Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CITY COUNCIL 2016/12/05 Agenda
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, December 5, 2016 at 6:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers Honorable Mayor, Donald Schoenheider Catherine Waldeck, Alderman First Ward Stanford Tack, Alderman Third Ward Prudence R. Beidler, Alderman First Ward Jack Reisenberg, Alderman Third Ward George Pandaleon, Alderman Second Ward Michael Adelman, Alderman Fourth Ward Timothy Newman, Alderman Second Ward Michelle Moreno, Alderman Fourth Ward CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 6:30 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS 1. COMMENTS BY MAYOR A. Swear in Firefighter/Paramedic, William Clifford 2. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER 3. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS FINANCE COMMITTEE A. Consideration of an Ordinance Establishing the 2016 Tax Levy (Second Reading and Final Approval) PRESENTED BY: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests final approval of an Ordinance establishing the 2016 tax levy. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments City Council 11/21/16 First Reading granted City Council 11/7/16 Determination of an estimated 2016 levy based on 10/17/16 Finance Committee direction. Finance Committee 10/17/16 Discussion of various options for 2016 levy 1 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The annual tax levy must be filed with the County Clerk by the last Tuesday in December. The City has a significant reliance on property tax revenues, which represents more than 50% of the General Fund revenue. Spreadsheets reviewing the proposed tax levy for 2016 are attached (page 25) for your consideration. These include: 1) the tax levy limitations under the tax cap; 2) the tax levy distributed by fund without new growth and allowances distributed; 3) the tax levy by fund with new growth and allowances distributed; and 4) an explanation of the tax increase to an average homeowner. The tax levy to be approved includes the needs of all City departments, as well as for pensions and debt service requirements. A summary of the proposed levies is as follows: School District #67 levy amounts are estimated and subject to revision based on final action by the School Board. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed tax levy for 2016 reflects a 1.45% increase over the 2015 tax levy extensions for the City and Library operating funds and City pension and debt service funds. This increase is comprised of the .70% property tax cap increase on those levy lines subject to the tax cap; debt service bond levies as previously approved by City Council bond Ordinances, subject to abatement for debt paid by alternate revenue sources; increases attributable to new construction; and transfer of an $822,000 debt service levy to Capital Improvements due to the recently approved redemption of the 2008 bonds due in December 2017 and later. The average increase to existing residents ($800,000 home) is projected to be $30 or .89%. COUNCIL ACTION: Grant final approval of an Ordinance Establishing the 2016 Tax Levy (page 15). B. Approval of Ordinances Abating 2016 Tax Levies for Various G.O. Alternate Revenue Bond Issues (Second Reading and Final Approval) Proposed FUND 2016 LEVY 2015 Extension $ CHANGE % CHANGE City General 13,913,616$ 13,656,871$ 256,745$ 1.88% Pension Funds 4,775,015 4,763,071 11,944 0.25% Fire Pension PA 93-0689 64,909 56,914 7,995 14.05% Recreation 1,374,740 1,365,183 9,557 0.70% Parks 3,059,904 3,038,634 21,270 0.70% Recreation & Parks/Specific Purpose 125,000 125,000 0 0.00% Special Recreation 440,040 415,059 24,981 6.02% Capital Improvements 822,000 635,000 187,000 29.45% Library 3,570,785 3,526,480 44,305 1.26% Library sites 394,724 391,980 2,744 0.70% Bond Funds 1,415,647 1,554,557 (138,910) -8.94% TOTAL TAX LEVY - CITY 29,956,380$ 29,528,749$ 427,631$ 1.45% School District 67- ESTIMATED 31,904,920$ 31,423,926 480,994$ 1.53% GRAND TOTAL 61,861,300 60,952,675 908,625$ 1.49% 2 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda PRESENTED BY: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests final approval of ordinances abating 2016 tax levies. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposed Ordinances provide for the abatement of 2016 taxes levied for the various outstanding general obligation ALTERNATE REVENUE bond issues. The tax levies for all bond issues are established and recorded with the County Clerk at the time the bonds are issued. Therefore, in order to reduce the bond tax levies, an abatement ordinance must be approved and filed with the County Clerk before the last Tuesday in December. The abatement of these general obligation ALTERNATE REVENUE bonds is possible due to the fact these bond funds have an adequate revenue source from water sales, golf fees, sales tax or payments from the U.S. Treasury. Therefore, the general obligation tax levy can be abated as was planned at the time the bonds were issued. The proposed Ordinances (beginning on page 29) are as follows: • An Ordinance Abating a Portion of the Tax being Levied in 2016 for the Annual Payment of the Principal and Interest on the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-B Bond Issue • An Ordinance Abating a Portion of the Tax being Levied in 2016 for the Annual Payment of the Principal and Interest on the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-C Bond Issue • An Ordinance Abating the Total Tax being Levied in 2016 for the Annual Payment of the Principal and Interest on the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-A Refunding Bond Issue • An Ordinance Abating the Total Tax being Levied in 2016 for the Annual Payment of the Principal and Interest on the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-B Refunding Bond Issue • An Ordinance Abating a Portion of the Tax being Levied in 2016 for the Annual Payment of the Principal and Interest on the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 Bond Issue BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: A summary of the proposed tax levy abatements is provided below: 3 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda COUNCIL ACTION: Grant final approval of the Ordinances abating tax levies for various general obligation bond issues. C. Consideration of an Ordinance approving a Fee Schedule and Ordinances adopting new fees related to Special Events and a Public Safety Pension Fee (Second Reading and Final Approval) PRESENTED BY: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests final approval of the proposed Ordinances. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: As part of the budget process, all departments are asked to review their user fees. A comprehensive fee schedule is provided as Exhibit A to the Ordinance approving a fee schedule, which clearly identifies the proposed fee increases highlighted in yellow and the proposed new fees highlighted in orange. Fees highlighted in green are not reflective of changes in existing fees; rather, they are clarifications due to a review of City Code and current practices. Departments have provided supplemental memos justifying their proposed fee adjustments and new fees, which are included in the packet beginning on page 64. New fees require a separate Ordinance to be submitted by the department proposing the new fee and accompany the Ordinance approving the fee schedule. The following Ordinances are submitted for City Council consideration at this time: • Ordinance approving a fee schedule (page 34) • Ordinance adopting new fees related to late fees for special event permit applications (page 55) 2016 Debt Service Levy and Abatements Levy per County TIF Golf Water .5 NHRST Int Rebate Net Levy 2008 822,000.00 822,000.00 2009 278,245.00 278,245.00 2010A 0.00 0.00 2010B 172,500.00 (72,307.00) 100,193.00 2010C 453,973.76 (79,389.80) 374,583.96 2011A 137,787.50 0.00 (137,787.50) 0.00 0.00 2011B 2,703,500.00 (96,967.50) (2,074,602.50) (531,930.00)0.00 2013 435,762.50 435,762.50 2015 468,425.00 (241,562.50)226,862.50 5,472,193.76 0.00 (96,967.50) (2,212,390.00) (531,930.00) (151,696.80) 2,237,646.96 1% L/C 5,526,915.70 Abatement due to 2008 Bond Issue Redemption:(822,000.00) 1,415,646.96 4 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda • Ordinance adopting new fees related to escrow deposit for special event permit applications (page 58) • Ordinance adopting new fees related to public safety pension obligations (page 61) The fee revisions and proposed new fees were considered at the November 14, 2016 Finance Committee meeting. The proposed ordinances were granted first reading approval on November 21, 2016. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Revenue for the new and increased fees is estimated to be $203,055 in the General Fund, $293,620 in the General Fund (transferred to public safety pension funds), $20,193 in the Parks and Recreation Fund, $210,080 in the Water Utility Fund and $100 in the Senior Resources Fund. COUNCIL ACTION: Grant final approval of the proposed ordinances. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE A. Consideration of Two Recommendations from the Public Works Committee Related to the Process for Considering the Establishment of Special Service Area No. 41 for the Winwood Drive Area Sanitary Improvement Project. PRESENTED BY: Public Works Committee Chairman Waldeck CONTACT: Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager (810-3680) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Public Works Committee (“PWC”) recommends that City Council take two actions, consistent with State Law, to set the framework for consideration of the establishment of Special Service Area No. 41 for the Winwood Drive Area Sanitary Improvement Project. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments City Council 11/21/16 Proposing Ordinance Reviewed & Approved Public Works Committee 11/7/16 Discussion of Potential Financing Strategies for Project; Reviewed & Approved pursuit of single SSA Area City Council 8/1/16 Design Proposal Reviewed & Approved Public Works Committee 6/20/16 Design Proposal Reviewed & Approved Public Works Committee 5/16/16 Discussion of Winwood Drive Overflow Issue Public Works Committee 3/7/16 Discussion of Winwood Drive Funding Mechanisms Public Works Committee 3/4/15 Discussion of Non-Sanitary Sewer Areas 5 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On November 21, 2016, City Council approved an Ordinance proposing the establishment of an SSA to finance the installation of a sanitary sewer in the Winwood Drive neighborhood (“Project”). The purpose of the Ordinance was to outline the geographic area, preliminary budget, services, maximum tax levy for the project, and has ratified a date for the public hearing. The actions requested this evening relate to the Ordinance and are necessary next steps in the process of consideration of a Special Service Area for this project. The Public Works Committee recommends the following actions: 1. Open a public hearing, pursuant to the Special Service Area Tax Law (“SSA Law”) to consider the establishment of Special Service Area No. 41. Under state law, Notice of a Public Hearing must be mailed to persons whose names are on the general taxes for the preceding year not less than ten (10) days before the time set for the hearing. Additionally, the Notice of Public Hearing (A copy of which is provided on page 97), must be published in a newspaper not less than fifteen (15) days before the hearing. Property owners in the proposed district were notified of the December 5, 2016, Public Hearing by Certified USPS mail with a letter dated November 22, 2016 (Mailed same day). The Notice of Public Hearing was published in The Lake Forester on November 17, 2016. If no objections are filed, the proposed SSA levy and boundaries would be considered for adoption on February 6, 2017. This time period allows for the required 60 day “objection period” to pass. Under state law, property owners within the proposed district have 60 days following the close of the Public Hearing in which to formally object to the creation of the proposed SSA. No less than 51% of the property owners of record and 51% of electors in the proposed area must formally object to the SSA in order for it not to be adopted. 2. Review, and if determined appropriate by City Council, approval of an Inducement Resolution which declares the City’s intent to seek external financing to fund the project. The Inducement Resolution, included in the Council packet beginning on page 99, states the City’s intention to consider reimbursing eligible project expenses of the project from future bond proceeds to be repaid through a special tax roll that would be assessed on properties within the SSA Area. Due to the estimated cost of the project, City staff has determined that it may be in the best interest of the parties involved in this project to externally finance the project through bond proceeds or other external financing means. Thus, the inducement Resolution allows for the reimbursement of project expenses at a later date from bond proceeds. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The current estimate for the residents’ share of the project, for the installation of a new public sanitary sewer system, is $1,378,327. During the November 21, 2016, meeting, staff provided preliminary cost estimates for the project, subject to additional fees which were not known at that time (e.g. permit, connection and annexation fees, etc.). Since this time, staff has been provided additional information on these costs, a breakdown of which is provided below. 6 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda Cost Item Preliminary Estimate Final Estimate Administrative, Legal and Easement Acquisition Fees $12,000 $12,000 Design engineering (Phase I-II) $37,500 $37,500 Construction Engineering (Phase III) $81,000 $81,000 Construction $1,117,570 $1,117,570 Construction Contingency $110,257 $110,257 Permit, Connection and Annexation Fees $135,408 - Bond Issuance Expenses $20,000 $20,000 Total Project Cost Estimate $1,513,735 $1,378,327 Total Cost Per Lot (if Pre-Paid) $54,062 $49,226 Total Cost Per Lot (with Financing) $72,945 $66,420 Annual Cost Per Lot $3,647 $3,321 It should be noted that once construction bids are received by the City, and presented to the Public Works Committee on March 20, 2017, staff will recalculate these estimates. As a reminder, private contractor costs associated with the installation and connection of a lateral service line to each residence; interior plumbing work; permit, connection and inspection fees (including City and North Shore Water Reclamation District connection fees); and decommissioning of septic tanks shall be the responsibility of each property owner in the SSA area and have not been included in the SSA tax. City staff will provide the City Council with an overview of the project, including a brief review of the scope, budget, proposed area, and will be on hand to answer questions from members of the public during the public hearing on Monday, December 5. COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council: 1. Consideration to Open a Public Hearing for a proposed Special Service Area (SSA No. 41) for the Installation of a sanitary sewer system in the Winwood Drive neighborhood. ***OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING*** ***CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING*** 2. Consideration of an Inducement Resolution which declares the City’s intent to seek external financing to fund the project. (Approve by Motion) 7 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda 4. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 5. ITEMS FOR OMNIBUS VOTE CONSIDERATION 1. Approval of the November 21, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes A copy of the minutes can be found on page 102. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the Minutes 2. Approval of Check Register for Period October 29-November 25, 2016 Fund Invoice Payroll Total General 660,626 1,095,176 1,755,801 Water & Sewer 42,845 116,952 159,797 Parks & Recreation 135,048 302,522 437,569 Capital Improvements 526,760 0 526,760 Motor Fuel Tax 0 0 0 Cemetery 40,929 22,448 63,377 Senior Resources 14,844 19,212 34,056 Deerpath Golf Course 3,893 526 4,419 Fleet 77,715 46,182 123,898 Debt Funds 750 0 750 Housing Trust 0 0 0 Park & Public Land 0 0 0 All other Funds 276,508 141,188 417,696 $1,779,917 $1,744,206 $3,524,123 3. Award of Contract for Information Technology Support for a One-Year Period STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests City Council award a contract for Information Technology (IT) professional services for supplemental IT support including public safety technology initiatives. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Milestone Date Comments Technician Interviews & Other Due Diligence 07/2016 – 11/2016 Review & Recommendation by City Departments’ Selection Team Vendor Proposals Submitted 07/01/2016 Nine Proposals Received & Reviewed RFP Issuance 06/13/2016 8 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Since the inclusion of IT into the Finance department in January 2011, the City has contracted with ClientFirst Technology Consulting to provide enhanced IT support services and supplemental strategic planning. In early 2012, a written assessment of the IT support needs required of public safety was provided to the City. The assessment determined that due to the downsizing of the IT division and increasing complexity of public safety technology, the police and fire departments required technical support beyond the capacity of existing IT resources. In July 2012, the City Council authorized a contract to provide supplemental IT support specializing in public safety technical knowledge. On August 4, 2014, in conjunction with the move to centralized public safety dispatching the City Council approved an agreement with InterDev LLC to provide public safety IT support for one year. It was subsequently renewed by City Council on September 21, 2015. On June 13, 2016 the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for services inclusive of all current ongoing contractual IT services; general IT support, IT support specializing in public safety, and strategic planning consultation. On July 1, 2016 nine (9) proposals were received. A City selection committee comprised of representatives from Finance/IT, Fire, and Police departments interviewed five (5) consulting companies on July 27, 2016. Consultants were chosen for interviews based on their proposal costs, technical qualifications, completeness of proposal, and municipal and public safety support experience. Based on the interview outcomes, the selection committee narrowed the selection to two finalists for technical services and one for strategic planning. It was determined at this time that recommending a single vendor for IT strategic planning and IT technical services would not be in the best interest of the City as it would not decrease costs or provide additional efficiencies. Staff conducted additional due diligence and negotiations in August through November with the finalists. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The following is the summary chart of all proposal costs for IT Technical Services received, excluding strategic planning: IT Technical Services Vendors Interview Ranking Hourly Rate Est. Annual Costs Catalyst Consulting N/A $115.00 $167,440 Advanced Business Networks 3 $100.00 $145,600 Prescient N/A $92.15 $134,167 ClientFirst 4 $85.00 $123,760 Heartland Business Systems 5 $83.33 $121,329 Sentinel N/A $67.00 $97,552 Sierra ITS 2 $65.00 $94,640 InterDev 1 $54.46 $79,294 Staff recommends approval of a one-year agreement with InterDev to provide supplemental IT support to leverage knowledge specialized in municipal and public safety technical support. InterDev’s proposal for IT technical services was the lowest cost, the technician proposed gave a favorable impression during the interview process, and references were satisfactory. If approved, the supplemental IT support contract would commence immediately for a one-year term. Due to the favorable pricing received, 9 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda additional funding within the existing budgetary allocation is recommended to allow for increased hours as needed. FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N General Fund – IT Contract Services $110,000 $92,000 Y COUNCIL ACTION: Pursuant to the RFP process, if appropriate and should the City Council desire, award a contract for IT support services to InterDev in an amount not to exceed $92,000 for one-year to support IT and public safety technology initiatives. 4. Approval of an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2015-58 Establishing the Lake Forest Special Service Area No. 40 – Regency Lane Area Sewer Improvement Project (First Reading and if desired by the City Council, Final Approval) STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests approving the proposed Ordinance amending the Special Tax Roll related to the Regency Lane SSA. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On October 19, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2015-58 establishing the Lake Forest Special Service Area No. 40 – Regency Lane Area Sewer Improvement Project. The Ordinance contains a Special Tax Roll establishing the preliminary annual assessments on the properties in the SSA over a 20-year period. In August of 2016, upon completion of all improvements, the impacted property owners were notified of the final costs of the project and provided a 60-day period to elect pre- payment of the assessment, thereby avoiding interest costs, or payment of the improvements over a 20-year period at an interest rate of 3.04%. One property owner elected the pre-payment option. At this time, it is appropriate to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No 2015-58 providing for an amended Special Tax Roll that reflects the actual final costs of the project for those electing to pay over the 20-year period, and eliminating the assessments for years 2-20 for the property owner electing the pre-payment option. Once approved, the amended Ordinance (page 112) will be filed with the County. COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, waive first reading of the proposed Ordinance and grant final approval. 5. Consideration of an Ordinance Approving a Recommendation from the Building Review Board. (First Reading and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval) STAFF CONTACT: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development (810-3504) 10 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda The following recommendation from the Building Review Board is presented to the City Council for consideration as part of the Omnibus Agenda. 854 W. Everett Road - The Building Review Board recommended approval of demolition of the existing residence and approval of a replacement residence, attached garage and a landscape plan. A neighboring property owner in the Evergreen Subdivision expressed concern about the design of the proposed house. In response, the overall design was refined. The Board noted that there are a variety of house sizes and styles in the area. (Board vote: 5- 0, approved) The Ordinance approving the petition as recommended by the Building Review Board, with key exhibits attached, is included in the Council packet beginning on page 118. The Ordinance, complete with all exhibits, is available for review in the Community Development Department. COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, waive first reading and grant final approval of the Ordinance approving the petition in accordance with the Building Review Board’s recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the five (5) Omnibus items as presented 6. ORDINANCES 7. ORDINANCES AFFECTING CODE AMENDMENTS 8. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of an Agreement to Provide an Update to the Forest Park Bluff Stability Evaluation PRESENTED BY: Robert Ells, Superintendent of Engineering (810-3555) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting City Council approval of an agreement with an engineering firm specializing in geotechnical analysis, to provide an update to the bluff restoration feasibility study for the bluff adjacent to Forest Park from Spring Lane to the North Beach Access Road. The original study looked at the area between Deerpath and Spring Lane with a focus on the Ring Road, and was completed in 2009. If the agreement is approved this evening, the report will be completed by early February, 2017. 11 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Public Works Committee 12/5/2016 Reviewed Proposals from both Engineering Firms City Council 11/21/2016 Directed Staff to Obtain a Proposal from an Additional Engineering Firm Finance Committee 11/14/2016 Reviewed the Remaining Bluff Area to be Analyzed City Council 7/18/2016 Approval of an Agreement to Analyze the Bluff Adjacent to South Beach Access Road Public Works Committee 6/20/2016 Reviewed South Beach Access Road Bluff Movement BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In mid-May, 2016 staff noticed that the bluff on the east side of the South Beach Access Road (SBAR hereafter) had begun to move and separate from the curb and roadway. In July, 2016, City Council approved an agreement with AECOM to further analyze the area from the lower end of the SBAR , north to Forest Park’s drive entrance (approximately at Spring Lane). AECOM completed all topographical and cross sectional surveys of the area and provided the City with their recommendation and cost estimates to repair specific points along the bluff. This issue was reviewed at the November 14, 2016 capital budget meeting. The Finance Committee was informed that a workgroup consisting of two Aldermen and various residents with related knowledge and interests in bluff and ravine repairs, will meet during the months of December, January, and February. This group will review engineering reports on the bluff’s condition and provide a recommendation on any possible future capital projects to the Finance Committee at the March 13, 2017 budget meeting. The request this evening is to provide an update to an analysis that was completed in 2009 for the remaining portion of the Forest Park bluff that was not evaluated this past summer (Spring Lane to the North Beach Access Road). While this is unrelated to the shallow slope failure on the SBAR, the intent is to provide a comprehensive look at the condition of the bluff in all of Forest Park prior to making decisions on the scope of repairs along the SBAR proposed to be completed in 2017. Beginning on page 126 of this agenda packet, is a copy of AECOM’s 2009 Subsurface Exploration and Bluff Stability Analysis for the Forest Park Beach Access Road, a letter from AECOM dated November 28, 2016 outlining the engineering history of the 2011 Forest Park Access Road Bluff Restoration Project, and maps designating multiple dates when Forest Park studies and repair projects were performed. Finally, the design to repair the SBAR’s bluff will be placed on hold until the workgroup’s recommendations are received by the Finance Committee. If AECOM’s proposal is approved this evening, similar to the access road’s repair project in 2011, staff will recommend AECOM not be used for the design of any bluff repairs and that a different engineering firm be hired to provide such services. 12 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The following two quotations were received by the City’s Engineering Section: Firm Amount AECOM $33,400 Ciorba $42,400 Per section 9.0-K of the City’s purchasing directive, staff is requesting waiving the formal request for proposals and evaluation process. Proposals from both AECOM and Ciorba were reviewed by the Public Works Committee prior to this evening’s City Council meeting. Both firms are very knowledgeable in the field of geotechnical analysis. Proposals from both engineering firms can be found on pages 188 of this agenda. Based upon the lower proposed price and baseline data previously obtained over multiple years, staff is recommending the update to the feasibility study be performed by AECOM. The non-budgeted feasibility study will be funded by advancing amounts to be budgeted in the FY2018 annual budget. Below is a summary of analysis budget: FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N Capital Improvements Fund (Advance of FY18 Budget Allocation) $0 $33,400 N If necessary, a FY2017 supplemental appropriation will be submitted for City Council approval at the end of the year. COUNCIL ACTION: Acknowledge the exception noted in Section 9.0-K of the City’s Purchasing Directive and approve an agreement with AECOM to perform a Forest Park Bluff Restoration Feasibility Study for the area near Spring Lane to the North Beach Access Road in the amount of $33,400. 9. ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Announcement of City Council Resignation; Appointment of Successor 10. ADJOURNMENT Office of the City Manager November 30, 2016 The City of Lake Forest is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or the facilities, are required to contact City Manager Robert R. Kiely, Jr., at (847) 234-2600 promptly to allow the City to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. 