02-194 Resolution No. 02-194
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING A SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELGIN,
ILLINOIS, that it hereby adopts a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
prepared by Baxter & Woodman and dated April 2002 as the City of
Elgin' s plan for the development of interceptor sewers in the Far
West Area, a copy of which is attached.
s/ Ed Schock
Ed Schock, Mayor
Presented: June 12, 2002
Adopted: June 12, 2002
Omnibus Vote : Yeas : 5 Nays : 0
Attest :
s/ Dolonna Mecum
Dolonna Mecum, City Clerk
BAXTER
PIM
411111161
WOODMAN
p,.. Consulting Engineers
Paw
awn
Pim
City of Elgin, Illinois
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Update
April 2002
1 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r1 T1
ram
Pam City of Elgin, Illinois
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
ow= 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Purpose and Scope 1-1
1.2 Study Area 1-1
1.3 Topography and Drainage 1-1
2. FAR WEST PLANNING AREA–POPULATION PROJECTION AND
WASTEWATER FLOW RATES
PIPS
2.1 Population Equivalent Projections 2-1
2.1.1 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study P.E. Projections 2-1
— 2.1.2 2002 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update P.E. Projections 2-1
2.1.3 P.E. Summary 2-2
2.2 Service to Gilberts 2-3
2.3 Infiltration/Inflow Flow Rates 2-4
m
2.4 Wastewater Flow Rates 2-4
3. FAR WEST PLANNING AREA–SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
3.1 Trunk Sewer Design Criteria 3-1
3.1.1 Trunk Sewer Layout 3-1
3.1.2 Trunk Sewer Depth 3-1
3.1.3 Trunk Sewer Size 3-2
3.2 Tyler Creek Interceptor Sewer and Pumping Station 3-3
3.2.1 Fox River Water Reclamation District North WWTF
Capacity 3-4
3.2.2 Northwest Interceptor Sewer Capacity 3-5
;i•• 3.3 Otter Creek Interceptor Sewer and Pumping Station 3-6
3.4 Other Pumping Stations 3-6
m•• 3.5 Summary of changes from 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study 3-7
4. ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
4.1 Pumping Stations 4-1
4.2 Force mains 4-2
4.3 Gravity Sewers 4-3
4.4 Summary–Northwest Interceptor Sewer Region 4-4
P"' 4.5 Summary–Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer Region 4-4
000119-04/02
t
2.
Section Page No.
5. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
Pim
5.1 Bonds 5-1
5.1.1 General Obligation Bonds 5-1
11.1111
5.1.2 Revenue Bonds 5-1
5.1.3 Alternate Bonds 5-2
5.2 Special Service Area Taxation 5-2
5.3 Special Financing Districts 5-3
5.3.1 Special Assessment Districts 5-3
5.3.2 Tax Increment Financing Districts 5-3
pime
LIST OF TABLES
pow
Table Page No.
pima
1 Basin Population Equivalents 2-2
2 Projected Wastewater and Infiltration/Inflow Rates 2-5
owe 3 Pumping Station Data 3-7
4 Pumping Stations—Probable Construction Cost 4-2
5 Forcemains - Probable Construction Cost 4-2
p•• 6 Gravity Sewers - Probable Construction Cost 4-3
7 Project Cost Summary Northwest Interceptor Sewer Region 4-4
,p.. 8 Project Cost Summary Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer Region 4-5
inn
LIST OF APPENDICES
awe
Appendix
opum A 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study P.E. Projections
B 2000 Far West Plan Area P.E. Projections
pin
C Sub-basin Population Projections
D Trunk Sewer and Pumping Station Calculations
p"" E Trunk Sewer Cost Estimate Summary
000119-04/02
!pm
K
pins
vim 3.
pow LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibits
rim
A Basin and Sub-basins
B Trunk Sewer Locations, Sizes and Elevations
...
WEI
NMI
VIM
PIIN
WEI
pww
y..
paw
pow
rim
ppm
roe
pms
000119-04/02
pour
mom
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Purpose and Scope
Imo
The objectives of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (SSMP) Update are:
1. To estimate the future amounts of domestic, commercial and industrial
wastewater that will be discharged in the service area.
2. To develop a tentative layout for a new sanitary trunk sewer network to serve
the western service area.
gam
3. To estimate the sewer sizes, depths, and invert elevations of the trunk sewer
�.. network.
4. To provide an Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost.
5. To provide a recommendation on the cost reimbursement method for
constructing the trunk sewer network.
1.2 Study Area
6 The Far West Planning Area is generally bounded by the Northwest Tollway (I-90)
p"" on the north, Illinois Route 47 on the west, McDonald Road on the south, and Randall Road
on the east. The service area encompasses approximately 39,479 acres and is shown in
Exhibit A. This area is expanded from 31,959 acres included in the study area encompassed
gram
by the 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study (prepared by Baxter&Woodman). The south boundary of
the 1993 study area was moved from the Illinois Central and Gulf Railroad south to
■.. McDonald Road and now encompasses all of the Bowes Creek drainage basin and the Stony
Creek drainage basin west of the Stony Creek and Bowes Creek confluence.
Pani
1.3 Topography and Drainage
The study area is subdivided into the following eight basins: Bowes Road Interceptor
Ps" Sewer (BRIS); Northwest Interceptor Sewer (NWIS); Route 47-North (47N); Route 47-
P"' 000119-04/02
s•�
1-2
■.. Central (47C); Route 47-South (47S); Bowes Creek East (BCE); Bowes Creek West (BCW);
and Stony Creek (SC). The 1993 study area included only basins BRIS, NWIS, 47N, 47C,
and 47S.
Sanitary sewers are generally installed to follow the natural topography of the service
area. Lift stations are installed at low points in the topography to pump wastewater to a
higher elevation where it can flow by gravity to the receiving wastewater treatment plant.
One of the goals of this and the previous report is to limit the number of new lift stations
added to the sanitary sewer system. This report identifies regional lift stations which will
""" enable the City to avoid adding multiple small lift stations to its system.
gam
mon
ppm
ppm
own
plum
000119-04/02
A
W"' 2-1
„. 2. FAR WEST PLANNING AREA — POPULATION PROJECTION AND
WASTEWATER FLOW RATES
2.1 Population Equivalent Projections
Wastewater flow rates for areas of future growth are determined by first calculating
ipme
the number of Population Equivalents (P.E.) for each basin and then converting the P.E. into
a wastewater flow rate. One P.E. is equivalent to an average wastewater flow rate of 100
w` gallons of sewage per day. Each of the eight basins are divided into numerous sub-basins.
ppmThe basin and sub-basin boundaries are shown in Exhibit B. Sub-basins are utilized to
estimate the amounts of wastewater tributary to various collection points along the trunk
sewer network.
imos
2.1.1 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study P.E. Projections - The P.E. projections used in the
41." 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study were derived from the 1992 Land Capacity Model, developed by
the City of Elgin's Planning Department. This model estimated the total P.E. for basins 47N,
pow
47C, 47S, BRIS and NWIS.
was
In order to provide enough detail to determine the sizes of the trunk sewers serving
ppm these basins, the total P.E. for each basin was apportioned to each of the sub-basins, based on
roe
growth was expected to occur. In general, a higher percentage of P.E. was
apportioned to basins bordering major transportation routes.
pen
Excerpts of the 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study showing the anticipated P.E. amounts for
each sub-basin are contained in Appendix A. Appendix A also includes a sample P.E.
PP.
calculation.
2.1.2 2002 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update P.E. Projections—The City of Elgin
adopted the 2000 Far West Planning Area Development and Design Guidelines (2000 Far
000119-04/02
OP"
2-2
Pim West Plan) on January 20, 2000. The 2000 Far West Plan establishes the location and type
of development (e.g. residential, commercial, etc.) anticipated to occur in the Far West
Planning Area (bounded generally by Randall Road, Highland Avenue, Muirhead Road and
McDonald Road). The information contained in the 2000 Far West Plan is used in two ways
owe for this report: to update the P.E. projections for sub-basin within the 2000 Far West Plan
Area, and to estimate P.E. for basins not included in the 1993 Study Area (Basins SC, BCE
Pla
and BCW).
Appendix B illustrates the calculations used to calculate P.E. from the 2000 Far West
Plan.
2.1.3 P.E. Summary - Table 1 lists the total land area and P.E. for each of the eight
Plow
basins. For the 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study and the 2002 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update.
owe
Appendix C lists the detailed data for each sub-basin.
City of Elgin,Illinois
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
0.1" TABLE 1
Basin Population Equivalents
1993 Sanitary Sewer Study 2002 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Basin Acres' Total P.E. Acres Update Total P.E.
rim 47N 2,781 7,817 2,783 7,817
47C 6,331 12,288 6,333 12,289
47S 5,459 10,088 5,636 11,321
A" NWIS 5,498 25,725 5,986 27,458
BRIS 9,110 43,809 8,246 49,593
BCE - 3,159 19,000
A BCW 2,780 - 3,082 17,607
SC - 1,474 8,294
Gilberts 19,429 2,780 19,429
pow Total Study Area 31,959 119,156 39,479 172,808
L
1 Calculated from Appendix A.
000119-04/02
Pon
ism
2-3
pewAs can be seen from Table 1, the total study area population for this SSMP update is
significantly larger than in the 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study. While some of this increase is a
pin
result of updated planning information, the majority of this increase is due to the expanded
study area (31,959 acres versus 39,479 acres). The impact from the increases in study area
*.• and P.E., however, is relatively minor. Both the Bowes Road interceptor sewer and the Otter
1
Creek pumping station are adequately sized for the revised wastewater flow rates. The
woe
specific implications of the increase in P.E. will be discussed in later sections.
It should be noted that the P.E. projections for both the 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study
win and this update are based on allowing development to occur at the densities listed in
Appendix B for developable acres only. Some communities allow the total P.E. for a
development to be based on gross acreage (developable plus un-developable). This
ova
difference in development philosophy can result in significantly higher P.E. and wastewater
flows. While the sanitary sewer facilities presented in this report have some reserve capacity
p,,, to accommodate minor changes in development, they do not have sufficient capacity to
accommodate a change in development philosophy that would result in a significant increase
Faso
in wastewater flow.
2.2 Service to Gilberts
w.. The 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study includes two alternatives for the sanitary sewer
system: "Service to Gilberts" and "No Service to Gilberts". This SSMP Update includes
ppm
providing service to Gilberts in all of the calculations. As directed by the City, the "No
ppm
Service to Gilberts" alternative was not evaluated.
pone
000119-04/02
pass
ism
ipme
2-4
2.3 Infiltration/Inflow Flow Rates
In addition to the wastewater from residential and non-residential users, an allowance
for infiltration and inflow (I/I) is needed to determine the total wastewater flow rate. I/I are
�• clear waters that enter the sanitary sewer system. Infiltration is groundwater that leaks into
ppm the system through sewer joints, cracked pipes, and manhole walls. Inflow is stormwater that
is discharged directly into the sanitary sewer system. Common sources of inflow are leaking
0.111/
manhole covers that are subject to inundation during rainstorms, and footing drains, roof
ppm
downspouts, area drains and sump pumps directly connected to the sanitary sewers.
A 1992 study conducted for the Fox River Water Reclamation District (FRWRD)
indicated that I/I enters the sanitary sewer system at a rate of 565 gallons per day per
ime
developed acre. This I/I flow rate is based on actual flow rates for new development. The
pow
study was conducted to correct a previous, much larger I/I value which resulted in greatly
p"" oversized sewers. This allowance is not used for undeveloped portions of the study area.
Appendix C lists the total I/I flow rate for each sub-basin.
poo
2.4 Wastewater Flow Rates
The predicted wastewater flow rates from each basin within the study area, including
14.8 the I/I allowances, are shown in Table 2. The wastewater flow rates are based on an
p..ur estimated contribution of 100 gallons per P.E. per day. To calculate the peak hourly flow
rates in sanitary sewers, a peaking factor is utilized to adjust for diurnal flow rate
peo
fluctuations. The peaking factors are determined in accordance with the Illinois
e*^
Recommended Standards for Sewage Works and are related to the population served.
rim
rim
000119-04/02
Wail
""'m 2-5
sm.. Peaking factors are higher for small service areas and decrease as the population of the
service area increases.
ppm
The I/I allowances are added directly to the peak wastewater flow rate to predict the
pm
peak hourly flow rates for each basin.
em City of Elgin, Illinois
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
W• TABLE 2
pp,,., Projected Wastewater and Infiltration/Inflow Rates
Ave Daily Peak Hourly Total Peak
*"" Wastewater Wastewater I/I Flow Hourly
Total Flow Rate Peaking Flow Rate Rate Flow Rate
Basin P.E.2 (mgd)3 Factor (mgd)5 (mgd)6 (mgd)7
FM
4 47N 7,817 = 0.78 x 3.06 = 2.39 + 0.58 = 2.97
ii,,a 47C 12,289 1.23 2.87 3.52 1.35 4.87
47S 11,321 1.13 2.90 3.28 1.20 4.48
NWIS 27,458 2.75 2.52 6.91 2.18 9.09
pm
6 BRIS 49,593 4.96 2.27 11.25 3.19 14.44
BCE 19,000 1.90 2.67 5.08 1.33 6.41
pow
k BCW 17,607 1.76 2.71 4.77 1.34 6.11
SC 8,294 0.83 3.03 2.52 0.63 3.15
Gilberts 19,429 1.94 2.67 5.18 1.51 6.69
was
0
k 2 Total population equivalent as calculated and summarized in Appendix C.
3 Wastewater flow rate in million gallons per day based on a flow rate of 100 gallons per day per population
Ow"' equivalent.
a Wastewater peaking factor as calculated by the following formula: 18+ JP
Peaking factor= 4+ QIP
Pima Where P is P.E.in thousands
k 5 Product of the daily average wastewater flow rate and the peaking factor.
6 Infiltration and inflow flow rate as calculated and summarize in Appendix C.
P" 7 The sum of the peak hourly wastewater flow rate and I/I flow rate.
