Public Works Packet 2003 07-28-03 N 0-<1 United City of Yorkville
q i
County S
EST./4 eat of Kendall County
1836
�� 800 Game Farm Road
C Yorkville,
O I"al \ O Phone:630-553-4350Illinois60560
"? e.7,1,:::" _
l-- Fax:630-553-7575
���E ‘�v PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA
Monday, July 28, 2003
7:00 PM
City Hall Conference Room
Revised: 7/25/03
Approval/Correction of Minutes: April 28, 2003
Presentations: None
New Business:
1. Dickson Court - Results of Bid Opening
2. Update of 5-Year Capital Improvement Program
3. NPDES Phase 2 Storm Water Requirements
4. Route 34/Game Farm Road Traffic Signal - Change Order No. 2
5. Truck Purchases
6. Leaf Vacuum
7. In-Town Road Program
Old Business:
1.. None
Additional Business:
United City of Yorkville
-n
1County Seat of Kendall County
EST. ®1836
800 Game Farm Road
V) Yorkville,Illinois 60560
Q Q Phone:630-553-4350
I k. n v$' Fax:630-553-7575
`4
LE \\' PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA
Monday, July 28, 2003
7:00 PM
City Hall Conference Room
Approval/Correction of Minutes: April 28, 2003
Presentations: None
New Business:
1. Dickson Court - Results of Bid Opening
2. Update of 5-Year Capital Improvement Program
3. NPDES Phase 2 Storm Water Requirements
4. Route 34/Game Farm Road Traffic Signal - Change Order No. 2
5. Truck Purchases
6. Leaf Vacuum
Old Business:
1. None
Additional Business:
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
To: Tony Graff, City Administra or
From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
Subject: In-Town Road Program
Date: July 25, 2003
Attached find one copy of the revised final report from Smith Engineering for the In-Town
Road Program. The report was revised by adding Orange Street (Main to Bridge), E. Main
(Bruen to Bridge), and Center Street(west end to Bridge). Smith has recommended that all
of these additional streets be rehabilitated by pulverizing the existing asphalt surface and
mixing it with the aggregate base, then compacting that new base and overlaying with a new
asphalt surface. This is the most common type of recommended rehabilitation for the In-
Town Road Program. Smith is also recommending some minor storm sewer construction on
West Orange Street, and more extensive storm sewer systems on E. Main(between Bridge
and Liberty) all of Center Street.
The revised total cost for engineering and construction of roadway and utility improvements
as recommended would be around $3,560,000. For comparison purposes, the cost of new
construction would be around $6,050,000. Please refer to the attached spreadsheet for a
more detailed breakdown of costs. Adding the streets mentioned above has increased the
total program cost by around $790,000.
Please place this item on the July 28, 2003 Public Works Committee agenda for discussion.
Cc: Traci Pleckham, Director of Finance
II
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost-Summary
City of Yorkville
2003 Road Program
Maintenance Improvement Reconstruction Improvement
Section Number Street Name Roadway Construction Stormwater Costs I Watermain Costs I Total Roadway Construction I Stormwater Costs I Watermain Costs I Total
I II I I I I II I I I I
1 Hydraulic $ 58,955.68 $ 29,406.25 $ - $ 88,361.931 $ 109,650.00 $ 29,406.25 $ - $ 139,056.25
Van Emmon $ 93,269.20 $ 25,000.00 $ - $ 118,269.20 $ 120,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ - $ 145,000.00
Madison $ 115,625.73 $ 25,000.00 $ - $ 140,625.73 $ 275,700.00 $ 25,000.00 $ - $ 300,700.00
Morgan $ 42,949.25 $ 65,937.50 $ - $ 108,886.75 $ 90,000.00 $ 65,937.50 $ - $ 155,937.50
Adams $ 136,771.78 $ 69,875.00 $ 52,075.00 $ 258,721.78 $ 294,900.00 $ 69,875.00 $ 52,075.00 $ 416,850.00
Section 1 Total $ 447,571.64 $ 215,218.75 $ 52,075.00 $ 714,865.39 $ 890,250.00 $ 215,218.75 $ 52,075.00 $ 1,157,543.75
I II I I I I II I I I I
2 Mill $ 366,000.00 $ 71,875.00 $ - $ 437,875.00 $ 366,000.00 $ 71,875.00 $ - $ 437,875.00
Heustis $ 144,959.50 $ 82,725.00 $ 109,145.00 $ 336,829.50 $ 356,580.00 $ 82,725.00 $ 109,145.00 $ 548,450.00
Fox $ 95,788.50 $ - $ 55,225.00 $ 151,013.50 $ 180,900.00 $ - $ 55,225.00 $ 236,125.00
Washington $ 86,044.13 $ - $ 46,850.00 $ 132,894.13 $ 155,400.00 $ - $ 46,850.00 $ 202,250.00
Orange $ 164,871.15 $ 102,625.00 $ - $ 267,496.15 $ 425,100.00 $ 102,625.00 $ - $ 527,725.00
Section 2 Total $ 857,663.28 $ 257,225.00 $ 211,220.00 $ 1,326,108.28 $ 1,483,980.00 $ 257,225.00 $ 211,220.00 $ 1,952,425.00
I II I I I I II I I I I
3 Colton $ 118,111.00 $ 80,581.25 $ - $ 198,692.25 $ 332,790.00 $ 80,581.25 $ - $ 413,371.25
Liberty $ 144,381.10 $ 111,672.50 $ - $ 256,053.60 $ 455,025.00 $ 111,672.50 $ - $ 566,697.50
Center $ 303,106.50 $ 168,312.50 $ - $ 471,419.00 $ 753,900.00 $ 168,312.50 $ - $ 922,212.50
Main $ 461,200.13 $ 136,250.00 $ - $ 597,450.13 $ 906,300.00 $ 136,250.00 $ - $ 1,042,550.00
Section 3 Total $ 1,026,798.73 $ 496,816.25 $ - $ 1,523,614.98 $ 2,448,015.00 $ 496,816.25 $ - $ 2,944,831.25
I II I I I I II I I I 1
I Ilorand Total I$ 2,332,033.65 I$ 969,260.00;$ 263,295.00 I$ 3,564,588.65 11$ 4,822,245.00 I$ 969,260.00 I$ 263,295.00 I$ 6,054,800.00 I
Page 1 of 5
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING DRAFT
MONDAY,APRIL 28,2003
6:30 P.M.
In Attendance:
Mayor Art Prochaska
Alderman Joe Besco
Alderman Richard Sticka
Public Works Director Eric Dhuse
City Engineer Joe Wywrot
Guests:
Tom Muth of Fox Metro
Approval/Corrections of Minutes
There were none.
PRESENTATIONS: FOX RIVER STUDY GROUP
Fox Metro Representative Tom Muth stated that Fox Metro got involved with the Fox Study
Group 2 1/2 years ago because the water quality problems in the Fox River. At that time there were
water quality problems at north of Moose Heart and south of Elgin. Since that time there have
been more samples analysis performed in the whole Fox River and chamber lakes all the way
down to where it empties out into the all mighty river. It is on what is called the 303D list and a
TMDO (Total Maximum Daily Loads)must be performed. He said that they know that Fox
Metro and other water reclamation districts that if there is an inkling amount of water quality
problems then they are at a great loss because they are the point source. Because they are highly
regulated any problems with the Fox River they try to make the regulations more stringent. With
regard to that they have decided that they are going to become proactive. Being pro-active they
are sitting at the same table as the environmental people as the Sierra Club, IEPA, municipalities
such as Aurora, Geneva, St. Charles and Batavia. Mr. Muth said that to be able to get on the 303D
list there could be one sample that the IEPA took where there was over an extended period of
time and now that sample was now with in their water quality criteria. They had a lot of quality
violation that are on this list and knowing that they decided as a water reclamation district, that
the City of Yorkville might have seen sampling being done on Rout 47 bridge every Tuesday
morning. The samples have been taken every two weeks for a year now. They have accumulated
an enormous amount of data about the Fox River. The samples taken over this year's time are in
the same perimeters of what has transpired in a year's period. That data is being utilized as part of
that Fox Valley Study. With Metro being involved with this study there are 4 phases that are
being performed:
PHASE I
A critical comprehensive review of existing water quality and land base data. It is a copulation of
everything that has been done in the past years and then observed to see what is the condition is.
The IEPA is paying for this at the cost of$160,000.
PHASE II
Is the design and implement water shed model which involves a computerized comprehensive
type of computer generated mechanism. It checks the flow base, accepts and distributes data, how
high flow reacts with dams and what the water quality is at low levels, it looks at the side streams
that flow in and what type of water quality they produce, and how growth can affect it. It also
v-
Page 2 of 5
checks the storm water discharge. Basically it takes the model and tells you what the problems
are and what type of loadings that they are able to generate in specific areas so that positive water
flow will continue.
Phase III & IV
These phases involve the water shed model collaboration, implementation and application. Mr.
Muth stated that phases II, III, and IV will cost 1.4 million dollars. They are currently seeking to
find grants to fund this. They have recently found a 501 C3 with a non-profit organization. In
order for them to get a grant they have got to be able to put 1/4 of the money down. They could do
in-kind services in which Fox Metro and Fox Road WRD are doing right now. They are using
their personnel and lab to analyze results and all the perimeters as is the Fox River WRD. They
have petitioned the city of Aurora and Yorkville District Sanitary District, both of which have
past resolutions approving per-capita increase. On Aurora's behalf they are 50 cents per capita
and they will allocate money in their budget that would be appropriate for this group. YDSD has
allocated by resolution a 1/4 per their capita.The benefits to Yorkville would be that the cleaner
the water is up stream, then the cleaner it will be for Yorkville's use. What ever the stringent
water regulations might be, the more the City of Yorkville would benefit from it.
Mr. Muth mentioned that Fox Metro has been very involved with the State Association because
the environmental groups have become very active with regulatory groups. These groups
sometimes can have an affect on the decision makers. Fox Metro has also become very active
beside them so that they can have control over their own future. He said that they use all aspects
of technology to add quality services which is a great benefit to the City of Yorkville.
Alderman Richard Sticka asked if the study would include the impact of the removal of dams.
Mr. Muth said that it would because of the Fox River's uniqueness with the great amount of dams
that it has. In this study they will look at all aspects of what could affect river water quality. The
modeling will take into account what the growth will do. It will set limits as to what the discharge
rates can do.
Alderman Sticka asked if Fox Metro would be asking the community to make a money
contribution. Mr. Muth said yes that all the communities have that petition of the water shed.
Alderman Sticka pointed out that that would be about 25 cents per capita per year. Alderman
Sticka felt that it would behoove the City to participate in anything that affects the river since it is
such a critical part of our lives. Both Mayor Prochasaka and Alderman Sticka felt that they City
should participate in the river study.
Mr. Muth said that Fox Metro could make up a draft resolution. The resolution will be sent to
Attorney Dan Kramer for review.
This item will go to COW on May 6, 2003.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mill/Van Emmon Watermain—License Agreement for Crossing Illinois Railnet
City Engineer Joe Wywrot explained the need for the license agreement.He said that this is the
first of what will be a standard procedure. He said that EEI prepared the document after they
received information from the Illinois Railnet. He recommended sending this item forward.
This item will go to COW on May 6, 2003.
Page 3 of 5
Water Report for January 2003
Public Works Director Eric Dhuse stated that there was nothing unusual in this report. He pointed
out that there were a couple service leaks in January and February.
This item will go to COW on May 6, 2003.
Bruell Street Pump Station—Design Engineering Services
Mr. Wywrot stated that this is the design and infrastructure with Deuchler to proceed with the
project.
This item will go to COW on May 6, 2003.
City Hall Parking Lot—Results of Bid Offering
Mr. Wywrot pointed out that these numbers are better and with in the budget. This item will go to
COW on May 6, 2003.
Proposed Hires for FY 03/04
Mr. Dhuse passed a memo to the committee from Finance Director Traci Pleckham. Mr. Dhuse
explained that he needed the hires to train someone to run the new plants when they open in the
near future.
Alderman Sticka felt that they would need to be sure that the money would be there to be able to
finance it before they approve it.
Mayor Prochaska suggested that they further discuss this subject in a meeting with Mrs.
Pleckham and City Administrator Tony Graff.
This item will be sent to the next available COW after the meeting.
Well 7 Backup Generator
Mr. Dhuse explained that the item was a summary of the new water system. He pointed out on the
map that it would be the entire infrastructure in its place. He said that they are contemplating a
backup generator at Well 7. He said it was suggested to him that instead of a generate:, to put in a
manual-transfer switch at Wells 3, 4, and 7. That allows capabilities to hook up to a mobile
generator. He said that the step-ups are $80,000 each. The generator is around$250,000.
Alderman Besco thought that they should see if they could get help from developers to finance
this project.
Alderman Sticka felt that they should try ways of using more functional items. He thought the
manual one aught to be put in first and the automatic generator could be added later if needed.
Mr. Dhuse asked if the manual-transfer switches should be put in at Wells 3, 4, and 7. Mayor
Prochaska thought it should be verified if the tower had the capability to serve in that location,
then the switches would not be needed. Mr. Dhuse said that he would get verification for that
from Jeff Freeman.
An update will be brought back to committee when it is received.
Page 4 of 5
Van Emmon Watermain Easements
Mr. Wywrot stated that they need easements at to put hydrants in on Van Emmon. He said that he
spoke with the bank and they do intend to sign the easements.
This item will go to COW once Mr. Wywrot receives the signed easements.
Crack Filling Project—Establish Bid Date
Mr. Wywrot said that the bid date would need to be pushed back, possibly to the last week of
May 28, 2003.
This item will go to COW on June 3, 2003.