13 Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Agenda 14 TAX LEVY 2016-2017 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR ALL CORPORATE PURPOSES AND FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE AND STATE OF ILLINOIS, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING MAY 1, 2016 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 2017, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE AND STATE OF ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: That the Annual Appropriation Bill, an ordinance making appropriation for the corporate purposes of The City of Lake Forest and the objects and purposes stated therein according to the departments, and other separate agencies, and for the Public Schools of The City of Lake Forest, County of Lake and State of Illinois, for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2017 was duly passed the 18th of July, 2016 and thereafter published in pamphlet form as provided by law, which ordinance by reference thereto is hereby made a part of hereof. SECTION 2: That the sum of sixty million, four hundred forty-five thousand, six hundred fifty-three dollars ($60,445,653) having heretofore legally appropriated for all corporate purposes of The City of Lake Forest and for the Public Schools of The City of Lake Forest, County of Lake and State of Illinois, to be collected from the taxes levied for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2017 be and same hereby is levied against all property subject to taxation with The City of Lake Forest as the same is assessed and equalized for State and County purposes for the said fiscal year. That the purposes for which the said amount of sixty million, four hundred forty-five thousand, six hundred fifty-three dollars ($60,445,653) hereto appropriated and hereby levied, respectively are as follows, to wit: GENERAL FUND Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 General Government Salaries and Benefits 2,489,766$ 1,632,335$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 4,937,987 3,237,431$ Contingency - to meet expenses of emergencies and optional expenses not otherwise provided for 3,255,698 - TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 10,683,451$ 4,869,766$ Legal Contractual Services 450,000$ 278,272$ TOTAL LAW 450,000$ 278,272$ Community Development Salaries and Benefits 1,360,251$ -$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 155,341 - Capital Equipment - - - TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,515,592$ -$ 15 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Public Works Administration Salaries and Benefits 363,464$ 352,047 Supplies/Other Services and Charges 67,481 65,361 - TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 430,945$ 417,408$ Public Buildings Building Maintenance Administration Salaries and Benefits 750,221$ 359,004 Supplies/Other Services and Charges 703,564 336,677 TOTAL PUBLIC BUILDINGS 1,453,785$ 695,681$ Streets Salaries and Benefits 913,946$ -$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 844,951 - TOTAL STREETS 1,758,897$ -$ Sanitation Salaries and Benefits 1,084,466$ 690,044$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 1,102,185 701,318 TOTAL SANITATION 2,186,651$ 1,391,362$ Storm Sewers Salaries and Benefits 115,695$ 105,651$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 36,668 33,485 TOTAL STORM SEWERS 152,363$ 139,136$ Engineering Salaries and Benefits 475,650$ 234,396$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 89,036 43,876 TOTAL ENGINEERING 564,686$ 278,272$ Fire Fire Administration Salaries and Benefits 4,555,061$ 2,306,048 Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 272,383 137,897 Capital Equipment - - Sub-Total 4,827,444$ 2,443,945$ 16 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Emergency Medical Services Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 27,500$ 13,922 Sub-Total 27,500$ 13,922$ Fire Suppression Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 92,015$ 46,584 Sub-Total 92,015$ 46,584$ TOTAL FIRE 4,946,959$ 2,504,451$ Police Salaries and Benefits 6,032,430$ 2,846,473$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 1,044,362 492,795 TOTAL POLICE 7,076,792$ 3,339,268$ TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM GENERAL FUND 31,220,121$ 13,913,616$ Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 17,306,505 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 13,913,616 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR GENERAL FUND 13,913,616$ ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY For ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT and SOCIAL SECURITY (Excludes Water and Sewer Department, Fleet, Deerpath Golf Course, Cemetery Commission and School District 67) General Fund - IMRF 894,189$ 586,688$ General Fund - Social Security 630,119 586,687 Parks and Recreation Fund - IMRF 362,667 272,390 Parks and Recreation Fund - Social Security 322,233 272,389 - TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM ILLINOIS 2,209,208$ 1,718,154$ MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 491,054 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 1,718,154 17 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY 1,718,154$ FIREFIGHTERS'S PENSION FUND Other Services and Charges 2,120,091$ 1,156,853$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 218,500 - TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR PAYMENT TO THE FIREFIGHTERS'S PENSION FUND 2,338,591$ 1,156,853$ Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources other than Tax Levy 1,181,738 Sub-Total 1,156,853 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS'S PENSION FUND 1,156,853$ Other Services and Charges 64,909$ 64,909$ TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS'S PENSION FUND LAW PA 93-0869 64,909$ 64,909$ POLICE PENSION FUND Other Services and Charges 2,470,000$ 1,900,008$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 247,000 - TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR PAYMENT TO THE POLICE PENSION FUND 2,717,000$ 1,900,008$ Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 816,992 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 1,900,008 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE POLICE PENSION FUND 1,900,008$ 18 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks and Forestry Administration Salaries and Benefits 1,997,888$ 1,854,561$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 706,689 655,992 Capital Equipment 150,000 139,239 Sub-Total 2,854,577$ 2,649,792$ Grounds Maintenance Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 279,800$ 259,727$ Sub-Total 279,800$ 259,727$ Athletic Field Plg/Tennis Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 64,000$ 59,409$ Sub-Total 64,000$ 59,409$ Lake Front Facilities Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 29,000$ 26,920$ Sub-Total 29,000$ 26,920$ Tree Trimming Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 30,000$ 27,848$ Sub-Total 30,000$ 27,848$ Tree Removal Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 16,500$ 15,316$ Sub-Total 16,500$ 15,316$ Insect & Disease Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 12,000$ 11,139$ Sub-Total 12,000$ 11,139$ Tree & Shrub Planting/Care Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 10,500$ 9,747$ Sub-Total 10,500$ 9,747$ TOTAL PARKS AND FORESTRY SECTION 3,296,377$ 3,059,898$ Recreation Recreation Programs Salaries and Benefits 2,955,013$ 813,679$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 1,782,912 490,934$ Capital Equipment 95,954 26,421$ 19 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Sub-Total 4,833,879$ 1,331,035$ Parks Equipment Reserve 158,745 43,711$ Recreation and Parks Specfic Purpose 125,000 125,000$ Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 909,890 - TOTAL RECREATION SECTION 6,027,514$ 1,499,746$ TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE PARKS AND 9,323,891 RECREATION FUND Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 7,824,145 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 4,559,644 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 4,559,644$ Special Recreation Salaries and Benefits 36,714$ 36,714$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 287,729 287,729 Capital Improvements 115,597 115,597 Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and operational expenses not otherwise provided for 44,004 - TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL RECREATION 484,044$ 440,040$ Capital Improvements Fund Capital Equipment 822,000 822,000 Capital Improvements 4,864,934 Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 554,603 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 6,241,537.00$ 822,000.00$ PUBLIC LIBRARY FUND Library Services Salaries and Benefits 2,338,136$ 2,336,917$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 1,009,700 1,009,174 Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and operational expenses not otherwise provided for 315,748 - Total Lake Forest Public Library - General 3,663,584$ 3,346,091$ 20 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 317,493 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 3,346,091 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE LAKE FOREST PUBLIC LIBRARY - GENERAL 3,346,091$ Social Security and IMRF Social Security 131,000$ 112,347$ Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)192,000 112,347 Total Lake Forest Public Library - Social Security and IMRF 323,000$ 224,694$ Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 98,306 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 224,694 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE LAKE FOREST PUBLIC LIBRARY - SOCIAL SECURITY AND IMRF 224,694$ Library Building Salaries and Benefits 169,648$ 116,328$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 181,000 124,112 Sub-Total 350,648$ 240,441 Capital Equipment 125,000$ 85,713$ Capital Improvements 100,000 68,570 Sub-Total 225,000$ 154,283$ Total Lake Forest Public Library Building Maintenance and Repair (Sites and Building)575,648$ 394,724$ Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 180,924 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 394,724 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE LAKE FOREST PUBLIC LIBRARY - BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 394,724$ 21 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Public Schools THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST School District No. 67** From the Educational Fund From the Operations, Building and Maintenance Fund 28,604,431$ 24,108,549$ From the Capital Projects Fund 6,366,866 6,168,532 From the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund 2,180,381 - From the Social Security Fund 302,505 342,709 From the Transportation Fund 458,496 483,810 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1,030,200 801,320 OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST (School District No. 67)38,942,879$ 31,904,920$ TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST (School District 67)31,904,920$ 22 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Summary of the Amounts Appropriated From the the Several Funds General 31,220,121$ 13,913,616$ Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)1,256,856 859,078 Social Security 952,352 859,076 Firefighters's Pension 2,338,591 1,156,853 Firefighters's Pension law PA 93-0869 64,909 64,909 Police Pension 2,717,000 1,900,008 Sub-Total 38,549,829$ 18,753,540$ Parks and Recreation 9,323,891$ 4,559,644$ Special Recreation 484,044 440,040 Capital Improvements 6,241,537 822,000 Public Library 3,663,584 3,346,091 Public Library - Social Security 131,000 112,347 Public Library - IMRF 192,000 112,347 Public Library - Sites and Building 575,648 394,724 Sub-Total 20,611,704$ 9,787,193$ The City of Lake Forest School District No. 67 *** Educational 28,604,431$ 24,108,549$ Operations, Building and Maintenance 6,366,866 6,168,532 Capital Projects Fund 2,180,381 - Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund 302,505 342,709 Social Security 458,496 483,810 Transportation 1,030,200 801,320 Sub-Total 38,942,879$ 31,904,920$ GRAND TOTAL 98,104,412$ 60,445,653$ *** The City of Lake Forest School District No. 67 will be holding a special meeting and these tax levy numbers could change. 23 Section 3: Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is declared unconstitutional, invalid, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that provision shall be deemed severed from this Ordinance and the remainder of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4: The City Clerk of The City of Lake Forest is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance with the County Clerk of Lake County in the State of Illinois as required by law. Section 5: This ordinance shall be in force and effect ten (10) days after its passage, approval and publication. PASSED THIS ____ day of ________________, 2016 ____________________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ____ day of ________________, 2016 _____________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ City Clerk That this ordinance be published in pamphlet form and be made available to the public at the City Hall service counter. 24 Attachment 1 PROJECTED 2016 EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUATION Based on information from the County Clerk's Office the projected Equalized Assessed Valuation (EAV) of property in The City of Lake Forest for the tax year 2016 is as follows: 2015 EAV for The City of Lake Forest 2,307,936,059 Estimated average change to existing property 6.98% 2016 EAV for existing property 2,469,060,663 Total Estimated New Construction Growth for 2016 13,733,821$ Total Projected EAV for 2016 Tax Levy 2,482,794,484$ COMPUTATION OF MAXIMUM TAX EXTENSION FOR 2016 UNDER THE PROPERTY TAX EXTENSION LIMITATION ACT A.Tax Levy Extensions for the 2015 Tax Year (Excluding Debt 27,502,220$ Service, Special Rec and partial Fire Pension Tax Levy Extension) B.Total Projected EAV for 2016 Tax Levy 2,482,794,484$ C.Total Estimated New Construction Growth for 2016 13,733,821$ D.CPI Increase for 2016 Levy 0.70% Step 1 Numerator of Limiting Rate:27,502,220$ X 100.700%=27,694,736$ Step 2 Denominator of Limiting Rate:2,482,794,484$ -13,733,821 =2,469,060,663$ Step 3 Limiting Rate (Per $100 EAV):27,694,736$ /2,469,060,663 =0.01122$ Step 4 Maximum Tax Extension for 2016 Tax Year 2,482,794,484$ X 0.01122$ =27,848,784$ (Excluding Debt Service Tax Levy Extension): Step 5 Added Tax Levy Extension Based on New =154,048$ Growth (Step 4 minus Step 1) Aggregate Levy - Truth in Taxation Estimate:101.26% Tax Cap 0.70% TIF 0.00% New Construction 0.56% 1.26% ESTIMATING EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUATION, TAX LEVY LIMITATIONS AND NEW GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR 2016 11/11/20161:43 PM taxlevy2016_1107 25 The City of Lake Forest Tax Levy 2016 Attachment 2 FUND 2016 LEVY 2015 Extension $ CHANGE % CHANGE General $13,779,188 13,656,871 122,317 0.90% Pension Funds IMRF/SS - Funded Ratio 87%1,173,375 1,165,218 8,157 0.70% Police Pension - Funded Ratio 52.1%1,900,008 1,900,008 0 0.00%PS Pension Fee Fire Pension - Funded Ratio 69.6%1,156,853 1,156,853 0 0.00%PS Pension Fee Sub-Total Pension Funds 4,230,236 4,222,079 8,157 0.19% Other Funds Recreation and Parks 4,434,644 4,403,817 30,827 0.70% Recreation and Parks-IMRF/SS 544,779 540,992 3,787 0.70% Special Recreation 0 Capital Improvements 822,000 635,000 187,000 29.45% Recreation and Parks/Specific Purpose 125,000 125,000 0 0.00% Library 3,551,165 3,526,480 24,685 0.70% Library-sites 394,724 391,980 2,744 0.70% Sub-Total Other Funds 9,872,312 9,623,269 249,043 2.59% TOTAL LEVY UNDER TAX CAP 27,881,736 27,502,219 379,517 1.38%Cap/Pens fee/2008 Redemption Bond Funds (Cap - $3,525,580) 2010/2013 GO Bonds MS/CIP 910,540 825,805 84,735 10.26%Add Sequestration Capital Debt Levy Abatement 0 (635,000)635,000 2009 GO Bonds Western 278,245 277,620 625 0.23% Extension Adjustment 15,398 (15,398) 2008 GO Bonds RT 60/MS 0 821,575 (821,575)-100.00%Redemption 2015 GO Bonds - CIP 226,862 249,159 (22,297) Sub-Total Bond Funds 1,415,647 1,554,557 (138,910)-8.94% TOTAL TAX LEVY BEFORE NEW GROWTH and ALLOWANCES 29,297,383 29,056,776 240,607 0.83% Fire Pension PA 93-0689 64,909 56,914 7,995 N/A Special Recreation 440,040 415,059 24,981 N/A Plus New Growth 154,048 154,048 N/A GRAND TOTAL TAX LEVY 29,956,380 29,528,749 427,631 1.45% Aggregate Levy (Truth in Taxation)28,540,733 27,974,192 566,541 2.03% DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH General Fund Levy -134,428$ Library Levy -19,620 TOTAL NEW GROWTH 154,048$ 11/11/20161:43 PM taxlevy2016_1107 26 The City of Lake Forest Tax Levy 2016 Attachment 3 FUND 2016 LEVY 2015 Extension $ CHANGE % CHANGE General $13,913,616 13,656,871 256,745 1.88% Pension Funds IMRF/SS 1,173,375 1,165,218 8,157 0.70% Police Pension 1,900,008 1,900,008 0 0.00% Fire Pension 1,221,762 1,213,767 7,995 0.66% Sub-Total Pension Funds 4,295,145 4,278,993 16,152 0.38% Agency Funds Recreation and Parks 4,434,644 4,403,817 30,827 0.70% Recreation and Parks-IMRF/SS 544,779 540,992 3,787 0.70% Recreation and Parks-Specific Purpose 125,000 125,000 0 Special Recreation 440,040 415,059 24,981 6.02% Capital Improvements 822,000 635,000 187,000 Library 3,570,785 3,526,480 44,305 1.26% Library-sites 394,724 391,980 2,744 0.70% Sub-Total Agency Funds 10,331,972 10,038,328 293,644 2.93% 28,540,733 27,974,192 566,541 2.03% Bond Funds 2010 GO Bonds MS/CIP 910,540 825,805 84,735 10.26% Capital Debt Levy Abatement 0 (635,000)635,000 2009 GO Bonds Western 278,245 277,620 625 0.23% Extension Adjustment 15,398 (15,398) 2008 GO Bonds RT 60/MS 0 821,575 (821,575)-100.00% 2015 GO Bonds - CIP 226,862 249,159 (22,297) Sub-Total Bond Funds 1,415,647 1,554,557 (138,910)-8.94% GRAND TOTAL TAX LEVY 29,956,380 29,528,749 427,631 1.45% 11/11/20161:43 PM taxlevy2016_1107 27 The City of Lake Forest Tax Levy 2016 Explanation of Homeowner Increase Attachment 4 2016 LEVY 2015 Extension $ CHANGE % CHANGE Levy before growth and exclusions 27,881,736$ 27,502,219$ 379,517$ 1.38% Plus growth and exclusions 658,997 471,973 187,024$ TOTAL LEVY UNDER TAX CAP 28,540,733$ 27,974,192$ 566,541$ 2.03% Bond Funds 1,415,647 1,554,557 (138,910)$ -8.94% TOTAL TAX LEVY 29,956,380$ 29,528,749$ 427,631$ 1.45% 2016 2015 Forecast Actual City Equalized Assessed Value ( EAV)2,482,794,484 2,307,936,059 1/3 market value City Levy 29,956,380 29,528,749 Tax Rate 1.2066 1.2794 levy divided by EAV X 100 Average Home Market Value 855,851$ 800,000$ EAV 285,284 266,667 EAV X Tax Rate/100 3,442$ 3,412$ 30$ 0.89% This is the impact projected on an average existing home. This represents 19.6% (City) and 3.1% (Library) of the entire tax bill. (Impacts on individual properties may differ.) 11/11/20161:43 PM taxlevy2016_1107 28 AN ORDINANCE ABATING A PORTION OF THE TAX BEING LEVIED IN 2016 FOR THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2010-B BOND ISSUE (RECOVERY ZONE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BONDS-DIRECT PAYMENT) WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, did on the 19th day of April, 2010 authorize the issuance of Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-B (Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds – Direct Payment) in the amount of $3,000,000 for the purpose of financing capital improvements and provided for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has funds in the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-B Bond Fund from payments from the U.S. Treasury; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has on hand, sufficient funds to pay a portion of the tax levied for the annual payment of the principal and interest on the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-B Bond Issue (Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds- Direct Payment) due in fiscal year commencing May 1, 2017, therefore a portion of the levy of the tax provided in the original bond ordinance passed April 19, 2010, a copy of which was filed in the Office of the County Clerk is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of The City of Lake Forest as follows: SECTION 1: That the County Clerk of Lake County, Illinois, is hereby authorized and directed to abate a portion of the 2016 Tax Levy of $72,307 hitherto provided for and levied in the ordinance providing for the issuance of $3,000,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-B (Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds – Direct Payment) of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois passed April 19, 2010. SECTION 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval and publication as required by law. PASSED THIS ______ day of __________________, 2016 _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ day of _______________, 2016 _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2010-B 29 AN ORDINANCE ABATING A PORTION OF THE TAX BEING LEVIED IN 2016 FOR THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2010-C BOND ISSUE (BUILD AMERICA BONDS-DIRECT PAYMENT) WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, did on the 19th day of April, 2010 authorize the issuance of Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-C (Build America Bonds- Direct Payment) in the amount of $5,425,000 for the purpose of financing capital improvements and provided for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has funds in the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-C Bond Fund from payments from the U.S. Treasury; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has on hand, sufficient funds to pay a portion of the tax levied for the annual payment of the principal and interest on the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-C Bond Issue (Build America Bonds- Direct Payment) due in fiscal year commencing May 1, 2017, therefore a portion of the levy of the tax provided in the original bond ordinance passed April 19, 2010, a copy of which was filed in the Office of the County Clerk is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of The City of Lake Forest as follows: SECTION 1: That the County Clerk of Lake County, Illinois, is hereby authorized and directed to abate a portion of the 2016 Tax Levy of $79,389.80 hitherto provided for and levied in the ordinance providing for the issuance of $5,425,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-C (Build America Bonds – Direct Payment) of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois passed April 19, 2010. SECTION 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval and publication as required by law. PASSED THIS ______ day of __________________, 2016 _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ day of _______________, 2016 _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2010-C 30 AN ORDINANCE ABATING THE TOTAL TAX BEING LEVIED IN 2016 FOR THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE 2011 GENERAL OBLIGATION SERIES 2011-A REFUNDING BOND ISSUE WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, did on the 6th day of September, 2011 authorize the issuance of General Obligation Series 2011-A Refunding Bonds in the amount of $2,415,000 for the purpose of currently refunding certain maturities of the City’s outstanding General Obligation Bonds, Series 1999, 2003C and 2003D and provided for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has funds in the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-A from sufficient revenues collected from the City owned waterworks and sewerage system; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has on hand, sufficient funds to pay the total tax levied for the annual payment of the principal and interest on the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-A Refunding Bond Issue due in fiscal year commencing May 1, 2017, therefore the total levy of the tax provided in the original bond ordinance passed September 6, 2011, a copy of which was filed in the Office of the County Clerk is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of The City of Lake Forest as follows: SECTION 1: That the County Clerk of Lake County, Illinois, is hereby authorized and directed to abate the total 2016 Tax Levy of $137,787.50 hitherto provided for and levied in the ordinance providing for the issuance of $2,415,000 General Obligation Series 2011-A Refunding Bonds of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois passed September 6, 2011. SECTION 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval and publication as required by law. PASSED THIS ______ day of __________________, 2016 _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ day of _______________, 2016 _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2011A 31 AN ORDINANCE ABATING THE TOTAL TAX BEING LEVIED IN 2016 FOR THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE 2011 GENERAL OBLIGATION SERIES 2011-B REFUNDING BOND ISSUE WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, did on the 6th day of September, 2011 authorize the issuance of General Obligation Series 2011-B Refunding Bonds in the amount of $24,825,000 for the purpose of advance refunding certain maturities of the City’s outstanding General Obligation Bonds, Series 2002A, Series 2004A and Series 2004B and provided for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has funds in the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-B from sufficient revenues collected from the waterworks and sewerage system, the City’s golf fees and the City’s sales tax; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has on hand, sufficient funds to pay the total tax levied for the annual payment of the principal and interest on the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-B Refunding Bond Issue due in fiscal year commencing May 1, 2017, therefore the total levy of the tax provided in the original bond ordinance passed September 6, 2011, a copy of which was filed in the Office of the County Clerk is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of The City of Lake Forest as follows: SECTION 1: That the County Clerk of Lake County, Illinois, is hereby authorized and directed to abate the total 2016 Tax Levy of $2,703,500.00 hitherto provided for and levied in the ordinance providing for the issuance of $24,825,000 General Obligation Series 2011-B Refunding Bonds of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois passed September 6, 2011. SECTION 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval and publication as required by law. PASSED THIS ______ day of __________________, 2016 _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ day of _______________, 2016 _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2011B 32 AN ORDINANCE ABATING A PORTION OF THE TAX BEING LEVIED IN 2016 FOR THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2015 BOND ISSUE WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, did on the 3rd day of August, 2015 authorize the issuance of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 in the amount of $9,780,000 for the purpose of financing capital improvements and provided for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has funds in the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 Bond Fund from sources other than property taxes; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has on hand, sufficient funds to pay a portion of the tax levied for the annual payment of the principal and interest on the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 due in fiscal year commencing May 1, 2017, therefore a portion of the levy of the tax provided in the original bond ordinance passed August 3, 2015, a copy of which was filed in the Office of the County Clerk is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of The City of Lake Forest as follows: SECTION 1: That the County Clerk of Lake County, Illinois, is hereby authorized and directed to abate a portion of the 2016 Tax Levy of $241,562.50 hitherto provided for and levied in the ordinance providing for the issuance of $9,780,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois passed August 3, 2015. SECTION 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval and publication as required by law. PASSED THIS ______ day of __________________, 2016 _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ day of _______________, 2016 _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2015 33 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 2016-_________ AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST WHEREAS, The City has established various fees and charges as part of its codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies, which fees and charges are reviewed from time-to-time; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed such fees and charges, and hereby determines that it is necessary to adjust certain existing fees and charges, and/or to establish formally other fees and charges; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City and its residents to adopt this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, as follows: SECTION ONE: Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION TWO: Approval of Fee Schedule. The City Council hereby approves the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A (“Fee Schedule”). To the extent any provision of any code, ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy of the City is 34 2 contrary to the Fee Schedule, such provision is hereby deemed amended so that the Fee Schedule shall control. Any fee or charge not otherwise listed on the Fee Schedule shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. SECTION THREE: Effective Date of Fee Schedule. The fees and charges set forth on the Fee Schedule shall take effect as of the date noted on the Fee Schedule. SECTION FOUR: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. Passed this ____ day of _________________________, 2016 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved this __ day of _________________________, 2016 _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 35 3 Exhibit A Schedule of Fees and Charges 36 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 1 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue 1. Public Works Water Utility Fees/Charges Turn Off Water Fee 51.064 Water 75 Turn Off Water Fee After Hours 51.064 Water 100 Turn On Water Fee 51.064 Water 75 Turn On Water Fee After Hours 51.064 Water 100 Water Main Taps:Water 1 Inch 51.030(b)Water 500 1-1/2 Inch 51.030(b)Water 1,000 2 Inch 51.030(b)Water 1,300 3,4,6 and 8 inch taps 51.030(b)Water 900 Water Meter Fees:Water 3/4 Inch 51.045(e)Water 470 1 Inch 51.045(e)Water 540 1-1/2 Inch 51.045(e)Water 910 2 Inch 51.045(e)Water 1,165 3 inch 51.045(e)Water 2,615 4 inch 51.045(e)Water 3,950 6 inch 51.045(e)Water 6,840 Plant Investment Fee - SF 52.15 Water 2,900 Multi-Family Dwelling - new structure 52.15 Water 2,652 Residential pools, sprinkler systems 52.15 Water 459 Nonresidential buildings - new structures and additions 52.15 Water 1.02/sq ft of entire Water interior area of the building Institutional buildings - new structure and additions 52.15 Water .94/sq ft of entire only if eligible for fed and state tax exempt status Water interior area of the building General Fees Sticker for Leaf/Grass Bags 50.016 General 1.00 per sticker Sanitation Special Pickup 50.039 ( c)General $ 40 per cubic yard White Goods 50.015 General 65 White Goods W/CFC 50.015 General 90 Monthly refuse collection fee 50.021 General 8.00 Per month Licenses Scavengers - collects and disposes of multi-family and 50.055 1,500 per company commercial waste Scavengers - collects and disposes of residential and 50.055 750 per company commercial roll -offs Exhibit A 37 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 2 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Scavengers - collection and cleaning of portable toilets 50.055 200 per company 2. Community Development Water Utility Fees/Charges Water Service Inspection Fee N/A Water 50 Home Inspection Fee 51.065 Water 150 Home Inspection Fee - Re-Inspection 51.065 Water 50 Home Inspection Waiver 51.065 Water 25 General Fees Zoning Analysis 159.052 General 100 Building & Development Fees: Service Contracts: Lake Bluff N/A General Per Agreement Bannockburn N/A General $5,000 min. N/A & 50% over that Plan Review : Remodeling up to $12,000 150.145 General 55 $12,001 to $48,000 Remodeling 150.145 General 82 $48,001 - $120,000 Remodeling 150.145 General 138 over $120,000 Remodeling 150.145 General 230 Additional fee for plan reviews that require more than 2 hours 150.145 General $55 per additional hour New Construction - SFD 150.145 General 400 New Construction - 2FD 150.145 General 230/unit New Const. - Com. & Multi. Fam.150.145 $572+$50/ 3 or more units 150.145 1,000 Sq. Ft. Plan Re-Submittal Fee 150.145 General $ 140 per re-submittal Alterations to Approved Plans 150.145 General $ 140 + $55 per hour fee for reviews requiring more than 2 hours Building Scale Calculation Fees Single Family residence - first review N/A General 400 with completed Building Scale worksheet/detailed plans N/A General 200 Two-family dwelling N/A General $ 189 per unit with completed Building Scale worksheet/detailed plans N/A General 120 Additonal reviews (for revised plans)N/A General 102 On-site inspection for an existing dwelling N/A General 102 Office meeting to discuss for building scale calculation N/A General 50 38 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 3 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Building Scale Waiver Request N/A General 100 Building Review Board Fees Signs/Awnings/Landscaping/ Lighting/Fences N/A General 75 Two or more of above N/A General 125 Storefront Alterations N/A General 100 New Commercial building, school, hospital or multi-family building N/A General 700 per building