Public Works Packet 2011 09-20-11 o United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
EST. '� 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560
� i Telephone: 630-553-4350
Fax: 630-553-7575
KwMI Cou* �?
SCE
AGENDA
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
6:00 p.m.
City Hall Conference Room
Citizen Comments:
Minutes for Correction/Approval: August 16, 2011
New Business:
1. PW 2011-57 Weed Violations, Minimum Fees and Prepay
2. PW 2011-58 Traffic Control Signs on Van Emmon at Heustis and Mill St.
3. PW 2011-59 Windett Ridge Outfall — Restrictor Plate Size Study
Old Business:
1. PW 2011-53 Yield Signs — Sunnydell Lane and Greenfield Turn
2. PW 2011-56 Pavement Management Study
3. PW 2011-47 Flooding Issues in Sunflower Estates —Update
4. PW 2011-48 Road Maintenance on Tommy Hughes Way and Saravanos Dr. —Update
5. PW 2011-31 Kendall Marketplace Development/Infrastructure —Update
6. PW 2011-52 Windett Ridge Mowing Update
Additional Business:
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
WORKSHEET
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
6:00 PM
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. August 16, 2011
❑ Approved
❑ As presented
❑ With corrections
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW BUSINESS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PW 2011-57 Weed Violations, Minimum Fees and Prepay
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PW 2011-58 Traffic Control Signs on Van Emmon at Heustis and Mill St.
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. PW 2011-59 Windett Ridge Outfall—Restrictor Plate Size Study
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLD BUSINESS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PW 2011-53 Yield Signs— Sunnydell Lane and Greenfield Turn
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PW 2011-56 Pavement Management Study
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. PW 2011-47 Flooding Issues in Sunflower Estates—Update
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. PW 2011-48 Road Maintenance on Tommy Hughes Way and Saravanos Dr. — Update
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. PW 2011-31 Kendall Marketplace Development/Infrastructure—Update
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. PW 2011-52 Windett Ridge Mowing Update
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
2 i o
J a T Legal ❑ Minutes
Finance ❑
EST. 1 � 1836
Engineer ❑ Tracking Number
y City Administrator ❑
°^Y `O Public Works ❑
dal Cou^ty El`E
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Minutes of the Public Works Committee—August 16, 2011
Meeting and Date: Public Works— 9/20/11
Synopsis:
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required: Majority
Council Action Requested: Committee Approval
Submitted by: Minute Taker
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
City Hall, Conference Room
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 — 6:00 P.M.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alderman George Gilson
'
Alderman Diane Teeling ����¢
Alderman Jackie Milschewski
Alderman Larry Kot ..
AA
OTHERS CITY OFFICIALS PRESE ..
Mayor George Golmski I �9,
Bart Olson—City Administrator ''
Eric Dhuse—Public Works Director
Jeff Freeman—EEI
Brad Sanderson- EEI
Members of the Public Present:
Clark Kromenaker—Resident Sunflower Estates
Rhonda McKeever—Resident Sunflower Estates
Kathy Grubar—Resident Sunflower Estates
Stephen Shula—Resident Sunflower Estates
Connie Kollmeyer—Resident Sunflower Estates
Mark Kirk—Resident Country Hills
Jerry West—Resident Country Hills
Bob Creadeur—Resident Country Hills
Elizabeth Creadeur— Resident Country Hills
Citizen Comments: There were no citizen comments at this time.
This meeting was called to order at 6:00pm. The minutes for the July 19, 2011, meetings
were unanimously approved as corrected.
New Business:
At this time, the Committee altered the agenda by moving up new business #2.
1
2. PW 2011 — 54 Country Hills Drive and Greenfield Turn
Staff from EEI investigated the possible installation of yield signs at the
intersection of Country Club Hills and Greenfield. It was determined that
there is no signage control at the crossing, the intersection at Country Club
Hill and Greenfield does not appear to have any sight distance constraints
and appears to be "open", there is a painted crosswalk across Country Hills
Drive, and the governing entity on traffic control signage, the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides guidelines regarding
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic volumes including number and
angle, speeds, sight distances and reported crash experiences.
Staff quoted from the MUTCD which states "...the use of YIELD or STOP
signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local
roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one
or more of the following conditions exist:
A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the
intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day; B.
The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to
allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-
way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or C. Crash records
indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-
of-way at the intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been
reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have
been reported within a 2-year period."
As there are no sight distance constraints and there does not appear to be an
accident history, this intersection does not appear to be a good candidate for
yield signs. Staff has provided an illustration, noting the location of the
intersection and the appropriate sections from the MUTCD.
The Committee agreed with staffs' recommendation and determined that no
further action was required.
3. PW 2011 — 55 Windett Ridge Pedestrian Crossing Signs
Staff has investigated the possible installation of pedestrian crossing signs
and crosswalk on Windett Ridge Road approximately 263 feet east of
Claremont Court. It was determined that there is no signage control or
pavement marking control at the crossing, and the governing entity on
traffic control signage is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) provides guidelines regarding vehicular traffic warning signs.
2
Specifically, Section 2C.49 of the MUTCD would appear to apply to this
case. Although there does not appear to be any sign distance restrictions,
pedestrians or bicyclists could be unexpectedly entering the roadway.
Therefore, it would be not be inappropriate for the City to install signage on
both approaches to the crossing on Windett Ridge Road in accordance with
the MUTCD. A painted crosswalk does not appear to be required unless
the City would like to legally establish the crosswalk. Staff has provided an
illustration noting the location of the crossing and the complete section
from the MUTCD on warning and pedestrian crossing installation.
Administrator Olson has asked staff to perform a comprehensive review to
determine if other similar situations exist within the City. If so, those same
situations can be dealt with in a similar fashion. The Committee felt that
sign option WI 1-15 would be most appropriate for this area. Staff will
move forward with this proposed signage.
At this time, the Committee returned to the regular order of the agenda.
1. PW 2011 — 53 Sunnydell Lane and Greenfield Turn
Staff has investigated the possible installation of yield signs at the
intersection of Sunnydell and Greenfield. It was determined that there is no
signage control at the crossing, the intersection at Sunnydell and Greenfield
does not appear to have any sight distance constraints and appears to be
"open", and the governing entity on traffic control signage, the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)provides guidelines regarding
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic volumes including number and
angle, speeds, sight distances and reported crash experiences.
As there are no sight distance constraints and there does not appear to be an
accident history, this intersection does not appear to be a good candidate for
yield signs. In addition, yield signs are typically not used to aid pedestrian
crossings. A more appropriate approach to this intersection may be the use
of crosswalks. However, in this case, the sidewalks have not been installed
at all of the intersection leg's, therefore, installation of the crosswalks are
not appropriate at this time. Staff has provided an illustration, noting the
location of the intersection and the appropriate sections from the MUTCD.
At this time, Chair Gilson asked if anyone present wanted to speak on this
issue. Residents expressed their concerns that the recommendation did not
account for the mitigating circumstances of adolescent bicycle traffic. The
location of a nearby park at the end of the cul-de-sac created a good number
of children bicycling in the area. Additionally, property at the intersection
3
contributed to sight issues due to uneven topography as well as an empty
overgrown lot. Residents also noted that this area had become a cut
through for residents of Raintree and many times the speed limit was not
honored. It was the hope of the residents that a four-way stop would be
installed, as yield signs would probably be ignored.
The Committee discussed this request in light of other similar situations in
the City from the past. It was noted by one of the residents that the staff
recommendation was based on an existing standard but he felt the standard
provided only for minimum requirements. Administrator Olson noted that
the standards referred to by EEI were national standards that would hold up
in a court of law.
After additional discussion regarding engineering standards, the Committee
asked EEI to perform additional on-site evaluations, particularly during
times when children would most likely be present (i.e. before and after
school).
4. PW 2011 — 56 Pavement Management Study Presentation
Brad Sanderson of EEI, presented a Pavement Management Program
Overview. A Pavement Management Program is a decision making
process or system that helps municipalities make cost-effective decisions
concerning the maintenance and rehabilitation of their jurisdiction's
pavements for which they are responsible in a systematic way. The
Pavement Management Program would include gathering roadway data and
inspection of roadways; the development of a database to record current
and past conditions; a budget tool to develop budget scenarios for future
expenditures; enable the City to prioritize roadway projects, and finally,
provide a method to convey plans to staff and the community. Mr.
Sanderson concluded his presentation by summarizing that this program
would 1) improve the efficiency of decision-making involving pavement
management activities; 2) develop multi-year program that can be easily
justified and communicated; 3) predict future conditions of pavement for
different levels of funding and show the effects of under-funded road
programs; 4) monitor progress; and finally, support requests to state
legislatures for additional funding for pavement maintenance and
rehabilitation activities.
Discussion followed the presentation regarding the amount of time for a
project like this to be completed as well as the cost for not only the
software but also the analysis and date entry. Mr. Sanderson stated that
they would provide a proposal that would address these issues. Alderman
4
Gilson noted that he would like to see any road projects coordinated with
sewer projects, utilizing data from a previous study. Administrator Olson
stated that a proposal would be provided to the Committee at their next
meeting.
Old Business
1. PW 2011 — 47 Discussion and Update on the Flooding Issues in
Sunflower Estates
Jeff Freeman of EEI, reviewed the information provided to the committee
at last months meeting. The proposed solution to the flooding and drainage
issues would be a large diameter storm sewer to convey flow to south
detention pond. The estimated construction cost would be $107,000.
Chair Gilson asked if anyone present wanted to speak on this issue.
Residents commented on the fact that the current system was designed for a
10 year rain event; however, the flooding was happening more frequently.
