PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 2018/10/30 Packet
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2018 – 6:30 P.M.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TRAINING ROOM
AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER
Raymond Buschmann, Chairman
Michelle Moreno
Melanie Rummel
II. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
III. REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL TWO FIRE DEPARTMENT
ENGINE ACQUISITIONS, A NEW REPLACEMENT PURCHASE, AND SALE OF EXISTING
EQUIPMENT - KEVIN CRONIN & MICHAEL THOMAS
IV. REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN
EASEMENT FOR THE EVERETT ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – BOB
ELLS
V. UPDATE REGARDING LAKE ROAD STORM SEWER AND CURB/GUTTER SSA – MIKE
STRONG & MICHAEL THOMAS
VI. REVIEW OF THREE INDIVIDUAL RAVINE PROJECT BIDS – DAN MARTIN
VII. REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL THE HAND SHOVELING BID
FOR MULTIPLE WINTER SEASONS – DAN MARTIN
VIII. REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL ALL CITY EXPENDITURES AND
CONTRACTOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WAUKEGAN ROAD SIDEWALK
PROJECT – MICHAEL THOMAS
IX. REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING THE RESOLUTION
ENCOURAGING AND FACILITATING THE REPLACEMENT OF LEAD WATER SERVICES -
JIMMY LOCKEFEER
X. PUBLIC COMMENT
XI. NEXT MEETING – TBD
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 – 6:30 P.M.
LAKE FOREST FIRE STATION #2
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Raymond Buschmann called the meeting to order at 6:50 P.M.
Aldermen Melanie Rummel and Michelle Moreno were in attendance.
Staff in attendance included Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works; Chuck
Myers, Superintendent of Parks, Forestry & Special Facilities; Robert Kiely, City
Manager and Jim Lockefeer, Management Analyst. Sally Swarthout, Director of
Parks and Recreation attended a portion of the meeting via conference call.
Also in attendance was Bill Weaver, Senior Principal Engineer & Vice President of
AECOM.
II. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 28, 2018 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Chairman Buschmann moved to approve the August 28, 2018 Public Works
Committee meeting minutes. Alderman Moreno seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
III. REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CODE MODIFICATIONS
REGARDING THE USE OF YARD MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT – CHUCK MYERS
Superintendent Myers explained that this has been an ongoing discussion topic
that has been reviewed by the Committee. He explained that the meeting
minutes from the last time the topic was reviewed by the Committee were
included in tonight’s packet. He explained that since the last time the topic was
reviewed by the Committee and at the request of the Committee, City staff
issued a survey to City certified landscaping firms. A total of 73 responses were
returned which was about a 24% response rate.
Superintendent Myers reviewed a presentation slide that highlighted the current
lawn equipment hours of operation and proposed changes to the current hours
based on the Committees comments made the last time the topic was reviewed
meeting. He explained that the Committee’s consensus the last time the topic
was reviewed was to leave the weekday hours of operation as is and move up
the ending time on weekends and holidays. He presented the Committee with
two proposed options that reflect those prior Committee comments:
1. Saturday: 8:00am-5:00 pm
Sunday/Holiday: 10:00am-4:00 pm
2. Saturday: 8:00am-5:30 pm
Sunday/Holidays: 10:00am-5:00 pm
Superintendent Myers reviewed the following results of the landscaping firm
survey:
Q1 – Opposed to changing weekday end time to 7:00 p.m.? 20% Y, 80% N
2
Q2 – Opposed to changing Saturday, Sunday, Holiday end time to 5:30 p.m.?
20% Y, 80% N
Q3 – Opposed to changing Saturday, Sunday, Holiday end time to 5:00 p.m.?
20% Y, 80% N
Q4 – Opposed to changing Saturday, Sunday, Holiday end time to 4:00 p.m.?
60% Y, 40% N
Q5 – Opposed to changing weekday start time to 8:00 a.m.? 80% Y, 20% N
Q6 – Opposed to changing Saturday start time to 8:30 a.m.? 70% Y, 30% N
Q7 – Opposed to changing Saturday start time to 9:00 a.m.? 80% Y, 20% N
Q8 – Opposed to changing Saturday start time to 10:00 a.m.? 90% Y, 10% N
Q9 – Opposed to a complete ban on use of gas powered blowers on Sundays
and Holidays? 30% Y, 70% N
Q10 – Does your firm operate any battery or electric powered blowers? 30% Y,
70% N
He explained that overall, the majority of the landscaping firms surveyed do not
have an issue in a slightly earlier weekend end time for operating lawn
maintenance equipment.
Superintendent Myers explained that if the Committees moves forward in
recommending a change to the weekend and holiday hours, the existing
ordinance would have to be revised and brought back to City Council for
Council approval. He explained that the current hours are currently for all lawn
maintenance equipment and this would remain as is for any updates made.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about merging the general noise ordinance with
the lawn maintenance equipment hours of operation ordinance to have one
standard set of hours of operation. He explained that at this time he believed the
two ordinances should be kept separate, however, the idea could possibly be
reviewed at a later time.
Chairman Buschmann explained that he preferred moving forward with what
was Alderman Rummel’s original suggestion of a Saturday end time of 5:30 P.M.
and a Sunday and Holiday end time of 5:00 P.M. All the other start and end times
would remain as is. He explained that this recommendation meets what the
Committee had previously discussed in keeping any changes to the current
hours of operation simple. He explained that if these changes were approved by
City Council, City staff could then complete an education campaign for the
next landscaping season over the 2018/2019 winter months for both landscaping
firms and residents. This campaign would outline the changes to the hours of
operation and would encourage respect and common courtesy.
3
Alderman Moreno requested that the Loobys receive notice of this topic when it
goes before City Council.
Chairman Buschmann explained that there was consensus amongst the
Committee to move forward in bringing the recommended changes to City
Council.
IV. REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE DESIGN
OPTION, TIMING, AND PROCESS FOR FOREST PARK’S BLUFF REPAIR – BOB KIELY &
MICHAEL THOMAS
Director of Parks and Recreation Sally Swarthout joined the meeting via
conference call.
Director Thomas reviewed the two repair construction options that City Council
discussed at the September 17, 2018 City Council Workshop meeting. He
reviewed and explained both options 1a and 3a. He explained that the “a” in
both options represents the extended risk area south beyond the bluff failure
zone. He explained that Staff believed this was City Council’s preference based
on the comments made at the September 17 meeting.
He explained that option 1a involves the regrading of the bluff from the top of
the bluff failure. Option 1a results in approximately a 30’ loss of tableland at the
top of the bluff. Within that 30’ of tableland, 17 trees would also be lost. Option
1a also includes the loss of 70 trees on the bluff and 31 tree transplants. The
estimated cost for option 1a is $970,000.
He explained that option 3a involves the reconstruction of the North Beach
Access Road (NBAR). He explained that the NBAR would move to the east away
from the bluff. The bluff would also be regraded but not from the top of the bluff
as in option 1a. The regrading would occur on the NBAR below. He explained
that the 70 trees on the bluff would need to be removed as in option 1a. Due to
construction occurring on the road below, no tableland or trees would be lost or
transplanted. He explained that option 3a is estimated at $1,985,000.
Director Thomas reviewed diagrams of both project options.
City Manager Kiely inquired about option’s 1a effect on the Forest Park Ring
Road. Bill Weaver explained that the corner of the Road would need to be
slightly relocated to the west. Chairman Buschmann inquired if that was
factored into the estimate for 1a. Director Thomas explained that it was.
Alderman Rummel inquired about rerouting stormwater away from the bluff’s
sand seam. Mr. Weaver explained that there would be a bench formed and
constructed in the area of the sand seam. He explained that on the bench a
special drainage system would be installed to capture the water from the sand
seam and carry it down the bluff through a storm sewer where the water would
4
discharge into existing City storm sewer infrastructure that ultimately discharges
into Lake Michigan.
Director Thomas explained that if Option 1a is selected the staging of semi-trucks
would have to occur on Lake Road. These trucks would need to haul out
material from the regrading work. He explained that City staff believes that Lake
Road from the NBAR entrance to Deerpath would need to be closed during this
work.
Alderman Rummel inquired if there was any damage to the NBAR that occurred
because of the bluff failure or the subsequent debris clean up. Director Thomas
explained that there was no damage to the NBAR.
