The URL can be used to link to this page

Public Works Packet 2017 04-18-17 AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, April 18, 2017 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: February 21, 2017 New Business: 1. PW 2017-21 Snow Operations Report 2. PW 2017-22 Capital Improvement Project Update 3. PW 2017-23 Bond/LOC Reduction Summary 4. PW 2017-24 Water Department Reports for January, February and March 2017 5. PW 2017-25 Route 47 ITEP (Streetlights) – Authorization No. 5 6. PW 2017-26 Wrigley EDP Project – Change Order Nos. 2, 3, and 4 7. PW 2017-27 Center / Countryside Resurfacing – Contract Award 8. PW 2017-28 Center / Countryside Resurfacing – Phase III Engineering Agreement 9. PW 2017-29 Kennedy Road Resurfacing – Contract Award 10. PW 2017-30 Subordination of Surface Rights – Route 34 (Eldamain to Center Parkway) 11. PW 2017-31 Stormwater Management Program Plan Update 12. PW 2017-32 Traffic Control a. Van Emmon and Heustis b. Yorkville Intermediate School 13. PW 2017-33 Code Amendment Regarding Restricting of Semi Trucks in the Caledonia Subdivision 14. PW 2017-34 Fox Hill and Sunflower Estates SSA Management RFP 15. PW 2017-35 Water Study Update Old Business: 1. PW 2016-21 Performance Contracting 2. CC 2014-59 Whispering Meadows Parking Restriction Additional Business: United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us Public Works Committee Agenda April 18, 2017 Page 2 2016/2017 City Council Goals – Public Works Committee Goal Priority Staff “Municipal Building Needs and Planning” 3 Bart Olson & Eric Dhuse “Capital Improvement Plan” 4 Bart Olson & Eric Dhuse “Vehicle Replacement” 5 Bart Olson & Eric Dhuse “Sidewalks and Trails Funding and Planning” 15 Bart Olson, Eric Dhuse, Brad Sanderson & Rob Fredrickson UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Tuesday, April 18, 2017 6:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. February 21, 2017 □ Approved __________ □ As presented □ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PW 2017-21 Snow Operations Report □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PW 2017-22 Capital Improvement Project Update □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. PW 2017-23 Bond/LOC Reduction Summary □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. PW 2017-24 Water Department Reports for January, February and March 2017 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. PW 2017-25 Route 47 ITEP (Streetlights) – Authorization No. 5 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. PW 2017-26 Wrigley EDP Project – Change Order Nos. 2, 3, and 4 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. PW 2017-27 Center / Countryside Resurfacing – Contract Award □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. PW 2017-28 Center / Countryside Resurfacing – Phase III Engineering Agreement □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. PW 2017-29 Kennedy Road Resurfacing – Contract Award □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. PW 2017-30 Subordination of Surface Rights – Route 34 (Eldamain to Center Parkway) □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. PW 2017-31 Stormwater Management Program Plan Update □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. PW 2017-32 Traffic Control a. Van Emmon and Heustis b. Yorkville Intermediate School □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. PW 2017-33 Code Amendment Regarding Restricting of Semi Trucks in the Caledonia Subdivision □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. PW 2017-34 Fox Hill and Sunflower Estates SSA Management RFP □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. PW 2017-35 Water Study Update □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PW 2016-21 Performance Contracting □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CC 2014-59 Whispering Meadows Parking Restriction □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Minutes Tracking Number Minutes of the Public Works Committee – February 21, 2017 Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 Majority Committee Approval Minute Taker Name Department Page 1 of 3 DRAFT UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Tuesday, February 21, 2017, 6:00pm Yorkville City Hall, Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road IN ATTENDANCE: Committee Members Chairman Chris Funkhouser Alderman Jackie Milschewski Alderman Ken Koch Other City Officials City Administrator Bart Olson Interim Assistant City Administrator Erin Willrett Public Works Director Eric Dhuse Engineer Brad Sanderson, EEI Other Guests: None The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Chairman Chris Funkhouser. Citizen Comments: None Previous Meeting Minutes: January 17, 2017 The minutes were approved as presented. New Business: 1. PW 2017-10 Snow Operations Report Mr. Dhuse said crews only went out a few times for small amounts of ice. The City has 300 tons of the original 1,200 tons of salt remaining and he is working on finding a storage place. If it is not stored properly it becomes crusty and hard if it gets wet. For information only. 2. PW 2017-11 Caledonia Phases 1 and 2 – Acceptance of Improvements All punchlist items are finished according to Mr. Sanderson and acceptance is requested. A reduction in two letters of credit is also requested and a 10% maintenance agreement will be needed for one year. The committee approved and this item moves to the February 28 consent agenda. 3. PW 2017-12 Blackberry Woods Phase A – Acceptance of Improvements Mr. Sanderson said some developer funds were used to complete the punchlist items. Underground work, streetlights and sidewalk are now being recommended for acceptance. Stormwater, detention basins, ponds, parks and tree removal still need to be completed. The recommendations were approved and this moves to the February 28 consent agenda. Page 2 of 3 4. PW 2017-13 Hot Mix and Cold Patch – RFP Results Since the amount spent is over $20,000, Mr. Dhuse said a yearly bid must be done to meet IDOT criteria. Geneva Construction was the low bidder for the normal yearly usage of each product. He said Geneva Construction will remove and dispose of the old material. This item also moves to the February 28th consent agenda with committee approval. 5. PW 2017-14 Fox Hill and Sunflower Estates SSA Mowing and Maintenance RFP This is yearly item and Mr. Dhuse recommended that in addition to the mowing, the City go to RFP for a management company for the daily activities. He said it currently takes two weeks of staff time. Alderman Koch said residents had raised concerns about lack of mulch and excess weeds in Sunflower. He asked for stronger language in the contract to meet those concerns. The contract also states the “lowest responsible bid” will be taken and the contractor must be willing to respond to complaints and weekly reporting will be required. The second RFP will be done next month. This moves forward to the February 28th consent agenda with committee approval. 6. PW 2017-15 Budget Amendment for Pedestrian Signage Ms. Willrett said three signs were requested by the schools with a verbal commitment for cost-sharing between the schools and the City. The locations will be at Bristol Bay, high school and Hydraulic/Rt. 47. This action requires a budget amendment revision from $11,000 to $38,000. The amendment will go to the February 28th consent agenda as approved by the committee. 7. PW 2017-16 Kennedy Road Shared Use Path – BNSF Agreement Mr. Sanderson said the BNSF agreement is the last step before bid-letting. A draft was provided and outlines the City's cost of $300,000 - $400,000. An engineering agreement has already been completed. The BNSF agreement will move to the City Council regular agenda and has an approval deadline of March 10th to be able to reach the bid-letting in April. A July or August project start is expected and it is hoped to finish a large portion by the end of the year. This moves to the regular Council agenda. 8. PW 2017-17 Intergovernmental Agreement for Kennedy Road Resurfacing The County approached the City to use Kennedy Road as a detour when the Galena Road bridge is reconstructed. Ms. Willrett said that in exchange for an easement for the bridge, the County will gift the City with $160,000 for overlay for Kennedy Rd. The City would like to do thicker overlay which would give a 10-year life expectancy and would extend from Autumn Creek to Galena Rd. The road improvements must be completed by May 2018. Bids are expected to go out in May and the project should be completed mid-September. Coordination will also be necessary for the shared use path. The committee approved and is moving this forward to the regular agenda. 9. PW 2017-18 Kennedy Road Engineering Agreement This agreement is for the design and construction engineering for the Kennedy Road improvements. Mr. Olson said this is in the budget and the committee agreed to move it to the February 28 consent agenda. 10. PW 2017-19 Route 34 Improvements (Center Parkway to Eldamain) Mr. Sanderson said IDOT hopes to meet an April bid-letting date and major work is not expected to occur until April 2018. The City is being asked to consider a City-State agreement and the costs are outlined in a memo. Mr. Olson added that the money is in the budget. Alderman Funkhouser had concerns about the material selected and additional landscaping for the sound barrier walls. He asked for more aesthetics or vines on the wall. Page 3 of 3 Also discussed was the Fox Hill entry signage. The type of signage will be dependent on the location of the construction walls and the west entrance will also no longer have signage. Alderman Funkhouser expressed concern over loss of identity for Fox Hill since the only entrance sign will be at Sycamore. Height of the barrier wall was also questioned. Alderman Milschewski questioned how the position is determined for the sound barrier walls. An analysis is done and homeowners are contacted. Alderman Koch also noted that residents along Rt. 71 had asked for barriers and were turned down due to criteria not being met. Mr. Dhuse asked to have staff speak with IDOT in regards to their contract statement that the City would do the mowing and maintenance of the area near the walls. As part of this project, the Rob Roy Creek bridge and Galena Rd. bridge will also be replaced. This item moves forward to the February 28th regular agenda. 11. PW 2017-20 NPDES MS4 Stormwater Permit Documents were brought to committee last August in regards to changes that are needed for the stormwater plan. Since then, the document was revised. Another requirement is for the City to hold a public meeting for comment. Mr. Sanderson suggested that meeting be held at the next Council meeting and that the new document be part of the agenda. This item will be placed on the Public Works agenda at the next Council meeting to allow for public comment. Old Business: 1. PW 2014-74 Railroad Quiet Zones Ms. Willrett presented follow-up information after the last meeting, to include train counts and siren information. She was unable to reach railroad personnel and said some information might not be provided. Mr. Dhuse said BNSF owns the tracks and Illinois Railnet trains must wait until BNSF gives the OK to move. A webcam was suggested to determine the number of trains per day. A railroad complaint portal will be added to the City website. No further action. Additional Business: Alderman Koch said he has talked to City staff about the poor condition of Walsh Street and wishes to keep it in the forefront. Another road survey was brought up, however, it will not be done for 7-10 years and is not budgeted. Many aging roads have actually been replaced already and priorites may be adjusted based on need. Alderman Milschewski asked if the lights on Rt. 47 have sensors. The lights operate on “loops” rather than cameras. The gas bollards in Bristol were discussed and it was noted 100 were installed incorrectly. They were to be corrected two weeks ago and Mr. Dhuse has made contact with the installers. Chairman Funkhouser inquired about the piles of materials at Bridge Park and Bristol Bay Drive. They are grindings for the parking lot and will be used shortly. There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 7:01pm. Minutes respectfully transcribed by Marlys Young, Minute Taker Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #1 Tracking Number PW 2017-21 Snow Operations Report Public Works Committee –April 18, 2017 None – Informational only. Monthly update of snow removal operations. Eric Dhuse Public Works Name Department Summary Thankfully, we have only had to plow/salt one time since the last report. Nine drivers and one foreman started at 3:00am to salt and plow if necessary. Everyone was done by 9:30am including sidewalks and parking lots. There may be some additional spot salting needed if snow continues through the day. Please find below a small yearend report which does include data from today. Our salt usage was approximately 1100 tons this year. We did order our full 1200 tons, so we have 100 tons that we will be able to use next year. We still realized a substantial savings in salt cost this year due to the fact the bids came in quite favorably for us. I had estimated that salt would cost $75/ton on our MFT Appropriation sheet and the actual price came in at $50.15/ton which means the savings was almost $30,000. This money will be returned to the MFT fund to be used on future projects. In conjunction with the salting applications, we applied between 28,000-33,000 gallons of brine both as a pre-wetting application and as an anti-icing agent. We approximate the cost to be $0.06/gal to produce, so the total expenditure on Brine would be $1500-$1800 for the entire year. Our estimated total hours for snow removal this year were 680 hours for 15 snow events. This includes straight time, overtime and any double time hours accrued. As you know, each year is different and presents its own challenges when it comes to snow and ice removal, but this year was relatively calm and we should realize a savings in OT, equipment repair, to go along with the salt savings. I would ask that this be placed on the March 21, 2017 public works committee meeting for discussion. If you have any questions or need further information, please let me know. Memorandum To: Public Works Committee From: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works CC: Bart Olson, Administrator Date: Subject: Snow removal update Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #2 Tracking Number PW 2017-22 Capital Improvement Project Update Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 None Status Update Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department The purpose of this memo is to update the Public Works Committee as to the status of the several projects. A brief summary on the status of the projects is provided below: Construction Projects Countryside Street and Water main Improvements  Construction initiated in April 2016. The water main and binder course were installed within the 2016 construction season. We are anticipating work re-starting in Mid-April. The contract completion date for the remaining improvements is June 30, 2017. Wrigley EDP  All work is complete with the exception of punchlist items. The project should be complete by June 30th. 2017 RTBR  Construction contracts have been awarded. Work will commence sometime after May 1st. The contract completion date is September 29th. West Washington Street Water Main Improvements  Construction contracts have been awarded. Work will commence sometime after May 1st. The contract completion date is June 30th. 2017 Sanitary Sewer Lining  Construction contracts have been awarded. Work will commence sometime after May 1st. The contract completion date is November 30th. Grande Reserve – Park A  Work is substantially complete. Sunflower/Greenbrier Pond Naturalization  We are entering the third and final year of a three-year maintenance contract with Encap. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: April 3, 2017 Subject: Capital Improvement Projects Update Planning/Design Projects Kennedy Shared Use Path – ITEP  We are on the April 28th letting. It is anticipated that work will commence in July and the majority of the improvements will be constructed in 2017. Kennedy Road Resurfacing  Bids will be received on April 10th. We are targeting a contract award at the April 25th City Council Meeting. Center Parkway and Countryside Parkway Resurfacing  Bids will be received on April 11th. We are targeting a contract award at the April 25th City Council Meeting. Rt 71 Water main and Sanitary Sewer Relocation  We are in the process of evaluating comments received from IDOT. Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #3 Tracking Number PW 2017-23 Bond/LOC Reduction Summary – 3/31/17 Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 Informational Informational Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department Please see the attached reduction summary through March 31, 2017. If you have any questions, please let me know. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: April 3, 2017 Subject: 2017 Bond/LOC Reduction Summary – To Date 31-Mar-17 2017 Bond and Letter of Credit Reduction Report Date Development/Project Engineer Concurrence City Administrator Concurrence Mayor Concurrence Reduction Final Release Reduction Value Remaining Balance 1/10/2017 Hamman Water main X X X $3,774.09 $0.00 1/24/2017 Bristol Bay Unit 3 X X X $112,267.81 $172,371.00 2/28/2017 Caledonia X X X $416,010.52 $557,615.58 3/17/2017 Ashley Pointe X X X $58,781.25 $119,989.25 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #4 Tracking Number PW 2017-24 Water Department Reports for January, February and March 2017 Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 Majority Approval Monthly water reports. Tom Konen Public Works Name Department Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #5 Tracking Number PW 2017-25 Route 47 ITEP (Streetlights) Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 Consideration of Approval Consideration of Authorization No. 5 Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department The purpose of this memo is to present Authorization No. 5 for the above referenced project. An authorization, as defined by IDOT, is the written approval of a contract change and the written directive to the contractor to perform said work. By this definition, it alters the contract work from that awarded under the competitive bidding process. An Authorization of Contract Changes signed by the Regional Engineer signifies completed review of and support for the change proposed. Background: The State of Illinois and Thorne Electric, Inc. entered into an agreement for a contract value of $401,463.02 for the above referenced project. Construction began on October 11, 2016 and the project is substantially complete. The construction costs are being funded by ITEP funds (federal) and local funds. The maximum federal participation amount is $390,410.00, inclusive of all change orders (authorizations) associated with this contract. Questions Presented: Should the City approve Authorization No. 5 in the amount of - $3,525.28? Discussion: Authorization No. 5 is a balancing authorization to adjust the final quantities to match the quantities measured in place in the field and as agreed to by the Contractor. The net change to date for all authorizations is $3,575.36 which is a 0.89% increase to the original contract value bringing a revised contract value to date of $405,038.38. We have attached IDOT form BC-22 for Authorization No. 5 for your information. All authorizations have a pre-approval from the IDOT District 3 Local Agency Bureau of Construction Engineer. We are recommending approval of the Authorization. Action Required: Consideration of approval from the City Council for Authorization No. 5. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: April 3, 2017 Subject: Route 47 ITEP (Streetlights)– Authorization No. 5 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #6 Tracking Number PW 2017-26 Wrigley EDP Project – Change Order Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 Consideration of Approval Consideration of Approval Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #7 Tracking Number PW 2017-27 Center / Countryside Resurfacing – Contract Award Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 Consideration of Award Recommendation of Contract Award Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department Bids were received, opened and tabulated for work to be done on the Center / Countryside Resurfacing project at 3:15 p.m., April 11, 2017. Representatives of contractors bidding the project, the City, and our firm were in attendance. A tabulation of the bids and the engineer’s estimate is attached for your information and record. The low bid was below our engineer’s estimate and within the FY2018 budget. We recommend the acceptance of the bid and approval of award be made to the low bidder, D Construction, Co., 1488 S Broadway Street, Coal City, IL 60416 in the amount of $239,317.66. If you have any questions or require additional information, please let us know. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Erin Willrett, Assistant City Administrator Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: April 12, 2017 Subject: Center / Countryside Resurfacing BID TABULATION COUNTRYSIDE PARKWAY/CENTER PARKWAY RESURFACING UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE BID TABULATION ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE BIDS RECD 4/11/2017 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, IL 60554 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE 21101615 TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4"SQ YD 75 10.00$ 750.00$ 10.00$ 750.00$ 8.15$ 611.25$ 20.00$ 1,500.00$ 25200110 SODDING, SALT TOLERANT SQ YD 75 10.00 750.00$ 8.62 646.50$ 8.65 648.75$ 20.00$ 1,500.00$ 25200200 SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING UNIT 5 330.00 1,650.00$ 0.01 0.05$ 20.00 100.00$ 100.00$ 500.00$ 40600290 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS (TACKCOAT)POUND 12,466 0.01 124.66$ 0.01 124.66$ 0.01 124.66$ 0.50$ 6,233.00$ 40600982 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL - BUTT JOINT SQ YD 285 9.00 2,565.00$ 5.00 1,425.00$ 9.00 2,565.00$ 2.00$ 570.00$ 40600625 LEVELING BINDER (MACHINE METHOD), N50 TON 1,041 55.00 57,255.00$ 57.00 59,337.00$ 58.00 60,378.00$ 62.00$ 64,542.00$ 40603335 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE, MIX "D", N50 TON 1,564 55.00 86,020.00$ 57.00 89,148.00$ 57.00 89,148.00$ 65.00$ 101,660.00$ 40800050 INCIDENTAL HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACING TON 10 150.00 1,500.00$ 110.00 1,100.00$ 195.00 1,950.00$ 75.00$ 750.00$ 42400200 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCH SQ FT 675 7.00 4,725.00$ 6.00 4,050.00$ 15.00 10,125.00$ 10.00$ 6,750.00$ 45100100 CRACK ROUTING (PAVEMENT)FOOT 9,050 0.04 362.00$ 0.10 905.00$ 0.10 905.00$ 1.00$ 9,050.00$ 45100200 CRACK FILLING POUND 2,400 2.51 6,024.00$ 1.15 2,760.00$ 1.15 2,760.00$ 10.00$ 24,000.00$ 42400800 DETECTABLE WARNINGS SQ FT 116 25.00 2,900.00$ 18.00 2,088.00$ 25.00 2,900.00$ 30.00$ 3,480.00$ 44000159 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL, 2 1/2"SQ YD 18,466 1.50 27,699.00$ 1.65 30,468.90$ 2.25 41,548.50$ 3.00$ 55,398.00$ 44000500 COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL FOOT 105 5.00 525.00$ 6.00 630.00$ 10.00 1,050.00$ 10.00$ 1,050.00$ 44000600 SIDEWALK REMOVAL SQ FT 675 2.00 1,350.00$ 1.20 810.00$ 3.00 2,025.00$ 3.00$ 2,025.00$ 44201690 CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE I, 4 INCH SQ YD 100 28.00 2,800.00$ 38.00 3,800.00$ 41.50 4,150.00$ 50.00$ 5,000.00$ 44201692 CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE II, 4 INCH SQ YD 100 28.00 2,800.00$ 36.00 3,600.00$ 37.00 3,700.00$ 45.00$ 4,500.00$ 44201694 CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE III, 4 INCH SQ YD 200 28.00 5,600.00$ 29.00 5,800.00$ 33.50 6,700.00$ 40.00$ 8,000.00$ 44201696 CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE IV, 4 INCH SQ YD 525 26.00 13,650.00$ 24.00 12,600.00$ 27.00 14,175.00$ 35.00$ 18,375.00$ 60255500 MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 4 375.00 1,500.00$ 385.00 1,540.00$ 500.00 2,000.00$ 450.00$ 1,800.00$ 60265700 VALVE VAULTS TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 1 290.00 290.00$ 385.00 385.00$ 500.00 500.00$ 450.00$ 450.00$ 60266600 VALVE BOXES TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 2 150.00 300.00$ 285.00 570.00$ 500.00 1,000.00$ 300.00$ 600.00$ 60603800 COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B-6.12 FOOT 105 35.00 3,675.00$ 22.50 2,362.50$ 51.00 5,355.00$ 30.00$ 3,150.00$ 67100100 MOBILIZATION LSUM 1 1,000.00 1,000.00$ 6,600.00 6,600.00$ 10,145.11 10,145.11$ 13,000.00$ 13,000.00$ 70300100 SHORT TERM PAVEMENT MARKING FOOT 100 0.80 80.00$ 0.70 70.00$ 2.00 200.00$ 1.00$ 100.00$ 70301000 WORK ZONE PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SQ FT 35 1.00 35.00$ 0.70 24.50$ 13.00 455.00$ 10.00$ 350.00$ 78000100 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LETTERS AND SYMBOLS SQ FT 222 2.98 661.56$ 5.00 1,110.00$ 3.65 810.30$ 20.00$ 4,440.00$ 78000200 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 4"FOOT 950 1.02 969.00$ 0.85 807.50$ 0.48 456.00$ 1.00$ 950.00$ 78000400 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 6"FOOT 1,654 1.36 2,249.44$ 1.05 1,736.70$ 0.72 1,190.88$ 2.00$ 3,308.00$ 78000500 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 8"FOOT 429 1.70 729.30$ 1.70 729.30$ 1.00 429.00$ 5.00$ 2,145.00$ 78000600 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 12"FOOT 205 2.21 453.05$ 2.50 512.50$ 2.00 410.00$ 10.00$ 2,050.00$ 78000650 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 24"FOOT 69 3.85 265.65$ 5.00 345.00$ 3.95 272.55$ 12.00$ 828.00$ 88600200 DETECTOR LOOP REPLACEMENT FOOT 120 33.00 3,960.00$ 24.90 2,988.00$ 25.00 3,000.00$ 30.00$ 3,600.00$ X6026050 SANITARY MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 2 850.00 1,700.00$ 855.00 1,710.00$ 750.00 1,500.00$ 850.00$ 1,700.00$ X6040205 FRAMES AND LIDS, SPECIAL EACH 2 700.00 1,400.00$ 400.00 800.00$ 300.00 600.00$ 450.00$ 900.00$ X7010216 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION, (SPECIAL)LSUM 1 1,000.00 1,000.00$ 3,400.00 3,400.00$ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ TOTAL (Items 1 - 46)239,317.66 245,734.11 278,888.00 365,254.00 % BELOW/ABOVE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE -34.5%-32.7%-23.6% AMOUNTUNITQUANTITYDESCRIPTIONITEM NO.AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT BUILDERS PAVING, LLC 4413 Roosevelt Road-Ste 108 Hillside, IL 60162Coal City, IL 60416 D CONSTRUCTION 1488 S. Broadway GENEVA CONSTRUCTION P.O. Box 998 Aurora, IL 60507 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. 52 WHEELER ROAD, SUGAR GROVE, ILLINOIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IL 47 (FAP 326)US 34 (FAP 591)VeteransBridgeCenterCannonballJohnKendallEdwardCountrysideSunsetMarketviewEricaCarlyPleasureLeisurePrairieGame FarmLandmarkHillcrestConoverBlackberry ShoreMcHughMarketplaceGeorgeannaHeartlandIndependenceStrawberryNorthlandHickoryDicksonDaltonCornellNadenP a l m e rMenard CodyMulhernBlackberryFreemontCarpenterPowersA n d e r so n McHughConoverEngineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, Illinois 60554(630) 466-6700CENTER PARKWAY AND COUNTRYSIDE PARKWAY (FAU 3797)www.eeiweb.comDATE:PROJECT NO.:FILE:PATH:BY:MARCH 2016YO1608YO1608_CountrysidePkwy.MXDH:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2016\KKPUnited City of Yorkville800 Game Farm RoadYorkville, IL 60560630-553-4350³0800FeetProjectLocationLEEPIKEWILLMCLEANOGLELASALLEKNOXHENRYADAMSIROQUOISFULTONBUREAUWAYNESHELBYCLAYLAKE EDGARFORDLIVINGSTONL O G A N FAYETTEPEORIACHAMPAIGNVERMILIONHANCOCKMACOUPINMADISONPIATTWHITEMACONDEKALBMASONCOLESSANGAMONCLARKMARIONST. CLAIRCASSPOPE CHRISTIANPERRYMERCERUNIONBONDGREENEWHITESIDEMORGANJASPERJACKSONTAZEWELLWARRENMCHENRYKANKAKEECLINTONDEWITTSALINERANDOLPHJO DAVIESSGRUNDY JEFFERSONCARROLLJERSEYWOODFORDM ON R O ESTARKFRANKLINHAMILTONDOUGLASSCHUYLERBROWNBOONESCO TTMENARDMARSHALLHENDERSONATTACHMENT DUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLEKENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOISPROJECT ENDS - COUNTRYSIDE PKWYPROJECT BEGINS- CENTER PKWYCENTERP A R K W A Y COUNTRYSIDEPARKWAYCENTER PKWY ANDCOUNTRYSIDE PKWY Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #8 Tracking Number PW 2017-28 Center / Countryside Resurfacing – Phase III Engineering Agreement Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 Majority Approval See attached. Bart Olson Administration Name Department Center / Countryside Resurfacing United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, IL Professional Services Agreement - Construction Engineering THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the United City of Yorkville, hereinafter referred to as the "City" or “OWNER” and Engineering Enterprises, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor" or “ENGINEER” agrees as follows: A. Services: ENGINEER agrees to furnish to the City the following services: The ENGINEER shall provide any and all necessary engineering services to the City as indicated on the included Attachment A. Construction engineering will be provided for all roadways on Attachment D. All Engineering will be in accordance with all City and Illinois Department of Transportation requirements. B. Term: Services will be provided beginning on the date of execution of this agreement and continuing, until terminated by either party upon 7 days written notice to the non- terminating party or upon completion of the Services. Upon termination the ENGINEER shall be compensated for all work performed for the City prior to termination. C. Compensation and maximum amounts due to ENGINEER: ENGINEER shall receive as compensation for all work and services to be performed herein, an amount based on the Estimate of Level of Effort and Associated Cost included in Attachment B. Construction Engineering will be paid for hourly at the actual rates for services to be performed, currently estimated at $34,648.00. The hourly rates for this project are shown in the attached 2016 Standard Schedule of Charges. All payments will be made according to the Illinois State Prompt Payment Act and not less than once every thirty days. For outside services provided by other firms or subconsultants, the City shall pay the ENGINEER the invoiced fee to the ENGINEER, plus 0%. Such outside services include, but are not limited to services to be provided by Rubino Engineering, Inc. D. Changes in Rates of Compensation: In the event that this contract is designated in Section B hereof as an Ongoing Contract, ENGINEER, on or before February 1st of any given year, shall provide written notice of any change in the rates specified in Section C hereof (or on any attachments hereto) and said changes shall only be effective on and after May 1st of that same year. E. Ownership of Records and Documents: Center / Countryside Resurfacing United City of Yorkville Professional Services Agreement Design and Construction Engineering ENGINEER agrees that all books and records and other recorded information developed specifically in connection with this agreement shall remain the property of the City. ENGINEER agrees to keep such information confidential and not to disclose or disseminate the information to third parties without the consent of the City. This confidentiality shall not apply to material or information, which would otherwise be subject to public disclosure through the freedom of information act or if already previously disclosed by a third party. Upon termination of this agreement, ENGINEER agrees to return all such materials to the City. The City agrees not to modify any original documents produced by ENGINEER without contractors consent. Modifications of any signed duplicate original document not authorized by ENGINEER will be at OWNER’s sole risk and without legal liability to the ENGINEER. Use of any incomplete, unsigned document will, likewise, be at the OWNER’s sole risk and without legal liability to the ENGINEER. F. Governing Law: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. Venue shall be in Kendall County, Illinois. G. Independent Contractor: ENGINEER shall have sole control over the manner and means of providing the work and services performed under this agreement. The City’s relationship to the ENGINEER under this agreement shall be that of an independent contractor. ENGINEER will not be considered an employee to the City for any purpose. H. Certifications: Employment Status : The Contractor certifies that if any of its personnel are an employee of the State of Illinois, they have permission from their employer to perform the service. Anti-Bribery : The Contractor certifies it is not barred under 30 Illinois Compiled Statutes 500/50-5(a) - (d) from contracting as a result of a conviction for or admission of bribery or attempted bribery of an officer or employee of the State of Illinois or any other state. Loan Default: If the Contractor is an individual, the Contractor certifies that he/she is not in default for a period of six months or more in an amount of $600 or more on the repayment of any educational loan guaranteed by the Illinois State Scholarship Commission made by an Illinois institution of higher education or any other loan made from public funds for the purpose of financing higher education (5 ILCS 385/3). Center / Countryside Resurfacing United City of Yorkville Professional Services Agreement Design and Construction Engineering Felony Certification: The Contractor certifies that it is not barred pursuant to 30 Illinois Compiled Statutes 500/50-10 from conducting business with the State of Illinois or any agency as a result of being convicted of a felony. Barred from Contracting : The Contractor certifies that it has not been barred from contracting as a result of a conviction for bid-rigging or bid rotating under 720 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/33E or similar law of another state. Drug Free Workplace: The Contractor certifies that it is in compliance with the Drug Free Workplace Act (30 Illinois Compiled Statutes 580) as of the effective date of this contract. The Drug Free Workplace Act requires, in part, that Contractors, with 25 or more employees certify and agree to take steps to ensure a drug free workplace by informing employees of the dangers of drug abuse, of the availability of any treatment or assistance program, of prohibited activities and of sanctions that will be imposed for violations; and that individuals with contracts certify that they will not engage in the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance in the performance of the contract. Non-Discrimination, Certification, and Equal Employment Opportunity : The Contractor agrees to comply with applicable provisions of the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5), the U.S. Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act and the rules applicable to each. The equal opportunity clause of Section 750.10 of the Illinois Department of Human Rights Rules is specifically incorporated herein. The Contractor shall comply with Executive Order 11246, entitled Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented by U.S. Department of Labor regulations (41 C.F.R. Chapter 60). The Contractor agrees to incorporate this clause into all subcontracts under this Contract. International Boycott: The Contractor certifies that neither it nor any substantially owned affiliated company is participating or shall participate in an international boycott in violation of the provisions of the U.S. Export Administration Act of 1979 or the regulations of the U.S. Department of Commerce promulgated under that Act (30 ILCS 582). Record Retention and Audits: If 30 Illinois Compiled Statutes 500/20-65 requires the Contractor (and any subcontractors) to maintain, for a period of 3 years after the later of the date of completion of this Contract or the date of final payment under the Contract, all books and records relating to the performance of the Contract and necessary to support amounts charged to the City under the Contract. The Contract and all books and records related to the Contract shall be available for review and audit by the City and the Illinois Auditor General. If this Contract is funded from contract/grant funds provided by the U.S. Government, the Contract, books, and records shall be available for review and audit by the Comptroller General of the U.S. and/or the Inspector General of the federal Center / Countryside Resurfacing United City of Yorkville Professional Services Agreement Design and Construction Engineering sponsoring agency. The Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with any audit and to provide full access to all relevant materials. United States Resident Certification: (This certification must be included in all contracts involving personal services by non-resident aliens and foreign entities in accordance with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Services for withholding and reporting federal income taxes.) The Contractor certifies that he/she is a: x United States Citizen ___ Resident Alien ___ Non-Resident Alien The Internal Revenue Service requires that taxes be withheld on payments made to non resident aliens for the performance of personal services at the rate of 30%. Tax Payer Certification : Under penalties of perjury, the Contractor certifies that its Federal Tax Payer Identification Number or Social Security Number is (provided separately) and is doing business as a (check one): ___ Individual ___ Real Estate Agent ___ Sole Proprietorship ___ Government Entity ___ Partnership ___ Tax Exempt Organization (IRC 501(a) only) x Corporation ___ Not for Profit Corporation ___ Trust or Estate ___ Medical and Health Care Services Provider Corp. I. Indemnification: ENGINEER shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and City’s agents, servants, and employees against all loss, damage, and expense which it may sustain or for which it will become liable on account of injury to or death of persons, or on account of damage to or destruction of property resulting from the performance of work under this agreement by ENGINEER or its Subcontractors, or due to or arising in any manner from the wrongful act or negligence of ENGINEER or its Subcontractors of any employee of any of them. In the event that the either party shall bring any suit, cause of action or counterclaim against the other party, the non-prevailing party shall pay to the prevailing party the cost and expenses incurred to answer and/or defend such action, including reasonable attorney fees and court costs. In no event shall the either party indemnify any other party for the consequences of that party’s negligence, including failure to follow the ENGINEER’s recommendations. J. Insurance: The ENGINEER agrees that it has either attached a copy of all required insurance certificates or that said insurance is not required due to the nature and extent of the types of services rendered hereunder. (Not applicable as having been previously supplied) K. Additional Terms or Modification: The terms of this agreement shall be further modified as provided on the attachments. Except for those terms included on the attachments, no additional terms are included as a part of this agreement. All prior understandings and agreements between the parties are merged into this agreement, and this agreement may not be modified orally or in any Center / Countryside Resurfacing United City of Yorkville Professional Services Agreement Design and Construction Engineering manner other than by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. In the event that any provisions of this agreement shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding on the parties. The list of attachments are as follows: Attachment A: Scope of Services Attachment B: Estimated Level of Effort and Associated Cost Attachment C: Anticipated Project Schedule Attachment D: Location Map Attachment E: 2016 Standard Schedule of Charges L. Notices: All notices required to be given under the terms of this agreement shall be given mail, addressed to the parties as follows: For the City: For the ENGINEER: City Administrator and City Clerk Engineering Enterprises, Inc. United City of Yorkville 52 Wheeler Road 800 Game Farm Road Sugar Grove Illinois 60554 Yorkville, IL 60560 Either of the parties may designate in writing from time to time substitute addresses or persons in connection with required notices. Agreed to this _____day of __________________, 2017. United City of Yorkville: Engineering Enterprises, Inc.: _________________________________ ________________________________ Gary Golinski Brad Sanderson, P.E. Mayor Vice President _________________________________ ________________________________ Beth Warren Angie Smith City Clerk Executive Assistant Center / Countryside Resurfacing United City of Yorkville Kendall County, IL Professional Services Agreement - Construction Engineering Attachment A – Scope of Services Construction Engineering:  Attend the Pre-Construction Conference with the Contractor  Provide resident engineering for on-site observation  Daily documentation of work tasks and calculation of installed pay items  Monitor adherence to specifications  Gather material inspection and coordinate any required testing on behalf of the City  Provide guidance to the contractor when questions arise during construction  Prepare/verify payment estimates  Prepare change orders  Gather certified payrolls and waivers of lien  Provide information to residents as required  Perform punch list inspections, provide follow up inspections and recommend acceptance when appropriate  Communicate activities with City weekly, or as required based on onsite activities  Prepare necessary closeout paperwork ATTACHMENT B - ESTIMATE OF LEVEL OF EFFORT AND ASSOCIATED COSTPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CENTER / COUNTRYSIDE RESURFACINGUnited City of Yorkville, ILENTITY:ADMIN. WORKPRINCIPAL SENIOR SENIOR SENIOR ITEM COSTWORKIN PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT CAD PROJECT HOUR PERITEMCHARGE MANAGER ENGINEER ENGINEER MANAGER SURVEYOR I TECHNICIAN MANAGER TECHNICIAN ADMIN. SUMM. ITEMNO. WORK ITEM HOURLY RATE: $185 $163 $141 $129 $163 $141 $117 $163 $129 $78CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING3.1 Contract Administration4 16 16 4 40 5,724$ 3.2 Construction Layout2 30 32 4,196$ 3.3 Observation and Documentation8 16 160 184 24,728$ Construction Engineering Subtotal: 12 34 - 206 - - - - - 4 256 34,648$ PROJECT TOTAL: 12 34 - 206 - - - - - 4 256 34,648 Printing = -34,336$ Supplies & Misc. = -$ -$ Material Testing (Rubino) = 5,000$ -$ 312$ 34,648$ DIRECT EXPENSES = 5,000$ 39,648$ \\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\2016\YO1608-P Center Parkway Countryside Parkway LAFO\PSA - Phase III\[Attachment B - Fee Estimate.xlsx]Fee SummaryTOTAL EXPENSES = ENGINEERING SURVEYING DRAFTINGEngineering Expenses = DIRECT EXPENSESLABOR SUMMARYPROJECT ROLE:Surveying Expenses = Drafting Expenses = Administrative Expenses = TOTAL LABOR EXPENSES = WORKYear:ITEM Month:NO. WORK ITEM Week Starting:123412341234123412341234123412341234CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING3.1 Contract Administration3.2 Constructing Layout3.3 Observation and Documentation\\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\2016\YO1608-P Center Parkway Countryside Parkway LAFO\PSA - Phase III\[Attachment C - Schedule.xls]ScheduleLegendProject Management & QC/QA PreliminaryMeeting(s) Design Work ItemBidding and Contracting ConstructionMay2017January February March April June July August SeptemberATTACHMENT C:ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULECENTER / COUNTRYSIDE RESURFACINGUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, IL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IL 47 (FAP 326)US 34 (FAP 591)VeteransBridgeCenterCannonballJohnKendallEdwardCountrysideSunsetMarketviewEricaCarlyPleasureLeisurePrairieGame FarmLandmarkHillcrestConoverBlackberry ShoreMcHughMarketplaceGeorgeannaHeartlandIndependenceStrawberryNorthlandHickoryDicksonDaltonCornellNadenP a l m e rMenard CodyMulhernBlackberryFreemontCarpenterPowersA n d e r so n McHughConoverEngineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, Illinois 60554(630) 466-6700CENTER PARKWAY AND COUNTRYSIDE PARKWAY (FAU 3797)www.eeiweb.comDATE:PROJECT NO.:FILE:PATH:BY:MARCH 2016YO1608YO1608_CountrysidePkwy.MXDH:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2016\KKPUnited City of Yorkville800 Game Farm RoadYorkville, IL 60560630-553-4350³0800FeetProjectLocationLEEPIKEWILLMCLEANOGLELASALLEKNOXHENRYADAMSIROQUOISFULTONBUREAUWAYNESHELBYCLAYLAKE EDGARFORDLIVINGSTONL O G A N FAYETTEPEORIACHAMPAIGNVERMILIONHANCOCKMACOUPINMADISONPIATTWHITEMACONDEKALBMASONCOLESSANGAMONCLARKMARIONST. CLAIRCASSPOPE CHRISTIANPERRYMERCERUNIONBONDGREENEWHITESIDEMORGANJASPERJACKSONTAZEWELLWARRENMCHENRYKANKAKEECLINTONDEWITTSALINERANDOLPHJO DAVIESSGRUNDY JEFFERSONCARROLLJERSEYWOODFORDM ON R O ESTARKFRANKLINHAMILTONDOUGLASSCHUYLERBROWNBOONESCO TTMENARDMARSHALLHENDERSONATTACHMENT DUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLEKENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOISPROJECT ENDS - COUNTRYSIDE PKWYPROJECT BEGINS- CENTER PKWYCENTERP A R K W A Y COUNTRYSIDEPARKWAYCENTER PKWY ANDCOUNTRYSIDE PKWY Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #9 Tracking Number PW 2017-29 Kennedy Road Resurfacing – Contract Award Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 Consideration of Award Recommendation of Contract Award Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department Bids were received, opened and tabulated for work to be done on the Kennedy Road Improvements at 11:30 a.m., April 10, 2017. Representatives of contractors bidding the project, the City, and our firm were in attendance. A tabulation of the bids and the engineer’s estimate is attached for your information and record. The low bid was below our engineer’s estimate and within the FY2018 budget. We recommend the acceptance of the bid and approval of award be made to the low bidder, Geneva Construction Co., PO Box 998, Aurora, IL 60507 in the amount of $388,437.24. If you have any questions or require additional information, please let us know. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Erin Willrett, Assistant City Administrator Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: April 11, 2017 Subject: Kennedy Road Improvements BID TABULATION KENNEDY ROAD RESURFACING UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE BID TABULATION ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE BIDS RECD 4/10/2017 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, IL 60554 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE 1 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS (TACK COAT)POUND 20,774 0.01$ 207.74$ 0.01$ 207.74$ 0.01$ 207.74$ 0.50$ 10,387.00$ 2 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL - BUTT JOINT SQ YD 889 5.00 4,445.00$ 13.50 12,001.50$ 9.00 8,001.00$ 7.00$ 6,223.00$ 3 LEVELING BINDER (HAND METHOD), N50 TON 20 97.00 1,940.00$ 108.00 2,160.00$ 130.00 2,600.00$ 85.00$ 1,700.00$ 4 LEVELING BINDER (MACHINE METHOD), N50 TON 1,769 57.00 100,833.00$ 56.00 99,064.00$ 59.50 105,255.50$ 66.00$ 116,754.00$ 5 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE, MIX "D", N50 TON 2,654 57.00 151,278.00$ 59.25 157,249.50$ 59.00 156,586.00$ 67.00$ 177,818.00$ 6 INCIDENTAL HOT MIX ASPHALT SURFACING TON 115 93.00 10,695.00$ 108.00 12,420.00$ 90.00 10,350.00$ 80.00$ 9,200.00$ 7 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL, VARIABLE DEPTH SQ YD 225 7.00 1,575.00$ 10.50 2,362.50$ 5.75 1,293.75$ 3.50$ 787.50$ 8 CLASS D PATCHES, 4-INCH SQ YD 2,844 24.65 70,104.60$ 24.50 69,678.00$ 30.00 85,320.00$ 34.00$ 96,696.00$ 9 RESTORATION SQ YD 512 11.45 5,862.40$ 11.45 5,862.40$ 10.00 5,120.00$ 10.00$ 5,120.00$ 10 AGGREGATE WEDGE SHOULDER, TYPE B TON 610 25.00 15,250.00$ 19.00 11,590.00$ 24.00 14,640.00$ 100.00$ 61,000.00$ 11 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS, LETTERS & SYMBOLS SQ FT 59 4.50 265.50$ 4.50 265.50$ 2.87 169.33$ 6.25$ 368.75$ 12 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS, 4"FOOT 35,205 0.48 16,898.40$ 0.48 16,898.40$ 0.50 17,602.50$ 2.00$ 70,410.00$ 13 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS, 6"FOOT 1,389 0.90 1,250.10$ 0.90 1,250.10$ 0.68 944.52$ 2.10$ 2,916.90$ 14 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS, 12"FOOT 150 2.25 337.50$ 2.25 337.50$ 1.35 202.50$ 4.25$ 637.50$ 15 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS, 24"FOOT 50 4.50 225.00$ 4.50 225.00$ 2.86 143.00$ 8.50$ 425.00$ 16 RAILROAD PROTECTIVE LIABILITY INSURANCE LSUM 1 4,850.00 4,850.00$ 2,500.86 2,500.86$ 3,400.00 3,400.00$ 6,500.00$ 6,500.00$ 17 CRACK SEALING FOOT 200 3.00 600.00$ 5.25 1,050.00$ 5.20 1,040.00$ 2.00$ 400.00$ 18 SHORT TERM PAVEMENT MARKING FOOT 2,100 0.70 1,470.00$ 0.65 1,365.00$ 0.80 1,680.00$ 1.00$ 2,100.00$ 19 WORK ZONE PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SQ FT 700 0.50 350.00$ 2.00 1,400.00$ 1.00 700.00$ 1.00$ 700.00$ TOTAL (Items 1 - 19)388,437.24 397,888.00 415,255.84 570,143.65 % BELOW/ABOVE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE -31.9%-30.2%-27.2% AMOUNTUNITQUANTITYDESCRIPTION ITEM NO.AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT D. CONSTRUCTION 1488 S. Broadway Coal City, IL 60416Aurora, IL 60507 GENEVA CONSTRUCTION P.O. Box 998 BUILDERS PAVING, LLC 4413 Roosevelt Road-Ste 108 Hillside, IL 60162 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. 52 WHEELER ROAD, SUGAR GROVE, ILLINOIS ()()()-()-(()-()-()-()-( ) - ()-()-()-() -()-()-( ) -()-()-()-()-()-()- ()- ()-()-()-()-()-( )-()-()-()-)()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()- ()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()()-()-GalenaKennedyGrandeMill B ris t o l R i d g e McLellanDicksonAldenWillo w Foster CannonballL illi a n VeteransMatlockJulie JeterO l d G l o r y L il a c JusticePe cos P a r k w a y BaileyRoodBig Bend PlumBurrCryderHi ghlan d C ypr ess Ridge SlateLarkspurDo gwood E me r a l d Royal Oaks ParkLindenGroveR ubySunsetEllsworthS q u ir e L ym a nBissel CranstonAmer i canGordonJuanita ThomasC onstitutionB e r r y w o o d HenningRobert HobbsDivisionF r e e d o m BrooksideL a k e v i e wV ioletA n n a M a r i a Beresford RehbehnB azanPatriotCobaltSilver City MaddenC ieloStor ybo ok E me r a l dDivision Engineering Enterprises 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-9350 ATTACHMENT D www.eeiweb.com DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: PATH: BY: February 2017 YO1710 YO1710 -Kennedy Rd Improve...MXD H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2017\ MJT ³United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 Legend Kennedy Road Improvements 1,600 0 1,600800 Feet Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #10 Tracking Number PW 2017-30 Subordination of Surface Rights – Route 34 Improvements (Eldamain to Center) Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 Majority Approval See attached. Bart Olson Administration Name Department Ordinance No. 2017-___ Page 1 Ordinance No. 2017-____ AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SUBORDINATION OF SURFACE RIGHTS FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES (U.S. ROUTE 34 FROM ELDAMAIN ROAD TO CENTER PARKWAY) WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to subordinate unto the People of the State of Illinois, Department of Transportation any interest it has in certain easements filed in the Recorder’s Office of Kendall County, as set forth in an agreement between the parties, to the right of the State of Illinois to construct, reconstruct, operate, maintain and control access to FAP 591 (US 34) on certain parcels from Eldamain Road to Center Parkway located within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: The document entitled SUBORDINATION OF SURFACE RIGHTS FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and deliver said document on behalf of the City. Section 2: The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute any and all additional documents as may be required to implement the terms thereof. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form as provided by law. Ordinance No. 2017-___ Page 2 Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this ___ day of _________________, 2017. ______________________________ CITY CLERK CARLO COLOSIMO ________ KEN KOCH ________ JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI ________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER ________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER ________ JOEL FRIEDERS ________ SEAVER TARULIS ________ DIANE TEELING ________ APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this ___ day of _________________, 2017. ____________________________________ MAYOR Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #11 Tracking Number PW 2017-31 Stormwater Management Program Plan Update Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 Approval Consideration of Approval Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department The final version of the revised Stormwater Management Program Plan is attached for formal adoption by the City Council. The changes were a requirement of the City’s revised IEPA NPDES MS4 permit issued in February 2016. We have also attached a memo from our office dated August 10, 2016 that noted the required changes and recommendations. Let us know if you have any questions. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: April 18, 2017 Subject: Stormwater Management Program Plan The IEPA issued a revised NPDES MS4 permit in February of 2016. The new MS4 permit went into effect on March 1, 2016. The permit instructs communities to comply with the new permit provisions within 180 days (September 1, 2016) and to report on the changes implemented and provide supporting documentation with next year’s Annual Report due by June 1, 2017. Some of the changes are administrative, some do not apply to the City’s circumstances and some the City is already in compliance with; however, there are some changes that require modifications to the City’s activities and Stormwater Management Plan. This memo provides a summary of these changes to each of the six minimum control measures in the MS4 permit and the actions that must be taken to comply with the new provisions. Public Education and Outreach on Storm Water Impacts Changes: Public Education now has to include a component regarding potential impacts of climate change on stormwater discharges. In addition, there are added requirements for educational materials for non stormwater discharges and discharges from private properties. The permit includes a list of topic examples. Current Status: The City currently complies with this measure through stormwater education materials available at the Information Center at City Hall. Recommended Action: City staff should review and inventory the current materials available, compare with new requirements and topic list, identify need for new materials, obtain new materials and make available at City Hall. This should be completed during this permit year and updated materials provided as documentation in the next Annual Report. Public Involvement/Participation Changes: The new permit requires communities to identify Environmental Justice Areas within their jurisdiction and provide appropriate public involvement/participation. There is also a requirement that the community have a least one public meeting a year for the public to provide input on the adequacy of the City’s stormwater program. Current Status: The City had been meeting this requirement by allowing public comment at Board Meetings and through the Environmental Fair. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk Date: August 10, 2016 Subject: NPDES MS4 Stormwater Permit Recommended Action: The City will have to hold a public meeting during this permit year to allow public input on the stormwater program. The meeting may be part of a regular Council Meeting but would have to be part of the agenda and not just during the public comment period. Meeting minutes would be submitted with the next Annual Report as documentation. In addition, the City will have to investigate the requirements for identifying Environmental Justice Areas and take appropriate action if areas are identified. These items should be completed during this permit year and reported on in next year’s Annual Report. (See Page 14 of the Attached MS4 Permit for definitions of Environmental Justice and Environmental Justice Area.) Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Changes: The new permit now requires dry weather inspections of stormwater outfalls to look for non-stormwater of illicit discharges. The permit allows the City to prioritize their list of outfalls for inspections with high priority outfalls requiring at least annual inspection. Current Status: The City currently addresses this requirement by responding to reports of illicit discharges and taking action with their ordinances and procedures when necessary. Recommended Actions: The City has their stormwater outfalls identified on their inventory maps. Staff should develop a prioritization list and schedule for inspecting outfalls. Documentation of inspections should be included in the next Annual Report. Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Changes: There are a number of changes to the runoff and erosion control requirements. Current Status: The City addresses this requirement through implementation of their Stormwater and other ordinances. Recommended Action: The City’s current ordinances comply with or are more stringent than the changes in the MS4 permit. Therefore, there are no changes to the City’s current ordinances or activities required for this control measure. Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment Changes: There are a number of changes to Post Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). These changes add the requirement to consider climate control impacts on BMPs. There are also requirements to limit the use of infiltration practices (i.e. not adjacent to fuel stations, wells, etc.). A requirement has also been added for the City to develop a process to assess existing and current flood control projects for water quality and climate change impacts. Current Status: The City addresses this requirement through implementation of their current Stormwater and other ordinances and by assisting Homeowner Associations when requested. Recommended Action: The City’s current ordinances generally comply with or are more stringent then the changes in the MS4 permit and no changes are required. However, this section of the Stormwater Management Plan should be reviewed in regards to climate change impacts and developing a plan to assess flood control projects and any necessary changes be made to the Stormwater Plan. This should be completed this permit year and the revised Stormwater Management Plan submitted with the next Annual Report as documentation. The limits on infiltration practices are consistent with the requirements in the IEPA NPDES General Construction Permit and can be enforced through that permit for proposed infiltration BMPs. Compliance with these requirements is part of the engineering review process on new development or redevelopment projects. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Changes: There are added requirements for the storage of deicing materials. The City must have permanent storage or temporary storage with seasonal tarping. In addition, permanent storage structures must be constructed within two years. Current Status: The City currently maintains and reports on good housing keeping requirements. The City currently has permanent storage so no action is required. Monitoring Changes: There are new requirements for monitoring and assessing the program. There are several options for monitoring from inventorying BMPs to sampling. For the City, we recommend the option to Evaluate BMP effectiveness based on published research. This requires the City to inventory BMPs implemented in the Community and estimating the resultant pollutant reduction. Current Status: There was no monitoring of this type required under the previous permit. Recommended Action: The Fox River Study Group is making an evaluation tool available to MS4 communities in the watershed. The tool is a spreadsheet that will allow the City to enter the areas of BMPs that are to be implemented; the spreadsheet will then estimate the pollutant reduction resulting from implementation of the BMPs. All BMPs implemented since the start of this permit (March 1, 2016) will need to be inventoried. The City will have to enter all newly constructed BMPs moving forward as well. The BMP inventory should be provided as documentation with each year’s Annual Report. Other Changes: Communities that perform deicing operations that can cause or contribute to a violation of State chloride water quality standards have to participate in any watershed group organized to implement control measures. Current Status: This is a new requirement. Recommended Action: This item requires additional research to see if there are watershed groups that the City could participate in. This should be done during this permit year and documentation provided with the Annual Report. Summary We recommend that City staff move forward with the recommend action items outlined in this memo. In addition, the Stormwater Management Plan should be reviewed and updated to include the changes to the stormwater management procedures, policies and monitoring forms. The revised Stormwater Management Plan should then be submitted to IEPA as an attachment to the next Annual Report due on June 1, 2017. United City of Yorkville Stormwater Management Program Plan Kendall County, Illinois March 9, 2010 Revised April 25, 2017 i Table of Contents 1 Overview of the Stormwater Management Program Plan 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 State & Federal Regulations 1 1.3 Organization of SMPP 2 1.4 Watersheds and Receiving Waters 2 2 Program Management 2.1 Implementation of the SMPP 5 2.2 Departmental Responsibilities 5 2.3 Coordination with the IEPA 6 3 The Program 3.1 Public Education and Outreach 7 3.1A Measurable Goals 7 3.2 Public Participation and Involvement 7 3.2A Measurable Goals 7 3.3 Construction Site Run-off Control 8 3.3A Complaints 8 3.3B Violation Notification Procedures 9 3.3C Measurable Goals 11 3.4 Post Construction Runoff Control 11 3.4A Long Term Operation and Maintenance 12 3.4B Site Inspection 12 3.4C Measurable Goals 13 3.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 13 3.5A Regulatory Authority 14 3.5B Illicit Discharge/Illegal Dumping Notification 14 3.5C Understanding Outfalls and Illicit Discharges 14 3.5D Indirect Connections 16 3.5E Direct Connections 16 3.5F Access to Private Property 17 3.5G Confined Space Entry 17 3.5H Office Closeout 18 3.5I Source Identification 18 3.5J Removal of Illicit Discharges 19 3.5K Program Evaluation 20 3.5L Measurable Goals 20 3.6 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping 20 3.6A Measurable Goals 25 ii 4 Program and Performance Monitoring, Evaluation, & Reporting 4.1 Performance Milestones 26 4.2 Program Monitoring and Research 27 4.3 Program Evaluation 27 5 Appendix 5.1 Ord. 2003-19 Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance 5.2 Res. 2004-39 Standard Specifications for Improvements 5.3 Ord. 2008-01 Wetland Protection Regulations for Water Quality and Stormwater Management 5.4 Ord. 2009-78 Post-Construction Stormwater Best Management Practices 5.5 Ord. 2010-05 Regulation of Illicit Discharges and Connections to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System 5.6 Ord. 94-4 Prohibiting Connection of Sanitary Sewage and Industrial Wastewater into Storm Sewers and Other Highway Drainage Systems 5.7 Ord. 2006-123 Water Conservation Regulations (Permanent Irrigation Systems) 5.8 Ord. 2004-20 Water Conservation Regulations (Lawn Watering) 5.10 General Permit ILR40 5.11 NPDES/Erosion Control Inspection Report 5.12 Sample Notice of Violation Letter 5.13 Stormwater Basin Maintenance Plan (existing) 5.14 Stormwater Basin Maintenance Plan (new) 5.15 Stormwater Basin Annual Inspection Report 5.16 Illicit Discharge Tracking Form 5.17 Illicit Discharge Summary Form 5.18 Stormwater Outfall Inspection Form 5.19 Outfall Inspection Summary Form 5.20 Spill Response Notice 1 1 Overview of the Stormwater Management Program Plan 1.1 Introduction This Stormwater Management Program Plan (SMPP) was developed by the United City of Yorkville based off a SMPP template created by the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission. The purpose of the SMPP is to meet the minimum standards required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II program. Federal regulations through the USEPA require that all Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), partially or fully in urbanized areas based on the 2000 census, obtain stormwater permits for their discharges into receiving waters. The SMPP describes the procedures and practices that can be implemented by the City toward the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants within stormwater runoff in order to comply with Federal standards. The SMPP is applicable to all properties within city limits. Compliance with the plan is intended to protect water quality and contribute to the following amenities:  cleaner lakes and streams,  improved recreational opportunities and tourism,  flood damage reduction,  better aesthetics and wildlife habitat, and  a safer and healthier environment for the citizens. 1.2 State & Federal Regulations Federal environmental regulations based on the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) require that MS4s, construction sites and industrial activities control polluted stormwater runoff from entering receiving bodies of water (including navigable streams and lakes). The NPDES permit process regulates the discharge from these sources based on amendments to CWA in 1987 and the subsequent 1990 and 1999 regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In Illinois, the USEPA has delegated administration of the Federal NDPES program to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). On December 20, 1999 the IEPA issued a general NPDES Phase II permit for all MS4s. Under the General ILR 40 Permit each MS4 was required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) declaring compliance with the conditions of the permit by March 10, 2003. The original NOI describes the proposed activities and best management practices that occurred over the original 5-year period toward the ultimate goal of developing a compliant SMPP. At the end of the 5th year (March 1, 2008) the components of the SMPP were required to be implemented; per the ILR40 permit. The IEPA reissued the ILR 40 permit on April 1, 2009. The reissued permit is included in Appendix 5.10. Additionally, under the General ILR10 permit also administered IEPA, all construction projects that disturb greater than 1 acre of total land area are required to obtain an NPDES permit from IEPA prior to the start of construction. Municipalities covered by the General ILR40 permit are automatically covered under ILR10 30 days after the IEPA receives the NOI from the municipality. 2 On February 10, 2016 the IEPA released a new General NPDES Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems effective March 10, 2016 thru February 28, 2021. Changes to the permit requirements with the newly issued permit prompted the 2017 revision to the United City of Yorkville Stormwater Management Plan. In addition, this revision captures changes that were implemented through the City’s 2013 Annual Report. 1.3 Organization of SMPP The SMPP identifies best management practices to be implemented in six different categories. These categories are:  Public Education and Outreach  Public Participation/Involvement  Construction Site Runoff Control  Post-Construction Runoff Control  Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination  Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Chapter 1: Overview of the Stormwater Management Program Plan - discusses the format of the SMPP document and the regulations associated with NPDES II through state and federal agencies. Chapter 2: Program Management - discusses the logistics of the plan. This includes the organization, implementation and responsible parties necessary to achieve overall compliance with the SMPP and NPDES Permit. It also identifies how the United City of Yorkville coordinates with other governmental agencies and discusses the legal authority that the MS4s have to implement the plan components. Chapter 3: The Program - addresses stormwater pollutant control measures implemented by the United City of Yorkville per the six minimum control categories established by the USEPA. Chapter 4: Monitoring, Program Evaluation and Reporting - describes the monitoring, evaluation and reporting procedures associated with the program. The SMPP is a guide created to protect United City of Yorkville receiving waters from pollution and resultant degradation. This chapter assists in identifying best management practices and processes that may require modifications in the future to help the document become an effective tool. Chapter 5: Appendices – including forms, references, and exhibits. 1.4 Watersheds and Receiving Waters The United City of Yorkville is primarily located within the Fox River watershed, with southern areas tributary to the Illinois River. There are several receiving waters tributary to the Fox and Illinois Rivers which are located within the Village. These streams include Blackberry Creek, Rob 3 Roy Creek, and Aux Sable Creek. Ponds, intermittent streams, and other on-stream bodies of water are also considered part of the receiving water system. Watershed: The land area that contributes stormwater to one of the two major rivers draining Kendall County. Sub-Watershed: The land area that contributes stormwater to one of the receiving waters tributary to a major river. Receiving Water: A natural or man-made system into which stormwater or treated wastewater is discharged, including the Fox River, Illinois River, and their tributaries. The major Watersheds and receiving waters are presented on Figure 1 Map of Major Sub-watershed and Receiving Waters. Fox River Watershed The Fox River originates about 15 miles northwest of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The river enters the northeast corner of Kendall County at Montgomery. About 165 square miles of Kendall County drain to the Fox River. Major tributaries to the Fox River in Kendall County include Blackberry Creek, Rob Roy Creek, Big Rock Creek, Little Rock Creek, Morgan Creek, Hollenback Creek, and Roods Creek. Only Blackberry Creek, Rob Roy Creek, and Hollenback Creek are located within the current city limits. The watersheds of the creeks within the city are primarily agricultural, although significant development activity has occurred in the Blackberry Creek and Rob Roy Creek watersheds since 2000. The Fox River watershed includes all or portions of the communities of Aurora, Millbrook, Millington, Montgomery, Newark, Oswego, Plano, Sandwich, and Yorkville. Illinois River Watershed The Illinois River originates at the confluence of the Des Plaines and Kankakee Rivers in Grundy County, about 10 miles southwest of Joliet, Illinois. About 155 square miles of Kendall County drain to the Illinois River. The Illinois River does not run directly through Kendall County, but reaches into the county via Aux Sable Creek and Valley Run Creek. Only the Middle Branch of the Aux Sable Creek is located within the current city limits. The Middle Branch Aux Sable Creek is primarily agricultural, although some development activity has occurred since 2000. The Illinois River watershed includes all or portions of the communities of Joliet, Lisbon, Minooka Plattville, Plainfield, and Yorkville. 4 Figure 1. Map of Major Sub-Watersheds and Receiving Waters 5 2 Program Management This Chapter describes the organizational structures of the United City of Yorkville and the Illinois EPA. It further discusses the roles and responsibilities of the involved parties. 2.1 Implementation of this SMPP The SMPP includes tasks that are required to meet the permit conditions under the NPDES II program and how to perform these tasks. These forms should be printed annually and the progress of all tasks tracked. At the end of the yearly reporting period (March 1 – February 28/29) the forms should be filed in a binder to document SMPP related activities to IEPA in the case of an audit. It is anticipated that implementation of this SMPP constitutes compliance with the program. The SMPP will be posted on the United City of Yorkville’s website. The measurable goals will be evaluated and modified to maintain compliance with General Permit each year during the preparation of the Annual Report to IEPA due on June 1st of each year. 2.2 Departmental Responsibilities The City Council is the policy and budget setting authority for United City of Yorkville. The Engineering, Community Development, and Public Works Departments work together to implement this SMPP. The City Engineer has primary responsibility for managing the overall program. The city will also work with Kendall County and adjacent municipalities regarding stormwater issues. The Community Development Department is designated as the primary entity responsible for performing the duties related to Public Education and Outreach and Public Participation and Involvement. Much of this work will be achieved through coordination with the Green Committee. The Engineering Department is designated as the primary entity responsible for performing the duties related to Construction Site Runoff Control, Post-Construction Runoff Control, and Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination activities. The Building Department will assist as necessary by performing certain duties during the construction of private developments. The Public Works Department is designated as the primary entity responsible for performing the duties related to Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping. Measurable goals are established to document the efforts performed by the various city departments and ultimately the effectiveness of the SMPP. Those departments responsible for implementation of the SMPP shall perform, record, and forward monthly report memos to the City Engineer regarding their individual areas of responsibility. The report memos shall be prepared and forwarded during the first week of the following month. The City Engineer shall use these reports in preparing the annual report to the Illinois EPA. 6 2.3 Coordination with the IEPA The United City of Yorkville is required to complete annual reports which describe the status of compliance with the ILR40 permit. The annual report will be posted on the City’s website and submitted to the IEPA by the first day of June each year. Annual reporting to IEPA should include information regarding SMPP goals that are in compliance as well as those goals that need further work or modification. Records regarding the completion and progress of the SMPP commitments will be documented on task sheets and updated throughout the year. The completed task sheets should be located in a binder with necessary supporting documentation. The binder will be available for inspection by both IEPA and the general public. 7 3 The Program This Stormwater Management Program Plan includes six components, each of which is necessary to reduce/eliminate stormwater pollution in receiving water bodies. These are:  Public Education and Outreach  Public Participation and Involvement  Construction Site Runoff Control  Post-Construction Runoff Control  Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination  Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping 3.1 Public Education and Outreach City staff at the United City of Yorkville is responsible for providing research and advice as well as making recommendations to the City Council on environmental issues facing the community. City staff should also promulgate information related to recycling, conservation design, soil conservation, rain gardens, open space/watershed protection, water conservation, landscape maintenance, etc. through environmental fairs, pamphlet distribution, and the city website. The annual NPDES permit report shall be placed on a City Council agenda once each year for discussion. 3.1A Measurable Goals  Place Stormwater Management Program Plan on the city’s website.  Maintain an information center at City Hall, which will include informational items regarding stormwater-related issues. Review and update materials as necessary to maintain compliance with Permit requirements. 3.2 Public Participation and Involvement City staff should encourage citizen participation and involvement for stormwater-related issues on both individual and community levels. Citizen calls related to the Stormwater Management Program Plan shall be documented and directed to the appropriate department for follow-up. 3.2A Measurable Goals  Document the number and type of calls received from the public regarding potential illicit discharges. 8  Sponsor an annual environmental fair, and document the number and type of exhibitors and public attendance.  Hold one public meeting per year to allow public input on the City’s Stormwater Management Program  Identify if there are areas meeting the Environmental Justice Area criteria within the City 3.3 Construction Site Runoff Control The City adopted Ordinance No.2003-19 (Appendix 5.1) to regulate soil erosion and sediment control practices for construction activities that disturb more than 10,000 SF of soil. This ordinance requires the following:  Requires the developer/contractor to follow Illinois EPA requirements regarding NPDES permitting for construction activities.  Issuance of a Site Development Permit regulating earthwork and erosion/sediment control.  Contractor requirements for periodic inspections during construction.  Surety bonding to ensure that stabilization work is completed according to plan. The City passed Resolution No. 2004-39 (Appendix 5.2) to establish the Standard Specifications for Improvements. This resolution creates standards regarding the various aspects of construction for public and quasi-public infrastructure, including responsible construction activities. Regarding stormwater management, this resolution requires:  Sizing requirements for stormwater collection and detention facilities.  A soil erosion and sediment control plan.  The ability to require stormwater best management practices in the design of the stormwater collection and storage systems. The City passed Ordinance No. 2008-01 (Appendix 5.3) to provide Wetland Protection Regulations for Water Quality and Stormwater Management Benefits. This ordinance creates requirements for the evaluation and protection of non-jurisdictional wetlands within city limits that may be affected by new development. 3.3A Complaints Site design comments are handled on a case by case basis. Any complaints received during the review, construction, or build-out of a private development shall be directed to the City Engineer and documented. Construction and build-out related calls are typically addressed by performing a site inspection. 9 3.3B Violation Notification Procedures Investigation of complaints should be performed within one business day of receipt of the complaint. In general, the compliance due date should be within 5-working days. However, if the city determines that the violation is or will result in significant environmental, health or safety hazards a 24-hour compliance requirement should be set. For such time-critical violations, the developer should also be advised to complete a Notice of Incidence report with the IEPA for all sites that were required to submit a Notice of Intent to the IEPA. Step 1 can be initiated by observation of a violation during a routine inspection, or in response to a complaint. Step 1: Violation Is Observed  The inspector completes the NPDES/Erosion Control Inspection Report (Appendix 5.11).  Photographs of the violation(s) should be taken and saved.  The development project manager/property owner (a.k.a. construction site contact) shall be informed of the violation.  A copy of the NPDES/Erosion Control Inspection Report is provided to the contractor and the developer. The NPDES/Erosion Control Inspection Report indicates the deficiencies and a maximum time frame for action.  At the end of the indicated time frame the City shall perform a follow-up site inspection. Step 2: 1st Follow-Up Site Inspection The construction site contact shall be notified of the anticipated inspection time. The site shall be inspected including all items previously documented on the previous NPDES/Erosion Control Inspection Report. The inspector will determine if the remedial measures have all been satisfactorily addressed, substantially completed, or if significant non-compliance remains.  If the remedial measures have been satisfactorily addressed, then the NPDES/Erosion Control Inspection Report is filled out indicating compliance and provided to the contractor and developer.  If the inspector determines that the remedial measures have been substantially completed, but not entirely resolved, the inspector shall follow Step 1 above.  If the inspector determines that the remedial measures have not been substantially completed, the inspector shall follow Step 3 discussed below. Photographs of the violations should be taken and saved. 10 Step 3: 1st Notice of Violation A formal Notice of Violation (Appendix 5.12) letter will be sent to the contractor and developer. A copy of the Notice of Violation shall also be provided to the Yorkville Building Department. The letter will include the following information:  Description of the violations (including ordinance provisions)  Maximum time frame for resolution (typically 5 working days), Step 4: 2nd Follow-Up Site Inspection The inspector will determine if the remedial measures have all been satisfactorily addressed, substantially completed, or if significant non-compliance remains.  If the remedial measures have been satisfactorily addressed, then the NPDES/Erosion Control Inspection Report shall be filled out indicating compliance and provided to the contractor and developer.  If the inspector determines that the remedial measures have been substantially completed, but not entirely resolved, the inspector shall follow Step 1 above.  If the inspector determines that the remedial measures have not been substantially completed, the inspector shall follow Step 5 discussed below. Photographs of the violations should be taken. Step 5: 2nd Notice of Violation  Depending on the severity of the outstanding violations the inspector may arrange for the Building Department to issue a Red Tag and a Conditional Stop Work Order upon completion of the inspection. The Stop Work Order allows for the resolution of the violation but no other on-site improvements. Building and/or Occupancy Permits will not be issued and surety/letter of credit reductions will not be considered until the violation is resolved. A formal Notice of Violation letter will be sent, via certified mail, to the contractor and developer. A copy of the Notice of Violation shall also be provided to the Yorkville Building Department. Step 6: 3rd Follow-Up Site Inspection The inspector will determine if the remedial measures have all been satisfactorily addressed, substantially completed, or if significant non-compliance remains.  If the remedial measures have been satisfactorily addressed, then the NPDES/Erosion Control Inspection Report is filled out indicating compliance and provided to the contractor and developer.  If the inspector determines that the remedial measures have been substantially completed, but not entirely resolved, the inspector shall follow Step 1 above.  If the inspector determines that the remedial measures have not been substantially completed, the inspector shall follow Step 7 discussed below. Photographs of the violations should be taken and saved. 11 Step 7: 3rd Notice of Violation The inspector issues a Red Tag and a Conditional Stop Work Order upon completion of the inspection, if one has not already been issued. The Stop Work Order allows for the resolution of the violation but no other on-site improvements. Building and/or Occupancy Permits will not be issued and surety/letter of credit reductions will not be considered or processed until the violation is resolved. Representatives from the Building and Engineering Departments shall meet to discuss the violation and subsequent actions. These actions may include: issuing fines for each day of violation since the 1st notice of violation; draw from surety to enable the City to have the remedial measures corrected; seeking United City of Yorkville legal counsel and pursuing injunctive or other legal relief. A formal Notice of Violation letter will be sent, via certified mail, to the contractor and developer. A copy of the Notice of Violation shall also be provided to the Building Department and City Administrator. The letter will also include additional penalties or measures that will be imposed if the violation(s) persist. Steps 6 and 7 will be repeated until resolution of the violation. 3.3C Measurable Goals  Track the number of site development permits issued.  Document any citizen complaints regarding construction site runoff and follow-up activities.  Inspect construction sites for erosion/sediment control measures and record inspection on NPDES/Erosion Control Inspection Report forms. 3.4 Post Construction Runoff Control The City adopted Ordinance No. 2009-78 (Appendix 5.4) to establish standards for design, construction, and maintenance of stormwater best management practices. This ordinance requires the following:  All development/redevelopment projects shall incorporate stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP’s) into their site designs.  Agreements providing for the adequate maintenance of the stormwater BMP’s by the developer/property owner.  Periodic inspections and meetings with property owners by the city to ensure proper functioning of the stormwater Bumps. The City will inspect stormwater outfalls, on existing properties with stormwater management facilities, on a priority and as needed basis. The inspections schedule should allow for inspection of priority outfalls on a regular basis. Detention basins will be inspected on an as requested basis. 12 3.4A Long Term Operation and Maintenance The SMPP includes two long term maintenance agreements.  The first agreement (Appendix 5.13) is the recommended plan for existing detention and stormwater management facilities, whether publicly or privately maintained. The intent of this sample plan is to provide guidance for the maintenance of facilities that do not have an approved plan. If an existing facility already has an adequate plan, this document would supersede the sample plan.  The second agreement (Appendix 5.14) is provided to applicants during the permit review period for new detention and stormwater management facilities. This agreement should be reviewed and enhanced to reflect the specific design of the new development. Receipt of the signed and recorded maintenance agreement is required. Receipt of the signed and recorded maintenance agreement is required prior to recording of a plat of subdivision, site development permit, or building permit for the property, whichever occurs first. 3.4B Site Inspections This section focuses on post-construction inspections of previously developed sites, streambanks, shorelines, streambeds, and detention / retention ponds. Previously Developed Sites The United City of Yorkville will inspect outfalls for existing properties with stormwater management facilities on an as needed and priority basis. Previously developed properties that are still to be inspected should be inspected with respect to the approved development plan. A letter indicating the maintenance activity highlights, deficiencies, or modifications to the plan should be provided to the responsible party. The responsible party is encouraged to implement an annual maintenance program. Shorelines The City will inspect detention basin shorelines on an as needed and priority basis. They should, however, inspect all reported detention basins by using the Stormwater Basin Annual Inspection Report (Appendix 5.15). Observed erosion, seeding/re-seeding or slope stabilization needs should be documented. Documented deficiencies should be reported to the City Engineer who evaluates and determines appropriate remedial activities. Remedial actions might include notifying the property owner or including maintenance activities in the city’s work program for city-maintained basins. Streambanks and Stream Bed Sediment Accumulation The City will inspect receiving water streambanks for erosion and flowlines for sediment plumes/deposits on an as needed and priority basis. Inspections should be performed in the spring or fall depending upon weather conditions. Stream locations are depicted on Figure 1. Document observed erosion and/or sediment accumulation. Documented 13 deficiencies should be reported to City Engineer who evaluates and determines appropriate remedial activities. Remedial actions would typically consist of notifying the property owner. Detention / Retention Pond Sediment Accumulation Ensure that new detention/retention pond is constructed per the approved development plan. The developer is responsible for ensuring that the design grade is established prior to the city’s approval of the pond. Pond information, including the design permanent pool depth, is added to the Stormwater Basin Annual Inspection Report upon final approval of the pond. The City will inspect detention basins to determine the normal pool depth on an as needed and priority basis. However, when detention basins are reported to the City or an inspection is requested, the City will perform an inspection, and the normal pool depth of the basin should be determined during the inspection. Observed depths should be recorded onto the Stormwater Basin Annual Inspection Report. If the inspected pond depth is found to be more than 2 feet shallower than the design normal pool depth, this information should be reported to City Engineer who evaluates and determines appropriate remediation activities. 3.4C Measurable Goals  Inspect stormwater basins and outfalls reported as being deficient and document on Stormwater Basin Annual Inspection Report forms. Inspect other stormwater basins and outfalls on a priority and as needed basis.  Develop a plan and process to assess climate change impacts on BMPs  Develop a plan and process to assess flood control projects for water quality and climate change impacts.  Provide assistance for citizens and homeowner associations (HOA’s) on an as requested basis. The request and follow up action taken should be documented.  Require new developments to enter into maintenance agreements for their stormwater management facilities, and maintain a record of those agreements. 3.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Illicit discharges contribute considerable pollutant loads to receiving waters. There are two primary situations that constitute illicit discharges; these include non-stormwater runoff from contaminated sites and the deliberate discharge or dumping of non- stormwater into the stormwater system. Illicit discharges can enter the storm sewer system as either an indirect or direct connection. 3.5A Regulatory Authority Effective implementation of an Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program requires adequate legal authority to remove illicit discharges and prohibit future 14 illicit discharges. This regulatory authority is achieved through adoption of United City of Yorkville Ordinance No. 2010-05 (Appendix 5.5). Additionally, IEPA has regulatory authority to control pollutant discharges and can take the necessary steps to correct or remove an inappropriate discharge over and above MS4 jurisdiction. 