I
riai
000119-04/02
Pm"
pimp
p"' 2-6
,w,,, The projected peak flow rate from the entire study area (including Gilberts) is 44.70
million gallons per day (mgd). This total is higher than the 34.02 mgd presented in the 1993
iums
report. This increase is due to the expanded study area, which now includes basins BCE,
01.1 BCW and SC.
ppm
ppm
pin
ppm
ppm
pine
Win
ppm
own
imp
pia
000119-04/02
pin
ppm 3-1
WWI3. FAR WEST PLANNING AREA —SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
3.1 Trunk Sewer Design Criteria
ppm
Large diameter sewers are commonly referred to as interceptor or trunk sewers. For
Rpm
the purposes of this report, they are defined as sewers that are 15-inch in diameter or larger.
own Interceptor sewers do not have building service connections. Exhibit B shows the proposed
trunk sewer layout. This report provides the projected size and general location of new trunk
sewers and pumping stations needed to serve future growth. The actual location of these
pin
regional facilities will depend on layouts of future streets and the type, size, and
configuration of future development.
Smaller diameter sewers (i.e. 8-, 10- and 12-inch diameter) are considered lateral
pum
sewers. They will be constructed by the developers as development of the area continues.
The routing of these lateral sewers is beyond the scope of this report.
3.1.1 Trunk Sewer Layout - The topography of the study area dictates the need for
two interceptor sewers. The Tyler Creek Interceptor Sewer (TCIS) will serve the northern
prime
portion of the service area. The Otter Creek Interceptor Sewer (OCIS) will serve the
southern portion of the service area. There are several trunk sewers tributary to each
pow
interceptor, which are described in detail below. The trunk sewers and interceptors are
rum generally laid out to follow the natural topography of the study area. Where practical, the
trunk sewers and interceptors are shown in road rights-of-way.
ppm
3.1.2 Trunk Sewer Depth - As with the routing, the depths and invert elevations of
the sewers are also based on the topography of the study area. The sewer depths are based on
providing gravity service to the majority of the upstream portions of the service area. The
000119-04/02
ppm
i•
'o" 3-2
ppmminimum planned depth (to the crown of the pipe) of the interceptor and trunk sewers is 10
feet. This depth provides gravity basement service for all buildings constructed in the service
area. It also provides some reserve depth for slight ground depressions which are not clearly
p•• shown on the USGS contour maps but which could affect gravity basement service. The
s• sewer pipe slopes are generally assumed to be the minimum slopes permitted by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). In some locations, the topography allows steeper
pon
6 slopes while maintaining the 10 feet minimum depth to the crown of the pipe.
pone
The sewer depths at stream and ditch crossings are sufficient to provide 3.0 feet of
poni cover between the bottom of the ditch and top of sewer pipe. This cover is required by the
Illinois Department of Natural Resources/Division of Water Resources to protect the pipe
during future stream and ditch maintenance work. Exhibit B shows the anticipated sewer
Pas
pipe, rim and invert elevations, based on USGS datum. These elevations can be used for
rim planning of sewer construction. The final invert elevations should be based on the detailed
design work for each section.
3.1.3 Trunk Sewer Size - Trunk sewer size is calculated by determining the sub-
rim
basins tributary to each node on the trunk sewer and then calculating the cumulative peak
pume
wastewater flows. Trunk sewers are sized to flow at no more than 80 percent capacity for the
�,.. projected peak flow.
Appendix D lists the design considerations for all of the trunk and interceptor sewers.
puma
The tabulation shows the upstream and downstream nodes for each sewer segment; sewer
size, length and slope; and the ground and invert elevations at each node. The tabulation also
shows the tributary sub-basins, cumulative P.E., peaking factor, cumulative I/I and peak flow
Pima
000119-04/02
pine
Fon
3-3
!Pm' for each node. The proposed sewer sizing and layout is based on the most current land use
projections and topographical data. Ductile iron (D.I.) pipe is one of the sanitary sewer pipe
ppm
materials accepted by the FRWRD. The sewer sizes used in this report are based on
ppm
{ available D.I. pipe sizes. If other FRWRD approved pipe materials, (such as reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP) with steel bells and spigots or reinforced concrete cylinder pipe
k
(RCCP)) are used in lieu of D.I., then the 14-, 16- and 20-inch diameter sewers in this report
will change to 15-, 18- and 21-inch diameter sewers, respectively. These are commonly
rom
b available pipe sizes for RCP and RCCP.
P"' The trunk sewer numbering system used in this report is similar to the one used in the
1993 Sanitary Sewer Study and in the preceding report by Donohue and Associates, Inc. The
kke
trunk sewers designations remain the same (i.e. trunk sewer 51, 52, 60, etc.), although in
many cases there are additional nodes. Therefore, the node numbers do not correspond
ts
exactly to previous reports. Also, additional trunk sewers have been added to serve basins
Pim' BCE, BCW and SC.
3.2 Tyler Creek Interceptor Sewer and Pumping Station
kb The TCIS will provide service to basins NWIS, 47C, and 47N. This sewer would
also serve the Gilberts Facilities Planning Area if service is extended to Gilberts in the future.
Pon The TCIS is tributary to the Northwest Interceptor Sewer near the intersection of Randall
PI"'
Road and the Chicago and Northwest Railroad tracks. The Northwest Interceptor Sewer
conveys wastewater flows to the FRWRD North Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF).
Trunk Sewers 51, 52, and 53 (serving 47N and 47C) are all tributary to the TCIS at node
11.1.6
000119-04/02
4
firms
pin 3-4
pow TC.1. The approximate locations of the proposed trunk sewer network are shown in
Exhibit B.
Several segments of the TCIS have been constructed since the 1993 Sanitary Sewer
Imo
Study. The TCIS currently terminates at sanitary manhole 52, as indicated on Exhibit B.
rpm The peak wastewater flow rate tributary to manhole 52 is 18.1 mgd. The peak wastewater
flow rate tributary to the Northwest Interceptor Sewer at Randall Road is 20.35 mgd.
pprie
The wastewater flow from basin NWIS must be conveyed to and treated at either the
pow
FRWRD North WWTF or the FRWRD West WWTF. We believe that the cost to provide
'p"" treatment will be equivalent for either facility. However, we believe that the cost to transport
all of the flow from basin NWIS to the West WWTF is significantly higher than maximizing
Pon
the existing conveyance capacity to both WWTFs. A discussion of the available capacities
Pin
for the NWIS and the FRWRD North WWTF is presented below:
3.2.1 Fox River Water Reclamation District North WWTF Capacity - The TCIS is
,s,,m tributary to the FRWRD North WWTF. This facility currently has a design average flow
(DAF) capacity of 7.75 mgd. Based on the Illinois Recommended Standards for Sewage
Works, the peak to average flow ratio for a DAF of 7.75 mgd is 2.09. Therefore, the peak
PP* hourly flow capacity for a DAF of 7.75 is 16.2 mgd (7.75 mgd * 2.09). There is currently
sins sufficient land available near the north WWTF to expand the DAF capacity of the north
WWTF to 10.75 mgd. Based on the Illinois Recommended Standards for Sewage Works, the
rpm
peak to average flow ratio for a DAF of 10.75 is 1.97. Therefore, the peak hourly flow
capacity for a DAF of 10.75 is 21.2 mgd (10.75 mgd * 1.97).
rim
000119—04/02
Ru"
3-5
ppmThe North WWTF currently receives an average daily flow of 5.0 mgd. An
additional 0.65 mgd of capacity is dedicated to West Dundee, which is pursuing the purchase
of another 0.60 mgd of capacity. Therefore, the total WWTF capacity currently used or
ppm
dedicated for use is 6.25 mgd. The peak to average flow ratio for a DAF of 6.25 mgd is 2.18.
i... The peak hourly flow rate is 13.6 mgd (6.25 mgd * 2.18). The peak flow reserve capacity
(without a plant expansion) is 2.6 mgd (16.2 mgd — 13.6 mgd). The peak flow reserve
ppm
capacity (with a plant expansion) is 7.6 mgd (21.2 mgd— 13.6 mgd).
ppm
3.2.2 Northwest Interceptor Sewer Capacity - The Northwest Interceptor Sewer was
constructed in four phases, all of which were designed prior to the 1993 Sanitary Sewer
Study. The conveyance capacity of the Northwest Interceptor Sewer, as determined by the
capacity of the limiting segment, is 15.2 mgd.
As can be seen, neither the Northwest Interceptor Sewer nor the North WWTF have
'""' sufficient reserve capacity to accept the entire peak wastewater flow from the TCIS. Without
rana plant expansion, the North WWTF can only accept an additional 2.6 mgd. With a plant
expansion, the North WWTF can only accept an additional 7.6 mgd. This situation was
evaluated in a previous report prepared by Donohue and Associates, Inc. They
rim recommended the construction of the Tyler Creek Pumping Station to divert flow via a
112
�.. forcemain from the TCIS to the OCIS. The pumping station would be constructed on
Randall Road, and the forcemain would convey the wastewater from the pumping station
r
along Randall Road to Trunk Sewer 20. Trunk Sewer 20 is tributary to the Otter Creek
Pumping Station. The Tyler Creek Pumping Station should be sized to divert 10.5 mgd (18.1
" mgd—7.6 mgd).
000119-04/02
opmew
6
woo
3-6
This is a lower capacity than was recommended in the 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study
(19.6 mgd). This decrease results from the fact that during the preparation of the 1993 Study,
rim
the possibility for expanding the FRWRD North WWTF was not considered.
3.3 Otter Creek Interceptor Sewer and Pumping Station
The OCIS (shown in Exhibit B as trunk sewer 60) will collect wastewater from the
BCE, BCW and SC basins. The flow will be conveyed to the Otter Creek Pumping Station
which will be located approximately 5,200 feet southwest of the intersection of Randall and
Pim
Bowes Roads. The Otter Creek pumping station will also receive flow from basins 47S and
Imo BRIS and from the Tyler Creek Pumping Station. The flow will be pumped from that point
through a new forcemain to the existing Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer. The Otter Creek
Pio
Pumping Station is currently under construction.
Trunk sewers 61, 62, 63, 70 and 71 are all tributary to the OCIS at various points
throughout its length. Trunk sewers 20, 30, 31, 32, 80 and the OCIS are all tributary to the
PP,. Otter Creek Pumping Station. The approximate locations of the proposed trunk sewers are
shown in Exhibit B.
r
3.4 Other Pumping Stations
As stated earlier, one of the goals of this report is to limit the number of new lift
r•• stations added to the sanitary sewer system. The alternative to installing pumping stations is
to install deeper trunk sewers. Trunk sewers can generally be installed to a depth of 36 feet
P"'"
using open cut techniques. Deeper sewers can be installed by tunneling them into place.
However, due to elevation constraints of existing facilities and the cost of installing
/°" extremely deep sewers, new pump stations cannot be completely eliminated.
000119—04/02
.•• 3-7
WPM In addition to the Tyler Creek and Otter Creek Pumping Stations, five other pumping
stations are needed to serve the study area. Table 3 lists the locations, capacities and
NMI
forcemain sizes of all six pumping stations.
pion
City of Elgin,Illinois
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
TABLE 3
"^ Pumping Station Data
ti
rm Design Average Hourly Peak
Pumping Station Flow (mgd) (mgd) Flow Forcemain Size
Tyler Creek 6.4 10.5 2 at 16-inch
P"' Otter Creek 24.7 37.0 1 at 20-inch, 1 at 30-inch
Big Timber Road 0.37 1.0 6-inch
Reinking Road 1.0 2.1 10-inch
ppm
Soo Line 0.06 0.16 4-inch
Bowes Creek Estates 2.3 4.7 2 at 10-inch
�•• Nestler Road 4.7 8.8 2 at 16-inch
The tentative locations of these pumping stations are shown in Exhibit B.
row
3.5 Summary of changes from 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study
111" As indicated in Section 2 of this report, the total area, P.E. projection and wastewater
rim flow rate for the study area have increased significantly from the 1993 Sanitary sewer Study.
The majority of these increases occur in the Otter Creek Pumping Station service area. Many
pow
of the trunk sewers have increased in size from the 1993 study. Some of the increases result
Pon
from increased wastewater flow rates as discussed in Section 2. Other sewers (specifically
pun trunk sewers 30, 51, 52 and TC) were increased in size to make them shallower, and,
therefore, less costly to construct. These sewers, while larger than in the 1993 Sanitary
Sewer Study, do not have a larger capacity.
poime
000119-04/02
poin
pima 3-8
*..W The peak flow to the Otter Creek Pumping Station is 37.0 mgd. While the total area
tributary to the Otter Creek Pumping Station has increased significantly due to an expanded
study area, the decreased contribution from the Tyler Creek Pumping Station results in this
ppm peak flow being only slightly higher than the peak flow rate of 34.0 mgd from the 1993
Sanitary Sewer Study.
The current designs for both the Otter Creek Pumping Station and the Bowes Road
Interceptor Sewer reflect the increase in flow from 34.0 mgd to 37.0 mgd. In addition, the
existing Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer has sufficient capacity to accept wastewater flow
from the South Elgin Southwest Expansion Area.
The trunk sewer sizes presented in this report are based on providing additional
pan
treatment capacity at the FRWRD West Plant. This maximizes the use of existing
conveyance facilities and minimizes the size of the Tyler Creek pumping station and force
r"" main. We recommend that the City of Elgin work with FRWRD to acquire the property
p,,, necessary to expand the capacity of the north plant or to prevent the development of the
property.
inst
from
v-.
000119-04/02
PIM
""� 4-1
„,.. 4. ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
4.1 Pumping Stations
pow
Table 4 summarizes our opinion of probable cost for each of the pumping stations,
P•• with the exception of the Bowes Creek Estates Pumping Station and Otter Creek Pumping
Station, which are both currently being design/constructed. Smaller pumping stations (Big
Timber Road, Reinking Road and Soo Line) are assumed to be wet well/valve vault
construction utilizing submersible pumps. Larger pumping stations (Tyler Creek and Nestler
Road) are assumed to be wet well/dry well construction utilizing dry pit pumps. The cost for
P”' each pumping station includes on-site generator, generator structure, driveway access, and
extra pump. The Tyler Creek, Big Timber Road, Reinking Road and Soo Line Pumping
ppm
Stations will be constructed in one phase, although, due to its size, the Tyler Creek Pumping
roe
Station may be constructed in two or more phases. The construction cost estimates presented
ppm
in Table 4 are based on building the lift stations at their ultimate sizes and do not consider the
P,,., construction cost of intermediate phases.