Alderman Moreno inquired about the geology of the deep bluff areas below the
sand seam. Mr. Weaver explained that there is stiff clay below. Alderman
Moreno explained that her concern was another slope failure occurring in the
same area after a repair is made. Mr. Weaver explained that AECOM’s
geotechnical engineers complete a lot of soil testing as part of their
investigation. He explained that they review computer models and that a stable
slope for the repair area is 2:1and that is what will be designed.
City Manager Kiely inquired about the geotechnical engineering findings. Mr.
Weaver explained that the engineers originally requested a slope of 2.2:1. Mr.
Weaver explained that he suggested to the engineers a slope of 2:1 with a
bench. The engineers approved this concept as long as the bench was to be
included in the design. City Manager Kiely inquired about the South Beach
Access Road (SBAR) slope. Mr. Weaver explained that slope was 2:1 and even
flatter in some places.
Alderman Moreno inquired about the health of the forest on the tableland.
Chairman Buschmann explained that he reviewed the trees and forest on the
tableland with Cliff Miller. He explained that he understood that the Oak trees
were mature. Chairman Buschmann explained that you could not see the trees
from the streetscape.
Alderman Moreno inquired about the risk of losing trees a few years after the
project is completed that were originally supposed to be saved. Director Thomas
explained that Superintendent Myers and the City’s Forestry Section would work
with the contractor completing the work to ensure that the proper tree care and
protection is in place. Alderman Moreno explained that she had concerns about
tree root structure that is below ground and isn’t seen. Director Thomas
explained that tree root pruning is an important task that will be completed
before construction begins. He explained that a contractor will bring in wood
mats in the construction area to disburse the weight of equipment falling all on a
particular area. Alderman Moreno inquired about City staff monitoring the
project. Director Thomas and Director Swarthout explained that Superintendent
Myers, the City’s Forestry Section, and the City’s Engineering section would
5
monitor the project. Director Thomas explained that tree care and protection will
be highlighted in any eventual construction pre-bid meeting going forward.
City Manager Kiely inquired about where the 17 trees lost on the tableland were
in option 1a and where the 70 trees on the bluff would be lost in both 1a and 3a.
Director Thomas explained in order to complete the work on the bluff in either
option, the 70 trees would need to be removed. He explained that the tree
clearing on the bluff has already begun in house by the City’s Forestry Section in
an effort to save money and construction time. He explained that in speaking to
Superintendent Myers about the tree species quality on the bluff he learned that
they are of a lower quality trees than the Oaks on the tableland. A majority of
the 70 trees on the bluff are Sugar Maple trees. City Manager Kiely explained
that these non-native trees are not necessarily good for the bluff due to their
large canopies.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about the 31 transplant trees in option 1a.
Director Thomas explained that the 31 transplant trees are trees that are located
within that 30’ of lost tableland. The 31 trees would be transplanted elsewhere in
Forest Park. Director Swarthout explained that if City Council moves forward with
option 1a, Superintendent Myers, Cliff Miller, and Steve Bartram would need to
work on a plan for where the transplant trees would be relocated within Forest
Park.
City Manager Kiely inquired about the 17 trees that would be lost on the
tableland under option 1a. Director Thomas explained the general location
utilizing the option 1a diagram. City Manager Kiely requested that the 17 trees
are better outlined on a map. Chairman Buschmann explained that in his review
with Cliff Miller they did not identify all the 17 trees as mature Oaks. Director
Thomas explained that he will ask Superintendent Myers to create a map and
provide a summary breakdown of the species and quality of the 17 trees.
Alderman Rummel inquired about the underground root system of the trees and
what root pruning accomplishes. Director Thomas explained that root pruning
prevents construction equipment from pulling and tearing tree roots. He
explained that root pruning involves a sharp, quick cut to the roots. A tree is
more likely to regenerate roots through root pruning than if the roots were pulled
and teared during construction. Chairman Buschmann explained that there are
two types of roots; feeder and structural. He explained that feeder roots can be
pruned and regenerated by a tree. The structural roots are more important to a
tree.
Alderman Rummel inquired about beach loss under option 3a due to the road
being reconstructed further east. Director Swarthout explained that some of the
adult beach would be lost. She explained that most people who utilize the adult
beach do not sit in the area that is being impacted.
6
City Manager Kiely inquired about the loss of trees under option 3a between the
reconstructed road and the adult beach. Director Swarthout explained that the
area would be re-landscaped. Director Thomas explained that there are
currently no trees of value located in that area.
Chairman Buschmann explained that input was sought from fellow Aldermen on
the two options for tonight’s meeting. He asked City Manager Kiely to share that
input. City Manager Kiely explained that Alderman Preschlack sent the first
response and most Aldermen who shared following responses had similar
thoughts. City Manager Kiely explained that if money wasn’t an object, City
Council would prefer 3a. He explained that from a bluff stability standpoint
options 1a and 3a were similar in what is achieved. He explained that in regards
to the comments made about the current NBAR posing a safety issue, there has
not been a significant number of accidents recorded. He explained that the two
accidents he was aware of occurred a number of years ago and had more to
do with driver recklessness and not any issue with the road itself. City Manager
Kiely explained that he later spoke to Alderman Preschlack about his comments
and Alderman Preschlack explained that he separates the issue based on wants
versus needs. He explained that stabilization is a need and the saving of the trees
and reconstructing the road so that it is safer are wants.
City Manager Kiely explained that Alderman Biedler and Alderman Morris are
preparing a letter in an effort to raise private donations in order to move forward
with option 3a. City Manager Kiely explained that he believed if $500,000 was
raised privately City Council would take that very seriously. He explained that if
only $25,000 is raised and the difference between the two options remains at
$900,000 it would not be as compelling. He explained that he felt the City
Council wants to move forward with 3a, however, the delta between the costs
of the options is hindering the selection of 3a.
Alderman Rummel inquired about phasing the project over a few years. She
inquired if 3a could be completed between two fiscal years. City Manager Kiely
and Director Thomas explained that phasing the project over two years would
be difficult. Mr. Weaver explained that extending the project over two phases
would drive the project cost up due to additional mobilization costs. City
Manager Kiely explained that if the project is phased over two years or one year,
the funds will need to come from reserves.
Director Thomas reviewed the following timing chart with the Committee:
7
He explained that the advantage of the design / build hybrid approach is that
construction can begin and proceed without the completion of a full project
design. This approach takes less time than a traditional design / bid/ build
approach. A traditional design / bid/ build approach requires a full design to be
complete in order to place the project out to bid for construction. The full design
takes approximately three months to complete.
Chairman Buschmann recommended that the design / build hybrid approach
includes the term bid to read design / bid / build hybrid. Director Thomas
explained that the hybrid approach does include a bid process and that he
would make that name change for the October 1, 2018 City Council meeting.
Director Thomas explained that if City Council approves of an option and
approves of the hybrid process at the October 1, 2018 City Council meeting,
there will be a mandatory onsite contractor pre-bid meeting the following day.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about construction extending into the beach
season or delaying construction until after the beach season. He explained that
he was disappointed learning about the negative comments he heard occurred
from residents. Director Swarthout explained that you could move forward with
delaying construction, however, residents would be very unhappy. She
explained that she continues to receive emails and calls from residents inquiring
about when the NBAR will be open and that the City is not moving fast enough
to complete the repair. Director Swarthout explained that a lot of beach staff
really struggled with some of the comments they received following the closure
of the NBAR in late June. She explained the beach operating staff did a great
job in changing operations in order to accommodate beach goers as best as
possible. She explained from a beach operating standpoint having the NBAR
open by Memorial Day would be best. She explained that the NBAR closure had
a large impact on the boaters who utilize the SBAR and south beach parking lot.
The boaters were very forgiving this season, however, they may not be as
forgiving if they need to go through the NBAR being closed for another season.
She explained that beach goers are becoming frustrated with constant road
8
and lane closures stemming back to the SBAR project. Director Swarthout
explained that over the last summer beach season there were approximately
54,000 resident beach visits. She explained that the average beach visits over a
traditional beach season when there is no construction is closer to 70,000. She
explained that having to ask the beach operating staff, many who are between
the ages of 16 to 20 years old, to go through another season with the NBAR
closed, would be a lot to ask.
City Manager Kiely inquired what the City could do, under either option, to open
the NBAR as soon as possible. Mr. Weaver explained that there is no way to build
a structure now to provide bluff failure protection. He explained that is a question
of risk. He explained that it is more of a legal question at this point. The failure
area has been identified as being very unstable.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if there was a way to engineer some sort of
monitoring / warning system that would signal an imminent failure. Mr. Weaver
explained that there is no such technology that would be able to accomplish
that. Chairman Buschmann inquired about the current monitoring system that is
being utilized near the boardwalk. Mr. Weaver explained that those are
inclinometer devices. Those devices are used for computer modeling to show
potential deep failure areas. He explained that they do not register imminent
shallow slope failures.
