Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 37G - MSD Stormwater Facility Planning Final Report 2010STORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING FINAL REPORT MSD Project Number 2005122 Oracle Number 10133 Prepared for December 2010 Prepared by PARSONS WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE INC. STORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING FINAL REPORT MSD Project Number 2005122 Oracle Number 10133 Prepared for "LI Date l Z L E tt) Edward M. Sweet, Jr., P.E. Civil Engineer License # E-17987 Parsons Water & Infrastructure Inc. 400 Woods Mill Road South, Suite 330 Chesterfield, Missouri 63017 Phone: 314-819-5058 Certificate No. 20030259 F-, EDWARD M. :ram z:"F SWEET JR. :era w NUMBER `�i E-179874 1#;i:11aati TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 SECTION 1.0 PRIMARY SERVICES 1 1.1 Detention Basin Inventory 1 1.2 Analysis of Prioritization System 3 1.3 Review and Analysis of Existing Complaint Data 4 1.4 Review and Analysis of Existing Identified Projects 4 I.4.1 Conceptual Cost Curve Development 4 1.4.1.1 Pipe Cost Curve Development 4 1.4.1.2 Bank Stabilization Cost Curve Development 5 1.4.2 Identified projects 8 1.4.3 Review and analysis of existing identified projects not funded 11 1.4.4 Review and analysis of municipal identified projects not funded 13 1.4.5 Database Documentation 15 1.5 Development of Project Definitions and Preliminary Studies for the CIRP 16 1.5.1 Preliminary Studies 16 1.5.2 Pepperdine Court — Fishpot Creek Preliminary Study 17 1.5.3 Preliminary Studies for Municipalities 18 SECTION 2.0 SECONDARY SERVICES 18 2.1 Regulatory Issues/Coordination 18 2.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling 19 2.3 Water Quality Issues and Modeling 19 2.4 Rainfall/Radar/Hydrology Development 19 2.5 Preparation of SSMIP for Additional Watersheds 19 2.6 Geomorphologic Stream Assessment and Analysis 19 2.7 Capital Improvement and Replacement Program (CIRP) 20 2.8 Public Education/Relations 20 2.9 Other District Departments & Divisions Support 20 2.9.1 LID Review 20 2.9.2 Green Roof Analysis. 20 2.10 Mapping/GIS 22 2.11 Grants/Loans 22 2.12 Financial Issue Support 22 2.13 Coordination with Other Consultants and Vendors 22 2.14 Review of Consultant Submittals 22 Stormwater Facility Planning i Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. APPENDIX E. APPENDIX F. APPENDIX G. TABLE OF APPENDICES Detention Basin Inventory Information Prioritization System Worksheets and Instructions Pipe Cost Curves Bank Stabilization Conceptual Costs Identified Projects Information Preliminary Study Information Secondary Services Stormwater Facility Planning ii Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Identified Project Status 9 Figure 2. Problem Categories Assigned to IPs 10 Figure 3. Cost by Problem Category for IPs 11 Figure 4. Identified Project Not Funded Status 12 Figure 5. Problem Categories Assigned to 1PNFs 12 Figure 6. Cost by Problem Category for 1PNFs 13 Figure 7. Municipal Identified Project Not Funded Status 14 Figure 8. Problem Categories Assigned to Municipal IPNFs 14 Figure 9. Cost by Problem Category for Municipal IPNFs 15 Stormwater Facility Planning iii Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 9, 2006, the District entered into a contract with Parsons Water & Infrastructure Inc. (Parsons) to provide 5 primary services and 13 secondary services that would encompass the Stormwater Facility Planning (2005122) project. These services were: Primary services: • Detention Basin Inventory • Analysis of Prioritization System • Review and Analysis of Existing Complaint Data • Review and analysis of existing identified projects • Development of Project Definitions and Preliminary Studies for the CIRP Secondary services: • GIS/Mapping • Regulatory Issues/Coordination • Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling • Water Quality Issues and Modeling • Rainfall/Radar/Hydrology Development • Preparation of SSMIPs for Additional Watersheds • Geomorphologic Stream Assessment and Analysis • CIRP support and coordination • Public Education/Relations support • Other District Departments & Divisions Support • Grants/Loans support • Financial Issues Support • Coordination with Other Consultants and Vendors A number of firms joined Parsons to provide specific technical services for both primary and secondary services. These firms, along with Parsons, are referred to as the Parsons Team in this document. The following three firms were major team partners: • Reitz & Jens • Engineering Design Source Inc. • ABNA Engineering Four other firms joined the Parsons Team to provide specialized technical services, and they were: • ADS Environmental Services • MS&T University • PMA Engineering • Hellmuth-Bicknese Stormwater Facility Planning ES-1 MSD Project 2005122 Final Report Dec 2010 The role of the Parsons Team was to act as an extension of the District's Stormwater Group by supplying resources and technical expertise to help the District document their existing stormwater infrastructure and define the projects for the Stormwater Capital Improvement and Replacement Program (CIRP). The Parsons Team was fully integrated with the District staff and worked together to analyze projects and develop the most cost effective, functional solutions. The Parsons Team and District staff met on a weekly basis for most of the life of the project to review and discuss issues so that both groups would approach issues in a common manner. The data included in this report covers the period from March 9, 2006 through June 30, 2010. Some of the summary tables and charts reflect the combined work effort of the Parsons Team and District staff, in order to present a big picture of the status of a particular system, while some data reflects only Parsons Team efforts. Most of the Parsons Team's effort was focused on the five primary services. The majority of team manhours were expended on the detention basin inventory, complaint data analysis, analysis of identified projects and preparing preliminary studies. The Parsons Team inventoried over 2,700 detention basins; reviewed and analyzed thousands of complaints; reviewed and analyzed over 1,200 identified projects and identified projects not funded; and prepared approximately 140 preliminary and special studies. Stormwater projects for several municipalities were reviewed and added to the District's CIRP when they were deemed valid projects that the District should construct. The design of the Pepperdine Court-Fishpot Creek Bank Stabilization project was a significant success story for this project and the District. The fast track design that the Parsons Team performed for the project enabled the District to quickly get the project under construction to protect the homes on Pepperdine Court and the Vance Road pavement. The project was a public relations success for the District and can be utilized as a prototype for other locations in the District where similar problems exist. The Parsons Team also performed a feasibility study for constructing a "green roof' for the District's headquarters building. A plan was developed to improve the balconies and the roof with plantings and other facilities to provide benefits such as reduced energy costs, extended roof membrane life and reduced urban heat island effects. Some key objectives achieved as a result of the Stormwater Facility Planning project are: • The District now has an accurate detention basin database that can be used by all departments. • The District has a prioritization system that reflects the primary goals and objectives of the CIRP. • The District has an updated set of conceptual cost curves for storm sewer projects, and a new set of conceptual cost curves for bank stabilization projects. • The stormwater CIRP has been more accurately defined as a result of the review and analysis of the identified projects and identified projects not funded. Stormwater Facility Planning ES-2 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 SECTION 1.0 PRIMARY SERVICES 1.1 Detention Basin Inventory The District did not have an accurate inventory of the detention/retention basins that currently exist within the District's boundaries. The main goal of this service was to develop an accurate inventory of the existing basins to determine their location, their components, and their condition. This data can be used by District staff in analyzing watershed stormwater systems and may be utilized for future Phase II water quality work such as retrofitting basins with water quality facilities to provide treatment. The District had a database that listed over 1,150 basins that was compiled around the year 2000. This database had not been updated since that date. The District provided this database to the Parsons team along with two additional files that listed all projects that were identified as having detention or a maintenance agreement. The Parsons Team took these databases and developed an overall database for surface and underground basins. Researched was performed for each project in the database to determine the components included in each project. Several District databases were utilized including File Tracker, PRECPTS, Iaser-fiche, and microfilm to gather as -built information where available or copies of construction plans for each basin. A meeting was held with District staff to identify the key features of each basin for which the field data would be obtained by the Parsons Team. These features included incoming pipe diameters, outgoing pipe diameters, orifice dimensions, weir dimensions, basin access, erosion, and condition of spillways and pilot channels. Field inventory was performed for all accessible detention basins, both surface and underground. Underground basins were inventoried by confined -space trained staff from ADS Environmental Services, a member of the Parsons Team. Critical data gathered included orifice dimensions, weir dimensions, incoming and outgoing pipe diameters, and underground chamber dimensions. Stormwater Facility Planning MSD Project 2005122 1 Final Report Dec 2010 Research was performed on 3,815 database entries. Of these, 2,404 surface basins were inventoried and 394 underground basins were inventoried. Many of the database entries were for modifications to existing basins and for basins that had been removed for redevelopment projects. See Appendix A for a map of all inventoried detention basins. The existing basins were not evaluated on their ability to provide future Phase II water quality treatment capabilities. However, a condition assessment was performed on each basin, using a rating form developed by Parsons and approved by the District. The rating form assigned various point values to the defects found in the basin, such as erosion of the berm and blockage of the outlet structure. The total points assigned to a basin then determined what condition category the basin fell into, which provides an indication of what type of maintenance is recommended for the basin. A sample detention basin rating form is included in Appendix A. Table 2 lists descriptions. these condition rating categories and Table 2. Detention Basin Condition Ratings Total Points Condition Rating Description 0-25 Good No Maintenance Required 26-49 Fair Minor Maintenance Required 50-99 Poor Major Maintenance Required 100+ Failing immediate Maintenance Required The condition assessment for the 2,763 aboveground and underground basins resulted in a total of 2,258 basins rated as "Good", 339 rated as "Fair", 136 rated as "Poor", and 30 rated as "Failing". See Appendix A for detailed condition rating results by sub - watersheds. The basins were separated into four groups based on the year that the construction plans were submitted for the basin. The four periods reflect when changes in detention basin design criteria were implemented by the District. See Table 3 on the following page for the total basins per time period and per major watershed. Storm water Facility Planning 2 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 TABLE 3. DETENTION BASIN CONSTRUCTION PLAN SUBMITTAL DATES Watershed Surface Underground Total Pre 1993 1993- 1996 1997- 2003 2004- Present Bissell Point 138 18 156 72 22 52 10 Coldwater Creek 201 46 247 , 114 28 99 6 Lower Meramec 768 104 872 422 122 317 11 Missouri River 882 83 965 516 157 274 18 River Des Peres 415 143 558 285 80 181 12 Total 2,404 394 2,798 1,409 409 923 57 See Appendix A for a list of basins that were not inventoried and the reasons they were not inventoried. 1.2 Analysis of Prioritization System The prioritization point system that was used by the District prior to the fall of 2006 was determined to be unrepresentative of the District's current and proposed spending priorities for their CIRP budget. Therefore, Parsons initiated the process to revise the prioritization point system by presenting a new 2-pronged approach to the key members of the Stormwater Planning team. The first prong consisted of a method for defining "Problem Points", and the second prong provided the opportunity to add "Solution Points". After the District staff approved this initial concept, Parsons produced a sample prioritization worksheet and conducted several brainstorming and discussion meetings with personnel from the District's Operations and Engineering departments. Feedback in these meetings included discussions of current and future District policy and responsibility, homeowner responsibility, and the appropriateness of weighting points to reflect ease of implementation, municipality participation, impact on sanitary sewer overcharging, infrastructure protection, and other factors. While differing views were presented, a consensus was reached on each issue and initial point values were assigned to the various problem and solution categories. A period of beta testing of the new prioritization system resulted in a few minor changes to the forms, after which Parsons held a training session at the District to explain how to use the new forms. Copies of these forms are included in Appendix B. Stormwater Facility Planning 3 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 The major changes between the previous prioritization point system used by the District and the new system are discussed as follows. The previous system revolved around the type of problem addressed by the project, specifically dividing it into structural flooding, roadway flooding, structural erosion, and roadway flooding categories. No weight was given to projects that include positive factors such as environmental and water quality benefits, public education and/or recreation benefits, regional watershed benefits, and ease of implementation. Therefore, "solution" categories were proposed as a means to give priority to a project that includes ancillary benefits to the public that exceed the minimum solution of addressing the flooding or erosion problem. This leaves the door open to use the same system for "Phase II" -driven water quality projects. The previous system also utilized two storms to categorize the severity of flooding problems. The 15-year storm, which is considered "frequent", and the 100-year storm, which is considered "infrequent" were utilized. This approach was revised to add a "chronic" flooding category to give more weight to the kind of frequent flooding that creates the most aggravation in the public eye. Also, in the previous system the severity of erosion was weighted strictly by distance from a structure or roadway, regardless of the actual danger represented by the erosion. The revised system incorporates the height of the eroding bank into the evaluation in order to capture an element of the actual severity of erosion. It was felt that the District would prefer to spend resources addressing capacity, functionality or condition problems in its existing infrastructure rather than in constructing new facilities, based on public perception of responsibility. Therefore, the revised system includes a small amount of benefit points for problems in areas where an existing system is already in place. 1.3 Review and Analysis of Existing Complaint Data The Parsons Team researched the Engineering Tracking and Hansen databases to compile and evaluate the relevant historical complaints for all identified projects and preliminary studies performed. These databases provided information that helped pinpoint the location and type of problem needing evaluation, and sometimes provided an indication of the frequency of occurrence which was helpful for prioritization purposes. 1.4 Review and Analysis of Existing Identified Projects 1.4.1 Conceptual Cost Curve Development It was decided that in order to accelerate the process of creating cost estimates for the approximately two thousand existing identified projects, a set of conceptual cost curves for storm sewer projects and bank stabilization projects should be utilized. 1.4.1.1 Pipe Cost Curve Development In 2006, the District provided Parsons a set of "cost per Foot" curves for reinforced concrete pipe construction that were based on FY2003 costs. Parsons was tasked with updating these curves and revising the project multiplier that represents the additional contingencies, engineering, legal and administrative costs related to the design and construction of a project. Stormwater Facility Planning 4 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 The original "Cost per Foot" graphs were updated based on the District's current preliminary unit costs (FY2005). Two sets of curves were developed, one to represent storm sewers constructed under paved surfaces and one to represent storm sewers constructed under sod. The range of pipe sizes included in the curves was from 12-inch to 72-inch diameter, and the pipe depths ranged from 4 feet to 25 feet deep. In order to determine the project multiplier, twenty-two recent storm sewer projects were reviewed and conceptual costs were developed for each. Data from these conceptual costs and the engineer's cost estimate for each project were graphed to develop the "conceptual cost vs. total project cost" graph. Multiple curve types were reviewed and it was determined that a linear solution with a 2.0 ratio between total project cost and conceptual cost represented the best fit. Using this multiplier, over 80% of the projects' total project costs met or exceeded the engineer's cost estimate. The conceptual pipe cost graphs are utilized to develop major component costs that represent the costs for each pipe diameter listed for that project. The major component conceptual cost for the project is obtained by multiplying these costs by the length of the reaches for each pipe diameter. Utility relocation costs are then added to the pipe major component conceptual cost for each project. Other major component items such as junction chambers, rock excavation or tunneling are also added to the conceptual cost as applicable. If box culverts or elliptical pipe are included, the conceptual cost of their major components must be estimated using District unit costs and then added to the total conceptual cost. The subtotal of major component costs is then multiplied by the 2.0 multiplier to obtain the total conceptual cost for a project. Conceptual cost curves were provided to the District both in electronic spreadsheet form and hard copy form for ease of application, and also in table form and graphically. The conceptual cost curves for Reinforced Concrete Pipe are included in Appendix C. 1.4.1.2 Bank Stabilization Cost Curve Development Since many of the identified projects required bank stabilization solutions, it was decided that an efficient way to estimate the construction costs for these bank erosion solutions would be to develop conceptual cost curves for the most commonly applied and accepted bank stabilization methods. After discussing the alternatives with District staff members from the Design and Planning divisions, the following bank stabilization methods were chosen to develop cost curves for: heavy stone revetment, gabion walls, modular block walls, reinforced concrete walls, and combination slope stabilization (which includes the potential for heavy stone revetment, composite revetment, and biostabilization). In order to develop curves for these five bank stabilization techniques, some general assumptions were agreed upon. These include the basic assumption that the proposed bank height will equal the existing bank height, the proposed toe of slope will be coincident with the existing toe of slope, and the natural ground beyond the existing top of slope is flat. These assumptions enabled Parsons to draw scenarios for varying heights (4' to 20' high) and side slopes (SS) from 0.5 horizontal: l vertical (0.5H:1 V) to 3H:1 V. Storinwater Facility Planning 5 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 Assumptions specific to each type of bank stabilization technique were also made in order to simplify calculations and limit the number of possible scenarios to a reasonable amount. These assumptions are listed at the bottom of the five Conceptual Cost