The actual cost for each pumping station will depend on the actual depth and location
ppm
of the pumping station; the material, equipment and labor costs at the time of construction;
and the equipment requirements specified by the City. These estimates do not include land
P.•. acquisition costs or regular maintenance and equipment replacement.
Pim
r
porn
6
000119-04/02
Pim
6
pow
pow 4-2
*.,. City of Elgin, Illinois
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
+*"" TABLE 4
Pumping Stations—Probable Construction Cost
gum
Pumping Station Construction Costl
rim Tyler Creek $1,000,000
Big Timber Road $ 300,000
arm Reinking Road $ 400,000
Soo Line $ 250,000
Nestler Road $ 800,000
gym4.2 Force mains
Table 5 summarizes our opinion of probable cost for each forcemain. The estimated
construction costs are based on open cut installation at a depth of between 8 and 12 feet. The
P" actual cost for each forcemain will depend on the actual depth and location of the forcemain;
P.= the material, equipment and labor costs at the time of construction; and the soil conditions.
City of Elgin,Illinois
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
TABLE 5
possi
Forcemains—Probable Construction Cost
Forcemain Construction Cost'
�.. Tyler Creek $2,000,000
Big Timber Road $ 600,000
vim Reinking Road $ 850,000
Soo Line $ 280,000
�,.. Nestler Road $1,150,000
ORM
° 1 The costs presented here do not include engineering fees or contingencies.
prom
000119-04/02
A
4-3
ram 4.3 Gravity Sewers
Table 6 summarizes our opinion of probable cost for each trunk sewer. The estimated
construction costs are based on open cut installation of sewers up to 36 feet deep. Sewers
deeper than 36 feet are assumed to be installed by tunneling. Pipe materials used for the cost
PPE estimates are consistent with those utilized by the FRWRD. Appendix E lists the
construction cost estimate for each sewer segment. The actual cost for each sewer will
rom
depend on the actual depth and location of the sewer; the material, equipment and labor costs
ppm
at the time of construction; and the soil conditions.
PP" City of Elgin,Illinois
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Pomo TABLE 6
foom Gravity Sewers - Probable Construction Cost
Trunk Sewer Construction Cost'
Pomo
20 $ 6,670,000
30 $15,860,000
r"" 31 $ 620,000
32 $ 910,000
51 $ 2,300,000
52 $ 3,940,000
53 $ 990,000
pow 602 $ 4,940,000
61 $ 1,720,000
62 $ 1,410,000
63 $ 470,000
70 $ 3,150,000
71 $ 690,000
80 $ 860,000
TC $12,180,000
Total $56,710,000
I The costs presented here do not include engineering fees or contingencies.
2 The cost only from 60.1 to Nestler Road Pumping Station.
000119-04/02
I
4-4
Pia4.4 Summary—Northwest Interceptor Sewer Region
The following sanitary sewer system components are tributary to the NWIS: trunk
ppm
sewers 51, 52, 53 and TC; Big Timber Road Pumping Station and forcemain; Reinking Road
gom
Pumping Station and forcemain; and Soo Line Pumping Station and forcemain. The total
rim project cost for these improvements is summarized in Table 7.
City of Elgin, Illinois
ppm
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
fp
,. TABLE 7
Project Cost Summary
Northwest Interceptor Sewer Region
Item Construction Cost
Trunk Sewer 51 $ 2,300,000
Trunk Sewer 52 $ 3,940,000
Trunk Sewer 53 $ 990,000
Trunk Sewer TC $12,180,000
Big Timber Road Pumping Station & FM $ 900,000
Reinking Road Pumping Station &FM $ 1,250,000
Soo Line Pumping Station&FM $ 530,000
Total Construction Cost $22,090,000
Engineering (15%)I $ 3,410,000
Contingencies (20%)2 $ 4,500,000
Total Project Cost $30,000,000
!'"" 4.5 Summary—Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer Region
The following sanitary sewer system components are tributary to the BRIS: trunk
sewers 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 30, 31, 20 and 80; Tyler Creek Pumping Station and forcemain;
r"
I
P"" 1 15%is a typical value for estimating engineering fees for planning of capital improvements and includes both
design and construction activities.
2 20%is a typical value for contingencies for planning capital improvements.
000119-04/02
1111.1
I
4-5
PP.. and Otter Creek Pumping Station and forcemain. The total project cost for these
S
improvements is summarized in Table 8.
City of Elgin,Illinois
ppmSanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
TABLE 8
Project Cost Summary
Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer Region
Item Construction Cost
Trunk Sewer 601 $ 4,940,000
Trunk Sewer 61 $ 1,720,000
poie
Trunk Sewer 62
$ 1,410,000
Trunk Sewer 63 $ 470,000
Trunk Sewer 70
$ 3,150,000
Trunk Sewer 30 $15,860,000
Trunk Sewer 31
$ 620,000
Trunk Sewer 20 $ 6,670,000
Trunk Sewer 80
$ 860,000
Tyler Creek Pumping Station &FM $ 3,000,000
Nestler Road Pumping Station & FM $ 1,950,000
Total Construction Cost $40,650,000
i3
Engineering (15%)2 $ 6,150,000
Contingencies (20%)3 $ 8,200,000
p�' Total Project Cost $55,000,000
This cost only from 60.1 to Nestler Road Pumping Station.
2 15%is a typical value for estimating engineering fees for planning of capital improvements and includes both
design and construction activities.
3 20%is a typical value for contingencies for planning capital improvements.
row000119—04/02
pus
5-1
p.. 5. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
There are several alternatives for financing capital improvement. The following
ipun
financing methods are commonly used:
Pow
1. Bonds
2. Special Service Areas
ppm 3. Special Districts
4. Developer paid with a recapture agreement
P" 5.1 Bonds
__ There are three major forms of bonds that are applicable to community-wide project:
general obligation, revenue, and alternate bonds.
ppm
5.1.1 General Obligation Bonds — These bonds are secured by taxes levied against
Pim
all taxable property within the community. The amount paid by a property owner towards
.• this debt is, therefore, related to the value of the property not to the amount of wastewater
discharged.
One primary advantage of general obligation bonds is that they generally have very
favorable interest rates compared to other types of bonds because there is less risk that they
will not be paid. Another advantage to the taxpayers is that the payments made through their
property taxes are generally deductible from their federal and state income taxes. One
rim
disadvantage is that referendum may have to be approved by the public prior to the sale of
the bonds.
.." 5.1.2 Revenue Bonds — These bonds are payable solely out of the revenues from the
rpm sale of water. Therefore, the amount paid by a customer is directly related to the amount of
water that they use. The dollar value of the bonds that can be sold is not capped and is
a
000119-04/02
rom
5-2
A,,., limited only by the ability of the ratepayers to carry the debt financing costs. No tax levy is
necessary to retire them.
A disadvantage of this form of bond is that a referendum may be necessary prior to
pew
the sale of the bonds if a petition calling for a referendum is filed with the community.
ppm Another concern is that the bond ordinance requires the establishment of reserve funds to
cover the risk of revenue falling short of debt retirement requirements. This reserve fund
PIP
tends to substantially increase the rates paid by customers. Finally, because there is more
Pim
risk associated with these bonds, interest rates tend to be higher, thereby increasing total
OP" costs to the community.
5.1.3 Alternate Bonds — These bonds are a combination of revenue and general
obligation bonds. The intent of the bonds is that the revenue of the system will carry the full
cost of the debt. The general obligation feature is provided as insurance to guarantee the
r." bondholders that if the system revenues fall short, the property values of the community will
be available to fully repay the bonds.
As with the revenue bonds, alternate bonds are subject to referendum if a petition is
filed and a reserve account must be maintained. The major advantage of these bonds is that
pie
the general obligation feature results in a lower interest of rate being charged to finance the
pi.. project.
5.2 Special Service Area Taxation
Special Service Area financing is a means of levying additional real estates taxes in a
confined area of a municipality to provide special services to that area. The municipality sell
ow" Special Service Area bonds and retires those bonds through a special tax levy. This tax levy
000119—04/02
r
pion 5-3
p,m is based upon the equalized assessed values of the properties or on any basis that provides a
rational relationship between the amount of tax levied and the special service rendered. The
pime
advantages of this method of financing are that it is less complex and usually has a lower rate
of interest than special assessments. Also, there are no collection costs since payments are
6.
made in the real estate bill, and payments are tax deductible. A disadvantage of this method
is that property owners do not have the ability to pay off their share up front to avoid annual
pin
payments.
Pim
5.3 Special Financing Districts
p"' Special Financing Districts are areas created to fund special projects within the
District. Creating special districts usually requires some form of prior approval by District
rim
property owners.
5.3.1 Special Assessment Districts — Special Assessment Districts may be used to
pin
recover capital costs for improvements which benefit property owners within a carefully
impdefined area. Special assessments can give the property owners the option of paying the
entire assessment at once or paying it in installments at a specific interest rate. In areas of
6. new development, the developer can be required to fund assessments and pass the cost on to
pow
the new property owners.
e.. 5.3.2 Tax Increment Financing Districts — Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts
raise funds by diverting part of regularly-assessed property taxes to fund capital
6 improvements. Revenues equal to those collected prior to establishing the TIF District
rm
continue to be dedicated to the municipality's general fund. Any increase in revenues
r" resulting from increases in assessed property values is used to fund the capital improvement.
000119-04/02
rim 0 - APPENDIX A
CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS
SANITARY SEWER STUDY
r
k SUBAREA INFORMATION
BOWES ROAD INTERCEPTOR SEWER (BRIS) AREA
TOTAL PE = 43809 DEVELOPED AREA = 7517 ACRES
GROSS DENSISTY 5.83 P.E . PER ACRE
WEST OF" COOMBS RD 40 % EAST OF COOMBS RD 60
NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I
SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD) SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD)
W1 123. 3.35 120. 512 0 .06 El 484. 27 . 1 456. 2618 0.22
Pm W2 44. 1 14. 1 29.9 128 0.01 E2 357 . 14.5 343. 1967 0. 17
W3 433. 7.84 425. 1813 0.21 E3 399 . 11.3 388. 2224 0 . 19
W4 137 . 0. 15 136. 583 0.07 E4 47.8 0 47. 8 274 0:02
Pm W5 204. 7.41 196. 838 0. 10 E5 262. 0 262. 1506 0. 13
. W6 152. 8.79 143. 610 0.07 E6 273 . 0.79 272. 1563 0. 13
W7 300 . 6.41 293. 1252 0. 14 E7 776. 6.20 770. 4413 0 . 38
P" W8 690. 64.7 626. 2667 0.31 E8 548 . 71.5 476. 2731 0. 23
W9 349. 8. 56 341. 1454 0. 17 E9 386. 21. 4 364. 2091 0. 18
W10 477. 16.4 460. . 1962 0.22 ; El0 199. 17.0 182. 1045 0 .09
PP" Wil 637 . 14.9 622. 2653 0.30 Ell 261 . 1.09 260 . 1493 0. 13
6 W12 220. 16.2 204. 871 0. 10 E12 219 . 7 .43 212. 1217 0. 10
W13 152. 1. 15 151. 646 0.07 E13 234. 19.7 214. 1230 0. 10
7""" W14 256. 19.7 237. 1010 0. 12 E14 351. 17. 6 333. 1913 0. 16
W15 106. 3. 11 103. 442 0.05
W16 19.6 0 19. 6 84 0.01
Pm
TOT. 4307 193. 4114 17523 2.01 TOT. 4803 216. 4586 26285 2. 23
AVE. DENSITY 4. 259 AVE. DENSITY 5.730
PmP
1011/
•
PMk
Pm
Pm
r
r
CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS APPENDIX A
SANITARY SEWER STUDY
SUBAREA INFORMATION
NORTHWEST INTERCEPTOR SEWER (NWIS) AREA
TOTAL PE = 25724 DEVELOPED AREA = 3778 ACRES
GROSS DENSISTY 6.81 P.E. PER ACRE
Iwo WEST OF COOMBS RD EQUAL DENS. EAST OF COOMBS RD EQUAL DENS.
NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I
Pm SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD) SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD) ;
Wi 529. 30.3 499. 2487 0.21 El 635. 49. 3 586. 2920 0. 24
P,.. W2 471. 76.0 395 . 1970 0. 16 E2 537. 25.7 511. 2548 0.21
W3 606. 1 . 34 605. 3015 0.25 E3 641. 50. 5 591. 2947 0.24
W4 260. 10.7 250. 1246 0 . 10 E4 141. 13.7 127 . 635 0. 05
W5 1084 32.3 1051 5241 0 .43 E5 502. 44.9 457 . 2279 0. 19
E6 89.8 2.43 87. 3 435 0.04
TOT. 2951 150. 2801 13959 1. 16 TOT. 2547 186. 2361 11765 0.98
AVE. DENSITY '4.983 AVE. DENSITY 4.983
F"
Pm
rob
6
6
Pm
Owl
r-
ppm
APPENDIX A
!."
•
CITY OF ELGIN. ILLINOIS
SANITARY SEWER STUDY
SUBAREA INFORMATION
pimm SUBAREA 47 - NORTH
TOTAL PE = 7817 DEVELOPED AREA = 1008 ACRES
GROSS DENSISTY 7.75 P.E. PER ACRE COMM/INDUST 4613 P.E.
WEST OF RT. 47 RES. ONLY EAST OF RT. 47 90 % EASTERN PORTION 10 %Poi
COMM/INDUS; COMM/INDUS;
NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I 1 NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I 1 NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I 1
SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD); SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD); SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD);
Poom 1 � 1
WI 1778 41.3 1737 3204 0.40 1 Cl 609. 2.846E2 4152 0.16 ; El 394. 122. ? 461 0.02
TOT. 1778 41.3 1737 3204 0.40 1 TOT. 609. 2.84 606. 4152 0.16 1 TOT. 394. 122. 272. 461 0.02 1
AVE. DENSITY 1.84 AVE. DENSITY 6.84 AVE. DENSITY 1.69
SUBAREA 47 - CENTRAL
TOTAL PE = 12288 DEVELOPED AREA = 2348 ACRES GROSS DENSITY 5.23 PE/ACRE
WEST OF RT. 47• 30 % EAST OF RT. 47 60 % EASTERN PORTION 10 Y.
NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I
SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD) 1 SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD); SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD)
Cl 195. 4.64 191. 704 0.08 El 389. 36.3 353. 239 :0.03
W1 794. 7.95 786. 1344 0.15 C2 625. 2.33 622. 2295 0.25 E2 310. 50.3 260. 175 0.02
W2 880. 25.6 855. 1461 0.16 C3 180. 0.18 179. 663 0.07 E3 558. 2.75 555. 375 0.04
W3 530. 14.1 516. 882 0.10 C4 117. 1.96 115. 426 0.05 1 E4 176. 3.14 172. 117 0.01
C5 301. 8.65 292. 1078 0.12 ES 597. 118. 478. 323 0.03
Om, 1 C6 217. 23.1 194. 717 0.08
C7 457. 52.8 404. 1490 0.16
TOT. 2205 47.9 2157 3686 0.40 TOT. 2094 93.5 2000 7373 0.80 TOT. 2032 211. 1820 1229 0.13
AVE. DENSITY 1.70 AVE. DENSITY 3.68 AVE. DENSITY 0.67
rim
SUBAREA 47 - SOUTH
TOTAL PE = 10088 DEVELOPED AREA 1993 ACRES GROSS DENSITY 5.06 PE/ACRE
WEST OF RT. 47 30 % EAST OF RT. 47 60 % I EASTERN PORTION 10 % 1
NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I 1 NAME GROSS WET- NET PE I/I 1
SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD) SIZE LANDS SIZE (MGD); SIZE LANDS SIZE IMGD)1
El 438. 69.2 369. 129 0.01 1
'Pm WI 443. 6.54 436. 1144 0.13 Cl 422. 4.31 418. 1946 0.22 E2 832. 2.14 830. 289 0.03 1
W2 319. 0 319. 838 0.09 C2 412. 1.91 410. 1907 0.21 E3 347. 0 347. 121 0.01
W3 398. 0.38 398. 1044 0.12 C3 260. 0 260. 1211 0.14 E4 85.2 0 85.2 30 0.00 1
C4 216. 3.32 212. 989 0.11 E5 1072 1.41 1070 373 0.04 1
I E6 83.6 13.4 70.1 24 0.00 1
E7 128. 7.16 120. 42 0.00 1
TOT. 1161 6.92 1154 3026 0.34 TOT. 1311 9.54 1302 6053 0.68 TOT. 2987 93.4 2893 1009 0.11 1
AVE. DENSITY 2.621 AVE. DENSITY 4.64 1 AVE. DENSITY 0.34
a
In"
rm. APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A SAMPLE CALCULATION
111.• Total P.E. basin 47S = 10,088
% total P.E. west of Route 47 = 30%
% total P.E. east of Route 47 = 60%
% total P.E. in eastern portion = 10%
F
Total P.E. west of Route 47 = 10,088 x 0.30 = 3,026
Gross acreage west of Route 47 = 1,160
Pow
Net acreage west of Route 47 (less wetlands) = 1,153
Pos, Sub-basin 47S-W1 net acreage =436
Sub-basin 47S-W1 P.E. = 3,026 x 436 = 1 144
1,153 '
ris
Porn
FP"
Pim
6
6
6
"^ APPENDIX B
PP" Land Use Type Dwelling Units/acres P.E./Dwelling Unit2 P.E./acre
Estate residential 2 3.69 7.4
Low density residential 4 3.69 14.8
!"'"° Industrial - - 15.03
Commercial - - 15.03
Public - - 04
Un-developables - - 0
PPM Updated P.E. Projections—2000 Far West Plan Area
P.E. =Developable acres * P.E./Acre * development factor
rob
Where
Pow Developable acres = total acres of each land use type within the sub-basin (determined
from land use plan)
P.E./acre=the anticipated P.E./acre for each land use type.
/"' Development factor = factor that accounts for land that is used for public roads,
easements and parks. As directed by City Staff, the development factor used us 0.70.
rob
Sample Calculation Sub-basin NWIS-E2
ipme Total area 537.2 acres
Un-developable area 278.4 acres
Industrial 23.4 acres
Estate 235.4 acres
P.E./acre Industrial 15.0 P.E./acres
own P.E./acre Estate 7.4 P.E./acres
Sub-basin NWIS-E2 P/E/= (23.4 x 15.0) + (235.4 x 7.4) = 246 + 1,216 = 1,462 P.E.
P.E. Projection Basins SC, BCE and BCW
pinP.E. =Developable acres * 2000 FWPA Average P.E./acre
Where
Developable acre = total acres less un-developable acres (forest preserve, park district,
open space,floodplain and wetlands).
2000 FWPA Average P.E./acre= 10.6 P.E./acre.6
2000 Far West Plan
2 City Planning Department
Commonly accepted values used for infrastructure planning
a Negligible P.E./acre
5 Includes forest preserve, park district, open space, floodplain and wetlands. This is collectively listed as
rig 6 "Un-developable Land"in Appendix C and is shown on Exhibit B as shaded areas.
Average P.E./acre for new development for the entire Far West Plan Area = 10.6 P.E. and is calculated by
dividing the total estimated P.E. (50,250 residential + 29,750 commercial/industrial) for the Far West Plan
Area by the total developable acres(7,532)in the Far West Plan Area.
000119-04/02
'm° APPENDIX B
A.. Sample Calculation Sub-basin SC-C
Total area = 280.0
p"" Un-developable area = 64.4
Developable area = 215.6
2000 FWPA Ave. P.E./acre = 10.6
Sub-basin SC-C P.E. = 215.6 x 10.6 = 1,600 P.E.
ppm
M
10.11
ppm
pus
Pim
opme
pme
run
k
k
000119—04/02
APPENDIX C
Pm CITY OF ELGIN I 1
SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
APPENDIX C-SUB-BASIN POPULATION PROJECTIONS
pos I ,
Total Area Land Use Undevelopable(2) Developable P.EJAcre P.E. I/I Source
Sub-Basin (acres) Type (acres) (acres) (mgd)
47N-W1 1778.4 NAW 41.3 1737.1 NA 3,204 ^ 0.40 1992 LCM(3)
47N-C1 284.6 NA 2.84 281.8 NA 1,938 0.07 1992 LCM
47N-C2 325.2 NA 0 325.2 NA 2,214 0.09 1992 LCM
roe 47N-E1 394.7 NA 122 272.7 NA 461 0.02 1992 LCM
Basin 47N Totals 2782.9 7,817 i 0.58
470-W1 794.4 NA 7.95 786.4 NA 1,344 0.15 1992 LCM
47C-W2 880.8 NA 25.8 855.0 NA 1,461 0.16 1992 LCM
i- 47C-W3 531.4 NA 14.1 517.3 NA 882 j 0.10 1992 LCM
47C-C1 195.7 NA 4.64 191.1 NA 704 I 0.08 1992 LCM
pas 470-02 625.0 NA 2.33 622.7 NA 2,295 0.25 1992 LCM
it 470-03 180.1 NA 0.18 179.9 NA 663 0.07 1992 LCM
47C-C4 117.5 NA 1.96 115.6 NA 426 0.05 1992 LCM
470-05 301.2 NA 8.65 292.5 NA 1,078 1 0.12 1992 LCM
Po 47C-C6 217.8 NA 23.1 194.7 NA 717 0.08 1992 LCM
-6. 47C-C7 457.0 NA 52.6 404.4 NA 1,490 0.16 1992 LCM
470-E1 389.9 NA 36.3 353.6 NA 239 0.03 1992 LCM
47C-E2 310.4 NA _ 50.3 260.1 NA 175 0.02 1992 LCM
Pm
47C-E3 558.4 NA 2.75 555.7 NA 375 0.04 1992 LCM
Io- 47C-E4 176.1 NA 3.14 172.9 NA 117 0.01 1992 LCM
47C-E5 597.4 NA 118 479.4 NA 323 0.03 1992 LCM
ppm Basin 47C Totals 6333.1 12,289 1.35
i.
47S-W1 442.1 NA 6.54 435.6 NA 1,144 0.13 1992 LCM
47S-W2 319.7 NA 0 319.7 NA 838 0.09 1992 LCM
47S-W3 398.8 NA 0.38 398.4 NA 1,044 0.12 1992 LCM
ii 47S-C1 422.9 NA 4.31 418.6 NA 1 1,946 0.22 1992 LCM
47S-C2 412.2 NA 1.91 410.3 NA 1,907 0.21 1992 LCM
47S-C3 260.5 NA 0 260.5 NA 1,211 0.14 1992 LCM
478-04 216.0 NA 3.32 212.7 NA 989 0.11 1992 LCM
b 47S-E1 439.5 NA 69.2 370.3 NA 129 0.01 1992 LCM
47S-E2 832.3 NA 2.14 830.2 NA 289 0.03 1992 LCM
poem 47S-E3 345.1 NA 0 345.1 NA 121 0.01 1992 LCM
47S-E4 85.2 NA 0 85.2 NA 30 0.00 1992 LCM
47S-E5 1072.0 NA 1.41 1070.6 NA 373 1 0.04 1992 LCM
�
w 47S-E6 83.7 NA 13.4 70.3 NA 24 ' 0.00 1992 LCM
[ 47S-E7 90.1 NA 7.16 82.9 NA 42 0.00 1992 LCM
k 47S-E8 216.0 NA 49.7 166.3 10.6 1,234 0.09 2000 FWPA Average
Basin 47S Totals 5636.1 11,321 1 1.20
pm
NWIS-W1 529.4 NA I 30.3 499.1 NA 2,487 0.21 1992 LCM
k NWIS-W2 471.3 NA 76 395.3 NA 1,970 0.16 1992 LCM
NWIS-W3 606.5 NA 1.34 605.1 NA 3,015 0.25 1992 LCM
ppm NWIS-W4 260.8 NA 10.7 250.1 NA 1,246 0.10 1992 LCM
NWIS-W5 1084.0 NA 32.3 1051.7 NA 5,241 0.43 1992 LCM
NWIS-E1 635.4 NA 49.3 586.1 NA 2,920 0.24 1992 LCM
NWIS-E2 537.2 Industrial 278.4 23.4 15.0 246 0.01 2000 FWPA(4)
Estate 235.4 7.4 1,216 0.13 2000 FWPA
ik NWIS-E3 642.0 Estate 434.8 107.7 7.4 556 0.06 2000 FWPA
Industrial 23.3 15.0 245 0.01 2000 FWPA
LDR 76.2 14.8 _ 787 0.04 2000 FWPA
NWIS-E4 141.1 NA _ 13.7 127.4 NA 635 0.05 1992 LCM
ii
NWIS-E5 502.3 Industrial 127.7 62.3 15.0 654 0.04 2000 FWPA
LDR 63.5 14.8 656 0.04 2000 FWPA
rims Public 53.4 0.0 - 0.03 2000 FWPA
k NA _ 195.4 NA 887 0.11 1992 LCM
NWIS-E6 89.8 NA 44.9 44.9 NA 435 0.03 1992 LCM
rum NWIS-E7 485.7 Estate 18.6 120.4 7.4 622 0.04 2000 FWPA
Industrial 346.7 15.0 3,640 0.20 1996 FWPA
ik Basin NWIS Totals 27,458 2.18
r (1) P.E.for this sub-basin obtained from 1992 Land Capacity Model.Specific land use types and P.E./acre are not listed.
(2) Un-developable land includes forest preserve,park district,open space,flood plain and wetlands.
(3) 1992 Land Capacity Model.
(4) 2000 Far West Plan Area. 1
r 1 of
i.
APPENDIX C
Total Area Land Use Undevelopable(2) Developable P.EJAcre 1 P.E. IA Source
ik
Sub-Basin (acres) Type (acres) (acres) (mgd)
r BRIS-W1 123.6 NA 3.35 120.3 NA 512 0.06 1992 LCM
6 BRIS-W2 438.4 NA 14.1 424.3 NA 128 0.01 1992 LCM
BRIS-W3 433.6 LDR 7.84 425.7 14.8 4,399 0.24 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W4 137.1 LDR 3.8 39.0 14.8 403 0.02 2000 FWPA
rill NA 94.3 NA 401 0.05 1992 LCM
6 BRIS-W5 204.1 LDR 194.5 9.6 14.8 99 0.01 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W6 152.0 Industrial 86.8 49.6 15.0 521 0.03 2000 FWPA
rpm LDR 15.6 14.8 162 0.01 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W7 300.3 LDR 18.8 232.5 14.8 2,402 0.13 2000 FWPA
Industrial 49.0 15.0 514 0.03 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W8 690.9 LDR 463.6 168.1 14.8 1,737 0.09 2000 FWPA
pose Estate 59.2 7.4 306 0.03 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W9 349.9 Estate 40.8 84.9 7.4 439 0.05 2000 FWPA
LDR 224.2 14.8 2,316 0.13 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W10 477.2 Commercial 64.5 12.0 15.0 126 0.01 2000 FWPA
poi
Estate 153.7 7.4 794 0.09 2000 FWPA
LDR 247.0 14.8 2,552 0.14 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W11 472.1 I Estate 225.6 117.0 7.4 604 0.07 2000 FWPA
pm C LDR 129.5 14.8 1,338 0.07 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W12 82.2 I LDR 63.1 19.1 14.8 197 0.01 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W13 152.7 LDR I 9.6 107.3 14.8 1,109 0.06 2000 FWPA
Estate 35.8 7.4 185 0.02 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W14 168.3 Estate 26.9 118.0 7.4 610 0.07 2000 FWPA
fit LDR 23.4 14.8 241 0.01 2000 FWPA
BRIS-W15 56.5 Estate 0 56.5 7.4 292 0.03 2000 FWPA
BRIS-E1 484.0 Commercial! 85.5 39.3 15.0 413 0.02 2000 FWPA
ral Industrial 28.4 15.0 298 0.02 2000 FWPA
i- LDR 330.8 14.8 3,418 0.19 2000 FWPA
BRIS-E2 357.7 LDR 99.1 169.8 14.8 1,754 0.10 2000 FWPA
Commercial 6.7 15.0 70 0.00 2000 FWPA
6- Estate 82.1 7.4 424 0.05 2000 FWPA
BRIS-E3 399.5 LDR 51.8 150.2 14.8 1,552 0.08 2000 FWPA
Estate 197.5 7.4 1,020 0.11 2000 FWPA
Pull BRIS-E4 47.9 LDR 0 47.9 14.8 495 0.03 2000 FWPA
6 BRIS-E5 262.7 LDR 0 227.9 14.8 2,355 0.13 2000 FWPA
Commercial; 34.8 15.0 366 0.02 2000 FWPA
BRIS-E6 273.6 Commercial 33.7 76.9 15.0 807 0.04 2000 FWPA
rill Estate 63.1 7.4 326 0.04 2000 FWPA
6 LDR 99.9 14.8 1,032 0.06 2000 FWPA
BRIS-E7 778.5 Estate 244.7 101.2 7.4 523 0.06 2000 FWPA
rail LDR 432.6 14.8 4,470 0.24 2000 FWPA
k BRIS-E8 548.2 Commercial I 344.7 25.0 15.0 263 0.01 2000 FWPA
Estate 85.1 7.4 440 0.05 2000 FWPA
LDR 93.4 14.8 965 0.05 2000 FWPA
rilli BRIS-E9 386.3 Estate 40.8 84.9 7.4 439 0.05 2000 FWPA
L LDR 260.6 14.8 2,692 0.15 2000 FWPA
BRIS-E10 200.9 Estate 7.6 193.3 7.4 999 0.11 2000 FWPA
pm BRIS-E11 267.8 LDR 66.5 201.3 14.8 2,085 0.11 2000 FWPA
L Basin BRIS Totals 8246 2198 6048 49,593 3.19
(1) P.E.for this sub-basin obtained from 1992 Land Capacity Model.Specific land use types and P.EJacre are not listed.
