HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. 2011 Comprehensive Stormwater Study Final ReportMount Prospect
C X / Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MARCH 5, 2012
SUBJ: 2011 COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER STUDY FINAL REPORT
Background
This memorandum transmits a copy of the 2011 Comprehensive Stormwater Study final report
as prepared by the Village's engineering consultant, Burns & McDonnell of Oak Brook, Illinois in
conjunction with Village staff. This report culminates five (5) months of data collection, and
analysis pertaining to the extensive flooding that beset the Village following torrential rain on
July 23, 2011. The report also presents a series of recommendations intended to cost -
effectively mitigate defined and recurrent flooding problems.
At over 100 pages, the attached report is an expansive and compendious examination of the
subject. However, the essence of the report can be distilled to the following central themes:
The July 23, 2011 rainstorm was an extraordinary event. Analysis of official National Weather
Service data indicates that rainfall received in the early morning hours on that day was the most
intense ever recorded in the Chicago area. Technically, the storm is considered a "400 + - year"
event; a storm that has a 0.25% statistical probability of occurring in any given year.
Although technically feasible, constructing sewer improvements to convey a 400 -year storm is
cost prohibitive. Conservative estimates place the financial cost of such a feat in excess of
$200 million. Furthermore, even if the local sewer systems could collect and convey the storm,
downstream conduits such as the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
( MWRDGC) interceptor sewers, MWRDGC "Deep Tunnel" system, and local waterways do not
have the capacity to accept the discharge. Consequently, substantial additional expenditures
would be required to procure property and construct detention facilities to temporarily store the
excess volume.
Rainfall- induced flooding is not a new, or even recent, development in the Chicago area. The
entire region has been plagued with flooding problems dating all the way back to initial
settlements. In Mount Prospect, flooding issues predate incorporation of the Village and
highlight each of the intervening decades until this day. Locally, tens of millions have been
spent in efforts to mitigate the problem. Regionally, billions have been expended on projects
such as the "Deep Tunnel ". Inevitably, all of these improvements have been rendered
ineffective by storms that exceed their designs. The common thread uniting all of these efforts
has been the unequivocal pursuit of a "build a bigger pipe" solution. That is, all of these
Page 2 of 3
Transmittal of Comprehensive Stormwater Study Final Report
March 5, 2012
improvements have featured the construction of larger pipes, or the installation of relief sewers
and pumping stations, designed to handle the last big storm.
Burns and McDonnell recommends, and staff concurs, that the most effective and cost - efficient
go- forward stormwater management s trategy involves a combination of private sector and
public sector improvements:
➢ Recommended private sector improvements include the disconnection of footing
tile drains and the installation of overhead sewers in the 379 homes that reported
sanitary backup. These improvements will eliminate the prevalent pathway for
sanitary sewer water to enter basements and below -grade living spaces — the
gravity drain. In many cases, these improvements will also eliminate the
introduction of clear water into separate sanitary sewers. The estimated cost of
this work is $9,475,000.
➢ Recommended public sector improvements include the installation of larger
pipes, and /or the construction of relief sewers, at specified locations. These
improvements will be constructed where engineering evaluation revealed severe
and geographically concentrated flooding associated with a pronounced lack of
local sewer conveyance capacity. Improvements will be designed to provide a
25 -year level of protection. The estimated cost of this work is $14,440,000.
➢ Four (4) drainage basins were identified that warrant additional engineering
evaluation. The estimated cost for this work is $28,000.
The total cost for all improvements recommended by the attached 2011 Comprehensive
Stormwater Study is $23,943,000.
Discussion
Staff seeks Village Board direction on the following items:
Is there support for Village participation in the cost of footing tile disconnection and
overhead sewer installation on private property?
a. If there is support, at what level?
i. Should the Basin 14 model be applied? (50% grant, 50% simple- interest
loan payable upon sale of the home, $18,000 cap per home.)
ii. If the Basin 14 model is inadequate, how should the Village participate in
the cost of private sector improvements?
2. Several property owners affected by the July 23, 2011 flood have subsequently installed
overhead sewers and removed footing tile connections. Should these property owners
be retroactively eligible to access Village financial aid?