Alterations or major additions to commerical buildings, schools, N/A General 323 hopitals or multi-family buildings - per building New multi-building projects - per building N/A General 850 + 175 for more than 4 buildings (per building) Satellite Dish N/A General 100 Changes to approved building materials N/A General 60 Demolition with replacement structure N/A General 2,230 Demolition partial and replacement addition N/A General 1,310 Demolition w/o Replacement Struture N/A General 1,310 New Residence on Vacant Property (building scale fee also)155.07 General 1,050 Additions & Alterations to Existing Residence (building scale fee also)155.07 General 500 Replacement/new single family home/duplex structure N/A General 1,310 Variance from Building Scale Ordinance N/A General 367 Revisions to Approved Plans N/A General 225 Historic Preservation Commission Fees Demolition (complete) and replacement structure 155.07 General 2,450 Demolition (partial) and replacement structure 155.07 General 1,529 Removal of less than 50%155.07 Demolition partial and replacement addition N/A General 1,310 Demolition w/o Replacement Struture N/A General 1,310 New Residence on Vacant Property (building scale fee also)155.07 General 1,050 Additions & Alterations to Existing Residence (building scale fee also)155.07 General 500 Revisions to Approved Plans 155.07 General 225 Variance from Building Scale Ordinance 155.07 General 367 Rescission of local landmark designation, amendment of 155.07 local landmark designation or historic map amendment 155.07 General 2,500 Signs/Awnings/Landscaping/ Lighting/Fences N/A General 75 Two or more of above N/A General 125 Storefront Alterations N/A General 100 New Commercial building, school, hospital or multi-family building N/A General 700 per building Alterations or major additions to commerical buildings, schools, N/A General 323 39 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 4 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue hopitals or multi-family buildings - per building New multi-building projects - per building N/A General 850 + 175 for more than 4 buildings (per building) Project Fees Red Tag , per violation, per day 150.005 General 300 Stop Work Order 150.005 General 750 Street Obstruction - first 30 lineal fee of public right-of-way 150.005 General 30 Street Obstruction - for each 20 lineal feet or fraction therof in excess of 30 feet 150.005 General 10 Re-Inspection all permits (failed/no show)150.005 General 175 Additional Inspections 150.005 General 50 Off Hour Inspections 150.005 General $50 administration fee plus per hour cost of inspector Const. Codes Comm. Fees: Variances from Construction Code 150.110 General 250 Administrative Appeals 150.110 General 150 Material/Product Evaluation 150.110 General 350.00 Demolition Tax 150.110 Cap Imp/12,000 Afford Hsing Zoning Board of Appeals Variations from Zoning Codc 159.02 General 287 Administrative Appeals 159.02 General 150 Special Use Permit - Existing Developments 159.02 General 655 Legal Ad Publication (as required)159.02 General 65 Plan Commission Minor Subdivisions-Tentative Approval 2,3 or 4 lots 156.026(a)(3)General 2,184 payable at time of application Minor Subdivisions-Final Approval 156.026(a)(3)General 250+35/lot plus 156.026(a)(3)engineering and recording fees Major Subdivisions-Tentative Approval 5 or more lots 156.026(a)(3)General $3,822+35 for each 156.026(a)(3)General lot over 5 Major Subdivisions-Final approval paid prior to recording of plat 156.026(a)(3)General $400+35/ 156.026(a)(3)General plus $5/lot 156.026(a)(3)General over 10; + 156.026(a)(3)engineering and recording fees Planned Preservation Subd Special Use Pemit plus minor/major subd fee 156.026(a)(3)General 2,500 Zoning Change 156.026(a)(3)General 3,328 40 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 5 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Filing fee for all other developments 156.026(a)(3)General 788 Code Amendment 156.026(a)(3)General 3,328 Extension of Tentative Subdivision Plat Approval 156.026(a)(3)General 150 Administrative Property Line shift 156.026(a)(3)General 250 Legal Ad Publication (as required)156.026(a)(3)General 65 Special Use Permit 156.026(a)(3)General 900 Permits Building Permits repair and maintenance under $6,000 150.145 General 40 Building Permits - $100,000 or less 150.145 General 1.5% of total construction 150.145 General (50 min) Building Permts - over $100,000 $100,001 - $200,000 150.145 General 2% of total construction $200,001 - $500,000 150.145 General $4,000 + 1% of total cc in excess of $200,000 $500,001 and above 150.145 General $7,000 + .5% of total cc in excess of $500,000 Underground storage tank removal General (single family and duplex)150.145 $150 per tank All other properties 150.145 General $250 per tank Hot work 150.145 General 100 Permit Extensions 150.145 General $150 adminstration fee plus 20% of the original 150.145 permit fee - 6 month extension Adminstration Demolition 150.145 General 500 Driveway Permits: New curb cut 150.145 General $50 per cut resurface driveway - no change 150.145 General 25.00 per cut reconfiguration or change of material 150.145 General 50 Driveway Bond 150.485 General 250 Satellite Permit 150.145 General 100 Satellite dish 150.145 General 1.5% of cost, 50 min Plumbing Irrigation Systems 150.145 General 2.00 per head 150.145 General $ 60 min Plumbing - base charge 150.145 General 60+$5.50/fix. Recording of Public Right-of-Way agreement 150.145 General 40 for sprinkler system Sanitary Sewer 150.145 General $50 min + 1.00/ft over 50 ft 41 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 6 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Storm Sewer 150.145 General $50 min + 1.00/ft over 50 ft Street Opening 98.056 50.00 Electrical 150.145 General $100, plus $1 per unit beyond 100 total units Electrical Service 150.145 General 75 Electric - motors 150.145 General $75 + .50 per horsepower HVAC Residential - New or replacement 1 or 2 units 150.145 General 52 Each additional unit 150.145 General 45 Duct work 150.145 General 52 Commercial New 150.145 General $52 per 1,500 150.145 General sq ft of floor area Commerical - replacement of existing units 150.145 General same as residential Sign 150.145 General 1.5% construction cost 150.145 General 50 min Construction Trailer Permit (Commercial Construction Sites only)150.145 General $100 per month Purchase of Parking Space per Zoning Code 150.145 General to be set by City Council at the time 150.145 of approval based on market costs Vending Licenses Health -Restaurant (20 or Less)113.03(d)(1)General 250 Health - Restaurant (21-99)113.03(d)(2)General 350 Health - Restaurant (100 + Seats)113.03(d)(3)General 600 Health - Itinerant Restaurant 113.03(d)(4)General 250 Health - Food Store 113.21(d)General 100.00 Health - Limited Food Store (selling candy)113.21(d)General 50.00 Food Vendor (delivery)113.21(d)General $150/Veh. Milk Vendor (delivery)113.21(d)General $100/Veh. Health - Milk Store 113.21(d)General 100 Ice Vending Machine per machine 95.061 General 110 Food Vending Machine per machine 113.21(d)General 55 Candy Vending Machine per machine 113.21(d)General 55 Pop/Soft drink Vending Machine per machine 113.21(d)General 55 Milk Vending Machine per machine 113.21(d)General 55 Tobacco vending machine per machine 135.136 General 50 Card/Trinket Vending Machine per machine 110.104 General 55 Amusement Machine per machine 110.104 General 110 HVAC Contractor 150.145 General 60 Electrical Contractor 150.145 General 60 Juke Box 110.083 General 25 Pool Table 112.095(b)(1)General 25 Elevator Inspection Fee 150.220(b)General Variable DVD Vending Machine License 110.005 General 110 42 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 7 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Tree and Vegetation Removal Application Review Fee 99 General $40 Removal of Heritage Tree 99 General $ 40 per tree Removal of tree 10" DBH or larger within the streetscape preservation 99 General $ 40 per tree area, the front yard or the corner side yard 99 Removal of trees or vegetation from a Conservation Easement 99 General $ 35 per 1 1/2 acre site Removal of trees froma Tree Preservation or No Disturbance area 99 General $ 40 per tree Removal of trees or shrubs from any ravine or bluff 99 General $ 40 per 1 1/2 acre site Removal of trees or shrubs from a public right of way 99 General $ 40 per 1 1/2 acre site or other public property 99 Ash tree removals, dead or hazardous trees 99 General No Fee Bonds Permit Renewal - for projects with estimated construction 150.145 General 15% of permit fee costs of $200,000 or less refundable upon completion of project within one year Permit Renewal - for projects with estimated construction 150.145 General 17% of permit fee costs of more than $200,000 refundable upon completion of project within 18 months Street Opening Bond 98.058 General 500 Fire Protection Fees: Life Safety Plan Review Fee - New Constr/Addition 150.145 General $ 500 min or .05 s.f. includes all floors Life Safety Plan Review Fee - Remodel/Alteration 150.145 General $ 60 min or .05 sf includes all areas Fire Suppression Systems (Plan review and 2 inspections) Single Family/Duplex Residential New 150.145 General $120 or .05 per s.f whichever is greater Addition/Alteration 150.145 General $60 or .05 per s.f for scope of work area 150.145 whichever is greater Commercial/Multi Family New 150.145 General $500 or .05 per s.f. whichever is greater Addition/Alteration 150.145 General $250 or .05 s.f. for scope of work area whichever is greater Specialized Suppression (FM 200, clean agent)150.145 General $150 per system ( in addition to above fees for the overall system) Stand pipe riser 150.145 General 100 Fire Alarms Single Family/Duplex Residential 150.145 General $75 or .05 per s.f. whichever is greater 43 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 8 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Commercial/Multi Family - New General $500 or .05 per s.f. whichever is greater Commercial/Multi Family - Addition/Alteration 150.145 General $75 or .05 per s.f. whichever is greater Inspections/Tests Annual & New Underground Flush test 150.145 Water $75 + cost per gallon of water, at current rate as 150.145 established by the City Council, based on pipe size Annual & New Fire Pump Test 150.145 Water $175 + cost per gallon of water, at current rate as 150.145 established by the City Council, based on pump size Other Hood and Duct Extinguishing System - New 150.145 General $300 per system Hood and Duct Extinguishing System - Alteration 150.145 General $100 per system Alternative Letter of Credit Review 150.145 General $100 per review Conditional Certificate of Occupancy (single family and duplex)150.145 General $200 per unit $300 per unit 50.00%400 Conditional Certificate of Occupancy (multi-family and commercial)150.145 General $250 or $25 per square foot, whichever is greater, to a maximum of $1,500 $25 per square foot to a maximum of $2,000 25.00%125 3. Finance Water Utility Fees/Charges Water Sales/1,000 Gallons Effective with Water Bills mailed on or after May 1, 2016 Lake Forest Residential - to 10,000 Gallons per Quarter 51.061(a)Water 5.43 4.50 -17.10%-270,000 Lake Forest Residential - 10,001 to 60,000 Gallons per Quarter 51.061(a)Water 5.43 5.62 3.50%110,000 Lake Forest Residential - over 60,000 Gallons per Quarter 51.061(a)Water 5.70 5.89 3.57%60,000 Lake Forest All Other Users 51.061(a)Water 5.60 5.80 3.33%40,000 Del Mar Woods 51.061(a)Water 7.71 7.98 3.50%0 Other Non resident users 51.061(a)Water 7.71 7.98 3.50%0 Sewer Charge/1,000 Gallons (winter usage)51.061(a)Water 1.16 Customer Charge - Water (Inside) 5/8" to 1.5" meter 51.061(b)Water $30/quarter $40/quarter 25.00%257760 2" to 4" meter 51.061(b)Water $150/quarter $160/quarter 6.70%12320 6" and above meter 51.061(b)Water $750/quarter Benefit Access Program Discount - must renew annually N\A Water $(10)/quarter Customer Charge - Water (Outside) 5/8" to 1.5" meter 51.062(b)Water $40/quarter $50/quarter 20.00%0 2" to 4" meter 51.062(b)Water $165/quarter $175/quarter 6.06%0 6" and above meter 51.062(b)Water $790/quarter Customer Charge - Sewer 5/8" to 1.5" meter 52.15€(1)Water $5/quarter 2" to 4" meter 52.15€(1)Water $20/quarter 44 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 9 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue 6" and above meter 52.15€(1)Water $100/quarter Beach Parking Fee Beach Parking Temporary (R)73.45 General 85 Temporary (NR)73.45 General 910 Parking Permits Resident-Full Year 73.27(c)(7)Parking 313 Resident-Monthly 73.27(c)(7)Parking 30/Month Resident - Unlimited 73.27(c)(7)Parking 1,000 Employer Purchased-Full Yr. 73.27(c)(7)Parking 180 Employer Purchased-Monthly 73.27(c)(7)Parking 20/Month Non-Resident-Full Year 73.27(c)(7)Parking 700 Non-Resident - Monthly 73.27(c)(7)Parking 60/Monthly An envelope of 10 tokens N\A Parking 25 Daily Parking Fee-Telegraph 73.27(c)(7)Parking 3 Daily Parking Fee-All Other 73.27(c)(7)Parking 3 Licenses Car and Lt Truck 74.179(b)General 85 HeavyTruck (8,000+ lbs.)74.179(b)General 110 Motocycles 74.179(b)General 45 Senior Citizen 65 and over N/A General no discount Transfers 74.184 & 185 General 5 Penalties 74.179(b)General 50% Dog License 91.032 General 10 Cat License 91.032 General 10 Auto Dealer License 74.183 General 50+20/Veh Disabled vehicle sticker (Benefit Access Program)N/A General 45 Real Estate Transfer Tax 39.155(b)Cap Imp $4.00 per $1,000 Non-sufficient funds Fee 10.99 General 25 Credit Card Service Fees-Effective January 1, 2015 Daily Parking 73.27(c)(7)General $.25 per transaction Building Permits N/A General lesser of 3.00% or maximum allowable by law Public Safety Pension Fee Residential Utility Accounts N/A General $10 per Quarter 259320 All Other Utility Accounts (exclude irrigation only services)N/A General $35 per Quarter 34300 45 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 10 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue 4. Parks and Recreation Golf Course Fees/Charges: Seasonal Fees-Resident: effective January 1, 2017 Class A -Adult Single 97.051 DPG 1,400 Class B -Adult Combo 97.051 DPG 2,400 Class D -Junior 97.051 DPG 600 Class F - Senior Citizen 97.051 DPG 850 Seasonal Fees (Non-Resident) effective January 1, 2017 Class A -Adult Single 97.051 DPG 1,800 Class B -Adult Combo 97.051 DPG 2,400 Class D -Junior 97.051 DPG 625 Class F - Senior Citizen 97.051 DPG 1,100 Daily Fees-Resident: effective January 1, 2017 Weekday-9 97.051 DPG 28 Weekday-18 97.051 DPG 42 Weekend 9 97.051 DPG 34 Weekend -18 97.051 DPG 50 Electric Golf Carts: effective January 1, 2017 9 Holes Single Rider 97.052 DPG 12 18 Holes Single Rider 97.052 DPG 19 Range Balls Small Bucket 97.051 DPG 4 . Medium Bucket 97.051 DPG 6 . Large Bucket 97.051 DPG 15 Pull cart - 9 holes 97.051 DPG 6 Pull cart - 18 hoes 97.051 DPG 8 USGA Handicap Fees - Members 97.051 DPG 34 Permanent Tee Time - Weekend 97.051 DPG 300 Locker - 18 inch 97.051 DPG 110 Locker - 12 inch 97.051 DPG 100 Park Fees Park Picnic Permits 0 - 50 People N/A Parks/Rec 125 51 or more People N/A Parks/Rec 75 Picnic Tables Parks/Rec 25 per table Grills Parks/Rec 85 per grill 46 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 11 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Cemetery Fees Issuance of Deeds 93.45 Cemetery .50 per deed Boating and Beach Fees - effective February 1, 2017 Watercraft Ramp/Sailboat Permits-Recreation Watercraft Ramp (R)97.066 Parks/Rec 464 478 3.02%1008 Watercraft Ramp 2nd boat/ half season 97.066 Parks/Rec 232 239 3.02%119 Watercraft Ramp (R) (Sen.) 97.066 Parks/Rec 371 382 2.96%110 Watercraft Ramp (R) (Sen) 2nd boat/ half season 97.066 Parks/Rec 186 192 3.23%30 Watercraft Ramp (NR) 97.066 Parks/Rec 928 956 3.02%56 Year round compound storage Resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 2056 2118 3.02%806 Year round compound storage Resident senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 1645 1694 2.98%147 Year round compound storage non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 3085 3178 3.01%0 Seasonal compound storage Resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 1392 1434 3.02%84 Seasonal compound storage Resident Senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 1114 1147 2.96%165 Seasonal compound storage Non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 2086 2149 3.02%0 Year round watercraft rack storage resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 562 579 3.02%102 Year round watercraft rack storage resident senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 450 464 3.11%56 Year round watercraft rack storage non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 562 579 3.02%0 Seasonal watercraft rack storage resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 328 338 3.05%160 Seasonal watercraft rack storage resident senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 262 270 3.05%24 Seasonal watercraft rack storage non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 328 338 3.05%10 Year round watercraft sand storage resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 695 716 3.02%21 Year round watercraft sand storage resident senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 556 573 3.06%0 Year round watercraft sand storage non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 1042 1074 3.07%0 Seasonal watercraft sand storage resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 426 439 3.05%39 Seasonal watercraft sand storage resident senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 341 351 2.93%0 Seasonal watercraft sand storage non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 640 660 3.13%0 South Beach Parking Permit (R)97.066 Parks/Rec 134 139 3.73%165 South Beach Parking Permit (R) (Sen.)97.066 Parks/Rec 107 110 2.80%75 South Beach Parking Permit (NR)97.066 Parks/Rec 910 0 South Beach Parking Permit Employee/Retiree 97.066 Parks/Rec 89 92 3.37%3 Extra vehicle decal resident - center isle 97.066 Parks/Rec 134 138 2.99%0 Extra vehicle decal senior - center isle 97.066 Parks/Rec 107 110 2.80%0 Extra vehicle decal nonresident - center isle 97.066 Parks/Rec 202 208 2.97%0 Daily Boat Launch resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 40 Daily Boat Launch nonresident 97.066 Parks/Rec 65 Resident Guest Daily Parking Pass, limit 5 per season 97.066 Parks/Rec 10 Nanny Parking Pass 97.066 Parks/Rec 85 Senior Caregiver Parking Pass 97.066 Parks/Rec 85 Non resident beach fee, weekends and holidays 97.069 Parks/Rec 10 Fitness Center Fees - effective May 1, 2017 47 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 12 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Fitness Center Membership Fees Individual resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 384 396 3.13%2,520 Individual resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 260 Individual resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 130 Individual resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 39 40 2.56%5,958 Individual non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 468 480 2.56%96 Individual non-resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 325 Individual non-resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 162 Individual non-resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 47 48 2.13%423 Couple resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 672 696 3.57%1,872 Couple resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 455 Couple resident rate - 3 month N/A Parks/Rec 227 Couple resident rate - 1 month N/A Parks/Rec 67 69 2.99%0 Couple non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 816 840 2.94%0 Couple non-resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 568 Couple non-resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 284 Couple non-resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 82 84 2.44%0 Family resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 876 900 2.74%1,320 Family resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 591 Family resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 295 Family resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 88 90 2.27%0 Family non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 1,056 1080 2.27%0 Family non-resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 739 Family non-resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 369 Family non-resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 106 108 1.89%0 Senior resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 288 300 4.17%1,212 Senior resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 195 Senior resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 97 Senior resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 29 30 3.45%609 Senior non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 348 360 3.45%36 Senior non-resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 244 Senior non-resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 122 Senior non-resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 35 36 2.86%0 Senior couple resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 504 516 2.38%576 Senior couple resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 341 Senior couple resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 170 Senior couple resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 51 52 1.96%306 Senior couple non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 612 624 1.96%24 Senior couple non-resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 426 Senior couple non-resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 213 Senior couple non-resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 61 63 3.28%0 Student resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 288 300 4.17%588 Student non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 360 360 0.00%0 Matinee resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 192 204 6.25%924 48 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 13 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Matinee non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 240 252 5.00%108 All-inclusive - member - effective December 6, 2012 N/A Parks/Rec 290 299 3.10%441 All-inclusive - non-member - effective December 6, 2012 N/A Parks/Rec 645 665 3.10%0 5. OCM General Fees & Charges: Birth certificates (January 1, 2010)5.36 General $10 first/$4 additional Death certificates (January 1, 2013)5.36 General $14 first/$6 additional On-line data entry fee by city staff ( January 1, 2010)N/A General 10 Peddler Permit 117.01(b)General $40 Solicitors Permit 117.40 General $30 Electric Car N/A General $1 per Hour Special Event Fees Application Fee 10.13 General $25 50 100.00%1875 Application Fee - Late Fee 10.13 General 50% of fee per 30 days 750 Escrow Deposit - Special Events 10.13 General 500 0 Police Officer hourly rate 10.13 General $80 82 2.50%50 Firefighter/Paramedic hourly rate 10.13 General $80 82 2.50%25 Police and Fire Vehicle 10.13 General $110 Public Works hourly rate 10.13 General $63 Parks hourly rate 10.13 Parks/Rec.$63 A-Frame Barricades 98.011 General $5 Barricades 1 - 10 98.011 General $40 Parking Cones 98.011 General $1 Bleacher keep in park 10.13 General $70 50 -28.57%0 Bleacher move to another location 10.13 General $135 180 33.33%250 Litter Barrels 1 - 6 10.13 General $45 $10/can 350 Litter Barrels 7 - 12 10.13 General $55 Eliminate Picnic Tables 1 - 6 10.13 General $150 $30/table 500 Picnic Tables 1 - 6 10.13 General $245 Eliminate Grills 10.13 General $85 180 111.76%250 Licenses Raffle License 110.150 General 25 Tobacco License 135.138(f)General 500 Landscape License (March 1 to Feb 28)110.217 General 100 Penalties - Landscape License Applications after June 1 110.217 General 25 Auctioneers License 110.026 General $5 Daily & $1.00 per employee Factories and Slaughterhouses 110.047 General $500 Mobile Auto Service 110.200 General $50 per unit Athletic Contests 112.0029B)General $50 per day 49 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 14 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Bowling Alley 112.025 General $10 per lane per year Circuses 112.041 General $100 per day circus conducted Circuses - Side Show 112.042 General $50 per day circus conducted Motion Pictures - Establishment capacity 500 or more persons 112.075 General .50 per seat Public Dances 112.112 General $500 Theatrical Performances - less than 500 persons 112.126 General $100 Theatrical Performances - more than 500 persons 112.126 General $150 Theatrical Performance not covered by 112.126 112.127 General $25 per day Junk Yard or Junk Shop 114.22 General $75 Junk Dealer collected by vehicle 114.23 General $20 per vehicle Pawnbroker 116.03 General 100 Expressmen and Draymen 118.156 General 25 Alcoholic and Beverages: Class A-1 111.036 General 2,700 Class A-2 111.036 General 1,500 Class A-3 111.036 General 275 Class B-1 111.036 General 2,500 Class C-1 111.036 General 2,600 Class C-2 111.036 General 3,000 Class C-3 111.036 General 800 Class D-1 111.036 General 2,500 Class E-1 111.036 General 3,000 Class F-1 111.036 General 100 Class F-2 111.036 General 100 for each 24 hour period or any part therof: $50 not for profit with proof of 501 ( c)3 status Class F-3 111.036 General 75 for each 24 hour period or any part therof: $50 not for profit with proof of 501 ( c)3 status Class F-4 111.036 General 500 per vendor for the duration of the sporting event Class F-5 111.036 General 1,100 Class F-6 111.036 General 600 Class G-1 111.036 General 200 Class G-2 111.036 General 600 Class H-1 111.036 General 600 Class H-2 111.036 General 1,100 Class I-1 111.036 General None Annual Renewal 111.036 General 150 renewal existing or change in owners or officers Application Fee 111.043 General 300 new license Application for Change in Owners or Officers 111.043 General 100 Liquor License Penalty Fee 111.036 General 25 50 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 15 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Impact Fees Library 150.023 Library see ordinance Fire and Emergency Services 150.023 General see ordinance Park Site 150.023 PPL see ordinance Park Development 150.023 PPL see ordinance Police 150.023 General see ordinance Public Works 150.023 General see ordinance School District 67 (information only)150.023 pay School see ordinance High School District 115 (information only)150.023 pay School see ordinance 6. Police General Fees & Charges: Bank ID Card Fee N/A General 25 Adult Finger Print Fee Resident or Employee N/A General 25 Non-resident N/A General 200 Licenses Taxicab 118.068 General 50 Taxicab Driver 118.068 General 50 Taxi Business License (paid at City Hall) New 118.068 General 100 Renewal 118.068 General 100 Fines & Penalties: Overtime Parking - Lot 73.99 General 25/75/125 Improper Parking - Lot 73.99 General 25/75/125 Parking in Prohibited Area- Lot 73.99 General 25/75/125 Overtime Parking - Other 73.99 General 25/75/125 Improper Parking - Other 73.99 General 25/75/125 Parking in Prohibited Area- Other 73.99 General 25/75/125 Parking at Boat Ramp 73.46 General 125/250/350 No Vehicle License 74.179 General 75/100/125 No parking east of Sheridan Road 73.99 General 125/250/350 No Animal License 91.032 General 15/25/50 Dog-At-Large 91.050 General 40/55/70 Code Violations Variable General variable Motor Code Violations Variable General variable Dog Barking 91.004 General 15/25/50 Dog Impound 91.014 General 15 Leaf Burning 94.2 General 100 Handicapped Parking 73.21 General 250 Dog Public Nuisance 91.053 General 100/500/750 51 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 16 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Burglar Alarm Fees 110.125 General 0/50/100/250 Vehicle Immobilization fee 73.50 General 100 E-911 Surcharge 39.181 E911 Fund 0.65 Copies of Accident Reports 71.032 General 10 FOIA copy fees >50 pages 33.3 General .15 per page Transiant Merchant License 117.20(f)General 100.00 7. Fire General Fees & Charges: Ambulance-Resident ALS transport 94.51 General 587.40 812.10 38.25%63,365.40 Ambulance-Resident ALS2 transport 94.52 General 703.98 919.98 30.68%777.60 Ambulance-Resident BLS transport 94.53 General 524.40 704.07 34.26%30,004.89 Ambulance-Non Resident ALS transport 94.54 General 735.63 987.48 34.24%24,681.30 Ambulance- Non Resident ALS2 transport 94.55 General 903.98 1,088.92 20.46%554.82 Ambulance-Non Resident BLS transport 94.56 General 666.74 854.08 28.10%19,296.02 Ambulance - Mileage 94.58 General 7.27 per mile Fireworks Permit 94.5 General 100 200 100.00%400 Open Burn Permit 94.5 General 50 75 50.00%900 Bonfire Permit 94.5 General 50 100 100.00%150 Special Event Inspection 94.5 General 100 Tent Permit 94.5 General 50.00 or .05 per square foot $100 or .05 per sq ft 100.00%380 Fire Watch 94.5 General Hourly Rate Overtime hourly Rate tbd Annual Fire Pump Test 94.5 General/Water 10.00 Admin Fee + Water Usage Annual Inspections - 4th re-inspection 94.5 General 60 100 66.67%1280 Annual Inspections - 5th re-inspection 94.5 General 120 200 66.67%1120 Annual Inspections - 6th re-inspection 94.5 General 240 400 66.67%800 Inflatable amusement inspection 94.5 General 25.00 per inflatable 100 300.00%450 Carnival rides 94.5 General 200 Fire Alarm Fees 110.125 General 0/50/100/250 8. Engineering Sewer System Connection Fee Single Family Dwelling N/A 825 Two - family Dwelling N/A 825 per unit Multi-family Dwelling N/A 165 per population equiv 1,650 min 52 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 17 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Non-Residential Buildings N/A 165 per population equiv 1,650 min Institutional buildings with Fed and State tax exempt status N/A 825/connection Site Grading Site Grading - New construction N/A 500 640 28.00%7560 If no grading, request may be submitted for a waiver of the requirement of N/A 100 240 140.00%34160 grading plan Resubmittal N/A 125 165 32.00%2400 Revisions to approved grading plans N/A 125 Tree fencing inspection fee N/A 125 240 92.00%6210 Site grading security (financial guarantee - refundable)N/A 3,000 per acre of development Water Shed Development Fee: Revised Fee Schedule General Fees Sediment and Erosion Control Only Single Family Residential Lot (See site grading ordinance)151.05 see ordinance Single Family Residential Lot (within regulatory floodplain)151.05 750 1040 38.67%580 Development (<10 acres)151.05 850 2400 182.35%1550 Development ( ≥ 10 acres)151.05 1,000 3560 256.00% Minor Development Without detention 151.05 2,000 2120 6.00%120 With detention or Fee - in - lieu 151.05 3,000 3120 4.00%120 Major Development With detention or Fee-in-lieu 151.05 4,500 5400 20.00%900 Within regulatory floodplain ( < 10 acres)151.05 3,000 3280 9.33% Within regulatory floodplain (≥ 10 acres)151.05 4,000 8640 116.00% Wetland Fees Category I Wetland impacts less than or equal to 1 acre N/A 500 + appropriate General fee 880 76.00% Category II Wetland impacts greater than 1 acre and less than 2 acres N/A 750 + appropriate General fee 3640 385.33% Category III Wetland impacts greater or equal to 2 acres or impacts a HQAR N/A 1,000 + appropriate General fee 4400 340.00% Category IV Wetland impacts involving either restoration, creation N/A 500 (< 1 acre) + applicable Gen fee 1440 188.00% or enhancement N/A 1,000 (≥ 1 acre) + applicable Gen fee 2760 176.00% Resubmittal fee N/A 1/3 of total Watershed Permit Fee/each resubmittal 347-2880 38% - 116% Earth Change Approval N/A 1,000 + applicable Watershed Permit Fee 1720 16% to 52%720 Securities - financial guarantee refundable N/A 3,000 per acre of development Variances N/A 2,200 + applicable Watershed Permit Fee 4240 10% to 42% Appeals N/A 550 + applicable Watershed Permit Fee 1920 0% to 22% Flood Plain Analysis and Report N/A 35 Construction Engineering Standards Manual N/A 35 53 DRAFT 12/5/16 City Council - Final Approval 18 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue 9. Senior Resources Membership Dues Residents of Lake Forest, Lake Bluff and unincorporated Lake Forest and Lake Bluff 97.087 Senior Resources $35 per person 97.087 $55 per family Outside of Lake Forest and Lake Bluff 97.087 Senior Resources $45 per person 97.087 $65 per family 75 15.38%100 Circuit Breaker participants Lake Forest and Lake Bluff 97.087 Senior Resources $10 per person residents only 97.087 $15 per family Car and Bus rides 97.087 Senior Resources $3/fee each direction 97.087 $6 round trip Taxi subsidy- Lake Forest and Lake Bluff residents 97.087 Senior Resources 16 coupons/month living within the Lake Forest High School District for a value of $3/each 54 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 2016- ______ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW FEES RELATED TO LATE FEES FOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest is a home rule, special charter municipal corporation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on an annual basis reviews fees and charges related to SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATIONS and having done so, hereby determines that it is necessary to establish new fees and charges to cover the cost of service provided; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to adopt this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION TWO. Approval of New Fees Related to SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS. The City Council hereby approves the fees as set forth in Exhibit A, New Fees Related to SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION LATE FEE, and directs that said fees shall be incorporated into the Fee Schedule for the City of Lake Forest and reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis as part of the Fee Schedule as determined to be necessary by the City Council. SECTION THREE. Effective Date of the New Fees Related to a SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION LATE FEE. The fees and charges set forth in Exhibit A shall take 55 effect as of May 1, 2017, consistent with the date of the Fee Schedule for FY 2018 as adopted by the City Council. SECTION FOUR. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. Passed this day of , 2016 AYES: ( ) NAYS: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) Approved this day of , 2016 ______________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________________ City Clerk 56 EXHIBIT A New Fees to the Office of the City Manager Special Event Permit Application Late Fee 50% of Permit Application Fee for every 30 days under the ninety (90) day application deadline date 57 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 2016- ______ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW FEES RELATED TO ESCROW DEPOSIT FOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest is a home rule, special charter municipal corporation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on an annual basis reviews fees and charges related to SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATIONS and having done so, hereby determines that it is necessary to establish new fees and charges to cover the cost of service provided; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to adopt this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION TWO. Approval of New Fees Related to SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION ESCROW DEPOSIT. The City Council hereby approves the fees as set forth in Exhibit A, New Fees Related to SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION ESCROW DEPOSIT, and directs that said fees shall be incorporated into the Fee Schedule for the City of Lake Forest and reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis as part of the Fee Schedule as determined to be necessary by the City Council. SECTION THREE. Effective Date of the New Fees Related to a SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION ESCROW DEPOSIT. The fees and charges set forth in Exhibit A 58 shall take effect as of May 1, 2017, consistent with the date of the Fee Schedule for FY 2018 as adopted by the City Council. SECTION FOUR. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. Passed this day of , 2016 AYES: ( ) NAYS: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) Approved this day of , 2016 ______________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________________ City Clerk 59 EXHIBIT A New Fees to the Office of the City Manager Special Event Permit Application Escrow Deposit $500 60 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 2016- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW FEES RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY PENSION OBLIGATIONS FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest is a home rule, special charter municipal corporation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on an annual basis reviews fees and charges as part of its codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, and having done so, hereby determines that it is necessary to establish new fees and charges to address the increasing cost of public safety pension obligations mandated pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to adopt this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION TWO. Approval of New Fee Related to Public Safety Pension Obligations. The City Council hereby approves the fees as set forth in Exhibit A, “New Fee Related to Public Safety Pension Obligations”, and directs that said fees shall be incorporated into the Fee Schedule for The City of Lake Forest and reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis as part of the Fee Schedule as determined to be necessary by the City Council. 61 SECTION THREE: Effective Date of the New Fees Related to Public Safety Pensions. The fees and charges set forth in Exhibit A shall take effect as of May 1, 2017, consistent with the date of the Fee Schedule for FY 2018 as adopted by the City Council. SECTION FOUR: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. Passed this day of , 2016 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved this day of , 2016 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 62 EXHIBIT A New Fees Related to Public Safety Pension Obligations New Fee Related to Public Safety Pensions: Residential Utility Accounts $10/quarter * All Other Utility Accounts (excluding irrigation only services) $35/quarter * *NOTE: This fee will be assessed to all utility accounts on water bills issued on or after May 1, 2017. 63 Supplemental Memos Regarding Proposed Fee Adjustments 64 Page 1 of 2 October 23, 2016 Revised - November 2, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: Diane Hall, Assistant Director of Finance Elizabeth Holleb, Director of Finance FROM: Catherine J. Czerniak, Director of Community Development DATE: October 23, 2016, Revised November 2, 2016 SUBJECT: Recommended Fee Alignments/Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2018 No significant changes are proposed for development related fees. Development related fees have remained constant for the last several years. One minor fee increase is proposed as described below and clarifications are recommended to more clearly reflect current fees. Fee Increases Conditional Certificate of Occupancy (single family and duplex units) - $300 An increase in this fee is proposed to more fully cover the cost of additional documentation and inspections that are necessary when occupancy is desired prior to completion of all work required to close out the permits. The City’s goal is for projects to be fully complete before occupancy is permitted, however, in cases where all life safety requirements are met and property owners or developers have a compelling need for early occupancy, the City works to accommodate early occupancy. After occupancy, the City continues to monitor the property to assure that all building Code requirements, approved plantings and drainage and grading issues are fully addressed in accordance with the terms of the Conditions Occupancy Permit. Conditional Certificate of Occupancy (commercial/multi-family) – $25 per square foot up to a maximum of $2,000 An increase and clarification of this fee is proposed for the same reasons stated above to more fully cover the cost of additional documentation and inspections that are necessary when occupancy is desired prior to completion of all work required to close out the permits. Current Fees Not Reflected, or not Reflected Accurately, on the Fee Schedule Ash tree removals – no fee This fee category should be expanded to clarify that no fee is charged for removal of diseased, dead or hazardous trees regardless of the species. The following fees noted on the Fee Schedule under “Building Review Board” also apply to petitions of the same type submitted for consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission and should be reflected in both categories for clarity. Signs/Awnings/Landscaping/Lighting/Fences -- $ 75.00 65 Page 2 of 2 October 23, 2016 Revised - November 2, 2016 Two or more of the above -- $125.00 Storefront Alterations -- $100.00 New Commercial building, school, hospital or multi-family building (single) -- $700.00 Alterations or major additions to commercial Buildings, schools, hospitals or multi-family per building -- $323 New multi-fa The following fees noted on the Fee Schedule under “Historic Preservation Commission” also apply to petitions of the same type submitted for consideration by the Building Review Board and should be reflected in both categories for clarity. New Residence – vacant parcel -- $1,050 Additions and Alterations to Residence -- $ 500 *** Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further clarifications, have any questions or have suggestions for changes. 66 Water Rates FY2018 City Council November 21, 2016 67 Water Plant Improvements Financing Laurel/Western Redevelopment Fees * (* estimated amount – subject to change) $ 295,510 Lake Forest Hospital Permit Fees – Water Plant Investment Fee 454,498 Water Capital Fund Reserves 453,212 TOTAL $ 1,203,220 RECOMMENDATION: Utilize one-time revenues and fund balance reserves to absorb incremental debt service of new bonds, eliminating need for any rate adjustment associated with Water Plant Improvements. City Council 11/21/16 2 68 Goals for FY2018 Water Rates Increase proportion of water fund revenue generated by fixed rate Improve revenue stability; minimize weather fluctuations Most water fund expenses are fixed, but are funded predominantly by variable revenue Mitigate impact on low volume users Maintain incentive for conservation during peak demand periods City Council 11/21/16 3 69 FY2018 Water Rates Recommendation Increase fixed rate – small and medium meters Small meters – from $30 to $40 per quarter Medium meters – from $150 to $160 per quarter Create 3rd Tier for Residential Users 1st Tier – Household usage – to 10K per quarter – reduced rate Intended to offset increase in fixed rate 2nd Tier – Medium usage – over 10k to 60k per quarter 3rd Tier – Usage over 60k per quarter Set rates to provide overall projected increase in revenue of 2.5% for FY18, excluding 3rd Tier City Council 11/21/16 4 70 FY2018 Water Rates Recommendation FY17 FY18 % Incr. Fixed Quarter Fee – Small $30 $40 25% Fixed Quarter Fee – Medium $150 $160 6.7% Fixed Quarter Fee – Large $750 n/c Water Consumption Fee: Residential – 1st 10k/quarter $5.43 $4.50 (17.1)% Residential – 10-60k/quarter $5.43 $5.62 3.50% Residential – over 60k/quarter $5.70 $5.89 3.57% All other users – per 1000g $5.60 $5.80 3.33% City Council 11/21/16 5 Rate structure modification is projected to increase percent of fixed revenue from 16.7% in FY16 to 19% in FY18. 71 Impact Analysis FY17 FY18 % incr Low Usage Residential (total annual consumption of 42k gallons) 21% of users less than 50k $417.94 $427.16 2.21% Med Usage Residential (total annual consumption of 198k gallons – 1qtr over 60k) 65% of users 50k-250k $1,387.93 $1,422.39 2.48% High Usage Residential (total annual consumption of 544k gallons – 4qtr over 60k) .34% of Res. users over 250k $4,343.24 $4,446.73 2.38% Commercial/Med Meter (total annual consumption of 4128k gallons) 1.5% of all users exceed 1000k $29,167.92 $30,076.80 3.12% City Council 11/21/16 6 The table above depicts projected total water and sanitary sewer fees for a full year at various usage levels. 72 Recommendation Water Plant Improvements Fund Incremental Debt Service above current levels with one- time revenues and fund balance reserves through maturity of existing bonds Water Rates – Fiscal Year 2018 Increase fixed rate Create 3rd Tier for Residential Users 1st Tier – Household usage – to 10K per quarter – reduced rate 2nd Tier – Medium usage – over 10k to 60k per quarter 3rd Tier – Usage over 60k per quarter Set rates to provide overall projected increase in revenue of 2.5% for FY18, excluding 3rd Tier City Council 11/21/16 7 73 CITY OF LAKE FOREST MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director Date: November 15, 2016 RE: Public Safety Pension Fee City staff has been requested to further study the potential implementation of a Public Safety pension fee as an alternative means to address the growing cost of public safety pension costs. As previously discussed, the cost of public safety pensions will increase 8.9% for Fiscal Year 2018 and is projected to increase by an average of 8.0% per year. While this cost has traditionally been funded through the property tax levy, the growth rate in the contribution requirement has reduced funds available for other General Fund expenses. The Fire Service Vision 2020 Committee has also noted that the public may not be fully aware of the pension funding issue due to the complexity of the property tax bill. A new public safety pension fee would be most easily implemented by placing it on the quarterly water and sewer utility bill. The additional revenue required for Fiscal Year 2018 is $254,976. Three alternative approaches were outlined and presented to the Finance Committee on November 14. Based on input from the Finance Committee, following is the option presented for City Council consideration: Fee based on Type of Account $10/35 per quarter Option 3 proposes an approach in which the quarterly fee varies based on the type of account, intended to correlate with the amount of people that may reside in or occupy the location of the account. The following table depicts the projected distribution using this model: Account Type # of accounts Quarterly Fee Annual Revenue % of Total Residential 6,483 10 259,320 96.4% Commercial 130 35 18,200 1.9% Multi-Family 33 35 4,620 .5% School 50 35 7,000 .7% Church 17 35 2,380 .3% City 15 35 2,100 .2% TOTAL 6,728 293,620 100% 74 Approval of the Lakefront Permit Recommended Fees for FY18 PRESENTED BY: Joe Mobile, Superintendent of Recreation (847-810-3941) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Parks and Recreation Board along with Staff requests approval of the Lakefront Permit FY18 fees. This annual approval is necessary to prepare annual budgets for Lakefront operations. RECOMMENDATION REVIEW: Reviewed Date Comments Parks and Recreation Board 9/20/2015 Recommend Approval of fees BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is the proposed fee structure for lakefront permit fees for FY2018. Staff is recommending an increase of 3% over the FY17 fees to the majority of permit fees to offset increased utilities, supplies and personnel expenses for the annual operations of Forest Park Beach. Staff is taking a conservative approach for revenue growth by assuming that participation levels will remain constant with FY17 usage. RECOMMENDATIONS: Parks and Recreation Board along with Staff are recommending the following changes to the current fee structure: A 3% increase in resident and non-resident permit fee categories with the following exceptions that will remain constant with FY17 fees. o The Nanny and Caregiver Parking Pass ($85) o The Resident Guest Daily Parking ($10) o The Non-resident Beach Access Fees ($10). o The Non-resident South Beach Parking Permit ($910) o Daily Boat Launch ($40) o Daily Boat Launch Non-Resident ($65) Staff requests keeping non-resident daily pass use restrictions in place to protect the heaviest used boating times for Lake Forest residents. Non-resident passes will only be sold Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and holidays. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Staff anticipates a positive revenue differential of $3,180.00 over FY17 with the proposed 3% increase in fees. All fees will become effective February 1, 2017. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve proposed FY2018 Lakefront fees, as detailed in attachments, effective February 1, 2017. 75 Approval of the Lake Forest Fitness Center’s Recommended Fees for FY18 PRESENTED BY: Joe Mobile, Superintendent of Recreation (847-810-3941) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Parks and Recreation Board along with Staff requests approval of the Fitness Center’s FY18 fees. This annual approval is necessary to prepare annual budgets for the Fitness Center. RECOMMENDATION REVIEW: Reviewed Date Comments Parks and Recreation Board 9/20/2016 Recommend Approval of fees BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is the proposed fee structure for fitness center membership types for FY2018. Staff is recommending an adjusted 3% increase to the majority of our membership fees in order to offset increased utilities, supplies and personnel expenses as well as to stay competitive in the local fitness market. The Fitness Center’s memberships fluctuate considerably throughout the year. With varying anniversary dates, extensions due to medical reason or “holds” for snow birds, it can create difficulty in determining annual membership totals. As a result, staff takes a conservative approach for revenue growth by assuming membership levels will remain the same throughout the year based on membership totals in September. In FY17, Staff had eliminated the 6 month and 3 month membership options and began offering the Month to Month membership options which allows perspective members the flexibility to cancel their membership with 30 days written notice. Typically the Annual memberships are unable to be cancelled unless for medical reasons or relocation. The month to month membership is also a good alternative for those looking for a short term option. This option has proved successful as memberships have increased in several categories. Staff will also continue to offer a 3 month membership option as summer promotion to students. RECOMMENDATIONS: Parks and Recreation Board along with Staff are recommending the following changes to the current fee structure for FY18: • Increase all resident and non-resident membership fees by an adjusted 3%. The 3% increase was taken over FY17 fees and then adjusted to be divisible by 12 months so that our new software system can use the automatic monthly billing for all annual memberships. This adjustment to the increase will provide a consistent amount to be drawn each month providing our members a smooth and understandable transaction. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Staff anticipates a positive revenue differential of $17,013 over FY17 due to the 3% increase in membership rates. All fees will become effective May 1, 2017. 76 COUNCIL ACTION: Approve proposed fee structure for FY18 Fitness Center fess, as detailed in attachments, effective May 1, 2017. 77 MEMORANDUM THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Page 1 TO: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director CC: Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager FROM: Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: October 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Special Event Application Fee – FY2018 As part of the City’s review of fees and charges for FY2018, a request to include new and/or additional fees are being requested. The proposed fee has includes a brief overview of the purpose, and justification. An Ordinance has been attached for review and consideration. Special Event Permit Application Fee - $50 Pursuant to the City Code (§10.13), a special application fee may be imposed in connection with the filing of an application. The special event fee was previously omitted from the fee schedule, and therefore, we are including it in our FY2018 request. The filing of the application typically takes between 1-1.5 hours, which includes coordination meetings with applicants, quality assurance and control checking, follow up with applicants to complete submittal requirements, and preparing the submittal package for staff review. The application fee reflects the staff time to facilitate this process. In reviewing fees from neighboring jurisdictions, fees range from $0 to $60 to submit an application. Based previous year data of special event permits issued, the City process between 75 and 100 special event applications annually. This total does not include independent permits that may be required by the Fire Prevention Bureau (e.g. tents, bonfires, inflatables, etc.) for activities that would not otherwise qualify as a community special event. Therefore, the estimated annual revenue potential of the fee is between $3,750 and $5,000. 78 MEMORANDUM THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Page 1 TO: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director CC: Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager FROM: Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: October 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Special Event Application Late Fee – FY2018 As part of the City’s review of fees and charges for FY2018, a request to include new and/or additional fees are being requested. The proposed fee includes a brief overview of the purpose, and justification. An Ordinance has been attached for review and consideration. Application Fee (Late Fee) – 50% of Application Fee Over the past few years, community and private organizations have submitted special event applications within weeks, and in some cases, days prior to the proposed special event date. Depending on the size and scale of the event, this can hamper City staff’s ability to equitably review the application, consult with the organizer, and schedule resources to support the event. Additionally, pursuant to the policy (Administrative Directive 1-17), applications shall be filed no less than ninety (90) days prior the first proposed date of the event. As such, we are proposing to add a penalty fee of 50% of the application fee for every thirty days a permit is filed within the ninety day period. This would result in a fee of seventy-five dollars ($75) for permits filed between 60-90 days prior to the event, one hundred dollars ($100) for events filed between 30-60 days, and one-hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125) for permits filed less than 30 days prior to the proposed event. 79 MEMORANDUM THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Page 1 TO: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director CC: Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager FROM: Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: October 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Special Event Application Escrow Deposit – FY2018 As part of the City’s review of fees and charges for FY2018, a request to include new and/or additional fees are being requested. The proposed fee includes a brief overview of the purpose, and justification. An Ordinance has been attached for review and consideration. Escrow Deposit – Special Events - $500 Pursuant to the City Code (10.13), escrow deposits may be required for special events that may result in the City incurring substantial recoverable costs. The escrow deposit amount traditionally charged for large scale community events was previously omitted from the fee schedule, and therefore, we are including it in our FY2018 request. The purpose of the escrow is to allow the City to draw down on expenses related to special city services (e.g. personnel, resources/rentals, etc.) that an event has requested. Over the last three years, the City has averaged between 20-25 events where city services have been requested. Funds remaining, less city service expenses, will be reimbursed to the event organizer. 80 MEMORANDUM THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Page 1 TO: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director CC: Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager FROM: Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: October 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Special Event Fee Increases – FY2018 As part of the City’s review of fees and charges for FY2018, a request to increase certain fees is being requested. Each case has been outlined below to provide an overview of the fee, and justification for the increase. From time-to-time, special event organizers request special city services (e.g. equipment rentals/delivery) or City employees (e.g. general event support, security, or emergency medical services) to support their event. Pursuant to the City Code (§10.13), fees for these City services may be imposed in connection with recovering costs related to the personnel time associated with this support. Personnel Rates for City Employee Event Support Rates for City employees are set based on an average total compensation for employees in the workgroup. Traditionally, the City has adjusted these rates to reflect changes in union contracts and special contractual rates for special time worked or overtime. These rates were previously increased prior to FY2015. Since this time, new contracts have been executed for police and fire employees. It should be noted that rates have typically been rounded for ease of invoicing purposes. Accordingly, City staff is requesting to adjust rates to reflect these contract amounts, as follows: Previous Rate Proposed Rate % Change Police Officer Hourly Rate $80.00 $82.00 2.5% Firefighter/Paramedic Hourly Rate $80.00 $82.00 2.6% 81 Page 2 Parks Department Rental Fee Increases In addition to personnel that may be provided by the City’s Parks Department, special city services including the rental of bleachers, litter barrels, picnic tables, and grills may be delivered to special event locations. In evaluating the current rates for these services and actual costs incurred (see table below), the City’s current average cost recovery for providing these services is 73%. Service Staff Hours Avg. Cost* Current Rate Cost Recovery % Relocate Bleacher (In same park) 1 $45 $70 156% Relocate Bleacher (Different park) 4/bleacher $180 $135 75% Provide Litter Barrels (Up to 6) 2 $90 $45 50% Provide Litter Barrels (7-12) 4 $180 $55 31% Provide Picnic Tables (Up to 6) 4 $180 $150 83% Provide Picnic Tables (7-12) 8 $360 $245 68% Provide Propane/Charcoal Grill 4 $180 $85 47% *Avg. Cost reflects average total compensation rate of $45/hour It is our belief that we could simplify the fee structure to make it easier for the event organizer; while achieving greater cost recovery for the services provided. As such, the City would propose adjusting these fees, as follows: Service Current Rate Proposed Rate Difference Cost Recovery % Relocate Bleacher (In same park) $70 $50 ($20) 111% Relocate Bleacher (Different park) $135 $180 $45 100% Provide Litter Barrels (Up to 6) $45 $10/can $3 67% Provide Litter Barrels (7-12) $55 $10/can $1 67% Provide Picnic Tables (Up to 6) $150 $30/table $5 100% Provide Picnic Tables (7-12) $245 $30/table $10 100% Provide Propane/Charcoal Grill $85 $180 $95 100% The proposed fees would increase the City’s average cost recovery to 92% and still provide competitive pricing for services. Based on research conducted by staff, the proposed rate structures are in line with market rental rates for bleachers ($125-$150/each), litter barrels ($10- $15/each), picnic tables ($40-$50/table), and grills ($150-$225/each). 82 MEMORANDUM To: Finance Director, Elizabeth Holleb From: Fire Chief, Pete Siebert Date: October 18, 2016 Subject: Proposed FY18 User fees – Ambulance rates Per the attached City of Lake Forest Ordinance No. 2011-11, adopted May 2nd of 2011, the fee schedule pertaining to ambulance transports is reviewed from time to time and necessary adjustments to fees and charges may be made. This approval was noted in the minutes from the Finance Committee meeting, held on April 18th of 2011, annually raising the City’s ambulance transport rate to the average charged by surrounding municipalities and recover an additional $100 per transport was approved unanimously. It has been common practice of The City’s ambulance billing company, Andres Medical Billing, to provide updated information on the fees and charges assessed by surrounding municipalities and also provide notification of updated mileage rates as approved by Medicare. We will not know what the new Medicare allowed mileage fee will be until after January 1, 2017. Therefore, the current mileage rate of $7.27 per mile will stand for FY18. However, in reviewing the ambulance rate survey responses from surrounding municipalities, we are proposing increases for FY18 to bring us in line with Ordinance No. 2011-11. From the survey list of over 200 municipalities, we pulled out the responding municipalities within our MABAS Division 4. Thus, proposed fee increases for FY18 are reflective of the average charged, plus an additional $100 per transport. 83 Next, Andres Medical Billing provided us with the attached Activity Summary by Call Type report, for FY2016. Pages 2 and 3 provide the following transport counts: Resident ALS – 470 Resident ALS2 – 6 Resident BLS – 278 Non Resident ALS – 164 Non Resident ALS2 – 5 Non Resident BLS – 171 With the understanding that revenue collected is a fluid event spanning between fiscal years, for purposes of determining projected revenue for FY18’s User Fees Exhibit A, we simply used the FY2016 trip counts provided by Andres. Respectfully submitted. 84 85 86 87 The City of Lake Forest FINANCE COMMITTEE Proceedings of the April 18, 2011 Meeting 6:30 p.m. – City Hall Council Chambers I. Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Grumhaus called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Present: Mayor Cowhey, Chairman Grumhaus, Aldermen Novit, Moore, Morsch, Schoenheider, Looby and Palmer. Absent: Alderman Widman. Quorum present. There were twelve people present in the audience. Staff present: Robert Kiely, Jr., City Manager; Kathleen Reinertsen, Finance Director; Louise Breckan, Assistant Finance Director; Jeff Howell, Fire Chief; Ramesh Kanapareddy, Assistant City Engineer; Carina Walters, Assistant City Manager; Diane Hall, Senior Accountant and Victor Filippini, City Attorney. II. Consideration of Minutes from the Finance Committee Meeting Held on March 21, 2011 Alderman Looby made a motion to approve the minutes from the Finance Committee meeting held on March 21, 2011. The motion was seconded by Alderman Novit. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. III. Consideration of an Ordinance Approving a Fee Schedule for Ambulance Transport for The City of Lake Forest Fire Chief Jeff Howell stated as discussed at the March 21st Finance Committee Budget meeting, it was recommended to increase the ambulance transport rates. This recommendation coincides with rate increases being instituted by numerous area municipalities, while still remaining slightly over the average charged by same. Chief Howell reviewed two rate options with the Committee and showed a pie chart of the type of calls, ALS, BLS, etc., that Lake Forest handled in 2010. The Committee was interested in what the cost per call would be in other municipalities. Mr. Robert Kiely, City Manager stated that staff could find out those numbers. He added that there is a policy issue in every municipality as to how much of the cost of service is to be recovered by a user fee. Following discussion, Alderman Looby moved, seconded by Alderman Novit, to approve the fee, which will annually raise the City’s ambulance transport rate to the average charged by surrounding municipalities and recover an additional $100 per transport. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. IV. Consideration of an Ordinance making a Supplemental Appropriation for the Fiscal Year Beginning May 1, 2010 and ending April 30, 2011 Ms. Kathleen Reinertsen, Finance Director stated as advised by the City attorney, it is recommended to approve a supplemental appropriation at the end of each fiscal year for any fund that will exceed the original appropriation. The following funds require a supplemental appropriation: 1. The Emergency Telephone Fund software implementation expense is more than budgeted due to several unforeseen equipment and contractual service expenses. These expenses are covered by revenue. A supplemental appropriation of $20,000 is required. 2. The Elawa Farm Fund garden/market operation was transferred back to the Elawa Foundation during FY11. The expense is covered by revenue. A supplemental appropriation of $82,000 is required. 3. The Route 60 Intersection Fund refund expense was refunded to Conway Park for the Route 60 /Field Drive intersection during FY11. The project came in lower than expected. The expense is covered by revenue. A supplemental appropriation of $375,000 is required. 88 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes – April 18, 2011 2 Following discussion, Alderman Looby moved, seconded by Alderman Novit, to grant approval to the ordinance making a Supplemental Appropriation and corresponding adjustment to the Comprehensive Fiscal Plan for the Fiscal Year Beginning May 1, 2010 And Ending April 30, 2011. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. V. Opportunity for the Public to Address the Finance Committee: None. VI. Other Business: March 2011 Flash Report: Chairman Grumhaus reported there are no concerns at this time. As this was Chairman Grumhaus’s last Finance Committee meeting, he stated that he appreciated all of the staff’s efforts during his term. Items from the April 18, 2011 City Council Agenda: 1. 2011 Annual Street Resurfacing Program Project: Mr. Ramesh Kanapareddy, Assistant City Engineer stated that the City Council has approved a resolution appropriating $1,700,000 in Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) funds to pay for this project. He stated that city staff has briefed the City Council previously on the Municipal Partnership Program (MPP), a program that takes advantage of economies of scale, for securing low bid prices, among neighboring municipalities who bid similar projects each year. This year, the City joined forces with Highland Park and Lincolnshire to do a joint bid for the Annual Street Resurfacing Program. Peter Baker & Son is the lowest responsible bidder for asphalt at $64.25 per ton. A year ago the City paid $72.30 per ton. All three municipalities’ staff believe that this joint bid to be fair. This item was reviewed at the Public Works Committee meeting which was held prior to tonight’s Finance Committee meeting. The Committee requested that Mr. Kanapareddy find out asphalt prices from the communities that did not participate in this joint bid. Further discussion and the award of the contract will be conducted at tonight’s City Council meeting. 2. Replacement of Capital Equipment: Mr. Michael Thomas, Superintendent of Public Works stated that staff is recommending that the purchase of the core aerator and rotary mower be awarded to the State Bid vendor, Reinders, Inc. He stated that there was only one bid for the one ton dump truck chassis from Shepard Chevrolet and one bid for the one ton dump truck body from Lindco Equipment Company. Staff is recommending awarding the bid to Shepard Chevrolet and Lindco Equipment Company for the replacement of the one ton dump truck. He stated that there was only one bid from Shepard Chevrolet for the ¾ ton pickup truck. Staff is recommending awarding the bid to Shepard Chevrolet for the replacement of the ¾ ton pickup truck. These items were reviewed at the Public Works Committee meeting which was held prior to tonight’s Finance Committee meeting. Further discussion and approval of the replacement of capital equipment will be conducted at tonight’s City Council meeting. 3. Cell Phone Contract: Ms. Carina Walters, Assistant City Manager stated that since 2005, the City has engaged Sprint/Nextel for its cellular service. She stated that the City’s current cellular services’ contract expired in October 2010. Staff assembled a Cell Phone Committee which created a Request for Proposal. The City received five proposals. The committee reviewed all of the proposals and decided to interview Verizon Wireless and Sprint/Nextel due to their coverage, price, and the push-to-talk and/or direct connect capability. The committee decided to re-engage Sprint/Nextel. Further discussion and approval of contract will be conducted at tonight’s City Council meeting. 89 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes – April 18, 2011 3 VII. Adjournment There being no further business, Alderman Looby moved, seconded by Alderman Novit to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 p.m. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Louise Breckan Assistant Finance Director 90 Activity Summary by Call Type Trip date IS BETWEEN 05/01/2015 AND 04/30/2016; AND Company IS THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST; AND Status IS Assigned OR Billed OR Closed OR Complete OR NetTransit New Call OR NetTransit New Will Call OR NetTransit Review OR NetTransit Will Call OR ... Payor # of Trips Balance Average Payments Net Charges Gross Charges WD's Rev Adj Refunds WO's THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST Profit Center - KNWD Call Type - ALS Medicare 1 0.00 459.54 0.00 459.54 755.99 459.54 296.45 0.00 0.00 Insurance 1 758.89 758.89 0.00 0.00 758.89 758.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 1,514.88 296.45 1,218.43 0.00 459.54 0.00 0.00 758.89 609.22 Call Type - BLS Bill Patient 1 0.00 687.82 687.82 0.00 687.82 687.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 687.82 0.00 687.82 687.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 687.82 Profit Center - LBNON Call Type - ALS Medicare 14 533.83 433.16 0.00 5,619.71 18,690.00 6,064.21 12,625.79 0.00 89.33 Medicaid 4 0.00 131.11 0.00 524.43 5,340.00 524.43 4,815.57 0.00 0.00 Insurance 17 4,410.20 1,087.02 55.00 14,014.14 22,117.44 18,479.34 3,638.10 0.00 0.00 Bill Patient 9 2,670.00 1,335.00 6,675.00 2,670.00 12,015.00 12,015.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44 58,162.44 21,079.46 37,082.98 6,730.00 22,828.28 0.00 89.33 7,614.03 842.80 Call Type - ALS 2 Medicare 1 0.00 437.74 0.00 437.74 1,335.00 437.74 897.26 0.00 0.00 1 1,335.00 897.26 437.74 0.00 437.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 437.74 Call Type - BLS Medicare 5 0.00 354.24 15.05 1,756.14 6,675.00 1,771.19 4,903.81 0.00 0.00 Medicaid 4 1,335.00 461.10 0.00 509.38 5,340.00 1,844.38 3,495.62 0.00 0.00 Insurance 8 0.00 1,076.69 802.00 7,811.52 10,680.00 8,613.52 2,066.48 0.00 0.00 Bill Patient 8 6,675.00 1,335.00 4,005.00 0.00 10,680.00 10,680.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 33,375.00 10,465.91 22,909.09 4,822.05 10,077.04 0.00 0.00 8,010.00 916.36 Profit Center - LBRES Call Type - ALS Medicare 46 444.86 439.20 89.33 19,669.17 61,410.00 20,203.36 41,206.64 0.00 0.00 Medicaid 11 0.00 160.45 0.00 1,764.97 14,685.00 1,764.97 12,920.03 0.00 0.00 Insurance 15 2,759.33 1,096.33 0.00 15,020.63 20,025.00 16,444.96 3,580.04 0.00 1,335.00 Bill Patient 5 4,005.00 1,335.00 2,670.00 0.00 6,675.00 6,675.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77 102,795.00 57,706.71 45,088.29 2,759.33 36,454.77 0.00 1,335.00 7,209.19 585.56 RescueNet™ Reporting Written by: Robert S. Betz for Andres Medical Billing Page 1 of 3 \\RN64\RESCUENET\REPORTS32\CUSTOM\ACTIVITY SUMMARY BY CALL TYPE.RPT Printed on 8/16/2016 at 10:07:15AM 91 Activity Summary by Call Type Trip date IS BETWEEN 05/01/2015 AND 04/30/2016; AND Company IS THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST; AND Status IS Assigned OR Billed OR Closed OR Complete OR NetTransit New Call OR NetTransit New Will Call OR NetTransit Review OR NetTransit Will Call OR ... Payor # of Trips Balance Average Payments Net Charges Gross Charges WD's Rev Adj Refunds WO's THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST Call Type - ALS 2 Medicare 1 0.00 437.74 0.00 437.74 1,335.00 437.74 897.26 0.00 0.00 1 1,335.00 897.26 437.74 0.00 437.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 437.74 Call Type - BLS Medicare 14 0.00 379.71 89.33 5,226.57 18,690.00 5,315.90 13,374.10 0.00 0.00 Medicaid 12 80.91 124.07 0.00 1,407.90 16,020.00 1,488.81 14,531.19 0.00 0.00 Insurance 10 2,213.00 943.56 20.00 7,202.56 13,350.00 9,435.56 3,914.44 0.00 0.00 Bill Patient 4 0.00 1,335.00 2,670.00 2,900.00 5,340.00 5,340.00 0.00 0.00 230.00 40 53,400.00 31,819.73 21,580.27 2,779.33 16,737.03 0.00 230.00 2,293.91 539.51 Profit Center - NON Call Type - ALS Medicare 45 784.18 445.06 93.98 19,425.00 33,613.24 20,027.72 13,585.52 89.56 365.00 Medicaid 12 739.44 234.31 0.00 2,072.27 8,914.24 2,811.71 6,102.53 0.00 0.00 Insurance 71 6,955.70 657.92 2,860.62 36,980.46 53,257.85 46,712.35 6,545.50 0.00 84.43 Bill Patient 36 9,111.12 753.23 14,376.83 3,628.47 27,116.42 27,116.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 164 122,901.75 26,233.55 96,668.20 17,331.43 62,106.20 89.56 449.43 17,590.44 589.44 Call Type - ALS 2 Medicare 2 658.42 662.30 0.00 666.18 1,853.03 1,324.60 528.43 0.00 0.00 Insurance 1 0.00 927.99 0.00 927.99 927.99 927.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bill Patient 2 0.00 931.61 1,863.21 0.00 1,863.21 1,863.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 4,644.23 528.43 4,115.80 1,863.21 1,594.17 0.00 0.00 658.42 823.16 Call Type - BLS Medicare 29 859.21 376.25 0.00 10,051.97 19,605.40 10,911.18 8,694.22 0.00 0.00 Medicaid 14 1,837.30 245.27 0.00 1,596.42 9,589.84 3,433.72 6,156.12 0.00 0.00 Insurance 70 6,794.02 574.82 948.73 32,494.36 47,250.95 40,237.11 7,013.84 0.00 0.00 Bill Patient 58 8,202.99 683.48 25,977.93 5,460.85 39,665.01 39,641.77 23.24 0.00 0.00 171 116,111.20 21,887.42 94,223.78 26,926.66 49,603.60 0.00 0.00 17,693.52 551.02 Profit Center - RES Call Type - ALS Medicare 288 2,981.22 453.48 0.00 127,707.12 174,085.66 130,602.70 43,482.96 0.00 85.64 Medicaid 8 198.99 180.28 0.00 1,243.27 4,793.77 1,442.26 3,351.51 0.00 0.00 Insurance 134 4,215.21 568.21 4,176.12 67,748.65 82,349.60 76,139.98 6,209.62 0.00 0.00 RescueNet™ Reporting Written by: Robert S. Betz for Andres Medical Billing Page 2 of 3 \\RN64\RESCUENET\REPORTS32\CUSTOM\ACTIVITY SUMMARY BY CALL TYPE.RPT Printed on 8/16/2016 at 10:07:16AM 92 Activity Summary by Call Type Trip date IS BETWEEN 05/01/2015 AND 04/30/2016; AND Company IS THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST; AND Status IS Assigned OR Billed OR Closed OR Complete OR NetTransit New Call OR NetTransit New Will Call OR NetTransit Review OR NetTransit Will Call OR ... Payor # of Trips Balance Average Payments Net Charges Gross Charges WD's Rev Adj Refunds WO's THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST Facility Contract 1 0.00 631.02 0.00 1,111.50 631.02 631.02 0.00 0.00 480.48 Bill Patient 39 7,958.99 604.74 9,112.93 6,513.10 23,585.02 23,585.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 470 285,445.07 53,044.09 232,400.98 13,289.05 204,323.64 0.00 566.12 15,354.41 494.47 Call Type - ALS 2 Medicare 3 0.00 661.24 0.00 1,983.72 2,191.19 1,983.72 207.47 0.00 0.00 Insurance 3 0.00 706.16 0.00 2,118.48 2,118.48 2,118.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 4,309.67 207.47 4,102.20 0.00 4,102.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 683.70 Call Type - ALS REFUSAL Medicare 1 0.00 408.52 0.00 408.52 565.11 408.52 156.59 0.00 0.00 1 565.11 156.59 408.52 0.00 408.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 408.52 Call Type - BLS Medicare 146 532.26 386.36 0.00 56,596.77 78,948.02 56,408.75 22,539.27 -0.01 720.27 Medicaid 3 127.34 119.05 0.00 229.82 1,603.01 357.16 1,245.85 0.00 0.00 Insurance 95 3,103.89 500.37 2,426.14 43,075.22 51,892.77 47,535.44 4,357.33 0.00 1,069.81 Bill Patient 34 6,456.01 565.36 7,598.30 5,168.09 19,228.42 19,222.40 6.02 0.00 0.00 278 151,672.22 28,148.47 123,523.75 10,024.44 105,069.90 -0.01 1,790.08 10,219.50 444.33 1,286 938,254.39 253,368.80 684,885.59 87,213.32 514,640.37 89.55 4,459.96 87,402.31 532.57 Company Totals - Grand Totals 1,286 87,402.31 532.57 514,640.37 938,254.39 684,885.59 253,368.80 4,459.96 89.55 87,213.32 RescueNet™ Reporting Written by: Robert S. Betz for Andres Medical Billing Page 3 of 3 \\RN64\RESCUENET\REPORTS32\CUSTOM\ACTIVITY SUMMARY BY CALL TYPE.RPT Printed on 8/16/2016 at 10:07:16AM 93 MEMORANDUM To: Finance Director, Elizabeth Holleb From: Fire Chief, Pete Siebert Date: October 18, 2016 Subject: Proposed FY18 User fees – Fire Bureau rates Fees for permits issued for fireworks, open burns, bonfires, life safety inspections, tents, and amusements, have remained the same since January 1, 2010. In review of the associated activities and time spent by staff to complete the evaluation, inspection, and issuing of permits, we are proposing increased fees for FY18. Based on our data from the previous five fiscal years, we are steadily increasing the number of permits processed, most noticeably in tents and inflatables/carnivals. Only six months into the current fiscal year, we are already at the total amount of permits processed in FY12 as well as FY13. At this pace, we will have increased volume by 100%. Similarly, fees for re-inspection of properties due to non-compliance, have remained the same since the Fire Prevention Chapter 15 (now Chapter 94) was adopted in 2001. The table below illustrates inspection counts for FY16; showing 40+ instances of four or more inspections on the same property. For purposes of determining projected revenue for FY18’s User Fees Exhibit A, we used the FY2016 counts for permits issued and re-inspections. Respectfully submitted. 94 The City of Lake Forest MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Thomas, Director of Public Works Robert Ells, Superintendent of Engineering FROM: Brian Joyce, Engineering Supervisor DATE: October 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Fees Attached are the proposed fee changes from Engineering related to the existing fee schedule. These changes involve the following areas. 1. Watershed Development Permit Fees: The fee structure has been changed to reflect how the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission fee schedule is structured. Fee increases reflect fees currently being charged by the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission personnel for the same plan review and inspection services. 95 Dickinson Hall Memo To: Diane Hall and Elizabeth Holleb From: Jill Becker cc: Sally Swarthout Date: October 12, 2016 Re: Recommendation for Senior Membership NR Household fee change for FY18 Dickinson Hall membership fees were discussed at the September 8, 2016 Senior Resources Commission meeting. Everyone present agreed that the current membership rates are fair and compare favorably with other local senior centers’ rates. However, Steve Potsic, SRC Chair, proposed one specific fee question to be considered for change: Should Non-Residents pay $75 per family/household instead of the current $65, thus getting the same $15 savings as Residents instead of the present $25 savings? Current Membership Fees: ______ $35 per person or $55 per family Residents of Lake Forest, Lake Bluff & Unincorporated Lake Forest, Lake Bluff Saving of $15 ($35 X 2 = $70 – $55 =$15) ______ $45 per person or $65 per family Outside of Lake Forest & Lake Bluff e.g.--Highland Park, Deerfield, Libertyville etc. Saving of $25 ($45 X 2 = $90 – $65 =$25) ______$10 per person or $15 per family for Benefit Access Program participants— Reduced fee incomes of less than $27,610 [individuals] or $36,635 [couples] FOR RESIDENTS OF LAKE FOREST & LAKE BLUFF ONLY The Commission unanimously approved the increase of $10 from $65 to $75 for NR Households. It should be noted that there is not a great increase in revenue as a result of this proposed change. The Dickinson Hall membership for NR households numbers just 10 in 2016 (FY17); 8 in 2015 (FY16) and 7 households in 2014 (FY15). 96 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 41 (Winwood Drive Sanitary Improvement Project) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, December 5, 2016, at 6:30p.m., a public hearing will be held before the Mayor and City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, at the City Hall, 220 East Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois, for the purpose of considering the establishment of The City of Lake Forest Special Service Area No. 41 (“SSA”), which SSA would include the following described territory: Lots 2, 3 and 4 in Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of the Northeast Quarter and Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded April 12, 1954 as Document No. 821201, in Book 1240 of Records, page 12, in Lake County, Illinois.; and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in the First Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of the Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded October 5, 1954 as Document No. 840107, in Book 1285 of Records, page 615, in Lake County, Illinois; and Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the Second Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded November 12, 1954 as Document No. 845162, in Book 1297 of Records, page 7, in Lake County, Illinois.; and Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the Third Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded February 18, 1955 as Document No. 855127, in Book 33 of Records, page 19, in Lake County, Illinois.; and Lots A and B in Spellmans Resubdivision, being a Resubdivision of Lot 4 in the Third Addition to Winwood Estates, a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded December 7, 1966 as Document No. 1324137, in Book 43 of Records, page 66, in Lake County, Illinois.; and That part of Winwood Drive bounded by the above described properties. The area commonly known as 1055 – 1272 Winwood Drive and 1270 N. Waukegan Road (the “SSA Territory”), all in Lake Forest, Illinois, and further identified by the following property tax index numbers (“PINs”): 12-30-103-001 1266 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-002 1264 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-003 1262 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-004 1260 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-005 1210 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-006 1240 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-007 1220 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-008 1268 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-009 1272 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-001 1200 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-002 1088 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-003 1190 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-004 1154 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-005 1134 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-006 1106 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-008 1270 N. Waukegan Road 12-30-202-009 1060 Winwood Drive 12-30-301-001 1270 Winwood Drive 12-30-301-002 1271 Winwood Drive 12-30-301-003 1255 Winwood Drive 12-30-301-004 1251 Winwood Drive 12-30-301-005 1225 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-001 1189 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-002 1161 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-003 1137 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-004 1111 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-005 1089 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-006 1055 Winwood Drive 97 The purpose of this public hearing is to consider establishing the SSA to provide special services in the nature of sanitary sewer improvements, including, but not limited to, the construction of a new extension of the City's sanitary sewer main to the parcels within the SSA Territory. All interested parties affected by the formation of Lake Forest SSA No. 41, including all persons owning taxable real property within the SSA Territory, will be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing regarding the establishment of the SSA, the special tax roll, and the tax levy, the issuance of bonds, and may object to the formation of the area and the levy of taxes affecting said area. The public hearing may be adjourned to another date by the City Council without further notice other than a notice entered upon the minutes of said meeting fixing the time and place of its adjournment and reconvening. To finance the special services of the SSA, the City proposes to levy a special tax pursuant to a special tax roll that will divide taxes equally among developable lots within the SSA Territory. The SSA shall levy taxes upon the individual developable lots within the SSA Territory at a rate sufficient to generate revenues not to exceed $152,500.00 annually for a period not to exceed 20 years. In addition, the City may be issuing bonds of the SSA to be supported by the SSA taxes, which bonds will bear interest at not more than five percent (5%) as an average annual interest rate, may be in an amount not to exceed $1,525,000 in principal, payable for a period of not more than 20 years. If a petition signed by at least 51% of the electors residing within the SSA Territory and at least 51% of the owners of record of properties within the SSA Territory is filed with the City Clerk within 60 days after the final adjournment of the public hearing, objecting to the establishment of the SSA or the levy and imposition of the SSA taxes or the issuance of bonds as described herein, then the SSA shall not be established, said SSA taxes shall not be levied or imposed, and/or the SSA bonds shall not be issued. Dated: November 17, 2016 Respectfully submitted, City Clerk The City of Lake Forest For Notice by Mail: 1055 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1055 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1060 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1070 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1088 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1089 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1106 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1111 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1134 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1137 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1154 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1161 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1189 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1190 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1200 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1210 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1220 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1225 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1240 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1240 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1251 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1255 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1260 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1260 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1262 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1264 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1266 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1268 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1270 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1271 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1272 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 1268 Winwood Dr Lake Forest, IL 60045 98 1 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - ________ A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING OFFICIAL INTENT REGARDING CERTAIN EXPENDITURES TO BE REIMBURSED FROM SPECIAL SERVICE AREA TAXES AND/OR FROM PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS ISSUED, IF ANY, IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED SPECIAL SERVICE AREA COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS THE WINWOOD DRIVE SPECIAL SERVICE AREA WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest (the "City") is contemplating the establishment of a Special Service Area (SSA) for the area commonly described as Winwood Drive Special Service Area (the "Area") over certain real property depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto, to finance the installation of a sanitary sewer in the Area (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, certain expenditures relating to the Project (“Expenditures”) have been paid within sixty (60) days prior to, or are anticipated to be paid after, the passage of this Resolution, including project costs pursuant to 35 ILCS 200/27-5, et seq. (the "SSA Law"); and WHEREAS, if the City establishes special service area financing for the Area, the City anticipates that it will levy special service area taxes (the “SSA Taxes”) in the Area, and may issue obligations secured in whole or in part by those SSA Taxes in accordance with the SSA Law (the “Bonds”); and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects that it will reimburse itself and/or third parties for the payment of Expenditures from the SSA Taxes and/or with proceeds of the Bonds, if any; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, as follows: SECTION ONE. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are, by this reference, incorporated herein as is fully set forth. SECTION TWO. Reimbursement of Expenditures. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the Expenditures from the SSA Taxes and/or with proceeds of the Bonds, if any. The maximum principal amount of Bonds expected to be issued for the Project, which may be used for reimbursement of the Expenditures, is $1,525,000. SECTION THREE. Declaration of Intent. This Resolution is a declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2, 26 C.F.R. 1.150-2, and under the SSA Law. 99 2 SECTION FOUR. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage in the manner provided by law. PASSED THIS _____ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED THIS _____ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 100 3 EXHIBIT A PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The legal description of the Project Area is as follows: Lots 2, 3 and 4 in Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of the Northeast Quarter and Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded April 12, 1954 as Document No. 821201, in Book 1240 of Records, page 12, in Lake County, Illinois.; and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in the First Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of the Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded October 5, 1954 as Document No. 840107, in Book 1285 of Records, page 615, in Lake County, Illinois; and Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the Second Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded November 12, 1954 as Document No. 845162, in Book 1297 of Records, page 7, in Lake County, Illinois.; and Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the Third Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded February 18, 1955 as Document No. 855127, in Book 33 of Records, page 19, in Lake County, Illinois.; and Lots A and B in Spellmans Resubdivision, being a Resubdivision of Lot 4 in the Third Addition to Winwood Estates, a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded December 7, 1966 as Document No. 1324137, in Book 43 of Records, page 66, in Lake County, Illinois.; and That part of Winwood Drive bounded by the above described properties. 101 The City of Lake Forest CITY COUNCIL Proceedings of the Monday November 21, 2016 City Council Meeting - City Council Chambers – 6:30pm CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Honorable Mayor Schoenheider called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm immediately following the Finance Committee meeting, and City Clerk Margaret Boyer called the roll of Council members. Present: Honorable Mayor Schoenheider, Alderman Waldeck, Alderman Beidler, Alderman Pandaleon, Alderman Newman, Alderman Reisenberg, Alderman Adelman and Alderman Moreno. Absent: Alderman Tack Also present were: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director; Victor Filippini, City Attorney; Susan Banks, Communications Manager; Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works; Karl Walldorf, Chief of Police; Pete Siebert, Acting Fire Chief; Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager. There were approximately 20 persons present. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 6:30 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS 1. COMMENTS BY MAYOR Mayor Schoenheider offered congratulations to Elizabeth Holleb and the entire Finance Team. The City of Lake Forest has received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), which is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting and represents a significant achievement. Mayor Schoenheider reported that the City of Lake Forest’s Resolution that was filed asking for additional time was accepted by the Federal Railway Association. The action is the first step in reviewing the Environmental Impact Studies. Mayor Schoenheider then introduced Fire Chief Pete Siebert. A. Railroad Risk Analysis, Safety, and Preparedness -Acting Fire Chief, Pete Siebert At the request of the City Council, Acting Fire Chief Siebert gave an overview of the preparedness of the Lake Forest Fire Department for any disaster, including railways. Chief Siebert reported that through prevention, education and active intervention, the Fire Department stands ready. The City Council had a discussion on the topics of how many trains go through town, new safety standards and resources. Mayor Schoenheider stated that he was speaking for the community, and is grateful to know that the Fire Department is there. 102 Proceedings of the Monday, November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting 2. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER None 3. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS FINANCE COMMITTEE A. Introduction of Gorton Center Executive Director, Amy Wagliardo Finance Committee Chairman George Pandaleon introduced Amy Wagliardo, who began as Gorton’s Executive Director after Brenda Dick’s retirement. She lives in Lake Bluff with her husband and 2 children and was most recently the deputy director of the Midwest Young Artists Conservatory. Amy has almost 20 years of experience in cultural and arts organization management, programming, fundraising, finance, strategic planning along with facility management. Ms. Wagliardo gave an overview of the programs offered at Gorton. B. Gorton Community Center Budget Presentation Finance Committee Chairman George Pandaleon introduced James Morris, who is the City’s representative on the Gorton Board and serves as the Finance Chair. Mr. Morris reviewed the Gorton mission statement, the key 2016 success factors along with the projected top opportunities for Gorton in 2017. Mr. Morris also talked about key budget areas that include: Income: Rental income from tenants Children’s Drop-in Learning Center Programs and Events Contributions and sponsorships Expense: Porter fees, technical fees and general upkeep Children’s Drop-in Learning Center Programs and Events Administration Mr. Morris also reported on a 2016/2017 budget comparison and remarked about the Gorton Maintenance Obligation amount to be included in the annual budget may be modified from the $25,000 per year to a reduction for 2017 be approved to $15,000 based on historical experience, Mr. Morris stated that Gorton has accumulated a maintenance reserve pursuant to the agreement of $18,006 as of December 30, 2015. Mr. Morris stated that it is recommended that this request be granted and can be re-evaluated again in 2018. The City Council had discussion on the 3% of the endowment and budget comparison. Finance Chairman George Pandaleon noted how far Gorton has come since 2010. Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to comment on the topic. Seeing none, he asked for a motion to approve the annual Gorton Budget and Plan. 103 Proceedings of the Monday, November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting COUNCIL ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval, approval with modifications, or rejection of the Gorton Community Center Annual Budget and Plan. If rejected, the Center would be authorized to operate and occupy the property in accordance with the Annual Budget and Plan last approved by the City Council subject to rate adjustments not exceeding the change in the Consumer Price Index. Alderman Beidler made a motion to approve the annual Gorton Budget and Plan as presented, seconded by Alderman Reisenberg. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 7 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. C. Elawa Farm Budget Presentation Finance Committee Chairman George Pandaleon introduced Holly Brown, Chairman of the Elawa Farm Commission. Ms. Brown reported that Elawa had a very successful year with increased usage, ran a successful capitol campaign, and that the Foundation increased its development focus. Ms. Brown then introduced Dianne FitzSimmons, President of the Elawa Farm Foundation. Ms. FitzSimons gave an overview of the 2015/2016 budget and she reviewed the following: 2017 budget highlights: Income increases: 2 Fundraising Events Centennial Celebrations – new sponsorship opportunities Targeted Gift Program Expense increases: Personnel Chef salary has been changed from Contract Services to Personnel Services New position - office support New position - seasonal gardener All around salary increase 2016 potential bonus pay- necessary to stay competitive and grow Ms. FitzSimmons gave an overview of recent projects at the Farm and asked the City Council to consider a committee to look at the successes of both Elawa and the Wildlife Discovery Center and recommend potential use solutions for programs. She also reported that 2017 the Farm will be celebrating its 100th Anniversary. The City Council had discussion on revenue trends. Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone from the Public who would like to comment on the topic. Seeing none, he asked for a motion to approve the annual Elawa Farm Budget and Plan. COUNCIL ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval, approval with modifications, or rejection of the Elawa Farm Annual Budget and Plan. If rejected, the Elawa Farm Foundation would be authorized to operate and occupy the property in accordance with the Annual Budget and Plan last approved by the City Council subject to rate adjustments not exceeding the change in the Consumer Price Index. Alderman Moreno made a motion to approve the annual Elawa Farm Budget and Plan as presented, seconded by Alderman Reisenberg. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, 104 Proceedings of the Monday, November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Newman, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 7 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. Finance Director Elizabeth Holleb thanked the members of the City Council for spending the time to start discussions on 5 year Capitol and Revenues. Ms. Holleb reported that there are a number of items to follow that relate to the discussions of the City Council Budget workshop. D. Consideration of an Ordinance Establishing the 2016 Tax Levy (First Reading) Ms. Holleb reported that the formula used falls under State Statue and is the max levy under the tax cap. Ms. Holleb noted that the Public Safety Pension Fund amount did not increase over the previous year as the fee will be addressed in another item on the agenda. The tax levy to be approved includes the needs of all City departments, as well as for pensions and debt service requirements. A summary of the proposed levies is as follows: The proposed tax levy for 2016 reflects a 1.45% increase over the 2015 tax levy extensions for the City and Library operating funds and City pension and debt service funds. This increase is comprised of the .70% property tax cap increase on those levy lines subject to the tax cap; debt service bond levies as previously approved by City Council bond Ordinances, subject to abatement for debt paid by alternate revenue sources; increases attributable to new construction; and transfer of an $822,000 debt service levy to Capital Improvements due to the recently approved redemption of the 2008 bonds due in December 2017 and later. The average increase to existing residents ($800,000 home) is projected to be $30 or .89%. The City Council had discussion on the County assumptions, County appeals and the City and Library portions of the levy. Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone from the Public who would like to comment on the topic. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. COUNCIL ACTION: Grant first reading of an Ordinance Establishing the 2016 Tax Levy. Proposed FUND 2016 LEVY 2015 Extension $ CHANGE % CHANGE City General 13,913,616$ 13,656,871$ 256,745$ 1.88% Pension Funds 4,775,015 4,763,071 11,944 0.25% Fire Pension PA 93-0689 64,909 56,914 7,995 14.05% Recreation 1,374,740 1,365,183 9,557 0.70% Parks 3,059,904 3,038,634 21,270 0.70% Recreation & Parks/Specific Purpose 125,000 125,000 0 0.00% Special Recreation 440,040 415,059 24,981 6.02% Capital Improvements 822,000 635,000 187,000 29.45% Library 3,570,785 3,526,480 44,305 1.26% Library sites 394,724 391,980 2,744 0.70% Bond Funds 1,415,647 1,554,557 (138,910) -8.94% TOTAL TAX LEVY - CITY 29,956,380$ 29,528,749$ 427,631$ 1.45% 105 Proceedings of the Monday, November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Alderman Pandaleon made a motion to grant first reading of an Ordinance Establishing the 2016 Tax Levy, seconded by Alderman Newman. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 7 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. E. Approval of Ordinances Abating 2016 Tax Levies for Various G.O. Alternate Revenue Bond Issues (First Reading) Finance Director Elizabeth Holleb reported that this item is also related to the property tax levy, the proposed Ordinances provide for the abatement of 2016 taxes levied for the various outstanding general obligation Alternate Revenue bond issues. The tax levies for all bond issues are established and recorded with the County Clerk at the time the bonds are issued. Therefore, in order to reduce the bond tax levies, an abatement ordinance must be approved. The City Council had discussion about adequate revenue sources like water sales, golf fees, sales tax or payments from the U.S. Treasury. Therefore, the general obligation tax levy can be abated as was planned at the time the bonds were issued. Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone from the Public who would like to comment on the topic. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. COUNCIL ACTION: Grant first reading approval of the Ordinances abating tax levies for various general obligation bond issues. Alderman Pandaleon made a motion to grant first reading approval of the Ordinances abating tax levies for various general obligation bond issues, seconded by Alderman Adelman. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 7 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. 2016 Debt Service Levy and Abatements Levy per County TIF Golf Water .5 NHRST Int Rebate Net Levy 2008 822,000.00 822,000.00 2009 278,245.00 278,245.00 2010A 0.00 0.00 2010B 172,500.00 (72,307.00) 100,193.00 2010C 453,973.76 (79,389.80) 374,583.96 2011A 137,787.50 0.00 (137,787.50) 0.00 0.00 2011B 2,703,500.00 (96,967.50) (2,074,602.50) (531,930.00)0.00 2013 435,762.50 435,762.50 2015 468,425.00 (241,562.50)226,862.50 5,472,193.76 0.00 (96,967.50) (2,212,390.00) (531,930.00) (151,696.80) 2,237,646.96 1% L/C 5,526,915.70 Abatement due to 2008 Bond Issue Redemption:(822,000.00) 1,415,646.96 106 Proceedings of the Monday, November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting F. Consideration of an Ordinance approving a Fee Schedule and Ordinances adopting new fees related to Special Events and a Public Safety Pension Fee (First Reading) Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director as part of the budget process, all departments are asked to review their user fees. A comprehensive fee schedule is provided as Exhibit A to the Ordinance approving a fee schedule, which clearly identifies the proposed fee increases highlighted in yellow and the proposed new fees highlighted in orange. Fees highlighted in green are not reflective of changes in existing fees; rather, they are clarifications due to a review of City Code and current practices. Ms. Holleb went on to explain the new fees related to public safety pension obligations. As discussed at the November 14 Finance Committee meeting. The new fee would be assessed on utility bills – separately noted. Residential accounts would be charged $10 fee per quarter and other accounts (commercial/school/multi-family) would be charged $35 fee per quarter, giving the city an estimated annual revenue of $293,620. The City Council had a great deal of discussion on the following topics: the role, findings and recommendation of the Fire 2020 Committee, property tax freeze, investment authority, consolidation, collaboration, future forecasted Police and Fire pension amounts, long and short term potential strategy solutions. Mayor Schoenheider noted that the City of Lake Forest is leading the discussion on this topic and that he is proud of transparency and work that has been put into formulating a solution. Ms. Holleb went on to explain the new water rates as discussed at the November 17 Budget workshop meeting a summary follows, Water Plant Improvements: • Fund Incremental Debt Service above current levels with one-time revenues and fund balance reserves through maturity of existing bonds • Water Rates – Fiscal Year 2018 • Increase fixed rate • Create 3rd Tier for Residential Users • 1st Tier – Household usage – to 10K per quarter – reduced rate • 2nd Tier – Medium usage – over 10k to 60k per quarter • 3rd Tier – Usage over 60k per quarter • Set rates to provide overall projected increase in revenue of 2.5% for FY18, excluding 3rd Tier Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone from the Public who would like to comment on these topics. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. COUNCIL ACTION: Grant first reading to the proposed ordinances. Alderman Pandaleon made a motion to grant first reading to the proposed Ordinances, seconded by Alderman Moreno. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: Alderman Reisenberg. 6 Yeas, 1 Nay, motion carried. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 107 Proceedings of the Monday, November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting A. Consideration of an Ordinance Proposing the Establishment of a Special Service Area for the Installation of a Sanitary Sewer System in the Winwood Drive neighborhood (SSA #41). (First Reading and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval) Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager reported that staff is requesting first reading and final approval for the Ordinance proposing a special service area No. 41 for the Winwood Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project. Over the past several years, City Staff has received input from residents in the Regency Lane and Winwood Drive neighborhoods who have suggested that the installation of sanitary sewers would benefit the neighborhood and replace outdated septic systems. Since this type of infrastructure improvement project can be expensive, the City has traditionally utilized a Special Service Area as a funding mechanism to pay for this type of improvement. The Winwood Drive area has twenty-eight (28) properties that have been on a septic system since the subdivision was built in 1950. The Committee has discussed the topic of sewer installation in the remaining areas and established a policy in March 2015, to convert them to City-owned and maintained sanitary sewers. City staff has met with the neighbors on two occasions to discuss the project. During the recent meeting held on October 13, 2016, staff provided an overview of the final project design, discussed construction related concerns, and presented preliminary project costs. Mr. Strong gave an overview of the design costs and costs not associated with the tax. The City Council had discussion on the number of meetings held for the Winwood residents and how many people attended. Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone from the Public who would like to comment on these topics. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. COUNCIL ACTION: Grant first reading and final approval for the Ordinance proposing the Establishment of a Special Service Area for the Installation of a Sanitary Sewer System in the Winwood Drive Neighborhood (SSA #41) Alderman Pandaleon made a motion to grant first reading and final approval for the Ordinance proposing the Establishment of a Special Service Area for the Installation of a Sanitary Sewer System in the Winwood Drive Neighborhood (SSA #41), seconded by Alderman Waldeck. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 7 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None ITEMS FOR OMNIBUS VOTE CONSIDERATION 1. Approval of the November 7, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes 2. Approval of One Year Contract with Credentials Inc. 3. Request for the City Council to approve additional funding in the amount of $1,264 to CDS Office Technologies to complete the PSB camera project. 108 Proceedings of the Monday, November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting 4. Approval of Health Insurance Contract Renewals 5. Approval of an Agreement to Provide Design Drawings and Specifications for the Repair of Ferry Hall Bridge 6. Approval of an Agreement to Provide a Forest Park Bluff Restoration Feasibility Study for the Area Near Spring Lane to the North Beach Access Road COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the Six (6) Omnibus items as presented Mayor Schoenheider asked members of the Council if they would like to remove any item or take it separately. After discussion, the City Council removed item #6 and asked that the City Staff provide information from one more or additional engineering firms. Mayor Schoenheider asked for a motion to approve the remaining five Omnibus items as presented. Alderman Beidler made a motion to approve the six Omnibus items as presented, seconded by Alderman Reisenberg. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 7 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. Information such as Purpose and Action Requested, Background/Discussion, Budget/Fiscal Impact, Recommended Action and a Staff Contact as it relates to the Omnibus items can be found on the agenda. ORDINANCES ORDINANCES AFFECTING CODE AMENDMENTS NEW BUSINESS 1. Presentation of the Findings of the 2016 Community-Wide Survey by National Research Center, Inc. Susan Banks, Communications Manager reported that on June 20, 2016, the City approved a contract to engage National Research Center (NRC) to conduct the project. Surveys were mailed to all households and P.O. boxes in Lake Forest on September 9, 2016 and the link was posted online. Surveys that were completed in hard copy were returned to NRC’s distribution center in New Jersey to ensure privacy and complete anonymity. Residents had until October 17 to complete the survey. Ms. Banks stated that the data we have received will be used to help develop the City’s marketing campaign and to outline priorities to be considered at the City Council’s Strategic Planning Sessions to be held this winter. She also reported that the survey resulted in a 30% response rate, compared to 20% when the City last conducted a community-wide survey in 2011. Ms. Banks then introduced Morgan Adams from the National Research Center who gave an overview of the final results to the City Council that included a 93% rating of excellent/good for high quality of life and a 98% rating of feeling safe in the community. The City Council had discussion on Schools used in the survey. 109 Proceedings of the Monday, November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting COUNCIL ACTION: Review the findings of the survey and direct staff to publicize the findings and take action as needed. Mayor Schoenheider thanked the Communications Manager along with all the residents who took to the time to take the survey. 2. Consideration of a Resolution Ratifying and Authorizing a Winter Market pilot event within the West Train Station Depot Building at 911 Telegraph Road (Approval by Motion) Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager reported that this past fall the City received a request to hold an indoor Farmers’ Market in the public waiting room of the City-owned Telegraph Road Train Station located at 911 Telegraph Road. On November 6, 2016, City staff authorized a pilot Market to test the concept in the space and in recognition of the fact that organizers had already publicized the event. A second Market day is proposed as part of a pilot to allow for review of any potential impacts on commuter use of the station, operational costs incurred by the City as a result of the Market and any health or safety issues. The second Market, if approved by the Council, would occur on December 4, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Mr. Strong reported that with the information from the two pilot Markets, an ordinance to authorize the Market going forward as a Temporary Special Use will be drafted for Council consideration in the future. The City Council had a lengthy discussion on sales tax, health licenses, liability insurance, and qualifications of event coordinators, merchant types, impact on brick and mortar merchants within the community and the lack of following the City’s processes. COUNCIL ACTION: By motion, approve a Resolution ratifying and authorizing a winter market pilot event within the west train station depot building at 911 Telegraph Road. Alderman Beidler made a motion to approve a Resolution ratifying and authorizing a winter market pilot event within the west train station depot building at 911 Telegraph Road, seconded by Alderman Reisenberg. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 7 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT There being no further business. Alderman Newman made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Alderman Adelman. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Margaret Boyer City Clerk 110 Proceedings of the Monday, November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting A video of the City Council meeting is available for viewing at the Lake Forest Library and on file in the Clerk’s office at City Hall. You can also view it on the website by visiting www.cityoflakeforest.com. Click on I Want To, then click on View, then choose Archived Meetings Videos. 111 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 16-___ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2015-58, BEING AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 40 (Regency Lane Area Sewer Improvement Project) BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, as follows: Section 1. Authority. Pursuant to Article VII, Section 7(6) of the Constitution of the State of Illinois and the provisions of the Illinois Special Service Area Tax Law, 35 ILCS 200/27-5, et seq. (the “Act”), The City of Lake Forest (the "City") has authority to establish special service areas for the provision of special governmental services in portions of the City and to levy or impose a special tax and to issue bonds for the provision of such special services. Section 2. Findings. (a) The question of establishment of the area hereinafter described as a special service area was initiated by the Mayor and City Council of the City pursuant to “An Ordinance Proposing the Establishment of the Lake Forest Special Service Area No. 40 (Regency Lane Area Sewer Improvement Project)” being Ordinance No. 2015-42, adopted on August 3, 2015. The establishment of the Area was considered at a public hearing on August 17, 2015. Said hearing was held pursuant to notice duly published in the Lake County News Sun, a newspaper of general circulation within the City, on July 31, 2015, and mailed in accordance with the requirements of the Act. (b) The Mayor and City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2015-58, An Ordinance Establishing the Lake Forest Special Service Area 40 (Regency Lane Area Sewer Improvement Project) (the “Establishing Ordinance”) on October 19, 2015 pursuant to which the Lake Forest 112 Special Service Area 40 (Regency Lane Area Sewer Improvement Project) ("SSA #40") was established consisting of certain contiguous territory legally described in and depicted on Exhibits A and D, respectively, of the Establishment Ordinance (the "Area"). The Establishing Ordinance provided that the cost of the sewer improvements (the "Special Services") would be paid pursuant to special service area taxes (the "SSA Taxes") that would be levied based upon equal apportionments among the 15 developable lots within the Area. (c) In lieu of issuing bonds for the cost of the Special Services to the Area, the City has advanced the cost of such Special Services from its fund reserves (the "Advances"), and the SSA Taxes will be applied to repaying the Advances by the City to the Area. (d) The Establishing Ordinance provided an option for the prepayment of SSA Taxes and that, to the extent any prepayments are made, the annual levy of SSA Taxes would be reduced proportionately, and the properties against which the SSA Taxes will be levied shall exclude any prepaying lot. The City Council was authorized, without further notice or hearing, to amend the SSA Tax Roll to reflect any prepayment of SSA Taxes. Since the adoption of the Establishing Ordinance, final costs have been calculated and the City has received payment in full from one of the residential lots in the Area of the SSA Taxes allocable to such lot (the "Prepaying Lot"), and therefore the remainder of the cost of the Special Services and payment of the remaining SSA Taxes to repay the Advances will be divided based upon the equal apportionment of costs to the other 14 developable lots within the Area. Section 3. Amendment to Establishing Ordinance. (a) In light of the calculation of the final costs and the prepayment from the Prepaying Lot, the SSA Tax Roll for SSA #40 is hereby amended pursuant to Exhibit A attached hereto. 113 (b) The City may further amend the Establishing Ordinance without notice or hearing to cure any defects or as may otherwise be necessary to ensure the accurate levy of SSA Taxes. Any other amendment to the Establishing Ordinance shall be subject to the notice and other requirements of the Act. Section 4. Supersede Conflicting Ordinance. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law and its recordation in the Office of the Lake County Recorder. PASSED this ______ day of ____________, 2016 Voting Aye (list names): Voting Nay (list names): Abstaining (list names): Absent (list names): APPROVED this _____ day of _____________, 2016 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Published in pamphlet form _________________, 2016 114 EXHIBIT A Special Tax Roll Dated December 5, 2016 115 AMENDED 12/5/16 Address/PIN 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 1 12-19-300-002 1590 N. Waukegan Road 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 2 12-19-405-003 0 Waukegan Road 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3 12-19-405-005 0 Waukegan Road 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 4 12-19-405-006 0 Waukegan Road 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 5 12-30-100-003* 1570 N. Waukegan Road 3,926.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 12-30-200-001 1566 N. Waukegan Road 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 7 12-30-200-003 1540 N. Waukegan Road 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 8 12-30-201-001 1200 Regency Lane 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 9 12-30-201-002 1160 Regency Lane 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 10 12-30-201-003 1120 Regency Lane 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 11 12-30-201-004 1100 Regency Lane 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 12 12-30-201-005 1504 N. Waukegan Road 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 13 12-30-201-021 1500 N. Waukegan Road 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 14 12-30-201-018 1502 N. Waukegan Road 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 15 12-30-201-023 1500 N. Waukegan Road 3,926.67 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 * Prepaid Years 2-20 58,900.05 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 (continued) THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS Special Service Area No. 40 (Regency Lane Sanitary Sewer System) - Special Tax Roll (Includes annual principal and interest) LEVY YEAR (in $) 116 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS Special Service Area No. 40 (Regency Lane Sanitary Sewer System) - Special Tax Roll (Includes annual principal and interest) AMENDED 12/5/16 Address/PIN 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 TOTAL 1 12-19-300-002 1590 N. Waukegan Road 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 2 12-19-405-003 0 Waukegan Road 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 3 12-19-405-005 0 Waukegan Road 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 4 12-19-405-006 0 Waukegan Road 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 5 12-30-100-003* 1570 N. Waukegan Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,926.67 6 12-30-200-001 1566 N. Waukegan Road 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 7 12-30-200-003 1540 N. Waukegan Road 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 8 12-30-201-001 1200 Regency Lane 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 9 12-30-201-002 1160 Regency Lane 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 10 12-30-201-003 1120 Regency Lane 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 11 12-30-201-004 1100 Regency Lane 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 12 12-30-201-005 1504 N. Waukegan Road 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 13 12-30-201-021 1500 N. Waukegan Road 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 14 12-30-201-018 1502 N. Waukegan Road 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 15 12-30-201-023 1500 N. Waukegan Road 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 3,897.49 77,978.98 * Prepaid Years 2-20 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 54,564.86 1,095,632.39 LEVY YEAR (in $) 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 AECOM 750 Corporate Woods Parkway, Vernon Hills, Illinois 60061 T 847.279.2500 F 847.279.2510 K:\PROJECTS\60101412\R60101412_Lake_Forest_Stability_110309.docx November 3, 2009 Sent via E-mail (magnusk@cityoflakeforest.com) and U.S. Mail Mr. Kenneth M. Magnus, P.E. City of Lake Forest 110 E. Laurel Avenue Lake Forest, IL 60045 RE:FINAL - Subsurface Exploration and Bluff Stability Analysis for the Forest Park Beach Access Road, Lake Forest, Illinois - AECOM Project No. 60101412 Dear Mr. Magnus: In accordance with your authorization, AECOM has completed the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and bluff/ravine stability evaluation for Forest Park Beach Access Road where some settling of the curb and roadway has been noted. PROJECT DESCRIPTION From our conversations with you and our site visits, we understand that a portion of the Forest Park Beach Access Road is experiencing distress. This distress has manifested in settling and cracking of the roadways, washing out of the subbase materials from underneath the roadway and general shallow slips and failures of the adjacent ravine and bluff slopes. The area of distress is located around the catch basin inlet at an approximate elevation of 624 feet USGS. It is our understanding that the access roadway was regraded and repaved as part of an extensive shoreline restoration project that was performed in 1986. The road has undergone improvements over the years including installation of a small diameter water supply pipe a number of years ago on the east side of the road. The upper portion of the access roadway has experienced settling and apparent erosion at a saddle in the roadway which contains catch basins for runoff. This settlement has been addressed in the recent past by pumping grout under the road in an effort to maintain the road profile. This portion of the roadway is 16 ft wide and is the crest of land between the Lake Michigan bluff to the east and a ravine immediately to the west. The roadway has no shoulder and the land falls away from both curbs. Settlement of the road and curb has opened up cracks near the catch basin inlet that allow stormwater to have direct access to the road subgrade in places. This water appears to have direct access to the sub soils that are adjacent to the road. The catch basin structures are exposed and are partially supporting the roadbed possibly resulting in leakage at joints. SCOPE OF SERVICES AECOM has prepared this report to present the results of our field and laboratory testing programs, to present the results of the slope stability analyses performed, to provide our recommendations regarding ravine and bluff stability and to provide recommendations for options to address the apparent failing roadway. The options presented are conceptual in nature only. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Subsurface Exploration Two (2) soil borings were performed near the existing catch basins where the most pavement distress was noted. One boring (B-101) was performed on the side slope of the bluff to a depth of 12 feet using hand augering 126 Page 2 of 8 K:\PROJECTS\60101412\R60101412_Lake_Forest_Stability_110309.docx methods. The other boring (B-102) was performed on the roadway surface with a truck-mounted drilling rig to a depth of 61.5 feet. The borings were performed by Subsurface Exploration, Inc. (SEI), a subsidiary drilling company of AECOM. The boring locations were selected and marked in the field by AECOM. The boring locations are shown on the Soil Boring Location Diagram included in the Attachments to this report. Generally, representative soil samples were obtained at a 2.5 foot interval to a depth of 20 feet below existing grade and at a 5 foot interval thereafter. The samples were typically taken utilizing Shelby tube sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM Standard D-1587 and with a split-barrel sampler in accordance with ASTM Standard D-1586. Three inch diameter Shelby tubes were utilized for selected samples to obtain better quality undisturbed samples for subsequent laboratory triaxial testing. Only relatively disturbed split-barrel samples were obtained from the hand auger soil boring. All recovered soil samples were logged in the field, labeled, sealed and returned to our Vernon Hills, Illinois laboratory for further examination and testing. During the field operations, the drill crew maintained a representative log of the subsurface conditions including changes in the stratigraphy and level of free groundwater. The deeper boring was backfilled with tremie placed cement-bentonite grout and the hand auger boring was backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips upon completion for safety and environmental reasons. Laboratory Testing Program The laboratory testing program included visual classification and moisture content testing of all obtained samples. Samples of cohesive soil were also tested for unconfined compressive strength utilizing a hand penetrometer. Selected clay samples were also tested for dry density and unconfined compressive strength in general accordance with ASTM D-2217. All data obtained from the laboratory tests are shown on the attached boring logs. In addition to the routine laboratory index testing, an isotropically consolidated, undrained triaxial shear test with pore pressure measurements was conducted. The purpose of the triaxial testing was to determine the long term drained friction angle and drained cohesion of the bluff and ravine slope material. Complete results of the triaxial testing are included in the Attachments of this report. Each soil sample was classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the AECOM Soil Classification System which is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. The estimated group symbol for each soil type is indicated in parentheses following the written soil descriptions on the boring log. A brief explanation of the AECOM Soil Classification System in addition to the sheet entitled “AECOM Standard Boring Log Procedures” are attached. All soil samples will be retained in our Vernon Hills, Illinois laboratory for a minimum period of 60 days after which they will be discarded unless other arrangements are made. EXPLORATION RESULTS Site Conditions An AECOM engineer visited the site to observe the condition of the bluff and ravine slopes. These observations included walking along the roadway surface, traversing portions of the bluff and ravine slope and walking along the base of the ravine. A view of the existing roadway is shown in Photo 1. This photo is looking approximately south or towards the downslope direction of the roadway from the bluff surface. A view of the exposed side face of the catch basins is visible as is the developing surficial slide of fill materials along the side of the roadway in the foreground of the surface. 127 Page 3 of 8 K:\PROJECTS\60101412\R60101412_Lake_Forest_Stability_110309.docx The developing void space underneath the existing roadway surface between the catch basins on the east side of the roadway is shown in Photo 2. A view of the trees on the bluff surface adjacent to the catch basins on the east side are shown in Photo 3. Note the relatively severe lean towards downslope. Other aged trees showed severe downslope bowing which is an indicator of long-term slope creep. Surface erosion protection installed on the ravine side of the roadway is shown in Photo 4. The erosion protection consists of interlocking geo-webs with cellular space of approximately 9 to 12 inches square and 6 inches deep. The webs are secured to the ravine surface with stakes. Some areas showed that the material within the webs had been entirely eroded or the webs came up out of the ground surface. Additionally, the webs were stretched is some areas, likely beyond that from which they were installed. This is shown in Photo 5. Photo 6 shows the condition at the base of the ravine west of the roadway. Of note is the absence of scarps or developing scarps at the toe of the ravine, which is favorable to the overall stability of the ravine. However, the toe of the ravine is relatively clogged with fallen trees and apparently natural debris. Further downstream of the ravine is the existing 21-inch sanitary sewer which is apparently supported on a helical type foundation system. Further downstream of the area directly in question, erosion scarps have been rehabilitated with gabion retaining walls shown in Photo 7. Based on the topographic drawing provided to us, the bluff surface on the east side of the road is sloped at approximately 2 Horizontal : 1 Vertical adjacent to the area of pavement distress. Along the roadway surface, the bluff slope varies from approximately 1.5 to 2.1 Horizontal : 1 Vertical. The ravine surface is somewhat steeper at 1.7 to 1.8 Horizontal : 1 Vertical Soil Conditions The specific soil conditions encountered at the boring locations are indicated on the respective boring logs and are summarized below: Pavement Section – At boring B-102 performed within the roadway, the boring encountered approximately 11 inches of bituminous concrete asphalt pavement. This was underlain by a sand and gravel base course to approximately 2 feet below the ground surface. These layers were somewhat visible to observation due to the undermining of the pavement surface in between the catch basins on the east side of the roadway. Fill or Possible Fill Materials – Fill materials were encountered at the two boring locations to elevations of approximately 632 to 638. The deeper fill thickness was encountered at B-101 somewhat on the side slope of the roadway surface. This may be a result of previous grading for the existing roadway surface. The fills primarily consisted of silty clay with some occasional gravel and debris (i.e. wood, asphalt and concrete fragments) intermixed. The fill soils were generally brown to dark brown and stiff to very stiff in consistency. Brown Silty Clay Till – Underlying the pavement and fill deposits, the soil borings encountered native, brown, very stiff to hard silty clay. Gray Silty Clay Till – The brown clay till layer gradually transitioned from brownish gray to grayish brown to gray. This transition occurs at approximate elevation 625. In general, the consistency of the gray clay till ranged from stiff to very stiff with some zones of hard silty clay noted. Variations to the above general profile were noted. We refer you to the individual boring logs, attached, for specific information at the boring locations. It should be noted that the stratification lines indicated on the boring logs were selected on the basis of laboratory tests, field logs and visual observations of the recovered soil samples. Therefore, the stratification lines that occur on the boring logs are, in some cases, estimated; in-situ, the transition between soil types in both the horizontal and vertical directions may be gradual. 128 Page 4 of 8 K:\PROJECTS\60101412\R60101412_Lake_Forest_Stability_110309.docx Groundwater Conditions Borings B-101 and B-102 were noted to be dry at least in the upper 15 feet prior to the introduction of drilling fluid to advance the soil boring. Based upon this information as well as the change in soil color from brown to gray at a depth of approximately 17 feet, we estimate that the water table level at the time the borings were performed was between El. 625 feet USGS. Since water was not observed leaching onto the slope surface, we estimate that the water table roughly parallels the slope surface until reaching the toe of the bluff and ravine. Fluctuations in the level of the groundwater table should be expected to occur throughout the years and seasons depending upon the amount of precipitation, evaporation and surface runoff. Soil Strength The results of the triaxial tests are included in the Appendix of this report. Three (3) tests were performed with confining pressures varying from 0.25 to 2.0 ton per square foot (tsf) to be representative of the 40 to 50 foot high slopes. The tests performed were combined to provide a Mohr envelope from which the drained friction angle and cohesion intercept were determined for long term conditions. The friction angle was measured to be 32.5 degrees and the cohesion was measured to be 460 pounds per square foot (psf). The moist density of the soil varied from approximately 136 to 147 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Triaxial testing was performed on material considered to be representative of the upper native, brown, very stiff to hard silty clay layer. Parameters for the lower gray clay and fill were were estimated based upon similar triaxial test results which had been performed by AECOM at other additional North Shore ravine properties. Thus, the upper brown hard clay was modeled with no cohesion, (C=0 psf) and a drained friction angle of 32.5 degrees. No cohesion was taken into account, due to the possibility of weathering of the clay over time and the freeze/thaw effects. The stiff to hard gray silty clay encountered below a depth of 17.5 feet within the borings was modeled with a conservative cohesion of 300 psf and a drained friction angle of 30 degrees. The idealized soil profile and material properties selected for the slope stability analyses are shown on the attached Figure 2. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Slope Stability Analysis Based upon the provided topography, the section shown on Figure 1 was selected for analysis. This section is generally the steepest in the vicinity of the pavement distress. However, there are localized steeper slopes at the site in general both to the north of the catch basins and to the south along the lower reaches of the roadway. Those sections were not analyzed. A Morgenstern-Price slope stability analysis was performed using the SLOPE/W computer program. The computer program analyzed circular sections with a search technique which allows the most critical failure section to be determined. These analyses were performed for the existing slope condition. Slope Stability Analysis The results of slope stability analyses for the existing condition are summarized in Table 1 and representative plots are included in the Appendix. The analysis was performed for both the ravine slope and the bluff slopes. The analyses were performed forcing the slip circle to minimum depths below the ground surface. In general, as can be seen below, the most critical case is where the slip circle is allowed to be nearest to the ground surface which allows for shallow slip circles. As the slip circles are progressively forced to be deeper the factor of safety increases. Since factors of safety below 1.0 indicate instability, shallow, erosive type stability failures are predicted for the slope under the current conditions. These failures were modeled based on the assumption that the upper surficial 129 Page 5 of 8 K:\PROJECTS\60101412\R60101412_Lake_Forest_Stability_110309.docx ravine material has no cohesion. This is a realistic condition since even very stiff to hard cohesive clays lose their cohesion over a long period of time when exposed to weathering and the freeze-thaw cycle. For the existing conditions, deeper sliding circles were also investigated which show that the factor of safety against slope failure increases as the slip circles extend deeper into the ravine. Case 3 and 6 in the Appendix shows a factor of safety of 1.3 and 1.4 for a slip circle which should extend approximately 10 feet into the ravine and bluff, respectively. AECOM typically recommends a minimum factor of safety of 1.3 for deep-seated natural ravine slopes adjacent to buildings or structures which could be impacted by the slopes. In addition to the current condition, we also modeled the case where the water table in the bluff rises to near the base of the pavement as a result of water leakage through the pavement, over-topping of the curb or failure of the storm sewer. For this case, the existing factors of safety drop to as low as 0.6 and deep seated failures are likely. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABLITY ANALYSIS Number Case Factor of Safety 1 Ravine - Existing slope, Failure >= 1 ft. 1.0 2 Ravine - Existing slope, Failure >= 5 ft. 1.1 3 Ravine - Existing slope, Failure >= 10ft. 1.3 4 Bluff – Existing slope, Failure >= 1 ft. 1.1 5 Bluff – Existing slope, Failure >= 5 ft. 1.2 6 Bluff – Existing slope, Failure >= 10 ft. 1.4 Summary plots of the different failure cases are included in the Appendix. Discussion The slope stability analyses indicated that the bluff and ravine slopes are marginally stable for the existing condition with factors of safety as low as 1.0 at the location of distress. The lowest factors of safety are indicated for shallow sliding surfaces (infinite slope-type failures) which result in long-term creep of the bluff and ravine slopes as observed at the site. We believe the specific distress at the location of the catch basins is a result of the construction of the catch basins and piping in the saddle area. As the slopes creep and the bluff slumps, the roadway settles naturally with the bluff. However, at the location of the catch basins which extend to approximately eight feet below grade into the stable bluff material, the catch basins are actually supporting the road surface like foundation piles. This support at the catch basin location has prevented this small portion of the road from settling, while the adjacent roadway continues to settle with the bluff creep. This results in the pavement distress and cracking, possible catch basin or storm sewer cracking and the resulting inundation of the subgrade with water which has eroded the base material. The greater long-term danger in the condition at the saddle is that breaks in the pavement or piping could cause saturation of the bluff at this location. Stability analyses show that if the water level in the bluff material rises to the base of the roadway, the factor of safety of the marginally safe slope at 1.0 drops to 0.6 and much deeper and larger portions of the slope will be predicted to fail. 130 Page 6 of 8 K:\PROJECTS\60101412\R60101412_Lake_Forest_Stability_110309.docx We have noted that other portions of the slope away from the catch basins are steeper and would result in lower factors of safety (presumably below 1.0). These areas south of the catch basins, however, do not appear distressed currently, but will continue to creep in the long term. North of the catch basins a scarp is present at a locally steep portion of the bluff. This scarp appears to be a manifestation of the accumulating creep but is far enough away from the catch basins that it is not affected by the catch basins or possible water inundation. Conceptual Design Recommendations Based on the previous discussion a number of remediation options are available to Lake Forest depending on the long-term goals, risk tolerance and available capital and maintenance budgets. We recommend several possible options for further study in ascending order of cost but descending order of risk. Revise Catch Basins and Maintain Existing Condition The cheapest short-term option with the greatest risk is to maintain the roadway in the existing condition with some revisions to the catch basin and piping system. In this option, we recommend removal of the deep catch basins and replacement with shallow structures which extend no more than 2 feet below grade. The catch basins could collect to a manhole placed down slope and outside the pavement. An HDPE manhole with flexible telescoping connections would be recommended. This manhole could connect to the existing down slope ravine discharge pipe. The intention of this repair is to remove the deeper catch basins and piping and create a system which could handle the storm water while essentially floating on the surface of the bluff. This system should be less susceptible to pavement cracking and possible storm sewer and catch basin distress since the system would be designed to settle with the bluff as the bluff continues to creep. As part of this remediation, two feet of the existing roadbed could be removed in the saddle area and be replaced with flowable fill (low strength concrete) which would not erode in the future if water still eventually penetrates the pavement. The continued risk in this system is that overtopping of the curb, failure of the piping system, or continued water inundation into the subgrade through pavement cracks could result in a future slide failure. Also, the pavement would continue to be subject to the creep movements occurring on the bluff which typically results in pavement splitting cracks over time. Rough estimated cost for this option would be on the order of $50,000. Regrading Roadway Long-term performance of the roadway would be improved greatly and the possibility of bluff failure would be reduced greatly if the catch basin system and the saddle in the roadway can be removed. This would eliminate the differential movement between the bluff and the catch basins and remove the possibility of water inundation in this area. In this alternative, the roadway would no longer include a dip at the inlet, but would instead slope down continuously from the inlets to match the existing grade. The down-slope grade should be at least a 0.75% slope but more preferably a 1% slope. This would result in a maximum cut of approximately 3.5 feet and would extend a distance of approximately 350 to 400 feet. Down-cutting the top of the bluff would have the added benefit of increasing the slope stability of the bluff in the area of the soil removal. While complete removal of the saddle and inlets would be preferable, additional studies would be necessary to determine whether this option would be feasible. It is also possible to combine the regrading option with the redesign of the catch basins as discussed above. In this way, more of the water could be sent down-road or the possibility of curb over-topping could be eliminated even if the saddle is partially maintained. This alternative would help to reduce the amount of water infiltration that could be affecting slope degradation at this particular location. However, the effects of continual slope creep and movement could still affect the roadway and drainage system at this location. Additional surface slope stabilization measures may be required to maintain the slopes to help reduce the effect of erosion. 131 Page 7 of 8 K:\PROJECTS\60101412\R60101412_Lake_Forest_Stability_110309.docx Rough estimated costs for this option would be on the order of $100,000 to $150,000. Retaining Walls To provide for a more effective measure of protection against slope instability, retaining walls may be considered near the inlet location. These walls could serve to maintain the road and subgrade and to provide an increase in the stability of the roadway against shallow slope failures. These walls would need to be installed on both sides of the roadway and likely extend approximately 50 feet upslope and downslope from the existing catch basins. Typically we recommend that retaining walls such as these extend to at least below a line which extends from the toe of the bluff at a slope of 2.5 Horizontal : 1 Vertical. Based on the provided topographic map, assuming the toe of the bluff slope is at an elevation of 590 feet USGS, the retaining wall would need to extend to approximate elevation 628 feet USGS, which is currently approximately 14 feet below the existing ground surface. We believe the simplest and fastest wall to construct would be a driven interlocking steel sheet pile (SSP) type wall. The SSP wall could relatively easily be extended to the proposed depth and provide an effective means for stabilization of the roadway against further slope degradation in this area. The walls on opposite sides of the roadway would be tied together with anchor rods. The walls would eliminate the long-term creep effect in the area of the walls, prevent wash-out of subbase material and provide a redundant drainage path for water which might infiltrate through the pavement. With this solution, we would recommend up to 5 ft of existing material near the inlets be removed and be replaced with free-draining granular fill. This drainage provided along the interior of the wall would manage any water that may infiltrate through the pavement and would reduce hydrostatic pressures on the wall. The existing catch basins and piping would be replaced or be reused depending on its condition. Secondary drain lines would be placed behind the retaining walls to collect any seepage into the granular fill. These drain lines would be connected into the storm sewer. Any earth retention system should be designed based on appropriate loads by an Illinois licensed structural engineer. Based on our experience with typical North Shore retaining walls, such as these, a rough cost estimate, would be approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per foot of wall. Based on the estimated length, a total estimated cost could be on the order of $500,000. Slope Remediation and Maintenance The retention structures discussed above would support the upper surface of the bluff, ravine and roadway. However, the retention walls will not prevent shallow erosion failures occurring at the base of the retention wall or at the base of the slopes. Thus, as erosion and creep continues below the wall, small slides which propagate up from the toe of the slopes to the base of the wall could ultimately result in the loss of passive pressure in the long term. Thus, remediation of the slope below the proposed retaining walls may be required in the future to maintain an adequate factor of safety. Proper drainage of the proposed improvements is essential to ensure that retention walls and pavement surfaces are not undermined. For collection of the surface water at the current inlet, proper design and maintenance of the catch basins to ensure that they are not plugged and are adequate to handle to flow will be essential in this regard. If the area floods and the water overflows the bluff and ravine slopes in an unchecked manner, significant erosion could occur in a short period of time. Additional good management practices should be followed by the City of Lake Forest to minimize future erosion of the slope. These include planting bushes or grasses on areas where the slope is or becomes eroded. Also, any dumping leaves or other landscaping rubbish on the slope should be prohibited. Blanketing the slope in debris causes the existing vegetation to be choked off which can result in increased erosion. Any new site grading on the ravine slope should be immediately covered with a properly staked erosion control mat and seeding. 132 133 134 135 12.0 * 70 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS * Sample 2: Wood or roots noted. Petroleum odor noted. Fill: Sandy clay, little silt, fine to coarse gravel, trace concrete and brick fragments - brown - hard (CL) AECOM OFFICE * 54 22 11 13 68 * 12.0 8.0 4.5 4.0 ** Silty clay, trace fine gravel, fine to coarse sand and shale - brown - very stiff (CL) 6 5 4 3A 3 2 1 * ** * SURFACE ELEVATION +639.5 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER B-101 10 20 30 40 50 CLIENT 1 WL WL WL RECOVERYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT.2 PROJECT NAME Fill: Fine to coarse gravel, little silt, clay and fine to coarse sand - gray - medium dense - moist (GP-GM) Note: Bituminous concrete, concrete and limestone fragments LJS ENTERED BY BORING STARTED 7/30/09 7/30/09Dry WD The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual. 1 RIG/FOREMAN 60101412AECOM LOG 60101412.GPJ FS_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 11/3/09SHEET NO.BORING COMPLETED APP'D BY OF Hand Auger/McCarthy RCR Chicago Area - 01 AECOM JOB NO.SAMPLE DISTANCEDESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/(FT)ELEVATION(FT)12345 City of Lake Forest 5.0 10.0 SITE LOCATION End of Boring Borehole backfilled upon completion.DEPTH(FT)SAMPLE TYPELOG OF BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NO.PLASTIC LIMIT % LIQUID LIMIT %UNIT DRY WT.LBS./FT.3Fill: Silty clay, little fine to coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel - brown to dark brown - very stiff to stiff (CL) Beach Access Road, Lake Forest, Illinois Beach Access Road Stability 10 20 30 40 50 89 lb hammer falling 11 inches Calibrated Penetrometer 136 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1A PA SS SS SS PA SS PA 3 2 1 PA ST3 AECOM JOB NO. ST3 ST3 SS RB ST RB SS RB RB SS RB ST/SS * * ** * * ** * ** * * 0.9 2.0 5.0 17.5SAMPLE NO.LOG OF BORING NUMBER PROJECT NAME UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT.2 Beach Access Road, Lake Forest, Illinois PLASTIC LIMIT %SAMPLE TYPELIQUID LIMIT % Beach Access Road Stability *RECOVERYOF 2 . . . continued The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual.60101412 CLIENT B-102 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SURFACE ELEVATION +642.9 AECOM LOG 60101412.GPJ FS_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 11/3/09SHEET NO. 1 10 20 30 40 50 No recovery from 20 to 21.5 feet after two attempts. 10 20 30 40 50 4 12345 11 inches bituminous concrete Fill: Gravelly fine to coarse sand, little silt - gray - loose - moist (SP-SM) Possible Fill: Silty clay, trace fine gravel, fine to coarse sand and shale - brown - stiff to very stiff (CL) Silty clay, trace fine gravel, fine to coarse sand and shale - brown to grayish brown - very stiff to hard (CL) 3 4 6 22 23 Sample 9: No recovery with Shelby tube. Recovered disturbed sample with split spoon. 21 16 120 119 123 115 Silty clay, trace fine gravel, fine to coarse sand and shale - brownish gray to gray - hard to stiff (CL)ELEVATION(FT)STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/(FT)DEPTH(FT)DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL UNIT DRY WT.LBS./FT.3WATER CONTENT % SITE LOCATION 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 City of Lake Forest SAMPLE DISTANCECalibrated Penetrometer 137 SS SS RB ST RB SS RB RB RB ST3 16 15 14 13 12 11 * ST AECOM OFFICE 119 115 43 23 30 61.5 ** ** ** * ** 7.5 61.5 AECOM LOG 60101412.GPJ FS_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 11/3/09SURFACE ELEVATION +642.9 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER B-102 10 20 30 40 50 WL WL WL CLIENT RECOVERYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT.2 PROJECT NAME SHEET NO. LJS ENTERED BY BORING STARTED 7/30/09 7/30/09Dry to 15 ft. WD 18 ft. BCR 14 ft. ACR The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual. 2 RIG/FOREMAN 2 BORING COMPLETED APP'D BY OF Rotary Auger/RCR Chicago Area - 01 AECOM JOB NO. 60101412UNIT DRY WT.LBS./FT.3DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL WATER CONTENT % (Continued) 12345 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 Silty clay, trace fine gravel, fine to coarse sand and shale - brownish gray to gray - hard to stiff (CL) End of Boring Borehole grouted upon completion. Casing used: 10 ft. of 4" Automatic-Dietrich hammer used for Standard Penetration Tests. SITE LOCATION City of Lake Forest SAMPLE DISTANCEDEPTH(FT)ELEVATION(FT)STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/(FT) PLASTIC LIMIT % LOG OF BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE TYPEBeach Access Road, Lake Forest, Illinois Beach Access Road Stability 10 20 30 40 50 LIQUID LIMIT % Calibrated Penetrometer 138 Brown Silty Clay (CL) Clay Fill 300 psfGray Silty Clay (CL) Soil TypeLake Forest Beach Access RoadAECOM Project #60101412Analysis: RCRDate: 11/3/2009soil profile.gszFIGURE 2 - TYPICAL SOIL PROFILEUnit Weight (pcf)c (psf)Clay FillBrown Silty Clay (CL)Gray Silty Clay (CL)120 pcf 0 psf30 °135 pcf 0 psf32.5 °130 pcf 300 psf30 °Distance (ft.)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200550560570580590600610620630640650660Elevation 550560570580590600610620630640650660139 1.0Brown Silty Clay (CL) Clay Fill 300 psfGray Silty Clay (CL) Soil TypeLake Forest Beach Access RoadAECOM Project #60101412Analysis: RCRDate: 11/3/2009_1ft.gszRavine1 ft. Deep SlideCASE 1Unit Weight (pcf)c (psf)Clay FillBrown Silty Clay (CL)Gray Silty Clay (CL)120 pcf 0 psf30 °135 pcf0 psf32.5 °130 pcf300 psf30 °Distance (ft.)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200550560570580590600610620630640650660Elevation 550560570580590600610620630640650660140 1.1Brown Silty Clay (CL) Clay Fill 300 psfGray Silty Clay (CL) Soil TypeLake Forest Beach Access RoadAECOM Project #60101412Analysis: RCRDate: 10/14/2009_5ft.gszRavine5 ft. Deep Slide SurfaceCASE 2Unit Weight (pcf)c (psf)Clay FillBrown Silty Clay (CL)Gray Silty Clay (CL)120 pcf 0 psf30 °135 pcf0 psf32.5 °130 pcf300 psf30 °Distance (ft.)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200550560570580590600610620630640650660Elevation 550560570580590600610620630640650660141 1.3Brown Silty Clay (CL) Clay Fill 300 psfGray Silty Clay (CL) Soil TypeLake Forest Beach Access RoadAECOM Project #60101412Analysis: RCRDate: 11/3/2009_10ft.gszRavine10 ft. Deep Slide SurfaceCASE 3Unit Weight (pcf)c (psf)Clay FillBrown Silty Clay (CL)Gray Silty Clay (CL)120 pcf 0 psf30 °135 pcf0 psf32.5 °130 pcf300 psf30 °Distance (ft.)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200550560570580590600610620630640650660Elevation 550560570580590600610620630640650660142 1.1Brown Silty Clay (CL) Clay Fill 300 psfGray Silty Clay (CL) Soil TypeLake Forest Beach Access RoadAECOM Project #60101412Analysis: RCRDate: 11/3/2009_1ft_bluff.gszBluff1 ft. Deep Slide SurfaceCASE 4Unit Weight (pcf)c (psf)Clay FillBrown Silty Clay (CL)Gray Silty Clay (CL)120 pcf0 psf30 °135 pcf0 psf32.5 °130 pcf300 psf30 °Distance (ft.)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200550560570580590600610620630640650660Elevation 550560570580590600610620630640650660143 1.2Brown Silty Clay (CL) Clay Fill 300 psfGray Silty Clay (CL) Soil TypeLake Forest Beach Access RoadAECOM Project #60101412Analysis: RCRDate: 11/3/2009_5ft_bluff.gszBluff5 ft. Deep Slide SurfaceCASE 5Unit Weight (pcf)c (psf)Clay FillBrown Silty Clay (CL)Gray Silty Clay (CL)120 pcf0 psf30 °135 pcf0 psf32.5 °130 pcf300 psf30 °Distance (ft.)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200550560570580590600610620630640650660Elevation 550560570580590600610620630640650660144 1.4Brown Silty Clay (CL) Clay Fill 300 psfGray Silty Clay (CL) Soil TypeLake Forest Beach Access RoadAECOM Project #60101412Analysis: RCRDate: 11/3/2009_10ft_bluff.gszBluff10 ft. Deep Slide SurfaceCASE 6Unit Weight (pcf)c (psf)Clay FillBrown Silty Clay (CL)Gray Silty Clay (CL)120 pcf0 psf30 °135 pcf0 psf32.5 °130 pcf300 psf30 °Distance (ft.)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200550560570580590600610620630640650660Elevation 550560570580590600610620630640650660145 0.6Brown Silty Clay (CL) Clay Fill 300 psfGray Silty Clay (CL) Soil TypeLake Forest Beach Access RoadAECOM Project #60101412Analysis: RCRDate: 10/12/2009LFBAR_LtoR_Existing_Shallow_High_Water.gszShallow Slip Surface - Saturated SurfaceCase 7Unit Weight (pcf)c (psf)Clay FillBrown Silty Clay (CL)Gray Silty Clay (CL)120 pcf0 psf30 °135 pcf0 psf32.5 °130 pcf300 psf30 °Distance (ft.)