HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. MANAGERS REPORT 08/18/2009
Mount ProspJ:ct
~
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
@
TREE Cl'IY USA
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: FORESTRY/GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: AUGUST 12,2009
SUBJECT: BID RESULTS - PARKWAY ASH TREE/STUMP REMOVALS - $25,
BACKGROUND
As part of our Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Plan, the Forestry/Grounds Division sent out bid
specifications for Phase II of our parkway ash tree/stump removals. As explained in previous Board
updates, last year we began removing and replacing poor quality ash trees in hopes of reducing the
amount of tree removal required once EAB arrives in Mt. Prospect. Sealed bids for this year's
contract were opened on August 3, 2009. This contract requires removal of ash trees that are in
poor condition due to their health, structure or form, plus the removal of their stumps.
BID RESULTS
Eighteen invitational bids were mailed and a notice was published in a local newspaper. Nine bids
were received, but one did not include the required bid bond. Bid results to remove an estimated 72
trees and stumps were as follows:
Bid Price for Tree and Stump Removal
Nels Johnson Tree Experts
Winkler's Tree & Landscaping Service
Steve Piper & Sons
Asplundh
Powell Tree Care, Inc.
Trees R Us
Homer Tree Care Inc.
Kramer Tree Care Specialists
Robert W. Hendricksen Co
$24,589.00
$30,662.27 (did not include required bid bond)
$32,406.35
$32,657.00
$33,137.55
$33,621.04
$35,523.40
$48,435.50
$53,291.64
DISCUSSION
At the time the bid specifications were prepared the actual number of trees and stumps to be
removed was unknown. However, an estimated 72 trees will be removed. Replacement trees will be
planted in Spring 2010, wherever suitable planting sites are available, if funds are available.
Bidders were asked to submit a "price per inch" for removal of trees in each of five different size
classes, plus a "price per inch" for stump removal in two size classes. In order to draw comparisons
H:\Forestry\WORD\2009\REMOV AL\MEMO PARKWAY ASH TREE-STUMP REMOVAL RECCOMENDATION.doc
between various bids, we asked bidders to use our estimated quantities to calculate an extended
cost.
The low bidder, Nels Johnson Tree Experts has satisfactorily completed multiple contracts for us in
the past, including tree trimming and tree removals.
BID RECOMMENDATION
There is $25,000.00 allocated for Emerald Ash Borer reduction in the 2009 budget (page 230
Account # 0015203-540728). I recommend award of the contract to the lowest qualified bidder,
Nels Johnson Tree Experts. The contract will be in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00. The
contract will be terminated on or before December 31, 2009.
I concur:
'V/J~~ ~
//s:aiiI1Y Clark (
~...A1~
Glen R. And er
Director of Public Works
Mount Prospect
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
MICHAEL DALLAS, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST
AUGUST 12, 2009
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION
CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
PURPOSE
To obtain the Village Board's conditional approval to enter into an agreement with Camp Dresser a
McKee (CDM) to develop a community-wide energy efficiency and conservation strategy, as well as assist
the Village with the United States Department of Energy (DOE)'s Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Bock Grant (EECBG) Program's application process.
BACKGROUND
Recently, the DOE notified the Village of Mount Prospect that it is eligible to receive $489,600 as a direct
formula grant via the EECBG Program. The program has three main objectives: (1) reduce fossil fuel
emissions; (2) reduce total energy use; and (3) improve energy efficiency in the building, transportation,
and other appropriate sectors. The Village applied for the grant on June 19, 2009.
One of the primary requirements under the grant is to submit an Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Strategy (hereinafter "Plan"). The Plan must outline the organization's energy efficiency goals and
objectives, strategies to meet the goals, and metrics to report jobs created, energy saved, and
greenhouse gas emissions decreased. Currently, no Village energy efficiency or conservation plan exists
to meet these requirements.
At the May 26, 2009, committee-of-the-whole meeting (see attachments), staff received approval from the
Village Board to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) in order to hire an energy efficiency consulting firm
to develop the Plan, as well as guide the Village through the rest of the Program's application and
reporting process. As a reminder, consulting services are eligible expenses under the grant.
Village staff released the RFP on June 5, 2009. On June 18, 2009, the Village received the following four
(4) proposals:
CONSULTING FIRM COST (pHASE 1
ONLY)
1. Burns & McDonnell
2. Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM)
3. HarrneTech
4. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure
$36,375
$37,035
$40,000
$18,360
Staff thoroughly reviewed all of the proposals and conducted interviews with the two most qualified
consultants, Burns & McDonnell and CDM. After interviews were conducted, references were checked
and energy efficiency plan examples were reviewed.
