Public Works Minutes 2010 05-18-10
APPROVED 6/15/10
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
City Hall, Conference Room
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 – 6:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
Chairman Joe Plocher Valerie Burd - Mayor
George Gilson – Alderman Joe Wywrot (City Engineer)
Diane Teeling - Alderman Eric Dhuse – City of Yorkville
PRESENTATIONS: NONE
The meeting was called to order @ 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Joe Plocher
MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL:
The minutes for April 20, 2010 were
approved.
Items Recommended for Consent Agenda:
1.PW 2010-30 Water Department Report for March 2010
Move to consent
2.PW 2010-31 Water Department Report for April 2010
Move to Consent
3.PW 2010-32 Heartland Circle – Final Acceptance
Joe Wywrot said there are a few issues here. He said a punchlist remaining yet;
striping crosswalks, dead parkway trees, debris in vacant lots, etc. etc. Joe also said
he did not get out there to verify if these items have been completed. He doesn’t
believe all of the trees are done, but still with these items remaining he recommends
giving the developer another week to complete and if he doesn’t have these items
complete by next Tuesday night, perhaps table this item at that time.
Joe also talked about the detour route that is currently in place in Heartland Circle. He
said now that we are going to Final Acceptance he would like to consider the
elimination of the detour route. Later in the meeting Chairperson Plocher and
Alderman Teeling are ok with abolishing it.
Joe mentioned that if we do go to Final Acceptance, there are some corresponding
bond reductions.
Alderman Gilson and Chairperson Plocher said they are ok with it as long as the
punchlist is 100% complete. This item will move forward for discussion.
4.PW 2010-33 Yorkville Market Square – Letter of Credit Expiration
Joe Wywrot said this is where Chase Bank is on the corner of Rt. 47 and Rt. 34,
southeast corner. There hasn’t been any additional activity here. There is 3 buildable
lots on that site and only one is developed. Typically we wouldn’t go to Final
Acceptance unless we have 50% Build out which would mean 2 lots, but there is no
activity. The developer is asking if we can go to Final Acceptance for the entire
development for the Public Infrastructure. We are proceeding with that with him, but
these are just Letters of Credit. The bank said these are going to expire. Joe said we
normally come to the Public Works Committee and requests that the council
authorize the clerk to call these Letters of Credit. That is the recommendation.
Alderman Gilson mentioned that there is a wrong date of June 25, 2008 on the
memorandum. Joe apologized for the error and said he would correct the
memorandum. All agreed to that this can proceed once the correction is made.
NEW BUSINESS:
1.PW 2010-34 Mowing Fines – Discussion
Eric Dhuse said that Alderman Teeling asked for this agenda item. Eric said they
went through step by step of what it is we do and who it involves and what the rules
are. He didn’t know if Alderman Teeling had any specific questions in mind.
Alderman Teeling was wondering when we go out to mow, obviously we use the
City’s equipment; if the fees were substantially higher than if they called somebody
else to mow their grass? Eric said he believes so. He said we could get it done for
cheaper if we called someone as well.
Alderman Teeling was curious how many people are repeat offenders. Eric said some.
He said he wrote one owner a ticket 3 times for 7 to 10 lots each time. Alderman
Teeling asked do you know what those fines would be. Eric replied it is totally up to
the hearing officer. Alderman Teeling was curious as to what he or she does. Eric said
it would vary per incident. Alderman Teeling then asked if these people remedy the
situation. Eric Dhuse replied No; they didn’t show up ever. Ms. Teeling then asked if
we are charging them a per day fee as well. Eric said what we do is we lien it every
time. It ends up being $340 per lot per time. Alderman Teeling was reading some
ordinances where every day the fee is not taken care of it is a new offense. Eric said it
absolutely can be, but this was not set up that way. If we can get paid for getting it
mowed even if it’s in a lien situation, let’s take care of the problem.
2.PW 2010-35 Multi-way Stop Sign @ John/Sycamore Intersection
Joe Wywrot said this has been a problem intersection since day one. You have two
roads that are both collector roads and they carry almost identical traffic volumes.
