The URL can be used to link to this page

Public Works Packet 2017 11-21-17 AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, November 21, 2017 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: October 17, 2017 New Business: 1. PW 2017-75 Water Department Reports for July, August and September 2017 2. PW 2017-76 2017 Sanitary Sewer Lining – Change Order No. 1 3. PW 2017-77 West Washington Street Water Main Improvements – Change Order No. 1 4. PW 2017-78 Countryside Water Main and Roadway Improvements – Change Order No. 2 5. PW 2017-79 Kennedy Road Shared Use Path (ITEP) – Authorization No. 3 6. PW 2017-80 Fountain Village – Completion of Improvements – Engineering Agreement 7. PW 2017-81 Kendall County TAP Grant Application 8. PW 2017-82 Mill Street Parking 9. PW 2017-83 Traffic Control Signs – Heustis / Van Emmon 10. PW 2017-84 Solid Waste Contract – Food Scraps Update Old Business: 1. ADM 2017-70 Building Conditions Survey Results 2. PW 2014-74 Railroad Quiet Zones Additional Business: 2017/2018 City Council Goals – Public Works Committee Goal Priority Staff “Municipal Building Needs and Planning” 5 Bart Olson & Eric Dhuse “Vehicle Replacement” 6 Bart Olson & Eric Dhuse “Water Planning” 8 Eric Dhuse & Brad Sanderson “Capital Improvement Plan” 11 Bart Olson & Eric Dhuse “Water Conservation Plan” 15 Eric Dhuse & Brad Sanderson United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Tuesday, November 21, 2017 6:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. October 17, 2017 □ Approved __________ □ As presented □ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PW 2017-75 Water Department Reports for July, August and September 2017 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PW 2017-76 2017 Sanitary Sewer Lining – Change Order No. 1 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. PW 2017-77 West Washington Street Water Main Improvements – Change Order No. 1 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. PW 2017-78 Countryside Water Main and Roadway Improvements – Change Order No. 2 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. PW 2017-79 Kennedy Road Shared Use Path (ITEP) – Authorization No. 3 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. PW 2017-80 Fountain Village – Completion of Improvements – Engineering Agreement □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. PW 2017-81 Kendall County TAP Grant Application □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. PW 2017-82 Mill Street Parking □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. PW 2017-83 Traffic Control Signs – Heustis / Van Emmon □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. PW 2017-84 Solid Waste Contract – Food Scraps Update □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ADM 2017-70 Building Condition Survey Results □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PW 2014-74 Railroad Quiet Zones □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Minutes Tracking Number Minutes of the Public Works Committee – October 17, 2017 Public Works Committee – Noveomber 21, 2017 Majority Committee Approval Minute Taker Name Department Page 1 of 5 DRAFT UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 17, 2017, 6:00pm Yorkville City Hall, Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road IN ATTENDANCE: Committee Members Chairman Joel Frieders Alderman Ken Koch Alderman Jackie Milschewski Absent: Alderman Seaver Tarulis Other City Officials Mayor Gary Golinski City Attorney Kathleen Fields-Orr City Administrator Bart Olson Engineer Brad Sanderson, EEI Interim Assistant City Administrator Erin Willrett Public Works Director Eric Dhuse Alderman Chris Funkhouser Alderman Joe Plocher Director Parks & Recreation Tim Evans City Consultant Lynn Dubajic City Engineer Tim Schultz, EEI Other Guests: See guest lists The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Chairman Joel Frieders. New Business: 1. PW 2017-65 104 N. Bridge Street Development Agreement Administrator Olson said he received many comments and emails regarding this project. The City Attorney reviewed the property deed and believes the City is in compliance for the proposed use. This committee will review the development agreement, Planning and Zoning will review the rezoning and variance applications and it will proceed to City Council on October 24th. The project developer, Mark Southern, owns Fisherman's Inn and Encap, an environmental company. He wants to build a restaurant/banquet facility along the river and would also do restoration work at the park if this project moves forward. The floor was then opened to public comment. Nathan Schattke said there are many natural plants and wildlife. There are 8 parking spaces now and there is no need for more. He said the plan as presented has no drainage and the project will kill mature Page 2 of 5 oak trees. He asked that the property be kept in the natural state. There are natural springs in the area and he questioned the drainage. Shannon Range said there is a large of space for development on the south side of the river. She said Encap does an amazing job on restorations of the environment. Lois Bushman of 109 E. Main said Ron Clark wanted a natural habitat as is indicated on the park sign. Many people use the park because of the naturalness. She had concern for the traffic and that parking would extend into the neighborhood. She said the road is not wide enough and there is housing all around, making it unsuitable for this project. She said the City knew what Mr. Clark wanted and what they signed. Fred Gaebler lives next to the park and said natural spaces are few and far between. Mr. Clark sold his property below value with the assurance from the city that it would be maintained as a natural habitat. He asked how the city could use an access road for the benefit of another parcel. He said the Schomer property is zoned residential on the Comprehensive Plan. He hopes the city will utilize performance standards as to what is done with the park if the project is approved. He said this project sets a bad precedent for future sales to the city. He also asked for a clarification on the definition of access path to get to a public facility. Anne Engelhardt, a 39-year resident, asked who would monitor what happens in this area. She hopes there will be a compromise if this project is approved, that trees will be preserved and parking spots reduced. Parking is a problem and perhaps a shuttle could be used. She hopes some weekends could be promised to citizens with total access to the park, rather than have most weekends reserved for banquet use. Rachel Engelhardt said the park might be better cared for if developed. She said to consider the spirit of the gift from Mr. Clark. If all parking spots are used on weekends for a private business, it will be difficult for the public to use the park. Protections are needed for public use as well. Gail Gaebler lives next to the park and said this project goes against Mr. Clark's vision. It will funnel traffic onto Main Street. Ms. Gaebler read a letter from Sharon Clark, sister of Ron Clark, that stated this was an inappropriate use, goes against restrictive covenants in the agreement and she expects the city to uphold the agreement and reject the project. Alison Metz, Colton St., said she was astounded that the city could change what was in the agreement. There are no curbs on the streets and cars will be parking in their yards. She said there are many young children in the area and there is already an overflow of traffic on their streets when Rt. 47 backs up. Ms. Metz said a parking lot and access road do not make a natural area. Darcy Tellone, Colton St., said there are many young families and she would not have purchased her home if she knew about this project. The area is not well-lit and people will have been drinking. She asked why other empty land could not be developed. Melissa Bakel said this park is one of the few natural parks. She asked what would happen if the restaurant closed. Page 3 of 5 Larry Franklin, Spring St., said some people attending functions at the banquet hall will be irresponsible and alcohol will be a factor. IDOT will not approve access onto Rt. 47, so city traffic will dump onto Colton and Liberty Streets. He said the restaurant could be open more than 3 days a week and what if the restaurant fails. He said building south of the river would be better. This ended the public comment and Bart Olson addressed the questions posed by the public. Ms. Orr also commented on the interpretation of making the park more accessible. Alderman discussed what would happen if the business fails, snowplowing, traffic concerns, the right in/right out, impact on neighbors, noise, possible light at Main St., parking concerns, maintaining the integrity of the park and preservation of trees. Alderman Plocher said he received many phone calls regarding a traffic light at Main St. and he would not vote for it. Alderman Funkhouser said the project was a great concept, however, he had concerns about parking and said the city should receive 100% recapture on all funds spent by the city. He said the project is for the benefit of the private enterprise. He asked to see all the city costs. After this discussion, the committee agreed to move this forward to the Council. 2. ADM 2017-70 Building Conditions Survey Results Ms. Willrett reported on this survey and said staff is now doing in-depth investigation of the buildings in poor condition. She discussed several of the buildings, in both good and bad condition, summarized the properties overall and the cost to repair. Alderman Koch commented that there are already unfunded items in the budget in addition to the repairs needed on these buildings. Chairman Frieders asked to amend the agenda and move the next two items forward for discussion. 9. PW 2017-72 Windett Ridge-Acceptance of Improvements (out of sequence) Mr. Sanderson said Cal-Atlantic has requested acceptance of the improvements with some items remaining. He said there is also a trail that will need maintenance and he recommended acceptance of the development and improvements not accepted so far. Bob Delo, HOA Manager, asked that the muskrat problem in the pond be addressed. He thanked Alderman Koch for attending HOA meetings to update residents and the City for their help and cooperation. This moves to the Council consent agenda. Old Business: (out of sequence) 2. PW 2014-74 Railroad Quiet Zones Mr. Olson reviewed the history of the past quiet zone discussions. Costs were discussed in 2015 and the Council voted against the previous recommendation to move forward with a study. The floor was opened for comments from the public. Joe Panozzo of Rivers Edge had gathered a petition with 259 signatures of those who want a quiet zone. The developer originally told the residents there would be two trains a day, now there are 4-6 a day and the horns are very loud. The developer also said that eventually the tracks would be eliminated. Brittany Musser lives two streets from the tracks. She read a statement and said she hears two trains a night and some of the horns are about 20 seconds. She desires a quiet zone study. Page 4 of 5 Fred DuSell of Rivers Edge stated the quality of life is affected and some home sales have failed due to the trains. He said a similar study in Montgomery cost $45,000 and he believes crossing arms would be suitable in his subdivision. Mr. Jody Dolan a railroad employee, said cars still go around the gates in the quiet zones and people get killed. He said fencing would be needed with the only access at the crossings. Mr. Dolan explained the sequence of sounds that an engineer must use at crossings and said it takes 2-3 minutes to get across town. There are more trains these days due to fracking requiring the use of sand. He suggested looking at the horn-blowing procedure that Prairie du Chien uses. They have a whistle ban from 10pm to 6am, however, double gates are needed. He said the decibels are the same on all trains and that all horns are recorded and required by law. Mike Pfeiffer of White Oaks said homes by O'Hare Airport are being soundproofed by the city of Chicago. He said the horn-blowing pattern occurred nine times one night. He would appreciate if the city would re-open the study. Ron Kelso of Rivers Edge said he lives 1 block from the train. There is a need for a better quality of life and a plan is needed to reduce the decibels. He asked the city to continue to explore cheaper solutions. Ms. Perkins of Rivers Edge said the loudness depends on the conductors, sometimes the house rattles and things fall off the walls. She said some engineers are courteous with the horns, but asked that the matter be addressed with railroad personnel. Alderman Plocher thanked all those who commented regarding the train study. He asked that the full City Council hear the comments about this situation and asked for a $7,000 feasibility study. Chairman Frieders said only 2 crossings in Montgomery were made into quiet zones and may have only cost the $45,000 quoted earlier. He said in Yorkville there would be 3 crossings north of the river and 9 downtown that would have to be studied. He detailed all the needed equipment and actions at a possible cost of $250,000 per intersection. He is not comfortable spending this amount of money and suggested staff explore the Prairie du Chien solution and/or contact individual engineers. He said there are many other city projects that are required, such as future drinking water. Alderman Koch agreed with the financial concern. Alderman Milschewski also agreed and added that the city still has certain liability in quiet zones. She questioned why the city should do the study if quiet zones will not be established due to financial constraints. Alderman Funkhouser said the city was founded around the railroad and noted the amount of money just spent on a water study. In conclusion, Mr. Sanderson will be asked to contact the railroad regarding the night-time horn ban and this matter will come back to committee. Previous Meeting Minutes: September 19, 2017 The minutes were approved as presented. 3. PW 2017-66 Capital Improvement Project Update For information, no discussion. Page 5 of 5 4. PW 2017-67 Quarterly Bond/LOC Reduction Summary For information, no discussion. 5. PW 2017-68 Meeting Schedule for 2018 The committee approved the schedule as presented. 6. PW 2017-69 2018 Road to Better Roads Program – Engineering Agreement Mr. Olson said $27,000 is budgeted for design and $39,000 for construction. This moves to the consent agenda. 7. PW 2017-70 Letter of Intent – IDOT Improvement of US 30 from IL 47 to IL 31 Rt. 30 will be expanded and the city must determine the location of the trails. The proposal is for the trail to be on the south side from Rt. 30 to Orchard and a sidewalk on the north side. Mr. Olson said the city can opt out of the trail. This item will move to the Council regular agenda. 8. PW 2017-71 Traffic Control Signs – Sunflower Estates Area Mr. Olson said a study was done and there are no recommended changes. For info. 10. PW 2017-73 ITEP Project Selection This project opens December 1 and the Park District will apply for all 3 projects. There is no funding now, but a budget amendment could be done according to Mr. Olson. There is no easement at this time on Fox Road, so it was decided to apply to the County for an easement or TAP grant. This moves to consent agenda. 11. PW 2017-74 Verizon Site Access Agreement – 610 Tower Lane This is a site access agreement and moves to consent agenda. Old Business: 1. PW 2017-63 Ordinance Amending the Water Use and Service Regulations Alderman Koch said language needs to be put in the ordinance to clearly address cutoffs and past due notices. A resident who had brought forth an issue believes he should not have to pay impact fees for each unit of his building with one service line. He also had an issue with the billing process and paying in arrears. Mr. Olson discussed buildings that have one shutoff for multiple dwellings. This moves to the Council regular agenda. Additional Business: Alderman Milschewski asked about the stop signs with flashing lights for Van Emmon. Mr. Olson said this will be addressed at the next Public Works meeting. He said a 2-way stop may be recommended for Heustis and Van Emmon. She also asked about the 'no parking on pavement' on Mill St. This will be discussed at the next Public Works meeting. Also discussed was people parking on the grass on Heustis where there are no curbs. Mr. Olson said that is not allowed. There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 9:10pm. Minutes respectfully transcribed by Marlys Young, Minute Taker Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #1 Tracking Number PW 2017-75 Water Department Reports for July, August and September 2017 Public Works Committee – November 21, 2017 Majority Approval Monthly water reports. Tom Konen Public Works Name Department 4.0 CO.,„United City of Yorkville WATER DEPARTMENT REPORT LE `N>> JULY2017 MONTH I YEAR WELLS NO WELL DEPTH PUMP DEPTH WATER ABOVE PUMP THIS MONTH'S PUMPAGE FEET) FEET) FEET) GALLONS) 3 Abandoned 4 1401 665 204 25,468,000 7 1527 1105 430 9,778,000 8 1384 840 170 14,237,000 9 1368 870 463 12,100,000 TOTAL TREATED 57,211,000 CURRENT MONTH'S PUMPAGE IS 3,755,000 GALLONS less THAN LAST MONTH 2,533,000 GALLONS more THAN LAST YEAR DAILY AVERAGE PUMPED: 1,845,516 GALLONS DAILY MAXIMUM PUMPED: 3,226,000 GALLONS DAILY AVERAGE PER CAPITA USE: 102.53 GALLONS WATER TREATMENT: CHLORINE: 1425 LBS. FED CALCULATED CONCENTRATION:3.0 MG/L FLUORIDE: 378 LBS. FED CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 80 MG/L POLYPHOSPHATE: 948 LBS. FED CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 97 MG/L WATER QUALITY: BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLES ANALYZED BY ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: 27 SATISFACTORY 0 UNSATISFACTORY (EXPLAIN) FLOURIDE: 3 SAMPLE(S) TAKEN CONCENTRATION: 0.80 MG/L MAINTENANCE: NUMBER OF METERS REPLACED: 3 NUMBER OF LEAKS OR BREAKS REPAIRED: 0 MXU'S: 4 BATTERIES: 1 NEW CUSTOMERS: RESIDENTIAL: 12 COMMERCIAL: 1 INDUSTRIAL/GOVERNMENTAL: 0 COMMENTS: T United City of Yorkville WATER DEPARTMENT REPORT te •``AUGUST 2017 MONTH I YEAR WELLS NO WELL DEPTH PUMP DEPTH WATER ABOVE PUMP THIS MONTH'S PUMPAGE FEET) FEET) FEET) GALLONS) 3 Abandoned 4 1401 665 204 19,959,000 7 1527 1105 430 8,931,000 8 1384 840 170 4,893,000 9 1368 870 463 23,846,000 TOTAL TREATED 53,717,000 CURRENT MONTH'S PUMPAGE IS 3,494,000 GALLONS less THAN LAST MONTH 1,421,000 GALLONS more THAN LAST YEAR DAILY AVERAGE PUMPED: 1,732,806 GALLONS DAILY MAXIMUM PUMPED: 2,223,000 GALLONS DAILY AVERAGE PER CAPITA USE:96.26 GALLONS WATER TREATMENT: CHLORINE: 1352 LBS. FED CALCULATED CONCENTRATION:3.0 MG/L FLUORIDE: 200 LBS. FED CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 74 MG/L POLYPHOSPHATE:1311 LBS. FED CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 97 MG/L WATER QUALITY: BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLES ANALYZED BY ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: 27 SATISFACTORY 0 UNSATISFACTORY (EXPLAIN) FLOURIDE: 3 SAMPLE(S)TAKEN CONCENTRATION: 0.80 MG/L MAINTENANCE: NUMBER OF METERS REPLACED: 8 NUMBER OF LEAKS OR BREAKS REPAIRED: 0 MXU'S: 23 BATTERIES: 7 NEW CUSTOMERS: RESIDENTIAL: 9 COMMERCIAL: 0 INDUSTRIAL/GOVERNMENTAL: 0 COMMENTS: e C/ 40 United City of Yorkville WATER DEPARTMENT REPORT l' fkliii e`1 SEPTEMBER 2017 MONTH / YEAR WELLS NO WELL DEPTH PUMP DEPTH WATER ABOVE PUMP THIS MONTH'S PUMPAGE FEET) FEET) FEET) GALLONS) 3 Abandoned 4 1401 665 204 28,441,000 7 1527 1105 430 9,043,000 8 1384 840 170 21,000,000 9 1368 870 463 000 TOTAL TREATED 54,532,000 CURRENT MONTH'S PUMPAGE IS 815,000 GALLONS more THAN LAST MONTH 8,471,000 GALLONS more THAN LAST YEAR DAILY AVERAGE PUMPED:1,817,733 _ GALLONS DAILY MAXIMUM PUMPED: 2,595,000 GALLONS DAILY AVERAGE PER CAPITA USE: 100.98 GALLONS WATER TREATMENT: CHLORINE: 1,310 LBS. FED CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 3.0 MG/L FLUORIDE: 137 LBS. FED CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 80 MG/L POLYPHOSPHATE: 1,443 LBS. FED CALCULATED CONCENTRATION: 97 MG/L WATER QUALITY: BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLES ANALYZED BY ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: 26 SATISFACTORY 0 UNSATISFACTORY (EXPLAIN) FLOURIDE: 3 SAMPLE(S)TAKEN CONCENTRATION: .80 MG/L MAINTENANCE: NUMBER OF METERS REPLACED: 7 NUMBER OF LEAKS OR BREAKS REPAIRED: 2 MXU'S: 0 NEW CUSTOMERS: RESIDENTIAL: 13 COMMERCIAL: 0 INDUSTRIAL/GOVERNMENTAL: 0 COMMENTS: Developer repaired 2 service leaks on Carly Circle that were still under warranty. Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Agenda Item Number New Business #2 Tracking Number PW 2017-76 2017 Sanitary Sewer Lining – Change Order No. 1 Public Works Committee – November 21, 2017 Consideration of Approval Consideration of Change Order No. 1 Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department The purpose of this memo is to present Change Order No. 1 for the above referenced project. A Change Order, as defined by in the General Conditions of the Contract Documents, is a written order to the Contractor authorizing an addition, deletion or revision in the work within the general scope of the Contract Documents, or authorizing an adjustment in the Contract Price or Contract Time. Background: The United City of Yorkville and Visu-Sewer of Illinois, LLC entered into an agreement for a contract value of $113,260.90 for the above referenced project. The intent of this project was to rehabilitate various sewers using cured-in-place liners. Questions Presented: Should the City approve Change Order No. 1 which would decrease the contract amount by $426.60. Discussion: Changes are per as-built quantities measured in the field. Please see the attached summary spreadsheet. We are recommending approval of the change order. Action Required: Consideration of approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $426.60. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Erin Willrett, Assistant City Administrator Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: November 13, 2017 Subject: 2017 Sanitary Sewer Lining Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #3 Tracking Number PW 2017-77 West Washington Street Water Main Improvements Public Works Committee – November 21, 2017 Consideration of Approval Consideration of Change Order No. 1 Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department The purpose of this memo is to present Change Order No. 1 for the above referenced project. A Change Order, as defined by in the General Conditions of the Contract Documents, is a written order to the Contractor authorizing an addition, deletion or revision in the work within the general scope of the Contract Documents, or authorizing an adjustment in the Contract Price or Contract Time. Background: The United City of Yorkville and Superior Excavating Co. entered into an agreement for a contract value of $243,331.50 for the above referenced project. The intent of this project was to replace water main along West Washington Street. Questions Presented: Should the City approve Change Order No. 1 which would decrease the contract amount by $24,882.00. Discussion: Changes are per as-built quantities measured in the field and pay items removed from project scope. Please see the attached summary spreadsheet. We are recommending approval of the change order. Action Required: Consideration of approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $24,882.00. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Erin Willrett, Assistant City Administrator Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: November 13, 2017 Subject: West Washington Street Water Main Improvements Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Agenda Item Number New Business #4 Tracking Number PW 2017-78 Countryside Water main and Roadway Improvements Public Works Committee – November 21, 2017 Consideration of Approval Consideration of Change Order No. 2 Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department The purpose of this memo is to present Change Order No. 2 for the above referenced project. A Change Order, as defined by in the General Conditions of the Contract Documents, is a written order to the Contractor authorizing an addition, deletion or revision in the work within the general scope of the Contract Documents, or authorizing an adjustment in the Contract Price or Contract Time. Background: The United City of Yorkville and Geneva Construction Co. entered into an agreement for a contract value of $4,307,538.03. The value was adjusted via Change Order No. 1 to $4,759,426.13. Questions Presented: Should the City approve Change Order No. 2 which would decrease the contract amount by $321,176.14? Discussion: Change Order No. 2 is a final balancing change order. All work is now complete. We are recommending approval of the Change Order. Action Required: Consideration of approval from the City Council for Change Order No. 2. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: November 10, 2017 Subject: Countryside Water Main and Roadway Imp.–Change Order No. 2 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #5 Tracking Number PW 2017-79 Kennedy Road Shared Use Path (ITEP) Public Works Committee – November 21, 2017 Consideration of Approval Consideration of Authorization No. 3 Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department The purpose of this memo is to present Authorizations 3 for the above referenced project. An authorization, as defined by IDOT, is the written approval of a contract change and the written directive to the contractor to perform said work. By this definition, it alters the contract work from that awarded under the competitive bidding process. An Authorization of Contract Changes signed by the Regional Engineer signifies completed review of and support for the change proposed. Background: The State of Illinois and “D” Construction, Inc. entered into an agreement for a contract value of $753,941.81 for the above referenced project. Construction began on July 17, 2017 and the project is approximately 98% complete. The construction costs are being funded by ITEP funds (federal) and local funds. The maximum federal participation amount is $883,336.00, inclusive of all change orders (authorizations) associated with this contract. Questions Presented: Should the City approve Authorization No. 3 in the amount of $5,015.42? Discussion: Authorization No. 3 covers additional labor, required to perform work within the BNSF ROW including: Railroad flaggers as required by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Note that flaggers are a standard Railroad requirement and it is typical to pay the Railroad on a time and material basis. The net change for all authorizations to date is $13,041.30 which is a 1.73% increase to the original contract value bringing a revised contract value to date of $766,983.11. The City will be responsible for 20% of the total or $2,608.26. We have attached IDOT form BC-22 for Authorization No. 3 for your information. All authorizations have a pre-approval from the IDOT District 3 Local Agency Bureau of Construction Engineer. We are recommending approval of the Authorization. Action Required: Consideration of approval from the City Council for Authorization No. 3. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: October 16, 2017 Subject: Kennedy Road Shared Use Path (ITEP)– Authorization 3 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #6 Tracking Number PW 2017-80 Fountain Village – Completion of Improvements – Engineering Agreement Public Works Committee – November 21, 2017 Majority Approval Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department The City Council approved the call of the performance guarantee at their August 22, 2017 meeting due to lack of progress. Since then, the City and the Bank have entered into an agreement to complete the remaining work and funds have been deposited with the City. The City/Bank agreement is attached for reference. We have prepared a Professional Services Agreement for your consideration to move the project forward and to complete the outstanding work. The Agreement is for both design and construction engineering services. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: October 26, 2017 Subject: Fountain Village Fountain Village – Completion of Improvements United City of Yorkville, IL Professional Services Agreement - Design and Construction Engineering THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the United City of Yorkville, hereinafter referred to as the "City" or “OWNER” and Engineering Enterprises, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor" or “ENGINEER” agrees as follows: A. Services: ENGINEER agrees to furnish to the City the following services: The ENGINEER shall provide any and all necessary engineering services to complete the remaining punchlist items. Design and construction engineering will be provided for the completion of the work identified in Exhibit 6. Engineering will be in accordance with all City, Illinois Department of Transportation, and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency requirements. B. Term: Services will be provided beginning on the date of execution of this agreement and continuing, until terminated by either party upon 7 days written notice to the non- terminating party or upon completion of the Services. Upon termination the ENGINEER shall be compensated for all work performed for the City prior to termination. C. Compensation and maximum amounts due to ENGINEER: ENGINEER shall receive as compensation for all work and services to be performed herein, an amount based on the Estimate of Level of Effort and Associated Cost included in Exhibit 3. Design Engineering will be paid for as a Fixed Fee (FF) in the amount of $16,820 and Construction Engineering will be paid for Hourly (HR) at the actual rates for services to be performed, currently estimated at $19,083. Direct expenses are estimated to be $10,750. The hourly rates for this project are shown in the attached 2017 Standard Schedule of Charges (Exhibit 5). All payments will be made according to the Illinois State Prompt Payment Act and not less than once every thirty days. For outside services provided by other firms or subconsultants, the City shall pay the ENGINEER the invoiced fee to the ENGINEER, plus 10%. D. Changes in Rates of Compensation: In the event that this contract is designated in Section B hereof as an Ongoing Contract, ENGINEER, on or before February 1st of any given year, shall provide written notice of any change in the rates specified in Section C hereof (or on any attachments hereto) and said changes shall only be effective on and after May 1st of that same year. Fountain Village - Completion of Improvements United City of Yorkville Professional Services Agreement Design and Construction Engineering E. Ownership of Records and Documents: ENGINEER agrees that all books and records and other recorded information developed specifically in connection with this agreement shall remain the property of the City. ENGINEER agrees to keep such information confidential and not to disclose or disseminate the information to third parties without the consent of the City. This confidentiality shall not apply to material or information, which would otherwise be subject to public disclosure through the freedom of information act or if already previously disclosed by a third party. Upon termination of this agreement, ENGINEER agrees to return all such materials to the City. The City agrees not to modify any original documents produced by ENGINEER without contractors consent. Modifications of any signed duplicate original document not authorized by ENGINEER will be at OWNER’s sole risk and without legal liability to the ENGINEER. Use of any incomplete, unsigned document will, likewise, be at the OWNER’s sole risk and without legal liability to the ENGINEER. F. Governing Law: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. Venue shall be in Kendall County, Illinois. G. Independent Contractor: ENGINEER shall have sole control over the manner and means of providing the work and services performed under this agreement. The City’s relationship to the ENGINEER under this agreement shall be that of an independent contractor. ENGINEER will not be considered an employee to the City for any purpose. H. Certifications: Employment Status: The Contractor certifies that if any of its personnel are an employee of the State of Illinois, they have permission from their employer to perform the service. Anti-Bribery: The Contractor certifies it is not barred under 30 Illinois Compiled Statutes 500/50-5(a) - (d) from contracting as a result of a conviction for or admission of bribery or attempted bribery of an officer or employee of the State of Illinois or any other state. Loan Default: If the Contractor is an individual, the Contractor certifies that he/she is not in default for a period of six months or more in an amount of $600 or more on the repayment of any educational loan guaranteed by the Illinois State Scholarship Commission made by an Illinois institution of higher education or any other loan made from public funds for the purpose of financing higher education (5 ILCS 385/3). Fountain Village - Completion of Improvements United City of Yorkville Professional Services Agreement Design and Construction Engineering Felony Certification: The Contractor certifies that it is not barred pursuant to 30 Illinois Compiled Statutes 500/50-10 from conducting business with the State of Illinois or any agency as a result of being convicted of a felony. Barred from Contracting: The Contractor certifies that it has not been barred from contracting as a result of a conviction for bid-rigging or bid rotating under 720 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/33E or similar law of another state. Drug Free Workplace: The Contractor certifies that it is in compliance with the Drug Free Workplace Act (30 Illinois Compiled Statutes 580) as of the effective date of this contract. The Drug Free Workplace Act requires, in part, that Contractors, with 25 or more employees certify and agree to take steps to ensure a drug free workplace by informing employees of the dangers of drug abuse, of the availability of any treatment or assistance program, of prohibited activities and of sanctions that will be imposed for violations; and that individuals with contracts certify that they will not engage in the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance in the performance of the contract. Non-Discrimination, Certification, and Equal Employment Opportunity: The Contractor agrees to comply with applicable provisions of the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5), the U.S. Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act and the rules applicable to each. The equal opportunity clause of Section 750.10 of the Illinois Department of Human Rights Rules is specifically incorporated herein. The Contractor shall comply with Executive Order 11246, entitled Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented by U.S. Department of Labor regulations (41 C.F.R. Chapter 60). The Contractor agrees to incorporate this clause into all subcontracts under this Contract. International Boycott: The Contractor certifies that neither it nor any substantially owned affiliated company is participating or shall participate in an international boycott in violation of the provisions of the U.S. Export Administration Act of 1979 or the regulations of the U.S. Department of Commerce promulgated under that Act (30 ILCS 582). Record Retention and Audits: If 30 Illinois Compiled Statutes 500/20-65 requires the Contractor (and any subcontractors) to maintain, for a period of 3 years after the later of the date of completion of this Contract or the date of final payment under the Contract, all books and records relating to the performance of the Contract and necessary to support amounts charged to the City under the Contract. The Contract and all books and records related to the Contract shall be available for review and audit by the City and the Illinois Auditor General. If this Contract is funded from contract/grant funds provided by the U.S. Government, the Contract, books, and records shall be available for review and audit by the Comptroller General of the U.S. and/or the Inspector General of the federal Fountain Village - Completion of Improvements United City of Yorkville Professional Services Agreement Design and Construction Engineering sponsoring agency. The Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with any audit and to provide full access to all relevant materials. United States Resident Certification: (This certification must be included in all contracts involving personal services by non-resident aliens and foreign entities in accordance with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Services for withholding and reporting federal income taxes.) The Contractor certifies that he/she is a: x United States Citizen ___ Resident Alien ___ Non-Resident Alien The Internal Revenue Service requires that taxes be withheld on payments made to non resident aliens for the performance of personal services at the rate of 30%. Tax Payer Certification : Under penalties of perjury, the Contractor certifies that its Federal Tax Payer Identification Number or Social Security Number is (provided separately) and is doing business as a (check one): ___ Individual ___ Real Estate Agent ___ Sole Proprietorship ___ Government Entity ___ Partnership ___ Tax Exempt Organization (IRC 501(a) only) x Corporation ___ Not for Profit Corporation ___ Trust or Estate ___ Medical and Health Care Services Provider Corp. I. Indemnification: ENGINEER shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and City’s agents, servants, and employees against all loss, damage, and expense which it may sustain or for which it will become liable on account of injury to or death of persons, or on account of damage to or destruction of property resulting from the performance of work under this agreement by ENGINEER or its Subcontractors, or due to or arising in any manner from the wrongful act or negligence of ENGINEER or its Subcontractors of any employee of any of them. In the event that the either party shall bring any suit, cause of action or counterclaim against the other party, the non-prevailing party shall pay to the prevailing party the cost and expenses incurred to answer and/or defend such action, including reasonable attorney fees and court costs. In no event shall the either party indemnify any other party for the consequences of that party’s negligence, including failure to follow the ENGINEER’s recommendations. J. Insurance: The ENGINEER agrees that it has either attached a copy of all required insurance certificates or that said insurance is not required due to the nature and extent of the types of services rendered hereunder. (Not applicable as having been previously supplied) K. Additional Terms or Modification: The terms of this agreement shall be further modified as provided on the attachments. Except for those terms included on the attachments, no additional terms are included as a part of this agreement. All prior understandings and agreements between the parties are merged into this agreement, and this agreement may not be modified orally or in any Fountain Village - Completion of Improvements United City of Yorkville Professional Services Agreement Design and Construction Engineering manner other than by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. In the event that any provisions of this agreement shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding on the parties. The list of exhibits is as follows: Exhibit 1: Professional Engineering Services Exhibit 2: Limitation of Authority, Duties and Responsibilities of the Resident Construction Observer Exhibit 3: Estimate of Level of Effort and Associated Cost Exhibit 4: Anticipated Project Schedule Exhibit 5: 2017 Standard Schedule of Charges Exhibit 6: Punchlist L. Notices: All notices required to be given under the terms of this agreement shall be given mail, addressed to the parties as follows: For the City: For the ENGINEER: City Administrator and City Clerk Engineering Enterprises, Inc. United City of Yorkville 52 Wheeler Road 800 Game Farm Road Sugar Grove Illinois 60554 Yorkville, IL 60560 Either of the parties may designate in writing from time to time substitute addresses or persons in connection with required notices. Agreed to this _____day of __________________, 2017. United City of Yorkville: Engineering Enterprises, Inc.: _________________________________ ________________________________ Gary Golinski Brad Sanderson, P.E. Mayor Vice President _________________________________ ________________________________ Beth Warren Angie Smith City Clerk Executive Assistant 1 EXHIBIT 1 SECTION A - PROFESSIONAL DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES For purposes of this Exhibit 1 and all attachments hereto, the term “contractor” shall not refer to Engineering Enterprises, Inc., but shall instead refer to individuals or companies contracted with, to construct or otherwise manage the project described herein. The ENGINEER shall furnish professional design engineering services as follows: 1. The ENGINEER will attend conferences with the OWNER, or other interested parties as may be reasonably necessary. 2. The ENGINEER will perform the necessary design surveys, accomplish the detailed design of the project, prepare construction drawings, specifications and contract documents, and prepare a final cost estimate based on final design for the entire system. It is also understood that if subsurface explorations (such as borings, soil tests, rock soundings and the like) are required, the ENGINEER will furnish coordination of said explorations without additional charge, but the costs incident to such explorations shall be paid for by the OWNER as set out in Section D hereof. 3. The contract documents furnished by the ENGINEER under Section A-2 shall utilize IEPA endorsed construction contract documents, including Supplemental General Conditions, Contract Change Orders, and partial payment estimates. 4. Prior to the advertisement for bids, the ENGINEER will provide for each construction contract, not to exceed 10 copies of detailed drawings, specifications, and contract documents for use by the OWNER, appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies from whom approval of the project must be obtained. The cost of such drawings, specifications, and contract documents shall be included in the basic compensation paid to the ENGINEER. 5. The ENGINEER will furnish additional copies of the drawings, specifications and contract documents as required by prospective bidders, material suppliers, and other interested parties, but may charge them for the reasonable cost of such copies. Upon award of each contract, the 2 ENGINEER will furnish to the OWNER five sets of the drawings, specifications and contract documents for execution. The cost of these sets shall be included in the basic compensation paid to the ENGINEER. Original documents, survey notes, tracings, and the like, except those furnished to the ENGINEER by the OWNER, are and shall remain the property of the ENGINEER. 6. The drawings prepared by the ENGINEER under the provisions of Section A-2 above shall be in sufficient detail to permit the actual location of the proposed improvements on the ground. The ENGINEER shall prepare and furnish to the OWNER without any additional compensation, three copies of map(s) showing the general location of needed construction easements and permanent easements and the land to be acquired. Property surveys, property plats, property descriptions, abstracting and negotiations for land rights shall be accomplished by the OWNER, unless the OWNER requests, and the ENGINEER agrees to provide those services. In the event the ENGINEER is requested to provide such services, the ENGINEER shall be additionally compensated as set out in Section D hereof. 7. The ENGINEER will attend the bid opening and tabulate the bid proposal, make an analysis of the bids, and make recommendations for awarding contracts for construction. 8. The ENGINEER further agrees to obtain and maintain, at the ENGINEER’s expense, such insurance as will protect the ENGINEER from claims under the Workman’s Compensation Act and such comprehensive general liability insurance as will protect the OWNER and the ENGINEER from all claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance by the ENGINEER or by the ENGINEER’s employees of the ENGINEER’s functions and services required under this Agreement. 9. The ENGINEER will complete the final plans, specifications and contract documents and submit for approval of the OWNER, and all State regulatory agencies to meet the project schedule(s) as summarized in Exhibit 4: “Anticipated Project Schedule – Fountain Village – Completion of Improvements” dated October 26, 2017. 3 SECTION B - PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES The ENGINEER shall furnish professional construction engineering services as follows: 1. The ENGINEER will review, for conformance with the design concept, shop and working drawings required by the construction Contract Documents and indicate on the drawings the action taken. Such action shall be taken with reasonable promptness. 2. The ENGINEER will interpret the intent of the drawings and specifications to protect the OWNER against defects and deficiencies in construction on the part of the contractors. The ENGINEER will not, however, guarantee the performance by any contractor. 3. The ENGINEER will evaluate and determine acceptability of substitute materials and equipment proposed by Contractor(s). 4. The ENGINEER will establish baselines for locating the work together with a suitable number of bench marks adjacent to the work as shown in the contract documents. 5. The ENGINEER will provide general engineering review of the work of the contractor(s) as construction progresses to ascertain that the contactor is conforming to the design concept. (a) ENGINEER shall have authority, as the OWNER’s representative, to require special inspection of or testing of the work, and shall receive and review all certificates of inspections, testing and approvals required by laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, orders or the Contract Documents (but only to determine generally that their content complies with requirements of, and the results certified indicate compliance with, the Contract Documents). (b) During such engineering review, ENGINEER shall have the authority, as the OWNER’s representative, to disapprove of or reject contractor(s)’ work while it is in progress if ENGINEER believes that such work will not produce a completed Project that conforms generally to the Contract Documents or that it will prejudice the integrity of the design concept of the Project as reflected in the Contract Documents. 4 6. The ENGINEER will provide resident construction observation. Resident construction observation shall consist of visual inspection of materials, equipment, or construction work for the purpose of ascertaining that the work is in substantial conformance with the contract documents and with the design intent. Such observation shall not be relied upon by others as acceptance of the work. The ENGINEER’s undertaking hereunder shall not relieve the contractor of contractor’s obligation to perform the work in conformity with the drawings and specifications and in a workmanlike manner; shall not make the ENGINEER an insurer of the contractor’s performance; and shall not impose upon the ENGINEER any obligation to see that the work is performed in a safe manner. Exhibit 2 - The Limitations of Authority, Duties and Responsibilities of the Resident Construction Observer is attached to this Agreement. 7. The ENGINEER will cooperate and work closely with representatives of the OWNER. 8. Based on the ENGINEER’s on-site observations as an experienced and qualified design professional, on information provided by the Resident Construction Observer, and upon review of applications for payment with the accompanying data and schedules by the contractor, the ENGINEER: (a) Shall determine the amounts owing to contractor(s) and recommend in writing payments to contractor(s) in such amounts. Such recommendations of payment will constitute a representation to OWNER, based on such observations and review, that the work has progressed to the point indicated, and that, to the best of the ENGINEER’s knowledge, information and belief, the quality of such work is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents (subject to an evaluation of such work as a functioning whole prior to or upon substantial completion, to the results of any subsequent tests called for in the Contract Documents, and to any other qualifications stated in the recommendation). (b) By recommending any payment, ENGINEER will not hereby be deemed to have represented that exhaustive, continuous or detailed reviews or examinations have been made by ENGINEER to check the quality or quantity of contractor(s)’ work as it is furnished and performed beyond the responsibilities specifically assigned to ENGINEER in the Agreement and the Contract Documents. ENGINEER’s review of contractor(s)’ 5 work for the purposes of recommending payments will not impose on Engineer responsibility to supervise, direct or control such work or for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction or safety precautions or programs incident thereto or contractor(s) compliance with laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes or orders applicable to their furnishing and performing the work. It will also not impose responsibility on ENGINEER to make any examination to ascertain how or for what purposes any contractor has used the moneys paid on account of the Contract Price, or to determine that title to any of the work, materials equipment has passed to OWNER free and clear of any lien, claims, security interests, or encumbrances, or that there may not be other matters at issue between OWNER and contractor that might affect the amount that should be paid. 9. The ENGINEER will prepare necessary contract change orders for approval of the OWNER, and others on a timely basis. 10. The ENGINEER will make a final review prior to the issuance of the statement of substantial completion of all construction and submit a written report to the OWNER. Prior to submitting the final pay estimate, the ENGINEER shall submit the statement of completion to and obtain the written acceptance of the facility from the OWNER. 11. The ENGINEER will provide the OWNER with one set of reproducible record (as-built) drawings, and two sets of prints at no additional cost to the OWNER. Such drawings will be based upon construction records provided by the contractor during construction and reviewed by the resident construction observer and from the resident construction observer’s construction data. 12. If State Statutes require notices and advertisements of final payment, the ENGINEER shall assist in their preparation. 13. The ENGINEER will be available to furnish engineering services and consultations necessary to correct unforeseen project operation difficulties for a period of one year after the date of statement of substantial completion of the facility. This service will include instruction of the OWNER in initial project operation and maintenance but will not include supervision of normal 6 operation of the system. Such consultation and advice shall be at the hourly rates as described in the attached Exhibit 5: Standard Schedule of Charges dated January 1, 2017. The ENGINEER will assist the OWNER in performing a review of the project during the 11th month after the date of the certificate of substantial completion. 14. The ENGINEER further agrees to obtain and maintain, at the ENGINEER’s expense, such insurance as will protect the ENGINEER from claims under the Workman’s Compensation Act and such comprehensive general liability insurance as will protect the OWNER and the ENGINEER from all claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance by the ENGINEER or by the ENGINEER’s employees of the ENGINEER’s functions and services required under this Agreement. 15. The ENGINEER will provide construction engineering services in accordance with the periods summarized in Exhibit 4: “Anticipated Project Schedule – Fountain Village – Completion of Improvements” dated October 26, 2017. If the above is not accomplished within the time period specified, this Agreement may be terminated by the OWNER. The time for completion may be extended by the OWNER for a reasonable time if completion is delayed due to unforeseeable cases beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the ENGINEER. Pursuant to Paragraph D “Changes in Rates of Compensation”, the contract shall be designated on-going consistent with the project schedule. 7 SECTION C – COMPENSATION FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES 1. The OWNER shall compensate the ENGINEER for professional design engineering services in the amount of $16,820 Fixed Fee (FF) as summarized on Exhibit 3: “Estimate of Level of Effort and Associated Cost for Professional Engineering Services for Fountain Village – Completion of Improvements” dated October 26, 2017. (a) The compensation for the professional design engineering services shall be payable as follows: (1) A sum which does not exceed ninety percent (90%) of the total compensation payable under Section C-1 shall be paid in monthly increments for work actually completed and invoiced, for grant administration and for the preparation and submission to the OWNER and/or IEPA of the construction drawings, specifications, cost estimates and contract documents. (2) A sum which, together with the compensation paid pursuant to Section C-1(a)(1) above, equals one hundred percent (100%) of the total compensation due and payable in accord with Section C-1 above, shall be due immediately after the award of construction contract(s) is approved by the corporate authorities. 2. The OWNER shall compensate the ENGINEER for the construction administration, construction staking, construction observation (including the Resident Construction Observer), and any additional consultation and surveying services on the basis of Hourly Rates (HR) as described on the attached Exhibit 5: Standard Schedule of Charges dated January 1, 2017. The estimated values are included in Exhibit 3: “Estimate of Level of Effort and Associated Cost for Professional Engineering Services for Fountain Village – Completion of Improvements” dated October 26, 2017. (a) The compensation for the construction administration, construction staking, construction observation (including the Resident Construction Observer), and any additional consultation and surveying services shall be payable as follows: 8 (1) A sum which equals any charges for work actually completed and invoiced shall be paid at least once per month. 3. The OWNER shall compensate the ENGINEER for direct expenses as identified in the contract and as noted on Exhibit 3 at the actual cost or hourly cost for the work completed. (1) A sum which equals any charges for work actually completed and invoiced shall be paid at least once per month. 4. The compensation for any additional engineering services authorized by the OWNER pursuant to Section D shall be payable as follows: (a) A sum which equals any charges for work actually completed and invoiced shall be paid at least once per month. 9 SECTION D – ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES In addition to the foregoing being performed, the following services may be provided UPON PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF THE OWNER. 1. Site surveys outside of the project limits and other similar special surveys as may be required. 2. Laboratory tests, well tests, borings, specialized geological soils hydraulic, or other studies recommended by the ENGINEER. 3. Property surveys, detailed description of sites, maps, drawings, or estimates related thereto; assistance in negotiating for land and easement rights. 4. Necessary data and filing maps for litigation, such as condemnation. 5. Redesigns ordered by the OWNER after final plans have been accepted by the OWNER and IEPA. 6. Appearances before courts or boards on matters of litigation or hearings related to the project. 7. Preparation of environmental impact assessments or environmental impact statements. 8. Making drawings from field measurements of existing facilities when required for planning additions or alterations thereto. 9. Services due to changes in the scope of the Project or its design, including but not limited to, changes in size, complexity, schedule or character of construction. 10. Revising studies or reports which have previously been approved by the OWNER, or when revisions are due to cases beyond the control of the ENGINEER. 10 11. Preparation of design documents for alternate bids where major changes require additional documents. 12. Preparation of detailed renderings, exhibits or scale models for the Project. 13. Providing special analysis of the OWNER’s needs such as owning and operating analysis, plan for operation and maintenance, OWNER’s special operating drawings or charts, and any other similar analysis. 14. The preparation of feasibility studies, appraisals and evaluations, detailed quantity surveys of material and labor, and material audits or inventories by the OWNER. 15. Additional or extended services during construction made necessary by (1) work damaged by fire or other cause during construction, (2) defective or incomplete work of the contractor, and/or (3) the contractor’s default on the Construction Contract due to delinquency or insolvency. 16. Providing design services relating to future facilities, systems and equipment which are not intended to be constructed or operated as a part of the Project. 17. Providing other services not otherwise provided for in this Agreement, including services normally furnished by the OWNER as described in Section E – SPECIAL PROVISIONS – Owner’s Responsibilities. Payment for the services specified in this Section E shall be as agreed in writing between the OWNER and the ENGINEER prior to commencement of the work. The ENGINEER will render to OWNER for such services an itemized bill, separate from any other billing, once each month, for compensation for services performed hereunder during such period, the same to be due and payable by OWNER to the ENGINEER on or before the 10th day of the following period. Payment for services noted in D shall be at Actual Cost (AC), Fixed Fee (FF) or Hourly (HR). 11 SECTION E - SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITIES (a) Provide to the ENGINEER all criteria, design and construction standards and full information as to the OWNER’s requirements for the Project. (b) Designate a person authorized to act as the OWNER’s representative. The OWNER or his representative shall receive and examine documents submitted by the ENGINEER, interpret and define the OWNER’s policies and render decisions and authorizations in writing promptly to prevent unreasonable delay in the progress of the ENGINEER’s services. (c) Furnish laboratory tests, air and water pollution tests, reports and inspections of samples, materials or other items required by law or by governmental authorities having jurisdiction over this Project, or as recommended by the ENGINEER. (d) Provide legal, accounting, right-of-way acquisition and insurance counseling services necessary for the Project, legal review of the construction Contract Documents, and such auditing services as the OWNER may require to account for expenditures of sums paid to the contractor. (e) Furnish above services at the OWNER’s expense and in such manner that the ENGINEER may rely upon them in the performance of his services under this Agreement and in accordance with the Project timetable. (f) Guarantee full and free access for the ENGINEER to enter upon all property required for the performance of the ENGINEER’s services under this Agreement. (g) Give prompt written notice to the ENGINEER whenever the OWNER observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in the Project or other event which may substantially affect the ENGINEER’s performance of services under this Agreement. 12 (h) Protect and preserve all survey stakes and markers placed at the project site prior to the assumption of this responsibility by the contractor and bear all costs of replacing stakes or markers damaged or removed during said time interval. 2. Delegation of Duties - Neither the OWNER nor the ENGINEER shall delegate his duties under this Agreement without the written consent of the other. 3. The ENGINEER has not been retained or compensated to provide design services relating to the contractor’s safety precautions or to means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures required by the contractor to perform his work but not relating to the final or completed structure. Omitted services include but are not limited to shoring, scaffolding, underpinning, temporary retainment of excavations and any erection methods and temporary bracing. 4. The ENGINEER intends to render his services under this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the intended use of the Project. 5. 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, his opinions of probable Project Costs and Construction Costs provided for herein are to be made on the basis of his experience and qualifications and represent his best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer, familiar with the construction industry. The ENGINEER cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction cost will not vary from opinions of probable cost prepared by him. If prior to the bidding or negotiating phase OWNER wishes greater assurance as to project or construction costs he shall employ an independent cost-estimator. 6. Access to Records: (a) The ENGINEER agrees to include subsections E-6(b) through E-6(e) below in all contracts and all subcontracts directly related to project services which are in excess of $25,000. 13 (b) The ENGINEER shall maintain books, records, documents and other evidence directly pertinent to performance of Agency loan work under this Agreement consistent with generally accepted accounting standards in accordance with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Professional Standards (666 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10019; June 1, 1987). The Agency or any of its duly authorized representatives shall have access to such books, records, documents and other evidence for the purpose of inspection, audit and copying. The ENGINEER will provide facilities for such access and inspection. (c) Audits conducted pursuant to this provision shall be in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. (d) The ENGINEER agrees to the disclosure of all information and reports resulting from access to records pursuant to subsection E-6(b) above, to the Agency. Where the audit concerns the ENGINEER, the auditing agency shall afford the ENGINEER an opportunity for an audit exit conference and an opportunity to comment on the pertinent portions of the draft audit report. The final audit report will include the written comments, if any, of the audited parties. (e) Records under subsection E-6(b) above shall be maintained and made available during performance on Agency loan work under this agreement and until three years from date of final Agency loan audit for the project. In addition, those records which relate to any “dispute” appeal under an Agency loan agreement, or litigation, or the settlement of claims arising out of such performance, costs or items to which an audit exception has been taken, shall be maintained and made available until three years after the date of resolution of such appeal, litigation, claim or exception. 7. Covenant Against Contingent Fees - The ENGINEER warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bonafide employees. For breach or violation of this warranty, the loan recipient shall have the right to annul this agreement without liability or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or 14 consideration or otherwise recover, the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. 8. Covenant Against Contingent Fees - The loan recipient warrants that no person or agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure a PWSLP loan upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Agency shall have the right to annul the loan or to deduct from the loan or otherwise recover, the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. 9. Certification Regarding Debarment – The ENGINEER certifies that the services of anyone that has been debarred or suspended under Federal Executive Order 12549 has not, and will not, be used for work under this Agreement. 10. Affirmative Action – The ENGINEER agrees to take affirmative steps to assure that disadvantaged business enterprises are utilized when possible as sources of supplies, equipment, construction and services in accordance with the Clean Water Loan Program rules. As required by the award conditions of USEPA's Assistance Agreement with IEPA, the ENGINEER acknowledges that the fair share percentages are 5% for MBEs and 12% for WBEs. 11. The ENGINEER shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 33 in the award and administration of contracts awarded under EPA financial assistance agreements. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract which may result in the termination of this contract or other legally available remedies. 15 EXHIBIT 2 THE LIMITATIONS OF AUTHORITY, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE RESIDENT CONSTRUCTION OBSERVER ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Resident Construction Observer shall act under the direct supervision of the ENGINEER, shall be the ENGINEER’s agent in all matters relating to on-site construction review of the contractor’s work, shall communicate only with the ENGINEER and the contractor (or contractor’s), and shall communicate with subcontractors only through the contractor or his authorized superintendent. The OWNER shall communicate with the Resident Construction Observer only through the ENGINEER. 2. The Resident Construction Observer shall review and inspect on-site construction activities of the contractor relating to portions of the Project designed and specified by the Engineer as contained in the Construction Contract Documents. 3. Specifically omitted from the Resident Construction Observer’s duties is any review of the contractor’s safety precautions, or the means, methods, sequences, or procedures required for the contractor to perform the work but not relating to the final or completed Project. Omitted design or review services include but are not limited to shoring, scaffolding, underpinning, temporary retainment of excavations and any erection methods and temporary bracing. 4. The specific duties and responsibilities of the Resident Construction Observer are enumerated as follows: (a) Schedules: Review the progress schedule, schedule of Shop Drawing submissions and schedule of values prepared by contractor and consult with ENGINEER concerning their acceptability. (b) Conferences: Attend preconstruction conferences. Arrange a schedule of progress meetings and other job conferences as required in consultation with ENGINEER and notify those expected to attend in advance. Attend meetings and maintain and circulate copies of minutes thereof. 16 (c) Liaison: (1) Serve as ENGINEER’s liaison with contractor, working principally through contractor’s superintendent and assist him in understanding the intent of the Contract Documents. (2) Assist ENGINEER in serving as OWNER’s liaison with contractor when contractor’s operations affect OWNER’s on-site operations. (3) As requested by ENGINEER, assist in obtaining from OWNER additional details or information, when required at the job site for proper erection of the work. (d) Shop Drawings and Samples: (2) Receive and record date of receipt of Shop Drawings and samples. (3) Receive samples which are furnished at the site by contrctor, and notify ENGINEER of their availability for examination. (3) Advise ENGINEER and contractor or its superintendent immediately of the commencement of any work requiring a Shop Drawing or sample submission if the submission has not been approved by ENGINEER. (e) Review of Work, Rejection of Defective Work, Inspections and Tests: (1) Conduct on-site inspection of the work in progress to assist ENGINEER in determining if the work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents and that completed work will conform to the Contract Documents. (2) Report to ENGINEER whenever he believes that any work is unsatisfactory, faulty or defective or does not conform to the Contract Documents, or does not meet the requirements of any inspections, test or approval required to be made or 17 has been damaged prior to final payment; and advise ENGINEER when he believes work should be corrected or rejected or should be uncovered for inspection, or requires special testing, inspection or approval. (3) Verify that tests, equipment and systems start-ups, and operating and maintenance instructions are conducted as required by the Contract Documents and in presence of the required personnel, and that contractor maintains adequate records thereof; observe, record and report to ENGINEER appropriate details relative to the test procedures and start-ups. (4) Accompany visiting inspectors representing public or other agencies having jurisdiction over the Project, record the outcome of these inspections and report to ENGINEER. (f) Interpretation of Contract Documents: Transmit to contractor ENGINEER’s clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents. (g) Modifications: Consider and evaluate contractor’s suggestions for modifications in Drawings or Specifications and report them with recommendations to ENGINEER. (h) Records: (1) Maintain at the job site orderly files for correspondence, reports of job conferences, Shop Drawings and samples submissions, reproductions of original Contract Documents including all addenda, change orders, field orders, additional drawings issued subsequent to the execution of the Contract, ENGINEER’s clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents, progress reports, and other Project related documents. (2) Keep a diary or log book, recording hours on the job site, weather conditions, data relative to questions of extras or deductions, list of visiting officials and representatives of manufacturers, fabricators, suppliers and distributors, daily 18 activities, decisions, observations in general and specific observations in more detail as in the case of observing test procedures. Send copies to ENGINEER. (4) Record names, addresses and telephone numbers of all contractor’s, subcontractors and major suppliers of materials and equipment. (i) Reports: (1) Furnish ENGINEER periodic reports as required of progress of the work and contractor’s compliance with the approved progress schedule and schedule of Shop Drawing submissions. (2) Consult with ENGINEER in advance of schedule major tests, inspections or start of important phases of the work. (3) Report immediately to ENGINEER upon the occurrence of any accident. (j) Payment Requisitions: Review applications for payment with contractor for compliance with the established procedure for their submission and forward them with recommendations to ENGINEER, noting particularly their relation to the schedule of values, work completed and materials and equipment delivered at the site but not incorporated in the work. (k) Certificates, Maintenance and Operating Manuals: During the course of the work, verify that certificates, maintenance and operation manuals and other data required to be assembled and furnished by contractor are applicable to the items actually installed; and deliver this material to ENGINEER for his review and forwarding to OWNER prior to final acceptance of the work. (l) Completion: (1) Before ENGINEER issues a Statement of Substantial Completion, submit to contractor a list of observed items requiring completion or correction. 