PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 2016/02/16 PacketPUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2016 – 5:00 P.M.
CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBER’S CONFERENCE ROOM
AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER
Cathy Waldeck, Chairman
Stanford Tack
Michelle Moreno
Timothy Newman
II. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 27, 2016 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
III. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A DRAFT STORMWATER POLICY – MICHAEL THOMAS
IV. REVIEW OF GAS LIGHT REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE POLICY – JIM LOCKFEER
V. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF F.Y. 2017 STREET IMS PROPOSAL – BOB ELLS
VI. UPDATE ON WEST SIDE TRAIN STATION UNDERPASS - BOB ELLS
VII. TENTATIVE NEXT MEETING – MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2016 – 5:00 P.M. AT CITY HALL
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2016 – 6:00 P.M.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING – TRAINING ROOM
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Cathy Waldeck called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Aldermen
Stanford Tack and Michelle Moreno were present.
Not in Attendance: Timothy Newman
Staff in attendance included Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works; Bob Kiely,
City Manager; Bob Ells, Superintendent of Engineering; Dan Martin,
Superintendent of Public Works; John Gulledge, Water & Sewer Utilities Supervisor;
Charlie Douglas, Water Plant Operator; Eileen Specht, Management Analyst;
and Becky Pocasangre, Administrative Assistant.
Also in attendance was Dan Strahan, GeWalt Hamilton; Brain Hackman, Strand
Associates; Mark Phipps, Baxter & Woodman; and members of the public Charlie
Kohlmeyer.
II. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 16, 2015 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Chairman Waldeck moved to approve the November 16, 2015 Public Works
Committee meeting minutes. Alderman Tack seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
III. REQUEST TO USE NON-BUDGETED DOLLARS TO REPAIR PORTIONS OF THE COMPOST
CENTER’S ASPHALTED FRONT DROP-OFF AREA
Director Thomas stated the Western Golf stored the equipment for the BMW Golf
Tournament at the Compost Center and paid a monthly fee for their usage. City
staff is requesting approval to use the non-budgeted funds to make basic
repairs. Staff will only do repairs within the $16,000 amount that was paid to the
City. Chairman Waldeck asked if it made sense to do basic repairs rather than
making all the repairs at once. Director Thomas replied that the cost to resurface
the entire Compost Center would be $80,000 and the hope is to use Capital
Funds in the future to make those repairs. For now staff is requesting to use the
funds available to make basic repairs.
Alderman Tack moved to approve the use of non-budgeted dollars to repair
portions of the Compost Center Front Drop-off Area. Chairman Waldeck
seconded the motion.
IV. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE F.Y. ’18 WEST FORK &
HACKBERRY STORM SEWER PROJECT
Bob Ells, Superintendent of Engineering stated staff is requesting to enter into a
design contract with Baxter & Woodman to perform Engineering services for the
West Fork & Hackberry storm sewer project. In 2000, Baxter & Woodman
performed a City wide storm sewer analysis for the City which resulted in seven
storm sewer projects including South Whispering Oaks and Northmoor. In 2014,
the City contracted Baxter & Woodman to once again complete a model of the
City outlining various flooding problem areas. The City requested that a dozen
areas be studied where flooding had been an issue. Working with the City,
Baxter & Woodman was able to come up with a list of potential projects areas.
Mr. Ells noted that there is $1.5 million dollars in the F.Y. ’18 CIP budget for the first
storm sewer project to be located in West Lake Forest.
Mark Phipps, Baxter & Woodman presented a map outlining the existing
drainage on West Fork and Hackberry. The areas in yellow were outlined as
existing flooding problem areas and are going to be the target areas for
improvement. Mr. Phipps stated that there is an area were the storm sewer pipe
bottle necks in the system. He noted that there is an18 inch diameter sewer pipe
on Bowling Green that drains into 15 inch sewer pipe that then drains into a 6
inch sewer pipe, which causes the system to surcharge during heavy rain events.
Conventionally sewer pipe gets larger in the direction the water drains. Mr.
Phipps stated that this area in question is considered a 2- year storm area.
Storms are classified based on the depth of rainfall and duration of the storm. He
noted that statistically a 100-year storm has a 1% chance of occurring in any
given year, whereas a 10-year storm has a 10% chance of occurring in any given
year. Mr. Phipps added that it may seem that 100-year storms are occurring
more often. He stated that it is possible that over the last 10 years, 100-year
storms are happening more often based on the 60 years of data collected; in
addition, he noted that data reporting has changed as well. Mr. Phipps noted
that what is being proposed for this area is a larger pipe for 10- year storm events
with a 100 year storm overlay. This will raise the capacity to that what is noted in
Lake Country’s watershed development ordinance for a 10-year storm event.
Alderman Tack asked why the City would want to increase storm sewer at one
end but potentially cause more flooding issues in other areas. Mr. Phipps stated
that the Tollway right-of-way may see more water in a shorter period of time. Mr.
Ells stated that during a 100-year event, there is greater chance that minimal
flooding would not occur. City Manager Kiely asked what the limitations for the
amount of water the City can dump on the tollway. Mr. Phipps stated that
increasing the flow rate should minimally increase the amount of water from
north and south. Alderman Tack added that the water goes under the tollway
not on the actual road.
Alderman Moreno commented that a resident south of Ranch Road has
contacted her about a flooding issue. Alderman Moreno asked how this project
will affect residents on and around Ranch Road. Mr. Phipps stated that the
proposed project does not increase the size of the storm sewer pipe in that area
but the residents on Ranch Road would benefit from a larger pipe on Bowling
Green. Alderman Moreno stated that the storm sewer on Ranch Road needs
Public Works Committee Meeting – January 27, 2016
Page 3 of 6
attention. She asked if that area could be looked as well. Director Thomas
stated that the City spent a lot of time rodding and jetting those areas last
summer and next fiscal year the City will be lining the sewers in the northern
2/3rds of the area. Director Thomas added that the $100,000 budgeted for storm
sewer lining will not eliminate water running through residents’ backyards but
sewer lining and this storm sewer project should help with the flooding.