H:IVILMIMDallaslEnergy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECGB)IBoard Documents and PresentationslBoard Recommendation _
ConsultantlEECBG Consultant Recommendation.doc
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) - Consultant Recommendation
August 12, 2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION
After completing our evaluation, staff believes that CDM is the most qualified consulting firm to develop
the Plan and assist the Village with its grant application requirements. Importantly, CDM's business
approach to develop the Plan closely resembles the Village's RFP requirements. They have correctly
described the objective of the project and identified each of the tasks and deliverables necessary to make
this project a success. More specifically, they propose to:
1. Hold meetings with stakeholders to identify the Plan's goals and objectives, as well as identify
a list of energy efficiency and conservation measures;
2. Conduct an energy baseline study (limited to readily available historical data);
3. Analyze and screen the measures using a triple bottom line criteria (economic, social, and
environmental impact) as well as any other criteria requested by the Village;
4. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of remaining measures;
5. Develop an implementation schedule and capital improvement plan;
6. Develop the EECS;
7. Assist the Village with its EECS submittal to the DOE.
CDM has been providing consulting and engineering services since 1947 and has more than 100 offices
nationwide with 4,500 professionals. Their Chicago office serves the area by leveraging more than 80
professionals in every area of energy management and sustainability, including electrical engineers,
mechanical engineers, architects, environmental planners, environmental engineers, and LEED
accredited professionals.
CDM also has a breadth of experience developing sustainable strategy and energy management plans
for local governments, including cities such as Asheville, North Carolina, Dallas, Texas, and Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. Currently, CDM is assisting other local governments throughout the nation with EECBG
projects, including Waukegan, Berwyn, and Will County, Illinois.
As further support for entering into an agreement, reference checks confirmed that CDM is very
professional, competent, responsive, and pleasant to work with. All ofthe organizations that responded
were satisfied with their work product.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon condition that the Village's EECBG application is approved by the DOE, Village staff recommends
the Village enter into an agreement with Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) in an amount not to exceed
$37,035 to develop a community-wide energy efficiency and conservation strategy, as well as assist the
Village with the submittal process. The agreement will be completely funded by the initial EECBG award.
Notably, the scope of work under Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Village's RFP shall not be contracted out
since the type and number of initiatives to be implemented will not be determined until after the Board
approves the Plan and associated project priorities. If any subsequent assistance is required, the Village
will request proposals.
c: Dave Strahl, Assistant Village Manager
[ . A 11 ACHMEN1 1
Mount Prospect
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
~
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: MICHAEL DALLAS, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST
DATE: MAY 22, 2009
SUBJECT: ENERGY EFFIECIENCY AND CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANT (EECBG)
PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
Recently, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) notified the Village of Mount Prospect that
it is eligible to receive $489,600 as a direct formula grant via the Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Block Grant (EECBG) Program. Under the program, any municipality with at least 35,000 residents
was given some level of funding based on a formula (70% resident and 30% daytime population).
Authorized under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Title V, Subtitle E) and
funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the program has three
main objectives: (1) reduce fossil fuel emissions; (2) reduce total energy use; and (3) improve
energy efficiency in the building, transportation, and other appropriate sectors.
The primary requirements under the grant include:
1. Submit an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (EECS): The strategy must outline
the organization's energy efficiency goals and objectives, strategies to meet the goals, and
metrics to report jobs created, energy saved, and greenhouse gas emissions decreased.
2. Reporting:
a. Annual Report: an annual report must be submitted to the DOE within 2 years of
receiving grant and until the project is completed
(1). Status of implementation strategy
(2). Assessment of energy efficiency gains (as practicable)
(a). Jobs created and/or retained
(b). Energy savings on a per dollar invested basis
(c). Renewable energy capacity installed
(d). Greenhouse gas emissions reduced
(e). Funds leveraged
b. Quarterly financial and performance progress (per the ARRA) reports are also required.
3. Regionalism requirements:
a. The applicant must take into account what adjacent municipalities are doing.
b. The applicant must coordinate and share information with the State.
4. Buy American: According to the ARRA, any project for the construction, alteration,
maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work must use iron, steel, and
manufactured goods produced/manufactured in the US (work and building are defined; there
is a waiver exception)
5. Prevailing Wage: contractors and subcontractors must prove that their employees are being
paid the federal prevailing wage for the type of work being conducted.
