HomeMy WebLinkAbout3063_001MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JUNE 25, 1996
K-14%
REVISED 719196
Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Present at the meeting
were: Trustees George Clowes, Timothy Corcoran, Richard Hendricks, Paul
Hoefert, Michaels, Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Also present were: Village Manager
Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Works Director
Glen Andler, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker, Project Engineer Fred Tennyson,
Street Superintendent Paul Bures and Finance Director Brian Caputo.
1111. MINUTES
Minutes of June 11, 1996. Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by
Trustee Clowes to accept the Minutes. Trustee Clowes requested a revision on
page four of a clarification of his statements. Minutes were approved with the
revision as requested by Trustee Clowes.
Ill. CITIZENS IQ BE HEARD
None.
IV, WELLER CREEK BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT -FINAL REPORT
Public Works Director Glen Andler provided a general overview of the Report and
a historical background regarding flood control projects funded by the Village of
Mount Prospect. He stated that in 1990, the Village Board earmarked $23 million
for flood control which focused primarily on sewer back-up within residences. To
date, approximately $12 million has been spent for the flood control program and
the prioritization established by the Village Board at the time of the initial funding
approval commits funds through the year 2001. An Ad Hoc Committee was
formed based on the concerns of residents to study the problem and assist the
consultant in establishing a solution to address the concerns. The Village
contracted with RUST Environmental and Infrastructure to prepare the report for
the Village Board's consideration this evening.
Among the concerns is the sewage flow from Arlington Heights and the surge
which is caused by Arlington Heights' discharge into the Creek. There ioalso a
concern about restoring the platted center line in the Creek instead of the existing
center line and the establishment of a regular maintenance program prior to
implementing the proposed improvements and even consider putting in access
ramps as necessary. The Committee suggests a 2-3 year schedule for
maintenance once the improvements have been completed. The Committee ienot
supportive of Special Service Area because there is additional impact besides
just theme residents who live along the Creek itself, She stated that the Village
has had responsibility since 1972 and the cost should be -spread over broader
group than just the immediate home owners. A possibility would be an
assessment to the Drainage District persons.
George FUem, 202 East Hiawatha, spoke. He is pleased with the Village's
recognition of the problem and understands that tree removal is dependent upon
what exists at each individual property.
General comments by the Village Board included the following items:
Some onnoomn was voiced about the vegetation placement and achieving
cooperation with residents along the Creek. Some Vl||uQe Board members also
stated that there may be a need to revisit their priorities which had previously been
established concerning the sewage problems. There was also some discussion
asbzArlington Heights! right hodischarge into the Creek and edefinition ofwhat
iaoreasonable discharge level.
Village Manager Michael Jmownisresponded bmthe discharge question bystating
that separate review may take place to address the discharge problem and to
determine the appropriate level of discharge. Such o review may require
additional engineering studies.
Additional comments from the Board members included definition of the
boundaries of the Weller Creek Drainage District; also, the current maintenance
policy of the Public Works Department concerning the Creek. There was also
some discussion aatothe timing and the proposed cost estimates for resolution.
Some Board members also asked for background wshmwhat caused the Creek bm
come hothis point compared bowhat itlooked like before the urbanization ofthe
area took place.
Dennis Saviano, 210 East Hiawatha, spoke. He asked the Hoard about funding
relative to the Creek improvements. He stated he recalled when the discussion
about flood control funding was originally discussed that Weller Creek was a
component of that discussion and asked whether money had already been set
aside for such improvements.
Village Manager Janonis responded to the question by stating that Weller Creek
improvements were originally in the study but not part of the priority of projects and
not supportive of the residents at that time.
Village Manager Jannis summarized the discussion as follows. He stated that it
may be necessary to review funding priority in an effort to address the critical
needs of the Creek. He also felt that a detailed review of the flow generated by
Arlington Heights should take place. He also stated that all available Grants will
be reviewed as a possible funding source. He stated that unfortunately at this
point, there is not funding capacity available to fund the entire project until after
2006, however, every effort will be undertaken by staff to determine available
funding and even address bridge improvements if possible. He will report back to
the Village Board with additional information as it becomes available concerning
possible funding options for the Village Board to consider.