Alderman Moreno stated that she felt that the City needs to improve the flow of
water on Ranch Road and that in her opinion, this project will not help. Director
Thomas asked Mr. Phipps what the cost would be to add Ranch Road to the
proposal. Mr. Phipps stated it could be around $60,000 to add improvements to
that area. City Manager Kiely stated that when presenting this proposal to
Council there need to be an exact definition of what this project will do and
won’t do. He agrees with looking into making improvements to Ranch Road but
he needs to be convinced that this area is in need of immediate attention.
Chairman Waldeck stated that there are five homes on Ranch Road and it’s
difficult to do a project when there are a few people that experience worse
flooding. She added that there is a difference between flooding in homes and
flooding in yards and roads. Alderman Moreno stated that the flooding on
Ranch Road is so bad it’s a safety hazard. The roads and yards are severely
flooded and become impassable. She added that the residents most affected
by the flooding on Ranch Road are the residents that live on Wilson Drive. City
Manager Kiely asked why the modeling system didn’t pick up the area on Ranch
Road. Mr. Phipps stated that the pipes were a smaller size than what was
originally defined in the scope of services for the study so they were not included
in the model. He stated that if the City moves forward with the design that area
can be added to the model. Alderman Moreno stated that she also believes
that people are planting where the water should be draining. Mr. Ells stated that
the City has worked with residents on Wilson and landscaping has been altered.
There is an inlet that was installed last summer to get the water out of the area
which has improved conditions in that area. Alderman Moreno asked if there is
a culvert on Ranch Road. Mr. Ells replied that there is a culvert along Ranch
Road. Alderman Moreno stated that she believes the culvert is what makes the
issue worse because the pipe can’t handle the flow. City Manager Kiely stated
that the culvert acts as storage for the water. He added that the City can’t get
a big enough pipe in that area to reduce flooding. Alderman Tack asked if the
6- 8 inch pipes were installed by the City. Director Thomas replied that the City
easement was put in a long time ago before there were homes.
Alderman Tack asked if Baxter & Woodman would include Ranch in the model.
Mr. Phipps replied that it would be a simple thing to add to the model.
Alderman Moreno asked why the storm data in the packet has 1989 referenced
data. Mr. Phipps replied that it was the most current 60 years of data available.
Mr. Ells stated that part of the request is to obtain advanced funding for the
design so that Baxter & Woodman could complete a design and provide a
much better cost estimate by capital planning time next fall. Alderman Moreno
stated that the southeast area on Forest Hill is another area where there is a lot of
flooding. Director Thomas stated that there are thirteen areas that have been
Public Works Committee Meeting – January 27, 2016
Page 4 of 6
evaluated. The study notes that the next storm sewer project would be on
Telegraph. However he added that there are a lot of residents on Forest Hill that
are upset about the flooding in that area and have written and called their
Aldermen as well (similar to the West Fork / Hackberry area).
Alderman Tack moved to approve the request for approval for design services
for the F.Y.’18 West Fork & Hackberry Storm Sewer Project. Alderman Moreno
seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.
V. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR CITY ENGINEER SERVICES FOR F.Y.’17-F.Y. ’19
Bob Ells, Superintendent of Engineering stated that the Engineering Section is
requesting three year extension with Gewalt Hamilton to provide engineering
services. Mr. Ells stated that GeWalt Hamilton has performed very well for the
City over the past three years so staff would recommend continuing the
agreement. Director Thomas stated that the “Look Back Audit: that was
provided at a March budget meeting last year the City is saving approximately
$20,000 using an outside engineering firm compared to what the City paid with
an in-house City Engineer. Director Thomas added that the City only brings
GeWalt Hamilton in when needed, typically only once a week unless there is a
specific project that is being worked on.
Mr. Ells stated that the contract with GeWalt Hamilton expires April 1, 2016. Staff
is requesting the RFP process be waived and the City continues working with
GeWalt Hamilton. Chairman Waldeck asked if the pricing for Dan Strahan’s
services have change. Mr. Ells stated that there is not increase for the first two
years and then there is a 2.5% in the third year.
Alderman Tack moved to approve the request for City Engineer Services for
FY.’17 – F.Y.’19. Chairman Waldeck seconded the motion. The motion was
approved unanimously.
VI. REQUEST FOR THE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE
FOLLOWING WATER PLANT PROJECT
Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works stated that staff received competitive
bids from three companies that were narrowed down to by the Committee.
Brain Hackman with Strand Associates stated that the objective for is the
evening’s meeting was for the Committee to make a recommendation to the
City Council on the membrane system selection, the plant size, and authorization
to commence design. Mr. Hackman gave an overview of the project timeline
from January 2014, including the discussion of privatization. He presented a
summary of the bids from the three vendors. In August 2015 City Council
approved proceeding with the design of a14 MGD Plant; with the alternate
option of an 11 MGD Plant Capacity, as well as continuing ownership and
Operation of the Water Plant by the City. He added that the City may need
assistance from Highland Park or JAWA during construction; that he noted will be
evaluated further during the design phase. Mr. Hackman stated that there is a
Public Works Committee Meeting – January 27, 2016
Page 5 of 6
cost savings as compared to the engineer’s estimate due to the reduction of
membrane equipment pricing. Chairman Waldeck asked if the module costs
could go back up again. Mr. Hackman stated that the 3% increase of costs for
the modules have been included. Mr. Hackman added that the award
recommendation is based on comparison of cost, conformance to bidding
documents, references, and similar projects. He added that the highest total
points were given to GE. There is a $75,000 overall cost difference between GE
and Evoqua. John Gulledge stated that staff received the most glowing
responses from other costumers of GE membranes. In response to City Manager
Kiely’s question about Pall’s experience on the Great Lake, Mr. Hackman stated
that Pall has cold water experience in Pennsylvania but does not have any on
the Great Lakes. City Manager Kiely suggested that Mr. Hackman provide a
chart showing GE experience with Lake Michigan/ Great Lakes. Chairman
Waldeck also suggested Mr. Hackman provides a better clarification of the term
“Applicable Similar Projects”. Director Thomas added that Mr. Gulledge and
Charlie Douglas found other water plants not listed as references and called
them as well. Mr. Gulledge stated that GE has a Water Plant in Tennessee with
same module system as Lake Forest and is very pleased. Chairman Waldeck
asked if staff has looked at other plants that are closest to what we are getting.