H:\VILMlMDallaslEnergy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECGB)\Board Documents and PresentationslEECBG Swnmary - 5-26-09 COW.doc
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program
May 22,2009
Page 2
The grant application is due to the DOE on June 25, 2009. If the Village submits an EECS at the
time of application with the other required materials, it can receive all of its funds once the
application is approved. If it only submits the application and materials, but not the EECS, it can
receive $250,000 of the total grant, but it must submit the EECS within 120 days of receiving the
initial award. All funds must be obligated within 18 months and expended within 36 months of
receiving the award(s).
The list of eligible activities or projects under the EECGB Program is very broad and includes:
· Development and implementation of the EECS
· Technical consulting services to assist in development of the EECS
· Residential and commercial building energy audits
· Establishing financial incentive programs for energy efficiency improvements
· Provision of grants to nonprofits and government agencies for energy efficiency retrofits
· Energy efficiency and conservation programs for buildings and facilities within
municipality (design and operate program, public education, measurement and
verification protocols)
· Programs to conserve energy used in transportation (flex time, satellite work center,
zoning guidelines, bike lanes and pathways, traffic signal synchronization)
· Building codes and inspection services to promote building energy efficiency
· Material conservation program, including source reduction and recycling
· Replacement of traffic signals and street lighting with LEOs or same/better technology
· Installation of solar or wind devices, fuel cells or biomass on/in government building
· Any other activity approved by DOE
There are a couple of limitations on the usage of funds and they include:
· Administrative expenses are capped at $75,000 (excluding the cost of meeting the
reporting requirement)
· Revolving loan funds are capped at $250,000
· Sub-grants to non-governmental organizations are capped at $250,000
· Funds cannot be used for any casino or gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf
course, or swimming pool
DISCUSSION
Clearly, the EECBG Program provides an excellent opportunity for the Village of Mount Prospect to
develop an energy efficiency and conservation strategy for its public facilities, as well as the
community. Currently, no Village energy efficiency or conservation plan exists 1 and there is no staff
member currently qualified to develop such a document or the required mechanisms to measure an
initiative's impact. Staff believes energy consulting firms are available to fill these voids and can
guide the Village through the Program's application and reporting process. As noted above,
consulting services are eligible expenses under the grant.
More importantly, though, the funding available to the Village under the EECBG Program could
1 In the spring of 2008, the Village adopted the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus Greenest Region Compact. This is not a
plan, but an agreement among local area communities to improve the region's air, water and land, reduce greenhouse
gases, minimize waste, and reduce energy consumption through a series of environmental actions. While there are
general strategies inherent in the compact, it is not tailored to the needs of the community.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program
May 22,2009
Page 3
potentially off-set any projected expenses for the current year, such as street light or vehicle
replacements. Furthermore, it may help to fund any near future capital projects related to the
program's purpose.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons noted above, Staff recommends the Board authorize Staff to apply for the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG), as well as issue a RFP for consulting services to
develop an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (EECS), assist the Village to implement
any immediate plan initiatives, and develop mechanisms to report its progress back to the DOE.
Michael Dallas
Administrative Analyst
c: Dave Strahl, Assistant Village Manager
ATTACHMENT 2
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES
May 26, 2009
I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Village Board Room of the Village
Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Irvana Wilks. Present at the meeting were
Trustees Paul Hoefert. Arlene Juracek, John Kom, John Matuszak, Steven Polit, and
Michael lade!. Staff present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Fire Chief
Michael Figolah, Village Clerk Lisa Angell, Deputy Village Clerk Kimberly Dewis,
Administrative Analyst Michael Dallas, and Village Attorney Everette Hill.
A motion to move the original agenda item V (Forest River Fire Protection District
Property) ahead of item IV (Election Discussion/Referendum) was made by Trustee
Hoefert and seconded by Trustee lade!. The motion was approved.
II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of April 14, 2009, was made by Trustee Juracek and
seconded by Trustee Polit. Minutes were approved. Trustees ladel and Korn
abstained.
III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
IV. FOREST RIVER FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROPERTY
Fire Chief Michael Flgolah introduced Prospect Heights Fire Protection District's
(PHFPD) request to transfer an area within the boundaries of Prospect Heights and the
Forest River Fire Protection District, that the Village of Mount Prospect currently
provides fire protection services to, from the Village to the PHFPD. Chief Figolah
recommended the Village Board approve the jurisdictional transfer primarily to (1) avoid
any confusion regarding who services the area; and (2) address PHFPD's financial
needs. As additional support, he reasoned that the transfer would not decrease the level
of emergency response currently provided to the affected neighborhood.