Additionally, the severity of the flooding prevents residents from being able
to drive their vehicles out of the neighborhood. Further discussion ensued
around the proposed location of the new drainage pipe and compliance with
Illinois Drainage Law. Further more, the Committee discussed the cost of
the proposed project and the lack of available funding. Director Dhuse
stated that it may be possible for some of the work to be completed by the
Public Works department and some materials could be changed which
would decrease the cost. The Committee requested a revision of the
proposal base on Director's Dhuse suggestions be brought to the next
committee meeting.
2. PW 2011 — 48 Discussion and Update on Road Maintenance on
Tommy Hughes Way and Saravanos Drive
Director Dhuse informed the Committee that the pot holes had been filled
and a paver was on-site to complete the road. It was noted that the property
owner had provided an aerial photo depicting the exact area that would be
paved. Administrator Olson stated that the owners of Tommy Hughes Way
and the proprietor, with whom there is supposed to be a maintenance
agreement, are still discussing responsibility for the road maintenance.
Chair Gilson requested that staff find out who was going to handle the road
and when it would be done.
5
3. PW 2011 — 52 Windett Ridge Mowing Update
Administrator Olson told the Committee that 170 tickets had been issued
and the matter would be before the Adjudicator next Wednesday. If the
property owners did not show, liens would be issued. Chair Gilson
informed the Committee that he had been contacted to negotiate with the
property owner and he declined to participate.
4. PW 2010—31 Kendall Marketplace Development/Infrastructure
Update
Staff has developed a preliminary plan for stabilizing the site and seeks
concurrence from the City prior to proceeding with completing the work. The
proposed scope of work generally consists of curb and gutter installation, HMA
removal, HMA installation at entrances, aggregate placement, and minor grading
and seeding. Currently, it is estimated that the cost of the proposed work to be
between$115,000— 125,000. It is the understanding of staff that there is
approximately$270,000 available for the City to perform this work. If an
agreement on the work scope is reached, it is estimated that a contractor could be
in place by mid to late September with the work being completed in October.
The Committ ."namended that staff move forward with a bid package.
5. PW 2011 — 43 Emerald Ash Borer Update
Last month, the Committee asked for quotes for chemicals and injection kits to
combat the Emerald Ash Borer. Staff has obtained one hard quote from the only
vendor that is local, one from an online supplier and one directly from the
company. John Deer Landscaping quoted $2,439.36; Tree Care Supplies.com
quoted $2,826.29; and Arbor Jet catalog quoted $2,672. Not only was John Deer
Landscaping the least expensive, they will also come to Yorkville and teach us
how to properly administer the treatments. For this reason, staff recommends
purchasing the treatment from John Deere Landscaping of Batavia. The
Committee agreed.
Additional Business ""
Alderman Kot stated that he had received complaints regarding sporadic extended power
outages. Administrator Olson noted that he had contacted ComEd and was waiting for a
response back. Alderman Kot asked about the possibility of pedestrian crossing signs at
Route 47 and Main and Route 47 and Hydraulic. Director Dhuse stated he needed to get
in touch with IDOT because they would have to provide permission. Alderman Kot
asked about the synchronization process of lights in Yorkville. Director Dhuse stated that
all lights are timed and cleaned once a month. Alderman Gilson spoke about a complaint
6
he had received from a resident on West Washington. Director Dhuse stated he was
aware of the complaint and that a member of his staff had already met with the resident.
There be no further business, the Committee adjourned at 8:07pm.
Minutes Respectfully Submitted by:
Kristia RM Leyendecker
Minute Taker
n� � �... ���'_- byhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuu
n a hna uuu
an u.
r d ..o-
k fififih; Y 4i � h'n
ei `
r J �' .k
TK
q 00y
Y
ON 16,
h h
t�
;xx
P
� xxJ
}
h�h*
7
0 C/T y Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
J� A 0 Legal ❑ NB #1
1 ,II
11 Finance ❑
EST. �Z 1836 Engineer El-�� Tracking Number
W City Administrator ❑
°°°�°ov$edt `O Consultant ❑
❑
PW 2011-57
Kentlall County `�
<4L.E
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Weed Violations, Minimum Fees and prepay
Meeting and Date: Public works committee Sept. 20, 2011
Synopsis: Update for committee regarding minimum fines for weed violations
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required: none
Council Action Requested: none
Submitted by: Eric Dhuse Public Works
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
cip
Memorandum
EST. ! 1es6 To: Public Works Committee
1 From: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
CC: Bart Olson, Administrator
® Date: September 15, 2011
Subject: Weed Violations, Minimum Fees and Prepay
<LE
Due to the fact that weeds are only one of several items that will be up for consideration of a
minimum fee, it would be better served for all of them to be discussed together by the
Administration Committee as a whole rather than each committee discussing only items that
pertain directly with them. The Administration Committee will be discussing these items at the
October 20th meeting.
c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ NB #2
II
Finance ❑
EST. , � 1836
Engineer ■ Tracking Number
y City Administrator ❑
Consultant ❑ S
K d11 ty PW 2,011-5(�El
LE
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Van Emmon Signage
Meeting and Date: Public Works— September 20, 2011
Synopsis: Discussion
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:
See attached staff memo.
cip
Memorandum
EST. ! 1es6 To: Bart Olson, City Administrator
1 From: Brad Sanderson, EEI
CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
� ® Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir.
Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk
<LE
Date: September 14, 2011
Subject: Van Emmon Signage
As requested,we have investigated the signage located at the intersections of Heustis and Van Emmon
and Mill and Van Emmon. Our general findings were as follows:
The governing entity on traffic control signage is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). The manual states as follows in regards to yield sign installation:
Guidance:
Engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following factors
should be considered:
A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches;
B. Number and angle of approaches;
C. Approach speeds;
D. Sight distance available on each approach; and
E. Reported crash experience.
YIELD or STOP signs should be used at an intersection if one or more of the following conditions
exist:
A. An intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal
right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law;
B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and/or
C. An unsignalized intersection in a signalized area.
In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two
minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where
one or more of the following conditions exist:
A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all
approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day;
B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to
stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is
necessary; and/or
C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-
way at the intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year
period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2 year period.
Our comments in regard to the conditions noted are as follows:
• Van Emmon appears to be the more heavily traveled street.
• Sight distance is poor at both intersections.
• There have been six reported accidents at the Heustis Street intersection in the last five years.
• There have been 11 reported accidents at the Mill Street intersection in the last five years.
• There is inconsistency in the signage at the intersections (thru at Heustis,yield on Mill)
potentially causing driver confusion.
It is also our understanding that the stop signs were installed on Van Emmon at Heustis due to past bus
route concerns.
Based on the observed conditions, we would recommend the following:
• Installation of stop signs on Heustis and Mill Streets at Van Emmon, due to the traffic volume on
Van Emmon and sight distance issues at both intersections.
• Removal of the stop signs on Van Emmon at Heustis to make Van Emmon a complete through
street, only if we are able to remedy the sight distance issue at the northwest corner of the
intersection.
We will be prepared to discuss this issue in further detail at the committee meeting. If you have any
questions or need additional information,please call.
*Auk*,' -� a
t
11
lie
jik
•� ;'t.
t4
n .
7A
V
K ° 5�201'T'Googie `
Image U>S GIogic i'Survey' X204
2�011EuropaTechnologres
Imageiy Date:4+3012008 41°38'27 30':14 88°26'38.79"W elev 6b4 ft , Eye a6I 1503 ft
c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ NB #3
II
Finance ❑
EST. , � 1836
Engineer ■ Tracking Number
y City Administrator ❑
Consultant ❑
K d,11 ty PW 2011-59
El
LE
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Windette Ridge Drainage Update
Meeting and Date: Public Works— September 20, 2011
Synopsis: Discussion of Drainage Investigation
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:
See attached staff memo.
cip
Memorandum
EST. ! 1es6 To: Bart Olson, City Administrator
1 From: Brad Sanderson, EEI
CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
® Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir.
Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk
<LE
Date: September 14, 2011
Subject: Windett Ridge Drainage Update
We reviewed the provided documentation from the City regarding the Windett Ridge drainage
issue. The information consisted primarily of a February 9, 2011 memo from Joe Wywrot and a
follow up email from April 29, 2011. In addition, we visited the site and utilized the Windett
Ridge design documents in our assessment.
The neighboring property owner, Mr. Cooper feels that there is more overland storm water flow
entering his property as result of the Windett Ridge development. However, the drainage study
referenced in the April email indicates the reduction of the overall stormwater rate onto the
Cooper farm as a result of the development. As of the April email, it appears that Mr. Cooper is
still concerned with the overland flow and is requesting that it be confined to storm sewers as
much as possible and that the outfall be connected to the existing drain tile.
Even though the study indicates that the overall peak stormwater flow rate has been reduced.
Development will generally increase the volume of stormwater generated and detention basins
extend the duration of stormwater release off of the property. In situations like Windett Ridge,
where the stormwater basin releases at grade, this can cause increases in nuisance overland flows
that can occur for extended periods of time for all rainfall events, including smaller events that
may have generated no release prior to development.
The February memo recommends adjusting the wetland detention basin outlet structure to more
fully utilize the compensatory depressional storage within that basin. This will reduce the flow
rate leaving the basin in smaller events. However, it will also increase drawdown time from the
basin, creating longer periods of nuisance flow from the basin, so this would not address the
entire problem by itself
A second option, mentioned in the April email is to tie the storm sewer into the existing drain tile
at the property line (tile that previously serviced the Windett Ridge property). In order to do this
the storm sewer would have to be extended from its current end point to the property line and
then a release structure constructed to connect to the drain tile. Connection to the drain tile
would have some benefits towards the reduction of overland flow from the development since it
would convey the nuisance flows from smaller events and extended drawdown times. There
would still be overland flow in larger events which would be more consistent with the
predevelopment condition.
