PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 2018/06/25 Minutes1
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2018 – 6:30 P.M.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TRAINING ROOM
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Raymond Buschmann called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.
Aldermen Melanie Rummel and Michelle Moreno were in attendance.
Staff in attendance included Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works; Bob Ells,
Superintendent of Engineering; Robert Kiely, City Manager; Chuck Myers,
Superintendent of Parks & Forestry; Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager
and Jim Lockefeer, Management Analyst.
Also in attendance was Carlo Cavallaro, ComEd External Affairs Manager; Paul
Hamann, Resident of 511 Beverly Place; Tristian Sosa, Resident of 599 Beverly
Place and Jay Pridmore, Resident of 609 Beverly Place.
II. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 11, 2018 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Alderman Rummel moved to approve the April 11, 2018 Public Works Committee
meeting minutes. Alderman Moreno seconded the motion. Chairman
Buschmann abstained from the vote due to him not yet being a part of the
Public Works Committee on April 11, 2018. The motion carried.
Chairman Buschmann explained that he found the minutes very detailed. He
explained that these minutes are more detailed compared to City Council
meeting minutes. He inquired if the level of detail was a desired attribute or if the
minutes should be outlined in a more summary fashion. Chairman Buschmann
asked Jim Lockefeer, Public Works Management Analyst and Public Works
Committee minute taker, about his preference on the level of detail of the
minutes. Jim Lockefeer explained that he does not have a preference as to how
detailed he records the meeting minutes. He explained that when he was hired
for the Management Analyst position the previous Management Analyst
explained that there was a staff and Committee preference for detailed
minutes. Chairman Buschmann explained that the detail of the minutes did help
him in preparing for tonight’s meeting. He explained that at this point, the Public
Works Committee will continue to request that the minutes remain detailed.
III. COM-ED UPDATE REGARDING CUSTOMER-OWNED FACILITIES – MIKE STRONG
Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained that the information
presented to the Committee tonight is for informational purposes only. He
explained that the last time the Committee reviewed the topic was at the
February 21, 2018 Public Works Committee meeting. He explained that at the
February meeting, ComEd representatives in attendance explained their process
in reviewing the customer-owned facilities challenge. He explained that ComEd
informed the Committee at this meeting that their review is going to take time to
collect all the data that is necessary to develop proposals. He explained that
since that February meeting ComEd has had a change in leadership. He
explained that ComEd Representative Carlo Cavallaro is in attendance tonight
to provide the Committee further insight to the process ComEd is currently
2
undertaking, as well as the proposed options they are reviewing to help address
the issue.
Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong reviewed the issue. He explained that
through the typical development process a developer will pay ComEd to install
the necessary electric infrastructure to support the properties within a
development. The ComEd standard for owning and maintaining infrastructure is
for infrastructure within 150 feet of a property. He explained that on some
occasions some subdivisions were not built within the ComEd standard. He
explained that if a property lot is located outside the 150 foot ComEd standard
additional utility poles are needed in order to supply electricity to that property.
These additional utility poles and lines are classified as customer owned facilities
and these facilities are the responsibility of the customer to maintain. He
explained that this scenario is much more common in rural agricultural areas,
however, customer owned facilities do appear in some residential areas. He
explained that in the Beverly area the distribution lines were located on the east
side of the tracks. Additional utility poles needed to be installed in order to bring
electricity from the main distribution line to some of the lots in the subdivision. This
has affected approximately 35 properties in the area. He explained that some of
the properties in the Beverly area have moved forward in moving the
infrastructure underground, however, the vast majority of the properties are
being supported through a shared high voltage overhead service line. He
explained that in March of 2017, a resident in the area lost power during a storm.
A tree branch had fell and hit the line. The resident contacted ComEd and
ComEd determined that the infrastructure that had been damaged was
privately owned. The onus of making the repair to the line fell onto the property
owner. ComEd’s maintenance responsibility is from the distribution line to the first
utility pole located within their 150 foot standard. Unfortunately, in this case the
tree branch fell further down the line and beyond that first utility pole.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about the distance between the main
distribution lines to the homeowner’s property. Assistant to the City Manager
Mike Strong explained that it depends on the property, however, generally
speaking for this Beverly area it is between 300 to 450 feet.
Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained that there was intent to
subdivide the Beverly lots and have right-of-way along the Western Avenue train
tracks that could have potentially supported additional ComEd infrastructure. He
explained that the area never subdivided and the right-of-way was vacated to
the property owner lots. He explained that ComEd staff and representatives
have come out to the Beverly neighborhood to meet with the residents affected
by this issue. He explained that it is not easy for a resident to have maintenance
responsibilities on high voltage lines. It is very difficult to find a high voltage
electrician who is willing to work on these lines. After meeting with the Beverly
residents, ComEd began to have internal conversations about how to handle this
issue. He explained that through this process, the Beverly neighbors and the City
were successful in having ComEd address the issue. He explained that the issue
made its way to the President of ComEd who then directed ComEd staff to
create an internal subcommittee to further examine the issue territory wide. This
subcommittee was tasked with developing proposals to help create solutions to
this issue. For the past several months this subcommittee has been collecting
3
data territory wide on the number of occurrences where power was lost in a
residential setting due to an issue with customer owned facilities. ComEd
provided this process update with the Public Works Committee at the February
meeting and at the request of the Committee, ComEd agreed to come back to
the Committee during the summer to report on some of their findings and on
some of the proposals that they are developing.
Alderman Rummel explained that in March, 2017 some of the residents in the
Beverly neighborhood affected by this issue were without power for up to three
days. She explained that another challenge these affected residents face is
working with their neighbor when an issue arises with their shared privately
owned line. She explained that there was no notice on any of the property
documents that would have alerted the potential buyer to ownership of
customer owned facilities.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if the reason behind the extended period of time
an affected resident’s power was out was due to their responsibility to work with
a high voltage contractor. Alderman Rummel explained that it is due to that
reason. Chairman Buschmann inquired if ComEd could be hired by an affected
customer to fix a private line. Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong
explained that ComEd does not currently offer this as a service. He explained
that the reason why it is very hard for residents to have a contractor work on their
private line is because damage to all lines, both private and public, tends to
occur during storms and high winds. A majority of the certified high voltage
independent contractors are utilized by ComEd for their own storm restoration
response. The independent contractors are not available for private residential
services until they complete their ComEd related work.
Alderman Rummel explained that she was aware Paul Hamann, Resident of 511
Beverly Place, filed a court case in federal district court in an attempt to have
ComEd take responsibility of the private infrastructure. She explained that it was
her understanding that the court dismissed the case.
ComEd External Affairs Manager, Carlo Cavallaro, explained that the ComEd
storm response process involves identifying the main distribution lines that impact
the most people. ComEd’s highest priority is to restore power to distribution lines
that affect the most people impacted by an outage. He explained that as these
high priority issues are resolved ComEd can then designate crews to respond to
issues that are only affecting one or two customers. He explained this
exacerbates the residential issue for homeowners who own private infrastructure.
