Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0482_001MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JANUARY 14, 1992 ROLL CAL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Gerald L Farley. Trustees present were: Mark Busse, George Clowes, Tim Corcoran, Leo Floros, Paul Hoefert and hvana Wilks. Also present were: Village Manager John Fulton Dixon, Public Works Director Herbert Weeks, Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Refuse Coordinator Lisa Angell and Finance Director David Jepson. Additionally, there were four members of the news media and about twenty residents. SII all � 111 M-1 The Committee of the Whole Minutes of December 10, 1991 were accepted and filed. No Village residents appeared before the Committee. Mayor Farley introduced this subject by stating that there has been a need in the community for a long time for an auditorium that would be used by community groups. He said that Dr. Thomas Many, Superintendent of School District 57, offered the possibility of expanding a proposed new Lecture Hall at Lincoln Junior High School into a 240 seat auditorium if the Village, the library and the Mount Prospect Park District would share the additional cost of the auditorium. Mayor Farley said he thought this was an excellent opportunity to provide the auditorium at a very reasonable cost. He then introduced Dr. Many and Tom Munz, President of the District 57 School Board. Tom Munz, President of District 57 School Board, stated that the School Board had appointed a Citizens' Committee to evaluate the building needs of the District. The work at Lincoln Junior High School was separated into two phases with the second phase including a Lecture Center for the use of the school. Mr. Munz said the Lecture Center could be expanded if there is a need in the community and if the other governmental bodies would share in the additional cost. Thomas Many, Superintendent of School District 57, stated that the proposed Lecture Center was in effect a large classroom that could accommodate school drama and choral groups and could be utilized for educational purposes but it did not include a stage. The proposed Lecture Center would seat 140 and was expected to cost $250,000. The Lecture Center could be expanded into a 240 seat auditorium with a 400 square foot stage at an estimated cost of $568,000, or $268,000 more than the proposed Lecture Center. Dr. Many said he has met with the Arts Council of Mount Prospect and they endorse the project. He added that they are planning on doing Phase H of the improvements to Lincoln Junior High School in 1992 and would like to have the project completed before September. Mayor Farley said he is excited about the possibility of building the auditorium because of the need for this type of facility. He said the auditorium would be ideal for certain plays and concerts and this would be a better use of the school facilities. He said he thought the cost was modest and he commended District 57 officials for considering the needs of the community. Trustee Hoefert asked if the Village and the other governmental bodies would be sharing in the cost of features that were for the exclusive use of the School District. He also asked about user fees and the adequacy of the stage area. Dr. Many responded that it was too difficult to parcel out specific costs and that he thought it was fair to ask the other governmental bodies to share the additional project costs to provide an auditorium rather than the Lecture Center. In regard to use fees, he said he would expect any groups other than the governmental bodies that were supporting the project to pay a user fee. These details would be worked out jointly in the future. Dr. Many said the stage area would be adequate for most community -produced events but that it probably would not be adequate for professional productions. Trustee Corcoran asked if the scope of the project would be changed after the work had started and if the cost could be less because of the contingency in the proposal. Dr. Many responded that the projected amounts were the Architect's estimate but that once the project was bid, the scope would not change. Trustee Corcoran added that rules for the use of the auditorium would need to be established. Trustee Wks asked how much it would cost the four governmental bodies. Finance Director Jepson said that based upon an estimated cost of $300,000, it would cost each governmental unit about $11,500 per year for eight years. He added that we would calculate the specific costs after the Village sold Bonds on February 4, 1992 and after the project had been bid. Trustee Floros asked how much a free-standing facility would cost and how the proposed auditorium compared with the auditorium at Prospect High- School. Dr. Many responded that the Prospect High School Auditorium has 494 seats but that it is generally not available to outside groups. It was booked for over 600 events over the past year. A cost estimate for a 442 seat auditorium five years ago was $2 -million to $3 million. Trustee Floros said he generally favored sharing facilities and that it was commendable that District 57 officials thought of the needs of the 'community. Trustee Clowes pointed out that even though the cost would be shared by the four governmental bodies, it is all paid for by the residents of Mount Prospect. He added that he knows cultural arts are very popular at the Park District. He said he generally supports the project but he did not want the Village to be involved in the operation of the auditorium. Trustee Busse asked if it would be possible to build an auditorium larger than 240 seats. Dr. Many said that was the maximum that could be built on the space available. Trustee Busse said he had been concerned that this auditorium would be a duplication of other available facilities but he said that based upon the discussion, he was satisfied the auditorium was needed. Kathleen Pluth, Vice President of the Arts Council of Mount Prospect, said it was difficult to use Prospect High School because of the cost, availability and acoustics. She said there was good interest in Mount Prospect for community productions, and the proposed Auditorium would work out very well. Mrs. Pluth said the Arts Council is committed to encouraging all types of the fine arts to Mount Prospect and that they will also be encouraging the Mount Prospect Park District to establish an Arts Center at Lions Park. She said the Village could use two different kinds of auditoriums. Mayor Farley and Trustee Corcoran expressed concern over proposing two facilities. Mrs. Pluth responded that there are a wide range of needs and two facilities could be used. She added that it could be 8-10 years before the Park District would build a facility. Trustee Wilks said it looked like a good project and that it was a unique opportunity for the Boards to work together. She said she was supportive but needed more convincing. Carol Tortorello said as a taxpayer she was concerned about the cost and possibly setting a precedent. Diane Kumpf, President of the Arts Council, said she thought the community needed this auditorium. She added the Park District may never build an Arts Center and she .asked the Board for their support. -3- Mayor Farley said he would name a committee to work with staff to try to resolve the questions that were raised. William Abolt, Executive Director of SWANCC and Brooke Beal appeared before the Committee to explain the new Project Use Agreements (PUA) that SWANCC is asking the members to approve. Mr. Abolt stated that the ongoing goals of SWANCC are to provide solutions to the economic and environmental problems associated with solid waste disposal. He said that existing landfills are being filled up and the problems willl be much more complex in the future. He pointed out that one of SWANCC's goals is to achieve a 50%ca reduction through recycling by 1996. Mr. Abolt said lilacs are proceeding for the balffll, but it would be at least one more year before all the Permits are secured. He said that three transfer stations are scheduled to be built with the fust expected to be completed by January 1994. He said that the transfer stations would be utilized by the member communities even if the balefill would not be constructed. Mr. Abolt said the new PUA contain revised financing plans that will allow SWANCC to refinance existing debt of $16.25 million. The new financing plan was approved by the Board of Directors in September 1991 and the PUA document was approved by the Directors, Managers and Attorneys in December 1991. If the Village approves the new PUA, no future equity payments will be required from the Village. If any member does not approve the new PUA, they will be required to make payments starting May 1, 1992 based on the previous agreements that were adopted. Mount Prospect's payment would be $37,537.54 per month for 30 months. Village Manager Dixon said he supported the new PUA. He stated that the Managers and Attorneys had extensively reviewed the proposed agreement and that the issues that had been raised had been resolved. He added that the Village can retain some control of future solid waste costs by being a participant of SWANCC. Trustee Corcoran stated that the solid waste question is a very difficult issue to deal with . The State has :mandated changes and the County has avoided the solid waste issue leaving the problem with the municipalities. He stated that with the exception of medical costs, solid waste disposal costs have increased 'faster than any other Village costs. Trustee Corcoran said he thought the refinancing plan was good for Mount Prospect and that he thought the new PUA should be strongly considered. He added that the problem will not