The URL can be used to link to this page

Public Works Packet 2005 03-28-05 (cs.D C;r oUnited City of Yorkville .� County Seat of Kendall County 5"` 800 Game Farm Road esr11% . 1.- 1$36 Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 ,< ` Telephone: 630-553-4350 O 1114rFax 630-553-7575 ' "F-""' * Website: www.yorkville.il.us -14E `Lv PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Monday, March 28, 2005 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room Revised: 3/24/05 Approval/Correction of Minutes: February 28, 2005 Presentations: None New Business: - 1. Van Emmon Storm Sewer Repair 2. Water Department Reports for December 2004 &January 2005 3. Hydraulic Avenue Interceptor- Change Order#2 4. Rob Roy Creek Interceptor- Contract#1 - Change Order#2 5. Whispering Meadows Unit 2 - Bond Reduction for Underground, Earthwork&Paving 6. Whispering Meadows Unit 1 - Bond Reduction for Underground, Earthwork& Paving 7. Whispering Meadows Units 1 & 2 -Mass Grading 8. Cannonball Booster Station& South PRV Station- Change Order#1 9. IDOT Highway Permit - 272 E. Veterans Parkway 10. Reserve at the Fox- Construction Guarantee 11. Fox Hill Mowing and Maintenance - Results of Bid Opening 12. FY 05/06 General Maintenance MFT Resolution 13. Mill&Van Emmon Watermain Replacement- Change Order#1 14. Cannonball Estates Phase 2 - Letter of Credit Reduction#4 15. Cannonball Estates Phase 1 - Letter of Credit Reduction#5 16. Cannonball Hill - Letter of Credit Reduction#4 17. 500,000 Gallon Water Tower Painting - Results of Bid Opening 18. 2005 In-Town Drainage Projects - Results of Bid Opening 19. Route 34 & Bristol Ridge Road-IDOT Highway Permit (verbal report) Page 2 Public Works Agenda March 28, 2005 Old Business: 1. Aux Sable Creek- 100 Year Storm Release Rate &Modifications of 2 Year&25 Year Release Rates - PW 1/24/05 & 12/27/04 2. Non-Residential Landscape Irrigation Policy- PW 2/28/05 3. Proposed Wetland Protection Ordinance 4. Proposed New Hire for FY 05/06—Maintenance Worker II (Julie Locator) Additional Business: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING Page likAFT Monday, February 28, 2005 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room City Council and Staff present: Alderman Besco Alderwoman Burd (in at 7:12) Public Works Director Eric Dhuse Mayor Prochaska(out at 7:58) Alderman Sticka City Engineer Joe Wywrot Guests: Attorney Dan Kramer(7:06 to 7:23) Dean Wolfen The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Alderman Besco. Approval/Correction of Minutes: January 24,2005: Minutes were approved as written. Presentations: None New Business: 1. Countryside Pump Station—Results of Bid Opening: Mr. Wywrot stated that a lot of bids were received for the work in question. Having previously worked with them, Deuchler recommends awarding the bid to the lowest bidder who was River City Construction Co. in the amount of$1,553,426.00. Mr. Wywrot recommended moving this on to COW on 3/15/05 for consideration. The Committee agreed to move this on. 2. Tree Trimming/Removal Policy: Mr. Dhuse created this new policy in regards to tree trimming and removal. Alderman Sticka stated he found technical issues in the writing and would like to work with Mr. Dhuse to straighten a lot of wording out before moving forward with this. All present felt this policy was needed and agreed to have those two get together to straighten out wording. This will come back to Public Works at a future date. 3. Water Department Report for November 2004: With no questions on the report,the Committee agreed to move this on to COW on 3/15/05 as consent agenda. Additional Business: • At this time Mr. Kramer arrived to speak to the Committee regarding an issue a private business owner discussed with him. The Committee agreed to let him discuss this item now and then move back to the items on the agenda in order. Page 2 of 6 Mr. Kramer stated to the Committee that Mr. Phil Nelson approached him regarding having a highway cut on Route 47 for the Funeral Home. Mr. Nelson has already been to IDOT on this issue. Mr. Kramer advised him not to start digging yet because he needed to let the City sign off on this first. Mr. Kramer went over a schematic on the current building and it should they would bring the drive out on the southeast corner of the building. It would be a full access drive. Mr. Wywrot asked if Mr. Kramer knew how this would work out with Countryside Center's proposal on a new drive. The Committee discussed how this would affect other cuts into Route 47 that are being looked at in the area. Mayor Prochaska stated he was aware of 3 full accesses being looked at between Route 34 and Countryside Parkway. Alderman Sticka was very strong in recommending that he wait on this until they could coordinate with the shopping center to limit access points. Mr. Dhuse pointed out that this entrance would not have traffic everyday being it is for a funeral home. Mr. Kramer suggested lastly that he could ask for IDOT to write up a guarantee to have access for shopping center stating that IDOT guarantees they will allow that access. Mr. Kramer will see if Rich with IDOT could get in touch with Mr. Wywrot. During the conversation, it was brought up by Mr. Wywrot that the City's Ordinance does not distinguish between residential and commercial when it comes to size of a driveway. New Business continued... 4. IDOT Letter of Understanding with City for Grande Reserve Route 34 Improvements: Mr. Wywrot stated to the Committee that they have received the normal letter from the state regarding agreements between the State and the City with maintenance of roadways and traffic signals. One new item with this agreement is the city will assume 100% of the maintenance for the Opticom traffic signal pre-emption equipment that the Bristol-Kendall Fire Protection District has requested at all new signalized intersections in town. Mr. Wywrot stated he has read through this and there is nothing out of line. He is recommending this move forward. The Committee felt this is a need in the City and will move this forward to COW on 3/15/05 for discussion. It is $10,000.00 per signal to retrofit a signal. These are very beneficial for the fire departments. 5. Grande Reserve Aquatic Center—Plat of Vacation: Mr. Wywrot stated this is a proposed plat vacation for the Grande Reserve Aquatic Center so they can move forward with building so as not to be building over an easement. Mr. Wywrot is recommending this move forward. The Committee agreed and this will go on to COW on 3/15/05 for consideration. Page 3 of 6 2004 Sidewalk Replacement Program— 103 W. Center Street: Mr. Wywrot stated that Mr. Doug Pierson of 103 W. Center Street has requested reimbursement for funds in regards to him replacing the sidewalk in front of his home. The City had previously decided this section was eligible for the sidewalk replacement program, but with Mr. Pierson doing construction on his home at that time, he asked the City to wait and let him replace it. The City would have spent $1084.80 on this section of sidewalk and Mr. Pierson is requesting $900.00 (the 60%), which is saving the City money. The money is also in the budget for this section. Mr. Wywrot is recommending these funds be reimbursed per the City's sidewalk replacement program. The Committee agreed and this will go on to City Council as consent agenda on 3/15/05. 6. Non-Residential Landscape Irrigation Policy: Mr. Wywrot stated that approximately 3-4 months ago the City had a situation with Grande Reserve development being able to connect to City water for irrigation use. At that time the City asked that they did not due to using 900,000 gallons a week of the City's water. Grande Reserve ended up backing off on their request and in turn will be drilling an intermediate depth well that will not effect resident's shallow well's or the City's deep wells for irrigation water. This problem was solved with Grande Reserve. Mr. Wywrot went on to state that this situation got them thinking that the City should have some sort of policy in place to deal with this type of issue. He is recommending setting up a policy for expansive areas of common open space. The Committee discussed ways of monitoring or measuring water use for other commercial areas or businesses. Mr. Wywrot will get together with City Attorney John Wyeth to come up with this policy and the proper language. This will come back to Public Works on 3/28/05. 7. Request for Approval to Use "John Robert Ament" as Historical Street Name: Mr. Wywrot stated that the name "John Robert Ament"has been approved by the Human Resource Commission as a Historical Street name and is here at Public Works as part of the Ordinance adopted. The Committee agreed to this name and moved to send this on to COW as consent agenda on 3/15/05. 8. 500 MG Water Tower Painting: Mr. Wywrot stated that they are looking to paint the City's 500,000 gallon water tower and have budgeted $220,000.00 which will come out of water operations funding. The font type is in question now due to the length needed to wrap around the water tower properly. The Committee agreed on the"romantic" font type and instructed Mr. Wywrot to go ahead and take to bid ASAP for better pricing. The bid opening will occur on 3/25/05, but work will not actually begin until after May 1, 2005. This will come to a future COW. 9. In-Town Road Program—IDNR Storm Sewer Easement: Mr. Wywrot stated that there are two easements the City needs to get and one is from IDNR for storm Page 4 of 6 sewer just down stream of the Palmer Dam. IDNR is okay with it and have prepared the license agreement and now needs to go to City Council for approval. He recommends this move on. This will go on to COW on 3/15/05 for discussion. 10. In-Town Road Program Phase I—Authorization for Bid Schedule: Mr. Wywrot stated there are two contracts here. One is a utility contract which is all storm sewers and a roadway contract, which are all roads. They would like to get the road contract complete before school reopens in August. For them to do this they need to follow a tight schedule. They are working with Smith Engineering on this, but bid opening will have to be prior to May 1 to keep this moving on time. There is no further action now, but they will take this to bid. This will go on to a future COW. 11. Engineering Department Organizational Chart: Mr. Wywrot stated that all departments were supposed to take these charts to their committees for review. This is what the Engineering department is proposing for the upcoming fiscal year and the following fiscal year. He went on to state that they are looking to put Mike Robinson as a full-time Senior Engineering which means they would need to hire a full-time Julie locator. The following year they are looking to hire one additional person, which the title is being left flexible at this time. Alderman Besco brought up that a new PW vehicle would be needed for the new Julie locator as well. Lastly, Mr. Wywrot brought up the fact that the salary range for Senior Engineering Technician and Engineering Technician are the same range. The Committee asked this to go to Admin Committee for discussion on 4/7/05 so that a salary schedule for both positions is created. Mayor Prochaska stated that this was asked to be brought to Committee so each Committee was aware of what is needed for when the budget is discussed. 12. 2005 Public Sidewalk Program: Mr. Wywrot brought this for discussion in hopes to change the focus of sidewalk work to flow where the City is currently working on with the in-town road program. He added that in the past the City advertised that residents could have the walk in front of their homes replaced if they paid 40% of the cost. This results in rather high unit prices because the contractor was hopping from one spot to another and replacing small sections of walk. The City has also seen a decreasing number of residents taking advantage of this program. This year they are planning to fund 100% of the replacement/construction of sidewalk in just one part of town, which should result in better unit prices. Basically, he is stating that the City should not have a stand alone sidewalk project this year and apply the money to the in-town road project and get those sidewalks done. He pointed out in his memo that the roads that would have sidewalks worked on this year would be as follows: • Center Street (Jaycee pond to Liberty) Page 5 of 6 • East Main Street(Route 47 to Bruell) • Colton Street (E. Main to Somonauk) • Liberty Street (E. Main to Park) The Committee discussed other areas that are in need for sidewalks desperately as well (Fox Road being a main one). The Committee agreed to move forward in this manner. Alderman Besco stated that he hopes to see the Sidewalk Program come back in future. Mr. Wywrot was told to proceed with logic. 13. Well 8 & 9 Treatment Facility—Change Order#2: Mr. Wywrot stated that this is the final balancing change order for the work in question. This change order will also extend the completion date by 157 days due to delays beyond the control of the contractor. The amount of the increase is $7,242.81. EEI recommends and Mr. Wywrot also recommends this move forward. The Committee agreed to send on to COW 3/15/05 as consent agenda. 14. EEI Hourly Rate Increases: Mr. Wywrot stated the City has received a letter from Jeff Freeman with EEI stating that there will be an increase in rates for all new contracts, not existing contracts. The Committee discussed that the City can elect to go to someone else if the rates are too high above others. Alderman Sticka stated he feels the City is with a good firm, but should not always agree to spend more money. Mr. Wywrot pointed out that they have not had a rate increase for a couple of years. The Committee asked Mr. Wywrot to get more information from Mr. Freeman and EEI and take this on to 3/15/05 COW for discussion. 15. Game Farm Road Improvements—Land Surveying Services: Mr. Wywrot stated they have received a proposal from Smith Engineering Consultants in the amount of$574.40 regarding additional land surveying services for the Game Farm Road project. This money is for doing staking and preparing plat of easement. This work is needed to be done to determine the extent of right-of-way dedication we would need from the school district. The Committee agreed to send this on to COW on 3/15/05 as consent agenda. Additional Business continued... 2. Mr. Dhuse stated that he missed a page with the International Dealer and there will be an increase in the price of the trucks priced previously. The price of the plow was not included in the amount he took to City Council previously. He will bring this back with the correct amounts for discussion with the Council. 3. Alderman Sticka stated he would like to see the Public Works Committee next month consider what was originally thrown in front of them by EEI as far as the Beecher Road extension. He went on to state that Sugar Grove has now completed their Comp plan and in that there is a Parkway that will end at Baseline Road. He feels that this needs to be done now before development covers all the Page 6 of 6 open space in that area. He also suggested the road be constructed not to hold heavy trucks to keep open for local traffic. The only drawback with it being constructed in this way is not being able to use MFT funds later on. This would be a great way to construct a N/S route which this area demands. Mr. Sticka would like to see this plan on paper for future developers to pay for. Alderwoman Burd suggested that this go to Council for all to discuss and decide. This will move forward with the Public Works recommendation. Mr. Wywrot was asked to bring forward Sugar Grove's Comp Plan, Yorkville's Transportation Plan and the different subdivision areas. This will be discussed again at a future Public Works titled as future road extensions. The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 pm. Minutes by: Sheila Teausaw .-- .,„/ -4- ( ,,Eo car o United City of Yorkville Memo am 06 800 Game Farm Road lle1 11% ' 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 ..z...:-_,-,---__________ Telephone: 630-553-8545 1 [II -1 � p Fax: 630-553-3436 Date: March 3, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator \‘\ s I ' From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public orks Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Van Emmon Storm Sewer Repair Attached find one copy of an invoice from Dennis W. Dwyer, Inc. in the amount of $11,094.88 for the replacement of a 36" storm sewer on East Van Emmon Street near the east alley. This work was performed when Dwyer was constructing the 12" watermain on Van Emmon last fall. Since the work was not related to the watermain construction, we asked Dwyer to invoice us separately for the work. During construction of the watermain, we found that the existing storm sewer was a cast-in-place sewer that literally had no bottom. We also found a large void beneath the Van Emmon pavement where soil had been washing into the storm sewer over time. To avoid a future sinkhole collapse of the pavement, we instructed Dwyer to replace the old storm sewer with conventional concrete storm sewer pipe. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee ends of March 28, 2005 for '� consideration. ___� 6k 3/y 03/0112005 11: 36 6:309619454 DW DWYER INC PAGE 01 a�r��llr) DENNIS W. DWYER,EIS, INC. SEWER & WATER CONTRACTOR 74 W.3'5 PIN OAK LANE C NAPERVIL_E,t', 60540• PHONE 830.561-0733 • FAX 630-661.9454 25-Jan-05 Page 1/1 United City of Yorkvile PH' (6301 553-4350 800 Game Farm Road FX: (630) 553-4377 Yorkville, IL 60560 Attention: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer RE: "Corrected" Invoice Ref: Extra to Contract C.2-Mill & Van Emmon Water Waterworks System Improvements Work Ordered by: Eric Dhuse,Public Works Dept. Location: 200 if East of Rt. 47 on Van Emrricn Road Work Description: Install 30 If of 36" RCP INVOICE Material: 36" RCP WlMastic, Bricks& Grout $1,066,00 Total Material $1,066,00 Labor: Operator-Foremen R.T. $82.00 qtr 16.0 hrs $1,312.00 O.T $115.43 hr 3.0 hrs $34629 Operator 0 T. $78.54 hr 16.0 hrs $1,256 64 0,1. $109.65 hr 3.0 hrs $328.95 Laborer 1,1,7 $66.43 hr 35.5 hrs $2,358.25 O.T, $93.37 hr 2.0 hrs $166,74 Total Labor $5,788,88 Equipment: Excavator $125.00 hr '6.0 hrs $2 000.00 Case 590 Loader-Backhoe $70 hr 16.0 hrs $1,120 00 Ditch Box WtCelivery $290.00 Is lump sum $290.00 Hydraulic Breaker W!Delivery $370.00 Is lump sum $370.00 Total Equipment $3,7130.00 Sub-Contractors! Low Boy Moves for Excavator $80.00 hr 5.0 hrs $400,00 Pavement- Saw Cut $1.00 if 60.0 If $60,00 Total Sub-Contractors $460.00 Invoice Total $11,094.$8 Respectfully Subm tted, �r� Barbara Dwyer, President, .. 'JG ,,,Ck,;,, ,(,{, 4N W CITY OF YORKV I LLE 411 !r1' PM i)._I ��() WATER DEPARTMENT T REPORT MONTH nFCFr4BER 04 20 — WELLS WELL DEPTH PUMP DEPTH WATER ABOVE THIS MONTH'S PUMPAGE NO. (FEET) (FEET) PUMP (FEET) (MILLION GALLONS) 3 1335 463 202 14, 431 4 1393 542 187 14 , 306 TOTAL 28 , 737 ID CURRENT MONTH'S PUMPAGE IS 2,6 0 1 , 0 0 0 GALLONS MORE THAN LAST MONTH ❑ LESS 1 , 882 , 000 ICI MORE GALLONS THAN THIS MONTH LAST YEAR ❑ LESS DAILY AVERAGE PUMPED: 972 , 000 GALLONS DAILY MAXIMUM PUMPED: 1 , 212, 000 GALLONS DAILY AVERAGE PER CAPITA USE: 101. 25 GALLONS WATER TREATMENT CHLORINE FED: 453 LBS. CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 1 . 9 MG/L FLUORIDE FED: 346 LBS. CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 0. 26 MG/L WATER QUALITY AS DETERMINED FROM SAMPLES ANALYZED BY ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BACTERIOLOGICAL: 9 SAMPLES TAKEN 9 SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY (EXPLAIN FLUORIDE : 2 SAMPLE(S) TAKEN CONCENTRATION : 1 . 0 MG/L MAINTENANCE NUMBER OF METERS REPLACED: 8 NUMBER OF LEAKS OR BREAKS REPAIRED: 0 NEW CUSTOMERS RESIDENTIAL 44 COMMERCIAL 0 INDUSTRIAL/GOVERNMENTAL COMMENTS WELL 8 ON LINE I CITY OF YORKV I LL E or 1 '' („J WATER DEPARTMENT REPORT - � � MONTH JANUARY on 05 WELLS . WELL DEPTH PUMP DEPTH WATER ABOVE THIS MONTH'S PUMPAGE NO. (FEET) (FEET) PUMP (FEET) (MILLION GALLONS) 3 1335 463 203 13 , 589 4 1393 542 188 16 , 383 TOTAL 29 , 972 CURRENT MONTH'S PUMPAGE IS 1 , 2 3 5, O O O GALLONS MORE THAN LAST MONTH ❑ LESS 3 , 070 , 000 GALLONS n MORE THAN THIS MONTH LAST YEAR ❑ LESS DAILY AVERAGE PUMPED: 967 , 000 GALLONS DAILY MAXIMUM PUMPED: 1 , 13 2, 000 GALLONS DAILY AVERAGE PER CAPITA USE: 101 . GALLONS ' WATER TREATMENT` CHLORINE FED: 47 5 LBS. CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 1 ' 9 MG/L FLUORIDE FED: 355 LBS. CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 0. 26 MG/L WATER QUALITY AS DETERMINED FROM SAMPLES ANALYZED BY ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BACTERIOLOGICAL: 9 SAMPLES TAKEN 9 SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY (EXPLAIN FLUORIDE : 2 SAMPLE(S) TAKEN CONCENTRATION: 1 . 0 MG/L IMAINTENANCE `7 NUMBER OF METERS REPLACED: 8 NUMBER OF LEAKS OR BREAKS REPAIRED: 2 NEW CUSTOMERS RESIDENTIAL 33 COMMERCIAL 1 INDUSTRIAL/GOVERNMENTAL COMMENTS 2 WATER MAIN BREAKS 107 W KENDALL & 201 CENTER PARKWAY. LOST 100, 000 GALLONS OF WATER DUE TO MAIN BREAK. WHISPERING MEADOW SUBDIVISION ON LIN: =.,�Eo ��r o United City of Yorkville Memo `� '" 800 Game Farm Road EST. ilrilli1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 ,� Telephone: 630-553-8545 •i ~ ,9 `a1- O Fax 630-553-3436 o co 4.E I Date: March 11, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer _ U cyi— CC: Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Hydraulic Avenue Interceptor-Change Order#2 Attached find one copy of proposed Change Order No.2 for the referenced project. This change order, in the amount of a$36,150.00 increase, is for additional work related to storm sewer, watermain construction, and project safety. Contrary to Deuchler's transmittal letter, the 30" casing pipe was installed under Hydraulic Avenue about 50 feet east of the East Alley, not under the tracks at Mill Street. This pipe was used to carry an existing storm sewer at that location. The valves and line stops were used in conjunction with the watermain replacement on Hydraulic Avenue. All were used to keep water service and fire protection available to the adjacent property owners during the project. The sewer construction was relatively close to the RR tracks, and Illinois Railnet was concerned about the contractor temporarily placing material on the tracks. To avoid the expense of a full-time flagman, we agreed to place a safety fence along the tracks to keep the contractor away from that area. While a flagman was needed at certain times, the fence greatly reduced the amount of flagman protection that we ended up paying for. I recommend that this change order be approved. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. WALTER E . DEUCHLER ASSOCIATES INC. Consulting Engineers 230 WOODLAWN AVENUE • TELEPHONE (630) 897-4651 • FAX (630)897-5696 AURORA, ILLINOIS 60506 February 24, 2005 Mr. Joe Wywrot City Engineer City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 RE: Change Order No. 2 Hydraulic Avenue Interceptor W.E.D.A. Job #788-03033-00 Dear Joe: As you are aware,H. Linden& Sons replaced 1484 linear feet of 8 inch and 10 inch wateimains as part of the installation of the 42 inch sanitary sewer interceptor. The water main replacement work was approved by the City Council as part of the Change Order No. 1 dated August 26, 2004. In addition to the above, we installed four (4) inserta valves to provide water flows to the local residents while replacing the water mains, 20 feet of 30 inch casing for a 24 inch stoini sewer at Mill Street and 1460 linear feet of safety fence along the railroad tracks at a total cost of$36,150.00. We respectfully request that this additional work be approved by the City Council as Change Order No. 2. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, WALTER E. JEUCHLER ASSOCIATES, INC. Philippe :. Moreau, P.E. PFM/mw Encl. cc: Steve Linden, w/Encl. Brent Schepp, w/Encl. • Water Works and Sewerage • Buildings and Structures • Design and Construction • Streets and Street Lighting • Investigations and Reports • Project Financing CHANGE ORDER Order No. 2 Date 02-24-05 Agreement Date: NAME OF PROJECT: HYDRAULIC AVENUE INTERCEPTOR • OWNER: UNITED CITY OF YORKVTT LE CONTRACTOR: H. LINDEN & SONS SEWER & WATER, INC. The following changes are hereby made to the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: Justification: Change to CONTRACT PRICE: Original CONTRACT PRICE: $ 1,847.778.00 Current CONTRACT PRICE adjusted by previous CHANGE ORDER$ 1,893,573.00 The CONTRACT PRICE due to this CHANGE ORDER will be (increased) (d ?) by: $ 36,150.00 The new CONTRACT PRICE including this CHANGE ORDER will be $ 1,929.723.00 Change to CONTRACT TIME: The CONTRACT TIME will be (increased) (decreased) by 0 calendar days. The date for completion of all work is (Date). �R�If%A Requested by: Philippe F. Moreau. W.E. Deuchler Assoc. A___,„, --111.41 'h Accepted by: H. inden & Sons Sewer : Water, Inc. United i.ty of Yorkville Approved by: 41 / Mayor Federal Agency Approval (where applicable) H. LINDEN & SONS SEWER & WATER, INC PO BOX 344 YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 630-553-2014 Fax 630-553-9270 24-Feb-05 W.E Deuchler Associates 230 Woodlawn Avenue Aurora, H 60506 RE: Hydraulic Avenue, Yorkville Additional work done on the Hydraulic Avenue, Yorkvill job. 1. 20 feet of 30" casing under tracks 20 In ft 100 $ 2,000.00 2. 6 inch lnserta valve 1 each 6500 $ 6,500.00 3. 8 inch Inserta valve 2 each 6700 $ 13,400.00 4. 10 inch line stop 1 each 6950 $ 6,950.00 5. Safety fence 1460 In ft 5 $ 7,300.00 $ 36,150.00 Steve Linden . \A Ll- gipt.4 . , o United City of Yorkville Memo t, , , "6 800 Game Farm Road ro Am EST.% 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 ,� ` Telephone: 630-553-8545 a . Fax: 630-553-3436 0•0 ' o Date: March 14, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer6--'7U CC: Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Rob Roy Creek Interceptor—Contract#1 Change Order No. 2 Attached find one copy of proposed Change Order No. 2 for the referenced project. This change order, in the amount of a $9,000.57 increase, is for various work items, as described below: • $4,000.00 total for sanitary service stubs to two PNA Youth Camp buildings, being a kitchen and a shower building. The alignment of the new sewer was through the old septic field, and completely destroyed it. Rather than re-building the septic field, these buildings will be connected to the sanitary sewer. • $5,000.57 for replacing the entrance gate to the PNA camp. The existing gate had to be removed to allow for the sewer construction. At the time the sewer contract was bid out, however, the PNA had not determined how they wanted the gate replaced so replacement was not included in the original bid documents. Please note that while some of this work is not directly related to construction of the trunk sewer line, all of this work will ultimately be reimbursed by YBSD. Please place this item on the March 28, 2005 Public Works Committee agenda for consideration. WALTER E . DEUCHLER ASSOCIATES INC. Consulting Engineers 230 WOODLAWN AVENUE • TELEPHONE (630) 897-4651 • FAX (630) 897-5696 AURORA, ILLINOIS 60506 March 14, 2005 Mr. Joe Wywrot City Engineer City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 RE: Change Order No. 2 Rob Roy Creek Interceptor - Contract No. 1 W.E.D.A. Job #788-04050-00 Dear Joe: • The installation of the Rob Roy Creek Interceptor Contract 1 is now complete and we are presently performing sewer televising, air testing and vertical ring deflection measurements of the pipe,prior to begin surface restoration. During the course of the installation of the 36-inch diameter interceptor, additional services in the amount of$9,000.57 were performed by the Contractor,which were not specified in the Contract Documents such as: - Providing inserta tee,riser and a section of 6-inch service near NLI#8 for future connection to PNA buildings. - Providing inserta tee, riser and a section of 6-inch service to connect the existing building at the southeast corner of the PNA property. Additional connection work including removal of septic tank will be forwarded upon receipt. - Furnishing and installing a permanent 6-foot high chain link fence and double gates at the entrance of the PNA property. It is our recommendation that the City Council approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of$9,000.57 for work provided by the Contractor on Contract No. 1 of the Rob Roy Creek Interceptor. • Water Works and Sewerage • Buildings and Structures - • Design and Construction • Streets and Street I iahtina • Invectioatinnc and Rennrtc • Prniert Finanrino Mr. Joe Wywrot City of Yorkville March 14, 2005 Page 2 Should you have any questions or require additional infolluation, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, WALTER/DEUCHLER ASSOCIATES, Ii,TC. -.41411%," Philip se F. •oreau P.E. PFM/mw Encl. cc: Karen Tenuta, Glenbrook Excavating & Concrete, Inc. O3/13/24 37: 49 847459947E GLENEP,OOK EXCAVATING PAGE 02/Ki MAR. 14.2335 2: 1.9PM WPLTEP DEUCHLEP INC NO.092 P. 1/1 CHANGE ORDER Order No. 2 Date 03-01-05 Agreement Date: NAME OF PROJECT: ROB ROY CREEK INTERCEPTOR, CONTRACT 1 OWNER: UNITED CITY Q]' YORXVTT.T s CONTRACTOR: GLENBROOK EXC,_V• ; G; GONCIZTIa. NNS. The following changes are hereby made to the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: Justification: Time extension due to delays in awarding the Contract, Original CONTRACT PRICE: $ 956,5g2,00 Current CONTRACT PRICE adjusted by previous CHANGE ORDER S 956,532.00 The CONTRACT PRICE due to this CHANGE ORDER will be (inereased) (decreased)by: 9,000.57 The new CONTRACT PRICE including this CHANGE ORDER will be S 965,5$2.57 Change to CONTRACT TIME: Original completion.date: April 30, 2005 The CONTRACT TIME will be (increased) (decreased)by 0 calendar days. The date for completion of all work is June 30. 2005 (Date.). Requested by: Walter E. Deuciller Associate_s_,T, c. Accepted by: Glcnbroolt Excavating & Concrete. Inc. "IIP MEM Approved by: Federal Agency Approval(where applicable) 03/13./2004 07: 49 8474599476 GLENEROOK EXCAVATING PAGE 03/03 GLENBROOK EXCAVATING & CONCRETE, INC. INVOICE 20389 Weiland Pd. Prairie View, Illinois 60069 (847) 724-9477 Fax: (847) 459-9476 SOLD TO: -_ ------------ ---- -- - The city of Yorkville INVOICE NUMBER 022505 800 Gamefarm Road INVOICE DATE 02/25/05 Yorkville, Illinois OUR ORDER NUMBER _ _ YOUR ORDER NUMBER -- TERMS 30 days JOB: SALES REP Rob Roy Interceptor SHIPPED VIA F.O.B. PREPAID or COLLECT QUANTRY • DESCRIPT1ON UNIT PRICE. AMOUNT 1 Service Lins located 35' east of manhole # 8 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 1 Service Lines located 150' North of manhole # 10 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 130 Furnish & install chain link & gate $38,46 $5,000.57 SUBTOTAL $9,000.57 TAX -- FREIGHT -------------- ------- $9,000.57 Questions concerning this invoice? MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO: PAY THIS Call: 847-724-9477 Glenbrook Excavating & Concret, Inc. AMOUNT Fax: 847-459-9476 20389 Weiland Road Prairie View, Illinois 60069 THANK YOU FOR YOUR Q f,.($J4FSSI F w 4'-r-5- `03 c°.1" United City of Yorkville Memo J 1, ,,r,,, 800 Game Farm Road EST. 1 ct r�� 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 mit,� .....-:,____„_,:-___- Telephone: 630-553-8545 o1. o Fax: 630-553-3436 too KANIOSH COUMY .4$1. Date: March 18, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Up------ CC: Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Whispering Meadows Unit 2 (Underground, Earthwork, and Paving) Fidelity& Deposit Co. of Maryland - Bond No. 08780401 Attached find a request from the developer for a reduction in the bond for underground, earthwork, and paving work items. Ordinance allows reductions down to 15% of the engineer's estimate of cost of substantially completed improvements prior to final acceptance. I concur with the amount of work performed to date, and recommend that the bond be reduced by the amount of$1,456,031.92. The amount to remain in the bond would be $1,706,960.11. Please note that landscaping is covered under a separate bond for Unit 2 of Whispering Meadows. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. 18-Mar-05 Letter of Credit/Bond Reduction Subdivision: Whispering Meadows- Unit 2 (Underground, Earthwork, & Paving) Original Approved Letter of Credit Substantially complete Remaining Item Eng. Est. Amount prior to Red. #1 Reduction No.1 Amount Earthwork $255,442.50 $280,986.75 $217,126.13 $206,269.82 $74,716.93 Erosion Control $34,375.00 $37,812.50 $0.00 $0.00 $37,812.50 Sanitary Sewer $404,659.00 $445,124.90 $404,659.00 $384,426.05 $60,698.85 Watermain $347,115.00 $381,826.50 $260,336.25 $247,319.44 $134,507.06 Storm Sewer $650,543.80 $715,598.18 $650,543.80 $618,016.61 $97,581.57 Pavement $1,183,312.00 $1,301,643.20 $0.00 $0.00 $1,301,643.20 Totals $2,875,447.30 $3,162,992.03 $1,532,665.18 $1,456,031.92 $1,706,960.11 Notes: 1) LOC/Bond amt. to be 15% of subsantially completed items plus 110% of uncompleted items. KIMBALL HILL HOMES February 24, 2005 Mr. Joseph A. Wyrot, P.E. City Engineer United City of Yorkville 800 Game Faun Road Yorkville, 60560 Re: Bond# 929327301 —Unit 1 Mass Grading and Soil Erosion Bond# 8780402 —Earthwork, Underground Improvements and Paving Unit 1 Bond # 8780401 —Earthwork, Underground Improvements and Paving Unit 2 Dear Mr.Wyrot: We would like to request a release for one of our bonds and a reduction in two our bonds. This is for our project in Yorkville, TT , otherwise known as Whispering Meadows. Since our Bond #8780402 and #8780401 covers the Earthwork and Soil Erosion for Unit 1, we respectfully request that Bond #929327301 be released. In addition, please find an attached schedule showing our requested reduction in the remaining bonds. Please let me know if this meets with your approval as I will need a letter from you for our bonding company If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 847.981.3486. Sincerely, Jean Bittner Controller— Community Development Kimball Hill Homes cc: Tim Schwister 5999 NEW WILKE ROAD. SUITE 208 - ROLLING MEADOWS. ILLINOIS 60008 PH: 847-364-7300 - FX: 847-364-2869 - kim6allhillhomes.com Summary of Bond#929327301 Unit 1 Mass Grading Original Cost Estimate Percentage Completed Work Complete Work Remaining to Date"" to Date to Complete 2/15/2005 - 2/15/2005 1.0 EARTHWORK 943,084.00 100% 943,084.00 - 2.0 EROSION CONTROL 103,398.00 100% 103,398.00 - 1,046,482.00 110% BOND AMOUNT 1,151,130.20 ""THE ITEMS COVERED ON THIS BOND ARE NOW PART OF BOND#8780402 AND 8780401 Summary of Bond#8780402 Earthwork, Underground Improvements and Paving in Whispering Meadows Unit 1 Original Cost Estimate Percentage Completed Work Complete Work Remaining to Date to Date to Complete 2/15/2005 2/15/2005 1.0 EARTHWORK 667,330.00 95% 633,963.50 33,366.50 2.0 EROSION CONTROL 71,030.50 0% - 71,030.50 3.0 SANTIARY SEWER SYSTEM 223,794.00 100% 223,794.00 - 4.0 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM 176,615.00 100% 176,615.00 - 5.0 STORM SEWER SYSTEM 445,908.70 100% 445,908.70 - 6.0 PAVING 707,353.70 65% 459,779.91 2,292,031.90 1,940,061.11 104,397.00 Summary of Bond#8780401 Earthwork, Underground Improvements and Paving in Whispering Meadows Unit 2 Original Cost Estimate Percentage Completed Work Complete - Work Remaining to Date to Date to Complete 2/15/2005 2/15/2005 1.0 EARTHWORK 255,442.50 85% 217,126.13 38,316.38 2.0 EROSION CONTROL 34,375.00 0% - 34,375.00 3.0 SANTIARY SEWER SYSTEM. 404,659.00 100% - 404,659.00 - 4.0 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM 347,115.00 75% •260,336.25 86,778.75 5.0 STORM SEWER SYSTEM 650,543.80 100% 650,543.80 - 6.0 PAVING 1,183,312.00 0% - 2,875,447.30 1,532,665.18 159,470.13 PV\I 4 -7(C" z United City of Yorkville Memo .. af' '\ 800 GameFarmRoad EST.4 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 -�=- Telephone:hone: 630-553-8545 3 Fax: 630-553-3436 Kvadl furry ``? /44E \\‘' Date: March 18, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer L) J S\--- CC: Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Whispering Meadows Unit 1 (Underground, Earthwork, and Paving) Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland -Bond No. 08780402 Attached find a request from the developer for a reduction in the bond for underground, earthwork, and paving work items. Ordinance allows reductions down to 15% of the engineer's estimate of cost of substantially completed improvements prior to final acceptance. I concur with the amouni of work performed to date, and recommend that the bond be reduced by the amount of$1,843,091.05. The amount to remain in the bond would be $678,144.04. Please note that landscaping is covered under a separate bond for Unit 1 of Whispering Meadows. There was also an error of$33.00 when the original bond was established. That error would corrected by this reduction by reducing that amount for erosion control work items. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. 1$-Mar-05 Letter of Credit/Bond Reduction Subdivision: Whispering Meadows - Unit 1 (Underground, Earthwork, & Paving) Theoretical Actual Approved Letter of Credit Letter of Credit Substantially complete Remaining Rem Eng. Est. Amount Amount prior to Red. #1 Reduction No.1 Amount Earthwork $667,300.00 $734,030.00 $734,030.00 $633,963.50 $602,265.33 $131,764.68 Erosion Control $71,030.50 $78,133.55 $78,166.55 $0.00 $33.00 $78,133.55 Sanitary Sewer $223,794.00 $246,173.40 $246,173.40 $223,794.00 $212,604.30 $33,569.10 Watermain $176,615.00 $194,276.50 $194,276.50 $176,615.00 $167,784.25 $26,492.25 Storm Sewer $445,908.70 $490,499.57 $490,499.57 $445,908.70 $423,613.27 $66,886.31 Pavement $707,353.70 $778,089.07 $778,089.07 $459,779.91 $436,790.91 $341,298.16 Totals $2,292,001.90 $2,521,202.09 $2,521,235.09 $1,940,061.11 $1,843,091.05 $678,144.04 Notes: 1) LOC/Bond amt. to be 15% of subsantially completed items plus 110% of uncompleted items. KIMBALL HILL HOMES February 24, 2005 Mr. Joseph A. Wyrot, P.E. City Engineer United City of Yorkville 800 Game Faun Road Yorkville, TT 60560 Re: Bond# 929327301 —Unit 1 Mass Grading and Soil Erosion Bond# 8780402 —Earthwork, Underground Improvements and Paving Unit 1 Bond# 8780401 —Earthwork, Underground Improvements and Paving Unit 2 Dear Mr.Wyrot: We would like to request a release for one of our bonds and a reduction in two our bonds. This is for our project in Yorkville, IL, otherwise known as Whispering Meadows. Since our Bond #8780402 and #8780401 covers the Earthwork and Soil Erosion for Unit 1, we respectfully request that Bond #929327301 be released. In addition, please find an attached schedule showing our requested reduction in the remaining bonds. Please let me know if this meets with your approval as I will need a letter from you for our bonding company If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 847.981.3486. Sincerely, 9,4e5„ Jean Bittner Controller— Community Development Kimball Hill Homes cc: Tim Schwister 5999 NEW WILKE ROAD, SUITE 208 • ROLLING MEADOWS, ILLINOIS 60008 PH: 847-364-7300 • FX: 847-364-2869 • kimballhillhones.com Summary of Bond#929327301 Unit 1 Mass Grading Original Cost Estimate Percentage Completed Work Complete Work Remaining to Date""** to Date to Complete 2/15/2005 2/15/2005 1.0 EARTHWORK 943,084.00 100% 943,084.00 - 2.0 EROSION CONTROL 103,398.00 100% 103,398.00 - 1,046,482.00 110% BOND AMOUNT 1,151,130.20 ***'THE ITEMS COVERED ON THIS BOND ARE NOW PART OF BOND#8780402 AND 8780401 • Summary of Bond#8780402 Earthwork, Underground Improvements and Paving in Whispering Meadows Unit 1 Original Cost Estimate Percentage Completed Work Complete Work Remaining to Date to Date to Complete 2/15/2005 2/15/2005 1.0 EARTHWORK 667,330.00 95% 633,963.50 33,366.50 2.0 EROSION CONTROL 71,030.50 0% - 71,030.50 3.0 SANTIARY SEWER SYSTEM 223,794.00 100% 223,794.00 - 4.0 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM 176,615.00 100% 176,615.00 - 5.0 STORM SEWER SYSTEM 445,908.70 100% 445,908.70 - 6.0 PAVING 707,353.70 65% 459,779.91 2,292,031.90 1,940,061.11 104,397.00 Summary of Bond#8780401 Earthwork, Underground Improvements and Paving in Whispering Meadows Unit 2 Original Cost Estimate Percentage Completed Work Complete Work Remaining to Date to Date to Complete 2/15/2005 2/15/2005 1.0 EARTHWORK 255,442.50 • 85% 217,126.13 38,316.38 2.0 EROSION CONTROL 34,375.00 0% - 34,375.00 3.0 SANTIARY SEWER SYSTEM 404,659.00 100% 404,659.00 - 4.0 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM 347,115.00 75% 260,336.25 - 86,778.75 5.0 STORM SEWER SYSTEM 650,543.80 100% 650,543.80 - 6.0 PAVING 1,183,312.00 0% - 2,875,447.30 1,532,665.18 159,470.13 PW . / o United City of Yorkville Memo J_. . f "l , '" 800 Game Farm Road ` EST. ' '' 18361 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 ° I L.