Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Committee

MILWAUKEE AVENUE CORRIDOR COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 12, 2015 MEETING SUMMARY CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Co‐Chair Jekot at 8:00 a.m. ATTENDANCE The following Committee members were in attendance:  John Jekot, Village Trustee  Moses Nazzal, Superintendent of Engineering  Ross Klicker, Economic Development Coordinator  Bruce Sylvester, Senior Planner  Bob Pilat, Admin. Asst. to Director of Public Services EXCUSED  Danette Matyas, Village Trustee Others in attendance were:  Mary Anderson, Director of Public Services  Fred Braun, Streets Superintendent  Tony Dati, Village Forester  Mike Hudspeth, Baxter & Woodman Consulting Engineers  Mr. Lalich, Lalich Deli  Steve Naber, Baxter & Woodman Consulting Engineers  John Mick, Baxter & Woodman Consulting Engineers  Charles Ostman, Director of Community Development  Tom Powers, Civil Engineer II  Louella Preston, Resident  Andrew Przybylo, Mayor  Steve Vinezeano, Village Manager APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY B. Sylvester made a motion, seconded by M. Nazzal, to approve the November 13, 2014 meeting summary notes as presented. The motion passed unanimously. REVIEW OF VARIOUS LIGHTING OPTIONS FOR MILWAUKEE AVENUE S. Naber and M. Hudspeth from Baxter and Woodman Consulting Engineers made a presentation regarding the Milwaukee Avenue and Waukegan Road Streetlight Replacement Project. Page 1 of 6 The main topics discussed were:  Project Scope  What’s Been Done  Review Fixture and Pole Options  Proposed Design Schedule  Questions/Discussion Based upon structural integrity testing completed in 2013, the Village decided to replace the existing streetlight poles and fixtures with new poles and LED fixtures on Milwaukee Avenue from Albion Avenue to Greenwood Avenue (except for the section in Chicago), and on Waukegan Road, from Milwaukee Avenue to the Main Street. Baxter and Woodman detailed what has been completed to date including:  Notice to Proceed  Kickoff Meeting  Completed 6.1 miles of topography  Develop light pole and fixture options, eliminating options that did not meet the Village’s criteria or work for this project.  Completed a matrix of options for fixtures, from cobra head style to decorative fixtures. Highlights of the fixture discussion were as follows:  The number of fixtures needed will change based upon the type selected.  The spacing requirements will impact the monthly operating costs. More units equals a higher energy cost.  The life expectancy of the fixtures is estimated. Anything above 100,000 hours is unrealistic to verify at this time.  The light color temperature will vary from 3,000K being a yellowish light, 4,000K a metal halide or “white” light and 5,000K being a “Blue Light”. T. Dati asked if you have a higher output light and use less power will that fixture’s life be extended. B & W responded theoretically yes.  All of the fixtures would be part of a smart network and send information to a hub. The fixtures can send a message if something is wrong so staff can be made aware of the problem and make the necessary repairs.  The smart network would be able to dim the fixtures as long as it meets IDOT standards.  Other streets can be added to the smart network/adaptive control system. Older fixtures can be retrofitted to add the system, however sometimes a complete fixture change out is a better option than a retrofit. Page 2 of 6  Cobrahead fixtures are much cheaper than decorative fixtures. Based upon the fixture and pole selected, and the size of the project, the cost per pole could be from $7,000 to $19,000, which is a substantial range.  The DCEO grant program is based upon the amount of watts saved. One light fixture shown, the Beacon Standard, is currently not on the DCEO list. The Village had applied for this grant in the past but it was decided not to move ahead with the change out of fixtures because it was later determined the poles needed to be replaced as well.  The D6/D7 model fixture shown is more a less an invert of the pedestrian poles currently on Milwaukee Avenue. It was asked where the light source for this fixture is located. B & W responded it is on the lower part of the fixture.  It was asked how does a body such as the Milwaukee Corridor Committee decide which fixture to select – cost, electric, aesthetics, etc. B & W responded yes those are all considerations. B & W stated they have substantially reduced the number of fixtures for review.  F. Braun mentioned a distinct fixture now could be a problem in 10 years from now when trying to obtain replacement parts.  It was asked if this would replace the current pedestrian poles and fixtures. B & W responded it would not replace those poles. They could remain in place and the fixtures could be changed if desired.  There are different types of glare to motorists, disability and discomfort light that need to be taken into consideration when choosing a fixture and brightness of light, especially in the residential areas of Milwaukee Avenue.  B & W said ComEd is starting to change out old ComEd fixtures with LED fixtures in some towns.  B & W said perhaps it would be possible to obtain a photoshop rendering of what the fixture would look like on the street.  B & W noted that additional justification would be required if the lighting on a local road was dimmed in the future.  The general discussion on light color was that blue light was not going to be considered due to the glare and color rendering short comings. The decision will be between a white light and a yellow light. White light provides a crisper visual feel, while yellow light is warmer but has poorer color rendering capabilities.  