Alderman Rummel inquired about the roads along mountain sides that have
rods to catch debris. Mr. Weaver explained that those are used to catch rock
debris. A bluff failure at the beach would contain very large amount of clay.
Unfortunately, that type of system would not be effective along the NBAR.
Alderman Moreno explained that she supports moving forward in selecting a
process with the fastest path and the option with the most acceptable cost. She
inquired that if we move forward with 1a, subject to privately raising $500,000,
how easy is it to move away from 1a to 3a. Mr. Weaver explained that it would
be very difficult.
Alderman Rummel explained that it would be very difficult to raise private funds
if the City Council selects option 3a outright.
Alderman Moreno explained that she supports the 1a or 3a design build hybrid
approach.
City Manager Kiely explained that at the October 1, 2018 City Council meeting
the Public Works Committee should request three decisions be made; the
selection of the repair option, the selection of the timing process, and approving
a contract with AECOM to provide design services for the selected option.
Chairman Buschmann inquired about the confidence level of the completion
date occurring before Memorial Day 2019. Director Thomas explained that staff is
9
confident that the deadline could be met if the repair option is selected and the
hybrid approach is approved by City Council at the October 1, 2018 City
Council meeting. At that point the project will be out to bid. The bid opening
would occur before the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting. A contractor bid
would then be awarded at the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting and then
the construction process would begin the following day.
Chairman Buschmann explained that it very important that the bid process is
competitive.
Director Thomas explained that the invitation to bid has been written up so that it
is very clear what the expectations of the contractor are in regards to submitting
a maximum guaranteed price and meeting the project schedule.
Chairman Buschmann explained that he would prefer that we give the
contractors a little bit of flexibility with the project completion date. He explained
that he would be interested in still receiving a contractor bid if they propose
going over the project completion date by a few days.
City Manager Kiely inquired how snow effects the construction of 1a and 3a. Mr.
Weaver explained that snow will cause construction to slow down under both
options.
Alderman Rummel explained that she supports and prefers option 3a. She
inquired if there was any sort of engineer’s guarantee that would insure the City
against another bluff failure in the same area. Mr. Weaver explained that there is
not any guarantee which is why it is important that the project is designed
correctly and it is constructed by an experienced contracting firm.
Alderman Moreno explained that she was not yet in support of 3a because of
the high cost. She explained that the additional $1 million delta could be spent
on other capital projects.
Alderman Rummel explained that if the City Council proceeds with 1a, the park
is forever altered and there is no going back.
Chairman Buschmann explained that the tableland that would be lost under
option 1a is a small part of a much larger tableland area. He explained that
Mother Nature designed that area as being vulnerable. He explained that he
would wonder how every Lake Forest resident would respond if they were
surveyed about saving 30’ of tableland at the cost of $1 million and if it is a
worthwhile use of taxpayer funds. He explained that if you go with option 1a and
the tableland area is opened up, people might be appreciative of the new view
of the lakefront.
City Manager Kiely explained that in taking a step back and looking at all of the
time City staff, Aldermen, and residents have spent on this project has been
10
remarkable. He explained a lot of communities would have just simple moved
forward with the cheapest option without anywhere near the level of discussion
the City of Lake Forest has had. He explained that there is no right or wrong
repair option. He explained that if there is split City Council vote that would be
ok. He explained that he received a comment from a first ward resident that was
similar to the point that Chairman Buschmann had discussed about preferring 1a
and opening up the view of the lakefront from tableland.
Alderman Rummel inquired about City Manager Kiely’s preference on the two
repair options. He explained that he has very mixed emotions. He explained that
he liked the 3a option, however, the additional $1 million cost and the fact that
there have been not been many accidents on the existing NBAR makes it hard
to justify the 3a option. He explained that when he reviews the list of all the
capital project needs the City has that was presented at the September 17, 2018
City Council workshop meeting, it makes option 1a justifiable. He explained that
he appreciates and recognizes the passion and commitments of the Forest Park
Preservation Board, however, the additional $1 million cost with option 3a is a
very significant amount. He explained that he did not know if the average Lake
Forest resident feels as passionate about the lost tableland area and the 17 lost
trees as the members of the Forest Park Preservation Board.
Alderman Rummel asked Director Thomas his opinion on which repair option he
prefers. Director Thomas explained that he agrees with the comments made by
City Manager Kiely. He explained that he understands and feels those emotions
behind potentially losing the trees and tableland under option 1a. He explained
that when he reviews the other City stormwater and ravine projects that need to
be completed he leans towards the less expensive 1a option.
Chairman Buschmann explained that he would like to summarize the
Committees thoughts expressed tonight. He explained that in recommending a
repair option of 1a or 3a, the Committee will not be moving forward with a
recommendation tonight. He explained that this discussion and decision should
be made at the City Council level. He explained that in terms of recommending
a construction timing process, the Committee supports the effort of the design /
bid / build hybrid process in an effort to complete either option 1a or 3a by
Memorial Day 2019.
Chairman Buschmann inquired if the possibility of obtaining a grant for either
option has been reviewed. City Manager Kiely explained that staff has
researched and investigated grants for both project options. He explained that
one issue is many of the local grants have smaller dollar amounts similar to the
$25,000 awarded from Lake County SMC for the SBAR project. He explained that
the City may be able to attempt to seek a larger federal grant, however, the
federal grant process can take multiple years with no guarantee of successfully
receiving the grant award. Chairman Buschmann explained that he appreciates
staff’s review of the topic and that seeking a grant for either option unfortunately
does not appear to be viable.
11
Alderman Rummel inquired about Director Swarthout’s opinion on option 1a and
3a. Director Swarthout explained that she loved option 3a, however, the existing
NBAR has remained as it currently exists for a long time. She explained that she
only recalls two accidents that have occurred on the NBAR and those were due
to young teen drivers not paying attention. She explained that she felt the more
fiscally responsible choice was option 1a.
Alderman Rummel inquired if Director Swarthout felt opposed to the effects to
the tableland under option 1a. Director Swarthout explained that the tableland
is beautiful in that area. Mother Nature created that bluff and also created it in a
way that also caused the bluff to be vulnerable. She explained that because the
failure occurred naturally she would be ok with option 1a. Alderman Rummel
explained that she walked the Open Lands Fort Sheridan Park and the bluffs in
that area showed signs of movement too. Director Swarthout explained that
bluffs along the entire North Shore are experiencing the same issues.
Chairman Buschmann explained that there is still the issue of other bluff areas of
the Forest Park bluff that have been identified as a risk area.
City Manager Kiely explained that the City Council still also needs to discuss the
issue of the existing boardwalk that is currently in one of the risk areas. He
explained that the boardwalk has remained closed.
V. REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DESIGN
AGREEMENT WITH AECOM FOR THE DESIGN OF FOREST PARK BLUFF’S FAILURE –
MICHAEL THOMAS
Director Thomas explained that City staff is requesting the Committee’s
recommendation in moving forward with obtaining a design service agreement
with AECOM for one of the project options. He explained the dollar amounts of
the design agreements differ depending on the option selected. He explained
that the cost for 1a is $136,300 and for 3a it is $208,000. He explained that in
addition to those agreements, staff is seeking Mr. Weaver’s and Mr. Weaver’s
staff’s assistance over the next two weeks in placing the repair option out to bid
and in responding to contractor questions. Director Thomas explained that Mr.
Weaver estimated this cost to be between $15,000 and $18,000.
Chairman Buschmann explained that he reviewed the contracts and had a few
requests. He explained that under the 1a contract he would like to see language
about the noteworthy trees that appear at the fringe of the project area, that
have been identified by the City, will be considered in the engineering project
design in terms of putting the best effort forward to save any trees through the
construction process. He explained that this request is not needed for the 3a
approach. He explained that there is also a small typo in the 3a contract that
refers to the option as 1a. He also inquired about the reference to a retaining
wall system. Director Thomas and Mr. Weaver explained that was also a typo
error.
12
Alderman Rummel motioned to recommend to City Council approval to City
Council of a Design Agreement with AECOM for the Design of Forest Park Bluff’s
Failure subject to Chairman Buschmann’s recommended changes. Alderman
Moreno seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. NEXT MEETING – OCTOBER 15, 2018 – 5:30 P.M.