Mr. Gulledge stated that the plants with GE that are the closest are all very
satisfied with their plant performance.
Mr. Hackman stated that he is recommending GE for award based on
evaluation and outside feedback. GE has been in the business since1990 and
they stand behind their product. He added that he has worked with both
Evoqua and GE and they are both very good at trouble shooting as problems
occur. Chairman Waldeck asked where the membranes are made. Mr.
Hackman replied that GE has their membranes made in Hungary. They are then
sent to their warehouse in Toronto, Canada and distributed from there. Evoqua
has their membranes made in Australia and distributed from Colorado.
Chairman Waldeck asked if there is a list of Great Lake Water Plants that use GE
and if there is an opportunity for joint purchases. Mr. Hackman replied that that
is a possibility and that the City could look into the chemicals used and possibly
doing a purchase agreement with other communities that use the same
chemicals and / or modules.
City Manager Kiely stated that he recommends going to 14 MGD capacity. He
noted that there has been talk about building a well at the Golf Course and
although it doesn’t make sense to have treated water at the Golf Course, the
City might be able to provide water at a lesser rate over time than what a well
would cost Chairman Waldeck added that the City could sell water to
Highwood and other smaller communities during peak periods. City Manager
Kiely stated that the City should look at interconnection between the City and
Lake Bluff. Director Thomas stated that Lake Bluff has an average day demand
of half a million gallons per day. He added that Lake Bluff might come to the
City before renewing their contract with JAWA in about 15 years.
Chairman Waldeck asked if this proposal goes through does that shut the door
on questions about privation. City Manager Kiely stated that is correct. City
Public Works Committee Meeting – January 27, 2016
Page 6 of 6
Manager Kiely asked staff if the City is good on timing of this project knowing the
current system is aging. Mr. Hackman replied that the project is moving at the
correct pace to replace system but there is the ability to speed up the process if
necessary. Director Thomas stated that he spoke to Alderman Neumann and he
was supportive of the recommendations. Alderman Moreno asked if the issues in
Flint, Michigan with the lead in that water could happen to Lake Forest. Director
Thomas replied that the City feeds phosphate into the water supply to coat the
inside of any lead service lines to residents’ homes. Mr. Douglas added that
every three years the City, per IEPA rules and regulations, tests the same homes
for lead levels and the lead levels have dropped due to the phosphate that is
used to coat the inside of the pipes. Mr. Gulledge added that the City does not
have any lead water mains in town.
Director Thomas stated if the Committee recommends approval of utilizing the
GE membrane system, Strand Associates will begin design immediately and the
project will be placed out for bid in February, 2017. In May, Director Thomas will
bring the GE procurement contract to City Council for approval. GE will work
with Strand Associates on both the design and piloting phase of the project.
Director Thomas stated that the separate capital plan items listed in the C.I.P. will
be incorporated into the design. He noted also that the City received the
approval from the IEPA on the water plant study and the request to change the
membrane system.
The Committee unanimously approved the request for the recommendation to
City Council for the Water Plant Project.
VII. NEXT MEETING –PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING – TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16,
2016 – 5:00 P.M. AT CITY HALL
Mr. Thomas noted that at the next Public Works meeting, The Committee will
review a proposed gas light policy, the storm water policy, and a proposal for
the IMS Pavement Study (evaluation of City streets) to be performed this
upcoming summer.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Waldeck moved to adjourn the meeting of the Public Works
Committee at 7:46 p.m. Alderman Moreno seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Pocasangre
Administrative Assistant
1
DRAFT
Stormwater Management Policy
The City of Lake Forest
I. Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to address home and property drainage issues relating to stormwater within
The City of Lake Forest. This policy provides procedures for conducting inspections and maintenance
relating to stormwater concerns raised by property owners. The City of Lake Forest provides assistance
to property owners during a rainfall event by investigating the source of the flooding. In all cases, the
private property owner is responsible for maintaining any private drainage system located on their
property and solving any subsequent localized drainage problems. This policy describes the procedure
for the request, evaluation, and inspection of stormwater drainage issues on both public and private
properties within City limits.
The Stormwater Management Policy (SMP hereafter) guides the City’s attempt to control the
transportation or movement of stormwater in order to reduce damage to property and protect the
public health, safety, and general welfare. The policy also assists in identifying projects, programs, and
initiatives that will reduce flooding conditions within the City by the most cost effective means and at
the appropriate level of protection.
II. Introduction
Stormwater drainage improvements frequently involve flood control measures, such as storm sewer
pipe and storm drainage structures. Response to potential flooding issues are initiated by property
owners and completed by the procedure described in this policy.
The procedure includes the following steps:
Submission of a letter documenting the flooding issue
Evaluate sanitary and stormwater sewers by City staff
Inspection (if desired and paid for by the property owner with the concern) by a qualified
engineering and/or plumbing firm.
The City of Lake Forest is responsible for the analysis and evaluation of flooding issues on public
property. If flooding is a result of insufficient or failing City infrastructure, improvements and repairs
shall be funded by the City. If flooding on private property is determined by City staff not to be a result
of insufficient or failing City infrastructure, private property owners are responsible for funding their
own improvements. Per the City’s Rainfall Emergency Plan, prioritized response to stormwater issues
are as follows:
1. Keep basements clear of sanitary sewage due to a back-up / plug in the City-owned sanitary
sewer system.