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200550560570580590600610620630640650660Elevation 550560570580590600610620630640650660146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 Photographs Photograph 1 – Distressed Pavement Surface from Bluff Slope Photograph 2 – Break in drain pipe at timber wall Developing Erosional Slides Undermined Pavement Undermined Pavement 169 Photograph 3 – Bluff Surface – Note Leaning Trees 170 Photograph 4 – Erosion Control Geowebs – Well-Embedded in Vegetation Photograph 5 – Erosion Control Geowebs – Stretched and Separating from Ground – Sparse Vegetation Erosion Control Geowebs 171 Photograph 6 – Fallen Trees at Toe of Ravine Fallen Trees at Toe of Ravine 172 Photograph 7 – Gabion Retaining Wall Downstream of Ravine 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 AECOM 303 East Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 www.aecom.com November 28, 2016 Sent via email (ThomasM@cityoflakeforest.com) Mr. Mike Thomas City of Lake Forest 800 N. Field Drive Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 RE: Forest Park Access Road Bluff Restoration Project Engineering History Dear Mike: This letter provides a summary history of the bluff along the South Beach Access Road. AECOM’s involvement with the project began during 2009 when the City of Lake Forest requested that we observe a bluff failure along the road, and perform slope stability analysis to evaluate the reasons for this problem. The following photograph illustrates the failure that affected approximately 70 to 90 feet of the bluff. This failure was caused by the following reasons: • The bluff slope exceeds a 2H:1V slope ratio. This degree of steepness is inherently unstable and slope movements will occur. At a slope of 2:1, the movements usually tend to be more characterized as a slow creep. Steeper slopes can experience landslide failures. The above road area was much steeper than 2:1 and a localized slope landside occurred. 180 2 • Fill soils were placed under the road when it was originally constructed during the 1980’s. These soils are less stable than natural glacially deposited clayey soils. This caused the slopes next to the road to be less stable. • Stormwater runoff was concentrated at the catch basins shown in the picture and as slope movements occurred, the storm system leaked allowing water to enter the soils next to and under the road. The addition of water into the soil exacerbates the slope stability problem. The location of the 2009 failure is illustrated on the following topographic map: The 2009 AECOM report provided the following conclusions: • Topographic analysis indicates that the failure zone has some of the steepest slopes in this area. Localized steep slopes were also observed elsewhere along the road in localized areas; however, failures had not occurred in those areas. The AECOM work scope for this project was limited to the area that had failed. • The road at this location had no shoulder with the steep slope extending right up to the edge of the road. A shoulder would have slowed the failure process or timing; however, it was likely to have occurred at some point either way. • Slope stability analysis was completed for the failure zone. This analysis was important to understand the nature of the landslide. The analysis indicated that the slide was a shallow South Beach Access Road 2009 Failure 181 3 failure and that a deeper more catastrophic slide was much less likely for the type of geology that comprises this bluff. The analysis indicates that this stretch of slope had a factor of safety against sliding of about 1.0. This result confirms that the failure of the slope was primarily induced by the steepness of the slope and exacerbated by the presence of fill soils under the road crest and storm water leakage into the slope during heavy rains. • The storm water catch basin construction was identified as a significant contributing factor. These structures acted as a pile foundation that tended to hold the road surface up. Thus, while these steep slopes tended to creep downslope over time, the lower portion of the slope separated from the road and the resulting imbalance accelerated the slope movement. The damaged and leaking catch basins were identified as a significant issue as water entered into the exposed soils and accelerated slope movements. • The report concluded that a comprehensive restoration that would eliminate all slope creep would require very large and expensive retaining walls on both sides of the road. The AECOM 2009 report work scope did not include design level input or analysis. During March 2011, the City of Lake Forest requested that AECOM visit the failure site and update our observation of field conditions noted in the AECOM 2009 report. The City had developed options for the restoration of this area that included the proposed flattening of the slopes by lowering the road profile and changing the road alignment to be farther from the slope edge. The drainage system was to be reconstructed to resolve the leaking storm sewer system. Lake Forest had prepared a power point summary with 5 slope restoration options. These options included the following features in various combinations: 1) lower the road profile in its current alignment and removal of the excavated soil from the site or regrading of the adjacent slope areas to flatten the slopes, 2) remediate the road in its current alignment and driving 200 feet of steel sheet pile, and 3) realignment of the road to move it farther from the slope. The option selected by Lake Forest as being that would provide slope stability benefits at reasonable cost, as well as safety benefits due to a better road alignment was called “Lake Forest Option 2”. AECOM updated the slope stability analysis for this option, that included a ten foot road lowering from elevation 644 to 634, and a 10 foot vertical cut to reduce fill on the crest of the slope. The option included flattening of the slopes adjacent to the road – but did not regrade steep slopes at lower elevations. The analysis indicated that this option would improve the slope stability in all areas where the slope is 2:1 or flatter. Areas that are steeper would still have reduced stability and localized shallow slope movements would likely be expected to occur in those areas. The report conclusions in the 2011 report indicate the following: • Global stability will be little affected by the proposed roadway improvement. However, in areas where the road is relocated away from the edge of the bluff and if the bluff is regraded to be greater than 2:1, shallow failure occurrences would decrease. This presumes that proper vegetation is maintained on the slopes. • The stability of the slope depends on an adequately functioning drainage system. We recommended that the new drainage system follow certain design standards to resist damage for minor future slope movements so that the system continues to operate properly. We recall that through the public participation process, the City refined the road realignment design and reduced the road profile cut to reduce tree impacts. The final design varied from that included in 182 4 the AECOM stability 2011 analysis in that the vertical road excavation was reduced from 10 feet to 3 feet and the road alignment was shifted a lesser amount from the bluff edge. The revised design required the construction of a retaining wall on the west side of the road where it was moved closer to the ravine slope. AECOM was asked to design this wall - we provided the design during the spring of 2011. Following is a 2015 aerial photo of the restored slope: This restoration has worked well. The new retaining wall on the west side of the road is also performing well. The recent significant failures occurred south of the restored slope. The only issues noted during recent observations are minor tension cracks in some areas approaching the failure zone to the south. Summary The South Beach access road was constructed on a peninsula shaped land mass that includes steep bluff slopes on both sides. The original road construction apparently also contained fill under the road Slope Restoration Area Localized steep lower slope zones 2011 Restoration Area 2011 Wall Construction West Side of Road 183 5 to form a surface that as wide enough to accommodate the road. The road performed reasonably well until in during its 23rd anniversary, the bluff failed along an 80 foot stretch of the road. The failure was a shallow slope slide caused by the naturally inherent instability that is common to these steep bluffs. The glacially deposited clay slopes that can contain sand seams can normally stand fairly steep without major deep seated failures. However, when they exist at slopes steeper than 2:1, they will always creep. The rate of creep depends on the geology of a given area and the degree of slope steepness. The 2011 slope restoration was necessary to restore a safe access road. The option that was selected and implemented by the City considered a wide range of solutions. The selected solution struck a balance between environmental impact, public input with respect to tree removals, future maintenance and cost. As with all Northshore Illinois glacially formed bluffs, slope creep is a common occurrence that requires periodic maintenance. The planned restoration of the new failure areas located south of the 2011 restoration area will take a different approach. There is little to no room for the relocation of the road to the west to create a buffer against future slope movements. Furthermore, the natural slopes on the east side of the road in those areas approach 1.5:1 in areas with the steepest areas near the upper 10 vertical feet of the slopes. These areas have a high potential for slope failures as evidenced by recent damages. As illustrated on the following map, the dark red colored portions of the slope are at a slope ratio of 1.25:1. The green and yellow areas are reasonably flat in the 2.0 to 2.5:1 range. 184 6 The proposed slope restoration will target the steep upper slopes by constructing a vertical retaining wall with deep foundations on the east side of the road. The slope adjacent to the wall can then be excavated to a much more stable 3:1 slope blending into the lower slope areas that are naturally flatter. The relative slope ratios can be easily seen in the field. The lower slopes are easy to traverse whereas the upper slopes are nearly impossible to climb. The bluffs along the lakefront at this site provide the extreme beauty that makes this such a special place. One downside is the natural tendency of the bluffs to creep and move. The planned improvements will make a big difference to the stability of these slopes. W hile maintenance issues will likely crop up from time to time, the restoration will resolve the recent failures that have occurred, provide safe access to the park and significantly reduce maintenance concerns in the future. Please let me know if you need additional information regarding the history of this site, the nature of steep slopes, and the planned program to address existing site failures and to reduce future maintenance. Sincerely, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. William J. Weaver, P.E., D.WRE Vice President – Senior Project Engineer 185 620 969 965 411 555 545547 540 780 549 700 650 810 970 985 1010 930 528 600 528 676 941 1015 9 0 0 830 840 490528681 6 7 6901940 840 533 925 701 620 LAKE RD FOREST PARK DR S P R IN G L N N MA Y F L OWE R RDE D EE R P A T H CLIFF RDFOREST PARK DR Legend Slope Stability Analysis 1996 2009 2010 2016 μ 186 620 969 965 411 555 545547 540 780 549 700 650 810 970 985 1010 930 528 600 528 676 941 1015 9 0 0 830 840 490528681 6 7 6901940 840 533 925 701 620 LAKE RD FOREST PARK DR S P R IN G L N N MA Y F L OWE R RDE D EE R P A T H CLIFF RDFOREST PARK DR Legend Slope Stability Projects 1999 2001 2012 2013 2017 (Proposed) μ 187 AECOM 303 East Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 www.aecom.com November 16, 2016 Mr. Mike Thomas City of Lake Forest 800 N. Field Drive Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 RE: Proposal for Engineering Services – South Beach Access Road Bluff and Ravine Slope Restoration -- Feasibility Study Lake Forest, IL --- Change Order #5 Dear Mike: AECOM is pleased to provide you with Change Order #5 to complete a condition evaluation for bluff and ravine slope restoration for the North Beach Access Road area. This feasibility study includes examination of the existing bluff conditions and development of schematic restoration concepts for 1400 feet of bluff and ravine slopes from Spring Lane to the North Beach Access Road. This feasibility study will include the development of restoration concepts, and preparation of planning level schematic design for the selected options. The analysis will include prioritization of slope restoration areas and recommended approaches for implementation. Preliminary opinions of probable construction cost for recommended solutions will be provided such that the City can develop an implementation plan. When the City has reviewed the recommended solutions and decides to move forward with implementation, AECOM will provide a proposal for the first implementation phase. Scope of Services 1. Spring Lane North to the North Beach Access Road and Ravine A feasibility study for slope restoration will be performed for the reach of bluff extending from Spring Lane to a point approximately 1400 feet to the north, including the North Beach Access Road and the ravine slopes adjacent to the road. This feasibility study will include the following tasks: • Task 1 – Data Collection and Review: We will request that the City provide us with information for this study reach that you may have on file including the following: o Original road plans for the road that is along the top of bluff and for the North Beach Access Road– and any road, bluff or land grading modifications that have occurred in recent years. o Construction as-built drawings for any recent slope and road work at, near or on the bluff including as-built plans and details. o Geotechnical information including boring logs or studies completed in the past for this study that we do not already have on file. o Survey, aerial photographs, topography and other base map information. • Task 2 – Bluff Survey: AECOM surveyors will complete a partial topographic survey and cross sections for the bluff to supplement upland information that is available for this study 188 reach. The survey will focus on potentially problematic slope areas in this reach. We will prepare a base map and bluff cross sections that will serve as a base for the illustration of existing and alternative slope conditions. • Task 3 – Geotechnical & Slope Stability Review: Our geotechnical engineers will provide feasibility level guidance for slope restoration concepts based on information gathered and from our prior design work in the area in recent years. Based on their review of slope conditions and the geotechnical information and slope studies performed in the past, they will help guide the development of slope solutions. • Task 4 – Field Observation: Our geotechnical and slope restoration engineers will visit the site to observe existing slope conditions and begin the restoration concept development process. This visit will occur when the slope survey is completed so that a base map is available to assist in the field assessment of options that make sense from a stability perspective. • Task 4 – Slope Condition Evaluation: We will evaluate the existing slope condition based on our field observations, analysis of available geotechnical information in this and nearby bluff areas, assessment of reported bluff issues in the past, and interpretation of slope geometry. • Task 5 – Develop Restoration Concepts: We anticipate investigating the applicability of the following slope restoration approaches for portions of this study reach: o Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall o Reinforced Earth Slopes o Geogrid Lifts o Steel Sheet Pile Wall o Slope Regrading o Slope Drainage Improvements We will provide schematic design drawings and sections for feasible solutions to assess how these might fit in with the slope geometry for the study reach. It is possible that slope conditions will require changes to the existing pedestrian access. We will perform an observation of the pedestrian access and slope improvements in this study reach and will comment on expected slope issues that appear to affect this area. We will assign slope restoration priorities in case the City may want to implement the improvements in phases over time. A preliminary opinion of probable cost will be provided for each option that is considered feasible along with a summary of benefits and advantages and disadvantages for each option. If it is not possible to conclude if any slope restoration is necessary due to a lack of field or analysis evidence, we will provide a recommended monitoring program for those areas that have potential for causing problems. • Task 6 – Prepare a feasibility study report to present the study results and the recommended options. The report will include planning level schematic drawings, a summary of options considered, and details regarding recommended options. We will discuss slope restoration priorities that can be used to develop a capital improvement phasing plan where applicable. • Task 7 – Project Management and Meeting: In addition to the normal project coordination and quality control tasks, we will attend a meeting with your staff to discuss the study results. We will also meet with the advisory work group that will be working with the City Manager. 189 The budget for the this Study area is as follows: TASK DESCRIPTION BUDGET ($) 1 Data Collection and Review $2,000 2 Bluff Survey & Evaluation $4,900 3 Field Observations & Analysis $4,500 4 Slope Condition Evaluation $5,000 5 Develop Restoration Concepts $8,500 6 Prepare Feasibility Report $5,000 7 Project Management and City Meeting $3,500 TOTAL COST $33,400 For purposes of invoice reporting, the budget for task nos. 1 thru 4 will be monitored together as one consolidated data collection and analysis task, and the budget for task nos. 5 thru 7 will be monitored together as one consolidated feasibility study task. Proposed Budget We propose to perform this study on a time and materials basis with a recommended initial budget cap of $33,400 for the North Spring Lane Area/North Beach Access Road Bluff study. The fee schedule will be a direct labor multiplier of 2.80. Contract Terms and Conditions The same Terms and Conditions of Service that apply to the first phase study as provided in our May 18, 2016 contract will apply to Change Order #5 and are an integral part of this proposal. If acceptable, please return one signed original to the attention of William J. Weaver. Should you have any questions with regard to this proposal, please call Bill at (847) 323-2171 or contact him by email at bill.weaver@aecom.com . We thank you for the opportunity to submit this change order proposal and look forward to continuing to work with you on this important assignment. Sincerely, Responsible for Payment and Accepted by: AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Signature: Name: (please print) William J. Weaver, P.E., D.WRE Title: (please print) Vice President – Senior Project Engineer Firm: Date: Patrick Clifford, P.E. Vice President © AECOM 2016, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 190 Quality engineering solutions for the community 5507 N. Cumberland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60656-1471 Tel 773.775.4009 Fax 773.775.4014 www.ciorba.com November 30, 2016 Mr. Robert Ells Superintendent of Engineering City of Lake Forest 800 N. Field Drive Lake Forest, IL 60045 Subject: Fee Proposal for Engineering Services Forest Park Bluff and Ravine Slope Restoration-Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Ells: Per your request, Ciorba Group, Inc. has prepared a proposal for the Engineering Services for the Forest Park Bluff Slope Restoration Feasibility Study. Our Scope of Services is outlined in Exhibit A, which we understand to include the following: Design Engineering Services: The scope of this proposal includes the data collection, bluff survey, slope stability review, site visit and slope condition evaluation, development of restoration concepts, preparation of a feasibility study report, and project management and meetings. Based on a scope of services and a geotechnical report prepared by AECOM received from the City, the existing bluff and ravine near the North Beach Access Road area will be evaluated to assess restoration concepts for 1,400 feet of the bluff and ravine. The study area will be the area between Spring Lane and North Beach Access Road. This study will include the development of restoration concepts and preparation of planning level schematic design for the selected option. The proposed engineering fee for the Design Engineering Services described above and in Exhibit A is $42,400. Fees will be billed monthly for services performed in the preceding month based on hours worked. Fees in this proposal shall remain fixed until December 31, 2017. No out of scope work will be performed without prior authorization from the City. A breakdown of the fee is provided in Exhibit B. Ciorba’s structural staff has extensive experience in structures planning, inspection, design and construction observation for various municipalities including Highland Park, Deerfield, Evanston, Winnetka, Waukegan, Mount Prospect, Morton Grove and Wheeling. In the event that the City requires performing services not included in the attached scope of work, we will bill our time as detailed in the General Conditions as provided in Exhibit C. Upon acceptance of this Agreement, please print two copies and have each copy executed by a duly authorized 191 Mr. Robert Ells City of Lake Forest Page 2 representative of the City, retain one (1) copy for your files, and return one (1) copy to us for our files. Should you have any questions please contact me at 773-355-2936. We appreciate the opportunity of submitting this proposal to the City on this project. Sincerely, CIORBA GROUP, INC. Brett Sauter, PE, SE Structural Group Manager Enclosures: Exhibit A – Project Scope Exhibit B – Fee Breakdown Exhibit C – General Conditions City of Lake Forest Accepted By: Name: Title: Address: Date 192 EXHIBIT A-PROJECT SCOPE The purpose of this project is to prepare a feasibility study for the evaluation of the Forest Park Bluff and Ravine Slope. We have performed a preliminary review of the geotechnical report and concurred with the scope anticipated by the City. This scope of work and fee is for the study and analysis based on a scope of work received from the City. The major work tasks for the project as described in the RFP are as follows: • Task 1-Data Collection and Review o Collect available data from City and review • Task 2-Bluff Survey o Partial topographic survey of bluff to supplement existing survey o Download and process survey; tie in with existing survey o Prepare a base map and cross sections of bluff • Task 3-Geotechnical and Slope Stability Review o Review existing AECOM geotechnical report and provide feasibility level guidance for slope restoration concepts based on report and field observation No additional soil borings will be obtained • Task 4-Field Observation and Slope Condition Evaluation o Site Visit (1 visit) to observe existing slope conditions using base map o Evaluate existing slope conditions based on available geotechnical information and compare them with what documented in the report • Task 5-Develop Restoration Concepts o Investigate slope restoration options: Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall Reinforced Earth Slopes Geogrid Lifts Steel Sheet Pile Wall Slope Regrading Slope Drainage Improvements o Prepare schematic plan view and cross sections of each option o Assess any changes required for pedestrian access due to the implementation of above options o Prepare cost estimate for each option, discuss and evaluate priorities for the City (see meetings below) o Advantages and Disadvantages of each option 193 EXHIBIT A-PROJECT SCOPE • Task 6-Feasibility study report o Summary of options considered o Schematic planning drawings of selected options (2 options) o Recommended option with a capital improvement plan, the recommended option could consist of a combination of the six (6) identified countermeasures • Task 7-Project Management and Meetings o Project management and administration o QA/QC will be performed at each submittal by senior staff o Attend and participate in meetings with staff and elected officials (2 Meetings) 194 B-1 Exhibit B – Fee Breakdown Project Component FEE Feasibility Study Task 1-Data Collection and Review $715 Task 2-Bluff Survey $6,040 Task 3-Geotechnical & Slope Stability Review $1,090 Task 4-Field Observation and Slope Condition Evaluation $1,395 Task 5-Develop Restoration Concepts $12,200 Task 6-Feasibility Study $13,760 Task 7-Project Management and Meetings $6,940 Direct Costs (Vehicle, copies, postage, etc.) $260 TOTAL $42,400 195 GENERAL CONDITIONS DELAYS – Ciorba Group, Inc. (Engineer) will not be liable for delays due to force majeure. DISPUTE RESOLUTION – any dispute under this contract shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. ENVIRONMENTAL – The Engineer assumes no responsibility for the detection or removal of any hazardous substances found at the job site. EXTRA WORK - The engineering fees are based on our doing the work as described in the proposal letter and attached scope. Extra Work includes furnishing any other services not specifically set forth in the proposal letter. The fee for all Extra Work would be computed on the basis of direct salaries of personnel actually assigned to the work multiplied by a factor of 2.9 to cover overhead, fringe benefits and profit. Direct costs would be billed at their actual rate. No Extra Work would be undertaken by us without prior written authorization from the City of Lake Forest (CLIENT). INSURANCE – Ciorba Group, Inc. has, and will maintain in effect throughout the duration of this contract, professional liability insurance in the amount of $2,000,000. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY – The Client agrees, to the fullest extent possible, to limit the liability of the Engineer so that the total aggregate liability of the Engineer shall not exceed the Engineer’s fee for services rendered on the project. It is acknowledged that this limitation of liability applies to any cause of action, be it contract, tort, or any other theory. The Client agrees to bring any claims against the Engineer corporate entity, not any individual owners or employees of the Engineer firm. The Client and Engineer both agree to waive any claims for consequential damages against each other. CLIENT PROVIDED INFORMATION – The Engineer shall have the right to rely on the accuracy of any information provided by the CLIENT. The Engineer will not be responsible for reviewing this information for accuracy unless otherwise stated in the Scope of Services. OWNERSHIP OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE – The Engineer retains all intellectual property rights including common law, statutory, copyright and other reserved rights in the instruments of service. PAYMENT OF FEES – All fees are due and payable as specified herein. Fees will be billed monthly for services performed in the preceding month, and payment thereof is 196 due within 30 days of the invoice date. Invoices not paid within 30 days are considered past due. PERMITS AND APPROVALS – It is the responsibility of the CLIENT to obtain all necessary permits and approvals. The Engineer will assist the CLIENT as mutually agreed in writing as part of the Scope of Services. REJECTION OF NONCONFORMING WORK – The Engineer shall have the authority, but not the responsibility, to reject nonconforming work. The Engineer shall bring any known non-conforming work to the attention of the CLIENT as soon as reasonably possible. RIGHT OF ACCESS – The Engineer shall have access to the job site whenever work is in preparation or in progress. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION - In the event that this project should be suspended or abandoned for any reason whatsoever, the CLIENT shall be liable for payment of all services performed through the date Ciorba receives written notice of such suspension or abandonment; payment to be based on percentage of work complete in the case of lump sum fees, or hours of work completed in the case of salary times multiplier fees. In the event you reactivate the project, Ciorba would not resume work without the execution of a new agreement for the work. DELIVERY OF ELECTRONIC FILES - In accepting and utilizing any drawings, reports and data on any form of electronic media generated and furnished by the ENGINEER, the agrees that all such electronic files are instruments of service of the ENGINEER, who shall be deemed the author, and shall retain all common law, statutory law and other rights, including copyrights. The CLIENT agrees not to reuse these electronic files, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than for the Project. The CLIENT agrees not to transfer these electronic files to others without the prior written consent of the ENGINEER. The CLIENT further agrees to waive all claims against the ENGINEER resulting in any way from any unauthorized changes to or reuse of the electronic files for any other project by anyone other than the ENGINEER. Electronic files furnished by either party shall be subject to an acceptance period of 30 days during which the receiving party agrees to perform appropriate acceptance tests. Ciorba shall correct any discrepancies or errors detected and reported within the acceptance period. After the acceptance period, the electronic files shall be deemed to be accepted and Ciorba shall have no obligations to correct errors or maintain electronic files. The CLIENT is aware that differences may exist between the electronic files delivered and the printed hard-copy construction documents. In the event of a 197 conflict between the signed construction documents prepared by the ENGINEER and electronic files, the signed or sealed hard-copy construction documents shall govern. In addition, the CLIENT agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless the ENGINEER, its officers, directors, employees and subconsultants against all damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and defense costs, arising from any changes made by anyone other than the ENGINEER or from any unauthorized reuse of the electronic files without the prior written consent of the ENGINEER. Under no circumstances shall delivery of electronic files for use by the CLIENT be deemed a sale by the ENGINEER, and the ENGINEER makes no warranties, either express or implied, of merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. In no event shall the ENGINEER be liable for indirect or consequential damages as a result of the CLIENT’s reuse of the electronic files. In the event any invoices are past due more than 60 days, Ciorba reserves the right to suspend all work and withhold all drawings, prints, specifications, estimates, and the like until the account is current. This agreement shall terminate upon the occurrence of the first of the following: A. Completion of and payment for, all of the work included herein. B. Suspension or abandonment of the project, and payment to us of all fees due and payable. C. Mutual written consent of the parties hereto. 198