It is important to note that connections to drain tile from development storm water systems can
be problematic and safeguards need to be taken to insure that the tile system is not damaged. A
couple of prudent safeguards in this situation are as follows. First, there needs to be a controlled
release from the basin outfall into the drain tile. This release should be designed not to exceed
the capacity of the drain tile system. This could be accomplished by construction of a control
structure at or upstream of the connection point to the drain tile that would allow flows up to a
certain level into the drain tile and then the remaining flows would go overland as they do
currently. (Note that the drain tile itself should not be used as the restrictor to prevent creating a
pressure flow situation that could damage the tile). This restriction could also be done in
combination with a restriction at the basin as discussed above. Secondly, the downstream drain
tile needs to be in good working order and any necessary repairs made to the drain tile system.
Third, ideally the drain tile would be placed in an easement and arrangements made for
maintenance of the drain tile system for the long term.
If it is determined that additional analysis is necessary, our recommendations for the next steps
are summarized below:
• Further investigate reducing the possibility of a restricted release into the off-site drain
tile system.
•Discuss with adjacent land owner (this was recommended in the April email but we
are unsure if this has taken place).
•Design project components including allowable release rate to drain tile system,
modifications to existing basin outfall, conveyance from existing end of storm sewer
system to drain tile connection point, and a drain tile connection structure.
• Investigate easement and maintenance issues.
• Determine extent of drain tile repair required in the downstream system.
• Work on agreement with developer and landowners to construct project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call.
.%$'D ciry� Memorandum
WME � - �e To: Bart Olson,City Administratar 1
r From: Joe Wywrot,City Engineer L
9 p CC: Krysti Noble, Community De men LDirector
Date: February 9,2011
Subject: Windett Ridge—Cooper Drainage Issue
Mr. Lang Cooper owns 80 acres of land and farms a total of 180 acres on the north side of
Ament Road and east of Route 47. See the attachment. His farm is downstream of the Windett
Ridge subdivision, and the discharge from the Windett Ridge south basin drains southeast
towards an existing tile system that eventually runs across Mr. Cooper's farm. Prior to
development, a large wetland existed where the Windett Ridge south basin is now located.The
wetland was a depressional area that stored about 8 acre-feet of water before it over-topped at
elevation 720 and then flowed overland towards Mr. Cooper's property. Depending on various
factors such as groundwater level,the extent of soil saturation,whether the ground was frozen or
not, and the amount of overland flow,the water would either completely or partially enter and be
conveyed by the tiles on Mr.Cooper's property before outletting to an un-named creek near Mr.
Cooper's east property line. A 10" diameter field tile also extended into the wetland area, and
was observed during the Windett Ridge field tile survey carrying an estimated 0.4 cfs(based on
2"depth of flow and assumed 1%slope)to drain down the wetland over an extended period of
time.The Windett Ridge field tile survey identifies several tile blow-out locations in the wetland
area which indicate sections of failed tile,but we should assume that some surface water found
its way into the tile system.
Mr. Cooper contacted the city recently complaining about the impact of the south basin on his
17"diameter field tile. The tile has experienced multiple blow-outs since Windett Ridge
construction began in 2003. He believes that the Windett Ridge south basin has resulted in
greater overland stormwater release for all storms,whereas previously the wetland would hold
back water and release it only via the field tile system for smaller storms. Mr. Cooper suggested
that a new field tile be extended to the south basin to drain it,creating additional depressional
storage. He also asked for help to replace/repair failed sections of his tile.
The south basin was designed to have a permanent pool with a normal water elevation of 719.
During the design of Windett Ridge,the south basin storage volume was increased by 9 acre-feet
to maintain the depressional storage volume previously provided by the wetland. The design
engineer did not,however,reduce the basin discharge rate so that this increased volume would
be utilized. In order to utilize this additional storage volume the restrictor structure should have
been but was not designed to release at a lower rate than our standard 0.04,0.08,and 0.15
cfs/acre for the 2,25, and 100-yr frequency storms.
Since the south basin was sized to include compensatory storage,the potential exists to modify
the outlet structure to reduce the discharge rate and lessen the flowrate to the downstream tile
system. It could also,however,have a negative impact on the landscaping below elevation 720 in
the basin because those plants would be subject to longer time periods of inundation. I
recommend that three 4" high plates be bolted across the face of the basin's outlet structure as
shown on the attachment.The addition of these plates would reduce the basin discharge from 2.8
CFS to about 0.5 CFS (approximately equal to the pre-development condition)for storms where
the basin water level reaches elevation 720 and is storing 12-acre-feet of water. Having three
separate plates would allow one or more plates to be removed should we notice impacts on the
landscaping in the basin.
Regarding the field tiles on the Cooper farm, I suggest that we investigate the tiles on the 88-acre
land parcel between Windett Ridge and the Cooper farm.We don't have a field file survey for
the Cooper farm but we do have a copy of the field tile survey for the 88-acre parcel that was
performed in 2003. If Windett Ridge is a significant factor in the Cooper tile failures it should
also be evident on the 88-acre parcel. This investigation would need to wait until spring when the
snows melt.
1 recommend that we forward this information to the developer and ask them to investigate this
matter and modify the south basin restrictor,perhaps as described above.Mr.Cooper has
expressed concern about the snowmelt from the recent blizzard,so this matter should be
addressed soon. Once we have a chance to evaluate the field tiles on the 88-acre parcel,we
should also discuss that matter with the developer.
„- �:.. • "fir � °, f � � ���
k��• a "'�"► :t+ � "fir
i
_4i il +
r
Y 3
� a
!, 1
IDOT BRIDGE GRATE
5.0' x 4.O'
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW WUR= 723.00
om I I 0
I 5—YR HW =721,80
11,.78 iL7T 2e RCP OUTLET PIPE 0 1.20X
I '0000 - I INV.- 719.00
2-YR HWL= .,MG
1&511 1
o.
7 _ B VMDE x 5' DEEP CONCRETE BOX
4 4 B' THICK
8.00` / WL= 719.00
%1 ,4. -
BOLT GRATE TO
FACE OF STRUCTURE
INTERIOR WALL
715-67
715.00
5.00'
FRONT PROLE BEY
-QU T H POND OUTLET 5TRUCIrURE
Brad Sanderson
From: Bart Olson [BOlson @yorkville.il.us]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 1:58 PM
To: Brad Sanderson
Subject: FW: Windett Ridge-outfall storm sewer
Attachments: Park-grading plan.pdf; Park-storm sewers.pdf; Park 2009 aerial.pdf
Bart Olson
City Administrator
United City of Yorkville
630-553-8537 direct
630-553-4350 City Hall
630-308-0582 cell
bolson@yorkville.il.us
From: Joe Wywrot
Sent: Friday, April 29, 20114:31 PM
To: Bart Olson
Cc: Krysti Barksdale-Noble; Eric Dhuse
Subject: Windett Ridge - outfall storm sewer
Bart,
We have had continuing discussions with Larry Cooper regarding the stormwater release from Windett Ridge and the
impact on his farm.We performed a drainage study to compare before&after scenarios and were able to demonstrate
that, while the wetland stormwater basin now discharges at a somewhat higher rate, the overall impact of Windett Ridge
and Raintree Village actually reduces the flowrate of stormwater to his farm. I believe that he accepts our findings in
general, but he is still asking that the Windett Ridge outfall be confined to storm sewers to the extent possible. His theory
is that the existing overland flow has difficulty entering the the system and therefore the potential of overland flow to his
property is increased.
With that said, attached find copies of the grading plan, utility plan, and an aerial photo of the park area in Windett Ridge.
The outfall was supposed to extend to a point near the south property line, and then flow along a swale back to the low
point before spreading out over a distance of perhaps 100 feet. The existing condition, however, has the storm sewer
stopping at MH 0-8, with a ditch dug straight towards the south property line.There is a black dirt stockpile between MH
0-8 and proposed FES 0-9 that prevents the construction of this section of storm sewer. Larry Cooper wants the storm
sewer to connect to Dale Konicek's tile. I don't believe that Dale would have a valid complaint about drainage because it
was an existing condition when he bought the property.
I think we should call Dale Konicek before we contact Next Generation.
Let's discuss this at our next weekly meeting.
Joe
Joe Wywrot
Yorkville City Engineer
(630)553-8527
(630)553-3436 fax
(630)878-2021 mobile
1
104 ki
t I 1
1 `\
m , -
, 1
t t N
11 It ate}
1
i 11� rl �I p„�
1 1
1 f —
li� --------
r 1
,tr
rr O-P
It
' .726.
T-/ / // ; • ;
r r / ' /
IN
aplt
1 ,
1 ,
__
cu
I /
� N 1
I
' ! ♦ -----------
/.
--------------
— _
_—__.__—_`--
—" ---------- — _ --
"-712' /
•t2` /
i
r�.
nw
0 2
� �W �
S%,
Ile
N rrw�
_ -
.��,
S j N
10 \ /
o .y
� --R,.. ti— .rte '�`��/�y,�� ;,�, •. -yt 'z``� �$I�
VL: W� •� �.� '}ice f *` 4� t'¢�T
�{im CID-
_ �Fi �•� *y, f v .�k : 1 `rte �. �4.. •_ -' ,'p � ',(y''yl�� _
•f�•,p\� ter. '4 ��` �+'� ',�f . I
*.•-AO'
_ z
c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ OB #1
II
Finance ❑
EST. , 1836
Engineer ■ Tracking Number
y City Administrator ❑
Consultant El K a ry . PW 2011-53 El
LE
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Sunnydell and Greenfield Yield Signs
Meeting and Date: Public Works— September 20, 2011
Synopsis: A request was made to install yield signs at the Sunnydell and Greenfield
intersection.
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required:
Council Action Requested: Discussion
Submitted by: Brad Sanderson Engineering
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
See attached staff report.
cip
Memorandum
EST. ! 1es6 To: Bart Olson, City Administrator
1 From: Brad Sanderson, EEI
CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
� ® Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir.
Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk
<LE
Date: September 14, 2011
Subject: Sunnydell and Greenfield Yield Sign
As requested,we have further investigated the possible installation of yield signs at the intersection of
Sunnydell and Greenfield. Our general findings were as follows:
The governing entity on traffic control signage is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). The manual states as follows in regards to yield sign installation:
Guidance:
Engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following factors
should be considered:
A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches;
B. Number and angle of approaches;
C. Approach speeds;
D. Sight distance available on each approach; and
E. Reported crash experience.
YIELD or STOP signs should be used at an intersection if one or more of the following conditions
exist:
A. An intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal
right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law;
B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and/or
C. An unsignalized intersection in a signalized area.
In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two
minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where
one or more of the following conditions exist.
A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all
approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day;
B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to
stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is
necessary;and/or
C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-
way at the intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year
period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2 year period
The MUTCD section highlighted above would appear to apply to our case. As such, our comments in
regard to the conditions are as follows:
• The vehicular and pedestrian volumes are less than 2,000 units per day.
• According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) a Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,the stopping sight distance
required at an uncontrolled intersection with a design speed of 30 mph is 140 feet. As seen in the
attached exhibits each leg of the intersection has a minimum of 140 feet stopping sight distance,
with no obstructions, from each cross walk.
• There does not appear to be an accident history at this intersection.
Based on the above comments,we would recommend not installing yield signs at this location. In
addition,yield signs are typically not used to aid pedestrian crossings.
A more appropriate approach to this intersection may be the use of a painted crosswalk(north leg)across
Greenfield with appropriate signage or appropriate signage by itself. In conjunction with signs and other
measures, crosswalk markings help to alert road users of a designated pedestrian crossing point across
roadways at locations that are not controlled by traffic control signals or STOP or YIELD signs.
A sign alternative would be for the City to install W 11-2 and W 16-9 signs on Greenfield with the
crosswalks.
i
r
i
r
r'
f11-2* 4"d1 -1
AHEAD AHEAD
16-9p W1 6-9p
*A fluorescent yellow-green background color may be used for this sign or plaque.
It was also observed that the use of playground ahead signs are used on adjacent streets to alert motorists
and these are also an option.
We will be prepared to discuss this issue in further detail at the committee meeting. If you have any
questions or need additional information,please call.
_ r
� y
S
r
s
•
40 80
Feet
3,
lk
IfIg
�y • f
AM-
voe
.�
•
7
ty
T
c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ OB #2
II
Finance ❑
EST. , � 1836
Engineer ■ Tracking Number
y City Administrator ■
Consultant ❑
K a ry . PW 2011-56 El
LE
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Pavement Management Study
Meeting and Date: Public Works— September 20, 2011
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:
t
52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove , IL 60554
TEL : 630 / 466 - 6700
FAX : 630 / 466 - 6701
www. eelweb . com
i
Engineering
Enterprises,
Inc.
i
f
September 15 , 2011
DRAF
E
Mr. Bart Olson , City Administrator
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville , 60560
Re : Pavement Management System Proposal
j
United City of Yorkville
Kendall County, IL
t
Mr. Olson : !
1
This letter is written to submit our proposal to provide professional engineering services to develop the
City's Pavement Management System for the approximate 115 miles of public streets located within the
City. I
BACKGROUND i
I
The United City of Yorkville continuously strives to improve the streets and street system with emphasis
on meeting the existing and future needs of the City. Streets are a major contributor to the economic
lifeline and prosperity of a community. Facilitating the constant movement of people and goods, streets
and roads are essential to modern living . Maintenance of streets to a high standard of pavement
serviceability in a most economical way is an ongoing task.
E
Y
Pavement condition evaluation and long range maintenance planning are essential parts of such an on-
going program. Proper and timely maintenance will extend pavement life and reduce life-cycle costs.
The timing of street maintenance is an integral part of any pavement maintenance program and the s
"worst first" approach is not necessarily the best approach . Developing a Pavement Management
System for the City is the first step in the process of future pavement maintenance . It will allow the City
to identify the current condition of the streets and evaluate budget options for ongoing maintenance and
a long-term improvement plan .
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The development of the proposed Pavement Management System will provide for an evaluation of all
existing streets, consisting of pavement identification , inventory , conditions rating , recommended
improvements, prioritization , budget analysis and ultimately the creation of a five-year long term l
maintenance plan . In addition , recommendations for improved street maintenance procedures , .
estimates of costs to repair, levels of required annual funding , estimated pavement life-cycles and
prioritization of the streets to be maintained on an annual basis will be provided .
i
fi
Consulting Engineers Specializing in Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
s
Mr. Bart Olson
September 15 , 2011
Page 2
The key work tasks for this program are as follows :
• Gather Existing Information
• Develop Program Goals
• Physical Inspection of Roadways ( Infrastructure Management Systems , Inc. )
• Data Entry
• Data Analysis
• Budgeting
• Development of Five-Year Improvement Plan
• Final Report
• GIS Interface
i
i .
As listed above, the final deliverable will be an electronic database for engineering/public works use
and report which will compile all of the data and information on the street system into a singular location
to be utilized by elected officials and City Staff. In addition to including data relative to the roadway
system data , the report will provide a discussion of the existing and proposed street needs,
rehabilitation alternatives , cost estimates, time schedules, pavement evaluations , priorities , short
term/long term funding , narrative and exhibits . EEI will also provide presentations of the report at a City
Council or Committee Meeting , as required . The proposed report will serve as a communications
device to local decision-makers and to other present and future reviewers of the report of the need ,
extent and cost of street improvements.
i
Further, with the relative measure for the overall condition of each local street section , City officials and j
personnel will be able to :
• Select appropriate treatment for each street section ,
• Evaluate each street section competing for immediate attention ,
k
r
• Anticipate future deterioration and be able to apply inexpensive maintenance options while they
are still feasible ,
i
• Establish and justify budgets for street improvements that are adequate to keep the streets in
good condition at the " least cost" over the long term and ,
i
• Maintain the pavement management program consistently , at regular intervals and relatively
inexpensively utilizing existing City staff when possible .
F
The PavePRO software package has been selected and will be utilized for managing the street E
inventory and inspection data information , analysis , projections , predictions , life-cycle costing , and
G
linkage to the City's GIS database .
SCOPE OF SERVICES
We propose to furnish the necessary personnel , materials , equipment and expertise to make the
necessary investigations , analysis and calculations along with exhibits , cost estimates and narrative , E
and to produce a written report on the Pavement Management System .
r
A listing of the activities and items to be covered and/or provided is as follows :
G APublic\Yorkville\2011 \Y01123-P Pavement Management System\PSA\proposa101 .doc
g
I
1
E
k
jry€
5•
f
Mr. Bart Olson
September 15 , 2011
Page 3
1 . Street Network Identification/Definition
• Develop street system maps
• Identify new street segments/street name list geographically & sequentially
• Distinguish new segments by location , pavement type , cross-section , and/or traffic loads
(if available) .
• Determine pavement lengths for new street segments
• Obtain dates of construction for new streets and maintenance information on existing
streets . Some of this information may need to be provided by City Staff,
2 , Condition Survey/Assessment
r
• Conduct a thorough non-destructive , visual pavement surface condition survey
• IMS to utilize electronic data collection equipment and upload into selected software
• Determine & record the physical condition of each pavement street segment
• Note roadway and appurtenance problems
• Identify and note probable cause for noted problems when appropriate
• Obtain photographs for future extraction j
• Note unusual conditions and isolated problems
• Note other physical features such as number of lanes , striping and turn lanes
• Identify other appurtenances and include general notes regarding items such as curbing ,
storm sewer, inlets , manholes and street lights
3 . Pavement Evaluation/Condition Prediction
• Evaluate the pavement conditions
• Make condition projections
• Determine maintenance action to be taken I
i
4. Economic Analysis
I
• Establish unit costs based upon local cost factors
• Compute conceptual cost estimates based upon factors determined above F
f
• Review pavement life-cycle cost estimates and factors
5 . Develop Plan/Prioritization
i
• Compile and tabulate a priority listing of the maintenance , rehabilitation or reconstruction
required for each street in the program system .
• Develop a time based five (5) year plan for repair of the system streets that takes into
account the available City funds.
• Develop a five (5) year prioritized program of street maintenance to repair all streets
based on the computed target pavement life cycle .
i
6 . Document and Report
• Prepare and provide 12 copies of Report with appropriate exhibits
• Provide presentation of Report to City Council and/or Committee
6
p6
t
G:\Public\Yorkville\2011 \Y01123-P Pavement Management System\PSA\proposa101 .doc E
i
Mr. Bart Olson
September 15 , 2011
Page 4
• Make recommendations on the five (5) year needs and timing for the maintenance of the
City's Street System
PERSONNEL AND PROJECTS
We believe that we are uniquely qualified to perform the proposed work for the City, Brad Sanderson ,
P . E . and Jason Bauer, P . E . will be the principal members of the firm to direct and perform the work.
Additionally, Infrastructure Management Systems , Inc. (IMS) will be utilized as a sub-consultant to
obtain the physical data and conduct the onsite inspections . The proposed team has extensive
practical experience and academic training related to street and highway systems in general and the
subject of pavement management systems as well as local street maintenance and improvements in
specific.
i
FEES AND CONDITIONS
The proposed fee for the above-described scope of services will be a Lump Sum price of $ 103 , 000 in
accordance with the attached Exhibit 1 : Estimated Level of Effort.
Payment for all work performed will be based on invoices submitted periodically by our firm , but not
more frequently than monthly, as the work progresses and will be payable by the City within 30 days of
the date of invoice .
i
Additional assignments not described above, including but not limited to coordination with grant and/or
financial consultants , and roadway design will be performed at an hourly rate for the various
classifications of employees who will perform the work as listed on the attached Standard Schedule of
Charges date January 1 , 2011 or at an agreed upon Lump Sum price . All such extra work will be
performed only in accordance with authorization by the City.
