City Council EST. 1Z _ leas From: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works OL CC: Bart Olson,Administrator � =p Date: July 3, 2012 �aA col�,�y < , Subject: Storm Clean Up Update L E lit Friday June 29th—we had a small crew come in to push brush off the road and place barricades where power lines went down. Saturday June 30th—we had a small crew in to work behind Com Ed to push trees off of the road once they moved the power lines. Also pushed more brush off the road in areas that were missed Friday night. Monday July 2nd—we had 3 full brush crews working to remove brush starting with the parade route and Town Square Park in preparation for the 4th of July festivities. We were able to clear the parade route and town square and then move over to the east side of Rt. 47 and start removing brush along Main, Center, Spring and Somonauk streets where people park for the parade. Tuesday July 3rd—we are going back over the parade route where residents placed more brush last night. One crew is working on the east side of 47 north of the river, and the others are starting on the south side. We are also sweeping, cold patching and hanging flags on the parade route. We also just found out that there is a water main break at the intersection of Blaine and Adrian Street, we are working on locating the exact spot of the break. If we find the location soon, we will have to break a crew from brush to repair it. Our plan moving forward is to continue on the south side in the older parts of town that were hit particularly hard. Once that is complete,we will continue on like a normal brush pick up. Please be aware that this process may take weeks to complete. We know that the residents don't have all the brush out at this point, so we will be going back for another round of pick ups after we have completed the whole town one time. Since I will not be there on Tuesday, I would like to take this time to give thanks publicly to all those involved with the storm clean up. Dealing with this unexpected situation has been trying to say the least,but I would like you all to know that everyone I have worked with during this storm has been incredible. I saw neighbors helping neighbors,people coming in from other towns to help loved ones, Com Ed had 13 crews here at one time restoring power, YPD was very helpful letting us know where power was down and keeping me up to speed on other things happening as the situation unfolded. I would especially like to give a special thanks to all the people that work for Public Works and the Parks department. They responded quickly, efficiently and above all professionally. Sometimes our start doesn't shine as bright as some of the other first responders because we don't have a badge or fight fires, but we are always there making sure that the other first responders can get where they need to go and we are always there for the residents on a daily basis and in times of need. ,SAD Co. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number i d40 Legal ❑ II#7 Finance EST. 1836 Engineer ❑ - City Administrator ❑ Tracking Number "- Human Resources ❑ "$ �© Community Development ❑❑ ADM 2012-30 Police ALE �► � Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Verizon Cell Phone Proposal Meeting and Date: COW—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Rob Fredrickson Finance Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council EST. -,l 1836 From: Rob Fredrickson, Finance Director .4 y Date: July 3, 2012 p� az 2p� Subject: Cell Phone Proposals Kentlal COUnTy ALE Please see attached for an analysis comparing Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular, AT&T and T-Mobile based on the City's current cell phone configuration(39 cell phones & 7 smart phones) and a second analysis comparing the five carriers if the City were to only use smart phones. It's management's intention over the next several years to migrate towards increased smart phone usage across all City departments. The use of smart phones will yield greater efficiencies and enhance productivity by giving employees immediate access to e-mail and the internet. Though Verizon, Sprint and US Cellular are relatively priced the same based on the City's existing set-up of 39 cell and 7 smart phones, Verizon is clearly the low cost provider based on the second attachment showing all smart phones. Therefore,based on the information provided, it is the recommendation of staff that the City switch from Sprint (current carrier)to Verizon. CURRENT PLAN COMPARISON VERIZON SPRINT US CELLULAR AT&T T-MOBILE Total Phones 46 46 46 46 46 Smart Phones 7 7 7 7 7 Pooled Minutes 9,200 9,000 11,500 9,800 unlimited Plan with unlimited data $1,359.47 $1,744.91 $1,555.00 $1,549.64 $2,634.93 Discount 44.10 418.75 207.00 123.97 158.10 Total Cost(excluding taxes&fees) $1,315.37 $1,326.16 $1,348.00 $1,425.67 $2,476.83 Plan Details Data Unlimited(applicable only to smart Unlimited(applicable only to smart daily data$3 per day,per phone line, unlimited up to 3GB(applicable only to unlimited(smart phones) phones) phones) no charge if not used that day smart phones) Text Messages 200 included in price. Smart phones-Unlimited. Non-Smart unlimited incoming,$0.25 outgoing Unlimited unlimited(smart phones) phones-300 texts per message Text Message-Overage Rate $0.15 per message,per address $0.10 per message,per address $0.25 per