Estimate worksheets, which are included in Appendix D. The conceptual costs were developed using 11/2005 preliminary costs provided by the District for excavation, additional fill and sod. Average clearing costs were estimated using engineer's costs estimates from recent bank stabilization projects. In order to estimate the additional cost for mobilization, utility relocation, protection and restoration of the site, contingencies, MSD Engineering, and Legal & Administration, a set of recent preliminary studies was evaluated and the proportion of the total cost represented by these factors was computed. It was determined that for projects with a subtotal cost less than or equal to $75,000, a multiplier of 2.0 should be applied to obtain the total conceptual cost. For projects with a subtotal cost greater than $75,000, a multiplier of 1.7 should be applied. A brief discussion of the five bank stabilization techniques and assumptions is also included below. Copies of the curves and worksheets are included in Appendix D. 1.4.1.2a Heavy Stone Revetment The minimum proposed SS required for this solution was I.5H:1 V, although 2H:1 V or milder is preferable if the horizontal space is available. Proposed SS of 2.5H:1 V and 3H:1 V were also included. Since the application for this solution was anticipated to be in areas of high velocity, the assumed D90 of the HSR was 2-foot and the corresponding thickness of the rock layer was estimated to be 3 feet. A 3'x3' rock key was also included as a typical feature at the proposed toe of slope. The cost for this solution also included 6 inches of bedding material and a layer of filter fabric. Quantities for all SS and height combinations within the given ranges were computed in CADD, and corresponding costs were calculated. Eight graphs were created, one for each of the following existing SS conditions: existing SS = proposed SS, existing SS = verticaI, existing SS = 0.5H:1 V, existing SS = 1H:1 V, existing SS = 1.5H: IV, existing SS=2.0H:IV, existing SS = 2.5H:1V, and existing SS = 3.0H: IV. Each graph has multiple curves, one representing each of the four proposed SS conditions. The average bank height is entered at the x-axis and extended vertically to the appropriate SS curve, then the cost per foot is read from the y-axis. 1.4.1.2b Gabion Walls It was agreed that gabion walls, modular block walls, and reinforced concrete walls would most likely only be used when existing banks were fairly steep already, so for these alternatives only three existing SS conditions were evaluated: vertical, 0.5H:IV, and 1 H:1 V. Conceptual costs were developed for a range of existing bank heights from 6'-15'. Assumptions included in the quantity estimate for various bank height conditions were that the excavation included an additional 1' behind the gabions, that the gabions were offset a full basket width (3') each layer, and that a 9'xl' reno mattress would lie under the bottom basket and extend 6' into the channel. A single graph with three curves representing the three existing slope conditions was created. The wall height is entered at Storm water Facility Planning 6 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 the x-axis and extended vertically to the appropriate SS curve, then the cost per foot is read from the y-axis. 1.4.1.2c Modular Block Walls It was assumed for conceptual cost calculations that Neptune blocks (or equivalent) would be used for bank stabilization applications. The depth into the slope for this size block is 1.5', and the batter of the blocks was assumed to be 20 degrees. A 1' thick drainage layer of crushed rock is included in the cost estimate, as well as a concrete bearing pad. It was also assumed that a grid would be used for all heights at a 2' vertical interval, extending from 2' above the bottom of the wall to within 2-3' from the top of the wall. The width of this grid was assumed to be 75% of the total wall height. Modular block walls were assumed to be applicable to vertical heights between 6'-15'. A single graph with three curves representing the three existing slope conditions was created. The wall height is entered at the x-axis and extended vertically to the appropriate SS curve, then the cost per foot is read from the y-axis. 1.4.1.2d Reinforced Concrete Walls Reinforced concrete walls were assumed to be applicable to vertical heights between 4'- 20'. A general relationship between wall height and footing size was developed; the depth to the bottom of the footing was assumed to be 30 inches below the toe of the existing slope and the average wall thickness was assumed to be 12 inches. For earthwork calculations, it was also assumed that excavation would extend one foot beyond the footing in front of and behind the wall. A single graph with three curves representing the three existing slope conditions was created. The wall height is entered at the x-axis and extended vertically to the appropriate SS curve, then the cost per foot is read from the y-axis. 1.4.1.2e Combination Slope Stabilization This alternative allowed the user to determine the intermediate heights of three types of treatment on a single bank slope: HSR (usually used at the toe), composite revetment (usually used above the HSR), and biostabilization (usually used above the composite revetment). Existing sides slopes could vary from vertical to 3.0H:1 V, and proposed bank slope was set by the type of treatment chosen. A SS of 2H: 1 V was used for HSR and composite revetment, and a SS of 3H: IV was used for biostabilization. Assumptions, costs and quantities for the HSR portion of the treatment were identical to those from the conceptual cost curve developed for HSR. Excavation, additional fill, and sod quantities were computed in a spreadsheet for the various height and slope combinations. Unit costs for these items, as well as for the HSR, composite revetment and biostabilization were obtained from the District. No graphs were produced for the combination slope stabilization alternative, because there were too many possible combinations of existing and proposed SS and intermediate heights of the three possible treatment types. In order to use this conceptual cost Stormwater Facility Planning 7 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 estimate, the data must be entered into the worksheet, where the formulas in the spreadsheet will yield the conceptual cost per foot for the combination slope stabilization. 1.4.2 Identified projects In general, the investigation of an Identified Project (IP) began with a review of the existing project information from the District. Existing information was usually in one of the following three forms: contained in a folder with documentation of field notes and/or a conceptual solution and cost estimate, included in one of the SSMIP reports as an exhibit and related tabular information about alternative cost comparisons, or included in an old District stormwater study as a line on a map with little or no other detail. Regardless of the amount of existing information, a checklist created by Parsons was used to make sure all the available information relative to the problem area was researched. Besides the District's complaints databases, project folders and plans in Central Files were researched, PRECPTS, Laserfiche and microfilm were used as needed, and FEMA flood maps were referred to. Other items on the checklist included aspects of the work to be documented such as field investigation memo and photos, hydraulic calculations, cost estimate and prioritization. A copy of this checklist is provided in Appendix E. In order to promote efficiency and uniformity in the treatment of Identified Projects by Parsons staff, their subconsultants, and District staff, Parsons prepared a document entitled Identified Projects Procedures For Research, Field Investigation and Report Preparation. This document provides a step-by-step description of the process of completing Identified Projects. A copy of this document is included in Appendix E. Each IP was assigned one of the following four status categories, based on the results of the research and field visit: 1) Completed, meaning the project was constructed by MSD; 2) Dropped, meaning the problem no longer exists or is not an MSD responsibility; 3) Valid/Update CIPRO, meaning the project is recommended to be added to C1PRO 4) Other, meaning the project was constructed by a municipality or other agency. Figure 1 on the following page illustrates the final status of IPs by number and percentage of the total as of June 30, 2010. Storm water Facility Planning 8 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 identified Project Status 165 90 11% 6% ■ Completed ■ Dropped a Valid/Update CI PRO o Other Figure 1. Identified Project Status Regardless of status, two data input forms provided by the District were filled out for each IP. One form was the Project Identification Information Sheet and the other was the Supplemental Identified Issue Fact Sheet. Several revisions were made to these sheets by the District over the course of the Stormwater Planning project; copies of the most current sheets are included in Appendix E. Each project to be added or updated in CIPRO was assigned a Problem Category, based on the available choices listed on the Supplemental Identified Issue Fact Sheet. These categories are listed as follows: Table 1. Identified Project Categories ID Category Description A Frequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers (floodplain) B Frequent structural flooding from overland flow (non-floodplain) C Frequent roadway flooding D Infrequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers (floodplain) E Infrequent structural flooding from overland flow (non-floodplain) F Infrequent roadway flooding G High risk structural erosion H High risk roadway erosion I Yard erosion .1 Moderate risk structural erosion K Moderate risk roadway erosion L Erosion or flooding of common ground or unmaintained area M Yard flooding N Flooding from inadequate sinkhole 0 FIooding from inadequate roadway drainage P Maintenance of stormwater system facilities Stormwater Facility Planning MSD Project 2005122 9 Final Report Dec 2010 A draft copy of the documentation for each IP was submitted to the District for review, organized in a folder that would eventually be used to house it in the District's Central Files. The folder was returned to Parsons with any comments, and a final copy was then submitted. Figure 2 shows a breakdown of the total number of IPs assigned to each problem category. Obviously, yard flooding was by far the most common problem. IP Problem Categories Number A Frequent structural flooding from creeks orrivers (floodplain) B Frequentstructural flooding from overland flow(non-ftoodplain) C Frequent roadway flooding D Infrequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers (floodplain) E infrequent structural flooding from overland flow (non-floodplain) F Infrequent roadway flooding c High risk structural erosion H High risk roadway erosion Yard erosion Moderate riskstructuraierosion K Moderate risk roadway erosion L Eroson ortlooding of common ground or unmaintained area M Yard flooding N Flooding from inadequate sinkhole O Flooding from Inadequate roadway drainage P Maintenance of stormwatersystem facilities 20 I l 62 11 34 10 23 25 20 7 37 INIS 46 13 • 7 9 22 I3 180 0 50 100 150 200 Figure 2. Problem Categories Assigned to IPs Figure 3 shows a breakdown of the total cost of the conceptual solutions proposed for IPs by category. Although there were only 20 projects whose problem was described as frequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers, this category carried the highest total price tag. Stormwater Facility Planning 10 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 70,000 6 60,000 50,000 N g • 40,000 O F ▪ 30,000 0 0 U 20,000 10,000 87 IP Problem Cost (in Thousands) 45,3924 33.26 7 7 3 2.104 22.775 7,396 9,632 7.793 12.596 0 D E F 5.495 1.614 r, H J Category 537 1.728 rI 5.353 6,736 IS L Nil 1' 1 0 Figure 3. Cost by Problem Category for IPs 1,270 1.4.3 Review and analysis of existing identified projects not funded Approximately 735 Identified Projects Not Funded (IPNFs) were found to be identified by Operations in the Hansen database. While the source of existing IPNFs was different than the Identified Projects already in CIPRO, the process of research and documentation was identical. All of the IPNFs compiled by the District and supplied to Parsons were evaluated. Figure 4 illustrates the final status of IPNFs by number and percentage of the total as of June 30, 2010. The IPNFs were first cross checked against CIPRO and the "all projects" map to determine which IPNFs are already covered by previously identified projects. This cross check revealed that 527 of the IPNFs were already covered by previously identified projects and/or were combined sewer or sanitary sewer issues. Of the remaining 208 IPNFs, 93 were researched, field investigated and conceptual studies were prepared. 87 IPNFs were researched, field investigated and dropped. 14 IPNFs were determined to be completed by MSD, and 14 were determined to be completed by others. Stormwater Facility Planning 11 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 Identified Project Not Funded Status 14 7% 7% n Dropped n Completed ❑ValidrAdd to CIPRO ❑Other Figure 4. Identified Project Not Funded Status Figure 5 shows a breakdown of the IPNFs by problem category. As with the IPs, the most common problem was yard flooding. IPNF Problem Categories Number A Frequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers (floodp1ain) B Frequent strLturat flood ngfrcm overland flow (non-floodplain) C Frequent roadway flooding D Infrequent structural flooding fremcreeks orrivers (floodplain) E Infrequent structural flooding f rom overland flow (non-flocdplain) F Int requent roadway f looting Cx High risk structural erosion H High risk roadway erosion Yard erosion J Moderate risk structural erosion K Moderate risk roadway erosion I. Erosion or flooding of common ground or unmaintained area M Yard flooding N Flooding from inadequate sinkhole O Flooding from inadequate roadway drainage P Maintenance of stormwater system facilities 0 0 II1 2 I1 2 0 10 11 16 0 MI 3 IN1 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 Figure 5. Problem Categories Assigned to IPNFs Figure 6 illustrates the total cost of the conceptual solutions for IPNFs by problem category. In this case, the frequent structural flooding from overland flow problem carried the highest total cost. Stonnwater Facility Planning 12 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 Cos (Thousands) 4500 - 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 IPNF Problem Cost (in Thousands) 4163 0 3216 845 0 res 300 -755 77r 730 545 0 a 30 a 140 • A BCDE F C H I Category J K L MN OP Figure 6. Cost by Problem Category for IPNFs 1.4.4 Review and analysis of municipal identified projects not funded The IPNFs that originated from municipal stormwater studies provided to the District were tracked separately for review. Stormwater studies from the following municipalities were evaluated by the Parsons Team: the City of Sunset Hills, the City of Frontenac, the Village of Twin Oaks, and the City of Clayton. Additional municipal studies were reviewed concurrently by District staff, including ones for the Cities of Crestwood, Warson Woods and Glendale. Projects identified in these studies that were not already addressed by an Identified Project in CIPRO were treated as an IPNF and followed the research and documentation procedures described above. All of the municipal IPNFs assigned to the Parsons team were evaluated. Figure 7 illustrates the final status of municipal IPNFs by number and percentage of the total as of June 30, 2010. Stormwater Facility Planning 13 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 Municipal Identified Project Not Funded Status 16 12% 511 37% 0 Dropped ❑ Completed 0 Valid/Add to Cl PRO ❑ Other 66 48% Figure 7. Municipal Identified Project Not Funded Status Figure 8 shows a breakdown of the municipal IPNFs by problem category. As with the IPs and [PNFs, the most common problem was yard flooding. Municipal IPNF Problem Categories A Frequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers (floodplain) B Frequent structural flooding from overland flow (non-floodplain) C Frequent roadway flooding p Infrequent structural flooding fromcreeks or rivers (floodplain) E Infrequent structural flooding from overland flow (non-floodplain) F Infrequent roadway flooding High risk structural erosion H High risk roadway erosion Yard erosion J Moderate risk structural erosion K Moderate risk roadway erosion L Erosion or flooding of common ground or unmaintained area M Yard flooding N Flooding from inadequate sinkhole a Flooding from inadequate roadway drainage P Maintenance of stormwater system facilities Number 1 10 3 2 0 0 = 2 1 0 0 6 0 I♦ 2 0 f 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure S. Problem Categories Assigned to Municipal IPNFs Figure 9 illustrates the total cost of the conceptual solutions for municipal IPNFs by problem category. The yard flooding problems carried the highest total cost. Stormwater Facility Planning 14 MSD Project 2005122 Final Report Dec 2010 Cost+Thousands) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Municipal IPNF Problem Cost (in Thousands) 5585 111 3235 1849_ 1509 1319 11 0 517 0 543 75 0 0 119 108 0 0 A BCDEF G H I J K L MN OP Category Figure 9. Cost by Problem Category for Municipal IPNFs On average, the review and analysis of IPs, IPNFs and municipal IPNFs required approximately 20 hours to complete. The average cost for conceptual design of these items was estimated to be $2,200 and the average conceptual construction costs including contingency and engineering was estimated to be approximately $470,000. The hours spent per project differs greatly because a large number of projects were dropped and dropped IPNFs and municipal IPNFs were never submitted for District review. The time spent to review all IPNFs to determine their status is also included in the average time and cost. 1.4.5 Database Documentation The original Identified Project database was provided to Parsons as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet contained 1,741 entries, and included the CIPRO ID for each project, the name, watershed, District grid number, problem description, solution description, and projected cost. This list was reviewed for any duplicate entries and columns were added to track when the project was initiated. Once initiated, the project ID, name, and grid number were transferred to an individual watershed list and an "x" was placed in the "Proj Initiated" column_ The "Proj Initiated" column was Iater refined to include entries for projects removed as preliminary studies, projects in the combined service area, and projects initiated by District staff. This list was the basis for tracking all Identified Issues for the duration of the project and is referred to as the "Consolidated" list. As additional refinements were made, several columns were added to the original spreadsheet. As mentioned above, a "Proj Initiated" column was added, wherein the person initiating this project would add an "x". This would cause the project information Stormwater Facility Planning 15 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 to be shaded in green across the row as a flag that the project was initiated and removed to one of the individual tracking sheets. A letter "p" in this column indicated that the project had proceeded to preliminary study and was thus removed from the active list, a letter "c" indicated the project was in the combined sewer area and would not be reviewed, and the letter "m" indicated that the project had been initiated by a member of the District's staff, In order to help track who was handling a given project, an "Initiated by" column was added. The Consolidated list was further refined to include a column called "Watershed" that defined which of the 3 major watersheds the project fell under (Mississippi, Missouri, or Meramec), using the service area name provided. Another column concatenated the watershed name with the category that Iisted whether the project was storm or sanitary. This enables the user to sort by watershed and type together. The second database that was created and maintained to track the Identified Projects is the "Compendium" list (filename: 1800 STORMLIST MSD 2010-06-30.xis). This list is a compilation of all the information from the individual engineers' project progress lists, and lists only the projects that were initiated in some way. The individual project progress lists were used by both Parsons and District staff to track the progress on the identified projects they initiated. Once a new grid or other grouping of IP's was initiated by an engineer, those project names, CIPRO ID's, and grid numbers were copied onto that individual's project progress list. Columns were provided for each significant element of the project evaluation in order to facilitate tracking of weekly progress. Some categories required only an "x" to indicate the work had been done or an "n/a" if appropriate. These categories include: Initiated, Central Files, CIPRO Data, Eng. Complaints, Hansen, "all -projects" lists, GRF_Project numbers, Precepts, Photos, Field Notes, Interviews, Laserfiche, Filetracker, Microfilm, Floodplain, Drainage Map, Hydraulic Calc, Base Map Exhibit and Fact Sheet. Several categories, including Cost Estimate, Benefit Points, Problem Category, Action Required, and Basin/Enhanced Services, were populated with the corresponding information from the final IP. Remaining categories, including Internal Review, MSD Review, MSD Comments, and Complete, required only an "x" when those stages of the process were completed. This spreadsheet is useful not only to track progress, but to sort by column to create, for example, a Iist of projects in decreasing order of cost, or a list of all projects with a certain problem category. This database also contains summary tables and graphs showing the total IP Problems by Category and Cost. The databases summarizing the Identified Projects Not Funded (filename: IPNF Progress Checklist Compendium.xls) and the Municipal projects (filename: Municipal IPNF Progress Checklist Municipal Compendium MSD.xis), summarized the progress and information from the individual engineers' spreadsheets that were nearly identical to those described above for the identified projects. 