This proposal shall be effect for a period of thirty (30) days from this date . If this proposal is not
accepted within that period of time, we reserve the right to withdraw or revise this proposal .
This proposal specifically provides for the right to use existing maps , plans , records and computer
analysis as an agent of the City.
SCHEDULE
It is anticipated that the data acquisition and analysis and system development will be completed by the
end of the calendar year. The development of the final report, budget analysis and multi-year program
is expected to be complete by the end of February , 2012. These dates are premised upon an
anticipated Notice-to-Proceed issuance by the end of September 2011 .
1
k
ACCEPTANCE
i
If selected for this project, we will give our full attention to the project so that the results will be available s .
as soon as practicable , consistent with performance of our services , response by state agencies and
suppliers , meetings with the Village and other considerations.
C
If the Program Description , Scope of Services , Personnel , Fees and Conditions and Schedule as listed
above are satisfactory, please indicate your acceptance by signing both of the enclosed proposals and E
1
G:\Public\Yorkville\2011 \YO1123-P Pavement Management System\PSA\proposa101 .doc
f
E
E
4
I
Mr. Bart Olson
September 15 , 2011
Page 5
returning one of them to us for our records which will serve as our Agreement for Professional
Engineering Services .
i
We look forward to working with and for you on this project so that we can apply our talents to the cost.
effective solution of your pavement maintenance problems .
i
Very truly yours ,
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES , INC .
Jason M . Bauer, P . E.
Project Manager
i
i
Bradley P . Sanderson , P . E .
Vice President
JMB
i
Enclosures
PC: Eric Dhuse , Public Works Director
JWF, TWT
i
f
i
i
}I
I
E
EE
E
f
(f
{
f
E�
i
6
I
1
t
t
s
s
I
G:\Public\Yorkville\2011 \YO1123-P Pavement Management System\PSA\proposa101 .doc
i
i
United City of Yorkville - Pavement Management System
Exhibit 1 : Estimated Level of Effort
ENGINEERING DRAFTING `. SURVEYING - , ADMIN.
E-4 E-3 E-2 , E-1 P-6 P-5 P-4 . :. E-1 . ` T-6 . `. T-5 E-1 P-5 T-4 WA WA A-3 . WORK
WORK SENIOR'. SENIOR SENIOR SENIOR SENIOR SENIOR 1 MAN 2MAN . ITEM COST
ITEM + SENIOR PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT FIELD CREW FIELD CREW ADMIN. HOUR PER
NO. WORK ITEM PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL MANAGER MANAGER ENGINEER 11 ENGINEER ENGINEER MANAGER TECHN?It TECHN: I - MANAGER SURVEYOR I TECHN. W/ RTS W/ RTS ASSIST. SUMM. ITEM"
1 Data Information Collection & Review 2 4 4 10 $ 1 ,386
2 Development of Program Goals 2 2 2 6 $ 860
3 1 Physical Ins ection/Invento of Roadwa s (IMS) 2 2
4 $ 526
4 Data Ent IMS
0 $
5 Data Analysis/Condition Evaluation (IMS) 0 $
6 Budgetino 4 8 16 28 $ 3-1740-
7 Five-Year Plan Development 4 8 16 28 $ 3,740-
8 Final Report & Exhibits 2 20 40 16 8 86 $ 10.414
9 GIS Development 2 4 16 22 $ 3,040
0 $
0 $
0 $
0 $
0 $
0 $
MAN-HOUR TOTAL: 0 14 0 46 0 84 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 T=1 184 23 706
FEE,SCHEOULEA ' P01101MI ;COS
DIRECT°
_ .._.- TS
Senior Principal E-4 0 hours 0 $171 per hour = $0 Pnnhn = $500
Principal E-3 14 hours 0 $167 perhour = $2338 Supplies and Misc. = $225
Senior Project Manager E-2 0 hours 0 $155 per hour = $0 Computer = $0
Project Manager E-1 62 hours A $142 perhour = $8,804 Transportation = $0
Senior Project Engineer/Planner/Surveyor II P-6 0 hours $130 perhour = $0 Sub-Consultant (IMS) = $78,543
Senior Project Engineer/Planner/Surveyor I P-5 84 hours CpD $121 perhour = $10,164
Project En ineer/Planner/Surve or P-4 0 hours 0 $111 perhour = $0
Senior En ineer/Planner/Surve or P-3 0 hours CaD $102 perhour = $0
Engineer/Planner/Surveyor P-2 0 hours $93 perhour = $0
Associate Engineer/Planner/Surveyor P-1 0 hours 0 $83 Perhour = $0
Senior Project Technician II T-6 0 hours $121 perhour = $0
Senior Project Technician I T-5 16 hours $111 perhour = $1,776 DIRECT EXPENSES = $79 268
Project Technician T-4 0 hours $102 per hour = $0 Z$23],706
Senior Technician T-3 0 hours @ $93 per hour = $0 'TOTAL LABOR COSTS
Technician T-2 0 hours $83 er hour = $0 Draftin Ex enses =Associate Technician T-1 0 hours $74 er hour = $0 Surve in Ex enses =Administrative Assistant A-3 8 hours $78 er hour = $624 En ineerin Ex enses =1 Man Field Crew with RTS or GPS ' N/A 0 hours $164 er hour = $0 Administrative Ex enses =2 Man Field Crew with RTS or GPS ' N/A 0 hours $238 r = $0 TOTAL LABOR EXPENSES =
HOURLY TOTAL= 184 TOTAL EEI LABOR = $23 706
TOTAL CONTRACT COSTS = $102,974
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES. INC.
SUGAR GROVE, IL Exhibit 1 - fee summary.xlsG:\PubliGAYorkville\2011XY01123-P Pavement Management System\PSA\
52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove , IL 60554
TEL : 630 / 466 - 6700
FAX : 630 / 466 - 6701
STANDARD SCHEDULE OF CHARGES www• eeiweb . com
Engineering January 1 , 2011
Enterprises,
Inc.
EMPLOYEE DESIGNATION CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATE
Senior Principal E-4 $ 171 .00
Principal E-3 $ 167 . 00
Senior Project Manager E-2 $ 155 . 00
Project Manager E- 1 $ 142 . 00
Senior Project Engineer/Planner/Surveyor II P-6 $ 130 . 00
Senior Project Engineer/Planner/Surveyor I P-5 $ 121 . 00
i
Project Engineer/Planner/Surveyor P-4 $ 111 . 00
Senior Engineer/Planner/Surveyor P-3 $ 102 . 00
Engineer/Planner/Surveyor P-2 $ 93 . 00
Associate Engineer/Planner/Surveyor P- 1 $ 83 . 00
Senior Project Technician II T-6 $ 121 . 00
Senior Project Technician I T-5 $ 111 . 00
i
Project Technician T-4 $ 102 . 00
Senior Technician T-3 $ 93 . 00
Technician T-2 $ 83 . 00
i
Associate Technician T- 1 $ 74 . 00
Administrative Assistant A-3 $ 78 . 00
i
CREW RATES , VEHICLES AND REPROGRAPHICS
1 Man Field Crew with Standard Survey Equipment $ 133 . 00
2 Man Field Crew with Standard Survey Equipment $207 . 00
1 Man Field Crew with RTS or GPS * $ 164 .00 j
2 Man Field Crew with RTS or GPS * $238 . 00
f
t
Vehicle for Construction Observation $ 15 . 00
In-House Scanning and Reproduction $0 .25/Sq . Ft. ( Black & White)
$ 1 . 00/Sq . Ft. (Color)
'RTS = Robotic Total Station / GPS = Global Positioning System I
s
,r.b
t
Consulting Engineers Specializing in Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
3
4
I
I
September 13, 2011 IMS Infrastructure Management Services
E
1895-D Rohlwing Road, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Engineering Enterprises, Inc. Phone: (847) 506-1500 Fax: (847) 255-2938
www.ims-rst.com
Jason M, Bauer, P. E .
i
Project Manager
52 Wheeler Road j
Sugar Grove, IL 60554
Reference: Yorkville Pavement Management Cost Estimate Revised
Dear Mr. Bauer:
IMS Infrastructure Management Services is pleased to submit our proposal to implement a pavement and
asset management program for the City of Yorkville. IMS proposes to test the City's entire street network,
install the current version of PavePRO Manager Software, and link the data to the City's GIS topology,
Digital images and software training will be included in the scope.
r
In addition to the pavement management program , IMS will perform a sign and street light survey and load
the data into ROWMan asset management software. The Road Surface Tester (RST) performs ';
simultaneous pavement and ROW asset data collection. The ROWMan software is integrated with the
PavePRO Manager software to provide easy access to all asset data, both pavement and ROW features.
Future assets could include signals, curb & gutter, pavement striping , pavement markings, sidewalks, ADA
ramps, trees, inlets, manholes and more. IMS can retain the GPS referenced digital images so that the City
can have the option of extracting other ROW assets in the future without incurring the additional expense of
re-driving the streets.
F
i
The proposed pavement management program will accurately reflect current conditions, This street
information and ROW data collected by IMS , EEI and/or City staff can be used to meet many of the
t
reporting requirements of the GASB 34 "modified approach". IMS' automated data collection can provide a
cost-effective approach to expand your pavement management software into a complete asset
management program .
We have included a short statement of our qualifications and experience for your review. A brief description
of the elements of the proposed program with corresponding fee schedule and cost summaries is included
on the following pages, Many options are available including having the selected program reside in the EEI
office. E
I
i
We look forward to working with EEI and the City of Yorkville. If you have any questions regarding the
enclosed information or would like to schedule a presentation to the City, please feel free to contact our f
office.
Very truly yours, .
IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Donald L. Hardt
Manager of Client Services .