be resolved by not participating in SWANCC. Trustee Hoetert stated that the Village has taken a very aggressive position in regard to recycling, and be was concerned that this action may penalize the Village in the future. Mr. Abolt responded that the PUA allows for the '"put or pay" volume to be readjusted annually. -4- Trustee Clowes asked if incineration of solid waste would be an acceptable alternate solution. Mr. Abolt responded that even with incineration the ash must be landfilled. He added that the costs of siting an incinerator are very high and there would be even more zoning and environmental problems. Trustee Clowes also asked about the comparison of tipping fees for SWANCC and other landfills. Mr. Abolt said he expected SWANCC to charge $43 to $47 per ton compared to competitive fees in the $40 to $48 range. He stated that he expected SWANCC members to realize substantial savings after the first few years. Trustee Floros commented that he had not been informed as to SWANCC's efforts to pursue incineration. Mr. Abolt said costs and benefits have been analyzed since 1981. He said their original plans were to incinerate and landfill the residue. Now the approach to solid waste disposal is to recycle, reduce the amount of waste, landfill and possible incineration in the future. Trustee Wilks asked how long the term of the agreement would be. Mr. Abolt responded that it would be for the life of the bonds, an estimated 25 to 30 years. In response to a question on the equity payment, Mr. Abolt stated that it was based on population. He also said that the $16.25 million that had been borrowed covered all costs to date including capitalized interest. Mayor Farley said an Ordinance approving the new PUA will be presented at the January 21, 1992 Board meeting. 1 1. 11sa Angell, Solid Waste Coordinator presented a summary of the solid waste program for the last six months. The Village initiated a two -phased plan on August 1, 1991 that was intended to reduce the amount of waste going to the landfill. The first phase included an expanded recycling program, and the second phase which will go into effect February 1, 1992 incudes a modified volume -based program. Under the second phase, single family residences will receive unlimited recycling and will be allowed to set out two 32 gallon containers/bags per week and certain bulk items at no direct costs. Any bags or containers in excess of the two can limit will require a sticker which costs $1.25 per sticker. Ms. Angell said the recycling program has been very successful with service currently being given to 100% of the single-family and townhome properties, 70% of the condominiums and 30% of the apartments. Efforts are being made to extend the recycling to all of the condominiums and apartments. Prior to August 1, 1991 recycling service included picking up newspaper, aluminum cans and mixed glass. As of August 1, 1991, mixed papers, mixed plastics and steel/tin cans were added. Since August 1, 732,020 pounds of mixed paper, 145,185 pounds of plastic and 100,184 pounds of ferrous metal have been collected. In total, 4,458,557 pounds, or 5,455 cubic yards of recyclables have been picked up since August 1. -5- Village Manager Dixon reported that he is working on dates for the Citizens Utilities information meetings. No other business was brought before the Committee. "Nw1410"Uw-j The meeting adjourned at 11:09 p.m. DCJ/rcc Respectfully submitted, DAVID C. JEPSON Finance Director 9-M VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING DATE: JANUARY 24, 1992 SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN ELIGIBILITY - C.D.B.G. FUNDS In 1990, HUD put staff on notice that our downtown area might not be eligible for continued use of C.D.B.G. funds for street and facade improvements. After that notice, staff undertook updated building and block surveys to demonstrate that there was sufficient deterioration evident to qualify for C.D.B.G. funds. We urged HUD administrators to review this updated information and to reconsider their determination. Unfortunately, after a review of all information and several meetings with staff, HUD reconfirms their opinion that downtown is not eligible for C.D.B.G. funds. HUD officials note that there is not sufficient deterioration on an area -wide basis to meet their requirements. They also believe certain items identified as factors of deterioration can be corrected through normal maintenance, and these items are not block grant eligible. It should be noted that there are fewer street improvements and facade areas in the designated Central Business District yet to be done. However, staff believes C.D.B.G. funding would be beneficial to have available when owners felt like they could participate. With this final decision by HUD, any further facade work will have to be done with general funds. It is important to emphasize that this HUD determination will not reduce our annual entitlement. Funds previously allocated for downtown activities can now be used for our single family rehab program, or other low and moderate income activities. With budget discussions set to begin next month, staff believed it was timely to update the Village Board on this matter. DMC:hg SWANCC'S RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT DUOJTQ4 1 Has SWANCC SWANCO h&S. 1,1C., wtlosa staff Includes both profassicqp hydrollg;sjs and hydrogeo,ogist. Foi'p:jrpo$eS -of clarification, a hydrologist spe_dai'zes ;:n the sto-mly of surface water mo-vr:,man't whereas a hydrogeologist specializ.ss ?r, U rfa_-e or groundwater DUEBIQUA Is the Watgr te4'le W't".*'o a few RUP—QRSE Thi&LYAVe S01 b0,i.nr':,, were r 41 y ;OnduCted on ne r,,:tr SeVE,"ES! Of these borIngs L el indirAted smia% t water �av8l% Wtlr.- thre.8 fee" of ft -round por:i"etzr Cf peir�'hed 0 '_" s- �V- I CC) surf Ace. T�!asa 0 C'�Iztr-� r*f i7ilm-CiP and will cai.'sa no signific&m esign e J0 )r conatjrjat n —inevpose no thr5al to the ,,a, 't�ty of this fadlitky. Zx$T10N_1a is the 89,114W #W f0l9d� d')G WIVIS of thG 200,msidents to Om na-th also the same aquifer under Me Jv0posed &renew site? RESEONM The sarre aquifer ext,.;ts, indai the Forest Rive; subd;vis'on and this transfer static,1 s,ta. The Tansfer It must be kept c, risk 'Zo t1'):3 alquiffjr'r, h,:n*qGver, in perspqcjir f6ci;;ty i ,not fandf=li or a d'spcsal site. Leachate will not be gen6rated Wdiis faciRy. A of the wastabaling and transfer operstiGns will be conducted YM.NT, an erclosed building h.;,=ving _Q im thick reinforced concrete floor. Any liquids on this floor will either flew to dedicated floor drains within the biAdrig connected �,,% the sanitary ,zewgr sv ,atem, be vacuumed and collected into a street 5v,1e&pel, during :leaning Oper9tions or be subject to F]i evaporation. The 115nois Groundwater Protec-,ion Acct was enacted in 1987 for the purpose of Imposing strict standards on fa.61itieis which are wategorized as .potential primary or secondary soiji,neS c4 groundwatar pollution". Sections 3.59 and 3.60 define the units which are subje.-,:t to controls under this act. Solid waste Transfer Station operalicrs are riot clefined as potentiall sources under these sections of the Illinois Oroun&,ater Protection Act. Have we vl1sited the Groen County Transfer S/fe? BL%P-Q-�M Patrick Engineering leas visited the Green Ccuirltv Wisconsin baling, facility in 1588 anti will revisit the s4je, or, January 27, 1992. -QMSDQN-a HOW ,marry exi'ung ba?ii?g aas MAMCC a:ems BESEQN.aE In addition to the atove. Patrisk Eng.(x-aring perscnna! have vj-sj'ted and observed operations at the follmNing waste baling 1ran5fer aatiop-s it the United States and the United Kingdom: Bess Waste !nc. Bailing Tral-'ster Statlor and ealefll, Houston, Taxes. • Roanoke �-ourty SaRno Transfer Static EaIeR, Roarcke, Virginia. Cumberland County Sai;rig Transfer Stat on and Balafill, Fayettsviile' North Carolina. WMI Baling Transfer Station, Phjllqrjelphia, Pennsylvania. SWANSEA Refuse Baling Fs(,At-,1 "'a'es, 1)n,*V.-d Kingdom, Durham Rrifuse Baling Plan!, Durhar-, England. Mmingtor, Wnste Baling St3ticri, Knc-.sion Upon Hull, England, 2 QUES-00N 2C What Is V* sverzige volurne of liquid &fad from a W (or some other appWWo unit Cf meet-tiremant) of baled refuse? The simount of H(juid ugxpplled during the compression of one 3,GGG lb. bate of refuse varies routinely from nune to occasional drippings during the day's baling operations. At ail of the facilities visited bsy Patrick. Engineering personnel, noticeable volumes of liquid vera not present, In most of the facilities toured, dry and dusty conditions Pxisted; around and under the baling equipment. DON 212 What Is the ar emlcaf ar4cls of th;s leachate eypelled Arom the bales? What expert docufner-tatkNi (*)es .3111ANC-C have to support this analysis? _RMQNB It must be str4,;sY.ed1r;rst of a:1 that 1IM!e or no liquids are expected to result from the processing and baling of the rek;Se The make-up --f any liquid expelled during the baling process wo,.AA vary based on the content, of the refuse. Because of the high content of paper and iher absorbent rnatyrir.ls in residential refuse, when the waste is mixed on thq tipp�ng floor pJA(:,r to ba!lng, al Nquin are typically absorbed by the %maste At the modersta pressures applied in the baling process, these liquids are not gene -411y, "squeezed" out of the bales. If some minor dripping does occur !it is the r'esui't of not properly mixing the refuse prior to baling. If isolated instance,.; of dripping occur on the tipping floor, SWANCC will spread an industrial absorbeit, such as Oil Dry, on the liquid. The materials will then be swept up, mixed with refuse and baled. SWANICCandi its rc ^saltier en-inear, Pairick Engineering, have visited more than 9 baling fadlitles In the United States and abroad. AdIditionally, SWANCC has engaged the senoras of Mr. Alan, Sowerby of Murphy Solid Waste Systems, Ltd.., London, Engilard. Nlr So Overby has ret and conferred with Patrick Engineering 3 7 both in the United Kingdom and the United States. Mr. Sowedby is personally responsible for the design, construction and operation of over 14 baling plants in Great Britain, Mr, Sowerby has acted as a peer review committee member of the SWANCC design team and believes that squeezings from the bales are Inconsequelitial relative to the design and operations of this facility and pose no potential risk or hazard to tie employees of the facility or the surrounding area. Finally, to operate this fadliti, SWANGG must meet all MWRDGC standards for wastewater. Testing of discharges to ensure compliance with the regulatory standards will be required by SWANOC in the Permit PrOOeM If the wastewater violates any standards, an appropriate pretreatment system will be installed. 