Loading...
Public Works Minutes 2002 02-25-02 1 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING APM MONDAY,FEBRUARY 25,2002 Meeting called to order at 6:30 P.M. ��"�' Q, a,-A °a In Attendance: Alderman Larry Kot,Chairman Alderman Rich Sticka Alderman Joe Besco Mayor Art Prochaska City Engineer Joe Wywrot Director of Public Works Eric Dhuse Guests: None MINUTES FOR APPROVAL City Engineer Joe Wywrot indicated a few miscellaneous clarifications to the November 19,2001 and December 19, 2001 minutes along with the correction of the spelling of his name. The committee approved the minutes as corrected. ALARM SYSTEM FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Eric Dhuse reported on the alarm system. He indicated that he asked Sgt. Ron Diederich of the Yorkville Police Department to review the proposals and give his opinion. Sgt. Diederich noted in a February 1,2002 memo that the big difference in the proposals is the cost. He recommended the company,Wire Wizard,who offered the lowest bid at$69.00/month. Mr. Dhuse stated that one change was needed which was to install a motion detector instead of window glass break detectors. Alderman Kot asked when the system could be installed and Mr.Dhuse stated that Wire Wizard commented that they get busier in the spring but that he would check with them. Mr. Dhuse also said he would verify if there was a price difference when changing from the break detector to the motion detector. This item was sent to the March 5, 2002 Committee of the Whole(COW)meeting. DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AT PINEWOOD APARTMENTS Mr. Dhuse reported on a January 29, 2002 letter from City Engineer Joe Wywrot to Mr.Butch Roberts of J&.B Real Estate Investors regarding the re-grading of the area northeast of Cobb Park to be done by Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts was advised that if this did not solve the drainage issue he should contact the city for further consideration. Mr.Dhuse stated that they had not heard back from Mr. Roberts so he assumed the re-grading was being done. MFT RESOLUTION FOR GAME FARM AND ROUTE 34 Mr. Wywrot indicated that this resolution would approve the cost for the project's design engineering. The Illinois Department of Transportation(IDOT)agreement stated that Yorkville will pay for the engineering and they will fund almost all of the construction. Mr. Wywrot indicated that the Council approved the contract with Smith Engineering but did not approve the Motor Fuel Tax(MFT)appropriation resolution. Alderman Besco asked about the revised contract amount and Mr. Wywrot stated that the cost went up about two to three thousand dollars. Mayor Prochaska asked how this project was going to effect the city's MFT funds and Mr. Wywrot stated that it would reduce the money available. The Mayor thought other funding might be used for this project. Mr. Wywrot indicated that the city would be short MFT funds this year due to the Fox Industrial Park project,winter salt,etc. He felt there probably wouldn't be enough for Countryside Parkway. He stated that this project could be paid for from the city's general fund but it wasn't in the current fiscal year budget. Mayor Prochaska agreed that this project 2 could use MFT funds and the Countryside Parkway project could be supplemented with general fund dollars. This item was sent to the March 5,2002 COW meeting. OUTSOURCING ENGINEERING REVIEW FEES Mr.Wywrot reported on a February 15,2002 memo he sent to City Administrator Tony Graff. He stated that with the projected development,the engineering department will be buried in work. He stated that they would probably need to outsource plan reviews of at least the larger developments. He recommended two firms for this,Walter Deuchler Associates and Engineering Enterprises, Inc. Alderman Kot asked Mr. Wywrot if the city should use one of the two or have both on retainer and Mr. Wywrot didn't have a problem using both but thought it might create a problem when it came to assigning developers to a firm. Alderman Sticka recommended using Deuchler because of their work with the Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District(YBSD). Alderman Kot asked if City Attorney Kramer had been consulted about this and Mr. Wywrot said he hadn't discussed this with him. He stated that when the city has an established relationship with a consultant, the RFP(Request for Proposal)process can be bypassed or the city could ask for bids. Mayor Prochaska recommended discussing this with Mr. Kramer. Alderman Sticks clarified that this cost is passed on to the developers. Mr. Wywrot stated that the way the cost is passed on needed to be determined and he suggested that the plan review ordinance and resolution be revised to require a deposit to pay for this service. He recommended that the size of the development be the basis for outsourcing. Alderman Kot asked how developers pay for in-house engineering review and Mr. Wywrot indicated that there is a flat fee based on acreage paid to the city before the final plat is approved. Mayor Prochaska noted that the city's engineering department was created because the city used to outsource work and it was costly and created conflict with developers. Mr. Wywrot stated that the engineering department will still perform the construction specs and the outsourcing would just be for the plan review process, which is tedious and time consuming. Mayor Prochaska was concerned that after the consultant perfonnend the review,the city engineers might disagree. Mr. Wywrot