2
2. Keep streets open during heavy rainfall events for the safe passage of vehicles.
3. Encourage residents to maintain established overland drainage routes through their property.
III. Applicability
This policy applies to stormwater issues, abutting or affecting all residential, commercial, open space,
and public property within the City.
IV. Objectives
A. Enforcement of City-wide uniform minimum stormwater regulations as set forth by the Lake
County Watershed Development Ordinance
http://www.lakecountyil.gov/Stormwater/FloodplainStormwaterRegulations/WDOandTRM/Pag
es/WatershedDevelopmentOrdinance.aspx
B. Outline City and landowner stormwater expectations.
C. Be in compliance with all applicable Local, State and Federal Laws.
D. Promote responsible land use practices within floodways, wetlands, and floodplains.
E. Control erosion and sedimentation in and from drainage, developments, and constructions sites.
F. Encourage new development to meet the natural topography of the site.
G. Preserve the natural profile of ravines and prevent soil erosion.
H. Promote awareness and understanding of stormwater management issues by residents through
public information and educational programs.
V. Policies
A. Storm Water Drainage Capital Projects List
The Department of Public Works shall maintain a prioritized Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) of
proposed public stormwater drainage projects. Proposed projects may be added to the list by
the procedure described in this policy.
B. Procedures for Having Stormwater Issues Evaluated
1. Residents who have stormwater concerns in their yard or basement shall call or submit
a letter to City staff describing the problem in detail.
2. A site visit will be performed by City staff in order to give a diagnosis of the stormwater
issue and recommendation of next steps. City staff will determine if the flooding is
3
caused by an issue with the City’s infrastructure (storm and / or sanitary sewers) or a
private property owner’s infrastructure. If the cause of flooding is determined to be a
City infrastructure problem, the City is responsible for any short term repairs in a timely
manner. If the cause of flooding is determined to be a property owner problem, such as
a failed sump pump or altered landscaping, the property owner is responsible for the
repairs. City staff typically responds to notification of a basement flooding within 24
hours and private yard flooding events within three days.
3. If it is determined that the property owner is responsible for correcting the flooding
concern, the property owner may decide to pursue an evaluation by an engineering or
plumbing firm. Such an evaluation may be completed by a qualified engineering and / or
plumbing firm. See Appendix A for a list of engineering and plumbing firms that have
submitted to the City a pre-determined cost for an evaluation.
4. If a property owner is not satisfied with the conclusions and recommended actions
contained within an evaluation report, the City’s Engineer will review the report(s). The
report will then be forwarded with a recommendation by the Director of Public Works
and / or the City Engineer to the Public Works Committee for their review. The
Committee will make the final determination on how to proceed and direct City staff
whether to take further action.
C. Placement of a Storm Water Drainage Project on the City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement
Plan
Upon recommendation by the Director of Public Works and / or the City Engineer and
subsequent approval by the Public Works Committee, a storm water project may be placed in
the City’s five –year capital improvement plan subject to final approval by City Council.
D. Public Project Approval and Funding
The Director of Public Works may recommend and the City Manager may approve public storm
water projects under $20,000. Such projects may be constructed by City staff or contracted to
local underground contractors. All other projects over $20,000 must be approved by the City
Council before implementation. For projects requiring City Council approval, the results of the
preliminary engineering study will be forwarded to the City Council, along with a staff
recommendation regarding project approval, funding, and scheduling. Projects may be
approved by appropriating funds during the annual budget process or by the City Council at
other times throughout the year. The City Council will be provided with and will review the
current project list on an annual basis at their November capital budget meeting. The City
Council will ultimately decide which capital projects (storm water and non-storm water) are
considered priority for the upcoming fiscal year.
4
VI. Illinois Drainage Law Guidelines for Residents
The basic principle of the Illinois drainage law is that landowners must take whatever advantages or
inconveniences of drainage, nature places upon their land. One of the most important principles of the
Illinois drainage law is that owners cannot alter drainage and that owners of lower ground must receive
surface water that naturally flows onto it from higher ground. Where the natural flow is from one tract
across another tract, the higher land is the dominant tenement, and the lower land is the servient
tenement. Owners of dominant tenements have legal rights to have water drain off their lands. Owners
of servient tenements have the duty of not obstructing the natural flow.
A landowner has no right to obstruct the flow of surface water. Under Illinois law, the owner of lower
land has no right to build a dam, levee, or other artificial structure that will interfere with the drainage
of higher land. In fact, the willful and intentional interference by an owner of lower land is considered a
petty offense and is punishable by a fine. This is in addition to private lawsuits that the owners of
affected properties may file. Under the Illinois drainage law, private landowners have certain rights to
improve the drainage on their land. They may:
Widen, deepen, and clean natural depressions that carry surface water.
Straighten out channels on their own property and accelerate the movement of surface water
so long as they do not change the natural point of entry or unreasonably increase the flow of
water onto lower land.
Drain standing or ponding water in the direction of overflow.
Tile their property to expedite the flow of water so long as they do not unreasonably increase
the flow, change the point of entry on lower land, bring water from another watershed, or
connect their tile to the tile of other owners without their consent.
Expedite the flow of surface waters through natural lines of drainage into a watercourse or
stream.
All of the above possible improvements noted above require plan review and approval by The City of
Lake Forest’s Engineering Section.
Because of the effect on surrounding lands, landowners must not:
Dam or obstruct a natural drainage channel so that the escape of surface water from higher land
is retarded or the channel is shifted.
Divert water to lands that do not naturally receive this drainage.
Change the point of entry of surface water on lower land.
Bring in water from another watershed that would not have flowed across lower land naturally.
Pollute any waters that pass from their land through the property of others - whether surface or
underground water, streams, or diffused waters.
Connect their own tile with another owner's tile lines or with roadway tile lines without consent.
Accelerate the flow of water unreasonably, or with malicious intent, to the material damage of
lower land owned by others, even though the flow is accelerated through natural channels.
