At a recent meeting, the Algonquin Committee of the Whole advanced a contract bid by Arrow Road Construction for the Stonegate Roadway Rehabilitation Project.
The Algonquin Committee of the Whole consists of the president and board of trustees. After the Committee of the Whole has met to discuss issues related to community development, general administration of the village, or public works and safety, matters that need formal actions are placed on the agenda for the regular village board meeting.
Below are the minutes from this meeting, as provided by the committee.
Page 1 of 4
Village of Algonquin
Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
Held in Village Board Room
June 28, 2016
AGENDA ITEM 1: Roll Call to Establish a Quorum
Chairman Jim Steigert called the Committee of the Whole meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Trustees,
John Spella, Jerrold Glogowski, and President Schmitt Debby Sosine, Brian Dianis, Bob Smith. A quorum wasestablished.
Staff Members Present: Tim Schloneger, Bob Mitchard, Russ Farnum, Diane LaCalamita, Kelsey Langeler,and Attorney Kelly Cahill. Village Clerk Jerry Kautz was also in attendance.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Audience Participation
None
AGENDA ITEM 3: Community Development
Reported by Mr. Farnum:
A. Consider Candidate Himes for Historic Commission Member
Staff received interest earlier this month from an Algonquin resident Shari Himes, who is interested in joiningthe village’s Historic Commission. Ms. Himes has been a resident in Downtown Algonquin for more than 15years, and her qualifications are very good. Staff recommends the Committee move to appoint Ms. Himes tofill the seat of Louise Nee, who stepped down at the end of her term last month. Should the Committee concur;Ms. Himes will be eligible to join the commission as a sitting member in July.
The Committee of the Whole consensus was to move this on for approval.
B. Consider a Secondary Sign Request by CVS Pharmacy for Inside Target
Ms. Tracey Diehl from Expedite the Diehl, on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, has submitted a petition for a variationto the Village’s Sign Code (Chapter 29) to allow for a secondary business wall sign to the front exterior of theSuper Target at 750 S. Randall Road. CVS Pharmacy wishes to utilize the wall sign area over the northernfront entry to install a new 36” tall wall sign noting “CVS pharmacy” with a heart logo. There is currently an
existing wall sign that consists of 30” letters noting the word “PHARMACY”. The PUD approved for the Targetdevelopment allowed for three exterior walls signs; the largest is centered on the front wall noting “SuperTarget” with the bullseye logo; the second sign notes “Grocery” over the southern entrance and the third noting“Pharmacy” over the northern entrance. Section 29.07.5(k)(II) of the Sign Code specifically states the following:
The surface area of the secondary wall sign shall not exceed that of the primary wall sign and that the samestyle, color and content are used. Due to this requirement the Village has not permitted secondary businessesto have exterior wall signs. No hardship is proven as there are many similarly situated stores inside other largeanchor stores throughout the Village. In order to achieve a uniform appearance of the adopted SignCodesrequirements, staff does not recommend approval of the Sign Variation as there is no apparent hardship. Itwould also seem unfair to other business owners that have abided by the Sign Code requirements withoutissue. Staff feels such wall signage should be used to simply identify the service of a pharmacy business beingoffered at this Target location and not serve as advertising. Mr. Doug Merritt, representing CVS was present toplead their case and answer questions. CVS signage would better serve the area so customers would knowthere is a full service pharmacy available that is not the case at Target before the twocompanies signed anagreement.
Trustee Smith said he had no problem letting CVS adding their name before the word pharmacy on the frontside of the Target building. Trustees Sosine and Dianis disagreed. President Schmitt added the village signcode is very specific and does not think the change is needed.
Following discussion, it was decided to let CVS and staff meet again to see if a compromise can be reached.C. Consider a Public Event Permit for the Algonquin Lions Club to host a 5k Run Turkey TrotThanksgiving Day, November 24, 2016
Mr. Kevin Gardeck, on behalf of the Algonquin Lions Club, has submitted a Public Event EntertainmentLicense Application proposing to hold their first annual 5K Turkey Trot on Thursday, November 24, 2016
(Thanksgiving Day) from the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. The event would include a 5K Run leaving from
Lifetime Fitness and ending back at Lifetime Fitness with the 5K route going into the residential neighborhoodjust west of Lifetime Fitness. Proceeds from the $20 to $30 entry fee to participate in the event will be donatedto the Algonquin Food Pantry as well as charity organizations associated with the hearing and vision impaired.