1.5 Development of Project Definitions and Preliminary Studies for the CIRP 1.5.1 Preliminary Studies Stormwater Facility Planning 16 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 The Parsons team completed a total of 128 preliminary studies for the District to include in the FY2008 through FY2012 CIRP. In addition, 11 priority preliminary studies for the District and at the request of municipalities were completed. Each preliminary study consisted of research, field investigation, development of flows and alternatives, cost estimating and determination of prioritization points. A table summarizing these studies is included in Appendix F. On average, preliminary studies required approximately 115 hours to complete. The average preliminary design cost was estimated to be $11,000 and the average preliminary construction costs including contingency and engineering was estimated to be approximately $47 1,000. 1.5.2 Pepperdine Court — Fishpot Creek Preliminary Study After performing an initial field investigation for the Pepperdine Court preliminary study (2008157), the Parsons Team alerted the District as to the severity and immediacy of the threat to structures along Fishpot Creek at this location. The District requested that Parsons prepare a scope of work for the design of a bank stabilization solution_ In order to better assess the existing conditions, a geomorphic assessment and a geotechnical investigation of the project site were performed, and previous District studies and plans for the area were reviewed. The Parsons team also met with representatives of the St. Louis District of the Corps of Engineers and MoDNR at the site to discuss permitting requirements. Due to the urgent nature of the problem at this Iocation, the District proceeded with a fast -track design -bid process to first establish temporary measures to allow time for a more thorough design study, followed as soon as possible by installation of long term stabilization measures. Temporary measures consisted of restoring ground that had been most recently eroded away by grading and filling in and around the channel, Stonnwater Facility Planning 17 _ Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 while the long term bank stabilization consisted of approximately 1100 feet of Fishpot Creek using a combination of large riprap, grading and biostabilization of the banks, and construction of rock vanes in the channel. Flood Plain studies were performed by Parsons to assess impacts of both the temporary and long term designs. "No rise" certifications and COE permit applications were filed on behalf of the District. Parsons Team members ABNA Engineering performed the survey and Reitz & Jens performed the design of the temporary and long term solutions, as well as construction oversight. The project was completed on time and under budget. 1.5.3 Preliminary Studies for Municipalities Several municipalities requested special assistance from the District regarding stormwater problems within their boundaries. In each case, staff members from the District and Parsons met with city officials to identify the problem areas. In most cases, this led to Parsons being tasked with performing conceptual -level studies for the problem areas identified. Seven projects were analyzed and summarized in a report for the City of Ferguson. One project was evaluated for the City of Cool Valley, and two projects were evaluated for the Village of Marlborough. Three projects were evaluated for the City of Oakland, one of which was found to be a structural integrity issue rather than a pure stormwater problem related to an existing culvert. For this issue, a structural evaluation was performed and recommendations were summarized in a report called "Brent - Argonne Culvert Evaluation". The District enlisted the assistance of Parsons to help the City of Kirkwood investigate a resident's complaint about severe structural flooding at West Essex and Goethe. Parsons' staff accompanied District and City of Kirkwood staff to the field for an initial interview with the complainant, then Parsons followed up with field work and a preliminary study identifying a solution to the problem. Parsons and District staff also met with several City of Northwoods officials to discuss stormwater issues. The City was planning to collect stormwater complaint surveys in order to better locate and prioritize problems. Preliminary field investigations of several channels within the City boundaries were performed. However, the City surveys were never furnished to the District. Eventually the City received some money from an EPA 319 Grant to address the stormwater issues they deemed most crucial. SECTION 2.0 SECONDARY SERVICES 2.1 Regulatory Issues/Coordination Several meetings were held with District and Parsons Team staff at the USACE St. Louis District(Corps) regulatory department regarding their policy on mitigation requirements and how they may apply to District bank stabilization methods. Current and future average cost per mitigation credit was discussed. Several specific preliminary study projects were presented by Parsons for discussion in order to obtain some general opinions from the Corps on jurisdictional determinations and mitigation requirements based on the pictures and plans presented in the meeting. The Corps agreed that the Stormwater Facility Planning 18 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 District could develop a list of projects that have uncertain requirements and periodically go on field visits with the Corps to get jurisdictional determinations for each project. Reitz & Jens staff also coordinated with MoDNR about their anti -degradation requirements and development of a statewide general permit and its impact on District projects. Other coordination with MoDNR was necessary when attempting to get feedback on certain proposed repair techniques such as grout -filling the bottom of failing gabion baskets. The Parsons Team contacted or attempted to contact all of the municipalities within the District's boundary to determine which municipalities had stormwater master plans and/or detention basin ordinances. See Appendix G for table of the information obtained. The Parsons Team contacted the State of Missouri to obtain a list of the stormwater taxes that municipalities within the District's boundary have in place. See Appendix G for a table of these taxes and the OMCI District affected by these taxes. 2.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Hydraulic modeling, using software programs such as Hydraflow, was performed to evaluate existing and proposed storm sewers for preliminary studies and some IPs and IPNFs. 2.3 Water Quality Issues and Modeling The District did not request any assistance relevant to this task. 2.4 Rainfall/Radar/Hydrology Development Parsons' subcontractor PMA Engineering provided oversight to Hydmet for the development of a HEC-1 processor customized to District needs and with the ability to import design storms from the St. Louis Static Design Storm Processor. Hydmet also prepared an initial setup of the Fishpot Creek Basin and documented the results in a report comparing the hydrologic results prepared by FEMA and Montgomery Watson's Stormwater Master Improvement Plan for Fishpot Creek. Hydmet conducted a workshop at the District's headquarters to demonstrate the HEC-1 Processor, Fishpot Creek model setup, model calibration, HEC-HMS interface, test runs and graphical and tabular results for various design storms. 2.5 Preparation of SSMIP for Additional Watersheds The District did not request any assistance relevant to this task. 2.6 Geomorphologic Stream Assessment and Analysis Under Parsons' contract, MS&T fine-tuned their Urban Stream Stability Expert System (USSES) for stream classification and evaluation. This effort included data collection in the field, input into the system, and revisions to the system itself and the corresponding user's manual. Parsons performed the data collection field work for this effort and Storm water Facility Planning 19 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 provided the data to MS&T for input into the system. MS&T developed the data input worksheets, user's manual and made modifications to the USSES program. 2.7 Capital Improvement and Replacement Program (CIRP) In response to District requests, the Parsons team performed site visits of several preliminary study projects with staff from the Engineering Department before requests for design proposals (RFPs) were prepared. These projects included Fair Oaks #33b, Cherry Tree Lane Storm Improvement, Diamond Head Dr. Storm Sewer, Linden #1064 Storm Sewer and Ridgemoor Drive Storm Improvements. Parsons also assisted the District with the preparation of revised exhibits for the Wise and Mabel and the Ridgemoor Drive projects to get them ready for RFPs. 2.8 Public Education/Relations While no official public education or public relations presentations were made by the Parsons Team, there were many opportunities for individual homeowner education while performing field work all over the District. Topics such as the deleterious effect of the disposal of yard waste on creek banks and presence of bush honeysuckle were addressed, as well as suggestions of homeowner solutions to minor problems such as extending or redirecting downspouts, keeping grated inlets clear, and constructing raingardens. The Parsons Team also encouraged homeowners to call Customer Service with stormwater complaints so that the District is made aware of them. Members of the Parsons Team also attended several meeting with individual property owners and some with neighborhood groups to assist District staff in presenting potential project solutions. 2.9 Other District Departments & Divisions Support 2.9.1 LID Review Parsons subconsultant Reitz & Jens, Inc. (RI) provided Low Impact Development support to the District for a period of approximately two years consisting of seminar support and general project review. The District held two one -day seminars titled "Water Quality Rules and BMP's" to help launch the District's Rules and Regulations involving water quality. Seminars were presented by staff from the District, Missouri Botanical Gardens, and RJ, covering: basic water quality issues, BMP selection, BMP Design (per Maryland Department of the Environment regulations) including design examples and basic calculations, and planting selection and science. RJ provided on -call LID review services associated with ten (10) private development permit applications submitted to the District for permit approval. Services included review of existing site constraints, proposed development activity, and proposed water quality treatment. Results of the review included recommendations for improving the water quality treatment concept and support of negotiations with permit applicants. 2.9.2 Green Roof Analysis. The District requested the Parsons Team to perform a study to determine the feasibility and the cost to install a "green roof' on their headquarters building at 2350 Market Street, Stormwater Facility Planning 20 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 St. Louis, Missouri. The Parsons Team led by Hellmuth-Bicknese attended several scoping meetings, investigated and evaluated the structural integrity of the existing roof, and performed a feasibility level design study. The study defined a scope of work for this "green roof' and estimated the design fees and construction costs to complete this project. A report was prepared that illustrated the structural issues, presented alternative designs for the green roof, identified typical plants and installation techniques and provided conceptual level construction cost estimates for the alternative plans. The study developed two options for green roof improvements for the six balconies and for the roof. Structural improvements required to support the additional roof loading were identified. The overall cost was estimated to be approximately $1.3 Million for the entire project. The "green roof' can provide multiple benefits to the District and the Community including: • Reduced Runoff Volume and Reduced Runoff Temperature: As best management practices get implemented across a watershed, there is increasing opportunities for reduction in infrastructure costs by reducing the required size of the stormwater piping systems. • Air Pollution Reduction: CO2 reduction from plant mass is an added benefit from a climate change perspective. • Reduction in Heat Island Effect: Since the building is located in a dense urban area of downtown St. Louis, the reduction in air temperatures above a green roof will aid in reducing the heat island effect. Through integrated monitoring, the difference in temperature can be demonstrated between the roof membrane with a green roof and the roof membrane underneath the green roof. • Reduction in the Cooling: A side benefit will be the reduction in cooling load and costs resulting from the shading of the roof membrane and the cooling effect of evapo-transpiration. • Increased Green Space: This is not only a symbolic environmental gesture but it also serves as an aid to migratory birds as more green space is created in our urban area. • Extension of Membrane Life: By protecting the roof membrane from UV radiation, the functional life of the membrane is extended thereby providing a lifecycle cost savings to the District and the public. • Education Program: This green roof can be used as an education tool to demonstrate to school children and the general public the benefits that a system like this can provide to the environment and the community. It was determined that funding was not available to proceed with this project so no further development of the green roof design was performed. Stormwater Facility Planning 21 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 2.10 Mapping/GIS As field work for detention basin inventory, identified projects, and preliminary studies was performed, errors and omissions on the District's facilities maps were identified. For each of these locations, a map correction was prepared and submitted in the format requested by District GIS staff. Parsons coordinated with Jacobs to help prepare project maps for the District for each fiscal year. Parsons located all of the stormwater projects identified in the District's budget supplement on a map for the fiscal years requested. This information was forwarded to Jacobs to be included on a map that would show all projects scheduled for the fiscal years in question. 2.11 Grants/Loans Parsons assisted the District with filling out the application for a grant for funding the "green roof" project for the District's headquarters building. 2.12 Financial Issue Support The District did not request any assistance relevant to this task. 2.13 Coordination with Other Consultants and Vendors When working on preliminary studies, there were numerous instances where the necessary stormwater work would be most logically done in conjunction with a sanitary project (for example Fair Oaks #33b Storm Sewer Improvements). In these cases, Parsons coordinated with Jacobs, the District's infrastructure planning consultant, to see what projects were already planned and for when. On several preliminary studies (for example Big Bend to Papin and Ridgemoor Drive), Parsons obtained inflow information from data collected by RJN Group, who was performing I&I work for the District. Where appropriate, additional inlets and stormwater infrastructure could then be proposed to help eliminate the need for private sources of I&I like yard inlets and downspouts connected to the sanitary system. 2.14 Review of Consultant Submittals The Parsons Team provided technical review services of other consultant reports at the request of the District on several occasions. Parsons performed a technical review of "Sappington Creek — 10501 Kamping Lane/10312 Meath Drive Bank Repair (2005043P) Preliminary Study" and "Sappington Creek -Meath to Gravois Preliminary Design" for the District. Parsons also provided review comments on the "Draft Geomorphic Reconnaissance of Sappington Creek" report related to this project. A technical review of the report "Pre -Design Study, Paddock to Waterford Storm Channel (2005099)" was performed by the Parsons Team. Stormwater Facility Planning 22 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 APPENDIX A. Detention Basin Inventory Information Map of Inventoried Detention Basins Basin Condition Rating Form Table of Basin Condition Rating Summary Table of Basins Not Inventoried 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 18 19Z 197`, , 19X 20Z 20Y 21Z 22Z 23Z 2 Y WILD HORSE CK 23Y 17 w V U T 10 Q 6 7 P 0 M K J H 1K 1J 1H G 2K 2J r r 2H r 3K 3J MIS5lI-4 3H ,�. 2G 3G F 4K keliiIIILL CREEK 4J • 4H ■ 60 70 7N 6M 8P 9P r• 8N • 0 FP ❑ 8M • • 9M �;=1 ❑ V 100 • 110 R 1 12 13 S 15 12R 12Q 12P MISS-6. ON talc] n 1.171 6K v g ❑ 1 CSOLls>WA I ER 7M T, 7Lf�❑ f 7K LLI • 0 63La 8K ■ ii - ■■-.■ R, ❑ i . o 9K s° ❑. 5J 4G 4F 5G E 5E 5 D C B m v ®J on 6H 0 CREEKS' 7J• v v° L U v • v • nH AC ❑❑ 8J • 9J io3 v1 81 OE woo 76 ■ if ❑ ❑ ❑ ID pi]___._❑_ r, -r 1 l'` . LAME ❑ 11 0 i\ BT 1 ti 0 0 CIFT iff13 9G] ISR ItY ^H 9 can 10G e"1 PANISHI ❑ ❑ 6D D 9ENS 9D U'.. V�ATKIC EK ❑ � ❑ z a C7 10F� '� 0E i�� 1 QD ❑ _ �, 9,FEtc? ° 1 0 eJEEdq2te IT °rl 13R; 14 REVE �y 1 ■ IRPORT 14Q 13P 14P 130 ❑ ❑ 140 ❑ :roF ■ L■.■ 5 A OWHFAO ORT 15Q /'�`JP v •❑ S 16 X 16VV .. . 16V. 16U 16T 4!' -61: ;64. 17X 1 1W,!L 17V M.l$7 CI • •I' /� 5FI Al F 5 - • • \ ©c,, 18Y 18X : o a� 1j 0 ■4■ • _____--:,--, ., It - , •❑ bW 0 19V_ ® [_�t 9U ❑ 19T • 20X / / , y 20W . 20 , 2 . ou ° ° 20-1' 21X m 21W • ULP4 C K 21411r----D—th-----a-E % e o . o ;iv I, 22X BONHOI� L ❑' 3• 16S CREEK 23X __ _23W • .'U Em 24Z 25Z 24Y 24X AUGUSTA CREEK •�� 26Z 26Y 26 • 24W 25Wk 25 11AMILTON & CAfR CREEK c,26W f mr • n 24U I 111 -1 2 f ■■ r, ■ `os oe 16 R ❑ • i • L ■ ?S 21R ■ ■� u v mJ� 0 22R ❑n ° 23S Er • SPRING 25U KIEF121VCR 26U •• 26T °`\ 24S El ° ❑ ❑n r:l IIW .1 ,V ■ ■ • 141 1 7Q. ❑ +IN ■ - ■ LiFI • ar 26S _26R • ❑ v@ t-i •u ❑ 17P • P G?Evk a Q °1 P 2103 01P° GRA 1D GLQIZE CRCCK L. 22Q °❑ ❑ 2P®I°, ° •ill •{-_?] Pm - cif ❑Q �❑ �3 �`nn EJ 6Q 4P © ❑ P.- LMSA 2 26P sr' 27Z 27Y 27X 27V 27U 27T 27S 27R` �7Q • FOX CREEK 28Z 28Y F BY-CRf EK 28X f 28W 28V 280 ■ 28T 00 28S I+ /ILLaFAS CRE K28 0 n ❑� III • • 0 150 ❑ v,� 20 a. • ❑ 4 1pIN ❑ E� CREE •_ •❑ icev Di LE [i i,1K❑ 40%9 ./• r r. wraiL: T 1_ 1 13L 13 11J'❑ �� ❑ 11H 11G 11F 111 ❑x,: -'S 6C 7C 9C 6B TB 9B 12J 1 2H MALASEEK ❑ ❑. ❑13J I13H Dig 12G°( 12F 13G �`� 13F '3E El L 141!■ ❑ ■ 'I . 14L dtke 5L ❑ .in ❑ ❑: 61 jvm -. ❑ UM - ° v 1.-.6L RNER v0 ° :I 17� ❑ v • ri 19N ❑ €SON 2 RI E6 N,nn.. „Ay • Ill 'YIN 1®M: \_.. n 7 n ❑ 18L J [44K ❑• • •° 14J •/ �1K 15J hrn' V 16J ° tt INIV ERSITY CITY 1 7q ° v18 Li VEER CREEKS 0191�1i 19L.�,4 ❑ Qom 21M On LJT,n; 23N 23M N a_. w•,cREEK U 51/GAR I le 28PLA 1AQ ■ 0--I ❑° 2 - 1 • F▪ K❑Vv 29Z 29Y 29X • 29V 29 U 29MTIRERK - 29R 2 • MEM Tvi 24N J, v v'2 ,E1 ❑ ❑ 25N'%I r `LMSA4 u dv °® VGI° 28N 1=E7 20L 22Lv 23 20J 22K D 16 `El 7H 16 MI • 14E MISSISSIPP 13 14 15 12D 20 21G 21 21E 21 22D 24K • 26Kv • 27K ER44 • 24H 23G 24G 24 24E 25G EEK V Ti • El 29N— ;H f . 30Z 31Z 30Y 31Y FLAT CREEK 30X 30W 31X 31W 31V 30U 32Z 32Y 324 32W Z Y 33 33X 33W X w V 32 33 Legend ❑ Dry Detention Basin • Wet Retention Basin • Underground Basin PARSONS 30T T 31 S 30 SALINE CREEK i S,GPµ SUGAR CREEK 0 ROMAINE CREEK 2.5 N 30 22-0 0 MATTE D yip • • 7 E • classic 33 5 33N 32M 33M • 33L MI 34 36 37 • • 33K • 28J 26H 27 rav I=Pi) 6 26F 27F 29G mm • 3 • • 34 • • 30G 31 33H /34H 35H 36J 7 37J 10 Miles NOTE: Feb. 2nd, 2009 is the most recent construction approval date for the basins shown above. 