Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CITY COUNCIL 2016/07/18 Agenda
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, July 18, 2016 Immediately following the Finance Committee Meeting 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 Motion to appoint Alderman Waldeck as Acting Mayor CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Immediately following the Finance Committee Meeting PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS 1.COMMENTS BY MAYOR A. Approval of 2016-2017 Board & Commission Appointment GORTON COMMUNITY CENTER NAME OF MEMBER APPOINT/REAPPOINT WARD Richard Wood Appoint 1 A copy of the Volunteer Profile sheet for new appointment begins on page 13. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the Mayors Appointments and Reappointments 2.COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER A. Introduction of new Library Administrator, Catherine Lemmer 3.COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS FINANCE COMMITTEE ***PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY’S ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE*** Open Public Hearing 1 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda Acting Mayor Waldeck Close Public Hearing 1.Consideration of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for FY2017 and Approval of Rollovers (Final Reading – Public Hearing Required) PRESENTED BY: ELIZABETH HOLLEB, FINANCE DIRECTOR (847) 810-3612 PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests approving the final reading of the ordinance and the rollovers. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments City Council May 2, 2016 Adoption of FY17 Comprehensive Plan City Council July 5, 2016 Grant First Reading of the FY17 Annual Appropriation Ordinance BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: While the annual municipal budget represents the City’s financial “plan” for expenditures over the course of the fiscal year, the annual Appropriation Ordinance is the formal legal mechanism by which the City Council authorizes the actual expenditures of funds budgeted in the annual budget. It appropriates specific sums of money by object and purpose of expenditures. State statutes require the passage of an Appropriation Ordinance which must be filed with the County Clerk by the end of July. The Appropriation Ordinance includes the Library, which was not included in the budget approved at the May 2, 2016 City Council meeting. The Library expenses are approved by the Library Board. The Debt Service payments were included in the budget approved at the May 2, 2016 City Council meeting, but are excluded from the Appropriation Ordinance. The ordinances approving the debt issues authorize these annual expenditures. The Appropriation Ordinance provides for a 10% “contingency” in the expenditures in an amount above those actually budgeted. Each separate fund includes an item labeled “contingency” with an appropriate sum equivalent up to 10% of the total funds budgeted. This practice has been followed for more than thirty years and has worked very efficiently, while still providing for complete City Council control over budgeted expenditures. Importantly, the City Council and City staff follows the adopted budget as its spending guideline, not the Appropriation Ordinance. Without the contingency, the City Council would have to pass further modifications to the Appropriation Ordinance to cover any unforeseen expenditures exceeding the budget. In addition, in order to provide more accurate and efficient accounting and budgeting of City funds, an annual rollover of funds is required. This eliminates both under and over budgeting of funds in the new fiscal year and is a widely used standard practice for most municipal governments. The items on the attached rollover list (page 14) consist of projects that were appropriated in FY2016 and will not be completed until FY2017. 2 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda School District 67 does not recognize the Appropriation Ordinance in their budgeting or auditing standards. However, due to the fact they are a special charter district, their budget must be included in our Appropriation Ordinance. School District 67 numbers are estimates and subject to changes. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The attached Appropriation Ordinance Worksheet (page 16) demonstrates the reconciliation of the Adopted Budget to the Appropriation Ordinance by Fund. COUNCIL ACTION: Conduct a public hearing on the City’s FY17 Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Upon closing the public hearing, it is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the final reading of the Ordinance (page 17) and rollovers. A copy of the Ordinance is available for review by the public in the City Clerk’s office. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 1.Approval of an Agreement to Provide a Bridge Condition Report for the Ferry Hall Bridge PRESENTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN WALDECK CONTACT: Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works (810-3540) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting City Council approval of an agreement with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE hereafter) to perform a bridge condition report for the Ferry Hall Bridge located on Mayflower Road. The analysis will include an inspection of all accessible components of the bridge structure. The report will be completed by October so that any subsequent repair estimates can be included in the proposed FY ’18 capital improvement plan. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Public Works Committee 6/20/2016 South Approach Assessment Reviewed BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City is responsible for inspection of all City-owned bridges. Frequency of bridge inspections is in accordance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards. The City contracts with Bleck Engineering each year to perform these inspections and receives written reports upon completion. Those inspecting the bridges must be certified through the State. A summary of the City’s bridge inspection reports can be found beginning on page 28 of the agenda packet. The Ferry Hall Bridge, located on Mayflower Road south of Spring Lane, was constructed in the 1930’s. The bridge was re-constructed in 1970 when Mayflower Road was re- aligned. Work performed in the mid-1990’s involved the replacement of the deck and barrier rail on the primary bridge structure. At the time, it was determined to be more 3 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda cost effective to have the south approach span deck rehabilitated versus being replaced. This bridge is inspected every two years. During the bridge’s inspection in May, Bleck Engineers noted an area approximately 150 square feet on the underside of the south approach span slab that was visibly delaminated from the deck above. Further inspections by WJE in June confirmed severe deterioration of the original concrete and reinforcing steel of the span. The deterioration is primarily due to the presence of high chloride counts from road salt. Calculations performed by WJE have determined that the load carrying capacity in that specific section can no longer meet the 15-ton capacity and must be reduced to 5-tons. Attached is a copy of WJE’s south approach span condition report beginning on page 36 of this agenda packet. After informing the Public Works Committee of the needed bridge repair, staff sent letters (copy included on page 48 ) to thirty-three households in the area noting the deficiency of the bridge and the fact that the drive lane on the east side of the bridge must be closed until a repair is made. Staff asked the residents to contact the City if they had a preference of the remaining traffic flow for the west side lane (e.g. northbound or southbound). Staff will provide City Council with the residents’ input at this evening’s meeting. As noted in the letter, staff will close down the east side lane on Monday morning, August 1st; the remaining lane will stay open and can be used to its rated capacity. Rosemary, Sheridan, and Deerpath will be the alternate routes used for drivers wanting to use the closed lane. In addition, staff requested WJE to develop a proposal (page 50) to perform a Bridge Condition Report. The Bridge Condition Report will provide staff with various repair alternatives for the south approach as well as any additional repairs that should be completed concurrently. The report will be completed by early October and will provide an estimate so that dollars can be included in the FY ’18 Capital Improvement Plan. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: This non-budgeted item will be funded by the general fund contingency. Per section 9.0-K of the City’s purchasing directive, staff is requesting waiving the formal request for a proposal and evaluation process. Staff has worked with WJE multiple times regarding bridge issues and finds them to be very knowledgeable with bridge structures and similar in their fee structure to other engineering firms. Secondly, in order to receive budget numbers for next year’s capital plan, the recommended analysis of the bridge must begin immediately. Below is a summary of analysis budget: FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N General Fund Contingency $0 $28,500 N COUNCIL ACTION: Acknowledge the exception noted in Section 9.0 K of the City’s Purchasing Directive and approve an agreement with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. to perform a Bridge Condition Report for the Ferry Hall Bridge in the amount of $28,500. 4 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda 2.Approval of an Agreement to Provide a Bluff Restoration Feasibility Study for the Bluffs Adjacent to the Forest Park South Beach Access Road and the Wooden Walkway PRESENTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN WALDECK CONTACT: Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works (810-3540) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting City Council approval of an agreement with AECOM to provide a bluff restoration feasibility study for the bluffs adjacent to the south beach access road and the wooden walkway on the southern end of Forest Park. The report will be completed by October so that any subsequent restoration estimates can be included in the proposed FY ’18 capital improvement plan. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Public Works Committee 6/20/2016 Reviewed Bluff Movement with Committee BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In mid-May of this year, staff noticed that the bluff on the east side of the south beach access road had begun to move and separate from the curb and roadway. Pictures of the bluff failure can be found on page 57 of the agenda packet. Staff contracted with an engineering firm specializing in geotechnical analysis (AECOM hereafter) to investigate the bluff’s movement. Their task was to determine if the movement was the beginning of a possible catastrophic failure or normal due to heavy saturation. AECOM’s engineers analyzed the area and concluded that there was no imminent danger but recommended that the area closest to the curbline be barricaded off and that the top portion where the cracks were most evident be covered with a tarp so as to prevent additional rainwater from entering. Staff has continued to survey the bluff’s elevations in order to track its movement over time. To date, some areas have moved upwards of 10”+. AECOM informed staff that due to the existing steep angles on the east side of the roadway combined with the fact that the area was constructed using fill, movement of the bluff will continue to occur until the area is properly restored. Staff therefore requested AECOM provide a proposal (page 62) to further analyze this area and the area adjacent to the wooden walkway that has also seen recent, but far less movement. AECOM has proposed to complete all topographical and cross sectional surveys of both areas and provide the City with various restoration options along with their estimated costs by early October. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: This non-budgeted item will be funded by general fund contingency. Per section 9.0-K of the City’s purchasing directive, staff is requesting waiving the formal request for a proposal and evaluation process. Staff has worked with AECOM since 2010 regarding various bluff issues and finds them to be extremely knowledgeable with analysis and solutions for slope failures. Secondly, in order to receive budget numbers for next year’s capital plan, the recommended analysis of the bluffs must begin immediately. 5 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda Below is a summary of analysis budget: FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N General Fund Contingency $0 $41,400 N 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 Bluff Restoration Feasibility Study in the amount of $41,400 4.OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 5.ITEMS FOR OMNIBUS VOTE CONSIDERATION 1.Approval of the July 5, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes. A copy of the minutes can be found on page 66. 2.Approval of International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Contract between the City and the Lake Forest Firefighters/Lieutenants PRESENTED BY: DeSha Kalmar, Director of Human Resources (810-3530) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests approval and ratification of the IAFF contract. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: For the renewal contract, the City and the Local negotiated a successor contract by not utilizing attorneys for the negotiating process and came to tentative agreement in mid-June. The union ratified the tentative contract on June 28, and it is now before the City Council for ratification. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Beginning on page 72 of your packet is a list of the sections of the proposed contract that deal with economic items and other items of interest. This list is the same as what the City Council reviewed in Executive Session on June 6. Funding for the contract changes has been factored into the FY16 budget. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Contract between the City and the Lake Forest Firefighters/Lieutenants 3.Approval of an Agreement with Administrative Consulting Specialists (ACS) to provide Grant Administration Services for One Year STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) 6 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests City Council approval of a one-year agreement with Administrative Consulting Specialists to provide grant administration services. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments City Council 5/18/15 Approval of initial contract with ACS for FY16. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In May of 2015, the City Council authorized an agreement with ACS to provide grant administration services for one year in an amount of $28,000. The Executive Staff have reviewed the services provided by ACS in its initial contract period and recommend continuation of the agreement for Fiscal Year 2017. Acknowledging that the City has a more robust grants process internally and requires a less intensive service level than other clients, ACS has proposed a reduction in its 2nd year fee from $28,000 to $20,000. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Below is an estimated summary of Project budget: FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N 101-2501-499-8495 (Grants Admin Placeholder) $50,000 $20,000 Y COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of a one-year agreement with ACS for grants administration services in an amount not to exceed $20,000. 4.Award of Contract for Thermoplastic Lane Marking STAFF CONTACT: DAN MARTIN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (810-3561) PURPOSE AND ACTON REQUESTED: Staff requests approval to award the contract for thermoplastic lane marking to Superior Road Striping. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City of Lake Forest, as a member of the Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC), also belongs to the Suburban Purchasing Cooperative (SPC). The SPC is made up of 134 communities in the Northwest Municipal Conference, the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association, the DuPage Mayors Conference, and the Will County Government League. One of SPC’s annual joint purchasing initiatives is the thermoplastic lane marking bid for member agencies. The City has been participating in the thermoplastic lane marking for the last 15 years. SPC’s lane marking specifications meet Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) standards. Bids and selection of the lowest responsible and responsive bidder are approved by IDOT. 7 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda The 2016 SPC/IDOT lane marking contract was awarded to Superior Road Striping, Inc. of Melrose Park, Illinois. In February 2016, the Suburban Purchasing Cooperative’s Governing Board approved the first of three possible one-year extensions of the SPC Lane Marking Contract #158 to Superior Road Striping from April 12, 2016 through April 11, 2017, with no price increase. The table below shows the unit price cost of the contract that City Council approved in 2015 which will stay the same in 2016 as there are no increases to the contract. With the contract, Superior Road Striping agrees to all terms and conditions as set forth in the specifications contained in the contract to include complying with all IDOT rules and regulations. DESCRIPTION UOM 2015 UNIT $ 2016-17 NO INCREASE UNIT $ 4” Line LF $0.54 $0.54 6” Line LF $0.81 $0.81 12” Line LF $1.63 $1.63 24” Line LF $4.09 $4.09 Letters & Symbols SF $4.09 $4.09 Removal SF $0.75 $0.75 BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The City of Lake Forest’s lane marking needs are split into four zones. Zone four was completed in 2015. This year for zone one, the City is requesting 135,996 linear feet of thermoplastic pavement marking to include 4”, 6”, 12”, and 24” wide lines, as well as various letters and symbols, which. The total cost for the Lake Forest’s 2016 striping and marking will be $90,279. The FY2017 Capital Improvement Budget for this work is $89,000. The overage of $1,279 will be paid for using savings from other capital projects. FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N Capital: 311-0050-431.67-22 $89,000 $90,279 Y COUNCIL ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approval of the proposed thermoplastic lane marking contract to Superior Road Striping, Inc. in the amount of $90,279. 5.Consideration of Ordinances Approving Recommendations 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) The following recommendations from the Building Review Board are presented to the City Council for consideration as part of the Omnibus Agenda. 835 Oakwood Avenue - The Building Review Board recommended approval of demolition of the existing single family residence and approval of a replacement single family residence, 8 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda detached garage and the overall site plan. There was no public testimony on this item. (Board vote: 6-0, approved) 152 N. Ridge Road - The Building Review Board recommended approval of demolition of the existing single family residence and approval of a replacement single family residence, attached garage and overall site plan. Two neighboring residents expressed concerns about the petitioner’s request for two curb cuts on the property and about drainage. The plan was approved with a single curb cut for consistency with the neighborhood and to protect streetscape trees. The drainage concerns will be considered by the City Engineer during review of the drainage and grading plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Board vote: 5-0, approved) Woodlands Academy - The Building Review Board recommended approval of a new monument sign to identify the expanded Woodlands Academy Campus. There was no public testimony on this item. (Board vote: 5-0, approved) The Ordinances approving the petitions as recommended by the Building Review Board, with key exhibits attached, are included in the Council packet beginning on page 74. The Ordinances, complete with all exhibits, are 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 Ordinances approving the petitions in accordance with the Building Review Board’s recommendations. 6.Consideration of an Ordinance Approving a Recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (First Reading, and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval) STAFF CONTACT: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development (810-3504) The following recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals is presented to the City Council for consideration as part of the Omnibus Agenda. 835 Oakwood Avenue – The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval of a variance from the front yard setback to allow the open front porch and a portion of the new residence to align with the overall pattern of development in the established neighborhood. No public testimony was heard on this item. (Board vote: 7 - 0, approved) The Ordinance approving the petition as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals, with key exhibits; is included in the Council packet beginning on page 106. 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 Zoning Board of Appeals’ recommendation. 9 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda 7.Approval to proceed with the construction of an additional parking area at Elawa Farm STAFF CONTACT: Michael Strong, Assistant to the City Manager (847-810-3680) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: The following request is being presented to the City Council for consideration authorizing the construction of an addition to the existing Parking Lot (“Additional Parking Area”) at Elawa Farm, located at 1401 Middlefork Drive. Authorization from City Council is being requested to i) comply with a Special Use Permit condition regarding the construction of additional parking, and ii) authorize an expenditure of funds not to exceed $20,000 for construction materials necessary for the project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Over the past year, The City of Lake Forest and Lake County Forest Preserve District have been working collaboratively to increase parking capacity at Elawa Farm and alleviate parking shortages that exist for patrons of the Middlefork Savanna and other adjacent property, including Elawa Park, the Wildlife Discovery Center, and Elawa Farm. In an attempt to address the existing parking capacity concerns, the District desires to construct, within the Property, an addition to the Parking Lot that (i) has a minimum of 40 spaces, (ii) is located adjacent to and west of the existing Parking Lot, (iii) has a gravel surface, (iv) includes a cable gate at its east end to prevent vehicular access when the Additional Parking Area is closed (during winter months), and (v) generally conforms to the plan attached on page 116. The proposed extension of parking is authorized by, and is in substantial conformance with, both the Second Intergovernmental Agreement between the Lake County Forest Preserve District and the City of Lake Forest Regarding Middlefork Savanna (“IGA”), and Special Use Permit (“SUP”) regulating the activities on the Elawa Farm Property. Both of these documents allow for parking to be expanded on the site, subject to certain conditions and authorization of the City Council. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The District intends to commence construction on the area, upon the City’s commitment to pay, in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for materials necessary for the construction of the Additional Parking Area including gravel, topsoil, turf seed, erosion control items, among others. The District has agreed to construct the Additional Parking Area. Below is an estimated summary of the project budget: FY2017 Funding Source Account Number Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N City Council Contingency 101-1101-411-8495 $145,000 $20,000 N/A COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, approval to proceed with the construction of an additional parking area at Elawa Farm, and 10 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda authorization for the expenditure of funds in an amount not to exceed $20,000 to support the City’s commitment to this project. 8.Consideration of a Resolution encouraging Commonwealth Edison to allow residents an opportunity to permanently opt out of the smart meter program Staff Contact: Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager (847-810-3672) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: The following item is being presented to the City Council for consideration and is requesting review and consideration of a Resolution encouraging Commonwealth Edison to allow residents a permanent option to opt-out of the smart meter program. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In October 2011, the Illinois General Assembly enacted the Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act (“the Act”) to strengthen and modernize the electric utility system for customers in the Commonwealth Edison (“ComEd”) service territory throughout northern Illinois. The Act authorizes a 10-year, $2.6 billion investment by ComEd to facilitate a grid-modernization effort that will improve system reliability by adding new digital smart technology, including the installation of new advanced metering infrastructure, or Smart Meters, that will replace old analog electric meters in all homes and businesses across their service territory. Smart Meters are digital electric meters that securely send electricity-usage information to ComEd. Representatives have previously discussed the smart meter technology with City Council, most recently on May 16, 2016. During this meeting, ComEd provided an overview of the program and answered questions from City Council and members of the public. Those who chose to speak during this meeting, expressed health, privacy, and security concerns with the smart meter technology. During this discussion, it was also learned that ComEd offers a temporary deferral program for individuals who are not interested in having a smart meter installed during this deployment period; however, no permanent opt-out program currently exists. To this end, City staff has prepared a resolution, which can be found on page 118, which calls for action to investigate a permanent opt-out option for residents. COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, approval of a Resolution encouraging Commonwealth Edison to allow residents an opportunity to permanently opt out of the smart meter program COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the eight (8) Omnibus items. 9.ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION 10.ADJOURNMENT Office of the City Manager July 13, 2016 11 Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Agenda 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. 12 7/5/2016 Lake Forest Caucus :: Admin http://app.lfcaucusweb.com/contacts/print.php?contact=13746 1/1 Richard Wood - MR Title:MR Company: Home Address 1032 N. Western Ave. Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 Email 1: rowood@woodburditt.com Work Phone: 8472347500 Mobile Phone: 8477365078 Home Phone: 8472344384 Notes: Ward: Ward 3 Precient: Not Sure Lake Forest Resident since(YYYY): 1974 Date of Birth (Optional) 2/19/48 US Citizen: Yes Registered Voter: Yes Spouse's Name: Patricia Keaney Wood Children's Birth Years: All Grown Education: Trinity College (Hartford) BA '71 Major Economics; John Marshall Law School (JD '76) Business Name: the Wood Burditt group Type of Business: Regulatory (FDA) Law Firm Business Phone: 847 234 7500 x 203 Position: Founder/Owner Legal Committee: Consider Me For this Position In the Future Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA): I Have Held This O秩立ce In The Past Other Positions: Gorton Commmunity Center Board Please list any regular commitments or travel that would interfere with your attendance at scheduled meetings: full year resident of Lake Forest for the foreseeable future; occasional pleasure travel; limited business travel Please list any current or previous community service activites, interests, directorships, etc. -- public or private. For each activity please indicate years served and positions held: Zoning Board Appeals, Ward 3 -- starting 1995 (2 terms) Please list other activities, specialized skills, knowledge, or professional experience that would contribute to your e�㢆ectiveness in the position(s) for which you are applying or expressing possible future interest: While on the ZBA we reviewed the building rehabilitation at Gorton, so I spent time at the Center and with employees in connection with my review of the requested setback variances and special use permit, and dealt with the neighbors expressing concern. Please state brie퐖y why you are volunteering to serve The City of Lake Forest: Understanding of the importance of Gorton to the community and desire to help protect that city asset for future generations. Please list any interests or activities that could lead to, or BE PERCEIVED as, a con퐖ict of interest if you become a candidate or appointee.: None to my knowledge; but that having been said, I am not aware of any provision in the City statutes or other o秩立cial city documents that de갹Һnes the term. References (Optional): App Ward Interview: App Caucus Interview: 13 FY17 Rollover List VENDOR ACCOUNT NO.DESCRIPTION BALANCE Craig Bergmann Landscape 101-1101-411-8495 Architectural Landscape Design 9,458.00 Hanson Professional 101-1101-411-8495 Telegraph Underpass Engineering 7,930.00 Lake County Forest Preserve 101-1101-411-8495 Middlefork Phase II IGA 17,702.00 Interdev 101-1315-415-3510 IT Contractual 26,826.00 Verizon 101-1540-419-6020 IPADS for new Work Order Program 5,000.00 Olson Rug 101-1601-416-3510 Carpet replacement - Croya 7,685.00 Amon's Asphalt 101-2501-499-8404 Paving Compost Center Parking Lot 16,600.00 Public Funds Consulting 101-2501-499-8495 Consulting Service for Investment Policy 4,250.00 Amon's Asphalt 101-5132-431-3510 Paving Compost Center Parking Lot 2,900.00 Excel Ltd 101-5132-431-3510 Street Light Electrical Cabinets Upgrade 6,000.00 Guy Scopelliti 101-5132-431-3510 CBD Crosswalk Repair & Maintenance 6,200.00 Schroeder & Schroeder 101-5132-431-3510 Mayflower Rd Contractual Repair 12,692.00 Verizon 101-5132-431-6020 IPADS for new Work Order Program 5,000.00 Peter Baker & Son 101-5132-431-6111 Asphalt Material for Streets 10,000.00 Superior Road Striping 101-5137-431-3510 Road Striping 172.00 Northern Divers 101-5138-431-6111 CFL Street Lights 10,000.00 Supreme Casting 101-5138-431-6111 CLF Street Light Fabrication 18,800.00 American Gas Lamp 101-5138-431-6112 Gas Lamp Parts Stock 7,824.00 GENERAL FUND 175,039.00 Max-R 220-5774-452-8405 Parks Recycling Bins 10,141.00 Plante & Moran 220-8065-451-7501 Implementation of RecTrac 13,894.00 Vermont Systems Inc 220-8065-451-7501 Rec software program/hardware/installation 52,810.00 Libertyville Tile 220-8065-451-8405 Clubhouse carpet 9,163.00 Olson Rug 220-8065-451-8405 Carpet replacement - Rec Staff Area 8,165.00 College Park Athletic 220-8076-451-3510 Tennis Service 30,973.00 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 125,146.00 R A Adams 223-5774-452-6020 Replace Parks Trailer 3,055.00 R A Adams 223-5774-452-7501 Replace Parks Trailer 5,690.00 Parks Equipment Reserve 8,745.00 Community PartnersAfford.Housing 248-3401-414-3510 Affordable Housing 50,000.00 Community PartnersAfford.Housing 248-3401-414-3510 Affordable Housing 65,000.00 Affordable Housing 115,000.00 Bleck Engineering 311-0050-413-3511 Survey McCormick Ravine 6,933.00 AVI Systems 311-0050-413-7603 PEG Cable Access Engineering Services 11,400.00 IT Capital 311-0050-415-6611 IT Capital Projects 50,000.00 Professional Paving 311-0050-417-3510 Golf Course Parking Lot paving 12,544.00 A Lamp Concrete 311-0050-417-7601 Parking lot improvements - E.Train Station 37,513.00 HDR Engineering 311-0050-417-7689 Telegraph Train Station Underpass 195,376.00 Hansen Engineering 311-0050-417-7689 Telegraph Train Station Underpass 100,000.00 Peter Baker 311-0050-417-7695 Asphalt re-surfacing SSA 46,142.00 Regency Lane 10% Contingency 311-0050-417-7695 Regency Lane SSA 21,115.62 Vendor to be Determined 311-0050-422-7801 Fire Engine 525,000.00 Superior Road Striping 311-0050-431-6722 Road Striping 4,828.00 Divinci Painters 311-0050-431-6723 Painting - Walden Bridge 13,000.00 Neptun Light 311-0050-431-6741 LED Retrofit Kit 11,088.00 Neptun Light 311-0050-431-6741 LED Square Light Fixtures 18,992.00 Neptun Light 311-0050-431-6741 Electric Light Conversion 6,474.00 T Y Lin 311-0050-431-7909 McClory Bike Path 19,686.00 James LaDuke 311-0060-419-7658 Gorton Comm. Center 7,033.00 Mag Construction 311-0060-419-7717 CBD Train Station - Stage 2 -91,153.