Countryside Interceptor Engineering Agreement Amendment
Mr. Wywrot showed on a map that the existing interceptor that crosses Rout 34 stops at a
manhole west of Rob Roy Creek. The Countryside Interceptor will start at that manhole, across
the creek and onto Countryside onto the permanent lift station. He said that Deuchler Engineering
recommended that there should be another sewer installed. They felt it should be done while there
is work already being done in the creek corridor. This would also prevent from disturbing the
creek a second time. He felt that they should do it if they can find the funds for it.
Mayor Prochaska felt that the costs should come out of the Sewer Expansion Funds.
This item will go to COW on May 6, 2003.
OLD BUSINESS
Fox Hill Subdivision Acceptance—Update
Mr. Wywrot said that they had a very productive meeting with Paul Dresden and Marvin Gallar
and their attorney regarding the punch list. He said that they went through it item by item and
discussed it. He said that there are still some unresolved items but that they are very few. He has
also seen letters that show that they have addressed the issues with the sub-contractors and the
dead lines that must be met.
Geographic Information Study—EEI Proposal
Mr. Wywrot recommended this item to go to COW on May 6,2003.
Sunflower Estates Phase 2—Bond Reduction#1
Mr. Wywrot suggested this item to be sent to COW ob May 6,2003.
Woodworth Lift Station Update
Mr. Dhuse provided a drawing of the lift station and said that the drawing describes what they are
doing and how it is being done. He mentioned that they did get a second pump motor for the lift
station and they are now fully functional. He will seek approval of the invoices once they come
in.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Alderman Joe Wywrot said that they have a change order for the traffic signal to be put in at
Route 34. It is on the agenda for the next COW and the total costs are$2,000 which the City
share $150.00 of that total. He recommended approval.
Page 5 of 5
Mr. Wywrot said that on Mill Street there is a storm sewer that dumps down into the Fox River
that has an open joint and the ground water that has been flowing through that joint has been
carrying rust and a slight sheen of oil. Though they have had it tested and the water is in limits, it
still does not look good. He said that the Health Department has received complaints about it. He
said there are two proposals to seal it. One was $940 and the other was $4,700. They will go with
the cheaper of the two. It has been leaking since the retaining wall and culvert were put in there.
There are plans to seal it off and the proposal has already been approved.
Mr. Wywrot said that he received a supplemental engineering agreement from Smith
Engineering. At the previous Committee of the Whole the committee wanted to add 3 more
streets to the In Town Road Programming. The agreement is for the preliminary engineering for
the 3 streets. It is not to exceed $8,433. This item will go to COW on May 6, 2003. The project is
to be finished by May 30, 2003.
Mr. Wywrot mentioned that Dixon Court is currently being served by a 2-inch water main. He
said that the 2nd floors of the homes there are probably experiencing lower water pressure. The
fire hydrant that sits near there probably does not do much of anything. He said that he spoke
with property owners there to explain why they would need to put in a new water main there.
They were fine with that. They did make some suggestions for the easement agreement. They are
not happy with the York Meadow apartment complex there and would like to see a stock-aid
fence put in along there so they do not have to look at the garages located at the back of the
complex. It is about 500 ft. of frontage there. The approved plan for York Meadows does not call
for a fence but landscaping. The landscaping will fill in well there but it is not in yet. Stock—aid
fencing could run$15 a foot @ 500 ft. would cost$10,000. He said that he told the residents that
he would take it to the committee to see if they would agree. He said that they agreed to maintain
the fencing if it were put in.
Mayor Prochaska said that he doesn't mind working with the residence to get something done
there, but is not willing to pay tax payers money for the fencing. He suggested asking York
Meadows to help out with the costs.
This item will come back to the next Public Works meeting on May , 2003.
Meeting adjourned: 8:17 p.m.
Minutes by Theresa Brady
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
To: Tony Graff, City Administrat
From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer �►
Subject: Dickson Court Roadway Improvement•—Results of Bid Opening
Date: July 24, 2003
Bids were received on July 24, 2003 for construction of roadway improvements on Dickson
Court. This project includes curb replacement and sidewalk construction at various
locations, and repaving of the roadway. The following bids were received:
Meyer Paving, Inc. $ 64,659.46
50W363 Route 64
Maple Park, Illinois 60151
Aurora Blacktop, Inc. $ 70,725.75
1065 Sard Ave.
Montgomery, Illinois 60538
Johnson Blacktop, Inc. $ 76,341.64
825 Hicks Drive
Elburn, Illinois 60119
Engineer's Estimate $73,311.50
We contracted with Meyer Paving in 2000 for our Naden Court roadway project, which
turned out well. Based on the results of the bids, I recommend that we award the contract for
this project to Meyer Paving, Inc. for the bid amount of$64,659.46.
Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of July 28, 2003 for review.
Cc: Traci Pleckham, Director of Finance
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
To: Tony Gram City Administrat r
From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
Subject: 5-Year Capital Improvement rogram
Date: July 24, 2003
Attached find proposed revisions to last year's 5-year Capital Improvement Program.
This list also shows projects completed or planned for the current fiscal year. Multi-year
projects are listed with their total cost only in the year they are scheduled to begin, unless
they will be constructed as separate, phased projects. All project costs are for
construction and related construction engineering unless indicated otherwise. Debt
service for past projects are no longer listed as separate projects. The attached schedule is
a first draft, and I would like to get input from the Public Works Committee before
recalculating project costs. Proposed revisions to last year's approved plan are as follows:
Water
• The Van Emmon Watermain Replacement scheduled for 06-07 was incorporated
into the 03-04 Mil/Van Emmon Watermain project.
• The Apple Tree Court Watermain project was added in Year 03-04 to coincide
with the Apple Tree Court roadway project.
• The State Street Watermain 04-05 project and the State/Beecher/Main Watermain
05-06 project would be merged and become the 05-06 State Street Watermain
project.
• Watermain replacement projects on Adams, Fox, Heustis, and Washington would
be added to coincide with the street projects in these areas.
• Well No. 6 and its treatment plant would be pushed back 3 years due to lack of
sanitary sewers at the North Tower site.
• The Main Street Watermain Replacement project would be added in Year 08-09
to replace this 100-year old watermain.
Sanitary
• The Blackberry Creek Interceptor project was renamed as the Countryside
Interceptor and Lift Station.
• The 412 Center Parkway Service Replacement was merged into the Countryside
Interceptor and Lift Station project.
• The Wooddale Lift Station project was renamed as the Bruell Street Lift Station.
• The Hydraulic Ave. Interceptor Replacement became a city project.
• Rob Roy Creek Interceptor design engineering would be moved up one year to
accommodate anticipated demand.
• Construction of the Rob Roy Creek Interceptor would be split into phases to be
constructed over three years, from 04-05 to 06-07.
• Projects for Miscellaneous Sewer Repairs and Extensions would be added in Year
08-09.
Streets
• Van Emmon Street Overlay(Ball Field to Route 47)was added in Year 04-05.
This is joint MFT project, with Kendall County being the lead agency,
• The Countryside Parkway(Center Pkwy to E. Kendall)project was pushed back
one year due to construction of the Countryside Interceptor and Lift Station
project. This project would also be merged with the Countryside Parkway(W.
Kendall to Center Pkwy)project, which was already programmed for Year 04-05.
• Game Farm Road Phase 1 Engineering and ROW acquisition was moved up one
year. This is a federally funded project, and FHWA requirements result in a slow,
methodical design process that can take years to complete. We should begin work
on this project, therefore, so that construction can occur before the road
deteriorates to an unacceptable level.
• The 2002 Road Program was renamed to the In-Town Road Program and
separated into three distinct project areas, those being southwest, southeast, and
northeast. Phase 1 is the southeast area, Phase 2 is the southwest area, and Phase 3
is the northeast area. This program calls for roadway construction to lag utility
construction by one year, making this a 4-year construction program I
recommend that we will pledge a substantial portion of General Funds to this
program each year in an effort to keep our debt down. We would be able to
resume individual General Fund project construction in Year 08-09. In the
interim, we will still be working on other roads in town using MFT funds.
• The Year 07-08 East Main Street project was merged with the In-Town Roadway
program.
• Two individual street projects would be added for Year 08-09. The MFT project
would be East Kendall Drive and Muihern Court. The General Fund project
would be the streets in Countryside Subdivision Units 8 & 9. These streets are
Hillcrest Avenue, Leisure Street, and those parts of Sunset Avenue and Prairie
Lane north of Pleasure Drive.
• The reconstruction of Bristol Ridge Road,Kennedy Road, and Mill Road adjacent
to the Grande Reserve subdivision were added to the program.
• Sidewalk replacement funding would be increased from $15,000/yr to $35,000/yr.
We have included some new sidewalk construction in our annual sidewalk project
for the past several years, and this increase in funding would formally commit to
continuing that pattern.
• Funding for crack filling would be increased by $10,000/year to place more
emphasis on proactive maintenance.
Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of July 28, 2003 for
discussion.
cc: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
Traci Pleckham, Director of Finance
7/24/03
Proposed Water Capital Improvement Program
Year Project Estimated Cost
03-04 a)Booster Station&Watermain to North Tower $1,235,000
b)Water Treatment Plant $9,970,000
c)Well No. 3 Raw Watermain $
d)Mill/Van Emmon Watermain $
e)Liberty Street Watermain $
f) South Tower Construction $
g) South Booster Station $
h) South Pressure Reducing Station $
i)Well No. 7 $
j)Well No. 7 Treatment Plant $
k)EEI Design Engineering for future projects $
I) Apple Tree Court Watermain $ 40,000
04-05 a)Well No. 4 Rehabilitation $
b)Fox/Washington Watermain Replacement $ 105,000
c)Heustis Watermain Replacement $ 110,000
05-06 a) State Street Watermain $
b) Game Farm/Somonauk Road Watermains $ 65,000
c) Adams Street Watermain Replacement $ 55,000
06-07 a) Well No. 6 $ 836,000
b)Well No. 6 Treatment Plant $
07-08 South Tower Painting $ 100,000
08-09 Main Street Watermain Replacement $
SUB-TOTAL $
7/24/03
Proposed Sanitary Capital Improvement Program
Year Project Estimated Cost -
03-04 a)Countryside Interceptor&Lift Station $
b)Bruell Lift Station $
c)Hydraulic Ave. Interceptor $
d)Rob Roy Creek Interceptor(design) $
04-05 a)Rob Roy Creek Interceptor(Phase 1) $
05-06 a)Rob Roy Creek Interceptor(Phase 2) $
b) Game Farm Road Sanitary Sewer Repairs $ 10,000
06-07 Rob Roy Creek Interceptor(Phase 3) $
07-08 a)Miscellaneous Repairs $ 30,000
b) Sewer Extensions $ 150,000
$ 180,000
08-09 a)Miscellaneous Repairs $ 30,000
b) Sewer Extensions $ 150,000
$ 180,000
SUB-TOTAL $
7124/03
Proposed Street Capital Improvement Program
•
Year Project Estimated Cost
03-04 a)Asphalt Pavement Treatment $ 32,000
b) Sidewalk Replacement Program $ 35,000
c) Crack Sealing(MFT) $ 22,000
d) Apple Tree Ct. $ 44,000
e)Dickson Ct. $ 75,000
f) City Hall Parking Lot $ 83,000
g) In-Town Road Program (Phase 1)Design $ 50,000
$
04-05 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $ 40,000
b) Sidewalk Replacement Program $ 35,000
c) Crack Sealing(MET) $ 30,000
d)Van Emmon Street Overlay(Ball Fields to Route 47) $100,000
e) Countryside Pkwy(W. Kendall to E. Kendall) -MFT $260,000
f) Cannonball Trail overlay(Rt. 34 to 2500' north) $100,000
g) In-Town Road Program(Phase 1)Utilities $
h) In-Town Road Program(Phase 2)Design $
i)Bristol Ridge Road (Rt.34 to Kennedy) $
j) Game Farm Road (Phase lEngineering)-MFT $100,000
k) Game Farm Road (ROW)—MFT $ 10,000
05-06 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $ 50,000
b) Sidewalk Replacement Program $ 35,000
c) Crack Sealing (MET) $ 40,000
d)Palmer Court $ 60,000
e) In-Town Road Program(Phase 1)—Roadway $
f) In-Town Road Program(Phase 2) -Utilities $ 50,000
g)In-Town Road Program(Phase 3)—Design $
h)Kennedy Road(Bristol Ridge to RR tracks) $
i) Game Farm Road (Phase 2 Engineering)-MFT $
7/24/03
Proposed Street Capital Improvement Program
06-07 a)Asphalt Pavement Treatment $ 50,000
b) Sidewalk Replacement Program $ 35,000
c) Crack Sealing(MFT) $ 40,000
d)Powers Ct. (MFT) $ 60,000
e)In-Town Road Program(Phase 2)-Roadway $250,000
f)In-Town Road Program(Phase 3)—Utilities $
g)Kennedy Road(RR tracks to Galena) $
h)Mill Road(Kennedy to east end Grande Reserve) $
i)Game Farm Road(Construction)—MFT& STP $400,000
07-08 a) Asphalt Pavement Treatment $ 50,000
b) Sidewalk Replacement Program $ 35,000
c) Crack Sealing(MFT) $ 40,000
d) Strawberry Lane/Conover Ct. (MFT) $100,000
e) In-Town Road Program(Phase 3)-Roadway $250,000
f)Kennedy Road (Bristol Ridge to west end of $
Grande Reserve) $
08-09 a)Asphalt Pavement Treatment $ 50,000
b) Sidewalk Replacement Program $ 35,000
c) Crack Sealing(MFT) $ 40,000
d)E. Kendall Drive&Mulhern Court- MFT $
e) Countryside Subdivision Units 8& 9 $
SUB-TOTAL $
MFT -Project to be funded either wholly or in part with MFT funds
STP—Federal project (75%/25% split). Dollar amount listed is 100% of cost.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, P.O. Box 19276, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9276, 217-782-3397
JAMES R.THOMPSON CENTER, 100 WEST RANDOLPH, SUITE 1 1-300, CHICAGO, IL 60601, 312-814-6026
ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, GOVERNOR RENEE CIPRIANO, DIRECTOR
217/782-0610
June 30, 2003
Re: NONCOMPLIANCE ADVISORY LETTER-NPDES Phase 1I Storm Water Program for
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of Municipalities Listed in the 1990 & 2000
Census
Dear Urban Area Entity:
Your entity has been listed in the latest Decennial Census by the Bureau of the Census as being in an
urbanized area. This means that if your entity operates a small municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4), you are required to submit a Notice of Intent(N01) application for NPDES permit coverage. This
application was to have been submitted by you to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency(Illinois
EPA) by March 10, 2003. To date, the Illinois EPA has not received an NPDES permit application for
your entity. In order to help you determine whether or not you have an MS4, definitions for"Small
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System", "Conveyance", and other pertinent terms from the Federal
Register are included as an Attachment to this letter.