IMS Infrastnrcture Management Services EEI Yorkville Proposal Page I of 7 f
i
i
I
t
i
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
� -- IMS Infrastructure Management Services is an employee owned and
managed firm with offices in Illinois, Arizona and Ontario. We started our
r
IN W, pavement management activities from Des Plaines, IL in the early 1960s as
Novak, Dempsey & Associates. Since IMS' inception in 1985, we have
progressively developed new technologies together with real-world software applications to become a j
recognized leader in the field of pavement and infrastructure management. Our software solutions
i
provide the tools required to meet the complex challenges within the modern urban and rural
environment. Our fleet of data collection equipment performs automated pavement surface condition j
surveys, rutting and roughness surveys, deflection testing , multi-camera video logging , and right-of-way j
asset surveys.
7
IMS performed its first Pavement Management Program for the City of Roselle in 1974. Since they
wanted to utilize MFT funding , IDOT conducted an extensive review prior to granting its approval. The
City continues to use the IMS program and updates the data on a five year cycle. Many of the IMS
f
implementations are now funded with MFT
i
IMS has completed many pavement and right-of-way management assignments for government agencies
and private-sector companies throughout the United States and Canada. As an entity, IMS has j .
completed similar projects for:
• 450 city and county agencies plus 30 large-scale public works departments.
• 10 state agencies and transportation authorities.
• Collected data for more than 15 different software platforms, ranging from our own proprietary
systems, to 3`d party programs including CarteGraph , Lucity (GBA Master Series) ,
INFOR/Hansen, Deighton , Azteca Cityworks, Stantec and MicroPAVER.
• Developed 4 pavement and asset management applications.
• Performed work with more than 8 databases and mapping applications.
• Developed revolutionary data collection tools that set the standard for automated, objective
surveys.
Our complete lineup of pavement and infrastructure management applications includes:
I
PavePRO Manager w* Pavement management software
0 ROWMan , Right-of-way infrastructure management software
Digital Image Viewer -* Image software for PavePRO Manager
SURFace Pro Manager 4* Parking lot management software
DataVUE Digital image and distress data viewing software
i
i
E
E
I
g
I
IMS Infrastrnctnre Management Services EN Yorkville Proposal Page 2 of 7
s
I .
Specialized infrastructure asset management and related roadway services offered by IMS include:
Pavement Management Services
Pavement management software, implementation and training
Automated distress data collection
Automated roughness and rutting measurement
Manual pavement performance data collection
Nondestructive Dynaflect and FWD deflection testing ! ;
Ground Penetrating Radar
Parking lot management software and data collection
Roadway cross fall , grade and radius of curvature data collection
GIS interface implementation
Right-of--Way Management Services
Right-of-way asset management software and implementation
Right-of-way asset data collection and condition rating
Sign retro-reflectivity surveys
t
Digital video data collection and digital image development
GPS coordinate data collection
Right-of-way asset planning
i
RFID Implementations
i
In order to provide the greatest efficiency and cost savings to our clients, IMS supplements its core
professional staff with long-term relationships with key service, software and technology partners. This I
allows IMS to stay current with industry trends and new technology, as well as to offer a wider array of
software solutions. IMS is an ESRI and CarteGraph Business Partner and has a similar relationship with
Lucity (GBA Master Series). We regularly collect data for a variety of 3rd party software.
f
1
In addition to providing pavement management software and services, IMS operates an advanced , state-
of-the-art fleet of data collection units. Our pavement and right-of-way testing equipment includes:
f
Three (3) Road Surface Testers (RST) i
E
The RST is capable of collecting automated pavement condition
and right-of-way asset information in a single pass. The RST V 1 I( Isro
incorporates lasers, distance measuring instruments,
accelerometers and rate gyroscopes, inertial navigation based
GPS and high resolution, forward and side view digital images
and video. Through the use of its laser-camera array, the RST
collects objective surface distress data, roughness and rutting . {
i
Three (3) Dynaflects
Dynaflects provide nondestructive, multi-sensor dynamic
deflection data for pavement structure analysis. Dynaflects have
a 30-year history of collecting dependable, repeatable data, and
E
may be used on asphalt and concrete roads.
IMS Infrastructure Management Services EEI Yorkville Proposal Page 3 of 7
a
I
i
PROJECT REFERENCES
Presented below are local project references illustrating IMS's capabilities to implement a comprehensive
pavement management system . Over the years we have provided programs to over 50 Chicago Metro
area agencies. IMS has just been selected to implement pavement management programs for the
Village of Plainfield , Calumet City, Olympia Fields, and Batavia. Recent references include:
City of St. Charles, 2009, 150 miles
2 E. Main Street, St. Charles, IL 60174
James Bernahl , Engineering Manager (630) 443-3709
i
City of Aurora, 2010, 440 miles
44 E . Downer Place, Aurora, IL 60507
Kenneth Schroth , Director of Public Works/City Engineer (630) 844-3621
City of Elgin, 2006, 320 miles
150 Dexter Ct. , Elgin , IL 60120
David Lawry, General Services Group Director, (847) 931 -5961
i
Village of Buffalo Grove, 2008, 117 miles
51 Raupp Blvd. , Buffalo Grove , IL 60089
Dick Kuenkler, City Engineer, (847) 459-2523 c
P
E
Village of Cary, 2007 & 20100 73 miles
E
655 City Hall Drive, Cary, IL 60013
Chris Papierniak, Director of Public Works/Engineering , (847) 639-0003
Village of Glenview, 2007, 154 miles + parking lots a '
I .
1225 Waukegan Road , Glenview, IL 60025
Russell Jensen , P. E. , City Engineer, (847) 904 4333
FE6
Lake County, 1990-2010, ~200 miles/year
600 W. Winchester Road , Libertyville, IL 60048
E
Darrell Kuntz, P.E . , Project Engineer, (847) 377-7459
E
E
Village of Schaumburg, 2010, 245 miles
714 South Plum Grove Road, Schaumburg, IL 60193
Steven Weinstock P. E. , Director of Engineering & Public Works, (847) 923-6600
i
}
For each municipality, IMS implemented PavePRO Manager, IMS's comprehensive pavement
management system . A Dynaflect device was used to collect deflection information . The projects also
I
included detailed rehabilitation analysis, GIS integration, software installation, training and reporting . The
deliverables were a detailed 5-year rehabilitation plan and annual budgets. The IMS project teams were i
1
lead by Dave Butler and Donald Hardt. e
IMS Infrastnicture Management Services EEI Yorkville Proposal Page 4 of 7
6
k
i
4
I
I
i
I
PROJECT APPROACH
Surface Condition Survey
F
Surveys are completed using the Road Surface Tester (RST). The City will receive a continuous, objective,
and accurate survey of the surface condition of the street network. These network-level surveys with
intersection-to-intersection test sections can easily be linked to the City's GIS. The RST provides a great
deal of flexibility and can easily adjust test section lengths to meet previously established test sections and
any revised City goals. Single-direction testing will be performed on the two-lane streets. Two-direction
testing is recommended for use on divided streets
and arterials and collectors with four or more lanes
of traffic. The surface condition survey is j
conducted continuously over the entire length of
the test section and is not based on sample
i
sections. The information gathered in this survey
includes inventory, roughness, rut depth , cracking ,
i
and texture. The effects of environmental
conditions will be considered in conjunction with
the surface condition survey.
To provide the City with a ROW asset data collection option, IMS will collect continuous digital video during
the surface condition survey. The RST combines an inertial navigation guidance system with GPS to geo-
locate visible pavement and ROW features. The simultaneous pavement and ROW asset data collection
capability of the RST is unique in the industry. It provides an efficient and cost-effective means to populate
both pavement and asset management systems.
The presence of any failed or broken concrete slabs within a test section will be recorded for further detailed
identification during the deflection survey. IMS crews will use the City-identified definition of failed/broken
slabs as the basis for our rating. The number of failed slabs will be recorded during the deflection survey
and used by PavePRO Manager Software to give the City an option to address individual slab removal and
replacement as a maintenance/rehabilitation strategy for concrete pavements.
Deflection Testing
Each street test section surveyed by the Laser RST will receive a deflection test. This testing will be
I
performed using the Dynaflect device and the results of this testing will permit an analysis of the structural
capabilities of the existing street section . IMS utilizes all five sensors of the Dynaflect in its structural
analysis. This provides valuable information on the
capabilities of the pavement, base and subgrade sections, i q
and the interaction between these sections. Although most
Chicago area agencies include structural analysis as part of
their program , the PavePRO software can now be used with E
or without deflection data. Deflection testing provides a
more accurate assessment of pavement condition,
prediction of future performance and selection of optimal
F
rehabilitation strategies.
4
9§�
S
S
IMS Infrastructure Management Services EEI Yorkville Proposal Page S of 7
l
i
F
i
GIS and Pavement Management
IMS will provide a link between the City's GIS program and the pavement management data to enable the
City to display and generate color-coded maps based upon existing pavement conditions, street
rehabilitation plans or most any of the data in the pavement management program . The City can use the
query function of its mapping program to display the
pavement management data . It may also be possible for
their mapping program to make queries of other
t E C2 l
- L
infrastructure plans in conjunction with its road
rehabilitation plans to determine if conflicts exist between s r
plans. The future addition of ROW assets would also be °
geolocated on the GIS and entered in the asset1
management software. To most effectively maintain this r
link, IMS will require a copy of the City's current electronic _ ` < �
centerline map prior to field data collection activities.
Digital Images
In conjunction with the surface condition survey, each test section is recorded on GPS referenced digital
videotape with forward and rearward directed video cameras and used as part of IMS' Quality Control and
r
Quality Assurance procedures. Additional cameras can be
z
used to expand the viewing area or include features of special j
interest to the City. IMS will provide digital images at
llMf . W N Y 5 O L
25' intervals for viewing in PavePRO Manager and/or through
the City's GIS. Many agencies find these images valuable as a
"point-in-time" record of their roads and as a source of
i
t V information for a variety of engineering , legal/investigative, and
- administrative uses. They can also be beneficial in assessing
t
damage from a natural disaster or unforeseen event.