The volumes are nowhere near sufficient to justify warranting stop signs. The
problem is there is a park right there and people park on the street and the sight is just
not good. We initially tried Yield Signs, but there was still a problem. We looked at it
again and nothing actually changed, but we would like to invoke a different section of
the MUTCD which does allow us to put up a multi-way stop, if we have some type of
operational issue that prevents an intersection from operating safely. We are
recommending that this go to a 4-Way Stop.
All agreed. This item will move forward to consent.
.
3.PW 2010-36 IDOT Funding Agreement – Downtown Parking Lot
Joe Wywrot said basically we need to get this agreement into place before we enter
into an agreement with a consulting engineer to design the parking lot. The basic
terms is there a cap of $642K which is a lot of money for a 20 stall parking lot, which
is what IDOT is willing to do. It also details how we are to receive the money. One is
for the purchase of the land. The second one is for entering into an agreement with
the consulting engineer and the third one is for awarding a contract for construction.
For the last two, IDOT will give us the money before we spend anything, but for the
first one however, we need to purchase the property before IDOT will reimburse us.
Joe said this is a standard form agreement and if we are going to proceed with this
project, we will have to approve it.
Alderman Gilson said for the record he is against it. He has stated it before and he is
stating it again.
Joe Wywrot stated there is a clause in the agreement that we need to get a
construction contracted awarded by July 1, 2013 or IDOT could avoid this agreement.
This will move forward to consent.
4.PW 2010-37 Yorkville Business Center – Release of Remaining Bonds
Joe Wywrot said we have had this development on the agenda several times over the
past 6 months or so. Previously we released the land improvement bonds for units 2
& 3 because the developer finally did comply with all the requirements. These are for
two different bonds; extending a water main out to Rt. 47 and completing land
improvements for a lot that never got built.
The bond for lot 1 unit 1; this is for the area between the pond on your left and the
railroad tracks. That lot was supposed to be developed at the same time F.E. Wheaton
was expanding their business. There was some shared infrastructure between lot 1
and F.E. Wheaton; a private access alley, a water main, and a storm sewer were
constructed, but nothing else. Some of the water main guaranteed by the first bond
was actually built. The water main was extended a little bit and got closer to Rt. 47,
but it never went all the way. Inland prepared a cost estimate of what they felt it
would cost to extend that water main to Rt. 47; $55,752. Instead of keeping this bond
in place they are offering to cut a check to the city for that amount that we could build
that water main ourselves someday or give it to another developer when they need it
to build that water main. Joe is recommending we accept that and he believes it is a
fair deal for the city. In consequence for accepting that money, release that one bond.
The bond for the water main extension is for the amount of about $60K. Regarding
this bond, some of the work was completed. We have inspected it and there were
some minor punchlist items like painting of hydrants or raising a valve, but they’re
really pretty minor and given the fact that lot 1 was never developed if it ever comes
back to us to develop, we can require a bond at that time. Inland’s offer of the $55K is
to also release this bond. Joe is recommending yes to both.
Chairperson Plocher asked Joe Wywrot about how much of time crunch are we
needed on this one. Joe replied these bonds have been sitting there for years and with
the economy being bad, Inland is basically offering to step in and resolve this on our
behalf. They’re saying they might stop paying the premiums on the bonds and then
we would have to fight with the bonding company. To avoid all of that mess they’re
recommending we reach this mutual agreement and release these two bonds in
consideration of their payment for the water main extension.
Chairperson Plocher said he would like to pass this onto City Council for discussion
and have a little more time to do more research before he says Yeah or Nay on it.
Alderman Gilson asked Joe Wywrot how he came up with the estimate of the $55k
being correct and being sufficient. Did you actually get an engineered estimate and
how did you arrive with it being sufficient. Joe said yes, it is the second letter in the
packet. Alderman Gilson asked if this was the current estimate. Joe Wywrot stated
that this was Inland’s estimate. He looked at it and feels it is a reasonable estimate.
Alderman Gilson states that the estimate doesn’t state who performed the estimate.