The Illinois EPA requests that your entity submit an application for NPDES permit coverage within 45
days of the date of this letter. Also attached is a copy of the NOI application form for small MS4s. We
have a computer input NOI form that is also available on our website at www.epa.state.il.us. To request
forms by telephone, call the Permit Section at(217) 782-0610. E-mail requests should be addressed to
marilyn.davenport(a)epa.state.il.us.
If you have any questions or need any assistance, please contact Marilyn Davenport at the above
telephone number and address.
Very truly yours,
To Frevert, P.E.
Manager
Division of Water Pollution Control
TF: SAK:MED:ms4reminderltr
Enclosure
cc: Records Unit
Regional Offices
ROCKFORD-4302 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61 103-1815)987-7760 • DES PLAINES-9511 W. Harrison St., Des Plaines, IL 60016-(847)294-4000
ELGIN—595 South State,Elgin,IL 60123-(847)608-3131 • PEORIA-5415 N.University St.,Peoria, IL 61614-(309)693-5463
BUREAU OF LAND-PEORIA-7620 N. University St.,Peoria,IL 61614—(309)693-5462 • CHAMPAIGN-2125 South First Street,Champaign,IL 61820-(21 7)278-5800
SPRINGFIELD-4500 S.Sixth Street Rd.,Springfield, IL 62706-(21 7) 786-6892 • COLLINSVILLE-2009 Mall Street,Collinsville, IL 62234-(618)346-5120
MARION-2309 W.Main St.,Suite 116,Marion, IL 62959-(618)993-7200
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
PART VI. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS (SEE ALSO SPECIAL CONDITIONS)
All definitions contained in Section 502 of the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR 122, and 35 I11. Adm. Code 309 shall apply to
this permit and are incorporated herein by reference. For convenience, simplified explanations of some
regulatory/statutory definitions have been provided, but in the event of a conflict, the definition found in the statute or
regulation takes precedence.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures,
and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the state. BMPs also include treatment
requirements. operating procedures. and practices to control runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or
drainage from raw material storage.
BMP is an acronym for"Best Management Practices."
CFR is an acronym for"Code of Federal Regulations."
Control pleasure as used in this permit, refers to any Best Management Practice or other method used to prevent or
reduce the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States.
CWA or The Act means the Clean Water Act(formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) Pub. L. 92-500, as amended Pub. L. 95-217, Pub. L. 95-
576, Pub. L. 96-483 and Pub. L. 97-117, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.
Discharge, when used without a qualifier, refers to discharge of a pollutant as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
Illicit Connection means any man-made conveyance connecting an illicit discharge directly to a municipal separate
storm sewer.
Illicit Discharge is defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(2) and refers to any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer
that is not composed entirely of storm water, except discharges authorized under an NPDES permit (other than the
NPDES permit for discharges from the MS4)and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities.
MEP is an acronym for "Maximum Extent Practicable," the technology-based discharge standard for Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges that was established by CWA,Section
402(p). A discussion of MEP as it applies to small MS4s is found at 40 CFR 122.34.
MS4 is an acronym for "Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System" and is used to refer to either a Large, Medium, or
Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (e.g. "the Dallas MS4"). The term is used to refer to either the system
operated by a single entity or a group of systems within an area that are operated by multiple entities (e.g.,the Houston
MS4 includes MS4s operated by the city of Houston, the Texas Department of Transportation. the Harris County
Flood Control District, Harris County, and others).
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer is defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(8) and means a conveyance or system of
conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters. ditches, man-made
channels. or storm drains): (i) Owned or operated by a State, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association,
or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial
wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control
district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a
designated and approved management agency under Section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United
States: (ii) Designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water; (iii) Which is not a combined sewer; and(iv)
Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
NOI is an acronym for"Notice of Intent" to be covered by this permit and is the mechanism used to "register" for
coverage under a general permit.
NPDES is an acronym for"National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System."
Outfall is defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(9) and means a point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a
municipal separate storm sewer discharges to waters of the United States and does not include 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 and are used to convey waters of the United States.
Owner or Operator is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and means the owner or operator of any "facility or activity" subject to
regulation under the NPDES program.
Permitting Authority means the Illinois EPA.
Point Source is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and means any discernable, confined and discrete conveyance, including but
not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated
animal feeding operation, landfill leachate collection system, vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or
may be discharged. This term does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural storm water
runoff.
Qualifying Local Program is defined at 40 CFR 122.34(c) and means a local, state, or Tribal municipal storm water
management program that imposes, at a minimum, the relevant requirements of paragraph (b) of Section 122.34.
Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System is defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(16) and refers to all separate storm
sewers that are owned or operated by the United States, a State [sic], city, town, borough, county, parish, district,
association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State [sic] law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage,
industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood
control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a
designated and approved management agency under Section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United
States, but is not defined as "large"or "medium" municipal separate storm sewer system. This term includes systems
similar to separate storm sewer systems in municipalities, such as systems at military bases, large hospital or prison
complexes. and highways and other thoroughfares. The term does not include separate storm sewers in very discrete
areas. such as individual buildings.
"corm Water is defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(13) and means storm water runoff, snowmelt runoff. and surface runoff
and drainage.
Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) refers to a comprehensive program to manage the quality of storm
water discharged from the municipal separate storm sewer system.
SWMP is an acronym for"Storm Water Management Program."
TMDL is an acronym for"Total Maximum Daily Load."
Waters (also referred to as waters of the state or receiving water) is defined at Section 301.440 of Title 35: Subtitle C:
Chapter 1 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations and means all accumulations of water, surface and
underground. natural. and artificial, public and private, or parts thereof, which are wholly or partially within, flow
through, or border upon the State of Illinois, except that sewers and treatment works are not included except as
specially mentioned: provided, that nothing herein contained shall authorize the use of natural or otherwise protected
waters as sewers or treatment works except that in-stream aeration under Agency permit is allowable.
"You" and "Your"as used in this permit is intended to refer to the permittee. the operator. o~ the discharger as the
context indicates and that party's responsibilities (e.g., the city, the country, the flood control district, the U.S. Air
Force, etc.).
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Input forms in Word format are available
NOTICE OF INTENT by via email.
FOR GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES FROM marilvn.davenporteepa.state.il.usor by calling the Permit Section at
SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS 217/782-0610
(MS4s) See address for mailing on last page
For Office'Use Only—Permit No. ILR40
Part 1. General Information
1. MS4 Operator Name:
2. MS4 Operator
Mailing Address:
Street City State Zip
3. Operator Type:
❑ City n Borough ❑ DOT/Highway Adm
n County ❑ Precinct (1 Sewer District
❑ Parish Hospital ❑ Flood Control Dist
❑ Reservation 7 Prison ❑ Drainage District
❑ Village ❑ Military Base 17 Association
❑ Town n Park n Other(list)
❑ Township ❑ College/University
4. Operator Status (7 Federal n State n County n Local n Other
5. Names(s) of Governmental Entity(ies) in which MS4 is located:
6. Area of land that drains to your MS4 (in square miles):
7. Latitude/Longitude at approximate geographical center of MS4 for which you are requesting
authorization to discharge:
Latitude: Longitude:
DEG. MIN. SEC. DEG. MIN SEC.
8. Names(s) of known receiving waters Attach additional sheets (Attachment 1) as necessary:
1. 2. •
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
Inlbrniation required by this torn)must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39(2000). Failure to do so may prevent this lora)from being processed and could
result in your application being denied.
IL 532-2772 Page I
1 WPC 726 6/2003
9. Persons Responsible for Implementation/Coordination of Storm Water Management Program:
Name Title Telephone No. Area of Responsibility
Part II. Best Management Practices (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be Implemented in the
MS4 Area
•
(Details of BMP implementation for each checked BMP number, e.g.,A.1, E.2, is required in Part IV of this
NOI.)
A. Public Education and Outreach D. Construction Site Runoff Control
A.1 Distributed Paper Material 7 D.1 Regulatory Control Program
A.2 Speaking Engagement D.2 Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs
A.3 Public Service Announcement 7 D.3 Other Waste Control Program
A.4 Community Event n D.4 Site Plan Review Procedures
I A.5 Classroom Education Material n D.5 Public Information Handling Procedures
I I A.6 Other Public Education E D.6 Site Inspection/Enforcement Procedures
n D.7 Other Construction Site Runoff Controls
B. Public Participation/Involvement
BA Public Panel E. Post-Construction Runoff Control
B.2 Educational Volunteer E.1 Community Control Strategy
B.3 Stakeholder Meeting I I E.2 Regulatory Control Program
[ I B.4 Public Hearing n E.3 Long Term O&M Procedures
B.5 Volunteer Monitoring n E.4 Pre-Construction Review of BMP Designs
B.6 Program Coordination I I E.5 Site Inspections During Construction
B.7 Other Public Involvement (1 E.6 Post-Construction Inspections
E.7 Other Post-Construction Runoff Controls
C. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
C.1 Storm Sewer Map Preparation F. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
I C.2 Regulatory Control Program [l F.1 Employee Training Program
n C.3 Detection/Elimination Prioritization Plan I I F.2 Inspection and Maintenance Program
C.4 Illicit Discharge Tracing Procedures f I F.3 Municipal Operations Storm Water Control
- C.5 Illicit Source Removal Procedures I I F.4 Municipal Operations Waste Disposal
C.6 Program Evaluation and Assessment 17F.5 Flood Management/Assessment Guidelines
I C.7 Visual Dry Weather Screening (l F.6 Other Municipal Operations Controls
I I C.8 Pollutant Field Testing
C.9 Public Notification
I I C.1O Other Illicit Discharge Controls
Intimation required by this limn must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39(2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied.
Page 2
Part III. Qualifying Local Programs
(Describe any qualifying local programs that you will implement in lieu of new permitting requirements.)
1. Public Education and Outreach:
2. Public Participation/Involvement:
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination:
4. Construction Site Runoff Control:
•
5. Post-Construction Runoff Control:
6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping:
Inlormatton required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39(2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied.
Page 3
Copy and complete this page if additional pages are necessary:
Part IV. Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be Implemented by the MS4
(BMP No. should match that checked in Part 11 of this NOL The applicant may repeat the same BMP No. where more than one
BMP of similar type is to be implemented. Where necessary,attach additional sheets to provide more detail on each specific BMP.)
BMP No.
Brief Description of BMP:
Measurable Goal(s), including
frequencies:
Milestones: Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
•
Year 4:
Year 5:
BMP No.
Brief Description of BMP:
Measurable Goal(s), including
frequencies:
Milestones: Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 1LCS 5/39(2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 4
Part V. Certification
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather
and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the
system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for knowingly submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment.
Authorized Representative Name and Title Signature Date
Mail completed form to: ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ATTN: PERMIT SECTION
POST OFFICE BOX 19276
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9276
•
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39(2000). d ilure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 5
Copy and complete this page if additional pages are necessary:
Attachment 1
Receiving Streams Continued
9.
10. •
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Inlixmation required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 I1.CS 5/39(2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 6
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
To: Tony Gral City Administra .r
From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer ' 1
Subject: Route 34/Game Farm Road i.c S .al—Change Order No. 2
Date: July 23, 2003
Attached find one copy of proposed Change Order No. 2 for the referenced project. This
change order, in the amount of a$1,253.37 increase, is for pavement striping.
When this project was designed, the intent was to not change existing pavement markings.
We forgot, however, that stop bars would need to be placed on Route 34 when the signals
were activated. This change order covers that work and also some miscellaneous striping
removal. The high cost for this relatively minor amount of work is primarily due to union
rules regarding payment for a minimum number of hours when workers are called to a
jobsite. This work should be covered by the joint agreement between the city and IDOT,
which means that IDOT would fund approximately 93% of the work.
Please place this item on the Public Works Committee agenda of July 28, 2003 for
consideration.
- - I
VIllinois Department Request for Approval
of Transportation of Change in Plans
Date July 21, 2003 County Kendall
Contractor Van Mack Electric Road District or Municipality Yorkville
Address 2433 Reeves Road Section 02-00028-00-TL
Joliet, IL 60436 Request No. 2
® addition
I recommend that an ❑ extension be made ® to the above contract.
❑ deduction El from
Between Station and Station a net length of
(Do not fill in unless a change in length is involved)
The estimated quantities are shown below and the contractor agrees to furnish the materials and do the work at the
unit prices. Show station location for major items.