19 (2) Conduct final review in the company of ENGINEER, OWNER and contractor and prepare a final list of items to be completed or corrected. (3) Verify that all items on final list have been completed or corrected and make recommendations to ENGINEER concerning acceptance. ENTITY:ADMIN. WORKPRINCIPAL SENIORSENIOR SENIOR SENIOR ITEM COSTWORKIN PROJECTPROJECT PROJECTPROJECT PROJECT PROJECT CAD PROJECT HOUR PERITEMCHARGE MANAGERENG. II ENG.MANAGER SURVEYOR I TECHNICIAN MANAGER TECHNICIAN ADMIN. SUMM. ITEMNO. WORK ITEM HOURLY RATE: $191 $185$155 $133$168 $145 $121 $168 $133 $80DESIGN ENGINEERING2.1 Project Management and Administration 1 8 - - - - - - - - 9 1,671$ 2.2 Project Meetings1 2 2 2 - - - - - - 7 1,137$ 2.3 Contract Documents 3 8 24 32 - - - - 6 2 75 10,987$ 2.4 Bidding and Contracting - 7 - 10 - - - - - 5 22 3,025$ Final Engineering Subtotal: 5 25 26 44 - - - - 6 7 113 16,820$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING3.1 Contract Administration5 17 - 16 - - - - - 3 41 6,468$ 3.2 Observation and Documentation4 11 - 72 - - - - - 3 90 12,615$ Construction Engineering Subtotal: 9 28 - 88 - - - - - 6 131 19,083$ PROJECT TOTAL: 14 53 26 132 - - - - 6 13 244 35,903 Printing = 250$ 34,065$ Legal Surveying = 5,000$ -$ Record Drawings = 5,000$ 798$ 500$ 1,040$ DIRECT EXPENSES = 10,750$ 35,903$ 46,653$ \\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\2017\YO1746-P Fountain Village-Completion of Improvements\PSA\[03. Exhibit 3 - Level of Effort.xlsx]Fee SummaryOctober 26, 2017ESTIMATE OF LEVEL OF EFFORT AND ASSOCIATED COST FORPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOREXHIBIT 3FOUNTAIN VILLAGE - COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTSUnited City of Yorkville, ILPROJECT ROLE:Surveying Expenses = Drafting Expenses = Administrative Expenses = TOTAL LABOR EXPENSES = TOTAL EXPENSES = ENGINEERING SURVEYING DRAFTINGEngineering Expenses = DIRECT EXPENSESLABOR SUMMARYCCDD Testing = WORKYear:ITEM Month:NO. WORK ITEM Week Starting: 12341234123412341234123412341234FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING2.1 Project Management and Administration2.2 Project Meetings2.3 Contract Documents2.4 Bidding and ContractingCONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING3.1 Contract Administration3.2 Observation and Documentation\\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\2017\YO1746-P Fountain Village-Completion of Improvements\PSA\[04. Exhibit 4 - Schedule.xls]ScheduleProject Management & Administration Bidding and ContractingMeetings Contract AdminstrationContract Documents ConstructionEXHIBIT 4ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULEFOUNTAIN VILLAGE - COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTSUnited City of Yorkville, ILOctober 26, 2017February March May2017 2018LegendJune JulyAprilDecember January JOB NO:YO1419-D PREPARED BY:NLS/BPS DATE:August 23, 2017 PROJECT TITLE:FOUNTAIN VILLAGE ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 LSUM 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2 LSUM 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 3 RE-PAINT FIRE HYDRANTS EACH 6 300.00$ 1,800.00$ 4 CB TA 4' DIA T11 F&G EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 5 INLETS TA T11 F&G EACH 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 6 FOOT 33 100.00$ 3,300.00$ 7 EACH 2 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 8 EACH 2 300.00$ 600.00$ 9 EACH 2 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 10 INSTALL, REINSTALL, OR REPAIR FILLETS IN STRUCTURE - STORM EACH 8 100.00$ 800.00$ 11 RESTRICTOR REPAIR LSUM 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 12 FRAME REPLACEMENT - STORM EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 13 PAVEMENT PATCHING SQ YD 10 150.00$ 1,500.00$ 14 RESTORATION - STORM LSUM 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 15 MISC. STORM SEWER REPAIRS EACH 10 500.00$ 5,000.00$ 16 STORM SEWER REMOVAL AND REPLACE FOOT 80 150.00$ 12,000.00$ 17 PIPE GROUTING - SANITARY LSUM 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 18 INSTALL TYPE III BARRICADES LSUM 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 19 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER REMOVAL FOOT 180 10.00$ 1,800.00$ 20 COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER FOOT 250 35.00$ 8,750.00$ 21 PAVEMENT MARKINGS, LETTER & SYMBOL SQ FT 62 10.00$ 620.00$ 22 PAVEMENT MARKINGS, 6"FOOT 92 5.00$ 460.00$ 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS, 24"FOOT 36 10.00$ 360.00$ 24 SIGNAGE EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 25 GUARDRAIL INSTALLATION LSUM 1 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 26 ADA RAMPS - NORTH ENTRANCE EACH 2 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 27 INSTALL REMAINING LANDSCAPING LSUM 1 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 28 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BASIN MAINTENANCE LSUM 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ SUB-TOTAL 176,990.00$ 10% CONTINGENCY 17,700.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE 194,690.00$ 273,348.00$ RESET FRAME - STORM STORM MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ITEM PREPARE RECORD DRAWINGS MISC. LEGAL SURVEYING STORM SEWER CL A2 12 STRUCTURE CLEANING - STORM G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1419-DG Fountain Village\Eng\PCE 2017-08-23 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #7 Tracking Number PW 2017-81 Potential 2018 KC-TAP Grant Application – Fox Road Multi-Use Path Public Works Committee - November 21, 2017 Majority Approval Consider KC-TAP Grant Application for the Fox Road Multi-Use Path to acquire Right-of-way and easements for the project. Erin Willrett Administration Name Department Summary The Kendall County Transportation Alternatives Program (KC-TAP) has allocated approximately $60,000 for this 2018 Program. This program was put together to encourage residents of Kendall County to use alternative modes of transportation, such as walking or riding bicycles. The Kendall County Board will select projects that are most consistent with the goal to reduce motor vehicle trips on the County Highway Network by promoting alternative modes of transportation. Projects can be funded up to 50% with KC-TAP funds with a total award limited to $50,000 per project. The projects must be located along State of County Highways in Kendall County. The applications must be received by December 31, 2017 to be eligible for the funding. The review and selection period will take place after that and the projects are expected to be announced by April 1st. Background Staff has identified Fox Road Multi-Use path as a potential project. This path would extend from IL 47 to Hoover Forest Preserve and the monies would be applied to right-of-way and easement acquisition to move forward with the path. This path would provide a safe route for cyclists and pedestrians to travel to and from the downtown area to City and County subdivisions without walking/biking on Fox Road that would eventually lead to Hoover Forest Preserve. This would also give pedestrians and cyclists a safe alternative to an on-street option. This would be the first leg of a very important regional trail. Hoover Forest Preserve is a regional destination. It is the home course for the Yorkville Foxes boys and girls cross country teams, a county wide outdoor education center and meeting center. In addition, the preserve has 400+ acres to explore along the Fox River. In the long term, this trail would bring the City’s regional trail system closer to the Eldamain Road Bridge project, which is expected to have its own trail system. It is expected that the Eldamain Rd Bridge project will bring the entire trail system very close to the Silver Springs State Park. This proposed path would provide a safe route for cyclists and pedestrians to travel to and from the downtown area to City and County subdivisions without walking/biking on Fox Road that would eventually lead to Hoover Forest Preserve. This trail would allow over 450 homes in the River’s Edge subdivision, White Oak, Fox Glen, Fox Lawn, and homes within the older downtown area of Yorkville, new access to the regional trail network. In the opposite direction, this trail would provide direct trail access to Hoover Forest Preserve’s trail system for the majority of the City. To acquire the right-of-way and easement for the project, it is estimated to cost $553,313. The KC-TAP grant request would be $50,000 with a remaining local responsibility (City) cost of $503,313. Staff is also applying for Illinois Transportation Enhancement Program (ITEP) grant funds for this potential project. The total cost of this project is approximately $2,534,000. ITEP is a Federal grant Memorandum To: Public Works Committee From: Erin Willrett, Assistant City Administrator CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: November 21, 2017 Subject: Potential 2018 KC-TAP Grant Application – Fox Road Multi- Use Path, Land Acquisition that will provide reimbursement up to 50 percent for right-of-way and easement acquisition costs, and up to 80 percent for preliminary engineering, utility relocations, construction engineering, and construction costs. The required for 20 percent or 50 percent local match is the responsibility of the project sponsor (City). The City is seeking $1,700,000 for this project through the ITEP grant application. The local share of the project ($850,000) will be the responsibility of the City ($725,000) and the County ($125,000). If the City were to receive KC-TAP grant funding and ITEP funding for this project, the monies would go toward the local share of the ITEP grant. If the City received the KC-TAP grant funding and did NOT receive the ITEP funding the City would use the KC-TAP grant to acquire the right-of-way necessary for a portion of the trail to connect the White Oak Subdivision to the existing sidewalk east of the subdivision. Staff would revise the cost estimate and submit it to Kendall County at that time. Kendall County staff has indicated that they would review a revision if the ITEP funding was not awarded to this project. Budget requests for the local share of the project would come back to the Committee and City Council for a future vote, once the funding has been announced by both Kendall County (KC-TAP grant) and IDOT (ITEP grant). Recommendation Staff recommends applying for ROW and/or easement acquisition for the 2018 KC-TAP Grant program for Fox Road Multi-Use Path project. KC‐TAP Grant, Application November 14, 2017 Erin Willrett Assistant City Administrator City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560  Location Map (Attached)  Concept Plan Exhibit w/ Typical Section (Attached)  Proof that the project is part of the local agency’s long‐range plan: The Fox Road Multi‐Use Path improvements will consist of constructing within existing right of way and acquired easements, a 2‐inch thick hot‐mix asphalt pavement upon an 8‐inch aggregate base, a box culvert or pedestrian bridge over an unnamed tributary crossing, signage, pavement markings, ADA detectable warning devices, erosion control, tree removal and replacement, landscaping, and restoration. For this grant, the City would be looking to help fun right‐of‐way and easement acquisition. Bicycle travel along Fox Road is currently ranked a Low D in cyclist comfort (A being highest level of comfort) according to the legend on the Kane/Kendall 2017‐18 Bicycle Map. This trail would increase bicycle comfort on a route that would lead to the trail along Illinois Route 47/Bridge Street and further north to the ITEP‐funded Kennedy Road Path (constructed 2017) as well as other local and regional trails. This would also be the first leg of a very important regional trail. Hoover Forest Preserve is a regional destination. It is the home course for the Yorkville High School boys and girls cross country teams, a county wide outdoor education center and meeting center. In addition, the preserve has 400+ acres to explore along the Fox River. The second link that this trail would offer would be the future Eldamain Road Bridge. The third and most important regional link would be the possible connection to Silver Springs State Park. If connected, it could be a regional destination for many to enjoy all that Silver Springs has to offer.  Construction Timeline (Attached)  Detailed Cost Estimate with Breakdown of Funding Sources (Attached) OrangeFoxWashingtonSchoolhouseKellyMorganNorwayKingFox Gl e n WalshBirchChurchBurningBushCedarBridgeSharonMorganGardenAaronCenterFirFox GlenMadisonBellMainVanEmmonMainStateJeffersonWhi t e Oak C o r n e r s t o n eMainPoplarMadisonHydraulic TommyHughesRidgeGreenBriarWhiteOakColumbineRedhorseBlaineTylerCreek HillsideBuckthornSunflowerMain PineStateAdrianDolphBeecherP a v i l l i o nHeustisColton RiverRiverBirchHickorySpruceHillviewWalshStagecoachWolfHighviewWashingtonStagecoachBeaverWi n d ham LakesideHighviewMapleWa ln u t WatercressHydraulicChallyWalshKellyStonyCreekRiverBirchFoxGlenAsterNorwayBadgerWood SageSaravanosFoxHi ghpointElizabeth Blackhawk Spri ngs For d EldamainMitchelColonialBarberryGardenPolo ClubWillow SpringsSchaefer Red Gate HighpointLegendFuture County Shared Use Path (Eldamain Rd)Proposed Shared Use PathFuture City Shared Use PathYorkville TrailsCity Owned/Maintained AsphaltIn Developer PUD AgreementProposed ConceptualMap produced by United City of Yorkville GISOswego Trail Data provided by Oswegoland Park DistrictSilver Springs State ParkRiver's EdgeHoover Forest PreserveEngineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, Illinois 60554(630) 466-6700 / www.eeiweb.conLOCATION MAPDATE:NOVEMBER 2017United City of Yorkville800 Game Farm RoadYorkville, IL 60560(630) 553-4350http://www.yorkville.il.us2018 ITEP APPLICATIONFOX ROAD SHARED USE PATHUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLEKENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOISCONSULTING ENGINEERSNO. DATE REVISIONSPROJECT NO.:YO1636PATH:H:/GIS/PUBLIC/YORKVILLE/2016/YO1636YO1636_FOX ROAD SHARED USE PATH.MXDFILE:fffääNORTHSubatForest PreserveWhite Oak EstatesRice ParkDowntown BusinessesJames E. PriceParkGreenbriarGilbertParkYorkvilleIntermediate SchoolPavillion HeightsFOX RIVER4771126 Fox RdRiver RdS B r i d g e S tW Fox StP o p l a r D r Hale StW a l s hDrMill StPavillion RdSchaefer RdW River StState StW H i g h p o i n t R dS Main StIllinoisRoute#71StagecoachTrlDeerStHillside DrHeustis StKing StR e d G ate Ln F o rdD rEldamain RdGreen Briar RdBeaver StW Center StW Ridge StHighviewDrN Bridge StMorgan StKellyAveChurch StMitchel DrPoloClubDrAdrian StW Somonauk StFox CtColton StW Madison StE Orange StWalsh CirE H i g h p o i n t R dSchoolhouse RdBlaine StWhiteOakWayElizabeth StColonialPkwyWindhamCirB a d g e r S tGarden StE Main StRiver Birch DrW B a r b e rryCirWolf StNorway CirA s t e r D rE Washington StW Van Emmon StBonnie LnR e d h o r s e L n B l a c k h a w k S p r i n g sE Van Emmon StEBarberryCirW a ln u t D rS a ravanosDrE Hydraulic AveWatercress RdFoxGlenDrWCornersto n e DrStony Creek LnC o r a l b e r r y C t Pine CtG a r d enCirW Hydraulic AveW Dolph StFir CtBell StG l e n N e l s o n D r E Cedar CtW Birch CtBuckthorn CtIllinois Route #71Engineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, Illinois 60554(630) 466-6700UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE2018 ITEP APPLICATIONFOX ROAD SHARED USE PATH www.eeiweb.comDATEDATE:PROJECT NO.:FILE:PATH:BY:NOVEMBER 2017YO1736YO1736_2018 ITEP AppH:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2017\MJTNO.REVISIONS³United City of Yorkville800 Game Farm RoadYorkville, IL 60560630-553-4350www.yorkville.il.us1,400 0 1,400700 FeetHOOVER FOREST PRESERVELegendFuture County Shared Use Path (Eldamain Rd)Future City Shared Use PathProposed Shared Use PathExisting City Owned/Maintained AsphaltExisting County TrailSILVER SPRINGSSTATE PARK8,350 FTFOX RIVER4771126 Task Description Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul TAP and ITEP Grant Announcement Dates Engineering Agreements Executed Phase I Preliminary Engineering/PDR Phase I Design Approval Plats and Legal Descriptions IDOT Review and Approval Appraisals & Review Appraisals IDOT Review and Approval Negotiations IDOT Review ROW Certification Engineering Key Dates Agency Review ROW Acquisition Phase I Preliminary Engineering/PDR and Phase I Design Approval shown for information and reference for timing of land acquisition activities. 2018 2020 Kendall County 2019 Land Acquisition Project Schedule Fox Road Multi-Use Path United City of Yorkville JOB NO:YO1736-C DESIGNED:CCJ DATE:November 14, 2017 PROJECT TITLE:Fox Road Multi-Use Path ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 SF 59,250 10.00$ 592,500.00$ 2 SF 50,625 5.00$ 253,125.00$ 3 EA 29 2,500.00$ 72,500.00$ 4 EA 29 2,000.00$ 58,000.00$ 5 EA 29 1,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 6 EA 29 3,500.00$ 101,500.00$ 7 -$ 8 -$ 9 -$ 10 -$ 11 -$ 12 -$ 13 -$ 14 -$ 15 -$ 16 -$ 17 -$ 18 -$ 19 -$ 20 -$ 21 -$ 22 23 24 25 26 27 -$ 28 -$ SUBTOTAL LAND ACQUISITION COSTS 1,106,625.00$ TOTAL ITEP 2018 GRANT REQUEST 553,312.50$ TOTAL LOCAL SHARE 553,312.50$ KC - TAP 2018 GRANT REQUEST 50,000.00$ REMAINING LOCAL PARTICIPATION 503,312.50$ PARCEL REVIEW APPRAISAL PARCEL NEGOTIATIONS Preliminary Cost Estimate - Land Acquisition along Fox Road - IL 47 to Hoover Forest Preserve ITEM RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION PERMANENT EASEMENT ACQUISITION PARCEL PLAT OF HIGHWAY/TITLE PARCEL APPRAISAL Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #8 Tracking Number PW 2017-82 Mill Street Parking Public Works Committee – November 21, 2017 N/A Majority Approval See attached memo. Bart Olson Administration Name Department Summary Review of parking restrictions on Mill St. This item was requested by Alderman Frieders, based on an observation from Alderwoman Milschewski. Background The City passed a parking restriction on both sides of Mill Street between Fox St and Van Emmon Rd in 2008. This parking restriction was put in place because of the narrow roadway, street slope, and location of the roadway, sidewalk, and parkway within the right-of-way. In short, the right- of-way is somewhat narrow (50’) and the location of the roadway within the right-of-way makes the eastern edge of the right-of-way very close to the back of curb. There is not room within the right-of- way or actual roadway to accommodate on-street parking. The 2008 parking restriction on Mill Street is captured within City Code section 6-2-2. The language of the restriction is different than most other street language in that the code specifically restricts parking “on the paved/hard surface” on both sides of the street. The phrase “on the paved/hard surface” is not used elsewhere in the code, and the implication is that it might be ok to park on the grassy area adjacent to the roadway During a discussion about street parking in this area, related to festivals, Alderwoman Milschewski posed the question as to whether it was ok for residents along this stretch of Mill Street to park on the grassy parkway. Parking within an unpaved area or a parkway is prohibited in two sections of the City Code. Section 6-2-3D1 makes it clear that all parking is prohibited on all City parkways at all times. The zoning code also includes further clarification in 10-16-3D5 that all open off street parking areas shall be improved with pavement. These two sections address safe traffic flow (6-2-3D1) and avoiding environmental issues from leaking fluid (10-16-3D5). As part of the request to look at the parking restrictions and the current, infrequent practice of parking within the parkway, we polled the Police Department executive staff, Public Works Director, Community Development Director, and City Engineer. Each staff member did not recommend either changing the on-street parking restriction or allowing off-street/parkway parking. Recommendation Staff feels the language of the code relating to Mill St and the signage on Mill St inappropriately communicates that parking within the non-paved areas on Mill St is allowed. We would seek to have the sign changed to communicate a more simple “no parking” law. To the extent that the City Attorney feels this must be matched with a City Code amendment, we would submit that at a future meeting. Memorandum To: Public Works Committee From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: Date: November 14, 2017 Subject: Mill St Parking 6-2-2: PARKING PROHIBITED ON DESIGNATED STREETS: MILL STREET A "no parking" zone on the paved/hard surface on both sides of Mill Street between Van Emmon Road and Fox Street in Yorkville. The public works department is directed to prepare and install "No Parking" signs at this location. (Ord. 2008-74, 8-26-2008) 6-2-3: ADDITIONAL PARKING PROHIBITIONS: D. City Parkways: 1. Prohibited Parking Areas Described: Parking shall be prohibited on all city parkways in the area between the curb and sidewalk area at all times. 2. Right To Tow Any Vehicle: The city shall be allowed the right to tow any vehicle from said "no parking" zones that is parked in violation thereof, and assess to the owner or driver of said vehicle, any and all reasonable towing charges as are billed to the city. (Ord. 2008-74, 8-26- 2008) 10-16-3: OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS: D. Design Standards: 5. Surfacing: All open off street parking areas shall be improved with a pavement meeting state of Illinois standard A-3 or equivalent. Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Agenda Item Number New Business #9 Tracking Number PW 2017-83 Traffic Control Signs – Heustis / Van Emmon Public Works Committee – November 21, 2017 Majority Approval Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department As requested, we investigated the safety concerns at the intersection of Van Emmon Street and Heustis Street. Our findings were as follows:  Currently there are stop signs at the approaches on Van Emmon Street.  The intersection does appear to have sight distance constraints on all of the corners of the intersection.  The governing entity on traffic control signage is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The manual states as follows in regards to stop sign installation: Guidance: Engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following factors should be considered: A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches; B. Number and angle of approaches; C. Approach speeds; D. Sight distance available on each approach; and E. Reported crash experience. YIELD or STOP signs should be used at an intersection if one or more of the following conditions exist: A. An intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and/or C. An unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following conditions exist: A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day; B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of- way at the intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Yield or Stop signs should not be used for speed control. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: November 8, 2017 Subject: Van Emmon Street and Heustis Street Since the traffic volume is above 2,000 units per day and there are sight distance constraints at the intersection, the intersection is a good candidate for a two-way intersection control. Exhibit A shows that the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for Van Emmon Street is 5 times what the ADT for Heustis Street. Exhibit B shows that Van Emmon Street is classified as a Major Collector and Heustis Street is a local road. Therefore, Van Emmon Street is the major road so the two-way stop signs should be placed on Heustis Street. Otherwise, the stop signs on Van Emmon Street confuse drivers because they have an expectation that drivers should be stopping on the minor street too. The MUTCD states as follows in regards to multi-way stop sign installation: Guidance: The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study. The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but 3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Option: Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection Due to the sight distance constraints at the intersection, a case could be made for multi-way stop control. The sight distance constraints are shown in Exhibit C. In the southeast corner of the intersection, there is a retaining wall and parking. The northeast corner of the intersection contains overgrown brush and two (2) power poles. The northwest corner has a building, large sign, and wall restricting the sight distance. And the southwest corner of the intersection has a reduced sight distance triangle because of a hill. However, the sight distance constraints do not seem to be so restrictive that all four directions would need to stop. It is our understanding that a big concern is sliding through the intersection traveling northbound on Heustis Street during wet or icy conditions. However, wet or icy conditions only accounts for a small portion of time throughout the year. About half of the crashes (6 out of 13) that have occurred at the intersection over the last 7 years have occurred because of driver confusion on Van Emmon Street, failing to stop at the stop signs or yield to vehicles traveling on Heustis Street. See Table 1 below for the crash summary. Table 1. Crash Summary for Van Emmon Street and Heustis Street, 2010-2017 Accident Date Accident Time Description 9/11/2010 10:00 A.M. Driver 1 and Driver 2 were traveling NB on Heustis. Driver 2 reduced speed and Driver 1 did not and rear-ended Driver 2. 2/28/2011 6:59 A. M. Driver 1 was traveling SB on Heustis and made a left turn onto Van Emmon striking Driver 2, who was stopped in the WB approach. 5/13/2011 3:10 P.M. Driver 1 traveling EB on Van Emmon struck Driver 2 traveling NB on Heustis. Not clear if Driver 1 failed to stop at the stop sign or failed to yield to Driver 2. 10/22/2011 1:12 P.M. Driver 1 and Driver 2 were traveling NB on Heustis. Driver 2 attempted to turn EB onto Van Emmon and was struck by Driver 1. 5/28/2012 4:05 P.M. Driver 1, traveling WB on Van Emmon, failed to see Driver 2 traveling SB on Heustis and struck Driver 2. 3/2/2013 3:20 P.M. Driver 1, traveling WB on Van Emmon, failed to yield to Driver 2 traveling SB on Heustis and struck Driver 2. 7/28/2013 10:34 A.M. Driver 1 was traveling WB on Van Emmon, failed to stop at the stop sign, and struck Driver 2 traveling NB on Heustis. 11/6/2013 2:20 P.M. Driver 1 was traveling NB on Heustis and slid into the power pole on the NE corner of the intersection while attempting to make a right turn. 1/27/2014 11:27 A.M. Driver 1 was traveling NB on Heustis and slid into the stop sign on the NE corner of the intersection while attempting to make a right turn. 4/16/2014 7:22 A.M. Driver 1, traveling EB on Van Emmon, failed to yield to Driver 2 traveling NB on Heustis, and Driver 2 struck Driver 1. 3/30/2015 Unknown Patrolling officer found fire hydrant and mailboxes in front of 202 E. Van Emmon Street were struck and broken. No cars present. 7/8/2015 7:00 P.M. Driver 1, traveling EB on Van Emmon, failed to yield to Driver 2 traveling SB on Heustis and struck Driver 2. 1/10/2017 10:33 A.M. Driver 1 traveling WB on Van Emmon tried to stop but slid into Driver 2 traveling NB on Heustis. To elaborate on the snow/ice procedures in this area, Eric adds the following: Brine is applied before each event as an anti-icing agent if conditions are right. The right conditions generally are:  Roadways are dry  No rain forecasted for the next 24 hours  Forecasted low temperatures are between 20-35 degrees Fahrenheit, or there is sufficient time for the pavement to dry before the temperature falls below 20 degrees Fahrenheit.  Blowing snow is not anticipated Route 7S is responsible for the area immediately south of the river to Elizabeth Street and to the east and west borders of the city. The first streets that are plowed on this route are Mill, Heustis, S. Main, State, Adams, and Morgan. In this process, most of Hydraulic is plowed as well. Salt that is pre-wet with brine is used on the hills and around the school each time the truck clears the street. How soon the hills get salted or plowed after the first snowflake varies each and every storm. Public works goal is to keep the hills free or as close to free as possible of accumulating snow throughout the entire snow event. During some events that may mean five (5) minutes after the first snowflake if we were not able to apply brine before the event and we know that we are expecting more than an inch of snow. Whereas if we are able to pre-treat the roads and are expecting a dusting to an inch of snow, we may not need to start operations until the storm has passed which could be hours. It is our understanding from conversations with Septran, that most buses do not go down the hill on Heustis as they use Fox to get to the Rt 47. They also indicated that if necessary, none of the buses have to go down the hill, as they can be advised to use Fox. In summary, based on everything presented earlier in this memo, our recommendation is to remove the stop signs from Van Emmon Street and relocated to the Heustis Street approaches. 9/21/2017 Illinois Department of Transportation https://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/gai.htm?mt=fc#1/1 Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764 - Contact Disclaimer The Illinois Department of Transportation and the State of Illinois hereby give notice to all users that these maps and the data included hereon, lack the accuracy required for site-specific uses. Since all boundaries and all data are based on information derived from multiple sources within and outside the Transportation and the State of Illinois make no representation, guarantee, or warrant, either express or implied, regarding the accuracy of these maps or the data furnished thereon, including, but not limited to, the condition of this product, this product's merchantability, or this product's fitness for any particular purpose or use. Map Type Base Map Other Links Full Extent Help Print Map Illinois Department of Transportation Randall S. Blankenhorn, Secretary 9/21/2017 Yorkville - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/place/Yorkville,+IL/@41.6412648,-88.4444578,305m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x880eea4e4c92e9e5:0xe5738afb676f983!8m2!3d41.6411409!4d-88.4472948 1/1 Imagery ©2017 Google, Map data ©2017 Google United States 100 ft Yorkville 1 APPROVED W/ CORRECTIONS 10/18/11 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING City Hall, Conference Room Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Alderman George Gilson Alderman Diane Teeling Alderman Jackie Milschewski Alderman Larry Kot OTHER CITY OFFICALS PRESENT Eric Dhuse – Public Works Director Brad Sanderson – EEI Members of the Public: Todd Vandermyde The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Citizen Comments: Mr. Todd Vandermyde spoke to the Committee about the problems he has had trying to put in a pool and put up a shed. He stated that the applications for permits do not explain well what is needed. He stated that on the permit for the shed it does not explain to your how many feet things need to be place etc. Mr. Vandermyde stated that he has a space constraint problem and after two years of going back and forth, finally, he was told if it is drywall inside then the setback is not an issue. Mr. Vandermyde stated it would make sense that these things would be on the application. Mr. Vandermyde said that most of this information is not included in the kit or permits. Chair Gilson stated that the city has hired someone who is very knowledgeable in codes. Mr. Vandermyde stated that the new person is great. Again, Mr. Vandermyde stated that this information is not in the permits. Mr. Vandermyde stated that a lot of time is wasted by having to get these questions answered along the way. The Committee was in agreement on this topic. The Committee agreed that these things need to be 2 looked at and revisited. Minutes for Correction/Approval: The minutes for the August 16, 2011 meeting were unanimously approved. New Business: 1. PW 2011-57 Weed Violations, Minimum Fees and Prepay – Director Dhuse stated that grouping the weed violations together and going through one committee instead of having them in several places will work better. The Administration will handle the minimum fines and it will stay all together. Chair Gilson asked if this was talked about. Director Dhuse said it was talked about at a staff level coming from certain dollars a day for base mowing charge. Alderman Kot asked what the issue was with going through different committees. Director Dhuse stated that mowing would have to come to us, then curfew could have been somewhere else because it is more than just property maintenance. Alderman Teeling asked if there is a minimum fee on weeds. Director Dhuse stated there is not a minimum fee. It was decided all violations will be through Administration. 2. 2011-58 Traffic Control Signs on Van Emmon and Heustis and Mill Street – Director Dhuse stated that he did get an e-mail from a concerned resident who lives at Van Emmon and Mill and stated that she and her son have almost been hit there and there was an accident there on Sunday. Brad Sanderson from EEI stated that there is a history at that intersection and some recent history. Mr. Sanderson stated that they used Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and evaluated those two intersections and there are a number of issues with both intersections. Mr. Sanderson stated that there are YIELD signs now at Mill Street and he stated that it would make sense to put a STOP sign there. Mr. Sanderson stated there is a fairly significant sight distance issue when you head north bound and a wall and you need to creep out pretty far to see traffic. Mr. Sanderson stated that Heustis has a history of bus traffic and Van Emmon is the more heavily traveled street. Mr. Sanderson stated that there is probably some general confusion because there is a YIELD on one street and a through street on another. Mr. Sanderson stated that for example, if you take the STOP signs off of Van Emmon that would not work unless you take away the sight distance issues. Chair Gilson asked if the volume is more than 2,000 cars per day. Mr. Sanderson said they did not have time to evaluate that. Director Dhuse stated that with the accident history it does not need to be done. Director Dhuse said that there were six accidents on Heustis in the last five years and 11 on Mill Street in the last five years. Mr. Sanderson stated a total of 30 accidents since 1991. Alderman Teeling stated that this is a dangerous intersection all together and because of the hill, people have a hard time stopping in the winter time. Alderman Milschewski stated that she lives on Heustis and she pulled the minutes from 2009 when this was discussed and several of the residents came and voiced their concerns. Alderman Milschewski stated that she talked to Septran and they stated to leave it the way it is or they would support a four way. Chair Gilson asked if it would be better with a four way so if they slide, the traffic is stopped. Alderman Milschewski stated that she does support a STOP sign and not a YIELD sign because it doesn't work given the fact you cannot see because it is overgrown. Director Dhuse stated that this change will be for those that are not as familiar with this intersection. Mr. Sanderson stated that a four 3 way STOP is the recommendation. Chair Gilson asked if there is support from Committee of putting a four way STOP and see how it goes. Alderman Milschewski stated that the properties need to be cleaned up. Chair Gilson stated that is in process and should be taken care of soon. Chair Gilson stated the inspector has been down there. Alderman Kot stated that these two intersections have had the most discussion in this town. Alderman Kot stated that he believes that we should leave Heustis alone. Alderman Kot asked about speed bumps or other options. Director Dhuse stated that would not work in this particular situation. Alderman Kot stated that he is for a STOP sign at Mill Street. Alderman Milschewski agreed. Director Dhuse stated that this is based on the accident history from reports from the people who live there. Alderman Teeling stated that this is the second time since she has been on council this issue has come up and she asked if we don't do anything, is the city liable. Director Dhuse stated the city is not liable. The Committee agreed to a STOP sign at the intersection of Mill Street and Van Emmon and to leave the Heustis and Van Emmon intersection alone. Chair Gilson stated that this will go to council for approval. 