571dT- IS the Omw Ciwrtfy"rransfer Site jrndar !o our Panned operaVon? 7ham Is a ve'y s&DrV possitdipy that some a the e!ectad ffivials (including mysev would like to visit this parbpular we. N this is not a site sitrillat to our Panned OperafiM wtW baling ape K. is the Closest site to rt.,kWo that we may aminge a visit? BE The he Green County Transfer Statim '6 nct simllar to the proposed SWANCC facility. Facilities which use components similar to GWANCC's proposed operations are located In the United Kingdom and ;he Eastern United States. In designing this facility, Patrick Engineering had nurnerous meetings and discussions with equipment manufactuilars and vendors. Based on their recornm endafons, Patrick Engineering Miosa the best transfer stations in, the United States and United Kingdom to persor-ally iiis.pect and studgy, 11VAIANWncarparated the best design features of these fadilities into the proposed transfer station. Highiights of SINANCC's design include a negative air pessuredesign coupled with a charcoal filtration system, a totally e0closed baling systern from the baler hoppers to the trucks, an autoloading system, a dust collection system incorporated directly into the balers. and a comprehensive operating plan. However, a facility which will use equipment sirroilarto SWANCO'sis planned to come on line this Spring in the State 4 of Maine. EUQN 2E WhW e -J"- of wade does H* kv3chofiq Ut into? For P-<,vnpfo, spedal w , hazvdws waste, non -cc"railed wade, etc. RESPONSE Any liquids produced, from the haling processes are not formally classified by I,E,P.A,'s current classification categories. QUMQUA What w -M the "e Mr7ge of thq traffic survey? RESPONS The 10,11all traffic coints wsrs oorduc:ed on June 14th and 15th of 19090 with updates oondvcted on January 13th and 15th of 1992, QUESTIQN 3a Was River Rood vWer s; -c> wbunton cfuring this Imefrarne? RESPONSE Yes, during constructioii one operational lar-* 'n each direction was open at the time of the study. The oonstruction took place over an extended period of time and could not be avaidedRiver Road normaily provides two lanes in each direction. The traffic engirear conducled traffic counts to determine the peak hours of traffic and the directional -:zrJrt. 1,2nce Des Plains,.� River Road was under constructlor, the volumes, -neasured were lower than normal. Based on information gained from the Winc:s Department of TrarssportOon (!DOI), Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS;, Cock C-:junty Hig';,owetyDepartment and the City of Des Plaines, the Traffic Engineer estimated that the existing volumes were between 20 and 30 percent lowe!, than normal. Des Plaines River Road has a capacity of approximWely 41,000 vehicles per hour and is operating at 5 A �q t: 1 .. T T approximately 57 percent of its capacity using the normal volumes. Did SV1 note this aberrabon w the &Wk., swt*? RESPONSE I Yes. SWANCC, through, the u.�e of aerial photvs, reltiewed thelaurg eastern and central sections of the SWANCC sarv,!ce area. C,sctors such as field reconnaissw-ce, population, serrce area distribution, s;zs, zoning, traffic ac, -es,,; and regulatory setbacks were then applied. Three potertial ar,--,4as near tho existing Sexton landfill, near the Techny landfill and In the southern areas -Aar O'Hare airport were idenfled. Of the three potential areas, two sites wo(Ad need to be developed as Transfer Stations, a southern site and either the Teclvn� or pro.pose-d N11 aryville area sits. r, z8 Proposed site was selected by the Board of Directors upon Lhe rec.-Irnmendatior of the Executive Committee in 'he Spring -of I 98gr Prior to s{te apprc-w8l by tha S"NANICIC. Boardi th, e r communities within 1 1/2 4 rri'les of the sita, including 111-ount Ft ^— Peet, were notified of its identification and giver.an t opportunity to con-irner-t on thalAe, 1,1 5di'ditiOn, %dLring the s�,Ze sal. -bion, Mount Prospect was Mpraserted on the Exen,-ftiva Comminee which oversaw the selection process. QUESTION 4S VOW were the acqEds1,;o;7 costs I'dentilled W these mes? AESPQ The cost for propsr�y in tLhe Te;--hn.,,1 area was Iden. ified atapproxirnately $110,000 to $140,000 parsThe cost o'the WheeliI ng T 04 site Is approximately $30,000 per acre. AcGiAssilior the soutjhern transfer site is not c4riternplated since the prefarence is to lease. 9 WW ware the cfeveiopment costs OhnMed for these sites? HESPONS The development costs for both the Tectiny and Wheeling Township sites were projected to be roughly the same, -QUESBQK.SA At aW point doefts tho SaWar Ilroa we iOt&)d 110 t3t) IMO have &=10= to rainfall allowing It to surcharge? RESEQNSE No, this is not a combIned sewer. it hanalles sanitary sewage only. E3IjQN 56 '-fas this sa;riftry screw - Itne ever surchatgedP Halva we rxmflMed this with the MWRD in writing? SVIANGC contacted MWRDG'C and is wazing for is written confirmatm... UESTIQN 6A Is any of this site we#andl? BE$EQNU The overall site 'to be put chased encompasses a 'total land area of 43.8 acres of which 7.09 acres are designated for development of the transfer station facilitty. Wetlands exist along tha pe-i.meter of the 43.8 acre parse' and are delineated on drawing Number 2 or the !EPA Deve!cpment Permit Application dated September 1991. Depressional areas, rineat-,ring a total, of iess than one amore, exist at various !ooations end awev outside of th-I facility footprint. In fact, virtually all are Wside of the 7,09 acre site. SWA.NCC has no docurnentation whether these depressed areas are wetlands beecause they are avoided by the development, However, if additional delineation is required, it will be conducted. 7' ff the AmV Corps of Er4nem designa%s smna of the she as wegands, %4W affect does this have on our Mnfef see awlcobn Process? MEORM Even 9 the Army Corps were to identify w-9tiands within the 7.09 acre site, the amount would be substantially less than one acre and be so small the, SWANCC would fall under ak nation -Aide permit. With. a natiorWide permit, an applicant is not required to follow the lengthy Indivildual permit process. It this adds axes cast to this sfte, will wo rec—onsider other cites that ware Initially icons/dared to be more expensive? Since wetland filling is avoided, no significant extra costs are expected. Through the aAPHdWain process, wtxd ado/bOnV coM including adding street sweepers, etc., have been added to the Original cast Of the "AsW sits as origiripjly esjtrwdW -a-d, again, VmW" comparing It to ether -sites InitiallyconsiderW, whom do we stand? No significant additional costs have been added to the original estimates for this Transfer Stab ;n, Street sweepers were and are an integral part of the cleaning operations as described In the original Development Permit Application. Moreover, K SVVANCC determines that a change, such as street sweepers or pressurized air hose cleaning, improves the operations of the Transfer Station, they would be incorporated into the facility even if a different, site were selected. F:\HOME\BMF\SWANOC\45W- JAI, RES 8 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois 4g� INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 23, 1992 SUBJECT: KENSINGTON BUSINESS CENTER - PONDS I have had a conversation with representatives of the property owners at Kensington Center. I draw your attention to page 4 of the report attached. There are six items that are listed for action. The first two are repairs to inlets or outlets which is this is the responsibility of the Village since it does affect the flow of the ponds. Debris removal is also a retention purpose and it is also a responsibility that should be taken on by the Village. This may cause us to do some removal of root systems or branches of trees that are around some of the ponds and that is why there is an estimated 100 hours of work. Generally the Village has in the past been removing debris that is in the ponds that block structures. The last three items; chemical treatment, sediment removal and well operation, according to the Camp, Dresser report are more for aesthetic reasons. Estimated annual cost is $22,050. The property owners will be reviewing that. There may be some discussion among property owners as to who benefits from the chemical treatment, whether it is the property adjacent to the pond or whether the entire park benefits so there may be other angles to look at payment of those treatments. One of the good things that came out of the report is that the present wells do not need to be operated as they have been in the past and there will be some savings to those people who have paid the energy costs in the past for the well operations. There also is not a need for the aeration in the ponds if the chemical treatment is undertaken and that would also save some energy costs. JOHNFULTONJ DI JFD/rcc KENSINGTON BUSEWM PARK VOLUME Prepared For. vukp ofm January, 1992 120-01.2 CDM environmental engineers, scientists, planners, & management consultants January 17, 1992 Mr. John F. Dixon Village Manager Village of Mount Prospect 1700 West Central Road Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 Re: Stormwater Retention Ponds, Kensington Business Park Dear Mr. Dixon: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. 