3.5B Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination The United City of Yorkville maintains, operates, and publicizes a call-in phone number (630-553-4350) where parties can contact the city with environmental concerns. Primary advertisement venues include the website and all related municipal publications. Telephone calls received from residents, other internal Departments or other agencies are logged on the Illicit Discharge Tracking Form (Appendix 5.16). The City Engineer, or his designee, should transfer information from the tracking form to the Illicit Discharge Summary Form (Appendix 5.17) monthly. The summary form should be reviewed annually to determine if trends can be seen and if any additional outreach efforts are warranted. Subdivision and Public Utility Ordinance The United City of Yorkville created and adopted Ordinance No. 94-4 (Appendix 5.6) to prohibit the discharge of any toilet, sink, basement, septic tank, cesspool, industrial waste or other polluting substances to any open ditch, drain, or drainage structure. This ordinance can be used to further support the activities required by the city’s Stormwater Management Program Plan. 3.5C Understanding Outfalls and Illicit Discharges Understanding the potential locations and the nature of illicit discharges in urban watersheds is essential to find, fix and prevent them. Identifying Outfalls and Receiving Waters An Outfall is a point source where a municipal separate storm sewer discharges into Waters of the United States “receiving water”. Open conveyances connecting two municipal storm sewers, or pipes, tunnels or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other Waters of the United States are not considered outfalls. For the purposes of this program the following definitions shall be used: Outfall: A storm sewer outlet, or other open conveyance point discharge location, that discharges into a Waters of the U.S, receiving water or another MS4. Regulated systems include the conveyance or system of conveyances including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, gutters, ditches, swales, man made channels or storm sewers. The outfall inventory was prepared by the United City of Yorkville. The outfall locations have been numbered to facilitate detection and tracking of identified illicit discharges. 15 This information can be obtained from the city’s Geographic Information System (GIS), which is maintained by the Community Development Department. The outfall map should be revised annually to incorporate permitted outfalls associated with new developments. An outfall inventory should be performed every 5 years; the focus of this effort is to search for new outfalls (i.e. those not already included in the existing GIS). The search for new outfalls should be combined with the pre-screening efforts. USEPA Exclusions It is noted that not all dry-weather flows are considered inappropriate discharges. Under certain conditions, the following discharges are allowed:  Water line flushing  Landscaping irrigation  Diverted stream flows  Rising groundwater  Uncontaminated groundwater infiltration  Uncontaminated pumped groundwater  Discharges from potable water sources  Flows from foundation drains  Air conditioning condensation  Irrigation water  Springs  Water from crawl spaces  Lawn watering  Individual car washing  Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands  Dechlorinated swimming pool water  Street wash water Pollutant Indicators Outfalls should be inspected for evidence of the following pollutant indicators:  Odor  Color of discharge water or staining of outfall pipe  Turbidity (clarity) of discharge water  Floatables in or residue from discharge water, such as scum, foam, suds, oil sheen, etc.  Excessive plant growth or lack of plant growth at outfall  Sediment plume. 16 3.5D Indirect Connections Indirect connections are typically the result of events such as dumping or spillage of materials into storm sewer drains. Intentional dumping is a common type of illicit discharge. Generally, indirect modes of entry produce random, infrequent discharges, with the exception of groundwater seepage. There are five main modes of indirect entry for discharges. These are groundwater seepage, unintentional spills, intentional dumping, outdoor washing, and over-irrigation of landscaping. Seepage discharges can be either continuous or intermittent, depending on the depth of the water table and the season. Groundwater seepage usually consists of relatively clean water that is not an illicit discharge by itself, but can carry other illicit discharges. If storm drains are located close to sanitary sewers, groundwater seepage may intermingle with sewage. Seepage will be addressed by taking samples to check for contamination from nearby sanitary sewers or septic systems. Mitigation measures would consist of repairs to sewers or notification to the Kendall County Health Department as appropriate. See Chapter 3.6 for the Spill Response Plan for unintentional spills. Intentional dumping is minimized through public education. The city also maintains an Illegal Dumping Hotline which is described in Chapter 3.5B. The procedure for handling a dumping incident is described in Chapter 3.6. Outdoor washing and over-irrigation are minimized through public education. 3.5E Direct Connections Direct connections enter through direct piping connections to the storm sewer system, and are most easily detected during dry-weather periods. Inspection of stormwater outfalls during dry-weather conditions reveals whether non-stormwater flows exist. If non-stormwater flows are observed, they can be screened and tested to determine whether pollutants are present. If the presence of pollutants is indicated, the detective work of identifying the source of the discharge can begin and be corrected. The process to eliminate direct connection illicit discharges consists of the following components: 1. Program Planning consists of the organizational efforts required to perform outfall screening and follow-up investigative activities of the program. Program planning identifies the regulatory authority to remove directly connected illicit discharges, identification of the outfalls and receiving waters, and providing personnel and equipment to perform the outfall screening and follow-up work. 2. Outfall Screening consists of pre-screening to determine whether dry-weather flows are present and outfall inspection which includes field visits to determine whether an illicit discharge exists. 17 3. Follow-Up Investigation and Program Evaluation are necessary to determine the source of any identified pollutant flows and eliminate them. The major follow-up investigation evaluation components include:  reviewing and assessing outfall inspection results  internal coordination  tracing upstream to identify the source of the illicit discharge  exercising the appropriate legal means to eliminate the illicit discharge and schedule follow-up inspections as necessary 3.5F Access to Private Property In some cases, it may be necessary for City personnel to enter or cross private property to investigate probable illicit discharges. A form letter should be prepared that includes a short description of the project, the purpose of the access to the property, and the name of a project contact person with a telephone number. If the owner is not present, a letter should be left at the premises to facilitate return inspection. If permission to access property is denied, a public official should then contact the owner at a later date. 3.5G Confined Space Entry Confined space entry for this program would include climbing into or inserting one’s head into a pipe, manhole, or catch basin. In general, do not cross the vertical plane defining an outfall pipe or the horizontal plane defining a manhole unless properly prepared for confined space entry. Confined space entry shall be conducted only by trained personnel with appropriate rescue and monitoring equipment. Outfall Inspection The City is unable to perform inspections on all stormwater outfalls but will take action to correct problems with storm water outfalls as they are reported. The request and follow up action taken should be recorded. Those outfalls which are reported and are followed up with an inspection should be assessed to determine which one of the three following conditions applies: (1) The outfall is dry or damp with no observed flow (2) Flowing discharges are observed from the outfall (3) The outfall is partially or completely submerged with no observed flow or is inaccessible Scenario 1: No Observed Flow. The field crew should photograph the outfall and complete applicable sections of the Stormwater Outfall Inspection Form (Appendix 5.18). 18 Scenario 2: Observed Flow. The field crew photographs the outfall and complete applicable sections of the Stormwater Outfall Inspection Form. The intent is to gather additional information to determine if an illicit discharge is present. Scenario 3: Submerged or Inaccessible Outfall. If standing water is present in an outfall or if it is inaccessible, then complete available information from Sections 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Stormwater Outfall Inspection Form, with appropriate comments being written in the “Remarks” section of the data form. Determine the upstream sampling location using the city’s storm sewer atlas. Manholes, catch basins, or culvert crossings can be used for upstream sampling locations. Make reasonable efforts to locate upstream sampling points that are accessible and exhibit flow. If inaccessible, resolve the problem in the office with appropriate supervisory personnel. Outfall Assessment & Documentation Complete the Stormwater Outfall Inspection Form for all outfall inspections. A separate data form must be completed for each outfall. In addition to standard information, the data form is used to record other information that is noted at the time the outfall inspection is conducted (e.g. dead or dying plants, fish kills, excessive algae growth, construction activities, etc. that might provide information regarding the potential for illicit discharges). 3.5H Office Closeout Update the outfall screening scheduling and completion form and plan the next screening day’s activities. Discuss any problems locating outfalls with appropriate supervisory personnel so that alternate sampling locations can be identified. Once a month, compile data from the Stormwater Outfall Inspection Form onto the Outfall Inspection Summary Form (Appendix 5.19). 3.5I Source Identification Follow-up investigation is required for all outfalls with positive indicators for illicit discharges. The procedure for detailed investigation and source identification has three major components: 1) mapping and evaluation, 2) storm sewer investigation, and 3) tracing. Mapping Evaluation For each outfall to be investigated, a large-scale working map should be created to show the entire upstream storm sewer network, outfall locations, and parcel boundaries. Storm Sewer Investigation After conducting the mapping evaluation, a manhole-by-manhole inspection is conducted to pinpoint the location of the illicit discharge. All flows are tracked upstream until the dry-weather discharge is no longer detected. The field crew should also determine whether there has been a significant change in the flow rate between manholes. 19 Tracing Once the manhole inspection has identified the reach area, testing may be necessary. If there is only one possible source to this section of the storm sewer system in the area, source identification and follow-up for corrective action is straightforward. Multiple sources, or non-definitive sources, may require testing in order to identify the contributing source. The method of testing must be approved by the Public Works Director prior to testing. Potential testing methods include dye testing, smoke testing, and/or remote video inspections. 3.5J Removal of Illicit Discharges Removal of illicit discharge connections is required at all confirmed contributing sources. Nine steps are taken to positively identify and remove an illicit discharge to the storm sewer system. These steps are as follows: Step 1. Have an outside laboratory service take a grab sample and test for the illicit discharge at the manhole located immediately downstream of the suspected discharge connection. Step 2: Conduct an internal meeting with appropriate personnel to include Public Works personnel, Building Code Official, and the City Engineer to discuss inspection and testing results and remedial procedures. Step 3: The City Engineer shall send a notification letter to the owner/operator of the property/site suspected of discharging a pollutant. The letter should state the apparent violation, and request that the owner/operator describe the activities on the site and the possible sources of non-stormwater discharges including information regarding the use and storage of hazardous substances, chemical storage practices, materials handling and disposal practices, storage tanks, types of permits, and pollution prevention plans. Step 4: Arrange a meeting for an inspection of the property with the Building Code Official and the owner/operator of the property. After inspection, notify the site owner/operator of the findings and instruct them verbally and in writing to take any necessary corrective measures. Step 5: Conduct additional tests as necessary if the initial site inspection is not successful in identifying the source of the problem. The Public Works Director is responsible for determining the appropriate testing measure to pinpoint the source. Step 6: If the owner/operator does not voluntarily initiate corrective action, the Building Code Official shall issue a Notification of Noncompliance. The notification shall include a description of the required action(s) and a time 20 frame in which to take corrective action. Upon notification of noncompliance, the owner can be subject to penalties as stipulated by Municipal Code. Step 7: Conduct follow-up inspections to determine whether corrective actions have been implemented to: 1) remove the illicit connection or 2) establish a proper disposal practice. Step 8: If corrective actions have been completed (i.e. the illicit discharge has been eliminated) the City Engineer shall send a notification of compliance letter to the owner/operator of the property/site where the illicit discharge occurred. Step 9: If corrective actions have not been completed additional internal meetings shall be held to determine appropriate steps to obtain compliance. Appropriate actions may include monetary or other penalties. 3.5K Program Evaluation The results of the screening program shall be reviewed periodically to determine if any trends can be identified that relate the incidence of dry-weather flow observations to the age of developed properties or land uses. These determinations may guide future outfall screening activities. Although the outfall screening program will be successful in identifying and eliminating most pollutants in dry-weather discharges, the continued existence of dry-weather flows and associated pollutants will require an ongoing commitment to continue the outfall screening program. The annual inspection screening will determine the effectiveness of the program. 3.5L Measurable Goals  Track the number and type of potential illicit discharge on the Illicit Discharge Tracking Forms and Illicit Discharge Summary Forms.  Inspect reported and priority storm water outfalls and record those inspections on the Stormwater Outfall Inspection Forms and Outfall Inspection Summary Forms. 3.6 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping The United City of Yorkville is responsible for the care and upkeep of public facilities, municipal roads, associated maintenance yards, and city parks. Many maintenance activities are most regularly performed directly by staff; however, from time to time contractors are employed to perform specific activities. This chapter describes how the compliance with permit requirements is achieved by incorporating pollution prevention and good housekeeping stormwater quality management into day-to-day operations. On- going education and training shall be provided to ensure that the appropriate employees 21 have the knowledge and skills necessary to perform their functions effectively and efficiently. The following lists describe activities performed by the Public Works Department and Parks Department. Street Sweeping All streets are swept are least 3 times per year or more often on an as-needed basis. Fall Leaf Pick-up The city provides free leaf pick-up service to residents every fall. Shredded and compacted leaves are removed and land-applied as fertilizer by a local farmer. Catch Basin Cleaning The city owns and operates a vacuum sewer cleaner truck. Catch basin cleaning is performed on an as-needed basis. Locations of cleaned catch basins are tracked. Ice Removal The city uses Geo-Melt (beet juice) additive with salt-spreading operations to reduce the amount of salt used in the winter, resulting in an average annual reduction in salt usage of about 500 tons. Snow Removal The city does not plow or salt roadways in new developments unless occupied homes exist along those roadways. Salt Storage The city has a salt storage building on Tower lane to provide protection for stockpiled salt from rain. After the winter season remaining salt is trucked to the Kendall County storage facility for storage until the following winter. Spill Prevention The city keeps Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemical agents used by the Public Works Department. Weed Control The city uses herbicide when needed to control the growth of vegetation in roadside ditches. Ditches are mowed where possible to avoid the application of herbicide. The Public Works Department has several employees that are certified herbicide applicators. Illicit Connections Public Works and Engineering Department personnel are instructed to watch for unusual discharges from storm sewers or unusual events at stormwater basins. Landscape Maintenance The Public Works Department and Parks Department are responsible for litter and debris control, as well as pickup and proper disposal of roadkill. The city shall endeavor to provide trash/recycling bins in more highly used parks. 22 Vehicle Maintenance Vehicle maintenance procedures and practices are designed to minimize or eliminate the discharge of petroleum based pollutants to the stormwater system. Used motor oil and antifreeze are collected and stored indoors. Waste fluids are removed on a regular basis by vendors for recycling. Used batteries are stored in an enclosed covered container at the Tower Lane maintenance yard. The batteries are collected on a regular basis by a local vendor. Tires are replaced at local commercial vendor sites. Used tires are disposed of by those vendors. Waste Management Waste Management consists of procedural and structural practices for handling, storing and disposing of wastes generated by a maintenance activity. This helps prevent the release of waste materials into the stormwater system. Waste management practices include removal of materials such as asphalt and concrete, excess earth excavation, contaminated soil, hazardous wastes, and sanitary waste. A spoil stock pile is located at the Tower Lane maintenance yard. Asphalt, concrete, and excess earth excavation materials are temporarily stored in the stock pile. Attempts are made to recycle asphalt and concrete products prior to storage in the spoil stock pile. Clean spoil is re-used around town where needed to backfill excavations and re-grade properties. If contaminated spoil is encountered, it is collected for treatment or disposal. Attempts are made to avoid stockpiling of contaminated spoil. If temporary stock piling is necessary, the stockpile shall be placed on an impermeable liner. Additional protective measures shall be used to protect the downslope of the stockpiled area for erosion downstream. Access to a contaminated stockpile shall be located on the upstream side of the stock pile. Hazardous wastes shall be stored in labeled, sealed containers constructed of appropriate material. The containers are located in non-flammable storage cabinets or on shelving. These items include paint, aerosol cans, gasoline, solvents and other hazardous wastes. Paint brushes and equipment used for water and oil-based paints are cleaned within a designated cleaning area. Sanitary wastewater shall be discharged into a sanitary sewer when possible. Portable toilets shall be maintained at high-usage parks. Water Conservation Water conservation practices minimize water use and help to avoid erosion and/or the transport of pollutants into the stormwater system. Ordinance No. 2006-123 (Appendix 5.7) limits the use of permanent landscape irrigation systems for certain properties as follows:  For non-residential properties with one building, permanent irrigation systems using city water are prohibited where the total landscaped area exceeds one acre.  For non-residential properties with more than one building, permanent irrigation systems using city water are prohibited where the total landscaped area exceeds three acres. 23  For common open space properties of a primarily residential development, permanent irrigation systems using city water are prohibited. The city has adopted Ordinance 2004-20 (Appendix 5.8) that establishes odd-even watering schedules throughout the city based on mailing addresses. This ordinance also requires a property owner to obtain a watering permit to use city water to establish new lawns. From July 1st to August 31st, watering permits are not issued and city water may not be used to water newly sodded or seeded lawns. From May 1st to June 30th, and September 1st to September 30th, watering permits are issued. Watering on the 1st day a lawn is sodded or seeded is limited to no more than eight hours. Watering on the 2nd through 10th days is limited to no more than seven hours, those hours being 5am-9am and 9pm to midnight. After Day 10, a lawn is considered established and a permit is no longer required, however, the property owner must still follow the odd-even and seven-hour restrictions. Spill Response Plan Spill prevention and control procedures are implemented wherever hazardous or non- hazardous chemicals substances are stored or used. The following general guidelines are implemented when cleanup activities and safety are not compromised, regardless of the type or location of the spill:  Cover and protect spills from stormwater run-on and rainfall, until they are removed  Dry cleanup methods are used when ever possible  Properly dispose of used cleanup materials, contaminated materials and recovered spill material  Contaminated water used for cleaning and decontamination shall not be allowed to enter the stormwater system  Keep waste storage areas clean, well organized and equipped with appropriate cleanup supplies  Maintain perimeter controls, containment structures, covers and liners to ensure proper function Non-Hazardous Spills/Dumping Non-hazardous spills typically consist of an illicit discharge of household materials into the street or stormwater system. Upon notification or observance of a non-hazardous spill, Public Works personnel implement the following procedure:  Sandbag the receiving inlet to prevent additional discharge into the storm sewer system. It may be necessary to sand bag the next downstream inlet.  Check structures in the immediate and downstream area. If possible, pollutant materials are vacuumed out. The structures are then jetted to dilute and flush the remaining unrecoverable material. 24  Clean up may consist of applying “Oil Dry” or sand and then sweeping up the remnant material.  After containment and cleanup activities have been performed, the Public Works Director shall fill out the Spill Response Notice (Appendix 5.20) door hanger and distribute it to adjoining residences/businesses. In residential areas, the hanger should be provided to residences on both sides of the spill and on both sides of the street.  Public Works personnel document the location, type of spill and action taken on the Illicit Discharge Tracking Form and submit the tracking form to their supervisor. The supervisor or his designee takes the information from the form and transfers it to the Illicit Discharge Summary Form.  If a person is observed causing an illicit discharge, the Building Code Official shall be notified and appropriate citations issued. Hazardous Spills Upon notification or observance of a hazardous illicit discharge, the Public Works Department shall implement the following procedure:  Call 911 and explain the incident. The Fire Protection District responds.  The Public Works and/or Police Departments provide emergency traffic control.  The Fire Protection District evaluates the situation and applies “No Flash” or “Oil Dry” as necessary.  The Fire Protection District’s existing emergency response procedure, for hazardous spill containment clean-up activities, is followed.  Public Works personnel document the location, type of spill and action taken on the Illicit Discharge Tracking Form and submit the tracking form to their supervisor. The supervisor or his designee takes the information from the form and transfers it to the Illicit Discharge Summary Form. Employee Training The United City of Yorkville’s practice is to provide education and training to those employees of its Public Works and Engineering Departments that have stormwater- related responsibilities to ensure that they have the knowledge and skills necessary to perform their functions effectively and efficiently. Employees are encouraged to attend training sessions on topics related to the goals/objectives of the SMPP. Additionally, the Public Works Director will develop an employee training programs with curricula and materials tailored to specific employees. The materials will focus on stormwater pollution prevention measures and practices relating to the maintenance of facilities, infrastructure and properties. The initial training program will be offered within one year of the acceptance of the SMPP. Copies of training materials will be kept and shared with appropriate new employees as part of their job introduction. The Public Works Director will monitor the 25 potential need for overall refresher material distributions and offer additional training as necessary. 3.6A Measurable Goals  Maintain records for number curb miles swept each year.  Maintain records on amount of leaves collected each fall.  Maintain records on amount of road salt used each winter.  Maintain records for number of catch basins cleaned.  Maintain records for amount of herbicides and pesticides used each year.  Maintain records on type and number of training sessions and employees in attendance.  Monitor BMPs by Evaluating BMP effectiveness based on published research by keeping an inventory of BMPs implemented in the community and document the estimated pollution reduction provided by the BMP.  Participate in watershed groups organized to implement control measures for chloride water quality standards for deicing operations. 26 4 Program and Performance Monitoring, Evaluation, & Reporting The SMPP represents an organized approach to achieving compliance with the expectations of the NPDES Phase II program for both private and public activities within the United City of Yorkville. Land development and city projects and activities are to comply with the SMPP. Additionally, the city has numerous written and unwritten procedures for various tasks. This SMPP documents and organizes previously existing procedures to create one cohesive program addressing pre-development, construction, and post-development activities, as well as municipal operations. This chapter describes how the United City of Yorkville will monitor and evaluate the SMPP. As part of the stormwater management program, the city will:  review its activities  inspect its facilities  oversee, guide, and train its personnel  evaluate the allocation of resources available to implement stormwater quality efforts This chapter describes how program monitoring, evaluation and reporting will be accomplished. 4.1 Performance Milestones Previously established ordinances and programs implement many of the anticipated tasks. The following schedule describes general performance expectations.  Within one year following the acceptance of the SMPP, appropriate employees will receive training regarding the implementation of the SMPP.  Within one year following the acceptance of the SMPP, items within Chapter 3 will be implemented with the exception of the IDDE program milestones discussed below. Refer to Chapter 2.1 for a description of tasks associated with the implementation of the SMPP.  Within three years following the acceptance of the SMPP, the Outfall Inspection Procedure will be completed for all pipes identified, during the pre-screening efforts, as having dry weather flow.  Within five years following the acceptance of the SMPP, tracing and removal procedures will be completed for all sewers identified during the Outfall Inspection Procedure as having illicit discharges. 27 4.2 Program Monitoring and Research Currently water quality sampling/monitoring is not required under the NPDES Phase II program. Therefore, monitoring efforts focus on qualitative, not quantitative, examination of stormwater practices. It is anticipated that the USEPA and IEPA programs will evolve to require water quality monitoring and sampling. Future efforts may involve collecting information regarding discharges from outfalls, identifying other sources of pollutants, characterizing the receiving waters, sampling construction site discharges, and identifying the performance of stormwater pollution control measures. The United City of Yorkville will comply with future federal and state mandates regarding stormwater issues. The United City of Yorkville will consider research conducted by others regarding the effectiveness of various alternative stormwater practices, procedures and technologies. The city will continue to seek innovative stormwater practices and technologies. 4.3 Program Evaluation The primary mechanism for evaluating the SMPP and ensuring that the field staff has adequate knowledge is supervision by responsible managers. Management personnel include the directors and supervisors of the Public Works and Engineering Departments. Management support tasks include observing and evaluating design, construction, and field personnel as they implement the requirements of the SMPP on both municipal and private projects, and maintenance personnel as they conduct their assigned activities. The following types of questions/answers are discussed annually between management and field staff.  Are proper stormwater management practices used in planning, designing and constructing both city and private projects?  Are efforts to incorporate stormwater practices into maintenance activities effective and efficient?  Is the training program sufficient?  Is the SMPP sufficient?  Are the procedures for implementing the SMPP adequate? 28 5 Appendices SMPP 5.11 NPDES Erosion Control Inspection Report NPDES / EROSION CONTROL INSPECTION REPORT Date of Inspection: ________________________ Project: ____________________________ Name of Inspector: ________________________ Type of Inspection: Weekly _________________ > 0.5” Precip. _______________________ Contractor: ______________________________ Subs: ___________________________________ ________________________________________ 1. Are all of the temporary and permanent controls contained in the pollution prevention (erosion control) plan or as directed by the engineer in place? ___ YES ___ NO If not, why not? _________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Are the temporary and permanent erosion and sediment controls that have been installed operating correctly? ___ YES ___ NO If not, what additional controls or adjustments is the contractor hereby directed to install or perform? _______________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Are the erosion and sediment controls being properly maintained? ___ YES ___ NO If not, what maintenance is the contractor hereby directed to perform? ______________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Is there tracking of sediment from locations where vehicles enter and leave the project? ___ YES ___ NO If yes, describe the location(s) and the actions the contractor is hereby directed to perform. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Have the additional controls, adjustments, or maintenance directed as a result of the last inspection been implemented within seven (7) calendar days? ___ YES ___ NO If not, the contractor is hereby notified that no further work activity will be permitted to take place until the necessary corrective measures have been taken. Other comments: ________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________ Inspector Signature United City of Yorkville County Seat of Kendall County 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 Fax: 630-553-3436 Website: www.yorkville.il.us United City of Yorkville County Seat of Kendall County 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us Date: 1ST NOTICE OF VIOLATION Applicant Name Company Address City State Zip Subject: Project Name Site Development Permit No._______ 1st Notice of Violation Gentlemen: You are hereby notified of the following violation(s) to your Site Development Permit: Failure to notify the city prior to construction. Failure to install/maintain a non-erosive outlet from the structure to the watercourse Location(s) Failure to install/maintain soil erosion and sediment control features prior to commencing earthwork. Location(s) Failure to install/maintain temporary or permanent seeding. Location(s) Failure to install/maintain sod. Location(s) Failure to install/maintain erosion control blanket. Location(s) Failure to properly install/maintain silt fence. Location(s) Failure to install/maintain sediment traps. Location(s) Failure to install/maintain storm inlet protection. Location(s) Failure to route dewatering services through an effective sediment control measure. Location(s) Failure to install/maintain stabilized construction entrance. Failure to clean right of way/pavement. Location(s) Failure to install/maintain runoff diversion controls. Location(s) Failure to prevent erosion from stockpile, or the placement of stockpile in a flood-prone or buffer area. Location(s) Failure to maintain dust control. Location(s) Failure to follow permitted construction sequencing. Location(s) You must take immediate action and cure all deficiencies identified above within five (5) working days, or the city may issue a Stop Work Order or invoke penalties and legal actions that provides for fines for each offense each day the violation continues. Once all deficiencies have been cured, please call our office to schedule a re- inspection. If you have any questions please contact the City Engineer at (630)553-8545. Sincerely, XX Code Official cc:_________________________ 5.13 Maintenance Plan Template for Existing Facilities 1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR EXISTING FACILITIES Purpose and Objective: Detention and water quality treatment facilities, storm sewers, swales and native vegetation/buffer areas define a development’s stormwater management system. When land is altered to build homes and other developments, the natural system of trees and plants is replaced with impervious surfaces like sidewalks, streets, decks, roofs, driveways, or lawns over highly compacted soils. As a result more rain water / storm water flows off the land at a faster rate and less rain water is absorbed into the soil. This can lead to streambank erosion, downstream flooding and increased concentrations of pollutants. The existing storm water management system was designed to help slow the rate of runoff from the development and maintain the quality of the storm water leaving the site. Inspection Frequency: Inspection experience will determine the required cleaning frequencies for the components of the stormwater management system. At a minimum, the attached checklist items should be inspected annually. Detention ponds (including the outlet control structure and restrictors) should be inspected on a monthly basis during wet weather conditions from March to November. Maintenance Considerations: Whenever possible, maintenance activities should be performed during the inspection. These activities should be supplemented by repair / replacement as required. A Registered Professional Engineer (PE) shall be hired for design resolution of specific items as indicated on the checklist below. Cost Considerations: Frequent maintenance program work execution will lead to less frequent and less costly long- term maintenance and repair. The attached checklist items may need to be amended based on inspection experience. Record Keeping: Separate and distinct records should be maintained by the responsible party for all tasks performed associated with this plan. The records shall include the dates of maintenance visits, who performed the inspection, and a description of the work performed. 5.13 Maintenance Plan Template for Existing Facilities 2 Post-Construction Stormwater Management System Inspection Checklist The following checklist describes the suggested routine inspection items and recommended measures to be taken to ensure that the Stormwater Management System functions as designed. When hiring a PE is the recommended measure, the PE shall inspect, evaluate and recommend corrective actions. The General section outlines items that should be taken into consideration during inspection and maintenance activities. While performing an overall inspection of your system, please check for the following items. General - • Litter and debris shall be controlled. • Accumulated sediment shall be disposed of properly, along with any wastes generated during maintenance operations. • Riprap areas shall be repaired with the addition of new riprap, as necessary, of adequate size and shape. • Roads and parking lots shall be swept or vacuumed on a periodic basis. • Access path to storm water management facilities should be free from obstructions (woodpiles, sheds, vegetation). • Fences, gates and posts shall be maintained. • Signs shall be maintained. Storage Facilities (Detention, Retention and Water Quality Treatment Facilities) Dams and berms ____ Settlement. If settlement observed, hire a PE. ____ Breaks or failures. If failure observed, notify the Village immediately and hire a PE. ____ Erosion. Repair as needed. ____ Signs of leakage, seepage or wet spots. If observed, hire a PE. ____ Unwanted growth or vegetation. Remove as needed. Shorelines ____ Erosion or rip-rap failures. Repair as needed ____ Undermining. Stabilize and repair as needed. Outlet and inlet structure ____ Obstructions blocking outlet pipe, restrictor, channel or spillway. Remove obstructions immediately. ____ Separation of joints. Repair as needed. ____ Cracks, breaks, or deterioration of concrete. Repair as needed ____ Scour and erosion at outlet. If observed, repair (consider additional or alternative stabilization methods). ____ Condition of trash racks. Remove any collected debris. 5.13 Maintenance Plan Template for Existing Facilities 3 ____ Outlet channel conditions downstream. Stabilize soil or remove obstructions as needed. Storage Volume ____ Facilities shall be inspected to ensure that the constructed volume for detention is maintained. No sediment, topsoil, or other dumping into the facility shall be allowed. If a detention facility includes specific locations designed to accumulate sediment these locations should be dredged every 5-yrs or when 50% of the volume has been lost. ____ Wet ponds lose 0.5 - 1.0% of their volume annually. Dredging is required when accumulated volume loss reaches 15%, or approximately every 15-20 years. Storm Sewers ____ System is free draining into collection channels or catch basins. If concerned, clean or repair. ____ Catch basins. Remove sediment when more than 50% of basin sump is filled. ____ Siltation in Culvert. Culverts shall be checked for siltation deposit, clean out as necessary. Bridges ____ Any scouring around wing walls. Stabilize and repair as needed. If concerned, hire a PE. ____ Any undermining of footings. Stabilize and repair as needed. If concerned, hire a PE. Swales – ____ All ditches or pipes connecting ponds in series should be checked for debris that may block flow. ____ Repair and replace permanent check-dams as necessary. ____ Verify systems (both drainage ditches and sideyard swales) are maintaining originally constructed design slope and cross-sectional area. If fill or sediment contributes to elevation changes in swale, re-grading and re-shaping shall be performed. Licensed surveyors shall be hired to lay-out and check grades. No landscaping, earthen fill, gardens, or other obstructions (including sheds and other structures) shall be allowed in the swales that would impede design drainage flow patterns. Vegetated Areas – ____ Need for planting, reseeding or sodding of native areas. Supplement alternative native vegetation if a significant portion has not established (50% of the surface area). Reseed with alternative grass species if original grass cover has not successfully established. ____ Need for planting, reseeding or sodding of turf areas. Supplement alternative native vegetation if a significant portion has not established (75% of the surface area). 5.13 Maintenance Plan Template for Existing Facilities 4 Reseed with alternative grass species if original grass cover has not successfully established. ____ Invasive vegetation (refer to the Native Plant Guide for Streams and Stormwater Facilities in Northeastern Illinois, or hire an environmental or landscape specialist, or hire an environmental or landscape specialist). Remove as necessary. Wetland Buffers – ____ Inspect for evidence of erosion or concentrated flows through or around the buffer. All eroded areas should be repaired, seeded and mulched. A shallow stone trench should be installed as a level spreader to distribute flows evenly in any area showing concentrated flows. ____ All existing undergrowth, forest floor duff layer, and leaf litter must remain undisturbed except in designated paths or permitted encroachment areas. ____ No tree cutting is allowed except for normal maintenance of dead, diseased and damaged trees or; the culling of invasive, noxious or non-native species that are to be replaced by more desirable and native vegetation. ____ A buffer must maintain a dense, complete and vigorous cover of "non-lawn" vegetation which should not be mowed no more than once a year. Vegetation may include grass and other herbaceous species as well as shrubs and trees. ____ Use or maintenance activities within the buffer shall be conducted so as to prevent damage to vegetation and exposure of soil. 5.14 Maintenance Plan Template for New Facilities 1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR NEW FACILITIES Subject: INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME HERE SUCH PROPERTY BEING THE REAL PROPERTY NOW DULY PLATTED AS INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME HERE, AS SUCH PLAT IS NOW RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. INSERT DOCUMENT NUMBER, IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF DEEDS OF THE COUNTY OF KENDALL, STATE OF ILLINOIS, HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING DECLARATIONS OF MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. Responsibilities Adequate provisions for maintenance of the stormwater system are an essential aspect of long-term drainage performance. Responsibility for the overall maintenance shall rest with the insert responsible party name here. Purpose and Objective: Detention and water quality treatment facilities, storm sewers, swales and native vegetation/buffer areas define a development’s stormwater management system. When land is altered to build homes and other developments, the natural system of trees and plants is replaced with impervious surfaces like sidewalks, streets, decks, roofs, driveways, or lawns over highly compacted soils. As a result more rain water / storm water flows off the land at a faster rate and less rain water is absorbed into the soil. This can lead to streambank erosion, downstream flooding and increased concentrations of pollutants. The storm water management system was designed to help slow the rate of runoff from the development and improve the quality of the storm water leaving the site. Interpretation as to Requirements Under This Maintenance Plan: The requirement for this Maintenance Plan is generated by the City of Yorkville Ordinance 2009-78. The interpretation of the maintenance requirements set forth in this Maintenance Plan shall be interpreted on the basis of the intent and requirements of said Ordinance. Inspection Frequency: Inspection experience will determine the required cleaning frequencies for the components of the stormwater management system. At a minimum, the attached checklist items should be inspected annually. Detention ponds (including the outlet control structure and restrictors) should be inspected on a monthly basis during wet weather conditions from March to November. 5.14 Maintenance Plan Template for New Facilities 2 Maintenance Considerations: Whenever possible, maintenance activities should be performed during the inspection. These activities should be supplemented by repair / replacement as required. A Registered Professional Engineer (PE) shall be hired for design resolution of specific items as indicated on the checklist below. Cost Considerations: Frequent maintenance program work execution will lead to less frequent and less costly long- term maintenance and repair. The attached checklist items may need to be amended based on experience recorded over the initial period of occupancy of the development. Record Keeping: Separate and distinct records shall be maintained by the responsible party for all tasks performed associated with this plan. The records shall include the dates of maintenance visits, who performed the inspection, and a description of the work performed. , the owner’s agent, has caused these presents to be signed and acknowledged, this _______ day of ________________, 2_____. By: ________________________ 5.14 Maintenance Plan Template for New Facilities 3 Post-Construction Stormwater Management System Inspection Checklist The following checklist describes the suggested routine inspection items and recommended measures to be taken to ensure that the Stormwater Management System functions as designed. When hiring a PE is the recommended measure, the PE shall inspect, evaluate and recommend corrective actions. The General section outlines items that should be taken into consideration during inspection and maintenance activities. While performing an overall inspection of your system, please check for the following items. General - • Litter and debris shall be controlled. • Accumulated sediment shall be disposed of properly, along with any wastes generated during maintenance operations. • Riprap areas shall be repaired with the addition of new riprap, as necessary, of adequate size and shape. • Roads and parking lots shall be swept or vacuumed on a periodic basis. • Access path to storm water management facilities should be free from obstructions (woodpiles, sheds, vegetation). • Fences, gates and posts shall be maintained. • Signs shall be maintained. Dams and berms ____ Settlement. If settlement observed, hire a PE. ____ Breaks or failures. If failure observed, notify the Village immediately and hire a PE. ____ Erosion. Repair as needed. ____ Signs of leakage, seepage or wet spots. If observed, hire a PE. ____ Unwanted growth or vegetation. Remove as needed. Shorelines ____ Erosion or rip-rap failures. Repair as needed ____ Undermining. Stabilize and repair as needed. Outlet and inlet structure ____ Obstructions blocking outlet pipe, restrictor, channel or spillway. Remove obstructions immediately. ____ Separation of joints. Repair as needed. ____ Cracks, breaks, or deterioration of concrete. Repair as needed ____ Scour and erosion at outlet. If observed, repair (consider additional or alternative stabilization methods). ____ Condition of trash racks. Remove any collected debris. ____ Outlet channel conditions downstream. Stabilize soil or remove obstructions as needed. 5.14 Maintenance Plan Template for New Facilities 4 Storage Volume ____ Facilities shall be inspected to ensure that the constructed volume for detention is maintained. No sediment, topsoil, or other dumping into the facility shall be allowed. If a detention facility includes specific locations designed to accumulate sediment these locations should be dredged every 5-yrs or when 50% of the volume has been lost. ____ Wet ponds lose 0.5 - 1.0% of their volume annually. Dredging is required when accumulated volume loss reaches 15%, or approximately every 15-20 years. Storm Sewers ____ System is free draining into collection channels or catch basins. Clean and/or repair as necessary. ____ Catch basins. Remove sediment when more than 50% of basin sump is filled. ____ Siltation in Culvert. Culverts shall be checked for siltation deposit, clean out as necessary. Bridges ____ Any scouring around wing walls. Stabilize and repair as needed. If concerned, hire a PE. ____ Any undermining of footings. Stabilize and repair as needed. If concerned, hire a PE. Swales – ____ All ditches or pipes connecting ponds in series should be checked for debris that may block flow. ____ Repair and replace permanent check-dams as necessary. ____ Verify systems (both drainage ditches and sideyard swales) are maintaining originally constructed design slope and cross-sectional area. If fill or sediment contributes to elevation changes in swale, re-grading and re-shaping shall be performed. Licensed surveyors shall be hired to lay-out and check grades. No landscaping, earthen fill, gardens, or other obstructions (including sheds and other structures) shall be allowed in the swales that would impede design drainage flow patterns. Vegetated Areas – ____ Need for planting, reseeding or sodding of native areas. Supplement alternative native vegetation if a significant portion has not established (50% of the surface area). Reseed with alternative grass species if original grass cover has not successfully established. ____ Need for planting, reseeding or sodding of turf areas. Supplement alternative native vegetation if a significant portion has not established (75% of the surface area). Reseed with alternative grass species if original grass cover has not successfully established. 5.14 Maintenance Plan Template for New Facilities 5 ____ Invasive vegetation (refer to the Native Plant Guide for Streams and Stormwater Facilities in Northeastern Illinois, or hire an environmental or landscape specialist). Remove as necessary. Wetland Buffers – ____ Inspect for evidence of erosion or concentrated flows through or around the buffer. All eroded areas should be repaired, seeded and mulched. A shallow stone trench should be installed as a level spreader to distribute flows evenly in any area showing concentrated flows. ____ All existing undergrowth, forest floor duff layer, and leaf litter must remain undisturbed except in designated paths or permitted encroachment areas. ____ No tree cutting is allowed except for normal maintenance of dead, diseased and damaged trees or; the culling of invasive, noxious or non-native species that are to be replaced by more desirable and native vegetation. ____ A buffer must maintain a dense, complete and vigorous cover of "non-lawn" vegetation which should not be mowed more than once a year. Vegetation may include grass and other herbaceous species as well as shrubs and trees. ____ Use or maintenance activities within the buffer shall be conducted so as to prevent damage to vegetation and exposure of soil. SMPP 5.15 Stormwater Basin Inspection Report STORM WATER BASIN ANNUAL INSPECTION REPORT Basin Address and/or Location: ____________________________________________________________ Basin Type (circle): Dry Detention Wet Detention Naturalized Owner Name: _____________________________ Owner Contact Number: ______________________ Owner Address: ________________________________________________________________________ Owner Email: _____________________________ Maintainer Name: __________________________ Maintainer Contact Number: ___________________ Maintainer Address: _____________________________________________________________________ Maintainer Email: __________________________ Inspection Date: ____________________________ Submittal Date: ______________________________ Complete ONLY the “Annual Inspection Items” and sign below for all years between 5th Year Inspections. The 5th Year Inspection to be completed entirely by a professional engineer, licensed in the State of Illinois. See Page 2 for more information regarding 5th Year Inspection requirements. ANNUAL INSPECTION ITEMS CIRCLE ‘YES’ OR ‘NO’ FOR ALL ITEMS BELOW A. Has debris or trash accumulated? ……………………………………………. YES NO B. Has sediment accumulated? …………………………………………………. YES NO C. Are noxious weeds present that prevent the desired vegetation from growing properly? YES NO D. Is there exposed soil not covered with vegetation, mulch, or other non-erodable material? YES NO E. Is soil erosion present along standing or moving surface water? YES NO F. Is soil erosion present at basin sides, inlet, or outlet? YES NO G. Are holes present from animals, or is there undesirable soil loss? YES NO H. Is algae or stagnant moisture present? YES NO I. Are unpleasant odors emerging? YES NO J. Are wet or soggy areas present that prevent desired vegetation from growing? YES NO K. Is runoff entering or leaving the basin in a manner which prevents proper function of its inflow or outflow systems? YES NO L. Does flow out of basin occur in a manner that creates erosion or damage to adjacent property? YES NO M. Are the basin functions impaired? YES NO N. Other items and comments: ____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ O. Corrective measures for all ‘YES’ answers above: __________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY, TO PROPERLY DOCUMENT INSPECTION. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS AN ACCURATE AND CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIN AT THIS LOCATION: ______________________________________ _____________________________________ SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME DATE: ________________________________ United City of Yorkville County Seat of Kendall County 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 Fax: 630-553-3436 Website: www.yorkville.il.us SMPP 5.15 Stormwater Basin Inspection Report PAGE 1 of 2 The 5th Year Inspection must be completed entirely by a professional engineer, licensed in the State of Illinois. The 5th Year Inspection shall include at a minimum, the annual inspection items shown on Page 1 and the 5th Year Inspection items shown below: 5TH YEAR INSPECTION ITEMS A. ASSESSMENT OF ANY PIPE, RIPRAP, AND STRUCTURES PRESENT: (i.e. Is there a need for replacement or maintenance of basin components?) ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. B. GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE BASIN: (i.e. Does the basin appear to function properly? Modifications recommended for improved function) ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. C. ASSESSEMENT OF BASIN ELEVATIONS: (i.e. Are major storm overflow paths and elevations unchanged from the as-built plans?) (NOTE: the elevation reasonableness check is intended to be a visual check for large settlement, channel erosion, or basin modifications, and not a requirement for a survey.) ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. D. ASSESSMENT OF BASIN VOLUMES: (i.e. Is there evidence of basin changes affecting the storage volume from that shown on the as-built plans?) (NOTE: The volume reasonableness check is intended to be a visual check for large accumulations of sediment or basin modifications, and not a requirement for a survey.) ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. E. OTHER ITEMS AND COMMENTS: (i.e. Safety, shelf, etc.) ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. F. CORRECTIVE MEASURES NEEDED: ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY, TO PROPERLY DOCUMENT INSPECTION. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS AN ACCURATE AND CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIN AT THIS LOCATION: ______________________________________ _____________________________________ SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME DATE: ________________________________ ENGINEER’S SEAL FOR 5TH YEAR INSPECTION PAGE 2 of 2 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #12 Tracking Number PW 2017-32 Traffic control – Heustis and Van Emmon; Yorkville Intermediate School Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 N/ A N/ A Discussion See attached memo. Bart Olson Administration Name Department Summary Review of two traffic control complaints and staff responses. Background This item was requested by Alderman Funkhouser. City staff has received two traffic control complaints from various parties at Van Emmon and Heustis, and near the Yorkville Intermediate School. Staff responses and decisions are attached for discussion and questions. Recommendation This is an informational item. Memorandum To: Public Works Committee From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: Date: April 13, 2017 Subject: Traffic Control 1 Bart Olson From:Bart Olson Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:55 AM To:Bart Olson; Ward3 Funkhouser; Ward3 Frieders Cc:Erin Willrett; Nicole Kathman; Eric Dhuse Subject:RE: Heustis and Van Emmon stop sign Following up on this – the accident data didn’t show that the 48” signs made any difference. We’re declining to put the larger signs back into service, but Eric will be following up with the larger, more prominent stop bar on the pavement. Bart Olson, ICMA‐CM City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630‐553‐8537 direct 630‐553‐4350 City Hall 630‐308‐0582 cell bolson@yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Bart Olson Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:30 AM To: Ward3 Funkhouser; Ward3 Frieders Cc: Erin Willrett; Nicole Kathman; Eric Dhuse Subject: Heustis and Van Emmon stop sign I spoke to Eric and Nicole today about the stop sign complaint. The resident is correct in that the stop signs at this intersection used to be 48” and we removed them during the Route 47 project and replaced them with 36” stop signs. I don’t recall that we ever had flashing lights at the top of the stop signs, but that could have occurred before my time. In general, the intersection is signed correctly under MUTCD standards and Eric didn’t think that the larger signs helped with accident counts at all during the period they were installed. I asked Nicole to run a quick analysis of accident and complaint history for the intersection to see if we could corroborate that. I would expect that analysis to be complete sometime next week, depending on how quickly the police can send us the data. If the data shows that the larger sign didn’t improve the issue, we’ll decline to put the larger sign back in. If the data shows the larger sign may have improved the issue, we’ll consider putting them back in. Eric also recommended that we could add in a larger, more prominent stop bar on the pavement. That should be on the order of $1,000 or so, and that’s something we would consider too. Additionally, Rich did say in his separate email that he would direct additional policing in that area. Bart Olson, ICMA‐CM City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630‐553‐8537 direct 630‐553‐4350 City Hall 630‐308‐0582 cell bolson@yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube 1 Bart Olson From:Bart Olson Sent:Monday, March 13, 2017 10:44 AM To:Joel Frieders; Rich Hart Cc:Eric Dhuse Subject:RE: van emmon & heustis Eric, did we take down the larger signs during the 47 project? Bart Olson City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630-308-0582 cell Bolson@yorkville.il.us Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Joel Frieders <joelfrieders@gmail.com> Date: 3/13/17 9:35 AM (GMT-07:00) To: Rich Hart <rhart@yorkville.il.us> Cc: Bart Olson <BOlson@yorkville.il.us>, Eric Dhuse <edhuse@yorkville.il.us> Subject: Re: van emmon & heustis Ok, I'll forward the email to Funkfunk now. Thanks Chief. On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Rich Hart <rhart@yorkville.il.us> wrote: I will make sure that the Officers keep an extra watch in the area, but the rest would be a public works committee issue. Rich Hart, Chief of Police Yorkville Police Department 804 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 rhart@yorkville.il.us 630‐553‐4340 Office 630‐553‐8509 Direct 2 From: Joel Frieders [mailto:joelfrieders@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 3:18 PM To: Bart Olson; Rich Hart; Eric Dhuse Subject: van emmon & heustis Good afternoon gentlemen, I was alerted to a potential public safety issue at the intersection of Van Emmon and Heustis today by Alderman Milschewski. Her neighbors were returning home, traveling east on Van Emmon and a short bus blew through the stop sign heading west, nearly causing an accident with oncoming northbound traffic. She mentioned that in years past there used to be much larger stop signs at this intersection, due to the sight line issue caused by the pole on the corner where the sawmill is. She also mentioned that there might have been flashers on top of the signs at one point, to alert those who should be stopping that N/S bound traffic doesn't have a stop sign. Are there any quick fix options to improve safety at this intersection? A 4 way stop is out of the question. Should this subject be discussed at an upcoming public safety or public works meeting? Any help is greatly appreciated. joel 3 -- joelfrieders@gmail.com cell 630-992-7516 pharmacy 630-859-0333 -- joelfrieders@gmail.com cell 630-992-7516 pharmacy 630-859-0333 1 Bart Olson From:Bart Olson Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:15 AM To:'Dean Romano' Cc:Rich Hart; Erin Willrett Subject:FW: Traffic Warning Signage/Lights in front of YIS on 126 Attachments:SpeedLimits.pdf Here’s our finding. I know that there are some major pick‐up/drop‐off traffic and parking issues, which I’ve forwarded to the police. Take a look and let me know if you want to discuss. Bart Olson, ICMA‐CM City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630‐553‐8537 direct 630‐553‐4350 City Hall 630‐308‐0582 cell bolson@yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Brad Sanderson [mailto:bsanderson@eeiweb.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 2:43 PM To: Bart Olson Cc: Erin Willrett; Eric Dhuse; Rich Hart Subject: FW: Traffic Warning Signage/Lights in front of YIS on 126 Bart, Please see below and the attached. Let us know if you need anything else. Brad From: Collette Frohlich Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 2:30 PM To: Brad Sanderson <bsanderson@eeiweb.com> Cc: Tim Weidner <tweidner@eeiweb.com> Subject: RE: Traffic Warning Signage/Lights in front of YIS on 126 Brad, Attached is an IDOT document on establishing speed limits on state highways. In the section on school speed limits (pages 6 & 7), it discusses that the school zone limits should be determined based on where children will be present and not necessarily based off of the limits of the school property. The existing school zone encompasses the pedestrian crossing at Route 126 and Mill Street and the main entrance into the school parking lot. It appears as the current limits of the school zone meet the recommendations. In addition, the school zone limits on Route 126 were established between 2013 and 2015 (determined from looking at Google streetview), so it appears the existing school zone signage is not just leftover from Circle Center fields. Furthermore, the attached document states that areas devoted to athletic activities should not be zoned. The existing signage includes a sign warning of a school zone speed limit ahead, a sign at the start of the school zone speed limit, and a sign indicating the end of the school zone. There is also a school crossing 2 ahead sign and signage at the actual school crossing with appropriate pavement markings. This signage is in place for both directions of travel on Route 126. This meets the MUTCD standards. Reading through the Illinois Traffic Crash Report written for the accident involving the bus, it isn’t clear whether the school was the issue. It appears as though the trailing vehicle was not paying attention when he struck the bus. After a quick scan of the list of all crashes near the school, 89 out of 92 crashes in the last 7 years were at the intersection of Route 126 and Route 47. The other crashes were the bus crash this year and two other crashes at the same intersection in 2016. At this time, with the information that I have, I am not seeing an immediate need to increase signage/warnings. However, if additional signage/warnings are wanted, “SCHOOL” could be marked on the road (may be obscured during inclement weather), a crossing guard may be used, a blinker sign may replace the existing school speed limit sign or a flashing beacon can be added to the existing school speed limit sign, and/or RRFBs and/or blinker signs could be used for the school crossing assembly at the crossing and for the advance warning assembly. Collette M. Frohlich, P.E. Project Engineer Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, IL 60554 T: (630) 466-6783 F: (630) 466-6701 C: (630) 878-1037 www.eeiweb.com cfrohlich@eeiweb.com From: Brad Sanderson Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:58 PM To: Collette Frohlich Cc: Tim Weidner Subject: FW: Traffic Warning Signage/Lights in front of YIS on 126 Collette, Would you be able to look into this? Brad From: Bart Olson [mailto:BOlson@yorkville.il.us] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:42 PM To: Brad Sanderson <bsanderson@eeiweb.com>; Eric Dhuse <edhuse@yorkville.il.us>; Rich Hart <rhart@yorkville.il.us> Cc: Erin Willrett <ewillrett@yorkville.il.us> Subject: FW: Traffic Warning Signage/Lights in front of YIS on 126 3 Thought I had forwarded this, but couldn’t find evidence that I did. Two questions – 1) is the area signed according to MUTCD standards? 2) anything we could do there to improve signage / warnings? Bart Olson, ICMA‐CM City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630‐553‐8537 direct 630‐553‐4350 City Hall 630‐308‐0582 cell bolson@yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Dean Romano [mailto:dromano@y115.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:02 PM To: Bart Olson Subject: Traffic Warning Signage/Lights in front of YIS on 126 Hi Bart, How can we go about looking into the option of placing signage on 126 to further identify the potential slowing of traffic entering a school zone. Based on the bus accident involving a there within the past two weeks, we would like to look at ways to improve safety in the area. Any support or direction you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, -Dean Dr. Dean Romano Chief Operating Officer / CSBO Yorkville Community Unit School District 115 602 Center Parkway – Suite A Yorkville, IL 60560 Office: 630-553-4382 Fax: 630-553-4398 dromano@y115.org 4 This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the original recipient. The views or opinions presented in this message are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the company, unless specifically stated. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this message. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Engineering Enterprises, Incorporated 52 Wheeler Road, Sugar Grove, IL., 60554 Warning: This message was scanned for viruses, vandals and malicious content. However, we cannot guarantee that the integrity of this e-mail has been maintained in transmission and do not accept responsibility for the consequences of any virus contamination. Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #13 Tracking Number PW 2017-33 Ordinance amending City Code regarding truck traffic in the Caledonia Subdivision Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 N/ A Majority Approval See attached memo. Bart Olson Administration Name Department Summary Consideration of an ordinance restricting truck traffic in the Caledonia subdivision, due to the request of a resident, memorializing a restriction on Corneils Rd, and proposing a restriction on Baseline Rd. Background City staff received an email complaint from a resident about large semi trucks using the Caledonia subdivision as a cut-through to Corneils Rd. While there is legal semi-traffic from home construction in the subdivision, the trucks in the complaint appear to be from the area businesses. Staff reviewed the matter and agreed that large semi trucks should not be using the residential subdivision as a pass-through to Corneils Rd. Accordingly, we’ve drafted an ordinance amending the City Code to prohibit said truck traffic. Trucks making a delivery to a home or a construction site would be exempt from this ordinance under normal Illinois Vehicle Code regulations, which is why that exemption is not explicitly referenced in the ordinance. While reviewing the above matter, staff also realized that the City Code had never been amended to explicitly reference the Corneils Rd restriction. That amendment was added into the ordinance as a result. Also, City Engineer Sanderson and Public Works Director Dhuse recommended that the deteriorated surface course of Baseline Rd warranted a similar restriction. That amendment is also added into the ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. Memorandum To: Public Works Committee From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: Date: April 13, 2017 Subject: Code Amendment Regarding Restricting of Semi Trucks in Caledonia 1 Bart Olson From:Bart Olson Sent:Friday, March 31, 2017 12:18 PM To: Cc:Ward3 Funkhouser; Ward3 Frieders; Subject:RE: Fwd: Caledonia- Semi truck traffic Great, thanks. It’s possible the sign may go up in the next few weeks, but the City will need to pass a City code amendment to enforce it through tickets. That could take a few more weeks. Bart Olson, ICMA‐CM City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630‐553‐8537 direct 630‐553‐4350 City Hall 630‐308‐0582 cell bolson@yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:08 PM To: Bart Olson Cc: Ward3 Funkhouser; Ward3 Frieders; Subject: Re: Fwd: Caledonia- Semi truck traffic Hi Bart, We know a sign won't prevent all truck traffic, but if it can help minimize it, we would appreciate it. The majority of the traffic is from both CJ Insulation and Boombah, we do see some construction traffic recently, but it's quite clear when it's a trailer for one of those businesses. We often see the insulation trucks parked overnight right outside CJ. (They tend to drop quite a bit of insulation along the way!) We're not trying to get the businesses into trouble or anything - CJ is actually a customer of ours, so no ill will towards them at all! But, we do recognize their semi trailers as a result. If we can just at least reduce the 18- wheeler traffic, we'll be happy! Hope this helps! Any questions, let me know! On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Bart Olson <BOlson@yorkville.il.us> wrote: Hello We think the truck restriction in your subdivision is a good idea. Even after the restriction, my guess is that there will still be a few trucks a day through the subdivision while home construction occurs. For the trucks you’ve seen, do you think the majority of them are coming from Boombah or CJ Insulation? 2 Bart Olson, ICMA‐CM City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630‐553‐8537 direct 630‐553‐4350 City Hall 630‐308‐0582 cell bolson@yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Chris Funkhouser [mailto:funkhouser.ward3@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 1:45 PM To: Ward3 Frieders Cc: Bart Olson Subject: Re: Fwd: Caledonia- Semi truck traffic Thanks for the heads up Joel. I'll make sure to follow up on this. Chris Funkhouser Alderman - Ward 3 The United City of Yorkville Funkhouser.ward3@gmail.com p. 630-708-6605 On Mar 30, 2017 1:41 PM, "Joel Frieders" <joelfrieders.ward3@gmail.com> wrote: Good afternoon gentlemen, Attached is an email from 3rd ward/Caledonia resident regarding unnecessary semi traffic up on Caledonia's awesome new roads. Is her idea about putting up a no semi traffic sign up a possibility? Is there something in the MUTCD that says you can't? 3 What else can we do besides that? Should this topic be placed on a public works agenda or is it a simple fix? Please reply all when you have a chance to look at her email, and she is included on this forwarding as well. thank you gentlemen joel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:34 PM Subject: Caledonia- Semi truck traffic To: Joel Frieders <joelfrieders.ward3@gmail.com> Hi Joel, Hope you are doing well! Wondering if we could put up a "no semi traffic" signs at the entrance to our neighborhood. (Past the companies like Boombah & CJ Insulation). There is already a no semi-traffic sign on Corneils. Trucks will try to cut through our neighborhood to Corneils. Construction traffic is different, but these are just semi truck drivers trying to find shortcuts - and I think they sometimes get a little lost trying to get through, because it's not uncommon for them to take several laps around the neighborhood. My concerns are for the life of the roads, I'm guessing the roads in the subdivision are not designed to support regular semi traffic, and also kid safety - we often have to contend with trucks while walking, riding bikes, etc. On a daily basis, we probably see 5-7 trucks through the neighborhood. Ordinance No. 2017-____ Page 1 Ordinance No. 2017-_____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS REGULATING TRUCK AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES; LOADS AND WEIGHTS NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. Title 6, Chapter 1, Section 6, of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by deleting paragraph A and replacing with: A. The wheel and axle load and gross weight restrictions contained in 625 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/15-111, as amended from time to time, are hereby adopted by Yorkville as if set forth verbatim herein, provided however, that: East Main Street (from Illinois Route 47 to McHugh Road) and McHugh Road (from East Main Street to U.S. Route 34), Corneils Road (from Route 47 to Eldamain Road), Boombah Boulevard (from the entrance of the Caledonia subdivision approximately 2,150 feet west of Route 47 to Caledonia Drive), and Baseline Road (from Route 47 to Eldamain Road) shall have a gross vehicle weight limit of eight (8) tons. The River Road Bridge over Blackberry Creek, identified by the Illinois department of transportation as structure 047-3007, shall have a weight limit of twenty two (22) tons for single unit vehicles, twenty nine (29) tons for combination vehicles with three (3) or four (4) axles, and thirty six (36) tons for combination vehicles with five (5) or more axles. Section 2. If any Section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of ____________________, 2017. ______________________________ CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 2017-____ Page 2 CARLO COLOSIMO ________ KEN KOCH ________ JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI ________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER ________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER ________ JOEL FRIEDERS ________ SEAVER TARULIS ________ DIANE TEELING ________ Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of ____________________, 2017. ______________________________ MAYOR B o o m h a h B l v d N Bri dge St C o m m e r c i a l D rRyan DrNath an Dr Caledonia DrJonathan DrLongview DrSh adow Wood Dr Gabriel DrFon ta na D r Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Boombah Boulevard | From Caledonia Entrance to Caledonia Drive United City of Yorkv ille, Illinois Yorkville GIS 20 17 ¬«47 C o r n e i l s R d Eldamain RdN Bridge StBeecher RdB o o m h a h B lv dE Beecher RdW Beecher RdLauren DrCaledonia DrRyan DrM c M u r t r i e W a y Commercial DrJonathan D rPinewood DrLongview DrSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Corneils Road | From Route 47 to Eldamain Road United City of Yorkv ille, Illinois Yorkville GIS 20 17 ¬«47 Ashe RdJericho Rd Mighell RdIllinois Route 47Star Ln B aseli ne R d Galena Rd N Bridge StEldamain RdB e r t r a m D rGarritano StSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Baseline Road | From Route 47 to Eldamain Road United City of Yorkv ille, Illinois Yorkville GIS 20 17 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #14 Tracking Number PW 2017-34 Fox Hill and Sunflower SSA Management Services RFP Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 N/A Majority Approval Recommendations to go out to RFP for Management Services for Fox Hill and Sunflower SSA Erin Willrett Administration Name Department Summary Recommendation to go out for proposals for Management Services of Fox Hill and Sunflower SSA. Background During the February 7, 2017 Public Works Committee meeting it was discussed that staff would like go out for proposals for the use of a professional property management company to administer the mowing and maintenance contract for Fox Hill and Sunflower Subdivisions and provide the necessary oversight to the contractor along with detailed weekly documentation to the City that will ensure a quality product for the residents of these subdivisions. Currently, the City has always performed these duties and absorbed the cost, in time spent, to administer these contracts. The Committee was supportive of staff’s request. The Request for Proposal for Fox Hill and Sunflower SSA Management Services is attached for your review. The RFP scope includes, a professional property management company to prepare bid packages and manage the bid process for any budgeted work, prepare annual operating budget, day to day interactions with the residents, provide the necessary oversight to the landscape contractor, and send bi-weekly property reports to the city ensuring a quality product for the residents of Sunflower Estates and Fox Hill subdivisions. The proposals are scheduled to be opened on May 26, 2017 at noon with services beginning in June, 2017. Recommendation Staff recommends going out for proposal for Management Services of Fox Hill and Sunflower SSA. Memorandum To: Public Works Committee From: Erin Willrett, Assistant City Administrator CC: Date: April 18, 2017 Subject: Fox Hill and Sunflower SSA Management Services RFP 1 United City of Yorkville, Illinois Request for Proposal for Management Services for Fox Hill and Sunflower Estates subdivisions Optional Pre-Bid Conference: May 12, 2017 at 10:00AM Proposals Due: May 26, 2017 at 12:00PM 2 United City of Yorkville, Illinois 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Request for Proposal The United City of Yorkville, Illinois will accept proposals for: A professional property management company to prepare bid packages and manage the bid process for any budgeted work, prepare annual operating budget, day to day interactions with the residents, provide the necessary oversight to the landscape contractor, and send bi-weekly property reports to the city ensuring a quality product for the residents of Sunflower Estates and Fox Hill subdivisions It is the intent of the City to negotiate an agreement for services based on the bid specifications contained in this RFP. Proposals will be received at the City Hall, at 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois 60560 until 12:00 PM on May 26, 2017 (the closing date). Proposals not physically received by the City by 12:00 PM on May 26, 2017 will be returned, unopened to the firm. Emailed or faxed bids will not be accepted. Take note that overnight deliveries may not arrive on the day of the bid opening prior to 12:00 PM. City Hall is open Monday through Friday, 8:00AM to 4:30PM. All Proposals shall be sealed and addressed as follows: United City of Yorkville RE: (Vendor Name) Bid for Management Services at Sunflower Estates & Fox Hill Attention: Annie Callahan, Purchasing Manager 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 General questions regarding this Request for Proposals shall be directed to Annie Callahan, Purchasing Manager at 630-553-8566. All detailed questions concerning the actual specifications are to be forwarded by email to Eric Dhuse at edhuse@yorkville.il.us not less than ten (10) business days prior to the scheduled closing date. The person or firm submitting the proposal shall at all times observe and conform to all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the Federal, State, and City which may in any manner affect the proposal. The City Council reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals, to waive technicalities and to accept or reject any item of any proposal. 3 No informal communication shall occur regarding this RFP, including requests for information, or speculation between Offeror’s or any of their individual members and any City elected official, employee or independently contracted employees or consultants. Failure to comply with this provision may result in offeror’s proposal being removed from consideration Any cost incurred by the Offeror in preparation, transmittal, or presentation of any information or material submitted in response to the RFP, shall be borne solely by the Offeror. General Overview The City of Yorkville (herein called the “City”) is seeking a professional management company (herein called the “Contractor”) to perform high quality management services for their SSA areas: Fox Hill and Sunflower Estates subdivisions beginning on the later of the execution of a contract agreement or June 1, 2017 . The subdivisions site maps are attached. Fox Hill is located West of Route 47 on Route 34 and Sunflower Estates is located North of Route 71 on the West side of Route 47. The nature of the service requested is a professional management company to manage the daily operations of the SSA areas of Fox Hill and Sunflower Estates to ensure a quality product for the residents of these said subdivisions. The City is governed by a Mayor and eight elected Alderman. The appointed City Administrator is responsible for day-to-day operations. Departments include Administration, Finance, Community Development, Building Safety and Zoning, Public Works, Engineer, Police, and Parks and Recreation. Budgeted expenditures are $33,275,572, including General Fund expenditures of $14,803,097. Yorkville has 168 full-time equivalent employees. Pre-Bid Conference There will be an optional pre-bid conference at the City Hall beginning at 10:00 a.m. on May 12, 2017, at which time staff will answer proposal questions. The City will offer site tours immediately following the pre-bid conference on May 12, 2017. Contractor’s representatives are encouraged to inspect the subdivision areas prior to this conference to have questions available that will help them provide a comprehensive bid under this proposal. Bid Specifications 1. Bid preparation – follow a formal bid process to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP). RFP’s for the SSA can include but not be limited to trail maintenance (sealcoating and/or patching), pond naturalization, landscape maintenance, and entry sign monuments. Bid preparation of RFP documents include but is not limited to advertise in the local newspapers, answer bid questions, distribute addendums if necessary, hold bidder’s meetings for questions, collect and open bids, prepare bid tabulation sheets, mail bid tabulation sheets to all bidders and meet with winning contractor to go over the specifications to make sure that all 4 aspects of the contract are agreed upon. The City has the final approval on all contracts. 2. Preparing a budget for the SSA areas - complete a budget estimate for both SSA areas. This can include multiyear planning to pay for large projects such as pond naturalization and trail patching and sealing. 3. Resident calls – become the point of contact for the residents of Fox Hill and Sunflower Estates subdivisions. Handle all daily calls from residents. 4. Contractor interaction – interact with the landscape contractor on a weekly basis by email, phone or text 5. Maintain records of weekly reports at company’s location for review, if necessary 6. Service level oversight – weekly drive through each SSA area and assess the quality of work that the contractor is providing, look for possible problems (weeds, lack of mulch, trees that need trimming, sign maintenance, etc.) and provide a bi-weekly report to the city. 7. Meet with the Director of Public Works quarterly to discuss issues and upcoming projects. 8. Manage special projects – special projects can include but not be limited to monument sign maintenance, trail patching and/or sealcoating and pond naturalization. UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Persons submitting proposals Qualifications. If requested, the interested Person submitting the proposal must provide a detailed statement regarding the business and technical organization of the Person submitting the proposal that is available for the work that is contemplated. Information pertaining to financial resources, experiences of personnel, previously completed projects, plant facilities, and other data may also be required to satisfy the City that the Person submitting the proposal is equipped and prepared to fulfill the Contract should the Contract be awarded to him /her. The competency and responsibility of Persons submitting proposals and of their proposed subcontractors will be considered in making awards. If requested by the City, the Person submitting the proposal shall include a complete list of all equipment and manpower available to perform the work intended on the Plans and Specifications. The list of equipment and manpower must prove to the City that the Person submitting the proposal is well qualified and able to perform the work, and it shall be taken into consideration in awarding the Contract. The City may make such investigations as it deems necessary, and the Person submitting the proposal shall furnish to the City all such information and data for this purpose as the City may request. A responsible Person submitting the proposal is one who meets all of the following requirements: 5  Have adequate financial resources or the ability to secure such resources.  Have the necessary experience, organization, and technical qualifications, and has or can acquire, the necessary equipment to perform the proposed Contract.  Is able to comply with the required performance schedule or completion date, taking into account all existing commitments.  Has a satisfactory record of performance, integrity, judgment, and skills.  Is qualified and eligible under all applicable laws and regulations. If the Person submitting the proposal possesses a current Illinois Department of Transportation “Certificate of Eligibility” with an amount for the work specified at least equal to the minimum amount of qualification indicated on the Legal Notice he may choose to provide the City a copy of the certificate in lieu of providing the above mentioned Persons submitting proposals Qualification requirements. 2. Basis of Payment: The City shall make monthly payments for services performed under this contract, pending receipt of the contractor’s correct monthly invoice. 3. General Guarantee: Neither the final certificate of payment nor any provision in the Contractor Documents, nor partial or entire occupancy of the premises by the City, shall constitute an acceptance of work not done in accordance with the Contract Documents or relieve the Contractor of liability in respect to any express warranties or responsibility for faulty materials or workmanship. The Contractor shall remedy any defects in the work and pay for any damage to other work resulting therefrom, which shall appear within a period of one (1) year from the date of final acceptance of the work unless a longer period is specified. The United City of Yorkville will give notice of observed defects with reasonable promptness. The Contractor shall guarantee all materials and workmanship as defined by the Performance Bond, Labor and Material Payment Bond, and Maintenance Bond requirements, if required. 4. Termination of Contract: the United City of Yorkville reserves the right to terminate the whole or any part of this Contract, upon written notice to the Contractor, in the event that sufficient funds to complete the Contract are not appropriated by the corporate authorities of the United City of Yorkville. The United City of Yorkville further reserves the right to terminate the whole or any part of this Contract, upon written notice to the Contractor, in the event of default by the Contractor. Default is defined as failure of the Contractor to perform any of the provisions of this Contract, or failure to make sufficient progress so as to endanger performance of this Contract in accordance with its terms. In the event of default and termination, the United City of Yorkville may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as the United City of Yorkville may deem appropriate, supplies or services similar to those so terminated. The Contractor shall be liable for any excess costs for such similar supplies or service unless acceptable evidence is submitted to the United City of Yorkville that failure to 6 perform the Contract was due to causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor. UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS GENERAL CONDITIONS These General Conditions apply to all proposals requested and accepted by the City and become a part of the contract unless otherwise specified. Persons submitting proposals or their authorized representatives are expected to fully inform themselves as to the conditions, requirements, and specifications before submitting proposals. The City assumes that submission of a proposal means that the person submitting the proposal has familiarized himself with all conditions and intends to comply wit h them unless noted otherwise. 1. Forms – All proposals must be submitted on the forms provided, complete with all blank spaces filled in and properly signed in ink in the proper spaces. All proposal forms and Proposal packets are available online at www.yorkville.il.us or at the United City of Yorkville city hall which is located at 800 Game Farm Rd., Yorkville, Illinois and when completed delivered to the same Office prior to the proposal closing date and time. Persons submitting proposals may attach separate sheets for the purpose of explanation, exception, or alternative proposal and to cover required unit prices. 2. Submittal of Proposal – Proposals must be submitted to the attention of the Purchasing Manager of the United City of Yorkville. 3. Examination of Proposal Forms, Specifications, and Site – The person submitting the proposal shall carefully examine the proposal forms which may include the request for proposal, instruction to Persons submitting proposals, general conditions, special conditions, plans, specifications, proposal form, bond, and any addenda to them, and sites of the proposed work (when known) before submitting the proposal. The person submitting the proposal shall verify all measurements relative to the work, shall be responsible for the correctness of same. The person submitting the proposal will examine the site and the premises and satisfy themselves as to the existing conditions under which the person submitting the proposal will be obligated to operate. Failure of the person submitting the proposal to notify the City, in writing, of any condition(s) or measurement(s) making it impossible to carry out the work as shown and specified, will be construed as meaning no such conditions exist and no additional moneys will be added to the contract. The submission of the proposal shall be considered conclusive evidence that the person submitting the proposal has investigated and is satisfied as to all conditions 7 to be encountered in performing the work, and is fully informed as to character, quality, quantities, and costs of work to be performed and materials to be furnished, and as to the requirements of the proposal forms. If the proposal is accepted, the person submitting the proposal will be responsible for all errors in his proposal resulting from his failure or neglect to comply with these instructions, and the City shall not be responsible for any charge for extra work or change in anticipated profits resulting from such failure or neglect. 