\ p Fax: 630-553-3436 TLE ,�,�, Date: March 18, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer >5,0O CC: Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Whispering Meadows Units 1 & 2—Mass Grading Scheer's -Bond No. 929327301 Attached find a request from the developer to release the referenced bond in the amount of$1,151,130.00. This bond was established when the Site Development Permit was issued so that the developer could begin earthwork for Units 1 and 2 prior to approval of the final plans. When the final plans for these units was approved, the developer established separate bonds for the work in those units, including the earthwork. The result was that earthwork in Units 1 and 2 was bonded twice. The developer therefore requests that we release this bond since the work is guaranteed under other bonds. I concur with their request. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. KIMBALL HILL HOMES February 24, 2005 Mr. Joseph A. Wyrot, P.E. City Engineer United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, II_,60560 Re: Bond# 929327301 —Unit 1 Mass Grading and Soil Erosion • Bond.# 8780402 —Earthwork, Underground Improvements and Paving Unit 1 Bond# 8780401 —Earthwork, Underground Improvements and Paving Unit 2 Dear Mr.Wyrot: We would like to request a release for one of our bonds and a reduction in two our bonds. This is for our project in Yorkville, IL, otherwise known as Whispering Meadows. Since our Bond #8780402 and #8780401 covers the Earthwork and Soil Erosion for Unit 1, we respectfully request that Bond #929327301 be released. In addition, please find an attached schedule showing our requested reduction in the remaining bonds. Please let me know if this meets with your approval as I will need a letter from you for our bonding company If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 847.981.3486. Sincerely, Jean Bittner Controller— Community Development Kimball Hill Homes cc: Tim Schwister 5999 NEW WILKE ROAD, SUITE 208 - ROLLING MEADOWS, ILLINOIS 60008 PEI: 847-364-730o EX: 847-364-2869 - kimballhillhomes.com -pw o United City of Yorkville Memo 800 Game Farm Road EST. �,- 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 t Telephone: 630-553-8545 Fax: 630-553-3436 Date: March 18, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator p From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer U CC: Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Cannonball Booster Station& South PRV Station— Change Order#1 Attached find one copy of proposed Change Order#1 for the referenced project. This change order, in the amount of a $21,528.91 increase, is for various additions and one deletion to the contract. Please refer to the attached letter from EEI explaining each item in detail. I recommend that this change order be approved. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. 52 Wheeler Road • Sugar Grove, IL 60554 TEL: 630/466-9350 FAX: 630/466-9380 www.eeiweb.com • Engin/mewing; Entsrprisss. Inc. March 4, 2005 Mr. Joe Wywrot, P.E. City Engineer United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 Re: Contract A.2 Cannonball Trail BP/PRV Station & Contract C.5 South PRV Station Change Order No. 1 United City of Yorkville Kendall County, Illinois Dear Mr. Wywrot: Per your request, we offer the following expanded commentary and recommendations regarding Change Order No. 1 for the above referenced project: • Items 1 & 2 - relate to the City's request to reduce the limits of the fencing proposed on the Cannonball Trail site. The net reduction in cost is $2,400.00. • Item 3 — The City expressed a preference of having a 16-inch resilient wedge gate valve cut into the Cannonball Trail water main incorporating the use of two 16-inch line stops rather than having a 16-inch insertion valve installed. The preference was based on the double disc design of theinsertion valve. The general contractor indicated in correspondence that the alternate methodology would not result in a price change. • Item 4—After discussions regarding head losses that would result from passing water through the booster station prior to receiving electric service, it was determined that the station should be installed with a 10- inch spool piece in lieu of the 10-inch control valve to in order to minimize head losses. This extra cost pays for the field removal of the spool piece and installation of the control valve by a mechanical subcontractor(R. J. O'Neil). • Item 5 — The proposed water main connections at the South PRV Station were based on available record drawings and atlas information that indicated 20-foot extensions of 12-inch water main having been constructed off of the existing 12-inch gate valves. Upon excavation it was found that the stubs were not installed as shown. The cost indicated in this item includes exploration to locate the existing water main locations and additional materials required to make the connection to the existing system in each of the two locations. • Item 6 — The concrete driveway culvert at the Cannonball Trail booster station had to be extended further north to allow for a proper driveway radius. The need for this extension was a result of the widening and resurfacing of Cannonball Trail. The final shoulder restoration and guard rail installation on the paving project occurred after the driveway culvert had been installed. Upon completion of the Cannonball Trail work it was determined that the slope of the ditch immediately adjacent to the north edge of the driveway was now excessive due to the roadway widening. Extension of the culvert allows for the proper construction of the driveway radius and moves the steep ditch section northward to the area protected by guardrail, creating a safer condition. Consulting Engineers Specializing in Civil Engineering and Land Surveying Mr. Joe Wywrot, P.E. March 4, 2005 Page 2 • Item 7 - With the construction of the two 12-inch pressure connections required for the booster pumping station it was noted that the existing sanitary sewer and the existing water main, each on the west side of Cannonball Trail, were in direct conflict with each other from an elevation view point. This conflict was not anticipated and, therefore, water main protection was not called for on the plans. The conditions dictated that the water main be installed in casing pipe and be laid with a minimum of 18 inches separation below the existing sanitary sewer. This condition was present at each of the pressure connection locations. Not able to agree on a unit price for water main protection, it was deemed necessary to complete the extra work on a time and material basis. The two sanitary crossings involved the work of 3 laborers, 2 operators, and a supervisor over a 2.5 day period. The water main was installed within a 16-inch casing pipe, 10 feet on either side of the sanitary sewer crossing with the ends sealed. In order to install water main below the sanitary sewer four additional 45-degree bends were installed at each crossing. All of the water main fittings for the crossing were installed with restrained joints and rodded together. Due to the soil conditions (running sand) 1"-2" washed stone (CA-5) was used during the crossing for stabilizing the banks and creating a solid foundation for the pipe. Dewatering was required during the entire period to keep up with the groundwater (groundwater was encountered at each location approximately 4 1/2 feet below grade). • Item 8 — Two 4-inch adjusting ring were required to bring the existing sanitary manhole to an appropriate grade for landscaping. Having reviewed each of these items and finding them appropriate, we recommend the approval of Change Order No.1 as submitted. If you concur with our recommendation, we ask that you present the Change Order to the Public Works Committee for their recommendation and forwarding to the City Council. If you have any questions or comments with regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to call me at 630/466-9350. Respectfully submitted, ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. William E. Dunn, P.E. Senior Project Manager WED/tmh pc: JWF, TMH - EEI G:\Public\Yorkville\2003\Y00309 Contract C.5 South PRV Station\Change Orders\Icofyo0l.doc CHANGE ORDER Order No. 1 Date: February 10, 2005 Agreement Date: May 3, 2004 NAME OF PROJECT: Contract A.2A Cannonball Trail Booster Pump and Pressure Reducing Valve Station and Contract C.5 South Pressure Reducing Valve Station OWNER: United City of Yorkville CONTRACTOR: L. J. Dodd Construction, Inc. The following changes are hereby made to the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: 1 . Delete line item 22: INSTALLATION OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATES, COMPLETE 1 L.S. @ $12,000.00 ($12,000.00) 2. Add line item 22: INSTALLATION OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATES, COMPLETE (REVISED CONFIGURATION) 1 L.S. @ $ 9,600.00 $ 9,600.00 3. Provide 2 EACH 16-INCH LINE STOPS AND CUT IN 16-INCH RESILIENT WEDGE GATE VALVE IN LEIU OF 16-INCH INSERTION VALVE. NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE $ 0.00 4. Add 10-INCH SPOOL PIECE TO TEMPORARILY REPLACE 10-INCH CONTROL VALVE AND FIELD INSTALL 10-INCH CONTROL VALVE AFTER INSTALLATION OF BP/PRV STATION AND 16-INCH RESILIENT WEDGE GATE VALVE 1 L.S. @ $2,068.01 $ 2,068.01 5. Add ADDITIONAL TIME AND MATERIAL FOR CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING WATER MAIN AT THE PRV STATION, TWO (2) LOCATIONS 1 L.S. @ $3,634.00 $ 3,634.00 6. Add EXTENSION OF CONCRETE CULVERT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BP/PRV STATION ENTRANCE 1 L.S. @ $862.02 $ 862.02 CO-01 7. Add CROSSING SANITARY SEWER WITH WATER MAIN AT THE BP/PRV STATION, TWO (2) LOCATIONS 1 L.S. @ $17,226.58 $ 17,226.58 8. Add TWO (2) 4-INCH ADJUSTMENT RINGS TO THE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 1 L.S. @ $138.30 $ 138.30 Change of CONTRACT PRICE: Original CONTRACT PRICE: $511,255.75 Current CONTRACT PRICE adjusted by previous CHANGE ORDER(S) $511,255.75 The CONTRACT PRICE due to this CHANGE ORDER will be (increased) (decreased) by: $ 21,528.91 The new CONTRACT PRICE including this CHANGE ORDER will be: $532,784.66 JUSTIFICATION Items #1 & 2 — The Owner has requested that the fence be installed closer to the BP/PRV station as shown on the revised plan sheets (rev. 7/8/04). This revision reduces the amount of fence being installed from approximately 392 feet to approximately 292 feet. Item #3 —The Owner has indicated a preference to cutting in a resilient wedge Gate Valve in lieu of the insertion valve based on valve design for the BP/PRV station. Contractor has indicated no price difference between the two methods of valve installation and that a cut in valve was the methodology used in the bidding process Item #4 — The Owner has requested that BP/PRV station head losses be minimized by replacing the 10-inch control valve with a 10-inch spool piece. After the 16-inch gate valve is installed for the external bypass, the spool piece will need to be removed and the 10-inch control valve will need to be field installed. The approximate weight of the control valve to be installed is 800 pounds. Item #5 — The existing water main locations at the PRV station were different than on contract documents. Additional time and materials were used to make the connection back to the existing valve. Item #6 — Storm sewer was extended to the north at the BP/PRV station due to the existing field conditions and increase slope of the ditch due to Cannonball Trail widening. CO-02 Item #7 —The existing sanitary sewer and proposed water main crossing elevations were in conflict at the BP/PRV station. Proposed water main was protected with casting and lowered under existing sanitary sewer. Groundwater was present and soil condition was running sand. Item #8 — Adjusting rings were added at the BP/PRV station due to existing field conditions and proposed grading. Change to CONTRACT TIME: NONE Approvals Required: To be effective this order must be approved by the local agency if it changes the scope or objective of the PROJECT, or as may otherwise be required by the SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS_ . Requested by: ,� L.J. Dodd Construction, Inc. Recommended by: Engineering Enterprises, Inc. Accepted by: United City of Yorkville CO-03 (r•\PnhlirwnrkviiipmfR\y )n3ng Contract C_5 South PRV Station\Chanoe Orders\chaorderol.doc L.J. DODD CONSTRUCTION INC. CHANGE ORDER 174 Harrison Street P.O. BOX 980 630-554-8511 OSWEGO, IL 60543 Change Order: 0419-5 TO: EEI, INC. DATE 2/01/05 52 WHEELER ROAD SUGAR GROVE, IL 60554 ................... .................. QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 EA CHANGES REQUESTED BY HEINE EXC DUE TO 3,304.00 $3,304.00 SITE CONDITIONS DIFFERENT THAN ON PLANS 1 EA OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 330.00 $330.00 SUBTOTAL 3,634.00 PREVIOUS CONTRACT 531,550.66 REVISED CONTRACT $535,184.66 Ship To: TOTAL RT 71 PRV STATION 2009 S. BRIDGE STREET YORKVILLE, IL 60560 APPROVED BY DATE ACCEPTED BY DATE Sep i' 3 04 02: 30p DAVE HEINE EXC . 6303652781 p . 1 , Sep 29 04 1:: 10p JAN HEINE 1 -630- 3G5-3907 p. 1 •I4 DAVE HEINE EXCAVATING,INC. CHANGE ORDER*2 PO OOX 707 PAGE 1 OF 1 f1BURN,IL 60119 • PHONE(670)365-2828 DATE:SEPT 29,200+ FAX(6,30)3652781 JOB NAME:A2.2 ANO CS YORI(VILLE CONTRACTOR:L.1.DODD CONSIRUGTION,INC. ATTN:SCOTT CHANGES AS PER SITE CONDITIONS-CONTRACT C-S _ 1 AO x-tIonAL ANO LOST PRODUCTION DUE TO FIELD CONDff10N$ • • 15/04,wATERMA1N STUB NOT AS SHOWN-SOUTH END _ T _ T •IG FOR STUB WHERE MARKED-STUB NOT THERE-EXPOSE EX.VALVE ERIFY EX.VALVE WAS RETAINED-REMOVE THRUST BLOCKING • =FOREMAN Wr TOOLS 2.5 HRS 85.00 212.50 ' 'BORER-BOTTOM/Mkt,' - _ 2.5 -- r-u 5 70.00 175.00 ) -0150 BACKHOE WI OPERATOR - 2.5 HRS 132.00 330.00 TOTAL FOR REVISION: 717.50 2 Dr11TI0NAL ANO LOST PRODUCTION DUE TO FIELD CONOtTIOPLS ••/17/04-WATERMAIN STUB NOT A$SHOWN-NORTH ENO - •IG FOR STUB WHERE MARKED-STUB NOT THERE-EXPOSE EX.VALVE . RIFY EX.VALVE WAS RETAINED-REMOVE THRUST BLOCKING , OREMAN w/TOOLS - - 2.5 HRS 85.00 212.50 •BORER-BOTTOM/MAN 2.5 HRS 70.00 175 CO •BORER-TOP/MAN 2.5 HRS 69.20 173.00 150 BACKHOE WI OPERATOR 2.5 HRS 132.00 330,00_• TOTAL FOR REVISION: 890.50 3 • •DiTIONAL PIPE AS PER FIELD CONDITIONS(STUB NOT LOCATED AS SHOWN)-NORTH END rI _ •er170M 4-WATERMAIN STUB NOT AS SHOWN-NORTH END _ •DOITIONAL 12"DIP e1 UNIT COST_ 7 - LF 86.00 602.00 'STING- WATERMAIN TO HIGH TO MEET NON GRADE AT REOUCINO STATION STATION DOITIONAL BENDS REQUIRED - - _ J 12',_11,1/4"BEND a UNIT CAST-1 EA 52 LO 4.00 328.00_ . 2- 22"BEND 0 UNIT COST=2 CA A ((k87 LDS EA) 174 ^ LB 4.00 696.00 TOTAL FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL:.t 1,628.00 4 •DDITIONAL PIPE TO TO FIELD CONOrn0N6(STUB NOT LOCATED As SHOWN)-SOUTH END ••r11/oA-WATERMAIN STUD NOT AS SHOWN-SOUTH ENO •DITIONAI 12-DIP(8)UNIT COST 4 LF 86.00 344.00 .--.. ,ISTIN3 WATERMAIN TO HIGH TO MEET NEW GRADE AT REDUCING STATION STATION ••ITIONAL BENDS REQUIRED . 12- 11 114"BEND.452 UNfr COST-2 EA (4, 82 LBS EA) 4 164 LB 4.00 r 656,00 TOTAL FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: 1,000.00 TOTAL ALL REVISIONS THIS CHANGE ORDER it 2 3,364.00 Consideration & Payment Terms C O 1 53,30&00 for all Tabor and equipment to complete bid BS listed above. Terms are invoice,net 30 days. Date Formal Agreement By With acceptance of this quote and award of contract,have authorized ropresentative sign and return one copy to Dave Home Excavating,Inc title L.J. DODD CONSTRUCTION INC. CHANGE ORDER 174 Harrison Street P.O. BOX 980 630-554-8511 OSWEGO, IL 60543 Change Order: 0419-4 TO: EEI, INC. DATE 2/01/05 52 WHEELER ROAD SUGAR GROVE, IL 60554 ....................................... QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE ANIQUNT 1 EA CHANGES REQUESTED BY EEI TO INSTALL A 1,880.01 $1,880.01 SPOL PIECE IN PLACE OF THE CLA VALVE AND THEN REINSTALL THE CLA VALVE 1 EA OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 188.00 $188.00 SUBTOTAL 2,068.01 PREVIOUS CONTRACT 529,482.65 REVISED CONTRACT $531,550.66 Ship To: TOTAL CANNONBALL TRAIL BOOSTER STATION 1991 CANNONBALL TRAIL YORKVILLE, IL 60560 APPROVED BY DATE ACCEPTED BY DATE OCT-07-2004 THU 11 :06 AM E. F. I. FAX NO. 1 618 533 1459 P. 01 ENGNEEREsit ud I ® i N 'alio 'I �p2nd, / POST OFFICE BOX 723 i CENTFALIA, IL 62601 i 618/533-1351 + FAX 618/533-1459 FAX TRANSMI'T'TAL TO; L. J. Dodd Construction, Inc . DATE; October 7, 2004 ATTTN: Mr. Scott Fabere PAGE 1 OF 1 FAX: 630-554-8674 FROM; Joe Folkerts jfolkerts@engineeredfluid. com RE: Yorkville, Illinois Cannonball Trail Booster Pump Station Pressure Reducing Station EFI #87515 MESSAGE: Dear Mr. Fabere: Per the fax dated October 4 , 2004 from Engineering Enterprises, Inc. and our phone conversation EFI would like to fabricate and install a 10" Diameter spool piece to replace the 10" Diameter control valve. The cost for this work will be $568 . 01 . Please sign, date, and return to our office at your earliest convenience is this is acceptable . Please do not hesitate to call or e-mail with any questions or comments . J'F/j dm cc : Mr . Dave Ealy, EFI Regional Manager APPROVED BY: L . J. DODD CONSTRUCTION, INC. NAME: DATE: R. J. O'Neil, Inc. Mechanical Contractors 1125 S. LAKE ST PHONE 630-906-1300 FAX 630-906-1369 MONTGOMERY,IL 60538 L.J.Dodd Construction,Inc. Thursday, October 07, 2004 174 South Harrison Street Oswego,IL 60543 Re: Cannonball Trail PRV Station Scott, Price to remove 10"spool piece and install Cla-Val at the above station $ 1,312.00 Valve to be furnished by others. Thank You, Dan O'Neil L.J. DODD CONSTRUCTION INC. CHANGE ORDER 174 Harrison Street P.O. BOX 980 630-554-8511 OSWEGO, IL 60543 Change Order: 0419-2 TO: EEI, INC. DATE 2/01/05 52 WHEELER ROAD SUGAR GROVE, IL 60554 QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 EA TIME AND MATERIAL TO CROSS SANITARY WITH 15,660.53 $15,660.53 WATER MAIN AT TWO LOCATIONS 1 EA OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 1,566.05 $1,566.05 SUBTOTAL 17,226.58 PREVIOUS CONTRACT 511,394.05 REVISED CONTRACT $528,620.63 Ship To: TOTAL CANNONBALL TRAIL BOOSTER STATION 1991 CANNONBALL TRAIL YORKVILLE, IL 60560 APPROVED BY DATE ACCEPTED BY DATE Jri31 05 01 : 03p DAVE HEINE EXC. 6303652781 p . 5 • DAVE HEINE EXCAVAT/A70, INC. CHANGE ORDER 2 PO BOX tS7 PAGE 1 OF1 Ef.BURA4!4 6o r r9 PROrvE/6301 365-2328 QUITE;i0252004 FAX 1630(365-27P1 JOB NAME CANNONBALL TRAIL GENERAL.CONTRACTOR;L.J.DODD CONSTRUCTION,INC. Arra_SCOTT /1S PER FIELD CONDITIONS ITEM 4 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT , QUANTITY UNIT FMB TOTAL 12"WM415"SAN CROSSINGW/18"CASING 10/25/04 TAM 150 BACKHOE W/OPERATOR - _- MRS 8.5 5135.00 $1 147,50 10/25/04 TAM 963 TRACK LOADER W/OPERATOR _ HRS 8,5 S113,30 51.530.00 10/25/04 TAM LABORER(3 MEN) HRS 24.5 568.50 - S1,373,25 10/25/04 TAM SUPERVISOR WITH TOOLS rz'TRUCK HR 9 582.00 5738.00_ 10/25/04 ITAM OT/OVER 8 MRS LABORER M 5 0.5 529.00 514.50 10/25/04 TAM OT/OVER a MRS SUPERVISOR NRS 1 --.- 529-50 57.8,50 1025/04 TAM OT/OVER 8 HRS OPERATORS __ HRS 1 529.75 $29.75 10/26/04 AM 150 BACKHOEIW OPERATOR ^T� ��HRS 3 ----- --_- ;;135.00 5805.00 10/26/04 TAM 963 TRACK LOADERHRS 3 5160.00 5540.00 1028/04 TAM LABORERS(3 MEN) HRS 7 568.50 5479,50 -• 10/20/04 TAM SUPERVISOR WITH TOOLS A TRUCK HRS 3.5 552.00 5257.00 10/27/04 TAM 150 BACKHOE WIOPERATOR HRS 3.5 5135.00 5.472.50 10/27/04TAM 903 TRACK LOADER HRS 3.3 5180.00 5630.00 _ .10127/04 TAM LABORERS(3MEN)3.5 MRS EA. MRS 10.5 565.50 T719.25 _ 10/27,04 TAM SUPERVISOR WITH TOOLS 8.TRUCK HRS 3.5 582.00 5297.00 MATERIAL USED 10/18/04 THRU 10/27104 CA-8 STONE DELIVERED TNS 12.96 510.33 513,1,88 CAS STONE DELIVERED INS 70.44 512.63 51.003.32 CA-7 STONE DELIVERED TNS ,_ 28.1 - 512.51 5351.53 20'12"DIP,40'16"0000,8 12"BENDS,LUGS,RODS,HEX NUTS L3 1 54,.184.05 54,884.05 DEWATERING 10/25/34-10!2804 aCIIAR GE FOR 2-PUMP MRS 15 520,00 5300,05 TOTAL FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER ;15,880.53 . i___,. . _____ Cnnalderaelon&Payment Terms 315,680.53 for ell labor and equipmanl to cor*'plote CHANGE ORDER ft BASE BID ne Hated above. 1 arms are invoice,net 30 days AS NtUuESI ED. Formal Agreement With acceptance of this quote and award of conQact,hays nutholl20d rcprosot11a11vo sip end return ono copy to Dave Helne txcnvatng.Inc. Dale Dave Heine Excavating,Inc. • Ry . By:Jon Heine Tito Titin.Vice Pro:F L.J. DODD CONSTRUCTION INC. CHANGE ORDER 174 Harrison Street P.O. BOX 980 630-554-8511 OSWEGO, IL 60543 Change Order: 0419-3 TO: EEI, INC. DATE 2/01/05 52 WHEELER ROAD SUGAR GROVE, IL 60554 QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT :: 1 EA TIME AND MATERIAL TO ADD A SECTION OF 784.02 $784.02 CONCRETE CULVERT AS REQUESTED 1 EA OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 78.00 $78.00 SUBTOTAL 862.02 PREVIOUS CONTRACT 528,620.63 REVISED CONTRACT $529,482.65 Ship To: TOTAL CANNONBALL TRAIL BOOSTER STATION 1991 CANNONBALL TRAIL YORKVILLE, IL 60560 APPROVED BY DATE ACCEPTED BY DATE Nov 11 04 10 : 40a DAVE HEINE EXC . 6303652781 p. 2 nAVE HE/NE EXCAVATING, INC. CHANGE ORDER 3 PC CC-Y1.7.7 PAGE 1 OF 1 tLBURA'. 1L Cri r ry )-H0JNt. 1630):>(i5.18.28 DATE: 11/11/04 rA\.(530) 36.5-77k1 JOB NAME:CANNONBALL TRAIL C-5 GENERAL CONTRACTOR: 1,1. DODD,CONSTRUCTION, INC. ATTN: SC()I t I•ABRE AS PER FIELD CONDITIONS !?EM# !TEM DESCRIPTION I UNIT 7._QUANTITY T UNIT PRICE I TOTAL 1 r15"RCP STORM EXTENSION-DRIVEWAY WIDENING ( 1 10/21/0,1 I1 -STORM PIPEL _ FT I I; I 58.00 $64.00 1 10/21/04 ITEM 150 BACKHOE WITH OPERATOR I HRS 1 ?.S I 3135.00_ I S337.50__ 10/21/04 1TS,M SUPERVISOR WITH TOOLS S TRUCK I HRS 7.5 1 .3-3-2—.0-0— 5205.00 10/21/0 L IT&Ni 314'STONE( DELIVERED__ -,-.--. I TNS 1`3,19 _L—51151 1 $1/7.52 10/21/04 'TAM CA-6 STONE ININVEFTILT PUT ON C/O 02 IN ERROR 1 TNS i I T.. 12,96 I 510.33 1 N/C - WAS USED FOR THE DRI ICA-6 STONE VE WIDENING_ -._ .. .. -.— - .. . I-------.. I 1-..... . .-•---1 -----_...._.....1.. .........- .......------I- I- i I I -...:.. __. I ( .iT...._. 1 i - - I - i I f -- -- ........ . . .. --_ t_....._...... ... ...-1-- i --- -- _......I 1 -... . .I -i _1• ___ t I _1... . ._- 1 J TOTAL FOR THIS CHANGE ORDERr•5784 02 TERNATES TO A3QVE-PLEASE ADD ACCORDINGLY: I r ( i I t - - 1 :onsidoration &Paymont Tones $784.02 for all tabor and oquipmont to comploto CHANGE ORDER## BASE BID as listod abovo_ ;ems arc invoice,net 30 days. ,S REQUESTED orrnal Agroomont Witt,acceptance of thus quote and award of contract,have authorized Iepresenlatrve sign and return one copy to Dave Heine Excavating. Inc. i:.::te L" C Hr,ine C c vaiinn trIc y..._..... .... ... .. - By. Jan Herne 11Ie Title.Vice President L.J. DODD CONSTRUCTION INC. CHANGE ORDER 174 Harrison Street P.O. BOX 980 630-554-8511 OSWEGO, IL 60543 Change Order: 0419-1 TO: EEI, INC. DATE 2/01/05 52 WHEELER ROAD SUGAR GROVE, IL 60554 QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE t, AMouNT 1 EA CHANGES REQUESTED BY EEI TO INSTALL 125.73 $125.73 2-FOUR INCH RINGS TO RAISE SANITARY MANHO 1 EA OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 12.57 $12.57 SUBTOTAL 138.30 PREVIOUS CONTRACT 511,255.75 REVISED CONTRACT $511,394.05 Ship To: TOTAL CANNONBALL TRAIL BOOSTER STATION 1991 CANNONBALL TRAIL YORKVILLE, IL 60560 APPROVED BY DATE ACCEPTED BY DATE * CHANGE ORDER 12/29/04 C0121404 DAVE HEINE EXCAVATING P . O .BOX 187 ELBURN IL 60119 CUSTOMER # 4538 JOB # 4555 CANNONBALL/PRES RED A ATTENTION : ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LJ DODD CONSTRUCTION YORKVILLE IL 174 HARRISON STREET CHANGE ORDER-12/14/04 P . O . BOX 980 OSWEGO IL 60543 PHASE QUANTITY U/M DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 12714 04-1 S..DIRECTIED .BY EEI DIG UP SANITARY FRAME & RAISE UP 8" . 9786 1 HR T&M LABORER 66. 50 66 . 50 9799 1 LS T&M MATERIALS 59. 23 59 . 23 2 EA-4" ADJUSTMENT RINGS 2 EA-2 ROLLS BUTYL RUBBER TERMS : NET DUE 1 /28/05 NET AMOUNT DUE $ 125 . 73 Pk/ 4( KO car o United City of Yorkville Memo Jo 111 , r. '" 800 Game Farm Road EST. L 1111 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 P I o Fax: 630-553-3436 IL c—i 4-CE ‘‘)/ Date: March 17, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer u CC: John Wyeth, City Attorney Bill Dettmer, Code Official Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: IDOT Highway Permit—272 E. Veterans Parkway Attached find one copy each of a proposed IDOT highway permit and the corresponding resolution for public sidewalk construction in the Route 34 right-of-way in front of 272 E. Veterans Parkway. This property is Lot 7 of the Yorkville Marketplace development, and is currently being developed as an Italian Restaurant. IDOT has a new statewide policy regarding highway permits. Previously permits would only be issued to the city if the work was being funded by the city or the permit was for the construction of a new public street that intersected with a state highway. In those instances, IDOT allowed the city to pass a resolution(in lieu of a bond) guaranteeing that the work would be done properly. The new policy is that for all work within state right- of-way, regardless of whether it is public or private, the permit will be issued to the city. IDOT requires a resolution from the city to guarantee the work, and will not accept a bond. While we do not have a corresponding bond from the developer to protect us, we can require one at the time the certificate of occupancy is requested if the work is not complete and/or if IDOT has not approved the construction. Please place this permit and resolution on the Public Works s Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. Illinois Department of Transportation _ Highway Permit District Serial No. United City of Yorkville Whereas, I (We) c/o JAS Associates 1355 Remington Road, Suite U (Name of Applicant) (Mailing Address) IL 60173 Schaumburg hereinafter termed the Applicant, - -- (City) (State) request permission and authority to do certain work herein described on the right-of-way of the State Highway known as US Route 34 , Section from Station * to Station * Kendall County. The work is described in detail on the attached sketch and/or as follows: Located at 272 East Veterans Parkway. Upon approval this permit authorizes the applicant to locate, construct, operate and maintain at the above Mentioned location, sidewalk improvements as shown on the attached plans which become a part hereof. The applicant shall notify Steve Niemann, Field Engineer, Phone: 815-942-0351 or the District Permit Section, Phone: 815-434-8490 twenty-four hours in advance of starting any work covered by this permit. Aggregate material shall be obtained from a State approved stock pile and shall be: SUB-BASE GRANULAR MATERIAL TYPE A(CA-6 Gradation). The State right-of-way shall be left in good condition. (No advertising matter shall be placed on the State right- of-way). (SEE THE ATTACHED SPECIAL PROVISIONS) It is understood that the work authorized by this permit shall be completed within 180 days after the date this permit is approved, otherwise the permit becomes null and void. This permit is subject to the conditions and restrictions printed on the reverse side of this sheet. This permit is hereby accepted and its provisions agreed to this day of , 2005 Witness Signed Applicant 800 Game Farm Road 800 Game Farm Road Mailing Address Mailing Address Yorkville Illinois 60560 Yorkville Illinois 60560 City State City State SIGN AND RETURN TO: District Engineer 700 E. Norris Drive, Ottawa, IL 61350 Approved this day of Department of Transportation BY: District Engineer IL 494-0135 OPER 1045(Rev. 6/2000) First: The Applicant represents all parties in interest and shall furnish material, do all work, pay all costs, and shall in a reasonable length of time restore the damaged portions of the highway to a condition similar or equal to that existing before the commencement of the described work, including any seeding or sodding necessary. Second: The proposed work shall be located and constructed to the satisfaction of the District Engineer or his duly authorized representative. No revisions or additions shall be made to the proposed work on the right-of-way without the written permission of the District Engineer. Third: The Applicant shall at all times conduct the work in such a manner as to minimize hazards to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Traffic controls and work site protection shall be in accordance with the applicable requirements of Chapter 6 (Traffic Controls for Highway Construction and Maintenance Operations)of the Illinois Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways and with the traffic control plan if one is required elsewhere in the permit. All signs, barricades, flaggers, etc., required for traffic control shall be furnished by the Applicant. The work may be done on any day except Sunday, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Work shall be done only during daylight hours. Fourth: The work performed by the Applicant is for the bona fide purpose expressed and not for the purpose of, nor will it result in, the parking or servicing of vehicles on the highway right-of-way. Signs located on or overhaning the right-of-way shall be prohibited. Fifth: The Applicant, his successors or assigns, agrees to hold harmless the State of Illinois and its duly appointed agents and employees against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of this permit. Sixth: The Applicant shall not trim, cut or in any way disturb any trees or shrubbery along the highway without the approval of the District Engineer or his duly authorized representative. Seventh: The State reserves the right to make such changes, additions, repairs and relocations within its statutory limits to the facilities constructed under this permit or their appurtenances on the right-of-way as may at any time be considered necessary to permit the relocation,reconstruction, widening or maintaining of the highway and/or provide proper protection to life and property on or adjacent to the State right-of-way. However, in the event this permit is granted to construct, locate, operate and maintain utility facilities on the State right-of-way, the Applicant, upon written request by the District Engineer, shall perform such alterations or change of location of the facilities, without expense to the State, and should the Applicant fail to make satisfactory arrangements to comply with this request within a reasonable time, the State reserves the right to make such alterations or change of location or remove the work, and the Applicant agrees to pay for the cost incurred. Eighth: This permit is effective only insofar as the Department has jurisdiction and does not presume to release the Applicant from compliance with the provisions of any existing statutes or local regulations relating to the construction of such work. Ninth: The Construction of access driveways is subject to the regulations listed in the "Policy on Permits for Access Driveways to State Highways." If, in the future, the land use of property served by an access driveway described and constructed in accordance with this permit changes so as to require a higher driveway type as defined in that policy, the owner shall apply for a new permit and bear the costs for such revisions as may be required to conform to the regulations listed in the policy. Utility installations shall be subject to the "Policy on the Accommodation of Utilities on Right-of-Way of the Illinois State Highway System." Tenth: The Applicant affirms that the property lines shown on the attached sheet(s) are true and correct and binds and obligates himself to perform the operation in accordance with the description and attached sketch and to abide by the policy regulations. SPECIAL PROVISIONS All turf areas which are disturbed during the course of this work shall be restored to the original line and grade and be promptly seeded in accordance with Standard State Specifications. Whenever any of the work under this permit involves any obstruction or hazard to the free flow of traffic in the normal traffic lanes, plans for the proposed method of traffic control must be submitted to and approved by the District Engineer at least 72 hours, and preferably longer, before the start of work. All traffic control shall be in accordance with the State of Illinois Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and amendments thereof. It should be noted that standards and typical placement of devices shown in the Uniform Manual are minimums. Many locations may require additional or supplemental devices. • The petitioner agrees to furnish the necessary barricades, lights, and flagmen for the protection of traffic. Traffic shall be maintained at all times. The applicant agrees to notify the Department of Transportation upon completion of work covered under the terms and conditions of this permit so that a final inspection and acceptance can be made. To avoid any revisions to the work completed under the highway permit, the applicant should insure the conditions and restrictions of this permit, the applicable supplemental permit specifications and permit drawing are fully understood. If this permit work is contracted out, it will be the responsibility of the applicant to furnish the contractor with a copy of this highway permit, as the applicant will be responsible for the contractor's work. A copy of approved permit shall be present on job site at all times the work is in progress. The Department reserves the right to reject or accept any contractor hired by the applicant. PMT412aGL-9754 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Yorkville located in the county of Kendall, state of Illinois, wishes to make sidewalk improvements which by law comes under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of Transportation of the state of Illinois, and WHEREAS, a permit from said Department is required before said work can be legally undertaken by said City of Yorkville; now THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City of Yorkville, county of Kendall, state of Illinois. FIRST: That we do hereby request from the Department of Transportation, state of Illinois, a permit authorizing the City of Yorkville to proceed with the work herein described and as shown on enclosed detailed plans. SECOND: Upon completion of the proposed sidewalk improvements by the contractor and acceptance by the city, the city guarantees that all work has been performed in accordance with the conditions of the permit to be granted by the Department of Transportation of the state of Illinois. Further, the city will hold the state of Illinois harmless for any damages that may occur to persons or property during such work. The city will require the contractor to obtain a bond and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in acceptable amounts and will require the developer to add the State of Illinois as an additional insured on both policies. THIRD: That we hereby state that the proposed works is not, (delete one) to be performed by the employees of the City of Yorkville. FOURTH: That the proper officers of the City of Yorkville are hereby instructed and authorized to sign said permit in behalf of the City of Yorkville. , hereby certify the above to be a (City or Village Clerk) true copy of the resolution passed by the City Council, county of Kendall, State of Illinois. Dated this day of A.D. 20 (Signature) (CORPORATE SEAL) RESOLUTION • wplc ti.<0 Cl Ty o United City of Yorkville Memo J '" 800 Game Farm Road EST. 11°111 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 �� ill ,` p Fax: 630-553-3436 Kenda County `* 4LE ‘‘)/ Date: March 21, 2005 To: John Wyeth, City Attorney From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator Bill Dettmer, Code Official Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Reserve at the Fox—Construction Guarantee Attached find calculations from PRS Companies requesting a reduction in the proposed construction guarantee amount for the referenced development. The approved engineer's estimate of cost for this project is $1,235,199.25. The request is to reduce the construction guarantee from the normal 110% amount of$1,358,719.18 to an amount of $297,778.31. I have reviewed the estimate of work completed to date and agree with most of them. I recommend, however, that erosion control items remain at 50% complete to provide for additional control measures should they become necessary. Binder course has been placed throughout much of the development, but there are many failures occurring and I anticipate that a lot of replacement will be needed. I recommend that credit for this item be limited to 25% at this time. A lot of landscape material was delivered last fall and stored onsite, but it was not planted and was exposed to freezing temperatures and drying winds all winter. Until this material is planted and leafs out, I recommend no credit be given. I recommend that a bond or letter of credit be established in the amount of$517,629.08 to guarantee satisfactory completion of the remaining items. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. 21-Mar-05 Letter of Credit/Bond Reduction Subdivision: Reserve at the Fox Reduction No. 1 Theoretical Approved Letter of Credit Substantially complete Remaining Item Eng. Est. Amount prior to Red. #1 Reduction No.1 Amount Onsite Earthwork $66,553.50 $73,208.85 $56,367.50 $53,549.13 $19,659.73 Onsite Landscaping $205,730.50 $226,303.55 $0.00 $0.00 $226,303.55 Offsite Landscaping $28,672.50 $31,539.75 $0.00 $0.00 $31,539.75 Onsite Storm Sewer $264,986.50 $291,485.15 $264,986.50 $251,737.18 $39,747.98 Watermain $112,210.00 $123,431.00 $112,210.00 $106,599.50 $16,831.50 Sanitary Sewer $67,271.00 $73,998.10 $67,271.00 $63,907.45 $10,090.65 Onsite Roadways $304,070.50 $334,477.55 $198,818.25 $188,877.34 $145,600.21 Offsite Roadways (Marketplace Drive) $40,944.50 $45,038.95 $40,944.50 $38,897.28 $6,141.68 Offsite Earthwork $69,093.25 $76,002.58 $69,093.25 $65,638.59 $10,363.99 Offsite Storm Sewer $75,667.00 $83,233.70 $75,667.00 $71,883.65 $11,350.05 Totals $1,235,199.25 $1,358,719.18 $885,358.00 $841,090.10 $517,629.08 Notes: 1) LOC/Bond amt. to be 15% of subsantially completed items plus 110% of uncompleted items. 0-"'.1 ri �i V.-§.' G":'y y e h 3 hS �V� -k---------2---.q7 ugh ;4,-44' 4k `A.1, 'c 4ii' ' t aro'q'� r t "5 111—:% _3 LiY .- COMPANIES FACSINITLE TRANSMITTAL SHEET T0: FROM: a .3 h (i tur6t- 5�e_�� 14 . 136A�IS•1-ali CO NY• DATE: Ltin:1-pV _..t(i6)-r /evklidle_ _5//6-/o5 FAX NUMBER: / TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 6� PHONE jVUN�B0 - 5 3 - 8545 URGENT LJFOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ FOR YOUR RECORDS NOTES/COMMENTS: -I- 4-0 nowt ! ,. C ;U,- ( �A 1 h ce t/ c vim.