200 West Adams Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60606-5208 312 786-1313 We have investigated the condition of the stormwater retention ponds in the Kensington Business Park and prepared the enclosed report in accordance with our Agreement dated November 7, 1991. This cover letter summarizes our findings. The 280 acre Kensington Business Park includes 11 stormwater retention ponds (some interconnected), designed to meet the stormwater retention ordinance of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. These ponds have a permanent pool of water below the outfall sewers. The restricted outfalls cause stormwater to be retained in the pond. The effective storage thus occurs above the water surface of the permanent pool as stormwater will enter the pond at a rate greater than it can leave the pond. Field investigations were undertaken to inspect the inlets and outlets to each pond, to measure the sediment depth and to sample and analyze the sediment. The structural condition of the inlets and outlets indicates that most are in good condition, but at Pond No. 1 some repairs are recommended. These repairs consist of reafigning three inlet pipes and restoration where erosion has taken place around these pipes. Outfalls to Feehanville Ditch also require restoration of REM2\MTPROSPECr Printed on recycled paper CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Mr. Herbert Weeks January 17, 1992 Page 2 that crosses the ditch. Cost to complete these repairs could range from $7,000 to $14,000, depending on the conditions of the unexposed sections of pipe to be reset. Sediment in the ponds varies depending on the age of the pond and its size relative to the tributary area All ponds have evidence of some sediment, ranging from 1.0 to 0.2 feet. Based on the status of Pond No. 1, the oldest, sediment accumulation is about 0.05 feet per year. This sediment appears to be gritty but also highly organic. Analysis of the three samples taken indicates that the material can be disposed of without special requirements. The potential for nuisance aquatic vegetation is evidenced by the history of chemical treatments. While the runoff from this type of development typically contains enough phosphorus to support algae, the large water fowl population in the park suggests that eutrophication is to be a continuous concern. The small capacity wells can not provide sufficient dilution water to preclude the use of chemical treatment to control algae blooms. There is also no indication that use of surface aerators will aid in controlling algae growth. Maintenance of the stormwater retention ponds falls into two categories. One category is the continued proper functioning of the retention (storage) capacity; i.e. the inlets and outlets as well as the part of the pond that is normally dry. The other category is the pond aesthetics, in large part the water quality of the permanent pool. Proper operation and maintenance of the retention aspect of the ponds requires repair of three inlets; repair of outlets to Feehanville ditch; repair of pipes under the jogging path, provision of grating on several inlets; and about 100 hours annually of routine inspection and debris removal from the pond outlets. Capital cost for the recommended repairs is estimated to range from $7,000 to $14,000. Requirements to prevent nuisance algae blooms and control aquatic vegetation include continued chemical treatment, future sediment removal, and maintenance of the shallow wells in case of drought. REM2\MTPROSPF= CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Mr. Herbert Weeks January 17, 1992 Page 3 The cost of an annual chemical application program to control algae growth is estimated to be $7,500 annually, based on recent experience in the park. Sediment removal is recommended once the pond depths are reduced to three feet. If the ponds become too shallow, there will be a problem with weed growth and a tendency for marsh -like conditions to develop. Based on a unit cost of $20/cubic yard for sediment removal and disposal, a cost of $250,000 (in 1991 dollars) should be anticipated in 20 years. Well operations appears to have marginal water quality benefits, but under drought conditions may be needed to maintain a sufficient pond depth. There- fore, it is recommended that the wells be maintained for such conditions. The estimated cost of electricity to exercise the well pumps routinely is $50 per year. To operate the wells for 30 days continuously once every 5 years would require setting aside $600 per year to pay the $3,000 power cost of continuous operation for one month. In addition, a replacement fund of about $1,400 per year would allow for a 15 year life cycle replacement of the existing well pumps and motors. The total annual cost of maintaining the current wells and using them under drought conditions is estimated to be $2,050 per year. The alternative to maintaining these pumps and avoiding this annual cost is to accept the nuisance conditions which might occur every 5 to 10 years during drought conditions. The nuisance conditions would most likely result from exposed bottom sediment along the pond banks, resulting in odors and an unsightly appearance. P ri h rA Act ivities There are several activities which warrant mentioning as they can be considered components of a good maintenance program One activity is the Village's ongoing practice of cleaning catch basins which trap sediment prior to the retention ponds. Another activity is following accepted good practices with lawn care, not only maintaining good cover to avoid erosion but also careful application of fertilizers to avoid excessive phosphorous in the runoff. An adjunct to lawn care is tree maintenance and limb removal because the greatest potential for blockage of the pond outlets is from fallen branches and leaves. REW\MTPROSPECr Mr. Herbert Weeks January 17, 1992 Page 4 UPPAWSAC CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC,. The continued proper functioning of the stormwater retention ponds in the Kensington Business Park requires an investment in several repair activities and annual expenditures to maintain the aesthetics of these ponds. The capital and annual costs are summarized below in Table 1: Table 1 Estimated Costs Action Purpose Capital Cost Annual Cost $ $/acre of park L Repair Inlets Retention $4,000-$8,000 -- — 2 Repair Outlets Retention $3,000-$6,000 — — 3. Debris Removal Retention — 100 Hrs. — 4. Chemical Treatment Aesthetics — 7,500 27 5. Sediment Removal Aesthetics -- 12500 45- 6. Well Operation Aesthetics — 50 8 $7,000-$14,000 $22,050 $80/acre If the Village assumes the cost of retention related actions, it can expect a cost of up to $14,000. Whoever assumes the cost of maintaining the aesthetic value of the ponds should budget approximately $22,000 per year (1991 dollars). REM2\MTPROSPECr CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC,. Mr. Herbert Weeks January 17, L992 Page 5 Clo We trust the enclosed report is helpful in addressing the issues of main " 'rig the stormwater retention ponds in the Kensington Business Park. The information and cooperation provided by your staff is greatly appreciat- ed. Very truly yours, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. obert E. Client Officer REM/mi Enclosure cc Herbert Weeks, Director of Pubfic Works VMage of Mt. Prospect REM2\MTPR0SP= TABLE OF CONTENTS Section P�*e No. SUMMARY LETTER 1.0 STUDY SETTING 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Description of Stormwater Retention Ponds 1-1 1.3 Water Quality 1-5 2.0 RESULTS OF 1991 FIELD SURVEY 2-1 2.1 Field Survey Activities 2-1 2.2 Physical Conditions of Structures 2-1 2.3 Sedimentation 2-2 3.0 WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS 3-1 3.1 Background 3-1 3.2 Sources of Phosphorus 3-1 3.3 Well Operation 3-2 4.0 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Repair Requirements 4-1 4.3 Maintenance Requirements 4-2 4.3.1 Short -Term Maintenance 4-3 4.3.2 Annual Maintenance 4-3 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5-1 ?AL rraVaN&x i LIST OF FIGURES Figurg 1.1 Kensington Business Park Location Map 1.2 Kensington Business Park Layout Map 2.1 Kensington Business Park Sediment Sample Locations 3.1 Kensington Business Park Well Location Map LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Characteristics of Stormwater Retention Ponds 2.1 Sediment in Retention Ponds 2.2 Sediment Analysis 3.1 Dilution Capacity of Wells 4.1 Recommended Repair Activities LIST OF EXHIBIT Exhibit 1 Legend for Exhibits 2 Inlets, Outlets and Pond Bottom Spot Elevations, Ponds 1, D 3 Inlets, Outlets and Pond Bottom Spot Elevations, Pond 2 4 Inlets, Outlets and Pond Bottom Spot Elevations, Ponds 3, A 5 Inlets, Outlets and Pond Bottom Spot Elevations, Ponds 4, 4A 6 Inlets, Outlets and Pond Bottom Spot Elevations, Ponds 5A, 5B 7 Inlets, Outlets and Pond Bottom Spot Elevations, Ponds 6, 6A 8 Inlets, Outlets and Pond Bottom Spot Elevations, Pond 7 9 Inlets, Outlets and Pond Bottom Spot Elevations, Pond 8 10 Inlets, Outlets and Pond Bottom Spot Elevations, Ponds B, C w Ruwaluw ii. Page No. 1-2 1-3 2-4 3-4 Page No. 1-4 2-3 2-5 3-2 4-2 Appendix A Photographs of Inlet and Outlet Structures B Sediment Sample Analytical Results Nk w iii SECTIION 