Items Description and Unit Quantity Unit Price Additions Deductions
FRC00100 Pavement Striping, $ 1253.37 $1.00 $1,253.37
Totals $1,253.37
Net Change $1,253.37
Amount of ioriginal contract$ $142,510.32
® addition
Total net El deduction to date $ 3,299.77 which is 2.32 % of Contract Price
BLR 6301 (Rev.2/01)
State fully the nature and reason for the change Prior to the turn-on of the new traffic signals on January 3rd, 2003,
stop bars needed to be installed at the intersection. Temporary paint pavement markings were required since thermoplastic
is not allowed to be placed between November 15t and April 15th (Section 780.05).
When the net increase or decrease in the cost of the contract is$10,000 or more or the time of completion is increased or
decreased by 30 days or more, one of the following statements shall be checked.
❑ The undersigned has determined that the circumstances which necessitate this change were not reasonably
foreseeable at the time the contract was signed.
❑ The undersigned has determined that the change is germane to the original contract as signed.
❑ The undersigned has determined that this change is in the best interest of the local agency and is authorized by
law.
Signed Signed
Highway Commissioner Municipal Officer
Title of Municipal Officer
Date Date
Approved Recommended Approved
County Engineer District Engineer
Date Date
Note Make out separate form for change in length quantities.
Give net quantities only.
Submit 3 copies of this form to District Engineer(4 copies for road district).
If plans are required attach 3 sets.
KR 6301 (Rev.2/01)
Page 2 of 2
-MARKING SPECIALISTS HIGHWAY MARKING CONTRACTOH
CORP. P.O. Box 745
Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005
March 5, 2003
US Rt. 34 & Game Farm Road - Signals
Section 02-00028-00-TL - Kendall County
Force Account Bill for Temporary Paint Pavement Markings
Total Hours Insurance Payroll
January, 2003 3rd S.T. Rate Amount Amount
Carlos Puente TSW III 2 $16.00 $ 32.00 $ 32.00
Carlos Puente TSW III 6 27.50 165.00 165.00
Guadalupe. Salinas TSW III 2 16.00 32.00 32.00
Guadalupe Salinas TSW III 6 27.50 165.00 165.00
Alfredo Salazar, Jr. TSW III 2 16.00 32.00 32.00
Alfredo Salazar, Jr. TSW III 6 27.50 165.00 165.00
Subtotal Labor $591.00 $591.00
Teamsters Pension & Welfare Funds 24 Hrs. @ 6.825 163.80
Subtotal Labor $754.80
Plus 35% of $754.80 264.18
Subtotal Labor $1,018.98
Plus W.C./Insurance 10.83% of $591.00 = $ 64.01
Fed Unemployment Tax 7.65% of 591.00 = 45.21
Federal S.S. Tax 0.80% of 591.00 = 4.73
State Unemployment Tax 6.80& of 591.00 = 40. 19
Total Payroll Additives 154. 14
Plus 10% of $154. 14 15.41 169.55
Total Labor $1,188.53
I hereby certify that the above statement is a copy of that portion of the payroll
which applies to the above stated work and that the rates shown for, taxes and
insurance are actual costs.
Sign1i -
rking Specialists Corporation
•
•
I.D.O.T. Certified DBE, Cook County Certified MBE, Metra Certified MBE
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Marking Specialists Corporation
Page 2 Of 2
Equipment Expense Hours Amount
Utility Truck;_25.5GVW 1.5 x 20.05 $30.08
Arrow Board 1.5 x 2.45 3.68
Haradliner 1.5 x 2.05 3.08
Grinder 1.5 x 4.00 6.00
Total Equipment Expense $42.84
Material Used
Paint PM, Wh 1.5 gal @ $6.75 = $10. 13
Glass Beads 7 lbs. @ $0.231 = 1.61
Total Material Expense $11.75
AFFIDAVITI
This is to certify that the material entered on this force account bill which
was taken from stock is shown at our cost.
Marking Specialists Corporation
By ,a` i 1` 2
Total Labor Expense $1 ,188.53
Total Equipment Expense 42.84
Total Material Expense 11.75
Total Expense $1 ,243.12
Bond '0.75% 9,32
Plus 10% of Bond .93
Total Bill $1 ,253.37
eUnited City of Yorkville
County Seat of Kendall County
EST.% 1836
800 Game Farm Road
��� Cl) Yorkville, Illinois 60560
O 1- O Phone:630-553-4350
'Q a": >� Fax:630-553-7575
To: Tony Graff, Administrator "*------- / _
From: Eric Dhuse, Public Works L
Date: July 21, 2003
Re: Truck Purchases
Tony,
I would like to go out to bid on our 2 pick up trucks that are in the Public Works Capital
plan. These trucks would replace the squad cars we currently use for our summer help.
These trucks are light duty 1/2 ton trucks that should cost approximately$13,000.00 each.
I would like to put these on the Public Works meeting agenda for July 28th. If you have
any questions, please give me a call.
Cc: Traci Pleckham, Finance Director
United City of Yorkville
County Seat of Kendall County
EST.% X1836
800 Game Farm Road
V) Yorkville, Illinois 60560
O 11 -- O Phone:630-553-4350
. a� 4e. Fax:630-553-7575
E ‘‘'
: Tony Graff, Administrator
From: Eric Dhuse, Public Works 17
Date: July 21, 2003
Re: Leaf Vacuum
Tony,
I would like to go out to bid on a leaf vacuum for purchase in early September. This is a
budgeted line item in the Public Works capital program. I would like to place this on the
Public Works agenda for the meeting on July 28th. If you have any questions, please call
me.
Cc: Traci-Pleckham, Finance Director
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
To: Tony Graff, City Administrat r
From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
Subject: Subdivision Ordinance—Proposed Rev'sions
Date: June 20, 2003
Below find a laundry list of potential updates to our subdivision ordinance. This list has
been growing over the past few years. The items listed below were recommended for
approval by the Public Works Committee at their December 2001 meeting:
• Change name of ordinance to Subdivision Control Ordinance. This is to conform with
several development agreements that have used the word "control" when referring to
the ordinance.
• Require that requests for letter of credit or bond reductions be accompanied with a
spreadsheet detailing the calculations for the request. This will expedite review and
processing of requests.
• For work along state highways, require that advance-warning signs be placed at the
direction of our Police Department.
• Require that on-street parking during build-out of the subdivision be limited to one
side of the street only. The developer would be required to post temporary no-parking
signs. This can be a real problem for snow plowing and emergency vehicle access.
• Require that any new traffic signals be equipped with LED lights, and that a battery
backup device be provided as standard equipment. IDOT now requires these items as
well.
• Require that any existing trees deemed to be dead, dying, or of an undesirable species
be removed at the direction of the Public Works Department.
• Revise the street light requirement to match the luminaire and photocells equipment
currently used by the Public Works Department.
• Eliminate the requirement for cable in unit duct. Our Public Works Department
prefers direct burial cable.
• Require that streetlight ground rods be a minimum of 5/8" diameter and 10 feet long.
• Require that any streetlight cable broken more than once during build-out of the
subdivision be replaced from the power source to the streetlight with new cable.
• Require that for any development requiring a traffic study, the developer make a
deposit with the city and we would hire the traffic consultant. This would eliminate
doubts about the consultant recommendations, which can be subjective at times.
• Require that developers seal the roadway edge of pavement. We have been doing this
on city-funded projects for several years. Sealing helps keep water out of the roadway
base, and also keeps weeds from growing in the joint.
• Clarify that geotextile fabric is required at subgrade whenever the subgrade soil is
non-granular. This would include instances when the subgrade is lime-stabilized.
• Eliminate the requirement for CA-7 stone beneath the curbline. The purpose of this
requirement was to improve drainage, but construction is very difficult and the
benefit is questionable. Allow CA-6 gradation in those areas.
• Eliminate the requirement for weep holes in catch basins and inlets. The goal is to
create a French drain to keep the roadway subgrade dry, but because the drain field is
localized the benefit of this is questionable and creates the potential for pavement
failure if the fabric wrap breaks through. We have not been enforcing this part of the
ordinance for these reasons. See the suggestion later in this memo for a better way to
drain the subgrade.
• Require heavy wall PVC conduit at lift stations as opposed to galvanized steel. Lift
stations have a very corrosive environment that steel reacts poorly to.
• Require lift station wet well diameter to be a minimum of 8 feet.
• Require that non-PVC storm sewers be mandrel-tested.
• Charge developers for water usage and bacteria testing.
• Allow storm manholes for smaller diameter sewer to be 4' diameter. Currently we
require 5' diameter manholes for all storm sewers regardless of sewer diameter.
• Reference IDOT "Superpave" asphalt design mixes. IDOT is phasing out their old
"Class I" mix designs.
• Require that areas of segregated pavement (binder or surface) be removed and
replaced. We have been doing this all along, but sometimes we have to fight for it.
• Require that any section of replaced pavement (binder or surface) be replaced with a
patch that is 50% thicker than the surrounding pavement. This is because a patch
never matches the surrounding pavement elevation; it is either a little higher or lower.
This results in an impact loading to the patch when traffic travels over it. The thicker
pavement will help to resist those impacts.
• State that punchlists cannot be generated until at least 50% of the lots in a
development are built out or three years after the binder course is paved, whichever
comes first. We have a similar provision regarding paving of surface course in the
existing ordinance. Build-out of a subdivision always results in problems such as
buried manholes, offset frames, damaged B-Boxes, damaged curb, etc. We have had
more than one developer request a punchlist immediately after the binder course is
paved with the idea of getting the public improvements accepted before their builders
damage them. We need to keep the developer on-board however, as the one party
responsible for repairing damage. Otherwise we will be chasing after builders and
landscapers who typically point fingers at each other. The end result would
be that the city ends up paying for the repairs or performing them in-house.
The Public Works Committee also reviewed the items listed below, but did not reach
consensus about adopting them for various reasons:
• Require construction guarantees for developments that aren't subdivisions. For
instance, Walgreens, Shell, Town Crossing, and McDonalds are all projects that
didn't require letters of credit because the property they built on had been previously
subdivided. The committee felt that the current method of withholding the certificate
of occupancy was adequate.
4
• Add provisions regarding protection of wetlands. This will be handled with a separate
ordinance.
• Specify Best Management Practices (BMP's)that may be required of developers to
improve stormwater quality. Once again, the committee felt this was a good idea, but
didn't know what standards to adopt. Stormwater quality is an issue that is rapidly
gaining prominence, and new methods of water treatment will no doubt be developed
in the future. Since we don't know what the new standards will be, I again suggest we
adopt somewhat vague language stating that the developer shall provide stormwater
quality measures at the direction of the city engineer. We already have this language
in the ordinance, but it specifically refers to detention basins. There are other BMP's
that can be used throughout the subdivision. Attached find some suggested language.
• Replace our collector street streetlight standard (which we have never used)with the
pole and luminaire style we are using in the Menard development.
• Require that streets be cleaned at the direction of the Public Works Department, and
require a deposit with the city to be drawn upon to pay for this work. Hopefully this
requirement would motivate the developer to keep the streets cleaner.
• Once streetlights are activated, "normal" maintenance would be performed by the
city. This would eliminate the battles between the city and developers about who
should replace burned out bulbs, etc. Normal maintenance should be defined as
replacement of burned out bulbs and blown fuses.
• Add roadway standards for Portland Cement Concrete pavement. We currently rely
on IDOT design procedures, which do include concrete pavement design, but actually
placing standards in the ordinance might get some developers thinking about using
concrete. Consider establishing a standard incentive for developers who want to use
concrete.
• Modify the mandrel-testing requirement for sanitary sewers to require a 9-point
mandrel. Using a mandrel with more contact points will better demonstrate that the
sewer pipe has retained its ideal circular shape, and that it was installed properly. The
committee wanted to make sure that this is an industry standard.
Items that have been more recently added to the list of possible revisions are as follows:
• Require storm sewer to be constructed down the middle of the street. Normally we
discourage designs that result in manholes being constructed under the pavement
because of problems during snow plowing. There is a definite benefit to having
storm sewer under the road, however, because doing so provides a continuous drain
for the roadbed. By using an open-graded stone to backfill the trench, we would be
creating a French drain that will keep the roadway subgrade dry, thereby increasing
the life of the pavement. Manholes would be placed at the crown of the road, which
should minimize snowplowing problems. We will probably meet resistance from
developers regarding this item due to the cost of the stone backfill, but the benefits
are so significant that I feel we should seriously consider adopting this measure.
• Engineering Enterprises, Inc. has recommended that we adopt a separate
stormwater control ordinance, and delete those parts of the subdivision ordinance
that refer to stormwater issues. Attached find a copy of a proposed model ordinance
with a comparison between it and our current standards.
r
• Consider closely specifying the methodologies for generating hydrology data for
different size developments. For instance, in smaller developments we would
continue to use the modified Rational Method, but specify a single method for
determining times of concentration. In larger developments, a computer-based
method would be used. Since estimating storm drainage requirements is subjective,
it is often the most difficult item to reach agreement on with a developer. Requiring
specific methodologies will greatly reduce those problems and expedite the
planning process.
• Require the developer to provide additional streetlight poles and related hardware
(mast arm, luminaire, and ballast) to be used by the city after acceptance of
streetlights. One suggested ratio would be to provide one pole and hardware for
every 25 poles.
• Consider adopting a"cul-de-sac" fee. Attached find language from an Algonquin
ordinance. This fee would be used to pay for additional man-hours that cul-de-sacs
typically require for maintenance.
Since these updates have not been discussed recently, I suggest that we send it back to
Public Works Committee again. Please place this item on the Public Works Committee
agenda of June 23, 2003 for review.