(2) Un-developable land includes forest preserve,park district,open space,flood plain and wetlands.
6 (3) 1992 Land Capacity Model. i 1
(4) 2000 Far West Plan Area. 1
1
iff IP*
Iv
Pliiii
i
ri.
it
? 2 of 3
6
APPENDIX C
rim
Total Area Land Use Undevelopable(2) Developable P.EJAcre _ P.E. I I/I Source
Sub-Basin (acres) Type (acres) (acres) (mgd)_
PIN BCE-A 40.1 Estate 0 40.1 7.4 207 0.02 2000 FWPA
a BCE-B 100.4 _ Estate 33 67.4 7.4 348 0.04 2000 FWPA
BCE-C 181.5 LDR 12.8 168.7 14.8 1,743 0.10 2000 FWPA
BCE-D 187.2 LDR 29.4 157.8 14.8 1,630 0.09 1 2000 FWPA
BCE-E 60.1 Commercial 4.4 55.7 15.0 584 0.03 2000 FWPA
BCE-F 44.2 LDR 18 26.2 14.8 271 0.01 2000 FWPA
BCE-G 78.6 Estate 0 78.6 7.4 406 0.04 2000 FWPA
paw BCE-H 67.2 Commercial 0 67.2 15.0 705 0.04 2000 FWPA
BCE-1 165.4 LDR 22.7 142.7 14.8 1,474 0.08 2000 FWPA
ik
BCE-J 193.8 Estate 0 193.8 7.4 1,001 0.11 2000 FWPA
BCE-K 128.6 LDR 43 85.6 14.8 884 0.05 2000 FWPA
BCE-L 5.2 Commercial_ 0 5.2 15.0 54 0.00 2000 FWPA
a BCE-R(BOWES C.E.) 636.1 Planned 216 420.1 NA 2,560 0.24 Developer
BCE-Q(BANGASH/DEIH: 191.5 LDR 163.9 27.6 14.8 285 0.02 2000 FWPA
11.1111BCE-M(KENDALL) 162.2 LDR 71.4 90.8 14.8 938 0.05 2000 FWPA
BCE-N(McKAY) 73.3 1 Commercial 22.3 51.0 15.0 535 0.03 2000 FWPA
t: BCE-P(GYORR) 115.9 Commercial I 19.3 70.5 15.0 740 0.04 2000 FWPA
LDR 26.1 14.8 269 0.01 2000 FWPA
✓A BCE-O 44.9 LDR 0 44.9 14.8 l 463 0.03 2000 FWPA
BCE-S 212.2 Average 48.8 163.4 10.6 1,212 0.09 2000 FWPA Average
BCE-T 129.8 Average 29.9 99.9 10.6 741 0.06 2000 FWPA Average
BCE-U 255.5 Average 58.8 196.7 10.6 1,460 0.11 2000 FWPA Average
BCE-V 85.9 Average 19.8 66.1 10.6 490 0.04 2000 FWPA Average
a Basin BCE Totals 3159 814 2346 19,000 1.33
pm BCW-A 254.0 Average 58.4 195.6 10.6 1,451 0.11 2000 FWPA Average
BCW-B 163.9 Average 37.7 126.2 10.6 936 0.07 2000 FWPA Average
a BCW-C 199.4 Average 45.9 153.5 10.6 1,139 0.09 2000 FWPA Average
BCW-D 147.3 Average 33.9 113.4 10.6 841 0.06 2000 FWPA Average
Pm BCW-E 228.3 Average 52.5 175.8 10.6 1,304 0.10 2000 FWPA Average
BCW-F 204.3 Average 47.0 157.3 10.6 1,167 0.09 2000 FWPA Average
BCW-G 169.3 Average 38.9 130.4 10.6 968 0.07 2000 FWPA Average
BCW-H 131.4 Average 30.2 101.2 10.6 751 0.06 2000 FWPA Average
1.111 BCW-I 331.2 Average 76.2 255.0 10.6 1,892 0.14 2000 FWPA Average
it BCW-J 97.4 Average 22.4 75.0 10.6 557 0.04 2000 FWPA Average
BCW-K 453.3 Average 104.3 349.0 10.6 2,590 0.20 2000 FWPA Average
ppm BCW-L 339.7 Average 78.1 261.6 10.6 1,941 0.15 2000 FWPA Average
BCW-M 270.6 Average 62.2 208.4 10.6 1,546 0.12 2000 FWPA Average
BCW-N 91.7 Average 21.1 70.6 10.6 524 0.04 2000 FWPA Average
Basin BCW Totals 3082 17,607 1.34
ri, SC-A 86.2 Average 19.8 66.4 10.6 493 0.04 2000 FWPA Average
SC-B 225.0 Average 51.8 173.2 10.6 1,285 0.10 2000 FWPA Average
SC-C 280.0 Average 64.4 215.6 10.6 1,600 0.12 2000 FWPA Average
SC-D 186.2 Average 42.8 143.4 10.6 1,064 0.08 2000 FWPA Average
ivf SC-E 173.5 Average 39.9 133.6 10.6 991 0.08 2000 FWPA Average
SC-F 224.3 Average 51.6 172.7 10.6 1,281 0.10 2000 FWPA Average
pm SC-G 187.9 LDR 72.4 115.5 14.8 1,193 0.07 2000 FWPA Average
SC-H 114.4 Estate 39.5 74.9 7.4 387 0.04 2000 FWPA Average
Basin SC Totals 1474 8,294 0.63
Gilberts 2780 NA 100 2680.0 19,429 1.51 1992 LCM
i Gilberts Totals 19,429 1.51
r" Study Area Total 172,808 13.31
(1) P.E.for this sub-basin obtained from 1992 Land Capacity Model.Specific land use types and P.E./acre are not listed.
(2) Un-developable land includes forest preserve,park district,open space,flood plain and wetlands.
piiim (3) 1992 Land Capacity Model.
(4) 2000 Far West Plan Area.
I
a
r.
li
A
3 of 3
4
APPENDIX D
k
ITY OF ELGIN
SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
APPENDIX D-TRUNK SEWER AND PUMPING STATION CALCULATIONS
frilr
runk Sewer 53: 47N-W1
L Upst Dnst Peaking Cum I/I Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
riUpst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope
53.1 53.2 940 935 928.50 923.50 47N-W1 3204 3.42 0.40 1.50 16 400 1.25
i. 53.2 53.3 935 928 923.50 916.50 3204 3.42 0.40 1.50 16 600 1.17
53.3 53.4 928 917 916.50 905.50 3204 3.42 0.40 1.50 16 1150 0.96
0.1
53.4 53.5 917 908 905.50 896.50 3204 3.42 0.40 1.50 16 1100 0.82
53.5 53.6 908 911 896.50 895.50 3204 3.42 0.40 1.50 16 400 0.25
$� 53.6 53.7 911 903 895.50 891.50 3204 3.42 0.40 1.50 16 1000 0.40
53.7 53.8 903 906 891.50 889.50 3204 3.42 0.40 1.50 16 1350 0.15
rile
53.8 R.R.P.S. 906 907 889.50 888.00 3204 3.42 0.40 1.50 16 800 0.19
ie inking Road Pumping Station: TS 53,47N-C1
inb.PE 5142 PE
iiiCum I/I 0.47 mgd
ve Flow 687 gpm
'eak Flow 1484 gpm
IFM Size 10 inch
�, _y at Ave 2.8 ft/sec
/at Peak 6.1 ft/sec
Big Timber Road Pumping Station: 47N-C2,47N-E1
0 Jill_
rib.PE 2675 PE
;um IA 0.11 mgd
k Ave Flow 259 gpm
Prileeak Flow 720 gpm
:M Size 6 inch
iik /at Ave 2.9 ft/sec
V at Peak 8.2 ft/sec
rill,
foo Line Pumping Station: 47C-E5
rib.PE 323IPE
Aum IA 0.03'mgd
ve Flow 43 gpm
eak Flow 112 gpm
it
FM Size 4 inch
polVat Ave 1.1 ft/sec
at Peak 2.9 ft/sec
tw
Trunk Sewer 52: 47C-W2,W3,C3,C4,C5,C6,C7,E3,E4,Soo Line PS
Upst Dnst Peaking Cum I/I Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
I. Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope%
I52.1 52.2 952 928 941.00 917.00 47C-W3 882 3.83 0.10 0.44 12 1650 1.45
52.2 52.3 928 925 917.00 913.50 882 3.83 0.10 0.44 12 400 0.88
52.3 52.4 925 921 913.50 909.50 47C-C7 2372 3.53 0.26 1.10 14 1100 0.36
16 52.4 52.5 921 927 909.50 908.50 2372 3.53 0.26 1.10 14 450 0.22
ri52.5 52.6 927 924 908.50 906.50 2372 3.53 0.26 1.10 14 1150 0.17
52.6 52.7 924 921 906.50 904.00 2372 3.53 0.26 1.10 14 1450 0.17
52.7 52.8 921 918 904.00 901.00 2372 3.53 0.26 1.10 14 1850 0.16
it 52.8 52.9 918 916 901.00 897.50 47C-W2,C5,C6 5628 3.20 0.62 2.42 24 3500 0.10
p"' 52.9 52.10 916 912 897.50 896.00 47C-E4 5745 3.19 0.63 2.46 24 1700 0.09
52.10 52.11 912 911 896.00 894.25 47C-C3,C4 6834 3.12 0.75 2.88 24 1950 0.09
52.11 52.12 911 910 894.25 893.25 6834 3.12 0.75 2.88 24 1000 0.10
52.12 52.13 910 905 893.25 892.75 Soo Line PS 7157 3.10 0.78 3.00 24 600 0.08
52.13 52.14 905 905 892.75 891.75 47C-E3 7532 3.08 0.82 3.14 24 1150 0.09
52.14 51.10 905 890 891.75 878.00 7532 3.08 0.82 3.14 24 5600 0.25
r
pri-
h06
ii
ownPage 1 of 5
L
poen
APPENDIX D
ii
•
rrunk Sewer 51: 47C-W1,C2,Reinking Rd PS
Upst Dnst Peaking Cum I/I Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
ri .