Like any customer in the ComEd territory, ComEd has to first respond to the major
outage issues before moving on to the issues where only one property is
affected. That process takes time and when the issue of privately owned
infrastructure arises it adds additional time. He explained the issue is further
compounded because 90% to 95% of the certified high voltage electricians are
responding to ComEd storm restoration efforts. He explained that ComEd has
been working on reviewing this issue for several months after being directed by
leadership to explore potential options in addressing the issue.
4
He explained that ComEd is regulated by the Illinois Commerce Commission
(ICC) and any proposal ComEd recommends would need to be approved by
the ICC. He explained that ComEd is also developing more interim solutions that
may not require ICC approval. He explained that there are thousands of ComEd
customers who own private infrastructure much like the Lake Forest Beverly
residents. ComEd has been working to identify these properties in their billing
system so that the properties are properly identified and are shown to have
customer owned facilities. He explained that this will help ComEd on the front
end when a customer calls in to report an outage. ComEd will be able to signal
to the customer that the outage may have occurred on their private
infrastructure and that an independent contractor may have to work on their
line to resolve the issue. Identifying this on the front end would potentially allow
the customer an opportunity to begin working with a private contractor much
sooner than under the current process. He explained that ComEd has also field
visited several hundred areas where private infrastructure exists. There has been
mixed feedback to the extent a property owner is aware of their private
ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Some property owners are fully
aware of their customer owned facilities and some property owners had no idea
at all. These findings further supported ComEd leadership in researching and
developing potential plans to help resolve the issue. One plan that ComEd
intends to move forward with is a notification process. After the private
infrastructure is documented within the ComEd billing system, notice to these
customers would be sent informing the customer that they do own customer
owned facilities.
Mr. Cavallaro explained that the ComEd subcommittee did start with six
proposals that were discussed as potential solutions. Two of those proposals were
identified as not feasible due to the unlikeliness of the proposals being approved
by the ICC. Two of the other proposals are still being discussed amongst the
internal ComEd subcommittee. He explained that currently there are two
proposals that are gaining the most traction in resolving some of these issues.
Mr. Cavallaro explained that one of these solutions is working with the private
high voltage electrical contractors so that once their ComEd work is completed,
ComEd can transition them to work privately with property owners who are
experiencing issues with their customer owned facilities. He explained that
ComEd did explore potentially offering their services at a cost to the customer to
fix a customer owned facility. He explained that the proposal was deemed not
feasible because ComEd service costs were much higher than those of
independent contractor.
Mr. Cavallaro explained that the other proposal ComEd is working on an
amendment to the standard that would allow for the undergrounding of
privately owned facilities to be accepted as new business. ComEd could then
accept the work and take over ownership and the maintenance responsibilities
of the facilites.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about the ownership of infrastructure once a
private customer owned facilities are moved underground. Mr. Cavallaro
explained that the proposal would need to be accepted by the ICC. If it is
5
accepted and a service is moved underground and the necessary easement is
provided, ComEd will accept the infrastructure.
He explained that this proposal still needs to be vetted in order to bring the
proposal to the ICC. The proposal is still being reviewed by the internal ComEd
departments. He explained that the amendment to the standard creates an
incentive scenario, where these customer owned facilities are treated as a new
installation. The proposal would give affected customers an opportunity to have
ComEd take over the customer owned facilities if the facilities go from overhead
to underground. He explained that if a customer is interested in pursuing this work
ComEd will provide a quote via their new business department. He explained
customers could also pursue a private contractor to bring the service line the
necessary connection distance and then ComEd will make the connection. He
explained that often times this is a far cheaper way to pursue undergrounding
facilities. He explained that once the conversion to underground occurs the
customer will no longer have privately owned facilities. He explained that ingress
and egress easements would need to be obtained from the property owner for
maintenance purposes and access.
Alderman Rummel inquired about the easement difference between overhead
and underground infrastructure. Mr. Cavallaro explained that ComEd has both
types of easements. He explained that ComEd has no easements or other
property rights to any customer owned facilities. Alderman Rummel inquired why
ComEd is finding underground infrastructure more acceptable to take over
versus the existing overhead infrastructure if in both scenarios easements would
have to be obtained. Mr. Cavallaro explained that a change needs to occur in
order for ComEd to consider these customer owned facilities as their own
infrastructure. He explained that ComEd is creating a scenario where these
privately owned facilities will be treated as new business. He explained that
ComEd anticipates that the ICC would be far more receptive to this process
instead of ComEd proposing to take responsibility of all of the privately owned
facilities outright, not knowing the condition of the facilities. He explained that
from a rate base scenario ComEd leadership has determined this type of
proposal to be unlikely to be approved by the ICC.
Chairman Buschmann inquired that if this new business proposal moves forward
and a resident moves facilities underground, if ComEd need an easement. Mr.
Cavallaro explained that an easement will be needed for maintenance and
access.
Alderman Rummel inquired if this proposal would need ICC approval. Mr.
Cavallaro explained that this proposal would need to go through the ICC
regulatory process due to the creation of a new standard. He explained that as
part of this standard ComEd is not going to allow any more privately owned
facility installations. If a developer is looking to service a property that is beyond
that 150 foot standard, ComEd is going to require that the developer pay the
costs and provide the proper easements so that ComEd can install the necessary
infrastructure in order to accept ownership of the facilities.
6
Alderman Rummel inquired about who will be paying the costs of conducting all
the necessary surveying and deed revisions that will need to occur to establish
the necessary easements on existing customer owned facilities. Mr. Cavallaro
explained that he did not have the information he needed to answer the
question. He explained that ComEd has an internal real estate department that
handles easements. He explained that this department constantly works with
utility easements within private and commercial properties.
Alderman Moreno inquired that if ComEd does bring the proposal to the ICC
and it is approved, if there was an anticipated timeframe that the proposal
would be implemented. Mr. Cavallaro explained that this proposal is being
proposed for the entire ComEd territory and rate base. He explained that if the
ICC approves the proposal ComEd will allow customers with privately owned
facilities to begin working with their new business department to underground
their private facilities at the cost of the customer. ComEd will not be requiring or
forcing any customer to move their facilities underground. A customer may find
that the cost of moving their facilities underground outweighs the risk of keeping
their facilities above ground and owned privately. He explained that if a
customer’s overhead facilities are not in any danger of tree branches causing
damage to the lines, and if their utility pole is in fine shape, that the customer
may see keeping their customer owned facilities overhead as being more cost
effective then spending money to convert underground. He explained that
ComEd is still working internally to have the proposal reviewed by all of the
ComEd departments. He explained that at this time, he does not have an exact
timeframe as to when these reviews will be complete and when ComEd
anticipates moving forward to bring the proposal to the ICC. He explained that a
change in ComEd leadership has also caused a slight delay in having internal
departmental leadership review the proposal.
Alderman Moreno inquired about the ICC process in reviewing this type of
proposal. Mr. Cavallaro explained that he believed this type of proposal would
not be a long drawn out regulatory review by the ICC. He explained that this ICC
review could be as short as 75 days.
Alderman Rummel inquired about the legal process and about notice being on
a residential property’s deed so that it is made clear at the time a home is sold
that the new homeowner will own customer owned facilities. She asked if ComEd
would be able to communicate with the City which customers move forward in
converting their customer owned facilities underground. She explained that
communicating this information would be important. If a homeowner moves
forward in undergrounding their customer owned facilitates and ComEd’s new
business department accepts ownership, then the property would no longer
have to be recorded as having customer owned facilities. Mr. Cavallaro
explained that ComEd would maintain records as to which properties are
converted to underground through their new business department. He explained
that ComEd does not keep records of home and property ownership changes.