Cc: Dan Kramer, City Attorney
Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
Harold Martin, Chief of Police
Mike Schoppe, Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
John Whitehouse, Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
,. As a condition of approval of a final plat of subdivi-
sion, the subdivider shall be required to donate to the
Village the sum of $6,000.00 for each cul de sac in
said subdivision. For purposes of this Ordinance, cul
de sacs shall include any of the configurations shown
on Appendix. A of the Algonquin Subdivision Regulations
attached hereto and made a part hereof, or any similar • '
' ' configuration. Said contribution shall be used by the
r ,�j� "Village for the maintenance of cul de sacs throughout
' the Village. r
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
- APPENDIX A
•
rpt - -T'—�tI 10ih�
•
la,ss5
t 1 c� W y1,F{'
5 .
rcF/ I `` 66 • 65 1— .64 .
i .1- I °i 'E L 912 ---f pyo "rs.s; _ 7
Z 4l1. 1• j
armed • •� � �. ZLZ I
1Z
''C'
S i i - I 9 Z'y _3 S'.` 3. ^55' � /
-
100 Nzt- C--:. Z' 1- - I
103114144
• I I Ito ,4 zo I- '
1 ,— �. t 5).f-+. Sq SA•Vit.3I
r ��. 1 `1 Lr .__ '7St 13"1` .
\kilc
i .
,' ,{� , ,2 s I .
' ,Nr. � NI • N r
T:_
to .. I • -0,9) ,r,
i . iZb . 4\0.10'‘r el: Ir. (ID .-- t%)
M1 0
III
`.\ ,2s rY / N. l Are0p
1 o CTS In ` �_- • I I
Updated Requirements for Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Since the publication of the Model Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance in 1990,there has bee n
substantial progress both nationally and locally in implementing stormwater quality best management
practices(BMPs). Based on this experience, and with feedback provided by local governments and the
development community, several needed clarifications, revisions, and additions to the model ordinance
have been identified. Recommended changes to specific ordinance sections are identified in this
addendum, with additions highlighted in bold.
Additional guidance and design recommendations are available in two recent NIPC publications. The
Best Management Practice Guidebook for Urban Development($6.00) provides an overview of urba n
BMPs and basic design guidance. A more in-depth manual, Urban Stormwater Best Management
Practices for Northeastern Illinois ($42.00), was developed to accompany a course on BMP design.
This manual provides detailed design criteria. Both publications are available from the NIPC Publi cations
Department at (312) 454-0400.
ORDINANCE COMMENTARY
Section 200 - Definitions
Best Management Practice (BMP): A
measure used to control the adverse
stormwater-related effects of development.
BMPs include structural devices (e.g.,
swales,filter strips, infiltration trenches, and
detention basins) designed to remove
pollutants, reduce runoff rates and volumes,
and protect aquatic habitats. BMPs also
include non-structural approaches, such as
public education efforts to prevent the
dumping of household chemicals into storm
drains.
Urban Runoff Pollutants: Contaminants Urban Runoff Pollutants: Adverse effects of
commonly found in urban runoff which have runoff pollutants include toxicity to fish and
been shown to adversely affect uses in re- aquatic life,sediment contamination, exces-
ceiving waterbodies. Pollutants of concern sive growth of aquatic plants
include sediment, heavy metals, petroleum- (eutrophication), impairment of water
based organic compounds, nutrients,- supplies, beach closings, and destruction of
oxygen-demanding organics (BOD), sensitive wetland plant communities.
pesticides, salt, and pathogens.
Wetland Basin: A detention basin designed Wetland Basin: While much of the bottom
with all or a portion of its bottom area as a area of a wetland basin can be used for
wetland. recreational purposes(similar to a dry basin),
a significant portion will be vegetated as a
wetland and/or excavated as a stilling basin.
600.0 Water Quality and Multiple Uses 600.0 Water Quality and Multiple Uses
The drainage system should be designed to Replace first paragraph with the following:
minimize adverse water quality impacts down- Stormwater system designs should be in
stream and on the property itself. Detention conformance with Illinois EPA stormwater
basins shall incorporate design features to cap- permitting requirements. In particular,a state
ture stormwater runoff pollutants. In particular, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
designers shall give preference to wet bottom System (NPDES) Permit for Construction Site
and wetland designs and all flows from the Activities is required for land disturbances of
development shall be routed through the five or more acres. Permit requirements for
basin (i.e., low flows shall not be bypassed). a "stormwater pollution prevention plan"
Retention and infiltration of stormwater shall be specifically reference the need for
promoted throughout the property's drainage stormwater detention, vegetated swales and
system to reduce the volume of stormwater natural depressions, infiltration measures,
runoff and to reduce the quantity of runoff and velocity dissipation devices to control
pollutants. runoff pollutants and to maintain pre-
development hydrologic conditions.
The drainage system should incorporate multiple
uses where practicable. Uses considered corn- Good drainage system design strives to develop
patible with stormwater management include a drainage plan which accomplishes the multipi e
open space, aesthetics, aquatic habitat, recre- objectives of recreation, open space, ae sthetics,
ation (boating, trails, playing fields), wetlands and water quality while safely conveying and
and water quality mitigation. The applicant storing stormwater from a property. While
should avoid using portions of the property recreation is encouraged, particularly for
exclusively for stormwater management. residential sites,water contact activities(e.g.,
swimming) generally should be discouraged
in detention basins due to the occurrence of
potential human pathogens (i.e., fecal
coliform bacteria) in stormwater runoff.
The design philosophy of this ordinance
recognizes a tradeoff. By isolating runoff
pollutants in facilities like sediment basins,
and preventing them from impairing uses in
downstream waterbodies, the use of certain
stormwater facilities may be constrained.
However, pollutant control is greatly
facilitated and the burden for mitigating
development impacts is placed on
developers and new residents rather than on
society as a whole. Local constraints can be
minimized by certain non-structural BMPs,
such as source control programs for
residents.
705.1 Wet Basin Depths: Wet basins shall be a t
least three feet deep, excluding nearshore bank s
and safety ledges. If fish habitat is to be provid-
ed they shall be at least ten feet deep over
twenty-five percent of the bottom area to prevent
winter freeze-out.
705.1 Wet Detention Basin Depths: Wet basin s
need to be deep enough to discourage aquatic
2
plant growth in interior areas intended to be
P.open water, unless wetland creation is envi-
sioned by the local government. Local govern-
ments wishing to encourage wetland recreation
should change this section to allow shallower
depths in the interior of the basin as needed
for the establishment of wetland vegetation. Th e
fish habitat recommendations were developed
by the Illinois Department of Conservation. To
facilitate future maintenance needs of wet
basins, stilling/sedimentation basins (similar
to section 706.4) may be required to isolate
large sediment particles in a manageable
area for dredging.
706.0 Wetland and Dry Detention Basin 706.0 Wetland and Dry Detention Basin
Design: In addition to the other requirements of Design: The use of dry basins for stormwater
this ordinance, wetland and dry basins shall be detention will be constrained complicated by the
designed to remove stormwater pollutan ts, to be mere restrictive low flow release rates-this-model
safe, to be aesthetically pleasing and as much : :" --: -- --:- - -- - " --
as feasible to be available for multiple uses.
requirements and a larger percentage of storms
wed which resulting in standing wate r
for longer periods of time. As a consequence,
traditional dry basins will generally be
inappropriate for most development types,
except low density residential which
generates relatively little runoff. Dry basin
-•-
-: -- : - : - - -: A
preferred alternative to a dry basin is a
wetland basin which can have both "wet" and
"dry" zones within the basin.
706.1 Wetland and Dry Basin Drainage: 706.1 Wetland and Dry Basin Drainage: To
Wetland and dry basins shall be designed so avoid aesthetic and maintenance problems, it is
that eighty pereent the portion of their bottom very important that the dry portion of the basins
area which is intended to be dry shall have not have standing water unintentionally as a
standing water no longer than seventy-two hours result of poor drainage. The maximum
for all runoff events less than the 100-year event. inundation time of 72 hours was chosen to
Underdrains directed to the outlet control shall ensure the viability of turf grass based on
may be used to accomplish this recommendations received from NIPC's
requirement. Grading plans shall clearly Stormwater Management Technical Advisory
distinguish the wet/wetland portion of the Committee.
basin bottom from the dry portion.
Two-level designs for wetland dry basins should
be considered required. The lower wetter
portion should may be managed as a wetland
or open water area and maintenance should be
needed. The wetland portion of the basin is
intended to be a low-maintenance area, re-
quiring occasional mowing or burning to
3
maintain vegetation diversity and to control
the proliferation of woody vegetation.
Additional maintenance to remove
accumulated sediment may be needed on an
infrequent basis (i.e., every 10-20 years).
Sediment, similar to street sweeping debris,
should be disposed appropriately (e.g., in a
landfill).
706.3 Inlet and Outlet Orientation: To the extent 706.3 Inlet and Outlet Orientation: Maximizing
feasible, the distance between detention inlets the distance between inlets and outlets will
and outlets shall be maximized. If possible, the y prevent the short-circuiting of flows through a
should be at opposite ends of the basin. There basin. Short-circuiting is counter productive to
should be no low flow bypass between the the removal of stormwater pollutants. Short-
inlet and outlet and paved low flow channels circuiting can be avoided by designing elongat-
shall not be used. ed basins (ideal length:width ratio of at least
3:1), or by the use of baffles or berms in the
basin bottom. Because low flows and the
"first flush"of storm runoff often contain the
most concentrated pollutants, it is critical
that all flows be routed through the basin to
provide opportunities for effective pollutant
removal.
New Subsection
706.4 Stilling/Sedimentation Basins: A stil- 706.4 Stilling/Sedimentation Basins: These
ling/sedimentation basin should be basins are intended to both dissipate the ero-
constructed at each major inlet to a wetland sive energy of stormwater inlets and settle
or dry basin. The volume of the basins out large sediment particles in an isolated
should be at least 500 ft3 per acre of area to facilitate future maintenance. The re-
impervious surface in the drainage area. commended design volume is based on the
Side slopes of the basins shall be no steeper objective of removing 50 percent of the annu-
than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical and basin al suspended solids load. While most fine
depths should be at least 3 feet to minimize sediment particles will pass through this
resuspension of accumulated sediment. basin, most of the larger solids will settle.
Sediment removal will be required infrequent-
ly. Sediment quality will be similar to street
sweeping debris and disposal should be
handled accordingly.
708.3 On-stream Detention: 708.3 On-stream Detention:
e. shall require the implementation of an effec- e. Streams,wetlands,and other waters of the
tive nonpoint source management program U.S. are not intended to be modified to be-
throughout the upstream watershed which shall come sinks or depositional zones for control-
include at a minimum: runoff reduction BMPs lable nonpoint source pollution. Where re-
consistent with Section 500.0 of this ordi- gional, on-stream detention is determined to
nance; 2-year detention/sedimentation basins be in the public interest, nonpoint source
for all development consistent with Section BMPs must be implemented in the upstream
709.4; and a program to control nonpoint watershed to minimize adverse water quality
sources at the source for prior developments impacts. In addition to structural BMPs,
constructed without appropriate stormwater watershed residents should be educated
4
BMPs. about the need to manage nonpoint impacts
at the source through effective controls on
discharges of household chemicals, used
motor oil, and pesticides.
709.0 Drainage-iate Protection of Wetlands
709.0 Drainage-into Protection of Wetlands and Depressional Storage Areas - Wetlands
and Depressional Storage Areas - Wetlands provide valuable habitat, water quality, and
and other depressional storage areas shall be hydrologic functions which may be adversely
protected from damaging modifications and ad- affected by development activities. Adverse
verse changes in runoff quality and quantity impacts can result from direct modifications, the
associated with land developments. In addition introduction of urban runoff pollutants, as well as
to the other requirements of this ordinance, the changes in runoff rates. Changes in hydrology,
following requirements shall be met for all de- in particular, can affect the delicate balance
velopments whose drainage flows into wetlands which exists in sensitive wetlands and result in
and depressional storage areas (as appropri- loss of habitat diversity. For these reasons, wet-
ate): lands should be protected from urban runoff
changes by the measures specified in this ordi-
nance and moderate to high quality wetlands
should not be modified to accommodate storm-
water detention.
Non-wetland depressional storage areas are
areas in the pre-development landscape (e.g.,
in farm fields) which are undrained or very
poorly drained. While not providing
important habitat values, these depressions
often store considerable volumes of runoff
for extended time periods (e.g., weeks) and
provide important pollutant removal benefits.
709.1 Detention in Wetlands and Depressional 709.1 Detention in Wetlands and Depressional
Storage Areas: Existing wetlands shall not be Storage Areas: Low quality wetlands, with ade-
modified for the purposes of stormwater quate protection and mitigation, can be benefi-
detention unless it is demonstrated that the cially utilized for detention, consistent with the
existing wetland is low in quality and the mitigation requirements of this section. Low
proposed modifications will maintain or improve quality wetlands are those which have been sub-
its habitat and ability to perform beneficial stantially disturbed. This disturbance is usually
functions. Existing depressierral- storage and reflected in a low diversity of habitat and the
release rate characteristics of in wetlands and presence of only insensitive plant species (e.g.,
other depressional storage areas shall be a monoculture of cattails). Certain modifications
maintained and the volume of detention storage of low quality wetlands, such as the limited
provided to meet the requirements of this section excavation of open water areas, may actually
shall be in addition to this existing storage. enhance their value. It is important, however,
that the storage functions of wetlands and
depressional storage areas be preserved, in
addition to meeting the detention require-
ments of this ordinance.
