HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.2 Levee 37 Improvements
Page 1 of 4
Agenda Item Details
MeetingMar 12, 2019 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA* Note meeting location
change*
Category4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Subject4.2 LEVEE 37 IMPROVEMENTS
AccessPublic
TypeDiscussion
Public Content
Background
Levee 37 was constructed to protect homes and businesses from inundation by the Des Plaines River. The
levee wall serves as a physical barrier between record river crests and the adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
It was designed and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Local partners included
the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), the Cook County Forest Preserve District, the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), the City of Prospect Heights, and
the Village of Mount Prospect (the Village). Construction was completed in 2011.
The total cost of construction was approximately $36,000,000. Federal and State of Illinois funds paid for
all but $500,000 of the tab. The City of Prospect Heights and the Village of Mount Prospect each
contributed approximately $250,000. USACE estimates that the levee helps avoid $3,000,000 worth of
property damage each year.
The levee is comprised of 800 feet of sheet pile retaining wall, 1.3 miles of concrete floodwall, three (3)
pump stations, and numerous drainage structures. It protects over 260 acres of developed property in the
City of Prospect Heights and the Village of Mount Prospect.
Two (2) of these pumping stations are situated in Mount Prospect (Pump Station 1 and Pump Station 2).
In addition, 400 feet of sheet pile retaining wall and 4,600 feet of concrete floodwall are within Mount
Prospect corporate limits. The Village of Mount Prospect is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and
ultimate replacement of levee system assets within its jurisdiction.
The levee provides effective protection from river flooding. It was tested by the record Des Plaines River
crest in 2013 (rising to within 3 feet of overtopping the floodwall) and several subsequent elevated crests
that would have generated flooding conditions if the levee was not constructed.
The levee is effective because it forms a complete seal between the river and adjacent land. This seal
prevents the river from overtopping its banks. However, it simultaneously prevents rain water collected in
the storm sewers tributary to the levee from discharging to the river.
In 2015, the Village hired Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Limited, of Rosemont, Illinois (CBBEL) to
investigate the causes of flooding in areas tributary to the levee system when river levels are elevated.
Their findings are documented in the 2015 Levee 37 Flood Study (Attachment A).
Page 2 of 4
CBBEL observed that when the river level rises, backwater valves on the storm sewer discharge pipes
close; isolating the storm sewers from the river.
These devices prevent river water from flooding adjacent neighborhoods via the storm sewer system.
Sensitive to water pressure, backwater valves close when river levels rise preventing river water from
entering the Village storm sewer system. This mode of flooding occurred during a river crest in 1987 that
damaged dozens of homes and rendered local streets impassable for days.
When the storm sewer backwater valves are closed, rainwater that falls in the neighborhoods near the
levee is diverted to the pumping stations. These pumps have the capacity to discharge water at a
combined rate of 60 cubic feet per second (CFS).
However, CBBEL was able to calculate that prior to construction of the levee, most rainwater was collected
by the storm sewer system and conveyed to the river via gravity discharge (no pumping stations) at a rate
of 240 CFS.
The original design of the levee system assumed that the circumstance where the river level is high, storm
sewer backwater valves are closed, and significant rain falls in adjacent neighborhoods was rare. However,
experience reveals that this condition is much more commonplace. Street and structure flooding occurs
because of the inadequate pump station discharge rate.
The 2015 Levee 37 Flood Study concluded that the pump station discharge capacity should be increased.
It also recommended constructing detention ponds and larger storm sewer pipes to improve stormwater
storage and convey water to the pump stations more effectively.
Pump Station Improvements
USACE, IDNR, CBBEL, and the Village have agreed that the discharge rate of the pumping stations should
be increased from 60 CFS to 240 CFS. IDNR’s concurrence is significant because the agency regulates
storm water discharges to the Des Plaines River.
Additionally, USACE believes it is feasible and cost effective to improve the capacity of the pumping
stations. The likely improvement will probably involve constructing supplemental pumping stations next to
the existing facilities.
USACE has agreed to pay for as much of the pump station improvements as possible using money owed to
them by IDNR. During levee construction, USACE made certain expenditures on IDNR’s behalf. Last year,
IDNR reimbursed USACE in the amount of $2,971,130.18. USACE will use these funds to design and
construct pump station improvements.
USACE Levee 37 Project Manager Jeff Zuercher will be on hand to discuss the agency’s efforts to improve
the pumping stations. He will comment on project concepts, budget, and timeline.
Stormwater Improvements
The Levee 37 Flood Study also recommends construction of additional stormwater detention facilities and
associated conveyance pipes in the storm sewer basins tributary to the pump stations. These upgrades will
enhance the ability of the pump stations to dewater the area following rain events that occur during
elevated river conditions.
The study proposed constructing these facilities adjacent to Indian Grove Elementary School and Frost
Elementary School. However, during subsequent exploratory conversations, River Trails School District 26
and Consolidated School District 21 declined participation in the projects.
However, the River Trails Park District (the Park District) expressed interest in developing projects that
could coincide with improvements at their nearby park facilities at Aspen Trails Park and Burning Bush
Trails Park. These concepts are depicted in the attached proposed layout maps (Attachments B and C).
Also enclosed is a proposed intergovernmental agreement between the River Trails Park District and the
Village proposing a paradigm for developing stormwater management facilities at Aspen Trails Park and
Burning Bush Trails Park. The agreement establishes a timeline emphasizing construction and
rehabilitation of Burning Bush Trails Park first followed by Aspen Trails Park. This sequencing reflects the
Page 3 of 4
Park District’s priorities for the respective facilities. It also develops the projects in a manner that avoids
simultaneous construction at both parks. Burning Bush Trails Park is presently slated for construction in
fall 2019. Assuming timely completion of improvements at Burning Bush Trails Park, work at Aspen Trails
Park could begin in 2020.
Most importantly, the agreement introduces the concept that the Village will be the primary payer for
construction and restoration of the park properties. Notably, restoration will include procurement and
installation of park amenities requested by the Park District.
Note: the Park District plans to contribute $650,000 towards the replacement of park amenities at Burning
Bush Trails Park. Presently, no Park District participation in restoration costs is anticipated for Aspen Trails
Park.
The logic supporting this agreement is that utilizing park property, including the cost of restoring or
upgrading park facilities, is significantly less expensive than constructing required stormwater detention
below neighborhood streets in large pipes. The current design level estimate for improvements at Burning
Bush Trails Park referenced in the proposed agreement is $3,972,778. The cost to construct improvements
yielding similar stormwater benefits in public rights-of-way is $8,150,000.
The cost estimates referenced in the agreement are preliminary. Burning Bush Trails Park is the more
advanced project. The Park District has secured design services from the landscape architect firm
Greenburg Farrow and is developing plans and specifications for this facility. Presently, these documents
are approximately 25% complete. Improvements at Aspen Trails Park remain conceptual. Staff anticipates
changes to cost estimates as the projects develop. The estimates will be modified accordingly prior to
seeking Village Board authorization to execute the agreement.
Village staff and representatives from the Park District will be on hand to present this matter and facilitate
discussion.
MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Management Grant
With assistance from engineers at CBBEL, staff prepared and submitted an application to the MWRDGC’s
Phase II Stormwater Management Program to solicit financial assistance for the construction of stormwater
detention facilities and associated storm sewer improvements at both Aspen Trails Park and at Burning
Bush Trails Park. For your reference, a copy of the submitted application is attached (Attachments E and
F).
The total cost of improvements estimated in the grant application is $8,138,645. This total includes
proposed expenditures for the design and construction of an underground stormwater detention facility
along with associated storm sewer improvements at Aspen Trails Park as well as the design and
construction of a surface stormwater detention facility and storm sewer improvements at Burning Bush
Trails Park. These improvements are intended to mitigate storm sewer surcharging and structure flooding
in the drainage areas tributary to Levee 37 Pump Stations 1 and 2.
The grant award was announced in September 2018 and is in a not-to-exceed amount of $2,000,000. This
amount is predicated on expenditures meeting or exceeding the $8,138,645 estimate. If expenditures on
stormwater improvements are less than estimated, the award will compensate for 24.57% of authorized
construction costs. A copy of the draft intergovernmental agreement between the MWRDGC and the
Village is attached (Attachment G).
This award is designed to reimburse the Village for eligible expenses. In order to access the grant, the
Village will have to initially compensate contractors and subsequently seek reimbursement through the
MWRGC grants disbursement process.
Presently, the proposed intergovernmental agreement between the MWRDGC and the Village is under
review at the MWRDGC legal department. Once finalized, staff will request Village Board authorization to
execute the agreement.
Appropriate staff will be on hand to present this matter and facilitate discussion.
Project Funding
Page 4 of 4
Staff anticipates capital requirements between $10,000,000 and $12,000,000 to fund all projects including
costs for construction, engineering, restoration, and contingencies. This expenditure could be mitigated by
$2,000,000 in proceeds from the MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Management Program grant. Presently,
Village participation in pump station improvements is not anticipated.
Funds could be compiled utilizing a combination of existing General Fund balance, commercial debt, or
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) low-interest loans (State Revolving Fund).
Debt service on borrowed funds could be facilitated by appropriating the existing 1/4 cent sales tax
allotted for flood control programs or establishing a systemic annual transfer from the General Fund to the
Flood Control Construction Fund. However, appropriation of the 1/4 cent sales tax for debt service would
likely preclude development of other flood control projects for an indefinite period.
Finance Department and Public Works Department staff will be on hand to facilitate discussion of this
matter.
Alternatives
1. Discussion and Village Board direction regarding pump station improvements, stormwater
improvements, MWRDGC grant funds, and project funding.
2. Action at discretion of Village Board.
Attachment A _ Levee 37 Flood Study.pdf (12,486 KB)
Attachment B _ Proposed Aspen Trails Park Stormwater Improvements Concept Plan.pdf (575 KB)
Attachment C _ Proposed Burning Bush Trails Park Stormwater Improvements Concept Plan.pdf
(600 KB)
Attachment D _ RTPD and VOMP IGA for Stormwater Improvements _ DRAFT.pdf (132 KB)
Attachment E _ MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Grant Application.pdf (228 KB)
Attachment G _ MWRDGC and VOMP IGA for Phase II Stormwater Grant _ DRAFT.pdf (234 KB)
Attachment F _ MWRDGC Phase II Grant Application Attachments.pdf (82,957 KB)
Administrative Content
Executive Content
Levee 37 Drainage Study
Mount Prospect, IL
Prepared for
Village of Mount Prospect, IL
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
{ĻƦƷĻƒĬĻƩ ЋЋͲ ЋЉЊЎ
Prepared by
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 W. Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
CBBEL Project No. 15-0225
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Exhibits ................................................................................................................................... iii
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................2
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................5
Chapter 2 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Existing Conditions Description ................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Model Development ................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Model Calibration ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.3 Pump Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 14
2.4 System Capacity .......................................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3 Proposed Conditions .................................................................................................. 20
3.1 Alternative 1 Pump Station #2 Upgrade................................................................................... 20
3.2 Alternative 2 Pump Station #2 Upgrade & Proposed Prospect Heights Pump Station ............ 21
3.3 Alternative 3 Pump Station #2 Upgrade & Proposed Upstream Storage ................................ 24
3.4 Alternative 4 Pump Station #2 Upgrade & Proposed Sewer Improvements ........................... 25
3.5 Alternative 5 Pump Station #1 Upgrade................................................................................... 27
3.6 Alternative 6 Pump Station #1 Upgrade & Proposed Upstream Storage ................................ 28
3.7 Alternative 7 Pump Station #1 Upgrade & Proposed Sewer Improvements ........................... 29
3.8 Alternative 8 25-Year Level of Protection Improvement ......................................................... 31
3.9 Alternative 9 25-Year Level-of-Protection Improvement With Allowable Pumping Rate ....... 34
3.10 Pump Station Design Considerations .......................................................................................... 35
Chapter 4 DPR Downstream Impacts Analysis ............................................................................. 36
4.1 Design Storms Downstream Impacts Analysis ............................................................................ 36
4.2 Downstream Impacts Analysis Conclusion .................................................................................. 37
Chapter 5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 39
i
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. April 2013 Flood Summary ............................................................................................................. 14
Table 2. Pump Controls ............................................................................................................................... 16
Table 3. Pump Station #2 Proposed Pump Controls .................................................................................... 21
Table 4. Alternative 1 At-Risk Structures Summary Table ......................................................................... 21
Table 5. Pump Station #2 Drainage Area Improvement Alternatives ........................................................ 27
Table 6. Pump Station #1 Proposed Pump Controls .................................................................................... 27
Table 7. Alternative 5 At-Risk Structures Summary Table ......................................................................... 28
Table 8. Pump Station #1 Drainage AreaImprovement Alternatives ........................................................ 31
Table 9. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Proposed Outfall Flowrate Increases (No Tailwater) .................. 32
Table 10. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Results Summary (With Tailwater) .......................................... 33
Table 11. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Pump Capacity Increases ......................................................... 33
Table 12. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Results Summary (With Tailwater) .......................................... 34
Table 13. Summary of Pump Station Upgrades ........................................................................................... 35
Table 14. Master Summary Table ................................................................................................................ 40
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Study Area Location Map ................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2. 1963 USGS Hydrologic Atlas ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. 10-Year Storm with FEMA FIS 10-Year DPR Tailwater Prior to Levee 37 Construction ................... 11
Figure 4. Pump Station Drainage Areas ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. Pump Station #2 Storm Sewer Schematic ..................................................................................... 15
Figure 6. Pump Station #2 Drainage Area At-Risk Structures ....................................................................... 18
Figure 7. Pump Station #1 Drainage Area At-Risk Structures ....................................................................... 19
Figure 8. Alternative 2 Schematic ................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 9. Alternative 4 Schematic ................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 10. Alternative 7 Schematic .............................................................................................................. 30
Figure 11. 100-Year DPR Hydrograph at Pump Station #2 ........................................................................... 37
ii
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1)Study Area Subbasin & Storm Sewer Map
2)April 2013 Storm Inundation Map With USGS Gage Tailwater & Pumps
3)April 2013 Storm Inundation Map Without Tailwater & Pumps
4)100-YR 2-HR Storm Inundation Map Without Tailwater & Pumps
5)10-YR 2-HR Storm Inundation Map Without Tailwater & Pumps
6)10-YR 2-HR Storm Inundation Map With 10-YR FIS Tailwater & Pumps
7)Alternative 1 Pump Station #2 Upgrade
8)Alternative 3 Pump Station #2 Upgrade & Proposed Upstream Storage
9)Alternative 5 Pump Station #1 Upgrade
10)Alternative 6 - Pump Station #1 Upgrade & Proposed Upstream Storage
11)25-Year Storm Inundation Map Without Tailwater & Pumps
12)25-Year Storm Inundation Map With 10-Year FIS Tailwater & Pumps
13)Alternative 8 25-Year Storm Sewer Improvement With 10-Year FIS Tailwater & Upgraded
Pump Stations
14)Alternative 9 25-Year Storm Sewer & Flood Storage Improvement With 10-Year FIS Tailwater
& Upgraded Pump Stations
APPENDICES
1)Cost Estimate
iii
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Levee 37 Tributary Area Drainage Study was initiated by the Village of Mount Prospect
(Village) following the April 17-18, 2013 storm event to address residential flooding in areas
protected from Des Plaines River (DPR) overbank flooding by the Levee 37 floodwall. The Levee
37 project was designed by the US Army Corps of Engineers-Chicago District (USACOE) to prevent
DPR floodwater from entering Village residential areas and City of Prospect Heights areas west of
River Road. The Levee 37 project consists of several integrated components including a concrete-
capped floodwall, earthen levees, road raising, and internal drainage pump stations.
The majority of the April 2013 storm event rainfall occurred while the DPR water level was rising
but prior to it reaching its peak elevation. The rising DPR water level reduced and ultimately
prevented outflow from gravity storm sewers to the DPR. Once the DPR reached an
elevation that prevented outflow, stormwater could only be evacuated by the two
(2) Levee 37 pump stations; Pump Stations #1 and #2. These pump stations were constructed
concurrently with Levee 37 and were designed to drain residual stormwater in the storm sewer
system when the DPR water level was high. According to the USACOE, the pumps were not
designed to have capacity that equals the existing capacity of the sewer system with free-outfall
conditions (when the DPR is at normal elevation). As reported by Village staff, the limited capacity
of the pump stations initially resulted in street inundation in low areas, followed by yard flooding
and overtopping of sidewalks allowing floodwaters to enter below-grade garages, and also
basement seepage during the April 2013 storm event.
The Village retained Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. (CBBEL) to perform a conceptual level
feasibility study that included:
An analysis of the system and the Levee 37 pump stations to
identify the condition that lead to the flooding that occurred during the April 2013 storm
event.
Determine the existing level of protection provided by the storm sewer system with the
levee and the pump stations in place for the residential area.
Develop and analyze potential improvement alternatives to raise the level of protection
by increasing the pumping rate and through other improvements.
The study determined that the sewer system has approximately a 10-year storm
event capacity with a free-outflow condition (DPR is low). The study also confirmed
opinion that the capacity of the existing storm sewer system was degraded during the April 2013
storm event because of the rising DPR water level and the inability of the two (2) Levee 37 pump
stations to provide sufficient capacity to discharge Village stormwater at a rate necessary to
prevent flooding in the residential area.
Prior to the development of the existing residential subdivision within the study area, the land
drained overland directly to the DPR. Once developed and prior to the construction of Levee 37,
during periods when the residential subdi ponding would initially
2
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
occur within low-lying areas until flooding levels filled the streets and stormwater would flow
overland down the streets until crossing River Road and into the DPR. Levee 37 blocks overland
flow from reaching the DPR. Currently, the Levee 37 pump stations are the only means to convey
the overland flow to the DPR. Therefore, to alleviate flooding within the interior of the levee when
the DPR is high, the Levee 37 pump stations would need to be upgraded to replicate the historic
overland flow to the DPR.
to replicate historic overland
flow values, a few factors were considered:
First, the existing combined pumping rate of all three pumping stations (Pumping Stations
#1, #2, and #3) is approximately 60 cfs.
A rising DPR degrades the ability of the storm sewers to discharge stormwater.
Levee 37 protects the interior residential area from overbank flooding for DPR flooding
events at or greater than the 10-year event.
The capacity of the interior storm sewer system under low flow DPR conditions is
approximately the 10-year event.
Prior to the Levee 37 construction, events at and greater than the 10-year flood along the
DPR would begin to flood the interior area, accessing floodplain storage that the levee
now blocks. However, the interior area had an unobstructed overland flow path to the
DPR.
Hydraulic modeling determined that prior to the construction of the levee the overland
flow (generated by the 10-year interior event) reaching the DPR was 240 cfs when the
DPR water level is at its 10-year flood level.
Considering these hydraulic conditions, the DPR was always subject to receiving the overland flow
from the interior area for up to the 10-year event without the benefit of significant overbank
floodplain storage. The construction of Levee 37 blocked this overland flow capacity, but the
pumps constructed as part of the levee project did not maintain this flow capacity, reducing the
overland flow discharge capacity (via pumping) to only 60 cfs, significantly lower than the pre-
levee condition of 240 cfs as described above. This means that the pumping rate can be increased
by 180 cfs and still maintain the pre-Levee 37 condition. An operating rule would need to be
established for events greater than the 10-year flood to maintain pre-levee downstream
conditions.
CBBEL developed nine (9) improvement alternatives to modify the interior drainage system to
achieve the allowable pre-Levee 37 overland flow. All nine (9) improvement alternatives provide
increased pumping capacity at one of the Levee 37 project pump stations that serve the Village.
The increased pumping capacity would be achieved by constructing a new pump station adjacent
to the existing pump station. This would allow the existing pump station to continue operating
during the construction process. A few of the improvement alternatives also evaluated the use
of flood storage to reduce the required pumping capacity. Some improvement alternatives
3
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
evaluated storm sewer improvements to increase the efficiency of stormwater flow conveyance
to the Levee 37 project pump stations.
A 25-year level-of-protection alternative (Alternative 9) was also developed and evaluated to
determine how this level can be achieved. This was done at the request of the Village to be
consistent with the Board directive to achieve, where possible, the 25-year level of protection on
all new projects. The total pump capacity will be limited to 240 cfs. Two proposed stormwater
facilities, providing 18 and 12 acre-feet, are necessary to reduce the flow to the pump stations.
Diversion sewers are required to divert stormwater from adjacent main sewer lines.
Floodproofing will be necessary for two at-risk homes. The opinion of probable construction cost
for the 25-year level of protection without off-site mitigation is $7.5 million based on 2015 unit
costs.
Based on the results of this conceptual feasibility study, CBBEL is recommending two (2)
improvements (Alternatives 3 and 6) that provide the 10-year level of protection. These
alternatives increase the total pumping rate to 205 cfs, which is lower than the 240 cfs mentioned
above. This is due to the addition of stormwater storage within the two school properties that
provide a reduction in the flowrate reaching the pumping stations. However, the Village can
modify these alternatives to achieve the 240 cfs rate. The Village staff has indicated they will be
approaching the USACOE about funding the proposed pump station improvements. The opinion
of probable construction cost for recommended Alternatives 3 and 6 are $3.6 million and $2.1
million, respectively, based on a 2015 cost estimate.
The following is brief description of the recommended alternatives for a 10-year level of
protection:
Alternative 3
Construct new pump station adjacent to Levee 37 Pump Station #2 with pumping capacity
of 105 cfs.
Proposed 11.6 acre-foot stormwater storage basin located within an existing open space
at Robert Frost Elementary School property.
Alternative 6
Construct new pump station adjacent to Levee 37 Pump Station #1 with pumping capacity
of 40 cfs.
Proposed 7.0 acre-foot stormwater storage basin located within an existing open space
at the Indian Grove Elementary School property.
4
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The Des Plaines River (DPR) is the largest natural waterway in Cook County and has produced
multiple historic flood events in the adjacent communities. The residential subdivision in the
northeast portion of the Village of Mount Prospect (Village) along the DPR is one area that has
been historically impacted by riverine flooding (Figure 1 below). To reduce the risk of riverine
flooding along the DPR, the United States Army Corps of Engineers-Chicago District (USACOE)
received congressional approval and funding in 1999 to design and construct six features for flood
control in the Upper DPR Watershed. One of those projects was Levee 37.
The design for Levee 37 was developed by the USACOE in conjunction with the Illinois Department
of Transportation (IDOT), Cook County Forest Preserve District (CCFPD) and the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources Office of Water Resources (IDNR-OWR). The Levee 37 project
consists of approximately 9,000 linear feet of floodwall including a small portion of earthen levee,
three interior drainage pumping stations, a number of gravity outlet structures, a roadway closure
structure and a road raise. The Levee 37 project was constructed by the USACOE to prevent DPR
floodwaters from reaching residential and commercial properties west of River Road in the Village
and the City of Prospect Heights (City). The floodwall runs along the east side of River Road from
just north of Euclid Avenue to Milwaukee Avenue, continues along the east side of Milwaukee
Avenue from River Road to Palatine Road Expressway, and then west along the north side of the
Palatine Road Expressway to high ground. Levee 37 project also included the raising of Milwaukee
Avenue by IDOT to complete the line of flood protection.
The entire protected side of the floodwall consists of both Village and City residential and
commercial development with two (2) schools and park district property. Three (3) Levee 37
pump stations are used to evacuate interior stormwater from these areas when the DPR water
levels restrict the gravity discharge of the storm sewer system. During this condition, Tideflex
check valves close to prevent DPR water from inundating interior properties through the storm
sewer system. Village Staff indicated that back-flow through the storm sewers was the major
cause of the record flooding during DPR flood events in 1986 and 1987.
By displacing the floodwaters that inundated 64 acres of land in the Village, the Levee 37 project
would have resulted in an increased in DPR flood stages above the regulatory limit. However, the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) took the lead to design
and construct the Heritage Park Flood Control project in the Village of Wheeling to provide
mitigation to prevent stage increases along the DPR above the regulatory limit. The Heritage Park
Flood Control Project was completed at the end of 2013, which allowed for the completion of the
floodwall in November 2014 as the original floodwall was constructed with a gap that temporarily
prevented downstream impacts.
While Levee 37 does provide a great benefit for the Village study area from DPR overbank
flooding, it cuts off an existing overland flow route for internal drainage to the DPR. The overland
flow route can be seen on the 1963 USGS Hydrologic Atlas on Figure 2. The overland flow route
consisted of two small tributaries that flowed east and converge prior to overtopping River Road
5
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
and flowing to the DPR. Prior to Levee 37, if a storm event took place while the DPR stage
restricted or eliminated outflow from the storm sewers, low lying depressions in the study area
would fill and ultimately ponding water would be conveyed overland to the DPR. For the same
condition with the Levee 37 floodwall in place, that overland flow route to the DPR is cutoff and
all stormwater generated in the study area must be pump evacuated into the DPR.
The Levee 37 project, including the floodwall, earthen berm, closure structures and the three (3)
pump stations, was constructed in 2011. Pump Stations #1, #2, and #3 are located along the
south, middle, and north portion of the floodwall, respectively. 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.
During the April 17-18, 2013 storm event, Village and City Staff temporary 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 allowing floodwaters to enter below-grade garages during the April
2013 storm event.
The Village retained Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. (CBBEL) to perform a conceptual level
feasibility study that included:
Determine the pre-Levee 37 floodwall overland flow rate to the DPR assuming a 10-year
storm event over the study area and the DPR at a 10-year flood elevation.
An analysis of the Village
identify any conditions that lead to the flooding that occurred during the April 2013 storm
event.
Determine the existing level of protection for the residential area.
Develop and analyze potential improvement alternatives to raise the level of protection
when the pump stations are operating.
During a July 28, 2015 meeting, USACOE personnel indicated that the design of the Levee 37 Pump
Stations was based on non-coincident peaks between the DPR and the interior storm sewer
system. Their analysis was based on rainfall data and DPR levels recorded prior to 1990. As a
consequence, the Levee 37 Pump Stations were designed to primarily rely on gravity discharge to
dewater the storm sewer system. The objectives of the conceptual level Levee 37 drainage study
are as follows:
Identify any conditions in the drainage system that lead to the April 2013 flooding.
Identify the capacity of the existing storm sewer system under both free-flow (no
tailwater) conditions and pumped flow (with tailwater) conditions.
6
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Develop improvement concepts to increase the capacity of the drainage system when
DPR tailwater is present.
Analyze the effect of the proposed improvement projects on the hydraulics of the DPR.
Recommend improvement alternatives to the Village Board.
7
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 1. Study Area Location Map
8
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 2. 1963 USGS Hydrologic Atlas
9
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
To analyze the existing stormwater drainage system behind Levee 37, CBBEL developed an
XPSWMM model for the drainage areas to Pump Stations #1, #2, and #3. Pump Stations #1 and
#2 are located in the Village while Pump Station #3 is located in the City. It was necessary to
model Pump Station #3 and its tributary area because when this system surcharges, overland flow
is conveyed south into the Pump Station #2 Watershed.
The study area was analyzed using XPSWMM computer software, which is a proprietary program
based on the US Environmental Protection Age
XPSWMM is a dynamic hydrologic and hydraulic modeling program that is well-suited for
analyzing urban stormwater management systems. XPSWMM simulates rainfall-runoff responses
for user specified storm events (hydrologic component) and analyzes the performance of the
stormwater management system (hydraulic component).
2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS DESCRIPTION
The general drainage pattern for the study area is from west to east, with multiple gravity flow
outlets and pump discharges draining to the DPR. Prior to the development of the existing
residential subdivision within the study area, the land drained naturally overland directly to the
DPR as shown on the 1963 USGS Hydrologic Atlas on Figure 2 (above). When the residential
subdi, ponding would initially occur within low-lying areas until
flooding levels filled the street and stormwater runoff was designed to flow overland down the
streets until crossing River Road and into the DPR. This overland flow path reduced the risk of
homes flooding when street flooding occurred. The construction of the Levee 37 floodwall
blocked this overland flow capacity, but the pumps constructed as part of the Levee did not
maintain this flow capacity. An XPSWMM simulation was performed for pre-Levee 37 conditions
to analyze the amount of overland flow to the DPR for a 10-year storm in the study area while the
DPR is at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) 10-year
flood elevation. As shown on Figure 3, the maximum overland flowrate over River Road to the
DPR is approximately 240 cfs. The existing pump stations have a combined capacity of 60 cfs.
Currently, the Levee 37 pump stations are the only means to convey the overland flow to the DPR.
This means that the Village could increase the pumping capacity up to this flow rate with any
future enhancements to the pump stations.
Main trunk storm sewer lines to the Levee 37 Pump Stations were identified, surveyed, and
entered into the XPSWMM model. The Levee 37 Pump Stations controls (on/off elevations) were
identified in the USACOE Levee 37 Engineering Plans and the manufacturer pump curves were
input into XPSWMM to define the relationship between flowrate and head. As the head
decreases the pump flow increases with a maximum pumping rate of 8.5 cfs for a single pump.
Pump Stations #1 and #3 each have two (2) pumps with total capacity of 17 cfs. Pump Station #2
houses three (3) pumps with a total capacity of 25.5 cfs. All pumps are identical in capacity. The
pump controls indicate that the pumps are only activated when the DPR water level has already
10
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
limited flow from the storm sewer outfalls. Figure 4 shows the drainage area to the three (3)
Levee 37 Pump Stations.
Figure 3. 10-Year Storm with FEMA FIS 10-Year DPR Tailwater Prior to Levee 37 Construction
11
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 4. Pump Station Drainage Areas
12
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
2.1 MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The drainage area for the entire study area was broken down into smaller subbasins. One
hundred (100) subbasins were delineated using the Cook County 1-foot aerial topography. The
average area for the subbasins is approximately eight (8) acres. The hydrologic parameters that
define each subbasin were determined based on methodology outlined in wΏЎ 5:
ƩĬğƓ
IǤķƩƚƌƚŭǤ ŅƚƩ {ƒğƌƌ ğƷĻƩƭŷĻķƭ (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986). In the XPSWMM model,
the following information was input for each subbasin:
Drainage Area
Runoff Curve Number (RCN)
Time of Concentration (Tc)
The RCN was defined based on the land use using current aerial photography (2014) for each of
the subbasins. The RCN value calculated for each subbasin is based on the ratio of impervious to
pervious area in each subbasin. The Tc is a calculation of the longest time it takes a drop of water
to reach the outlet of the subbasin. A hydrologic map with subbasin delineations and hydrologic
parameters is included as Exhibit 1.
The hydraulic elements of the model, including storm sewer diameters, lengths, materials, slopes,
etc., were obtained from a CBBEL field survey. In addition to the major systems of the storm
sewer network, overland flow and low lying storage were modeled. If a storm sewer does not
have sufficient capacity to convey the tributary runoff, the system surcharges resulting in street
inundation and overland flow. To effectively analyze the interaction between the storm sewer
system and overland flow, XPSWMM 2D hydraulic surface modeling was utilized. The hydrology
and subsurface hydraulics are analyzed using the standard 1D methods while the catch basins act
as the connection between the 1D and 2D surface interface. The surface is modeled using a Digital
Terrain Model (DTM) created from Cook County Lidar data. When storm sewers exceed capacity,
the excess stormwater enters the 2D model surface and flood water flows naturally based on
topography, as determined by the DTM. This method provides a more accurate analysis of flood
depths and limits along overland flow routes, and accounts for storage in low lying areas, as well
as providing a comprehensive graphic representation of the flooding.
2.2 MODEL CALIBRATION
The primary reason that the Village initiated the flood study was the significant flooding that
occurred during the April 2013 storm event in the residential subdivisions west of the Levee 37
floodwall. For this reason, the April 2013 storm was selected for model calibration and also
because it is the largest storm that has occurred since the Levee 37 project was constructed.
Approximately 5.5 inches of the rainfall fell over a 24 hour period beginning at 9:00 AM on April
th
17. The rainfall data for the April 2013 storm was obtained from the Illinois State Water Survey
(ISWS) gage in the City of Des Plaines near Oakton Street. A gap in the floodwall near Pump
Station #2 still existed during this storm event, but Village and City Staff undertook emergency
13
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
measures and used Jersey Barriers to temporary close the gap and multiple portable pumps were
brought in to help drain water at Pump Station #2. Village Staff indicated that residential and
street flooding occurred along Park Drive in both the Pump Station #1 and #2 tributary areas as
well as significant flooding along River Road near Seminole Lane.
Based on the XPSWMM model results, the peak flooding (west of the Levee 37 floodwall) occurred
th
between 4:00 AM and 11:00 AM on April 18. A summary of the simulated maximum flood
depths for the storm is provided in Table 1, and a flood inundation map is shown on Exhibit 2.
Table 1. April 2013 Flood Summary
Maximum Maximum
Rim El.
Location Description Inundation Inundation
(FT)
Elevation (FT) Depth (FT)
Intersection of Park Drive &
North Park Drive 635.2 636.7 1.5
Woodview Drive
240 feet north of intersection
South Park Drive 636.2 637.7 1.5
of Park Drive & Tano Ln
River Road Adjacent to Pump Station #2 634.3 636.5 2.2
The Village provided CBBEL with a sketch of measured water elevations near the intersection of
Seminole Lane and River Road. The elevations on the sketch were measured between 9:00 AM
th
and 3:30 PM on April 19 around the time the DPR reached its maximum stage. The XPSWMM
model results show water elevations approximately 1-foot higher than the measured water
elevations at this time. The lower, measured water elevation may be attributed to the additional
portable pumps that were brought in to help drain the floodwater. These temporary pumps were
not accounted for in the XPSWMM model.
2.3 PUMP ANALYSIS
During the April 2013 event, the XPSWMM modeling shows the existing Levee 37 Pump Stations
#1 and #2 pumps were not able to keep up with the inflow from the storm sewer system which
was confirmed by eyewitness accounts of Village Staff. As previously mentioned, the maximum
pumping capacity of a single pump is 8.5 cfs based on the manufacturer pump curves. Pump
Station #1 contains two (2) pumps and drains stormwater from a 60-inch trunk sewer with an
invert elevation of 627.75 feet. Farther upstream, Pump Station #2 contains three (3) pumps that
drain two large trunk storm sewers when the DPR is high: A 5.25-foot by 4-foot reinforced
concrete box culvert (RCBC) to the north and a 5.5-foot by 4.5-foot RCBC to the south. Both trunk
storm sewer lines have separate gravity outfalls to the DPR. All gravity storm sewer outfalls to
the DPR drain through closure structures that have manually operated sluice gates that can be
lowered in the event the Tideflex backflow preventer fails. Both trunk storm sewers are
connected to the Pump Station by 30-inch diversion sewers that convey flow to the Pump Station
well. Figure 5 provides an illustration of the storm sewer configuration upstream of Pump Station
#2, and Table 2 provides pump control information for all three (3) pump stations.
14
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 5. Pump Station #2 Storm Sewer Schematic
15
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 2. Pump Controls
Pump Station Sump Max Pumping Start
Pump ID Stop Elevation
ID Elevation Rate (CFS) Elevation
SWP-1 8.5 631.75 629.75
#1 627.5
SWP-2 8.5 634.00 631.00
SWP-1 8.5 631.25 630.00
#2 628.0 SWP-2 8.5 632.25 630.50
SWP-3 8.5 633.25 631.25
SWP-1 8.5 633.00 631.50
#3 629.08
SWP-2 8.5 635.00 632.50
2.4 SYSTEM CAPACITY
To analyze the storm sewer system capacity, CBBEL evaluated the effect of the April 2013 rainfall
in the study area assuming that the storm sewer gravity outlets where not limited by the DPR
stage and no Levee 37 pump stations were functioning. Exhibit 3 depicts the results of this
simulation. The model results indicate that during the April 2013 storm some street flooding
would have still occurred, but the extent and depth of flooding would be greatly reduced when
compared to the levels that occured with actual DPR water level elevation and pumping scenario
that occurred. This confirms the Village S observation that the Levee 37 project pump
stations capacities are not sufficient to maintain the existing storm sewer gravity flow capacity
when the DPR water level elevation has an influence. Excess stormwater runoff that could not
enter the storm sewer system was conveyed overland down the streets to River Road where it
ponded because Levee 37 blocked the overland flow path. A storm inundation map for the April
2013 event with no tailwater (DPR at non-flood levels and pumps not operating) is provided in
Exhibit 3.
To further analyze the storm sewer system, design storms were modeled with free-flow gravity
outlet conditions (DPR at normal pool). First, a critical duration analysis was performed and it was
determined that the 2-hour storm produced the maximum flows and flood stages within the study
area. Model results from the 100-year, 2-hour storm event indicate significant flooding along
both north and south Park Avenue as well as other low-lying areas in the study area. A storm
inundation map for the 100-year, 2-hour storm is provided in Exhibit 4.
To better define the existing sewer system capacity, 2-hour critical duration storms with 2-, 5-,
10-, 25-, and 50-year recurrence intervals were simulated with the model. Based on the model
results, the existing storm sewer system has approximately a 10-year storm event capacity,
though some surcharging occurs. The 10-year, 2-hour storm inundation map, shown on Exhibit
5, demonstrates the storm sewer system is generally capable of handling the runoff from this
storm with the exception of some areas where street flooding occurs. Based on the Cook County
Lidar DTM, this street flooding appears to not impact building structures (this study is focused on
Village areas, so unless otherwise specified, it does not apply to City areas).
16
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Exhibit 6 shows the same 10-year, 2-hour storm but with a tailwater equal to the FEMA FIS 10-
year DPR flood elevation. Overland flow of stormwater runoff that cannot enter the storm sewer
system flows down the streets to River Road where the Levee 37 Floodwall blocks its path to the
DPR. The overland flow path is shown by arrows in Figure 6. This scenario does not allow for any
gravity storm sewer outflow, forcing all stormwater behind the Levee 37 floodwall to be pumped.
When pumps are activated because gravity outfalls can no longer drain, floodwater ponds in the
low lying areas along roads just west of the Levee 37 floodwall. The most significant flooding is
in the Pump Station #2 drainage area as shown in Figure 6. When stormwater cannot drain
through the gravity outfalls adjacent to Pump Station #2, the pumps are unable to keep up with
the inflow, surcharging the sewer system and filling the low-lying areas on and around Park Drive.
Two main low lying areas that result in the deepest flooding are located at Park Drive and Seneca
Lane (2.3 feet) and Park Drive and Woodview Drive (1.9 feet).
The Village provided CBBEL with GIS data identifying homes with reverse slope driveways and
homes that reported flooding following the April 2013 storm event. This information was used in
conjunction with the inundation map for the 10-year storm event with FEMA FIS 10-year DPR
flood elevation to identify residential structures with the highest potential for flooding. In total,
forty-four (44) residential structures were surveyed for low overtop elevations or low entry
elevations. These elevations were then compared with results from the existing conditions
XPSWMM model to identify homes at risk of flooding for a design storm event. The 1-, 2-, 5-, and
10-year existing conditions design storms were simulated with XPSWMM with the FEMA FIS 10-
year tailwater, which results in eliminating flow from gravity sewers. Model results indicate there
is no significant flooding for the 1-year event. In total, Figure 6 shows nine (9) structures at risk
of flooding during the 2-year event, 13 (thirteen) structures at-risk during the 5-year event, and
19 (nineteen) structures at-risk during the 10-year event in the Pump Station #2 drainage area.
Please note that if a structure floods for the 2-year event, it will also flood for all larger events.
Additionally, significant street flooding occurs on both River Road and Seminole Lane for the 2-
year event and greater.
17
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 6. Pump Station #2 Drainage Area At-Risk Structures
Flooding also occurs in low-lying areas along and around Park Drive in the Pump Station #1
drainage area. Figure 7 shows at risk of flooding structures for the 2-, 5- and 10-year storm event
as one (1), three (3) and four (4), respectively in the Pump Station #1 drainage area.
18
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 7. Pump Station #1 Drainage Area At-Risk Structures
GIS data to identify potential at-risk structures in
low-lying areas and may not include all structures potentially at risk of flooding. Additional survey
is recommended in the future studies to identify elevations for all structures adjacent to the low-
lying areas. The additional survey will also help to completely understand the benefits provided
by the improvement alternatives discussed in Chapter 3.
19
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CHAPTER 3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS
The existing conditions XPSWMM modeling analysis indicates that the storm sewer system in the
study area has approximately 10-year storm event capacity under free-outfall (no tailwater)
conditions. However, this level of service is not achievable when the gravity outfalls are impacted
by the DPR water level elevation. When the storm sewer system has to rely on the Levee 37
project pump stations to evacuate the 10-year storm event flows, significant flooding results in
low-lying areas in the study area. Conceptual level improvement alternatives were developed to
improve the level of protection when the DPR stage reduces the gravity storm sewer outflow
while maintaining the maximum allowable pumping rate of 240 cfs from the study area. Since
the three (3) existing Levee 37 pump stations have a cumulative maximum capacity of 60 cfs,
this means 180 cfs of additional proposed pumping capacity is allowable. Improvement projects
analyzed include:
Increasing pumping capacity at Pump Stations #1 and #2
A new pump station for the City drainage
Providing upstream flood storage with Pump Station #1 and #2 pumping capacity increase
to improve the level of protection
Storm sewer improvements to improve conveyance in known flood prone areas
3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 PUMP STATION #2 UPGRADE
Alternative 1 consists of increasing the pumping capacity at Pump Station #2. Under current
conditions, Pump Station #2 can achieve a maximum pumping capacity of 25.5 cfs. The existing
10-year storm event cumulative maximum flowrate from the gravity outfalls tributary to Pump
Station #2 is 274 cfs. Results from the modeling analysis indicate that in order to maintain the 10-
year storm event flow capacity during conditions where the DPR water level elevation degrades
the gravity outflow, an additional 225 cfs of pumping capacity is required. Because only 180 cfs
of cumulative additional pumping capacity is allowed (for both Pump Station #1 and #2), the
proposed additional rate for Alternative 1 at Pump Station #2 was calculated to be 120 cfs. To
obtain this additional pumping capacity, this alternative consists of constructing a new pump
station adjacent to the existing pump station to house three (3) new 40 cfs pumps. Section 3.9
of this report includes a discussion on the feasibility of upgrading the existing pump station. To
convey the additional flow to the pump station, two (2) 5-foot by 5-foot RCBCs are proposed to
replace the existing 30-inch RCP diversion sewers that currently convey flow from the north and
south trunk storm sewers to Pump Station #2. The wet well for the proposed pump station would
be connected to the existing wet well so stormwater can be conveyed to both pump stations and
the pump controls can be modified to utilize all six (6) pumps. The modeling analysis also shows
that the existing start control elevations are set too high to start evacuating water before ponding
along North Park Drive begins. Therefore, this and all alternatives include modifying the controls
of existing pumps so that pumping begins earlier that it currently does. The proposed pump start
control elevations for both the existing and proposed pumps are provided in Table 3.
20
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 3. Pump Station #2 Proposed Pump Controls
Pump Station Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
ID Rate (cfs) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft)
SWP-1 8.5 631.25 629
Pump Station
SWP-2 8.5 632.25 630
#2
SWP-3 8.5 633.25 631
Prop 1 40 - 629
Proposed Pump
Prop 2 40 - 630
Station
Prop 3 40 - 631
Exhibit 7 shows the configuration of Alternative 1 and the resulting 10-year inundation map. This
alternative reduces the risk of flooding for a number of structures currently at-risk of flooding
during the 2-, 5-, and 10-year storms. Table 4 provides the number of structures at-risk of flooding
for existing conditions and those removed from the inundation area with Alternative 1
improvements.
Table 4. Alternative 1 At-Risk Structures Summary Table
Existing Alternative At-Risk Homes
Storm
Conditions At-1 At-Risk Removed from
Event
Risk Homes Homes Inundation Area
2-Year 9 0 9
5-Year 13 1 12
10-Year 19 10 9
Alternative 1 is not recommended because it does not remove all 19 at-risk structures in the Pump
Station #2 drainage area from the 10-year inundation area. This alternative does produce a
significant improvement of the level of protection during non-gravity sewer outflow conditions.
The estimated cost of Alternative 1 is $1.8 million.
3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 PUMP STATION #2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED PROSPECT HEIGHTS PUMP
STATION
As previously mentioned, a 48-inch storm sewer conveys water across Seminole Lane from the
City to the Village storm sewer system on Park Drive just south of Seminole
Lane. This 48-inch storm sewer combines with another trunk storm sewer along Seneca Lane and
then heads southeast towards Pump Station #2. Alternative 2 proposes to disconnect this 48-inch
storm sewer storm sewer outfall and
pump station to the DPR in the City. The proposed 48-inch storm sewer configuration is shown
in Figure 8 starting at the Willow Woods Condominium detention ponds. A new pump station
with a 20 cfs capacity is required at this outfall to evacuate stormwater when the DPR is high.
The simulation results indicate that a new pump station would still be required at Pump Station
#2 to adequately evacuate stormwater fro. The new pump station
21
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
adjacent to Pump Station #2 would be limited to a maximum pumping rate of 100 cfs provided in
three (3) 33 cfs pumps to meet the 120 cfs maximum allowable pumping rate for this pump
The configuration of the proposed pump station is identical to Alternative
1, with the exception of the reduced pumping rate. The proposed start control elevations for the
existing and proposed pump stations are the same as Alternative 1 and are shown in Table 3. The
total cumulative maximum pumping rate from both proposed pump stations is 120 cfs, which is
equivalent to the maximum pumping rate provided in Alternative 1. Benefits provided in
Alternative 2 are nearly identical to the benefits provided by Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 is not recommended due to the higher cost of constructing two (2) separate pump
stations to pump the same 120 cfs flowrate. Figure 8 provides a schematic for the Alternative 2.
The estimated cost of Alternative 2 is $2.7 million.
22
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 8. Alternative 2 Schematic
23
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
3.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 PUMP STATION #2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE
The purpose of Alternative 3 is to further refine Alternative 1 by providing stormwater storage in
an open space upstream of Pump Station #2 to increase the level of protection with the increase
in capacity for Pump Station #2. The proposed stormwater storage location is within an open
space at Robert Frost Elementary School property. This area was selected for stormwater storage
due to its location relative to adjacent trunk storm sewers that would allow a larger diversion of
storm flow, and the availability of open space.