3. Is there support for the construction of recommended public sector improvements?
Page 3 of 3
Transmittal of Comprehensive Stormwater Study Final Report
March 5, 2012
4. It is the opinion of staff that sufficient capacity does not presently exist in the
water /sewer enterprise fund to facilitate recommended repairs. As such, serious
consideration of this report and its findings inevitably will broach the issue of financing
options. To this end, staff suggests that the following alternatives might be worthy of
deliberation:
Increase water /sewer rates The current water /sewer rate structure provides little
capacity to address long -term capital improvements. Historically, our
water /sewer rates have demonstrated the capability to fund only operational
costs and satisfy Northwest Suburban Municipal Joint Action Water Agency
(NWSMJAWA) commitments. However, recent rate increases by the City of
Chicago, our water supplier, has severely curtailed the potential for funding
improvements with user fees.
Extend or Increase Sewer Maintenance Flat Fee. The existing flat fee applied to
water /sewer bills to finance the sewer improvements is set to expire in 2016.
This fee typically generates approximately $800,000 per year. The sunset on
this fee could be extended and /or the fee could be increased to fund
recommended improvements.
Utilize available capacity on the quarter -cent sale tax. In the past, a number of
flood relief and sewer improvement projects have been funded utilizing this
mechanism. However, much of the revenue generated from this tax is currently
being utilized to service existing debt. The Finance Department forecasts that
capacity will start to become available from this revenue source in 2013.
Typically, it generates $1.2 million per year. At the present time, approximately
half of the revenue is applied to retire debt incurred to fund sewer improvements
implemented following the 1990 flood study. The other half is utilized to fund
flood control capital projects. We will continue to retire debt until 2019 when all
loans will be repaid.
Create a special service area The entire Village could be defined as a special
service area. This classification would enable access to the property tax levy for
the purpose of funding stormwater improvements. This solution has the potential
to be an acceptable long -term solution if it can be structured to replace Special
Service Area 5. Special Service Area 5 is due to expire in 2017. It was originally
implemented to pay for the costs of bringing Lake Michigan water to the Village.
Recommendation
With your concurrence, staff asks that this matter be presented for the Village Board's
consideration at the April 10, 2012 Committee of the Whole meeting.
Sean P. Dorsey
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Village of Mount Prospect (Village) contracted Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
(Burns & McDonnell) to determine the reasons for the significant impacts to the Village that occurred
with the July 23, 2011 storm event and identify potential improvements to the Village's stormwater
management system that would help to diminish the impact that a future storm of this magnitude would
generate. The Village provided storm flood survey information to Burns & McDonnell which was
gathered from the residents through an extensive public outreach program. This outreach program
included having Village employees and Burns & McDonnell representatives visiting residents' homes or
contacting them via telephone to gather information regarding the magnitude and type of flooding
experienced by each affected resident.
Further, the intent of the study was to quantify and analyze the various drainage basins within the Village
based on the findings of the flood surveys. Using the information gathered, areas that experienced the
highest density of flooding were selected to be studied in greater detail using hydraulic modeling
software. Basins that were not modeled were analyzed based on the types of flooding reported in each
area. This study is intended to serve as a tool to assist the Village in evaluating and prioritizing capital
improvements and in maintaining its storm and combined sewer system, as well as its separate sanitary
sewer system.
It is important to emphasize that the July 23 storm was an extreme rain event in terms of rainfall
intensity and quantity. According to the hourly rainfall data obtained from the rain gauge at Chicago
O'Hare International Airport, a total of 6.78 inches of rain fell during the peak 3 hours of the storm. Over
a 24 hour period, a total of 8.27 inches of rain fell over the area. The storm can be classified as
approximately a 400 -year storm (or a storm that has a probability of occurring once every 400 years)
based on the 3 -hour peak intensity and volume of rainfall. Current industry standard is to design a typical
storm sewer system to handle a 10 -year storm event using Bulletin 70 Rainfall Data. Much of the Mount
Prospect storm and wastewater collection system was constructed prior to when these standards were
implemented, and as such, may have a lower conveyance capacity. This circumstance is typical for older
communities including the City of Chicago and most "inner ring" suburbs. Therefore, flooding of the
local conveyance system during a storm with a magnitude like that of the July 23 2011 storm is
unavoidable.
