Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CITY COUNCIL 2017/04/17 Agenda
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, April17, 2017 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 Michelle Moreno, Alderman Fourth Ward Timothy Newman, Alderman Second Ward Raymond Buschmann, Alderman Fourth Ward CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Immediately following the Finance Committee meeting PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS 1. COMMENTS BY MAYOR A. Swear in Fire Chief Pete Siebert B. Presentation of the Preliminary Report on the Assessment of City’s Plan Review, Permitting and Inspection Processes INTRODUCTION BY: Mayor Schoenheider PRESENTED BY: Lee Brown, President, Teska Associates, Inc. Michael Blue, Principal, Teska Associates, Inc. As part of the City Council’s ongoing commitment to delivering high quality, customer friendly services in a cost efficient manner, the City Manager, with authorization from the City Council, hired an independent consultant to conduct an assessment of the City’s building plan review, permitting and inspection services. The purpose was to gather information from various stakeholders about experiences with the processes, with a focus on how the City can continue to deliver the highest possible level of service. Representatives from Teska Associates, Inc. will present a summary of their findings and recommendations to the Council. A copy of the preliminary report is included in the Council packet beginning on page 32. The Council will have the opportunity to ask questions and offer input prior to the preparation of the final report. The Final Report, along with an Implementation Plan prepared by City staff, will be presented to the Council for acceptance at the May 1, 2017 meeting. 2. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER 1 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda A. Community Spot Light Presentation on 2017 BMW Golf Championship, September 12-17, 2017 -Vince Pellegrino, Senior Vice President, Tournaments, Western Golf Association 1. Approval of a Resolution of Support regarding Conway Farms Golf Club Hosting the 2017 BMW Championship Golf Tournament A copy of the Resolution can be found on page 48. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the Resolution 3. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS FINANCE COMMITTEE 1. Presentation regarding Moody’s Issuer Comment dated March 17, 2017 PRESENTED BY: Alderman George Pandaleon, Finance Committee Chairman and Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director A copy of the report can be found on page 50. 2. Distinguished Budget Presentation Award PRESENTED BY: Alderman George Pandaleon, Finance Committee Chairman For the first time, The City of Lake Forest has been awarded the Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the fiscal year beginning May 1, 2016. The Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting, and its attainment is a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. In a GFOA news release, Stephen Gauthier states that “In order to receive the budget award, the entity had to satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation. These guidelines are designed to assess how well an entity’s budget serves as a policy document, a financial plan, an operations guide and a communications device.” For budgets beginning in 2015, only 1,565 units of government received the award nationally. The GFOA is a nonprofit professional association serving nearly 19,000 elected and appointed government finance professionals in the United States and Canada. In addition to the Budget Award, a Certificate of Recognition for Budget Presentation is presented by the GFOA to the individual designated as instrumental in their government unit’s achievement of the award. I am pleased to present this award to Elizabeth Holleb, Director of Finance and IT, for her efforts in coordinating the preparation of the annual 2 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda budget and for leading the efforts in making the required changes to the City’s budget document to meet the stringent requirements of the GFOA budget awards program. 3. Consideration of an Ordinance making a Supplemental Appropriation for the Fiscal Year Beginning May 1, 2016 and Ending April 30, 2017 (First Reading, and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval) PRESENTED BY: Alderman George Pandaleon, Finance Committee Chairman and Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: As advised by the City Attorney, it is recommended to approve a supplemental appropriation at the end of each fiscal year for any fund that is anticipated to exceed the original appropriation. Staff requests first reading and if desired by the City Council, final approval of an Ordinance making a supplemental appropriation in Fiscal Year 2017. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On November 7, 2016, the City Council approved a recommendation to use proceeds from the sale of the Laurel Avenue property to redeem outstanding 2008 General Obligation Bonds. The advance redemption of the bonds saved $1.357 million in future interest costs and allowed the City to replace the existing debt service levy with a capital improvements levy to supplement annual funding for the five year Capital Improvements Program (CIP). As this transaction was not anticipated in the budget, a supplemental appropriation is required in both the Capital Improvements Fund, for the transfer of the land sale proceeds to the 2008 GO Bonds Debt Service Fund, and in the 2008 GO Bonds Debt Service Fund, for the advance redemption of the principal maturities dated December 2017 and later. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The supplemental appropriation required to meet legal compliance as presented in the Ordinance is $5,600,000 for the Capital Improvements Fund and $6,105,000 for the 2008 GO Bonds Debt Service Fund. COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, waive first reading and grant final approval of the Ordinance (page 55) making a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year beginning May 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2017 for the advance redemption of the 2008 GO Bonds approved in November 2016. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 1. Award of Bid for the Water Treatment Plant Construction Project and Approval of a Construction Engineering Services Agreement PRESENTED BY: Public Works Committee Chairman Waldeck STAFF CONTACT: Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works (810-3540) 3 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Public Works Committee is recommending that the City Council award a bid for the Water Treatment Plant’s (WTP hereafter) construction project to JJ Henderson & Son, Inc. At its April 3, 2017 Public Works Committee Meeting, the Committee reviewed, approved, and recommended award of bid to install a new membrane filtration system and other treatment improvements to meet the operational needs of the WTP. In addition, the Public Works Committee also recommended City Council approve the agreement for construction engineering services to Stand Associates, Inc. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In May, 2014, the City received a letter from its filter supplier (Aquasource) stating that the company would no longer be producing the filters used in the City’s water plant. Receipt of this notice prompted a very detailed analysis of multiple alternatives the City evaluated in order to determine the appropriate solution for the WTP moving forward. The Public Works Committee and the City Council began this comprehensive analysis in June, 2014. The process was an extensive, critical examination of the various options ranging from purchasing water from neighboring communities, privatizing the entire operation, and selecting another filter membrane manufacturer. Over the next several years, after many meetings and special workshops, the City Council decided to proceed with the design and installation of a new membrane filtration system with a 14 million-gallon-per-day (mgd hereafter) capacity. The WTP project will be accomplished over a two year period with the majority of the work being completed in the first year. Year one construction begins this summer and will end in late April of 2018, with four of the six new membrane skids operational. Year one’s project scope focuses on building and installing the necessary components that must be completed and functioning in order to support the new membrane skids (e.g. relocation of the new chemical storage and feed system, expansion of the clean-in-place system, operator control workstation upgrades, and various electrical and plumbing work). The second year will begin in the summer of 2018 and is estimated to be completed by the second quarter of 2019. The project’s second year of work includes completing all of the electrical and plumbing needed for the two remaining membrane skids, completion of other non-membrane improvements, and re-purposing the 4th floor space for a workshop and employee kitchen. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Public Works Committee 4/3/17 Reviewed and recommended approval of construction bid, construction engineering services, contingency Finance Committee Capital Budget Workshop 11/14/16 Presented update on project design and schedule Public Works Committee 11/7/16 Reviewed and approved project design and budget changes City Council Meeting 2/1/16 Approved P.W. Committee’s recommendations to design 14 mgd plant with GE membrane filters; contracted with Strand Associates to complete all design work 4 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda Public Works Committee 1/27/16 Reviewed and approved filter manufacturer (GE) and engineering filter design services Finance Committee 11/9/15 Reviewed revised project budget to include non-membrane improvements City Council Meeting 8/3/15 Reviewed and approved procurement design with 14 mgd capacity Attached on page 58 of this agenda packet is the complete WTP project’s evaluation history outlining in more detail the project’s milestones and meetings. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: On Monday, March 20, 2017, the City received the following three bids for the water treatment plant project: After receipt of the bids, both staff and the City’s consulting engineer evaluated the apparent low bidder’s proposal (JJH) and contacted their references. The review determined the submitted proposal was complete with no issues discovered and their references provided favorable responses. The City’s has had a good working relationship with JJH experience dating back to 2002 when JJH constructed the existing membrane filtration plant. In addition, Strand Associates is currently involved with other municipal water and wastewater projects where JJH is the general contractor and believes they are a good, reliable contractor. The Public Works Committee recommends City Council approval of the construction contract to JJH. Secondly, the Public Works Committee also recommends approval of an agreement with Strand Associates for construction engineering services. A copy of the agreement can be found beginning on page 60 of this agenda packet. Finally, the Committee recommends that a 5% contingency ($441,000) be approved for any unforeseen construction and/or engineering services related to the project. The chart below shows the project’s total costs for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. The GE Membrane system equipment cost of $2,048,000 that City Council approved at their February 1, 2016 City Council meeting was included in the bidding documents as a fixed cost line item included in each contractors bid. Fiscal Year Phase II Efforts Proposed FY2018 Proposed FY2019 Totals Updated Proposed Budget Membrane System Equipment GE Water Technologies $1,200,000 $848,000 $2,048,000 2017 WTP Improvements Contract JJ Henderson’s Bid $5,250,000 $1,520,000 $6,770,000 Company Name Bid Amount JJ Henderson and Son, Inc. (JJH) $8,818,000 Keno and Sons $9,653,885 IHC Construction $9,656,046 5 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda Construction Engineering Strand Associates, Inc. $280,000 $290,000 $570,000 Project Contingency $221,000 $220,000 $441,000 Totals $6,951,000 $2,878,000 $9,829,000 The total project cost of $9,829,000 is $423,000 over the engineer’s estimate established in early 2015. The staff and Engineers comparison between the engineer’s estimate and the bids indicate the higher than estimated costs are due in part from the electrical system integration, higher than anticipated complexity to transition between old and new operating controls, and the overall restrictions for staging at the site. In addition, with the continued economic recovery, project costs have been steadily rising. The cost difference will be covered by adjusting water fund improvement projects in FY18 and FY19. Finally, the project budget allocations between fiscal years 2018 and 2019 are not the same as the contractor’s estimates. FY18 budget allocates $5,806,000 for WTP project whereas JJH estimates $6,951,000 to be spent in FY18. Should the project progress as anticipated, a supplemental appropriation would be required advancing FY19 CIP allocation of $1,145,000. Funding Year & Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N FY2018 Water Fund $5,806,000 $6,951,000 Y FY2019 Water Fund $4,023,000 $2,878,000 Y Totals $9,829,000 $9,829,000 COUNCIL ACTION: The Public Works Committee recommends approval of the following project items: • Award a bid for the Water Treatment Plant Construction Project to JJ Henderson & Son, Inc. in the amount of $8,818,000; and • Based upon the exception noted in Section 8.5 D1of the City’s Purchasing Directive, approve an agreement with Strand Associates for construction engineering services in the amount of $570,000; and • Approve a 5% project contingency for any unforeseen construction or construction engineering issues with either JJ Henderson & Son, Inc. and/or Strand Associates in the amount of $441,000. 2. Action Relating to a Special Service Area Proposed for the Installation of Sanitary Sewer in the Winwood Drive Neighborhood. PRESENTED BY: Catherine Waldeck, Public Works Committee Chairman STAFF CONTACTS: Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works (810-3540)and Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager (810-3680) 6 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: On March 20, 2017, the City Council discussed two options that could be pursued regarding the proposed Special Service Area No. 41 for the installation of sanitary sewer in the Winwood Drive neighborhood (“Proposed SSA”). City Council Action is requested on a preferred option, which includes 1) Approval of a Resolution establishing a public hearing date and directing staff to notice the hearing accordingly or 2) If determined appropriate by City Council, waiving first reading, and approval of an Ordinance rescinding Ordinance 2016-77 (“SSA Proposing Ordinance”) thereby terminating the Proposed SSA. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On January 17, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 2017- 01, which re-opened the public hearing for the proposed Winwood Special Service Area (“SSA”). This effectively suspended the mandatory objection period until a time when a future public hearing would be held and closed. Pursuant to this Resolution, and the subsequent City Council discussion held on March 20, 2017, the City Council may consider the following options as next steps concerning the disposition of the Proposed SSA: Option A: Proceed under the authority of Resolution 2017-01, and direct staff to schedule a final public hearing to consider the establishment of the Proposed SSA. A copy of a Resolution directing this action has been included on page 64. Under this option, the City Council would have to allow appropriate time for noticing and scheduling of the Public Hearing in accordance with the Special Service Area Tax Law, 35 ILCS 200/27-5 et seq. (“SSA Tax Law”). Therefore, the timeline of events would be as follows: ITEM DATE Public Hearing Notice Published/Mailed April 27, 2017 Hold Public Hearing May 15, 2017 End of 60-Day Objection Period July 14, 2017 City Council Consideration – Establishing Ordinance (1st Reading) July 17, 2017 City Council Consideration – Establishing Ordinance (Final Reading) August 7, 2017 While this option extends deliberation and ultimate consideration by City Council, it would allow for the formal SSA process to be completed, including the requirement of an objection to be filed with the City Clerk. If a legally sufficient objection is filed, the City Council will have no authority to consider an establishing ordinance. Additionally, under the Special Service Area Tax Law, if a valid objection is filed (and the City did receive a petition in opposition to the Proposed SSA from the neighbors on March 24, 2017, a copy of which is included beginning on page 66), “The subject matter of the petition shall not be proposed relative to any signatories of the petition within the 2 years.” Although the effect of this language has not been specifically addressed in any Illinois appellate decision, it would not be inconceivable that another special service area for sanitary sewer service would have to be deferred at least two years with respect to any properties whose owner had signed a valid objection petition to the establishment of SSA No. 41. A memo from the City Attorney is included beginning on page 73. If no legally sufficient objection is filed, the City would have the right to establish the proposed SSA, but only in accordance with the parameters set forth in the SSA 7 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda Proposing Ordinance. However, the City Council would have the right not to establish a special service area if it did not desire to proceed based on the parameters set forth in the SSA Proposing Ordinance 2016-77. Option B: An alternative approach the City Council may consider taking is consideration of an Ordinance rescinding the Winwood SSA Proposing Ordinance and terminating the continuation of the SSA process. A copy of an Ordinance the City Council may consider is included in this packet beginning on page 75. This option would require the following sequence of events: ITEM DATE City Council Consideration – Rescinding Ordinance (1st Reading) April 17, 2017 City Council Consideration – Rescinding Ordinance (Final Reading) May 1, 2017 If the Council so chooses, it could waive first reading on April 17 by a two-thirds vote of the Aldermen and consider final reading of the rescission Ordinance. This option would preserve the right for the City Council to pursue a future SSA that is in substantial form as the SSA Proposing Ordinance without the restriction of a two-year mandatory waiting period as defined in the SSA Tax Law. However, it would terminate the Proposed SSA from continuing on at this point, and would not require any follow up action, including scheduling of public hearing, or requirement to submit any formal objection by property owners and electors within the proposed SSA area. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments City Council 3/20/17 Discussion on Options Public Works Committee 3/15/17 Discussion on Next Steps for Proposed Special Service Area City Council 1/17/17 Resolution Extending the Objection Period Reviewed and Approved Public Works Committee 1/4/17 Discussion of City Code and Possible Amendments City Council 12/5/16 Public Hearing Held City Council 11/21/16 Proposing Ordinance Reviewed & Approved Public Works Committee 11/7/16 Discussion of Potential Financing Strategies for Project; Reviewed & Approved pursuit of single SSA Area City Council 8/1/16 Design Proposal Reviewed & Approved Public Works Committee 6/20/16 Design Proposal Reviewed & Approved 8 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda Public Works Committee 5/16/16 Discussion of Winwood Drive Overflow Issue Public Works Committee 3/7/16 Discussion of Winwood Drive Funding Mechanisms Public Works Committee 3/4/15 Discussion of Non-Sanitary Sewer Areas COUNCIL ACTION: If determined appropriate by the City Council, consideration of one of the following: A. Approval of a Resolution Scheduling a Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Special Service Area No. 41 for the Installation of Sanitary Sewer in the Winwood Drive Neighborhood. OR B. Consideration of an Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 2016-77 and Terminating Further Consideration of Establishing a Special Service Area Number 41 for the Winwood Drive Area Sanitary Improvement Project (First reading and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval). 4. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 5. ITEMS FOR OMNIBUS VOTE CONSIDERATION 1. Approval of the April 3, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes A copy of the minutes can be found on page 78. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the Minutes 2. Approval of a Resolution of Sympathy for Eugene Lonergan A copy of the Resolution can be found beginning on page 81. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the Resolution 3. Approval to Renew Agreement for Financial and Land Parcel Management System Software Maintenance and Licensing for FY2018 STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-710-3612) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests approval to renew a one (1) year agreement with Sungard/HTE software which includes maintenance services and licensing. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Sungard/HTE Company has been providing The City of Lake Forest services for a financial and land parcel management system since 1998. This system is 9 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda one of the largest software systems to support City operations. It encompasses financial, payroll, purchasing, general ledger, budget, water billing, online water billing payments, accounts receivable, fixed assets, parcel management, code enforcement, building permits and land management planning and zoning. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: On March 21, 2017 staff received the following quote from Sungard/HTE: FY2018 Funding Source Account Number Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N IT Operating 101-1315-415-43-37 $71,812 $70,933 Y The proposed fee represents a $3,297 (5%) increase over the costs for FY2017. This service of support can only be provided by Sungard/HTE. Staff is recommending waiving the formal request for proposals process per section 9.0-D (Sole Source Purchases) of the City’s purchasing directive. COUNCIL ACTION: Acknowledge the exception noted in section 9.0-D of the City’s purchasing directive and approve a one (1) year maintenance agreement with Sungard/HTE for software support and licensing of the City’s financial and parcel management system based on the sole source vendor quote. 4. Approval of a Resolution Reallocating 2017 Volume Cap to the Village of Buffalo Grove, Illinois STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests approval of a resolution reallocating the City’s 2017 private activity bond volume cap to the Village of Buffalo Grove, Illinois for the private activity bond clearinghouse (PABC) pool. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 imposes a limit on the aggregate amount of “tax exempt private activity” bonds (also known as volume cap) that can be issued by a State. Pursuant to these federal regulations, the State of Illinois has developed a formula by which the State ceiling is allocated among governmental units in the State having authority to issue such bonds. The Illinois Private Activity Bond Allocation Act provides that a home rule unit of government is allocated an amount equal to $100 multiplied by its estimated population, which for Lake Forest in calendar year 2017 is $1,940,800 (19,408 x $100). By May 1, 2017, the City must take action to grant, reserve or transfer its allocation, or the amount is reserved by the Governor’s Office for a pool. The City may transfer its allocation to any other home rule unit of government, the State of Illinois or any agency of the State. This year, the City has received one request to transfer its volume cap, as follows: Organization Proposed Use Amount of Transfer Fee 10 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda Village of Buffalo Grove (Lake County Partners) Private Activity Bond Clearinghouse 0.5% or $9,704.00* * Paid upon issuance of bonds utilizing the allocated volume cap Home rule units are not prohibited from charging a fee for transferring their cap. In prior years when economic conditions were more favorable, home rule units were able to induce developers to pay a higher transfer fee than that offered by Lake County Partners. In recent years, however, fewer developers have sought the volume cap due to low interest rates and declines in development activity. Because the volume cap amount for most municipalities is too small to assist with eligible projects, Lake County Partners created the Clearinghouse in 2000 as a way for Lake County communities to pool their cap and make best use of the allocation locally. Lake County Partners reports that in the past several years, they have seen little activity in the private activity bond market. Since its inception, the clearinghouse has funded nearly $200 million in local projects, including the construction of 360,000 square feet of new manufacturing space, creation of 648 new manufacturing jobs, renovation of 1,600 multi-family dwelling units, purchase of an estimated 251 homes by “first-time homebuyers”, expansion of a Montessori School, and construction of a new solid waste disposal “cell”. This is the 12th year under home rule status that the City has been allocated volume cap. The City has transferred its volume cap to Buffalo Grove for the past ten years. To date, fee income of $8,574.78 has been received. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Upon issuance of bonds utilizing the City’s volume cap, a transfer fee payment of .5% would be due to the City. Should the entire 2017 allocation be utilized by the pool, the City would receive $9,704.00. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of a Resolution (page 82) Reallocating 2017 Volume Cap to the Village of Buffalo Grove, Illinois. 