HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Private Property Drainage Assistance Program 7/10/2019 BoardDocs®Pro
IL
AN
Agenda Item Details
Meeting Jul 09, 2019 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Category 4. DISCUSSIONITEMS
Subject riv t Property Drainage AssistanceProgram
Access lic
Tye Discussion
Public Content
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION
The current process for Village Staff to assistproperty owners with private property flooding issues evolved from
procedures initially established by Village to policies established y the Village Boardr in s and
discussions with staff. The last such discussion was in 2015 and changes have occurredwhich influence the
effectiveness of the current process. It is staff's intent to update the Village Boardn the current state of the
program lih policy for the future.
TYPICAL DRAINAGE PROBLEM EXPLANATION
It is typical for backyard drainageissues to becomemore prevalent as a community ages. This has certainly
happened in Mount Prospectwell as in the surrounding communities. Mount Prospect is not blessed with a great
deal of elevation variation s y interruption in grading can cause entrapmentsr ter. Many factors, both
manmade (fences, landscaping, she s, regrading, raiser ens, etc.) and natural (flat topography,, soil conditions,
tree roots, bushes, settlement,, etc.) can adversely impact r i f a property. The other ingredient nec s ry
for flooding is of course r ter; in recent years storm r uency and rainfall intensities have dramatically
increased which contribute n increase in the flooding events
Numerous properties within the Village Mount Prospect arer recurring overland flooding. This is
substantiated y the numerous requests for assistance that come the Engineering staff every year. While the
flooding is obvious, the causes often aren't. It was likely not the intent of original property design to store
sr water in yards. The standards for property design andgrading v evolved over time. When many of the
older areas of town were developed, the drainage standards r not as rigorous current Village r i cs, which
ensurer r drainage and stormwater management is provided for each newly developed site. Consequently,
the Village dos not experience this type of floodingin the yrs of newer developments. Whilecurrent ordinances
minimize the chance for occurrence of backyard flooding,, previous drainage standards i not provide for sustainable
drainage. vr, all backyard floodingsites share three ( ) common elements:
1. Each these sites accepts water from the naturally higher neighboring properties.
2. More water collects on these low properties than can be absorbedy the grass andlandscaped a
outlet exists to drain the ponding water.
It is these situations that trigger residents hone calls for assistance.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BACKYARD DRAINAGE ASSISTANCE IN MOUNT PROSPECT
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login# 1/5
7/10/2019 BoardDocs®Pro
Originally, and consistent with most other municipalities., it was the Village's position that flooding problems occurring
on private property were the property owner's issue to address.
During the late 1980s,, after some significant rain events, the Village adopted a policy to assist property owners by
instructing staff to survey the property, identify the problem, and provide a design drawing to the property owner.
This work was accomplished by Village staff at no cost to the property owner. The property owner could then use the
drawing to obtain a permit, hire a contractor and have the improvements installed at their cost and direction.
Unfortunately, this resulted in very few improvements being installed because most property owners determined that
the cost of construction was too high.
During the 1990s,, in an effort to further assist property owners with addressing their flooding problems, the Village
began sharing the construction costs. Village Staff continued to provide the survey and design at no cost to the
property owner. However, rather than the property owner paying 100% for the cost of the improvements, the Village
did offer to reimburse the cost for improvements required within the public right of way. The property owner was
responsible to hire the contractor and cover the cost of the work on private property. Prior to 2008 a total of 73
design plans were prepared by staff and given to property owners, of which only 6 were constructed.
Recognizing that even the cost of the drainage improvements on private property was a greater burden than most
property owners could afford, the Village implemented the Backyard Drainage Program (BDP). During the Committee
of the Whole Meeting on May 13, 2008, the Village Board authorized the BDP that would cover all construction costs
for significant backyard drainage problems and decided that Village staff would continue to provide surveys and
design plans to all those that needed assistance. From 2009 to 2015 a total of 59 design plans were prepared by
Village staff. Twenty-seven (27) of those plans were constructed through the Village's Backyard Drainage Program at
Village expense. Staff also prepared 68 design plans for sites that only required regrading for property owners to
implement on their own.