Due to the use of the public streets, the event is in need of Village Board approval. The Algonquin PoliceDepartment and Public Works Department have reviewed and approved the proposed route and event.
Parking for participants will be available within the Lifetime Fitness parking lot and within the residentialneighborhood public streets adjacent to the event location, if needed. The Algonquin Lions Club hascontracted with the Algonquin Police Department to have at two uniform officers on site during the event toassist with the directing of traffic on Huntington Drive as well as assist with the crossing at Hanson Roadduring the run. The event coordinator has been advised to contact the Algonquin/Lake in the Hills Fire
Protection District should they wish to have an EMS service on site. All debris will be cleared by volunteers andall such debris will be disposed of off-site. No alcohol will be permitted. The Algonquin Lions Club has providedthe necessary Certificate of Insurance naming the Village of Algonquin as additional insured as well as theHold Harmless Agreement.
Consensus of the Committee of the Whole was to move this item on to the Board for approval
D. Consider Algonquin Commons Public Event – Rock and Shop July Concert Series
This item is time sensitive and added to tonight’s agenda.
The Algonquin Commons Property Manager, Susan Mann, has submitted a request wishing to hold a series ofoutdoor concerts on Saturdays and Sundays during the month of July (July 9, 10, 16, 17, 23, 24, 30 and 31,2016). Bands would be set up on the front walk area in front of the guest services area with a 20’ x 20’ tentand a 16’ x 20’ stage and play from 3 pm to 6 pm. A list of musicians has not been provided but it notexpected to be a large scale event. The mall would be providing their own security for the event. Due to therebeing outdoor amplified music involved, Village Board approval is necessary. There would be no admissionfees and the event is open to the public. A Certificate of Insurance has not been provided nor has the HoldHarmless Agreement. There will be a $50.00 permit fee charged for each date; $400.00 total.
Consensus was to approve the request at the next Board meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 4: General Administration
None
AGENDA ITEM 5: Public Works & Safety
Reported by Ms. Langeler and Mr. Mitchard:
A. Consider an Agreement with Shogren Fence Inc. to Replace Baseball Field Back Stops
As part of the 2017 budget, staff allotted funds for the replacement of three baseball field back stop fencingstructures; one for Algonquin Lakes Park, and two for Kelliher Park. We solicited proposals from three differentvendors to provide these installations. It is the recommendation to have these installed by Shogren Fence Inc.of Round Lake, IL. (the lowest cost proposal) for the amount of seventy-nine thousand three hundred and
ninety-two dollars ($79,392). Mr. Mitchard added that the back stops have shown much wear and one actuallycollapsed during a heavy snow storm last winter.
The Committee of the Whole consensus was to move this item on for approval.
B. Consider an Agreement with Lorig Construction for Copper Oaks Subdivision Improvements
This project will entail grinding of the existing surface and binder, assessment and repair of any failed granularsubbase, patching of curb and gutter where needed, replacement of driveway aprons as necessary,replacement of failed sidewalk and repair of storm sewer structures, and installation of a new asphalt drivingsurface. This project also addresses some of the drainage back-ups of the subdivision by correcting thestormwater flow as it enters the detention basin behind the fire station and continues through a ditch and under
Route 62. Lorig Construction Company was the low bidder on the project with a bid price of $1,706,990.73 andSpaceco believes their bid to be in good order. Lorig has previously performed work for the Village and theyexceeded our expectations. They are also within the budgeted amount of $1,800,000.00.
Consensus of the Committee of the Whole was to move this item on to the Board for approval.
C. Consider an Agreement with Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. for the Surrey Lane Drainage
Improvement Inspection Services
Per the RFP all firms submitted a cost based on the RFP for observation & documentation, as well asmanagement of Material Testing. Utilizing the modified decision matrix, the firm that provided the best valuewas Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. This firm listed the top rated inspector and had one of the lowestcosts. In addition, CBBEL has listed AES as the ecological sub-consultant for this project, a firm that is veryfamiliar with the Village and the design of this project. Based on all the above mentioned information it is myrecommendation that you consider Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd for this project. The Village budgetedan amount of $170,000.00 in 04900300-42232. The estimated cost of services of the recommended firm is inthe amount of $98,940.00.