indicated that he would oversee the consultant and the city could absorb this cost so that the developer would not be charged double. He indicated that Jennifer Woodrick in his department did a survey of surrounding areas to see how other communities handle this situation. She found that those who outsourced engineering collected a deposit. None of the communities draw off the deposit unless the developer does not pay for the service. The amount of the deposit ranged from$1,500.00 to$20,000.00. Mr. Wywrot suggested a deposit of$25,000.00. Mr. Wywrot discussed a side effect of doing this. Currently,he does the review and is paid hourly. If there is any excess money left over from the developer,this goes into the general fund. He indicated that last year the city took in$200,000.00 for engineering services but the city did not pay all this out in engineering salaries. With a consultant,most of the money from the developer would go back out the door to the consulting firm with less going into the general fund. It was decided that Attorney Kramer should review Mr. Wywrot's recommendations and the item return to the next Public Works Committee meeting on March 25,2002. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS Mr. Wywrot stated that he brought this to the Public Works Committee several months ago to discuss specific changes in the ordinance. At that time City Administrator Graff suggested that the development community be given an opportunity for suggestions. Only one developer,Inland, 3 provided any input. Mr. Wywrot asked the Committee to read his November 29 and December 17,2001 memos to Mr. Graff listing potential updates and he would answer any questions. Chairman Kot suggested that they go through the list item by item. Items noted in the November 29,2001 memo: • Ordinance name change-legal modification from Attorney Kramer. • Construction guarantees-developments such as Walgreens,which are not subdivisions,do not require letters of credit. The only authority the city has over this type of development is to withhold the certificate of occupancy. The ordinance can remain as it is or it can be revised to address public infrastructure. • Spreadsheets for letters of credit or bond reductions-this is a bookkeeping item. • For work along state highways,require advance-warning signs-to avoid traffic backups,use IDOT standards to post signs. • Limit on-site parking for developing subdivisions-limit work vehicles,dumpsters etc,to one side of the street in order to provide better thm traffic for residents and emergency vehicles. • LED lights with battery backup for traffic signals-IDOT requires battery backup. LED last longer and use less energy. • Street cleaning-already in ordinance to keep streets clean in construction area. Recommend a deposit in an effort to motivate developers to maintain the streets. Concern was expressed for a situation where there are multiple builders in subdivision but it was agreed that the developer is responsible for the maintenance. • Removal of dead or dying trees-require developer to remove trees at the direction of the Public Works Department. • Provision for wetland protection-retain a wetland consultant if necessary. Wetlands are not specifically referred to in the current ordinance. Non-jurisdictional wetlands were discussed and it was decided to be cautious on the wording of this in the ordinance. The definition of a wetland was discussed along with the fact that without this provision a developer could fill in wetland areas. • Specify Best Management Practices(BMP)for storm water quality-Environment Protection Agency(EPA)is nationally instituting this type of requirement. • Revise street light standards and request direct burial cable-clarify ordinance to ensure uniformity of the cobra lights uses throughout the city. Also, eliminate the requirement for cable in unit duct, which makes it hard to find a break in the cable. • Revise minimum for streetlight ground rods-specify a smaller ground rod. • Streetlight maintenance-once streetlights are accepted and activated the city performs maintenance. Fee for maintenance was discussed. • Broken streetlight cables-cables broken more than once during the build-out of a subdivision must be replaced from power source to the streetlight. • Create standard for decorative luminaries-with the Public Works Department's input, find two or three decorative possibilities for developers to chose from. • Traffic study-if necessary require that a developer make a deposit so that the city could hire a consultant for a traffic study. Use one firm for consistent studies. • Portland Cement Concrete standard-establish standards for concrete as well as asphalt roads. Possibly establish an incentive plan for developers to use concrete. Use IDOT standards. • Sealing of roadway edge of pavement-helps to keep moisture and weeds out of curb and road junction. Helps preserve roadway. • Clarify that geotextile fabric is required if there is poor subgrade soil-if there is non-granular subgrade geotextile needs to be used to stabilize roadways. 