In 2015 Village Staff presented a BDP update to the Village Board, resulting in changes to the program as the number
of sites requesting assistance had greatly increased and the backlog waiting for funding had grown beyond the ability
to construct improvements within a reasonable timeframe. This discussion resulted in our current process,, which
includes the following elements when assistance is requested:
• Staff will consult with the resident to obtain a general scope of the problem.
• Staff will perform a detailed survey of the site and adjacent properties as necessary.
• Staff will provide a design to minimize the flooding on site.
• If the flooding can be addressed by regrading the property,, the property owner is provided the design and directed
to obtain a permit and hire a contractor to implement the design. Correcting any deficiencies in the existing grading
is considered as a site maintenance issue, so Village participation is limited to providing the design. However, staff
time was utilized to prepare 35 regrading design plans between 2015 and 2018 that were provided to property
owners for it action.
e If the flooding cannot be addressed by regrading, the property owner is provided a design including a piped
connection from a new inlet in the backyard to the receiving sewer. This connection includes a restrictor to minimize
the impact of the stormwater on the receiving system. The property owner is always allowed and encouraged to
install the design using their own contractor (at their own cost).
* To direct the available funding to the sites in most need, staff developed a system of evaluating each site,
classifying sites as""Flood Risk A". "'Flood Risk B"'. or" l isk C".
Those properties classified as "Flood Risk A" typically experience flooding that reaches the foundation of one or more
homes. In 2015 there were 24 properties identified as Flood Risk A sites.
Those properties classified as "Flood Risk B" typically experience flooding that reaches one or more detached
garages. In 2015 there were 38 properties identified as Flood Risk B sites.
"Flood Risk C" contains all other sites that cannot be resolved by regrading. In 2015 there were 80 properties
identified as Flood Risk C sites.
In an effort to first help those with the greatest need, the Village Board limited participation in the BDP to those sites
that experience flooding severe enough to reach the house foundation, or Flood Risk A sites. Those sites eligible for
participation in the BPD are placed on a list of sites awaiting funding and construction. Once all Flood Risk A sites
have been addressed, the Village Board wanted to revisit the program to decide if funding will be extended to the
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login# 2/5
7/10/2019 BoardDocs®Pro
Flood Risk B and C sites. Unfortunately, not only has the Village not addressed all Flood Risk A sites that were on the
list in 2015, but that list has grown in the past four years.
The Village Board directed that there should be an element of homeowner participation in order to receive Village
funding of a project. For those properties selected for the 2017 and 2018 BDPs,, the property owners were required to
pay 25% of the construction cost,, with a maximum cost of $5,,000. Although all property owners of classified as Flood
Risk A were aware of, and agreed to pay their portion of the cost, five (5) property owners could not afford the
$5,000, and requested to be deferred to a time when they could better afford it.
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE IN 2015
There have been 2 significant changes since the last BDP discussion in 2015. The first is the frequency and the
intensity of significant rain events.
Last year
,r 2018,, was the fourth wettest year on record in Chicago — and 2019 so far is the fifth wettest start to the
year and less than 2 inches away from in the wettest Chicago's ever been. Last month, Chicago recorded the
wettest May in city history, according to the National Weather Service. This year"s record-setting rainfall eclipsed
Chicago"s previous record set just last year. The frequency and intensity of storm events continue to increase. In
fact, this year the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) published new rainfall intensity statistics including data from
recent years that must be used when determining sr ter detention volumes and the rainfall amounts increased
by 130%. The data shows that the number of rainfall events exceeding 2"", which are considered extreme
precipitation events, has exceeded the 100 year average each of the past 3 decades and has increased every
decade.