4. Scope of Work – The person submitting the proposal shall supply all required supervision, skilled labor, transportation, new materials, apparatus, and tools necessary for the entire and proper completion of the work. This work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City. 5. Completeness – All information required by the Request for Proposal must be supplied to constitute a responsive proposal. The Person submitting the proposal shall include the completed Proposal Sheet. The City will strictly hold the person submitting the proposal to the terms of the proposal. The proposal must be executed by a person having the legal right and authority to bind the person submitting the proposal. 6. Error in Proposals – When an error is made in extending total prices, the unit proposal price and/or written words shall govern. Otherwise, the person submitting the proposal is not relieved from errors in proposal preparation. Erasures in proposals must be explained over signature of person submitting the proposal. 7. Withdrawal of Proposals – A written request for the withdrawal of a proposal or any part thereof may be granted if the request is received by the Director of Parks and Recreation prior to the Closing Date. 8. Person submitting the proposal Interested in More than One Proposal – Unless otherwise specified, if more than one proposal is offered by any one party, by or in the name of his or their agent, partner, or other persons, all such proposals may be rejected. A party who has quoted prices on work, materials, or supplies to other Persons submitting proposals is not thereby disqualified from quoting prices to other Persons submitting proposals or from submitting a proposal directly for the work, materials, or supplies. 9. Person submitting the proposal’s qualifications – No award will be made to any person submitting the proposal who cannot satisfy to the City that they have sufficient ability and experience in this class of work, as well as sufficient capital and equipment to do the job and complete the work successfully within the time named (i.e. responsible). The City’s decision or judgment on these matters shall be final and binding. The City may make such investigations as it deems necessary. The person submitting the proposal shall furnish to the City all information and data the City may request for the purpose of investigation. 8 10. Proposal Award for All or Part – Unless otherwise specified, proposals shall be submitted for all of the work or items for which proposals are requested. The City reserves the right to make award on all items, or any of the items, according to the best interests of the City. 11. Price – Management fees will be a flat monthly rate for all work described in the Specifications as noted above. The City is exempt, by law, from paying State and City Retailer’s Occupation Tax, State Service Occupation and Use Tax and Federal Excise Tax. The City will supply the successful person submitting the proposal with its tax exemption number. 12. Consideration of Proposal – No proposal will be accepted from or contract awarded to any person, firm or corporation that is in arrears or is in default to the City upon any debt or contract, or that is a defaulter, as surety or otherwise, upon any obligation to the City or had failed to perform faithfully any previous contract with the City. The person submitting the proposal, if requested, shall present within 48 hours evidence satisfactory to the City of performance ability and possession of necessary facilities, pecuniary recourses and adequate insurance to comply with the terms of these specifications and contract documents. 13. Execution of Contract – The successful person submitting the proposal shall, within fourteen (14) days after notification of the award: (a) enter into a contract in writing with the City covering all matters and things as are set forth in the specifications and his proposal and (b) carry insurance acceptable to the City, covering public liability, property damage, and workmen’s compensation. After the acceptance and award of the proposal and upon receipt of a written purchase order executed by the proper officials of the City, this Instruction to Persons submitting proposals, including the specifications, will constitute part of the legal contract between the United City of Yorkville and the successful person submitting the proposal. 14. Compliance with All Laws – All work under the contract must be executed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations which may in any manner affect the preparation of the proposal or performance of the contract. 15. Prevailing Wage – Not less than the prevailing rate of wages as established by the City shall be paid by the Contractor and each subcontractor to its laborers, workers, and mechanics constructing public works under this contract as determined by the Illinois Department of Labor pursuant to the Prevailing Wage Act (820 ILCS 130/0.01 et seq.). It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to monitor the prevailing wage rates for any increase in rates during the contract and adjust wage rates accordingly. The current prevailing wage rates are available on the Illinois 9 Department of Labor web site at www.state.il.us/agency/idol or by calling the United City of Yorkville at 630-553-4350. The Contractor and its subcontractors shall comply with Section 5 of the Act that requires the Contractor and its subcontractors to submit to the City monthly certified payroll records along with a statement affirming that such records are true and accurate, that the wages paid to each worker are not less than the required prevailing rate and that the Contractor or subcontractor is aware that filing records it knows to be false is a Class B misdemeanor. Each month's certified payroll(s) must be filed with the City before the end of the next month or prior to payment by the City for work that includes that payroll. 16. Compliance with the Substance Abuse Prevention on Public Works Projects Act – The Contractor and its Subcontractors shall comply with the Substance Abuse Prevention on Public Works projects Act (820 ILCS 265/1 et seq.) and prior to commencing work on a “public works” project (as defined in the Prevailing Wage Act) file with the City its program to comply with the Act or file that portion of its collective bargaining agreement that deals with the matters covered by the Act. 17. Equal Employment Opportunity – During the performance of the contract and/or supplying of materials, equipment, and suppliers, person submitting the proposal must be in full compliance with all provisions of the Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois relating to employment, including equal opportunity requirements. 18. Contract Alterations – No amendment of a contract shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the City Administrator or his authorized agent. 19. Notices – All notices required by the contract shall be given in writing. 20. Nonassignability – The Contractor shall not assign the contract, or any part thereof, to any other person, firm, or corporation without the previous written consent of the City Administrator. Such assignment shall not relieve the Contractor from his obligations, or change the terms of the contract. 21. Indemnity – To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officials, agents, and employees, against all injuries, deaths, loss, damages, claims, patent claims, suits, liabilities, judgments, cost, and expenses, which may in anywise accrue against the City, its officials, agents, and employees, arising in whole or in part or in consequence of the performance of this work by the Contractor, its employees, or subcontractors, or which may anywise result therefore, except that arising out of the sole legal cause of the City, its agents, or employees, the Contractor shall, at its own expense, appear, defend, and pay all charges of attorneys and all costs and other expenses arising therefore or incurred in connections therewith, and, if any judgment shall be 10 rendered against the City, its officials, agents, and employees, in any such action, the Contractor shall, at its own expense, satisfy and discharge the same. Contractor expressly understands and agrees that any performance bond or insurance policies required by this contract, or otherwise provided by the Contractor, shall in no way limit the responsibility to indemnify, keep, and save harmless and defend the City, its officials, agents, and employees as herein provided. 22. Insurance – In submission of a proposal, the person submitting the proposal is certifying that he has all insurance coverages required by law or would normally be expected for person submitting the proposal’s type of business. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Contractor shall provide commercial general liability insurance policy that includes products, operations and completed operations (with no exclusion for sexual abuse or molestation). Limits should be at least: Bodily injury & property damage with an occurrence limit of $1,000,000: Personal & advertising injury limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence: General aggregate limit of $2,000,000 (other than products and completed operations): Products and completed operations aggregate limit of $2,000,000. The policy shall name the City as an additional insured. Such coverage will be provided on an occurrence basis and will be primary and shall not contribute in any way to any insurance or self - insured retention carried by the City. Such coverage shall contain a broad form contractual liability endorsement or similar wording within the policy form. 23. Default – The City may terminate a contract by written notice of default to the Contractor if: a. The Contractor fails to make delivery of the materials or perform the services within the time specified in the proposal, or b. fails to make progress so as to endanger performance of the contract, or c. fails to provide or maintain in full force and effect, the liability and indemnification coverages or performance bond as required. If the City terminates the contract, the City may procure supplies or services similar to those so terminated, and the Contractor shall be liable to the City for any excess costs for similar supplies and services, unless the Contractor provides acceptable evidence that failure to perform the contract was due to causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor. 24. Inspection – The City shall have a right to inspect, by its authorized representative, any material, components, or workmanship as herein specified. Materials, components, or workmanship that has been rejected by the authorized representative as not in accordance with the terms of the specifications shall be replaced by the Contractor at no cost to the City. 11 25. Supplementary Conditions – Wherever special conditions are written into the specifications or supplementary conditions which are in conflict with conditions stated in these Instructions to Person submitting the proposal, the conditions stated in the specifications or supplementary conditions shall take precedence. 26. Permits and Licenses – The successful person submitting the proposal and their subcontractor(s) shall obtain, at their own expense, all permits and licenses which may be required to complete the contract. Fees for all City permits and licenses shall be waived. 27. Person submitting the proposal's Certification – - In compliance with the Illinois State Law that requires each person submitting the proposal to file a certification regarding proposal rigging and proposal rotating and that it is not delinquent in its taxes. 28. Change Orders – After the contract award, changes in or additions to the work and/or a change in the amount of money to be paid to the person submitting the proposal must be the result of an approved change order first ordere d by the Director of the lead department and approved by the City Administrator and/ or City Council. 29. Time of Completion – The successful person submitting the proposal shall completely perform its proposal in strict accordance with its terms and conditions within the number of consecutive calendar days after notification of award of the contract as stated in the proposal proposal. 30. Payment – Payment will be made within sixty (60) days after acceptance of a correct invoice for the work as covered within the contract documents. 31. Guarantees and Warranties – All guarantees and warranties required shall be furnished by the successful person submitting the proposal and shall be delivered to the City before final payment on the contract is issued. 32. Waiver of Lien – where applicable a waiver of lien and contractor’s affidavit must be submitted by the successful person submitting the proposal, verifying that all subcontractors and material invoices have been paid prior to the City approving final payment. 12 Notes to Design and Proposal: I, ____________________________, do represent that I am (title) ___________________ of (company) ________________________________, and that the attached submittal complies in all respects with the safety and accessibility standards as set forth in this request for proposals either by inclusion or by reference. Please attach required submittals and any additional supporting information. ___ Our firm has not altered any of the written texts within this document. Only those areas requiring input by the respondent have been changed or completed. ___ Our firm will comply with the Prevailing Wage requirements as outlined in section entitled “A. General Conditions” and Public Act 095-0635. If it is the Contractor’s intention to utilize a subcontractor(s) to fulfill the requirements of the Contract, the City must be advised of the subcontractor’s company name, address, telephone and fax numbers, and a contact person’s name at the time of proposal submittal. YES NO Will you be utilizing a subcontractor? ____ ____ If yes, have you included all required Information with your proposal submittal? ____ ____ I hereby certify that the item(s) proposed is/are in accordance with the specifications as noted and that the prices quoted are not subject to change; and that The Person submitting the proposal is not barred by law from submitting a proposal to the City for the project contemplated herein because of a conviction for prior violations of either Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 5/33E-3 (Proposal Rigging) or b720 ILCS 5/33-4 (Proposal Rotating); and that The Person submitting the proposal is not delinquent in payment of any taxes to the Illinois Department of Revenue in accordance with 65 ILCS 5/11-42.1; and that The Person submitting the proposal provides a drug free workplace pursuant to 30 ILCS 580/1, et seq., and that The Person submitting the proposal certifies they have a substance-abuse program and provide drug testing in accordance with 820 ILCS 130/11G, Public Act 095-0635; and that 13 The Person submitting the proposal is in compliance with the Illinois Human Rights Act 775 ILCS 5/1.101 et seq. including establishment and maintenance of sexual harassment policies and program. _____________________________________ ______________________________ Firm Name Signed Name and Title _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Street Address Print Name and Title _____________________________________ ____________________________________ City State Zip E-mail Address ______________________________________ ____________________________________ Phone Number Fax Number _____________________________________ Date J o h n S t W Veterans Pkwy Sycamore RdChestnut Ln Evergreen LnC o t t o n w o o d T r lAspen LnDi e h l F a r m Rd Willow WayRena LnCypress Ln Carolyn CtWhite Pine CtSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Fox Hill SSA Mowing and Maintenance Areas United City of Yorkv ille, Illinois Yorkville GIS 20 17 W alsh Dr S Bridge StS t a g e c o a c h T r l G r e e n B r i a r R d Wa l s h C i r Aster DrColumbine DrS u n f l o w e r C t F o u n t a i n v i e w D r Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Sunflower Estates SSA Mowing and Maintenance Areas United City of Yorkv ille, Illinois Yorkville GIS 20 17 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community Walsh Drive Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #15 Tracking Number PW 2017-35 Water Study Update Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 See attached. Bart Olson Administration Name Department Comprehensive Water Works System Master Plan - 2016 March 2017 WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 1 Page TC- 1 Page 1 WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co, IL TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION NO. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ i ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................E-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Previous Water Works System Planning Documents ...................................................... 1-2 1.3 Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Historical Population ........................................................................................................ 1-2 1.5 Projected Population ........................................................................................................ 1-4 2.0 EXISTING WATER WORKS SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Supply .............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.1 Shallow Sand and Gravel Wells.......................................................................... 2-4 2.2.2 Deep Sandstone Wells ....................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.3 Well Water Quality .............................................................................................. 2-4 2.3 Treatment ......................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.1 Wells No. 3 & 4 Water Treatment Plant (WTP) .................................................. 2-6 2.3.2 Well No. 7 Water Treatment Plant (WTP) ........................................................... 2-9 2.3.3 Wells No. 8 & 9 Water Treatment Plant (WTP) ................................................ 2-12 2.4 Storage .......................................................................................................................... 2-15 2.5 Distribution ..................................................................................................................... 2-19 2.5.1 Pressure Zones ................................................................................................. 2-19 2.5.2 Booster Pump Stations ..................................................................................... 2-19 2.5.3 Water Main Network ......................................................................................... 2-21 2.6 Controls .......................................................................................................................... 2-21 3.0 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WATER USE........................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Historical Water Use ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Historical System Evaluation .............................................................................. 3-2 3.1.2 Water Consumption ............................................................................................ 3-6 3.1.3 Water Audit ......................................................................................................... 3-7 3.2 Planning Period Projected Water Use ........................................................................... 3-10 3.2.1 Current Trends (CT) Water Use Projection & System Evaluation .................... 3-10 WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 2 Page TC- 2 Page 2 3.2.2 Water Conservation Goals & Strategies ........................................................... 3-13 3.2.2.1 Water Use Review ............................................................................... 3-13 3.2.2.2 BMP Overview ..................................................................................... 3-16 3.2.2.3 BMP Selection ..................................................................................... 3-20 3.2.2.4 Implementation .................................................................................... 3-23 3.2.3 Less Resource Intensive (LRI) Water Use Projection & System Evaluation .... 3-23 3.3 Projected Water Use Summary ..................................................................................... 3-26 4.0 REGULATORY REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Existing Water Works System Regulations ..................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Surface Water Treatment Rule ........................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Total Coliform Rule ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.3 Lead and Copper Rule ........................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.4 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule ......................................................... 4-3 4.1.5 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule .............................................. 4-3 4.1.6 Stage 1 Disinfectant / Disinfection Byproducts Rule........................................... 4-3 4.1.7 Radionuclides Rule ............................................................................................. 4-3 4.1.8 Arsenic Rule ........................................................................................................ 4-3 4.1.9 Filter Backwash Recycling Rule .......................................................................... 4-3 4.1.10 Long Term 1 Surface Water Treatment Rule ...................................................... 4-3 4.1.11 Long Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule ...................................................... 4-3 4.1.12 Stage 2 Disinfectant / Disinfectant Byproducts Rule .......................................... 4-4 4.1.13 Groundwater Rule ............................................................................................... 4-4 4.1.14 Total Coliform Rule ............................................................................................. 4-4 4.1.15 Radium Treatment Residuals Rule ..................................................................... 4-4 4.2 Near Future Water Works System Regulations ............................................................... 4-4 4.2.1 Radon Rule ......................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.2 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions ....................................................................... 4-5 4.2.3 Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) ..................................................................... 4-5 4.3 Potential Future Water Works System Regulations ......................................................... 4-5 4.3.1 MTBE .................................................................................................................. 4-5 4.3.2 Perchlorate .......................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.3 Sulfate ................................................................................................................. 4-6 5.0 SUSTAINABLE SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Existing Groundwater Resources in the Yorkville Area ................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Shallow Sand & Gravel and Shallow Bedrock Aquifers ...................................... 5-2 5.1.2 Deep Sandstone Aquifer ..................................................................................... 5-3 5.1.3 Sustainable Groundwater Supply Planning Map ................................................ 5-5 5.1.4 Sandwich Fault.................................................................................................... 5-7 5.2 Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling ................................................................................ 5-10 5.2.1 2050 Northeastern Illinois Regional Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling .......... 5-10 5.2.2 2050 CT Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling With Proposed Ironton- Galesville Wells ................................................................................................. 5-11 5.2.3 2050 LRI Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling With Proposed Ironton- Galesville Wells ................................................................................................. 5-14 WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 3 Page TC- 3 Page 3 5.2.4 2050 MCT Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling With Partial Alternate Aquifer Withdrawal ........................................................................................................ 5-14 5.2.5 2050 CT Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling With Proposed Ironton- Galesville Wells and Joliet Moves To Predominantly Surface Water ............... 5-14 5.2.6 2050 LRI Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling With Proposed Ironton- Galesville Wells and Joliet Moves To Predominantly Surface Water ............... 5-15 5.2.7 Model Results Summary ................................................................................... 5-15 5.3 Fox River ........................................................................................................................ 5-16 5.3.1 Fox River Watershed ........................................................................................ 5-16 5.3.2 Historical Fox River Flows ................................................................................ 5-17 5.3.3 Fox River Flow Withdrawal Locations ............................................................... 5-18 5.3.4 Potential Fox River Flow Projections ................................................................ 5-18 5.3.5 Fox River Withdrawal Permitting ....................................................................... 5-20 5.4 Lake Michigan Interconnection ...................................................................................... 5-21 6.0 WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT EVALUATION .................................................................. 6-1 6.1 CT Water Supply & Treatment Evaluation ....................................................................... 6-2 6.1.1 CT Water Supply Expansion ............................................................................... 6-2 6.1.1.1 Water Wells ............................................................................................ 6-2 6.1.1.2 Fox River Intake & Water Wells ............................................................. 6-5 6.1.2 CT Water Treatment Expansion ......................................................................... 6-7 6.1.2.1 Well Treatment Systems ........................................................................ 6-7 6.1.2.2 Fox River Intake & Water Wells ............................................................. 6-7 6.2 LRI Water Supply & Treatment Evaluation .................................................................... 6-12 6.2.1 LRI Water Supply Expansion ............................................................................ 6-12 6.2.1.1 Water Wells .......................................................................................... 6-12 6.2.1.2 Fox River Intake & Water Wells ........................................................... 6-14 6.2.2 LRI Water Treatment Expansion ....................................................................... 6-14 6.2.2.1 Well Treatment Systems ...................................................................... 6-14 6.2.2.2 Fox River & Water Well Treatment System ......................................... 6-14 6.3 Water Supply and Treatment Improvements Cost Estimates ........................................ 6-16 6.3.1 Alternate 1A: CT Water Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates .......................... 6-16 6.3.2 Alternate 1B: LRI Water Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates .......................... 6-16 6.3.3 Alternate 2A: CT Water Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates .......................... 6-16 6.3.4 Alternate 2B: LRI Water Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates .......................... 6-16 7.0 WATER STORAGE & DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION ................................................. 7-1 7.1 Model Development ......................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Information Gathering ......................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1.1 Pipe Network .......................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.1.2 Pressure Zones ...................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.1.3 Water Storage Tanks ............................................................................. 7-2 7.1.1.4 Water Treatment Plants ......................................................................... 7-3 7.1.1.5 Booster Pump Stations (BPSs) .............................................................. 7-3 7.1.1.6 Ground Elevations ................................................................................. 7-3 7.1.1.7 Water Use Demands .............................................................................. 7-3 WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 4 Page TC- 4 Page 4 7.1.2 Field Reconnaissance ......................................................................................... 7-3 7.1.2.1 Site Visit To Key Water Facilities ........................................................... 7-3 7.1.2.2 Fire Flow Testing ................................................................................... 7-3 7.1.2.3 Static Pressures ..................................................................................... 7-4 7.1.3 Model Verification................................................................................................ 7-4 7.1.3.1 North Pressure Zone (Orange) .............................................................. 7-9 7.1.3.2 North Central Pressure Zone (Purple) ................................................... 7-9 7.1.3.3 South Pressure Zone (Green) ................................................................ 7-9 7.1.3.4 South Central Pressure Zone (Yellow) .................................................. 7-9 7.1.3.5 Summary and Observations ................................................................ 7-10 7.2 Existing Distribution System Evaluation......................................................................... 7-11 7.2.1 Evaluation Scenario Development .................................................................... 7-11 7.2.1.1 Demands .............................................................................................. 7-11 7.2.1.2 High Service Pumps ............................................................................ 7-11 7.2.1.3 Goals .................................................................................................... 7-12 7.2.2 Maximum Day Demand Analysis ...................................................................... 7-13 7.2.3 Fire Flow Analysis ............................................................................................. 7-15 7.2.4 Peak Hour Demand Analysis ............................................................................ 7-18 7.2.5 Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................. 7-18 7.2.6 Existing Distribution System Recommended Improvements ............................ 7-18 7.2.6.1 North Pressure Zone ............................................................................ 7-18 7.2.6.2 North Central Pressure Zone ............................................................... 7-19 7.2.6.3 South Pressure Zone ........................................................................... 7-19 7.2.6.4 South Central Pressure Zone .............................................................. 7-20 7.2.6.5 Overall System General Observations ................................................ 7-20 7.3 System Expansion Evaluation ....................................................................................... 7-21 7.3.1 Water Storage Evaluation ................................................................................. 7-21 7.3.1.1 Water Storage Evaluation - CT ............................................................ 7-21 7.3.1.2 Water Storage Evaluation - LRI ........................................................... 7-21 7.3.2 Water Distribution System Assumptions ........................................................... 7-22 7.3.2.1 Transmission Main Layout ................................................................... 7-22 7.3.2.2 Pressure Zone Boundaries .................................................................. 7-22 7.3.2.3 Demands .............................................................................................. 7-22 7.3.3 Booster Pumping Facilities - CT ....................................................................... 7-22 7.3.4 Pressure Reducing Valve Facilities - CT .......................................................... 7-23 7.3.5 Water Storage Facilities - CT ............................................................................ 7-23 7.3.6 Distribution System Expansion Analysis Results .............................................. 7-23 7.4 Water Storage and Distribution Improvements Cost Estimates .................................... 7-24 7.4.1 Alternate No. 1A – Supply By Wells.................................................................. 7-24 7.4.2 Alternate No. 2 – Supply By Fox River Intake (Yorkville Only) and Wells ........ 7-27 7.4.3 Alternate No. 3 – Supply By Fox River Intake (Sub-Regional) and Wells ........ 7-30 7.4.4 General Considerations For Water Distribution System Planning - Alternates No. 1, 2, and 3................................................................................................... 7-33 8.0 SUB-REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT ANALYSIS ........................................... 8-1 8.1 Sub-Regional Planning Area ............................................................................................ 8-1 WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 5 Page TC- 5 Page 5 8.2 Sub-Regional Historical & Projected Population .............................................................. 8-1 8.3 Sub-Regional Historical & Projected Water Use .............................................................. 8-3 8.4 Sub-Regional Existing Water Supply and Treatment Systems ....................................... 8-6 8.4.1 Sub-Regional Supply Sources ............................................................................ 8-6 8.4.2 Sub-Regional Treatment Systems ...................................................................... 8-6 8.4.3 Sub-Regional Existing Water Quality Summary ................................................. 8-8 8.5 Sub-Regional Fox River Withdrawal Considerations ....................................................... 8-8 8.5.1 Withdrawal Capacity ........................................................................................... 8-8 8.5.2 Potential Withdrawal Locations ........................................................................... 8-9 8.5.3 Backup Water Supply ......................................................................................... 8-9 8.6 Fox River Water Treatment Options .............................................................................. 8-14 8.6.1 Conventional Lime Softening ............................................................................ 8-14 8.6.2 Membrane Treatment ....................................................................................... 8-14 8.6.3 Lime Softening & Membrane Treatment ........................................................... 8-15 8.7 Sub-Regional Water Distribution Evaluation .................................................................. 8-17 8.7.1 Transmission Mains .......................................................................................... 8-17 8.7.2 United City of Yorkville Distribution Upgrades .................................................. 8-19 8.8 Sub-Regional Costs ....................................................................................................... 8-19 8.8.1 Sub-Regional Current Trends Water Use Scenario Costs ............................... 8-20 8.8.2 Sub-Regional Less Resource Intensive Water Use Scenario Costs ................ 8-21 8.8.3 Sub-Regional Transmission Main Costs ........................................................... 8-21 8.8.4 United City of Yorkville Sub-Regional Improvement Costs Summary .............. 8-21 8.8.5 Sub-Regional LRI Improvement Costs Summary ............................................. 8-22 8.9 Sub-Regional Water Supply & Treatment Additional Considerations ............................ 8-22 8.9.1 Fox River Alternatives Comparison .................................................................. 8-22 8.9.2 Projected Water Supply & Treatment Water Bill Comparison .......................... 8-23 8.10 Sub-Regional Water Supply & Treatment Additional Considerations ............................ 8-25 9.0 WATER WORKS SYSTEM EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 9-1 9.1 Water Supply and Treatment Evaluation & Recommendations ...................................... 9-1 9.1.1 CT Water Supply and Treatment Evaluation & Recommendations .................... 9-1 9.1.2 LRI Water Supply and Treatment Evaluation & Recommendations ................... 9-2 9.2 Water Storage Evaluation & Recommendations ............................................................. 9-3 9.2.1 CT Water Storage Evaluation & Recommendations ........................................... 9-3 9.2.2 LRI Water Storage Evaluation & Recommendations .......................................... 9-4 9.3 Water Distribution and Pressure Zone Evaluation & Recommendations ........................ 9-4 9.4 Recommended Improvements Summary ........................................................................ 9-5 9.4.1 CT Water Works System Master Plan ................................................................ 9-5 9.4.2 LRI Water Works System Master Plan ............................................................... 9-6 9.5 Water Works System Phasing and Implementation Plan ................................................ 9-6 9.5.1 CT Implementation Plan ..................................................................................... 9-7 9.5.2 LRI Implementation Plan ..................................................................................... 9-7 9.5.3 Capital Cost Savings With LRI Water Use Commitment .................................... 9-7 9.6 Water Works Connection Fee Analysis ......................................................................... 9-11 10.0 SUSTAINABLE WATER WORKS SYSTEM PLANNING ........................................................... 10-1 WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 6 Page TC- 6 Page 6 LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Historical Population .................................................................................................................... 1-4 1-2 Projected Population .................................................................................................................... 1-5 2-1 Existing Water Supply Summary ................................................................................................. 2-3 2-2 Well Water Quality Summary ....................................................................................................... 2-5 2-3 Wells No. 3 & 4 Water Treatment Plant Unit Process Summary ................................................ 2-8 2-4 Well No. 7 Water Treatment Plant Unit Process Summary ....................................................... 2-11 2-5 Wells No. 8 & 9 Water Treatment Plant Unit Process Summary ................................................ 2-14 2-6 Existing Water Storage Summary ............................................................................................... 2-15 2-7 Recommended Pressures By AWWA, Ten State Standards, & USEPA .................................... 2-16 2-8 Pressure Zone Summary ............................................................................................................ 2-17 2-9 Booster Pumping and Pressure Reducing Valve Stations Summary ......................................... 2-20 3-1 Historical Water Production ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3-2 Water Works System Evaluation - Historical Analysis ................................................................. 3-4 3-3 Water Works System Evaluation - Historical Analysis Corresponding Available or Required Capacity .................................................................................................................... 3-4 3-4 Water Accounting ......................................................................................................................... 3-8 3-5 Water Audit Summary and Comparison ....................................................................................... 3-9 3-6 Projected Water Use – CT ......................................................................................................... 3-11 3-7 Water Works System Evaluation – CT ........................................................................................ 3-12 3-8 Water Works System Evaluation – CT Corresponding Available or Required Capacity ............ 3-12 3-9 Evaluation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Conservation………………. ....... 3-18 3-10 Summary of BMP Evaluation for the United City of Yorkville LRI Water Demand Scenario ...... 3-21 3-11 Potential Water Savings Calculation Assumptions by BMP ....................................................... 3-22 3-12 Potential Water Savings from Water Conservation and Efficiency ............................................. 3-22 3-13 Projected Water Use – Less Resource Intensive ....................................................................... 3-24 3-14 Water Works System Evaluation – LRI ....................................................................................... 3-25 3-15 Water Works System Evaluation – LRI Corresponding Available or Required Capacity ........... 3-25 3-16 Water Use Projection Summary .................................................................................................. 3-26 4-1 Drinking Water Regulation Compliance Summary ....................................................................... 4-2 5-1 Historical Drought Information .................................................................................................... 5-18 5-2 Monthly Distribution of Probability of the Fox River Reaching Q7,10 Low Flow Rates at Dayton, IL……… ......................................................................................................................... 5-19 5-3 Deficit Days of Select Drought Years at Dayton, IL .................................................................... 5-20 5-4 Fox River Low Flow Scenarios for Yorkville Withdrawal Location .............................................. 5-21 6-1 Fox River Water Quality Summary ............................................................................................... 6-8 7-1 Flow and Pressure Comparison (Model vs Field Data) ............................................................... 7-7 7-2 Summary of High Service Pumps in the Water Model ................................................................ 7-12 7-3 Summary of Water Storage Tank Levels in the Water Model..................................................... 7-12 7-4 Future Demand Summary for Undeveloped Land ...................................................................... 7-22 7-5 CIP - Summary of Conceptual Cost Estimates ........................................................................... 7-25 7-6 Water Works System Master Plan Alternates 1A and1B Cost Estimate Summary .................... 7-27 7-7 Alternate 2 - Water Distribution System Recommended Improvements Summary of Conceptual Cost Estimates ....................................................................... 7-28 7-8 Water Works System Master Plan Alternates 2A and 2B Cost Estimate Summary ................... 7-30 WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 7 Page TC- 7 Page 7 7-9 Alternate 3 - Water Distribution System Recommended Improvements Summary of Conceptual Cost Estimates ....................................................................... 7-31 8-1 Community Water Use Characteristics ......................................................................................... 8-4 8-2 Sub-Regional 2050 Water Use Project Distribution ...................................................................... 8-6 8-3 Backup Well Water Supply To Meet 2050 Average Day Demand - CT ..................................... 8-10 8-4 Backup Well Water Supply To Meet 2050 Average Day Demand - LRI ..................................... 8-11 8-5 Water Works System Master Plan Cost Estimate Summary – CT and LRI ............................... 8-20 8-6 Sub-Regional Capital Cost Distribution – LRI ............................................................................. 8-22 8-7 Water Works System Master Plan Water Rates Analysis – LRI ................................................. 8-24 9-1 Water Works System Phasing & Implementation Plan - CT ......................................................... 9-7 9-2 Water Works System Phasing & Implementation Plan – LRI ....................................................... 9-9 9-3 Capital Cost Savings with LRI Water Use Commitment ............................................................. 9-11 9-4 Water Works System Improvements Connection Fee Analysis ................................................. 9-12 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1-1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1-2 Historical and Projected Population Summary ............................................................................. 1-5 2-1 Existing Water Works System ....................................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Wells No. 3 & 4 Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram................................................... 2-7 2-3 Well No. 7 Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram ......................................................... 2-10 2-4 Wells No. 8 & 9 Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram................................................. 2-13 2-5 Water Works System Hydraulic Profile ....................................................................................... 2-18 3-1 Water Consumption by Customer Class ....................................................................................... 3-7 3-2 Average Daily Water use – Baseline & Irrigation (2010-2014) ................................................... 3-14 3-3 Average Indoor and Outdoor Water use in a Residential Non-Conserving Home ..................... 3-15 3-4 Historical and Projected Water Use Summary ........................................................................... 3-27 5-1 2006 Potentiometric Surface of Sand and Gravel Aquifers and Shallow Bedrock Aquifers ......... 5-3 5-2 Modeled Heads in 2005 for the Ancell Sandstone Aquifer ........................................................... 5-5 5-3 Modeled Heads in 2005 for the Ironton-Galesville Aquifer ........................................................... 5-5 5-4 Sustainable Groundwater Supply Planning Map .......................................................................... 5-6 5-5 Bedrock Surface Hydrogeology of Kendall County Illinois ............................................................ 5-8 5-6 North/South View of Illinois Aquifers ............................................................................................. 5-9 5-7 East/West View of Illinois Aquifers ................................................................................................ 5-9 5-8 Historical and Projected Water Levels in Select Wells ............................................................... 5-12 5-9 2014 Head and Projected 2050 Drawdown in the Regional Deep Sandstone Aquifer .............. 5-13 5-10 Historical Fox River Withdrawal Information for Elgin and Aurora .............................................. 5-17 5-11 Potential Illinois American Yorkville Water Delivery Location ..................................................... 5-22 6-1 Alternate 1A Water Supply and Treatment Plan – CT .................................................................. 6-4 6-2 Alternate 2A Water Supply and Treatment Plan – CT .................................................................. 6-6 6-3 Split Treatment Lime Softening Process....................................................................................... 6-9 6-4 Upflow Solids Contact Lime Softening Process Flow Diagram .................................................. 6-11 6-5 Alternate 1B Water Supply and Treatment Plan – LRI ............................................................... 6-13 6-6 Alternate 2B Water Supply and Treatment Plan – LRI ............................................................... 6-15 7-1 Flow Test Results .......................................................................................................................... 7-5 7-2 Hazen Williams C-Factor – Verified Water Model ........................................................................ 7-6 7-3 Existing Static Pressures < 40 PSI Conditions – Tanks at Low Levels ...................................... 7-14 WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 8 Page TC- 8 Page 8 7-4 Existing Static Pressures > 80 psi – Tanks Are Full ................................................................... 7-16 7-5 Fire Flow Deficiencies Per the Model ......................................................................................... 7-17 7-6 Alternate 1A Water Works System Plan – CT ............................................................................ 7-26 7-7 Alternate 2A Water Works System Plan – CT ............................................................................ 7-29 7-8 Alternate 3A Water Works System Plan – CT ............................................................................ 7-32 8-1 Sub-Regional Study Area.............................................................................................................. 8-2 8-2 Sub-Regional Historical and Projected Population Summary ...................................................... 8-3 8-3 Water Usage Comparison – CT .................................................................................................... 8-5 8-4 Water Usage Comparison – LRI ................................................................................................... 8-5 8-5 Existing Water Works Systems Within the Sub-Region ................................................................ 8-7 8-6 Alternate 3A Sub-Regional Backup Water Supply Transmission Network – CT ........................ 8-12 8-7 Alternate 3B Sub-Regional Backup Water Supply Transmission Network – LRI ....................... 8-13 8-8 Process Flow Diagram for the Proposed Sub-Regional LSWTP ................................................ 8-16 8-9 Water Distribution Planning Exhibit – CT and LRI ...................................................................... 8-18 8-10 Capital and Net Present Value Cost Comparison - LRI .............................................................. 8-22 8-11 Projected 2025 Typical Residential Water Bill- LRI .................................................................... 8-25 8-12 Potential Sub-Regional Phasing and Implementation Plan ........................................................ 8-26 9-1 Alternate 3B Water Works System Master Plan – LRI ............................................................... 9-10 APPENDICES A Well Schematics B Potential Water Savings from Water Conservation and Efficiency C Yorkville Location Fox River Streamflow as Compared to Length of River D Sub-Regional Location Fox River Streamflow as Compared to Length of River E Lake Michigan Allocation Network 2012 F Illinois American Water Delivery Modeling G Detailed Cost Estimates “ WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page i Page i Page i COMPREHENSIVE WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 United City of Yorkville, IL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mayor Gary J. Golinski Alderman Carlo Colosimo Alderman Ken Koch Alderman Jacquelyn Milschewski Alderman Larry Kot Alderman Chris Funkhouser Alderman Joel Frieders Alderman Seaver Tarulis Alderman Diane Teeling City Administrator City Clerk Bart Olson Beth Warren Finance Director Public Works Director Rob Fredrickson Eric Dhuse Community Development Director Water Department Foreman Krysti Barksdale-Noble Tom Konen “ WATER W ORKS SYSTEM M ASTER PLAN - 2016 Page ii Page ii Page ii ABBREVIATIONS MEANING ADD AVERAGE DAY DEMAND AMCL ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL AWWA AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION BAC BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVATED CARBON BCL BOTTOM CAPACITY LINE BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE BP/PRV BOOSTER PUMPING / PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE BPS BOOSTER PUMP STATION CCL CONTAMINANT CANDIDATE LIST CF CUBIC FEET CFS CUBIC FEET PER SECOND CLCJAWA CENTRAL LAKE COUNTY JOINT ACTION WATER AGENCY CITY UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CIP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CMAP CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AGENCY FOR PLANNING CMAP PLAN 2050: NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND PLAN CT CURRENT TRENDS DBP DISINFECTANT/DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT DWC DUPAGE WATER COMMISSION EWST ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK FBRR FILTER BACKWASH RECYCLING RULE FF FIRE FLOW FPS FEET PER SECOND FT FOOT GAL GALLON(S) GIS GRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM GPCD GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY GPM GALLONS PER MINUTE GST GROUND STORAGE TANK GWR GROUND WATER RULE (2006) GWS GROUNDWATER SYSTEM “ WATER W ORKS SYSTEM M ASTER PLAN - 2016 Page iii Page iii Page iii GWUDI GROUND WATER UNDER THE DIRECT INFLUENCE OF SURFACE WATER HE HIGH EFFICIENCY HAA5 HALOACETIC ACIDS HGL HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE HET HIGH EFFICIENCY TOILET IDSE INITIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION IDNR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IEMA ILLINOIS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY IEPA ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IESWTR INTERIM ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE IN INCH(ES) ILI INFRASTRUCTURE LEAKAGE INDEX ISGS ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ISO INSURANCE SERVICE OFFICE ISWS ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY IWC ILLINOIS WATER COMPANY JAWA JOINT ACTION WATER AGENCY LCR LEAD AND COPPER RULE (1991) LRAA LOCATIONAL RUNNING ANNUAL AVERAGE LRI LESS RESOURCE INTENSIVE LT2SWTR LONG TERM 2 SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE MCL MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL MCLGs MAXIMUM CONTAMINATE LEVEL GOALS MOU THE CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MMM MULTIMEDIA MITIGATION MRDLGs MAXIMUM RESIDUAL DISINFECTANT LEVEL GOALS MRDLs MAXIMUM RESIDUAL DISINFECTANT LEVELS MDD MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND MG MILLION GALLONS MGD MILLION GALLONS PER DAY MG/L MILLIGRAMS PER LITER MHD MAXIMUM HOUR DEMAND (PEAK HOUR DEMAND) MRI MORE RESOURCE INTENSIVE MSL MEAN SEA LEVEL “ WATER W ORKS SYSTEM M ASTER PLAN - 2016 Page iv Page iv Page iv MTBE METHYL-T-BUTYL ETHER NFPA NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION NSMJAWA NORTHWEST SUBURBAN MUNICIPAL JOINT ACTION WATER AGENCY PCI/L PICOCURIES PER LITER PE POPULATION EQUIVALENT PLC PROGRAMMING LOGIC CONTROLLERS PPB PARTS PER BILLION PPC PUBLIC PROTECTION CLASSIFICATION PPM PARTS PER MILLION PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH RO REVERSE OSMOSIS RTBR ROAD TO BETTER ROADS RWSP REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN SCADA SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SDWA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT SIU SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE SF SQUARE FEET SFU SINGLE FAMILY UNIT SMCL SECONDARY MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL TCL TOP CAPACITY LINE TCR TOTAL COLIFORM RULE TTHM TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE UCM UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING UCMR UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING RULES UG/L MICROGRAMS PER LITER USEPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY USGS UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UV -AOP ULTRA VIOLET ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESS VFD VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE WIFIA WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION ACT WM WATER MAIN WRT WATER RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY, LLC WTP WATER TREATMENT PLANT WWTF WASTEWATE R TREATMENT FACILITY “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 1 Page E-1 Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United City of Yorkville is a flourishing community that is situated on the western edge of the Chicago suburbs. The City is the Count y Seat of Kendall County and has many scenic and recreational assets . Much like the surrounding communities, Yorkville saw a decrease in development during the economic downturn. Recently, Yorkville has once again begun to see an increase in growth within the City. Meanwhile, regional projections suggest the population in Northeastern Illinois (11 county region of Cook, Lake, DuPage, Will, Kane, Kendall, McHenry, Dekalb, Boone, Kankakee and Grundy) may increase to more than 12 million by 2050, which is an increase of nearly 4 mi llion from the 2000 census population. With this increase in growth, there will be additional demand on the region’s water resources. Regional water planning by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency For Planning (CMAP) led Regional Water Supply Planning Group (RWSPG) have quantified the water supply and demand relationship throughout the region, and have concluded water conservation is necessary to pro vide for a sustainable region. In addition, there are portions of Northeastern Illinois whose current water supp ly will not be sustainable even with conservation and without growth. Given the anticipated growth, the City wisely decided it was an ideal time to reevaluate the long -term expansion of the City ’s Water Works System. Therefore, the City embarked on completing this Comprehensive Water Master Plan. The main goal of this plan is to provide planning to maintain a sustainable and cost-efficient Water Works System for current and projected future water uses . In addition to evaluating the needs for the United City of Yorkville alone, the report will evaluate the needs for the combined communities of Montgomery, Yorkville and Oswego in order to determine the feasibility of combining water procurement and treatment resources. This master plan als o evaluates water demands based on business as usual or current trends (CT) scenarios, as well as a less resource intensive (LRI) scenario that would occur if Yorkville committed to moderate water conservation best management practices . Less water use typically results in less infrastructure needs. Finally, t his report outlines the capital costs savings that would be associated with moderate water conservation. The Water Works System Master Plan is divided into ten sections. A summary of each of the sectio ns follows. Introduction The current United City of Yorkville corporate limits encompass es about 20.15 square miles while the planning area outside of the corporate boundary adds another 52.77 square miles of land for a total of 72.92 square miles of land within the study area. The City offers many opportunities for growth with a significant amount of undeveloped land in the northern and southern portions of the study area and infill growth within the existing City limits. These areas will one day provide homes to new City residents, as well as contribute to the local economy with new commercial, industrial and institutional land uses. Based “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 2 Page E-2 Page 2 on the 2010 US Census, the City ’s population was estimated to be 16,921. CMAP estimates the United City of Yorkville’s population will grow at a rate of 3.2% until 2040. If this growth rate remains constant for ten years after 2040, the City is projected to have a population of 59,565 people in 2050. Existing Water Works System The United City of Yorkville first installed a public water supply that was sourced from springs located in a hillside in 1886. These hillside springs were sufficient until 1923 when the City constructed its first well. The City has since built a total of eight wells, five of which a re still being utilized by the City. Wells No. 1 and 2 were both decommissioned and W ell No. 5 was sold to the City of Plano after its construction was completed. While the water quality withdrawn from the deep sandstone wells is goo d, all of the wells exceed the maximum contaminant limit (MCL) of 5.0 pCi/l for combined radium. The City utilizes c ation exchange treatment at all of the WTPs to reduce the combined radium levels below its MCL . The c ation exchange water treatment process also softens the w ater. Wells No. 3 and 4 are tributary to the same water treatment plant (WTP ) at the heart of the City, Well No. 7 and its WTP are located in the southern area of the City , and Wells No. 8 and 9 are located in the northeastern area of the City and share a WTP. The City ’s Water Works System contains five elevated water storage t anks (EWSTs) that ha ve a combined storage of 4.55 million gallons (MG). The City’s water main network consists of approximately 150 miles of 1” to 16” pipe and operates as four pressure zones . The City utilizes a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to monitor the supply, treatment, storage and distribution components of the Water Works System. With Staff’s continual focus on system mainte nance, the Water Works System components are currently in good condition. Historical and Projected Water Use The City’s water use from 2010–201 4 was reviewed to identify water use tren ds for the Water Works System. The water supply and storage systems were assessed for adequacy using evaluation parameters that rate the adequacy of their components. The evaluation concluded that the water supply and storage were sufficient for the 2010-2014 evaluated period and will continue to be sufficient for the nea r-future. If current trends are followed, the City will need to add additional supply around 2025 and additional storage around 2040. If moderate conservation efforts result in a LRI scenario , the City will need additional supply around 2035 and additional storage after 2045. The average 2010 –2014 water use for the City was calculated to be 88 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) with an average maximum day demand to average day demand (MDD:ADD) ratio of 1.91. Typically, residential and commercial development engenders higher water use due to the amount of water it takes to start landscaping a previously undeveloped area. In order to project business as usual trends, t he per capita usage was rounded up to 90 gpcd and the MDD:ADD ratio was rounded up to 2.0 in order to allow “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 3 Page E-3 Page 3 for factor of safety . An assumed value of 2.0 was used to establish the max hour demand to max day demand ratio (MHD:MDD). The needs assessment calculations determined that if current trends are followed, the water supply and treatment deficit in 2050 would be approximately 6,700 gpm and the storage deficit would be 1.7 MG. The City does have the potential of reducing that deficit, though. In an effort t o define a reasonable LRI demand scenario for the City , a systematic process was used to efficiently review available information, select relevant water conservation strategies and calculate estimated savings. Following a review of the 13 water conservation measures recommended by the CMAP and a quantification of the amount of demand reduction applicable for the United City of Yorkville, it was determined the projected water use per capita per day could be reduced by 11% to 80 gpcd under the LRI demand projection. Utilizing a 80 gpcd usage rate, a MDD:ADD ratio of 1.75 and a MHD:MDD ratio of 2.0, the 2050 LRI projected water demands were developed. The water supply and treatment deficit is cut to approximately 4,2 00 gpm under the LRI scenario. The water storage capacity deficit is reduced to 0.63 MG, which is less than half of the CT value. Regulatory Review A comprehensive review of the existing and future regulations was conducted to determine the current and future regulatory status of the Water Works System. The City ’s Water Works System is meeting all existing and near future regulations . If the City decides to switch their water source to surface water from the Fox River, they will become subject to applicable surface water regulations. Sustainable Source Water Assessment Groundwater from shallow and deep aquifers , surface water from the Fox River and surface water from Lake Michigan were all evaluated for their long-term ability to serve as Yorkville’s potable water source. A review of the underlying Sub-Regional planning area revealed that the potential for municipal shallow sand and gravel or shallow bedrock wells is low in the Yorkville area. Regional modeling of the deep sandstone aquifer indicates its long-term sustainability could be an issue in parts of Northeastern Illinois by 2050. As part of this planning effort, m ultiple groundwater withdrawal and future local well configurations were evaluated through the use of the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) regional deep sandstone water model. All models indicate that the deep sandstone aquifers will likely be sustainable not too far past 2050. Of course, the rate of desaturation is highly dependent on how much Yorkville and the surrounding communities are withdrawing from the deep aquifers. While obtaining water from the deep sandstone wells is currently the most economical option, it is unwise to completely dewater this aquifer before switching to an alternate water source. Depleting the aquifer may result in the drying up of private or public wells , water quality concerns and a lack of backup supply once another source is identified . “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 4 Page E-4 Page 4 Modeling completed by the ISWS revealed that the Fox River is able to serve as a sustainable source of Yorkville’s water for the average and maximum day futur e demands. While the Fox River would typically be able to provide all source water, under certain scenarios (such as drought or poor water quality) the City of Yorkville would need to utilize an alternate water source . The low flow years are projected to occur once in 10 -20 years on the long -term average. That being said, historical research along with future conditions analyses with the ILSAM surface water model demonstrated the likely number of low flow days per year where Yorkville would need to have a backup supply of water would be minimal. Therefore, if the deep aquifer is used as the back -up supply source, it would be a sustainable backup supply due to its minimal long term use. The use of surface water from Lake Michigan was also evaluated. While portions of the Illinois American system appear to have capacity, the cost for extending service to the City (including the piping and connection fees) would be cost prohibitive. For the basis of this report and for the 205 0 planning period, use of the Fox River, either alone or in conjunction with the neighboring communities of Montgomery and Oswego , is deemed as the most sustainable option. Water Supply and Treatment Evaluation The sustainable source water assessment revealed that the aquifer used by the United City of Yorkville is expected to be unable to sustain Yorkville’s projected long-term water demands. This section outlines the first four of the six total water demand and procurement scenarios to be considered by the United City of Yorkville. The last two alternatives (3A and 3B) are evaluated in the Sub -Regional Water Supply and Treatment Analysis section. All six alternatives are outlined below.  Alternative 1A (1A -CT) – The City’s 2050 CT projected water demand is met entirely by collecting groundwater from deep sandstone wells.  Alternative 1B (1B -LRI) - The City’s 2050 LRI projected water demand is met entirely by collecting groundwater from deep sandstone wells.  Alternative 2A (2A-CT) – The City’s 2050 CT projected water demand is met by using surface water from the Fox River and from one additional deep sandstone well. All current wells will be used as backup.  Alternative 2B (2B -LRI) – The City’s 2050 LRI projected water demand is met entirely by using surface water from the Fox River. All current wells will be used as backup.  Alternative 3A (3A -CT) – The United City of Yorkville’s, the Village of Oswego’s and the Village of Montgomery’s 2050 CT projected water demands are met entirely by constructing a surface water treatment plant near the Fox River/Orchard Road intersection that is capable of providing water for all three communities. Select current and future wells will be used as backup.  Alternative 3B (3B-LRI) – The United City of Yorkville’s, the Village of Oswego’s and the Village of “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 5 Page E-5 Page 5 Montgomery’s 2050 LRI projected water demands are met entirely by constructing a surface water treatment plant near the Fox River/Orchard Road intersection that is capa ble of providing water for all three communities. Select current and future wells will be used as backup. If the City were to continue to use groundwater as their main water source , as outlined in Alternatives 1A and 1B, it is recommended that the City continue to treat their water using cation exchange water treatment plants. These facilities can remove the cations associated with hardness, as well as the cations that cause hardness in water. The locations of Alternates 1A and 1B water infrastructure, along with additional descriptions, can be found in section 6. If the City were to utilize the Fox River as a main water source, it is recommended to use lime-softening as the main treatment mechanism. Lime softening can b e used to treat hardness and other contaminants found in the Fox River. The locations of Alternates 2A and 2B water infrastructure, along with additional descriptions, can be found in section 6. Water Storage and Distribution Evaluation Water storage and distribution were also evaluated. Modeling included information gathering for the pipe network, pressure zones, water storage tanks, booster pump stations and ground elevations. Information gathering also took place for water treatment plants and water us e demands. While some information was provided by the City, there were on -site visits to key water facilities as well as fire flow and static pressure testing in several areas . The measurement of fire flow and static pressure testing assisted with model verification for all scenarios. Modeling was completed both for the existing infrastructure, as well as for potential future Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 as listed in the Water Sup ply and Treatment Evaluation. Modeling for the exi sting scenario was based off of knowledge of the existing system coupled with knowledge of the existing water demands. Comparison of the calculated maximum day demands and maximum hour demands found that th e calculated and modeled demands were higher than the actual demands, which lead to a conservative model. Modeling of the existing water distribution system revealed no major issues. While there are some areas with marginally higher than optimal water pre ssure levels and some areas with marginally lower than optimal water pressure levels, all water pressures meet the applicable standards. Modeling of fire flow demands revealed no major issues; however, flows within the North pressure zone were generally lo w due to a lack of looped mains. The City plans to continue to connect dead -end water mains as land is developed and funds become available. The North Central pressure zone has some of the most notable fire flow demand issues; the combination of the older, smaller water mains in combination with the higher fire flow demands of businesses compared to residential areas are the primary causes of the issue. It is recommended the City take into consideration the replacement of these water mains as funds become “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 6 Page E-6 Page 6 a vailable and as land develops. There were no specific improvements listed for the South Central or North Pressure Zones. Scenarios for both the CT and LRI trends gave a need for additional storage regardless of water supply and treatment alternatives . The projected CT storage deficit was approximately 1,624,000 gallons per day and the projected LRI storage deficit was approximately 631,000 gallons per day . All scenarios assumed the addition of a 2.0 MGD EWST within the planning period. While the new EWST would be oversized for the LRI demand scenario, it would fit with the projected future demands beyond 2050. The addition of an 2.0 MG EW ST was evaluated at a capital cost of $4.9 million for all scenarios. As stated in Section 3, if the City were to alternate to a less resource intensive water use scenario, the City would be able to put the EWST online later than if the City continued to use water at their current rate. Water Distribution for all three sc enarios was also evaluated. Water distribution for A lternates 2 and 3 presented more changes to the Alternate 1 distribution system due to the change in a multi -point system (from several wells) to a single-point distribution system (from a Fox River intake and WTP). Alternates 1, 2 and 3 had proposed water distribution estimated costs of approximately $4.5 million, $22.2 million and $22.6 million respectively. All three scenarios include costs for necessary capital improvements projects as well as for projects which are not necessary b ut should be completed as funds become available and roads are repaved. Sub-Regional Water Supply and Treatment Analysis The feasibility of constructing a Sub -Regional Fox River intake and WTP that would be able to serve Montgomery, Yorkville and Oswego through the year 2050 was evaluated. The analysis was based off population projections and water usage projections for all three communities . CMAP projected population growth rates , along with the ope n area within each community were considered to evaluate population projections in 2050. In order to evaluate likely future water usage projections, historic water usage trends for each community was considered. Two different scenarios for water usage projections were evaluated for each community. The CT water scenario evaluated the water needs that if each community continued to use water at historical rates . The LRI water use scenario evaluated a water scenario where each community makes a moderately higher commitment to water conservation strategies. The projected 2050 populations of Montgomery, Yorkville and Oswego are 42,000, 59,565 and 90,996 respectively. If each community continues to use water according to current trends, the combined maximum day demand water needs of the sub -region are 32.9 MGD. If each community commits to more water conservation tactics, the combined maximum day demand of the Sub-Region is 24.8 MGD. Aquifer modeling completed as part of this project has revealed evidence that the aquifer utilized for the majority of each com munities ’ water needs is being used at a rate which is unsustainable. Modeling of the projected scenarios revealed that while the aquifer has no threat of dewatering in the short term, if the “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 7 Page E-7 Page 7 aquifer continues to be used unsustainably , the aquifer may dewater to a point where it is at the top of the Ironton-Galesville within the next few decades. The ability of the Fox River to provide water for all three communities under various demand scenarios was evaluated. It was determined that the Fox River is a viable source of potable water for a Sub - Regional WTP. If a Sub-Regional intake and WTP were to be built, the proposed best area would be in the Orchard Rd/Fox River corridor in the western area of Oswego. This location would allow for near equidistant travel between the main distribution infrastructure for Montgomery, Yorkville and Oswego. This central location would ensure that the water age for all communities is similar and that the costs for distribution mains are fairly split between communities. Final ly, the central location would allow for the connection of existing and future wells to the WTP to serve as a backup source of water during events where the Fox River may not be able to be used. These events may include droughts or periods of poor water quality. The costs of each community to utilize the Sub-Regional WTP was evaluated as part of this study. This evaluation considered the projected capital and operating costs for the WTP and distribution system split between each community based on usage. Section 8.9 outlines the projected change to the average Montgomery, Yorkville and Osw ego water bills and Section 8.9 also compares the projected average monthly water bill of the communities to other communities which are utilizing surface wate r. The analysis completed shows that all three communities would have lower or comparable rates to other local communities using surface water. The Sub -Regional analysis also outlined the next steps that must be taken if the United City of Yorkville were to decide to build a Sub-Regional WTP with the neighboring communities of the Village of Montgomery and the Village of Oswego. Water Works System Evaluation and Recommendations This report evaluated the United City of Yorkville’s future water use based on two different water demand scenarios and three different supply and treatment scenarios. This section outlines the recommended improvements for Alternatives 3A and 3B, which are the recommended sc enarios. The recommended improvements will meet the projected water supply and treatment needs of the United City of Yorkville given both CT and LRI demand scenarios. The recommendations are broken down into general, supply & treatment and storage & distribution. Under the CT demand scenario, the following improvements are recommended:  CT General o Governance $20,000  CT Supply & Treatment: o Fox River Water Quality Testing $45,000 “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 8 Page E-8 Page 8 o Land Acquisition $400,000 o WTP Component Pilot Testing $33,000 o Well No. 6 $2,419,000 o Well No. SR-1 $2,339,000 o 32 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Station $2,389,000 o 32 MGD Single Stage Claricone® $24,290,000 o Well Transmission Mains $9,616,000 o Treated Water Transmission Mains $12,990,000  CT Storage & Distribution: o EWST No. 6 (2.0 MG) $4,870,000 o Water Distribution System Improvements $22,561,000 With the reduction in water demands for the LRI scenario, the planning period system needs decrease. The changes to the recommended improvements with a future water demand that is consistent wi th the LRI projections are as follows:  LRI General o Governance $20,000  LRI Supply & Treatment: o Fox River Water Quality Testing $45,000 o Land Acquisition $400,000 o WTP Component Pilot Testing $33,000 o Well No. 6 $2,419,000 o Well No. SR-1 $714,000 o 25 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Station $2,161,000 o 25 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone® LSWTP) $21,886,000 o Well Transmission Main $9,298,000 o Treated Water Transmission M ains $12,990,000  LRI Storage & Distribution: o EWST No. 6 (2.0 MG) $4,870,000 o Water Distribution System Improvements $22,561,000 The costs were split into immediate, near-future and long-term investments . The total projected capital cost of the CT scenario was $82.1 million and the total projected capital cost of the LRI scenario was $77.5 million. The recommended path going forward is the LRI path which is projected to save the City over $4.5 million. If the City pairs with the communities of Montgomery and Oswego, those communities are projected to save on capital costs by switching to a LRI scenar io, as well. Although both population and approximate timeframes for improvements were provided as part of the Master Plan Phasing and Implementation Plans, it will ultimately be the water demands on the system “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 9 Page E-9 Page 9 that dictate when and what improvements will need to be constructed. Additionally, if the sub -regional WTP moves forward, the City should be aware of the time frames that will be associated with such a major project. As the City continues to mature, expand and practice water conservation strategies, the water demands will evolve. It is recommended the City continuously monitor and evaluate its Water Works System as they develop. The staging of these water works improvements is dependent on the construction schedule and financing of annexed and proposed developments. Sustainable Water Works System and Wastewater System Planning The over $4.5 million capital cost difference between the CT and LRI water scenarios clearly demonstrates the financial benefits of a modest reduction in per capita water use through increased water conservation. To that end, this Water Works Master Plan is a valuable planning tool and stepping stone for the City ’s Water Works System. The next steps for the City are to review the existing policies regarding the City’s water conservation strategies and goals and to develop financing alternatives for the identified improvements. By evaluating water conservation opportunities, the City will not only show how they c ontinue to be good stewards of our limited resource of water, but the City also has the potential to significantly reduce the required capital investment in the Water Works S ystem. Next steps for the City also include working with the communities of Mon tgomery and Oswego in order to move the potential Sub-Regional WTP forward. A Sub-Regional surface water treatment plant would likely be more cost -effective for the United City of Yorkville to complete and operate than a surface water treatment that only treats Yorkville’s water. Whether the City chooses to move forward with a sub -regional WTP or a local surface water treatment plant is an important decision the City should work with the other communities in order to discover. It is known that at the current rate at which the aquifer used by the City is being pumped, is unsustainable. This Master Plan advocates similar goals to those of the regional water supply planning efforts championed by CMAP . The water supply sources of the western portion of Northeastern Illinois know no political boundaries. Their geographic extent is such that their availabilities are dependent on everyone’s wise use of the resource. “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 1 Page 1-1 Page 1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION The United City of Yorkville is a flourishing community that is situated approximately 45 miles southwest of downtown Chicago. Illinois Route 47, Illinois Route 71, and US R oute 34 all pass throug h Yorkville. The Fox River, which offers multiple scenic and recreational amenities, is at the heart of the City. The City has rich history; it was settled in 1833, named in 1836 and officially incorporated as a c ity in 1874. The United City of Yorkville had originally been two separate cities located on different sides of the Fox River– Yorkville and Bristol. The c ities merged to form the United City of Yorkville in 1975. Currently, the City has a population of approximately 20,000 people and offers many amenities such as parks, recreation centers, easy commutes to Chicago and nearby continued education. Yorkville is also the county seat of Kendall County. The City’s population has grown significantly over the last two decades and the utility infrastructure has grown proportionately to meet the added demands . In the latter part of the 2000s and early part of the 2010 s, the housing market took a downward turn and residential growth in the community went to a near standstill. With the indicators for development pointing towards another period of population growth , City leadership prudently decided it was a wise time to reevaluate the asset planning and expansion approach of the Water Works System. Therefore, the City engaged EEI to assist with the completion of this Comprehensive Water Works System Master Plan. 1.1 Purpose The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) continuo usly conducts regional planning for the Chicago Metropolitan Area. In addition to conducting housing, transportation and population growth planning, the agency also provides planning for water resources . With the development of CMAP ’s Water 2050 plan, the Regional Water Supply Planning Group has concluded the current supply of water within Northeastern Illinois will be unable to meet the regional current trends water use for portions of the planning area. Therefore, it is imperative that the region place a focus on developing a framework for water supply planning and management including water conservation measures as a means to extend our limited water supply resources. Because the population growth for the United City of Yorkville is expected to significantly increase, it is wise to consider the effect the additional future population will have on the City’s existing resou rces and the resources shared throughout Northeastern Illinois. With the United City of Yorkville’s sustainability focus, and with the recommendations of Water 2050, the City decided it would be appropriate to evaluate the expansion of the Water Works System under two water demand scenarios. Utilizing water demand terminology from Water 2050, the Current Trends (CT) water demand scenario will evaluate the expansion of the system under “business as usual” water use patterns. Following a review of potential water conservation programs and establishment of water conservation goals, a Less Resource Intensive (LRI) water demand projection will be created. The system expansion will then be “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 2 Page 1-2 Page 2 planned under the lower demand projection, as well. Lastly, the capital co st for the improvements needed to expand the system to meet both demand projections will be compared to determine the capital cost savings with the higher water conservation commitment. In addition to defining the expansion of the Water Works System and e valuating the capital cost savings of a focused community wide comprehensive conservation effort, this report also will present findings from a sustainable source water assessment and a regulatory audit review. With sustainability at this Master Plan’s core, the United City of Yorkville will have the roadmap for expanding and operating a sustainable Water Works System into the future. 1.2 Previous Water Works System Planning Documents As the growth and water use patterns of the City have changed, the United City of Yorkville has continued to plan for the infrastructure management and expansion of their Water Works System. The most recent Water Works System Planning efforts prior to this Master Plan were the 1999/2000 Water System Project Plan and associated update in 2004. Where applicable, the findings of these reports and studies are referenced and built upon within the context of this Master Plan. The ‘Groundwater Studies for Water Supply Planning in Kendall County, Illinois’ document is also referenced. This document was prepared by the Prairie Research Institute and outlines various intricacies of the groundwater system in Kendall County . 1.3 Study Area The study area for this report , as well as , the City’s corporate boundaries are depicted on Exhibit 1-1. The current City corporate limits encompass about 20.15 square miles while the planning area outside of the corporate boundary adds another 52.77 square miles for a total of 72.92 square miles within the s tudy area. Exhibit 1-1 also identifies the neighboring communities’ corporate limits . 1.4 Historical Population Table No. 1-1 provides the City’s population figures from 19 60 to 2014. Yorkville experienced relatively moderate growth between 196 0 and 1990, growing from 1,568 persons in 196 0 to 3,925 persons in 1990. Like many communities located in northeastern Illinois, Yorkville grew significantly throu ghout the 1990s and early 2000s. From 1990 to 2000 the population grew over 58% whereas the decade of 20 00 to 2010 saw an expansive growth of 173%. By 20 14, the City ’s population had grown to just under 18,000 people as identified in the Special Census conducted that year. PLANO JOLIET PLATTVILLE YORKVILLE YORKVILLE OSWEGO MONTGOMERY WALKER F O X BRIDGEGALENA ASHLEYHELMARR IV E R BRISBINGROVEMILL AMENT BUDD VETERANSELDAMAINMINKLERCATON FARMIMMANUELHALEORCHARD CHURCHWHEELER LISBONMA IN CORNEILS SEARS KENNEDYHUGHES HOPKINSFOX RIVERABE L E GIONNEEDHAMBASELINE RESERVATION C H IC A G O L E EVILMEN HOLLENBACKMILLER FAXONROCK CREEKV A N E M M O N CENTE R PENMANDICKSONBENSPRING HIGHPOINTBLOCKCONCORD TUMA US RO U T E 3 4 FIELDS MI LLBROOKC A N N O N B A L L US ROUTE #34 SUN D O W NGORDON P OPL ARSTAGECOACHNORTH PAVI LLI ONS C HA E FE R ASHETROON GR A ND E TUSCA N Y JOHNBEECHER CO U N TRYL I TTLE ROCKSCHOOLHOUSE FAIRWAYGATES B RIS T O L RID G E BIG ROCKHOFFMA N FO L IMCHUGHPARKF A IRFAXMAYFIELDHILLTOP ALICE A UDREYJETERRICKARDSOMONAUK SLEEPY HOLLOWERICA MILLHU R STPRAIRIEBERTRA M WRENCLARKPA R K SID E M E AD O W STATEHENNING KAT E LEWIS B E RRYWOOD ALDENK EN DAL L B O OM B A H HUNT C LUB M A P L E R I V E R S I D E O RCHIDBIS ONBAILEY A N D R EWWALNUTMUSTAN G JUL IE ROBE RTS WINDIN G C R E E K W H IT E TA I L RI D G E RON HI L L D E R BY MARKETVIEWQ U I N S E Y EL D E N SYCAMOREC O L O N I A L LANDMARKESTAKENSEY B E R N A D E T T E WATERCRESS DOEBENTSON BUELLC L O V E R F O X S TA G E C O AC H F O X ASHLEYGROVELISBONLISBONSTAGECOACHFAXON CHURCHLegend Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits Aurora Corporate Limits Joliet Corporate Limits Montgomery Corporate Limits Oswego Corporate Limits Sugar Grove Corporate Limits Plattville 0 3,000 6,000 9,0001,500 Feet EXHIBIT 1-1 STUDY AREA DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: AUGUST 2015 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH1-1.MXD JPS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 4 Page 1-4 Page 4 1.5 Projected Population Forecasting future population patterns in a geographic location can be very complex. Economic conditions, social perspectives, governmental influences, environmental factors and many other circumstances can disrupt population dynamics. A perfect example of a situation that altered the City ’s potential population growth pattern occurred just in the last few ye ars. With the rapid growth trends of the 1990s and early 2000 s, and the available land remaining to develop within the planning boundary, the City was preparing for a continued steady population increase. However, with the subsequent downturn in the econ omy, the situation has changed and now the City is trying to balance Water Works System planning for a moderate growth rate consistent with current patterns, all the while preparing for a potential upswing in the economy that could attract a massive influx of developers back to the City . Nevertheless, reasonable population projections should be made utilizing the most current, best available sources of information in order to establish a baseline for determining immediate, near-future and long-term Water W orks System needs. The United City of Yorkville offers many opportunities for population growth with a significant amount of undeveloped l and throughout the outer limits of the study area and infill within the existing City limits. When a municipality in Northeastern Illinois is preparing a Master Plan, the basis for population projections is often those published by CMAP. CMAP had estimated a population of 43,486 for the year 2040; from that calculation, the growth rate was calculated to be 3.20% per a nnum. That growth rate was then projected from 2014 to 2050 using the same growth rate projected through 2040 and found to be 59,565. The projected population trends are summarized in Table No. 1 -2 and graphed with the historical trends in Exhibit 1-2. Table No. 1-1: Historical Population Table No. 1-1: Historical Population United City of Yorkville, IL United City of Yorkville, IL Annual % Year Population Increase 1960 1,568 -- 1970 2,049 2.7% 1980 3,422 5.3% 1990 3,925 1.4% 2000 6,189 4.7% 2003 8,789 12.4% 2005 11,204 12.9% 2008 16,838 14.5% 2010 16,921 0.2% 2014 17,878 1.4% “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 5 Page 1-5 Page 5 United City of Yorkville, IL Annual % Year Population Increase 2010 16,921 3.20% 2015 19,804 3.20% 2020 23,178 3.20% 2025 27,126 3.20% 2030 31,747 3.20% 2035 37,156 3.20% 2040Δ 43,486 3.20% 2045 50,894 3.20% 2050 59,565 3.20% Notes: Δ CMAP 2040 population projection Table No. 1-2: Projected Population “ Page 2-1 Page 1 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 1 SECTION 2: EXISTING WATER WORKS SYSTEM The United City of Yorkville’s existing Water Works System can be divided into five main components, namely: 1) supply, 2) treatment, 3) storage, 4) distribution and 5) controls. The condition of all of the City ’s Water Works System facilities is excellent. It is obvious City s taff operates and maint ains the system with diligence and intelligence. In order to establish a foundation for asset management and system expansion, an inventory of the existing system must first be completed. Following a brief overview of the City ’s Water Works System, this section of the report will provide that inventory. Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the existing layout of the City’s Water Works S ystem. 2.1 Overview The initial water supply for Yorkville was installed in 1886. The supply water was obtained from springs located on a hillside about 0.5 miles south of town. The springs were located approximately 2,400 feet north and 1,400 feet east of the southwest corner of Section 4, Township 36 North, Range 7 East (Woller and Gibb). Water was collected by tiles within the springs, stored in a collecting reservoir located at the site of the springs and then piped to the water distribution system in town. As the town grew, the springs were capable of producing only a portion of the water supply to meet the consumer demands. Additionally, because the springs were sometimes adversely affected by seasonal fluctuations, su ch as drought, they were not reliable and the need for additional water resources became apparent. Well No. 1 was built to supplement the spring water in 1923, and W ell No. 2 was built to eliminate the need for the springs in 1954. Well No. 1 was taken out of service in 1964 and W ell No. 2 has also been abandoned. Since then, W ells No. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 have all been built to take care of the water needs for Yorkville. Well No. 5 has since been sold to Plano, but the remaining wells are all still in se rvice. The City’s three water treatment plants (WTPs) were constructed in the 2000s. Elevated water storage tanks (EWSTs) have been added to the system and water main extension have been completed as the City grew. 2.2 Supply The United City of Yorkville currently utilizes the deep sandstone aquifer as its sole source of water supply. The construction and capacity characteristics of the City ’s five (5) deep water wells are summarized in Table No. 2-1 along with a summary of the pumping equipment and maintenance history. The City had historically obtained water from the shallow sand and gravel deposits , as well as , the Galena- Platteville, Glenwood-St. Peter and Ironton-Galesville Formations . The following sections provide detailed descriptions of the City’s former and current sources of water supply. ( i!( i! MN i!GF GFi!( ( i!#MN #MN Legend Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits i!Elevated Water Storage Tank (EWST) GF Water Treatment Plant MN BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,5001,250 Feet EXHIBIT 2-1 EXISTING WATER WORKS SYSTEM DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: AUGUST 2015 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH2-1.MXD JPS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 1.0 MG NORTH EWST 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST WELL NO. 8, WELLS NO. 8 & 9 WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELL NO. 9 NORTH BP/PRV STATION NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION WELL NO. 4 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST WELL NO. 3 WELLS NO. 3 & 4 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST WELL NO. 7, AND WELL NO. 7 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH BP/PRV STATION “ Page 2-3 Page 3 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 3 DEPTH (BELOW GRADE)EQUIPMENTDESIGN CONDITIONWELLCASINGPUMPINSTALLFLOWTDHSGSLGPSPIGCOMS(FT)(FT)(FT)DATE(GPM)(FT)SS5052009600550BJ/FS - 11MQH 9 StageBJ 150 HP, 14" H, 460VRebuiltRefurbishedPulled due to severe sand wear of bowl, a fairly constant issue with this well that typically produces 650-675 GPM. The City minimizes use of this well.5052008700550BJ/FS - 11MQH 9 StageBJ 150 HP, 14" H, 460VRefurbishedNewMotor Replaced due to Presumed Lightning Strike; Pump Reused5002004700550BJ/FS - 11MQH 9 StageBJ 200 HPRebuiltNewMotor Replaced due to Presumed Lightning Strike; Pump Rebuilt due to Sand CorrosionUN1998700UNBJ/FS - 11MQH 9 StageBJ 175 HPNewUNTV Survey Showed 16-Inch Casing Badly Corroded, So Raised Pump Setting. During the well rehab, it was noted that the power cable had some nicks.UN1991650550BJ/FSBJNewNewWell Development with Primacord 1 LB Block Shots - Created Current Sand Issues; Modified to Pump Into System Rather Than ReservoirUN1972UNUNUN100 HP WestinghouseUNUNNoneUN1960650UNUN100 HP WestinghouseNewNewNoneSS140166520081,100655BJ/FS - 13/12MQLH(5)L(5) 10 StageBJ 250 HP 14" H 460VNewRefurbishedNo apparent sand issues. The well was bailed to a new depth of 1401 ft.54219921,225650BJ/FS - 13MQL/12MQL 10 StageBJ 250 HP 14" H 460VRefurbishedRefurbishedNone56919761,000650BJ/FS - 13MQ/12MQL 10 StageBJ 250 HP 14" H 460VNewNewWork started in August of 1975, finished in January of 1976.S1,10520071,2001,270BJ/FS - 13MQ/12MQH(9)L(6) 15 StageBJ 400 HP 17" H 2,300 VRebuiltRebuiltRepairs were required due to pipe separation with culminated in fishing of pipe, bowl, motor and cable. Motor sent back for routine factory repair, bowl rebuilt, all pipe rethread and new cable.1,12520041,0001,270BJ/FS - 13MQ/12MQH(9)L(6) 15 StageBJ 400 HP 17" H 2,300 VNewNewNone8S1,38493084020041,100900BJ/FS - 13MQ/12MQH5L7 12 stageBJ 400 HP 17" H 2,300VNewNewThere is a well rehab scheduled to begin in 2015.S87020091,1001,000BJ/FS - 13MQ/12MWH5L9 14 StageBJ 400 HP 17" H 2,300VRebuiltRebuiltWell rehab included repairs due to pipe separation, similar to well #7. Reused motor & bowl, rethreaded all pipe and furnished new cable.87020041,0001,000BJ/FS - 13MQ/12MQH5L9 14 stageBJ 400 HP 18" H 2,300VNewNewNone5,100GPM7.34MGD3,900GPM5.62MGDNotes:f Aquifer Designations: SG = Sand & Gravel; SL = Silurian Dolomite; GP = Galena-Platteville Dolomite; SP = St. Peter (Ancell) Sandstone; IG = Ironton-Galesville Sandstone; MS = Mt. Simon Sandstone, CO = Cambrian-Ordovicianf UN = UnknownTable No. 2-1: Existing Water Supply SummaryUnited City of Yorkville, ILWELL NO.AQUIFERINSTALLED MANUFACTURER AND TYPEPUMPING ASSEMBLY COMMENTS31335430 (AND 88' OF 12" I.D. LINER FROM DEPTH OF 723' TO 811')PUMPMOTORPUMPMOTOR44761,393TOTAL FLOW CAPACITY ALL SOURCES:TOTAL FIRM CAPACITY:1,5271,31891,3681,1707 “ Page 2-4 Page 4 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 4 2.2.1 Shallow Sand and Gravel Wells (Abandoned) – Well No. 2 was completed in 1954 to a depth of 42 feet by Layne Christensen and has since been abandoned. Little documentation is available regarding the history of W ell No. 2. Well No. 5 was completed in 1998 to a depth of 91 feet by Layne Christensen. This well was located northwest of the intersection Route 34 and Eldamain Road. When the pump was installed, the stati c water level was 23 feet from grade. The well was sold to the City of Plano in 2007 – the well was never connected to the United City of Yorkville’s Water W orks system. 2.2.2 Deep Sandstone Wells – Well No. 1, which was drilled in 1923 to a depth of 590 feet by B.L. Palmer and Sons, was taken out of service in 1964 and sealed in 1970. This well was open to the Galena-Platteville and the Glenwood-St. Peter Formations. Well No. 3, which is open to the St. P eter (Ancell) aquifer, was drilled in 1960. Well No. 3 has had some maintenance problems due to sand and oth er issues – for that reason it is not utilized as much as the other wells and will likely be abandoned prior to the end of the planning period. Well No. 4 was constructed in 1976. Well No. 4 is onsite with the Wells No. 3 & 4 WTP and the Tower Lane water tower. It is approximately 1401 feet deep and is open to the St. Peter-Ancell and the Ironton-Galesville aquifer. Wells No. 7, 8 and 9 were all constructed in 2004 into the Ironton-Galesville aquifer at a depth of 1538 feet, 1384 feet and 1368 feet respectively . More information about the City’s well const ruction can be found in Table No. 2-1. The combined raw water capacity of all of the City ’s wells is 5,100 GPM whereas the firm capacity with the largest well out of service is 3,900 GPM. Schematics for each of the City ’s existing water wells are included in Appendix A of this report. Section 5 reviews the deep aquifer system and evaluates its continued use as a sustainable water supply source. 2.2.3 Well Water Quality – Table No. 2-2 presents a summary of the water quality of the raw water from the City ’s active wells. It should be pointed out that the values listed were obtained from the latest available data provided by the City or obtained from the IEPA Drinking Water Watch website. It is recommended that the City sample and test the raw water for those wells with results listed from sample collection dates more than a few years old. “ Page 2-5 Page 5 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 5 Table No. 2-2: Well Water Quality SummaryUnited City of Yorkville, ILWellBedrock AquiferfAlkalinityHardnessCaMgpHSO42-TDSNaClNH3AsBaCN-FFeMnRa-226Ra-228Comb. RaNo.SGSLGPSPIGCOMS(mg/l as CaCO3)(mg/l as CaCO3)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l as N)(ug/l)(mg/l)(ug/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(pCi/l)(pCi/l)(pCi/l)CommentsN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A102200410.15N/AN/A5N/AN/AN/AN/A6.5-8.5250500N/A250N/A10220020.30.05N/AN/A53SS343*284*165.5*115.6*7.2*19.8*318*21.1*4.13*0.56*ND**0.088*NR0.71*0.17*0.006*10.9*4.43*15.33**Data from USGS Survey, 2014; **Data from 2015 reported by Tom Konen.4SS319*298*1751207.5NR360*18.04.50.15ND**0.13NR0.860.20ND*7.9*6.5*14.4**Data from a Well Water Quality Summary report in 2000; and The Basis of Design. **Data from 2015 reported by Tom Konen.7S288*282*1701127.63*12*304*21.5*10*NRND***ND*NR0.76ND*ND*3.7**5.8**9.5***Data from a 'TestAmerican Analytical Testing Corporation Analytical Report' (2004). ** Data from ARRO Laboratory Testing in 2005. ***Data from 2015 reported by Tom Konen.8S2902521531047.5NR26523.08.0NRND*NDNR0.820.16ND2.610.913.5*Data from 2015 reported by Tom Konen. Otherwise values found in the design summary YO0316.9S290270173977.5NR28017.45.0NRND**NDNR0.820.31ND3.9*4.7*8.6**Data from ARRO Laboratory Testing in 2005. **Data from 2015 reported by Tom Konen.Notes:f Aquifer Designations: SG = Sand & Gravel; SL = Silurian Dolomite; GP = Galena-Platteville Dolomite; SP = St. Peter (Ancell) Sandstone; IG = Ironton-Galesville Sandstone; MS = Mt. Simon Sandstone, CO = Cambrian-OrdovicianCa = Calcium; Mg = Magnesium; SO42- = Sulfate; TDS = Total Dissolved Solids; Na = Sodium; Cl = Chloride; NH3 = Ammonia; As = Arsenic; Ba = Barium; F = Fluoride; Fe = Iron; Mn = Manganese; Ra-### = Radium; Comb. Ra = Combined Radium 226 & 228; NR = No Record Found; ND = Non DetectHighlighted value indicates raw water concentration exceeds Primary MCL for parameter. In all cases, treatment is in place to reduce concentration below the MCL. Routine monitoring is required.Highlighted value indicates raw water concentration exceeds Secondary MCL for parameter. In some cases, treatment is in place to reduce concentration below the MCL. Routine monitoring is recommended.Highlighted value indicates raw water concentration for parameter that may be approaching Primary or Secondary MCL or may cause water quality issues. Routine monitoring is recommended.Primary MCLSecondary MCL “ Page 2-6 Page 6 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 6 2.3 Treatment The United City of York ville operates three WTPs , two of the WTPs are connected to two wells each, and one WTP only has one connected well. All three of the WTPs employ process es that provide drinking water that meets or exceeds federal and state drinking water quality standards. Cation exchange is used at every facility to remove barium, radium, hardness and to a certain degree, iron from the connected deep well s. 2.3.1 Wells No. 3 and 4 Water Treatment Plant (WTP) – The Wells No. 3 and 4 WTP was originally constructed in 2006. It includes four vertical cation exchange vessels, chemical treatment mechanisms, and equipment for backwashing the cation exchange resins. Regeneration wat er from the cation exchange vessels is captured in the below slab concrete backwash holding tank and then drains into the sanitary sewer system. Chemical treatment includes disinfection with chlorine gas, blended phosphates for corrosion control and hydrofluosilicic acid for fluoridation. Exhibit 2-2 presents a flow diagram depicting Well No. 3 and 4 WTP unit processes. Table No. 2-3 provides summary information on Wells No. 3 and 4 WTP unit processes. An inventory and audit of each process identified some potential deficiencies or asset management elements that should be considered for the planning period. S Resin analysis should be considered, to EEI’s knowledge, the resin has not been tested since its installment in 2006. S A motor protective relay should be considered for the electrical gear. S Replacing the brine system Badger Flow Meters with Mag-Meters should be considered. “ Page 2-7 Page 7 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 7 Exhibit 2-2: Well No. 3 & 4 Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram United City of Yorkville, IL “ Page 2-8 Page 8 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 8 Table No. 2-3: Wells No. 3 & 4 Water Treatment Plant Unit Process SummaryUnited City of Yorkville, ILTreatment Application Point No.Process UnitComponentsYear InstalledTotal Years in OperationLast ModificationConditionSizeDesign Loading Rate *Design CapacityComments and RecommendationsWells No. 3 & 4 Water Treatment PlantCation Exchange (CE)4 Vertical Pressure Vessels - 17" Gravel, 3" Torpedo Sand, 48" (254 cf) CE Resin per tank20069N/AGood9' Dia x 8' Sidewall Height EachSurface Loading Rate: 4.99 GPM/SF @ 317 GPM6.65 GPM/SF MaxSoftening and radium removal. Consider resin analysis. No painting since the original.Backwash Holding TankConcrete Structure Below Treatment Room Floor20069N/AGoodDepth = 6.5', Length = 45.0', Width = 12.0', Volume = 25,262 gallonsN/AN/A2" Restrictor and 6" Overflow PipeBrine PumpWatson-Marlow Brine Feed Pump 20069N/AGood34 GPM @ 14.7 PSI; 5 HPN/A34 GPMConsider Replacing Brine System Badger Flow Meters with Mag-MetersBrine TankBrine Storage Tank20069N/AGood2 - 12'-0" x 12'-0" x 7'-3" (Max Salt Bed Depth) Tank Sections (Overall Tank Dimensions 27'-0" x 21-'0")N/AN/AChlorine Gas DisinfectionChemical Feed Equipment20069N/AGoodDual Cylinder Scale, 2 Booster Pumps each rated for 10 GPM @ 100 PSI and 1.5 HP, Injector, Regulator and Dual Switch Over ValveN/AN/AAdded before entering distribution systemHydrofluosilicic AcidChemical Feed Equipment20069N/AGood2 Day Tanks w/ Scale; 2 Feed Pumps: 10 GPD @ 140 PSIN/AN/AAdded before entering distribution systemPhosphateChemical Feed Equipment20069N/AGood2 Day Tanks w/ Scale; 2 Feed Pumps: 24 GPD @ 110 PSIN/AN/AOrtho/Poly blend For corrosion control and sequestering; Added before entering distribution systemElectrical GearMotor Control Centers20069N/AGoodN/AN/AN/ACutler-Hammer Freedom 2100 Motor Control Center, consider motor protective relayControlsAB PLC & OIT20069N/AGoodN/AN/AN/A1 Main PLC and 1 Softener PLCEmergency Electrical SupplyNo Generator; Wall Mounted Generator Cabinet/Receptacle and Manual Transfer SwitchN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ATemporary Generator Sizing Should be ConfirmedNotes:Design Loading Rates are per IEPA standards and/or published water treatment plant design manuals. Supply Wells No. 3 & 4 “ Page 2-9 Page 9 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 9 2.3.2 Well No. 7 Water Treatment Plant (WTP) – The Well No. 7 WTP was constructed in 2005. The WTP acts nearly identically to the Well s No. 3 & 4 WTP. The treatment train begins with three vertical cation exchange vessels and then the typical municipal water treatment chemicals are added. Chemical treatment includes disinfection with chlorine gas, blended phosphates for corrosion control and hydrofluo silicic acid for fluoridation. Regeneration water from the cation exchange vessels is captured in the below slab concrete backwash holding tank and then pumped into the sanitary sewer system . There is no emergency generator for W ell No. 7. Exhibit 2-3 presents a flow diagram depicting Well No. 7 WTP unit processes. Table No. 2-4 provides summary information on Well No. 7 WTP unit processes. An inventory and audit of each process identified some potential deficiencies or asset management elements that should be considered for the planning period. S To EEI’s knowledge, the resin has not been tested since its installment in 2005; a resin analysis for the WTP should be considered. S A motor protective relay should be considered for the electrical gear. “ Page 2-10 Page 10 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 10 Exhibit 2-3: Well No. 7 Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram United City of Yorkville, IL “ Page 2-11 Page 11 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 11 Treatment Application Point No.Process UnitComponentsYear InstalledTotal Years in OperationLast ModificationConditionSizeDesign Loading Rate *Design CapacityComments and RecommendationsWell No. 7 Water Treatment PlantCation Exchange (CE)3 Vertical Pressure Vessels - 17" Gravel, 3" Torpedo Sand, 48" (254 cf) CE Resin per tank200510N/AGood8' Dia x 8' Sidewall Height EachSurface Loading Rate: 5.97 GPM/SF @ 300 GPM7.04 GPM/SF MaxSoftening and radium removal. Consider resin analysis. No painting since the original.Backwash Holding TankConcrete Structure Below Treatment Room Floor200510N/AGoodDepth = 7'-3", Length = 32'-4", Width = 12'-0", Volume = 21,042 gallonsN/AN/A2" Restrictor and 6" Overflow PipeBrine PumpBarnant Ponndorf Brine Feed Pump 2005102005Good34 GPM @ 14.7 PSI ;5 HPN/A34 GPMBrine TankBrine Storage Tank200510N/AGood2-9'-6" x 9'-6" x 7'-3" (Max Salt Bed Depth) Tank Sections (Overall Tank Dimensions 21'-2" x 18'-0")N/AN/AChlorine Gas DisinfectionChemical Feed Equipment2005102015 - Well 7 Booster Pump ReplacedGoodDual Cylinder Scale, Booster Pump rated for 10 GPM @ 100 PSI, 1.5 HP, Injector, Regulator and Dual Switch Over ValveN/AN/AAdded before entering distribution systemHydrofluosilicic AcidChemical Feed Equipment200510N/AGood1 Day Tank w/ Scale; 1 Feed Pump: 10 GPD @ 140 PSIN/AN/AAdded before entering distribution systemPhosphateChemical Feed Equipment200510N/AGood1 Day Tank w/ Scale; 1 Feed Pump: 24 GPD @ 110 PSIN/AN/AOrtho/Poly blend For corrosion control and sequestering; Added before entering distribution systemElectrical GearMotor Control Centers200510N/AGoodN/AN/AN/AFreedom, 2100 Series, Consider Motor Protective RelayControlsAB PLC & OIT200510N/AGoodN/AN/AN/A1 Main PLC and 1 Softener PLCEmergency Electrical SupplyNo Generator; Connection for Portable Generator and Kirk Key InterlockN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ATemporary Generator Sizing: 3P, 480 V, 600 A, 300 KW - Should be ConfirmedNotes:Design Loading Rates are per IEPA standards and/or published water treatment plant design manuals. Supply Well No. 7Table No. 2-4: Well No. 7 Water Treatment Plant Unit Process SummaryUnited City of Yorkville, IL “ Page 2-12 Page 12 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 12 2.3.3 Wells No. 8 and 9 Water Treatment Plant (WTP) – The Wells No. 8 and 9 Water Treatment Plant was constructed in 2004. Well No. 8 is located on site at the WTP and Well No. 9 is located approximately 180 ft. west of the intersection of Kennedy Road and Bristol Ri dge Rd. The WTP for Wells No. 8 and 9 works similarly to how the WTPs for W ells No. 3, 4 and 7 work. Raw water is brought into the plant where it is treated by one of four vertical cation exchange units. The water is then chemically treated with chlorine, phosphates and fluoridation. Backwash equipment is also included at this site in order to be able to backwash the cation exchange resin. Exhibit 2-4 presents a flow diagram depicting Well s No. 8 & 9 W TP unit processes. Table No. 2-5 provides s ummary information on Wells No. 8 & 9 WTP unit processes. An inventory and audit of each process identified some potential deficiencies or asset management elements that should be considered for the planning period. S To EEI’s knowledge, the resin has not been tested since its installment in 2004. An analysis of the resin should be considered for this plant. “ Page 2-13 Page 13 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 13 Exhibit 2-4: Wells No. 8 & 9 Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram United City of Yorkville, IL “ Page 2-14 Page 14 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 14 Treatment Application Point No.Process UnitComponentsYear InstalledTotal Years in OperationLast ModificationConditionSizeDesign Loading Rate *Design CapacityComments and RecommendationsWells No. 8 & 9 Water Treatment PlantCation Exchange (CE)4 Vertical Pressure Vessels - 17" Gravel, 3" torpedo sand, 48" (201 cf) CE Resin per tank200411N/AGood8' Dia x 8' Sidewall Height EachSurface Loading Rate: 5.97 GPM/SF @ 300 GPM7.96 GPM/SF MaxSoftening and radium removal. Consider resin analysis. No painting since the original.Backwash Holding TankConcrete Structure Below Treatment Room Floor200411N/AGoodDepth = 6.5', Length = 35.0', Width = 12.0', Volume = 20,426 gallonsN/AN/A2" Restrictor and 6" Overflow PipeBrine PumpWatson-Marlow/Bredel Brine Feed Pump 200411N/AGood32 GPM @ 15 psi; 5 HPN/A32 GPMBrine TankBrine Storage Tank200411N/AGood2 - 12'-0" x 12'-0" x 7'-3" (Max Salt Bed Depth) Tank Sections (Overall Tank Dimensions 27'-0" x 21'-0")N/AN/AChlorine Gas DisinfectionChemical Feed Equipment2004112014 - Well 9 Booster Pump ReplacedGoodDual Cylinder Scale, Booster Pumps, rated for 13 gpm @ 75 PSI; 1.5 HP, Injector, Regulator and Dual Switch Over ValveN/AN/AAdded before entering distribution systemHydrofluosilicic AcidChemical Feed Equipment200411N/AGood2 Day Tanks w/ Scales; 2 Feed Pumps: 1.75 GPH @ 150 PSIN/AN/AAdded before entering distribution systemPhosphateChemical Feed Equipment200411N/AGood2 Day Tanks w/ Scales; 2 Feed Pumps: 1.75 GPH @ 150 PSIN/AN/AOrtho/Poly blend For corrosion control and sequestering; Added before entering distribution systemElectrical GearMotor Control Centers200510N/AGoodN/AN/AN/ACutler-Hammer with Motor Protective RelayControlsAB PLC & OIT200411N/AGoodN/AN/AN/A1 Main PLC and 1 Softener PLCEmergency Electrical SupplyStandby Generator with ATS200411N/AGoodN/AN/A800 KW Diesel GeneratorNotes:Design Loading Rates are per IEPA standards and/or published water treatment plant design manuals. Supply Wells No. 8 & 9Table No. 2-5: Wells No. 8 & 9 Water Treatment Plant Unit Process SummaryUnited City of Yorkville, IL “ Page 2-15 Page 15 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 15 2.4 Storage The City’s Water Works System currently includes 4.55 million gallons of water storage, all of which is elevated storage with spheroid type storage tank s. The water storage components are distributed within the four pressure zones of the system, which will be further discussed in s ection 6. Exhibit 2-1 identifies the locat ions of all of the storage tanks and Table No. 2-6 provides the capacity, type of storage and pertinent elevations for each tank . Pressures and pressure zones directly correspond to the ground elevations and hydraulic grade lines of the Water Works System. If elevated tanks are part of the system, the water level within the tank typically controls the hydraulic grade line. One (1) psi of pressure is equivalent to 2.31 feet of water (i.e. the elevation difference between the tank level and the ground elevation at any location). Targeted pressure ranges are based on several different standards including AWWA, Ten State Standards and the USEPA. These ranges are listed in Table No. 2-7. In areas of variable topography, multiple pressure zones can be created to maintain consistent and adequate pressures throughout the service area and to generally meet the pressure ranges defined above. If necessary, booster pump stations and pressure reducing valve stations a re placed at pressure zone boundaries to allow transfer of water between the different zones. A booster pump allows water to be transferred from a lower pressure zone to a higher pressure zone. Alternately, a pressure reducing valve allows water to be transferred from a higher pressure zone to a lower pressure zone. Table No. 2-6: Existing Water Storage Summary United City of Yorkville, IL Top of Overflow Site/Year Capacity Foundation Headrange Elevation Tank Name Type Constr.(Gallons)(Feet)(Feet)(Foot)Comments North Pressure Zone North EWST Spheroid 2003 1,000,000 661.0 770.0 - 810.0 810.0 Northeast EWST Spheroid 2004 1,500,000 652.5 764.0 - 810.0 810.0 Also known as Grande Reserve. Subtotal:2,500,000 North Central Pressure Zone North Central EWST Spheroid 1969 300,000 633.5 730.5-763.0 763.0 Also known as Tower Lane; Rehabilitated (overcoat) in 2008. Subtotal:300,000 South Central Pressure Zone South Central EWST Spheroid 1986 500,000 715.0 812.50 - 850.0 850.0 Also known as South. Rehabilitated (full blast with polyurethane and clearcoat on the exterior) in 2005. Subtotal:500,000 South Pressure Zone South EWST Spheroid 2004 1,250,000 768.0 874.0 - 920.0 920.0 Also known as Raintree. Subtotal:1,250,000 TOTAL:4,550,000 “ Page 2-16 Page 16 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 16 Table No. 2-7: Recommended Pressures By AWWA, Ten State Standards, & USEPA United City of Yorkville, IL Minimum Pressure 20 psi All ground level points 35 psi All points within distribution system Maximum Pressure 100 psi All points within distribution system Fire Flow Minimum 20 psi All points within distribution system Ideal Range 50 - 75 psi Residences 35 - 60 psi All points within distribution system The ground elevations throughout the Yorkville planning boundary range from approximately 575 feet (near the Fox River) to approximately 775 feet (in the south pressure zone) above mean sea level (MSL). The Fox River flowing generally east to west through the center of the City is largely responsible for shaping the local topography resulting in lower ground elevations in the moderate river valley that spans through the City center. Given the elevation variances throughout the City planning area, the City has s plit the water distribution system into four different zones. Table No. 2-8 outlines the ground elevations throughout the pressure zone and the associated range of pressures at the corresponding ground elevation. Table No. 2-8 also highlights the operating pressures and the corresponding ground elevation for each of Yorkville’s four pressure zones. the blue shaded area represents the ideal range of operating pressures (40 -80 psi +/-) and the yellow shaded area represents the near-ideal operating pressures. The North Pressure Zone, North Central Pressure Zone and South Pressure Zone all have areas of minor low pressure. The South Central Pressure Zone and the South Pressure Zone both have areas of minor high pressure. As shown in Table No. 2 -8, while there are some zones that are slightly too high or too low, the pressure zones are currently adequate for the areas they serve. Exhibit 2-5 provides the hydraulic profile for the existing overall Water Works System. “ Page 2-17 Page 17 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 17 Table No. 2-8: Pressure Zone Summary Table Hydraulic Grade Line Ground Static Pressure High Mid Low Design Elevation High Mid Low Design (Feet)(Feet)(Feet)(Feet)(Psi)(Psi)(Psi) North Pressure Zone 690 52.0 42.0 32.0 North EWST (1,000,000 Gal)810.00 790.00 770.00 680 56.3 46.3 36.4 Northeast EWST (1,500,000 Gal)810.00 787.00 764.00 670 60.6 50.7 40.7 660 65.0 55.0 45.0 650 69.3 59.3 49.4 640 73.6 63.7 53.7 630 77.9 68.0 58.0 625 80.1 70.1 60.2 North Central Pressure Zone 660 44.6 37.6 30.5 North Central EWST (300,000 Gal)763.00 746.75 730.50 650 48.9 41.9 34.9 640 53.3 46.2 39.2 630 57.6 50.6 43.5 620 61.9 54.9 47.8 610 66.2 59.2 52.2 600 70.6 63.5 56.5 590 74.9 67.9 60.8 580 79.2 72.2 65.2 South Central Pressure Zone 715 58.5 50.3 42.2 South Central EWST (300,000 Gal)850.00 831.25 812.50 710 60.6 52.5 44.4 700 65.0 56.8 48.7 690 69.3 61.2 53.0 680 73.6 65.5 57.4 670 77.9 69.8 61.7 660 82.3 74.2 66.0 South Pressure Zone 790 56.3 46.5 36.8 South EWST (1,250,000 Gal)920.00 897.50 875.00 780 60.6 50.9 41.1 770 65.0 55.2 45.5 760 69.3 59.5 49.8 750 73.6 63.9 54.1 740 77.9 68.2 58.5 730 82.3 72.5 62.8 720 86.6 76.9 67.1 715 88.8 79.0 69.3 Notes: 1) High Hydraulic Grade Line = Tank's TCL 2) Mid Hydraulic Grade Line = (Tank's TCL + Tank's BCL ) / 2 3) Low Hydraulic Grade Line = Tank's BCL 4) If a zone has more than 1 tank, the static pressure is calculated at the lowest elevation 5) The blue shaded area represents the ideal range of operating pressures (40-80 psi +/-) and corresponding ground elevation served 6) The yellow shaded area represents ground surface elevations within Village service area that are marginally above or below ideal range United City of Yorkville, IL “ Page 2-19 Page 19 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 19 2.5 Distribution The City’s water distribution system is an interconnected conveyance system that transfers water through approximately 150 miles of piping, ultimately providing water to the public for domestic, industrial and fire protection uses. Depending on the well and WTP, either the well pumps or high service pumps pressurize the Water Works System and allow water to move throughout i t. Since the system is served by four pressure zones, booster pump stations and press ure reducing valves are necessary to ensure adequate water transfer across the pressure zones throughout the city. 2.5.1 Pressure Zones – The United City of Yorkville has four pressure zones: the North Pressure Zone, the North Central Pressure Zone, The South Central Pressure Zone and the South Pressure Zone. The North Pressure Zone includes the North and Grande Reserve EWSTs, W ells No. 8 and 9 and the W ells No. 8 and 9 WTP. The North Pressure Zone has a storage capacity of 2.5 million gallons and a supply capacity of 2.88 MGD. The North Central Pressure Zone includes the Tower Lane EWST, W ells No. 3 and 4 and the W ells No. 3 and 4 WTP. The North Central Pressure Zone has a storage capacity of 300,000 gallons and a supply capacity of 2.7 MGD. The South Central Pressure Zone includes the South EWST. The South Central Pressure zone has a storage capacity of 500,000 gallons and has no supply capacity. The South Pressure Zone includes the Raintree EWST, W ell No. 7 and the W ell No. 7 WTP. The South Pressure Zone has a storage capacity of 1.25 million gallons and has a supply capacity of 1.44 MGD. When the City expands to the south, a new pressure zone will need to be created. This pressure zone is designated as the ‘Southeast Pressure Zone’. In the coming years, if new residential, commercial, or industrial land us es begin to develop in or near the Southeast Pressure Zone, the United City of Yorkville will have to ensure that there is adequate water resource infrastructure to serve the water customers. 2.5.2 Booster Pump Stations and Pressure Reducing Valve Stations – The United City of Yorkville has three Booster Pump/Pressure Reducing Valve (BP/PRVs) Stations and two Pressure Reducing Valve Stations (PRVs). Table No. 2-9 outlines the information for the BP/PRV and PRV stations in Yorkville. Booster Pumps can be used to increase pressure when water needs to flow from a lower elevation to a higher one. Pressure Reducing Valves are used to ensure that water flowing from a higher pressure zone to a lower one meets the hy draulic grade line of the lower zone. The system is currently operated by leaving the PRVs slightly open so that some water is able to flow from each of the higher pressure zones into the lower zones . Opening of these PRVs ensures that water is not becoming stagnant in the pipes. “ Page 2-20 Page 20 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 20 Table No. 2-9: Booster Pumping & Pressure Reducing Valve Stations SummaryUnited City of Yorkville, ILTreatment Application Point No.Process UnitComponentsYear InstalledTotal Years in OperationLast ModificationConditionSizeDesign Loading Rate *Design CapacityComments and RecommendationsNorth Booster Pump/Pressure Reducing Valve Station (Cannonball Trail)Booster Pumps3 Horizontal Split Case Centrifugal Pumps200510NAGoodPump 1: 50 GPM @ 135' TDH 5 HP; Pumps 2 & 3: 800 GPM @ 135' TDH 40 HPFirm Capacity 850 GPM1.2 MGDLocated in building.Pump 1: Aurora Series 341 Model 1 1/4 x 1 1/2 x 7; Pumps 2 & 3: Aurora Series 341Model 4 x 4 x 7BPressure Reducing Valves1 - 3" Cla-Val PRV; 1- 10" Cla-Val PRV200510NAGood3" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 460 GPM;10" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 4,900 GPMNA7.1 MGDEmergency Electrical SupplyNatural Gas Generator200510NAGood100kWNAN/ASouth Central Booster Pump/Pressure Reducing Valve Station (Beaver St)Booster Pumps2 Horizontal Split Case Centrifugal Pumps198629NAGoodPumps 1 & 2: 700 GPM @ 115' TDH 30 HP (4" x 5" x 11")Firm Capacity 700 GPM1.0 MGDLocated in Unground Vault. Built by Engineered Fluid.Pressure Reducing Valves1 - 3" Cla-Val PRV; 1- 10" Cla-Val PRV198629NAGood3" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 460 GPM;10" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 4,900 GPMNA7.1 MGDSouth Booster Pump/Pressure Reducing Valve Station (Raintree)Booster Pumps3 Horizontal Split Case Centrifugal Pumps200411NAGoodPump 1: 50 GPM @ 125' TDH 5 HP; Pump 2: 1000 GPM @ 125' TDH 60 HP; Pump 3: 1000 GPM @ 125' TDH 60 HPFirm Capacity 1050 GPM1.5 MGDLocated in building.Pump 1: Aurora Series 321 Model 1 1/4 x 1 1/2 x 7A; Pumps 2 & 3: Aurora Series 341Model 5 x 6 x 12Pressure Reducing Valves1 - 3" Cla-Val PRV; 1- 10" Cla-Val PRV200411NAGood3" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 460 GPM;10" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 4,900 GPMNA7.1 MGDEmergency Electrical SupplyNatural Gas Generator200411NAGood150kWNANANorth Central Pressure Reducing Valve Station (Kennedy Rd.)Transfers Water From North Pressure Zone to North Central Pressure ZonePressure Reducing Valves1 - 1.5" Cla-Val PRV; 1- 4" Cla-Val PRV; 1- 12" Cla-Val PRV20078NAGood1.5" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 125 GPM;4" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 800 GPM;12" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 7,000 GPMNA10.1 MGDUndergroundSouth Pressure Reducing Valve Station (Mc Donalds)Transfers Water From South Pressure Zone to South Central Pressure ZonePressure Reducing Valves1 - 1.5" Cla-Val PRV; 1- 4" Cla-Val PRV; 1- 12" Cla-Val PRV200510NAGood1.5" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 125 GPM;4" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 800 GPM;12" Valve Max Rated Flowrate: 7,000 GPMNA10.1 MGDPlanning began in 2003, ground broke in 2004, and the station was completed in 2005.Notes:Firm Capacity is based on largest pump out of service. Transfers Water Between South Central Pressure Zone and South Pressure ZoneTransfers Water Between North Central Pressure Zone and South Central Pressure ZoneTransfers Water Between North Central Pressure Zone and North Pressure Zone “ Page 2-21 Page 21 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 21 The Cannonball Trail BP/PRV connects the North Pressure Zone to t he North Central Pressure Zone, the Beaver Street BP/PRV connects the North Central Pressure Zone to the South Central Pressure Zone and Raintree BP/PRV connects the South Central Pressure Zone to the South Pressure Zone. The Kennedy Road PRV connects the North Pressure Zone to the North Central pressure zone and the McDonald’s PRV station connects the South Pressure Zone to the South Central Pressure Zone. 2.5.3 Water Main Network – Yorkville has approximately 792,000± feet (150± miles ) of water main network throughout the city. The City has mains ranging from 1” to 16” in diameter. 2.6 Controls The United City of Yorkville utilizes a SCADA system, consisting of Allen Bradley programming logic c ontrollers (PLCs) to monitor the operation of the supply, treatment, storage and distribution c omponents of the water system. The main SCADA node is located at the Wells No. 3 & 4 WTP. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 1 Page 3- 1 Page 1 SECTION 3: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WATER U SE The United City of Yorkville’s historical water use has intensified along with the City ’s growth in population. The purpose of this section of the report is to provide a summary of the City ’s historical water production and use. 3.1 Historical Water Use The City’s Water Department tracks water production in daily, mo nthly and yearly increments. Water use b y all of the City residents, businesses, industrial users and government / institutions is tracked through bi- monthly meter readings . The historical total water use, or essentially the total amount of source water utilized in the production and distribution of potable water within the City’s Water Works System, was analyzed from January 1, 2010 – December 31, 2014. Table No. 3-1 summarizes the total raw water pumped by the City’s Water Department. Table No. 3-1: Historical Water Production United City of Yorkville, IL YEAR 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 AVG. WATER CONSUMERS 16,921 17,160 17,400 17,639 17,878 ANNUAL PUMPAGE 552,211,400 GAL 623,194,100 GAL 598,997,900 GAL 513,563,000 GAL 504,429,000 GAL MAXIMUM MONTHLY PUMPAGE 55,228,200 GAL 75,797,700 GAL 73,414,800 GAL 56,361,000 GAL 48,679,000 GAL MAXIMUM DRY WEATHER MONTH JULY JULY JUNE JULY JULY AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE 1,512,900 GAL 1,707,400 GAL 1,636,600 GAL 1,407,000 GAL 1,382,000 GAL AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE DURING MONTH WITH MAXIMUM PUMPAGE 1,781,555 GAL 2,445,087 GAL 2,447,160 GAL 1,818,097 GAL 1,570,290 GAL MAXIMUM DAILY PUMPAGE 2,947,000 GAL 3,513,100 GAL 3,246,000 GAL 2,771,000 GAL 2,170,000 GAL COMPUTED MAXIMUM HOUR 245,583 GAL 292,758 GAL 270,500 GAL 230,917 GAL 180,833 GAL COMPUTED MAXIMUM HOUR 4,093 GPM 4,879 GPM 4,508 GPM 3,849 GPM 3,014 GPM AVG. GAL./PERSON/DAY 89 GPCD 99 GPCD 94 GPCD 80 GPCD 77 GPCD 88 RATIO OF MAX. AVG. DAY TO AVG. DAY 1.18 1.43 1.50 1.29 1.14 1.31 RATIO OF MAX. DAY TO AVG. DAY 1.95 2.06 1.98 1.97 1.57 1.91 Notes: Assumed ratio of max hour to max day demand (MHD:MDD) = 2.0 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 2 Page 3- 2 Page 2 Inspection of this table indicates that the water use characteristics and metrics are fairly consistent with many Northeastern Illinois communities during the same period. For instance, t he maximum day demand to average day demand ratio (MDD:ADD) has average d 1.91 for the past five years . It reached its maximum in 2011 at 2.06 which occurred during a summer when Illinois experienced below average rainfall in July and August. Coupled with above -average temperatures, the result was a rapidly developed drought that continued through 2012. The drought in turn led to extensive lawn irrigation and peak maximum day water use. The significance of the MDD:ADD ratio is that it is proportional to the amount of supply, treatment and storage required for a municipality. A greater ratio results in greater supply, treatment and storage requirements. The system must be designed to meet these requirements for every day of every year while the increased demand may be limited to just a few days of each year. Therefore, this value should be minimized as much as possible. In 2013, the MDD:ADD ratio stabilized in parallel with the normaliz ing temperature and precipitation trends which is likely indic ative of decreased water use for landscaping activities . In 2014, the MDD:ADD ratio dropped to 1.57. In addition to the climate, the rate of development can also impact the MDD:ADD ratio because seasonal construction water use for activities such as watering newly placed sod increases the maximum day use. Therefore , in the event of an economic upswing and subsequent industrial or housing development, or when the region experiences another drought, there is a potential that the MDD:ADD ratio could creep up again. Another significant water use parameter to be mindful of is the average gallons (of water production) per person per day. A population equivalent (PE ) is a unit of measure often utilized to determine the impacts of existing and additional water consumers to the system. For many northeastern Illinois communities, one PE is typically in the range of 75 – 120 gpd. Lower values are often times associated with established mainly residential communities that practice water conservation , while larger values are typically observed in developing communities that may have a significant commercial and industrial base that consumes a fair amount of water. Inspec tion of Table No. 3-1 shows that the his torical average water use per PE per day in the United City of Yorkville is approximately 88 gpc d which is in the range of expected values for the community . It should be noted, this water use per PE also accounts for all consumer types including residential, commercial, industrial, government/industrial, etc. Similar to the MDD:ADD ratio, this value has a direct impact on the water system infrastructure and therefore, should be minimized when possible. Section 3.2.2 provides an overview of means to reduce the MDD:ADD ratio and the average gallons per person per day including water conservation goals and strategies, many of which the City has already incorporated. 3.1.1 Historical System Evaluation – The water supply and storage systems of the City were evaluated for adequacy using five parameters which generally rate the strength of the supply and storage systems. The parameters used are as follows: 1. Ultimate Source Capacity - The ability of the s ystem to supply the maximum day demand with the largest well out of service. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 3 Page 3- 3 Page 3 2. Reliable Source Capacity - The ability of the system to supply the maximum day demand with all wells operating 16 hours per day. 3. Peak Hour Storage - The ability of the system to have sufficient storage to meet the peak hour demand for 4 hours without depleting storage more than 50 percent. 4. Fire Flow - The ability of the system to meet a design fire flow rate for the design period and meet maximum day demand with the largest well out of service. A common design fire flow is 3,000 GPM for 3 hours. 5. Emergency Supply - The ability of the system to suppl y the average day demand using elevated storage and supply sources with standby power generator systems only. Normally 80% of storage tank capacity is assumed to be available. Table No. 3-2 summarizes the system analysis for the previous five calendar years (2010–201 4). Table No. 3-3 indicates the corresponding excess or required capacity needed to meet 100% of each of the parameters listed above. Tables No. 3-2 and 3 -3 consider all existing active wells are on-line and that each water treatment plant is available to meet the City ’s water demand. For further clarification, a summary of the system analysis calculations using all active wells for calendar year 2011 follows (the year of the highest maximum daily demand over the analysis period). Test No. 1: Ultimate Source Capacity – The 2011 maximum day demand was 3,513,100 gallons per day (gpd). The total supply capacity for the water system is 5,616,000 gpd. To obtain the Ultimate Source Capacity of the existing system, the capacity of the largest well (Well No. 7 is 1,728,0 00 gpd) is subtracted from the total well capacity: Total Well Capacity = 7,344,000 gpd Largest Well Capacity = 1,728,000 gpd Ultimate Source Capacity = 5,616,000 gpd Since the Ultimate Source Capacity (5,616,0 00 gpd) is more than the 2011 maximum day demand (3,513,100 gpd) the supply facilities are adequate for Test No. 1. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 4 Page 3- 4 Page 4 Table No. 3-2: Water Works System Evaluation - Historical AnalysisUnited City of Yorkville, IL1.0Ultimate Source Capacity2,669,000GAL2,102,900GAL2,370,000GAL2,845,000GAL3,446,000GAL2.0Reliable Source Capacity*1,949,000GAL1,382,900GAL1,650,000GAL2,125,000GAL2,726,000GAL3.0Peak Hour Storage1,292,667GAL1,103,967GAL1,193,000GAL1,351,333GAL1,551,667GAL4.0Fire Flow3,433,625GAL3,362,863GAL3,396,250GAL3,455,625GAL3,530,750GAL5.0Emergency Supply3,711,100GAL3,516,600GAL3,587,400GAL3,817,000GAL3,842,000GALTable No. 3-3: Water Works System Evaluation - Historical AnalysisCorresponding Available Or Required CapacityUnited City of Yorkville, IL1.0Ultimate Source Capacity1,853GPM1,460GPM1,646GPM1,976GPM2,393GPM2.0Reliable Source Capacity*2,030GPM1,441GPM1,719GPM2,214GPM2,840GPM3.0Peak Hour Storage1,292,667GAL1,103,967GAL1,193,000GAL1,351,333GAL1,551,667GAL4.0Fire Flow3,433,625GAL3,362,863GAL3,396,250GAL3,455,625GAL3,530,750GAL5.0Emergency Supply3,711,100GAL3,516,600GAL3,587,400GAL3,817,000GAL3,842,000GALNotes:Assumes wells are operating 16 hours/day for Reliable Source Capacity.TEST PARAMETERS2010201120122013TEST PARAMETERS2014YEAR20102011201220132014YEAR W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 5 Page 3- 5 Page 5 Test No. 2: Reliable Source Capacity – The 2011 maximum day demand was 3,513,100 gpd. The Reliable Source Capacity is determined by calculating the maximum volume of water deliverable by the supply source(s) in 16 hours, or two-thirds of the daily well capacity (16 hours/day / 24 hours/day = 66%). Total Well Capacity = 7,344,000 gpd 16 Hour Pumping Capacity = 7,344,000 gpd x 16 hours = 4,896,000 gpd 24 hours The Reliable Source Capacity (4,896,000 gpd) is more than the 2011 maximum day demand (3,513,100 gpd), so the supply facilities are adequate for Test No. 2. Test No. 3: Peak Hour Storage – The 2011 peak hour demand is 292,758 gal/hr. Peak Hour Demand = Max. Day Demand x 2 x 1 day 24 hours = 3,513,100 gpd x 2 x 1 day 24 hours = 292,758 gal/hr The storage required to meet the peak hour demand for 4 hours is: 4-Hour, Peak Demand = 292,758 gal/hr x 4 hrs = 1,171,032 gal The total storage capacity of the existing facilities, at their current operating levels, is 4,550,000 gallons, and therefore 50% of the existing facilities is 2,275,000 gallons. Since the required Peak Hour Storage for 4 hours (1,171,200 gal) is less than 50% of the existing facilities (2,275,000 gal), the storage facilities for Test No. 3 are adequate. Test No. 4: Fire Flow – The maximum day demand plus fire flow demands for 3 hours is 979,140 gallons. Maximum Day Demand (3 Hours) = 3,513,100 gpd x 3 hrs x 1 day = 439,138 gal 24 hours Fire Flow Demand (3 Hours) = 3,000 GPM X 60 min/hr X 3 hr = 540,000 gal Maximum Day + Fire Flow = 979,138 gal The total flow rate available from the system with the largest supply out of service is 3,900 GPM. The total amount of water from the remaining wells over 3 hours is 702,000 gallons. If 80% of the 4,550,000 gallons from EWST storage is available, there is 3,640,0 00 gallons available from storage. The total supply available for 3 hours is then 4,342,000 gallons. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 6 Page 3- 6 Page 6 Storage = 3,640,000 gal Wells = + 702,000 gal 4,342,000 gal Since the 3-hour maximum day demand plus fire flow (979,138 gal) is less than 80% of the available storage facilities and the available supply (4,342,000 gal), the facilities are adequate for Test No. 4. Test No. 5: Emergency Supply – The 20 11 average day demand is 1,707,400 gpd and 80% of the available storage is 3,640,000 gallons. The only Yorkville well that has an emergency generator is W ell No. 8, this emergency generator is also able to power the WTP for W ells No. 8 and 9. 80% of Existing Storage = 4,550,000 x 80% = 3,640,000 gal Emergency Generator Supply = + 1,584,000 gal Total Emergency Supply = 5,224,000 gal Since the Total Emergency Supply (5,224,000 gal) is greater than the Average Daily Demand (1,707,400 gal ), the system is adequate for Test No. 5, Emergency Supply. Inspection of Tables No. 3-2 and 3-3 shows that all five parameters are satisfied for all five years for the United City of Yorkville. The year where the most demand occurred was 2011, this year was the year of a drought which increased the city’s demand on water for irrigation. The parameters used to evaluate the water system show that the city’s water system i s adequate for the time being. However, considering t he City’s expected growth, the City needs to consider the best means for a sustainable system that can be expanded in the coming years. In sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3, this report will use the five paramet ers used above to evaluate the City’s Water Works S ystem against future popul ation and corresponding water usage expectations. 3.1.2 Water Consumption – The City ’s 2014 annual fiscal/reporting year (May – April) records were reviewed based on the various water use classifications. Exhibit 3-1 presents the water usage by consumer type for Reporting Year 2014. Residential usage within the City consumes the largest percentage of water at 81.6%. Industrial and Commercial users account for 12.6% and 2.7% respectively . The remaining 3.1% of the total annual water usage is from government sources. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 7 Page 3- 7 Page 7 3.1.3 Water A udit – As defined in the AWWA Manual M36: Water Audits and Loss Control, 4th Edition (20 16 ), Non -Revenue Water is the difference between system input volume (water produced) and billed authorized consumption. It consists of the following:  Unbilled Authorized Consumption (fire hydrant flushing, water treatment plant process water, municipal buildings whose water is not metered, etc.);  Apparent Losses (non -physical losses such as unauthorized consumption (water theft), meter inaccuracies, systematic data handling errors, etc.) and;  Real Losses (physical losses from the distribution system and storage tanks up to the p oint of connection to the customer meter). Water loss in the system equates to lost revenue for the utility . It is critical to the success of any water utility to manage and minimize water loss. In response to the need for consistent water loss auditing and benchmarking, the AWWA released Version 5 of their audit software in August 2014. This tool is focused on identifying water distribution system losses, not water treatment losses. This smart Microsoft Excel based audit program offers water utilities a tool to accurately and consistently identify, record, trend and benchmark the apparent and real losses in their water system. The audit provides a roadmap to help utilities reduce water waste and better prioritize infrastructure investments by identifying water losses that are viable to eliminate and economically recoverable. Another benefit of the audit is that it provides a yardstick by which to Residential 81.6% Commercial 12.6% Industrial 2.7% Government 3.1% Exhibit 3-1: FY 2014-15 Billed Water Use By Consumer Type United City of Yorkville, IL W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 8 Page 3- 8 Page 8 compare against past performance or other similar sized utilities. For instance, by completing the audit, several operational efficiency and financial performance indicators are calculated. A common operational efficiency performance indicator that many utilities refer to is the Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI). The ILI is a comparison benchmark that focuses on real losses. The ILI score ranges from 0 to 10 with a lower score representing a more robust distribution system. During 2014 the United City of Yorkville has tracked their water loss using available resources . The data was recovered and input into the AWWA Version 5 audit program . The water used for treatment processes (unbilled & metered) in 2014 was approximately 0.2% whereas water used for purposes such as flushing, fire - fighting and main breaks (unbilled & unmetered) is estimated at approximately 1.2% over the same period. Made up of the apparent losses and real losses, t he total water loss was 10.3%. Adding the unbilled water identified above to the total water loss provides th e non-revenue water which averages about 11.8% of the pumped water supply . The ILI score was 0.68 for this period, which is indicative of a fai rly tight distribution system. Table No. 3-4 outlines the information evaluated in the summary. Currently, there are no water loss regulatory requirements or standards that apply to the United City of Yorkville. However, in order to establish a reasonable goal for water loss, it is recommended that the benchmarking indicators of other utilities be reviewed for comparison. In 2011, as a result of a water audit data collection initiative, the AWWA Water Loss Control Committee created its first dataset of validated water audit data which has been posted for review by water utility stakeholders. Th e document is titled Validated W ater Audit D ata For R eliable Utility Benchmarking. Twenty -one utilities provided their water audit data for review and careful validation by members of the Committee’s Water Audit Software Subcommittee. Data from the entire group of utilities was assembled with results that document the first North American benchmark performance indicators using the AWWA water audit methodology. This is a significant step toward improving the level of accountability and the robustness of water audit data within North America. Table No. 3-5 presents a comparison of the United City of Yorkville’s performance indicators alongside the North American Data set for utilities with less than 50,000 service connections. Review of this table suggests that the United City of Yorkville is performing better than the average of the water utilities compared against. However, there is always room for improvement. As noted in Table No. 3-5, the validity score was 61, based on a scale of 0 to 100. The higher the validity score, the more accurate the water audit information and results will be. We recommend the City continue to improve this validity in the future years. In addition, based on the water audit, the annual cost of apparent and real losses is over $100,00 0 as demonstrated in Treated Apparent Real (C+D+F)(B-H-I) MG MG MG %MG %MG MG MG MG %MG % B C D E F G H I J K L M N O 2014 500.503 441.505 1.184 0.24%6.256 1.25%448.946 16.046 35.511 51.558 10.30%58.998 2.93%0.68 Non-Revenue Water Infrastructure Leakage Index Water Unbilled and Unmetered D+F+K Table No. 3-4: Water Accounting United City of Yorkville, IL Year A Water Supply Water Billed and Metered Water Unbilled and Metered Authorized Consumption Water Losses Total (I+J) or (B-H) W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 9 Page 3- 9 Page 9 Table No. 3-5. Minimizing lost revenue should be an incentive for continue d water loss reduction. Understanding that a certain amount of water loss is unavoidable (i.e. leakage that cannot be detected, all meters have a certain level of inaccuracy, etc.), it is recommended the City aim to achieve an economic level of water loss where the benefit of Water Works System Improvements to correct water loss is greater than or equal to the cost of the improvements. As indicated in Section 1.1, this Comprehensive Water Works System Master Plan is being prepared for an approximate 35 -year plan ning period through the year 2050. The population of the United City of Yorkville is anticipated to grow at an annual rate of 3.2%. In addition to the residential growth, the City also expects commercial and industrial properties to continue to develop at a steady rate thereby increasing th e w ater demand during the next 35 years. With this growth, the water deman d of the City’s Water Works System is expected to grow also. Table No. 3-5: Water Audit Summary and Comparison United City of Yorkville, IL Key Performance Indicators FY2014-15 2013 AWWA Validated Data Set (Average) Financial Indicators Non-Revenue Water as Percent by Volume of Water Supplied:11.8%21.0% Non-Revenue Water as Percent by Cost of Operating System:2.6%9.6% Annual Cost of Apparent Losses:70,123$ N/A Annual Cost of Real Losses:35,376$ N/A Operational Efficiency Indicators Apparent Losses Per Service Connection Per Day (gallons/connection/day):6.3 11.5 Real Losses Per Service Connection Per Day (gallons/connection/day):14.0 56.0 Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL) (million gallons/year):NA N/A From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) (million gallons/year):35.51 N/A Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]:0.68 3.0 Validity Score 61 77 Notes: City's Water Distribution System has achieved a better score than the 2013 Validated Data Set City's Water Distribution System has achieved a lesser score than the 2013 Validated Data Set W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 10 Page 3- 10 Page 10 3.2 Planning Period Projected Water Use Understanding that water resources are limited and water use trends are li kely to change during the next 35 years, two different water demand scenarios were investigated as part of this Master Plan. The first scenario is based on the current t rends of the existing Water Works System, reflecting current demand conditions and recent trends in development. The second scenario is the less resource i ntensive water demand projection, which is based on potential intervention by the municipality to optimize water use through water conservation. 3.2.1 Current Trends (CT) Water Use Project ion & System Evaluation – In Section 1.5, the population projections for the planning period were summarized. The next step is to equate the population to a water use demand per capita. Table No. 3-6 summarizes the total projected CT water use for incremental PE increases to t he year 2050 population projection of 59,565 (+41,687 PE). As previously identified, the estimated historical average water use per person per day in the United City of Yorkville is approximately 88 gpc d. The 88 gpcd was rounded up to 90 gpcd and that usage rate was used to project the demand to 2050. This projection assumes the proportion of the residential water use to all other types of water users will remain the same into the future. The CT MDD for the planning period was established utilizing an MDD:ADD ratio of 2.00. As seen in Table No. 3-1, the average MDD:ADD over the course of the last five years was 1.91; however, a factor of safety was added for future calculations due to the fact that during a dry year, this number will increase. A MHD:MDD ratio of 2.0 was used for all calculations . Table No. 3-7 summarizes the CT projected water capacity analysis for 5,000 PE increment increases to the year 2050 population projection. Table No. 3-8 indicates the corresponding excess or required capacity needed to meet 100% of each of the test parameters. Tables No. 3-7 and 3-8 consider all existing active wells are on-line and that each water treatment plant is available to meet the City’s water demand. It should be noted that although Tables No. 3-7 and 3-8 assume all wells to be online, future water use predictions in Section 6 factor in the potential for Well No. 3 to be abandoned due to maintenance issues. Review of Tables No. 3-7 and 3 -8 show that if water usage statistics remain the same, the water supply will fail to be adequate when 10,000 people have been added to the population (expected to happen around 2025). When 10,000 people are added, the Reliable Source Capacity is no longer met. When more people are added to the population, such as is expected on the path to 2050, Ultimate Source Capacity, Peak Hour Storage, and Emergency Supply also fail to become adequate when 15,000 people, 25,000 people and 41,687 people have been added to the population, respectively. YEAR2014FUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTUREESTIMATED POPULATION17,87822,87827,87832,87837,82842,87847,87852,87859,565ADDITIONAL POPULATION EQUIVALENTS--+5000+10000+15000+20000+25000+30000+35000+41687ANNUAL PUMPAGE504,429,000 GAL 751,542,300 GAL 915,792,300 GAL 1,080,042,300 GAL 1,244,292,300 GAL 1,408,542,300 GAL 1,572,792,300 GAL 1,737,042,300 GAL 1,956,710,250 GALMAXIMUM MONTHLY PUMPAGE48,679,000 GALMAXIMUM DRY WEATHER MONTHJULYAVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE1,381,997 GAL 2,059,020 GAL 2,509,020 GAL 2,959,020 GAL 3,409,020 GAL 3,859,020 GAL 4,309,020 GAL 4,759,020 GAL 5,360,850 GALAVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE DURING MONTH WITH MAXIMUM PUMPAGE1,570,290 GALMAXIMUM DAILY PUMPAGE2,170,000 GAL 4,118,040 GAL 5,018,040 GAL 5,918,040 GAL 6,818,040 GAL 7,718,040 GAL 8,618,040 GAL 9,518,040 GAL 10,721,700 GALCOMPUTED MAXIMUM HOUR 180,833 GAL343,170 GAL418,170 GAL493,170 GAL568,170 GAL643,170 GAL718,170 GAL793,170 GAL893,475 GALCOMPUTED MAXIMUM HOUR 3,014 GPM5,720 GPM6,970 GPM8,220 GPM9,470 GPM10,720 GPM11,970 GPM13,220 GPM14,891 GPMAVG. GAL./PERSON/DAY77 GPCD90 GPCD90 GPCD90 GPCD90 GPCD90 GPCD90 GPCD90 GPCD90 GPCDRATIO OF MAX. DAY TO AVG. DAY1.572.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Notes:Assumed ratio of Max Hour to Max Day Demand (MHD:MDD) = 2.0Table No. 3-6: Projected Water Use - CTUnited City of Yorkville, ILENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.CONSULTING ENGINEERS Table No. 3-7: Water Works System Evaluation - CTUnited City of Yorkville, ILYEAR1.0 Ultimate Source Capacity 3,446,000 GAL 1,497,960 GAL 597,960 GAL(302,040)GAL(1,202,040)GAL(2,102,040)GAL(3,002,040)GAL(3,902,040)GAL(5,969,700)GAL2.0 Reliable Source Capacity 2,726,000 GAL 777,960 GAL(122,040)GAL(1,022,040)GAL(1,922,040)GAL(2,822,040)GAL(3,722,040)GAL(4,622,040)GAL(6,401,700)GAL3.0 Peak Hour Storage 1,551,667 GAL 902,320 GAL 602,320 GAL 302,320 GAL 2,320 GAL(297,680)GAL(597,680)GAL(897,680)GAL(1,298,900)GAL4.0 Fire Flow 3,530,750 GAL 3,287,245 GAL 3,174,745 GAL 3,062,245 GAL 2,949,745 GAL 2,837,245 GAL 2,724,745 GAL 2,612,245 GAL 2,353,788 GAL5.0 Emergency Supply 3,842,003 GAL 3,164,980 GAL 2,714,980 GAL 2,264,980 GAL 1,814,980 GAL 1,364,980 GAL 914,980 GAL 464,980 GAL(136,850)GALTable No. 3-8: Water Works System Evaluation - CTCorresponding Available Or Required CapacityUnited City of Yorkville, ILYEAR1.0 Ultimate Source Capacity 2,393 GPM 1,040 GPM 415 GPM(210)GPM(835)GPM(1,460)GPM(2,085)GPM(2,710)GPM(4,146)GPM2.0 Reliable Source Capacity* 2,840 GPM 810 GPM(127)GPM(1,065)GPM(2,002)GPM(2,940)GPM(3,877)GPM(4,815)GPM(6,668)GPM3.0 Peak Hour Storage 1,551,667 GAL 902,320 GAL 602,320 GAL 302,320 GAL 2,320 GAL(372,100)GAL(747,100)GAL(1,122,100)GAL(1,623,625)GAL4.0 Fire Flow 3,530,750 GAL 3,287,245 GAL 3,174,745 GAL 3,062,245 GAL 2,949,745 GAL 2,837,245 GAL 2,724,745 GAL 2,612,245 GAL 2,353,788 GAL5.0 Emergency Supply 3,842,003 GAL 3,164,980 GAL 2,714,980 GAL 2,264,980 GAL 1,814,980 GAL 1,364,980 GAL 914,980 GAL 464,980 GAL(171,063)GALNotes:Assumes wells are operating 16 hours/day for Reliable Source Capacity2014+5000 +10000 +15000POPULATION EQUIVALENT INCREASE+20000+15000+30000 +35000 +41687+25000+25000TEST PARAMETERS2014+5000 +10000+20000TEST PARAMETERSPOPULATION EQUIVALENT INCREASE+30000 +35000 +41687ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.CONSULTING ENGINEERS W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 13 Page 3- 13 Page 13 3.2.2 Water Conservation Goals & Strategies – As part of the Master Plan, the Unite d City of Yorkville is interested in understanding the potential reduction in future water system capital improvements resulting from a LRI demand scenario for the City. The LRI demand scenario is calculated based on water conservation practices that are judged to be suitable for the City based on a variety of factors including regional climate, and politic al and social appropriateness. To define a reasonable LRI demand scenario, a systematic process was used to efficiently review available information, s elect relevant water conservation strategies and calculate estimated savings. The resulting water demand savings are applied to the baseline water use projections developed for the Master Plan and the LRI demand scenario can be established. 3.2.2.1 Water Use Review – In the first step, baseline water use was reviewed and further analyzed to better understand the allocation of water across the City’s customer base and categories relevant to water conservation planning. The first water use breakdown focused on defining the City’s water use in the categories of indoor use, outdoor use and non-revenue water. These categories are important because they represent the most common three areas where water conservation strategies can be applied to re duce water use in any community. Outdoor water use as a percentage of annual water use is calculated by first estimating the average water use during cool weather months from November through April. This average water use can be considered the baseline indoor use because air temperature and precipitation in the Midwestern United States between November and April timeframe limits the need for outdoor water use. This calculation was performed for the period of 2010 through 2014. Based on this calculation, the av erage amount of outdoor water use from 2010 - 2014 was 12.9% of the total water use. Exhibit 3-2 summarizes the monthly analysis for the time period. In any water utility, there is a difference between the amount of source water obtained and the total amou nt of water that the utility can reasonably account for in terms of customer billing and estimates. This water is often referred to as non-revenue water. As previously discussed in Section 3.1.3, an analysis of the City’s annual water production was perfo rmed and it was estimated that the real losses associated with the distribution system is on average approximately 8% of the annual water pumpage. In terms of water conservation, this number reflects the baseline amount of water loss that the City can work to decrease through utility best management practices. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 14 Page 3- 14 Page 14 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 15 Page 3- 15 Page 15 Because the City’s water is used predominately by residential customers, significant water savings can be realized from conservation programs that specifically address residential water use. To better understand potential areas for water savings inside residential properties, a review was performed of typical indoor water uses in a non-conserving home. Exhibit 3-3 illustrates how the average residential household in th e United States uses water, with an approximate 31% of their water use for outdoor use and 69% for indoor use. While an annual average outdoor water use across the nation is approximately 31%, outdoor water use in the Midwest likely is much lower than that value. It is unknown whether a study has evaluated the Midwest or Illinois outdoor water use, but past master plans completed by EEI have determined average outdoor water use in the City of Elgin, City of Algonquin and the Village of Huntley are 10%, 6% and 22% respectively. At 12.9%, the United City of Yorkville’s outdoor water use is below the national average; however, it is comparable with some of its neighbors. Even though Yorkville’s outdoor water usage is not comparatively high, it is always advantageous to conserve water in the outdoors where possible . In addition to water savings on the outdoor water use side, there also are some opportunities where additional water conservation approaches on indoor water use can make an impact on overall wate r use. For instance, Exhibit 3-3 shows the estimated indoor water use breakdown, which indicates toilets and washing machines are the top two indoor water users with approximately 26% and 22% of indoor water use, respectively. Several conclusions relevant to potential water use reductions from water conservation were made from this analysis. First, because the City’s customer base is mainly residential, significant water savings can be realized from conservation programs that s pecifically address residential water use. In addition, outdoor water use on average is approximately 12.9% of total annual water use. Since it is likely a portion of the outdoor water use is wasted and the fact that outdoor water use drives the maximum day demands on the Water Works System, it would seem reductions in outdoor water use could make a big effect on the total water use within the community and create a considerable cost savings. Finally, real losses for the City are estimated at 8% and t he City could realize water savings in this category by further implementing utility best management practices . Exhibit 3-3: Average Indoor and Outdoor Water Use in a Residential Non -Conserving Home National Average W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 16 Page 3- 16 Page 16 3.2.2.2 BMP Overview – In the second step, drivers, goals and criteria for evaluating potential water conservation programs are evaluated and an inventory is made of all potential water saving measures or strategies. The current drivers for implementing water conservation in the United City of Yorkville are a combination of stewardship and cost savings. In recent years, the City has taken a proactive approach to increasing their focus on sustainability across all parts of the City’s operation. Water is a finite and precious resource an d water conservation is an area that the City has a significant opportunity to influence leadership provided by the Water Department. Therefore, as part of this Master Plan, a goal was established to calculate potential water savings that could be achieved with conservation strategies relevant to Yorkville. The City also wanted to understand the potential reduction in future water system capital requirements that would result from a LRI demand scenario for the City in the planning year of 2050. Water conservation has been demonstrated as a cost effective strategy to reduce capital expenditures by deferring system improvements associated with expanding infrastructure to meet increasing water demands. With this information, the City would be able to further justify spending resources to implement water conservation programming if there were savings identified in future capital expenditures using the LRI demand scenario. The City’s current philosophy regarding water conservation is that education is a key f irst step in creating awareness around the City’s finite water supply and has been involved with student a nd adult outreach in this area. The next logical step in promoting water conservation is selection and implementation of water conservation programs t hat can result in measurable water savings. Potential water savings estimated for the LRI scenario should be determined by selecting water conservation best practices that would result in measurable water savings, are relevant to the United City of Yorkvi lle and would be reasonably accepted by the local community. A review of best management practices in water conservation was performed with the goal of creating a consolidated list of the potential options to use as a basis for the estimated water savin gs for the City’s LRI demand scenario. In the context of water conservation, a Best Management Practice (BMP) consists of generally accepted conservation measures or incentives that directly or indirectly result in proven, beneficial and cos t-effective water savings. BMP s vary depending on local or regional water -use characteristics and demand reduction needs. While water conservation has recently become more relevant in the Midwestern United States, other parts of the country including California have experienced decades of drought and have applied water conservation to help address serious water supply challenges. The most popular set of water conservation BM Ps were developed as part of The California Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding Urban Water W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 17 Page 3- 17 Page 17 Conservation in California. The document has been signed by more than 260 water utilities, public advocacy organizations and other interested groups who are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council and are committed to ensuring adequate water supply to residents of California. A set of 14 BMP s are outlined in the MOU and provide guidelines on the expected water savings and requirements for program implementation. The BMP s developed for the California MOU were selected because the y have proven significant conservation benefits, are technically and economically feasible, are environmentally and socially acceptable and are not otherwise unreasonable for most water suppliers to carry out. These BMP s have been adopted by water utili ties across the United States and recently were evaluated and adopted by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) document titled Water 2050: Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply/Demand Plan (CMAP Plan). CMAP, the official regional planning agency for northeastern Illinois, released their Water Supply and Demand Plan in March of 2010, which includes a set of 13 water conservation measures and recommendations for demand management. These recommendations are based on the BMPs developed for the California MOU. Table No. 3-9 provides a summary of the 13 recommendations from the CMAP Plan which were determined to be relevant for the Northeast ern Illinois region. These BMP s address each of the main categories of water use within the City including indoor, outdoor and non -revenue water as well as a variety of customer classes such as residential and non-residential customers. An evaluation was performed to as sess the relevance of these BMPs to the United City of Yorkville and their ability t o address the main categories of water use within the City. The BMPs presented in the CMAP Plan represent demonstrated, successful water conservation programs each with specific water conservation measures and incentives that contribute to the program’s s uccess. A water conservation measure is a device or practice that results in a more efficient use of water and reduces water demand. A water conservation incentive increases customer awareness about the value of reducing water use and motivates water users to implement conservation or efficiency measures. Successful water conservation programs appropriately match measures with incentives to drive reduction in water use. Table No. 3-9: Evaluation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Conservation United City of Yorkville, ILConservation Program DescriptionRWSP NumberCalifornia MOU NumberUtilityAll CustomersResidentialNon-ResidentialPurpose/DescriptionDescription of Basis for Water SavingsLow Estimate from RWSP (mgd)High Estimate from RWSP (mgd)Program CostImplementation ObstaclesSystem Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair61xTo perform a water audit by the water utility which consists of compiling the consumptive uses and losses of water managed in a single system; losses can be either apparent (paper losses due to metering and billing errors) and real losses (physical losses including leakage from distribution mains, customer service lines and overflows from distribution system tanks to storage facilities).A leak-free water system is not a technically feasible or an economic objective, but a good rule of thumb is that losses should not constitute more than 10% of the total volume of water entering the system. 5.929.7 Varies for each utility based on the amount of water loss and reduction goalUtility staff capacityMetering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections72xTo bill customers for the volume of water they use which is measured by meters for each customer; require that each new connection is metered and provide meters to all existing connections without a meter; maintain a record of all meters including testing, repair and replacement schedule and status.Assume meter retrofits and volumetric rates combined will result in a 20% reduction in demand for retrofitted accounts.30.331.5 Utility: meter purchase, meter installationUtility investment costRetail Conservation Pricing11 3xTo provide economic incentives (a price signal) to customers to use water efficiently. Because conservation pricing requires a volumetric rate, metered water service is a necessary condition of conservation pricing; can include a uniform rate, seasonal rate, tiered rate or allocation-based rate.Not quantifiedUtility: administrative; Customer: increased water billUtility staff capacity, political willWater Waste Prohibition for residential and non-residential customers84xStandard Accounts: To enact and enforce measures prohibiting gutter flooding, single pass cooling systems in new connections, non-recirculating systems in all new conveyer car wash and commercial laundry systems, and non-recycling decorative fountains.Large-Landscape: To provide non-residential customers with support and incentives to improve their landscape water use efficiency; should include landscape water use analysis/surveys, voluntary water use budgets, and when cost effective, include the following: installation of dedicated landscape meters, training in landscape maintenance and irrigation design, and financial incentives such as loans, rebates, or grants for the purchase and/or installation of water efficient irrigation systems.Regular-Landscape: To provide residential customers with clear information and guidelines on when to water outdoor landscapes and provide a financial incentive (fine or additional fee) when water schedules are broken.Not quantifiedAssume landscape surveys and assistance will result in a 15% reduction in demand for landscape water use by accounts that participate in survey/assistance programs.12.160.3 Political will (i.e. ordinance creation); Utility: enforcementUtility: survey/budget calculation; Customer: hardware investmentPolitical will (i.e. ordinance creation); Utility staff capacity for enforcementInvestment cost, social mindsetConservation Coordinator15xTo designate a water conservation coordinator (and support staff if necessary) whose duties would include the following: coordination and oversight of conservation programs and BMP implementation; preparation and submittal of annual implementation report; communication and promotion of water conservation issues to utility management, operations and planning staff; preparation of annual conservation budget; and coordination with other regional utility conservation specialists. Agencies jointly operating regional conservation programs are not intended to have staff duplication and redundant conservation coordinator positions.Not quantifiednana Utility: variableUtility staff capacitySchool Education Programs13 6xTo educate students in the service area about water conservation and efficient water use; program examples include: working with school districts and private schools to provide instructional assistance, education materials, and classroom presentations that identify urban, agricultural, and environmental issues and conditions in the local watershed. Education materials shall meet the state education framework requirements, and grade appropriate materials shall be distributed to grade levels K-3, 4-6, 7-8, and high school.Not quantifiednana Variable depending on the scale, frequency and type of public programs; school district: administrative; government advocates: programmaticAlready full classroom curriculumPublic Information Programs12 7xTo promote and educate customers about water conservation and water conservation benefits; program examples include: providing speakers to employees, community groups and the media; using paid and public service advertising; using bill inserts; providing information on customers' bills showing use in gallons per day for the last billing period compared to the same period the year before; providing public information to promote water conservation practices; and coordinating with other government agencies, industry groups, public interest groups and the media.Not quantifiednana Variable depending on the scale, frequency and type of public programsDifficult to quantify cost/benefits; investment costWater Survey for Residential Customers28xTo conduct on-site survey and assessment of water-using hardware, fixtures, equipment, landscaping, irrigation systems and management practices to determine the efficiency of water use and to develop recommendations for improving indoor and outdoor water-use efficiency for residential customers.Dependent on house age, device, leaks, etc. customers to see 3 - 20 gpcpd reduction in indoor water use and 10% reduction in outdoor water use if they implement the recommendations from the survey0.10.7 Utility: hardware, administrative; customer: lead repairUtility staff capacity, investment cost, customer cooperationResidential Plumbing Retrofit39xTo provide assistance and resources to residential customers to help them change, alter, or adjust plumbing fixtures or other equipment or appliances to save water or make them operate more efficiently; typically includes the replacement of shower heads and sink faucetsAssume between 2.9 - 7.2 gpcpd water savings from low-flow showerhead retrofit and 1.3 gpcpd water savings for toilet retrofit5.226.0 Utility: administrative/programmatic (rebate); Customer: cost or retrofit equipmentUtility staff capacity, investment cost of retrofit equipment, customer cooperation, rebate program fundingENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.CONSULTING ENGINEERS Table No. 3-9: Evaluation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Conservation United City of Yorkville, ILConservation Program DescriptionRWSP NumberCalifornia MOU NumberUtilityAll CustomersResidentialNon-ResidentialPurpose/Description Description of Basis for Water SavingsLow Estimate from RWSP (mgd)High Estimate from RWSP (mgd)Program CostImplementation ObstaclesHigh-Efficiency Clothes Washing Machine Financial Incentive Replacement510xTo encourage the replacement and purchase of high-efficiency clothes washing machines by providing incentives (such as rebates, bill credits, and tax incentives) to water customers; Could include partnering with energy utilities or government organizations; applies to residential customers.Water use by clothes washers is typically the second largest source of indoor residential water demand, representing 21.7% of indoor water use. Assume 4,200 gal/year/household of water savings for each high-efficiency clothes washing machine replacement.3.2 16.1 Sponsor: rebate offer; Customer: purchase price minus rebateUtility staff capacity, organization support from regional/county agencyResidential Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement Program411xTo encourage the replacement and purchase of Ultra Low Flush Toilets (1.6 gal or less) by providing incentives (such as rebates, bill credits, and tax incentives) to water customers; Could include partnering with energy utilities or government organizations; applies to residential customers.Water use by toilets is typically the largest source of indoor residential water demand, representing 26% of indoor water use for the average non-conserving household. Assume 4,000 - 11,000 gal/year/household of water savings for each ultra low flow toilet replacement.15.0 74.8 Sponsor: rebate offer; Customer: purchase price minus rebateUtility staff capacity, organization support from regional/county agencyConservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts10 12xTo provide assistance and incentives to commercial, industrial and institutional customers to encourage them to improve indoor and outdoor water-use efficiency; program can include replacement of existing toilets with ultra-low-flush toilets, water-use surveys, incentives and performance targets.Savings is variable, depending on action taken5.0 25.2 Utility: survey administration; Customer: hardware investmentUtility staff capacity; Customer cooperation, feasibilityEfficient Water Use Landscaping for Large Landscape Areas 913xTo provide non-residential customers with support and incentives to improve their landscape water use efficiency; should include landscape water use analysis/surveys, voluntary water use budgets, and when cost effective, include the following: installation of dedicated landscape meters, training in landscape maintenance and irrigation design, and financial incentives such as loans, rebates, or grants for the purchase and/or installation of water efficient irrigation systems.Assume landscape surveys and assistance will result in a 15% reduction in demand for landscape water use by accounts that participate in survey/assistance programs.1.0 5.1 Utility: survey/budget calculation; Customer: hardware investmentInvestment cost, social mindsetNotes:Adapted from the Memorandum of Understanding regarding Urban Water Conservation in California and the CMAP PlanENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.CONSULTING ENGINEERS W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 20 Page 3- 20 Page 20 3.2.2.3 BMP Selection – During the third step, the BMP s and other conservation measures are evaluated for their relevance to the United City of Yorkville and potential water savings are estimated. Table No. 3-10 presents a summary of the evaluation of CMAP Plan BMP s with respect to their relevance for the U nited City of Yorkville. All of these BMP s were determined to be relevant for the City and could be reasonably relied on for measurable water savings with proper implementation. The BMP s address all the areas that were previously identified as high potent ial water savings for the City including residential water use, outdoor water use and non-revenue water. Potential water savings for each BMP were calculated and are discussed in more detail in this section. Becaus e the CMAP Plan recommended BMP s are comprehensive and include programs that address each of the areas of water savings within the City, no additional water conservation measures were selected for incorporation into the LRI water demand scenario. As indicated in Table 3-10, all of the CMAP Plan recommended BMP s are relevant for the United City of Yorkville. The City is already metering all of their customers based on the volume of water that each customer uses. This practice is fundamental to water conservation program success because volumetr ic metering allows customers to see the impacts of their behaviors and changes in hardware. It is recommended that the City continue to follow this practice. Another key output of the BMP evaluation is that baseline education and public outreach activitie s are essential elements to support all other water conservation programs. The City has already taken steps to implement education and public outreach programs and should continue to do so to increase these activities as the City moves forward with other c onservation programming. Potential water savings associated with each of the BMP s listed in Table No. 3 -9 were calculated for use in the LRI demand scenario. The estimated water savings were calculated using information provided in the CMAP Plan and t he California MOU. A summary of key assumptions related to potential water savings calculated for each BMP are listed in Table No. 3-11. The LRI water saving calculat ions are presented in Appendix B. Potential water savings for each BMP are presented in Table No. 3-12. Based on the assumptions outlined previously, the City could implement water conservation BMP s and realize approximately 11% of water use reduction from the 205 0 base demands. The two largest categories of water savings would be realized from outdoor water use and utility focused programs, which make up 33% and 37 % of the water reduction respectively. The remainder of the water savings is provided through indoor residential and commerc ial, industrial and institutional focused programs. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 21 Page 3- 21 Page 21 Table No. 3-10: Summary of BMP Evaluation for the United City of Yorkville LRI Water Demand Scenario United City of Yorkville, IL Conservation Program Description Sector Focus Recommendations for Yorkville System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair Utility ● Metering with commodity rates for all customers Utility ○ Retail Conservation Pricing All Customers ○○ Water Waste Prohibition for residential and non -residential customers All Customers ● Conservation Coordinator All Customers School Education Programs All Customers Public Information Programs All Customers Water Survey for Residential Customers Residential  Residential Plumbing Retrofit Residential ● High -Efficiency Clothes Washing Machine Financial Incentive Replacement Residential ● Residential Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement Program Residential ● Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Accounts Non-residential ● Efficient Water Use Landscaping for Large Landscape Areas Non-residential  Legend Symbol Symbol Description ● Recommended for the United City of Yorkville. Potential water savings estimated for the LRI water demand scenario ○ Currently being completed by the United City of Yorkville. No additional water savings estimated. ○○ Recommended for the United City of Yorkville. No additional water savings estimated due to political nature of item. Recommended for the United City of Yorkville Considered to be a baseline educational component or part of another program; no water savings estimated W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 22 Page 3- 22 Page 22 United City of Yorkville, IL Best Management Practice Key Assumptions High Efficiency Toilet Replacement Assume 90% of Households Upgrade to HET by 2050 High Efficiency Clothes Washing Machines Assume 100%of Households Replace Washing Machines Faucet and Showerhead retrofits Assume 90%of Households Replace Faucets & Showerheads Assume 15% of CII Is Non Process Related Water Use Nonresidential is 18% of Yorkville’s Daily Demand Assume 50% of CII Participation Water waste prohibition programs –50% of Outdoor Water used is Wasted (EPA) Existing Properties Assume 50% Reduction of Outdoor Waste New Construction Assume 5% New Landscape Water Waste Reduction 8.0% of Water Supply Loss from Unidentified Losses Assume 50% Reduction in Unidentified Losses Baseline Education Efforts: Conservation Coordinator, School Education Programs and Public Information Programs Assumed to be a baseline component of any water conservation program;no specific water savings calculated from these programs. Water Conservation for Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Efforts to reduce system losses Table No. 3-11: Potential Water Savings Calculation Assumptions by BMP Water Saved % Of Total (MGD)(%) All Customers 0.172 3.2% New Landscape 0.017 0.3% 0.214 4.0% High Efficiency Toilets (HET)0.049 0.9% High Efficiency Washing Machines (HEWM)0.019 0.3% Retrofits 0.032 0.6% 0.074 1.4% 0.578 11%Total Estimated Savings = Table No. 3-12: Potential Estimated Water Savings From Water Conservation and Efficiency United City of Yorkville, IL Outdoor Indoor Residential Utility Water - System Losses Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Customers Category W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 23 Page 3- 23 Page 23 3.2.2.4 Implementation – The final step in the process is to implement the chosen conservation programs by integrating them into the City ’s current operation and programs. The potential water savings will only be achieved by proper investment into the implementation of the water conservation programs. Developing an implementation plan and investment budget for the City was not in the scope for this Master Plan; however this would be the next required step to realize the future potential water savings . 