General comments, questions or concerns from the Village Board included the following:
. Whether the transfer would affect the level of emergency response to the area;
. How the emergency response notification process would change;
. What the impact would be to the Village as a result of losing the tax money
currently collected by the Forest River Fire Protection District;
. Whether the Village would have any legal fees associated with the transfer.
Two board members from the Forest River Fire Protection District provided their initial
impressions regarding the request. In response to inquiries by the Village Board, they
stated that their attorney would have to review the proposal before releasing their official
position.
C:\Documents and Settings\KDewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1\COW Minutes 5-26-09 - Revised
7-15-09.doc 5126/09
Committee of the Whole Page 1 of 3
V. ELECTION DISCUSSION/REFERENDUM
Village Manager Michael Janonls briefly summarized the difference between the
Village's past and most recent local election process and some of the related issues that
should be considered, including (1) whether the Village should continue to follow a non-
partisan election process; and (2) what role the Village Clerk's Office should playas the
local election official in assisting candidates to file their petition and supporting
documentation. He stated that a referendum may have to be presented to the
community if the election process were to be changed.
Prior to fielding questions from the Village Board of Trustees, Village Attorney Everette
Hill added that the Village has been conducting their election for several decades in a
non-partisan manner. He acknowledged that the Village's election process (including
the petition filing dates) had recently changed to adhere to the State of Illinois's election
guidelines (primary filing deadlines and signature requirements). Additionally, he noted
that a referendum would be required if (1) the Village Board wanted to adopt a partisan
election process; or (2) the Village Board decided to maintain its non-partisan status, but
return to the old petition filing deadlines and signature requirements. In regards to the
second alternative, he stated that the Board would essentially create its own "boutique"
election process, an alternative supported by an Illinois Attorney General legal opinion.
General comments, questions or concerns from the Village Board regarding the election
process included the following:
· Does the State require a non-partisan community to use the primary filing
deadline;
· Does the new State signature requirements make it easier to get on the ballot;
· Opinions differed regarding the impact of the new signature requirement;
· Why did the State change the guidelines;
· What have other communities done in response to the State's changes;
· How many candidates would force a primary election;
· Who pays for elections;
· Want to stay a non-partisan election system;
· When should a referendum be submitted to be on a ballot;
· A referendum to create a "boutique" election process could be very difficult to
create.
In addition to the election process, the Village Board also discussed the Village Clerk's
role in the process, specifically regarding the petition filing process. General comments,
questions or concerns from the Village Board included the following:
· Clerk's Office should continue to provide candidate's guide, petition forms, and
other handouts;
· Clerk's Office should not offer advice regarding how to complete a candidate's
petition and supporting materials nor should it provide an opinion regarding the
completeness, accuracy, or validity of the candidate's petition and supporting
materials;
· Opinions differed regarding whether the Clerk's Office should notarize candidate
materials.
Committee of the Whole
Page 2 of 3
5/26/09
Ultimately, the Village Board decided that they would like more information regarding a
"boutique" election process and how it would be implemented. The discussion regarding
notary services was tabled for a later date.
VI. EECBG PROGRAM
Administrative Analyst Michael Dallas presented a summary of the United States
Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Block Grant Program and its
requirements, the eligible activities that can be funded under the grant, and its
limitations. He also described the application process to obtain the grant, the spending
obligations and timelines. Finally, he presented two primary recommendations (1) apply
for the grant; and (2) hire a consultant to develop an Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Strategy (EECS), assist the Village to implement any immediate plan initiatives, and
develop mechanisms to report progress back to the DOE. He also asked the Board to
consider the project's scope and whether it should be focused on municipal facilities and
property only or the entire community.
General comments, questions or concerns from the Village Board included the following:
. Apply for the grant and hire a consultant to assist the Village;
. The scope of the project, including the formation of the Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Strategy, should include the entire community;
. Grant funds should be spent on practical applications that will benefit the
community;
. Whether the consultant will be held liable to me4[tt the grant's deadlines;
. What the "Buy American" requirement means and its impact on the project;
. Consider what other communities are doing.
VII. MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Mayor Irvana Wilks and Trustee John Korn noted the presence of the French
delegation and their weekly activities.
Trustee Steven PoUt commented on the progress of the Levee 37 project. Village
Manager Michael Janonls stated that progress reports and pictures would be
forthcoming.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
Committee of the Whole
Page 3 of 3
5/26/09