[ a,-1r D h- 0 f e o� /� S r fL t,cJ 6 k OVA o F P S G fe- ycJp iL . 11 4,04 - a-x7 - 7 p'--- �� ' i rv� '�€-.sIli o4.‘5 / iCisillier PRS CONSTRUCTION, LLC-RESERVE @ FOX RIVER 1222 Market Place Drive Yorkville, IL 60560 TELEPHONE-630.553.3796 Fax-630.553.3752 EMAIL-mkast@prsconst.com ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST 0c THE RESERVE AT FOX RIVER N March 14,2005N. U. REVISED BOND ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE EXTENSION % COMPLETE AMOUNT o SCHEDULE I -EXCAVATION AND GRADING IMPROVEMENTS \`4 v. 11,600 CY $3.00 $34,800.00 100% $0.00 c7°^ 1. Clay Excavation and Embankment $0.00 w 2 Topsoil Stripping and Stockpiling 7,254 CY $2.25 $16,321.50 100% 3 6"Topsoil Respread and Seeding o 3,800 SY $1.30 $4,940.00 0% $4,940.00 4 Siltation Fence 2,400 LF $3.15 $7,560.00 XI CD 5 Hay or Straw Bales Staked 27 EACH $16.00 $432.00 ydI $0,00. $0.00 1 LUMP SUM $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00CIO I 6 Construction Entrance UI I TOTAL SCHEDULE I -EXCAVATION AND GRADING IMPROVEMENTS $66,553.50 $4,940,00 1 SCHEDULE II-ONSITE LANDSCAPING 1 LUMP SUM $205,730.50 $205,730.50 „404r"(,'1. $123,438.30 "..,,i'1. Landscaping* ' z TOTAL SCHEDULE II-ONSITE LANDSCAPING $205,730.50 $123,438.30 d ,. SCHEDULE III -OFFSITE LANDSCAPING �u a 1. Landsca ping 1 LUMP SUM $28,672.50 $28,672.50 0% CJ 1c $28,672.50 l- r P y $28,672.50 TOTAL SCHEDULE III-OFFSITE LANDSCAPING $28,672.50 n r d SCHEDULE IV-UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS A. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 6"PVC Storm Sewer 4,805 LF $12.00 $57,660.00 100% $0.00 2 12"RCCP Storm Sewer 1,889 LF $17.00 $32,113.00 100% $0.00$0.00 3 12"DIP Storm Sewer 110 LF $26.00 $2,860.00 100% $0.00 4 15"RCCP Storm Sewer 446 LF $23.00 $10,258.00 100% 5 18"RCCP Storm Sewer 585 LF $25.00 $14,625.00 100% b K $0.00 6 21"RCCP Storm Sewer 387 LF $26.00 $10,062.00 100% $0.00 7 24"RCCP Storm Sewer 649 LF $30.50 $19,794.50 100% $0.00 8 30"RCCP Storm Sewer 211 LF $38.00 $8,018.00 100% $0.00 9 12"Yard Drain 8 EACH $100.00 $800.00 100% $0.00$0.00 2'-0"Diameter Inlet Frame and Grate) 12 EACH $800.00 $9,600.00 100% Lg 10 c, 0 0 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST o THE RESERVE AT FOX RIVER March 14, 2005 U 0 REVISED BONDcrD H ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE EXTENSION %COMPLETE AMOUNT o 0 11 5'-0"Diameter Catchbasin (Frame and Grate) 38 EACH $2,100.00 $79,800.00 100% $0.00 y 12 6'-0"Diameter Catchbasin (Frame and Grate) 1 EACH $2,800.00 $2,800.00 100% �K $0.00 13 Trench Backfill 922 CY $18.00 $16,596.00 100% $0.00 w 0 SUBTOTAL A-STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS $264,986.50 - c- $0.00 n I- B. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS C. 1 6" DIP Water Main 265 LF $20.00 $5,300.00 100% $0.00 CA 2 8"DIP Water Main 2,250 LF. $24.00 $54,000.00 100% $0.00 3 2'/z'Valve and Box 5 EACH $400.00 . $2,000.00 100% $0.00 4 6"Valve and Box 5 EACH $700.00 $3,500.00 100% $0.00 5 6"Valve&Vault, STD 4'Dia.w/FR&Lid (Pressure Connection 1 EACH $1,850.00 $1,850.00 100% $0.00 6 8"Valve&Vault, STD 4'Dia.w/FR&Lid 8 EACH $1,300.00 $10,400.00 100% $0.00 _ Y 7 8"Valve&Vault,STD 4'Dia.w/FR&Lid (Pressure Connection 3 EACH $2,400.00 $7,200.00 100% blc $0.00 x 8 1'/i'Tap, Corp Stop,Roundway&Box 2 EACH $250.00 $500.00 100% $0.00 9 2"Tap,Corp Stop,Roundway&Box 1 EACH $340.00 $340.00 100% $0.00 e 10 Fire Hydrant with Auxiliary Valve 8 EACH $1,500.00 $12,000.00 100% $0.00 C] 0 11 Relocate Existing Fire Hydrant 1 EACH $2,400.00 $2,400.00 100% $0.00 z 12 Trench Backfill 660 CY $18.00 $11,880.00 100% $0.00 13 Trench Backfill-Services 105 LF $8.00 $840.00 100% $0.00 H z SUBTOTAL B-WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS $112,210.00 - 4.4.wy Lit $0.00 r H d C. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1. 6"PVC Sanitary Sewer-SDR 26 445 LF $19.00 $8,455.00 100% $0.00 j 2 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer-0'-12'Depth 1,250 LF $22.00 $27,500.00 100% $0.00 3 4'Diameter Manhole-0'-8' 10 EACH $1,400.00 $14,000.00 100% $0.00 3 Steel Casing 76 LF $30.00 $2,280.00 100% 'v K $0.00 3 Trench Backfill- Mains 8'-12' 420 CY $18.00 $7,560.00 100% $0.00 3 Trench Backfill- Services 445 LF $16.80 $7,476.00 100% $0,00 SUBTOTAL C-SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS $67,271.00- c y'" $0.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE IV-UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS $444,467.50 $0.00 El 0 nn o 0 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST 0w THE RESERVE AT FOX RIVER March 14, 2005 0 Ul REVISED BOND rn o ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE EXTENSION %COMPLETE AMOUNT i,. o - ItlaR,4t ,i P- 1. SCHEDULE V-ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS $0 00 c�W ''.4 1. Subgrade Preparation-Fine Grading 11,000 SY $1.00 $11,000.00 100% $4,400.00 w 11,000 SY $8.00 $88,000.00 95% $4,824.00 2 Aggregate Base Course 10" 3,216 GAL $1.50 $4,824.00 0% 3 Bituminous Material Prime Coat $8,040.00 4 Bituminous Concrete Binder Course-2.5" 10,720 SY $5.00 $53,600.00 "85 25 7` $37,520.00 co 5 Bituminous Concrete Surface Course- 1.5" 10,720 SY $3.50 $37,520.00 0% $935.00 w 6 PCC Base Course -6" 85 SY $22.00 $1,870.00 50% 0. 685 SY $2.90 $246.50 50% $123.25 0' 7 Aggregate Base Course-6" $7,500.00 8 Concrete Curb Type B-6.12 5,000 LF $10.00 $50,000.00 85% ''/,. ,50$0.00 95 LF $4.00 $380.00 4®A9'b cs 9 Curb&Gutter Removal 10 Sidewalk Removal 200 SF $1.40 $280.00 100% $0.00 11 PCC Sidewalk-6"w/sub-base 14,500 SF $3.60 $52,200.00 90% $5,220.00 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% $3,000.00 12 Streelights(Marketplace) 2,300 LF $0.50 $1,150.00 0% $1,150.00 13 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking 4" $3114;070 $72,712.25 d TOTAL SCHEDULE V-ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS n o SCHEDULE VI-ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (Marketplace Road) $570.00 o $1.00 $570.00 0% 570 SY r 1. Subgrade Preparation Fine Grading 520 SY $8.00 $4,160.00 0% $4,160.00 y 2 Aggregate Base Course- 10" z 3 Bituminous Material Prime Coat 449 GAL $1.50 $673.50 0% $$673.5000 n 520 SY . $5.00 $2,600.00 0% 4 Bituminous Concrete Binder Course-2.5" 0% -k $5,110.00 y 1,460 SY $3.50 $5,110.00 5 Bituminous Concrete Surface Course-1.5" 6 Concrete Curb Type B-6.12 930 LF $10.00 $9,300.00 0% $9,300.00 7 Sawcut Pavement, Full Depth 930 LF $2.70 $2,511.00 0% $2,511.00 $16,020.00 8 PCC Sidewalk-6"w/sub-base 4,450 SF $3.60 $16,020.00 0% TOTAL SCHEDULE VI -ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (Marketplace Road) • $40,944,50 $40,944.50 SCHEDULE VII-EXCAVATION AND GRADING IMPROVEMENTS-OFFSITE 19,600 CY $3.00 $58,800.00 100% $0.00 1 Clay Excavation and Grading Improvements �G $0.00 2 Topsoil Stripping and Stockpiling 1,715 CY $2.25 $3,858.75 100% $0.00 3 6"Topsoil Respread and Seeding 1,000 SY $1.30 $1,300.00 100% $0.00 4 Siltation Fence 1,630 LF $3.15 $5,134.50 100% .r 25 -c093 .T 69, . $0.00 ig TOTAL SCHEDULE VII-EXCAVATION AND GRADING IMPROVEMENTS -OFFSITE $ 0 w 0 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTo THE RESERVE AT FOX RIVER March 14, 2005 U 0 CII REVISED BONDo ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE EXTENSION % COMPLETE AMOUNT o 0 SCHEDULE VIII-UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS-OFFSITE o A. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS o 1 12" RCCP Storm Sewer 231 LF $17.00 $3,927.00 100% $0.00 cn 2 36" RCCP Storm Sewer 855 LF $52.00 $44,460.00 100% $0.00 iD 3 45"X 29" RECP 90 LF $50.00 $4,500.00 100% $0.00 c° 4 2'-0"Diameter Inlet(Frame and Grate) 2 EACH $800.00 $1,600.00 100% $0.00 co 5 5'-0" Diameter Catchbasin (Frame and Grate) 4 EACH $2,100.00 $8,400.00 100% K $0.00 6 6'-0" Diameter Catchbasin (Frame and Grate) 1 EACH $2,800.00 $2,800.00 100% $0.00 7 7-'0"Diameter Catchbasin (Frame and Grate) 1 EACH $3,200.00 $3,200.00. 100% $0.00 8 Precase Concrete Flared End Section w/Grate 36" 3 EACH $1,600.00 $4,800.00 100% $0.00 b 9 Trench Backfill 110 CY $18.00 $1,980.00 100% $0.00 z SUBTOTAL VIII-UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS-OFFSITE $75,667.00 -c - $0.00 d �n SUBTOTAL SCHEDULES I-VIII $1,235,199.25 $270,707.55 0 CONTINGENCY @10% $123,519.93 $27,070.76 CA TOTAL $1,358,719.18 $297,778.31. r' H H "See Landscape Architect's Opinion Of Probable Cost For Itemized Cost n r Prepared By: Manhard Consulting,Ltd. d 2050-50 Finley Road Lombard, Illinois 60148 NOTE:This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost is made on the basis of Engineer's experience and qualifications using plan quantities and represents Engineer's best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer generally familiar with the construction industry. However, since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions,or over quantities of work actually performed, Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Construction Cost will not vary from Opinions of Probable Cost prepared by Engineer.This Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is limited to those items stated herein and does not include permit fees, recapture costs,consultant fees, landscaping,maintenance,bonds or the like. Ig 0 0 cD 0 sy o United City of Yorkville Memo 4, Public Works Department EST.% 1836 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville Illinois 60560 pcourusw I 11Telephone: 630-553-4370 4 E ,, Fax: 630-553-4377 Date: March 15, 2005 To: Art Prochaska, Mayor From: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works s' CC: Joe Besco, Chairman Tony Graff, Administrator Traci Pleckham, Finance Director Subject: Fox Hill Mowing and Maintenance Art, A bid opening was held on March 14, 2005 for the mowing and maintenance of the Fox Hill subdivision SSA area. I have attached the bid tabulation sheet for your review. The apparent low bidder was English and Sons Landscaping. I am working with them to make sure they meet the specifications set forth in the proposal. If they do meet all of the qualifications, I will be recommending the approval of a contract with them for mowing and maintenance for the upcoming year. I would ask that this be placed on the March 28, 2005 Public Works Committee for discussion. If you have any question or comments, please let me know. FOX HILL SSA BID FORM FY 05-06 1 14-Mar-05, Majestic Landscaping English&Sons Landscaping 1 12:00 I Estimate 17738 Dobson Ln P.O Box 31 Witness: EDNewark, IL 60541 Bristol, IL 60512 Item Unit Quantity Price Cost Mowing AC 5.29 $70.00 $84.00 $40.00 Est. 28 cuttings per season $10,368.40, $12,442.08 $5,924.80 Item Unit Hourly Rate Hourly Rate 1 Hourly Rate Mulching CY $40.00 $49.00 $40.00 Weeding HR $40.00 $39.00, $28.00 Monument repairs HR $40.00 $50.00 $35.00 General Maintenance HR $40.00 $39.00 $28.00 Beautification HR $40.00', $39.00 $28.00 /4OCI >\ United City of Yorkville Memo Public Works Department EST g4 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 0 I 11 0 Telephone: 630-553-4370 4t ‘N).` Fax: 630-553-4377 Date: March 22, 2005 73/ To: Joe Besco, Chairman .7, From: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works CC: Traci Pleckham, Finance Director Subject: 05-06 MFT resolution Joe, I have attached the yearly resolution that authorizes MFT funds for our yearly general maintenance. I would like to place this on the Public Works Committee agenda on March 28, 2005 for discussion. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions regarding this matter. Resolution for Maintenance of Illinois Department Streets and Highways by Municipality of Transportation Under the Illinois Highway Code BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the (Council or President and Board of Trustees) United City of Yorkville , Illinois, that there is hereby (City,Town or Village) (Name) appropriated the sum of $71,390.00 of Motor Fuel Tax funds for the purpose of maintaining streets and highways under the applicable provisions of the Illinois Highway Code from 05/01/05 to 04/30/06 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that only those streets, highways, and operations as listed and described on the approved Municipal Estimate of Maintenance Costs, including supplemental or revised estimates approved in connection with this resolution, are eligible for maintenance with Motor Fuel Tax funds during the period as specified above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk shall, as soon a practicable after the close of the period as given above, submit to the Department of Transportation, on forms furnished by said Department, a certified statement showing expenditures from and balances remaining in the account(s)for this period; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk shall immediately transmit two certified copies of this resolution to the district office of the Department of Transportation, at Ottawa , Illinois. Clerk in and for the (City,Town or Village) of , County of hereby certify the foregoing to be a true, perfect and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the Mayor and City Council at a meeting on (Council or President and Board of Trustees) Date IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this day of (SEAL) Clerk (City,Town or Village) APPROVED Date Department of Transportation District Engineer BLR 4123(Rev.04/03) Illinois Department Municipal Estimate of of Transportation Maintenance Costs Period from 05/01/2005 to 04/30/2006 Municipality United City of Yorkville Estimated Cost of Maintenance Operations Material Equipment or Labor Maintenance Operation Quantity Unit Operation (No.-Description-Total Quantity) Item and Specification and Unit Cost Cost Cost 1. Bituminous Patching Bituminous Cold Patch 90 ton 79.00 7110.00 7,110.00 Class 1 Surface Course 80 ton 36.00 2880.00 2,880.00 2. Signs, Posts, & Hardware Various Street Signs 100 50.00 5000.00 5,000.00 Sign Posts 100 28.00 2800.00 2,800.00 Sign Brackets & Hardware 100 18.00 1800.00 1,800.00 3. Snow Removal Bulk Rock Salt 1400 ton 37.00 51800.00 51,800.00 Salt bid through Kendall County Highway Dept. • Total Estimated Maintenance Cost $71,390.00 Submitted 03/01/2005 Approved By Municipal Official Title District Engineer Submit Four(4) Copies to District Engineer BLR 8202(Rev.7/01) piAL ft /3 i`�� c!r o United City of Yorkville Memo J $ ' 800 Game Farm Road EST.41836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 o - --` _ Telephone: 630-553-8545 .- p Fax: 630-553-3436 ilgE ‘‘).' Date: March 22, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer CC: Traci Pleckham, Finance Director Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Mill & Van Emmon Watermain Replacement —Change Order#1 Attached find one copy of proposed Change Order#1 for the referenced project. This change order, in the amount of a $13,153.73 increase, is the final balancing change order for this project. The change order also includes ten additional work items for which no contract pay item existed. Those items typically were for additional labor, equipment, and material needed to react to or work around unforeseen field conditions. Please refer to the attachment for details. I recommend that change order be approved. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. 03/22/2005 09:28 6309619454 DW DWYER INC PAGE 02 03/22/2006 TUE 8:35 ESI 630 466 9380 ERN, ?005/010 CHANGE ORDER Order No, 1 Date: March 22 2005 Agreement Date: 'June 27, 2003 • NAME OF PROJECT:, Conttctand Van Ernmon Street Water Main OWNER: United City of Yorkville CONTRACTOR: Dennis W. Dwyer, Inc. The following changes are hereby made to the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: 1. Deduction to line item 1: TREE REMOVAL, 6-15 UNIT DIAMETER 6 UNITS $300,00 I UNIT ($1,800.00) 2. -Addition to line item 3, VVATERMAIN, 4-INCH DIP., CLASS 52 52 FOOT @$20.00/ FOOT $1,040.00 3. Deduction to line item 4: WATERMAIN, 6-INCH D.I.P., CLASS 52 74 FOOT tg $21.00/FOOT ($1,554.00) 4. Deduction to line item 5: WATERMAIN, 5-INCH D,I.P,, CLASS 52 25 FOOT© $25.00/FOOT ($625.00) 5. Addition to line item 6: WATERMAIN, 12-INCH D.I.P., CLASS 52 3 FOOT© $34,00 /FOOT $102.00 6. Deduction from line item 7:WATERMAIN, 16-INCH D.I.P., CLASS 52 16 FOOT @ $43,001 FOOT ($588,00) r. Deduction to line item 9: GATE VALVE AND VALVE VAULT. 8-INCH (RESILIENT SEAT) IN 48-INCH VAULT 1 EACH @ $2,000.00 /EACH ($2,000.00) 8. Deduction to line item 10: GATE VALVE AND VALVE VAULT, 12-INCH (RESILIENT SEAT) IN 48-INCH VAULT 1 EACH c $3,500.00 / EACH I ($3,500.00) 9. Addition to line Item 12: PRESSURE CONNECTION WITH TAPPING SLEEVE, AND 4" TAPPING VALVE IN VALVE BOX 2 EACH ( $3,000.00 / EACH $6,000.00 CO-01 03/22/2005 09:23 6309619454 DW DWYER INC PAGE 03 03/22/2006 TUE 8,30 FAX 630 466 9380 EI11c, 2000/010 Change Order No, 1 Page 2 10. Deduction to line item 14: PRESSURE CONNECTION WITH TAPPING SLEEVE, AND 6"TAPPING VALVE IN 48-INCH VAULT 2 EACH @ $4,000.00 I EACH ($8,000.00) 11. Addition to line item 16: PRESSURE CONNECTION WITH TAPPING SLEEVE, AND 12"TAPPING VALVE IN 60-INCH VAULT 1 EACH $6,000.00 /EACH $6,000.00 12. Addition to line item 18: LINE STOPS, 6" 1 EACH @ $2,600,00/EACH $2,600.00 13. Deduction to line item 19: LINE STOPS, 8" 2 EACH @ $3,100.001 EACH ($6,200.00) • 14. Deduction to line item 20: LINE STOPS, 10" 2 EACH @ $3,500.00 I EACH ($7,000.00) 15. Addition to line Item 23: DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS 1,235 POUND @ $4.00/ POUND $4,940.00 16. Deduction to line item 24: WATER MAIN PROTECTION, PVC C-900, 18-INCH 44 FOOT @ $60.00/FOOT ($2,640.00) 17. Deduction to line Item 25: WATER MAIN PROTECTION, PVC 0-900, 24-INCH 37 FOOT @ $80,001 FOOT ($2,960.00) 18. Addition to line item 28:WATER SERVICE CONNECTION • 10 EACH @ $600.00 / EACH $6,000.00 19. Addition to line item 29: WATER SERVICE PIPE, 1-INCH TYPE K COPPER 137 FOOT @ $12.001 FOOT $1,644.00 20. Deduction from line item 30: FOUNDATION MATERIAL 500 CU. YD. @ $12.00 /CU. YD. ($6,000.00) 21. Deduction to Zane item 33: DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVAL 21 SQ. YD. @ $10.00 / SQ. YD, ($21Q00) • 22. Deduction from line item 34: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 8" 4 SQ. YD. @ $50.00/ SQ. YD, ($200.00) 23. Deduction from line item 35: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 8" 17 SQ. YD. @ $60.00/SQ. YD. ($1,020.00) CO-02 03/22/2005 09:28 6309619454 DW DWVER INC PAGE 04 03/22/2006 TUE 8.36 FAX 630 466 9389 EEIuc, 2007/010 Change Order No. 1 Page 3 24. Deduction to line item 36: SIDEWALK REMOVAL 574 SQ. FT. @ $2.00 /SQ. FT. ($1,148,00) 25. Deduction from line item 37: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK, 5" 574 SQ. FT. @ $6.00 /SQ. FT, ($3,444.00) 26. Deduction from line item 38: COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL 120 FOOT @ 55.001 FOOT ($600.00) 27. Deduction to line item 39: COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B- 6.12 140 FOOT @ $31.00/ FOOT ($4,340.00) 28. Deduction from line item 41:TEMPORARY AGGREGATE ACCESS 5 TON @ $45.001 TON ($225.00) 29. Addition to line item 42; PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT, TYPE B 483 SQ. YD. @ $34.00 / SQ. YD. $16,422.00 30, Addition to line item 43: PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT, TYPE A 699 SQ. YD. @ $41_00 / SQ. YD. $30,756.00 • 31. Deduction to line item 44; TEMPORARY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 1,406 SQ. YD. @ $18.00 /SQ, YD. ($25.308.00) 32. Deduction from line item 46: STORM SEWER REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, 10" 30 FOOT @ $55.00/ FOOT ($1,650.00) 33. Addition to line item 47: STORM SEWER REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, 12" 41 FOOT @ $60.00 /FOOT ($2,460.00) 34. Deduction from line item 48: STORM SEWER REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, 15" 20 FOOT @ $65.00 /FOOT ($1,300.00) 35. Deduction from tine item 49; STORM SEWER REMOVAL 137 FOOT @ $15.00/FOOT ($2,055.00) 36. Deduction from line item 50:STORM SEWERS, CLASS 52, 8" 22 FOOT @ $25.00 I SOOT ($550.00) 37. Deduction from line item 51: STORM SEWERS, RUBBER GASKET, CLASS A, TYPE 2, 12" 22 FOOT @ $25.00 /FOOT ($550.00) CO-03 03/22/2005 09:28 6309619454 DW DWYER INC PAGE 05 03/22/2005 TITB 8:36 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, a008/010 Change Order No. 1 Page 4 • 38. Deduction from line item 52: STORM SEWERS, RUBBER GASKET, CLASS A, TYPE 2, 15" 104 FOOT $28.00/FOOT ($2,912.00) 39. Deduction from line item 54: PIPE CULVERT REMOVAL 60 FOOT @ $3.00/ FOOT ($180.00) 40. Deduction from line item 55: PIPE CULVERTS, CLASS 0, TYPE 1, 12' 60 FOOT @ $25.00 I FOOT ($1,500,00) 41. Addition to line item 56: REMOVING MANHOLES 2 EACH @ $800.00 /EACH $1,600.00 42. Deduction from line item 58: DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN 1 EACH @ $400.00/ EACH ($400.00) 43. Deduction from line item 60: VALVE VAULT REMOVAL 2 EACH $800.00/EACH ($1.600.00) 44. Deduction from line item 63; TREE ROOT PRUNING 50 FOOT @ $10.001 FOOT ($500.00) 45, Deduction from line item 64: STREET LIGHT WIRE REPAIR 10 EACH §a $100.00 / EACH ($1,000.00) 46. Deduction from line item 66: SANITARY SEWER SERVICE REPAIR 10 EACH @ $500.00 / EACH ($5,000.00) 47. Deduction from line item 69: TREE, ACER SACCHARUM (SUGAR MAPLE), 3" CALIPER, BALLED AND BURLAPPED 1 EACH @ $500.00/ EACH ($500.00) 48. Extra: Exploratory Digging to Expose Existing Storm and 12" Water Main Due to Bed Rock Depth, 7/31/03 LUMP SUM @ $873.72 $873,72 49. Extra; Additional Excavation due to Mislocated 4" Water Main along East Ridge Street, 8/4/03 LUMP SUM @ $1,453.60 $1,453.60 50. Extra: Repair& Replace unmarked 1" copper service at 702 & 706 Mill Street, 8/19/03 LUMP SUM @ $1,338.44 $1,338.44 51. Extra: Relocate 1" Capper Service to 706 Mill around New Valve Vault, 8/22/03 LUMP SUM g $614.72 $614.72 CO-04 03/22/2005 09:28 6309619454 DW DWYER INC PAGE 06 03/22/2005 TIE 8:36 FAX 630 466 93S0 EEInc. i009/010 Change Order No_ 1 Page 5 52_ Extra: Work Delay due to Flooding of Trench from 3-sided Box Culvert in Van Emmon, 9/28/03 LUMP SUM @ $1,737.88 $1,737,88 53_ Extra: installation of 24" PVC Casing under itox Culvert in Van Emmon, 9/27/03 LUMP SUM Qa $1,611.15 $1,8111.15 54. Extra: Removal of Excess Concrete at Thrust Block During Connection of 12" Water Main at Van Emmon &Alley West of Route 47, 10/21/03 & 10/22/03 LUMP SUM @ $5,688.76 $5,688.75 55, Extra: Removal of Buried Storm Manhole in Van Emmon LUMP SUM c $1,833.60 $1,833.60 56. Extra: Change of Offset Cone on Valve Vault 1 & Additional Day for 12" Line Stop at Elementary School, 11/25/03 LUMP SUM g $2,236.86 $2,236.86 57. Extra: Bore and Jack 24-Inch Steel Casing Pipe at S. Main Street, 10/20/03 LUMP SUM @ $15,360.00 $15,360,00 Change of CONTRACT PRICE: Original CONTRACT PRICE: $773 3.0 Current CONTRACT PRICE adjusted by previous CHANGE ORDER(S) $773,623.00 The CONTRACT PRICE due to this CHANGE ORDER will be (increased)(decreascd) by: $13,153.73 • The new CONTRACT PRICE including this CHANGE;ORDER will be: $786,776.73 CO-05 03/22/2005 09:28 6309619454 DW DWYER INC PAGE 07 03/22/2605 TUE 8:37 FAX 630 166 9380 EEInc, 2016/010 Change Order No, 1 Page 6 JUSTIFICATION 1-47. Field changes and adjustments. 48, Bedrock depth shown on soil boring showed bedrock lower than discovered in field, which necessitated the exploratory digging. 49-51.Location of existing main and services differed from field markings. 52-57, Field changes and adjustments. Ghande to CONTRACT TIME: NONE Approvals Required: To be effective this order must be approved by the federal agency if it changes the scope or objective of the PROJECT, or as may otherwise be required by the SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL GOND IONS. ri% Requested by: API, 1 Dennis Weser, inc. Recommended by: Affille , En•ineerin• Ente •rises Inc. Accepted by: ---_-- Unig isjtysizzkville CO-06 G,'?ub11c1Yorkvi4e1Y0011Yo01 t0-A C,onlrack C,2-Mlf1 and Von Emrnon Srcd+et FlnIahcd WMtDoc\chdordon01.doc =`�tD Co.o United City of Yorkville Memo ,-\,''' '" 800 Game Farm Road EST. '' ieas Yorkville, Illinois 60560 ��= I Telephone: 630-553-4350 o6 i�. �� p Fax: 630-553-7575 rJ _ Date: �) ;) IC V To: -� '(L1. )( t ' (_ z''t (, ( C r t, t_.„ (-lc C From. k l - ( ) A I, \ it t', r4l.1>t( t / 1 ( ( C L. _ (,`:. Agenda da Item: - ( I 1 ( kC4 G. ( J was not available at the time packets were produced. This item will be available .J.4 I L co cL �r l "'la- L( (0� and distributed in a supplemental packet. , ( 14 co. .c0oo United City of Yorkville Memo '" 800 Game Farm Road EST. " 6 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 ,� Telephone: 630-553-4350 o it m .'114, ' Fax: 630-553-7575 Date: March 24, 2005 To: Public Works Committee From: John Justin Wyeth, City Attorney CC: Mayor, All other Aldermen, City Engineer Subject: Cannonball Estates Phases 1 and 2, Cannonball Hill Letter of Credit Reduction requests The City has been seeking completion of certain public improvements from the developer of the above referenced subdivisions. Attached is the City Administrator's recent letter to the Developer. Attached is my Memo regarding a Set Off for a recapture fee to the developer. Attached to that memo are Punch Lists from the City Engineer. The letter from the City Administrator makes clear that the City needs action to complete the Punch List. My Memo makes clear that the developer is currently in breach of its responsibility to complete the public improvements. Under these circumstances, the City's decision to reduce (or not to reduce) a Letter of Credit is discretionary (due to the prior breach by the developer) and you are free to take into account the status of the development and the City's legitimate concern about completing the public improvements, when making this decision. • 0, United City of Yorkville esr. 1836 County Seat of Kendall County 800 Game Farm Road cn Yorkville, Illinois 60560 p Phone:630-553-4350 '9k s. im= Fax:630-553-7575 March 18,2005 Mr. Alan Norton Alan Dale Farms &Development, Inc. 8736 Philippine Road South Wayne, Wisconsin 53587 Re: Cannonball Hill, Cannonball Estates Dear Mr.Norton: In follow up to our conversation Monday evening and in light of the preparation conducted in furtherance of the meeting scheduled for today, I write on behalf of the City to set forth the steps to reduce the letters of credit, complete the outstanding punch list issues for the above referenced subdivisions, and make payment to you of recapture funds. Hopefully, we can agree that completion/closure/payment is our mutual goal. I. Reduction of Letters of Credit The City has a well understood, routine, method to reduce the amounts of Letters of Credit. It involves our City Engineer's review and recommendation to the Public Works Committee,then forwarded onto the Committee of the Whole and finally approved by City Council. By copy of this letter to our City Engineer,I ask him to initiate the process. II. Completion of outstanding punch list items Attached hereto are copies of letters dated September 12,2003 (Cannonball Hill) and two letters dated January 28, 2005 (Cannonball Estates,Punch Lists 1 and 2), setting forth items that must be completed. Knowing that the pond, and swale are items of disagreement(if not others),Joe Wywrot has suggested that an on site meeting be convened to go over those items. Both you and Joe, as well as a representative from our Parks Department and the Homeowners Association should also attend. Please submit convenient dates for such a meeting, and we will make arrangements at this end. If you would like to bring appropriate consultants to this meeting,please feel free to do so. III. Payment of Recapture Fees Attached is our City Attorney's Memo regarding the payment. It concludes that the fees will be retained until the punch list is completed. You've requested what type of submittal (paperwork) is necessary to obtain the payment. I've asked John Wyeth, and he has summed it up quite simply as: a. Demonstrate that the public improvement qualifies for recapture. (This has already been done) b. Demonstrate that the improvement has been completed. (Our City Engineer says that it's completed) c. Show that the work that has been completed has been paid for, i.e. no contractors are owed for the work. Original Sworn Statements of Contractors, evidencing completion is sufficient. Please contact me with dates for an on site meeting so that we can move forward to complete this subdivision and get you paid. Sincerely, '. ...-.:3-7-- - 4)1e//1 Tony Graff City Administrator Cc: Atty. John Wyeth Eng. Joe Wywrot MEMO DATE: March 2, 2005 TO: Tony Graff CC: Joe Wywrot FROM: John Justin Wyeth Re: Set Off of Fees Owed to Alan Dale Farms and Development, Inc. The developer has not completed work owed to the City for Cannonball Hill and Cannonball Estates Subdivisions. The work owed is the subject of letters from The City Engineer to the developer dated September 12, 2003, January 28, 2005 (Punch list#1), and January 28, 2005 (Punch list#2). All three letters are attached. Failure to complete the items on the three punch lists is a breach of contract. The City can seek several remedies for the breach. The most obvious, and simplistic remedy in this case is the legal theory of"set off'. "Set Off' is available where one party has a claim against another, and also owes that party money. In this case, the developer owes completion under contract(the three punch lists) and the City owes the developer money under a recapture agreement. The amount owed is set off against the work due. As long as the work yet to be completed approximates the amount owed for recapture,the set off will be for all amounts owed by the City to the developer. Frankly, it would be irresponsible for the City to make payment in this case, when the project is not completed. Note that I am not rendering any opinion regarding the accuracy of the amount requested for the recapture, and I am not rendering an opinion regarding the sufficiency of the documents tendered to obtain the payment. These issues are not yet ripe, as long as the set off is for the full amount owed to the developer. Finally, I am aware that the developer believes that letters of credit(or performance bonds) stand as security for the completion of the punch list items, and therefore does not understand why the City would retain the recapture sum as a set off. (Or conversely believes that the Letter of Credit should be released). The City's reasoning in retaining the Letters of Credit while simultaneously claiming set of is: 1.) All parties to legal disputes are allowed to claim all remedies available to them, and are generally not restricted to one remedy, or required to choose a remedy. 2.) The City has two available remedies here, set off and the letter of credit. 3.) It would be irresponsible to waive or release either available remedy. The only compromise position that I see would be for the City to direct pay on the work being performed on the punch list items. In that way,the City is secured that the punch list is being completed, and the developer gets use of the recapture dollars. I hope that his helps. September 12, 2003 Mr. Alan Norton Alan Dale Farms &Development, Inc. 8736 Philippine Road South Wayne, Wisconsin 53587 Re: Cannonball Hill-Punchlist Dear Alan: Below find the updated punchlist Cannonball Hill. For all items that require excavation, restore landscaping to existing conditions. Watermain: • All hydrants to be wired brushed and given a coat of"fire hydrant red". The existing paint is flaking off, and is the wrong color. • Raise, clean, and plumb the following valve boxes: V-3, V-6 • Plumb the auxiliary valve boxes for the following hydrants: FH-7 Storm: • The entire storm system appears to be filled to one degree or another with mud and debris. Jet all sewers prior to televising. All catch basins should be cleaned out with a Vactor. • Televise all storm sewers 12" diameter and larger. Repair/clean any problem areas and re- televise. • Replace mangled CMP flared end section @ NE corner Cannonball/Fairhaven. • Manhole ST-7 and Control Release Structure—Replace "WATER" lid with"STORM"lid. • Clean out mud and debris from structure ST-18. Miscellaneous: • Submit 2 prints of record drawings of all improvements for review. Final record drawings to be submitted on Mylar with 2 sets of prints. Also submit record drawing in AutoCAD format. • Confirm detention basin volume. • Need a sign-off from Kendall County for improvements along Cannonball Trail. • Need a sign-off from the Kendall County Forest Preserve District. • Confirm that property stakes at SE corner Cannonball/Fairhaven have not been disturbed, or replace them if they have been disturbed. Please complete this punchlist work as soon as possible. If you have questions concerning any of these items,please call me at(630) 553-4350. Very truly yours, Joseph Wywrot City Engineer cc: Tony Graff, City Administrator January 28, 2005 Mr. Alan Norton Alan Dale Farms &Development Corp. 8736 Philippine Road So. Wayne, Wisconsin 53587 Re: Cannonball Estates—Phase 1 Punchlist Dear Alan: Below find the punchlist for Cannonball Estates—Phase 1. This punchlist combines and updates the separate punchlists that had been prepared for underground and streetscape items, resulting in a single punchlist for Phase 1. Water • Wire brush and paint the hydrants along the Cannonball Trail frontage with one coat of"Fire Hydrant Red": • Locate, raise, and plumb B-Boxes at the following addresses: 2244 Meadowview • Repair Trench Adaptor auxiliary valve box at Lot 44 (not connected to valve). • Lower auxiliary valve box for hydrant on north side Lot 3. • Hydrant @ Lot 18—Raise grade up around VB. Is this an in-line valve? If so, locate and raise auxiliary valve for hydrant. • Rotate the following hydrants to the street: SE corner Lot 10 • Valve vault @ NW corner Cannonball/Norton—Add steps and reset frame. • Hydrant @ Lot 59—Raise auxiliary valve 3 inches. • Reset valve vault frames and/or adjusting rings at the following locations: Lot 7,NW corner Alan Dale/Yellowstone Sanitary • Confirm that sewer televising, mandrel testing, and manhole vacuum testing have been satisfactorily performed. • For all manholes that need to have their frames/adjusting rings reset,the work must be performed in the presence of a Yorkville inspector or the manhole must be vacuum tested again. • Relocated MH#1 —Need"City of Yorkville-Sanitary" lid. • Replace adjacent walk where MH#2 was reset back to next tooled joints. • Reset and seal frame of existing manhole that was raised @ NW corner Cannonball/Norton. Add steps to align with rotated cone section. Storm • Clean out all storm sewers and televise those 12" diameter and larger. Submit written log and one VHS-format videotape. Remove fabric and clean out the following structures: ST-58, ST-80 • Clean out the following structures: ST-56, ST-100 • Raise the following buried manholes. We will inspect these structures once this work is done. ST-48, ST-77, ST-95 • Add steps for MH ST-77. • ST-108: Remove debris, check elevations and diameters of restrictors and weir for inclusion in"as-built"drawings, regrade area around this structure to make mowing grass easier. • ST-109: Reset offset frame, clean out. • ST-110: Obtain as-built data then re-bury manhole 8" deep per easement agreement. • Construct PCC curtain wall at pond overflow. • Place riprap at all sewers entering and existing the detention pond. • Locate, clean around, and place marker(protruding 6" above NWL) alongside the submerged pond outfall from ST-100. Roads • 645 Denise—Remove/replace curb patch. Tie new patch into curb with more rebar. Sidewalks • Replace broken/cut walks at the following locations. All replacements to be from joint to joint: 2128 Meadowview • Pour PCC sidewalk south side Faxon west of Alandale to NW corner of subdivision. Streetlights • The following poles need to be plumbed: Alandale/Denise Alandale/Redtail 556 Redtail • Repair streetlight at the NW corner of Alan Dale/Yellowstone. Grading • Re-grade and re-landscape swale between 592-608 Redtail; lower existing sidewalk about 3"; slice curb depression; install PCC overflow pad between curb and sidewalk(this pad will also serve as a sidewalk) • Re-grade and re-landscape swale between 510-522 Redtail; lower existing sidewalk; slice curb depression; install PCC overflow pad between curb and sidewalk. Pond • Confirm NWL. We need to discuss if pond lining will be required. • Confirm that safety shelf is in place, and at the proper elevation and width. • Restore embankment rutted when riprap was placed. • Construct PCC curtain wall. • Provide as-built topography and calculations to confirm storage volume. • Confirm top of berm elevations. • It appears that the dry area of the pond is not graded per plan, and this may be creating a fairly large dead zone where only a few weeds are growing. We may be able to leave the grading alone if you can come up with an acceptable landscape plan for this area. Revise pond grading as required. Landscaping • Replace dead/dying/missing trees at following locations: 544 Yellowstone 578 Redtail(leaning badly) 2194 Meadowview(needs a tree) • We have checked the berm landscaping on Faxon and Cannonball. Several trees and shrubs have died or are dying and need to be replaced. Some shade trees are leaning over and need to be straightened.None of the required ornamental trees have been planted. The number of shade trees, evergreens, and shrubs doesn't meet the spacing requirement in most areas. The south end of the berm on Cannonball and the west end of the berm on Faxon(just east of Alandale)has no landscaping at all. The berm landscaping needs to be reviewed and brought up to the required density of plantings. Miscellaneous • Restore any areas disturbed during the repair of punchlist items. • Reset rear property corners along Faxon that were torn out when the sidewalk was constructed. • Remove PCC pad in parkway at 609 Denise Ct. • We have received the record drawings but have not reviewed them yet. Once approved,we will need them on Mylar and in AutoCAD format. • Restore any areas disturbed during the repair of punchlist items. • Submit pond volume calculations for review. It appears that the dry area of the pond is not graded per plan, and this may be creating a fairly large dead zone where only a few weeds are growing. We may be able to leave the grading alone if you can come up with an acceptable landscape plan for this area. Revise pond grading as required. • Submit overflow route profiles for review. Regrade swales as required. • Provide two recorded prints of the plat of easement across the Gilbert property. Provide a sign-off from Mr. Gilbert that all the terms of the easement agreement have been satisfied. Please complete these items as soon as possible. If you have questions regarding any of these items, please call me at(630) 553-8545. Very truly yours, Joseph Wywrot City Engineer cc: Tony Graff, City Administrator January 28, 2005 Mr. Alan Norton Alan Dale Farms &Development Corp. 8736 Philippine Road So. Wayne, Wisconsin 53587 Re: Cannonball Estates—Phase 2 Punchlist Dear Alan: Below find the updated punchlist for Cannonball Estates—Phase 2. General • We have received the record drawings, but have not reviewed them yet. Once approved,we will need them on Mylar and in AutoCAD format. • Restore any areas disturbed during the repair of punchlist items. • Conduct 48-hour burn test for all streetlights. Repair as necessary. • Construct sidewalk along south side of Faxon Road from AlanDale Lane to the west edge of the development. • Replace any parkway trees that do not leaf out this spring. • Replace dead trees/bushes along Faxon Road. • Grade park site per plan and place topsoil & seed. Landscape parkway. Obtain approval from Park Board for acceptance of park site. • Submit proof of payment or waivers of lien to all contractors, engineers, and surveyors that you hired for this project. Water • Hydrant across from Lot 85 —Replace damaged auxiliary valve. • VV @ Lot 106 - Remove debris and/or blocking, mortar around north pipe and between cone and barrel. • VV @ NE corner park(on N/S water line)—replace lid with"City of Yorkville— Water" lid; replace concentric cone with eccentric cone w/steps due to depth of structure. • VV @ NE corner park(on E/W water line)—replace concentric cone with eccentric cone w/steps due to depth of structure. Replace plain lid with"City of Yorkville" lid. • VV @ south end Northland—Reset frame; grade around VV • Hydrant between 2179 &2187 Northland—Raise auxiliary valve box 2 inches. • Hydrant @ Lot 44—Repair trench adaptor(not connected to valve). • Hydrant on Faxon near Lots 108 & 111 —Lower auxiliary valve box to grade. • Locate, raise, and plumb B-Boxes at the following addresses: 2135, 2084 Northland • Chip PCC out of B-Box &check proper operation at the following addresses: 609 Denise, 688 Redtail • Regrade sunken parkway near B-Box @ 2297 Northland Sanitary • Confirm that sewer televising,mandrel testing, and manhole vacuum testing have been satisfactorily performed. • For all manholes that need to have their frames/adjusting rings reset,the work must be performed in the presence of a Yorkville inspector or the manhole must be vacuum tested again. • MH7 —Replace lid gasket. Storm • Clean out all storm sewers and televise those 12" diameter and larger. Submit written log and one VHS-format videotape. • Vactor out all sump structures.Notify city when this is to occur. • Remove debris from the following structures: ST25 • ST33 —Straighten back of grate(also needs blocking under back plate). • ST5—Add 1 MH step • ST15 —Mortar sewer from NW • Reverse and properly set grate for following structures: ST51 • Field tile MH @ NW corner Phase 2—Mortar pipe to south. • Raise the following buried manholes. We will inspect these structures once this work is done. ST49, ST48 • ST 113—Remove fabric and remove mud/debris from structure. Please complete this work as soon as possible. If you have questions regarding any of these items, please call me at(630) 553-8545. Very truly yours, Joseph Wywrot City Engineer Cc: Tony Graff, City Administrator PW 4 e Co.o United City of Yorkville Memo 800 Game Farm RoadEST "ill-____:: 36 •Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 �� ° p Fax: 630-553-3436 <LE �0' Date: March 18, 2005 To: John Wyeth, City Attorney From: Joe Wywrot, CityEngineer r CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Cannonball Estates Phase 2—Letter of Credit Reduction#4 Attached find a request from Alan Norton to reduce the letter of credit for the referenced development. Alan is asking for the letter of credit to be reduced to 10% of the value of the work performed. Ordinance only allows a reduction to that level after all punchlist items have been performed. Since there are still outstanding punchlist items, I reviewed the request to see if any reductions could be made at this time. All Phase 2 work is substantially complete except for the public sidewalk along Faxon Road (now called Alice Avenue)west of Alan Dale Lane. Alan refers to $28,857.00 worth of work that is not complete, but that work(erosion control and Faxon Road berm landscaping) is substantially complete. Ordinance provides that the City Council may reduce the letter of credit to 15% of the value of the work completed. Attached find a spreadsheet that indicates that a reduction in the amount of$57,824.63 is possible. The remaining amount in the letter of credit would be $140,362.64. We have been discussing various punchlist items with Alan over the last few years in order to get the punchlist completed. Many work items have been performed, but many remain. We have also been notified by several contractors that worked for Alan on this development project that they are still owed money despite requests to Alan for payment. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. Alan Dale Forms & Devel0 mt nt, Corp. 9015 Philippine Road, South Wayne WI 53587 * Phone (608)439-1732 * Fax (608)439-1733 February 10, 2005 Joe Wywrot, City Engineer United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville IL 60560 _ Re: Cannonball Estates L.O.C. & Recapture Dear Joe; In compliance with your ordinance, I am requesting that the Letter of Credit # 11220 for Phase I, in the amount of$200,920.32 be reduced to $117,827.00 which is 10% of the original estimate of$1,178,279.00. I am also requesting that the Letter of Credit # 11221 for Phase II in the amount of$198,187.23 be reduced to $125,638.00 which is 10% of the original $871,625.90 plus 125% of the $28,857.00 miscellaneous. In compliance with your ordinance, I am also requesting that you release the recapture payment for off-site water main in the amount of$45,185.39, which includes interest through 2/1/05. Please find the attached letter from Annette Williams which included all conditions which have been addressed with Joe Wyeth. By ordinance, this payment is due at annexation or connection to the water main. I do expect the City to comply with its' own ordinance. Sincerely, �-- Alan Norton Alan Dale Farms & Development, Corp. cc: Art Prochaska, Mayor Tony Graff, City Administrator file 0 • CANNONBALL ESTATES - UNIT 2 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST WATER MAIN 8"DIA. DIWM-WRAPPED 3708 LF $ 19.25 $ 71,379.00 12" DIA.DIWM-WRAPPED 875 LF $ 24.75 $ 21,656.25 8"GATE VALVE&VAULT 7 EA $ 1,400.00 $ 9,800.00 12"GATE VALVE&VAULT 1 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 16x6 PRESSURE TAP 0 EA $ 3,175.00 $ - 16x8 PRESSURE TAP 0 EA $ 3,500.00 $ - 16x12 PRESSSURE TAP 0 EA $ 4,500.00 $ - FIRE HYDRANT,VALVE AND TRENCH ADAP. 14 EA $ 1,550.00 $ 21,700.00 EXIT. F.H. RELOCATION 0 EA $ 750.00 $ - REMOVE EXIST.VALVE&BOX AND PLUG 0 EA $ 400.00 $ - . REMOVE EXIST. F.H&VALVE AND PLUG 0 EA $ 400.00 $ - SHORT SERVICES 32 EA $ 250.00 $ 8,000.00 LONG SERVICES 32 EA $ 500.00 $ 16,000.00 PLUGS 0 EA $ 50.00 $ - SUBTOTAL $ 150,535.25 SANITARY SEWER 8"DIA PVC SDR 26-3034 3299 LF $ 17.50 $ 57,732.50 8"DIP CL 52 0 LF $ 23.50 $ - 6"SHORT SERVICES 33 EA $ 200.00 $ 6,600.00 6"LONG SEVICES 31 EA $ 600.00 $ 18,600.00 4'DIA MANHOLES 16 EA $ 1,675.00 $ 26,800.00 5' DIA. MH OVER EXIST.15"INCL. BY-PASS 0 EA $ 3,850.00 $ - ADJUST EXIST. MANHOLES-IN BERM 0 EA $ 650.00 $ - ADJUST EXIST. MANHOLES 0 EA $ 150.00 $ - SUBTOTAL $ 109,732.50 STORM SEWER 5 FT.-4"PE (N-12)SUMP CONN. STUBS 64 EA. $ 75.00 $ 4,800.00 6"PVC 511 LF $ 10.00 $ 5,110.00 12"RCP 1454 LF $ 15.00 $ 21,810.00 15"RCP 722 LF $ 16.50 $ 11,913.00 18"RCP 1578 LF $ 18.50 $ 29,193.00 21"RCP 567 LF $ 21.00 $ 11,907.00 24"RCP 1124 LF $ 22.75 $ 25,571.00 30"RCP 488 LF $ 29.50 $ 14,396.00 36" RCP 31 LF $ 36.50 $ 1,131.50 TELEVISE SEWER 5964 LF $ 1.00 $ 5,964.00 2'DIA.INLETS ATC&G 13 EA $ 550.00 $ 7,150.00 2'DIA. CB TYP C AT C&G 0 EA $ 600.00 $ - 2'DIA. CB TYP C-TYP 8 12 EA $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 5'DIA. MH-TYP A 13 EA $ 1,255.00 $ 16,315.00 5' DIA. INLET MH A-TYPE 8 10 EA $ 1,020.00 $ 10,200.00 5'DIA INLET MH A AT C&G 0 EA $ 1,140.00 $ - 5'DIA. INLET MH C AT C&G 9 EA $ 1,320.00 $ 11,880.00 6' DIA, MH-TYP A 1 EA $ 2,100.00 $ 2,100.00 6'DIA. OUTLET CONTROL MH 0 EA $ 2,900.00 $ - SPECIAL STRUCTURE 1 EA $ 3,800.00 $ 3,800.00 TEMP. BULKHEAD 0 EA $ 60.00 $ - 8"PVC-FIELD TILE RE-ROUTING 155 LF $ 12.00 $ 1,860.00 SUBTOTAL $ 191,100.50 TOTAL THIS PAGE $ 451,368.25 / EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SILT FENCE 3000 LF $ 1.25 $ 3,750.00 - STRAW BALE TRAPS 13 EA $ 80.00 $ 1,040.00 SEEDING-PARKWAYS,PARK&RETENTION 5.53 AC. $ 2,000.00 $ 11,060.00 SUBTOTAL $ 15,850.00 EARTHWORK MOBILIZATION AND CLEARING 1 LS $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 TOPSOIL STRIP TO BERMS 1150 CY $ 1.50 $ 1,725.00 T/S STRIP TO STOKPILE/REAR YARDS/PARK 20874 CY $ 1.25 $ 26,092.50 EXCAVATION -R.O.W. AND LOTS 3558 CY $ 2.00 $ 7,116.00 RETENTION BASIN EXCAVATION 7515 CY $ 2.50 $ 18,787.50 FINE GRADE UILITY EASEMENTS 1 EA---$- 3,450:00--$-- ---- 3,450.00 TOPSOIL RESPREAD IN RETENTION BASIN 1397 CY $ 3.00 $ 4,191.00 BACKFILL C&G 5757 LF $ 0.50 $ 2,878.50 CONCRETE OVERFLOW WALL 0 EA $ - $ - SUBTOTAL $ 66,540.50 PAVING FINE GRADING-INTERIOR STREETS 11695 SY $ 0.35 $ 4,093.25 PAVEMENT FABRIC 11695 SY $ 1.30 $ 15,203.50 10" BASE COURSE 5524 TON $ 9.15 $ 50,544.60 . PRIME BASE COURSE(.15 GAUSY) 1506 GAL $ 1.35 $ 2,033.10 2-1/2" BINDER COURSE 1444 TON $ 30.55 $ 44,114.20 CLEAN AND TACK COAT(0.1 GAUSY) 10043 SY $ 0.25 $ 2,510.75 1-1/2"SURFACE COURSE 866 TON $ 36.25 $ 31,392.50 4"STONE UNDER C&G 112 CY $ 16.00 $ 1,792.00 CURB AND GUTTER 5757 LF $ 7.50 $ 43,177.50 SUBTOTAL $ 194,861.40 Z SIDEWALK&OVERFLOW CONC. PADS 34555 SF $ 2.25 $ 77,748.75 450.b �� -� STREET LIGHTS 11 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 33,000.00 ow- FL1.+K STREET TREES 77 EA $ 250.00 $ 19,250.00 FAXON BERM LANDSCAPING: $ - 5' EVERGREEN TREES 26 EA $ 150.00 $ 3,900.00 6'ORNAMENTAL TREES 26 EA $ 145.00 $ 3,770.00 24"SHRUBS 131 EA $ 27.00 $ 3,537.00 SEEDING/MULCH 0.6 AC $ 3,000.00 $ 1,800.00 SUBTOTAL $ 13,007.00 SOD &WILDFLOWER SEEDING 0 LS $ 1,200.00 $ - TOTAL THIS PAGE $ 420,257.65 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 871,625.90 . :.--- LETTER OF CREDIT AMOUNT(COST+10%) $ 958,788.49 R C 9[- ip2.1 c k'a/ \Z� 18-Mar-05 Letter of Credit/Bond Reduction Subdivision: Cannonball Estates- Unit 2 Reduction No. 4 LOC/Bond LOC/Bond Approved Original Amount to remain Substantially complete Amount to remain Reduction No.3 Item Eno. Est. Letter of Credit after Red. No. 3 prior to Red. No.4 after Red. No. 3 Amount Earthwork $66,540.50 $73,194.55 $9,981.08 $66,540.50 $9,981.08 $0.01 San. Sewer $109,732.50 $120,705.75 $16,459.88 $109,732.50 $16,459.88 $0.01 Watermain $150,535.25 $165,588.78 $22,580.29 $150,535.25 $22,580.29 $0.00 Storm Sewer $191,100.50 $210,210.55 $28,665.08 $191,100.50 $28,665.08 $0.01 Pavement $324,860.15 $357,346.17 $102,465.30 $314,735.15 $58,347.77 $44,117.53 Miscellaneous $28.857.00 $31,742.70 $18,035.63 $28,857.00 $4,328.55 $13,707.08 Totals $871,625.90 $958,788.49 $198,187.26 $140,362.64 $57,824.63 Notes: 1) LOC/Bond amt. to be 15% of subsantially completed items plus 110% of uncompleted items. ,cs,v CO.). United City of Yorkville Memo '" 800 Game Farm Road EST. °' isss Yorkville, Illinois 60560 ��= Telephone: 630-553-4350 t� 111on. 0 Fax: 630-553-7575 06 <LE ‘V>' Date: ` 1 To: F' c L. (, ) (( C' ( t �.1 k_ c, (Lc, c: L `t -{ From: )– ( ) --> A G V (. �( I. (-(), tl. ( LC q (`._ Agenda Item: ( .�. (;. t>. a `t.l`, t (Xt. ( 1 ( •� (« It s i'--)K4' (-r Et' ( C`G NE . (�t L :t-iv . , . 7- was not available at the time packets were produced. i s item will be available ( (Lt- `-. tt 2) ( (-1 C(.17 and distributed in a supplemental packet. - Irl -r(r. 4.0 ci?.o United City of Yorkville Memo .. '1` 800 Game Farm Road EST 14 ,_-_-_ -:______-_=.2 1836 I Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 a 1F Fax: 630-553-3436 �LE `�� Date: March 18, 2005 To: John Wyeth, City Attorney f� � From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer V, CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Cannonball Estates Phase 1 —Letter of Credit Reduction#5 Attached find a request from Alan Norton to reduce the letter of credit for the referenced development. Alan is asking for the letter of credit to be reduced to 10% of the value of the work performed. Ordinance only allows a reduction to that level after all punchlist items have been performed. Since there are still outstanding punchlist items, I reviewed the request to see if any reductions could be made at this time. All Phase 1 work is substantially complete, therefore ordinance provides that the City Council may reduce the letter of credit to 15% of the value of the work completed. Attached find a spreadsheet that indicates that a reduction in the amount of$24,178.45 is possible. The remaining amount in the letter of credit would be$176,741.87 We have been discussing various punchlist items with Alan over the last few years in order to complete the punchlist completed. Many work items have been performed, but many remain. We have also been notified by several contractors that worked for Alan on this development project that they are still owed money despite requests to Alan for payment. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. Alan Dale Farms & Developmtnt, Corp. 9015 Philippine Road, South Wayne WI 53587 * Phone (608)439-1732 * Fax (608)439-1733 February 10, 2005 Joe Wywrot, City Engineer United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville IL 60560 Re: Cannonball Estates L.O.C. & Recapture Dear Joe; In compliance with your ordinance, I am requesting that the Letter of Credit # 11220 for Phase I, in the amount of $200,920.32 be reduced to $117,827.00 which is 10% of the original estimate of$1,178,279.00. I am also requesting that the Letter of Credit # 11221 for Phase II in the amount of $198,187.23 be reduced to $125,638.00 which is 10% of the original $871,625.90 plus 125% of the $28,857.00 miscellaneous. In compliance with your ordinance, I am also requesting that you release the recapture payment for off-site water main in the amount of$45,185.39, which includes interest through 2/1/05. Please find the attached letter from Annette Williams which included all conditions which have been addressed with Joe Wyeth. By ordinance, this payment is due at annexation or connection to the water main. I do expect the City to comply with its' own ordinance. Sincerely, Alan Norton Alan Dale Farms & Development, Corp. cc: Art Prochaska, Mayor Tony Graff, City Administrator file 18-Mar-05 Letter of Credit/Bond Reduction Subdivision: Cannonball Estates- Unit 1 Reduction No.4 Approved Original amount Amount Remaining Substantially Complete Reduction No.5 Reduction amt. Item Eng. Est. for LOC/Bond after Red. #4 Prior to Red#5 Amount to Remain for Red. No.5 Earthwork $116,421.50 $128,063.65 $17,463.23 $116,421.50 $17,463.23 $0.00 San. Sewer $96,322.50 $105,954.75 $14,448.38 $96,322.50 $14,448.38 $0.00 Watermain $168,620.25 $185,482.28 $25,293.04 $168,620.25 $25,293.04 $0.00 Storm Sewer $233,973.75 $257,371.13 $35,096.06 $233,973.75 $35,096.06 $0.00 Pavement $344,040.15 $378,444.17 $51,606.02 $344,040.15 $51,606.02 $0.00 Miscellaneous $218,901.00 $240,791.10 $57.013.60 $218,901.00 $32,835.15 $24,178.45 Totals $1,178,279.15 $1,296,107.07 $200,920.33 $176,741.87 $24,178.45 Notes: 1) LOC/Bond amt. to be 15% of subsantially completed items plus 110% of uncompleted items. A AO C/i.o United City of Yorkville Memo '1' 800 Game Farm Road EST.44,- o ® 1836' Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 09 11, 1� — p Fax: 630-553-7575 Date: 2/ 1.) _ (C ° '� To: Pt v L) ((.-(1) - f cc ) f `‘ t r LL Ct•l t 1-4 ( . From: ,L ( ) f > l\tk,.. c', t i2') ( -)t ( it. V, R__ v,j L b t Agenda Item: � tC (" � �> : � � �� ( ( ( . t Cf.t- u t--`' ev ch r}_ was not available at the time packets were produced. This item will be available u' c �--' �.� t J (c`, \_. and distributed in a supplemental packet. -PA ---4 / - '„.D Cl?o United City of Yorkville Memo r- .1` 800 Game Farm Road EST.g% Al ' 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 -�_ Telephone: 630-553-8545 t� ° p Fax: 630-553-3436 <LE %•• Date: March 18, 2005 To: John Wyeth, City Attorney r\ From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer \\--,r, LFC---' CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator) Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Cannonball Hill—Letter of Credit Reduction#4 Attached find a request from Alan Norton to reduce the letter of credit for the referenced development. Alan is asking for the letter of credit to be reduced to 10% of the value of the work performed. Ordinance only allows a reduction to that level after all punchlist items have been performed. Since there are still outstanding punchlist items, I reviewed the request to see if any reductions could be made at this time. All work is substantially complete. Ordinance provides that the City Council may reduce the letter of credit to 15% of the value of the work completed. Attached find a spreadsheet that indicates that a reduction in the amount of$0.00 is possible. What this indicates is that the letter of credit has been reduced as far as possible prior to final acceptance. The remaining amount in the letter of credit would remain at $82,317.77. We have been discussing various punchlist items with Alan over the last few years in order to get the punchlist completed. Many work items have been performed, but some remain. We have also been notified by some contractors that worked for Alan on this 1 development project that they are still owed money despite requests to Alan for payment. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. Alan Dale Farms & Development, Corp. 9015 Philippine Road, South Wayne WI 53587 * Phone (608)439-1732 * Fax (608)439-1733 February 11, 2005 Joe Wywrot, City Engineer United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville IL 60560 Re: Cannonball Hill Subdivision - Letter of Credit Reduction & Punch list Status Dear Joe; I have reviewed your letter dated January 13, 2005 and by now Jorge Boada has picked up the drawings to address your comments. Are you sure you do not have the storm water calculations because Jorge Boada is sure that you do and I believe has a copy of the cover letter that accompanied the submittal. Are you sure that you are not in possession of the sewer video tapes? J&S has been paid for them and has maintained that you have them. I believe that the punch list is complete and I am requesting that you verify and accept the public improvements at this time. If there is anything that is not complete or anything that you need, please respond in writing as soon as possible. I am also requesting that the Letter of Credit#11250 in the amount of $82,317.77 be reduced to $54,878.51, which is 10% of the original estimate of $548,785.15. Sincerely, Alan Norton Alan Dale Farms & Development, Corp cc: Art Prochaska, Mayor Tony Graff, City Administrator 18-Mar-05 Letter of Credit/Bond Reduction Subdivision: Cannonball Hill Reduction No. 4 LOC/Bond LOC/Bond Approved Original Amount to remain Substantially complete Amount to remain Reduction No.4 Item Eno. Est. Letter of Credit after Red. No. 3 prior to Red. No.4 after Red. No.4 Amount Earthwork $140,510.00 $154,561.00 $21,076.50 $140,510.00 $21,076.50 $0.00 Erosion Control $22,130.00 $24,343.00 $3,319.50 $22,130.00 $3,319.50 $0.00 San. Sewer $72,834.00 $80,117.40 $10,925.10 $72,834.00 $10,925.10 $0.00 Watermain $73,294.00 $80,623.40 $10,994.10 $73,294.00 $10,994.10 $0.00 Storm Sewer $72,410.60 $79,651.66 $10,861.59 $72,410.60 $10,861.59 $0.00 Pavement $109,986.55 $120,985.21 $16,497.98 $109,986.55 $16,497.98 $0.00 Miscellaneous $57,620.00 $63,382.00 $8,643.00 $57,620.00 $8,643.00 $0.00 Totals $548,785.15 $603,663.67 $82,317.77 $82,317.77 $0.00 Notes: 1) LOC/Bond amt.to be 15% of subsantially completed items plus 110% of uncompleted items. j) / t1T (7 2`,sw o United City of Yorkville Memo , '" 800 Game Farm Road EST i i E 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 o I" �. `' Fax: 630-553-7575 Ij<CE ,,,>. Date: March 23, 2005 To: Mayor and Committee Members From: Lisa Pickering, Clerk's Office Assistant Agenda Item #18: 500,000 Gallon Water Tower Painting —Results of Bid Opening was not available at the time packets were produced. This item will be available Monday March 28, 2005. Any questions, please contact: City Engineer Joe Wywrot 1 . . -RA/ 417-1 ei.j.ciUnited City of Yorkville Memo J �3., -0. 800 Game Faun Road EST4 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 jo LIT ' P Y. o Fax: 630-553-3436 414 Date: March 24, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator s?yFrom: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer U CC: John Wyeth, City Attorney Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Traci Pleckham, Finance Director Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Results of Bids — 500MG Tower Repainting Bids were received at 11am on March 24, 2005 for the referenced project. This project consists of sandblasting and repainting the 500,000-gallon water tower located near the Wildwood subdivision. The following bids were received: ALLSTATE Painting & Contracting Co. $173,500.00 1256 Industrial Pkwy Brunswick, Ohio 44212 Maxcor Inc. $193,000.00 1331 E. Dunslow Lane Lockport, Illinois 60441 Maguire Iron, Inc. $193,700.00 1610 N. Minnesota Ave. Sioux Falls, South Dakota Neumann Co. Contractors $205,900.00 808 Forestwood Drive Romeoville, Illinois 62269 Am Coat Painting, Inc. $208,130.00 17201 S. Parker Road Homer Glen, Illinois 60491 Jetco, Ltd. $211,000.00 20413 Rand Road Palatine, Illinois 60074 Prism Painting Co. $211,900.00 P.O. Box 1944 Highland, Indiana 46322 Diversified Coating Ltd. $220,000.00 • 1550 Frontage Road O'Fallon, Illinois 62269 L.C. United Painting Co. $223,000.00 3525 Barbara Drive Sterling Heights, Michigan 48310 Utility Service Co. $223,347.00 535 Courtney Hodges Blvd. Perry, Georgia 31069 Era Valdivia Contractors $228,000.00 11909 S. Avenue 0 Chicago, Illinois 60617 Classic Protective Coatings, Inc. $245,150.00 N7670 St. Hwy 25 Menomonie, Wisconsin 54751 Engineer's Estimate $220,000.00 The bid specifications required that the bidders provide several documents other than the proposal itself. These items were: • References of 10 towers painted in the State of Illinois within the past 5 years. • A Certificate of Insurance that includes the painting of steel structures over 2 stories tall. • Written acknowledgement of the Illinois law regarding payment of prevailing wages. • Documentation of participation in the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training program. ALLSTATE Painting listed 10 previous projects,but most were scattered throughout the midwest and only 2 were in Illinois. I called every reference and did not find anyone who recalled ALLSTATE working on their project. Two of the references apparently listed a wrong number. The only individual I spoke to that actually recalled their project did not remember the name ALLSTATE, but did say that there were problems with the project and they would not use that same contractor again. ALLSTATE did acknowledge the prevailing wage requirement, and said they could supply the necessary certificate of insurance and documentation regarding the apprenticeship program. Maxcor listed 32 previous projects, 20 of which are in Illinois. I called 9 of the references, and while most were already gone for the day, the two that I did speak with spoke highly of Maxcor. Maxcor also power-washed our 300,000-gallon tower last year. They supplied acknowledgement of prevailing wage rates and documentation of participation in the apprenticeship program. They also said they could supply the appropriate certificate of insurance if they were awarded the contract. Based on this infozination I recommend that the contract be awarded to Maxcor, Inc. for the amount of 5193,000. This item is scheduled for consideration by the Public Works Committee at their meeting on March 28, 2005. Sheet1 , Project: 500 MG Tower Repainting 2005 Maguire Iron Inc. Classic Protective Coating Allstate Painting Prism Painting Co. Utility Service Co. Diversified Coating Ltd. Date: March 24,2005 1610 N. Minnesota Ave N 7670 St Hwy 25 1256 Industrial Pkwy PO Box 1944 535 Courtney Hodges Blvd. 1550 Frontage Rd. Time: 11:00 am Sioux Falls,SD 57104 Menomonie,WI 54751 Brunswick,OH 44212 Highland, IN 46322 Perry,GA 31069 O'Fallon, IL 62269 Witnesses:Joe Wywrot,Jennifer Fischer Engineer's Estimate Item Qty. Unit Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost 1 Containment 1 L Sum $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $5,800.00 $5,800.00 $70,150.00 $70,150.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 2 Exterior Painting 1 L Sum $77,000.00 $77,000.00 $108,500.00 $108,500.00 $81,210.00 $81,210.00 $91,000.00 $91,000.00 $135,000.00 $135,000.00 $55,500.00 $55,500.00 $134,500.00 $134,500.00 3 Interior Wet Painting 1 L Sum $54,000.00 $54,000.00 $54,000.00 $54,000.00_ $65,040.00 $65,040.00 $63,000.00 $63,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $141,102.00 $141,102.00 $51,500.00 $51,500.00 4 Interior Dry Paining 1 L Sum $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,500.00 $15,500.00 $24,750.00 $24,750.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,505.00 $12,505.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 5 Logo Painting 1 L Sum $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,900.00 $9,900.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $9,400.00 $9,400.00 $11,240.00 $11,240.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 6 Hourly repair rate 0 Hour (Separate from bid total; $165.00 $125.00 $65.00 $100.00 $84.00 $90.00 7 Rafter Seam Sealing w/SIKA FLEX a1/equiv 0 L Sum Used for bid consideration) $3,500.00 $2,850.00 $3,000.00 $2,900.00 $1,650.00 $1,800.00 Total Bid(as read) $220,000.00 $193,700.00 $245,150.00 $173,500.00 $211,900.00 $223,347.00 $220,000.00 Total Bid(as corrected) $220,000.00 $193,700.00 $245,150.00 $173,500.00 $211,900.00 $223,347.00 $220,000.00 Project: 500 MG Tower Repainting 2005 L.C. United Painting Co. 1Jetco, Ltd. Era Valdivia Contractors Am Coat Painting Inc. Maxcor Inc. Neumann Co. Contr. Date: March 24,2005 3525 Barbara Dr. 20413 Rand Rd. 11909 S.Avenue 0 17201 S. Parker Rd 1331 E.Dunslow Ln. 808 Forestwood Drive Time: 11:00 am Sterling Heights,MI 48310 Palatine, IL 60074 Chicago, IL 60617 Homer Glen, IL 60491 Lockport, IL 60441 Romeoville, IL 60446 Witnesses:Joe Wywrot,Jennifer Fischer Engineer's Estimate Item Qty. Unit Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost 1 Containment 1 L Sum $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5;100.00 $5,100.00 $67,100.00 $67,100.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 _~2 Exterior Painting 1 L Sum $77,000.00 $77,000.00 $144,000.00 $144,000.00 $139,900.00 $139,900.00 ' $142,000.00 $142,000.00 $131,670.00 $131,670.00 $68,100.00 $68,100.00 $136,700.00 $136,700.00 3 Interior Wet Painting 1 L Sum $54,000.00 $54,000.00 $57,000.00 $57,000.00 $52,000.00 $52,000.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $45,490.00 $45,490.00 _ $42,900.00 _ $42,900.00 $47,800.00 $47,800.00 4 Interior Dry Paining 1 L Sum $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $5,900.00 $5,900.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $9,310.00 $9,310.00 $7,400.00 $7,400.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 5 Logo Painting 1 L Sum $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $9,200.00 $9,200.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $16,560.00 $16,560.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6 Hourly repair rate 0 Hour (Separate from bid total; $80.00 $125.00 $120.00 $90.00 $100.00 $95.00 7 Rafter Seam Sealing w/SIKA FLEX a1/equiv 0 L Sum Used for bid consideration) $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,705.00 $4,000.00 $1,600.00 Total Bid(as read) $220,000.00 $223,000.00 $211,000.00 $228,000.00 $208,130.00 $193,000.00 $205,900.00 Total Bid(as corrected) $220,000.00 $223,000.00 $211,000.00 $228,000.00 $208,130.00 $193,000.00 $205,900.00 Page 1 i ?kJ I8 f° co.),.. United City of Yorkville Memo 800 Game Farm Road EST. 4 " t'iitiam1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 61 4,)771-1(4) Fax: 630-553-7575 4CE O''‘' Date: March 23, 2005 To: Mayor and Committee Members From: Lisa Pickering, Clerk's Office Assistant Agenda Item #19: 2005 In-Town Drainage Projects —Results of Bid Opening was not available at the time packets were produced. This item will be available Monday March 28, 2005. Any questions, please contact: City Engineer Joe Wywrot pwi- lS .'�``o car o United City of Yorkville Memo i I ,„ '" 800 Game Fann Road EST.grl 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 -�— Telephone: 630-553-8545 °.p ~ g Fax: 630-553-3436 11. *Mall couty iel. Date: March 24, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator p \ From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer --5-- ---- CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Traci Pleckham, Finance Director Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: In-Town Road Program—Phase 1 Utilities Bids were received at 11am on March 24, 2005 for the referenced project. This project consists of storm sewer construction on Center Street, East Main Street, Colton Street, and Liberty Street in preparation for the reconstruction of roadways later this summer. The following bids were received: R. A. Ubert Construction $921,017.00 P.O.Box 160 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Bolder Contractors, Inc. $950,122.50 440 Lake Cook Road, Unit 3B Deerfield, Illinois 60015 H. Linden& Sons Sewer& Water, Inc. $1,057,769.00 P.O.Box 344 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Engineer's Estimate $668,911.00 A review of the bids reveal that for most items the unit prices of the bidders and the engineer were comparable. The big difference was in the unit prices for the various sizes of sewer pipe. The engineer's unit prices are much lower, and are prices that we could expect if trench backfill were paid for separately. Since trench backfill was made incidental to the cost of the sewer pipe,all contractors bid much higher. Since the bids received are very competitive, I don't believe we would benefit from re-bidding, although i would recommend that in the future we pay for trench backfill as a separate item. I recommend that the Finance Director review the costs to determine the impact of this project on the upcoming budget. Upon concurrence from the Finance Director, I recommend that the contract for this project be awarded to R. A. Ubert Construction for the amount of$921,017.00. This item is scheduled for consideration by the Public Works Committee at their meeting on March 28, 2005. Sheet1 Project: In Town Drainage Program Date: March 24,2005 R.A. Ubert Construction Bolder Constractors, Inc. H. Linden&Sons Time: 10:00 am PO Box 160 440 Lake Cook Rd., Unit 3B PO Box 344 Witnesses: Joe Wywrot,Jennifer Fischer Yorkville, IL 60560 Deerfield, IL 60015 Yorkville, IL 60560 Engineer's Estimate Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost 1. Construction Staking 1 L Sum $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,700.00 $5,700.00 2. Mobilization 0 Inc. $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3. Traffic control and Protection 1 L Sum $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $56,000.00 $56,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 4. Sediment and Erosion control 1 L Sum $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 5. Site Restoration 5820 S.Y. $5.00 $29,100.00 $1.00 $5,820.00 $0.75 $4,365.00 $2.00 $11,640.00 6. Seed,Class 1A 5820 S.Y. $2.00 $11,640.00 $2.00 $11,640.00 $1.00 $5,820.00 $1.00 $5,820.00 7. Storm Sewer Televising 1 L Sum $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 8. Street Sign Removal and Reinstallation 10 Each $100.00 $1,000.00 $1.00 $10.00 $50.00 $500.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 9. Fence Removal and Replacement 100 L.F. $20.00 $2,000.00 $10.00 $1,000.00 $30.00 $3,000.00 $25.00 $2,500.00 10. Temp.Mailbox Relocation and Reinstallation 0 Inc. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 11. Detectable Undergrd. Marking Tape, 3"W,Green 238 L.F. $12.00 $2,856.00 $0.50 $119.00 $1.00 $238.00 $1.00 $238.00 12. Sanitary Service Reconneciton 30 Each $250.00 $7,500.00 $100.00 $3,000.00 $50.00 $1,500.00 $300.00 $9,000.00 13. Water Service Reconnection 30 Each $250.00 $7,500.00 $25.00 $750.00 $50.00 $1,500.00 $200.00 $6,000.00 14. Watermain Lowering,6" 1 Each $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 15. Watermain Lowering,8" 3 Each $1,800.00 $5,400.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $2,400.00 $7,200.00 16. Watermain Lowering, 12" 2 Each $2,100.00 $4,200.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,800.00 $5,600.00 17. Watermain Lowering, 16" 1 Each $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 18. Watermain Linestops,6" 1 Each $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,075.00 $2,075.00 19. Watermain Linestops, 8" 3 Each $1,300.00 $3,900.00 $700.00 $2,100.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,900.00 $8,700.00 20. Watermain Linestops, 12" 2 Each $1,700.00 $3,400.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $3,950.00 $7,900.00 21. Watermain Linestops, 16" 1 Each $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 22. Exploratory Excavation 1 Each $300.00 $300.00 $100.00 $100.00 $450.00 $450.00 $425.00 $425.00 23. Curb and Gutter Removal, no replacement 0 Inc. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 24. Pre-Cast Segmental Curb Removal&Relocation 0 Inc. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - 25. Tree Protection 1 Each $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $100.00 $100.00 $150.00 $150.00 26. Tree Removal,All Dia., no replacement 7 Each $850.00 $5,950.00 $200.00 $1,400.00 $250.00 $1,750.00 $100.00 $700.00 27. Tree Removal&Replacement, less than 6"Dia. 1 Each $450.00 $450.00 $300.00 $300.00 $420.00 $420.00 $800.00 $800.00 28. Tree Removal&Replacement,6"-12"Dia. 1 Each $750.00 $750.00 $500.00 $500.00 $540.00 $540.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 29. Tree Removal&Replacement,Greater than 12"Dia. 2 Each $1,250.00 $2,500.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 $640.00 $1,280.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 30. Aggregate Shoulder&Edge of Pvmt. Repair,CA-6 1425 L.F. $10.00 $14,250.00 $6.00 $8,550.00 $4.50 $6,412.50 $6.00 $8,550.00 31. Trench Backfill,CA-6&CA-7 Total 0 Inc. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 32. Storm Sewers, 5 L.F.w/Plug, Class 3, 12"Dia. 5 Each $225.00 $1,125.00 $60.00 $300.00 $300.00 $1,500.00 $150.00 $750.00 33. Storm Sewers,Class 3, 12"Dia. 1684 L.F. $22.00 $37,048.00 $60.00 $101,040.00 $60.00 $101,040.00 $67.00 $112,828.00 34. Storm Sewers,Class 3, 15"Dia. 1030 L.F. $25.00 $25,750.00 $65.00 $66,950.00 $65.00 $66,950.00 $72.00 $74,160.00 35. Storm Sewers,Class 3, 18"Dia. 764 L.F. $30.00 $22,920.00 $87.00 $66,468.00 $74.00 $56,536.00 $78.00 $59,592.00 36. Storm Sewers,Class 3,21"Dia. 386 L.F. $35.00 $13,510.00 $92.00 $35,512.00 $80.00 $30,880.00 $88.00 $33,968.00 37. Storm Sewers, Class 3,24"Dia. 554 L.F. $45.00 $24,930.00 $95.00 $52,630.00 $90.00 $49,860.00 $95.00 $52,630.00 38. Storm Sewers,Class 3,27"Dia. 699 L.F. $55.00 $38,445.00 $98.00 $68,502.00 $100.00 $69,900.00 $116.00 $81,084.00 39. Storm Sewers, Class 3,30"Dia. 1352 L.F. $65.00 $87,880.00 $100.00 $135,200.00 $110.00 $148,720.00 $130.00 $175,760.00 40. Storm Sewers, Class 3,36"Dia. 964 L.F. $75.00 $72,300.00 $150.00 $144,600.00 $120.00 $115,680.00 $145.00 $139,780.00 41. Precast Reinforced Concrete Flared End Section,30"Dia.,w/grate 1 Each $950.00 $950.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 42. Precast Reinforced Concrete Flared End Section,36"Dia.,w/grate 1 Each $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 43. Catch Basins,Type C,2'Dia.,Type 9 Grate 1 Each $675.00 $675.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $950.00 $950.00 44. Catch Basins,Type C,2'Dia.,Type 11 Grate 1 Each $675.00 $675.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $950.00 $950.00 45. Catch Basins,Type C,2'Dia., No Frame or Grate 1 Each $550.00 $550.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $950.00 $950.00 46. Catch Basins,Type A,4'Dia.,Type 8 Grate 8 Each $1,400.00 $11,200.00 $1,600.00 $12,800.00 $1,200.00 $9,600.00 $1,700.00 $13,600.00 47. Catch Basins,Type A,4'Dia.,Type 11 Grate 2 Each $1,400.00 $2,800.00 $1,600.00 $3,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 $1,700.00 $3,400.00 48. Catch Basins,Type A,4'Dia.,T1F CL(Type B) 1 Each $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 49. Catch Basins,Type A,5'Dia.,T1F CL(Type B) 4 Each $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $1,950.00 $7,800.00 $1,900.00 $7,600.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 50. Inlets,2'Dia.,Type 8 Grate 28 Each $625.00 $17,500.00 $500.00 $14,000.00 $550.00 $15,400.00 $700.00 $19,600.00 51. Inlets,2'Dia.,Type 9 Grate 1 Each $625.00 $625.00 $500.00 $500.00 $550.00 $550.00 $700.00 $700.00 52. Inlets,2'Dia.,Type 11 Grate 1 Each $625.00 $625.00 $500.00 $500.00 $550.00 $550.00 $700.00 $700.00 ------------- 53. Inlets,2'Dia., No Frame or Grate 2 Each $500.00 $1,000.00 $400.00 $800.00 $400.00 $800.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 54. Manhole,Type A,4'Dia.,T1F CL(Type B) 3 Each $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,100.00 $3,300.00 $1,550.00 $4,650.00 55. Manhole,Type A,4'Dia.,T1F OL(Type 8 Grate) 20 Each $1,850.00 $37,000.00 $1,600.00 $32,000.00 $1,100.00 $22,000.00 $1,550.00 $31,000.00 56. Manhole,Type B,4'Dia.,T1F CL(Type B) 1 Each $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $1,550.00 $1,550.00 57. Manhole,Type B,4'Dia.,T1F OL(Type 8 Grate) 2 Each $1,850.00 $3,700.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 $1,550.00 $3,100.00 58. Manhole,Type A, 5'Dia.,T1F CL(Type B) 12 Each $2,200.00 $26,400.00 $1,900.00 $22,800.00 $1,600.00 $19,200.00 $1,800.00 $21,600.00 59. Manhole,Type A,5'Dia.,T1F OL(Type 8 Grate) 15 Each $2,100.00 $31,500.00 $1,900.00 $28,500.00 $1,600.00 $24,000.00 $1,800.00 $27,000.00 60. Manhole,Type B,5'Dia.,T1F CL(Type B) 4 Each $2,200.00 $8,800.00 $1,900.00 $7,600.00 $1,600.00 $6,400.00 $1,800.00 $7,200.00 61. Manhole,Type B,5'Dia.,T1F OL(Type 8 Grate) 1 Each $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 62. Stone Riprap, Class A4,with Bedding 11 S.Y. $85.00 $935.00 $50.00 $550.00 $85.00 $935.00 $45.00 $495.00 63. Stone Riprap, 18",Class A7,Special,w/Bedding 141 S.Y. $125.00 $17,625.00 $35.00 $4,935.00 $85.00 $11,985.00 $95.00 $13,395.00 64. Filter Fabric for use with Riprap 152 S.Y. $2.00 $304.00 $4.00 $608.00 $1.00 $152.00 $10.00 $1,520.00 65. Storm Sewer Connection 2 Each $500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $300.00 $600.00 66. Rim Adjustments 3 Each $200.00 $600.00 $100.00 $300.00 $300.00 $900.00 $125.00 $375.00 67. Bit. Pavement Removal and Restoration 585 S.Y. $15.00 $8,775.00 $37.00 $21,645.00 $31.00 $18,135.00 $24.00 $14,040.00 68. Driveway Removal and Replacement(CA-6&CA-7 Total) 339 S.Y. $20.00 $6,780.00 $22.00 $7,458.00 $9.00 $3,051.00 $18.00 $6,102.00 - 69. Sidewalk Removal&Replacement(CA-6&CA-7 Total) 47 S.Y. $54.00 $2,538.00 $40.00 $1,880.00 $9.00 $423.00 $36.00 $1,692.00 Total Bid(as read) $670,313.89 $942,617.00 $950,122.50 $1,057,769.00 Total Bid(as corrected) * $668,911.00 $921,017.00 $950,122.50 $1,057,769.00 Lines 33,67,69 in Eng. Est.did not have updated qty's Page 1 C C!T` J� United City of Yorkville Memo ,. 800 Game Farm Road EST. ° 4 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 in Telephone: 630-553-8545 � p Fax: 630-553-3436 Date: March 17, 2005 To: John Wyeth, City Attorney From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Proposed Landscape Irrigation Policy Based on our previous conversation, I recommend that the city establish a policy prohibiting the use of city water for permanent underground sprinkler systems for certain properties. The prohibition would apply to all common open-space properties in primarily residential developments (regardless of size), as well as all other properties exceeding one acre. To determine the area above which irrigation would be prohibited, we looked at several sites in town to check the size of their landscaped areas. Not all of these have irrigation system. We found the following: • BKFD South Fire Station(103 Beaver Street)— 1.45 acre • Marketview Yorkville Plaza(1755-1789 N. Bridge Street)—0.62 acre • Old Second Bank (Rt.47/Countryside) — 0.47 acre • Walgreens (100 W. Veterans Pkwy)— 0.77 acre • Wendy's (1855 N. Bridge St.)