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 995,971.62 Teska Associates 322-2501-499-3510 Laurel Ave development 6,455.00 Jacob & Hefner 322-2501-499-3535 Owners Rep Laurel Property 29,005.00 American Demolition 322-2501-499-7705 Laurel Ave MS demolition 222,469.00 Universal Asbestos Removal 322-2501-499-7705 Asbestos abatement - Laurel Avenue 26,000.00 Laurel/Western TIF 283,929.00 7/18/16 Final Reading - CC 14 FY17 Rollover List VENDOR ACCOUNT NO.DESCRIPTION BALANCE McHenry Analytical 501-6071-434-3510 Drinking Water Monitoring 7,310.00 Northern Divers 501-6071-434-3510 Tank Inspections 9,200.00 Strand 501-6071-434-3510 Water Supply Evaluation 13,420.00 Verizon 501-6072-434-6020 IPADS for new Work Order Program 4,000.00 Guy Scopelliti 501-6073-433-3510 Mayflower Ravine Job-140 12,480.00 Guy Scopelliti 501-6073-433-3510 Waveland Foot Bridge 5,460.00 Wachs Water Service 501-6073-433-3510 MPI Valve Program 19,652.00 B & F Construction 501-6073-433-3510 Hydrant Flow Testing 1,000.00 M.Tanzillo 501-6073-433-4210 Hauling Spoils - Water & Sewer 6,010.00 Ads Environmental 501-6078-433-3515 Leak Detection 18,094.00 B & F Construction 501-6078-433-6621 Hydrant Flow Testing 4,100.00 Verizon 501-6190-433-6020 IPADS for new Work Order Program 1,000.00 Illinois Pump 501-6191-433-3510 Rebuild Pump - Sheridan Lift Station 16,682.00 Menoni & Mocogni 501-6191-433-6111 Material 6,350.00 WATER AND SEWER FUND 124,758.00 Strand 508-0001-434-7501 Chloride Residual Structural Analysis 19,000.00 Strand 508-0001-434-7501 Water Plant Design 301,280.00 Flolo 508-0001-434-7501 Generator Breaker Replacement 14,000.00 R J Underground 508-0001-440-7501 Water Main - Oak Knoll & Lawrence 48,466.00Peter Baker 508-0001-441-7501 Regency Lane SSA 29,357.60 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 412,103.60 GRAND TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS 2,240,692.22 7/18/16 Final Reading - CC 15 Expenditures Debt FY2017 Payments Rollovers Library Subtotal Contingency Approp Ord 101 General Fund 32,381,942 175,039 32,556,981 3,255,698 35,812,679 120 Flex 122 LF Hospital Project 185,000 185,000 18,500 203,500 124 MS Site Project 280,000 280,000 28,000 308,000 201 Park & Public Land 165,000 165,000 16,500 181,500 202 MFT 200,000 200,000 20,000 220,000 205 Emergency Telephone 318,197 318,197 31,820 350,017 210 Senior Resources 607,972 607,972 60,797 668,769 220 Parks and Recreation (incl Rec Dev)8,815,010 125,146 8,940,156 894,016 9,834,172 223 Parks Equip Reserve 150,000 8,745 158,745 15,875 174,620 224 Special Recreation 440,040 440,040 44,004 484,044 230 Cemetery 852,402 852,402 85,240 937,642 245 Foreign Fire Insurance 200,000 n/a 0 246 Drug Asset Forfeiture 28,000 28,000 2,800 30,800 247 Alcohol Asset Forfeiture 90,000 90,000 9,000 99,000 248 Housing Trust 250,000 115,000 365,000 36,500 401,500 0 0 311 Capital Improvement 4,678,153 995,972 5,674,125 567,413 6,241,538 314 Rt. 60 Bridge 1,040,305 1,040,305 104,031 1,144,336 315 Rt. 60 Intersection 414,431 414,431 41,443 455,874 322 Laurel/Western Redevelopment TIF 1,606,500 283,929 1,890,429 189,043 2,079,472 421 2003D Bond - Storm Sewer 635,854 635,854 63,585 699,439 422 SSA 25 - Knollwood Sewer 72,285 (72,285)0 0 423 SSA 26 - Waukegan Sewer 19,814 (19,814)0 0 424 SSA 29 - Saunders Road 142,920 (142,920)0 0 425 2004B - Storm Sewer 531,090 (531,090)0 0 0 427 2008 G.O. Bonds - MS Bldg & Rt 60 Park 822,075 (822,075)0 0 428 2009 G.O. Bonds - Western Avenue 278,120 (278,120)0 0 429 2010 G.O. Bonds 618,811 (618,811)0 0 432 2013 Refunding 2010A 335,763 (335,763)0 0 433 2015 G.O. Bonds 249,159 (249,159)0 0 501 Water & Sewer 8,030,406 124,758 8,155,164 815,516 8,970,680 508 Water and Sewer Capital 1,674,130 412,104 2,086,234 208,623 2,294,857 510 Deerpath Golf Course 2,090,533 2,090,533 209,053 2,299,586 601 Fleet 1,975,053 1,975,053 197,505 2,172,558 605 Liability Insurance 1,255,507 1,255,507 125,551 1,381,058 610 Self Insurance 6,160,000 6,160,000 616,000 6,776,000 701 Fire Pension 2,185,000 2,185,000 218,500 2,403,500 702 Police Pension 2,470,000 2,470,000 247,000 2,717,000 709 Trust Care Funds 82,249,472 (3,070,037)2,240,693 0 81,220,128 8,122,013 89,342,141 Library 4,147,484 4,147,484 414,748 4,562,232 4,147,484 85,367,612 8,536,761 93,904,373 SD 67 39,075,263 39,075,263 Appropriation Ordinance Total 132,979,636 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST Appropriation Ordinance Worksheet Pension/Trust Funds Total All Funds Special Revenue Funds Capital Project Funds Debt Service Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds 16 Section 1: That the following sums, or so much thereof as may be authorized by law, be and the same are hereby appropriated from the respective fund designated in this ordinance for the corporate purposes of The City of Lake Forest and for the objects and purposes stated herein according to departments and other separate agencies, and for the Public Schools of The City of Lake Forest, County of Lake and State of Illinois, to defray the necessary expenses of the City and its Public Schools for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2017. GENERAL FUND General Government Appropriation Salaries and Benefits 2,897,000$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 4,937,987 Capital Equipment Contingency - to meet expenses of emergencies and optional expenses not otherwise provided for 3,255,698 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 11,090,685$ Law Contractual Services 450,000$ TOTAL LAW 450,000$ Community Development Salaries and Benefits 1,573,629$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 155,341 Capital Equipment - TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,728,970$ Public Works Administration Salaries and Benefits 415,890$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 67,481 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 483,371$ Public Buildings Building Maintenance Salaries and Benefits 866,936$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 703,564 TOTAL PUBLIC BUILDINGS 1,570,500$ located in Lake County, Illinois, as follows: AN ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATION FOR 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, an Illinois special charter and home rule municipal corporation 17 Streets Appropriation Salaries and Benefits 1,064,109$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 844,951 TOTAL STREETS 1,909,060$ Sanitation Salaries and Benefits 1,249,519$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 1,102,185 TOTAL SANITATION 2,351,704$ Storm Sewers Salaries and Benefits 132,466$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 36,668 TOTAL STORM SEWERS 169,134$ Engineering Salaries and Benefits 549,432$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 89,036 TOTAL ENGINEERING 638,468$ Fire Administration Salaries and Benefits 4,644,418$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 1,486,105 Sub-Total 6,130,523$ Emergency Medical Services Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 27,500$ Sub-Total 27,500$ Fire Suppression Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 92,015$ Sub-Total 92,015$ TOTAL FIRE 6,250,038$ Police Salaries and Benefits 6,226,387$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 2,944,362 TOTAL POLICE 9,170,749$ TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE GENERAL FUND 35,812,679$ 18 Lake Forest Hospital Project Appropriation Supplies/Other Services and Charges 185,000$ Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 18,500 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM Lake Forest Hospital Project Fund 203,500$ MS Site Project Supplies/Other Services and Charges 280,000$ Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 28,000 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM MS Site Project Fund 308,000$ PARK AND PUBLIC LAND FUND Park Improvements 165,000$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 16,500 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE PARK AND PUBLIC LAND FUND 181,500$ MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND Capital Improvements 200,000$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 20,000 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND 220,000$ EMERGENCY TELEPHONE FUND Police Salaries and Benefits -$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 318,197 Capital Equipment - Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 31,820 TOTAL POLICE 350,017$ TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE EMERGENCY TELEPHONE FUND 350,017$ SENIOR RESOURCES COMMISSION FUND Salaries and Benefits 333,032$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 274,940 Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 60,797 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE SENIOR RESOURCES COMMISSION FUND 668,769$ 19 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Appropriation Recreation Recreation Programs Salaries and Benefits 3,307,728$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 1,907,912 Capital Equipment 95,954 Sub-Total 5,311,594$ Parks Equipment Reserve 158,745 Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 909,890 TOTAL RECREATION SECTION 6,380,229$ Parks and Forestry Administration Salaries and Benefits 2,330,073$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 706,689 Capital Equipment 150,000 Sub-Total 3,186,762$ Grounds Maintenance Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 279,800$ Sub-Total 279,800$ Athletic Field Plg/Tennis Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 64,000$ Sub-Total 64,000$ Lakefront Facilities Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 29,000$ Capital Equipment - Sub-Total 29,000$ Tree Trimming Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 30,000$ Sub-Total 30,000$ Tree Removal Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 16,500$ Sub-Total 16,500$ Insect & Disease Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 12,000$ Sub-Total 12,000$ Tree & Shrub Planting/Care Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 10,500$ Sub-Total 10,500$ TOTAL PARKS AND FORESTRY SECTION 3,628,562$ 20 Appropriation TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 10,008,791$ SPECIAL RECREATION FUND Salaries and Benefits 36,714$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 287,729 Capital Improvements 115,597 Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 44,004 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE SPECIAL RECREATION FUND 484,044$ CEMETERY COMMISSION FUND Salaries and Benefits 372,319$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 230,083 Capital Improvements 250,000 Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and operational expenses not otherwise provided for 85,240 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE CEMETERY COMMISSION FUND 937,642$ PUBLIC LIBRARY FUND Library Services Salaries and Benefits 2,731,784$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 1,009,700 Building Maintenance - Supplies/Other Services and Charges 181,000$ Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and operational expenses not otherwise provided for 414,748 Sub-Total 4,337,232$ Capital Equipment 125,000$ Capital Improvements 100,000 Sub-Total 225,000$ TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE PUBLIC LIBRARY FUND 4,562,232$ DRUG ASSET FORFEITURE FUND Supplies/Other Services and Charges 28,000$ Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 2,800 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM DRUG ASSET FORFEITURE FUND 30,800$ 21 ALCOHOL ASSET FORFEITURE FUND Appropriation Supplies/Other Services and Charges 90,000$ Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 9,000 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM ALCOHOL ASSET FORFEITURE FUND 99,000$ HOUSING TRUST FUND Supplies/Other Services and Charges 365,000$ Capital Improvements - Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 36,500 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE HOUSING TRUST FUND 401,500$ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Salaries and Benefits -$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges - Capital Equipment 809,191 Capital Improvements 4,864,934 Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 567,412 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 6,241,537$ RT 60 BRIDGE FUND Capital Improvements 1,040,305$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 104,031 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE RT 60 BRIDGE FUND 1,144,336$ RT 60 INTERSECTION FUND Capital Improvements 414,431$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 41,443 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE RT 60 INTERSECTION FUND 455,874$ Laurel/Western Redevelopment Supplies/Other Services and Charges 341,960 Capital Improvements 1,548,469$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 189,043 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE LAUREL/WESTERN REDEVELOPMENT FUND 2,079,472$ 22 2011A Bond Storm Sewer Appropriation Capital Improvements 635,854$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 63,585 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE 2011A BOND STORM SEWER FUND 699,439$ WATER AND SEWER FUND General Government Salaries and Benefits 235,051$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 2,201,171 Debt retirement 2,201,829 Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 815,516 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 5,453,567$ Public Works Salaries and Benefits 2,006,729$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 1,510,384 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 3,517,113$ TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE WATER AND SEWER FUND 8,970,680$ WATER AND SEWER CAPITAL FUND Capital Equipment -$ Capital Improvements 2,086,233 Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 208,623 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE WATER AND SEWER CAPITAL FUND 2,294,856$ DEERPATH GOLF COURSE FUND Administration Salaries and Benefits 534,978$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 529,630 Capital Equipment 123,000 Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 209,053 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 1,396,661$ Course Maintenance Salaries and Benefits -$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 170,469 TOTAL COURSE MAINTENANCE 170,469$ 23 Appropriation Clubhouse Salaries and Benefits 146,278$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 586,178 TOTAL CLUBHOUSE 732,456$ TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE DEERPATH GOLF COURSE FUND 2,299,586$ FLEET FUND Salaries and Benefits 734,802$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 1,240,251 Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 197,505 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE FLEET FUND 2,172,558$ LIABILITY INSURANCE FUND Supplies/Other Services and Charges 1,255,507$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 125,551 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE LIABILITY INSURANCE FUND 1,381,058$ SELF INSURANCE FUND Supplies/Other Services and Charges 6,160,000$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 616,000 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE SELF INSURANCE FUND 6,776,000$ FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND Other Services and Charges 2,185,000$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 218,500 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND 2,403,500$ POLICE PENSION FUND Other Services and Charges 2,470,000$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 247,000 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE POLICE PENSION FUND 2,717,000$ 24 Public Schools THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST Appropriation Estimates - Subject to Change School District No. 67 From the Education Fund 27,976,211$ From the Operations, Building and Maintenance Fund 5,894,632 From the Capital Projects Fund 3,412,100 From the Illinois Municipal Retirement/Social Security Fund 759,979 From the Working Cash Fund - From the Transportation Fund 1,032,341 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST (School District No. 67)39,075,263$ Summary of the Amounts Appropriated From the Several Funds Fund Appropriation General 35,812,679$ Lake Forest Hospital Project 203,500$ MS Site Project 308,000$ Park and Public Land 181,500 Motor Fuel Tax 220,000 Emergency Telephone 350,017 Senior Resources Commission 668,769 Parks and Recreation 10,008,791 Special Recreation 484,044 Cemetery Commission 937,642 Public Library 4,562,232 Drug Asset Forfeiture 30,800 Alcohol Asset Forfeiture 99,000 Affordable Housing 401,500 Capital Improvements 6,241,537 Rt. 60 Bridge 1,144,336 Rt. 60 Intersection 455,874 Laurel/Western Redevelopment 2,079,472 2011A Bond Storm Sewer 699,439 2011B Bond Storm Sewer - Water and Sewer 8,970,680 Water and Sewer Capital Fund 2,294,856 Deerpath Golf Course 2,299,586 Fleet 2,172,558 Liability Insurance 1,381,058 Self Insurance 6,776,000 Firefighters' Pension 2,403,500 Police Pension 2,717,000 Sub-Total 93,904,370$ 25 The City of Lake Forest School District No. 67 Estimates - Subject to Change Education 27,976,211$ Operations, Building and Maintenance 5,894,632 Capital Projects 3,412,100 Illinois Municipal Retirement/Social Security 759,979 Working Cash - Transportation 1,032,341 Sub-Total 39,075,263$ GRAND TOTAL 132,979,633$ Section 2: That any sum of money heretofore appropriated and not expended now in the Treasury of The City of Lake Forest, or that hereafter may come into the Treasury of The City of Lake Forest, is hereby reappropriated by this Ordinance. Section 3: That the funds derived from sources other than the 2015 tax levy and other revenue pledged for specific purposes may be allotted by the Mayor and City Council to such appropriations and in such amounts respectively, as said Corporate Authorities may determine within the limits of said appropriations, respectively, insofar as doing same does not conflict with the law. Section 4: That any unexpended balances of any items of any general appropriation made by this Ordinance may be expended in making up any deficiency in any other item in the same general appropriation made by this Ordinance and is hereby appropriated therefore. Section 5: That any sum of money received for a specific purpose or category of expenditure from any source other than real estate taxes (including without limitation grants and donations) that is not specifically authorized by this appropriation ordinance shall be authorized for expenditure upon acceptance of such sum of money by the City, provided that such expenditure is approved in accordance with applicable City ordinances and procedures. Section 6: That the sum of money that the Corporate Authorities of the City (or such subordinate body of the City empowered to authorize the expenditure of funds) have approved, or will approve, to satisfy a lawful debt of the City, and for which money is available in the Treasury (or in the specific fund over which a subordinate body may have authority) at the time of such approval, is hereby appropriated by this ordinance. Section 7: That if any item or portion thereof of this Appropriation Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the 26 remaining portion of such item or the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 8: The City Council shall at any time have the power, to make transfers of sums of money appropriated for one corporate object or purpose, but no appropriation for any object or purposes shall thereby be reduced below any amount sufficient to cover all obligations incurred or to be incurred against such appropriation. Section 9: At any time during the fiscal year when an expenditure shall exceed the amounts set forth in this ordinance and there are funds available in the City's Treasury, the City Council may approve such expenditure and grant a supplemental appropriation for such purpose contemporaneously. Section 10: This ordinance shall be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication. PASSED THIS ____ day of ________________, 2016 ____________________________________________ APPROVED THIS ____ day of ________________, 2016 _____________________________________________ ATTEST: ______________________________________ City Clerk That this ordinance be published in pamphlet form and be made available to the public at the City Hall service counter. 