ISPE Updating Standard Specifications for Water and Sewer Construction in Illinois

Below is a press release from the Illinois Society of Professional Engineers regarding an update to the Standard Specifications for Water and Sewer Construction in Illinois:

Recommendations Sought for Illinois Water & Sewer Construction Guide

Comment Period Open through April 16

(Springfield, Ill.)  The Illinois Society of Professional Engineers along with partner organizations seek recommended updates to the 2009 Standard Specifications for Water & Sewer Construction in Illinois.  Submissions will be accepted via email between January 9 and April 16, 2013.  This construction guide is used by designers and contractors to guide the construction and installation of water, storm water, and sanitary sewer infrastructure throughout the state.

“In an attempt to remain current with the constantly evolving construction industry, ISPE and the Standard Specifications committee will undergo an update process to the 2009 Standard Specifications for Water and Sewer Construction in Illinois,” according to Dan Figola, PE, LEED AP, chair of the committee.    “This will be a quadrennial update rather than a rewrite, which was undertaken in 2009.”  The entire update will occur during calendar year 2013. 

The schedule for the update process is as follows:

  • January 9 – April 16, 2013 – Submission Period
  • April – September, 2013  – Submission Review Period
  • October – November, 2013  – Finalization of Revised Sections
  • December, 2013 – Printing

The manner for distributing updates will be announced in early Fall 2013.

 

Those wishing to submit changes for consideration should email the recommendations to standardspecs@illinoisengineer.com.   Submission guidelines include:

  • Provide complete contact information of the individual making the submission, including name, title, company, address, phone number, email address and role in the water/sewer system (design engineer, contractor, municipal official/public works profession, sanitary district).
  • Amendments to different sections should be submitted as separate documents.
  • List the section to be amended at the top of the first page.
  • Include supporting documentation for the change, including any ASTM, ASHTO or IDOT specifications, Illinois or US EPA guidelines.

 

The 2009 Standard Specifications for Water & Sewer Construction in Illinois is available through the Illinois Society of Professional Engineers.  Order forms can be found at www.IllinoisEngineer.com.

Share

Managing CCDD Material in Illinois

Well now that the dust has settled on the CCDD regulations, many of us are figuring out how we are going to manage the material in order to comply with the law. Basically, the process for many of us will be some modification of the following:

Determine if the excavation is near a Potentially Impacted Property or PIP

If near a PIP and not returning the material to the excavation,

  1. Place excavated material in a pile separated from other material
  2. Mark the pile in some manner to designate where it came from
  3. Arrange for testing of the material and if not contaminated receive form LPC-663 signed by a PE/PG
  4. If testing shows material is not contaminated, take material with form LPC-663 to a CCDD fill operation
  5. If testing shows material is contaminated, take the material to a landfill

 

If NOT near a PIP and not returning the material to the excavation,

  1. Place excavated material in a pile separated from other material
  2. Mark the pile in some manner to designate where it came from
  3. Arrange for pH testing of the material and if not contaminted, fill out form LPC-662
  4. If testing shows material is not contaminated (a pH between 6.5 and 9.0), take material with form LPC-662 to a CCDD fill operation
  5. If testing shows material is contaminated, take the material to a landfill

If CCDD material has been painted, it cannot be placed in a CCDD fill operation unless the owner is able to certify the paint meets certain requirements and indicates this using form LPC-667.

What each company and agency will have to work out will be if they are requiring crews to fill out a customized form for each excavation to document handling of that material, who will perform all the testing, and where material will be placed while it is being tested. For some, the cost of testing material excavated near a PIP will be more than the cost to just take it to a landfill. In those cases, the policy might be to take all soil excavated from a location near a PIP directly to a landfill.

In order to assist in the management of CCDD material, companies and agencies can set up websites to inform and track the material and testing status. I put together a Google Sites template that can be used for this purpose – you can view it here: CCDD Management Site. To use this to create your own site, click the "Use Template" button in the top right corner of that site. This will bring you to the Google Sites page (make sure you are signed into your Google account – if you don't have one, you can visit this site to find out how to get one: Social Media in Public Works 101 – Introduction/Email). Your template is already selected so all you need to do is type in a name for your site, make sure the URL is what you want, then type in the funny looking characters to let Google know you are not a robot. Google will then create your site.

After your site is created, you can begin editing and customizing it for your own purposes. The CCDD Status Table can be edited and all entries and column headings changed as needed. You can also add or delete anything to the pages depending on what you want your group to see when they visit your site. Also, make sure to go in and edit any viewing permissions. Right now the site is set up to be viewed by the public. You might want to change this so only those who you give the link to or those who you invite to the site can view or edit it. Another benefit of a site like this is that users can subscribe to the site so they are notified whenever changes are made. Below is a screenshot of the sample site:

CCDD Management Site

Share

Should We Give People Free iPads?