IMS has developed an image module for the PavePRO
Manager software. This enhancement allows for the attachment of digital images to each test section. The
s
user can then access all the pavement management data from a selected block and view multiple digital
P
images for the identified section on his/her computer monitor. The digital images can be captured directly
from the continuous video performed as part of the RST survey, generated from an EEI or City-owned digital s
cameras, and/or result from scanned photos or drawings.
I
Pavement Management Software
IMS will provide the current version of PavePRO Manager Software fully loaded with IMS collected field
data. Any City condition data and maintenance histories can be added following staff training . The
software will be installed on the City's computer network
and/or at the EEI office. Since the software is provided ; �° m -• _- °� ° ,
with a site license, it can be used on laptops, field
computers or by other departments at no additional
charge. The software provides information on existing " 4 I
conditions, future performance, viable maintenance and I
rehabilitation strategies, optimization , schedules, budgets
and multiyear programs. The program can be kept
current by City or EEI staff through input of rehabilitation -- --- - - -- - --
activities. A detailed description of the software is
attached.
IMSInfrastnecture Management Services EEI Yorkville Proposal Page 6 of 7
I
;
I
i
i
i
E
E
IMS will provide training for City and EEI staff in the operation and interpretation of these programs.
Training is usually completed as part of a two day on-site session and can include actual operators,
managers, and field staff.
i
Alternative software programs can be implemented if the City prefers a particular program or wants the
pavement management program to be part of an enterprise-wide management system (e.g . work orders,
complaint tracking , inventories, fleet, etc.)
i
r
Right-of--Way Asset Management System
Although the pavement management software provides for pavement inventory, IMS will provide ROW
asset management software for the acquisition of additional pavement and ROW features. Initially IMS will
i io„ uuF load ROWMan with the sign and street light inventory data.
Traffic signals, trees, sidewalks, ADA ramps, curbs and I
gutters, inlets, manholes, pavement markings, pavement
and ROW hardware, trees, and more can be included to a
t
level of detail determined by the City. Data collection for
the expanded inventory can be performed simultaneously
with the surface condition survey using IMS's Laser RST or
through a variety of techniques using City, EEI and/or IMS
staff. This software is integrated with the pavement
management software and will meet the requirements of
GASB Statement 34.
i
f
{{f
t
i
I
i
i
f
{E,
d
E
L
{
F
{E
E
s
E
IMS Infrastructure Management Services EEI Yorkville Proposal Page 7 of 7
I
k
I
i -
I
YORKVILLI , IL COST SUMMARY
i
i
IMS is providing the following cost summary for the City of Yorkville based on a street network of 125 test
miles ( 115 centerline miles with an estimated 10 miles of two direction testing).
i
^Task Actl din Rate ! r
Project Initiation
Project Initiation 1 LS $2, 500.00 $2, 500. 00 i
Network Referencing 135 Ml $10.00 $1 , 250. 00
t
k
Field Surveys
i
Local Mobilization, Set up & Calilwation 1 LS $1 , 500.00 $1 , 500. 00
i
RST Surface Condition Survey 125 MI $130, 00 $16.250.00
Deflection Testing 125 Ml $120. 00 $159000, 00
i
Data RAwnegeenent
o processing 125 Ml $20.00 $295W. 00
PaisP!RO Softwere 1 L$ $49000. 00 $4,000. 00
Digital I age$ a 25' intends 125 MI $13, 00 $19625. 00
GIS Linkage Configuration 125 M $20.00 $29500. 00
On Site Training (2 days ) 2 Day $17000. 00 $29000. 00
Sign & Street k fight Survey
Extraction Set-up & Master Assent List 125 Iii $10.00 $1 *2450,00
Sign Extraction 125 MI $137, 50 $1791t37,
Street Light Extraction 125 MI $28,00 $3, 500. 00
ROWMen SoRvam 1 LS $29000. 00 $2,000. 00
t
t
Managernent 1 LS $59460.00 $59481. :
MEt
F
c
1
i
`t
f
i
Services are provided on a unit-price basis and the City will be charged only for the actual number of miles
E
tested or assets extracted and included in the database. The fee schedule is submitted with the assumption
s
that the City of Yorkville or EEI will provide or assist IMS with the following information and services: }
Street list and GIS centerline file of roads to be surveyed complete with functional classifications.
« Optional asset attributes and condition assessments for the Master Asset List.
Safety vehicle to trail deflection-testing equipment on arterials and collectors, if requested.
Notification and coordination with other departments or agencies, if necessary.
E
3
i
s
F
IMS Infrastructure Management Services EEI Yorkville Proposal 9113111
I
i
I
I
I
I
YORKVILLE, IL FEE SCHEDULE
The cost summary is based on the following fee schedule. It is based on scheduling surveys in conjunction j
with other area projects to eliminate national mobilization charges.
Local Mobilization, Set up and Calibration $1 ,500.00
Project Initiation $2,500.00 j
Network Referencing $ 10.00/ test mile
• RST Surface Condition Survey $ 130.00/ test mile
Deflection Survey $120.00/ test mile t
Data Processing $20.00/ test mile
Pavement Width Measurement/Verification" $10.00/ test mile
PavePRO Manager Software $4,000.00
PavePRO Software Training (on site) $1 ,000.00/day - $600/ YZ day
• Transfer of Historical Data to a New Program $85.00/hour
Engineering Interpretation , Analysis, Special Reports $125.00/hour
GIS Linkage $20.00/ test mile
• Digital Images @ 25' intervals (single view) $ 13.00/ test mile
Digital Images @ 25' intervals (additional views) $ 10.00/ test mile
Digital Video Storage for Future ROW Asset Extraction $10.00/ test mile
Master Asset List Development $300 - $ 1 ,500
ROWMan Software $2,000.00
Project Management 7.5% of Task Activities
Asset Extraction Services (fee/asset pricing) I
Signs and Supports $2 .50/sign or $ 137.50/mile
Traffic Signals and Supports $2.25/signal and/or support
Street Lights $1 .75/pole or $28.00/mile
• Curb and Gutter $1 .75/curb block
• Storm sewer Inlets $ 1 .75/inlet
Manholes $1 .75/manhole
Sidewalks $1 .75-$2 .25/sidewalk block
•. ADA Ramps $ 1 .75/ramp
Driveway Aprons (point asset) $1 .75/apron
Driveway Aprons (linear asset) $2 .25/apron
Railroad Crossings $2.25/crossing
•: Hydrants $2.25/hydrant
• Trees $2.50/tree
Pavement Markings (point assets) $ 1 .75/marking
0 Pavement Striping (linear assets) $1 .75/block f
E
Guard Rails $2.50/guard rail [
Medians $2 .50/median
R Fences $2.50/fence
Ditches $2.25/ditch
Misc. Road and ROW Hardware $2.25/asset
Retroreflectivity Survey Special Quotes
F
'Widths are included with a deflection survey. They are measured manually if the project only included automated surface condition
surveys. Widths may be provided by the Municipality's GIS or from a previous program. Referenced charges are for IMS width
measurement or verification as required.
IMS Infrastructure Management Services EEI Yorkville Proposal 9/13/11
c
I
i
i
C
i
j.
I
Budget estimates for ROW assets are more difficult to develop because of unlimited scenarios and
unknown quantities. Assets vary dramatically from agency to agency and district to district within the City
depending on age, terrain , etc. Since there are some advantages to extracting multiple assets during the
extraction activity, IMS will try to assist EEI and the City in developing a budget by offering a cost per mile
alternative, in addition to or in lieu of the cost per asset. We will need the EEI or the City to provide one or
more scenarios that include the various assets or features that would be included in the extraction process.
We will then provide EEI and the City with a cost per mile to extract the additional assets. We believe that
this alternative can assist the City in the budget process and eliminate surprises. If the City has a good
estimate of the quantity of some of their assets, a unit price per asset may be the best approach.
I
E
i
t
f
r
F
f
1
i
E
t
(}$t
{t
t
E
E
{
I
E
e
1
l
e
f
I
E
py�
E„
IMS I frastnicture Management Services EEI Yorkville Proposal 9113111
c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ OB #3
II
Finance ❑
EST. , � 1836
Engineer ❑ Tracking Number
y City Administrator ❑
Consultant ❑
K a ty . PW 2011-47 El
LE
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Flooding Issues in Sunflower Estates - Update
Meeting and Date: Public Works— September 20, 2011
Synopsis: See memo.
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required:
Council Action Requested:
Submitted by: Eric Dbuse Public Works
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
cip
Memorandum
EST. ! 1es6 To: Public Works Committee
1 From: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
CC:
® Date: September 16, 2011
Subject: Sunflower estates flooding update
<LE
At the last meeting I was asked if the Public Works crews could install the storm sewer in
Sunflower Estates at a lower price than the engineers estimate that was provided.
While I have no doubt that our crew is capable of installing this storm sewer, we do not have the
machinery necessary to do so. We would have to rent an excavator, trench box and stone box for
the duration of the project which I would estimate at 2 weeks. In addition to the rental, we
would need to account for fuel, labor and materials that are included in the installed pipe price. I
am currently waiting on pipe and manhole prices; I have listed the costs below that are known.
Excavator $3200
Trench Box $600
Stone Box $700
Fuel $1500 ($150 per day for 10 days for wheel loader and excavator)
Stone $3300
Fuel $540 (for trucks to haul stone)
Total $9840
Labor $10,944 (4 man crew for 8 hr/day x 10 days)
Labor $1641 (labor for 2 drivers 8 hr/day x 3 days for stone hauling
Total $12,585
Items such as sidewalk removal and replacement, curb and gutter R&R, fence removal, etc. will
be the same as the engineers estimate. As soon as I get the pipe quote, I will be able to finalize
the numbers and get them to the committee.