Alderman Rummel inquired if this is something that could be tracked and
recorded through City processes. Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong
explained that the City could send out a notification letter to homes that have
been identified as having customer owned facilities. This letter could be
7
documented and kept in a property’s house file. He explained that there are
approximately 110 properties that have customer owned facilities in Lake Forest.
He explained that a resolution could also be recorded against the identified
properties. He explained that at this point many of these properties have not
been officially confirmed as to having customer owned facilities. In order to
obtain confirmation, the facilities would need to be field verified. He explained
that the City could flag the identified properties and could develop notice that
outlines that the property may or may not have customer owned facilities.
Alderman Moreno inquired if ComEd still allows the installation of customer
owned facilities within new construction. Mr. Cavallaro explained that when
ComEd brings their proposals to the ICC they will be recommending that the
installation of customer owned facilities is no longer allowed. Alderman Moreno
inquired if this the installation of customer owned facilities within new
construction is allowed within City Code. Director Thomas explained that he
believed it was not allowed and that he would follow up with the Community
Development Department.
Alderman Moreno inquired if the City had any public property for which the City
owned these customer owned facilities. Director Thomas explained that the
Senior Center might be a property where this issue exists. Alderman Moreno
requested that further research into public properties is completed so that it is
known where this issue might also exist.
Alderman Moreno inquired about the ComEd timeline to bring their proposals to
the ICC. Mr. Cavallaro explained that the original goal was to bring all the
proposals to ComEd leadership for their review and approval by June. He
explained that unfortunately that goal has been missed. He explained that the
goal now is to get the proposals reviewed internally during July.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if underground facilities are more reliable than
overhead facilities. Mr. Cavallaro explained that underground facilities are not as
vulnerable to outages as overhead lines. He explained that repairs to
underground lines take longer to complete than overhead lines. He explained
that ComEd is concerned with the frequency and duration of outages. He
explained that underground lines experience less frequent outages but longer
outage durations than overhead lines.
Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained that he would continue to
keep the Committee updated and notified of ComEd progress in working on
their review of the proposals.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if there were any members of the public in
attendance at tonight’s meeting who would like to comment on the topic.
Paul Hamann, Resident of 511 Beverly Place, explained his concerns and
frustrations in dealing with the customer owned facilities issue. He explained that
it is very hard to get into a contact with a private contractor who is willing to
complete this type of private high voltage work. He explained his efforts in
bringing the issue to court.
8
Tristian Sosa, Resident of 599 Beverly Place, explained that he has lost power due
to issues with his customer owned facilities twice. He explained that in both
instances it was very difficult and expensive to have private contractors come
out to his property to complete the necessary repairs.
Jay Pridmore, Resident of 609 Beverly Place explained that he has lost power
due to his customer owned facilities three times over the past five years. He
explained that he was hoping for better proposals from ComEd in resolving the
customer owned facilities issue. He explained that having residents maintain high
voltage lines is a public safety issue. He explained that he felt that the City should
play a larger role in looking to resolve this issue.
Mr. Cavallaro explained that ComEd is an incorporated company and that they
are publically regulated rate based utility. He explained that ComEd cannot
work on privately owned utilities because it is liability issue. ComEd does not have
any rights to work on customer owned utilities. He explained that there is a lot of
cost that goes into maintaining the ComEd rate base. He explained that these
customer owned facilities are currently not within the ComEd rate base. He
explained that while a proposal for which ComEd takes over ownership for all the
customer owned facilities would be great, it isn’t feasible to bring that proposal
to the ICC because that large cost in doing so would have to be absorbed by
the entire ComEd rate base. He explained that is where the proposal would fail.
Alderman Rummel explained that what ComEd is suggesting is that they would
make private contractors more available to customers who own private facilities
if an issue with their private facilities arise. She explained that ComEd is also going
to works toward proposing that if customer moves forward in undergrounding
their facility, ComEd would consider this a new installation and maintain the
facilities going forward.
Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained that the City can maintain
and share a list of private contractors who would accept and complete this type
of work with residents affected by the issue. Mr. Cavallaro also explained that if a
resident owns customer owned facilities that he recommends the resident work
with a private contractor to have the contractor review the facilities and
complete some preventive tree trimming. He explained that this preventive
maintenance is very important and something that ComEd completes on their
facilities regularly. It is far more costly to pay for emergency repair work than
preventative maintenance work.
Chairman Buschmann explained that the two ComEd proposals are not
alternatives to each other but two different proposals that will help customers in
dealing with privately owned facilities.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if ComEd anticipates any pushback from the ICC
in pursuing their proposal of treating a customer who undergrounds their
customer owned facilities as new business. Mr. Cavallaro explained that he did
not believe that there would be any public objection to the proposal. He
9
explained that ComEd is confident that if the ICC asks any questions about the
proposal ComEd will be able to respond.
Alderman Rummel inquired if the timeframe for the completion of the review
would be completed in July. Mr. Cavallaro explained that ComEd’s internal
review would be completed in July. After the internal review is complete ComEd
will package the proposals and will bring it to the ICC for their review.
Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained that the next step for
ComEd will be to complete their internal review of both proposals. He explained
that City staff will continue to keep the Public Works Committee updated on
status of ComEd’s proposals. He explained that he will be requesting that Mr.
Cavallaro lay out a timeline that will show the ICC process and when these
proposals might begin to roll out and be made available to customers.
Alderman Rummel inquired if the ICC takes public testimony. Mr. Cavallaro
explained that he believed it would be an internal ICC review.
Chairman Buschmann explained that it would be helpful if ComEd could
develop something so that the cost component of converting overhead facilities
underground is better understood. He explained that this information would be
helpful to homeowners. Assistant to the City Manager Strong explained that staff
plans to host another neighbor meeting after the proposals are approved and a
clear customer process is outlined. At this time, if a resident is interested in
converting their facilities underground, information on the process and potential
costs can be reviewed and shared. He explained that when an initial neighbor
meeting was held with the Beverly neighbors during September of 2017, the issue
and potential costs of undergrounding facilities was reviewed.
Alderman Rummel inquired if a number of neighbors were to collaborate and
underground their facilities at the same time, if they would see a potential cost
savings. Mr. Cavallaro explained that if the neighbors came together and
treated it as one project and hired one contractor, they would most likely
experience better costs than if they were to pursue undergrounding their
facilities individually. Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained that a
lot of potential cost savings would come from contractor mobilization costs.
Alderman Rummel inquired if Mr. Cavallaro assisted in helping Mike Strong
address a disabled resident power issue. She explained that it was her
understanding that there was no priority given to restoring power to homes who
had handicapped people. Mr. Cavallaro explained that those homes are
identified by ComEd, however, if the outage only affected that one home it still
drops below the priority of a multiple customer outage due to multiple customers
might not having the ability to contact 911.