A low end conservative estimate of the capital cost to mitigate the flooding from an event similar to the
July 23 storm using public sector improvements only is in excess of $200,000,000. This cost would
include the construction of relief storm sewers, combined relief sewers, underground detention, sanitary
relief stations and other related improvements. Purchasing property to create additional detention would
increase these costs further. Additional operation and maintenance costs would also be incurred by the
Village. Even with all these improvements, protection against sewer backups from a storm event similar
to the July 23 2011 event would not be as reliable as private property improvements such as installing
overhead plumbing or backup prevention systems.
The Village performs a very thorough maintenance and flood relief effort on an ongoing basis.
Inspections of the stormwater system outfalls at detention basins and creeks are made on a twice a year
Village of Mount Prospect ES - 1 February 2012
Stormwater Management Study
basis. In addition each of the Village's wastewater collection system basins is inspected and maintained
on a regular and systemic basis. Further, since 1990, the Village has spent over $25,000,000 in flood
relief improvements, and has significantly reduced infiltration and inflow of stormwater runoff to its
separate sanitary sewer system. These efforts have provided a significant benefit to the Village; greatly
reducing the frequency and magnitude of flooding incidents. Nevertheless, sanitary backups and surface
flooding occurred in many of the areas where improvements have been made simply due to the magnitude
of the July 23 2011 storm event.
While there are areas where frequent surface flooding can be diminished by upgrading the public
conveyance systems, the most effective solution to minimize sanitary backup is to make private
sector improvements. Making strictly public sector improvements is cost prohibitive, and there are
likely structural integrity and capacity issues in private sector piping that would still remain problematic
even if the public sector sewer main could accept all of the water. Further, the MWRDGC receiving
system has a limited capacity. Increasing the capacity of the Village's sewers may be rendered ineffective
by restrictions caused by the MWRDGC receiving system. It is important to note that neither public
nor private sector improvements will alleviate all flooding should an event similar to the July 23`
rainfall occur.
Private sector improvements that can be made to mitigate flooding impacts include the following:
• Disconnection of foundation drains and installation of overhead plumbing in 379 buildings /homes
that reported sanitary backup.
• Inspection and repair of foundation walls through which seepage occurred in 177
buildings /homes.
• For the 203 properties that experienced surface flooding during the July 23 storm event,
inspection of property drainage including all gutters, downspouts and locations of sump pump
discharge to make sure that surface drainage is directed away from the residence. This may also
help minimize seepage.
• For the 142 properties where sump pump failure was experienced inspection of the sump pump
system to make sure that it is working and has adequate capacity. After completion of the
inspection install a secondary sump pump, if needed, and a battery backup and /or emergency
generator if system.
The budgetary cost for the disconnection of foundation drains and the installation of overhead plumbing
in 379 buildings /homes is $9,475,000, based on an average cost of $25,000 per building /home.
Development of costs for mitigating flooding resulting from sump pump failures through the installation
of a secondary sump pump and an emergency battery backup and /or emergency generator for the 142
buildings /homes that reported sump pump was not determined as part of this study. It is recommended
that each property owner contact a company that specializes in providing sump pump inspections and
emergency generator installation to mitigate sump pump failures.
Village of Mount Prospect ES - 2 February 2012
Stormwater Management Study
Cost for mitigating flooding from seepage and private sector surface flooding in these basins was not
determined as part of this study. It is recommended that each property owner contact a company that
specializes in mitigating basement flooding caused by seepage.
Based on the results of the flooding questionnaires, additional assessment and hydraulic modeling was
performed for several areas where the most severe and geographically concentrated amount of flooding
occurred. Based on this additional assessment improvements to upgrade the capacity of the existing
combined and separate sewer systems were developed. Budgetary costs for implementing these public
sector improvements are $14,440,000.
Several separate sewer areas were also identified for additional assessment. These areas have a relatively
low occurrence of reported flooding; however several localized areas of concentrated flooding were
reported. A budgetary cost for completing the recommended evaluations is $28,000.
Cost Summary
The total budgetary cost to implement the recommendations presented in this study is $23,943,000. A
breakdown of these costs is presented in the following table.