5. Award of a Contract for Professional Services Consultation on the Purchase of a New Enterprise Resource Planning System STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Holleb, Director of Finance/IT (847-810-3612 ) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests City Council award a contract for professional services to lead The City of Lake Forest through the process of replacing the current Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Milestone Date Comments RFP Issuance 2/15/2017 Vendor Proposals Submitted 03/10/2017 Six Proposals Received & Reviewed Consultant Interviews & Other Due Diligence 03/10 – 03/28/2017 Review & Recommendation by City Departments’ Selection Team 11 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City of Lake Forest has utilized HTE as its Enterprise Resource Planning system for the last 19 years, hosted on the IBM iSeries server hardware platform. In January 2019 IBM will be discontinuing support on this hardware and it will need replacement. In October 2016, City staff engaged the services of a qualified consultant to lead The City through a comprehensive needs and options analysis of the current Electronic Data Management System (EDMS) that also included a detailed gap analysis. Based on the gap analysis, the recommendation of the selected consultant was to retire the current EDMS solution when it reaches end of life in 2018 and replace EDMS functionality through an ERP replacement system. This will allow the City to eliminate the risks involved when using end-of- life software and address current EDMS and ERP system gaps, including the ability to: • Reduce software redundancy and overlap • Improve business processes and efficiency • Enhance service delivery and citizen engagement • Reduce shadow systems and duplicate effort • Streamline information flow • Improve availability of information • Improve reporting and decision making • Increase employee productivity and decrease employee response time • Integrate transactions and documents to the fullest extent possible, and • Reallocate costs of supporting aging software and end of life hardware to a more feature rich ERP system In order to support this recommendation, City staff recommends taking this opportunity to engage the services of a qualified professional that will provide direction and support, and lead us through the process of selecting the best possible ERP system for The City of Lake Forest in the most efficient and cost effective manner. The selected consultants will utilize a proven methodology and set of related tools to provide project management intended to mitigate risk during this project. Using their expertise in the public sector and existing best practices for software selection, they will guide staff through several phases designed to select the best software to replace our aging, outdated HTE ERP and end of life Fortis EDMS Software. The project will be comprised of the following phases: Phase I - Lead the City through requirements specification and development of a request for proposal for a comprehensive Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. Phase II - Assist City staff with review of proposals, selection of a preferred vendor, and contract negotiations for an ERP system. Phase III - Implementation and data conversion of our selected ERP system. Costs of Phase III are not included in this project. The scope of this phase will be determined at a later date based on the vendor selected in Phase I, and may or may not include an additional RFP for assistance. This process will help ensure the selection of a right-sized ERP solution that will meet the operational needs of the entire City for years to come and allow migration of current documents to the best product at this time. Consultant Selection Process: 12 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda The City issued a Request for Proposals on February 15th, 2017. Staff received six (6) proposals for phases I & II of this project. A committee comprised of representatives from Finance, Community Development, and IT narrowed the selection to two candidates based on experience and knowledge of ERP using a standard set of criteria. These two candidates were interviewed starting on March 23, 2017, and a finalist was selected by the committee based upon price, professionalism, expertise, references, understanding of City needs, and completeness of proposal. A summary of the respondents are as follows: Company Selected as Finalist? Estimated Hours Proposal Amount for Phase I and II BPM Advisors No $76,880 Schafer Consulting No $75,210 Baker Tilly Yes 408 $59,974 Plante & Moran Yes 242 $56,870 Tandem Conglomerate No $55,000 ZCo Consulting No $29,000 BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Baker Tilly’s proposal met all of the required project specifications. Its assigned professional staff made positive impressions on the selection team during the interview, and references gave favorable responses. It was determined that Baker Tilly’s market knowledge, expertise, and professionalism in the area of Enterprise Resource Planning systems are excellent, and its expertise in process/change management will be an added benefit to the success of the project. The proposed cost of $59,974 for Phases I and II are within the $60,000 allocated in the FY18 Budget for this initiative. FY2018 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N IT Capital (311-0050-415-6613) $60,000 $59,974 Y COUNCIL ACTION: If appropriate and should the City Council desire, award a contract to Baker Tilly for professional services in the not to exceed amount of $59,974 for consulting services to assist The City of Lake Forest with developing requirements and selecting a comprehensive ERP system for The City, including contract negotiations. 6. Authorization to Issue Reimbursement for City Work Costs Related to Clean-up of the City’s Former Municipal Services Site. STAFF CONTACT: Catherine J. Czerniak, Director of Community Development (810-3504) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: City Council action is requested to authorize the City Manager to reimburse Focus Development for costs incurred in the performance of Unforeseen City Work at the former Municipal Services site. This is the third in a series of reimbursements anticipated as site work continues. 13 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In February, 2015, the City Council directed that the environmental cleanup of the former Municipal Services site get underway. The cleanup work included testing and investigation, demolition of all of the above ground structures, removal of all known underground slabs, foundations and tanks, hauling and proper disposal of impacted soils, removal of utilities and preparation and filing of the necessary reports in order to obtain a letter of No Further Remediation. A No Further Remediation Letter was received by the City in September, 2016. Consistent with the terms of the sale of the City’s former Municipal Service Site, and as detailed in the Redevelopment Agreement, the City is required to reimburse Focus Development for certain costs related to clean up of the site. In February and March of this year, the City Council authorized reimbursements to Focus Development for Deferred City Work which included the removal of monitoring wells and portions of water and sewer lines left on the site after the completion of the City’s clean-up work because removal could be handled more efficiently as part of the developer’s site preparation work. The reimbursements also covered the first phase of costs related to Unforeseen City Work including the removal of four underground storage tanks, slabs and foundations discovered by Focus Development during excavation for the new buildings and underground garages. The current request for reimbursement is for costs related to the removal of a fifth underground storage tank found on the site and removal and disposal of soil located near the tank. Some additional underground structures, portions of slabs and foundations, were also found and removed. The work, contractors and costs are summarized below. Unforeseen City Work Contractors Cost of Work Work associated with the removal the fifth unknown underground storage tank found during excavation and removal and disposal of contaminated soil. Apex Companies Grace Analytical Labs R.W. Collins $ 49,015.26 The above direct contractors’ costs were reviewed by the City’s consultant, JHA, and found to be reasonable based on the scope of work. The amount previously authorized by the City Council and paid to date for deferred and unforeseen City work totals $144,030.02. The anticipated total cost of unforeseen City work is $250,000. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the site cleanup is reimbursable through funds generated by the TIF District. Authorization to issue reimbursement as detailed below is requested. FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Reimbursement to Focus Development Authorized Budgeted Y/N Laurel and Western TIF Fund #322-2501-499-77-05 $1,548,469 $49,015.26 Yes 14 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to issue reimbursement to Focus Development for direct costs related to Unforeseen City Work completed in the amount of $49,015.26 consistent with the Redevelopment Agreement. 7. Consideration of an Ordinance Approving a Recommendation from the Building Review Board. (First Reading and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval) STAFF CONTACT: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development (810-3504) The following recommendation from the Building Review Board is presented to the City Council for consideration as part of the Omnibus Agenda. 1500 Kennedy Road – The Building Review Board recommended approval of a replacement entrance sign for Lake Forest Academy. The new sign is a gift from the Class of 2017 and will display the school graphic recently adopted by the school. No public testimony was presented to the Board on this petition. (Board vote: 6-0, approved) The Ordinance approving the petition as recommended by the Building Review Board, with key exhibits attached, is included in the Council packet beginning on page 84. The Ordinance, complete with all exhibits, is available for review in the Community Development Department. COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, waive first reading and grant final approval of the Ordinance approving the petition in accordance with the Building Review Board’s recommendation. 8. 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. 347 Bluffs Edge Drive – The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval of variances from the rear yard and steep slope setbacks to allow construction of a beach house, tram and other beach front amenities. A neighboring property owner noted that he met with the petitioner to review the project and stated support for the variances requested. (Board vote: 6 - 0, approved) The Ordinance approving the petition as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals, with key exhibits attached, is included in the Council packet beginning on page 90. 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. 15 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda 9. Award of the Everett Park Path Replacement portion of the Everett Park Path Replacement & District 67 Cherokee School Driveways Resurfacing STAFF CONTACT: Chuck Myers, Superintendent of Parks & Forestry (847)810-3565 PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests awarding the Everett Park Path Replacement portion of the Everett Park Path Replacement & District 67 Cherokee School Driveways Resurfacing contract to Allstar Asphalt Inc. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Staff is recommending this project, as requested in the FY18 Capital Improvement Program, to make improvements to the City’s Everett Park path. Everett Park is a neighborhood park located in the southwest portion of the City that offers numerous recreational facilities for users; including two playgrounds, a pavilion, a full basketball court, five tennis courts, two soccer fields and a baseball field. These facilities are connected with a six foot wide asphalt walking path that is beyond its useful life and in disrepair. This project involves the replacement of the existing asphalt with a new asphalt surface and also widens the path to eight feet. The wider path is consistent with other recent path improvements in City parks and allows for better maintenance access. This surfacing project will also address a number of ADA issues in the park. In addition to the new asphalt path; the project will also include the resurfacing of the existing basketball court. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Bids for the Everett Park Path Replacement & District 67 Cherokee School Driveways Resurfacing were received and opened on March 9, 2017. A total of five (5) firms bid the joint project. The bid price consists of bid quantities that are to be completed by both Parks & Recreation and District 67 Cherokee School as part of their respective projects. The Cherokee School Driveway Resurfacing work will be paid for by District 67. The City partners with the District to combine similar projects in an effort to receive more favorable bids. The City prepares the contract documents and monitors contract performance. All invoicing is done directly between the contractor and the District. The following is a summary of the bids received: BIDDER BID AMOUNT Allstar Asphalt Inc. $199,752.50 Maneval Construction $211,361.31 Chicagoland Paving Contractors $234,740.00 Evans & Son Blacktop $241,893.67 Schroeder Asphalt Services Inc. $255,370.00 Engineer’s Estimate $259,256.90 The breakdown of the bid specific to the Everett Park Path replacement bid items are summarized below: BIDDER PARKS & RECREATION SHARE 16 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda Allstar Asphalt Inc. $111,307.00 Maneval Construction $111,714.60 Chicagoland Paving Contractors $121,089.22 Evans & Son Blacktop $127,181.62 Schroeder Asphalt Services Inc. $129,474.35 Engineer’s Estimate $168,550.00 The low bidder, Allstar Asphalt Inc., has previously worked in The City of Lake Forest. The projects have been completed on time and the work was satisfactory to Engineering’s staff. Further, staff requests that City Council approve the entire budget amount of $140,000; the $28,693 would only be used as a contingency to address any unforeseen conditions. If approved by City Council, the project would commence on or about June 12,, 2017 and be completed by the end of July. Upon confirming the start date of the project, a letter will be sent to the residents in the vicinity of the project two weeks prior to start of construction. During construction, the Everett Park Path will be closed. Below is an estimated summary of project budget: FY2018 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N Park and Public Land Fund $140,000 $140,000 Y COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, staff recommends awarding the contract for the Everett Park Replacement portion of the Everett Park Path Replacement & District 67 Cherokee School Driveways Resurfacing to Allstar Asphalt Inc. in the amount of $111,307. In addition, City Council authorizes the remaining budgeted dollars of $28,693 be approved and used as a contingency to address any unforeseen conditions. 10. Approval of Contract for Installation of Brick Patio and Purchase of Required Material for the Deerpath Golf Course Patio Installation Project STAFF CONTACT: Chuck Myers, Superintendent of Parks, Forestry & Golf (847-810-3565) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting City Council approval of a contractual agreement with a selected vendor (TBD) to install a brick paver patio and for the purchase of all needed materials for the Deerpath Golf Course. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Finance Committee Budget Workshop 03/13/17 Discussion/Review of Deerpath Golf Course capital projects. 17 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda Finance Committee 11/14/16 Discussion of various options for funding Deerpath Golf Course improvements. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On November 14, 2016, the City's Finance Committee discussed the recommendations for initial improvements for the Deerpath Golf Course, estimated at $3,000,000, with a suggested public/private partnership to fund the improvements. City staff identified expenses within $1 million to focus on return from investment. Alderman Newman reviewed City identified projects consisting of fairway drainage, continuous cart paths and patio expansion/kitchen upgrades. The estimated cost for the patio expansion was set at $125,000 with an anticipated installation in spring of 2017. The patio installation project will provide an extended patio area that will not only provide additional space for daily use, but will also provide an area that is large enough for a tent structure that can be used for large golf outing events. This provides a significant revenue opportunity for the golf course and a quicker return on the investment of this project. City staff also recognizes the timely nature of this project in providing these opportunities at the beginning of the golf season and has therefore set a target goal for completion by May 26, 2017. In January 2017, the City entered into a contractual agreement with Craig Bergmann Landscape Design to perform a design analysis of the clubhouse patio area and develop a hardscape/landscape plan with construction details and specifications. Bergmann worked with the City to develop the plan and after a period of review and revisions, the plan was accepted by City staff. City staff has also been working with the master plan consultant, Lohmann Golf Design, to ensure that the patio project is done in a manner that will take into account the continuous cart path design that is currently underway. On March 16, 2017 City staff published an invitation to bid for the Brick Patio Paving Project. The bid opening was March 31, 2017, with four bids received. Staff reviewed all bids and determined that all bids greatly exceeded the budgeted amount; therefore all bids were rejected. Staff then worked with Craig Bergmann Landscape Design to reduce the scope of the project and develop a strategy to align the project with the original budget, while at the same time meeting the target completion date. The new strategy relies on the use of City staff to perform a large percentage of the demolition and preparation work on the site and requires that the materials be purchased directly by the City, as reflected below in the financial request. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: With the development of a new project strategy and a reduced scope, City staff published a revised invitation to bid on April 5, 2017 with a bid opening scheduled for April 19, 2017 at 9:00 am. Staff believes that the bids will be consistent with the original patio installation budget of $125,000. Staff has also received quotes from Lurvey Landscape Supply for the brick pavers ($12,806.53) and Aspen Valley Landscape Supply for natural stone border material ($15,049.28). The total amount for materials needed for the patio project is $27,855.81. Due to the critical timing of the project, staff is requesting City Council’s approval to allow both the Finance Committee Chairman (Alderman Pandaleon) and the City Council liaison for the Golf Course (Alderman Newman), to work with City staff after the bid opening on April 19, 2017 to select a vendor to enter into a contract for the installation of the clubhouse patio. 18 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda City staff has also worked with our clubhouse designer/architect on furniture for the new patio (see attached layout on page 98). The furnishing cannot be purchased directly by the City from the furniture company (Kingsley Bate Furniture), we will need to purchase through Kathleen Nolan Interiors. This will also allow the City to get a discounted price on the furnishings. The total cost of the furniture for the patio is $65,164.08. Below is an estimated summary of project budget: Funding Source Vendor Contract Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N FY18 Golf Course Fund TBD $125,000 $125,000 Y Parks & Rec FY17 220 Operating Fund Kathleen Nolan Interiors $65,164.08 $70,000 Y COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, City staff requests approval of the following: 1. Approval of the purchase of materials for the installation of the Deerpath Golf Course Patio; to include Lurvey Landscape Supply for the brick pavers ($12,806.53) and Aspen Valley Landscape Supply for natural stone border material ($15,049.28), for a total of $27,855.81; and 2. Approval to Authorize both the Finance Committee Chairman (Alderman Pandaleon)and the City Council Liaison for the Golf Course(Alderman Newman), to select a vendor to enter into a contract for the installation of the clubhouse patio, in an amount not to exceed $97,144.19; and 3. Approval to purchase all patio furnishings from Kathleen Nolan Interiors, not to exceed $65,164.08 11. Award of Bid for the North Western Avenue Streetscape Project STAFF CONTACT: Robert Ells, Superintendent of Engineering (810-3555) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting City Council approval of a bid for the North Western Avenue Streetscape Project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Lake Forest has long recognized the relationship between an attractive, well maintained streetscape and a competitive business environment. An aesthetically appealing Central Business District (CBD) provides an inviting place that can attract new businesses and residents as it enhances the quality of the environment for people to live, work, and play. With this in mind, and in an effort to enhance the appearance of the North Western Avenue’s pedestrian environment in the northern corridor, the Civic Beautification Committee and the City developed a new streetscape plan. The new streetscape will create a high quality and attractive environment throughout this area that will evoke a sense of pride, care and safety for people who live, work and visit in Lake Forest. The project creates a comfortable, attractive and low maintenance pedestrian environment that is functional, unified in design, and aesthetically pleasing. 19 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Public Works Committee 04/17/17 Reviewed & Approved City Finance Committee 03/14/16 Informational Only Public Follow-Up Session 03/01/16 Design Plan Well Received Civic Beautification Committee On-Going Recommend Design Plan Public Visioning Session 10/08/15 Provided Insight/Input for Improvements BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Bids for the North Western Avenue Streetscape Project were received and opened on March 31, 2017. The City received a total of six bids. Landmark Contractors, Inc. has considerable experience performing this type of work and is IDOT Certified. If awarded, work on this project will commence on or around May 1, 2017 and will be completed by August 4, 2017. Upon award of the contract, the City will meet with the contractor to develop a schedule for the execution of work. Engineering staff will provide daily oversight and inspections of the construction. Below is an estimated summary of the project budget: FY2018 Funding Source Account Number Account Budget Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N MFT Fund 202-0001-439-76-93 $327,000 $327,000 Y COUNCIL ACTION: Staff recommends City Council award a bid for the North Western Avenue Streetscape contract to Landmark Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $308,840.94. In addition, staff is requesting that City Council authorize to expend, if necessary, the remaining Bidder Bid Amount Landmark Contractors, Inc. $ 308,840.94 Schroeder Asphalt Services, Inc. $ 310,932.44 A Lamp Concrete Contractors, Inc. $ 324,411.60 D’Land Construction, LLC. $ 335,948.05 Schroeder and Schroeder, Inc. $ 360,572.60 Alliance Contractors, Inc. $ 439,122.50 Engineer’s Estimate $ 327,190.00 20 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda $18,159.06 for any unforeseen conditions that might result in change orders with the contractor. 12. Consideration of a Shared Services Agreement with Lake County as a Pilot Program. (Approval by Motion) STAFF CONTACT: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development (810-3504) On an ongoing basis, staff from the City’s Community Development Department meets with staff from the Lake County Department of Planning, Building and Development to share information on processes and projects, and to discuss opportunities for sharing resources. On an informal basis, some limited sharing of resources, in the form of staff time, has occurred to date and has proven to be mutually beneficial. A two-year pilot program is proposed to allow for continued exploration of the benefits and any potential drawbacks of an ongoing shared services program. A draft Intergovernmental Agreement for Shared Inspection and Development Review Services is included in the Council packet beginning on page 99. The concept is that during times of peak activity, or during staffing shortages due to vacations or illness, a process will be in place to allow the County and the City to share staff to fill short term gaps. This added flexibility provides not only the opportunity for supplemental staffing resources, but also continues to build the relationship between City and County staff offering opportunities for all parties to benefit from sharing knowledge, experiences and best practices. After the two year pilot program, the shared service program will be re-evaluated and the Agreement reconsidered. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve a motion authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Shared Services Agreement with Lake County in substantially the form of the Agreement included in the Council packet, subject to City Attorney review. 13. Award of Contract for the Lake Forest share of the 2017 Joint Sewer Lining Project Contract. STAFF CONTACT: Robert W. Ells, Superintendent of Engineering (847-810-3555) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends awarding a contract for the Lake Forest share of the 2017 Joint Sewer Lining Project to Hoerr Construction. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City maintains 139 miles of mainline sanitary sewers. The pipe material that was predominantly used in the past to construct the sewers was a clay material. The clay pipes are most susceptible to deterioration from natural elements and root intrusions resulting in broken pipes and leaking joints. With a deteriorated pipe, the functionality of the pipe to carry the flows is compromised thereby creating surcharges and/or backups. This reconstruction technique is done without the expensive and disruptive excavation process. The process provides for the insertion of a special liner inside the pipe, creating a new smooth-surfaced, long-lasting pipe within the old sewer. 21 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda This project was bid under the Municipal Partnering Program (MPI) with Highland Park, and Mundelein with Lake Forest as the lead agency. This Contract may be renewed for up to three additional and consecutive one-year terms, upon the mutual written consent of the City and Contractor. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Bids for the 2017 Joint Sewer Lining Project were received and opened on March 31, 2017. The City received a total of five bids. The following is a summary of the bids received: BIDDER BID AMOUNT Hoerr Construction $147,663.00 Visu-Sewer $158,034.00 SAK Construction, LLC $167,361.00 Insituform Tech USA $170,118.00 Michels Corporation $190,663.00 Engineer’s Estimate $150,000.00 The low bidder, Hoerr Construction, has worked in The City of Lake Forest on several sewer lining projects over the last three years. The projects have been completed on time and the work was satisfactory to Engineering’s staff. If approved by City Council, the project would commence on or about June 5th and be completed by the end of August. Upon confirming the start date of the project, a letter will be sent to the residents within the limits of the project two weeks prior to start of construction. Below is an estimated summary of project budget: FY2018 Funding Source Account Number Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N Water and Sewer Fund 508-0001-434-67-46 $150,000 $150,000 Y COUNCIL ACTION: Staff recommends awarding the contract for the 2017 Joint Sewer Lining Project to Hoerr Construction, in the amount of $147,663. Staff also requests that City Council authorize staff to expend, if necessary, the remaining budgeted amount of $2337 for change orders that may occur during the administration of this project for a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000. 14. Request for City Council Approval of a Landfill Disposal Fee Agreement STAFF CONTACT: Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works (810-3540) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting City Council approval of a five year landfill disposal fee agreement. The City disposes all of its solid waste that is collected both on the residential routes and the weekend Compost Center, at one of two landfills within Lake County. Waste Management operates its landfill in Grayslake and Advanced Disposal 22 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda operates theirs in Zion. The City utilizes whichever landfill provides the least expensive disposal rates. For the past fifteen years, Advanced Disposal has charged a lesser rate. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In June, 2014, City Council approved a negotiated three year landfill disposal fee agreement with Advanced Disposal. That agreement ends on June 18, 2017 and if not automatically renewed, requires a sixty-day cancellation notice by the City. Rather than automatically renewing the agreement, staff took the opportunity to negotiate a new three or five year agreement with both Advanced Disposal and Waste Management. In 2014 when the City was pursuing its current agreement, staff was informed by both landfills that the City would receive a significantly less disposal price per ton if such pricing was negotiated versus being obtained through a sealed bid process. The City’s Mayor at the time worked in the refuse hauling and disposal business and confirmed that approach. In late March, 2017, staff reaffirmed this process with both landfills. Both agreed that due to the competitive nature of the business, negotiating disposal fees at a local or regional level would provide a significantly less price per ton. They noted that if the City chose to bid the disposal fees, pricing would ultimately require their corporate office to become involved and a higher price would be proposed. Attached on page 104 are the proposals from the two landfills, a draft agreement from Advanced Disposal, and two Public Works Committee slides summarizing the proposals and the differences between the two landfills. The following charts outline what the City is currently paying along with the negotiated three and five-year rates from both landfills. CURRENT DISPOSAL RATES – ADVANCED DISPOSAL Current Rate Price Per Ton $51.50 NEGOTIATED FIVE-YEAR RATES NEGOTIATED THREE-YEAR RATES Year Waste Management Advanced Disposal Year Waste Management Advanced Disposal 1 $40.00 $39.50 1 $40.00 $40.50 2 $41.20 $40.70 2 $41.20 $41.70 3 $42.44 $41.94 3 $42.44 $42.94 4 $43.71 $43.21 5 $45.02 $44.52 PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Public Works Committee 4/3/17 Reviewed and Approved BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The Public Works Committee is recommending City Council approve a five-year agreement with Advanced Disposal. Not only is Advanced Disposal’s five-year 23 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda price per ton less, but the landfill has a larger dumping area, an unmanned scale, opened on Saturdays, and a well maintained road back to the disposal area. The City collects approximately 7,000 tons of refuse per year. By agreeing to a five-year commitment with Advanced Disposal, the City will save $12.00/ton or $84,000 in year one compared to its current rate. If approved this evening, the City will begin receiving the new rate on June 19, 2017. Below is a summary of proposed FY ‘18 refuse disposal budget. With the new rate not beginning until late June and the annual tonnage estimated, staff is requesting a budget sufficient to pay for any possible increase in volumes collected at homes or at the Compost Center. FY2018 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N General Fund $361,500 $310,000 Y COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approval of a landfill agreement with Advanced Disposal for five years, subject to City Attorney review. 15. Award of Bid for the Ponds Subdivision Outlet Repair Project STAFF CONTACT: Robert W. Ells, Superintendent of Engineering (810-3555) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends awarding a bid for the Ponds Subdivision Outlet Repair Project to John Keno & Company, Inc. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Ponds Subdivision stormwater detention facilities overflow control structures are in need of repair due to undermining (seepage of water) below the structures. The repairs are necessary to keep the functionality of the detention ponds intact. By making these maintenance improvements, the ponds will overflow within their designated areas and not cause overland flooding in adjacent land. The overall project includes removal or partial removal, of three existing pond outlet structures and replacing them with concrete pipe outlet structures. Attached on page 115 of this agenda is a map and pictures of each of the three outlet structures. Over the years, the condition of the ponds and the related drainage structures has deteriorated, and the City and the HOA have disputed who is responsible for maintaining the ponds. Over the past twelve months, the City and HOA have discussed means to address the repair of the ponds, as well as their long-term maintenance. Beginning on page 127 of this agenda is a draft agreement between the City and the HOA. Essentially, the City agrees to undertake the repairs and pay all design, construction, oversight, and management costs in connection with the project. Upon completion of the project, the HOA agrees to be fully and solely responsible for all future maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitation of the ponds in perpetuity without cost or expense to the City. Additionally, the HOA agrees to remove, and not to re-establish, signage along the outlots (including the entryways) that limits access the outlets to residents of the Association only. 24 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Bids for the Ponds Subdivision Outlet Repair Project were received and opened on April 6, 2017. The City received the following five bids: BIDDER BID AMOUNT John Keno and Company, Inc. $117,203.45 Canyon Contracting $124,677.00 RA Mancini, Inc. $139,525.00 DK Contractors $161,655.00 Campanella & Sons, Inc. $169,610.20 Engineer’s Estimate $90,000.00 The low bidder, John Keno and Company, Inc. has previously worked in The City of Lake Forest on several comparable projects over the last five years. The projects have been completed on time and the work was satisfactory to Engineering’s staff. If approved by City Council, the project would commence on or about July 10 and be completed by the end of July. Upon confirming the start date of the project, a letter will be sent to the residents within the limits of the project two weeks prior to start of construction. Below is an estimated summary of project budget: FY2018 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N Capital Fund $90,000 $128,924 Y Staff is requesting that the City exceed its original budget of $90,000. If savings are not realized in other FY ‘18 capital improvement projects to pay for this overage, an appropriation ordinance would be submitted at the end of the fiscal year. COUNCIL ACTION: Award the Ponds Subdivision Outlet Repair Project to John Keno and Company, Inc. in the amount of $117,204. In addition, staff is requesting that City Council authorize to expend, if necessary, an additional amount not to exceed 10% of the contract amount, for any unforeseen change orders that may occur during this project. Therefore, the total contract cost is not expected to exceed $128,924. 16. Consideration to enter into a professional services contract with FGM Architects to produce plans and construction documents for the Public Safety Building (PSB) Renovation Project included in the City’s FY2018 Capital Improvement Budget. STAFF CONTACT: Karl Walldorf, Chief of Police (810-3803) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting City Council approval to enter into a professional services contract with FGM Architects to produce plans and construction documents for the PSB Renovation Project included in the City’s proposed FY2018 Capital Improvement Budget. 25 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 2015 staff began pre-planning the rehabilitation of several areas on the first floor of the Public Safety Building that required attention. Staff hoped to correct ADA issues in the publically accessible first floor bathroom as well as with the lobby records window, add ballistic protection to the records lobby window, and reclaim the former dispatch center as usable office space by combining it with the records workspace. The firm of Cordogan Clark was retained to prepare conceptual drawings to address these concerns. At the November, 2016 Finance Committee Capital Budget workshop meeting, staff presented a plan to move forward on this project in FY2018 using funds earmarked for the Public Safety Building via the impact fees received from the Laurel Avenue project. This project was approved and is moving forward via the proposed FY2018 Capital Budget. To further this project, staff began a search for an architect to prepare plans and drawings for this fiscal year to ensure it is completed prior to any needed construction start date. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Finance Committee Meeting 11/14/16 Approval of PSB Reconstruction in FY2018 using Laurel Impact Fee BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) were sent to eight firms with knowledge and experience in producing designs for the renovation of public buildings. By the March deadline, responses from three firms were received; Cordogan Clark, Bleck and Bleck and FGM. All three firms were interviewed by Police and Public Works staff. FGM Architects, Inc. of Oak Brook, Illinois was selected by the interview team. While all of the firms had experience doing public sector work, FGM had significantly more experience with both government and public safety projects than its peers. FGM has completed more than 130 police projects, including 18 in the last two years. These projects ranged from construction of new stations, such as Highland Park Police Department’s, to more modest, one-room renovations at Mundelein Police Department. FGM has also recently repurposed several vacated dispatch centers, just like the one in our station. The firm appears very capable of designing our project satisfactorily. FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N Police Contractual Service $60,000 $32,000 Y COUNCIL ACTION: Consideration to enter into a professional services contract with FGM Architects, Inc. to produce plans and construction documents for the PSB Renovation Project in the amount of $32,000. 17. Award of Bid for a Police Department Police Vehicle. STAFF CONTACT: Karl Walldorf, Chief of Police (810-3803) 26 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting City Council authorization to award a bid for the purchase of a Chevrolet Tahoe for the Police Department to Currie Motors, identified in Northwest Municipal Conference’s Suburban Purchasing Cooperative. The City has utilized the Cooperative in the past with purchases of police cars, an ambulance, and a very similar Fire Department Chevrolet Tahoe last month. The new police vehicle will replace a vehicle that has surpassed its end-of-life target mileage. Staff is requesting City Council approve the purchase of this vehicle using funds from the Department’s DUI Seizure Fund. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Police Department has eleven cars assigned to patrol, six cars assigned to detectives and administration personnel, and one car assigned to our community service officers. One 2008 Chevrolet Impala assigned to investigations (unit #14) has already surpassed 100,000 miles, and no replacement is currently budgeted in the capital budgets for FY2017 or FY2018. However, sufficient funds are available and budgeted in the current DUI Seizure Fund to replace this vehicle. This Chevrolet Tahoe would replace the nine year old Chevrolet Impala (unit #14).With the evidence technicians utilizing a significant amount of equipment, the Tahoe provides the necessary space to store such items and at the same time, has the ability to respond to any emergencies. The Impala will then be transferred to Community Development for its daily use in building inspection services. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The City has purchased vehicles from the Suburban Purchasing Cooperative’s current low bidder, Currie Motors, in the past and has not had any problems with the dealership nor the delivered vehicles. All warranty work will be completed by the Chevy Exchange on Route 41. FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N DUI Seizure Fund $90,000 $38,759 Y COUNCIL ACTION: Award of bid for a Police Department vehicle to Currie Motors, in the amount of $38,759. 18. Award of the Lake Forest share of the joint 2017 Annual Street Resurfacing & Asphalt Patching Program contract. STAFF CONTACT: Robert Ells, Superintendent of Engineering (810-3555) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests awarding the Lake Forest share of the joint 2017 Annual Street Resurfacing Program & Road Patching Program contract to Peter Baker & Son. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Each year engineering staff develops the resurfacing and patching programs based on visual inspections, pavement testing and input from staff and 27 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda Council. The results culminated in developing a 3-yr annual pavement rehabilitation program identifying the streets to be resurfaced each year. City Staff have previously briefed the Council on Municipal Partnership Initiative (MPI ), a program that takes advantage of economies of scale, for securing low bid prices, among neighboring municipalities who bid similar projects each year. This year, the City joined forces with Lake Bluff to do a joint bid for the Annual Street Resurfacing & Asphalt Patching Programs. In 2017, the City plans to resurface approximately 2.8 center-lane miles of streets. The streets to be resurfaced are: Street From To SUFFOLK LN RT 60 WEST END YORKTOWNE LN NEWCASTLE DR WESTLEIGH RD NEWCASTLE DR YORKTOWNE LN WEST END STABLE LN WESTLEIGH RD SOUTH END JENSEN DR MIDDLEFORK DR KENNICOTT DR KENNICOTT DR JENSEN DR EMMONS CT BARRYS CT YORKTOWNE LN WEST END EMMONS CT KENNICOTT DR EAST END OLD ELM ROAD EVERETT ROAD ESTES AVENUE WESTLEIGH RD RT 41 RIDGE RD OLMSTEAD DR MIDDLEFORK DR KENNICOTT DR ABINGTON CAMBS DR OAK KNOLL DR EAST END TURRICUM RD WESTLEIGH RD McCORMICK DR BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The project was bid in early March with the bid opened on March 28, 2017. A total of one (1) bid for the joint project was received. The bid price consists of bid quantities that are to be completed by both municipalities as part of their respective resurfacing program and asphalt patching program. Both Communities are using Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) dollars to pay for the street resurfacing portions of their contracts. Funding for the Lake Forest asphalt patching will come from budgeted dollars in the Capital Fund. BIDDER TOTAL BID PRICE Peter Baker & Son $1,390,000.00 The breakdown of the bid specific to Lake Forest bid items are summarized below: BIDDER LAKE FOREST RESURFACING SHARE LAKE FOREST PATCHING SHARE Peter Baker & Son $828,028.95 $115,670.00 Engineer’s Estimate $893,356.00 $149,775.00 28 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda Peter Baker & Son, has considerable experience working in Lake Forest and has been performing projects in a satisfactory manner. As part of the annual pavement inspection and in response to resident inquiries city staff evaluates the condition of the pavement to add streets to the Annual Street Resurfacing program provided the budgeted amount is greater than the bid. In order to maximize savings for the City and take advantage of the low bid prices, staff recommends adding streets to the Lake Forest share of the 2017 Annual Street Resurfacing program. These added streets have surface deterioration thereby causing inconvenience to motorists. Both municipalities are scheduled to award their respective contracts in the month of April. City Engineering staff will provide daily inspectional services for Lake Forest portion of the contract. If awarded, work on this project is expected to begin in May and be substantially completed late June. Upon award of the contract, both municipalities will meet with the contractor to get a tentative schedule for each community. The property owners near the vicinity of the construction work for Lake Forest portion of the 2017 ASR program will be notified in advance of the start of construction. Below is an estimated summary of the Project budget: FY2018 Funding Source Account Number Account Budget Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N MFT Fund 202-0001-439-67-11 $900,000 $900,000 Y Capital Fund 311-0050-417-67-23 $150,000 $150,000 Y TOTAL: $1,050,000 $1,050,000 COUNCIL ACTION: Staff recommends awarding the 2017 Annual Street Resurfacing & Asphalt Patching Program to Peter Baker & Sons in the amount of $943,698.95 to include authorization to expend the remaining $106,301.05 for the resurfacing of additional streets. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the eighteen (18) Omnibus items as presented 6. ORDINANCES 7. ORDINANCES AFFECTING CODE AMENDMENTS 1. Approval of an Ordinance amending City Code Section 39.166 allowing for consideration of hardships related to Real Estate Transfer Tax Refunds (Waive First Reading and Grant Final Approval) and Motion Granting Approval of Appeal for Irene Potts in the Amount of $1,600 PRESENTED BY: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) 29 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Proposed Ordinance beginning on page 134 modifies City Code Section 39.166 at the request of the City Council to allow for consideration of hardships related to the requirements established in City Code Section 39.164 for refunds of the Real Estate Transfer Tax. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On April 3, the City Council considered a request from Ms. Laura Sorenson, on behalf of her parents, to waive the one-year requirement of City Code section 39.164 between a purchase and sale of properties within Lake Forest to qualify for a refund of real estate transfer tax. The City Attorney noted that should the City Council desire to approve this request, it would require an amendment to City Code. Upon discussion, the City Council requested that the City Attorney draft an amendment to the City Code allowing for consideration of hardships related to the refund of real estate transfer taxes under City Code section 39.164. Upon review of the City Code, it was noted that City Code section 39.166 entitled “Appeals” provides that any person subject to the real estate transfer tax, or any application for exemption or refund of the tax, may first appeal to the City Manager and then to the Personnel, Compensation and Administration (PCA) Committee of the City Council. Determinations of the PCA Committee are final. The Proposed Ordinance offers an amendment to Section 39.166 that allows for the PCA Committee to consider appeals for refunds upon showing a hardship such as an act of god or medical necessity. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments City Council 4/3/17 City Council requested that City Attorney draft Code language providing hardship provision related to Real Estate Transfer Tax Refunds BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this item would have a modest financial impact, in that an occasional refund of real estate transfer tax would be made that would not have otherwise occurred under current City Code provisions. COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, waive first reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Section 39.166 allowing for consideration of hardships related to Real Estate Transfer Tax Refunds and grant final approval; approve motion granting approval of appeal for Irene Potts in the Amount of $1,600. 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION 10. ADJOURNMENT Office of the City Manager Apr il 12, 2017 30 Monday, April 17, 2017 Regular 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. 31 Memorandum To: The Honorable Donald Schoenheider, Mayor From: Lee Brown, FAICP – President, Teska Associates Michael Blue, FAICP – Principal, Teska Associates Date: April 13, 2017 RE: Plan Review and Building Permit Assessment – Draft Findings Report An assessment of the City of Lake Forest building permit and inspection process is being conducted to understand system operations, customer use of the process, and whether adjustments to current procedures to enhance the service merit consideration. Most of the analysis has been completed. This draft report describes findings from the assessment and preliminary recommendations for the City to consider enhancing current systems. Assessment Tasks This assessment involved an in-depth review of procedures and a wide-ranging collection and consideration of stakeholder perspectives related to the Lake Forest building permit and inspection process. Both aspects proved to be useful in understanding the way permits are reviewed and issued, as well as what permit processes are seen by customers as working well or needing improvement. No one piece of data or set of discussions drove this evaluation, rather the entire process painted a picture of how plan review and permitting functions for Lake Forest. The evaluation included: • Review of development process related ordinances, materials distributed to the public, information from the City’s website, permit forms, and associated materials. • Review of data maintained by the City regarding number of issued permits, review time, counter visits, and inspections. • Interviews with all Community Development Department staff. • Focus group meeting with thirty-one local realtors. • Interviews with local stakeholders regarding the overall permitting process. o Past and current Building Review Board (BRB) / Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) members o Elected officials o Permit process customers • An invitation from Mayor Schoenheider was extended to more than 150 architects, builders, contractors, tradesmen, real estate professionals and property owners who had recently completed a project in Lake Forest respond to a survey or contact us directly. • The online survey asked questions regarding experience and satisfaction with the permitting and inspection process (50 responses received). • A separate assessment of the permitting processes in twenty-five local and national comparable communities, with follow-up interviews. 32 2 Primary Findings Findings of this evaluation are presented in five areas: 1. Technical Assessment 2. Perceptions About the Process 3. Public Review Before BRB and HPC 4. Survey Findings 5. Recommendations This assessment finds that: •Fundamental practices of good departmental operations are in place to a high degree. •Ample and open communications between staff and applicants supports an effective permit process. Opportunities to expand this outreach exist and should be considered by the City. •Department staff are professional and well skilled. •Breaking out plan reviews by permit type (standard, Fast Track and Over the Counter) helps customers by matching anticipated review times to scale of work. •Lake Forest’s review of new residential development and additions is uncommon among its peers and comparable communities. It sets a very high expectation for community character and development quality, reflected in its standards and procedures. •The Building Review Board process supports high standar ds for community character, but can be a source of frustration for applicants and for neighbors in the review process. Relocating BRB (and HPC) meetings to a conference room in the Municipal Services Building is strongly recommended so those meetings can be more effectively conducted in a workshop format. 33 3 Technical Assessment Fundamental Practices: A first step in assessing building permit and inspection processes is to determine whether an organization and its systems apply sound fundamental practices. While these concepts may seem straightforward or even obvious, the fact is they are not adequately applied in every permitting system and it is necessary to confirm that they are in place. Based on review of the permit and inspection process in Lake Forest, these base systems are in place and working effectively: • Sound Internal Communications: Community Development staff work closely together (both in terms of team work and proximity). Staff sharing has been established with the Fire Department, which greatly enhances internal staff coordination (especially for commercial developments) and is a benefit to customers. Interactions with City engineering and Public Works staff occur regularly. • Comfortable Work Environment: The Municipal Services building affords a work environment with practical work spaces, comfortable lighting, opportunities for privacy, collective interaction, proximate filing resources, and attractive and functional spaces to meet with applicants and the community. The Department projects a friendly, calm, professional and respectful atmosphere that moderates what can otherwise be a difficult and stressful point of contact between a city and its residents. Further, each of the staff members projects a positive attitude about the Department and Lake Forest. Staff members reported a strong level of respect and support from elected and appointed leadership that is devoid of politicization of the development and permit review processes. • Availability of Staff to Applicants (good customer service): Surveys and stakeholder discussions indicate that all Department staff are very much available for any question at all stages of the permitting process. Many described staff as essentially “just a phone call away”. With very rare exceptions, applicants reported very timely responses to their inquiries. • Single Set of Plan Review Comments: Applicants receive a unified, joint response of technical plan reviews from the various disciplines – as compiled by the City staff. This supports a smooth plan review process and greater clarity for applications. • Categories of Permit Types: That the City allows for Fast Track and Over the Counter Permits serves applicants with smaller projects and keeps those applications from getting unnecessarily delayed in the process. It presents a proportional application of resources to each level of application complexity, and therefore, a consistently high level of service over the whole spectrum of permit applications. • Sound Record Keeping: The Department maintains records on permits and properties and, to the benefit of the community, often has usable background (such as a plats) available for by residents. To improve records management, the City is embarking on an electronic records management program. • Staff Training: Department staff have the opportunity to secure training pertinent to their work. • Permit Process Information: Explanatory materials are available to customers regarding permits, procedures, and standards. • Use of Technology: Permit process materials are available on the City website. The Department is working to expand its application of technology by evaluating electronic plan review submissions and is preparing to participate in a City-wide computer system update that will include new permitting software. • Predictable Plan Review Times: The Department has established target turnaround times for plan reviews. Different timeframes are applicable based on permit complexity (fifteen business days for standard permits, five days for Fast Track permits, and over the counter permits that can be issued in one visit to the Department). 