—0.36 acre • Yorkville Retail (272 E. Veterans Pkwy) —0.28 acre • Shell Station(1421 N. Bridge Street)— 0.46 acre • Windett Ridge common open space @ Rt.47/Legion Road—0.99 acre • Windett Ridge common open space @ Rt.47/Fairfax Way—0.58 acre The property area would be defined as the area within the reach of the sprinkler heads, regardless of whether that area is landscaped or not. The policy would not prohibit the use of water from stormwater basins or private wells, or prohibit above-ground hoses and lawn sprinklers for irrigation purposes. Please review this matter and advise if any revisions should be made, and how such a policy would be formally adopted. This item is scheduled for review at the Public Works Committee meeting of March 28, 2005. CL.)) ( , o United City of Yorkville Memo 800 Game Farm Road Esr. z- 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 o Fax: 630-553-3436 CLE .y"# Date: March 18, 2005 To: Tony Graff, City Administrator From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer CC: John Wyeth, City Attorney Liz D'Anna, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Wetland Protection Ordinance Attached find the minutes of the as-hoc committee meetings and the final draft of the proposed Wetland Protection Ordinance. An ad-hoc committee consisting of three developers, three consultants, Laura Brown, and myself met a total of four times to review the ordinance, make revisions, and clarify many items. All revisions were unanimously agreed upon by the ad-hoc committee. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of March 28, 2005 for consideration. o United City of Yorkville Memo '" 800 Game Farm Road E14lift_tan1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 o L o Fax: 630-553-3436# 41.E ‘‘-'' Date: November 3, 2004 To: Wetland Ordinance Ad Hoc Members From: Jennifer Fischer, Engineering Assistant Subject: 10-25-04 Meeting Minutes In attendance: Joe Wywrot,City of Yorkville Engineer Jennifer Fischer, City of Yorkville Engineering Assistant Laura Brown,City of Yorkville Executive Director of Parks&Recreation Kevin Stough,Centex Homes Tim Winter, Pasquinelli Tom Price,Conservation Design Forum John Whitehouse,Engineering Enterprises, Inc. Richard Gerard,Wyndham Deerpoint Stephen Yas,Yas/Fischel Partnership Tom explained that several communities currently have wetland protection ordinances using the NIPC method, including Long Grove, Joliet, Frankfort, and Kane County. Joe asked if Yorkville's draft is based on NIPC; Tom stated that this draft is basically a mix of the above communities' ordinances, and offers the most reasonable path& approach to meet the City's wetland protection goals. John brought up the Army Corps. Of Engineers' jurisdictional areas: non-navigable rivers are Army COE's jurisdiction; isolated, non-tributary are not. Kevin stated that the COE is quite diligent regarding their jurisdiction, and added that if the area is hydraulically connected, then it's the COE's jurisdiction. John agreed, and said the COE will want to be involved every step of the way. Kevin inquired how the City wants to be viewed economically, Rich concurred. Kevin stated that extra layers of regulations could potentially put the Village at an economic disadvantage, and cited as example the Cosco Development, transferring from Carol Stream to Bloomingdale. The transfer was due to a 9-month delay in Carol Stream due to wetlands, and ended up costing Carol Stream approximately $1M in potential yearly sales tax revenue. To further clarify, Kevin explained that due to the extensive time delay that would have ensued, and earnings losses to the developer, Carol Stream was passed on; this could be a potential hurdle for Yorkville, depending upon the amount of regulations put into the ordinance. Joe said this is a valid point, but that wetlands are an asset to the community. Joe asked if there are specific provisions in the ordinance pertaining to variations. John answered that there's an opportunity for pre-annexed properties with undue hardships (such as buffer situations, etc.) to request variations in their respective annexation agreements,and that this would prevent additional time being taken up. Kevin was concerned about the affect to the municipality, and that Yorkville may be singling itself out. Joe stated that the Council and staff are aware of this, and suggested moving on at this point,to address the individual items in Rich's 6-8-04 review letter. PARAGRAPH ONE Rich commented on the difficulty of mitigation in smaller areas,but stated that he is a strong supporter of mitigation in large areas. Rich would like to see flexibility in land banks. Tom referred to Ordinance Section 4.2.2: Mitigation Hierarchy; specifically that the ability to manage offsite wetlands (including banks) is needed. Onsite mitigation is the first choice. Rich stated that if a bank was available in the City, one could buy into the City's; if a bank was not available in the City,the hierarchy would be needed. John mentioned that the Northeast corner of Route 47 & Corniels was suggested for a bank, and that positive comments were received by the COE. John wants a clear definition of`watershed'. Per the COE, all of Yorkville is in the Fox River Watershed. Kevin concurred regarding the definition. John pondered if a bank were not in Yorkville city limits, would it still be in this watershed? Tom stated that clarification is needed, for all the watersheds: Fox River,Blackberry,Rob Roy,and Aux Sable. Rich said that in DuPage County, the banks are limited. In Kane County, there's more than one bank, and developers can select the preferred. Kevin offered that the COE could choose which bank to buy into. Tom said that the City can define the banks;the Ordinance doesn't do this.However,all banks are COE approved. Rich inquired if the City would agree to fee-in-lieu, and said that this would greatly help the timing issue. John likes the fee-in-lieu concept. Tom said this is an option,but should be limited to smaller wetlands. Regarding the jurisdictional limits, John was concerned that other communities may have the opportunity to buy into Yorkville's banks, leaving little or none available for our own developers. Tom said that if the banks are approved by the COE,he doesn't see how other communities could be excluded.John reiterated that he wants clear tributary boundaries, for the protection of Yorkville development, and not for other community's benefit. Joe mentioned that he believes that Yorkville has the right to decline a community that wants to buy into one of Yorkville's watersheds, which led Rich to bring up Item #3 in Section 4.2.2: If nothing is available, who would want to pay three times more to buy into a different watershed? Joe said that this is where the fee-in-lieu would come into play. John recommended two watersheds for use: Aux Sable&Fox River.John suggested either use one of these or fee- in-lieu. If/when a wet bank is being promoted,the fee-in-lieu would apply until the bank is established.Furthermore, John prefers a City-managed bank,possibly with a board of directors,to ensure that it would be a public entity and thereby protecting Yorkville's developmental interests. Tom agreed this is worth considering. Regarding the geographical boundary limitations: John suggested using a specific number of miles upstream, such as within 10 miles of the confluence of the Fox River and Blackberry Creek. Tom reminded everyone of the bold moves made to protect Blackberry Creek, and suggested keeping Blackberry&Rob Roy Creeks separate.John said there is no wet bank in Blackberry Creek watershed to buy into;now should fee-in-lieu apply?What happens to this money?Kevin added that if the City required the Bristol Bay development to do wetland mitigation, it is in the Rob Roy watershed,not Blackberry. Joe summarized: Determine the number of banks and the geographical range. The Council may elect to sell credits for areas south of the Fox River. Two watersheds make sense—Fox River&Aux Sable. If a bank is available at the time of development, they are given priority. Tabled, pending Tom's report of how surrounding communities operate. PARAGRAPH TWO Rich stated that "Any wetland within 100' of a parcel under consideration must be identified & action taken to prevent impact" as written, is excessive. Tom disagreed, citing that the 100' is directly tied to the maximum buffer size.Rich said that it would be excessive if one was developing a 0.3/acre site, as a 30'buffer would apply.Rich & Kevin agreed that private property owners won't want someone entering onto their property;this won't be able to be done without trespassing. Joe asked how thorough the evaluation needs to be, and Kevin replied with maps and educated guesses by professional wetland consultants. Tom backed this up by adding that it's a challenge- NWI maps& aerials are used, and if access can be gained that's great,but if access is denied,you do what you can. Tom further stated that perhaps language should be added to the Ordinance,to define wetlands without gaining access. Joe summarized:Need to clearly define how thorough evaluations should be. Tabled,pending Tom's definition. 2 PARAGRAPH THREE Rich is concerned about the size of required buffers relative to the size of the property being developed. Rich feels there is an excessive economic impact and burden on developers, as compared to Kane County; wishes the Ordinance to reflect the Kane County standards regarding buffers. Tom replied that only certain categories of wetlands require buffers. Joe explained that there's a wider filter-effect with a wider buffer. Tom concurred, stating that it's better for wildlife, and is habitat-protecting.Rich said that although this makes sense, a 0.25/acre wetland is very small,and that storm water control is addressed in the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Kevin suggested using ponds-water that falls on a buffer is clean before discharging to a wetland.Rich replied that buffers don't get good water quality control. Tom said that the Ordinance provides provisions for this and that the COE wouldn't agree anyway. Kevin wondered then, how online detention was approved in Plainfield by FEMA, if it's not allowed in other communities. Rich also mentioned that naturalized plantings can be used; why would a 50' buffer be needed?Two buffers are not needed if using naturalized plantings that already preserve the area. Joe replied that rainwater is cleansed. Wetlands use over-the-ground water, and it's desirable to filter out pesticides and herbicides. Rich countered that all drainage is designed to flow to the storm system, and is not allowed to go to wetlands. John stated that there are exceptions, and that functions of buffer strips are dependent upon runoff time, and that design criteria is needed for buffer areas, with horizontal or 1% slope language. Tom disagreed with the horizontal slope, and said that buffers provide for human activity & chemical overspray protection. Tom feels that Kane County's 15' buffer is too small, and suggested 30-50-100 instead.Rich prefers 25-50-100.Kevin asked why not just use one number, and Joe explained that different area sizes equate to different numbers. Rich inquired if the COE will let you average buffers, and Tom said that some level of buffer averaging can be done, with certain lower limits. Joe feels that one number is not appropriate. Tom stated that the number should be not less than 100', but then said he is open to having a third category of wetland size, with one specifically for large wetland buffers. Perhaps less than one acre could have a 30' buffer. John questioned the phrase 'high quality', and would prefer different indexes instead of 'high quality'. Tom is in favor, but stated that the 'high quality' line has to be drawn somewhere; everyone has a different perception of quality. John wants practicality and clear definitions,to avoid any variance issues. Tom asked for resolution—three stages? Joe,Rich:Yes. Joe summarized: Page 9, Section 3.1.1 — Paragraph 1)A,B,C `Linear buffers', will not change. The non-linear definition of HQAR is on Page 5.Paragraph 2)A: 0.25/acre will remain,but the buffer width will change to 30', and will be based on FQI& area.Paragraph 2)B will become 2)C,the language will not change. The new 2)B will have language added for 0.5/acre,and a 50'buffer width. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday,November 08,2004,at 10:30am. Meeting adjourned. 3 'c`© co.). United City of Yorkville Memo 800 Game Farm Road Sr IN 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 II Fax: 630-553-3436 1.4 Kendall County 4p11, <LE ‘V# Date: November 8, 2004 To: Wetland Ordinance Ad Hoc Committee Members From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Subject: 11-08-04 Meeting Minutes CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator Dan Kramer, City Attorney In attendance: Kevin Stough, Centex Homes Tim Winter, Pasquinelli Richard Guerard, Wyndham Deerpoint Stephen Yas, Yas/Fischel Partnership Tom Price, Conservation Design Forum John Whitehouse, Engineering Enterprises, Inc. Joe Wywrot, City of Yorkville Engineer General discussion of the ordinance used Rich Guerard's letter of June 8, 2004 as a guide. Tom Price's memo of August 20, 2004 numbered the comments in Rich's letter into 17 separate topics. These two documents are attached. Everyone reviewed the 10-25-04 meeting minutes regarding Topics 1, 2, and 3. All felt the minutes were accurate. Tom distributed a memo (attached) regarding Topics 1, 2, and 3. After reviewing the memo, the committee agreed with Tom's recommendation regarding Topic 1. For Topic 2, the committee agreed in general with Tom's recommendation. Rich did not want to use the word "variance" if access could not be obtained from an adjacent property owner. John said that a person surveying a wetland is not exempt from trespass laws. The ordinance should state that the city is not giving the developer the right to trespass. Joe will request our City Attorney to give an opinion on what procedure to follow to obtain access to an offsite wetland. Tom suggested that the ordinance be revised to state "... if the applicant demonstrates that they are unable to gain access, then the administrator may waive the requirement for a more thorough evaluation of the wetland." The committee felt that this language was adequate. For Topic 3, the committee generally felt that Tom's recommendation regarding the 30-foot versus 50-foot buffer was acceptable. Tom will check with his office staff to confirm that the wording for the cut-off level was for a Mean C > 2.8 and a Native FQI> 20, rather than one or the other. If both were below those respective values, then a 30-foot buffer would be adequate. Kevin asked about buffer averaging, and if that would be acceptable. Tom said it was, but that the buffer should not be less than 50% of the minimum buffer width at any given point. Rich asked about trails through buffer areas and where they could be located. After much discussion, the committee agreed that a buffer should not be located any closer than 15 feet from the edge of the wetland. Tom will confer with his office staff to see if they feel that this is a reasonable compromise. Topic 4 deals with the allowable area of trail pavement within a buffer area. The logic here is that the trail doesn't offer any buffering, therefore if the total area of trail within a buffer exceeds 15% of the total area of the buffer, then the buffer width needs to be increased by the amount that is in excess of 15%. Kevin asked where the 15% figure came from. Tom said that is a fairly standard industry average. The committee accepted the concept of increasing the buffer width in this situation, but asked Tom to provide more clear language and perhaps a sketch and/or an example of how it would be applied. Rich asked about allowing naturalized stormwater detention within buffer areas in excess of 50% of the buffer area. John felt that this was reasonable as long as the basin was at least equal in quality to the existing wetland. Tom said that the existing ordinance already allows for this in Section 3.1.1.2.9 on Page 10. Rich reviewed that language and agreed. Tom said that there shouldn't be a direct connection between the basin and wetland, but that a berm made of porous material would be acceptable. Topic 5 deals with increasing the buffer width in areas with slopes exceeding 10%. Tom said this is standard procedure for the EPA and COE, and is intended to keep stream banks from sloughing off into the channel. John asked how we would treat Rob Roy Creek, where berms exist that are higher than the adjacent farm fields. Tom suggested the language be changed to have the slope requirement come into play only where the slope is towards the wetland. John agreed, and said that the real focus should be on eliminating concentrated flows; that a wide buffer is less useful if concentrated stormwater is flowing through it. Rich said that because rearyard stormwater is normally intercepted and diverted to a detention basin, the only water that flows through a buffer is rainwater that lands on the buffer. Tom and John said the important thing is to maintain wetland hydrology, and suggested that in some areas rearyard stormwater be allowed to flow to the wetland. In those cases the detention basin restrictor would be reduced in size to compensate for the unrestricted flow to the wetland such that the overall stormwater flow leaving the development complies with the required release rates. Tom suggested that the slope criteria remain, and will provide an example of the slope method to insert in the ordinance. The committee agreed. Topic 6 deals with lot lines extending into wetlands and/or buffers. Everyone agreed that we wouldn't want a private property to extend into those areas, because a homeowner would be likely to mow down buffer areas if he wanted a larger back yard. John suggested that we 2 distinguish between private property lines and property lines that delineate public and private open space areas. The committee agreed that inserting the word"private"would accomplish this. Topic 7 deals with farmed wetlands being converted to detention basins. Rich had asked for this to be allowed as acceptable mitigation. Tom said that the proposed ordinance already allows for this, as long as the basin is vegetated with native plants and doesn't have more than a 4-foot bounce. Rich said he realizes that some monitoring is necessary, but asked if the monitoring period could be reduced from 3 years, or if some language could be added that gave the developer an"out"if nature decided to take over any establish other plants in the basin. Tom said that a 3-year period is very reasonable; Montgomery has a 5-year monitoring period. Rich said he has had problems in DuPage County where basins did not establish themselves exactly according to plan. Tom said that a monitoring period is necessary; that a constructed wetland will likely degrade if not managed by burnings or other control methods. Rich said that in almost all cases a naturalized basin is an improvement over a farmed wetland; isn't that good enough? Tom said that the developer is the one that designs the wetland (subject to city approval), and that if nature isn't cooperating with the wetland plan, then the plan can be changed. There was a general consensus that the existing proposed language was acceptable. Topic 8 deals with allowing up to 20% of an open water basin as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Tom said that open water is not a wetland, but that a naturalized dry pond is acceptable mitigation for a farmed wetland. The proposed ordinance language is acceptable. Topic 9 deals with mitigation procedures for roadside ditches and farmed wetlands. Everyone agreed that the issue of farmed wetlands was worked through in discussions of previous topics. No mitigation is required for roadside ditches, but best management practices (BMP's) are required either along the same roadside or elsewhere in the development in an attempt to achieve better water quality. Tim asked how we would employ BMP's in areas where existing roads with ditches were replaced with curbed roadways. John said that if the stormwater from that road then went to a naturalized basin, then that could be considered an acceptable BMP. Any proposed BMP would be subject to city approval. Topic 10 deals with farmed wetlands. Everyone agreed that the issue of farmed wetlands was worked through in discussions of previous topics. Rich asked if the 20% of open water being considered towards wetland mitigation was a standard number. Tom said he would check with his office staff. Rich said that many times the vegetated shoreline migrates towards the open water, reducing that percentage. Tom said that open water offers limited wetland mitigation, and that the bulk of mitigation occurs along the shoreline in the area that is between 1.0 foot above the NWL and 2.0 feet below the NWL. Rich said he has had problems in the past when percentages of plants proposed in his wetland mitigation plans where not exactly achieved. Tom and John said that the developers plan should call for percentage ranges of different types of plants, not exact numbers. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 13, 2004, at 10:30am in the City Hall downstairs conference room. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 pm. 3 4`�ti0 o United City of Yorkville Memo 4 n '�' 800 Game Farm Road EST ' E``F ';1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 X11ill' p Fax: 630-553-3436 `_ 4CE %Ls" Date: December 14, 2004 To: Wetland Ordinance Ad Hoc Committee Members From: Jennifer L. Fischer, Engineering Assistant Subject: 12-13-2004 Meeting Minutes Cc: Tony Graff, City Administrator Dan Kramer, City Attorney In attendance: Joe Wywrot,City of Yorkville Engineer Jennifer Fischer,City of Yorkville Engineering Assistant Kevin Stough,Centex Homes Tim Winter,Pasquinelli Tom Price,Conservation Design Forum John Whitehouse,Engineering Enterprises,Inc. Richard Guerard,Wyndham Deerpoint Reviewing the minutes of the 11-08-2004 meeting: Clarification was made of Minutes Page 2, Topic 3, Line 3: Tom stated that the wording for the cut-off level is correct as stated: 'the cut-off level was for a Mean C> 2.8 and a Native FQI> 20'- This should not be one or the other. Clarification was made of Minutes Page 2, Topic 3, Line 8, to state 'the committee agreed that a trail should not be located any closer than 15 feet from the edge of the wetland.' Clarification was made to Minutes Page 3, Topic 7, Line 6, to state `developer an"out" if nature decided to take over and establish other plants in the basin.' Clarification was made of Minutes Page 3, Topic 8,Line 2, to state 'Tom said that open water is not a wetland,but that a naturalized wetland basin is acceptable mitigation for a farmed wetland.' Tom confirmed that the COE standards do not allow storm water features to be closer than half the width of the buffer. Rich stated that as long as it's within half the distance, it's easily identifiable. John inquired as to the buffer's purpose then, to which Tom replied that storm water is supposed to go to the buffer, not the feature; any flow from the detention basin to the wetland should go to the buffer. Joe wants to clean the water at the edge of the buffer, not half way through it, but John said that detention outfall should traverse the full width of the buffer, and that the water should seep into the wetland,not shoot strait in. Tom stated that providing that the detention basin is located at least half the buffer width from the wetland,and that the outfall storm water travels a distance of at least a full buffer width,the Ordinance will be followed. Tom mentioned that Topic 9 deals with Category 3 Wetlands; i.e. swales and storm water systems requiring mitigation. Providing that these discharge to a naturalized basin, not a standard dry basin, this is acceptable. Previously,Rich asked if 20%of open water was considered towards wetland mitigation, as stated in Topic 10, was the standard; Tom said today that this percentage came from the Kane County Ordinance. Furthermore, DuPage County does not allow for any open water in mitigation, and Tom feels this is a bit too stringent; a measure of open water was written into Yorkville's proposed ordinance. John inquired if open water is not considered a wetland? Tom replied that it is not, and that the 20% figure is for farmed wetland. In addition, allowances can be made for more than 20%, providing there's good habitat design. Tom's not sure how to word this in the ordinance; have to avoid the `lake' effect. Joe asked Tom to come up with suitable language for the ordinance, and Tom suggested something to the effect of"A larger proportion of open water shall be allowed with interspersions", such as what's currently being used in the Windett Ridge Subdivision. This item will be followed up with further discussion at a later meeting. New discussion topics: Topic 11,Plant Species Tom stated that the list of plant species as shown in Section 3.1.3, #1 is used as a basis of determining degraded farmed wetlands. John asked if the 75% of vegetative coverage could be from any combination of those species listed;Joe,Rich,and Tom stated that they are in favor of this change. Topic 12,Wetland Delineation Period Tom affirmed that a wetland delineation,per the COE guidelines, is valid for three years;not two as stated in Rich's comments of 6-8-2004. An update delineation is all that's necessary, within four years of the original report's approval. Joe & Rich are agreeable to a three-year time frame, but Kevin alleged that this time frame might be gobbled up pursuing engineering approval, permits, and due diligence. Joe asked Tom if a timeframe for land acquisition is stipulated in the ordinance, because by the time a developer annexes a parcel(s), gains preliminary plan and engineering plan approval,their wetlands report could be a couple years old—would the report be good for another three years? Tom replied that the developer would naturally be inclined to submit their report as late as allowable, and that no, another three-year delineation period would not be granted. Once plan approval is granted, information on hand at that time is what should be used. However, should the developer not apply for their wetland mitigation permit within that three-year time period, a new wetland delineation may be required. Rich countered that commercial developments take considerable time to build out, and John added that a lot once build-able, might become a wetland area in an updated study. Joe and Kevin explained that wetland areas tend to shrink in size. The only time a wetland would grow would be in the event of a field tile break. Tom added that although biologist's quality assessments vary, large differences in boundaries are uncommon. FQI thresholds will need to be in place. Joe closed discussion of Topic 12,with approval of a delineation period of three years. Topic 13, Growing Season Tom stated that the delineation period is anytime between the months of March and December. Two monitoring events each year should be in late spring and late summer/early fall.Assessment is the quality of the wetland,not the delineation size and location. The assessment window is consistent as written in the ordinance,with Rich's 6-8-2004 request. The committee agreed to add language to the proposed ordinance to the effect of"additional assessment dates/discretion, subject to unusual weather conditions".Rich stated that this is acceptable. Topic 14,Mitigation Standards Tom opened, stating that if a wetland is designed with the correct water level bounce, is sited properly, has decent vegetation, and is hydrology-correct, it should meet the FQI's as stated in the proposed ordinance, Section 4.5, 2.1.B. Tom does not recommend the FQI proposal by Rich. Rich countered that he has difficulty accepting higher FQI's, many wetlands have extremely low quality to begin with, and that the ordinance is `picky' about species. Kevin agreed, stating he'd be lucky to get one good wetland plant to thrive. Tom disagreed; he maintains that once the sediment load and plowing of a field stops,wetlands will attempt to recreate themselves, and should survive well enough to reach the 3.2 and 20 native Mean C and FQI values,as stated. If no progress is noted for each of the three years of management,replanting/re-plugging may need to occur.Midcourse direction will have to be taken,if this is the case. Joe asked if a new five-year monitoring period would ensue, as this could be never-ending. Nature, weather, and other unknowns could always play a hand in wetland success/failure. Tom said that the developer continues until the standards are met; this process is not date-certain. Rich is not in favor of this, citing as example an eight-year monitoring in DuPage that could potentially end up in litigation. This is never-ending, costly, and frustrating. Sometimes the developer is under pressure to turn over a development to the homeowner's association, with a wetland that has not yet been approved. Certain events occur, such as homeowners dumping grass clippings into the wetland or buffer area,making it all the more difficult to get the wetland approved. Tom reiterated that the standards need to be met in five years, although the City may be willing to grant one additional year, but that it is 2 uncommon to stretch the timeframe out more than this. Any potential problems need to be identified and corrected as early as possible, to meet this goal. Kevin inquired as to whether buffer areas can be planted with grass; Tom replied no, buffer areas need to have native species of wetland plants (not fescue native). In addition, buffers also have to meet FQI and Mean C standards,but the numbers could be different. John said the ordinance states buffers are to be annually reviewed. Joe asked if buffers should be of lower quality species; Tom answered that non- invasive species should be planted in buffers, with slightly lower quality at the buffer edge, so they don't overtake the wetland. Joe believes the ordinance states that buffers use the same FQI as wetlands; language is needed regarding the difference. John told Joe that if the accepted plan states separate FQI's, then that's what used, providing the minimum of 3.2 and 20 Mean C and native FQI values are met. Kevin mentioned the fact that asphalt,mulch, and kids' bicycles wreak havoc on the path;he'd like a strip of grass alongside.John said if there's a 10' path with a 3' strip of planting,this shouldn't be used in the calculations,or the Mean C wouldn't be met. Wildflowers and prairie grasses are used mostly, and require little water. The discussion switched to IDOT Mixes 4 and 5; Joe inquired what FQI these mixes are. John concurred, stating that it would be helpful to know which mixes have an acceptable FQI. Tom replied that it will change in each development—slope, shade/sun, soil conditions all factor in. IDOT Mixes 4 and 5 won't work everywhere. Tom has a copy of the IDOT Red Book,and will review the IDOT seed mixes. Topic 15,Mitigation Ratios Tom disagrees with Rich's review comments regarding offsite mitigation;he feels there should be a penalty for not performing onsite mitigation. Joe stated that the ordinance encourages developers to stay onsite. John asked if we wouldn't rather have a large mitigation area, than small ones scattered about; Tim concurred. Tom's response was that if a development is designed with a quality wetland in mind, it should be fine; and reiterated that the ordinance doesn't stipulate that offsite mitigation isn't allowed; it simply states there's a penalty for not mitigating onsite. John feels it would be easier to comply with the 5-year monitoring plan if a larger bank is used; the developer wouldn't be trying to create an FQI and Mean C. It would be easier to buy into an offsite bank, than to go through the 5-year plan onsite. John then inquired about offsite ratios. Tim mentioned that residential developments normally have space onsite for a wetland, but commercial may not, and they may need to go offsite. Should developers choose not to pay a penalty for the offsite mitigation,they may elect to go elsewhere,costing the City tax revenue. John stated that mitigation is only required for wetland impacts> 0.25 acres. The mitigation ratios are as follows: 1) A minimum of 1.5:1 for wetland impacts under Category I or II that are not to a HQAR, and are mitigated onsite. 2) A minimum of 1:1 for wetland impacts under Category VI,and are mitigated onsite. 3) A minimum of 10:1 for wetland impacts that are to a HQAR under Category V,and are mitigated onsite. 4) Offsite mitigation within the same watershed as the wetland impact require 1.5 times onsite required mitigation acreage. 5) Offsite mitigation outside the watershed of the wetland impact requires 3 times the onsite required mitigation acreage. The 10:1 ratio would very rarely be imposed,because that is for extremely high quality wetlands. Topic 16,Letter of Credit Reductions Tom believes the financial burden should remain with the developer, not a homeowner's association; the 5-year period should remain the burden of the developer. Kevin reminded everyone that there's a bond in place to ensure the wetland's quality, and that the majority of the costs is the earthwork and structures; only a small amount is for the plant material. After three years there should be no need to do earthwork; why not reduce this portion? Tom stated that there is a buy-down provision after three years. In addition, if a wetland makes it three years, chances are good it will survive. If not, re-grading or other adjustments may be needed, and a lot of money will be needed to do this. John suggested a reduction of up to 75%; Joe thinks perhaps 50% may be more appropriate. John does not think that the plant materials should be reduced, as additional earthwork = additional planting. Tom stated that a buy-down percentage can be implemented, providing it's not a large reduction; he's seen wetlands fail, and developers then have to go offsite. Kevin then said the reduction should be 100% if buying into an established wetland bank; everyone agreed. Joe asked Tom to make a recommendation of a reduction percentage within the first three years,at least for the earthwork,to which Tom stated it should not be for before the first two years.Kevin 3 mentioned that if the planting is done in early spring, there should be plenty of time for the wetland to establish itself. Joe suggested reductions should be in correlation with growing seasons, not months/years, and reminded everyone that regardless of the language, the City Council will make the fmal decision. They may deny the reduction request,preferring to wait an additional growing season.Tom and Kevin are agreeable to this. Topic 17,Review Fees Joe opened, stating that he's not totally comfortable setting a percentage cap on review fees, but Kevin maintains that developers prefer a set rate, for budget planning. This ordinance does not stipulate review fee amounts/cap.Joe said that if this remains the case,the city's Subdivision Control Ordinance will govern this matter;the current rate is 1.25% of the approved engineer's estimate of costs, and wetlands will fall under this category. Tom read that Rich is requesting a 30-day review period. Joe said that the site development permit application for erosion control has a 30-day response time, and he believes it would be fine for language to this effect to be added to the wetlands ordinance. All submittals will have this 30-day response time, and the clock starts when all requested items have been submitted for review. The consequence for not responding within 30 days is that all submitted materials are approved. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday,February 14,2004 at 10:30 am.Meeting adjourned. 4 ,f crr o United City of Yorkville Memo '" 800 Game Farm Road esr ` 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8528 ° fir p Fax: 630-553-3436 si4LE ‘N'N' Date: February 14, 2005 To: Wetland Ordinance Ad Hoc Committee Members From: Jennifer L. Fischer, Engineering Assistant Subject: 2-14-2005 Meeting Minutes Cc: Tony Graff, City Administrator John Wyeth, City Attorney In attendance: Joe Wywrot, City of Yorkville Engineer Jennifer Fischer,City of Yorkville Engineering Assistant Becca Cerf, Conservation Design Forum John Whitehouse,Engineering Enterprises,Inc. Richard Guerard, Wyndham Deerpoint Homes Tim Winter,Pasquinelli Development Group The revised Wetland Protection Ordinance was distributed by Conservation Design Forum, and the committee members met to discuss the revisions. Becca noted that the vertical line to the left of the text indicates a change in verbiage,and the side bars are the changes. The`Definitions' are listed through page 8. Commencing on page 9: Section 3.1.1 'Buffer Requirements' Par.2-Acceptable as revised. Par.2, Subsection 1A-Acceptable as revised. Par.2, Subsection 2A-Revision is to be modified to state"Mean C<2.8 and/or native FQI<20..." Par. 2, Subsection 2A-Last statement(on page 10), modified to state"of buffer slope towards the wetland greater than 10%..." Joe noted that the top of bank will be the highest point of elevation; artificial or natural. Par. 3-Acceptable as revised. Par. 4-Revision is to be modified to state"the adjacent landscape has a slope towards the wetland, equal to..." In addition, John requested that a distinction be made to the effect of'If existing barriers are in place between an existing berm and buffer area, and the slope is adequate, the objective has been met. Design shall consider keeping the existing barriers in place,incorporating them as part of the buffer.' Par. 9-Remove the phrase "No private Property", and replace with"Only public or quasi-public". John requested the example"such as municipal common HOA"be inserted. Par. 10-Acceptable as revised. Par. 12, Subsection 1-Acceptable as revised. Par. 12, Subsection 2-Acceptable as revised. Section 3.1.3 `Stormwater Mgmt w/in Isolated Waters',page 11 Par. 1-Acceptable as revised. Par. 1,Subsection 1-Acceptable as revised. Section 3.2.2 `Wetland Determination Requirements',page 13 Par. 1- Modify revision in final sentence on page 13 and wrap, to state "(NRI) Report prepared by the County Soil and Water Conservation District for the site." Section 3.2.4 `Wetland Permit Submittal Requirements',page 15 Par. 8-Acceptable as revised. Section 3.2.5 `Requirements for Wetland Delineation', page 16 Opening paragraph revision is to be modified to state"the acceptable delineation period may be modified due to unusual weather..." Par. 5,Subsection 1-Delete"(1994 4th Edition)",and replace with"(Latest Edition)". Par. 5, Subsection 1- Modify revision to state `vegetation assessment period may be modified due to unusual weather..." Section 4.2.1 `General Mitigation Requirements',page 18 Par. 7-Acceptable as revised. Par. 12- Becca stated that she changed the .5 acre wetland impact to 1.0 acre, due to the fact that the viability of unmitigated wetlands less than 1.0 acres is limited;larger wetlands are preferable. Par. 12-Text is to be modified, deleting"Administrator and"&"Council". The text is to state"the fee-in- lieu of mitigation option may be required by the City." Section 4.2.2 Mitigation Hierarchy',page 19 Opening paragraph-Acceptable as revised. Par. 1-Acceptable as revised. Par.2-Acceptable as revised. Par. 3- Modify revision to state "Mitigation as a fee-in-lieu payment option that is not required by the City." Par.4-Acceptable as revised. Par.5-Acceptable as revised. 