Alternative 3 proposes to intercept flow from two (2) trunk sewers flowing west to east in the
Pump Station #2 drainage area. A proposed 48-inch storm sewer will intercept flow from the 42-
inch trunk storm sewer at the intersection of Aztec Lane and Oneida Lane, and convey it south to
the proposed excavated stormwater storage area. A 6-inch diameter restrictor is proposed on
the existing trunk storm sewer to allow low flows to continue east and higher flows to be diverted
south to the proposed stormwater storage area. This improvement also conveys stormwater flow
from the intersection of Maya Lane and Oneida Lane, where a 48-inch storm sewer combines with
a 27-inch storm sewer, into the stormwater storage area through a proposed 60-inch storm
sewer. A 12-inch diameter restrictor on the Maya Lane trunk storm sewer allows water to back
up into the stormwater storage area and drain by gravity (no pump station) following the storm
event. It was found that approximately 11.8 acre-feet of storage volume could be achieved within
the shown footprint on Exhibit 8.
The Alternative 3 improvements reduce the flowrates on the Aztec and Seneca Lane trunk storm
sewer from about 46 cfs to 1 cfs, and on the Maya Lane trunk storm sewer from about 49 cfs to 7
cfs. Although flows to Pump Station #2 are greatly reduced with the proposed stormwater
storage, additional pumping capacity is still required to reduce the flooding within the low-lying
areas. The pump controls and configuration are the same as Alternative 1, with the exception of
a reduced pumping rate. The proposed pump station requires a maximum pumping rate of 105
cfs which is provided by three (3) 35 cfs pumps (Alternative 1 pump rate is 120 cfs). Only 105 cfs
of pumping capacity is required to eliminate the risk of flooding for homes up to the 10-year storm
event. Alternative 3 reduces the flood depth at Park Drive and Seneca Lane from 2.3 feet to 0.6
feet, and eliminates ponding at Park Drive and Woodview Drive for a 10-year storm event. All
homes at-risk of flooding during the 2-, 5-, and 10-year storm events are removed from the
existing inundation area with this improvement. Exhibit 8 shows the conceptual layout for
Alternative 3 and the resulting inundation map.
Currently, the proposed excavated stormwater storage for Alternative 3 is shown in the southern
portion of open space within the school property. The location of the stormwater storage area
can be adjusted to accommodate the needs of the Robert Frost Elementary School and the Village.
Another viable, but more costly option, would be to provide the stormwater storage in an
underground vault and restore the open space to its current condition.
Alternative 3 is recommended because it provides the best flood reduction benefit of all the Pump
Station #2 alternatives, removing all at-risk homes from the 10-year inundation area.
24
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
The estimated cost of Alternative 3 is $3.6 million.
3.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 PUMP STATION #2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 1 except that Alternative 4 includes storm sewer
improvements along Park Drive and Woodview Drive. Under existing conditions, an 18-inch storm
sewer drains south down Park Drive between Wintergreen Avenue and West Woodview Drive,
--inch storm sewer for a short distance between West Woodview
Drive and East Woodview Drive. The 24-inch storm sewer combines with a 60-inch storm sewer
from the south and drains into a 60-inch trunk storm sewer draining east down East Woodview
Drive. Alternative 4 is intended to relieve this restriction at Park Drive and East Woodview Drive
-The proposed improvement, as shown on
Figure 9, provides an additional 30-inch storm sewer adjacent to the 60-inch trunk storm sewer
--inch storm sewer is proposed to be
replaced with a positive sloped 30-inch storm sewer. These improvements result in an additional
0.1-foot flood depth reduction at the intersection of Park Drive and Woodview Drive for the 10-
year storm event. The conveyance improvements also show minimal benefits for the 2- and 5-
year storm.
Alternative 4 is not recommended because the cost of the additional sewer conveyance
improvements outweighs the minimal benefit. Figure 9 provides a schematic for the Alternative
4.
The estimated cost of Alternative 4 is $2.0 million.
25
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 9. Alternative 4 Schematic
26
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 5 below provides a comprehensive summary of the modeling results for all Pump Station
#2 drainage area improvement alternatives.
Table 5. Pump Station #2 Drainage Area Improvement Alternatives
10-Year Storm Results Summary Table
At-Risk Homes
Additional Proposed
Park Drive and Seneca Drive Park Drive and Woodview Drive
Removed
Maximum Flood
Improvement
Resulting Flood Depth Resulting
from 10-year
Required Storage
Flood Depth
Alternative
Flood Depth Reduction Flood Depth
Inundation
Pumping Rate Volume (ac-
Reduction (ft)
(ft) (ft) (ft)
2
(cfs) ft)
Area
1 120 - 1.5 0.8 1.7 0.2 9
2 120 - 1.5 0.8 1.7 0.2 9
3 105 11.8 0.6 1.7 0.0 1.9 19
1
120 - 1.5 0.9 1.6 0.3 9
4
1
Includes storm sewer upgrades as described in Section 3.5
2
Based on low overtopping or low entry elevations provided in the field survey (existing conditions at-risk homes is 19)
3.5 ALTERNATIVE 5 PUMP STATION #1 UPGRADE
Alternative 5 consists of increasing the pumping capacity at Pump Station #1. Under current
conditions, Pump Station #1 can achieve a maximum pumping capacity of 17 cfs. Because only
180 cfs of cumulative additional pumping capacity is allowed for both Pump Station #1 and #2,
the proposed additional rate for Alternative 5 at Pump Station #2 is 60 cfs. To obtain the
additional pumping capacity, this alternative consists of constructing a new pump station adjacent
to the existing pump station to house two (2) new 30 cfs pumps. The wet well for the proposed
pump station would be connected to the existing wet well so stormwater can be conveyed to both
pump stations and the pump controls can be modified to utilize all four (4) pumps. The proposed
pump start control elevations for both the existing and proposed pumps are provided in Table 6.
Table 6. Pump Station #1 Proposed Pump Controls
Pump Station Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
ID Rate (cfs) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft)
P#2 SWP-1 8.5 631.75 630.00
Pump Station
#1
P#2 SWP-2 8.5 634.00 631.00
Prop 1 30 - 630.00
Proposed Pump
Station
Prop 2 30 - 631.00
Exhibit 9 shows the resulting inundation map with the Alternative 5 improvement. This
alternative reduces the risk of flooding for two (2) structures currently at-risk of flooding during
the 5-year storm. There are minimal flood reduction benefits with this alternative for the 10-
year storm.
27
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 7. Alternative 5 At-Risk Structures Summary Table
Existing Alternative At-Risk Homes
Storm
Conditions At-5 At-Risk Removed from
Event
Risk Homes Homes Inundation Area
2-Year 0 0 0
5-Year 3 1 2
10-Year 4 4 0
Alternative 5 is not recommended because it of the minimal number of the nineteen (19) at-risk
structures from the 10-year inundation area.
The estimated cost of Alternative 5 is $1.0 million.
3.6 ALTERNATIVE 6 PUMP STATION #1 UPGRADE & PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE
The purpose of Alternative 6 is to provide stormwater storage in an open space upstream of Pump
Station #1 to increase the level of protection with the increase in pump capacity for Pump Station
#1. Alternative 6 proposes to provide stormwater storage within open space located on the Indian
Grove Elementary School property. This school property was selected for stormwater storage
due to its location relative to adjacent trunk storm sewers that would allow a larger diversion of
flow, and the availability of open space. This improvement allows stormwater flows from the
intersection of Burning Bush Lane and Tano Lane, where trunk storm sewers combine, to back up
into the stormwater storage area through a proposed 54-inch storm sewer. Approximately 7.0
acre-feet of stormwater storage volume was created for this alternative within the footprint
shown on the open space portion of the school property in Exhibit 10. The stormwater storage is
provided in the northern portion of the open space on the school property and drains completely
by gravity (no pump station is required). A 12-inch diameter restrictor on the trunk storm sewer
just downstream of proposed 54-inch storm sewer allows low flows to pass through and higher
flows to back up into the stormwater storage area and ultimately drain when the storm event has
ended. The proposed stormwater storage reduces the flowrate on the Tano Lane trunk storm
sewer from about 53 cfs to 15 cfs.
While flows to Pump Station #1 are reduced, a proposed pump station is still required to prevent
the low-lying areas along Park Avenue from flooding. The pump controls and configuration are
the same as Alternative 5, with the exception of a reduced pumping rate (Alternative 5 pumping
rate is 60 cfs). The proposed pump station requires a maximum pumping rate of 40 cfs which is
provided in two (2) 20 cfs pumps. Alternative 6 reduces the flood depth at South Park Drive from
2.0 feet to 0.8 feet. Exhibit 10 shows the conceptual layout for Alternative 6 and the resulting
inundation map.
Currently, the proposed excavated stormwater storage for Alternative 6 is shown in the northern
portion of open space at the school. The location of the stormwater storage area can be adjusted
to accommodate the needs of Indian Grove Elementary School and the Village. Another viable,
28
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
but more costly option, would be to provide the stormwater storage in an underground vault and
restore the open space to its current condition.
Alternative 6 is recommended because it provides the best flood reduction benefit of all the Pump
Station #1 alternatives, removing all at-risk structures from the 10-year inundation area.
The estimated cost of Alternative 6 is $2.1 million.
3.7 ALTERNATIVE 7 PUMP STATION #1 UPGRADE & PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative 7 is identical to Alternative 5 with the addition of sewer improvements along South
Park Drive. Under existing conditions, a 12- to 15-inch storm sewer drains south down Park Drive
between Eastwood Lane and Tano Lane. The section of 15-inch storm sewer just south of the
lowest catch basin in the low lying area --inch storm sewer drains into
the into the 60-inch trunk storm sewer draining east down Tano Lane. Based on the existing
conditions analysis, the storm sewer on South Park Drive is undersized for the 10-year storm
event, even under free-flow gravity outfall conditions, resulting in street inundation. Alternative
7 proposes to increase the storm sewer size on South Park Drive and eliminate the -
section of storm sewer. The proposed improvement replaces the existing storm sewer with an
18- to 24-inch storm sewer. This alternative provides minimal benefits (< 0.1 foot WSEL reduction)
for the 5- and 10-year storms because the allowed pump capacity increase of 60 cfs at Pump
Station #1 cannot adequately drain all stormwater, resulting in a level pool along the South Park
Drive depression. Figure 10 shows the conceptual layout for Alternative 7.
Alternative 7 is not recommended because the cost of the additional sewer conveyance
improvements outweighs the minimal benefit.
The estimated cost of Alternative 7 is $1.3 million.
29
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 10. Alternative 7 Schematic
30
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 8 below provides a comprehensive summary of results for all Pump Station #1 drainage area
improvement alternatives.
Table 8. Pump Station #1 Drainage Area Improvement Alternatives
10-Year Storm Results Summary Table
South Park Drive
Additional Proposed
Maximum Flood At-Risk Homes
Flood
Improvement
Resulting
Required Storage Removed from 10-year
Depth
Alternative
Flood Depth
2
Pumping Rate Volume (ac-Inundation Area
Reduction
(ft)
(cfs) ft)
(ft)
5 60 - 1.9 0.1 0
6 40 7.0 0.8 1.2 4
1
7 60 - 1.9 0.1 0
1
Includes storm sewer upgrades as described in Section 3.7
2
Based on low overtopping or low entry elevations provided by field survey (existing condition at-risk homes is 4)
3.8 ALTERNATIVE 8 25-YEAR LEVEL OF PROTECTION IMPROVEMENT
Existing Conditions
The 25-year storm event was simulated for existing conditions for both free-flow gravity outfall
conditions and for the 10-year Des Plaines River (DPR) tailwater. Based on the critical duration
analysis, the 2-hour storm produced the maximum flows and flood stages within the study area.
Previously, it was determined that the existing storm sewer system has approximately a 10-year
storm event capacity, although some surcharging occurs. The existing conditions XPSWMM
model was simulated with free-flow gravity outfall conditions. Results from this 25-year storm
event analysis indicate that more significant sewer surcharging and flooding occurs in the low-
lying areas. As seen in Exhibit 11, seven (7) homes are at-risk of flooding.
The existing conditions XPSWMM model was simulated with the FEMA FIS 10-year DPR flood
elevation, which eliminated all gravity flow from the sewer outfalls and forced all stormwater to
be evacuated with the pump stations. The maximum pumping capacity of Pump Station #1 and
Pump Station #2 are 17 cfs and 25.5 cfs, respectively. Results from this simulation show flooding
of at risk structures due to the limited capacity of the storm sewer system and the limited capacity
of the pump stations. A flood inundation map for the 25-year storm event with a 10-year FEMA
FIS tailwater is provided in Exhibit 12. CBBEL identified thrity (30) homes at-risk of flooding for
this storm event.
25-Year Improvement Alternative
An improvement alternative was developed to provide a 25-year storm event level of protection
with additional storm sewer conveyance and increased pumping capacity. This alternative did not
include creating additional stormwater storage. First, the 25-year storm event with free-flow
gravity outfall conditions was used to identify conditions in the storm sewer system that lead to
31
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
flooding. Once these conditions were identified, additional storm sewer conveyance was
provided to effectively reduce flooding for the 25-year storm event. In the Pump Station #2
drainage area, a new 36-inch relief sewer is proposed to run parallel along an existing trunk sewer
starting at the intersection of Maya Lane and Burning Bush Lane. The 36-inch relief sewer
continues on the same route as the existing trunk sewer to a new outfall to the DPR. Additionally,
the existing storm sewer flowing south down Park Drive is proposed to be replaced with a larger
sewer to provide increased conveyance from a low-lying flood prone area.
Additional storm sewer conveyance is also required in the Pump Station #1 drainage area. A new
36-inch relief sewer begins on Eastwood Lane west of Burning Bush Lane. The new relief sewer
continues south along Burning Bush Lane and increases to a 42-inch sewer when it heads west
down Tano Lane. The relief sewer continues to follow the alignment of the existing trunk sewer
and ultimately drains to a new 42-inch outfall to the DPR. Additionally, the existing storm sewer
flowing south down Park Drive is proposed to be replaced with a larger sewer to provide increased
conveyance from a low-lying flood prone area. The proposed outfalls will result in increased flows
to the DPR from existing conditions only when the DPR is low. Once the DPR begins to rise, these
flows will be significantly reduced. A summary of these flow increases is provided in Table 9.
Table 9. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Proposed Outfall Flowrate Increases (No Tailwater)
Existing Maximum Flowrate Proposed Maximum Flowrate Flowrate
Drainage Area
From Outfalls (cfs) From Outfalls (cfs) Increase (cfs)
Pump Station #1 149 184 35
Pump Station #2 309 346 37
Total 458 530 72
The storm improvements described above were analyzed for a 25-year storm event with FEMA
FIS 10-year tailwater conditions to determine the required pump station capacity upgrades. The
amount of additional required pumping capacity was determined based on achieving 25-year
storm event level of protection for all at-risk homes. The proposed additional pumping rate for
Pump Station #2 was calculated to be 330 cfs. To obtain this additional pumping capacity, a new
pump station must be constructed adjacent to the existing pump station to house three (3) new
110 cfs pumps. The proposed additional pumping rate for Pump Station #1 was calculated to be
160 cfs which can be provided in a new pump station constructed adjacent to the existing pump
station to house two (2) new 80 cfs pumps. The total cumulative proposed pump capacity
increase from the study area for the 25-year storm event level of protection improvement
alternative is 490 cfs. Exhibit 13 shows the proposed sewer schematic with pump station
upgrades and the resulting 25-year storm event inundation area. This improvement alternative
removes all at-risk homes from the 25-year storm event inundation area. A summary of the 25-
year storm event improvement alternative is provided in Table 10.
32
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 10. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Results Summary (With Tailwater)
Existing Flood Proposed Flood Flood Depth
Location
Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Reduction (ft)
Park Drive and Seneca Drive 2.6 0.5 2.1
Park Drive and Woodview Drive 2.0 0.9 1.1
South Park Drive 2.3 0.0 2.3
A summary of pump station capacity upgrades from existing to proposed conditions is shown in
Table 11.
Table 11. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Pump Capacity Increases
Existing Pump Capacity Proposed Pump Capacity
Drainage Area
Flowrate (cfs) Flowrate Increase (cfs)
Pump Station #1 17 160
Pump Station #2 25.5 330
Total 42.5 490
25-year Improvement Conclusion
At the request of the Village, CBBEL developed a 25-year storm event level of protection
improvement alternative to remove all at-risk structures for FEMA FIS 10-year DPR tailwater
conditions. Two proposed sewer outfalls are required for the Pump Station #1 and #2 drainage
areas, which increase flowrates to the DPR under free-flow gravity outfall conditions.
Additionally, pump station capacity upgrades are necessary to maintain a 25-year storm event
level of protection during the FEMA FIS 10-year DPR tailwater conditions which eliminates all flow
from the gravity sewer outfalls. The cumulative pump capacity flowrate increase from the study
area was calculated to be 490 cfs.
Based on the pre-Levee 37 analysis (see Section 2.1), CBBEL determined the amount of historic
overland flow to the DPR for a 10-year storm in the study area while the DPR is at the FEMA FIS
10-year flood elevation to be 240 cfs. The existing three (3) pump stations have a combined
capacity of 60 cfs, therefore the allowable increase in pumping capacity is 180 cfs. Because the
25-year improvement alternative proposes to pump an additional 490 cfs, the proposed pump
station upgrades may not be feasible from a permitting standpoint. Because new sewer outfalls
are required for the 25-year improvement alternative, additional permitting may be required.
Permits required, but not limited to, may include:
A floodway construction permit from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Office of Water Resources (IDNR-OWR)
A regulatory permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
Authorization from the Cook County Forest Preserve (CCFP)
33
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
The estimated cost of Alternative 8 is $12.3 million.
3.9 ALTERNATIVE 9 25-YEAR LEVEL-OF-PROTECTION IMPROVEMENT WITH ALLOWABLE
PUMPING RATE
At the request of the Village, CBBEL analyzed an additional 25-year storm event level of protection
improvement alternative using the allowable pump rate of 240 cfs from the study area. This
alternative was developed to determine how much storage volume needed to be created to
achieve a 25-year level of protection while maintaining the 240 cfs flowrate. As previously
discussed the allowable pump rate increase is 180 cfs. Similar to Alternatives 3 and 6, the storage
areas are proposed at Robert Frost Elementary in the Pump Station #2 drainage area and at Indian
Grove Elementary in the Pump Station #1 drainage area because these are the only availbale open
spaces in hydraulically effective locations. Approximately 18.0 acre-feet of flood storage is
proposed in the open space at Robert Frost Elementary, and 12.0 acre-feet at Indian Grove
Elementary. Similar to Alternatives 3 and 6, both storage areas are intended to divert flow from
the adjacent trunk sewers with the use of restrictors on the existing downstream pipes. This
reduces the amount of flow conveyed downstream to the pump stations.
Pump capacity increases are required to achieve a 25-year storm event level of protection. The
proposed additional pumping rate for Pump Station #2 was calculated to be 120 cfs which can be
provided in a new pump station constructed adjacent to the existing pump station to house three
(3) new 40 cfs pumps. The proposed additional pumping rate for Pump Station #1 was calculated
to be 60 cfs which can be provided in a new pump station constructed adjacent to the existing
pump station to house two (2) new 30 cfs pumps.
Exhibit 14 shows the proposed improvement schematic with pump station upgrades and the
resulting 25-year storm event inundation area. This improvement alternative removes all but two
(2) at-risk homes from the 25-year storm event inundation area during a DPR tailwater condition.
The modeling indicates that the simulated flood elevations for these two homes are
approximately 0.5-feet higher than their low entry elevation. CBBEL recommends that
floodproofing measures, such as raising the sidewalk, be used to protect these two homes from
flooding during the 25-year storm event. A summary of the 25-year storm event level of
protection improvement alternative benefits is provided in Table 12.
Table 12. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Results Summary (With Tailwater)
Existing Flood Proposed Flood Flood Depth
Location
Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Reduction (ft)
Park Drive and Seneca Drive 2.6 1.1 1.5
Park Drive and Woodview Drive 2.0 1.6 0.4
South Park Drive 2.3 1.1 1.2
The estimated cost of Alternative 9 is $7.5 million.
34
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
3.10 PUMP STATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The pump station upgrades discussed in the previous sections are summarized in Table 13. The
existing pump stations effectiveness can be increased by lowering the existing pump setpoints.
design with the pump manufacturer. It is assumed that modifications to the existing pump tubes
will be required which may include formed suction intakes, tube extensions, and other ancillary
components.
Table 13. Summary of Pump Station Upgrades
Additional Pump
Alternative No. of Pumps & Capacity
Capacity (cfs)
1 120 (3) @ 40 cfs/pump
20 (2) 10 cfs/pump
2
100 (3) 33 cfs/pump
3 105 (3) @ 35 cfs/pump
4 120 (3) @ 40 cfs/pump
5 60 (2) @ 30 cfs/pump
6 40 (2) @ 20 cfs/pump
7 60 (2) @ 30 cfs/pump
PS #2 (3) @ 110 cfs/pump
8 490
PS #1 (2) @ 80 cfs/pump
PS #2 (3) @ 40 cfs/pump
9 180
PS #1 (2) @ 30 cfs/pump
Depending on the alternative selected, it is assumed that a new poured in place concrete pump
station structure will be constructed adjacent to or in the vicinity of existing Pump Stations #1 and
#2 to house the proposed additional capacity pumps
the existing Pump Stations which utilize submersible, axial flow propeller pumps mounted in a
steel discharge tube; cast iron flap gates mounted to the discharge tube; and a concrete deck to
locate the NEMA 3R motor control center (MCC) and pump station electrical controls. A new three
phase, 480 volt electric utility (ComEd) service will be required and sized for the load to be served
dependent on pump motor size. Standby power has not been considered for this analysis but
should be considered during the design phase for backup in case of loss of utility power.
The existing pump station structure is not large enough to accommodate the larger pumps and
still satisfy Hydraulic Institute (HI) Standards for sump dimensions (for the larger capacity pumps).
It is recommended to keep the existing station in service during construction of the new station
and incorporate it into the permanent alternative solution to handle smaller storm events, and
provide a stepped or ramped pumping capacity.
35
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CHAPTER 4 DPR DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ANALYSIS
To analyze the potential hydraulic impact to the DPR from the proposed pumping rate increase, a
conceptual level hydraulic modeling analysis was performed. The unsteady HEC-RAS hydraulic
model developed as part of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRDGC) Detailed Watershed Plan (DWP) for the Lower DPR was used for this analysis. The
unsteady HEC-RAS model references flow hydrographs from a previously created HEC-HMS model
to simulate stage versus time along the DPR. Design storms were analyzed to assess potential
DPR hydraulic impacts.
4.1 DESIGN STORMS DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Based on the relatively large size of the DPR watershed and its long flow paths, previous modeling
determined the critical design storm to be the 10-day event. The critical design storm for the
study area, as determined by the existing condition XPSWMM analysis, is the 2-hour storm. To
conservatively analyze the effect of the increased pump rates from the study area on the DPR,
Alternative 1 and Alternative 5 were analyzed for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storms with FEMA FIS
10-year flood event elevation. This DPR elevation eliminates all flow from the gravity storm sewer
outfalls. Alternatives 1 and 5 proposed the largest pump capacity increases of 120 cfs and 60cfs,
respectively, for a total flow increase of 180 cfs to the DPR. The pump outfall hydrographs from
each pump station were input into the HEC-RAS model at the nearest downstream cross section
as lateral inflow hydrographs. Inputting the pump outfall hydrographs directly into the HEC-RAS
model is a conservative estimate of impacts; because the area drained by the pump stations is
also included in the HEC-HMS model. Next, the resultant hydrographs at cross sections near the
study area were compared to the baseline conditions hydrographs. The proposed pumps cause
a small increase in the DPR elevation at the beginning of the simulation, approximately ten (10)
days before the maximum stage in the DPR occurs. The area of the river reach with the largest
increase is located at the cross section accepting flows from Pump Station #2. Figure 11 shows
the 100-year proposed hydrograph at this cross section compared to the baseline hydrograph.
36
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Top of Bank
foot increase with
proposed pump stations
Figure 11. 100-Year DPR Hydrograph at Pump Station #2
The lowest contour elevation along the DPR bank at Pump Station #2 is 628 feet, therefore the
potential stage increase from the proposed pump station is contained completely within the
channel.
4.2 DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ANALYSIS CONCLUSION
Based on the HEC-RAS analysis of downstream impacts, CBBEL believes the allowable increase in
proposed pump station capacity of 180 cfs to the DPR would be acceptable with a defined
operating procedure in place. The proposed pump stations capacity increase have minimal impact
on the DPR flood elevations when analyzing design storms. The difference in critical durations
between the DPR and the study area results in a minor stage increase 10 days before the peak of
the DPR.
There are potential scenarios when the DPR has risen to a point where the addition of the full 180
cfs proposed pump capacity could result in an increase in the DPR flood stage that could cause an
adverse impact to downstream roadways, properties and structures. The United States
Geological Service (USGS) stream gage #05529000 - Des Plaines River near Des Plaines is located
at Euclid Avenue approximately 5,000 feet and 1,200 feet downstream of Levee 37 Pump Stations
#2 and #1, respectively. The National Weather Service (NWS) uses this gage with their Advance
Hydrologic Prediction Service to forecast the DPR stage during flood conditions. The NWS has
37
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
established stage elevations at this gage that reflect Flood Stage, Moderate Flood Stage and Major
Flood Stage based on potential downstream roadway, property and structure inundation.
An operational protocol should be developed that would determine how many and when the
proposed pumps could be operational. We recommend a Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) system be employed to take the current gage information control the on and
off functions of the proposed pumps. This would be an automated system that would optimize
the level of protection for the Village residential areas while reducing the risk of adversely
impacting DPR flooding at risk downstream roadways, properties and structures
The development of this operational protocol is beyo
should be develop if the Village pursues any of the improvement alternatives that include an
increase in pumping capacity.
38
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
The purpose of the Levee 37 project is to protect the Vstudy area and a portion of the City
from DPR overbank flooding. Based on the existing conditions analysis discussed in Chapter 2,
the storm sewer system in the study area has approximately a 10-year storm event capacity under
free-flow outfall conditions (no flow capacity reduction from the DPR water level elevation).
Based on discussions with the USACOE, the existing pump stations were designed for sewer flows
assuming non-coincident hydrograph peaks between the study area discharge and the flows in
the DPR. One of the implications of non-coincident peaks is that runoff during a storm event from
the study area would be receding before the rise in the DPR is significant enough to reduce or
eliminate flows from the gravity sewer outfalls. The CBBEL analysis performed in this study
confirmed that the assumption of negligible impact to the storm sewer system from the DPR
water level elevations is a reasonable assumption for design storms. However, the analysis for
the historic April 2013 storm demonstrated that the DPR stage hydrograph reduces the ability of
the storm sewer system to discharge flow during the rainfall event resulting in the pump stations
to be turned on. The analysis further demonstrated that the level of the DPR does not need to
reach a peak level to degrade the capacity of the gravity storm sewer system. Events at and below
the DPR 2-year flood event level have a significant adverse impact.
The pumps are programmed to activate mostly to evacuate any residual stormwater in the storm
sewer system while the DPR stage is elevated. This design methodology results in the existing
design capacity of the pump stations being low compared to the capacity of the gravity storm
sewer outfalls during a free outfall condition. Because of the limited capacity of the existing pump
stations, the capacity of the storm sewer system is quickly degraded when the DPR water level
elevation rises and a storm event is occurring in the study area simultaneously.
Prior to the development of the existing residential subdivision within the study area, the land
drained overland directly to the DPR. Once developed, during periods when the residential
-lying areas until
flooding levels filled the streets and stormwater would flow overland down the streets until
crossing River Road and into the DPR prior to the construction of the Levee 37 floodwall.
The construction of the Levee 37 floodwall blocked this overland flow capacity, but the pumps
constructed as part of the Levee did not maintain this flow capacity. An XPSWMM simulation was
performed for pre-Levee 37 conditions to analyze the amount of overland flow to the DPR for a
10-year storm in the study area while the DPR is at the FEMA FIS 10-year flood elevation. The
maximum overland flowrate over River Road to the DPR is approximately 240 cfs. The existing
pump stations have a combined capacity of 60 cfs. This means that the Village could increase the
pumping capacity up to this flow rate with any future enhancements to the pump stations.
Because the three (3) existing Levee 37 pump stations have a maximum capacity of 60 cfs, the
allowable increase in pumping rate is 180 cfs.
39
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CBBEL analyzed nine (9) proposed improvement alternatives to improve the level of protection
when the DPR stage restricts the gravity storm sewer outfall capacity. Table 14 summarizes the
components, benefits and costs of the nine (9) proposed improvement alternatives.
A conceptual level downstream hydraulic impacts analysis was performed to assess potential
adverse increases in the DPR water level elevation. Alternatives 1 and 5 were used for the
downstream impacts analysis because they increase the three Levee 37 (3) pump stations capacity
to the allowable 240 cfs. Based on this conceptual level analysis, the
maximum flowrate increases from the proposed pump stations (180 cfs) to the DPR would be
acceptable with defined operating protocols. These operating protocols would determine when
the pumping rate for new pump stations should be limited or -depending on the DPR
water level elevation recorded at the nearby downstream USGS gage. The existing pumps would
remain on and continue pumping a lesser flow from the study area to the DPR. We recommend
that pump station operational protocol be developed when the Village selects and pursues an
improvement alternative.
After analyzing all the improvement alternatives, CBBEL recommends the Village pursue
Alternatives 3 and 6. The recommended improvements, Alternatives 3 and 6, opinion of probable
cost are $3.6 million and $2.1 million, respectively based on a 2015 cost estimate.
As previously described in Sections 3.3 and 3.6, these alternatives include providing storage at
upstream open space properties to provide a 10-year level of protection. At this point of the
study, CBBEL believes that Alternatives 3 and 6 should be recommended because:
They provide the best flood reduction benefit of all the alternatives identified in this
study, removing all twenty-three (23) at-risk homes from the 10-year inundation area.
They involve adding flood storage on school and/or park district property. Village staff
previously indicated that both the school district and park district may not be receptive
to the idea repurposing their open space for flood storage. Therefore, this design is
preliminary and flexible and can be adjusted to best meet the needs of both the Village,
school district, and park district. Potential options include re-locating the storage area on
the property or providing the storage in underground vaults at an increased cost.
recommend Alternatives 1 and 5 which are Levee 37 Pump Stations #1 and #2 capacity
upgrades.
These alternatives increase the cumulative pumping capacity to the DPR by 145 cfs. The
study found the allowable flowrate increase to the DPR to be 180 cfs.
Based on the initial findings of the downstream impacts analysis, CBBEL believes
increasing the cumulative pump capacity to the DPR by a maximum of 180 cfs would be
acceptable with an operating protocol in place. If the project goes forward, conversations
with the CCFPD, MWRDGC and IDNR-OWR should occur.
40
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
MJB/ELG/DRD/TTB
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Water\\Docs\\R.Levee 37 Drainage Study 092215 Village
41
03006001,200
Feet
N
1 inch = 300 feet
EAST P
ALATINE RO
AD
R
A
M
P
OLD PALATIN
E ROAD
EAST PALATINE
ROAD
RAMP
Pump #3 Controls
EAST PALATINE ROAD
Max Pumping
Pump IDSump ElevationStart ElevationStop Elevation
Rate (CFS)
SWP-18.5633631.5
629.08
SWP-28.5635632.5
P1
AREA = 10.2 AC
CN = 92
Tc = 15 MIN
P2
AREA = 14.1 AC
P3
CN = 90
AREA = 10.9 AC
Tc = 28.8 MIN
CN = 94
Tc = 30 MIN
PIPER L
ANE
P19
P10
AREA = 42.3 AC
P16
AREA = 53.1 AC
LOVE DRIV
CN = 93 E
AREA = 10.2 AC
CN = 96
Tc = 37.2 MIN
CN = 91
Tc = 30 MIN
Tc = 21 MIN
APPLE DRIV
E
P17
WIM
BLEDON CI
RCLE
AREA = 5.7 AC
CN = 90
Tc = 18 MIN
WINESAP COURT
P6
AREA = 14.7 AC
CN = 75
Tc = 72 MIN
P7
AREA = 20.5 AC
CN = 90
Tc = 15 MIN
CRABA
PPLE DRIVE
P18P20
P4
AREA = 9.5 AC
AREA = 19.3 AC
AREA = 39.7 AC
CN = 90
CN = 95
CN = 90
Tc = 30 MIN
Tc = 19.8 MIN
Tc = 30 MIN
P14P8
P15AREA = 10.9 AC
AREA = 4.5 AC
P9
AREA = 1.3 ACCN = 90
CN = 90
P5
AREA = 2.6 AC
CN = 90Tc = 58.8 MIN
Tc = 19.2 MIN
AREA = 20.4 AC
CN = 92
Tc = 15 MIN
CN = 90
Tc = 15 MIN
Tc = 15 MIN
P11
AREA = 5.7 AC
CN = 90
Tc = 15 MIN
P12
P13
CITY OF PROSPECT HEIGHTS
AREA = 2.6 AC
AREA = 1.3 AC
CN = 90
CN = 90
48" STORM SEWER CONVEYS
Tc = 15 MIN
18''
12''18''Tc = 18 MIN
18''
WEST WILLOW ROADSEMINOLE LANE 22
''22''22''
22''22''
30''
15''15''30''30'
30'''FLOW FROM PROSPECT HEIGHTS
N4
N11
15''8''
AREA = 5.3 AC TO MOUNT PROSPECT
AREA = 3.2 AC
CN = 88
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
CN = 87
Tc = 27 MIN
Tc = 22.2 MIN
N41
AREA = 9.5 AC
CN = 84N9
Tc = 33.6 MINAREA = 4.5 AC
N15
N17
CN = 84
N12
N7
N13
AREA = 2 AC
33''AZTEC L
ANE 42''48''AREA = 1 AC
48''
N6Tc = 22.2 MIN
AREA = 3.9 AC
AREA = 3.7 AC
S
ENECA LANE
AREA = 2 ACN16
CN = 86
CN = 94
AREA = 3 AC
CN = 84
10''CN = 84
CN = 86
AREA = 2.9 AC
Tc = 16.2 MIN
Tc = 12 MIN
CN = 84
Tc = 16.8 MIN
Tc = 32.4 MIN
Tc = 17.4 MIN
CN = 85
Tc = 5.4 MIN
Tc = 26.4 MIN
N14
N8
AREA = 7.3 AC
AREA = 2.6 AC
CN = 84
CN = 85
N3
Tc = 29.4 MIN
N10
Tc = 21.6 MIN
N5
AREA = 17.5 AC
AREA = 5.2 AC
N18
AREA = 10.8 AC
CN = 86
CN = 86
AREA = 0.3 AC
4''CN = 87
Tc = 33.6 MIN
N1
Tc = 23.4 MIN
CN = 91
Tc = 39.6 MINN28
AREA = 17.9 AC
10''
Tc = 1.8 MIN
AREA = 3.5 AC
CN = 84
CHIMU LA
NE
N2CN = 85
Tc = 42.6 MIN
AREA = 14.9 ACTc = 22.2 MIN
1
2'
'
CN = 84
N27
Tc = 34.8 MIN
Pump #2 Controls
N24
N40AREA = 8.5 AC
12''
AREA = 13.9 AC
Max Pumping
AREA = 13.3 ACCN = 85
Pump IDSump ElevationStart ElevationStop Elevation
CN = 85
CN = 82Tc = 24.6 MIN
Rate (CFS)
Tc = 41.4 MIN
Tc = 30 MIN
SWP-18.5631.25630
8''
N38
628
SWP-28.5632.25630.5
N21AREA = 1.9 AC
1
0
'
'
SWP-38.5633.25631.25
AREA = 14.7 AC
CN = 84
CN = 84Tc = 22.2 MIN
Tc = 18.6 MIN
ERMAN AVENUE
ALD
N37
''
8
AREA = 2.2 AC
CN = 91
48''
48''
Tc = 28.2 MIN
60N26
''60''60''
MAYA LANE
AREA = 4.8 AC
CN = 84
N25
Tc = 24 MIN
AREA = 7.5 AC
18''
48''8''
4
CN = 85
ALDERMAN A
VENUE
10''
Tc = 42 MIN
N19
N22
AREA = 17.4 AC
AREA = 13 AC
CN = 85
CN = 85
Tc = 40.8 MIN
1
18'2''15''Tc = 34.2 MIN15''
'
6''
PAWNEE LANE
N39
AREA = 12.5 AC
CN = 83
Tc = 27 MIN
15''
N36
N23
AREA = 7.1 AC
15''
18''
YU
N2024''MA LANE AREA = 14.6 AC
CN = 92
AREA = 26.3 ACCN = 84
Tc = 26.4 MIN
21''
CN = 84Tc = 35.4 MIN
Tc = 61.2 MIN
NORTH
RIVER W
EST CO
URT
N34
AREA = 7.9 AC
N32
CN = 84
N35
AREA = 4.2 AC
15''18
''
Tc = 30 MIN
18''15''12''
12''15''36''1
36''8''5''
115''15AREA = 5.1 AC
''15''
18''12''1
2''
CN = 86
EAST CAMP MCDONALD ROAD
E
18''18''24 AST CAMP MC DONALD ROAD CN = 87
''24''24''
42''
Tc = 15.6 MIN
5''''
''112''12
1212''12''12''
12''
Tc = 40.2 MIN
N31
N33N30
AREA = 3.7 AC
AREA = 2.7 AC
AREA = 5 AC
S3
CN = 85
CN = 91
CN = 84
AREA = 3.9 AC
Tc = 41.4 MIN
Tc = 22.2 MINTc = 23.4 MIN
CN = 84
S13
Tc = 24.6 MIN
N29
AREA = 1.5 AC
AREA = 1.3 AC
S2CN = 86
21''
21''
33''
30''
CN = 85
S6
AREA = 2.9 ACTc = 16.8 MIN
EAST
S1 WOOD LANE
36''
12''21''Tc = 24 MIN
21''
AREA = 7.9 AC
CN = 86
AREA = 9.5 AC
S14
CN = 85
Tc = 20.4 MINS39
CN = 86
AREA = 1.8 AC
Tc = 31.8 MIN
AREA = 0.5 AC
1
2'
Tc = 21 MIN'
CN = 85
CN = 90
Tc = 16.8 MIN
S10
8''
Tc = 7.2 MIN
''
8
12''AREA = 21.1 AC
S512''
S4S15
CN = 85
AREA = 15.8 AC
AREA = 12.9 ACAREA = 1.1 AC
Tc = 54 MIN
CN = 85
'
18'
CN = 8521''CN = 85
Tc = 33.6 MIN
Tc = 43.2 MINTc = 15 MIN
SITKA LANE
S7
S38
AREA = 7.5 AC
AREA = 1.9 AC
S16
CN = 84
CN = 86
AREA = 2.5 AC
Tc = 40.2 MIN
Tc = 27.6 MIN
CN = 84
12''12''
Tc = 15 MIN
EDWARD ROAD
S8
15''1
5''
AREA = 3 AC
TANO LANE
CN = 86
S17
S36
Tc = 22.8 MIN
5AREA = 2.4 AC
4''54''
54''AREA = 0.6 AC
60''
''
18
TANO LAN
E
CN = 85
CN = 87
S9
Tc = 17.4 MIN
Tc = 21 MIN
AREA = 11.3 AC
CN = 83
S37
Tc = 25.8 MINAREA = 0.4 AC
6''
6''12''
12''12''
''
30
CN = 90
NE Tc = 4.2 MIN
A S33
L
E
E
TR
K
R 15''
O
C
AREA = 6.8 AC
S35
18
CN = 85''
S34
AREA = 0.7 AC
BURR O
AK DRIVE
Tc = 34.2 MIN
12AREA = 6.1 AC
''
CN = 91
CN = 89
S18
Tc = 6 MIN
Tc = 33 MIN
AREA = 56.8 AC
S11
CN = 85
6
0
72''72'''
'
S19
AREA = 14.2 AC
Tc = 61.2 MIN
72''Pump #1 Controls
AREA = 5.3 AC
CN = 88
CN = 77
Tc = 25.2 MIN Max Pumping
S32
Pump IDSump ElevationStart ElevationStop Elevation
Tc = 61.2 MIN
8''
Rate (CFS)
AREA = 0.8 AC
S30
S31
CN = 89
AREA = 5.1 ACAREA = 1.6 AC SWP-18.5631.75629.75
24
''27''
627.5
Tc = 16.8 MIN
CN = 85CN = 86
SWP-28.5634631
Tc = 15.6 MIN
Tc = 15 MIN
12
''
1210
''''
S28
6''
AREA = 2 AC
S12
CN = 88
AREA = 18 AC
Tc = 19.8 MIN
CN = 85
S29
1Tc = 19.8 MIN
0''AREA = 10.9 AC
8''
CN = 83
Tc = 31.8 MIN
1
2''
6''6''
S20
6
'
'
AREA = 6 AC
S27
15''
12''
CN = 86
'
'AREA = 1.2 AC
4
S21
Tc = 36.6 MIN
EAST E
UCLID AVENUE CN = 94
AREA = 13.7 AC
18''
18''
60''48''24''
24''30''
42''
S23Tc = 4.2 MIN
48''
CN = 84
AREA = 7.1 AC
60''
Tc = 34.8 MIN
S22
4
8
''
CN = 84
AREA = 7.7 AC
Tc = 31.8 MIN
CN = 85
S26
Tc = 39.6 MIN
12''15''
AZALEA PLACE 15''
AREA = 0.9 AC
12''
6''
CN = 93
Tc = 4.2 MIN
12''
12''
S25
12''15''
CEDAR LANE
A 1
ZALEA LANE 15''0
IVY LANE'AREA = 1.4 AC
'
12''
CN = 90
LEGEND
Tc = 10.2 MIN
STORM MANHOLE
12''
10
''
15''NE
DOGWOOD LA
24
''21''
STORM SEWER
BASSWOOD LANEKIOWA LANE
15''
1
2''
12''
LEVEE 37
REGENCY COURT
S24
12''
AREA = 1.5 AC
12''
12''
GREENWOOD DRIVE
''
PUMP #1 SUBBASINS 12
12''
CN = 92
Tc = 7.2 MIN
12''
12''
PUMP #2 SUBBASINS
10''
12''BITTERS
1 WEET LANE 20''
2''
12
''
12''
15''
12''
PUMP #3 SUBBASINS
1
8
''
1
2''
LINDEN LANE
12''
1
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY 2'
'
''
12''12
LIBERTY COURT
12''
HOPI LANE 15''
DSN.MJB
TITLE:
CLIENT:
PROJ. NO.15-0225
CHKD.
ELG
SCALE
SHEET 1 OF 1
GIS USER
No.DATENATURE OF REVISIONMODELArcGIS 9.2
DRAWING NO.
FILE NAME:
DATE:
14117112-311
Gffu
2!jodi!>!711!gffu
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$4
Q
JQFS
!MBOF
MP
WF!E
SJWF
BQ
QMF!E
SJWF
X
JNC
MFEP
O!DJ
SDMF
DS
BCBQQ
MF!ESJ
WF
TFNJOPMF!MBOF
B
\[UFD!MBO
F
TFOFDB!MB
OF
)QVNQ!$3*!O!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!744/99
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/95
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$3
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!3/:7!GU
N
P
I
B
X
L
!
M
B
O
F
X
P
P
E
NBZB
!MBOF
QBXO
FF!MBOF
)QVNQ!$3*!T!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!745/89
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/99
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!3/21!GU
ZVNB!MBOF
FBTU
!DBNQ!ND!EP
OBME!SPBE
FBTU!XPPE
!MBOF
FBTU!DBSJC!MBOF
TJUL
B!MBOF
)QVNQ!$2*!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
MFHFOE
SJN!FM/!>!746/78
UBOP
!MBOF
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!748/82
UBOP
!MBOF
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!3/15!GU
Qvnq!Tubujpo
Mfwff!48
CVSS!PB
L!ESJWF
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$2
BQSJM!3124!TUPSN
QJO!
PBL
!ES
JWF
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
1!.!2
2!.!3
D
IJ
OL
BQJ
O!P
BL
!ES
JW
F
3!.!4
FBTU!FVD
MJE!BWFOV
F
4.!5
B\[BM
FB!QMBDF
5!.!6
6!.!7
B\[
BMFB!MB
OFJWZ!MB
OF
J
W
Z
!
M
B
7!.!8 O
F
CB
TT
XPLJPXB!M
PBOF
E!M
BO
F
8!.!9
D
I
P
M
P
?9
!
M
B
O
F
CJ
UUFS
TXF
FU!MB
OF
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
9022026
14117112-311
Gffu
2!jodi!>!711!gffu
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$4
Q
JQFS
!MBOF
MP
WF!E
SJWF
BQ
QMF!E
SJWF
X
JNC
MFEP
O!DJ
SDMF
DS
BCBQQ
MF!ESJ
WF
TFNJOPMF!MBOF
B
\[UFD!MBO
F
TFOFDB!MB
OF
)QVNQ!$3*!O!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!744/99
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!744/27
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$3
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!1/11!GU
N
P
I
B
X
L
!
M
B
O
F
X
P
P
E
NBZB
!MBOF
QBXO
FF!MBOF
)QVNQ!$3*!T!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!745/89
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!746/79
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!1/:1!GU
ZVNB!MBOF
FBTU
!DBNQ!ND!EP
OBME!SPBE
FBTU!XPPE
!MBOF
FBTU!DBSJC!MBOF
TJUL
B!MBOF
)QVNQ!$2*!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
MFHFOE
SJN!FM/!>!746/78
UBOP
!MBOF
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/76
UBOP
!MBOF
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!1/:9!GU
Qvnq!Tubujpo
Mfwff!48
CVSS!PB
L!ESJWF
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$2
BQSJM!3124!TUPSN
QJO!
PBL
!ES
JWF
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
1!.!2
2!.!3
D
IJ
OL
BQJ
O!P
BL
!ES
JW
F
3!.!4
FBTU!FVD
MJE!BWFOV
F
4.!5
B\[BM
FB!QMBDF
5!.!6
6!.!7
B\[
BMFB!MB
OFJWZ!MB
OF
J
W
Z
!
M
B
7!.!8 O
F
CB
TT
XPLJPXB!M
PBOF
E!M
BO
F
8!.!9
D
I
P
M
P
?9
!