Director Thomas explained that the next meeting would occur right before the
October 15, 2018 City Council meeting. At this meeting staff will be seeking the
Committees approval of a contractor bid for which ever option City Council
approves at the October 1, 2018 City Council meeting.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Alderman Rummel moved to adjourn the meeting of the Public Works
Committee at 9:01 P.M. Alderman Moreno seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Lockefeer Jr.
Management Analyst
REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO
CITY COUNCIL TWO FIRE DEPARTMENT
ENGINE ACQUISITIONS, A NEW
REPLACEMENT PURCHASE, AND SALE OF
EXISTING EQUIPMENT
Lake Forest Fire Department
Fleet Restructuring 2018
251-1991 Sold $25,000 10/15/18
215 -1991 Sell $18,000?
231 -1991 Sell $40,000?216 -1994 Sell $13,000?
212 -2007 Keep
Vehicle Year Make
Engine 215 1991 Pierce
Squad 251 (Sold 10/18)1991 Pierce
Truck 231 1991 Pierce
Engine 216 1994 Pierce
Squad 212 2007 Pierce
Vehicle Mileage Engine hours *Hour/mileage calculation
Engine 215 89,421 7,351 183,775
Squad 251 (Sold 10/18)13,450 1286 32,150
Truck 231 33,712 4,146 103,650
Engine 216 110,697 9,306 232,650
Squad 212 84,251 6,559 163,975
* Each engine hour is equivalent to 25 road miles*
E44 2008 E-ONE
$110,000
T44 2003 E-ONE
Assume Grant $0
Value -$150,000
Vehicle Year Make
Engine 44 2008 E-One
Truck 44 2003 E-One
Vehicle Mileage Engine hours *Hour/mileage calculation
Engine 44 24,759 2,299 57,475
Truck 44 25,150 2715 67,875
Vehicle Year Age Department Station
New LF Engine 2019 0 Lake Forest LF 2
Engine 44 2008 10 Knollwood LF1
Engine 212 2007 11 Lake Forest LF 1
Truck 44 2003 15 Knollwood LF 1
Engine 216 1994 24 Lake Forest Sell
Engine 215 1991 27 Lake Forest Sell
Truck 231 1991 27 Lake Forest Sell
Squad 251 1991 27 Lake Forest Sell
Vehicle Year Age Department Station Budget Impact
Replacement
Costs
New LF Engine 2019 0 Lake Forest LF 2 -$525,000
Engine 44 2008 10 Knollwood LF1 -$110,000
Engine 212 2007 11 Lake Forest LF 1 N/A
Truck 44 2003 15 Knollwood LF 1 Grant No Cost
Engine 216 1994 24 Lake Forest Sell $13,000 New Engine
Engine 215 1991 27 Lake Forest Sell $18,000 $600,000
Truck 231 1991 27 Lake Forest Sell $40,000 $1,200,000
Squad 251 1991 27 Lake Forest Sold +$25,000 Removing from fleet
* Sale prices of used vehicles from 2018 appraisals
FIRE DEPARTMENT Fleet Replacement Schedule
CITY
EQUIP TYPE &FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
#MAKE BODY STYLE YEAR 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
212 Pierce Rescue Pumper 2007 $750,000
215 Pierce Pumper 1991 $600,000
216 Pierce Pumper 1994 $525,000
231 Pierce Ariel Tower 1991
251 Pierce Squad 1991 Removed from fleet - no replacement neededSold $25,000
$1.2 m
1 New engine $525,000 –price offset from IDEX & Bears $$$?
1 Used engine $110,000 –price offset by sale of Used LF vehicles
1 used ladder truck $0 –assume current AFG grant, no cost to LF
Repairs and re-lettering of two used vehicles -$60,000
Sell 4 used vehicles and reduce fleet by one fire apparatus-possible
revenue from sales $70 -$100,000? ($25,000 already collected for 251)
CIP savings 231 replacement with a new rig-$1,200,000 spread over
FY20&21, 215 replacement with a new rig in FY 20 $600,000
Other CIP savings in FY19 $213,000 AFG grant for air packs
Funding requests
New Engine $525,000
Used Engine $110,000
Equip/repairs $60,000
$695,000
Saving opportunities
FY20 engine $600,000
FY20 & 21 Ladder truck $1,200,000
IDEX savings on pump?$100,000?
Bears Donation?$100,000?
Sale of Used LFFD rigs $100,000
$2,100,000
$2,100,000
-$695,000
Overall possible savings $1,405,250
Approve purchase of new engine from Marion not to exceed
$525,000.
Approve purchase of Used Knollwood Engine 44 not to exceed
$110,000.
Approve funds for repairs, lettering/paint updates, and loose
equipment on used truck and engine, not to exceed $60,000.
Approve assumption of AFG grant for Knollwood Truck 44, no
cost to Lake Forest.
Approve declaration of 3 used LFFD apparatus as surplus and
allow sale of the vehicles.
REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN
EASEMENT FOR THE EVERETT ROAD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
625 Forest Edge Drive Vernon Hills, IL. 60061
TEL 847.478.9700 FAX 847.478.9701
FOR REVIE
W
UPDATE REGARDING LAKE ROAD STORM
SEWER AND CURB/GUTTER SSA
1
Strong, Mike
From:LOWELL DIXON <>
Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 9:21 AM
To:Strong, Mike
Subject:Lake Road Petition
Mike, I'm writing you on behalf of the home owners on Lake Road between Woodland on the South
and Spruce on the North. Eight of the twelve owners have signed the "Special Service Area Petition
for a Proposed Road Improvement and Storm Sewer Project". Three owners have elected not to sign
the petition, and I have been unable to get a response from the estate of Jack Crowe (788 E.
Woodland Rd). We originally started this
project with the homeowners South of Woodland and North of the Woodbine Bridge, but they have
been unsuccessful to this point in obtaining a two thirds majority. Consequently I am requesting the
city allow the Spuce/Woodland group to move forward with the next steps in the process. Tomorrow I
will deliver to your office the eight signed petitions. We are very pleased that you, the Mayor, and the
others on the staff have been so responsive to our request for information regarding the
project. Thanks Lowell Dixon
1315
1345
788
1310
1350
1211
1421
1441
1291
1460
1381
1471
1411
1475
1390
1161
1201
1331
1490
1416
12001220
677
693
1435
1401
770
1363
1505
700
520
1305
644
1365
LAKE RDELM
T
R
E
E
R
D
SPRUCE
A
V
E
E WOODL
A
N
D
R
D
µ
October 24, 2018
Mr. Michael Thomas
City of Lake Forest
800 N. Field Drive
Lake Forest, IL 60045
Re: City of Lake Forest
Professional Engineering Services Proposal
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Thank you for requesting this proposal from Gewalt Hamilton Associates (GHA) to perform design
engineering services for the proposed Lake Road Curb & Gutter Improvements project within the City of
Lake Forest. We understand that the residents along Lake Road have petitioned the City to establish a
Special Service Area between Woodland Road and Spruce Avenue for the purpose of constructing
concrete curb & gutter along the existing roadway. The City has requested that GHA provide a scope
of services necessary to provide engineering plans and construction documents for this project.
I.Project Understanding
The location of the proposed roadway improvements project is on Lake Road between Woodland Road
and Spruce Avenue in the City of Lake Forest. This section of Lake Road is currently uncurbed with
grass shoulders, with the exception of the McLennan Reed Bridge located above an existing ravine
approximately 600’ north of Woodland Road. The existing pavement width varies from under 18’ in
some locations to over 21’ in other locations.
The proposed improvements would create a uniform pavement width of 20’, with Lake Forest standard
curb & gutter creating an overall width of 23’. The scope of work would also include storm sewer
improvements as needed to allow for positive drainage within the project area.
II.Scope of Services
The scope of services is based upon our knowledge of the City, our review of the information furnished
to us, and our experience with similar projects.
A. Project Coordination & Meetings
The following tasks are anticipated during this phase of the project.
1. GHA will meet with City Staff, the Public Works Committee, and/or residents as needed
throughout the course of the project. Our base fee includes preparation and attendance
for up to three (3) meetings with City staff and affected residents during the SSA process.
2. GHA will coordinate with local utility companies through the JULIE Design Stage process.
Limits of the project will be provided to the utility companies and requests for atlas
information will be made. Upon receipt of the utility information, the utility company data
will be added to the existing drawings. As the preliminary plans are developed, they will
CLF Lake Road Curb & Gutter Improvements
October 24, 2018
Page 2
be submitted to the respective utility companies within the project limits for the purpose of
determining any potential conflicts caused by the proposed improvements.