36 37 32 33 34 35 31G 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 23 24 0 11 12 16 17 18 19 22 6 7 8 9 Detention / Retention Basins DETENTION BASIN CONDITION RATING 09/16/08 Dbase ID: Struct ID: Watershed: Condition Points Points Summary Berm: Pick more than one if applicable 2 Good Condition 0 Minor Erosion 5 ❑ Overgrown/Trees/Brush 5 ❑ Animal Burrows 5 U Major Erosion 10 ] Breached 100 Outlet Structure: Pick more than one if applicable Good Condition 0 ❑ Minor Debris Accumulation at orifice/weir 5 ❑ Low Flow Orifice Blocked 15 ❑ Emergency Overflow Blocked 20 ❑ Weir Blocked 25 [ Outlet Pipe Blocked 50 [ Collapsed/Destroyed 100 Incoming Pipes: Pick one H Good Condition 0 ❑ Partially Blocked 10 n Blocked 25 0 0 0 General Basin: Pick more than one if applicable 0 Good Vegetation and Mowed 0 0 ❑ Overgrown/Trees/Brush 5 Standing Water 5 ❑ Debris Accumulated other than at outlet 5 L Equipment Access Limited [ Equipment Access Blocked n Storage Volume Reduced by 20% or more Miscellaneous: Pick more than one if applicable ❑ Erosion at Incoming Pipe 5 n Erosion along Pilot Channel 5 n Sediment in Pilot Channel 5 Fence Damaged Allowing Access 5 ❑ Other TOTAL BASIN POINTS BASIN CONDITION RATING 5 10 50 Good Condition - No Maintenance Required Fair Condition - Minor Maintenance Required Poor Condition - Major Maintenance Required Failing - Immediate Maintenance Required 0 GOOD 0 - 25 Points 26 - 49 Points 50 - 99 Points 100+ Points BASIN CONDITION RATING SUMMARY Major Watersheds Failing A/G UIG Total A/G Poor UIG Total A/G Fair U/G Total A/G Good U/G Total Watershed Totals A/G U/G Total Bissell Point 1 0 1 7 1 8 21 2 23 109 14 123 138 17 155 Coldwater Creek 0 1 1 11 0 11 22 3 25 168 39 207 201 43 244 Lower Meramec 11 2 13 33 2 35 100 4 104 622 92 714 766 100 866 Missouri River 10 1 11 56 4 60 121 11 132 693 55 748 880 71 951 River Des Peres 3 1 4 16 6 22 49 6 55 345 121 466 413 134 547 25 5 30 123 13 136 313 26 339 1,937 321 2,258 2,398 365 2,763 Bissell Point Failing A/G UIG Total Poor A/G UIG Total A/G Fair U/G Total A/G Good U/G Total Sub -Shed Totals A/G U/G Total BADEN O O f 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O *- O O O O 1 0 0- 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 i 1 Q o O 1 0 1 5 0 5 6 0 6 HARLEM 1 1 2 17 3 20 19 4 23 MALINE CREEK 15 1 16 65 7 72 85 9 94 MISSISSIPPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERVIEW 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 SPANISH LAKE 1 0 1 3 0 3 5 0 5 WATKINS CREEK 3 0 3 17 4 21 21 4 25 Watershed Totals 1 0 1 7 1 8 21 2 23 109 14 123 138 17 155 Coldwater Creek Failing A/G UIG Total A/G Poor UIG Total A/G Fair U/G Total A/G Good UIG Total Sub -Shed Totals NG U/G Total COLDWATER CREEK 0 1 1 10 0 10 21 3 24 162 39 201 193 43 236 MILL CREEK 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 0 5 7 0 7 MISS-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOSA-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 atershed Totals 0 S:lmikelBasinsDoneQuanlityCheckldetention basins.xls 11 Item-11 BASIN CONDITION RATING SUMMARY Lower Meramec Failing AIG U/G Total A/G Poor UIG Total AIG Fair U/G Total A/G Good U/G Total Sub -Shed Totals AIG U/G Total ANTIRE CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FENTON CREEK 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 7 40 5 45 48 5 53 FISHPOT CREEK 3 2 5 4 1 5 17 1 18 106 23 129 130 27 157 GRAND GLAIZE CREEK 3 0 3 9 0 9 21 2 23 133 38 171 166 40 206 KIEFER CREEK 0 0 0 8 0 8 10 0 10 42 2 44 60 2 62 LMSA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LMSA 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 LMSA 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 3 LMSA 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 LMSA 6 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 3 15 1 16 19 2 21 LMSA 7 1 0 1 3 0 3 5 0 5 70 5 75 79 5 84 LMSA 8 1 0 1 2 0 2 8 0 8 21 0 21 32 0 32 LMSA 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 3 LMSA 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 MATTESE CREEK 1 0 1 3 0 3 16 0 16 113 9 122 133 9 142 SALINE CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 WILLIAMS CREEK 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 6 21 0 21 28 0 28 YARNELL CREEK 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 1 7 51 8 59 58 9 67 Watershed Totals 11 Missouri River Failing A/G UIG Total A/G Poor UIG Total AIG Fair U/G Total AIG Good U/G Total Sub -Shed Totals A/G UIG Total BONFILS [COWMIRE] 1 0 1 7 0 7 14 1 15 71 4 75 93 5 98 BONHOMME CREEK 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 4 26 1 27 31 1 32 CAULKS CREEK 2 1 3 8 1 9 22 2 24 160 9 169 192 13 205 CREVE COEUR CREEK 3 0 3 9 1 10 38 5 43 225 25 250 275 31 306 FEE FEE CREEK 1 0 1 13 2 15 25 2 27 102 9 111 141 13 154 HAMILTON & CARR CREEK 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 MISS-5 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 38 1 39 48 1 49 MISS-6 0 0 0 5 0 5 8 0 8 36 0 36 49 0 49 M1SS-7 3 0 3 7 0 7 4 1 5 35 6 41 49 7 56 Watershed Totals 10 11 S:lmikelBasinsDoneQuantityCheckldetention basins.xls Item-11 BASIN CONDITION RATING SUMMARY River Des Peres Failing Poor Fair Good Sub -Shed Totals A/G U/G Total A/G U/G Total A/G U/G Total A/G U/G Total A/G U/G Total DEER CREEK 0 0 0 Cr) N O N O O N N C) N 0 0 0 O O r CO lf) O N O O N r (NJ r' N N O N O 0 0 0 rnrCr) CID arc'}m r- r 113 60 173 138 65 203 GRAVOIS CREEK 2 0 2 127 43 170 145 47 192 MACKENZIE CREEK 1 0 1 18 1 19 22 1 23 MARTIGINEY CREEK 0 0 0 28 6 34 36 8 44 MISS-1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 MISS-2 0 0 0 11 0 11 12 0 12 RIVER DES PERES 0 0 0 14 3 17 19 3 22 UNIVERSITY CITY 0 1 1 33 8 41 40 10 50 Watershed Totals 3 1 4 16 6 22 49 6 55 345 121 S:lmikelBasinsDoneQuantityCheckldetentian basins.xls 466 413 134 547 Item-11 Basin_ID 310 541 652 779 840 862 865 987 1005 1087 1111 1204 1295 1317 1371 1384 1407 1455 1467 1578 1734 1752 2394 2538 2600 3268 3367 3454 3482 3484 3553 3563 3575 3708 3719 3776 Project Number P001382800 P001544100 P001596200 P001672500 P000327302 P001709100 P001710300 P001784000 P000624404 P001848700 P001864800 P001913900 P001949600 P001961000 P001985000 P001989500 P001998000 P002021600 P002033100 P002105700 P001185103 P001288902 P002274600 P002368501 P002403500 P001288904 P002749800 PO01383805 P002451200 P002342100 P001979000 P002492500 P001185105 P001673400 P001621600 P001215700 Underground Underground Underground Aboveground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Aboveground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Aboveground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Aboveground Underground Underground Underg round Aboveground Underground Aboveground Underground BASINS NOT INVENTORIED Notes Cars on Access MH's No Access Found Elec Hazard. Elderly couple repeatedly forgot appointments for ABNA crew to visit, Locked Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged ADS left several phone messages, but no return calls, Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged 5 ft - 7 in of mud Locked, need to make appointment with security. Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged O.S. Access Buried Access Buried At Former Hazelwood Ford Plant; being Redeveloped O.S. Access Under Tile in Gazebo. Remainder of basin was checked. Surcharged/Clogged Locked - Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged locked Surcharged/Clogged Access Blocked - Wooden Bridge Access not found (in Clayton Road) At Former Hazelwood Ford Plant; being Redeveloped Surcharged/Clogged locked Locked Watershed Coldwater Creek Missouri River Lower Meramec River Des Peres River Des Peres Coldwater Creek Coldwater Creek Missouri River River Des Peres Lower Meramec Lower Meramec River Des Peres River Des Peres Missouri River Lower Meramec Lower Meramec Missouri River Lower Meramec Missouri River Bissel Point Coldwater Creek River Des Peres Missouri River Missouri River River Des Peres River Des Peres River Des Peres Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River River Des Peres Missouri River Coldwater Creek Missouri River Lower Meramec Missouri River K:1MSD stormwater facility planninglcompendium reportldetention basins.xls Item-13 APPENDIX B. Prioritization System Worksheets and Instructions MSD Stormwater Projects Prioritization System Revised Benefit Points Allocation Schedule PROJECT NAME: DATE: PROBLEM SOLVED CATEGORY Note: Problem points are awarded only for those problems solved by the proposed solution. Chronic (<=2-Yr) Flooding Frequent (>2<=15-Yr) Flooding Infrequent (>15-Yr) Flooding Total Points Points per Category No. Lots Affected Points per Category No. Lots ffected Points per Category No. Lots Affected 1.0 STREAM 1.1. FLOODING 1 1.1. Structure Flooding Habitable 1st floor, residential; includes spaces with mechanical equipment (1 lot per structure) Address: 300 150 25 Basement (1 lot per structure) Address: 200 100 15 Attached Garage (1 lot per structure) Address: 100 50 8 Misc. structures including patio/decks, pools, sheds, tennis courts, detached garages, etc.(1 lot per structure) Address: 50 25 4 Industrial, office, commercial and warehouse (1 lot per 2,500 sf of floor space flooded) Address: 300 150 25 Yard Flooding (1 per lot) Address: 10 5 0 Roadway Flooding (allocate 1 lot per 250' of roadway 1.1.2. impacted & 2 lots per intersection impacted) Emergency Access restricted (>12" water over only access route to habitable structure), pts per structure Address: 200 100 15 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on arterial street Address: 50 25 4 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on collector street Address: 25 12 2 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on residential street Address.' 10 5 1 1.2. EROSION 1.2.1. Threatening Structure (Ratio=Height of bank / distance from structure) Pts. for Ratio > 0.70 Na. Lots Pts. for Ratio 0.36 - 0.70 No. Lots Pts. for Ratio 0.15- 0.35 No. Lots Habitable structures, residential (1 lot per structure) Address: 300 200 50 Misc structures including pools, patio/decks, sheds, tennis courts, detached garages, etc.(1 lot per structure) Address: 150 100 25 Industrial, office, commercial and warehouse (1 lot per structure) Address: 300 200 50 1.2.2. No. of tots (from 1.2.1) on outside of bend lots 10 points per lot 1.2.3. Threatening Roadway (allocate 1 lot per 250' of roadway impacted & 2 lots per intersection impacted) Pts. for Ratio > 0.70 No. Lots Pts. for Ratio 0.36 - 0.70 No. Lots Pts. for Ratio 0.15- 0.35 No. Lots Arterial Road: Address: 75 50 12 Collector Road: Address: 35 25 6 Residential Road: Address: 20 12 3 10/01 /06 1 of 3 MSD Stormwater Projects Prioritization System Revised Benefit Points Allocation Schedule PROJECT NAME: CONTINUED: DATE: 2.0 STORM SEWER I OVERLAND FLOW 2.1. FLOODING I PROBLEM SOLVED CATEGORY, CONT. Note. Problem points are awarded only for those problems solved by the proposed solution Chronic (<=2-Yr) Flooding Frequent (>2<=15-Yr) Flooding Infrequent (>15-Yr) Flooding 1 Total Points 1 Points per Category Nffe Points per Category No. Lots Affected Points per Category rNo. Lots Affected 2.1.1. Structure Flooding Habitable 1st floor, residential; includes spaces with mechanical equipment (1 lot per structure)* Address: 350 250 65 Basement (1 lot per structure)* Address: 250 200 50 Industrial, office, commercial and warehouse (1 lot per 2,500 sf of floor space flooded)` Address: 300 200 50 If there is an existing public system and points are taken for any of the 3 items above, add 50 points. Existing System YIN Attached Garage (1 lot per structure) Address: 100 75 25 Misc. structures including patio/decks, pools, sheds, tennis courts, detached garages, etc.(1 lot per structure) Address: 50 35 12 Yard Flooding (1 per lot) Address: 10 6 0 2.1.2. Roadway Flooding (allocate 1 lot per 250' of roadway impacted & 2 lots per intersection impacted) Emergency Access restricted (>12" water over only access route to habitable structure), pis per structure Address: 200 150 25 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on arterial street Address: 50 35 6 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on collector street Address.' 25 15 2 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on residential street Address.' 10 6 1 Ponding (per ponding area) Address: No. Ponds: Points/pond: 5 2.2. Moderate Risk Erosion of misc. structures Address: No. Lots: Points/lot: 20 2.3. Yard Erosion (1 per lot) Address.' No. Lots: Points/lot: 10 2.4. Age of Existing System Points for Age >50 yrs (30 pts) 26-50 yrs (15 pts) <25 yrs (0 pts) Note: Problem points are awarded only tor those problems solved by the proposed solution. TOTAL PROBLEM POINTS 10/01/06 2 of 3 MSD Stormwater Projects Prioritization System Revised Benefit Points Allocation Schedule PROJECT NAME: CONTINUED: DATE: SOLUTION BENEFIT CATEGORY 3.0 REGIONAL 3,1 Reduction of flowrate leaving site % reduction of peak flowrate : Max points: 1000 3.2. Combines smaller projects into regional solution (see note) No. Projeects:cts: Points per Add'I Proj.: 50 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL I WATER QUALITY 4.1. Addresses pollutants: No. Units Points per Unit Bioswales PER 100 LF 10 Forebays AC 200 Wet Ponds AC 100 Wetlands AC 50 Biostabilization of banks (per bank) PER 100 LF 10 Riffle Pool Complex PER 100 LF 10 4.2. Eliminates combined sewer (per project) EA 100 Eliminates inflow into sanitary system (1 each per basement 4.3. flooded, yard vent overtopped, street inlet or driveway drain connected to sanitary/combined system, etc.) EA 10 (} U) 2 o to 5.1. Ease of Implementation (No. of Easements) 0-5 (20 pts) 6-10 (10 pts) in N N d o in n Points for Easements 5.2. Recreational/Educational Yes = 100, no=opts TOTAL SOLUTION POINTS TOTAL BENEFIT POINTS Note: A regional solution combines several smaller projects into a watershed or subwatershed solution. TOTAL COST IN THOUSANDS= BENEFIT! COST RATIO= TOTAL POINTS! TOTAL COST IN THOUSANDS= Place "X" in one box below: MSD Project Project by Others 10/01 /06 3 of 3 Prioritization Worksheet -- Guidelines for Use The new prioritization worksheet is three pages long. Enter the project name and date at the top of each page. Assigning Problem Points (pages 1-2) Using information collected in the field and from complaint records, determine which of the two main Problem Categories the investigated problem falls under. If the source of the problem is a stream, use Category 1.0 on the first page to assign the "Problem points". If the source of the problem is overland flow or inadequate/nonexistent storm sewers, turn to Category 2,0 on the second page to assign the "Problem points". Category 1.0 is subdivided into 1.1 Flooding and 1.2 Erosion; if the project only deals with one or the other of these types of problems, go directly to that subcategory and then evaluate each line in light of the problem identified. Every line on this page utilizes three levels of severity to assign points (except line 1.2.2). For structure and roadway flooding, the minimum frequency of storm (2-, 15- or 100-year) causing the problem should be computed or estimated. The number of lots affected is then entered under that storm heading. For erosion, field measurements should be made to determine the ratio of height of eroded bank divided by distance from nearest structure. The number of lots affected should be entered to the right of the points shown for the appropriate ratio. Category 2.0 is used for flooding problems caused by overland flow or inadequate storm sewer systems. Category 2.1 utilizes the same three levels of severity as Category 1.1, and storm frequency should be computed or estimated in the same way. Erosion caused by overland flow is included as either as 2.2 "moderate risk erosion of miscellaneous structures" or 2.3 "yard erosion". Category 2.4 can be used to assign additional points to a problem if the age of the existing system is greater than 25 years. Using the approximate system age, enter the number of points indicated in the space below the corresponding age range. Include the address(es) of lots that are assigned points on the line provided under each subcategory. The total problem points from pages 1 and 2 are automatically summed at the bottom of page 2 and included in the total benefit points sum at the bottom of page 3. Assigning Solution Points (page 3) After filling out either page 1 or page 2, turn to page 3 to determine if any of the Solution Points can be applied. These points are given to projects whose solution achieves the benefits described in Categories 3-5. 1. Category 3.1, reduction of flowrate leaving the site, would most commonly be achieved by the addition of a detention feature. The pre- and post -project peak flowrates are computed to determine the percent of reduction. This percent is then multiplied by 1000 to obtain the total points awarded. This should only be used where the approximate reduction can be reliably estimated at the preliminary stage. 2. Category 3.2 points can by applied when a proposed solution combines several smaller projects (that are not immediately adjacent to one another) into a watershed or subwatershed solution. Enter the number of total projects combined less one: for example, if 3 projects are combined, enter 2 as the number of additional projects. 3. Category 4.1 points can be applied if the proposed solution includes any of the listed water quality features listed. These should only be used if the user has confidence that the feature will not be dropped during final design. For linear treatments, divide the total proposed length by 100 LF to obtain the number of units. For treatment areas, enter the number of acres. Round all quantities to the nearest whole number. 4. Category 4.2 points can be applied if the project eliminates a combined sewer system. A non -regional solution would get 100 points, while a regional solution could get 100 points per project that eliminates a combined sewer system. 5. Category 4.3, which addresses inflow into the sanitary system, can be applied where the proposed solution would eliminate the inflow. The total number of locations eliminated is entered by the user. 6. Category 5.1 assigns points for projects with fewer easements. The user's best estimate of the number of easements that will be required is used to determine how many points can be awarded. The user must enter the number of points (20, 10 or 5 points) appropriate for the number of easements estimated. 7. Category 5.2 allows the user to enter 100 points if the proposed solution will include recreational or educational benefits to the public. When all Problem and Solution Points are assigned, the total benefit points will be summed automatically. Divide the cost estimate for the project by 1,000 and enter it in the worksheet where indicated. The cost/benefit ratio will be automatically computed. At the bottom of page 3, indicate whether the project is likely to be performed by MSD or by others. This is normally dictated by MSD's policy, which outlines the District's maintenance responsibility and defines what constitutes their system. However, if the project is to be funded by OMCI money, other types of projects are sometimes included (e.g. culvert replacement). Congratulations, you have completed the prioritization worksheet! APPENDIX C. Pipe Cost Curves Instructions Pipe Curves Under Pavement Pipe Curves With Sodding Conceptual Cost Vs. Total Project Cost Curve " PARSONS Memorandum Date: October 11, 2006 Page 1 of 1 To: Gary Moore From: Ed Sweet Parsons - St. Louis Office Voice: (314) 576-7330 Fax: (314) 576-2702 Copies to: Mark Koester Referenced Subject: Conceptual Cost Estimates Project name: Stormwater Facility Planning (2005122) Project No: 260229 Twenty-two recent storm sewer projects were reviewed and conceptual costs were developed for each. Data from these conceptual costs and the engineer's cost estimate for each project were graphed to develop the "conceptual cost vs total project cost" graph. Multiple curve types were reviewed and it was determined that a linear solution.with a 2.0 ratio between total project cost and conceptual cost represented the best fit. Using this multiplier, over 80% of the projects total project costs met or exceeded the engineer's cost estimate. Included is a set of graphs to be utilized to develop conceptual cost estimates and total project cost estimates for piped storm sewer projects. The original "Cost per Foot" graphs were updated based on the District's current preliminary unit costs. The conceptual pipe cost graphs are utilized to develop major component costs that represent the costs for each pipe diameter listed for that project. There are two sets of graphs that represent costs per foot for various pipe diameters and average depths of pipe for construction under pavement or construction under sodded areas. The major component conceptual cost for the project is obtained by multiplying these costs by the length of the reaches for each pipe diameter. Utility relocation costs are then added to the pipe major component conceptual cost for each project in order to get the total conceptual cost. Other major component items such as junction chambers, rock excavation or tunneling shall be added to the conceptual cost as applicable. If box culverts or elliptical pipe are included, the conceptual cost of their major components must be estimated using District unit costs and then added to the total conceptual cost. After the total conceptual costs are computed, use the "conceptual cost vs total project cost" graph to estimate the total project cost. S:1Conceptual Costs1RCP-PIPE1Final copylMemo_20051011_Moore. doc 400 375 350 325 300 275 0 250 a O 225 200 175 150 125 100 Cost per foot Under Pavement (12"-30") RCP (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) A'• .0 - '� _ tee' _ _ 'erg --Q" .._-4)-- ram' • r _ '� g-- �A �. �. r� �� �-- . ���.1 d .