M
B
O
F
CJ
UUFS
TXF
FU!MB
OF
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
9022026
14117112-311
Gffu
2!jodi!>!711!gffu
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$4
QJ
QFS!M
BOF
MPW
F!ES
JWF
BQQ
MF!ES
JWF
XJ
NCMF
EPO
!DJS
DMF
DSB
CBQQMF
!ESJWF
TFNJOPMF!MBOF
B\[U
FD!MBOF
TFO
FDB!MBOF
)QVNQ!$3*!O!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!744/99
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!745/22
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$3
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!1/34!GU
N
P
I
B
X
L
!
M
B
O
F
X
P
P
E
NBZB
!MBOF
QBXOFF!M
BOF
)QVNQ!$3*!T!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!745/89
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/83
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!2/:5!GU
Z
VNB!MBOF
FBTU!DB
NQ!ND!EPOBM
E!SPBE
FB
TU!XPPE!MBO
F
OF
FBTU!DBSJC!MB
TJULB!MB
OF
)QVNQ!$2*!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
MFHFOE
SJN!FM/!>!746/78
UBOP!MB
OF
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!748/94
UBOP!MB
OF
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!3/27!GU
Qvnq!Tubujpo
Mfwff!48
CVSS!P
BL!ESJWF
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$2
211ZS!3IS!TUPSN
Q
JO!P
BL!
ESJ
WF
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
1!.!2
2!.!3
D
IJO
LB
QJO
!P
BL!
ES
JWF
3!.!4
FB
TU!FVDMJE
!BWFOVF
4.!5
B\[B
MFB!QMBDF
5!.!6
6!.!7
B\[BM
FB!MBOF
JWZ!MBOF
JW
Z
!M
B
O
7!.!8 F
C
BT
TXLJ
PPXB!MBO
PEF
!M
BO
F
8!.!9
D
I
P
M
P
?9
!
M
B
O
F
CJUU
FST
XFF
U!MBO
F
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
9022026
14117112-311
Gffu
2!jodi!>!711!gffu
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$4
Q
JQFS
!MBOF
MP
WF!E
SJWF
BQ
QMF!E
SJWF
X
JNC
MFEP
O!DJ
SDMF
DS
BCBQQ
MF!ESJ
WF
TFNJOPMF!MBOF
B
\[UFD!MBO
F
TFOFDB!MB
OF
)QVNQ!$3*!O!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!744/99
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!743/85
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$3
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!1/11!GU
N
P
I
B
X
L
!
M
B
O
F
X
P
P
E
NBZB
!MBOF
QBXO
FF!MBOF
)QVNQ!$3*!T!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!745/89
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!745/79
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!1/11!GU
ZVNB!MBOF
FBTU
!DBNQ!ND!EP
OBME!SPBE
FBTU!XPPE
!MBOF
FBTU!DBSJC!MBOF
TJUL
B!MBOF
)QVNQ!$2*!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
MFHFOE
SJN!FM/!>!746/78
UBOP
!MBOF
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!746/:5
UBOP
!MBOF
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!1/38!GU
Qvnq!Tubujpo
Mfwff!48
CVSS!PB
L!ESJWF
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$2
21ZS!3IS!TUPSN
QJO!
PBL
!ES
JWF
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
1!.!2
2!.!3
D
IJ
OL
BQJ
O!P
BL
!ES
JW
F
3!.!4
FBTU!FVD
MJE!BWFOV
F
4.!5
B\[BM
FB!QMBDF
5!.!6
6!.!7
B\[
BMFB!MB
OFJWZ!MB
OF
J
W
Z
!
M
B
7!.!8 O
F
CB
TT
XPLJPXB!M
PBOF
E!M
BO
F
8!.!9
D
I
P
M
P
?9
!
M
B
O
F
CJ
UUFS
TXF
FU!MB
OF
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
9022026
14117112-311
Gffu
2!jodi!>!711!gffu
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$4
Q
JQFS
!MBOF
MP
WF!E
SJWF
BQ
QMF!E
SJWF
X
JNC
MFEP
O!DJ
SDMF
DS
BCBQQ
MF!ESJ
WF
TFNJOPMF!MBOF
PUMP #2 N PARK DRIVE LOW CB (RIM EL. = 633.88)
B
\[UFD!MBO
F
TFOFDB!MB
OF
STORM EVENTFLOOD WSELFLOOD DEPTH
1-YEAR633.950.07
2-YEAR635.561.68
5-YEAR635.962.08
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$3
10-YEAR636.192.31
N
P
I
B
X
L
!
M
B
O
F
X
P
P
E
PUMP #2 S PARK DRIVE LOW CB (RIM EL. = 634.78)
STORM EVENTFLOOD WSELFLOOD DEPTH
1-YEAR634.690.00
NBZB
!MBOF
2-YEAR636.021.24
5-YEAR636.521.74
10-YEAR636.631.85
QBXO
FF!MBOF
ZVNB!MBOF
FBTU
!DBNQ!ND!EP
OBME!SPBE
FBTU!XPPE
!MBOF
FBTU!DBSJC!MBOF
TJUL
B!MBOF
PUMP #1 PARK DRIVE LOW CB (RIM EL. = 635.67)
MFHFOE
STORM EVENTFLOOD WSELFLOOD DEPTH
UBOP
!MBOF
1-YEAR636.340.67
UBOP
!MBOF
2-YEAR636.771.10
Qvnq!Tubujpo
5-YEAR637.441.77
10-YEAR637.651.98
Mfwff!48
CVSS!PB
L!ESJWF
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$2
21ZS!3IS!TUPSN
QJO!
PBL
!ES
JWF
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
1!.!2
2!.!3
D
IJ
OL
BQJ
O!P
BL
!ES
JW
F
3!.!4
FBTU!FVD
MJE!BWFOV
F
4.!5
B\[BM
FB!QMBDF
5!.!6
6!.!7
B\[
BMFB!MB
OFJWZ!MB
OF
J
W
Z
!
M
B
7!.!8 O
F
CB
TT
XPLJPXB!M
PBOF
E!M
BO
F
8!.!9
D
I
P
M
P
?9
!
M
B
O
F
CJ
UUFS
TXF
FU!MB
OF
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
9022026
1211311511
Gffu
2!jodi!>!311!gffu
TFNJO
PMF!MB
OF
2
6((2
26
((
9((
3
(
(
5
59((9((
TFO
FDB!MBOF
9
(
(
Pump #2 Park Drive Low CB (Rim El. = 633.88)
Storm EventEx Flood WSELPr Flood WSEL
2-Year635.56632.45
4
1
(
(
5-Year635.96634.96
23
((
10-Year636.19635.36
Pump Station #2
SFQMBDF!41#!TFXFST!XJUI!6(!Y!6(!SDCDt
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
GPS!JODSFBTFE!DPOWFZBODF!
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
UP!QSPQPTFE!QVNQ!TUBUJPO
P#2 SWP-18.5631.25629
P#2 SWP-28.5632.25630
P#2 SWP-38.5633.25631
Prop 140-629
Prop 240-630
Prop 340-631
Pump #2 Park Drive Low CB (Rim El. = 634.78)
2
9
(
(
Storm EventEx Flood WSELPr Flood WSEL
(
(
9
2-Year636.02632.35
2
3
2(
3(
(
(
5-Year636.52635.63
10-Year636.63636.45
X
P
P
E
W
J
F
X
!
E
S
J
W
F
MFHFOE
QSPQPTFE!TUPSN!TFXFS
MFWFF!48
TUPSN!NBOIPMF
TUPSN!TFXFS
GMPPE!FWFOU
BU.SJTL!IPNFT
21.ZFBS!)21*
6.ZFBS!)2*
26
((
3.ZFBS!)1*
21ZS!3IS!TUPSN
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
1!.!2
((
23
2!.!3
29((
ZVNB!MBO
F
3!.!4
4.!5
5!.!6
O
PSU
I!S
JWF
S!
XFT
U!D
PV
SU
6!.!7
2
3
(
(
7!.!8
8!.!9
26((
29((
23((
?9
FBTU!DBNQ
!ND!EPOBME!S
PBE
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
9021026
1261411711
Gffu
29
((
2!jodi!>!411!gffu
33((
41((41((
26((26
((
41((
T
FNJOPMF!
MBOF
26
((26
((9
((
44((53
((B\[U
FD!MBOF
59((
59((59((
TFOFDB!MB
OF
JOTUBMM!7.JODI!SFTUSJDUPS!UP!BMMPX
MPX!GMPXT!UP!CZQBTT!BOE!IJHI!GMPXT!UP!
ESBJO!JOUP!QSPQPTFE!TUPSBHF!BSFB
23((((
23
O!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
7((
SJN!FM/!>!744/99
Pump Station #2
5((
FY!21.ZS!XTFM!>!747/2:
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
QS!21.ZS!XTFM!>!!745/54
Pump ID
QSPQPTFE!TUPSBHF!BU!
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
SPCFSU!GSPTU!FMFNFOUBSZ
P#2 SWP-18.5631.25629
SFQMBDF!41#!TFXFST!XJUI!6(!Y!6(!SDCDt
OXM!>!743/6
7((
P#2 SWP-28.5632.25630
GPS!JODSFBTFE!DPOWFZBODF!
IXM!>!749/6
P#2 SWP-38.5633.25631
UP!QSPQPTFE!QVNQ!TUBUJPO
WPMVNF!>!22/9!BD.GU
XPPE
WJFX!ESJWF
Prop 135-629
2
3
(
(
Prop 235-630
9((
Prop 335-631
T!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!745/89
FY!21.ZS!XTFM!>!747/74
QS!21.ZS!XTFM!>!745/66
2
3
(
(
59((
59((
X
P
71
((P
71((71((
E
W
J
F
X
NBZB!MBOF!
E
S
JW
F
MFHFOE
JOTUBMM!23.JODI!SFTUSJDUPS!UP!BMMPX
MPX!GMPXT!UP!CZQBTT!BOE!IJHI!GMPXT!UP!QSPQPTFE!TUPSN!TFXFS
CBDL!VQ!JOUP!QSPQPTFE!TUPSBHF!BSFB
TUPSN!NBOIPMF
7((TUPSN!TFXFS
F
JW
S
!E
O 23((
S 26((
P
UI
L 7((
D MFWFF!48
V
C
QBXOFF!MBOF
21ZS!3IS!TUPSN
26
((
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
1!.!2
2!.!3
23((
3!.!4
26((
29((
ZVN
B!MBOF
4.!5
5!.!6
32((
6!.!7
7!.!8
8!.!9
2
6((
23((26((
47((26?9
47((((
((2926((
26((
29(
(3((23
2((
FBTU!DBNQ!N
35((D!EPOBME!SPBE
35((35((
23
((
3((
23((2
23(
(23((
23((
NKC
ETHO/
UJUMF;
DMJFOU;
QSPK/!OP/26.1336
NKC
EXO/
EBUF;
DILE/FMH
2#>
TDBMF;
TIFFU!!!!!2!!!!!PG!!!!2
QMPU!EBUF;
ESBXJOH!OP/
DBE!VTFS;
OP/EBUFOBUVSF!PG!SFWJTJPODILE/NPEFM;
FY!9
GJMF!OBNF
1211311511
Gffu
2!jodi!>!311!gffu
26((
29((
23((
FBTU!DBNQ!N
D!EPOBME!SP
BE
23((
23((
23((23((
23((
2
9
(
(
FBTU!XP
PE!MBOF
32((
9
((
9((
2
3
(
(
65((65((
7
1((
UBOP
!MBOF
7
1
(
(
Pump #1 Park Drive Low CB (Rim El. = 635.67)
Storm EventEx Flood WSELPr Flood WSEL
2
3
(
(
2-Year636.77634.43
2
3((
5-Year637.44637.12
Pump Station #1
10-Year637.65637.58
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
(
6(
2
Pump ID
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
29 P#2 SWP-18.5631.75630
((
P#2 SWP-28.5634631
23
((
Prop 130-630
Prop 230-631
7
1
83(((
(
83((
83((
83((
2
3
(
(
83((
MFHFOE
9((
3((
((23((2
23((23
QSPQPTFE!TUPSN!TFXFS
3
2
QJO!PBL
!ESJWF
(
(
338((
5(
(
MFWFF!48
TUPSN!NBOIPMF
TUPSN!TFXFS
GMPPE!FWFOU
BU.SJTL!IPNFT
21.ZFBS!)5*
7((
23((
6.ZFBS!)2*
3.ZFBS!)1*
21ZS!3IS!TUPSN
9((
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
DIJOLBQ
JO!PBL!ES
JWF
2
3((
1!.!2
2!.!3
3!.!4
7((
7((
7
(
(
4.!5
5!.!6
2
3
(
(
6!.!7
FBT
U!FVD
MJE!BW
FOVF
59((
7!.!8
8!.!9
?9
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
9021026
1211311511
2
9
(
(
Gffu
2!jodi!>!311!gffu
2
9
((
MFHFOE
((
9
QSPQPTFE!TUPSN!TFXFS
41
((
44((
TUPSN!NBOIPMF
FBTU!XPPE!M
47 BOF
((
((
23
32((
TUPSN!TFXFS
MFWFF!48
21ZS!3IS!TUPSN
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
1!.!2
((
9
((
9
2!.!3
23
((
23((
3!.!4
4.!5
5!.!6
29((
23((
6!.!7
TJ
ULB!MBOF
QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
7!.!8
SJN!FM/!>!746/78
8!.!9
QSPQPTFE!TUPSBHF!BU!
FY!21.ZS!XTFM!>!748/76
?9
JOEJBO!HSPWF!FMFNFOUBSZ
QS!21.ZS!XTFM!>!747/5:
OXM!>!741/6
IXM!>!749/7
JOTUBMM!23#!SFTUSJDUPS!PO!FYJTUJOH
9((
23((
23((
WPMVNF!>!8/1!BD.GU
65#!TUPSN!TFXFS!UP!SFEVDF!GMPXT
UP!QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$2
2
3
(
(
UBOP
!MBOF
65((
65
((
65((
71
((
UB
OP!MBOF
7(
(
7((
23((
QSPQPTFE!65#!TUPSN!TFXFS
BMMPXT!GMPX!UP!CBDLVQ!JOUP!
TUPSBHF!BSFB!BOE!UIFO!ESBJO!
65#
GPMMPXJOH!UIF!TUPSN!FWFOU
2
1
(
(
29((
26
((
C
VSS!PBL!E
SJWF
2
3(
(
26((
83((
83((
Pump Station #1
83
((
83((
2
3
((
83((
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
P#2 SWP-18.5631.75630
9((
23((
23((23((23((
P#2 SWP-28.5634631
Prop 120-630
QJO!P
BL!ESJWF
338((
5((
Prop 220-631
38((
2
3
((
NKC
ETHO/
UJUMF;
DMJFOU;
QSPK/!OP/26.1336
NKC
EXO/
EBUF;
DILE/FMH
2#>
TDBMF;
TIFFU!!!!!2!!!!!PG!!!!2
QMPU!EBUF;
ESBXJOH!OP/
DBE!VTFS;
OP/EBUFOBUVSF!PG!SFWJTJPODILE/NPEFM;
FY!21
GJMF!OBNF
14117112-311
Gffu
2!jodi!>!711!gffu
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$4
Q
JQFS
!MBOF
MP
WF!E
SJWF
BQ
QMF!E
SJWF
X
JNC
MFEP
O!DJ
SDMF
DS
BCBQQ
MF!ESJ
WF
TFNJOPMF!MBOF
B
\[UFD!MBO
F
TFOFDB!MB
OF
)QVNQ!$3*!O!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!744/99
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!744/45
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$3
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!=!1/6!GU
N
P
I
B
X
L
!
M
B
O
F
X
P
P
E
NBZB
!MBOF
QBXO
FF!MBOF
)QVNQ!$3*!T!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!745/89
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!746/9:
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!2/22!GU
ZVNB!MBOF
FBTU
!DBNQ!ND!EP
OBME!SPBE
FBTU!XPPE
!MBOF
FBTU!DBSJC!MBOF
TJUL
B!MBOF
)QVNQ!$2*!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!746/78
MFHFOE
UBOP
!MBOF
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/:4
UBOP
!MBOF
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!2/37!GU
BU.SJTL!IPNFT!)8*
QVNQ!TUBUJPO
CVSS!PB
L!ESJWF
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$2
36ZS!3IS!TUPSN
QJO!
PBL
!ES
JWF
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
1!.!2
2!.!3
D
IJ
OL
BQJ
O!P
BL
!ES
JW
F
3!.!4
4.!5 FBTU!FVD
MJE!BWFOV
F
5!.!6
B\[BM
FB!QMBDF
6!.!7
B\[
BMFB!MB
OFJWZ!MB
OF
7!.!8
J
W
Z
!
M
B
O
F
8!.!9
CB
TT
XPLJPXB!M
PBOF
E!M
BO
F
?9
D
I
P
M
P
!
M
B
MFWFF!48
O
F
CJ
UUFS
TXF
FU!MB
OF
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
:027026
14117112-311
Gffu
2!jodi!>!711!gffu
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$4
Q
JQFS
!MBOF
MP
WF!E
SJWF
BQ
QMF!E
SJWF
X
JNC
MFEP
O!DJ
SDMF
DS
BCBQQ
MF!ESJ
WF
TFNJOPMF!MBOF
B
\[UFD!MBO
F
TFOFDB!MB
OF
)QVNQ!$3*!O!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!744/99
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/57
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$3
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!3/69!GU
N
P
I
B
X
L
!
M
B
O
F
X
P
P
E
NBZB
!MBOF
QBXO
FF!MBOF
)QVNQ!$3*!T!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
SJN!FM/!>!745/89
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/93
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!3/15!GU
ZVNB!MBOF
FBTU
!DBNQ!ND!EP
OBME!SPBE
FBTU!XPPE
!MBOF
FBTU!DBSJC!MBOF
TJUL
B!MBOF
)QVNQ!$2*!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
MFHFOE
SJN!FM/!>!746/78
UBOP
!MBOF
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!748/:6
UBOP
!MBOF
FY!GMPPE!EFQUI!>!3/39!GU
BU.SJTL!IPNFT!)41*
QVNQ!TUBUJPO
CVSS!PB
L!ESJWF
QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$2
MFWFF!48
QJO!
PBL
36ZS!3IS!TUPSN!ES
JWF
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
1!.!2
D
IJ
OL
BQJ
O!P
BL
!ES
JW
F
2!.!3
3!.!4
FBTU!FVD
MJE!BWFOV
F
4.!5
B\[BM
FB!QMBDF
5!.!6
B\[
BMFB!MB
OFJWZ!MB
OF
6!.!7
J
W
Z
!
M
B
O
F
7!.!8
CB
TT
XPLJPXB!M
PBOF
E!M
BO
F
8!.!9
D
I
P
M
P
!
M
B
O
?9
F
CJ
UUFS
TXF
FU!MB
OF
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
:027026
1261411(711
(
9
5
)QVNQ!$3*!O!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
Gffu
SJN!FM/!>!744/99
2!jodi!>!411!gffu
53((
B\[U
FD!MBOF 5
9((5
59((9((
T
FOFDB!MBO
F
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/57
QS!GMPPE!XTFM!>!745/48
Pump Station #2
2
3((23((
(
(
3
2
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
6(!Y!6(!SDCD
P#2 SWP-18.5631.25629
P#2 SWP-28.5632.25630
7(!Y!
6/6(!SDCD
P#2 SWP-38.5633.25631
Prop 1110-629
7((
4
7
#
Prop 2110-630
Prop 3110-631
2
1
(XPPEW
(JFX!ES
JWF
2
3
(
(
9((
QSPQPTFE!TUPSN!TFXFS!PO!QBSL!ESJWF
2
1 SFQMBDFT!FYJTUJOH!TUPSN!TFXFS
9
(
(
(
(
)QVNQ!$3*!T!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
TFNJOPMF!MBOF
SJN!FM/!>!745/89
2
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/93 3
((
4
7
QS!GMPPE!XTFM!>!746/77#
9((59((
5
7
1
((
X
P
P
((
71((71 E
W
JF
X
NBZB!MB!
OFE
S
J
W
F
47#
47#
2
3
((
2
1
(
(
QSPQPTFE!BEEJUJPOBM!47#
TFXFS!PVUMFU!UP!UIF!EQS
(
(
9
2
23((
((
26
7((
Q
BXOFF!MBOF
2
3
(
(
QSPQPTFE!TUPSN!TFXFS!QSPWJEFT
2
6
((
SFMJFG!UP!FYJTUJOH!USVOL!TFXFS/!!
OPSU
I!SJWFS!XFTU!DPVSU
26((
((29
ZVNB!MB
OF
26((
47((
26
((((
2926((
26((
29((
23((
FBTU
3((53((!DBNQ!ND
5((53!EPOBME!S
PBE
23((
23((
2
3((
23((
23((
2
9
(
(
41((
44((47#
35#
4
7
(
(
47((
FBTU!X
PPE!MBOF
32((
9
((
QSPQPTFE!TUPSN!TFXFS!PO!QBSL!ESJWF
SFQMBDFT!FYJTUJOH!TUPSN!TFXFS
2
3
(
(
(
9(
23
((23((
29((
23((
TJULB!MBOF
)QVNQ!$2*!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
MFHFOE
SJN!FM/!>!746/78
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!748/:6
QSPQPTFE!TUPSN!TFXFS
QS!GMPPE!XTFM!>!745/96
23
((23((
QVNQ!TUBUJPO
2
3
(
(
MFWFF!48
TUPSN!NBOIPMF
53#
5
3
#
65((
65((
65((
71((
5
3
#
UBOP
!MBOF
TUPSN!TFXFS 7
1
(
(
36ZS!3IS!TUPSN
2
3
((
7
(QSPQPTFE!53#!TUPSN!TFXFS!QSPWJEFT!(
7((2
3((
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*
SFMJFG!UP!FYJTUJOH!USVOL!TFXFS
1!.!2
2
3
((
2
1
(
(
Pump Station #1
2!.!3
CVSS!PB
L!ESJWFJWF
FO!ES
MUJD!HM
2 DF
3
((
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
3!.!4
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
4.!5
P#2 SWP-18.5631.75630
7
1
83(((
83((83((
(
2
3
(
(
P#2 SWP-28.5634631
5!.!6
Prop 180-630
9((
6!.!7
23((3((23((
2
Prop 280-631
3
2
(
(
QJO!PBL
!ESJWF
7!.!8
38((
8!.!9QSPQPTFE!BEEJUJPOBM!53#
TFXFS!PVUMFU!UP!UIF!EQS
((
23
6((21
2((
?9
(
2(
3
1
(
(2
DSFF!MBOF
2
3
(
(
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
:027026
JOTUBMM!7.JODI!SFTUSJDUPS!UP!BMMPX
1261411711
MPX!GMPXT!UP!CZQBTT!BOE!IJHI!GMPXT!UP!
ESBJO!JOUP!QSPQPTFE!TUPSBHF!BSFB
((
9
5
Gffu
2!jodi!>!411!gffu
)QVNQ!$3*!O!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
53((
B\[UFD!
MBOF
59((
59((59((
TFOF
DB!MBOF
SJN!FM/!>!744/99
9
(
(
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/57
QS!GMPPE!XTFM!>!746/12
Pump Station #2
23((23((Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
(
(
3
2
Pump ID
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
6(!Y!6(!SDCD
P#2 SWP-18.5631.25629
QSPQPTFE!TUPSBHF!BU!
5((
P#2 SWP-28.5632.25630
SPCFSU!GSPTU!FMFNFOUBSZ
9
P#2 SWP-38.5633.25631
(
OXM!>!743/6
(
6(!Y!6(!SDCD
7
7
#
!
Y
IXM!>!74:/3
Prop 140-629!
6
5
(
(
WPMVNF!>!29/1!BD.GU
Prop 240-630
7(
(
Prop 340-631
XPP
EWJFX
!ESJWF
2
3
((
9((
2
9
((
)QVNQ!$3*!T!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
TFNJOPMF!MBOF
SJN!FM/!>!745/89
(
(
9
2
3
((
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/93
59((59((
9((5
QS!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/47
59((
X
P
P
71((71((
E
W
J
F
X
NBZB!MBOF!
E
S
JW
F
JOTUBMM!23.JODI!SFTUSJDUPS!UP!BMMPX
MFHFOE
2 MPX!GMPXT!UP!CZQBTT!BOE!IJHI!GMPXT!UP!
1
(
(
BU.SJTL!IPNFT!)3*
CBDL!VQ!JOUP!QSPQPTFE!TUPSBHF!BSFB
7(
(
QSPQPTFE!TUPSN!TFXFS
23
2((
9((26((
7((
QBXO
FF!MBOF
2
3
(
(
QVNQ!TUBUJPO
MFWFF!48 2
6
(
(
TUPSN!NBOIPMF
TUPSN!TFXFS
((
23
36ZS!3IS!TUPSN
26((29((
ZVN
GMPPE!EFQUI!)GU*B!MBOF
1!.!2
2!.!3
OP
SU
I!S
JWF
S!X
FT
U!D
PV
SU
3!.!4
4.!5
2
3((26((47((2
6((
49((
7((226
5!.!6((
26((
29((
23((
FBTU!DBNQ!ND!EPOB
ME!SPBE
35((35((
23((
2
3((
23((
6!.!7 23((
23((
7!.!8
8!.!9
?9
4
1((
4
4((
35#
35#
4
7
(
(
FBTU 3((
!XPPE!MB 2
OF 32((
9
(
(
2
3
((
9((
)QVNQ!$2*!QBSL!ESJWF!MPX!D/!C/!
23((
3((
2
SJN!FM/!>!746/78
FY!GMPPE!XTFM!>!748/:6
29((
23((
QS!GMPPE!XTFM!>!747/89
TJULB
!MBOF
BEEJUJPOBM!TFXFS!SFRVJSFE!
JOTUBMM!23#!SFTUSJDUPS!PO!FYJTUJOH
UP!SFEVDF!GMPPEJOH!
23((
23((
65#!TUPSN!TFXFS!UP!SFEVDF!GMPXT
UP!QVNQ!TUBUJPO!$2
2
3
(
(
65((
65((
65((
7
1((
U
BOP!MBOF
7
1
(
(
QSPQPTFE!65#!TUPSN!TFXFS
BMMPXT!GMPX!UP!CBDLVQ!JOUP!
7((
7((
23((
TUPSBHF!BSFB!BOE!UIFO!ESBJO!
GPMMPXJOH!UIF!TUPSN!FWFOU
65#
2
3
(
(
2
1
((
CVSS
!PBL!ESJWF
O!ESJWF
JD!HMF
DFMU
2
3(
(
Pump Station #1
7
1
83(((
83(((
83((
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
QSPQPTFE!TUPSBHF!BU!
Pump ID
JOEJBO!HSPWF!FMFNFOUBSZ
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
OXM!>!741/6
P#2 SWP-18.5631.75630
9((
23((23((23((
IXM!>!749/3
P#2 SWP-28.5634631
3
2
(
(
QJ
O!PBL!ESJWF
WPMVNF!>!23/1!BD.GU
38((
Prop 130-630
Prop 230-631
2
3(21
(((
ETHO/
DILE/
NKCFMH
DMJFOUQSPKFDU!OP/
26.1336
EBUF
UJUMF
:027026
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Appendix 1
Cost Estimates
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
MOUNT PROSPECT
(CBBEL PROJECT NO. 150225)
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
DATE: August 24, 2015
LAST REVISED:
ALTERNATIVE 1: PUMP STATION 2 UPGRADE
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY$ 40.00200$ 8,000.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY$ 5.00350$ 1,750.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.000.07$ 700.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.00350$ 1,750.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT15.00$ 200$ 3,000.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT500.00$ 185$ 92,500.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT80.00$ 10$ 800.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT15.00$ 10$ 150.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT40.00$ 185$ 7,400.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00
1
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH800.00$ $ 800.00
1
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH500.00$ $ 500.00
1
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT35.00$ $ 7,000.00
200
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT25.00$ $ 5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM10,000.00$ 1$ 10,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM3,000.00$ 1$ 3,000.00
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH10,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
2
SUB-TOTAL$ 172,350.00
20%CONTINGENCY34,470.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$ 206,820.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
ALTERNATIVE 2: PUMP STATION 2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED PROSPECT HEIGHTS PUMP STATION
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 50.0045$ 2,250.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
$ 10,000.000.07$ 700.00
20100500TREE REMOVAL, ACRESACRE
$ 250.0010$ 2,500.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$ 40.00350$ 14,000.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY$ 5.00950$ 4,750.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.000.2$ 2,000.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.00950$ 4,750.00
28100109STONE RIPRAP, CLASS A5SQ YD$ 60.00120$ 7,200.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT$ 15.00260$ 3,900.00
44201000CLASS B PATCHES, TYPE IV, 12 INCHSQ YD$ 100.0075$ 7,500.00
44201745CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE III, 8 INCHSQ YD$ 80.0025$ 2,000.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT$ 500.00185$ 92,500.00
54213693PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 48"EACH4,500.00$ 4$ 18,000.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT$ 80.0010$ 800.00
550A0480STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 48"FOOT$ 150.00700$ 105,000.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT$15.0010$150.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT$ 40.00185$ 7,400.00
60223800MANHOLES, TYPE A, 6'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH6,000.00$ 1$ 6,000.00
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH9,000.00$ 1$ 9,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00
1
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$ 800.00$ 800.00
1
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH$ 500.00$ 500.00
1
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$ 30.00$ 1,200.00
40
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT$ 35.00$ 7,700.00
220
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT$ 25.00$ 5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM15,000.00$ 1$ 15,000.00
85000300MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONL SUM10,000.00$ 1$ 10,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM6,000.00$ 1$ 6,000.00
Z0033024MAINTAIN EXISTING LIGHTING SYSTEML SUM8,000.00$ 1$ 8,000.00
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH10,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
2
NALANDSCAPE RESTORATION (FENCE/ENTRANCE MONUMENTS/PLANTING BEDS)L. SUM20,000.00$ 1$ 20,000.00
SUB-TOTAL$ 394,600.00
20%CONTINGENCY78,920.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$ 473,520.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
ALTERNATIVE 3B: PUMP STATION 2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 50.00100$ 5,000.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
$ 250.004$ 1,000.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$ 40.0027100$1,084,000.00
20200100EARTH EXCAVATIONCU YD
$ 40.00440$ 17,600.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY$ 5.0013900$ 69,500.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.002.9$ 29,000.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.0013900$ 69,500.00
28100109STONE RIPRAP, CLASS A5SQ YD$ 60.0060$ 3,600.00
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD$ 80.00110$ 8,800.00
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT$ 7.00950$ 6,650.00
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD$ 15.00110$ 1,650.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT$ 15.00220$ 3,300.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT$ 2.00950$ 1,900.00
44201692CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE II, 4 INCHSQ YD$ 60.0015$ 900.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT$500.00185$92,500.00
54213693PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 48"EACH4,500.00$ 1$ 4,500.00
54213705PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 60"EACH8,000.00$ 1$ 8,000.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT$ 80.0010$ 800.00
550A0190STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 48"FOOT$ 150.00870$ 130,500.00
550A0210STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 60"FOOT$ 220.00215$ 47,300.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT$ 15.0010$ 150.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT$ 40.00185$ 7,400.00
55101900STORM SEWER REMOVAL 48"FOOT$ 60.00130$ 7,800.00
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH8,000.00$ 2$ 16,000.00
60224459MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH10,000.00$ 1$ 10,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00
1
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH2,000.00$ $ 4,000.00
2
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$ 800.00$ 800.00
1
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH$ 500.00$ 500.00
1
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$ 30.00$ 600.00
20
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT$ 35.00$ 7,000.00
200
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT$ 25.00$ 5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM15,000.00$ 1$ 15,000.00
X6020293MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, WITH 2 TYPE 1 FRAMES, CLOSED LID, RESTRICTOR PLATEEACH15,000.00$ 1$15,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM9,000.00$ 1$ 9,000.00
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH10,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
2
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBEREACH12,000.00$ $ 12,000.00
1
NAREMOVE BASEBALL FIELD EQUIPMENTL. SUM4,000.00$ $ 4,000.00
1
SUB-TOTAL$1,730,250.00
20%CONTINGENCY346,050.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$2,076,300.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
ALTERNATIVE 4: PUMP STATION 2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 40.00550$ 22,000.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
$ 5.00350$ 1,750.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY
$ 10,000.000.07$ 700.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE
$ 5.00350$ 1,750.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT15.00$ 200$ 3,000.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD80.00$ 350$ 28,000.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT500.00$ 185$ 92,500.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT80.00$ 10$ 800.00
550A0430STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 30"FOOT150.00$ 315$ 47,250.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT15.00$ 10$ 150.00
55101200STORM SEWER REMOVAL 24"FOOT20.00$ 150$ 3,000.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT40.00$ 185$ 7,400.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00
1
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH800.00$ $ 800.00
1
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH500.00$ $ 500.00
1
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT35.00$ $7,000.00
200
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT$ 25.00$ 5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM18,000.00$ 1$ 18,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBEREACH20,000.00$ $ 40,000.00
2
NAREMOVE EXISTING JUCTION CHAMBEREACH5,000.00$ $ 10,000.00
2
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH10,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
2
SUB-TOTAL$ 323,600.00
20%CONTINGENCY64,720.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$ 388,320.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
ALTERNATIVE 6: PUMP STATION 1 UPGRADE & PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 50.0030$ 1,500.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
$ 250.004$ 1,000.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$ 40.0014500$ 580,000.00
20200100EARTH EXCAVATIONCU YD
$ 40.00350$ 14,000.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY$ 5.006700$ 33,500.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.001.4$ 14,000.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.006700$ 33,500.00
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD$ 80.0050$ 4,000.00
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT$ 7.00200$ 1,400.00
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD$ 15.0050$ 750.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT$ 15.00240$ 3,600.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT$ 2.00200$ 400.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD$ 80.00250$ 20,000.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT$ 60.0020$ 1,200.00
550A0490STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 54"FOOT$ 190.00810$ 153,900.00
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT$ 15.00200$ 3,000.00
55101300STORM SEWER REMOVAL 27"FOOT$ 25.00135$3,375.00
55101500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 33"FOOT$ 45.00260$ 11,700.00
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH9,000.00$ 5$ 45,000.00
60224469MANHOLES, TYPE A, 9'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH12,000.00$ 1$ 12,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00
1
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH1,000.00$ $ 3,000.00
3
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$ 800.00$ 1,600.00
2
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$ 30.00$ 7,200.00
240
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM7,000.00$ 1$ 7,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM3,500.00$ 1$ 3,500.00
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBER WITH RESTRICTOREACH20,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
1
NAREMOVE EXISTING RESTRICTOR STRUCTUREEACH2,500.00$ 1$ 2,500.00
NALANDSCAPE RESTORATION (PLAYGROUND AREA)L. SUM5,000.00$ 1$ 5,000.00
SUB-TOTAL$ 989,625.00
20%CONTINGENCY197,925.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$1,187,550.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
ALTERNATIVE 7: PUMP STATION 1 UPGRADE & PROPOSED STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 50.00100$ 5,000.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
$ 250.006$ 1,500.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$ 40.00400$ 16,000.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
$ 5.00450$ 2,250.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.000.1$ 1,000.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.00450$ 2,250.00
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD$ 80.00100$ 8,000.00
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT$ 7.00500$ 3,500.00
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD$ 15.00175$ 2,625.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT$ 15.00300$ 4,500.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT$ 2.00500$ 1,000.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD$ 80.00270$ 21,600.00
550A0090STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 18"FOOT$ 80.00450$ 36,000.00
550A0120STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 24"FOOT$ 90.00470$ 42,300.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT$ 15.00680$ 10,200.00
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT$ 15.00240$ 3,600.00
60200205CATCH BASINS, TYPE A, 4'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH4,000.00$ 2$8,000.00
60203805CATCH BASINS, TYPE A, 5'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH5,000.00$ 3$ 15,000.00
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH$ 800.00$ 1,600.00
2
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$ 800.00$ 2,400.00
3
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$ 30.00$ 3,000.00
100
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM6,000.00$ 1$ 6,000.00
Z0004522HOT-MIX ASPHALT DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6"SQ YD$ 70.0075$ 5,250.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM3,000.00$ 1$ 3,000.00
SUB-TOTAL$ 205,575.00
20%CONTINGENCY41,115.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$ 246,690.00
THIS ESTIMATE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
A.LAND ACQUISITION
B.UTILITY RELOCATIONS
C.ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS OR RIGHT-OF-WAY
D.ACQUISITION OF IDOT PERMITS OR COUNTY PERMITS
E.FENCE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
F.IMPACT TO THE EXISTING FLOODWALL
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
MOUNT PROSPECT
(CBBEL PROJECT NO. 150225)
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
DATE: September 15, 2015
LAST REVISED:
1
ALTERNATIVE 8: 25-YEAR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT TAILWATER & PUMPS
2
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$50.00100$5,000.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
$250.0020$5,000.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY$40.007000$280,000.00
$5.001300$6,500.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY
25000110SEEDINGACRE$10,000.000.27$2,700.00
$5.001300$6,500.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD$80.00200$16,000.00
$7.001000$7,000.00
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD$15.00400$6,000.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT$15.001520$22,800.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT$2.001000$2,000.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD$80.005100$408,000.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH$4,000.001$4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH$4,000.001$4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT$500.0085$42,500.00
54010606PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 6' X 5.5'FOOT$600.00100$60,000.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT$75.00100$7,500.00
550A0120STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 24"FOOT$100.00605$60,500.00
550A0140STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 30"FOOT$130.00800$104,000.00
550A0160STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 36"FOOT$140.004186$586,040.00
550A0180STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 42"FOOT$160.002120$339,200.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT$15.00690$10,350.00
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT$15.00240$3,600.00
55100900STORM SEWER REMOVAL 18"FOOT$15.00330$4,950.00
55101200STORM SEWER REMOVAL 24"FOOT$20.00150$3,000.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT$40.00185$7,400.00
60203805CATCH BASINS, TYPE A, 5'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH$5,000.005$25,000.00
60221100MANHOLES, TYPE A, 5'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$4,500.008$36,000.00
60223800MANHOLES, TYPE A, 6'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$6,500.006$39,000.00
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$9,000.0015$135,000.00
60224459MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$10,000.001$10,000.00
60224469MANHOLES, TYPE A, 9'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$12,000.001$12,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH$2,000.00$12,000.00
6
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH$800.00$4,800.00
6
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$800.00$4,000.00
5
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH$500.00$3,000.00
6
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$30.00$9,000.00
300
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT$35.00$42,700.00
1220
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT$25.00$5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM$50,000.001$50,000.00
Z0004522HOT-MIX ASPHALT DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6"SQ YD$70.00200$14,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM$20,000.001$20,000.00
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBEREACH$20,000.00$100,000.00
5
NAREMOVE EXISTING JUCTION CHAMBEREACH$5,000.00$25,000.00
5
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH$10,000.00$20,000.00
2
3
NAUTILITY RELOCATIONL. SUM$1,000,000.00$1,000,000.00
1
SUB-TOTAL$3,571,040.00
20%CONTINGENCY$714,208.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$4,285,248.00
1
Does not include pump station cost
2
Based on 2015 dollar estimates
3
An allowance has been included for utility relocations, but the amount is not an upper limit
THIS ESTIMATE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
A.LAND ACQUISITION
B.ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS OR RIGHT-OF-WAY
C.ACQUISITION OF IDOT PERMITS OR COUNTY PERMITS
D.FENCE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
E.IMPACT TO THE EXISTING FLOODWALL
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 25YEARIMPROVEMENT
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
MOUNT PROSPECT
(CBBEL PROJECT NO. 150225)
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
DATE: September 18, 2015
LAST REVISED:
ALTERNATIVE 9: 25-YEAR STORM SEWER AND FLOOD STORAGE IMPROVEMENT WITH 10-YEAR FIS TAILWATER & UPGRADED PUMP STATION
2
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 50.00130$ 6,500.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH$ 250.0010$ 2,500.00
$ 40.0062500$ 2,500,000.00
20200100EARTH EXCAVATIONCU YD
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY$ 40.001390$ 55,600.00
$ 5.0030150$ 150,750.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.004.2$ 42,000.00
$ 5.0030150$ 150,750.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY
28100109STONE RIPRAP, CLASS A5SQ YD$ 60.00100$ 6,000.00
$ 80.00160$ 12,800.00
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT$ 7.001150$ 8,050.00
$ 15.00160$ 2,400.00
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT15.00$ 500$ 7,500.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT2.00$ 1150$ 2,300.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD80.00$ 1215$ 97,200.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH
50100400$ 4,000.001$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT$ 500.00185$ 92,500.00
54213693PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 48"EACH4,500.00$ 1$ 4,500.00
54213705PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 60"EACH8,000.00$ 1$ 8,000.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT$ 80.0030$ 2,400.00
550A0120STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 24"FOOT$ 100.00520$ 52,000.00
550A0140STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 30"FOOT$ 130.00680$ 88,400.00
550A0190STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 48"FOOT$ 150.00750$ 112,500.00
550A0210STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 60"FOOT$ 220.00215$ 47,300.00
550A0490STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 54"FOOT$ 190.00810$ 153,900.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT$ 15.0010$ 150.00
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT$ 15.00200$ 3,000.00
55101300STORM SEWER REMOVAL 27"FOOT$ 25.00135$ 3,375.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT$ 40.00185$ 7,400.00
55101500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 33"FOOT$ 45.00260$ 11,700.00
55101900STORM SEWER REMOVAL 48"FOOT$ 60.00130$ 7,800.00
60221100MANHOLES, TYPE A, 5'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH4,500.00$ 2$ 9,000.00
60223800MANHOLES, TYPE A, 6'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH6,500.00$ 3$ 19,500.00
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH8,000.00$ 7$ 56,000.00
60224459MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$ 10,000.001$ 10,000.00
60224469MANHOLES, TYPE A, 9'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH12,000.00$ 1$ 12,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 4,000.00
2
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH2,000.00$ 5$ 10,000.00
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$ 800.00$ 2,400.00
3
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH$ 500.001$ 500.00
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$ 30.00$ 9,000.00
300
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT$ 35.00200$ 7,000.00
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT$ 25.00$ 5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM22,000.00$ 1$ 22,000.00
X6020293MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, WITH 2 TYPE 1 FRAMES, CLOSED LID, RESTRICTOR PLATEEACH15,000.00$ 1$ 15,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM12,500.00$ 1$ 12,500.00
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBER WITH RESTRICTOREACH20,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
1
NAREMOVE EXISTING RESTRICTOR STRUCTUREEACH2,500.00$ 1$ 2,500.00
NALANDSCAPE RESTORATION (PLAYGROUND AREA)L. SUM5,000.00$ 1$ 5,000.00
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH10,000.00$ 2$ 20,000.00
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBEREACH12,000.00$ $ 12,000.00
1
NAREMOVE BASEBALL FIELD EQUIPMENTL. SUM4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
SUB-TOTAL$ 3,904,675.00
20%CONTINGENCY780,935.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$4,685,610.00
1
Does not include pump station cost (See Report Table 7)
2
Based on 2015 dollar estimates
THIS ESTIMATE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
A.LAND ACQUISITION
B.UTILITY RELOCATIONS
C.ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS OR RIGHT-OF-WAY
D.ACQUISITION OF IDOT PERMITS OR COUNTY PERMITS
E.FENCE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
F.IMPACT TO THE EXISTING FLOODWALL
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 Alt9.xlsx
AZTE
C LANE
SENE
CA LANE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MAYA LANE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>TANO
>LANE
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
BUR
R OAK DRIV
E
>
>
>>
E
IV
R
D
AK
O
IN
P
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
This Intergovernmental Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into
by and between the Village of Mount Prospect (“Mount Prospect”), an Illinois municipal
corporation and the River Trails Park District (“River Trails”), an Illinois municipal
corporation (collectively “the Parties”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Illinois, 1970, Article VII, Section 10,
authorizes units of local government to contract or otherwise associate amongst
themselves in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 5 ILCS
220/1et seq., authorize and encourage intergovernmental cooperation; and
WHEREAS, the Parties are units of government within the meaning of the
Constitution of the State of Illinois, 1970, Article VII, Section 10, having the power and
authority to enter into an intergovernmental agreement; and
WHEREAS, Mount Prospect seeks to reduce stormwater-induced flooding in
residential neighborhoods by constructing detention facilities and other storm sewer
improvements at and near Burning Bush Trails Park and Aspen Trails Park in order to
improve the storage and conveyance capacity of the municipally-owned separate storm
sewer system serving the area; and
WHEREAS, River Trails owns, maintains and operates Burning Bush Trails Park
located at 1313 North Burning Bush Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois, and legally described
as follows:
The West 10 acres of the following tract of land: The North 315.9 feet of the South 449.4
feet of that part of the Northwest ¼ of Section 25, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of
rd
the 3 Principal Meridian, lying West of the center line of River Road and also the North
210.6 feet of the South 40 rods of that part of the Northeast ¼ of Section 25, Township
rd
42 North, Range 11, East of the 3 Principal Meridian, lying West of the center line of
River Road, all in Cook County, Illinois
WHEREAS, River Trails owns, maintains and operates Aspen Trails Park located
at 1814 East Maya Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois, and legally described as follows:
The East half of the South West quarter of Section 26, Township 42 North, Range 11,
East of the Third Principal Meridian (except the West 38 acres of the West half thereof
and (except the East 20 acres of the East half thereof) and (except that part thereof
described as follows: commencing at the point of intersection of the East line of the
premises above described with the South right-of-way line of Euclid Road for a point of
beginning; running thence South a distance of 208.71 feet along said East line to a point;
tğŭĻ Њ ƚŅ ЊЋ
running thence West along a line parallel with the South right-of-way line of Euclid Road
a distance of 208.71 feet; and running thence North along a line parallel with the East line
of the premises above described a distance of 208.71 feet to the South right-of-way line
of said Euclid Road; thence East along the South right-of way line of said Euclid Road to
the Place of beginning) and (excepting from the premises above described that part
thereof falling within a 100 foot strip the center line of said strip being defined as follows:
Beginning at the north West corner of the South East quarter of Section twenty seven
(27); thence East along the North line of said South East quarter, a distance of five
hundred fifty (550) feet to the point of curve; thence in a general Easterly direction along
curved line tangent to said North line of the South East quarter convex to the Northerly
and having a radius of twenty four thousand five hundred fifty five and thirty five one
hundredths (24555.35) feet a distance of one thousand twenty eight and fifty seven one
hundredths (1028.57) feet to a point of tangency; thence in a general Easterly direction
along a straight line tangent to the last described curved line a distance of one hundred
sixty five and three one hundredths (165.03) feet to a point of curve; thence in a general
Easterly direction along curved line tangent to last described straight line convex to the
Southerly and having a radius of twenty four thousand five hundred fifty five and thirty five
one hundredths (24555.35) feet a distance of one thousand twenty eight and fifty seven
one hundredths (1028.57) feet to a point of tangency; thence East along straight line
tangent to last described curved line (said line being fifty (50) feet South of and parallel
to the North line of the South West quarter of Section twenty six (26), Township forty two
(42) North, Range eleven (11), East of the Third Principal Meridian), a distance of two
thousand four, hundred eighty seven and eighty one one hundredths (2487.81) feet to a
point in the East line of the South West quarter of Section twenty six (26); thence
continuing East along straight line (being prolongation of last described straight line) said
line being fifty (50) feet South of and parallel to the North line of the South East quarter
of Section twenty six (26), a distance of one hundred thirty five and thirty one one
hundredths (135.31) feet to a point of curve; thence in a general Easterly direction along
curved line tangent to last described straight line convex to the Southerly and having a
radius of twenty four thousand five hundred fifty five and thirty five one hundredths
(24555.35) feet a distance of one thousand twenty eight and fifty seven one hundredths
(1028.57) feet to a point of tangency; thence in a general Easterly direction along straight
line tangent to the last described curved line, a distance one hundred sixty five and three
one hundredths (165.03) feet to a point of curve; thence in a general Easterly direction
along curved line tangent to last described straight line convex to the Northerly and having
a radius of twenty four thousand five hundred fifty five and thirty five one hundredths
(24555.35) feet, a distance of one thousand twenty eight and fifty seven one hundredths
(1028.57) feet to a point in the North line of the South East quarter of Section twenty six
(26), said point being two hundred eighty (280) feet West of the North East corner of the
South East quarter of Section twenty six (26); thence East along straight line (being North
line of the South East quarter of Section twenty six (26) aforesaid, the North line of the
South West quarter and the North line of the South East quarter of Section twenty five
(25), Township forty two (42) North, Range eleven (11), East of the Third Principal
Meridian), tangent to last described curved line a distance of three thousand nine hundred
twenty one and thirty three one hundredths (3921.33) feet to a point of curve; thence in a
tğŭĻ Ћ ƚŅ ЊЋ
general Easterly direction along curved line tangent to last described straight line convex
to the Northerly and having a radius of two thousand eight hundred sixty four and ninety
three one hundredths (2864.93) feet, a distance of six hundred thirty eight and twenty two
one hundredths (638.22) feet to a point in Des Plaines River Road, said point being
seventy one and fifteen one hundredths (71.15) feet Southerly of the North line of the
South East quarter of Section twenty five (25) aforesaid (measured along Des Plaines
River Road), in COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
WHEREAS, the River Trails Board and staff have expressed support for
developing the Public Improvements in conjunction with planned Recreational Park
Amenity Improvements at the referenced facilities; and
WHEREAS, the costs for the proposed Improvements is estimated to be
$9,472,778; and
WHEREAS, Mount Prospect agrees to fund and River Trails agrees to allow Mount
Prospect to construct said Public Improvements and Recreational Park Amenity
Improvements in accordance with this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, terms and
conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals.