Joe replied that he prepared an estimate prior to this and to his recollection those are
the exact same quantities. He put together the estimate that had significantly higher
unit pricing. His estimate had been like $80K. The reason why his unit pricing was so
much higher was assuming that bond gets established it has to remain in place for
years and years and years and who knows what inflation is going to do to it. It’s going
to gobble it all up. His unit pricing was very conservative. Here if we get the money,
we stick the money in the bank and it will grow by itself and you don’t need to be as
conservative.
Alderman Gilson said he is not comfortable taking an estimate that has no name or no
verification and you are just using their word that this is sufficient and going forward
saying let’s release it that and he would like to see that verified by somebody whether
it would be our engineers or. Mayor Burd said Joe; write your name on it. Joe Wyrot
said I am your City Engineer. Alderman Gilson said if we construct this tomorrow,
you’re positive we can pay $55,752 complete to have that water main installed in the
ground including everything. Joe said he is comfortable stating that is a sufficient
amount, an adequate amount. It would be close. It might be more. The thing is if it
depends on we do the work or a developer does the work. Alderman Gilson said Joe
you have to put your name on it. Joe said he already did, he signed the memo.
Alderman Gilson so your positive that we will not pay anymore than $55,752. Mayor
Burd and Joe Wywrot said nobody could be positive, but Joe also said it is a
reasonable dollar amount to construct that work. Again Alderman Gilson stated he is
uncomfortable using the developer’s estimate and not verifying that with somebody
else’s. He also stated we have separate engineering for that, maybe EEI can do that or
someone can actually go out and look at true costs today and verify those costs.
Eric Dhuse said that Joe has been working on the IDOT stuff so he has been verifying
costs for fire hydrants, landscaping, traffic controls, etc. etc. as recently as last week.
Alderman Gilson replied OK, but like I said Joe if you’re going to put your name on
it. Joe Wywrot said I already have. Eric Dhuse said he would also concur with this.
Estimate. He thinks it’s very reasonable. Mayor Burd addressed Alderman Gilson
stating that she thinks it’s insulting, why you think EEI knows more than the City
Engineer. (Bothe Mayor Burd & Alderman Gilson are taking over one another
calmly, but it is hard to figure out what is be said) Alderman Gilson stated, Val, I, I,
you know what I’m, I’m not here to debate with you because you want to do that,
I’m not going to. Mayor Burd said I’m asking you a question. Alderman Gilson said
all I’m saying is if you’re comfortable with it. Mayor Burd then said, Excuse Me! But
I have a right to ask you a question. Why do you think EEI… Alderman Gilson said
Val; I don’t have to answer to you. I have to answer to this board and I’m stating my
opinion and I don’t want to argue with you and I’m not going to. Mayor Burd said she
is a member of this board. I’m asking you a question George. Chairperson Plocher
brought everything back to the topic.
Alderman Gilson had another question. If we release the private driveway entrance;
you said that the private driveway entrance, the private storm sewer and the public
sanitary sewer, that’s all completed? Joe said the public sanitary sewer was never
built and is not needed because Lot 1 is undeveloped. Alderman Gilson then asked;
who then would be responsible when Lot 1 develops for that if we release that now?
Joe said the developer of Lot 1. Joe also said in some future date some developer,
some builder will approach the city to develop Lot 1 and at that time we will go
through this process all over again of approving a site plan, establishing a cost
estimate and calculating a bond amount. Alderman Gilson said but as of right now
Inland is responsible for that. Joe said nobody is because nobody is developing it.
Alderman Gilson said I guess my question is we are releasing that bond for that,
correct. What you’re telling me is releasing a bond we have in hand that we would
have to renegotiate when a future development comes in, correct. That’s what we’re
doing here. Joe said, right. Alderman Gilson said he is concerned with that. He thinks
we should keep that bond. Joe said we are in position of control there. The developer
needs building permits. They need the City signature on EPA application permits. We
go through this process all of the time or at least use to when the economy was better.
Alderman Gilson said he understands and his concerns is that he believes we have it
in hand and that we should keep that bond and keep somebody responsible instead of
having to renegotiate that at a future date and he has another question, that $55,752
are we going to hold that money in a separate account for specific use to build that
water main. Mayor Burd said Joe doesn’t know; he’s not the finance director.