The discussion on light color also referenced the retail nature of portions of the corridor and that the lighting should enhance the retail experience to drive sales.  There was a request for outlets to be provided on the poles to allow for lit up decorations and possibly the stringing of Christmas lights over or along the street.  B & W noted that due to the 27.5 foot height of the poles that banner arms on the inside of the poles may not be feasible as the banners must be a minimum height of 15 feet from the ground. B & W will prepare an exhibit to demonstrate how the banners will look with the new poles. Page 3 of 6  There was discussion above providing a Niles landmark/welcome signage and lighting. Beacon lighting for retail areas was also discussed as a possibility.  It was asked if there are adjustable mast arms so the arms and fixtures could be leveled if poles shift. B & W said the mast arms are not adjustable but some fixtures have a minimal degree of adjustability.  There was general discussion of white versus yellow versus blue light and the impact it has on an area. Whatever light type selected is more a personal preference. Two towns six miles from one another selected different styles of light for their respective downtown areas.  It was mentioned the new light poles would be able to support flags, banners, decorations and flower baskets as long as IDOT requirements are met.  It was mentioned IDOT does not like a staggered light pole configuration and that some things may need to be adjusted due to overhead utilities.  The width of Milwaukee Avenue, especially near Golf Road will pose some design challenges in adequately lighting the wide roadway cross section.  It was asked if there are things we can add to increase the “wow factor”. B & W said most options you can think of are already available – all it takes is the financial capability.  The pros and cons of group or individual photo cell turn‐on was discussed. This will need to be decided later.  B & W discussed how Schaumburg can use their lighting system to provide updates to pedestrians and motorists.  B & W said when fixture options are narrowed down they will be able to provide an estimated return on investment payback.  It was discussed MFT funds could be used to fund this project.  It was asked if the power supply wires would be buried in an open trench or auger. The lines would be augured to limit the impact to the area.  B & W said there are samples of poles and arms provided in the handout however everything is interchangeable.  Poles can be purchased in a number of materials including steel, aluminum or composite, and each has pros and cons.  All poles would have access to the electric at the base.  Generally the mast arms would be eight or ten feet to meet IDOT lighting requirements.  Colors of the pole would be black or verde (antique) green.  A combo pole with a streetlight and traffic signal would need IDOT approval. While the adaptive control would still control the light, the power would be supplied from a different source than the other lights because it is on an IDOT traffic signal pole and effects the safety of maintenance personnel.  It was mentioned large bases may not work if there is limited right‐of‐way. It was requested these locations be provided to the Village so an easement could be obtained. Page 4 of 6   It was asked how the fixtures are adjusted to maintain uniformity. B & W responded the software program calculates the placement and takes into account spacing of poles. Based upon the various discussions it was decided a field trip to inspect various pole and fixture units would be coordinated at a future date. REVIEW OF ITEP PHASE IV BID B. Pilat stated bids were opened by IDOT for the Milwaukee Avenue Streetscape Project on January 30th. The apparent low bidder is Martam Construction in the amount of $931,221.50. The current approved agreement provides estimated amounts, and has $850,100 available for construction of this improvement ($680,080 ITEP funds and $170,020 Village funds). This leaves an anticipated shortfall of $81,121.50 that would need to be paid by the Village. If we wish to award the project, a letter on Village letterhead indicating that the Village concurs to award the project to the as‐read low bidder must be sent to IDOT. While no specific due date for the letter is mentioned, if the contract is not awarded within 45 days, the contractor has the option of walking away from the project. IDOT believes waiting to approve this at the Village’s February 24th Board Meeting may potentially delay the approval process and cause a delay in the award, forcing the project to be rebid. If a letter is sent eventually an Amended Division of Cost agreement and MFT resolution authorizing the increased amount will need to be approved by the Village Board unless the contract quantities are reduced to bring the project under budget. Bid results were as follows After discussion between Committee members and Mayor Przybylo and Manager Vinezeano, it was agreed the Village should indicate their acceptance of the project. If Page 5 of 6 the Village Board does not support the increased project costs we will revisit the issue with IDOT. B. Pilat made a motion, seconded by M. Nazzal to send a letter to IDOT stating we concur with the award of the low bid to Martam Construction. The motion passed unanimously. R. Klicker stated Booby’s Restaurant had asked that the plaza area that is supposed to be grass directly in front of their entrance doors be replaced with brick pavers so it has greater use. This request was not acted upon at this time. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, a motion was made by J. Jekot, seconded by M. Nazzal to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m. Page 6 of 6