The natural result of this increase in extreme rainfall events has caused the second change, the number of assistance
requests for private property flooding have increased. For the past 20 years, the number of drainage assistance
requests has averaged 153 requests per year. The past 2 years have been in excess of that averaging 243 requests
per year and 2019 is at 170 requests,, already above the yearly average by June.
PROGRAM STATUS
In the past 20 years staff has received 2,,040 requests for assistance with standing water on private property. 1.,658
of those requests have been resolved through guidance given by staff to the property owners for simpler solutions.
The remaining 382 requests have generated the need for Village staff to prepare design plans. Of those requests,
staff has completed 304 design plans; of those 304 plans that have been given to property owners, only 17 projects
have been constructed by the property owners. There are 78 plans on backlog remaining to be prepared. Through
available staff time., an average of 15 design plans are prepared per year. Each plan requires approximately 40 hours
of engineering staff time.
Additionally,, it is poignant to not that staff has requested $120,000 in the current budget (2019) to hire a consulting
engineer to eliminate the 78 plan backlog. The scope of work would include meeting with affected property owners,
assessing flood status, classifying the property,, performing a topographic survey, and designing a surface or in-pipe
drainage solution with a cost estimate.
Through the Backyard Drainage Program, the Village has installed improvements at forty-two (42) sites at a total cost
of $981,,853. Twenty seven (27) sites classified as Flood Risk A are awaiting funding. At an average of $26,,000 per
site, the current remaining cost is $700.,000; however, new sites are added to the list every year. In addition, the
property owners of eight (8) sites classified as to Risk B,, and thirty-four (34) sites classified as Flood Risk C have
aIso requested assistance since 2015.
TYPICAL BACKYARD DRAINAGE PROGRAM DESIGN
As no two backyards are exactly the same,, so no two BDP designs are the same. Variables that impact the design
include the size of the yard, obstructions in the yard and right of way (trees, garage, shed, pool, utilities, etc.), and
the proximity to the receiving sewer. However, all designs share the following aspects in common:
• All designs provide a release for stormwater that collects and stores in back yards.
• A restrictor pipe is included which slows the rate of flow to the receiving system.
• Installation of all designs can be accomplished with a minimum of disruption.
• All designs minimize the amount of ongoing maintenance required.
See Attachment D for an image of typical backyard drainage plan which includes the following elements:
IyicallvPrivate Prop rty prove
P _1_
6" PVC Pipe (Directional Bore)
Area Drain
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login# 3/5
7/10/2019 BoardDocs®Pro
Cleanout
Rain Garden
jyicallvPublic ROW Improvements
P
8ff PVC pipe
Trench Backfill
Connection to Existing Sewer
Catch Basin
Restrictor
Sidewalk Restoration
Curb &Gutter Replacement
Pavement Restoration
Bituminous Driveway Restoration
Topsoil &Sod
OTHER MUNICIPALITIES" EXPERIENCES
In 2017, the Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC) performed a survey to determine how area communities
address private property drainage issues. 25 communities responded with the following results:
0 6 of 25 (24%) communities provide financial assistance to residents to design or construct improvements
related to nuisance flooding. Conversely, 76% of communities provide no assistance other than code review
and general recommendations.
0 11 of 25 (44%) assist residents with providing information about design engineers, landscapers, or plumbers
qualified to prepare a design solution. 8 of 25 Communities provide reap rove standard details for typical
solutions.
0 15 of 25 (60%) allow staff to perform simple topographic survey to diagnose problems.
Most other neighboring communities experience the same backyard flooding problems as Mount Prospect. Most other
communities maintain the same position as that Mount Prospect originally held: that since the problem is on private
property,, it is the owners responsibility to implement and pay for any improvements. However, a few muncipalities
have developed programs to assist the property owners.
Village of Arlington Heights will go to a site and make a suggestion to improve the drainage. Then it is up to the
property owner to have a plan prepared and implement any improvements,, unless the flooding affects a house,
similar to our Flood Risk A sites. In that situation., the Village will prepare In and award a contract to construct a
catchbasin in the back yard with a connection to the storm sewer system only if there is an existing easement.