2 Section 4.5 `Wetland Mitigation Performance Standards',page 23 Par.2,Subsection 1B-Acceptable as revised. Section 6.1 `Fees and Applicable Review Times',page30 Par. 1-Acceptable as revised. Par. 2- Modify revision to state "will be covered under the 1.75% Administration Fee based on the approved engineer's estimate of costs." Par. 3-Acceptable as revised. Joe noted that the City will endeavor to respond within five business days,to state whether submittals are complete and ready for review as is,or if further information is necessary. Section 10.2 `Wetland Mitigation Performance Security',page36 Par. 1-Acceptable as revised. Par.2-Modify revision to state"development security may be released..." Par.2,Subsection 1-Modify revision to state"earthwork activities may be released..." Par. 2, Subsection 2-Modify revision to state"landscape installation may be released..." Par.2,Subsection 3-Acceptable as revised. Par.3-Modify revision to state"development security may be released..." Par. 3,Subsection 1-Modify revision to state"earthwork activities may be released..." Par. 3,Subsection 2-Modify revision to state"landscape installation may be released..." Par. 3, Subsection 3-Acceptable as revised. Par.4-Modify revision to state"at the end of the applicable monitoring period..." Par.4-Modify revision to state"he/she shall recommend release of the performance security." Section 10.3 Modify Title to state 'Performance Security', page37 Par. 1- Modify text to state "Performance Securities posted pursuant to this Article shall be in a form satisfactory to the City." Furthermore, all "letter of credit" text is to be replaced with "performance security". Section 11.1 `Fee-in-Lieu of Wetland Mitigation',page38 Par.2-Acceptable as revised. Becca will make the necessary changes to the Ordinance, and will forward the revised document via email, to all committee members within two weeks. Committee members will review the revised Ordinance, and respond to Joe Wywrot no later than Tuesday, March 8, 2005, with comments for future discussion. If acceptable as is, the Ordinance could go to the Public Works committee in March, 2005. Next meeting date is scheduled for Monday, March 14,2005,at 10:30 am,at City Hall(if necessary). Meeting adjourned at 12:10 pm. 3 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE FOR WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Ordinance No. Date Adopted TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Article 1 AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE Section 1.1 Statutory Authority 1 Section 1.2 Findings 1 Section 1.3 Objectives 1 Article 2 DEFINITIONS Section 2.1 Definition of Terms 3 Article 3 WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS Section 3.1 General Standards 9 Section 3.1.1 Buffer Requirements 9 Section 3.1.2 Wetland Hydrology Protection 11 Section 3.1.3 Stormwater Management within Isolated Waters of Yorkville 12 Section 3.1.4 Discharge to Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S. 12 Section 3.1.5 Protection of Isolated Waters of Yorkville During Development 13 Section 3.1.6 Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities 13 Section 3.2 Wetland Permit Provisions 13 Section 3.2.1 Applicability 13 Section 3.2.2 Wetland Determination Requirement 13 Section 3.2.3 Pre-Submittal Meeting 14 Section 3.2.4 Wetland Permit Submittal Requirements 14 Section 3.2.5 Requirements for Wetland Delineation 16 Section 3.2.6 Wetland Permit Conditions 17 Article 4 WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS Section 4.1 Unmitigable Wetland Impacts 19 Section 4.2 Wetland Mitigation Requirements 19 Section 4.2.1 General Mitigation Requirements 19 Section 4.2.2 Mitigation Hierarchy 20 Section 4.3 Wetland Mitigation Plan 21 Section 4.4 Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Protocol 22 Section 4.5 Wetland Mitigation Performance Standards 24 Section 4.6 Post Construction Submittal Requirements 25 Section 4.7 Mitigation Requirements for Non-performing Wetlands 26 Article 5 LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS Section 5.1 Long-term Maintenance 28 Section 5.2 Transfer to City or Other Public Entity 28 Section 5.3 Transfer to Homeowner's or Similar Association 28 Section 5.4 Conveyance to a Person or Entity Specializing in Conservation 29 Section 5.5 Incorporation of Maintenance Obligations in Wetland Permit 29 Article 6 FEES, ENFORCEMENT AND PENALITIES Section 6.1 Fees and Application Review Times 31 Section 6.2 Enforcement 31 Section 6.3 Penalties and Legal Actions 31 Article 7 GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 7.1 Scope of Regulation 33 Section 7.2 Exemptions 33 Section 7.3 Severability 33 Section 7.4 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions 33 Section 7.5 Effective Date 33 Article 8 VARIANCES AND APPEALS Section 8.1 Variances 34 Section 8.2 Variance Conditions 35 Section 8.3 Appeals 35 Article 9 ADMINISTRATION Section 9.1 Responsibility for Administration 36 Section 9.2 Representative Capacity 36 Section 9.3 Service of Notice 36 Article 10 PERFORMANCE SECURITY Section 10.1 General Security Requirements 37 Section 10.2 Wetland Mitigation and Naturalized Basin Performance Security 37 Section 10.3 Performance Security 38 Article 11 FEE-IN-LIEU OF WETLAND MITIGATION Section 11.1 Fee-in-lieu of Wetland Mitigation 39 Section 11.2 Procedures and Use of Funds 39 APPENDIX A WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION AND PERMIT SUBMITTAL FLOWCHART APPENDIX B WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST APPENDIX C WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST Article 1 Authority and Purpose UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 1.1 Statutory Authority This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the police powers granted to this City by Illinois Revised Statutes,Chapter 24. Section 1.2 Findings The United City of Yorkville finds that Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S. for the Fox River, Aux Sable, Blackberry Creek, and Rob Roy watersheds including their tributaries, are indispensable and fragile resources that provide many public benefits including maintenance of surface and groundwater quality through nutrient cycling and sediment trapping as well as flood and storm water runoff control through temporary water storage, slow release, and groundwater recharge. In addition, Isolated Waters of Yorkville provide open space; passive outdoor recreation opportunities; fish and wildlife habitat for many forms of wildlife including migratory waterfowl, and rare, threatened or endangered wildlife and plant species; and pollution treatment via biological and chemical oxidation processes. Preservation of the remaining Isolated Waters of Yorkviile and Waters of the U.S. in a natural condition shall be and is necessary to maintain hydrological, economic, recreational, and aesthetic natural resource values for existing and future residents of the United City of Yorkville, and therefore the City Council declares a policy of no net loss of Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S. Furthermore the City Council declares a long-term goal of net gain of Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S. to be accomplished through mitigation requirements of this Ordinance. Section 1.3 Objectives The principal objective of this Ordinance is the protection, preservation, replacement, proper maintenance, restoration, and use in accordance with the character, adaptability, and stability of the Isolated Waters of Yorkville in order to prevent their pollution or contamination; minimize their disturbance, and prevent damage from erosion, siltation, and flooding. Other objectives of this ordinance include: • Preserve and enhance the natural hydrologic and hydraulic functions and natural characteristics of watercourses and wetlands to protect water quality, aquatic habitats, provide recreational and aesthetic benefits, and enhance community and economic development. • Maintain and enhance the special aquatic resources of the City. • Protect environmentally sensitive areas from deterioration or destruction by private and public actions. • Protect and improve surface water quality and promote best management practices of surface water runoff prior to entering lakes, ponds, wetlands, streams, and rivers. • Require planning for development to carry out water resource management including the protection of natural areas such as remnant woodland and prairie habitats, wetlands, waterways, steep topography, and highly erodible soils, in order to reduce potential impacts, or creation of unstable conditions that may promote erosion and degradation of ground and surface water quality. Article 1 1 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS • Coordination of and support for the enforcement of applicable federal, state, and county statutes, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to Waters of the U.S., floodplain regulations, and soil erosion and sediment control. • Establishment of standards and procedures for the review and regulation of the use of Isolated Waters of Yorkville. • A procedure for appealing decisions. • Establishment of enforcement procedures and penalties for the violation of this Ordinance. Article 1 2 Page intentionally left blank Article 2 Definitions UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 2.1 Definition of Terms Terms not specifically defined shall have the meaning customarily assigned to them. Administrator is the person designated by the United City of Yorkville to administer and enforce this ordinance. Agricultural land is land predominantly used for agricultural purposes. Applicant is any person, firm, or governmental agency who submits an application for a permit under this Ordinance and shall be responsible for meeting and complying with all conditions and standards of this Ordinance. BMP or best management practices is a measure used to control the adverse stormwater related effects of development, and includes structural devices (e.g., swales, filter strips, infiltration trenches, level spreaders, and site runoff storage basins designed to remove pollutants), reduce runoff rates and volumes, and protect aquatic habitats. In addition, nonstructural approaches used to prevent contamination of runoff include planning and design practices that reduce impervious areas, provide comprehensive site planning, and implement buffer zones, setback requirements, easements, and critical areas. Other nonstructural approaches include public education and maintenance programs. Buffer is an area of predominantly vegetated land adjacent to Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S. that are to be left undeveloped for the purpose of providing stabilization, reduction of contaminants, and eliminate or minimize impacts to such areas. For all new development, buffer areas shall consist of deep-rooted native vegetation unless otherwise approved by the Administrator. Category I wetland impact means wetland impacts to Isolated Waters of Yorkville that are less than or equal to one (1) acre and does not impact high quality aquatic resources. Category II wetland impact means wetland impacts to Isolated Waters of Yorkville that are greater than one (1) acre and does not impact high quality aquatic resources. Category 111 wetland impact means wetland impacts to roadside drainage ditches or manmade stormwater management facilities that meet the definition of Isolated Waters of Yorkville. Category IV wetland impact means wetland impacts for the restoration, creation, and enhancement of Isolated Waters of Yorkville provided that there are net gains in aquatic resource function. Category V wetland impact means wetland impacts to high quality aquatic resources as defined in this Ordinance. Category VI wetland impact means wetland impacts to farmed wetland. Channel is any river, stream, creek, brook, branch, natural or artificial depression, ponded area, flowage, slough, ditch, conduit, culvert, gully, ravine, wash, or natural or manmade drainageway that has a definite bed and bank or shoreline, in or into which surface, groundwater, effluent, or industrial discharges flow either perennially or intermittently. Article 2 3 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Channel modification is alteration of a channel by changing the physical dimensions or materials of its bed or banks, and includes damming, riprapping (or other armoring), widening, deepening, straightening, relocating, lining, and significant removal of bottom or woody rooted vegetation, but does not include the clearing of debris or removal of trash or dredging to previously documented thalweg elevations and sideslopes. City is the United City of Yorkville. Developer is a person, firm, or institution who creates or causes a development. The developer of any said development that is under the requirements of this Ordinance shall be responsible for meeting and complying with all conditions and standards of this Ordinance. Development is any manmade change to the land and includes- A. the construction, reconstruction, repair, or replacement of a building or any addition to a building; B. the installation of utilities, construction-of roads, bridges or similar projects; C. the construction or erection of levees,walls,fences, dams, or culverts; D. drilling or mining activities; E. the clearing of land as an adjunct of construction; F. channel modifications, filling, dredging, grading, excavating, paving, or other nonagricultural alterations of the ground surface; G. any direct or indirect wetland impacts including the removal of vegetation to the extent such that the wetland would no longer meet the criteria of supporting a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation as defined in the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual except that which would be considered appropriate for management purposes; H. any other activity of man that might change the direction, height, or velocity of flood or surface water, including the extensive removal of vegetation; I. the storage of materials and the deposit of solid or liquid waste; and J. the installation of a manufactured home on a site, the preparation of a site for a manufactured home, or the installation of a recreational vehicle on a site for more than 180 days. Development does not include maintenance of existing buildings and facilities such as resurfacing of roadways when the road elevation is not significantly increased or gardening, plowing, and similar agriculture practices that do not involve filling, grading, or construction of levees. Nor does development include -agricultural uses, maintenance of existing drainage systems for the limited purpose of maintaining cultivated areas and crop production or for any agricultural uses or improvements undertaken pursuant to a written NRCS conservation plan. Article 2 4 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Ecological restoration is the re-establishment of a natural area or plant community via associated management practices such as prescribed burns, weed control, selective clearing, reintroduction of native plant species, etc. Ephemeral stream is a stream whose bed elevation does not intersect with the groundwater table and carries flow only during and immediately after a runoff producing rainfall event. Erosion is the process whereby soil is removed by flowing water,wave action, or wind. Farmed wetland means wetlands that are identified by the NRCS in a Certified Wetland Determination as currently farmed, or have been farmed within 5 years previous to the permit application date, as defined in 7 CFR Part 12 (61 FR 47025). Fen is a wetland community that occurs in areas where glacial formations are such that carbonate-rich ground water discharges at a constant rate along the slopes of kames, eskers, moraines, river bluffs, dunes, or in flats associated with these formations. Floristic inventory is a record of all existing vegetation within a defined project area. This includes all woody (trees and shrubs) as well as herbaceous plants, i.e., wildflowers and grasses. Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) refers to a method of assessing landscapes based upon the existing vegetation. A useful method for determining the floristic quality of an area is through an analysis of the conservatism and diversity of species appearing in a plant inventory. Refer to floristic quality index and Mean C for further definition of terms. Floristic Quality Index (FQI) is a statistic derived by multiplying Mean C by the square root of the number of species inventoried. This parameter is correlated to the diversity and conservatism of native plant species present within a plant community as defined in Plants of the Chicago Region,4th Ed. (Swink and Wilhelm, 1994). Forested wetland is an area dominated by wetland plants that have a predominance of woody vegetation and a population of at least one of the following native trees or shrubs: Buttonbush, Pagoda Dogwood, Blue-fruited Dogwood, Black Ash, Butternut, or Swamp White Oak. This may include other conservative, native woody plants that may be found in wetland habitats, but not included in this list. Functional assessment is an assessment of a wetland's flood storage, water quality, wildlife habitat, and other beneficial functions. Groundwater is that water that is located within soil or rock below the surface of the earth. High Quality Aquatic Resources (HQAR) means aquatic areas considered to be regionally critical due to their uniqueness, scarcity, and/or value, and other wetlands considered to perform functions important to the public interest, as defined in 33 CFR Part 320.4(b) (2). These resources include ephemeral pools, fens, forested wetlands, sedge meadows, seeps, streams rated Class A or B in the Illinois Biological Stream Characterization study, streamside - marshes, wet prairies, wetlands that support Federal or Illinois endangered or threatened species, and wetlands with a native floristic quality index (FQI) of 25 or greater and a native Mean C value of 3.2 or greater. Article 2 5 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Hydrology is the science of the behavior of water that includes its dynamics, composition, and distribution in the atmosphere, on the surface of the earth, and underground. Hydrologically disturbed is an area where the land surface has been cleared, grubbed, compacted, or otherwise modified to alter stormwater runoff, volumes, rates, flow direction, or inundation duration. Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is a biological stream characterization rating system that assesses the quality of a stream from the sum of 12 metrics based on fish population composition, quality, and abundance. The IBI value can range from 12 to 60 (low to high rating). Isolated Waters of Yorkville means all wetlands; waterbodies such as ponds, lakes, streams, - including ephemeral and intermittent streams, and roadside ditches (that meet the criteria of wetland habitat as defined in the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and with a drainage area greater than 20-acres); farmed wetlands; and detention basins (that meet the criteria of wetland habitat); and are not under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction and are located within the limits of the United City of Yorkville or with any area under consideration for annexation into the United City of Yorkville. A. The limits of Isolated Waters of Yorkville extend to the ordinary high water mark or the delineated wetland boundary. B. Compensatory wetland mitigation created to meet the requirements of this Ordinance or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is not excluded. Intermittent stream is a stream whose bed intersects the groundwater table for only a portion of the year on average or any stream that flows continuously for at least one month out of the year, but not the entire year. Lake is a body of water two or more acres in size that retains water throughout the year. Linear Waters of the U.S. means wetlands along creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, or impoundments that are hydraulically connected to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Mean C is the average coefficient of conservatism for a site. The concept of "conservatism" refers to the fundamental character of native plant species to display varying degrees of tolerance to disturbance, as well as varying degrees of fidelity to specific habitat integrity. As a result, each native species can be assigned a coefficient of conservatism (C value) ranging from 0 to 10, "weedy to conservative," reflecting its disposition within a defined geographic region. Mitigation is the measures that are taken to eliminate or minimize negative direct or indirect impacts caused from development activities, such as impact to Isolated Waters of Yorkville, by replacement of the resource. Native Mean Wetness is the wetness value (W) designated to each species. This value defines the estimated probability of each species occurring in a wetland. Plants are designated as Obligate Wetland (OBL=-5), Facultative Wetland (FACW=-3), Facultative (FAC=0),Facultative Upland (FACU=3), and Obligate Upland (UPL=5). Article 2 6 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Natural area is a landscape with a sufficient level of intact habitat structure and plant species composition to resemble a pre-settlement landscape, e.g., prairie, oak savanna, and other landscapes native to Kendall County. NRCS is the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Pond is a body of water less than two acres in size that retains a normal water level year- round. Qualified professional is a person trained in one or more of the disciplines of biology, geology, soil science, engineering, or hydrology whose training and experience ensure a competent analysis and assessment of stream, lake, pond, and wetland conditions and impacts. Relative Importance Value (RIV). The RIV for each species is calculated by summing relative frequency and relative cover and dividing by 2. The RIV is calculated from data collected during the transect inventory. Roadside ditches are drainage ditches created for the purpose of providing roadway drainage. Runoff is the water derived from melting snow or rain falling within a tributary drainage basin that exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soils for that basin. Seep is a wetland, herbaceous or wooded, with saturated soil or inundation resulting from the diffuse flow of groundwater to the surface stratum. Site is all of the land contemplated to be part of a coordinated development of one or more parcels. USACE is the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Valid wetland delineation means an on-site wetland delineation that is conducted in accordance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual within three years of the initial permit application date. Watershed is the land area above a given point that contributes stormwater to that point. Waters of the U.S. is a term that refers to those water bodies and wetland areas that are under the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Wetland is land that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, under normal conditions, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (known as hydrophytic vegetation). A wetland is identified based upon the three attributes: 1) hydrology, 2) soils, and 3) vegetation as mandated by the 1987 Federal wetland determination methodology (Wetlands Delineation Manual). Wetland impact is the direct or indirect loss of Isolated Waters of Yorkville that results from implementation of a proposed activity. This includes Isolated Waters of Yorkville that are adversely affected by flooding, excavation, dredging, fill, drainage, hydrological Article 2 7 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS disturbance, vegetation removal (other than for maintenance or restoration purposes), that results from implementation of a development activity or dumping, or non-permitted discharge of chemicals or other pollutants into Isolated Waters of Yorkville. Article 2 8 a m 5' in 0 J a 6- o- 7C- a Article 3 Wetland Protection Standards and Permit Provisions UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 3.1 General Standards The requirements of this Ordinance are for the region of the United City of Yorkville and based on the ecological characteristics of this region. Section 3.1.1 Buffer Requirements 1. Buffer areas shall be required for all areas defined as either Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S. except for areas that meet a Category III definition. Isolated Waters of Yorkville are under the jurisdictional authority of the United City of Yorkville and this Ordinance and are defined in Section 2.1 of this Ordinance. Waters of the U.S. as defined in Section 2.1 of this Ordinance refers to areas that are under the jurisdictional authority and regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2. Buffer areas are divided into two types, linear buffers and water body buffers. The following buffer requirements shall be met for all proposed development projects and provided for all wetlands except for areas meeting the definition of a Category III wetland (roadside ditches and manmade stormwater management facility, refer to Section 2.1). For areas under the jurisdiction of the USACE, the most stringent buffer requirements shall apply. 1) Linear buffers shall be designated along both sides of the channel. The buffer width shall be determined as follows: a. All channels except those determined to be High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) shall be provided a minimum buffer of 30 feet. Also, five (5) additional feet of buffer shall be provided for each percent of buffer slope towards the channel that is greater than 10% up to a maximum of a 100-foot buffer. For example, a 30-foot buffer with a 20% slope will require an additional 50 feet of buffer for a total buffer width of 80 feet. The buffer slope shall be calculated as the average slope from the landward edge of the buffer to the top of bank of the channel or highest point in elevation immediately adjacent to the "waters", be it natural or artificial. b. Streams rated Class A or B in the Illinois Biological Stream Characterization study or with an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) greater than 40 shall have a minimum buffer width of 100 feet on each side of the channel. (Initial IBI based on IEPA Illinois Water Quality Report. A site-specific IBI assessment may override this report). c. For streambank stabilization projects, those projects that involve a change in land use shall apply the minimum 30 foot buffer and up to a maximum of 100 foot buffer criteria. If the project does not involve a change in land use, then a 10 foot buffer shall be required adjacent to all streambank stabilization work. 2) Buffers shall encompass all wetlands greater than 1/4 acre and determined not to be a high quality aquatic resource (HQAR). The buffer width shall be determined as follows: a. For all wetlands with a total surface area greater than one quarter (1/4) acre with floristic quality values of native Mean C < 2.8 and/or native FQI < 20, and Article 3 9 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS determined not to be a HQAR, a minimum buffer width of 30 feet shall be established. Also, five (5) additional feet of buffer shall be required for each percent of buffer slope towards the wetland that is greater than 10% up to a maximum of a 100 foot buffer. b. For all wetlands with a total surface area greater than one quarter (1/4) acre with floristic quality values of native Mean C >_ 2.8 and native FQI >_ 20, and determined not to be a HQAR, a minimum buffer width of 50 feet shall be established. Also, five (5) additional feet of buffer shall be required for each percent of buffer slope towards the wetland that is greater than 10% up to a maximum of a 100 foot buffer. (Refer to Section 3.1.1 2(1)a for example of calculating additional buffer based on average slope towards the wetland) c. For all wetlands regardless of size that meet the definition of a HQAR (ephemeral pools, fens, forested wetlands, sedge meadows, seeps, streamside marshes, wet prairies, wetlands supporting Federal or Illinois endangered or threatened species, and wetlands with a native floristic quality index (FQI) of 25 or greater and a native Mean C value of 3.2 or greater), shall have a minimum buffer width of 100 feet. 3. Buffer areas for all linear Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S., shall extend from the top of bank. The buffer area for non-linear Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S., except wetlands, shall extend from waters edge at normal water level. The buffer area for wetlands shall extend from the edge of the approved delineated wetland boundary. A site may contain buffer that originates from Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S. on another property. 4. Buffer averaging shall be permitted, at the discretion of the Administrator, but at no time shall the buffer width at any given point be less than 50% of the required width, and provided that the total buffer area required is achieved. A reduction of buffer width shall not occur for any portion where the adjacent landscape has a slope towards the wetland, equal to or greater than 3:1; except if an existing barrier, e.g. earthen berm, is in place that slows and/or contains the surface water runoff toward the wetland. In such case, the existing barrier shall remain in place and be incorporated into the design. The barrier shall be maintained as part of the required buffer area. 5. The requirement of buffers is strictly for preservation measures of wetlands and shall not constitute enhancement measures of existing wetlands for any mitigation requirements of said development. 6. Buffers shall be established using appropriate deep-rooted vegetation, protected from direct and indirect disturbance, and shall be appropriately managed and maintained according to an approved plan as provided under Section 3.2.4. Buffers shall typically consist of native vegetation unless otherwise approved by the Administrator. 7. If a buffer area is disturbed by permitted activities during construction, the buffer area shall be stabilized following the provisions of the United City of Yorkville's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and planted with appropriate vegetation as stated above. 8. Access through buffer areas shall be provided, when necessary, for maintenance purposes. Unless otherwise dedicated for a public purpose or to a public entity, buffer areas shall remain private property and shall not be generally accessible for the public. Article 3 10 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS 9. Preservation of buffer areas shall be provided by deed or plat restrictions. Only public or quasi-public property, e.g. municipal, common Homeowners Association (HOA) lot lines shall be allowed within the limits of the buffer areas. 10. Features of a stormwater management system approved by the Administrator may be allowed within the buffer area provided it is a naturalized detention basin that consists of a natural design shape as well as native plant communities, or other naturalized stormwater management feature and provided there is no direct discharge to the wetland habitat. A stormwater management feature shall be located, at a minimum, fifteen (15) feet from the edge of wetland, or top of bank for linear buffers. Discharge from the stormwater management feature shall be directed to the outside edge of the required buffer width to allow the full width of the buffer to be used for energy dissipation and water quality protection. The Administrator shall review and approve, as appropriate, well-designed stormwater management systems within the buffer area on a project by project basis. 11. Stormwater discharges that enter a buffer shall have appropriate energy dissipation measures to prevent erosion and scour. 12. All buffer areas shall be maintained free from development including disturbance of soil, dumping or filling, erection of structures, and placement of impervious surfaces except as follows: 1) A buffer area may be used for passive recreation (e.g., bird watching, walking, jogging, bicycling, and picnicking) and it may contain pedestrian or bicycle trails, provided that the created path is no wider than 10 feet. Paths or trails, excluding a mowed grass path, shall be located, at a minimum, fifteen (15) feet from the edge of wetland or stream. If the path leads to a wetland, it must be designed to prevent erosion. 2) Paved surfaces including trails may not occupy more than 15% of the total width of the required buffer. If a paved path or trail width is greater than 15% of the buffer width, then the path width shall be added to the overall buffer width. (For example, an eight (8) foot paved trail is being installed within a 30-foot buffer. The paved trail width is greater than 15% of the buffer width (approximately 27%). Therefore, an additional eight (8) feet - the width of the path - shall be added to the overall required buffer width for a total buffer width of 38 feet). Where grass "mow strips" are desired adjacent to paths they shall be no wider than two (2) feet on each side of the path. 3) Utility maintenance and maintenance of drainage facilities and drainage easements shall be allowed provided the maintenance activity meets all other federal,state, and local regulations. Section 3.1.2 Wetland Hydrology Protection 1. Any development that may reasonably be expected to impact the recharge zone of a fen, seep, or other groundwater-driven wetland with vegetation characteristic of these habitats requires a higher level of protection. Due to the uniqueness and fragility of these habitats, the developer of any proposed development within potential recharge zones shall to the extent possible identify, maintain, and protect said recharge zones. The Article 3 11 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Administrator shall evaluate and determine if additional documentation is required on a case by case basis. Section 3.1.3 Stormwater Management within Isolated Waters of Yorkville 1. Stormwater management facilities shall only be allowed in areas that meet the definition of farmed wetlands or Isolated Waters of Yorkville that contain at a minimum, vegetative cover of>_75% of one or more of the following species. • Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea). • Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). • Common Reed (Phragmites australis). • buckthorn (Rhamnus spp.). 1) The stormwater management facility shall be designed as a naturalized wetland basin that contains native vegetation communities and does not exceed a 4-foot bounce for,the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Mitigation credit for designed permanent open water area(s) shall not be granted for more than 20% of the overall required mitigation acreage. At the discretion of the Administrator, however, greater than 20% up to a maximum 50% mitigation credit for open water may be applied for mitigation designs that create interspersion of open water with emergent wetland habitat. The area of the basin as measured between the contours corresponding to one (1) foot above NWL and two (2) feet below NWL shall be at least equal to the remaining impacted wetland acreage. The designed naturalized basin shall demonstrate an overall environmental improvement. 2) A naturalized buffer that contains appropriate native vegetation shall be provided, at a minimum, up to the High Water Level (HWL). 3) A three (3) year management and monitoring plan shall be provided for the naturalized stormwater management facility. The management/monitoring plan shall include performance standards, which identify percent of seeded/planted species to be alive and apparent; vegetative cover of native , non-weedy species; and floristic quality for each monitoring year, monitoring methods, prescribed maintenance activities for the 3-year period, and long- term management provisions. 2. The Administrator may waive mitigation requirements for wetland impacts from the development of stormwater management facilities within wetland habitat if the designed naturalized wetland basin meets the above criteria. If the proposed stormwater management facility does not meet the above criteria, the mitigation requirements of Article 4 of this Ordinance shall apply. Section 3.1.4 Discharge to Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S. 1. There shall be no direct discharge of stormwater runoff to Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S. without pre-treatment. Accepted methods of pre-treatment include, but are not limited to created wetland detention basins, naturalized swales, biofiltration practices, and other measures that filter and/or detain runoff. It must be demonstrated that the proposed pre-treatment measure will remove a minimum of 80% total suspended solids (TSS) and prevent increases in water level fluctuations up to and Article 3 12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS including the 2-year event within the wetland. All discharges shall be to the wetland buffer. Pre-treatment measures may be located within the buffer with approval from the Administrator. Appropriate energy dissipation measures, such as level spreaders, shall be provided to prevent erosion and scour. Section 3.1.5 Protection of Isolated Waters of Yorkville During Development 1. All Isolated Waters of Yorkville designated for preservation shall be protected during development such that a FQI calculated two years after the commencement of development shall not be more than five (5) points less than the originally calculated FQI. The re-evaluation of all preserved wetlands shall be completed during a similar stage of the growing season as was conducted for the original assessment (±30 days). If final build out of all lots contiguous to Isolated Waters of Yorkville has not occurred, the re- evaluation of all preserved wetlands shall be repeated each year until completion of development. If there is a decrease in the FQI value for two consecutive years, and/or a > 5 point drop in the FQI value from the original value, a wetland impact to Isolated Waters of Yorkville shall be assumed, and the mitigation requirements of Article 4 of this Ordinance shall apply. 2. The initial re-evaluation data shall be submitted to the Administrator during the second year after commencement of the development. All subsequent re-evaluation data shall be provided to the Administrator on an annual basis until final build out of the development has occurred. Section 3.1.6 Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities 1. Dredging of stormwater management facilities that meet the definition of Isolated Waters of Yorkville for the purpose of periodic maintenance shall be allowed without the issuance of a Wetland Protection Permit given that the dredging activity will only re- establish the original design depths and measures shall be taken to preserve any wetland fringe and/or buffer (if applicable). If any disturbance to the wetland fringe is unavoidable, then the wetland fringe shall be restored with appropriate native vegetation. All applicable federal, state, and other local regulations and ordinances shall be met, and notification of the maintenance activities to the Administrator shall be required prior to commencement of the maintenance activity. Section 3.2 Wetland Permit Provisions Section 3.2.1 Applicability 1. No person, firm, corporation, governmental agency, or organized district shall commence any development regulated by the City on any lot or parcel of land without first submittal of applicable items presented in 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 and receipt of applicable permit. 