711.a Vegetated Filter Strips and Swales - To 711.a Vegetated Filter Strips and Swales-
effectively filter stormwater pollutants and Existing subdivision codes often discourage
promote infiltration of runoff,sites should be filter strips and swales by mandating curbs
5
designed to maximize the use of vegetated and gutters and direct discharge of runoff
filter strips and swales. Wherever into storm sewers. A more effective, often
practicable, runoff from impervious surfaces lower-cost alternative is to route runoff
should be directed onto filter strips and through slotted curbs (or curb stops) onto
swales before being routed to a storm sewer vegetated strips. In this preferred design,
or detention basin. many landscaped areas would occupy the
lower portions of the site (e.g., rather than
raised islands) and effectively filter and infil-
trate stormwater from impervious surfaces.
A simple application of a filter strip in a
residential setting is a lawn which receives
runoff from rooftops,driveways,and (ideally)
streets. Swales are cost effective options to
storm sewers in many settings, such as
office campuses, industrial parks, low
density-single-family developments, and
multifamily uses.
Both swales and filter strips are most effec-
tive when well vegetated and when slopes are
relatively flat.
6
June 20, 2003
COMPARISON BETWEEN CURRENT AND PROPOSED STORMWATER
REQUIREMENTS
Parameter Current Ordinance Proposed Ordinance
Storm Sewer frequency 10 yr 10 yr
Detention Basin Volume 100 yr 100 yr
Rainfall intensity rates ISWS Bulletin 70 ISWS Bulletin 70
Release Rates 2 yr— 0.04 cfs/acre 2 yr—0.04 cfs/acre
25 yr— 0.08 cfs/acre 100 yr— 0.15 cfs/acre
100 yr—0.15 cfs/acre
Small lot detention exemption Res. —2.5 acres Res. —3.0 acres
Non-res. — 1.25 acre Non-res. — 1.0 acre
Volume calculation Rational method < 5 acres: Rational
> 5 acres: Computer
Max. wet basin bounce No maximum 5 feet
Max. dry basin bounce 4 feet 4 feet
Max. embankment slope 3:1 5:1
Sewer design methodology Varies Varies
Pond maintenance responsibility Not addressed Defines
Offsite tributary flows Not addressed Defines methodology
Compensatory storage required? No Yes
Encourages BMP's for ponds? Yes Yes
Encourages BMP's for sewers? No Yes
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF
STORMWATER DRAINAGE
•
DETENTION ORDINANCE
ADOPTED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
OF THE
CITY OF
THIS DAY OF , 20_
PUBLISHED IN PAMPHLET FORM BY AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF ,
KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS
1
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND DETENTION ORDINANCE FOR
CITY OF , ILLINOIS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF
KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS AS FOLLOWS:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
100.0 Authority and Purpose 1
200.0 Definitions 4
300.0 Applicability 4
400.0 Drainage Plan Submittal Requirements 9
401 .0 Drainage Plan 9
500.0 Minimization of Increases in Runoff Volumes and Rates 10
600.0 Water Quality and Multiple Uses 10
700.0 Design Criteria, Standards, and Methods 10
701 .0 Release Rates 11
702.0 Detention Storage Requirements 11
703.0 Drainage System Design and Evalucition 11
704.0 Methods for Generating Runoff Hydrographs 12
705.0 Wet Detention Basin Design 12
706.0 Wetland and Dry Detention Basin Design 13
707.0 Minimum Detention Outlet Size 13
708.0 Detention in Floodplains 13
709.0 Protection of Wetlands and Depressional Storage Areas 14
710.0 Street, Parking Lot, and Culvert Drainage 14
711 .0 Vegetated Filter Strips and Swales 14
712.0 Safety Considerations 14
713.0 Maintenance Considerations 15
800.0 Accommodating Flows From Upstream Tributary Areas 15
801 .0 Upstream Areas Not Meeting Ordinance Requirements 15
802.0 Upstream Areas Meeting Ordinance Requirements 16
900.0 Early Completion of Detention Facilities 16
1000.0 Maintenance Responsibility 16
1100.0 Administration 17
1101.0 Inspections 17
1102.0 Enforcement 17
2
A City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
1103.0 Appeals 18
1104.0 Conferences 18
1105.0 Fees 18
1200.0 Compliance With Local Park District Ordinances 18
1300.0 Severability 18
1400.0 Penalties
1500.0 Effective Date 18
Exhibit A 19
Exhibit B 20
Exhibit C 21
3
City of Storm water Drainage and Detention Ordinance
100.0 Authority and Purpose
This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the police powers granted to the City by
the Illinois Municipal Code 65 ILCS 5/11-1-1 et seq., including but not limited to, 65
ILCS 5/11-12-5, 51 1 1-12-6,5111-12-12, 11-13-1,11-14-1, 11-20-10. 11-30-2,11-30-8, 11-
105-1,11-109-1, and 11-110-1.
The purpose of this ordinance is to diminish threats to public health, safety and
welfare caused by runoff of excessive stormwater from new development and
redevelopment. This excessive stormwater could result in the inundation of
damageable properties, the erosion and destabilization of downstream
channels, and the pollution of valuable stream and lake resources. The cause of
increases in stormwater runoff quantity and rate and impairment of quality is the
development and improvement of land and as such this ordinance regulates
these activities to prevent adverse impacts.
This ordinance is adopted to accomplish the following objectives:
100.1 To assure that new development does not increase the drainage or flood
hazards to others, or create unstable conditions susceptible to erosion;
100.2 To protect new buildings and major improvements to buildings from flood
damage due to increased stormwater runoff;
100.3 To protect human life and health from the hazards of increased flooding on a
watershed basis;
100.4 To lessen the burden on the taxpayer for flood control projects, repairs to flood-
damaged public facilities and utilities, correction of channel erosion problems,
and flood rescue and relief operations caused by increased stormwater runoff
quantities from new development;
100.5 To protect, conserve, and promote the orderly development of land and water
resources;
100.6 To preserve the natural hydrologic and hydraulic functions of watercourses and
flood plains and to protect water quality and aquatic habitats;
100.7 To preserve the natural characteristics of stream corridors in order to moderate
flood and stormwater impacts improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, protect
aquatic and riparian habitat, provide recreational opportunities, provide
aesthetic benefits and enhance community and economic development.
200.0 Definitions
200.1 Adverse Impacts: Any deleterious impact on water resources or wetlands
affecting their beneficial uses including recreation, aesthetics, aquatic habitat,
quality, and quantity.
4
City of Storm water Drainage and Detention Ordinance
200.2 Applicant: Any person, firm, or governmental agency who executes the
necessary forms to procure bfficial approval of a development or permit to carry
out construction of a development from the City of
200.3 Base Flood Elevation: The elevation at all locations delineating the level of
flooding resulting from the 100-year frequency flood event.
200.4 Best Management Practice (BMP): A measure used to control the adverse
stormwater-related effects of development. BMPs include structural devices
(e.g., swales, filter strips, infiltration trenches, and detention basins) designed to
remove pollutants, reduce runoff rates and volumes, and protect aquatic
habitats. BMPs also include non-structural approaches, such as public education
efforts to prevent the dumping of household chemicals into storm drains.
200.5 Bypass Flows: Stormwater runoff from upstream properties tributary to a property's
drainage system but not under its control.
200.6 Channel: Any river, stream, creek, brook, branch, natural or artificial depression,
ponded area, flowage, slough, ditch, conduit, culvert, gully, ravine, wash, or
natural or manmade drainageway, which has a definite bed and bank or
shoreline, in or into which surface or groundwater flows, either perennially or
intermittently.
200.7 Channel Modification: Alteration of a channel by changing the physical
dimensions or materials of its bed or banks. Channel modification includes
damming, riprapping (or other armoring), widening, deepening, straightening,
relocating, lining, and significant removal of bottom or woody rooted
vegetation. Channel modification does not include the clearing of debris or
removal of trash.
200.8 Compensatory Storage: An artificially excavated, hydraulically equivalent
volume of storage within the floodplain used to balance the loss of natural flood
storage capacity when fill or structures are placed within the floodplain.
200.9 Conduit: Any channel, pipe, sewer or culvert used for the conveyance or
movement of water, whether open or closed.
200.10 Detention Basin: A facility constructed or modified to provide for the temporary
storage of stormwater runoff and the controlled release by gravity of this runoff
at a prescribed rate during and after a flood or storm.
200.11 Detention Time: The mean residence time of stormwater in a detention basin.
200.12 Development: Any man-made change to real estate, including:
a) Preparation of a plot of subdivision;
5
•
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
b) Construction, reconstruction or placement of a building or any addition to a
building;
c) Installation of a manufactured home on a site, preparing a site for a
manufactured home, or installing a travel trailer on a site for more than 180
days;
d) Construction of roads, bridges, or similar projects;
e) Redevelopment of a site;
f) Filling, dredging, grading, clearing, excavating, paving, or other non-
agricultural alterations of the ground surface;
g) Storage of materials or deposit of solid or liquid waste;
h) Any other activity that might alter the magnitude, frequency, deviation,
direction, or velocity of stormwater flows from a property.
200.13 Drainage Plan: A plan, including engineering drawings and supporting
calculations, which describes the existing stormwater drainage system and
environmental features, as well as the drainage system and environmental
features which are proposed after development of a property.
200.14 Dry Basin: A detention basin designed to drain completely after temporary
storage of stormwater flows and to normally be dry over the majority of its
bottom area.
200.15 Erosion: The general process whereby earth is removed by flowing water or wave
action.
200.16 Excess Stormwater Run-off: The volume and rate of flow of stormwater
discharged from an urbanized drainage area which is or will be in excess of that
volume and rate which pertained before urbanization.
200.17 Floodplain: That land adjacent to a body of water with ground surface
elevations at or below the base flood or the 100-year frequency flood elevation.
The floodplain is also known as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
200.18 Flood Fringe: That portion of the floodplain outside of the regulatory floodway.
200.19 Floodway: The channel and that portion of the flood-plain adjacent to a stream
or watercourse which is needed to store and convey the anticipated existing
and future 100-year frequency flood discharge with no more than a 0.1 foot
increase in stage due to any loss of flood conveyance or storage and no more
than a ten percent increase in velocities.
6
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
200.20 Hydrograph: A graph showing for a given location on a stream or conduit, the
flowrate with respect to time.
200.21 Infiltration: The passage or movement of water into the soil surfaces.
200.22 Major Drainage System: That portion of a drainage system needed to store and
convey flows beyond the capacity of the minor drainage system.
200.23 Minor Drainage System: That portion of a drainage system designed for the
convenience of the public. It consists of street gutters, storm sewers, small open
channels, and swales and, where manmade, is usually designed to handle the
10-year runoff event or less.
200.24 Mitigation: Mitigation includes those measures necessary to minimize the
negative effects which stormwater drainage and development activities might
have on the public health, safety and welfare. Examples of mitigation include
compensatory storage, soil erosion and sedimentation control, and channel
restoration.
200.25 Natural: Conditions resulting from physical, chemical, and biological processes
without intervention by man.
200.26 One Hundred-Year Event: A rainfall, runoff, or flood event having a one percent
chance of occurring in any given year.
200.27 Positive Drainage: Provision for overland paths for all areas of a property
including depressional areas that may also be drained by storm sewer.
200.28 Peak Flow: The maximum rate of flow of water at a given point in a channel or
conduit.
200.29 Property: A parcel of real estate.
200.30 Regulatory Floodway: The channel, including on-stream lakes, and that portion
of - flood plain adjacent to a stream or watercourse as designated by the
•WR, hich is needed to store and convey the existing and anticipated future
\,,E-1 Z UI-year frequency flood discharge with no more than a 0.1 foot increase in
J)p\s- ' stage due to the loss of flood conveyance or storage, and no more than a 10%
-�� - increase in velocities. To locate the regulatory floodway boundary on any site,
the regulatory floodway boundary should be scaled off the regulatory floodway
map and located on a site plan, using reference marks common to both maps.
Where interpretation is nee o determine the exact location of the regulatory
floodway boundary, th Division ion thould be contacted for the interpretation.
There are regulatory floo wa designated within the corporate limits and the
extra-territorial jurisdiction oft City.
7
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
200.31 Retention Basin: A facility designed to completely retain a specified amount of
stormwater runoff without release except by means of evaporation, infiltration,
emergency bypass or pumping.
200.32 Sedimentation: The process that deposits soils, debris, and other materials either
on other ground surfaces or in bodies of water or stormwater drainage systems.
200.33 Stormwater Drainage System: All means, natural or man-made, used for
conducting stormwater to, through or from a drainage area to the point of final
outlet from a property. The stormwater drainage system includes but is not
limited to any of the following: conduits and appurtenance features, canals,
channels, ditches, streams, culverts, streets, storm sewers, detention basins,
swales and pumping stations.
200.34 Stormwater Runoff: The waters derived from melting snow or rain falling within a
tributary drainage basin which are in excess of the infiltration capacity of the soils
of that basin, which flow over the surface of the ground or are collected in
channels or conduits.
200.35 Storm Sewer: A closed conduit for conveying collected stormwater.
200.36 Time of Concentration: The elapsed time for stormwater to flow from the most
hydraulically remote point in a drainage basin to a particular point of interest in
that watershed.
200.37 Tributary Watershed: all of the land surface area that contributes runoff to a
given point.
200.38 Two-year Event: A runoff, rainfall, or flood event having a fifty percent chance of
occurring in any given year.
200.39 Urban Runoff Pollutants: Contaminants commonly found in urban runoff which
have been shown to adversely affect uses in receiving waterbodies. Pollutants of
concern include sediment, heavy metals, petroleum based organic compounds,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding organics (BOD), pesticides, salt, and pathogens.
200.40 Wet Basin: A detention basin designed to maintain a permanent pool of water
after the temporary storage of stormwater runoff.