4 • Eliminate CA-7 stone requirement beneath curbline-makes construction difficult. If curb is sealed,need for this is reduced. • Eliminate weep holes in catch basins-water will get into these structures through other avenues. Weep holes create potential for failure. • Require PVC conduit at lift stations-elevates corrosion. • Minimum lift station wet well diameter-according to a survey of existing wells,range is anywhere from five to eight feet. Require minimum of eight feet with the possibility of downsizing if necessary. • Require non-RCP(reinforced concrete pipe)storm sewers be mandrel-tested-test tells if the storm sewer is back filled properly. • Modify the mandrel-testing requirement-require a 9-point mandrel for tests. It was discussed that seven-point mandrels are more standard. • Charge developers for water usage and bacteria testing-charge developers for the water usage when they are flushing and chlorinating the water mains. It was suggested to check what other communities charge for this. The lab fee for bacteria testing is$12.00 per test. The water would be based on the volume of the pipe multiplied by three because the pipe is usually flushed three times. • Storm manhole diameter-in some instances smaller diameter manholes would be acceptable. Mayor Prochaska suggested that since there are a few items in the ordinance that require the application of fees, it might be better to increase the administrative cost to the developer instead of billing for each individual charge. Mr. Wywrot felt this might be something to consider. Items in the December 17,2001 memo: • Asphalt mix-IDOT has changed their asphalt design mix standards to"Superpave". Previously they used I-11 or Class I asphalt mixes but this is being phased out. • Require segregated payment be removed and replaced-segregation is where there is not a homogeneous mix of asphalt,cement and stone. Segregation creates voids in the asphalt. • Payment patching-require that road patches be 50%thicker that surrounding payment in an effort to minimize stress on the road. • Punchlists-state that punchlists cannot be generated until at least 50%of the lots in a development are built out or three years after the binder course is paved, whichever come first. A draft of the revised ordinance will be brought to the next Public Works meeting March 25, 2002. REVIEW OF ALDERMAN'S SIDE STREET REPAIR LIST Chairman Kot indicated that this is an information update. He discussed this with Mr. Graff who stated that he had an estimate of $50,000.00 for engineering cost that he is trying to work into the new budget. The engineering for the project would probably be outsourced. It was discussed if the funds should be applied to small individual projects or a massive citywide project. Chairman Kot felt it should be a citywide project. He stated that the engineering cost would be factored in to the overall cost of the project,which will be covered by a loan or bonds. The cost wouldn't necessarily come out of the budget. Mr. Graff indicated to Chairman Kot that this was a"bubble item"in the budget and might not be included. The Committee discussed that digging up and rebuilding every street is probably needed but this might not be economically feasible. Some streets can just be repaved so that they are repaired in 5 a reasonable amount of time. They discussed adopting a standard and bringing existing streets up to it until funds for rebuilding are available. The Committee discussed the repaving of Walnut Street. Mr. Wywrot indicated that the plans for the street were being prepared along with the installation of storm sewers. Alderman Kot stated that he would like this item to be a priority and the funding included in the budget so that the engineering study could be completed. The engineering estimates would reveal the overall cost for the project. He stated that he wanted to keep this project moving. BOB FLECEINGER SEVWER This item was tabled. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM NEEDS Mr. Wywrot stated that he and Mr. Dhuse took a look at problem areas based on fire flow,age, dead-ends, etc. They also looked at what was needed for the water treatment project. Water needs to be redistributed back into the system from the one treatment plant. This was sent to Engineering Enterprises, Inc. (EEI)and they carne back with a spreadsheet with a total of 31 projects and an estimated cost of$5,806250.00. Of the 31 projects listed,there are a few that Mr. Wywrot indicated must be done to redistribute water. Those are located at McHugh-Walnut- Liberty-Freemont area, Mill Street(Hydraulic&Van Emmon), Mill Street(Van Emmon& Walter)and South Main Street(Orange Street booster). These projects will cost approximately $3 million and are not totally figured into the water project. The old estimate for the water project was based on a cation exchange in a central location. Now lime softening is being done at a remote location. $660,000.00 was estimated for this originally,now the project is at$2.96 million. Alderman Sticka noted that the water treatment project doesn't address the problems that exist in regards to old water mains,dirty water,etc. They discussed fire flow on the dead end lines off Mill Street,mains with multiple breaks, size of water mains and mains in the older parts of town. Mr. Wywrot discussed the fire flow test done off of east Fox Street per EEI's request. The meter used registered 3 PSI(pounds per square inch)and they calculated about 300 GPM(gallons per minute). In other areas the GPM was calculated at 2000 to 3000 GPM. EEI suggests 1500 GPM. In the event of a fire,the low GPM will still help. Some of the listed projects will be included in the radium water project, some in the Route 47 widening project and the others will have to be done when a street project is done. Alderman Kot asked if any of the water main projects were on the five-year plan and Mr.Wywrot indicated that only the 12-inch main from State and Fox Streets and the Van Emmon line were in the plan. Alderman Sticka stated that the water mains were just as,if not more,important than the repair of the streets. Alderman Kot stated that both projects are equally important and should be done. This information helps when developing the five-year plan. Mr. Wywrot stated that funds needed to be generated so that perhaps a project could be done each year. Mayor Prochaska stated that funds from new commercial should be dedicated to these types of projects. SUNFLOWER ESTATES UNIT 1 -BOND REDUCTION NO.3 Mr.Wywrot stated that this is a relatively small letter of credit reduction($16,901.22). It acknowledges the fact that they put the surface coat on the roadway. He recommended that this go on to the COW meeting. 