5
The City of Lake Forest and other public agencies have constructed storm water facilities that are
designed to expedite the drainage of storm water, but not to eliminate all flooding. Other ways, per the
Illinois Drainage Law, to eliminate or minimize flooding on a lot may be found in the attached link:
Illinois Drainage Law: http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=869&ChapterID=15
There are instances where yards are designed to carry stormwater runoff overland towards a nearby
structure, stream, or creek. Also, if a piece of property is within a floodplain, it is at risk of flooding if the
stream overflows during prolonged rainfall or rapid snowmelt. A high water table may also contribute to
wet basements.
To deal with wet basements, the City recommends checking the building’s gutters and downspouts.
Downspout water should be directed away from the building; preferably towards the front and rear of
the lot or towards the nearest storm sewer structure if one is available. City staff also recommends
consulting a professional drainage consultant about re-grading around the foundation of any building so
as to direct water away. The property owner’s consultant may also propose swales along the property
lines to convey water to the desired location. The property owner may also consider installing a catch
basin or yard drain at the low point on the lot and conveying storm water out towards the right-of-way,
drainage easement, or storm sewer. The property owner’s consultant must submit an engineered
proposal to the Engineering Section for approval before this work can be done. The proposal should
include sufficient grading information to clearly and accurately show drainage on the lot before and
after the proposed work is done. If any drains or conveyance pipes are to be installed, the consultant
should include the sizes and materials of such items as well as rim and invert elevations for any and all
structures to be installed.
Finally, property owners are reminded that re-grading and/or landscaping within a drainage easement is
not allowed. Any exceptions to this must be approved by the City’s Engineering Section. Permanent
structures (i.e. sheds) are also not allowed within drainage easements, or any structure (i.e. wall, fence)
that will disrupt or otherwise block the natural or designed flow of water through the easement.
VII. Stormwater Management Program
A. Public Education
1. Provide stormwater information on the City’s website.
2. Utilize the City’s quarterly “Dialogue!” publication.
3. Encourage environmental best practices such as rain gardens and rain barrels.
B. Annual Public Property Maintenance Performed by the City
1. Sanitary Sewer lateral cleaning.
2. Sewer lining and rehabilitation.
C. Capital Improvements
1. Storm Sewer system studies.
6
2. Storm water projects as recommended by the Public Works Committee and approved
by the City Council
D. Require Best Management Practices through Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance
Periodic review of the City’s:
1. Zoning ordinance .
2. City Code.
3. Continued compliance with the City’s NPDES program as required by the IEPA.
4. Maintain status as a Lake County Certified Community under the Lake County
Watershed Development Ordinance.
E. Potential Future Funding Sources
1. Stormwater sewer fee.
2. Stormwater management fee.
7
Appendix A
The City of Lake Forest
Recommended Basement and Exterior Flooding Firms
In an effort to help residents protect their homes against flooding, the following engineering and
plumbing firms are able to provide such inspection services at the cost to the property owner outlined
below:
Basement Flooding Assessment
Firm Address Phone Assessment Cost Hourly Rate to
Clean Sewer*
*If the sewer lateral is dirty, it may not be possible to televise until it is cleaned (rodded).
Exterior Flooding Assessment
Firm Address Phone Assessment Cost Assessment
Report
Please note that the City is not the purchaser of the services noted above and the decision to use any of the firms
listed is that of the property owner and not the City. The decision whether to use any of the firms listed above or
any other commercial service is completely decided upon by the property owner. Residents wishing to use the
firms listed above must deal with the company directly. The City is not responsible for the services provided by any
of the firms listed above.
1
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Members of the Public Works Committee
FROM: Jim Lockefeer, Management Intern
DATE: February 11, 2016
SUBJECT: Gas Light Removal Policy
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to establish a policy for permanent removal of The City of Lake Forest’s
gas street lights.
BACKGROUND
Currently there are 431 gas street lights in the City. To date, The City of Lake Forest does not have a formal
written policy in place in regards to removing gas street lights if they are damaged beyond repair. The Public
Works Department has used an unwritten, informal removal procedure. This procedure is as follows:
“If a gas light has been struck in a hit and run instance (no insurance to over damages) and is beyond repair,
the gas light will be removed and the gas line will be capped by North Shore Gas (free of charge). However, if
a gas street light is struck in a hit and run and is in a historic district, The City of Lake Forest will pay to have
a new gas street light installed. The City has also removed and capped gas street lights when a light is
electrified and when a construction project forces the removal of a street light.”
The cost of replacing a gas street light in its entirety is approximately $2,096 (this includes the cost of
materials and labor).
CITY GAS STREET LIGHT REMOVALS
Reason for Removal Total Gas Street Lights Removed
Hit and Run Accident 6 Lights
Replaced with Electric 2 Lights
Construction 3 Lights
11 Gas Street Lights Removed
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Public Works Committee formally adopt a standard operating guideline (see
attached) that explains the procedure the Public Works Department should use to remove a gas street light.
Establishing a standard operating guideline will give City Staff an official policy that can be referred back to
when a resident calls in regards to why a street light was removed.
LAKE FOREST
STREETS DEPARTMENT
STANDARD OPERATING
GUIDELINE
Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works
Dan Martin, Superintendent of Public Works
Issued: 2/12/2016
Reviewed: 2/15/2016
Approved:
Streets Title: Gas Street Light Removal
SCOPE
To provide guidelines for the removal of gas street lights within the City of Lake Forest.
POLICY
It shall be the policy of the City of Lake Forest to remove a City owned gas street light if the below
conditions are met. All and any removal proposals are to be approved or declined by the City of Lake
Forest’s Director of Public Works. If approved the gas light will be removed by the Public Works Street
Department and the gas line is to be capped by North Shore Gas free of charge.
CONDITIONS
A gas street light is subject for removal if any of the following conditions are met:
1. If a light has been damaged beyond repair in hit and run accident and the cost of replacing the
light falls solely on the City of Lake Forest. However, if this instance occurs in a historic district,
the gas light will be replaced by the City.