27 FERRY HALL BRIDGE LOCATION: Between 540 and 600 Mayflower IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 48 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: 1969 MAY 2013 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 81.8 1. There are currently two (2) areas of concern which involve the superstructure and substructure. a. The area of concern on the superstructure involves the deterioration (laminating corrosion) that is occurring on the beams. During the 1996 reconstruction of the bridge deck these beams were found to be exhibiting excessive corrosion near the abutments. Therefore, the beams were painted from the abutments to the first diaphragms. This inspection found the painted sections performing well, but the laminating corrosion has progressed on the beams past the first diaphragms. This condition needs attention by continuing the painting of these beams and diaphragms beyond the sections near the abutments. b. The second area of concern is on the substructure where excessive erosion is occurring underneath the "cantilevered" section on the south approach. The excessive erosion has progressed where the pile caps are exposed which support the piers. This situation needs to be addressed as soon as possible by repairing the storm sewer and correcting the rill erosion with gabion baskets and mattresses. WORK COMPLETED IN 2013: • Erosion damage under south end of bridge was restored and protected against further erosion by the installation of gabion mattresses. • The exposed storm pipe coming out of the wall under the south end of the bridge was repaired. 2015 MAINTENANCE: • Erosion damage under south end of bridge was restored and protected against further erosion by the installation of gabion baskets. MAY 2016 INSPECTION BY CITY STAFF: It was noted that potions of the underside of the viaduct section at the south end of the bridge were delaminating from the structure. Upon further inspection by Ken Magnus and by Wiss, Janney, Elstner, it was determined that the original 1969 concrete deck in this area was delaminating from the newer concrete deck installed in 1996. CARR-THOMPSON BRIDGE LOCATION: 175 N. Mayflower IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 24 months ORIGINALLY BUILT: Unknown JUNE 2014 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 81.8 28 1. Delaminating of the concrete deck is continuing to deteriorate and needs to be replaced. 2. Significant restorative measures have been undertaken in the recent past to address the erosion that had occurred within the ravine directly below the deck scuppers. However, some minor rill erosion is again occurring adjacent to a pile cap near the north end of the bridge. 3. The vehicular bridge is in good condition and will remain so if normal maintenance activities are undertaken at this time. The maintenance activities are routine in nature as well as inexpensive except for the replacement of the bearing plates, which need a more substantive restorative effort. 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed DEERPATH BRIDGE LOCATION: 255 W. Deerpath IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 24 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: Unknown AUGUST 2013 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 76.9 1. Remove debris from the streambed and below the scuppers (drainage structure located on the bridge deck). 2. Also, the deck joints need to be cleaned. 3. The sidewalk was found to be in good condition, but some minor spalling was evident in some areas. 4. The concrete parapet had some areas of cracking. 5. The steel railings and sidewalk barrier were found to be in good condition, but it was noted that the paint is beginning to peel in several areas. 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed EVERETT ROAD BRIDGE LOCATION: West of 691 Everett IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 48 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: 1908 JUNE 2015 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 86.5 1. There is a minor deflection on the bridge railing located on the south side, but remains structurally sound. 2. There is a "spalled" area on the reinforced concrete deck (southwest corner) which should be repaired. 3. A log is located in the streambed which should be removed 4. The vegetation overhanging the sidewalk should be "cut back". 29 5. The vehicular bridge is in very good condition and will remain so if normal maintenance activities are undertaken at this time. The maintenance activities are minor as well as inexpensive. The cleaning of debris from the streambed needs to be on an ongoing maintenance schedule. 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed LAKE-WOODBINE BRIDGE LOCATION: 900 N. Lake Road IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 24 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: 1912 SEPTEMBER 2010 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 34.2 Remarks: none SPRING 2011 MAINTENANCE: Drain Clearing, Joint Cleaning JUNE 2014 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: -- Remarks: Currently scheduled to be replaced under BRP funding. Currently in phase I engineering. New guardrail installed at southeast end. 2014 MAINTENANCE: Erosion control 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed MCLENNON-REED BRIDGE LOCATION: 1345 N. Lake Rd IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 24 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: Early 1900’s JUNE 2014 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 88.9 The routine inspection undertaken in 2012 noted several minor structural deficiencies that have yet to be addressed. The deficiencies remain and include: 1. Settlement of the sidewalk adjacent to the deck 2. Areas of spalling on the deck 3. Rust/delamination of the steel girders adjacent to the abutments 4. The failure of the concrete channel located along the bottom of the ravine. Failure of the concrete channel is allowing erosion to occur on the ravine slope. 2015 MAINTENANCE: Painted superstructure 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed 30 OLD ELM BRIDGE LOCATION: Between Green Bay and Valley IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 48 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: 1925 OCTOBER 2015 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 79.8 There were some minor issues found that need to be addressed. These "minor" issues include: 1. Removing debris from the streambed and deck joints 2. Scour is occurring in the streambed adjacent to the storm sewer outfall located in the east abutment. The flow from this storm sewer has moved the existing stone riprap to the west side of the stream. The existing stone riprap needs to be redistributed evenly across the streambed under the bridge. Additional larger stone riprap, similar in size that protects the west abutment of the Hickory Court Bridge located upstream, needs to be placed in the area where the scour is occurring. It should be noted that when placing the larger riprap it can not extend above the elevation of the existing stone riprap located in the streambed. 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed ONWENTSIA BRIDGE LOCATION: 105 W. Onwentsia IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 48 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: 1916 JUNE 2015 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 85.5 1. There is some minor deterioration noted on some of the concrete balustrades located within the bridge railing. 2. The concrete sidewalk and barrier curb has settled significantly adjacent to the bridge, which causes a 'tripping hazard' for pedestrians. 3. The concrete flared end section located at the northeast quadrant of the bridge has separated from the existing storm sewer. 4. The vehicular bridge is in good condition and will remain so if normal maintenance activities are undertaken at this time. The maintenance activities are minor as well as inexpensive. The cleaning of debris from the streambed needs to be on an ongoing maintenance schedule. 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed RINGWOOD BRIDGE LOCATION: 840 E. Ringwood Road – near Sheridan Road IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 24 Months 31 ORIGINALLY BUILT: 1913 AUGUST 2015 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 18.0 Remarks: The bridge is located along a low volume "residential" roadway and spans a shallow ravine. This is a vehicular bridge initially constructed in 1913 and was rehabilitated in 1989. The extent of rehabilitation included the construction of a new concrete deck and parapet with decorative balustrade railings. These new elements were built upon the existing concrete arch. Because the existing arch was not replaced the sufficiency rating remains very low. This bridge has an 18 Sufficiency Rating as well as a H10 load rating. 2015 MAINTENANCE: • Tuck pointing • Decorative side walls • Reset limestone caps • Repave asphalt west approach • Gabion baskets erosion control • Drainage improvements The approaches at both ends of the bridge were repaved and the curb replaced. SHERIDAN ROAD BRIDGE LOCATION: 666 S. Sheridan Road – near Deerpath intersection IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 48 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: Unknown RECONSTRUCTED: 1928 RECONSTRUCTED: 2001 JULY 2013 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: -- There are some areas of concern which involve the onset of corrosion type deterioration on some of the aesthetic features: 1. Most notably within the railing panels {wall/balusters/caps). 2. Concrete scaling is evident throughout the railing panels. 3. The deterioration is especially noted on the decorative balusters. As this deterioration progresses it will be necessary to begin to replace the balusters. 4. Also noted, during the inspection was the settlement of the foundation supporting the decorative end scrolls. This has resulted in the decorative scrolls beginning to "pull away" from the ends of the bridge. The repair of these decorative scrolls should be planned for in the City's current Capital Improvement Program. WORK COMPLETED IN 2013: • Repair or replace the foundations for the decorative scrolls at the end of the bride railings. The foundations are settling and the scrolls are pulling away from the railings. 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed 32 WALDEN LANE EAST BRIDGE LOCATION: 1111 E. Walden Lane IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 48 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: 1914 OCTOBER 2015 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 87.5 1. Erosion is occurring on the ravine slope directly under the bridge. This can be corrected by placing gabion baskets along the toe of the ravine and gabion mattresses on the slope. The gabion installations need to extend to the south side of the bridge. It is important to keep the channel clear of debris in order that upstream stormwater flows are not blocked. 2. The deck joints and drainage structures also need to be cleaned on a regular basis. 3. Corrosion is occurring on the diaphragm located at the southeast side of the bridge. This structural member needs to be repainted. 4. Directly below the diaphragm, the stone fascia on the abutment needs to be tuckpointed. 5. There is minor deterioration noted on some of the concrete balustrades located within the bridge railing. 6. The vehicular bridge is in good condition and will remain so if normal maintenance activities are undertaken at this time. The maintenance activities are routine in nature as well as inexpensive except for the channel and slope repairs needed directly below the bridge deck. The cleaning of the deck joints, drainage structures and ravine channel need to be on an ongoing maintenance schedule. 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed WALDEN LANE WEST BRIDGE LOCATION: 1044 E. Walden Lane IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 48 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: 1914 OCTOBER 2015 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 87.5 1. Separation between the stone fascia wall and bridge deck was noted at the northwest corner of the bridge. 2. Corrosion was noted on the steel diaphragms and deck forms located adjacent to the abutments. The intrusion of stormwater from the deck joint appears to have contributed to the deterioration. It is important that the deck joints are cleaned on a regular basis to inhibit the corrosion beneath the bridge deck. 3. There is some minor deterioration noted on some of the concrete balustrades located within the bridge railing. This was noted in the previous inspection, but does not appear to have progressed. 33 4. Corrosion is occurring on some of the bearing plates. The condition of these bearing plates needs to be monitored. 5. The drainage structures were found to contain debris which needs to be removed on a regular basis. 6. The vehicular bridge is in good condition and will remain so if normal maintenance activities are undertaken at this time. The maintenance activities are routine in nature as well as inexpensive. The cleaning of the deck joints need to be on an ongoing maintenance schedule. 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed WESTLEIGH ROAD EAST BRIDGE LOCATION: 88 East Westleigh Road IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 48 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: Unknown MAY 2010 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 98.0 Remarks: none MAY 2013 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: -- Remarks: On May 4, 2013 an inspection of the bridge was performed. Generally, the bridge was found to be in very good condition with only a few minor deficiencies noted. WORK COMPLETED IN 2013: • Tuck-point and repair mortar between capstones. 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed WESTLEIGH ROAD WEST BRIDGE LOCATION: West of Wallace Road IDOT REQUIRED INSPECTION INTERVAL: 24 Months ORIGINALLY BUILT: 1992 JUNE 2015 INSPECTION: Sufficiency Rating: 94.5 There were some minor issues found that need to be addressed. 1. Deterioration is progressing at the deck joints. 2. Erosion is occurring on the streambank where the CMP storm sewer outfall is located at the NW quadrant as well as on the streambed where the CMP storm sewer outfall is located at the SW quadrant. 3. The concrete sidewalk, located adjacent to the bridge at the SE quadrant, has cracked and settled which causes a 'tripping hazard' for pedestrians. 4. The vehicular bridge is in very good condition and will remain so if normal maintenance activities and minor repairs are undertaken at this time. The maintenance activities and 34 repairs are relatively inexpensive. The removal of debris from the streambed needs to be on an ongoing maintenance schedule. 