Qiimmary of Reenmmended Stormwater ManaLyement Improvements
Village of Mount Prospect ES-3 f ebruary zuIz
Stormwater Management Study
Budgetary
Area
Type of Improvement
Improvement
Cost
Haden Heights
Public Sector
Storm Sewer Improvements for 25-
$1,500,000
Subdivision
Y ear Level of Service
Hatlen Heights
Sector
Sanitary Sewer Improvements for
$105,000
'
Subdivision
25- ear Level of Service
25-y ear
Combined Sewer Improvements for
$12,500,000
Isabella Street Area
Public Sector
25 -year Level of Service
CS31 Combined Sewer
Lonnquist Boulevard
Public Sector
Improvements for 25 -year Level of
$200,000
Area
Service
Lonnquist Boulevard
Public Sector
Adding Inlets and Televising
$135,000
Area
Village -wide
Private Sector
Disconnection of 379 Foundation
Drains with Overhead Plumbing
$9,475,000
Further Investigation
Basin SS21, Basin SS41, Basin
$28,000
and Additional
SS45 and Illinois American Basin
Analysis
Total
$23,943,000
Village of Mount Prospect ES-3 f ebruary zuIz
Stormwater Management Study
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 17, 2012
SUBJECT: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FINANCING
The final report of the 2011 Comprehensive Stormwater Study was presented to the Village Board at the
April 10, 2012 Committee of the Whole meeting. Included with the report were several recommendations
for dealing with the recurring flood problems. Solutions presented for consideration include $9.5 million in
private sector improvements and $14.5 million in public sector improvements. Exhibit A included with this
memo highlights the various project costs and associated debt service requirements while Exhibit B is an
available funds analysis of the Flood Control Fund.
The total cost to implement the recommendations presented in the study is estimated at $23,943,000. A
breakdown of projects is listed below.
Storm Related Projects $ 17,225,000
Sanitary Related Projects 6,250,000
Other Projects 468,000
Total $ 23,943,000
If general obligation debt were issued to pay for most project costs, the annual debt service requirement
for storm related projects would be $1,184,716. The annual debt service requirement for sanitary related
projects, paid from the Water & Sewer Fund, would be $429,868. Other projects identified in the study
totaling $468,000 are assumed to be paid through current revenues of the Flood Control and Water &
Sewer Funds.
This available funds analysis ascertains to what extent the Flood Control Fund can support new debt
while continuing to pay for ongoing flood control maintenance and debt service on the remaining low
interest loans issued by the IEPA. There are currently five (5) IEPA loans outstanding that will be paid off
between 2013 and 2019. Each of these loans was originally issued between January 1994 and
December 1999. The analysis shows that after accounting for new debt service requirements, there is a
projected deficit in available funds beginning in 2013. The shortfall in that year is $753,000. The shortfall
gradually decreases each year through 2019 as IEPA loans are paid off. The first projected surplus
occurs in 2020.
A more detailed review of the exhibits will be provided at the May 22, 2012 Committee of the Whole
meeting. Staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
David O. Erb
Finance Director
I: \Debt Service\2013 Flood Control Bonds \Flood Financing Memo.docx
m
x
x
W
u
V N 1
a)
CL T
O Ip 3
a o
c a
3 � s
c 0 0
C LL 1
O � 1
t m -
1�6 •� e
> t
> a
o
o 'm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
w w 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
a) X 0 0 0 0 W in M °.�° N l °
m o 1 o rl m o- o0
oa a) 0 O N Ln r O m Ln W
C a N N N N m m m m
x
Ln Ln m o0 00 00 0 m
i Ln Ln rr rr 0 � rl rl rl Ln O rl
m m 0 N N N N
,m, V) m m Ln r- r r 0 o0
C � m m m Ln
a o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln m
Ln Ln L' L' L' L' L'i N n
m Ln
O 3L Ln n
J c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I 00
m m m m m m Ln
m m m m m m