2. No lot lines shall occur in created, restored, enhanced, or preserved Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S. and their associated buffer areas. Section 3.2.2 Wetland Determination Requirements 1. Development projects near water courses, depressional areas, wetlands or Waters of the U.S. identified on National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map, Natural Resource Conservation Article 3 13 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Service wetland map, or as requested by the City shall provide a letter of findings from a qualified professional that identifies all Isolated Waters of Yorkville, Waters of the U.S., and natural areas on or within 100 feet of the project site. Identification of each of these areas shall include a floristic inventory and floristic quality assessment (FQA) data. Offsite wetlands or Waters of the U.S., within 100 feet of project site shall be assessed for vegetative quality and size to the extent feasible. If applicant demonstrates that access to offsite properly was not obtainable, the Administrator may waive the requirement for surveying of offsite wetland boundaries. If no wetlands are identified within the limits of the site or within 100 feet of the site, then a wetland determination letter of findings shall be submitted that contains a brief description of the plant communities present on site and a copy of the Natural Resources Information (NRI) Report prepared by the County Soil and Water Conservation District for the site. If Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S. are identified within the limits of the site or within 100 feet of the site, a Wetland Permit Submittal following Section 3.2.4 shall be required. Section 3.2.3 Pre-Submittal Meeting 1. It is recommended that the applicant schedule a pre-submittal meeting with the Administrator to review the proposed project, discuss submittal requirements and questions the applicant may have. 2. If the proposed development contains a HQAR, a pre-submittal meeting with the Administrator is mandatory. Section 3.2.4 Wetland Permit Submittal Requirements Appendix A contains the Wetland Permit Application and Permit Submittal Flowchart. Appendix B contains the Wetland Permit Submittal Checklist for use with the permit submittal requirements. With the filing of a Wetland Permit Application, the applicant and owner (if not the applicant) grants permission to the Administrator and his/her designees to access said property to assess site conditions for the review and assessment of the wetland permit submittal. The Wetland Permit Submittal shall provide the following: 1. A wetland delineation report as specified in Section 3.2.5. 2. A narrative report and Site Plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of • Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.5 of this Ordinance and specifies prescribed management activities, long-term management provisions and funding mechanism, and the long-term responsible party as presented in Article 5 of this Ordinance for the buffer area(s). 3. USACE statement of jurisdictional determination that identifies Waters of the U.S. and Isolated Waters of Yorkville for all wetlands on the development site. A copy of the letter shall be provided to the Administrator. 4. For proposed impacts only to Waters of the U.S. the following requirements shall be followed: 1) Completion of the Wetland Permit Application as provided in Appendix A of this Ordinance. 2) Provide a copy of the USACE permit submittal for the proposed development or a letter from the USACE that states the proposed development does not require Article 3 14 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUAUTY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS USACE authorization. Upon receipt of any USACE, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), and/or Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Water Resources (OWR) authorizations, the applicant shall provide a copy(s) to the Administrator. 3) All wetland impacts that occur in the City's jurisdiction shall be mitigated for within the same watershed as the impact(s) at the mitigation ratio specified by the USACE for that development impact. 4) Provide a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that demonstrates compliance with the City's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. 5. For proposed impacts only to Isolated Waters of Yorkville the following information shall be provided: 1) Completion of the Wetland Permit Application as provided in Appendix A of this Ordinance. 2) A statement on the permit category of impacts to be used for the development project. The categories are as follows: a. Category I: Wetland impacts less than or equal to one (1) acre and does not impact a HQAR. b. Category II: Wetland impacts greater than one (1) acre and does not impact a HQAR. c. Category III: Roadside ditches and stormwater management facilities that meet the definition of Isolated Waters of Yorkville. d. Category IV: Wetland impacts for the restoration, creation, and g rY P enhancement of Isolated Waters of Yorkville as approved by the Administrator, provided that there are net gains in aquatic resource function. e. Category V: Wetland impacts that affect a HQAR. f. Category VI: Wetland impacts to farmed wetlands. 3) Documentation that the development is in compliance with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources' Endangered Species Consultation Program and the Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act [520 ILCS 10/11 and 525 ILCS 30/17]. 4) Documentation that the development is in compliance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's consultation program under the Endangered Species Act. 5) A statement on the occurrence of any HQAR on or within 100 feet of the development site. 6) Mitigation plan (if applicable) that meets the requirements of Article 4 of this Ordinance. Article 3 15 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS 7) For Category II or Category V impacts only: A narrative of measures taken, in sequence, to avoid and minimize wetland impacts before mitigation is considered. Category II or Category V impacts shall also require a detailed discussion of alternative analysis to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for wetland impacts to Isolated Waters of Yorkville. 8) For Category III impacts only: A narrative of the measures taken to mitigate for lost water quality functions, such as the implementation of BMPs. Approval of appropriate BMPs will be at the discretion of the Administrator. 9) For Category IV impacts only: A narrative of the proposed plan that demonstrates net gains in aquatic resource functions. 10) For Category VI impacts only: A narrative of mitigation measures that will provide an environmental benefit, e.g. improved habitat,water quality, etc. 11) Soil erosion and sediment control measures following the City's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. 6. For proposed impacts to both Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S., the wetland submittal shall include all applicable items within Section 3.2.4. Section 3.2.5 Requirements for Wetland Delineation Before any development in or near Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S., a wetland delineation that identifies the boundaries, location, function, and applicable floristic quality of all onsite Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S. as well as a floristic inventory and FQA data of natural areas on the project site shall be submitted. The presence and limits of wetland areas shall be determined by a valid wetland delineation conducted in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual. Delineations for permitting purposes shall generally be performed only during the period beginning the 2nd week of March and ending the first week of December. At the discretion of the Administrator, the acceptable delineation period may be modified due to unusual weather or other conditions. Any presence of farmed wetlands shall be determined by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). For Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S. within 100 feet of the development property for which an on-site delineation is not possible, then wetlands identified on a NWI map may be sufficient. The following are minimum requirements for the Wetland Delineation Report: 1. A plan shall be submitted that shows the exact location of Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S. within the development boundaries. The wetland boundary shall be flagged in the field and in order to determine buffer and any applicable wetland mitigation requirements, the wetland boundary shall be surveyed. 2. An aerial photograph with wetland and development boundaries delineated. 3. A copy of the following maps (most recent available) with the development boundary delineated: Article 3 16 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS 1) USGS topographic map. 2) Kendall County soil survey map. 3) NWI map. 4) FEMA floodplain map. 4. Completed USACE data sheets with representative color photographs provided for each data point. 5. A description of each wetland habitat(s) that includes the following: 1) FQA data that follows the methods provided in Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm's Plants of the Chicago Region (latest edition). In general, the floristic inventory shall be conducted between May 15th and October 15th. At the discretion of the Administrator, the acceptable vegetation assessment period may be modified due to unusual weather or other conditions. Floristic assessments conducted outside this time period may require additional sampling during the growing season to satisfy this requirement. 2) Wildlife habitat assessment for each wetland that evaluates utilization of the wetland by wildlife, interspersion and structure of vegetative cover (number of plant communities, e.g., emergent marsh, wet prairie, seep, forested, etc., present within the wetland system), and ratio of vegetative cover to open water. 3) Description of the present functions provided by each wetland. 6. For all farmed wetlands that are present within the project site, the NRCS Certified Wetland Determination Report shall be provided. Section 3.2.6 Wetland Permit Conditions 1. The Administrator or City Council, as applicable, shall attach any additional reasonable permit conditions considered necessary to ensure that the intent of the Wetland Protection Ordinance will be fulfilled, to avoid, minimize or mitigate damage or impairment to, encroachment in, or interference with natural resources and processes within the protected wetlands or watercourses, or to otherwise improve or maintain the water quality. 2. Any change in the size or scope of the development and that affects the criteria considered in approving the permit as determined by the Administrator or City Council as applicable, may require the filing of a new wetland permit submittal. 3. Any temporary, seasonal, or permanent operation that is discontinued for one (1) year shall be presumed to have been abandoned and the wetland permit automatically voided. Abandonment of the project may subject the permittee to forfeiture of the performance security. 4. Any permit granted under this Ordinance may be revoked or suspended by the Administrator or City Council, as applicable, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, for any of the following causes: 1) A violation of a condition of the permit. Article 3 1 7 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS 2) Misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose relevant facts in the application. 3) A change in site condition(s) that requires a temporary or permanent change in the proposed activity. 5. A developer who has received a wetland permit under this Ordinance shall comply with the following in connection with any construction or other activity on the property for which the wetland permit has been issued: 1) Comply with the City's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. 2) Maintain clear delineation of the protected wetlands and wetland buffers during the on-going development activities. 6. The wetland permit shall remain effective for two (2) years. The granting authority upon request by the permittee may approve a maximum one (1) year extension. Article 3 18 0 3' m o' Q m 0 n- Article 4 Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Requirements UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 4.1 Unmitigable Wetland Impacts 1. Wetlands of any size identified as having a FQI greater than or equal to 35 or mean C value of 3.5 or greater shall not be impacted via flooding, excavation, dredging, fill, drainage, or other hydrological disturbance, vegetation removal (other than for maintenance or restoration purposes) as part of any development or dumping, or non- permitted discharge of chemicals or other pollutants. The FQI is solely based on the wetland vegetation. To determine the floristic value of the wetland, buffers and adjacent plant communities shall not be included in the calculation. Section 4.2 Wetland Mitigation Requirements Section 4.2.1 General Mitigation Requirements 1. Mitigation shall be required for all impacts,regardless of size to Category V wetlands. 2. Mitigation shall be required for wetland impacts greater than or equal to 1/4 (0.25) acre to Isolated Waters of Yorkville defined under Category I, Category II, and Category VI wetland impacts. 3. Mitigation shall provide for the replacement of the wetland habitat impacted due to development activities at the following ratios (creation acreage to wetland impact acreage): 1) A minimum of 1.5:1 for wetland impacts under Category I or II that are not to a HQAR and are mitigated on-site 2) A minimum of 1:1 for wetland impacts under Category VI and are mitigated on- site. 3) A minimum of 10:1 for wetland impacts that are to a HQAR under Category V and are mitigated on-site 4. Wetland impacts covered under Category III will not require mitigation per se, but at a minimum, shall replace the water quality functions through BMP's as approved by the Administrator. 5. No mitigation is required for Category IV wetland impacts provided the restoration, creation, or enhancement contributes a net gain of aquatic resource function(s). Category IV wetland impacts, however, shall be required to provide all Wetland Permit Submittal Requirements, as applicable, following Section 3.2.4 of this Ordinance. 6. Wetland mitigation shall be designed wherever possible to restore wetland hydrology to historic hydric soils that have been drained or dewatered. Grading activities for wetland creation and/or restoration should be minimized. 7. Mitigated wetlands shall be designed to optimize hydrologic stability and native species diversity. Designed permanent open water area(s) shall not constitute more than 20% of the required mitigation acreage. At the discretion of the Administrator, however, greater than 20% up to a maximum 50% mitigation credit for open water may be applied for mitigation designs that create interspersion of open water with emergent wetland habitat. Article 4 19 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS 8. Any creation of wetlands for required mitigation shall take place only within areas that are not of a remnant plant community,wetlands, or other natural areas. 9. Enhancement within existing wetlands may be used as part of the mitigation credits, provided that at a minimum, wetland creation and/or restoration is at a 1:1 ratio, the mitigation creation/restoration is provided on-site, and the impacted wetlands) does not meet the definition of HQAR. Mitigation credit for enhancement measures will be at a 0.25:1 ratio (0.25 acre credit for every 1.0 acre enhanced). 10. All wetland mitigation areas shall be buffered according to the requirements of Section 3.1.1. No buffer is required for that portion of a wetland mitigation area that is adjacent to an existing preserved wetland. 11. A five-year wetland mitigation irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City or equivalent security for 110% of mitigation cost following the provisions of Article 10 of this Ordinance shall be submitted prior to receipt of the permit. 12. For those impacts that will have a total wetland impact of less than or equal to 1.0 acre and not affect a HQAR, the fee-in-lieu of mitigation option may be required by the City. Conditions under which the fee-in-lieu option may be required include, but are not limited to: 1) There are no other on-site or immediately adjacent wetlands that could be expanded. 2) The total size of the impacted wetland is 2.0 acres or less and due to development conditions, the long-term viability of the wetland is questionable. In addition, the fee-in-lieu option may be used by the developer for wetland impacts; this will be at the discretion of the Administrator and City Council. Fees paid in lieu that are not required by the Administrator and City Council, shall be comparable to the cost of mitigation off-site, but within the same watershed as the wetland impact, including land costs. The mitigation rate shall be 1 '/2 (1.5) times the on-site required mitigation acreage for calculation of the estimate of probable mitigation cost. Fees paid in lieu that are required by the Administrator and City Council, shall be comparable to the cost of on- site mitigation, including land costs. 13. Wetland impacts occurring prior to issuance of a Wetland Permit shall presume the wetland disturbed was a HQAR and shall require mitigation at a minimum rate of 10:1. Section 4.2.2 Mitigation Hierarchy All mitigation shall occur within the limits of the City's jurisdiction. For the off-site mitigation purposes of this Ordinance, wetland mitigation shall occur within the same primary watershed (Aux Sable or Fox River) as the wetland impact, unless there is an available wetland mitigation bank within the sub-watershed corresponding to the impact (Blackberry, Rob Roy). Mitigation shall use the following hierarchy. 1. On-site wetland mitigation is preferred, but only if the applicant can document that the mitigation can expand the extent or improve the quality of other existing, undisturbed on-site or immediately adjacent wetlands or on-site mitigation will create or restore a Article 4 20 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS wetland equal to or greater than 1.5 acres in size. On-site mitigation shall meet the requirements of Article 4 of this Ordinance. 2. Off-site wetland mitigation within the same primary watershed as the wetland impact or within an approved wetland mitigation bank located within the primary watershed when on-site mitigation is not feasible. Required mitigation acreage shall be the on-site required mitigation acreage. Off-site created or restored wetland mitigation shall meet the requirements of Article 4 of this Ordinance, 3. Mitigation as a fee-in-lieu payment option that is not required by the City. The mitigation rate shall be 1'/2 (1.5) times the on-site required mitigation acreage for calculation of the estimate of probable mitigation cost. 4. Off-site wetland mitigation within the same primary watershed as the wetland impact and meets the requirements of Article 4 of this Ordinance or within an approved wetland mitigation bank located within the primary watershed. Required mitigation acreage shall be 1 '/2 (1.5) times the on-site required mitigation acreage. 5. Off-site wetland mitigation and outside the primary watershed of the wetland impact or within an approved wetland mitigation bank located outside the primary watershed shall require three (3) times the on-site required mitigation acreage and meet the requirements of Article 4 of this Ordinance. Section 4.3 Wetland Mitigation Plan 1. In addition to the requirements of Article 3, if wetland mitigation is required a wetland mitigation plan shall be submitted. Refer to Appendix C for the wetland mitigation plan checklist. At a minimum, the wetland mitigation plan shall contain the following. 1) Narrative description of wetland impacts and proposed mitigation. Include a summary table with acreage for each existing wetland, proposed impact, and proposed mitigation. 2) A narrative of the proposed plan that includes a description of the proposed hydrologic regime, planting plan, soils, and site geomorphology, where applicable. 3) Provide a Wetland Mitigation Plan Graphic that depicts each wetland impact and all proposed wetland mitigation and limits of required wetland buffer areas and contains the planting plan for each proposed plant community, existing and proposed grades with 1-foot contour lines, protection measures for all preserved wetlands, and location of water level structures, BMPs (if applicable). 4) Specifications for wetland mitigation, which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Earthwork- rough and final grading, allowable compaction limits, treatment of compacted soils, and topsoil placement. b. Compliance with the City's soil erosion and sediment control ordinance. c. Water control structures, if applicable. Article 4 21 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS d. BMP design and implementation if proposed within wetland buffer area. e. Seed/plant installation that includes seed/plant bed preparation; procurement, list of plant material by scientific and common name including seeding and planting rates for each designated plant community, initial maintenance requirements and warranty performance criteria, and any special planting provisions. 5) Provide a proposed implementation schedule that includes site preparation, installation of soil erosion and sediment control measures, planting schedule, and post-planting maintenance and monitoring schedule that indicates approximate month and year for each of the proposed activities. 6) Provide a maintenance and monitoring plan that identifies activities during the 5-year monitoring period and follows the requirements of Sections 4.4 and 4.5 of this Ordinance_. Activities should include, but not limited to, control of undesirable plant species, herbivore control, trash removal, prescribed burn management, enhancement planting, bi-annual monitoring events, and any other necessary activities. 7) All wetland mitigation shall include a plan for the long-term management and maintenance of the preserved wetlands, mitigation wetlands, and their associated buffers. This plan shall include a description of the sources of funding, and designation of the long-term responsible party that follows the provisions of Article 5 and as approved by the Administrator. In addition, the long-term management plan shall identify long-term management strategies that.include but not limited to prescribed burn management for all applicable portions of the mitigation. If burn management is not utilized, documentation shall be submitted that specifies the reasons why burn management will not be used and describes alternative management strategies that are known to be effective. 8) If the owner is different then the applicant, identify the owner of the site and provide a written assurance from the owner that the applicant has permission to use the site for mitigation. Section 4.4 Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Protocol 1. Following the general USACE guidelines, a 5-year mitigation monitoring period shall be required to assess the success of the mitigation. The first monitoring year is considered the first full growing season after planting. In general, if the full mitigation plan including seeding/planting is completed by end of May in a particular year, that year can be considered the first monitoring year. If installation is not completed until later in the growing season, then the first monitoring year will be the next calendar year. 2. Provide a description of a monitoring protocol that meets the following provisions. 1) General Sampling Methods. Article 4 22 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS a. Monitoring for every year of the required monitoring period shall include two (2) monitoring events: one in late spring (May- mid-June) and the second during the late summer period from mid-August to mid-October. The purpose of the spring visit is a qualitative assessment of the mitigation site, accomplished through a meander throughout the entire mitigation area, including the buffer area, and inventories of vegetation across the different plant communities/zones. Denote any site conditions where land management should be addressed (e.g., weed control, herbivory impacts, soil erosion and sedimentation impacts). The spring site visit shall be documented in a field report as described in Section 4.6. b. The second monitoring event shall provide a more detailed qualitative assessment, and conduct quantitative sampling along transect lines and document site conditions with photographs that are taken at permanent photo stations. The general inventory and FQA data shall be compiled and summarized in the annual monitoring report as described in Section 4.6 2) Transect Sampling Methods. a. Generally, at least one (1) transect line shall be established within each of the proposed wetland mitigation areas and within each plant community across the mitigation site, including one in the buffer area. Transect locations shall be documented so that sampling can be repeated year to year. b. A sufficient number of quadrats shall be sampled along each transect line to provide full representation of the plant community. In general, a minimum of ten (10) 0.25 square meter quadrats per transect is sufficient. Quadrat intervals and number will depend on the size and uniformity of the plant community. The sampling procedure includes the recording of all plant species within the quadrat and the assignment of a cover value. For further detail of the sampling method refer to the "Monitoring Vegetation" chapter in The Tallgrass Restoration Handbook: for prairies, savannas, and woodlands (Packard, S. and Mute!, C. 1996). From these data, the Mean C, FQI, and relative importance values (RIV) are generated and are to be compared with results of the previous monitoring events. 3) Additional Monitoring Parameters. In addition to the FQA method stated above, some projects may require additional monitoring parameters for the mitigation and/or preserved wetland(s) such as hydrology, wildlife, etc. The requirements of additional monitoring parameters shall be reviewed and required (if any) by the Administrator on a project by project basis. Article 4 23 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS 4) Preliminary Wetland Delineation. A preliminary wetland delineation of the mitigation wetland(s) boundary shall be conducted during the third (3rd) year of monitoring. The extent of developed wetland shall be based on the prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation. If the delineated wetland acreage deviates negatively, 10% or greater than the required mitigation acreage, the developer shall be required to prepare and submit a Remedial Action Plan to the Administrator. Refer to Section 4.7 Mitigation Requirements for Non-performing Wetlands. 5) Final Wetland Delineation. A final wetland delineation of the mitigation wetland(s) boundary shall be conducted during the fifth (5th) monitoring year. Section 4.5 Wetland Mitigation Performance Standards 1. Erosion Control - A biodegradable erosion blanket shall be used for areas up to the 2- year stage and a temporary cover crop shall be seeded within the wetland mitigation, which includes the buffer area above the 2-year stage,within seven (7) calendar days of completion of construction activities. If the developer is unable to comply with the 7-day requirement then the developer shall follow the City's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Any additional soil and erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. 2. Floristic Quality Assessment. 1) General Inventory. a. By the end of the third full growing season, 30% of the seeded species and 90% of the plugged species should be present; and native Mean C and native FQI values shall be greater than or equal to 2.5 and 15, respectively, for each installed plant community. b. By the end of the fifth full growing season, 40% of the seeded species and 80% of the plugged species should be present. The native Mean C and FQI values shall be equal to or greater than 3.2 and 20, respectively, as measured for each plant community type that comprises the mitigation area, including the native plant community within the buffer area. The native Mean C and FQI values should increase each successive year after installation. c. By the end of the fifth full growing season, the native Mean W shall be less than or equal to zero (0) for each of the wetland communities. Generally, prior to the fifth monitoring year, the FQA data presented in the annual report should reflect a positive trend in floristic metrics in order to be confident that the mitigation shall meet the stated performance standards in the fifth year. If the mean wetness coefficient is greater than zero (0), this is an indication that wetland conditions are not developing. If the native Mean C has not increased from the previous year's monitoring results, this is an indication that additional management activities may be required. It is Article 4 24 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS in the permittee's best interest to take necessary measures early in the project in order to ensure compliance with the proposed wetland mitigation. 2) Transect Inventory. a. The RIV of total native plants should increase each successive year after installation. Generally, at the transect level there should be a positive trend in the floristic metrics for the mitigation monitoring period. If such a trend is observed, one can conclude that for a particular plant community all reasonable measures have been taken to manage that area. 3. General Standards. 1) By the end of the fifth full growing season, there shall be no area, across the entire mitigation site, greater than 0.5 square meter that is devoid of vegetation, as measured by aerial coverage, unless specified in the approved mitigation plan. 2) By the end of the fifth full growing season, none of the three most dominant plant species in any of the communities that comprise the mitigation site, which includes the buffer area, may be non-native or weedy species including, but not limited to, Reed Canary Grass, Common Reed, Kentucky Blue Grass, Purple Loosestrife, cattails, Sandbar Willow, Field Thistle, sweet clover, woody shrubs such as buckthorn, Eurasian honeysuckles, European High Bush Cranberry, and other non-native, weedy species. 3) By the end of the fifth full growing season, the proposed wetland acreage as depicted in the approved plan shall have been achieved. The extent, or deficiency of wetland acreage, that has not been achieved, is the extent to which the developer shall be liable. Refer to Section 4.7 Mitigation Requirements for Non-performing Wetlands. Should the developer choose to provide additional required mitigation credits via creation, restoration, or enhancement measures, the developer shall be required at a minimum, to maintain and monitor the creation, restoration, or enhancement wetland(s) for an additional three (3) years. Should the developer choose to provide enhancement measures, the developer shall provide baseline floristic data of the proposed enhancement wetland(s). 4) Additional Proposed Criteria - Depending upon the mitigation plan submitted there may be additional criteria required to supplement the above standards. These shall be evaluated on a project by project basis. Section 4.6 Post Construction Submittal Requirements 1. Submit as-built conditions to the Administrator for review and approval as identified below. Article 4 25 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS 1) Final Grading - upon completion of final grading but before planting, submit certified as-built plans with benchmarks that depict elevations in the mitigation area(s), including invert elevations of all water control structures. The normal water level elevation and resulting acreage of open water, if applicable, shall be specified. Provide a narrative explanation for any deviation from the approved mitigation plan. If the grades are not within 0.2'± of the approved plan, the permittee may be responsible for taking necessary corrective measures. 2) Vegetation-submit a list of the actual species seeded and planted by scientific and common names for each community zone, including the quantity of each species installed (seed weight/acre, number of plugged plants/acre), dates of seeding and/or planting, source of stock, and the installation method(s). The vegetation as-built submittal shall include the Wetland Mitigation Plan graphic that demarks the limits of each community zone installed and identifies any revisions to the planting plan. 2. Monitoring Reports. 1) Field reports shall be prepared and submitted to the Administrator within four (4) weeks of the spring monitoring visit. The field report shall include a brief description of existing site conditions and proposed management activities that should be addressed during the present growing season. 2) Annual monitoring reports shall be prepared and submitted to the Administrator by December 30th of the monitoring year. The annual reports shall include the FQA data and discussion of FQA results, when applicable, discussion of adherence to the appropriate performance standards, narrative of the general site conditions, identification of management activities that occurred during the growing season, recommended management activities to occur over the successive 12-month period, and photographs from the established photo stations. The first year monitoring report shall also include a description of the transect line locations as well as a graphic of the Wetland Mitigation Plan that denotes the location of all established transect lines and permanent photo stations. Years 3 and 5 monitoring reports shall include the results of the surveyed wetland delineation including completed data forms and a graphic that depicts the location of data points. Section 4.7 Mitigation Requirements for Non-performing Wetlands 1. If the Preliminary Wetland Delineation, performed during the third monitoring year, determines that the delineated wetland acreage deviates negatively, 10% or greater than the required mitigation acreage, the developer shall be required to prepare and submit a Remedial Action Plan to the Administrator. The Remedial Action Plan shall address measures that will be undertaken to resolve the lack of wetland habitat. A Remedial Action Plan shall be submitted to the Administrator within sixty (60) days of submitting the preliminary wetland delineation findings. If the developer fails to comply with the provisions of this section, the City may draw upon the required performance Article 4 26 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS security following the provisions of Article 10 of this Ordinance to remediate the mitigation site conditions. 2. If the Final Wetland Delineation, performed during the fifth monitoring year, determines that the delineated wetland acreage does not meet the required mitigation wetland acreage, the Administrator may require an extension of the 5-year monitoring period, payment of fee-in-lieu equivalent to the costs associated with the construction, planting, monitoring and maintenance of the wetland acreage that is lacking, or request other measures to meet the intention, requirements, and spirit of this Ordinance. Failure to meet the required wetland acreage shall be reviewed and measures required on a project by project basis. 3. In addition, if the Administrator or his/her agent determines that the wetland mitigation does not meet the Wetland Mitigation Requirements of Section 4.2 and the Wetland Mitigation Performance Standards of Section 4.5, the developer shall meet with the Administrator to determine the acceptable means by which the developer shall meet his/her wetland mitigation obligation(s). Based upon the review and decision of the Administrator and City Council, the developer may be required to: 1) Continue management and enhancement measures of the mitigation area(s) for a specified period beyond the 5-year monitoring for the improvement of vegetative quality and diversity in order to meet the required performance standards of this Ordinance. 2) Provide additional mitigation credits through enhancement measures for other existing wetland(s). 3) Provide funding into the fee-in-lieu program. 4. If the Administrator and City Council requests that the developer meet his/her mitigation requirements via payment in-lieu, the Administrator shall make an estimate of the probable cost of mitigating for the deficiency in performance. The Administrator shall have the right to draw on the performance security the amount of funds appropriate to remedy the wetland mitigation to meet the performance standards, conditions, and wetland protection standards of this Ordinance. The remainder of the performance security shall then be released. The amount withheld for remedy of the mitigation shall be deposited in the fund created under and expended in the manner described in Article 11. Article 4 27 Article 5 Long-Term Maintenance Provisions UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 5.1 Long-term Maintenance 1. Unless maintenance responsibility has been delegated to and accepted by another person under this section, the owner shall maintain that portion of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers. With the approval of the Administrator the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers may be: 1) Dedicated or otherwise transferred to and accepted by the City or other public entity. 2) Conveyed or otherwise transferred to and accepted by a homeowner's association, or similar entity, with the members being the owners of all lots or parcels comprising the development. 3) Conveyed to a person or entity that specializes in conservation and protection of wetlands. Section 5.2 Transfer to City or Other Public Entity 1. If any portion of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers is to be dedicated or otherwise transferred to the City or other public entity under Section 5.1.1, appropriate easements for ingress and egress and maintenance of such portions shall be reserved for the benefit of such entity on the final plat. Section 5.3 Transfer to Homeowner's or Similar Association 1. If any portion of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers is to be conveyed or otherwise transferred to a homeowner's or similar association under Section 5.1.2 then: 1) Appropriate easements for ingress and egress and maintenance of such portions shall be reserved for the benefit of such association and the City on the final plat. 2) The association shall be duly incorporated and a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation, duly recorded, and bylaws and any amendment to either of them,shall be delivered to the Administrator. 