- s 1 _ _ -a- rf a- -6- - �r-•J -r - ♦`mot 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Average Depth (ft) - f-12"RCP --II- 15" RCP - -18"RCP 21" RCP - - • 24" RCP - -27" RCP - e--30" RCP Cost per Foot Under Pavement (36"-72") RCP (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) 800 750 700 650 ▪ • 600 _ 550 5 500 0 u- a 450 111 400 •- -• 350 300 'i- - -x- 250 _ - r- r r—� 200 150 -a- -�-_r -r—� —or • ..- x'' .a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Average Depth (ft) 36" RCP -f-42"RCP -�-48" RCP - )---54"RCP —X 60" RCP - ♦-66" RCP ---0— 72" RCP 200 175 150 100 75 50 Cost per foot with Sodding (12"-30") RCP (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) 010010001 .. • :. - . soomiiiiiiiiiPagoi , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Average Depth (ft) - �-- 12" RCP - -15"RCP —A-18"RCP — W-21" RCP -ME- 24" RCP -• -27" RCP -e- 30" RCP 500 Cost per Foot with Sodding (36 -72") RCP (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) 450 400 - -� F 350 — v3 o - ii 300 .� m _ a. 0 250 200 150 100 x X x — -_— IIF 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Average Depth (ft) ------ 36" RCP — E-42" RCP —A-- 48" RCP — X--54"RCP —X— 60" RCP — f - 66" RCP —e— 72" RCP Total Project Cost ($) 2500000 2000000 1500000 Conceptual Cost vs. Total Project Cost for RCP Storm Sewers Oct. 2006 1000000 - 500000 0 • • • • 0 200000 400000 Note: Rock excavation, junction chambers, pump stations, and other large 600000 800000 Conceptual Cost ($) 1000000 1200000 APPENDIX D. Bank Stabilization Conceptual Costs Gabion Walls Heavy Stone Revetment Combination Slope Stabilization Modular Block Walls Reinforced Concrete Walls Gabion Walls Conceptual Cost Estimate for Proposed Bank Treatment: Gabion Wall ENTER BANK CHARACTERISTICS BELOW: 1. Vertical Height of Existing Bank: (Whole number between 6-15') 2. Side slope of Existing Bank (as XH:1V): (0, 0.5, 1 0) 3 Length of Proposed Bank Stabilization: MATLS, EARTHWORK & CLEARING COST1: SUBTOTAL: 6 0 30 $485 $14,555 Multiply Subtotal by Factor that includes Mobilization, Utility Relocation, Protection/Restoration of Site, Contingencies, MSD Engineering, Legal & Admin. as estimated from preliminary cost estimate percentages: If Subtotal <_ $75,000, Factor = 2.0 If Subtotal > $75,000, Factor = 1.7 TOTAL CONCEPTUAL COST: $30,000 FT H: 1 V FT /LF 'Calculated using 11/2005 preliminary costs for excavation, additional fifl and sod. Clearing cost estimated using an average clearing cost determined from the engineer's cost estimate from recent bank stabilization projects. Assumptions: 1. Proposed vertical bank height will be equal to existing height. 2. Proposed wall will begin at existing toe of slope. 3. Natural ground beyond the existing top of slope is flat. 4. Excavation includes additional 1' behind gabions. 5. Gabions are offset horizontally by 3. 0' each layer. 6. Reno mattress is 9' wide x 1' thick, extending 6' into channel. January 2009 Conceptual Costs for Gabion Walls Gabions in Place CY/LF Sod w = 10' (SYILF) Volume of Excavation Volume of Fill Hex (ft) For Ex SS= 0.0:1 For Ex SS=0.5:1 For Ex SS=1:1 For Ex SS=1:1 Areas,, Vol (CY)/LF Areas,, Vol (CY)ILF Areas,, Vol (CY)ILF Areas,, Vol (CY))LF 6 2.0 1.1 78.1 2.9 69.1 2.6 56.1 2.1 0 0.00 7 2.1 1.1 87.8 3.3 75.6 2.8 57.9 2.1 0 0.00 8 2.2 1.1 97.6 3.6 81.6 3.0 58.5 2.2 0 0.00 9 2.7 1.1 107.5 4.0 87.3 3.2 58.5 2.2 0 50 0.02 10 4.2 1.1 156.8 5.8 131.8 4.9 95.7 3.5 0 0.00 11 4.3 1.1 169.9 6.3 139.7 5.2 96.0 3.6 0.04 0.00 12 4.4 1.1 183.1 6.8 147.2 5.5 96.0 3.6 0.88 0.03 13 4.6 1.1 196.4 7.3 154.2 5.7 96.1 3.6 2-83 0.10 14 6.3 1.1 262.1 9.7 213.2 7.9 142.5 5.3 0.18 0.01 15 6.4 1.1 278.6 10.3 _ 222.4 8.2 142.6 5.3 1.38 0.05 H,, (ft) Ex SS= 0.0:1 COST Ex SS= 0.5:1 COST Ex SS= 1:1 COST 6 $485.2 $479.8 $472.1 7 $513.1 $505.9 $495.4 8 $541.2 $531.7 $518.0 9 $635.9 $623.9 $607.3 10 $976.3 $961.4 $940.0 11 $1.006.2 $988.3 $962.5 12 $1,036.3 $1,015.0 $985.3 13 $1,066.4 $1,041.4 $1,009.0 14 $1,460.9 $1,431.9 $1,390.1 15 $1,492.9 $1,459.6 $1,413.3 Backup Data: Gabions: * Cost for Gabions in Place = $200/CY 10' wide strip of sod along top of bank @ $8/SY Volume of Excavation * Cost for excavaton (Class C) = $161CY *Cost for additional fill = $201CY * Includes $30/LF for clearing January 2009 Cost per foot ($/LF) $1,600 $1,550 $1,500 $1,450 $1,400 $1,350 $1,300 $1,250 $1,200 $1,150 $1,100 $1,050 $1,000 $950 $900 $850 $800 $750 $700 $650 $600 $550 $500 $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 Cost per foot Gabion Wall (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) 6 7 8 9 10 11 Average Height (ft) 12 13 14 15 16 Legend Existing Sideslope Ex Slope Vertical -E- Ex Slope = 0.5:1 Ex Slope - 1:1 January 2009 Heavy Stone Revetment Conceptual Cost Estimate for Proposed Bank Treatment: Heavy Stone Revetment ENTER BANK CHARACTERISTICS BELOW: 1 Vertical Height of Existing Bank: (Whole number between 4-20') 2. Side slope of Existing Bank (as XH:1V): (0, 0.5, 1.0, 1,5, 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0) 3. Side slope of Proposed Bank (as XH:1V): (1.5, 2 0, 2.5, or 3.0) 4. Length of Proposed Bank Stabilization: MATERIALS, EARTHWORK COST' AND CLEARING2: SUBTOTAL: 10 1 100 $451 $45,113 Multiply Subtotal by Factor that includes Mobilization, Utility Relocation. Protection/Restoration of Site, Contingencies, MSD Engineering, Legal & Admin. as estimated from preliminary cost estimate percentages: If Subtotal 5 $75,000, Factor = 2.0 If Subtotal > $75,000, Factor = 1.7 TOTAL CONCEPTUAL COST: $91,000 FT H: 1 V H: 1 V FT /LF 'Calculated using 11/2005 preliminary costs for excavation, additional fill and sod: unit cost for heavy stone revetment obtained from local contractor. 2Clearing cost estimated using an average clearing cost determined from the engineer's cost estimate from recent bank stabilization projects. Assumptions: 1. Proposed vertical bank height will be equal to existing height. 2. Proposed side slope will begin at existing toe of slope. 3. Natural ground beyond the existing top of slope is flat. 4. Heavy stone revetment will be 3' thick. 5. A 3' wide by 3' high key is included below the proposed toe of slope. January 2009 Cost per foot (sift) 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Cost per foot Heavy Stone Revetment Proposed Sideslope = Existing Sideslope (based on 1112005 preliminary costs) rY — —1 -- 4 — — .-• --r— _ -Jr- _—• -r— —r , 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Average Height (ft) — ♦ — 1.5:1 slope • 2:1 slope —A 2.5:1 slope )C 3:1 slope 15 16 17 18 19 20 January 2009 Cost per foot ($/ft) 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 Cost per foot Heavy Stone Revetment Existing Sideslope = Vertical (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) Legend Proposed Sidadope — f —1.5:1 slope — 2:1 slope --A— 2.5:1 slope — — 3:1 slope 300 200 100 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Average Height (ft) January 2009 Cost per foot ($Ift) 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Cost per foot Heavy Stone Revetment Existing Sideslope = 0.5:1 (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) — — ♦f— 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Average Height (ft) 15 16 17 18 19 Legend Proposed Sideslope --•-1.5:1 slope T 2:1 slope k 2.5:1 slope — 3.1 slope 20 January 2009 Cost per foot ($/ft) 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 Cost per foot Heavy Stone Revetment Existing Sideslope = 1:1 (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) 200 r- 100 — — • -- Legend Proposed Sideslope — ♦ — 1.5:1 slope —11— 2:1 slope -A- 2.5:1 slope - 3:1 slope 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Average Height (ft) January 2009 1200 1100 1000 900 800 g 700 0 L a 600 tie 0 0 500 400 300 200 100 Cost per foot Heavy Stone Revetment Existing Sideslope = 1.5:1 (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) Ai' — ..i--' r —S ...- r� � .--_ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Average Height (ft) 15 16 17 18 19 Legend Proposed Sidoslope —1111--1.5:1 slope U 2:1 slope f 2.5:1 slope —X-- 3:1 slope 20 January 2009 1200 1100 1000 900 800 .8 700 0 a 600 a V 500 400 Cost per foot Heavy Stone Revetment Existing Sideslope = 2:1 (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) 300 - 200 r r 71- 100 4 - r • —4r • r 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Average Height (ft) 15 16 17 18 19 Legend hoposed Sidesteps — — 1.5:1 slope f 2:1 slope —st— 2.5:1 slope 3:1 slope 20 January 2009 Cost per foot ($/ft} 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Cost per foot Heavy Stone Revetment Existing Sideslope = 2.5:1 (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) a--------.-----n---:-w-'' --------.------.---im-i X , r.-- Er' r''.- r fir" l 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Average Height (ft) Legend Sideelope f —1.5:1 slope —•-- 2:1 slope - -A-- 2.5:1 slope — -- 3:1 slope 15 16 17 18 19 20 January 2009 Cost per foot ($Ift) 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Cost per foot Heavy Stone Revetment Existing Sideslope = 3:1 (based on 1112005 preliminary costs) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Average Height (ft) 15 16 17 18 19 20 Legend Proposed Sideslope -- t — 1.5:1 slope f 2:1 slope -A-• 2.5:1 slope 3:1 slope January 2009 Combination Slope Stabilization (Heavy Stone Revetment /Composite Revetment / Biostabilization) Conceptual Cost Estimate for Proposed Bank Treatment Combination Slope Stabilization ENTER BANK CHARACTERISTICS BELOW: 1. Vertical Height of Existing Bank: He% = (Whole number between 4-20') 2 Side slope of Existing Bank (as XH:1V): SS„ (0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0) 3. Height of Heavy Stone Revetment at Toe: HHSR = (Who#e number between 2-8') 4. Height of Composite Revetment, above toe and below biostabilization: HCR = (Whole number between 0-18') 5. Height of Biostabilization: (Computed as "Hex" - "HHSR" - "HOB") HBIO = 6. Length of Proposed Bank Stabilization: MATERIALS, EARTHWORK COST', AND CLEARING: SUBTOTAL: Multiply Subtotal by Factor that includes Mobilization, Utility Relocation, Protection/Restoration of Site, Contingencies, MSD Engineering, Legal & Admin. as estimated from preliminary cost estimate percentages. If Subtotal <_ $75,000, Factor = 2.0 If Subtotal > $75,000, Factor = 1.7 4 2 2 2 0 100 $212 $21,200 FT H: 1 V FT FT FT FT /LF TOTAL CONCEPTUAL COST: $43.000 'Calculated using 11/2005 preliminary costs for excavation, additional fill and sod; unit cost for heavy stone revetment obtained from local contractor. 2Clearing cost estimated using an average clearing cost determined from the engineer's cost estimate from recent bank stabilization projects. Assumptions: 1 Proposed vertical bank height will be equal to existing height. 2 Proposed side slope will begin at existing toe of slope. 3. Natural ground beyond the existing top of slope is flat. 4. Heavy stone revetment will be 3' thick at a slope of 2:1 (or greater if existing slope >2:1). 5. A 3' wide by 3' high key is included below the proposed toe of slope. 6. Composite revetment will be 1' thick at a slope of 2:1 (or greater if existing slope>2:1). 7. Biostabilization will be at a slope of 3:1 (or 2.5:1 if existing slope=2.5:1). January 2009 Conceptual Costs for Combination Slope Stabilization Conditions (from Data Input Sheet) Hex SS„ = HHSR = HcR = HBO = 4 2 2 2 0 FT H: I V FT FT FT EXCAVATION CALCS FOR HSR and CR: (Existing Slope= 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0) BELOW PROP GRADE BTWN Ex & Prop TOTAL Excav VHSR (CY/LF) VcR (CY/LF) VExc (CY/LF) V (CYILF) 0.83 0.17 0.00 1.00 ADDL FILL CALCS FOR HSR and CR: (Existing Slope= 2.5, 3.0) Vexcav = VHSR + VCR TOTAL Addl Fill VHSR (CY/LF) VcR (CY/LF) V (CYILF) 1.03 0.17 NIA COST CALCULATIONS: VHSR ACR = Amp = Sod = Excav = Addl Fill = 0.83 CY/LF 0.50 SY/LF 0.00 SY/LF 1,1 SY/LF 1.00 CY/LE 0.00 CY/LF @$120/CY = @$116/SY = ©$50/SY = ©$8/SY = ©$16/CY = @$20/CY = TOTAL $ILF Subtotals $99.60 $58.00 $0.00 $8.80 $16.00 $0.00 $182.40 SSpro = 2:1 HHSR VHSR (CY/LF) 2 0.83 3 1.07 4 1.32 5 1.55 6 1.82 7 2.07 8 2.32 SS„,,=2.5:1 SSpro = 3:1 HHSR VHSR (CY/LF) VHSR (CY/LF) N c+) LC) CD f— co 0.93 1.03 1.23 1.39 1.53 1.74 1.83 2.09 2 13 2.44 2.43 2.79 2.72 3.14 January 2009 Modular Block Walls Conceptual Cost Estimate for Proposed Bank Treatment: Modular Block Wall ENTER BANK CHARACTERISTICS BELOW: 1. Vertical Height of Existing Bank: (Whole number between 6-15') 2. Side slope of Existing Bank (as XH:1V): (0, 0.5, 1.0) 3. Length of Proposed Bank Stabilization: MATLS, EARTHWORK & CLEARING COST SUBTOTAL: 6 0.5 160 $296 $47,313 Multiply Subtotal by Factor that includes Mobilization, Utility Relocation, Protection/Restoration of Site, Contingencies. MSD Engineering, Legal & Admin. as estimated from preliminary cost estimate percentages: If Subtotal 5 $75,000, Factor = 2.0 If Subtotal > $75,000, Factor = 1.7 TOTAL CONCEPTUAL COST: $95,000 FT H: 1 V FT /LF 'Calculated using 11/2005 preliminary costs for excavation, additional fill and sod. Clearing cost estimated using an average clearing cost determined from the engineer's cost estimate from recent bank stabilization projects. Assumptions: 1. Proposed vertical bank height will be equal to existing height. 2. Proposed wall will begin at existing toe of slope. 3. Natural ground beyond the existing top of slope is flat. 4. Crushed rock for drainage behind wall = 1' thick. 5. Batter of modular blocks is 20 degrees. 6. Bearing pad is 4' wide by 0.5' thick for H Iota; . 10; 1 ' thick for H total > 10. 7. Neptune block used. depth into slope= 1.5'. 8. Grid used for all heights at 2' vertical interval, from 2' above bottom to 2-3' below top 9. Width of grid = 0. 75*H total January 2009 Conceptual Costs for Modular Block Walls Modular Block Wall (SF/LF) Sod w = 10' (SY/LF) Crushed Rock Vol (CYILF) Volume of Excavation Volume of Fill Hex (ft) For Ex SS= 0.0:1 For Ex SS=0.5:1 For Ex SS=1:1 For Ex SS=0.5:1 For Ex SS=1:1 Area Vol (CYILF) Area Vol {CY)ILF Area Vol (CY)ILF Area Vol (CY)ILF Area Vol (CY)/LF 6 6.5 1.1 0.3 36.2 1.3 26.4 1.0 17.4 GO N M A O M A r 10 O lin O 10 N O p r r r N N N co, M cr sr U] if) {D 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 7 7.5 1.1 0.4 47.1 1.7 38.2 1.4 20.7 0 0 0.0 3.0 0.1 8 8.5 1.1 0.4 60.0 2.2 49.4 1.8 33.4 0 0 0.0 5.4 0.2 9 9.5 1.1 0.4 74.6 2.8 55.4 2.1 35.2 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.3 10 10.5 1.1 0.5 96.9 3.6 71.0 2.6 46.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.4 11 12.0 1.1 0.5 115,7 4.3 84.5 3.1 54.2 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.6 12 13.0 1.1 0.6 136.3 5.0 98,5 3.6 62.5 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.8 13 14.0 1.1 0.6 158.8 5.9 115.6 4.3 73.4 0.0 0.0 26.5 1.0 14 15.0 1.1 0.6 183.2 6.8 132.3 4.9 83.3 0.0 0.0 32.6 1.2 15 16.0 1.1 0.7 209.4 7.8 152.2 5.6 96.0 0.0 0.0 39.4 1.5 16 17.0 1.1 0,7 237.5 8.8 172.5 6.4 108.5 0.0 0.0 46.8 1.7 17 18.0 1.1 0.8 267.4 9.9 193.3 7.2 121.1 0.0 0.0 54.9 2.0 18 19.0 1.1 0.8 299.2 11.1 217.3 8.0 136.3 0.0 0.0 63.6 2.4 19 20.0 1.1 0.8 332.9 12.3 240.8 8.9 150.5 0.1 0.0 72.9 2.7 20 21.0 1.1 0.9 368.4 13.6 267.5 9.9 167.5 0.3 0.0 82.9 3.1 Hex (ft) Ex SS= 0.0:1 COST Ex SS= 0.5:1 COST Ex SS= 1:1 COST 6 $301.5 $295.7 $291.4 7 $344.5 $339.2 $331.0 8 $388.6 $382.3 $376.8 9 $433.8 $422.5 $416.6 10 $484.3 $468.9 $462.9 11 $549.5 $531.0 $525.0 12 $598.2 $575.8 $570.0 13 $648.1 $622.5 $617.0 14 $699.0 $668.9 $664.0 15 $751.1 $717.2 $713.0 16 $804.2 $765.7 $762.5 17 $858.5 $814.6 $812.4 18 $913.9 $865.3 $864.4 19 $970.3 $915.7 $916.3 20 $1.027.9 $968.1 $970.2 Backup Data: Modular Block Walls: * Cost for Modular Blocks = $3515F ` 10' wide strip of sod along top of bank @ $8/SY * Cost for crushed limestone = $41/CY Volume of Excavation ' Cost for excavation (Class C) = $161CY ' Cost for additional fill = $201CY * Include $301LF for clearing cost January 2009 Cost per foot (VLF) $1,100 $1,050 $1,000 $950 $900 $850 $800 $750 $700 $650 $600 $550 $500 $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 Cost per foot Modular Block Wall (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) 6 8 10 12 14 16 Average Height (fit) 18 20 22 Legend Existing Sideslope —�— Ex Slope Vertical — 0— Ex Slope = 0.5:1 -- Ex Slope = 1:1 January 2009 Reinforced Concrete Walls Conceptual Cost Estimate for Proposed Bank Treatment: Reinforced Concrete Wall ENTER BANK CHARACTERISTICS BELOW: 1 Vertical Height of Existing Bank: (Whole number between 4-20') 2. Side slope of Existing Bank (as XH:1 V): (0, 0.5, 1.0) 3. Length of Proposed Bank Stabilization: MATLS, EARTHWORK & CLEARING COST: SUBTOTAL: 10 1 100 $561 $56,132 Multiply Subtotal by Factor that includes Mobilization, Utility Relocation, Protection/Restoration of Site, Contingencies, MSD Engineering, Legal & Admin. as estimated from preliminary cost estimate percentages: If Subtotal 5 $75,000, Factor = 2.0 If Subtotal > $75,000, Factor = 1.7 FT H: 1 V FT ILF TOTAL CONCEPTUAL COST: $113,000 'Calculated using 11/2005 preliminary costs for excavation, additional fill and sod. Clearing cost estimated using an average clearing cost determined from the engineer's cost estimate from recent bank stabilization projects. Assumptions: 1_ Proposed vertical bank height will be equal to existing height. 2 Proposed wall will begin at existing toe of slope. 3. Natural ground beyond the existing top of slope is flat. 4. Average wall thickness is 12 inches. 5. Depth to bottom of footing is 30 inches below toe of existing slope. 6. Excavation in front of and behind wall is at 1' beyond footing. January 2009 Conceptual Costs .einforced Concrete Walls Sod w = 10' (SYILF) Vol Relnf. Concrete (CY)!LF Volume of Excavation H. (ft) H,e,„ (fl) Tromi„g (ft) Wmoe"y (ft) Wme(ni Wheel (ft) For all SS: For Ex SS= 0.0:1 For Ex S5=0.5:1 For Ex SS=1:1 A,oa,,,,9 (SF) Aw 1 (SF) Vol (CY)ILF A,,w„ (SF) Vol (CY)(LF Voir,,' (CY) Addl Fill (CY) Awa„ (SF) Vol (CY)fLF Volt,,, (CY) Addl Fill (CV) 4 5.5 1 3.25 0.67 1.58 1.1 0.3 13,1 14.3 1.0 10.