Alderman Gilson asked if he can request to do that here or where does that request be
made. Mayor Burd said, to me. Alderman Gilson asked if that would be sensible to
hold that money in a separate account if we’re going to actually have them release
that water main and that supposed to be used for that water main. Mayor Burd said
obviously. Alderman Gilson said that is his request if we’re going to release it, he
would like that contingent upon that.
Alderman Teeling said we don’t even know that Inland would be the one actually
developing this. Joe said no, they could sell the property. So we’re holding a bond
that they don’t even have a planned for. Alderman Gilson said but we also don’t
know Diane that they won’t do that. Alderman Teeling said they can’t because we’ll
be releasing the bonds. How does that work? Alderman Gilson, if they want to come
back and develop Lot 1, they would be up for renegotiation. Joe Wywrot said we
don’t have to release the bond. The thing is if Inland stops paying the premium on the
bond, the bond company will notify us that the bond has expired. We would have to
call the bond. We may have to fight with that bonding company and we would have
to develop those things. She doesn’t think there shouldn’t be a problem. Chairperson
Plocher is confident in Joe’s numbers. Joe Wywrot said that Inlands offer here is
contingent on both bonds being released.
Mayor Burd said as a member of the committee, she would like to say that she is fully
confident that when Joe puts his name on something. She thinks he knows as much as
any engineer. That is why we have him as our City Engineer and she would ask that
the Alderman not brow beat the staff. Move forward for discussion.
5.PW 2010-38 Punch List Process - Discussion
Joe Wywrot said the Alderman Gilson ask that this item be put on the agenda for
discussion. Alderman Gilson has quite a few questions. He states that he has seen a
quite a few developments come in and out where they sat for a long long time i.e. Sun
Flower Estates, where they came back and there was a big surprise that things were
not done and then there was contention as to who was responsible, builder or
developer. We talk about processes in place, can you detail once a development is
built and the punchlist is created, do we check those annually and update those
punchlists annually and send a letter to the developer annually as a reminder. Joe
Wywrot said we do not. He said we’ve always let punchlist completion be driven by
the developer. Until the punchlist is completed and the subdivision is accepted by the
City, it is not ours to maintain. If it deteriorates or something breaks, it’s on the
developer not on the city. Alderman Gilson said that makes sense, but his only
contention with that is if something sits 10 years and we’ve bonded 110% / 120%, ten
years down the line that may not pay for that anymore. He’s questioning if we can
look at our procedures in place and he thinks it only makes sense to do an annual
inspection of developments and update those punchlists and send reminders to the
developers and track their responses. Alderman Gilson’s follow-up question to that is
how we track these now. You’re saying we just don’t, we just leave it to the
developer. Joe said we keep records of what we send them and generate, but as far as
proactively pursuing the developer to complete an item, that is more of a random
thing.
Alderman Gilson’s suggestion to this table is to be more proactive. To go out and do
an inspection annually at the different developments that are sitting in the books with
punchlists and update those punchlists and send a reminder out to the developers.
Another thing he wanted to ask was to look at the percentage of bonding. If
developments are sitting and we’re bonding @ 110%, maybe we should look at that
policy. Maybe we should increase that. Joe said 110% is pretty much the industry
standard. Joe asked George if he had a suggestion. Alderman Gilson said 120%. He
said it is something to think about because he can see a lot of issues when things
come back 5, 6, 7, 10 years and 110% of what the original engineer estimate is, is
probably not accurate enough. Eric Dhuse said don’t we though, when we reduce the
letters of credit now have that adjustment factor. Joe said yes. Alderman Gilson said
but that is only when we reduce though. Eric said we are adjusting for the costs. A
few more comments were made back and forth between Eric and George.
Alderman Gilson’s suggestion is still be more proactive in increasing the bonding
amount. Joe said that would be more of a policy change. Alderman Gilson thought he
would mention it here first.
Mayor Burd said with the recession, we can’t get the money up front, because the
banks are being very cautious. She thinks it’s not in the developer’s best interest to
drag this on for years because they are responsible for the repairs.