Alderman Moreno inquired if the residents in the Beverly area were interested in
collaborating together as one project, if the project could be financed through
a Special Service Area project (SSA). Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong
explained that this project could potentially be set up as a SSA project. He
explained that some legal framework would still need to be examined and
10
researched in order to confirm that. He explained that the application of a SSA,
per the statue, would need to be reviewed.
Chairman Buschmann thanked Mr. Cavallaro and the residents in attendance
for attending tonight’s meeting.
IV. DISCUSSION OF PROCESS / NEXT STEPS FOR LEAF BLOWER TOPIC – CHUCK MYERS
Superintendent of Parks & Forestry Chuck Myers explained that there are a lot of
different opinions that people have on the topic and a lot of different scenarios
that could be recommended in moving forward in addressing the topic. He
explained that the intention of reviewing the topic tonight is for staff to get
direction from the Committee about the review process moving forward.
He explained that included in tonight’s meeting packet are pages of compiled
comments from residents and Alderman. He explained that he found one
comment from Alderman Preschlack very useful in discussing the topic tonight.
Alderman Preschlack suggested that better data was needed on where
resident’s stand on changing the landscaping equipment hours of operation. He
explained a more broad based approach in getting additional resident
feedback, possibly through a survey, could be helpful when the Committee and
City Council further review the hours of operation of leaf blowers and lawn
maintenance equipment. Superintendent Myers explained that a short survey
could be developed and sent to residents to gauge how they would feel if the
hours of operation changed. He explained that the City also maintains a
database of all the landscaping firms that are licensed to work within the City of
Lake Forest. He explained that another survey could be sent to firms to gather
data on their opinions on potential changes. He explained that whatever
recommendation the Committee provides tonight would most likely not affect
the hours of operation this summer as the summer landscaping season is coming
to an end. This allows plenty of time to further gather data and investigate
potential options that could be implemented before next year’s landscaping
seasons. He explained that the landscaping firm survey could be completed
fairly quickly by using the existing landscaper database. The resident survey may
take a longer amount of time to complete.
Alderman Rummel inquired what the cost would be for a resident survey.
Superintendent Myers explained that he does not have an exact cost but in
speaking to a consulting firm who just completed a survey for the Parks &
Recreation Department, it would not be that much. He explained that he
believed that a very simple survey could be developed. He explained that he is
currently working with the firm to gather more information on cost.
Chairman Buschmann explained that he reviewed Superintendent Myers
PowerPoint Presentation that had information from a 2015 survey that was sent to
landscaping firms. He explained that the survey was sent to 38 landscaping firms
and that only eight firms responded. He explained that his take away from that
was the landscaping firms opposed moving the hours of operation back to a
later start time. He inquired if landscaping firms would still feel this way.
11
Superintendent Myers explained that he did reach out to a few larger landscape
firms prior to tonight’s meeting. He explained that the firms he spoke to did not
express a lot of concern in pushing back the starting time. He explained that one
firm specifically explained that the most of the complaints their firm receives stem
from them starting before 9:00 A.M. He explained that this firm expressed that
they would be ok if the start hours were pushed to 9:00 A.M. He explained that
these firms are very aware of potential more drastic changes that other
communities have adopted. Landscaping firms are much more receptive to
changes to the hours of operation than outright bans of equipment.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about the proposed resolution that previously
went to City Council and why it stated that golf course and City operations
would be excluded. Superintendent Myers explained that he oversees the City
golf course and the Parks Section. He explained that all public and private golf
courses are currently excluded from the existing ordinance. The biggest reason
why golf courses are excluded is because the nature of their business. Early tee
times require very early maintenance activities to be completed in order for the
course to be ready for customers. He explained that in speaking to the City’s golf
course staff, they had never received a complaint from an adjacent residential
property about operating maintenance equipment too early. It was explained
that if they did receive a complaint, they would adjust their operating schedule
to complete another area of scheduled maintenance. They would then return to
the complaint area at a later time. Superintendent Myers explained that golf
course staff has no desire to upset their neighbors. He explained that when the
topic of hours of operation of lawn maintenance equipment had been
discussed in the past, the City received feedback from many golf courses within
the City requesting to exclude them from the ordinance or their operations
would be adversely affected. He explained that municipal operating sections do
all that they can to avoid residential complaints. He explained that there are
times and emergency situations that will require the use of equipment to be used
outside the existing hours of operation. He explained that the majority of City
operating sections begin their days at 6:30 A.M. He explained that he does direct
his operating sections to use common sense in operating their equipment early in
the morning. He explained that employees are expected not to operate a leaf
blower first thing in the morning right next to a resident’s home. He explained
that the exclusion of municipal operations stemmed from Alderman Tack’s
recommendation at a previous Public Works Committee meeting.
Alderman Rummel explained that she felt that the conversation of electric
maintenance equipment was somewhat lost in the conversation. She explained
that the Committee previously discussed changes being only for gas powered
equipment. She inquired about changes in the decibel level between a gas
powered leaf blower and an electric leaf blower. Superintendent Myers
explained that there are a lot of variables that go into determining the
difference between the two. He explained that depending on the make and
model of an electric or gas powered blower the decibel levels will be different.
12
He explained that he estimates that newer electric blowers tend to be ten
decibel levels lower the gas powered leaf blowers.
Alderman Rummel inquired if the City would ever pursue buying electric
powered equipment. Superintendent Myers explained that this has been a topic
that staff has continually researched. He explained that the City’s Forestry
Section has purchased and implemented a chainsaw and a blower system that
is battery powered for bucket truck operations. He explained that at Forest Park,
the City’s contractor only uses electric and battery powered equipment. He
explained that the City has implemented this equipment in some areas of
operation and will continue to research implementing this type of equipment
going forward. Alderman Rummel explained that electric and battery powered
equipment is much more environmental friendly than gas powered equipment.
Alderman Rummel explained that if the City is going to look to send out a survey,
the questions should focus on all lawn maintenance equipment. She explained
that a question on prohibiting the use of landscape equipment on Sundays and
holidays should be included. Chairman Buschmann explained that the issue in
asking the question about a ban on Sundays is that most people would respond
that they would be in support of a quiet Sunday. However, the City will still have
residents who maintain their own landscape and these residents might only be
able to complete the work on Sundays. Alderman Rummel explained that if this
ban was in place, these affected residents could purchase electric equipment
to still complete the work on a Sunday. Chairman Buschmann explained that
trying develop a list of all equipment decibel levels would be a herculean task
due to all the different variables that affect decibel level. He explained that the
current City Code outlines these hours of operation for all landscape equipment
and not just blowers. He explained that he believed that classifying all lawn
maintenance equipment under landscape equipment is a much better idea
than complicating City Code by breaking different types of equipment out and
into different hours of operation.
Chairman Buschmann explained that he did not think the current hours of
operation were creating that many problems. The Police Department has only
received two formal complaints and one of the complaints was for municipal
operations. He explained that he would not be in favor of generating surveys
because they might provide data that further complicates the topic. Alderman
Moreno explained that she was also not in favor of using surveys. She explained
that she believed that the Committee and City Council had enough data to
move forward in discussing the topic and in making a decision. She explained
that she believed a simple approach needs to be taken in addressing the topic.
She explained that civility and individual responsibility is a huge component in
discussing the issue. She explained that neighbors need to respect each other.