1.0 STUDY SE'T, ,G "Ovasibill"I•� The Kensington Business Park was developed over the last ten years on an approximate 280 -acre site, shown on Figure 1.1. Located within the Village of Mount Prospect, this business park has 55 buildings with different owners and a variety of tenants. As part of the general development plan, stormwater retention ponds were constructed in accordance with the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) ordinance. Today, there are 11 such ponds, some of which are interconnected so that there are six outfalls to Feehanville Ditch, a tributary to the Des Plaines River. In addition, there are four shallow reflecting pools which do not provide stormwater retention capacity. The long term maintenance of these ponds is of concern to the Village, property owners, and tenants of the Business Park. This study was authorized by the Village of Mount Prospect to assess the physical status of the ponds, estimate the cost of maintaining their retention effectiveness, and estimate the cost of maintaining their aesthetic value. Thus, the scope of this study included determination of sediment depth and quality, inspection of inlet and outlet structures, and evaluation of requirements to control algae and weed growth in the ponds. The stormwater retention ponds were constructed as part of the different phases of development. The oldest pond, No. 1, was constructed about 1981. The ponds are newer toward the east where the last pond, No. 8, was constructed in 1985. As shown in Figure 1.2, several of these ponds extend over different properties, but serve the tributary area within the business park. Characteristics of these ponds are presented in Table 1.1 below. ML Pmspeauw 1-1 xxz , 01 :. ., wCenter LL °".�fbd a4 R AJ a Sta""N ,....« ROAD .... .�c...�• ..+..�,� , ob •I..`,a" Golf Club P% G0 L 0 6t R 5 t ,G�0'k`i„"S'tM"" """""� 11":✓-' "* '— F" sdaCw U� «c avE� 25- * - - .. . . 1 q I oh " ° Baan.&roc aatet % flk, ✓''zr-0�1 f, �"atq p P KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK SITE arae N'Ry amROAD 50 ASc ga �a tri q n� °�^� 650 164 - 1 to _^ �np �n �" w. w fir.. " ♦e t fq� 141s1."t:4'NhtlMN7�....,�.mi:.� 5 ✓"."�'w.: x.��, if .. .,...,., °,. 4g Ir i f ..,, _m t �^�M �Vktwi WT �� Ea Shopping ntem M 1 A �� f s t ..... . a "`N .. ` B ....«w. Si ■ 7 7 ,•;,, IZCr ""aµ fq .,w Lions SOURCE N U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map, Arlington Heights, IL, 1963 (Photorevised 1972 and 1980) CE)m environmental engineers, scientists, planners, & management consultants KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 1000 0 2000 Figure No. 1-1 E601 699 e• 600 a 700 0 590 :•H C55 520 POND 479 POND D 410 Cm 411 1551 00 OND 5B; LEGEND Building Location and Number Pond Location dftWRCE : Base map provided by the Village c CDN environmental engineers scientists,;. planners, & management consultants 1601 43a INS 350 1" = 400' 200 0 400 KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS PARK LAYOUT MAP Figure No. 1.2 TABLE 1.1 CHARACTERLSMICS OF STORMWATER RETENnoN PONDS 'Based on field survey of outlet pipe and average depth below outlet pipe invert. ZStorage volume above normal water surface from detention worksheets. Pond No. 1 is the deepest pond with a maximum of about 10' of permanent pool. The other ponds were all designed to be from 4' to 5.5' deep. Pond No. 2 has two sediment trap areas that are 1' deeper than the average depth. The permanent pools provide an aesthetic quality to these ponds as their retention capacity was designed to be between the normal water surface and a height above the water surface of 2.5' to 4.5'. The outlets were all sized to restrict the outflow and cause the stormwater to fill the ponds. M. PraspedUW 1-4 Average Mftsured Pool Area Storage Capacity= Pond No. Outlet Pool Depth (feet)' (Acres) (Acre - Feet) 1 21" 5.8 2.85 6.0 2 24" 3.8 2.66 9.75 3 18" 3.6 1.11 3.49 4 12" 3.6 0.50 4.14 (4 and 4A) 4A 24" 3.2 0.42 - 5A 18" 4.5 0.55 1.14 (5A and 5B) 5B 12" 4.7 0.73 - 6 18" 4.7 0.83 0.82 -(6 and 6A) 6A 12" 4.3 0.80 - 7 12" 3.5 0.92 3.43 8 12" 3.8 1.50 7.82 'Based on field survey of outlet pipe and average depth below outlet pipe invert. ZStorage volume above normal water surface from detention worksheets. Pond No. 1 is the deepest pond with a maximum of about 10' of permanent pool. The other ponds were all designed to be from 4' to 5.5' deep. Pond No. 2 has two sediment trap areas that are 1' deeper than the average depth. The permanent pools provide an aesthetic quality to these ponds as their retention capacity was designed to be between the normal water surface and a height above the water surface of 2.5' to 4.5'. The outlets were all sized to restrict the outflow and cause the stormwater to fill the ponds. M. PraspedUW 1-4 The ponds have gentle side slopes of 4:1 or 5:1, except for Pond No. 1 which is much steeper. The e pond sides are covered with rip rap at the water's edge. Pond bottoms were all constructed with clay. The outlets from each pond were set with the invert to establish the permanent water pool. Inlets were designed also with the invert above the permanent water pool. The invert elevations of the pond and storm water outlet structures along Feehanville Ditch range from 0.5' below to 4' above the water surface and are protected from erosion by either riprap or concrete headwalls. In addition, the jogging path in the business park and the streets each cross the ditch in two locations. The landscaping around the ponds generally consists of grassed lawns, and around the older ponds there are trees. This setting has been attractive to ducks and geese which are a common sight in the business park. 001 �� ,.. .�... 1111. The ponds support aquatic vegetation and aquatic life such as frogs and small fish have been observed. Historically, several ponds are eutrophic and have required chemical treatment twice each year to kill algae. Pond No. 1 is sufficiently deep and with a low enough nutrient loading as to rarely require chemical treatment. Pond Nos. 5A, 5B and 8 are shallow, but with low enough nutrient loading so that chemical treatment is not required as often as for the remaining ponds. Water quality analyses were not made of the pond water, but ponds receiving runoff in similar settings are frequently subject to eutrophication because of phosphorus. In this setting the waterfowl population is probably the greatest contributor and maintaining phosphorus concentration below 0.05 mg/1 cannot be accomplished without limiting the waterfowl and/or providing significant amounts of low phosphorus dilution water. ML vroW"v&z 1-5 SECTION 2.0 RESULTS OF 1991 FIELD SURVEY Several field activities were undertaken in the late fall of 1991 to investigate sediment depth and quality in the ponds and to inspect the inlet and outlet structures. On November 21 and 24, 1991, a field survey of the elevations and condition of the structures around the ponds was undertaken. On November 25 and 26, 1991 measurements were made of pond depth and sediment thickness, and on December 4, 1991, sediment samples were collected and sent to a laboratory for analysis. . 1 a r .M.MIAMC.11X111 " The locations of all inlet and outlet structures to each pond are shown on Exhibits 2 through 10. There are numerous inlets to some ponds but many are inlets from adjacent properties such as parking lots. The inlets originally designed as part of the development plan are part of the storm drainage network that serves the parks, streets and open space. The other inlets, which should not have been constructed, are so noted on the Exhibits. Each inlet and outlet structure was inspected and photographed, as presented in Appendix A (under separate cover). In general, the physical condition of these structures is good. Where deterioration was noted, it was limited to small areas of concrete on several of the flared pipe ends. The worst condition was observed at Pond No. 1 where three of the inlets are eroded adjacent to the flared end or where it joined the first pipe section. This condition should be corrected to prevent the pipe sections from becoming unsupported. The outlet pipes from most of the ponds were partially blocked with weeds and debris. The debris has backed water into the ponds and raised the water surface elevation 0.5 to 1.5 feet. At these elevated levels, the riprap protection can be exceeded by wave action and erosion can occur along the unprotected pond banks. Removal of this debris is important to the long term maintenance of the ponds and to prevent overfilling of the ponds during major storms. ►r. hwpwftw 2-1 The larger inlets (2! 18") and all outlets to these ponds should have gratings. During the inspection, three inlets on pond No. 1 were noted to not have gratings. Two of the pipes are larger than 18". On December 7, 1991 the discharge structures along Feehanville Ditch were inspected and photo- graphed to determine required repairs or maintenance. Refer to Appendix A for photographs (under separate cover). In general, the condition of the discharge structures is good, with four locations that require additional riprap to limit erosion. Similar to the inlet pipes on Pond No. 1, the condition ' should be corrected to prevent the pipe sections from becoming unsupported. In addition, only the discharge pipes from Ponds 6A, 7 and 3 had steel gratings in place. The concrete storm sewer pipes under the upstream jogging path crossing, however, will require repair because the two inlet pipe sections have become separated. OWMAMOMMOM Sedimentation in the ponds was checked by comparing the pond bottom elevations against the construction record drawings and by using a rod to locate the top of sediment and the distance to a firm bond bottom. Spot measurements were generally made over each retention pond on a 50' grid pattern, except near outfalls where a 25' grid pattern was followed. The measured bottom elevations are shown for each pond in Exhibits 2 through 10. Comparison of measured bottom elevations with the construction records indicated that sedimentation has not significantly raised the bottom of the ponds. These comparisons are shown in Table 2. 