0 C/T y Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
J� A 0 Legal ❑ OB #4
1 ,II
11 Finance ❑
EST. �Z 1836 Engineer El-�� Tracking Number
W City Administrator ❑
°°°�°ov$edt `O Consultant ❑
County ❑
PW 2011-48
Kentlall
<4L.E
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Road Maintenance on Tommy Hughes Way& Saravanos Dr. -Update
Meeting and Date: Public Works— September 20, 2011
Synopsis: See memo.
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required:
Council Action Requested:
Submitted by: Eric Dhuse Public Works
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
cip
Memorandum
EST. ! 1es6 To: Public Works Committee
1 From: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
CC:
® Date: September 16, 2011
Subject: Tommy Hughes Way and Saravanos Dr. update
<LE
The only update at this time is that the patching/paving of the street has been completed.
There is no update as to the specifics of the agreement between the two parties as far as
maintenance is concerned.
c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ OB #5
II
Finance ❑
EST. , � 1836
Engineer ■ Tracking Number
y City Administrator ❑
Consultant ❑
K a ty . PW 2011-31 El
LE
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Kendall Marketplace Development / Proposed Improvements
Meeting and Date: Public Works— September 20, 2011
Synopsis: Review of Bids
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required:
Council Action Requested: Discussion
Submitted by: Brad Sanderson Engineering
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
See attached memo.
Memorandum
EST. ! 1es6 To: Bart Olson, City Administrator
1 From: Brad Sanderson, EEI
CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
® Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir.
Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk
<LE
Date: September 15, 2011
Subject: Kendall Marketplace Improvements
Bids were received, opened and tabulated for work to be done on the above referenced project at
11:00 a.m., September 15, 2011. Representatives of contractors bidding the project and our firm
were in attendance. A tabulation of the bids and the engineer's estimate is attached for your
information and record.
The apparent low bidder, Wilkinson Excavating failed to sign their bid proposal form with their
original bid. They have since signed the proposal form.
The bid documents state the following in regards to bidding technicalities:
The Awarding Authority reserves the right to waive technicalities and to reject any or all
proposals as provided in BLRS Special Provision for Bidding Requirements and
Conditions for Contract Proposals contained in the "Supplemental Specifications and
Recurring Special Provisions". The Supplemental Specifications and Recurring Special
Provisions further state that the "Right is reserved to reject any or all proposals, to waive
technicalities, or to advertise for new proposals, if in the judgment of the Awarding
Authority, the best interests of the Awarding Authority will be promoted thereby".
We have spoken to the City Attorney and she has acknowledged that based on the above the City
has the ability to waive the technicality and award the contract to the apparent low bidder.
Accordingly, we recommend that the City waive the above noted technicality and recommend
the acceptance of the bid and approval of award be made to the low bidder,
Wilkinson Excavating, 725 E. LaSalle Street, Somonauk, IL 60552 in the amount of$87,041.50,
which is approximately 23%under the Engineer's Estimate of$113,700.00.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please call.
BID TABULATION
KENDALL MARKETPLACE IMPROVEMENTS
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
KENDALL COUNTY,ILLINOIS
ACCU•PAVING CO. D CONSTRUCTION ENCAP INC. GENEVA CONSTRUCTION CO. WILKINSON EXCAVATING ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
KENDALL MARKETPLACE IMPROVMENTS BID TABULATION 2665 SOUTH 25TH AVENUE 1488 S.BROADWAY 1709 AFI'ON ROAD P.O.BOX 998 725 EAST LASALLE STREET 52 Wheeler Road
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE,KENDALL COUNTY,ILLINOIS BIDS RECD 09/15/11 BROADVIEW,IL 60135 COAL CITY,IL 60416 SYCAMORE,IL 60178 AURORA,IL 60507 SOMONAUK,IL 60552 Sugar Grove,IL 60554
ITEM UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
1 COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER TYPE B-6.12 FOOT 250 22 $5,500.00 $25.00 $6,250.00 $25.00 $6,250.00 $28.00 $7,000.00 $21.00 $5,250.00 $25.00 $6,250.00
2 HOT-MIX ASPHALT BINDER COURSE,IL-19.o N50,25" TON 215 102.9 $22123.50 $95.00 $20425.00 $85.00 $18275.00 $87.00 $18705.00 $7800 $16770.00 $85.00 $18,275.00
3 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE MIX"C"N50,15' TON 80 107.9 $8,632.00 $100.00 $8,000.00 $90.00 $7,200.00 $100.00 $8,000.00 $85.00 $6,800.00 $110.00 $8,800.00
4 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS PRIME COAT) GAL 150 5.3 $795.00 $5.00 $750.00 $3.00 $450.00 $4.00 $600.00 $2.50 $375.00 $2.00 $300.00
5 1 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL 1.5" BY 935 8.3 $7,760.50 $5.00 $4.675.00 $8.50 $7,947.50 $10.00 $9,350.00 $7.50 $7,012.50 $5.00 $4,675.00
6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE,TYPE B TON 1,000 20 $19800.00 $25.00 $25000.00 $11.50 $11,500.001 $19.50 $19500.00 $14.00 $14000.00 $20.00 $20,000.00
7 STONE WEDGE FOR CURB FOOT 880 4.4 $3,872.00 $3.00 $2,640.00 $11.00 $9,680.00 $3.20 $2,816.00 $1.30 $1,144.00 $5.00 $4,400.00
8 FINE GRADING AGGREGATE BASE BY 800 6.5 $5,200.00 $3.00 $2,400.00 $15.00 $12,000.00 $1.60 $1,280.00 $2.00 $1,600.00 $12.00 $9,600.00
9 FINE GRADING LOT LSUM 1 28000 $28,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,500.00 $10500.00 $12,500.00 $12500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
10 RESTORATION ACRE 5.3 5600 $29,680.001 $10000.00 $53,000.00 $3,750.00 $19875.00 $12600.00 $66780.00 $3800.00 $20,140.00 $3,000.00 $15,900.00
11 SANITARY MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 1 800 $800.00 $600.00 $600.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $900.00 $900.00 $350.00 $350.00 $500.00 $500.00
12 TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE 4" BY 1,000 5 $5,000.00 $3.00 $3,000.00 $2.50 $2,500.001 $2.00 $2,000.00 $1.10 f7771'100.00 $20.00 $20,000.00
TOTAL FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS $137,163.00 $151,740.00 $118,177.50 $147,431.00 $87,041.50 $113,700.00
20,6358839% 33.4564644% 3,9379947% 29.6666667% -23.4463500% %+/-ESTIMATE
G\PUbllc\YwkNlle\2011\V01131-D-.11 Ma ftlece Imp,ov..e E1\bidWbAl Sbeet1
c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ OB #6
II
Finance ❑
EST. , � 1836
Engineer ❑ Tracking Number
y City Administrator ❑
Consultant ❑
K a ry . PW 2011-52 El
LE
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Windett Ridge mowing update
Meeting and Date: Pw committee Sept. 20, 2011
Synopsis: Update on status of windett ridge vacant lot mowing
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required: none
Council Action Requested: none
Submitted by: Eric Dhuse public works
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
cip
Memorandum
EST. ! 1es6 To: Public Works Committee
1 From: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
CC: Bart Olson, Administrator
® Date: September 15, 2011
Subject: Windett Ridge mowing update
<LE
All,
Since our last meeting Windett Ridge, LLC has not mowed any vacant lots that were cited by the
city for being in violation of our ordinance. Community Development Director Noble and I both
were on site on September 14th to witness and take photographs for the administrative
adjudication hearing that was on the same date. At the hearing, it was found by the
Administrative Hearing Officer that none of the lots that were cited were in compliance and
therefore the fines and costs remain as they were from the original finding (attached).
IN THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, )
a municipal corporation. )
Petitioner, )
V. )
Cit. No. : N 0852 – N 0928;
N 0964 – N 1000;
N 1026 – N 1030;
N 1051 – N 1073 ; N1075
Docket No. : 11 -OV-289 - 11 -OV-409
Windett Ridge, LLC ) 11 -OV-411 - 11 -OV-432
975 E 22nd St., Suite 200 )
Wheaton, IL 60189 )
Respondent, )
FINDING, DECISION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER coming to be heard before me as the Administrative Hearing Officer for the above-
captioned municipality, notice having been given and the Administrative Hearing Officer having been advised
with each parry having the opportunity to be heard in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
As to the violation(s) alleged in the pleadings, the Administrative Hearing Officer finds and rules as
follows:
Charge/Code Violation Finding Decision Fines & Costs Full Payment
# Comp liance B
4-1-5(B)(7): Certain Liable on docket numbers Fine = $10.00 per violation; per day October 3,
Weeds (Over 8" High) 11-OV-289 through 11-OV-409 and Costs = $15.00 per file 2011
numbers 11-OV-411 through 11-OV-432
JUDGMENT TOTAL: Fines: 143 Violations x 40 Days = $57,200.00
Costs: 143 files x $15.00 = $2,145. 00
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
This order may be reconsidered on September 14, 2011 at 5:30 pm in the United City of Yorkville, City Hall
Conference Room. On that date, if a showing is made that the Respondent is in full compliance with United
City of Yorkville ordinance number 4- 1 -5(13)(7) on each and every lot found in violation in case numbers 1I -
OV-289 through 11 -OV-409 and 11 -OV-411 through 11 -OV-432, the above ordered Judgment shall be reduced
to fine of $75.00 per citation (143 citations x $75.00 per citation =; $10,725 .00). Costs shall remain the same.
JUDGMENT ENTERED: August 24, 2011
PENALTY ASSESSED: — August 26, 2011
Administrative Hearing Officer