r r rl rl rl r n
dd0000
0 3t 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
O O Ln 0
Ln Ln N N
C
.V.. 0 3t L n Ln N
J N N cI 0
m m I I I I I I 1 00
00 00 I
N N L'
C
o 3t m m
J
O O O O
C
O 3t O O O O
J r-4 r-4 r-4 m
N m 'zt Ln 0 n W m O �p
c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C'4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4
0 0 � oo m � a zt
� al
r r �-Zt Ln m O m
v ±+
O V
O m w N l0 L' .--i W .--i
00 m c-I 00 N l0 N
M m
Y Q _ w
I Ln 0 00 0 m N
3 0
n n Ln N N N v
o
o 'm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
w w 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
a) X 0 0 0 0 W in M °.�° N l °
m o 1 o rl m o- o0
oa a) 0 O N Ln r O m Ln W
C a N N N N m m m m
x
Ln Ln m o0 00 00 0 m
i Ln Ln rr rr 0 � rl rl rl Ln O rl
m m 0 N N N N
,m, V) m m Ln r- r r 0 o0
C � m m m Ln
a o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln m
Ln Ln L' L' L' L' L'i N n
m Ln
O 3L Ln n
J c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I 00
m m m m m m Ln
m m m m m m
r r rl rl rl r n
dd0000
0 3t 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
O O Ln 0
Ln Ln N N
C
.V.. 0 3t L n Ln N
J N N cI 0
m m I I I I I I 1 00
00 00 I
N N L'
C
o 3t m m
J
O O O O
C
O 3t O O O O
J r-4 r-4 r-4 m
N m 'zt Ln 0 n W m O �p
c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C'4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4
v;
� al
ci c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I
a,
E
.,,� 3 V
W o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
z `w
O N m N'zt Ln 'zt N
t
O
F >
o
o 'm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
w w 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
a) X 0 0 0 0 W in M °.�° N l °
m o 1 o rl m o- o0
oa a) 0 O N Ln r O m Ln W
C a N N N N m m m m
x
Ln Ln m o0 00 00 0 m
i Ln Ln rr rr 0 � rl rl rl Ln O rl
m m 0 N N N N
,m, V) m m Ln r- r r 0 o0
C � m m m Ln
a o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln m
Ln Ln L' L' L' L' L'i N n
m Ln
O 3L Ln n
J c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I 00
m m m m m m Ln
m m m m m m
r r rl rl rl r n
dd0000
0 3t 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
O O Ln 0
Ln Ln N N
C
.V.. 0 3t L n Ln N
J N N cI 0
m m I I I I I I 1 00
00 00 I
N N L'
C
o 3t m m
J
O O O O
C
O 3t O O O O
J r-4 r-4 r-4 m
N m 'zt Ln 0 n W m O �p
c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C'4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4
v;
a,
E
Om
.7- a)
m
O N m N'zt Ln 'zt N
t
O
F >
r r r
x
IZ
o
o 'm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
w w 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
a) X 0 0 0 0 W in M °.�° N l °
m o 1 o rl m o- o0
oa a) 0 O N Ln r O m Ln W
C a N N N N m m m m
x
Ln Ln m o0 00 00 0 m
i Ln Ln rr rr 0 � rl rl rl Ln O rl
m m 0 N N N N
,m, V) m m Ln r- r r 0 o0
C � m m m Ln
a o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln m
Ln Ln L' L' L' L' L'i N n
m Ln
O 3L Ln n
J c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I 00
m m m m m m Ln
m m m m m m
r r rl rl rl r n
dd0000
0 3t 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
O O Ln 0
Ln Ln N N
C
.V.. 0 3t L n Ln N
J N N cI 0
m m I I I I I I 1 00
00 00 I
N N L'
C
o 3t m m
J
O O O O
C
O 3t O O O O
J r-4 r-4 r-4 m
N m 'zt Ln 0 n W m O �p
c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C'4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4
v;
a,
E
0
IZ
E
to
m
c
0
O
0
E
v a,
V a=
C �
m V
C O
a) Ip
C O
- a)
m +�
E �
c
o E
-
�—
a,
m �
N_
V_
>
a
a
0
c o
w
E
3
V
—
v
> N
t
c m �
tl
O c
LL
C E N
0
c)
t = a
E m
eo
2 xo
E
c o
�
� z Y a,
a v
E '
v>
to o
U c \
m
m
CL
v
a
v
u V) 2 a)
V v
m
0) E
v m a v+ � O
a 6
'O
x
io
LL 0 m m
0
x f a c
m
E v
3
m -O m V V V X
3 a) 3> m
�
o x
O Vt
a
a > a v a
s a` V m m E m
u a)
a a)
> v 0) 0
m
a E
v m Cl) CL a
O
m V o
m m a
6
°� °� E E^
v c
v
IZ 00
a a a a a O
x C
O
m
m m m m m m .o
c E
3 'o
a) a) a) a) a) p
Q Q Q Q Q a
c v
Q
v
Z a
Z
v
0
O
O Ln
O N
Lr M
N
N
c-I
0
O
O Ln
O N
O M
Ln
N
00
ID
O
01
N
QJ
QJ
L
L
O
s
x
w
N
V
QJ
0
L
o_
s=
ar
E >
0.