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope%
1x 51.1 51.2 917 907 905.50 895.50 47C-W1 1344 3.71 0.15 0.65 14 2650 0.38
4 51.2 51.3 907 908 895.50 893.50 1344 3.71 0.15 0.65 14 1100 0.18
51.3 51.4 908 904 893.50 892.00 47C-C2 3639 3.37 0.40 1.63 18 1300 0.12
51.4 51.5 904 906 892.00 890.50` 3639 3.37 0.40 1.63 18 1100 0.14
k 51.5 51.6 906 910 890.50 888.50 3639 3.37 0.40 1.63 18 1450 0.14
p51.6 51.7 910 909 888.50 888.00 3639 3.37 0.40 1.63 18 400 0.13
51.7 51.8 909 907 888.00 887.50 Reinking Rd PS 8781 3.01 0.87 3.52 30 400 0.13
51.8 51.9 907 904 887.50 886.50 8781 3.01 0.87 3.52 30 1200 0.08
51.9 51.10 904 894 886.50 881.50 8781 3.01 0.87 3.52 30 3450 0.14
(Trunk Sewer 32: 478-C1,W1
Upst Dnst Peaking Cum I/I Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
if Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
oplUpst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope%
32.1 30.12 924 911 905.00 897.00 47S-C1,W1 3090 3.43 0.35 1.41 16 5700 0.14
trunk Sewer 31: 47S-E1,BRIS-W1,W2
I Upst Dnst Peaking Cum UI Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
ppliUpst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) , (MGD) Size Length Slope%
31.1 31.2 910 907 899.00 896.00 47S-E1 129 4.21 0.01 0.06 10 900 0.33
31.2 31.3 907 910 896.00 888.50 129 4.21 0.01 0.06 10 2650 0.28
31.3 31.4 910 906 888.50 887.00 BRIS-W1,W2 769 3.87 0.08 0.38 10 500 0.30
R-^1 31.4 30.14 906 910 887.00 885.50 769 3.87 0.08 0.38 10 400 0.38
‘.' frunk Sewer 30: 47S-W2,W3,C2,C3,C4,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8 TS 31,TS 32,BRIS-W3,W4,W5,W6,W7,W8,W9,W10,W11,W12,W13,W14,W15,E5,E7,E9
opji
Upst Dnst Peaking I Cum I/I Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope%
ib 30.1 30.2 955 948 943.50 936.50 47S-W2,W3 1882 I 3.61 0.21 0.89 14 850 0.82
30.2 30.3 948 938 936.50 926.50 1882 3.61 0.21 0.89 14 1650 0.61
poi
30.3 30.4 938 936 926.50 924.50 47S-C3 3093 3.43 0.35 1.41 16 1350 0.15
30.4 30.5 936 920 924.50 908.50 3093 3.43 0.35 1.41 16 5150 0.31
30.5 30.6 920 925 908.50 905.50 47S-C4 4082 3.33 0.46 1.82 18 2250 0.13
pi30.6 30.7 925 917 905.50 903.50 47S-E5,E7,E8 5731 3.19 0.59 2.42 24 2500 0.08
30.7 30.8 917 918 903.50 902.50 5731 3.19 0.59 2.42 24 1150 0.09
I 30.8 30.9 918 916 902.50 902.00 5731 3.19 0.59 2.42 24 600 0.08
' 30.9 30.10 916 916 902.00 901.25 47S-C2 7638 3.07 0.80 3.14 24 750 0.10
430.10 30.11 916 917 901.25 900.50 47S-E6 7662 3.07 0.80 3.15 24 650 0.12
30.11 30.12 917 912 900.50 897.00 47S-E3 7783 3.06 0.81 3.19 24 1500 0.23
30.12 30.13 912 906 897.00 893.00 TS 32 10873 2.92 1.16 4.33 30 750 0.53
it 30.13 30.14 906 910 893.00 885.50 47S-E2,E4,BRIS-W4 11996 2.88 1.26 4.71 30 4000 0.19
30.14 30.15 910 915 885.50 885.25 TS 31 12765 2.85 1.34 4.97 30 350 0.07
li 30.15 30.16 915 904 885.25 884.75 12765 2.85 1.34 1 4.97 30 700 0.07
30.16 30.17 904 903 884.75 883.75 12765 2.85 1.34 4.97 30 1520 0.07
L 30.17 30.18 903 891 883.75 878.00 BRIS-W3,W6 17847 2.70 1.62 6.44 36 3240 0.18
30.18 30.19 891 892 878.00 876.00 BRIS-W5,W7 20862 2.63 1.79 7.28 36 4100 0.05
30.19 30.20 892 888 876.00 874.00 BRIS-W8,W9 25660 2.54 2.09 8.62 42 1100 0.18
rill 30.20 30.21 888 883 868.00 866.00 25660 2.54 2.09 8.62 42 1300 0.15
Pir 30.21 30.22 883 890 857.00 855.00 25660 2.54 2.09 8.62 42 1150 0.17
I30.22 30.23 890 858 849.00 847.50 BRIS-W10,W11,E5 33795 2.43 2.62 10.82 48 900 0.17
30.23 30.24 858 862 843.50 840.00 33795 2.43 2.62 10.82 48 1300 0.27
30.24 30.25 862 875 840.00 837.50 33795 2.43 2.62 10.82 48 1900 0.13
i 30.25 30.26 875 845 829.66 828.34 BRIS-W12 33992 2.42 2.63 10.87 48 3300 0.04
4 30.26 30.27 845 858 828.34 827.00 BRIS-W13,W14 36137 2.40 2.79 11.46 48 1350 0.10
30.27 30.28 858 823 827.00 823.00 36137 2.40 2.79 11.46 48 2800 0.14
30.28 30.29 823 823 808.50 808.00 36137 2.40 2.79 11.46 48 650 0.08
30.29 30.30 823 835 808.00 807.50 BRIS-W15,E9 39560 2.36 3.02 12.36 48 900 0.06
I30.30 30.31 835 826 807.50 804.50 39560 2.36 3.02 12.36 48 1100 0.27
30.31 30.32 826 828 804.50 802.00 39560 2.36 3.02 12.36 48 1750 0.14
rill30.32 30.33 828 825 793.50 792.50 39560 2.36 3.02 12.36 48 600 0.17
30.33 30.34 825 809 790.00 788.50 39560 2.36 3.02 12.36 48 1050 0.14
30.34 20.12 809 787 1 776.00 773.00 BRIS-E7 44553 2.31 3.32 13.62 48 1800 0.17
111000"yler Creek Alternate Route(full flow): TS 51,TS 52,NWIS-W1,W2,W3,W4,W5,El,E2,47C-E1,E2,Cl,Big Timber PS,Gilberts
& 1 Upst Dnst I I I I Peaking I Cum I/11 Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Page 2 of 5
Ik
Im APPENDIX D
6
!~ Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
it Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope%
I51.10 TC.1 904 898 878.00 873.50 47C-E1,E2,Cl,TS 51,BT PS,TS 52 20106 2.65 1.93 7.26 36 1200 0.38
TC.1 TC.2 898 896 873.50 873.00 20106 2.65 1.93 7.26 36 950 0.05
TC.2 TC.3 896 894 873.00 872.00 20106 2.65 1.93 7.26 36 2000 0.05
TC.3 TC.4 894 908 872.00 871.75 20106 2.65 1.93 7.26 36 400 0.06
TC.4 TC.5 908 904 871.75 871.58 1 20106 2.65 1.93 7.26 36 300 0.06
TC.5 TC.6 904 917 871.58 871.17 20106 2.65 1.93 7.26 _ 36 850 0.05
ppm TC.6 TC.7 917 892 871.17 870.33 NWIS-W2 22076 2.61 2.09 7.85 42 2300 0.04
TC.7 TC.8 892 906 870.33 868.58 NWIS-W1,W3,W5 32819 2.44 2.98 10.98 42 3800 0.05
TC.8 TC.9 906 914 868.58 868.17 NWIS-W4 34065 2.42 3.08 11.33 42 850 0.05
poi
TC.9 TC.10 914 925 868.17 867.92 34065 2.42 3.08 11.33 42 450 0.06
TC.10 TC.11 925 914 867.92 867.33 34065 2.42 3.08 11.33 42 1200 0.05
TC.11 TC.12 914 917 867.33 866.92 Gilberts,NWIS-E1 56414 2.22 4.83 17.33 42 300 0.14
TC.12 TC.13 917 900 866.92 863.83 56414 2.22 5.16 17.66 42 2600 0.12
poi
TC.13 TC.14 900 889 863.83 862.58 56414 2.22 5.16 17.66 42 1050 0.12
TC.14 TC.15 889 870 862.58 861.33 NWIS-E2 57876 2.21 5.30 18.07 42 1000 0.13
TC.15 SA-MH 52 870 890 861.33 859.24 57876 2.21 5.30 18.07 42 1250 0.17
ii
(existing)
Additional Load to Randall Roadpoi
NWIS-E3,E4,E5,E6,E7 66993 2.15 5.95 20.35
Trunk Sewer I60: TS 61,BCW-I,J,K,M,N,BCE-D,E,S,T,U,V,TS 63
it Upst Dnst Peaking Cum UI Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope
60.1 60.2 969 949 957.50 937.50 BCW-I 1892 3.60 0.14 0.82 14 1350 1.48
t 60.2 60.3 949 930 937.50 918.00 1892 3.60 0.14 0.8214 - 2550 0.76
60.3 60.4 930 922 918.00 910.00 BCW-K 4482 3.29 0.34 1.81 18 2150 0.37
rii
60.4 60.5 922 922 910.00 909.00 BCW-J 5039 3.24 0.38 2.01 20 1000 0.10
60.5 60.6 922 922 909.00 907.50 5039 3.24 0.38 2.01 20 1200 0.13
6 60.6 60.7 922 916 907.50 903.50 BCW-L 6980 3.11 0.53 2.70 24 1100 0.36
60.7 60.8 916 914 903.50 897.25 , 6980 3.11 0.53 2.70 24 ' 1650 0.38
poi
60.8 60.9 914 912 897.25 896.77 ' BCW-M,N,TS 61 17607 2.71 1.34 6.11 36 1050 0.05
60.9 60.10 912 904 896.77 884.00 17607 2.71 1.34 6.11 36 1800 0.71
L60.10 60.11 904 879 884.00 865.50 BCE-T 18348 2.69 1.40 6.34 36 2600 0.71
60.11 60.12 879 863 865.50 842.64 BCE-U 19808 2.66 1.51 6.77 36 3350 0.68
60.12 60.13 863 863 842.64 842.36 BCE-V,S 21510 2.62 1.64 7.28 36 600 0.05
60.13 60.14 863 856 842.36 838.00 TS 63 23985 2.57 1.83 8.00 42 1000 0.44
6 60.14 60.14a 856 850 838.00 835.50 BCE-D,E 26199 2.54 1.95 8.59 42 650 0.38
60.14a 60.14b 850 850 835.50 834.50 26199 2.54 1.95 8.59 42 500 0.20
!r_"'►�h 60.14b 60.14c 850 853 834.50 834.25 26199 2.54 1.95 8.59 42 500 0.05
60.14c NR PS 853 845 834.25 831.50 26199 2.54 1.95 8.59 42 500 0.55
a
Nestler Road Pumping Station(formerly Node 60.15): 60.14c,BCE-F,H
rilrTrib.PE 27175 PE
mum I/I 2.00 mgd
Ove Flow 3276 gpm
Flow
M Size 6144 gpm
pinIFM (x2) 16 inch
/at Ave 2.6 ft/sec
V at Peak 4.9 ft/sec
01jrunk Sewer 60 Continued: BCE-A,B,G,K,Q,BCE PS,BRIS-E10,NR PS(intermediate PS)
Upst Dnst Peaking Cum I/i Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Tributary Sub Basins&Pumping
Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope
ipmul60.17 60.17a 842 849 828.00 827.75 BCE PS,BCE-G,NR PS 40641 2.35 3.04 12.59 48 350 0.07
60.17a 60.17b 849 810 801.00 796.00 40641 2.35 3.04 12.59 48 1050 0.48
60.17b 60.17c 810 807 794.00 793.00 40641 2.35 3.04 12.59 48 400 0.25
60.17c 60.18 807 804 791.00 790.00 40641 2.35 3.04 12.59 48 300 0.33
pi60.18 60.18a 804 794 782.00 780.00 BCE-A 40848 2.35 3.06 12.65 48 650 0.31
60.18a 60.18b 794 790 777.00 776.00 40848 2.35 3.06 12.65 48 500 0.20
Pia
i
rili
6
Page 3 of 5
iposs
k,
Pim APPENDIX D
tt
60.18b 60.18c 790 787 773.50 772.75 40848 2.35 3.06 _ 12.65 48 150 0.50
k 60.18c 60.18d 787 788 772.75 770.00 40848 2.35 3.06 12.65 48 600 0.46
60.18d 60.18e 788 791 770.00 769.50roil
40848 2.35 3.06 12.65 48 200 0.25
60.18e 60.18f 791 791 769.50 762.73 40848 2.35 3.06 12.65 48 1400 0.48
60.18f 60.19 791 774 762.73 760.00 40848 2.35 3.06 12.65 48 1600 0.17
k 60.19 OC PS 774 776 760.00 759.00 BCE-Q,B,K, BRIS-E10 43364 2.32 3.28 13.35 48 1550 0.06
Trunk Sewer 61: BCW-E,F,G,H,TS 62
00.1 Upst Dnst Peaking Cum I/I Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope
61.1 61.2 968 940 956.50 928.50 BCW-E 1304 3.72 0.10 0.59 14 2600 1.08
01.14
61.2 61.3 940 939 928.50 927.50 BCW-F 2471 3.51 0.19 1.06 14 300 0.33
61.3 61.4 939 932 927.50 920.50 2471 3.51 0.19 1.06 14 1000 0.70
61.4 61.5 932 925 920.50 913.50 2471 3.51 0.19 1.06 14 1500 0.47
mil
61.5 61.6 925 923 913.50 908.00 BCW-G 3439 3.39 0.26 1.43 18 1000 0.55
61.6 61.7 923 922 908.00 907.00 TS 62 7806 3.06 0.59 2.98 24 1100 0.09
rip 61.7 61.8 922 922 907.00 906.00 BCW-H 8557 3.02 0.65 3.24 24 900 _ 0.11
1 61.8 61.9 922 913 906.00 900.50 8557 3.02 0.65 3.24 24 1300 0.42