2. If a light is in a project/construction area and the light must be removed in order to comply with
any project/construction plans.
3. If the light is going to be electrified.
EXCEPTION
If a gas street light is to be removed a Lake Forest property owner has the option to retain the light if
they agree to pay for the cost of the new light and connect the gas line to their individual property. The
property owner would be invoiced by the City’s Finance Department.
SUBJECT: Approval of IMS Pavement Management Study for FY 2017
PRESENTED BY: Robert Ells, Superintendent of Engineering (810-3555)
PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Award of a contract to Infrastructure Management
Services (IMS) to perform a structural analysis on the City’s entire network of streets.
PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Reviewed Date Comments
Public Works Committee 2/16/2016
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 1991, The City of Lake Forest began a comprehensive
Pavement Management Program which was a much needed resource used to make
sound decisions in choosing streets to be rehabilitated under the Annual Pavement
Resurfacing Program. The Pavement Management Program involved performing a
structural analysis on the City’s entire street system and then using this information to
predict the rate of deterioration of each specific pavement section contained within all
of streets in the City. This information is useful in that it determines the most optimal time,
both financially and operationally, to rehabilitate a specific street. Additionally, the
program evaluates multiple rehabilitation alternatives. The City performs this study
every three years.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT:
Below is an estimated summary of Project budget:
FY2017 Funding Source Amount
Budgeted
Amount
Requested
Budgeted?
Y/N
Capital Funds $72,000.00 $56,939.00 Y
If awarded, the project would commence in May, 2016 and be completed by October
1, 2016. This will allow staff to incorporate the updated pavement analysis ratings into
the FY 2018 Capital Improvement Program.
COUNCIL ACTION: Award of a contract to IMS to perform a structural analysis on the
City’s entire network of streets for a not-to-exceed amount of $56,939.00.
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Lake Forest 2016 Update Rev1.docx Page 1 of 9
IMS Infrastructure Management Services
1775 Winnetka Circle, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Phone: (847) 506-1500 Fax: (847) 255-2938
www.ims-rst.com
February 11, 2016
City of Lake Forest
800 North Field Drive
Lake Forest, IL 60045
Attention: Jim Koblas, Engineering Assistant
Reference: 2016 Pavement Management Update
Dear Mr. Koblas:
IMS Infrastructure Management Services is pleased to submit our proposal to update the City’s pavement
management program. The project will include testing the City’s entire street system. Network level testing
using block-to-block referencing will be performed on approximately 142 test miles of pavement designated
by the City. The field investigation will include a Laser RST surface condition survey, Dynaflect-based
deflection testing, GPS referencing and a review of environmental and external factors. Digital images will
be provided at 25’ intervals. IMS will install the current version of the PavePRO Manager software with the
updated field data. The pavement management software will be linked to the City’s GIS and City staff will
be trained in software operation and data interpretation.
IMS can also conduct an optional ROW asset survey to inventory and assess multiple ROW assets such as
pavement markings or a sign inventory. The sign inventory can include a retroreflectivity survey to meet the
MUTCD requirements. IMS can retain the GPS referenced digital video so that the City can have the
option of extracting ROW assets in the future without incurring the additional expense of re-driving the
streets.
The proposed update will ensure that the City’s pavement management program is complete and accurately
reflects current conditions. It will also provide information on the benefits of the rehabilitation strategies
used by the City. This street information along with optional ROW data collected by IMS and/or City staff
can be used to meet many of the reporting requirements of the GASB 34 “modified approach”.
A description of the elements of the proposed update program with corresponding cost summary is set forth
on the following pages. Pricing is based on the schedule submitted by IMS to the Northeast Illinois
Partnering Contract (a consortium of North and Northwest Chicago municipalities).
We look forward to our continued work with the City of Lake Forest. If you have any questions regarding
this proposal or new IMS services, please feel free to contact our office. We are available to make a
presentation of our pavement or ROW asset services to you and/or other City departments upon request.
Very truly yours,
IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Donald L. Hardt
Manager of Client Services
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Lake Forest 2016 Update Rev1.docx Page 2 of 9
PAVEMENT UPDATE & ASSET MANAGEMENT PROJECT APPROACH
1. Surface Condition Survey
Surveys are completed using the Road Surface
Tester (RST). The City will receive a continuous,
objective, and accurate survey of the surface
condition of the street network. Retests will be
performed using previous sectioning wherever
possible. These network-level surveys with
intersection-to-intersection test sections will be
linked to the City’s GIS. The RST provides a great
deal of flexibility and can easily adjust test section
lengths to meet previously established test sections and/or any revised City goals. Single-direction testing
will be performed on the two-lane streets. Two-direction testing will be used on divided streets and arterials
and collectors with four or more lanes of traffic. The surface condition survey is conducted continuously
over the entire length of the test section and is not based on sample sections. The information gathered in
this survey includes inventory, roughness, rut depth, cracking, texture and distress. The effects of
environmental conditions will be considered in conjunction with the surface condition survey.
To provide the City with a ROW asset data collection option, IMS will collect continuous digital video during
the surface condition survey. The RST combines an inertial navigation guidance system with GPS to geo-
locate visible pavement and ROW features. The simultaneous pavement and ROW asset data collection
capability of the RST is unique in the industry. It provides an efficient and cost-effective means to populate
both pavement and asset management systems.
The presence of any failed or broken concrete slabs within a test section will be recorded for further detailed
identification during the deflection survey. The number of failed slabs will be recorded during the deflection
survey and used by PavePRO Manager software to give the City an option to address individual slab
removal and replacement as a maintenance/rehabilitation strategy for concrete pavements.
2. Deflection Testing
Each street test section surveyed by the Laser RST
will receive a deflection test. This testing will be
performed using the Dynaflect device and the results
of this testing will permit an analysis of the structural
capabilities of the existing street section. IMS utilizes
all five sensors of the Dynaflect in its structural
analysis. This provides valuable information on the
capabilities of the pavement, base and subgrade
sections, and the interaction between these sections.