The above recitals are incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. Definitions
Section 2.1.“Public Improvements” for purposes of this Agreement shall mean
those improvements which improve the storage and conveyance capacity of the
municipally-owned storm sewer system serving the area, including, but not limited to,
detention basins, underdrains, inflow and outflow structures, storm sewer pipe and other
storm water conveyance and/or storage appurtenances.
Section 2.2 “Recreational Park Amenity Improvements” for purposes of this
Agreement shall mean improvements to recreational equipment and the layout and
landscaping of the parks.
Section 2.3. “Improvements” for purposes of this Agreement shall mean “Public
Improvements” and “Recreational Park Amenity Improvements” referred to together.
Section 3. Scope of the Agreement.
Section 3.1. The Agreement will cover Improvements in Burning Bush Trails Park
and Aspen Trails Park.
tğŭĻ Ќ ƚŅ ЊЋ
Section 3.2. The proposed Improvements are conceptually represented in
Attachment A and made a part hereof.
Section 3.3. The proposed Improvements to Burning Bush Trails Park shall
include, but not be limited to the following:
a. The Public Improvements shall include the detention basin, underdrains, inflow
and outflow structures, storm sewer pipe, and other stormwater conveyance
and/or storage appurtenances.
b. The estimated cost to construct the proposed Improvements at Burning Bush
Trails Park is $3,972,778. This sum includes a $1,607,100 estimate for
Recreational Park Amenity Improvements and a $2,365,678 estimate for the
Public Improvements.
c. Mount Prospect agrees to limit the total expenditures of River Trails to
$250,000 plus the $400,000 OSLAD Grant funds for all capital improvements
including Recreational Park Amenity Improvements and the Public
Improvements. Mount Prospect shall be responsible for the balance of costs.
d. The Recreational Park Amenity Improvements and Public Improvements shall
be procured and constructed utilizing separate and distinct purchasing
procedures. The River Trails will complete independent public bidding
procedures for the Recreational Park Amenity Improvements and Mount
Prospect will complete independent public bidding procedures for the Public
Improvements.
Section 3.4. The proposed Public Improvements to Aspen Trails Park shall
include, but not be limited to the following:
a. The Public Improvements shall include the detention basin, underdrains, inflow
and outflow structures, storm sewer pipe, and other stormwater conveyance
and/or storage appurtenances.
b. The estimated cost to construct the proposed Improvements at Aspen Trails
Park is $5,600,000. This estimate includes a $550,000 estimate for the
Recreational Park Amenity Improvements and a $5,050,000 estimate for the
Public Improvements.
c. The Recreational Park Amenity Improvements and Public Improvements shall
be procured and constructed utilizing separate and distinct purchasing
procedures. River Trails will complete independent public bidding procedures
for the Recreational Park Amenity Improvements and Mount Prospect will
complete independent public bidding procedures for the Public Improvements.
tğŭĻ Ѝ ƚŅ ЊЋ
d. Mount Prospect shall fund the costs of the Improvements at Aspen Trails Park.
Section 3.5. Mount Prospect agrees that it shall provide River Trails with the
ability to review and approve the plans and specifications for the construction of the Public
Improvements and the Recreational Park Amenity Improvements provided for in this
Section 2 of this Agreement and Mount Prospect shall conduct at least one public
informational meeting regarding such plans. River Trails agrees it will review such plans
and specifications within thirty (30) days of its receipt of same. If River Trails fails to review
such plans and specifications within this 30-day time frame and advise Mount Prospect
regarding its acceptance or rejection of such plans and specifications, such plans and
specifications shall be deemed approved by River Trails. Approval of such plans and
specifications shall not be unreasonably withheld. Plans and specifications for each of
the two parks can be approved and constructed independently. Specifically, plans and
specifications for Burning Bush Trails Park Improvements can be approved, and
subsequently constructed, separately and prior to the plans and specifications for Aspen
Trails Park.
Section 4. Anticipated Project Schedule.
Section 4.1. For Burning Bush Trails Park, the proposed construction of the
Improvements is anticipated to commence in 2019. Substantial completion of the
Improvements is anticipated by the end of the 2019 construction season.
Section 4.2. For Aspen Trails Park, the design and development of the proposed
Aspen Trails Park Improvements are anticipated to commence in 2019. Construction of
proposed Improvements at Aspen Trails Park is anticipated to commence in 2020.
Substantial completion of the proposed Improvements is anticipated by the end of the
2020 construction season.
Section 4.3. Notwithstanding any unforeseen circumstances, Mount Prospect
shall adhere to the best of its ability to the anticipated project schedule set forth herein.
If deviation or revision of this schedule is necessary, Mount Prospect shall advise River
Trails of the same and Mount Prospect and River Trails shall jointly accommodate any
issues that may arise as a result of the deviation or revision in the schedule. Construction
of the Improvements shall not commence until River Trails is satisfied that Mount
Prospect has provided sufficient assurance and security to reasonably guarantee the
design, construction and completion of all the Improvements according to the construction
schedule. For illustration purposes only, sufficient security may include performance
bonds posted by contractors, irrevocable letters of credit which can be drawn upon by
both Mount Prospect and, if necessary, River Trails, or any other legally permissible
assurance or security agreed to by the Parties. Further, all contractors performing work
on the Improvements shall warrant their work and such warranties shall extend to both
Mount Prospect and River Trails.
River Trails shall designate a representative for the Improvements project. The
River Trails representative shall be invited and permitted to attend and participate in all
design, pre-construction and construction progress meetings and shall be permitted to
tğŭĻ Ў ƚŅ ЊЋ
observe the construction work in progress during normal business hours. River Trails
shall be copied on all project-related correspondence.
Section 4.4. If it is necessary to demolish any River Trails facilities in order to fully
implement the approved plans, Mount Prospect shall be responsible for the cost of such
demolition/site preparation. It is agreed that River Trails will be given reasonable notice
which shall not be less than five (5) business days in advance of such action by Mount
Prospect in the event River Trails desires to salvage any fixtures from the site.
Section 4.5. It is agreed by both parties that if during the construction of the
Improvements, or at any time prior to such construction, Mount Prospect discovers
environmental contamination or hazardous materials on the River Trails property, Mount
Prospect shall handle and dispose of such materials pursuant to State law and at its own
expense. River Trails, as the owner of the parks, shall fully cooperate with Mount Prospect
with regard to any environmental remediation. This includes, but is not limited to,
execution of any documents regarding environmental remediation at the parks.
Section 4.6. Mount Prospect shall be permitted reasonable access to Burning
Bush Trails Park and Aspen Trails Park for the purpose of designing, constructing and
maintaining the Improvements set forth in Section 2. Upon providing reasonable written
notice, not less than five (5) business days, and receiving written approval from River
Trails, Mount Prospect also shall be permitted, upon the same notice and provision terms,
to access Burning Bush Trails Park and Aspen Trails Park for the purpose of performing
soil borings and other due diligence testing as may reasonably be required by Mount
Prospect. It shall be the responsibility of Mount Prospect to repair any damage to the
parks resulting from such activity. Any such damage shall be repaired within 30 days or
within a longer time frame as mutually agreed to by both Mount Prospect and River Trails
and shall be performed to the unilateral satisfaction and approval of River Trails, such
approval not being unreasonably withheld.
Section 5. Role of the Parties.
Section 5.1. For the proposed Improvements to Burning Bush Trails Park, Mount
Prospect shall:
a. Assume sole and exclusive responsibility for the design of proposed Public
Improvements.
b. Agree and affirm full responsibility for the maintenance of the Public
Improvements in perpetuity. Except for emergency situations, Mount Prospect
shall provide no less than five (5) days advance written notice to River Trails
before beginning any work or maintenance on the Public Improvements. In the
event of an emergency, if prior notice is not possible, Mount Prospect shall
provide notice at the earliest reasonable opportunity. It is agreed that
maintenance shall not include routine landscaping and lawn mowing. Any
damage to the Public Improvements shall be reported to Mount Prospect by
tğŭĻ Џ ƚŅ ЊЋ
River Trails within a reasonable period of time after it is discovered by River
Trails after which Mount Prospect shall be provided a reasonable period of time
to make such repairs as are deemed necessary.
c. Procure and construct the Public Improvements.
Section 5.2. For the proposed Improvements to Burning Bush Trails Park, River
Trails shall:
a. Assume sole and exclusive responsibility for the design of Recreational Park
Amenity Improvements.
b. Act as a professional consultant in the design of the Recreational Park
Amenity Improvements located within the stormwater detention basin.
c. Grant necessary easements to Mount Prospect, so that Mount Prospect may
design, construct, and maintain the Public Improvements.
d. Retain sole and exclusive responsibility for the maintenance and operation of
Recreational Park Amenity Improvements as well as other hardscape, turf,
and landscaping improvements.
e. Procure and construct Recreational Park Amenity Improvements.
f. Pursue a $400,000.00 OSLAD Grant to be used to offset the balance of the
cost of the Recreational Park Amenity Improvements.
g. Provide Special Recreation Funds for ADA compliance as needed with respect
to the Recreational Park Amenity Improvements only not to exceed $35,000.
Any additional ADA costs would be covered by Mount Prospect.
Section 5.3. For the proposed Improvements to Aspen Trails Park, Mount
Prospect shall:
a. Assume sole and exclusive responsibility for the design of proposed Public
Improvements. Except for emergency situations, Mount Prospect shall provide
no less than five (5) days advance written notice to River Trails before
beginning any work or maintenance on the Public Improvements. In the event
of an emergency, if prior notice is not possible, Mount Prospect shall provide
notice at the earliest reasonable opportunity. It is agreed that maintenance
shall not include routine landscaping and lawn mowing. Any damage to the
Public Improvements shall be reported to Mount Prospect by River Trails within
a reasonable period of time after it is discovered by River Trails after which
Mount Prospect shall be provided a reasonable period of time to make such
repairs as are deemed necessary.
tğŭĻ А ƚŅ ЊЋ
b. Agree and affirm responsibility for the maintenance of the Public Improvements
in perpetuity.
c. Procure and construct the Public Improvements.
d. Organize and host community meetings regarding the Aspen Trails Public
Improvements project.
Section 5.4. For the proposed improvements to Aspen Trails Park, River Trails
shall:
a. Assume sole and exclusive responsibility for the design of Recreational Park
Amenity Improvements. The design of the Recreational Park Amenity
Improvements shall be included in the construction costs covered by Mount
Prospect.
b. Grant necessary easements to Mount Prospect, so that Mount Prospect may
design, construct, and maintain the Public Improvements.
c. Retain sole and exclusive responsibility for the maintenance and operation of
Recreational Park Amenity Improvements as well as other hardscape, turf,
and landscaping improvements.
d. Procure and construct the Recreational Park Amenity Improvements which
shall be funded by Mount Prospect per Section 3.4.d.
e. Attend and participate in community meetings regarding the Aspen Trails
Public Improvements project organized and hosted by Mount Prospect.
Section 5.5. If at any time after construction of any of the Public Improvements,
River Trails desires to make modifications to existing facilities or install additional facilities
on River Trails property for which Mount Prospect has been granted a permanent
easement under this Agreement, River Trails shall provide Mount Prospect prior notice of
such modification prior to any work being conducted. Similarly, if at any time after
construction of any of the Public Improvements, Mount Prospect desires to make
modifications to existing facilities or install additional facilities in the same area of the
easement, notice shall be provided to River Trails prior to any work being constructed. It
is agreed by both Parties that neither Mount Prospect nor River Trails will construct or
modify any improvements in a manner that will interfere with the operation or maintenance
of the Improvements.
Section 5.6. Each of the parties is a key stakeholder that will be included
throughout the process and will have the ability to provide input in the project decisions.
tğŭĻ Б ƚŅ ЊЋ
Section 6. General Provisions.
Section 6.1. This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and governed by, the
laws of the State of Illinois, without regard to conflicts of laws principles. Any claim, suit,
action, or proceeding brought in connection with this Agreement shall be in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.
Section 6.2. This Agreement may not be altered, modified or amended except by
a written instrument signed by all Parties. Provided, however, the Parties agree that
provisions required to be inserted in this Agreement by laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations or executive orders are deemed inserted whether or not they appear in this
Agreement and that in no event will the failure to insert such provisions prevent the
enforcement of this Agreement.
Section 6.3. Unless otherwise specified, any notices, demands or requests
required under this Agreement must be given in writing at the addresses set forth below
by any of the following means: personal service, overnight courier or first class mail.
Section 6.4. River Trails shall retain specific authority to withdraw support for the
proposed Public Improvements at Aspen Trails Park or deny access to Aspen Trails Park
property for the purposes of constructing proposed Public Improvements in the event its
governing board expressly determines there is insufficient constituency support.
Section 6.5. At all times while this Agreement remains in effect, each party shall
procure adequate insurance and/or self-insurance to protect itself, its officers, employees
and agents from any liability for bodily injury, death, and property damage in connection
with the Improvements covered by this Agreement.
The limits of liability for the insurance required shall provide coverage for not less than
the following amounts, or greater where required by law:
6.5.a. Comprehensive general liability, with a general aggregate of $5,000,000.00 and
$1,000,000.00 for each occurrence.
6.5.b. Workman’s compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of the
laws of the State of Illinois, including occupational disease provisions, for all
applicable employees pursuant to this Agreement.
6.5.c. Comprehensive automobile liability, with coverage to include all owned, hired,
non-owned vehicles, and/or trailers and other equipment required to be
licensed, covering personal injury, bodily injury and property damage, with a
combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000.00.
tğŭĻ В ƚŅ ЊЋ
6.5.d. Each Party and its officers, employees and agents shall be named as additional
non-contributory co-insureds on all of the other Party’s insurance policies,
except Workman’s Compensation, during the entire term of this Agreement.
Said policies shall not be allowed to expire or be cancelled, nor shall said
coverages be reduced, without fourteen (14) days prior written notice to the
other Party.
6.5.e. Each Party understands and agrees that any insurance protection required by
this Agreement or otherwise provided by that Party, shall in no way limit the
responsibility to indemnify, keep and save harmless, and defend the other Party
and its officers, employees and agents as herein provided.
6.5.f. Each Party shall require any contractor performing any work on Property
subject to this Agreement to carry liability insurance and name the other Party
as an additional non-contributory co-insured under such policies. The first Party
shall furnish copies of certificates of insurance evidencing coverage for any
contractor performing any such work to the other Party.
Section 6.6. Mount Prospect may in its sole discretion and prior to the
construction of any Public Improvements declare this Agreement null and void by sending
the appropriate notice hereunder. River Trails may in its discretion, and prior to Mount
Prospect incurring the costs for design of the Recreational Park Amenity, Improvements
declare this Agreement null and void by sending the appropriate notice hereunder.
Section 6.7. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the
Parties and supersedes all prior agreements, covenants, arrangements, understandings,
communications, representations or warranties whether oral or written by any officer,
representative, agent or employee of either Mount Prospect or River Trails as relates to
these Improvements. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of all successors and
assigns of the parties hereto.
TO THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT:
Michael J. Cassady
Village Manager
Village of Mount Prospect
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
TO THE RIVER TRAILS PARK DISTRICT:
Bret Fahnstrom
Executive Director
River Trails Park District
401 East Camp McDonald Road
Prospect Heights, Illinois 60070
tğŭĻ ЊЉ ƚŅ ЊЋ
Section 6.8 Mount Prospect shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend River Trails and its
officers, employees and agents for and against all injuries, deaths, losses, damages, including
property damage, claims, suits, liabilities, judgments, costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees, which may in any way accrue against River Trails and its officers,
employees and agents as a consequence of the acts or omissions of Mount Prospect’s
officers, employees, agents and independent contractors pursuant to this Agreement, and
Mount Prospect shall, at its own expense, appear, defend and pay all charges of attorneys’
fees and costs and other expenses. River Trails shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend
Mount Prospect and its officers, employees and agents for and against all injuries, deaths,
losses, damages, including property damages, claims, suits, liabilities, judgments, costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, which may in any way accrue against Mount
Prospect and its officers, employees and agents as a consequence of the acts or omissions
of River Trail’s officers, employees, agents and independent contractors pursuant to this
Agreement, and River Trails shall, at its own expense, appear, defend and pay all charges of
attorneys’ fees and costs and other expenses.
A Party shall provide notice to the other Party pursuant to Section 6.7 of this Agreement
in the event that any person or entity shall in any way provide notice to the Party of any claim
or demand pursuant to this Agreement from which the other Party shall be obligated to
indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Party pursuant to this Section.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as prohibiting Mount Prospect or River
Trails, and their officers, employees and agents from defending, through the selection and
use of their own agents, attorneys and experts, any claims, actions or suits brought against
them arising out of the performance of this Agreement.
Section 6.9. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
Parties, merges all discussion between them and supersedes and replaces any and every
other prior or contemporaneous agreement, negotiation, understanding, commitments
and writing with respect to such subject matter hereof. This Agreement sets forth the
Parties’ understanding as to how the Improvements described herein will be carried out
going forward. It should not be construed as irrevocably committing Parties to undertaking
and completing the Improvements.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary above,
should Mount Prospect decide to terminate this Agreement at any time after work on the
proposed Public Improvements has begun, Mount Prospect agrees to
repair/replace/restore Burning Bush Trails Park and/or Aspen Trails Park to the same
condition as they existed prior to the start of work on the Public Improvements. The cost
of such repair/replacement/restoration work shall be paid for by and be the sole
responsibility of Mount Prospect.
tğŭĻ ЊЊ ƚŅ ЊЋ
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed
by their respective officials on the dates as shown.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT RIVER TRAILS PARK DISTRICT
By: __________________________ By: __________________________
Date: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Additional Quick talking points:
1. Irrigation
a. Meters are directed to Mount Prospect
b. RPZ’s inspected annually by Mount Prospect
2. Should “Access Points” be part of the IGA?
3. Do we need to define tree replacement in the IGA?
tğŭĻ ЊЋ ƚŅ ЊЋ
Phase II Stormwater Management Program
Project Application Form
1.Date:____________________________
ApplicationInformation
2.Organizationname:____________________________________________
3.Department:_________________________________________________
4.Streetaddress:________________________________________________
5.City,State,Zipcode:___________________________________________
6.ContactPerson:_______________________________________________
7.Contacttitle:_________________________________________________
8.Email:_______________________________________________________
9.Phone:______________________________________________________
ProjectDescription
10.Titleofproject:__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
11.Howwouldyouclassifyyourproject?ͻ{ŷƚǝĻƌwĻğķǤͼͻ/ƚƓĭĻƦƷǒğƌͼ
Note:Seepage5fordefinitions.
12.Provideabriefdescriptionoftheproposedproject:
1
ProjectLocation
13.Majorcrossstreets:_______________________________________________________________
14.Currentuseoftheprojectarea:_____________________________________________________
15.Describebrieflytheexistingconditionsoftheprojectarea:
16.Istheprojectlocatedwithinacombinedorseparateseweredarea?
CombinedSewer
SeparateStormSewer
Unknown:____________________________________________________________________
17.Causeoffloodingproblem:
Lackoflocalstormwaterdetention
Overwhelmedcombinedorstormsewersystem
Undersizedculvertsalongdrainageway
Lackofoverlanddrainageoutlet
Other,explain:________________________________________________________________
ProjectTimeframe
18.Istheprojectscheduledtobeadvertisedforbid?
Yes,provideestimatedadvertisementdate:________________________________________
No.
19.Whatisthedesignstatusoftheproject:
PreliminaryDesign
FinalEngineering
Other,Explain__________________________________________________________________
20.Estimatedcompletiondateofcurrentdesignphase:____________________________________
21.Estimatedstartdateforconstruction:________________________________________________
22.Estimateddurationforconstruction:________________________________________________
2
EstimatedProjectCosts
23.Estimated(Est.)ConstructionCost:________________________
24.Est.TotalProjectCost:___________________________________
Note:TotalCostincludesengineering,acquisitionoflandandeasements,construction,andall
otherrelatedprojectcosts.
25.Est.ApplicantFundingSpenttoDate:______________________
26.Est.ApplicantFundingCommittedinFuture:_________________
27.Additionalpotentialfundingsources(i.e.grants,loans,etc.)andestimatedamounts:
28.Isthereapossibilitythatthisprojectcanbecombinedwithanotherproposedprojectinthearea
affectedbyflooding(i.e.roadwayresurfacing,utilityimprovements,orotherinfrastructure
projects):
Yes,Explain:__________________________________________________________________
No.
OtherProjectDetails
29.Estimatedareaoffloodingimpact(acres):_____________
30.Estimatednumberofaffectedstructuresinprojectarea:__________________
31.Date(s)ofmostrecentfloodingoccurrence(s):_________________
Attachments
32.Checkifavailable(includeacopyofeachcheckeditemwithyourapplication):
Documentation/recordsofknowndrainage/floodingproblemsinthevicinityoftheproject
ConceptPlan/PreliminaryEngineeringPlan/FinalEngineeringPlanwithanyassociatedsupport
documentation(suchasdesigndrawings,constructioncostestimates,stormwaterand/or
designcalculations,etc.).
Hydrologicandhydraulicmodelingandresults
Mapidentifyingareasand/orstructuresaffectedbytheexistingfloodingproblem
ProjectVicinityandLocationMap
3
AuthorizedRepresentative
Name:_______________________________________
Title:_________________________________________
Organization:__________________________________
Signature:_____________________________________Date:_______________________________
Pleasenotethatsubmittalofthisapplicationandthe5źƭƷƩźĭƷƭacceptancethereofisnotintendedto
conferanyrightsontheapplicantorbindtheDistricttoaccepting/approvingtheapplication.Any
approvedapplicationsareultimatelysubjecttonegotiationandexecutionofanIntergovernmental
AgreementbytheDistrictandtheapplicantandapprovalbythe5źƭƷƩźĭƷƭBoardofCommissioners.
4
EligibilityRequirements
Projectmustbelocatedwithinthe5źƭƷƩźĭƷƭcorporatelimits.
Projectmustbeintendedtoaddressstructureflooding,notnuisancefloodingsuchasrearyardor
streetpondingissues.
Projectshallnotbeusedtosatisfyrequirementsofthe5źƭƷƩźĭƷƭWatershedManagement
Ordinance(WMO)orotherlocal,state,orfederalre
gulations.
ProjectstobebuiltbytheapplicantutilizingDistrictfundsmustbebidingeneralaccordancewith
the5źƭƷƩźĭƷƭPurchasingAct,whichincludesrequirementstopubliclyadvertiseandaward
contractstothelowestresponsiblebidder.
Applicantmustbeabletodemonstratewillingnessandcapabilitytoperformperpetual
maintenanceandrepairoftheproject.
Applicantmusthave(orbeabletoobtain)perpetualownershiporeasementovertheprojectsite
andproperty.
Applicantmustbeapublicagencycapableofenteringintoanintergovernmentalagreementwith
theDistrict.
InstructionsforCompletingtheProjectApplicationForm
11.Pleaserefertofollowingdefinitions:
a.ShovelReadyProjectsaredefinedasprojectsthathavefinalorprefinalplans,specifications,
ĻƓŭźƓĻĻƩƭestimate,andconstructionscheduledeveloped,orcouldbefinalizedinarelatively
shortperiodoftime.TheapplicantisseekingMWRDGCfundingassistanceforconstruction
relatedcostsonly;theapplicantwillberesponsiblefordesign,permitting,contract
administration,constructionmanagement,andoperationsandmaintenancefortheflood
controlproject.
b.ConceptualProjectsaredefinedaseither1)projectstoaddressdocumentedfloodingproblems
thathavenotbeendevelopedtoaprefinalorfinaldesignphase,or2)problemareaswherea
knownfloodingproblemhasbeendocumented,butnoengineeringanalysishasbeen
performedtoidentifyalternativesolutions.TheApplicantisseekingassistancefromMWRDGC
todetermineafeasiblefloodcontrolsolutionthroughengineeringanalysis.
12.Describebrieflytheoverallproject.Identifythegoalsordrainage/floodingproblemstheproject
willaddress.
27.and28.InanefforttoleverageDistrictfunds,wearerequestingallapplicantstoascertainthelevel
offundingtheycanprovideforthesubmittedprojectconstruction.Wearealsorequestingthata
listofotherpotentialfundingsourcesanddollaramountsareprovided,ifavailable.
5
30.Provideanestimatednumberofstructuresthathaveexperiencedorarepronetofloodingwithin
thelimitsoftheprojectimpactarea.IfdetailedHydraulicandHydrologic(H&H)modelingisnot
available,theimpactedstructurescanbeestimatedasthenumberofstructuresthathave
documentedbasementbackupsand/oroverlandfloodingwi
thintheprojectimpactarea.
AdditionalNotes
1.IftheprojectisacceptedintothePhaseIIProgramasaͻ{ŷƚǝĻƌwĻğķǤͼprojectandiffunding
assistanceisapproved,theapplicantwillberequiredtosubmitanoperationandmaintenance
(O&M)planandconductmaintenanceactivitiesinaccordancewiththeO&Mplanfollowingproject
completion.TheprojectsitewillalsobesubjecttoinspectionbyDistrictpersonnel.The
IntergovernmentalAgreementbetweentheDistrictandtheapplicantwilloutlinetherolesand
responsibilitiesofallinvolvedparties.
2.IftheprojectisacceptedintothePhaseIIProgramasaͻ/ƚƓĭĻƦƷǒğƌͼproject,th
ereisnoguarantee
thatitwillbeapprovedandfundedforfinaldesignand/orconstruction.
6
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION
DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF THE LEVEE 37 INTERIOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) entered into, by
and between the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, a unit of local
government and body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Illinois (the “MWRDGC”) and the Village of Mount Prospect, a municipal corporation and home
rule unit of government organized and existing under Article VII, Section 6 of the 1970
Constitution of the State of Illinois (the “Village”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2004, the Illinois General Assembly passed Public Act
093-1049 (hereinafter the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, the Act declares that stormwater management in Cook County shall be
under the general supervision of the MWRDGC; and
WHEREAS, the Act, as amended on June 18, 2014 by Public Act 098-0652, specifically
authorizes the MWRDGC to plan, implement, and finance local activities relating to stormwater
management projects in Cook County; and
WHEREAS, the Village is located within the boundaries of Cook County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11 of the Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/11, the
Village has the authority to improve and maintain Levee 37 within its corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, the Village proposes to construct two flood storage basins that combined
will capture approximately 30 acre-feet of stormwater and associated storm sewer upgrades to
provide the public benefit of reducing flooding in two different areas of the Village (the “Public
Benefit”); and
1
WHEREAS, the Village intends to design, construct, operate, maintain, and own two
proposed flood storage areas and associated storm sewers upgrades which will comprise the
Levee 37 interior drainage improvement project; and
WHEREAS, the Village’s proposed plans for the Project may be approached more
effectively, economically, and comprehensively with the Village and MWRDGC cooperating
and using their joint efforts and resources; and
WHEREAS, the size and scope of this Project would be substantially reduced but for the
MWRDGC's commitment of financial and technical resources; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 5 ILCS 220/1 et seq., and Section
10 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution, allow and encourage intergovernmental
cooperation; and
WHEREAS, on ______________ the MWRDGC’s Board of Commissioners authorized
the MWRDGC to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Village; and
WHEREAS, on __________,_____, the Village’s Board of Trustees authorized the
Village to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the MWRDGC; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the matters set forth, the mutual covenants and
agreements contained in this agreement and, for other good and valuable consideration, the
Village and MWRDGC hereby agree as follows:
Article 1. Incorporation of Recitals
The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
Article 2. Scope of Work
1.The work contemplated by this Agreement will consist of two phases include involving
the design and construction of two new flood storage basins and upgrade ancillary storm
sewers to provide a cumulative flood storage volume of approximately 30 acre-feet. The
storage basin at Aspen Trail Park will hold approximately 17 acre-feet of flood storage
2
below ground, and the storage basin at Burning Bush Trails Park will hold approximately
13 acre-feet of flood storage above ground and each will utilize upgraded storm sewers
(collectively the “Facilities”) as depicted on Exhibit 1. Phase I will involve the design and
construction of a new flood storage basin at Burning Bush Trails Park that will hold
approximately 13 acre-feet of flood storage above ground. Phase II will involve the
design and construction of a new flood storage basis at Aspen Trail Park that will hold
approximately 17 acre-feet of flood storage below ground. The construction of the new
flood storage basins and the upgrades of ancillary storm sewers (collectively, the
“Facilities”) is depicted on Exhibit 1. It is anticipated that the work on Phase I and Phase
II will follow separate and independent bidding and construction schedules with
completion of both phases taking approximately 36 months. All work to design,
construct, operate, and maintain the Facilities shall hereinafter be referred to as the
“Project.”
2.The Village, at its sole cost and expense, shall cause to be prepared construction drawings,
specifications, and details (hereinafter “Construction Documents”) for the Project.
3.The Project shall realize the Public Benefit of helping to alleviate flooding, located within
the Village, as shown in Exhibit 1A.
4.The Village shall provide MWRDGC with a copy of 60% and 98% complete Construction
Documents for both Phase I and Phase II for MWRDGC’s approval as to the Public
Benefit.
5.MWRDGC shall review and provide comments to the Village on both Phase I and Phase
II as to the Project’s Public Benefit in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of the
60% and 98% complete Construction Documents for each phase of the Project. The
Village shall incorporate MWRDGC’s review comments into the Construction Documents
for both Phase I and Phase II.
6.While MWRDGC will reimburse the Village for a portion of the Project, the Village bears
sole responsibility for the overall cost, expense and payment for the Project. The Village
shall construct the Project in accordance with the final Construction Documents.
3
7.To the extent practicable, the Village, its agents, contractors, or employees shall use
MWRDGC biosolids in any amendments performed to the soil of the Project area,
including but not limited to, landscaping. Subject to availability, MWRDGC will provide
the biosolids free of charge with the Village being required to pay for and make
arrangements for transportation necessary to deliver the biosolids to the Project area.
8.The Village will publicly advertise the Project and publicly award all Project-related
construction contracts to the lowest responsible bidder as determined by the Village. The
Village shall consider and act in general accord with the applicable standards of
MWRDGC’s Purchasing Act, 70 ILCS 2605/11.1-11.24, (attached to this Agreement as
Exhibits 2) when advertising and awarding the construction contracts. The Village shall
also require a payment bond and performance bond for all Project-related construction
contracts in general accord with the applicable standards of Exhibit 2. The Village may
impose more stringent requirements than those contained in Exhibit 2 when awarding
Project-related construction contracts, but in no event shall the Village’s requirements fall
below MWRDGC’s applicable general standards. The Village need not include the
attached Exhibit 2 as part of its bid documents. The Village is responsible for ensuring
that these applicable minimum requirements are met.
9.The Village agrees that the Project is a “Covered Project” as defined in MWRDGC’s
Multi-Project Labor Agreement for Cook County (“MPLA”) (attached to this Agreement
as Exhibit 3). As such, the Village agrees to be obligated as MWRDGC would be in the
MPLA and will ensure that the standards and requirements for “Covered Projects” will be
met for the Project, as applicable. The Village may impose more stringent requirements
than those contained in the MPLA when awarding Project-related construction contracts,
but in no event shall the Village’s requirements fall below the standards for “Covered
Projects” detailed in it. The attached Exhibit 3 need not be included as part of the Project’s
bid documents, however, the Village is responsible for ensuring that its applicable
minimum requirements are met.
10.The Village must comply with the applicable portions of MWRDGC’s Affirmative Action
Requirements and Affirmative Action Ordinance (attached to this Agreement as
4
Exhibit 4). Affirmative Action goals for the Project are: 20% of the total amount of
reimbursement to be provided by MWRDGC for the Project for Minority-Owned
Business Enterprises, 10% of the total amount of reimbursement to be provided by
MWRDGC for the Project for Women-Owned Business Enterprises, and 10% of the total
amount of reimbursement to be provided by MWRDGC for the Project for Small Business
Enterprises.
11.The Village will comply with MWRDGC’s Affirmative Action goals with respect to that
portion of the cost of the Project for which MWRDGC has contributed funds. The
determination as to whether the Village has complied with these Affirmative Action goals
is solely in MWRDGC’s discretion. If the Village fails to fully comply with these
Affirmative Action goals, as determined by MWRDGC, MWRDGC may withhold
payments to the Village up to or equal to the dollar amount by which the Village failed to
meet the Affirmative Action goal(s).
12.MWRDGC will have the right to access and inspect, with reasonable notice, any records
or documentation related to the Village’s compliance with MWRDGC’s Affirmative
Action goals and requirements.
13.In order to evidence compliance with MWRDGC’s Affirmative Action Requirements, the
Village must submit the following items to MWRDGC’s Diversity Administrator prior to
the start of construction: (1) a completed Utilization Plan, attached to this Agreement as
Exhibit 5; and (2) a letter from a certifying agency that verifies the vendors’
MBE/WBE/SBE status. Failure to timely submit a Utilization Plan or certifying letter may
result in a payment delay and/or denial.
14.Every 30 days from the start of construction until its completion, the Village must submit
to MWRDGC’s Diversity Administrator the following: (1) an Affirmative Action Status
Report (“Status Report”) attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 6; (2) full or partial lien
waivers from the participating MBE/WBE/SBE vendors, as applicable; and (3) proof of
payment to the participating MBE/WBE/SBE vendors (e.g., canceled checks), as
applicable. Failure to submit a Status Report and any supporting documentation may
result in a payment delay and/or denial.
5
15.The Village shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Act, 820 ILCS 130/0.01 et seq.
Current prevailing wage rates for Cook County are determined by the Illinois Department
of Labor. The prevailing wage rates are available on the Illinois Department of Labor’s
official website. It is the responsibility of the Village to obtain and comply with any
revisions to the rates should they change throughout the duration of the Agreement.
16.The Village, at its sole cost and expense, shall provide the final design of the Project, land
acquisition and remediation, and construction oversight and administrative support for the
Project.
17.The Village shall submit an Operation and Maintenance Plan (hereinafter the “O&M
Plan”) for MWRDGC’s review and approval. The O&M Plan shall be included as part of
the Agreement as Exhibit 7. At its sole cost and expense, the Village shall operate and
maintain the Project in accordance with the O&M Plan.
18.MWRDGC shall reimburse the Village for 24.57% of the total construction cost of the
Project, but in no event shall that amount exceed Two Million and NO/100 Dollars
($2,000,000.00) (the “Maximum Reimbursement Amount”). All funding provided by
MWRDGC shall be exclusively to reimburse the Village for the construction of the
Project. The Village will be responsible for securing funding or contributing its own funds
for all costs necessary to construct the Project in accordance with the Construction
Documents. For purposes of this Agreement, “construction” shall mean all work necessary
to build the Project as depicted in the Construction Documents. The Village shall be solely
responsible for change orders, overruns or any other increases in cost of the Project.
MWRDGC shall disburse funds for Phase I to Village in accordance with the following
schedule:
a.25% at receipt of invoices for 25% completion of construction of the Facilities
Phase I;
b.25% at receipt of invoices for 50% completion of construction of the Facilities
Phase I;
6
c.25% at receipt of invoices for 75% completion of construction of the Facilities
Phase I; and
d.Subject to the Maximum Reimbursement Amount, the remaining amount
necessary to cover 24.57% of the Project Phase I cost shall be paid upon receipt of
invoices for final completion and after final inspection by the MWRDGC. The
MWRDGC will only pay invoices submitted in strict accordance with this
schedule. The Village shall submit invoices for the representative percentage of
construction within thirty (30) days of meeting its respective completion
percentage.
MWRDGC shall disburse funds for Phase II to Village in accordance with the following
schedule:
a.25% at receipt of invoices for 25% completion of construction of Phase II;
b.25% at receipt of invoices for 50% completion of construction of Phase II;
c.25% at receipt of invoices for 75% completion of construction of Phase II; and
d.Subject to the Maximum Reimbursement Amount, the remaining amount
necessary to cover 24.57% of Phase II cost shall be paid upon receipt of
invoices for final completion and after final inspection by the MWRDGC. The
MWRDGC will only pay invoices submitted in strict accordance with this
schedule. The Village shall submit invoices for the representative percentage
of construction within thirty (30) days of meeting its respective completion
percentage.
19.MWRDGC’s Maximum Reimbursement Amount is based on the funding amount that
MWRDGC’s Board of Commissioners has approved and appropriated for purposes of this
Agreement for the current fiscal year. Any additional funding from MWRDGC beyond
the current fiscal year is subject to the approval of MWRDGC’s Board of Commissioners.
20.To date, the Village has spent approximately $168,411.54 on engineering, property
acquisition, and other design-related project costs. The Village will also contribute
7
approximately $6,138,645.00 towards total construction costs, including construction
inspection.
21.As a condition for reimbursement, the Village shall submit copies of construction invoices
to MWRDGC for MWRDGC’s review and approval, such approval not to be
unreasonably withheld.
22.The Village shall return all funds provided by MWRDGC if construction of Phase I and
Phase II of the Project is not completed in accordance with the Construction Documents
within two (2) years thirty-six (36) months of Village’s initial award of a construction
contract related to the Project, unless MWRDGC approves extension prior to the
expiration of the two (2) year completion period; such approvals shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
Article 3. Permits and Fees
1.Federal, State, and County Requirements. The Village shall obtain all federal, state,
county, and local permits required by law for the construction of the Project, and shall
assume any costs in procuring said permits. Additionally, the Village shall obtain all
consents and approvals required by federal, state, and/or county regulations for the
construction of the Project, and shall assume any costs incurred in procuring all such
consents and approvals.
2.Operation and Maintenance. The Village shall obtain any and all permits necessary for
the performance of any operations or maintenance work associated with the
improvements to be constructed by the Village in connection with the Project, and in
accordance with Article 5 of this Agreement.
Article 4. Property Interests
1.Prior to construction, the Village shall acquire any temporary or permanent easements,
license agreements, or fee simple title as may be necessary for construction, maintenance,
and access to the Project. Any property interests acquired by the Village must be
8
consistent with MWRDGC’s right to access the Project to conduct an inspection or
perform maintenance as set out in Article 5.
2.Should acquisition of property interests via condemnation be necessary, the Village shall
incur all associated costs, including purchase price and/or easement fee as well as any
attorney fees.
3.The Village shall record all easements, licenses, or deeds acquired for the Project.
4.The Village shall own all of the improvements constructed for the Project. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed as creating an ownership or property interest for
MWRDGC in any part of the Project.
Article 5. Maintenance
1.The Village, at its sole cost and expense, shall perpetually maintain the fFacilities, and any
other associated appurtenances in accordance with the O&M plan approved by
MWRDGC.
2.The Village shall conduct annual inspections to ensure adequate maintenance of the
Project. The Village shall prepare a report detailing its annual inspection, observations,
and conclusions including whether the Project is operating as designed, functioning, and
providing the intended Public Benefit. The annual inspection report shall be stamped by a
Professional Engineer licensed by the State of Illinois. The stamped annual inspection
report shall be provided to MWRDGC within thirty (30) days of completion.
3.MWRDGC shall have the right (including any necessary right of access) to conduct its
own annual inspection of the constructed Project upon reasonable notice to the Village.
4.In the event of failure of the Village to maintain the Project as described above to the
satisfaction of MWRDGC, MWRDGC may issue a thirty (30) day written notice by
certified or registered mail to the Village directing the Village to perform such
maintenance. If maintenance has not been accomplished on or before thirty (30) days
after such notice, MWRDGC may cause such maintenance to be performed and the
9
Village shall pay MWRDGC the entire cost MWRDGC incurred to perform the required
maintenance.
5.In the event of failure of the Village to maintain or operate the Project to provide the
intended public benefit, MWRDGC may demand that some or all of the funding it
provided under this Agreement be returned to MWRDGC.
6.In performing its obligations under this Article, the Village shall comply with all access
restrictions and notice requirements set forth in the easements, licenses, or deeds recorded
pursuant to Article 4 of this Agreement.
Article 6. Notification
1.Bid Advertisement. The Village will provide MWRDGC with thirty (30) days’ notice prior
to Bid Advertisements for Phase I and Phase II of the Project.
2.Construction. The Village shall provide MWRDGC with a construction schedule for Phase I
and Phase II and provide MWRDGC a minimum of seventy-two (72) hours’ notice before
the following project milestones:
Start of work for Phase I and Phase II
Substantial completion of Phase I and Phase II
Completion of work on Phase I and Phase II
Article 7. Termination by the Village
Prior to commencement of construction of Phase I of the Project, the Village may, at its
option, and upon giving notice to MWRDGC in the manner provided in Article 25 below,
terminate this Agreement as it pertains to the entire Project. The Village shall return all
Project-related funds received from MWRDGC no later than fourteen (14) days following its
termination of the Agreement.
10
Article 8. Termination by MWRDGC
Prior to Bid Advertisement of Phase I of the Project, MWRDGC may, at its option, and upon
giving notice to the Village in the manner provided in Article 25 below, terminate this
Agreement as it pertains to the entire Project.
Article 9. Effective Date
This Agreement becomes effective on the date that the last signature is affixed hereto.
Article 10. Duration
Subject to the terms and conditions of Articles 7 and 8 above, this Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect for perpetuity.
Article 11. Non-Assignment
Neither Party may assign its rights or obligations hereunder without the written consent of
the other Party.
Article 12. Waiver of Personal Liability
No official, employee, or agent of either Party to this Agreement shall be charged personally
by the other Party with any liability or expenses of defense incurred as a result of the exercise
of any rights, privileges, or authority granted herein, nor shall he or she be held personally
liable under any term or provision of this Agreement, or because of a Party’s execution or
attempted execution of this Agreement, or because of any breach of this Agreement.
Article 13. Indemnification
The Village shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless MWRDGC, its Commissioners,
officers, employees, and other agents (“the MWRDGC Party”) from liabilities of every kind,
including losses, damages and reasonable costs, payments and expenses (such as, but not
limited to, court costs and reasonable attorney fees and disbursements), claims, demands,
actions, suits, proceedings, judgments, or settlements, any or all of which are asserted by any
individual, private entity, or public entity against MWRDGC Party and arise out of or are in
11
any way related to: (1) design, construction, or maintenance of the Project that is the subject
of this Agreement; or (2) the exercise of any right, privilege, or authority granted to the
Village under this Agreement.
MWRDGC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Village, its Trustees, officers,
employees, and other agents (“the Village Party”) from liabilities of every kind, including
losses, damages and reasonable costs, payments and expenses (such as, but not limited to,
court costs and reasonable attorney fees and disbursements), claims, demands, actions, suits,
proceedings, judgments, or settlements, any or all of which are asserted by any individual,
private entity, or public entity against Village Party and arise out of or are in any way related
to: (1) design, construction, or maintenance of the Project that is the subject of this
Agreement; or (2) the exercise of any right, privilege, or authority granted to the MWRDGC
under this Agreement.
Article 14. Representations of the Village
The Village covenants, represents, and warrants as follows:
1.The Village has full authority to execute, deliver, and perform or cause to be performed
this Agreement; and
2.The individuals signing this Agreement and all other documents executed on behalf of
Village are duly authorized to sign same on behalf of and to bind the Village; and
3.The execution and delivery of this Agreement, consummation of the transactions
provided for herein, and the fulfillment of the terms hereof will not result in any breach
of any of the terms or provisions of or constitute a default under any agreement of the
Village or any instrument to which the Village is bound or any judgment, decree, or
order of any court or governmental body or any applicable law, rule, or regulation; and
4.The Village has allocated $6,138,645.00in funds for this Project, which are separate
from and in addition to the funds to be provided by MWRDGC under this Agreement.