200.41 Wetland Basin: A detention basin designed with all or a portion of its bottom
area asp, wetland.
300.0 Applicability
This ordinance shall apply to all development in the City of
300.1 The controlled release and storage of storm water runoff shall be required in
combination for all commercial, multi-family, industrial developments, and for all
8
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
single-family and duplex residential developments in accordance with the
following:
--'i (1) two or more one or two family residences are to be constructed on a
2 si e' ree1Dr more acres in size;
(2) a single-family attached dwelling, apartment or condominium,
attached townhome or other multifamily residential building comprised of
more than two units is to be constructed on a site more than one acre in
size;
,1 �', 3) any non-residential land use is to be constructed on a site more than
nacre in size; and
(4) development after the effective date of this(a _•rr' - m --a.,-. -:- --_ 1) t?, :,-- .-.c-..�-�-�
on a site one acre or more in size devoted to an existing multifamily or
nonresidential land use exceeds in the aggregate 25,000 square feet;
In addition detention may be required for areas below this threshold should the
City Officials or staff determine the area to be drainage sensitive.
300.2 If, in the sole opinion of the City Engineer, with approval of the City Council, a
detention facility in any development is not deemed desirable, the developer
shall then pay to the City an amount equal to the cost of the land which would
have been required for the detention facility. The value of the land shall be
based upon the value assigned in the City Ce—eli rri: L,--C;- .;',,,,,1-, r.-„� : —„,
A. The desirability of a detention facility for a proposed development shall be
considered on an individual basis, in light of the following factors:
1 . The proliferation of small detention facilities is not desirable.
2. Restricted release pipes are a constant maintenance problem
3. Certain detention facilities, depending upon location within the
drainage basin may cause an increase in the flood crest.
4. Any other factors deemed relevant by the City Engineer.
B. All funds paid to and received by the City in lieu of providing a detention
facility shall be used by the City for storm water control purposes.
400.0 Drainage Plan Submittal Requirements
Each applicant shall submit the following information, to ensure that the provisions of
this ordinance are met. The submittal shall include sufficient information to evaluate the
environmental characteristics of the property, the potential adverse impacts of the
development on water resources both on-site and downstream, and the effectiveness
of the proposed drainage plan in managing stormwater runoff. The applicant shall
certify on the drawings that all clearing, grading, drainage, and construction shall be
accomplished in strict conformance with the drainage plan. The following information
shall be submitted for both existing and proposed property conditions.
9
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
401.0 Drainage Plan
401 .1 Topographic Map: A topographic survey of the property at one-foot contours
under existing and proposed conditions, and areas upstream and downstream,
necessary to determine off-site impacts of the proposed drainage plan. The map
shall be keyed to a consistent datum specified by the City.
401 .2 Drainage System: Mapping and descriptions, where relevant, of existing and
proposed drainage system features of the property and immediate vicinity
including:
a) the banks and centerline of streams and channels;
b) shoreline of lakes, ponds, and detention basins;
c) farm drains and tiles;
d) sub-watershed boundaries within the property;
e) watershed soils classifications;
f) the property's location within the larger watershed;
g) location, size and slope of stormwater conduits and drainage swales;
h) sanitary or combined sewers;
i) depressional storage areas;
j) delineation of upstream and downstream drainage features and
watersheds which might be affected by the development;
k) detention facilities;
I) roads and streets and associated stormwater inlets;
m) base flood elevation, and regulatory floodway where identified for the
property; and
n) basis of design for the final drainage network components.
o) elevations and maps of 100-year flooding;
p) cross-section data for open channel flow paths and designated overland
flow paths; and designated overland flow paths;
q) direction of stormflows;
r) flow rates and velocities at representative points in the drainage system;
and
5) a statement by the design engineer of the drainage system's provisions for
handling events greater than the 100-year's runoff.
401.3 Environmental Features: A depiction of environmental features of the property
and immediate vicinity including the following:
a) the limits of wetland areas
b) any designated natural areas; and
c) any proposed environmental mitigation features.
500.0 Minimization of Increases in Runoff Volumes and Rates
In the selection of a drainage plan for a development, the applicant shall
evaluate and implement, where practicable, and as directed by the City
Council, Planning Commission or City Engineer, site design features which
10
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
minimize the increase in runoff volumes and rates from the site. The applicant's
drainage plan submittal shall include evaluations of site design features which
are consisted with the following hierarchy:
1 ) Minimize impervious surfaces on the property, consistent with the needs of the
project;
2) Attenuate flows by use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions
and preserve existing natural stream channels;
3) Infiltrate runoff on-site;
4) Provide stormwater retention structures;
5) Provide stormwater detention structures; and
6) Construct storm sewers.
600.0 Water Quality and Multiple Uses
Stormwater system designs should be in conformance with Illinois EPA stormwater
permitting requirements. In particular, a state National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Construction Site Activities is required for
land disturbances of five or more acres. Permit requirements for a "stormwater
pollution prevention plan" specifically reference the need for stormwater
detention, vegetated swales and natural depressions, infiltration measures, and
velocity dissipation, vegetated swales and natural depressions, infiltration
measures, and velocity dissipation devices to control runoff pollutants and to
maintain predevelopment hydrologic conditions.
The drainage system should be designed to minimize adverse water quality
impacts downstream and on the property itself. Detention basins shall
incorporate design features to capture stormwater runoff pollutants. In particular,
designers shall give preference to wet bottom and wetland designs and all flows
from the development shall be routed through the basin (i.e., low flows shall not
be bypassed). Retention and infiltration of stormwater shall be promoted
throughout the property's drainage system to reduce the volume of stormwater
runoff and to reduce the quantity of runoff pollutants.
The drainage system should incorporate multiple uses where practicable. Uses
considered compatible with stormwater management include open space,
aesthetics, aquatic habitat, recreation (boating, trails, playing fields), wetlands
and water quality mitigation. The applicant should avoid using portions of the
property exclusively for stormwater management.
11
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
700.0 Design Criteria. Standards. and Methods ,. ,4.
701 .0 Release Rates - The drainage system for a property shall be designed t� control
the peak rate of discharge from the property for the two-year, 24-hour nd 100-
year, 24-hour events to levels which will not cause an increase in flooding or
channel instability downstream when considered in aggregate with other
developed properties and downstream drainage capacities. The peak
discharge from events less than or equal to the two-year event shall not be
greater than 0.04 cfs per acre of property drained. The peak 100-year discharge
shall not be greater than 0.15 cfs per acre of property drained.
The City reserves the right to require more restrictive release rates for any
development within a watershed with either limited downstream conveyance or
with observed historical flooding.
Specific watersheds may be designated with a more restrictive watershed wide
release rate as noted on Exhibit C.
701 .1 Detention Basin Outlet Design: Backwater on the outlet structure from the
downstream drainage system shall be evaluated when designing the outlet.
702.0 Detention Storage Requirements- The design maximum storage to be provided in
a detention basin shall be based on the runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour event
and reservoir (also called modified puls or level pool) routing or equal. Detention
storage shall be computed using hydrograph metho. as des -• this
section, for development equal to, or exceeding, acres in size. or
development less than or equal to 5 acres in size, use of th- :c. .-. ational
method in accordance with Exhibit A & B of this ordinance shall be acceptable.
702.1 Existing Natural Stormwater Storage - Existing natural stormwater storage shall be
maintained in accordance with Section 709.1.
702.2 For purposes of this Section, a single development comprised of lots each smaller
than said acreage shall be subject to the requirements of this Chapter and no
development or parcel shall be divided into lots of a smaller dimension to
circumvent the requirements herein.
703.0 Drainage System Design and Evaluation - The following criteria should be used in
evaluating and designing the drainage system. The underlying objective is to
provide capacity to pass the 5-year peak flow in the minor drainage system and
an overland flow path for flows in excess of the design capacity.
703.1 Design Methodologies: Major and minor conveyance systems for areas up to 10
acres may be designed using the rational formula. The rational formula may also
be used in sizing the minor drainage system for larger sites. Runoff hydrograph
methods as described in Section 704.0 must be used for major drainage system
design for all systems with greater than 10 acres of drainage area and for the
design of all detention basins for development equal to, or in excess of, 5 acres.
12
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
703.2 Positive Drainage: Whenever practicable, all areas of the property must be
provided an overland flow'path that will pass the 100-year flow at a stage at
least 1 foot below the lowest foundation grade or exposed opening in the
vicinity of the flow path. Overland flow paths designed to handle flows in excess
of the minor drainage system capacity shall be provided drainage easements.
Street ponding and flow depths shall not exceed curb heights by more than one
inch.
704.0 Methods for Generating Runoff Hydrographs
- The following hydrologic design procedures are considered acceptable for
generation of hydrographs: Corps of Engineers HEC-1, Coprs of Engineers HEC-
HMS, and Soil Conservation Services TR-20
- Runoff hydrographs shall be developed incorporating the following assumptions
of rainfall amounts and antecedent moisture.
704.1 Rainfall: All design rainfall events shall be based on the Illinois State Water
Survey's Bulletin 70. The first quartile point rainfall distribution shall be used for the
design and analysis of conveyance systems with critical durations less than or
equal to 12 hours. The third quartile point rainfall distribution shall be used for the
design and analysis of detention basins and conveyance system with critical
durations greater than 12 and less than or equal to 24 hours. The fourth quartile
distribution shall be used in the design and analysis of systems with durations
greater than 24 hours. The first, third, and fourth quartile distributions described by
Huff are presented n Tables 1, 3 and 4 of I'G'VVS Circular 173.
704.2 Antecedent Moisture: Computations of runoff hydrographs which do not rely on
a continuous accounting of antecedent moisture conditions shall assume a
conservative wet antecedent moisture condition as a minimum. (Eg., SCS TR-20 -
antecedent moisture condition two.)
705.0 Wet Detention Basin Design - Wet detention basins shall be designed to remove
stormwater pollutants to be safe, to be aesthetically pleasing, and as much as
feasible to be available for recreational use.
705.1 Wet Basin Depths: Wet basins shall be at least three feet deep, excluding
nearshore banks and safety ledges. If fish habitat is to be provided they shall be
at least ten feet deep over twenty-five percent of the bottom area to prevent
winter freeze-out.
705.2 Wet Basin Shoreline Slopes: The side slopes of wet basins at the normal pool
elevation shall not be steeper than 5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical).
705.3 Shoreline Protection: Shoreline protection shall be provided to prevent erosion
from wave action.
13
• City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
705.4 Permanent Pool Volume: The permanent pool volume in a wet basin at normal
depth shall be equal to the runoff volume from its watershed for the two-year
event.
705.5 Wet Basin Aeration: The need for wet basin aeration shall be evaluated by the
City Engineer on a case by case basis.
705.6 Inlet and Outlet Orientation: To the extent feasible, the distance between
detention inlets and outlets shall be maximized. If possible, they should be at
opposite ends of the basin.
705.7 Water Surface Area: The water surface are shall not exceed 1/10 of the tributary
drainage areas.
705.8 Maximum Dept : Maximum depth of planned storm water storage shall not
exceed feet unless the existing natural ground contours and other
conditions lend to greater storage depth, which shall be approved by the City.
706.0 Wetland and Dry Detention Basin Design: In addition to the other requirements of
this ordinance wetland and dry basins shall be designed to remove stormwater
pollutants, to be safe, to be aesthetically pleasing and as much as feasible to be
available for multiple uses.
706.1 Wetland and Dry Basin Drainage: Wetland and dry basins shall be designed so
that the portion of their bottom area which is intended to be dry shall have
standing water no longer than seventy-two hours for all runoff events less than
the 100-year event. Underdrains directed to •- outlet may be used to
accomplish this requirement. Grading plans .11 clearly distinguish the
wet/wetland portion of the basin bottom from t e - .ortio ?
Dry basins shall have a minimum bottom slope of two percent. Underdrains
directed to the outlet control shall be used if the bottom slope requirement
cannot be met.
706.2 Velocity Dissipation: Velocity dissipation measures shall be incorporated into dry
basin designs to minimize erosion at inlets and outlets and to minimize the
resuspension of pollutants.
706.3 Inlet and Outlet Orientation: To the extent feasible, the distance between
detention inlets and outlets shall be maximized. If possible, they should be at
opposite ends of the basin. There should be no low flow bypass between the
inlet and paved low flow channels shall not be used.
706.4 Stilling/Sedimentation Basins: A temporary stilling/sedimentation basin should be
constructed at each major inlet to a wetland or dry basin. The volume of the
basins should be at least 500 ft3 per acre of impervious surface in the drainage
area. Side slopes of the basins shall be no steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical
14
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
and basin depths should be at least 3 feet to minimize resuspension of
accumulated sediment The stilling/sedimentation basin shall remain in place until
the design tributary area achieves a build-out of 80%.
((� (2744.
706.5<Maxitfium Depth: Maximum depth of planned storm water storage shall not
exceed four (4) feet unless the existing natural ground contours and other
conditions lend to greater storage depth, which shall be approved by the City.
707.0 Minimum Detention Outlet Size - Where a single pipe outlet or orifice plate is to
be used to control discharge, it shall have a minimum diameter of 4 inches. If this
minimum orifice size permits release rates greater than those specified in this
section, and regional detention is not a practical alternative, alternative outlet
designs shall be utilized which incorporate self cleaning flow restrictors.
The orifice shall be constructed in the downstream invert of the catch basin
which shall be centered in the detention basin embankment to facilitate
maintenance.
708.0 Detention in Floodplains -The placement of detention basins within the floodplain
is strongly discouraged because of questions about their reliable operation
during flood events. However, the stormwater detention requirements of this
ordinance may be fulfilled by providing detention storage within flood fringe
areas on the project site provided the following provisions are met.