Following construction, the catch basin and pipe will be the maintenance responsibility of the Village. Arlington
Heights budgets $300,,000 per year to this program and gets about 10 sites per year completed. They currently have
a backlog of about 20 sites but add about 15 sites each year. Arlington has one Engineering staff member devoted
full time to this program.
Village of Hoffman Estates will send an Engineering inspector to a site and provide guidance to the property owner. If
the flooding is significant,, similar to our Flood Risk A sites, they will prepare a design plan which may take several
months to complete. The plan is given to the resident to hire a contractor and construct the improvements. The
Village in some cases will cover the cost of repair work in the ROW like sidewalk replacement. Hoffman Estates
indicated that they responded to 79 flooding assistance requests last month and that this program takes up significant
amount of staff time.
City of Des Plaines began their program many years ago by paying for all construction,, both on public and private
property. In 2010 their program then evolved to a shared cost program with the property owners responsible for
25% of the total construction cost,, with an upper limit of $5,000 and the City paying the remaining 75%. After
spending $3,000,000 on private property draining improvements their program has further evolved away from any
cost participation by the City. The City staff now recommends that residents construct rain gardens on the property.
Village of Buffalo Grove will send an Engineering inspector to a site however their policy is that private property issues
need to be resolved by the property owners. it they once prepared design plans, they no longer do that because
aI most none were implemented and significant staff time was wasted without any results. They also will not
participate in the cost of any private property improvements.
Village of Niles will send an Engineering inspector to a site and provide guidance to the property owner. They will not
prepare designs or participate in any funding of any private property improvements.
CURRENT PROGRAM FUNDING
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login# 4/5
7/10/2019 BoardDocs®Pro
Funding for the Backyard Drainage Program comes from two sources. The first source was established by the Village
Board in 2007 and called the Fee in Lieu of constructing stormwater detention. This fee was collected for small
development and building expansion projects that create additional stormwater runoff but are too small to provide
effective stormwater detention. This fee is based upon the amount of impervious surface created:
• Commercial/Industrial/Multi-Family: $2.00/sf new impervious surface
• Single Family Residential: $0.50/sf new impervious surface
This fee is linked to the amount of development within the Village. Typically, it has generated less than $10,000 per
year; however, with the recent increase in development, over $26,,000 was collected in 2017 and over $50.,000 in
2018. Consequently, the funding for the BDP has been augmented by a second source, the General Fund, to make up
the difference to reach the target of $100,000 per year. In 2015 the Village Board required that the property owner
must contribute to the cost of the project,, up to 25% or a maximum of $5,000.
Based upon recent construction costs, the average cost for installation of a typical backyard drainage solution is
$27,000. At the current rate of funding., $100,,000 per year, it will take approximately 8 years to complete all twenty-
seven (27) sites on the current backlog list for Flood Risk A sites. However, over the past 10 years, there's been a net
gain of 2 sites per year added to the list with an average of 6 new sites per year while only 4 sites to be constructed
and removed from the list each year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
While the Village staff has provided assistance to over 2,000 flooded property owners, hundreds of staff hours have
been poured into preparing plans that have resulted in very few improvements being made and little to no actual
relief provided for flooding properties. With the likelihood that weather conditions will continue to increase the
number of sites requesting drainage assistance from the Village, staff recommends that following courses of actions to
address current and future private property surface flooding issues:
1. Staff will continue to respond to flooding requests for service. Response will include classification of observed or
verifiable flooding problem and rendering of practical advice available from visual observations.
2. The Village will continue to prepare design plans and award contracts to resolve Flood Risk A flooding issues.
3. The Village will no longer design plans for Flood Risk B and C properties. Flood Risk B and C properties will not be
eligible to participate in the Village-funded backyard drainage program.