12
Article 15. Representations of MWRDGC
MWRDGC covenants, represents, and warrants as follows:
1.MWRDGC has full authority to execute, deliver, and perform or cause to be performed
this Agreement; and
2.The individuals signing this Agreement and all other documents executed on behalf of
MWRDGC are duly authorized to sign same on behalf of and to bind MWRDGC; and
3.The execution and delivery of this Agreement, consummation of the transactions
provided for herein, and the fulfillment of the terms hereof will not result in any breach
of any of the terms or provisions of or constitute a default under any agreement of
MWRDGC or any instrument to which MWRDGC is bound or any judgment, decree, or
order of any court or governmental body or any applicable law, rule, or regulation.
Article 16. Disclaimers
This Agreement is not intended, nor shall it be construed, to confer any rights, privileges, or
authority not permitted by Illinois law. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to
establish a contractual relationship between MWRDGC and any party other than the Village.
Article 17. Waivers
Whenever a Party to this Agreement by proper authority waives the other Party’s
performance in any respect or waives a requirement or condition to performance, the waiver
so granted, whether express or implied, shall only apply to the particular instance and shall
not be deemed a waiver for subsequent instances of the performance, requirement, or
condition. No such waiver shall be construed as a modification of this Agreement regardless
of the number of times the performance, requirement, or condition may have been waived.
Article 18. Severability
If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, such
invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability will not affect any other provisions of this
13
Agreement, and this Agreement will be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable
provision has never been contained herein. The remaining provisions will remain in full force
and will not be affected by the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision or by its severance.
In lieu of such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable provision, there will be added automatically
as part of this Agreement a provision as similar in its terms to such illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable provision as may be possible and be legal, valid, and enforceable.
Article 19. Necessary Documents
Each Party agrees to execute and deliver all further documents, and take all further action
reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement. Upon the completion of
the Project, the Village shall provide MWRDGC with a full sized copy of “As-Built”
drawings for the Project. The drawings shall be affixed with the “As-Built” printed mark and
must be signed by both the Village resident engineer and the contractor.
Article 20. Deemed Inclusion
Provisions required (as of the effective date) by law, ordinances, rules, regulations, or
executive orders to be inserted in this Agreement are deemed inserted in this Agreement
whether or not they appear in this Agreement or, upon application by either Party, this
Agreement will be amended to make the insertions. However, in no event will the failure to
insert such provisions before or after this Agreement is signed prevent its enforcement.
Article 21. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, and any exhibits or riders attached hereto, shall constitute the entire
agreement between the Parties. No other warranties, inducements, considerations, promises,
or interpretations shall be implied or impressed upon this Agreement that are not expressly
set forth herein.
Article 22. Amendments
This Agreement shall not be amended unless it is done so in writing and signed by the
authorized representatives of both Parties.
14
Article 23. References to Documents
All references in this Agreement to any exhibit or document shall be deemed to include all
supplements and/or authorized amendments to any such exhibits or documents to which both
Parties hereto are privy.
Article 24. Judicial and Administrative Remedies
The Parties agree that this Agreement and any subsequent Amendment shall be governed by,
and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Illinois in all
respects, including matters of construction, validity, and performance. The Parties further
agree that the proper venue to resolve any dispute which may arise out of this Agreement is
the appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction located in Cook County, Illinois.
The rights and remedies of MWRDGC or the Village shall be cumulative, and election by
MWRDGC or the Village of any single remedy shall not constitute a waiver of any other
remedy that such Party may pursue under this Agreement.
Article 25. Notices
Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, any and all notices given in connection with this
Agreement shall be deemed adequately given only if in writing and addressed to the Party for
whom such notices are intended at the address set forth below. All notices shall be sent by
personal delivery, UPS, Fed Ex or other overnight messenger service, first class registered or
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, by facsimile, or by electronic mail.
A written notice shall be deemed to have been given to the recipient Party on the earlier of
(a) the date it is hand-delivered to the address required by this Agreement; (b) with respect to
notices sent by mail, two days (excluding Sundays and federal holidays) following the date it
is properly addressed and placed in the U.S. Mail, with proper postage prepaid; (c) with
respect to notices sent by facsimile, on the date sent, if sent to the facsimile number(s) set
forth below and upon proof of delivery as evidenced by the sending fax machine; (d) with
respect to notices sent electronically by email, on the date of notification of delivery receipt,
if delivery was during normal business hours of the recipient, or on the next business day, if
delivery was outside normal business hours of the recipient. The name of this Agreement i.e.,
15
“INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION
DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF THE LEVEE 37 INTERIOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT” must be prominently featured in the heading of all notices sent hereunder.
Any and all notices referred to in this Agreement, or that either Party desires to give to the
other, shall be addressed as set forth in Article 26, unless otherwise specified and agreed to
by the Parties.
Article 26. Representatives
Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, the following individuals will represent the
Parties as a primary contact and receipt of notice in all matters under this Agreement.
For the MWRDGC: For the Village:
Director of Engineering
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Mayor Village Manager
of Greater Chicago 50 S Emereson Street
100 East Erie Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Chicago, Illinois 60611 Phone: (847) 392-6000
Phone: (312) 751-7905 Fax: (847)-392-6022
Fax: (312) 751-5681 Email: mcassady@mountprospect.org
Email: oconnorc@mwrd.org
Each Party agrees to promptly notify the other Party of any change in its designated
representative, which notice shall include the name, address, telephone number , fax number,
and email address of the representative for such Party for the purpose hereof.
Article 27. Interpretation and Execution
1.The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not be construed against a Party by reason of
who prepared it.
16
2.Each Party agrees to provide a certified copy of the ordinance, bylaw, or other authority
demonstrating that the person(s) signing this Agreement is/are authorized to do so and
that this Agreement is a valid and binding obligation of the Party.
3.The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be executed in quadruplicate.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
and the Village of Mount Prospect, the parties hereto, have each caused this Agreement to be
executed by their duly authorized officers, duly attested and their seals hereunto affixed.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BY: ________________________________
Arlene A. Juracek, Mayor
ATTEST:
Karen Agoranos, Village Clerk
Date
17
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
_____________________________________________
Chairman of the Committee on Finance Date
_____________________________________________
Executive Director Date
ATTEST:
_____________________________________________
Clerk Date
APPROVED AS TO ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS, AND TECHNICAL MATTERS:
_______________________________________
Engineer of Stormwater Management Date
_______________________________________
Assistant Director of Engineering Date
_______________________________________
Director of Engineering Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
_______________________________________
Head Assistant Attorney Date
_______________________________________
General Counsel Date
18
Exhibits and Attachments
Exhibit 1: Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2: MWRDGC’s Purchasing Act
Exhibit 3: MPLA
Exhibit 4: Affirmative Action Ordinance, Revised Appendix D
Exhibit 5: Utilization Plan
Exhibit 6: Affirmative Action Status Report
Exhibit 7: Operation and Maintenance Plan
19
EXHIBIT 1 – PROJECT VICINITY MAP
20
Levee 37 Drainage
Improvement Project
MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater
Management Program
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Prepared for
Village of Mount Prospect
50 S Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
February 2018
Prepared by
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 W. Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
CBBEL Project No. 15-0225.00004
Levee 37 Drainage Improvement Project MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Management Program February 2018
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
1)Documentation of Flooding
2)Plans & Cost Estimates
3)Hydrologic & Hydraulic Modeling and Results
4)At-Risk Structure Location Map
5)Project Location Maps
6)2015 Levee 37 Drainage Study Report
7)Burning Bush Storage Option Memo
Levee 37 Drainage Improvement Project MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Management Program February 2018
ATTACHMENT 1
Documentation of Flooding
APRIL 18, 2013 FLOODING PHOTOS
Photo 1 – East Tano Lane & North Park Drive facing west
Photo 2 – North Park Dr just north of East Tano Lane facing west
Photo 3 – North Park Dr just north of East Tano Lane facing northwest
Photo 4 – North River Road
Photo 5 – North River Road
Photo 6 – East Tano Lane & North Park Drive facing south
Photo 7 – East Tano Lane & North Park Drive facing west
Photo 8 – North Park Drive facing north
TUVEZBSFB
TUVEZBSFB
Levee 37 Drainage Improvement Project MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Management Program February 2018
ATTACHMENT 2
Plans & Cost Estimates
AZTE
C LANE
SENE
CA LANE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
MAYA LANE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>TANO
>LANE
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
BUR
R OAK DRIV
E
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
Cost Estimate Summary Table
DescriptionCost
Aspen Trails Park Underground Storage Construction$5,585,594
Burning Bush Trails Park Above Ground Storage Construction$2,265,678
Design Engineering$287,373
Total$8,138,645
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
MOUNT PROSPECT
(CBBEL PROJECT NO. 150225)
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
DATE: December 22, 2017
1
PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE AT ASPEN TRAILS PARK & PUMP STATION 2 UPGRADE
STORM TRAP
17.0 Ac-Ft Storage (100-Yr)
2
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT$50.0100$5,000
$250.004$1,000
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$32.000$-
20200100EARTH EXCAVATIONCU YD
L SUM$3,536,554.001$3,536,554
StmTrap017'-6" DOUBLETRAP - MATERIAL AND FREIGHT
StmTrap027'-6" DOUBLETRAP - EXCAVATIONCU YD$32.0043206$1,382,588
L SUM$325,360.001$325,360
StmTrap037'-6" DOUBLETRAP - INSTALL/BACKFILL
L SUM$1,595,000.000$-
Contech0196" CMP System - MATERIAL AND FREIGHT
$32.000$-
Contech0296" CMP System - EXCAVATIONCU YD
Contech0396" CMP System - INSTALL/BACKFILLL SUM$1,007,280.000$-
$40.00940$37,600
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCU YD
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SQ YD$5.0017240$86,200
$10,000.003.6$36,000
25000110SEEDINGACRE
$5.0017240$86,200
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSQ YD
28100109STONE RIPRAP, CLASS A5SQ YD$60.0060$3,600
$7.00200$1,400
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT$15.0040$600
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT$2.00150$300
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD$80.00845$67,600
54213693PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 48"EACH$4,500.001$4,500
54213705PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 60"EACH$8,000.001$8,000
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT$80.0020$1,600
550A0190STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 48"FOOT$150.00845$126,750
550A0210STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 60"FOOT$220.00140$30,800
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT$15.0020$300
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$8,000.004$32,000
60224459MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$10,000.001$10,000
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH$2,000.001$2,000
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH$2,000.002$4,000
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$800.001$800
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH$500.001$500
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$30.0040$1,200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL SUM$7,000.001$7,000
X6020293MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, WITH 2 TYPE 1 FRAMES, CLOSED LID EACH$15,000.001$15,000
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL SUM$10,000.001$11,000
MOBILIZATIONL SUM$89,600.001$94,080
NAREMOVE BASKET BALL AND TENNIS COURTS AND FENCESL SUM$3,500.001$3,500
NAREMOVE BASEBALL FIELD EQUIPMENTL SUM$4,000.001$4,000
NA4" PERFORATED PIPE UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM (AT BASIN BOTTOM)FOOT$25.001800$45,000
NANEW BALL FIELD INFIELDEACH$54,000.001$54,000
NANEW BALL FIELD BACKSTOPEACH$27,500.001$27,500
SUB-TOTAL$6,053,532
1
Does not include pump station cost (See Report Table 7)20%CONTINGENCY$1,210,706
2
Based on 2018 dollar estimates
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$7,264,239
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225.00004\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\_BLL_EOPC 150225_2017-12-21 FOR MWRD GRANT.xlsx
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
MOUNT PROSPECT
(CBBEL PROJECT NO. 150225)
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
DATE: December 22, 2017
1
PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE AT BURNING BUSH TRAILS PARK & PUMP STATION 1 UPGRADE
OPEN BASIN
13.6 Ac-Ft Storage (100-Yr)
2
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT$50.030$1,500
$250.004$1,000
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$32.0026140$836,480
20200100EARTH EXCAVATIONCU YD
L SUM$2,830,950.000$-
StmTrap017'-6" DOUBLETRAP - MATERIAL AND FREIGHT
StmTrap027'-6" DOUBLETRAP - EXCAVATIONCU YD$32.000$-
L SUM$264,283.000$-
StmTrap037'-6" DOUBLETRAP - INSTALL/BACKFILL
L SUM$1,339,000.000$-
Contech0190" CMP System - MATERIAL AND FREIGHT
$32.000$-
Contech0290" CMP System - EXCAVATIONCU YD
Contech0390" CMP System - INSTALL/BACKFILLL SUM$842,680.000$-
$40.001310$52,400
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCU YD
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SQ YD$5.0017424$87,120
$10,000.003.6$36,000
25000110SEEDINGACRE
$5.0017424$87,120
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSQ YD
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD$80.00440$35,200
$7.002875$20,125
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT
$15.0050$750
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT$15.00260$3,900
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT$2.002875$5,750
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD$80.001174$93,920
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT$60.0050$3,000
550A0490STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 54"FOOT$190.001150$218,500
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT$15.000$-
55101300STORM SEWER REMOVAL 27"FOOT$25.000$-
55101500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 33"FOOT$45.000$-
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$9,000.006$54,000
60224469MANHOLES, TYPE A, 9'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$12,000.001$12,000
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH$2,000.00$2,000
1
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH$1,000.000$-
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$800.00$-
0
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$30.00$7,800
260
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL SUM$7,000.001$7,000
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL SUM$10,000.001$10,000
MOBILIZATIONL SUM$87,000.001$87,000
NAREMOVE EXISTING RESTRICTOR STRUCTUREEACH$2,500.000$-
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBER WITH RESTRICTOREACH$20,000.00$20,000
1
NA4" PERFORATED PIPE UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM (AT BASIN BOTTOM)FOOT$25.001700$42,500
NANEW BALL FIELD INFIELDEACH$54,000.002$108,000
NANEW BALL FIELD BACKSTOPEACH$27,500.002$55,000
NALANDSCAPE RESTORATION (PLAYGROUND AREA)L SUM$5,000.000$-
SUB-TOTAL$1,888,065
1
Does not include pump station cost (See Report Table 7)20%CONTINGENCY$377,613
2
Based on 2018 dollar estimates
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$2,265,678
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225.00004\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\_BLL_EOPC 150225_2017-12-21 FOR MWRD GRANT.xlsx
1200 Harger Road, Suite 707
Oak Brook, IL 60523
Phone: (773) 661.9794
amargetis@conteches.com
www.ContechES.com
February 6, 2018
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, LLC
9575 W. Higgins Road
Rosemont, IL 60018
Project: Mt. Prospect Levee 37
Re: Aluminized CMP Installed Cost Budget Three Detention Areas
Thank you for contacting Contech Engineered Solutions LLC to assist in designing an underground
detention systems for flood control purposes.
We understand three separate storage areas are under consideration with the following required
storage volumes:
Aspen Trails Park 17 Acre-Feet
Indian Grove Elementary 8.6 Acre-Feet
Burning Bush Trails Park 13.4 Acre-Feet
Below are material and installation estimates for utilizing Aluminized CMP for the project based on
current market conditions. Please note this estimate DOES include haul off of excess spoils from the
site and excludes any applicable taxes.
ΛƒźƓźƒǒƒ ĭƚǝĻƩΜ ƷŷĻ ƦźƦĻ ΛĬĻķķźƓŭ ķĻƦƷŷΜ ǞźƷŷ ЊЋƒĻƷĻƩ ƭƷƚƓĻ ğƩƚǒƓķ ƷŷĻ ƭǤƭƷĻƒ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ğ ЊʹЊ ƚǝĻƩΏķźŭ͵ Unit Price and quantities used for this project estimate include:
Aspen Trails Park:
96" Diameter Materials Delivered to Site:
CMP$ 1,595,000.00
Excavation & Haul Off of Spoils43,188C.Y. @$ 35.00 Per C.Y.$ 1,511,580.00
Crew & Equip (Dig, Set, Backfill)41Days @$ 5,000.00 Total$ 205,000.00
Stone base and backfill for storage
20,057C.Y. @$ 40.00Per C.Y.$ 802,280.00
(From 12" Cover to bottom of stone):
4 inch stone base
Estimated Subtotal for Installation:
$ 2,518,860.00
Total Estimated Cost for Material, Freight, and Installation:
$ 4,113,860.00
- See Next Page -
1200 Harger Road, Suite 707
Oak Brook, IL 60523
Phone: (773) 661.9794
amargetis@conteches.com
www.ContechES.com
Indian Grove Elementary:
96" Diameter Materials Delivered to Site:
CMP$ 824,000.00
Excavation & Haul Off of Spoils22,345C.Y. @$ 35.00 Per C.Y.$ 782,075.00
Crew & Equip (Dig, Set, Backfill)22Days @$ 5,000.00 Total$ 110,000.00
Stone base and backfill for storage
10,639C.Y. @$ 40.00 Per C.Y.$ 425,560.00
(From 12" Cover to bottom of stone):
4 inch stone base
Estimated Subtotal for Installation:
$ 1,317,635.00
Total Estimated Cost for Material, Freight, and Installation:
$ 2,141,635.00
Burning Bush Trails Park:
90" Diameter Materials Delivered to Site:
CMP$ 1,339,000.00
Excavation & Haul Off of Spoils34,707C.Y. @$ 35.00 Per C.Y.$ 1,214,745.00
Crew & Equip (Dig, Set, Backfill)36Days @$ 5,000.00 Total$ 180,000.00
Stone base and backfill for storage
16,567C.Y. @$ 40.00 Per C.Y.$ 662,680.00
(From 12" Cover to bottom of stone):
4 inch stone base
Estimated Subtotal for Installation:
$ 2,057,425.00
Total Estimated Cost for Material, Freight, and Installation:
$ 3,396,425.00
Conclusion:
The cost estimates above roughly range from $242,000 to $254,000 per Acre-Foot of storage. Using
the mid-point of the range and adding a 15% contingency yields roughly $285,000 per Acre-Foot of
storage.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our assistance on this project and look forward to working
Respectfully Submitted,
A.J. Margetis
Regional Sales Engineer
Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC
Levee 37 Drainage Improvement Project MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Management Program February 2018
ATTACHMENT 3
Hydrologic & Hydraulic Modeling Results
QVNQTUBUJPO$3
QSPQPTFETUPSBHF
BUBTQFOUSBJMTQBSL
QVNQTUBUJPO$2
QSPQPTFETUPSBHF
BUCVSOJOHCVTI
USBJMTQBSL
0150300600
Feet
N
1 inch = 150 feet
!H
P8
Node34
!
H
Node33
!H
Node19
Node32
!H
!H
!H
P12!H
!H
Node18
!H
629
6
Node29 32
640 Node30Node31!H 633
634
!H 640
!H
!H
!H!H
!H
!!
HH
!H!H
30''!H
5''15>>>>
1''>>>637
>30''
30''>>
>
!
!HH
>!H
!H>>>H!>>!!
HH
!H SEMINOLE LAN
!H E
!H!N4
H
!H
!H!H
!
H!!N11
HH
!H
!H
>15''8''
>
>
!H!
!H>>>H
>>>!
!HH
!
H
!H
!H
!H
2009
2017
Node2918221829
Node31
!
H
N11N11
2109
200320052007
201120132015
20192021
2103
!
H
Node29N11!
Node29Node29Node29 H!H
644 Node29Node29
Node31N11
N11
2105
!H
2107
1827
1820!H N11
640
N11
N11
!
!H N11
H
75
!H
!
H
!H
!H
!
H
1818
1825
N7
!H
202049
49
2018
1821
2006
2008201020122014
2016
N13
N13
49
N12N12N12
N12N12
N13
1816!H
!H!H
49
!
H
!
H
!H
49
2022
N8
!H
N5
N9
AZTEC LANE N6N12
N10
42''48''!H!
H
1819
42''48''48''!H
48''N131814!
H
!
>>H>>
>!H>>>!H
>>>SENECA LANE>>!>
>!H>!!H H>>>>>>>!H>
H>>!H>>>
!H
!H!
!H!H 49
!H H
49
!H!H
!H
!!H N13
H
2024
!H
!
H
1812!
H
!
!HH
N14
1817
N15
49
!H
200720092011
2013!
H
!H
N15
N12N12N13
2015
N132026
1815
!
H
N13N15
!H
2017
N15
N13
2019
!H N13
1813
!H
2021
!H
!
H N15
N14N16
N14
!H!H
2023!H!H!
!HH
1811
N14
N14
2025!
!HH
12''12''!H
>
>644
!H
!H!H!H
N14
!N17
H
!!
HH 1809
!H 489
!H
!
N14 H
1806
!H
!H 582
WINTERGREEN AVE
NUE
!H
!H
N14
!H
N18
583
!H
!!
!H H H
!H
!
!HH!
H
!
H!H
1807
Node787
!H
1804
N14
634
N14
481
1805
!H N14
!H!H
Node761
!H
!1803
H
1802
N28
N38
579
N28
477
!H
!H
!!H
H
!H
577
!H
1801
!H 575
!H
N37
!H
N28
!H
!H!H
6
>''
>>!H
643
!H
576
574
1715
641
N28
N28
2023
12''
!>
H!H
!N28
H!H
!H
WOODVIEW DRIVE
20251713
!H
!H
!H 466
!H
!H
N28N28
!H
641
!H
!
H
1711
1712
!
H
2020
N28
!H
!H N28
>>8''>
!
H N27
!!!
HHH
!H 1709 633
1710
2022
N28
N27
!
H
N27
!H
!H
!!
HH
!H
!H!H!H
1707
N27
1708
N27
1705
N27
!
H
N27
!
H
!
!H H
!H
1703
!H
N27
!
H
!H
463
!H
!H!
1614!H
H
1701
!H
2023
N26
N26
N27
N19
48''N20
N26
!H!
H
>!
H!
!H
!148 H!H
H 641
!H!H 452
!N21N24
H!!H 154
H!H!
H
60''60''
!
MAYA LANE H
!H!H
!H>>>>!H
!H>>>>>!>>>
H!H
!!H!
!H!HH H
!H!H!H!H
!641
H
3
64
!H 1612
!H!
H
N26
!H
1613
1620
N26
!H!H
!H
N21
1608
N25
!H 461
!H
1611
1617!H
!
!H
H
N26!H!
H
N21
1602
462
N25
!H
1609
Node719
!
H
N25
!H!
H
N22
!H
!H
!
H
!
H
!
!H N25 H
!
H
!
H
!
H!H!
!H 1607
H
!H
!
H!H!
H
N25
!H
635
12!H
''!H
6''
!H!
H!H>>!
>>>!>>H
!H>>H>>>>
PAWNEE LANE>!H>
!H!H!
H
N36
1605
!H
!H
N25
!H
!H
641
N23
!H
!
H
Node718
641
!
H>!H
!H!H 633
!H
!>!H
H
Node705
!H
12''
!
H
!
!H
H
1509
!
H
!H
Node717
Node737
!H
15''!H Node737
18''
!H
!H>>
!H>>>>!>>>>>>!H!H
YUMA LANE H
24''!H!
H
!H
!H
!H
639
1505
Node737
!
H
!
H
1503
Node704
N35
!
H
!H
!H
1500!H
!H
1924
Node704
Node735
1501
N35
!H
Node730Node732
Node733
!H
N34Node734
36''Node735
N35
18''
!!H!15''
HH!H!H!15''
H!15''
!H>>>H!H!H!
>>>>!HH!H>
>!H!H>642!H>>>12''12''
!H>!H!!>>
>>HH!H!H
!H!H!H>!H>>>>
!H>>!H>>>>>
!H!>!H
!!HH!H!
H!H!H!HH!H!H>!H
!H!H
!H
Node728
N33 EAST CAMP MC DONALD ROAD
Node727
42''
!>
>H>>!H
>!>
H 12''
!!H!H!12''12''
H!!H!H!H!H!!HH
H H!!!>12''>>>
H!HHH>!H
!H
!H!>!
!H!H>!>HH
H>>!H>>!!!H
HH!
H
!H
641
!H
636
46 1925
6
1905
1919
N30
Node735
Node734Node735
!H
!H
!
H!H!
H
!H
!H
641633
!
H
!H
!H
!
H
!H
!H
1928
!Node701
H
Node702
641
N35
!H
!
H
!
H!
H
!H
S13
!
H
!H
!H
639
1425
183 S14
187
!
H
30''
33''
S6
N29
>632
>>!H>>
>!H!H
!!H
H!
!H!H
H!H
!H!H
!H
!
H
!H
S5
!H!H
194195202!
196 H
204 E!H
AST WOOD LANE 1423
!H 12''639
!H 21''
>>
!H!
!H>H
>>>
>!H!H!H
!!H!H
H!H>>
!!
!H!HH H S14
!H
642
1421
S14
S14
!
H
!H
1418!
H
!
H
1417
1419
S14
!H S5
S14
!H!H
!H!S39
!HH
!H
1416
!!H!H
H
!H
!H
S151417
12'!H
'
>>
!H
!H
!H S14
641
!H
1414
1413
641
S151415
S5
S15
!
H
12''18''
1412
>>>!H>>
>>>>!H
!
H S15
294
S151413
SITKA LANE
!
H
!
H
!H
!H
205 S15!
H
!H
293
!H!
!H
H 1410
!H
!H
1411
S15
!H
S15
1408
1409
S16
S16
640
1406
8''
12''1407
!12''S16
H!H>>
>
!H
>>!
>!H
!HH
S16
S16
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
1404
!H
S16
1405
S16
S38
!H
!!
1402 HH
!
H
206 S16
!H 1403
!H!
H
!H
S8
!H
!H
S16
210
!H!H
!
H
1400
!H
!H
!
H
269
!H
1401
S7
!H
!!H!H 256!
H 54''H S10
269
54''
54''
269
60''
>>
TANO LANE>!H>>
>>>
>!H>>>>
>>!H>!H
!H>!H
!>
H!
H
!H
!H
!H
!H S17
!
H
!H
!H
!H
!H
S36
!
H
!H!H
!H
!H
643
2017
S9
2019
S37
S17!H
!H
!2021
H S17
!H
!H
!H
!H
S17
!
6''H
12''
>
>>12''
>>
!H>>
>!
642 H!H
!H!>
!HH!H!
H
LEGEND
!H
643
217
Node757Node758
15''
!H 632
>>!
H
!H
!H
XPSWMM Nodes
!H!H
223
!
H S34
!
!HH
S35
!H
!H
!H!H!H
!
!!H
H H
639
!H>!H
!H>!!H
H
!H!
!H!H
H
!H
STORM MANHOLE BURR OAK DRIV
E
!H 326
!H
!H
S33
!
!HH
!
!H 642 H!
H
!H
!H
644
!H
>>
STORM SEWER
Node784
336
!
H
!H
!H
S11
AT-RISK STRUCTURES
!!
HH!H 72''
72''!H>>!H
!H 72''
!>>>72>''>>>
H
!H>>
>!>>!>>
HH S32
72''
72''
643!H
!!H
H
72''
!H>>>>
!H
>>>>
!
640>>>>!HH
!
H
APRIL 2013 FLOOD EXTENTS
337
!H
Node753
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY Node760
8''
12''12''
12''12''
!H>>
!H
!
H>!!H
!H>!H>!HH!H
Node754
!
H
!H
!H
LEVEE 37
PIN OAK DRIVE
Node755
!H
Node751
S31
S30
27''
27''
!
H>>>!H
>!H
!>>
H!H
!H
!!H
H
!H
!
H
DSN.MJB
TITLE:
CLIENT:
PROJ. NO.15-0225
CHKD.
ELG
SCALE
SHEET 1 OF 1
GIS USER
No.DATENATURE OF REVISIONMODELArcGIS 9.2
DRAWING NO.
FILE NAME:
DATE:
EXISTING CONDITIONS XPSWMM NODE HYDROGRAPHS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS XPSWMM NODE HYDROGRAPHS
TAILWATER DETERMINATION
Levee 37 Drainage Improvement Project MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Management Program February 2018
ATTACHMENT 4
At-Risk Structure Map
0150300600
Feet
N
1 inch = 150 feet
!H
P8
Node34
!
H
Node33
!H
Node19
Node32
!H
!H
!H
P12!H
!H
Node18
!H
629
6
Node29 32
640 Node30Node31!H 633
634
!H 640
!H
!H
!H!H
!H
!!
HH
!H!H
30''!H
5''15>>>>
1''>>>637
>30''
30''>>
>
!
!HH
>!H
!H>>>H!>>!!
HH
!H SEMINOLE LAN
!H E
!H!N4
H
!H
!H!H
!
H!!N11
HH
!H
!H
>15''8''
>
>
!H!
!H>>>H
>>>!
!HH
!
H
!H
!H
!H
2009
2017
Node2918221829
Node31
!
H
N11N11
2109
200320052007
201120132015
20192021
2103
!
H
Node29N11!
Node29Node29Node29 H!H
644 Node29Node29
Node31N11
N11
2105
!H
2107
1827
1820!H N11
640
N11
N11
!
!H N11
H
75
!H
!
H
!H
!H
!
H
1818
1825
N7
!H
202049
49
2018
1821
2006
2008201020122014
2016
N13
N13
49
N12N12N12
N12N12
N13
1816!H
!H!H
49
!
H
!
H
!H
49
2022
N8
!H
N5
N9
AZTEC LANE N6N12
N10
42''48''!H!
H
1819
42''48''48''!H
48''N131814!
H
!
>>H>>
>!H>>>!H
>>>SENECA LANE>>!>
>!H>!!H H>>>>>>>!H>
H>>!H>>>
!H
!H!
!H!H 49
!H H
49
!H!H
!H
!!H N13
H
2024
!H
!
H
1812!
H
!
!HH
N14
1817
N15
49
!H
200720092011
2013!
H
!H
N15
N12N12N13
2015
N132026
1815
!
H
N13N15
!H
2017
N15
N13
2019
!H N13
1813
!H
2021
!H
!
H N15
N14N16
N14
!H!H
2023!H!H!
!HH
1811
N14
N14
2025!
!HH
12''12''!H
>
>644
!H
!H!H!H
N14
!N17
H
!!
HH 1809
!H 489
!H
!
N14 H
1806
!H
!H 582
WINTERGREEN AVE
NUE
!H
!H
N14
!H
N18
583
!H
!!
!H H H
!H
!
!HH!
H
!
H!H
1807
Node787
!H
1804
N14
634
N14
481
1805
!H N14
!H!H
Node761
!H
!1803
H
1802
N28
N38
579
N28
477
!H
!H
!!H
H
!H
577
!H
1801
!H 575
!H
N37
!H
N28
!H
!H!H
6
>''
>>!H
643
!H
576
574
1715
641
N28
N28
2023
12''
!>
H!H
!N28
H!H
!H
WOODVIEW DRIVE
20251713
!H
!H
!H 466
!H
!H
N28N28
!H
641
!H
!
H
1711
1712
!
H
2020
N28
!H
!H N28
>>8''>
!
H N27
!!!
HHH
!H 1709 633
1710
2022
N28
N27
!
H
N27
!H
!H
!!
HH
!H
!H!H!H
1707
N27
1708
N27
1705
N27
!
H
N27
!
H
!
!H H
!H
1703
!H
N27
!
H
!H
463
!H
!H!
1614!H
H
1701
!H
2023
N26
N26
N27
N19
48''N20
N26
!H!
H
>!
H!
!H
!148 H!H
H 641
!H!H 452
!N21N24
H!!H 154
H!H!
H
60''60''
!
MAYA LANE H
!H!H
!H>>>>!H
!H>>>>>!>>>
H!H
!!H!
!H!HH H
!H!H!H!H
!641
H
3
64
!H 1612
!H!
H
N26
!H
1613
1620
N26
!H!H
!H
N21
1608
N25
!H 461
!H
1611
1617!H
!
!H
H
N26!H!
H
N21
1602
462
N25
!H
1609
Node719
!
H
N25
!H!
H
N22
!H
!H
!
H
!
H
!
!H N25 H
!
H
!
H
!
H!H!
!H 1607
H
!H
!
H!H!
H
N25
!H
635
12!H
''!H
6''
!H!
H!H>>!
>>>!>>H
!H>>H>>>>
PAWNEE LANE>!H>
!H!H!
H
N36
1605
!H
!H
N25
!H
!H
641
N23
!H
!
H
Node718
641
!
H>!H
!H!H 633
!H
!>!H
H
Node705
!H
12''
!
H
!
!H
H
1509
!
H
!H
Node717
Node737
!H
15''!H Node737
18''
!H
!H>>
!H>>>>!>>>>>>!H!H
YUMA LANE H
24''!H!
H
!H
!H
!H
639
1505
Node737
!
H
!
H
1503
Node704
N35
!
H
!H
!H
1500!H
!H
1924
Node704
Node735
1501
N35
!H
Node730Node732
Node733
!H
N34Node734
36''Node735
N35
18''
!!H!15''
HH!H!H!15''
H!15''
!H>>>H!H!H!
>>>>!HH!H>
>!H!H>642!H>>>12''12''
!H>!H!!>>
>>HH!H!H
!H!H!H>!H>>>>
!H>>!H>>>>>
!H!>!H
!!HH!H!
H!H!H!HH!H!H>!H
!H!H
!H
Node728
N33 EAST CAMP MC DONALD ROAD
Node727
42''
!>
>H>>!H
>!>
H 12''
!!H!H!12''12''
H!!H!H!H!H!!HH
H H!!!>12''>>>
H!HHH>!H
!H
!H!>!
!H!H>!>HH
H>>!H>>!!!H
HH!
H
!H
641
!H
636
46 1925
6
1905
1919
N30
Node735
Node734Node735
!H
!H
!
H!H!
H
!H
!H
641633
!
H
!H
!H
!
H
!H
!H
1928
!Node701
H
Node702
641
N35
!H
!
H
!
H!
H
!H
S13
!
H
!H
!H
639
1425
183 S14
187
!
H
30''
33''
S6
N29
>632
>>!H>>
>!H!H
!!H
H!
!H!H
H!H
!H!H
!H
!
H
!H
S5
!H!H
194195202!
196 H
204 E!H
AST WOOD LANE 1423
!H 12''639
!H 21''
>>
!H!
!H>H
>>>
>!H!H!H
!!H!H
H!H>>
!!
!H!HH H S14
!H
642
1421
S14
S14
!
H
!H
1418!
H
!
H
1417
1419
S14
!H S5
S14
!H!H
!H!S39
!HH
!H
1416
!!H!H
H
!H
!H
S151417
12'!H
'
>>
!H
!H
!H S14
641
!H
1414
1413
641
S151415
S5
S15
!
H
12''18''
1412
>>>!H>>
>>>>!H
!
H S15
294
S151413
SITKA LANE
!
H
!
H
!H
!H
205 S15!
H
!H
293
!H!
!H
H 1410
!H
!H
1411
S15
!H
S15
1408
1409
S16
S16
640
1406
8''
12''1407
!12''S16
H!H>>
>
!H
>>!
>!H
!HH
S16
S16
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
1404
!H
S16
1405
S16
S38
!H
!!
1402 HH
!
H
206 S16
!H 1403
!H!
H
!H
S8
!H
!H
S16
210
!H!H
!
H
1400
!H
!H
!
H
269
!H
1401
S7
!H
!!H!H 256!
H 54''H S10
269
54''
54''
269
60''
>>
TANO LANE>!H>>
>>>
>!H>>>>
>>!H>!H
!H>!H
!>
H!
H
!H
!H
!H
!H S17
!
H
!H
!H
!H
!H
S36
!
H
!H!H
!H
!H
643
2017
S9
2019
S37
S17!H
!H
!2021
H S17
!H
!H
!H
!H
S17
!
6''H
12''
>
>>12''
>>
!H>>
>!
642 H!H
!H!>
!HH!H!
H
LEGEND
!H
643
217
Node757Node758
15''
!H 632
>>!
H
!H
!H
XPSWMM Nodes
!H!H
223
!
H S34
!
!HH
S35
!H
!H
!H!H!H
!
!!H
H H
639
!H>!H
!H>!!H
H
!H!
!H!H
H
!H
STORM MANHOLE BURR OAK DRIV
E
!H 326
!H
!H
S33
!
!HH
!
!H 642 H!
H
!H
!H
644
!H
>>
STORM SEWER
Node784
336
!
H
!H
!H
S11
AT-RISK STRUCTURES
!!
HH!H 72''
72''!H>>!H
!H 72''
!>>>72>''>>>
H
!H>>
>!>>!>>
HH S32
72''
72''
643!H
!!H
H
72''
!H>>>>
!H
>>>>
!
640>>>>!HH
!
H
APRIL 2013 FLOOD EXTENTS
337
!H
Node753
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY Node760
8''
12''12''
12''12''
!H>>
!H
!
H>!!H
!H>!H>!HH!H
Node754
!
H
!H
!H
LEVEE 37
PIN OAK DRIVE
Node755
!H
Node751
S31
S30
27''
27''
!
H>>>!H
>!H
!>>
H!H
!H
!!H
H
!H
!
H
DSN.MJB
TITLE:
CLIENT:
PROJ. NO.15-0225
CHKD.
ELG
SCALE
SHEET 1 OF 1
GIS USER
No.DATENATURE OF REVISIONMODELArcGIS 9.2
DRAWING NO.
FILE NAME:
DATE:
Levee 37 Drainage Improvement Project MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Management Program February 2018
ATTACHMENT 5
Project Location Maps
05001,0002,000
RIVE
MARQUARDT D
Feet
I
1 inch = 1,000 feet
MESSNER DRIVE
EA
ST PALATINE ROAD
WEST WILLOW ROAD
PROPOSED 17.0 AC-FT STORMTRAP
UNDERGROUND STORAGE
VAULT AT ASPEN TRAILS PARK
EAST CAMP MCDONALD ROAD
PROPOSED 13.4 AC-FT ABOVE
GROUND STORAGE BASIN
AT BURNING BUSH TRAILS PARK
Y LANE
BARBERR
CEDAR LANE
EENWOOD DRIVE
GR
DEN LANE
LIN
APACHE LANE
EAST KENSINGTON ROAD
LEGEND
STORAGE AREAS
MORRISON AVENUE
STUDY AREA
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225.00004
.
DATE
TITLE
12/11/17
Levee 37 Drainage Improvement Project MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Management Program February 2018
ATTACHMENT 6
Levee 37 Drainage Study Report
Levee 37 Drainage Study
Mount Prospect, IL
Prepared for
Village of Mount Prospect, IL
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
{ĻƦƷĻƒĬĻƩ ЋЋͲ ЋЉЊЎ
Prepared by
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 W. Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
CBBEL Project No. 15-0225
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Exhibits ................................................................................................................................... iii
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................2
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................5
Chapter 2 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Existing Conditions Description ................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Model Development ................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Model Calibration ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.3 Pump Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 14
2.4 System Capacity .......................................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3 Proposed Conditions .................................................................................................. 20
3.1 Alternative 1 Pump Station #2 Upgrade................................................................................... 20
3.2 Alternative 2 Pump Station #2 Upgrade & Proposed Prospect Heights Pump Station ............ 21
3.3 Alternative 3 Pump Station #2 Upgrade & Proposed Upstream Storage ................................ 24
3.4 Alternative 4 Pump Station #2 Upgrade & Proposed Sewer Improvements ........................... 25
3.5 Alternative 5 Pump Station #1 Upgrade................................................................................... 27
3.6 Alternative 6 Pump Station #1 Upgrade & Proposed Upstream Storage ................................ 28
3.7 Alternative 7 Pump Station #1 Upgrade & Proposed Sewer Improvements ........................... 29
3.8 Alternative 8 25-Year Level of Protection Improvement ......................................................... 31
3.9 Alternative 9 25-Year Level-of-Protection Improvement With Allowable Pumping Rate ....... 34
3.10 Pump Station Design Considerations .......................................................................................... 35
Chapter 4 DPR Downstream Impacts Analysis ............................................................................. 36
4.1 Design Storms Downstream Impacts Analysis ............................................................................ 36
4.2 Downstream Impacts Analysis Conclusion .................................................................................. 37
Chapter 5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 39
i
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. April 2013 Flood Summary ............................................................................................................. 14
Table 2. Pump Controls ............................................................................................................................... 16
Table 3. Pump Station #2 Proposed Pump Controls .................................................................................... 21
Table 4. Alternative 1 At-Risk Structures Summary Table ......................................................................... 21
Table 5. Pump Station #2 Drainage Area Improvement Alternatives ........................................................ 27
Table 6. Pump Station #1 Proposed Pump Controls .................................................................................... 27
Table 7. Alternative 5 At-Risk Structures Summary Table ......................................................................... 28
Table 8. Pump Station #1 Drainage Area Improvement Alternatives ........................................................ 31
Table 9. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Proposed Outfall Flowrate Increases (No Tailwater) .................. 32
Table 10. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Results Summary (With Tailwater) .......................................... 33
Table 11. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Pump Capacity Increases ......................................................... 33
Table 12. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Results Summary (With Tailwater) .......................................... 34
Table 13. Summary of Pump Station Upgrades ........................................................................................... 35
Table 14. Master Summary Table ................................................................................................................ 40
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Study Area Location Map ................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2. 1963 USGS Hydrologic Atlas ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. 10-Year Storm with FEMA FIS 10-Year DPR Tailwater Prior to Levee 37 Construction ................... 11
Figure 4. Pump Station Drainage Areas ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. Pump Station #2 Storm Sewer Schematic ..................................................................................... 15
Figure 6. Pump Station #2 Drainage Area At-Risk Structures ....................................................................... 18
Figure 7. Pump Station #1 Drainage Area At-Risk Structures ....................................................................... 19
Figure 8. Alternative 2 Schematic ................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 9. Alternative 4 Schematic ................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 10. Alternative 7 Schematic .............................................................................................................. 30
Figure 11. 100-Year DPR Hydrograph at Pump Station #2 ........................................................................... 37
ii
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1) Study Area Subbasin & Storm Sewer Map
2) April 2013 Storm Inundation Map With USGS Gage Tailwater & Pumps
3) April 2013 Storm Inundation Map Without Tailwater & Pumps
4) 100-YR 2-HR Storm Inundation Map Without Tailwater & Pumps
5) 10-YR 2-HR Storm Inundation Map Without Tailwater & Pumps
6) 10-YR 2-HR Storm Inundation Map With 10-YR FIS Tailwater & Pumps
7) Alternative 1 Pump Station #2 Upgrade
8) Alternative 3 Pump Station #2 Upgrade & Proposed Upstream Storage
9) Alternative 5 Pump Station #1 Upgrade
10) Alternative 6 - Pump Station #1 Upgrade & Proposed Upstream Storage
11) 25-Year Storm Inundation Map Without Tailwater & Pumps
12) 25-Year Storm Inundation Map With 10-Year FIS Tailwater & Pumps
13) Alternative 8 25-Year Storm Sewer Improvement With 10-Year FIS Tailwater & Upgraded
Pump Stations
14) Alternative 9 25-Year Storm Sewer & Flood Storage Improvement With 10-Year FIS Tailwater
& Upgraded Pump Stations
APPENDICES
1) Cost Estimate
iii
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Levee 37 Tributary Area Drainage Study was initiated by the Village of Mount Prospect
(Village) following the April 17-18, 2013 storm event to address residential flooding in areas
protected from Des Plaines River (DPR) overbank flooding by the Levee 37 floodwall. The Levee
37 project was designed by the US Army Corps of Engineers-Chicago District (USACOE) to prevent
DPR floodwater from entering Village residential areas and City of Prospect Heights areas west of
River Road. The Levee 37 project consists of several integrated components including a concrete-
capped floodwall, earthen levees, road raising, and internal drainage pump stations.
The majority of the April 2013 storm event rainfall occurred while the DPR water level was rising
but prior to it reaching its peak elevation. The rising DPR water level reduced and ultimately
prevented outflow from gravity storm sewers to the DPR. Once the DPR reached an
elevation that prevented outflow, stormwater could only be evacuated by the two
(2) Levee 37 pump stations; Pump Stations #1 and #2. These pump stations were constructed
concurrently with Levee 37 and were designed to drain residual stormwater in the storm sewer
system when the DPR water level was high. According to the USACOE, the pumps were not
designed to have capacity that equals the existing capacity of the sewer system with free-outfall
conditions (when the DPR is at normal elevation). As reported by Village staff, the limited capacity
of the pump stations initially resulted in street inundation in low areas, followed by yard flooding
and overtopping of sidewalks allowing floodwaters to enter below-grade garages, and also
basement seepage during the April 2013 storm event.
The Village retained Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. (CBBEL) to perform a conceptual level
feasibility study that included:
An analysis of the system and the Levee 37 pump stations to
identify the condition that lead to the flooding that occurred during the April 2013 storm
event.
Determine the existing level of protection provided by the storm sewer system with the
levee and the pump stations in place for the residential area.
Develop and analyze potential improvement alternatives to raise the level of protection
by increasing the pumping rate and through other improvements.
The study determined that the sewer system has approximately a 10-year storm
event capacity with a free-outflow condition (DPR is low). The study also confirmed
opinion that the capacity of the existing storm sewer system was degraded during the April 2013
storm event because of the rising DPR water level and the inability of the two (2) Levee 37 pump
stations to provide sufficient capacity to discharge Village stormwater at a rate necessary to
prevent flooding in the residential area.
Prior to the development of the existing residential subdivision within the study area, the land
drained overland directly to the DPR. Once developed and prior to the construction of Levee 37,
during periods when the residential subdi ponding would initially
2
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
occur within low-lying areas until flooding levels filled the streets and stormwater would flow
overland down the streets until crossing River Road and into the DPR. Levee 37 blocks overland
flow from reaching the DPR. Currently, the Levee 37 pump stations are the only means to convey
the overland flow to the DPR. Therefore, to alleviate flooding within the interior of the levee when
the DPR is high, the Levee 37 pump stations would need to be upgraded to replicate the historic
overland flow to the DPR.
to replicate historic overland
flow values, a few factors were considered:
First, the existing combined pumping rate of all three pumping stations (Pumping Stations
#1, #2, and #3) is approximately 60 cfs.
A rising DPR degrades the ability of the storm sewers to discharge stormwater.
Levee 37 protects the interior residential area from overbank flooding for DPR flooding
events at or greater than the 10-year event.