3. PW 2011-59 Windett Ridge Outfall Restrictor Plate Size Study – Brad Sanderson, EEI stated that they were asked to take another look at the detention basin and down stream property issue. There were previous e-mails on this topic and they were asked to take a look at it again. Mr. Cooper had some ongoing issues with his property and some blowouts with field tile. Mr. Sanderson stated that at the time there was a recommendation to adjust the restrictor plate and take advantage of some additional storage in the detention facility in the south part of Windett Ridge. Mr. Sanderson stated that it is possible to take advantage of that and have water in the retention base for a longer period of time. Mr. Sanderson stated that is you add the restrictor plate, you will still have the nuisance flows because it is being released at a slower rate. Mr. Sanderson stated there were comments about tying some of the discharge into a field tile, which is done. Mr. Sanderson stated there are concerns with that because typically field tiles can't handle the amount of storm water. You have to reduce that, so that there is not an over burden on the existing tile. Mr. Sanderson stated that there would need to be modifications. He stated that the condition of the tiles needs to be checked so that it is not problematic. Mr. Sanderson stated that there is always future maintenance and the issue will be who will pay for modifications and things like that. Mr. Sanderson stated that we need to meet with the property owner and discuss how it is to be paid for etc. Chair Gilson stated that he put this on the items because this is a hot topic among the residents there. Chair Gilson stated that the HOA has taken over from the developer. Chair Gilson stated that they have never received a solid answer as to who is responsible for this restrictor plate. Chair Gilson stated that from what Joe said, it is the opposite opinion of what you are saying now, which is that is should be left alone. It was stated that there was not a change in flow. Mr. Sanderson stated that he was asked to review Joe's memo and we just pointed out concerns that you may have. Director Dhuse stated that there is a big determination if the tile is in good shape or not. Chair Gilson stated that he doesn't feel we should get involved in that. Mr. Sanderson said that there is no doubt that the peak flows have been cut in half. Mr. Sanderson agreed the typical problem with detention basins is there is more volume so more water is created and they are released at a longer time period and you have nuisance flows on neighboring properties. Mr. Sanderson stated the plans, at the time they were 4 approved, were installed appropriately. Chair Gilson stated that is a wet area and this is getting us involved in property that we shouldn't be involved with. Chair Gilson stated that his opinion, despite Mr. Cooper's concern, is that we should not do anything with this. Mr. Sanderson stated that it is functioning properly. Mr. Sanderson stated that if the plate is adjusted, there will be more maintenance issues. The Committee decided to leave this issue alone. Old Business: 1. PW 2011-52 Yield Signs – Sunnydell Lane and Greenfield Turn – Brad Sanderson, EEI, stated that at the last committee meeting there was a lot of discussion on this topic and it was decided to go and take a look at the sight distance and the MUTCD standards. Mr. Sanderson stated that the traffic volume is much less than 2,000 cars per day. Mr. Sanderson stated there is not an accident history at this intersection. Mr. Sanderson stated that typically YIELD signs are not used to signify pedestrians. Mr. Sanderson stated that for pedestrian crossings there is usually a painted crosswalk and then there is a maintenance issue. He stated there is missing sidewalk on one side too. The Committee stated that other places within that subdivision they have playground ahead signs. Director Dhuse stated that is because this road does not directly connect to the park. Mr. Sanderson said the sight distance issue is because this road does not directly connect to the park. Mr. Sanderson said the sight distance issue is the main potential issue on Greenfield north bound and south bound. North bound the stopping sight distance is 140 feet and it is clear visibility. Mr. Sanderson agreed that is not an issue and it is the same heading north bound. He stated that the stopping sight distance seems more than adequate. Mr. Sanderson stated that he didn't see anything that would inhibit seeing that would be an issue. Chair Gilson stated that the residents think this is a problem and he feels that something needs to be done. Chair Gilson said if the residents are concerned, he feels they are a better judge of this situation. Director Dhuse stated at the same time, we just turned one request down that had six accidents in the last five years. Director Dhuse stated that he thinks this is a feel good issue and it will open Pandora's Box because everyone that hears about this will want something at their street. Director Dhuse stated this is a very lightly traveled road. Director Dhuse stated that if we put signs everywhere, it becomes sign pollution. Chair Gilson stated that he believes this is our duty to look at how they feel and do whatever we can do as their representatives. Alderman Milschewski stated there are not even sidewalks on all sides of the intersection. Mr. Sanderson stated that YIELD signs are not appropriate here. He stated that a crosswalk sign is more appropriate. Mr. Sanderson stated that signage is not necessary at all. Chair Gilson stated that he doesn't see the harm in putting a sign here and said that we can take each case as they come. Alderman Teeling stated that we have turned down other requests. Alderman Kot stated that he sees where Chair Gilson is coming from. Director Dhuse stated that we cannot afford to put signs everywhere at a $100.00 per sign and every 12 years replacing them. Mr. Sanderson stated there would be two signs one northbound and one southbound on Greenfield Turn. Alderman Kot stated that residents voiced their opinion and think this is a problem. Alderman Kot stated that we have to look at each situation on an individual basis. Director Dhuse stated that the W15-1 sign would be the best option. Chair Gilson said that he believes this is warranted because there are many residents that have concerns. Alderman Milschewski stated that she doesn't see a need for signs there, but she understands where Chair Gilson is coming from. Alderman Kot stated that he is in favor of the signs. Chair Gilson stated that we will address other 5 concerns as they come in the future. Alderman Kot asked if we have talked to the Police Department about enforcement in the area. Alderman Teeling asked if we every put a speed trailer out there. Director Dhuse stated they did talk to the Police Department. Alderman Teeling stated that she thinks a detail would be a good thing to do. The Committee agreed to put up the W15-1 sign up without painting a crosswalk. 2. PW 2011-56 Pavement Management Study – Brad Sanderson, EEI, stated at the last committee meeting they presented on overall power point and were asked to put a proposal together. He stated that they teamed up with IMS that drives the roads in a van and by laser technology take readings of the roads in the city. Mr. Sanderson said then they would take that information and create a five year program for the city and make presentations to the committee and city council. Alderman Milschewski stated the cost at $103,000. Mr. Sanderson stated that is the cost of both companies services IMS costs are around $78,000. Director Dhuse stated that the traffic sign data gathering is in there to see if you want to add this to the bid or not, it is part of the $103,000. Director Dhuse stated that is something he asked for because we do not have the technology to do it and it has to be done. Alderman Teeling asked the cost for that and it was stated as $24,000. Alderman Teeling stated that she believes that is the only one we should do. Alderman Milschewski asked where the funds are coming from. Chair Gilson stated that we don't have the funds and we have talked about coordinating this with sewer repair and we are jumping the gun here. Alderman Kot stated that everyone wants their roads fixed. Chair Gilson stated that he feels that we are moving in the right direction and he stated that we know what roads are in the most need. The Committee discussed the sewers and the need to repair those. Director Dhuse stated that is a very small area that need repaired and it will be expensive, but not the whole town. Alderman Teeling stated that the YBSD survey was a lot of money. Chair Gilson stated that we have been putting off the sewers too. Chair Gilson asked why pay $103,000 now for something that we don't have the money to act upon. Alderman Kot stated that it is a great idea and it is something that we keep in mind if there is extra money in budget at the end of the year.. Alderman Kot stated that he feels that it is very important to fix the streets. Chair Gilson agreed. Alderman Milschewski stated that she feels that it is important to have something to build off of to keep this going. Alderman Milschewski stated that when she campaigned that is what the biggest complaint was the condition of the roads. Alderman Kot asked if we are to do this, how much work is it to keep it updated until we get the funding. Mr. Sanderson stated it is usually about every three to four years to update it, it is not ideal, but to be conservative with funds, there are multiple options. Chair Gilson asked if there are any additional costs on top of the $103,000. Mr. Sanderson said all fees are included in that figure. Alderman Milschewski stated that she would like Administrator Olson to let them know if there will be any available funding. Chair Gilson stated that it is a matter of priority. Alderman Milschewski stated that something has to be done and it cannot be forgotten the roads are falling apart. Director Dhuse stated that the committee all like this idea, but for budgetary reasons don't feel the timing is right. Alderman Teeling stated that if we do come up with money right now, we should use the money to fix roads instead of paying for the planning survey. Alderman Milschewski stated that if this was proposed to the residents they would be for it. Chair Gilson said true, until we tell them there is no funding. Alderman Kot stated that we have never had a good maintenance program in place, which is needed. Alderman Kot stated that we have to plan for this and it needs to happen. There was discussion about the roads needing to be fixed, but do we spend $103,000. Director Dhuse stated that prioritizing which roads to fix first would be taken care 6 of by this study and take the human element out of it. Mr. Sanderson stated that this is a management program, which is managing your assets and it is not just about what streets need repair. Mr. Sanderson stated that it will extend the life of pavements beyond the 15 years typically by crack sealing to get 20- 25 years out of it. Mr. Sanderson stated that it is more than just identifying bad roads, it is trying to extend the life on the streets to avoid reconstructing the roads. Alderman Teeling stated that she understands, but how much does that cost. Mr. Sanderson said the crack sealing is relatively cheap. Alderman Teeling stated then why don't we inspect some of the roads and use the money to do that kind of maintenance. Director Dhuse stated that so many roads are past crack sealing and he stated that is where this management program comes in. Chair Gilson stated that no one disagrees there is value to this program. Chair Gilson suggested that we bring this back next month with Bart Olson in attendance. The Committee was in agreement. 3. PW 2011-47 Flooding Issues in Sunflower Estates – Update – Alderman Teeling asked if this was the topic that needed a storm sewer and if this was the cost of doing it ourselves. Director Dhuse stated that he wanted to show that goes into the cost per foot and it is a cost most people don't see. Director Dhuse said to keep in mind that we have to add this into that. It will be close to the $100,000 cost. Director Dhuse stated that doesn't include the tree or concrete removal. Director Dhuse stated that when he gets the costs for the pipe he can bring it back to the committee. Director Dhuse said that his crew is capable to install this, but it will take the crew a couple weeks and the other projects will not be done during that time. Chair Gilson stated that people are getting flooded and residents are upset and we need to justify if we don't have the funds. Committee agreed to bring this back again in October. 4. PW 2011-48 Road Maintenance on Tommy Hughes Way Saravanos Dr. - Update - Director Dhuse stated that the road work is complete. Alderman Kot stated that it looked really good. Chair Gilson stated that we asked staff to talk to Shell and Tommy Hughes since it is a private agreement, when they are going to repair that road, if they let trucks park there, and when that will be done. Chair Gilson would like to have an answer on that question. 5. PW 2011-31 Kendall Marketplace Development/Infrastructure – Update – Mr. Sanderson, EEI, stated that they received bids. Mr. Sanderson stated that they recommend awarding the bid to Wilkinson for the amount of $87,041.50. Alderman Kot asked why they are so much less than other bids. Mr. Sanderson stated that he is not sure, but he has never had any issue in the past with Wilkinson they have a good history to work with. The Committee agreed to give bid to Wilkinson. 6. PW 2011-52 Windett Ridge Mowing Update – Chair Gilson stated that he asked for this item to be added. The HOA wants to know when we are going to act on this. Chair Gilson stated that Bart Olson stated in an e-mail that October 3, 2011 is the compliance date it will be 30 days from that, but Chair Gilson wants to make sure that this is the right information. Additional Business: Alderman Teeling asked about a road in the Colonies in East Millbrook Circle. She stated that she believed that we decided against the entire thing. Director Dhuse stated the signs were put up there. Alderman Teeling stated that was a mistake from a miscommunication. Chair Gilson stated that he believes that she is correct. Director Dhuse stated he will check into it. Alderman Kot said that Comed has had some outages. Alderman Kot stated that he brought this to Bart 7 Olson's attention and he contacted Comed. Alderman Kot sent an e-mail to Comed to find out the issue. Director Dhuse stated that we have been talking to Comed for three years and had a claim with them at the Rec Center. Alderman Milschewski stated that Bart Olson was working on it and he stated that Comed stated their system doesn't have a digital capability to tell us where the problem is. Comed stated that it can be a tedious problem to figure out and stated that is why a smart grid would be a good thing. Alderman Milschewski stated that whenever there are power outages, people need to call them every time and report it as an outage and then it is easier to pinpoint the problem. Alderman Kot asked about the Route 47 crosswalk. Director Dhuse updated that Matt talked to IDOT and gave them the proposal of the signs, walk arrows and drawings. IDOT is talking about what they want to do. Alderman Kot asked if he has any idea when he will receive an answer. Director Dhuse said no. Alderman Kot said we went from having signs up every day to nothing up at all. Alderman Kot stated that even the stripes can't be seen in a lot of places and kids stand and wait trying to cross coming home from school. Alderman Kot asked about at least re-striping the road. Chair Gilson asked about doing something temporarily. Director Dhuse stated that can't be done because we have to get permission from the state. Alderman Kot stated that even if we went with what the new proposal there would be one at Hydraulic and one at Main it would be a good thing. Alderman Kot stated that he believes that this needs to be a priority. Alderman Milschewski asked about the roads in the old Countryside. Director Dhuse stated that is private so we cannot do anything. Chair Gilson stated that if there is anything the Committee wants to add to the agenda for the meetings, please call and let him know and he will add it. There being no further business, the Committee adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Minutes Respectfully Submitted by: Lisa Godwin Minute Taker The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council -September 8, 2009 -page 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT Director Miller reported that the tree survey is underway aud people will be collecting data of trees planted in the parkways with GPS equipment. COMMUNITY RELATIONS OFFICER'S REPORT Mrs. Spies reported on the following: • Patriots Walk will be held September 11, 2009 beginning at City Hall at 6:00 p.m. aud proceeding to Town Square Park where the American Legion aud Boys Scouts will hold services. • A rain garden will be planted at the Rec Center on September 24, 2009 at 9:00. She is still looking for volunteers. • The Human Resource Commission is still looking for nominations for Volunteer of the Year. Anyone interested in nominating someone should contact her. • A presentation ofEcomagination Housing will be made at the Green Committee's September 28, 2009 meeting which will be held at the Library at 7:00 p.m. • On October 8, 2009 there will be a Financial Management Workshop put on by Representative Foster's office. More information to come. COMMUNITY & LIAISON REPORT Ken Com Alderman Spears reported that she attended the KenCom Executive Board meeting where they discussed: • Establishing November 19, 2009 as the date by which every intergovernmental agency must provide the board with au answer regarding their participation in KenCom • The Sheriff aud Kendall County have tentatively agreed to provide space in the lower level of the Public Safety Center for use by KenCom. This is being evaluated as au option that might provide space for several years. It was recommended that au architect evaluate the proposed design aud provide feedback. • A Budget Committee was formed consisting of city/village mayors aud presidents, board members, representatives from the sheriffs office aud several police chiefs. Upon the Board's recommendation, the Kendall County Board approved au e>.-penditure of$9,500.00 for au architect to draw preliminary plans aud to develop a cost estimate for the KenCom project. Mayor Burd asked Alderman Werderich to place this on the Public Safety Committee agenda for discussion so that she would have direction for when she meets with KenCom. He agreed. Aurora Area Convention and Visitor Bureau Alderman Sutcliff reported that she attended the Aurora Area Convention aud Visitor Bureau meeting where the Solheim Cup was discussed. It was reported that it was a great event however she was unaware of its impact on Yorkville. The Aurora Area Convention aud Visitor Bureau provided participants with information on local restaurants. They are hoping for similar events in the future which are important to remember when considering economic development. Mayor Burd added that the Capri Restaurant reportedly saw au increase in their business that weekend. Alderman Sutcliff stated she told the AACVB' s president Sue Voss about the Capri restaurant aud she went there to eat. REPORTS PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT Ordinance Amending City Code Title 6 -Traffic, Chapter 3 -Traffic Schedules (Van Emmon Street and Heustis Street) (PW 2009-87) A motion was made by Alderman Plocher to approve an ordinance amending City Code Title 6 -Traffic, Chapter 3 -Traffic Schedules (Van Emmon Street aud Heustis Street) and authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute; seconded by Alderman Munns. Alderman Plocher stated that he thought changing the stop sign was a good idea however now he has changed his mind. Mayor Burd noted that she commented at the Public Works Committee meeting that this intersection was not a four-way stop due to the school buses that use the street. She was told that the School District was contacted about this. City Engineer WywTot stated that he contacted Asif Dada at the School District and the manager of the bus company and both told him they had no problem with the change. 1 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING City Hall, Council Chambers Thursday, August 27, 2009 – 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Chairperson Werderich, Committeeman Plocher ABSENT: Committeemen Munns and Spears (KenCom Meeting) ALSO PRESENT: Lieutenant Rich Hart, Lieutenant Don Schwartzkopf, Sergeant Barry Groesch, Eric Dhuse – Public Works Director, Mayor Burd, Alderman George Gilson, Tony Scott of The Record and the fo llowing residents fro m the Cit y o f Yorkville or Kendall County: Charles Walker, Kim Brengman, Ed Brengman, and Darren Decatoire. Chairperson Werderich called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. However, without a quorum, only discussio n can take place. He informed the members o f the public that they were free to speak at tonight’s discussio n, however, no actio n would be taking place and further discussio n will need to take place at the next scheduled meet ing. Mayor Burd noted that item 1 under Old Business (Off Street Parking Regulations) is on the Plan Co mmissio n agenda for a Public Hearing on September 24, 2009. PRESENTATION: None MINUTES: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. PS 200925 Police Reports for July, 2009 Due to lack of a quorum, this item was skipped and will be mo ved to the next agenda. 2. PS 200926 Discussion on New Video Gaming Act Lt. Hart stated that he has looked into this matter and found that the Gaming Board does not yet have rules in place and that it may be 2 years before that happens. He recommends that the Cit y take no action at this t ime. He stated that Chief Mart in and Sgt. Groesch are in agreement with him. APPROVED W/ CORRECTIONS 10/29/09 2 Sgt. Groesch stated that the Illino is Municipal League has a lot of information regarding this matter regarding funds received, compliance checks, etc. and that they also feel it is premature for any decisio ns to be made now. Lt. Hart stated that the laws may be so restrictive that many establishments may not want to be a part of it. Chairperson Werderich asked if licenses are issued through the Cit y, to which Lt. Hart replied that it is believed that all licenses would be issued through the State of Illino is. Chairperson Werderich asked if the Cit y had the right to regulate the amount of gaming machines. Sgt. Groesch stated that 5 machines would be allowed per liquor license and that there is a fee of $25.00 per unit, per year for the permit. Further discussio n took place regarding the amount of funds that would be given back to the Cit y. It is a small amount, 1/6 of 1%. Discussion was open to the public: Mr. Darren Decatoire stated that he works in the gaming industry and feels that the Cit y should not take a stand at this time. He feels that once the rules and regulations have been established, the Cit y could better decide if this would benefit the Cit y or not and then decide whether or not to opt out. Furthermore, he stated that studies have been done that prove that allowing video gaming does not ruin communit ies or increase their crime rates. Studies prove that there is no evidence to support what the opponents are saying. Alderman Gilson asked Mr. Decatoire what part of the industry he is invo lved with, to which he replied the coin operators industry. Alderman Gilson asked if the Cit y ho lds off at this po int, then what happens. Mr. Decatoire stated that nothing can happen unt il the rules and regulations are in place. Because of the new law, this will be highly publicized. The Cit y can choose to act at that time. Mr. Decatoire asked how many establishments are within the Cit y limits. Sgt. Groesch stated 31. He stated that any funds that come back to the Cit y annually, the Cit y could do with those funds whatever they choose. No action was taken at this time. 3. PS 200927 Draft Ordinance Amending City Code Regarding Number of Package Liquor Licenses 4. PS 2009 28 Ordinance Approving Fine Schedule for PrePayment of Certain Fines Pending Under Administrative Adjudication These items were moved to the next agenda due to lack of a quorum. 5. PW 200985 Traffic Study – Church and W. Main Street – Informational The traffic study shows that the yield signs should be flipped and placed on W. Main Street rather than on Church. This item is informational only. 6. PW 200986 Traffic Study –Kylyn’s Ridge – Informational The traffic study shows that no act ion needs to be taken. This item is informational only. 7. PW 200987 Traffic Study – Van Emmon and Heustis – Informational 3 The traffic study shows that the stop signs need to be switched at this locat ion. Warning signs will be placed at the intersect ion informing motorists of the change. OLD BUSINESS: 1. CC 200975 Off Street Parking Regulations – Draft Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Chairperson Werderich stated that no action can be taken; however, the discussio n will be opened to the public: • Mr. Ed Brengman stated that he doesn’t understand why the Cit y had allowed this to become a pathway. Alderman Gilson stated that Tommy Hughes Drive is a private roadway on private property. • Mrs. Kim Brengman asked what rules and regulations apply to private property. Mayor Burd stated that trucks are not allowed to park in a resident ial area. The subject area is zoned commercial. • Mr. Brengman stated that the subject road is an easement. Mayor Burd contends it is a private roadway. Mr. Brengman asked if it’s private, why do vehicles drive and park on it. Mayor Burd stated that the property owner lets them. It is a private roadway on his property. • Mrs. Brengman stated that they see trucks parked their every day. She stated that at the present time, there is a truck blocking the ent ire road as it is on the driveway and roadway. Chairperson Werderich stated that he has seen trucks parked all over the place their and that the Cit y is go ing to try to do something about it. • Mrs. Brengman stated that when she has been over there, she sees the truckers drinking alcoho l in their trucks. She has lived across the street for 5 years and it is getting worse. She feels that the truckers should have respect for the communit y. • Mr. Brengman stated that there is trash their all the t ime. It is not a parking lot and something should be done. • Mrs. Brengman stated that it is being used as a truck stop, which it is not. There is garbage all over the place, the truckers drink and sit there all night. • Mr. Brengman stated that a neighbor who is an overtheroad trucker parks his truck there for days at a time. • Mrs. Brengman added that construction equipment is also parked there. • Mr. Brengman stated that the idling all night is a public nuisance. Mayor Burd stated that gas station is a truck stop. Mr. Brengman stated that Mr. Dettmer informed him that the gas station is zoned as a gas station, not a truck stop. • Mrs. Brengman stated that it used to be used fo r overnight parking during inclement weather, but as the town has grown, trucks are now parked there all the t ime. • Mayor Burd stated that she has resided here for over 23 years and the Cit y has always been a bluecollar communit y. Most residents worked 4 at Caterpillar or were farmers. Those residents did not want growth and back then, there were always a lot of trucks. She does not want this to become an antitruck situation as everything we use is brought to us by trucks. If the Cit y takes away where they park, then we have to find a new place for them. We need to consider everyo ne’s needs. • Mrs. Brengman stated that most of these truckers are not paying taxes to our communit y. • Mr. Charles Walker stated he fo llowing: • He is not against truck drivers. In fact, prior to his retirement, he was a district manager that dealt wit h over 125 trucks per day. His emplo yer had a trucker lounge and he found that most truckers were good. However, even after he put out 50 gallo n trash containers and bags, he st ill found trash dumped in the parkway (food wrappers, booze bottles, etc.). He had to have 3 emplo yees pick up the trash every morning. Addit io nally, some truckers would urinate or defecate in the parking lot. • The subject location is a probable breeding pool for mosquitoes. • The trucking situation at Rt. 47 and Rt. 71 is a safety issue. Because of a truck parked on Tommy Hughes Drive, other trucks can’t get around it so they pull onto Rt. 71. • The signs that are up are unreadable. • The minutes fro m the last meet ing state that the area will be cleaned up by the owner. The owner says that the clean up should no be his responsibilit y because it’s fro m Shell customers. • There are no receptacles for trash. • At a prior Cit y Council meet ing, I was disturbed that officials say that trucks take 250 gallo ns of gas and it’s being purchased here. Addit io nally, at that meet ing, the Mayor stated that she received 5 6 phone calls regarding this matter. That does not take into account the number of calls to Aldermen. • Most drivers are not keeping legal logs. • Fox News did a report on ‘Big Rig Serial Killers’ regarding an FBI report regarding murders being done by truckers. There are over 500 murders or kidnaps done by truckers. In Missouri, a trucker was convicted of murder and he admitted to 12 other slayings. The FBI program started in 2004 and current ly they have a list of over 200 truckers that are potential murder suspects. In Illino is, there are 12 unso lved murders, 8 of those cases are within 60 miles o f Chicago. These are mot iveless crimes and truckers are hard to catch because of the mo bile crime scene. Many victims are found miles away fro m where they live. • He feels that the elected officials are not looking out for the welfare o f the communit y. He asks that the elected officials do the right thing and not sell out the residents for the truckers. • Alderman Gilso n stated the following: 5 • He presented photos to the committee of what has been go ing on in the subject area. He would like them included in the next discussio n. • The trucks have been a real nuisance to the residents. • Shell states that not allowing the trucks to park there would ‘kill their business’; however, most of the garbage in the area is fro m McDonalds or empt y alcoho l bottles. • Parking is being done in a hazardous way. • I spoke to people in Pont iac, Dwight and Kankakee (truck stop locat ions) and their biggest problem is wit h waste haulers. • He is also perturbed by comments made by the Cit y Council such as ‘I would rather them stop at Shell then drive through Yorkville and kill so meone’ or ‘the gas station has always been a truck stop’ or ‘impede business’. Wit h regards to comment 1, if the truckers are that tired, they should have driven this far. Wit h regards to comment 2, it is a gas station as there are no showers, etc. Wit h regards to comment 3, my response is no it will not. • He stated he is trying to resolve resident concerns o f trash, standing water, trucks being parked on both sides of the entrance. These are public safety hazards and a breeding ground for problems. • This is a real issue and if it does not go forward to Cit y Council to pass a cit ywide ordinance, it will cont inue to be a nuisance to the residents and a safety issue to the communit y. o Committeeman Plocher stated that he agrees that if Shell is a problem, they should be dealt with, but that this should not be handled through a cit ywide ordinance. Alderman Gilson stated that the hours of 104 are reasonable and that without facilit ies for overnight truckers, they have no reason to be there. Committeeman Plocher stated that this one problem should not result in a blanket city ordinance. Mayor Burd stated that those in attendance should not pick on Committeeman Plocher. Chairperson Werderich advised Co mmitteeman Plocher that if he felt uncomfortable he should let him know. o Discussion took place regarding the agreement alread y signed with Shell Gas Station. Shell needs to purchase and install the signs, but an agreement is already in place. • Mr. Walker stated that comments made at the Cit y Council meet ing are being reiterated here. He asked the group to read the Preamble, which starts ‘We the People…’. He feels as though the Cit y Council is not acting on behalf o f the people. o Mayor Burd stated that it goes back to what she stated before, that it would be hard for trucks to park in Morris and drive 40 miles back here. If we eliminate truck 6 parking, it will not address the litter and puddles. It will not solve the problems. o Alderman Gilson stated that the litter is a direct result of the trucks. He stated that we need to eliminate the source to eliminate the problem. There is a facilit y in Morris, the trucks should be there. Mayor Burd stated that the ordinance will not stop the trucks to which Alderman Gilson stated it will at least cut down on the trucks. Chairperson Werderich stated that no action can be taken; however, he agrees that there is a problem. Personally, he stated that his first thought is that the truck stop was there lo ng before everything around it, however, there has been a significant increase in trucks and the area is beginning to deteriorate. He informed the attendees that the ordinance is being considered and hopes the problem will be taken care of. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION: None ADJOURNMENT OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING: Wit h no further business to discuss, the meet ing adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Minutes respect fully submitted by Margaret M. Hartigan. 1 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING City Hall, Conference Room Tuesday, August 18, 2009 – 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: PRESENTATIONS: NONE The meet ing was called to order @ 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Joe Plocher MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: The minutes for June 16, 2009 and July 20, 2009 were reviewed and approved as presented. Items Recommended for Consent Agenda: 1. PW 200974 Tower Lane Water Storage Tank Rehab – Change Order # 1 2. PW 200975 Prairie Garden Subdivision –Final acceptance 3. PW 200976 Bristol Bay Unit 7 – Final Acceptance & Bond Adjustments 4. PW 200977 Goodwill Store – LOC Expiration 5. PW 200978 Fox Road LAPP Project – Change Order # 3 6. PW 200979 Westbury East Village (Unit 1) –Call of Bonds for Vendor Claims 7. PW 200980 Kendallwood Estates – Call LOC for Alliance Contractors Claim 8. PW 200981 Grande Reserve – Call LOC for Reimbursement for Cost of Consultant Services All items will mo ve forward to Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 1. PW 200982 Water Conservation Enhancements to landscape Ordinance Marta Keane & Anne Englehardt want a requirement that a landscaping tree be planted on the side o f a lot during development. This could add value to a ho me and save on heat ing and cooling costs. It was agreed upon to amend the exist ing ordinance to require a tree to be added on the lot of single family & duplex during development. Move forward to Consent Agenda. Chairman Joe Plocher Mayor Valerie Burd Eric Dhuse (Public Works Director) Alderman George Gilson Joe Wywrot (Cit y Engineer) Brendan McLaughlin (Cit y Administrator) Alderman Mart y Munns Alderman Diane Teeling Anne Englehardt (C.O.Y. Green Committee Member) Marta Keane (C/O.Y. Green Committee Member) APPROVED W/ CORRECTIONS 9/15/09 2 2. PW 200983 Country Hills Subdivision – Final Acceptance & Warranty Bonding Joe Wywrot said the developer of Country Hills Subdivisio n has verbally requested to waive the warrant y bond amount. Joe is not recommending that we eliminate the warrant y bond amount, but perhaps consider reducing it. Based on the estimates o f costs of three sets of plans the warrant y bond amount would be roughly $212K. If you had a warrant y bond amount just for unit 2, the bond amount would be $111K. He recommends that we stay at the full amount of $212K. Chairman Joe Plocher agrees as well to the full amount. Alderman Gilson asked when does expect the drawings to complete. Joe said 3 to 4 months for final documents. Alderman Gilson asked would the $212K warrant y bond cover warrant y costs at today’s prices. Joe said yes. Alderman Gilso n agreed to keep the warranty bond the same. Item move to Consent Agenda. – The Country Hills developer Dennis Dwyer entered the meet ing approximately @ 7:10 and was informed the cit y required the full amount of the bond. He doesn’t agree with the decisio n. 3. PW 200984 River Road Bridge – Update Joe Wywrot said this bridge is in poor condition. He also said he submitted IDOT Major Bridge Program Grant Applicat ion yesterday. He believes we should find out by the end of the year to see if we make the cut or not. The fact that the bridge has been downgraded to poor condition can help us in getting grant money. The estimated cost of replacing this bridge is $3 Millio n do llars. If we get the grant fro m IDOT and the $200K fro m the count y, our costs would be approximately $900K. Alderman Gilso n had concerns about the costs to the cit y and the removal of the damn. Should we wait unt il we know the fate of the damn before we proceed? He suggests we wait for all of the input. Chairman Plocher said we start looking for funding options now. He also said it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. These pictures of the bridge were taken in 2004 and it is now 2009. Mayor Burd stated that this is a safety issue. We are responsible for the bridge. If the bridge is already being rated as poor and by the time they get around to giving us the grant and funding, we’re talking several years will go by. Joe said it will be about six years before construction. The current grant cycle is for 2015 construction. Alderman Gilson asked it will be 6 years? He also asked if we’re letting people cross the bridge. Joe said IDOT didn’t feel post ing it below legal load limit s. He also said to steer overloads away fro m the bridge which we’ve been doing for years. Considered Informational Item. 3 4. PW 200985 Traffic Study – Church and W. Main Street Church yields to Main. Church has more traffic. Reco mmending switching the yield sign and having Main yield to Church. 5. PW 200986 Traffic Study –Kylyn’s Ridge Two intersections – One in the Cannonball Estates Subdivisio n – Western & High Ridge and the other at the Kylyn’s Ridge Intersection. We recommend leaving them as is. 6. PW 200987 Traffic Study – Van Emmon and Heustis Current ly Van Emmo n stops at Heustis. We recommend that switching that so that Heustis stops at Van Emmo n. We talked to Chief Mart in and he has no object ion and we talked to the school district and they had no object ion either. All will mo ve to Public Safety and let them know we recommended for Consent Agenda. 