4. The Village will utilize $120,000 requested in the current 2019 budget to hire a consulting engineer to complete the
current backlog of backyard drainage designs. This scope of work will include Flood Risk A., B, and C properties that
have been previously promised drainage designs. Once this backlog has been eliminated, design work for Flood Risk
B and C properties will discontinue.
Attachment D Typical BDP Design.pdf (77 KB) Attachment A Example of Flood Risk A.pdf (187 KB)
Attachment B Example of Flood Risk .® (4,387 KB)
Attachment C Example of Flood Risk .® (1,628 KB)
Administrative Content
Executive Content
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login# 5/5
1
ow A CRAM,
I,) WWII
I I ..
WIIWIIWIIImhhhHvYP IV '�
� 1 I�
N �
RUM,
' °91111iiiIllVull 1111111U� IIl'IIIPIIIuIpi�llllll�llllll �'
IIIVI�IIII IIIUII .1111111 VIII
.... �IN'N'11W 144"N !!Y,wIMMMNm re wYV4iivWl✓ri4(J7rll
J
v
WOO
iii II ,.,
i. uu � iiiiiiii mm. ' 1111111 III iiiiiiiWf III III...... Illuu
i i III III I ul nn
rn � ox�mmm ;>iiiiiiiir, vaiei � r„ ..... ri l�+/... SfJ�iii N MIMHWf6�MIM�hiM'MfMvr,�rifPWWWfWiHMIMMmrMN,vfwi�H�fim.r�s y ..f. I III � III r;,;,W f ��y c,f, .m r, I�,JY f 4» mmmmmmmmfiHrtwrvm uvl. II ��ffffri,r, rrr,,,, ,. ,fiiro 4MMy,�h� lf. ririic,,..,fi .,rr,
VIII l� IIII 1111111 111111V
' b I�VI �I, I.1111111 IIII IgpIVIiJI,,I, IIII�f. lluu
� n
f�
frt <...ril�
PN! � �P.F 'rW 'f V � a�
I t �,�fv
r, � 1 � IIx )
I rc
;, � °"' , ' � IIIIII lu III IIIUII, IIIIII III IIIUII IIII„III VIII II
�1� � � II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIu�I
�IIIIIII dull VIII �l� Illllllllllulllllllllllllll ��I II IIII ��111IIllll
ILII Illu c 'mwUfl ”' f O IT IW/ "
III I II, �III��I .III
N OWN
w,lIIII
Ii1°IIII, III SIV (IIII p (IIIIIf G '
f., y1JYINl IVIS I II III � hill �IIPI�'�III��� ,
II III uIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �IdI II1Ul IIIIIIMIII1�Il uI� � � . , , . �"� I �`
IIII
om I IIII IIIIII IIII p I I I II1
JS�IIII 1 ,1 I 1
64
�I wl� I !100 1 u�f
91,114 I ul u. .. ."""":,�w� 'm''"° f N(I .' „ ,e wtiy, VU
1 IIIIII 1IIIIIIIi�I�,llr vuIIIII�VuII�IIIIIIIIIIpV ' � IIIIS�
IIII (IIII III IIII II
II��IIIIw�'y111.Idlill IIII � 'llili�lluulll61111 ��llll II I116�
o W V
f
D PVC
f
(loo- IIS. I ow
I B
mfuwuwlwwrH.nnnn0000 V p'X m Vu�1 ur�� �V IIII VIII � .
If
R
i � 1xamwrcmpi:: »rra�;rPlMoxavuxwnMw
V. I
I.