The capacity of the interior storm sewer system under low flow DPR conditions is
approximately the 10-year event.
Prior to the Levee 37 construction, events at and greater than the 10-year flood along the
DPR would begin to flood the interior area, accessing floodplain storage that the levee
now blocks. However, the interior area had an unobstructed overland flow path to the
DPR.
Hydraulic modeling determined that prior to the construction of the levee the overland
flow (generated by the 10-year interior event) reaching the DPR was 240 cfs when the
DPR water level is at its 10-year flood level.
Considering these hydraulic conditions, the DPR was always subject to receiving the overland flow
from the interior area for up to the 10-year event without the benefit of significant overbank
floodplain storage. The construction of Levee 37 blocked this overland flow capacity, but the
pumps constructed as part of the levee project did not maintain this flow capacity, reducing the
overland flow discharge capacity (via pumping) to only 60 cfs, significantly lower than the pre-
levee condition of 240 cfs as described above. This means that the pumping rate can be increased
by 180 cfs and still maintain the pre-Levee 37 condition. An operating rule would need to be
established for events greater than the 10-year flood to maintain pre-levee downstream
conditions.
CBBEL developed nine (9) improvement alternatives to modify the interior drainage system to
achieve the allowable pre-Levee 37 overland flow. All nine (9) improvement alternatives provide
increased pumping capacity at one of the Levee 37 project pump stations that serve the Village.
The increased pumping capacity would be achieved by constructing a new pump station adjacent
to the existing pump station. This would allow the existing pump station to continue operating
during the construction process. A few of the improvement alternatives also evaluated the use
of flood storage to reduce the required pumping capacity. Some improvement alternatives
3
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
evaluated storm sewer improvements to increase the efficiency of stormwater flow conveyance
to the Levee 37 project pump stations.
A 25-year level-of-protection alternative (Alternative 9) was also developed and evaluated to
determine how this level can be achieved. This was done at the request of the Village to be
consistent with the Board directive to achieve, where possible, the 25-year level of protection on
all new projects. The total pump capacity will be limited to 240 cfs. Two proposed stormwater
facilities, providing 18 and 12 acre-feet, are necessary to reduce the flow to the pump stations.
Diversion sewers are required to divert stormwater from adjacent main sewer lines.
Floodproofing will be necessary for two at-risk homes. The opinion of probable construction cost
for the 25-year level of protection without off-site mitigation is $7.5 million based on 2015 unit
costs.
Based on the results of this conceptual feasibility study, CBBEL is recommending two (2)
improvements (Alternatives 3 and 6) that provide the 10-year level of protection. These
alternatives increase the total pumping rate to 205 cfs, which is lower than the 240 cfs mentioned
above. This is due to the addition of stormwater storage within the two school properties that
provide a reduction in the flowrate reaching the pumping stations. However, the Village can
modify these alternatives to achieve the 240 cfs rate. The Village staff has indicated they will be
approaching the USACOE about funding the proposed pump station improvements. The opinion
of probable construction cost for recommended Alternatives 3 and 6 are $3.6 million and $2.1
million, respectively, based on a 2015 cost estimate.
The following is brief description of the recommended alternatives for a 10-year level of
protection:
Alternative 3
Construct new pump station adjacent to Levee 37 Pump Station #2 with pumping capacity
of 105 cfs.
Proposed 11.6 acre-foot stormwater storage basin located within an existing open space
at Robert Frost Elementary School property.
Alternative 6
Construct new pump station adjacent to Levee 37 Pump Station #1 with pumping capacity
of 40 cfs.
Proposed 7.0 acre-foot stormwater storage basin located within an existing open space
at the Indian Grove Elementary School property.
4
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The Des Plaines River (DPR) is the largest natural waterway in Cook County and has produced
multiple historic flood events in the adjacent communities. The residential subdivision in the
northeast portion of the Village of Mount Prospect (Village) along the DPR is one area that has
been historically impacted by riverine flooding (Figure 1 below). To reduce the risk of riverine
flooding along the DPR, the United States Army Corps of Engineers-Chicago District (USACOE)
received congressional approval and funding in 1999 to design and construct six features for flood
control in the Upper DPR Watershed. One of those projects was Levee 37.
The design for Levee 37 was developed by the USACOE in conjunction with the Illinois Department
of Transportation (IDOT), Cook County Forest Preserve District (CCFPD) and the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources Office of Water Resources (IDNR-OWR). The Levee 37 project
consists of approximately 9,000 linear feet of floodwall including a small portion of earthen levee,
three interior drainage pumping stations, a number of gravity outlet structures, a roadway closure
structure and a road raise. The Levee 37 project was constructed by the USACOE to prevent DPR
floodwaters from reaching residential and commercial properties west of River Road in the Village
and the City of Prospect Heights (City). The floodwall runs along the east side of River Road from
just north of Euclid Avenue to Milwaukee Avenue, continues along the east side of Milwaukee
Avenue from River Road to Palatine Road Expressway, and then west along the north side of the
Palatine Road Expressway to high ground. Levee 37 project also included the raising of Milwaukee
Avenue by IDOT to complete the line of flood protection.
The entire protected side of the floodwall consists of both Village and City residential and
commercial development with two (2) schools and park district property. Three (3) Levee 37
pump stations are used to evacuate interior stormwater from these areas when the DPR water
levels restrict the gravity discharge of the storm sewer system. During this condition, Tideflex
check valves close to prevent DPR water from inundating interior properties through the storm
sewer system. Village Staff indicated that back-flow through the storm sewers was the major
cause of the record flooding during DPR flood events in 1986 and 1987.
By displacing the floodwaters that inundated 64 acres of land in the Village, the Levee 37 project
would have resulted in an increased in DPR flood stages above the regulatory limit. However, the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) took the lead to design
and construct the Heritage Park Flood Control project in the Village of Wheeling to provide
mitigation to prevent stage increases along the DPR above the regulatory limit. The Heritage Park
Flood Control Project was completed at the end of 2013, which allowed for the completion of the
floodwall in November 2014 as the original floodwall was constructed with a gap that temporarily
prevented downstream impacts.
While Levee 37 does provide a great benefit for the Village study area from DPR overbank
flooding, it cuts off an existing overland flow route for internal drainage to the DPR. The overland
flow route can be seen on the 1963 USGS Hydrologic Atlas on Figure 2. The overland flow route
consisted of two small tributaries that flowed east and converge prior to overtopping River Road
5
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
and flowing to the DPR. Prior to Levee 37, if a storm event took place while the DPR stage
restricted or eliminated outflow from the storm sewers, low lying depressions in the study area
would fill and ultimately ponding water would be conveyed overland to the DPR. For the same
condition with the Levee 37 floodwall in place, that overland flow route to the DPR is cutoff and
all stormwater generated in the study area must be pump evacuated into the DPR.
The Levee 37 project, including the floodwall, earthen berm, closure structures and the three (3)
pump stations, was constructed in 2011. Pump Stations #1, #2, and #3 are located along the
south, middle, and north portion of the floodwall, respectively. 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.
During the April 17-18, 2013 storm event, Village and City Staff temporary 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 allowing floodwaters to enter below-grade garages during the April
2013 storm event.
The Village retained Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. (CBBEL) to perform a conceptual level
feasibility study that included:
Determine the pre-Levee 37 floodwall overland flow rate to the DPR assuming a 10-year
storm event over the study area and the DPR at a 10-year flood elevation.
An analysis of the Village
identify any conditions that lead to the flooding that occurred during the April 2013 storm
event.
Determine the existing level of protection for the residential area.
Develop and analyze potential improvement alternatives to raise the level of protection
when the pump stations are operating.
During a July 28, 2015 meeting, USACOE personnel indicated that the design of the Levee 37 Pump
Stations was based on non-coincident peaks between the DPR and the interior storm sewer
system. Their analysis was based on rainfall data and DPR levels recorded prior to 1990. As a
consequence, the Levee 37 Pump Stations were designed to primarily rely on gravity discharge to
dewater the storm sewer system. The objectives of the conceptual level Levee 37 drainage study
are as follows:
Identify any conditions in the drainage system that lead to the April 2013 flooding.
Identify the capacity of the existing storm sewer system under both free-flow (no
tailwater) conditions and pumped flow (with tailwater) conditions.
6
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Develop improvement concepts to increase the capacity of the drainage system when
DPR tailwater is present.
Analyze the effect of the proposed improvement projects on the hydraulics of the DPR.
Recommend improvement alternatives to the Village Board.
7
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 1. Study Area Location Map
8
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 2. 1963 USGS Hydrologic Atlas
9
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
To analyze the existing stormwater drainage system behind Levee 37, CBBEL developed an
XPSWMM model for the drainage areas to Pump Stations #1, #2, and #3. Pump Stations #1 and
#2 are located in the Village while Pump Station #3 is located in the City. It was necessary to
model Pump Station #3 and its tributary area because when this system surcharges, overland flow
is conveyed south into the Pump Station #2 Watershed.
The study area was analyzed using XPSWMM computer software, which is a proprietary program
based on the US Environmental Protection Age
XPSWMM is a dynamic hydrologic and hydraulic modeling program that is well-suited for
analyzing urban stormwater management systems. XPSWMM simulates rainfall-runoff responses
for user specified storm events (hydrologic component) and analyzes the performance of the
stormwater management system (hydraulic component).
2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS DESCRIPTION
The general drainage pattern for the study area is from west to east, with multiple gravity flow
outlets and pump discharges draining to the DPR. Prior to the development of the existing
residential subdivision within the study area, the land drained naturally overland directly to the
DPR as shown on the 1963 USGS Hydrologic Atlas on Figure 2 (above). When the residential
subdi, ponding would initially occur within low-lying areas until
flooding levels filled the street and stormwater runoff was designed to flow overland down the
streets until crossing River Road and into the DPR. This overland flow path reduced the risk of
homes flooding when street flooding occurred. The construction of the Levee 37 floodwall
blocked this overland flow capacity, but the pumps constructed as part of the Levee did not
maintain this flow capacity. An XPSWMM simulation was performed for pre-Levee 37 conditions
to analyze the amount of overland flow to the DPR for a 10-year storm in the study area while the
DPR is at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) 10-year
flood elevation. As shown on Figure 3, the maximum overland flowrate over River Road to the
DPR is approximately 240 cfs. The existing pump stations have a combined capacity of 60 cfs.
Currently, the Levee 37 pump stations are the only means to convey the overland flow to the DPR.
This means that the Village could increase the pumping capacity up to this flow rate with any
future enhancements to the pump stations.
Main trunk storm sewer lines to the Levee 37 Pump Stations were identified, surveyed, and
entered into the XPSWMM model. The Levee 37 Pump Stations controls (on/off elevations) were
identified in the USACOE Levee 37 Engineering Plans and the manufacturer pump curves were
input into XPSWMM to define the relationship between flowrate and head. As the head
decreases the pump flow increases with a maximum pumping rate of 8.5 cfs for a single pump.
Pump Stations #1 and #3 each have two (2) pumps with total capacity of 17 cfs. Pump Station #2
houses three (3) pumps with a total capacity of 25.5 cfs. All pumps are identical in capacity. The
pump controls indicate that the pumps are only activated when the DPR water level has already
10
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
limited flow from the storm sewer outfalls. Figure 4 shows the drainage area to the three (3)
Levee 37 Pump Stations.
Figure 3. 10-Year Storm with FEMA FIS 10-Year DPR Tailwater Prior to Levee 37 Construction
11
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 4. Pump Station Drainage Areas
12
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
2.1 MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The drainage area for the entire study area was broken down into smaller subbasins. One
hundred (100) subbasins were delineated using the Cook County 1-foot aerial topography. The
average area for the subbasins is approximately eight (8) acres. The hydrologic parameters that
define each subbasin were determined based on methodology outlined in wΏЎ 5:
ƩĬğƓ
IǤķƩƚƌƚŭǤ ŅƚƩ {ƒğƌƌ ğƷĻƩƭŷĻķƭ (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986). In the XPSWMM model,
the following information was input for each subbasin:
Drainage Area
Runoff Curve Number (RCN)
Time of Concentration (Tc)
The RCN was defined based on the land use using current aerial photography (2014) for each of
the subbasins. The RCN value calculated for each subbasin is based on the ratio of impervious to
pervious area in each subbasin. The Tc is a calculation of the longest time it takes a drop of water
to reach the outlet of the subbasin. A hydrologic map with subbasin delineations and hydrologic
parameters is included as Exhibit 1.
The hydraulic elements of the model, including storm sewer diameters, lengths, materials, slopes,
etc., were obtained from a CBBEL field survey. In addition to the major systems of the storm
sewer network, overland flow and low lying storage were modeled. If a storm sewer does not
have sufficient capacity to convey the tributary runoff, the system surcharges resulting in street
inundation and overland flow. To effectively analyze the interaction between the storm sewer
system and overland flow, XPSWMM 2D hydraulic surface modeling was utilized. The hydrology
and subsurface hydraulics are analyzed using the standard 1D methods while the catch basins act
as the connection between the 1D and 2D surface interface. The surface is modeled using a Digital
Terrain Model (DTM) created from Cook County Lidar data. When storm sewers exceed capacity,
the excess stormwater enters the 2D model surface and flood water flows naturally based on
topography, as determined by the DTM. This method provides a more accurate analysis of flood
depths and limits along overland flow routes, and accounts for storage in low lying areas, as well
as providing a comprehensive graphic representation of the flooding.
2.2 MODEL CALIBRATION
The primary reason that the Village initiated the flood study was the significant flooding that
occurred during the April 2013 storm event in the residential subdivisions west of the Levee 37
floodwall. For this reason, the April 2013 storm was selected for model calibration and also
because it is the largest storm that has occurred since the Levee 37 project was constructed.
Approximately 5.5 inches of the rainfall fell over a 24 hour period beginning at 9:00 AM on April
th
17. The rainfall data for the April 2013 storm was obtained from the Illinois State Water Survey
(ISWS) gage in the City of Des Plaines near Oakton Street. A gap in the floodwall near Pump
Station #2 still existed during this storm event, but Village and City Staff undertook emergency
13
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
measures and used Jersey Barriers to temporary close the gap and multiple portable pumps were
brought in to help drain water at Pump Station #2. Village Staff indicated that residential and
street flooding occurred along Park Drive in both the Pump Station #1 and #2 tributary areas as
well as significant flooding along River Road near Seminole Lane.
Based on the XPSWMM model results, the peak flooding (west of the Levee 37 floodwall) occurred
th
between 4:00 AM and 11:00 AM on April 18. A summary of the simulated maximum flood
depths for the storm is provided in Table 1, and a flood inundation map is shown on Exhibit 2.
Table 1. April 2013 Flood Summary
Maximum Maximum
Rim El.
Location Description Inundation Inundation
(FT)
Elevation (FT) Depth (FT)
Intersection of Park Drive &
North Park Drive 635.2 636.7 1.5
Woodview Drive
240 feet north of intersection
South Park Drive 636.2 637.7 1.5
of Park Drive & Tano Ln
River Road Adjacent to Pump Station #2 634.3 636.5 2.2
The Village provided CBBEL with a sketch of measured water elevations near the intersection of
Seminole Lane and River Road. The elevations on the sketch were measured between 9:00 AM
th
and 3:30 PM on April 19 around the time the DPR reached its maximum stage. The XPSWMM
model results show water elevations approximately 1-foot higher than the measured water
elevations at this time. The lower, measured water elevation may be attributed to the additional
portable pumps that were brought in to help drain the floodwater. These temporary pumps were
not accounted for in the XPSWMM model.
2.3 PUMP ANALYSIS
During the April 2013 event, the XPSWMM modeling shows the existing Levee 37 Pump Stations
#1 and #2 pumps were not able to keep up with the inflow from the storm sewer system which
was confirmed by eyewitness accounts of Village Staff. As previously mentioned, the maximum
pumping capacity of a single pump is 8.5 cfs based on the manufacturer pump curves. Pump
Station #1 contains two (2) pumps and drains stormwater from a 60-inch trunk sewer with an
invert elevation of 627.75 feet. Farther upstream, Pump Station #2 contains three (3) pumps that
drain two large trunk storm sewers when the DPR is high: A 5.25-foot by 4-foot reinforced
concrete box culvert (RCBC) to the north and a 5.5-foot by 4.5-foot RCBC to the south. Both trunk
storm sewer lines have separate gravity outfalls to the DPR. All gravity storm sewer outfalls to
the DPR drain through closure structures that have manually operated sluice gates that can be
lowered in the event the Tideflex backflow preventer fails. Both trunk storm sewers are
connected to the Pump Station by 30-inch diversion sewers that convey flow to the Pump Station
well. Figure 5 provides an illustration of the storm sewer configuration upstream of Pump Station
#2, and Table 2 provides pump control information for all three (3) pump stations.
14
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 5. Pump Station #2 Storm Sewer Schematic
15
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 2. Pump Controls
Pump Station Sump Max Pumping Start
Pump ID Stop Elevation
ID Elevation Rate (CFS) Elevation
SWP-1 8.5 631.75 629.75
#1 627.5
SWP-2 8.5 634.00 631.00
SWP-1 8.5 631.25 630.00
#2 628.0 SWP-2 8.5 632.25 630.50
SWP-3 8.5 633.25 631.25
SWP-1 8.5 633.00 631.50
#3 629.08
SWP-2 8.5 635.00 632.50
2.4 SYSTEM CAPACITY
To analyze the storm sewer system capacity, CBBEL evaluated the effect of the April 2013 rainfall
in the study area assuming that the storm sewer gravity outlets where not limited by the DPR
stage and no Levee 37 pump stations were functioning. Exhibit 3 depicts the results of this
simulation. The model results indicate that during the April 2013 storm some street flooding
would have still occurred, but the extent and depth of flooding would be greatly reduced when
compared to the levels that occured with actual DPR water level elevation and pumping scenario
that occurred. This confirms the Village S observation that the Levee 37 project pump
stations capacities are not sufficient to maintain the existing storm sewer gravity flow capacity
when the DPR water level elevation has an influence. Excess stormwater runoff that could not
enter the storm sewer system was conveyed overland down the streets to River Road where it
ponded because Levee 37 blocked the overland flow path. A storm inundation map for the April
2013 event with no tailwater (DPR at non-flood levels and pumps not operating) is provided in
Exhibit 3.
To further analyze the storm sewer system, design storms were modeled with free-flow gravity
outlet conditions (DPR at normal pool). First, a critical duration analysis was performed and it was
determined that the 2-hour storm produced the maximum flows and flood stages within the study
area. Model results from the 100-year, 2-hour storm event indicate significant flooding along
both north and south Park Avenue as well as other low-lying areas in the study area. A storm
inundation map for the 100-year, 2-hour storm is provided in Exhibit 4.
To better define the existing sewer system capacity, 2-hour critical duration storms with 2-, 5-,
10-, 25-, and 50-year recurrence intervals were simulated with the model. Based on the model
results, the existing storm sewer system has approximately a 10-year storm event capacity,
though some surcharging occurs. The 10-year, 2-hour storm inundation map, shown on Exhibit
5, demonstrates the storm sewer system is generally capable of handling the runoff from this
storm with the exception of some areas where street flooding occurs. Based on the Cook County
Lidar DTM, this street flooding appears to not impact building structures (this study is focused on
Village areas, so unless otherwise specified, it does not apply to City areas).
16
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Exhibit 6 shows the same 10-year, 2-hour storm but with a tailwater equal to the FEMA FIS 10-
year DPR flood elevation. Overland flow of stormwater runoff that cannot enter the storm sewer
system flows down the streets to River Road where the Levee 37 Floodwall blocks its path to the
DPR. The overland flow path is shown by arrows in Figure 6. This scenario does not allow for any
gravity storm sewer outflow, forcing all stormwater behind the Levee 37 floodwall to be pumped.
When pumps are activated because gravity outfalls can no longer drain, floodwater ponds in the
low lying areas along roads just west of the Levee 37 floodwall. The most significant flooding is
in the Pump Station #2 drainage area as shown in Figure 6. When stormwater cannot drain
through the gravity outfalls adjacent to Pump Station #2, the pumps are unable to keep up with
the inflow, surcharging the sewer system and filling the low-lying areas on and around Park Drive.
Two main low lying areas that result in the deepest flooding are located at Park Drive and Seneca
Lane (2.3 feet) and Park Drive and Woodview Drive (1.9 feet).
The Village provided CBBEL with GIS data identifying homes with reverse slope driveways and
homes that reported flooding following the April 2013 storm event. This information was used in
conjunction with the inundation map for the 10-year storm event with FEMA FIS 10-year DPR
flood elevation to identify residential structures with the highest potential for flooding. In total,
forty-four (44) residential structures were surveyed for low overtop elevations or low entry
elevations. These elevations were then compared with results from the existing conditions
XPSWMM model to identify homes at risk of flooding for a design storm event. The 1-, 2-, 5-, and
10-year existing conditions design storms were simulated with XPSWMM with the FEMA FIS 10-
year tailwater, which results in eliminating flow from gravity sewers. Model results indicate there
is no significant flooding for the 1-year event. In total, Figure 6 shows nine (9) structures at risk
of flooding during the 2-year event, 13 (thirteen) structures at-risk during the 5-year event, and
19 (nineteen) structures at-risk during the 10-year event in the Pump Station #2 drainage area.
Please note that if a structure floods for the 2-year event, it will also flood for all larger events.
Additionally, significant street flooding occurs on both River Road and Seminole Lane for the 2-
year event and greater.
17
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 6. Pump Station #2 Drainage Area At-Risk Structures
Flooding also occurs in low-lying areas along and around Park Drive in the Pump Station #1
drainage area. Figure 7 shows at risk of flooding structures for the 2-, 5- and 10-year storm event
as one (1), three (3) and four (4), respectively in the Pump Station #1 drainage area.
18
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 7. Pump Station #1 Drainage Area At-Risk Structures
GIS data to identify potential at-risk structures in
low-lying areas and may not include all structures potentially at risk of flooding. Additional survey
is recommended in the future studies to identify elevations for all structures adjacent to the low-
lying areas. The additional survey will also help to completely understand the benefits provided
by the improvement alternatives discussed in Chapter 3.
19
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CHAPTER 3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS
The existing conditions XPSWMM modeling analysis indicates that the storm sewer system in the
study area has approximately 10-year storm event capacity under free-outfall (no tailwater)
conditions. However, this level of service is not achievable when the gravity outfalls are impacted
by the DPR water level elevation. When the storm sewer system has to rely on the Levee 37
project pump stations to evacuate the 10-year storm event flows, significant flooding results in
low-lying areas in the study area. Conceptual level improvement alternatives were developed to
improve the level of protection when the DPR stage reduces the gravity storm sewer outflow
while maintaining the maximum allowable pumping rate of 240 cfs from the study area. Since
the three (3) existing Levee 37 pump stations have a cumulative maximum capacity of 60 cfs,
this means 180 cfs of additional proposed pumping capacity is allowable. Improvement projects
analyzed include:
Increasing pumping capacity at Pump Stations #1 and #2
A new pump station for the City drainage
Providing upstream flood storage with Pump Station #1 and #2 pumping capacity increase
to improve the level of protection
Storm sewer improvements to improve conveyance in known flood prone areas
3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 PUMP STATION #2 UPGRADE
Alternative 1 consists of increasing the pumping capacity at Pump Station #2. Under current
conditions, Pump Station #2 can achieve a maximum pumping capacity of 25.5 cfs. The existing
10-year storm event cumulative maximum flowrate from the gravity outfalls tributary to Pump
Station #2 is 274 cfs. Results from the modeling analysis indicate that in order to maintain the 10-
year storm event flow capacity during conditions where the DPR water level elevation degrades
the gravity outflow, an additional 225 cfs of pumping capacity is required. Because only 180 cfs
of cumulative additional pumping capacity is allowed (for both Pump Station #1 and #2), the
proposed additional rate for Alternative 1 at Pump Station #2 was calculated to be 120 cfs. To
obtain this additional pumping capacity, this alternative consists of constructing a new pump
station adjacent to the existing pump station to house three (3) new 40 cfs pumps. Section 3.9
of this report includes a discussion on the feasibility of upgrading the existing pump station. To
convey the additional flow to the pump station, two (2) 5-foot by 5-foot RCBCs are proposed to
replace the existing 30-inch RCP diversion sewers that currently convey flow from the north and
south trunk storm sewers to Pump Station #2. The wet well for the proposed pump station would
be connected to the existing wet well so stormwater can be conveyed to both pump stations and
the pump controls can be modified to utilize all six (6) pumps. The modeling analysis also shows
that the existing start control elevations are set too high to start evacuating water before ponding
along North Park Drive begins. Therefore, this and all alternatives include modifying the controls
of existing pumps so that pumping begins earlier that it currently does. The proposed pump start
control elevations for both the existing and proposed pumps are provided in Table 3.
20
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 3. Pump Station #2 Proposed Pump Controls
Pump Station Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
ID Rate (cfs) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft)
SWP-1 8.5 631.25 629
Pump Station
SWP-2 8.5 632.25 630
#2
SWP-3 8.5 633.25 631
Prop 1 40 - 629
Proposed Pump
Prop 2 40 - 630
Station
Prop 3 40 - 631
Exhibit 7 shows the configuration of Alternative 1 and the resulting 10-year inundation map. This
alternative reduces the risk of flooding for a number of structures currently at-risk of flooding
during the 2-, 5-, and 10-year storms. Table 4 provides the number of structures at-risk of flooding
for existing conditions and those removed from the inundation area with Alternative 1
improvements.
Table 4. Alternative 1 At-Risk Structures Summary Table
Existing Alternative At-Risk Homes
Storm
Conditions At-1 At-Risk Removed from
Event
Risk Homes Homes Inundation Area
2-Year 9 0 9
5-Year 13 1 12
10-Year 19 10 9
Alternative 1 is not recommended because it does not remove all 19 at-risk structures in the Pump
Station #2 drainage area from the 10-year inundation area. This alternative does produce a
significant improvement of the level of protection during non-gravity sewer outflow conditions.
The estimated cost of Alternative 1 is $1.8 million.
3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 PUMP STATION #2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED PROSPECT HEIGHTS PUMP
STATION
As previously mentioned, a 48-inch storm sewer conveys water across Seminole Lane from the
City to the Village storm sewer system on Park Drive just south of Seminole
Lane. This 48-inch storm sewer combines with another trunk storm sewer along Seneca Lane and
then heads southeast towards Pump Station #2. Alternative 2 proposes to disconnect this 48-inch
storm sewer storm sewer outfall and
pump station to the DPR in the City. The proposed 48-inch storm sewer configuration is shown
in Figure 8 starting at the Willow Woods Condominium detention ponds. A new pump station
with a 20 cfs capacity is required at this outfall to evacuate stormwater when the DPR is high.
The simulation results indicate that a new pump station would still be required at Pump Station
#2 to adequately evacuate stormwater fro. The new pump station
21
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
adjacent to Pump Station #2 would be limited to a maximum pumping rate of 100 cfs provided in
three (3) 33 cfs pumps to meet the 120 cfs maximum allowable pumping rate for this pump
The configuration of the proposed pump station is identical to Alternative
1, with the exception of the reduced pumping rate. The proposed start control elevations for the
existing and proposed pump stations are the same as Alternative 1 and are shown in Table 3. The
total cumulative maximum pumping rate from both proposed pump stations is 120 cfs, which is
equivalent to the maximum pumping rate provided in Alternative 1. Benefits provided in
Alternative 2 are nearly identical to the benefits provided by Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 is not recommended due to the higher cost of constructing two (2) separate pump
stations to pump the same 120 cfs flowrate. Figure 8 provides a schematic for the Alternative 2.
The estimated cost of Alternative 2 is $2.7 million.
22
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 8. Alternative 2 Schematic
23
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
3.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 PUMP STATION #2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE
The purpose of Alternative 3 is to further refine Alternative 1 by providing stormwater storage in
an open space upstream of Pump Station #2 to increase the level of protection with the increase
in capacity for Pump Station #2. The proposed stormwater storage location is within an open
space at Robert Frost Elementary School property. This area was selected for stormwater storage
due to its location relative to adjacent trunk storm sewers that would allow a larger diversion of
storm flow, and the availability of open space.
Alternative 3 proposes to intercept flow from two (2) trunk sewers flowing west to east in the
Pump Station #2 drainage area. A proposed 48-inch storm sewer will intercept flow from the 42-
inch trunk storm sewer at the intersection of Aztec Lane and Oneida Lane, and convey it south to
the proposed excavated stormwater storage area. A 6-inch diameter restrictor is proposed on
the existing trunk storm sewer to allow low flows to continue east and higher flows to be diverted
south to the proposed stormwater storage area. This improvement also conveys stormwater flow
from the intersection of Maya Lane and Oneida Lane, where a 48-inch storm sewer combines with
a 27-inch storm sewer, into the stormwater storage area through a proposed 60-inch storm
sewer. A 12-inch diameter restrictor on the Maya Lane trunk storm sewer allows water to back
up into the stormwater storage area and drain by gravity (no pump station) following the storm
event. It was found that approximately 11.8 acre-feet of storage volume could be achieved within
the shown footprint on Exhibit 8.
The Alternative 3 improvements reduce the flowrates on the Aztec and Seneca Lane trunk storm
sewer from about 46 cfs to 1 cfs, and on the Maya Lane trunk storm sewer from about 49 cfs to 7
cfs. Although flows to Pump Station #2 are greatly reduced with the proposed stormwater
storage, additional pumping capacity is still required to reduce the flooding within the low-lying
areas. The pump controls and configuration are the same as Alternative 1, with the exception of
a reduced pumping rate. The proposed pump station requires a maximum pumping rate of 105
cfs which is provided by three (3) 35 cfs pumps (Alternative 1 pump rate is 120 cfs). Only 105 cfs
of pumping capacity is required to eliminate the risk of flooding for homes up to the 10-year storm
event. Alternative 3 reduces the flood depth at Park Drive and Seneca Lane from 2.3 feet to 0.6
feet, and eliminates ponding at Park Drive and Woodview Drive for a 10-year storm event. All
homes at-risk of flooding during the 2-, 5-, and 10-year storm events are removed from the
existing inundation area with this improvement. Exhibit 8 shows the conceptual layout for
Alternative 3 and the resulting inundation map.
Currently, the proposed excavated stormwater storage for Alternative 3 is shown in the southern
portion of open space within the school property. The location of the stormwater storage area
can be adjusted to accommodate the needs of the Robert Frost Elementary School and the Village.
Another viable, but more costly option, would be to provide the stormwater storage in an
underground vault and restore the open space to its current condition.
Alternative 3 is recommended because it provides the best flood reduction benefit of all the Pump
Station #2 alternatives, removing all at-risk homes from the 10-year inundation area.
24
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
The estimated cost of Alternative 3 is $3.6 million.
3.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 PUMP STATION #2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 1 except that Alternative 4 includes storm sewer
improvements along Park Drive and Woodview Drive. Under existing conditions, an 18-inch storm
sewer drains south down Park Drive between Wintergreen Avenue and West Woodview Drive,
--inch storm sewer for a short distance between West Woodview
Drive and East Woodview Drive. The 24-inch storm sewer combines with a 60-inch storm sewer
from the south and drains into a 60-inch trunk storm sewer draining east down East Woodview
Drive. Alternative 4 is intended to relieve this restriction at Park Drive and East Woodview Drive
-The proposed improvement, as shown on
Figure 9, provides an additional 30-inch storm sewer adjacent to the 60-inch trunk storm sewer
--inch storm sewer is proposed to be
replaced with a positive sloped 30-inch storm sewer. These improvements result in an additional
0.1-foot flood depth reduction at the intersection of Park Drive and Woodview Drive for the 10-
year storm event. The conveyance improvements also show minimal benefits for the 2- and 5-
year storm.
Alternative 4 is not recommended because the cost of the additional sewer conveyance
improvements outweighs the minimal benefit. Figure 9 provides a schematic for the Alternative
4.
The estimated cost of Alternative 4 is $2.0 million.
25
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 9. Alternative 4 Schematic
26
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 5 below provides a comprehensive summary of the modeling results for all Pump Station
#2 drainage area improvement alternatives.
Table 5. Pump Station #2 Drainage Area Improvement Alternatives
10-Year Storm Results Summary Table
At-Risk Homes
Additional Proposed
Park Drive and Seneca Drive Park Drive and Woodview Drive
Removed
Maximum Flood
Improvement
Resulting Flood Depth Resulting
from 10-year
Required Storage
Flood Depth
Alternative
Flood Depth Reduction Flood Depth
Inundation
Pumping Rate Volume (ac-
Reduction (ft)
(ft) (ft) (ft)
2
(cfs) ft)
Area
1 120 - 1.5 0.8 1.7 0.2 9
2 120 - 1.5 0.8 1.7 0.2 9
3 105 11.8 0.6 1.7 0.0 1.9 19
1
120 - 1.5 0.9 1.6 0.3 9
4
1
Includes storm sewer upgrades as described in Section 3.5
2
Basedon low overtopping or low entry elevations provided in the field survey (existing conditions at-risk homes is 19)
3.5 ALTERNATIVE 5 PUMP STATION #1 UPGRADE
Alternative 5 consists of increasing the pumping capacity at Pump Station #1. Under current
conditions, Pump Station #1 can achieve a maximum pumping capacity of 17 cfs. Because only
180 cfs of cumulative additional pumping capacity is allowed for both Pump Station #1 and #2,
the proposed additional rate for Alternative 5 at Pump Station #2 is 60 cfs. To obtain the
additional pumping capacity, this alternative consists of constructing a new pump station adjacent
to the existing pump station to house two (2) new 30 cfs pumps. The wet well for the proposed
pump station would be connected to the existing wet well so stormwater can be conveyed to both
pump stations and the pump controls can be modified to utilize all four (4) pumps. The proposed
pump start control elevations for both the existing and proposed pumps are provided in Table 6.
Table 6. Pump Station #1 Proposed Pump Controls
Pump Station Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
ID Rate (cfs) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft)
P#2 SWP-1 8.5 631.75 630.00
Pump Station
#1
P#2 SWP-2 8.5 634.00 631.00
Prop 1 30 - 630.00
Proposed Pump
Station
Prop 2 30 - 631.00
Exhibit 9 shows the resulting inundation map with the Alternative 5 improvement. This
alternative reduces the risk of flooding for two (2) structures currently at-risk of flooding during
the 5-year storm. There are minimal flood reduction benefits with this alternative for the 10-
year storm.
27
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 7. Alternative 5 At-Risk Structures Summary Table
Existing Alternative At-Risk Homes
Storm
Conditions At-5 At-Risk Removed from
Event
Risk Homes Homes Inundation Area
2-Year 0 0 0
5-Year 3 1 2
10-Year 4 4 0
Alternative 5 is not recommended because it of the minimal number of the nineteen (19) at-risk
structures from the 10-year inundation area.
The estimated cost of Alternative 5 is $1.0 million.
3.6 ALTERNATIVE 6 PUMP STATION #1 UPGRADE & PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE
The purpose of Alternative 6 is to provide stormwater storage in an open space upstream of Pump
Station #1 to increase the level of protection with the increase in pump capacity for Pump Station
#1. Alternative 6 proposes to provide stormwater storage within open space located on the Indian
Grove Elementary School property. This school property was selected for stormwater storage
due to its location relative to adjacent trunk storm sewers that would allow a larger diversion of
flow, and the availability of open space. This improvement allows stormwater flows from the
intersection of Burning Bush Lane and Tano Lane, where trunk storm sewers combine, to back up
into the stormwater storage area through a proposed 54-inch storm sewer. Approximately 7.0
acre-feet of stormwater storage volume was created for this alternative within the footprint
shown on the open space portion of the school property in Exhibit 10. The stormwater storage is
provided in the northern portion of the open space on the school property and drains completely
by gravity (no pump station is required). A 12-inch diameter restrictor on the trunk storm sewer
just downstream of proposed 54-inch storm sewer allows low flows to pass through and higher
flows to back up into the stormwater storage area and ultimately drain when the storm event has
ended. The proposed stormwater storage reduces the flowrate on the Tano Lane trunk storm
sewer from about 53 cfs to 15 cfs.
While flows to Pump Station #1 are reduced, a proposed pump station is still required to prevent
the low-lying areas along Park Avenue from flooding. The pump controls and configuration are
the same as Alternative 5, with the exception of a reduced pumping rate (Alternative 5 pumping
rate is 60 cfs). The proposed pump station requires a maximum pumping rate of 40 cfs which is
provided in two (2) 20 cfs pumps. Alternative 6 reduces the flood depth at South Park Drive from
2.0 feet to 0.8 feet. Exhibit 10 shows the conceptual layout for Alternative 6 and the resulting
inundation map.
Currently, the proposed excavated stormwater storage for Alternative 6 is shown in the northern
portion of open space at the school. The location of the stormwater storage area can be adjusted
to accommodate the needs of Indian Grove Elementary School and the Village. Another viable,
28
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
but more costly option, would be to provide the stormwater storage in an underground vault and
restore the open space to its current condition.
Alternative 6 is recommended because it provides the best flood reduction benefit of all the Pump
Station #1 alternatives, removing all at-risk structures from the 10-year inundation area.
The estimated cost of Alternative 6 is $2.1 million.
3.7 ALTERNATIVE 7 PUMP STATION #1 UPGRADE & PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative 7 is identical to Alternative 5 with the addition of sewer improvements along South
Park Drive. Under existing conditions, a 12- to 15-inch storm sewer drains south down Park Drive
between Eastwood Lane and Tano Lane. The section of 15-inch storm sewer just south of the
lowest catch basin in the low lying area --inch storm sewer drains into
the into the 60-inch trunk storm sewer draining east down Tano Lane. Based on the existing
conditions analysis, the storm sewer on South Park Drive is undersized for the 10-year storm
event, even under free-flow gravity outfall conditions, resulting in street inundation. Alternative
7 proposes to increase the storm sewer size on South Park Drive and eliminate the -
section of storm sewer. The proposed improvement replaces the existing storm sewer with an
18- to 24-inch storm sewer. This alternative provides minimal benefits (< 0.1 foot WSEL reduction)
for the 5- and 10-year storms because the allowed pump capacity increase of 60 cfs at Pump
Station #1 cannot adequately drain all stormwater, resulting in a level pool along the South Park
Drive depression. Figure 10 shows the conceptual layout for Alternative 7.
Alternative 7 is not recommended because the cost of the additional sewer conveyance
improvements outweighs the minimal benefit.
The estimated cost of Alternative 7 is $1.3 million.
29
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Figure 10. Alternative 7 Schematic
30
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 8 below provides a comprehensive summary of results for all Pump Station #1 drainage area
improvement alternatives.
Table 8. Pump Station #1 Drainage Area Improvement Alternatives
10-Year Storm Results Summary Table
South Park Drive
Additional Proposed
Maximum Flood At-Risk Homes
Flood
Improvement
Resulting
Required Storage Removed from 10-year
Depth
Alternative
Flood Depth
2
Pumping Rate Volume (ac-Inundation Area
Reduction
(ft)
(cfs) ft)
(ft)
5 60 - 1.9 0.1 0
6 40 7.0 0.8 1.2 4
1
7 60 - 1.9 0.1 0
1
Includes storm sewer upgrades as described in Section 3.7
2
Based on low overtopping or low entry elevations provided by field survey (existing condition at-risk homes is 4)
3.8 ALTERNATIVE 8 25-YEAR LEVEL OF PROTECTION IMPROVEMENT
Existing Conditions
The 25-year storm event was simulated for existing conditions for both free-flow gravity outfall
conditions and for the 10-year Des Plaines River (DPR) tailwater. Based on the critical duration
analysis, the 2-hour storm produced the maximum flows and flood stages within the study area.
Previously, it was determined that the existing storm sewer system has approximately a 10-year
storm event capacity, although some surcharging occurs. The existing conditions XPSWMM
model was simulated with free-flow gravity outfall conditions. Results from this 25-year storm
event analysis indicate that more significant sewer surcharging and flooding occurs in the low-
lying areas. As seen in Exhibit 11, seven (7) homes are at-risk of flooding.
The existing conditions XPSWMM model was simulated with the FEMA FIS 10-year DPR flood
elevation, which eliminated all gravity flow from the sewer outfalls and forced all stormwater to
be evacuated with the pump stations. The maximum pumping capacity of Pump Station #1 and
Pump Station #2 are 17 cfs and 25.5 cfs, respectively. Results from this simulation show flooding
of at risk structures due to the limited capacity of the storm sewer system and the limited capacity
of the pump stations. A flood inundation map for the 25-year storm event with a 10-year FEMA
FIS tailwater is provided in Exhibit 12. CBBEL identified thrity (30) homes at-risk of flooding for
this storm event.
25-Year Improvement Alternative
An improvement alternative was developed to provide a 25-year storm event level of protection
with additional storm sewer conveyance and increased pumping capacity. This alternative did not
include creating additional stormwater storage. First, the 25-year storm event with free-flow
gravity outfall conditions was used to identify conditions in the storm sewer system that lead to
31
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
flooding. Once these conditions were identified, additional storm sewer conveyance was
provided to effectively reduce flooding for the 25-year storm event. In the Pump Station #2
drainage area, a new 36-inch relief sewer is proposed to run parallel along an existing trunk sewer
starting at the intersection of Maya Lane and Burning Bush Lane. The 36-inch relief sewer
continues on the same route as the existing trunk sewer to a new outfall to the DPR. Additionally,
the existing storm sewer flowing south down Park Drive is proposed to be replaced with a larger
sewer to provide increased conveyance from a low-lying flood prone area.
Additional storm sewer conveyance is also required in the Pump Station #1 drainage area. A new
36-inch relief sewer begins on Eastwood Lane west of Burning Bush Lane. The new relief sewer
continues south along Burning Bush Lane and increases to a 42-inch sewer when it heads west
down Tano Lane. The relief sewer continues to follow the alignment of the existing trunk sewer
and ultimately drains to a new 42-inch outfall to the DPR. Additionally, the existing storm sewer
flowing south down Park Drive is proposed to be replaced with a larger sewer to provide increased
conveyance from a low-lying flood prone area. The proposed outfalls will result in increased flows
to the DPR from existing conditions only when the DPR is low. Once the DPR begins to rise, these
flows will be significantly reduced. A summary of these flow increases is provided in Table 9.
Table 9. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Proposed Outfall Flowrate Increases (No Tailwater)
Existing Maximum Flowrate Proposed Maximum Flowrate Flowrate
Drainage Area
From Outfalls (cfs) From Outfalls (cfs) Increase (cfs)
Pump Station #1 149 184 35
Pump Station #2 309 346 37
Total 458 530 72
The storm improvements described above were analyzed for a 25-year storm event with FEMA
FIS 10-year tailwater conditions to determine the required pump station capacity upgrades. The
amount of additional required pumping capacity was determined based on achieving 25-year
storm event level of protection for all at-risk homes. The proposed additional pumping rate for
Pump Station #2 was calculated to be 330 cfs. To obtain this additional pumping capacity, a new
pump station must be constructed adjacent to the existing pump station to house three (3) new
110 cfs pumps. The proposed additional pumping rate for Pump Station #1 was calculated to be
160 cfs which can be provided in a new pump station constructed adjacent to the existing pump
station to house two (2) new 80 cfs pumps. The total cumulative proposed pump capacity
increase from the study area for the 25-year storm event level of protection improvement
alternative is 490 cfs. Exhibit 13 shows the proposed sewer schematic with pump station
upgrades and the resulting 25-year storm event inundation area. This improvement alternative
removes all at-risk homes from the 25-year storm event inundation area. A summary of the 25-
year storm event improvement alternative is provided in Table 10.
32
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Table 10. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Results Summary (With Tailwater)
Existing Flood Proposed Flood Flood Depth
Location
Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Reduction (ft)
Park Drive and Seneca Drive 2.6 0.5 2.1
Park Drive and Woodview Drive 2.0 0.9 1.1
South Park Drive 2.3 0.0 2.3
A summary of pump station capacity upgrades from existing to proposed conditions is shown in
Table 11.
Table 11. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Pump Capacity Increases
Existing Pump Capacity Proposed Pump Capacity
Drainage Area
Flowrate (cfs) Flowrate Increase (cfs)
Pump Station #1 17 160
Pump Station #2 25.5 330
Total 42.5 490
25-year Improvement Conclusion
At the request of the Village, CBBEL developed a 25-year storm event level of protection
improvement alternative to remove all at-risk structures for FEMA FIS 10-year DPR tailwater
conditions. Two proposed sewer outfalls are required for the Pump Station #1 and #2 drainage
areas, which increase flowrates to the DPR under free-flow gravity outfall conditions.
Additionally, pump station capacity upgrades are necessary to maintain a 25-year storm event
level of protection during the FEMA FIS 10-year DPR tailwater conditions which eliminates all flow
from the gravity sewer outfalls. The cumulative pump capacity flowrate increase from the study
area was calculated to be 490 cfs.
Based on the pre-Levee 37 analysis (see Section 2.1), CBBEL determined the amount of historic
overland flow to the DPR for a 10-year storm in the study area while the DPR is at the FEMA FIS
10-year flood elevation to be 240 cfs. The existing three (3) pump stations have a combined
capacity of 60 cfs, therefore the allowable increase in pumping capacity is 180 cfs. Because the
25-year improvement alternative proposes to pump an additional 490 cfs, the proposed pump
station upgrades may not be feasible from a permitting standpoint. Because new sewer outfalls
are required for the 25-year improvement alternative, additional permitting may be required.
Permits required, but not limited to, may include:
A floodway construction permit from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Office of Water Resources (IDNR-OWR)
A regulatory permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
Authorization from the Cook County Forest Preserve (CCFP)
33
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
The estimated cost of Alternative 8 is $12.3 million.
3.9 ALTERNATIVE 9 25-YEAR LEVEL-OF-PROTECTION IMPROVEMENT WITH ALLOWABLE
PUMPING RATE
At the request of the Village, CBBEL analyzed an additional 25-year storm event level of protection
improvement alternative using the allowable pump rate of 240 cfs from the study area. This
alternative was developed to determine how much storage volume needed to be created to
achieve a 25-year level of protection while maintaining the 240 cfs flowrate. As previously
discussed the allowable pump rate increase is 180 cfs. Similar to Alternatives 3 and 6, the storage
areas are proposed at Robert Frost Elementary in the Pump Station #2 drainage area and at Indian
Grove Elementary in the Pump Station #1 drainage area because these are the only availbale open
spaces in hydraulically effective locations. Approximately 18.0 acre-feet of flood storage is
proposed in the open space at Robert Frost Elementary, and 12.0 acre-feet at Indian Grove
Elementary. Similar to Alternatives 3 and 6, both storage areas are intended to divert flow from
the adjacent trunk sewers with the use of restrictors on the existing downstream pipes. This
reduces the amount of flow conveyed downstream to the pump stations.