Chairperson Plocher said they usually don’t let a punchlists go 10 years though. Isn’t
that unusual? Joe said by the time we get to a punchlists, the infrastructure is
substantially complete and there is substantial amount of build out. We usually don’t
create a punchlists until a subdivision is 50% build out. We sometimes create a
punchlists under special circumstance like Blackberry Woods which was only 10%
built out so they can see what needs to be done. After more discussion it was decided
to create a formal policy to update the punchlists and send the developers an annual
update. As for an increase in the 110% Letters of Credit, it was decided that there will
be no increase. Punchlists Policy to comeback next month.
6.PW 2010-39 Disposal of Property – Bobcat Skid Steer
Eric Dhuse would like to sell a piece of equipment that the city no longer use and
purchase the computer and software for the MUTCD special Reflectivity mandate.
Eric received a bid for $6500 from Atlas Bobcat. He said this is a fair price. He
doesn’t think it is worth more than that.
Chairperson Plocher said we are selling something to get something else. Eric said we
are selling something that we don’t utilize anymore. Chairperson Plocher said he is
fine with it.
Alderman Gilson asked if there is a Bluebook value for something like this. Eric said
no, nothing like a Kelly Blue book. Alderman Gilson said if we sold this equipment,
couldn’t we keep those dollars and can it be sunk back into the Public Works Budget.
Eric said no, it would have to go back into Public Works Capital.
Alderman Gilson said given the fact that there has been an ongoing deficit in that
department for 4 or 5 years now. Eric immediately responded, not in Public Works
capital. Alderman Gilson came back and said Water. Eric said it can’t go to that. It
has to stay in capital. Alderman Gilson asked for his knowledge, we did pass in the
budget the dollars for the laptop and the software or was that taken out. Eric replied it
was taken out. Alderman Gilson said so that would get you that. Eric responded yes.
Eric said we are looking for ways to avoid spending these dollars, but this is
something we have to do. Alderman Gilson question if this Reflectivitiy Mandate is
being fought against at a higher level. Eric said it is his understanding, if it made it to
MUTCD and was passed, it will take a Federal thing to stop it. He would rather be
ahead of this mandate than fight it from behind.
Alderman Gilson asked if Eric can anticipate this money being used on the Capital
side of things in the future. Eric is hoping that the permits will give him extra money
in the reserve in case something happens. He mentioned last year we budgeted for 50
and we did 70. Eric said he budgeted for a pick-up, but he has no intention on
purchasing a pick-up unless it breaks. If we get into hot and heavy mowing and the
mower breaks down, that is where that money will come from is out of capital.
Alderman Gilson asked what other items besides mowing would that money go to.
Eric said snow plows, trucks or any type of equipment.
Alderman Gilson’s concerns are not the fact that you need that laptop, but I’m sure
you do if that goes through, but he thinks there are more pressing issues that you may
have to use that money for, for example some of the things you just mentioned. Eric
said we already have that in the budget. Alderman Gilson asked if we have enough.
Eric said he has $46K. Alderman Gilson asked if it’s possible we would exceed that if
something major happens. Eric said catastrophically, yes, but do we plan on it, NO.
Chairperson Plocher said he doesn’t think $6500 would make a big difference if
something catastrophically happens. Alderman Gilson said if Eric is comfortable with
it and you think we’re not going to need that then so be it. Eric said Thank You.
Alderman Teeling said this is a creative way to get the money that you need and it is a
very good idea. Eric said Thanks. We all work together to try and come up with a
solution. This item will move to consent.
OLD BUSINESS:
Alderman Gilson asked if the Saravanos Property responded to the punchlist. Joe
Wywrot said he has not. He got the initial road patched. Joe also knows that he’s been
talking to Paul about the building permit for the restaurant building. That permit has
expired. It cannot be renewed, but he has to work that through with Paul.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
Mayor Burd said she received a call from a Chicago Company that was interested in
using the old jail for a TV show. She said we are keeping them on the list.
Alderman Gilson asked about a Blackberry Detention Pond being removed. If that
was correct. Joe Wywrot said that is incorrect.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING:
With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 6:58p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Tim Dlugopolski