3. GHA will coordinate with a geotechnical engineer to complete pavement cores within the
project limits in order to identify the existing pavement section.
B. Topographic Survey, ROW Survey, & Base Plan Preparation
GHA shall prepare an existing conditions, utility, and boundary survey within the project limits noted
above and prepare base plan sheets. The detailed existing conditions survey work will include the
following:
1. Detailed schedule of the survey control with X, Y, and Z coordinates. All measurements
shall be projected in Illinois State Plane Coordinates, East Zone, North American Datum
of 1983 (1986 adjustment) and North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).
2. Locate existing tree and brush lines in the right-of-way (ROW). Trees over 6” in diameter
or greater will be individually located (tagging and identification are not included).
3. Locate all topographic features within the project limits. This data will include curbs
(including type of curb), pavements, driveways, sidewalks, visible property monuments,
right-of-way line monuments and all visible utilities. The project limits will extend 50’
beyond each leg of the intersecting streets. Each driveway will be surveyed with
elevations provided to 10’ past the sidewalk or right-of-way wherever possible.
4. Elevations will be obtained at all surveyed points. Elevations will be obtained at each
manhole, catch basin, and valve vault rim. At intersections, the flow line elevations for all
curb returns, grade breaks, and locations 25’, 50’, and 100’ distant will also be obtained.
5. The type, size and material of underground storm, sanitary, and watermain structures
will be included in the survey based on information provided by the City, including:
a. Numbering of all structures;
b. Diameter, material, orientation, and depth of all sewers or watermains in the
structures;
c. Notation as to connecting structure(s);
d. Locations of all b-boxes.
6. GHA will complete a boundary survey and establish the roadway right-of-way and
centerline based on recovered monumentation and research of available plats and
property records.
C. Preliminary Engineering
1. In consultation with City staff, GHA will prepare a preliminary geometric plan showing the
proposed roadway improvements.
2. GHA will review the proposed preliminary plans with City staff and prepare a preliminary
opinion of probable construction cost for the proposed improvements.
D. Final Engineering
1. Preparation of final engineering plans to include a title sheet, plan and profile sheets, and
details for construction.
CLF Lake Road Curb & Gutter Improvements
October 24, 2018
Page 3
2. Preparation of project notes and contract specific directions for utility improvements,
including traffic control, working conditions, material specifications, coordination with
public inspection agencies, and other coordination and construction information. We will
use the standard front-end documentation and project manual format utilized by the City.
3. Preparation of submittals to various agencies with permit jurisdiction necessary to begin
work. It is anticipated that potential storm sewer improvements into the ravine may require
a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
4. Preparation of an engineer’s opinion of probable cost based on the completed final
engineering plans and specifications.
5. Preparation of complete bid packages to the City for distribution to contractors.
III. Project Schedule and Engineering Staff
We are prepared to commence the topographic survey and preliminary engineering design as soon as
we are given authorization to proceed. Dan Strahan, P.E., CFM will serve as the Project Manager.
Additional professional and technical staff will provide support as needed.
IV. Compensation for Services
For the services noted above, GHA proposes lump sum fees by phase as described below:
Service Lump Sum Fee
Project Coordination & Meetings $3,200.00
Topographic Survey, ROW Survey, &
Base Plan Preparation
$9,500.00
Preliminary Engineering $6,400.00
Final Engineering $14,000.00
GHA Subtotal $33,100.00
Reimbursable Expenses $500.00
Geotechnical Engineer (Subconsultant) $1,600.00
Total Lump Sum Fee + Direct
Subconsultant Costs +
Reimbursables
$35,200.00
For any additional services beyond those outlined in Section II: Scope of Services, the Client shall pay
GHA on a time and material basis in accordance with the approved Professional Services Agreement
between GHA and the City of Lake Forest as indicated below. Please note that these rates represent a
discount of approximately 10% off of our standard rates.
CLF Lake Road Curb & Gutter Improvements
October 24, 2018
Page 4
Staff Description Rates (Per Hour):
Principal Engineer $162.00
Senior Engineer $140.00
Senior Environmental Consultant $140.00
Professional Engineer $120.00
Professional Land Surveyor $116.00
Staff Engineer $110.00
GIS Professional $118.00
Environmental Consultant $110.00
Senior Technician $110.00
Engineering Technician II $98.00
Engineering Technician I $72.00
Administrative $58.00
If required, any reimbursable expenses, including items such as printing, messenger service, mileage
etc., will be billed direct to the Client without markup. Mileage is billed at $0.50/mile. Statements of
GHA charges made against a project are submitted to clients every four weeks and will detail services
performed. This permits the client to review the status of the work in progress and the charges made.
V. General Conditions
The general conditions of the contract shall be as delineated in the Professional Services Agreement
between the City of Lake Forest and GHA.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. If our proposal is acceptable, please
sign below indicating your acceptance of this Agreement in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
Daniel J. Strahan, P.E., CFM
Associate/Senior Engineer
ACCEPTED BY:
City of Lake Forest
Michael Thomas
Public Works Director
Date
ITEM #DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1.PRECONSTRUCTION VIDEO/DVD 1.0 L SUM $1,500.00 $1,500.00
2.CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT 1.0 L SUM $3,500.00 $3,500.00
3.TRAFFIC CONTROL & PROTECTION 1.0 L SUM $15,000.00 $15,000.00
4.20200100 EARTH EXCAVATION 216.0 CY $75.00 $16,200.00
5.20201200 REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 50.0 CY $50.00 $2,500.00
6.21001000 GEOTECHNICAL FABRIC FOR GROUND STABILIZATION 165.0 SY $2.75 $453.75
7.21101615 TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"1,200.0 SY $8.00 $9,600.00
8.25000100 SEEDING, CLASS 2A 1,200.0 SY $2.50 $3,000.00
9.25000400 NITROGEN FERTILIZER NUTRIENT 25.0 PND $3.00 $75.00
10.25000500 POTASSIUM FERTILIZER NUTRIENT 25.0 PND $3.00 $75.00
11.25100630 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 1,200.0 SY $5.50 $6,600.00
12.28000400 PERIMETER EROSION BARRIER 675.0 FT $3.25 $2,193.75
13.28000510 INLET FILTERS 12.0 EA $150.00 $1,800.00
14.30300001 AGGREGATE SUBGRADE IMPROVEMENT 50.0 CY $45.00 $2,250.00
15.31101200 SUBBASE GRANULAR MATERIAL, TYPE B 4"910.0 SY $10.00 $9,100.00
16.35400200 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE BASE COURSE WIDENING 7"300.0 SY $50.00 $15,000.00
17.40600290 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS (TACK COAT)2,250.0 PND $0.50 $1,125.00
18.40600625 LEVELING BINDER (MACHINE METHOD), N50 270.0 TN $82.00 $22,140.00
19.40603335 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE, MIX D, N50, 2"345.0 TN $80.00 $27,600.00
20.42300200 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCH 60.0 SY $53.00 $3,180.00
21.42400200 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCH 250.0 SF $7.00 $1,750.00
22.42400800 DETECTABLE WARNINGS 40.0 SF $32.50 $1,300.00
23.44000100 PAVEMENT REMOVAL 300.0 SY $18.00 $5,400.00
24.44000200 DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVAL 40.0 SY $11.50 $460.00
25.44000500 COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL 10.0 FT $9.00 $90.00
26.44000600 SIDEWALK REMOVAL 250.0 SF $3.00 $750.00
27.44201717 CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE II, 6 INCH 100.0 SY $80.00 $8,000.00
28.550A0340 STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 12"700.0 FT $80.00 $56,000.00
29.550A0360 STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 15"30.0 FT $95.00 $2,850.00
30.60218300 MANHOLES, TYPE A, 4' DIA, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LID 2.0 EA $2,500.00 $5,000.00
31.60234200 INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LID 9.0 EA $1,750.00 $15,750.00
32.60300305 FRAMES AND LIDS TO BE ADJUSTED 1.0 EA $425.00 $425.00
33.60603800 COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12 2,700.0 FT $26.00 $70,200.00
34.X4401198 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL, VARIABLE DEPTH (SPECIAL)3,000.0 SY $5.00 $15,000.00
35.Z0004510 HOT-MIX ASPHALT DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 3"40.0 SY $30.00 $1,200.00
36.BRICK DRIVEWAY REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT (SPECIAL)960.0 SF $25.00 $24,000.00
37.Z0017700 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY STRUCTURES TO BE RECONSTRUCTED 2.0 EA $1,500.00 $3,000.00
38.Z0062002 SAW CUTTING (FULL DEPTH)2,700.0 FT $1.50 $4,050.00
39.AS-BUILT DRAWINGS 1.0 L SUM $2,500.00 $2,500.00
SUBTOTAL:$356,617.50
10% CONTINGENCY:$35,661.75
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED):$392,300.00
DESIGN ENGINEERING:$35,200.00
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING:$40,000.00
TOTAL:$467,500.00
4664.000
October 22, 2018
GEWALT HAMILTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE OF QUANTITIES
City of Lake Forest- Lake Road SSA- Woodland to Spruce (170' Omission at Bridge)
*Since Gewalt-Hamilton Associates Inc.has no control over the cost of labor,materials,or equipment,or the Contractor's methods of determining prices,or over competitive bidding of market conditions,
opinions of probable costs,as provided for herein,are to be made on the basis of experience and qualifications and represent the best judgement as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.