7. PW 200988 Policy Regarding SSA’s and Security Bonding/Letters of Credit Alderman Gilso n is recommending developing a policy account ing for the costs of inflation overtime with bonds and when we review we can reduce bonds. We review the bonds annually fro m date of issuance regardless of status.The costs for us to cover any thing that may happen and if the developer would go bankrupt, that would cover that. We would be secure in the fact that we would have the mo ney in place for any added costs overtime. Bring back next month with a written up Policy. 8. PW 200989 Heartland Circle – Discussion of Weeds & Dumping Issues – Update Informational Item OLD BUSINESS: 1. PW 200963 Fly Dumping in Vacant Areas of Subdivisions Erich Dhuse said it is a problem in every subdivision. Neighbors have to watch and take down the license plate of vio lators. 2. PW 200973 Stormwater Basin Maintenance Joe Wywrot giving ourselves the power to see that stormwater basins are maintained properly. Kathy Orr & Joe believe that the easement language gives us the abilit y to rush in and save the day if there’s a problem. But if we do that, it will cost us money and how do we collect and get reimbursed. Kathy feels an ordinance would be appropriate and to enforce that ordinance through the administrative adjudicat ion process. With the committees’ permissio n, go back to Kathy to create an ordinance and get it on the Cit y Council Agenda soon. 3. PW 200968 Water Meter Pricing Alderman Gilso n st ill quest ioning the pricing and looking for justificat ion, but Eric said the developer said this is the costs of the techno logy. After much more discussio n on this item will mo ve to Consent Agenda. Alderman Gilso n objects fro m this moving forward until a cost justificat ion is provided. 4 4. PW 2008111 Material Storage Shed Replacement Update Eric Dhuse informed everyo ne of funding in the capital budget of $40K for building a replacement of Material Storage Shed. Already met with one contractor and trying to meet with two other contractors to get some ideas of pricing. He would like to have everything done wit h the bidding out or in the process of bidding out by the t ime everything goes through otherwise we will have to wait unt il the spring. ADJOURNMENT OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING: Wit h no further business to discuss, the meet ing adjourned at 7:40p.m. Minutes respect fully submitted by Tim Dlugopolski Page 3 of7 graders. He said that it is a very positive program and that the interaction with the police department alone is a plus. Officer Barry Groesch is the demonstrator of most of the DARE classes and has been involved with it for 12 years. Chief Martin said that they have received only positive responses from the classes. He said that he would like to keep the program going though it may cost the City more money down the road to do any more training for future officers. He said that as of now they would need to go to Indiana for training since the Illinois State Police does not fund it any more. He said that they have also changed the curriculum in that they have cut back on classes and focus the training more on what is happening today. The program now has gone from 17 weeks to 10 weeks of training. To do this program now with the funding being cut it will cost the City around $3,500 a year. Plus with the town growing and more students entering the schools it will cost more to pay for the extra books and certificates. He would like to see the program continue if possible. Alderman Kot asked if the program had been fuctored into the new budget. Chief Martin said that they are waiting to hear back to see if it could be but he also put a little more money in the budget to cover the program for this next year after that they will probably have to have a separate account for it. Alderwoman Spears said that she felt it was worth the money if it meant that they would be able to save at least one kid. Alderman Kot agreed and suggested that the Police Department should issue a press release indicating to the public the Police Department's desire to continue with the DARE Program. Alderwoman Spears asked if there had been a survey done with the kids who had participated with the program. Chief Martin said that Officer Groesch did do a survey and that he would get that from him. Alderwoman Spears thought that would also be a good thing to have documented and released to the public. Chief Martin will bring an update to the next Public Safety Meeting on March 25, 2004. Update on Van Emmon St. & Heustis St. Stop Signs Alderman Kot stated that Public Works Director Eric Dhuse would like to paint a red stop notice on the road leading up to the stop sign located at Van Emmon St & Heustis St. He said that because of the location of the stop sign and the width of the street some people are confused where to actually stop. Alderman Kot asked Chief Martin if that would help with the problem Chief Martin said that it is possible that it would help. He also mentioned that Mr. Dhuse has painted red lines on the poles and that seems to also help. Alderman Richard Sticka stated that he had a problem with the variable rate. He said thought that most of the increase and usage happens during the summer months when people water their lawns and not one drop of that water goes into the sewers. He mentioned that he has a sprinkler system and it will irritate him to watch his sewer rate go up when he is water his lawn. He is not the only person that has a sprinkler system and feels others might be irritated by it as we!L He feels if the sewer use is going to be based on how much water people are using, there will many that will complain about it He said that he would be one of them He thought this could be done by using 2 meters then make a calculation .. The water that goes through the sprinkler system does not go through the sewer system He pointed out that there are communities that do that This way costs could be balanced out so that people aren't being unfairly billed for paying for a sewer service that they aren't even getting. Mr .. Nelson mentioned that some communities provide an allowance of so much that is based on an estimate that the user is using .. Mostly they see that for people who have swimming pools .. Alderman Sticka also pointed out that new development is paying for the upgrade and maintenance of the old part of Yorkville and isn't likely that the new sewer systems that are being put in the new developments will need a lot of maintenance for the next 20 or 30 years .. Mr. Wywrot pointed out that the connection fee would need to be based on future growth and not the current new development that is going on now since they are already locked in on the current connection fee .. Mayor Prochaska said that they would need to speak with Attorney Dan Kramer about that to get accurate information. He thinks that the connection fees are an exception in this case .. Alderman Kot asked Mr. Nelson to find out how much of the General Fund was being used to cover these costs. He asked to also find out what other communities are charging for connection fees Mr Nelson suggested finding what their usage rates are also. This item will come back to the next Public Works meeting on February 23, 2004 NEW BUSINESS: Sign at Van Emmon & Heustis Alderman Kot reported that at the Public Safety Committee has been concerned about the number of accidents at the intersection on Van Emmon Street and Heustis Street There are very large stop signs on Van Emmon and Heustis has the right of way yet there are still accidents there. He mentioned a roll over accident that happened there 6 weeks ago. The neighbors in that area are concerned also. Public Safety is looking at into a couple of alternatives to improve the awareness of the signs. Public Works Director Eric Dhuse recommended that they should try solar lights on the signs as opposed to electric because it would be less expensive .. The electric ones would need more maintenance. Right now the signs are 48 inches If they were to go with the solar flashing signs it would go down to 3 8 inches .. Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Agenda Item Number New Business #10 Tracking Number PW 2017-84 Solid Waste Contract – Food Scraps Update Public Works Committee – November 21, 2017 A verbal update will be given at the meeting. Bart Olson Administration Name Department Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Old Business #1 Tracking Number ADM 2017-70 Building Condition Reports 2017 Public Works Committee – November 21, 2017 N/A N/A N/A Discussion of the Reports from the Building Condition Survey that EMG performed on City-owned structures and facilities. Erin Willrett Administration Name Department Summary Review of 800 Game Farm Road and 610 Tower Lane from the Building Condition Survey that EMG performed on City-owned structures and facilities. Background EMG’s reports include an assessment of all City-owned buildings, structures and parking facilities (structural frame and building envelope, curtain wall, roofing, plumbing, heating, air conditioning and ventilation, electrical, vertical transportation, life safety/fire protection, interior elements, code inquiries, ADA, and mold). The presentation walks a reader through Report #004 “800 Game Farm Road” and Report #043 “Public Works Office and Garage 610 Tower Lane”. One component of the report is to calculate the immediate repair cost. This was calculated by EMG and represents items that were in disrepair as of the date of the site visit. The description and cost are provided in the Immediate Repairs Report at the beginning of each document. Another important report is the Replacement Reserve Report which spans a 20 year period. This outlines the description, cost and estimates the year that the item will need to be replaced/repaired/maintained. In time, this report will be uploaded to a database for staff to maintain and keep updated when items are programmed and/or completed. Other items to note within the report is the Executive Summary where the general property information is located as well as the site visit date, point of contact and the general systematic condition summary is located. Another major goal of the reports was to calculate the Facility Condition Index (FCI), which gives an indication of a building’s overall condition. The FCI ranking is calculated by dividing the cost of the Immediate Repair cost by the cost of the Current Replacement Value. That number is represented by a percentage and that equates to a condition rating from “Good” to “Very Poor”. This FCI was calculated for the current state of the facility and also the 10-year FCI. This rating can be used as a guide for each facility when determining to maintain facilities or to replace facilities. Within the FCI findings page also included is the Current Replacement Value (CRV) and the calculation of the Total Capital Needs. The Total Capital needs is calculated by the cost of the immediate repairs added to the Replacement Reserves. This represents a cost that it will take to maintain the facility over the next 10 years. Memorandum To: Administration Committee From: Erin Willrett, Assistant City Administrator CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: November 15, 2017 Subject: EMG Building Condition Reports 2017 Other items included in the report are photographs of the facility and certain equipment, a site plan of the facility, an aerial photograph of the facility, ADA checklist, and a pre-visit questionnaire. This is all information relevant to the facility and was used in the creation of the overall report. Recommendation Staff has made recommendations for both City facilities based on the Building Condition Reports. 800 Game Farm Road will require additional feedback from the Council. This is informational at this time.  City Hall and Police Station, 800 Game Farm Road – Requesting Further Direction  Public Works Facility, 610 Tower Lane – Do Not Maintain Ykill M iil Fili Yorkville Municipal Facility Condition Assessment ReviewCondition Assessment ReviewFACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT Report #004800 Game Farm RoadCity Hall/Police Department Immediate Repairs Report 800 Game Farm RoadEMG outlined items that were in disrepair as of the date of the it i it Th i it li t d b lsite visit. The main item are listed below:Exterior Light Pole Repair - $17,975Roof Replacement - $72,069HVAC S F ll U d $8HVAC System Full Upgrade -$37,859Floor Finishings have been replaced since the EMG site visitOutlines Item Number ID for more detail in report pPage 3 of the report gives description of the immediate repairAppendix A outlines the pictures of the areas reviewed Immediate Repairs Report800 Game Farm Road Roof Repair800 Game Farm Road Replacement Reserve Report – 20 years800 Game Farm RoadChart shows planned repairs/replacements over a 20 year time-frame (Page 3 and 4 of the Report)p)This data will be uploaded to a databaseCreate report and update when items are programmed and/or completedThis report shows additional projects to be programmed within the next 20 years. Large Items are listed below Total Escalated Costs = $1 822 128Large Items are listed below. Total Escalated Costs = $1,822,128Parking Lot ReplacementSidewalk ReplacementExterior Lighting ReplacementVinyl Siding ReplacementdlWindow ReplacementExterior Door ReplacementOverhead Door ReplacementElevator ReplacementHVAC UpgradeHVAC UpgradeFire Alarm System UpgradeLighting and Wiring UpgradeGenerator ReplacementDoor ReplacementCili R l tCeiling Replacement Executive Summary 800 Game Farm RoadGeneral Property pyInformationSite Visit Date/Point of ContactBuilding Condition S (Fi)Summary (Fair) Facility Condition Index (FCI) 800 Game Farm RoadIndication of Building’s Overall ConditionOverall ConditionMeasured for Current Year and +10 YearsCurrent =Ratio of Current =Ratio of Immediate Repair Costs to Current Replacement Value10 Year = Ratio of Anticipated Capital Reserve Needs to the 10 Y Rl t VlYear Replacement ValueRating from Very Poor to Good FCI Rating Cont’d 800 Game Farm RoadMetric for Current Year FCI = FairFCI = Immediate Repair ($271,023) / Current Replacement Value ($3,479,307) = 7.7% =Fairp ($ 7 , 3) / p ($3,479,3 7) 7 7Metric for 10-Year FCI = Poor10-Year FCI = Replacement Reserves ($860,877) / Current Replacement Value ($3,479,307) = 24.7% = PoorTotal Capital Needs through 2027 (IR + RR) = $1,131,900C t R l t V l (CRV) $3 4 9 30Current Replacement Value (CRV) = $3,479,307 Important Pictures800 Game Farm Road Work Completed Since EMG Site Visit800 Game Farm RoadParking Lot Paving and StripingggpgADA Ramp RepairInterior Flooringg FCA Report #043Public Works Office and Garage610 Tower Lane Immediate Repairs Report 610 Tower LaneTotal Immediate Repair pCost $107,518Page 2 of the ReportCosts Include:Sprinkler System Retrofit $76 787$76,787Fire Alarm System Install $22,652 Replacement Reserve Report 610 Tower LaneTotal Deficiency Repair Estimate through 2037 = yp g 37$2,914,554Page 3, 4 & 5 of the reportCostly Items:Roof Replacementdi i lCondensing Unit ReplacementInterior Lighting System UpgradeInterior Wall UpgradesInterior Wall UpgradesSprinkler System UpgradeSiding Replacement FCI 610 Tower LanePDF Page 8 of the report, page number 2number 2Current Year Metric for FCI = FairCurrent Year FCI = Immediate Repair ($97,079) / Current Replacement Value ($1 616 176 8) = Replacement Value ($1,616,176.8) = 6% = FairMetric for 10-Year FCI = Poor10-Year FCI = Replacement R ($ 6 6 ) / C t Reserves ($1,267,069) / Current Replacement Value ($97,079) = 78.4% = PoorTotal Capital Needs through 2027 (IR RR) $ 6 8(IR + RR) = $1,364,148Current Replacement Value (CRV) = $11,616,176.80 Important Pictures610 Tower Lane Work Completed Since EMG Site Visit610 Tower LaneParking Lot Paving and Stripingggpg Staff RecommendationsCity Hall and Police Station – 800 Game Farm yImmediate Repairs = $212,418Replacement Reserves Report (20 year) = $1,822,128Current Year FCI = 7.7% = Fair10Y FCI 247% P10-Year FCI = 24.7% = PoorCurrent Replacement Value (CRV) = $3,479,307Total Capital Needs = $1,131,900Total Capital Needs $1,131,900Recommendation = Requesting Further Direction from City Councill i l hi b ildi ill O b Ci ll O Ultimately this building will NOT be a City Hall OR a Police StationSee if other entity is interested in locationSee if other entity is interested in location Staff RecommendationsPublic Works Facility – 610 Tower LaneyImmediate Repairs = $107,488p7,4Replacement Reserves Report (20 year) = $2,914,254Current Year FCI = 6.0% = Fair10-Year FCI = 78.4% = PoorCurrent Replacement Value (CRV) = $1,616,177Total Capital Needs = $1,364,148Recommendation = Do Not MaintainLarge expenses are needed within next 4 – 5 years EMG Corporate Headquarters 10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100, Owings Mills, MD 21117 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Prepared for: United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT City Hall/Police Department 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 PREPARED BY: EMG CONTACT: EMG Andrew Hupp 10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 Senior Engineering Consultant Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 800.733.0660 x6632 800.733.0660 arhupp@emgcorp.com www.EMGcorp.com EMG Project Number: Date of Report: On Site Date: 122700.17R000-004.322 September 13, 2017 May 18, 2017 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT Immediate Repairs Report City Hall/Police Department 9/13/2017 Location Name EMG Renamed Item NumberID Cost Description QuantityUnit Unit Cost Subtotal Deficiency Repair Estimate * City Hall/Police Department 3.1 610281 Accessible Parking, Parking, Designated Stall with Pavement Markings & Signage (Van),2 EA $1,391.50 $2,783 $2,783 City Hall/Police Department 3.1 610289 Accessible Restroom, Restroom, Lavatory Pipe Wraps,7 EA $75.90 $531 $531 City Hall/Police Department 5.2 610309 Parking Lot, Parking Lot, Repair 6275 SF $0.38 $2,381 $2,381 City Hall/Police Department 5.2 610262 Parking Lot, Parking Lot, Repair 11590 SF $0.38 $4,398 $4,398 City Hall/Police Department 5.2 610347 Parking Lot, Parking Lot, Repair 8410 SF $0.38 $3,192 $3,192 City Hall/Police Department 5.5 610260 Exterior Light Pole, Exterior, 135 to 1000 W HID (Fixture, Ballast, & Lamp), Repair 8 EA $2,246.90 $17,975 $17,975 City Hall/Police Department 6.3 610266 Roof, Premium Grade, Replace 14300 SF $5.04 $72,069 $72,069 City Hall/Police Department 6.5 610311 Exterior Stair/Ramp, (per LF of Nosing), Replace 80 LF $8.54 $683 $683 City Hall/Police Department 6.6 610304 Exterior Door, Exterior Door, Repair 7 EA $69.94 $490 $490 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610273 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610313 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610328 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 1 Ton, Replace 1 EA $2,118.94 $2,119 $2,119 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610297 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610337 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610308 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610336 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610283 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610272 HVAC System, Full Upgrade, Office (per SF),1000 SF $37.86 $37,859 $37,859 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610332 Water Pumps, 1 to 3 HP, Replace 1 EA $2,993.56 $2,994 $2,994 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610345 Water Pumps, 1 to 3 HP, Replace 1 EA $2,993.56 $2,994 $2,994 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610294 Water Pumps, 1 to 3 HP, Replace 1 EA $2,993.56 $2,994 $2,994 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610317 Water Pumps, 1 to 3 HP, Replace 1 EA $2,993.56 $2,994 $2,994 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610290 Floor Finishings, Standard Commercial, Medium Traffic, Replace 1500 SF $7.26 $10,884 $10,884 Immediate Repairs Total $212,418 * Location Factor included in totals. Replacement Reserves Report City Hall/Police Department 9/13/2017 Location Name EMG Renamed Item Number ID Cost Description Lifespan (EUL)EAge RUL QuantityUnit Unit Cost Subtotal 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Deficiency Repair Estimate City Hall/Police Department 3.1 610281 Accessible Parking, Parking, Designated Stall with Pavement Markings & Signage (Van),0 0 0 2 EA $1,391.50 $2,783 $2,783 $2,783 City Hall/Police Department 3.1 610289 Accessible Restroom, Restroom, Lavatory Pipe Wraps,0 0 0 7 EA $75.90 $531 $531 $531 City Hall/Police Department 5.2 610309 Parking Lot, Parking Lot, Repair 5 17 0 6275 SF $0.38 $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 $2,381 $9,525 City Hall/Police Department 5.2 610262 Parking Lot, Parking Lot, Repair 5 17 0 11590 SF $0.38 $4,398 $4,398 $4,398 $4,398 $4,398 $17,594 City Hall/Police Department 5.2 610347 Parking Lot, Parking Lot, Repair 5 17 0 8410 SF $0.38 $3,192 $3,192 $3,192 $3,192 $3,192 $12,766 City Hall/Police Department 5.2 610282 Parking Lot, Parking Lot, Repair 25 20 5 8410 SF $3.28 $27,588 $27,588 $27,588 City Hall/Police Department 5.2 610258 Pedestrian Pavement, , Replace 30 17 13 2825 SF $19.82 $55,997 $55,997 $55,997 City Hall/Police Department 5.5 610287 Lighting Fixture, 80 W, Replace 20 17 3 9 EA $256.88 $2,312 $2,312 $2,312 City Hall/Police Department 5.5 610322 Site Signage, Property, Monument/Pylon, Replace/Install 20 12 8 1 EA $8,602.00 $8,602 $8,602 $8,602 City Hall/Police Department 5.5 610260 Exterior Light Pole, Exterior, 135 to 1000 W HID (Fixture, Ballast, & Lamp), Repair 10 17 0 8 EA $2,246.90 $17,975 $17,975 $17,975 $35,950 City Hall/Police Department 6.3 610266 Roof, Premium Grade, Replace 30 30 0 14300 SF $5.04 $72,069 $72,069 $72,069 City Hall/Police Department 6.4 610335 Exterior Wall 10 7 3 200 LF $2.82 $564 $564 $564 $1,128 City Hall/Police Department 6.4 610286 Vinyl Siding, Exterior, 1-2 Stories, Replace 25 17 8 3850 SF $7.81 $30,065 $30,065 $30,065 City Hall/Police Department 6.4 610346 Brick Veneer Exterior Wall, Exterior, 1-2 Stories, Repair 25 17 8 40 SF $41.28 $1,651 $1,651 $1,651 City Hall/Police Department 6.5 610311 Exterior Stair/Ramp, (per LF of Nosing), Replace 0 17 0 80 LF $8.54 $683 $683 $683 City Hall/Police Department 6.6 610321 Window, Double Glazed, 1-2 Stories, 12 SF, Replace 30 17 13 14 EA $555.58 $7,778 $7,778 $7,778 City Hall/Police Department 6.6 610314 Window, Double Glazed, 1-2 Stories, 24 SF, Replace 30 17 13 39 EA $813.20 $31,715 $31,715 $31,715 City Hall/Police Department 6.6 610324 Storefront 30 17 13 40 SF $48.00 $1,920 $1,920 $1,920 City Hall/Police Department 6.6 610304 Exterior Door, Exterior Door, Repair 10 17 0 7 EA $69.94 $490 $490 $490 $979 City Hall/Police Department 6.6 610275 Exterior Door, Exterior Door, Replace 25 17 8 2 EA $1,352.72 $2,705 $2,705 $2,705 City Hall/Police Department 6.6 610291 Exterior Door, Insulated, Exterior Door, Replace 25 17 8 7 EA $1,577.53 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 City Hall/Police Department 6.6 610327 Overhead Door, 144 SF, Replace 35 17 18 3 EA $4,025.54 $12,077 $12,077 $12,077 City Hall/Police Department 6.6 610318 Garage Door Opener, Belt Drive, 0.5 HP, Replace 15 7 8 3 EA $519.03 $1,557 $1,557 $1,557 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610334 Elevator, Hydraulic, 1500 to 2500 LB, 2 Floors,30 17 13 1 EA $108,794.40 $108,794 $108,794 $108,794 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610325 Water Heater, Gas, Commercial, 60 to 120 GAL, Replace 15 4 11 1 EA $10,698.82 $10,699 $10,699 $10,699 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610263 Hydraulic Pump, Submersible, 20 HP, Replace 15 8 7 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610273 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 $6,440 $12,880 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610313 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 $6,440 $12,880 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610328 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 1 Ton, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $2,118.94 $2,119 $2,119 $2,119 $4,238 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610297 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 $6,440 $12,880 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610337 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 $6,440 $12,880 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610308 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 $6,440 $12,880 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610336 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 $6,440 $12,880 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610283 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 $6,440 $12,880 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610259 Split System, Split System DX, Air-Cooled, 5 Ton, Replace 15 8 7 1 EA $6,439.81 $6,440 $6,440 $6,440 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610306 Exhaust Fan, Centrifugal, 251 to 800 CFM, Replace 15 13 2 1 EA $2,021.87 $2,022 $2,022 $2,022 $4,044 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610296 Exhaust Fan, Centrifugal, 251 to 800 CFM, Replace 15 13 2 1 EA $2,021.87 $2,022 $2,022 $2,022 $4,044 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610272 HVAC System, Full Upgrade, Office (per SF),20 20 0 1000 SF $37.86 $37,859 $37,859 $37,859 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610331 Furnace, Gas, 101 to 150 MBH, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $5,644.27 $5,644 $5,644 $5,644 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610265 Furnace, Gas, 101 to 150 MBH, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $5,644.27 $5,644 $5,644 $5,644 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610285 Unit Heater, Natural Gas, 26 to 55 MBH, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $4,281.60 $4,282 $4,282 $4,282 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610330 Furnace, Gas, 101 to 150 MBH, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $5,644.27 $5,644 $5,644 $5,644 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610315 Unit Heater, Natural Gas, 26 to 55 MBH, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $4,281.60 $4,282 $4,282 $4,282 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610329 Furnace, Gas, 101 to 150 MBH, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $5,644.27 $5,644 $5,644 $5,644 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610343 Furnace, Gas, 101 to 150 MBH, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $5,644.27 $5,644 $5,644 $5,644 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610307 Furnace, Gas, 101 to 150 MBH, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $5,644.27 $5,644 $5,644 $5,644 Location Name EMG Renamed Item Number ID Cost Description Lifespan (EUL)EAge RUL QuantityUnit Unit Cost Subtotal 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Deficiency Repair Estimate City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610316 Furnace, Gas, 101 to 150 MBH, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $5,644.27 $5,644 $5,644 $5,644 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610270 Unit Heater, Electric, Infrared, 1 to 2 kW, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $1,095.84 $1,096 $1,096 $1,096 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610292 Furnace, Gas, 101 to 150 MBH, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $5,644.27 $5,644 $5,644 $5,644 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610299 Unit Heater, Electric, Infrared, 3 to 6 kW, Replace 20 17 3 1 EA $1,741.57 $1,742 $1,742 $1,742 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610312 Transfer Switch, Auto, 600 V, 40 Amp, Replace 18 13 5 1 EA $6,704.24 $6,704 $6,704 $6,704 City Hall/Police Department 7.1 610340 Fire Alarm System, Addressable, Replace 15 13 2 1 EA $20,297.59 $20,298 $20,298 $20,298 $40,595 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610269 Toilet Partitions, Metal, Overhead Braced, Replace 20 12 8 2 EA $850.00 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610293 Toilet, , Replace 20 12 8 4 EA $842.97 $3,372 $3,372 $3,372 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610279 Toilet, One Piece, Replace 20 12 8 2 EA $1,055.15 $2,110 $2,110 $2,110 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610319 Urinal, Vitreous China, Replace 20 12 8 3 EA $1,193.44 $3,580 $3,580 $3,580 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610303 Lavatory, Enameled Steel, Replace 20 12 8 7 EA $353.05 $2,471 $2,471 $2,471 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610268 Sink, Plastic, Replace 20 12 8 1 EA $575.99 $576 $576 $576 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610264 Bathtub/Shower, Fiberglass, Replace 20 12 8 2 EA $2,599.44 $5,199 $5,199 $5,199 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610288 Drinking Fountain, Refrigerated, Replace 10 8 2 3 EA $1,257.51 $3,773 $3,773 $3,773 $7,545 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610339 Emergency Eye Wash, , Replace 15 9 6 1 EA $1,417.04 $1,417 $1,417 $1,417 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610332 Water Pumps, 1 to 3 HP, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $2,993.56 $2,994 $2,994 $2,994 $5,987 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610345 Water Pumps, 1 to 3 HP, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $2,993.56 $2,994 $2,994 $2,994 $5,987 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610294 Water Pumps, 1 to 3 HP, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $2,993.56 $2,994 $2,994 $2,994 $5,987 City Hall/Police Department 7.2 610317 Water Pumps, 1 to 3 HP, Replace 15 17 0 1 EA $2,993.56 $2,994 $2,994 $2,994 $5,987 City Hall/Police Department 7.4 610276 Distribution Panel, 208 Y, 120 V, 100 Amp, Replace 30 17 13 3 EA $5,079.93 $15,240 $15,240 $15,240 City Hall/Police Department 7.4 610320 Distribution Panel, 208 Y, 120 V, 100 Amp, Replace 30 17 13 5 EA $5,079.93 $25,400 $25,400 $25,400 City Hall/Police Department 7.4 610302 Distribution Panel, 208 Y, 120 V, 800 Amp, Replace 30 17 13 1 EA $13,423.81 $13,424 $13,424 $13,424 City Hall/Police Department 7.4 610261 Lighting & Branch Wiring System, Full Upgrade, Office (per SF),25 17 8 18568 SF $9.24 $171,605 $171,605 $171,605 City Hall/Police Department 7.4 610305 Generator, Diesel, 65 to 125 kW, Replace 25 13 12 1 EA $113,996.22 $113,996 $113,996 $113,996 City Hall/Police Department 7.4 610278 Ceiling Fan, Residential, Replace 15 12 3 10 EA $354.11 $3,541 $3,541 $3,541 $7,082 City Hall/Police Department 7.6 610333 Fire Extinguisher, , Replace 15 8 7 6 EA $356.54 $2,139 $2,139 $2,139 City Hall/Police Department 7.6 610344 Emergency Exit System, 2 Light w/ Battery, Replace 10 6 4 2 EA $1,227.87 $2,456 $2,456 $2,456 $4,911 City Hall/Police Department 7.6 610323 Emergency Exit System, w/ Battery, Replace 10 6 4 10 EA $418.95 $4,190 $4,190 $4,190 $8,379 City Hall/Police Department 7.6 610271 Defibrillator, Cabinet Mounted, Replace 5 3 2 1 EA $1,409.50 $1,410 $1,410 $1,410 $1,410 $1,410 $5,638 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610295 Interior Door, , Replace 15 12 3 4 EA $762.99 $3,052 $3,052 $3,052 $6,104 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610338 Interior Door, Painted/Stained, Fully Glazed, Interior Door, Replace 15 12 3 3 EA $1,982.31 $5,947 $5,947 $5,947 $11,894 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610326 Interior Door, , Replace 20 12 8 11 EA $1,649.06 $18,140 $18,140 $18,140 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610342 Interior Door, Solid Core, Painted/Stained, Interior Door, Replace 20 12 8 47 EA $1,423.11 $66,886 $66,886 $66,886 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610280 Interior Walls, Interior Wall, Repair 8 1 7 36208 SF $1.42 $51,531 $51,531 $51,531 $103,062 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610298 Floor Finishings, , Replace 15 10 5 1856 SF $4.80 $8,910 $8,910 $8,910 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610290 Floor Finishings, Standard Commercial, Medium Traffic, Replace 10 17 0 1500 SF $7.26 $10,884 $10,884 $10,884 $21,769 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610274 Ceilings, Ceiling, Repair 10 8 2 12070 SF $1.94 $23,375 $23,375 $23,375 $46,750 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610348 Ceilings, , Replace 20 8 12 12070 SF $3.11 $37,550 $37,550 $37,550 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610300 Refrigerator, Residential, 14-18 CF,15 9 6 2 EA $956.04 $1,912 $1,912 $1,912 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610284 Range, Gas, Residential,15 9 6 1 EA $768.11 $768 $768 $768 City Hall/Police Department 8.1 610277 Kitchen Cabinet, Base and Wall Section, Wood, Replace 20 12 8 16 LF $467.63 $7,482 $7,482 $7,482 Totals, Unescalated $212,418 $0 $52,898 $71,971 $6,645 $53,174 $4,097 $66,520 $338,746 $0 $39,321 $10,699 $180,103 $260,831 $6,645 $120,674 $0 $25,751 $24,617 $0 $1,475,110 Totals, Escalated (3.0% inflation, compounded annually)$212,418 $0 $56,120 $78,644 $7,479 $61,643 $4,892 $81,811 $429,113 $0 $52,844 $14,810 $256,783 $383,039 $10,052 $188,007 $0 $42,562 $41,908 $0 $1,922,126 CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Property Information and General Physical Condition ................................................................ 1 1.2. Facility Condition Index (FCI) ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Special Issues and Follow-Up Recommendations ...................................................................... 3 1.4. Opinions of Probable Cost .......................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.4.2. Immediate Repairs ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.3. Replacement Reserves ............................................................................................................... 4 2. Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.1. Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Personnel Interviewed ................................................................................................................. 7 2.4. Documentation Reviewed ........................................................................................................... 7 2.5. Pre-Survey Questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 7 2.6. Weather Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 7 3. Accessibility and Property Research ................................................................................................. 8 3.1. ADA Accessibility ........................................................................................................................ 8 4. Existing Building Assessment ............................................................................................................ 9 4.1. Unit or Space Types .................................................................................................................... 9 4.2. Inaccessible Areas or Key Spaces Not Observed ...................................................................... 9 5. Site Improvements ............................................................................................................................. 10 5.1. Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 10 5.2. Parking, Paving, and Sidewalks ................................................................................................ 10 5.3. Drainage Systems and Erosion Control .................................................................................... 11 5.4. Topography and Landscaping ................................................................................................... 12 5.5. General Site Improvements ....................................................................................................... 12 6. Building Architectural and Structural Systems ............................................................................... 14 6.1. Foundations ............................................................................................................................... 14 6.2. Superstructure ........................................................................................................................... 14 6.3. Roofing ...................................................................................................................................... 14 6.4. Exterior Walls ............................................................................................................................ 15 6.5. Exterior and Interior Stairs ......................................................................................................... 16 6.6. Exterior Windows and Doors ..................................................................................................... 16 6.7. Patio, Terrace, and Balcony ...................................................................................................... 17 7. Building Mechanical and Plumbing Systems .................................................................................. 18 7.1. Building Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) ..................................................... 