3) The bylaws of the association shall, at a minimum, contain the following: a. A provision acknowledging and accepting the association's obligation to maintain those portions of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffer areas conveyed or otherwise transferred to it under this Ordinance. b. A mechanism for imposing an assessment upon the owners of all of the lots or parcels comprising the development that is sufficient, at a minimum, to provide for the maintenance of those portions of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers conveyed or otherwise transferred to it under this Ordinance, and the payment of all taxes levied thereon. A Special Service Area shall be established for the development Article 5 28 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS area to provide an ongoing revenue source in the event that the homeowners association is not managing the wetland. c. A provision adopting the plan of long-term maintenance set forth in the application for a wetland permit,with approved amendments. d. A provision identifying the officer of the association responsible for carrying out the obligations imposed upon the association under this Ordinance. e. A provision requiring the consent of the City to any amendment of the bylaws changing any of the provisions of the bylaws required by this Ordinance. f. A provision requiring the consent of the City to the dissolution of the association. 4) Any conveyance or other instrument of transfer delivered under Section 5.1.2 shall include a covenant that imposes upon the association the obligations set forth in this section and the association's affirmative acceptance thereof. Section 5.4 Conveyance to a Person or Entity Specializing in Conservation 1. If any portion of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers are to be conveyed to a person or entity under Section 5.1.3 then: 1) Appropriate easements for ingress and egress and maintenance of such portions shall be reserved for the benefit of the City on the final plat. 2) The final plat shall contain a legend imposing the maintenance obligations of this section upon the grantee and his successors in interest as a covenant running with the land and incorporating by reference the plan of long-term maintenance set forth in the application for a wetland permit, with approved amendments. 3) The final plat shall contain a legend reserving the right of the City to enter upon the land to perform the maintenance required in this section if the owner does not do so and to place a lien against the land for the cost thereof. 4) A Special Service Area shall be established for the development area to provide an ongoing revenue source in the event that the person or entity is not managing the wetland. 5) Any conveyance delivered under Section 5.1.3, and any subsequent conveyance, shall include a covenant that imposes upon the grantee the obligations, restrictions and provisions set forth in this section and the grantee's affirmative acceptance thereof. Section 5.5 Incorporation of Maintenance Obligations in Wetland Permit 1. The provisions of this section shall be incorporated by reference in the wetland permit and the developer's acceptance of the permit shall be deemed to be the developer's Article 5 29 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUAUTY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS acceptance and assumption of the obligations imposed under this section. The developer shall record such obligations on the deed. Article 5 30 Article 6 Fees, Enforcement and Penalties UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE FEES,ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES FOR WATER QUALITY S.STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 6.1 Fees and Application Review Times 1. Applications for a wetland permit under this Ordinance shall be accompanied by a non- refundable administrative application fee in an amount of $100. In addition, the developer shall provide a minimum review deposit in the amount of $5,000 that will be drawn on for the hourly fee invoices of outside consultant(s) who may be retained by the United City of Yorkville in connection with the review of the application. In the event the review deposit is drawn down to less than $1,000, the developer shall be required to provide an additional deposit to re-establish the deposit balance to $5,000. In the event the cost of the services of the consultant(s) is less than the review deposit, the developer shall be refunded the balance. A denial of an application for a wetland permit shall not affect the developer's obligation to pay the review fee provided for in this Section. 2. Additional fees for wetland mitigation construction administration and review will be covered under the Administration Fee based on the approved estimate of costs. 3. Permit applications shall be approved or denied within 30 business days of a complete permit submittal; if written approval or denial of the permit has not been received within 30 business days, the permit application shall be assumed to be approved. The application review period begins once all submittal items are provided to the Administrator. Section 6.2 Enforcement 1. One of the primary duties of the Administrator or his/her agent shall be the review of all wetland submittal applications and issuance of wetland permits for those projects that are in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. The Administrator shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this Ordinance. 2. The Administrator or his/her agent, officer, or employee shall have authority under this Ordinance to enter upon privately owned property for the purposes of inspecting any development activity to ensure the activity conforms with requirements, standards, and provisions of this Ordinance and/or the terms and conditions of an issued wetland permit. 3. If a wetland mitigation area is constructed as part of the wetland permit, the Administrator or his/her agent shall at a minimum perform the following inspections: 1) After final grading and before seeding or plant installation. 2) After seeding and plant installation. 3) Annual inspections during the 5-year monitoring and maintenance period. Section 6.3 Penalties and Legal Actions 1. Whenever the Administrator or his/her agent finds a violation of this Ordinance, or of any permit or order issued pursuant thereto, the Administrator or City Council, as applicable, may issue a stop-work order on all development activity on the subject property or on that portion of the activity that is in direct violation of the Ordinance or withhold issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, permits or inspection until the provisions of this Ordinance, including any conditions attached to a wetland permit, have been fully met. The Administrator shall issue an order that (1) describes the violation (2) specifies the time period for remediation, and (3) requires compliance with this Ordinance prior to the completion of the activity in violation. Failure to obey a stop-work order shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance. Article 6 31 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE FEES,ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS 2. In the event a violation involving illegal alteration of an Isolated Waters of Yorkville as protected under this Ordinance, the City shall have the power to order complete restoration of the Isolated Waters of Yorkville by the person or agent responsible for the violation. If such responsible person or agent does not prepare and submit a restoration plan for review and approval by the Administrator within 30 days of notice of violation, the City shall have the authority to restore the affected Isolated Waters of Yorkville to their prior condition wherever possible, and the person or agent responsible for the original violation shall be held liable to the City for the cost of such restoration. 3. In addition to the rights and remedies herein provided to the City, any person violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be subject to a fine in an amount not exceeding Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) for each offense. Each calendar day a violation continues to exist shall constitute a separate offense. Article 6 32 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Article 7 General Provisions UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 7.1 Scope of Regulation 1. This Ordinance applies to all new development as well as any dumping or non-permitted discharge of chemicals or other pollutants into Isolated Waters of Yorkville within the United City of Yorkville and all new development within an area under consideration for annexation into the United City of Yorkville. Any person undertaking a development having a wetland on the project site or a wetland within 100 feet of the project site shall obtain a wetland permit from the Administrator. This includes any new development on partially developed sites. Section 7.2 Exemptions 1. This ordinance does not apply to: 1) Development which has obtained preliminary or final plat approval within the past 12 months before the effective date of this Ordinance 2) Wetland impacts that have occurred before the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 7.3 Severability 1. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be severable in accordance with the following rules: 1) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision of this Ordinance. 2) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge to be invalid the application of any provision of this Ordinance to a particular parcel of land or a particular development, such judgment shall not affect the application of said provision to any other land or development. Section 7.4 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions 1. This Ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. Where this Ordinance and other ordinances, easements, covenants, or deed restrictions conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. 2. When provisions of this Ordinance differ from any other applicable law, statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation, the more stringent provision shall apply. Section 7.5 Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective from and after its passage, approval, and publication according to law. The effective date of this Ordinance is , 20_. Article 7 33 Article 8 Variances and Appeals UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE VARIANCES AND APPEALS FOR WATER QUAUTY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 8.1 Variances 1. The developer may apply to the City Council for a variance. The City Council shall have the authority to grant variances from the requirements of this Ordinance, but only in compliance with the procedures set forth in Section 8.1. 2. The petition for a variance shall accompany or follow an application for a Wetland Permit and shall include all necessary submittal items. 3. Every variance petition filed pursuant to this Section 8.1 shall provide the following information: 1) The specific feature or features of the proposed construction or development that require a variance. 2) The specific provision(s) of this Ordinance from which a variance is sought and the precise extent of the variance therefrom. 3) A statement of the characteristics of the development that prevent compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. 4) A statement that the variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to permit the development. 5) A statement as to how the variance requested satisfies the standards set forth in Section 8.1.4 of this Ordinance. 4. The City Council may grans such petition for a variance only when it is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and when the development meets the majority (four or more) of the following conditions: 1) The relief requested is the minimum necessary and there are no means other than the requested variance by which the alleged hardship can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit the reasonable continuation of the development. 2) Demonstration that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the developer. Economic hardship is not a valid reason to request a variance. 3) The variance is not requested solely for the purpose of increasing the density of the development nor impervious areas on the site. 4) The developer's circumstances are unique and do not represent a general condition or problem. 5) The subject development is exceptional as compared to other developments subject to the same provision. 6) Granting the variance shall not dramatically alter the essential character of the wetland area involved, including existing stream uses. Article 8 34 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE VARIANCES AND APPEALS FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS 7) The proposed development could not be constructed if it were limited to areas outside the Isolated Waters of Yorkville and required buffer areas. Section 8.2 Variance Conditions 1. A variance of less than or different from that requested may be granted when the record supports the developer's right to some relief, but not to the relief requested. 2. In granting a variance, the City Council may impose such specific conditions and limitations on the developer concerning any matter relating to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance as may be necessary or appropriate. 3. Whenever any variance is granted subject to any condition to be met by the developer, upon meeting such condition, the developer shall file evidence to that effect with the Administrator. 4. A granted variance shall be issued as a "special use" permit and shall be valid for one (1) year from the date of issuance. Section 8.3 Appeals 1. A developer may appeal any decision of the Administrator to the City Council provided that no such appeal shall be taken until and unless the developer has requested a conference with the Administrator and not a subordinate of the Administrator, and either the conference has been held or the Administrator has not scheduled a conference within 30 days of the initial request. Article 8 35 Q m m -13 o' 7 Q m Q Article 9 Administration UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION FOR WATER QUAUTY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 9.1 Responsibility for Administration 1. The Administrator shall oversee the enforcement and administration of this Ordinance. In performing his/her duties, the Administrator may delegate routine responsibilities to any named designee. Section 9.2 Representative Capacity 1. In all cases when any action is taken by the Administrator or his/her duly appointed designee, to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance, such action shall be taken in the name of the City, and neither the Administrator nor his/her designee, in so acting shall be rendered personally liable. Section 9.3 Service of Notice 1. Unless otherwise provided herein, service of any notice or other instrument under this Ordinance may be made upon any person by: 1) First class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to address then on file for such person, if any, or if none, to such person's last known address. 2) Any method prescribed under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. Article 9 36 Article 10 Performance Security UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE PERFORMANCE SECURITY FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 10.1 General Security Requirements 1. To secure the performance of the developer's obligation to successfully complete any required wetland mitigation as part of the wetland permit, and to pay all costs, fees, and charges due under this Ordinance, and to fully and faithfully comply with all of the provisions of this Ordinance, the developer shall, prior to the issuance of a wetland permit post the security as provided in Section 10.2. 2. The developer shall bear the full cost and responsibility of obtaining and maintaining the security required by this Article. Section 10.2 Wetland Mitigation and Naturalized Basin Performance Security 1. A development performance security shall include the following. 1) A schedule, agreed upon by the developer and the Administrator, for the completion of the wetland mitigation required by the permit. 2) A statement of the estimated probable cost to install, monitor, and maintain the wetland mitigation area as required by the permit. The estimated probable costs shall be categorized by earthwork, including erosion and sediment control measures; landscape installation; and maintenance and monitoring costs. Such estimate is subject to approval by the Administrator. 3) An irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City or other such adequate security as the Administrator may approve, in an amount equal to 110% of the approved estimated probable cost to complete any required wetland mitigation. 4) A statement signed by the developer granting the Administrator the right to draw on the security and the right to enter the development site to complete required work, in the event that work is not completed according to the work schedule or the mitigation area is not meeting the required performance standards and the developer has failed to implement management activities or remedial measures to address noncompliance issues. 2. Required 5 year wetland mitigation development security may be released based on the following mitigation milestones: 1) 50% estimated probable costs for earthwork activities may be released following review and approval of certified final grading as-built plans. 2) Remaining 50% estimated probable costs for earthwork activities and 50% estimated probable costs for landscape installation may be released following review and approval of the preliminary wetland delineation (conducted in the third year of monitoring) and compliance with the prescribed performance standards for 3rd-year monitoring requirements. 3) Subsequent release of security shall be based on progress of mitigation and at the discretion of the Administrator. At no time, however, shall more than 50% of the remaining security be released prior to review and approval of the final wetland delineation (conducted in the fifth year of monitoring) and compliance with the prescribed performance standards for the 5th-year monitoring requirements. Article 10 37 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE PERFORMANCE SECURITY FOR WATER QUALITY&STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS 3. Required 3-year naturalized wetland detention basin development security may be released based on the following milestones: 1) 50% estimated probable costs for earthwork activities may be released following review and approval of certified final grading as-built plans. 2) Remaining 50% estimated probable costs for earthwork activities and 50% estimated probable costs for landscape installation may be released following review and approval of the naturalized wetland basin establishment after two years of development and compliance with the prescribed performance standards for the 2nd-year monitoring requirements. 3) Subsequent release of security shall be based on progress of naturalized wetland basin and at the discretion of the Administrator. At no time, however, shall more than 50% of the remaining security be released prior to review and approval of the naturalized wetland basin after three years of development and compliance with the prescribed performance standards for the 3rd-year monitoring requirements. 4. Generally, at the end of the applicable monitoring period or upon an earlier request for the release of the performance security, the Administrator or his/her agent shall evaluate the wetland mitigation and/or naturalized wetland basin for compliance with the performance standards, conditions, and standards of this Ordinance. If the Administrator or his/her agent determines that the wetland mitigation meets the performance standards, conditions, and wetland protection standards of this Ordinance, he/she shall recommend release of the performance security. Section 10.3 Performance Security 1. Performance security posted pursuant to this Article shall be in a form satisfactory to the Administrator. 2. If the developer fails or refuses to fully meet any of its obligations under this Ordinance then the City may, at their discretion, draw on and retain all or any of the funds remaining in the performance security. The City thereafter shall have the right to take any action deemed reasonable and appropriate to mitigate the effects of such failure or refusal, and to reimburse the City from the proceeds of the performance security for all of its costs and expenses, including legal fees and administrative expenses, that resulted from or incurred as a result of the developer's failure or refusal to fully meet its obligations under this Ordinance. If the funds remaining in the performance security are insufficient to fully repay the City for all such costs and expenses, or after said payment to the City, the remaining cash reserve of the performance security is less than the amount that would otherwise be required to be maintained under this Article, the developer shall on demand by the City immediately deposit with the City such additional funds as the City determines are necessary to fully repay such costs and expenses, and to establish appropriate cash reserve as required under this Article. Article 10 38 0 (t 7 7 0 7 0 CD Q 7 7 7c' Article 11 Fee-In-Lieu of Wetland Mitigation UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE FEE-IN-LIEU OF WETLAND MITIGATION FOR WATER QUALITY S.STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Section 11.1 Fee-in-lieu of Wetland Mitigation 1. If fee-in-lieu of mitigation is required by the City, the applicant shall prepare a statement of the estimated probable cost to construct wetlands that includes costs associated with land acquisition, wetland construction, planting, and the 5-year monitoring and maintenance activities. The estimate of probable costs is subject to the approval of the City. 2. If fee-in-lieu of mitigation is not required by the City, the applicant's estimated probable cost shall be determined based on a mitigation ratio 1.5 times the on-site required mitigation acreage. The probable cost estimate shall include costs associated with land acquisition, wetland construction, planting, and the 5-year monitoring and maintenance activities. The estimate of probable costs is subject to the approval of the City. Section 11.2 Procedures and Use of Funds 1. An applicants' statement of its intention to satisfy the wetland mitigation requirement by the payment of a fee-in-lieu of wetland mitigation shall be in writing and filed with the City along with the estimates described in Section 11.1. 2. Fees paid in lieu of wetland mitigation shall be deposited by the City in a separate fund created for such purpose. 3. Fees paid in lieu of wetland mitigation shall be expended to plan, design, restore, improve, acquire, or enhance Isolated Waters of Yorkville and/or Waters of the U.S. located within the City's jurisdiction. Article 11 39 APPENDIX A WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION AND PERMIT SUBMITTAL FLOWCHART UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION (For cny use only) Date Application Received: Date Permit Issued: Instructions: Applicant shall submit completed application,permit sumbittal checklist,permit submittal flowchart,mitigation plan checklist and all other applicable submittal items as required within the Wetland Ordinance to the Administrator. The wetland permit review process shall begin once a complete submittal has been provided. Name&Address of Applicant: Name&Address of Owner(s): Name&Address of Developer: Telephone No.during business hours: Telephone No.during business hours: ( ) ( ) ( ) fax ( ) fax Describe the general intent of the proposed activity,its purpose and the proposed Category(I-VI)of impact. • Names,addresses and telephone numbers of all adjoining property owners within 250 feet of the development site. Location of activity: Legal Description: Street,road or other descriptive location 1/4 Sec. Twp. Range Tax Assessor's Description(if known): City County State Zip Code Name of waterbody within or adjacent to site(if applicable) Map No. Subdiv.No. Lot No. Is any portion of activity for which a wetland permit is sought now complete? No _Yes,if yes explain: I hereby certify that all information presented in this application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I have read and understand the United City of Yorkville Wetland Protection Ordinance,and fully intend to comply with its provisions. Signature of Developer Date Signature of Owner Dote Wetland Permit Application UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE TYPICAL WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL FLOWCHART The following flowchart identifies the typical submittal items that are required for a permit application based on the type of proposed impact. Highlight the appropriate path and circle the required submittal items. Type of Development Project: Project Site Acreage: Proposed Wetland Impact Acreage: (Residential,Commercial,PUD,etc.) 421, Are wetlands or Waters of the Submit Wetland U.S.present on or within 100 feet Determination Letter of of proposed development site? NO Findings — (Refer to Section 3.2.2 Will proposed development Submit Wetland Permit Application and impact Isolated Waters of Yorkville Wetland Permit Submittal Checklist, or Waters of the U.S.? NO completing items 1-4 on the checklist,and establish required buffers. (Refer to Sections 3.2.3-3.2.5) Will proposed development impact Submit Wetland Permit Application Waters of the U.S.? ^ and Wetland Permit Submittal YES Checklist,completing items 1-5 on the checklist. (Refer to Sections 3.2.3-3.2.5) O z Will proposed development impact greater than or equal to 0.25 acre of Is the Isolated Waters of Isolated Waters of Yorkville? NO Yorkville a High Quality NO Aquatic Resource? N W � N What Category of Impact will be used? • (Refer to Section 3.2.4) Attend mandatory Category V Pre-Submittal Meeting with Administrator. Category I Category I and II Submit Wetland Permit Application, Will wetland NO Wetland Permit Submittal Checklist, be used for completing items 1-4 and item 6 on the stormwater checklist,and Wetland Mitigation Plan management Checklist.(Refer to Sections 3.2.3-3.2.5, Category II facility? YES Does wetland Article 4,and all other applicable Articles meet criteria NO of the Ordinance) to be used for stormwater path A management See facility? Sheet path B See Sheet 2 SHEET 1 YORKVILLE WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL FLOWCHART path B from Sheet 1 N W Category I and II that meet certain criteria Submit Wetland Permit Application and Wetland Permit Submittal Checklist,completing items 1-4 on the checklist and comply with Section 3.1.3. path A from Sheet 1 Submit Wetland Permit Application and narrative of Cate•o III measures taken to mitigate for Category III water quality functions.(Refer to Sections 3.2.3-3.2.5) Category IV Submit Wetland Permit Application, Category IV r" Wetland Permit Submittal Checklist completing items 1-4 and item 6 on the checklist,and narrative of activity that demonstrates a net gain of aquatic resource(s).(Refer to Sections Category V _222_12.5 and 4.2) g ry Attend mandatory Pre-Submittal Meeting with Administrator. Category V Submit Wetland Permit Application, Wetland Permit Submittal Checklist, completing items 1-4 and item 6 on the checklist,and Wetland Mitigation Plan Checklist.(Refer to Sections 3.2.3-3.2.5, Article 4,and all other applicable Articles of the Ordinance) I Submit Wetland Permit Application and Wetland Permit Submittal Will farmed YES etaused Checklist,completing items 1-4 on the checklist and comply with Category VI for stormwe er used Section 3.1.3. management facility? NO Submit Wetland Permit Application,Wetland Permit Submittal Checklist,completing items \ C STOP ) 1-4 and item 6 on the checklist,and Wetland Mitigation Plan Checklist.(Refer to Sections 3.2.3-3.2.5,Article 4,and all other applicable Articles of the Ordinance) SHEET 2 YORKVILLE WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL FLOWCHART APPENDIX B WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST United City of Yorkville WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST REQUIREMENT ITEM ITEM IF NOT PROVIDED, REQUIRED PROVIDED EXPLANATION (J) (J) 1. Wetland Delineation Report that provides all information as required in Section 3.2.5 of the Ordinance. 2. Narrative Report and Site Plan that demonstrates compliance of: a. Section 3.1.1 Buffer Requirements,including planting plan for buffer area(s). b. Section 3.1.2 Wetland Hydrology Protection c. Section 3.1.3 Stormwater Management within Isolated Waters of Yorkville (including buffer and 3-year management and monitoring plan) d. Section 3.1.4 Discharge to Isolated Water of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S. e. Section 3.1.5 Protection of Isolated Waters of Yorkville During Development 3, Narrative that specifies prescribed management activities and long- term management provisions for all buffers,perserved wetlands, and wetland mitigation(if applicable),and includes the following: a. Maintenance activities and tentative schedule. b. Maintenance activities and tentative schedule subsequent to required monitoring period. c. Description of funding source. d. Designation of the responsible party following Article 5. 4. USACE statement of jurisdictional determination for all wetlands on development site. 5. For proposed impacts to Waters of the U.S.the following shall be provided: a. Completed United City of Yorkville Wetland Permit Application. b. Provide USACE permit submittal for the proposed development or a letter from the USACE that states the proposed development does not require USACE authorization. c. Provide copies of all USACE.TEPA,and IDNR Office of Water Resources authorizations to the Administrator. d. Statement that all wetlands within the City's jurisdiction will be mitigated for within the same primary watershed as the impact(s)at the mitigation ratio specified by the USACE. e. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that demonstrates compliance with the City's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. 6. For proposed impacts to Isolated Waters of Yorkville the following shall be provided: a. Completed United City of Yorkville Wetland Permit Application. b. Statement of Permit Category(Category I-VI)to be used for development impact(s). c. Documentation for compliance with Illinois Department of Natural Resources'Endangered Species Consultation Program and the Illinois Natural Areas Preservation.Act. Wetland Permit Submittal WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST REQUIREMENT ITEM ITEM IF NOT PROVIDED, REQUIRED PROVIDED EXPLANATION (�) (1) 6. d. Documentation for compliance with U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered Species Act. e. 1) Statement on the occurrence of High Quality Aquatic Resources on or within 100 feet of the development site. 2) Applicant has completed a Pre-Submittal meeting with the Administrator,if so,give date of meeting. f. Mitigation Plan(if applicable)refer to Appendix C for Mitigation Plan checklist. g. For Category II or Category V impacts provide the following: 1) Narrative of measures taken,in sequence,to avoid and minimize wetland impacts before mitigation is considered. 2) Detailed discussion of alternative analysis to avoid,minimize,and mitigate for wetland impacts. h. For Category III impacts provide the following: 1) Narrative of measures taken to mitigate for water quality functions. For Category IV impacts provide the following: 1) Narrative of proposed plan that demonstrates net gains in aquatic resource functions. ), For CategoryVI impacts provide the following: 1) Narrative of mitigation measures that demonstrates an environmental benefit,e.g.improved habitat,water quality, etc. Wetland Permit Submittal 2 APPENDIX C WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST United City of Yorkville WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST REQUIREMENT ITEM ITEM IF NOT PROVIDED, REQUIRED PROVIDED EXPLANATION (16 (4) 1. Narrative description of wetland impacts and proposed mitigation. Provide a summary table with acreage for each existing wetland, proposed impact, and proposed mitigation. 2. Narrative of proposed mitigation plan that includes a description of the following parameters: a, Hydrologic Conditions-Identify source(s) of water, both on-site and off-site surface and groundwater. Describe and provide model results of the expected hydroperiod (at a minimum,2-yr, 10-yr,and 100-yr,24-hr storm events) that include frequency, duration,and elevation of inundation or saturation. b, 1) Planting Plan-Describe each proposed plant community and approximate size. Provide a list of plant species for each community,including proposed cover crop. NOTE:All seed and plant material shall originate within 200 miles of site. 2) Planting narrative that describes the planting methods and planting schedule. c, Soil Characteristics-Provide a soil profile of the proposed conditions. Identify soil conditions that will be present from 12-24 inches below the surface. d, Topography-Submit existing and proposed grades with 1-foot contour lines and reference elevations. 3. Specifications for wetland mitigation earthwork including final grading, allowable compaction limits, treatment of compacted soils, and topsoil placement; water control structures,if applicable; BMP design and implementation if proposed within wetland buffer area;plant and seed procurement,installation methods and schedule;and all other appropriate specifications for the wetland mitigation activities. 4. Proposed implementation schedule that includes: a. Site preparation. b. Installation of soil erosion and sediment control measures. c. Planting schedule. Wetland Mitigation Plan a WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST REQUIREMENT ITEM ITEM IF NOT PROVIDED, REQUIRED PROVIDED EXPLANATION Of) (4) 4. d. Post-planting maintenance and monitoring. 5. Maintenance and Monitoring Plan that includes: a. Proposed monitoring protocol that follows Section 4.4 of the Ordinance. b. Specified performance standards that follows Section 4.5. c. Proposed annual maintenance activities to be performed during the 5-year monitoring period. Activities should include,but not be limited to control of undesirable plant species, herbivore control,burn management,enhancement planting. 6. Provide a Wetland Mitigation Plan Graphic that contains the following information. a. A summary table with acreage for each existing wetland,proposed impact acreage,and proposed mitigation acreage. b. Clearly identify proposed wetland impacts,wetland mitigation area(s) denoting creation vs. enhancement wetlands, and limits of required buffer areas. c. Planting Plan that includes a complete list of plants by common and scientific name for each community type;quantities per species of seed, plugs,rootstock, transplants, or propagules;and specific planting zones. d. Existing and proposed grades with 1-foot contour lines and reference elevations to bench marks. e. Protection measures for all preserved Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S. f. Location of water level control structures, BMPs,etc. 7. If off-site mitigation is proposed,the following maps shall be provided with the location of the mitigation site clearly marked: a. USGS topographic map. b. County soil survey. c. NWI map. d. NRCS swampbuster map (if applicable). e. Hydrologic Atlas. f. Aerial photograph(s). W H.nd M;t;gct;en 11,1-19 5 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST REQUIREMENT ITEM ITEM IF NOT PROVIDED, REQUIRED PROVIDED EXPLANATION (4) (� 7. g. Site photographs. 8. Performance Security following the provisions of Article 10. 9. If owner of the property is different then the applicant, provide written assurance from the owner that the applicant has permission to use the site for mitigation. Wetland Mitigation Plan 6 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE MAINTENANCE WORKER II—JOB DESCRIPTION Department: Public Works Reports to: Department Foreman or Department Operator if no Foreman Status: Full-Time Position Description Overview This individual performs general day to day tasks in the specific department assigned within Public Works as well as assisting other departments when needed. This individual also performs general maintenance on department equipment and assists the Operator with complicated tasks. Responsibility includes acting as back up in the Operator's absence. Will be expected to work outdoors in all types of weather. Essential Job Functions Street Department 1. Operate utility tractors and mow road shoulders within the Streets Department. 2. Performs routine maintenance of street lights and traffic control lights within the Streets Department. 3. Operate heavy equipment when needed, including combination and loader tractors within the Streets Department. 4. Participate in cross-training with other job functions within the different departments of Public Works. 5. Other duties as assigned by Foreman or Operator in charge. Parks Department 1. Operate power tools such as chainsaws within the Parks Department. 2. Operate all mowing tractors and work with the Foreman or Supervisor to gain experience on utility tractors within the Parks Department. 3. Participate in cross-training with other job functions within the different departments of Public Works. 4. Other duties as assigned by Foreman or Operator in charge. Water Department 1. Operate utility tractors, transit, and pipe laser within the Water Department. 2. Assist in well monitoring and J.U.L.I.E. locates within the Water Department. 3. Participate in cross-training with other job functions within the different departments of Public Works. 4. Other duties as assigned by Foreman or Operator in charge. Sewer Department 1. Operate utility tractors within the Sewer Department. 2. Operate and utilize gas detectors and tripod within the Sewer Department. 3. Assist in lift station monitoring and J.U.L.I.E. locates. 4. Participate in cross-training with other job functions within the different departments of Public Works. 5. Other duties as assigned by Foreman or Operator in charge. Requirements 1. Must possess a Class B commercial driver's license with an Air Brake endorsement. 2. Must possess a valid driver's license and obtain a class C license after six months employment. 3. Must meet all requirements for Maintenance Worker I. 4. Have a basic knowledge of park safety, playground maintenance, and landscape/hardscape installation. 5. Have basic knowledge of street repair and snow and ice removal equipment. 6. Have basic knowledge of the repair and installation of water main and service lines. 7. Have basic knowledge of the repair and installation of sewer main and service lines. 8. Ability to perform physical labor. 9. Have successfully completed certification as a Flagger from the Illinois Department of Transportation. 10. Ability to speak fluent English. Experience and Education 1. Minimum of High School Diploma or equivalent. 2. Must successful) complete a background investigation. Y P �' g The duties listed above are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similar, related, or a logical assignment to the position. The job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the employer and employee and is subject to change by the employer as the needs of the employer and requirements of the job change.