E
aT
V I. c
CL QJ
ZA 0 'i N
a ar m
S 0 w
G
0 ar 3
o E E
o
W V)
0
O
0 E +J
J
� , S1
U
OC 4N
E C
0
CA
lD
r-I
n
QJ
QJ
L
V
0
3
a
ro ar
� =a 3 z3 z3 z3
s= C C C
O N O O O
LL m m m
V-1
(V
3
z3 cn
a) �
C
s
° o a)
N U >
I
4
s �
a) N
O C:
a a) a) no
oc
0
N
D O
Q
QJ S1
� U �
+J
l4 C
sa
z3
C
O
m
O
O
O
O
Ln
N
w
z3
a)
C
E
O
U
I
a
'O N
a �
m
s=
sa
N
V
0
M
3
a
V) V)
z3 z3
C C
LL LL
V) V)
z3 co
C
C: z3
c z3 c LL z3
= C = N C
LL M LL c o M
U U U 3: U
LL LL LL LL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
+'
tA
:a 0
U
O
O
Ln
O
Ln
N
Ln
F-
�t
m
N
N
Ln
r-i
�o
rn
n
V-1
(V
3
z3 cn
a) �
C
s
° o a)
N U >
I
4
s �
a) N
O C:
a a) a) no
oc
0
N
D O
Q
QJ S1
� U �
+J
l4 C
sa
z3
C
O
m
O
O
O
O
Ln
N
w
z3
a)
C
E
O
U
I
a
'O N
a �
m
s=
sa
N
V
0
M
3
a
V) V)
z3 z3
C C
LL LL
V) V)
z3 co
C
C: z3
c z3 c LL z3
= C = N C
LL M LL c o M
U U U 3: U
LL LL LL LL
O
O
tin
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
w O
Ln
Ln
O
w
M
N O
N
O
O
c
cM-I
m
wt
cn
M
N
i
f
c
U
• s
z
c
c
z
t
c
• c
S
c
i
a
0
pnd
N
S U
a)
" O
L
CL
O z3
C
o LL
)
U -
J W
O
O
L
3 O a)
U a)
N
O co
Z � L
do a)
) � L
LL O
N
L a)
7
C
_ a)
> > co
a)
' L
L
CV
3
L
}J
U f6
3
a) E
O
a) �
z3
t0
�
(6 Q
� L
C N
z3 an
� L
W VI
tin
c
• VI
L
N
(V
c
m
c
H
cn
c
a
C
Q
N
E
E
a)
4
E
to
a..'
N U
s C 0
U
QJ
N I
I
I E
=
>
VI
0
0
G
L
0
41
++
0.
o
o
o=
C
o
sa
3
E
E
0
a
N
ar
0
O
i
f
c
U
• s
z
c
c
z
t
c
• c
S
c
i
a
0
pnd
N
S U
a)
" O
L
CL
O z3
C
o LL
)
U -
J W
O
O
L
3 O a)
U a)
N
O co
Z � L
do a)
) � L
LL O
N
L a)
7
C
_ a)
> > co
a)
' L
L
CV
3
L
}J
U f6
3
a) E
O
a) �
z3
t0
�
(6 Q
� L
C N
z3 an
� L
W VI
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR
DATE: APRIL 19, 2012
SUBJECT: SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Listed below are a number of items that are expected to have a significant impact on the overall financial
picture for the Village. While many of these items have their own dedicated revenue source, the revenue
is not sufficient to support the programs fully moving forward. Decisions on one particular item will have a
direct impact to how others can be addressed.