34 4 • Shared Goals: The Department publishes its Mission and Vision statements in the Budget document, clearly articulating the goals of managing growth and change, preserving the distinct character of the community, strong property values and quality of life, and the responsibility to guide applicants through the development review process necessary to achieve these goals. Review Timing: Perhaps the most often scrutinized aspect of issuing building permits is the time required for submitted plans to be approved and permits issued. A survey of comparable communities conducted for this project indicates that targets of three to four weeks for a first response are common. Two week turnaround was noted in limited instances, as was difficulty in meeting that time frame. Those surveyed indicated various success in meeting the turnaround target – some noting the target was “generally” met. The few that set a percentage indicated meeting their target 70 to 80 percent of the time. As for Lake Forest, evaluation of Department customer survey responses and stakeholder discussions indicate the planned turnaround of 15 business days for standard permits and five days for Fast Track permits is generally considered appropriate, but that faster turnaround is always desirable. Data from approximately two years of permit tracking show that standard permits are issued within the 15 business day target 71 percent of the time and within 20 business days 86 percent of the time. Fast Track permits are issued within five days 88 percent of the time and within 10 days 98 percent of the time. For permits requiring engineering review, which is conducted by an outside consulting firm, it was noted that project complexity can diminish the probability of meeting the 15 day target. The 15-day turnaround target is consistent with those of surveyed communities for standard permits. Most communities did not indicate a specifically defined Fast Track permit, but noted that smaller permits are generally reviewed faster than the target time. In addition, most communities did have a form of over the counter permit. The Fast Track category in Lake Forest is beneficial to applicants in that it provides a “right-sized” review of smaller project plans. Communications: Stakeholders interviewed indicated that all Community Development staff are available for questions and insights throughout the process; the City gets strong marks from stakeholders for that availability. In fact, those interviewed (stakeholders and Department staff) noted that a meeting between staff and the applicant (and/or their designer or contractor) is key to a successful plan review and construction project. It informs applicants of the best way to approach possible design and code challenges, and informs the City of potentially unique plan review questions that may arise. The benefit of early and clear communications with staff, and the ready availability of CD staff, from the Director on down, were among the most positive and most commonly made observations during the assessment. This point was made most strongly by architects and others as relates to larger projects, and isn’t as relevant to smaller (fast track or over the counter) projects – although, anecdotally there were comments that even those doing smaller projects were welcome to and do meet with staff. A challenging aspect of development review and permitting is predicting when a permit will be ready for issuance. Plans are reviewed in the order in which they are received; some can require input from multiple review points, and can be waiting on additional information from applicants or others. For this reason, it is typically impossible to give a date certain when the permit will be issued. Staff indicated that during busy times they will inform applicants that issuance may be closer to or even beyond the target date due to plan review volumes – in the interest of good communication, this is a sound practice. Nevertheless, stakeholders and survey respondents indicated a desire for more information about permit status. 35 5 Availability of Department staff for questions on permit issuance status must be seen as a double-edged sword. Taking the time to update applicants provides high quality customer service, but also takes staff from the work of reviewing and issuing permits. This is an ongoing balancing act in all permit and inspection work, but is exaggerated where staff resources are lean. Bulk Calculation: The calculation of “bulk” was raised several times during focus group and stakeholder discussions. The standard was generally understood as the way in which lot size limits house size. However, calculating the standard was noted by some as being detailed, complex, and hard to understand and apply. In addition, the question was raised by some as to why this standard did not suffice in regulating home construction – essentially asking why the BRB process was required if a bulk standard was met. In fact, the City uses the term “bulk” in two ways: As a measure of actual building volume, and as a measure of perceived building volume. The bulk standard relates to the actual building volume, while the BRB evaluates how the building will be perceived in the context of its siting and surroundings. Website: The City website has information related to the permit and inspection process, but requires a bit of persistent digging into the site to find the relevant information. The website is a valuable resource, but is not perceived by many users as intuitively organized. A user with a good sense of what they were looking for will do better with the site and find: permit applications, submittal checklists, and workbooks for building scale and urban design guidelines. Limited background information is provided on the overall permit process or details on process elements, such as the BRB. The requirement for BRB review of single family homes is not clearly noted, but should be, as this requirement is not common in other communities. The website provides limited prioritization of permit related information. For example, the Building Scale Workbook and City of Lake Forest Design Guidelines are significant permit process tools in the City but are not highlighted as such. Likewise, checklists for plan submittal can be found on the site, but they are not highlighted as valuable tools to be used in the process (as they were noted to be by stakeholders and survey respondents). In short, these valuable information sources seem to be located on the website to be found once directed there by a staff member, not for someone at home, after hours, seeking to learn how the process works – or in the case of designers, contractors, and realtors, being able to show their clients how the process works. The survey conducted for this assessment shows that seven percent of respondents considered the website a primary source of information on the process; 56 percent noted that Community Development Staff was their main information source. This is consistent with the customer service approach of staff and challenges of information retrieval from the website. While an important tool, no website will completely absorb customer service requests, especially in a service oriented community such as Lake Forest. In comparison to other communities’ building permit website pages, our experience generally and research related to this assignment shows that the information level and customer interface for Lake Forest is typical of most. However, some sites are organized such that a specific section is prominently identified for all aspects of construction. If appropriately designed, this approach can be a useful hub for permit and development related information. Even so, most sites follow the structure of permit information being found through the related departments or a “I want to...” link – which, ultimately leads users to the same information or location as the department based information. 36 6 Staffing: The assessment is not a manpower study, it does not consider the number of staff positions in comparison to other comparable communities, primarily because the duties and responsibilities assigned to the staff vary so widely between communities. The assessment focuses, instead, on the product and the perception of the process by consumers of the Department’s work. The loss of two and one-half positions within the Community Development department as a result of the past economic downturn was noted several times in stakeholder discussions. The change was described as understandable due to the drop in development activity. However, given that the economy has improved and development activity with it, there were questions from stakeholders as to whether adding back the staff member could help meet demands on the Department. Despite the loss of positions, the staff has been able to cover the four significant areas of responsibilities they have been assigned without reducing the quality of the product or decay in the work environment. Those four responsibilities: plan review, site/building inspections, technical support for the Council and review bodies, and communications with applicants and public, have significantly inelastic elements that are tied more to the number of homes and businesses in the community and only partially tied to economic cycles. The potential technology improvements discussed elsewhere in this assessment do not substitute for staff capacity, particularly in the case of a customer-focused service environment like Lake Forest. Technology improvements are likely to benefit the quality, speed and management of project files and project reviews, but are not likely to have an impact on the need for staff resources to serve the inelastic demand for inspections, staff reports and communications with the public. 37 7 Perception About of the Process Use and understanding of the permit and inspection process for any community is part fact, part perception. Applicants (especially residents and business owners) may only apply for permits once or twice during their time in Lake Forest. Their perception of the process will be influenced by what they hear from others. Even those familiar with the process may be influenced by one experience they had or heard stories about. These perceptions are not indicators in and of themselves of the strength or weaknesses of Lake Forest’s permit process operations. Yet, they influence permit applicants and potential applicants and, hence, are considered in its assessment. The comments and responses from real estate professionals consistently reflected anecdotal evidence and perceptions built on what they had heard from colleagues or observed from attending a BRB or HPC meeting. These often negative perceptions influence potential home-buyers, and appear to be an influential voice in the community. As such, enhanced information and understanding of the review standards and review process, made available through a cooperative effort of realtors and brokers, may be a valuable investment in setting appropriate expectations. Reliance on Staff: The overwhelming consensus of this assessment has been respect and appreciation of Community Development staff. That staff is polite and knowledgeable are among the most positive survey responses; this finding also is reflected in stakeholder interviews. But, this must be seen in a context beyond their professionalism and patience with customers. The Lake Forest permitting process can be complex (for example the bulk calculation), unusual (requiring design review of single-family homes), and lengthy (when commission or board approval is required). This construct drives customers to the support provided by those who know the system best, Department Staff. As noted earlier, this accommodates good customer service, but reduces the time available for conducting plan review and other tasks. The balance point between staff availability to customers and work load capacity will be part of the City deliberations in considering recommendations for system enhancement. The Lake Forest Standard: The architectural integrity and strong character of Lake Forest is fundamentally recognized, appreciated, and embraced by the community. It comes from the City’s history and the expectations of its residents. Preservation of that character is incorporated into the functions of BRB and HPC. Stakeholders interviewed for this assessment noted that there is value added to individual projects and the community as a whole from those review bodies. In addition, there was acknowledgment that the processes (more for BRB than HPC) can be viewed as long, intrusive, and challenging. In part, this comes from the complexity of projects in Lake Forest, and affects both permitting and board and commission review. Residential architecture is personal, many new homes and additions are large, and unique elements are likely to be part of a project. Likewise, commercial projects are significant and designed and built to high quality standards (as seen with the hospital and office park construction). In some instances, both residential and commercial work involves historic structures. In these ways, the high standard of construction in the City becomes a factor in the amount of review time, code interpretation, and construction time experienced by applicants – making the process more complex than might be seen in other communities. Again, the process is a balancing act of how best to maintain the desired community character of Lake Forest. Frequent Flyers: Occasionally heard through the assessment was the notion that there are preferred or even recommended architects and contractors in Lake Forest; that these professionals had a track record of success with the permit review process. While not preferred in the sense that they are recommended by the City, stakeholder interviews made clear that there are certainly designers and builders who regularly work in Lake Forest and have, over time, come to understand navigating the permit process. 38 8 However, the interviews (some with those who are well practiced in the permit process) indicated a correlation of a high degree of success and satisfaction with an approach that included early and clear communications with the City staff regarding code applications and commission expectations. Over time some professionals have come to recognize the importance of both. They communicate with staff early in the process and acknowledge board and commission roles. They come to understand the perspective of BRB and HPC and incorporate those expectations rather than push against them. This approach can be more difficult for those less familiar with the process (particularly out of town architects and builders), but again reflects the identified benefit of early and consistent communications in the process, and potentially the benefits of clear and accessible guides and references for unfamiliar applicants. 39 9 Public Review Before BRB and HPC The Public Forum As with much public engagement, the forum influences the message. Planning, community development and economic development have always been an act of balancing public and private interests and property rights. Lake Forest has recognized the direct relation between the compatibility of new and expanded homes and their context on individual and collective property values and quality of life. By incorporating the public review of petitions by the BRB or HPC, the process gives a strong voice to the public interests. The BRB and HPC meetings must remain open and accessible public meetings, but the forum and format before a presiding body in the City Council Chambers, and repeatedly broadcast on cable TV and available on the City’s website, heightens the “courtroom” or adversarial atmosphere, and may diminish the facility to arbitrate satisfactory resolution of issues. Building Review Board: As noted in the City Code, the purpose of the BRB is: The Building Review Board is responsible for evaluating and making recommendations regarding new construction, demolitions, additions and alterations to existing buildings and signage for the purpose of ensuring that the character of the community, the high standards for development, the quality of life and property values are maintained. The Building Review Board provides a forum for public input and deliberation with a focus on architectural design, building massing, landscaping and overall site design in relation to the individual site and the neighborhood as a whole. Lake Forest City Code: 150.147 (B) (2) This description, like the introductory statement read at the start of the Board’s meetings, is an apt explanation of the BRB process. It highlights the role this body serves in the City and the expectations it addresses. As noted, there is general consensus among those who participated in the process that the BRB serves its intended role and supports community expectations for development. It was also noted through the assessment process that the quality of BRB review and reviewers is improved over past practices. Some pointed to the fact that the interview and vetting process required to sit on the BRB (and other commissions) has added value to the processes. It was also noted that the review process is very much facilitated by the depth and quality of information provided by staff (and in the staff report) on each case. There is a general sense among those interviewed that the end result of the BRB process is a better building than would have been the case without the process. Board members noted, anecdotally, of applicants expressing appreciation that the Board raised ideas that had not been otherwise considered, and which resulted in them being pleased with the ultimate result. Yet, these positive results are not reflective in the comments of other stakeholders, particularly real estate professionals and building contractors who are most sensitive to the timing of the process. Even though the BRB and HPC, combined, review approximately two percent (2%) of all permits issued by City of Lake Forest, the BRB was the most often noted downside of the Lake Forest building permit process in this assessment. By nature of its function, this is not surprising. The process lengthens authorization time to begin construction, often requires changes to initial architectural design, and the final result of the process is unpredictable to applicants and their designers. Given these conflicting perspectives, there is merit to further understand what may create (or add to) consternation over the BRB: 40 10 1. While it is generally understood that new construction and major additions require BRB review, it was not clear to many applicants what types of permit or construction requests require BRB considerations. Further, some interviewed indicated that they anticipated BRB was a required step, but that upon meeting with staff were able to make adjustments that eliminated the requirement. That such adjustments can be made is logical, but those interviewed could not articulate the distinction. This perceived lack of predictability of what work requires BRB approval adds to confusion about its utility. 2. Standards for BRB approval are not clear to applicants. The City Code and Residential Design Guidelines spell out desirable design elements in detail. However, they do not establish priorities or a focused and uniform set of standards upon which projects will be evaluated. The worksheet at the rear of the Guidelines provides perhaps the best focus on expectations of the designs. In general, the emphasis is on new construction being in context with the surrounding area and overall community. That said, a number of comments through this assessment note that when BRB is not working as well as possible, the review focuses too closely on small design elements or gives the sense that the Board members are redesigning the house. Further issues are that involvement of neighbors extends beyond expressing concerns over impacts on their properties to adding their design preferences to the subject property. While not the intent of the process or the members, any design review process can result in such practices. 3. The BRB step in the approval process comes prior to issuance of a building permit, but from the perspective of the applicant occurs months (perhaps a year or more) after they have begun the process of developing their new home. To come to the BRB stage after becoming vested in a design or configuration of a home can create frustration for the applicant; this points to the need for wide education about the process to residents, designers, contractors, and realtors. Historic Preservation Commission: The role of historic preservation is, on its face, more apparent to those that go through the process. They are generally likely to know their current or future home is historic (or in a historic district) and that such a designation comes with limitations. In some cases, those who own such homes embrace the concept of living in a historic structure and the obligations it brings. This is borne out by the online survey. While the number of persons responding to the survey that had been through the HPC was relatively small, they were most likely to respond positively regarding aspects of the approval process. Two aspects of the HPC process raised questions: 1. The HPC does not review plans for historic structures outside of the City’s historic districts unless the structures are designated as Local Landmarks. This was a bit of an incongruity to some, who noted that a historic structure should be reviewed by the HPC (rather than BRB). 2. There are a number of homes in the City’s historic districts that are not historic or are considered “not-contributing” to the character of the district. Changes to those structures require HPC consideration, but are reviewed to the same considerations as a historic structure. 41 11 Survey Findings Two surveys were conducted as part of this assessment to establish a broader understanding of permit review processes in other communities and how the Lake Forest process is perceived by users. Comparable Communities: The survey of comparable communities included those that Lake Forest has previously benchmarked itself against and are of comparable size. In addition, we identified a number of Chicago area communities with similarities to Lake Forest. Survey questions were developed to allow ease of response (to encourage people to reply) and focused on basic aspects of plan review and permit issuance (this surveying and direct interviewing continues in anticipation of further information for the final report). In addition, we visited the websites of each community to evaluate the ease of finding information about their permitting processes and the completeness of that information. Preliminary findings of the survey are: • Most responding communities offer a meeting with staff for the applicant prior to initiating the plan review, but those meetings are not mandatory. • Time for plan review till issuance of permit varies, but most aim to complete the review within 3 to 4 weeks. For those providing detailed information, their targets for completing plan reviews were reached between 70 and 80 of the time. • Most communities offer an over the counter permit for simple projects, but it is not clear that they provide an equivalent to the City’s Fast Track permit option. • Websites provided background and forms related to the permit process, but few provide the information in a single, specifically designated portion of the site. • Few communities require architectural review of single family homes. Customer Survey: A survey of Community Development customers that had been through the permitting process in the last two years was offered online. Contact was made by email with a letter of invitation from the mayor included. The survey was not intended as a definitive element of this assessment, and with a total of 50 responses cannot be considered at all statistically significant. That those involved with larger projects were more likely to respond to the survey, and results echo that perspective. However, the survey provided indication of relative differences in perspectives on the permit process. Also, the survey input informed the overall assessment and allowed more in depth discussions with stakeholders. 42 12 As part of the survey, respondents were asked the extent which they agreed with a series of statements regarding the plan review and permit process. Those responses are summarized below: Highest Level of Agreement o Would like to be able to check the status of permits on line o Community Development Staff know the process o Community Development Staff are polite o Community Development Staff know the code o Overall experience as positive o Plan review response was timely o Checklists of required Information helped Moderate Level of Agreement o Would like to be able to schedule inspections on line o Would like to be able to submit plans electronically o Community Development problem solved issues o Getting started was straightforward o City code regulations were understandable o Plan review time was satisfactory Lowest Level of Agreement o Phone inspection schedule system was helpful o Permit fees were reasonable 43 13 Recommendations Based on the input of stakeholders, customers and City Staff, as well as assessment of current permit and inspection procedures, the following recommendations to enhance the plan review process are provided for consideration by the City. They are grouped into categories related to: 1) expanding on existing communication with customers, 2) use of technology, 3) the Building Review Board, and 4) Immediate and Intermediate recommendations Facilitating Efficient Communication The great amount and ease of access to Community Development staff available to permit applicants is a key aspect of this service in Lake Forest, and much appreciated by customers. These personal interactions facilitate the permit process and enhance the quality of service. While phone calls and counter discussions are not the most time efficient manner in which to convey information, limiting this access is not suggested here. Rather, expanding existing sources and adding outlets for commonly requested information can be used to relieve the need for some one on one contact: Classes: Community Development staff currently provide educational sessions to contractors and others about code requirements. This outreach has value in terms of expanding customers’ understanding of the process and related codes, but also makes clear that the City should be seen as a partner in design and construction work. Sessions can focus on specific aspects of the process (such as the review bodies) and can help with contractor awareness when new model codes and local amendments are adopted. In addition, sessions can be geared to specific groups like do-it-yourselfers, realtors, or those living in historic homes. Workshops such as these might also be consolidated into an event based program or series of sessions in the form of a “Citizens Community Development Academy” (as done by other City departments). Video: Brief videos are a common tool to share information and instruction. Videos related to permit and inspection requirements could be produced and shared with the community via cable and the website. Video capture of the above described Community Development Academy classes can facilitate repeat viewing overtime for new residents and contractors. The Dialogue: Continue to provide information to the community in The Dialogue (such as the article last year about “The Other Public Safety Department”). Future articles might highlight unique and interesting projects (such as the hospital renovation) that can help readers understand the Department’s role in the City. Newsletter articles also can highlight work of the BRB, HPC, PC, and ZBA to give residents insight into the role those groups play in maintaining Lake Forest’s community character. Technology New Resource Planning System: Lake Forest has initiated the process of acquiring a new city-wide, Electronic Data Management System, and an integrated Enterprise Resource Planning system. A module for permit and inspections will be part of that program. This presents an opportunity to expand customer service and staff management of the process. While a great number of functionalities will be considered in that evaluation, this assessment process (and our experience with other systems) highlights several items to be considered as desirable for the new system: • Online plan review tracking to allow applicants to check status of their permit application in the plan review process. It may be possible to include a current average review period. • Inspection scheduling available either on line or through a phone system. 