Mayor Farley requested that the Ad Hoc Committee remain in place as a conduit
to informing residents along the Creek bed itself.
Zi ATJ 1ATA612 J,•J2111112
Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker provided a general overview of the status of
various Village streets. He also provided a definition of maintenance and repair
means which is undertaken on various streets. He also provided an overview as
to the types of streets and the necessary work to protect the Village investment.
He stated there is a need to resurface approximately $6 million worth of streets
and to reconstruct $11 million worth of streets. He stated the $5 million was spent
in 1994 to reduce the backlog but there still is a backlog which remains. The
northeast part of town has the most number of streets in need to reconstruction
because of a PAS base. These streets were originally constructed in Cook County
in the '60s using an innovative base at that time. However, history has taught us
that the base is unstable. He also provided an overview of the funding options:
RI
VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Tnistee Corcoran stated that he recently attended a Monsanto Corporation
Outreach Seminar and was quite thankful to the invitation in order to participate.
He stated the topics covered included community advisory panels and would
suggest such a use in Mount Prospect. He said the general focus of the
discussion was for local emergency planning councils and the 1990 Clean Air Act
as to evacuation projections and emergency preparedness. However, he thought
there would be some benefit possible to the Village by undertaking a possible
Advisory panel.
Trustee Wilks wanted to thank Mount Prospect Police Officer Joseph Morel for his
award by the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists.
Vill. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at
10:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID STRAHL
DS/rce Assistant Village Manager
7
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 7MCMUSA
To Village Manager Michael EJanonis
From: Village Engineer
Data: June 2O.19QG
Subject: 19AGPavement Management Report
Attached for your review is the 1996 Pavement Management Program prepared bythe
Engineering Division The report is based on recent information obtained from the
Pavement Condition Analysis performed by Infrastructure Management Services
(IMS). The report indicates asignificant need for resurfacing and reconstruction
improvements tothe Village's street system. The Engineering Staff has also prepared
the attached report, 1990 Pavement Management Funding Options. This report
provides various funding scenarios addressing these pavement improvement costs.
Mount Prospect Public Works Department 9
NTEROFF10E MEMORANDUM TRU Crry USA
To Village Manager Michael E.Jenonis
From: Village Engineer
Date: June 20, 1996
Subject: 1996PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT FUNDING OPTIONS
The 1996 Pavement Analysis prepared by Infrastructure Management Systems (IMS)
identified the current needs cfthe Village's street system. This 'snopohofofthe street
system confirmed what we are hearing on an ever increasing basis from our residents,
Many of our streets are in an unacceptable condition and we are falling further behind.
Exhibit shows the backlog ofstreets needing repair. The required repairs are
significant in cost totalling more than $17 million, including $6 million and 33 miles in
need ofsurface improvements (reourfauing)and $11 million and 12miles inneed of
complete roadway removal and replacement (reconstruction). The current funding
levels allow us to tread water but not reduce the overwhelming backlog of streets
needing resurfacing orreconstruction.
In1994and 1G95the Village added an additional $5 million to the street improvement
program. This allowed the Village to reconstruct and resurface some ofthe
backlogged obaeto which have been listed as in need ufrepair for years. Resurfacing
decreased from 45 miles to the current 33 miles and reconstructions decreased from
18.6 miles to the current 12 miles. The 1096 budget returned the street improvement
funding back to its annual amount of$i.3 million; *Q00.00Ofor resurfacing and
n400.000 for reconstruction. At this rete it will take 22 years to complete the backlog
cfstreets inneed ofreconstruction today. |twill also put the streets onu2Byear
cycle for resurfacing. The optimum design is 15 year resurfacing cycle. Our
pavement testing reports and actual experience indicate that o2Uyear cycle iaamore
realistic goal.