message,per address n/a n/a Mobile-to-Mobile Unlimited Unlimited(Sprint customers only) Unlimited(USC customers only) unlimited to any carrier unlimited to any carrier Night and Weekend Minutes Unlimited Unlimited after 7 pm. n/a Unlimited after 7 pm. unlimited Per Minute Rate(Over Allowance) $0.35 per minute $0.25 per minute $0.40 per minute $0.40 per minute n/a Wireless Long Distance Rate Included,nationwide Included,nationwide Included,nationwide Included,nationwide n/a Nationwide Roaming Rate .50 includes long distance n/a n/a n/a n/a Miscellaneous n/a n/a n/a Roll Over Minutes,10 free landlines n/a each mobile ALL SMART PHONES COMPARISON VERIZON SPRINT US CELLULAR AT&T T-MOBILE Phones 46 46 46 46 46 Pooled Minutes 9,200 9,000 23,000 9,800 unlimited Plan with unlimited data $2,529.08 $3,304.91 $3,220.00 $2,719.64 $3,219.54 Discount 289.70 711.25 483.00 217.57 $1( 93.17) Total Cost(excluding taxes&fees) $2,239.38 $2,593.66 $2,737.00 $2,502.07 $3,026.37 Plan Details Data Unlimited Unlimited unlimited up to 5 gb unlimited 3 gb unlimited Text Messages 200 included in price. Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited unlimited Text Message-Overage Rate $0.15 per message,per address n/a unlimited incoming,$0.25 outgoing per none n/a message Mobile-to-Mobile Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited(USC customers only) n/a unlimited to any carrier Night and Weekend Minutes Unlimited Unlimited mobile-to-mobile. Free to n/a unlimited after 7 pm unlimited landlines,after 7 pm. Per Minute Rate(Over Allowance) $0.35 per minute $0.25 per minute $0.40 per minute $0.40 per minute n/a Wireless Long Distance Rate Included,Nationwide Included,Nationwide Included,Nationwide Included,Nationwide n/a Nationwide Roaming Rate .50 includes long distance n/a n/a n/a n/a Miscellaneous n/a n/a n/a Roll Over Minutes,10 free landlines n/a each mobile `,SAD C►p Reviewed By: �- Legal ❑ Agenda Item Number Finance ❑ II#8 EST. 1836 Engineer ❑ City Administrator E Human Resources El Tracking Number ,O.M Community Development © El ALE /�'�` ❑ ADM 2012-43 Police Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Grant Spreadsheet Meeting and Date: Committee of the Whole—July 10, 2012 Synopsis: The list of all current and recently completed grant projects. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: N/A Council Action Requested: Informational Item Submitted by: Alderwoman Spears Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Original amount Original Original Current Original total pledged by Current Est. Actual Current Est. Actual Remaining . Date application expiration expiration project theCItyfor Amountpledgedis Project Project Reimbursement Reimbursement EstimatedDa Project 1D# Project Name Project Site Main Project Components date date date budget grant in the form of... Change Orders Budget Budget Amount Requested Reimbursement amount Reimbursement, RTP 08-61 Wheaton Woods Woods north of FE Wheaton Interpretive Trail and Shelter Mar-07 12/31/2010 12/31/2010 $61,000 $31,000 Labor None $52,856 $52,856 $42,284 $42,284 May-11 $0.00 Apr-11 1,$3,009.67 2. $4,298.53 Two firemen themed playgrounds 3. -$38,751.30 OS 07-1571 Prairie Meadows Park Riemenscheider Park and a ballfield Jun-06 12/31/2009 12/31/2011 $892,000 $400,000 Land 4. $2,900 $421,958 $400,000 $400,000 Jun-11 $0.00 Jan-12 1. $18,572.15 A train themed playground,BMX 2. $7,875 OS 06-1471 Whispering Meadows Park Bristol Station Park track,ballfield and trail Jun-05 12/31/2008 12/10/2010 1 $724,000 $362,000 Land 3. $640,000 1 $625,311 $320,000 $312,655 Apr-11 $0.00 May-11 DCEO Recycling grant* Various City Parks Recycling bins for City parks Nov-09 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 $6,685 $788 Cash None $6,684.79 $6,684.79 $5,897.00 $5,897.00 Jun-10 $0.00 Nov-11 TAP Grant Old Jail Purchase of Old Jail Dec-09 12/31/2010 12/31/2010 $160,000 $96,000 Cash None $160,000 $64,000 Mar-11 $0.00 Adjacent to Raintree Village Tennis courts,playground,trail, OS 08-1642 Raintree Village Park B water tower ballfield backstop,shelter Jul-07 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 $550,000 $150,000 Land and Cash None $550,000 $400,000 Apr-13 $231,000, revised to Neighborhoods south and west of $280,000 SRTS Safe Routes to School Downtown(near Smokey's) Sidewalks Dec-08 7/1/2012 8/1/2013 1 4/12 $0 N/A N/A $280,000 1 $280,000 Oct-13 ITEP-#329015 Kennedy Road Trail Route 47 to Mill Road 10'Wide Pedestrian Trail Aug-10 N/A 2/1/2022 $1,744,600 $357,320* Cash N/A $1,744,600 $1,387,280 Apr-16 N/A** Hopkins Park Park at SE corner of Main/47 Trail,overlook,sitting,signage Mar-11 N/A N/A $120,000 $24,000 Labor N/A $120,000 $96,000 Apr-14 $899,000 Fishing pier,trail,reconstruction ($381,000 of stairs on shelter,re-laying acq+ $400,000 OSLAD-Bicentenntial brick,port-o-let shelters,boat $518,000 Land,Labor& (park N!A** Riverfront Park Riverfront Park Redevelopment launch,canoe beach Jul-12 N/A N/A dev) $499,000 Design Fees N/A development) $400,000 Mar-15 Replace trees that have been lost A** Emerald Ash Borer Grant Various City Streets due to the EAB Jan-12 N/A N/A $10,000 $0 Labor N/A $10,000 $10,000 Jun-12 This amount is subject to change due to private fundraising. **Grant has not been awarded yet. Completed project,reimbursement received In progress Not yet awarded Updated 12/15/10 Iks Updated 3/2/11 Iks Updated 4/19/12 Iks