61.9 60.8 913 914 900.50 897.25 8557 3.02 0.65 3.24 24 1300 0.25
riga
Trunk Sewer 62: BCW-A,B,C,D
Upst Dnst Peaking Cum N Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope
62.1 62.2 990 974 978.50 962.50 BCW-A 1451 3.69 0.11 0.65 14 1200 1.33
62.2 62.3 974 960 962.50 948.50 1451 3.69 0.11 0.65 14 1000 1.40
owl62.3 62.4 960 944 948.50 932.50 BCW-B 2387 3.52 0.18 1.02 14 1250 1.28
62.4 62.5 944 926 932.50 914.50 2387 3.52 0.18 1.02 14 1950 0.92
62.5 62.6 i 926 926 914.50 913.00 BCW-C 3526 3.38 0.27 1.46 18 1 1050 0.14
14- 62.6 62.7 926 926 913.00 912.00 3526 3.38 0.27 1.46 18 500 0.20
62.7 62.8 926 924 912.00 910.50 3526 3.38 0.27 1.46 18 950 0.16
ippoi
62.8 61.6 924 922 910.50 908.00 BCW-D 4367 3.30 0.33 1.77 18 2000 0.13
tit rrunk Sewer 63: BCE-I,J
Upst Dnst Peaking Cum I/I Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
rill
Tributary Sub Basins&Pumping
Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope
i 63.1 63.2 885 880 874.00 869.00 BCE-J 1001 3.80 0.11 0.49 _ 12 900 0.56
63.2 63.3 880 868 869.00 857.00 1001 3.80 0.11 0.49 12 850 1.41
ipuL
63.3 63.4 868 865 857.00 854.00 1001 3.80 0.11 0.49 12 850 0.35
63.4 63.5 865 868 854.00 853.00 1001 3.80 0.11 0.49 12 250 0.40
k 63.5 60.13 868 863 853.00 842.36 BCE-I 2475 3.51 0.19 1.06 14 1100 0.97
Trunk Sewer 70: SC-A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H
or jir
Upst Dnst Peaking Cum I/I Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
iii. Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope%
70.1 70.2 894 882 883.00 871.00 SC-A 493 3.98 0.04 0.24 10 1200 1.00
▪ 70.2 70.3 882 872 871.00 860.50 493 3.98 0.04 0.24 10 1050 1.00
70.3 70.4 872 865 860.50 853.50 SC-B 1778 3.62 0.14 0.78 14 1100 0.64
70.4 70.5 865 864 853.50 849.00 SC-C 3378 3.40 0.26 1.41 16 600 0.75
70.5 70.6 864 870 849.00 847.00 SC-D 4442 3.29 0.34 1.80 18 I 1350 0.15
• 70.6 70.7 870 850 847.00 838.00 SC-E 5433 3.21 0.42 2.16 20 1650 0.55
ia70.7 70.8 850 836 838.00 823.50 5433 3.21 0.42 2.16 20 1050 1.38
70.8 70.9 836 831 823.50 818.50 SC-F 6714 3.12 0.52 2.62 24 2400 0.21
ri
70.9 70.10 831 836 818.50 810.00 I 6714 3.12 0.52 2.62 24 1200 0.71
70.10 70.11 836 I 815 810.00 803.00 6714 3.12 0.52 2.62 24 750 0.93
70.11 70.12 815 793 803.00 780.50 SC-G 7907 3.06 0.59 3.01 24 3450 0.65
70.12 70.13 793 796 780.50 778.50 SC-H, 8294 3.03 0.63 3.15 24 2100 0.10
somi
70.13 BCE PS 796 796 778.50 777.50 8294 3.03 0.63 3.15 24 1050 0.10
f Trunk Sewer 71: BCE-O,C,R
Upst Dnst Peaking Cum UI Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
_ Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope
71.1 71.2 830 824 818.50 812.50 BCE-O,C 2206 3.55 0.13 0.91 14 1700 0.35
ri71.2 71.3 824 796 812.50 784.00 2206 3.55 0.13 0.91 14 2100 1.36
71.3 BCE PS 796 796 784.00 782.00 BCE-R 4766 3.26 0.37 1.93 18 1250 0.16
k Tyler Creek Pumping Station: TS TC
,forth WWTF Expanded Reserve Capacity 7.60 I
Trib.PE I 335311PE (Back Calculated
re
i,
Page 4 of 5
L
lm
APPENDIX D
IPPIIeCum I/1 3.07 mgd Back Calculated
t Ave Flow 4461 gpm 1
f Peak Factor 2.21 For Node TC.15
Peak Flow 7269 gpm
a. FM Size(x2) 16 inch
Vat Ave 2.90 ft/sec
ripu
IV at Peak 5.80 ft/sec
• Bowes Creek Estates Pumping Station: TS 70,TS 71
Trib.PE 13060 PE
will,
Cum I/I 1.00 mgd
ve Flow 1601 gpm
$ Peak Flow 3269 gpm
IFM Size(x2) 10 inch
���at Ave 3.3 ft/sec
V at Peak 6.7 ft/sec
Trunk Sewer 80: BCE-L,M,N,P,BRIS-E11
palUpst Dnst _ Peaking Cum I/I Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
• Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope%
80.1 80.2 778.00 780.00 766.50 764.50 BCE-M,BRIS-E11 3023 3.44 0.16 1.20 16 1050 0.19
ppini80.2 80.3 780.00 786.00 764.50 762.25 BCE-N,L 3612 3.37 0.19 1.41 16 1250 0.18
80.3 80.4 786.00 786.00 762.25 761.25 BCE-P 4621 3.28 0.24 1.75 18 600 0.17
" 80.4 80.5 786.00 776.00 761.25 759.25 4621 3.28 0.24 1.75 18 l 1150 0.17
80.5 20.15 776.00 782.00 759.25 758.00 4621 I 3.28 0.24 1.75 18 650 0.19
Trunk Sewer 20: BRIS-El,E2,E3,E4,E6,E8,E10,TC PS
Upst Dnst Peaking Cum I/I Peak Flow Sewer Sewer Calculated
plill
Tributary Sub-Basins&Pumping
Upst MH Dnst MH Rim Rim Upst Inv Dnst Inv Stations Trib PE Factor (MGD) (MGD) Size Length Slope%
20.1 20.2 841.00 831.00 829.00 819.00 BRIS-E1,E2 6377 3.15 0.38 2.39 20 1150 0.87
20.2 20.3 831.00 830.00 819.00 818.00 6377 3.15 0.38 2.39 20 350 0.29
20.3 20.4 830.00 828.00 818.00 810.00 BRIS-E3 8949 3.00 0.57 3.26 24 1 650 1.23
„pi
20.4 20.5 828.00 823.00 810.00 805.00 8949 3.00 0.57 3.26 24 400 1.25
20.5 20.6 823.00 829.00 805.00 798.00 TC PS 42480 2.33 3.64 13.54 36 1000 0.70
e 20.6 20.7 829.00 833.00 798.00 788.92 BRIS-E4 42975 2.33 3.67 13.67 36 1350 0.67
0.120.7 20.8 833.00 804.00 788.92 783.65 BRIS-E6 45140 2.31 3.81 14.22 36 3100 0.17
20.8 20.9 804.00 798.00 783.65 780.67 45140 2.31 3.81 14.22 36 1750 0.17
20.9 20.10 798.00 794.00 780.67 777.42 45140 2.31 3.81 14.22 36 1900 0.17
i- 20.10 20.11 794.00 791.00 777.42 774.75 45140 2.31 3.81 14.22 36 800 0.33
poi20.11 20.12 791.00 787.00 774.75 773.00 45140 2.31 3.81 14.22 36 1000 0.18
20.12 20.13 787.00 780.00 773.00 763.50 BRIS-E8,TS 30 91361 2.03 7.24 25.81 48 2800 0.34
20.13 20.14 780.00 776.00 763.50 761.92 91361 2.03 7.24 25.81 48 1250 0.13
&. 20.14 20.15 776.00 782.00 761.92 758.00 91361 2.03 7.24 25.81 48 1250 0.31
20.15 OC PS 782.00 776.00 758.00 757.33 TS 80 95982 2.01 7.48 26.82 48 500 0.13
011111btter Creek Pumping Station: TS 60,TS 20
rrib.PE 139346 PE
Gum I/I 10.76 mgd
iplIbAve Flow 17148 gpm
eak Flow 25720 gpm
6 =M Size
1 @ 30 inch
1® 20 inch
• at Ave 5.4Ift/sec
J at Peak 8.1 1ft/sec
a
pal
ig
tib
i
lt=
rpmPage 5 of 5
`llow APPENDIX E
i
ran
CITY OF ELGIN
SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
111.. APPENDIX E -TRUNK SEWER COST ESTIMATES
i.
0.111.
Pipe Segment Upstrm Dnstrm Length Pipe Size Total Cost
pmDepth (ft) Depth (ft) (ft) (inches)
53.1 to 53.2 10.2 10.2 400 16 $ 55,208.00
53.2 to 53.3 10.2 10.2 600 16 $ 82,812.00
*� 53.3 to 53.4 10.2 10.2 1150 16 $ 158,723.00
53.4 to 53.5 10.2 10.2 1100 16 $ 151,822.00
53.5 to 53.6 10.2 14.2 400 16 $ 58,560.65
owl 53.6 to 53.7 14.2 10.2 I 1000 16 $ 146,393.90
53.7 to 53.8 10.2 15.2 1350 I 16 $ 199,536.75
rim 53.8 to R.R. P.S. 15.2 17.7 800 16 $ 133,206.81
k $ 990,000.00
was 52.1 to 52.2 10.0 10.0 1650 ' 12 $ 166,551.00
i 52.2 to 52.3 10.0 10.5 400 12 $ 40,376.00
52.3 to 52.4 10.3 10.3 1100 14 $ 147,290.00
52.4 to 52.5 10.3 17.3 450 14 $ 67,237.37
52.5 to 52.6 17.3 16.3 1150 14 $ 194,258.00
52.6 to 52.7 16.3 15.8 1450 14 $ 235,481.69
i 52.7 to 52.8 15.8 15.8 1850 14 $ 276,297.50
52.8 to 52.9 15.0 16.5 3500 24 $ 678,948.19
u.• 52.9 to 52.1 16.5 14.0 1700 24 $ 325,335.80
52.1 to 52.11 14.0 14.8 1950 24 $ 365,547.00
w. 52.11 to 52.12 14.8 14.8 1000 24 $ 187,460.00
52.12 to 52.13 14.8 10.3 600 24 $ 108,396.17
52.13 to 52.14 10.3 11.3 1150 24 $ 195,442.50
"I" 52.14 to 51.1 11.3 10.0 5600 I 24 $ 951,720.00
$ 3,940,000.00
P
51.1 to 51.2 10.3 10.3 2650 14 $ 354,835.00
51.2 to 51.3 10.3 13.3 1100 14 $ 154,845.05
pm 51.3 to 51.4 13.0 10.5 1300 18 $ 192,816.00
1,. 51.4 to 51.5 10.5 14.0 1100 18 $ 166,072.05
51.5 to 51.6 14.0 20.0 I 1450 18 $ 247,429.69
pm
51.6 to 51.7 20.0 19.5 400 18 $ 70,864.00
51.7 to 51.8 18.5 17.0 400 30 $ 98,468.00
,,,,., 51.8 to 51.9 17.0 15.0 1200 30 $ 279,954.00
k 51.9 to 51.1 15.0 10.0 3450 30 $ 730,599.60
$ 2,300,000.00
t 32.1 to 30.12 17.7 12.7 5700 16 $ 911,962.00
Poo
4
PPM
4
APPENDIX E
a
$ 910,000.00
I.
Pm 31.1 to 31.2 10.2 10.2 900 10 $ 87,138.00
t, 31.2 to 31.3 10.2 20.7 2650 10 $ 374,188.70
31.3 to 31.4 20.7 18.2 500 10 $ 83,929.55
r"' 31.4 to 30.14 18.2 23.7 400 10 $ 74,587.45
tt' $ 620,000.00
Jim
30.1 to 30.2 10.3 10.3 850 14 $ 113,815.00
30.2 to 30.3 10.3 10.3 1650 14 $ 220,935.00
Pm 30.3 to 30.4 10.2 10.2 1350 16 $ 186,327.00
L 30.4 to 30.5 10.2 10.2 5150 16 $ 710,803.00
30.5 to 30.6 10.0 18.0 2250 18 $ 357,054.65
you
30.6 to 30.7 17.5 11.5 2500 24 $ 477,239.17
30.7 to 30.8 11.5 13.5 1150 24 $ 210,723.58
i... 30.8 to 30.9 13.5 12.0 600 24 $ 112,476.00
30.9 to 30.1 12.0 12.8 750 24 $ 140,595.00
30.1 to 30.11 12.8 14.5 650 24 $ 121,849.00
P"'" 30.11 to 30.12 14.5 13.0 1500 24 $ 281,190.00
i, 30.12 to 30.13 12.5 10.5 750 30 $ 153,357.73
woo30.13 to 30.14 10.5 22.0 4000 30 $ 957,105.87
i.
30.14 to 30.15 22.0 27.3 350 30 $ 109,894.82
30.15 to 30.16 27.3 16.8 700 30 $ 202,649.41
awe 30.16 to 30.17 16.8 16.8 1 1520 30 $ 374,178.40
t, 30.17 to 30.18 16.3 10.0 3240 36 $ 791,306.77
30.18 to 30.19 10.0 13.0 4100 36 $ 964,259.22
PM
30.19 to 30.2 12.5 10.5 1100 42 $ 290,048.00
30.2 to 30.21 16.5 13.5 1300 42 $ 378,508.52
PPE 30.21 to 30.22 22.5 31.5 1150 42 $ 568,594.79
t 30.22 to 30.23 37.0 6.5 900 48 $ 447,645.00
30.23 to 30.24 10.5 18.0 1300 48 $ 430,819.13
P"' 30.24 to 30.25 18.0 33.5 1900 48 $ 944,085.64
k 30.25 to 30.26 41.3 12.7 3300 48 $ 1,868,535.96
30.26 to 30.27 1 12.7 27.0 1350 48 $ 525,026.02
pow
t 30.27 to 30.28 27.0 -4.0 2800 48 $ 825,567.66
30.28 to 30.29 10.5 11.0 650 48 $ 191,477.00
30.29 to 30.3 11.0 23.5 900 48 $ 326,452.32
it 30.3 to 30.31 23.5 17.5 1100 48 $ 437,160.84
30.31 to 30.32 17.5 22.0 1750 48 $ 686,960.56
30.32 to 30.33 30.5 28.5 600 48 $ 306,528.00
30.33 to 30.34 31.0 16.5 1050 48 $ 455,651.40
pm 30.34 to 20.12 29.0 10.0 1800 48 $ 695,229.40
k. $ 15,860,000.00
P"" 51.1 to TC.1 23.0 21.5 1200 36 $ 401,700.00
F TC.1 to TC.2 21.5 20.0 950 36 $ 318,012.50
Flom
t,
APPENDIX E
4.