Deflection testing was performed on previous surveys
for the City and will provide a solid basis for
comparison to previous results. Although most
Chicago area agencies include structural analysis as part of their program, the PavePRO software can be
used with or without deflection data.
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Lake Forest 2016 Update Rev1.docx Page 3 of 9
3. GIS and Pavement Management
IMS will provide a link between the City’s GIS
program and the pavement management data to
enable the City to display and generate color-
coded maps based upon existing pavement
conditions, street rehabilitation plans or most
any of the data in the pavement management
program. The City can use the query function of
its mapping program to display the pavement
management data. It may also be possible to
use its mapping program to make queries of
other infrastructure plans in conjunction with
their street rehabilitation plans to determine if
conflicts exist between plans. The future
addition of ROW assets would also be linked to
the GIS and entered in the asset management
software. To most effectively maintain this link, IMS will require a copy of the City’s current electronic
centerline map prior to field data collection activities.
4. Digital Images
In conjunction with the surface condition survey, each test section is recorded on GPS referenced digital
videotape with forward and rearward directed video cameras and used as part of IMS’ Quality Control and
Quality Assurance procedures. Additional cameras can be used to expand the viewing area or include
features of special interest to the City. IMS will provide digital images with one view at 25’ intervals for
viewing in PavePRO Manager and/or through the City’s GIS. Many agencies find these images valuable as
a “point-in-time” record of their roads and as a source of information for a variety of engineering,
legal/investigative, and administrative uses. They can also be beneficial in assessing damage from a
natural disaster or unforeseen event.
The PavePRO Manager software includes an
image module. This enhancement allows for
the attachment of digital images to each test
section. The City can then access all the
pavement management data from a selected
block and view multiple digital images for the
identified section on his/her computer monitor.
The digital images will be captured directly
from the continuous video performed as part of
the RST survey, but can be expanded to
include images generated from a City-owned
digital camera, and/or result from scanned
photos or drawings.
IMS uses an automated image capture process that is cost effective and provides for a user-defined
frequency for the number of pictures per section.
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Lake Forest 2016 Update Rev1.docx Page 4 of 9
5. Pavement Management Software Implementation and Training
IMS will provide the current version of
PavePRO Manager software fully loaded
with IMS collected field data. Any City
condition data and maintenance histories
can be added following staff training. The
software will be installed on the City’s
computer network. Since the software is
provided with a site license, it can be used
on laptops, field computers or by other
departments at no additional charge. The
software provides information on existing
conditions, future performance, viable
maintenance and rehabilitation strategies,
optimization, schedules, budgets and multiyear programs. The program is kept current by City staff
through input of rehabilitation activities.
IMS will provide training for City staff in the operation and interpretation of these programs. Update
training is usually completed as two half day on-site sessions and can include actual operators,
managers, and field staff.
6. Right-of-Way Asset Management System (Optional)
Although the pavement management
software provides for pavement inventory,
IMS can provide a robust ROW asset
inventory and management software for
the acquisition of additional pavement
and ROW features. Signs and supports,
traffic signals, street lights, pavement
striping, pavement markings, sidewalks,
ADA ramps, curbs and gutters, inlets,
manholes, trees, driveway aprons,
medians, fences, pavement and ROW
hardware can be provided to a level of
detail determined by the City. Data
collection for the ROW asset inventory
can be performed simultaneously with the
surface condition survey using IMS’s RST or through a variety of techniques using City and/or IMS staff.
Digital video extraction to collect asset information is the most cost effective approach to develop and map
comprehensive asset inventories. The asset survey can be performed as part of the initial pavement
management program or deferred to a future program or budget period. The digital video can also be
stored by IMS to allow for future extraction activities without having to re-drive the street network.
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Lake Forest 2016 Update Rev1.docx Page 5 of 9
Prior to the start of any ROW asset
survey, a Master Asset List is
created to define the information that
the City wants to know about each
selected asset. It is the equivalent to
a “data dictionary” and sets the rules
for the asset extraction process.
The actual ROW asset survey uses
the GPS referenced digital video
from a minimum of 3 cameras on-
board the RST. The images and
GPS data are merged on a frame-
by-frame basis with the street
inventory. They are post processed using specialty software to record the location, attribute information,
condition and picture of each requested asset. Extracted asset data is loaded into the selected asset
management software and/or the City’s GIS.
7. Optional Retroreflectivity
IMS can perform retroreflectivity surveys using two methodologies. A
subjective survey can be performed using one of three methodologies
accepted by the MUTCD. The subjective method is an automated night-
time survey and is generally less costly than the measured approach.
This methodology requires that each street be driven in both directions.
The measured approach uses a retro reflectometer to measure the
reflectivity as part of a manual or “feet on the ground” survey. This
methodology can be used to measure the retroreflectivity of power failure
folding stop signs at intersections with traffic signals. Both approaches are usually performed as a phase II
activity. Phase I is the sign inventory, that includes sign location, attributes and general condition using
asset extraction techniques described above.
It should be noted that although “subjective” may sound less accurate or not as good as “measured”, it
actually is an excellent approach and meets the MUTCD requirements. The goal is to determine whether
our aging population can see a particular sign at night as well as they can during the daylight conditions.
8. Project Timing
The data collection phase of the proposed update program including the RST survey and deflection testing
will be completed within a four week period. It will be scheduled for late spring in conjunction with the other
Chicago area projects. Streets included in the City’s 2016 resurfacing program will be tested early fall
following rehabilitation activities. Data processing, GIS linkage, and digital images will immediately follow
the fieldwork. The current version of PavePRO Manager software with updated test results will be delivered
within 60 days of completion of the field testing. Software training will be scheduled following data
processing completion. All update street data will be delivered prior to October 1, 2016. Optional ROW
asset extraction can also follow the data processing and image preparation. Optional retroreflectivity testing
can be performed following the development of the sign inventory. The ROW asset deliverables require
approximately additional days. The data collection would be done in conjunction with other Chicago Metro
area agencies.