�t
1
N'k "1110111
1 G I
1
.I ffffff.......... N,NIN,NIN,NIpI ��
i I 1
I I I� llp�l
Iy,NI1N n NIPJIv h �,; /"
5
I W fIIIIIIII�111I � , � �
WWWWINYMMi1NWMIVk1Wl 1 unmmamnww _elm
�f m�w,iIIII „u 4�
f �uu,�WUWt�irWf�r!aa." MMNMMMMMMMMINHflfNMf�tmlFfirNWNN'�Ir 1 ��' III''(' Illof4 p�" 'r �' I� �!� rtl . I� � jf��l(��� I IIIIII
1"
I CA76
1,two, 6 111
I " 9h4iJllJYJvffffhrc�ilf'H�IIpIM'D � � �� � u
It�,I'a i
0
m u Irl Full°m ..
u Y�bl Ila.; _
W
w w3
�IIr�IMIIIIWfIfMJM,HWJPYYI�IuIWpI��PYw�IPIp,Mlw,l «fffffffH�II�II�I
IIIdNNNNNWQQ((aLMOpl4J1111111,&�'Y�(mR'RfMi �iwNIN',p',py�.WWIND v, vNIJgDUN4P4➢i6PPpJAf(61Wf; iJY/�, I,J,:(f,,{yJNW ,L71PWftiNminip w:m'�^ i�FPNPoNMElY I
.....
Imp"
dl OUP f p I,lpVl)
F fr
3
w n,
t
��IaNu1I�Il�i�lllll
NIW'G14PI
M111110i01 01IWRRWNMINI
w I uullo� I
�' u I;� J 11IIVIVIl: 'IV�
^ Q VIV( �i II r III �
N'
�i ; ,�I IlVI ( 111111
Q
n ' -rrr' � » '
- ftp ( ,rawwwaanM� rca � 1,
rt f
9� Vy
I
IWC,roaum,�mwwwm�rnv;mwmw�wrr�HWaroM m".�vuw�w�mvu �mw.m.m�nwrm<nwM � r;,v ,,,,,,,z ;, �v�, ,�,J�V s�Ply �iwP>W�>'111� ir1�+�w�Yr�arc�mummmmyn.+.amm um �wr�ul�dew mmm lnlr yl;i �mwww�wnPawrrlww+wM�rrMrmlmMaaor�vHaw�n �lv w�r�wv���amu�
r7 Come" ?01
1�
I � ,JrM. I `� w mluplupu puw�rl�wlrl�„I" Wuiy
F
Example of f' j Installed M rt
the Backyard Drat"M E'rograt t"
;� � ��rc1v w�mow.>mJmwww�rwrf9v�wr
/ J
r 1 /
> r;
���mc, � �ff"I /1� r ,,; % �����'i�r,/n✓off//�r�PNr rmr.drri!/ir17� 1 „r,, ;- yl � ,
Vu. rrr,1 v, ,.�� ;�a ( l r',� v� 1�,,,�ti'!•.r Ir/r/r/:a�r/,rrrurr,r ys,IN l,r+, � „.., ,7 ,ti,u. Ir / ,,,µ,.
1(� 'a,,n °.r , lN✓,' �J ,r,r ';,�'�pini/J y�J! f r r:..y�„nA>`/Yr1'a /„;r,/�',i Y'�9'd J �' .. r
lye ar I ”ar,!,� r��! �n1 ,'/ Y�� , �}�,,),//,�� :/ar//ft avoir(�� .,ll,%��,:�.� ',/r,f%%;,hfjtY'r✓jy�luq „i
„, I,Iry✓,yur � 1, ;, +,,,✓r „ (�i;rl /,rpt=r(P or,,-.rmil,r.. r, %i/jI),,,,��� w I
rd IY:
„,. I,v,wir .-.f�I� r,��//„11 ,�r r%Nir,/�wi' ///�o/;��i�(4;y�� �e,f„./�” I,I //r/j,,,;',,, „Iry,(f "s"@ ✓'
,:. � r6rrl�Wu 6/1,�!/,�,.+.-�%A A�w �y,q�f/,g'r,N�;a ➢... l: ,J7 ,I, ,;: ;;:;'o..