Pump capacity increases are required to achieve a 25-year storm event level of protection. The
proposed additional pumping rate for Pump Station #2 was calculated to be 120 cfs which can be
provided in a new pump station constructed adjacent to the existing pump station to house three
(3) new 40 cfs pumps. The proposed additional pumping rate for Pump Station #1 was calculated
to be 60 cfs which can be provided in a new pump station constructed adjacent to the existing
pump station to house two (2) new 30 cfs pumps.
Exhibit 14 shows the proposed improvement schematic with pump station upgrades and the
resulting 25-year storm event inundation area. This improvement alternative removes all but two
(2) at-risk homes from the 25-year storm event inundation area during a DPR tailwater condition.
The modeling indicates that the simulated flood elevations for these two homes are
approximately 0.5-feet higher than their low entry elevation. CBBEL recommends that
floodproofing measures, such as raising the sidewalk, be used to protect these two homes from
flooding during the 25-year storm event. A summary of the 25-year storm event level of
protection improvement alternative benefits is provided in Table 12.
Table 12. 25-Year Improvement Alternative Results Summary (With Tailwater)
Existing Flood Proposed Flood Flood Depth
Location
Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Reduction (ft)
Park Drive and Seneca Drive 2.6 1.1 1.5
Park Drive and Woodview Drive 2.0 1.6 0.4
South Park Drive 2.3 1.1 1.2
The estimated cost of Alternative 9 is $7.5 million.
34
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
3.10 PUMP STATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The pump station upgrades discussed in the previous sections are summarized in Table 13. The
existing pump stations effectiveness can be increased by lowering the existing pump setpoints.
design with the pump manufacturer. It is assumed that modifications to the existing pump tubes
will be required which may include formed suction intakes, tube extensions, and other ancillary
components.
Table 13. Summary of Pump Station Upgrades
Additional Pump
Alternative No. of Pumps & Capacity
Capacity (cfs)
1 120 (3) @ 40 cfs/pump
20 (2) 10 cfs/pump
2
100 (3) 33 cfs/pump
3 105 (3) @ 35 cfs/pump
4 120 (3) @ 40 cfs/pump
5 60 (2) @ 30 cfs/pump
6 40 (2) @ 20 cfs/pump
7 60 (2) @ 30 cfs/pump
PS #2 (3) @ 110 cfs/pump
8 490
PS #1 (2) @ 80 cfs/pump
PS #2 (3) @ 40 cfs/pump
9 180
PS #1 (2) @ 30 cfs/pump
Depending on the alternative selected, it is assumed that a new poured in place concrete pump
station structure will be constructed adjacent to or in the vicinity of existing Pump Stations #1 and
#2 to house the proposed additional capacity pumps
the existing Pump Stations which utilize submersible, axial flow propeller pumps mounted in a
steel discharge tube; cast iron flap gates mounted to the discharge tube; and a concrete deck to
locate the NEMA 3R motor control center (MCC) and pump station electrical controls. A new three
phase, 480 volt electric utility (ComEd) service will be required and sized for the load to be served
dependent on pump motor size. Standby power has not been considered for this analysis but
should be considered during the design phase for backup in case of loss of utility power.
The existing pump station structure is not large enough to accommodate the larger pumps and
still satisfy Hydraulic Institute (HI) Standards for sump dimensions (for the larger capacity pumps).
It is recommended to keep the existing station in service during construction of the new station
and incorporate it into the permanent alternative solution to handle smaller storm events, and
provide a stepped or ramped pumping capacity.
35
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CHAPTER 4 DPR DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ANALYSIS
To analyze the potential hydraulic impact to the DPR from the proposed pumping rate increase, a
conceptual level hydraulic modeling analysis was performed. The unsteady HEC-RAS hydraulic
model developed as part of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRDGC) Detailed Watershed Plan (DWP) for the Lower DPR was used for this analysis. The
unsteady HEC-RAS model references flow hydrographs from a previously created HEC-HMS model
to simulate stage versus time along the DPR. Design storms were analyzed to assess potential
DPR hydraulic impacts.
4.1 DESIGN STORMS DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Based on the relatively large size of the DPR watershed and its long flow paths, previous modeling
determined the critical design storm to be the 10-day event. The critical design storm for the
study area, as determined by the existing condition XPSWMM analysis, is the 2-hour storm. To
conservatively analyze the effect of the increased pump rates from the study area on the DPR,
Alternative 1 and Alternative 5 were analyzed for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storms with FEMA FIS
10-year flood event elevation. This DPR elevation eliminates all flow from the gravity storm sewer
outfalls. Alternatives 1 and 5 proposed the largest pump capacity increases of 120 cfs and 60cfs,
respectively, for a total flow increase of 180 cfs to the DPR. The pump outfall hydrographs from
each pump station were input into the HEC-RAS model at the nearest downstream cross section
as lateral inflow hydrographs. Inputting the pump outfall hydrographs directly into the HEC-RAS
model is a conservative estimate of impacts; because the area drained by the pump stations is
also included in the HEC-HMS model. Next, the resultant hydrographs at cross sections near the
study area were compared to the baseline conditions hydrographs. The proposed pumps cause
a small increase in the DPR elevation at the beginning of the simulation, approximately ten (10)
days before the maximum stage in the DPR occurs. The area of the river reach with the largest
increase is located at the cross section accepting flows from Pump Station #2. Figure 11 shows
the 100-year proposed hydrograph at this cross section compared to the baseline hydrograph.
36
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Top of Bank
foot increase with
proposed pump stations
Figure 11. 100-Year DPR Hydrograph at Pump Station #2
The lowest contour elevation along the DPR bank at Pump Station #2 is 628 feet, therefore the
potential stage increase from the proposed pump station is contained completely within the
channel.
4.2 DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ANALYSIS CONCLUSION
Based on the HEC-RAS analysis of downstream impacts, CBBEL believes the allowable increase in
proposed pump station capacity of 180 cfs to the DPR would be acceptable with a defined
operating procedure in place. The proposed pump stations capacity increase have minimal impact
on the DPR flood elevations when analyzing design storms. The difference in critical durations
between the DPR and the study area results in a minor stage increase 10 days before the peak of
the DPR.
There are potential scenarios when the DPR has risen to a point where the addition of the full 180
cfs proposed pump capacity could result in an increase in the DPR flood stage that could cause an
adverse impact to downstream roadways, properties and structures. The United States
Geological Service (USGS) stream gage #05529000 - Des Plaines River near Des Plaines is located
at Euclid Avenue approximately 5,000 feet and 1,200 feet downstream of Levee 37 Pump Stations
#2 and #1, respectively. The National Weather Service (NWS) uses this gage with their Advance
Hydrologic Prediction Service to forecast the DPR stage during flood conditions. The NWS has
37
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
established stage elevations at this gage that reflect Flood Stage, Moderate Flood Stage and Major
Flood Stage based on potential downstream roadway, property and structure inundation.
An operational protocol should be developed that would determine how many and when the
proposed pumps could be operational. We recommend a Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) system be employed to take the current gage information control the on and
off functions of the proposed pumps. This would be an automated system that would optimize
the level of protection for the Village residential areas while reducing the risk of adversely
impacting DPR flooding at risk downstream roadways, properties and structures
The development of this operational protocol is beyo
should be develop if the Village pursues any of the improvement alternatives that include an
increase in pumping capacity.
38
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
The purpose of the Levee 37 project is to protect the Vstudy area and a portion of the City
from DPR overbank flooding. Based on the existing conditions analysis discussed in Chapter 2,
the storm sewer system in the study area has approximately a 10-year storm event capacity under
free-flow outfall conditions (no flow capacity reduction from the DPR water level elevation).
Based on discussions with the USACOE, the existing pump stations were designed for sewer flows
assuming non-coincident hydrograph peaks between the study area discharge and the flows in
the DPR. One of the implications of non-coincident peaks is that runoff during a storm event from
the study area would be receding before the rise in the DPR is significant enough to reduce or
eliminate flows from the gravity sewer outfalls. The CBBEL analysis performed in this study
confirmed that the assumption of negligible impact to the storm sewer system from the DPR
water level elevations is a reasonable assumption for design storms. However, the analysis for
the historic April 2013 storm demonstrated that the DPR stage hydrograph reduces the ability of
the storm sewer system to discharge flow during the rainfall event resulting in the pump stations
to be turned on. The analysis further demonstrated that the level of the DPR does not need to
reach a peak level to degrade the capacity of the gravity storm sewer system. Events at and below
the DPR 2-year flood event level have a significant adverse impact.
The pumps are programmed to activate mostly to evacuate any residual stormwater in the storm
sewer system while the DPR stage is elevated. This design methodology results in the existing
design capacity of the pump stations being low compared to the capacity of the gravity storm
sewer outfalls during a free outfall condition. Because of the limited capacity of the existing pump
stations, the capacity of the storm sewer system is quickly degraded when the DPR water level
elevation rises and a storm event is occurring in the study area simultaneously.
Prior to the development of the existing residential subdivision within the study area, the land
drained overland directly to the DPR. Once developed, during periods when the residential
-lying areas until
flooding levels filled the streets and stormwater would flow overland down the streets until
crossing River Road and into the DPR prior to the construction of the Levee 37 floodwall.
The construction of the Levee 37 floodwall blocked this overland flow capacity, but the pumps
constructed as part of the Levee did not maintain this flow capacity. An XPSWMM simulation was
performed for pre-Levee 37 conditions to analyze the amount of overland flow to the DPR for a
10-year storm in the study area while the DPR is at the FEMA FIS 10-year flood elevation. The
maximum overland flowrate over River Road to the DPR is approximately 240 cfs. The existing
pump stations have a combined capacity of 60 cfs. This means that the Village could increase the
pumping capacity up to this flow rate with any future enhancements to the pump stations.
Because the three (3) existing Levee 37 pump stations have a maximum capacity of 60 cfs, the
allowable increase in pumping rate is 180 cfs.
39
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
CBBEL analyzed nine (9) proposed improvement alternatives to improve the level of protection
when the DPR stage restricts the gravity storm sewer outfall capacity. Table 14 summarizes the
components, benefits and costs of the nine (9) proposed improvement alternatives.
A conceptual level downstream hydraulic impacts analysis was performed to assess potential
adverse increases in the DPR water level elevation. Alternatives 1 and 5 were used for the
downstream impacts analysis because they increase the three Levee 37 (3) pump stations capacity
to the allowable 240 cfs. Based on this conceptual level analysis, the
maximum flowrate increases from the proposed pump stations (180 cfs) to the DPR would be
acceptable with defined operating protocols. These operating protocols would determine when
the pumping rate for new pump stations should be limited or -depending on the DPR
water level elevation recorded at the nearby downstream USGS gage. The existing pumps would
remain on and continue pumping a lesser flow from the study area to the DPR. We recommend
that pump station operational protocol be developed when the Village selects and pursues an
improvement alternative.
After analyzing all the improvement alternatives, CBBEL recommends the Village pursue
Alternatives 3 and 6. The recommended improvements, Alternatives 3 and 6, opinion of probable
cost are $3.6 million and $2.1 million, respectively based on a 2015 cost estimate.
As previously described in Sections 3.3 and 3.6, these alternatives include providing storage at
upstream open space properties to provide a 10-year level of protection. At this point of the
study, CBBEL believes that Alternatives 3 and 6 should be recommended because:
They provide the best flood reduction benefit of all the alternatives identified in this
study, removing all twenty-three (23) at-risk homes from the 10-year inundation area.
They involve adding flood storage on school and/or park district property. Village staff
previously indicated that both the school district and park district may not be receptive
to the idea repurposing their open space for flood storage. Therefore, this design is
preliminary and flexible and can be adjusted to best meet the needs of both the Village,
school district, and park district. Potential options include re-locating the storage area on
the property or providing the storage in underground vaults at an increased cost.
recommend Alternatives 1 and 5 which are Levee 37 Pump Stations #1 and #2 capacity
upgrades.
These alternatives increase the cumulative pumping capacity to the DPR by 145 cfs. The
study found the allowable flowrate increase to the DPR to be 180 cfs.
Based on the initial findings of the downstream impacts analysis, CBBEL believes
increasing the cumulative pump capacity to the DPR by a maximum of 180 cfs would be
acceptable with an operating protocol in place. If the project goes forward, conversations
with the CCFPD, MWRDGC and IDNR-OWR should occur.
40
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
MJB/ELG/DRD/TTB
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Water\\Docs\\R.Levee 37 Drainage Study 092215 Village
41
03006001,200
Feet
N
1 inch = 300 feet
Pump #3 Controls
Max Pumping
Pump IDSump ElevationStart ElevationStop Elevation
Rate (CFS)
SWP-18.5633631.5
629.08
SWP-28.5635632.5
P1
AREA = 10.2 AC
CN = 92
Tc = 15 MIN
P2
AREA = 14.1 AC
P3
CN = 90
AREA = 10.9 AC
Tc = 28.8 MIN
CN = 94
Tc = 30 MIN
P19
P10
AREA = 42.3 AC
P16
AREA = 53.1 AC
LOVE DRIV
CN = 93 E
AREA = 10.2 AC
CN = 96
Tc = 37.2 MIN
CN = 91
Tc = 30 MIN
Tc = 21 MIN
P17
WIM
BLEDON CI
RCLE
AREA = 5.7 AC
CN = 90
Tc = 18 MIN
WINESAP COURT
P6
AREA = 14.7 AC
CN = 75
Tc = 72 MIN
P7
AREA = 20.5 AC
CN = 90
Tc = 15 MIN
P18P20
P4
AREA = 9.5 AC
AREA = 19.3 AC
AREA = 39.7 AC
CN = 90
CN = 95
CN = 90
Tc = 30 MIN
Tc = 19.8 MIN
Tc = 30 MIN
P14P8
P15AREA = 10.9 AC
AREA = 4.5 AC
P9
AREA = 1.3 ACCN = 90
CN = 90
P5
AREA = 2.6 AC
CN = 90Tc = 58.8 MIN
Tc = 19.2 MIN
AREA = 20.4 AC
CN = 92
Tc = 15 MIN
CN = 90
Tc = 15 MIN
Tc = 15 MIN
P11
AREA = 5.7 AC
CN = 90
Tc = 15 MIN
P12
P13
CITY OF PROSPECT HEIGHTS
AREA = 2.6 AC
AREA = 1.3 AC
CN = 90
CN = 90
48" STORM SEWER CONVEYS
Tc = 15 MIN
Tc = 18 MIN
18''
WEST WILLOW ROADSEMINOLE LANE
22''
22''22''
15''15''
FLOW FROM PROSPECT HEIGHTS
N4
N11
15''8''
AREA = 5.3 AC TO MOUNT PROSPECT
AREA = 3.2 AC
CN = 88
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
CN = 87
Tc = 27 MIN
Tc = 22.2 MIN
N41
AREA = 9.5 AC
CN = 84N9
Tc = 33.6 MINAREA = 4.5 AC
N15
N17
CN = 84
N12
N7
N13
AREA = 2 AC
33''AZTEC L
ANE 42''48''AREA = 1 AC
N6Tc = 22.2 MIN
AREA = 3.9 AC
AREA = 3.7 AC
S
ENECA LANE
AREA = 2 ACN16
CN = 86
CN = 94
AREA = 3 AC
CN = 84
10''CN = 84
CN = 86
AREA = 2.9 AC
Tc = 16.2 MIN
Tc = 12 MIN
CN = 84
Tc = 16.8 MIN
Tc = 32.4 MIN
Tc = 17.4 MIN
CN = 85
Tc = 5.4 MIN
Tc = 26.4 MIN
N14
N8
AREA = 7.3 AC
AREA = 2.6 AC
CN = 84
CN = 85
N3
Tc = 29.4 MIN
N10
Tc = 21.6 MIN
N5
AREA = 17.5 AC
AREA = 5.2 AC
N18
AREA = 10.8 AC
CN = 86
CN = 86
AREA = 0.3 AC
CN = 87
Tc = 33.6 MIN
N1
Tc = 23.4 MIN
CN = 91
Tc = 39.6 MINN28
AREA = 17.9 AC
10''
Tc = 1.8 MIN
AREA = 3.5 AC
CN = 84
N2CN = 85
Tc = 42.6 MIN
AREA = 14.9 ACTc = 22.2 MIN
CN = 84
N27
Tc = 34.8 MIN
Pump #2 Controls
N24
N40AREA = 8.5 AC
12''
AREA = 13.9 AC
Max Pumping
AREA = 13.3 ACCN = 85
Pump IDSump ElevationStart ElevationStop Elevation
CN = 85
CN = 82Tc = 24.6 MIN
Rate (CFS)
Tc = 41.4 MIN
Tc = 30 MIN
SWP-18.5631.25630
8''
N38
628
SWP-28.5632.25630.5
N21AREA = 1.9 AC
SWP-38.5633.25631.25
AREA = 14.7 AC
CN = 84
CN = 84Tc = 22.2 MIN
Tc = 18.6 MIN
N37
AREA = 2.2 AC
CN = 91
48''
Tc = 28.2 MIN
60N26
''60''60''
AREA = 4.8 AC
CN = 84
N25
Tc = 24 MIN
AREA = 7.5 AC
8''
4
CN = 85
Tc = 42 MIN
N19
N22
AREA = 17.4 AC
AREA = 13 AC
CN = 85
CN = 85
Tc = 40.8 MIN
1
18'2''Tc = 34.2 MIN15''
'
6''
N39
AREA = 12.5 AC
CN = 83
Tc = 27 MIN
N36
N23
AREA = 7.1 AC
15''
18''
YU
N2024''MA LANE AREA = 14.6 AC
CN = 92
AREA = 26.3 ACCN = 84
Tc = 26.4 MIN
21''
CN = 84Tc = 35.4 MIN
Tc = 61.2 MIN
N34
AREA = 7.9 AC
N32
CN = 84
N35
AREA = 4.2 AC
Tc = 30 MIN
18''12''
12''15''36''
15''15AREA = 5.1 AC
''15''
12''
CN = 86
EAST CAMP MCDONALD ROAD
18''18''24CN = 87
''24''
42''
Tc = 15.6 MIN
12''12''
12''
Tc = 40.2 MIN
N31
N33N30
AREA = 3.7 AC
AREA = 2.7 AC
AREA = 5 AC
S3
CN = 85
CN = 91
CN = 84
AREA = 3.9 AC
Tc = 41.4 MIN
Tc = 22.2 MINTc = 23.4 MIN
CN = 84
S13
Tc = 24.6 MIN
N29
AREA = 1.5 AC
AREA = 1.3 AC
S2CN = 86
21''
33''
30''
CN = 85
S6
AREA = 2.9 ACTc = 16.8 MIN
EAST
S1 WOOD LANE
21''Tc = 24 MIN
AREA = 7.9 AC
CN = 86
AREA = 9.5 AC
S14
CN = 85
Tc = 20.4 MINS39
CN = 86
AREA = 1.8 AC
Tc = 31.8 MIN
AREA = 0.5 AC
Tc = 21 MIN
CN = 85
CN = 90
Tc = 16.8 MIN
S10
Tc = 7.2 MIN
AREA = 21.1 AC
S512''
S4S15
CN = 85
AREA = 15.8 AC
AREA = 12.9 ACAREA = 1.1 AC
Tc = 54 MIN
CN = 85
CN = 85CN = 85
Tc = 33.6 MIN
Tc = 43.2 MINTc = 15 MIN
S7
S38
AREA = 7.5 AC
AREA = 1.9 AC
S16
CN = 84
CN = 86
AREA = 2.5 AC
Tc = 40.2 MIN
Tc = 27.6 MIN
CN = 84
12''12''
Tc = 15 MIN
EDWARD ROAD
S8
15''
AREA = 3 AC
CN = 86
S17
S36
Tc = 22.8 MIN
5AREA = 2.4 AC
4''54''
54''AREA = 0.6 AC
60''
CN = 85
CN = 87
S9
Tc = 17.4 MIN
Tc = 21 MIN
AREA = 11.3 AC
CN = 83
S37
Tc = 25.8 MINAREA = 0.4 AC
6''
12''
12''
CN = 90
Tc = 4.2 MIN
S33
15''
AREA = 6.8 AC
S35
CN = 85
S34
AREA = 0.7 AC
BURR O
AK DRIVE
Tc = 34.2 MIN
AREA = 6.1 AC
CN = 91
CN = 89
S18
Tc = 6 MIN
Tc = 33 MIN
AREA = 56.8 AC
S11
CN = 85
72''
S19
AREA = 14.2 AC
Tc = 61.2 MIN
72''Pump #1 Controls
AREA = 5.3 AC
CN = 88
CN = 77
Tc = 25.2 MIN Max Pumping
S32
Pump IDSump ElevationStart ElevationStop Elevation
Tc = 61.2 MIN
8''
Rate (CFS)
AREA = 0.8 AC
S30
S31
CN = 89
AREA = 5.1 ACAREA = 1.6 AC SWP-18.5631.75629.75
27''
627.5
Tc = 16.8 MIN
CN = 85CN = 86
SWP-28.5634631
Tc = 15.6 MIN
Tc = 15 MIN
S28
6''
AREA = 2 AC
S12
CN = 88
AREA = 18 AC
Tc = 19.8 MIN
CN = 85
S29
Tc = 19.8 MIN
AREA = 10.9 AC
CN = 83
Tc = 31.8 MIN
6''6''
S20
AREA = 6 AC
S27
12''
CN = 86
AREA = 1.2 AC
S21
Tc = 36.6 MIN
EAST E
UCLID AVENUE CN = 94
AREA = 13.7 AC
18''
18''
60''48''24''
24''30''
42''
S23Tc = 4.2 MIN
CN = 84
AREA = 7.1 AC
60''
Tc = 34.8 MIN
S22
CN = 84
AREA = 7.7 AC
Tc = 31.8 MIN
CN = 85
S26
Tc = 39.6 MIN
12''15''
AZALEA PLACE 15''
AREA = 0.9 AC
12''
CN = 93
Tc = 4.2 MIN
12''
12''
S25
12''15''
CEDAR LANE
A
ZALEA LANE
IVY LANE AREA = 1.4 AC
12''
CN = 90
LEGEND
Tc = 10.2 MIN
STORM MANHOLE
12''
15''
24
''21''
STORM SEWER
15''
1
2''
12''
LEVEE 37
S24
12''
AREA = 1.5 AC
12''
GREENWOOD DRIVE
''
PUMP #1 SUBBASINS 12
12''
CN = 92
Tc = 7.2 MIN
12''
PUMP #2 SUBBASINS
12''BITTERS
WEET LANE
12''
12''
PUMP #3 SUBBASINS
LINDEN LANE
12''
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
12''
LIBERTY COURT
15''
DSN.MJB
TITLE:
CLIENT:
PROJ. NO.15-0225
CHKD.
ELG
SCALE
SHEET 1 OF 1
GIS USER
No.DATENATURE OF REVISIONMODELArcGIS 9.2
DRAWING NO.
FILE NAME:
DATE:
03006001,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
PUMP STATION #3
P
IPER
LANE
LO
VE D
RIVE
AP
PLE D
RIVE
W
IMB
LEDO
N CI
RCLE
CR
ABAPP
LE DRI
VE
SEMINOLE LANE
A
ZTEC LAN
E
SENECA LA
NE
(PUMP #2) N PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 633.88
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.84
PUMP STATION #2
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 2.96 FT
MAYA
LANE
PAWN
EE LANE
(PUMP #2) S PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 634.78
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.88
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 2.10 FT
YUMA LANE
EAST
CAMP MC DO
NALD ROAD
EAST WOOD
LANE
EAST CARIB LANE
SITK
A LANE
(PUMP #1) PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
LEGEND
RIM EL. = 635.67
TANO
LANE
EX FLOOD WSEL = 637.71
TANO
LANE
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 2.04 FT
Pump Station
Levee 37
BURR OA
K DRIVE
PUMP STATION #1
APRIL 2013 STORM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
0 - 1
1 - 2
C
HI
NK
API
N O
AK
DR
IVE
2 - 3
EAST EUC
LID AVENU
E
3- 4
AZAL
EA PLACE
4 - 5
5 - 6
IVY LA
NE
6 - 7
7 - 8
>8
BI
TTER
SWE
ET LA
NE
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
8/11/15
03006001,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
PUMP STATION #3
P
IPER
LANE
LO
VE D
RIVE
AP
PLE D
RIVE
W
IMB
LEDO
N CI
RCLE
CR
ABAPP
LE DRI
VE
SEMINOLE LANE
A
ZTEC LAN
E
SENECA LA
NE
(PUMP #2) N PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 633.88
EX FLOOD WSEL = 633.16
PUMP STATION #2
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 0.00 FT
MAYA
LANE
PAWN
EE LANE
(PUMP #2) S PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 634.78
EX FLOOD WSEL = 635.68
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 0.90 FT
YUMA LANE
EAST
CAMP MC DO
NALD ROAD
EAST WOOD
LANE
EAST CARIB LANE
SITK
A LANE
(PUMP #1) PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
LEGEND
RIM EL. = 635.67
TANO
LANE
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.65
TANO
LANE
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 0.98 FT
Pump Station
Levee 37
BURR OA
K DRIVE
PUMP STATION #1
APRIL 2013 STORM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
0 - 1
1 - 2
C
HI
NK
API
N O
AK
DR
IVE
2 - 3
EAST EUC
LID AVENU
E
3- 4
AZAL
EA PLACE
4 - 5
5 - 6
IVY LA
NE
6 - 7
7 - 8
>8
BI
TTER
SWE
ET LA
NE
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
8/11/15
03006001,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
PUMP STATION #3
PI
PER L
ANE
LOV
E DR
IVE
APP
LE DR
IVE
WI
MBLE
DON
CIR
CLE
CRA
BAPPLE
DRIVE
SEMINOLE LANE
AZT
EC LANE
SEN
ECA LANE
(PUMP #2) N PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 633.88
EX FLOOD WSEL = 634.11
PUMP STATION #2
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 0.23 FT
MAYA
LANE
PAWNEE L
ANE
(PUMP #2) S PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 634.78
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.72
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 1.94 FT
Y
UMA LANE
EAST CA
MP MC DONAL
D ROAD
EA
ST WOOD LAN
E
NE
EAST CARIB LA
SITKA LA
NE
(PUMP #1) PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
LEGEND
RIM EL. = 635.67
TANO LA
NE
EX FLOOD WSEL = 637.83
TANO LA
NE
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 2.16 FT
Pump Station
Levee 37
BURR O
AK DRIVE
PUMP STATION #1
100YR 2HR STORM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
0 - 1
1 - 2
C
HIN
KA
PIN
O
AK
DR
IVE
2 - 3
EA
ST EUCLID
AVENUE
3- 4
AZA
LEA PLACE
4 - 5
5 - 6
IVY LANE
6 - 7
7 - 8
>8
BITT
ERS
WEE
T LAN
E
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
8/11/15
03006001,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
PUMP STATION #3
P
IPER
LANE
LO
VE D
RIVE
AP
PLE D
RIVE
W
IMB
LEDO
N CI
RCLE
CR
ABAPP
LE DRI
VE
SEMINOLE LANE
A
ZTEC LAN
E
SENECA LA
NE
(PUMP #2) N PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 633.88
EX FLOOD WSEL = 632.74
PUMP STATION #2
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 0.00 FT
MAYA
LANE
PAWN
EE LANE
(PUMP #2) S PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 634.78
EX FLOOD WSEL = 634.68
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 0.00 FT
YUMA LANE
EAST
CAMP MC DO
NALD ROAD
EAST WOOD
LANE
EAST CARIB LANE
SITK
A LANE
(PUMP #1) PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
LEGEND
RIM EL. = 635.67
TANO
LANE
EX FLOOD WSEL = 635.94
TANO
LANE
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 0.27 FT
Pump Station
Levee 37
BURR OA
K DRIVE
PUMP STATION #1
10YR 2HR STORM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
0 - 1
1 - 2
C
HI
NK
API
N O
AK
DR
IVE
2 - 3
EAST EUC
LID AVENU
E
3- 4
AZAL
EA PLACE
4 - 5
5 - 6
IVY LA
NE
6 - 7
7 - 8
>8
BI
TTER
SWE
ET LA
NE
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
8/11/15
03006001,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
PUMP STATION #3
P
IPER
LANE
LO
VE D
RIVE
AP
PLE D
RIVE
W
IMB
LEDO
N CI
RCLE
CR
ABAPP
LE DRI
VE
SEMINOLE LANE
PUMP #2 N PARK DRIVE LOW CB (RIM EL. = 633.88)
A
ZTEC LAN
E
SENECA LA
NE
STORM EVENTFLOOD WSELFLOOD DEPTH
1-YEAR633.950.07
2-YEAR635.561.68
5-YEAR635.962.08
PUMP STATION #2
10-YEAR636.192.31
PUMP #2 S PARK DRIVE LOW CB (RIM EL. = 634.78)
STORM EVENTFLOOD WSELFLOOD DEPTH
1-YEAR634.690.00
MAYA
LANE
2-YEAR636.021.24
5-YEAR636.521.74
10-YEAR636.631.85
PAWN
EE LANE
YUMA LANE
EAST
CAMP MC DO
NALD ROAD
EAST WOOD
LANE
EAST CARIB LANE
SITK
A LANE
PUMP #1 PARK DRIVE LOW CB (RIM EL. = 635.67)
LEGEND
STORM EVENTFLOOD WSELFLOOD DEPTH
TANO
LANE
1-YEAR636.340.67
TANO
LANE
2-YEAR636.771.10
Pump Station
5-YEAR637.441.77
10-YEAR637.651.98
Levee 37
BURR OA
K DRIVE
PUMP STATION #1
10YR 2HR STORM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
0 - 1
1 - 2
C
HI
NK
API
N O
AK
DR
IVE
2 - 3
EAST EUC
LID AVENU
E
3- 4
AZAL
EA PLACE
4 - 5
5 - 6
IVY LA
NE
6 - 7
7 - 8
>8
BI
TTER
SWE
ET LA
NE
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
8/11/15
0100200400
Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
SEMIN
OLE LA
NE
1
5''
8''
48''
SEN
ECA LANE
Pump #2 Park Drive Low CB (Rim El. = 633.88)
Storm EventEx Flood WSELPr Flood WSEL
2-Year635.56632.45
5-Year635.96634.96
10-Year636.19635.36
Pump Station #2
REPLACE 30" SEWERS WITH 5' X 5' RCBCs
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
FOR INCREASED CONVEYANCE
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
TO PROPOSED PUMP STATION
P#2 SWP-18.5631.25629
P#2 SWP-28.5632.25630
P#2 SWP-38.5633.25631
Prop 140-629
Prop 240-630
Prop 340-631
Pump #2 Park Drive Low CB (Rim El. = 634.78)
Storm EventEx Flood WSELPr Flood WSEL
2-Year636.02632.35
5-Year636.52635.63
10-Year636.63636.45
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
LEVEE 37
STORM MANHOLE
STORM SEWER
FLOOD EVENT
AT-RISK HOMES
10-YEAR (10)
5-YEAR (1)
2-YEAR (0)
10YR 2HR STORM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
0 - 1
''
12
1 - 2
18''
YUMA LAN
E
2 - 3
3- 4
4 - 5
N
ORT
H R
IVE
R
WES
T C
OU
RT
5 - 6
6 - 7
7 - 8
15''
18''
12''
>8
EAST CAMP
MC DONALD R
OAD
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
8/10/15
0150300600
Feet
1 inch = 300 feet
22''
30''
15''15
''
15
''
8
''
33''
AZT
EC LANE
48''
48''
SENECA LA
NE
INSTALL 6-INCH RESTRICTOR TO ALLOW
LOW FLOWS TO BYPASS AND HIGH FLOWS TO
DRAIN INTO PROPOSED STORAGE AREA
''
12
N PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 633.88
Pump Station #2
4''
EX 10-YR WSEL = 636.19
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
PR 10-YR WSEL = 634.43
Pump ID
PROPOSED STORAGE AT
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
ROBERT FROST ELEMENTARY
P#2 SWP-18.5631.25629
REPLACE 30" SEWERS WITH 5' X 5' RCBCs
NWL = 632.5
P#2 SWP-28.5632.25630
FOR INCREASED CONVEYANCE
HWL = 638.5
P#2 SWP-38.5633.25631
TO PROPOSED PUMP STATION
VOLUME = 11.8 AC-FT
WOOD
VIEW DRIVE
Prop 135-629
Prop 235-630
8''
Prop 335-631
S PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 634.78
EX 10-YR WSEL = 636.63
PR 10-YR WSEL = 634.55
48''
60''60''
LEGEND
INSTALL 12-INCH RESTRICTOR TO ALLOW
LOW FLOWS TO BYPASS AND HIGH FLOWS TO PROPOSED STORM SEWER
BACK UP INTO PROPOSED STORAGE AREA
STORM MANHOLE
STORM SEWER
12''
6''
LEVEE 37
10YR 2HR STORM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
0 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 3
15''
18''
YUM
A LANE
3- 4
4 - 5
21''
5 - 6
6 - 7
7 - 8
15''
36''>8
15''
18'
'2''
1
24''
24''24''
2''
12''1
12'
'12''
12''
MJB
DSGN.
TITLE:
CLIENT:
PROJ. NO.15-0225
MJB
DWN.
DATE:
CHKD.ELG
1"=
SCALE:
SHEET 1 OF 1
PLOT DATE:
DRAWING NO.
CAD USER:
NO.DATENATURE OF REVISIONCHKD.MODEL:
EX 8
FILE NAME
0100200400
Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
15''
18''
12''
EAST CAMP M
C DONALD RO
AD
12''
12''
12''12''
12''
EAST WO
OD LANE
21''
54''54''
TANO
LANE
Pump #1 Park Drive Low CB (Rim El. = 635.67)
Storm EventEx Flood WSELPr Flood WSEL
2-Year636.77634.43
5-Year637.44637.12
Pump Station #1
10-Year637.65637.58
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
P#2 SWP-18.5631.75630
P#2 SWP-28.5634631
Prop 130-630
Prop 230-631
72''
72''
72''
72''
72''
LEGEND
8''
2''
''12''1
12''12
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PIN OAK
DRIVE
27''
LEVEE 37
STORM MANHOLE
STORM SEWER
FLOOD EVENT
AT-RISK HOMES
10-YEAR (4)
12''
5-YEAR (1)
2-YEAR (0)
10YR 2HR STORM
8''
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
CHINKAP
IN OAK DR
IVE
0 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 3
6''
3- 4
4 - 5
5 - 6
EAS
T EUC
LID AV
ENUE
6 - 7
7 - 8
>8
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
8/10/15
0100200400
Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
30
''
33''
STORM MANHOLE
EAST WOOD L
36 ANE
''
21''
STORM SEWER
LEVEE 37
10YR 2HR STORM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
0 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 3
3- 4
4 - 5
18''
12''
5 - 6
PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
6 - 7
RIM EL. = 635.67
7 - 8
PROPOSED STORAGE AT
EX 10-YR WSEL = 637.65
>8
INDIAN GROVE ELEMENTARY
PR 10-YR WSEL = 636.49
NWL = 630.5
HWL = 638.6
INSTALL 12" RESTRICTOR ON EXISTING
8''
12''
VOLUME = 7.0 AC-FT
54" STORM SEWER TO REDUCE FLOWS
TO PUMP STATION #1
54
''
54''
PROPOSED 54" STORM SEWER
ALLOWS FLOW TO BACKUP INTO
STORAGE AREA AND THEN DRAIN
54"
FOLLOWING THE STORM EVENT
B
URR OAK D
RIVE
15''
72''
72''
Pump Station #1
72''
72''
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
P#2 SWP-18.5631.75630
8''
12''12''12''
P#2 SWP-28.5634631
Prop 120-630
PIN O
AK DRIVE
27''
Prop 220-631
MJB
DSGN.
TITLE:
CLIENT:
PROJ. NO.15-0225
MJB
DWN.
DATE:
CHKD.ELG
1"=
SCALE:
SHEET 1 OF 1
PLOT DATE:
DRAWING NO.
CAD USER:
NO.DATENATURE OF REVISIONCHKD.MODEL:
EX 10
FILE NAME
03006001,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
PUMP STATION #3
P
IPER
LANE
LO
VE D
RIVE
AP
PLE D
RIVE
W
IMB
LEDO
N CI
RCLE
CR
ABAPP
LE DRI
VE
SEMINOLE LANE
A
ZTEC LAN
E
SENECA LA
NE
(PUMP #2) N PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 633.88
EX FLOOD WSEL = 633.34
PUMP STATION #2
EX FLOOD DEPTH < 0.5 FT
MAYA
LANE
PAWN
EE LANE
(PUMP #2) S PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 634.78
EX FLOOD WSEL = 635.89
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 1.11 FT
YUMA LANE
EAST
CAMP MC DO
NALD ROAD
EAST WOOD
LANE
EAST CARIB LANE
SITK
A LANE
(PUMP #1) PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 635.67
LEGEND
TANO
LANE
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.93
TANO
LANE
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 1.26 FT
AT-RISK HOMES (7)
PUMP STATION
BURR OA
K DRIVE
PUMP STATION #1
25YR 2HR STORM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
0 - 1
1 - 2
C
HI
NK
API
N O
AK
DR
IVE
2 - 3
3- 4 EAST EUC
LID AVENU
E
4 - 5
AZAL
EA PLACE
5 - 6
IVY LA
NE
6 - 7
7 - 8
>8
LEVEE 37
BI
TTER
SWE
ET LA
NE
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
9/16/15
03006001,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
PUMP STATION #3
P
IPER
LANE
LO
VE D
RIVE
AP
PLE D
RIVE
W
IMB
LEDO
N CI
RCLE
CR
ABAPP
LE DRI
VE
SEMINOLE LANE
A
ZTEC LAN
E
SENECA LA
NE
(PUMP #2) N PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 633.88
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.46
PUMP STATION #2
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 2.58 FT
MAYA
LANE
PAWN
EE LANE
(PUMP #2) S PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 634.78
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.82
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 2.04 FT
YUMA LANE
EAST
CAMP MC DO
NALD ROAD
EAST WOOD
LANE
EAST CARIB LANE
SITK
A LANE
(PUMP #1) PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
LEGEND
RIM EL. = 635.67
TANO
LANE
EX FLOOD WSEL = 637.95
TANO
LANE
EX FLOOD DEPTH = 2.28 FT
AT-RISK HOMES (30)
PUMP STATION
BURR OA
K DRIVE
PUMP STATION #1
LEVEE 37
25YR 2HR STORM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
0 - 1
C
HI
NK
API
N O
AK
DR
IVE
1 - 2
2 - 3
EAST EUC
LID AVENU
E
3- 4
AZAL
EA PLACE
4 - 5
IVY LA
NE
5 - 6
6 - 7
7 - 8
>8
BI
TTER
SWE
ET LA
NE
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
9/16/15
0150300600
(PUMP #2) N PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
Feet
RIM EL. = 633.88
1 inch = 300 feet
42''
4
8''
48''
S
ENECA LAN
E
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.46
PR FLOOD WSEL = 634.37
Pump Station #2
12''
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
5' X 5' RCBC
P#2 SWP-18.5631.25629
P#2 SWP-28.5632.25630
P#2 SWP-38.5633.25631
Prop 1110-629
Prop 2110-630
Prop 3110-631
WOODV
IEW DR
IVE
8''
PROPOSED STORM SEWER ON PARK DRIVE
REPLACES EXISTING STORM SEWER
(PUMP #2) S PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
SEMINOLE LANE
RIM EL. = 634.78
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.82
PR FLOOD WSEL = 635.66
48''
''
60''60
MAYA LA
NE
36"
36"
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 36"
SEWER OUTLET TO THE DPR
12''
6''
P
AWNEE LANE
PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROVIDES
RELIEF TO EXISTING TRUNK SEWER.
NORT
H RIVER WEST COURT
15''
''18
YUMA LA
NE
15''
36''
15''
18''
12''
EAST
42'' CAMP MC
DONALD R
OAD
12''
12''
1
2''
12''
12''
30''
33''36"
24"
36''
EAST W
OOD LANE
21''
PROPOSED STORM SEWER ON PARK DRIVE
REPLACES EXISTING STORM SEWER
18''
12''
SITKA LANE
(PUMP #1) PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
LEGEND
RIM EL. = 635.67
EX FLOOD WSEL = 637.95
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PR FLOOD WSEL = 634.85
12''
PUMP STATION
LEVEE 37
STORM MANHOLE
42"
54''
54''
TANO
LANE
STORM SEWER
25YR 2HR STORM
PROPOSED 42" STORM SEWER PROVIDES
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)
RELIEF TO EXISTING TRUNK SEWER
0 - 1
Pump Station #1
1 - 2
BURR OA
K DRIVEIVE
EN DR
LTIC GL
CE
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
2 - 3
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
3- 4
P#2 SWP-18.5631.75630
72''
72''72''
P#2 SWP-28.5634631
4 - 5
Prop 180-630
8''
5 - 6
12''2''12''
1
Prop 280-631
PIN OAK
DRIVE
6 - 7
27''
7 - 8PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 42"
SEWER OUTLET TO THE DPR
>8
CREE LANE
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
9/16/15
INSTALL 6-INCH RESTRICTOR TO ALLOW
0150300600
LOW FLOWS TO BYPASS AND HIGH FLOWS TO
DRAIN INTO PROPOSED STORAGE AREA
Feet
1 inch = 300 feet
(PUMP #2) N PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
42''
AZTEC
LANE
48''
48''
SENE
CA LANE
RIM EL. = 633.88
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.46
PR FLOOD WSEL = 635.01
Pump Station #2
12''Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
Pump ID
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
5' X 5' RCBC
P#2 SWP-18.5631.25629
PROPOSED STORAGE AT
4''
P#2 SWP-28.5632.25630
ROBERT FROST ELEMENTARY
P#2 SWP-38.5633.25631
NWL = 632.5
5' X 5' RCBC
HWL = 639.2
Prop 140-629
VOLUME = 18.0 AC-FT
Prop 240-630
Prop 340-631
WOO
DVIEW
DRIVE
8''
(PUMP #2) S PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
SEMINOLE LANE
RIM EL. = 634.78
EX FLOOD WSEL = 636.82
48''
PR FLOOD WSEL = 636.36
48''
60''60''
MAYA LANE
INSTALL 12-INCH RESTRICTOR TO ALLOW
LEGEND
LOW FLOWS TO BYPASS AND HIGH FLOWS TO
AT-RISK HOMES (2)
BACK UP INTO PROPOSED STORAGE AREA
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
12
''
6''
PAWN
EE LANE
PUMP STATION
LEVEE 37
STORM MANHOLE
STORM SEWER
''
12
25YR 2HR STORM
15''18''
YUM
FLOOD DEPTH (FT)A LANE
0 - 1
1 - 2
NO
RT
H R
IVE
R W
ES
T C
OU
RT
2 - 3
3- 4
15''36''
4 - 5
15''
18''
12''
EAST CAMP MC DONA
LD ROAD
24''
12''
1
2''
12''
5 - 6 12''
12''
6 - 7
7 - 8
>8
3
0''
3
3''
24"
24"
EAST 2''
WOOD LA 1
NE 21''
(PUMP #1) PARK DRIVE LOW C. B.
RIM EL. = 635.67
EX FLOOD WSEL = 637.95
18''
12''
PR FLOOD WSEL = 636.78
SITKA
LANE
ADDITIONAL SEWER REQUIRED
INSTALL 12" RESTRICTOR ON EXISTING
TO REDUCE FLOODING
12''
54" STORM SEWER TO REDUCE FLOWS
TO PUMP STATION #1
54''
54''
T
ANO LANE
PROPOSED 54" STORM SEWER
ALLOWS FLOW TO BACKUP INTO
STORAGE AREA AND THEN DRAIN
FOLLOWING THE STORM EVENT
BURR
OAK DRIVE
N DRIVE
IC GLE
CELT
Pump Station #1
72''
72''
72''
Max Pumping Existing Start Proposed Start
PROPOSED STORAGE AT
Pump ID
INDIAN GROVE ELEMENTARY
Rate (cfs)Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)
NWL = 630.5
P#2 SWP-18.5631.75630
8''
12''12''12''
HWL = 638.2
P#2 SWP-28.5634631
PI
N OAK DRIVE
VOLUME = 12.0 AC-FT
27''
Prop 130-630
Prop 230-631
DSGN.
CHKD.
MJBELG
CLIENTPROJECT NO.