18 7.2. Building Plumbing and Domestic Hot Water ............................................................................. 19 7.3. Building Gas Distribution ........................................................................................................... 20 7.4. Building Electrical ...................................................................................................................... 20 7.5. Building Elevators and Conveying Systems .............................................................................. 21 7.6. Fire Protection and Security Systems ....................................................................................... 22 8. Interior Spaces .................................................................................................................................... 24 8.1. Interior Finishes ......................................................................................................................... 24 9. Other Structures ................................................................................................................................. 26 10. Certification ......................................................................................................................................... 27 11. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 28 CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 1 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Property Information and General Physical Condition The property information is summarized in the table below. More detailed descriptions may be found in the various sections of the report and in the Appendices. Property Information Address: 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL 60560 Year Constructed/Renovated: Constructed 2000 Current Occupants: City of Yorkville Percent Utilization: 100% Management Point of Contact: Mr. Peter Ratos, Building Code Official, City of Yorkville 630.553.8574 phone Property Type: Municipal Site Area: 1 acre Building Area: 18,988 SF Number of Buildings: 1 Number of Stories: 2 Parking Type and Number of Spaces: 66 spaces in open lots (12 for police vehicles) Building Construction: Wood and concrete framed structure set on a concrete slab Roof Construction: Pitched roof with asphalt shingles Exterior Finishes: Brick veneer Vinyl siding Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning: Central system with furnaces and split-system condensing units Supplemental components: electric wall heaters Fire and Life/Safety: Fire sprinklers, hydrants, smoke detectors, alarms, strobes, extinguishers, pull stations, alarm panel, exit signs, and backup light fixtures. Dates of Visit: May 18, 2017 On-Site Point of Contact (POC): Peter Ratos Assessment and Report Prepared by: Kevin Koranda Reviewed by: Al Diefert Technical Report Reviewer For Andrew Hupp Program Manager arhupp@emgcorp.com 800.733.0660 x6632 Systemic Condition Summary Site Fair HVAC Fair to Poor CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 2 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Systemic Condition Summary Structure Fair Plumbing Fair Roof Fair to Poor Electrical Fair Vertical Envelope Fair Elevators Fair Interiors Fair Fire Fair The following bullet points highlight the most significant short term and modernization recommendations:  Roof replacement  HVAC upgrades and replacement of aged condensing units and furnaces  Asphalt parking area milling and overlaying  Site lighting replacements  Interior carpet replacements  Sprinkler system retrofit Generally, the property appears to have been constructed within industry standards in force at the time of construction. The property appears to have been well maintained in recent years and is in fair overall condition. According to property management personnel, the property has not had a capital improvement expenditure program over the past three years. 1.2. F acility Condition Index (FCI) One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate the FCI, which gives an indication of a building’s overall condition. Two FCI ratios are calculated and presented, the Current Year and Ten-Year. The Current Year FCI is the ratio of Immediate Repair Costs to the building’s Current Replacement Value. Similarly, the Ten-Year FCI is the ratio of anticipated Capital Reserve Needs over the next ten years to the Current Replacement Value. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 3 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Fci Condition Rating Definition Percentage Value Good In new or well-maintained condition, with no visual evidence of wear, soiling or other deficiencies. 0% to 5% Fair Subjected to wear and soiling but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. > than 5% to 10% Poor Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. > than 10% to 60% Very Poor Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary. > than 60% The graphs above and tables below represent summary-level findings for the FCA. The deficiencies identified in this assessment can be combined with potential new construction requirements to develop an overall strategy that can serve as the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. Key findings from the assessment include: Key Finding Metric Current Year Facility Condition Index (FCI) FCI = (IR)/(CRV) 7.7% Fair 10-Year Facility Condition Index (FCI) FCI = (RR)/(CRV) 24.7% Poor Current Replacement Value (CRV) 18,988 SF * 183.24 / SF = $3,479,307 Year 0 (Current Year) - Immediate Repairs (IR) $271,023 Years 1-10 – Replacement Reserves (RR) $860,877 Total Capital Needs $1,131,900 The major issues contributing to the Immediate Repair Costs and the Current Year FCI ratio are summarized below:  Roof replacement  HVAC upgrades and replacement of aged condensing units and furnaces  Asphalt parking area milling and overlaying  Site lighting replacements  Interior carpet replacements Further detail on the specific costs that make up the Immediate Repair Costs can be found in the cost tables at the beginning of this report. 1.3. Special Issues and Follow-Up Recommendations As part of the FCA, a limited assessment of accessible areas of the building(s) was performed to determine the presence of fungal growth, conditions conducive to fungal growth, and/or evidence of moisture. Property personnel were interviewed concerning any known or suspected fungal growth, elevated relative humidity, water intrusion, or mildew-like odors. Sampling is not a part of this assessment. There are no visual indications of the presence of fungal growth, conditions conducive to fungal growth, or evidence of moisture in representative readily accessible areas of the property. 1.4. Opinions of Probable Cost Cost estimates are attached at the front of this report (following the cover page). These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means and Marshall & Swift, EMG’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 4 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. ASTM E2018-08 recognizes that certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA. 1.4.1. Methodology Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, EMG opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based on continued use of the Property similar to the reported past use. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components. Where quantities could not be derived from an actual take-off, lump sum costs or allowances are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections. 1.4.2. Immediate Repairs Immediate repairs are opinions of probable costs that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) material building or fire code violations, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost. 1.4.3. Replacement Reserves Replacement Reserves are for recurring probable expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period. Replacement Reserves exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded. Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, EMG’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities. Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered. EMG’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined in the Immediate Repair Cost Estimate. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 5 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 2. Purpose and Scope 2.1. Purpose EMG was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit. Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record at municipal offices, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives. CONDITIONS: The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five conditions: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Failed or a combination thereof. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used: Excellent = New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service. Good = Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service. Fair = Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life. Poor = Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life. Failed = Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required. Not Applicable = Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present. FORMAT OF THE BODY OF THE REPORT: Throughout sections 5 through 9 of this report, each report section will typically contain three subsections organized in the following sequence:  A descriptive table (and/or narrative), which identifies the components assessed, their condition, and other key data points.  A simple bulleted list of Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements, which lists components and assets typically in Excellent, Good, or Fair condition at the time of the assessment but that will require replacement or some other attention once aged past their estimated useful life. These listed components are typically included in the associated inventory database with costs identified and budgeted beyond the first several years.  A bulleted cluster of Actions/Comments, which include more detailed narratives describing deficiencies, recommended repairs, and short term replacements. The assets and components associated with these bullets are/were typically problematic and in Poor or Failed condition at the time of the assessment, with corresponding costs included within the first few years. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 6 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PLAN TYPES: Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance. The following Plan Types are listed in general weighted order of importance: Safety = An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in an injury; a system or component that presents a potential liability risk. Performance/Integrity = Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses a risk to overall system stability. Accessibility = Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements. Environmental = Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site. Modernization/Adaptation = Conditions, systems, or spaces that need to be upgraded in appearance or function to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs. Lifecycle/Renewal = Any component or system in which future repair or replacement is anticipated beyond the next several years and/or is of minimal substantial early-term consequence. 2.2. Scope The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:  Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment.  Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.  Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions.  Provide a general statement of the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.  Perform a limited assessment of accessible areas of the building(s) for the presence of fungal growth, conditions conducive to fungal growth, and/or evidence of moisture. EMG will also interview Project personnel regarding the presence of any known or suspected fungal growth, elevated relative humidity, water intrusion, or mildew-like odors. Potentially affected areas will be photographed. Sampling will not be considered in routine assessments.  List the current utility service providers.  Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel.  Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms.  Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information.  Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report.  Prepare a mechanical equipment inventory list. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 7 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 2.3. Personnel Interviewed The management staff was interviewed for specific information relating to the physical property, available maintenance procedures, historical performance of key building systems and components, available drawings and other documentation. The following personnel from the facility and government agencies were interviewed in the process of conducting the FCA: Name and Title Organization Phone Number Peter Ratos Building Code Official City of Yorkville 630.553.8574 The FCA was performed with the assistance of Peter Ratos, Building Code Official, City of Yorkville, the onsite Point of Contact (POC), who was cooperative and provided information that appeared to be accurate based upon subsequent site observations. The onsite contact is completely knowledgeable about the subject property and answered most questions posed during the interview process. The POC’s involvement with the property has spanned the past 6 years. 2.4. Documentation Reviewed Prior to the FCA, relevant documentation was requested that could aid in the knowledge of the subject property’s physical improvements, extent and type of use, and/or assist in identifying material discrepancies between reported information and observed conditions. The review of submitted documents does not include comment on the accuracy of such documents or their preparation, methodology, or protocol. The Documentation Request Form is provided in Appendix E. 2.5. Pre-Survey Questionnaire A Pre-Survey Questionnaire was sent to the POC prior to the site visit. The questionnaire is included in Appendix E. Information obtained from the questionnaire has been used in preparation of this report. 2.6. Weather Conditions 5/18/17: Clear, with temperatures in the 70s (°F) and light winds. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 8 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 3. Accessibility and Property Research 3.1. ADA Accessibility Generally, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “commercial facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of its age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Buildings completed and occupied after January 26, 1992 are required to comply fully with the ADAAG. Existing facilities constructed prior to this date are held to the lesser standard of compliance to the extent allowed by structural feasibility and the financial resources available. As an alternative, a reasonable accommodation pertaining to the deficiency must be made. During the FCA, a limited visual observation for ADA accessibility compliance was conducted. The scope of the visual observation was limited to those areas set forth in EMG’s Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist provided in Appendix D of this report. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein does not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of EMG’s undertaking. Only a representative sample of areas was observed and, other than as shown on the Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist, actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance. The facility does not appear to be accessible with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Elements as defined by the ADAAG that are not accessible as stated within the priorities of Title III, are as follows: Parking  Signage indicating accessible parking spaces for cars and vans are not provided. Restrooms.  Wrap drain pipes below lavatory with insulation; protect against contact with hot, sharp, or abrasive surfaces. A full ADA Compliance Survey may reveal additional aspects of the property that are not in compliance. Corrections of these conditions should be addressed from a liability standpoint, but are not necessarily code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines concern civil rights issues as they pertain to the disabled and are not a construction code, although many local jurisdictions have adopted the Guidelines as such. The cost to address the achievable items noted above is included in the cost tables. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 9 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 4. Existing Building Assessment 4.1. Unit or Space Types All 18,988 square feet of the building are currently occupied by the City of Yorkville and is used as the city hall and police department. The spaces are mostly office areas. Other significant spaces include: the city council chambers and meeting rooms, and a police vehicle service bay. Other spaces include a combination of restrooms, mechanical spaces, storage areas, and other utility spaces. 4.2. Inaccessible Areas or Key Spaces Not Observed All of the interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries, exterior of the property and the roof. All areas of the property were available for observation during the site visit. A “down unit” or area is a term used to describe a unit or space that cannot be occupied due to poor conditions such as fire damage, water damage, missing equipment, damaged floor, wall or ceiling surfaces, or other significant deficiencies. There are no down units or areas. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 10 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 5. Site Improvements 5.1. Utilities The following table identifies the utility suppliers and the condition and adequacy of the services. Site Utilities Utility Supplier Condition and Adequacy Sanitary sewer City of Yorkville Good and Adequate Storm sewer City of Yorkville Good and Adequate Domestic water City of Yorkville Good and Adequate Electric service Commonwealth Edison Good and Adequate Natural gas service Nicor Gas Good and Adequate Actions/Comments:  According to the POC, the utilities provided are adequate for the property. There are no unique, onsite utility systems such as septic systems, water or waste water treatment plants, or propane gas tanks. An emergency electrical generator is located on the site. 5.2. Parking, Paving, and Sidewalks Item Description Main Ingress and Egress Game Farm Road Access from West Additional Entrances Adjacent parking areas/drive aisles Additional Access from North and South Paving and Flatwork Item Material Last Work Done Condition Entrance Driveway Apron Asphalt 2000 Fair Parking Lot Asphalt 2000 Fair to Poor Drive Aisles Asphalt 2000 Fair to Poor Service Aisles None -- -- Sidewalks Concrete 2000 Fair Curbs Concrete 2000 Fair Site Stairs Concrete 2000 Fair to Poor Pedestrian Ramps Concrete 2000 Fair CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 11 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Parking Count Open Lot Carport Private Garage Subterranean Garage Freestanding Parking Structure 54 spaces 12 spaces for police vehicles - - - - Total Number of ADA Compliant Spaces 2 Number of ADA Compliant Spaces for Vans 0 Total Parking Spaces 66 Parking Ratio (Spaces/Apartments) NA Method of Obtaining Parking Count Physical count Exterior Stairs Location Material Handrails Condition None -- -- -- Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Asphalt seal coating  Asphalt milling and overlaying  Sidewalks Actions/Comments:  The asphalt pavement exhibits significant areas of deterioration in the form of alligator cracking, raveling, and medium-sized depressions. The deterioration primarily affects the west lot and northeast lot. All of the paving must be overlaid with new asphalt paving in order to maintain the integrity of the overall pavement system. 5.3. Drainage Systems and Erosion Control Drainage System and Erosion Control System Exists At Site Condition Surface Flow ☐ -- Inlets ☒ Fair Swales ☒ Fair Detention pond ☐ -- Lagoons ☐ -- Ponds ☐ -- Underground Piping ☒ Fair Pits ☐ -- Municipal System ☒ Fair Dry Well ☐ -- CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 12 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  There is no evidence of storm water runoff from adjacent properties. The storm water system appears to provide adequate runoff capacity. There is no evidence of major ponding or erosion. 5.4. Topography and Landscaping Item Description Site Topography Relatively flat Landscaping Trees Grass Flower Beds Planters Drought Tolerant Plants Decorative Stone None ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Landscaping Condition Fair Irrigation Automatic Underground Drip Hand Watering None ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Irrigation Condition -- Retaining Walls Type Location Condition Concrete Stairwells Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  The topography and adjacent uses do not appear to present conditions detrimental to the property. There are no significant areas of erosion. 5.5. General Site Improvements Property Signage Property Signage Post mounted wood Street Address Displayed? Yes CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 13 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Site and Building Lighting Site Lighting None Pole Mounted Bollard Lights Ground Mounted Parking Lot Pole Type ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Fair Building Lighting None Wall Mounted Recessed Soffit ☐ ☒ ☒ Fair REFUSE DISPOSAL Refuse Disposal Common area dumpsters Dumpster Locations Mounting Enclosure Contracted? Condition Northeast parking area Concrete pad Chain link fence Yes Fair Other Site Amenities Description Location Condition Playground Equipment None -- -- Tennis Courts None -- -- Basketball Court None -- -- Swimming Pool None -- -- Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Exterior lighting  Site lighting Actions/Comments:  No significant actions are identified at the present time. On-going periodic maintenance is highly recommended. Future lifecycle replacements of the components listed above will be required. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 14 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 6. Building Architectural and Structural Systems 6.1. Foundations Building Foundation Item Description Condition Foundation Concrete foundation walls Good Basement and Crawl Space Concrete slab and concrete walls Good Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  Isolated areas of the foundation systems are exposed, which allows for limited observation. The foundation systems are concealed. There are no significant signs of settlement, deflection, or movement. The basement walls appear intact and structurally sound. There is no evidence of movement or water infiltration. 6.2. Superstructure Building Superstructure Item Description Condition Framing / Load-Bearing Walls Conventional wood/metal studs Good Ground Floor Concrete slab Good Upper Floor Framing Concrete beams Good Upper Floor Decking Metal decking Good Roof Framing Wood trusses Good Roof Decking Plywood or OSB Good Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  The superstructure is exposed in some locations, which allows for limited observation. Walls and floors appear to be plumb, level, and stable. There are no significant signs of deflection or movement. 6.3. Roofing Primary Roof Type / Geometry Hip Roof Finish Asphalt shingles CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 15 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Primary Roof Maintenance In-house Staff Roof Age 18 Yrs Flashing Sheet metal Warranties Unknown Parapet Copings None Roof Drains Gutters and downspouts Fascia Metal Panel Insulation Fiberglass batts Soffits Exposed Soffits Skylights No Attics Yes Ponding No Ventilation Source-1 Power Vents Leaks Observed No Ventilation Source-2 None Roof Condition Fair The primary roof is located over the majority of the building at the newer sections of the facility. Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Asphalt shingles Actions/Comments:  The roof finishes are original. Information regarding roof warranties or bonds was not available.  According to the POC, there are no active roof leaks. There is no evidence of active roof leaks.  There is no evidence of roof deck or insulation deterioration. The roof substrate and insulation should be inspected during any future roof repair or replacement work.  Roof drainage appears to be adequate. Clearing and minor repair of drain system components should be performed regularly as part of the property management’s routine maintenance and operations program.  The attics are not accessible and it could not be determined if there is moisture, water intrusion, or excessive daylight in the attics.  The field of the roofs have curling and deteriorated shingles, primarily at the south side of the facility. Replacement of the entire roof is recommended. 6.4. Exterior Walls Building Exterior Walls Type Location Condition Primary Finish Vinyl siding Fair Secondary Finish Brick veneer Good Accented with None -- Soffits Exposed Fair Building sealants (caulking) are located between dissimilar materials, at joints, and around window and door openings. Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Vinyl siding  Caulking  Masonry re-pointing CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 16 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Actions/Comments:  The vinyl siding has isolated areas of cracking and damage on the south side of the building near the condensing unit. The damaged finishes must be replaced. The cost for this work is relatively insignificant and can be accomplished through the City’s routine maintenance program. 6.5. Exterior and Interior Stairs Building Exterior and Interior Stairs Type Description Riser Handrail Balusters Condition Building Exterior Stairs Concrete stairs Closed Metal Metal Good Building Interior Stairs Steel-framed with pre-cast treads Closed Metal Metal Good Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  No significant actions are identified at the present time. On-going periodic maintenance is highly recommended. 6.6. Exterior Windows and Doors Building Windows Window Framing Glazing Location Window Screen Condition Aluminum framed storefront Double glaze Building exterior ☐ Fair Vinyl framed Double glaze Building exterior ☒ Fair Building Doors Main Entrance Doors Door Type Condition Fully glazed, metal framed Fair Secondary Entrance Doors Partially glazed, metal framed Fair Service Doors Metal, insulated Fair Overhead Doors Vinyl, sectional Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Storefront glazing  Exterior storefront doors  Overhead doors Actions/Comments:  There are a significant number of delaminated doors. The damaged doors must be refinished. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 17 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 6.7. Patio, Terrace, and Balcony Building Patio, Terrace and Balcony Type Description Location Condition Ground Floor Patio Pavers East elevation Fair Upper Balcony Structure None -- -- Balcony Decks None -- -- Balcony Deck Toppings None -- -- Balcony Guardrails None -- -- Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  No significant actions are identified at the present time. On-going periodic maintenance is highly recommended. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 18 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 7. Building Mechanical and Plumbing Systems See the Mechanical Equipment List in the Appendices for the quantity, manufacturer’s name, model number, capacity and year of manufacturer of the major mechanical equipment, if available. 7.1. Building Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Individual Units Primary Components Split system furnaces and condensing units Cooling (if separate from above) performed via components above Quantity and Capacity Ranges 8 furnaces ranging from 120 MBH to 135 MBH 9 condensing units ranging from 1 ton to 5 tons Total Heating or Cooling Capacity 1032 MBH 31 tons Heating Fuel Refrigerant Natural gas R-22 and R-134A Location of Equipment Furnaces in mechanical rooms Condensing units located adjacent to east wall Space Served by System Entire building Age Ranges Majority dated 2000 Primary Component Condition Fair to Poor Supplemental Components Supplemental Component #1 Split system condensing unit Location / Space Served Adjacent east wall/IT Room Condition Fair Supplemental Component #2 Electric wall heater Location / Space Served Entry vestibule Condition Fair Controls and Ventilation HVAC Control System Individual programmable thermostats/controls HVAC Control System Condition Fair Building Ventilation Roof top exhaust fans CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 19 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Controls and Ventilation Ventilation System Condition Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Furnaces  Condensing units  Gas-fried unit heaters  Exhaust fans  Electric wall heaters Actions/Comments:  The HVAC systems are maintained by an outside contractor. It is unknown whether records of the installation, maintenance, upgrades, and replacement of the HVAC equipment at the property have been maintained.  Approximately 90 percent of the HVAC equipment is original. The HVAC equipment varies in age. HVAC equipment is replaced on an "as needed" basis.  The HVAC equipment appears to be not functioning adequately. The property management staff was interviewed about the historical and recent performance of the equipment and systems. The staff member reported that the system is zoned poorly and does not keep up with cooling loads. A budgetary cost for the upgrade or addition of supplementary components has been included in the report.  The existing component are generally in fair condition, however, due to the inevitable failure of parts and components over time, some of the equipment will require replacement. 7.2. Building Plumbing and Domestic Hot Water Building Plumbing System Type Description Condition Water Supply Piping Copper Fair Waste/Sewer Piping PVC Fair Vent Piping PVC Fair Water Meter Location Basement mechanical room Domestic Water Heaters or Boilers Components Water Heater Fuel Natural gas Quantity and Input Capacity 1 unit at 75,100 BTU/h Storage Capacity 70 gallons Boiler or Water Heater Condition Good Supplementary Storage Tanks? No Storage Tank Quantity & Volume None Quantity of Storage Tanks 0 Storage Tank Condition -- Domestic Hot Water Circulation Pumps (3 HP and over) No Adequacy of Hot Water Adequate CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 20 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Domestic Water Heaters or Boilers Adequacy of Water Pressure Adequate Plumbing Fixtures Water Closets Commercial Toilet (Water Closet) Flush Rating 1.6 GPF Common Area Faucet Nominal Flow Rate 2.0 GPM Condition Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Water heaters  Toilets  Urinals  Sinks  Ejector pumps  Eyewash station  Toilet stalls  Drinking fountains Actions/Comments:  The plumbing systems appear to be well maintained and functioning adequately. The water pressure appears to be sufficient. No significant repair actions or short term replacement costs are required. Routine and periodic maintenance is recommended. Future lifecycle replacements of the components or systems listed above will be required. 7.3. Building Gas Distribution Gas service is supplied from the gas main on the adjacent public street. The gas meter and regulator is located along the exterior wall of the building. The gas distribution piping within the building is malleable steel (black iron). Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  The pressure and quantity of gas appear to be adequate.  The gas meter and regulator appear to be functioning adequately and will require routine maintenance.  Only limited observation of the gas distribution piping can be made due to hidden conditions. 7.4. Building Electrical Building Electrical Systems Electrical Lines Underground Transformer Pad-mounted Main Service Size 800 Amps Volts 120/208 Volt, three-phase CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 21 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Building Electrical Systems Meter & Panel Location Basement mechanical room Branch Wiring Copper Conduit Metallic Step-Down Transformers? No Security / Surveillance System? No Building Intercom System? No Lighting Fixtures T-8 Main Distribution Condition Good Secondary Panel and Transformer Condition Good Lighting Condition Fair Building Emergency System Size 125 kW Fuel Diesel Generator / UPS Serves Emergency lights, elevator Tank Location Integral Testing Frequency Bi-Weekly Tank Type Integral ("belly") tank Generator / UPS Condition Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Circuit breaker panels  Main switchgear  Interior light fixtures  Emergency generator  Ceiling fans Actions/Comments:  The onsite electrical systems up to the meters are owned and maintained by the respective utility company.  The electrical service and capacity appear to be adequate for the property’s demands.  The switchgear and some panels are original 2000 components. The electrical service is reportedly adequate for the facility’s needs. However, due to the age of the panels and switchgear and increasing difficulty of obtaining replacement parts over time, lifecycle replacements are recommended per above. 7.5. Building Elevators and Conveying Systems Building Elevators Manufacturer Dover Machinery Location Ground floor or basement adjacent to shaft Safety Stops Electronic Emergency Equipment Yes Cab Floor Finish Vinyl-tiled Cab Wall Finish Plastic-laminated wood CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 22 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Building Elevators Hydraulic Elevators 1 car at 2500 lbs Overhead Traction Elevators None Freight Elevators None Machinery Condition Fair Controls Condition Fair Cab Finish Condition Fair Other Conveyances None Other Conveyance Condition NA Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Elevator controls  Hydraulic machinery Actions/Comments:  The elevators are serviced by Schindler Elevator Corp on a routine basis. The elevator machinery and controls are the originally installed system. The elevators will require continued periodic maintenance.  The elevators are inspected on an annual basis by the municipality, and a certificate of inspection is displayed in each elevator cab.  The emergency communication equipment in the elevator cabs appears to be functional. Equipment testing is not within the scope of the work.  The finishes in the elevator cabs will require replacement. The cost to replace the finishes is relatively insignificant and the work can be performed as part of the property management’s operations program. 7.6. Fire Protection and Security Systems Item Description Type Wet pipe Fire Alarm System Central Alarm Panel ☒ Battery-Operated Smoke Detectors ☐ Alarm Horns ☒ Annunciator Panels ☒ Hard-Wired Smoke Detectors ☒ Strobe Light Alarms ☒ Pull Stations ☒ Emergency Battery-Pack Lighting ☒ Illuminated EXIT Signs ☒ Alarm System Condition Fair Sprinkler System None ☐ Standpipes ☐ Backflow Preventer ☒ Hose Cabinets ☐ Fire Pumps ☐ Siamese Connections ☐ Suppression Condition Fair Central Alarm Panel System Location of Alarm Panel Installation Date of Alarm Panel Basement mechanical room 2000 CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 23 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Item Description Type Wet pipe Fire Extinguishers Last Service Date Servicing Current? March, 2017 Yes Hydrant Location Adjacent to building Siamese Location None Special Systems Kitchen Suppression System ☐ Computer Room Suppression System ☐ Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Central alarm panel  Exit signs  Backup light fixtures  Extinguishers  Automated external defibrillator Actions/Comments:  The majority of the building is not protected by fire suppression; sprinkler heads are currently limited to the files storage room in the basement near the mechanical room. Due to its construction date, the facility is most likely “grandfathered” by code and the installation of fire sprinklers not required until major renovations are performed. Regardless of when or if installation of facility-wide fire suppression is required by the governing municipality, EMG recommends a retrofit be performed. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 24 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 8. I nterior Spaces 8.1. I nterior Finishes All 18,988 square feet of the building are currently occupied by the City of Yorkville and is used as the city hall and police department. The spaces are mostly office areas. Other significant spaces include: the city council chambers and meeting rooms, and a police vehicle service bay. Other spaces include a combination of restrooms, mechanical spaces, storage areas, and other utility spaces. The following table generally describes the locations and typical conditions of the interior finishes within the facility: Typical Floor Finishes Floor Finish Locations General Condition Carpet Throughout building Fair Vinyl tile Throughout building, stairwells, miscellaneous spaces Fair Ceramic tile Restrooms Fair Quarry tile Entry vestibule Fair Concrete Sally port, storage areas Fair Typical Wall Finishes Wall Finish Locations General Condition Painted drywall Throughout building Fair Exposed CMU/masonry Basement mechanical room Fair Typical Ceiling Finishes Ceiling Finish Locations General Condition Suspended T-bar (Acoustic) Office spaces, basement areas Fair Painted drywall Council chambers, entry vestibule, sally port Fair Exposed structure Basement mechanical room Fair Interior Doors Item Type Condition Interior Doors Hollow core Solid core Fair Door Framing Wood Metal Fair Fire Doors Yes Fair CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 25 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Carpet  Vinyl tile  Interior paint  Suspended acoustic ceiling tile  Interior doors  Kitchenette cabinetry  Residential grade appliances Actions/Comments:  The interior areas were last renovated in 2015. The renovations consisted primarily of repainting.  The carpeting in the city hall area is rippling and in poor condition. Replacement of the carpeting in this area is recommended. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 26 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 9. Other Structures Not applicable. There are no major accessory structures. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 27 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 10. Certification The City of Yorkville retained EMG to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of City Hall/Police Department, Yorkville, IL, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the City of Yorkville is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walk-through observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties. No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in depth studies were performed unless specifically required under Section 2 of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas were observed (See Section 4.2 for areas observed). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted. This report has been prepared on behalf of and exclusively for the use of the City of Yorkville for the purpose stated within Section 2 of this report. The report, or any excerpt thereof, shall not be used by any party other than the City of Yorkville or for any other purpose than that specifically stated in our agreement or within Section 2 of this report without the express written consent of EMG. Any reuse or distribution of this report without such consent shall be at the City of Yorkville and the recipient’s sole risk, without liability to EMG. Prepared by: Kevin Koranda, Project Manager Reviewed by: Al Diefert Technical Report Reviewer For Andrew Hupp Program Manager arhupp@emgcorp.com 800.733.0660 x6632 CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 28 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 11. Appendices Appendix A: Photographic Record Appendix B: Site Plan Appendix C: EMG Accessibility Checklist Appendix D: Pre-Survey Questionnaire CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Appendix A: Photographic Record CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #1: COVER PHOTO PHOTO #2: FRONT ELEVATION PHOTO #3: NORTH ELEVATION PHOTO #4: NORTH ELEVATION PHOTO #5: EAST ELEVATION PHOTO #6: SOUTH ELEVATION CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #7: SITE IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE PHOTO #8: SIDEWALK PHOTO #9: CURB, DAMAGED PHOTO #10: SITE LIGHTING PHOTO #11: MAIN ENTRANCE RAMP PHOTO #12: RAMP WALL CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #13: STAIR WALL, SPALLING PHOTO #14: FRONT LOT, CRACKING AND DETERIORATED PHOTO #15: NORTHEAST LOT, CRACKING PHOTO #16: DUMPSTER AREA PHOTO #17: BUILDING LIGHTING PHOTO #18: BUILDING LIGHTING CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #19: EXTERIOR DOOR PHOTO #20: EXTERIOR DOOR PHOTO #21: MAIN ENTRANCE, DOOR OPENER PHOTO #22: SMALL BASEMENT WINDOW PHOTO #23: LARGE WINDOW PHOTO #24: PATIO AREA CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #25: ROOF PHOTO #26: ROOF, CURLING PHOTO #27: ROOF PHOTO #28: VINYL SIDING PHOTO #29: STAIRWELL PHOTO #30: STAIRWELL CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #31: GENERATOR PHOTO #32: CONDENSING UNITS PHOTO #33: DISTRIBUTION PANEL PHOTO #34: CIRCUIT BREAKERS PHOTO #35: MAIN MECHANICAL ROOM PHOTO #36: FURNACES CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #37: UNIT HEATER, SALLY PORT PHOTO #38: THERMOSTAT PHOTO #39: WALL MOUNTED ELECTRIC HEATER PHOTO #40: BACKUP LIGHT FIXTURE AND STROBE ALARM PHOTO #41: SMOKE DETECTOR PHOTO #42: EXIT SIGN CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #43: EXTINGUISHER PHOTO #44: RESTROOM PHOTO #45: URINAL PHOTO #46: TOILET PHOTO #47: LAVATORY SINKS PHOTO #48: BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICE AREA CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #49: STAIRS PHOTO #50: FIRE DOOR PHOTO #51: ENTRY VESTIBULE PHOTO #52: HALLWAY PHOTO #53: DRINKING FOUNTAINS PHOTO #54: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #55: LIGHTING FIXTURES PHOTO #56: ACOUSTICAL TILE CEILING PHOTO #57: CARPET, RIPPLING PHOTO #58: KITCHENETTE PHOTO #59: SOLID CORE DOOR PHOTO #60: SALLY PORT CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT 800 GAME FARM ROAD YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PHOTO #61: BATHROOM, POLICE AREA PHOTO #62: EYEWASH PHOTO #63: OFFICE, POLICE AREA PHOTO #64: OFFICE, POLICE AREA PHOTO #65: KITCHENETTE PHOTO #66: POLICE SERVICE DESK AND WAITING ROOM CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Appendix B: Site Plan Site Plan Project Name: City Hall/Police Station Project Number: 122700.17R000-004.322 Source: Google Earth Pro On-Site Date: 5/18/2017 CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Appendix C: EMG Accessibility Checklist Page 1 of 4 Date Completed: 5/19/17 Property Name: City Hall/Police Station EMG Project Number: 122700.17R000-004.322 Building History Yes No Unk Comments 1 Has an ADA survey previously been completed for this property? ✔ 2 Have any ADA improvements been made to the property? ✔ 3 Does a Transition Plan / Barrier Removal Plan exist for the property? ✔ 4 Has building ownership or management received any ADA related complaints that have not been resolved? ✔ 5 Is any litigation pending related to ADA issues? ✔ Parking Yes No NA Comments 1 Are there sufficient accessible parking spaces with respect to the total number of reported spaces? ✔ 2 Are there sufficient van-accessible parking spaces available? ✔ 3 Are accessible spaces marked with the International Symbol of Accessibility? Are there signs reading “Van Accessible” at van spaces? ✔ 4 Is there at least one accessible route provided within the boundary of the site from public transportation stops, accessible parking spaces, passenger loading zones, if provided, and public streets and sidewalks? ✔ 5 Do curbs on the accessible route have depressed, ramped curb cuts at drives, paths, and drop-offs? ✔ 6 If required does signage exist directing you to accessible parking and an accessible building entrance? ✔ Ramps Yes No NA Comments 1* Do all ramps along accessible path of travel appear to meet slope requirements? ( 1:12 or less) ✔ 2 Are ramps that appear longer than 6 ft complete with railings on both sides? ✔ Page 2 of 4 Ramps Yes No NA Comments 3 Does the width between railings appear at least 36 inches? ✔ 4 Is there a level landing for approximately every 30 ft horizontal length of ramp, at the top and at the bottom of ramps and switchbacks? ✔ Entrances/Exits Yes No NA Comments 1 Do all required accessible entrance doorways appear at least 32 inches wide and not a revolving door? ✔ 2 If the main entrance is inaccessible, are there alternate accessible entrances? ✔ 3 Is the door hardware easy to operate (lever/push type hardware, no twisting required and not higher than approximately 48 inches above the floor)? ✔ Paths of Travel Yes No NA Comments 1 Are all paths of travel free of obstruction and wide enough for a wheelchair (appear at least 36 inches wide)? ✔ 2 Are wheelchair-accessible facilities (toilet rooms, exits, etc.) identified with signage? ✔ 3 Is there a path of travel that does not require the use of stairs? ✔ Elevators Yes No NA Comments 1 Do the call buttons have visual and audible signals to indicate when a call is registered and answered when car arrives? ✔ 2 Are there visual and audible signals inside cars indicating floor change? ✔ 3 Are there standard raised and Braille marking on both jambs of each hoist way entrance as well as all cab/call buttons? ✔ 4 Do elevator doors have a reopening device that will stop and reopen a car door if an object or a person obstructs the door? ✔ 5 Are elevator controls low enough to be reached from a wheelchair (appears to be between 15 and 48 inches)? ✔ 6 If a two-way emergency communication system is provided within the elevator cab, is it usable without voice communication? ✔ Page 3 of 4 Toilet Rooms Yes No NA Comments 1 Are common area public restrooms located on an accessible route? ✔ 2 Are pull handles push/pull or lever type? ✔ 3 Are there audible and visual fire alarm devices in the toilet rooms? ✔ 4 Are toilet room access doors wheelchair- accessible (appear to be at least 32 inches wide)? ✔ 5 Are public restrooms large enough to accommodate a wheelchair turnaround (appear to have 60” turning diameter)? ✔ 6 In unisex toilet rooms, are there safety alarms with pull cords? ✔ 7 Are toilet stall doors wheelchair accessible (appear to be at least 32” wide)? ✔ 8 Are grab bars provided in toilet stalls? ✔ 9 Are sinks provided with clearance for a wheelchair to roll under (appear to have 29” clearance)? ✔ 10 Are sink handles operable with one hand without grasping, pinching or twisting? ✔ 11 Are exposed pipes under sink sufficiently insulated against contact? ✔ Guest Rooms Yes No NA Comments 1 How many total accessible sleeping rooms does the property management report to have? Provide specific number in comment field. Are there sufficient reported accessible sleeping rooms with respect to the total number of reported guestrooms? See attached hot sheet. ✔ Page 4 of 4 Guest Rooms Yes No NA Comments 2 How many of the accessible sleeping rooms per property management have roll- in showers? Provide specific number in comment field. Are there sufficient reported accessible rooms with roll-in showers with respect to the total number of reported accessible guestrooms? See attached hot sheet. ✔ 3 How many assistive listening kits and/or rooms with communication features are available per property management? Provide specific number in comment field. Are there sufficient reported assistive listening devices with respect to the total number of rooms? See attached hot sheet. ✔ Pools Yes No NA Comments 1 Are public access pools provided? If the answer is no, please disregard this section. ✔ 2 How many accessible access points are provided to each pool/spa? Provide number in comment field. Is at least one fixed lift or sloped entry to the pool provided? ✔ Play Area Yes No NA Comments 1 Has the play area been reviewed for accessibility? All public playgrounds are subject to ADAAG standards. ✔ Exercise Equipment Yes No NA Comments 1 Does there appear to be adequate clear floor space around the machines/equipment (30” by 48” minimum)? ✔ *Based on visual observation only. The slope was not confirmed through measurements. CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Appendix D: Pre-Survey Questionnaire CITY HALL/POLICE DEPARTMENT EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-004.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 On the day of the site visit, provide EMG's Field Observer access to all of the available documents listed below. Provide copies if possible. INFORMATION REQUIRED 1. All available construction documents (blueprints) for the original construction of the building or for any tenant improvement work or other recent construction work. 2. A site plan, preferably 8 1/2" X 11", which depicts the arrangement of buildings, roads, parking stalls, and other site features. 3. For commercial properties, provide a tenant list which identifies the names of each tenant, vacant tenant units, the floor area of each tenant space, and the gross and net leasable area of the building(s). 4. For apartment properties, provide a summary of the apartment unit types and apartment unit type quantities, including the floor area of each apartment unit as measured in square feet. 5. For hotel or nursing home properties, provide a summary of the room types and room type quantities. 6. Copies of Certificates of Occupancy, building permits, fire or health department inspection reports, elevator inspection certificates, roof or HVAC warranties, or any other similar, relevant documents. 7. The names of the local utility companies which serve the property, including the water, sewer, electric, gas, and phone companies. 8. The company name, phone number, and contact person of all outside vendors who serve the property, such as mechanical contractors, roof contractors, fire sprinkler or fire extinguisher testing contractors, and elevator contractors. 9. A summary of recent (over the last 5 years) capital improvement work which describes the scope of the work and the estimated cost of the improvements. Executed contracts or proposals for improvements. Historical costs for repairs, improvements, and replacements. 10. Records of system & material ages (roof, MEP, paving, finishes, furnishings). 11. Any brochures or marketing information. 12. Appraisal, either current or previously prepared. 13. Current occupancy percentage and typical turnover rate records (for commercial and apartment properties). 14. Previous reports pertaining to the physical condition of property. 15. ADA survey and status of improvements implemented. 16. Current / pending litigation related to property condition. Your timely compliance with this request is greatly appreciated. Prepared for: United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT Public Works Office and Garage 610 Tower Lane Yorkville, Illinois 60560 PREPARED BY: EMG CONTACT: EMG Andrew Hupp 10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 Senior Engineering Consultant Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 800.733.0660 x6632 800.733.0660 arhupp@emgcorp.com www.EMGcorp.com EMG Project Number: Date of Report: On Site Date: 122700.17R000-030.322 September 13, 2017 May 22, 2017 September 11, 2017 EMG Corporate Headquarters 10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100, Owings Mills, MD 21117 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Property Information and General Physical Condition ................................................................ 1 1.2. Facility Condition Index (FCI) ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Special Issues and Follow-Up Recommendations ...................................................................... 3 1.4. Opinions of Probable Cost .......................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.4.2. Immediate Repairs ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.3. Replacement Reserves ............................................................................................................... 4 2. Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.1. Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Personnel Interviewed ................................................................................................................. 6 2.4. Documentation Reviewed ........................................................................................................... 7 2.5. Pre-Survey Questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 7 2.6. Weather Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 7 3. Accessibility and Property Research ................................................................................................. 8 3.1. ADA Accessibility ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.2. Municipal Information, Flood Zone and Seismic Zone ................................................................ 8 4. Existing Building Assessment ............................................................................................................ 9 4.1. Unit or Space Types .................................................................................................................... 9 4.2. Inaccessible Areas or Key Spaces Not Observed ...................................................................... 9 5. Site Improvements ............................................................................................................................. 10 5.1. Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 10 5.2. Parking, Paving, and Sidewalks ................................................................................................ 10 5.3. Drainage Systems and Erosion Control .................................................................................... 11 5.4. Topography and Landscaping ................................................................................................... 12 5.5. General Site Improvements ....................................................................................................... 12 6. Building Architectural and Structural Systems ............................................................................... 14 6.1. Foundations ............................................................................................................................... 14 6.2. Superstructure ........................................................................................................................... 14 6.3. Roofing ...................................................................................................................................... 14 6.4. Exterior Walls ............................................................................................................................ 15 6.5. Exterior and Interior Stairs ......................................................................................................... 16 6.6. Exterior Windows and Doors ..................................................................................................... 16 6.7. Patio, Terrace, and Balcony ...................................................................................................... 16 7. Building Mechanical and Plumbing Systems .................................................................................. 17 7.1. Building Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) ..................................................... 17 7.2. Building Plumbing and Domestic Hot Water ............................................................................. 18 7.3. Building Gas Distribution ........................................................................................................... 19 7.4. Building Electrical ...................................................................................................................... 19 7.5. Building Elevators and Conveying Systems .............................................................................. 20 7.6. Fire Protection and Security Systems ....................................................................................... 20 7.7. Life Support Systems ................................................................................................................ 21 8. Interior Spaces .................................................................................................................................... 22 8.1. Interior Finishes ......................................................................................................................... 22 8.2. Commercial Kitchen & Laundry Equipment .............................................................................. 23 9. Other Structures ................................................................................................................................. 24 10. Certification ......................................................................................................................................... 25 11. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 26 PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 1 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Property Information and General Physical Condition The property information is summarized in the table below. More detailed descriptions may be found in the various sections of the report and in the Appendices. Property Information Address: 610 Tower Lane, Yorkville, IL 60560 Year Constructed/Renovated: 1976 – Office 1996 - Garage Current Occupants: City of Yorkville Percent Utilization: 100%. Management Point of Contact: City of Yorkville, Mr. Peter Ratos 630.553.8574 phone pratos@yorkville.il.us email Property Type: Office, Garage Site Area: 2.0 acres Building Area: 8,820 SF Number of Buildings: 1 Number of Stories: 1 Parking Type and Number of Spaces: 9 spaces in open lots Building Construction: Steel frame with concrete-topped metal decks Roof Construction: Sloped roofing with metal finish Exterior Finishes: Metal Siding Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning: Individual package split-system units. Supplemental components: suspended gas unit heaters and window air conditioning unit. Fire and Life/Safety: Smoke detectors, strobes, extinguishers, and exit signs. Dates of Visit: May 22, 2017 On-Site Point of Contact (POC): Eric Dhuse Assessment and Report Prepared by: Tammy Prusa Reviewed by: Paul Prusa P.E., LEED AP Technical Report Reviewer For Andrew Hupp arhupp@emgcorp.com 800.733.0660 x6632 Systemic Condition Summary Site Fair HVAC Fair Structure Good Plumbing Fair Roof Fair Electrical Fair Vertical Envelope Fair Elevators -- PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 2 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Systemic Condition Summary Interiors Fair Fire -- The following bullet points highlight the most significant short term and modernization recommendations:  Repair damage to right elevation exterior wall  Installation of a complete fire alarm system  Mill and overlay asphalt parking lot  Installation of a complete fire suppression system Generally, the property appears to have been constructed within industry standards in force at the time of construction. The property appears to have been well maintained since it was first occupied and is in fair overall condition. The property has had no major capital improvements. The property is less than 32 years old and has not required any major capital improvements. 1.2. Facility Condition Index (FCI) One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate the FCI, which gives an indication of a building’s overall condition. Two FCI ratios are calculated and presented, the Current Year and Ten-Year. The Current Year FCI is the ratio of Immediate Repair Costs to the building’s Current Replacement Value. Similarly, the Ten-Year FCI is the ratio of anticipated Capital Reserve Needs over the next ten years to the Current Replacement Value. FCI Condition Rating Definition Percentage Value Good In new or well-maintained condition, with no visual evidence of wear, soiling or other deficiencies. 0% to 5% Fair Subjected to wear and soiling but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. > than 5% to 10% Poor Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. > than 10% to 60% Very Poor Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary. > than 60% PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 3 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 The graphs above and tables below represent summary-level findings for the FCA. The deficiencies identified in this assessment can be combined with potential new construction requirements to develop an overall strategy that can serve as the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. Key findings from the assessment include: Key Finding Metric Current Year Facility Condition Index (FCI) FCI = (IR)/(CRV) 6.0% Fair 10-Year Facility Condition Index (FCI) FCI = (RR)/(CRV) 78.4% Poor Current Replacement Value (CRV) 8,820 SF * $183.24 / SF = $1,616,176.80 Year 0 (Current Year) - Immediate Repairs (IR) $97,079.00 Years 1-10 – Replacement Reserves (RR) $1,267,069.00 Total Capital Needs $1,364,148.00 The major issues contributing to the Immediate Repair Costs and the Current Year FCI ratio are summarized below:  Repair damage to right elevation exterior wall  Installation of a complete fire alarm system  Installation of a complete fire suppression system  Add signage and marking for ADA Van accessible parking stall Further detail on the specific costs that make up the Immediate Repair Costs can be found in the cost tables at the beginning of this report. 1.3. Special Issues and Follow-Up Recommendations As part of the FCA, a limited assessment of accessible areas of the building(s) was performed to determine the presence of fungal growth, conditions conducive to fungal growth, and/or evidence of moisture. Property personnel were interviewed concerning any known or suspected fungal growth, elevated relative humidity, water intrusion, or mildew-like odors. Sampling is not a part of this assessment. There are no visual indications of the presence of fungal growth, conditions conducive to fungal growth, or evidence of moisture in representative readily accessible areas of the property. 1.4. Opinions of Probable Cost Cost estimates are attached at the front of this report (following the cover page). These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means and Marshall & Swift, EMG’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions. Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. ASTM E2018-08 recognizes that certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 4 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 1.4.1. Methodology Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, EMG opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based on continued use of the Property similar to the reported past use. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components. Where quantities could not be derived from an actual take-off, lump sum costs or allowances are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections. 1.4.2. Immediate Repairs Immediate repairs are opinions of probable costs that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) material building or fire code violations, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost. 1.4.3. Replacement Reserves Replacement Reserves are for recurring probable expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period. Replacement Reserves exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded. Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, EMG’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities. Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered. EMG’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined in the Immediate Repair Cost Estimate. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 5 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 2. Purpose and Scope 2.1. Purpose EMG was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit. Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record at municipal offices, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives. CONDITIONS: The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five conditions: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Failed or a combination thereof. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used: Excellent = New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service. Good = Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service. Fair = Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life. Poor = Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life. Failed = Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required. Not Applicable = Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present. Throughout sections 5 through 9 of this report, each report section will typically contain three subsections organized in the following sequence:  A descriptive table (and/or narrative), which identifies the components assessed, their condition, and other key data points.  A simple bulleted list of Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements, which lists components and assets typically in Excellent, Good, or Fair condition at the time of the assessment but that will require replacement or some other attention once aged past their estimated useful life. These listed components are typically included in the associated inventory database with costs identified and budgeted beyond the first several years.  A bulleted cluster of Actions/Comments, which include more detailed narratives describing deficiencies, recommended repairs, and short term replacements. The assets and components associated with these bullets are/were typically problematic and in Poor or Failed condition at the time of the assessment, with corresponding costs included within the first few years. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 6 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 PLAN TYPES: Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance. The following Plan Types are listed in general weighted order of importance: Safety = An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in an injury; a system or component that presents a potential liability risk. Performance/Integrity = Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses a risk to overall system stability. Accessibility = Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements. Environmental = Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site. Modernization/Adaptation = Conditions, systems, or spaces that need to be upgraded in appearance or function to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs. Lifecycle/Renewal = Any component or system in which future repair or replacement is anticipated beyond the next several years and/or is of minimal substantial early-term consequence. 2.2. Scope The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:  Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment.  Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.  Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions.  Provide a general statement of the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.  Perform a limited assessment of accessible areas of the building(s) for the presence of fungal growth, conditions conducive to fungal growth, and/or evidence of moisture. EMG will also interview Project personnel regarding the presence of any known or suspected fungal growth, elevated relative humidity, water intrusion, or mildew-like odors. Potentially affected areas will be photographed. Sampling will not be considered in routine assessments.  List the current utility service providers.  Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel.  Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms.  Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report.  Prepare a mechanical equipment inventory list. 2.3. Personnel Interviewed The management was interviewed for specific information relating to the physical property, available maintenance procedures, historical performance of key building systems and components, available drawings and other documentation. The following personnel from the facility and government agencies were interviewed in the process of conducting the FCA: Name and Title Organization Phone Number Eric Dhuse City of Yorkville 630.878.7102 PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 7 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 The FCA was performed with the assistance of Eric Dhuse, City of Yorkville, the onsite Point of Contact (POC), who was cooperative and provided information that appeared to be accurate based upon subsequent site observations. The onsite contact is completely knowledgeable about the subject property and answered most questions posed during the interview process. The POC’s management involvement at the property has been for the past 23 years. 2.4. Documentation Reviewed Prior to the FCA, relevant documentation was requested that could aid in the knowledge of the subject property’s physical improvements, extent and type of use, and/or assist in identifying material discrepancies between reported information and observed conditions. The review of submitted documents does not include comment on the accuracy of such documents or their preparation, methodology, or protocol. The Documentation Request Form is provided in Appendix E. Although Appendix E provides a summary of the documents requested or obtained, the following list provides more specific details about some of the documents that were reviewed or obtained during the site visit.  No documents available. 2.5. Pre-Survey Questionnaire A Pre-Survey Questionnaire was sent to the POC prior to the site visit. The questionnaire is included in Appendix E. Information obtained from the questionnaire has been used in preparation of this report. 2.6. Weather Conditions May 22, 2017: Clear, with temperatures in the 70’s (°F) and light winds. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 8 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 3. Accessibility and Property Research 3.1. ADA Accessibility Generally, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “commercial facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of its age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Buildings completed and occupied after January 26, 1992 are required to comply fully with the ADAAG. Existing facilities constructed prior to this date are held to the lesser standard of compliance to the extent allowed by structural feasibility and the financial resources available. As an alternative, a reasonable accommodation pertaining to the deficiency must be made. During the FCA, a limited visual observation for ADA accessibility compliance was conducted. The scope of the visual observation was limited to those areas set forth in EMG’s Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist provided in Appendix D of this report. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein does not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of EMG’s undertaking. Only a representative sample of areas was observed and, other than as shown on the Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist, actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance. At an office/garage property, the areas considered as a public accommodation besides the site itself and parking, are the exterior accessible route, the interior accessible route up to the tenant lease lines and the interior common areas, including the common area restrooms. The facility does not appear to be accessible with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Elements as defined by the ADAAG that are not accessible as stated within the priorities of Title III, are as follows: Parking  Signage indicating accessible parking spaces for cars and vans are not provided. Entrances/Exits  Lever action hardware is not provided at all accessible locations. Restrooms  Lever action hardware is not provided at all accessible locations.  Modify existing lavatory faucets to paddle type faucets. A full ADA Compliance Survey may reveal additional aspects of the property that are not in compliance. Corrections of these conditions should be addressed from a liability standpoint, but are not necessarily code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines concern civil rights issues as they pertain to the disabled and are not a construction code, although many local jurisdictions have adopted the Guidelines as such. The cost to address the achievable items noted above is included in the cost tables. 3.2. Municipal Information, Flood Zone and Seismic Zone Not Applicable PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 9 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 4. Existing Building Assessment 4.1. Unit or Space Types All 8,820 square feet of the building are occupied by a single occupant, City of Yorkville. The spaces are mostly a combination of offices, garages, and supporting restrooms. 