The Engineering Staff has prepared the following funding scenarios in on attempt to
address the identified pavement improvement needs. The ultimate Qoo| ietoeliminate
the backlog of streets needing repair and resume o 20 year resurfacing program.
No1FUNDING (Exhibit 2)
As a 'ground zero' level for comparison, this scenario projects the condition of the
streets in 10 years if no money is spent on street improvements. Allowing the streets
to decay results in the need for 41miles of resurfacing and 51 miles of reconstruction
for atotal backlog cost ofmore than $77million in the year 2OOO.
Exhibit 3)
This Option projects the condition of the streets in 10 years using the current funding
level of$1.3million annually. After 1Oyears the resurfacing has increased bo37miles
and the reconstruction has decreased bo11 miles. Considering annual inflation cf
3.596 and the increase in resurfacing miles the cost for necessary repairs to eliminate
the backlog increases ho$24million inthe year 2OOG.
OPTION 2 1 CURRENT FUNDING PLUS (Exhibit 4)
This Option utilizes the current funding level plus an additional $2.5 million in 1997
and 2001. The entire o5million isapplied toward the backlog ofstreets needing
reconstruction. The projected condition of the streets in 10 years shows that the
resurfacing increased to 37 miles (same as option 1) and the reconstruction has been
reduced toO.1 miles. The backlog cost for Option 2inthe year 20n6io*1Bmillion.
(Exhibit 5)
This Option eliminates the 12 miles of reconstruction backlog in 3 years (years 1'3)
and eliminates the 33miles ofresurfacing backlog in5years (years 4-8). In addition,
resurfacing of the streets which move from the routine maintenance category to the
resurfacing category will be accomplished; approximately 2096 of the total of routine
maintenance street miles. This will maintain the 20year resurfacing cycle during the
elimination of the backlog streets. The result ofthis program iothat the complete
backlog of resurfacing and reconstruction streets will be eliminated in 8 years.
Starting with year the Village can return to its annual funding level of approximately
$1.8 million which equals the $1.3 million increased to take into account inflation.
'
This information is submitted as an appraisal of the status of our street system for
your review.
Village of Mount Prospect
Pavement Management Program
Costs To Repair Deteriorated Streets
Existing Conditions
Section
Total
Miles
Routine
Maintenance
Miles
Requiring
Resurfacing
Miles Cost
Requiring
Reconstruction
Miles Cost
Red
17.8
10.5
0.8 146,195
6.5 5,092,047
Green
22.3
14.8
6.0 1,276,852
1.5 1,225,209
Yellow
23.5
18.0
5.0 806,635
0.5 403,754
Orange
11.2
6.1
4.3 740,957
0.7 479,582
Brown
15.9
10.2
5.3 1,080,072
0.3 204,983
Blue
14.9
11.4
3.4 845,622
0.1 62,350
Purple
13.1
8.2
3.6 605,170
1.3 1,144,458
Grey
15.3
9.8
1 4.3 805,324
1.1 1,005,459
lotat r.3.i.8 259.1 32.Y 6,3U6,826 12,0 9,617,842
TOTAL COST SUNIlvIARY
RESURFACING
Construction Costs
6,306,826
Engineering Costs *
0
Total
6,306,826
* Engineering Completed In House
RECONSTRUCTION
Construction Costs
9,617,842
Engineering Costs 15%
1,442,676
Total
11,060,519
Total Cost For Road Repairs
$ 17,367,344.51
EMMIT 1
3
Village of Mount Prospect
Pavement Management Program
Estimate of Street Deterioration
Projected Condition of Streets
Based On No Funding For The Next 10 Years
Routine Requiring Requiring
Maintenance Resurfacing Reconstruction
Year Miles Mies Mies
1996
89.1
32.7
12.0
1997
79.1
38.8
15.8
1998
71.4
42.6
19.8
1999
65.7
45.8
22.3
2000
62.9
45.2
25.7
2001
57.2
45.4
31.2
2002
53.3
45.1
35.3
2003
50.5
43.5
39.8
2004
47.3
43.2
43.3
2005
44.2
42.7
46.9
2006
41.3
41.3
51.2
F,
Net Increase / (Decrease)