Gewalt-Hamilton Associates,Inc.,cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or construction costs will not vary from opinions of probable cost prepared for the Owner.
Assumptions:
Payoff Term - in Years 10 15 20
Total Parcels in single SSA 15 15 15
Assessment Equal Per Parcel
Special Tax Roll
No Penalty for prepayment
Interest Rate Assumed1 3.75%3.75%3.75%
Project to be Bonded
Option 1
(10 years)
Option 2
(15 years)
Option 3 -
(20 years)
Wetland Delineation 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$
Design Engineering 35,200$ 35,200$ 35,200$
Construction Costs (curb, storm, pavement patch, restoration)432,300$ 432,300$ 432,300$
Lake Road Resurfacing Costs -$ -$ .
Engineering and Construction Costs 467,500$ 467,500$ 467,500$
Construction Contingency -$ -$ -$
Legal Expenses 4,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$
Easement Acquisition/Recording Fees 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$
Administration Fees 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$
Administration and Legal Expenses 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$
Bond Issuance Expenses 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ $
Project Cost (excl. financing)504,500$ 504,500$ 504,500$
(Subject to minor rounding adjustments for tax roll purposes)
Option 1
(10 years)
Option 2
(15 years)
Option 3 -
(20 years)
Total Project Cost (exc. Financing) $504,500 $504,500 $504,500
Cost per lot (prepaid)33,633$ 33,633$ 33,633$
10-year cost per lot w/ Financing 40,952$ N/A N/A
15-year cost per lot w/ Financing N/A 44,586$ N/A
20-year cost per lot w/ Financing N/A N/A 48,407$
Annual Assessment per lot $4,095 $2,972 $2,420
1 - Interest Rate received for Water Plant (2017) was 2.9495% on a $9.3 million issue
North Lake Road Special Service Area (SSA) - Storm Sewer/Curb & Gutter
Preliminary Cost Analysis
TOTAL LOTS: 15
TOTAL LOTS: 15DRAFT
REVIEW OF THREE INDIVIDUAL RAVINE
PROJECT BIDS
Ravine Projects Bid Review
Ravine Projects Included in the Invitations to Bid
1. Spring Lane / Ferry Hall Bridge Ravine Washout
2. Lake and Woodbine Bridge Drainage Issue
3. Water Plant Ravine
Bid Process
Bid Closing Date Bid Process Bids Received Bidding Firm / Cost
August 23, 2018 All projects combined (project quantities bid together) 1 Misfits Construction
$186,500
October 25, 2018 All projects separated (project quantities separated by project) 0
N/A
REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO
CITY COUNCIL THE HAND SHOVELING BID
FOR MULTIPLE WINTER SEASONS
The City of Lake Forest - Sidewalk Service Bid TabOctober 25, 2018 - 10:00 am PRIMARY (Base Locations)Address Per Push Cost to spread salt Per Push Cost to spread salt Per Push Cost to spread salt Per Push Cost to spread salt1) Rec Center 400 Hastings Rd $ 201.60 $ 139.00 $ 210.00 $ 137.00 $ 475.00 $ 125.00 $ 277.32 $ 100.00 2) Gorton Community Center 400 E Illinois $ 76.16 $ 44.00 $ 140.00 $ 91.00 $ 325.00 $ 100.00 $ 80.00 $ 35.00
3) City Hall 220 E Deerpath $ 88.48 $ 55.00 $ 175.00 $ 114.00 $ 325.00 $ 75.00 $ 96.00 $ 40.00
4) Oakwood & Deerpath Corner 221E Deerpath $ 49.28 $ 44.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 100.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
5) Elawa Farms 1401Middlefork Drive $ 145.60 $ 80.00 $ 245.00 $ 159.00 $ 525.00 $ 75.00 $ 186.00 $ 67.00
6) Grove CulturalCampus(SH)60 E Old Mill Rd $ 275.52 $ 226.00 $ 350.00 $ 228.00 $ 1,275.00 $ 200.00 $ 331.60 $ 150.00
7) Cemetery 1525 Lake Rd $ 72.80 $ 55.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
PRIMARY TOTALS: $ 909.44 $ 643.00 $ 1,552.44 $ 1,225.00 $ 798.00 $ 2,023.00 $ 3,150.00 $ 675.00 $ 3,825.00 $ 1,070.92 $ 452.00 $ 1,522.92
SECONDARY
1) Bank Lane Lot Banks Ln & Illinois(Chase Bank) $ 88.50 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
2) Sidewalk from Pond to Everett Rd Everett & Telegraph $ 88.50 $ 59.00 $ 805.00 $ 523.00 $ 275.00 $ 75.00 $ 95.00 $ 36.00
3) Everett Rec Center 1111 Everett Rec Center $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 53.00 $ 34.00 $ 225.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
4) Triangle Park Off Deerpath (east of McKinley) $ 461.38 $ 274.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 683.00 $ 1,725.00 $ 325.00 $ 650.00 $ 232.00
5) Illinois Bridge Illinois & McKinley $ 88.50 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
6) Woodland Rd Bridge Woodland & McKinley $ 290.28 $ 182.00 $ 140.00 $ 91.00 $ 525.00 $ 125.00 $ 313.00 $ 115.00
7) West Park 850 N Summit Ave $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 88.00 $ 57.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
8) South Park 150 S Maywood Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
9) Northcrofth Park 1365 S Ridge Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 82.00 $ 36.00
10) Waveland Park 600 S Waveland Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 150.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
11) Townline Park 1555 W Kennedy Rd (Rt. 60) $ 140.42 $ 80.00 $ 210.00 $ 137.00 $ 200.00 $ 50.00 $ 123.00 $ 43.00
SECONDARY TOTALS: $ 1,541.08 $ 990.00 $ 2,531.08 $ 2,626.00 $ 1,709.00 $ 4,335.00 $ 3,875.00 $ 925.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 1,563.00 $ 642.00 $ 2,205.00
OVERALL TOTALS: $ 4,083.52 $ 6,358.00 $ 8,625.00 $ 3,727.92
PRIMARY (Base Locations)Address Per Push Cost to
spread salt Per Push Cost to
spread salt Per Push Cost to
spread salt Per Push Cost to
spread salt
1) Rec Center 400 Hastings Rd $ 201.60 $ 139.00 $ 210.00 $ 137.00 $ 475.00 $ 125.00 $ 277.32 $ 100.00
2) Gorton Community Center 400 E Illinois $ 76.16 $ 44.00 $ 140.00 $ 91.00 $ 325.00 $ 100.00 $ 80.00 $ 35.00
3) City Hall 220 E Deerpath $ 88.48 $ 55.00 $ 175.00 $ 114.00 $ 325.00 $ 75.00 $ 96.00 $ 40.00
4) Oakwood & Deerpath Corner 221E Deerpath $ 49.28 $ 44.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 100.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
5) Elawa Farms 1401Middlefork Drive $ 145.60 $ 80.00 $ 245.00 $ 159.00 $ 525.00 $ 75.00 $ 186.00 $ 67.00
6) Grove CulturalCampus(SH)60 E Old Mill Rd $ 275.52 $ 226.00 $ 350.00 $ 228.00 $ 1,275.00 $ 200.00 $ 331.60 $ 150.00
7) Cemetery 1525 Lake Rd $ 72.80 $ 55.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
PRIMARY TOTALS: $ 909.44 $ 643.00 $ 1,552.44 $ 1,225.00 $ 798.00 $ 2,023.00 $ 3,150.00 $ 675.00 $ 3,825.00 $ 1,070.92 $ 452.00 $ 1,522.92
SECONDARY
1) Bank Lane Lot Banks Ln & Illinois(Chase Bank) $ 88.50 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
2) Sidewalk from Pond to Everett Rd Everett & Telegraph $ 88.50 $ 59.00 $ 805.00 $ 523.00 $ 275.00 $ 75.00 $ 95.00 $ 36.00
3) Everett Rec Center 1111 Everett Rec Center $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 53.00 $ 34.00 $ 225.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
4) Triangle Park Off Deerpath (east of McKinley) $ 461.38 $ 274.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 683.00 $ 1,725.00 $ 325.00 $ 650.00 $ 232.00