708.1 Detention in Flood Fringe Areas: The placement of a detention basin in a flood
fringe area shall require compensatory storage for 1 .5 times the volume below
the base flood elevation occupied by the detention basin including any berms.
The release from the detention storage provided shall still be controlled
consistent with the requirements of this section. The applicant shall demonstrate
k.",` its peration for all streamflow and floodplain backwater conditions. Excavations
for compensatory storage along watercourses, •
709.4 Detention/Sedimentation: All runoff from the development shall be routed
through a preliminary detention/sedimentation basin designed to capture the
two-year, 24-hour event and hold it for at least 24 hours, before being
discharged, This basin shall be constructed before property
grading begins. In addition, the drainage hierarchy defined in section 500.0
should be followed to minimize runoff volumes and rates being discharged,#e t+io-_
709.5 Vegetated Buffer Strip: A bufferstrip of at least 25 feet in width, preferably
vegetated with native plant species, shall be maintained or restored around the
periphery of Ous wetland.
N 1�
710.0 Street, Parking Lot, and Culvert Drainage
710.1 Streets: If streets are to be used as part of the minor or major drainage system,
ponding depths shall not exceed curb heights by more than one inch and shall
15
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
not remain flooded for more than eight (8) hours for any event less than or equal
to the 100-year event.
710.2 Parking Lots: The maximum stormwater ponding depth in any parking area shall
not exceed twelve (12) inches for more than four (4) hours.
710.3 Culvert Road and Driveway Crossings: Sizing of culvert crossings shall consider
entrance and exit losses as well as tailwater conditions on the culvert. The
minimum size for roadway culverts shall be 18 inches and shall be sized for a
minimum design recurrence interval of 25 years (an event having a four percent
chance of occurring in any given year). The minimum size for driveway culverts
shall be 15 inches.
711.0 Vegetated Filter Strips and Swales - To effectively filter stormwater pollutants and
promote infiltration of runoff, sites should be designed to maximize the use of
vegetated filter strips and swales. Wherever practicable, runoff from impervious
surfaces should be directed onto filter strips and swales before being routed to a
storm sewer or detention basin.
712.0 Safety Considerations - The drainage system components, especially all
detention basins, shall be designed to protect the safety of any children or adults
coming in contact with the system during runoff events.
712.1 Side Slopes: The side slopes of all detention basins at one-hundred year capacity
shall be as level as practicable to prevent accidental falls into the basin and for
stability and ease of maintenance. Side slopes of detention basin and open
channels shall not he steeper than four to one (horizontal to vertical).
712.2 Safety Ledge: All wet detention basins shall have a level safety ledge at least
(four) feet in width (2.5 to three) feet below the normal water depth.
712.3 Velocity: Velocities throughout the surface drainage system shall be controlled to
safe levels taking into consideration rates and depths of flow.
712.4 Overflow Structures: All stormwater detention basins shall be provided with an
overflow structure capable of safely passing excess flows at a stage at least 1
foot below the lowest foundation grade or exposed open mg in the vicinity of
the detention basin. The design flow rate of the overflow structure shall be
equivalent to the`00-yepr inflow rate.
ta.44
712.5 Relationship to Roadways: All storm water detention basins shall conform to
Section 9-1 15.1 of the Illinois Highway Code.
713.0 Maintenance Considerations - The stormwater drainage system shall be
designed to minimize and facilitate maintenance. Turfed sideslopes shall be
designed to allow lawnmowing equipment to easily negotiate them. Wet basins
shall be provided with alternate outflows which can be used to completely drain
the pool for sediment removal. (Pumping may be considered if drainage by
16
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
gravity is not feasible.) Pre-sedimentation basins shall be included, where
feasible, for localizing sediment deposition and removal. Access for heavy
equipment shall be provided.
800.0 Accommodating Flows From Upstream Tributary Areas
Stormwater runoff from areas tributary to the property shall be considered in the
design of the property's drainage system.
801 .0 Upstream Areas Not Meeting Ordinance Requirements- When there are areas
not meeting the storage and release rates of this ordinance, tributary to the
applicant's property, regionalized detention on the applicant's property shall be
explored by the applicant. The following steps shall be followed.
a. The applicant shall compute the storage volume needed for his property using
the release rates of Section 600.0, the applicant's property area, and the
procedures described in Section 700.0.
b. Areas tributary to the applicant's property, not meeting the storage and release
rate requirements of this ordinance, shall be identified.
c. Using the areas determined in 801 .b. above plus the applicant's property area,
total storage needed for the combined properties shall be computed.
Allowable release rates shall be computed using the combined property areas.
Storage shall be computed as described in Section 700.0. If tributary areas are
not developed, a reasonable fully developed land cover based on local zoning,
shall be assumed for the purposes of computing storage.
Once the necessary combined storage is computed the City may choose to pay
for oversizing the applicant's detention basin to accommodate the regional
flows. The applicant's responsibility will be limited to the storage for his property as
computed in "a" above and as provided in Sections 702.0 and 702.1 . If regional
storage is selected by the City, then the design produced in "c" above shall be
implemented. If regional storage is rejected by the City, the applicant shall
bypass all tributary area flows around the applicant's basin whenever
practicable. If the applicant must route upstream flows through his basin, a multi-
staged outlet structure should be designed such that on-site peak flows are
attenuated. Detention basin routing schemes should be reviewed and approved
by the City or their consultant prior to final design. The applicant may be
required to route off site flows through the basin if in the opinion of the City
Engineer it is warranted. If the applicant must route upstream flows through his
basin and the upstream areas exc e-square mile in size, the applicant
must meet the provisions of Secti 708.30 fo on-steam aSins.
\A 1
$1".14._ e
802.0 Upstream Areas Meeting Ordinance Requirements. When there are areas which
meet the storage and release rate requirements of this ordinance, tributary to
the applicant's property, the upstream flows shall be bypassed around the
17
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
applicant's detention basin, or be routed through the applicant's detention
basin if this is the only practicable alternative Storage needed for the applicant's
property shall still be computed as described in Section 801 .0, a. However, if the
City decides to route tributary area flows through an applicant's basin, the final
design stormwater releases shall be based on the combined total of the
applicant's property plus tributary areas. It must be shown that at no time will the
runoff rate from the applicant's property exceed the allowable release rate for
his/her property alone. itim 4. 0
900.0 Early Completion of Detention Facilities
Where detention, retention, or depressional storage areas are to be used as part
of the drainage system for a property, they shall be constructed as the first
element of the initial earthwork program. Any eroded sediment captured in
these facilities shall be removed by the applicant before project completion in
order to maintain the design volume of the facilities.
1000.0 Maintenance Responsibility
Maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities located on private property shall
be the responsibility of the owner of that property. Before a building permit for a
single •t development or subdivision approval is obtained from the City of
, the applicant shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City
oi`guar.nteeing that the applicant and all future owners of the property will
maintai s stormwater drainage system. The maintenance agreement shall also
spec' ally authorize representatives of the City to enter onto the property for
e purpose of inspections and maintenance of the drainage system. Such
agreement shall be recorded with the Recorder of Deeds of iirommumail,,Kendall
Counties. The maintenance agreement shall include a schedule for regular
maintenance of each aspect of the property's stormwater drainage system and
shall provide for access to the system for inspection by authorized personnel of
the City of . The maintenance agreement shall also stipulate
that if the authorized official of the City of notifies the property
owner in writing of maintenance problems which require correction, the property
owner shall make such corrections within 30 (thirty) calendar days of such
notification. If the corrections are not made within this time period the City may
have the necessary work completed and assess the cost to the property owner.
The City of has the option of requiring a bond to be filed by the
property owner for maintenance of the stormwater drainage system.
1000.1 The following summarizes the funding and maintenance responsibility for
developments in the City of
18
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
Type of Type of Maintenance Funding Source
Development Detention
Basin '
Single Family, Dry City-' tth l S
Duplex and Multi- ^ ^i f&& ) r
family Residential (6-t=t20:14* Pri ate fie--►
r'rter'rtj'
Private ogle-etshrtL'f
Single Family, Wet Private Developer, Owner or
Duplex and .l=ard Home Owner
Multifamily Association with
Residential Maintenance
Agreement
Or SSA
Commercial Wet/Dry Private Developer, Owner or
Association with
Maintenance
Agreement
Industrial Wet/Dry Private Developer, Owner or
Association with
Maintenance
Agreement
1100.0 Administration
1101 .0 Inspections
1101 .1 Inspections During Construction of Drainage System: General site grading shall
not begin until the City has certified in writing to the applicant that any
necessary detention facilities are in place and operational. The City or their
authorized representative will also conduct periodic inspections of the work in
progress to be certain that the drainage system is being built as designed. If any
violations of the provisions or requirements of this ordinance are noted during
such inspections, the City shall notify the property owner in writing of the items
needing correction. The property owner shall have ten (10) calendar day to
make such corrections unless given a specific extension of time in writing by the
City.
Failure to complete such corrections within the specified time period shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
1101 .2 Final Inspection of Drainage System: Upon notification by the applicant that the
drainage system is completed, the City or their authorized representative shall
conduct a final inspection. If the drainage system is found to contain
deficiencies which require correction the City or their authorized representative
shall notify the property owner of the necessary corrections. The property owner
shall correct such deficiencies within ten (10) calendar days unless given a
specific extension of time in writing by the City. Failure to make necessary
corrections within the specified time period shall constitute a violation of this
19
• City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
ordinance. Upon finding that the drainage system meets the provisions and
requirements of this ordinance the City shall issue in writing a notice of drainage
system completion to the property owner.
1101 .3 Routine Inspections: All privately owned drainage systems shall be inspected by
representatives of the City not less often than once per year. A written report
shall be filed of the results of any inspection and a copy sent to the property
owner detailing any problems which need correction.
1102.0 Enforcement - The administration and enforcement of this ordinance shall be the
responsibility of the City of or their authorized representatives.
1103.0 Appeals - An applicant may appeal any decision of the City engineer to the City
Council, provided that no such appeal shall be taken until and unless the
applicant has requested a conference with the City engineer, not a subordinate
of the City engineer, and either the conference has been held or the City
engineer has not scheduled a conference.
1104.0 Conferences- At any time an applicant may ask for a conference with the City
engineer concerning any application under this ordinance, and the City
engineer will meet with the applicant to discuss the matter. If an applicant has
been dealing with any person working under the supervision of the City engineer,
at the applicant's request the City engineer and not a subordinate will hold a
conference with the applicant.
1105.0 Fees - Engineering review, legal and construction observation fees are the
responsibility of the applicant
A $500 cash deposit is required prior to the initiation of review and will be subject
to adjustment after the initial review.
1200.0 Compliance With Local Park District Ordinances
Any drainage plan presented by a developer who wishes to utilize certain land
areas for the combined use as park district open space and surface storm water
drainage facilities shall be demonstrated to the City of by the
developer to be in compliance with all park district ordinances with respect to
development of these areas.
1300.0 Severability
If any section, clause, provision or portion of this ordinance is judged
unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of
this ordinance shall remain in force and not be affected by such judgment.
20
• City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
1400.0 Penalties
Any person convicted of vidlating any of the provisions or requirements of this
ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not
more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Each day the violation continues shall
be considered a separate offense.
1500.0 Effective Date
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
approval and publication as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of , Illinois, this 1 1 th day of
20
21
• ► City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
EXHIBIT A
Stormwater Detention
Methodology Requirements
City of
PROJECT SIZE METHODOLOGY
(ACRES)
< 5 Modified Rational Method
5 and above HEC-1/TR-20/Bulletin 70 Rainfall/
Huff 3rd Quartile Distribution
PARAMETERS
MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD
Refer to Exhibit B
TR-20/BULLETIN 70 RAINFALL/HUFF 3RD QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION
Release Rate: 0.15 CFS/Acre - 100 Year; 0.04 CFS/Acre - 2 Year
Antecedent Moisture Condition: II
Standard Runoff Curve Numbers
Storm Duration: 24 hours
Rainfall Amount: 8.1 inches - 100 year; 3.15 inches - 2 year
3rd Quartile Distribution: Cumul. % of Storm Cumul. % of Rainfall
(median <10 mile2) 05 03
10 06
15 09
20 12
25 15
30 19
35 23
40 27
45 32
50 38
55 45
60 57
65 70
70 79
75 85
80 89
85 92
90 95
95 97
100 100
22
MIMIbk.
' • City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
CALCULATION FOR DETENTION FACILITY: 100 YEAR
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF
LOCATION: PROJECT NO:
BY:
DATE:
STORM FREQUENCY: 100 Year
TRIBUTARY AREA:"a": Acres
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT:"c"
ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE:"Qr": 0.15 cfs/Acre x
Acres=
cfs
STORAGE VOLUME:"Acre-Feet":
STORM RAINFALL RUNOFF RELEASE STORAGE STORAGE
DURATION INTENSITY RATE RATE RATE VOLUME
t i Qa=cia Or Qa-Qr (Qa-Qr)(t)(1/12)
(hours) (in./hr.) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (Acre-Feet)
0.25 8.00
0.50 5.40
1.00 3.50
2.00 2.05
3.00 1.47
4.00 1.20
5.00 1.01
6.00 0.88
8.00 0.69
10.00 0.56
12.00 0.50
REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS Cr x Area =
Grass 0.30
Roofs,Asphalt,Concrete 0.96
Wet Retention 1.00
Totals
Composite"c"=
PREPARED BY:
ACTUAL DESIGNED DISCHARGE RATE (SEE ATTACHED CALC.)
Signed
ILLINOIS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER#
23
City of Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance
EXHIBIT C
Allowable Release Rates:
cfs/acre
24