TC.2 to TC.3 20.0 19.0 2000 36 $ 556,200.00
TC.3 to TC.4 19.0 33.3 400 36 $ 150,696.21
w.•• TC.4 to TC.5 33.3 29.4 300 36 $ 131,642.24
L TC.5 to TC.6 29.4 42.8 850 36 $ 665,411.46
TC.6 to TC.7 42.3 18.2 2300 42 , $ 1,421,176.44
"""' TC.7 to TC.8 18.2 33.9 3800 42 $ 1,663,778.80
it TC.8 to TC.9 33.9 42.3 850 42 $ 879,184.80
TC.9 to TC.10 42.3 53.6 ' 450 42 $ 526,365.00
gm
TC.10 to TC.11 53.6 43.2 1200 42 $ 1,455,375.00
TC.11 to TC.12 43.2 46.6 300 42 $ 389,625.00
TC.12 to TC.13 46.6 32.7 1 2600 42 $ 2,474,567.36
L TC.13 to TC.14 32.7 22.9 1050 42 $ 455,924.35
TC.14 to TC.15 22.9 5.2 1000 42 $ 296,006.55
TC.15 to SA-MH 52 5.2 27.3 1250 42 $ 395,229.54
$ 12,180,000.00
4. 60.1 to 60.2 10.3 10.3 1350 14 $ 180,765.00
60.2 to 60.3 10.3 10.8 2550 14 $ 341,445.00
P"" 60.3 to 60.4 10.5 10.5 2150 18 $ 305,601.00
60.4 to 60.5 10.3 11.3 1000 20 $ 153,470.00
row60.5 to 60.6 11.3 12.8 1200 20 $ 195,156.16
ix
60.6 to 60.7 12.5 10.5 1100 24 $ 191,760.25
60.7 to 60.8 10.5 14.8 1650 24 $ 299,118.18
60.8 to 60.9 13.8 12.2 1050 36 $ 262,804.50
4. 60.9 to 60.1 12.2 17.0 1800 36 $ 461,006.37
60.1 to 60.11 17.0 10.5 2600 36 $ 648,282.00
um 60.11 to 60.12 10.5 17.4 3350 36 $ 840,327.56
60.12 to 60.13 17.4 17.6 600 36 $ 166,860.00
A,... 60.13 to 60.14 17.1 14.5 1000 42 $ 305,357.92
4, 60.14 to 60.14a 14.5 11.0 650 42 $ 178,845.08
60.14a to 60.14b 11.0 12.0 500 42 $ 128,750.00
p"" 60.14b to 60.14c 12.0 15.3 500 42 $ 141,110.00
6 60.14c to NR PS 15.3 10.0 500 42 $ 136,413.20
Pim $ 4,940,000.00
61.1 to 61.2 10.3 10.3 , 2600 14 $ 348,140.00
Pow 61.2 to 61.3 10.3 10.3 ' 300 14 $ 40,170.00
61.3 to 61.4 10.3 10.3 1000 14 $ 133,900.00
61.4 to 61.5 10.3 10.3 1500 14 $ 200,850.00
s• 61.5 to 61.6 10.0 13.5 1000 18 $ 148,768.05
t
61.6 to 61.7 13.0 13.0 1100 24 $ 206,206.00
IP. 61.7 to 61.8 13.0 14.0 900 24 $ 168,714.00
4, 61.8 to 61.9 14.0 10.5 1300 24 $ 233,944.93
61.9 to 60.8 10.5 14.8 1300 24 $ 235,660.91
I""' , $ 1,720,000.00
i
6
6
APPENDIX E
pin 62.1 to 62.2 10.3 10.3 1200 14 $ 160,680.00
62.2 to 62.3 10.3 10.3 1000 14 $ 133,900.00
owe 62.3 to 62.4 10.3 10.3 1250 14 $ 167,375.00
62.4 to 62.5 10.3 10.3 1950 14 $ 261,105.00
62.5 to 62.6 10.0 11.5 1050 18 $ 149,247.00
"'e 62.6 to 62.7 11.5 12.5 500 18 $ 74,932.50
62.7 to 62.8 12.5 12.0 950 18 $ 149,710.50
Rim62.8 to 61.6 12.0 12.5 2000 18 $ 315,180.00
$ 1,410,000.00
i""' 63.1 to 63.2 10.0 10.0 900 12 $ 90,846.00
63.2 to 63.3 10.0 10.0 850 12 $ 85,799.00
63.3 to 63.4 10.0 10.0 850 12 $ 85,799.00
I••• 63.4 to 63.5 10.0 14.0 250 12 $ 30,127.50
63.5 to 60.13 13.8 19.5 1100 14 $ 177,533.89
i.. $ 470,000.00
s•�
WPM
Pim
Pim
aim
PIM
PPM
4s
APPENDIX E
Lemu
70.1 to 70.2 10.2 10.2 1200 10 1 $ 116,184.00
70.2 to 70.3 10.2 10.7 1050 10 $ 101,661.00
A... 70.3 to 70.4 10.3 10.3 1100 14 $ 147,290.00
i 70.4 to 70.5 10.2 13.7 r 600 16 $ 87,230.70
70.5 to 70.6 13.5 21.5 1350 ' 18 $ 242,894.60
Pm 70.6 to 70.7 21.3 10.3 1650 20 $ 302,459.50
I 70.7 to 70.8 10.3 10.8 1050 20 $ 161,143.50
70.8 to 70.9 10.5 10.5 2400 24 $ 407,880.00
plim
70.9 to 70.1 10.5 24.0 1200 24 $ 251,778.35
70.1 to 70.11 r 24.0 10.0 750 24 $ 155,947.15
Poin 70.11 to 70.12 10.0 10.5 3450 24 $ 586,327.50
70.12 to 70.13 10.5 15.5 2100 24 $ 382,634.70
70.13 to BCE PS 15.5 16.5 1050 24 $ 207,107.25
pm
$ 3,150,000.00
p.. 71.1 to 71.2 10.3 10.3 1700 14 $ 227,630.00
c 71.2 to 71.3 10.3 10.8 2100 14 $ 281,190.00
71.3 to BCE PS 10.5 12.5 1250 18 $ 182,652.99
A"" $ 690,000.00
I
pm80.1 to 80.2 10.2 14.2 1050 16 $ 153,712.05
80.2 to 80.3 14.2 22.4 1250 16 $ 228,200.62
80.3 to 80.4 22.3 23.3 600 18 $ 134,724.00
/+ 80.4 to 80.5 _ 23.3 15.3 1150 18 $ 223,746.90
c 80.5 to 20.15 15.3 22.5 650 18 $ 124,455.93
$ 860,000.00
Pm
20.1 to 20.2 10.3 10.3 1150 20 $ 176,490.50
N.. 20.2 to 20.3 10.3 10.3 350 20 $ 53,714.50
c. 20.3 to 20.4 10.0 16.0 650 24 $ 118,049.33
20.4 to 20.5 16.0 16.0 400 24 $ 74,984.00
""' 20.5 to 20.6 15.0 28.0 1000 r 36 $ 430,436.34
20.6 to 20.7 28.0 41.1 1 1350 36 $ 820,013.55
o•• 20.7 to 20.8 41.1 17.4 3100 36 $ 1,607,797.64
20.8 to 20.9 17.4 14.3 1750 I 36 $ 535,768.92
20.9 to 20.1 14.3 13.6 1900 36 $ 536,218.00
pm 20.1 to 20.11 13.6 13.3 800 36 $ 225,776.00
20.11 to 20.12 13.3 11.0 1000 36 $ 271,244.32
20.12 to 20.13 10.0 12.5 2800 48 $ 840,397.60
p••• 20.13 to 20.14 12.5 10.1 1250 48 $ 375,399.98
20.14 to 20.15 10.1 20.0 1250 48 $ 423,770.84
,.. 20.15 to OC PS 20.0 14.7 500 48 $ 181,666.25
$ 6,670,000.00
win
PPM
'
•
OF
4 E'40
.1.,,,,
G' � v - k City of Elgin Agenda Item No.
III - - ,
. ----
E
May 17, 2002
N ► " a
willig
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council ECONOMIC GROWTH
FROM: Olufemi Folarin, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: Acceptance of the Far West Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Mayor and members
of the City Council with information to consider adoption of a
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for areas west of Randall Road.
BACKGROUND
In April, 2000 the City entered into an engineering services
agreement to update the 1993 Sanitary Sewer Study. As with the
1993 study, the goals of the 2002 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
were to determine anticipated flows, tentative routes, general
design parameters (size, depth, etc. ) and cost estimates for sewers
needed to serve the Far West Area. The update was necessitated by
two factors . The first was the impact of expansion of the planning
area with the addition of Bowes Creek Estates and the areas west of
it and of the South Elgin service area. The second factor was
impact of changes to new and existing facilities that serve the
planning area. Examples of these changes are the possible
expansion of FRWRD' s North Treatment Plant, the permitting and
construction of Gilbert' s wastewater treatment plant and the
revised route and depth of the Tyler Creek Interceptor Sewer (TCIS) .
The significant increases in planned service area (approximately
7, 500 additional acres) resulted in an increase in the tributary
population of approximately 50, 000 people or "population
equivalents" (See attached maps) . A population equivalent is a
sewage flow rate equivalent that is applied to developable acreage
after evaluating anticipated use and density factors . The
resulting increase in projected sewage flows raised the question of
whether the existing and previously proposed systems had enough
capacity. The projected flow increases raised the total peak flow
4 4111111 rate to the Bowes Creek Interceptor Sewer to 45 million gallons per
day (mgd) , whereas the 1993 study projected this same flow rate at
Far West Sewer Study
May 17, 2002
Page 2
34 mgd. Based on just this first factor it appeared that the
existing systems could handle approximately one fourth of an eleven
million gallon per day increase.
Luckily, one of the facility changes mentioned above reduces the
projected flow to the existing system. The Village of Gilberts
elected to construct their own wastewater treatment plant which was
permitted in 2001 and is now under construction. The fact that
Gilberts is not, at least at this time, looking for capacity within
Elgin' s system has two distinctive benefits . First it reduces the
flow to FRWRD' s North Treatment Plant and second, it delays and
reduces the need for a planned lift station to transfer excess
flows from that plant to the Bowes Road Interceptor. A drawback of
this change is the reduction of tributary service area that would
have helped pay for the existing Tyler Creek Interceptor Sewer.
The second facility change, the expansion of the North Treatment
Plant, is necessary to further reduce the peak flow to the Bowes
Creek Interceptor Sewer. The expansion of that plant could
completely eliminate the need for the construction of a lift
embk station and the diversion of flow to the Bowes Creek Interceptor
Sewer system. With the elimination of the diversion, the increased
flow from the expanded service area can be handled by the Bowes
Creek Interceptor Sewer, without it the system is insufficient .
Sewage flow projections in the Update were done very conservatively
to insure that the system could serve all the desired areas that
may arise. Included are significant portions of the planning area
that may never annex to the City. Examples of such areas are the
existing County subdivisions, the Pingree Grove area and acreage
that has been purchased by the Kane County Forest Preserve. If
these areas are not ultimately served, the flow reductions realized
will bring the Bowes Road Interceptor capacity more in line with
the anticipated flows from the Far West service area.
One final factor affecting sewer sizing is the amount of the
available acreage that is determined to be un-buildable. The
amount of such areas was increased in the Update which is a concern
for staff because current concept plans for the Kimball Hill, Town
and Country and Pulte developments show these non-buildable areas
on their acreage as being developed. If the City truly wants to
serve the full planning area, the development closer in cannot be
allowed to use up more capacity than the plan calls for. If it is
felt that the City is unlikely to reach the build out of the
planning area, allowing the closer in developments to pay for and
use the capacity now will allow the City to recoup it' s existing
r •
Far West Sewer Study
May 17, 2002
Page 3
investment sooner. The City needs to carefully consider
developments that result in the higher density, and thus higher
discharge, than the plan allows so the infrastructure is fully paid
for by the users .
Another function of the Update is to outline the routes and
characteristics of the proposed system. The City must provide the
development community with the master layout as to where, at least
approximately, sewers need to be located and what size and depth is
required. The planned sewers extending out from the Otter Creek
Lift Station are slightly larger and, wherever possible, located
outside the limits of sensitive areas, such as the Catatoga
Subdivision (Kane County) . Trunk 30 extends north and west whereas
Trunk 20 extends north and east . The confluence of these two
sewers was, in the 1993 study, at the confluence of the Fitchie and
Otter Creeks . In the 2002 Update, the confluence of these two
sewers is located at the north property line of the proposed Pulte
"Active Adult" development .
Staff anticipates amendments to the Updated Plan as developers
submit their proposals and impasses are created. To address the
1 amendments, staff will be following up with an amendment to the
consultants contract that will allow the City have the consultant
evaluate amendments on a case by case basis .
COMMUNITY GROUPS/INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED
Development Community
AJINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact as a result of adopting The Far West
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. Ultimately, maintenance of the sewers
will be the City' s responsibility and paid for by the users of the
system.
vAm/LEGAL IMPACT
None
C
Far West Sewer Study
May 17, 2002
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
A) Reject the study and consider interceptor sewer extensions as
developments are submitted.
B) Accept the Study and follow the general layout as depicted.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept the subject study
for the development of interceptor sewers in the Far West Area.
Respectfully submitted,
AIL t.
--�
Olu emi
Interi Ci _ • _ .er
V
JE:do
Attachments
rTh I -Z
. City of Elgin
II i 4, *1 --m
, Far West Sanitary Sewer Master Plan - 1993 Study Area
4 \
\ E. _
----, --kV !
1 - --'._,=-"" iti
\.:, , _
\.„,. .--- : ,
,. .
,,,, ,. , '-i. up
-,-,,
1.
ALJ a , fi'�'
St�t�H`vX 7�_, \ � \,„4,,
1
j a
y� tIN ■
(
(1,_ 1
.. J,
is \� I -
__ -.Z_L__ N. I-C-r 14,,. .,.)_:_ .
. ,.....
.___ _
t, ! - -----.,, ____
... ,,....
,,
,...
-_. ..#
_ _-_T,_ esti �_* �� 1
?0e „hTx
..ocil
p
1
_ _31ataBd �. �� r
N-
I
E�
• AI
, 1/3) ',i---n. - r
7: ,L. , ._;
1, 1
... & _..„ ,... „L., 46,,, i__.,„
_ , 1 Lill'--1"---.. .'-''4'''' ' “Ing3IW
a,
, ,.. Tau:
�• ,11,41111.
E
Pd ..
r--, 1 1 . -
, City of Elgin
4 : Far West Sanitary Sewer Master Plan - 2002 Study Area 14)
u
-It-f .-114-:
:-. :. 1 i_aillliWbhera :
A ,,
- a
r-pig
,,--"- . kit til --
I'
( ''. vii , II ii_ -
I" ' 44\1 i': Ill .7'.-- . '
L'7' ' 4.
\R
1
.. '---A r.1V1 lir ( -
rr s
C _- - z
cic
.,
... -_—______,_, ._ .�,i ._, : is -i4.iii,.. 4...
-- r " Lsh�'Y? a i_
AS'!
I
ham.
-
IILH' --..—,--..r. ,
/` •
i Lt.
\ - 1
L.
It': 4
, • _
... .0.
--- _„,___,- i g
. .
,__
,. ,
yV
___ I. .
r.. Lam.
onn�rs •_ 1 p4 i f ,
-r' / -j .. i
yOFEt.
C,
G „rw
f, Memorandum
City of Elgin
Date: June 18, 2002
To: Loni Mecum, City Clerk
From: Haresh Modi, P.E., Civil Engineer Iri'QA.1,./
Subject: Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Attached is a copy of sanitary sewer master plan update report for your information and records.
Said plan was approved by the City Council at May 22, 2002 meeting.
The report updates the original sewer master plan, prepared in 1993 to reflect changes in
corporate limits, zoning, projected population and major improvements done in infrastructure
due to developments in Far West Area.
If you have any questions,please call me at X-5967.
Thanks.
HM/hm
Copy: file