1, along with the estimate of sediment thickness by probing. Sediment thickness was estimated at 62 locations and ranged from 0.0 to 1.0 feet. Much of the sediment has accumulated about 25' away from the inlet pipes. The volume of sediment in each pond was estimated from these data and are also presented in Table 2.1. ,r. v,vmpox+&z 2-2 'Average across pond bottom. 'Estimated by field probe. 'No data available. The quality of the sediment was checked by collecting three sediment samples. Sampling locations, shown on Figure 2. 1, included Pond Nos. 1, 4A, and 7. The samples appeared to be organic detritus with little grit. The source of this material might be leaves, grass clippings, aquatic vegetation, and algae killed by the yearly chemical treatments. Each sample was analyzed for polyaromatic ,r. e,aqPeeU&z 2-3 Bottom Elevations, MSL (USGS datum)' Average= Estimated Sediment Sediment Pond No. Record Drawing Nov. 1991 DifferOe Thidum ss (g) Volume (ft) 1 3 640.0 - 0.5 42,600 2 646.0 646.2 0.2 0.3 24,000 3 640.5 641.8 1.3 0.2 5,100 4 640.0 640.4 0.6 0.2 1,500 4A 640.0 640.8 0.8 0.2 900 5A 639.0 639.6 0.6 0.2 3,000 5B 639.0 639.7 0.7 0.1 1,500 6 639.0 639.6 0.6 0.2 3,000 6A ' 638.7 -- 0.2 3,300 7 643.0 643.5 0.5 0.2 4,200 8 640.5 640.7 0.2 0.1 3,600 'Average across pond bottom. 'Estimated by field probe. 'No data available. The quality of the sediment was checked by collecting three sediment samples. Sampling locations, shown on Figure 2. 1, included Pond Nos. 1, 4A, and 7. The samples appeared to be organic detritus with little grit. The source of this material might be leaves, grass clippings, aquatic vegetation, and algae killed by the yearly chemical treatments. Each sample was analyzed for polyaromatic ,r. e,aqPeeU&z 2-3 H - 699 POND 41 v F4799 9M P( 1551 )0 OND 5B e' LEGEND,` i �-N sso Building Location and Number Pond Location Q Sediment Sample Location SOURCE Base rNap provided by the Village o- jCDM ., engineers, planners, & management C 1601 431 M In 1" = 400' 200 0 400 KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION MAP Figure No. 2.1 hydrocarbons (PAH), lead, phosphorus, zinc, and cadmium which are commonly found in runoff from parking lots. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 2.2 and indicate disposal of the sediment would not be as a special waste. Refer to Appendix B (under separate cover) for the laboratory analytical reports. TABLE 2.2 Dr With the exception of zinc, the remaining values are typical for metals found in soils and sediment. Typical zinc concentrations in soil samples range from 5 µg/g (parts per million) to 180 µg/g. This slightly elevated condition may be from galvanized stormwater downspouts and pipes that convey stormwater to the ponds and from the zinc in tire residue from parking areas and streets. Sediment removal is not required to maintain the performance of the ponds for stormwater retention but it may become necessary to avoid excessive weed growth. Only Pond No. 1 is close to the depth needed to minimize weed growth. The other 10 ponds are relatively shallow such that another F of Mr. Amo"MU&2 2-5 Concentrations Wg) Pond PAH I Lead Zinc Cadmium Phosphorus No. 1 1 None 51 235 < 1.1 6.2 Detected 4A None Detected < 14 193 < 1.7 < 1.6 7 None Detected 67 201 1.1 4.6 1PAH is polyaromatic hydrocarbon. With the exception of zinc, the remaining values are typical for metals found in soils and sediment. Typical zinc concentrations in soil samples range from 5 µg/g (parts per million) to 180 µg/g. This slightly elevated condition may be from galvanized stormwater downspouts and pipes that convey stormwater to the ponds and from the zinc in tire residue from parking areas and streets. Sediment removal is not required to maintain the performance of the ponds for stormwater retention but it may become necessary to avoid excessive weed growth. Only Pond No. 1 is close to the depth needed to minimize weed growth. The other 10 ponds are relatively shallow such that another F of Mr. Amo"MU&2 2-5 sediment would be quite detrimental to the aesthetics of the ponds. Based on the experience of Pond No. 1, sediment is accumulating at a rate of about .05 feet per year. For budgetary purposes, one could plan on removing 1' of sediment from each pond in about 20 years. This would cost $250,000 in 1991 dollars, based on a cost of removal and disposal of-$20/cubic yard. . r,atiw.x 2-6 SECTION 3.0 WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 BACKGROUND Water quality of the ponds has historically supported aquatic plants, algae, small fish, and frogs. Although there are no data available on the concentrations of any constituents in the pond water, it is obvious that phosphorus concentrations often exceed the 0.05 mg/1 threshold required to promote eutrophication. Algae blooms, indicative of eutrophic conditions, have been routinely observed and treated in most of the ponds. Maintenance of the aesthetics of these ponds will require control of algae blooms and nuisance aquatic plants. If uncontrolled, there will be odor problems and a gradual conversion of the shallow ponds to a marsh -like setting. "we ' err,IOMIM Phosphorus is transported to the ponds by stormwater runoff. It accumulates from dust deposition, lawn care services, and waterfowl that visit the area. Of these three sources, the waterfowl probably are the most significant. Typical literature values for phosphorus in stormwater runoff from similar land use indicate an annual phosphorus load of .067 pound per acre. With 280 acres tributary to the ponds, the total annual load would be 20 pounds. Studies done in Illinois on nutrient loadings from waterfowl indicate that over a 180 -day period, 35 waterfowl would generate an equivalent phosphorus load as the annual runoff. The annual runoff from the business park is about 170 millon gallons. With a resident population of 42 waterfowl over half of the year, the average phosphorus concentration in the runoff to the ponds would be near 0.05 mg/1, enough to stimulate eutrophic conditions. Actual phosphorus loads to the individuals ponds will vary with tributary area and the number of waterfowl that visit the area. M.Pr=peaU&2 3-1 2#11W10.1 There are 7 wells in the business park, as shown on Figure 3.1. These wells were apparently installed and historically operated to provide fresh water to the ponds. Unfortunately, well logs and pump ratings are not available for any of these wells. The public easement around the ponds extends approximately 40' beyond the water surface and as a result, all the wells except for the well at Pond C, are located within the public easement. However, each well is operated and metered independently by the individual property owners. Inspection of the accessible wells indicated that most wells with placards have 240 volt, 30 amp, and 5 to 7.5 horsepower service. On December 4, 1991 the well at Pond 7 was operating and field measurement of the discharge was about 30 gallons per minute (gpm). It is assumed that all wells will deliver about this same capacity. The use of wells to dilute the pond water and reduce phosphorus concentrations will have different results in each of the ponds. This is because of the relationship between pond volume and pollutant loadings. One indication of potential effectiveness is the number of days of continuous operation a well must be run to replace one half of the pond volume. This is presented in Table 3.1. TABLE 3.1 DILLMON CAPACITY OF WELLS Ponds Served Pond Volume (ie) Days to Replace 1/2 Pond Volume Pond Volume per Acre Trib. Area (ft'/ac.) 1 659,000 57 15,000 C&2 411,000 36 9,900 3 129,000 11 3,600 4A & 4 81,600 7 2,500 (CONTINUED) ?& pruqw3-2 TABLE 3.1 DIJAfl"ION CAPACITY OF WELI. Ponds that require continuous operation for more than 10 to 15 days to replace half of the pond volume cannot be effectively protected from eutrophication due to precipitation runoff, by well operation alone. Pump operation for a four-month period would cost approximately $1,000 per pump. Although the pumps may not be sufficient to maintain water quality in all the ponds, during drought conditions the wells and pumps can be used to maintain water levels in the ponds. hk RMPOduW 3-3 Days to Replace Pond Volume per Ponds Swed Pond Volume 1/2 Pond Acre Trib. Area (!e) Volume (ft'/ac.) 6 & 6A 194,500 17 33,000 7 103,000 9 3,400 8,5A & 5B 385,000 33 7,400 Ponds that require continuous operation for more than 10 to 15 days to replace half of the pond volume cannot be effectively protected from eutrophication due to precipitation runoff, by well operation alone. Pump operation for a four-month period would cost approximately $1,000 per pump. Although the pumps may not be sufficient to maintain water quality in all the ponds, during drought conditions the wells and pumps can be used to maintain water levels in the ponds. hk RMPOduW 3-3 S,EMON 4.0 REPAIR AND MADITENANCE REQUIREMKVIS qflnm�#q "N•Z The primary purpose of the stormwater ponds is to retain stormwater run-off from the Business Park. As previously noted, this storage occurs above the normal water surface to a height ranging from 2.5' to 4' above the elevation of the outlet pipe invert. As a result, maintenance of the ponds for the purpose of stormwater retention is limited to debris removal and erosion control. If properly installed, the inlet and outlet pipes and the riprap around water's