. �� ,,11iIP4:, r(�I ai`ir1.A r6�✓/� /r r,1.1 1, r 1",. ,.. ;. �,';i�r
fM�
1 � ��� / 1rr (• I 3 H�
n �r
��r� /aia�riai�io�f/aaaiiarafiairl
r
II:: pIru�Y
a I
I I !
f
I �
w
r,
V
I �I OIfO'1r«ur%/%i i,yyml//JrlfIY�IYwrel.
l
m
° X
n a /e G4/aya/
J �r �� ✓r yINVN?Mr r,� s; ,
/ ��l t "p��( IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uuuuu �
1�
�, 4 r✓i rr ''��,y'�J
Y (b
v pD
rl
�r
I "
rA�Af v� p
VD°Jy -✓D°;✓ t/mil J`��r I
R `
n,
➢U a d'✓� ;,rr
'I r.%I III p II
o
I �i 1 vl
r
l
F
III.
IfI�I ulorr i� i. 6r! err'
r I�ly9y9olmtrfr, � r,, r „y,r
dl'
�u Il of Irl'd
I ' ri y. Id uy/fl!Yvr r Il
f///�/ ,� / J Ja r�J/�f r� iw:aNl➢ I
���/% r r� I(� y r(I yr/�r; ✓;. ,.. :„, ,�r�G J i ola r�„��Fur� �,.,,,
r�nY°��i/fb �f uvwv
�iJi�Yl< w
Kra ewe
„ uq.
I
r
`A✓1'Iv"�` / ,la/aY �r I „ I7,�f��//r (//,' f /%
i' ✓ ,) r; I tai..', //,,,�„; ,;/”�r� ((l%/i ,l,//r�.� ,I ,,I/�j
,,,; /�I/°'`'"w::l �r r,'>y„r r ISI n.,r, /i, :,+!/✓if/�'/" ��11I � �„c "'%�( N,.. ;�(f%°"" „' "' V /
I:
/
V{N
�' J, m� �// r i,G(�1,IlV� I Irl o„ ,,,. �j'��� f/� %���/,,,,,,,/ �✓/
rr;/ Dort✓rr,�.r.r�,�,:o,/���„ ,rr 1..�,�I 1111Y ,r. ���/nc://;e,,, I'. r,,,,,r�,,;;;/%�,.. /� ,i,,,,,,, �rfu,,.�/f r�',
a
Example ofproperty
categorized as Flood Risk A
7/10/2019 Attachment B Example of Flood Risk B.jpg(4272x2848)
NJ/'
ry,
,
I
y1 iJ,„ 1 dal
,r
CNV /
o.
a
f
1,
r
w
uu
r,
�I' r
rar
�r
/r
I i ,
i � r rrr
r
MM t
I
i
i
r ���%JJJ%/�/ali9iyi91J/Ir2
r ,
1,
r,
, r
r,� i G i v➢4;, � r/�� //�///� �/%r,� �; � /,,u tier,
rr
r r J r r
t >
i6 ,ul tl� 8 t �r /✓11�%/ /�
s
v
/i
er
✓lad ,fir,.. ::� 6 , ,,,, / / �//// %..../ ., / ., /,
r Y r
ravol
r / r
jil
/
i
r
/
rr /
r
,, r /..................irr /� �, /,
/ r /
t.
.r/
y r
/ rrrrr /
/ ��� �it r �/... ✓ / /,/ /� ,, l ,r
� II
ff
e
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/files/BDPQFN680345/$file/Attachment B Example of Flood Risk B.jpg 1/1
7/10/2019 Attachment C Example of Flood Risk C.jpg(3072x2304)
..........
`�............
1XIII
491 AMMON%
311
ffflug"
g/r/t
All PI
IN
e'i
fir
Z
91A
OR 0-,
02 "r
Or!"If
go
10,
o/
AN
........../o/
.......--",
w mg-
.........
........
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/files/BDPQFG680101/$file/Attachment C Example of Flood Risk C.jpg