1) Street Resurfacing Program
To prevent streets from deteriorating to the point where a complete reconstruction is required, an
annual resurfacing program has been put in place. Resurfacing of village streets included in the
program is done according to a 20 -year life cycle. To meet this desired goal, 6.8 miles of streets
are to be resurfaced each year. Based on the 2012 cost of $100 per linear foot, the annual
funding requirement is $3.6 million. Due to shortfalls in the MFT and Street Construction Funds
the amount of streets resurfaced were reduced. In 2010 only 5.0 miles of streets were resurfaced
while in 2011 only 4.9 miles were resurfaced. For 2012 only 4.7 miles of streets will be
resurfaced.
There is currently a backlog of approximately one year's worth of resurfacing at an estimated cost
of $4.0 million. Shortfalls in the MFT and Street Funds continue with funding available to support
just two- thirds of what is required annually. Currently, funding for the street resurfacing program
is derived from the state and local motor fuel taxes and a one - quarter percent home rule sales
tax.
2) Flood Control Program
Similar to the street resurfacing program, the flood control program was put in place to deal with a
backlog of flood projects and to address flood control moving forward. Debt was issued in 1994,
1997 and 1999 to support the initial stages of the flood program. The debt is beginning to be paid
off making funds available to support ongoing flood projects. Funding comes from a one - quarter
percent home rule sales tax.
As a result of the extensive flooding that occurred in the village in July 2011, a comprehensive
stormwater study was conducted by Burns & McDonnell. The study presented a series of
recommendations to cost - effectively mitigate flooding problems. Recommendations made by
Burns & Mc Donnell are for projects outside of existing flood control efforts and includes a
strategy that involves both private and public sector improvements. Private sector projects
consist of the installation of overhead sewers estimated to cost $9.5 million. Public sector
improvements to the village -wide stormwater system are estimated to cost $14.4 million.
3) Emerald Ash Borer Infestation (EAB)
The Village began actively preparing for EAB in 2003. Various programs have been put in place
to proactively address the pending infestation. It is now apparent that further, more aggressive
steps are needed to address the expected loss of ash trees throughout the village. Costs
Significant Issues
May 18, 2012
Page 2
associated with the removal and replacement of the 4,400 ash trees is expected to cost between
$2 million and $3 million. This figure does not include the cost of providing insecticidal treatment
for healthy trees. A funding source for addressing EAB has not been identified.
4) Randhurst Redevelopment Agreement
In 2009, the Village entered into a redevelopment agreement (RDA) with the owners of Randhurst
Mall. The agreement requires the Village to contribute $25 million, in the form of an interest
bearing Note, to cover certain costs associated with the redevelopment. Support for the $25
million commitment is to come from various revenue sources generated on the redevelopment
site. These revenues include sales and amusement taxes, food & beverage taxes, a hotel /motel
tax and a business district tax. Semi - annual payments from these revenues are to begin upon
issuance of Certificate of Completion #2. When steady revenue streams have been established
the Village will be asked to retire the Note through the issuance of Business District Bonds and /or
Revenue Bonds.
5) Automatic Meter Reading System
An automatic meter reading system (AMR) is planned for both commercial and residential water
customers. An AMR system improves the efficiency of the water system by providing real time
reads and eliminates the need to visit the physical meter location for routine functions such as
final reads.
The Village is in the process of selecting a vendor for the installation of automatic meter reading
equipment on all commercial accounts. Approximately 1,200 meters will be receiving this new
equipment in this first phase at a cost of $565,000. Funds to pay for this first phase are included
in the 2012 Water Fund budget.
The second phase of AMR involves approximately 12,000 residential customers. The AMR
changeover is planned to occur over a four -year period beginning in 2012. The 2012 Water Fund
budget included $400,000 towards the initial stage of the project. There is $1 million in each of
the following 3 years to complete the residential AMR project. Although the funding source is
through the Water Fund, shortfalls in the budget may necessitate this project being deferred.
The challenges presented in addressing these above listed items are in addition to those we continue to
experience in managing the day -to -day operations of the Village. There still exists in the General Fund a
structural imbalance in the growth of revenues versus expenditures and rate increases imposed by the
City of Chicago on the cost of water has reduced the amount of funds available for maintaining the
Village's water and sewer system. My presentation at the workshop will facilitate discussion on this item.
Let me know if you would like to discuss this further.
David O. Erb
Finance Director
CADocuments and Settings \djarosz \Local Settings \Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\W7C5BMPD \Significant Issues Memo.docx