2016 MAINTENANCE: Power washed 35 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 330 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062 847.272.7400 tel | 847.291.4813 fax www.wje.com Headquarters & Laboratories–Northbrook, Illinois Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Chicago | Cleveland | Dallas | Denver | Detroit | Honolulu | Houston | Los Angeles Minneapolis | New Haven | New York | Princeton | San Francisco | Seattle | South Florida | Washington, DC Via E-mail: ellsr@cityoflakeforest.com June 15, 2016 Mr. Robert Ells Superintendent of Engineering The City of Lake Forest 800 North Field Drive Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 Re: Ferry Hall Bridge South Approach Span Condition Assessment WJE No. 2016.2743.0 Dear Mr. Ells: At the request of The City of Lake Forest (The City), Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) performed a limited inspection of the Ferry Hall Bridge located on Mayflower Road between Spring Lane and Rosemary Road. This inspection focused on the south approach span, which exhibits extensive deterioration on the underside of the concrete deck slab. Reportedly, Bleck Engineering Company, Inc. (Bleck Engineering) was performing a routine bridge inspection in accordance with National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) when the deterioration was initially discovered. This report summarizes the condition of the south approach span structure and presents options for addressing the deterioration. Description of Structure The Ferry Hall Bridge (Structure No. 049-6853) is a two lane bridge that crosses a deep ravine tributary to Lake Michigan. It is our understanding that the bridge was originally constructed in the 1930’s and was reconstructed in 1970. The primary bridge structure currently consists of three-span continuous steel girders supported on concrete piers and abutments. A plan view of the existing structure is shown in Figure 1. The roadway was re-aligned when the bridge was reconstructed in 1970, which required the construction of a concrete viaduct to the south of the primary bridge structure. This viaduct that makes up the south approach span is constructed using an 8-1/2 inch thick concrete slab supported on beams and columns along the east edge and the original retaining wall along the west edge. A transverse cross-section through this viaduct structure is shown in Figure 2. Available drawings indicate the bridge was designed for H15-44 loading. Work performed in the mid-1990’s involved the replacement of the deck and barrier rail on the primary bridge structure; however, the south approach span deck was rehabilitated rather than replaced. Rehabilitation involved scarification of the top 3 to 4 inches of the original 1970’s concrete slab and replacement of concrete and the top mat of reinforcing steel. As a result, the current south approach span slab consists of two layers. The bottom several inches of the original 1970’s slab and associated reinforcing steel comprises the lower layer, and the newer, mid-1990’s concrete and reinforcing steel comprises the upper layer. The thickness of the existing south approach span slab was measured at several locations with values ranging between 9 inches and 11-1/2 inches. An overall view of the south span viaduct is shown in Figure 3. 36 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 15, 2016 Page 2 Field Investigation and Observations WJE initially visited the site on May 19, 2016 to meet with representatives from The City and Bleck Engineering. During that visit, an area of approximately 150 square feet on the underside of the south approach span slab was visibly delaminated from the deck above and presented an overhead falling hazard. This deteriorated area is shown in Figure 4. Follow-up site visits were made by WJE on June 1st and 9th, 2016 to observe this area after crews from The City knocked down the delaminated concrete. This area after the concrete removal is shown in Figure 5. During these site visits, WJE sounded the topside and underside of the concrete deck within the south approach span. In addition, reinforcing bar section loss measurements were performed at selected locations within the area shown in Figure 5. Finally, samples of the deteriorated concrete on the underside of the slab were removed for laboratory testing, and four cores were removed to evaluate the condition of the slab above the lower mat of reinforcing steel. Visual observations on the top of south approach span deck revealed transverse shrinkage cracking spaced at approximately 2 to 3 feet, as shown in Figure 6. Map cracking was also noted in the segment of supported deck adjacent to the retaining wall support along the west edge. The crack pattern on the underside of the deck appeared similar to the pattern observed on the top side. In addition, many of the cracks on the underside of the deck exhibited moisture staining and efflorescence, as shown in Figure 7. A chain-drag survey on the top of the south approach slab structural deck identified two roughly 3 ft x 15 ft areas of delaminated concrete and other smaller areas of delamination. Acoustic sounding was performed on the soffit of the south approach slab, and this survey indicated that the majority of the underside of the deck was delaminated. In the area where the loose concrete had been removed, severe corrosion and section loss was noted on the reinforcing steel bars, and the section loss was typically measured to be between 20 percent and 50 percent of the original bar area. In addition, the concrete directly above and below the bars had a fractured appearance, likely caused by the corrosion of the transverse reinforcing bars at the bottom of the slab. As a result, there was very little effective bond between the reinforcement exposed in the concrete removal area and the generally sound concrete above, as shown in Figure 8. The lower portions of the concrete beam along the east edge of the south approach span slab was visually inspected, and this effort indicated the beam contained concrete delaminations over approximately 50 percent of its length, and an example of which is shown in Figure 9. In general, the columns appeared to be relatively good condition and only small localized areas of concrete delaminations were noted. Four concrete cores were removed from the south approach span slab, and these cores are shown in Figure 10. The core samples revealed that the concrete above the longitudinal bars of the bottom mat of reinforcing steel is generally sound, except for the shrinkage cracks and isolated delaminations discussed above. The cores also reveal the bond line between the original 1970’s slab and the newer mid-1990’s slab, as shown in Figure 11. Inspection inside the core hole confirmed that the concrete directly adjacent to the transverse bars in the bottom mat of reinforcing steel is severely deteriorated, as shown in Figure 12, which is a core from an area outside of the large concrete spall shown in Figure 5. 37 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 15, 2016 Page 3 Laboratory Testing Concrete samples were obtained from the delaminated concrete between the bottom reinforcing bars in order to approximate the chloride levels in the concrete near the lower reinforcing bars. Acid-soluble chloride analyses were performed on two samples essentially according to ASTM C1152, Method for Acid- Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete. Studies have shown that chloride contents above 0.02 to 0.03 percent by mass of concrete (depending on the cement content) can promote corrosion of embedded steel in normal weight concrete. The chloride contents of both samples were well above this threshold and would be expected to greatly promote the corrosion of embedded steel in the presence of sufficient moisture and oxygen. The results of the two chloride testes can be found in Table 1. Table 1. Chloride Contents Sample Acid-Soluble Chloride, % by mass of sample 1 0.294 2 0.274 Findings and Discussion The field observations, including coring, revealed severe deterioration of the original (1970’s vintage) concrete and reinforcing steel of the south approach span. This deterioration included widespread delaminations on the deck soffit, section loss of the primary reinforcing steel on the order of 20 to 50 percent of the original reinforcing bar area, debonded reinforcing bars, and through thickness cracking with moisture staining and efflorescence. Delaminations on the concrete edge beams was also observed. These findings are consistent with a superstructure rating of “3 - SERIOUS” for NBIS Item 59, as identified in the Illinois Highway Information System - Structure Information and Procedure Manual published by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). The deterioration is primarily related to corrosion of the original reinforcing steel, a process that was substantially accelerated by the presence of chlorides, most likely from de-icing salts. The widespread delaminations were caused by the accumulation of corrosion products, which take up much more space than the parent materials. The concentration of expansive forces at the plane of the lower reinforcing steel mat caused the concrete below to break free from the concrete above. The resulting voids comprised locations where moisture could accumulate and further accelerate the corrosion process and possibly initiate freeze/thaw damage within the adjacent concrete. The observed deterioration has reduced the load-carrying capacity of the concrete slab for the south approach span. Calculations performed by WJE indicate that this slab can no longer reliably support the H15-44 vehicle load for which it was designed. As a result, The City should take precautions to limit the weight of the vehicles that utilize the south approach span structure, such as posting a load limit or restricting traffic to the west lane. Load posting the bridge structure for a live load limit of 5 tons would allow passenger vehicles, pick-up trucks, and possibly some landscaping vehicles and ambulances; however, heavier vehicles would be excluded. Alternately, because the supported slab only takes up a portion of the approach structure width, traffic on the south approach structure could be restricted to the west lane. This would require installation of temporary traffic barriers and traffic control measures, such as stoplights, at each end of the restricted areas. Restricting traffic to only the west lane would not require a posted live load limit, which means it would be able to carry the original H15-44 design load (15 tons). Given that the deterioration will continue to progress, we believe that the structure should be re-inspected 38 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 15, 2016 Page 4 in one year to re-evaluate the appropriateness of the selected safety precaution (load posting or lane reduction). The condition of the south approach span slab structure is such that extensive repairs or replacement is required to restore the load-carrying capacity. In order to determine the feasibility of each option, additional evaluation similar to the work typically performed for IDOT Bridge Condition Reports (BCRs) will likely be required to compare the pros and cons of structure repair/rehabilitation and structure replacement. In addition, this work should include an evaluation of the 1930’s vintage retaining wall to determine if it is adequate for continued use. Finally, calculations for the remaining structure should be reviewed to determine the capacity of the primary three-span girder structure, as the south approach span structure may not need to be repaired/replaced to current design standards if the adjacent structure has a lower design loading. For the purposes of discussion, an order-of-magnitude cost for structure replacement is approximately $400,000 to $600,000. If it is found that repair is a feasible option, the order-of-magnitude costs would be approximately $150,000 to $300,000; however, the repairs would likely consist of shotcrete repairs or form- and-pour repairs and would generally be less durable than the deck replacement option. Currently, the remaining service life of the existing retaining wall is not known, and this would significantly add to the cost if the scope includes anything more than localized concrete repairs or soil anchor stabilization. We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Andrew R. Bishop Project Associate Douglas D. Crampton, P.E., S.E. Associate Principal and Project Manager Licensed Structural Engineer Illinois No. 6108 39 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 7, 2016 Page 5 Figure 1. Elevation and plan sketches of the Ferry Hall Bridge showing the location of the south approach span viaduct structure (circled). 40 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 7, 2016 Page 6 Figure 2. Typical cross-section (facing north) through the south approach span viaduct structure. 41 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 7, 2016 Page 7 Figure 3a. Overall view (facing south) of the south approach span viaduct (circled), retaining wall (arrow), and the primary continuous steel girder structure (foreground). Figure 3b. Overall view (facing south) of the south approach span deck surface, red line indicates approximate location of the retaining wall below. 42 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 7, 2016 Page 8 Figure 4. Area of imminent spalling (circle) on the underside of the deck (facing north). Figure 5. Deteriorated area in Figure 4 after loose concrete was removed (facing south). 43 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 7, 2016 Page 9 Figure 6. Typical transverse shrinkage cracks observed on the top surface of the concrete slab (arrows). Figure 7. Typical cracking with efflorescence on the underside of the concrete slab. 44 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 7, 2016 Page 10 Figure 8. Photo showing lack of bond between the concrete and the reinforcing steel. Figure 9. Typical delamination observed on the underside of the edge beam (circle). 45 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 7, 2016 Page 11 Figure 10. Cores removed from the bridge deck reveal sound concrete above the bottom mat of reinforcing steel. Figure 11. Core showing bond line (red line) between original 1970’s concrete (bottom) and mid-1990’s concrete (top). 46 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest June 7, 2016 Page 12 Figure 12. Photo in a core hole showing deteriorated concrete at the bottom of the concrete slab, note arrows shown delamination planes. 47 July 5, 2016 Dear Homeowner, Inspections in both May and June conducted by City staff and contractual engineers of the Ferry Hall Bridge (located on Mayflower Road between Spring Lane and Rosemary Road) identified extensive deterioration of the bridge’s east lane’s south approach on the underside of the concrete deck slab. Please see the photos on the back side of this letter. This bridge was originally constructed in the 1930s and was reconstructed in 1970. Rehabilitation work was performed in the mid-1990s; however, the south approach deck was not replaced. The recent observations revealed severe deterioration of the 1970’s concrete and reinforcing steel. The declining condition of the structure is such that extensive repairs or replacement will be required to restore the bridge. At the July 18, 2016 City Council meeting, staff will be requesting approval for engineering services to determine the scope of the necessary work to be done. Once a comprehensive repair is defined, a design will be developed and the repair project will be placed out to bid. Currently, staff believes this entire effort (to include construction) may take two years or more. With this imminent project in mind, beginning on August 1, 2016, one of the following options must be implemented: 1. Close the bridge until the necessary repair work is performed. 2. Permit only one-way traffic northbound allowing use of just the bridge’s west side lane. 3. Permit only one-way traffic southbound allowing use of just the bridge’s west side lane. The City is interested in hearing your thoughts on the proposed options. If you would like to share your thoughts with the City, we ask that you please contact me at (847) 810-3555 or email at ellsr@cityoflakeforest.com no later than Thursday, July 14th. We thank you in advance for your patience as we perform these necessary safety repairs to restore one of the City’s historic bridges. Sincerely, Robert Ells Superintendent of Engineering cc: Mayor Donald P. Schoenheider 1st Ward Alderman Catherine Waldeck 1st Ward Alderman Prue Beidler Robert Kiely, City Manager Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works 48 Area of imminent spalling on the underside of the deck (facing north). Deteriorated area after loose concrete was removed (facing south). Photo showing lack of bond between the concrete and the reinforcing steel. 