The Committee of the Whole consensus was to move this on for approval.
D. Consider an Agreement with Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. for the Phase 1 & 2 Design
Engineering Services for Dry Utility Relocation/Undergrounding within the Downtown StreetscapeProject
Staff has reviewed the Work Order Agreement for the Phase 1 & 2 Design Engineering Services thatas was informally requested for the Dry Utility Relocation/Undergrounding within the Downtown Streetscapeproject in the Village of Algonquin. The proposal was reviewed with an emphasis on the firm’s qualifications,expertise, work load, team makeup, and value. CBBEL has the experience and is the acting managing
consultant to the Downtown Streetscape project. CBBEL’s position provides the Village with comfort that theywill provide a product that takes into account all aspects of the various contracts within this large and complexdowntown reconstruction. The cost of the CBBEL proposal is a Not to Exceed total of $87,600.00. This cost isbased on an unknown amount of man hours and direct fees.
The Committee of the Whole consensus was to move this on for approval.
E. Consider an Agreement with Christopher B. Burke Engineering Services for Phase 1 and 2
Engineering Service for the Countryside, Par, & Huntington Resurfacing Project
Staff reviewed the Proposals for the Phase 1 Design Engineering Services as indicated in the Request forProposal for the Countryside, Par, & Huntington Resurfacing (VoA16-01-14D, E, & J) project in the Village ofAlgonquin. This RFP only was sent to the listed consultant below. The proposal was reviewed with anemphasis on the firm’s qualifications, expertise, work load, team makeup, and value. Following is the criteriaused for those mentioned in the RFP for recommendation. 1) CBBEL has met all minimum requirements forthe proposal. 2) CBBEL is qualified to perform the scope of work. 3) CBBEL is very familiar with the Villagestandard of design. The cost of the proposal is a not to exceed total of $33,196.00. Mr. Mitchard added thatsome field work and aerial photography will be needed.
The Committee of the Whole consensus was to move this on for approval.
F. Consider an Agreement with Chastain & Associates, LLC of Chicago for Phase 1 and 2 Engineeringon the Boyer & County Line Road Rehabilitation Project
Staff reviewed the Proposals for the Phase 1 & 2 Design Engineering Services as indicated in theRequest for Proposal for the Boyer & County Line IMS (VoA16-01-14A & C) project in the Village of Algonquin.
Each proposal was reviewed with an emphasis on the firm’s qualifications, expertise, work load, team makeup,and value. Following is the criteria used in the RFP for staff’s recommendation.
1) Reviewed each proposal for conformance to the RFP requirements: Eliminated was V3 due to lack of NonCollusion
& No Conflict of Interest forms. Strand has requested quite a few alterations to the proposedcontract, thus making them an outlier. HR Green had a handful of alterations to the insurance requirements,but nothing to significant. 2) Reviewed the cost of each proposal to meet the scope of services outlined in RFP:
The average cost of the proposals received was $86,433.26. When throwing out the high and low the averagewas $84,576.03. The three low bid average is $67,290.67. 3) Reviewed the technical aspects of theproposals, including any sub-consultants. Most firms included a Phase 1 ESA sub-consultant however a fewfirms (CBBEL, HLR, & V3), have indicated they have qualified internal personnel to conduct environmentalscope of service. However, HR Green failed to list a sub-consultant or provide company information thatindicted they were qualified to conduct the environmental scope of services. Considering the review of theabove, the decision was left between Chastain, CBBEL, & HLR. The total price proposal of Chastain &Associate, LLC was nearly 22K cheaper than CBBEL and 34K cheaper than HLR. The cost of the Chastain &
Associates, LLC proposal is a Not to Exceed total of $55,805.00.
The Committee of the Whole consensus was to move this on for approval.