3.2.3 Less Resource Intensive (LRI) Water Use Projection Evaluation – As discussed in Section 3.1.2.3, successful implementation of the water conservation strateg ies could res ult in meeting a 11% reduction goal in water use by the year 2050. Table No. 3-13 summarizes the total projected LRI water use for incremental PE increases to the year 2050 population projection of 59,565 (+41,687 PE). With the LRI adjustment, the average water use per person per day in the United City of Yorkville is projected to be reduced from 90 gpcd under the CT scenario to 80 gpc d under the LRI scenario. The United City of Yorkville’s antic ipated average day demand in 2050 is reduced from 5.36 MGD under the CT scenario to 4.77 MGD under the LRI scenario. As stated previously, outdoor water use makes up a large portion of the City’s total water use, and it has a large effect on the maximum day water use within the community. With enforcement of existing water conservation programs focused on wiser outdoor water use along with spreading out the water demand (i.e. odd/even lawn sprinkling requirements), the MDD:ADD ratio should come down. Therefore, the LRI MDD:ADD ratio was established at 1.75 (the C T MDD:ADD average ratio was 2.00 ). The MHD:MDD ratio of 2.0 was maintained the same as CT water projection. Mature communities with minimal growth will often experience MDD:ADD ratios between 1.3 – 1.5. Given the United City of Yorkville’s growth potential, a ratio higher than 1.5 was deemed appropriate. Table No. 3-14 summarizes the LRI projected water capacity analysis for incrementa l PE increases to the year 2050 population projection. Table No. 3 -15 indicates the corresponding excess or required capacity needed to meet 100% of each of the test parameters. Tables No. 3 -14 and 3-15 consider that all existing active wells are on-line and that each water treatment plant is available to meet the City’s water demand. Inspection of Tables No. 3-14 and 3-1 5 indicates that while the Ultimate Source Capacity, Reliable Source Capacity and Peak Hour Storage continue to fail with additional PE increases, the water supply and storage deficits are roughly cut in half under the LRI scenario when compared to the CT scenario by the end of the planning period. YEAR2014FUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTUREESTIMATED POPULATION17,87822,87827,87832,87837,82842,87847,87852,87859,565ADDITIONAL POPULATION EQUIVALENTS--+5000+10000+15000+20000+25000+30000+35000+41687ANNUAL PUMPAGE504,429,000 GAL 668,037,600 GAL 814,037,600 GAL 960,037,600 GAL 1,106,037,600 GAL 1,252,037,600 GAL 1,398,037,600 GAL 1,544,037,600 GAL 1,739,298,000 GALMAXIMUM MONTHLY PUMPAGE48,679,000 GALMAXIMUM DRY WEATHER MONTHJULYAVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE1,381,997 GAL 1,830,240 GAL 2,230,240 GAL 2,630,240 GAL 3,030,240 GAL 3,430,240 GAL 3,830,240 GAL 4,230,240 GAL 4,765,200 GALAVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE DURING MONTH WITH MAXIMUM PUMPAGE1,570,290 GALMAXIMUM DAILY PUMPAGE2,170,000 GAL 3,202,920 GAL 3,902,920 GAL 4,602,920 GAL 5,302,920 GAL 6,002,920 GAL 6,702,920 GAL 7,402,920 GAL 8,339,100 GALCOMPUTED MAXIMUM HOUR 180,833 GAL266,910 GAL325,243 GAL383,577 GAL441,910 GAL500,243 GAL558,577 GAL616,910 GAL694,925 GALCOMPUTED MAXIMUM HOUR 3,014 GPM4,449 GPM5,421 GPM6,393 GPM7,365 GPM8,337 GPM9,310 GPM10,282 GPM11,582 GPMAVG. GAL./PERSON/DAY77 GPCD80 GPCD80 GPCD80 GPCD80 GPCD80 GPCD80 GPCD80 GPCD80 GPCDRATIO OF MAX. DAY TO AVG. DAY1.571.751.751.751.751.751.751.751.75Notes:Assumed ratio of Max Hour to Max Day Demand (MHD:MDD) = 2.0Table No. 3-13 Projected Water Use - LRIUnited City of Yorkville, ILENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.CONSULTING ENGINEERS Table No. 3-14: Water Works System Evaluation - LRIUnited City of Yorkville, IL1.0 Ultimate Source Capacity 3,446,000 GAL 2,413,080 GAL 1,713,080 GAL 1,013,080 GAL 313,080 GAL(386,920)GAL(1,086,920)GAL(1,786,920)GAL(3,587,100)GAL2.0 Reliable Source Capacity 2,726,000 GAL 1,693,080 GAL 993,080 GAL 293,080 GAL(406,920)GAL(1,106,920)GAL(1,806,920)GAL(2,506,920)GAL(4,019,100)GAL3.0 Peak Hour Storage 1,551,667 GAL 1,207,360 GAL 974,027 GAL 740,693 GAL 507,360 GAL 274,027 GAL 40,693 GAL(192,640)GAL(504,700)GAL4.0 Fire Flow 3,530,750 GAL 3,401,635 GAL 3,314,135 GAL 3,226,635 GAL 3,139,135 GAL 3,051,635 GAL 2,964,135 GAL 2,876,635 GAL 2,651,613 GAL5.0 Emergency Supply 3,842,003 GAL 3,393,760 GAL 2,993,760 GAL 2,593,760 GAL 2,193,760 GAL 1,793,760 GAL 1,393,760 GAL 993,760 GAL 458,800 GALTable No. 3-15: Water Works System Evaluation - LRICorresponding Available Or Required CapacityUnited City of Yorkville, IL1.0 Ultimate Source Capacity 2,393 GPM 1,676 GPM 1,190 GPM 704 GPM 217 GPM(269)GPM(755)GPM(1,241)GPM(2,491)GPM2.0 Reliable Source Capacity* 2,840 GPM 1,764 GPM 1,034 GPM 305 GPM(424)GPM(1,153)GPM(1,882)GPM(2,611)GPM(4,187)GPM3.0 Peak Hour Storage 1,551,667 GAL 1,207,360 GAL 974,027 GAL 740,693 GAL 507,360 GAL 274,027 GAL 40,693 GAL(240,800)GAL(630,875)GAL4.0 Fire Flow 3,530,750 GAL 3,401,635 GAL 3,314,135 GAL 3,226,635 GAL 3,139,135 GAL 3,051,635 GAL 2,964,135 GAL 2,876,635 GAL 2,651,613 GAL5.0 Emergency Supply 3,842,003 GAL 3,393,760 GAL 2,993,760 GAL 2,593,760 GAL 2,193,760 GAL 1,793,760 GAL 1,393,760 GAL 993,760 GAL 458,800 GALNotes: * Assumes wells are operating 16 hours/day for Reliable Source Capacity.+250002014 +5000 +10000 +15000 +20000TEST PARAMETERSPOPULATION EQUIVALENT INCREASE+30000 +35000 +41687+25000TEST PARAMETERS2014 +5000 +10000POPULATION EQUIVALENT INCREASE+30000 +35000 +41687YEARYEAR+20000+15000ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.CONSULTING ENGINEERS W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 26 Page 3- 26 Page 26 3.3 Projected Water Use Summary Table No. 3-16 summarizes the comparison bet ween the CT and LRI scenarios demonstrating a 11% water use reduction between the CT scenario to LRI scenario by the year 2050. The 11 % reduction will occur incrementally over the next 3 5 years. Exhibit 3-4 further illustrates the significance water conservation can have based on the LRI scenario. By reducing water use, capacity improvements in the Water Works System can be delayed or avoided altogether. This concept will be discussed in det ail in Section 9. Table No. 3-16: Water Use Projection Summary United City of Yorkville, IL ADDu Water MDDz Water MHDp Water Use Projection Use Projection Use Projection Year /Population CT LRI CT LRI CT LRI Increment Projection (MGD)(MGD)(MGD)(MGD)(MGD)(MGD) 2014 17,878 1.38 1.38 2.17 2.17 4.34 4.34 +5,000 22,878 2.06 1.83 4.12 3.20 8.24 6.41 +10,000 27,878 2.51 2.23 5.02 3.90 10.04 7.81 +15,000 32,878 2.96 2.63 5.92 4.60 11.84 9.21 +20,000 37,878 3.41 3.03 6.82 5.30 13.64 10.61 +25,000 42,878 3.86 3.43 7.72 6.00 15.44 12.01 +30,000 47,878 4.31 3.83 8.62 6.70 17.24 13.41 +35,000 52,878 4.76 4.23 9.52 7.40 19.04 14.81 +41,687 59,565 5.36 4.77 10.72 8.34 21.44 16.68 Notes: ADD = Average Day Demand; MDD = Maximum Day Demand; MHD = Maximum Hour Demand u CT ADD based on 90 gpcd; LRI ADD based on 80 gpcd z CT MDD:ADD = 2.00; LRI MDD:ADD = 1.75 pMHD:MDD = 2.00 “ WATER W ORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 27 Page 3-27 Page 27 “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 1 Page 4-1 Page 1 SECTION 4: REGULATORY REVIEW Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA ) sets legal limits on the levels of certain contaminants in drinking water. The legal limits reflect both the level that protects human health and the level that water systems can achieve using the best available technology. Besides prescribing these leg al limits, USEPA rules set water testing schedules and methods t hat water systems must follow. The rules also list acceptable techniques for treating drinking water. SDWA gives individual states the opportunity to set and enforce their own drinking water s tandards if the standards are at least as strong as US EPA's national standards. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) directly oversees the water systems within Illinois. The purpose of this section of the report is to evaluate the City ’s current compliance with existing, near future and potential future regulations relative to the Water Works System. 4.1 Existing Regulations USEPA has drinking water regulations for more than 90 chemical and microbiological contaminants. Table No. 4-1 presents the recent and near future drinking water regulations that could apply to the United City of Yorkville’s water treatment systems. Table No. 4-1 also presents the City ’s status with regard to compliance with the regulations. A brief description of the regulations is presented below. 4.1.1 Surface Water Treatment Rule – The Surface Water Treatment Rule (1989) seeks to prevent waterborne diseases caused by viruses, Legionella and Giardia lamblia. These disease -causing microbes are present at varying concentrations in most surface waters and in groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI). The rule requires that water systems filter and disinfect water from surface water sources to reduce the occurrence of unsafe levels of t hese microbes. 4.1.2 Total Coliform Rule – The current Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (published in 1989) continues to be the only microbial drinking water regulation that applies to all public water systems. Systems are required to meet legal limits (i.e. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL)) for total coliforms, including fecal coliforms, as determined by monthly monitoring. The TCR specifies the frequency and timing of the monthly microbial testing by water systems based on population served. The rule also requires public notification as indicated by monitoring results. 4.1.3 Lead and Copper Rule – The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) (1991) requires systems to monitor drinking water at customer taps. If lead concentrations exceed an action level of 15 ppb or copper concentrations exceed an action level of 1.3 parts per million (ppm) or milligrams per liter (mg/L) in more than 10% of customer taps sampled, the system must undertake a number of additional actions to control corrosion. If the action level for lead is exceeded, the system must also inform the public about steps they should take to protect their health and may have to replace lead service lines under their control. “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 2 Page 4-2 Page 2 Table No. 4-1: Drinking Water Regulation Compliance Summary United City of Yorkville, IL Regulation Year Enacted In Compliance? Compliance Status Yes No Surface Water Treatment Rule 1989 N/A Only applies to surface water and GWUDI systems Total Coliform Rule (TCR) 1989  System is routinely monitored as required Lead and Copper Rule 1991  System is routinely monitored as required Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 1998  System is routinely monitored as required Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 1998 N/A Only applies to surface water and GWUDI systems Stage 1 Disinfectant / Disinfection Byproducts Rule 1998  System is routinely monitored as required Radionuclides Rule 2000  System is routinely monitored as required Arsenic Rule 2001  System is routinely monitored as required Filter Backwash Recycling Rule 2001  System is routinely monitored as required Long Term 1 Surface Water Treatment Rule 2002 N/A Only applies to surface water and GWUDI systems with fewer than 10,000 customers Long Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule 2005 N/A Only applies to surface water and GWUDI systems Stage 2 Disinfectant / Disinfection Byproducts Rule 2005  IDSE Completed; Compliance Monitoring Plan submitted to IEPA Ground Water Rule 2006  System is routinely monitored as required Total Coliform Rule (TCR 2010) 2010  System is routinely monitored as required Radium Treatment Residuals Rule 2011  IEMA registration required for WTP s and the WWTF sludge disposal; Monitoring and reporting required for WWTF biosolids disposal Radon Rule Proposed N/A Proposed rule would set MCL at 300 pCi/L or 4,000 pCi/L with a multimedia mitigation program to address radon in indoor air “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 3 Page 4-3 Page 3 4.1.4 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule – EPA uses the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) (1988) program to collect data for contaminants suspected to be present in drinking water, but that do not have health-based standards set under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Every five years EPA reviews the list of contaminants, largely based on t he Contaminant Candidate List. 4.1.5 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule – The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) (1998) amends the existing Surface Water Treatment Rule to strengthen microbial protection, including provisions specifically to address Cryptosporidium, and to address risk trade-offs with disinfection byproducts. The final rule includes treatment requirements for waterborne pathogens, e.g., Cryptosporidium. In addition, systems must continue to meet existing requirements for Giardia lamblia and viruses. 4.1.6 Stage 1 Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule – The Stage 1 Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) (1998) establishes maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs) and maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) for three chemical disinfectants – chlorine, chloramines and chlorine dioxide. It also establishes maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for total trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, chlorite and bromate. 4.1.7 Radionuclides Rule – The Radionuclides Rule (2000) retained the existing MCLs for combined radium-226 and radium -228, gross alpha particle radioactivity and beta particle and photon activity. The rule regulated uranium for the first time. The current combined radium MCL is 5 pCi/L. 4.1.8 Arsenic Rule – The Arsenic Rule (2001) reduced the MCL for drinking water from 50 parts per billion (ppb) or micrograms per liter (ug/L) to 10 ppb. Water systems had to comply with this standard by January 23, 2006. 4.1.9 Filter Backwash Recycling Rule – The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) (2001) requires systems that recycle to return specific recycle flows through all processes of the system's existing conventional or direct filtration system or at an alternate location approved by the state. 4.1.10 Long Term 1 Surface Water Treatment Rule – This EPA promulgated rule requires cry ptosporidium removal, enhanced filtration requirements, microbial inactivation benchmarking and other requirements for surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water. The Long Term 1 Surface Water Treatment Rule (2002) does not apply to Yorkville because t his rule is only for systems with less than 10,000 customers. 4.1.11 Long Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule – The Long Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2SWTR) (2005) requires systems to monitor their source water, calculate and average Cryptosporidium concentration and use those results to determine if their source is vulnerable to contamination and may “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 4 Page 4-4 Page 4 require additional treatment. This rule will become applicable to Yorkville if the decision is made to switch from using groundwater to using surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. 4.1.12 Stage 2 Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule – The Stage 2 Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) (2005) requires some systems to complete an initial distribution system evaluation (IDSE) to characterize DBP levels in their distribution systems and identify location s to monitor DBPs for Stage 2 DBPR compliance. The Stage 2 DBPR bases total trihalomethane (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5 ) compliance on a locational running annual average (LRAA) calculated at each monitoring location. A Compliance Monitoring Plan was due April 1, 2012. The plan include s the compliance monitoring locations, dates and compliance calculation procedures. 4.1.13 Groundw ater Rule – The Ground Water Rule (GWR) (2006) establishes a risk -targeted approach to identify groundwater systems (GWSs) susceptible to fecal contamination and requires corrective action to correct significant deficiencies and source water fecal contamination in all public GWSs. 4.1.14 Total Coliform Rule – The proposed revisions to the TCR (2010) will require public water systems that are vulnerable to microbial contamination to identify and fix problems, and establish criteria for systems to qualify for and stay on reduced monitoring. 4.1.15 Radium Treatment Residuals Rule – In 2011, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) provided the leadership for the revisions to Title 32 of the Illinois Administrative Code, Section 330.40(d). With these revisions, entities handling water and wastewater treatment residuals containing radium must register with IEMA and meet the disposal standards specified in the rule. The rule only applies to Water Treatment Plants and Wastewater Treatment Facilities who are part of a ‘system’ where deep sandstone aquifers known to contain radium are used as a water supply source. 4.2 Near Future Regulations The SDWA includes a process that USEPA follows to identify and list unregulated contaminants which may require a national drinking water regulation in the future. USEPA must periodically publish this list of contaminants (called the Contaminant Candidate List or CCL) and decide whether to regulate at least five or more contaminants on the list (called Regulatory Determinations). EPA uses this list of unregulated contaminants to prioritize research and data collection efforts to help determine whether a specific contaminant should be regulated. Based on the current discussion relative to these proposed rules, it is anticipated the United City of Yorkville will have no compliance concerns with meeting them. 4.2.1 Radon Rule – The US EPA proposed new regulations for radon in drinking water. The proposed regulations provide flexibility in how to limit exposure to radon by focusing efforts on the greatest public health risks from radon - those in indoor air - while also reducing the highest risks from radon in drinking water. The “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 5 Page 4-5 Page 5 proposed rule provides for a multimedia approach to address risks from radon in drinking water and radon in indoor air from soil. The Safe Drinking Water Act directs the EPA to propose and finalize a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for radon in drinking water, but also to make available an alternative approach: a higher alternative maximum contaminant level (AMCL) accompanied by a multimedia mi tigation (MMM) program to address radon risks in indoor air. The proposed rule would set the MCL at 300 pCi/L or 4,000 pCi/L for a system with a MMM program. 4.2.2 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions – The US EPA proposed revisions to the LCR to enhance the implementation of the LCR in the areas of monitoring, treatment, customer awareness and lead service line replacement and to improve compliance with the public education requirements of the LCR and ensure drinking water consumers receive meaningful, timely and useful information needed to help them limit their exposure to lead in drinking water. Given the recent heightened attention to lead concentrations, primary sparked by the unfortunate circumstances that arose in Flint, Michigan, the USEPA currently i s evaluating the lead standard. The USEPA is scheduled to issue a revised rule in 2017. 4.2.3 Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) – As noted above, SDWA includes a process that USEPA must follow to identify and list unregulated contaminants which may require a national drinking water regulation in the future. The contaminants on the CCL are not regulated by existing national primar y drinking water regulations, are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require regulation. In preparing the 2009 CCL, USEPA evaluated approximately 7,500 chemicals and microbes and selected 104 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbiological contaminants for the Final CCL3. 4.3 Potential Future Water Works System Regulations USEPA has identified three additional chemical contaminants through the CCL and UCMR process that are currently being considered for regulation. These are MTBE (methyl-t -butyl ether), Perchlorate and Sulfate. No schedule for regulatory action has been presented by USEPA. Based on the current discussion relative to these potential rules, it is anticipated the United City of Yorkville will have no compli ance concerns with meeting them. 4.3.1 MTBE – MTBE is a member of a group of chemicals commonly known as fuel oxygenates. Oxygenates are added to fuel to increase its oxygen content. MTBE is used in gasoline throughout the United States to reduce carbon monoxide and ozone levels caused by auto emissions. MTBE has replaced the use of lead as an octane enhancer since 1979. Releases of MTBE to ground and surface water can occur through leaking underground storage tanks and pipelines, spills, emissions from marine engines into lakes and reservoirs and to some extent from air deposition. “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 6 Page 4-6 Page 6 4.3.2 Perchlorate – Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and man -made chemical that is used to produce rocket fuel, fireworks, flares and explosives. Perchlorate c an also be present in bleach and in some fertilizers. Perchlorate may have adverse health effects because scientific research indicates that this contaminant can disrupt the thyroid’s ability to produce hormones needed for normal growth and development. 4.3.3 Sulfate – Sulfate is a substance that occurs naturally in drinking water. Health concerns regarding sulfate in drinking water have been raised because of reports that diarrhea may be associated with the ingestion of water containing high levels of s ulfate. Of particular concern are groups within the general population that may be at greater risk from the laxative effects of sulfate when they experience an abrupt change from drinking water with low sulfate concentrations to drinking water with high s ulfate concentrations. Sulfate in drinking water currently has a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L), based on aesthetic effects (i.e., taste and odor). This regulation is not a federally enforceable standard, but is provided as a guideline for States and public water systems. USEPA estimates that about 3% of the public drinking water systems in the country may have sulfate levels of 250 mg/L or greater. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 1 Page 5-1 Page 1 SECTION 5: SUSTAINABLE S OURCE WATER ASSESSMENT The foundation of all Water Works S ystems is the source of supply. Therefore, the foundation of a sustainable Water Works System must be built on a sustainable source water assessment. The United City of Yorkville generally has four potential sources of water to consider, namely: 1) local shallow groundwater, 2) deep s andstone groundwater, 3) surface water through the Fox River and 4) surface water from Lake Michigan. The City currently utilizes five deep sandstone wells for water supply sources. In this section, the sustainability of the City’s current supply source will be evaluated and then the potential integration of other sources of water will be explored. 5.1 Existing Groundwater Resources in the Yorkville Area Many municipalities in Northeastern Illinois who do not receive Lake Michigan water rely on the deep sandstone aquifer as their main source of supply. Based on th e current and projected area deep sandstone withdrawal rates, the deep sandstone aquifers likely will have significant water level drawdown into the future. With this increase in drawdown, energy costs of pumping water from the deep sandstone aquifer will continue to rise, water quality within the deep sandstone aquifers could degrade and the long-term sustainability of the deep sandstone aquifer for the region will continue to be a question. At the time of this report, 100% of Yorkville’s potable water is supplied from groundwater; therefore, it is vital that Yorkville ensures that this groundwater is sustainable. Since the construction of the City ’s community Water Works System, the United City of Yorkville has relied on groundwater resources for its source of s upply. As stated in Section 2.2.1, one of the City’s abandoned wells was in the shallow sand and gravel aquifer and another was in the Galena-Platteville and Glenwood-St. Peter-Ancell Formations . Six more wells have been constructed by the City since that time, one of which was constructed as a shallow well and was sold to the city of Plano. The other five wells , which are all still fully utilized by the City, are deep wells into the Glenwood St. Peter and/or Ironton-Galesville aquifers. Two of the five wells, Wells No. 3 and 4, were constructed to be open to the Ancell -St. Peter and Ironton-Galesville aquifers, the other three wells are open to only the Ironton -Galesville aquifer. As the City ’s planning boundary expands and the need for additional water supply increases, the City will need to determine if they should continue to seek water from the aquifers they currently are withdrawing from or whether alternative water sources would be more sustainable and cost effecti ve to utilize. Shallow groundwater, if available in sustainable capacity, can reduce demand on the deep aquifers, reduce radium levels in the water supply and add water supply at an affordable cost. Like deep groundwater sources, shallow groundwater sources typically have few organic constituents, so the cost to treat shallow groundwater is typically considerably less costly to treat than surface water supplies. Shallow well water can be obtained from sand and gravel aquifers in the glacial drift and/or the fractured dolomite bedrock in the W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 2 Page 5-2 Page 2 Maquoketa or Galena -Platteville systems. Diversifying water resources when possible is always encouraged to minimize a community’s susceptibility to drawing down the water supply in a specific groundwater aquifer. In recent years, several water studies have focused on water supply availability within Northeastern Illinois. Two of the studies, which include the Groundwater Studies for Water Supply Planning in Kendall County, Illinois (ISWS, 2013) and the Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply/Demand Plan (CMAP/RWSPG, 2010), have evaluated the sustainability of the shallow aquifers, deep sandstone aquifers and the Fox River within the Northeastern Illinois region. As part of these studies, the Illinois State Geologic Survey (ISGS) and Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) staffs ha ve developed a three -dimensional geologic model of a portion of Northeastern Illinois and deep sandstone macroscale geologic and groundwater flow models that cover a portion of the Midwest . In this section of the report, a summary of the work completed by the ISGS & ISWS will be reviewed to identify the groundwater resource availability for the City . 5.1.1 Shallow Sand & Gravel and Bedrock Aquifers – In Northeastern Illinois, the availability of shallow well water sufficiently productive for a municipal well varies and shallow well construction and development often requires extensive studies, exploration, drilling and testing. In the Yorkville area, there are several known Quaternary period (2.588 million years ago to present) aquifers ; however, these sand and gravel aquifers lie mainly directly northwest of the City . These sand and gravel aquifers are remnants of the last major episode of glaciation in the Midwest (approximately 1 10,000 to 10,000 years ago). These glacial sand and gravel deposits rest on a surface of eroded Silurian aged bedrock (443.7 to 416 million years ago) and the Upper Bedrock Unit . These aquifers have been studied extensively by the ISGS and ISWS and mapped with a relative degree of certainty. Exhibit 5-1 outlines the head in feet above MSL for the sand and gravel aquifers and the Shallow Bedrock aquifers in Kendall County . The map shows a belt of lower heads trending from the n orthwest part of the county to the s outheast part of the county . The area of lower heads approximately follows the Sandwich Fault and is comprised of predominantly shaly, relatively impermeable rocks of the Maquoketa Unit. There are several potential reasons why heads along the Sand wich Fault may be so low: 1) Reduced heads may reflect the low transmissivity of the Shallow Bedrock Aquifer where even relatively low pumpage, such as from domestic wells, could cause steep, narrow cones of depression. 2) Wells in this central area may be compl eted into the Galena -Platteville dolomite and thusly could be impacted by the lower water levels in the underlying Ancell unit. 3) Groundwater may be moving down the Sandwich Fault into the deeper units where heads have been greatly lowered by pumping. While the vertical permeability of the fault is unknown, chemical evidence suggests groundwater was previously moved upward through the fault and flow directions may have changed from upward to downward due to the increasing use of the lower aquifers. Areas around the Fox River and Aux Sable Creek also demonstrate lower heads than other areas. Lower heads around these areas suggest that the wells are hydraulically connected to the surface water. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 3 Page 5-3 Page 3 Exhibit 5-1: 2006 Potentiometric Surface of Sand and Gravel Aquifers and Shallow Bedrock Aquifer United City of Yorkville, IL 5.1.2 Deep Sandstone Aquifer – Within the City’s Planning Area, deep well water can be obtained from formations in the Ordovician and/or the Cambrian aquifer systems. In general, the Ordovician aquifer system consists of (in descending order) the Maquoketa Unit, the Galena-Platteville dolomite, the Glenwood-St. Peter-Ancell sandstone (hereinafter referred to as the St. Peter or Ancell Unit) and the Prairie du Chien- Eminance dolomite/sandstone formations . Furthermore, the Cambrian aquifer system generally consists of (in descending order) the Potosi-F ranconia unit, the Ironton-Galesville sandstone, the Eau Claire sandstone W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 4 Page 5-4 Page 4 and the Mt. Simon sandstone formations. The major deep water bearing formations in order from the ground surface to the deepest are the St. Peter sandstone, the Ironton -Galesville s andstone and the Mt. Simon sandstone formations. With observed water production capacities in the maximum range of 400 GPM to 500 GPM, the St. Peter formation is generally the greatest water producer of the Ordovician aquifer system. Based on capacities of other wells in this formation within northeastern Illinois, the water production from the Ironton-Galesville formation of the Cambrian aquifer system can be projected at a rate of 1,000 GPM. The Eau Claire and Mt. Simon formations have also demonstrate d high production capability. Because they are deeper (and hence more costly to construct and operate) than the Ironton -Galesville formation and because, in some cases, the total dissolved solids levels and brackishness within the Mt. Simon aquifer have been excessive, the Eau Claire and Mt. Simon formations are often times not considered for potable water supply . In the past (1970s and 1980s), the deep formations throughout N ortheastern Illinois had experienced declining static and pumping water levels, in some instances, due to aquifer mining of groundwater systems. Aquifer mining occurs when groundwater is withdrawn from an aquifer at unsustainable rates for a period of time such that the critical water level is reached and exceeded. The critical wat er level for the deep bedrock system in Northeastern Illinois according to most researchers is the top of the Ironton -Galesville aquifer. The demand from growing populations resulted in over -pumping and thus, lowered groundwater levels. In fact some literature has suggested that water levels within the high pumping centers had dropped more than 900 feet in the deep sandstone aquifers lying deep below the Fox River Valley. This trend was due to the fact that the demand from the deep wells was in excess of the naturally occurring recharge rate. Because of the declining yields of the deep well formations, many Chicago suburban communities turned to alternate sources of supply including shallow groundwater and surface water from adjacent rivers. Moreover, L ake Michigan water became available for many communities in Cook, DuPage, Lake and Will Counties. Since many suburban communities took advantage of these alternate water supply sources, the burden on the deep well supply has been reduced and the static water levels have rebounded to a certain extent . Exhibit s 5-2 and 5 -3 display the ISWS modeled head for the Ancell and Ironton -Galesville aquifers in 2005; purple lines represent the Sandwich Fault and the red box outlines Kendall County . The cone of depression in each exhibit is centered over Joliet and is spreading towards the Yorkville region. This model data was created to have uniform and re -creatable results. Actual measured heads in high usage areas can be below the modeled values displayed in t he map. Literature from the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) has suggested that in 1995 the deep bedrock withdrawals totaled 67 MGD and in 2000 the total was about 72 MGD. It has been suggested that the maximum sustainable yield of the deep aquifer sys tem in N ortheastern Illinois is approximately 65 – 80 MGD. If the estimates of the practical sustained yield are correct and if the withdrawals continue to exceed that level, the recovery may eventually discontinue and water levels could potentially decli ne once again. In fact, it has been documented that there already is some additional decline in some localized cases. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 5 Page 5-5 Page 5 The Mt. Simon aquifer has not been used widely and therefore has not experienced a significant drawdown due to water use. One of the mai n reasons the Mt. Simon aquifer has not been used heavily is because it currently is more expensive to draw water from as compared with other options. The aquifer is further underground and therefore extra energy usage must be used to pump the water to the surface. Additionally, the water in the aquifer is brackish and therefore more expensive and difficult to treat. Exhibit 5-2: Modeled Heads in 2005 for the Ancell Sandstone Aquifer Exhibit 5-3: Modeled Heads in 2005 for the Ironton -Galesville Sandstone Aquifer United City of Yorkville, IL United City of Yorkville, IL 5.1.3 Sustainable Groundwater Supply Planning Map – In an effort to pull all of the existing groundwater resources information together, the project team, which included staff from the ISWS, utilized the ISGS/ISWS Northeastern Illinois geodatabase to map the existing water wells within, and adjacent to, the planning a rea. The Ashmore and Glasford Unit that lies north and west of Yorkville is typically thicker than in Yorkville itself thus lending itself to be used more readily for groundwater. Directly to the west of Yorkville, the City of Plan o fully utilizes shallow wells instead of using deep wells. Exhibit 5-4 shows the viability of shallow wells in the study area along with the l ocal shallow and deep wells utilized by Montgomery, Yorkville, Oswego and Plano. !!!! !! !! !! !!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!PL (40') PL 7 (91')PL 8 (97') PL 9 (117') MO 11 (59') MO 10 (87') OS 8 (1425') OS 3 (1370') YO 8 (1384') YO 3 (1335') YO 9 (1368') YO 4 (1393') YO 7 (1527') PL 4 (36.5')PL 3 (39.5') OS 6 (1392') OS 4 (1396') OS 9 (1514') OS 7 (1535') MO 13 (183')MO 12 (190') MO 3 (1336') MO 4 (1353') MO 8 (1378') MO 15 (1397') PL 5 (40.75') OS 10 (1397') OS 11 (1403') MO 14 (1403') Jericho Rd I L - 4 7 Scott Rd Prairie StDugan RdOhio StOrchard RdR ONA L D REAGAN MEMHWY Sullivan RdBliss RdOAK STLasher Rd G r a n a r t R d Hankes Rd River stDowner Pl Church RdFarnsworth AveLake StIL-47 / US-30Union StDauberman RdHill AveLINCOLN AVWheeler Rd PARK U S -3 0 Elmwood DrTanner Rd M errill R d B u t t e r f i e l d R d Galena Blvd P R A I R I E S T Edgelawn DrHa r t e r RdSheffer Rd Jeter RdRIVERBASELINEJones RdNorris RdBarnes RdJohn Clark RdMAIN STSIMPSON PKWYDORR DRGarden Rd Nan StDouglas AveKNELL RD In dig o D r WI NDSOR RDCHERRY TREE CTWheeler Rd WALKER RD GROVE RDGALENA RD HELMAR RD RIDGE RDAMENT CATON FARM RD.LISBON RDSCHLAPP RDNEWARK RD F O X R O A D IMMANUELASHLEYWHEELER RD LISBON CENTER ELDAMAIN RDCHURCH RDMILL RD R I V E R R O A D ASHLEY RDMINKLER RDARBEITER RDP L A I N F I E L D R D BRISBIN ROADVAN DYKE K E N N E D Y BUDD RD CHERRY RD WOOLLEY RD COLLINS RD HUGHES CORNEILS RD L E G I O NW BEECHERMCKANNAW O L F R D CANNONBALL TRHOPKINS RDHIGHPOINTROCK CREEK RDH A L E RESERVATION RD PLATTVILLE RD SEARS RD HOLLENBACK RDGROVE RD.S O U T H S T C H IC A G O R DDICKSON RDVA N E M M O N R D TUMA RD C O N C O R D D R IV E OL D PO ST RD C H I C A G O R D SUNDOW N LANEHILLTOP G r a n de T r a ilSCHAEFE R R D HARVEY RDASHE RDGATES LN WHEELER PAVILLIO N WILDSPRING PkwyS MAIN STSLEEPY HOLLOW RDP L E A S A N T D R FAIRWAY DRIVEFINDLEY RD S T A G E C O A C H T R A I L STEPHENS RD DOUGLAS RDGILMORE RDCAREY ST.Old Grove RdFOX CT FLINTSTOCK STLegend !!Municipal Shallow Bedrock Well !!Municipal Deep Bedrock Well Deep Bedrock One Mile Diameter Planning Setback Shallow Well 2000 Ft Diameter Planning Setback Existing Water Main Yorkville Study Area Thickness of Ashmore and Glasford Unit Thickness < 25' Thickness =>25', <50' Thickness =>50', <75' Thickness =>75', <100' Thickness =>100', <125' Thickness =>125' 0 3,600 7,200 10,800 14,4001,800 Feet EXHIBIT 5-4 SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER SUPPLY PLANNING MAP DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: JANUARY, 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH5-4.MXD CLV Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\ United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH °SUB-REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT ANALYSIS UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 7 Page 5-7 Page 7 5.1.4 Sandwich Fault - The Sandwich Fault, which runs along the s outheast side of the City , affects all aquifers discussed in this report to some extent . The Sandwich Fault is actually a series of parallel faults in a 2-mile wide zone which runs from northwest to southeast . The location and number of faults in Kendall County is difficult to determine because of the thick overlying till. Evidence from the shallow water levels and the chemistry within the fault suggest that there is a vertical flow along the fault but the transmissivity along the fault should be much smaller than the horizontal transmissivities of the sandstone. Geologic uplift has caused area southwest of the fault line to rise which subsequently caused the erosion and removal of younger rocks. While northeast of the fault, the Ancell sandstone is overlaid by an aquitard, southwest of the fault t he Ancell sandstone is at , or near the surface. Due to the proximity to the surface, the Ancell aquifer southwest of the fault is in a much more advantageous position for recharge as compared with the Ancell aquifer northeast of the fault. It is unlikely that the Mt. Simon aquifer is not significantly affected by the fault due to the fac t that its thickness is greater than the thickness of the fault. Exhibits 5-5, 5-6 and 5 -7 display the thicknesses of the shallow and deep aquifers , the proximity to the surface of the various geological units and how the geological units are affected by t he Sandwich Fault. While there is the possibility for water conductivity within the fault itself, it is unwise to consider drilling wells directly on the fault. Fractures within the bedrock can adversely affect drill ing and can cause difficulties with bot h schedule and cos t of wells. Drilling wells both northeast and southwest of the fault will allow the City to take advantage of the water levels on either side and build a factor of safety i nto their water supply by diversifying their aquifer usage. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 8 Page 5-8 Page 8 Exhibit 5-5: Bedrock Surface Hydrogeology of Kendall County Illinois United City of Yorkville, IL W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 9 Page 5-9 Page 9 Exhibit 5-6: North/South V iew of Illinois Aquifers United City of Yorkville, IL Exhibit 5-7: East/West V iew of Illinois Aquifers United City of Yorkville, IL W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 10 Page 5-10 Page 10 5.2 Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling As previously summarized, the ISGS and ISWS collab oratively developed a multistate deep sandstone aquifer model. Initial model results indicate the water levels within the aquifer are declining. The results also suggest the projected growth in the region, along with a current trends per capita water usage, could create some major aquifer challenges in portions of the region – primarily in Southeast Kane County , Northeast Kendall and Northwest Will Cou nty. Alternative water use scenarios also were modeled to project water levels under those scenarios. As one would expect, lower water demands under less resource intensive water use scenarios extend the capacity of the deep sandstone water supply resour ce further into the future. When looking at the geologic stratigraphy of the region, the St. Peter Sandstone (Ancell Unit) and the Ironton- Galesville Sandstone appear to be separate aquifer units. However, many municipal wells in Northeastern Illinois are open to both units, and therefore water has transferred across those two units for many years. Given the manmade connection between the two units, the water levels of each individual unit have essentially merged together in most areas of Northeas tern Illinois. Even though three of five of the City’s current wells are cased through the Ancell unit, the hydraulic interconnection between the Ancell and Ironton - Galesville units likely exists in the Yorkville area. Therefore, water levels in the model uti lized the upper Ancell Unit as the reference point. The top of the Ancell Unit in the Yorkville area is approximately at an elevation of 155 ft MSL at Well No. 4, 150 at Well No. 7 and 135 ft MSL at W ell No. 9. Therefore, at a static water elevation of approximately 280 ft, the artesian head above the top of the Ancell Unit at Well No. 4 was approximately 130 feet in 2010. At a static water level elevation of approximately 230 ft MSL, the head of Well No. 7 was 80 ft of artes ian head above the top of the Ancell unit in 2010. At a static water elevation of approximately 115 ft MSL, the head of Well No. 9 was 20 ft below the top of the Ancell Unit in 2010 . 5.2.1 2050 Northeastern Illinois Regional Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeli ng – As part of this master planning project, the ISWS modified the regional deep sandstone model for multiple local scale alternatives. Six different scenarios were modeled using various assumptions in order to gain a better understanding of how the aquifer would respond to local projected changes in aquifer withdrawal. The scenarios have two different variables; one variable has three alternates and the other has two. One variable is whether or not the city is using their CT, LRI, or MCT (modified curre nt trends) to withdraw water from the aquifer. The MCT variable makes the assumption that the city will continue water use with the ‘current trends’ model, but takes into account whether or not the City is going to place all of their future wells into the Ironton -Galesville aquifer. While the Ironton -Galesville is currently the most cost -feasible aquifer to pull from, the assumption could be made that at some point the City would be willing to invest more money in order to pull from a different aquifer if it meant a more sustainable outcome. Additionally, future technology W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 11 Page 5-11 Page 11 may make obtaining water from other aquifers more cost -feasible than it currently is. This CT/LRI/MCT variable can be simplified down to be how much water the City is withdrawing from the St. Peter and Ironton- Galesville aquifer from a certain amount of wells. The second variable is whether or not the City of Joliet , who currently has the largest regional effect on the aquifer, continues to obtain all of their water from deep sandstone we lls. The variable accounts for what would occur if Joliet continued to withdraw water from the Ironton -Galesville aquifer at their current trends or if Joliet began to obtain 80% of their water from another source and only obtained 20% of their water from the Ironton-Galesville aquifer. As described in S ection 2, Well No. 3 has been pumping excessive amounts of sand and often requires expensive extra maintenance. Therefore, for the scenarios in S ection 5, Well No. 3 is considered to be abandoned. Exhibit 5-8 displays head projections for Yorkville Wells No. 4, 7 and 9 with comparisons for all CT, LRI and MCT values for both the variables of Joliet switching to surface water and continuing to use groundwater. Additionally, the CT static water levels have a corresponding pumping water level in the graph. The pumping water level was found by assuming the historical specific capacity will continue into the future. It is important to take note of the pumping level as well as the ‘pump setting level’ in all the hydrographs in Exhibit 5-8. When pumping water levels approach the pump setting level, the pump and motor will need to be lowered. At some point, the pump can no longer be lowered and sustain the same pumping rate. If the pumping water level drops to be near the top of the Ironton -Galesville then the production rate will need to be significantly reduced or the well will need to be abandoned. Exhibit 5-9 displays several different modeling scenarios. The first picture displays the head above the Ironton-Galesville in 2014 and the following five pictures show the modeled drawdown for five different scenarios, each of these scenarios are d escribed further in sections 5.2.2 through 5.2 .6. 5.2.2 2050 CT Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling With Proposed Ironton -Galesville Wells – The first model ed scenario makes the assumption that the City of Joliet and the United City of Yorkville will both continue to make withdrawals at historical rates (scaled for population increase) until the year 2050. In this scenario, it is assumed that Well No. 3 is abandoned and seven new wells are added to supply a total of 5.36 MGD of water to Yorkville. Each of these wells would be pumping from the Ironton -Galesville aquifer exclusively apart from Well No. 4 which would continue pumping from both the Ironton-Galesville and the Ancell aquifers. This scenario is considered to be the worst case scenario as far as aquifer use modeled in this study. As one can see by looking at Exhibit 5-9, this scenario predicts that the pumping water level in Well No. 9 would decrease below the current pump setting level between 2035 and 2040. The pumping level for Well No. 4 would be approaching the current pump setting level in the year 2050. Exhibit 5-8: Historical and Projected Water Levels in Select WellsUnited City of Yorkville, ILWell No. 9Well No. 4Well No. 7Well No. 9Well No. 4Well No. 7Projections with Joliet Continuing on Ground Water Supply OnlyProjections with Joliet Integrating Surface Water into Water Supply Portfolio-600-500-400-300-200-10001002003004005006001960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Head (ft AMSL)ObservedModeled (Historic)Modeled (CT)Modeled (LRI)Modeled (MCT)Modeled (CT) - PLIronton-Galesville SandstonePump SettingSt. Peter Sandstone-600-500-400-300-200-10001002003004005006001960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Head (ft AMSL)ObservedModeled (Historic)Modeled (CT)Modeled (LRI)Modeled (MCT)Modeled (CT) - PLSt. Peter SandstoneIronton-Galesville SandstonePump Setting-600-500-400-300-200-10001002003004005006001960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Head (ft AMSL)ObservedModeled (Historic)Modeled (CT)Modeled (LRI)Modeled (MCT)Modeled (CT) - PLIronton-Galesville SandstonePump SettingSt. Peter Sandstone-600-500-400-300-200-10001002003004005006001960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Head (ft AMSL)ObservedModeled (Historic)Modeled (CT)Modeled (LRI)Modeled (MCT)Modeled (CT) - PLSt. Peter SandstoneIronton-Galesville SandstonePump Setting-600-500-400-300-200-10001002003004005006001960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Head (ft AMSL)ObservedModeled (Historic)Modeled (CT)Modeled (LRI)Modeled (MCT)Modeled (CT) -PLSt. Peter SandstoneIronton-Galesville SandstonePump Setting-600-500-400-300-200-10001002003004005006001960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Head (ft AMSL)ObservedModeled (Historic)Modeled (CT)Modeled (LRI)Modeled (MCT)Modeled (CT) -PLSt. Peter SandstoneIronton-Galesville SandstonePump Setting Exhibit 5-9: 2014 Head and Projected 2050 Drawdown in the Regional Deep Sandstone AquiferUnited City of Yorkville, IL2014 Head AboveTop of Ironton Galesville AquiferAlternate 1: 2050 Drawdown W/ CT Water Use; Joliet on Deep AquiferAlternate 2: 2050 Drawdown W/ LRI Water Use;Joliet on Deep AquiferAlternate 3: 2050 Drawdown W/ MCT Water Use; Joliet on Deep AquiferAlternate 4: 2050 Drawdown W/ CT Water Use; Joliet Switches to Surface WaterAlternate 5: 2050 Drawdown W/ LRI Water Use; Joliet Switches to Surface Water W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 14 Page 5-14 Page 14 In this scenario, the static water level for Wells No. 7 and 9 would be approaching, or be below, the bottom of the Ancell aquifer by 2050. In other words, the Ancell Aquifer would be fully dewatered at these two well locations. The static water l evel for Well No. 4 is not projected to drop as much as wells No. 7 and 9. Given wells No. 4’s location in the center of town, where Joliet and Aurora’s withdrawal have less of an effect, a nd its high specific capacity, W ell No. 4’s water levels will not decrease as much as the other wells. 5.2.3 2050 LRI Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling with Proposed Ironton -Galesville Wells – The purpose of the second scenario was to determine the change in water levels if Yorkville used moderate conservation efforts to reach the LRI scenario and Joliet continued to obtain its potable water from the Ironton -Galesville aquifer. In this scenario, Well No. 3 is abandoned and four new wells are added to the original wells for an average of 4.77 MGD drawn from the 8 wells total. This scenario is called out as ‘Alternate 2’ in Exhibit 5 -8. The difference between Yorkville CT and LRI values when Joliet has not modified from their current usage can be found in Exhibit 5 -9. The model results suggest that when the United City of Yorkville uses moderate conservation efforts to reduce their water usage, the static water level rises by 49’ for Well No. 9, 41’ for Well No. 4 and 16’ for Well No. 7 when compared to Alternate No. 1. 5.2.4 2050 MCT Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling with Partial Alternate Aquifer Withdrawal – The third scenario evaluated the change in ground water levels if Yorkville continued to use water at the current rate, but switched half of the future wells to pump from an aquifer other than the Ironto n-Galesville. Currently, the Ironton-Galesville is the most cost feasible aquifer to draw from; however, future events may justify the added cost of utilizing a different aquifer. This scenario is identified as ‘Alternate 3’ in Exhibit 5-9. Head in the Yo rkville area drops by around 125’ in the east part of the City, 150’ in the central part of the City and 175’ in the east part of the City. As seen in Exhibit 5-8, if Joliet does not switch to surface water and Yorkville does not implement conservation eff orts, but instead chooses to obtain half of their new wells to an aquifer other than the Ironton -Galesville, the static water level head lowers by 34’ for Well No. 9, 32’ for Well No. 4 and 28’ for Well No. 7 as compared to the 2014 head. 5.2.5 2050 CT Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling With Proposed Ironton -Galesville Wells and Joliet Moves to Predominantly Surface Water – The purpose of the fourth scenario was to determine if the Yorkville CT water use could be sustained if Joliet began to obtain 80% of their demand from surface water. In this scenario, Well No. 3 is abandoned and seven new wells are added to supply a total of 5.36 MGD of water to Yorkville. Each of these wells would be pum ping from the Ironton-Galesville aquifer exclusively , except W ell No. 4, which would continue to pull from both the Ironton-Galesville and the Ancell aquifers. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 15 Page 5-15 Page 15 The drawdown that would occur in this scenario is called out as ‘Alternate 4’ in Exhibit 5-9. The differences between CT values when Joliet is using surface water and when Joliet is using ground water can be found in Exhibit s 5-8 and 5-9. W hen Joliet switches to obtaining 80% of their water from surface water, the 2 0 50 static water level projections only differ by 24’ of head for Well No. 9, 23’ of head for Well No. 4 and 44’ of head for Well No. 7. The CT Scenario Model demonstrates Joliet’s conversion to predominately surface water appears to have some affect on water levels within the region, but the affect is minimal. Joliet switching to surface water delays the CT static water levels from reaching the worst -case scenario for 4 years by Wells No. 9 and 4 and by 10 years for Well No. 7. 5.2.6 2050 LRI Deep Sandstone Aquifer Modeling with Proposed Ironton-Galesville Wells and Joliet Moves To Predominantly Surface Water – The purpose of the fifth scenario was to determine the change in water levels if Yorkville reduced their water usage to the LRI scenario and if Joliet switches to obtain 80% of thei r water needs from surface water. In this scenario, which is similar to scenario 2, Well No. 3 is abandoned and four new wells are added to the original for and an average of 4.77 MGD would be drawn from the 8 wells. This scenario is called out as ‘Alternate 5’ in Exhibit 5-9. The head above the Iron -Galesville actually increases in the Joliet area that is southeast of the Yorkville planning area. Head in the Yorkville area drops by around 125’ in the south part of the City, 150’ in the northwest pa rt of the City and 175’ in the northeast part of the City. As seen in Exhibit 5-8, the difference in static water levels between the worst case scenario (no conservation efforts from Yorkville, Joliet remains on ground water) and the best case scenario (Yo rkville implements conservation efforts, Joliet uses surface water) is 82’ for Well No. 9, 67’ for Well No. 4 and 71’ for Well No. 7. 5.2.7 Model Results Summary – There is an infinite number of events which may have small or large effects on the head of the Ironton -Galesville aquifer; additionally, the region could grow differently than predicted and the regional withdrawals from the aquifer could be different as well . The purpose of modeling for this report was to evaluate, with the best information at t he time, if the Ironton -Galesville aquifer will be able to support the United City of Yorkville’s water needs through 2050. The modeling results found that the ability of the Ironton-Galesville aquifer to support the United City of Yorkville through 2050 i s likely. However, there will continue to be additional decline in water levels in the Yorkville area as the aquifer continues to be pumped beyond it s sustainable yield. The modeling results indicate water levels in the Joliet area would likely rebound if Joliet switches to surface water as its primary source. However, the water source change in the Yorkville area would not have much of a positive effect on water levels in the Yorkville area because withdrawals from Yorkville, and its neighbors would cause further drawdown in the aquifer. The model results suggest there is little difference in water level declines no matter what water demand scenario is considered. The LRI scenario withdrawal would reduce water level declines as compared to the CT scenario, but the difference is minimal. The model results suggest the Ancell/St. Pete Sandstone Aquifer, W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 16 Page 5-16 Page 16 in 2050, will be dewatered in a portion of Yorkville’s planning area. During, the pumping conditions the water levels will be within 200 feet of the top of the Ironton-Galesville in some areas. It is hard to predict exactly when the aquifer levels would be so low that the well can no longer practically be used. It is highly unlikely that pumping assemblies could be lowered to withdraw near the top of the Ironton - Galesville. Motor horsepower limitations will likely reduce the amount of water the well can produce as the water wells continue to decline. As deeper formations are exposed to air, water quality changes could create unmanageable treatment requirements, too. While a specific year for aquifer dewatering cannot be identified, the modeling has shown the aquifer is not sustainable for the Yorkville region for the long-term. The sooner the City switches to a more sustainable source, the better off the City will be for the long-term. It also should be noted that non-municipal users in the region may have wells that only extend to the St. Peter sandstone and do not reach the Ironton -Galesville. If the regional water levels lower to the bottom of the St. Peter, many homeowners’ and some business owners’ wells may run dry . They may have to seek new sources of water for themselves. The sooner the deep sandstone water levels can be stabilized, the more the risk of these shallower wells being dewatered will be reduced. Additionally, it is considered prudent to have a backup source of water when using e ither surface water or obtaining water from a third party such as JAWA or other chartered water group. Natural or manmade events such as a critical main break or drought could leave the City without any source of water for several days. If the City cannot use its typical water source, it is necessary to have water from an alternate source for the sake of baseline water use and firefighting uses. If the water levels in the deep aquifer are stabilized, it could be used as a backup source for Yorkville and the Sub-Region. 5.3 Fox River As part of the scope of this project, the ISWS evaluated the feasibility of the Fox River being the primary source of supply for United City of Yorkville, as well as the combined communities of Mon tgomery, Yorkville and Oswego, with potable water through the year 2050. All gra phs and tables in section 5.3 represent data that has been compiled by the ISWS as part of the aforementioned study . 5.3.1 Fox River Watershed – Beginning in southeastern Wisconsin and running southwest to Ottawa, Illinois, the Fox River is approximately 202 miles long and is tributary to the Illinois Rive r. The Fox River Watershed is currently only being used for potable water by the upstream comm unities of Elgin and Aurora. The Fox River also serves as the discharge point for several communities’ wastewater treatment plants. On average, Aurora obtains about half of their water supply from the Fox River, whereas Elgin obtains approximately 90% of t heir W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 17 Page 5-17 Page 17 water from the Fox River. Exhibit 5 -10 graphs the water withdrawals by both Elgin and Aurora from the years of 2005 to 2012 (most recent data). Exhibit 5-10: Historical Fox River Withdrawal Information for Elgin and Aurora United City of Yorkville, IL 5.3.2 Historical Fox River Flows – O ver the historic al monitored period of 100 years at the Dayton Dam , streamflows in the Fox River have increased. The changes in streamflow reflect increases in population and thus an increased effluent from wastewater treatment plants tributary to the Fox River. Two other factors which affect the Fox River flowrates are changes in river withdrawals from the Fox River and modifications in releases from the Stratton Dam immediately downstream of the Fox Chain of Lakes. In the context of an investigation into a river for the purposes of determining whether or not it is fit to serve a s the primary water source for one community or several communities, the streamflow must be taken into prime consideration. One of the two parameters that was used in the ISWS report to evaluate the low flows of the Fox River is the ‘lowest 10%’ number which is representative of streamflow in the bottom 10 th percentile of flow; the bottom 10th percentile of flow is considered to be an extremely dry condition. The other parameter used is the ‘Q7,10’ number; t he Q7,10 number demonstrates the streamflow during a 7-day 10-year low flow condition which is estimated to be about 80% of the lowest monthly flow. An IDNR permit for any new Fox River withdrawal would likely include a protected low flow restriction, which could stipulate that the withdrawal must cease and an alternative source of water must be used if the river’s flow were to fall below an established protected low flow amount. For instituting the protected flow amount, IDNR has in all cases to date used the Q7,10 number as the protected level. Based on its previous practices, IDNR would be expected to refer to the most recently published map of Q7,10 values, which for the Fox River - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Water withdrawal (mgd)Water Withdrawal (mgd) Elgin From Fox River Aurora from Fox River W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 18 Page 5-18 Page 18 was issued by the ISWS in 2003. The possibility exists that IDNR could approach ISWS for a more recent estimate of the Q7,10; however, IDNR has not done this with any prior withdrawal request. As indicated before, the Q7,10 of any river can shift over time, often in response to changes in water use practices (effluents, withdrawals, diversions) in its watershed but also to climatic variations and other factors. In contrast, the protected flow amount designated by IDNR is expected be a fixed flow value and thus will remain constant even as low flow conditions change in the future. In Table No. 5 -1, t he ‘Total Number of Deficit Days’ column counts every day where the stream flow was below the Q 7,10 number and the ‘Longest Period of Nearly -Consecutive Deficit Days’ column outlines how many of those days occurred consecutively or nearly consecutively. If the United City of Yorkville did not have a backup source of water, they would need to be able to store enough water for the days when they would not be able to pull from the Fox River. Table No. 5-1: Historical Drought Information at Dayton, IL United City of Yorkville, IL Year Total Number of Deficit Days Longest Period of Nearly- Consecutive Deficit Days 1934 98 57 of 62 days 2005 50 25 of 26 days 1956 43 37 of 39 days 1946 38 24 of 26 days 5.3.3 Potential Fox River Withdrawal Locations – If Yorkville installed a Fox River Intake and subsequent treatment plant to serve their own community, it would be recommended to place the intake along the Fox River at the East end of the City. Positioning the WTP to be on the east end of the City would provide the City with the option of connecting the WTP to existing Wells No. 8 and 9 via a raw water main. If the wells were connected via raw water main, the wells would be able to pump raw water to the WTP in the event that the City was unable to draw from the River for any reason. Lastly, by locating the intake on the East end of the City and East of the dam, the water levels in the river will be fairly stable as they will be primarily continuous by the elevation at the top of the Dam. Two other locations , in addition to the location for the Yorkville intake, were also evaluated for the potential Fox River Intakes, as part of this analysis by ISWS . Withdrawal just upstream of the Montgomery Dam was analyzed to determine if there was sufficient flow in the location to meet Mo ntgomery’s long-term demands. The third location evaluation reviewed whether a withdrawal from the Fox River near Orchard Road could supply water to Yorkville, Montgomery and Oswego (Sub -Regional withdrawal). 5.3.4 Fox River Flow Projections – Similarly to the past increases in streamflow, the Fox River flows are likely to increase due to an increased population in Northeast Illinois and thus an increase in effluent from WWTFs W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 19 Page 5-19 Page 19 ups tream of Yorkville. Appendices C and D summarize the projected Fox River flow rates for taking into considerations the Yorkville and Sub-Regional withdrawal locations, respectively. The appendices clearly show future flows are projected to be higher than the current Q7,10 flows for the various flow ranges evaluated. Waukesha Wisconsin currently discharges their WWTF effluent into the Fox River. Waukesha has recently requested to switch from their current wate r source to Lake Michigan water. If thei r request is granted, under law they must return their wastewater effluent to Lake Michigan. The flows from Wisconsin currently augment the Fox River base flow by approximately 40 cubic feet per second (cfs); Waukesha, along with the surrounding communities, provides more than half of the flow from Wisconsin into the Fox River Chain of Lakes. Thus, if Waukesha’s request to use Lake Michigan is granted and the y no longer discharge their WWTF effluent into the Fox River, the Fox River’s flowrate will decrease. Another factor which could affect the streamflow of the Fox River is the operation of the Stratton Dam. The Stratton Dam, operated by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), is located in McHenry County between the Fox River Chain of Lakes and the Fox River. The operation of this Dam could potentially increase the Q7,10 outflow estimate of the Fox River. Apart from long -term trends regarding increases or decreases in flowrate, t he Fox River’s flow rates fluctuate throughout various months based on snow melt , precipitation and groundwater. O ver the last 100 years the Fox River has been surveyed, all months except March have had at least one Q7,10 flow rate day. Table No. 5-2 shows the likelihood of at least one day reaching the Q7,10 low flow conditions based on the month for both the historic al c onditions and scenarios with increases in flow. As the flow rates increase, the likelihood of the river reaching current Q7,10 numbers decreases. Historically, September has been the month displaying the lowest flows and has seen a 4.7% chance where there is at least one day per month where the streamflow is below the Q7,10 number. Table No. 5 -2 also summarizes the change in monthly risk of the flow falling below the Q7,10 level at 10 CFS increment increases. The table clearly shows how the risk diminishes considerably especially at a 50 CFS increase. Table No. 5-2: Monthly Distribution of Probability of The Fox River Reaching Q7,10 Low Flow Rates at Dayton, IL United City of Yorkville, IL Month Historical Conditions Low Flows Change by +10 CFS Low Flows Change by +20 CFS Low Flows Change by +30 CFS Low Flows Change by +40 CFS Low Flows Change by +50 CFS May 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% June 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% July 1.7% 1.1% 1.1% 0.5% 0.2% <0.1% August 3.6% 2.7% 2.5% 1.5% 0.9% 0.5% September 4.7% 3.2% 3.0% 2.1% 1.4% 0.9% October 2.4% 1.8% 1.5% 1.2% 1.0% 0.7% November 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 20 Page 5-20 Page 20 Table No. 5-3 outlines how Table No. 5-1 above would have been changed if 50 CFS had been added to the Fox River by finding the number of deficit days for each drought year where the deficit would have been more than 50 CFS. Although the statistically probable number of days drops heavily, the 1 946, 1956 and 2005 droughts all show several days of nearly -consecutive days in a row. Therefore, while the risk of the river dropping below the Q7,10 level is reduced, there likely will be periods of time when a backup supply source will be needed. Table No. 5-3: Deficit Days of Select Drought Years at Dayton, IL United City of Yorkville, IL Year Total Number of Days With a Deficit > 50 CFS Nearly-Consecutive Days With Deficits > 50 CFS 1934 1 1 day 2005 22 16 of 17 days 1956 24 24 of 35 days 1946 15 10 of 12 days 5.3.5 Fox River Withdrawal Permitting – As previously stated, an IDNR permit for any new Fox River withdrawal would likely include a protected low flow restriction, this restriction would stipulate that the withdrawal from the river must cease and an alternative source of water must be used if the river’s flow were to fall below an established protected low flow amount. In all previou s cases, the IDNR has used the Q7,10 value as the protected flow amount. If Waukesha’s request to use Lake Michigan water is granted, the flows in the Fox River would revert back to the levels that existed in the 1980s. Due to the fact that this is about the time when the IDNR implemented their Q7,10 estimate for Algonquin, the Q7,10 number would be likely to remain unchanged . However, if Waukesha’s request is rejected the Q7,10 flowrate may be increased to reflect the increases in the Fox River Flows . The values in Table No. 5-4 outline several scenarios showing the CT and LRI values for both historic al (2007) and predicted future values for 2030, 2040 and 2050. The CT and LRI values, similarly to when CT and LRI values are used else where in this report, represent how much water is used compared to the baseline scenario; CT designates current trends and LRI designates less resource intensive trends . If the communities upstream of Yorkville are collectively using less potable water, they will be discharging less wastewater effluent into the Fox River. The difference between the Q7,10 CT and LRI scenarios change from 17 CFS in 2030 to 29 CFS in 2050. As seen in the tables in this section, the historical Q7,10 numbers are lower than the predicted future Q7,10 numbers; if the IEPA sets the low flow regulation based off of the predicted future number it will be higher, and thus more restrictive than if th e regulation was based off of the historical Q7,10 number. There is a chance that if the Q7,10 number was increased after Yorkville began to use surface water, Yorkville would be grandfathered into the old Q7,10 number. If the IEPA decides to periodically update the Q7,10 numbers in the W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 21 Page 5-21 Page 21 future and the United City of Yorkville is not grandfathered into the older numbers, they will have to abide by the more stringent future streamflows. All of this being considered, it would seem the sooner a withdrawal permit is secured, the better off the City would be in the long -term. Table No. 5-4: Fox River Low Flow Scenarios for Yorkville Withdrawal Location United City of Yorkville, IL Year CT Q7,10 Values CFS LRI Q7,10 Values CFS April Lowest 10% CFS July Lowest 10% CFS 2007 187 187 928 349 2030 221 204 978 395 2040 229 207 993 408 2050 240 211 1012 423 5.4 Lake Michigan Interconnection Lake Michigan is currently the primary source of water for much o f the population within the Chicago/N ortheastern Illinois area. Confronted with diminishing groundwater resources, many communities in Northeastern Illinois joined together and formed unique intergovernmental cooperatives that own and operate independent Water Systems using Lake Michigan water as the source. M any of these cooperatives, under Illinois State Statute, have formed in to a joint action water agency (JAWA ) and are responsible for managing the delivery and pricing of the water supply to their charter communities. There is an amount of Lake Michigan water usage allotted to the State of Illinois that limits the quantity used, and indirectly the area and population that can be served , by this resource. In the report Water 2050: Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply/Demand Plan (CMAP), March 201 0, it was estimated that 50 to 75 MGD in domestic water supply allocation may be available to new areas. This estimate takes into account a number of variables that could greatly affect this allocation including diversion of stormwater run off, Lake Michigan water levels (which affects volume of water required to work the locks and leakage through the locks), discretionary diversions required to maintain water quality in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and accounting issues (a running average is used to evaluate the diversion). Also, as the population that currently uses Lake Michigan water continues to develop water conservation practices, water loss will be reduced and more water may become available to those communities seeking to use Lake Michigan water. Maximizing the Lake Michigan allocation to Northeastern Illinois communities will help preserve the groundwater resources in the region. With this guiding principle, the project team explored opportun ities for a Lake Michigan water interconnection. Appendix E schematically displays all major pipelines that distribute Lake Michigan water in Northeastern Illinois. The Illinois American pipeline is closest to the United City of Yorkville’s Planning Area , so Illinois American was approached to determine the feasibility of connecting to their transmission system . W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 22 Page 5-22 Page 22 Illinois American evaluated three different routes for supplying the United City of Yorkville with potable water. The shortest route was approx imately 105,000 LF (19.9 miles long) and had a conne ction point at Schmidt Rd & I55; the main then travelled southwest along I -55 to IL 126 and then continued along IL 126 into Yorkville. The longest route was approximately 114,000 LF (21.6 miles) long and also assumed a connection point at Schmidt Rd & I55. The main traveled southwest along I -55 to 127th St, then headed west along 127th St and Simons Rd, then ran south along Schlapp Rd, finally, it ran west along IL 126 into Yorkville. The mid-length route was 112,000 LF (21.2 miles) long and also connected at Schmidt and I-55. The main then ran southwest along I-55 to 135th St then travelled west along 135th St, then south along IL Rte 30, finally running west along IL126 into Yorkville. Exhibit 5-11 displays the potential connection point within the Yorkville System. All three routes were evaluated using both 24” and 30” water main for the years 2015, 2030 and 2040. The ability to supply current demand was evaluated using the MDD from 2014. The 2030 and 2040 values were evaluated using the MDD, CT values. The modeling for the three different routes, evaluated using two different pipe sizes, for three different years can be found in Appendix F. All 18 scenarios show a drop in pressure below 20 PSI, which is a regulatory minimum. A potential intermediate pump station would have to be included with the pump. Additionally, a ground storage tank would have to be incl uded in the cost analysis. While a detailed cost analysis was not conducted, it is clear that the cost of the needed water transmission main extension, the needed pressure boosting station and the needed groundwater storage tank that is large enough to hold two days of Lake Michigan water, as well as the cost of the actual water, makes the Lake Michigan interconnection cost prohibitive for the United City of Yorkville at this time. Exhibit 5-11: Potential Illinois American Water Deliver Location United City of Yorkville, IL W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 1 Page 6- 1 Page 1 SECTION 6: WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT EVALUATION Previous sections of this report summarize the Water Works System components, provide a needs assessment analysis and provide a sustainable source water assessment for continued and future water supply for the City. This section will determine the required supply and treatment improvements to expand the system to meet the 2050 CT and LRI water demand projections for the United City of York ville. Section 7 will summarize the water distribution system and storage evaluation and plan for expansion. Section 8 will provide a review of a Sub-Regional water supply and treatment system to serve the United City of Yorkville, Villa ge of Montgomery and Village of Oswego. A review of the cost of the improvements and a phasing and implementation program will be summarized for both the CT and LRI water demand scenarios in Section 9. Finally, a cost comparison of the CT and LRI recommend ations will be presented in S ection 9.5.3 to demonstrate the anticipated financial benefit to the Cit y if the LRI goals outlined in S ection 3 are reached. The sustainable source water assessment in Section 5 concluded the continued use of the deep sandstone aquifer to meet future demands might sustain the United City of Yorkville until 2050, but would likely dewater the aquifer to the point that it would be unusable within a few decades after 2050. On the oth er hand, Section 5 also concluded the Fox River would be a sustainable water supply source for the City and the Sub -Region. While it is a sustainable source for the long -term supply, Section 5 also demonstrated there will be periods of time when a backup supply source will be needed. The backup supply source could undoubtedly be the deep sandstone aquifer as long as there is a sufficient quantity of water remaining in it. This section, Section 6, outlines a plan for both surface water use and well water use for CT and LRI usage rates (a total of four scenarios ) where the United City of Yorkville remains independent in their water supply and treatment approach. The scenario where well water is used is referred to as Alternat e 1 and the scenario where surface water is used is referred to as Alternat e 2. The alternates are divided into two categories, ‘A’ designates a “business as usual” or CT scenario and ‘B’ designates a LRI scenario. Section 8 outlines Alternat e 3, a scenario where the United City of Yorkville joins with the Village of Montgomery and the Village of Oswego in order to build a surface water treatment plant which serves all three communities. Alternat e 3 outlines both CT (A) and LRI (B) scenarios by combining the CT and LRI usage rates from each of the communities. The following is a list of alternate water supply and treatment options that will be evaluated in this report:  Alternative 1A (1A -CT) – The City’s 2050 CT water demand is met entirely by collecting groundwater from deep sandstone wells.  Alternative 1B (1B -LRI) - The City’s 2050 LRI demand is met entirely by collecting groundwater from deep sandstone wells.  Alternative 2A (2A -CT) – The City’s 2050 CT water demand is met by using surface water from the Fox River and from one additional deep sandstone well. All current wells will be used as backup. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 2 Page 6- 2 Page 2  Alternative 2B (2B -LRI) – The City’s 2050 LRI water demand is met entirely by using surface water from the Fox River. All current wells will be used as backup.  Alternative 3A (3A -CT) – The United City of Yorkville’s, the Village of Oswego’s, and the Village of Montgomery’s 2050 CT water demands are met entirely by constructing a surface water treatment plant near the Fox River/Orchard Road intersection that is capable of providing water for all three communities. Select current wells will be used as backup.  Alternative 3B (3B -LRI) – The United City of Yorkville’s, the Village of Oswego’s and the Village of Montgomery’s 2050 LRI water demands are met entirely by constructing a surface water treatment plant near the Fox River/Orchard Road intersection that is capable of providing water for all three communities. Select current wells will be use d as backup. When reviewing the infrastructure mapping exhibits , it’s important to note that existing infrastructure symbols are color -coded blue and future infrastructure is color coded in red. The exhibits also include ‘potential future’ items; potential future items are items which may be implemented after the 2050 timeline. The potential future items are color coded grey . These ‘potential future’ items are not included in the cost estimates for any of the scenarios. 6.1 CT Water Supply & Treatment Evaluation As discussed in Section 3, the average per capita water usage for the City over the last five years is 88 gpcd. In order to provide a factor of safety and use a uniform value with the other communities in the area , a value of 90 gpcd was used for all future predicted CT calculations. As seen in Table N o. 3-9, a deficit of just over 3,500 GPM for the ultimate source capacity and just over 6,000 GPM for the reliable source capacity was predicted in the year 2050 for the current trends. These numbers assume that all current wells (Wells No. 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9), are in service. W ell No. 3 has several performance issues related to sand production and it’s planned that W ell No. 3 will be abandoned prior to the end of the planning period. The abandonment of W ell No. 3 would push the deficit of the water supply up 600 GPM or 576,000 gallons per day assuming a 16 -hr pumping day. If Well No. 3 were abandoned prior to additional water sources coming online, the CT deficit would occur around 3,000 PE sooner than if Well No. 3 were to remain in service. 6.1.1 CT Water Supply Expansion 6.1.1.1 Water Wells – Alternate 1A evaluates the possibility of Yorkville obtaining all potable water from deep sandstone wells. Of the five wells that the city currently uses, two wells (W ells No. 3 and 4) are open to both the St. Peter (Ancell) aquifer and the Ironton -Gales ville aquifer and three wells (W ells N o. 7, 8 and 9) are open to only the Ironton -Galesville aquifer. As one can see from the raw water quality data discussed in Section 2, the water quality from wells open to the St. Peter and the Ironton-Galesville aquifer and the water W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 3 Page 6- 3 Page 3 quality from wells open to only the Ironton -Galesville aquifer is very similar; therefore, t her e is no need to have different water treatment processes for W ells No. 3 and 4 than those that exist for W ells No. 7, 8 and 9. The typical target production rate for an Ironton -Galesville well is 1,000 GPM . Assuming W ell No. 3 is abandoned, the reliable source capacity has a deficit of 6,668 GPM and the ultimate source capacity has a deficit of 4,146 GPM. According to these numbers, seven 1,000 GPM wells will need to be added to Yorkville’s current system for Alternate 1A . W hen water wells are pumped, the water levels in the aquifer decline in a radial direction. While the deep sandstone formations are not purely homogenous, the characteristics of the aquifer are fairly consistent. In an effort to reduce hydraulic interferenc e between deep sandstone wells, a typical minimum well spacing is one mile. By separating the wells by at least one mile, the drawdown in one deep sandstone well will be minimal at the edge of the drawdown from another one. Of Yorkville’s five existing wells, only Well No. 7 is treated by its own WTP. Wells No. 3 and 4 are treated by the same WTP and Wells No. 8 and 9 also share a WTP . It ’s often more cost -effective to position two wells one mile away (typical deep well offset zone) from each other and have one WTP treat both wells by transporting one well’s water to the WTP by a raw water main than to have two smaller WTPs at each well. Therefore, when it was feasible, the plan allowed two wells to be treated by one WTP. A summary of the wells needed to fulfil the 2050 CT requirements can be found below. The WTP information needed for these wells can be found in S ection 6.1.2.1. The placement of wells , WTPs and other infrastructure can be found in Exhibit 6-1.  Well No. 6 would be located on the northeast side of the City . The 1,000 GPM Ironton-Galesville Well N o. 6 and its c orresponding WTP (discussed in S ection 6.1.2.1) are proposed to be near the current North EWST. The well would be constructed with a 24-inch surface casing and an 18-inch long string casing.  Well No. 10 would be located on the west side of the City . The 1,000 GPM Ironton -Galesville Well No. 10 and its c orresponding WTP (discussed in S ection 6.1.2.1) are proposed to be near the Pavillion Rd. and Hillview Ct. intersection. The well would be constructed with a 24-inch surface casing and an 18 -inch long string casing.  Well No. 11 would be located near the center of town about one mile west of current Well No. 3. The 1,000 GPM well would be treated by the current water treatment plant located at Well No. 4. A raw water main would travel east along the railroad tracks from Well No. 11 to the existing Well No. 3 and would use the current raw water main that runs across the Fox River from Well No. 3 to the WTP at Well No. 4. The well would be constructed with a 24-inch surface casing and an 18-inch long string casing. ( GF( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 GF GF GF GF GF GF ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Legend Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well GF Water Treatment Plant (WTP) i!Elevated Water Storeage Tank (EWST) GF Future WTP (Future Deep Well (Well To Be Abandoned Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main Existing Raw Water Main Future Raw Water Main 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,5001,250 Feet EXHIBIT 6-1 ALTERNATE 1A WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT PLAN - CT DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: MARCH, 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH6-1ALT1.1 CLV.4.MXD CLV WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 1.0 MG NORTH EWST 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST, WELL NO. 8, WELLS NO. 8 & 9 WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELL NO. 9 NORTH BP/PRV STATION NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST, WELL NO. 4, AND WELL NO. 4 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST, WELL NO. 7, AND WELL NO. 7 WATER TREATMENT PLANTSOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH BP/PRV STATION WELL NO. 15 WTP WELL NO. 13 WTP WELL NO. 6 WTP WELL NO. 14 WTP WELL NO. 12 WTP WELL NO. 11 WELL NO. 10 WTP WELL NO. 3 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 5 Page 6- 5 Page 5  Well No. 12 would be located at the northwest side of town south of future Well No. 10. The 1,000 GPM Ironton-Galesville Well No. 12 and it s c orresponding WTP (discussed in S ection 6.1.2.1) are proposed to be along Beecher Rd, near the electrical substation . The well would be constructed with a 24-inch surface casing and an 18-inch long string casing.  Well No. 13 would be located south of the Sandwich fault. As stated in S ection 5, directly southwest of the Sandwich Fault the aquifers and subsequent water levels are higher than direct ly northeast of the fault. The 1,000 GPM Ironton-Galesville W ell No. 13 and its c orresponding WTP (discussed in S ect ion 6.1.2.1) are proposed to be northeast of Highway 47 and W Helmar Rd . intersection. The well would be constructed with a 24-inch surface casing and an 18-inch long string casing.  Well No. 14 would be locate d in the northwest corner of the City. The 1,000 GPM Ironton-Galesville W ell No. 14 and its c orresponding WTP (discussed in S ection 6.1.2.1) are proposed to be south of Galena Rd. and w est of W Beecher Rd. The well would be constructed with a 24-inch surface casing and an 18 -inch long string casing.  Well No. 15 would also be located south of the Sandwich F ault. As a reminder, directly south of the Sandwich Fault the water level is higher that directly north of the Sandwich Fault. The 1,000 GPM Ironton-Galesville W ell No. 15 and its c orresponding WTP (discussed in S ection 6.1.2.1) are proposed to be near the Lisbon Rd. and Walker Rd. intersection. The well would be constructed with a 24-inch surface casing and an 18-inch long string casing. 6.1.1.2 Fox River Intake & Water Wells – Alternate 2A involves Yorkville primarily obtaining potable water from the Fox River and using deep wells as a backup water source. The proposed intake station and WTP would be slightly northeast of the intersection of Rt. 34 and Tuma Rd. Section 6.1.2.2 discusses the treatment of surface water. Well No. 10, which would be drilled at the WTP site under this alternate, would be added in order to ensure enough backup supply . Like the other Ironton -Galesville wells, Well No. 10 would have an assumed capacity of 1,000 GPM . Exhibit 6 -2 displays the proposed WTP, wells and other infrastructure for Alternate 2A. ( GF( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 (GFl! ( ( Legend Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well GF Water Treatment Plant i!Elevated Water Storeage Tank (EWST) (Future Deep Well GF Proposed WTP Site l!Ground Storage Tanks (Potential Future Deep Well (Well To Be Abandoned Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main Existing Raw Water Main Future Raw Water Main Potential Future Raw Water Main 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,5001,250 Feet EXHIBIT 6-2 ALTERNATE 2A WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT PLAN-CT DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: MARCH, 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH6-2ALT2.MXD CLV WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 1.0 MG NORTH EWST 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST, WELL NO. 8, WELLS NO. 8 & 9 WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELL NO. 9NORTH BP/PRV STATION NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST, WELL NO. 4, AND WELL NO. 4 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST, WELL NO. 7, AND WELL NO. 7 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH BP/PRV STATION POTENTIAL FUTURE WELL NO. 6 WELL NO. 10, FOX RIVER INTAKE, 12 MGD LIME SOFTENING WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND 1.0 MG GST WELL NO. 3 POTENTIAL FUTURE RAW WATER MAIN W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 7 Page 6- 7 Page 7 6.1.2 CT Water Treatment Expansion 6.1.2.1 Well Treatment Systems – As stated in S ection 6.1.1.1, a total of six new WTPs for W ells No. 6, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 would need to be added to the system in Alternate 1A. Well No. 11 would be treated by the WTP currently serving Wells No. 3 and 4. Each other new WTP would be located onsite with the well it is serving. The design basis for each of the new WTP s was based off of the water quality of the existing wells . Future Wells No. 6, 12 and 14 were designed based on the water quality found in Wells No. 8 and 9. Future Wells No. 10, 13 and 15 were designed bas ed on the water quality found in Well No. 7. Because the water from the deep sandsto ne aquifer is assumed to be very similar for the future wells to the current wells, the same method of treatment will be used. The current wells use cation exchange water treatment plants (CEWTPs) to treat the water. These cation exchange units remove the two major contaminates which are an issue in the deep aquifer, radium and hardness. The CEWTPs also chlorinate the water for disinfection and add fluoride for dental health. 