edge should require a minimum of maintenance activities for 20 to 30 years. The aesthetic value of the ponds is very important to the residents of the Business Park, and has historically required more annual expense and attention than stormwater control maintenance. This section presents recommended repairs and short-term and annual maintenance requirements associated with both stormwater control and aesthetic value of the ponds. Repair requirements are limited to deteriorated inlet or outlet pipes. If these problems areas are left unattended, the pipes will deteriorate further and adversely impact the stormwater retention function of the ponds. In addition, several inlet pipes need gratings to limit access. Although the general condition of the inlet and outlet structures is very good, the exceptions are all in Pond No. 1, the first pond constructed. Table 4.1 presents the recommended repair activities. Mc Pr=pav&z 4-1 TABLE 41 Pond Lomdon and Number Photo Number Recommended Activity 1 1A Repair Erosion and Reset Final Pipe Section 1 IE Place Grating 1 1N Place Grating 1 1K Repair Erosion and Reset Final Pipe Sections 1 1H Repair Erosion and Reset Final Pipe Section The erosion and settlement conditions at the three repair locations may be a result of the steep banks, combined with surcharged condition resulting from debris on the outlet grating. In addition, the steep banks on Pond No. 1 may have contributed to localized slope failure during saturated soil conditions and subsequent pipe settlement. Resetting the final pipe section(s) and routinely removing debris from the outlet pipe will reduce the potential for future pipe settlement. Although the pond bank slope is approximately 50 percent in some locations, resetting the pipe sections could be done with a backhoe. However, the limited space around Pond No. 1 may prevent regrading the side slope. Maintenance requirements for the ponds can be considered as activities to prevent or correct a recurring problem, on a short, annual or long-term basis. Maintenance activities address both the physical operation and aesthetic functions of the ponds. Nk Pmspm*UW 42 4.3.1 SHORT-TERM MAINTENANCE A required immediate maintenance activity identified during field investigations consists of debris removal at all inlet and outlet pipes. Removing the debris will allow the ponds to store and pass flood water, at the designed conditions and elevations. If left unattended, the accumulated debris further restricts the passage of stormwater, and water levels above the design condition will eventually cause erosion of the pond banks above the riprap and around the inlet and outlet pipes, and will cause localized flooding. 4.3.2 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Routine maintenance and inspection activities should be done at regular intervals to ensure proper stormwater retention and to preserve the aesthetic nature of the ponds. Routine maintenance will consist primarily of debris removal from the inlet and outlet gratings. This could be accomplished by a monthly inspection of the structures and cleaning as needed. The monthly inspection could also identify repair requirements such as erosion control needs or pipe deterioration. The second reason for routine inspections is to observe the condition of the algae growth. This inspection should occur weekly during the summer months; however, with some experience, the frequent inspections could be limited to when the algae bloom is anticipated. Michael O. Tarnow Associates, landscape architects, of Deerfield, Illinois, has provided the water quality inspection and treatment for the Business Park since Pond No. 1 was constructed. Mr. Tarnow indicated the following: • Ponds have typically required two treatments per year and the chemical applications have been very effective; • Copper sulfate and AquashadO were the aquatic nuisance weed control chemicals used; and hk Pra"aU&2 43 • Routine inspection and chemical applications for one season costs approximately $7,500 ($1,000 for chemicals and $6,500 for equipment, labor and expenses). Several options are available to reduce the required frequency of routine maintenance tasks. The only routine maintenance activity that has been followed is the use of weed and algae control chemicals. Reducing the need for chemical applications would require physical changes in the pond or pond vicinity to reduce nutrient loadings or to increase the pond depths. �Reducing the nutrient loading can be accomplished by limiting the quantity of lawn care applications in the watershed area and by limiting waterfowl use of the ponds. Fencing or dense shrubs could be placed around the ponds. If a food source is not adjacent to the water surface, the waterfowl will tend to seek alternate habitats. As an alternative, nutrients from lawn care products could be reduced by eliminating or limiting applications in the immediate vicinity of the ponds and by placing a wetland buffer at the pond perimeter. Shoreline vegetation such as cattails will use some of the nutrient in the surface water runoff and therefore reduce the quantity of nutrients available for algae growth. Establishing this buffer, however, would require regarding the pond perimeter to a water depth ranging from 0' to 1'. Similarly, planting shrubs at the pond perimeter would limit the lawn care chemical applications immediately adjacent to the ponds. Although these options will improve water quality, individually they will not eliminate the need for algae control chemicals. If actions were taken to eliminate or reduce the nutrient load sources, increasing the ponds depths would also be required. Increasing the depth of the shallow ponds would decrease the rate of solar heating by preventing sunlight penetration to the pond bottom. Excavation of the ponds could be done by a variety of techniques; however, the most practical alternative may be to drain each pond and use typical earth moving equipment. To increase the pond depths to an average of 8' with a 2:1 side slope at the base of the existing side slope, the estimated volume of soil required for excavation and disposal is approximately 57,600 cubic yards. Mt Pragm"U&x 4-4 Dewatering, excavation and disposal may cost in the range of $20 to $30 per cubic yard, or 1.2 to 1.7 million dollars. As a result, this alternative may be cost prohibitive. Similar to the other alternatives to improve water quality, excavation alone will not eliminate the occasional need for chemical treatment. MI SECTION 5.0 CONC SIONS The stormwater retention ponds in the Kensington Business Park have immediate repair and maintenance requirements and will require annual maintenance to ensure adequate water quality and proper functioning of the stormwater control structures. The repair and maintenance recommendations are summarized as follows. Pond No. 1 has 3 inlet pipes requiring erosion repairs and pipe realignment. In addition, two of the pipes on Pond No. 1 that are 18" or larger need galvanized steel gratings installed. Although not an immediate threat to the proper functioning of the stormwater ponds, continued deterioration at the eroded locations will eventually impact the pond's condition. The cost of repairing the three eroded pipe sections could range from $4,000 to $8,000, depending on if one or more of the pipe sections is damaged and must be replaced. The pipe sections under the jogging path that crosses Feehanville Ditch need to be reset and riprap should be replaced at five outfalls to Feehanville Ditch. The cost of these repairs could range from $3,000 to $60,000, depending on the condition of unexposed pipe. Public easements are not provided on the 4 reflecting pools. As a result, only the individual pool owners have access for associated maintenance and repairs. The reflecting pools should be included in the routine inspection program however, because an eroded condition in the pools could impact the downstream ponds by allowing sediment to be deposited in the stormwater retention ponds. ML 5-1 Due to the well maintained lawns throughout the business park and the remaining areas consisting of parking lots, roads, and buildings, there is only an average accumulation of 0.05' of sediment per year in the ponds. It is anticipated that approximately l' of sediment and organic debris should be removed from the ponds at 20 year intervals. Based on 1991 dollars, a removal and disposal unit charge of $20 per cubic yard, the cost of sediment removal would be approximately $250,000. Areas or lots that are undeveloped and unvegetated should be inspected for erosion control features. These lots should either be vegetated or graded to divert drainage to controlled discharge locations. Silt fences should be installed and maintained to limit the sediment that is discharged to the stormwater ponds. Continued application of algae and aquatic weed control chemicals, on an as -needed basis, is the most cost-effective method to maintain the aesthetic quality of the ponds. Alternatives to chemical applications are not practical because they are very expensive and do not guarantee that chemical treatment will not be required. The annual cost of treating the ponds, based on the quote by Mr. Tarnow, is approximately $7,500. The actual cost may vary depending on fluctuations of precipitation, temperature, lawn care applications, pump and well use, and resident waterfowl populations. Maintenance requirements consist primarily of removal of accumulated debris from the inlet and outlet gratings, and routine inspections for eroded or deteriorated conditions and water quality observations. The annual routine inspection and maintenance activities will require approximately 100 manhours, with most of the time concentrated between May and September. N& Pmwed\1&2 5-2 Immediate repairs needed at the discharge structure locations consist of the following: Photo' G Provide riprap from pipe to stream. O Reset 2 pipe sections under jogging path and add riprap. P Provide riprap around pipe end. Q Provide support to flared pipe section. S Provide riprap behind and adjacent to headwall. 