She explained that if she had a neighbor who constantly used a leaf blower
early every Saturday morning she would be upset and would discuss the issue
with the neighbor. If a neighbor came to her to say that he or she needed to leaf
blow early one weekend morning to accommodate for a party, she would
13
understand and be completely fine with that. She explained that she respects
those residents who work six days a week and may only have Sunday to
maintain their landscapes. She explained that she would not want to limit these
residents who have to do this. She explained that she does not want to
unnecessarily restrict residents.
Alderman Rummel inquired if Alderman Moreno would support no restrictions.
Alderman Moreno explained that she supported the current restrictions and
hours of operation in the City Code. Chairman Buschmann explained that some
minor adjustments could be made to the existing City Code and hours of
operation. He explained that a concern he has is that if major adjustments are
made to the City Code and the Code becomes more restrictive, the bigger
landscaping firms may be able to absorb these changes, while the smaller firms
will have a much more difficult time in doing so. He explained that he would be
very disappointed if a City regulation drives out these smaller firms.
Alderman Buschmann inquired about snow blowers and other construction
activities and if there are restricted hours for those types of activities and
equipment. Superintendent Ells explained that there is a general City noise
ordinance that details the hours of operation for these activities. Alderman
Rummel inquired if the general noise ordinance should include landscape
equipment. She explained that the hours would be the same and further
simplified. Alderman Buschmann explained that both ordinances have not
received a lot of pushback and that he would prefer leaving the two separate.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if there were any regulation on noise from snow
blowers. He explained that he understood that restricted hours for blowers and
plows may not make sense as snow could fall at any time and regardless of the
time; roads, sidewalks, and driveways need to be plowed. Superintendent Ells
explained that the noise ordinance does call out snow operation activities.
Superintendent Myers explained that the landscape hours of operation are
specific to landscape equipment.
Director Thomas explained that in speaking to Police Chief Karl Waldorf, the
Police Department would prefer a simple approach that would allow for easy
enforcement of the ordinance. If the ordinance is complicated and there are
many different hours of operation for different landscape equipment, the
ordinance becomes much more difficult to enforce.
Chairman Buschmann inquired what the exact noise ordinance states.
Superintendent Ells explained that the noise ordinance states,
“It shall be unlawful to cause or to make unreasonable loud noise in any depot,
store, theater, street, alley, sidewalk, park or other public place or any place
frequented by the public in the city. It shall further be unlawful to cause or make
unreasonable loud noise at any point on or beyond the boundary of any lot,
whether privately owned or public, which such unreasonable noise interferes
with the quiet enjoyment of adjoining lots or lots within 1,000 feet of the location
14
from which the noise is emanating. I t shall be unlawful to carry on or conduct
any manufacture, trade or business, engage in any activity, or use a vehicle,
machine or other equipment in said city which, by occasioning loud noises or
sound shall be offensive or prejudicial or dangerous to the health of individuals or
of the public of the city or which shall disturb or break the rest, sleep or quiet of
persons in said city before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays,
Sundays or holidays, and after 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 6:00 p.m.
on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, except as authorized by the City Manager.
These restrictions shall not apply to snow removal equipment, including, but not
limited to, snowplows and snow blowers. It shall be unlawful to cause or make
loud noise through the operation of lawn maintenance equipment including, but
not limited to, lawn mowers, tractors and gasoline-powered leaf blower
equipment before 7:30 a.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m.
on Sundays and holidays after, 7:30 p.m. on all days, except as authorized by
City Manager. This restriction shall not apply to golf course maintenance
operations.”
Alderman Rummel proposed drawing back on the end time of the permitted
weekday hours of operation for landscaping equipment. Alderman Moreno
explained that she thought the larger issue was occurring with the weekend
times. Alderman Rummel explained that she felt 7:30 P.M. was too late to be
hearing the use of equipment during weekdays. She explained that she felt as
though most of the commercial crews were finished. She explained that this may
be the time when homeowners might have to maintain their landscapes.
Superintendent Myers explained that from what he has read and heard,
residents who maintain their own landscapes do not support changing and
further restricting the hours of operation during the weekdays because the later
evening hours or weekends is the only time they can complete this work.
Alderman Rummel explained that she found Lake Bluff’s operating hours of
Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., and weekend and holiday hours
of, 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., interesting. She explained that she felt the way their
hours were structured was simple. Alderman Moreno explained that she felt
ending the weekday hours at 5:00 P.M. was early and that might restrict some
residents who maintain their own landscapes.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if there should be two separate hours of
operation for landscaping firms and residents. He also inquired about the
exclusion to the existing ordinance “except as authorized by the City Manager”.
He asked City Manager Kiely if he has had people come to him to seek approval
for the use of equipment outside of the permissible hours in the noise ordinance.
City Manager Kiely explained that he has only ever had experience with this for
construction projects. He explained that contracting firms have occasionally
requested approval for work before or after the permissible hours. He explained
that he has approved requests if enough justification was provided. He
explained that he has never had a resident make a request for approval for
using lawn maintenance equipment outside of the approved hours of operation.
15
Alderman Buschmann provided City Manager Kiely with a scenario about a
resident who makes a request to work and operate landscape equipment
outside of the approved Sunday hours and if Mr. Kiely would be ok with being
involved in this type of request. City Manager Kiely explained that he would
rather not be involved in this type of request because it could become difficult
to manage on a case by case basis. He explained that approving requests
could make for a very slippery slope. He explained that he believed the entire
topic is being driven by a few residents. He explained that the existing ordinance
and hours of operation have been in place for a number of years and the City
has continued to receive few complaints. He explained that he agreed with
Alderman Moreno in that a policy like this, common courtesy and respect
amongst neighbors needs to prevail. He provided the example of one of his
neighbors who had reached out to him and other neighbors about a metal
roofing project they were going to begin. The neighbor came over to discuss the
project with him and that it would be pretty noisy at his property the next few
days. City Manager Kiely explained that he really appreciated the neighbor’s
courtesy in coming to speak to him. He explained that he would prefer to do
more on the education side and less on the regulation side in addressing the
landscape equipment hours of operation.
Chairman Buschmann explained that he would be in favor of cutting back the
current 7:30 P.M. end time for the weekend hours of operation. Alderman
Rummel agreed that the end time for weekends and holidays could be cut
back. City Manager Kiely explained that the complaints he has heard are a
result of people operating equipment in the evening hours. Chairman
Buschmann explained that he believed the start time for the weekend hours was
ok and not too early. He explained that he believed that any changes should be
simple and enforceable. He explained that he did prefer leaving the “except as
authorized by the City Manager” as an exception if a resident needs to work
outside the permitted hours of operation. It would be on the resident to provide
enough justification to the City Manager to accept their request.
Director Thomas explained that City operations occasionally work outside the
hours permitted in the noise ordinance. He explained that last week the City’s
contractor working on road patching began working before the permitted start
time. Approval was given to the contractor to start work early so that they could
complete work on Deerpath Road. This was the best time to complete the work
because traffic was much lighter than if the contractor waited to start within the
hours outlined in noise ordinance.