6.1.2.2 Fox River Intake & Water Wells – Groundwater and surface water typically have different contaminants and therefore are typically treated differently . Deep wells, such as the ones used by Yorkville, are generally not affected by surface water contamination caused by road salt, organics, fertilization runoff, or other agricultural runoff. While the main concerns for the Ironton -Galesville aquifer water are hardness and radium, surface water from the Fox River is likely to include hardness, organic contaminates and other contaminates. The neighboring communities of Elgin and Aurora , which both currently use the Fox River as a potable water source, provided Fox River raw water quality information for this project . Due to the proximity of these communities to Yorkville, the water quality was assumed to be identical for the proposed Yorkville WTP. The water quality summary c an be found in Table No. 6 -1, values from Elgin and Aurora were averaged and divided out based on the seasons. Total hardness, total organic carbon, total alkalinity and turbidity are all constituents which require the concentration to be lowered by more than 50% from the average influent values. TDS, chloride and nitrate all require a reduction in concentration by less than 50%. Based on the available land area, cost and constituents, lime softening has been selected as the best surface water treatment plan. Two lime softening treatment systems were considered. The first system , which is depicted in Exhibit 6-3, is the split treatment lime softening process. In this system, which is similar to the City of Elgin’s LSW TP, the softening process is accomplished i n three separate basins . The basins are the pre- sedimentation, primary softening and recarbonation/secondary clarification basins . All three would be constructed outside of a building. Following the softening process, the water would be filtered with the use of membran es installed inside a building. Break point chlorination would be achieved following chlorine addition and detention time in the finished ground storage reservoirs. Two high service pump galleries, one that would pump to meet the North Pr essure Zone Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL ) and one that wo uld target Target Units Quantity Effluent Water Quality Minimum 8.02 7.85 8.12 7.68 7.65 (su) Average 8.26 8.25 8.27 8.15 --6.5 to 8.5 8.73 Maximum 8.64 9.00 8.99 8.45 9.97 Minimum 14.6 21.0 12.8 4.7 (°C) Average 18.0 25.0 19.9 5.1 ---- Maximum 20.2 29.4 20.8 17.8 Minimum 204 136 159 240 41 (mg/l) Average 254 242 261 309 ----82 (as CaCO3)Maximum 290 292 290 350 175 Minimum 4.1 576.4 0.0 (mg/l) Average 5.9 579.1 -- 500 258 Maximum 8.1 581.8 456 Minimum 270 210 216 288 80.0 (mg/l) Average 322 301 323 398 -- -- 132 (as CaCO3)Maximum 374 364 358 458 214 Minimum 118 81 111 158 (mg/l) Average 168 154 165 232 -- -- Maximum 206 187 192 297 Minimum 102 94 93 108 (mg/l) Average 154 147 158 166 -- -- Maximum 194 208 190 214 Minimum 48 13 35 28 (mg/l) Average 68 60 62 89 -- -- Maximum 110 164 104 147 Minimum 8.83 7.55 7.11 1.20 (mg/l) Average 6.50 10.92 8.53 7.86 -- -- 2.86 Maximum 13.00 9.50 8.61 4.47 Minimum 0.166 0.297 0.184 0.120 0.23 (mg/l) Average 0.181 0.385 0.307 0.196 4 2 1.07 Maximum 0.208 0.899 0.351 0.420 1.53 Minimum 141.96 137.19 139.78 116 56.4 (mg/l) Average 156.75 162.15 153.96 128 -- 250 136.9 Maximum 169.69 208.94 238.93 233 220.5 Minimum 43.2 31.4 (mg/l) Average 46.1 -- 250 61.0 Maximum 51.1 106.4 Minimum 8.41 1.17 (mg/l) Average 10.60 10 -- 7.16 Maximum 12.48 18.57 Minimum 0.07 0.00 (mg/l) Average 0.08 1 -- 0.08 Maximum 0.08 0.30 Minimum 0.10 (mg/l) Average 0.12 -- -- Maximum 0.13 Minimum 4.96 11.00 8.00 1.20 Maximum of 1 0.04 (NTU) Average 11.77 19.36 10.88 2.05 and < 0.3 in 95% -- 0.10 Maximum 25.00 38.00 28.60 8.10 of Samples 0.28 Minimum 1.75 (mg/l) Average 4 -- 2.85 Maximum 4.20 Minimum 4.10 6.05 7.6 10.23 (mg/l) Average 7.84 7.78 9.21 12.5 -- -- Maximum 8.33 10.20 11.1 13.3 Minimum 22.00 17.83 5.30 2.70 (su) Average 43.89 71.69 42.65 26.25 -- -- Maximum 110.20 104.7 75.30 77.30 Minimum 24 32 22 16 (su) Average 28 34 29 19 -- -- Maximum 40 39 49 27 Minimum 808 800 808 932 (umhos) Average 1012 968 960 1183 -- -- Maximum 1129 1054 1172 1348 Minimum 0.167 0.079 0.146 0.121 (254 nm) Average 0.205 0.203 0.197 0.153 -- -- Maximum 0.281 0.258 0.217 0.217 Minimum 258 0 (cfu) Average 623 -- 0 Maximum 1200 0 G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\[Fox River Water Quality Summary (From Montgomery Folder).xlsx]Fox River Water Quality Summary Notes: 1. National Primary Drinking Water Standards are either Maximum Contaminant Levels or Treatment Technique (for Turbidity only). 2. No more than 5.0% samples total coliform-positive in a month. (For water systems that collect fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can be total coliform-positive per month.) Every sample that has total coliform must be analyzed for either fecal coliforms or E. coli if two consecutive TC-positive samples, and one is also positive for E.coli fecal coliforms, system has an acute MCL violation. Odor Color Parameter Conductivity Absorbance (Filtered) Dissolved Oxygen Ammonia Nitrite (NO2 -) Turbidity Total Chlorine Non- Carbonaceous Hardness Temperature <5% of Samples Positive2 National Primary Drinking Water Standard Magnesium Hardness pH Alkalinity Total Hardness Coliforms TDS Calcium Hardness Total Organic Carbon Fluoride Chloride Sulfate (SO4 2-) Nitrate (NO3 -) Table No. 6-1: Fox River Water Quality Summary National Secondary Drinking Water Standard Typical Spring Season Water Quality Typical Summer Season Water Quality Typical Fall Season Water Quality Typical Winter Season Water Quality United City of Yorkville, IL ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 9 Page 6- 9 Page 9 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 10 Page 6- 10 Page 10 the South Central Pressure Zone HGL, would transfer the water from the ground storage reservoirs into the distribution system. Ammonia would be added to the water within the gro und stage reservoir and pump station, so chloraminated water is distributed throughout the system. Additional chemical feed systems for carbon dioxide (injected prior to the recarbonation/secondary clarification tank), alum, powdered active carbon, coagulant polymer, ferric sulfate, polyphosphate and potassium permanganate would also be installed , too. The chemical injection point s are identified on Exhibit 6-3. It is also important to note the process flow diagra m references two potential future treatment unit process – biologically activated carbon beds and ultraviolet advanced oxidation process system s. Both processes would provide a higher level of surface water t reatment, especially for taste and odor constituents. Neither Elgin’s or Aurora’s WTPs currently cont ain these unit processes. However, if there continue to be harmful algae bloom outbreaks in the river, the addition of one or both of these treatment syste ms may be appropriate to meet a higher level of treatment. At a minimum, both unit processes should be considered for future hydraulic profile renovations in the future. The second lime softening water treatment process considered was the upflow solids c ontact clarifier (or single stage) system. Chicago Bridge and Iron (Claricone) and Westech (Solids Contact Clarifier) provide clarifiers for this type of system. In this system, all three of the sedimentation and softening basins within the split treatment system are combined into the clarifier. The solids upflow contactor(s) are then installed inside of a building. The City of Aurora utilizes this type of softening process to treat the Fox River Water. Exhibit 6 -4 depicts the process flow diagram for this type of treatment system. Other than the front end softening and clarification process being different, the back end treatment unit, storage and pumping system would be exactly the same as the split treatment system. The potential other treatment processes also would be considered for this treatment system. A cost -analysis was completed for both systems to determine which system was more cost -effective for the City. The cost of the two systems were found to be very similar (within 7% of each other), but t he upflow solids contactor system was found to be slightly cheaper. In addition, the operational challenges of the split treatment system in a Midwest climate makes that system less attractive. Therefore, a ll LSWTP system cost estimates presented form this point forward will be based off the single stage Claricone process. Lime softening would not only remove the unwanted constituents found in the Fox River, it would be able to effectively treat the problem constituents found in the deep wells. This versatility would allow the United City of Yorkville to procure and treat well water in the event that they were not able to use surface water in the event of a drought or other emergency event . The proposed WTP location on the East end of the City would also allow for the cost -effective connection of Wells No. 8 and 9. The connection to these wells would all the LSWTP to treat the water from these wells and the existing CEWTP facility would be repurposed for another W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 11 Page 6- 11 Page 11 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 12 Page 6- 12 Page 12 City use. Well No. 6 would still be near the current North EWST and would be connected to the Wells No. 8 and 9 raw water main, and thus the proposed LSWTP, by its own potential future raw water main. Well No. 10 would be located at the LS WTP and would not need significant infrastructure in order to be treated by the plant. In this alternate, it is assumed the existing CEWTPs that treat groundwater will remain in service with very limited use (a couple hours per week), so they are available to pump into the system during emergencies. 6.2 LRI Water Supply & Treatment Evaluation The predicted per capita water usage if the United City of Yorkville were to implement conservation efforts is 80 gpcd (comparable to the 90 gpcd under the CT values). Additionally, the MDD:ADD ratio dropped from 2.0 in the CT scenario to 1.75 in the LRI scenario. As seen in Table No. 3 -16, when the LRI values are implemented a deficit of nearly 2,000 GPM for the ultimate source capacity and a deficit of over 3,500 GPM for the reliable source capacity was determined for 2050. These numbers assume all current wells are in service. As stated before, Well No. 3 will likely be abandoned before the end of the planning period. If Well No. 3 is abandoned, the LRI deficit would occur about 5,000 PE sooner than if Well No. 3 remained. 6.2.1 LRI Water Supply Expansion 6.2.1.1 Water Wells – If Yorkville were to use the Ironton-Galesville aquifer to obtain the LRI amounts of their water, they would follow the same pattern as setting up wells as found in the CT section. Once again, Well No. 3 would be assumed to be abandoned; when Well No. 3 is abandoned, the 2050 supp ly deficit would increase to just under 2,500 GPM for the Ultimate Source Capacity test and just under 4,200 GPM for the Reliable Source Capacity. Because the deficit for the Ultimate Source Capacity number wouldn’t be far above the 4,000 GPM threshold, th e number of needed wells would be rounded down to four wells (Wells No. 6, 10, 11 and 12). The position of the wells, WTPs and other proposed Alternate 1B infrastructure can be found in Exhibit 6-5. The position of the wells, WTPs and other infrastructure for the LRI scenario would follow the pattern used for the CT scenario.  Well No. 6 would be located on the northeast side of the City . The 1,0 00 GPM Ironton -Galesville Well No. 6 and its c orresponding WTP (discussed in S ection 6.1.2) are proposed to be near the current North EWST. The well would be constructed with a 24-inch surface casing and an 18 -inch long string casing.  Well No. 10 would be located on the west side of the City . The 1,000 GPM Ironton-Galesville Well No. 10 and its corres ponding WTP (discussed in S ection 6.1.2) are proposed to be near the Pavillion Rd. and Hillview Ct. intersection. The well would be constructed with a 24 -inch surface casing and an 18- inch long string casing. ( GF( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 ( ( ( ( GF GF GF ( Legend Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well GF Water Treatment Plant (WTP) i!Elevated Water Storage Tank (EWST) (Future Deep Well GF Future WTP (Well To Be Abandoned Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main Existing Raw Water Main Future Raw Water Main 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,5001,250 Feet EXHIBIT 6-5 ALTERNATE 1B WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT PLAN - LRI DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: MARCH, 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH6-4ALT1.MXD CLV WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 1.0 MG NORTH EWST 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST, WELL NO. 8, AND WELLS NO. 8 & 9 WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELL NO. 9 NORTH BP/PRV STATION NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION WELL NO. 4 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST WELLS NO. 4 & 11 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST, WELL NO. 7, AND WELL NO. 7 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH BP/PRV STATION WELL NO. 6 WTP WELL NO. 12 WTP WELL NO. 11 WELL NO. 10 WTP WELL NO. 3 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 14 Page 6- 14 Page 14  Well No. 11 would be located near the center of town about one mile west of current Well No. 3. The 1,000 GPM well would be treated by the current water treatment plant located at Well No. 4. A raw water main would travel east along the railroad tracks from Well No. 11 to the c urrent Well No. 3 and would use the current raw water main that runs across the Fox River from Well No. 3 to the WTP at Well No. 4. The well would be constructed with a 24-inch surface casing and an 18-inch long string casing.  Well No. 12 would be located at the northwest side of town south of future Well No. 10. The 1,000 GPM Ironton-Galesville Well No. 12 and it s corresponding WTP (discussed in S ection 6.1.2) are proposed to be along Beecher Rd., near the electrical substation. The well would be constructed with a 24 -inch surface casing and an 18-inch long string casing. 6.2.1.2 Fox River Intake & Water Wells – As mentioned in S ection 5.2.4, the LSWTP for both the CT and LRI scenarios would be located along the river on the East part of the City. The design of the intake would be similar to the CT scenario; however, in the LRI scenario the size of the intake would have a capacity of 9 MGD instead of 12 M GD. Alternate 2B, similarly to A lternate 2A, assumes the existing CEWTPs used to treat groundwater will remain in service with very limited use (a couple hours per week), so they are available to pump into the system during emergencies. Two potential future wells, Wells No. 6 and 10, would be considered for future addition with in Alternate 2B. Well No. 6 would still be near the current North EWST and would be connected to the Wells No. 8 and 9 raw water main, and thus the proposed LSWTP, by its own potential future raw water main. Well No. 10 would still be located at the LSWTP and would not need significant infrastructure in order to be treated by the plant. Exhibit 6-6 displays the locations of the wells, WTPs and other infrastructure. 6.2.2 LRI Wat er Treatment Expansion 6.2.2.1 Well Treatment Systems – If the City were to use the Ironton -Galesville aquifer to meet the LRI water use demands , the City would follow the same pattern as setting up wells as found in the CT section, but they would only add four additional wells (Wells No. 6, 10, 11 and 12). Once again, Well No. 3 would be assumed to be abandoned and Well No. 11 would connect to the Well No. 4 WTP. CEWTPs would be used to treat the water for radium and hardness for Wells No. 6, 10 and 12. 6.2.2.2 Fox River & Water Well Treatment System – If the Fox River is chosen to supply water for the LRI scenario, the treatment plant would be designed us ing the same major functions as the CT plant. The plant would still be a single state LSWTP and would still include filtration along with typical re -carbonation and disinfection treatment processes . The plant would be designed to treat 9 MGD using 3 ClariCones instead of the 12 MGD with 4 ClariCones needed for the CT scenario. ( GF( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 ( (GFl! ( Legend Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well GF Water Treatment Plant (WTP) i!Elevated Water Storage Tank (EWST) GF Proposed WTP Site l!Ground Storage Tanks (Potential Future Deep Well (Well To Be Abandoned Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main Existing Raw Water Main Future Raw Water Main Potential Future Raw Water Main 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,5001,250 Feet EXHIBIT 6-6 ALTERNATE 2B WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT PLAN - LRI DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: MARCH, 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH6-5ALT2.MXD CLV WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 1.0 MG NORTH EWST 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST, WELL NO. 8, AND WELLS NO. 8 & 9 WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELL NO. 9 NORTH BP/PRV STATION NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST, WELL NO. 4, AND WELL NO. 4 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST, WELL NO. 7, AND WELL NO. 7 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH BP/PRV STATION POTENTIAL FUTURE WELL NO. 6 FOX RIVER INTAKE, 9 MGD LIME SOFTENING WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND 1.0 MG GST WELL NO. 8 & 9 RAW WATER MAIN WELL NO. 3 POTENTIAL FUTURE RAW WATER MAIN POTENTIAL FUTURE WELL NO. 10 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 16 Page 6- 16 Page 16 6.3 Water Supply and Treatment Improvements Cost Estimates Detailed cost estimates for the proposed improvements under each scenario are provided in Appendix G. Below is a summary of the capital costs for the improvements under the CT and LRI water demand scenarios for both Alternates 1 and 2 as described above. 6.3.1 Alternate 1A: CT Water Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates • Well No. 6 and Well No. 6 CEWTP $6,839,000 • Well No. 10 and Well No. 10 CEWTP $6,839,000 • Well No. 11 $2,419,000 • Well No. 11 Raw Water Main (to Wells 3 & 4 CEWTP) $1,188,000 • Well No. 12 and Well No. 12 CEWTP $6,839,000 • Well No. 13 an d Well No. 13 CEWTP $6,839,000 • Well No. 14 and Well No. 14 CEWTP $6,839,000 • Well No. 15 and Well No. 15 CEWTP $6,839,000 6.3.2 Alternate 1B: LRI Water Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates • Well No. 6 and Well No. 6 CEWTP $6,839,000 • Well No. 10 and Well No. 10 CEWTP $6,839,000 • Well No. 11 $2,419,000 • Well No. 11 Raw Water Main (to Wells 3 & 4 CEWTP) $1,188,000 • Well No. 12 and Well No. 12 CEWTP $6,839,000 6.3.3 Alternate 2A: CT Water Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates • 12 MGD Fox Fiver Intake Pump Station $5,217,000 • 12 MGD Single State (Claricone) LSWTP $35,088,000 • Wells No. 8 & 9 Raw Water Main $3,267,000 • Well No. 10 $2,419,000 6.3.4 Alternate 2B: LRI Water Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates • 9 MGD Fox Fiver Intake Pump Station $4,828,000 • 9 MGD Single State (Claric one) LSWTP $29,572,000 • Wells No. 8 & 9 Raw Water Main $3,267,000 As stated, Section 7 will discuss the water storage and distribution system improvements and Section 8 will discuss Alternate 3 for the Sub-Regional approach. Section 9 will provide an overview for the recommended alternative based on the City ’s preference, including an overview of the phasing and implementation plan that will be used by the United City of Yorkville for the recommended improvements. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 1 Page 7- 1 Page 1 SECTION 7: WATER STORAGE AND D ISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION Water storage and the distribution system are critical components of the United City of Yorkville’s overall Water Works System. Adequate storage and a well -maintained distribution system are essential to efficiently convey adequate water capacity to the City’s residents and commercial/industrial users, both during normal periods of relatively lower water demands and also during critical periods of high water demand such as fires and other emergencies that rely on available water supply. A water distribution system is the infrastructure that delivers pressurized, potable water from the treatment plants to the customer. The water distribution system model of the United City of Yorkville is comprised of 1) potable water main, 2) fire hydrants, 3) valves, 4) storage tanks, 5) high service pumps and 6) pressure reducing valves. These various components operate dynamically within the various pressure zones. In Section 2, the various components were inventoried and discussed briefly. Exhibit 2-1 depicts the existing Water Works System. The following section will first evaluate the condition of the existing water storage and di stribution system infrastructure and will then provide recommendations for these existing components. This section will then determine the required improvements to expand the system to meet the 2050 CT water storage required for each water demand scenario. The different alternatives that were evaluated will be reviewed for each scenario where applicable. The cost of the CT im provements will also be reviewed in this section. As previously noted in Section 6, Section 8 will then summarize a phasing and implementation program for both the CT and LRI water demand scenarios, that will include the recommended water storage and dist ribution improvements as well as the recommended supply and treatment improvements identified in Section 6. 7.1 Model Development The water distribution system of the United City of Yorkville was evaluated using a computer model of the water system devel oped within Bentley WaterCAD hydraulic modeling software. Over the last few years, the City has converted their electronic water atlas maps from AutoCad to a geographical information system (GIS) database which was used as the basis of the model . The hyd raulic model development and verification process was completed with the intent to determine deficiencies in the existing system and to make recommendations to the City for master planning to meet their 2050 projected needs . The model was created to accommodate a steady -state analysis only. 7.1.1 Information Gathering – As indicated above, the hydraulic model developed is primarily based on the water infrastructure contained within the City’s GIS database. Shapefiles for the water main network, valves, WTPs and tanks were obtained on December 22, 2015, and imported into WaterCAD via the Model Builder. During data transfer from the City’s GIS database to WaterCAD model, maintaining naming convention consistency was a priority. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 2 Page 7- 2 Page 2 In addition to the GIS database, the following resources were used to further refine the model : 1) Record drawings from various facilities, 2) pump curves, 3) SCADA set points and 4) data collected in the field by both City staff and representatives from Engineering Enterprises, Inc. The water use demands for the calendar year of 201 4 were placed on the system and then elevations were applied by interpolating the contours from Kendall County. This section of the report documents the development of the model. 7.1.1.1 Pipe Network – The pipe network is primarily comprised of pipes and junctions. Junctions are not valves, but rather the intersection between two pipes. Gate valves are typically not modeled, they were imported into the model for this project as junctions such that c onsistency with GIS naming conventions for the pipes could be maintained where feasible. Connectivity is essential to developing a hydraulic model, and junctions allow for the connectivity between pipes basically by joining two pipes together. WaterCAD ’s Model Builder has an option to automatically generate junctions at the intersection of two pipes within a specified tolerance of existing nodes or junctions which is how much of the connectivity was achieved. However, given that this is an automated pr ocess that is governed by tolerances, the water main connectivity assumptions are not always made correctly. Manual review and revisions to the model were required accordingly. Similar to gate valves, fire hydrants (and the fire hydrant laterals) are a lso not commonly modeled unless the intent of the water model is to prepare hydrant flushing sequences (i.e. a uni -directional hydrant flushing program). The fire hydrants and laterals provide another level of complexity to the model and calculations during the analysis otherwise. 7.1.1.2 Pressure Zones – Pressure zone boundaries were defined in the model consistent with those identified in Exhibit 2-1. Locations of the known closed valve locations were implemented in efforts to define the exact pressure zone boundaries within the model. These closed boundary valves were modeled as closed pipes adjacent to the closed valve location. In addition, three booster pump and pressure reducing valve stations and two pressure reducing valve stations were model ed between the various pressure zones as shown on Exhibit 2-1 and outlined previously in Table No. 2 -9. Minimal data regarding sizes, set points and operation was able to be retrieved for these PRVs. It was assumed that they operate based on local pressure and set points were based on field data collected. 7.1.1.3 Water Storage Tanks – Five elevated water storage tanks were included in the model zones as shown on Exhibit 2-1 and outlined in Table No. 2-6. Record drawing information, when available, was utilized to obtain the elevation, head range and site layout information. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 3 Page 7- 3 Page 3 7.1.1.4 Water Treatment Plants – W ells and water treatment plants as shown in Exhibit No. 2 -1 were input into the model only with respect to the high service pumps and well pumps that pump directly into the system . Record drawing information and operations and maintenance manuals were used to enter them into the model. 7.1.1.5 Booster Pump Stations (BPS s ) – The high service pumps at three booster pump stations (BPSs) were input into the model primarily with respect to the high service pumps . Record drawings, engineering drawings, operations and maintenance manuals and pump manufacturers were utilized to obtain info regarding the BPSs . 7.1.1.6 Ground Elevations – Ground elevations are a critical component to the success of model verification. Initially, ground elevations within the GIS shapefiles were imported into the water model based on the Kendall County contours . Node elevations within the water model were applied by interpolating Kendall County contours using a module within WaterCAD called TRex. Record and engineering drawings were utilized for the water treatment plants, storage tanks and booster pump stations when available. Record drawings for some subdivisions were used to verify certain locations randomly as well. 7.1.1.7 Water Use Demands – To remain consistent with the supply and treatment analysis included in this report, water use demands from calendar year 2014 were placed in the model. It shall be noted that the treated water amount, not the billed amount of water was distributed throughout the system for analysis purposes . 7.1.2 Field Reconnaissance– The field reconnaissance consisted of a site visit to key water facilities and performing fire flow testing on two different occasions . 7.1.2.1 Site Visit to Key Water Facilities – August 25, 2015, Jeff Freeman, Michele Piotrowski and Christa Van’t Hul of EEI visited all water treatment plant s , water storage facilities, booster pump stations and pressure reducing valve stations to gather any additional information. 7.1.2.2 Fire Flow Testing – A fire flow test provides actual pressures and flow data at specific locations within the distribution system. For this project, fire flo w testing was completed on two separate occasions as follows: 1. December 15, 2015 2. November 22, 2016 The fire flow test procedure requires at least two hydrants (a residual and a flow hydrant), ideally on the same section of main. Static pressures are first recorded a t the residual hydrant. The n, the flow hydrant is opened. At that time, pressures on both the residual and flow hydrants are recorded. The Water Works System conditions (i.e. tank levels and pumps running), typically obtained from the SCADA system, at t he time of the W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 4 Page 7- 4 Page 4 flow test are recorded. Flow calculations based on the formulas provided in AWWA’s Manual of Water Supply Practices M17 – Installation, Field Testing and Maintenance of Fire Hydrants are then performed. A total of twenty -one locations were identified to be tested and evenly spread across the Water Works System. The locations of these tests are depicted in Exhibit 7-1. Some of the flow tests were not completed due to concerns for potential water main breaks. 7.1.2.3 Static Pressures – The pressure reducing valve stations are connected to the central SCADA system , but it is challenging for the operators to determine which valves are open at any given point in time . Based on discussions with the operators, these valves op erate based on local pressure and the set points are not known. To obtain a better understanding of how these valves are operating, City staff obtained pressure readings from SCADA for both upstream and downstream of the pressure reducing for comparison with water model results . 7.1.3 Model Verification – Verification of the updated model was completed to establish confidence in the accuracy of its representati on of the physical water system. V erification was achieved by comparing data c ollected during field testing to results obtained from the updated water distribution system hydraulic model. In addition, head and flow rates of all high service pumps were reviewed to confirm they are consistent with their curve data and any field data we collected. During verification of the water model, the following primary adjustments/considerations can be made to align the field data with the mode data: ( i!( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( Legend !(Fire Hydrant !!(Residual Fire Hydrant "!(1st Flow Fire Hydrant "!(2nd Flow Fire Hydrant i!Elevated Water Storage Tank (EWST) GF Water Treatment Plant 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main 0 1,500 3,000 4,500750 Feet EXHIBIT 7-1 FIRE FLOW TEST RESULTS DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: JANUARY 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH7-2 COMPARISON.MXD JPS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 72 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 2,839 gpm Note: Available Flow is at a Residual Pressure of 20 PSI DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 67 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 3,183 gpm DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 82 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 1,816 gpm LOCATION NO. 17 WALSH DRIVE DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 65 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 2,444 gpm LOCATION NO. 15 (TEST NOT PERFORMED) DEER STREET LOCATION NO. 14 (TEST NOT PERFORMED) BLAINE STREET DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 47 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 1,679 gpm LOCATION NO. 12 (TEST NOT PERFORMED) HYDRAULIC AVENUE LOCATION NO. 11 (TEST NOT PERFORMED) SPRING STREETDEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 55 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 3,877 gpm LOCATION NO. 9 (TEST NOT PERFORMED) WEST KENDALL DRIVE DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 72 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 1,275 gpm DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 70 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 2,608 gpm DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 67 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 2,179 gpm DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 66 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 2,681 gpm DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 63 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 1,840 gpm DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 67 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 3,543 gpm DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 73 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 1,751 gpm DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 66 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 3,670 gpm North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 65 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 3,896 gpm NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 64 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 3,996 gpm NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 67 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 2,482 gpm NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 52 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 3,532 gpm NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 51 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 4,357 gpm NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 67 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 3,751 gpm NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 63 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 3,653 gpm NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 70 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 4,356 gpm NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 80 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 2,205 gpm NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 70 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 3,313 gpm LOCATION NO. 2 BRIDGE STREET LOCATION NO. 3 BOOMBAH BOULEVARD LOCATION NO. 7 FAIRHAVEN DRIVE LOCATION NO. 6 IROQUOIS LANE LOCATION NO. 10 GAME FARM ROAD LOCATION NO. 13 KELLY AVENUE LOCATION NO. 16 GREEN BRIAR ROAD LOCATION NO. 19 HAMPTON LANE LOCATION NO. 18 WINDETT RIDGE ROAD LOCATION NO. 20 CALLANDER TRAIL LOCATION NO. 8 AUTUMN CREEK BOULEVARD LOCATION NO. 5 KENNEDY ROAD LOCATION NO. 4 TUSCANY TRAIL LOCATION NO. 1 BRISTOL BAY DRIVE DEC. 2015 STATIC PRESSURE = 55 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 2,643 gpm NOV. 2016 STATIC PRESSURE = 70 psi AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW = 2,837 gpm LOCATION NO. 21 BARBERRY CIRCLE W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 6 Page 7- 6 Page 6 1. Modify water use demands . – When comparing the fire flow, d emands were modified based on the pumped water use the days that the flow testing was completed. Without more accurate information, the demands were distributed evenly throughout the system. 2. Modify Hazen Williams pipe roughness coefficient (C -factor ) of the water main. – The C -factor, also known as the friction factor, is primarily adjusted based on the material and age of the pipe. When cement -lined ductile iron is new, the C -factor is approximately 130. As the pipe ages, the C -factor can reduce (indicating the friction increases and part of the flow through the pipe will decrease). Several iterations of modeling various C -factors were completed in the model. The C-factor has been adjusted for best -fit of the flows, and Exhibit 7-2 reflects the C-factors that were utilized for the verified model: Exhibit 7-2: Hazen Williams C-Factor – Verified Water Model United City of Yorkville, IL W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 7- 7 3. Modify elevations of the junctions and tank elevations. – As indicated previously, the two-foot Kendall County contours were primarily utilized to develop the elevations of the junctions within the model. Furthermore, the base elevations of the tanks were obtained from engineering drawings and the tank levels were recorded at the time of the time of flow testing so that they could be mimicked identically within the model. 4. Confirm the pump curves and which pumps are running. – Pump curves were entered per the shop drawings that were obtained. It shall also be noted that no pumps were running during flow testing except during Flow Tests No. 2 and 10 on December 15, 2015. 5. Confirm operations/settings of the PRVs. – Both the booster pump stations and the pressure reducing valve only stations have two to three valves of different sizes within each station. These PRVs can have a major impact on the pressures and available flow at various points within the system. Minimal information regarding set points was provided or available for the pressure reducing valve stations. However, pressures upstream and downstream of the PRVs were provided during the flow testing on November 22, 2016 which allowed us another opportunity to verify model results were aligning with field results. 6. Valves may be closed or partially closed within the system. – After performing the flow testing on December 15, 2015, the City staff performed some valve verification at a few locations. Some valves were identified as being partially closed. Therefore, additional flow testing was completed on November 22, 2016. Based on our analysis, some of the lows are still significantly higher in the model than the field. We, subsequently, recommend that the City implement a valve exercising program across the City. Given the amount of development and construction that has occurred over the last several years, it is not uncommon for valves to be closed or partially closed where they are not intended to be. As indicated in the previous section, fire flow (FF) tests were performed at twenty-one locations within the water distribution system. These locations are previously illustrated on Exhibit 7-1, and a model to field comparison is provided in Table No. 7-1. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 8 Page 7- 8 Page 8 Table No. 7-1: Flow and Pressure Comparison (Model vs Field Data)United City of Yorkville, ILDifference ModelTest No.Test LocationTestAvailable Fire FlowStaticSimulated Available AvailableSimulatedDifferenceDate@ 20 psiPressureFlow @ 20 psiFire Flow @ 20 psiStatic PressureStatic Pressure(gpm)(psi)(gpm)(gpm)(psi)(psi)1Bristol Bay Dr11/22/20163,996645,5591,56363.2-0.81Bristol Bay Dr12/15/20153,543675,5682,02563.0-42Bridge St11/22/20163,896657,7493,85365.10.12Bridge St12/15/20153,670667,8054,13566.30.33Boombah Blvd11/22/2016NANANANANANA4Tuscany TrailNANANANANANANA5Kennedy RdNANANANANANANA3Boombah Blvd12/15/20152,608704,3051,69768.1-1.94Tuscany Trail12/15/20151,840632,46862862.0-15Kennedy Rd12/15/20152,681662,654-2766.50.56Iroquois Ln11/22/20162,482672,83235064.1-2.97Fairhaven DrNANANANANANANA6Iroquois Ln12/15/20151,751732,8401,08967.3-5.77Fairhaven Dr12/15/20151,275722,10182670.1-1.98Autumn Creek Blvd11/22/20163,313704,02671367.2-2.88Autumn Creek Blvd12/15/20152,179674,0661,88768.21.29 or 22West Kendall St11/22/20163,532523,71718549.1-2.910Game Farm Rd11/22/20164,357516,9112,55449.2-1.810Game Farm Rd12/15/20153,877557,4643,58753.6-1.413Kelly Ave12/15/20151,679471,6921347.70.713Kelly AveNANANANANANANA16Green Briar Rd11/22/20163,751676,6212,87074.37.316Green Briar Rd12/15/20152,444653,44299867.12.117Walsh DrNANANANANA17Walsh Dr12/15/20152,634553,30166752.6-2.418Windett Ridge Rd11/22/20164,3567013,2368,88069.7-0.318Windett Ridge Rd12/15/20152,8397213,80810,96973.51.519Hampton Ln11/22/20163,563635,5992,03658.5-4.519Hampton Ln12/15/20153,183675,8552,67261.8-5.220Callander Trail11/22/20162,205802,101-10479.8-0.220Callander Trail12/15/20151,816822,18637083.91.921East Barberry Circle11/22/20162,837703,8741,03775.45.4Flow Field Data W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 7- 9 7.1.3.1 North Pressure Zone (Orange) – Static pressures generally align between model and field data. However, the available fire flow at a residual pressure of 20 psi appears to be higher in the water model than the field, particularly on the west side of the City along Route 47 (Flow Tests No. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7). Based on engineering judgment, the field flows appear low, particularly at Test Location No. 2. Closing valves throughout the pressure zone can result in similar results between the model and fire flow test data. However, if we closed valves at such locations, these locations would be purely conjecture. Therefore, no valves were modeled as closed. The model still demonstrates relative strengths and weaknesses of the distribution system. Therefore, we proceeded with model based on these values, but recommend the status of valves be verified in the field, possibly through a valve exercising program. The tests on the east side of the City within this pressure zone (Flow Tests No. 4, 5 and 8) Flow and pressures generally aligned at Flow Tests No. 4 and 5. Regarding Test No. 8, a partially closed valve was found along the 16” main on along Veterans Parkway which allowed for results to better match in 2016. 7.1.3.2 North Central Pressure Zone (Purple) – Static pressures generally align between model and field data. Similarly, the available fire flow at a residual pressure of 20 psi also is within reason between the model and field data, except at Test No. 10 (Game Farm Road). The flow in the model at this location is much higher than in the field. This is a location that has been under construction in recent years. It is possible that a valve may be closed or possibly closed in this general vicinity. Verifying valves in this vicinity is recommended, and is another location which may benefit from a valve exercise program. Closing valves throughout the pressure zone can result in similar results between the model and fire flow test data. However, if we closed valves at such locations, these locations would be purely conjecture. Therefore, no valves were modeled as closed. The model still demonstrates relative strengths and weaknesses of the distribution system. 7.1.3.3 South Pressure Zone (Green) – Static pressures obtained in the field mirror those in the model generally. However, the available flows at a residual pressure of 20 psi align at Test No. 20, but are significantly higher at Tests No. 18 and 19. City staff has noted several known valves to be intentionally closed due to the minimal demand resulting from several undeveloped lots. These known closed valves are reflected in the model, but flows are st ill higher. Closing valves throughout the pressure zone can result in similar results between the model and fire flow test data. However, if we closed valves at such locations, these locations would be purely conjecture. Therefore, no valves were modeled as closed. 7.1.3.4 South Central Pressure Zone (Yellow) – Static pressures and available flows align between model and field data at Test No. 17. However, available fire flows varied between the model and fire flow test data on Tests No. 16 and 21. The status of the PRVs are unknown at these locations. Pressure settings at the South Central (Route 47/71) PRV Station could be impacting static pressures and flows. By closing the PRVs at this location for Tests No. 16 and 21, the pressures and available flows have similar results between the field and the model. We recommend the City be aware of the impact of the PRVs on their Water Distribution System and track their set points for future model verification. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 7- 10 7.1.3.5 Summary and Observations – The analysis verifies that the City’s water system is represented in the model within reason and that the hydraulic model is appropriate for the analysis of bulk water movement from supply points throughout the distribution system. Some limitations on the model verification that may be considered as the need for more detailed analysis arises include the following: 1. Detailed verification of local distribution main through flow testing and/or C-Factor testing was not completed and may limit the accuracy of the analysis of localized distribution issues. Additional testing in various areas within the distribution system would allow for a more accurate model in those localized areas. 2. Data over a 24-hour period was not obtained and extended period simulations were not established or verified. 3. Some localized variations between modeled and observed pressure and flow data and unusual modeled results suggest that some system conditions (i.e. pipe diameter, valve position, connectivity assumptions) may not be accurately represented in the model. These discrepancies do not impact the analysis completed as part of this report, however, they may be resolved to increase the accuracy of the model. 4. All high service pumps did not run during flow testing. Therefore, the discharge flow and pressure modeled at each of the supply fac ilities and booster pump stations could not be verified for all pumps. 5. The demand distribution was based on the water usage the specific day of the flow tests and distributed evenly within the pressure zones and may not directly reflect typical average system demands. For analysis of the existing system, 2014 average and maximum day data was used. Maximum hour demands for all users were based on a factor of 2 of the 2014 maximum day demand. The demand distribution for current maximum day and maximum hour analysis may be modified as more detailed data becomes available to increase the reliability of analysis for localized distribution issues. 6. The pressure reducing valve stations play a critical role within the distribution system. They transfer water from higher pressure zones to lower pressure zones and can significantly impact the available flow during maximum demands and fire flow scenarios. 7. Given some differences in the available flow between the water model and field data at various locations within the system, it is possible that some valves are possibly partially closed or fully closed. We recommend the City begin a valve exercising program in accordance with AWWA recommendations and guidelines while refining the procedures to ensure all valves are open except for those that are intended to isolate a portion of the system or separate pressure zones. Water main sizes should be confirmed and documented during valve exercising as well. In addition, we recommend City staff verify and document PRV settings for future analysis. At the time of the next W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 7- 11 Comprehensive Master Plan Update (in approximately 5 years), we recommend the model be updated and verified in more depth by obtaining additional flow testing at that time. 7.2 Existing Distribution System Evaluation The strength and capacity of the existing water distribution system of the United City of Yorkville was evaluated in regard to service pressure, pipeline head loss rates and fire flow capacity. Service pressure, pipe velocities and system headloss were analyzed under two scenarios: 1) Maximum hour demand, and 2) Available fire flow under MDD conditions. 7.2.1 Evaluation Scenario Development – The MHD and MDD scenarios developed for evaluation are comprised of specific demand and supply conditions described in the following sections. 7.2.1.1 Demands – The system’s existing capacity was analyzed under average day, maximum day and maximum hour demand conditions based on the 2014 pumpage. The MDD:ADD ratio utilized is 2.0 based on current trends. Similarly, the MHD:MDD ratio used is 2. The calculated MDD of 2.76 MGD (based on MDD:ADD of 2.0) is greater than the observed 2014 MDD of 2.17 MGD (based on the actual MDD:ADD of 1.57) resulting in a conservative model analysis. Demands were distributed evenly throughout the Water Distribution System. 7.2.1.2 High Service Pumps – Distribution system high service statuses at treatment plants and pump stations were assigned to reflect actual system operation to provide adequate water supply to each zone. The operation status of each water supply facility and booster pump station pump for maximum day and maximum hour demands are shown in Table No. 7-2. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 12 Page 7- 12 Page 12 Table No. 7-2: Summary of High Service Pump Summary In the Water Model United City of Yorkville, IL While the system has the theoretical pumping capacity to achieve average day, maximum day and maximum hour demand utilizing pumping only, typical demands are met by a combination of supply from high service pumps and elevated tanks. To establish initial tank levels for each demand condition, tank data and SCADA information provided by the City were reviewed to determine a typical operating range of each tank. Evaluations of the model under maximum day demand and maximum hour demand conditions were completed at both high tank levels and low tank levels (i.e. just before high service pumps would typically turn on). These levels are outlined in Table No. 7-3. Table No. 7-3: Summary of Water Storage Tank Levels in the Water Model United City of Yorkville, IL 7.2.1.3 Goals – The system’s existing capacity was analyzed under average day, maximum day and maximum hour demand conditions based on the 20 14 pumpage. The MDD:ADD ratio utilized is 2.0 under current trends. Similarly, the MHD:MDD ratio used is 2. Design Status in the Model Pressure Zone Maximum Day Peak Hour Facility Pump Services Pump No. Flow (Total) (gpm) Pump Head (ft)Demand Demand Supply - High Service Pumps Well 3 North Central 1 700 550 Off Off Well 4 North Central 1 1200 655 Off Off Well 7 South 1 1200 1270 On On Well 8 North 1 1200 900 Off Off Well 9 North 1 1200 1000 On On Booster Pump Stations - High Service Pumps North BPS North 1 800 135 Off Off North 2 800 135 Off Off South Central BPS South Central 1 700 115 Off Off South Central 2 700 115 Off Off South BPS South 1 1000 125 Off Off South 2 1000 125 Off Off Minimum Water Model Water Storage Tank Tank Level Low Tank Level High Tank Level Maximum Tank Level North East EWST (Grand Reserve)764 789 809 810 North Central EWST (Tower Lane)730.5 734.5 762 763 South EWST (Raintree)875 895 919 920 South Central EWST (South)812.5 822.5 849 850 North EWST 770 785 809 810 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 13 Page 7- 13 Page 13 Per AWWA Manual M32 Computer Modeling of Water Distribution Systems, in general, the water distribution system and or pipe network is considered to be deficient if any of the following occurs at any location or under any condition: 1. Pressures during maximum day demand and fire flow conditions fal l below 20 psi, 2. Pressures during maximum hour demand conditions fall below 30 to 40 psi, 3. Pressures rise above 90 to 110 psi (understanding that the Illinois Plumbing Code (Section 890.1210) requires a maximum of 80 psi for internal plumbing), 4. Velocities ex ceed 5 feet per second (fps), 5. Headlosses exceed 6 feet per 1,000 feet (ft) for pipes less than 16” in diameter, and 6. Headlosses exceed 2 feet per 1,000 feet (ft) for pipes 16” in diameter and greater. The low pressure constraint under maximum day demand and fire flow conditions is critical and has been recommended by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). However, there is some engineering judgment required for the other pressure recommendations. With respect to the velocity and headloss constraints, the general parameters above are used to design new piping system and are general guid elines. Understanding that portions of the City are not a new design, but rather an existing distribution system, some latitude and engineering judgment should be used while evaluating the distribution system with the water model. To illustrate, having pipe velocities greater than 5 fps may result in wasted energy, requiring additional pumping costs; but, it may not be cost effective to replace the existing water main with a larger main. However, as velocities approach 10 fps, other issues commonly occur such as water hammer; and, these are more of the major concerns that we aim to identify. These parameters are primarily tested under two scenarios: 1. Maximum Day Demand + Fire Flow Conditions, and 2. Maximum Hour Demand Conditions Our analysis of these two scenarios is discussed in the next few sections. 7.2.2 Maximum Day Demand – The system pressures and available fire flow were analyzed under maximum day demand conditions to understand the system response under a typical ‘maximum day demand’ scenario. System pressures were reviewed first to determine locations where there are pressures less than 40 psi under maximum day demand locations. Under this condi tion, the tank levels were set at the low operating levels (i.e. just prior to the low level alarms ). No pumps were running under this scenario . Exhibit 7 -3 depicts the locations where the static pressures are generally below 40 psi. The primary area where pressures were less than 40 psi is at the south end of the North Central Pressure Zone. However, the pressures were still over 35 psi at this location. Therefore, given this is a very rare occurrence with tanks low and pressures are still above 35 psi, this is not an area of concern. Under normal daily operations, the pressures are 40 psi or greater. ( i!( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! 0 1,500 3,000 4,500750 Feet EXHIBIT 7-3 EXISTING STATIC PRESSURES < 40 PSI CONDITIONS- TANKS AT LOW LEVELS DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: JANUARY 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH7-4.MXD JPS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° Note: Available Fire Flow is at a Residual Pressure of 20 PSI North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 i!Elevated Water Storage Tank (EWST) GF Water Treatment Plant 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main Static Pressure Legend < 35 PSI! < 30 PSI!! < 40 PSI! !< 25 PSI W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 15 Page 7- 15 Page 15 A similar analysis was performed to determine locations of system pressures greater than 80 psi. This analysis was performed while tanks are full and no pumps are running. Exhibit 7-4 depicts the areas where the pressures are greater than 80 psi. Although there are a few areas are greater than 80 psi, these findings were acceptable. The locations within the South Central Pressure Zone only rose to 82 psi. The locations identified within the South Pressure Zone ranged over 90 psi, but the City is aware of these pressures and planned for them by requiring individual pressure re ducing valve within the internal plumbing of the homes. 7.2.3 Fire Flow Analysis – Once system pressures were reviewed, a fire flow simulation was performed based on 2014 maximum day demand conditions. To perform such an analysis, the Zoning Map was reviewed and integrated into the model by placing required fire flows of 1,500 gpm at model nodes in all residential areas and 3,500 gpm at model nodes in all other areas. It shall be noted that fire hydrants and leads were not explicitly included in the model. The 3,500 gpm fire flow demand is driven by the Insurance Service Offices’ (ISO’s ) Public Protection Classification (PPC) grading. For purposes of calculating a community’s PPC, ISO only includes buildings with a needed fire flow less than 3,500 gp m. ISO individually grades the protection of buildings with a needed fire flow in excess of 3,500 gpm, and their PPC can differ from that of the community or district that provides their fire protection. Also, a constraint was placed on the system for available fire flow without the velocity in any given pipe exceeding a velocity of 10 fps given this a recommended for good design. A vailable fire flow was c alculated at each modeled node to approximate flow available throughout the system. While typical fire flow standards call for a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi in the system, the analysis was run with a residual pressure requirement of 25 psi to accou nt for minor losses from the modeled node to actual hydrant locations, through the hydrant lead and the hydrant itself. Similar to the system pressure analysis, the available fire flow analysis was calculated under the typical conditions (tanks are at 80% volume and pressure reducing valves are active). Exhibit 7-5 depicts the areas where the available fire flow does not meet the general needed fire flow of 1,500 gpm in residential areas and 3,500 gpm in all other locations. Upon review of Exhibit 7-5, recommended fire flow needs are generally being met in the South, South Central and most of the North Pressure Zone. Within the North Pressure Zone, the Grande Reserve located at the northeast corner of the zone shows that additional flow is recommended. However, the available fire flow at this location is generally over 1,200 gpm at this location, and the primary reason for the minimal flow is because the main is not looped. In addition, the area at the southwest corner of this pressure zone, northeast of Beecher Road and Veterans Parkway (Kendall Market Place) has less than the desired 3,500 gpm. However, the available flow is generally over 3,000 gpm at this location per the model. Fire flow needs can vary from building to building. Therefore, 3,000 gpm may be adequate for the facilities at this location. To EEI’s understanding, there have been no reports of inadequate fire flow. In addition, within the North Pressure Zone, the City shall continue to connect dead -end water mains as land is developed. ( i!( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! 0 1,500 3,000 4,500750 Feet EXHIBIT 7-4 EXISTING STATIC PRESSURE > 80 PSI CONDITIONS - TANKS FULL DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: JANUARY 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH7-5.MXD JPS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° Note: Available Fire Flow is at a Residual Pressure of 20 PSI North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 Legend Static Pressure i!Elevated Water Storage Tank (EWST) GF Water Treatment Plant 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main > 90 PSI > 100 PSI > 80 PSI! ! ! ( i!( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! !!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! Legend i!Elevated Water Storage Tank (EWST) GF Water Treatment Plant 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main Available Fire Flows at a Residual Pressure of 25 PSI !FF Deficiency < 250 GPM !251 < FF Deficiency < 500 GPM !501 < FF Deficiency < 750 GPM !751 < FF Deficiency < 1000 GPM !FF Deficiency > 1,001 GPM 0 1,500 3,000 4,500750 Feet EXHIBIT 7-5 FIRE FLOW DEFICIENCIES PER THE MODEL DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: JANUARY 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH7-6 DEFICIENCY.MXD JPS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° Note: Available Fire Flow is at a Residual Pressure of 20 PSI and maximum pipe velocity of 10 fps. North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 18 Page 7- 18 Page 18 The North Central Pressure Zone presents the most challenges with respect to fire flow needs. This pressure zone includes the center of the City which has some of the oldest, smallest water mains along with businesses which is associated with higher fire flow demands. We recommend the City continue to increase smaller diameter mains to a minimum of 8” when replacement is possible. Where feasible, we recommend increasing some of the mains to 12” or 16” to further reinforce a larger diameter network within the critical downtown area. 7.2.4 Maximum Hour Demand Analysis – The system pressure, pipe velocities and headlosses were analyzed under maximum hour demand conditions to understand the system response under a typical ‘worst case’ scenario. No additional areas of concern were identified during this analysis . 7.2.5 Capital Improvement Plan – The City routinely reviews water main breaks and pipe conditions to identify targeted water main replacement. As part of the water model development, the 5 -year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and integrated the program into the model under future scenarios . 7.2.6 Existing Distribution System Recommended Improvements – The available distribution system is generally strong; however, there are some areas of the Ci ty that would benefit from upgrades. The model is very useful in reviewing velocity, headloss and pressure constraints within the water distribution system. However, engineering judgment shall always be applied to both the model analysis as well as the overall distribution system analysis. A distribution system can be evaluated by not only the param eters mentioned in the previous sections, but also by redundancy within the system. Water main breaks and regular maintenance of water distribution system facilities are a reality. If a tank is taken out of service to be rehabilitated, the City still mus t continue to supply all residents in the same capacity as if the tank is on line. Similarly, if pump(s) are being serviced or a water treatment plant is taken out of service for whatever reason, another supply source is required to fill the tanks in the pressure zone. Therefore, the pipe network and pumps should be such that they can overcome the headloss and fill the tanks regardless of conditions. Therefore, each pressure zone was reviewed to determine if it could operate if a major transmission line had a water main break or a pump was out of service. The following sub-sections outline observations and major concerns for each pressure zone accordingly. 7.2.6.1 North Pressure Zone – Within North Pressure Zone, the fire flow demand is primarily met by the North EWST and Northeast EWST and could be supplemented by the North BP/PRV Station when necessary. As shown on Exhibit 7-5 and discussed previously, there are a few locations where the available fire flow in the model is less than the needed fire flow. As development occurs, the City should continue with implementing a larger diameter looped network identified in this report , and the majority of these deficiencies will be addressed accordingly. These noted deficiencies per the model are primarily a result of dead-end mains and limited larger diameter network resulting from a growing community. The backbone of the larger diameter network has been integrated in the system, and it will strengthen as development occurs. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 19 Page 7- 19 Page 19 Two tanks within this pressure zone allow for redundancy for tank maintenance when necessary. In addition, two wells (Wells No. 8 and 9) provide redundancy in the supply to this pressure zone. No specific improvements are being recommended for the North Pressure Zone at this time. 7.2.6.2 North Central Pressure Zone – The North Central Pressure Zone has one elevated water storage tank (North Central EWST) that maintains the hydraulic grade line within the zone. In addition, the North BP/PRV Station, North Central PRV Station, Sou th Central BP/PRV Station provide another source for maintaining the hydraulic grade line by transferring water from the higher North and South Central Pressure Zones . The PRVs are critical to maximizing the fire flow availability within this pressure zone. Inventorying and reviewing the settings of the PRVs is recommended accordingly. In terms of fire flow availability, there are various locations on Exhibit 7-5 which are id entified as having less than the desired fire flow. To increase the fire flow within this pressure zone, we recommend the City continue to increase smaller diameter mains to a minimum of 8” when replacement is possible. Where feasible, we recommend incre asing some of the mains to 12” or 16” to further reinforce a larger diameter network within the critical downtown area. The City ’s current 5-year CIP program to replace and/or increase the water main includes the following: • Appletree Court Watermain Replacement • Center Street and Main Street Watermain Replacement • W. Washington Street Watermain Replacement • Elizabeth Street Watermain Replacement • Main Street Watermain Replacement • Orange/Olsen Watermain Looping • Morgan Street Watermain Replacement • E. Fox Street Watermain Replacement • East Washington Watermain Replacement • Orange Street Watermain Replacement These are identified on the plan exhibits (Exhibits 7 -6, 7-7 and 7-8) found later in Section 7. From a supply perspective, Well No. 4 is located in this pressure zone. However, given this is the lowest pressure zone in the system, it reaps the benefit of water being transferred from the higher North and South Central Pressure Zones via PRVs which ultimately act as another source of supply for the zone in terms of evaluating redundant supply. 7.2.6.3 South Pressure Zone – The South Pressure Zone is the highest pressure zone within the City’s distribution system and is served by the South EWST and Wel l No. 7 along with the South Central BP/PRV Station. The South EWST is how the fire flow demands are primarily met. In terms of supply redundancy, the South BP/PRV Station can be used when Well No. 7 requires maintenance. The only specific improvement W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 20 Page 7- 20 Page 20 identified for this pressure zone is the Route 71 Water Main Replacement identified. The detailed cost estimate can be found in Appendix G. These are identified on the plan exhibits (Exhibits 7 -6, 7 -7 and 7-8) found later in Section 7. 7.2.6.4 South Central Pressure Zone – The South Central EWST maintains the hydraulic gradeline within this pressure zone along the South BP/PRV Station and the South Central PRV Station. There are no wells located with this pressure zone, and currently it is prim arily fed from the higher South Pressure Zone through the PRVs. In addition, this pressure zone can also be served by pumping it from the lower North Central Station by way of the South Central BP/PRV Station. No specific improvements are being recommended for the South Central Pressure Zone. 7.2.6.5 Overall System General Observations – When reviewing the overall distribution system, the following general observations were made: 1. Various dead -end water mains exist throughout the system. When feasible (as funds become available or development occurs), these dead-ends should be eliminated and looped. 2. The PRVs play a critical role within the distribution system. We recommend City staff collect and review the current PRV settings in efforts to maximize the available fire flow throughout the system . 3. Given the anticipate d life span for water main is anywhere from 50 to 100 years and some of the water main is in excess of 50 years old, we recommend the City continue to implement a water main replacement program. The following items shall be considered as part of the replacement program: a. Aligning water main replacement with the reconstruction of any roadways to minimize design and construction costs as well as disturbance to the water customers. b. When routinely replacing water main in residential areas, the smallest diameter main should be 8”, but confirmed by modeling analysis. For commercial and industrial areas, consideration shall be given to larger pipe. To service commercial//industrial areas at 3,500 gpm during a fire and not have the velocity exceed 10 fps, a minimum of 10” or 12” water main is required. Depending on looping of the pipe, a main larger than 12” is sometimes required. c. Water rates should be reviewed to confirm money is ad equately reserved for such improvements. 4. The operations of the valves and hydrants play a significant role in how much fire flow is available in the system. If a valve is partially closed, it is the difference in meeting fire flow requirements in an area or not meeting fire flow requirements. We recommend implementing a valve exercise program. 5. As information is collected in the field, the water distribution system information within GIS should continue to be refined. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 21 Page 7- 21 Page 21 7.3 System Expansion Evaluation The expansion of the United City of Yorkville’s water system will require future water storage and transmission capacity to provide water to curren tly undeveloped areas of the City . As part of this study, the future water distribution system was reviewed under the following three scenarios: 1. Alternate 1A – Supply By Wells - CT 2. Alternate 2A – Supply By Fox River Intake (Yorkville Only) and Wells - CT 3. Alternate 3A – Supply By Fox River Intake (Sub-Regional) and Wells - CT The following evaluation provides the required pipe diameters and recommended improvements to meet the future demands of the City ’s water system under all three scenarios . 7.3.1 Water Storage Evaluation – In Section 3, the Water Works Evaluation for the projected CT and LRI water use scenarios were completed. 7.3.1.1 Water Storage Evaluation - CT – In Section 3, the Water Works Evaluation for the projected CT water use scenario indicated that the City has adequate storage currently. However, a Maximum Hour Storage Capacity deficit of approximately 1.62 million gallons was identified by the end of the planning period, year 2050 with an additional 41,687 PE. Based on the CT analysis, the existing storage is adequate for approximately an additional 20,000 PE. Storage options include ground storage tanks, standpipes and EWSTs . The City Water Works System currently utilizes primarily spheroid type EWSTs. An EWST provides a benefit over ground storage tanks and standpipes from the perspective that the water does not need to be re-pumped from an EWST in order to provide adequate pressures. Pumping im provements require additional capital expense, consume energy to operate and require maintenance and replacement expense. Therefore, this evaluation will consider the implementation of a spheroid type EWST to provide the necessary storage capacity. For t he CT water use scenario, a 2.0 MG spheroid EWST located in the South Pressure Zone is recommended. The cost estimate to construct a 2.0 MG is $4,870,000. 7.3.1.2 Water Storage Evaluation - LRI – In Section 3, the water works evaluation for the project ed LRI water use scenario identified a Maximum Hour Storage Capacity deficit of approximately 630,000 million gallons by the end of the planning period, year 2050 with an additional 41,687 PE. To close the deficit, additional storage will need to be integ rated into the Water Works System. Given our planning period is only 35 years, but water storage tanks have a typical lifespan of 100 years or greater, we recommend placing a 2.0 million gallon tank. Constructing a larger tank for future growth is more c ost effective than building multiple smaller tanks as growth occurs, even beyond 2050. By building a larger tank, the capital cost per gallon of water storage will be less. In addition, long term maintenance cost will also decrease given the City will ne ed to rehabilitate a less number of tanks. Building on the same concepts as described in the CT water use scenario, a 2.0 MG spheroid EWST located in the South Pressure Zone is recommended for the LRI water use scenario. The cost estimate to construct a 2.0 MG is $4,870,000. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 22 Page 7- 22 Page 22 7.3.2 Water Distribution System Assumptions – To properly size the expansion of the City’s water distribution system, assumptions related to future conditions including the location of proposed mains, pressure zone boundaries, demands, facility operations and storage capacity were necessary. 7.3.2.1 Transmission Main Layout – The geographic placement of the proposed transmission mains was driven by the previously prepared Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan dated July 2000, anticipated future land use and the proposed arterial streets within the area. Transmission mains were generally laid out to follow the alignment of the proposed arterial roads creating an approximately 1 -mile grid. Additional mains were placed to avoid dead-end mains along the perimeter of the system. 7.3.2.2 Pressure Zone Boundaries – The pressure zo ne boundaries remained consistent with those outlined in the Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan dated July 2000. 7.3.2.3 Demands – Demands for the existing distribution system were based on 2014 pumped water use area for the existing demands. For water demands in undeveloped areas, a density of 3.1 PE per acre was assumed with an average day demand of 90 gpd per PE. Utilizing the City’s ultimate service area with an assumed population density of 3.1 P.E. per acre, total demand for each zone was calculated based on its geographic area as shown in Table No. 7-4. Table No. 7-4: Future Demand Summary for Undeveloped Land United City of Yorkville, IL The transmission mains are sized for beyond 2050 because they have an estimated life of 75 to 100 years resulting in additional growth. In addition, it is unknown where development will occur, but the mains should be adequate to serve the density for any given area. 7.3.3 Booster Pump Facilities – The pump station capacities shall be monitored as growth occurs. Under Alternate 1A (Supply By Wells – CT), no modifications to the existing facilities are anticipated. Under Alternate 2A and 3A, t he capacity of pumping facilities shall be monitored. Depending on where growth occurs through 2050, it is possible, although unlikely, that modifications to the existing booster pump stations may be necessary. This should be evaluated once more in the next water system planni ng update which is recommended to be completed approximately every five years . Future Demand for Future Areas North North Central South South Central South East Total Area (acres)8,375 3,178 10,988 10,988 8,682 42,211 Density (3.1 PE per Acre)25,909 9,832 4,041 33,993 26,859 100,633 Water Use - ADD (90 GPD per PE) GPD 2,331,812 884,836 363,690 3,059,338 2,417,289 9,056,964 Water Use - MDD (2 * ADD) GPD 4,663,624 1,769,671 727,380 6,118,675 4,834,577 18,113,928 Water Use - PHD (2 * MDD) GPD 9,327,249 3,539,343 1,454,760 12,237,350 9,669,155 36,227,857 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 23 Page 7- 23 Page 23 7.3.4 Pressure Reducing Valve Facilities – Pressure reducing valves will need to be constructed as appropriate depending on where development occurs. We recommend the numb er of pressure reducing valves be minimized and be placed only on larger diameter main at strategic locations within the distribution system. The recommended locations are shown on Exhibits 7 -6 (Alternate 1A), 7-7 (Alternate 2A) and 7 -8 ((Alternate 3A) later in Section 7. 7.3.5 Water Storage Facilities – Under all three scenarios, a storage tank with a capacity of 2,000,000 gallons is warranted and is anticipated to be placed in the highest pressure zone, the South Pressure Zone. Addit ional potential storage locations were also identified. Storage in the distribution system will be needed in the future to provide supply during peak demands, fire flow and pressure equalization. The locations of the future tanks modeled are shown on Exhibits 7-6 (Alternate 1A), 7-7 (Alternate 2A) and 7 -8 (Alternate 3A) later in Section 7. 7.3.6 Distribution System Expansion Analysis Results – P roposed water mains were assigned an initial assumed diameter and a series of model analyses were performed. Utilizing the model results to review the velocity and headloss through the pipes in the model as well as the available pressures during fire flow scenarios, pipe diameters were adjusted to meet fire flow, pressure, velocity and headloss criteria per the recommendations outlined in the AWWA Manual M32 Computer Modeling of Water Distribution Systems. These parameters, consistent with those outlined in Section 4, are as follows: 1. Pressures during maximum day demand and fire flow conditions fall below 20 psi, 2. Pressures during maximum hour demand conditions fall below 30 to 40 psi, 3. Pressures rise above 90 to 110 psi (understanding that the Illinois Plumbing Code (Section 890.1210) requires a maximum of 80 psi for internal plumbing), 4. Velocities exceed 5 feet per second (fps), 5. Headlosses exceed 6 feet per 1,000 feet (ft) for pipes less than 16” in diameter, and 6. Headlosses exceed 2 feet per 1,000 feet (ft) for pipes 16” in diameter and greater. To systematically approach the sizing of pipes within the system, the analysis began at supply points where the largest water main diameters would be required. Working outward from each supply point, initial main sizes were adjusted to generally achieve less than a velocity of 5 fps in each future pipe and 10 fps in each existing pipe during maximum hour flow conditions. With each change in pipe diameter, the model results were reviewed to determine its effect on the proposed system and iterations were performed until headloss and velocity criteria were met. Subsequently , fire flow analyses were performed on the proposed system. Areas where this flow and pressure could not be met often required an increase in the diameter of mains in the area to meet these fire flow criteria. Based on a transmission grid of approximatel y one square mile and typical headloss and velocity through future distribution mains, i t was determined that adequate flow and pressure at each modeled W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 24 Page 7- 24 Page 24 node on the proposed transmission mains should be 3,500 gpm at 25 psi to meet the typical fire flow requirements within the grid at 20 psi . This relatively conservative fire flow requirement was established because of the uncertainty of the specific fire flow needs of future development in the area. After the system sizing was adjusted for fire flow, further iterations were completed running both maximum hour demand scenarios and maximum day with fire flow demand scenarios throughout the system to determine optimal sizing for the proposed piping. This included looking at the velocity and headloss across the entire proposed network; the flow from the existing and proposed elevated tanks; and the discharge pressure required at the existing and proposed facilities to meet system demands. Under the Fox River scenarios (Alternates 2A and 3A), a review of t he existing system also had to be completed given that there will only be one supply point (to the North Pressure Zone) initially to feed the entire water distribution system via the Fox River water source. Under Alternate 3A (Supply By Fox River Intake (Sub -Regional )), a second supply point is planned as the funding and demand dictates . An analysis was completed to ensure that all tanks could be filled and that water could be adequately distributed based on Maximum Day Demand (Fire Flow Analysis) and Max imum Hour Demand scenarios. This analysis was also an iterative process to size additional transmission mains as necessary to support the bulk transfer of water across the various zones while maintaining acceptable system pressures , velocities and headlosses. The results of the analyses are discussed in the following sections. 7.4 W ater Storage and Distribution Improvements Cost Estimates The proposed transmission main network for the undeveloped areas as well as recommended existing system improvements for the three s cenarios are summarized in the following sub-sections : 1. Alternate 1 – Supply By Wells 2. Alternate 2 – Supply By Fox River Intake (Yorkville Only) and Wells 3. Alternate 3 – Supply By Fox River Intake (Sub-Regional) and Wells 7.4.1 Alternate 1 – Supply By Wells – Under Alternate 1, the projects included in the Capital Improvement Plan improvements are the only identified distribution system projects to be completed in the near future. These projects are identified in Table No. 7-5. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 25 Page 7- 25 Page 25 Table No. 7-5: CIP - Summary of Conceptual Cost Estimates United City of Yorkville, IL The costs noted “RTBR” are part of the Roads -To -Better -Roads Program. All of the above costs were obtained from the CIP and therefore detailed cost estimat es for these projects are not included with this report. To summarize, the proposed Water Works System Improvements for Alternate 1A - CT are illustrated on Exhibit 7-6. In addition, an outline of all estimated costs of the recommended improvements for the 2050 planning period (including the water supply, treatment, storage and transmission improvements outlined in Sections 6 and 7) can be found in Table No. 7 -6 for both the CT and LRI scenarios for Alternate 1 . ITEM Estimated Cost 9a 968,000$ 9b Appletree Court Watermain Replacement (RTBR)149,000$ 9c W. Washington Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) - To be Constructed in 2017 188,000$ 10 Elizabeth Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)512,000$ 11 Main Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)714,000$ 12 Orange/Olsen Watermain Looping (RTBR)168,000$ 13 Morgan Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)376,000$ 14 E. Fox Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)306,000$ 15 East Washington Watermain Replacement (RTBR)465,000$ 16 Orange Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)660,000$ TOTAL - SUMMARY OF CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES:4,506,000$ PROJECT Route 71 Watermain Replacement ( GF( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 i! i! i! i! i! (##########45 45 45 45 45 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( GF GF GF GF GF GF ( Legend Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well GF Water Treatment Plant i!Elevated Water Storeage Tank (EWST) 45 Future BP/PRV #Future PRV (Future Deep Well GF Proposed WTP Site l!Ground Storage Tanks i!Potential EWST Site i!Alternate EWST Site (Well To Be Abandoned Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main Existing Raw Water Main Future 8" Water Main Future 12" Water Main Future 16" Water Main Future 24" Water Main Future Raw Water Main 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,5001,250 Feet EXHIBIT 7-6 ALTERNATE 1A WATER WORKS SYSTEM PLAN - CT DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: MARCH, 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH7-6ALT1-CT NEW .MXD CLV WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 1.0 MG NORTH EWST 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST, WELL NO. 8. WELL NO. 9 NORTH BP/PRV STATION NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST, WELL NO. 4, AND WELL NO. 4 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST, WELL NO. 7, AND WELL NO. 7 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH BP/PRV STATION GF i!( 45 45 ( 9b. APPLETREE COURT WM REPLACEMENT 11. MAIN STREET WM REPLACEMENT 14. EAST FOX STREET WM REPLACEMENT 9c. WEST WASHINGTON STREET WM REPLACEMENT 16. ORANGE STREET WM REPLACEMENT 12. ORANGE / OLSEN WM LOOPING 13. MORGAN STREET WM REPLACEMENT 10. ELIZABETH STREET WM REPLACEMENT WELL NO.13 WTP WELL NO.12 WTP WELL NO.14 WTP WELL NO.6 WTP WELL NO.15 WTP WELL NO.10 WTP 9a. ROUTE 71 WM REPLACEMENT WELL NO. 11 WELL NO. 3 15. EAST WASHINGTON WM REPLACEMENT NOTE: DUE TO THE VARYING TERRAIN AND ELEVATION WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA, EFFORTS WERE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF PRESSURE ZONES. AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, THE ELEVATIONS WITHIN EACH DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED AT THAT TIME. INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES WITHIN BUILDING/HOMES MAY BE REQURED IN CERTAIN AREAS. 2.0 MG EWST W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 27 Page 7- 27 Page 27 Table No. 7-6: Water Works System Master Plan Alternates 1A and1B Cost Estimate Summary United City of Yorkville, IL As noted previously, all transmission main planning is based on current trends. So, the water distribution system improvement costs in in Alternates 1A and 1B are the same. In addition, t he CIP improvements are recommendations made prior to this study and are included as recommendations under all of the scenarios. 7.4.2 Alternate 2 – Supply By Fox River Intake (Yorkville Only) and Wells – Under Alt ernate 2, various water distribution system improvements are recommended in addition to the CIP improvements identified in Alternate 1. These projects are identified in Table No. 7-7. Total Impr.Capital Annual 20-Year 20-Year No.Improvement Cost Cost Present Worth Present Worth Alternate No. 1A: DSS Water Wells with CEWTPs - CT 1A-CT-1 Well No. 6 and Well No. 6 CEWTP $6,839,000 $287,001 $3,292,000 $10,131,000 1A-CT-2 Well No. 10 and Well No. 10 CEWTP $6,839,000 $282,077 $3,235,000 $10,074,000 1A-CT-3 Well No. 11 $2,419,000 $112,885 $1,295,000 $3,714,000 1A-CT-4 Well No. 11 Raw Water Main (to Wells 3 & 4 CEWTP)$1,188,000 $1,188,000 1A-CT-5 Well No. 12 and Well No. 12 CEWTP $6,839,000 $287,001 $3,292,000 $10,131,000 1A-CT-6 Well No. 13 and Well No. 13 CEWTP $6,839,000 $282,077 $3,235,000 $10,074,000 1A-CT-7 Well No. 14 and Well No. 14 CEWTP $6,839,000 $287,001 $3,292,000 $10,131,000 1A-CT-8 Well No. 15 and Well No. 15 CEWTP $6,839,000 $282,077 $3,235,000 $10,074,000 1A-CT-EX1 Existing Wells No. 3 & 4 CEWTP $309,217 $3,547,000 $3,547,000 1A-CT-EX2 Existing Well No. 7 CEWTP $282,077 $3,235,000 $3,235,000 1A-CT-EX3 Existing Wells No. 8 & 9 CEWTP $309,217 $3,547,000 $3,547,000 $44,641,000 $2,720,630 $31,205,000 $75,846,000 1A-CT-9 2.0 MG EWST $4,870,000 $50,000 $573,000 $5,443,000 1A-CT-10 Water Distribution System Improvements $4,506,000 $4,506,000 $9,376,000 $50,000 $573,000 $9,949,000 $54,017,000 $2,770,630 $31,778,000 $85,795,000 Alternate No. 1B: DSS Water Wells with CEWTPs - LRI 1B-LRI-1 Well No. 6 and Well No. 6 WTP $6,839,000 $318,287 $3,651,000 $10,490,000 1B-LRI-2 Well No. 10 and Well No. 10 CEWTP $6,839,000 $312,282 $3,582,000 $10,421,000 1B-LRI-3 Well No. 11 $2,419,000 $130,039 $1,492,000 $3,911,000 1B-LRI-4 Well No. 11 Raw Water Main (to Wells 3 & 4 CEWTP)$1,188,000 $1,188,000 1B-LRI-5 Well No. 12 and Well No. 12 CEWTP $6,839,000 $318,287 $3,651,000 $10,490,000 1B-LRI-EX1 Existing Wells No. 3 & 4 CEWTP $340,390 $3,904,000 $3,904,000 1B-LRI-EX2 Existing Well No. 7 CEWTP $312,282 $3,582,000 $3,582,000 1B-LRI-EX3 Existing Wells No. 8 & 9 CEWTP $340,390 $3,904,000 $3,904,000 $24,124,000 $2,071,957 $23,766,000 $47,890,000 1B-LRI-6 2.0 MG EWST $4,870,000 $50,000 $573,000 $5,443,000 1B-LRI-7 Water Distribution System Improvements $4,506,000 $4,506,000 $9,376,000 $50,000 $573,000 $9,949,000 $33,500,000 $2,121,957 $24,339,000 $57,839,000 Notes: All values based on 2016 construction costs Annual O&M W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 28 Page 7- 28 Page 28 Table No. 7-7: Alternate 2 - Water Distribution System Recommended Improvements Summary of Conceptual Cost Estimates United City of Yorkville, IL The costs noted “RTBR” are part of the Roads -To -Better -Roads Program. Items No. 9a – 16 were obtained from the CIP and therefore detailed cost estimates for these projects are not included with this report. Detailed cost estimates for Items No. 1-8 can be found in Appendix G. To summarize, the proposed Water Works System Improvements for Alternate 2A are illustrated on Exhibit 7- 7. In addition, an outline o f all estimated costs of the recommended improvements for the 2050 planning period (including the water supply, treatment, storage and transmission improvements outlined in Sections 6 and 7) can be found in Table No. 7-8. ITEM Estimated Cost 1 829,000$ 2 233,000$ 3 9,597,000$ 4 869,000$ 5a 20" Water main on Van Emmon 1,071,000$ 5b 20" Water main on Van Emmon 473,000$ 6 20" Water Main from Mill Street to South Central EWST 3,155,000$ 7 1,450,000$ 8 Not. Incl. in Alt. 2 9a 968,000$ 9b Appletree Court Watermain Replacement (RTBR)149,000$ 9c W. Washington Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) - To be Constructed in 2017 188,000$ 10 Elizabeth Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)512,000$ 11 Main Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)714,000$ 12 Orange/Olsen Watermain Looping (RTBR)168,000$ 13 Morgan Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)376,000$ 14 E. Fox Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)306,000$ 15 East Washington Watermain Replacement (RTBR)465,000$ 16 Orange Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)660,000$ TOTAL - SUMMARY OF CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES:22,183,000$ 16" Water Main along Center Street and Main Street 20" Water Main from South Central EWST to South BP/PRV PRV Station - North Pressure Zone to North Central Pressure Zone Route 71 Watermain Replacement PROJECT 20" & 16" Water Main North West of Water Treatment Plant 16" Tie Into Crimson Lane 24" Water Main from Water Treatment Plan to Van Emmon ( GF( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 ( i! i! i! i! i! GFl! (##########45 45 45 45 45 ( Legend Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well GF Water Treatment Plant i!Elevated Water Storeage Tank (EWST) 45 Future BP/PRV #Future PRV (Future Deep Well GF Proposed WTP Site l!Ground Storage Tanks i!Potential EWST Site i!Alternate EWST Site (Potential Future Deep Well (Well To Be Abandoned Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main Existing Raw Water Main Future 8" Water Main Future 12" Water Main Future 16" Water Main Future 20" Water Main Future 24" Water Main Future Raw Water Main Potential Future Water Main 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,5001,250 Feet EXHIBIT 7-7 ALTERNATE 2A WATER WORKS SYSTEM PLAN - CT DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: MARCH, 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH7-7 ALT2 NEW.MXD CLV WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 1.0 MG NORTH EWST 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST, WELL NO. 8. WELL NO. 9 NORTH BP/PRV STATION NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST, WELL NO. 4, AND WELL NO. 4 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST, WELL NO. 7, AND WELL NO. 7 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH BP/PRV STATION WELL NO. 10, FOX RIVER INTAKE, 12 MGD LIME SOFTENING WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND 1.0 MG GST WELL NO. 8 & 9 RAW WATER MAIN 2.0 MG EWST 6. 20" WM FROM MILL STREET TO SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 7. 20" WM FROM SOUTH CENTRAL EWST TO SOUTH BP/PRV 4. 16" WM ALONG CENTER STREET AND MAIN STREET 3. 24" WM FROM WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO VAN EMMON 2. 16" WM TIE INTO CRIMSON LANE 1. 20" AND 16" WM NORTH WEST OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT 5a & 5b. 20" WM ON VAN EMMON GF i!( 45 45 (( 9b. APPLETREE COURT WM REPLACEMENT 11. MAIN STREET WM REPLACEMENT 14. EAST FOX STREET WM REPLACEMENT 9c. WEST WASHINGTON STREET WM REPLACEMENT 16. ORANGE STREET WM REPLACEMENT 12. ORANGE / OLSEN WM LOOPING 13. MORGAN STREET WM REPLACEMENT 9a. ROUTE 71 WM REPLACEMENT 10. ELIZABETH STREET WM REPLACEMENT WELL NO. 3 15. EAST WASHINGTON STREET WM REPLACEMENT NOTE: DUE TO THE VARYING TERRAIN AND ELEVATION WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA, EFFORTS WERE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF PRESSURE ZONES. AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, THE ELEVATIONS WITHIN EACH DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED AT THAT TIME. INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES WITHIN BUILDING/HOMES MAY BE REQURED IN CERTAIN AREAS. POTENTIAL FUTURE WELL NO. 6 POTENTIAL FUTURE RAW WATER MAIN W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 30 Page 7- 30 Page 30 Table No. 7-8: Water Works System Master Plan Alternates 2A and 2B Cost Estimate Summary United City of Yorkville, IL As noted previously, all transmission main planning is based on current trends. So, the water distribution system improvement costs in in Alternates 2A and 2B are the same. In addition, the CIP improvements identified in Alternate 1 are included in the W ater Distribution System Improvements identified in Table No. 7 - 8 above. 