49 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 330 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062 847.272.7400 tel | 847.291.4813 fax www.wje.com Headquarters & Laboratories–Northbrook, Illinois Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Chicago | Cleveland | Dallas | Denver | Detroit | Honolulu | Houston | Los Angeles Minneapolis | New Haven | New York | Princeton | San Francisco | Seattle | South Florida | Washington, DC Via E-mail: ellsr@cityoflakeforest.com July 8, 2016 Mr. Robert Ells Superintendent of Engineering The City of Lake Forest 800 North Field Drive Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 Re: Ferry Hall Bridge Condition Report WJE No. 2016.2743.1 Dear Mr. Ells: At the request of The City of Lake Forest (The City), Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) has prepared this proposal to complete an assessment for the Ferry Hall Bridge located on Mayflower Road between Spring Lane and Rosemary Road. This letter summarizes the proposed scope of work and provides an estimate of costs and schedule to complete the preparation of a Bridge Condition Report (BCR) as the first steps in rehabilitating this bridge. Background The Ferry Hall Bridge (Structure No. 049-6853) is a two lane bridge that crosses a deep ravine tributary to Lake Michigan. It is our understanding that the bridge was originally constructed in the 1930s and was reconstructed in 1970. The primary bridge structure currently consists of three-span continuous steel girders supported on concrete piers and abutments. A plan view of the existing structure is shown in Figure 1. The roadway was re-aligned when the bridge was reconstructed in 1970, which required the construction of a concrete viaduct to the south of the primary bridge structure. This viaduct makes up the south approach span and was constructed using an 8-1/2 inch thick concrete slab supported on beams and columns along the east edge and the original retaining wall along the west edge. A transverse cross-section through this viaduct structure is shown in Figure 2. Available drawings indicate the bridge was designed for H15-44 loading. Work performed in the mid-1990s involved the replacement of the deck and barrier rail on the primary bridge structure; however, the south approach span deck was rehabilitated rather than replaced. Rehabilitation involved scarification of the top 3 to 4 inches of the original 1970s concrete slab and replacement of concrete and the top mat of reinforcing steel. As a result, the current south approach span slab consists of two layers. The bottom several inches of the original 1970’s slab and associated reinforcing steel comprises the lower layer, and the newer, mid-1990’s concrete and reinforcing steel comprises the upper layer. The thickness of the existing south approach span slab was measured at several locations with values ranging between 9 inches and 11-1/2 inches. Recently, WJE performed a limited inspection, sounding survey, materials sampling, and laboratory testing of the south approach span structure, and our findings are summarized in our letter dated June 15, 2016. This investigation revealed severe deterioration of the original (1970’s vintage) concrete and reinforcing 50 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest July 8, 2016 Page 2 steel of the south approach span. This deterioration included widespread delaminations on the deck soffit, section loss of the primary reinforcing steel on the order of 20 to 50 percent of the original reinforcing bar area, debonded reinforcing bars, and through-thickness cracking with moisture staining and efflorescence. An example of the deterioration is shown in Figure 3. Delaminations on the concrete edge beams were also observed. These findings are consistent with a superstructure rating of “3 - SERIOUS” for NBIS Item 59, as identified in the Illinois Highway Information System - Structure Information and Procedure Manual published by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). The deterioration is primarily related to corrosion of the original reinforcing steel, a process that was substantially accelerated by the presence of chlorides, most likely from de-icing salts. The observed deterioration has reduced the load-carrying capacity of the concrete slab for the south approach span. The condition of the south approach span slab structure is such that extensive repairs or replacement is required to restore the load-carrying capacity. Proposed Scope of Work WJE envisions that the following five tasks will be performed as part of this work. Task 1 - Document Review In this task, WJE will review the project file, which may include available drawings, previous calculations, and the most recent inspection report completed by Bleck Engineering Company, Inc. The purpose of this task will be to review the history and methods of construction used for the various phases of bridge construction and bridge rehabilitation. In addition, the load-carrying capacity of the bridge structure will be determined. Task 2 - Field Inspection, Non-destructive Testing, and Material Sampling This task will include an inspection of all accessible components of the bridge structure. This will include the concrete deck, weathering steel beams, concrete and steel substructures above the ground line, and the original retaining wall at the south end. The inspection will be performed from the topside of the bridge deck and from the ground with the use of binoculars, when appropriate. It is envisioned that ground penetrating radar (GPR) may also be used to evaluate the condition of the bridge deck, particularly in the south approach span structure. In addition, one or two cores will be removed from the original retaining wall, concrete columns supporting the south approach span, and the bridge deck in the main span, and these cores will be used for laboratory testing. It should be noted, that WJE already has cores from the south approach span. Task 3 - Laboratory Testing The cores taken as part of Task 2 will be studied in our laboratory. This work will include chloride testing of the concrete samples and limited petrography studies to evaluate the presence of micro-cracking, freeze- thaw damage, reactive aggregates, or other conditions that may limit the life of the concrete structures. In addition, cores from the south approach span structure (taken last month during the initial study) will also be evaluated for chloride contents and limited petrography. Task 4 - BCR Following the first three tasks, long-term repair or replacement options will be evaluated based on the existing condition of the bridge. For portions of the structure that do not require rehabilitation or replacement, minor repairs or maintenance items will be identified where appropriate. An abbreviated BCR will be prepared for this bridge structure for submitting to IDOT, which will evaluate potential options for each section of the 51 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest July 8, 2016 Page 3 structure. These options may include replacement, rehabilitation/reconstruction, deck repairs only, temporary gap repairs, or an option to do nothing. The preparation of the abbreviated BCR will be in accordance with current IDOT guidelines outlined in their manual Bridge Condition Report Procedures & Practices, dated December 2011. This report shall detail the current condition of the structure, scope of proposed improvement alternatives, approximate cost estimates, traffic management options and one or more final recommended improvement alternative. The preparation of this report is the first step of the process for determining the need to repair or replace all or a portion of the bridge structure. Task 5 - Meeting This task will involve a meeting with The City to discuss the findings of the investigation and any potential repair, rehabilitation, or replacement options after the report is developed. Proposed Budget and Schedule WJE recommends a budget of $28,500 to complete the scope of work outlined in this proposal. All work will be performed on a time and expense bases in accordance with the attached Terms and Conditions for Professional Services, dated October 1, 2009. Currently it is envisioned that a majority of the repairs and/or replacement work will be located at the south approach span structure and limited work is needed in the main spans. As such, the abbreviated BCR may only include very limited discussions related to surveys, topographic information, hydraulic studies, utility coordination, or revisions to the bridge geometry. In addition, this proposal does not include the development of extensive rehabilitation or replacement options for the main span structure, should it be required. WJE will notify The City if additional work is required beyond the scope of this proposal. We anticipate a mid- to late-July 2016 notice-to-proceed. If this is the case, Tasks 1 and 2 will be completed in August 2016 and Tasks 3 and 4 will be performed in September 2016. We envision the report will be completed by early-October 2016. We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Douglas D. Crampton, P.E., S.E. Project Manager Attachment 52 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest July 8, 2016 Page 4 Figure 1. Elevation and plan sketches of the Ferry Hall Bridge showing the location of the south approach span viaduct structure (circled). 53 Mr. Robert Ells The City of Lake Forest July 8, 2016 Page 5 Figure 2. Typical cross-section (facing north) through the south approach span viaduct structure. Figure 3. Deteriorated area after loose concrete was removed (facing south). 54 WJE Terms and Conditions for Professional Services October 1, 2009 Page 1 of 2 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. or WJE Engineers & Architects, P.C. (WJE) has been requested to perform certain professional and other services. The parties agree that these services shall be performed under the following Terms and Conditions, and that Client’s acceptance of WJE’s proposal or its direction for WJE to commence any services constitutes acceptance of these Terms. 1. Independent Contractor. WJE is an independent contractor, and all persons employed to furnish services hereunder are employees of WJE or its subcontractors/subconsultants and not of the Client. WJE and Client agree to be solely responsible for compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations, and ordinances that apply to their own respective employees. 2. Performance. The standard of care for all professional services performed or furnished by WJE will be the skill and care ordinarily used by members of WJE’s professions performing similar services and practicing under similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality. WJE makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, with regard to the performance of its services. WJE shall not have control over or be in charge of and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures or for construction safety precautions and programs since these are the responsibilities of others. WJE agrees to perform its services in as timely a manner as is consistent with the professional standard of care and to comply with applicable laws, regulations, codes and standards that relate to WJE’s services and that are in effect as of the date when the services are provided. 3. Client Duties. In order for WJE to perform the services requested, the Client shall, at no expense to WJE, (1) provide all necessary information regarding Client’s requirements as necessary for the orderly progress of the work; (2) designate a person to act as Client’s representative for the services who shall have the authority to transmit instructions, receive instructions and information, and interpret and define Client’s policies and requests for WJE’s services; and (3) provide access to and make all provisions for WJE to enter, without cost, limitation, or burden to WJE, the subject property as required to perform the work, including the use of scaffolds or similar mechanical equipment. WJE is entitled to rely upon the information and services provided by the Client. 4. Safety. Field work will be performed only under conditions deemed safe by WJE personnel. Charges may be made for safety or security measures required by hazardous job conditions that WJE may encounter. Client understands that WJE is only responsible for the safety of its own employees and that of its subconsultants and is not responsible for the safety of other persons or property. 5. Compensation and Expenses. Client agrees to pay for WJE’s requested services in accordance with WJE’s standard hourly rate schedule or negotiated fee. Charges generally will be billed in monthly intervals with applicable taxes included. Travel, subsistence, and out-of-pocket expenses incurred; communica- tions; reproduction; and shipping charges will be billed at cost plus 5 percent and invoiced as an expense service fee. Use of vehicles will be billed at $0.60 per mile. Expended materials for field and laboratory work, rental equipment, and any fees advanced on Client’s behalf will be billed at cost plus 10 percent and invoiced as an expense service fee. WJE equipment used in field or laboratory work is billed at WJE’s equipment usage rate schedule in effect at the time the work is performed, subject to adjustment for minimum or extended usage. Portal-to-portal equipment usage rates are comparable to prevailing commercial rental rates (if available). Billing rates may be increased annually. Any subcontracted service will be billed at cost plus 10 percent providing the subcontract firm has in place adequate insurance coverage determined by WJE; otherwise, the cost will be marked up 20 percent and invoiced as an expense service fee. Client agrees to pay WJE’s then-current time charges, attorneys’ fees, and other expenses resulting from required attendance at depositions, administrative proceedings, or responding to sub- poenas or court orders relating to the Project, but not for such expenses attributed to WJE’s negligent performance of its services. Payment for WJE’s services is expected in full in US dollars upon receipt of the invoice. Invoices considered past due are subject to any related attorneys’ fees and collection expenses. WJE reserves the right to suspend its services if the Client fails to make payment when due providing that WJE gives seven calendar days’ notice to Client as practicable. In such an event, WJE shall have no liability to the Client for delay or damage caused the Client because of such suspension. 6. Termination. Both the Client and WJE have the right to terminate WJE’s services for convenience upon seven calendar days’ written notice to the other party. In the event the Client terminates without cause, WJE shall be entitled to compensation for its services and expenses up to the time of such notification, including fees for any transition services, and shall have no liability for delay or damage to Client because of such termination. 7. Reports, Drawings, and Work Product. WJE retains ownership of reports, drawings, specifications, test data, techniques, photographs, letters, notes, and other work product, including those in electronic form, it has created. These docu- ments or parts thereof may not be reproduced or used by the Client for any purpose other than the purpose for which they were prepared, including, but not limited to, use on other projects or future modifications to this Project, without the prior written consent of WJE. Upon request, WJE will provide Client with a copy of documentation for information and reference purposes and bill for such reproduction in accordance with Paragraph 5 above. Any unauthorized use of WJE’s work product shall be at the Client’s sole risk and Client shall indemnify WJE for any liability or legal exposure to WJE. To the extent WJE terminates its services due to non-payment of fees by Client, Client shall not be entitled to use the documents described herein for any purpose whatsoever. 8. Environmental Hazards. Client acknowledges that WJE’s services do not include the detection, investigation, evaluation, or abatement of environmental conditions that WJE may encounter, such as mold, lead, asbestos, PCBs, hazardous substances, or toxic materials that may be present in buildings and structures involved in this Project. The Client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold WJE harmless from any claims relating to the actual or alleged existence or discharge of such materials through no fault 55 WJE Terms and Conditions for Professional Services October 1, 2009 Page 2 of 2 of WJE’s employees. WJE reserves the right to suspend its services, without liability for consequential or any other damages, if it has reason to believe that its employees may be exposed to hazardous materials and will notify the Client in such event. 9. Dispute Resolution. Prior to the initiation of any legal proceedings, WJE and the Client agree to submit all claims, disputes, or controversies arising out of or in relation to the services provided by WJE to mediation. Such mediation shall be conducted under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association or such other mediation service or mediator upon which the parties agree. 10. Governing Law. The laws of the state where WJE performs its services shall govern. 11. Successors and Assigns. These Terms shall be binding upon Client and WJE and their respective successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither party may assign, subcontract, or otherwise delegate its responsibilities without the prior consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 12. Insurance. WJE maintains commercial general liability, automobile, workers’ compensation, and employers’ liability and professional liability coverages under policies written by national insurance carriers rated by the A.M. Best Company, evidence of which will be provided upon request. Endorsements are not allowed. No waiver of subrogation is allowed on WJE’s profes- sional liability policy. Upon written request, WJE agrees to name the Client as an additional insured to the commercial general liability and automobile coverages. Any request to add other parties as additional insureds must be made in writing and is subject to certain limitations. All policies are subject to annual renewal, and WJE will not undertake to guarantee continued coverage beyond the individual policy term. Excess coverage is available for exposures over primary policy limits except for professional liability. 13. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Client and WJE each agree to indemnify and hold the other harmless, and their respective agents, officers and employees, from and against liability for all direct claims, losses, damages, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent such claims, losses, damages, or expenses are for bodily injury, sickness, disease, death, or property damage and to the extent they are caused by the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the indemnifying party, and/or the indemnifying party’s agents, officers, employees, independent contractors, or subcontractors of any tier. In the event such claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused by the joint or concurrent negligence of Client and WJE, or their respective agents, officers, employees, independent contractors, or subcontractors of any tier, they shall be borne by each party in proportion to that negligence. 14. Agreed Remedy. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the total liability, in the aggregate, of WJE and WJE’s officers, directors, employees, agents, and consultants to Client and anyone claiming by, through, or under Client, for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses, or damages, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, arising out of or in any way related to WJE’s services, the Project, or these Terms, from any cause or causes whatsoever, including but not limited to, negligence, strict liability, indemnity or breach of contract shall not exceed an amount equal to the proceeds obligated to be paid under WJE’s applicable insurance policy for such claims. If, for any reason, the applicable insurance policy does not provide coverage for any particular claim described herein, then the liability amount shall not exceed WJE’s fees for the services performed hereunder. In no event shall WJE be liable in contract, tort, strict liability, warranty or otherwise, for any special, incidental or consequential damages, such as, but not limited to, delay, disruption, loss of product, loss of anticipated profits or revenue, loss of use of equipment or system, non-operation or increased expense of operation of other equipment or systems, cost of capital, or cost of purchase or replacement equipment systems or power. 15. Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in these Terms shall create a contractual relationship with, or a cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the Client or WJE. WJE’s services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of the Client, and no other entity shall have any claim against WJE because of these Terms or WJE’s performance or non-perfor- mance of services hereunder. 16. Entire Agreement. These Terms together with any written proposal shall constitute the entire understanding of the parties concerning the Project and supersede all prior negotiations and written agreements between them, and any amendment or modi- fication to either WJE’s proposal or these Terms may be made only by a written instrument expressly stated to be an amendment and signed by WJE. 17. Severability. If any provisions of these Terms, or portions thereof, are determined to be unenforceable, the remainder shall not be affected thereby and each remaining provision or portion thereof shall continue to be valid and effective and shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. Copyright 2009 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 56 May 17, 2016 May 17, 2016 May 25, 2016 May 25, 2016 57 May 25, 2016 May 25, 2016 June 14, 2016 June 14, 2016 58 June 14, 2016 June 14, 2016 June 14, 2016 June 14, 2016 59 July 6, 2016 July 6, 2016 July 6, 2016 July 6, 2016 60 July 6, 2016 July 6, 2016 61 AECOM 303 East Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 www.aecom.com July 5, 2016 Sent via email (ellsr@cityoflakeforest.com) Mr. Robert W. Ells City of Lake Forest 800 N. Field Drive Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 RE: Proposal for Engineering Services – Forest Park Access Road Bluff Restoration Feasibility Study Lake Forest, IL --- Change Order #1 Dear Bob: AECOM is pleased to provide you with Change Order #1 to include a feasibility study for bluff restoration as a follow up to our preliminary study for Forest Park Road. This study includes two phases: 1) a feasibility study for the restoration of 700 feet of bluff on the east side of Forest Park Road approaching the harbor from the north, and 2) restoration of 700 feet of bluff located north of the Forest Park Road study reach from the parking lot north of Forest Park Road to Spring Lane. This feasibility study will advance the prior study to include the development of restoration concepts, and preparation of planning level schematic design for the selected option. The study reach that extends 700 feet south of Spring Lane has also reportedly experienced slope movements. This area originally contained a road at the top of bluff slope. The road was relocated and a significant boardwalk system was installed along the bluff face. Slope movements have recently impacted some portions of the boardwalk. This feasibility study will include an evaluation of the overall bluff slope condition and preparation of a feasibility evaluation to develop preliminary restoration concepts. These studies will develop planning level schematic bluff restoration solutions to stabilize the slopes. The analysis will include prioritization of slope restoration areas and recommended approaches for implementation. Preliminary opinions of probable construction cost 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 design proposal (Change Order #2) for the first implementation phase to develop final designs and construction documents. Scope of Services 1. Forest Park Road The Forest Park Road feasibility study will include the following tasks: • Task 1 – Bluff Survey: AECOM surveyors will complete a topographic survey and cross sections for 700 feet of bluff beginning at the north end of Forest Park Road and proceeding south. The survey will include the road and bluff slope to the extent needed to illustrate existing and proposed conditions. We will prepare a base map and bluff cross sections that will serve as a base for the illustration of existing and alternative slope restoration conditions. • Task 2 – Geotechnical & Slope Stability Review: Our geotechnical engineers will provide feasibility level guidance for slope restoration concepts based on information gathered from our prior design work for this road. Review the prior work in detail as it relates to this project. 62 • Task 3 – Field Observation: Our geotechnical and slope restoration engineers will visit the site to 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 – Develop Restoration Concepts: We anticipate investigating the applicability of the following slope restoration approaches for this study reach: o Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall o Reinforced Earth Slopes o Geogrid Lifts o Steel Sheet Pile Wall Combinations of the above may be selected for different reaches depending on site conditions. We will request that the City provide information with respect to the original road construction and bid tabulations for recent road work. 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. We will assign slope restoration priorities, and provide a preliminary opinion of probable cost for each option. • Task 5 – Concept Review Meeting with City Staff: Meet with you to present the study findings and the options. Request your input and then develop final recommendations. • 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 the recommended option. An implementation plan will be provided with priorities and segmentation of improvements based on input that you provide with respect to construction budget availability. • Task 7 – Project Management and Meeting: In addition to the normal project coordination and quality control tasks, we will attend a final meeting with your staff or to attend a City Board meeting if needed. The budget for the Forest Park Road Study is as follows: TASK DESCRIPTION BUDGET ($) 1 Bluff Survey $3,000 2 Geotechnical Slope Stability Review $1,200 3 Field Observations & Analysis $2,000 4 Develop Restoration Concepts $6,000 5 City Concept Review Meeting $1,000 6 Develop Options & Recommend Concept / Prepare Report $3,600 7 Project Management and City Meeting $3,000 TOTAL COST $19,800 For purposes of invoice reporting, the budget for task nos. 1 thru 3 will be monitored together as one consolidated data collection and analysis task, and the budget for task nos. 4 thru 7 will be monitored together as one consolidated feasibility study task. 2. Spring Lane South to Parking Lot A feasibility study for slope restoration will be performed for the reach of bluff extending from Spring Lane to a point approximately 700 feet to the south. This feasibility study will include the following tasks: 63 • 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 used to exist at the top of bluff – and proposed road and grading modifications that have occurred in recent years when this area was reconstructed. o Construction as-built drawings for any recent slope and road work at or near the top of bluff including boardwalk plans and details. o Geotechnical information including boring logs or studies completed in the past for this study. 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 in selected problem areas to supplement information that is available for this study 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 3 – 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 boardwalk structure. While we have not included a detailed assessment of the boardwalk in this study phase, we will comment on expected slope issues that appear to affect the boardwalk, and likely boardwalk modifications (concept discussion) that may be necessary. 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. • 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. • 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. 64 The budget for the Spring Lane Study area bluff is as follows: TASK DESCRIPTION BUDGET ($) 1 Data Collection and Review $1,500 2 Bluff Survey & Evaluation $3,000 3 Field Observations & Analysis $2,000 4 Slope Condition Evaluation $2,500 5 Develop Restoration Concepts $6,000 6 Prepare Feasibility Report $3,600 7 Project Management and City Meeting $3,000 TOTAL COST $21,600 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 $19,800 for the Forest Park Road Bluff Study, and $21,600 for the Spring Lane Area 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 #2 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 65 The City of Lake Forest CITY COUNCIL Proceedings of the Tuesday, July 5 2016 City Council Meeting - City Council Chambers 6:30 pm CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Honorable Mayor Schoenheider called the meeting to order at 6:35pm, and Deputy City Clerk Margaret Boyer called the roll of Council members. Present: Honorable Mayor Schoenheider Alderman Waldeck, Alderman Beidler, Alderman Pandaleon, Alderman Tack, Alderman Newman, Alderman Reisenberg, Alderman Adelman and Alderman Moreno. Absent: None. Also present were: Robert Kiely, City Manager; Victor Filippini, City Attorney; Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development; Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director ;Susan Banks, Communications Manager; Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works; Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager, Chief of Police, Karl Walldorf; Deputy Police Chief Rob Copeland; a large number of Police officers and Anne Whipple. There were approximately 50 present in the audience. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- was recited by all in attendance. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS COMMENTS BY MAYOR Mayor Schoenheider offered congratulations and thanks to the Friends of Parks and Recreation for a great 4th of July evening that showcased the spirit of volunteerism in the community. Mayor Schoenheider also thanked Parks & Recreation staff and Police and Fire departments. . A. Swear in New Police Officers: Paul Daizovi and Adrian Peoples Mayor Schoenheider introduced Chief Walldorf who gave a brief background on new officers Paul Daizovo and Adrian Peoples. Mayor Schoenheider then administered the Oath of Office. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER City Manager Robert Kiely Jr., welcomed the new officers. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS FINANCE COMMITTEE 1. Consideration of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for FY2017 and Approval of Rollovers (First Reading) 66 Proceedings of the Tuesday, July 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Finance Director Elizabeth Holleb reported that Staff requests approving the first reading of the ordinance and the rollovers. While the annual municipal budget represents the City’s financial “plan” for expenditures over the course of the fiscal year, the annual Appropriation Ordinance is the formal legal mechanism by which the City Council authorizes the actual expenditures of funds budgeted in the annual budget. The Appropriation Ordinance includes the Library, which was not included in the budget approved at the May 2, 2016 City Council meeting. Ms. Holleb reported that the Library expenses are approved by the Library Board. The Debt Service payments were included in the budget approved at the May 2, 2016 City Council meeting, but are excluded from the Appropriation Ordinance. The ordinances approving the debt issues authorize these annual expenditures. Ms. Holleb also reported that in order to provide more accurate and efficient accounting and budgeting of City funds, an annual rollover of funds is required. This eliminates both under and over budgeting of funds in the new fiscal year and is a widely used standard practice for most municipal governments. Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone form the public who would like to comment. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the first reading of the ordinance and the rollovers. Alderman Pandaleon made a motion to approve the first reading of the ordinance and the rollovers, seconded by Alderman Moreno. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Tack, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 8 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. PROPERTY AND PUBLIC LANDS COMMITTEE 1. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Property and Public Lands Committee in Support of a Resolution Directing the Sale of Surplus Property Located at 361 E. Westminster, in the Cultural Corridor. (Approve by Motion) Chairman of the Property and Public Lands Committee Alderman Reisenberg reported that the City purchased the strategic property given its location in an area with redevelopment potential. The PPL has closely monitored this property and there are several factors that make now the right time for the City Council to take the next step toward the ultimate sale by formally declaring it surplus property. Chairman Reisenberg noted that the building is in a deteriorating condition and the Historical Society has purchased a new home and will be transitioning to it. The HPC has recently approved demolition of the building, and the Plan Commission will begin studying redevelopment and take under consideration the highest and best use for the City owned parcel. Chairman Reisenberg stated that the PPL recommends approval of the Resolution. The City Council had discussion on how the property was acquired, its cost, the relocation of the tenant, and that approval of the resolution is a statement of fact that allows for the next step in the process. The City Manager Robert Kiely, outlined the process of selling the property. Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to comment. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. 67 Proceedings of the Tuesday, July 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting COUNCIL ACTION: Approve a motion in support of a Resolution declaring the property located at 361 E. Westminster as surplus property and directing City staff to take the necessary steps, in accordance with the Council’s adopted policies, to offer the property for sale. Alderman Pandaleon made a motion to approve a motion in support of a Resolution declaring the property located at 361 E. Westminster as surplus property and directing City staff to take the necessary steps, in accordance with the Council’s adopted policies, to offer the property for sale, seconded by Alderman Beidler. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Tack, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 8 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 June 20, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes. 2. Approval of Check Register for Period May 28- June 24, 2016. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the two (2) Omnibus items. Mayor Schoenheider asked members of the Council if they would like to remove any item or take it separately. There was no discussion the Mayor asked for a motion to approve the two Omnibus items as presented. Alderman Newman made a motion to approve the eight Omnibus items as presented, seconded by Alderman Reisenberg. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Tack, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 8 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 1. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the City of Lake Forest Liquor Code, to increase the number of Licenses available in Class C-3. (First reading and if appropriate final approval) Victor Filippini, City Attorney, reported that the Ordinance reflects a change in status for Chief’s Pub who has requested an additional Class license. An update to the number of licenses currently issued was included. Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to comment. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. COUNCIL ACTION: Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the City of Lake Forest Liquor Code, to increase the number of Licenses available in Class C-3. (First reading and if appropriate final approval) 68 Proceedings of the Tuesday, July 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Alderman Moreno made a motion to approve Ordinance Amending the City of Lake Forest Liquor Code, to increase the number of Licenses available in Class C-3. (First reading and if appropriate final approval), seconded by Alderman Newman. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Tack, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 8 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. ORDINANCES AFFECTING CODE AMENDMENTS NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals in Support of an Amendment to the Special Use Permit for Lake Forest College as it Pertains to Farwell Field and Halas Hall. (First Reading, and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval) Director of Community Development Catherine Czerniak reported that this recommendation comes with a 7-0 vote form the Zoning Board of Appeals. MS. Czerniak then gave an overview of the summary of the request, the process to date, key findings and recommended conditions. Summary of request The Lights are temporary Maximum of 3 weeks beginning at the end of Daylight savings time- Post season play (15 Weekday evenings) Monday through Friday 4:-7:30pm Only College team practices, no games will be played using the lights Process to date: Trail use of light in 2014 and 2015 provided useful information to the College, City and neighbors R Modification of plans based on trails- impact to neighbors Communication with neighbors- the college offered drop-in sessions that were poorly attended ZBA Public Hearing – resulted in a 7-0 vote in recommendation for approval with conditions Key Findings: No change of use or increase in intensity Supports the visibility of the College Offsite impacts mitigated Prior use by commercial teams, Cardinals, Chicago Bears and Chicago Fire Lights are permitted at other venues such as the ice rink as an example, additionally this will meet the needs of students. Summary of Recommended Conditions: Limited hours 4-7:30 pm Practices only, no games or spectators No music, music is normally played The College has and is already maintaining and enhanced perimeter landscaping Hire a Lighting/Acoustical consultant to advise the City of Lake Forest and the College Light intensity limited- directed down on the field, by condition of approval Limit light pole extension, lowered during the day Baffling for generators Five-year review by Council, conditions may change 69 Proceedings of the Tuesday, July 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Remove outdated language in SUP, current Sup allows for a press box, notes commercial teams (Chicago Fire) and the field is no longer for commercial use. Ms. Czerniak introduced Lake Forest College President Steve Schutt. Mr. Schutt expressed the college’s appreciation to the City in cooperating with the request. The City Council asked if the College had considered permanent lights Mr. Schutt replied that the College wasn’t looking at that as an option at this time. The City Council had discussion on the significant efforts made by the college for use of lights, use of permanent lighting vs. temporary lighting, baffling and the costs. Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to comment. Kevin Bry, 159 N. Meria Street, Oak Park, IL offered his opinion to the City Council. COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, waive first reading and grant final approval of an Ordinance amending the Special Use Permit for Lake Forest College as it pertains to Farwell Field and Halas Hall as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Alderman Beidler made a motion to waive first reading and grant final approval of an Ordinance amending the Special Use Permit for Lake Forest College as it pertains to Farwell Field and Halas Hall as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals, seconded by Alderman Moreno. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Tack, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 8 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION The City Council had discussion on the state of fences along the gateway to the community, and that the City may want to relook at how we use the historic values of the City. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business. Alderman Reisenberg made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Alderman Newman. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Margaret Boyer Deputy City Clerk 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. 70 Proceedings of the Tuesday, July 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting 71 IAFF Local and The City of Lake Forest Contract #3 Tentatively Agreed-upon Items Listed below are the sections of the proposed contract that deal with economic items and other items of interest: Duration: Three-year contract: May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2019. Pay increases: Fiscal Year Firefighters Firefighter/Paramedic Lieutenant Paramedic FY2017 0% - 1% increase depending on length of service 0% to 2.6% increase depending on length of service 2.0% increase FY2018 0% - 1% increase depending on length of service 0% to 2.5% increase depending on length of service 1.75% increase FY2019 2.0% increase 1.0% to 2.5% increase depending on length of service 1.75% increase In FY17 the City Council approved general range increases for non-union City employees of 1.0% to 2.5% increase depending on length of service. All FY17 increases retro-active to May 1. Each of these keep the overall range adjustment at 2% of less for each year. Longevity Pay: Years of Service Eff. 5/1/16 Eff. 5/1/17 Eff. 5/1/18 5-9 years $35.00/year of service $35.00/year of service $35.00/year of service 10 through 14 years $40.00 per year of service $40.00 per year of service $40.00 per year of service 15 through 19 years $45.00 per year of service $50.00 per year of service $50.00 per year of service 20 years and after $75.00 per year of service $75.00 per year of service $75.00 per year of service This represents a $10 increase at the 20-year level and is equivalent with what was approved for non-union City employees. In Year 2, all amounts remain the same with the exception of Years 15-19, which increased $5. In Year 3, all levels remain the same. Holiday Compensation: Fiscal Year Assigned Personnel Call-Back Personnel FY17 $250 (increased from $200) 1st Shift $125 (decreased from $140); 2nd Shift $100 (up from $25); 3rd Shift - $25 FY18 $250 1st Shift $125; 2nd Shift $100; 3rd Shift - $25 FY19 $250 1st Shift $125; 2nd Shift $100; 3rd Shift - $25 72 City Council Memorandum Page 2 Fire Contract Work Reduction Days: Depending on the year, there are 13 or 14 work periods in a year based on Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations for Fire Departments, and the employees are required to have 1 work reduction day each period. The City has provided 12 work reduction days (based on nine holidays and three personal days) and allowed the use of vacation if necessary to cover all work periods. Effective with this contract, a 13th work reduction day will be awarded. Calculation of Straight Time Hourly Rate of Pay: The hourly rate of pay will be calculated by dividing the annual base salary by 2,750 hours (currently 2,650 hours). This will decrease the overtime rate of pay. Agreement on LGDF and Property Tax Freeze: Should the State reduce the City’s LGDF, the annual salary adjustments will be reduced as follows: Amount of LGDF Reduction Salary Reduction 1-5% LGDF Reduction 0.2% 6-10% LGDF Reduction 0.4% Over 10% LGDF Reduction 0.6% Further, if the State of Illinois legislature freezes local property taxes at any time during the contract period, the City has the right to reopen the wage section only for the fiscal year or years affected by the property tax freeze. Health Insurance: Same as all other employees. City agrees not to increase premiums more than 15% per year for the duration of the contract. Staffing Language: The City and the union made some slight changes to the language on staffing that was drafted in conjunction with Arbitrator Benn and included in the previous two contracts. The added language indicates that the Chief and Union will meet prior to dropping the staffing levels to explore alternative solutions, but that these discussions will not have effect of delaying the implementation of the City’s proposed change in staffing. The City’s legal counsel is comfortable with this added language. 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST PROPOSED GRAVEL PARKING LOT ELAWA FARM REVIEWED BY THE CTTf OF LAKE FOREST DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIT/ DEVELOPMENT PERHmf S(ff-tt^^30B ADDRESS t^Ob U)\Ml£ISSUED TO 0t4t( t£ LffJce ^IDATE fc-^O-lto SUBJECT TO THE CHANGES NOTED The approval of drawings and issuance of a permit, Irrespective of any information contained hereon, shall not be construed as an approval of any violation of the Building or Zoning Code of THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, and further, shall not relieve any partyfrom the responsibility to comply fully with all the Codes and Ordinances of THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST. NOTE: This plan is to be available on the site at all times. LAKE COUNTY engineers j surveyors Bleck Engineering Cam pany. Inc.1375 North Weatem Avenuetake Forest, Illinois 6004S TaW.295.5200 f M7.ZSi5.70»lwww.blwkeng.com Elawa Farm Lake Forest, IL ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR LEGEND THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST FOR INSPECTIONS CALL 847-604-7001THESE PLANS TO BE KEPT AT JOBSITE J.U.I.L.E. - ILLINOIS ONE CALL SYSTEM. CALL 811 U*,T*»^.T^t-F« JLU.U..E. JOINT U71UTY LOCATION IKFORMAT10N FOR EXCAVATION CALL 811 CALL W HOURS IN ADVANCE WWW.ILUHOIS1CALL.COM CALL:S110RMO-B29-0123 Know what's below.Call before you dig. FOR LOCATION OFUNDER6ROUIC UTILITIES CONTACT: (IU.I CSTf OF LAKE FOREST (PUBLIC-WATO. SWmtRY SEWER, STORM SEWER) UICHU. THOMAS, DROF PUBLIC WORKS SIX) NORTH REICORNE LAKE FORBSI.L 60045 M7.M0.3S4a HIONSBffitfPBOMIWTE) COIIED IBKTBB) ROBERT KOLWEMGINM 1500 FIWKLN BOUlBmRD ueERpftfliEiLeoou Bt7.3W.28GS NORTH SHORE SAS (NATUFW-aAS) JWhLBWflCR W\ SRWCA11ENUE WAUKEE.iti.lL 60085 w.sea.'ww ATtT (TaECOMMUNlCATKWS) BRUMBBOT ICOO COMMERCE DRNE FLOOR 2 OAKBROOK.IL 60523 sao.msns COMCAST CABLE (TaBMWUUNCATIONS) ROBERT SCHULTSi SaaWDUSTnALORIVE ELWurer.tmia S30.«U.e347 PROFESSIONAL SEAL MfchaelQ. Black, PE UnnwtifcinutiBI eqtnllfltfl? 06.09^016 City of Lake Forest 800 N. Field Drive Lake Forest, IL 60045 70-922 I Project No. COVER 116 ELAWA FARM PARKINQ LOT ;/ Ii ! f ;' II -< , '.-ft' , '. ! ;: ;^"A .VT. if;"' GRADE AND SHAPE TOPROVIDE POSITIVE DRAiNAseTOWEST GRADE AND SHAPE TOPROV:OE POSITIVEDRAINAGE TO CULVERT /- '. pTMiBTiBtif/S. iff&if.dfi^ iassmelir-i- ___^^-i ^ ^ TRAIL TO BE GRADED TO MATCHPROPOSED PARKING LOT ^ ^-. -.8" DOUBLEROWOFSILTFENCE AROUND 9*75 ; E> 10 ^-erawN-B72n T^-srao4 PROPOSED PARKiNa LOTGRAVEL SURFACE K\ \"2".."SC"" /^"'" ^17347 ^--."^ »a p-v,,»i,r%; .1.00 ' ^ --7<ra*8-l" £~ S DaSTIMB PARKING LOT n 99 /-g72w ^-vnw \/ .. . A-.11 . i -.." '.r2 '-.y-- _^,/' -sas. -f 14«X>I4+0^> ,,«7§^2 "t^'n <~ ^?.5V 'ST^H GRADE TO PROVIDEPOSTTIVE DRAINAGEAWAY FROM GRAVELPARKING LOT .S34.W-.SflUIH ,6T5.h! G75.USTMH ..KnM^TFZCJD \ I -e74^-^ J ..- -&T1- Profile View of CL New Parking Lot EFCfel2"BRKWAU. /i EFCElh'BRKWALL i .iSre.iia-L6-f5.53-'TP20D'£FCE^2"BRKWALL LAKE COUNT/ STORMWnTER MAMUEMEMT GOUMISSION . SW. EROSION *NO SEOIMEMT CONTROL CONEfTnUCTION NnTCS B, FOR THOSE OEUELOPMENTS TT-UtT REQUIRE * DEEISNATED EROSION CONfTROL INSFECTOR {DEC)), INSPECTIONS WODOCUUmWnONSHAU.BE PERFORUEO. ATA WMUUM: . UPON COUPLETKIN OF SEDIMENT WO RUNOFF CONTROL MEMUREE(INCLUDIN9 PERIMETER CONTOOLSWDuvERStoNS), PRIOKTO pRocEEUNe wrm Am OTHER EWTH USIUroMKE OR QIWDING. . AFTEREKEIWEEVEN<7)Ml£NMRMyEORSTORM£VEMTwnHaflEATCRTHIW051NCHOFIW»<FAU.onuQUIOEOUVALEMT PRECIPTOtTlON. C.SQt. UBTUR8ANCE SWU. BE OONOUCTEDIN SUCH A WWCR AS TO MINIMIZE EROSION. IF STnPPINO, CtEARWO,aiWDINS, OR LWDSCWNS *R£ TO BE OWE IN PWSE6, THE FEWflTTEE EhMLL PUN FOfl APPROPfWTE SOIL EfWEIONWD SEUMENT CONTROL MEAtUREB. O.AIimBIUZmMATOFCRUSHeOSTONEMeeimolOOTOIWIwnoiNCA-l UNDERLAIN nnHFILTER^ABWCANDIN AOOaRWNCeVinH7HeiLUNalSUnaWIUANUU.OROTHeRWFROFIUATEME*8URE(ai»*S*WKOVEDBYTHEeNTOnCEKNT OFFICER. SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ANY POIHT WKHE TWU=FIC WILL BE ENTEnriB OR LBUflNa ACONSTRUCTION SITE. SEOIMENT OR 5dL REACH NO AN 1WROUEO MjeUC noHT.OF.WAY. STREET, ALLEY OK PARKlNaAREA SWU. BE REMWEO BY SCRAPINB OR STKEET CLEWNB AS AOCUNULCTONS WRfMVT AND TTtANBPORTED TO *CONTROU-EO 5EOWENT Ct6P03AL AREA. 676 VFI?TA710N-11*70-37-VIR6l-EWT10N.=.( ?EIN_-.=-4.t-GUffrE-LENCT+=! K-ldLOO K.T OBNMERINB EERVICES ARE USED. ASJQININO PROPERTIES Am DIBCHMU3E UXKVOHS 3HUJ- BE PROTECTED FROMEftOEIQN WB SEONENmiOM. D13CH»RBES ShWLL BE ROUTH) THROUGH AN AFPROWED AMOMC POLfMER DEW* TER INGSYSTEM ORA GlWLAfl MEASURE »B APPROVED BY THE EM^ORCEMENTOFHCER. DEWATERhB SVSTEUS ShUULDBEnSPECTHi DULY DURINaOPERATIONIILPERIOOB^ THE EhFORCEUENT OFFICER, OR APPRCWEDREPREEENmiVE. MUSTBE PRESENT AT TIE COWhEHCOJEHT OF DEWKTERINS ACT1VT1ES. L F INSTUieO BOIL EROSION AND EEUMENT OONTHOL IffiASURES DO NOThmhUE 3EDNENT LEAVING TIE DEUELOPMENTSnE. *DDniONM. UEABUHE3 SUCH A3 *MOMC POLYMERS OR F1LTRAT.ON SYSTEMS kUT BE itEOMIilED BY THEBIFORCEtENT OFFICER. I Bunuyar Bleck EnBlnnrine Company, Inc.1375 North Wcrtem AvaiueLaktFomt,lllinofe6004S TB47.Z95.E200 F B47.295.70B1 www.Ueckeng.com Eiawa Farm Lake Forest IL BENCHkWUt ARROW NUT ON FRE mDRANTAPPROIXSr BUTT OF ME CORNER OF WUUFE dSCOVERY CENTER H.EWnowns.al ISSUED DATE !££UEDFOR PROFESSIONAL SEAL Michael G, Black, PE 06.09.2016 C;ty of Lake Forest 800 N. Field Drive Lake Forest, IL 60045 70-922 I Project No. |BV MGB | Checked By 2 SITE PLAN ! 117 {00010955 3} THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING COMMONWEALTH EDISION TO ALLOW RESIDENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERMANENTLY OPT OUT OF THE SMART METER PROGRAM WHEREAS, in October 2011, the Illinois General Assembly enacted the Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act (“the Act”) to strengthen and modernize the electric utility system and provide better reliability for customers; and WHEREAS, the Act authorizes Commonwealth Edison to invest in new digital smart grid and advanced meter technology (“Smart Meters”) that will transform the delivery of electricity to homes and businesses throughout northern Illinois; and WHEREAS, Commonwealth Edison will begin the installation of Smart Meters throughout the City of Lake Forest beginning in June 2016; and WHEREAS, Smart Meters use radio frequency RF technology to communicate between the home and Commonwealth Edison facilities; and WHEREAS, several residents have expressed concerns to the governing and administrative bodies of the City of Lake Forest regarding such meters and their technology; and WHEREAS, there has been concern expressed by some residential electric customers that Smart Meters are overly intrusive into their energy usage and allege that the emissions from Smart Meters are actually dangerous to their health; and WHEREAS, today Lake Forest residents have the ability of a temporary refusal or deferral program, but currently do not have a choice to permanently opt out of the Smart Meter installation program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Lake Forest, County of Lake, State of Illinois, as follows: SECTION 1: The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the Mayor and City Council. 118 {00010955 3} SECTION 2: The Mayor and City Council of the City of Lake Forest, County of Lake, State of Illinois, do hereby request that Commonwealth Edison take action to work with the Illinois Commerce Commission and General Assembly to take all regulatory procedures needed to investigate all the aforementioned concerns for the health and welfare of our residents and to allow for property owners to permanently opt out of its Smart Meter installation program. SECTION 3: That the City Manager is hereby directed to transmit this request in writing to the Chief Executive Officer of Commonwealth Edison, the Chairperson of the ICC, the Governor, House and Senate Leaders of the General Assembly and House and Senate Members representing the City of Lake Forest. SECTION 4: This resolution shall be in full force and effect form and after its adoption and approval in the manner provided by law. PASSED THIS ___ DAY OF _______, 2016 AYES ( ) NAYS ( ) ABSENT ( ) APPROVED THIS _____ DAY OF _______, 2016 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 119