4.2. Inaccessible Areas or Key Spaces Not Observed The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries, exterior of the property and the roof. Areas of note that were either inaccessible or not observed for other reasons are listed in the table below: Key Spaces Not Observed Room Number Area Access Issues Above bathroom in garage Lack of ladder PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 10 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 5. Site Improvements 5.1. Utilities The following table identifies the utility suppliers and the condition and adequacy of the services. Site Utilities Utility Supplier Condition and Adequacy Sanitary sewer City of Yorkville Good Storm sewer City of Yorkville Good Domestic water City of Yorkville Good Electric service Commonwealth Edison Good Natural gas service Nicor Gas Good Actions/Comments:  According to the POC, the utilities provided are adequate for the property. There are no unique, onsite utility systems such as emergency electrical generators, septic systems, water or waste water treatment plants, or propane gas tanks. 5.2. Parking, Paving, and Sidewalks Item Description Main Ingress and Egress Tower Lane Access from West Additional Entrances N/A Additional Access from N/A Paving and Flatwork Item Material Last Work Done Condition Entrance Driveway Apron Asphalt - Fair Parking Lot Asphalt - Fair Drive Aisles None - -- Service Aisles None - -- Sidewalks None - -- Curbs None - -- Site Stairs None - -- Pedestrian Ramps None - -- PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 11 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Parking Count Open Lot Carport Private Garage Subterranean Garage Freestanding Parking Structure 9 - - - - Total Number of ADA Compliant Spaces 0 Number of ADA Compliant Spaces for Vans 0 Total Parking Spaces 9 Parking Ratio (Spaces/Apartments) - Method of Obtaining Parking Count Physical count Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Asphalt seal coating  Asphalt pavement mill and overlay  Signage and marking for ADA Van accessible parking stall Actions/Comments:  The asphalt pavement exhibits significant areas of failure and deterioration, such as alligator cracking and localized depressions. The most severely damaged areas of paving must be cut and patched in order to maintain the integrity of the overall pavement system. Complete milling and overlay of the entire lot is also recommended. 5.3. Drainage Systems and Erosion Control Drainage System and Erosion Control System Exists At Site Condition Surface Flow ☒ Good Inlets ☐ -- Swales ☐ -- Detention pond ☐ -- Lagoons ☐ -- Ponds ☐ -- Underground Piping ☐ -- Pits ☐ -- Municipal System ☐ -- Dry Well ☐ -- Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  There is no evidence of storm water runoff from adjacent properties. The storm water system appears to provide adequate runoff capacity. There is no evidence of major ponding or erosion. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 12 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 5.4. Topography and Landscaping Item Description Site Topography Generally flat. Landscaping Trees Grass Flower Beds Planters Drought Tolerant Plants Decorative Stone None ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Landscaping Condition -- Irrigation Automatic Underground Drip Hand Watering None ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Irrigation Condition -- Retaining Walls Type Location Condition None -- -- Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  The topography and adjacent uses do not appear to present conditions detrimental to the property. There are no significant areas of erosion. 5.5. General Site Improvements Property Signage Property Signage Post mounted wood Street Address Displayed? Yes Site and Building Lighting Site Lighting None Pole Mounted Bollard Lights Ground Mounted Parking Lot Pole Type ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ -- Building Lighting None Wall Mounted Recessed Soffit ☐ ☒ ☐ Fair PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 13 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Site Fencing Type Location Condition Chain link with metal posts Perimeter Fair Refuse Disposal Refuse Disposal Means of disposal not apparent Dumpster Locations Mounting Enclosure Contracted? Condition None None None No -- Other Site Amenities Description Location Condition Playground Equipment None -- -- Tennis Courts None -- -- Basketball Court None -- -- Swimming Pool None -- -- Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Signage  Exterior lighting  Site fencing Actions/Comments:  No significant actions are identified at the present time. On-going periodic maintenance is highly recommended. Future lifecycle replacements of the components listed above will be required. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 14 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 6. Building Architectural and Structural Systems 6.1. Foundations Building Foundation Item Description Condition Foundation Slab on grade with integral footings Good Basement and Crawl Space None -- Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  There are no significant signs of settlement, deflection, or movement. 6.2. Superstructure Building Superstructure Item Description Condition Framing / Load-Bearing Walls Steel columns and beams Good Ground Floor Concrete slab Good Upper Floor Framing Wood joists Good Upper Floor Decking Plywood or OSB Fair Roof Framing Steel beams or girders Good Roof Decking Metal decking Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  The superstructure is exposed in some locations, which allows for limited observation. Walls and floors appear to be plumb, level, and stable. There are no significant signs of deflection or movement. 6.3. Roofing Primary Roof Type / Geometry Gable Roof Finish Metal Maintenance Outside Contractor Roof Age 21 Yrs PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 15 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Primary Roof Flashing Sheet metal Warranties None Parapet Copings None Roof Drains Gutters and downspouts Fascia Metal Panel Insulation Fiberglass batts Soffits None Skylights No Attics Steel beams Ponding No Ventilation Source-1 Ridge Vents Leaks Observed No Ventilation Source-2 -- Roof Condition Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Metal roof Actions/Comments:  The roof finishes are original. Information regarding roof warranties or bonds was not available. The roofs are maintained by an outside contractor.  There is no evidence of active roof leaks.  There is no evidence of roof deck or insulation deterioration. The roof substrate and insulation should be inspected during any future roof repair or replacement work.  Roof drainage appears to be adequate. Clearing and minor repair of drain system components should be performed regularly as part of the property management’s routine maintenance and operations program.  The attics are not accessible and it could not be determined if there is moisture, water intrusion, or excessive daylight in the attics. 6.4. Exterior Walls Building Exterior Walls Type Location Condition Primary Finish Metal siding Fair Secondary Finish -- -- Accented with -- -- Soffits Not Applicable -- Building sealants (caulking) are located between dissimilar materials, at joints, and around window and door openings. Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Metal siding Actions/Comments:  The metal siding has isolated areas of damaged siding along the north and south elevation of the building. The damaged siding must be repaired. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 16 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 6.5. Exterior and Interior Stairs Building Exterior and Interior Stairs Type Description Riser Handrail Balusters Condition Building Exterior Stairs None -- -- -- -- Building Interior Stairs Wood-framed Closed Wood Wood Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  No significant actions are identified at the present time. On-going periodic maintenance is highly recommended. 6.6. Exterior Windows and Doors Building Windows Window Framing Glazing Location Window Screen Condition Aluminum framed, operable Double glaze Exterior Walls ☒ Fair Building Doors Main Entrance Doors Door Type Condition Metal, hollow Fair Secondary Entrance Doors Solid core wood Fair Service Doors Metal, hollow Fair Overhead Doors Aluminium Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Windows  Exterior metal doors Actions/Comments:  Damage to double-glazed window on west elevation of building. Outer pane of glass needs to be replaced. 6.7. Patio, Terrace, and Balcony Not applicable. There are no patios, terraces, or balconies. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 17 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 7. Building Mechanical and Plumbing Systems See the Mechanical Equipment List in the Appendices for the quantity, manufacturer’s name, model number, capacity and year of manufacturer of the major mechanical equipment, if available. 7.1. Building Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Individual Units Primary Components Split system furnaces and condensing units Cooling (if separate from above) performed via components above Quantity and Capacity Ranges 2 units ranging from 2 tons/BTUH to 5 tons/BTUH Total Heating or Cooling Capacity 7 tons/BTUH Heating Fuel Natural gas Location of Equipment Building exterior Space Served by System Entire building Age Ranges All units dated 2000 Primary Component Condition Fair Supplemental Components Supplemental Component #1 Suspended unit heaters Location / Space Served by Suspended Unit Heaters Garage Suspended Unit Heater Condition Fair Supplemental Component #2 Window Air Conditioning Unit Location / Space Served by Window Air Conditioning Unit Small Upper Office Area Window Air Conditioning Unit Condition Fair Controls and Ventilation HVAC Control System Individual programmable thermostats/controls HVAC Control System Condition Fair Building Ventilation Roof top exhaust fans Ventilation System Condition Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Split system furnaces and condensing units  Suspended gas unit heaters  Through-wall air conditioners  Rooftop exhaust fans PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 18 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Actions/Comments:  The HVAC systems are maintained by the in-house maintenance staff. Records of the installation, maintenance, upgrades, and replacement of the HVAC equipment at the property have been maintained since the property was first occupied.  The HVAC equipment appears to have been installed in 2000. HVAC equipment is replaced on an "as needed" basis.  The HVAC equipment appears to be functioning adequately overall. No chronic problems were reported and an overall sense of satisfaction with the systems was conveyed. However, due to the inevitable failure of parts and components over time, some of the equipment will require replacement. 7.2. Building Plumbing and Domestic Hot Water Building Plumbing System Type Description Condition Water Supply Piping Copper Fair Waste/Sewer Piping Cast iron Fair Vent Piping Cast iron Fair Water Meter Location Bathroom closet in office Domestic Water Heaters or Boilers Components Water Heaters Fuel Natural gas Quantity and Input Capacity 2 units at approximately 40,000 BTUH each Storage Capacity 40 gallons Water Heater Condition Fair Supplementary Storage Tanks? No Storage Tank Quantity & Volume -- Quantity of Storage Tanks -- Storage Tank Condition -- Domestic Hot Water Circulation Pumps (3 HP and over) -- Adequacy of Hot Water Adequate Adequacy of Water Pressure Adequate Plumbing Fixtures Water Closets Residential grade Toilet (Water Closet) Flush Rating 1.6 GPF Common Area Faucet Nominal Flow Rate 2.0 GPM Condition Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Water heaters  Toilets  Sinks  Vanities PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 19 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Actions/Comments:  The plumbing systems appear to be well maintained and functioning adequately. The water pressure appears to be sufficient. No significant repair actions or short-term replacement costs are required. Routine and periodic maintenance is recommended. Future lifecycle replacements of the components or systems listed above will be required. 7.3. Building Gas Distribution Gas service is supplied from the gas main on the adjacent public street. The gas meters and regulators are located along the exterior walls of the buildings. The gas distribution piping within the building is malleable steel (black iron). Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  No components of significance Actions/Comments:  The pressure and quantity of gas appear to be adequate.  The gas meters and regulators appear to be functioning adequately and will require routine maintenance.  Only limited observation of the gas distribution piping can be made due to hidden conditions. 7.4. Building Electrical Building Electrical Systems Electrical Lines Underground Transformer Pad-mounted Main Service Size 400 Amps Volts 120/240 Volt, single-phase Meter & Panel Location North elevation of building Branch Wiring Copper Conduit Metallic Step-Down Transformers? No Security / Surveillance System? No Building Intercom System? No Lighting Fixtures T-12 Main Distribution Condition Fair Secondary Panel and Transformer Condition Fair Lighting Condition Fair Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Circuit breaker panels  Interior light fixtures Actions/Comments:  The onsite electrical systems up to the meters are owned and maintained by the respective utility company.  The electrical service and capacity appear to be adequate for the property’s demands.  The panels are mostly original 1976 and 1996 components. The electrical service is reportedly adequate for the facility’s needs. However, due to the age of the panels and increasing difficulty of obtaining replacement parts over time, lifecycle replacements are recommended per above. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 20 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660  The light fixtures throughout most of the facility utilize older, inefficient T-12 lamps. Replacement with newer fixtures with electronic ballasts and T-8 lamps is highly recommended to save substantial amounts of energy. 7.5. Building Elevators and Conveying Systems Not applicable. There are no elevators or conveying systems. 7.6. Fire Protection and Security Systems Item Description Type None Fire Alarm System Central Alarm Panel ☐ Battery-Operated Smoke Detectors ☒ Alarm Horns ☐ Annunciator Panels ☐ Hard-Wired Smoke Detectors ☐ Strobe Light Alarms ☐ Pull Stations ☐ Emergency Battery-Pack Lighting ☒ Illuminated EXIT Signs ☒ Alarm System Condition Fair Sprinkler System None ☒ Standpipes ☐ Backflow Preventer ☐ Hose Cabinets ☐ Fire Pumps ☐ Siamese Connections ☐ Suppression Condition -- Central Alarm Panel System Location of Alarm Panel Installation Date of Alarm Panel None None Fire Extinguishers Last Service Date Servicing Current? 2016 Yes Hydrant Location North elevation of building by door Siamese Location -- Special Systems Kitchen Suppression System ☐Computer Room Suppression System ☐ Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Installation of a complete fire alarm system  Installation of a complete fire suppression system  Exit signs  Fire extinguishers Actions/Comments:  The vast majority of the building is not protected by fire suppression and alarm system. Due to its construction date, the facility is most likely “grandfathered” by code and the installation of fire sprinklers and alarm system was not required until major renovations are performed. Regardless of when or if installation of facility-wide fire suppression and alarm system is required by the governing municipality, EMG recommends a retrofit be performed. A budgetary cost is included. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 21 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 7.7. Life Support Systems Not Applicable PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 22 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 8. Interior Spaces 8.1. Interior Finishes The facility is used as an office building and garage for the City of Yorkville. The most significant interior spaces include offices and garages. Supporting areas include hallways, stairs, administrative offices, restrooms, employee break rooms, and utility closets. The following table generally describes the locations and typical conditions of the interior finishes within the facility: Typical Floor Finishes Floor Finish Locations General Condition Ceramic tile Restrooms Fair Vinyl tile Office, restrooms, break area Fair Hardwood Office Fair Concrete Garage Fair Typical Wall Finishes Wall Finish Locations General Condition Painted drywall Offices, restrooms, break area Fair Metal Garages Fair Ceramic tile Restrooms Fair Typical Ceiling Finishes Ceiling Finish Locations General Condition Painted drywall Offices, restrooms, break area Fair Exposed structure Garages Good Metal Garages Fair Interior Doors Item Type Condition Interior Doors Steel w/ Glass, Wood Hollow-Core Fair Door Framing Wood Fair Fire Doors No -- Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:  Vinyl tile  Ceramic tile  Metal wall panel  Metal ceiling panel PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 23 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660  Wood floor  Interior paint  Interior doors  Kitchenette appliances  Laundry room washers  Laundry room dryers Actions/Comments:  It appears that the interior finishes are original.  The ceilings have isolated areas of water-damaged ceilings in the break area. The damaged ceiling areas need to be repaired. The cost to replace the damaged finishes is relatively insignificant and the work can be performed as part of the property management’s routine maintenance program. 8.2. Commercial Kitchen & Laundry Equipment Not applicable. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 24 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 9. Other Structures Not applicable. There are no major accessory structures. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 25 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 10. Certification City of Yorkville retained EMG to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Public Works Office and Garage, 610 Tower Lane Yorkville, Illinois, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of City of Yorkville is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walk-through observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties. No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under Section 2 of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas were observed (See Section 4.2 for areas observed). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted. This report has been prepared on behalf of and exclusively for the use of City of Yorkville for the purpose stated within Section 2 of this report. The report, or any excerpt thereof, shall not be used by any party other than City of Yorkville or for any other purpose than that specifically stated in our agreement or within Section 2 of this report without the express written consent of EMG. This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of EMG. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client’s or recipient’s sole risk, without liability to EMG. Prepared by: Tammy Prusa, Project Manager Reviewed by: Paul Prusa P.E., LEED AP, Technical Report Reviewer For Andrew Hupp arhupp@emgcorp.com 800.733.0660 x6632 PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 26 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 11. Appendices Appendix A: Photographic Record Appendix B: Site Plan Appendix C: EMG Accessibility Checklist Appendix D: Pre-Survey Questionnaire PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Appendix A: Photographic Record PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE 610 TOWER LANE YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 #1: FRONT ELEVATION #2: FRONT ELEVATION-OFFICE #3: FRONT ELEVATION-GARAGE #4: LEFT ELEVATION-GARAGE #5: LEFT ELEVATION-OFFICE #6: REAR ELEVATION PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE 610 TOWER LANE YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 #7: RIGHT ELEVATION-OFFICE #8: RIGHT ELEVATION-GARAGE #9: PARKING LOTS, ASPHALT PAVEMENT #10: PARKING LOTS, CRACKING IN ASPHALT #11: STRUCTURAL FRAME, STEEL COLUMNS & BEAMS #12: FOUNDATIONS, CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE 610 TOWER LANE YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 #13: FOUNDATIONS, CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE #14: ROOF, METAL #15: ROOF, METAL #16: EXTERIOR WALL, STEEL #17: EXTERIOR WALL, ALUMINUM SIDING #18: PUNCTURE AND CRACKING TO ALUMINUM SIDING ON SOUTH ELEVATION OF BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE 610 TOWER LANE YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 #19: PUNCTURE TO ALUMINUM SIDING ON NORTH ELEVATION OF BUILDING #20: INTERIOR STAIRS, WOOD #21: WINDOW, ALUMINUM DOUBLE- GLAZED #22: WINDOW, BROKEN PANE OF GLASS #23: OVERHEAD DOOR, ALUMINUM ROLL-UP #24: EXTERIOR DOOR, STEEL PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE 610 TOWER LANE YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 #25: EXTERIOR DOOR, WOOD SOLID- CORE W/ GLASS #26: RESIDENTIAL FIXTURES, CEILING FAN #27: CONDENSING UNIT, SPLIT SYSTEM #28: AIR CONDITIONER, WINDOW/THRU-WALL #29: UNIT HEATER, NATURAL GAS #30: EXHAUST FAN, PROPELLER PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE 610 TOWER LANE YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 #31: TOILET, FLUSH TANK (WATER CLOSET) #32: BATHROOM VANITY CABINET, WOOD, WITH CULTURED MARBLE SINK TOP #33: WATER HEATER, GAS #34: SINK, PLASTIC #35: DRINKING FOUNTAIN, REFRIGERATED #36: OVERHEAD DOOR, AUTOMATIC OPENER PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE 610 TOWER LANE YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 #37: MAIN DISTRIBUTION PANEL #38: HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LIGHTING FIXTURE #39: LIGHTING SYSTEM, INTERIOR #40: HALOGEN LIGHTING FIXTURE #41: FIRE EXTINGUISHER #42: EXIT LIGHTING FIXTURE PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE 610 TOWER LANE YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 #43: INTERIOR CEILING FINISH, GYPSUM BOARD #44: INTERIOR DOOR, STEEL W/ GLASS #45: INTERIOR WALL FINISH, CERAMIC TILE #46: INTERIOR FLOOR FINISH, VINYL TILE (VCT) #47: INTERIOR FLOOR FINISH, WOOD STRIP #48: INTERIOR FLOOR FINISH, CERAMIC TILE PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE 610 TOWER LANE YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 #49: RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES, CLOTHES DRYER #50: INTERIOR CEILING FINISH, METAL #51: INTERIOR DOOR, HOLLOW CORE WOOD #52: INTERIOR WALL FINISH, ALUMINUM #53: INTERIOR WINDOW #54: INTERIOR WALL FINISH, CERAMIC TILE PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE 610 TOWER LANE YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560 EMG PROJECT NO: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 #55: RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES, CLOTHES WASHER #56: SINK, STAINLESS STEEL #57: RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES, REFRIGERATOR #58: KITCHEN CABINET, BASE AND WALL SECTION, WOOD PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Appendix B: Site Plan Site Plan Project Name: Public Works Office and Garage Project Number: 122700.17R000-030.322 Source: Google Earth On-Site Date: May 22, 2017 PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Appendix C: EMG Accessibility Checklist Page 1 of 4 Date Completed: June 6, 2017 Property Name: Public Works Office and Garage EMG Project Number: 122700.17R000-030.322 Building History Yes No Unk Comments 1 Has an ADA survey previously been completed for this property? X 2 Have any ADA improvements been made to the property? X 3 Does a Transition Plan / Barrier Removal Plan exist for the property? X 4 Has building ownership or management received any ADA related complaints that have not been resolved? X 5 Is any litigation pending related to ADA issues? X Parking Yes No NA Comments 1 Are there sufficient accessible parking spaces with respect to the total number of reported spaces? X 2 Are there sufficient van-accessible parking spaces available? X 3 Are accessible spaces marked with the International Symbol of Accessibility? Are there signs reading “Van Accessible” at van spaces? X 4 Is there at least one accessible route provided within the boundary of the site from public transportation stops, accessible parking spaces, passenger loading zones, if provided, and public streets and sidewalks? X 5 Do curbs on the accessible route have depressed, ramped curb cuts at drives, paths, and drop-offs? X 6 If required does signage exist directing you to accessible parking and an accessible building entrance? X Ramps Yes No NA Comments 1* Do all ramps along accessible path of travel appear to meet slope requirements? ( 1:12 or less) X 2 Are ramps that appear longer than 6 ft complete with railings on both sides? X Page 2 of 4 Ramps (cont.) Yes No NA Comments 3 Does the width between railings appear at least 36 inches? X 4 Is there a level landing for approximately every 30 ft horizontal length of ramp, at the top and at the bottom of ramps and switchbacks? X Entrances/Exits Yes No NA Comments 1 Do all required accessible entrance doorways appear at least 32 inches wide and not a revolving door? X 2 If the main entrance is inaccessible, are there alternate accessible entrances? X 3 Is the door hardware easy to operate (lever/push type hardware, no twisting required and not higher than approximately 48 inches above the floor)? X Paths of Travel Yes No NA Comments 1 Are all paths of travel free of obstruction and wide enough for a wheelchair (appear at least 36 inches wide)? X 2 Are wheelchair-accessible facilities (toilet rooms, exits, etc.) identified with signage? X 3 Is there a path of travel that does not require the use of stairs? X Elevators Yes No NA Comments 1 Do the call buttons have visual and audible signals to indicate when a call is registered and answered when car arrives? X 2 Are there visual and audible signals inside cars indicating floor change? X 3 Are there standard raised and Braille marking on both jambs of each hoist way entrance as well as all cab/call buttons? X 4 Do elevator doors have a reopening device that will stop and reopen a car door if an object or a person obstructs the door? X 5 Are elevator controls low enough to be reached from a wheelchair (appears to be between 15 and 48 inches)? X 6 If a two-way emergency communication system is provided within the elevator cab, is it usable without voice communication? X Page 3 of 4 Toilet Rooms Yes No NA Comments 1 Are common area public restrooms located on an accessible route? X 2 Are pull handles push/pull or lever type? X 3 Are there audible and visual fire alarm devices in the toilet rooms? X 4 Are toilet room access doors wheelchair- accessible (appear to be at least 32 inches wide)? X 5 Are public restrooms large enough to accommodate a wheelchair turnaround (appear to have 60” turning diameter)? X 6 In unisex toilet rooms, are there safety alarms with pull cords? X 7 Are toilet stall doors wheelchair accessible (appear to be at least 32” wide)? X 8 Are grab bars provided in toilet stalls? X 9 Are sinks provided with clearance for a wheelchair to roll under (appear to have 29” clearance)? X 10 Are sink handles operable with one hand without grasping, pinching or twisting? X 11 Are exposed pipes under sink sufficiently insulated against contact? X Guest Rooms Yes No NA Comments 1 How many total accessible sleeping rooms does the property management report to have? Provide specific number in comment field. Are there sufficient reported accessible sleeping rooms with respect to the total number of reported guestrooms? See attached hot sheet. X Page 4 of 4 Guest Rooms Yes No NA Comments 2 How many of the accessible sleeping rooms per property management have roll- in showers? Provide specific number in comment field. Are there sufficient reported accessible rooms with roll-in showers with respect to the total number of reported accessible guestrooms? See attached hot sheet. X 3 How many assistive listening kits and/or rooms with communication features are available per property management? Provide specific number in comment field. Are there sufficient reported assistive listening devices with respect to the total number of rooms? See attached hot sheet. X Pools Yes No NA Comments 1 Are public access pools provided? If the answer is no, please disregard this section. X 2 How many accessible access points are provided to each pool/spa? Provide number in comment field. Is at least one fixed lift or sloped entry to the pool provided? X Play Area Yes No NA Comments 1 Has the play area been reviewed for accessibility? All public playgrounds are subject to ADAAG standards. X Exercise Equipment Yes No NA Comments 1 Does there appear to be adequate clear floor space around the machines/equipment (30” by 48” minimum)? X *Based on visual observation only. The slope was not confirmed through measurements. PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 Appendix D: Pre-Survey Questionnaire PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE AND GARAGE EMG PROJECT NO.: 122700.17R000-030.322 www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660 On the day of the site visit, provide EMG's Field Observer access to all of the available documents listed below. Provide copies if possible. INFORMATION REQUIRED 1. All available construction documents (blueprints) for the original construction of the building or for any tenant improvement work or other recent construction work. 2. A site plan, preferably 8 1/2" X 11", which depicts the arrangement of buildings, roads, parking stalls, and other site features. 3. For commercial properties, provide a tenant list which identifies the names of each tenant, vacant tenant units, the floor area of each tenant space, and the gross and net leasable area of the building(s). 4. For apartment properties, provide a summary of the apartment unit types and apartment unit type quantities, including the floor area of each apartment unit as measured in square feet. 5. For hotel or nursing home properties, provide a summary of the room types and room type quantities. 6. Copies of Certificates of Occupancy, building permits, fire or health department inspection reports, elevator inspection certificates, roof or HVAC warranties, or any other similar, relevant documents. 7. The names of the local utility companies which serve the property, including the water, sewer, electric, gas, and phone companies. 8. The company name, phone number, and contact person of all outside vendors who serve the property, such as mechanical contractors, roof contractors, fire sprinkler or fire extinguisher testing contractors, and elevator contractors. 9. A summary of recent (over the last 5 years) capital improvement work which describes the scope of the work and the estimated cost of the improvements. Executed contracts or proposals for improvements. Historical costs for repairs, improvements, and replacements. 10. Records of system & material ages (roof, MEP, paving, finishes, furnishings). 11. Any brochures or marketing information. 12. Appraisal, either current or previously prepared. 13. Current occupancy percentage and typical turnover rate records (for commercial and apartment properties). 14. Previous reports pertaining to the physical condition of property. 15. ADA survey and status of improvements implemented. 16. Current / pending litigation related to property condition. Your timely compliance with this request is greatly appreciated. Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Agenda Item Number Old Business #2 Tracking Number PW 2014-74 Railroad Quiet Zones Public Works Committee November 21, 2017 N/A N/A Direction See attached memo. Bart Olson Administration Name Department This memo is to follow-up on a few open-ended items from the last Public Works Committee meeting. Partial Quiet Zone – Illinois Railnet See below for an excerpt from the train rule. Basically, we need to follow all the rules of a 24- hour quiet zone, which would mean the full improvements as noted in previous memos. Title 49: Transportation PART 222—USE OF LOCOMOTIVE HORNS AT PUBLIC HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS Subpart C—Exceptions to the Use of the Locomotive Horn APPENDIX C TO PART 222—GUIDE TO ESTABLISHING QUIET ZONES C. Partial Quiet Zones A Partial Quiet Zone is a quiet zone in which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded at public crossings for a specified period of time each day. For example, a quiet zone during only the nighttime hours would be a partial quiet zone. Partial quiet zones may be either New or Pre- Rule and follow the same rules as 24 hour quiet zones. New Partial Quiet Zones must be in effect during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. All New Partial Quiet Zones must comply with all of the requirements for New Quiet Zones. For example, all public grade crossings that are open during the time that horns are silenced must be equipped with flashing lights and gates that are equipped with constant warning time (where practical) and power out indicators. Risk is calculated in exactly the same manner as for New Quiet Zones. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is calculated for the entire 24-hour period, even though the train horn will only be silenced during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. A Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone is a partial quiet zone at which train horns were not sounding as of October 9, 1996 and on December 18, 2003. All of the regulations that pertain to Pre-Rule Quiet Zones also pertain to Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is calculated for the entire 24-hour period for Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones, even though train horns are only silenced during the nighttime hours. Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones may qualify for automatic approval in the same manner as Pre-Rule Quiet Zones with one exception. If the Quiet Zone Risk Index is less than twice the National Significant Risk Threshold, and there have been no relevant collisions during the time period when train horns are silenced, then the Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone is automatically qualified. In other words, a relevant collision that occurred during the period of time that train horns were sounded will not disqualify a Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone that has a Quiet Zone Risk Index that is less than twice the National Significant Risk Index. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: November 14, 2017 Subject: Quiet Zones Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones must provide the notification as required in §222.43 in order to keep train horns silenced. A Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone may be converted to a 24 hour New Quiet Zone by complying with all of the New Quiet Zone regulations Additional Info - Illinois Railnet The crossings highlighted in red below are all within 0.5 mile of each other, meaning that they would all need to be included in a single quiet zone project. The first two crossings listed (Hoover Forest Preserve and Poplar Drive) could be a standalone project. Illinois Railnet crossings:  Hoover Forest Preserve (Crossing Inventory # TBD, IR Mile Post TBD)  Poplar Drive (Crossing Inventory # 917526L, IR Mile Post 051.17)  River Birch Lane (Crossing Inventory #072951Y, IR Mile Post 050.31)  Morgan Street (Crossing Inventory #065034A, IR Mile Post 049.96)  Adams Street (Crossing Inventory #065033T, IR Mile Post 049.89)  State Street (Crossing Inventory #065032L, IR Mile Post 049.84)  Main Street (Crossing Inventory #065031E, IR Mile Post 049.79)  Alley (West of IL 47) (Crossing Inventory #065030X, IR Mile Post 049.75)  Illinois Route 47 (Crossing Inventory #065029D, IR Mile Post 049.71)  Alley (East of IL 47) (Crossing Inventory #065028W, IR Mile Post 049.70)  Heustis Street (Crossing Inventory #065027P, IR Mile Post 049.60)  Mill Street (Crossing Inventory #065026H, IR Mile Post 049.55) Additional Info - BNSF Based upon some quick due diligence and without detailed calculations, we believe that the project could be economically implemented with flexible delineators only. The delineators would be about $50,000 total for all four crossings (100’ in each direction at all 4 crossings) and could be installed by the City. The signals themselves appear to have the appropriate gates, lights and constant warning devices. BNSF crossings:  Mill Road (Crossing Inventory # 079578N, BNSF Mile Post 043.77)  Kennedy Road (Crossing Inventory # 079579V, BNSF Mile Post 044.51)  Cannonball Trail (Crossing Inventory #079580P, BNSF Mile Post 045.69)  Beecher Road (Crossing Inventory #079584S, BNSF Mile Post 048.09) It should also be noted that Kendall County is considering moving forward with a Quiet Zone investigation at Cannonball Trail. Note that the flexible delineators by themselves are not an option for the Illinois Railnet crossings as these crossings require major signal upgrades (gates, lights and constant warning devices).