Chairman Buschmann explained that at this point the Committee does not
recommend pursuing a resident survey. He explained that the other
conversations around the topic can remain open and can be discussed at a
later date. Alderman Moreno explained that she would be in favor of leaving the
current ordinance as is and not revisiting it. She explained that she would defer
to Chairman Buschmann and Alderman Rummel on how they would like
proceed with the topic. Chairman Buschmann explained that since the issue has
16
been discussed by City Council something should be done. Alderman Rummel
agreed and felt that an adjustment to the weekend ending time could be
adjusted. She explained that she would be in favor of cutting back on the 7:30
P.M. end time. Chairman Buschmann requested that staff survey the
landscaping firms for their thoughts on adjusting the weekend hours. He
explained that he would propose the idea of a 5:00 P.M. end time on Saturday
and a 4:00 P.M. end time on Sunday. Alderman Rummel proposed an end time
of 5:30 P.M. on Saturdays and a 5:00 P.M. end time on Sundays and holidays.
Chairman Buschmann requested that staff makes an inquiry to landscaping firms
about Alderman Rummel’s proposed changes. Alderman Rummel suggested
that the hours remain 7:30 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. on weekdays and the hours change
to 8:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. on Saturdays and 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Sundays
and holidays. She explained that these hours would be for all landscaping
equipment.
Superintendent Myers explained that he will provide landscaping firms a survey
to provide input on these proposed hours in both Spanish and English. He
explained that he would bring the results back to the Public Works Committee.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about the exception to the golf courses and City
operations. Superintendent Myers explained that if the Committee would like to
keep the policy the same, golf courses would be exempt and City operations
would not be. He explained that City staff would continue to work within those
permitted hours of operation as the weekday hours are not being changed.
Chairman Buschmann explained that as part of the education efforts, the City
should educate residents on common courtesy and using the loud equipment
only when it is necessary. Superintendent Myers explained that in the last
quarterly dialogue there was a featured article that was all about leaf blower
courtesy. He explained that the current landscape certification program could
be used to share these type of educational materials with the landscaping firms.
Alderman Rummel inquired about the communities who completely restrict their
hours of operation during summer months. Superintendent Myers explained that
these communities have implemented what is referred to as a partial blower
ban. They do not allow blower use during the summer months but do allow use
during the spring and fall. Alderman Moreno explained that she would not
support restricting leaf blowers in the fall because they are very important in leaf
collection. She explained that leaf collection is very important in keeping catch
basin inlets clear.
V. DISCUSSION OF SMOKE TESTING PROJECT & PROCESS IF VIOLATIONS ARE FOUND –
BOB ELLS & JIM LOCKEFEER
Management Analyst Jim Lockefeer reviewed a PowerPoint on the topic with
the Committee. He reviewed background information and explained that in
March of 2018, the Finance Committee first reviewed the Smoke Testing Project.
In April of 2018, bids for project were received and reviewed. In total, two bids
17
were received and the low bid came from the engineering firm RJN group. He
explained that RJN group had conducted past smoke testing for the City. He
explained that in May of 2018, City Council awarded the smoke testing project
to RJN Group in the total not-to-exceed amount of $102,330.
Mr. Lockefeer explained that data collected through testing will be used to
address stormwater inflow & infiltration into the City’s sanitary sewer system. He
explained that the inflow & infiltration data will be available by address and by
type. He explained that there is existing City Code that will support City efforts in
making sure these illegal and prohibited connections are addressed. Current
code allows for the City to turn off a resident’s water if an issue is not corrected in
a reasonable amount of time.
He explained the reason why staff wanted to bring the topic to the Committee
tonight was to receive direction on details not specifically identified in City Code.
He explained that staff was looking for direction on notifying residents via
certified mailing of prohibited connections issues; in the mailing, requested
repairs would be expected to be completed within 90 days; waiving the building
permit fees for repairs; and due to minimal infiltration volume, not requiring the
repair of residential sanitary service line laterals.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if the smoke comes through a resident’s sanitary
service if that is a result of small crack or breaks in the line. Management Analyst
Jim Lockefeer confirmed that he was correct. Superintendent Ells explained that
if there are larger breaks they show much more smoke. He explained these
would be noted and the City would request that a repair is made.
Alderman Rummel inquired if there would be any potential repercussions to the
homeowners as the smoke testing is occurring. Director Thomas explained that
there are no potential repercussions that a homeowner could face while the
smoke testing is occurring. He explained that it is a fairly quick process and the
smoke is non-toxic and non-hazardous.
Chairman Buschmann recommended that any follow up mailing to the residents
is more educational rather than accusatory. He explained that the letter should
be positive. He inquired about the permit fees associated with waiving a
potential repair and how much the fees are. Superintendent Ells explained that
he believed that most issues will be on private property. He explained that there
is a residential sewer fee and that he wasn’t sure of the exact amount, however,
he believed the fee was minimal. Chairman Buschmann recommended using
the waiving of the fee as an incentive for a homeowner to complete a repair
within the 90 days.
Alderman Rummel inquired what the follow up would be with homeowners who
do not respond and make a repair within the 90 days. Superintendent Ells
explained that after the initial 90 days expires, a second certified letter will be
mailed. The letter would state that if a repair is not made within a certain amount
18
of time, water will be shut off. Chairman Buschmann explained that the second
letter should escalate the issue. He explained that before the water is turned off,
there should be a second letter that acts as a warning.
Chairman Buschmann recommended that the first letter offer information on the
next steps a homeowner needs to take in order to address the issue.
Superintendent Ells explained that information from RJN group about the
resident’s specific issue can be included in the letter. He explained that there will
be City staff contact information included in the letter. Management Analyst Jim
Lockefeer explained that a frequently asked question guide could be another
potential document enclosed in the initial letter.
Alderman Rummel inquired about past smoking testing areas overlapping with
upcoming smoke testing areas. She inquired why that would be necessary if the
past areas should have already been notified and corrected their issues. Director
Thomas reviewed an intensity map of the areas in the City where staff received
the most calls for flooding during the July and October 2017 flooding events. He
explained that this map was used in developing the smoke testing areas. A past
smoke testing area was an area where staff received a high intensity of calls. He
explained that while the area was smoke tested in the past and residents may
have made repairs to correct the issues, homeowners may have since
unknowingly made new illegal connections. He explained that he also believed
that in the past the follow up to smoke testing may not have been as clear as
staff is recommending tonight. Director Thomas explained that he believes that
we may see existing problems in the areas that have been smoke tested in the
past.
VI. REVIEW & APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IGA WITH HIGHWOOD FOR SHARED WATER
PLANT OPERATIONAL SERVICES – MICHAEL THOMAS
Director Thomas explained that the existing and proposed agreements with
Highwood are within tonight’s meeting packet. He provided background of the
topic and explained that approximately a year ago, Highwood staff reached
out to Lake Forest for some assistance with their water plant. He explained that
Highwood had two water plant operator employees and recently lost one of
these employees. He explained that he and City Manager Kiely met with the City
Manager of Highwood to see if for a period of time Lake Forest could logistically
provide assistance with operating their water plant. He explained that the City
came to an agreement with Highwood and at the same time agreed that both
organizations would continue to explore the possibility of Lake Forest selling
Highwood water. In order to supply Highwood water, Highwood would need to
invest in a transmission water main. A cost estimate was developed and shared
with Highwood. Highwood has since explained to Lake Forest that they would
not be able to afford the cost of installing a transmission main at this time.