44 14 • Electronic plan submittal should be accommodated if the City’s current experiment with that functionality proves it to be useful. • Credit card payments to be facilitated. • Mobile devices for inspectors are already a part of the current process and should continue. Devices should provide system access comparable to when at work station and continue to include capacity for information like current City codes. • Preparation of plan review letters should be facilitated by operations such as digital plan markups/notes, pull down menus for commonly used review comments and ease in compiling comments from multiple review points. • An internal review tracking dashboard for staff that indicates status of all plan reviews, highlighting those that are close to review schedule targets. • A unified record indictor for all properties in the City to link the permit process to other City functions and better share information – particularly if there is a circumstance that might require holding off on issuance of a permit. • Customizable reports are necessary to allow staff to compile and present to the City Council locally definable information (rather than only report formats built into the system). • A fee estimator function for applicants to determine permit costs prior to plan submittal. • A time clock hold should be available to pause plan review time while waiting for information from an applicant. This automated function would provide an accurate accounting of whether plan reviews are conducted within the 5 or 15 day target. • Over the Counter permit applications and payment should be accommodated. Website: This tool can be expanded to provide additional background about the permit process as well as specific information. Items like simple flow charts depicting review processes (particularly as they may include commission approval) can help those new to the process know better what to expect. In addition, assistance with more complex functions can be accomplished on the webs site; for example, incorporating items such as a residential bulk calculator or permit fee estimator may be of use. In general, the website should help users understand the process. The current portion of the website that includes, “Here are some tips to help ensure your project go smoothly” is a fine example of straightforward, sound set of insights to be shared. Similar sections for commonly asked questions about topics can be beneficial. In particular, the website should be seen as most useful to those not familiar with procedures, such as residents with do-it-yourself projects. In that regard, highlighting Over the Counter and Fast Track permit processes is suggested. A unified portion of the website can be dedicated to all aspects of construction, permits, inspections, and commissions. Users would reach this area from a prominent link on the website home page (and those of development related departments). This development focused section of the website could then break down into the types of projects conducted (residential or commercial) and then again into more detail based on common construction actions – renovation, new construction, site improvements etc. The overarching theme is that the site is built around the types of construction projects users undertake, rather than solely on City Departments. A “Frequently Asked Questions” section for the website page would be useful for applicants (again, similar to the current tips to keep a project moving section). This website construct is common and users know to look to these sections as a good place to start. If available, similar “how to apply” or “what to expect” videos or PowerPoints could be posted here. 45 15 The Building Review Board As noted in this report, the BRB provides valuable input to maintain the character of Lake Forest. Yet, the very nature of the Board’s process makes it is a lightning rod for frustration with the permit process. The bottom line is that this part of the process cannot be made completely predictable, limited to just one meeting, or be perceived as entirely objective – it is not, nor is it meant to be a black and white set of decisions. However, there are several considerations for enhancing the process: Revise Meeting Structure: Relocating the BRB meetings from the Council Chambers to a conference room at the Municipal Services Building is most strongly recommended as a needed step to enhance the BRB meeting structure and overall process. The BRB meetings must remain open and accessible to the public, but the removal of the “court room” setting will accommodate a more workshop like atmosphere. While that is generally the tenor of the meetings, the formal setting of a televised meeting in the Council Chambers is not conducive to that objective. It may take several meetings to fine tune the exact format of the new approach, but indications from this assessment are that the change will be worthwhile. In the spirit of workshops, wider use of preapplication meetings should be considered. This would allow those with a pending application to bring conceptual plans before the BRB prior to delving into design details; potentially helping to save time and expense in the construction project. Continue to Clarify Triggers for BRB Review: The design standards considered for permit review items are enumerated in the City Code and Residential Design Guidelines. These are evaluated by Department staff and the BRB in determining approval of submitted plans. Whether design plans for a permit request are addressed at the staff level or considered by BRB is a function of project scale and the extent to which the design adequately reflects the design standards. It is clear that new homes, demolitions, significant or highly visible additions, items that do not meet the standards and variance requests are heard by the BRB. Yet there is flexibility in this determination. The scale and visibility of a project is considered on a case by case basis, and may or may not require BRB consideration based on staff evaluation. This approach to the determination has functioned well. However, there may be value to clarifying the threshold for which of these matters elevates the review to the Board level, so that designers can have a sense of that trigger prior to consulting with staff. This might be accomplished by identifying past cases that are good examples of what did and didn’t meet the threshold, and incorporate those with photos and descriptions into the Design Guidelines. In addition, the Design Guidelines could be reviewed to identify which of them are priorities when a project is considered, and highlight those for applicants. Expand Understanding of Board’s Role: Just as the opening statement at the BRB hearings is used to inform those at the meetings of the Board’s role and procedures, more information about the value of the commission should reach the greater community. As noted earlier, this might take the form of articles in The Dialogue, workshops with stakeholder groups, or training sessions with designers and engineers. Given that a relatively limited number of permit applications even reach the BRB, community understanding of the Board appears to be based as much on legend as fact; leading to misunderstandings about the value and extent of the review. 46 16 Immediate and Intermediate Recommendations: Regarding next steps, work can be considered in terms of policy questions to be considered and procedural improvements to be prioritized from the recommendations above. Practice and Procedural Changes: • Relocate BRB and HPC. A workshop format is best for these groups and the change is strongly recommended. Developing the precise format that works best may take some time. • Coordinate with City–wide technology updates. The planned Electronic Data Management System and an integrated Enterprise Resource Planning system present opportunities for service enhancement. • Revise Website. Development / Construction related aspects of the website should be consolidated to a single area, organized to reflect user needs (rather than department structure) and highlight most used and useful information • Prepare Additional Public Information. The suggested public materials should be considered and expanded upon to reflect those outreach formats found most effective in Lake Forest Policy Questions for City Council Consideration: • The City of Lake Forest has long recognized its own uniqueness, history, and architectural heritage. These values are thoughtfully balanced with the importance of supporting public and private investment in homes and neighborhoods. The BRB, the HPC and the design review process have been the means of implementing a public policy that encourages those community objectives. Does the community still consider the design review conducted by the BRB and the HPC to be the most effective manner in which to achieve these goals? o An affirmative response to this question overtly reaffirms the importance of the two bodies in regard to community history, character, property value and quality of life. Further, it can establish an even stronger expectation (both among its residents and of those outside the city) about how the architectural evaluations play a role in making living and investing in Lake Forest exceptional. • Going forward, what should be the role of BRB and HPC in maintaining Lake Forest’s desired community character? o Should there be a change of scope for these two bodies? Should architecturally significant buildings, whether inside a “district” or not be reviewed by HPC? Should non-contributing buildings be reviewed by BRB? o Should City Staff have greater responsibility over design review, reducing the number or nature of items that are reviewed by BRB or HPC? Should BRB or HPC have the role of “appeals from staff determination”? 47 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-__ RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT REGARDING CONWAY FARMS GOLF CLUB HOSTING THE 2017 BMW CHAMPIONSHIP GOLF TOURNAMENT SEPTEMBER 12-17, 2017 WHEREAS, the Conway Farms Golf Club was designed by famed golf course architect Tom Fazio and opened for play in August, 1991 as a Scottish links-styled golf course; and WHEREAS, the PGA TOUR has again selected Conway Farms Golf Club as the site of its 2017 BMW Championship, the third of four events in the PGA TOUR Playoffs for the FedEx Cup which include the top 70 golfers in the world; and WHEREAS, the 2013 and 2015 BMW Championships were a success when held at Conway Farms Golf club and in 2013 and named “Tournament of the Year” by the PGA TOUR; and WHEREAS, the BMW Golf Tournament raises critical funds for the Western Golf Association’s Chick Evans Caddie Scholarship Program, which since 1930 has granted over 10,000 men and women at fourteen universities across the nation college scholarships, including room and board, making it one of the country’s largest privately-funded scholarship programs; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Forest supports the staging of this premier golf tournament at the Conway Farms Golf Club and is prepared to assist the Western Golf Association and Conway Farms Golf Club in handling the necessary public safety and other ancillary operational services associated with the hosting of a professional golf event. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth in this Section. SECTION TWO: It is hereby determined to be in the best interest of The City of Lake Forest to authorize the City Manager and staff to provide the support necessary for the success of the golf tournament, preserve the public health, safety and welfare of the participants, spectators and residents of Lake Forest, and to do so with minimal to no financial impact on the City. SECTION THREE: The City Manager is also directed to work with the appropriate parties and agencies to secure the necessary City, County and State permits including, but not limited to: building, health, liquor and sign 48 permits that would be normal and typical to the staging of a professional golf tournament. SECTION FOUR: The Mayor and City Council do hereby proclaim the week of September 11 through September 17, 2017 as BMW CHAMPIONSHIP GOLF TOURNAMENT week and urge all citizens to support the event and the charitable contributions made by the tournament to the Chick Evans Scholarship Program. SECTION FIVE: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. PASSED: APPROVED: RESOLUTION NO.: 2017-___ ____________________________________ Mayor Donald P. Schoenheider ATTEST: ________________________________________ City Clerk 49 U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE ISSUER COMMENT 17 March 2017 RATING General Obligation (or GO Related)1 Aaa No Outlook Contacts Gregory Max Sobel 212-553-9587 Associate Analyst gregory.sobel@moodys.com Rachel Cortez 312-706-9956 VP-Sr Credit Officer rachel.cortez@moodys.com City of Lake Forest, IL Annual Comment on Lake Forest Issuer Profile The City of Lake Forest is located in Lake County in northeastern Illinois, on the western shore of Lake Michigan, approximately 25 miles north of Chicago. Lake County has a population of 705,186 and a population density of 1,589 people per square mile. The county's per capita personal income is $65,329 (1st quartile) and the November 2016 unemployment rate was 4.6% (3rd quartile).2 The largest industry sectors that drive the local economy are manufacturing, retail trade, and administrative/waste management services. Credit Overview Lake Forest has the highest quality credit position, and its Aaa rating is notably stronger than the US city median of Aa3. The rating reflects a very healthy financial position, and a superior socioeconomic profile with an ample tax base. It also includes a somewhat elevated pension liability with an extremely small debt burden. Finances: The city has a robust financial position, which is aligned with the assigned rating of Aaa. The available fund balance as a percent of operating revenues (58.3%) is far stronger than the US median. Furthermore, Lake Forest's net cash balance as a percent of revenues (62.2%) is far above other Moody's-rated cities nationwide and rose significantly between 2013 and 2016. Economy and Tax Base: The city has an exceptionally strong economy and tax base, which are aligned with its Aaa rating. The full value per capita ($357,716) is materially above the US median. Moreover, the median family income equals a robust 281.6% of the US level. Lastly, the total full value ($6.9 billion) is much stronger than other Moody's-rated cities nationwide. That said, this indicator declined modestly between 2013 and 2016. Debt and Pensions: The city's debt burden is low. Lake Forest's net direct debt to full value (0.6%) is below the US median. On the other hand, Lake Forest has a somewhat elevated pension liabiliry. The Moody's-adjusted net pension liability to operating revenues (2.6x) unfavorably is materially above the US median and unfavorably rose from 2013 to 2016. Management and Governance: The ability to generate surplus operating margins indicates strong financial management. Favorably, on average, Lake Forest ran surpluses even as the tax base shrank modestly. Illinois cities have an institutional framework score 3of A, which is moderate compared to the nation. Institutional Framework scores measure a sector's legal ability to increase revenues and decrease expenditures. Revenue-raising ability is moderate overall but varies considerably. Home rule entities have substantial revenue-raising authority. Non-home 50 MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE rule entities are subject to tax rate limitations. Total operating tax yield for non-home rule entities subject to the Property Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) is capped to the lesser of 5% or CPI growth, plus new construction. Revenue predictability is moderate, with varying dependence on property, sales, and state-distributed income taxes. Expenditures are moderately predictable but cities have limited ability to reduce them given strong public sector unions and pension benefits that enjoy strong constitutional protections. Sector Trends - Illinois Cities Illinois cities (a sector that includes cities, towns, and villages) face uncertainty stemming from the state’s budgetary challenges. Proposals have been made to cut income tax distributions to cities and to freeze property tax revenues. Property valuation declines have been severe in the northern region of the state, translating into reduced operating revenue for some municipalities. However, downstate valuations have remained largely stable in recent years. Most cities have been making pension contributions at or near actuarial guidelines and are therefore not expected to face dramatic pension cost increases in 2016 when the state can enforce minimum contributions. EXHIBIT 1 Key Indicators4 5 Lake Forest, IL Source: Moody's EXHIBIT 2 Available fund balance as a percent of operating revenues grew between 2013 and 2016 Available Fund Balance as a Percent of Operating Revenues Source: Issuer financial statements; Moody's This publication does not announce a credit rating action. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history. 2 17 March 2017 City of Lake Forest, IL: Annual Comment on Lake Forest51 MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE EXHIBIT 3 Total full value decreased from 2013 to 2016 Total Full Value Source: Issuer financial statements; Government data sources; Offering statements; Moody's EXHIBIT 4 Moody's-adjusted net pension liability to operating revenues grew from 2013 to 2016 Net Direct Debt and Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Operating Revenues *Debt is represented as Net Direct Debt / Operating Revenues. Net Direct Debt is defined as gross debt minus self supporting debt. Pensions are represented as ANPL / Operating Revenues. ANPL is defined as the average of Moody's-adjusted Net Pension Liability in each of the past three years. Source: Issuer financial statements; Government data sources; Offering statements; Moody's 3 17 March 2017 City of Lake Forest, IL: Annual Comment on Lake Forest52 MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE Endnotes 1 The rating referenced in this report is the government’s General Obligation (GO) rating or its highest public rating that is GO-related. A GO bond is generally a security backed by the full faith and credit pledge and total taxing power of the local government. See Local Government GO Pledges Vary Across States. for more details. GO-related ratings include issuer ratings, which are GO-equivalent ratings for governments that do not issue GO debt. GO-related ratings also include ratings on other securities that are notched or otherwise related to what the government’s GO rating would be, such as annual appropriation, lease revenue, non-ad valorem, and moral obligation debt. The referenced ratings reflect the government’s underlying credit quality without regard to state guarantee or enhancement programs or bond insurance. 2 The per capita personal income data and unemployment data for all counties in the US census are allocated to quartiles. The quartiles are ordered from strongest-to-weakest from a credit perspective: the highest per capita personal income quartile is first quartile, and the lowest unemployment rate is first quartile. The first quartile consists of the top 25% of observations in the dataset, the second quartile consists of the next 25%, and so on. The median per capita personal income for US counties is $46,049 for 2014. The median unemployment rate for US counties is 3.6% for November 2016. 3 The institutional framework score measures a municipality’s legal ability to match revenues with expenditures based on its constitutionally and legislatively conferred powers and responsibilities. See US Local Government General Obligation Debt (January 2014) for more details. 4 For definitions of the metrics in the Key Indicators Table, US Local Government General Obligation Methodology and Scorecard User Guide (July 2014). The population figure used in the Full Value Per Capita ratio is the most recently available, most often sourced from either the US Census or the American Community Survey. Similarly, the Median Family Income data reported as of 2012 and later is always the most recently available data and is sourced from the American Community Survey. The Median Family Income data prior to 2012 is sourced from the 2010 US Census. The Full Value figure used in the Net Direct Debt and Moody's-adjusted Net Pension Liability (3-year average ANPL) ratios is matched to the same year as audited financial data, or if not available, lags by one or two years. Certain state-specific rules also apply to Full Value. For example, in California and Washington, assessed value is the best available proxy for Full Value. Certain state specific rules also apply to individual data points and ratios. Moody's makes adjustments to New Jersey local governments' reported financial statements to make it more comparable to GAAP. Additionally, Moody’s ANPLs reflect analyst adjustments, if any, for pension contribution support from non-operating funds and self-supporting enterprises. Many local government pension liabilities are associated with its participation in the statewide multiple-employer cost-sharing plans. Metrics represented as N/A indicate the data were not available at the time of publication. 5 The medians come from our most recently published local government medians report, Medians – Growing Tax Bases and Stable Fund Balances Support Sector’s Stability (March 2016). The medians conform to our US Local Government General Obligation Debt rating methodology published in January 2014. As such, the medians presented here are based on the key metrics outlined in the methodology and the associated scorecard. The appendix of this report provides additional metrics broken out by sector, rating category, and population. We use data from a variety of sources to calculate the medians, many of which have differing reporting schedules. Whenever possible, we calculated these medians using available data for fiscal year 2014. However, there are some exceptions. Population data is based on the 2010 Census and Median Family Income is derived from the 2012 American Community Survey. Medians for some rating levels are based on relatively small sample sizes. These medians, therefore, may be subject to potentially substantial year-over- year variation. Our ratings reflect our forward looking opinion derived from forecasts of financial performance and qualitative factors, as opposed to strictly historical quantitative data used for the medians. Our expectation of future performance combined with the relative importance of certain metrics on individual local government ratings account for the range of values that can be found within each rating category. Median data for prior years published in this report may not match last year's publication due to data refinement and changes in the sample sets used, as well as rating changes, initial ratings, and rating withdrawals. 4 17 March 2017 City of Lake Forest, IL: Annual Comment on Lake Forest53 MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE © 2017 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved. CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. AND ITS RATINGS AFFILIATES (“MIS”) ARE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY INCLUDE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES. MOODY’S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing the Moody’s publications. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS’s ratings and rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.” Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors. It would be reckless and inappropriate for retail investors to use MOODY’S credit ratings or publications when making an investment decision. If in doubt you should contact your financial or other professional adviser. Additional terms for Japan only: Moody's Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody’s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively. MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY200,000 to approximately JPY350,000,000. MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements. REPORT NUMBER 1063356 5 17 March 2017 City of Lake Forest, IL: Annual Comment on Lake Forest54 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. _________ AN ORDINANCE MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1, 2016 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 2017 WHEREAS, on July 18, 2016, The City of Lake Forest adopted Ordinance No. 2016-37 entitled the [“Annual Appropriation Ordinance For The Fiscal Year May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017”] appropriating funds for the fiscal year beginning May 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2017 (“Appropriation Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, there is either additional revenue available to the City or estimated to be received by the City, which additional revenue became available or was estimated to be received subsequent to the adoption of the Appropriation Ordinance, or there is revenue available to the City from fund balances available when the Appropriation Ordinance was adopted but that were not appropriated at that time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/8-2-9, the Mayor and City Council have determined that it is proper and necessary to appropriate such revenue through the adoption of this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, as follows: 55 2 SECTION ONE: Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION TWO: Supplemental Appropriation. The City Council hereby approves a supplemental appropriation for the objects and purposes as set forth in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION THREE: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. Passed this ____ day of _________________________, 2017 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved this __ day of _________________________, 2017 _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 56 3 EXHIBIT A: Supplemental Appropriation Schedule Capital Improvements Fund $5,600,000 2008 GO Bonds Debt Service Fund $6,105,000 57 Lake Forest - Water Treatment Plant Planning Study Summary 2014 January 26, 2014 City Council Approves Study of WTP Performance by Strand Associates (Strand) in Task Order 14-01 Purchase of 88 replacement modules from Aquasource May 1, 2014 88 Aquasource Modules arrive at WTP May 15, 2014 Aquasource letter dated April 28, 2014 arrives at City, stating existing modules will no longer be produced June 16, 2014 City Council Approves Amendment No. 1 to Task Order 14-01 to address obsolete membrane module and long term WTP needs. June 26, 2014 Strand letter identifying City’s goals and objectives for the WTP Study June 2014 Public Works negotiates the purchase of 24 additional Aquasource modules July 3, 2014 City receives notification that Aquasource would supply 24 additional modules at the same unit price as the last purchase July 8, 2014 Public Works Committee discusses WTP Master Plan project, timeline, and 14 mgd cold water capacity membrane system replacement/retrofit option. Public Works Committee approved of purchasing 24 additional Aquasource modules July 21, 2014 City Council Approves waiving the bid process to purchase 24 additional Aquasource modules July 23, 2014 Strand distributes a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) to 10 membrane system manufacturers, including Aquasource, for consideration by Public Works Committee July - August 6 Membrane System Vendors Visit WTP site to review existing conditions ahead of RFP response August 13, 2014 8 Manufacturer’s respond to RFP on-time to Strand for review August 22, 2014 1 Manufacturer respond after RFP deadline to Strand for review. September 10, 2014 Representatives from Aquasource and Inge visit with staff and Public Works Committee; Public Works Committee includes presentations by Aquasource and Strand (Option No. 1); Public Works Committee Accepts Recommendation to Consider 4 Vendors in more detail September 29, 2014 Aquasource responds to July RFP October 22, 2014 Public Works Committee reviews Strand’s presentation on Option No. 1 and requests additional options, considering designs less than 14 mgd production capacity and additional input from Aquasource; Initial Project Probable Costs Presented; Non-WTP Needs Identified and Presented November 2014 Non-WTP Needs discussed with staff and updated into FY2016 Capital Improvements Plan December 10, 2014 Public Works Committee reviews Strand’s presentation and additional information (Option No. 2) and requests additional development of Options with 14 mgd infrastructure (Option No. 3). 