'Photos in Appendix B h& +&a 5-3 .Ix*IIIy1•, 120-01.2 LEGEND 41.2 Spot Elevation Point } Inlet/Outlet } 1 G Drainage Tile } 1 JW Pump Discharge 1 Inlets Not Shown On Village Drawings Or Parking Lot Drain Main Storm Sewer Line 1A Photograph Identification Number Property Line Right—Of—Way Boundary NWS Normal Water Surface 555 Building Address Number ELP Building ,CDM environmental engineers, scientists, planners, & management consultants KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS LEGEND FOR EXHIBITS ,1 Exhibit No. 1 1E 1F 42.8 41. 42.6 C x x X 1D 39.0 37.9 41.2 X x x Photograph 801 Number (Typ.) 1 (i 39.0 3 4 38.5 -x x 550 41.4 37.5 40.6 x x O 42.0 J7J9 41.5 X x x 555 C 42.1 J715 43.4 Building x x x Number 1 C 1H (Typ-) 41.8 37. 5 42.2 x X1 x 851 C: 1B4.3:339. 40.7 U x x x N LO Property Line (Typ.) POND 1 41.6 37j0 39.4 x x x (NWS = 645.7) v a 41.3 3 .4 43.1 co x 1 JW .. Ca (n 42.0 J6.4 40.3 D M x x x 1K 479 NOTES 4a4 37.3 42.5 1. Add 600.00 To Spot Elevation To x x x Obtain U.S.G.S. Elevation. 2. Refer To Figures 1-1 and 2-1 41.8 36.4 42.5 For General Location Information 1 A x x x And Exhibit 1 For Legend. " 15. POND D 39.7 36.5 43.0 _ D► (NW5 = 647.9) x x x � 40.1 9:7 39.7 N 45. 1" - 100' X x x 199 1L S0 0 100 D1 1N 111 891 i KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MOUNT PROSPECT. ILLINOIS t PONDS 1 AND D �CDN INLETS, OUTLETS AND lanA management s° ' � POND BOTTOM SPOT ELEVATIONS Exhibit No. 2 plan" Qc m°"a5�a°"t ca"crhEcrrmts CO' e" /42 2E q 06.8 7.0 X X 6.4 \ 6.3 6.1 X x X 6.4 6.2 X X 6. \ 6.1 POND 2 X X (NWS = 649.9) 6.1 6.3 5.9 5.7 5.8 X X X X X X 2C �2 6.3 &J-�6.0 I-- X X Property Line (Typ.) 6. 6.3 5.6 X X X 6.4 5.7 6.1 5.7 Photograph x X X x Number (Typ.) Building Number (Typ.) 852 6.3 6.0 5.3 6.1 2B X X X X ICED 2H OVER NOTES * 1. Add 640.00 To Spot Elevation To Obtain U.S.G.S. Elevation. 2. Refer To Figures 1-1 and 2-1 For General Location Information And Exhibit 1 For Legend. 100, 50 0 100 2J 9 �O2 2G KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS POND 2 own nmen 009insors, S010"Usts, INLETS, OUTLETS AND IP110fM", & mano9Wrient POND BOTTOM SPOT ELEVATIONS Exhibit No. 3 a Building Ln Number 0 I (TYP•) 1100 I Property Line (Typ.) Business 1200 B I 7.0 X I POND A 6.7 X (NWS = 650.5) X 6.8 X 6.8 6.1 �en ter Drive _ Photograph ��.."""".......... W Number (TYP•) 3D 1. 1„8 '.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 X \X X X X X 1.8 1"e, ?.9 1.9 2.0 X X \ X X X 625 3CW 1.7 N U N X X X , 3 N O 1.7 1.8 U X X N POND 3 1.8 11.8 (NWS = 645.4) X X 1221 3A 3G NOTES 1. Add 650.00 To Spot Elevation To I Obtain U,S.G.S. Elevation. (640.0 or Pond A) 2. Refer To Figures 1-1 and 2-1 W For General Location Information N And Exhibit 1 For Legend. 585 I 1' = 100, 50 0 100 i o KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS PONDS 3 AND A ® cmINLETS, OUTLETS AND l & mo "ornr , ;,t POND BOTTOM SPOT ELEVATIONS Exhibit No. 4 Property Line (Typ.) Building Number ' (TVP-) POND 4A 4ADW Photograph (NWS = 644.7) Number T w 41.6 41.5 41.6 40.9 4AC x x x x 41.4 41. X x gv,\ness`�� 4AB 41.4 x 4AA 4B 41.4 X N 40.9e X 40.9 C "C 1441 40.8 x x 40.6 39.4 39.6x x \ x 1331 4A POND 4 NOTES (NWS = 644. 1) m 1. Add 600.00 To Spot Elevation To _ Obtain U.S.G.S. Elevation. W 2. Refer To Figures 1-1 and 2-1 For General Location Information 1" = 100' And Exhibit 1 For Legend. N 50 0 100 S N ' 1471 KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MOUNT PROSPECT. ILLINOIS cm PONDS 4 AND 4A INLETS, OUTLETS AND " anage°' � ...... POND BOTTOM SPOT ELEVATIONS Exhibit No. 5 Marr"eras, do mcg"c�yra►rnawat �a"�cr�ter"ts D:\1944\01\R7\SURV� EXHIB-6 1/4/92 G. FOSZCZ 1660 Property Line (Typ.) POND 6 (NWS = 644.4) rUM111 IF, c 40.1 40.6 x x 40.4 37.6 x x 40.6 x x J9.2 42.1 33.6 X x x 39.9 0.8 40.1 x 34.339. X OF'x x 39.1 X 42.2 39.9 x 38.8 X A x Drive 6AC 6AD N N e 37 6 39.5 37. b 37.2 6AB x x x x POND 6A 39.7 X 39.6 39.4 41.0 (NWS = 64J. 1) x x x C`J 39.3 43.4 1 Building Number 8 9 39 NOTES (Typ.) --� 6l�► x x 1661 39.1 40. m 1. Add 600.00 To Spot Elevation To x x W Obtain U.S.G.S. Elevation. 2. Refer To figures 1-1 and 2-1 For General Location Information And Exhibit 1 For Legend. 1" - 100' S 50 0 100 i KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MOUNT PROSPECT, IWNOIS PONDS 6 AND 6A CDM INLETS, OUTLETS AND Management onsuft POND BOTTOM SPOT ELEVATIONS �tar�er�r, Qc m°stag°rraerrt c�rra�r�^�rts Photograph Number (Typ.) 6AE Exhibit No. 7 N U N N O 1 A NIQ1 Co m 2 X W \ 585 I Photograph 580 7D Number (Typ.) ,'� \ 7 EW 32 3.2 3.3 X x x x 31 \ Buil Nun - (T NOTES ; 1 . Add 640.00 Ta zpov. aievaiion 10 Obtain U.S.G.S. Elevation. 1" = 100' 2. Refer To Figures 1-1 and 2-1 S For General Location Information 1201 0 0 100 N And Exhibit 1 For Legend. KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK 0 MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS POND 7 INLETS, OUTLETS AND PlMnW''3 "& POND BOTTOM SPOT ELEVATIONS Exhibit No. 8 ,fit°n"°r�r, do mcr"° �rst co",��rtt°"fs 7 3.2 J. J4 x x x POND 7 3.4 3 4.0 x x x (NWS = 647.0) 7B � 4.0 3y" X 451 0 rev e L Business Center n 8 1 40.0 .38.8 40.5 X X x 40.1 412.7 40.4 X X x 1 40.5 4 .7 40.7 X x x 41.6 40.5 X POND 8 4.4- Photograph Number (Typ.) (NWS = 644.8) 8DW 41.5 41.2 x I x 8C� N U N 40. 6 I ' l Property Line (Typ.) . 40.8 1 40.8 04 x x 42.5J10 ._ 8A I NOTES 1. Add 600.00 To Spot Elevation To m Building Obtain U.S.G.S. Elevation. _ Number 2. Refer To Figures 1-1 and 2-1 W (Typ) For General Location Information N And Exhibit 1 For Legend. 411 1" = 100, 50 0 100 i KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS Cm POND 8 INLETS, OUTLETS AND l°n" de manapmont o 4a"ntsPOND BOTTOM SPOT ELEVATIONS Exhibit No. 9 Photograph 899 CB CC ,, Number (Typ,) J. 6 x X 3.0 x 34 X CC J. 3.0 POND C x m (NWS = 657.7) CA CE NOTES 1. Add 650.00 To Spot Elevation To Obtain U.S.G.S. Elevation. 2. Refer To Figures 1-1 and 2-1 For General Location Information Cl) And Exhibit 1 For Legend. . .. ._. 3 0 Property Line(Typ.) D p,fl V) 0 W, Building 0 Number � � (TYP) 800 0 Ln BA x 2.9 X W x ?4 POND B x BB (NWS = 650.0) 27 D Vu KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS PONDS B AND C cm INLETS, OUTLETS AND v a msntol m ngr•noo scrsn plan mer mmant consut nts POND BOTTOM SPOT ELEVATIONS Ke 901 Exhibit No. 10 Village +ISI f Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois` INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VH.LAGE MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 24, 1992 SUBJECT: RJN ENVIRONMENTAL - FLOOD CONTROL UPDATE Staff has been meeting with RJN Environmental to determine scheduling of work so that we would have sufficient cash flow from the quarter percent Sales Tax to adequately handle future work. We also have had a meeting to determine if, in particular, one project north of Lincoln School might be handled in a different fashion and in coordination with the Central/Wa-Pella Project to cause us not to go through back yards or to take a substantial piece of property from the School District which we feel there will be some reluctance to give to the Village. RJN will present a modified plan that will coordinate both the Central/Wa-Pella area as well as the See -Gwen projects together. We would anticipate this would be moved into next year's timeframe for construction. RJN will also give an update on the status of the Village's request for funds from the State of Illinois. a JOHN FULTON DIXON JFD/rcc Minutes COFFEE WITH COUNCIL Saturday, January 11, 1992 Trustees Room, Village Hall Mayor Gerald L. Farley called the meeting to order at 11.10 a.m.. Trustees present were Clark Busse, George Clowes, Tim Corcoran, Leo Floros, and Iry na Wilks Trustee Paul Hoefert was absent. Also present were Village Manager John Dixon, Finance'Director David Jepson and four Village residents. Harold Rentschler, the president of the homeowners association in Prospect Meadows, expressed his concern about an increase in traffic accidents in the Prospect Meadows subdivision. He stated that there have been five accidents in the last few months. Mr. Rentschler said that because of the reconstruction on Euclid Avenue there was more traffic coming through Prospect Meadows and it appeared that the primary cause of the accidents was excessive speed. Mr. Rentschler added that he has called the Police Department and they have patrolled the area and that has helped. However, when the police cars are not visible, the traffic reoccurs. He asked the Council what could be done. Village Manager John Dixon responded that in the near term, the Village would continue selective enforcement and obtain traffic counts as to the volume of traffic. He said the issue should then be referred to the Safety Commission for their recommendation. Helen and Ken Ahlgren of 684 South Edward told the Council that a street light in front of their house has been out for over a year. Mr. Ahlgren said that Commonwealth Edison repair trucks had come to the light pole on at least two occasions but the light had not been replaced. Mayor Farley suggested that a strong letter be written to Commonwealth Edison regarding this matter urging them to be more responsive to resident complaints. He also suggested that any payments due Commonwealth Edison could possibly be withheld until the matter is resolved. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m., Respectfi lly Submitted, go -;-'J CDaTL4_11 David C. Jepson, Finance Director DCJ/sm