Highwood staff explained to Lake Forest staff that they have kept their water
rates low for their residents for a long period of time. Highwood explained that
they would have to increase their rates significantly in order to pay for the
transmission main. It was explained that at this point in time, Highwood was not
ready to commit to this. He explained that the meeting concluded with
19
Highwood requesting that Lake Forest continue the existing agreement to help
Highwood operate their water plant.
Director Thomas explained that in discussing the topic with Superintendent
Martin and the City’s Water Plant Chief Operator, the discussion on current water
plant employees and potential upcoming retirements was reviewed. He
explained that new water plant operator employees take time to learn the
system. He explained that it is a complicated system that requires a great deal of
knowledge. He explained that through these discussions the idea of hiring a new,
additional, Lake Forest water plant operator while at the same time give
operating hours to Highwood was developed. He explained that the proposed
IGA with Highwood would increase the rate of operator pay to $80 an hour and
would outline approximately 1,000 hours a year of operating time at the
Highwood plant. Director Thomas explained that the current cost of a City of
Lake Forest operator, with benefits included, is $88,600. He explained that
Highwood would be paying 90% of the cost of this new employee. He explained
that this new operator would not be spending any time at the Highwood water
plant. Their time would be spent at the Lake Forest water plant learning the Lake
Forest water plant operations and the system. He explained that the Lake Forest
employees who are nearing retirement will be utilized at the Highwood water
plant. He explained that all the details are outlined in the proposed IGA.
Director Thomas explained that the proposed Highwood operation would occur
Fridays and Saturdays from 5:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. He explained that Highwood’s
operation is essentially filling their one water tower on a daily basis in the morning
and then leaving for the day after it is at capacity.
Director Thomas explained that Highwood has a separate agreement with
Highland Park that designates a Highland Park water plant employee as the
Highwood Chief Water Plant Operator. This Chief Operator fills out all the
necessary state and federal paperwork.
Alderman Rummel inquired about the proposed idea of Highwood shutting
down their water plant and the City of Lake Forest supplying them with water.
Director Thomas explained that this was something that was discussed, however,
when Highwood received and reviewed the cost of the transmission main
installation they explained that at this point they could not fund that type of
investment.
Director Thomas explained that the drafted IGA is for a three year period with
the option of opting into two additional years. He explained that by that time,
Highwood may be more ready to consider shutting down their current system
and pursue the transmission main option.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about the minimum amount of Lake Forest
employee supplied operating time not appearing in the drafted IGA. Director
Thomas cited section 3-A of the IGA that specified the specific working hours.
Director Thomas explained that he has and will continue to check in with the
Lake Forest Chief Water Plant Operator to review how the employees are doing
20
at Highwood. He explained that the current agreement with Highwood has been
working well.
Alderman Rummel explained that she thought the agreement was fine. She
explained that her only concern was section 5 “Waiver of Claims”. She requested
that the City Attorney review that clause. She explained that she believed there
should be indemnification language. Director Thomas explained the City
Attorney created the IGA and that Highwood’s legal counsel was currently
reviewing the document. He explained that he would share the comments with
the City Attorney.
Alderman Rummel moved to recommend approval of the proposed IGA with
Highwood for shared water plant operational services. Alderman Moreno
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
VII. REVIEW & APPROVAL OF THE LOW BID FOR THE OLD MILL SANITARY SEWER FORCE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT – BOB ELLS
Superintendent Bob Ells explained that the drafted write-up that will appear in
the upcoming City Council meeting agenda was included in the Committee’s
packet tonight. He explained the project went out for competitive bid and IHC
was the low bidding firm. He explained that the bid was much lower in cost than
the City estimate.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about the previous work IHC has completed.
Superintendent Ells explained that the firm has not completed work directly for
the City before, however, they have completed work for other firms like ComEd
within the City.
Chairman Buschmann inquired how comfortable staff was with the firms
experience and qualifications. Superintendent Ells explained that staff was very
confident in this firm’s qualifications and past experiences.
Alderman Moreno inquired about the request for the fully budgeted $400,000 if
the project total with a 10% contingency was less than the $400,000 amount. She
requested that it changes to $380,000 or $385,000 instead of the $400,000.
Superintendent Ells explained that he would look to make that adjustment for the
City Council packet.
Alderman Rummel moved to recommend approval of the low bid for the Old
Mill sanitary sewer force replacement project. Alderman Moreno seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously.
VIII. NOTIFICATION OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST'S REQUIRED IEPA STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN – JIM LOCKEFEER
Management Analyst Jim Lockefeer explained that Stormwater Management
Program Plans (SMPP) outline existing procedures and practices that are
implemented by a municipality to reduce the discharge of pollutants within
stormwater runoff. He explained that the purpose of SMPPs is to meet the
minimum standards required by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
21
(NPDES) program. He explained that federal regulations through the USEPA
require that all Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), located partially
or fully in urbanized areas, obtain stormwater permits for their discharges into
receiving waters. He explained that information found in the City’s SMPP include
outreach efforts and education efforts, the City Stormwater Management Policy,
and City operations that could impact stormwater runoff. He explained that City
staff developed the Lake Forest SMPP by utilizing a SMPP template provided by
Lake County SMC. City staff also had the help of a consultant with prior career
experience with the IEPA and USEPA. He explained that the City SMPP can be
found on the City’s website.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about City outfall monitoring efforts.
Management Analyst Jim Lockefeer explained that the City does have a visual
outfall inspection program. Chairman Buschmann inquired about the frequency
of the outfall inspections. Management Analyst Lockefeer explained that
minimally, dry weather inspections of City outfalls are required every five years.
Superintendent Ells explained that the City is currently a part of the SMC group
developing the master plans for the North Branch and Lake Michigan
watersheds. He explained that as part of this group member communities will
collaborate and identify one firm to complete all the inspections throughout the
entire watersheds. He explained that completing the inspections this way will be
much more cost effective for all the communities within each watershed.
Alderman Rummel inquired if water is treated within the stormwater sewer
system. Superintendent Ells explained that the water is not chemically treated like
sanitary sewage.
Director Thomas explained that last Thursday the IEPA came out to the City and
spent a long period of time reviewing all the City’s stormwater management
policies and SMPP with Jim Lockefeer and the Water and Sewer Section
Supervisor. He explained that the City received very good feedback about the
City stormwater management program from the IEPA representative who
completed the inspection.
IX. OTHER – MICHAEL THOMAS & MIKE STRONG
• POSSIBLE LAKE ROAD CURB / GUTTER / STORM SEWER SSA
Director Thomas explained that a few residents on Lake Road, between Spruce
and Woodbine, have reached out to the Mayor expressing interest in the
installation of curb and gutter in their area. After the Mayor received the initial
inquiry, the Mayor along with City staff, met with the interested neighbors to
review the installation of curb and gutter. An estimate on total project cost was
also shared with the residents. He explained that the special service area (SSA)
funding process was reviewed. This group of three to four interested residents
believed that there is a strong majority of homeowners in the project area that
want the installation of curb and gutter to occur. Director Thomas explained that
City staff is going to host a neighbor meeting to gauge interest. He explained
that if the City obtains a petition from the homeowners that clearly shows that
the project would be supported, the official SSA process would begin. It was the
22
hope of the residents who staff already met with that construction would begin
and finish next summer. He explained that as part of the project, the residents
expressed interest in also having the ComEd utility poles and infrastructure
removed and buried. The cost to do this would also have to be included in the
total cost of the SSA.