5) Illinois Bridge Illinois & McKinley $ 88.50 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
6) Woodland Rd Bridge Woodland & McKinley $ 290.28 $ 182.00 $ 140.00 $ 91.00 $ 525.00 $ 125.00 $ 313.00 $ 115.00
7) West Park 850 N Summit Ave $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 88.00 $ 57.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
8) South Park 150 S Maywood Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
9) Northcrofth Park 1365 S Ridge Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 82.00 $ 36.00
10) Waveland Park 600 S Waveland Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 150.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
11) Townline Park 1555 W Kennedy Rd (Rt. 60) $ 140.42 $ 80.00 $ 210.00 $ 137.00 $ 200.00 $ 50.00 $ 123.00 $ 43.00
SECONDARY TOTALS: $ 1,541.08 $ 990.00 $ 2,531.08 $ 2,626.00 $ 1,709.00 $ 4,335.00 $ 3,875.00 $ 925.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 1,563.00 $ 642.00 $ 2,205.00
OVERALL TOTALS: $ 4,083.52 $ 6,358.00 $ 8,625.00 $ 3,727.92
2019 - 2020
2018 - 2019The Service Innovators Snow Systems Proven Snow/Ice Control Kaplan (10:06 am) *
The Service Innovators Snow Systems Proven Snow/Ice Control Kaplan (10:06 am) *
The City of Lake Forest - Sidewalk Service Bid TabOctober 25, 2018 - 10:00 am
PRIMARY (Base Locations)Address Per Push Cost to
spread salt Per Push Cost to
spread salt Per Push Cost to
spread salt Per Push Cost to
spread salt
1) Rec Center 400 Hastings Rd $ 201.60 $ 139.00 $ 210.00 $ 137.00 $ 475.00 $ 125.00 $ 277.32 $ 100.00
2) Gorton Community Center 400 E Illinois $ 76.16 $ 44.00 $ 140.00 $ 91.00 $ 325.00 $ 100.00 $ 80.00 $ 35.00
3) City Hall 220 E Deerpath $ 88.48 $ 55.00 $ 175.00 $ 114.00 $ 325.00 $ 75.00 $ 96.00 $ 40.00
4) Oakwood & Deerpath Corner 221E Deerpath $ 49.28 $ 44.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 100.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
5) Elawa Farms 1401Middlefork Drive $ 145.60 $ 80.00 $ 245.00 $ 159.00 $ 525.00 $ 75.00 $ 186.00 $ 67.00
6) Grove CulturalCampus(SH)60 E Old Mill Rd $ 275.52 $ 226.00 $ 350.00 $ 228.00 $ 1,275.00 $ 200.00 $ 331.60 $ 150.00
7) Cemetery 1525 Lake Rd $ 72.80 $ 55.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
PRIMARY TOTALS: $ 909.44 $ 643.00 $ 1,552.44 $ 1,225.00 $ 798.00 $ 2,023.00 $ 3,150.00 $ 675.00 $ 3,825.00 $ 1,070.92 $ 452.00 $ 1,522.92
SECONDARY
1) Bank Lane Lot Banks Ln & Illinois(Chase Bank) $ 88.50 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
2) Sidewalk from Pond to Everett Rd Everett & Telegraph $ 88.50 $ 59.00 $ 805.00 $ 523.00 $ 275.00 $ 75.00 $ 95.00 $ 36.00
3) Everett Rec Center 1111 Everett Rec Center $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 53.00 $ 34.00 $ 225.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
4) Triangle Park Off Deerpath (east of McKinley) $ 461.38 $ 274.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 683.00 $ 1,725.00 $ 325.00 $ 650.00 $ 232.00
5) Illinois Bridge Illinois & McKinley $ 88.50 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
6) Woodland Rd Bridge Woodland & McKinley $ 290.28 $ 182.00 $ 140.00 $ 91.00 $ 525.00 $ 125.00 $ 313.00 $ 115.00
7) West Park 850 N Summit Ave $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 88.00 $ 57.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
8) South Park 150 S Maywood Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
9) Northcrofth Park 1365 S Ridge Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 82.00 $ 36.00
10) Waveland Park 600 S Waveland Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 150.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00
11) Townline Park 1555 W Kennedy Rd (Rt. 60) $ 140.42 $ 80.00 $ 210.00 $ 137.00 $ 200.00 $ 50.00 $ 123.00 $ 43.00
SECONDARY TOTALS: $ 1,541.08 $ 990.00 $ 2,531.08 $ 2,626.00 $ 1,709.00 $ 4,335.00 $ 3,875.00 $ 925.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 1,563.00 $ 642.00 $ 2,205.00
OVERALL TOTALS: $ 4,083.52 $ 6,358.00 $ 8,625.00 $ 3,727.92
PRIMARY (Base Locations)Address Per Push Cost to Per Push Cost to Per Push Cost to Per Push Cost to
1) Rec Center 400 Hastings Rd $ 201.60 $ 139.00 $ 210.00 $ 137.00 $ 475.00 $ 125.00 $ 290.00 $ 105.00
2) Gorton Community Center 400 E Illinois $ 76.16 $ 44.00 $ 140.00 $ 91.00 $ 325.00 $ 100.00 $ 84.00 $ 37.00
3) City Hall 220 E Deerpath $ 88.48 $ 55.00 $ 175.00 $ 114.00 $ 325.00 $ 75.00 $ 101.00 $ 42.00
4) Oakwood & Deerpath Corner 221E Deerpath $ 49.28 $ 44.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 100.00 $ 50.00 $ 52.50 $ 31.50
5) Elawa Farms 1401Middlefork Drive $ 145.60 $ 80.00 $ 245.00 $ 159.00 $ 525.00 $ 75.00 $ 195.00 $ 70.00
6) Grove CulturalCampus(SH)60 E Old Mill Rd $ 275.52 $ 226.00 $ 350.00 $ 228.00 $ 1,275.00 $ 200.00 $ 348.00 $ 158.00
7) Cemetery 1525 Lake Rd $ 72.80 $ 55.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 52.50 $ 31.50
PRIMARY TOTALS: $ 909.44 $ 643.00 $ 1,552.44 $ 1,225.00 $ 798.00 $ 2,023.00 $ 3,150.00 $ 675.00 $ 3,825.00 $ 1,123.00 $ 475.00 $ 1,598.00
SECONDARY
1) Bank Lane Lot Banks Ln & Illinois(Chase Bank) $ 88.50 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 52.50 $ 31.50
2) Sidewalk from Pond to Everett Rd Everett & Telegraph $ 88.50 $ 59.00 $ 805.00 $ 523.00 $ 275.00 $ 75.00 $ 100.00 $ 38.00
3) Everett Rec Center 1111 Everett Rec Center $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 53.00 $ 34.00 $ 225.00 $ 50.00 $ 52.50 $ 31.50
4) Triangle Park Off Deerpath (east of McKinley) $ 461.38 $ 274.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 683.00 $ 1,725.00 $ 325.00 $ 683.00 $ 244.00
5) Illinois Bridge Illinois & McKinley $ 88.50 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 52.50 $ 31.50
6) Woodland Rd Bridge Woodland & McKinley $ 290.28 $ 182.00 $ 140.00 $ 91.00 $ 525.00 $ 125.00 $ 329.00 $ 120.00
7) West Park 850 N Summit Ave $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 88.00 $ 57.00 $ 125.00 $ 50.00 $ 52.50 $ 31.50
8) South Park 150 S Maywood Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 52.50 $ 31.50
9) Northcrofth Park 1365 S Ridge Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 70.00 $ 46.00 $ 175.00 $ 50.00 $ 86.00 $ 38.00
10) Waveland Park 600 S Waveland Rd $ 76.70 $ 55.00 $ 35.00 $ 23.00 $ 150.00 $ 50.00 $ 52.50 $ 31.50
11) Townline Park 1555 W Kennedy Rd (Rt. 60) $ 140.42 $ 80.00 $ 210.00 $ 137.00 $ 200.00 $ 50.00 $ 130.00 $ 45.00
SECONDARY TOTALS: $ 1,541.08 $ 990.00 $ 2,531.08 $ 2,626.00 $ 1,709.00 $ 4,335.00 $ 3,875.00 $ 925.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 1,643.00 $ 674.00 $ 2,317.00
OVERALL TOTALS: $ 4,083.52 $ 6,358.00 $ 8,625.00 $ 3,915.00
* Please note Kaplan’s bid was turned in and date stamped the day before the bid opening. Staff saw Kaplan’s unsealed bid the morning of the bid opening, contacted Kaplan and notified them that their bid needed to be sealed. Kaplan
immediately drove to MS, placed their bid in an envelope, sealed it, and submitted it at 10:06 a.m.; 6 minutes after the bid the deadline.