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Lake Forest 2016 Update Rev1.docx Page 6 of 9
FEE SCHEDULE
The cost summary is based on the following fee schedule. It is derived from the schedule submitted by IMS
to the Northeast Illinois Partnering Contract (a consortium for North and Northwest Chicago area
municipalities). It is based on scheduling surveys in conjunction with other area projects to eliminate
mobilization charges.
Project Initiation $1,500.00
Network Referencing $1,000.00
Local Mobilization $1,500.00
RST Surface Condition Survey $135.00/ test mile
Deflection Testing $125.00/ test mile
Data Processing $20.00/ test mile
Development of Structural Indices (3rd Party Software) $15.00/ test mile
PCC Slab Survey (for streets with no deflection testing) $20.00/ test mile
Pavement Width Measurements (for streets with no deflection testing) $10.00/ test mile
PavePRO Manager Software $3,000.00
3rd Party Software Special Quote
Data Configuration & Data Load (3rd Party Software) Special Quote
Parking Lot Survey, Software/Report $0.25/sq.yd. - Special Review
Software Training (on site) $1,000.00/day - $600/ half day
Engineering Interpretation, Analysis, Special Reports $125.00/hour
Transfer of Historical Data to a New Program $85.00/hour
PavePRO Software Maintenance and Support $1,000.00/year
GIS Linkage $20.00/ test mile
Digital Images @ 25’ intervals (single view) $13.00/ test mile
Digital Images @ 25’ intervals (additional views) $10.00/mile/view
Digital Video Storage for Future ROW Asset Extraction $10.00/ test mile
GPS/Camera Extraction Set-up & AVI Conversion $10.00/ test mile
ROW Man Software $2,000.00
Master Asset List Development $300.00 - $1,500.00
Retroreflectivity Sign Survey Special Quote
Project Management 7.5% of Task Activities
Asset Extraction Services* See Below
Asset Data Collection (GPS & 3 View Camera Configuration) $15-20/test mile
Signs & Support $90/test mile
Signals/Flashers/Controllers $20/test mile
Sidewalks $50/test mile
ADA Ramps & Obstructions $45/test mile
Curb & Gutter $40/test mile
Curb Markings $20/test mile
Pavement Markings (Point Features) $45/test mile
Storm Water Drop Inlets $20/test mile
Pavement Striping (Linear Features) $45/test mile
Driveway Aprons - (Point & Linear) $300/test mile
Guard Rail & Roadside Ped. Fence $30/test mile
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Lake Forest 2016 Update Rev1.docx Page 7 of 9
Manholes $65/test mile
Fire Hydrants $30/test mile
Street Lights $50/test mile
Trees $120/test mile
Speed Humps $15/test mile
Utility Poles Special Quote
Shoulders $60/test mile
Median $15/test mile
Ditches $30/test mile
Fences $48/test mile
Mailboxes Special Quote
Street Hardware Special Quote
Building Fronts Special Quote
* IMS costs can be based on either a unit price per asset or per mile. Estimates for ROW assets are more
difficult to develop because of unlimited scenarios and unknown quantities. Having performed sign surveys
for a number of different agencies, we find that the number of signs ranged from 30 to 109 per mile. Other
assets (e.g. sidewalks, light poles, pavement markings, inlets, trees, etc.) vary dramatically from agency to
agency and district to district within the agency depending on age, terrain, etc. Since there are some
advantages to extracting multiple assets during the extraction activity, we would like to know the specific
assets of interest when developing the unit price per mile cost estimate. We believe that this alternative can
assist the City in the budget process and eliminate surprises. If the City has a good estimate of the quantity
of some of their assets, the unit price per asset offer may be the best approach.
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Lake Forest 2016 Update Rev1.docx Page 8 of 9
COST SUMMARY
IMS has developed the following pavement management update cost summary for your review.
The estimate is based on the street network of 142 test miles. The number is derived from the 2013 survey
with an addition of one mile for any new streets or streets under construction at the time of the previous
survey.
Task Activity Quantity Units Unit Rate Total
Project Initiation
1 Project Initiation 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00
2 Network Referencing 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Field Surveys
3 Local Mobilization 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00
4 RST Surface Condition Survey 142 MI $135.00 $19,170.00
5 Deflection Testing 142 MI $125.00 $17,750.00
Data Management
6 Data Processing 142 MI $20.00 $2,840.00
7 PavePRO Software Update 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
8 PavePRO Software Maintenance and Support 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
9 GIS Linkage 142 MI $20.00 $2,840.00
10 Digital Images (1 view @ 25' intervals)142 MI $13.00 $1,846.00
11 PavePRO Software Training (2 half days of training)2 EA $600.00 $1,200.00
12 Project Management 1 LS $3,873.00 $3,873.00
$55,519.00Project Total:
Services are provided on a unit-price basis and the City will be charged only for the actual number of miles
tested and included in the database. The fee schedule is submitted with the assumption that the City will
provide or assist IMS with the following information and services:
Street list and GIS centerline file of roads to be surveyed complete with functional classifications.
Optional asset attributes and condition assessments for the Master Asset List.
Safety vehicle to trail deflection-testing equipment on arterials and collectors, if requested.
Notification and coordination with other departments or agencies, if necessary.
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Lake Forest 2016 Update Rev1.docx Page 9 of 9
PROJECT APPROVAL: City of Lake Forest
This proposal is submitted in duplicate with each copy being considered as an original. Acceptance is
constituted by signing and returning one copy to our office.
Approved services (please check off selected services)
Pavement Management Update Program ($55,519.00)
Pavement Management Options (please check off selected services)
Digital Video Storage for Future Asset Extraction ($1,420.00)
ACCEPTED:
City of Lake Forest, IL
By: __________________________
Title: __________________________
Date: __________________________