2015 January 21, 2015 Public Works Committee reviews Strand’s presentation on Option No. 3 and accepts recommendation for Option No. 3-B for presentation at Finance Committee Workshop in March 2015. Finance Department presents information on water rate impact of project. Anticipated construction timelines and budgets presented. 58 March 9, 2015 Finance Committee Workshop receives Public Works Committee presentation on WTP Master Plan results as part of ‘Big 4” Topics of discussion. Finance Committee requests additional Alternatives based on Neighboring Water Supply capabilities. CIP budget includes Priority 1 WTP projects only. April 20, 2015 City Council approves Amendment No. 2 to Task Order 14-01 to study Neighboring Water Supply Options May 1, 2015 City receives and installed the remaining 24 Aquasource modules. May 18, 2015 Public Works Committee reviews Strand’s presentation and recommends Alternative No. 1 to begin Procurement Design Effort and additional discussion with City Council towards Alternative No. 3 (Peak- shaving Water Supply) and Alternative No. 5 (Public-Private Partnerships). June 1, 2015 City Council approves of design services based on three vendors, Evoqua, General Electric Water and Process Technologies (GEWPT), and Pall Corporation, to replace the membrane system at the Water Treatment Plant. June 15, 2015 Public Works Committee confirms selection of three vendors for design of the Procurement documents: Evoqua, General Electric Water and Process Technologies (GEWPT), and Pall Corporation. July 27, 2015 City Council Special Workshop to discuss WTP Capacity and Alternative Nos. 3 and 5 (Peak Shaving and Private-Public Partnerships) and recommendations toward August 3, 2015 City Council Meeting. August 3 2015 City Council approves procurement design based on 11 mgd and 14 mgd infrastructure. November 9, 2015 Revised budget presented to Finance Committee made to incorporate Non-Membrane System WTP improvements. 2016 January 20, 2016 Bids Received for the Procurement Contract (Contract 2-2015) January 27, 2016 Public Works Committee reviews bids with Procurement Contract 2-2015 and recommends approval of GEWPT’s Procurement Bid, Strand’s Final Design Task Order 16-01, and an evaluation of the construction timeline for potential deducts. February 1, 2016 City Council approves Public Works Committee’s recommendations including Strand’s Final Design of the 2017 WTP Improvements based on GEWPT membrane equipment. March 4, 2016 Final Design Meeting No. 1 held at WTP. May 12, 2001 Final Design Meeting No. 2 held in Madison, WI September 15, 2016 Final Design Meeting No. 3 held at WTP November 7, 2016 Public Works Committee receives an update on design and budgets. Clearwell Baffling and Minor WTP Refurbishment items approved as part of 2017 WTP Improvements project by Committee. December 8, 2016 Final Design Meeting No. 4 held in Madison, WI. 2017 March 20, 2017 Bid Received for the 2017 Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project (Contract 3-2017). April 3, 2017 Public Works Committee reviews bids with Construction Contract 3-2017 and recommends award to Joseph J. Henderson & Son, Inc., approval of Strand’s Construction Related Services Task Order 17-01 to City Council. April 17, 2017 City Council action on Public Works Committee recommendation. 59 60 61 62 63 1 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ A RESOLUTION SETTING A NEW PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE PROPOSED LAKE FOREST SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 41 (WINWOOD DRIVE AREA SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest (“City”) is a home rule, special charter municipal corporation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 35 ILCS 200/27-5, et seq. (“SSA Law”), the City Council adopted an ordinance proposing the establishment of Special Service Area No. 41 (the “Proposing Ordinance”) to provide sanitary sewer improvements to the Winwood Drive area in Lake Forest (the “Sanitary Sewer Improvements”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the SSA Law and the Proposing Ordinance, the City commenced a properly-noticed public hearing on December 5, 2016 (“Public Hearing”) regarding the establishment of the proposed Special Service Area No. 41 (“SSA No. 41”); and WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing, the City considered the imposition or levy of a tax in the proposed SSA No. 41 sufficient to produce revenues for the Sanitary Sewer Improvements to benefit the proposed SSA No. 41, as well as the issuance of special service area bonds to be supported by the SSA No. 41 taxes; and WHEREAS, the City Council concluded the Public Hearing on December 5, 2016; and WHEREAS, in light of the concerns of residents within the proposed SSA No. 41, the City Council decided to extend the time for review of the proposal and on January 17, 2017 adopted Resolution No. 2017-01, which re-opened the public hearing regarding the proposed SSA No. 41; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to set the re-opened public hearing for the proposed SSA No. 41; 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: 64 2 SECTION 1: Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the Mayor and City Council. SECTION 2: Additional Public Hearing. The City Council hereby sets May 15, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. as the date for the new public hearing for the proposed SSA No. 41, which meeting shall coincide with the regular City Council meeting. The City Manager and the Manager’s designees are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to provide the statutorily required notices for such hearing. SECTION 3: This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. PASSED THIS ___ DAY OF _______, 2017 AYES ( ) NAYS ( ) ABSENT ( ) APPROVED THIS _____ DAY OF _______, 2017 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 65 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED SSA FOR THE WINWOODSUBDIVISION IN LAKE FOREST, ILDIRECTED TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE FOREST. IL AND THEMAYOR. LAKE FOREST. ILThe residents and homeowners of the Winwood subdivision, in reply to a CityCouncil resolution which would establish an SSA in the subdivision for thepurpose of installation of city sewer lines, wish to voice their opposition to theSSA for the following reasons:1. The project was originated without input from the residents, who werenever asked prior to the exploratory measures if they wanted city sewerconnections2. The cost projections that were presented at previous informativemeetings were vague and unclear as to what the actual total cost to eachhomeowner would ultimately involve3. The City Council had previously passed a resolution blocking repair orreplacement of existing septic systems in the subdivision, whicheffectively would force approval of the project if any systems broke orfailed4. The vast maiority of the homeowners polled are against the project,which will be evidenced by the signatures on the petition.We, the undersigned homeowners, therefore ask for the following measures tobe taken by the City Council and Mayor:1. Rescind the resolution establishing the SSA2. Terminate plans for the proiect to install city sewers in the winwoodsubdivision66 Pass a resotution allowing homeowners to repair or replace their existingseptlc systems as RecessaryFollow the legal guidelines, which state that if 5L% of the homeownersand residents oppose the SSA, the SSA will not be imposed and furtherwork on the project will be terminatedIt should be noted that the undersigned homeowners do not object to the Cityenforcing repair or replacement of any failed systems in the lJVlnwoodsubdivision, since they may pose a health or environmental hazard.Further, it should be noted that the City has not offered any format for formalobjection to the SSA, which had been done with respect to previously proposedSSA projects in other subdivisions, so if this petition is lacking any informationor procedural requirements, the City should inform the Winwood homeownersof that deficiency.Finally, the Winwood subdivision wishes to express the majority opinion of thehomeowners, which is that the majority is content to continue using theirfunctional septic systems which pose no threat to the community. We willcontinue to maintain our systems in good function and simply ask to be sparedthe inconvenience of the construction project, the unnecessary expense, anddisruption to our property. We expect the City to honor our wishes and followthe letter of the law with regard to this petition.Name AddressSignatureOwner/Elector/Bothe*J*-fA-a('4.tnlFS ,-+4ftR7tty' .//.//vttt,tluta<)D DA ..tztc-Zd,R9..2e3.4.tttl td,ltlo>dl>ltVtfrv"o/2 qa67 llqx,kr*lwvi,n* Grut;f- vLo l.'/'", *t#%,-rr,Owner/Elector/BothBav *j"*r"V){ftYL>ilcfw t/.'doDlz-zo L'Ji,n-ut't4A> z 5Cz-Wff--Sk ro\e lr)otettitc,98losSbe A',tr*r CzqV*;0,r1cnu'tla;c\ JV,A.-f-{-68 Na meQ,,rasDs cfl,. (,p/zsrAddressSignatureOwner/Elector/BothiJ(I- l- , n ui cTJ d/-)6 oT /,1A r'T //-0rrdq,l /'?/Otl,'Yr/ao)lL+ 0 LJ,^ ro''cFe Mn^t4( r n \ l\6? uJ bue,o\ Dr',u<CtrdzJL |4AAq***Aqill, ')iL44/,//t^ JL6 { t/,^ v,,/ A,'( rV-J thru?// /,tzr.l4r^* )r',\r,,l; xoag7 lacrtrc-0 t-,lrt,Z<0wtu4. 7 yaltttLbr -'LEan/l\\er: w(I ou 6\W!1th^iltrrynfrhoy ,ltirJ ct$69 Pass a resolution allowing homeowners to repair or replace their existingseptic systems as necessaryFollow the legal guidelines, which state that if 5L% al the homeownersand residents oppose the SSA, the SSA will not be imposed and furtherwork on the project will be terminatedIt should be noted that the undersigned homeowners do not object to the Cityenforcing repair or replacement of any failed systems in the Winwoodsubdivision, since they may pose a health or environrnental hazard.Further, it should be noted that the City has not offered any format for formalobjection to the SSA, which had been done with respect to previously proposedSSA projects in other subdivisions, so if this petition is lacking any informationor procedural requirements, the City should inform the Winwood homeownersof that deficiency.Finally, the Winwood subdivision wishes to express the majority opinion of thehomeowners, which is that the majority is content to continue using theirfunctional septic systems which pose no threat to the community. We willcontinue to maintain our systems in good function and simply ask to be sparedthe inconvenience of the construction project, the unnecessary expense, anddisruption to our property. We expect the City to honor our wishes and followthe letter of the law with regard to this petition.Name AddressSignatureOwner/Elector/BothSIeUG krANi lela klii.rucrcJ t>t. @';.*r+.€ l*'*3.4.LA tY I znfrot el4 t^)iqoor:od 1)rLU(1 t^rANqI 2 6+ Win rocruJ 0rn,4OJiFffi- \So+'i*E{*.hv70 l.l r.'Pass a resolution allowing homeowners to repair or replace their existingseptic systems as necesiaryFollow the legal guidelines, which state that it 5L% of the homeownersand residents oppose the SSA, the SSA will not be imposed and furtherwork on the project will be terminatedIt should be noted that the undersigned horneourners do not obiect to the Cityenforcing repair or replacement of any failed systems in the Winwoodsubdivision, since they may pose a health or environmental hazard.Fufiher, it should be noted that the City has not offered any format for formalobjection to the SSA, urhich had been done with respect to previously proposedS5A projects in other subdivisions, so if this petition is lacking any informationor procedural requirements, the City should inform the Winwood homeownersof that deficienry.Finally, the Winwood subdivision wishes to express the majority opinion of thehomeowners, which is that the majority is content to continue using theirfunctional septic s1stems which pos€ no threat to the community. We willcontinue to maintain our systems in good function and simply ask to be sparedthe inconvenience of the construction proiect, the unnecessary expense, anddisruption to our property. We expect the Gty to honor our wishes and followthe letter of the law with regard to this petition.Address'1,/'SignatureOwner/Elector/Both(/t,7fr71 IPass a rrsolutimr akrrirg hanreorrrssb repek r teplre ffi eldst*rgseptic systems as nscessaryFollow the legal guidelines, which state that if 51% of the homeownercand residents oppose the SSA, the SSA will not be imposed and furtherwort sr tre proiect si$ betem*mErtIt should be noted that the undersigned homeownerc do not obJect to the Cityeniorcirg repir or replmne# d anyftihd sryEfils in lte tYiluoodsubdivision, since they may pose a heahh or environmental hazard.Further, it should be noted that the City has not offered any format for formalobjection to the SSA, which had been done with respect to previously proposedSSA proiects in other rubdivisions, s{, if fris petition b lac*ing any informationor procedural requirements, the City should inform the Winwood homeownersof that deficiency.Finally, the Winwood subdivision wishes to express the majority opinion of thehomeowners, urhich is that the maiority is content to continue using theirfunctional septic systems which pose no threat to the community. We rrillcontinue to maintain our systems in good funstion and simply ask to be sparedthe inconvenience of the construction project, the unnecessary/ expense, anddisrufiion to our property. We expect the Crty to honor ourwishes and follorthe letter of the law with regard to this petition.Name(--j lEf He^)Address/1 I r:-fS-/-) lc/J)J Fo6at hri,!Signature0wnerlElector/Bothpt€ R'i:n u, oo S3-72 73 74 {00015445 2} 1 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 2017-___ AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 2016-77 AND TERMINATING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER 41 FOR THE WINWOOD DRIVE AREA SANITARY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest (“City”) is a home rule, special charter municipal corporation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 35 ILCS 200/27-5, et seq. (“SSA Law”), the City Council adopted on November 21, 2016, Ordinance 2016-77, an ordinance proposing the establishment of Special Service Area No. 41 (the “Proposing Ordinance”) to provide sanitary sewer improvements to the Winwood Drive area in Lake Forest (the “Sanitary Sewer Improvements”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the SSA Law and the Proposing Ordinance, the City commenced a properly-noticed public hearing on December 5, 2016 (“Public Hearing”) regarding the establishment of the proposed Special Service Area No. 41 (“SSA No. 41”); and WHEREAS, after the close of the Public Hearing, the City continued to confer with affected residents in the proposed SSA No. 41; and WHEREAS, based on such ongoing discussions with affected residents in the proposed SSA No. 41, on January 17, 2017 the City Council approved a “Resolution Extending the Objection Period for the Proposed Lake Forest Special Service Area No. 41 (Winwood Drive Area Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project)” (the “Extension Resolution”) and re-opened the Public Hearing to a date to be determined; and WHEREAS, after adopting the Extension Resolution and continuing the Public Hearing, the City continued to confer with affected residents in the proposed SSA No. 41 and study the financing relating to proposed SSA No. 41; and 75 {00015445 2} 2 WHEREAS, having considered issues relating to the proposed SSA No. 41 in detail, the City Council has determined that it is not currently in the best interests of the City or the residents of the proposed SSA No. 41 to proceed with the establishment of SSA No. 41; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, as follows: SECTION ONE: Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION TWO: Rescission of Proposing Ordinance; Termination of SSA No. 41 Process. The City Council hereby rescinds the Proposing Ordinance and thereby terminates any further consideration of the proposed SSA No. 41 pursuant to the Proposing Ordinance. The City Council reserves the right to pursue in the future the possible establishment of a special service area to provide sanitary sewer improvements within the Winwood Drive area, but: (a) no such special service area shall be pursued based on the Proposing Ordinance; and (b) any future consideration of such a special service area shall only be undertaken in full compliance with the SSA Law, including a new proposing ordinance, public notices, and public hearing. SECTION SIX: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. PASSED this ___ day of _______________, 2017. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED this ____ day of ____________, 2017. ______________________________ Mayor 76 {00015445 2} 3 ATTEST: ______________________________________ City Clerk 77 The City of Lake Forest CITY COUNCIL Proceedings of the Monday, April 3, 2017 City Council Meeting - City Council Chambers, 6:30 p.m. City Clerk Margaret Boyer asked for a motion to appoint Alderman Pandaleon as Acting Mayor, Alderman Waldeck made a motion, seconded by Alderman Beidler. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Acting Mayor Pandaleon called the meeting to order at 6:34 pm, and City Clerk Margaret Boyer called the roll of Council members. Present: Acting Mayor Pandaleon, Alderman Waldeck, Alderman Beidler, Alderman Tack, Alderman Reisenberg and Alderman Buschmann. Absent: Alderman Newman and Alderman Moreno. Also present were: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development, Elizabeth Holleb, Director of Finance; Victor Filippini, City Attorney; Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works; Karl Walldorf, Chief of Police; Pete Siebert, Fire Chief; Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager along with other members of City Staff. There were approximately 30 persons present in the Council Chamber. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 6:34 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was recited by all those present in the Chamber. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS COMMENTS BY MAYOR Acting Mayor Pandaleon encouraged residents to vote and noted the polling location move from Cherokee School to Woodlands Academy. Any registered voter can visit voterpower.com to find out where their polling location is. A. Arbor Day Proclamation Acting Mayor Pandaleon read the Proclamation into the record. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER A. Real Estate Transfer Tax Refund Appeal -Ms. Laura Sorensen Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works and Acting City Manager, introduced this item for discussion only. Ms. Sorensen gave an overview of the correspondence that was shared with the City in requesting a refund of the RETT paid by her parents. City Staff denied the request based on the timeframe outlined in the current City Code, Ms. Sorensen appealed the decision to the City Manager, who forwarded it to the City Council. The City Council had discussion on authority, process and hardships in the current Code and directed the City Attorney to amend the existing code. The City Council will consider the amendment at its next meeting. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS 78 Proceedings of the Monday, April 3, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS JoAnn Desmond, 1681 Yale Ct, Lake Forest, offered her opinion to the Council relating to trains Frank Nimsheim, 1111 Pine Oaks Circle, Lake Forest, offered his opinion to the Council relating to trains Carol Dahl, 1616 Yale Ct, Lake Forest, offered her opinion to the Council relating to trains Mike Manus, 1680 Yale Ct, offered his opinion to the Council relating to Academy Road Acting Mayor Pandaleon reported that the City of Lake Forest continues to work at State and Federal levels to address concerns about the Environmental Assessment draft. ITEMS FOR OMNIBUS VOTE CONSIDERATION 1. Approval of the March 20, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes 2. Consideration of Approval Only of Executive Session Minutes 3. Check Register for period February 25- March 24, 2017 4. Approval of Contract for Annual Mowing Services in Parks FY18 Budget 5. Approval of South Park Playground FY18 CIP Project 6. Consideration of an Ordinance Approving a Recommendation from the Building Review Board. (First Reading and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval) 7. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Plan Commission in Support of Tentative Plat Approval for a 4-Lot Subdivision, the Saunders Estates – Lake Forest Subdivision. (Approval by Motion) 8. Consideration of a Motion Granting an Extension of the Approvals Previously Granted for the Westleigh Farm Planned Preservation Subdivision and the Associated Special Use Permit. (Approve by Motion) 9. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Section 150.384, titled “Sewage and Sewage Disposal” of the City Code (Final Approval) 10. Award of Bid for the Interior Improvements for the East Train Station Improvement Project 11. Request for City Council Approval of an Agreement for Professional Design Services for the Old Elm - Timber to Green Bay Storm Sewer Project 12. Award of contract for The City of Lake Forest to join the MPI Crack Sealing contract for 2017. 13. Award of Lake Forest portion of the 2017 Joint Concrete Sidewalk and Curb Replacement Contract. 14. Award of Contract for the Old Elm Road – Ridge Road Watermain Replacement Project COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the fourteen (14) Omnibus items as presented 79 Proceedings of the Monday, April 3, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Acting Mayor Pandaleon asked members of the Council if they would like to remove any item or take it separately. Clarifications to item # 9 were discussed. Acting Mayor Pandaleon asked for a motion to approve the fourteen Omnibus items as presented. Alderman Reisenberg made a motion to approve the fourteen Omnibus items as presented, seconded by Alderman Waldeck. The following voted “Aye”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Tack, Reisenberg and Buschmann. The following voted “Nay”: None. 6- Ayes, 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 AFFECTING CODE AMENDMENTS NEW BUSINESS ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT There being no further business. Alderman Reisenberg made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Alderman Beidler. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Margaret Boyer 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. 80 81 RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS REALLOCATING 2017 VOLUME CAP TO THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois the (“City”), is a municipality and a home rule unit of government duly organized and validly existing under Section 6(a) of Article VII of the 1970 Constitution and laws of the State of Illinois; and WHEREAS, certain tax exempt private activity bonds may be issued only if sufficient volume cap pursuant to Section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), is available for the bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Code, the City has been allocated volume cap equal to $100.00 per resident of the City in calendar year 2017, or $1,940,800.00 for the issuance of such tax exempt private activity bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6 and Section 6.1 of the Illinois Private Activity Bond Allocation Act, 30 ILCS 345/1 et seq. (the “Bond Allocation Act), and the Guidelines and Procedures promulgated thereunder, the City may, prior to May 1, 2017, reallocate to other home rule units of government the volume cap allocated to the City by the Code for their issuance of such tax exempt private activity bonds or for subsequent transfer or reallocation; and WHEREAS, the City has not used any of its 2017 volume cap and has no present intention to use the same; and WHEREAS, the Lake County Partnership for Economic Development, Inc. has offered Lake County home rule communities the opportunity to participate in a program to combine their respective volume cap allocations and create a Private Activity Bond Clearinghouse Pool (the “Pool”) to facilitate the issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance, manufacturing and multi-family housing commercial projects in Lake County, Illinois, for economic development purposes (“Eligible Projects”); and WHEREAS, the Village of Buffalo Grove, a home rule unit of government (“Buffalo Grove”), pursuant to its Resolution No. 2001-51 adopted December 17, 2001, agreed to host the Pool and to reserve its own volume cap, and accept volume cap reallocated to Buffalo Grove by other home rule units of government, for the issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds placed through the Pool to finance Eligible Projects; and WHEREAS, Buffalo Grove has requested that the City reallocate all of its 2017 volume cap to Buffalo Grove to be used for the issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds placed through the Pool to finance Eligible Projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, as follows: Section 1: Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated in and made a part of this Resolution by this reference as findings of the City Council. Section 2: Transfer and Reallocation of 2017 Volume Cap. Pursuant to Section 6 and Section 6.1 of the Bond Allocation Act and the Guidelines and Procedures promulgated thereunder, the City irrevocably agrees to, and does hereby, transfer and reallocate all of its 2017 volume cap to Buffalo Grove to be used for 82 the issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds placed through the Pool to finance Eligible Projects as directed by the Advisory Committee created pursuant to Buffalo Grove Resolution No. 2001-51. Section 3: Agreement. This Resolution shall constitute the agreement of the City to a different allocation under Section 146(e)(3) of the Code and the writing required under Section 6 of the Bond Allocation Act. Section 4: Warranty. The City covenants and warrants that it has taken no action or issued bonds that would abrogate, diminish, or impair its ability to fulfill the written agreement, covenants, and undertakings on its part under this Resolution. Section 5: Authorization. As required by the Bond Allocation Act and the Guidelines and Procedures promulgated thereunder, a certified copy of this Resolution shall be transmitted to the Office of the Governor of the State of Illinois. Any and all appropriate and proper officers, officials, agents, and employees of the City are hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to take all necessary and advisable actions, and to execute all such documents and certificates, as may be necessary to further the purposes and intent of this Resolution. Section 6: Maintain Record. The City shall maintain a written record of this Resolution in its records for so long as the bonds to which the volume cap transferred by this Resolution is reallocated remain outstanding. Section 7: Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law and is enacted by the City pursuant to its powers under the laws of the State of Illinois and the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and its home rule powers. PASSED this _____ day of __________________, 2017 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: APPROVED this _____ day of _______________, 2017 ____________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Page 1 of 5 1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR SHARED INSPECTION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS This Agreement made and entered into this ____ day of ____________________ , 2017 by and between the County of Lake, a body politic and corporate hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY", and the City of Lake Forest, a municipal corporation within the boundaries of the County of Lake, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY." WHEREAS, both the COUNTY and the CITY are governmental entities of the State of Illinois vested with the responsibility and authority to enforce and uphold building, fire, and safety codes and other related services in their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, both the COUNTY and the CITY are authorized by the terms and provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 5 ILCS 220/5, to enter into intergovernmental agreements, ventures and undertakings to perform jointly any governmental purpose or undertaking either of them could do singularly; and WHEREAS, the CITY and COUNTY both provide a wide range of building and development services, including development review and inspections for compliance with local building and construction regulations and related activities; and WHEREAS, in the course of providing building and development services, both the CITY and the COUNTY have found that there is a need for additional assistance at times; and WHEREAS, both the CITY and the COUNTY employ staff that are able to meet the needs of each other; and WHEREAS, in order to supplement staffing needs at both the CITY and COUNTY from time-to-time when a need exists, the parties seek to utilize each other’s services in providing personnel who can assist in performing the needed work; and WHEREAS , both the CITY and the COUNTY desire to enter into this Agreement to provide services to each other on an as-needed basis, as requested, all as more fully set forth in this Agreement; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants contained herein, the parties hereby agree and covenant as follows: Section I. The COUNTY agrees that: 1. For all requested and accepted work within the CITY, whether residential or non-residential, the COUNTY through its DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, 99 Page 2 of 5 2 2 BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT (the "PBD") will be responsible for all assigned development review and inspections. 