Requiring Requiring
Resurfacing Reconstruction
6.1
3.8
3.8
4.0
3.2
2.5
(0.6)
3.4
0.2
5.5
(0.3)
4.1
(1.6)
4.5
(0.3)
3.5
(0.5)
3.6
(1.4)
4.3
RESULTING COST TO REPAIR BACKLOG OF DETERIORATED STREETS IN YEAR 2006
RESURFACING 11,238,796 For 41.3 Mies
RECONSTRUCTION 66,416,341 For 51.2 Mies
TOTAL S 77,655,137
EXHIEBIT 2
4
Village of Mount Prospect
Pavement Management Program
Program Based On Current Funding Levels
Funding Program Option 1
Cost Per year To Repair Streets
Year
Reconstruct
Resurface
Maintain
Good Streets
Total
1997
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
1998
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
1999
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2000
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2001
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2002
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2003
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2004
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2005
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2006
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
Funding Source
Year
General Fund
Motor Fuel Tax
New Money
Total
1997
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
1998
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
1999
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2000
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2001
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2002
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2003
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2004
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2005
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2006
300,000
11000,000
0
1,300,000
1 . r-310
Village of Mount Prospect
Pavement Management Program
Estimate of Street Deterioration
Projected Condition of Streets
Based On Current Funding Levels (Option 1)
Routine Requiring Requiring
Maintenance Resurfacing Reconstruction
Year Miles Miles Miles
1996
89.1
32.7
12.0
1997
84.4
37.9
11.5
1998
81.6
41.2
11.0
1999
80.8
42.5
10.5
2000
82.6
41.1
10.1
2001
81.4
41.3
11.1
2002
81.9
41.0
10.9
2003
83.2
39.4
11.2
2004
84.1
38.9
10.8
2005
84.9
38.4
10.5
2006
85.8
37.0
11.0
Net Increase / (Decrease)
Requiring Requiring
Resurfacing Reconstruction
5.2
(0.5)
3.3
(0.5)
1.3
(0.5)
(1.4)
(0.4)
0.2
1.0
(0.3)
(0.2)
(1.6)
03
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(1.4)
0.5
RESULTING COST TO REPAIR BACKLOG OF DETERIORATED STREETS IN YEAR 2006
RESURFACING 10,068,655 For 37.0Miles
RECONSTRUCTION- 14,269,136 For 11.0 Miles
TOTAL S 24,337,790.86
R
Village of Mount Prospect
Pavement Management Program
Program Based On Accelerated Funding For 1997 And 2001
Funding Program Option 2
Cost Per year To Repair Streets
Year
Reconstruct
Resurface
Maintain
Good Streets
Total
1997
2,900,000
900,000
0
3,800,000
1998
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
1999
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2000
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2001
2,900,000
900,000
0
3,800,000
2002
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2003
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2004
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2005
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
2006
400,000
900,000
0
1,300,000
Each Year Adjusted For 3.5% Inflation
Funding Source
Year
General Fund
Motor Fuel Tax
New Money
Total
1997
300,000
1,000,000
2,500,000
3,800,000
1998
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
1999
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2000
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2001
300,000
1,000,000
2,500,000
3,800,000
2002