New iPad - from http://www.flickr.com/people/johnkarakatsanis/Over the last few days I've been exposed to two ideas that interest me in how each demonstrates the need to properly vet an idea. (As an aside for for all of you familiar with MMORPGs: I figure if life was a game, "Vetting an Idea" would be considered a passive ability for those in the engineering profession.) First on Friday, I came across a quick example from the business world. One of my favorite companies, Linden Lab, offered a package deal on Amazon for their product Second Life. The deal was that you could buy a "Starter Package" for $0 (marked down from $9.95) and get a free vehicle for use in Second Life along with $1,000L which has a value of roughly $4 USD. While there is the root of a good idea here, I am not sure its implementation was properly thought through. The problem is that it was supposed to be ONE PER CUSTOMER. Yet people quickly discovered, for those who have multiple characters/avatars in Second Life, it was possible to buy this for each one. By the end of the day on which it launched, the offer was discontinued.

I won't go into the whole analysis of it here because there have been many blog posts already written about what happened. But I offer it to show that vetting an idea is important for both business as well as government. And the failure to do so can result in unintended consequences along with a backlash of criticism from the community. 

Should government give people free iPads?

The example I really wanted to delve into was an idea shared with me by another government professional who works for another community. He is kicking around the idea of giving a free iPad to one or two residents on each construction project to help improve communications during a construction project. Now at first, my engineer sense, which in many ways seems to work very much like Spiderman's spidey sense, says this is a bad idea with terrifying results. And not for the reason you are probably thinking. But in an effort to not be the "Negative Nancy" that many accuse engineers of being, I thought I'd ignore my first reaction and try to see how to make this work. And by doing so, begin putting it through the vetting process.

Lindberg Road Reconstruction in LaSalle, IL

Formulating the outcome

So the first step is to formulate the desired outcome or put down in writing why we are doing this. In this particular case, this person wants to increase communication during a construction project. He figures there are always one or two people on a project who always want to hang out and watch so why not give them the means to manage the communication for the project for their neighborhood. So he suggested giving them free iPads and asking them to use them to keep everyone up to date.

How did we do this before?

As some background, in the past and prior to social media project-related communication was normally done through several methods: sending out letters to the community and those most affected by the project and making personal contact throughout the project with those located within its limits or those affected by the project site. Now with the Internet, we can also add this information to websites and other social media sites. I experimented with using Twitter for this purpose back in 2008 and found it to be very successful. (See the Twitter stream from that project here: http://www.twitter.com/golfview2008).

Anticipating the unintended consequences

So let's anticipate any problems or consequences that could be caused by introducing the iPad idea. One of the first that comes to mind for me is based on a common occurrence engineers experience on the jobsite. They are often faced and confronted by a high degree of concern for fairness between properties. If one person gets their driveway touched and others do not, people are wondering why. Some demand they get the same treatment. Usually after we explain that only driveways impacted by the design and construction of the project are touched, most people understand and drop their demand for a new driveway. After all, we are not building the project for the purpose of giving everyone a new drive, but only to fix the road. However I have worked places where people become raving mad about not getting a new driveway, even if it isn't needed, just because their neighbor got one. So I would anticipate that giving a free iPad to one or two people on a project might bring out this sense of "my neighbor got something I did not." 

The other issues are more of  legal questions. First what if the iPad is given with the understanding that it will be used to communicate to others and the person does not do this. How would the city enforce their expectation and can they and is doing so a good idea? 

Another question is what if no one wants to do this? The residents who spent the most time on my projects did not seem like the type who would be interested in serving as the information people for the project so how do we find those who do? And what will be the process for making sure we have given everyone equal opportunity to volunteer?

The other legal question is that if the city gives someone a free iPad and tells them they expect it to be used to communicate information about the project and the person does this, but they also use it to display child pornography does the city have any liability in their actions? Perhaps there is no liability, but not being a lawyer, I am not sure.

Asphalt Paving on Anderson Blvd in Geneva IL

Thinking outside the box

So how could these two problems be avoided? Perhaps there could be a lottery for the iPad so that the opportunity to use it is by chance. But that might increase the risk that it would not properly be used for its intended purpose. Could an information kiosk be set up on each job with restrictions on what could be added to it? Could we have the person receiving the iPad sign something to protect the city should it be used for illegal purposes?

I am not sure of the answers to much of this and am still considering all aspects and trying to find solutions. I am also sure the person suggesting this plans to run it through their own vetting process. But in the meantime, I thought it'd be a good topic to throw out to the community for feedback because I am sure at some point someone in your own community might suggest a similar idea. I'm also interested in hearing what citizens would think about their government trying out this idea.

 

Share

Why is the Illinois Department of Agriculture Determining Stormwater Rules for Cities?

Winter flooding across a farm field

Recently I wrote about the draft release of Post-Development Stormwater Runoff Performance Standards for Illinois. And in discussions with colleagues over the last few weeks, I have not heard any positive support from anyone who has a professional background in stormwater management or regulation. Instead the consensus among stormwater professionals regarding the draft is that the entire document should be rewritten and the recommendations reconsidered because they are based on few facts, will not work, and will increase project costs significantly. So it makes you wonder how did something that so poorly addresses the reality of stormwater management get this far, and why is the IEPA seriously considering accepting recommendations from a group with a majority of members who have absolutely no background in stormwater management or regulation?

To begin answering this question, you need to look at who is running the show. This was one of the first questions I heard from everyone – why in the world did the IEPA arrange to have the Association of Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Districts (AISWCD) lead this effort? There are so many counties who could have been consulted instead – they bring decades of stormwater management and regulation to the table. Yet none were contacted. They could have reached out to engineers who have spent their career formulating stormwater designs, managing stormwater projects, and maintaining and regulating stormwater facilities. Yet only one recognized engineering expert with a background in all of these was picked to be in the workgroup.

So again, why the AISWCD? And just who is the AISWCD? Their website explains the group is

"a not-for-profit organization governed by a board of directors who represent the state’s 98 Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Districts."

So the purpose of this private group is to represent the Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Illinois – a group of governmental agencies. In 2010, the group received $231,663.09 in dues from these districts. So the next question is what are the Soil and Water Conservation Districts? (Of course a side question is why does a group of governmental agencies need a private, non-profit group to represent their interests, but that's another story.) The districts were created through an act of the Illinois Legislature and appear to be part of the Department of Agriculture. There is an advisory board to oversee these districts – here is the State's page indicating those board members: http://appointments.illinois.gov/appointmentsDetail.cfm?id=256

As you can see, the members of the advisory board for the Districts are supposed to come from Agriculture – not stormwater related professions. This is particularly interesting to note when you take into consideration that one of the first statements made at the public hearing held in Aurora regarding the new stormwater recommendations was that anything related to agriculture was not on the table – would not even be considered. It is also interesting when you read the recommendations and see that there is no mention of relying on the State's 303d list of impaired waters to make any decisions. Of course when you look at the State's official report regarding land uses contributing to pollution of these streams, you will see that agriculture is one of top contributors – much more so than what is contributed by stormwater runoff from communities and significantly more so than what is contributed from highways.

Sources of Stream Impairments
Potential Source Stream Miles Impaired
Source Unknown 7097
Atmospheric Deposition – Toxics 3050
Crop Production (Crop Land or Dry Land) 2576
Channelization 2471
Agriculture 1395
Municipal Point Discharges 1374
Loss of Riparian Habitat 1245
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 1207
Animal Feeding Operations 652
Livestock (Grazing or Feeding Ops) 290
Combined Sewer Overflows 253
Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff 110

Table Source: ILLINOIS INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY REPORT AND SECTION 303(d) LIST, 2012

It also makes you wonder when you ask a work group member what the goals were for the recommendations and cleaning up the environment or improving our water quality was not the answer. So to summarize, the IEPA put the wolf in charge of the hen house – oh, I mean, the IEPA put the Department of Agriculture in charge of deciding stormwater standards and regulations to be imposed only on home and business owners, municipalities, and developers. And because no obvious goal has been stated in the recommendations, it makes you wonder is the goal really environmentally related or is it a protection of agricultural interests cloaked in the benevolent perception of helping the environment?

 

Share

Illinois Considers New Stormwater Regulations

Inlet FlowIf you live in Illinois, it’s important for you to be aware of a set of recommendations for changes to stormwater regulations in Illinois. Because if the Illinois EPA (IEPA) adopts the recommendations as submitted, everyone in Illinois has the potential to be financially impacted by their implementation. And even though these recommendations have the potential to significantly increase costs to the majority of people in Illinois, few people were even aware they were being developed. Unfortunately, these regulations are complicated and comprehensive so I’ve created a general summary in this post with a more detailed look at the recommendations in the next post (draft of that post). I encourage you to at least read through this post because, if implemented, this will impact everyone living or doing business in Illinois. It is very important to know and understand what is being considered.

Background

Those of us who work with stormwater design and regulations first found out about the proposed recommendation about a month ago from one of the committee members. He was one of only two engineers who were on the committee with the rest primarily being members of environmental groups. This engineer sent out an email letting us know that it was important for us to attend a public meeting where the draft recommendations were to be released. He also encouraged us to submit comments because while he was able to prevent through his participation on the committee some unreasonable suggestions from making it into the document, there were still significant problems with the proposal. Initially the IEPA was only going to give the public until November 23, 2012, to comment. This date has been extended to November 30, 2012, although it really is still not enough time to adequately inform people about these recommendations and give them time to respond. The link to the IEPA fact sheet with the public meeting announcement, a link to the proposed recommendations, and a suggested comment email you can send are at the bottom of this post.
 

General summary of the recommendations

The workgroup recommended that sites to be developed in Illinois would be required to retain the first 1.35 inches of rain that falls on the area of impervious surfaces located on the property. The site would not be allowed to release this water off the property at all. An example of this is if you were to build an average size home on an average size lot, you would have to build a stormwater facility on your property to capture and hold approximately 3000 gallons of water (this amount of water fits into a space measuring about 10 feet by 10 feet by 4 feet deep). The design of this facility would have to be done by a licensed professional engineer and the drawings recorded with your building permit. While the recommendations also suggest requiring a licensed engineer to prepare as-builts and certify the facility was constructed as planned and record these drawings with the state and local agencies, the recommendations also indicate a possibility of waiving just the as-built drawing requirement for single family homes. Instead homeowners would be required to self-certify that the facility was built as designed.
 
However, the workgroup recognized that not all sites might allow the construction of such a facility – for example, in a downtown area. In these cases, property owners would have to provide an off-site mitigation facility.This mitigation site would have to be located somewhere in the same region as the building site.
 
The other component of the recommendations is the requirement of an operation and maintenance plan. This plan must show how the property owner will maintain and operate the facility for the life of the property and provide for methods to measure and prove the facility is performing as designed. The recommendation is that this plan become a recorded covenant attached to your deed with responsible parties identified in the document. And this plan will be required whether the facility is located on the property or on a mitigation site. The plan must also cover such items as weeding, irrigation, replacement at the end of the facility’s useful life, snow storage, and de-icing practices. A budget for the plan’s implementation must also be included. It is suggested the owner track these costs and submit them to the IEPA on a periodic basis.
 
The workgroup does not believe any legislation is needed to implement these regulations. Therefore it is suggested the IEPA enforce them through existing programs. This means that most likely local governments will be required by the IEPA to enforce the regulations locally. Because of the lack of staff at most local governments and the amount of inspections and oversight and enforcement required by these recommendations, many governments could be forced to create a stormwater utility or at a minimum raise taxes to their citizens to cover the cost of these regulations.
 
The other problem for local governments is that these regulations will apply to any project involving impervious surfaces like roads. So state and local governments will have to capture and hold water along roadways. Because there usually is not room to do this along a typical road corridor, the recommendations suggest the purchase of land along roads for these stormwater facilities. This could lead to governments having to secure land from adjacent property owners for this purpose. And in many cases it could lead to the installation and required maintenance of natural plantings and swales along roads in front of homes. The costs for the additional land, design and construction of these facilities, and the perpetual monitoring and maintenance of their performance will significantly increase government expenditures which most likely will be passed along to property owners through taxes or stormwater fees.
 

General problems with the recommendations

Overall the problems these recommendations could cause are potentially numerous. Below are just a few problems/issues, in addition to those noted above, that might be faced by each of the following groups:
 
Homeowners: They will have additional costs during construction of anything that will create a hard, nonpermeable surface such as buildings, driveways, pools, patios, etc. They will have a liability attached to their deed naming them as a responsible party for the operation and maintenance of a stormwater facility either located on their property or on someone else’s property if mitigation was needed. They will need to follow their operation and maintenance plan, provide and track the budget for its implementation, and possibly submit this to a governmental agency. Should neighbors complain they are not adequately maintaining their own facility, they could be subject to inspection and possible enforcement and fines by a governmental agency. In addition, if living along a public road, homeowners might be required to sell property to governmental agencies for stormwater facilities. These might include swales with natural plantings located across the frontage of each home.
 
Business owners/property owners: They will face the same requirements as homeowners except for the additional requirement to submit final as-built drawings that are prepared and certified by a licensed engineer.
 
Well and septic owners: They could experience changes to groundwater tables and performance depending on facilities constructed for nearby development and roadways. Septic fields could experience greater amounts of water while well owners might find their recharge areas affected by the elimination of natural rainfall. Or wells could experience an increase in water flow and risk the possibility of direct contamination from sources not previously tied into the groundwater in that area.
 
All citizens and the governments they support: Because government is a property owner, all roads and any linear projects involving nonpermeable surfaces could be subject to these requirements. This means that costs for many projects could rise significantly as additional property must be secured and stormwater facilities constructed. Because all this adds time to the design phase, projects will no longer be implemented in a timely fashion. There is also a good chance that the IEPA will require local governments to enforce these regulation on private property. If so, most local governments do not currently have the resources to do so. This means that there will be a good chance local governments will either have to raise taxes or impose a stormwater fee to pay for the staff and resources needed to monitor, manage, and enforce these requirements.
 
County Recorders/Realtors/Lawyers/Bankers/Lenders: The recommendations include a requirement to record the operation and maintenance plan as a covenant on the property. This means an additional document to be recorded at the county recorder’s office along with a new document to be recorded each time the responsible party on the plan is changed. This could also become an additional document that must be checked for compliance and accuracy by title companies, banks, mortgage companies, realtors, and lawyers, etc any time a property is sold or refinanced. In addition, because of the problems and potential damages that could result from introducing stormwater into the ground in a manner and at a rate that is not natural for a specific area, there is a potential for increased litigation. 
 
 
 
 

What can I do?

It is important for people to comment on this topic. Otherwise, the recommendations will be submitted to the IEPA as they are currently proposed in the draft document. Below is an email form that can be used to send in your comments to the workgroup. I've included suggested language, but it can be changed by you just by clicking in the message area and editing the words. To submit, just click the send button at the bottom of the email box. At the bottom of this post there is also a share button – make sure to share the post with all your Illinois friends to encourage them to also send in comments:

 

kelly.thompson@aiswcd.org
Your name and address as entered below will be added. You do not need to add your name above.
13 people have taken part in this action. Please contact pwg@publicworksgroup.com if you have any difficulties or queries.

 

 

 

Share

Sales Tax Exemptions for Public Projects

Normally when we bid a construction project, we don't address in the bid documents the payment of sales tax. We do, however, indicate that the contractor is required to follow all Federal, State, and Local laws. Because of this, I would assume that on most projects, a contractor would be paying any required sales tax on the materials purchased for that project. But in Illinois a local government is exempt from paying sales tax. So recently there has been some discussion in our area about allowing contractors on our projects the use of our tax exemption status to make purchases for that project without having to pay the sales tax. The idea would be that if a contractor has to pay sales tax, this cost would just be passed along to our municipality. And if we allow the use of our exemption, perhaps we could save this cost.

To accomplish this, we've been reviewing some language to put in our specifications. But a few of us have also been discussing the question of control of the use of the city's tax exempt number. If we just give out a copy of our certificate or our number, how do we know for sure how it is being used? What ramped up this concern is that a couple weeks ago, a contractor called me to request a copy of our certificate. I asked them why they needed it because I was not aware of any projects in which they were under contract with us. The person indicated it was for a project they were working on for our city. So I asked which project, and she said she would have to get back to me with that information. Of course, I never heard back from her. I started wondering, would contractors purposely try to obtain these numbers and then use them on non-exempt projects? Once a contractor has a copy of that certificate, how would a vendor know for sure if the purchase was really for a project contracted by that tax exempt entity or if perhaps the material was going elsewhere? 

I tried calling a vendor of construction materials to ask how they controlled this and how they made sure the material really was designated for a tax-exempt entity. They really did not seem to know. All they told me was they required the contractor to fill out a form with the number. So it appeared the vendor really had no control in place to ensure the number was properly used. This led me to wonder how it is done in other states. And what I found out was a great help although I did find out there is quite a variation on sales tax implementation throughout the U.S.

  • Some states do not charge sales tax at all
  • In some states, local government is not exempt from sales tax
  • And in most of the remaining states, the use of a tax exempt number for a construction project is regulated by a form that is provided to tax-exempt entities. This form allows local governments to designate their number, the contractor, the specific project for which the number will be used, and in many cases a start and end date.

I really liked the idea of a form we could issue with each project – this would avoid having to issue a copy of our certificate and would limit the use of the number to a specific time period. I called our state to make sure a form would be acceptable and was told yes, we could give out a form with our number instead of giving contractors a copy of our actual certificate.

Anyway, below is a very rough summary of my findings. You can find your state and see how it is handled there.

Disclaimer: Please note this is not a legal or official opinion or statement. You should not rely on the information I have provided, and you will need to investigate the accuracy of my research on your own. This also does not address any sales tax that must be charged by the contractor to the local government. 

 

Share