6 This item was sent to the March 5, 2002 COW meeting. NEW COMPUTER FOR WATER/UTILTTY DEPARTMENT Mr. Dhuse reported that he did not have any information on this item other that the water department's computer is locking up on an average of six to seven times a day. A new computer is needed and the Public Works Department will use the old one. There are funds available for a new computer. The city's computer consultant,Russ Walters,is looking into the purchase. WETLAND CONSULTATION-INFORMATION ONLY Mr. Wywrot reported that RFP's were sent out on February 2, 2002 and he gave the consultants time to respond. Responses were received by February 22,2002. In his February 25,2002 memo to Mr. Graff,he made a list of the firms that responded and recommended two of the four(Hey& Associates, Inc. and Conservation Design Forum). Mr. Wywrot discussed the firms with Mr. Graff and stated that they could interview them and bring a recommendation to the Committee or the firms could make presentations to the Committee themselves. He was open for direction. Chairman Kot was concerned about the cost of the firms even though developers will be paying for their services. Mr. Wywrot asked them not to submit dollar cost but three of the four did. He indicated that of the three,one firm he would like to talk to did have a higher cost than the others (2-3 times higher). He did not want to eliminate them based on cost because they are a very good firm. Conservation Design Forum indicated a cost of$11,500.00 whereas the other firms ranged from$3,500.00 to$5,000.00. The cost given was for the Bristol Club site. Mr. Wywrot indicated that Conservation Design Forum is the firm working with Kendall County. He and Mr. Graff attended a Kendall County Mayors and Managers meeting where the firm gave a presentation. Mr. Wywrot felt that since they know the county and are working on the Blackberry Creek Watershed Management Plan the city should talk to them. The Committee discussed Mr. Wywrot's four recommendations. Chairman Kot stated that Mr. Wywrot and Mr. Graff could do the interviews and bring the information back to the Committee. He reiterated that the cost needed to be factored in to the decision. Mr. Wywrot stated that there probably isn't a difference in the firm's hourly rates but the difference is in the amount of effort they would put into the project. Mr.Wywrot stated that the firms will be directed to prepare simple and to the point reports. Mr.Wywrot stated that he would set up interviews with the films and report back to the Committee in March. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Y.B.S.D Mayor Prochaska reported that the after the public viewing of the interceptor project there was a public outcry against it. The Mayor asked Deuchler to review the plan and see if there were other options available. They made a presentation to the Y.B.S.D. of alternative routes,which he received a copy of The routes indicated are: • Run the line down the creek. • A force main and lift station would be located near the creek and sewage would be pumped south to Countryside Parkway into a deeper gravity sewer they would construct. • The main would go across land into the Heartland subdivision to a lift station at Woodworth. The mayor stated that the second two options limit service areas and are expensive. Also,they would utilize lift stations,which could cause problems down the line. The YBSD wants to follow the city's lead. They want the city to decide where to run the pipe even though they are the lead agency in the project and would obtain easements and oversee construction. They do not recommend using a lift station. The committee discussed the alternative routes,environmental studies,grant money,other engineering firms who might take a different approach,the time frame for the project and how the project effects potential commercial areas for the city. It was decided that since this was not an agenda item and the public was not aware it was going to be discussed,it would be put on the March 5,2002 COW agenda. Water Reports Mr.Dhuse stated that they are being finished and that they are currently only one month behind. Potholes A reoccurring pothole on Fox Street near Main Street was discussed. Mr. Dhuse indicated that Public Works would try to repair it during the week pending snow. Walgreens Utility Pole Alderman Kot asked about the utility pole sitting on the comer by Walgreens and Mr. Wywrot indicated that it would be removed. Street Light at independence and John Streets Mayor Prochaska noted that the street light on the corner will be on then turn off for awhile and then go back on. Mr. Dhuse stated that he would check it out. There was no further additional business. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Minutes presented by Jackie Milschewski, City Clerk