The Service Innovators Snow Systems Proven Snow/Ice Control Kaplan (10:06 am) *
2020 - 2021The Service Innovators Snow Systems Proven Snow/Ice Control Kaplan (10:06 am) *
2020 - 2021
REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO
CITY COUNCIL ALL CITY EXPENDITURES
AND CONTRACTOR RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THE WAUKEGAN ROAD SIDEWALK
PROJECT
Waukegan Road Sidewalk Project Overview
Total Cost Summary
Item Description $ Amount – CITY $ Amount – DONOR
Phase I Design $39,880
Phase II Design $22,300
Phase I Construction $199,000
Phase II Construction $211,000
Phase I Concrete $19,355
Phase II Concrete $10,000 (Est.)
Restoration $25,000 (Est.)
TOTAL $116,535 $410,000
Waukegan Road Sidewalk Project Overview
City Council Discussion and Approvals
Topic Date $ Amount
Approval of an agreement with Gewalt-Hamilton to provide engineering design
for the portion (phase I) of the Waukegan Road Sidewalk Replacement project
between Rt. 176 and Middlefork Drive.
March 19, 2018 $39,880 (City)
Approval of an agreement with Gewalt-Hamilton to provide engineering design
services for the remaining portion (phase II) of the Waukegan Road Sidewalk
Replacement Project between Middlefork Drive and Deerpath. Additionally,
Council authorized the City Manager to execute a revised Donor Agreement
between the City and the project donor.
August 6, 2018 $22,300 (City)
Approval to waive the competitive bidding process and authorize phase I
construction of the Waukegan Road Sidewalk Replacement Project to
Performance Paving Ltd. The cost is to be reimbursed by the donor in accordance
with the agreement approved by the City Council on August 6, 2018.
September 4, 2018 $199,000 (Donor)
Future City Council Considerations
Topic $ Amount
Approval to waive the competitive bidding process and authorize phase I construction of the
Waukegan Road Sidewalk Replacement Project to Performance Paving Ltd. The cost is to be
reimbursed by the donor in accordance with the agreement approved by the City Council on
August 6, 2018.
$211,000 (Donor)
Additional City Costs Associated with Project
Item Description $ Amount
Phase 1 concrete (sidewalks, curbs, etc.) $19,355 (3 quotes obtained)
Phase 2 concrete (sidewalks, curbs, etc.) Est. $10,000 ( 3 quotes to be obtained)
Restoration (Top soil, seeding, etc.) Est. $25,000 (in-house)
REVIEW & RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO
CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING THE
RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING AND
FACILITATING THE REPLACEMENT OF LEAD
WATER SERVICES
Consideration of a Resolution to Extend the Encouragement and Facilitation of the
Replacement of Lead Water Services. (Approve by Motion)
PRESENTED BY: Jim Lockefeer, Public Works Management Analyst (810-3542)
PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Council is asked to consider a Resolution to
extend the encouragement and facilitation of the replacement of lead water services.
This is an effort to continue to increase awareness of lead water service lines and to
continue to offer encouragement and support to the owners of properties which have
lead services to remove and replace those services.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In 2016, staff in the Public Works Department
reviewed City files and identified about 300 properties that, based on available
information, may have lead water services. Letters were sent to alert owners of those
properties that lead service may be present and to offer no cost City inspections to
verify whether or not lead services exist. A total of 185 inspections have been
conducted and in some cases, City inspectors found that lead services no longer exist.
In other cases, where lead services were found, some owners expressed interest in
replacing the lead services.
On September 19, 2016, the Public Works Committee directed staff to present a
Resolution for Council consideration in an effort to encourage and facilitate the full
replacement of lead water services, from the point of connection at the water main, to
the connection at the water meter or foundation. The Resolution directs that, for a
period of two years, standard permit fees for the replacement of lead service lines will
be waived. The resolution was approved by City Council at the October 3, 2016 City
Council Meeting. A copy of the Resolution is included in the Council packet beginning
on page__.
On October 30, 2018, the Public Works Committee reviewed the existing resolution.
Since the Resolution was approved by City Council, 11 lead service line replacements
have occurred. In an effort to continue to encourage the replacements of lead service
lines, the Public Works Committee it recommending that the Resolution is approved to
extend the waiving of the standard permit fees for the replacement of lead service lines
for an additional two years.
Importantly, the City’s Water Plant and the water quality are regularly monitored and
consistently meet all IEPA standards. In addition, the City has a corrosion control
program through which lead pipes are coated to reduce the likelihood of exposure to
lead. Nevertheless, the City is working to raise awareness of lead water service lines out
of an abundance of caution.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: No approval for expenditure of City funds is requested. The
proposed two year waiver of permit fees will result in some lost revenues for the City
however, without this program, replacement of lead services may not occur.
Depending on the specific conditions for each property, the waiver of fees for
replacement of a lead water service line ranges from $600 to $1,400.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve a motion in support of a Resolution to continue to
encourage and facilitate the replacement of lead water service lines.
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE THE REPLACEMENT
OF LEAD WATER SERVICE LINESA RESOLUTION TO FACILITATE THE REPLACEMENT
OF LEAD WATER SERVICE LINES
WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest (the “City”) is a home rule special charter
municipality established and existing in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois
of 1970; and
WHEREAS, the City has a long tradition of establishing processes and programs that
protect and promote the health, life safety and general well-being of residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Water Plant and the water quality are regularly monitored and
consistently meet all IEPA standards; and
WHEREAS, in addition to regular monitoring of water quality, the City has a corrosion
control program through which lead pipes are coated to reduce the likelihood of exposure to
lead; and
WHEREAS, out of an abundance of caution, the City recently reviewed property files
and initially identified approximately 300 homes within the city limits which may have lead water
service lines; and
WHEREAS, letters were recently mailed to owners of the identified properties along with
information to help owners make informed decisions about lead water service lines; and
WHEREAS, a total of 185 inspections have been conducted and in some cases, City
inspectors found that lead services no longer exist; in other cases, where lead services were
found, some owners expressed interest in replacing the lead services;
WHEREAS, the City desires to facilitate the process of replacing lead service lines in
cases where property owners choose to do so by providing information, a streamlined process
and by waiving standard permit fees;
WHEREAS, a total of 11 residential lead service line replacements have occurred since
City Council approved the October 2016 Resolution to Facilitate the Replacement of Lead Water
Service Lines;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and
its residents to continue a programimplement a program to support and encourage the
replacement of lead water service lines;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, as follows:
SECTION ONE: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated in, and made a
part of, this Resolution by this reference as findings of the City Council of The City of Lake
Forest.
SECTION TWO: DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF. The staff is directed to develop a lead
water service replacement program generally in conformance with the following:
a. A replacement water service line that is the same size as the existing service line shall
be permitted as long as the calculations, based on the number of fixtures, demonstrate
that the service is adequate. (Some homes that currently have a ¾ inch service could
require an upgrade to a 1” service per the State of Illinois Plumbing Code.)
b. If an upgrade in the size of a water service is required to meet the minimum standard in
the State Plumbing Code, the City will not require an upgrade in the meter size.
c. If the owner chooses to upgrade the size of the water service, in a situation where it is
not mandated by the State Plumbing Code, the water meter must be upgraded to be
consistent with the size of the new line.
d. Tap fees (even if the size of the service is upgraded), inspection fees and street opening
permit will be waived for a period of two years from the date of passage of this
Resolution so long as full replacement of the water service occurs. (Based on current
fees, the fee waiver per household would range from $600 to $1,400 depending on the
size of the service line.)
e. The cost of a new water meter will be the obligation of the property owner.
SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect
upon the passage and approval.
PASSED THIS DAY OF , 20162018.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 20162018.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk