Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVB Agenda Packet 06/14/2016COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: 50 South Emerson Street Tuesday, June 14, 2016 Mount Prospect, I L 60056 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL MayorArlene A. Juracek Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Richard Rogers Trustee John Matuszak Trustee Colleen Saccotelli Trustee Steven Polit Trustee Michael Zadel II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Committee of the Whole Minutes forApril 12, 2016 Approval of Joint Financial Workshop Minutes forApril 26, 2016 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT AND ZIKAVIRUS UPDATE The return of warm, wet, summertime weather also heralds the return of mosquitos. This year, the return is accompanied by health concerns about the potential for Illinois area mosquitos to carry the Zika virus that has impacted southern latitudes. Patrick I resin, an entomologist with the Cook County Northwest Mosquito Abatement District, will make a short presentation about the agency's mosquito abatement efforts. He will also provide an update on the Zika virus. V. LEVEE 37 STATUS UPDATE At the September 22, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting, the Village Board disucssed the final report of the Levee 37 Flood Study. One of the outcomes of this discussion included direction to further examine the viability of constructing recommended pumping station and storm water collection system improvements. Staff and representatives from engineering consultant Christopher B. Burke Engineering, LTD will provide an update on the status of this work. Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 1 of 71 VI. SIDEWALK PROGRAMS REPORT The Village of Mount Prospect maintains almost 300 miles of sidewalk. These walks are installed in public rights-of-way owned and/or maintained by the Village. Most sidewalks were originally constructed as part of real estate development projects and became the Village's responsibility when the projects were accepted by the Village Board. Staff will provide an update on the current condition of sidewalks, maintenance programs, and the regulatory environment impacting pedestrian facilities. VII. STATE OF THE STREETS / RESURFACING PROGRAM UPDATE In 2014, the Village Board, working in conjunction with the Finance Commission, developed and implemented a revised funding mechanism for the Street Resurfacing Program. The purpose of revised funding was to eliminate a backlog of projects and return the pace of work to an activity level that supports the targeted goal of an average 20 -years life for Village streets. Since 2014, 35.2 miles (26% of total street inventory) have been resurfaced. Last winter, staff performed a pavement evaluation study to assess the current condition of Village streets. Staff will present the findings of this report. VIII. MANAGER'S REPORT Status IX. OTHER BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT NOTE. ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OFA DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGERS OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 2 of 71 Item II.: Approval of Committee of the Whole Minutes forApril 12, 2016 Department: Village Manager's Office SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: ATTACHMENTS: Description Committee of the D Whole Minutes of April 12, 2016 Type Upload Date File Name Backup Material 6/9/2016 4-12-2016_COW_Minutes.pdf Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 3 of 71 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES April 12, 2016 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 Arlene Juracek. Trustees present included Paul Hoefert, John Matuszak (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Steven Polit, Richard Rogers, Colleen Saccotelli and Michael Zadel. Staff present included Village Manager Michael Cassady, Finance Director David Erb, Fire Chief Brian Lambel, Police Chief Timothy Janowick, Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Community Development Director William Cooney, Human Services Director Julie Kane, Cable Production Coordinator Howard Kleinstein and Administrative Analyst Alexander Bertolucci II. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES FOR MARCH 22, 2016 Motion made by Trustee Polit seconded by Trustee Rogers. Minutes were approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None IV. TELEVISION SERVICES PROGRAMMING EVALUATION REPORT: Cable Production Coordinator Howard Kleinstein presented the history of Mount Prospect's local access cable channel and the Television Services Division which was established in 1986. The MPTV brand was established in 1996 to provide a consistent naming convention while the channel location and cable providers changed over time. He stated MPTV 2 was created after the Village entered into intergovernmental agreements that expanded programming. He stated in 2008 MPTV began live -streaming and providing Video -On -Demand (VOD) replays of its meetings and other programming via the Village's website. In 2015, AT&T U -Verse began carriage of MPTV and MPTV2 on its Access Channel Sub -Menu Application. Mr. Kleinstein provided an overview of current programming on MPTV and MPTV2. The programming includes coverage of meetings and events, creating promotional material and providing Public Service Announcements or "how to" videos. In addition, the Mount Prospect Public Library, Mt. Prospect Park District, Mount Prospect Historical Society and more have various programming that airs on MPTV or MPTV2. He highlighted how new technology has changed viewing habits. High Definition (HD) and Smart TV's allowed for HD programming to become the preferred technology. He stated channel surfing has been replaced by program guides built into remotes. Cable providers do not permit local access channels to populate the guide with specific Committee of the Whole Page 1 of 3 04/12/16 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 4 of 71 programming and are only provided general descriptions like "local access" or "educational programming". Also, there is an increasing trend for people to use Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, Amazon Instant and other "Over The Top" services and eliminating cable services. Mr. Kleinstein provided recommendations for increasing MPTV's programming appeal and reach to social media users. One approach is to create a YouTube Channel to host brief news and informational videos and create a monthly half hour talk show to present on current issues in the Village. Additionally, he recommended consolidating MPTV and MPTV2 to reduce equipment costs. MPTV2 is underutilized with too much air time available to properly populate. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: • There were comments in support of the proposed direction and changes for the Television Services Division and MPTV programming. • There was a question regarding state law requiring cable providers to reserve channels for local municipalities and if the Village could switch from a basic cable to a HD cable channel. • There were questions regarding YouTube features and utilizing Twitter and Facebook for promoting programming and also to communicate with the public in the case of an emergency. • There was general discussion regarding the importance of keeping current with social media technology and using available platforms to reach constituents and promote Village news and initiatives. • There was discussion regarding utilizing comments, feedback and view counts to assist with directing content to keep programming relevant to viewers. Louis Goodman, 310 N. School asked if MPTV and MPTV2 broadcast the same information. He also asked if programming is available in multiple languages. V. UPDATE OF OLD TOWN SANITARY DISTRICT: Public Works Director Sean Dorsey provided an overview of the dissolution of the Old Town Sanitary District (OTSD). House Bill 3273 signed by the Governor in July 2015 established criteria for the dissolution of certain sanitary districts. He stated once a sanitary district is dissolved the underlying municipalities that co -exist within the boundaries of a sanitary district would assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities. The OTSD covered areas of Prospect Heights, Wheeling, Arlington Heights and a relatively very small portion of Mount Prospect. The areas impacted are near the intersection of Wolf Road and Euclid Avenue and near Camp McDonald Road and Rand Road. The Village was notified by attorney letter that OTSD was dissolved and that the Village assumed the underlying OTSD assets. He stated staff has televised the sewer mains and manholes serving these areas and the location of these assets were surveyed and georeferenced utilizing GPS. He stated that the OSTD infrastructure within Mount Prospect is in good shape. Mr. Dorsey stated staff has several concerns regarding the OTSD area. The OSTD sewer assets are on private property and there do not appear to be express grants of easements. He also stated concerns regarding Camp McDonald Road sewers discharge path which is through the City of Prospect Heights to the MWRDGC interceptor outfall on Committee of the Whole Page 2 of 3 04/12/16 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 5 of 71 Willow Road. Presently, staff does not have any information regarding the condition of this pipe; however, a field survey revealed that many manholes are inaccessible. He provided an overview of the potential for disconnecting the area from OSTD and connecting it to nearby Village -owned systems. He stated staff will begin the process of proactively obtaining necessary easements for facilities, initiate the process of invoicing properties, and having further discussions with Prospect Heights regarding maintenance and improvements planned for the Camp McDonald Road and Rand Road service area sewers discharge path through the city. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: • There was a discussion regarding the dissolution of the Sanitary District and how the process was communicated to the impacted municipalities. • There were questions regarding specific properties and the accuracy of the Sanitary District's records. • There was a discussion regarding money remaining in the Sanitary District's funds and how these funds will be distributed to impacted municipalities. • There were questions regarding the absence of utility easements for the Sanitary District's infrastructure. • There were questions regarding immediate maintenance or repair needs and if these areas experience flooding. VI. MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Michael Cassady noted the next Committee of the Whole meeting is April 26 and it would be a joint meeting with the Finance Commission as staff presents the 1St Quarter 2016 Budget Review. VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS O :TiT- VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. ALEXANDER BERTOLUCCI Administrative Analyst Committee of the Whole Page 3 of 3 04/12/16 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 6 of 71 Item II. : Department: Approval of Joint Financial Workshop Minutes forApril 26, 2016 SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Joint Financial D Meeting Backup Minutes of April Material 26, 2016 Upload Date File Name 6/9/2016 4-26- 2016_Financial_Planning_Workshop_Minutes.pdf Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 7 of 71 FINANCIAL PLANNING WORKSHOP MINUTES JOINT MEETING with VILLAGE BOARD and FINANCE COMMISSION April 26, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Village Board Room of the Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Arlene Juracek. II. ROLL CALL Trustees present included Paul Hoefert, John Matuszak, Steven Polit, Richard Rogers and Colleen Saccotelli. Finance Commission members included Commission Chair Vince Grochocinski, Trisha Chokski, John Kellerhals, Thomas Pekras and Mary Rath. Staff present included Village Manager Michael Cassady, Finance Director David Erb, Police Chief Timothy Janowick, Fire Chief Brian Lambel, Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Community Development Director William Cooney, Human Services Director Julie Kane, Police Deputy Chief Michael Eterno, Fire Deputy Chief John Dolan, Public Works Deputy Director Jason Leib, Human Services Deputy Director Jan Abernethy and Administrative Analyst Alexander Bertolucci. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None IV. FINANCIAL PLANNING WORKSHOP 1) 2015 Year -End Results Finance Director Erb stated there were three amendments made to the 2015 budget and the total budget increased from $116.0 million to $126.4 million. He stated these amendments relate to carry-over items primarily to capital programs and extraordinary items. He provided an overview of the telecommunication tax reset and how sales tax growth exceeded 3.0% projected for 2015. He also highlighted the unanticipated receipts from income and real estate transfer taxes. General discussion from the Village Board and Finance Commission included questions regarding the Village's reserve fund policy, the 20% to 30% range and the established 25% threshold. 2) 2016 First Quarter Review Finance Director Erb stated there was one amendment made to -date primarily to adjust for capital projects funded through the Capital Improvement, TIF, Street, Flood, Water/Sewer and Capital Funds for a total $3.9 million. Also, revenues were adjusted based on prior year actuals. He stated current estimates assume no loss of Local Government Distributive Fund (LGDF) revenue, potential property tax freeze, or other impacts due to state budget impasse/fiscal condition. He stated no changes were made to expenditures since there is insufficient history (3 months of data) to support any adjustments at this time. He stated the General Fund has experienced growth in reserve level as percent of expenditures and at 12/31/2016 would have a fund balance is $18.2 million or 35.5%. Committee of the Whole Page 1 of 3 04/26/16 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 8 of 71 General comments from the Village Board and Finance Commission included the following items: • There were questions regarding the Village's credit rating and if the Village can reach AAA+ status. There was discussion regarding the Village's reserve levels and the potential impact of the state's budget impasse, reduced LGDFs and property tax freeze legislation. There were questions regarding pre -funding SAFER grant hiring to prepare for when the grant funds expire. 3) 2016 Proposed Property Tax Levy Finance Director Erb stated the annual property tax levy is allocated to pay debt services, pensions and general operations. He stated the initial 2016 levy included in the 2017 Forecast Budget was $18.9 million, an increase of 3.27% ($598,825). Mr. Erb stated the Society of Actuaries published revised mortality tables that reflect longer life expectancies. The internal assumption previously used for year over year increase, based on the Annual Required Contribution (ARC), was 7.0% for each pension fund. The new actuary mortality tables increase the percentage to 19.1 % for police pension and 23.8% for fire pension. Mr. Erb provided several levy scenarios regarding how to phase-in these new pension increases. He stated projected future levies during the phase-in period to be between 4.0% and 4.5%. He also reviewed factors impacting out years of the levy that include legislative changes to pension plans, deviations from 7.0% assumed annual increase, and other unanticipated events. General comments from the Village Board and Finance Commission included the following items: • There was a general discussion regarding the adjusted actuary mortality tables and pension contributions. It was noted that it has been several years since the last update; however, the Society of Actuaries will be adjusting the mortality tables every two years moving forward. • There were comments regarding pension contributions and the percent which the pension funds are funded. 4) 2017 Revised Forecast Budget Finance Director Erb stated the overall growth in revenue is projected at 2.9% ($120.4 million), while total village budget for expenditures, excluding capital, increase 2.1% (112.8 million). He provided an overview of projected General Fund revenues and expenditures which increase 2.1% ($52.5 million) and 1.9% ($50.9 million) respectively. He stated the 2017 Forecasted Budget assumes no reduction in state collected revenues. General comments from the Village Board and Finance Commission included the following items: • It was noted the state had recently notified municipalities of a replacement tax miscalculation which is to be repaid to the state. The impact to the Village is about $55,000. 5) Prelimin Committee of the Whole Communitv Investment Plan (2017-2021 Page 2 of 3 04/26/16 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 9 of 71 Finance Director Erb stated departments have submitted their first drafts for the Community Improvement Plan (CIP), previously known as the Capital Improvement Plan. He stated the CIP totals $74.2 million with first-year projects totaling $11.7 million. He provided an overview of CIP spending by department, project category and funding source. He stated that departments will be reviewing the CIP and deliver a proposed plan document June 16 to be discussed at the Joint Village Board and Finance Commission Workshop July 12. General comments from the Village Board and Finance Commission included the following items: • There was discussion regarding several specific projects, Public Safety Building Space Needs Study, cured -in -place -pipe repairs, and pump stations at Levee 37. • There was a discussion regarding the CIP document identifying which projects are new verse existing and also project priority for the past 5 years. • There was a question regarding if accelerated replacement programs would take replacements off cycle and would result in clumped purchases in the future. • There was general discussion regarding the motor fuel tax and funds allocated for road improvements. • There were questions regarding how the Village may use reserves and allocating funds for disaster recovery for severe weather and emergency events There was general consensus by the Village Board for the Finance Commission to continue the discussion regarding reviewing options for allocating reserves that exceed the 25% fund balance threshold for Village initiatives or capital projects. Louis Goodman, 310 N. School Street asked several questions regarding the Village budget, the Village's portion of the property tax levy, and the General Fund. There was also a question regarding available funds for the sidewalk replacement cost share program. V. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. ALEXANDER BERTOLUCCI Administrative Analyst Committee of the Whole Page 3 of 3 04/26/16 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 10 of 71 Item IV.: MOSQUITO ABATEMENT AND ZIKA VIRUS UPDATE Department: Public Works Department SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: ATTACHMENTS: Description 4.nWatta ,Ihirrne nts A wilillablle Type Upload Date File Name Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 11 of 71 Item V.: LEVEE 37 STATUS UPDATE Department: Public Works Department Information: At the September 22, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting, staff and representatives from Christopher B. Burke Engineering, LTD (CBBEL) presented the final report of the Levee 37 Flood Study. There were several outcomes of this meeting including specific direction from the Village Board regarding the following initiatives: 1 . Obtain approval and financial support from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for upgrading pump station capacity. 2. Obtain approval and financial support from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for increasing the pump station discharge rate. 3 . Meet with school districts and park district to assess viability of installing portions of associated stormwater collection system improvements on their respective properties. 4. Evaluate the feasibility of installing stormwater storage on the currently vacant lot(s) near the intersection of Camp McDonald Road and Des Plaines River Road in lieu of, or supplemental to, proposed improvements slated for school district or park district properties. 5 . Assess the potential for alternative projects that could reduce structure flooding on individual properties with low elevation entryways for stormwater inflow. 6. Coordinate and discuss cost-sharing options with the City of Prospect Heights. The attached memorandum from Mr. Erik Gil, P.E. of CBBEL explains the status of each initiative in considerable detail. Generally speaking, substantive progress has been made: USACE supports increasing the capacity of the pump stations and is presently working with IDNR to identify existing funds for the work. Additionally, USACE has indicated that they would facilitate design of pump station improvements. IDNR has agreed to increase the discharge rate of the pump stations and, as noted, is working with USACE to identify existing, already allocated funds, which can be utilized to construct requisite improvements. Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 12 of 71 USACE and IDNR have indicated that decisions regarding funding availability, and a project design schedule, could be made this fall. Community Consolidated School District 21, River Trails School District 26, and the River Trails Park District staff members did not object to stormwater storage improvements proposed for their properties provided their existing facilities were not negatively impacted. I would note that express, formal approval of construction projects on these properties would require legislative action from the respective boards. Stormwater detention on the existing vacant lot(s) near Camp McDonald Road and Des Plaines River Road is feasible in lieu of constructing storage facilities on School District 26 property. However, the cost of construction could be prohibitive due to property acquisition and soil remediation costs. Private property flood -fighting enhancements, in lieu of collection system improvements, appear to be feasible and cost-effective. Most of the 23 properties with below grade driveways and/or garages could be protected from the 10 -year recurrence interval storm event by raising the sidewalk through driveways to forma protective berm. However, these properties would remain at risk for storm events greater than the 10 -year recurrence interval storm and these types of improvements would not alleviate street flooding. More substantial private property improvements, such as abandoning below -grade garages and filling recessed driveways are also feasible for most properties. However, some homes may not be able to relocate the garage due to lot constraints. This solution would provide a much higher level of protection for property owners but almost all of the work would involve improvements on private property. Furthermore, these improvements would not alleviate street flooding. Finally, the City of Prospect Heights remains communicative and interested in improving the performance of storm water collection system tributary to the levee pump stations. However, since the scope and cost of improvements is vague, conversations regarding cost participation will likely be more fruitful once the solution set is better defined. This attached report is a 2016 Strategic Plan action item. Staff will present this document, and facilitate attendant discussion. Alternatives: This status update is for informational purposes only. Village Board action is not required. Budget Impact: No budget impact identified at this juncture. SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: INFRASTRUCTURE: Well designed, well maintained public spaces and facilities ATTACHMENTS: Description Tvae Upload File Name Date LEVEE 37 Cover D INTERIM Memo 6/8/2016 LEVEE-37—FLOOD—IMPROVEMENTS—INTERIM—REPORT MAY 2016.pdf REPORT Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 13 of 71 MEMORANDUM May 25, 2016 TO: Sean Dorsey — Director of Public Works, Mount Prospect Jason Leib — Assistant Director of Public Works, Mount Prospect Jeff Wulbecker, PE —Village Engineer, Mount Prospect COPY. Christopher B. Burke, PE Donald R. Dressel, PE — CBBEL Michael J. Burke, PE — CBBEL Project Files (CBBEL Project No. 15-225) FROM: Erik L. Gil, PE SUBJECT: Next Steps — Levee 37 Study Area Project: Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study Location: West of Des Plaines River, south of Palatine Road, east of Wolf Road, and north of Euclid Street, Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois Watershed: Des Plainer River — direct tributary area Christopher B. Burke Engineering Ltd. (CBBEL) was retained by the Village of Mount Prospect (Village) to assist with or perform various follow-up tasks following the September 22, 2015 Village Board Committee of the Whole meeting during which a presentation was made summarizing the recently completed Levee 37 Drainage Study. The primary goals of these "Next Steps" were to answer the trustee's questions that had been posed during the September 22 meeting, and to proceed with conversations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) regarding upgrading the pump stations. This memorandum documents the work done as part of the "Next Steps" of the Levee 37 Study Area. The first two sections of this memorandum are a summary review of some of the key aspects of the 2015 study report, and are provided for reference. The remaining sections are descriptions of the work performed since the Village Board meeting, and specifically addresses questions posed by the trustees during the September 2015 meeting. The Levee 37 Drainage study area is located at the northeast corner of the Village. In general, the study area is bounded by Palatine Road to the north, Euclid Street to the south, Des Plaines River to the east, and Wolf Road to the west, with specific flooding concerns located along the front yards and backyards of the homes along the north -south streets and the roads adjacent to River Road. The floodplain map of this location is shown on Figure 1. NCHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 39575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 15 of 71 MEMORANDUM CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. � 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 16 of 71 MEMORANDUM The northern corporate boundary between the City of Prospect Heights (City) and the Village at this location is Seminole Lane. The study area is topographically a relatively flat area with a gentle slope towards the Des Plaines River, drained by the storm sewers that encompass most of the area. The area north of Seminole Lane is located in the City and drains either to Levee 37 Pump Station #2 or #3. Most of the flooding problems directly affecting the homes are related to buildings with below -grade garages. Photograph 1 shows a view of a property with a below grade garage flooded during the April 2013 event. The study area drains directly to the Des Plaines River, while areas west of the divide drain into McDonald Creek, which then drains into the Des Plaines River. The historic patterns that existed prior to development in this area (according to Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA -67, Floods in Arlington Heights Quadrangle, Illinois, prepared in 1963, and shown as Figure 2) were of a gently sloping area that drained toward the Des Plaines River overland, either directly or by first draining into two tributaries. CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. � 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 17 of 71 MEMORANDUM NCHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 39575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 18 of 71 MEMORANDUM Therefore, there was a defined unimpeded overland flow route into the Des Plaines River. Hydraulic modeling determined that prior to the construction of the levee the historic overland flow rate (generated by the 10 -year interior event) reaching the Des Plaines River was 240 cubic feet per second (cfs) when the Des Plaines River water level is at its 10 -year flood level. The Levee 37 project, including the floodwall, earthen berm, closure structures and the three (3) pump stations, was constructed in 2011. The remaining portion of the floodwall that was not constructed in 2011 was completed in 2015 once the Heritage Park Flood Control Project was completed. The Heritage Park Flood Control Project provides the compensatory storage volume for the loss of volume due to the levee removing the interior area from the floodplain. Pump Station #1 drains stormwater exclusively from the Village, while Pump Station #2 drains areas of both the Village and the City, and Pump Station #3 drains water exclusively from the City. The floodwall now blocks the historic overland flow path that existed that allowed overland flow to be conveyed east into the Des Plaines River. The area is drained by gravity when the Des Plaines River is low, and by the pump stations when the gravity outlets are closed due to the backwater from the Des Plaines River. During the April 17-18, 2013 storm event, Village and City Staff temporarily blocked the floodwall gap with Jersey Barriers preventing DPR floodwaters from reaching the interior areas. The Levee 37 Pump Stations #1 and #2 were functioning during this storm event along with portable pumps operated by Village Public Works personnel. According to Village Staff, the Levee 37 Pump Stations did not have sufficient capacity to prevent street inundation in low areas, yard flooding and overtopping of sidewalks, thus allowing floodwaters to enter below -grade garages during the April 2013 storm event. CBBEL performed a stormwater feasibility study on behalf of the Village to evaluate the Levee 37 improvements and the flooding that occurred in April 2013. Based on the results of this conceptual feasibility study, CBBEL recommended two improvement projects, one for each pump station drainage area (Alternatives 3 and 6) that provide the 10 -year level of protection. The 10 -year level of protection was selected by the Village as the most practical level of protection that can be provided by this area. Alternatives 3 and 6 would increase the total pumping rate to 205 cfs, which is lower than the historic overland flow rate of 240 cfs mentioned above. The difference between the 205 and 240 rates is due to the addition of stormwater storage basins within the two school properties that provide a reduction in the flowrate reaching the pumping stations, while maintaining the 10 -year level of protection as the goal. However, these alternatives can be modified such that the total pumping rate is 240 cfs rate, and reduce the storage volume at the two school/park district sites to achieve the same 10 -year level of protection. This refinement would be pursued in subsequent tasks of the project. The opinion of probable 5 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 19 of 71 MEMORANDUM construction cost for Alternatives 3 and 6 are $3.6 million and $2.1 million, respectively, based on 2015 unit cost estimates. The following is a brief description of the recommended alternatives for a 10 -year level of protection: Alternative 3: • Construct a new pump station adjacent to Levee 37 Pump Station #2 with an additional pumping capacity of 105 cfs. • Construct a 11.6 acre-foot stormwater storage basin, located within an existing open space at Robert Frost Elementary School property. Alternative 6. • Construct a new pump station adjacent to Levee 37 Pump Station #1 with an additional pumping capacity of 40 cfs. • Construct a 7.0 acre-foot stormwater storage basin, located within an existing open space at the Indian Grove Elementary School property. The study was presented to the Village Board on September 22, 2015, and the Board directed staff as follows - 1 . ollows: 1. Meet with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) about funding the proposed pump station improvements. 2. Meet with Illinois Department of Natural Resources — Office of Water Resources (IDNR-OWR) to discuss permit requirements. 3. Meet with the schools and park district about the possibility to construct storage basins on their properties. 4. Evaluate the feasibility to provide storage at a vacant lot located at the corner of Camp McDonald Road and River Road. 5. Evaluate the alternative project of floodproofing the individual properties that would be protected by the project. 6. Coordinate the project with the City of Prospect Heights, and discuss cost-sharing options. The results of completing each of these assignments are described below. Village and CBBEL met with USACOE staff to discuss the Levee 37 Drainage Study, and a presentation was made to highlight the key points of the study. Minutes of the meeting can be found as Attachment 1. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the recommendation to upgrade Pump Stations #1 and #2, and whether there was funding available for that effort. The conclusions of the meeting and further conversations between Village and USACOE staff are: 1. USACOE staff has conceptually agreed with the technical conclusions in the CBBEL report as they relate to the need to upgrade the pump stations. 6 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 20 of 71 MEMORANDUM 2. USACOE will only consider the project components related to the pump stations. The other components will need to be undertaken by the Village. 3. USACOE staff will continue the process of bringing the pump upgrade projects to upper levels to pursue funding. 4. USACOE did not commit to a schedule, but the earliest the project could get funding for design is fall of 2016. Village and CBBEL met with IDNR-OWR staff to discuss the Levee 37 Drainage Study, and a presentation was made to highlight the key points of the study. Minutes of the meeting can be found as Attachment 2. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss permitting requirements of the recommendation to upgrade the pump stations, and whether there was funding available for that effort. The conclusions of the meeting and further conversations between Village and IDNR-OWR staff are - 1 . re: 1. IDNR-OWR staff indicated that they had performed a cursory review of the CBBEL report, and were of the opinion that the analysis was sound. 2. The establishment of the 240 cfs as the historical overland flow rate was discussed in more detail during the meeting, and IDNR-OWR staff indicated that, pending a more detailed review, they were in general agreement with the concept. 3. IDNR-OWR indicated that it was their opinion that no special issues were foreseen for permitting the pump station upgrade up to 240 cfs. 4. IDNR-OWR had participated in funding the Levee 37 project on a 65/35 cost share basis with the USACOE (IDNR-OWR also represented the local share). IDNR-OWR has not traditionally participated in funding interior drainage improvements, so would not participate in funding any improvements outside the pump station upgrades. 5. IDNR-OWR has $1.5 million allocated for funding Upper Des Plaines River Phase 1 projects, of which Levee 37 is one. While these monies are not available now due to state budget deliberations, it could possibly be allocated for this project if the USACOE agrees. Village and CBBEL met with staff from Community Consolidated District 21 and River Trails Park District staff to discuss the Levee 37 Drainage Study, and a presentation was made to highlight the key points of the study. Minutes of the meeting can be found as Attachment 3. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed stormwater storage basin improvements located within their property. This basin is proposed to hold 11.8 acre-foot and help lessen the flows reaching the Pump Station #2 as shown in Figure 3. CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. � 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 21 of 71 MEMORANDUM The conclusions of the meeting are - 1 . re: 1. The park district is preparing a master plan for all their park sites, including this one. 2. Eliminating the tennis courts is an option, and lowering then entire park could be considered for further discussion. 3. Park District staff stated that they are not against the proposed stormwater basin as long as their facilities are not negatively impacted. Their board would have to make the final decision. 8 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 22 of 71 MEMORANDUM Village and CBBEL met with staff from River Trails School District 26 staff to discuss the Levee 37 Drainage Study, and a presentation was made to highlight the key points of the study. Minutes of the meeting can be found as Attachment 4. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed stormwater storage basin improvements located within their property. This basin is proposed to hold 7 acre-foot and help lessen the flows reaching the Pump Station #1 as shown in Figure 4. CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. � 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 23 of 71 MEMORANDUM The conclusions of the meeting are - 1 . re: 1. The school district stated that potential future school expansion plans would have two of the existing three wings being expanded northward. The school would need to expand their existing detention storage basin to provide the required additional detention storage. Village staff stated that the school's detention storage could be provided in the Village's proposed basin pending further analysis. 2. The school district mentioned that the proposed location would impact the existing path that students walk towards the school and also would impact an existing detention basin. 3. The RTPD uses the open area adjacent to the school for soccer fields. 4. The school district stated that staff is willing to work with the Village but the final approval would come from their Board. CBBEL analyzed the benefits of providing stormwater storage in the vacant lot at the southwest corner of Camp McDonald Rd and River Rd. Currently, the vacant area consists of two parcels totaling 0.73 acres in area. The vacant lot parcels are located at the divide between the areas that drain to Levee 37 Pump Stations #1 and #2. This means that it could theoretically be considered for both. However, its relative location with respect to Pump Station #2 (farther away from flooding areas) is less ideal than its relative location with respect to Pump Station #1 (adjacent to South Park Drive where flooding occurs). Therefore, CBBEL evaluated this vacant lot with respect to benefits it could provide to the area draining into Pump Station #1. The vacant lot is bordered by Illinois Route 45, an Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Road, and Camp McDonald Road, a Cook County Road. Both of these agencies have setback requirements for the construction of stormwater storage basins adjacent to their right-of-way. The vacant lot also abuts to residential properties. A proposed grading plan was developed based on using 4:1 side slopes and the setback requirements from the right-of-way using IDOT standards. A 15 -foot setback from the residential property lines was used. To maximize the basin volume and minimize flooding along South Park Drive, a new, deeper 36 -inch storm sewer is proposed to replace the existing storm sewer on Park Drive as shown on Figure 5 below. The proposed sewer is approximately 3- to 5 -feet lower than the existing sewer which allows for a deeper detention basin, resulting in a greater storage volume. The 36 -inch storm sewer allows stormwater to back up into the proposed detention basin during large storms and then drain back by gravity through the same pipe following the storm event. The 36 -inch storm sewer alignment currently crosses through the side yards of two houses on Park Drive, therefore, an easement will be required. The 10 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 24 of 71 MEMORANDUM hydraulic modeling shows that the proposed detention basin has a normal water level elevation of 629 and a high water elevation of 637. The proposed detention basin simulation was analyzed with the proposed Pump Station #1 upgrade proposed in Alternative 5 (which corresponds to the rate that would be allowed for that pump station under the 240 cfs scenario). Alternative 5 proposes to increase pumping capacity at Pump Station #1 by 60 cfs. Initially, a basin with 4:1 side slopes along all 4 sides was evaluated, which resulted in 1.8 acre-feet of additional storage volume. This volume did not reduce the 10 -year event flood levels below the overtopping sidewalk elevations of the 4 properties along Park Drive. Therefore, the grading plan was revised to reflect vertical walls along 2 sides of the basin, which gave 2.4 acre-feet. This is the footprint reflected in Figure 5. This volume did lower the street flood levels below the sidewalks, with one property just clearing the overtopping point by 0.01 foot. The 10 -year, 2 -hour critical storm was simulated in XPSWMM to determine the benefit provided by the vacant lot detention basin. The addition of the detention basin at the vacant lot reduces the flood elevation 0.7 feet on South Park Drive. The lowest surveyed overtopping elevation for reverse slope houses along South Park Drive is 636.89, which is 0.01 feet higher than the resulting flood elevation. Therefore, Alternative 5 with the proposed vacant lot storage would provide the minimum 10 -year flood protection for the Pump Station #1 Study Area, but it would be a reduced level of protection provided by the basin at the school/park district property because the basin at the school/park district provide a larger reduction of street flooding. Table 1 XPSWMM Results Summary for Vacant Lot Analysis A concept -level opinion of probably construction cost was prepared for this vacant lot basin using the same 2015 unit costs used for the prior developed costs for consistency of comparison. The details of the cost estimate can be found as Attachment 5. The construction of the project was estimated to be $1.9 million, however, this cost does not include land acquisition or site remediation. It is understood that the prior site use was a gas station, and as such, site remediation is a possibility. Since this element alone can vary significantly it was not included, but it is recommended that if the Village desire to continue performing due -diligence on this project, that soil investigations be performed to better define the magnitude and costs. 11 CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. � 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 25 of 71 MEMORANDUM a mow's ,C A T C Mf' MC DONALD ROAD �/� Proposed Detention Basin NWL= 629` r g HWL=637"/ 2.4 AC FT AT.w� r, ,', b .Jll'rrr�.,, %,� / ' !� r li rt" . ��", / �l 1 fir%l ��� � /r//%/j r 1 / / °, ...."... is �, !/. r %//ii//�r,/�i//, s / I r /� + l l r1, J r /r / �f^l�/nti'' 'r%` / � '' � '+� " �lJ�j ii' r��;'r�"��I �i (':r %/' //� //i w �%!/ ,reP.w xS �r r% oii1 rl [ x ,�r ,��N%��� �i�u//�/ �//�/1 ��✓��. ,„,' l/� �� Dl /jj r�i f,/l ��"%',,,. ., /•4 `, Ir�ww'.: LAS, 19 Jlllr, ,✓ W4, 1/ / �%, �r^, NN I /�, f / �: � ,%I„ �f�/r✓,�/l� G���l I/1//,,,����////��%j�' �llu /ri / i r / rrd ,, 1J r� , c: r /���/,j/'(j awJ i, � �/, / It'lfr' rN,l✓tiWIN�,,w rw.rwfiu';. d,i, !'i rx/%/f/r/f/> �i �'r �f r / // ,%,ar / „„j-�.w«<.,' �r✓/ /«u�i' /ti-/5fil+, , u�,....” rl, u "",,, w~, /�l/ r 11 ��r/r/ /p �/// r,Nr / / f >� fp i``% /rj 6. r� 12 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 26 of 71 uuu � uuuuu ': uum � � II a II � V i III uuuuu e 12 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 26 of 71 MEMORANDUM The Village Board inquired about assessing the costs of the pump station upgrades and storage basins against implementing individual projects at each of the 23 properties being protected up to the 10 -year level by the proposed project. Although the meetings' discussion summarized above suggests that the pump station upgrades could be fully funded by outside sources, there is no final confirmation yet, and evaluating this alternative is a prudent analysis should all funding have to rely on the Village. This analysis would also apply to the scenario where only the pump station upgrades are funded by outside sources, and the stormwater storage basins are either unfeasible to the respective owners, or the cost is significantly more than the individual projects. In this latter scenario, where the pump stations are upgraded but no new stormwater storage is provided, 14 of the 23 homes would still experience overtopping flooding into the garage for the 10 -year level of protection. These remaining homes could then have individual projects implemented. All the affected properties up to the 10 -year storm event have a below -grade garage. Therefore, raising the driveway was deemed as the least intrusive, most cost-effective individual project to protect up to the same level of the proposed project. Another option would be to backfill the driveway up to and elevation above the garage door, and provide parking on a new above -grade driveway. This latter option was not investigated individually. Each of the 23 affected properties was visited to assess the design specifics of providing a floodproofing measure to help protect from water overtopping the driveway from flooding in the street. In most instances there was a sidewalk crossing the driveway, however, in a few properties there was no sidewalk. In both scenarios the approach was the same — raise the driveway (and sidewalk where present) to provide a barrier from water from the street overtopping into the back -pitched driveway and flooding the garage and building. The parameters used in terms of slope are depicted in Figure 6 below. A typical plan view of the improvements is shown on Figure 7, which gives an overview of the limits of impact. As can be seen, the property owner having the improvement performed on his property would also need to obtain authorization from the neighbor. DRIVEWAY PROFILE W/SIDEWALK SCALE: NTS STREET EX LOW POINT (WITH DRAINAGF LID CONNECTED TO GARAGE 'SUMP w (L 1 � , - �'- �_ ��I��(I—lid= ��-��C i� iO �J•r. Mhk� 1'"�:. i ca =III—III 13 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 27 of 71 NEIGHBOR II I I w PIY2,LIIAII_�' ZJA Ln IMPROVED DRIVE Ex LOW POINT (WITH DI'tAINAGE LID CONNECTED ` �� TO GARAGE SUMP / . �, ,, w any REMOVE/REPLACE DRIVE'' CFILL IREOUIREID) 1 REMOVE/REPLACE TUIRF � (FILL lREOLIIRED) e ACHIEVED PROTECTION �E ELEVA,T14N RIID(,E LINE REMOVE/REPLACE SIDEWALK w� (FT1 I RF0HTRFM MEMORANDUM I I I 7 I I REMOVE/ REPLACE CURB Concept -level opinions of probable construction costs were prepared for each individual property visited. Surveyed or LI DAR elevations were used to calculate slopes and level -of - protection. The summary of this analysis is summarized in Attachment 6. The costs ranged from approximately $17,500 to $32,500, with the average being $22,500. The total cost of the project when including all 23 properties was estimated to be approximately $530,000. The alternative assumed that no compensatory storage would be required for the improvements. There is also an unquantified benefit to implementing the recommended project when compared to implementing the 23 individual projects. The streets remain flooded in the individual project scenario which affect access and normal traffic, and water levels around side yards could be such that seepage into basements could occur. 14 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 28 of 71 MEMORANDUM An alternate option for individual property owners is the complete filling of the driveway to the garage door. Unlike the driveway/sidewalk option discussed above where much of the improvements would occur within the parkway, the majority of the cost and activity of filling the driveway would occur within private property. The ability to construct a garage in the back of the property would need to be determined for each property, and it is likely that variances may be needed. An example of an on-going construction of a driveway filing is shown below in Photograph 2. 15 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 29 of 71 MEMORANDUM The design and construction cost associated with filling the driveway and possibly constructing a new garage is more significant than raising the driveway/sidewalk. A benefit of filling the driveway is the water should no longer be able to enter through the garage door opening since the driveway would slope towards the street under this scenario. The level of protection provided by this individual project would be higher than raising the sidewalk option, and it would vary from building to building as window well elevations and first floor elevations would need to be surveyed to make this determination as to where the water could enter the structure with the garage door now blocked. While the costs of raising the driveway/sidewalk were individually determined above, the level of effort for individually estimating the costs of filling the driveway and constructing a new garage is significantly higher and would require additional surveying and possibly consideration of variances. For purposes of this analysis, an approximate average cost of $60,000 was used that would include filling the driveway and constructing a new garage in the back. If all 23 properties affected during the 10 -year storm event were improved using this method, then the total cost would be approximately $1.4 million. Village staff also met with City staff regarding the project and benefits to the City. The City acknowledged the flooding problems that occur north of Seminole Lane, and would welcome the reduction in street flooding that additional pumping would produce. At this point, the cost-sharing of any improvements would need to be discussed at a later date when the project and outside funding is more clearly defined, and the specific benefits to the City can be better defined. 16 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 30 of 71 MEMORANDUM Village and CBBEL staff met with: • USACOE • IDNR-OWR • School District 21 • School District 26 • River Trails Park District During the meetings, a thorough overview of the study was presented, and specifics pertaining to each stakeholder were discussed individually. The project recommendations in the 2015 Levee 37 Drainage Study were generally well received by the original planning and funding agencies (USACOE and IDNR-OWR), and the possibility of funding the pump stations upgrades entirely through the USACOE and IDNR-OWR was discussed and remains an ongoing goal. The respective owners of the two school/park district sites were receptive of the stormwater storage basins and provided some feedback as to specific elements that the Village should include in future planning efforts. However, it was stated that the school boards will have the final determination of this component of the project. Finally, the 23 properties affected during the 10 -year event were visited and further assessed in terms of floodproofing the building by either elevating the sidewalk/driveway, or filling the driveway completely. Concept -level costs were determined for each property for the "raising" project, but only an order -of -magnitude cost was determined for the "filling" project because of the more significant level of effort involved. The "filling" project could be refined in the future if the Village Board directs staff to proceed with this option. Table 3 below summarizes the various combinations that were evaluated. 17 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 31 of 71 MEMORANDUM TABLE 2 Alternatives Analysis Summary for 10 -year Level of Protection e 1 ii 23 1 No Action Public Works — cost of portable pump operation as needed. 2 Increase Pumping Rate for 14 $2.8 million Pump Stations #1 and #2 to a total of 240 cfs (10 within PS #2 Area and 4 (Alt 1 and Alt 5) within PS#1 Area) 3 Option 2 + Adding Storage 10 $2.8 million (pumps) + on Vacant Lot $1.9 million (1 basin) _ (10 within PS#2 Area) $4.7 million 4 Individual "Raising" 0 $530,000 Projects at 23 properties 5 Individual "Filling" Projects 0 $1.4 million at 23 properties 6 Option 2 + Individual 0 $ 2.8 million (pumps) + Projects at 14 properties $330,000 (floodproofing) _ $3.13 million 7 Increase Pumping Rate for 0 $5.7 million Pump Stations #1 and #2 to a total of 205 cfs and add 11.8 acre-feet and 7 acre-feet at two school/park district sites (Alt 3 and Alt 6) 8 Modify Option 6 by 0 $2.8 million (pumps) increasing pumping rate to + $3.3 million (2 basins) _ 240 cfs (this option provides a level of protection higher than the 10- $6.1 million year; all the other options provide up to the 10 -year level) iarsrss 1. Estimated costs are based on early 2015 construction costs. 2. The individual projects cost assumes that no compensatory storage would be required. If it is required, the impact and cost would be more. 3. The cost for the vacant lot does not include land acquisition or site remediation due to its prior use as a gasoline station. These costs could be significant. An important consideration that was not discussed above is the presence of regulatory floodplain. The construction of the 23 individual projects involve fill in the floodplain, with the "raising" project affecting less volume than the "filling" project. Because the individual projects should be considered floodproofing projects, it could be argued that the 18 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 32 of 71 MEMORANDUM requirement of compensatory storage for the fill does not apply. This issue would need to be further discussed with MWRDGC and IDNR-OWR (as the agency with oversight into the community's NFIP program). However, it is understood that the Levee 37 project would culminate in a Letter of Map Revision (LOMB), and would remove the interior area from the floodplain. Therefore, at that point, once the LOMB is issued by FEMA, there is no compensatory storage required for the individual projects. The closure of Levee 37 occurred recently as the "gap" in the wall was closed, and this component is necessary to submit the proper documentation to FEMA to process the LOMB. Therefore, the LOMB request has not begun yet. During the meeting with the USACOE, the LOMB was discussed, and Village staff indicated that all stakeholders will need to continue to pursue the completion of this important part of the Levee 37 project. Based on the above, CBBEL recommends the following: • The Village should continue discussions with the USACOE to design and fund the pump station improvements. • The Village should coordinate the USACOE conversations with IDNR-OWR to confirm that the permit requirements are consistent with how the project has been modeled in the CBBEL 2015 study. • The Village should continue conversations with the park and school districts to determine the feasibility of providing storage at those locations. • The Village should investigate further the use of the vacant lots at the southwest corner of River Road and Camp McDonald Road. Based on the past use of this lot, soil contamination is possible and may require special remediation measures. Should the individual properties be selected by the Village, there are other measures that property owners can take to floodproof their properties. These tips have been included under Attachment 7. ELG/ N:\MOUNTPROSPECT\150225\Water\Docs\Next Steps\M 15-225 Mount Prospect Levee 37 Next Steps 051916 (REVISED).docx 19 0CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 3 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 33 of 71 Attachment 1 Minutes of Meeting U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whoa eeting - June 14, 2016 Page 34 of 71 MEETING MINUTES December 15, 2015 TO: Levee 37 Tributary Area Drainage Study Project File (CBBEL Project No. 15-0225) Attendees FROM: Donald R. Dressel, PE Erik L. Gil, PE John P. Caruso, PE SUBJECT: Meeting with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) ATTENDEES: Michael Cassady —Village of Mount Prospect Sean Dorsey —Village of Mount Prospect Jeffrey Wulbecker — Village of Mount Prospect Jason Leib —Village of Mount Prospect Jeffrey Zuercher — COE Chicago District Joel Schmidt — COE Chicago District Rick Ackerson — COE Chicago District Christopher Burke - CBBEL Erik Gil — CBBEL John Caruso - CBBEL Donald Dressel — CBBEL We met at the Mount Prospect Public Works Building at 1:00 pm on December 7, 2015. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the COE staff the conclusions from the CBBEL Levee 37 Interior Drainage study recently completed for the Village of Mount Prospect. Christopher stated that we had no issue with the original COE's interior drainage study done in 1997. Since that time, the Chicagoland area is experiencing higher intensity short duration storms that are causing flooding issues throughout the area. ISWS Bulletin 70 included data through the mid- 1980's, a current analysis using additional rainfall data indicates that the 100 -year storm event could be 1 inch higher than what ISWS Bulletin 70 states. Our study evaluated the interior drainage system using tools that were not available when the COE performed the 1997 design analysis. Everyone is in agreement that the Levee 37 project has provided outstanding overbank flooding reduction benefits to the study area. Christopher gave a power point presentation summarizing the study as it related to the existing Levee 37 pumping stations. The Des Plaines River (DPR) 10 -year flood elevation would not have inundated the study area prior to the Levee 37 construction. Therefore, we determined that the 10 -year critical duration overland flow rate from the study area assuming a DPR 10 -year tailwater is 240 cfs. It is CBBEL's opinion that the Levee 37 pump stations are allowed to discharge up to 240 cfs. One of the study's proposal is to add 120 cfs capacity CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 35 of 71 MEETING MINUTES to PS #2 which has an existing capacity of 25.5 cfs giving a total of capacity 145.5 cfs. For PS #1, 60 cfs would be added to the existing 17 cfs capacity for a total capacity of 77 cfs. PS #3 existing capacity of 17 cfs would not be increased. Sean asked Jeff Z. if the COE was still performing an evaluation to see if they could assist in the funding of the pump station improvements. Jeff Z. stated that he spoke to Rick Gosch, IDNR-OWR about the Village's request, and Jeff stated that Rick was in general agreement to make necessary modifications so that Levee 37 meets the design intent. Jeff recommended that the Village contact Rick Gosch, and Sean responded that a meeting with IDNR-OWR was next on their schedule. Jeff Z. said that he has had internal discussions since he came back from his temporary assignment in Washington, DC. These discussions have indicated that there might be possibilities that the COE can participate under the current authorization, for example, using the "new data" and climate change argument. Christopher agreed that this approach was plausible. Jeff Z. is gathering COE staff to meet in the near future to discuss further. Roy Deda — Deputy for Project Management will also be involved. Jeff Z. stated that the project's Benefit -Cost ratio is above 1.0 which means that appropriate additional project components can be funded under the current authorization. They are also evaluating WRDA 2014 to see if that can assist. Another project component, Van Patton Woods reservoir is being terminated because the land owner; LCFPD is against the project. Therefore, the funds allocated to the Van Patton Woods Project have been freed up. Jeff Z. personally is in favor of increasing the pump capacity. One route is a "Design Deficiency" which involves a complete study and approval at least through the Division level. This process can take at least 1 year. Christopher felt this is not the route to go down and Jeff Z. agreed. Sean asked if the Village should make a formal request. Jeff Z. that at this time it is not needed. He would let the Village know if they need to meet with Colonel Drew or make a formal request. Jeff Z. stated that they will also to consult and coordinate with IDNR-OWR. Jeff Z. will be in contact with the Village to update as necessary. A discussion on the FEMA LOMB request followed. Joel stated that they are currently going through the COE process of certifying the Levee 37 project. There is one component of the Levee 37 project that needs to be completed. The COE has hired a contractor (SYTE) to perform the work, which involves closing Milwaukee Road for a period of 7-10 days. The Levee 37 certification process is scheduled to be completed during the summer of 2016. At that time they plan on meeting with FEMA Region V staff to discuss the LOMB process including if FEMA is going to require a Physical Map Revision. Action Items The following action items were developed: CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 36 of 71 MEETING MINUTES • The COE will continue to internally investigate the "best approach" to proceed with the Village's recommendations for the pump station upgrades. This process may take several months to formalize into a project component with funding. • The COE will provide CBBEL with the latest interior drainage analysis tha the COE performed as part of the final Levee 37 design. This will help establish a comparison between the COE and CBBEL analysis. • The Village will contact Rick Gosch, IDNR-OWR to update him on the study and intent of the pump station upgrades, and discuss [permitting requirements. • CBBEL will provide the COE with any technical data from the Village's study, as irequested. DRD/ELG/JPC N:\MOUNTPROSPECT\150225\Admin\MN15-0225 COE 12-15-15.docx CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 37 of 71 Attachment 2 Minutes of Meeting IDNR-OWR CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whoa eeting - June 14, 2016 Page 38 of 71 MEETING MINUTES January 5, 2016 TO: Levee 37 Tributary Area Drainage Study Project File (CBBEL Project No. 15-0225) FROM: Donald R. Dressel, PE Erik L. Gil, PE SUBJECT: Conference Call with IDNR-OWR Participants: Dan Injerd - IDNR-OWR Rick Gosch - IDNR-OWR Sean Dorsey —Village of Mount Prospect Jeffrey Wulbecker — Village of Mount Prospect Jason Leib —Village of Mount Prospect Christopher Burke - CBBEL Erik Gil — CBBEL Donald Dressel — CBBEL A conference call with a "GoToMeeting" connection was held at 11:00 am on January 5, 2016. The purpose of the conference call was to present and discuss the proposed modifications to the Levee 37 Pump Stations #1 & #2 (Attached is the agenda). Sean had the participants introduce themselves. Sean said that during the April 2013 storm event the Levee 37 pump stations could not keep up with the interior drainage. The Village supplemented the pump capacity with the use of portable pumps, but interior flooding of streets and homes still occurred. Sean stated that a meeting was held with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) staff including Jeffrey Zuercher prior to the holidays. The ACOE staff stated that they support the request for the increase in interior drainage pump capacity. Jeff Z. stated he would be meeting with senior ACOE staff to discuss potential approaches that they could use to participate in the funding of the proposed pump station capacity increase. At this meeting, Jeff Z. recommended that Mount Prospect contact IDNR-OWR. Christopher gave a power point presentation summarizing the study as it related to the existing Levee 37 pumping stations. It was observed that the Des Plaines River (DPR) 10 - year flood elevation would not have inundated the study area due to overbank flooding prior to the Levee 37 construction. Therefore, the study determined that the 10 -year critical duration overland flow rate from the study area assuming a DPR 10 -year tailwater is 240 cfs. Based on evaluating historical drainage patterns, it was concluded that this 10 -year flow of 240 cfs was the overland flow capacity that the interior area could discharge into the DPR prior to the Levee 37 construction. Because of this pre -Levee 37 condition, the study CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 39 of 71 MEETING MINUTES concluded that the Levee 37 pump stations should be allowed to discharge up to 240 cfs. Since the existing pumping capacity of the three (3) pump stations is 60 cfs, the CBBEL study recommended adding additional pumping capacity to bring the total pumping rate to 240 cfs. The alternatives would add 120 cfs capacity to PS #2 which has an existing capacity of 25.5 cfs giving a total of capacity 145.5 cfs. For PS #1, 60 cfs would be added to the existing 17 cfs capacity for a total capacity of 77 cfs. PS #3 existing capacity of 17 cfs would not be increased. The conceptual opinion of probable cost for the PS #1 & #2 enhancements is $2.8M. Rick stated that IDNR-OWR could potentially participate in the proposed pump station modification if the ACOE states they made a "design deficiencies". If the ACOE says they did not make a "design deficiencies", IDNR-OWR would need to review the residential damage caused by the interior drainage flooding to determine if it exceeds the cost of the project. Rick mentioned Alternatives 3 and 6 from the study, which include storm sewer improvements and creation of storage basins. Rick stated that traditionally IDNR has not participated in interior drainage improvements, so for this project IDNR-OWR would not participate in funding of any proposed interior storm sewer modifications or the construction of storage basins. Rick stated that IDNR-OWR owes the ACOE approximately $1.5M for the UPDPR Phase I study. This owed funds could potentially be used to help fund the proposed pump station modifications. The COE/IDNR cost share ratio is 65/35. If the Village orACOE are requesting cost share beyond these limits or conditions, then funds are currently not available because there is no State budget or capital bill. Dan felt that going from an existing pump rate of 60 cfs to a proposed 240 cfs seemed drastic. Furthermore, during the April 2013 with the additional portable pumps the rate was increased to about 100 cfs. Dan asked why the Village feels they need 240 cfs since they handle the April 2013 storm event with portable pumps which had a capacity less than 240 cfs? Sean stated that the portable pumps were not sufficient to manage the flooding. In addition, Sean felt that if they had more pump capacity with a larger wet well they potential could have reduce the amount of street flooding and home flooding. Sean asked IDNR-OWR thoughts on permitting of the proposed 240 cfs pump discharge. Rick said that the justification for 240 cfs seems reasonable, he has not evaluated it in more detail but at this time did not see any issues associated with permitting. ACTION ITEMS • Rick will contact Jeff Z. to determine the status of the ACOE evaluation, and email him stating that IDNR has $1.5M owed to the ACOE on UPDPR Phase I projects. • Sean would like to have preliminary design completed this year, and will follow up with the ACOE later this month on this. DRD/ELG CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 40 of 71 MEETING MINUTES N:\MOUNTPROSPECT\150225\Admin\MN15-02251DNR-OWR Conference Call 1-5-16.docx CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 41 of 71 Attachment 3 Minutes of Meeting School District 21 and River Trails Park District CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whoa eeting - June 14, 2016 Page 42 of 71 MEETING NOTES March 14, 2016 TO: Levee 37 Tributary Area Drainage Study Project File (CBBEL Project No. 15-0225) Attendees FROM: Donald R. Dressel, PE Erik L. Gil, PE SUBJECT: Meeting with River Trails Park District (RTPD) ATTENDEES: Sean Dorsey — Village of Mount Prospect Jeffrey Wulbecker — Village of Mount Prospect Bret Fahnstrom — Executive Director RTPD Tom Pope — RTPD Glen Michelini — Community Consolidated District 21 Christopher Burke — CBBEL Erik Gil — CBBEL Donald Dressel — CBBEL We met at the Mount Prospect Public Works Building at 9:30 am. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the potential stormwater storage basin to be constructed in Aspen Trails Park located south of Robert Frost Elementary school. Sean provided introductions of his staff and CBBEL staff. He said that street and home flooding occurred during the April 2013 storm event because the Levee 37 pumps did not have adequate capacity. During that event, Public Works staff supplemented the Levee 37 pumps with portable pumps. The Village hired Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. (CBBEL) to perform a study to evaluate the current drainage situation and recommend improvements. CBBEL presented the study findings to the Village Board. Chris went through a PowerPoint presentation that discussed the original Levee 37 project and the recent study completed by CBBEL for the Village. The original Levee 37 project developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) include a floodwall along the eastside of River Road and three (3) pump stations to discharge interior drainage during periods when the Des Plaines River water surface elevation prevents gravity drainage. The study is recommending upgrades to existing Levee 37 Pump Stations #1 & #2 to increase the capacity by 180 cfs from 42.5 cfs to 222.5. This additional pump capacity will reduce interior flooding of streets and homes when the Des Plaines River is at a level where the gravity storm sewers are restricted. In addition to the pump station improvements, two (2) stormwater basins are proposed to increase the level of protection. An 11.8 acre-foot stormwater basin associated with Pump Station #2 would be located within Aspen Trails Park which is located south of Robert Frost CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 43 of 71 MEETING NOTES Elementary School. Chris showed a conceptual plan view of the basin that would be 6 -feet in depth and have a footprint of approximately three (3) acres. The basin will have gentle side slopes of 4:1 which can be mowed. Chris stressed that the configuration was conceptual and can be altered based on the desires of the RTPD. The basin would have flow entering from the adjacent storm sewer and will discharge by gravity through another existing storm sewer. Underdrains can be incorporated to allow drainage of the basin bottom. The dewatering of the basin after the storm had ended will vary 24 to 48 hours. Chris stated that generally the basin is not intended to accept stormwater until the upgraded pump capacity is exceeded which is designed to provide a 10 -year level of protection. Chris stated that we have worked on other stormwater basins constructed within existing parks including the Village of Clarendon Hills, Village of Roselle, Village of Bensenville and Village of Tinley Park. Bret stated that they are proceeding with a Master Plan for all their park sites and they might want to eliminate the existing tennis courts. Tom stated that they may be interested in lowering the entire park including the playground and tennis courts areas. They stated that the northeast portion of park including the parking lot can become inundated during rainfall events. They asked where the stormwater would go if the basin capacity was exceeded. Chris stated that it would flow onto the street and generally flows eastward towards River Road. The street currently functions as the overflow path when the storm sewer capacity is exceeded. The other stormwater basin would be located adjacent to the Indian Grove Elementary School (River Trails School District #26). This basin would have a depth of 8' and have a storage capacity of 7 acre-feet. This basin has one (1) storm sewer that would function as both a gravity inflow and gravity outflow. Chris showed the conceptually stormwater basin footprint. Tom mentioned that location would impact the existing path that students walk towards the school and also would impact an existing detention basin. The RTPD uses the open area adjacent to the school for soccer fields. There was also concern by parents about potential pollutants left at the bottom of the basins after dewatering. Sean stated that the Village has had positive conversations with the COE and the Illinois Department of Water Resources — office of Water Resources (IDNR-OWR) concerning the proposed pump station upgrade. Glen asked about the feasibility of vault storage. Chris stated that cost of vault storage is approximately 10 times that of excavated storage. Bret asked Sean about the project timing. Sean state that all the projects are independent of each other. The COE is currently reviewing the Village's request for the pump station capacity increase. Bret stated that the Village Board would control the timing but he feels the earliest construction start would be 2018. CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 44 of 71 MEETING NOTES Bret state that they only received one (1) letter after the CBBEL presentation to the Village Board. Sean stated that the next steps is a meeting with the River Trails School District #26 which will be held today, and to work with RTPD and SD#26 as needed to further evaluate the basins. Bret stated that they are not against the proposed stormwater basin as long as there facilities are not negatively impacted. Their board would have to make the final decision. The meeting adjourned. ACTION ITEMS • CBBEL to provide examples of stormwater basins located within parks. • CBBEL to prepare an overflow path exhibit. DRD/ELG N:\MOUNTPROSPECT\150225\Admin\MN15-0225 River Trails Park District 3-14-16.docx CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 45 of 71 Attachment 4 Minutes of Meeting School District 26 CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whoa eeting - June 14, 2016 Page 46 of 71 MEETING NOTES March 14, 2016 TO: Levee 37 Tributary Area Drainage Study Project File (CBBEL Project No. 15-0225) Attendees FROM: Donald R. Dressel, PE Erik L. Gil, PE SUBJECT: Meeting with River Trails School District #26 (RTSD #26) ATTENDEES: Sean Dorsey — Village of Mount Prospect Jeffrey Wulbecker — Village of Mount Prospect Dane Delli — Superintendent RTSD #26 Lyndl Schuster — Assistant Superintendent for Business Services RTSD #26 Steve Kosmicki — Director of Buildings and Grounds RTSD #26 Ron Richardson — FGM Architects Christopher Burke — CBBEL Erik Gil — CBBEL Donald Dressel — CBBEL We met at the Mount Prospect Public Works Building at 11:00 am. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the potential stormwater storage basin to be constructed adjacent to Indian Grove Elementary School located west of Burning Bush Lane and south of Tano Lane. Sean provided introductions of his staff and CBBEL staff. He said that street and home flooding occurred during the April 2013 storm event because the Levee 37 pumps did not have adequate capacity. During that event, Public Works staff supplemented the Levee 37 pumps with portable pumps. The Village hired Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. (CBBEL) to perform a study to evaluate the current interior drainage situation and recommend improvements. CBBEL presented the study findings to the Village Board. Steve stated that he is aware that River Road becomes inundated. Chris went through a PowerPoint presentation that discussed the original Levee 37 project and the recent study completed by CBBEL for the Village. The original Levee 37 project developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) include a floodwall along the eastside of River Road and three (3) pump stations to discharge interior drainage during periods when the Des Plaines River water surface elevation prevents gravity drainage. The study is recommending upgrades to existing Levee 37 Pump Stations #1 & #2 to increase the capacity by 180 cfs from 42.5 cfs to 222.5. This additional pump capacity will reduce CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 47 of 71 MEETING NOTES interior flooding of streets and homes when the Des Plaines River is at a level where the gravity storm sewers are restricted. In addition to the pump station improvements, two (2) stormwater basins are proposed to increase the level of protection. The stormwater basin associated with Pump Station #2 would have a storage capacity of 11.8 acre-feet. The basin would be located within Aspen Trails Park which is located south of Robert Frost Elementary School. Chris showed a conceptual plan view of the basin that would be 6 -feet in depth and have a footprint of approximately three (3) acres. The basin will have gentle side slopes of 4:1 which can be mowed. Chris stressed that the configuration was conceptual and can be altered based on the desires of the park district. The basin would have flow entering from the adjacent storm sewer and will discharge by gravity through another existing storm sewer. Underdrains can be incorporated to allow drainage of the basin bottom. The dewatering of the basin after the storm had ended will vary 24 to 48 hours. Chris stated that generally the basin is not intended to accept stormwater until the upgraded pump capacity is exceeded which is designed to provide a 10 -year level of protection. Chris stated that we have worked on other stormwater basins constructed within existing parks including the Village of Clarendon Hills, Village of Roselle, Village of Bensenville and Village of Tinley Park. The other stormwater basin would be located adjacent to the RTSD #26 Indian Grove Elementary school. This basin would have a depth of 8' and have a storage capacity of 7 acre-feet. This basin have one (1) storm sewer that would function as both a gravity inflow and gravity outflow. Underdrains would be used to keep the bottom dry. Chris showed the conceptually stormwater basin footprint. Tom mentioned that location would impact the existing path that students walk towards the school and also would impact an existing detention basin. The RTPD uses the open area adjacent to the school for soccer fields. Steve stated that they plan on replacing the playground equipment located north of the school this summer. Steve asked if the basin would cause flooding within the school property. Chris stated that diverted stormwater would be confined to the basin and overflow would go down the street which occurs now. Dane stated that potential future school expansion plans would have two (2) of the existing three (3) wings being expanded northward. The school would need to expand their existing detention storage basin to provide the required additional detention storage. Could the school's detention storage be provided in the Village's basin? Sean state that could be potentially accomplished. Ron asked if the Kensington Avenue RTSD #26 Administration building property located south of the Indian Grove Elementary School site was evaluated. Chris stated that was located in the McDonald Creek watershed and therefore would not provide the needed benefits. CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 48 of 71 MEETING NOTES Dane stated that staff is willing to work with the Village but the final approval would come from their Board. The meeting adjourned. ACTION ITEMS • CBBEL to provide examples of stormwater basins located within parks. DRD/ELG N:\MOUNTPROSPECT\150225\Admin\MN15-0225 SD#26 3-14-16.docx CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 49 of 71 Attachment 5 Vacant Lot Opinion of Probable Construction Cost CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whoa eeting - June 14, 2016 Page 50 of 71 Detention Basin and Relief Sewer $1,883,000 Element Units Quantity Unit Price Line Price Element Price % Of Total Storm Sewer System $227,000 12% 36" RCP Ft 1000 $120 $120,000 Inlets/12" Laterals Ea 5 $4,000 $20,000 Manholes/Risers Ea 6 $12,000 $72,000 End Sections Ea 1 $15,000 $15,000 Utility Resotration $109,500 6% Water Main Relocate Ft 30 $375 $11,250 Sanitary Sewer Relocate Ft 30 $275 $8,250 Wat/San Services Adjustments Ea 30 $3,000 $90,000 Grounds Restoration $415,069 22% Building Demo Ea 1 $30,000 $30,000 Earth Excavation Cu Yd 4519 $35 $158,165 Segmental Block Wall Sq Ft 1980 $55 $108,900 Pvmt Recon over Pr Stm Sew Sq Yd 1000 $66 $66,000 Sidewalk/ADA restore Sq Ft 400 $16 $6,400 Curb/Gutter Restore Ft 100 $24 $2,400 Rip -rap outlet Sq Yd 25 $40 $1,000 Landscape Restore Sq Yd 3534 $6 $21,204 Tree Impacts Ft 100 $20 $2,000 Driveway Restore Sq Ft 300 $35 $10,500 8' Tall Fence Ft 700 $55 $38,500 Miscellaneous $303,670 16% As -Built Drawings L Sum 1 $3,000 $3,000 Dewatering L Sum 4.0% $751,569 $30,070 Maintenance of Traffic L Sum 2.0% $751,569 $15,040 Construction Layout L Sum 1.0% $751,569 $7,520 CCDD Testing/Disposal Fees L Sum 1.0% $751,569 $7,520 Private Utility Adjustments L Sum 3.0% $751,569 $22,550 Mobilization L Sum 4.0% $751,569 $30,070 Contingency L Sum 25.0% $751,569 $187,900 Acquisition / Engineering / Management $827,440 44% Land Acquisition - Perm Easement: New/Widen Ex Sq Ft 1800 $20 $36,000 Design Engineering L Sum 20.0% $1,055,239 $211,050 Permitting L Sum 20.0% $1,055,239 $211,050 Construction Observation L Sum 25.0% $1,055,239 $263,810 Administration Village L Sum 10.0% $1,055,239 $105,530 Grand Total $1,882,679 Site is former gas station. Estimate assumes all tanks/contamination has been previously remediated. Pr 36" sewer to be installed in the northbound lane of Park Dr. Ex San Sew assumed to be along roadway centerline. N:\MOUNTPROSPECT\150225\Civil 5/19/2016 � Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 44 Attachment 6 Individual Projects Spreadsheet Summary CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whoa eeting - June 14, 2016 Page 52 of 71 1 Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 -Year April 2013 Property Address Existing I -3.5' off Garage -B/W "3.5' off Garage to Mid- Mid -Drive to B/W EL at" 3.5 E at mi - EL at Distance off Garage Slope Distance Drive Slope B/W Sidewalk EL at Distance Slope F/W Sidewalk-EOP Eat Distance Slope EOP Current Protection Current Event Elevation Protection Pr SW at ROW Garage -B/W EL at Distance Slope B/W Sidewalk EL at Distance Slope F/W Sidewalk-EOP E at Distance Slope EOP Achieved Protection Achieved Elevation (at Event B/W) Protection PR -Ex EL at SW "Remov/Rep Sw Length each side of drive total sidwalk removal Order -of- Magnitude Construction Cost $415,051 636.34 636.77 637.44 637.65 637.95 637.71 1407 PARK DR 24.92' 635.48 5.8% 4.45 636.92 1.3% 636.98 5.47' -1.6% 636.89 9.06' -4.1% 636.52 636.98 2 Y 29.37' 7.4% 637.65 4.00' -2.0% 637.57 10.53' -10.0% 636.52 637.65 10 Yr 0.67' 15.00' 50.00' $15,976 636.34 636.77 637.44 637.65 637.95 637.71 1409 PARK DR 28.16' 636.16 4.051 0.01' 637.3 0.09/ 637.3 0.10' 0.051 637.3 9.6T -4.951 636.83 637.30 2 Y 28.17 4.7% 637.48 4.00' -2.0% 637.40 5.77' -9.9% 636.83 637.48 5 -Yr 0.18' 5.00' 30.00' $13,266 636.44 636.78 637.44 637.65 637.95 637.72 1425 PARK DR 15.30' 638.94 -5.4% 16.02' 638.11 -3.65/ 637.54 0.01' 0.0% 637.54 9.24' -4.9% 637.09 638.94 April 2013 -Yr 31.32' -4.0% 637.69 4.00' -2.0% 637.61 5.25' -9.9% 637.09 638.94 April 2013 -Yr LAY 5.00' 30.00' $13,976 634.69 636.00 636.53 636.71 636.88 637.01 1611 PARK DR 10.25' 635.7 3.8% 18.33' 636.09 4.0% 636.83 3.73' -1.9% 636.76 13.97' -2.9% 636.35 636.83 10 Yr 28.58' 7.3% 637.79 4.00' -2.0% 637.71 13.79 -9.9% 636.35 637.79 April 2013 Yr 0.96' 25.00' 70.00' $17,718 634.69 636.02 636.52 636.63 636.82 636.93 1705 PARK DR 19.71' 636.14 -0.9% 9.86' 635.96 -1.7% 635.79 3.77' -3.4% 635.66 14.53' -2.8% 635.25 636.14 2 -Yr 29.57' 2.1% 636.76 4.00' -2.0% 636.68 14.30' -10.0% 635.25 636.76 10 -Yr 0.97' 25.00' 70.00' $18,147 634.69 636.05 636.49 636.53 636.62 636.93 1801 PARK DR 7.55' 635.27 2.8% 15.09' 635.48 3.9% 636.07 3.99' 1.5% 636.13 14.43' -0.9% 636 636.13 2 -Yr 22.64' 9.9% 637.51 4.00' -2.0% 637.43 14.42' -9.9% 636.00 637.51 April 2013 -Yr 1.44' 35.00' 90.00' $17,409 633.95 635.56 635.96 636.19 636.46 636.93 1806 PARK DR 27.37' 634.26 3.3% 10.66' 635.15 2.8% 635.45 3.90' -0.8% 635.42 14.47' 3.5% 635.93 635.93 2 -Yr 38.03' 8.3% 637.42 4.00' -2.0% 637.34 14.37' -9.8% 635.93 637.42 April 2013 -Yr 1.97' 50.00' 120.00' $23,201 633.95 635.56 635.96 636.19 636.46 636.93 1809 PARK DR 35.44' 634.2 2.4% 0.01' 635.06 0.0% 635.06 4.49' 0.0% 635.06 14.97' -2.1% 634.74 635.06 1 Y 35.45' 6.1% 636.36 4.00' -2.0% 636.28 15.46' -10.0% 634.74 636.36 10 Yr 1.30' 35.00' 90.00' $21,148 633.95 635.56 635.96 636.19 636.46 636.93 1811 PARK DR 38.75' 634.01 3.4% 0.01' 635.31 0.09/ 635.31 4.37' -0.9% 635.27 17.89' -2.7% 634.78 635.31 1 -Yr 38.76' 6.9% 636.68 4.00' -2.0% 636.60 18.26' -10.0% 634.78 636.68 25 -Yr 1.37' 35.00' 90.00' $22,798 633.93 1 635.551 635.95 636.161 636.451 636.93 11812 PARK DR 26.30' 633.42 9.5% 0.01' 635.92 0.0% 635.92 3.94' -1.5% 635.86 10.04' -4.2% 635.44 635.92 2 Y 26.31' 10.0% 636.05 4.00' -2.0% 635.97 9.98' -5.3% 635.44 636.05 5 -Yr 0.13' 5.00' 30.00' $13,901 633.93 635.55 635.95 636.16 636.45 636.93 1813 PARK DR 27.73' 633.85 5.0% 0.01' 635.23 1 0.0% 635.23 4.17 1.25'. 635.28 14.11' -1.45'. 635.08 635.28 1 Y 27.74' 9.8% 636.57 4.00' -2.0% 636.49 14.28' -9.9% 635.08 636.57 25 Yr 1.34' 35.00' 90.00' $18,748 635.94 638.88 639.82 640.91 640.88 640.93 1924 E CAMP MCDONALD RD 23.38' 638.6 4.6% 23.98' 639.68 2.95/ 640.38 7.73' 0.0% 640.38 11.06' 3.2% 640.73 640.73 5 -Yr 47.36' 7.8% 642.29 4.00' -2.0% 642.21 14.79' -10.0% 640.73 642.29 April 2013 -Yr 1.91' 50.00' 120.00' $25,833 634.10 636.02 636.67 636.83 636.86 637.07 2007 SENECA LN 27.49' 635.44 5.0% 0.01' 636.81 0.0% 636.81 4.08' -1.2% 636.76 14.54' -1.8% 636.5 636.81 5 -Yr 27.50' 9.4% 638.03 4.00' -2.0% 637.95 14.62' -9.9% 636.50 638.03 April 2013 -Yr 1.22' 30.00' 80.00' $18,225 634.10 636.02 636.67 636.83 636.86 637.07 2008 SENECA LN 16.14' 635.06 7.2% 11.92' 636.23 4.9% 636.82 4.02' 2.2% 636.91 13.66' -0.1% 636.9 636.91 25 -Yr 28.06' 10.0% 637.87 4.00' -2.0% 637.79 13.68' -6.5% 636.90 637.87 April 2013 -Yr 1.05' 25.00' 70.00' $17,572 634.10 636.02 636.67 636.83 636.86 637.07 2010 SENECA LN 15.40' 634.86 6.2% 12.18' 635.81 4.99/ 636.41 4.00' -0.5% 636.39 14.40' -2.1% 636.09 636.41 2 -Yr 27.58' 9.9% 637.59 4.00' -2.0% 637.51 14.40' -9.9% 636.09 637.59 April 2013 -Yr 1.18' 30.00' 80.00' $18,187 634.001 635.641 636.00 636.251 636.48 636.94 2011 SENECA LN 28.10' 634.571 5.7% 0.01' 636.17 0.094 636.17 4.04' -0.2% 636.16 14.58' -2.6% 635.78 636.17 5 -Yr 28.11' 9.8% 637.32 4.00' -2.0% 637.24 14.62' -10.0% 635.78 637.32 April 2013 -Yr 1.15' 30.00' 80.00' $18,390 634.00 635.64 636.00 636.25 636.48 636.94 12013 SENECA LN 10.27' 634.68 4.7% 16.33-1 635.16 5.8% 636.1 3.79' -1.851 636.03 14.58' -2.2% 635.71 636.10 5 Y 26.60' 9.6% 637.23 4.00' -2.0% 637.15 14.37' -10.0% 635.71 637.23 April 2013 Yr 1.13' 30.00' 80.00' $17,914 634.00 635.64 636.00 636.25 636.48 636.94 2017 SENECA LN 25.84' 634.79 4.7% 0.01' 636.01 0.0% 636.01 4.05' -1.0% 635.97 14.51' -4.3% 635.34 636.01 5 -Yr 25.85' 8.0% 636.86 4.00' -2.0% 636.78 14.56' -9.9% 635.34 636.86I25 -Yr 0.85' 2000,. 60.00' $16,663 634.00 635.64 636.00 636.25 636.48 636.94 2018 SENECA LN 25.68' 634.66 6.1% 0.01' 636.23 0.0% 636.23 3.87' -1.3% 636.18 15.00' -2.4% 635.82 636.23 5 Y 25.69' 10.0% 637.23 4.00' -2.0% 637.15 14.87' -8.9% 635.82 637.23 April 2013 -Yr 1.00' 25.00' 70.00' $17,254 634.00 635.64 636.00 636.25 636.48 636.94 2020 SENECA LN 9.47' 634.17 8.0% 14.21' 634.93 9.69/ 636.29 3.92' -0.8% 636.26 14.61' -4.2% 635.64 636.29 10 -Yr 23.68' 10.0% 636.54 4.00' -2.0% 636.46 14.53' -5.6% 635.64 636.54 25 -Yr 0.25' 5.00' 30.00' $14,419 633.95 635.56 635.96 636.19 636.46 636.93 2021 SENECA LN 11.34' 634.09 4.4% 16.63' 634.59 4.19/ 635.27 3.86' -0.5% 635.25 14.71' -1.8% 634.98 635.27 1 -Yr 27.97' 8.7% 636.52 4.00' -2.0% 636.44 14.57' -10.0% 634.98 636.52 25 -Yr 1.25' 30.00' 80.00' $18,338 633.951 635.56 635.96 636.19 636.46 636.93 2025 E SENECA LN 29.59' 634.361 2.4% 0.01' 635.06 0.09/ 635.06 3.84' -1.6% 635 14.53' -2.6% 634.62 635.06 1 Y 29.60' 6.0% 636.14 4.00' -2.0% 636.06 14.37' -10.0% 634.62 636.14 5 -Yr 1.08' 25.00' 70.00' $18,174 636.44 636.911 637.441 637.661 637.951 637.731 12021 TANG LANE 1 6.93' 636.41 3.6% 19.66' 636.66 4.79/ 637.58 5.24' 1.0?11 637.63 12.69' -3.0%1 637.251 637.6315 -Yr 1 26.59' 8.7% 638.72 4.00' -2.0% 638.64 13.93' -10.0%1 637.25 638.72 April 2013 -Yr 1 1. 14'1 30.00' 80-00'L$17,793 DRIVEWAY PROFILE SCALE: NTS EX LOW POINT STREET y (WITH DRAINAGE �I LID CONNECTED TO GARAGE SUMP LLJI aI O 0' O 10_O�X 10.0 . --- == IF DRIVEWAY PROFILE W/SIDEWALK SCALE: NTS STREET EX LOW POINT (WITH DRAINAGE LID CONNECTED TO GARAGE SUMP I I O/ O 10.0% MAX 10.0 --_ -_-�- PLAN DRIVEWAY LOCATION MAP SCALE: NTS CL IENTs -- TITLES NE I GHBOR NEIGHBOR CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. i O CHIC. CHKD cARAcz- 9575 W. Higgins Road, Suite 600 SCALEs W DRIVEWAY BERM ANALYSIS PROPERTY L INE 0. ' PLOT DATEs 5/16/2016 DRAWING NO. cARACE `�� aluke (847) 823-0500 IMPROVED DRIVE I I I EX LOW POINT (WITH DRAINAGE O LID CONNECTED�'� x TO GARAGE SUMP a � o REMOVE/REPLACE DRIVE J (FILL REQUIRED) REMOVE/REPLACE TURF (FILL REQUIRED) ACHIEVED PROTECTION ELEVATION RIDGE LINE REMOVE/REPLACE SIDEWALK (FILL REOUIRED) N SEMINOLE LANE SENECA LANE a G�. WOODVIEW DRIVE C a ODVIEV c w IVE 0 cc = ts, f3! cc x Ep4ST CAIllIP 0 o TANQ LAN 7 --GSLC LENJD %MpMTPROSPEC T \6025 WvK\Fj0225. t DRIVEWAY LOCATION MAP CL IENTs DSGN. TITLES PROJ. NO. 150225 CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. DATE! 5/16/2016 CHIC. CHKD 9575 W. Higgins Road, Suite 600 SCALEs 10' DRIVEWAY BERM ANALYSIS SHEET OF JIBRosemont, Illinois 60018 PLOT DATEs 5/16/2016 DRAWING NO. CAD USERS aluke (847) 823-0500 NO. DATE NATURE OF REVISION CHKD. MODELS Default %MpMTPROSPEC T \6025 WvK\Fj0225. t Attachment 7 Tips On Flood Prevention For Homeowners CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD. 9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520 Committee of the Whoa eeting - June 14, 2016 Page 54 of 71 ➢ Clean gutters and install gutter covers to prevent clogging. ➢ Redefine and clear swales throughout yard to allow an appropriate drainage way for storm water runoff. ➢ Raise the low entry elevation at which storm water can enter your home by berming around basement doorways or windows. A pump may be required to drain water away from inside the berm. ➢ Verify existing sump pump and outlet pipe have sufficient capacity for discharging during intense storm events. ➢ Provide a relief outlet for the sump pump outside of the house that is a safe distance from the foundation in case of surcharge, frozen outlet pipe, or other blockage. ➢ Install a backup source of power for sump pump in case of electrical power failure. ➢ Extend downspouts away from the foundation 5-10 feet. ➢ Repair foundation cracks throughout basement to prevent seepage. ➢ Raise the low -entry elevation of window wells and/or install drains in the window wells and connect them to the sump pump system. ➢ Install glass block windows in place of basement windows (except escape window) to prevent water inflow or infiltration. ➢ If a storm sewer structure is adjacent to the lot, an underdrain system could be installed to collect excess runoff, any remaining seepage or any infiltration resulting from hydrostatic pressure. ➢ For homes with a reverse -slope driveway, raise the sidewalk elevation to reduce the risk of standing water in the street draining down the driveway and into the garage. ➢ To further reduce the risk of flooding for homes with reverse slope driveways, it may be necessary to convert the lower level garage into a basement and completely fill in the reverse -slope driveway. The recommendations provided above may not eliminate flooding or flood damage within the residence; however, if installed correctly they should effectively reduce the risk of flooding. It is should also be noted that any of the recommendations may be implemented Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 55 of 71 individually, however, many suggestions may be used in conjunction with one another to provide a greater impact in helping to reduce the risk of future flood damage. Lake County Stormwater Management Commission Website http://www.co.lae.il. us/smc/citizens/default.asp "Repairing Your Flooded Home" by FEMA and the Red Cross http-//www.co.la e.il.us/smc/fwa/ARC Rep loodedHome.pdf "Drainage Around Your Home" by the National Resource Conservation Service http-//www.co.la e.il.us/smc/citizens/drainbro.Of "Homeowners Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your Home from Flooding" by FEMA http://www.femabuild/mat/rfit.shtm "Guide to Flood Protection in Northeastern Illinois" by the Illinois Association for Floodplain and Stormwater Management http://www.illinoisfloods.org/documents/Guide to Flood Prot—March Q6. df Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 56 of 71 Item VI.: SIDEWALK PROGRAMS REPORT Department: Public Works Department Information: Background The Village of Mount Prospect maintains almost 300 linear miles of sidewalk. These walks are installed in public rights-of-way owned and/or maintained by the Village. Most pedestrian facilities were originally constructed as part of real estate development projects and became the Village's responsibility when the projects were accepted by the Village Board. For reference, a map of all sidewalks within the Village corporate limits is enclosed as Attachment A. This map denotes Village -owned walks, privately -owned walks, as well as walks owned by other governmental agencies such as the Illinois Department of Transportation. It is the intent of staff to maintain and construct all pedestrian facilities in a manner that provides barrier free access to end users throughout the Village. Secondary goals include compliance with applicable state and federal legislation as well as limitation of liability from personal injury complaints. The goal of this memorandum is to explain the scope of the Village's sidewalk improvement programs including an examination of state and federal regulations, and identification, at a conceptual level, of the requisite compliance costs. Current Sidewalk Programs The Village currently implements sidewalk improvements through the following programs: Shared Cost Sidewalk Program This program provides sidewalk improvements based on participation from the adjacent residents or businesses. Generally, the sidewalks to be replaced are identified by the adjacent property owner who then participates in the cost of the sidewalk replacement. This program is cost effective since the Village is paying only approximately 50% of the total cost of the replacement. However, since the property owners are selecting the walks to be replaced, these costs may not be going towards necessary maintenance, limitation of liability, or to address regulatory compliance issues. Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 57 of 71 The following is a summary of the amount spent under this program for the past three years. 2015 - $68,423 2014 - $58,311 2013 - $69,749 Sidewalk Maintenance Program This program consists of Village crews responding to trip hazard complaints. As complaints are received, Public Works crews are mobilized to grind the existing sidewalks or install asphalt ramps to eliminate potential trip hazards. This program addresses hazardous defects but may not correct all defects or regulatory compliance issues at the site. The volume of hazardous sidewalk complaints is significant and consistent. The table below lists complaints received during the past three years. All of these complaints were initially remediated with ramping or grinding. This program is reactive and intended to mitigate an immediate hazard. Permanent repairs (replacement of the sidewalk) are typically delayed until the adjacent street is resurfaced or the property owner elects to participate in the Shared Cost Sidewalk Program. New Sidewalk Program This program is utilized to add sidewalk in areas where none currently exist and to fill gaps in the existing sidewalk system. Generally, this program requires construction documents be prepared for new sidewalk construction work. These plans are typically prepared by in-house staff and are publicly bid to local contractors. Since this program is utilized to expand the existing sidewalks, it does nothing to address existing maintenance or regulatory compliance issues. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of community needs including the construction and repair of sidewalks. Funding for this program is provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This program consists of the design and construction of sidewalk improvements in designated geographic areas that satisfy community profiles established by HUD. These areas are graphically depicted in Attachment B. Under this program, staff identifies sections of sidewalk that require replacement or improvement. Work locations can be based on the condition of the walk or Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 58 of 71 regulatory compliance issues. Funds can also be used to construct new sidewalks. CDBG grants are applied for and awarded annually. Grant proceeds can only be utilized in defined geographic areas and for the express purposes stated in the grant award (i.e. sidewalk improvements). In 2016, the Village received a $200,000 CDBG grant for sidewalk improvements. These funds will be utilized to improve sidewalks in the geographic area bounded by Golf Road, Route 83, Dempster Street, and Busse Road. This project is a continuation of sidewalk improvements initiated in this area last year (2015). The following is a list of the expenditures on this program over the past three years. 2015 - $197,217 (Remove and Replace) 2014 - $51,092 (New sidewalk on Kensington Rd.) 2013 - $38,199 (New sidewalk on Kensington Rd.) Street Resurfacing Program As part of the Street Resurfacing Program, existing sidewalks adjacent to street segments slated for resurfacing are evaluated for maintenance and regulatory compliance issues. The field identification of these issues and design of sidewalk replacement is performed with in-house staff. Sidewalks that are identified as deficient for either condition or regulatory compliance are replaced. This program is effective at eliminating hazards and defects as well as remediating regulatory compliance deficiencies. For many years, the scope of sidewalk repairs included in the street resurfacing program has been limited to correcting regulatory compliance issues at intersection ramps and correcting significant maintenance defects such as vertical offsets exceeding % of an inch. In 2015, the scope of work was expanded to include all sidewalks in the right-of-way and encompass all maintenance or regulatory compliance defects including improvements required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Illinois Accessibility Code (IAC), and the Public Right -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). Additional details about these state and federal requirements can be found in Attachment C. Notably, the ADA requires all public agencies with sidewalk systems to implement a plan to transition all public sidewalks into full compliance. Poignant among ADA standards are limitations on the running slopes and cross slopes of sidewalks. The running slope cannot exceed 5% and the cross slope cannot exceed 2%. Vertical offsets are limited to Y2 an inch. Application of these standards, along with the expanded scope of maintenance defect repairs, significantly increased the volume of sidewalk replaced as part of the 2015 street resurfacing program. During the 2014 and 2013 programs, only intersection ADA non-compliance improvements and defect repairs were constructed. • 2015 - $853,536 (9.8 Miles Resurfaced) _ $87,095 / mile of resurfacing • 2014 - $1,038,000 (18.9 Miles Resurfaced) _ $54,920/ mile of Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 59 of 71 resurfacing • 2013 — $257,000 (7.5 Miles Resurfaced) = $34,267/mile of resurfacing Summary of Sidewalk Needs Staff estimates that there are approximately 5.8 million square feet of existing Village -owned sidewalk throughout the Village. Much of this sidewalk was constructed prior to 1968 and predates regulatory accessibility codes. Staff also estimates that approximately 40% of this sidewalk (2.3 million square feet) will need to be replaced due to defects or regulatory compliance issues. This estimate is based on the incidence rate experienced during the 2015 street resurfacing program sidewalk pilot project. Failed and non-compliant sidewalk will be identified and repaired over the course of a 20 -year time frame. This schedule is intended to be commensurate with the street resurfacing program. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires all communities to develop and implement a transition plan that will bring all its pedestrian facilities, including public sidewalks, into compliance with the law. Staff proposes to transition Village -owned sidewalk to ADA compliance over the course of 20 years by incorporating requisite pedestrian facility improvements into the street resurfacing program. In addition, staff estimates that approximately 238,360 square feet of new sidewalk is needed to complete sidewalk systems or fill-in sidewalk gaps at various locations throughout the Village. Projected Costs Required to meet Village Goals Based on the sidewalk areas presented above, staff has developed cost estimates for the upgrade of the sidewalk facilities throughout the Village. These costs are listed in the table below. They are based on the following assumptions: • Approximately 40% of sidewalk will require replacement due to maintenance or regulatory compliance issues (ADA); • Costs listed are in 2016 dollars. Potentially, some of this expense can be offset by utilizing CDBG funding to improve sidewalks in eligible areas. In 2015 and again in 2016, the Village received $200,000 in CDBG grants for sidewalk improvements. Staff anticipates that approximately 266,000 square feet of sidewalk will need to be replaced in CDBG eligible areas. CDBG funding could Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 60 of 71 reduce the cost for sidewalk repairs by approximately $1,369,900 (266,000 SF x $5.15/SF = $1,369,900). Additionally, staff estimates a need for approximately 26,045 square feet of new sidewalk construction within CDBG eligible areas. Funding this work with grants could further reduce the cost burden by approximately $302,122 (26,045 SF x $11.60/S F = $302,122). Staff continually seeks oppurtunities to utilize grant funding or other sources of financial assistance to facilitate sidewalk repairs and improvements. Routinely, inquiries are made to access funding via the Illinois Transportation Enhancement Program (ITEP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Safe Routes to School Program, and the Congestion Mitigation / Air Quality Program (CMAQ). However, these programs are highly competitive and are not usually awarded for sidewalk maintenance work. Conclusions Modification of Street Resurfacing Program. Staff has modified the Street Resurfacing Program to include all sidewalks adjacent to the street segments slated for resurfacing. These sidewalks will be improved as necessary at the same time curb replacement, driveway apron replacement, and other concrete flatwork is performed. Necessary improvements will include the repair of defects as well as sidewalk replacement necessary to comply with state and federal regulations. The anticipated activity level is 115,000 square feet per year and is intended to remediate a 40% sidewalk failure rate over the course of 20 years. Modification of Shared Cost Sidewalk Program. Staff proposes to modify the Shared Cost Sidewalk Program by utilizing unspent, annually budgeted, shared cost funds to permanently replace sidewalks that have been ramped (with asphalt) or excessively ground in order to remediate an imminent hazard. Typically, some of the funds budgeted for the Shared Cost Sidewalk Program are unspent because they are not matched by offsetting revenues from program participants: Year Budget Amount Expenditures Balance (Unspent) $85,000 69,749 $15,251 2014 $85,000 $58,311 $26,689 2015 $86,700 $68,423 $18,277 It is the opinion of staff that utilizing already budgeted, but unspent, funds to facilitate high priority maintenance repairs will more effectively reduce liability while improving neighborhood aesthetics. Creation of a Motor Fuel Tax Sidewalk Improvement Program. Repair of existing sidewalk systems are an eligible expense for Motor Fuel Tax proceeds. In contrast to street resurfacing work, sidewalk repairs are considered a maintenance activity and do not require IDOT pre -approval. Consequently, sidewalk repairs can be funded by MFT monies and procured utilizing existing purchasing agreements Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 61 of 71 such as the Municipal Partnering Initiative concrete flatwork joint bid. Staff recommends creation of sidewalk improvement expenditure account utilizing the Motor Fuel Tax Fund as a revenue source. Alternatives: 1. Endorsement of staff recommendations to modify sidewalk maintenance and improvement programs. 2. Discretion of the Village Board. SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Upload File Name Date ATTACHMENT Cover D A SIDEWALK Memo MAP ATTACHMENT Cover D B CDBG Memo AREAS ATTACHMENT C STATE AND Cover D FEDERAL Memo SIDEWALK REGULATIONS 6/8/2016 Attachment A Sidewalk Map.pdf 6/8/2016 Attachment B CDBG_Areas.pdf 6/8/2016 Attachment C State_and_Federal_SW_Regs.docx Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 62 of 71 SIDEWALKS OWNER: VOMP NON=VOMP All a611..mn11111..m ��i9u 9u1���11��nm nmmnnnnnnnl ��I���Imla"��� IIII° alum .°1111 .°1111 .°1111° mm 01 n��� nml0uuulluu0llluumuuuuu 9111911U1UlU0um9�u�� ulil uuu 9111 °11 1 1.1 uuuuuvuu .... iwwuuuuul ,�....._ 0@ 96� num ��uumMumMuu .ml0uuumi°°u MpI 9011 III � 't K 0 Q I ma p 3 umunmuu0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuu uuuuuumuuu umm II��Il�u uuuu ��... ml uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum6IIIIVuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumfl�� V uuum a o"MooiM' ����1 no1lDDmuuuuuuuuuuuuVlVuuuuuuuuur. I pM1 11 (1111110 mol n mumluDmumono.. 1111111111Iu �1o4i �IlliluDl�� mm������III��11111�� nm1m�� II� (IIII a � n, 11 ��� � "'�\\�1111111ll{{�urMaUMtD1� m D ���\4�1@i6'rBl� n¶6f uuuuu I ��I I uuulluuuuuu0luuuuu011uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum Il��r����@6166 606 now. mt"1411 lllm 41n1�66mM1��'�il��l I D1@@ml0umu 61116 I uuml a..uuuuuuum. I a, B�IV uuum �' of III@ Hol t " u uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuuu Ihm9YuuumuuumammuouuuumVlOuuuuuuuumV 11111 0 u166Vuuuuuuuuum@ il@ I� nouommllluuuum0uuuuVVVmlllu ''. .uuum nam } 011 uuummug0uumiomi nppiiomoououuuumgu 11 �� '!'11111ulii�����@�IIIIIIII ���������N��II�U u V II ��� � 119ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu0uu uuuuuuuumu�mMuuMuuuuuuuu i i 111, A ulo m u�u� m IIIIIIIIIIU LLL_I_. +1 m I I "LILu" mIDoo IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMmmml amuouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu nouU ,..um � m , >� M011L..�l mo0uu wmuu � mm .I �- lug nououuuuuu�l� uu u0 _L.. „ . I I mauMM mumuuuuuumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu i u0 ..� n,,, 1 i mnoi om m muuuu�wuwuvW mom uuuu n n umuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumum 11 Ma 11 um�umm 11o11mllllluuuuuumu uouuuuuuuum Vy moouum „o0uuuu lmuuuuu uumou uml M00muuuuuuuuuu ,,,1 i i i u1, I i i a II '�`� � uuuum 1. __........_, uuaMMuuuuuuuuuum IuuMM a luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuu� Ilkoouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum o�1>tY+m10 num uuumoouuu..uol Lum_1LLLLuowuuuvum LI D AV a uuuuuuu uoi „a »,II „null III 1111111��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4 W EUC LIDAV lamuouma uuuouuuuuuuuuuomum Ulu alU m uuaMmumOuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuuu�oiu...o�muu11111111110101111111111111111111111�����11111�Wum0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuu mmmmmmmmmmm momWUMuur....muuMuuu uumuu u u, uuuuuuuuuuuuuu 0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum0lu .. 0..uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu..uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum imnnnnMm00000uuuuum ..uoi ............� ...�--� IIID .......................... uuu num, ,�,UCI Irl A ... Ilm a mmuuuuuulllll .. @, u1111 �i mii Uoimmm�um�lluvo�mlouumyol mlvo ui m„oououuu 000uuum uuummno�ouoinumnnnmmuumom�ouuuum ....... Hou y 616 am �Illo"""""" 0 �°°16,111o�°luulmu141illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllll �O14 ^OUpI +0 �� no��� ��� ���� 904 ���� uuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuumuum uuuuuu uumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum uuu uuuuu 011oUUmom, ....................... 0000000000000000 umu Dttm o ooi m � uuuoouuuuuuumuuuuuu0 iwmi0 @ lilm @Illuuuuuuuiuuuuuuuuulmo°i 111111V"SIU' "0uuuuuuuuuuumml➢noun '' I, eF m a Mi 419 u4� {1111111 �i ��Y< 1 11111111111 Uum°�11 1 um uuuuuuuuuuu im uuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum uuuuuuu UVDUIINi 4 p ..Nap , I�� 1111111/ m uuuuuu ^M\\\\\\\ uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulllluuuuu m Q(i C II uuuuuuuu 000000000 �M 0o..uouuuuuuuuuuuu uumiiiii'1f" � I 1 I) � o+ atm mu Uwn01u mumm mUuupu S 1111 � 1 4B � ' ,. � m�uumumll uuuuu n1 l 1111 � � 1111�i� � .1114 0mmi ,� nomuu. @1 all iu � w 141 W not Illluuull111:. ao6uuuumu mmm 1 n„ a mglp5Pm�1� p'' _ uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu DO '11 11111 ''Imuuuuu 1 mu IIIIVmU11uU1u11 oo I�oi�l�lwll@ a+4ll111am,m tmopl..11 14U ��omluu�lll mml nolo nioui 00 umm m uuuuuuuuuuuum V \6 �IIII@II�� nlWlmlW@�@'qA mml��l �\\\V I !m UI UUII� nm1 gym. nmli ��R T al�� � ���Sl4�m 1u� 1� i6 mVWul I III Q 11111\1 �II� � m111 \k111111@111�� ���11S t��111\ II�� „� nouVuu010uu0uu01101 uuuuumnnDuuuuuu. m u u uuuuuum uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum uu VI I (14��,,II °@) 11 1 (. m m ul0lumu,114, noun a uuu uuuuum�0000000000000000000000000000000 � IIIIIIUN4% 1p 111@\ �D \1\1 "uillllll 911 �, �1( .''�W` nmloil��� � nm1 1�11�, �4 II Into 1\V�4 �Iuumloil I E 0m� � uuuuuu 2 '1W ���11) ll' � �t;�U' X11111 nl�lllll mmmmlllllllllllllllllun�� ` lu ow m0mm uuuumEi Q- uuuuuuumuum g f @1040\\V ��Q� mill@mui����uuu mmluu A\1 Ut �����������1,�111 n0u � uu uu � uuuuuuul ������1 a 416 IIIIVuuuuu uuuu 6mU61 11 1 uuuuuuum i � �\�11111111j urvi0i0101��� ����U � @t uuumo I@ uu ��yy t \\\ 1111 \I\\\\\\\V\\1 pp1\\ \ \\\\\\\V IMuum 1�uuuu�uum u �o0ms0m m, ,mom U 1Nl ISD @Ilolllu �I@1 Q, � WR Q mnnnnnnmmmmmm000000000000000uuuuum 00� \\ a � aa0louu 90111 4 y m i � m IIm1w t II IIIU4t Wi III � IIII la I I uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum m�11a1 '11W0mu0uuuuuuuu au �11\\\\\ Mluuuu11 1'ilsu����aU�»i�i'idl �� 9Rmi�IIIImIlIt11 o m � REENFI OOH � w o1�ltt� IIII\� 4 uuuuumumnllh EL T H`N LL uWouuuuuu"1111uum im4WNmmmnM 9\ 111111 111111 I 411D1„ A\\\ 64 � m �'� 1mml�imuuuumm Iouuuuuml oimul atuuuuulUu,IIIlIu,oIMM11.1o6000uuuuoDm o R� m uuu uuuuu mnnnnnnlmnm�mMmnnnm�m \101 um m I A 919 \\\1 VIII I! „n,nm omu wn� 1D I000uVu!,uu�u 1111\\I pplp uuumuma '@� 1\� Hou o II 11111111 41111 Mqt 911NgWL11u ,�� @ 11116 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumm uuuummluumnll .................._. 1,,, mV ° oumuuam00000000000U E" 1 \ ,mao, \ \ 1 ...-. A \ Illm 1 \\\V 11111m I�� q0 nmvmlll�lN nm1 001 I a111111U A\\\\\V IIN nolumu0-DIIIIIvomIU110000000000000000nr-miUmmnnU-mill le nm" uumu0uuuuuum .6114 (lllmuum. 01UIIII IIII A\\\V ( ��liumuum Illlu11111111111111uuUaU111111111111umulu I. momumoumo I��6 1) � am I mU mIV1""VI mum 1111D,mu mo0on u no a �. m IIS. 1 n 6� 0000000000000000000000000000000000uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu i u a m i uuuuuuuuuuuulluuuummuuuuuuuuuu ���� 010 IIIIIIIIIIIIIuuuuuuuuuuuu01111111111 i � nou6��uuuu���IDOppmm III \ ���\\\\1 UIIIIIIIIVuuuu01111111@ lumVlll�������uuu„ 11 1 alUmuOq no 'p0 i n lumu � mmuu0uu�mu1 �u°U16 III VI� I 0 � �1W 11111111111119u u0o9111um V V pp S Il��u0u011u �.. �p 1 I, umull uuum � muum umm uuum uuum , ' uuuuuumu i um ��� 111 uuuuu i uu1uuuum00m .� m moou0uuuuuuuuuuu m mm , uuuu0uu9Yuu0V a@luuuu 0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum 0uuu0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uiom mu0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 1 ��� num , ...uuuuu uuuumim p WWW I I I i i uuumuuuuuuum uuuuu uuuuu0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuu0uum II ml 1omu0uuuuum 16111 num uumu0uuuuuuuuuuuuum n,..uu0uuuuuuuuu umu0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum o uumu0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum�����muuuu u uuum uuml m I � 1 11u I 116 11.11@1, IV III u0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum � nou0uuuuuuu J3 1 °°°°� ������ .. I muuuuvuu......mmlo............................uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum V\ m. 1 uuuuumuuuuu0l 11@ Imo- �\ �I uuum0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 1 omuu uuu uuuuuuuuuuml �Ip � ry---.........._ ��»II mMMuuuuuuuu ��u111u��uuuuuuumuuuuuumVum IluuOuuulll6 llllll......uuuuuuuuuuuuuu. uuumuuuuuu , ............... m o uuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuu u0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum auuu0uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum .uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuUlll I uuuuuuuuuuuuum U�nnn000000uuuuuuu uuul U mmluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu000m0um m0 ............. I IIII �I auome ID ������������������Ilul�„���IIm���������11m„ V I uuu���� uumluuuuu nmm mmoumi 911111 111\\1111) ���\\\ ...uuum uuuuuuuuuumullw 4113 �oU moo mouuaUIIIIIUOuavulllU mt ll00 �Ii@�mDlm m61U l amm uuunmu�i uu LL �^ �1 uumlmr m 1 ` 1 GI, omuu �� @1\\�� mlouu X16 �i ��� 111 �iii�ii° �I 0111 �� muMu 81116 mmuououu 9@IVDIIIIIII4DIIIIIIIVDI@II@k W 411'. nau,. n)IIOV°' ,u.n'°14414 a@ m1 mlNwlmm noll��u. I nou0mlUlllluumllluuuuuuuu o mmt 4�l Hou II Uq m 61160uuuouuuuuu°����. no°,imml mcuul 0N19 ���Oll6lllllmmlllu011@HH1oo1 �ll IIm06NmuII0��u����I�IY�uu01m11u10u1 � I m'lll6 111illiA4 �\l{{{WW nmu „q11111161uum'mmmN°116u0 4W 41� X11@Ila ,u 1 , uu 111111111111111111111k ala III Illlllllm IIII II u M iuuuuuuuuuuuuuum ,. umumuu. gqq tlaa1141111111111111111111111101111111 m a � u0mmuu noun i�m nU,l �n mIV111 nom. °1 6uu���uuuu,uumuuu ,� Vuumumlmuum u0 �IIIII 114 allll0uuuuumi '.... °11111 m mmm mnWm namlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIII'�mpIu1111111p0 4..Imllllli 1 \4a „��.�yMP�iim I m1a rq� ul0l no am aDlllt °mow u °,, f I@V omDa al9l I ,4d1V16 10ID14 II� mm A 0 t@ 1) 1 M11 I v 000 Moll°I \ 6 m1 i01���u Iq�, �luu 4a � aoum 61� ummu 'OIIi�O �4� uuuuuuum 9@D g ima m ,I¶lum ID11Dmu uuu °°°°°moonunam @11441111,11101 m am„m i IIIIVuuuuu uuuuuuuu° uuut VVV i i u 11 a IUI@1m b vmmmv �,�m moo uummnimlmal\1111` 1m mumu m��ma �" m��tm X190 °�III�IP` .mmm 1 IN16�1p��' 196O10nw�n` @ nm1 uuuum 9 IIII ImmmuoM0mm4om� I @ 6mulma �III,um..Ill U aolu0u lu u uumuum �, nouumuuuVVlu m. " 1116 U@ll molllllmo¢ 9111 ��� ���wmi16um nm111muuuuuuumM mOu'°Iml utIIIIN11101mo..1416m L.. IIID 11111. @@111111116 ��1 4UIIIIII6V ��� m 10uuuuuVVlm°°°° n ql1 a alb 4alu alb I 'mom m a nmw 1 �a e uuu901W m1m 441 611 4a II6 410m ��.411611110uuu tau i0uuuuuuuuuuuuVpl`l���tun uo0m II ��lu �Ou �O� IVU 6�6m � II. IIII 411111111D@I1�� nm mos mIIIIIIU @II@` u I Hou... 91190uuuu. ���������u,Wuum uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 1 uuuu'611°� �luplplDOD 1 uuuuu i uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuu u u uuuuuuuuuuum uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum i uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ............ . uuuuuuuuuuuuum uuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuu uuum uuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu m0000000000000000 0 � �li f/ uuum uuuu � uuuuuuuuuuum 6" ��� m o°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° r 1 i BVI IIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV I,°°1°°" uuuu uuu �� � uuu uuuu uu uuuuu uuuuu �I nm14 II 4 uuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuuuuuuuuumlllluuuuuuuum u u �I ' D uuu uuuuu umuu 11111 � ��}� m01u��11411&�Ilmmuglq IIIIuuu @ 1 1��1� lumom mUlllll& 00111111 VIMMMdw C �uumuuu 0uuuuD����ulmw u01 +u..alm �1t uuuu L R ���I om0l uu mmw{II� 1�m�11Um �" u m uuu oam^911144um1 °°uuuum 111UIUIIIIIIIIIU I pp uuuuuuuUumuuu01U0muuumllr Ila IU uu���imo uuuuuuum � IIV uuuu ti Illm6muppm nglim uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u � uuuuuu u uuuuuuumuuuuuuu0 IIIIIIIVVV IIV m I ' °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°uu to °' ° m i """"' """� � 41116 6 40°°"uiD 1111611111111111�OIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII6o uuuuum111Vp, 6 ���11�111 411, n"��9➢m ��' 6�D,,,66 9����� alu s„mm �E1 mn� ��11� nmmmolouuuuum��IIIIIItI�Mlltmuuuuuuuum�ooummoDnuum aouuunuuuu 0���I111, Itll 11111 11 1�Ib ,1' 9@ �111111a101 mWllm u �»���i111i4,11u11 414 1111144 GHIIImuumum mu Q mAINIuuuuuuuuouuuumu,uu umlulUll ��4'�1111110ut IIIIIUIIIIIIIIVuuuuu°°muu Ill luuuuuuuuuumuuuu zu 111uuuum iiiiiiii uuuuuuum��ll01 a 1119111'➢ o .......... umu uumu°°00000000uum uml m u�6ma p n6 6 6� 6 �i 04Iliiolo111j pmmlo�ll� �� \1 11DI11vUl ^uo muMu � ��� , u muum II Illy am m ,mZ mo a�1m.. 910191 ,@ Vliml 161. II � ,',Ilo 111111@@ 1611 1b I 0 mmm 1111141111@ IIIA 111111 II \ I \ I a ¶� uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumu � u uuuu @i�164�1��I1�1 �� I�p..1611 `� \\�\\11111p\\l\\\\ilu \ mU4 a (� m� y I Illlu o ```~.. _ �, laaa,maomm uu uuuuuu oiuuuuuuuuu I �1°� 0111 i@'i�0lmm��. �DllSoo,,. ,9161 .n11 ` �����iuuuuuuuuuuuum�` '. uu '..,. ESHA ,.mmm Ipmum1111Yu nommum.. 40111' ommmum1611am, mOM�uW u,limuu„, N0a 1114. 16am0m0uupp0' ant CG 7 u...omuU�Um4U r Holm� mu HHH000lll ouunmuuam0.°r.luu..u.o4.u1.u1.o.i.u�^ui0i1�ilu,umHvoa l uuuiliuWouulmmu1uu10uuG°mv4�vnnO0a6vmomm���0\1u1Fu1iumMmapaluamRiul'u,uVmV 111m111,11111111111w16@'i11'I1p1nluUm•�mlloumuuou000unuaoamuvovov00oau.00.m ....,ulluuummuumamummumuml�lmmum..��u�umoMammmmolmoV�uuuVUVuuumOaa.nOamagluom0�� '66@6t.+4,m4o�'u�..uuuu0uouvmq°o,°,0111111 uumu . luuuuluuuuum ���IIOIP. .Q Illmmum°°uluu u0u Q �u1u1u11u11�1muulp0l4 om�.00mmommmnM`o �movmo umaoa oso-0a-m„lUof nao umalu�mmm�am will mMlaallmuu 414 VIII i m�nm00 L umuumioOumMuwuuuuuml�.._.-� 111 uuu � 111, nu�����i11 Holl no �u1 ml �NhU nou0uu mu6lumnmmmuooOmaUn1 uu..uumuv`A..II ,o,�w,muuuuuuuuuum a o» lou m 4 iouuuouuuumvuvmMMOumu , uuumumuui uu uui umuouum uuuu uuuMu��muuuu 6 I� m °olio V # �--. 0u umw�,memmnu.aoaly..auuuuumouum . (aluuuuumuuuuuuMuuuuuuummumlmammmllouuuumunmwmmllouuuuuuuuummummoi iiiiii��mml ......--�M mMm ,-'........................ �u-q aaan RVA6m..a4��0 1 � Lo�1m"�umlmlml uuuuuuumuuuumuuuumuo - II�� III 106 no11 0�1 ^�,. wuv0 ,0uuuu0uuumuu..um9u..111191111111„1 uimvmu 0uuuuuuumuuummu11uu0uuuuuumumu0iou 911 a U' 61' 6 --. oaoo, - nouuuuuuuwnmluuuumlun o.11 iouuuuuuuumuuu0 60..00000o909om0000uu0000mu9..m ���I III II nm 911 uvMmmumuuuumu muummuummiiouwuuum mn mw0uuuuuuuuuunmm� n 0imum»uuuMuuuu ,yr.�OLF RD moonomoummuuuuuuuma»1 mmm.00moi-,lnoim III4�� um\@ '..00 �,Ill61 1111101' o�. nou� q0}, .uuum mmmumvv v�..0 momo>mnioumuuuuuuu � muwuuMUWlVuuuuuuU oumoouuuuuuuuuum000Vouunm000moumuumouuuuouuuuuuummv p nou0m Wool um Hoo! nua� M mmuulVOumalloionol`f�"'"^^W GOLFRD uuouuoiuu0mm..uuumuuuuuuuuuuumuu mmouuuuu, uuuuuu _m0u000o9nu uu0uuuum000 @111111 � nm 00muuummMummnnmmml0mmnnluuuuuuuum uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u0uuiuuuuuuuuuuuamuuu..umu00009mmn0m00uum000VmmnnOumuum0000 u0um009naum0uumum. uumu0i nm10m II Nu 41 1iW mmv„ ry 6um nm10m �l 6�mm6. no 16 muu,M u614ii1Yi 1 9N 911 01...... 666W mon. �Wl!Mml10u ���i ouiU���� ..... ..........uuuuuuuu... ° o w p11 0000Ioou01 1 �I������II��� p ��I�Q 1j6 Iluuum uuuu�i00mumMuuuuu uuuuu uuuuuuuuuumuuuuuum uuu m uu a �I o ���� X11@w ��� I i�ll�� 9090u uuuuum u6 II U aalm 1j61mt 9a1m,NI i 100 � uuuuu 90 9@ a111u0�EMS �� wmnmmuum �m6lBuum 6 i0 000000000uunnnoonnuuuuuuuuuuu a uuuuu I �I � �Il�ao6 'III ,0, I'll II %I,����.. a, & uuuuumu0ll-"'nnnnnli011� Ilw..O°i U1 1 J lI1011Ulllllllllllu m0mmmmmaam0mm��� q@uuuIIIIIIIIIIIluu1D611ulDu pl��� m911llllllllll 1116 �� J nolo uuml0uuuuuuuu 1 n �IUI61���Bmm, 0uuuuuuuuu041�� m nmmuuu1.... p mmaDammaam, ...I1-im"11111 aaIIIII �1111ma11���������������� � . I� � -R • T �IVu maV1111 uuuuuuutuwmW�uuumuuu��IVlI������- I1o,..muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu�IuumuuuMuu "' MPSTER ST � V611111111604Dn@ 6111111111116 99 I@ ° 9°11,. mm ��� 1N 1�1 lllUu11m111u mu!nlUumuuMmmua>mMuua>mmuu ...... Iv-...........'-+uumv.o uumoouuouo..ommnmmr"+IouVmmlU 0 m o�mmmnmmm00mmmma00000000000000000000000m ou,m0 Ilouuummmoumlmum I � ..... .....-----""'^' 916 110 alio CIIIV mill 11114...11 IIV mllu �� NIIn171111111011111110166 ^m�lllllll I� muuuu9 � � �'""`aaop\\\611�6manoommn�uuuumau..mUaaumllluuuuuuumummiuuuuuuuuuuuuum I 611�a uoouoouuuuuummmum 000uuuuuuumlou..o--'......'-'-'. 61@ 6111., mu n..al imm mu o�� I V � ym i nou�u9m n� . luuuuuuuuuuuuum uuuu0uuuuuuuuuumuuuuuuuu���1V " 1110III1611111 1110 I� um61� oiimml �»II � .Hou... C'� Hol '.. h 11 IIDD 6 M m a 1 IIO m n�0111 uuV°1t 01@ ��m nm�uii°i�� ��iiiuiui°,iuu�ullol,� n�� 'ODIVu611Yum�Vum O "°SII@u �) 1..am ����` nn�", a uuull��uuuuuuuuumouuuuuuuuuuuuuuull��ll4uo 111 lumi °161 ,you 91� Hou um„ufiu,`Z` no, no 1111111° mm°""0puuuuuuuuuu m101m000000000l l "� 6� n�� w.. 0111141iou»1 uu @11111°nl@���I. loam..m ,�, �� 1 Hol 1, uuuuu 1q1 -2111 yUull14o1 ..� mo 1Vuumol� 1U mm IIIIIDIIIIII 100 VV011o1 uuu0uuuu1111111 Vou1 uuuuuuuuuumouuuuulllluuuml0uuuuuuml100mu0uu�uuuuuvuuuu1111111!!9191 I � nou0uuu a �U11\\V IaNu I. muuuuu0111110�uuuuumUIIIIIIIIIVuuuuuumuwumuuuuu�)w..�6 u661,_ ........................ aum ''., Iu0p0p1uo9 (1mlma IIII p1, pp I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I��I iWmuuumiuuuuumuumVulm„�1 nm �mm ,mnml�mu 1um10uu n� 66@ ... °uuuu Ia1u111111111 II��I���II� 1��� 1 �,00911�� 1161 � � '. n ..4�6� IIIIII ,11,19 U °o1616µ'" �\ 1 Ilmllllll IIIIIIIIIII 10 nouUlDuml�16 �moo1 ml, IVu11Vaa 11mm11a1u666um91 61 mmu0uuuouuuuouu (\14��VIv11\\�1 m uuuuU4q 0� 11m0m ID` II IpDIII911mN�o 111 6 mmuuuullVOIIIIVll9ll uo661Vm AS mill°° 1wg 411 °1pj116o166pU 11161pp �161UVIu111V1ImvvvVlO noumluulu uuum ��I@i... h +oil ��111 VIII uuulllllllllll ^� 61101 Illlpllllllllll �mI �u61 Duam mall alllmlll��4"'�INuaNll11111111111p11 IIII R"'@U�Nmu�uuuumUVol1`1m1111!10l.laolUMmoU111o1 oo0000m0u�ll olulDuuuuuuuuu A �O,N6¶ ii 11�IV mllmam,�P 10100°° 0`6 1110u64 11111 1UV6111o1am �� 11g111,A11»oo000000VVVi ............. 1��II�I ��un l°m111""-I���1 �11 nouuuuuuuuupuu 1IIIIIOIIIum00 mmlll 0 n nmmumou °16911IIIDnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnl u1111111j1p6alllm0 � � Illuuuuu��uuuuuuuuuuuuuuil��l 6@u � �4 "ill�l°I��"116 � 1m1u9 11��, 1 a66ouoom�� D�-----�-66�,p11�111. "100 �� 111411q 6111VIa..umum mn1C0����mmu1116W,09mmu01 um 1 u. q( 161@Vlmuuu m 'n�m6 M0 Hou m Imo�� uuuu a oummmom IU" 161° OON °11' Iu 1 ^NII4 � ��IIIIIU QU/my .mm 11111001 CH LOT 1�1 �nm1U01mmml� Iu06uuom1911mu11111uuuuu 1uii�4 I RO 1 mouuuD066uu mloumu m6vmu m 4 90huum116uuu II Iii 9@ 116m1o1m 11 0uuuuuuuuul u19�1 OU nmm ���44V61o@liu muuum I nm101uOVF0 UuuVIIVumNmm6@i6 � p n411�11611u uuuuuuum ...�-am III illll r----- uuuuum 64 nm1�4 um uum10uu1 166, lllmNwMl nm nm nm aM .mw ���°°� ������� I����i 61111➢ mnlm D 'L mmNIm19M0mUmu lu m om 111 001 p 04 ® i6ftm 111 uuuum @11Nnu---�xlniooumouu uuuuuu � 1111111 "�IIIIII �}}I� ° mu011 �� nl lu" �II� uuum"lyyu 1 mo 111 u w 6pIIIUV am10m uuum uuuuuuum uuulVlu ..mmoOmnnRm 1 0@ 610 u1 muuum p , uuu0uuuuuml M ,m uull6��u1 II�;111 mm� 001 NI D��u num �mm1 l@u0I a�� 11. �� "16616um001U I V 1 111 II am a6 l0umu um1 Im ai� n � um 4��mu�� U61.m1uuuuuuumu I..... _0uuuuummyyyyyyyy l uumuumouuuuvuumuuvuuuuluuuMlUWuuuW4lVMuuMmuumuwl6' uuuuuu° umll i 1111 VIII 10111 �1 .... 0111 uuuuum IIIINu.I .I IIU11 �0 '116 16. uu 6111u �l nooluul num maluu.0uu��. ouluumvllumul umuoou Illlim6u6mm6amuuumuumuuuuumuuuuuuu ulm alUmuOu°°°°I uuuuu uu01111Vuum0VV00oo001 uuuuumouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.umou0uuuuuuuuuullllllllllll ����uUuuumlmlRR ,61111UIIU 6�l 4a6uuuu �� nml0uuuum I nml0uuuuuumm I m lomu omni louuumolu �� 6��� j1 a nm lOulmlluum0l 1,J q 40 AR uuuu I uuum 4-..... I mil m�mlououmouuuuu V nmlo mmuuglL'9111@vomlDlmumoiullUl.mu�U111tmm1ullumomgll��� 410 n� @ WIW@uumouullVuumum I�Ulmo ........... 6 3231 ..............�.\..y�q�,� ................0 V 616 nmuUlluumuummuiVllumumMllmoum011uumoimmumlmm lu ROAD 61 °uuuu uuuuuvuu n)g.umuuumum 61@i111>q O .61110. 91116 a61u n Ir mum '� � nmlom. mmMm m �� 9@ ~4411 u1 mo mut uummumu@1111�0m , m ......... um1 am am 91 am rlv II! III 11 .alo no@116m����1111111�111u1�@011ll nau➢w..nou���0 010 Ul6noou��. Hou... ................... 0 I 011 ................................ Mu moo iuvmuvvum Hou Hou m . 6 (Vouuuuuuuuuuuu uumu 6' 9011 �IIIIIR 6uu� uuuuuu �� .-Lim v�uuuuuuuuuum000000m..uioo ......... olUumuummmwmuuuouu..u0uuuuuuuum9 ��� uuuuoouuuuuuuuuumuumuumuuuuuuumuuouu uum1,01 m uu1111uuouuuuuuu11111uuuuvuuuuuvuuu uuu muumm uuuuuuuuuuuuum moo _____.......... nn vrnu .... ...u0uuuuuuuu. April 2016 Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 63 of 71 CDBG ELIBIGLE AREAS SEM INOLE LN April 2016 C" ;Zff,5fthR, VA1FmeXl�lleeting - June 14, 2016 Page 64 of 71 Attachment C State and Federal Public Sidewalk Requirements The Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.) (1968) - This act requires certain facilities financed with federal funds to be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Architectural Barriers Act covers facilities financed in whole or part by a federal grant or loan where the federal agency that provides the grant or loan is authorized to issue standards for the design, construction, or alteration of the facilities. hl -1-1 `- YhNA JgE N���� , it a I I a-ir it u e lr s a -c -1 a Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794) (1973) - prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. . _��_��I,_ICrrr.ddaaYJ� wi!IM/Ir!2UL� Illinois Accessibility Code (IAC) (1988) — State legislation which is intended to implement the Environmental Barriers Act (EBA) [410 ILCS 25] as amended to date, and to replace the former version of the Code (71 III. Adm. Code 400) effective May 1, 1988. This Code is intended to ensure that the built environment, including all spaces and elements of all applicable buildings and facilities in the State of Illinois is so designed, constructed, and/or altered to assure the safety and welfare of all members of society and to be readily accessible to, and usable by, environmentally limited persons. This Code is also intended to resolve areas of difference between the federal accessibility standards, Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which are applicable to buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Illinois accessibility standards, IAC, which are applicable to buildings and facilities in the State of Illinois covered by the EBA. The drafters of this Code compared and adopted the stricter of State or federal accessible design standards. hiip ,YZC Nm�IIII Yl�kIls� �.k1��Q' � C III CQ',�k� � �kQ', I �� I ��', C C �I IY' II�kI �1A � . Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq) (1990) - a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. it, ,II gIpii .Ty �j, it ���� Ib ll ii , r Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right -of -Way (PROWAG) - These guidelines apply to pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way. The proposed guidelines define the public right-of-way to mean "public land or property, usually in interconnected corridors, that is acquired for or dedicated to transportation purposes". The proposed guidelines ensure that the following facilities for pedestrian circulation and use located in the public right-of-way are readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities: • Sidewalks, pedestrian overpasses and underpasses, and other pedestrian circulation paths, including requirements for pedestrian access routes, alternate pedestrian access routes when pedestrian circulation paths are temporarily closed, and protruding objects along or overhanging pedestrian circulation paths; • Pedestrian street crossings, medians, and pedestrian refuge islands, including requirements for curb ramps or blended transitions, and detectable warning surfaces; Page 1 of 2 71 Attachment C State and Federal Public Sidewalk Requirements • Pedestrian street crossings at roundabouts, including requirements for detectable edge treatments where pedestrian crossing is not intended, and pedestrian activated signals at multi -lane pedestrian street crossings; • Pedestrian street crossings at multi -lane channelized turn lanes at roundabouts and at other signalized intersections, including requirements for pedestrian activated signals; • Pedestrian signals, including requirements for accessible pedestrian signals and pedestrian pushbuttons; • Transit stops and transit shelters for buses and light rail vehicles, including requirements for boarding and alighting areas at sidewalk or street level, boarding platforms, and route signs; • Pedestrian at -grade rail crossings, including requirements for flangeway gaps; • On -street parking that is marked or metered, and passenger loading zones; • Pedestrian signs, including requirements for visible characters on signs and alternative requirements for audible sign systems and other technologies; • Street furniture for pedestrian use, including drinking fountains, public toilet facilities, tables, counters, and benches; and • Ramps, stairways, escalators, handrails, doors, doorways, and gates. r�jyj�p ovgf� Page 2 of 2 71 Item VII.: STATE OF THE STREETS / RESURFACING PROGRAM UPDATE Department: Public Works Department Information: The Village of Mount Prospect has approximately 136 miles of streets and alleys that are maintained by the Public Works Department. The engineering staff has the responsibility to efficiently and cost-effectively maintain the integrity of the Village's streets. Our ability to continue cost effective maintenance is tied to the budget available to make the necessary repairs. It is our goal to keep the Village Board informed about the state of our streets which is the purpose of this update. History In 1996, a thorough pavement evaluation report indicated that our streets had fallen into a state of disrepair. The report was based on the structural testing of the streets and the report indicated that there was a backlog of 33 miles of streets requiring resurfacing and 12 miles of streets requiring full reconstruction. Subsequently the Village Board approved a 10 -year accelerated paving program starting in 1997. The program's goals were: 1. Eliminate the reconstruction streets backlog in the first 5 years. 2. Eliminate the resurfacing streets backlog in the second 5 years 3. Following that 10 -year period all streets would be resurfaced on an average 20 -year basis, or 1/20 (5%) of the streets would be resurfaced each year to prevent pavements from slipping into the reconstruction category. In order to do that, funding levels would be needed to facilitate resurfacing of 6.8 miles of streets each year. Typical pavement design assumes a 15 — 18 year life. We strive for a 20 year life in order to extend our budget knowing that we may see more pavement failures such as cracking and potholes. Accomplishments / Deficits Since 1996 During the first 5 years of the accelerated paving program (1997 — 2001), we were able to eliminate the reconstruction backlog. Since then, no streets have fallen into the reconstruction category. For the next 3 years (2002 — 2004) funding levels were Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 67 of 71 such that we were able to reduce, but not eliminate, the resurfacing backlog. Starting in 2005, the funding levels decreased and for several years we fell short of the targeted mileage. This ultimately created a backlog of 10.5 miles. In 2014, the Village Board provided additional funding that allowed us to erase this backlog. During the past three (3) years, 35.2 miles of streets (26% of total street inventory) have been resurfaced. Current State of our Streets Facts Total length (Village Maintained): 136.14 miles Use Categories: Alley: 1.17 miles Local: 103.95 miles Collector: 26.57 miles Industrial: 1.84 miles Arterial: 2.61 miles (Central, Kensington, Wolf) Material Categories: With asphalt surface: 133.94 miles With concrete surface: 2.20 miles With curb & gutter: 126.65 miles With concrete base: 19.10 miles 19 -Year Summary (1997-2015 Reconstruction = 15.40 miles Resurfacing = 129.82 miles Progress: Streets in Serious Condition: 1996 2011 2016 7.4 miles 0 miles 0 miles Average Pavement Condition Index: 1996 2011 2016 70.1 70.3 72.2 Current Condition Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 68 of 71 PCI Description Miles 0-10 Failed 0.00 10-25 Serious 0.00 25-40 Very Poor 8.21 40-55 Poor 26.95 55-70 Fair 27.29 70-85 Satisfactory 123.89 85-100 1 Good 149.80 • No street needs reconstruction. • We are not experiencing any failures of streets that were reconstructed since 1997. • Most streets are aging according to an average 20 -year life. • As can be expected, Collector streets are aging at a rate slightly faster than an average 20 -year life. Pavement Management We assume a 20 -year pavement surface life for our streets. While this is somewhat higher than the industry standard of 12-15 years, we can, when needed, stretch the pavement surface life through our Grind & Patch program. An assumed 20 -year pavement surface life requires that we resurface 5% of our streets each year. We perform a "snapshot" evaluation every 5 years. Currently this is done via a Visual Stress Evaluation with the results complied in software known as MicroPAVER. This evaluation is currently performed by an outside consultant. The 5 -year Micro PAVER evaluation is stored in the pavement database. The pavement database is updated via staff each year as streets are resurfaced and repaired. Street Database Microsoft Access based 1471 block segments (Village maintained) Geometric data: length, width Material thicknesses Curb and shoulder type Section/address index Traffic data Repair history from 1967 to present Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 69 of 71 Current cost/replacement data Photographs Observation Log Micro PAVER visual distress evaluation and measurements Pavement Condition Index — Historic Pavement Condition Index - Current Projected repair year Linked to GIS and Engineering (AutoCAD) maps for the production of interactive exhibits. Pavement Condition Index Village streets are rated according to a condition scale based on: • Scheduled field observations and measurements of pavement distresses which are entered into the MicroPAVER software management program. • Projected deterioration due to time since last observation. • Recent Improvements. The above items produce a real time Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for each street segment. The PCI is a numeric indicator based on a scale of 0 to 100 (100 being best condition). This indicator is the main criteria for determining the order in which streets are repaired and the type of repair that is needed. State of our Streets - Future Our goal is to resurface our streets on an assumed 20 -year life basis. That requires that we resurface 5% of our streets each year. Historically, this has shown to be a good, sound plan. We are presently on track with this goal. For the sake of future budgets, and the potential for unusual price increases, we need to investigate/experiment with replacing only the surface (1.5" to 2.0") on local streets rather than the traditional 1.5" binder and 1.5" surface replacement. Alternatives: This status update is for informational purposes only. No Village Board action is required at this juncture. SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 70 of 71 INFRASTRUCTURE: Well designed, well maintained public spaces and facilities ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 4.nWatta ,Ihirrne nts A wilillablle Upload Date File Name Committee of the Whole Meeting - June 14, 2016 Page 71 of 71