2. The PBD will complete all development review and inspections within the performance metrics outlined by the CITY and agreed upon by the COUNTY. 3. The PBD will provide staff members that are qualified to complete the accepted work. This includes staff having the necessary licenses, certifications and registrations. 4. Staff will be available to conduct inspection services during regular working hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding County holidays. Services provided outside of the regular working hours, as defined in this Agreement, will be compensated at 1½ times the hourly rate. 5. Work requested of the CITY will only be located within the Delmar Woods subdivision and other unincorporated properties in South-eastern Lake County. Work within such territories will only be comprised of all development plan review and inspections. Section II. The CITY agrees that: 6. For all requested and accepted work within the jurisdiction of the COUNTY, whether residential or non-residential, the CITY through its COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (the "CDD") will be responsible for all assigned development review and inspections. 7. The CDD will complete all development review and inspections within the performance metrics outlined by the COUNTY and agreed upon by the CITY. 8. The CDD will provide staff members that are qualified to complete the accepted work. This includes staff having all necessary licenses, certifications and registrations. 9. Staff will be available to conduct inspection services during regular working hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding City holidays. Services provided outside of the regular working hours, as defined in this Agreement, will be compensated at 1½ times the hourly rate. 10. Work requested of the COUNTY will only be located within the City of Lake Forest. Section III. Both Parties agree that: 100 Page 3 of 5 11. Both parties agree that each will provide the other notice of pending inspection or inspection work at least 24 hours in advance of said work. 12. Work requested of the other Party may be declined in writing due to shortage of staff or lack of qualified staff. The decline needs to occur immediately upon the determination that there is a lack of staff. 13. The following fee schedule shall apply to this Agreement: PARTY FEE TO BE TRACKED County of Lake Billed at the hourly rate as reflected on the current Pay Plan, plus benefits (includes plan review, travel and inspection time). City of Lake Forest Billed at an hourly rate as reflected on the current Pay Plan, plus benefits (includes plan review, travel and inspection time). 14. In lieu of monthly invoices and payment, the Parties will track the cost of services provided to each other between April 30th and May 1st of each year and the Party with a greater balance will pay the difference to the other Party by the following July 1st. Total work amounts, time and associated fees, will be provided to the other party at the end of every other month, starting in July, 2017. 15. All notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to: Matthew Meyers Central Permit Facility Planning, Building and Development Department 500 Winchester Road Libertyville, IL 60048 All notices to the CITY shall be sent to: Catherine J. Czerniak City of Lake Forest Community Development Department 800 Field Drive Lake Forest, IL 60045 16. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect upon execution by both Parties. The Agreement shall be valid for two (2) years from the date of the latest signature, with a two (2) year automatic renewal. Either party 101 Page 4 of 5 may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon sixty (60) days written notice. 17. Each party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other, including its departments, its agents, officials and employees from and against all injuries, losses, claims, suits, costs, expenses and judgments which may accrue against the parties or their departments as a consequence, or to have arisen out of, or in connection with any services provided by the either party and/or their departments. The foregoing indemnity shall apply except if such injury, loss, or damage is caused directly by the willful and wanton conduct of either party’s agents, officials, or employees. 18. The foregoing constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties, and no verbal statement shall supersede any of its provisions. This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement, signed and executed with the same formality with which this instrument was executed. 19. This Agreement may be executed in multiple identical counterparts, and all of said counterparts shall, individually and taken together, constitute one and the same Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County of Lake causes this Agreement to be signed by its Chairman and its Department of Planning, Building and Development Director and attested to by its Clerk and the City of Lake Forest causes this Agreement to be signed its City Manager and Director of Community Development and attested to by its Clerk all on the day and year hereinafter written. Dated this ____ day of _____________, 2017. COUNTY OF LAKE By: ______________________________ Aaron Lawlor, Chairman Lake County Board By: _____________________________ Eric Waggoner, Director Lake County Planning, Building and Development Department Attest: __________________________________ 102 Page 5 of 5 County Clerk Dated this ____ day of ___________, 2017 CITY OF LAKE FOREST By: _______________________________ Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager Attest: ___________________________________ City Clerk Dated this ____ Day of ___________, 2017. 103 .y Advanced Disposal April 4,2017 Michael Thomas Superintendent of Public Works City of Lake Forest 110 E. Laurel Ave. Lake Forest, IL 60045 Re: 2017 Contract Extension Mike, As you are aware, the three year Landfill Disposal Service Agreement between Advanced DisposalServices Zion Landfill, Inc. (ADS) and the City of Lake Forest is set to expire in June. ADS offers thefollowing two options to renew the existing contract. Three year extension Year 1: $WSO/ton Year 2: $41.70/ton Year 3: 542.94/ton Five year extension Year 1: $39.50/ton Year 2: $40.70/ton Year 3: $41.94/ton Year 4: $43.21/ton YearS: $44.52/ton The rates shown include all fees and taxes. Any new taxes and or fees imposed by any governmentalbody will be passed on to the City. We appreciate your business and would like the opportunity tocontinue providing this service to you and your drivers. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, .ij^r^u-^7. /;lames A. Lewisi / General Manager, PE 701 Green Bay Road . Zlon, IL 60099 tel (847) 823-3870 . fax (847) 746.0666 < www.AdvancedOisposal.com Prfnfd tm wcyolml pBpor. Ha- fcyela. »^ 104 MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS T - *?-. * Community and environmental stewardship at its best. Solicitation For Solid Waste Disposal Services. Prepared for: City of Lake Forest 3/28/2017 Prepared by: Victoria Pass 312-802-4613 THINK GREEN* 105 v wwre IWIUWWCIWCNT March 28, 2017 Michael Thomas Director of Public Works City of Lake Forest 800 North Field Drive Lake Forest, IL 60045 Dear Mr. Thomas, Waste Management has analyzed The City of Lake Forest's "Request for Quote" for Solid Waste Disposal Services. Enclosed you will find the Waste Management response to the "Request for Quote" demonstrating our financial and technical ability to provide the City of Lake Forest with an EPAand Illinois licensed facility to take their refuse. Waste Management has a genera!understanding of your intentions and we believe that we are uniquely qualified to fulfill the City ofLake Forest's goals. We also understand that we will need to comply with all codes, ordinances, rules, statutes, laws and regulations of the State of Illinois, and the City of Lake Forest. We feel our quote submittal is responsive. Please be assured that we will gladly and promptlyrespond to any questions or concerns that may arise during your review of our submittal. Waste Management is committed to providing the highest level of service in our industry. Sincerely, Victona Pass Industrial Account Manager IN--.NT THINK GREEW; 106 Munidpa! Solid Waste Option A (Three-Year Pricing) Contract Term-36 months: Pricing includes all fees with a 2-ton min Forty.Dollars and Zero Cents, ($40.00) per ton during the calendar year from July 1, 2017 through May 31,2018 Forty^ne.Dollars and Twenty Cents, ($41 .20) per ton from July 1,2018 through May 31, 2019 Fortv-Two Dollars and Fortv-Four Cents, ($42.44) per ton from July 1, 2018 through May 31, 2019. Pricing for the City of Lake Forest will remain in force for the life of the contract. T »-niN «m THINK GREEN: 107 Municipai Solid Waste Option B (Five-Year Pricing) Contract Term-60 months: Pricing includes all fees with a 2 ton min. Forty.Dollars and Zero Cents, ($40.00) per ton during the calendar year from July 1, 2017 through May 31,2018 Forty^ne.Dollars and Twenty Cents, ($41 .20) per ton from July 1,2018 through May 31, 2019 Fortv-Two Dollars and Fortv-Four Cents, ($42.44) per ton from July 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020. Fortv-Three Dollars and Seventv-One Cents, ($43.71) per ton from July 1, 2020 through May 31,2021. Fortv-Five Dollars and Two Cents, ($45.02) per ton from July 1,2021 through May 31, 2022. Pricing for the City of Lake Forest will remain in force for the life of the ninrra-r THINK GREEN; 108 LANDFILL DISPOSAL SERVICE AGREEMENT This Landfill Disposal Service Agreement entered into as offlus 17th day of April , 2017, by and between: 1. City of Lake Fonst a E3 municipal corporation D limited liability company (check one) established under the laws of the State of Illinois, with an office at 800 North Field Drive. Lake Forest D. 60045 ("Customer"), and 2. Advanced Disposal Services Zinn Landfill. Inc (name of landfill entity), a El corporatiofti Q limited liability company (check one) established under the laws of the State oflllmois. wifh an office at 70LGreen Bay Rd. Zion IL. 60099 ("Advanced Disposal"), in connection with the disposal of Waste Material (as defined below) at Advanced Disposal's landfill located at 701 Green Bay Rd. Zion. IL 60099 (fhe LandfUl ). The term "Affiliates" means any corporation, partnership or other entity that directiy or indirecfly controls or is controlled by, or is under commrai control with Advanced Disposal. ARTICLE 1. DESIGNATED WASTES. Customer represents and warrants that the waste material to be disposed of pursuant to this Agreement is either "solid waste", asdefined by applicable federal or state laws and regulations C'SoIid Waste"), or special or industrial waste that Advanced Disposal has agreed to accept for disposal subject to acurrent Advanced Disposal-approved Profile Identification Sheet C'Special Waste" and, together with Solid Waste, hereinafter the "Waste Material"). Specifically excludedfrom fee de&ution of Waste Material are any special or industrial wastes tendered without a current Advanced Disposal-approved Profile Identification Sheet and any UstBd orregulated hazardous waste as defined by applicable federal or state laws and regulations (together, "Excluded Waste"). During the term of this Agreement, subject to availabilityof airspace and any limitations imposed by applicable law, regulation, permit or othenvise, Advanced Disposal shall receive and dispose of Customer's Waste Materialdelivered to the Landfill. Customer shall be responsible for any labelmg, placarding, maridng, manifesting or other such documentation required by applicable federal or state laws and regulationswifh respect to all Special Waste. In addition Customer shall provide Advanced Disposal with (a) an analytical report representative of any Special Waste ID be disposed and(b) a detailed written physical and chemical description of such Special Waste, including a listing of unique chemical characteristics and safety procedures, if any, fhat are ofsignificance in the handling of such Waste Material (the "Profile Identification Sheet"). Customer shall be under a continuing obligation to update ftie Profile IdentificationSheet with respect to any known, suspected, or planned changes in composition of Special Waste. Customer warrante that aU Special Waste identified in a Advanced Disposal-approved Profile Identification Sheet shall confonn to the description set forth ftierein and that no Excluded Waste shall be delivered to Landfill by Customer. ARTICLE 2. TITLE. Title to Waste Material delivered by Customer shall transfer to Advanced Disposal at Ihe time it is fully unloaded at (he working face offhe Landfill andCustomer's vehicle has departed the Landfill. Until such time as title has transfeired to Advanced Disposal title to Waste Material shall be in, and all risks and responsibilities therefore shall be borne by, Customer. In die event Advanced Disposal, Affiliates or fheir conbactors, provides transportation to fhe Landfill, tide to Waste Material will transfer to Advanced Disposal when the vehicle has departed Customer's premises. At all times, tide to Excluded Waste shall remain with Customer. ARTICLE 3. COMPLIANCE WTTH LAWS. The parties agree to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws pertaining to fhe delivay and disposal of the WasteMaterials. Customer shall further comply wifli any Operating Rules governing LandfiU operations, provided fhat Advanced Disposal has delivered such rules (or anyamemlments fliereto) to the City not less than 60 days before such rules shall become effective under this Agreement ARTICLE 4. DISPOSAL RATES. The rates for disposal of Waste Material are set forth on Exhibit "A". Tlie parties shall amaid or supplement Exhibit A to inchde otherprojects identified for service and applicable rates. Upon written agreement by the parties, these ancillary documarts will be incoiporated and become part of this Agreement.Advanced Disposal, in ite sole discretion, may adjust fhe rates fi-am time to time based on increased costs resulting fium caiitingencies beyond Advanced Disposal's reasonablecontrol that directfy mpose additional costs ftff fhe SCTvices to be provided under this Agreement, including without limitation: (i) changes in law, ordinances, regulation,changes in governmental fees and surcharges (including interpretation or enfercement fhereof); (ii) orders, judgments or directives of any court or govemmeatal body; and (iii)revocation, suspension, denial or modification of any pamit, license or approval regarding use, operation or closure of the disposal site. Advanced Disposal may adjust the ratesupon fhirty (30) days notice to Customer. ARTICLE 5. TERM. Tlie tenn of tfiis AgFeement shall be for a period of five (5) yeai(s) b^mning June 19, 2017, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. This Agreement shall automatically renew for like terms unless one party notifies the other in writing at least sixty (60) days prior to the aid of the thai current torn. ARTICLE 6. CHARGES AND PAYMENT. Customer shall pay Advanced Disposal wifhin thirty (45) days Sum the date of the invoice -from Advanced Disposal. Inthe event payment is not timely received, a service charge of 1.5%, or the maximum percentage allowed by law per month, will be applied on past due balances untilpaid. Customer shall be liable for all applicable taxes, fees or other charges imposed upon the disposal of Customer's Waste Material. Customer shall pay aU reasonablefees and costs (including collection agency and attorney's fees) incurred by Advanced Disposal in enforcmg ftiis Agreement. AdvaDced Disposal may suspend service ifpayment is late or for any other breach by Customer, without prejudice to any of Advanced Disposal's other rights, which suspension shall not constitute termination ofthis Agreement, unless Advanced Disposal so elects. ARTICLE 7. INSPECTION AND SAFETY. Customer represents and warrants that it: a) has inspected or will inspect the Waste Material prior to transport to theLandfill; b) will abide by all mformation provided by Advanced Disposal concerning the operation offhe Landfill for receivmg, transporting, handling and disposing ofall Waste Material and ofher rules or conditions that may affect its activities at the Landfill; c) shall be responsible for initiatmg, mamtainmg and supervising aU safetyprecautions and programs in connection wifh its activities at the Landfill; and d) shall take all necessary safety precautions and provide all necessary protections toprevent damage, injury or loss to people and property while at the Landfill. ARTICLE 8. OPERATING RULES. Advanced Disposal may implement and enforce reasonable rules and regulations concerning flie Landfill, for the safe, legal andefficient operation of the Landfill. Customer agrees to conform to all such rules and regulations as fhey may be implemented and amended Sum time to time in accordance with this Agreement. Advanced Disposal may refuse disposal of any waste which does not confiMm to Waste Material even if only a part of Ihe waste load is nonoonfoiming ("NonconformingWaste ^. Customer shall inspect all waste at the place of collection and shall remove any Nonconforming Waste before transporting it to the Landfill. Advanced Disposal mayinspect all loads of Waste Material in cider to confirm that it conforms to Waste Material. The parties agree however, that the failure of Advanced Disposal to pa-femi any suchinspections sihaU in no way relieve Customer of its obligations to deliver only Waste Material. Custeum- shall be responsible for, and shall bear all expenses mcurred as a residtof reloading, removal, decontamination, remediation, testing and returning Exchided Mataial ar offtier NQncouformmg Waste and any other material contaminated therewith, fi-om any landfill utilized by Advanced Disposal, the Customer's property or Advanced Disposal's (or its contractor's) vehicles or equipment All Waste Material shaU be weighed or its volume detemuned at die LandfiU by Advanced Disposal and such weight or measurement shall be conclusive ou fhe parties. Allvehicles shall be weighed before entry to the Landfill and again after disposal or untoading prior to leaving the site, by Advanced Disposal's agents or employees on the scalesdesignated by Advanced Disposal for the purpose of measuring amd rating. Customer's drivers shall sign load tickets for each load delivered to the site after the load has beenweighed and the ticket completed by Advanced Disposal. Upon completion, ihe original load ticket will be given to Customer's drivers prior to their departure 6om the 1 - Confidential 109 LandfiU. A dupEcate original of said ticket shall be retained for billing puiposes by Advanced Disposal to calculate fhe amount of waste disposed of by Customer at theLandfill. Advanced Disposal shall cause its scales to be calibrated for accuracy by a qualified indepeudent third party at least every sue mcuifhs, and Advanced Disposal shallprovide the Customer with Ihe report of such third party wifhin 30 days after such calibraticn. Advanced Disposal shall be required at its sole cost to adjust its scales to ensureaccuracy based on such report. In the event Customer s vehicle becomes incapacitated or unable to move while at Advanced Disposal's facility, or if Waste Material is frozen or ofherwise unable to easilybe removed fiom Customer s vehicle, Advanced Disposal may, but is not obligated to, provide assistance in moving or unloading the vehicle. Customer's driver or agent shallmake any necessary connections to Customer's vehicle and Customer expressly agrees that Advanced Disposal, its einployees and agents shall have no liability for any damage while proyiding such assistance. Advanced Disposal may charge and Customer shall pay a reasonable fee for providing such assistance.Except in strict accordance hereto, this Agreement grants no rights to dispose of Waste Material. Advanced Disposal may immediately terminate Customer's access to theLandfill in the event of Customer's breach of this Agreement, Advanced Disposal's Operating Rules, or app\icsSo\e law. ARTICLE 9 INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE. Advanced Disposal shall defend, hold harmless and mdemnify Customer, its officers, members, directors, agents andemployees, from and against any liabilities, costs, expenses (mcluding reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of investigation), claims and damages which Customermay at any time suffer or sustain or become liable for by reason of any accidents, damages or injuries (including injuries resulting in deafh) either to fhe persons orproperty or both, of Customer, Advanced Disposal or any third party, to the extent caused by or resulting from Advanced Disposal's breach of this Agreement ornegligence or willful misconduct. Customer shall defend, hold harmless and indenmify Advanced Disposal, its Affiliates, and their respective officers, members, directors, agents and employees, Iromand against all liabilities, costs, expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of investigaticm), claims and damages which Advanced Disposal may atany time suffer or sustain or become liable for by reason of any accidents, damages or injuries (mcluding injuries resulting in death) eifher to the persons or property orboth, of Customer, Advanced Disposal or any third party, to the extent caused by or resulting from Customer's breach of this Agreement or Customer's negligence or wiUful miscoaiduct. During the torn of this Agreeinent, Customer or any of its subcontractors who haul waste material to the landfill, shall maintain m full force and effect Employer'sliability. Worker's Compensation, and Property Damage, includmg contractual liability coverage for fhe above hold harmless provisions, and other additional insurance as may be required by Advanced Disposal. All such policies shall be endorsed to name Advanced Disposal, and its AfEUiates, as additional insureds and such insurance shaU be by insurers acceptable to Advanced Disposal. Prior to commencing disposal hereunder and on an annual renewal basis Customer shall fiunish Advanced Disposal with certificates of insurance evidencing that such insurance has been procured and is in force. The certificate of insurance shall show the levels and types ofinsurance required herein, mcluding any and all limitations, exclusions and restrictions and further provide that in fhe event of cancellation or material changeAdvanced Disposal shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice. Customer shall carry fhe following types of insurance in at least fhe following Uimts (which may be a combination of primary and excess coverage):COVERAGES LIMITS OF LIABILITY Worker's Compensatitm; Statutory Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 each Occurrence General Liability: $2,000,000 each Occurrence (including Bodily Injury, Property Damage and Contrachial Liability) Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 each Occurrence (mcluding Bodily Injury and Property Damage) Environmental Liability: $2,000,000 each Occurrence ARTICLE 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parties agree to participate in good faith to resolve any dispute, claim or controversy ("Disputes") arising out of orrelating to this Agreement. If the Dispute is not resolved by negotiation within a reasonably short time period, the matter will be submitted to fhe American Arbitration Association ( AAA ), or its successor, for mediation. The parties agree to participate in mediation in good faifh, and shall share equaUy in its costs. If the Dispute is notresolved through mediation, the parties agree that it shall be submitted to AAA, or its successor, for final and binding arbitration. The arbitration shall be administered by AAA pursuant to its Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures and shall apply die Rules of Commercial Arbitration. The party that does not prevail shall pay all costs of arbitration. ARTICLE 11. EXCLUSIVFTY. Customer agrees fhat during Ihe term of this Agreememt Advanced Disposal shall have the exclusive right to dispose of WasteMaterial excluding Asbestos Containing Material generated, collected or transported by Customer. ARTICLE 12. CONFmENTIAUTY AND NONDISCLOSURE. Both parties shaB ttait as confidaitilll and not disclose to othns, ntcept as necessaiy to pnfonn fllisAgreement, any mfairmaticm (including technical infonnation, experieuce or data) regarding pricing, a party's programs, processes, product, costs, equipment, operations, waste,equipment, or crther customers which may come within the non-disclosing party's knowledge piusuant to fhis Agreemait (which is not gaierally known to the public), withoutin each instance securing fce prior written consent of the disclosing party. Tlie disclosing party shall be entitled to injunctive relief and damages for any such breach. Notwithstanding anyffamg in this Agreement to the coirtraiy. Advanced Disposal acknowledges fbat Customer is subject to the Illinois Freedom of information Act, 5 ILCS 1 40C'FOIA"), and any disclosure of information regarding this Agreement by Customer pursuant to FOIA shall not be a breach of this Agreement.ARTICLE 13. TERMTNATION. Either party may immediately terminate this Agreement upon written notice for material breach by the other party, provided fhenotifying party has first provided the other party written notice reasonably specifying the default and at least fifteen (15) days to cure such default and further providedthat failure to pay fees when due shall not be subject to cure rights. The terms of this Agreement with respect to Customer's warranties and representations, DesignatedWastes, Indemnity and Insurance and CotifideQtiality and Non-Disclosure shall survive any termination hereof. ARTICLE 14. FORCE MAJEURE. Excqrt for fhe payment of services rendered, to the extent that ehfaer party is precluded from perfomung its obligations hereunder as dieresult of Acts of God, authority of laws, strikes, lookouts, labor disputes, riots, revocation, suspension, denial or modification of any permit, license or approval regarding use,operation or closure of the landfill utilized by Advanced Disposal for disposal of Waste Material hefeunder, or other causes beyond ite reasonable control, such non-perfbrmingparty shaU be excused to the extent that its peribrmaace continues to be prechided by such causes. ARTICLE 15. MISCELLANEOUS. This Agreement shall be governed by and consbued in accordance with fhe laws of the state in -which the Landfill is located. This Agreement may not be modified unless in writing, and signed by all parties hereto. Any invalid provision offhis Agreement shall be deemed stricken and shall not invalidate orrender unenforceable tiiis Agreement or any other provision. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, any one and all of which shall constitute the contract of the parties and each of which shall be deemed an original. The execution of this Agreement and delivery thereof by facsimile shall be sufficient for aUpurposes and shall be binding upon any party who so executes. Tliis Agreement inay be assigned by a party with the prior written consent offhenon-assigning party, whichconsent shaU not be unreasonably withheld. Consent shall not be required in the event of an assignment by operation of law. Failure to exercise any rights and/or remedies hereunder upon the non-peribrmance and/or the defective peribnnance of any tenn, condition, covenant, or agreement herein ccmtained shaU not be construed as a waiver of said rights and/or remedies. Nor shall any prior waiver or accqrtance be construed as a future waiver of any future right and/or remedy. Each party ha-ebywaives its right to a bial by jury with respect to any litigation resulting fi-om a hreach or enforcemait hereof. There are no third party baieficiaries of this Agreemetit Excqrtwith respect to fhe Indemmficadoiti obligatioo under Section 10, the parties shall not be liable for any indirect, incidental, special, punitive or consequential damages. Exceptwith respect to the Indemnification obligations under Section 10, a party's aggregate liabilhy, if any, arising out of this Agreetnent shall not exceed the three times (3x) fheaggregate fees paid to Advanced Disposal by Customer, regardless of whether recovery is sought in coutract, common law, tort, statute or otherwise. This Agreemait togetherwith the documents referred to herein, sets forih Ihe entire agreemait of the parties. As to conflicts between fhe tams hCTeof which are printed and tiiose which are typed orwritten, the typed or written language shall govern. As to ccnflicts between this Agreement aod the preprinted tenns of Customer's agreement, if any, to which this Agreementmay be attached or incoiporated, the terms of this Agreement shall control. WHEREAS, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first SGL forth above. 2 - Confidential 110 ("Customer") By:. Name: Title: Advanced Disposal Services Zion Landfill, Inc. ("Advanced Disposal") By:. Name: James A. Lewis Title: General Manager 3 - Confidential 111 Disposal April 4,2017 Michael Thomas Superintendent of Public Works City of Lake Forest 110 E. Laurel Ave. Lake Forest, IL 60045 Re: 2017 Contract Extension Mike, As you are aware, the three year Landfill Disposal Service Agreement between Advanced Disposal Services Zion Landfill, Inc. (ADS) and the City of lake Forest is set to expire in June. ADS offers thefollowing two options to renew the existing contract. Three year extension Year 1: 540.50/ton Year 2: $41.70/ton Year 3: $42.94/ton Five year extension Year 1: $39.50/ton Year 2: $40.70/ton Year3: $41.94/ton Year* $43.21/ton Years: $44.52/ton The rates shown include all fees and taxes. Any new taxes and or fees imposed by any governmentalbody will be passed on to the City. We appreciate your business and would like the opportunity to continue providing this service to you and your drivers. If you have any questtons, please give me a call. Sincerely, .ijiyr^^ty- /tames A. Lewisi / General Manager, PE 701 Green Bay Road . Zlon, n. 60099 tef (847) 823-3870 . fax (847) 746-0666 . wwwJldvancedDisposal.com Prtnfd un r*c»clnd papm. Pf«»- mcycto. »^ 112 Advanced Disposal /Waste Management General ComparisonAdvanced DisposalNo Safety SpotterLarger Dumping Area(No Truck Wait)Maintained Landfill RoadWoodchip Dumping Area(Limited Areas of Standing Water)Unmanned ScaleOpen Saturdays 7:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M.Waite ManagementSafety Spotter on SiteSmaller Dumping Area(Trucks Need to Wait in Line)Limited Maintenance of Landfill RoadGravel Dumping Area(Significant Areas of Standing Water)Manned ScaleClosed on Saturdays113 MStaff Recommendation. It is recommended that The City of Lake Forest enters into a 5-yearagreement with Advanced Disposal based on the following:a Yearly Cost per TonD Landfill Site AdvantagesLarger Dumping Area. Maintained Landfill Road. Woodchip Dumping Area. Unmanned Scale' Open Saturdays 7:00 A.M. -11:00 A.M.114 For Underground Utility Locations CallJ.U.L.I.E.Toll Free Tel. No. (800)892-012348 Hours Before You DigPONDS SUBDIVISIONOUTLET STRUCTURE REPAIRSCITY OF LAKE FORESTLAKE COUNTY, ILLINOISMARCH 21, 2017THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST800 N. Field DriveLake Forest, IL 60045TEL 847.478.9700 FAX 847.478.97014664.203-PR2.dwgPOND SUBDIVISIONOUTLET STRUCTURE REPAIRSCOVER PAGE1 74664.20306-14-16NONENONE115 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST800 N. Field DriveLake Forest, IL 60045TEL 847.478.9700 FAX 847.478.97014664.203-PR2.dwgPOND SUBDIVISIONOUTLET STRUCTURE REPAIRSSITE PLAN - POND A OUTLET STRUCTURE2 74664.20306-14-161"=10'116 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST800 N. Field DriveLake Forest, IL 60045TEL 847.478.9700 FAX 847.478.97014664.203-PR2.dwgPOND SUBDIVISIONOUTLET STRUCTURE REPAIRSSITE PLAN - POND B OUTLET STRUCTURE3 74664.20306-14-161"=10'117 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST800 N. Field DriveLake Forest, IL 60045TEL 847.478.9700 FAX 847.478.97014664.203-PR2.dwgPOND SUBDIVISIONOUTLET STRUCTURE REPAIRSSITE PLAN - POND C OUTLET STRUCTURE4 74664.20306-14-161"=10'118 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST800 N. Field DriveLake Forest, IL 60045TEL 847.478.9700 FAX 847.478.97014664.203-PR2.dwgPOND SUBDIVISIONOUTLET STRUCTURE REPAIRSDETAIL SHEET5 74664.20306-14-16NONE119 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST800 N. Field DriveLake Forest, IL 60045TEL 847.478.9700 FAX 847.478.97014664.203-PR2.dwgPOND SUBDIVISIONOUTLET STRUCTURE REPAIRSDETAIL SHEET6 74664.20306-14-16NONE··· ·120 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST800 N. Field DriveLake Forest, IL 60045TEL 847.478.9700 FAX 847.478.97014664.203-PR2.dwgPOND SUBDIVISIONOUTLET STRUCTURE REPAIRSGENERAL NOTES SHEET7 74664.20306-14-16NONE“”“”“”“”“”121 4/12/17 Draft 1 DRAINAGE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST AND THE PONDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION) This DRAINAGE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is dated _______________, 2017 (“Effective Date”), by and between THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, an Illinois municipal special charter home rule municipal corporation (the “City”), and THE PONDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation (the “HOA”)(the City and HOA are collectively referred to as the “Parties”). IN CONSIDERATION OF the recitals and mutual covenants and agreements set forth in this agreement, the parties agree as follows: Section 1: Recitals. A. Within the City, there exists a subdivision titled “Robert W. Kendler’s Ponds Subdivision” (the “Ponds Subdivision”), within which there are certain drainage detention facilities. B. The Ponds Subdivision was approved pursuant to “An Ordinance Granting a Special Use Permit to Allow a Planned Cluster Development for Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Westleigh Road and Skokie Highway” (the “Special Use Permit”). As a condition of the approval of the Ponds Subdivision, the Special Use Permit also provided for the recordation of a certain “Declaration of Covenants for the Ponds Subdivision,” dated April 13, 1978 and recorded in the Office of the Lake County recorder as document 1928656 (the “Declaration of Covenants”). C. The approval of the Ponds Subdivision was also based upon certain plans prepared by James Anderson Company and approved by the City Engineer (the “Plans")(collectively, the Declaration of Covenants, Plans, and Special Use Permit are collectively referred to as the “Establishing Documents”). D. The Establishing Documents describe Outlots A, B, C, and D, all of which are located within the Ponds Subdivision. Outlots A, B, C, and D are legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Outlots”). The drainage detention facilities and structures located on Outlots A, C, and D (the "Ponds") within the Ponds Subdivision are the private property of the HOA. E. Over the years, the condition of the Ponds has deteriorated, and the City and the HOA have disputed who is responsible for maintaining Ponds (the “Dispute”). F. Notwithstanding such Dispute, the City and HOA have discussed means to address the repair of the Ponds, as well as the long-term maintenance of the Ponds. To that end, the City has directed its consulting engineers Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc. (the “City Engineer”) to prepare engineering plans (the “Project Plans”) for the repair of the Ponds (the “Project”), which Project Plans are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Based on the Project and the Project Plans, the Parties agree to resolve their Dispute as more fully set forth in this Agreement. Section 2: The City’s Obligations. A. The Project Generally. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the City agrees to 122 4/12/17 Draft 2 undertake the Project pursuant to the Project Plans. The HOA hereby approves the Project Plans. The City agrees to pay all design, construction, oversight, and management costs and expenses in connection with the Project (“Project Costs”). B. Performance Standards. The City shall oversee and manage the Project and cause to be performed all work (“Work”) necessary to complete the Project in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the Project Plans and this Agreement. The City agrees to comply with all applicable federal laws, state laws, and regulations and shall, its own expense, obtain all necessary permits, licenses, consents, and other approvals for the performance of the Work. C. Allowance of Inspections. The City shall provide the HOA or its designated agents reasonable opportunities to inspect the Work; provided that such inspections shall be coordinated with the City Engineer. D. Project Schedule. It is anticipated that the Work on the Project will commence after July 1, 2017 and be completed by October 1, 2017. Section 3. HOA’s Agreements and Undertakings. A. Access to City for the Work. The HOA acknowledges and agrees that the City, its employees, contractors, agents, and representatives (the “City Representatives”) shall have the right to enter upon the Outlots for purposes of undertaking and completing the Project pursuant to the Project Plans, and the HOA further grants the City Representatives all rights of access necessary for such purposes. B. Maintenance of the Ponds. Upon the satisfactory completion of the Project as reasonably determined by the City Engineer in consultation with the HOA, the HOA agrees to be fully and solely responsible for all future maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitation of the Ponds in perpetuity without cost or expense to the City. To the extent that the City receives any contractor guaranty with respect to the Work, the City agrees either: (i) to assign or cause to be assigned such guaranty to the HOA, or (ii) exercise its rights pursuant to any such guaranty on behalf of the HOA. Except to the extent of any guaranty that the City receives from its contractor, the City does not guaranty the Work or the Project from any defects. C. Access to Outlots. The HOA agrees to remove, and not to re-establish, signage in, upon, or along the Outlots (including the entryways thereto) that limits access to the Outlots only to residents of the Ponds Subdivision. This Subsection 3.C does not limit the HOA’s rights (subject to compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations) other generally applicable signage relating to the Ponds or their use. Section 4: Indemnity/Hold Harmless/Release. 220. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the City agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the HOA and its respective directors, administrators, officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all other persons, firms, and corporations acting on their behalf or with their authority, from and against any and all injuries, liabilities, losses, damages, costs, payments, and expenses of every kind and nature (including, without limitation, court costs and attorneys’ fees) for claims, demands, actions, suits, proceedings, judgments, and 123 4/12/17 Draft 3 settlements arising out of the City’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement. The indemnities contained in this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement. b. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the HOA agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, attorneys, agents, employees, representatives, successors, assigns, and all other persons, firms, and corporations acting on its behalf or with its authority, from and against any and all injuries, liabilities, losses, damages, costs, payments, and expenses of every kind and nature (including, without limitation, court costs and attorneys’ fees) for claims, demands, actions, suits, proceedings, judgments, and settlements arising out of the HOA’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement. The indemnities contained in this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement. Section 4: Joint Obligations. 220. The Parties agree to do all things reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the enactment of such resolutions and ordinances, the execution of such permits, applications, and agreements, and the taking of such other actions as may be necessary to enable the Parties’ compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. b. Neither Party shall assign this Agreement to any person or entity without the prior written consent of the other Party. c. The City and the HOA agree that this Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties and not for the benefit of any third-party beneficiary. No third party shall have any rights or claims against the HOA or the City arising from this Agreement. Section 5: Recordation: The Parties shall execute and cause to be recorded against the Ponds Subdivision the “Memorandum of Agreement” attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof. Section 6: Amendment. The HOA and the City agree that no change or modification to this Agreement or any Exhibits or attachments hereto, shall be of any force or effect unless such amendment is dated, reduced to writing, executed by both Parties, and attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Section 7: General Provisions. A. Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. B. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between the HOA and the City. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Illinois. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both parties hereto. C. Notices. All notices, demands, elections, and other instruments required or permitted to be given or made by either Party upon the other under the terms of this Agreement 124 4/12/17 Draft 4 or any statute shall be in writing. Such communications shall be deemed to have been sufficiently served if sent by certified or registered mail with proper postage prepaid, hand delivered or sent by facsimile transmission, with proof of successful transmission sent by regular mail by the sending Party at the respective addresses shown below, or to such other party or address as either Party may from time to time furnish to the other in writing. Such notices, demands, elections, and other instruments shall be considered delivered to recipient on the second business day after deposit in the U.S. Mail, on the day of delivery if hand delivered or on the first business day after successful transmission if sent by facsimile transmission. Notices to the HOA: ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Notices to the City: The City of Lake Forest (Attn: City Manager) 220 East Deerpath Lake Forest, IL 60045 Phone: 847.810.3670 Facsimile: 847.615.4289 [Signature page to follow.] 125 4/12/17 Draft 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is entered into by and between the Parties hereto as of the date and year first above written. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as set forth below. ATTEST: THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST By: City Clerk Mayor Print Name: Print Name: ATTEST: THE PONDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION By: Its: Its: Print Name: Print Name: 126 4/12/17 Draft 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LAKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________, 2017, by _____________________, the Mayor of THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, an Illinois municipal special charter corporation, and by __________________________, the City Clerk of said municipal special charter corporation. Given under my hand and official seal this _________ day of ________________, 2017. _______________________________ Signature of Notary SEAL My Commission expires:_______________ STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________, 2017, by _______________________ and ______________________, as ___________________ and _________________________ of THE PONDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, personally known to me to be the same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument, who appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that they signed and delivered the foregoing instrument as their free and voluntary act and deed and as the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this ____ day of _________________, 2017. ______________________ Signature of Notary SEAL My Commission expires: _______________ 127 4/12/17 Draft 7 Exhibit A Legal Description of Outlots A, B, C, and D Outlots A, B, C, and D in Robert W. Kendler’s Ponds Subdivision of those parts of the west half of the southwest quarter of Section 4 and of the southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 43 North, Range 12, east of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof, recorded July 5, 1978, as document 1928655, in Book 66 of Plats, Pages 18, 19, and 20, in Lake County, Illinois. 128 4/12/17 Draft 8 Exhibit B Project Plans 129 4/12/17 Draft 9 Exhibit C Memorandum of Agreement 130 {00015661} 1 This instrument prepared by And, following recording, to Be returned to: Filippini Law Firm LLP 990 Grove Street, Suite 220 Evanston IL 60201 (Attn.: Victor P. Filippini, Jr.) MEMORANDUM OF DRAINAGE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST AND THE PONDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION) This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (the “Memorandum”) is made as of ____________________, 2017, by and between THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, an Illinois municipal special charter home rule municipal corporation (the “City”), and THE PONDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation (the “HOA”)(the City and HOA are collectively referred to as the “Parties”). Section 1. Recital. a. The City and HOA have entered into a certain “Drainage Settlement Agreement” dated ________________, 2017 (the “Agreement”) regarding responsibilities for drainage facilities within the Ponds Subdivision, which is legally described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto (the “Property”). b. A condition of the Agreement is that this Memorandum be recorded against the Property. Section 2. Notice of Agreement. This Memorandum is being recorded against the Property to notify all persons regarding the existence of the Agreement and the fact of its impact on the responsibilities relating to the drainage facilities within the Ponds Subdivision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Memorandum to be recorded in the Office of the Lake County Recorder. [Signature pages to follow.] 131 {00015661} 2 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, an Illinois municipal corporation By: Name: Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LAKE ) I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that Robert R. Kiely, Jr., as City Manager of THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, an Illinois municipal corporation, personally known to me to be the same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that he signed and delivered the said instrument as his own free and voluntary act and as the free and voluntary act of said municipal corporation for the uses and purposes therein set forth. GIVEN under my hand and Notarial Seal this __________________, 2017. SEAL Notary Public My Commission expires: THE PONDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation By: Its STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LAKE ) I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that ______________________, as __________________ of THE PONDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, personally known to me to be the same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that he signed and delivered the said instrument as his own free and voluntary act and as the free and voluntary act of said municipal corporation for the uses and purposes therein set forth. GIVEN under my hand and Notarial Seal this __________________, 2017. SEAL Notary Public My Commission expires: 132 {00015661} 3 EXHIBIT 1 Legal Description of the Ponds Subdivision Robert W. Kendler’s Ponds Subdivision of those parts of the west half of the southwest quarter of Section 4 and of the southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 43 North, Range 12, east of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof, recorded July 5, 1978, as document 1928655, in Book 66 of Plats, Pages 18, 19, and 20, in Lake County, Illinois. 133 {00015647 3} 1 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 2017-___ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 39 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO APPEALS FROM REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest (the “City”) is a home rule, special charter municipal corporation; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a real estate transfer tax (the “Transfer Tax Law”), the terms of which are set forth in Chapter 39 of the City Code of Lake Forest (the “City Code”); and WHEREAS, the Transfer Tax Law offers an opportunity for taxpayers to appeal determinations regarding and applications of the Transfer Tax Law; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council desire to be able to consider certain hardships in connection with appeals relating to the Transfer Tax Law; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have determined that amending Transfer Tax Law appeals as hereinafter set forth will be in the best interests of the City and its residents; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE: Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby adopted by this reference as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into this Section as if fully set forth. SECTION TWO: Amendment to Section 39.166. Section 39.166, entitled “Appeals,” of Chapter 39, entitled “Taxation,” of the City Code is hereby amended in its entirety, so that said Section 39.164 shall hereafter be and read as follows: § 39.166 APPEALS. Any person who shall be subject to the tax pursuant to this subchapter, or any applicant for exemption or refund under §§ 39.159 or 39.164, who disputes the 134 {00015647 3} 2 imposition of or amount of the tax imposed pursuant to this subchapter or a determination under §§ 39.159 or 39.164 may seek a review of such imposition or amount of the real estate transfer tax or the determination under either §§ 39.159 or 39.164 by filing with the City Manager, within 30 days after the notification of the transfer tax amount or the determination on a request for exemption or refund under §§ 39.159 or 39.164, respectively, a request for review. The request for review shall set forth in detail the basis for the dispute of the imposition, amount or determination relating to the transfer tax, an exemption therefrom or a refund. The City Manager shall thereafter consider the request for review determine whether the tax should be waived, reduced or refunded, and provide a written determination thereof; in connection with the City Manager’s consideration of an appeal, the City Manager may require the person filing the appeal to provide an appraisal of the subject property, which appraisal shall be a certified MAI appraisal prepared not more than six months prior to the date of the appeal. If such person seeks further review of the imposition or amount of the transfer tax or determination of exemption or refund under §§ 39.159 or 39.164, respectively, such person shall file a request to appeal the determination of the City Manager with the City Clerk within 30 days after mailing of the determination by the City Manager; such appeal shall be considered by the Personnel, Compensation, and Administration Committee of the City Council based on the relevant facts available regarding the real estate transfer in question and the materials presented in connection with the request for exemption under § 39.159 or for refund under § 39.164, as well as materials presented in connection with the Manager’s review provided under this section. The determination of the Personnel, Compensation, and Administration Committee shall be final. In connection with any review or appeal under this section, transfer stamps may be issued upon paying the real estate transfer tax, but any such tax payment shall not prevent a person from pursuing such review or appeal. . Notwithstanding the foregoing, an applicant for a refund under Section 39.164 may appeal to the Personnel, Compensation and Administration Committee for a variance from the requirements for refunds set forth in Section 39.164 upon a showing of hardship such as an act of god or medical necessity. Such hardship appeal shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of this section. SECTION THREE: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. Passed this ____ day of _____, 2017. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: 135 {00015647 3} 3 ABSTAIN: Approved this _____ day of ____, 2017. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 136