G. Consider an Agreement with HR Green for Phase 1 & 2 Design Engineering Services for CreeksCrossing Park & Drainage Improvements
Staff reviewed the Proposals for the Phase 1 & 2 Design Engineering Services as indicated in the Request forProposal for the Creeks Crossing Park & Drainage Improvement project in the Village of Algonquin. Eachproposal was reviewed with an emphasis on the firm’s qualifications, expertise, work load, team makeup, andvalue. 1) Based on review of each proposal in conformance to the RFP requirements. As such 3 firms do notexactly meet the requirement of partnering with an ecological firm. HLR & V3 both have “in house” ecologicalservices, however as the Village has not utilized them in the past for this type of work it is difficult to determineif they have sufficient capabilities to meet our stringent expectations. The other oddity regarding ecological firmrepresentation is in the teaming up of PRI & Strand in a proposal. PRI would be the design lead and utilize
Strand for ecological services, however much like HLR & V3, Strand is primarily a civil engineering firm thathas not had any ecological design experience with the Village. 2) I noted that prices of the lowest 4 firms werewithin approximately 17K of each other in fee totals. This indicates to me that these firms have a strong andsimilar understanding of the requirements. With that staff determined that Ciorba, HLR, & V3 have weaker faithin their ability to meet the requirements of the scope and thus must have buffered their costs to meet what theyfeel are unknowns. This left the decision down to Chastain, CBBEL, & HR Green. Ultimately, HR Green isbeing selected over Chastian & CBBEL for a few simple facts. 1) They visited the site and have already (inproposal) provided excellent insight into project options. 2) They provided a clear cost advantage, and alsoproposed alternative cost options for design work. The RFP for this project was written to get pricing to
complete engineering design. However, staff only budgeted money this year for a concept plan on this projectin the amount of $20,000. Therefore, staff has negotiated with HR Green on the services provided in the RFPto reduce the scope and bring this proposal closer to our budgeted number and original intention for this fiscalyear, which is a concept plan with some preliminary Phase 1 engineering components. The Village negotiated
price is $27,233. We are under budget for the Snapper Field Court Improvements so we will transfer moneyfrom that project to cover our negotiated price for this contract. It is the recommendation that the Committee of
the Whole take the necessary action to authorize the Board of Trustees to enter into an agreement in theabove amount with HR Green of McHenry, IL.
The Committee of the Whole consensus was to move this item on for approval.
H. Consider an Agreement with Arrow Road Construction for Stonegate Roadway RehabilitationProject
Bids received Stonegate Roadway Rehabilitation (VoA15-10-20A) project that the Village of Algonquin isproposing. Each bid was reviewed to ensure conformance with the bid specifications (certification, security,
cost, etc.). Per the bid requirements all firms submitted a cost based on forty-three line items. This projecthas an engineer’s estimate of cost at $742,997.50. The project is budget line item 04900300-43370 in theamount of $1,500,00.00. This project does have a relatively small spread in costs, as there is only a 16% cost
difference from the max and min bids received. The 3 low bids fell within 10% of each other, thus indicatinggreat consistency when competitive. In fact, in throwing out the lowest bid, the next 4 bids came in within$30,000.00 of each other. This is a clear indication that pricing on the base bid low end was ultra-competitive.
Arrow Road construction was the low bidder at $588,744.40, is very familiar with the Village, typicallycompleting 2-3 jobs per year, and has a great name in the road building business. It is for those reasons andthe analysis conducted that staff recommends Arrow Road Construction, Co. for award of the contract.
The Committee of the Whole consensus was to move this item on for approval.
AGENDA ITEM 6: Executive Session
None
AGENDA ITEM 7: Other Business
Presented by Mr. Mitchard
1. Consider Phase 1, 2, & 3 Design Engineering Services for the HSP Motor Replacements at WTP NO.
2 & 3 (VoA16-0406A) & MCC Replacement at WTP NO. 1 (VoA15-11-23A)
Mr. Mitchard reported these are very important motor control panels and high service water pumps.
The proposal submitted by EEI has met all of the necessary requirements. With that staff has determined thatEEI due to the familiarity with the Algonquin water treatment and distribution system, be recommended for the scope of service listed in the RFP. The cost of the proposal is a not to exceed total of $58,712.00. This cost isbased on an unknown amount of EEI man hours. The Village budgeted amount in Utilities fund code
12900400-42232 is $22,000.00 for the HSP work & in Utilities fund code 0700400-42232 is $46,000.00 for theMCC work. The combined budget total is $68,000.00, which covers the cost of the proposal. Recommendationfrom staff is to accept the proposal.
The Committee of the Whole consensus was to move this item on for approval.
AGENDA ITEM 8: Adjournment
There being no further business, Chairman Steigert adjourned the Committee of the Whole meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Submitted: Jerry Kautz, Village Clerk
Alerts Sign-up