7.4.3 Alternate 3 – Supply By Fox River Intake (Sub -Regional) and Wells – Under Alternate 3, various water distribution system improvements are recommended in addition to the CIP improvements identified in Alternate 1. These projects are outlined in Table No. 7-9. Total Impr.Capital Annual 20-Year 20-Year No.Improvement Cost Cost Present Worth Present Worth Alternate No. 2A: Fox River Intake with Single Stage (ClariCone) LSWTP - CT 2A-CT-1 12 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Station $5,217,000 $218,063 $2,501,000 $7,718,000 2A-CT-2 12 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone) LSWTP $35,088,000 $1,965,251 $22,541,000 $57,629,000 2A-CT-3 Wells No. 8 & 9 Raw Water Main $3,267,000 $3,267,000 2A-CT-4 Well No. 10 $2,419,000 $53,950 $619,000 $3,038,000 2A-CT-EX1 Existing Wells No. 3 & 4 CEWTP $108,634 $1,246,000 $1,246,000 2A-CT-EX2 Existing Well No. 7 CEWTP $108,634 $1,246,000 $1,246,000 $45,991,000 $2,454,532 $28,153,000 $74,144,000 2A-CT-5 2.0 MG EWST $4,870,000 $50,000 $573,000 $5,443,000 2A-CT-6 Water Distribution System Improvements $22,183,000 $22,183,000 $27,053,000 $50,000 $573,000 $27,626,000 $73,044,000 $2,504,532 $28,726,000 $101,770,000 Alternate No. 2B: Fox River Intake with Single Stage ClariCone LSWTP - LRI 2B-LRI-1 9 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Station $4,828,000 $204,703 $2,348,000 $7,176,000 2B-LRI-2 9 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone) LSWTP $29,572,000 $1,726,058 $19,798,000 $49,370,000 2B-LRI-3 Wells No. 8 & 9 Raw Water Main $3,267,000 $3,267,000 2B-LRI-EX1 Existing Wells No. 3 & 4 CEWTP $102,719 $1,178,000 $1,178,000 2B-LRI-EX2 Existing Well No. 7 CEWTP $102,719 $1,178,000 $1,178,000 $37,667,000 $2,136,199 $24,502,000 $62,169,000 2B-LRI-4 2.0 MG EWST $4,870,000 $50,000 $573,000 $5,443,000 2B-LRI-5 Water Distribution System Improvements $22,183,000 $22,183,000 $27,053,000 $50,000 $573,000 $27,626,000 $64,720,000 $2,186,199 $25,075,000 $89,795,000 Notes: All values based on 2016 construction costs Annual O&M W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 31 Page 7- 31 Page 31 Table No. 7-9: Alternate 3 - Water Distribution System Recommended Improvements Summary of Conceptual Cost Estimates United City of Yorkville, IL The costs noted “RTBR” are part of the Roads -To -Better -Roads Program. Items No. 9a – 16 were obtained from the CIP and therefore detailed cost estimates for the se projects are not included with this report. Detailed cost estimates for Items No. 1-8 can be found in Appendix G. These improvement s are illustrated on Exhibit 7-8 which is the Water Works Sys tem Master Plan for Alternate 3A - CT. Consistent with the water distribution system planning for Alternates 1 and 2, all transmission main planning is based on current trends. Also, the CIP improvements identified in Alternate 1 included in the cost estimates above. Given the same supply source connection point near the Fox River was considered under both Alternates 2 and 3, the recommended water distribution system improvements are nearly identical. The only difference between these two alternates is the PRV in the vicinity of the Fox River connection point. Under Alternate 2, the water treatment plant would have different pumps that could pump to both the North Pressure Zone ITEM Estimated Cost 1 829,000$ 2 233,000$ 3 9,597,000$ 4 869,000$ 5a 20" Water main on Van Emmon 1,071,000$ 5b 20" Water main on Van Emmon 473,000$ 6 20" Water Main from Mill Street to South Central EWST 3,155,000$ 7 1,450,000$ 8 378,000$ 9a 968,000$ 9b Appletree Court Watermain Replacement (RTBR)149,000$ 9c W. Washington Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) - To be Constructed in 2017 188,000$ 10 Elizabeth Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)512,000$ 11 Main Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)714,000$ 12 Orange/Olsen Watermain Looping (RTBR)168,000$ 13 Morgan Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)376,000$ 14 E. Fox Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)306,000$ 15 East Washington Watermain Replacement (RTBR)465,000$ 16 Orange Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR)660,000$ TOTAL - SUMMARY OF CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES:22,561,000$ 16" Water Main along Center Street and Main Street 20" Water Main from South Central EWST to South BP/PRV PRV Station - North Pressure Zone to North Central Pressure Zone Route 71 Watermain Replacement PROJECT 20" & 16" Water Main North West of Water Treatment Plant 16" Tie Into Crimson Lane 24" Water Main from Water Treatment Plan to Van Emmon ( GF( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 GF GF GF( ( ( i! i! i! i! i! 45 45 45 45 45 ##########( Legend Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well GF Water Treatment Plant i!Elevated Water Storeage Tank (EWST)#Future PRV 45 Future BP/PRV (Future Deep Well l!Ground Storage Tanks i!Potential EWST Site i!Alternate EWST Site Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main Existing Raw Water Main Future 8" Water Main Future 12" Water Main Future 16" Water Main Future 20" Water Main Future 24" Water Main Future Raw Water Main 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,5001,250 Feet EXHIBIT 7-8 ALTERNATE 3A WATER WORKS SYSTEM PLAN - CT DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: MARCH, 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH7-8 ALT3 NEW.MXD CLV WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 1.0 MG NORTH EWST NORTH BP/PRV STATION NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST SOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH BP/PRV STATION 2.0 MG EWST 6. 20" WM FROM MILL STREET TO SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 7. 20" WM FROM SOUTH CENTRAL EWST TO SOUTH BP/PRV 4. 16" WM ALONG CENTER STREET AND MAIN STREET 3. 24" WM FROM WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO VAN EMMON 2. 16" WM TIE INTO CRIMSON LANE 1. 20" AND 16" WM NORTH WEST OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT 5a & 5b. 20" WM ON VAN EMMON GF i!( 45 45 GF ( (( 9a. ROUTE 71 WM REPLACEMENT FUTURE SUB REGIONAL CONNECTION SUB REGIONAL CONNECTION 8. PRV STATION - NORTH PRESSURE ZONE TO NORTH CENTRAL PRESSURE ZONE WELL NO. 3 9b. APPLETREE COURT WM REPLACEMENT 11. MAIN STREET WM REPLACEMENT 14. EAST FOX STREET WM REPLACEMENT 9c. WEST WASHINGTON STREET WM REPLACEMENT 16. ORANGE STREET WM REPLACEMENT 12. ORANGE / OLSEN WM LOOPING 13. MORGAN STREET WM REPLACEMENT 10. ELIZABETH STREET WM REPLACEMENT 15. EAST WASHINGTON STREET WM REPLACEMENT WELL NO. 4, AND WELL NO. 4 WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST WELL NO. 7, AND WELL NO. 7 WATER TREATMENT PLANT NOTE: DUE TO THE VARYING TERRAIN AND ELEVATION WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA, EFFORTS WERE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF PRESSURE ZONES. AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, THE ELEVATIONS WITHIN EACH DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED AT THAT TIME. INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES WITHIN BUILDING/HOMES MAY BE REQURED IN CERTAIN AREAS. 2.0 MG EWST 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST, WELL NO. 8. WELL NO. 9 WELL NO. 8 AND 9 WTP WELL NO. 6 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 33 Page 7- 33 Page 33 and the North Central Pressure Zone. Under Alternate 3 (Sub -Regional), the supply would only serve the North Pressure Zone. Therefore, a PRV station is required to reduce the pressure to accommodate the North Central Pressure Zone. In Section 8, the supply, treatment and distribution will be discussed and a summary of the rec ommended Water Works System Improvements will be provided accordingly. 7.4.4 General Considerations For Water Distribution System Planning - Alternates 1, 2 and 3 – Within the Exhibits 7-6, 7 -7 and 7-8, “Future Pipe” diameter indicates the required equivalent diameter for adequate capacity in the area. This capacity can potentially be obtained by installing a parallel pipe with the existing pipe remaining or by abandoning the existing pipe remaining or by abandoning the existing pipe with new water main. A general route for proposed piping has been provided for planning purposes, but there may be a better route to achieve the required capacity depending on the circumstances and other projects the City is undergoing at the time of the improvements. The maximum day demand with fire flow condition was the primary criteria for the majority of the transmission main sizes, particularly when far from supply points, with larger mains needed to maintain pressur e at high elevations during fire flows. Maximum Hour flows tended to govern the size of mains that were closer to supply points. Ground elevation plays a large factor in the availability of adequate fire flow to an area and the resulting water main size necessary to support the flow. Final layout of mains along the pressure zone boundaries should be studied as developments are proposed and water mains are designed to ensure that local high or low ridges fall on the appropri ate side of the pressure zone boundaries. Fire flow availability along the pressure zone boundary depends in areas on the inclusion of PRVs and BPSs. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 1 Page 8- 1 Page 1 SECTION 8: SUB-REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT ANALYSIS Section 6 of this report evaluated two different options for the United City of Yorkville’s future water source: 1) continuing to obtain water using wells and deep aquifers and 2) treating surface water from the Fox River with a WTP that is only meant to serve the United City of Yorkville. This section evaluates a third option – 3) treating surface water from the Fox Ri ver within a sub-regional WTP and transmitting the treating water to the Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville and Village of Oswego. 8.1 Sub-Regional Planning Area Exhibit 8-1 depicts the planning areas for the Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville and Village of Oswego. The sizes of the planning areas are as follows: • Montgomery – 9.3 square miles of corporate limits and 15.6 square miles of other planning area. • Yorkville – 20.2 square miles of corporate limits and 72.9 square miles of other planning area. • Oswego – 15.1 square miles of corporate limits and 40.2 square miles of other planning area. Within the combined 173.3 square mile planning area of all three communities, there currently are 44.6 square miles within corporate limits. There are 128.7 square miles of land area (74% of total area) within the total planning area that currently are not within one of the corporate boundaries. The Fox River flows through all three communities running from northeast to southwest. 8.2 Sub-Regional Historical & Projected Population The total populations served by the Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville and Village of Oswego W ater W orks Systems in 2014 were 27,488, 17,878 and 32,454 respectively. The combined population s erved in 2014 was 77,820. The 2050 population projection for Yorkville was determined in the same manner that it was for Oswego. That is, the annual growth rate for CMAP’s 2040 projection was compounded another ten years to determine 2050’s value. When the same method was used for Montgomery, it became apparent that it would be an over estimate for their Village due to the fact the Village has a limited amount of undeveloped property within their planning area. Therefore , community development utilized the Village’s comprehensive plan to estimate population growth in the undeveloped areas. The existing population served plus the additional build -out population then became the 2050 total population served estimate for the Village of Montgomery. OSWEGO JOLIET YORKVILLE PLANO PLAINFIELD PLATTVILLE LISBON MINOOKA MILLBROOK AURORASUGAR GROVE MONTGOMERY BIG ROCK NORTH AURORA WALKER RD BELL RIDGE RDGROVE RDGALENA RD HELMAR RD CHURCH RDLISBON RDCATON FARM RD. AMENT BRISBIN ROADSCHLAPP RDNEWARK RD GROVE RD.F O X R O A D IMMANUELWHEELER RD ASHLEYLISBON CENTER ELDAMAIN RDMILL RD R I V E R R O A D ARBEITER RDASHLEY RDJ O L I E T MINKLER RDP L A I N F I E L D R D BUDD RD VAN DYKE W O L F R D K E N N E D Y WOOLLEY RD JOLIET RD ORCHARD RDCHERRY RD COLLINS RD MCKANNAHOLT HUGHES HANSONCORNEILS RD LEGION HARE RDBUSHNELL SCH RD W BEECHERWHITE WILLOW RD CATON FARM CANNONBALL TRWHITEWILLOW RD JONES RDHOPKINS RDHIG HPOINTROCK CREEK RDRESERVATION RD PLATTVILLE RDHOLLENBACK RDHALE STAPAKESHA RD FIF T H S T DICKSON RDVA N E M M O N R D BLOCK RDUS-34OLD P OS T RD County Line RdM A IN STC H IC A G O R D LUNDQUIST DRG r a n d e T ra ilS C H A E FER RD BRIARCLIFF RD TOWNHOUSE RDWILDEY ROAD RANCE RD Clublands PkwyASHE RDSLEEPY HOLLOW RDFINDLEY RDJETER RDO R C H A R D AV E S T A G E C O A C H T R A IL W.135TH ST. SCOTCH RD FITKINS DRIVEBRIAN LN. FOX CT ASHLEYRIDGE RDWHITEWILLOW RD County Line RdJericho Rd I L - 4 7 Orchard RdScott Rd Prairie StDugan RdOhio StRONALD R E A G A N M E M HW Y Sullivan Rd 5th Ave OAK STLasher Rd G r a n a r t R d Bliss RdHankes Rd Downer Pl Indian Tr IL-47 / US-30Union StL i b e r t y S tDauberman RdLINCOLN AVWheeler Rd U S -3 0 Elmwood DrMerrill Rd Sheffer Rd Galena Blvd P R A I R I E ST BASELINE Jones RdBar nes RdJohnNorris RdH A R T E R R D FESCUE DRI n d i g o Dr Legend Total Study Area Oswego Study Area Montgomery Study Area Yorkville Study Area Oswego Corporate Limits Montgomery Corporate Limits Yorkville Corporate Limits 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,0002,000 Feet EXHIBIT 8-1 SUB-REGIONAL STUDY AREA DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: JANUARY 2017 YO1438 YO1438_EXH8-1 OSG,YORK,MON MJT SUB-REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT ANALYSIS VILLAGE OF MONTGOMERY, ILLINOIS UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS AND VILLAGE OF OSWEGO, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\NORTH °United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 3 Page 8- 3 Page 3 Exhibit 8-2 outlines the combined historic al population as far back as 1990 as well as the predicted future population through 2050. The total combined population for the sub-region for 2014 was 77,820; at a growth rate of 1.10 % for the Village of Montgomery, 3.20% for the United City of Yorkville and 2.78% for Village of Oswego the 2050 population is projected to be 192,561 people for all three communities. 8.3 Sub-Regional Historical & Projected Water Use To determine the Sub-Region water needs, the water needs of each community were determined and added together to find the total projected water demand. A summary of each community’s historical water use, predicted future water use under a CT scenario and predicted future water use under the LRI scenario, can be found in Table No. 8-1. A WTP is typically designed to produce enough water to meet the MDD of a W ater W orks System(s). In order to determine the maximum day demand, the ADD is multiplied by the MDD:ADD ratio that has been determined based on historical data. In the CT scenario, while all of the communities are assumed to have the same average day demand per capit a, the MDD:ADD ratio was different for each community. When determining the total ADD and MDD demand, each community was evaluated separately and then added together to find the total. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 4 Page 8- 4 Page 4 Exhibit 8-3 depicts the combined water usage projections. As expect ed, they generally follow the same exponential pattern seen in the population projections in Exhib it 8-2. For the CT scenario, a total maximum day demand of 32.9 MGD is projected for all three communities in 2050. As outlined below, Oswego is projecting the highest population and is therefore projected to be using the largest amount of water. Yorkville is projected to have the second highest water demand, and Montgomery is projected to have the smallest water demand in 2050. Table No. 8-1: Community Water Use Characteristics Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville, Village of Oswego Parameter Village of Montgomery United City of Yorkville Village of Oswego 2014 Population 27,488 17,878 32,454 Historical Water Use Average Daily Pumpage (2014)2.44 MGD 1.38 MGD 2.50 MGD Annual Minimum of Average Daily Pumpage Per Capita (2010 - 2014)87.0 gpcd 77.3 gpcd 77.1 gpcd Annual Average of Average Daily Pumpage Per Capita (2010 - 2014)90.7 gpcd 88.0 gpcd 80.3 gpcd Annual Maximum of Average Daily Pumpage Per Capita (2010 - 2014)96.4 gpcd 99.5 gpcd 84.4 gpcd Maximum Daily Pumpage (2014)3.42 MGD 2.17 MGD 4.17 MGD Minimum Maximum Day To Average Day Ratio (2010 - 2014)1.40 1.57 1.67 Average Maximum Day To Average Day Ratio (2010 - 2014)1.53 1.91 1.80 Maximum Maximum Day To Average Day Ratio (2010 - 2014)1.66 2.06 1.90 Historical Water Use Additional Breakdown % of 2014 Water Use That Was For Residential Use 75.3 %81.6 %82.3 % % of 2014 Water Use That Was For Non-Residential Use 24.7 %18.4 %17.7 % Average Daily Residential Water Use Per Capita (2014)51.7 gpcd 55.6 gpcd 55.3 gpcd Average % of Water Supply For Outdoor Water Use 3.7 %12.9 % -- 2014 Water Losses and Unbilled Authorized Consumption 22.7 %11.8 % -- Average % Water Distribution System Losses 20.8 %8.0 % -- % of Households Pre-1994 49.5 %27.0 % -- Water Use Projections - Current Trends (CT) 2050 Population Projection 42,000 59,565 90,996 CT Average Daily Water Use Per Capita 90 gpcd 90 gpcd 90 gpcd CT Maximum Day To Average Day Ratio 1.75 2.00 1.90 CT 2050 Average Daily Water Use 3.78 MGD 5.36 MGD 8.19 MGD CT 2050 Maximum Daily Water Use 6.62 MGD 10.72 MGD 15.56 MGD Water Use Projections - Less Resource Intenstive (LRI) Projected Water Use Savings For LRI Water Demand Projection 20 %11 % -- > Projected Distribution System Losses With 50% Reduction 10.4 %4.0 % -- > Projected Outdoor Water Use With 25% Reduction 2.8 %9.7 % -- > Projected Indoor Water Use Reduction For Fixture & Appliance Changes 6.4 %2.6 % -- LRI Average Daily Water Use Per Capita 72 gpcd 80 gpcd 75 gpcd LRI Maximum Day To Average Day Ratio 1.50 1.75 1.75 LRI 2050 Average Daily Water Use 3.02 MGD 4.77 MGD 6.82 MGD LRI 2050 Maximum Daily Water Use 4.54 MGD 8.34 MGD 11.94 MGD Notes: - A detailed water use evaluation was not completed for the Village of Oswego. It was not part of the scope of services for the project. - The water losses and unbilled authorized consumption for the Village of Oswego is estimated to be 12.9% (same as Yorkville) for the average daily residential water use per capita calculation. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 5 Page 8- 5 Page 5 Exhibit 8-4 summarizes how water conservation efforts contributing to t he LRI scenario would affect each of the communities’ demands through the year 2050. If all three communities where to make a moderately higher commitment to conserve water, the combined 2050 average day dem and drops from 17.3 MGD to 14.6 MGD and the 2050 maximum day demand drops from 32.9 MGD to 24.8 MGD. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 6 Page 8- 6 Page 6 Table No. 8-2 below outlines the percent distribution of the ADD and MDD that is projected for each community. The percentage of usage between the com munities does not differ significantly for any community between either the ADD or MDD or the CT and LRI values. 8.4 Sub-Regional Existing Water Supply and Treatment Systems At the time of this study, the Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville and Village of Oswego all have supply and treatment systems that are adequate for their current needs. Exhibit 8 -5 displays all existing water supply and treatment system infrastructure within the combined planning area. Sections 8.4.1, 8.4.2 and 8.4.3 outline the current sources, treatment and water quality within the sub-region. 8.4.1 Sub-Regional Supply Sources – The communities all currently use groundwater to meet their potable water needs. A summary of each communities’ water wells is as follows: • Montgomery: two shallow sand and gravel wells, two shallow limestone wells and five deep sandstone Cambrian Ordovician wells • Yorkville: five deep sandstone wells • Oswego: eight deep sandstone wells 8.4.2 Sub-Regional Treatment Systems – As stated in the previous section, all of the communities currently obtain their drinking water from groundwater. The following list outlines the different water treatment systems that are used by the Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville and Village of Oswego. Water Works System Parameter Montgomery Yorkville Oswego Total 2050 CT WATER USE PROJECTION Average Day Demand Value (MGD)3.78 5.36 8.19 17.33 % of Total 21.8%30.9%47.3% -- Maximum Day Demand Value (MGD)6.62 10.72 15.56 32.90 % of Total 20.1%32.6%47.3% -- 2050 LRI WATER USE PROJECTION Average Day Demand Value (MGD)3.02 4.77 6.82 14.61 % of Total 20.7%32.6%46.7% -- Maximum Day Demand Value (MGD)4.54 8.34 11.94 24.82 % of Total 18.3%33.6%48.1% -- Table No. 8-2: Sub-Regional 2050 Water Use Projection Distribution Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville, and Village of Oswego 45 45 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (#####i! i! i! i! i! ( i!( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 ((( ( (( ( ( (#45 45 45 GF GF i! i! i! i! I L - 4 7 Jericho Rd BlissRdSeaveyRd Scott Rd RandallRdPrairie St R ON A L D REAGAN MEM H WY DuganRdOrchardRdOhioStH arter R d DaubermanRd5th Ave Farnswort hAveILLINOIS AVE OAK ST RiverstLasher Rd Hankes Rd GranartRdIL-47/US-30UnionStL i b e r t y S t B u t t e r f i e l d R d LINCOLNAVWheeler Rd U S -3 0 Tanner Rd M errillR d Sheffer RdHartRd GalenaBlvd PR A I R I E S T NorrisRdKirkRdSLorangRdD e e r p a th R d JeterRdBASELINE JonesRdBarnesRdGr e en R d LAKESTSNOW ST SIMPSON PKWYELMSTMarie EASTWOODDRFESCUEDRH A R T E R R D SUMMERHILLDRWALKER RD GROVERDRIDGERDGALENARD HELMAR RD LISBONRDCATON FARM RD. AMENT SCHLAPPRDCHURCHRDNEWARK RD F O X R O A D ASHLEYIMMANUELBRISBINROADWHEELER RDELDAMAINRDMILLRD LISBON CENTER R I V E R R O A D ARBEITERRDASHLEYRDMINKLERRDP L A I N F I E L D R D VAN DYKE W O L F R D K E N N E D Y WOOLLEY RD GROVERD.BUDD RD CHERRY R D COLLINS RD MCKANNACORNEILS RD LEGION BUSHNELL SCH RD WBEECHERHUGHES CATON FARM CANNONBALL TRJONES RDHOPKINSRDHIG HP OINTROCKCREEKRD RESERVATION RD HOLLENBACKRDHALESTWHEELER FIFT H S T DICKSONRDVA N E M M O N R D BLOCKRDOL D POST R D CountyLineRdM A IN STC H IC A G O R D LUNDQUISTDRG r a n d e T r a ilSCHAEFE R R D THEODORE STREET RANCE RDASHERD JUGHANDLERDSLEEPYHOLLOW RDO R C H A R D AV E S T A G E C O A C H T R A I L W.135TH ST. SCOTCH RDSIMONDR.FITKINSDRIVEFOX CT RIDGERDASHLEYLegend Total Study Area Oswego Study Area Montgomer Study Area Yorkville Study Area i!Elevated Water Storage Tank (EWST) l!Ground Storage Tank GF Water Treatment Plant 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,0002,000 Feet EXHIBIT 8-5 EXISTING WATER WORKS SYSTEMS WITHIN THE SUB-REGION DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: JANUARY 2017 YO1437 YO1437_EXH8-5 OSG,YORK,MON.MXD MJT Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLEY\2014\NORTH °SUB-REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT ANALYSIS VILLAGE OF MONTGOMERY, ILLINOIS UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS AND VILLAGE OF OSWEGO, ILLINOIS 1.5 MG OGDEN FALLS EWST WELL NO. 7 WELL NO. 9 BP STATION 2 BP STATION 1 0.5 MG VILLAGE CENTER EWST WELL NO.3 1.5 MG ORCHARD EWST WELL NO. 11 PRV STATION 2 PRV STATION 1 WELL NO. 8 1.5 MG HUNT CLUB EWST WELL NO. 10 PRV STATION 3 PRV STATION 4 PRV STATION 5 0.3 MG FOX CHASE EWST WELL NO. 6 WELL NO.4 1.0 MG NORTH EWST NORTH BP/PRV STATION WELL NO. 9 NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST WELL NO. 8, WELLS NO. 8 & 9 WATER TREATMENT PLAN 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST WELL NO. 7, AND WELL NO. 7 WATER TREATMENT PLAN SOUTH BP/PRV STATION SOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION WELL NO. 3 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST WELL NO. 4, AND WELL NO. 3 & 4 WATER TREATMENT PLAN 1.0 MG OGDEN HILL EWST OGDEN HIL BP/PRV STATION PARKVIEW ESTATES PRV STATION 750,000 GAL EAST EWST 2 MG FAIRFIELD WAY EWST WELL NO. 14, WELLS NO. 14 & 15 WATER TREATMENT PLAN WELL NO. 15 750,000 GAL WEST EWST WELL NO. 10 & 13 WELL NO. 11 WELL NO. 3 WELL NO. 12 LIME SOFTENING TREATMENT PLANT CLEARWELL 300,000 GAL AND 1 MG GST HORSEMENT TRAIL BP/PRV STATION United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 8 Page 8- 8 Page 8 • Montgomery has three WTPs o One CEWTP treats Wells No. 14 and 15 primarily for softening and radium removal o One CEWTP treats Well No. 8 primarily for softening and radium removal o One LSWTP treats Wells No. 3, 4, 10, 11, 12 and 13 primarily for softening and radium removal • Yorkville has three WTPs o One CEWTP treats Wells No. 3 and 4 primarily for softening and radium removal o One CEWTP treats Well No. 7 primarily for softening and radium removal o One CEWTP treats Wells No. 8 and 9 primarily for softening and radium removal • Oswego has eight WTPs o Eight radium selective ion exchange WTPs (leased from WRT) provide radium removal 8.4.3 Sub-Regional Existing Water Quality Summary – As stated in the previous section, all three communities withdraw water from deep sandstone wells ; Montgomery also withdraws water from shallow sand and gravel wells and shallow limestone wells. Both the Village of Montgomery and United City of Yorkville take steps to remove radium and soften their water , but the Village of Oswego only removes the radium from the water and does not soften the water. Due to the relative proximity of the communities and the consistency of the deep aquifers, all the deep sandstone wells experience similar water quality. 8.5 Sub-Regional Fox River Withdrawal Considerations The decision to have one Sub-Regional Fox River intake and water treatment plant used jointly by the Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville and Village of Oswego has several benefits and several challenges . One benefit of creating a Sub-Regional plant is that the communities would be able to save money on the operations and maintenance of the plant. A poten tial downside of creating a Sub-Regional plant would be the increased water transmission costs due to the need to build the plant in a convenient location for all three communities. This location may mean that the treated water would need to be pumped further than if each community built its own surface water treatment plant. However, a cost - effective Sub-Regional plan could only withstand one intake and WTP. The following sections identify the needed capacity and potential location for the Sub -Regional wit hdrawal. 8.5.1 Fox River Withdrawal Capacity – WTPs are sized to treat their maximum daily demand. As seen in Table No. 8-1, usage calculations for the communities determined that the sub-regional water demand for a current trends scenario would require a 32 MGD plant and a less resource intensive scenario would require a 25 MGD plant. The Fox River is capable of handling either withdrawal rate during normal flows. They have concluded the Fox River is a sustainable source of water for the Sub-Region. However, there will be times when the river baseflow drops below the permitted protected low flow (most likely would be set at the Q7,10 level at the withdrawal location). Section s 8.5.3 will address the backup water supply needs for the Sub-Regional System. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 9 Page 8- 9 Page 9 8.5.2 Potential Withdrawal Locations – Several locations were considered for the placement of the proposed Fox River Intake and Sub-Regional water treatment plant. Placing the WTP as close to equidistant from the main lines of each community’s main distri bution mains is important in order to 1) avoid placing an unfair burden on one community to provide a larger ratio of the raw and treated water transmission mains, and 2) ensure that the water age is not a factor for just one community. The location that meets this goal the best is in the Fox River/Orchard Road Intersection Corridor. 8.5.3 Backup Water Supply – As discussed, the risk of the Fox River flow dropping below the permitted protected low flow continues to reduce into the future, but there undoubt edly will be times when it will go below the permitted protected low flow. When those conditions exist, a backup water supply will be needed for the sub-region. The three communities have significant investment in water wells throughout the sub-region. Assuming the three communities limit their use of the deep aquifer to meet a minimum amount of their annual water demand and assuming Joliet switches to an alternate water supply source, the deep sandstone aquifer could be a reliable backup water source for the sub-region. While the Fox River withdrawal and WTP will be sized to meet the maximum day demand, it would take a very large investment to set up the backup water supply network to meet the maximum day demand, too. Through discussions with each of t he three communities’ staff, it was decided the backup supply system would be sized to meet the 2050 Average Day Demand with the largest well being out of service. While it is understood the backup supply may be needed in times of higher demand (i.e. low flow conditions in the river likely will occur during a drought), the three communities would work to manage the water demands to fall inline with average day water uses so the costs for backup supply are more reasonable. With this target in mind, the target total flow rate of the wells that would be connected to the Sub -Regional WTP would be the CT and LRI ADD plus 1,200 gpm (the flow rate of the largest well that could be cost - effectively connected to the Sub-Regional WTP would be 400 gpm divided amongst each of the three communities). In the circumstance where the river withdrawal was limited or fully banned, the wells would pump to the Sub-Regional WTP. The WTP would distribute treated water of the same water quality as it would distribute when treati ng Fox River water. When considering a Sub-Regional WTP near the Fox River/Orchard Road corridor, some of the three communities’ wells can be cost -effectively pumped to that location while others are simply too expensive to connect. In an effort to balance an equitable distribution of a backup well network to the three communities, considering existing and potential additional wells, Tables No. 8 -3 and 8-4 were created. Tables No. 8-3 and 8-4 summarize the CT and LRI backup water supply approaches, respectively. For both the CT and LRI scenarios, the existing wells which will not be connected to the Sub -Regional LSWTP will be abandoned in the far-future. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 10 Page 8- 10 Page 10 Under the CT scenario, two of the Village of Montgomery’s existing wells and one new well would be c onnected. Two of the United City of Yorkville’s existing wells and one additional new well would be connected in the CT scenario, as well. The Village of Oswego would connect four of their existing wells and add two new wells. One more additional well woul d be needed and the cost and utilization is ‘split’ between the Village of Montgomery and United City of Yorkville based on usage. This makes for a total of eight existing wells and five additional wells under the CT scenario. For the LRI scenario, the Village of Montgomery and United City of Yorkville would connect two existing wells and add one additional well, each. Oswego would connect the same four existing wells that were utilized under the CT scenario, but would not need to drill ano ther one independently . Finally, a Sub- Regional well is once again added but this time its usage is split between the communities of Yorkville and Oswego. Table No. 8-3: Backup Well Water Supply To Meet 2050 Average Day Demand - CT Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville, Village of Oswego Water Works System Parameter Montgomery Yorkville Oswego Total 2050 CT WATER USE PROJECTION Average Day Demand (MGD)3.78 5.36 8.19 17.33 Average Day Demand (gpm)2,625 3,723 5,687 12,035 Average Day Demand With 400 gpm extra (gpm)3,025 4,123 6,087 13,235 Wells To Be Connected To WTP Well Rate Well Rate Well Rate No.(gpm)No.(gpm)No.(gpm) 14 1,000 6 1,000 6 1,000 15 1,000 8 1,200 8 1,000 17 1,000 9 1,200 10 1,200 SR-1*25 SR-1*723 11 1,200 Total:3,025 Total:4,123 12 1,000 13 1,000 Total:6,400 Notes: *Portion of new well SR-1; 96.7% for Yorkville & 3.3% for Montgomery W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 11 Page 8- 11 Page 11 Exhibit 8-6 displays the proposed transmission main network for the backup water wells for t he CT water use scenario. Exhibit 8-7 summarizes the backup transmission network for the LRI water use scenario. Both exhibits also display the Sub-Regional WTP, existing and proposed wells, and other infrastructure associated with each scenario. Table No. 8-4: Backup Well Water Supply To Meet 2050 Average Day Demand - LRI Water Works System Parameter Montgomery Yorkville Oswego Total 2050 LRI WATER USE PROJECTION Average Day Demand (MGD)3.02 4.77 6.82 14.61 Average Day Demand (gpm)2,100 3,309 4,739 10,149 Average Day Demand With 400 gpm extra (gpm)2,500 3,709 5,139 11,349 Wells To Be Connected To WTP Well Rate Well Rate Well Rate No.(gpm)No.(gpm)No.(gpm) 14 1,000 6 1,000 6 1,000 15 1,000 8 1,200 8 1,000 17 1,000 9 1,200 10 1,200 Total:3,000 SR-1*309 11 1,200 Total:3,709 SR-1*739 Total:5,139 Notes: *Portion of new well SR-1; 29.5% for Yorkville & 70.5% for Oswego Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville, Village of Oswego ((( ( GF (( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( W ol f GroveMill CollinsRoute 71SchlappP lai n fiel d Woolley HeggsCherryOrchardUS Route 30 Route 31DouglasMinklerUS Route 34Wheeler HarveyRoute 126 Reservation StewartMainC i r c l e StonehillRiverRickardTumaKevinWhitetail Ridge 127th 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,0002,000 Feet EXHIBIT 8-6 SUB-REGIONAL BACKUP WATER SUPPLY TRANSMISSION NETWORK - CT DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: MARCH 2017 YO1437 EXH8-7 OSG,YORK,MON MJT Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\NORTH °SUB-REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT ANALYSIS VILLAGE OF MONTGOMERY, ILLINOIS UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS AND VILLAGE OF OSWEGO, ILLINOIS WELL NO. 7 WELL NO. 9 WELL NO.3 WELL NO. 11 WELL NO. 8 WELL NO. 10 WELL NO. 6 WELL NO.4 WELL NO. 9 WELL NO. 8 WELL NO. 7 WELL NO. 4 WELL NO. 14 WELL NO. 15 WELL NO. 3 WELL NO. 4 PROPOSED WELL NO. 6 WELL NO. 8 WELL NO. 12 WELL NO. 11 WELL NO. 10 WELL NO. 13 WELL NO. 3 PROPOSED WELL NO. 12 PROPOSED BACK-UP WATER SUPPLY TRANSMISSION MAINS PROPOSED WELL NO. SR-1 32 MGD LIME SOFTENING WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROPOSED WELL NO. 17 12" 16" 16"20" 12"12" 24"24" 24"20" 16" 16" POTENTIAL FUTURE WELL NO. 14 POTENTIAL FUTURE WELL NO. 10 PROPOSED WELL NO. 13 16" United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 Legend Total Study Area Existing Montgomery Radius of Influences Existing Yorkville Radius of Influences Existing Oswego Radius of Influences Potential Future Montgomery Radius of Influences Potential Future Yorkville Radius of Influences Potential Future Oswego Radius of Influence Projected Oswego Radius of Influences Backup Montgomery Radius of Influences (Active Montgomery Well (Active Yorkville Well (Active Oswego Well (Potential Future Well (Abandoned Well Existing Raw Water Main Proposed Raw Water Main Potential Future Raw Water Main Backup Oswego Radius of Influences Backup Yorkville Radius of Influences Legend Total Study Area Existing Montgomery Radius of Influences Existing Yorkville Radius of Influences Existing Oswego Radius of Influences Potential Future Montgomery Radius of Influences Potential Future Yorkville Radius of Influences Potential Future Oswego Radius of Influence Projected Oswego Radius of Influences Projected Montgmery Radius of Influences Projected Yorkville Radius of Influences Projected Sub- Regional Radius of Influences (Active Montgomery Well (Active Yorkville Well (Active Oswego Well Well To Be Abandoned (Proposed or Potential Future Well ( Water Treatment PlantGF Potential Future Raw Water Main Existing Raw Water Main Proposed Raw Water Main ((( ( GF (( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (IL-47Jericho Rd Bliss RdSeavey Rd Scott Rd Randall RdPrairie St R ONA LD REAGAN MEMHWY Dugan RdOrchard RdOhio StH arter R d Farnsworth AveDauberman Rd5th Ave ILLINOIS AVE OAK ST River stLasher Rd Hankes Rd Granart RdIL-47 / US-30B u t t e r f i e l d R d LINCOLN AVWheeler Rd U S -3 0 Tanner Rd M errill Rd Sheffer RdHart RdGalena Blvd PR A I R I E S T Norris RdKirk RdL i b e r t y S tS Lorang RdM o n t g o m e r y R d D e e r p a th R d Jeter RdBASELINE Jones RdBar nes RdLAKE STSIMPSON PKWYELM STMarie FESCUE DRI n d i g o Dr H A R T E R R D WILLOW WAYWALKER RD GROVE RDRIDGE RDGALENA RD HELMAR RD LISBON RDCATON FARM RD. AMENT SCHLAPP RDCHURCH RDNEWARK RD F O X R O A D ASHLEYIMMANUELBRISBIN ROADWHEELER RDELDAMAIN RDMILL RD LISBON CENTER R I V E R R O A D ARBEITER RDASHLEY RDMINKLER RDP L A I N F I E L D R D VAN DYKE W O L F R D K E N N E D Y WOOLLEY RD GROVE RD.BUDD RD CHERRY RD COLLINS RD MCKANNACORNEILS RD LEGION BUSHNELL SCH RD W BEECHERHUGHES CATON FARM CANNONBALL TRJONES RDHOPKINS RDHIG HP OINTROCK CREEK RDRESERVATION RD HOLLENBACK RDHALE STWHEELER FIF T H S T DICKSON RDVA N E M M O N R D BLOCK RDUS-34OLD POST R D County Line RdM A IN STC H IC A G O R D LUNDQUIST DRSCHAEFE R R D THEODORE STREET RANCE RDASHE RDJUGHANDLE RDSLEEPY HOLLOW RDO R C H A R D AV E RICHARD DR WS T A G E C O A C H T R AI L W.135TH ST. SCOTCH RDSIMON DR.FITKINS DRIVEFOX CT RIDGE RDASHLEY0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,0002,000 Feet EXHIBIT 8-7 SUB-REGIONAL BACKUP WATER SUPPLY TRANSMISSION NETWORK - LRI DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: MARCH 2017 YO1437 EXH8-7 OSG,YORK,MON MJT Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\NORTH °SUB-REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT ANALYSIS VILLAGE OF MONTGOMERY, ILLINOIS UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS AND VILLAGE OF OSWEGO, ILLINOIS WELL NO. 7 WELL NO. 9 WELL NO.3 WELL NO. 11 WELL NO. 8 WELL NO. 10 WELL NO. 6 WELL NO.4 WELL NO. 9 WELL NO. 8 WELL NO. 7 WELL NO. 4 WELL NO. 14 WELL NO. 15 WELL NO. 3 WELL NO. 4 PROPOSED WELL NO. 6 WELL NO. 8 WELL NO. 12 WELL NO. 11 WELL NO. 10 WELL NO. 13 WELL NO. 3 PROPOSED BACK-UP WATER SUPPLY TRANSMISSION MAINS PROPOSED WELL NO. SR-1 25 MGD LIME SOFTENING WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROPOSED WELL NO. 17 12" 16" 16"20" 12"12" 24"24" 24" 20" 16" 16" POTENTIAL FUTURE WELL NO. 14 POTENTIAL FUTURE WELL NO. 10 POTENTIAL FUTURE WELL NO. 12 POTENTIAL FUTURE WELL NO. 13 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 Legend Total Study Area Existing Montgomery Radius of Influences Existing Yorkville Radius of Influences Existing Oswego Radius of Influences Potential Future Montgomery Radius of Influences Potential Future Yorkville Radius of Influences Potential Future Oswego Radius of Influence Projected Oswego Radius of Influences Backup Montgomery Radius of Influences (Active Montgomery Well (Active Yorkville Well (Active Oswego Well (Potential Future Well (Abandoned Well Existing Raw Water Main Proposed Raw Water Main Potential Future Raw Water Main Backup Oswego Radius of Influences Backup Yorkville Radius of Influences Legend Total Study Area Existing Montgomery Radius of Influences Existing Yorkville Radius of Influences Existing Oswego Radius of Influences Potential Future Montgomery Radius of Influences Potential Future Yorkville Radius of Influences Potential Future Oswego Radius of Influence Projected Oswego Radius of Influences Projected Montgmery Radius of Influences Projected Yorkville Radius of Influences Projected Sub- Regional Radius of Influences (Active Montgomery Well (Active Yorkville Well (Active Oswego Well Well To Be Abandoned (Proposed or Potential Future Well ( Water Treatment PlantGF Potential Future Raw Water Main Existing Raw Water Main Proposed Raw Water Main W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 14 Page 8- 14 Page 14 8.6 Fox River Treatment Options Fox River water quality data from both Elgin and Aurora were reviewed to determine the design constraints for the Sub-Regional surface water treatment plant. The hardness as averaged between all four seasons is 336 mg/L as CaCO 3 which is considered to be ‘very hard’. Very hard water can diminish the effectiveness of detergents, stain surfaces and have other bothersome characteristics. The target hardness for the WTP effluent is 100-130 mg/L as CaCO3, which is considered to be on the borderline of moderate to hard water, and which is consistent with the current finished water hardness within the Village of Montgomery and United City of Yorkville Water Works Systems. 8.6.1 Conventional Lime Softening – Lime softening is a common and cost effective way to treat both surface water and groundwater. Lime softening not only removes hardness, it can remove microorganisms and dissolved organic matter. When hydrated lime [Ca(OH)2] o r quicklime (CaO) is added to raw water, the lime reacts with the calciu m and magnesium particles. Due to the larger size of the particles and the increased pH of the water, the particles settle out taking the cations causing hardness with them. Single-stage and two-stage lime softening is often considered to treat hard or very hard water. In single - stage treatment, lime is added to raise the pH above 10.3 and remove calcium. Two -stage treatment removes both calcium and magnesium by raising the pH to about 11-11.3 in the first stage to remove magnesium, then lowering the pH in the second stage to remove calcium. While two -stage processes often produce a better finished water quality than single stage and generally cost less to operate, they are typically more expensive to build. Because the magnesium hardness does not prove to be a large amount of the Fox River water hardness, single stage lime softening would be sufficient. As discussed in Section 6, it was determined a single stage upflow clarifier, such as a Claricone, would be the most cost effective treatment option for the Sub -Regional WTP. 8.6.2 Membrane Treatment – Membrane treatment is the filtration of water by passing (in some cases with the help of gravity and in some cases with the help of a pu mp) water through a membrane which has very small pores. Any contaminants which do not fit through the pores will be prevented from passing through the membrane; thus, the effluent leaving the membrane will theoretically be free of all contaminants which are too large to pass through the pores. Membranes are often used later in the treatment train as a polishing step. When using membrane technology, it can be useful to install the membranes using ‘skids’. Skids allow for the membranes to take up a relatively small amount of square footage in the treatment areas. Additionally, skids allow the membranes to be installed quickly and cost effectively. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 15 Page 8- 15 Page 15 8.6.3 Lime Softening & Membrane Treatment – A combination of lime softening and membrane treatment has been selected for the Sub-Regional WTP. Although the ClariCones would theoretically remove many of the contaminants, the ultrafiltration membranes would catch many of the particles that wouldn’t be removed by the lime softening process. Powder activated carbon would be added to the treatment process to further removal unwanted contaminants. Exhibit 8-8 displays the proposed general process flow diagram for both the CT and LRI water use scenarios. EPA regulations regarding drinking water can change based on disco very of the effects contaminants can have on human health as well as pollution concentration levels water systems can attain by using the best available technology. While some ‘near-future’ regulations are well known, the EPA will likely continue to update regulations up to and through 2050. It is vital to consider potential future regulations in the design and layout of the WTP to avoid costly modifications in the future. For this reason, the design of the WTP should consider the addition of both biologica lly activated carbon (BAC) beds and ultra violet - advanced oxidation process (UV -AOP) treatment. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 16 Page 8- 16 Page 16 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 17 Page 8- 17 Page 17 8.7 Sub-Regional Water Distribution Evaluation As stated previously in section 8, the proposed location for the Sub-Regional Water Treatment Plant is near the intersection of the Fox River and Orchard Rd. This area is centrally located between all three communities, which will allow for cost savings related to the transmission mains. 8.7.1 Transmission Mains – Exhibit 8-9 summarizes the proposed layout of the surface water transmission system for both the CT and LRI scenarios. The goals for locating and sizing the treated water transmission lines were as follows:  Meet the HGL of as many of each of the communities’ pressure zones with a minimal number o f pump galleries needed at the WTP  Minimize the length of pipe  Provide redundancy (i.e. multiple connections) to each of the systems where cost -effectively feasible  Size the pipes to meet the maximum day demand in 2050 with reasonable velocity and head los s When evaluating the hydraulic grade lines of each community, it became apparent that the Village of Montgomery’s West Pressure Zone Top HGL (Elevation = 832) and the Village of Oswego’s Central Pressure Zone Top HGL (Elevation = 836) were very similar. It also became apparent that the United City of Yorkville’s North Pressure Zone HGL (Elevation of 810) and the Village of Oswego’s West Pressure Zone HGL (Elevation of 785) were similar, too. Therefore, the transmission main network would be set up with t wo pumping galleries that pump into two separate transmission main networks. The High Transmission Main Network, the red pipeline on Exhibit 8-9 would transmit water to the Village of Montgomery through a route along Orchard Road. The High Transmission Main Network also would transmit water to the Village of Oswego’s Middle Pressure Zone at the two proposed connection points on Exhibit 8-9. The Low Transmission Main Network, the orange pipeline on Exhibit 8-9, would transmit water to the United City of Yorkville through a connection along Route 34. It also would connect to the Village of Oswego’s West Pressure Zone through a connection near Route 34. Finally , a future connection to the south side of the United City of Yorkville’s system is planned through an extension of the High Transmission Main down Minkler Road. Given the higher HGL of the United City of Yorkville’s South Pressure Zone, a booster pump station also will need to be added along that line. Based on the initial plan, there are three transmission main connection points identified for the Village of Oswego and then one for both for the United City of Yorkville and Village of Montgomery. A second connection is planned for the United City of Yorkville at an appropriate time in the future. Unfortunately, there is no cost -effective route to provide a second connection to the Village of Montgomery. In lieu of constructing a very expensive second connection, it would be m uch better if the Village of Montgomery and Village of Oswego work on setting up additional interconnects within their distribution systems. For that matter, it would seem beneficial for all three communities to work together on interconnects, just in cas e issues arise within the transmission network. !!!!!45 45 #####i! i! i! i! i! i! i! 45 i! i! i!#45 #45 #45 45 45 l! i! i! i! i! GF I L - 4 7 Jericho Rd Bliss RdSeavey Rd Scott Rd Randall RdPrairie St R ON A L D REAGAN MEM H WY Dugan RdOrchard RdOhio StH arter R d Dauberman Rd5th Ave Farnswort h AveILLINOIS AVE OAK ST River stLasher Rd Hankes Rd Granart RdIL-47 / US-30Union StL i b e r t y S t B u t t e r f i e l d R d LINCOLN AVWheeler Rd U S -3 0 Tanner Rd M errill Rd Sheffer RdHart RdGalena Blvd PR A I R I E S T Norris RdKirk RdS Lorang RdD e e r p a th R d Jeter RdBASELINE Jones RdBarnes RdGr e en R d LAKE STSNOW ST SIMPSON PKWYELM STMarie EASTWOOD DRFESCUE DRH A R T E R R D SUMMERHILL DRWALKER RD GROVE RDRIDGE RDGALENA RD HELMAR RD LISBON RDCATON FARM RD. AMENT SCHLAPP RDCHURCH RDNEWARK RD F O X R O A D ASHLEYIMMANUELBRISBIN ROADWHEELER RDELDAMAIN RDMILL RD LISBON CENTER R I V E R R O A D ARBEITER RDASHLEY RDMINKLER RDP L A I N F I E L D R D VAN DYKE W O L F R D K E N N E D Y WOOLLEY RD GROVE RD.BUDD RD CHERRY RD COLLINS RD MCKANNACORNEILS RD LEGION BUSHNELL SCH RD W BEECHERHUGHES CATON FARM CANNONBALL TRJONES RDHOPKINS RDHIG HP OINTROCK CREEK RDRESERVATION RD HOLLENBACK RDHALE STWHEELER FIFT H S T DICKSON RDVA N E M M O N R D BLOCK RDOL D POST R D County Line RdM A IN STC H IC A G O R D LUNDQUIST DRG r a n d e T r a ilSCHAEFE R R D THEODORE STREET RANCE RDASHE RDJUGHANDLE RDSLEEPY HOLLOW RDO R C H A R D AV E S T A G E C O A C H T R A I L W.135TH ST. SCOTCH RDSIMON DR.FITKINS DRIVEFOX CT RIDGE RDASHLEYLegend Total Study Area i!Elevated Water Storage Tank (EWST) l!Ground Storage Tank 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,0002,000 Feet EXHIBIT 8-9 WATER DISTRIBUTION PLANNING EXHIBIT - CT AND LRI DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: JANUARY 2017 YO1437 YO1437_EXH8-9 OSG,YORK,MON MJT Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\NORTH ° Pressure Zones Oswego East Pressure Zone Oswego Central Pressure Zone Oswego West Pressure Zone Montgomery West Pressure Zone Montgomery Central Pressure Zone Montgomery East Pressure Zone Yorkville North Pressure Zone Yorkville North Central Pressure Zone Yorkville South Central Pressure Zone Yorkville South Pressure Zone Yorkville Southeast Pressure Zone SUB-REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT ANALYSIS VILLAGE OF MONTGOMERY, ILLINOIS UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS AND VILLAGE OF OSWEGO, ILLINOIS 1.5 MG OGDEN FALLS EWST BP STATION 2 BP STATION 1 0.5 MG VILLAGE CENTER EWST 1.5 MG ORCHARD EWST PRV STATION 2 PRV STATION 1 1.5 MG HUNT CLUB EWST PRV STATION 3 PRV STATION 4 PRV STATION 5 0.3 MG FOX CHASE EWST 1.0 MG NORTH EWST NORTH BP/PRV STATION NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST SOUTH BP/PRV STATION SOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST 1.0 MG OGDEN HILL EWST OGDEN HILL BP/PRV STATION PARKVIEW ESTATES PRV STATION 750,000 GAL EAST EWST 2.0 MG FAIRFIELD WAY EWST 750,000 GAL WEST EWST 300,000 GAL AND 1 MG GSTHORSEMEN TRAIL BP/PRV STATION TOP HGL = 850 TOP HGL = 920 TOP HGL = 763 TOP HGL = 810 TOP HGL = 832 TOP HGL = 804 TOP HGL = 844 TOP HGL = 836 TOP HGL = 891TOP HGL = 785 TOP HGL = 800 YORKVILLE NORTH PRESSURE ZONE FEED MONTGOMERY WEST PRESSURE ZONE FEED OSWEGO CENTRAL AND FUTURE YORKVILLE SOUTH PRESSURE ZONE FEED FUTURE YORKVILLE SOUTH PRESSURE ZONE FEED OSWEGO CENTRAL PRESSURE ZONE FEED SUB-REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 24" 36" 30" 30" 16" OSWEGO WEST PRESSURE ZONE FEED 24" FUTURE YORKVILLE SOUTH PRESSURE ZONE FEED BPS United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 19 Page 8- 19 Page 19 8.7.2 United City of Yorkville Distribution Upgrades – The United City of Yorkville currently distributes their water using a ‘decentralized system’ due to the fact that each of the WTPs is producing water and adding the water to the distribution system at their respective locations in the City. In the proposed Sub - Regional scenario, the Sub-Regional treated water would be transmitted into the system on the northeast side of the system. All of the distribution upgrade information to be able to effectively distribute the water throughout the system to meet peak demands was summar ized in Section 6. 8.8 Sub-Regional Costs Cost estimates were developed for the water supply, treatment and transmission of the water. A summary of the CT and LRI cost estimates for the Alternate 3 scenario can be found in Table 8-5. The detailed Sub-Regional cost estimates are included in Appendix G. The Sub-Regional costs were split several different ways in the cost scenarios based off the design parameter of the specific improvement. Because the capacity of the LSWTP is sized to meet the maximum day demand scenario, the costs were split based on the ratio of each community’s MDD to the Sub-Regional MDD. The capacities of the backup raw water wells and raw water transmission mains were designed to meet the average day demand and therefore the costs were split based on the ratio of each community’s ADD to the Sub-Regional ADD. Costs specific to each community were paid for by each community and if there was an odd ratio, such as with the Sub -Regional Well, the ratio was split based on usage. Finally, costs that were not capacity dependent, such as pilot testing, were split equally. When applicable, the cost tables, exhibits and appendi ces make note of how the costs are split using the superscripts A, M, R and E to show costs split by ADD ratios, MDD ratios, ratios based on use and evenly split costs, respectively. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 20 Page 8- 20 Page 20 8.8.1 Sub-Regional Current Trends Water Use Scenario Costs – Table No. 8-5 displays the summary of the cost estimate for the CT scenario. The detailed cost estimates for the CT Water Use Scenario can be found in Appendix G. The CT scenario includes the addition of two backup wells along with their transmission mains, the Sub- Regional intake station and LSWTP and the treated water transmission mains. As documented in Table No. 8-2, the United City of Yorkville is projected to account for 30.9% of the total Sub-Regional water demand under the ADD CT scenario and 32.6% of the total Sub -Regional water demand under the MDD CT scenario. The United City of Yorkville would need to fund 96.7% of the flow from the Sub-Regional well in this scenario. The costs shown in Table No. 8-5 represent the estimated total which includes the engineering, legal and contingency costs. The capital costs for the CT scenario are approximately $81.5 million. Approximately 33% of the capital cost, $26.7 million, is the cost for the intake pump station and the 32 MGD LSWTP. Approximately 18% of the total cost, $14.4 million, consists of the two new wells and the well transmission United City of Yorkville, IL Total Impr.Capital Annual 20-Year 20-Year No.Improvement Cost Cost Present Worth Present Worth Alternate No. 3A: Sub-Regional Fox River Intake with ClariCone LSWTP & Existing DSS Water Wells - CT 3A-CT-1 Well No. 6 $2,419,000 $73,832 $847,000 $3,266,000 3A-CT-2 Well No. SR-1r $2,339,000 $71,396 $819,000 $3,158,000 3A-CT-3 32 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Stationm $2,389,000 $92,727 $1,064,000 $3,453,000 3A-CT-4 32 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone) LSWTP m $24,290,000 $1,362,227 $15,625,000 $39,915,000 3A-CT-5 Well Transmission Mains a $9,616,000 $9,616,000 3A-CT-6 Treated Water Transmission Mains $12,990,000 $12,990,000 $54,043,000 $1,600,181 $18,355,000 $72,398,000 3A-CT-7 2.0 MG EWST $4,870,000 $50,000 $573,000 $5,443,000 3A-CT-8 Water Distribution System Improvements $22,561,000 $22,561,000 $27,431,000 $50,000 $573,000 $28,004,000 $81,474,000 $1,650,181 $18,928,000 $100,402,000 Alternate No. 3B: Sub-Regional Fox River Intake with ClariCone LSWTP & Existing DSS Water Wells - LRI 3B-LRI-1 Well No. 6 $2,419,000 $70,813 $812,000 $3,231,000 3B-LRI-2 Well No. SR-1r $714,000 $20,890 $240,000 $954,000 3B-LRI-3 25 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Stationm $2,161,000 $85,088 $976,000 $3,137,000 3B-LRI-4 25 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone) LSWTP m $21,886,000 $1,258,998 $14,441,000 $36,327,000 3B-LRI-5 Well Transmission Mains a $9,298,000 $9,298,000 3B-LRI-6 Treated Water Transmission Mains $12,990,000 $12,990,000 $49,468,000 $1,435,789 $16,469,000 $65,937,000 3B-LRI-7 2.0 MG EWST $4,870,000 $50,000 $573,000 $5,443,000 3B-LRI-8 Water Distribution System Improvements $22,561,000 $22,561,000 $27,431,000 $50,000 $573,000 $28,004,000 $76,899,000 $1,485,789 $17,042,000 $93,941,000 Notes: All values based on 2016 construction costs Annual O&M a. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of Average Daily Demand (CT: 21.8% for Montgomery, 30.9% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 20.7% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville; 46.7% for Oswego). m. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of Maximum Daily Demand (CT: 20.1% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 18.3% for Montgomery, 33.6% for Yorkville; 48.1% for Oswego). r. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of ratio of usage - For the SR-1 well, the ratios are as follows: (CT: 3.3% for Montgomery, 96.7% for Yorkville, 0% for Oswego; LRI: 0% for Montgomery, 29.5% for Yorkville; 70.5% for Oswego). Table No.8-5: Water Works System Master Plan Cost Estimate Summary W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 21 Page 8- 21 Page 21 mains. The treated water transmission mains , distribution improvements and storage additions make up approximately the last 49% of the current trends capital cost at a cost of $40.4. 8.8.2 Sub-Regional Less Resource Intensive Water Use Scenario Costs – Table No. 8-5 displays the summary of the cost estimate for the LRI scenario. The detailed cost estimates for the LRI Water Use Scenario can be found in Appendix G. The LRI scenario includes the addition of one backup well for the United City of Yorkville and one Sub- Regional backup well, which is also added to meet the Village of Oswego demands , the Sub-Regional Fox River intake, the LSWTP and the treated water transmission and distribution mains. As documented in Table No. 8-2, the United City of Yorkville is projected to account for 32.6% of the total Sub-Regional water demand under the ADD LRI scenario and 33.6% of the total Sub-Regional water demand under the MDD LRI scenario. In the LRI scenario, the United City of Yorkville also is projected to account for 29.5% of the output from the Sub-Regional backup well. The Village of Oswego would account for the other 70.5% of the output from the well. The capital costs for the less resource intensive scenario are around $76.9 million. Approximately 31% of the capital cost, $24.0 million, is the cost for the intake pump station and the 25 MGD LSWTP. 16% percent of the total cost, $12.4 million, consists of the backup infrastructure of the two new wells and the well transmission mains. The treated water transmission mains , storage additions, and water distribution system improvements make up approximately the last 53%, $40.4 million, of the less resource intensive capital cost. 8.8.3 Sub-Regional Transmission Main Costs – The transmission main costs above can be found in Table No. 8-5 and the transmission main routes can be seen in Exhibit 8 -9. The cost for the well transmission mains varies between the CT and LRI scenario due to the raw water main that would need to be constructed if the Village of Oswego Well No. 13 is connected to the LSWTP. The treated water transmission mains are identical in both scenarios. The detailed cost estimates for the transmission mains can be found in Appendix G. The internal distribution improvements required under the Sub-Regional approach, and the costs for them, were presented in Section 7. The costs are added to the other system implementation costs below. 8.8.4 United City of Yorkville Sub-Regional Improvement Costs Summary – The capital cost difference between the current trends scenario and less resource intensive scenario for the United City of Yorkville is $4,575,000, so the City would be able to save over $4.5 million in capital costs by reducing their water usage. Recurring operations and maintenance costs would also contribute to a monetary difference between the CT and LRI scenarios. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 22 Page 8- 22 Page 22 8.8.5 Sub-Regional LRI Improvement Costs Summary – Table No. 8-6 outlines the capital cost distribution for the Sub-Regional water supply, treatment and distribution assuming all three communities follow the less resource intensive scenario. This table combines the LRI values for each community for the Sub-Regional W TP. The minimum internal distribution system improvements that would also be needed in order to incorporate the WTP are outlined for Montgomery and Yorkville. It should be noted t he minimum internal distribution improvements for the Village of Oswego were not analyzed as part of the scope of this project. It is assumed the Village of Oswego will complete that analysis in the near future. 8.9 Sub-Regional Cost Analysis Subsection 8.9.1 compares the cost of the Sub-Regional WTP for each community as compared to the cost each community utilizing their own WTP system. Subsection 8.9.2 compares the projected water bills for Montgomery, Yorkville and Oswego to other local communities which utilize surface water treatment systems. 8.9.1 Fox River Alternatives Comparison – Exhibit 8-10 outlines the comparative costs for each of the c ommunities to construct their own WTP , which withdraws water from the Fox River, as compared to the cost of each community constructing their own WTP for the Fox River. This exhibit takes into account the Water Works System Parameter Montgomery Yorkville Oswego Total Additional Wells r $2,419,000 $3,133,000 $1,705,000 $7,257,000 Well Transmission Main Networka $5,904,000 $9,298,000 $13,319,000 $28,521,000 Fox River Intake & LSWTPm $13,097,000 $24,047,000 $34,424,000 $71,568,000 Treated Water Transmission Main Network $10,219,000 $12,990,000 $6,966,000 $30,175,000 Supply & Treatment Subtotal:$31,639,000 $49,468,000 $56,414,000 $137,521,000 Minimum Internal Distribution System Impr.$13,565,000 $18,055,000 * Total:$45,204,000 $67,523,000 Notes: *Detailed modeling has not been completed to define the necessary distribution system improvements for the Village of Oswego WWS. Table No. 8-6: Sub-Regional Capital Cost Distribution - LRI Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville, Village of Oswego a. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of Average Daily Demand (CT: 21.8% for Montgomery, 30.9% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 20.7% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville; 46.7% for Oswego). m. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of Maximum Daily Demand (CT: 20.1% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 18.3% for Montgomery, 33.6% for Yorkville; 48.1% for Oswego). r. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of ratio of usage - For the SR-1 well, the ratios are as follows: (CT: 3.3% for Montgomery, 96.7% for Yorkville, 0% for Oswego; LRI: 0% for Montgomery, 29.5% for Yorkville; 70.5% for Oswego). W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 23 Page 8- 23 Page 23 recurring operations and maintenance costs as part of a net present value (NPV). The capital cost to implement their own system is lower for each community than to implement the Sub -Regional WTP. The 20-year NPV cost between the two options is very close for both Montgomery and Yorkville. The NPV differenc e beyond 20 years will continue to decrease over time, and there will be a cost savings for Montgomery and Yorkville participating in a Sub -Regional solution shortly after the 20-year time period. For Oswego, however, the 20-year NPV to implement their own WTP is much higher than utilizing a Sub - Regional WTP. 8.9.2 Projected Water Supply & Treatment Water Bill Comparison – In order to compare the projected cost of water under the scenario where Montgomery, Yorkville and Oswego would utilize a Sub-Regional WTP, a sample water bill that represents the usage of an average house was created for each community. Table No. 8-7 below outlines the sample monthly water bills for both the present and projected cost for each of the communities. This water bill assumes 7,000 gallons of billed water, which would be the equivalent of a 2.9-person household using 80 gpcd. Additionally, the sample water bill assumed a 40-year bond was used to pay for the capital costs for the Sub -Regional WTP upgrades and the bond was issued at a 4.0% interest rate. Under the 2025 projected costs , the time period when the Sub-Regional improvements could be completed, the sample water bill for a typical 2.9-person household would be $37.40 for Montgomery, $50.51 for Yorkville and $41.36 for Oswego. The rates were calculated by assuming that the monthly base rate would be utilized only to cover the bond payment and the cost based on volume of water used would be charged based on the operations and maintenanc e costs. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 24 Page 8- 24 Page 24 Exhibit 8-11 outlines the projected typical residential water bill for each of the three communities as compared to local communities that use Lake Michigan water. Many communities who jointly use surface water do so through a JAWA . As Exhibit 8-11 shows, the projected monthly water costs for all three communities are less than those of the Illinois Water Company (IWC). The costs of the Northwest Suburban Municipal Joint Action Water Agency (NSMJAWA), the Central Lake County Joint Action Water Agency (CLCJAWA) and the DuPage Water Commission (DWC) are all similar to the costs of Oswego and Yorkville. Although the cost to build and utilize the Sub -Regional WTP is higher than the current cost of utilizing deep wells, the cost is still lower than other communities who utilize surface water. It should be noted the projected water bills for the Lake Michigan suppliers only includes their wholesale rate. If any of the Sub-Regional communities were to connect to a Lake Michigan supplier, the addi tional costs for extending water service from the Lake Michigan system and any connection fees would have to be factored in. Table No. 8-7: Water Works System Master Plan Water Rates Analysis - LRI Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville, Village of Oswego 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025 Population & Historical & Projected Water Billing Metrics Population 28,346 31,623 19,804 27,126 34,820 45,817 No. of Water Bills 9,175 10,236 6,400 8,766 11,100 14,606 Ratio of Population to No. of Bills 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.14 3.14 Calculated Average Daily Water Use (MGD)z 2.551 2.530 1.782 2.170 3.134 3.665 Annual Water Billed (MG)624.68 619.46 421.37 513.03 766.82 896.89 Avg. Annual Water Billed (MGD)1.711 1.697 1.154 1.406 2.101 2.457 Ratio of Water Use to Water Billed 1.491 1.491 1.544 1.544 1.492 1.492 2015 Total Water Billings ($)t $3,432,154.25 $2,150,311.65 $3,520,196.80 2015 Normalized Water Rate ($/1000 Gal)y $5.49 $5.10 $4.59 2015 Base Water Rate ($16 for 350 CF) -- $16.00 -- 2015 Actual Water Rate ($/1000 Gal)p $5.30 $4.88 $4.04 2015 Service Charge $4.00 -- $6.34 2015 Monthly Water Cost For Typical Residential Userq $39.10 $52.55 $37.38 $50.24 $31.45 $42.27 Alternate No. 3B: Sub-Regional Fox River Intake with ClariCone LSWTP & Existing DSS Water Wells - LRI Cost Summary Sub-Regional Capital Cost a $31,639,000 $38,911,979 $49,468,000 $60,839,400 $56,414,000 $69,382,104 Sub-Regional Annual O&Mk $3,500,000 $1,903,453 $1,576,412 $2,755,907 Capital Cost Debt Service Calculation No. of Payments (40-Yr Bond)480 480 480 Annual Interest Rate 4.0%4.0%4.0% Monthly Paymentm $162,628 $254,271 $289,975 Potential Service Charge Options Monthly Debt Service Charge per User $15.89 $29.01 $19.85 Water Rate ($/1000 Gal) To Cover Annual O&M Cost $3.07 $3.07 $3.07 Estimated 2025 Monthly Water Supply & Treatment Cost q $37.40 $50.51 $41.36 Notes: z 2015 Averge Daily Water Use computed with 2015 population X 90 gpcd; 2025 Average Daily Water Use computed with 2025 population X 80 gpcd t Montgomery and Yorkville are total revenue amounts; Total revenue for Oswego is calculated based on billed units and a bimonthly service charge of $6.34 per water bill y Total revenue divided by number of units sold; Does not account for any base charges p Actual water rate in 2015; Does not include service charge(s) q Based on 7,000 gallons of monthly water use; 2025 estimated water bill based on 3% inflation for 10 years aCombined water supply, treatment, treated water transmission main; 2016 costs inflated 3% for 7 years for 2025 final costs (bid project in 2023) k Annual 2015 O&M cost is $0.25 M for Pump Station, $3.75 M for WTP and $0.78 M total for all backup wells. Costs distributed based on portion of 2025 water use. m Capital Cost Only Montgomery Yorkville Oswego WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 8- 25 8.10 Sub-Regional Water Supply & Treatment Additional Considerations Exhibit 8-12 outlines a general implementation plan for the Sub-Regional system. Overall, it is projected to take a minimum of nine years to implement the system. The communities’ current wells within the deep sandstone aquifer (Cambrian Ordovician system) likely could continue to be the communities’ main source of water for longer than nine years without major short and long term consequence. However, the sooner the communities can switch to the Fox River as the main supply source, the sooner water levels will recover in the Cambrian Ordovician aquifer. The recommended first general work item for the sub-region would be to determine which form of governance that is most appropriate for the sub-regional system. One option would be forming a JAWA. A couple other governance options would be a Water Commission or Water District. It is recommended the three communities evaluate 3 – 5 forms of governance, define the one that is most appropriate for the sub-region and then work through the formation of the agency as early in the implementation timeframe as possible. W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 26 Page 8- 26 Page 26 Another early work item will be land acquisition for the intake and WTP. The three communities should identify potential properties in the Orchard Road/Fox River corridor that meet the size requirements and be prepared to move forward on property acquisition when the time is right. The recommended minimum property size is 20 acres. Once the property for the facility is identified, then the next step will be to conduct Fox River water quality testing at the future intake location. It is reco mmended sampling occur over multiple years and through all four seasons to capture as many water quality variations as cost -effectively feasible. Once the Fox River water quality at the intake is characterized, the design of the WTP could be initiated. As part of the design process, it is assumed pilot testing of some of the treatment processes may be required. As the design progresses and the costs for the improvements are better defined, evaluation of project financing options would be the next step. Potential financing options to consider would be the IEPA Low Interest Loan Program, municipal bonds (presumably with a maturity greater than 20 years) and the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. Following design and permitti ng, and after the project financing plan is defined, the projects can be bid. It is presumed the construction of the improvements would be phased over multiple years. YEAR WORK ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Governance Review Land Acquisition Fox River Water Quality Testing Water Treatment Plant Component Pilot Testing Design Engineering Project Financing Permitting & Bidding Construction Exhibit 8-12: Potential Sub-Regional Phasing and Implementation Plan Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville, Village of Oswego “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 1 Page 9-1 Page 1 SECTION 9: WATER WORKS SYSTEM EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS Previous sections of this report summarize the Water Works System components, provide a needs assessment analysis and provide a sustainable source water assessment for continued and future water supply for the City . Throughout this report, three different options were evaluated under two different usage scenarios. This section will summarize the selected improvements ap proach to expand the system to meet the 2050 CT and LRI water demand projections for the United City of Yorkville. Following a review of the cost of the improvements, a detailed phasing and implementation plan will be summarized for both the CT and LRI water demand scenarios. Finally, a cost comparison of the CT and LRI recommendations will be presented to demonstrate the anticipated financial benefit to the City if the LRI goals outlined in Section 3.2 are reached. 9.1 Water Supply and Treatment Evaluation & Recommendations As stated previously in this report, Yorkville currently obtains their water from the Ironton -Galesville and St. Peter (Ancell) aquifers (collectively part of the Cambrian Ordovician Aquifer System). Analysis of the aquifers in the Yorkville region showed that they cannot sustainably meet the future w ater demands of the City and the Sub-Region. While there is no immediate threat of the dewatering of the aquifers to the point that they can no longer be pumped, the sooner the City can switch to a sustainable source the better off it will be. Because sub-regional systems can take up to 10 years to implement, it is vital to ensure existing water supplies can last the duration of construction. Additionally , when using surface water it is considered prudent to have backup water sources in the event that a drought or other event renders surface water unus able for any reason. Finally, for purposes of uncertainty in modeling it is wise to leave some room for error in predicting the amount of water in the aquifers. In order to decrease the associated cost and ris k of developing infrastructure to obtain and treat surface water from the Fox River, Yorkville’s partnership with the neighboring communities of Montgomery and Oswego will be vital. Each community would benefit from a regional lime softening water treatmen t plant in the Long-Term. Cost, sustainability and reliability are all good reas ons to pursue the Sub-Regional lime softening water treatment plant as opposed to each community building and maintaining a water treatment plant for their own use. 9.1.1 CT Water Supply and Treatment Evaluation & Recommendations – As discussed in Section 8, the construction of the LSWTP to serve Montgomery, Yorkville and Oswego would be designed in such a way to provide the projected maximum daily pumpage (or max. day demand) for all communities through the year 2050. The infrastructure for procuring, treating and transporting the water would need to be sized to treat 32 MGD for the CT scenario. The Fox River is expected to be able to supply enough water for all three communi ties during the typical flows throughout all parts of the year. However, during periods of significant drought or poor water quality, the “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 2 Page 9-2 Page 2 communities would all need to rely on water produced from the existing or future wells to meet their daily water needs. As discussed in section 8, i n order to provide enough ‘backup’ water from the wells, one additional well would need to be built that wou ld supply the deficit for Yorkville and one well would be jointly utilized by Yorkville and Montgomery . Additional wells would be needed to serve Montgomery and Oswego, too. All future wells are assumed to be operated at a 1,000 gpm rate. The existing wells which are not part of the Sub-Regional backup plan would then be abandoned with the abandonment cost based on the well depth. Because Yorkville Well No. 3 is in the process of being abandoned at the time of this report, the costs for that well are not part of the Sub-Regional implementation cost. The potential salvage or demolition value of the WTPs was not evaluated because this cost will vary depending on the condition of the equipment at the time of abandonment. Similarly, while there is the potential for the WTP buildings to have a beneficial reuse as storage or other use, the potential salvage value was not calculated, because the value will depend highly on the condition of the building at the time of abandonment . A summary of the proposed CT water supply, treatment and transmission system is as follows:  Well No. 6: the 1,000 gpm Ironton-Galesville Well No. 6 is proposed to be next to the existing North EWST off Bertram Dr in the north part of the City. This site had been designated as a potential area for the well historically, and the location next to current infras tructure is also notably advantageous.  Well No. SR-1: the 1,000 gpm Ironton -Galesville Well No. SR-1 is proposed to be next to the future Sub-Regional Water Treatment Plant. A location next to the WTP would decrease the amount of raw water main that would be needed to pump the water from the well to the plan t. Yorkville would need to plan to fund 96.7% of the production from this well.  Well Transmission Mains: Well transmission mains are needed to transport water from the backup wells to the LSWTP. The two existing wells and two proposed wells would utilize the transmission mains, along with a total of nine other backup wells .  32 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Station: The 32 MGD Intake Pump Station is planned to be near the intersection of Orchard Rd and the Fox River.  32 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone®) LSWTP: The 32 MGD LSWTP is planned to be near the intersection of Orchard Rd and the Fox River.  Treated Water Transmission Mains: The Treated water transmission mains would convey the treated wat er to the Montgomery, Yorkville and Oswego water distribution systems 9.1.2 LRI Water Supply and Treatment Evaluation & Recommendations – The Less Resource Intensive scenario projects that less water will be needed not only by Yorkville, but by all three communities combined. For the supply and treatment evaluation, this mean s that the three communities will need a smaller intake and treatment plant and less investment in the backup supply system. The unused wells would still need to be abandoned per comments in the CT scenario. A summary of the proposed LRI water supply, treatment and transmission system is as follows: “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 3 Page 9-3 Page 3  Well No. 6: the 1,000 gpm Ironton-Galesville Well No. 6 is proposed to be next to the existing North EWST off Bertram Dr in the north part of the City. This site had been designated as a potential area for the well historically, and the location next to curren t infrastructure is also notably advantageous.  Well No. SR-1: the 1,000 gpm Ironton -Galesville Well No. SR-1 is proposed to be next to the future Sub-Regional Water Treatment Plant. A location next to the WTP would decrease the amount of raw water main that would be needed to pump the water from the well to the plant. Yorkville would need to plan to fund 29.5% of the production from this well.  Well Transmission Mains: Well transmission mains are needed to transport water from the backup wells to the LSWTP. The two existing wells and the two proposed Wells would utilize the transmission mains, along with a total of seven other backup wells.  25 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Station: the location for the Fox River Intake Pump Station would be the same as the locations considered for the CT scenario.  25 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone®) LSWTP: the location for the Fox River LSWTP would be the same as the locations considered for the CT scenario.  Treated Water Transmission Mains: The Treated water transmission mains would convey the treated wat er to the Montgomery, Yorkville and Oswego water distribution systems. 9.2 Water Storage Evaluation & Recommendations As water demands rise, the City will need to expand the amount of water storage within the Water Works System, so peak hour demands can be met. The storage expansion should be accomplished with the construction of EWSTs, ground storage tanks (GSTs), or a c ombination of the two. The benefit provided by EWSTs is that once the water has been pumped up to the tank, it can flow down by gravity. GSTs, however, require a pump to convey the water across the system. Given the constantly changing demands in the Water Works System, the seamless release of water from an EWST far exceeds the need to modify the pumping rate to meet the changed demand. The cost to construct and operate a 2.0 MG EWST or smaller is typically comparable to the cost of a similarly sized GST an d pumping station. Based on the fact that GSTs and EWSTs are cost comparable, coupled with the fact that EWSTs are more simple to operate, it is recommended that water storage expansion take place in the form of EWSTs. Placement and size of an EWST depend on the size of the pipes conveying the water from the EWST along with the needs of the area the EWST is serving. How the pressures around the area are affected when the EWST is full, partially full, or empty is another item of consideration. A description of the recommended water storage additions to meeting future CT and LRI water demand scenarios is as follows. 9.2.1 CT Water Storage Evaluation & Recommendations – Under the forecasted CT values, the United City of Yorkville would need one additional EWS T as outlined below. “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 4 Page 9-4 Page 4  EWST No. 6: It is recommended EWST No. 6 have a capacity of 2.0 MG and be located on the southwest portion of the City off of Highway 71 between the intersections of W High Point Rd and Legion Rd. The EWST would be in the City ’s highest pressure zone which would allow water from this EWST to flow down to the other pressure zones. 9.2.2 LRI Water Storage Evaluation & Recommendations – The calculations completed in S ection 3 of this report show a peak hour storage deficit of just over 500,000 gallons by the year 2050. The location and information is identical to the EWST proposed for the CT scenario. 9.3 Water Distribution and Pressure Zone Evaluation & Recommendations The water distribution system was summarized within Section 2. Based on a review of the hydraulic grade line of the Water Works System and the topography within the City ’s planning area, it would appear that continual growth of the City would mean more pr essure zones south of the currently populated area . Additionally, the coordination with other communities pressure zones will attribute to the relative complexity of the pumping plan. The list below outlines all distribution changes that will be need for both the CT and LRI scenarios for the Sub-Regional Water supply plan. CT and LRI Distribution System Recommendations  20" and 16” Water Main North West of Water Treatment Plant $ 829,000  16" Tie Into Crimson Lane $ 233,000  24" Water Main from Water Treatment Plan to Van Emmon $ 9,597,000  16" Water Main along Center Street and Main Street $ 869,000  (a) 20" Water main on Van Emmon $1,071,000  (b) 20" Water main on Van Emmon $ 473,000  20" Water Main from Mill Street to South Central EWST $ 3,155,000  20" Water Main from South Central EWST to South BP/PRV $ 1,450,000  PRV Station - North Pressure Zone to North Central Pressure Zone $ 378,000  Route 71 Watermain Replacement $ 968,000  Appletree Court Watermain Replacem ent (Roads to Better Roads - RTBR) $ 149,000  W. Washington Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) – To be Constructed in 2017 $ 188,000  Elizabeth Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) $ 512,000  Main Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) $ 714,000  Orange/Olsen Watermain Looping (RTBR) $ 168,000  Morgan Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) $ 376,000  E. Fox Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) $ 306,000  East Washington Watermain Replacement (RTBR) $ 465,000  Orange Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) $ 660,000 “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 5 Page 9-5 Page 5 The Ro ad to Better Roads (RTBR) program is a long-term plan designed to increase diam eters and improve transmission in the heart of the City. While RTBR upgrades are not necessary for the implementation of the Sub-Regional WTP distribution system, they are recommended to be replaced on a higher priority scale than other mains. As it becomes reasonable for the City to r eplace the mains, such as during roadwork projects or as the main nears its useful life, the RTBR p rojects will occur. The total capital cost of all distribution recommendations is $22,561,000. The capital cost of only the necessary distribution costs that will set the system up to effectively transfer water across the system in the Sub -Regional plan, which do es not include RTBR upgrades, is $18,055,000. 9.4 Recommended Improvements Summary The improvements presented in this report will allow for water transfer with minimal headloss, appropriate water storage volume and the required water supply and treatment to continue to provide safe and adequate water to the United City of Yorkville given both CT and LRI demand scenarios. The recommendations are broken down into Supply, Treatment, Storage and Distribution. The recommended improvements will be presented in this Section, but the actual phasing and implementation of these improvements will b e further discussed in Section 9.5. 9.4.1 CT Water Works Syst em Master Plan – Detailed cost estimates for the proposed improvements described in Section 9.1 and 9.2 are provided in Appendix G. A summary of the capital costs for the United City of Yorkville can be found below. Under the CT demand scenario, the following improvements are recommended:  General o Governance $20,000  Supply & Treatment: o Fox River Water Quality Testing $45,000 o Land Acquisition $400,000 o WTP Component Pilot Testing $33,000 o Well No. 6 $2,419,000 o Well No. SR-1 $2,339,000 o Abandon Unused Wells (Yorkville No. 4 and 7) $120,000 o 32 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Station $2,389,000 o 32 MGD Single Stage Claricone® $24,290,000 o Well Transmission Mains $9,616,000 o Treated Water Transmission Mains $12,990,000  Storage & Distribution: o EWST No. 6 (2.0 MG) $4,870,000 o Water Distribution System Improvements $22,561,000 “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 6 Page 9-6 Page 6 The location of all the recommended improvements for the CT demand scenario, including the future large diameter water main network , are depicted in section 8. 9.4.2 LRI Water Works System Master Plan – Detailed cost estimates for the proposed improvements described in Section 9.1 and 9.2 are provided in Appendix G. All costs below are shown in capital cost. Under the LRI demand scenario, the following improvements are recommended:  General o Governance $20,000  Supply & Treatment: o Fox River Water Quality Testing $45,000 o Land Acquisition $400,000 o WTP Component Pilot Testing $33,000 o Well No. 6 $2,419,000 o Well No. SR-1 $714,000 o Abandon Unused Wells (Yorkville No. 4 and 7) $120,000 o 25 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Station $2,161,000 o 25 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone® LSWTP) $21,886,000 o Well Transmission Main $9,298,000 o Treated Water Transmission M ains $12,990,000  Storage & Distribution: o EWST No. 6 (2.0 MG) $4,870,000 o Water Distribution System Improvements $22,561,000 The locations of all the recommended improvements for the LRI demand scena rio are depicted in section 8. 9.5 Water Works System Phasing and Implementation Plan In order to provide an organized logical phasing and implementation plan that also recognizes population projections for a 35-year period are less than exact, the recommendations have been prioritized and grouped into three categories: 1) Immediate Improvements, 2) Near-Future Improvements and 3) Long-Term Improvements. The immediate improvements are the minimum improvements necessary to meet the City’s demand s for the next five years (2017-2021), as well as the improvements required to prepare the City to have th e sub- regional WTP online in the next ten years. The Near -Future Improvements are the necessary improvements that will need to be made in the ten years following the immediate improvements (2022-2031). The Long- “ WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 9-7 Term Improvements are the improvements for the nineteen years following the Long-Term Improvements (2032 -2050). 9.5.1 CT Implementation Plan – Table No. 9-1 presents the recommended Phasing and Implementation Plan for the proposed improvements under the CT demand scenario along with the summary of costs for each of the five categories. The costs have been summarized for the total sub-regional, as well as Yorkville’s portion of the cost. As shown on the Phasing and Implementation Plan, the total cost of recommended Immediate, Near-Future and Long-Term Water Works System improvements is approximately $82.1 million, which includes $498,000 for the City’s Immediate Needs, $79.1 million for Near-Future Improvements and $2.5 million for Long-Term Improvements. These improvements include a new surface water treatment facility (along with the appropriate appurtenances), additional backup water supply, backup water supply piping and finished water piping. The WTP would be jointed funded and used by the neighboring communities of Montgomery and Oswego. 9.5.2 LRI Implementation Plan – Table No. 9-2 presents the recommended Phasing and Implementation Plan for the proposed improvements under the LRI demand scenario along with the summary of costs for each of the five categories. The costs have been summarized for the total sub-regional, as well as Yorkville’s portion of the cost. Exhibit 9-1 displays the buildout of the LRI Sub-Regional plan. As shown on the Phasing and Implementation Plan, the total cost of recommended Immediate, Near-Future and Long-Term Water Works System improvements is approximately $77.5 million, which includes $498,000 for the City’s Immediate Needs, $74.5 million for Near-Future Improvements and $2.5 million for Long-Term Improvements. These improvements include a new surface water treatment facility (along with the appropriate appurtenances), additional backup water supply, backup water supply piping and finished water piping. The WTP would be jointly funded and used by the neighboring communities of Montgomery and Oswego. 9.5.3 Capital Cost Savings With LRI Water Use Commitment – The major differences in the recommended improvements for the CT and LRI have been identified. In Tables No. 9-1 and 9-2, the Phasing and Implementation Plan for the recommended improvements under both the CT and LRI demand scenarios is provided along with cost estimate summaries for each phase and the total combined. Table No. 9-3 summarizes the potential financial benefit if the City meets their water conservation goals and is able to implement the improvements based on the LRI demand scenario. “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 8 Page 9-8 Page 8 Table No. 9-1: Water Works System Phasing & Implementation Plan - CTUnited City of Yorkville, ILImmediate (0 - 5 Years)Near-Future (6 - 15 Years)Long Term (16 - 34 Years)Sub-Regional Population0 - 8,400 Population Equivalents Addition8,403 - 33,700 Population Equivalents Addition33,703 - 105,983 Population Equivalent AdditionsMontgomery Population0 - 1,300 Population Equivalents Addition1,301 - 4,800 Population Equivalents Addition4,801 - 13,027 Population Equivalent AdditionsYorkville Population0 - 2,800 Population Equivalents Addition2,801 - 11,700 Population Equivalents Addition11,701 - 38,745 Population Equivalent AdditionsOswego Population0 - 4,300 Population Equivalents Addition4,301 - 17,200 Population Equivalents Addition17,201 - 54,211 Population Equivalent Additions2017 - 20212022 - 20312032 - 2050Water Works System ComponentDescriptionCostqDescriptionCostqDescriptionCostqTotalGovernancee $ 60,000 Yorkville General Subtotal: $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ 20,000 Sub-Regional General Subtotal: $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ 60,000 Fox River Water Quality Testingb,e $ 135,000 Raw Water Networka $ 31,120,000 Montgomery Well No. 172,419,000$ Sub-Regional Well No. 1r $ 2,419,000 Yorkville Well No. 6 $ 2,419,000 Oswego Well No. 12 $ 2,419,000 Oswego Well No. 13 $ 2,419,000 Abandon Unused Wellsc $ 700,000 Yorkville Supply Subtotal: $ 45,000 $ 11,955,000 $ 2,539,000 $ 14,539,000 Sub-Regional Supply Subtotal: $ 135,000 $ 33,539,000 $ 10,376,000 $ 44,050,000 Land Acquisitione $ 1,200,000 32 MGD Intake Pump Stationm $ 7,327,000 WTP Component Pilot Testingm $ 100,000 32 MGD LSWTPm $ 74,508,000 Treated Water Transmission Network $ 30,175,000 Yorkville Treatment Subtotal: $ 433,000 $ 39,669,000 $ 40,102,000 Sub-Regional Treatment Subtotal: $ 1,300,000 $ 112,011,000 $ - $ 113,311,000 StorageYorkville 2.0 MG EWST $ 4,870,000 Yorkville Storage Subtotal: $ - $ 4,870,000 $ - $ 4,870,000 Sub-Regional Storage Subtotal: $ - $ 4,870,000 $ - $ 4,870,000 DistributionMontgomery Distribution System Improvements $ 13,565,000 Yorkville Distribution System Improvements $ 22,561,000 Oswego Distribution System ImprovementsTBDYorkville Distribution Subtotal: $ - $ 22,561,000 $ - $ 22,561,000 Sub-Regional Distribution Subtotal: $ - $ 36,126,000 $ - $ 36,126,000 YORKVILLE TOTAL: $ 498,000 $ 79,055,000 $ 2,539,000 $ 82,092,000 SUB-REGIONAL TOTAL: $ 1,495,000 $186,546,000 $ 10,376,000 $198,417,000 Notes:Based on 2016 dollars and 2016 construction costs; includes engineering and contingency costsb. Assumes 3 years of testingc. Assumes abandonment of Montgomery Wells No. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12; Yorkville Wells No. 4, 7; and Oswego Wells No. 3, 4, 7, and 9; at a cost of $40,000 per shallow well (Montgomery Wells Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13) $60,000 per deep well (all others)e. Cost shown is split evenly between communities.Not evaluatedSupplyGeneralTreatmenta. Cost shown is total cost of improvement. Cost included in Village subtotal is portion of total cost based off of Average Daily Demand (CT: 21.8% for Montgomery, 30.9% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 20.7% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville; 46.7% for Oswego).m. Cost shown is total cost of improvement. Cost included in Village subtotal is portion of total cost based off of Maximum Daily Demand (CT: 20.1% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 18.3% for Montgomery, 33.6% for Yorkville; 48.1% for Oswego).r. Cost shown is total cost of improvement. Cost included in Village subtotal is portion of total cost based off of ratio of usage - For the SR-1 well, the ratios are as follows: (CT: 3.3% for Montgomery, 96.7% for Yorkville, 0% for Oswego; LRI: 0% for Montgomery, 29.5% for Yorkville; 70.5% for “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 9 Page 9-9 Page 9 Table No. 9-2: Water Works System Phasing & Implementation Plan - LRIImmediate (0 - 5 Years)Near-Future (6 - 11 Years)Long Term (12 - 34 Years)Sub-Regional Population0 - 8,400 Population Equivalents Addition8,403 - 33,700 Population Equivalents Addition33,703 - 105,983 Population Equivalent AdditionsMontgomery Population0 - 1,300 Population Equivalents Addition1,301 - 4,800 Population Equivalents Addition4,801 - 13,027 Population Equivalent AdditionsYorkville Population0 - 2,800 Population Equivalents Addition2,801 - 11,700 Population Equivalents Addition11,701 - 38,745 Population Equivalent AdditionsOswego Population0 - 4,300 Population Equivalents Addition4,301 - 17,200 Population Equivalents Addition17,201 - 54,211 Population Equivalent Additions2017 - 20212022 - 20312032 - 2050Water Works System ComponentDescriptionCostqDescriptionCostqDescriptionCostqTotalGovernancee $ 60,000 Yorkville General Subtotal: $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ 20,000 Sub-Regional General Subtotal: $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ 60,000 Fox River Water Quality Testingb,e $ 135,000 Raw Water Networka $ 28,521,000 Montgomery Well No. 172,419,000$ Sub-Regional Well No. 1r $ 2,419,000 Yorkville Well No. 62,419,000$ Abandon Unused Wellsc $ 700,000 Yorkville Supply Subtotal: $ 45,000 $ 10,012,000 $ 2,539,000 $ 12,596,000 Sub-Regional Supply Subtotal: $ 135,000 $ 28,521,000 $ 5,538,000 $ 34,194,000 Land Acquisitione $ 1,200,000 25 MGD Intake Pump Stationm $ 6,431,000 WTP Component Pilot Testingm $ 100,000 25 MGD LSWTPm $ 65,137,000 Treated Water Transmission Network $ 30,175,000 Yorkville Treatment Subtotal: $ 433,000 $ 37,037,000 $ - $ 37,470,000 Sub-Regional Treatment Subtotal: $ 1,300,000 $ 101,743,000 $ - $ 103,043,000 StorageYorkville 2.0 MG EWST $ 4,870,000 Yorkville Storage Subtotal: $ - $ 4,870,000 $ - $ 4,870,000 Sub-Regional Storage Subtotal: $ - $ 4,870,000 $ - $ 4,870,000 DistributionMontgomery Distribution System Improvements $ 13,565,000 Yorkville Distribution System Improvements $ 22,561,000 Oswego Distribution System ImprovementsTBDYorkville Distribution Subtotal: $ - $ 22,561,000 $ - $ 22,561,000 Sub-Regional Distribution Subtotal: $ - $ 36,126,000 $ - $ 36,126,000 YORKVILLE TOTAL: $ 498,000 $ 74,480,000 $ 2,539,000 $ 77,517,000 SUB-REGIONAL TOTAL: $ 1,495,000 $171,260,000 $ 5,538,000 $178,293,000 Notes:Based on 2016 dollars and 2016 construction costs; includes engineering and contingency costsb. Assumes 3 years of testingc. Assumes abandonment of Montgomery Wells No. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12; Yorkville Wells No. 4, 7; and Oswego Wells No. 3, 4, 7, and 9; at a cost of $40,000 per shallow well (Montgomery Wells Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13) $60,000 per deep well (all others)e. Cost shown is split evenly between communities.Not evaluateda. Cost shown is total cost of improvement. Cost included in Village subtotal is portion of total cost based off of Average Daily Demand (CT: 21.8% for Montgomery, 30.9% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 20.7% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville; 46.7% for Oswego).m. Cost shown is total cost of improvement. Cost included in Village subtotal is portion of total cost based off of Maximum Daily Demand (CT: 20.1% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 18.3% for Montgomery, 33.6% for Yorkville; 48.1% for Oswego).r. Cost shown is total cost of improvement. Cost included in Village subtotal is portion of total cost based off of ratio of usage - For the SR-1 well, the ratios are as follows: (CT: 3.3% for Montgomery, 96.7% for Yorkville, 0% for Oswego; LRI: 0% for Montgomery, 29.5% for Yorkville; 70.5% for TreatmentUnited City of Yorkville, ILGeneralSupply ( GF( i! 45 i!GF GFi!( i!#45 #45 i! i! i! i! i! ( 45 45 45 45 45 ##########GF GF GF( (( Legend Study Area Boundary Yorkville Corporate Limits 45 BP/PRV Station #PRV Station (Well GF Water Treatment Plant i!Elevated Water Storeage Tank (EWST)#Future PRV 45 Future BP/PRV l!Ground Storage Tanks i!Potential EWST Site i!Alternate EWST Site (Potential Future Deep Well GF WTP To Be Abandoned (Well To Be Abandoned Unknown Size Water Main Non-Potable Water Main Less Than 4" Water Main 4" Water Main 6" Water Main 8" Water Main 10" Water Main 12" Water Main 16" Water Main Existing Raw Water Main Future Raw Water Main Future 8" Water Main Future 12" Water Main Future 16" Water Main Future 20" Water Main Future 24" Water Main 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,5001,250 Feet EXHIBIT 9-1 ALTERNATE 3B WATER WORKS SYSTEM PLAN - LRI DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: MARCH, 2017 YO1437-P YO1437_EXH9-1 ALT3B.MXD CLV WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2014\YO1437 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° North Pressure Zone North Central Pressure Zone South Central Pressure Zone South Pressure Zone Southeast Pressure Zone Elevation Range 625-690 580-660 660-715 715-790 615-665 TCL 810 763 850 920 800 1.0 MG NORTH EWST 1.5 MG NORTHEAST EWST, WELL NO. 8. WELL NO. 9 NORTH BP/PRV STATION NORTH CENTRAL PRV STATION WELL NO. 4, AND WELL NO. 4 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL BP/PRV STATION 500,000 GAL SOUTH CENTRAL EWST WELL NO. 7, AND WELL NO. 7 WATER TREATMENT PLANT SOUTH CENTRAL PRV STATION SOUTH BP/PRV STATION WELL NO. 6 2.0 MG EWST 6. 20" WM FROM MILL STREET TO SOUTH CENTRAL EWST 7. 20" WM FROM SOUTH CENTRAL EWST TO SOUTH BP/PRV 4. 16" WM ALONG CENTER STREET AND MAIN STREET 3. 24" WM FROM WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO VAN EMMON 2. 16" TIE INTO CRIMSON LANE 1. 20" AND 16" WM NORTH WEST OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT 5a. & 5b. 20" WM ON VAN EMMON GF i!( 45 45 ( GF ( 9b. APPLETREE COURT WM REPLACEMENT 11. MAIN STREET WM REPLACEMENT 14. EAST FOX STREET WM REPLACEMENT 9c. WEST WASHINGTON STREET WM REPLACEMENT 16. ORANGE STREET WM REPLACEMENT 12. ORANGE / OLSEN WM LOOPING 10. ELIZABETH STREET WM REPLACEMENT 9a. ROUTE 71 WM REPLACEMENT FUTURE SUB REGIONAL CONNECTION SUB REGIONAL CONNECTION 13. MORGAN STREET WM REPLACEMENT 1.25 MG SOUTH EWST 300,000 GAL NORTH CENTRAL EWST WELL NO. 3 NOTE: DUE TO THE VARYING TERRAIN AND ELEVATION WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA, EFFORTS WERE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF PRESSURE ZONES. AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, THE ELEVATIONS WITHIN EACH DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED AT THAT TIME. INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES WITHIN BUILDING/HOMES MAY BE REQURED IN CERTAIN AREAS. 8. PRV STATION - NORTH PRESSURE ZONE TO NORTH CENTRAL PRESSURE ZONE 15. EAST WASHINGTON STREET WM REPLACEMENT WELL NO. 8 AND 9 WTP “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 11 Page 9-11 Page 11 9.6 Water Works System Connection Fee Analysis As development continues, the United City of Yorkville will need to continue to collect connection fees for the new developments purchase of capacity within the Water Works System. The calculated connection fee for Yorkville’s share of the Sub -Regional sy stem is included within Table No. 9-4. It is recommended the City adjust their connection fee as soon as possible, charge the revised fee and begin to save collected fees for investment in the future Sub-Regional system. United City of Yorkville, IL Present Worth Capital Cost Water Works System Component Current Trends (CT) Less Resource Intensive (LRI)Savings General $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ - Supply $ 14,539,000 $ 12,596,000 $ (1,943,000) Treatment $ 40,102,000 $ 37,470,000 $ (2,632,000) Storage $ 4,870,000 $ 4,870,000 $ - Distribution $ 22,561,000 $ 22,561,000 $ - TOTAL: $ 82,092,000 $ 77,517,000 $ (4,575,000) Table No. 9-3: Capital Cost Savings With LRI Water Use Commitment “ W ATER WORKS SYSTEM M ASTER P LAN - 2016 Page 12 Page 9-12 Page 12 CapacityTotal ProjectCost Per(GPM)PE ServedCostPEAdditional Wells1,29515,540$3,133,000$202Well Transmission Main Networka4,69559,565$9,298,000$157Fox River Intake & LSWTP (25 MGD)m5,79159,565$24,047,000$404Total Supply and Treatment$36,478,000$763Total ProjectCost PerSizePE ServedCostPETreated Water Transmission Main NetworkVaries59,565$12,990,000$218Elevated Water Storage Tank2.0 MG21,429$4,870,000$227Distribution System ImprovementsVaries59,565$22,561,000$379Total Water Transmission and Distribution$40,421,000$824New Growth Pro Rata Water Transmission/Distribution/Storage Costc$28,601,000$824FEE PER PEFEE PER SINGLE FAMILY UNIT (3.5 PE/SFU)Water Supply and Treatment$763$2,671Water Transmission and Distribution$824$2,884Total Cost$1,587$5,555Notes:Max:Avg Day Ratio = 1.75c. Based on 2015 population of 19,804 PE and 2050 projected population of 59,565 PE1 PE = 80 gpd (for all supply, treatment, storage, transmission, and distribution improvements) a. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of Average Daily Demand (CT: 21.8% for Montgomery, 30.9% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 20.7% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville; 46.7% for Oswego).m. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of Maximum Daily Demand (CT: 20.1% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 18.3% for Montgomery, 33.6% for Yorkville; 48.1% for Oswego).WATER TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION MAIN AND DISTRIBUTION STORAGE COST PER PETable 9-4: Water Works System Improvements Connection Fee AnalysisUnited City of Yorkville, IllinoisWATER PROCUREMENT AND TREATMENT COST PER PEFEE SUMMARY WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 1 Page 10- 1 Page 1 SECTION 10: SUSTAINABLE WATER WORKS SYSTEM PLANNING Although both population and approximate timeframes for improvements have been provided in the previous sub-sections as part of the Phasing and Implementation plans, it is ultimately the water demands on the systems that dictate when and what improvements will need to be constructed. As the City continues to mature, expand and implement water conservation strategies, the water demands will evolve. It is recommended the City continuously monitor and evaluate its Water Works System as the City develops. The Phasing and Implementation Plan must continually be reviewed and should be modified based on the rate of development and where the development is actually occurring. As emphasized in section 9.5.3 with the cost comparison of recommended Water Works System improvements between the CT and LRI scenarios, the financial benefits of minimal levels of water conservation can be huge for the City. To that end, this Comprehensive Water Works Master Plan is a valuable planning tool and stepping stone for the City’s Water Works System. The recommended next steps for the City are as follows:  Review current policies, consider revising existing policies and then enforce adopted policies regarding water conservation strategies and goals and develop financing alternatives for the identified improvements. By evaluating water conservation opportunities, the City will not only show how they continue to be good stewards of our limited resource of water, but the City also has the potential to significantly reduce the required capital investment in the system.  Review the water rates to determine how revenue will be impacted by a significant decrease in water consumption resulting from water conservation measures. This will allow the City’s water conservation efforts to be successful from a financial perspective. This Master Plan advocates similar goals to those of the regional water supply planning efforts. The water supply sources of Northeastern Illinois, namely Lake Michigan, the Fox River, shallow groundwater and deep groundwater, know no political boundaries. Their geographic extent is such that their availabilities are dependent on everyone’s wise use of the resource. Therefore, we also recommend the City continue to build strong, collaborative relationships regionally for sustainable water use so the region and the United City of Yorkville can extend the capacity of the local water resources for an economically and environmentally sustainable region. Appendix A WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 1 Appendix A Well Schematics Appendix B WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 2 Appendix B Potential Water Savings From Water Conservation and Efficiency POTENTIAL ESTIMATED WATER SAVINGS FROM WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY United City of Yorkville, IL United City of Yorkville 2050 CT Water Demand Estimate 1,957 MG (a)5.36 MGD Outdoor Water Use (b) 12.9% (c)50%% (d)50%Reduction (e)5%of Total 0.172 MGD 29.8% 0.017 MGD 3.0% Utility Water (System Loses) (f)8.0% (g)50% 0.214 MGD 37.1% Indoor Residential (h)4,831 (i)3 (j)1,610 (k)3.5 gal/flush (l)1.28 gal/flush (m)5.1 (n)90% (o)4,200 gal (p)100% (q)22 gal (r)90% 0.049 MGD 8.5% 0.019 MGD 3.2% 0.032 MGD 5.5% Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (s) 15.0% (t)18.4% (u) 50.0% 0.074 MGD 12.8% 0.578 MGD 100.0% 4.783 MGD 11.0% Notes: Values calculated from City Data (c) Per EPA (o) From California Memorandum of Understanding HET = High Efficiency Toilets; HEWM = High Efficiency Washing Machines New Landscape - Water Saved (a x b x c x e) = System Losses - Water Saved (a x f x g) = Population (1994) Assumed People per Household (1994) No. of Households (1994) Water Supply Loss from Unidentified Losses Assumed Reduction of Unidentified Losses PERCENT REDUCTION = LESS RESOURCE INTENSIVE DEMAND (2040) = HEWM - Water Saved (o x j x p) = Portion of CII That Is Nonprocess Related Water Use Percent of Daily Demand (Non-Residential) Retrofits - Water Saved (j x q x r) = Assumed Percent Employee Participation CII - Water Saved (a x s x t x u) = 2050 Daily CT Water Demand Estimate Water Supply Spent on Outdoor Use Assumed Reduction of Outdoor Waste Outdoor Water Wasted TOTAL ESTIMATED SAVINGS = Assumed Percent household upgrade by 2050 for HET HET - Water Saved ((k - l) x m x h x n) = Assumed Flushes per Person per Day Assumed Percent Household Upgrade by 2050 for HET Water Savings per Household per Year for HEWM Assumed Percent Household Upgrade by 2050 for HEWM Assumed pre-1994 Flush Rate New Landscape Water Waste Reduction Water Savings per Household per Day for 4 Retrofits Assumed HET Flush Rate All Customers - Water Saved (a x b x c x d) = Appendix C WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 3 Appendix C Yorkville Location Fox River Streamflow as Compared to Length of River 15 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2030 April significant dry (lowest 10%) Present April Q90 Yorkville CT April Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2040 April significant dry (lowest 10%) Present April Q90 Yorkville CT April Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2050 April significant dry (lowest 10%) Present April Q90 Yorkville CT April Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville 16 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2030 July significant dry (lowest 10%) Present July Q90 Yorkville July Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2040 July significant dry (lowest 10%) Present July Q90 Yorkville July Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2050 July significant dry (lowest 10%) Present July Q90 Yorkville July Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville 17 0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2030 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 Yorkville CT Q7,10 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2040 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 Yorkville CT Q7,10 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2050 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 Yorkville CT Q7,10 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville 18 0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2030 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 Yorkville LRI Q710 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2040 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 Yorkville LRI Q710 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2050 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 Yorkville LRI Q710 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville Appendix D WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 4 Appendix D Sub-Regional Location Fox River Streamflow as Compared to Length of River 19 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2030 April significant dry (lowest 10%) Present April Q90 All CT April Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2040 April significant dry (lowest 10%) Present April Q90 All CT April Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2050 April significant dry (lowest 10%) Present April Q90 All CT April Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2030 July significant dry (lowest 10%) Present July Q90 All July Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2040 July significant dry (lowest 10%) Present July Q90 All July Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2050 July significant dry (lowest 10%) Present July Q90 All July Q90 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville 21 0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2030 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 All CT Q7,10 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2040 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 All CT Q7,10 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2050 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 All CT Q7,10 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville 22 0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2030 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 All LRI Q710 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2040 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 All LRI Q710 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville0 50 100 150 200 250 354045505560657075808590Streamflow (cfs)River miles from the mouth (mile) 2050 7‐day 10‐year low flow (Q7,10) Present Q7,10 All LRI Q710 AlgonquinElginAuroraYorkville WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 5 Appendix E Appendix E Lake Michigan Allocation Network 2012 MO NA AU OS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 6 Appendix F Appendix F Illinois American Water Delivery Modeling !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 1 - 24"2015 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 2.17 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 1 - 24"2030 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 5.71 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 1 - 24"2040 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 7.83 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 1 - 30"2015 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 2.17 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 1 - 30"2030 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 5.71 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 1 - 30"2040 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 7.83 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 2 - 24"2015 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 2.17 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 2 - 24"2030 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 5.71 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 2 - 24"2040 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 7.83 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 2 - 30"2015 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 2.17 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 2 - 30"2030 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 5.71 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 2 - 30"2040 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 7.83 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 3 - 24"2015 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 2.17 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 3 - 24"2030 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 5.71 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 3 - 24"2040 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 7.83 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 3 - 30"2015 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 2.17 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 3 - 30"2030 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 5.71 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community Legend !< 20 psi !20 to 25 psi !25 to 30 psi !30 to 40 psi !40 to 50 psi !> 50 psi Bolingbrook Main Route 3 - 30"2040 ALW Pipeline DemandsYorkville 7.83 mgd Plainfield Demand $ Pen ding New Community D eman d Yo rkville D eman d Interconnection67 psi(HGL ~ 830') WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Appendix G Appendix G Detailed Cost Estimates Appendix G WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 8 Appendix G Detailed Cost Estimates – Supply and Treatment - Alternate 1A ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 1A (CT) Well and Cation Exchange Water Treatment Plant United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 1,000 GPM IRONTON GALESVILLE WELL (24X18) Construction (Casing, Hole, Grout, Etc.) $1,000,000 Development (Disinfection, Testing, Etc.) $225,000 Equipment (Pump/Motor, Pitless Adapter, Etc.) $400,000 2 TREATMENT BUILDING, EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL Water Treatment Plant Building (Approximately 3,500 SF) $1,133,000 Cation Exchange Treatment Equipment (3 - 8 FT Diameter Units) $927,000 Brine Pump & Piping $30,000 Brine Tank $144,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $125,000 Chemical Feed Equipment $125,000 Power Distribution $475,000 Controls and Instrumentation $84,000 SCADA Integration $35,000 Emergency Generator $250,000 3 SITE WORK Yard Piping (Water Main & Sanitary and Storm Sewer) $150,000 Paving $30,000 Fencing $40,000 Restoration & Landscaping $50,000 SUB-TOTAL $5,223,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $522,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $5,745,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $1,034,000 3 PHASE, 480 V ELECTRIC SERVICE TO SITE $30,000 LAND ACQUISITION (Assumed Portion of Village's Property) $0 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $6,839,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Assumes well constructed at WTP site. 3. Estimate does not include air scrubbing equipment for aerator exhaust. G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 1A Well 6 & Well 6 CEWTP Wells/WTP 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 1A (CT) Well No. 11 United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 1,000 GPM IRONTON GALESVILLE WELL (24X18) Construction (Casing, Hole, Grout, Etc.) $1,000,000 Development (Disinfection, Testing, Etc.) $225,000 Equipment (Pump/Motor, Pitless Adapter, Etc.) $400,000 2 ADDITIONAL PIPING AND ELECTRICAL Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $50,000 Controls and Instrumentation $15,000 SCADA Integration $20,000 3 SITE WORK Paving $15,000 Fencing $15,000 Restoration & Landscaping $20,000 SUB-TOTAL $1,760,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $176,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $1,936,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $348,000 3 PHASE, 480 V ELECTRIC SERVICE TO SITE $30,000 LAND ACQUISITION (10,000 SF) $75,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $2,419,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Assumes Well No. 11 Raw WM connects to Existing Well No. 3 Raw WM (Well No. 3 to be abandoned). 3. Assumes Wells No. 3 & 4 WTP will become Wells No. 4 & 11 WTP 4. Does not include cost to abandon Well No. 3 G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 1A Well 11 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 9 Appendix G Appendix G Detailed Cost Estimates – Supply and Treatment - Alternate 1B ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 1B (LRI) Well and Cation Exchange Water Treatment Plant United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 1,000 GPM IRONTON GALESVILLE WELL (24X18) Construction (Casing, Hole, Grout, Etc.) $1,000,000 Development (Disinfection, Testing, Etc.) $225,000 Equipment (Pump/Motor, Pitless Adapter, Etc.) $400,000 2 TREATMENT BUILDING, EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL Water Treatment Plant Building (Approximately 3,500 SF) $1,133,000 Cation Exchange Treatment Equipment (3 - 8 FT Diameter Units) $927,000 Brine Pump & Piping $30,000 Brine Tank $144,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $125,000 Chemical Feed Equipment $125,000 Power Distribution $475,000 Controls and Instrumentation $84,000 SCADA Integration $35,000 Emergency Generator $250,000 3 SITE WORK Yard Piping (Water Main & Sanitary and Storm Sewer) $150,000 Paving $30,000 Fencing $40,000 Restoration & Landscaping $50,000 SUB-TOTAL $5,223,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $522,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $5,745,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $1,034,000 3 PHASE, 480 V ELECTRIC SERVICE TO SITE $30,000 LAND ACQUISITION (Assumed Portion of Village's Property) $0 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $6,839,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Assumes well constructed at WTP site. 3. Estimate does not include air scrubbing equipment for aerator exhaust. Wells/WTP 6, 10, and 12 G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 1B Well 6 & Well 6 CEWT ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 1B (LRI) Well No. 11 United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 1,000 GPM IRONTON GALESVILLE WELL (24X18) Construction (Casing, Hole, Grout, Etc.) $1,000,000 Development (Disinfection, Testing, Etc.) $225,000 Equipment (Pump/Motor, Pitless Adapter, Etc.) $400,000 2 ADDITIONAL PIPING AND ELECTRICAL Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $50,000 Controls and Instrumentation $15,000 SCADA Integration $20,000 3 SITE WORK Paving $15,000 Fencing $15,000 Restoration & Landscaping $20,000 SUB-TOTAL $1,760,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $176,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $1,936,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $348,000 3 PHASE, 480 V ELECTRIC SERVICE TO SITE $30,000 LAND ACQUISITION (10,000 SF) $75,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $2,419,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Assumes Well No. 11 Raw WM connects to Existing Well No. 3 Raw WM (Well No. 3 to be abandoned). 3. Assumes Wells No. 3 & 4 WTP will become Wells No. 4 & 11 WTP 4. Does not include cost to abandon Well No. 3 G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 1B Well 11 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 10 Appendix G Appendix G Detailed Cost Estimates – Supply and Treatment - Alternate 2A ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 2A (CT) Well No. 10 United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 1,000 GPM IRONTON GALESVILLE WELL (24X18) Construction (Casing, Hole, Grout, Etc.) $1,000,000 Development (Disinfection, Testing, Etc.) $225,000 Equipment (Pump/Motor, Pitless Adapter, Etc.) $400,000 2 ADDITIONAL PIPING AND ELECTRICAL Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $50,000 Controls and Instrumentation $15,000 SCADA Integration $20,000 3 SITE WORK Paving $15,000 Fencing $15,000 Restoration & Landscaping $20,000 SUB-TOTAL $1,760,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $176,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $1,936,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $348,000 3 PHASE, 480 V ELECTRIC SERVICE TO SITE $30,000 LAND ACQUISITION (10,000 SF) $75,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $2,419,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Assumes Well construct at WTP Site. G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 2A Well 10 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 2A (CT) 12 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Station United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 FOX RIVER INTAKE PUMP STATION Structures (4,200 SF) $2,750,000 Equipment (Screen Eqpt., Pumps/Motors, Etc.) $625,000 Power Distribution (Including New Electrical Gear & VFDs) $425,000 Emergency Generator $150,000 2 SITE WORK Electrical $15,000 Paving $20,000 Fencing $10,000 Restoration & Landscaping $5,000 SUB-TOTAL $4,000,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $400,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $4,400,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $792,000 3 PHASE, 480V ELECTRIC SERVICE UPGRADE $20,000 LAND ACQUISITION (Assumed Portion of Village's Property) $0 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $5,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $5,217,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Estimate does not include Fox River Intake Raw Water Main to the LSWTP (estimated separately). G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 2A 12MGD Fox R. Intake PS ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 2A (CT) 12 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone) LSWTP United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 TREATMENT BUILDING, EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL Water Treatment Plant Building (with Clearwell) (Structures) (25,000 SF) $5,000,000 Head Tank (for Deep Well Influent) $250,000 Aerator (for Deep Well Influent) $125,000 Head Tank (for Fox River Influent) $300,000 ClariCones (x4, 48' diam. each) $4,000,000 Recarbonation Tanks (x2) $600,000 Ultrafiltration Membrane System $3,220,000 Low & High Service & Backwash Pumps $650,000 Low & High Service Pump Gallery Piping $200,000 PAC System $450,000 Lime Feed System $1,250,000 Carbon Dioxide Feed System $600,000 Anionic and Cationic Feed Systems $300,000 Ferric Chloride Feed System $125,000 Chlorine Feed System $175,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $750,000 Backwash Recovery Lagoon $350,000 Power Distribution (Including New Electrical Gear & VFDs) $2,000,000 Controls and Instrumentation & SCADA Integration $750,000 Emergency Generator $300,000 HVAC Equipment $300,000 2 SITE WORK Ground Storage Tank (1 MG) $1,000,000 Sludge Lagoons $2,500,000 Yard Piping (Water Main & Sanitary and Storm Sewer) $750,000 Electrical $150,000 Paving & Sidewalks $200,000 Fencing $75,000 Restoration & Landscaping $100,000 SUB-TOTAL $26,470,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $2,647,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $29,117,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $5,241,000 3 PHASE, 480V ELECTRIC SERVICE $100,000 LAND ACQUISITION (15 Acres @ $40,000 / Acre) $600,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $35,088,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Estimate does not include Fox River Intake Raw Water Main to the LSWTP (estimated separately). G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 2A Single Stage LSWTP ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 11 Appendix G Appendix G Detailed Cost Estimates – Supply and Treatment - Alternate 2B ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 2B (LRI) Well No. 10 United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 1,000 GPM IRONTON GALESVILLE WELL (24X18) Construction (Casing, Hole, Grout, Etc.) $1,000,000 Development (Disinfection, Testing, Etc.) $225,000 Equipment (Pump/Motor, Pitless Adapter, Etc.) $400,000 2 ADDITIONAL PIPING AND ELECTRICAL Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $50,000 Controls and Instrumentation $15,000 SCADA Integration $20,000 3 SITE WORK Paving $15,000 Fencing $15,000 Restoration & Landscaping $20,000 SUB-TOTAL $1,760,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $176,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $1,936,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $348,000 3 PHASE, 480 V ELECTRIC SERVICE TO SITE $30,000 LAND ACQUISITION (10,000 SF) $75,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $2,419,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Assumes Well construct at WTP Site. G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 2B Well 10 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 2B (LRI) 9 MGD Fox River Intake Pump Station United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 FOX RIVER INTAKE PUMP STATION Structures (3,600 SF) $2,600,000 Equipment (Screen Eqpt., Pumps/Motors, Etc.) $550,000 Power Distribution (Including New Electrical Gear & VFDs) $350,000 Emergency Generator $150,000 2 SITE WORK Electrical $15,000 Paving $20,000 Fencing $10,000 Restoration & Landscaping $5,000 SUB-TOTAL $3,700,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $370,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $4,070,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $733,000 3 PHASE, 480V ELECTRIC SERVICE UPGRADE $20,000 LAND ACQUISITION (Assumed Portion of Village's Property) $0 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $5,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $4,828,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Estimate does not include Fox River Intake Raw Water Main to the LSWTP (estimated separately). G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 2B 9MGD Fox R. Intake ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 2B (LRI) 9 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone) LSWTP United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 TREATMENT BUILDING, EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL Water Treatment Plant Building (with Clearwell) (Structures) (20,000 SF) $4,000,000 Head Tank (for Deep Well Influent) $250,000 Aerator (for Deep Well Influent) $125,000 Head Tank (for Fox River Influent) $250,000 ClariCones $3,000,000 Recarbonation Tanks (x2) $500,000 Ultrafiltration Membrane System $2,920,000 Low & High Service & Backwash Pumps $500,000 Low & High Service Pump Gallery Piping $175,000 PAC System $450,000 Lime Feed System $1,250,000 Carbon Dioxide Feed System $500,000 Anionic and Cationic Feed Systems $250,000 Ferric Chloride Feed System $100,000 Chlorine Feed System $175,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $550,000 Backwash Recovery Lagoon $250,000 Power Distribution (Including New Electrical Gear & VFDs) $1,500,000 Controls and Instrumentation & SCADA Integration $600,000 Emergency Generator $300,000 HVAC Equipment $300,000 2 SITE WORK Ground Storage Tank (1 MG) $1,000,000 Sludge Lagoons $2,000,000 Yard Piping (Water Main & Sanitary and Storm Sewer) $750,000 Electrical $150,000 Paving & Sidewalks $200,000 Fencing $75,000 Restoration & Landscaping $100,000 SUB-TOTAL $22,220,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $2,222,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $24,442,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $4,400,000 3 PHASE, 480V ELECTRIC SERVICE $100,000 LAND ACQUISITION (15 Acres @ $40,000 / Acre) $600,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $29,572,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Estimate does not include Fox River Intake Raw Water Main to the LSWTP (estimated separately). G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 2B Single Stage LSWTP ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 12 Appendix G Appendix G Detailed Cost Estimates – Supply and Treatment - Alternate 3A ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 3A (CT) Well No. 6 United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 1,000 GPM IRONTON GALESVILLE WELL (24X18) Construction (Casing, Hole, Grout, Etc.) $1,000,000 Development (Disinfection, Testing, Etc.) $225,000 Equipment (Pump/Motor, Pitless Adapter, Etc.) $400,000 2 ADDITIONAL PIPING AND ELECTRICAL Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $50,000 Controls and Instrumentation $15,000 SCADA Integration $20,000 3 SITE WORK Paving $15,000 Fencing $15,000 Restoration & Landscaping $20,000 SUB-TOTAL $1,760,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $176,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $1,936,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $348,000 3 PHASE, 480 V ELECTRIC SERVICE TO SITE $30,000 LAND ACQUISITION (10,000 SF) $75,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $2,419,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 3A Well 6 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 3A (CT) Well No. SR-1 United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 1,000 GPM IRONTON GALESVILLE WELL (24X18) Construction (Casing, Hole, Grout, Etc.) $1,000,000 Development (Disinfection, Testing, Etc.) $225,000 Equipment (Pump/Motor, Pitless Adapter, Etc.) $400,000 2 ADDITIONAL PIPING AND ELECTRICAL Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $50,000 Controls and Instrumentation $15,000 SCADA Integration $20,000 3 SITE WORK Paving $15,000 Fencing $15,000 Restoration & Landscaping $20,000 SUB-TOTAL $1,760,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $176,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $1,936,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $348,000 3 PHASE, 480 V ELECTRIC SERVICE TO SITE $30,000 LAND ACQUISITION (10,000 SF) $75,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $2,419,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Montgomeryr $80,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, United City of Yorkville r $2,339,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Oswegor $0 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 3A Well SR1 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 3A (CT) 32 MGD Sub-Regional Fox River Intake Pump Station United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 FOX RIVER INTAKE PUMP STATION Structures (7,200 SF) $4,000,000 Equipment (Screen Eqpt., Pumps/Motors, Etc.) $750,000 Power Distribution (Including New Electrical Gear & VFDs) $600,000 Emergency Generator $200,000 2 SITE WORK Electrical $20,000 Paving $25,000 Fencing $20,000 Restoration & Landscaping $10,000 SUB-TOTAL $5,625,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $563,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $6,188,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $1,114,000 3 PHASE, 480V ELECTRIC SERVICE UPGRADE $20,000 LAND ACQUISITION (Assumed Portion of Village's Property) $0 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $5,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $7,327,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Montgomerym $1,473,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, United City of Yorkvillem $2,389,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Oswegom $3,466,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Fox River Intake Pump Station assumed to be constructed at same site as LSWTP. G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 3A 32MGD Sub-Reg Fox R. PS m. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of Maximum Daily Demand (CT: 20.1% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 18.3% for Montgomery, 33.6% for Yorkville; 48.1% for Oswego). ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 3A (CT) 32 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone) Sub-Regional LSWTP United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 TREATMENT BUILDING, EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL Water Treatment Plant Building (with Clearwell) (Structures) (100,000 SF) $19,000,000 Aerators $284,000 Head Tanks (x4, 8' diam. each) $1,642,000 ClariCones (x4, 66.5' diam. each) $6,683,000 Recarbonation Tanks (x4, 18.75' bottom diam. each) $721,000 Ultrafiltration Membrane System $6,325,000 Low & High Service & Backwash Pumps $700,000 Low & High Service Pump Gallery Piping $250,000 PAC System $600,000 Lime Feed System $3,000,000 Carbon Dioxide Feed System $730,000 Anionic and Cationic Feed Systems $350,000 Ferric Chloride Feed System $250,000 Chlorine Feed System $275,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $750,000 Backwash Recovery Lagoon $350,000 Power Distribution (Including New Electrical Gear & VFDs) $3,000,000 Controls and Instrumentation & SCADA Integration $900,000 Emergency Generator $400,000 HVAC Equipment $750,000 2 SITE WORK Ground Storage Tank (x2, 3.0 MG each) $5,000,000 Sludge Lagoons $2,750,000 Yard Piping (Water Main & Sanitary and Storm Sewer) $1,000,000 Electrical $300,000 Paving & Sidewalks $300,000 Fencing $175,000 Restoration & Landscaping $200,000 SUB-TOTAL $56,685,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $5,669,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $62,354,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $11,224,000 3 PHASE, 480V ELECTRIC SERVICE $100,000 LAND ACQUISITION (20 Acres @ $40,000 / Acre) $800,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $74,508,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Montgomery m $14,976,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, United City of Yorkvillem $24,290,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Oswego m $35,242,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Estimate does not include Fox River Intake Raw Water Main to the LSWTP (estimated separately). G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 3A 32 MGD SingleStage LSWTP m. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of Maximum Daily Demand (CT: 20.1% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 18.3% for Montgomery, 33.6% for Yorkville; 48.1% for Oswego). ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 13 Appendix G Appendix G Detailed Cost Estimates – Supply and Treatment - Alternate 3B ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 3B (LRI) Well No. 6 United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 1,000 GPM IRONTON GALESVILLE WELL (24X18) Construction (Casing, Hole, Grout, Etc.) $1,000,000 Development (Disinfection, Testing, Etc.) $225,000 Equipment (Pump/Motor, Pitless Adapter, Etc.) $400,000 2 ADDITIONAL PIPING AND ELECTRICAL Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $50,000 Controls and Instrumentation $15,000 SCADA Integration $20,000 3 SITE WORK Paving $15,000 Fencing $15,000 Restoration & Landscaping $20,000 SUB-TOTAL $1,760,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $176,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $1,936,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $348,000 3 PHASE, 480 V ELECTRIC SERVICE TO SITE $30,000 LAND ACQUISITION (10,000 SF) $75,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $2,419,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 3B Well 6 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 3B (LRI) Well No. SR-1 United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 1,000 GPM IRONTON GALESVILLE WELL (24X18) Construction (Casing, Hole, Grout, Etc.) $1,000,000 Development (Disinfection, Testing, Etc.) $225,000 Equipment (Pump/Motor, Pitless Adapter, Etc.) $400,000 2 ADDITIONAL PIPING AND ELECTRICAL Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $50,000 Controls and Instrumentation $15,000 SCADA Integration $20,000 3 SITE WORK Paving $15,000 Fencing $15,000 Restoration & Landscaping $20,000 SUB-TOTAL $1,760,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $176,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $1,936,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $348,000 3 PHASE, 480 V ELECTRIC SERVICE TO SITE $30,000 LAND ACQUISITION (10,000 SF) $75,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $2,419,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Montgomeryr $0 Total Estimated Cost of Project, United City of Yorkville r $714,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Oswegor $503,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 3B Well SR1 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternate No. 3B (LRI) 25 MGD Sub-Regional Fox River Intake Pump Station United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 FOX RIVER INTAKE PUMP STATION Structures (6,200 SF) $3,500,000 Equipment (Screen Eqpt., Pumps/Motors, Etc.) $675,000 Power Distribution (Including New Electrical Gear & VFDs) $500,000 Emergency Generator $200,000 2 SITE WORK Electrical $15,000 Paving $20,000 Fencing $15,000 Restoration & Landscaping $10,000 SUB-TOTAL $4,935,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $494,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $5,429,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $977,000 3 PHASE, 480V ELECTRIC SERVICE UPGRADE $20,000 LAND ACQUISITION (Assumed Portion of Village's Property) $0 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $5,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $6,431,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Montgomerym $1,177,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, United City of Yorkvillem $2,161,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Oswegom $3,093,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Fox River Intake Pump Station assumed to be constructed at same site as LSWTP. G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 3B 25MGD Sub-Reg Fox R. PS m. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of Maximum Daily Demand (CT: 20.1% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 18.3% for Montgomery, 33.6% for Yorkville; 48.1% for Oswego). ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST 25 MGD Single Stage (ClariCone) Sub-Regional LSWTP United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL ITEM NO. ITEM AMOUNT 1 TREATMENT BUILDING, EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL Water Treatment Plant Building (with Clearwell) (Structures) (90,000 SF) $17,400,000 Aerators $190,000 Head Tanks (x4, 8' diam. each) $1,214,000 ClariCones (x4, 66.5' diam. each) $5,087,000 Recarbonation Tanks (x4, 18.75' bottom diam. each) $550,000 Ultrafiltration Membrane System $5,635,000 Low & High Service & Backwash Pumps $600,000 Low & High Service Pump Gallery Piping $215,000 PAC System $575,000 Lime Feed System $3,000,000 Carbon Dioxide Feed System $625,000 Anionic and Cationic Feed Systems $325,000 Ferric Chloride Feed System $225,000 Chlorine Feed System $250,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Meters $625,000 Backwash Recovery Lagoon $300,000 Power Distribution (Including New Electrical Gear & VFDs) $2,500,000 Controls and Instrumentation & SCADA Integration $800,000 Emergency Generator $400,000 HVAC Equipment $675,000 2 SITE WORK Ground Storage Tank (x2, 2.0 MG each) $4,000,000 Sludge Lagoons $2,500,000 Yard Piping (Water Main & Sanitary and Storm Sewer) $850,000 Electrical $300,000 Paving & Sidewalks $275,000 Fencing $150,000 Restoration & Landscaping $200,000 SUB-TOTAL $49,466,000 CONTINGENCY (10%) $4,947,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $54,413,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (18%) $9,794,000 3 PHASE, 480V ELECTRIC SERVICE $100,000 LAND ACQUISITION (20 Acres @ $40,000 / Acre) $800,000 SOIL & MATERIAL TESTING $30,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $65,137,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Montgomery m $11,920,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, United City of Yorkville m $21,886,000 Total Estimated Cost of Project, Village of Oswegom $31,331,000 Notes: 1. All values are based on 2016 construction costs. 2. Estimate does not include Fox River Intake Raw Water Main to the LSWTP (estimated separately). G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437-P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\[Supply & Treatment Cost Estimates - YO.xlsx]Alt 3B 25 MGD SingleStage LSWTP m. Cost shown is portion of total cost based off of Maximum Daily Demand (CT: 20.1% for Montgomery, 32.6% for Yorkville, 47.3% for Oswego; LRI: 18.3% for Montgomery, 33.6% for Yorkville; 48.1% for Oswego). ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 14 Appendix G Appendix G Detailed Cost Estimates – Storage – All Scenarios JOB NO:YO1437-P DESIGNED:MLP DATE:February 16, 2016 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 LS 1 3,825,000.00$ 3,825,000.00$ 2 FRESH MIX SYSTEM LS 1 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 3 LF 1 180,000.00$ 180,000.00$ 4 YARD PIPING AND SITE WORK LF 1 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 5 EACH 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 6 EACH 1 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 18 SUBTOTAL 4,250,000.00$ CONTINGENCY (10%)425,000.00$ TOTAL 4,675,000.00$ DESIGN ENGINEERING (1.5%)70,200.00$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (1.75%)81,900.00$ LEGAL FEES 3,000.00$ LAND ACQUISITION 40,000.00$ 4,870,000.00$ Notes: Stub left for proposed 24" WM along Rt 34 Stub left for proposed 16" WM connecting to Crimson Ln 09/12 SCADA IMPLEMENTATION Preliminary Cost Estimate 2.0 MG ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK ITEM ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK (2.0 MILLION GALLONS)* (ASSUMES 100' TO CONTAINMENT ALTERNATES 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, AND 3B ELECTRICAL SERVICE TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Preliminary Cost Estimate ‐ 2 MG EWST WATER WORKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - 2016 Page 15 Appendix G Appendix G Detailed Cost Estimates – Distribution – All Scenarios JOB NO:YO1437-P DESIGNED:JDH/MWS/MLP DATE:March 10, 2017 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM ALTERNATE 1A/1B ALTERNATE 2A/2B ALTERNATE 3A/3B NO.AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT 1 829,000$ 829,000$ 2 233,000$ 233,000$ 3 9,597,000$ 9,597,000$ 4 869,000$ 869,000$ 5a 20" Water main on Van Emmon 1,071,000$ 1,071,000$ 5b 20" Water main on Van Emmon 473,000$ 473,000$ 6 20" Water Main from Mill Street to South Central EWST 3,155,000$ 3,155,000$ 7 1,450,000$ 1,450,000$ 8 Not. Incl. in Alt. 2 378,000$ 9a 968,000$ 968,000$ 968,000$ 9b Appletree Court Watermain Replacement (RTBR) 149,000$ 149,000$ 149,000$ 9c W. Washington Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) - To be Constructed in 2017 188,000$ 188,000$ 188,000$ 10 Elizabeth Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) 512,000$ 512,000$ 512,000$ 11 Main Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) 714,000$ 714,000$ 714,000$ 12 Orange/Olsen Watermain Looping (RTBR) 168,000$ 168,000$ 168,000$ 13 Morgan Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) 376,000$ 376,000$ 376,000$ 14 E. Fox Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) 306,000$ 306,000$ 306,000$ 15 East Washington Watermain Replacement (RTBR) 465,000$ 465,000$ 465,000$ 16 Orange Street Watermain Replacement (RTBR) 660,000$ 660,000$ 660,000$ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TOTAL - SUMMARY OF CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES: 4,506,000$ 22,183,000$ 22,561,000$ Summary of Conceptual Cost Estimates 24" Water Main from Water Treatment Plant to Van Emmon ITEM 20" & 16" Water Main North West of Water Treatment Plant 16" Tie Into Crimson Lane 16" Water Main along Center Street and Main Street 20" Water Main from South Central EWST to South BP/PRV PRV Station - North Pressure Zone to North Central Pressure Zone Route 71 Watermain Replacement \\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Summary ‐ Preliminary Cost Estimates JOB NO:YO1437-P DESIGNED:JDH DATE:January 16, 2017 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 LS 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2 TOPSOIL STRIPPING, PILING AND REPLACING LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 3 LF 1,400 115.00$ 161,000.00$ 4 LF 1,400 150.00$ 210,000.00$ 5 EACH 1 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 5 EACH 1 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 6 EACH 2 25,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 7 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY, WITH AUXILIARY VALVE, 6-INCH MJ EACH 4 20,000.00$ 80,000.00$ 8 LB 3,000 8.00$ 24,000.00$ 9 CY 50 35.00$ 1,750.00$ 10 CY 45 35.00$ 1,575.00$ 11 LS 1 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 12 SY 45 75.00$ 3,375.00$ 13 LF 10 50.00$ 500.00$ 14 SF 50 10.00$ 500.00$ 15 TON 10 60.00$ 600.00$ 16 LS 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 17 LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ SUBTOTAL 602,000.00$ CONTINGENCY (10%)61,000.00$ TOTAL 663,000.00$ DESIGN ENGINEERING (10%)66,300.00$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (10%)66,300.00$ LEGAL FEES 3,000.00$ LAND ACQUISITION 30,000.00$ 828,600.00$ Notes: assumes fire hydrants every 1000' Stub left for proposed 24" WM along Rt 34 Stub left for proposed 16" WM connecting to Crimson Ln GATE VALVE, 16-INCH IN 60-INCH VALVE VAULT PRESSURE CONNECTION, 16" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT Preliminary Cost Estimate 1. 20" and 16" Water Main North West of Water Treatment Plant ITEM TREE REMOVAL, ROOT PRUNING, TREE REPLACEMENT WATER MAIN, 20-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 WATER MAIN, 16-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE GATE VALVE, 20-INCH IN 60-INCH VALVE VAULT DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL FOUNDATION MATERIAL WATER MAIN TESTING - PRESSURE AND DISINFECTION HMA PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, 4" COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT SIDEWALK REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT NON-SPECIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL RESTORATION TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Preliminary Cost Estimates JOB NO:YO1437-P DESIGNED:JDH DATE:February 17, 2016 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 2 LF 745 115.00$ 85,675.00$ 3 EACH 2 8,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 4 CONNECTION TO EXISTING 16" WATERMAIN EACH 1 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 5 CONNECTION TO EXISTING 20" WATERMAIN EACH 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 6 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY, WITH AUXILIARY VALVE, 6-INCH MJ EACH 2 15,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 7 LB 800 8.00$ 6,400.00$ 8 EACH 1 800.00$ 800.00$ 9 EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 10 CY 40 35.00$ 1,400.00$ 11 CY 15 35.00$ 525.00$ 12 LS 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 13 SY 45 80.00$ 3,600.00$ 14 TON 10 60.00$ 600.00$ 15 LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 16 LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ SUBTOTAL 169,000.00$ CONTINGENCY (10%)17,000.00$ TOTAL 186,000.00$ DESIGN ENGINEERING (10%)18,600.00$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (10%)18,600.00$ LEGAL FEES 3,000.00$ LAND ACQUISITION 7,000.00$ 233,200.00$ Notes: Assume in pavement assumes 8" existing HMA thickness Assuming Valve @ End of 16" Crimson WM (Tie into 16") Added Valve on Yorkville-1 Cost Estimate (Tie into 20") TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOUNDATION MATERIAL WATER MAIN TESTING - PRESSURE AND DISINFECTION HMA PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, 8" NON-SPECIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL RESTORATION TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL Preliminary Cost Estimate 2. 16" Tie Into Crimson Lane ITEM TREE REMOVAL, ROOT PRUNING, TREE REPLACEMENT WATER MAIN, 16-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 GATE VALVE, 16-INCH IN 60-INCH VALVE VAULT DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS FIRE HYDRANT REMOVAL VALVE ABANDONMENT G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Preliminary Cost Estimates JOB NO:YO1437-P DESIGNED:JDH DATE:February 16, 2016 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 LS 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 2 BORE AND JACK 30" STEEL CASING PIPE LF 140 650.00$ 91,000.00$ 2 LF 13,000 250.00$ 3,250,000.00$ 3 LF 650 1,000.00$ 650,000.00$ 4 EACH 12 7,000.00$ 84,000.00$ 5 EACH 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 6 EACH 3 8,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 7 EACH 1 8,500.00$ 8,500.00$ 8 EACH 10 20,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 9 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY, WITH AUXILIARY VALVE, 6-INCH MJ EACH 35 4,800.00$ 168,000.00$ 10 LB 75,000 8.00$ 600,000.00$ 11 EACH 13 800.00$ 10,400.00$ 12 EACH 37 1,100.00$ 40,700.00$ 13 LF 1,300 30.00$ 39,000.00$ 14 EACH 12 500.00$ 6,000.00$ 15 CY 8,400 35.00$ 294,000.00$ 16 CY 195 35.00$ 6,825.00$ 17 EACH 2 1,250.00$ 2,500.00$ 18 EACH 8 1,500.00$ 12,000.00$ 19 EACH 6 2,250.00$ 13,500.00$ 20 LS 1 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 21 SY 11,000 40.00$ 440,000.00$ 22 LF 1,000 40.00$ 40,000.00$ 23 TON 14,500 60.00$ 870,000.00$ 24 LS 1 120,000.00$ 120,000.00$ 25 LS 1 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ SUBTOTAL 7,268,000.00$ CONTINGENCY (10%)727,000.00$ TOTAL 7,995,000.00$ DESIGN ENGINEERING (10%)799,500.00$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (10%)799,500.00$ LEGAL FEES 3,000.00$ LAND ACQUISITION -$ 9,597,000.00$ Notes: assumes fire hydrants every 300' DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN - 6" Preliminary Cost Estimate 3. 24" Water Main from Water Treatment Plan to Van Emmon ITEM TREE REMOVAL, ROOT PRUNING, TREE REPLACEMENT WATER MAIN, 24-INCH FUSIBLE PVC, DR-18, C905 WITH HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL WATER MAIN, 24-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 PRESSURE CONNECTION, 8" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT WATER SERVICE CONNECTION, 1" WATER SERVICE - TYPE K COPPER, 1" SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL FOUNDATION MATERIAL NON-SPECIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL RESTORATION TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE PRESSURE CONNECTION, 10" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT PRESSURE CONNECTION, 16" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT BUTTERFLY VALVE, 24-INCH IN 72-INCH VALVE VAULT FIRE HYDRANT REMOVAL PRESSURE CONNECTION, 12" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS VALVE ABANDONMENT DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN - 8" DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN - 12" WATER MAIN TESTING - PRESSURE AND DISINFECTION HMA PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, 4" COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Preliminary Cost Estimates JOB NO:YO1437-P DESIGNED:JDH DATE:February 16, 2016 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 3 WATER MAIN, 8-INCH D.I.P., CLASS 52 LF 30 60.00$ 1,800.00$ 4 LF 1,800 115.00$ 207,000.00$ 5 BORE AND JACK 30" STEEL CASING PIPE LF 120 650.00$ 78,000.00$ 5 PRESSURE CONNECTION, 16" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT EACH 2 9,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 6 EACH 3 4,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 7 EACH 5 7,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 8 CONNECT TO EXISTING 16" WATERMAIN EACH 2 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 10 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY, WITH AUXILIARY VALVE, 6-INCH MJ EACH 7 4,800.00$ 33,600.00$ 11 LB 4,700 8.00$ 37,600.00$ 12 FIRE HYDRANT REMOVAL EACH 4 800.00$ 3,200.00$ 13 VALVE ABANDONMENT EACH 7 500.00$ 3,500.00$ 14 WATER SERVICE CONNECTION, 1" EACH 22 1,100.00$ 24,200.00$ 15 WATER SERVICE - TYPE K COPPER, 1" LF 726 30.00$ 21,780.00$ 16 CY 1,250 35.00$ 43,750.00$ 17 CY 30 35.00$ 1,050.00$ 18 DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN - 6" EACH 2 1,250.00$ 2,500.00$ 19 DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN - 8" EACH 2 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 20 LS 1 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 21 SY 1,500 45.00$ 67,500.00$ 22 COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT LF 290 40.00$ 2,000.00$ 23 TON 200 60.00$ 12,000.00$ 24 LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 25 LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ SUBTOTAL 656,000.00$ CONTINGENCY (10%)66,000.00$ TOTAL 722,000.00$ DESIGN ENGINEERING (10%)72,200.00$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (10%)72,200.00$ LEGAL FEES 3,000.00$ LAND ACQUISITION -$ 869,400.00$ Notes: assumes fire hydrants every 300' assumes no water main replacement on Church Street Preliminary Cost Estimate 4. 16" Water Main along Center Street and Main Street ITEM TREE REMOVAL, ROOT PRUNING, TREE REPLACEMENT WATER MAIN, 16-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 GATE VALVE, 16-INCH IN 60-INCH VALVE VAULT DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL FOUNDATION MATERIAL GATE VALVE, 8-INCH IN 48-INCH VALVE VAULT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE WATER MAIN TESTING - PRESSURE AND DISINFECTION HMA PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, 4" NON-SPECIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL RESTORATION G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Preliminary Cost Estimates JOB NO:YO1437-P DESIGNED:JDH DATE:February 16, 2016 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2 LF 2,200 150.00$ 330,000.00$ 3 EACH 1 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 4 EACH 2 25,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 5 CONNECTION TO EXISTING 24" WATER MAIN EACH 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 6 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY, WITH AUXILIARY VALVE, 6-INCH MJ EACH 7 20,000.00$ 140,000.00$ 7 LB 5,000 8.00$ 40,000.00$ 8 FIRE HYDRANT REMOVAL EACH 4 800.00$ 3,200.00$ 9 VALVE ABANDONMENT EACH 3 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 10 WATER SERVICE CONNECTION, 1" EACH 15 1,100.00$ 16,500.00$ 11 WATER SERVICE - TYPE K COPPER, 1" LF 495 30.00$ 14,850.00$ 12 CY 1,600 35.00$ 56,000.00$ 13 CY 40 35.00$ 1,400.00$ 14 EACH 2 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 15 LS 1 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 16 SY 1,750 45.00$ 78,750.00$ 17 TON 250 60.00$ 15,000.00$ 18 LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 19 LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ SUBTOTAL 809,000.00$ CONTINGENCY (10%)81,000.00$ TOTAL 890,000.00$ DESIGN ENGINEERING (10%)89,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (10%)89,000.00$ LEGAL FEES 3,000.00$ LAND ACQUISITION -$ 1,071,000.00$ Notes: assumes fire hydrants every 300' TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE PRESSURE CONNECTION, 16" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN - 16" WATER MAIN TESTING - PRESSURE AND DISINFECTION HMA PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, 4" NON-SPECIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL RESTORATION SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL FOUNDATION MATERIAL GATE VALVE, 20-INCH IN 60-INCH VALVE VAULT DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS Preliminary Cost Estimate 5a. 20" Water Main on Van Emmon ITEM TREE REMOVAL, ROOT PRUNING, TREE REPLACEMENT WATER MAIN, 20-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Preliminary Cost Estimates JOB NO:YO1437-P DESIGNED:JDH DATE:February 16, 2016 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 LS 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2 LF 700 150.00$ 105,000.00$ 4 EACH 3 25,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 5 CONNECTION TO EXISTING 24" WATER MAIN EACH 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 6 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY, WITH AUXILIARY VALVE, 6-INCH MJ EACH 3 20,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 7 LB 3,700 8.00$ 29,600.00$ 8 CY 500 35.00$ 17,500.00$ 9 CY 20 35.00$ 700.00$ 12 LS 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 13 SY 550 45.00$ 24,750.00$ 14 TON 100 60.00$ 6,000.00$ 15 LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 16 LS 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ SUBTOTAL 356,000.00$ CONTINGENCY (10%)36,000.00$ TOTAL 392,000.00$ DESIGN ENGINEERING (10%)39,200.00$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (10%)39,200.00$ LEGAL FEES 3,000.00$ LAND ACQUISITION -$ 473,400.00$ Notes: assumes fire hydrants every 300' TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE WATER MAIN TESTING - PRESSURE AND DISINFECTION HMA PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, 4" NON-SPECIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL RESTORATION TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION GATE VALVE, 20-INCH IN 60-INCH VALVE VAULT DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL FOUNDATION MATERIAL Preliminary Cost Estimate 5b. 20" Water Main on Van Emmon ITEM TREE REMOVAL, ROOT PRUNING, TREE REPLACEMENT WATER MAIN, 20-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Preliminary Cost Estimates JOB NO:MO1438-V DESIGNED:KDW DATE:February 17, 2016 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 LF 5,550 150.00$ 832,500.00$ 2 EACH 4 25,000.00$ 100,000.00$ 3 EACH 5 7,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 4 EACH 2 8,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 5 EACH 2 4,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 6 EACH 2 6,500.00$ 13,000.00$ 7 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY, WITH AUXILIARY VALVE, 6-INCH MJ EACH 12 20,000.00$ 240,000.00$ 8 BP/PRV STATION, COMPLETE EACH 1 543,000.00$ 543,000.00$ 9 LB 18,000 8.00$ 144,000.00$ 10 EACH 10 800.00$ 8,000.00$ 11 EACH 15 1,100.00$ 16,500.00$ 12 LF 500 30.00$ 15,000.00$ 13 EACH 8 500.00$ 4,000.00$ 14 CY 3,600 35.00$ 126,000.00$ 15 CY 100 35.00$ 3,500.00$ 16 EACH 2 1,250.00$ 2,500.00$ 17 EACH 3 1,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 18 EACH 2 2,250.00$ 4,500.00$ 19 LS 1 17,000.00$ 17,000.00$ 20 SY 3,375 45.00$ 151,875.00$ 21 LF 100 40.00$ 4,000.00$ 22 TON 540 60.00$ 32,400.00$ 23 LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 24 LS 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ SUBTOTAL 2,357,000.00$ CONTINGENCY (10%)236,000.00$ TOTAL 2,593,000.00$ DESIGN ENGINEERING (10%)259,300.00$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (10%)259,300.00$ LEGAL FEES 3,000.00$ LAND ACQUISITION 40,000.00$ 3,154,600.00$ Notes: assumes fire hydrants everY 300' DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS FIRE HYDRANT REMOVAL WATER SERVICE CONNECTION, 1" WATER SERVICE - TYPE K COPPER, 1" Preliminary Cost Estimate 6. 20" Water Main from Mill Street to South Central EWST ITEM WATER MAIN, 20-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 PRESSURE CONNECTION, 8" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT PRESSURE CONNECTION, 12" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE GATE VALVE, 20-INCH IN 60-INCH VALVE VAULT WATER MAIN TESTING - PRESSURE AND DISINFECTION HMA PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, 4" COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT NON-SPECIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL RESTORATION TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION VALVE ABANDONMENT SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL FOUNDATION MATERIAL DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN - 6" DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN - 8" DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN - 12" GATE VALVE, 8-INCH IN 60-INCH VALVE VAULT GATE VALVE, 12-INCH IN 60-INCH VALVE VAULT G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Preliminary Cost Estimates JOB NO:YO1437-P DESIGNED:JDH DATE:February 17, 2016 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 LS 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 2 TOPSOIL STRIPPING, PILING AND REPLACING LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 3 BORE AND JACK 30" STEEL CASING PIPE LF 160 650.00$ 104,000.00$ 3 LF 200 90.00$ 18,000.00$ 4 LF 100 115.00$ 11,500.00$ 5 LF 2,600 150.00$ 390,000.00$ 6 PRESSURE CONNECTION, 12" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT EACH 2 8,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 7 PRESSURE CONNECTION, 16" TAPPING VALVE IN 60" VAULT EACH 1 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 8 GATE VALVE, 20-INCH IN 60-INCH VALVE VAULT EACH 3 25,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 9 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY, WITH AUXILIARY VALVE, 6-INCH MJ EACH 7 20,000.00$ 140,000.00$ 10 LB 11,000 8.00$ 88,000.00$ 11 EACH 4 800.00$ 3,200.00$ 12 EACH 2 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 13 WATER SERVICE CONNECTION, 1"EACH 2 1,100.00$ 2,200.00$ 14 WATER SERVICE CONNECTION - TYPE K COPPER, 1" LF 110 30.00$ 3,300.00$ 15 CY 1,200 35.00$ 42,000.00$ 16 CY 50 35.00$ 1,750.00$ 17 EACH 2 2,250.00$ 4,500.00$ 18 LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 19 SY 1,250 45.00$ 56,250.00$ 20 LF 25 40.00$ 1,000.00$ 21 TON 200 60.00$ 12,000.00$ 22 LS 1 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 23 LS 1 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ SUBTOTAL 1,084,000.00$ CONTINGENCY (10%)109,000.00$ TOTAL 1,193,000.00$ DESIGN ENGINEERING (10%)119,300.00$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (10%)119,300.00$ LEGAL FEES 3,000.00$ LAND ACQUISITION 15,000.00$ 1,449,600.00$ Notes: assumes fire hydrants every 300' no air release valves were included WATER MAIN, 16-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 Preliminary Cost Estimate 7. 20" Water Main from South Central EWST to South BP/PRV ITEM TREE REMOVAL, ROOT PRUNING, TREE REPLACEMENT WATER MAIN, 12-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 WATER MAIN, 20-INCH D.I.P, CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS FIRE HYDRANT REMOVAL VALVE ABANDONMENT SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL RESTORATION TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOUNDATION MATERIAL DISCONNECT AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN - 12" WATER MAIN TESTING - PRESSURE AND DISINFECTION HMA PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT - 4" COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT NON-SPECIAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Preliminary Cost Estimates JOB NO:YO1437-V DESIGNED:MLP DATE:February 16, 2016 PROJECT TITLE: Water Systems Master Plan ITEM UNIT NO.UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 L SUM 1 75,000.00$ 70,000.00$ 2 L SUM 1 35,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 3 L SUM 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 4 L SUM 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 5 L SUM 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 6 EACH 2 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 7 FOOT 100 125.00$ 12,500.00$ 8 EACH 3 15,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 9 EACH 1 4,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 10 FOUNDATION MATERIAL CU YD 30 35.00 1,050.00$ 11 SPECIAL WASTE DISPOSAL TON 70 60.00 4,200.00$ 12 LS 1 25,000.00 25,000.00$ 13 SCADA LS 1 25,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 14 15 16 17 -$ 18 -$ 19 -$ SUBTOTAL 253,000.00$ CONTINGENCY (10%)26,000.00$ TOTAL 279,000.00$ DESIGN ENGINEERING (10%)27,900.00$ CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (10%)27,900.00$ LAND ACQUISITION 40,000.00$ LEGAL FEES 3,000.00$ COMED - ELECTRICAL SERVICE -$ 377,800.00$ Notes: Preliminary Cost Estimate 8. PRV Station - North Pressure Zone to North Central Pressure Zone ITEM FURNISH FACTORY BUILTBELOW GROUND PACKAGED PRV STATION WITH ALL NECESSARY PIPING, CONTROLS AND APPURTENANCES (INCLUDING CONNECTION FITTINGS AND PIPING) INSTALLATION OF FACTORY BUILT BELOW GROUND PACKAGE PRV STATION (INCLUDES CONNECTION TO 16" W.M. AND CONNECTION TO 4" DIA, PVC SUMP DISCHARGE PIPING) FIRE HYDRANT W/AUXILIARY VALVE (INCLUDING THE 12" X 6" TEE AND 6" LEAD) RESTORATION TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE REINFORCED CONCRETE BASE PAD INCLUDING ANCHOR BOLTS AND ALL REQUIRED EXCAVTION, AGGREGRATE BASE, AND TRENCH BACKFILL. ELECTRICAL PRV INSTALLATION, PROVIDE SERVICE FROM EXISTING WELL HOUSE TO THE VALVE STATION DISINFECTION, SAMPLING AND BACTERIALOLOGICAL TESTING-BP/PRV STATION AND NEW FIRE HYDRANT CONNECTION TO WATER MAIN DUCTILE IRON WATER MAIN, CL 52, 1" VALVE IN VAULT (BUTTERFLY), 16" G:\Public\Yorkville\2014\YO1437‐P Water Works System Master Plan\Eng\Cost Estimates\Water Main Cost Estimates\Preliminary Cost Estimate ‐ PRV Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Old Business #1 Tracking Number PW 2016-21 Performance Contracting Discussion Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 N / A Bart Olson Administration Name Department Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Old Business #2 Tracking Number CC 2014-59 Whispering Meadows Parking Restriction Public Works Committee – April 18, 2017 N/ A Majority Approval Rediscussion of proposed parking restrictions for the area adjacent to Bristol Station Park. Bart Olson Administration Name Department 1 Bart Olson From:Joel Frieders [joelfrieders.ward3@gmail.com] Sent:Monday, April 10, 2017 3:48 PM To:Bart Olson Cc:Rich Hart; Tim Evans Subject:Re: Red park meeting Yea. I would like to repropose the restriction. Thank you all. On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:39 PM Bart Olson <BOlson@yorkville.il.us> wrote: I don’t see the need for a meeting, if only because we agree with the resident’s request. When the parking restriction on the east side of Alan Dale was proposed in 2014, these same conditions and issues were present. The solution is to make a 24/7 parking restriction on the east side of Alan Dale near the park entrance. The proposal was jettisoned at City Council because one of the neighbors objected to it and the City Council didn’t think it was wise to approve the restriction over the objection of a resident who lived there. I spoke with Tim and Rich today and they both said they would still support the restriction. Do you want to re‐propose the restriction? Bart Olson, ICMA‐CM City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630‐553‐8537 direct 630‐553‐4350 City Hall 630‐308‐0582 cell bolson@yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Joel Frieders [mailto:joelfrieders.ward3@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 11:13 AM To: Bart Olson Subject: Fwd: Red park meeting 2 Take a read on this Should be somewhat familiar to you Wondering if we can sit down with the residents and discuss baseball parking over there. I went down there on Saturday and it's insane. Both sides of the road kids darting back and forth. Crazy. Let me know if we can have a sit. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Date: Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:06 AM Subject: Red park meeting To: <joelfrieders.ward3@gmail.com> Good Morning Joel, Thank you for responding to my post and your willingness to help get this issue resolved. 2 years ago I had asked the city it we could get no parking signs for the side of the street that my house is on. Well at that time my neighbors complained that they had a handicap person living there and needed to park on that side . So in an attempt to make everyone happy the city put up signs that state No parking this side of the street from April-July Monday- Friday from 5 pm-8 pm. This sign does nothing for the weekends when there are are games there all day long!! The neighbors no longer live in the house next door it is empty. There were cars parked on both sides of the street from about 9 am-7 pm on Saturday. Made a blind spot from backing out of my driveway I also have a new driver and it made him very nervous to back out of our driveway in fear he would hit a car that he could not see. It made it very dangerous driving conditions on that end of Alan Dale. Cars were also parking in Clubhouse parking lot as well. Not that it is big deal but if the clubhouse had been rented it would have been less parking for the home owners who rented it. In the past they have sent emergency vehicles down the street to see if they were able to fit between all the cars THEY WERE NOT! My husband and I are available to meet with parks and rec and police department anytime after 4:00 pm during the week or first thing in the morning on weekdays. Here is my contact info: 3 Please feel free to give me a call if you have any other questions or need to discuss scheduling. I may be able to have another neighbor join us in the meeting as well. There are only 4 houses on that end of Alan Dale 1 is empty, 1 is us, 1 is going up for sale very soon(they are moving out of state) and the other is the neighbor with all the great Christmas lights (he may be the one interested in coming to the meeting. - Ordinance No. 2017-____ Page 1 Ordinance No. 2017-_____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS REGULATING ON-STREET PARKING NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. Title 6, Chapter 2, Section 2, of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by deleting the following: 6-2-2: PARKING PROHIBITED ON DESIGNATED STREETS: ALAN DALE LANE A “no parking” zone shall be created on the east side of Alan Dale Lane from McMurtrie Way to Faxon Road, to be effective Monday through Friday, between the hours of five o'clock (5:00) P.M. until nine o'clock (9:00) P.M. during the months of April, May, June, and July ALAN DALE LANE A “no parking” zone shall be created on the east side of Alan Dale Lane from Faxon Road to Alice Avenue. Section 2. Title 6, Chapter 2, Section 2, of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding the following: ALAN DALE LANE A “no parking” zone shall be created on the east side of Alan Dale Lane from McMurtrie Way to Alice Avenue. Section 3. If any Section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of ____________________, 2017. ______________________________ CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 2017-____ Page 2 CARLO COLOSIMO ________ KEN KOCH ________ JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI ________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER ________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER ________ JOEL FRIEDERS ________ SEAVER TARULIS ________ DIANE TEELING ________ Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of ____________________, 2017. ____________________________________ MAYOR Summary Consideration of an ordinance restricting parking on the east side of Alan Dale Lane between Faxon Rd and McMurtrie Ave. Background This item was last discussed by the City Council at the June 24 meeting. At that meeting, the City Council directed City staff to send letters to residents adjacent to the proposed parking restriction, inviting them to a future Public Works Committee meeting. A sample letter is attached. Staff has received no email comments prior to the meeting. Residents may be in attendance at the meeting to provide feedback in person. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Memorandum To: City Council From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: Date: August 14, 2014 Subject: Parking Restrictions in Whispering Meadows Ordinance No. 2014-____ Page 1 Ordinance No. 2014-_____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS REGULATING ON-STREET PARKING NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. Title 6, Chapter 2, Section 2, of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by deleting the following: 6-2-2: PARKING PROHIBITED ON DESIGNATED STREETS: ALAN DALE LANE A “no parking” zone shall be created on the east side of Alan Dale Lane from McMurtrie Way to Faxon Road, to be effective Monday through Friday, between the hours of five o'clock (5:00) P.M. until nine o'clock (9:00) P.M. during the months of April, May, June, and July ALAN DALE LANE A “no parking” zone shall be created on the east side of Alan Dale Lane from Faxon Road to Alice Avenue. Section 2. Title 6, Chapter 2, Section 2, of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding the following: ALAN DALE LANE A “no parking” zone shall be created on the east side of Alan Dale Lane from McMurtrie Way to Alice Avenue. Section 3. If any Section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this _____ day of ____________________, 2014. ______________________________ CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 2014-____ Page 2 CARLO COLOSIMO ________ KEN KOCH ________ JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI ________ LARRY KOT ________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER ________ JOEL FRIEDERS ________ ROSE ANN SPEARS ________ DIANE TEELING ________ Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this _____ day of ____________________, 2014. ____________________________________ MAYOR Page 1 of 5 APPROVED 5/19/2015 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Tuesday, April 21, 2015, 6:00pm Yorkville City Hall, Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road IN ATTENDANCE: Committee Members Chairman Diane Teeling Alderman Jackie Milschewski Alderman Ken Koch Alderman Larry Kot Other City Officials City Administrator Bart Olson Public Works Director Eric Dhuse Engineer Brad Sanderson, EEI Other Guests: Jeff Freeman, EEI Bryan Hernandez, Whispering Meadows The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Chairman Diane Teeling. Citizen Comments: Mr. Hernandez gave a brief comment about issues with parking on his street. This item under Old Business was brought forward on the agenda. Previous Meeting Minutes: February 17, 2015 The minutes were approved as presented on a motion by Alderman Koch and second by Alderman Milschewski. Voice vote approval. Old Business: (out of sequence) 1. CC 2014-59 Parking Restrictions in Whispering Meadows a. Alan Dale – East Side of Alan Dale Lane between Faxon Road and McMurtrie Ave. b. Winterberry Bryan Hernandez of 411 Winterberry Dr. was present and said he had petitioned to have 'no parking' on Winterberry Dr. as it creates a safety issue on the cul-de-sac. Parked cars force drivers into the other Page 2 of 5 traffic lane creating a hazard. Mr. Olson referred to a map that Mr. Hernandez provided, that further explained the problem. Staff agreed there should be no parking on the north and west part of the street curve. If the committee and Council agree, letters would be sent to nearby residents. This moves to the Public Works portion of the Council agenda. Discussion turned to Alan Dale Lane and Mr. Olson said no further complaints have surfaced after it was tabled in October following baseball games. However, a resident there is still asking to not have restrictions due to handicapped needs and Staff has agreed. Alderman Koch reminded the committee that the Aldermen in that Ward also asked for no further action. Mr. Olson said there are many other similar areas in the City. Parking situations should be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than “blanket” changes, said Alderman Teeling. New Business: 1. PW 2015-07 Lighthouse Academy-Acceptance of Sidewalk Mr. Sanderson said all work is complete and he recommended acceptance of the sidewalk and release of the security funds. The committee approved and it moves to consent. 2. PW 2015-08 Route 47 ITEP - Streetlights a. Joint Agreement b. Phase III Engineering Agreement IDOT has approved Phase III engineering plans and bids are expected in June, with installation in November. The Agreement between the State and City outlines the spending. Alderman Koch questioned the amount of time required since it starts in November. The project will not be delayed due to weather since the bases are in and only bolting is needed. This moves to the consent agenda. 3. PW 2015-09 Ridge Street Watermain Improvements – Contract Award Thirteen bids were received for this project and it was awarded to Plainfield Grading & Excavating, the lowest bidder at $284,373 and below the engineering estimate. This watermain is the oldest in town, with minimal breaks, but is being done in conjunction with road repair. It will improve quality of water pressure. Alderman Kot asked if the number of bids was due to being earlier in the season. Mr. Sanderson said it was and that contractors are lining up work for the year. Mr. Olson commented that the bid will result in a savings of $80,000 in the budget. This item moves to the consent agenda. 4. PW 2015-10 Route 34 (Eldamain to Center) – Preliminary Concurrence The State compiled a cost estimate and is seeking approval of the City's share of $454,000. Bids will not occur until 2017. Mr. Olson said this item is not budgeted at this time, but some leftover funds from Kendall Marketplace can be used so the share should be less than $454,000. In response to Ms. Milschewski, a new 4-lane bridge will be constructed over Blackberry Creek. This moves forward to City Council for a vote. 5. PW 2015-11 Kendall County Transportation Alternatives Program (KC-TAP)-Route 47 Sidewalks Mr. Olson stated this is the third grant agreement through the County for $5,000 for sidewalks. The City will submit costs for reimbursement. The County also urged the City to apply for the remaining $35,000 for which it is eligible. This moves forward to the consent agenda. Page 3 of 5 6. PW 2015-12 MFT Appropriation Resolution for Public Works Storage Shed Plans are being finalized for a storage shed resulting from a grant and MFT funds. An MFT resolution must be approved to use the MFT funds. The committee approved this and it moves forward to the consent agenda. 7. PW 2015-13 Game Farm Road - Somonauk Street Project – Supplemental Paving Work Geneva Construction was contacted regarding improvements on Somonauk St. since they are already working on Game Farm Road. A quote of $18,803 was received and Mr. Sanderson and Mr. Olson recommended proceeding with this work scheduled for July or August. The road is held together with patches at this time. Chairman Teeling asked when the Game Farm Road and Rt. 34 intersection will be open—it is scheduled for mid-June and the entire project will be done in November. Paving will be complete on Rt. 47 in 3-4 weeks. Labor Day is the targeted completion date for 34 and 47. This item moves to the consent agenda. 8. PW 2015-14 Game Farm Road – Somonauk Street Project – Electrical Work Com Ed recently informed the City that additional electric work is needed to run new service to the grade school. R & R Electrical Contractors submitted the lowest bid at $38,417 and Mr. Sanderson recommended acceptance. Mr. Kot noted this would cut into some of the anticipated savings. This moves to the consent agenda. 9. PW 2015-15 Game Farm Road – Somonuak Street Project - Update Mr. Sanderson gave an update of the work being done. Ms. Teeling asked how garbage pickups are being made. It has been coordinated with the company and an endloader is being used if the location is inaccessible. Residents are able to use their driveways each night. Further updates will be made. 10. PW 2015-16 Road to Beter Roads – 5 Year Plan – Update Highlights of a PowerPoint presentation were given by Mr. Sanderson. He gave a general update of the condition of 107 miles of roadway in the City and said that $1.3 million was spent on improvements in 2013/2014. He said the Cannonball/Kennedy Road project was funded by Pulte and other projects were funded by bond funds or developer funds. Rehab timelines will be established and the 5-year plan updated. This plan does not include the streets in Countryside, Mill, Kennedy or Baseline. Funding for the streets in Countryside will be on the water bills. Costs are updated on an annual basis and projects clustered to obtain the best price. He said next year's program will include streets north of the river and in 2017, south of the river. Alderman Kot asked if bids on streets adjacent to defined projects would still be considered. He said Washington St. is in poor condition and it will be considered along with some underground repair. He also asked about Freemont Street and some improvements will be made there next year. This Plan will move to Council for discussion and adoption and it will be posted on the website so residents can view the progress. Page 4 of 5 Old Business: (Item #1 discussed earlier in meeting) 2. PW 2014-82 Water Study Discussion Jeff Freeman was present to give an overview of the water study. Mr. Olson said $260,000 is in the budget for next fiscal year for this study. Alderman Koch said the study needs to be budgeted, even though the Countryside street project needs to be done. Alderman Funkhouser had suggested breaking the water study monetary requirements into 4 or 5 different contracts/chunks of money. Mr. Olson said the scope of the study would be about 24 months and the money could be split between fiscal years. Alderman Kot said the project is an important study and Mr. Dhuse said a long-term plan is needed. Mr. Sanderson said a cost analysis needs to be done and other factors considered. He said any decision about the use of river water is in the future and also that Lake Michigan is not an option at this time. He added that water shortfalls have been identified for 2020. Mr. Freeman said it would take 8-10 years to put in a river intake or lake extension. Mr. Olson stated there are two different studies: the City and regional. He and Mr. Freeman explained the different facets of the studies and said the 3 municipalities (Yorkville, Oswego and Yorkville) would have to reach agreements. The committee agreed the study was necessary and should be kept in the budget. It will be discussed further at the Council level. Additional Business: 1. A resident contacted Alderman Kot regarding the rough train tracks at Mill & Heustis. Mr. Dhuse said the spur line is rough and the railroad will be contacted as the City has no jurisdiction. Mr. Kot said that with the coming festivals, he would like the issue pushed. Alderman Milschewski added the recently dropped railroad ties reduce the sight distance. 2. Alderman Kot said the road to the kayak business is very rough. The City grades it and it will be paved eventually if a grant is received, said Mr. Dhuse. The City is proceeding with a railroad lease agreement. 3. Mr. Kot said there is a gravel spot at McHugh and Jackson. It will be hot-patched very soon. 4. Crosswalks were discussed and some are not marked yet since they are not finished. Mr. Kot said the west side of the bridge was not conducive for walking. Mr. Dhuse said it is not roped off and people can still technically walk there and that it was torn up today. 5. A resident called Alderman Koch about the overgrowth on Fox Road near White Oak. Mr. Koch said there are branches that need to be cleaned up. Mr. Dhuse said the property owner lives in Chicago and he should be contacted. He added the branches are hanging on the lower wires which are Comcast. Mr. Koch asked for some communication with the resident and Mr. Olson will contact him. 6. “Caution-Children” signs were requested by Alderman Koch for Windett Ridge Road. He said the kids in the subdivision walk to the middle school since there is no bus stop. Mr. Olson said the City has to consider if the signs will be effective and that sometimes sign pollution can occur reducing the intended impact. It was recommended that the HOA not place a sign due to possible liability. Page 5 of 5 7. Alderman Teeling asked if the grant for the shared path on Kennedy Road is a federal grant. The second grant is through the IDNR. The application was submitted and project awards will be made in October. There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 7:33pm. Minutes respectfully transcribed by Marlys Young, Minute Taker