Chairman Buschmann inquired what the cost estimates were. Director Thomas
explained that the initial estimate is for $1,000,000.
Alderman Rummel inquired what prompted this group of residents to pursue the
project. Director Thomas explained that the group of residents expressed that
they have wanted to pursue this project for a long time. The residents explained
that they have reached out with interest to the City before and were told no.
Director Thomas explained that the Army Corps of Engineers may need to be
involved with the project since stormwater infrastructure would be discharging
into the ravines. He explained that this topic still needed to be reviewed in detail
with the City Engineer.
Alderman Rummel inquired about the ravines the stormwater sewer infrastructure
would discharge into. Director Thomas reviewed a map with the Committee and
pointed out the two ravines that the stormwater would discharge into. He
explained that the infrastructure would not discharge into the North Beach
Access Road ravine.
Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained that next steps would
include hosting a neighbor meeting to discuss a potential project, the SSA
process, and project cost per parcel. He explained that different SSA funding
options can also be reviewed. He explained that staff will request that if the
neighbors are interested in moving forward with the project, a signed petition is
submitted to the City demonstrating a majority of homeowner support. If that is
submitted to the City, the SSA process would move forward.
Director Thomas explained that if the neighbors show that there is majority
interest, staff will begin to proceed with developing preliminary engineering.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if the preliminary engineering was something that
the City would have to pay for. Director Thomas explained that it would and that
it was initially explained to the interested resident group that staff believed the
design was straight forward and could be completed in house. However, the
process may have to change if the Army Corps of Engineering becomes
involved.
• POSSIBLE STONEGATE CURB / GUTTER / STORM SEWER SSA
Director Thomas explained that the possible Stongate SSA is not as far along as
the potential Lake Road SSA. He explained that the neighbors there have
become frustrated with people over time cutting their turns short. That has
23
resulted in the adjacent right of way becoming affected. He explained that he
did not necessarily believe that this project would evolve into an SSA.
Superintendent Ells explained that the neighbors in the area have not requested
an SSA.
Chairman Buschmann inquired what the plan was moving forward with this issue.
Director Thomas explained that staff is still reviewing the issue as the issue was
brought to staff’s attention a few days ago. He explained that the Engineering
Section is currently reviewing the issue.
Alderman Rummel inquired what the current issue in the Lake Road area was
that the neighbors were trying to correct in installing curb and gutter. Director
Thomas explained that he believed it was in large part due to the residents
growing frustrated with people parking on the parkway grass. She inquired if their
inquiry had anything to do with drainage. Superintendent Ells explained that their
request does not have anything to do with solving a drainage issue, however, if
curb and gutter is installed on City streets, the installation of a storm sewer is also
needed. He explained that it is needed to move the water of off the road.
X. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no additional public comment.
XI. NEXT MEETING – July 23, 2018 – 6:30 p.m.
Director Thomas explained that prior to concluding tonight’s meeting staff would
like to review a new business topic with the Committee that did not originally
appear on the agenda. He explained that the topic of Everett and Waukegan
Road improvement project would be reviewed by Superintendent Ells.
Superintendent Ells explained that the topic will also appear before City Council
at the next City Council meeting. He explained that the City recently received
the agreement back from the state for execution for Phase II design of the
intersection improvement project. He explained that City Council will need to
authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Civil Tech and to authorize
payment of the City’s 20% share of Phase II design which is $65,745.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if this was the same improvement project that
was reviewed with City Council previously. Superintendent Ells explained that he
was correct.
Superintendent Ells shared and reviewed a map of the project area with the
Committee.
Chairman Buschmann explained a topic that came up at the Fourth Ward
meeting about the proposed improvement. He explained that the traffic flow
problem at this intersection is attributed to the west flow traffic on Everett coming
up to the stop light and not having a right turn lane. Superintendent Ells
explained that when the initial traffic studies were completed by the State for the
project, they designated the traffic level at grade C. He explained that this
24
grade is viewed at an acceptable level. He explained that when the proposed
projects options were reviewed by City Council in 2013, the opportunity for a
right turn lane was not even an option that was presented. He explained that
additional traffic studies have been completed since the original study was
submitted and similar traffic data was collected.
Director Thomas explained that the City completed Phase I design for the
improvement project. Those design concepts were shared with IDOT in order to
gain their support and financially fund the project. He explained that the City
spent about $228,000 on Phase I and that it is not reimbursable by IDOT. Once
Phase I design was complete and accepted by IDOT, a grant was applied for
and obtained for Phase II design and construction. The awarded grant dollars
are for improvement project plans that were presented in Phase I. Phase I design
did not have a right turn lane concept within the plans. Superintendent Ells
explained that Phase I was approved by City Council, Metra, IDOT and the ICC.
He explained that as a general reference, a lane, the buffer, and the sidewalk
would have to move approximately 25 feet to accommodate a right turn lane.
Director Thomas explained that if the City makes significant changes to the
proposed improvement project design at this point, the City could lose the grant
and the 80% match.
Alderman Rummel inquired about applying for a future grant to install a right turn
lane. Director Thomas explained that a future grant could be applied for. He
explained that trying to incorporate a right turn lane as part of the project, would
result in the state pulling the grant funds for not following what was agreed upon
in Phase I design.
Chairman Buschmann explained that if the proposed development in the area
does not move forward and other opportunities are examined, that the City
should work with the proposed development to provide easements to
accommodate a right turn lane.
Alderman Rummel inquired about the total City investment for the project.
Superintendent Ells explained the City has already invested $228,000 for Phase I.
He explained that in going forward with the project, the City will invest 20% of the
Phase II design and 20% of the construction costs. He provided the Committee
with a breakdown of the costs.
Director Thomas explained that staff wanted to bring this to the Committee
tonight to ask for their recommendation to City Council to accept the grant and
the City’s financial obligation as part of the grant agreement. He explained that
the project has also not been budgeted because the grant had not yet been
awarded by the City’s March budget meeting. Therefore, once the grant was
received staff has to go back to City Council to request the grant and financial
obligation of the 20% match for Phase II design and construction is accepted.
Superintendent Ells explained that the City match for construction will appear in
the FY20 budget.
Alderman Rummel explained that if the project is not approved the $228,000
investment for Phase I would have been for nothing. Chairman Buschmann
25
asked the Committee if they felt as though the project was a good project for
the intersection even though it may not solve all of its problems. Alderman
Moreno and Alderman Rummel agreed that the project was a good
improvement that will help the north and south traffic at the intersection.
Chairman Buschmann explained that there are still problems that can be
addressed at the intersection in the future.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Alderman Rummel moved to adjourn the meeting of the Public Works
Committee at 10:08 P.M. Alderman Moreno seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Lockefeer Jr.
Management Analyst