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2003
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2004
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2005
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
2006
300,000
1,000,000
0
1,300,000
EXHIBIT 4
Village of Mount Prospect
Pavement Management Program
Estimate of Street Deterioration
Projected Condition of Streets
Based On Accelerated Funding for 1997 and 2001 (Option 2)
Routine Requiring Requiring Net Increase / (Decrease)
Maintenance Resurfacing Reconstruction Requiring Requiring
Year Miles Wes Miles
1996
89.1
32.7
12.0
1997
87.0
37.9
8.9
1998
84.2
41.2
8.4
1999
83.4
42.5
7.9
2000
85.2
41.1
7.5
2001
86.3
41.3
6.2
2002
86.8
41.0
6.0
2003
88.1
39.4
6.3
2004
89.0
38.9
5.9
2005
89.8
38.4
5.6
2006
90.7
37.0
6.1
Resurfacing Reconstruction
5.2
(3.1)
3.3
(0.5)
1.3
(0.5)
(1.4)
(0.4)
0.2
(1.3)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(1.6)
0.3
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(1.4)
0.5
RESULTING COST TO REPAIR BACKLOG OF DETERIORATED STREETS IN YEAR 2006
RESURFACING 10,068,655 For 37.0 Miles of Streets
RECONSTRUCTION 7,912,884 For 6.1 Miles of Streets
TOTAL S 17,981,539
8
Maintain Good Streets => Resurface streets which will move from routine
(Years 1-8) maintenance to resurfacing category each year.
Cost Per year To Repair Streets
Year
Village of Mount Prospect
Resurface
Pavement Management Program
Total
Proposed Funding Program Option 3
Reconstruction =>
Eliminate current 12 miles of streets needing
(Years 1-3)
reconstruction in 3 years (4.0 Miles per year).
Resurfacing =>
Eliminate current 32.7 miles of streets needing
(Years 4-8)
resurfacing in 5 years (6.5 miles per year).
Maintain Good Streets => Resurface streets which will move from routine
(Years 1-8) maintenance to resurfacing category each year.
Cost Per year To Repair Streets
Year
Reconstruct
Resurface
Maintain
Good Streets
Total
1997
3,815,879
0
889,303
4,705,182
1998
3,944,918
0
919,376
4,864,295
1999
4,073,958
0
949,450
5,023,407
2000
0
1,437,956
979,523
2,417,479
2001
0
1,482,104
1,009,596
2,491,700
2002
0
1,526,252
1,039,669
2,565,921
2003
0
1,570,400
1,069,742
2,640,141
2004
0
1,614,547
1,099,815
2,714,362
2005
0
0
1,770,246
1,770,246
2006
0
0
1,832,205
1,832,205
Each Year Adjusted For 3.5% Inflation
Funding Source
Year
General Fund
Motor Fuel Tax
New Money
Total
1997
300,000
1,000,000
3,405,182
4,705,182
1998
300,000
1,000,000
3,564,295
4,864,295
1999
300,000
1,000,000
3,723,407
5,023,407
2000
300,000
1,000,000
1,117,479
2,417,479
2001
300,000
1,000,000
1,191,700
2,491,700
2002
300,000
1,000,000
1,265,921
2,565,921
2003
300,000
1,000,000
1,340,141
2,640,141
2004
300,000
1,000,000
1,414,362
2,714,362
2005
300,000
1,000,000
470,246
1,770,246
2006
300,000
1,000,000
532,205
1,832,205
Routine
Maintenance
Vear Miles
Village of Mount Prospect
Pavement Management Program
Estimate of Street Deterioration
Projected Condition of Streets
Based On Proposed Funding Option 3
Requiring Requiring Net Increase / (Decrease)
Resurfacing Reconstruction Requiring Requiring
Miles Miles
1996
89.1
32.7
12.0
1997
87.7
38.1
8.0
1998
88.4
41.4
4.0
1999
91.2
42.6
0.0
2000
99.4
34.4
0.0
2001
104.7
29.1
0.0
2002
111.9
21.9
0.0
2003
120.0
13.8
0.0
2004
127.8
6.0
0.0
2005
133.8
0.0
0.0
2006
133.8
0.0
0.0
Resurfacing Reconstruction
5.4
(4.0)
3.3
(4.0)
1.2
(4.0)
(8.2)
0.0
(5.3)
0.0
(7.2)
0.0
(8.1)
0.0
(7.8)
0.0
(6.0)
0.0
0.0
0.0
RESULTING COST TO REPAIR BACKLOG OF DETERIORATED STREETS IN YEAR 2006
RESURFACING 0.00 For 0.0 Miles of Streets
RECONSTRUCTION 0.00 For 0.0 Miles of Streets
10
Maintain Good Streets => Resurface streets which will move from routine
(Years 1-10) maintenance to resurfacing category each year
(4.5 miles per year).