15-0225
DATE
TITLE
9/16/15
Village of Mount Prospect Levee 37 Drainage Study September 22, 2015
Appendix 1
Cost Estimates
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
MOUNT PROSPECT
(CBBEL PROJECT NO. 150225)
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
DATE: August 24, 2015
LAST REVISED:
ALTERNATIVE 1: PUMP STATION 2 UPGRADE
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY$ 40.00200$ 8,000.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY$ 5.00350$ 1,750.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.000.07$ 700.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.00350$ 1,750.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT15.00$ 200$ 3,000.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT500.00$ 185$ 92,500.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT80.00$ 10$ 800.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT15.00$ 10$ 150.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT40.00$ 185$ 7,400.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00
1
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH800.00$ $ 800.00
1
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH500.00$ $ 500.00
1
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT35.00$ $ 7,000.00
200
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT25.00$ $ 5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM10,000.00$ 1$ 10,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM3,000.00$ 1$ 3,000.00
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH10,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
2
SUB-TOTAL$ 172,350.00
20%CONTINGENCY34,470.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$ 206,820.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
ALTERNATIVE 2: PUMP STATION 2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED PROSPECT HEIGHTS PUMP STATION
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 50.0045$ 2,250.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
$ 10,000.000.07$ 700.00
20100500TREE REMOVAL, ACRESACRE
$ 250.0010$ 2,500.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$ 40.00350$ 14,000.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY$ 5.00950$ 4,750.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.000.2$ 2,000.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.00950$ 4,750.00
28100109STONE RIPRAP, CLASS A5SQ YD$ 60.00120$ 7,200.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT15.00$ 260$ 3,900.00
44201000CLASS B PATCHES, TYPE IV, 12 INCHSQ YD100.00$ 75$ 7,500.00
44201745CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE III, 8 INCHSQ YD80.00$ 25$ 2,000.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT500.00$ 185$ 92,500.00
54213693PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 48"EACH4,500.00$ 4$ 18,000.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT80.00$ 10$ 800.00
550A0480STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 48"FOOT150.00$ 700$ 105,000.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT15.00$ 10$ 150.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT40.00$ 185$ 7,400.00
60223800MANHOLES, TYPE A, 6'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH6,000.00$ 1$ 6,000.00
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH9,000.00$ 1$ 9,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00
1
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH800.00$ $ 800.00
1
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH500.00$ $ 500.00
1
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT30.00$ $ 1,200.00
40
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT35.00$ $ 7,700.00
220
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT25.00$ $ 5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM15,000.00$ 1$ 15,000.00
85000300MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONL SUM10,000.00$ 1$ 10,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM6,000.00$ 1$ 6,000.00
Z0033024MAINTAIN EXISTING LIGHTING SYSTEML SUM8,000.00$ 1$ 8,000.00
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH10,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
2
NALANDSCAPE RESTORATION (FENCE/ENTRANCE MONUMENTS/PLANTING BEDS)L. SUM20,000.00$ 1$ 20,000.00
SUB-TOTAL$ 394,600.00
20%CONTINGENCY78,920.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$ 473,520.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
ALTERNATIVE 3B: PUMP STATION 2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 50.00100$ 5,000.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
$ 250.004$ 1,000.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$ 40.0027100$1,084,000.00
20200100EARTH EXCAVATIONCU YD
$ 40.00440$ 17,600.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY$ 5.0013900$ 69,500.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.002.9$ 29,000.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.0013900$ 69,500.00
28100109STONE RIPRAP, CLASS A5SQ YD$ 60.0060$ 3,600.00
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD$ 80.00110$ 8,800.00
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT$ 7.00950$ 6,650.00
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD$ 15.00110$ 1,650.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT15.00$ 220$ 3,300.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT2.00$ 950$ 1,900.00
44201692CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE II, 4 INCHSQ YD60.00$ 15$ 900.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT500.00$ 185$ 92,500.00
54213693PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 48"EACH4,500.00$ 1$ 4,500.00
54213705PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 60"EACH8,000.00$ 1$ 8,000.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT80.00$ 10$ 800.00
550A0190STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 48"FOOT150.00$ 870$ 130,500.00
550A0210STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 60"FOOT220.00$ 215$ 47,300.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT15.00$ 10$ 150.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT40.00$ 185$ 7,400.00
55101900STORM SEWER REMOVAL 48"FOOT60.00$ 130$ 7,800.00
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH8,000.00$ 2$ 16,000.00
60224459MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH10,000.00$ 1$ 10,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00
1
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH2,000.00$ $ 4,000.00
2
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH800.00$ $ 800.00
1
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH500.00$ $ 500.00
1
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT30.00$ $ 600.00
20
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT35.00$ $ 7,000.00
200
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT25.00$ $ 5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM15,000.00$ 1$ 15,000.00
X6020293MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, WITH 2 TYPE 1 FRAMES, CLOSED LID, RESTRICTOR PLATEEACH15,000.00$ 1$ 15,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM9,000.00$ 1$ 9,000.00
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH10,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
2
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBEREACH12,000.00$ $ 12,000.00
1
NAREMOVE BASEBALL FIELD EQUIPMENTL. SUM4,000.00$ $ 4,000.00
1
SUB-TOTAL$1,730,250.00
20%CONTINGENCY346,050.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$2,076,300.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
ALTERNATIVE 4: PUMP STATION 2 UPGRADE & PROPOSED STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 40.00550$ 22,000.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
$ 5.00350$ 1,750.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY
$ 10,000.000.07$ 700.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE
$ 5.00350$ 1,750.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT15.00$ 200$ 3,000.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD80.00$ 350$ 28,000.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT500.00$ 185$ 92,500.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT80.00$ 10$ 800.00
550A0430STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 30"FOOT150.00$ 315$ 47,250.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT15.00$ 10$ 150.00
55101200STORM SEWER REMOVAL 24"FOOT20.00$ 150$ 3,000.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT40.00$ 185$ 7,400.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00
1
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH800.00$ $ 800.00
1
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH500.00$ $ 500.00
1
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT35.00$ $ 7,000.00
200
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT25.00$ $ 5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM18,000.00$ 1$ 18,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBEREACH20,000.00$ $ 40,000.00
2
NAREMOVE EXISTING JUCTION CHAMBEREACH5,000.00$ $ 10,000.00
2
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH10,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
2
SUB-TOTAL$ 323,600.00
20%CONTINGENCY64,720.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$ 388,320.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
ALTERNATIVE 6: PUMP STATION 1 UPGRADE & PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 50.0030$ 1,500.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
$ 250.004$ 1,000.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$ 40.0014500$ 580,000.00
20200100EARTH EXCAVATIONCU YD
$ 40.00350$ 14,000.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY$ 5.006700$ 33,500.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.001.4$ 14,000.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.006700$ 33,500.00
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD$ 80.0050$ 4,000.00
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT$ 7.00200$ 1,400.00
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD$ 15.0050$ 750.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT15.00$ 240$ 3,600.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT2.00$ 200$ 400.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD80.00$ 250$ 20,000.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT60.00$ 20$ 1,200.00
550A0490STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 54"FOOT190.00$ 810$ 153,900.00
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT15.00$ 200$ 3,000.00
55101300STORM SEWER REMOVAL 27"FOOT25.00$ 135$ 3,375.00
55101500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 33"FOOT45.00$ 260$ 11,700.00
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH9,000.00$ 5$ 45,000.00
60224469MANHOLES, TYPE A, 9'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH12,000.00$ 1$ 12,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00
1
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH1,000.00$ $ 3,000.00
3
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH800.00$ $ 1,600.00
2
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT30.00$ $ 7,200.00
240
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM7,000.00$ 1$ 7,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM3,500.00$ 1$ 3,500.00
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBER WITH RESTRICTOREACH20,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
1
NAREMOVE EXISTING RESTRICTOR STRUCTUREEACH2,500.00$ 1$ 2,500.00
NALANDSCAPE RESTORATION (PLAYGROUND AREA)L. SUM5,000.00$ 1$ 5,000.00
SUB-TOTAL$ 989,625.00
20%CONTINGENCY197,925.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$1,187,550.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
ALTERNATIVE 7: PUMP STATION 1 UPGRADE & PROPOSED STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 50.00100$ 5,000.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
$ 250.006$ 1,500.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$ 40.00400$ 16,000.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
$ 5.00450$ 2,250.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.000.1$ 1,000.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.00450$ 2,250.00
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD$ 80.00100$ 8,000.00
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT$ 7.00500$ 3,500.00
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD$ 15.00175$ 2,625.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT15.00$ 300$ 4,500.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT2.00$ 500$ 1,000.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD80.00$ 270$ 21,600.00
550A0090STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 18"FOOT80.00$ 450$ 36,000.00
550A0120STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 24"FOOT90.00$ 470$ 42,300.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT15.00$ 680$ 10,200.00
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT15.00$ 240$ 3,600.00
60200205CATCH BASINS, TYPE A, 4'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH4,000.00$ 2$ 8,000.00
60203805CATCH BASINS, TYPE A, 5'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH5,000.00$ 3$ 15,000.00
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH800.00$ $ 1,600.00
2
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH800.00$ $ 2,400.00
3
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT30.00$ $ 3,000.00
100
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM6,000.00$ 1$ 6,000.00
Z0004522HOT-MIX ASPHALT DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6"SQ YD70.00$ 75$ 5,250.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM3,000.00$ 1$ 3,000.00
SUB-TOTAL$ 205,575.00
20%CONTINGENCY41,115.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$ 246,690.00
THIS ESTIMATE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
A.LAND ACQUISITION
B.UTILITY RELOCATIONS
C.ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS OR RIGHT-OF-WAY
D.ACQUISITION OF IDOT PERMITS OR COUNTY PERMITS
E.FENCE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
F.IMPACT TO THE EXISTING FLOODWALL
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 (Autosaved).xlsx
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
MOUNT PROSPECT
(CBBEL PROJECT NO. 150225)
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
DATE: September 15, 2015
LAST REVISED:
1
ALTERNATIVE 8: 25-YEAR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT TAILWATER & PUMPS
2
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
$ 50.00100$ 5,000.00
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT
$ 250.0020$ 5,000.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY$ 40.007000$ 280,000.00
$ 5.001300$ 6,500.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.000.27$ 2,700.00
$ 5.001300$ 6,500.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD$ 80.00200$ 16,000.00
$ 7.001000$ 7,000.00
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD$ 15.00400$ 6,000.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT$ 15.001520$ 22,800.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT$ 2.001000$ 2,000.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD$ 80.005100$ 408,000.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH$ 4,000.001$ 4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH$ 4,000.001$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT$ 500.0085$ 42,500.00
54010606PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 6' X 5.5'FOOT$ 600.00100$ 60,000.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT$ 75.00100$ 7,500.00
550A0120STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 24"FOOT$ 100.00605$ 60,500.00
550A0140STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 30"FOOT$ 130.00800$ 104,000.00
550A0160STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 36"FOOT$ 140.004186$ 586,040.00
550A0180STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 42"FOOT$ 160.002120$ 339,200.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT$ 15.00690$ 10,350.00
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT$ 15.00240$ 3,600.00
55100900STORM SEWER REMOVAL 18"FOOT$ 15.00330$ 4,950.00
55101200STORM SEWER REMOVAL 24"FOOT$ 20.00150$ 3,000.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT$ 40.00185$ 7,400.00
60203805CATCH BASINS, TYPE A, 5'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH$ 5,000.005$ 25,000.00
60221100MANHOLES, TYPE A, 5'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$ 4,500.008$ 36,000.00
60223800MANHOLES, TYPE A, 6'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$ 6,500.006$ 39,000.00
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$ 9,000.0015$ 135,000.00
60224459MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$ 10,000.001$ 10,000.00
60224469MANHOLES, TYPE A, 9'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$ 12,000.001$ 12,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH$ 2,000.00$ 12,000.00
6
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH$ 800.00$ 4,800.00
6
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$ 800.00$ 4,000.00
5
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH$ 500.00$ 3,000.00
6
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$ 30.00$ 9,000.00
300
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT$ 35.00$ 42,700.00
1220
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT$ 25.00$ 5,000.00
200
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM$ 50,000.001$ 50,000.00
Z0004522HOT-MIX ASPHALT DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6"SQ YD$ 70.00200$ 14,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM$ 20,000.001$ 20,000.00
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBEREACH$ 20,000.00$ 100,000.00
5
NAREMOVE EXISTING JUCTION CHAMBEREACH$ 5,000.00$ 25,000.00
5
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH$ 10,000.00$ 20,000.00
2
3
NAUTILITY RELOCATIONL. SUM$ 1,000,000.00$ 1,000,000.00
1
SUB-TOTAL$ 3,571,040.00
20%CONTINGENCY$ 714,208.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$ 4,285,248.00
1
Does not include pump station cost
2
Based on 2015 dollar estimates
3
An allowance has been included for utility relocations, but the amount is not an upper limit
THIS ESTIMATE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
A.LAND ACQUISITION
B.ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS OR RIGHT-OF-WAY
C.ACQUISITION OF IDOT PERMITS OR COUNTY PERMITS
D.FENCE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
E.IMPACT TO THE EXISTING FLOODWALL
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 25YEARIMPROVEMENT
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
MOUNT PROSPECT
(CBBEL PROJECT NO. 150225)
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
DATE: September 18, 2015
LAST REVISED:
ALTERNATIVE 9: 25-YEAR STORM SEWER AND FLOOD STORAGE IMPROVEMENT WITH 10-YEAR FIS TAILWATER & UPGRADED PUMP STATION
2
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT$ 50.00130$ 6,500.00
$ 250.0010$ 2,500.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
$ 40.0062500$ 2,500,000.00
20200100EARTH EXCAVATIONCU YD
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY$ 40.001390$ 55,600.00
$ 5.0030150$ 150,750.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY
25000110SEEDINGACRE$ 10,000.004.2$ 42,000.00
$ 5.0030150$ 150,750.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY
28100109STONE RIPRAP, CLASS A5SQ YD$ 60.00100$ 6,000.00
$ 80.00160$ 12,800.00
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT$ 7.001150$ 8,050.00
$ 15.00160$ 2,400.00
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT15.00$ 500$ 7,500.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT2.00$ 1150$ 2,300.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD80.00$ 1215$ 97,200.00
50100300REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
50100400REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 2 (BOX CULVERT INTO JUNCTION)EACH4,000.00$ 1$ 4,000.00
54010505PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 5' X 5'FOOT500.00$ 185$ 92,500.00
54213693PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 48"EACH4,500.00$ 1$ 4,500.00
54213705PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 60"EACH8,000.00$ 1$ 8,000.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT80.00$ 30$ 2,400.00
550A0120STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 24"FOOT100.00$ 520$ 52,000.00
550A0140STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 30"FOOT130.00$ 680$ 88,400.00
550A0190STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 48"FOOT150.00$ 750$ 112,500.00
550A0210STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 60"FOOT220.00$ 215$ 47,300.00
550A0490STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 54"FOOT190.00$ 810$ 153,900.00
55100500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12"FOOT15.00$ 10$ 150.00
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT15.00$ 200$ 3,000.00
55101300STORM SEWER REMOVAL 27"FOOT25.00$ 135$ 3,375.00
55101400STORM SEWER REMOVAL 30"FOOT40.00$ 185$ 7,400.00
55101500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 33"FOOT45.00$ 260$ 11,700.00
55101900STORM SEWER REMOVAL 48"FOOT60.00$ 130$ 7,800.00
60221100MANHOLES, TYPE A, 5'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH4,500.00$ 2$ 9,000.00
60223800MANHOLES, TYPE A, 6'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH6,500.00$ 3$ 19,500.00
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH8,000.00$ 7$ 56,000.00
60224459MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH10,000.00$ 1$ 10,000.00
60224469MANHOLES, TYPE A, 9'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH12,000.00$ 1$ 12,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH2,000.00$ 2$ 4,000.00
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH2,000.00$ $ 10,000.00
5
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH800.00$ 3$ 2,400.00
60500060REMOVING INLETSEACH500.00$ $ 500.00
1
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT30.00$ 300$ 9,000.00
60605100COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.24 (ABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT)FOOT35.00$ $ 7,000.00
200
63301215REMOVE AND REERECT STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE BFOOT25.00$ 200$ 5,000.00
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM22,000.00$ 1$ 22,000.00
X6020293MANHOLES, TYPE A, 8'-DIAMETER, WITH 2 TYPE 1 FRAMES, CLOSED LID, RESTRICTOR PLATEEACH15,000.00$ 1$ 15,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM12,500.00$ 1$ 12,500.00
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBER WITH RESTRICTOREACH20,000.00$ 1$ 20,000.00
NAREMOVE EXISTING RESTRICTOR STRUCTUREEACH2,500.00$ 1$ 2,500.00
NALANDSCAPE RESTORATION (PLAYGROUND AREA)L. SUM5,000.00$ 1$ 5,000.00
NABOX CULVERT CONNECTION TO EXISTING BACKFLOW STRUCTUREEACH10,000.00$ $ 20,000.00
2
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBEREACH12,000.00$ 1$ 12,000.00
NAREMOVE BASEBALL FIELD EQUIPMENTL. SUM4,000.00$ $ 4,000.00
1
SUB-TOTAL$ 3,904,675.00
20%CONTINGENCY780,935.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$ 4,685,610.00
1
Does not include pump station cost (See Report Table 7)
2
Based on 2015 dollar estimates
THIS ESTIMATE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
A.LAND ACQUISITION
B.UTILITY RELOCATIONS
C.ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS OR RIGHT-OF-WAY
D.ACQUISITION OF IDOT PERMITS OR COUNTY PERMITS
E.FENCE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
F.IMPACT TO THE EXISTING FLOODWALL
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\EOPC 150225 Alt9.xlsx
Levee 37 Drainage Improvement Project MWRDGC Phase II Stormwater Management Program February 2018
ATTACHMENT 7
Burning Bush Storage Option Memo
MEMORANDUM
December 26, 2017
TO:Sean Dorsey–Director of Public Works, Mount Prospect
Jeff Wulbecker, PE–Village Engineer, Mount Prospect
FROM:Don Dressel, PE
Erik Gil, PE
Michael Burke, PE
COPY:Christopher B. Burke, PhD, PE
SUBJECT:Pump Station #1 Drainage Area –Additional StormwaterStorage Options
Levee 37 Tributary Area Drainage Study
Village of Mount Prospect
(CBBEL Project No. 15-0225.00004)
In September 2015 Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. (CBBEL)completedthe Levee 37
drainage study(study)which recommended the following improvements:
Pump Station #1 & #2 upgrades to provide an additional 180 cfs of pumping capacity.
Proposed 7-acreflood storage basin at Indian Grove Elementary School to provide a
10-year level of protection (LOP) within the Pump Station #1 drainage area.
Proposed 12-acre flood storage basin at Frost Elementary School to provide a 10-year
level of protection (LOP) within the Pump Station #2 drainage area.
On December 13, 2017, a meeting was held with River Trails School District #26 to discuss
the proposed flood storage at Indian Grove Elementary School (school). At the meeting, a
school district representativeasked if stormwaterstorage at Burning Bush Trails Park (park)
was feasible in lieu of providing storage at the school. This memorandum summarizesa
conceptual feasibility analysisand cost estimatefor providing stormwaterstorage at this park
and provides abrief discussion of underground storage.
Existing Conditions
The park, located northeast of Euclid Avenue and Burning Bush Laneand southeast of the
Indian Grove Elementary School, is a multi-use facility with a community center, athletic
courts, a playground, and two baseball diamonds. We have proposed astormwaterstorage
area in the approximately4.5-acre open space currently occupied by the two baseball
diamondsin the eastern portion of the park.This area is low-lyingrelative to the adjacent
landandbecomesinundatedduring less frequentstorm events. Below is a summarytable
of the existing conditions inundation at the baseball fields based on the stormwater modeling
performed using XPSWMM hydrologic and hydraulic modeling software(Exhibit 1).
CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD.
9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520
MEMORANDUM
Table 1 –Existing Conditions Summary Table
Max
Storm Stormwater Storage Volume
Inundation HWL (ft)
Event Below the HWL (ac-ft)
Depth (ft)
639.09
10-Year 3.09 6.2
639.33
100-Year 3.33 8.7
The existing stormwater storage volume needs to be accounted for in the design of the
proposed storage basin in order to reduce the risk of increasing inundation off-site.
Proposed Conditions
Stormwater storage at the park was optimizedthrough iterative modeling to approximately
matchthe same benefits obtained by the proposed storage at the school. Like our original
design, the parameters for both above-ground storage basins are described below:
Intended to provide 10-year flood protectionat problem areas
Can effectively store water for the 100-year storm without overtopping while reducing
flooding at the problem areas
Proposed 54-inch relief sewer diverts water from the trunk sewer on Tano Lane
Designed to accommodate underdrains for improved pond bottom drainage
Unlike the school site, the existing parkcan be inundatedduring storm eventsand to
compensate future storage, a larger basin is required than previously proposed at the school.
The proposed basin at the park providesapproximately 13acre-feet of stormwater storage
volume for the 100-year storm, compared to the approximate 9 acre-feet proposed at the
school.
Stormwater would beconveyed to the proposed storage basin at the park through a proposed
54-inch relief sewer that diverts water from the Tano Lane trunk sewer at the Lama Lane
intersectionthrough a proposed diversion structureas shown on Exhibit 3. Thediversion
structure hasanoverflow weir set at the crown of the existing trunk sewer which allows
stormwaterto enter the park storage basin duringless frequentstorms(greater than 2-year
frequency storm), and stay dry during more frequent storm events.
The proposed relief sewer continues south down Lama Lane for approximately 880 feet, and
then turns west within Village ROW between the residential propertiesat 1310 and 1312
Lama Lane,and continueswestfor another 270 feet before it outlets to the proposed storage
basin.The proposed basin would drainthrough the same 54-inch storm sewer following the
storm event. The storage volume in the proposed basin at the park has been optimized to
maintain similar benefitsin the problemarea along Park Hill Drive that are achieved with the
Indian Grove storage basin. The proposed basin is 4-feet belowthe existing average ground
elevation,andcan accommodate an underdrain systemto better drain the bottom of the basin
and allow forbaseball and/or soccer fields.
CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD.
9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520
MEMORANDUM
A comparison summary of the two proposed stormwater storage basins is provided in Table
2. The proposed storage basin at the school was modified with a larger footprint than
proposed in the 2015 study to accommodate underdrains which accounts for the higher cost
(Exhibit 2). The overall flood reduction benefits are similar comparing the two basins,except
fora few differences. In conclusion, stormwater storage at the park isfeasiblebutis acostlier
alternative than the proposed basin at the school.
Table 2 –Storage Basin Comparison Summary Table
Proposed Storage Area
Description
Indian Grove Elementary School Burning Bush Trails Park
Excavation Volume23,200 cu. yds. 26,200 cu. yds.
Bottom footprint size 0.9 ac 3.5ac
1
10-Year Storage Volume 6.6 ac-ft 4.6 ac-ft
100-Year Storage Volume 8.6 ac-ft 13.4 ac-ft
Pond NWL 632.0 634.0
10-Year HWL638.26 635.25
100-Year HWL 639.96 637.89
10-Year Storage Basin Bounce 6.3 ft 1.3 ft
100-Year Storage Basin Bounce8.0 ft 3.9 ft
Length of 54-inch Relief Sewer 730 ft 1150 ft
All homes protected from street 1 less home benefitted (located
10-Year Benefits
flooding on Althea Dr)
10-Year Flood Depth on Park Drive 0.4 ft 0.7 ft
Total Project Cost $1.6 Million $2.2 Million
Difference in Cost 40% greater
2
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.94 Not calculated
1
The 10-year storage volume at Burning Bush is less thanIndian Grove due to the differentdesign of the
hydraulics. Burning Bush uses an equalizer pipe to draw water away from the trunk sewer thus reducing
the flood level on Park Drive, while Indian Grove restricts flow on the trunk sewer to the flood area on Park
Drive and diverts it to the storage area.
2
ABenefit Cost Ratio (BCR)of 1.04 was calculated for the FEMAHazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA)grant
application submitted by the Village on November 13, 2017. TheBCR has been adjusted to account for
the updated cost from the revised footprint at Indian Grove to account for underdrains. The BCRcalculation
is based on improvements forentire Levee 37 study area including Pump Station #2 upgrades and
associated proposed storage in that drainage area.
Underground Storage Option
th
During the December 13meeting, School board representatives asked about the possibility
of providing underground storage in lieu of above ground storage, and referenced Wescott
Parkin the Village of Northbrookas an example. Similar to the Levee 37 drainage projects,
CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD.
9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520
MEMORANDUM
the Wescott Park project provides storage volume to reduce flooding in the adjacent
residential neighborhood. A brief description of the Wescott Park Storage Facility is provided
below:
Underground storage volume = 23 acre-feet
Design frequency storm = 25-year storm
Total cost = $10.3 million (as reported in the Wescott Park Storage Facility Refined
Study, datedAugust 2014, prepared by Baxter and Woodman)
Benefit/CostRatio= 0.33 (as reported in the Northbrook Master Stormwater
Management Plan, datedAugust 2011)
For discussion purposes, the Wescott Park cost value of $447,000/acre-foot would mean
that an underground storage option at Indian Grove would cost approximately $3.9 million,
which is 2.4 times greater than the excavatedstorage option. However, due to the smaller
sized basin at Indian Grove compared to Wescott Park, the estimated underground storage
cost could be higher.
List of Enclosures
Exhibit 1 –Pump Station #1 Drainage Area Existing Conditions Map
Exhibit 2 –Proposed Storage at Indian Grove Elementary School
Exhibit 3 –Proposed Storage at Burning Bush Trails Park
Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost
MJB/ELG
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225.00004\\Water\\Docs\\M.PS1 Storage Options 122017.docx
CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD.
9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520
!
H
!!H
!H!HH!>!!>
!H!H!H!HHH!H
H!H
!!H!!
HH!H!H!H!H!HH!H!!!!H
HHH!!!
H!HHH!H
!H!
H!H!>!!H>!H
HH!H!!!
HH!H
H
!H
!
H
0150300600
Feet
!H
!H
!
H!H
!
H
!H
1 inch = 300 feet
FLOODING ALONG BURNING BUSH LN I
!H
!
H
!H
!H!H!
H!H
!
H
!
H
196
!
H
10-YR WSEL = 640.70
!H
!
641.19 H
!
H
100-YEAR WSEL = 641.34
!
H
!H
S14
21''
30''
30''
!H
637.32
>
>!H
!H!>>!
HH
!H!
!HH!H
!H
!H
!H!H
!H!
H!!H
H
!
EAST WOOD L 36 H
ANE''
!
21''!H
!H>H
!
!HH
!
H!H
!
H!!H
H
!H!H!H
!H!
H>
!H
!H
!H
!
H!
H
FLOODING ALONG ALTHEA DR
!H!H
!H!H
S5
!
H
10-YR WSEL = 641.13!H!H
641.06
!H!
!H!H
H
!!
!HHH
''
12!
H
!
H
100-YEAR WSEL = 641.61
!
H
!
H
!H
!
H
S5
21
''
640.75
18''
!H
12''
!
H
!
H
>>!H
!H
!H
!
H!
H
!!
HH
!
H
!H
!
!H
H
!
H
!
H
!H!!H
H
!
H!
H
!H
S16
637.30
!H
12''
12''
S16
!H!H
!H
!H
!!H
H
!H
!H!636.89
H
!H
!
H
!H
!
H!
H
!H
!H
!
H S16
!
H!H
!
H!
H
FLOODING ALONG PARK DR
!
H
!637.71
H!H
TANO!H
LANE!H
!H
!H
!
H
!H
!
H!H
10-YR WSEL = 637.69
!
H
!
!H
H
!H
!H
!
H
54''100-YEAR WSEL = 638.33
54
!''!H 60
!HH!H!''
H
>
!H
!
H!!
HH!
H
!!H
H
!
!HH
!H
!
H
!H
!
!HH
!
H
!!H!H
H!
H
S17
!
H
S17
!H
!
H
!
H
!
637.76 H
!H
!
H
6
''
>637.48
!H
>
!H>
>!H
!H!H!
!H!HH!!
HH
!!H
H
!
H
!H
!
H
>!
H
!
H
18''!!H
H
!H
!H!!
HH!H
!!H
H
!H
!H!!H
!H!
HH
!H
BURR OAK DR
IVE
!
H!
!HH
!
H
!
!HH
!
!HH
!
H
!H
!H
!H
72''
!!
HH!H
!
H!H
!>>>2''
H 7
!H>
>!>!>
HH
!H
!!H
H
!H>>
!H
>>
>>!!
HH
!
!HH
!
H
8''
12''12''
!
H!H
!LEGEND
!!!>!H
HHHH
!H
!H
!H!H
!PIN OAK DRIVE
H
!
H 27''
!H
AT-RISK STRUCTURES
!
H!H
>!H
!>
H
!H
!H
!H
STORM MANHOLE
!H
!H
!
H
!H
!
!HH
!
H>
!H
!H!STORM SEWER
!H
H
!H!H
!H
!H
!
H
!H
!
H!H
!H
!H
!H
PARCELS
!
H
!H!
H
!
H!H
!10YR FLOOD DEPTH
H
!H
!
H
!
H>!H
!H
FEET
!
H
EXISTING STORAGE AT BURNING BUSH TRAILS PARK
!
H!0 - 1
H
!H!H
!H
!H
!!H
H 8''
!H
1 - 2
!H
!H
!!H!!
HHH
C
HINKAPIN OAK
10-D Y R R I V W E SEL = 639.09
!
H!H
!>>!H
H
!H
2 - 3
10-YR STORAGE VOL = 6.2 AC-FT
!
H!!H
H
!H
3- 4
!
H
!
H
!
6''100-YR WSEL = 6 H 39.33
!H
!H>>!
H!
H
!
H 4 - 5
!H
100-YR STORAGE VOL = 8.7 AC-FT
!H!
!HH
!H 5 - 6
!
H
!H!
!!HH
!H!H!HH!H!!
!HH
H!H!!
H!HH
!H!
H!
H!H!
H!H!
H!H!
H!H!
H!H
E
AST EUCLID AV
ENUE
18''
24
''!H!
H 6 - 7
!H
24''
30''
!H!H 42'
!'
H!H
!H
!H>!H!!
!HH!HH
>>!>>!!H
!HHH!H!!H
H!H!
!H!H!
!H!H!HH!H
H!H!
H
!H!H!H!H!H
!H!!!H
!HH
H!H!
!H
H!H!
H
!H
7 - 8
!H
!
!HH
!
H
>8
!
H
!
H
!H
!
H
!
H
!H!H
!H
!H
!
H!
H
MJB
DSGN.
TITLE:
CLIENT:
PROJ. NO.15-0225.00004
MJB
DWN.
DATE:
CHKD.ELG
1"=
SCALE:
SHEET 1 OF 1
PLOT DATE:
DRAWING NO.
CAD USER:
NO.DATENATURE OF REVISIONCHKD.MODEL:
EX 1
FILE NAME
!
H
!!H
!H!HH!>!!>
!H!H!H!HHH!H
H!H
!!H!!
HH!H!H!H!H!HH!H!!!!H
HHH!!!
H!HHH!H
!H!
H!H!>!!H>!H
HH!H!!!
HH!H
H
!H
!
H
0150300600
Feet
!H
!H
!
H!H
!
H
!H
1 inch = 300 feet
FLOODING ALONG BURNING BUSH LN I
!H
!
H
!H
!H!H!
H!H
!
H
!
H
196
!
H
10-YR WSEL = 639.22
!H
!
641.19 H
!
H
100-YEAR WSEL = 641.16
!
H
!H
S14
21''
30''
30''
!H
637.32
>
>!H
!H!>>!
HH
!H!
!HH!H
!H
!H
!H!H
!H!
H!!H
H
!
EAST WOOD L 36 H
ANE''
!
21''!H
!H>H
!
!HH
!
H!H
!
H!!H
H
!H!H!H
!H!
H>
!H
!H
!H
!
H!
H
FLOODING ALONG ALTHEA DR
!H!H
!H!H
S5
!
H
10-YR WSEL = 640.42!H!H
641.06
!H!
!H!H
H
!!
!HHH
''
12!
H
!
H
100-YEAR WSEL = 641.56
!
H
!
H
!H
!
H
S5
21
''
640.75
18''
!H
12''
!
H
!
H
>>!H
!H
!H
!
H!
H
!!
HH
!
H
!H
!
!H
H
!
H
!
H
!H!!H
H
!
H!
H
!H
S16
637.30
!H
12" RESTRICTOR ON EXISTING
12''
12''
S16
!H!H
!H
!H
!!H
H
!H
54" TRUNK SEWER WITH OVERFLOW !H!636.89
H
!H
!
H
!H
PROPOSED STORAGE AREA
!
H!
H
!H
WEIR AT ELEVATION 638.3
NWL = 632.0
!H
!
H S16
!
H!H
ADJACENT RIM = 640.1
!
H!
H
FLOODING ALONG PARK DR
!
H
!637.71
H!H
TANO!H
LANE!H
!H
!H
!
H
!H
!
H!H
10-YR WSEL = 636.34
!
H
!
!H
H
10-YR WSEL = 638.26!H
!H
!
H
54''100-YEAR WSEL = 638.08
54
!''!H 60
!HH!H!''
H
10-YR STORAGE VOL = 6.6 AC-FT
>
!H
!
H!!
HH!
H
!!H
H
!
!HH
!H
!
H
!H
!
!HH
!
H
!!H!H
H!
H
100-YR WSEL = 639.96
S17
!
H
S17
!H
!
100-YR STORAGE VOL = 8.6 AC-FT H
!
H
!
637.76 H
!H
!
H
6
''
>637.48
!H
>
!H>
>!H
!H!H!
!H!HH!!
HH
!!H
H PROPOSED 54" STORM SEWER
!
H
!H
HIGHEST EXISTING GRADE = 644.0
DISTANCE UNDER ROAD = 340 FT
!
H
>!
H
EXCAVATION VOL = 23,200 CU.YDS.
!
H
18''!!H
DISTANCE UNDER OPEN SPACE = 390 FT H
!H
!H!!
HH!H
!!H
H
!H
!H!!H
!H!
(14.4 AC-FT)HH
!H
BURR OAK DR
IVE
TOTAL LENGTH = 730 FT
!
H!
!HH
!
H
!
!HH
!
!HH
!
H LEGEND
!H
!H
PROPOSED GRADING
!H
72''
!!
HH!H
!
H!H
!>>>2''
H 7
!H>
>!>!>
HH
!H
!!H?
H PROPOSED STORM SEWER
!H>>
!H
>>
>>!!
HH
!
!HH
!
H
INDIAN GROVE CONCEPT BUILDING EXPANSION
8''
12''12''
!
H!H
!
!!!>!H
HHHH
!H
PROPOSED WALKING PATH
!H
!H!H
!PIN OAK DRIVE
H
!
H 27''
!H
!
H!H
>!H AT-RISK STRUCTURES
!>
H
!H
!H
!
H
STORM MANHOLE
!H
!H
!
H
!H
!
!HH
!
H
!H
!H!
!H
H>
!H!H
!H STORM SEWER
!H
!
H
!H
!
H!H
!H
!H
!H
!
H PARCELS
!H!
H
!
H!H
!
H
10YR FLOOD DEPTH
!H
!
H
!
H>!H
!H
FEET
EXISTING STORAGE AT BURNING BUSH TRAILS PARK
!
H
!
H!
H
0 - 1
!H!H
!H
!H
!!H
H 8''
!H
!H
10-YR WSEL = 639.03
!H
!!H!!1 - 2
HHH
C
HINKAPIN OAK
DRIVE
!
H!H
10-YR STORAGE VOL = 5.6 AC-FT
!>>!H
H
!H
!
H!!H
H 2 - 3
!H
!
H
3- 4
100-YR WSEL = 639.28
!
H
!
6''H
!H
!H>>!
H!
H
100-YR STORAGE VOL = 8.2 AC-FT
!
H
!H
4 - 5
!H!
!HH
!H
5 - 6
!
H
!H!
!!HH
!H!H!HH!H!!
!HH
H!H!!
H!HH
!H!
H!
H!H!
H!H!
H!H!
H!H!
H!H
E
AST EUCLID AV
ENUE
18''
24
''!H!
H
!H
24''
30''
!H!H 42'6 - 7
!'
H!H
!H
!H>!H!!
!HH!HH
>>!>>!!H
!HHH!H!!H
H!H!
!H!H!
!H!H!HH!H
H!H!
H
!H!H!H!H!H
!H!!!H
!HH
H!H!
!H
H!H!
H
!H
7 - 8
!H
!
!HH
!
H
>8
!
H
!
H
!H
!
H
!
H
!H!H
!H
!H
!
H!
H
MJB
DSGN.
TITLE:
CLIENT:
PROJ. NO.15-0225.00004
MJB
DWN.
DATE:
CHKD.ELG
1"=
SCALE:
SHEET 1 OF 1
PLOT DATE:
DRAWING NO.
CAD USER:
NO.DATENATURE OF REVISIONCHKD.MODEL:
EX 2
FILE NAME
!
H
!!H
!H!HH!>!!>
!H!H!H!HHH!H
H!H
!!H!!
HH!H!H!H!H!HH!H!!!!H
HHH!!!
H!HHH!H
!H!
H!H!>!!H>!H
HH!H!!!
HH!H
H
!H
!
H
0150300600
Feet
!H
!H
!
H!H
!
H
!H
1 inch = 300 feet
FLOODING ALONG BURNING BUSH LN I
!H
!
H
!H
!H!H!
H!H
!
H
!
H
196
!
H
10-YR WSEL = 639.89
!H
!
641.19 H
!
H
100-YEAR WSEL = 641.23
!
H
!H
S14
21''
30''
30''
!H
637.32
>
>!H
!H!>>!
HH
!H!
!HH!H
!H
!H
!H!H
!H!
H!!H
H
!
EAST WOOD L 36 H
ANE''
!
21''!H
!H>H
!
!HH
!
H!H
!
H!!H
H
!H!H!H
!H!
H>
!H
!H
!H
!
H!
H
FLOODING ALONG ALTHEA DR
!H!H
!H!H
S5
!
H
10-YR WSEL = 640.93!H!H
641.06
!H!
!H!H
H
!!
!HHH
''
12!
H
!
H
100-YEAR WSEL = 641.58
!
H
!
H
!H
!
H
S5
21
''
640.75
18''
!H
12''
!
H
!
H
>>!H
!H
!H
!
H!
H
!!
HH
!
H
!H
!
!H
H
!
H
!
H
!H!!H
H
!
H!
H
!H
S16
637.30
!H
12''
12''
S16
!H!H
!H
!H
!!H
H
!H
!H!636.89
H
!H
!
H
!H
!
H!
H
!H
!H
!
H S16
!
H!H
!
H!
H
FLOODING ALONG PARK DR
!
H
!637.71
H!H
TANO!H
LANE!H
!H
!H
!
H
!H
!
H!H
10-YR WSEL = 636.62
!
H
!
!H
H
!H
!H
!
H
54''100-YEAR WSEL = 638.04
54
!''!H 60
!HH!H!''
H
>
!H
!
H!!
HH!
H
!!H
H
!
!HH
!H
!
H
!H
!
!HH
!
H
!!H!H
H!
H
OVERFLOW WEIR TO
S17
!
H
RELIEF SEWER S17
!H
!
H
!
H
!
637.76 H
!H
!
H
6
''
>637.48
!H
>
ELEVA!H TIO>N = 634.0
>!H
!H!H!
!H!HH!!
HH
!!H
H
!
H
!H
(TOP OF TRUNK SEWER)
!
H
>!
H
!
H
18''!!H
H
!H
!H!!
HH!H
!!H
H
!H
!H!!H
!H!
HH
!H
BURR OAK DR
IVE
!
H!
!HH
!
H
!
!HH
!
!HH
!
H
!H
!H
!H
PROPOSED 54" STORM SEWER
72''
!!
HH!H
!
H!H
LEGEND
!>>>2''
H 7
!H>
>!>!>
HH
DISTANCE UNDER ROAD = 880 FT
!H
!!H
H
!H>>
!H
>>
>>!!
HH
!
!HH
!
H
DISTANCE UNDER OPEN SPACE = 270 FT
PROPOSED GRADING
8''
TOTAL LENGTH = 1150 FT
12''12''
!
H!H
!
!!!>!H
HHHH
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
!H
?
!H
!H!H
!PIN OAK DRIVE
H
!
H 27''
!H
!
H!H
>!H
!>AT-RISK STRUCTURES
H
!H
!H
!H
STORM MANHOLE
!H
!H
!
H
!H
!
!HH
!
H
!H
!H!
!H
H>
!H!H
!H STORM SEWER
??
!H
!
H
!H
!
H!H
!H
!H
!H
!
H PARCELS
!H!
H
!
H!H
!
H
10YR FLOOD DEPTH
PROPOSED STORAGE AT BURNING BUSH TRAILS PARK
!H
!
H
!
H>!H
!H
NWL = 634.0
FEET
!
H
FOOTPRINT = 3.5 ACRES
!
H!
H
0 - 1
!H!H
!H
!H
!!H
H 8''
!H
!H
!H
!!H!!1 - 2
HHH
C
HINKAPIN OAK
10-D Y R R I V W E SEL = 635.25
!
H!H
!>>!H
H
!H
10-YR STORAGE VOL = 4.6 AC-FT
!
H!!H
H 2 - 3
!H
!
H
3- 4
!
H
!
6''H
100-YR WSEL = 637.89
!H
!H>>!
H!
H
!
H
!H
4 - 5
100-YR STORAGE VOL = 13.4 AC-FT
!H!
!HH
!H
5 - 6
!
H
!H!
!!HH
!H!H!HH!H!!
!HH
H!H!!
H!HH
!H!
H!
H!H!
H!H!
H!H!
H!H!
H!H
EXCAVATION VOLUME = 26,200 CU. YDS. (16.2 AC-FT)
E
AST EUCLID AV
ENUE
18''
24
''!H!
H
!H
24''
30''
!H!H 42'
!'6 - 7
H!H
!H
!H>!H!!
!HH!HH
>>!>>!!H
!HHH!H!!H
H!H!
!H!H!
!H!H!HH!H
H!H!
H
!H!H!H!H!H
!H!!!H
!HH
H!H!
!H
H!H!
H
!H
7 - 8
!H
!
!HH
!
H
>8
!
H
!
H
!H
!
H
!
H
!H!H
!H
!H
!
H!
H
MJB
DSGN.
TITLE:
CLIENT:
PROJ. NO.15-0225.00004
MJB
DWN.
DATE:
CHKD.ELG
1"=
SCALE:
SHEET 1 OF 1
PLOT DATE:
DRAWING NO.
CAD USER:
NO.DATENATURE OF REVISIONCHKD.MODEL:
EX 3
FILE NAME
Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600
Rosemont, IL 60018
MOUNT PROSPECT
(CBBEL PROJECT NO. 150225)
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
DATE: December 22, 2017
1
PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE AT INDIAN GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & PUMP STATION 1 UPGRADE
2
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT$ 50.0030$ 1,500.00
$ 250.004$ 1,000.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH
20200100EARTH EXCAVATIONCU YD$ 32.0023200$742,400.00
$ 40.00490$19,600.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY$ 5.006700$33,500.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE$10,000.001.4$14,000.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.006700$33,500.00
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD$ 80.0050$ 4,000.00
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT$ 7.003500$24,500.00
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD$ 15.0050$ 750.00
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT$ 15.00400$ 6,000.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT$ 2.002900$ 5,800.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD$ 80.00454$36,320.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT$ 60.0050$ 3,000.00
550A0490STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 54"FOOT$ 190.00730$138,700.00
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT$ 15.000$ -
55101300STORM SEWER REMOVAL 27"FOOT$ 25.000$ -
55101500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 33"FOOT$ 45.000$ -
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$9,000.005$45,000.00
60224469MANHOLES, TYPE A, 9'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$12,000.001$12,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH$2,000.00$ 2,000.00
1
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH$1,000.000$ -
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$ 800.000$ -
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$ 30.00400$12,000.00
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM$7,000.001$ 7,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM$3,500.001$ 3,500.00
NAREMOVE EXISTING RESTRICTOR STRUCTUREEACH$2,500.001$ 2,500.00
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBER WITH RESTRICTOREACH$20,000.001$20,000.00
NA4" PERFORATED PIPE UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM (AT BASIN BOTTOM)FOOT$ 25.001400$35,000.00
NANEW BALL FIELD IN-FIELDEACH$54,000.001$54,000.00
NANEW BALL FIELD BACKSTOPEACH$27,500.001$27,500.00
NALANDSCAPE RESTORATION (PLAYGROUND AREA)L. SUM$5,000.001$ 5,000.00
SUB-TOTAL$1,290,070.00
1
Does not include pump station cost (See Report Table 7)20%CONTINGENCY$258,014.00
2
Based on 2018 dollar estimatesCONSTRUCTION TOTAL$1,548,084.00
1
PROPOSED UPSTREAM STORAGE AT BURNING BUSH TRAILS PARK & PUMP STATION 1 UPGRADE
2
ITEM #ITEMUNITUNIT COSTQUANTITYTOTAL COST
20100110TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER)UNIT$ 50.0030$ 1,500.00
20101200TREE ROOT PRUNINGEACH$ 250.004$ 1,000.00
20200100EARTH EXCAVATIONCU YD$ 32.0026140$836,480.00
20800150TRENCH BACKFILLCY$ 40.001310$52,400.00
21101615TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SY$ 5.0017424$87,120.00
25000110SEEDINGACRE$10,000.003.6$36,000.00
25100630EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSY$ 5.0017424$87,120.00
$ 80.00440$35,200.00
42300200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, 6 INCHSQ YD
42400200PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCHSQ FT$ 7.002875$20,125.00
$ 15.0050$ 750.00
44000200DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVALSQ YD
44000500COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALFOOT$ 15.00260$ 3,900.00
44000600SIDEWALK REMOVALSQ FT$ 2.002875$ 5,750.00
44201747CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 8 INCHSQ YD$ 80.001174$93,920.00
550A0050STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12"FOOT$ 60.0050$ 3,000.00
550A0490STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 54"FOOT$ 190.001150$218,500.00
55100700STORM SEWER REMOVAL 15"FOOT$ 15.000$ -
55101300STORM SEWER REMOVAL 27"FOOT$ 25.000$ -
55101500STORM SEWER REMOVAL 33"FOOT$ 45.000$ -
60224446MANHOLES, TYPE A, 7'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$9,000.006$54,000.00
60224469MANHOLES, TYPE A, 9'-DIAMETER, TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LIDEACH$12,000.001$12,000.00
60234200INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 1 FRAME, OPEN LIDEACH$2,000.001$ 2,000.00
60500040REMOVING MANHOLESEACH$1,000.000$ -
60500050REMOVING CATCH BASINSEACH$ 800.000$ -
60603800COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12FOOT$ 30.00260$ 7,800.00
70101700TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTIONL. SUM$7,000.001$ 7,000.00
Z0013798CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTL. SUM$4,200.001$ 4,200.00
NAREMOVE EXISTING RESTRICTOR STRUCTUREEACH$2,500.000$ -
NASTORM JUNCTION CHAMBER WITH RESTRICTOREACH$20,000.001$20,000.00
NA4" PERFORATED PIPE UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM (AT BASIN BOTTOM)FOOT$ 25.001700$42,500.00
NANEW BALL FIELD IN-FIELDEACH$54,000.002$108,000.00
NANEW BALL FIELD BACKSTOPEACH$27,500.002$55,000.00
NALANDSCAPE RESTORATION (PLAYGROUND AREA)L. SUM$5,000.000$ -
SUB-TOTAL$1,795,265.00
1
Does not include pump station cost (See Report Table 7)20%CONTINGENCY$359,053.00
2
Based on 2018 dollar estimates
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$2,154,318.00
N:\\MOUNTPROSPECT\\150225\\Civil\\Spreadsheets\\_BLL_EOPC 150225_2017-12-21.xlsx