Cost Per year To Repair Streets
Year
Village of Mount Prospect
Resurface
Pavement Management Program
Total
Proposed Funding Program Option 4
Reconstruction =>
Eliminate current 12 miles of streets needing
(Years 1-5)
reconstruction in 5 years (2.6 Miles per year).
Resurfacing =>
Eliminate current 32.7 miles of streets needing
(Years 6-10)
resurfacing in 5 years (6.9 miles per year).
Maintain Good Streets => Resurface streets which will move from routine
(Years 1-10) maintenance to resurfacing category each year
(4.5 miles per year).
Cost Per year To Repair Streets
Year
Reconstruct
Resurface
Maintain
Good Streets
Total
1997
2,474,658
0
889,303
3,363,961
1998
2,558,342
0
919,376
3,477,719
1999
2,642,026
0
949,450
3,591,476
2000
2,725,710
0
979,523
3,705,233
2001
2,809,394
0
1,009,596
3,818,990
2002
0
1,610,648
1,039,669
2,650,317
2003
0
1,657,237
1,069,742
2,726,979
2004
0
1,703,826
1,099,815
2,803,641
2005
0
1,750,415
1,770,246
3,520,661
2006
0
1,797,004
1,832,205
3,629,209
Each Year Adjusted For 3.5% Inflation
ding Source
Year
General Fund
Motor Fuel Tax
New Money
Total
1997
300,000
1,000,000
2,063,961
3,363,961
1998
300,000
1,000,000
2,177,719
3,477,719
1999
300,000
1,000,000
2,291,476
3,591,476
2000
300,000
1,000,000
2,405,233
3,705,233
2001
300,000
1,000,000
2,518,990
3,818,990
2002
300,000
1,000,000
1,350,317
2,650,317
2003
300,000
1,000,000
1,426,979
2,726,979
2004
300,000
1,000,000
1,503,641
2,803,641
2005
300,000
1,000,000
2,220,661
3,520,661
2006
300,000
1,000,000
2,329,209
3,629,209
11
ear
Village of Mount Prospect
Pavement Management Program
Estimate of Street Deterioration
Projected Condition of Streets
Based On Proposed Funding Option 4
Routine Requiring Requiring Net increase / (Decrease)
Maintenance Resurfacing Reconstruction Requiring Requiring
Miles Miles Miles
1996
89,1
32.7 12.0
1997
86.3
38.1 9.4
1998
85.6
41.4 6.8
1999
87.0
42.6 4.2
2000
91.3
40.9 1.6
2001
92.7
41.1 0.0
2002
100.3
33.5 0.0
2003
108.8
25.0 0.0
2004
117.0
16.8 0.0
2005
125.3
85 0.0
2006
133.8
0.0 0.0
Resurfacing Reconstruction
(5.4)
11111
2.6
(3.3)
2.6
(1.2)
2.6
1.7
2.6
(0.2)
1.6
7.6
0.0
8.5
0.0
8.2
0.0
8.3
0.0
8.5
0.0
---------
RESULTING COST TO REPAIR BACKLOG OF DETERIORATED STREETS IN YEAR 2006
RESURFACING 0.0 For 0.0 Miles of Streets
RECONSTRUCTION 0.0 For 0.0 Miles of Streets
12