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.7 0.2 0.0 5 6.5 1 3.83 1 1.83 1.1 0.4 14,6 19.2 1.2 12.9 1.0 0,1 0.0 7 3 0.8 0.3 0.0 6 7.5 1 4.25 11 2.15 1.1 0.4 15.6 24.9 1.5 15.9 1.2 0.1 0.0 8.6 0.9 0.5 0.0 7 8.5 1 4.75 11 2.65 1.1 0.5 16.9 32.6 1.8 20.3 1.4 0.2 0.0 10.8 1.0 0.7 0.0 a 9 5 1 5.33 1.33 3 1.1 0.5 18.3 40.0 2.2 24.0 1.6 0,3 0.0 12.5 1.1 0.9 0.0 9 10.5 1 5.83 1.33 3.5 1.1 0.6 19.6 49.5 2.6 29.3 1.8 0.5 0.0 15.1 1.3 1.2 0.0 10 11.4 1 1 6.5 1.67 3.73 1.1 0.7 21.3 57 3 2.9 32.3 2.0 0.6 0 0 16.4 1.4 1.5 0.1 11 12.3 1,2 7 1.67 4.13 1.1 0.8 22.5 67.4 3.3 372 2.2 0.6 00 18.8 1.5 1.9 0.3 12 13.3 1.2 7.67 2.1 4.37 1.1 0.8 24.2 76.4 3.7 40.4 2.4 0.9 0.0 20.3 1.6 2.2 0.6 13 14.25 1.25 8.1 2.1 4.75 1.1 0.9 25.3 87.8 4.2 45 5 2.6 1.1 0.0 22.8 1.8 2.7 0.9 14 15 17 1.33 8.5 2.2 4.97 1.1 1.0 26.3 97 6 4.6 48.6 2.8 1.3 0.0 24.3 1.9 3.1 1.3 15 16.17 1.33 9 2.25 5.42 1.1 1.0 27.5 111.3 5.1 55.1 3.1 1.6 0.0 27.5 2.0 3.6 1.6 16 17.1 1.4 9.5 2.33 5.77 1.1 1.1 28.8 124.3 5.7 60.4 3.3 1.8 0.0 30.2 2.2 4.2 2.0 17 18.1 1.4 10.2 2.5 6.3 1.1 1.2 30.5 141.1 6.4 68.9 3.7 2.1 0.0 34.4 2.4 4.7 2.3 18 19 1.5 10.4 2.5 6.4 1.1 1.3 31,0 151,2 6.7 70.6 3.8 2.4 0.0 35.3 2.5 5.4 2.9 19 20 1.5 11 3 6.5 1.1 1.4 32.5 161.5 7.2 72.3 3.9 2.7 0.0 36.1 2.5 6.0 3.5 20 21 2 11.5 3 6.5 1.1 1.6 40.5 170.0 7.8 72.3 4.2 3.0 0,0 _ 36.1 2.8 6.7 3.8 He, (ft) Ex SS= 0.0:1 COST Ex SS= 0.5:1 COST Ex SS= 1:1 COST 4 $290.0 $287.6 $285.3 5 $336.2 $332.5 $329.2 6 $378.3 $373.0 $368.7 7 $423.9 $416.6 $411.0 8 $471.6 $462.1 $455.3 9 $518.2 $506.2 $497.9 10 $583.5 $568.6 $561.3 11 $647.9 $630.0 $625.6 12 $702.7 $681.4 $681.3 13 $760.3 $735.2 $739.5 14 $823.1 $794.0 $804.8 15 $876.7 $843.3 $858.9 16 $945.8 $907.9 $929.7 17 51,010.0 $967.2 $993.5 18 $1,075.8 $1,028.1 $1,065.1 19 $1,133.9 51,081.0 $1,128,7 20 $1,345.0 $1,287.1 $1,342.6 Backup Data: Quantity of Reinforced Concrete Volume • Assume average wall thickness = 12" • Cost for Reinforced Concrete Construction = $7251CY Bottom of footing is 30" below existing grade, except at Hex=20', where it is 36" to maintain at least 1' of cover on top of the footing. Volume of Excavation • Assume 1' beyond footing in front and back Cost for excavation (Class C) = $161CY • Cost for additional fill = $20/CY • 10' wide strip of sod along top of bank @ $81SY ` Include $30/LF for clearing January 2009 Cost per foot (VLF) 1,450 1,400 1,350 1,300 1,250 1,200 1,150 1,100 1,050 1,000 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 Cost per foot Reinforced Concrete Wall (based on 11/2005 preliminary costs) Legend Existing Sideslope 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 --�— Ex Slope Vertical — - - Ex Slope 0.5:1 - ' - Ex Slope 1:1 January 2009 APPENDIX E. Identified Projects Information Identified Projects Procedures Identified Projects Checklist Project Identification Information Sheet Supplemental Identified Issue Fact Sheet Identified Projects Procedures For Research, Field Investigation and Report Preparation A. General Standard procedures have been established for the office research tasks, the field investigation and the report preparation tasks that are required to investigate and evaluate the identified projects for this program. Approximately 1,800 projects have been identified for this program. A conceptual level analysis and document preparation is required at this stage of the program. B. Office Research Procedures The District provided a report from their CIPRO database that lists the CIPRO ID and project numbers for those identified projects currently unresolved in their system. The District also provided their maps which include a layer titled "All Projects" that has the identified projects shown on it. These sources will be cross-checked to make sure all records in the database report are identified on the map. • Research will be organized by District base map grids with additional consideration given to watershed boundaries. The CIPRO ID numbers or project numbers listed in the database shall be used as a starting point for researching the existing databases and files. The first task is to prepare of list of projects within each District grid. • The District has a folder established containing various levels of information for most of the identified projects. These folders are located in the file cabinets found along the east wall of the third floor near the southeast corner of the building. Projects with project numbers may also have folders in Central Files that typically contain more documentation. Contents of these folders are to be copied to start each identified project file. • For those projects that do not have folders, previous District Stormwater Reports must be researched to try to find documentation describing the problem and its locations. • The folders located in file cabinets on the third floor can be checked out and brought back to the Parsons office for copying. A list will be left on top of the file cabinets that provides the name of all folders that are removed from the file cabinets, the name of the person removing the folders and the date they are removed. The list will be removed from the file cabinet after returning all of the folders. • The folders stored in Central Files cannot be removed from the District's building. All materials will be copied locally or sent for copying to the District's print room. There is a maximum of four (4) folders that can be removed at any one time from Central Files for copying. Page 1 5/22/07 The remote connection to the District's databases shall be utilized first to perform as much research as possible at the Parsons' project office. Before performing the field investigation, the following research should be performed: • The CIPRO database should be searched to verify that the project description and the estimated cost are the most current information. • The Engineering Complaint Tracking database and the Hansen complaint database should be searched and all complaints, service requests and work orders copied and placed in the project folder. • The PRECPTS database and the laser -fiche database shall be utilized to determine what information has been scanned for projects that have been constructed in the project area and that could impact this project. If the project information has not been scanned, then the Microfilm and the tubes in Central Files shall be researched to find the required documents. Research space is limited in the District's Central Files area so advanced scheduling of at least 24 hours is required to receive approval to perform research in the District's Central Files area. The number of the tube containing this project information can be found by searching the Filetracker database prior to going to Central Files at the District's office. C. Field Investigation Procedures Each project will be investigated to verify the accuracy of the documents found during the research phase and evaluate the extent of potential problems in the project area. Field investigation trips will be organized based on map grids and watersheds to reduce travel time. More than one field trip may be required to fully understand the problem, to determine the limits of the problem or to document existing conditions. • Tasks to be performed during the field investigation include: 1. Determine if the project has already been constructed or if the problem has been alleviated 2. Verify that the problem description matches existing conditions 3. Obtain field measurements as required (location of existing improvements, height of bank, distance to structures, length of problem, etc.) 4. Take photographs of project area and problem conditions (include location and direction in photo name) 5. Document field notes and conversations with residents Page 2 5/22/07 D. Report Procedures As a minimum, the Project Identification Information Sheet and the Supplemental Identified Issue Fact Sheet shall be completed for each identified project. If the project has been completed or will be recommended to be dropped, this is the only documentation required for the report other than the initial research. Identified projects where a problem has been addressed or is no longer present will be categorized into one of three categories as described below: Dropped - Problem no longer exists or is not considered a District issue. Completed - Problem has already been addressed/constructed by the District. Other - Problem has already been addressed/constructed by an individual or party other than the District. This would include problems that have been solved by means other than the recommended District solution. A brief explanation on why the project has been placed in a particular category is required. If a solution has been constructed, try to determine what agency or individual constructed the improvements. If a solution is still required to address the problems identified during the field investigation, then additional tasks are required including developing a solution description, updating the cost estimate, completing the prioritization worksheet, preparing concept level hydraulic calculations, and preparing an exhibit on a copy of the District's base map. A memorandum will only be required if a lengthy discussion of the problem and/or the solution is required. • The Conceptual Cost Curves shall be utilized in preparing the cost estimate. • No hydraulic modeling shall be performed with only a conceptual level analysis being performed to estimate the flows for sizing recommended improvements. • Preparing exhibit: 1. Print out screened black and white copy of MSD base/facilities map on 8 '/2 x 11 or 11 x 17 paper at 1 "=100' or I "=50'. 2. Using black fine point Sharpie pen, write name of project and scale of drawing in bottom right corner. 3. Sketch approximate alignment and structure locations, or draw brackets indicating extent of creek stabilization. Label with conceptual solution summary text. Use red fine point Sharpie pen for this information. Page 3 5/22/07 A folder will be set up for each project identified by the CIPRO ID number. This folder will contain copies of all the relevant available information found from researching CIPRO, Engineering Complaint Tracking, Hansen, PRECPTS, Laser -fiche, and the District's Central Files. This folder will also contain all of the documents required to complete the conceptual study and will include identification and supplemental fact sheets, updated cost estimate, prioritization worksheet, calculations, exhibit, photographs, field notes and record of resident conversations. When the conceptual study is complete, fasten all documentation in file folder in the following order (back to front): • Inside left face: *Prioritization worksheets *Conceptual cost estimate worksheet(s) * Exhibit *Project Identification and Fact sheets • Inside right face: *Complaints *List and brief description of projects in vicinity *Other reference material *Photographs *Field notes *Record of conversations *Drainage area map and calculations *CIPRO summary printout The Identified Project Checklist shall be completed to verify that all required information is contained in the project folder. Page 4 5/22/07 IDENTIFIED PROJECTS CHECKLIST ivame of Project: Date: Project/ID Number: Prepared By: Check box below when task completed: ❑ Identified Project Folder Copied ❑ Central Files Folder Copied (If project number assigned) ❑ CIPRO Data Researched El Engineering Complaint Tracking Data Researched ❑ Hansen Complaint Data Researched o List of projects on "all -projects" layer of facilities map in Folder ❑ List of projects on "GRF_Project Numbers" layer of facilities map in Folder Ei Field Visit Photographs Taken ❑ Field Notes Compiled ❑ Memo of interviews with residents Prepared ❑ Precpts Data Researched o Laserfiche Data Researched o Filetracker Data Researched (If applicable) ❑ Microfilm Data Researched (If applicable) ❑ Floodplain Map Obtained (If applicable) o Drainage Area Map Prepared ❑ Hydraulic calculations Prepared ❑ Cost Estimate Prepared ❑ Benefit Points Worksheet Prepared o Base Map Exhibit Prepared ❑ Identification and Fact Sheets Prepared ❑ MSD Review comments in Folder 5/15/2007 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION SHEET (Submit form to Dennis Simon, Planninq/CIP Division) 1 I rE OF ACTION REQUESTED: Develop Conceptual Solution and Priority (ID Project) Add to ORACL U date ORACLE Perform Subdistrict Feasibility Study Prepare Plans and Specifications/Construction Perform Preliminary Study Other (Specify) Requested Date for Action Completion (ASAP is not Acceptable) Conceptual Name: REQUIRED FIELDS: (150 characters maximum length per field) Conceptual Project Scope: Problem Description: Project Type (choose 1): Wastewater Stormwate ) Project Subtype: Expense Type (choose 1): Capital Non -Recurring — Operating Service Area: Watershed: Municipality: Base Map #: Template Type (choose 1): Requesting Person Name: Standard Capital -Standard Non -Capital - Subdistrict - Vendor Services - Work Order Escrow epair - GSA/Appraisal - Major Projects - Property Rights Leonard Lammert Phone #: (314) 576-7330 Request Date: OTHER INFORMATION: Remarks/Issues to consider (construction scheduling, municipal cost sharing, etc.): Estimated Cost/Year Constr.: Conceptual Priority (B/C Ratio): List Attached Supporting Documentation: Service/Work Order #: Priority Type: Tier: 1 2 3 / High Medium Low Inflow Removed: Y o REQUIRED APPROVALS: (For Operations Dept. Requests) Operations (Asst.) Director Approval: Date Approved: (For Engineering Dept. Requests) Engineering Supervisor Approval: Date Approved: Project Name: Project Number: PLANNING: (completed by Planning/CIP Program Manager) Planned Fund #: Planned FY: Design: Construction: Funding: Infrastructure Repair Funds: CIRP Amount: Design: Construction. Required Fund Transfers: From: To: Amount: am to Perform Action: Planning Program Manager Approval: Date Approved: Send Completed Copy to: Project ID Infosheet ORACLE April 2010 doc Apr. 1, 2010 APPENDIX F. Preliminary Study Information Preliminary Studies Status Report Invoice Summary of Tasks M505n mule r0 :ah rv.r.ra PRELIMINARY STUDIES STATUS REPORT rage i Item Project No. Project Name Prelim Status W Complete Date Completed Notes Target Completion Date of Draft Report Watershed General 1 TBD City of Northwoods Site Visit 35 Waiting on petitions from City Harlem/Baden 2 TBD City of Ferguson Completion 100 11912007 Complete Malice 3 TBD City of Cool Valley Completion 100 2127/2007 Complete Malice 4 TBD Village of Marlborough Completion 1013 1/302007 Complete Mackenzie 5 2007269 West Essex and Goethe Storm Sewer Improvements Completion 100 7/6/2007 Complete Grand Glame 6 2008046 Dickson Storm Sewer Phase IIIA Completion 100 8/28/2007 Complete Gravels 7 2005121 Ruth -Helen -Cecelia Storm Sewer Relocation Completion 100 10/16/2007 Complete Deer 8 TED City of Oakland Completion 100 1/4/2008 Complete travois 9 TBD Babler Lane Storm Sewer Completion 100 1122/2008 Complete Deer 10 TBD Prado Storm Sewer Replacement Completion 100 2/5/2098 Complete Black 11 2098157 Pepperdine Court Completion 100 32512008 Complete Fishpot FY 2008 Preliminary Studies 1 2006133 CC-025{b) Creek Bank Stabilization Completion 100 6/16/2006 Complete Paddock 2 2006135 Clayton Terrace #3 Bank Stabilization Completion 100 9/7/2006 Complete Deer 3 86141 Colonial Lene#8558 Storm Improvements Completion 100 9172005 Complete Black _ 89014 Fair Oaks #338 Storm Sewer Improvements Completion 100 712512006 Complete Black 4 5 2096140 Goodale Ave. Storm Sewer Completion 100 9A/2006 Complete Coldwater 6 85069 McCutcheon to McKnight Channel Replacement Completion 100 6262006 Complete Black _ 7 _ 2006146 2006147 Midland & Angelo Storm Sewer Improvements Mosley Rd. #308 N. Bank Stabilization Completion Completion 100 100 _10/31/2006 6/16/2006 Complete _ Complete Coldwater Deer 8 9 2006151 Ridpecord Lane Storm Sewer Completion 100 7252006 _ Complete Deer 2007144 Fieldcrest and Fournier Channel Improvements Completion 100 9/712006 Complete Gravois 10 11 2096156 Temple Israel Creek Bank Stabilization Completion 100 8/28/2006 Complete Deer Verona #2510 Storm Improvements Completion 100 9/7/2006 Complete Coldwater 12 2006157 2906192 Fawn Valley-Claychester (Two -Mile Creek} Completion 100 4/13/2007 Complete Deer 13 14 20071386 _ Burch Lane Storm Sewer Completion 100 2127/2007 Complete _ ,University City Branch % Complete Task 5 Prolect Assigned 20 Initial Investigation Dale Collection/Records Investigation 30 Site Visit 45 Development or Flows 55 Development of Alternatives 70 Preferred Alternative Development 90 Draft Preliminary Study 100 Completion K LMStl .+a,nw.r.. r.KW W..•+ y1. • prelim entua npo,M.,. N Shdr Sons awerr0707,0.�. MSO5e 891/7010 rii#r Poring PRELIMINARY Item STUDIES Project No. STATUS REPORT Project Name Prelim Status ! Complete Date Completed Notes .- tee= Target Completion Date of Draft Report Watershed FY 2009 Preliminary Studies 1 2007075 Nomlton Drive Bank Stabilization Completion 100 6/5/2007 Complete 11/28/2006 Bleck 2 2007076 Thunderbird Dnve Bank Stabilization Completion 100 11/21/2006 Complete 10/17/2006 Coldwater 3 86059 Algonquin Estates Storm Improvements Completion 100 2112007 Complete 10/13/2006 Deer 4 2007077 Aline Ave. Storm Channel (CLD-381 Completion 100 12119/2006 Complete 11/15/2006 Coldwater 5 2607678 Ames Pl. #10 Creek Bank Stabilization Completion 100 312712D07 Complete 12126r/006 Black 6 2007079 Amherst-Blaokberry 7500 Blk. Channel Improvements (UCMB-120) Completion 100 2/13/2007 Complete V9/2007 University City Branch 7 2007080 Aubuchon Street Storm Sewer Completion 100 11(21/2006 Complete 11/2812008 Coldwater 8 _ 2007175 Belrue and Wynhill Storm Sewer Completion 100 8128/2007 Complete 711772007 University City Branch _ 2007137 Big Bend #8430 Storm Sewer Completion 100 2/13/2007 Complete 2/512007 Seminary Branch 9 2007081 Black Creek#12 Completion 100 12/122006 Complete 10/31/2006 Black 10 11 2007082 Briarcliff#30 Completion 100 1/30/2007 Complete 1/30/2007 Deer 2007084 Bristow & Ann Stone Sewer Completion 100 1/30/2007 Complete 11/7/2006 Maline 12 13 2007085 Brookings #10931 Channel Improvements IGCMB-2601 Completion 100 318/2007 Complete 1l9/2007 _ Gravels Butternut to Laurel Oak Storm Sewer Completion 100 12/2007 Complete 10/242606 Deer 14 2007087 2007245 Calverton #25 Storm Sewer Completion 100 2/21/2007 Complete 2/20/2007 Coldwater 15 Cherry Tree tans Storm Improvement Completion 100 _ 4/242007 Complete 9/15/2005 University City Branch 16 _ 2007089 2008045 Goldwater Creek 1VLynn Town Bank Stabilization Completion 100 1111/2007 Complete 9/18/2007 Coldwater 17 Denny Lane 46 _ Completion 100 2/1/2007 Complete 12/2612006 Deer 18 2007091 Florence #563 Completion 100 3/30/2007 Complete 2/19/2007 __ Seminary Branch 19 2007095 Forsythia -Grandview Storm Sewer Completion _ 100 _ 2/20/2007 Complete 2/19/2007 University City Branch 20 21 2007696 2007098 Heege Road Storm -Sewer Improvements (MKT2- 100) Completion 100 3/22/2007 Complete 1/16/2007 Mackenzie % Complete Task 5 Project Assigned 20 Initial Investigation-- Date Collection/Records Investigation 30 Site Visit 45 Development of Flows 55 Development of Alternatives 70 Preferred Alternative Development 90 Draft Preliminary Study 100 Completion e 1.4150.ramw.l.r 5 Vyr ...sear sr.1u.a.oeerasmm NSP5 eornam ,run Rr.nr.rq PRELIMINARY STUDIES STATUS REPORT rage a Item Project No. Project Name Prelim Status .% Complete Date Completed Notes Target Completion Date of Draft Report Watershed FY 2009 Preliminary Studies 22 2007102 Ladue Meadows #17-19 Completion 100 1117/2006 Complete 9/1/2006 Deer 23 2007226 La Havre Circle Completion 100 2/132007 Complete 2/1312007 Coldwater 24 2008049 Lake Village Storm Improvements Completion 100 101912007 Complete 9125/2007 Watkins 25 2007105 Lay Rd, #932 Completion 100 11/21/2006 Complete 11/21/2006 Deer 26 2007106 Lay Rd_ North #917 Bank Stabilization Completion 100 12/12/2006 Complete 12/1912006 Deer 27 21)07107 Lenor Deco Storm Sewer Replacement (GCMB- 210) Completion 100 3/29/2007 Complete 1226/2006 Gravois 28 2007106 Lindbergh & Patterson Storm Sewer Completion 100 12/12/2006 Complete 11/21/2006 Coldwater 29 2007111 Lynn Town Apartments Channel Improvements (CLD-19) Completion _ 100 11/7/2005 Complete 9/15/2006 Coldwater 30 2007113 New Florissant Rd So. #2120 Completion 100 11/1412006 Complete 11/15/2006 Coldwater 31 2007119 Ravensndge and Laclede Station Storm Sewer Completion 100 12/5/2006 Complete 9/22/2006 Seminary Branch 32 2007120 Ridgelawn Court Storm Sewer Completion 106 1012012006 Complete 10/17/2006 Coldwater 33 2007121 Rosary Lane Channel Improvements Completion 100 11/21/2006 Complete 11/26/2006 Watkins 34 2007229 Rose Hill & Rollin9woad Storm Sewer Completion 100 5/912007 ComQela 2/202007 Gravois 35 2007123 Somerset Clowns #35 _ Completion 100 2/6/2007 Complete 12119/2006 Deer 36 2007124 Sorrell 82810 Stormwater Improvements Completion 100 1117/2006 Complete 92672006 Coldwater 37 _ 2007243 Spring Valley #1370 Storm Sewer Completion 100 3f82007 Complete 2/27/2007 Paddock 38 2007128 Tealbrook Estates Storm Sewer Completion 100 11/21/2006 Complete 9/8/2006 Deer 39 2007129 UCMB-140 Bank Stabilization Completion 100 12112/2006 Complete 12/4/2006 University City Branch 40 2007133 WC-22 Completion 100 211/2007 Complete 12/12/2006 Watkins 41 2007135 Wenneker-Treebrook Lane Channel Improvements Completion 100 5116/2007 Complete 1013112006 Black 42 93078 Wise & Mabel Storm Sewers Completion 100 31252008 Complete 17162007 1 Deer % Complete Task 5 Project Assigned 20 Initial Investigation: Data Collection/Records Investigation 30 See Visit 45 Development of Flows 55 Development of Alternatives 70 Preferred Alternative Development 90 Draft Preliminary Study 100 Completion floss. +.ti eMe doswr rrw.vr.f.5I mprelPAWouraryStudy nva R.ewwroefn.n MSO Or! &NJ1/1010 :ter Plomina Page 4 Item Project No. Project Name Prelim Status %Complete Date Completed Notes Target Completion Date of Draft Report Watershed FY 2010 Preliminary Studies 1 2006042 Ann Mar Drive #11448 Storm Sewer Completion 100 10/2/2007 Complete 10/8/2007 Coldwater 2 2008043 Argyle #8800 Storm Sewer Completion 100 1/812008 Complete 10/22/2007 Coldwater 3 2007227 Banyan Dnve 1000 Block Bank Stabilization (GCKG-170) Completion 100 9/4/2007 Complete 7/10/2007 Gravois 4 2008044 Benck #800 Block Storm Sewer Completion 100 10/16/2007 Complete 10115/2007 University City Branch Seminary Branch 5 98073 Big Bend to Pepin Storm Sewer Phase I Completion 100 3f82008 Complete 6 2007178 Canfield Sq. #128 Storm Sewer Completion 100 6/5/2007 _ Complete 5/15/2007 Deer 7 2007179 Cedar Crest-Sloneyside Storm Sewer Completion 100 51112007 Complete 5112007 Slack 8 2007182 Diamond Head Or. Storm Sewer (GCUC-110) Completion 100 9/11/2007 Complete 6/12/2007 Gravels 9 2001098 East Holden Avenue Storm Sewer Completion 100 _ 10/9/2007 No study, proceed directly to final design 10/31/2007 Mississippi Tnbulary 10 2007183 Elwood and Charbanier Storm Sewer Completion 100 5/9/2007 Complete 5/8/2007 Coldwater 11 20671134 Fourwynd DC_ 4438 Bank Stabilization Completion 100 3/202007 Complete 4/312007 Deer 12 2007201 Fax Hall Lane Storm Channel (WC-31 a) Completion 100 3/20/2007 Complete 3/27/2007 Watkins 13 2008089 Grenada Storm Sewer Completion 100 11/29/2007 Protect removed from CIRP 1/18/2008 Black 14 2008090 Hardwick Court Channel Improvement {MCMB- 5101 Completion 100 5/6/2008 _ Complete 1/182008 Matins 15 T 89211 Hudson Road #140141405 Bank Stabilization (MCDW-120) Completion 100 7132007 Complete 6/18/2007 Maine 16 2007185 Hunilaigh Downs #1 Bank Stabilization Completion 100 4/13/2007 Complete 5/15/2007 Deer 2006047 Kinpsland Avenue #1400 Storm Improvement Completion 100 12/1D2007 Complete 10/31/2007 Wellston Branch 17 18 20137187 Ladue Rd. #9130 Bank Stabilization Completion 100 6/5/2007 Complete 5/22/2007 Black 19 2608093 Lindscott Storm Sewer Completion 100 2/122008 Complete 1/18/2008 Coldwater 2007189 Malus & Green Park Storm Sewer Completion 100 10(31/2007 Complete 6/5/2007 Gravels 20 21 2007193 Paxton Lane to Ricardo Lane Storm Sewer Prestwick Drive Storm Sewer IWC-35p Completion Completion 100 100 118/2008 7/3112007 Complete Complete 111302007 7/312007 Black Watkins 22 23 2007232 99052A Ranger Drive Storm Relief Phase II Completion 100 12/18/2007 Complete 10/8/2007 Mattese _ %Complete Task 5 Project Assigned 20 Initial investigation' Data Collection/Records Investigation 30 Site Visit 45 Development of Flows 55 Development of Alternatives 70 Preferred Alternative Development 90 Graft Preliminary Study 100 Completion R1.MOOalsOw.M IseYy d.,••mnv.nMw.p le•n .....n.Pnrinimary SMy Smut. e.per10ree re.0 N312010 MSe Si T81 nanrrn r PRELIMINARY STUDIES STATUS nerUn I Item 24 25 26 27 L28 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Project No, 2008067 2007231 2007200 - 2098054 2009233 2008108 21309051 2009052 2008084 2008144 2008110 2008143 2009144 2009053 20138050 2008992 2001083 20080813 2008109 26081396 2008101 2009054 2008102 2009055 2009056 2009057 2008107 Project Name FY 2010 Preliminary Studies Teddy and Joplin Storm Sewer Tesson Ferry & Marlene Storm Sewer (GCMB- 230) Toboggan Trail #11383 Bank Stabilization Tulane & Purdue Storm Sewer tS-1983j Arlee & Hoftmeister Storm Sewer FY 2011 Preliminary Studies Chilton Ln #5 Claudine at Hwy 367 Channel Improvement Conway-Clerbrook Storm Channel Cottage #206 Storm Improvements Desmet Industrial Cl. Lot 8 Bank Stabilization Dielman Road to Appleseed Stomi Sewer Harrison -St. Maria Storm Sewer Jacobs Old Coal & Nottingham Storm Sewer Lanett CI #11390 Storm Improvement Linden #1064 Storm Sewer Lindbergh-Cierbroak Storm Channel Minerva-Wengler-Bums Storm Sewer Oak Gate Channel Improvements Olive 8200 Block Bank Stabilization (UCSW-110) Cluailways Dr #8 Channel Improvements St. Henry Bank Protection Stonington-Georgian Acres Storm Sewer Townsend St #321 WC-17 Storm Improvement WC-32 Storm Improvement WC-33 Storm Improvement Westwood Court #39 Bank Protection 2007135 - Windom 8721 Sewer Rehabilitation Prelim Status Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion Completion % Complete 100 100 100 100 100 _ 100 100 100 TOO 100 100 100 Date Completed 10/30/2007 711217007 4/2412007 11/30/2007 4(27/2009 1/15/2008 8/5/2008 _ 111191200B 100 _ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 _ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10/16/2008 829/2005 9/2/2008 12/5/2008 12/29/21308 8202005 5/8(2009 9/192008 316/2008 1116/2008 10/15/2008_ 9/2/2008 6/2/2008 _ 10/012008 4/222008 7/31/2008 7/312008 9/10/2008 4/22/2008 411612009 Notes Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Protect has been constructed Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Page 5 Target Completion Date of Draft Report 10/31/2007 7/9/2007 411012007 10/29/2607 4/112009 1/152009 8/82008 Watershed Mississippi Tributary Gravois Moline University Gay Branch Mississippi River Deer Watkins 829/2098 81292008 8/152008 8/29/2008 11/26/2008 12/152008 8/29/2006 10/31/2008 8/2220013 228/2096 8/22/2008 822/2008 8//292008 5/62068 8/29/2008 4/29/2008 8/5/2008 8/512008 8/22/2008 Deer Seminary Branch Coldwater University City Branch Coldwater River Des Peres Watkins Deer Deer University City Branch Deer University City Branch Deer Mallne Deer Deer Watkins Watkins Watkins 4129/2008 4/12009 Deer Coldwater 45 Complete Task 5 Project Assigned 20 Initial Investigation-. Data Collection/Records Investigation 30 Site Visil 45 Development of Flows 55 Development of Alternatives 70 Preferred Alternative Development 90 Draft Preliminary Study 100 Completion k Wsn .rannv.rle I.Mnr p.la ^C1aln.raluo n.nn aMrM14.Mnaim 5n* 5t&.. Papa", P. r0 •4 Page 6 �.,��iii.�. Item ���.�.. Project No. y•�•V�`�. V Project Name Prelim Status Y. Complete Date Completed Notes Target Completion Date of Draft Report Watershed FY 2012 Preliminary Studies 1 2010139 Apache Lane 8 Sycamore Way Storm Sewer Completion 100 12(1512009 Complete 1113612009 University City Branch 2 2049182 Brogan Dale Circle Storm Sewer Completion 100 61232009 Complete 6/12009 Meramec 3 2909158 Brookwood Subdivision Detention Basin Bank Stabilization Completion 100 8/28/2909 Complele 7/1/2609 Fenton 4 2009154 Cedar Bridge Court #189 Bank Stabilization Completion 100 6/11/21309 Complete 6/152009 Cleve Coeur 5 2010206 Clayton Central Storm Improvements Completion 700 2/2/2010 Complete 12/3112009 Black Creek 5 2007207 Countrybrook Dr Bank Stabilization Completion 100 10/5/200g Complete 7/15/2009 Spanish Lake 7 2009071 Domenico Court Channel Improvements Completion 100 - 12/1112009 Complete 711/2009 Cowmire 6 2009226 Fee Fee Creek Sank Stabilization - East Thb to Page (FEE-09) Completion 100 312312010 Complete 12/152009 Fee Fee 9 2009098 Frostwood Park Streambank Stabilization Completion 100 6(2/2009 Complete 5/15/2009 - Coldwater 10 2009076 Fiuntercreek Road #12839 Bank Stabilization Completion 100 5r1820ge Complete 3/3/2009 Sugar - 11 2002072 Kenwood-June Creek Bank Stabilization Completion 100 1/12/2010 Complete 12(1520139 Baden 12 2009205 Millman Drive Starmwater Improvements Completion 100 2/11/2010 Complete 7f15/2009 Maline 13 2005099 Paddock to Waterford Storm Channel Completion 100 51192010 Complete 122212009 Paddock 14 2008141 _ Park Avenue Storm Improvements Completion 100 7272009 Complete 6/12009 Gravois _ 15 2008095 Pembroke Drive Storm Improvements Completion 190 _ 3/31/2009 Complete 12/15/2008 Mackenzie 16 2009245 Ridgemoor Drive Storm Improvements Completion 100 5/20(2009 Complete _ 5/152009 Deer 17 2007221 Satre Coeur Storm Channel Completion 100 4/29/2009 Complete 4715/2009 Coldwater _ 2007223 Shiva Court Channel Improvements Completion 109 9/17/2009 Complete 8/12009 Caulks 18 19 2009170 Sunswept Drive #8 Bank Stabilization Completion 100 7/1/2099 Complete 8(12009 Deer 2096185 Topping Lane #7 8 #10 Bank Stabilization Completion 100 _ 724(2009 Complete 7/15/2009 Grand Glaise 20 2010141 Wickham Fen Creek Bank Stabilization Completion 100 3/512010 Protect is being dropped. 32220113 Sink Jack 21 % Complete Task 5 Project Assigned 20 Initial Investigation- Data Collection/Records Investigation 30 Site Visit 45 Development of Flows 55 Development of Alternatives 70 Preferred Alternative Development 90 Draft Preliminary Study 100 Completion R IMSO Nn W, AKA*. p'.mmunr w*Mn .i.tN i.pwr'➢rw%N"ry nv m snhn n.$.tO10E,0 w TORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING PROGRESS REPORT NO. 52 THROUGH JULY 2016 WBS Number Task Budget Expended 10100 ,Detention Basin Inventory 10200 Analysis of Prioritization System 10300 Review and Analysis of Existing Complaint data 10400 Review and Analysis of Existing Identified Projects Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cast subtotal Labor hoot subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10500 _Development of Project Definitions and Preliminary Studies for the C1RP General [0501 City of Northwnnds 14502 City of Ferguson 10552 10553 10587 City of Cool Valley Village of Marlborough City of Oakland Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Parsons Srtbconsultants Total Parsons Subconsultants Total °A Expended Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10503 CC-025(b) Creek Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10504 10505 10506 10507 0508 10509 10510 Clayton Terrace #3 Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Colonial Lane 68556 Storm Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Fair Oaks #33B Storm Sewer Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Goodale Avenue Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal labor cost subtotal McCutcheon to McKnight_ Channel Replacement _ Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Midland & Angelo Storm Sewer Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Mosley Road #308 North Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 7.732 5625.578 7.020 $427.749 14752 51,053,327.00 168 92 260 S21,840 513314 $35, [50.00 2099 3457 5556 $221,675 $315,607 $537.282.00 7.262 10,525 177E7 5818.204 5948.956 $1,767,160,00 4,782 S601,341 80 8000 240 24000 7,321 $693,274 100. 10000' 4 120 400 12000 4 12_0. 400 12000: 12103 $1,294_615.00 180 $18.000.00 240 $24 000.00 0 $a.ao 0 $0,00 0 $0.00 124 S12,400.00 124 $12.400.00 4 120 - 124 460 12000$12 400.00 120 12000 120 512,000.00 4 120 124 400, 12000. 812,400,00 120' 12000 120 S12,000.00 4. 120_, _ 124 400 12000: $12.400,00 4 400 120 12000 [24 $12.400.00 8575.45 $752.959.84 128.5 519, 209.35 1234 $215,471 38 8794.3 $388.225.21 17369.75 S1.141.185 05 107 235.5 $12,340.39. 831.549.74 2163 $177.011.60' 3397 $392.482.98 98625 14782.9 24645,4 S1,062,949.48 51,307.519.06 52.370,468.54 256.5 118 374.5 541,180 19 510.914.38 552,094.57 64.5 48 112.5 S8,352.78 55,233.60, S13,586.38 773.7 51.5. 825.2 572,594.68. $4,431.47$77,026.15 6 5.. 72. 78-5 5689.44 57.038.37 57,727.81 [43 01_ _ 143 $13,979.78 $0.00' 513.970.78 179.5 25 204.5 518.927.96 82 297.25 521,225.21 0 19.6 19.6 50.00 51,982.15 $1,982.15 2 $371 79 10 51.344.60 218.2 522,25 3.13 133.8 512.489.71. 190.5 518, 522.29' 135.8 $12.861.50 200.5 $19,866.89 18 236.2 51,54.314 523,796,27 2 132.5 $250.35 511,046.77. [04 510,004.96 6 $1,115.42 0.5 $32.22 134.5 $11,297 t2 0 104 $0.00, $10 004.96 204 _ 210 $17,004.16 518.1 [9,58 20.6, 21.1 $2,024.39 $2 056.61 117.75% 108.34% 90.58% 89 76% 61 14% 73.05% 138 56% 134.14% 3.09% 4 02% 62.50% 75.48% 343.83 4 3 20.94% 15.81% 15.994/ 109.52% 103.72% 161.69% 160.22% 196.83% 198.30% 108.47% 91.11% 86,67 % 83.37°/n 169.35 146.13% 17,02% 16.59% fORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING WB$ Number Task PROGRESS REPORT NO. 52 THROUGH JULY 2010 Budget Expended 10511 Ridgecord Lane Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10512 Fieldcrest and Fournier Channel Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10513 Temple Israel Creek Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Parsons Subconsultants Total Parsons Subconsultants Total % Expended 10514 Verona #2510 Storm Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10515 Algonquin Estales Storm Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10516 Cherry Tree Lane Storm Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 16517 Ladue -Meadows #17-19 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10518 Lynn Town Apartments Channel Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10519 Ravensridge to Laclede Station Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10520 _ Tcalbrook Estates Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10521 Black Creek #12 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10522 Bristow & Ann Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10523 13uttemut to Laurel Oak Storm Sewer 10524 Ridgelawn Court Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 4 120 124 400 12000: $12,400.00 4_ 120 124 400 12000 $12,400.00 4 120_ 124 400. 12000 $12,400.00 4 120' 400 12000 120- 12000 4 400 120 12000 4 400 4 400 124 $12,400.00 l20 $12,000 00 124 $ 12,400.00 120 124 12000 $12,400.00 120 12000 120 12000 0r 0' l24 $ 12,400.00 1211 $12.000 00 4 1201 124 400 12000 $12.400 011 4 1201 124 400 12000' $12,40000 120 12000 120 12000 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10525 Sorrell 42810 Stormwatcr Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10526 Wenneker-Treebrook Lane Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10527 Fawn Valley-Claychester (Two Mile Creek) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10528 Aline Ave. Storm Channel Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10529 Antherst-Blackberry 7500 Block Channel Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 400 4 400 4 400 0.1 6 0 120i 12000, 100 10000 120 12000 120 S12.000.00 120 S12,000.00 124 $12,400.01> 104 $10,400.00 124 $12.400.OS 0 $0.011 0 $000 0 S0 00 $371 82 9, $1,442.46 $961.70 $970.08 $811.70 $81 1 70 5.5 101.5 107 $8398.42 $9.210, 12 5.5 174.5 180 $15,097.32 $15-909.02 5,5 178 183.5 5840.24 617.227,93 $18,067 27 3 122 125 $557.70 $10.243.[8 $10.800.88 143.5 $12,903.11 0 $0.00 143 5 $12.903.11 5,5 395.52 401.02 $35,532 21 $36-502.29 5.5 95.5 101 $8.289.68 $9.25138 3.5 93 96.5 $589,94 $8.457.92 $9.047.86 234 $21_690.5 3 $316.45 2 $371, 82 116 S12 1146.20 57 S5 279.60 0 234 $0.00 $2 L690.53 1715 178.5 616,456.57 $17.273.02 168.8 170.8 $16.307.56 516.67938 10 146 $780.90 $12,927 10 0 57 $0.00 $5,27960 67, 5 70 5 S557.70 $5,508.81 S6,066 5 1 50.011 20.5 $2.795 92 28 5 28.5 $2,387.02 $2387.02 390 $35 925.69 27.5 732 $4,972-72 $68,873 27 410.5 $37,821.61 759 5 $73,845.99 2 71 73 S6,500 74 $6.872,56 69.5 $6,259.40 78.5 S7.70 ! .86 86.29% 74 28%° 145.16% 128.30°0 147.98% 145.70% l00.81% 87.10% 119.53% 107,53% 323 40% 294.37% 81.45% 74.61% 77,82% 72.97% 195.110%_ 180.75 % 143.95% 139.30% 137.74% 134.51"% 121.67% 107.73°4, 47.50 % 44.00% 56 85% 48.92% 27 40% 22.95%6 3 31.05` n 305.01% i ORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING PROGRESS REPORT NO 52 I ryKUUIH JU LT AV 'I V Budget Expended WBS Number Task Parsons Suhconsultants Total 10530 Big Bend 4430 Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10531 Heege Road Storm Sewer Improvements (MKT2-100) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10532 #4 Nonnton 10533 UCMB-140 Bank Stabilization 10534 2015 Thunderbird Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10535 Brookings 7110931 Channel Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10536 Burch Lane Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal _ Labor cost subtotal 10537 Lindbergh R Patterson Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10538 Rosary Lane Channel Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10539 WC-22 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10540 Ames PIN 10 Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal labor cost subtotal 10541 Aubuchon Street Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10542 Briarcliff #30 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10543 Denny_Lane#6 _ Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10544 Florence N5113 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10545 Forsythia -Grandview Storm Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10546 Lay Rd. !P932 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10547 Lay Rd North P917 Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10548 Lenar Drive Storm Sewer (GCMG-210) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Parsons 0 $000 0 S0.00 0 $0.00 0 $a.00 0 $0.00 0 $000 0 $o.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.01 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 S0 00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 S0.00 0 $0 00 0 $0.00 Subconsultants Total % Expended 26.5 0 _ 26.5 $2,341.55 S0.00 S2.341.55 136 $12,679 61 9 S 1,635.39 $185.91 0 $000 150. S 14,648.15 12 S2,230, 80 0 136 $0.00 S 12,679.61 270,9 $24.707.81 60.8 $5,690.42 51.5 $4,319.73 1 S 109.38 331 S29.954.59 279,9 S26,343.20 61 8 $5.876.33 51.5 $4,319.73 151 $14,757.53 343 $32.185.39 I, _ 41, $18591 $3,636.401 42 $3 822.31 01 32.5, _- 32.5 S0.00 S2,854.88 52,854.88 4,5 68.5 S548.28 $5,982.60 $3.5 $7,756.42 05 $54.70 73 S6,530.88 84 S7,81 1.12 46 $185.91 S3,703,93 47 $3,889.84 y 24.5 25.5 $185,91 $2,024.99 $2,210.90 5. 50 S929.54 55 $4,388.89 $5,318 43 146.5 0 S13.494.18 $0.00 I S 185.91 11.8.. 51.053.46 20.8 S 1.833.64 146,5 S13,494.18 53 S4,412.01 54 $4.597,92 $0:00 $0.00 83.51, 0 57,748.48 $0.00 11.8 S 1,053.46 20.8 $1,833,64 83.5 S7,748 48 ORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING PROGRESS REPORT NO. 52 THROUGH JULY 2010 WBS Number Task Budget Expended 10549 New Florissant Rd. So. P2120 10550 Somerset Downs P5 10551 Wise & Mable Storm Sewers 10554 Calverton a25 Storm Sewer 10555 Rose Hill & Rol lingwood Storm Sewer 10556 Spring Valley 01370 Storm Sewer 10557 La Havre Circle Labor hour subtotal _ Labor cost subtotal 10558 Bettye and Wynhill Stoma Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10559 Big Bend to Papin Storm Sewer Phase i Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10560 _ Caulfield Sq. 01.26 Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10561 Cedar Crest-Stoneysiele Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10562 Diamond Head Dr. Storm Sewer (GCUC-I 10) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10563 Elwood and Charbonier Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10564 Fourwynd Dr. 04.38 Bank Stabilization Labor !tour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10565 Fox Hall Lane Storm Channel (WC-31a) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10566 Huutleigh Downs 0IBank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10567 Ladue Rd. 09130 Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10568 Malus & Green Park Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10569 Paxton Lane to Ricardo Lane Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour suhtolal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Parsons-Subconsultartts Total Parsons Subconsultants Total % Expended 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $o.00 0 $0-00 0 S000 a $0.00 0 $000 0 S0,00 _ 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 WOO 0 $0.00 0 S0.00 0 $0.00 0 S0.00 0 $0,00 0 $0.00 0 S0.00 $12.185.50 1.7 25 26.7 $235.32 $2.039.20 S2,274.52 55 $849.47 28 $5,41434 $185.91 46.5 $3,991.37 542.5 S48,355.10 52 S4.840.84 570,5 $53.769 44 58 59 $4,727 94 $4,913-85 130 0 130 S0.00 $12.185-50 0 30 30 SO 00 $2,715.30 $2,715.30 0 24-5 50.00 $2 000 15 0 $000 193 S18.363.93 4. $325.05 46,5_ $3,964-23 0 SO-00 86-9 $7.4 33.97 24.5 $2,000-15 46.5 S3.964.23 [93 S 18.363.93 90, 9 $7,759.02 4 22 5 26.5 S777.02 , $1,995 32 $2,772-34 269' O. 269 $27,329,24 $0.00 $27,329.24 2 52 54 $388.52 $4,924.85 $5,313.37 1 135 - - 14.5 $185.91 ST265.36 $1,451. 7 0 22 _ 22 S0-00 S2.016.06 $2,016.06 2 21.5 _ 23.5 $388,51 $1,794-83 $2.183.34 0 $0.00 67 67 $5,795.04 S5,795,04 226 0 226 S21,161.35 S0.00 $21,161.35 35.5 $4,431.35 282.6 S26,824.23 318.1 $31,255.58 PROGRESS REPORT NO 52 THROUGH JULY 2010 Budget Expended iORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING WBS Number 'Task 10570 __ _ Tohaggon Trail 0I 1383 Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10571 Prestwick Drive Storm Sewer{WC-35) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10572 Tesson Ferry & Marlene Storm Sewer (GCMB-230) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10573 Batrvon Drive 1000 Block Bank Stabilization (GCKC-170) Labor (tour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10574 Hudson Road N 1401-N1405 Bank Stabilization (MCDW-120) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10575 West Essex and Goethe Sewer Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor rout subtotal Ruth -Helen -Cecelia Storm Sewer Relocation Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Dickson Storm Sewer Phase 111A Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10578 Lake Village Storm Improvements Labor hour subtotal 10576 10577 1 10579 Labor cost subtotal Coldwater Creek @Lynn Town Bank Stabilization 10580 10581 10582 10583 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Berick N800 Block Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Tulane & Purdue Stone Sewer (S-1983) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Ann Mar Drive 011449 Storm Sewer _ Labor bour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Argyle H8800 Storm Sewer Parsons Subconsultants Total Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10584 Kin eland Avenue N 1400 Stonrn Improvement _ Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10585 1 Linden 01064 Storm Sewer 10586 10588 Labor hour subtotal labor cost subtotal Ranr,er Drive Storm Relief Phase 11 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Teddy and Joplin Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 0 SO.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 S0.00 0 S0.00 0 S0 00 0 $0.00 0 soon 0 S000 SO o11 SO OC SO Of SO 0( s00( S0.0 SO.0 Parsons Subconsultants Total 3 50.5 S582.77 S4,196,87 2 S388.51 535 $4.779.64 19.5_ 21.5 S1,502.31 $1,890,82 1 40.5 41.5 0194,26 03,632.41 S3,826.67 5 284.7 289.7 S97L34 S27.154.08 $28,125.42 2 51, 53 $388.52 04,758,49 S5,147.01 182.5 0 182,5 $24,778.48 ' 0000 $24,778.48 364.5. 0 364.5 $39,499.38 . 00.00 $39,499.38 126 S I I.030.40 112.5 St 1.984.03: 4 54.5 S777.03 i S4,463.70. 3 66 S582.80 S5,578.80 238.5 S23,014 43 58,5 S5,240.73 69 S6,161.60 50.5 0 50.5 54,874.30 50.00 $4,874.30 102 0 102 510-618.27 $0.00 $10,618.27 ll 241 S 194.26 $1,680.88, 4 130.5 $777.06 S10,533.37 - 4 82.5 S777.06 L $5,477.45 g. 353 2 $1,554.11 S33,772.06 25 $1,875 14 134.1 $11.3104? 86.` $6,254.51 361 S35,326. I 15 420.9 435.' $2,914.01 S40,440.01 043,354.0, 07 104.31 0 71 S0,00 $7,104.3 °oF pended REPORT NO. 52 PROGRESS roost ir-u u u v vmn V KMWA I tK }At:ILl1 Y YLANNI V, WBS Number Task 10589 10590 10591 East Holden Avenue Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Babler Lane Storm Sewer Lindscott Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10592 Hardwick Court Channel Improvement (MCMB-510) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10593 Grenada Storm Sewer Parsons Budget Suhconsultants Total Expended Parsons Subconsultants Total % Expanded Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 10594 Prada Storm Sewer Replacement Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 15606 Olive 8200 Blk. Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 15602 Dielman Road to Appleseed Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 15605 Minerva Bums Wangler Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Pepperdine Court Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 15601 Cottage 4206 Storm Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal St. Henry Bank Protection Townsend Street #321 Oak Gate Labor hour subtotal labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Lindbergh-Clerbrook Storm Channel _ Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Quailways Drive 48 Channel improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Westwood Court #39 Bank Protection Labor hoursuhtotal Labor cost subtotal[ 0 S0.00 0 $000 0 $0.00 $0,00 0 $0,00 _0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 S000 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 S0.00 0 $0,00 0 $0.00 $815.90 6: $1.223.87 $12.985.99 $6, 515.24 12 0 51,109.46 5000 S1,109.46 Sg 0 58 $5.551.58 $0A0 $5.551.58 4 75.5 79.5 $777,02 55,852.49 $6,629.51 128 3,51 131.5 $14,516.28 S292.14 $14.808.42 0. 0. 12 0 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 103 103 $0.00 $8,937.75 $8,937 75 142 2 144 $14.327.72 SI58.26, S14,485,98 64.5 3 65.5 $79,13 $6.594.37 _ 32.5 0' 32.5 S3,361.84 ; $0.00, $3.361 84 7 113 120 $1.379.28 _ $10,761.62 $12,140.90 140 0 140 $0.00. S12,985.99 2 18.5 20.5 $407.97 $1.943.68, $2,351,65 85. 9.5 $203,98 5878.98. $1,082.96 4 46.3 $4617.49 $5.433.39 100.6• 106.6 $9.637.69 S10,861.56 4.5. 151 5555 $917.91 $407.97 $14,507.15 $15,425.06 11.5. 13.5 $1,120.29 $1,528.26 ORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING PROGRESS REPORT NO. 52 THROUGH JULY 2010 WBS Number Task Budget Expended Parsons iSubconsultants Total Parsons Subconsultants Total % Expended Claudine at Hay 367 Channel bnprovement Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Conway-Octhronk Storm Channel Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Desmet Industrial ('t Lot 8 Bank stabilization Labor hour subtotal labor cost subtotal Lanes Ct. 11390 WC-17 Storm Improvement WC-32 Stan Improvement WC-33 Storm Improvement Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost Subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Stoningtott-Gerogian Acres Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Harrison St. Marie Stonn Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Jacobs Old Coal & Nottingham Storm Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Pembroke Drive Storm Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Brogan Dale Circle Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Froatwood Park Strearnbank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Millman Drive Stotmwater lmprovement s Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Park Avenue Storm Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Sunsaept rime u8 Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal a $0.00 0 SO 00 0 SO 00 0 S0.00 0 $0,00 SO 00 0 $0.00 tt $0.00 n SO 00 0 SO 00 n SOOt 0 SO.00 IS SO 00 0 $0.110 n SO 00 0 SIt 00 D_5 16.5 S101.98 $1.299.55 17 $1.401.53 11.5 203.3 214,R $1,453.08 5120,106.86 $21,559.94 4 $815.93 33.5. 53.372.20 2 38 $407 97 $3,444.85 05 $101,OS 0.5 $101.98 $203 98 125 S12.033.19 8.5 $770 75 7.5 S 1.471.64 31 5 37.5 $4,188. 13 40 $3,852 82 9 $822 73 8 $1.573.62 32.5 $2,546.1I S2,750.09 1 S 109,4 I 0 92 S0.00 $8,330 53 48.5 0 $5.977.34 $0.00 105.5 0 S10,57097 S0.00 3, S633.34 2 $422 24_. 2110 S24,266.47 63.5 S6,988.64 75,5 $2,761.15 731 $7.4 30.66 55.5 $4,675.96. 0' $0.00 0 SO 00 126 S12.14260 92 $8, 330 53 4R,5 $5,977.34 105.5 S10,579.97 76.1 58,064.00 57.5 $5,098.20 210 S24,266,47 635 S6.988.64 0 25 5 $000 $2.761. 15 UORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING PROGRESS REPORT NO. 52 THROUGH JULY 2010 WBS Number Task Expended Budget Parsons Subconsultants 'Ford Parsons Subconsultants Total sin Expended Brookwood Subdivision Detention Basin Bank Stabilization Labor how ciiktnirl Labor cost subtotal Counuybrook Dr. Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Cedar Bridge Court # 187 Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Domenico Court Channel Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Hunterceeek Road 412839 Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Sacre Coeur Storm Channel Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Shiva Court Channel Improvements Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Topping Lane #7 & # 10 Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Windom 8721 Sewer Rehabilitation Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Arlee Avenue Storm Sewer Labor hour subtota Labor cost suhtota O 2 7 82.5 84.5 5000 542224 $8.641-12 S9,063.36 O 2 56.5 5S5 So 00 S422.24 56,296-22 $6,718.46 O I 58r 59 S0 00 $21 1.10 56,003.72 $6.214 82 O 4 76.5 805 $0.00 $1.055.58 S7,750.20 S8,805.78 O 0 25.5 25,5 $0.00 $000 $2.729.38 52,729.38 O 2 69 71 SO 00 5427,21 $5,201.65 S5,623.86 0 I 71.5 72.5 50.00 $21 1. 10 57,984.87 _ $8,195.97 O 3 39.3 42-3 5000 $633.34 54,021.40 $4,654.74 O 0 98 98 $0.00 $0.00 $7.081.36 57,081.36 D 120,5 0 120-5 S0.00 S12,394.85 SO.00 $12,394.85 Labor hour subtotal 0 204 0 204 Labor cost subtotal $0.00 $22,422 7] $0.00 S22 422.71 Apache Lane & Sycamore Way Storm Sewer Labor hour subtotal 0 0_ 24. 24 Labor cost subtotal S0.00 $0.00 $2.416 237 52.416.23 Fee lice Creek Bank Stabilization -East Trib to Page Labor hour subtotal 0 3 75.5 78.5 Labor cost subtotal SO Oft $633 34 $8.638.07 $9.271-41 Kenwvood-June Creek Bank Stabilization - Labor hour subtotal Il 130 5 0 130.5 Labor cost subtotal $0.00 $14.808.49 $0 00 $14.808 49 Paddock to Waterford Storm Channel - - Labor hour. subtotal 0 11.5.. 105.5 117 Labor_ cost subtotal SO OU 52.140 71 $12.105-32 $14,246.03 Clayton Central Storm Improvements _ Labor hour subtotal 0 94 - 0 94 Labor cost subtotal $0.00 S11.050.35 $0.00. SI T.050.35 Wickham Fen Creek Bank Stabilization Labor hour subtotal 0 17 0 17 Labor cost subtotal $O 00 $1,734.12 $0.00 $1,734.12 Ridgemoor Drive ORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING WBS Number Task NKutatsuJJ Ktl'UK I NU. 5L I novwn JULr e6 iu Budget Expended 10595 10600 Regulatory lssues/Coordination 10700 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling 10701 'Bellabrook 10800 Water Quality Issues and Modeling 10900 RainfallfRadarll lydrology Development 11000 Preparation of SSMIP for Additional Watersheds 1 1 100 Geomorphologic Stream Assessment and Analysis Pepperdine Court-Fishpot Creek Bank Stabilization Temporary Measures Documents Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Temporary measures flood study Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Flood Study Parsons •Subconsultants Total Parsons Subconsultants 'Total % Expended Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Topographic and Control Survey Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Geomorphic Study __ Labor hour subtotal •Labor cost subtotal Strip map, title searches and easement plats Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Final Construction Documents Labor boar subtotal Labor cost subtotal Construction Period Services Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Project Direct costs and 5% Fined Fee Project total hours Project total labor costs Total Project Costs _Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 32 $5,948.110 70 $8.668,00 168 $21,351.00 8 S1,246.007 238 270 32 254.5 286,5 25500 S31.448.00 56.527,28 $26,911.42 $33,438.711 8 78 63 0' 63 897 $9,565.00 57,71632 S0.00 $7.716.32 28 195 159 0 1_ 159 3929 525,280_00 S21.568.16 50,00 $21.568.16 245 253 0 319.1 319,1 S18.534.00. S19.780 00 $0.00 , S20.797.64: $20,797.64 4' 41.8 422 0 0 0 $816,00 542.859.00 $43,675.00 50,00. $20.928.74. S20,928.74 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 4 172 176 0 _ 279 279 $816.00 $14.096.00 $14,912.00 $0.00 S15.525.83 S15,525.83 406 1274, 1680 2. 1341,5_ 1343 5 $41,408.00 5120,117,00. 5161,525,00 5407.97 - $115.627.78 S116,035.75 0 4 - 191.5 195.5 50.00 S708.64 S20,247.06 520,955,70 $12,280.00 $I1,535.00_ 523,815.00 95.57 3,034.30 3,129.87 692 2383 3075 260 2385.E 2645.6 80253 225932 5306,185.00 36928.37 220038.47 5256,966.84 S92,533.00I $237,467.00 $330,000.00 37023.94 5223,072.77.. $260.096.71 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 118' 304 422 16.5 88.5 1.05 520.066 S42,644 $62.710.00 $2669.28 S12.440.01 S15,10929 5391 344 883 D 41.5 41.5 $62,532 $41,785 $104.317 00 $0.00 S3,180.91 S3.180.91 16.5_ 11 275 $I 666 87 $1,132.23i_ _ 52,793.10 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 84 168 252 0 0 _ 0 59.480 $18.950 528,430.00 50.00 O. $0.00 $0.00 - 239 84. 323 0 0 0 - S25.624 $9.475 , $35 099.OD $0 00 $0.00 _ _ $0.00 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 11200 Capital lmprovemcnt and Replacement Program (CIRP) Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 11300 Public Education/Relations 11400. Other District Departments and Divisions Support ' 195 226 421 2- - 0 2 S19,500 ' $20,639 S40,139.00 $138.09 . $0.001 S138.09 Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 164_ --- 488! 652 113.5 172 285 5 $23,286 $50,SID 573.796.00 $11.350.93 S16,517.43 _ _ S27.868.36 168 160 328 0 01. D $26,204 518.06E S44,270.00 50.00 $0.00 $0 00 194 228. 422 0 QI D 530,742 526,702 $57,444 00 $0,00 . $0.00 $0,00 240 0 240 50 186.5' 2'+6.5 $4i 640 ' 0 $47,640.00 $7,033.42 $17,705.45 $24,738.87 106.1 1% 106. 33 % 80. 77 % 80.67% SI,12% 85.32% 126.13% 105,14% 0,00% 47,92 % 158.52 104.12 % 79.97% 71,84% 13.14% 86.04% 83.93% 78.82% 24.88 % 24.09% 4.70% 3 05% 0.00% 0.00 % 0.00% D.00% 0.48% 0.34% 4379 % 37.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% OA0% 98.54% 51 93°.i ORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING PROGRESS REPORT NO 52 THROUGH JULY 2010 WBS Number Task Budget Expended 11500 Mapping/GIS 11600 Grants/Loans 11700 Financial Issue Support 11800 Coordination with Other Consultants and Vendors 11900 Bank Mitigation 12000 Review consultant reports for District General Parsons Subconsultants Total Parsons Subconsultants Total % Expended Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 12001 Sappington Creek - Mcath to Gravois Pre.Design Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 12002 Paddock to Waterford Storm Channel Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal 12003 City of Fmntenac - Stannwater Master Plan Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal PMA Engineering MSRT ADS Environmental Hellmuth-Bicknese 12100 Project Management/Meetings Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal _ Labor hour subtotal Labor cost subtotal Labor bons subtotal Labor cost subtotal . 534 96 630 560,123 ' _ 11216, $71339.00 58: -- 1411 198 S10.052 520,872 830,924,00 84' 0 84 516.464 0 816,464.00 430 - 288 $72,316 $32.836 8 $800 12 $1,200 718 $105,152,00 16 24 - $1,600 $2400.00 12 24 $1,200 $2,40000 12 S1,200 12 $ I ,200.00 12 12 $1,200 S1,200.00 0 S000 540,000 S40.000.00 $100.000' $100.000.00 S302,850 $302,850.00 S22.800 S22,800.00 4.237 2602 $719,328.36 5284.619 Total Labor Flours 31.163.00 Total Labor Cost 3,626.648.36 Direct costs 5165,873.37_ Submits -ultra and Direct Cost Fixed Fee $207,274.27 TOTAL $3,999,796.00 38,206.00 3,896,792,00 $5 8 412.00 $0.00 53,955,204.00 6839 51.003,947, 36 69,369 57,523,440.36 5224,285.37 5207,274.27 $7,955,000,00 542 138 680 554.1 10,1 S 88.467.10 $62,577.25 O 0 0 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 O 0 _ 0 S0.00 $0,00 $0,00 80.5 $10.006.41 33.5 53,707 23 6 86,5 $656.45 510,662.86 01 33.5 50,00 $3,707.23 18 1 19 $1.828.79 883.89 $1.912 68 35.5 0 35.5 85.1 16.42 $0.00 S5.1 16.42 0 27.5 27.5 $0.00 $4,1 3 L 18 $4.131.18 6 0 6 - $905.84 $0.00 5905.84 0, 0 0 O. 835.83153 535.831.53 O tk 0 O $97,972 99 $97.972.99 0 0 0. 0 5302.850,00$302,850.00 0 522.77190 So_00 _ 5064.35_ 2814.65 7879 $769,113.64 $356.870.30 S1,125,983.94 32,829.00 41,662.87 74,491.87 3,683,110.15 3.899,641.97• 57,582,752.12 $97,790.55 $56,15074 . $153,941.29 $202,680.73 $0.00' $202,680.73 53,983.581.43S3,955,792.711 57,939,374,14 107 94% 87.72°/a 0,00%, 0, 00% 0.o0./ 12.05% 10.14% 139,58% 154.47% 79 17% 79.70% 295.83 % 426.37% 229,17% 344.27% 1 15.21 % 112.16% _ 107.38% 100.79% 68,64% 97,78% 99.80% APPENDIX G. Secondary Services Table of Municipality Stormwater Plans and Detention Basin Ordinances Table of Municipality Stormwater Tax Database MI MUNICIPALITY STORMWATER PLANS AND DETENTION BASIN ORDINANCES ,,,,,,+LI I I wiv i HL I i'Anst GUN FN.; I TITLE ADDRESS 14811 Manchester Road PHONE RESEARCH COMMENT DETENTION REQUIREMENTS MISC. COMMENTS Ballwin Bella Villa Mr. Gary Kramer City Engineer 636-227-9000 www.baliwin.mo.us Received detention and floodplain ordinances on 6128101(M.K_) found ordinances online, printed (TB 414107) Detain difference between 25-year post -development and 15-year undeveloped: enclose or 6:1 side slopes City has table of PI factors Ms. Pat Brown City Clerk 751 Avenue H 314-638-8840 Received floodplain ordinance on 7/2/01(M.K.) call made, need to call back (T.B.) Ms. Brown on vacation until 4112 Bellefontaine Neighbors Mr. Frank Kurz City Engineer 9641 Bellefontaine Road 314-867-0076 www.citvofbn.com Received floodplain ordinance on 9/24/01(M.K.) found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/4/07) Accordance with MSD Bellerive Arlette Currington Bel -Nor r Diana Krosnicki Village Clerk Village Clerk 8416 Natural Bridge Rd. 8416 Natural Bridge Rd. 314-382-5337 314-381-2834 none of village is within 100-yr floodptain, no ordinances (TB 4/17/07) Accordance with MSD call made, Village uses county requirements, but clerk confirmed that none of village Is within 100-yr floodplain (TB 4110/07) Bel -Ridge Virginia Culton Village Clerk 8842 Natural Bridge Road 314-429-2878 call made, could not leave message (TB 4/10/07) Berkeley Mr. Jon Langerak Public Works Manager 6140 N. Hanley Road 314-524-3313 vw'w.c' fberkeley.us Received floodplain ordinance on 12/3/01(M.K.) floodplain ordinances received by mail (TB 4113/07) Accordance with MSD Beverly Hills 7150 Natural Bridge Road 314- 82-6544 message left (TB 4/10/07) Black Jack Mr. Vijay Bhasin Public Works Director 12500 Old Jamestown Road 314-355-0400 www.citvofblackiack.com found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/4107) Accordance with MSD Breckenridge Hills Ms. Pamela Price City Clerk 9623 St. Charles Rock Road 314-427-6868 www.breckenrtdge-hills.mo.us Received floodplain ordinance on 6126101(M.K.) floodplain ordinances received by mail (TB 4/17/07) Accordance with MSD Brentwood Mr. Jerry Wolf Public Works Director 2348 S. Brentwood Blvd. 314-962-4800 www.brentwoodmo.or. found floodplain and detention ordinances online, printed (TB 4/4/07) Maximum discharge of 2 cis for 25-year frequency, use minimum 25-year frequency City has table for max discharge for frequenciesjreater than 25-year Bridgeton Mr. Richard Houchin Public Works Director 11955 Natural Bridge Road 314-739-7500 wnw.bridgetonmo.com Received floodplain and subdivision ordinances on 6/27/01 (M.K.) found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/4/07) Accordance with MSD Calverton Park Denise Long Village Clerk 52 Young Drive 314-524-1212 city has no ordinances in place (M.K.) village has no ordinances in place per Ms. Long TB 4/12/07) Accordance with MSD Champ Barbara Miller Village Clerk 2600 Jessica Adele Ct. 314-738-0772 no floodplain or detention ordinances per Ms. Miller (TB 4/10/07) Charlack Charlie Evola Public Works Director 8401 Midland Boulevard 314-4274715 www.citvofcharlack.com found floodplain ordinances online, printed (TB 4/4/07) None found Chesterfield Michael Geisel Clarkson Public Works Director 690 Chesterfield Parkway West 636-537-4738 www.chesterfield.mo.us Received detention and floodplain ordinances on 6/28/01(M.K.) found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/4/07) No standard requirement, to be determined by City City has Stormwater Master Plan Valley Michele McMahon City Clerk P.O. Box 987 636-227-8607 www.ctarksonvallev.org Received floodplain ordinances on 6/28101(M.K.) found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/4/07) None found Clayton Paul Wojciehowski Cool Valley Public Works Director 10 N. Bemiston Avenue 314-727-8100 www.ci.cla on.mo.us Received detention ordinance on 7(11/01 (M.K.) found floodplain ordinances online, printed (TB 4/4/07) None found City has Stormwater Master Plan Wade Morns Palladian Engineering Public Works Director 100 Signal Hill Drive 314 floodplain ordinances received by (TB 4/13/07) Accordance with MSD Country Club Hills Rowena Hollins City Clerk 7422 Eunice Avenue 314-261-0845 mail need to call back, ask for Ms. Polk (TB 4/11/07) Country Life Acres Karen Kelly Jim Eckrich Village Clerk Public Works Director 3 Hollenberg Ct. 1 Detjen Drive 314-739-4800 314-729-4700 www.ci,crestwood.mo.us none of village is within 100-yr floodplain, no ordinances (TB 4/11/07) Received floodplain ordinances on 6/26/01 (M.K.) floodplain ordinances received by mail (TB 4/13/07) Received detention and floodplain ordinances on 7/2/01(M.K.) found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) Accordance with MSD Crestwood Mr. Eckrich confirmed accordance w/ MSD Greve Coeur Robert Gunn Public Works Director 300 N. New Ballas Road 314-872-2538 www.creve-coeur.org City has Table of runoff rates based on creek watershed Crystal Lake Park Lois LaDriere City Clerk P.O. Box 31338 314-993-1160 www.crystallakeeark.org floodplain ordinances received by mail (TB 4/13/07) Deliwood Tom Zak City Clerk 1415 Chambers Road 314-521-4339 none of city is within 100-yr floodplain, no ordinances (TB 4(11/07) Accordance with MSD Des Peres Denis G. Knock Public Works Director 12325 Manchester Road 314-835-6130 www.desoeresmo.orq Received detention and floodplain ordinances on 6/27101(M.K.) found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) call made, clerk confirmed no floodplain or detention ordinances (TB 4/11/07) Differential for 25-year, 20-min, etc. Edmundson Ronda Phelps City Clerk 4440 Holman Lane 314-428-7125 Accordance with MSD Ellisville Bill Schwer Public Works Director No. 1 Weis Avenue 636-227-9660 www.ellisville.mo-us found floodplain ordinances online, printed (TB 415107) found floodplain ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) Accordance with MSD None found Eureka; Michael Schlereth Public Works Director P.O. Box 125 636-938-6655 www.eureka.mo.us Fenton Daie Oberhaus Public Works Director 625 New Smizer Mill Road 636-349-8155 www.fentonmo.orr. Received detention and floodplain ordinances on 7/3/01(M.K.) found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) Received floodplain ordinances on 7/5/01(M.K.) found floodplain ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) 2 cfs or greater, etc. Ferguson Terry O'Neil Public Works Director 110 Church Street 314-524-4721 www.fer usoncit .com None found Flordell Hills Pat Green City Clerk PO Box 38548 314-382-5524 message left (TB 4)11(07) Flonssant Louis B. Jeans Public Works Director 955 Rue St. Francois 314-839-7641 www.florissantmo.com Received floodplain ordinances on 716101(M.K.) found floodplain ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) None found Frontenac Leesa Ross City Clerk 10555 Clayton Road 314-994-3200 www.citvofrontenac.com found floodplain ordinances online, printed (TB 4(5/07) None found City has Stormwater Master Plan Glendale Carl Politte Public Works Director 424 North Sappington Road 314-968-8157 www.olendalemo.orq no ordinances exist for city, BOCA applies (TB 4/11/07) Accordance with MSD Outside the MSD Boundary NOTE: Information valid as of April 2007 MUNICIPALITY STORMWATER PLANS AN MUNICIPALITY CONTACT NAME CONTACT TITLE ADDRESS PHONE RESEARCH COMMENT 1DETENTION REQUIREMENTS MISC. COMMENTS Glen Echo Park Lawrence Barton Village Clerk 7206 Henderson Avenue 314-516-5334 no ordinances per L. Barton on 6/26/01 (M.K.) no ordinances per L. Barton on 4/19/07 (TB) Accordance with MSD Grantwood Village Mike Bloom ? #1 Missionary Ridge 314-849-4103 Received floodplain ordinances on 6/28/01(M.K.) need to call Mike after 6 (TB 4/12/07) Greendale Sue Steiger City Clerk 7717 Natural Bridge Road 314-383-2577 www.greendale03mo.cam pm found city code online, no floodplain or detention requirements (TB 4/5/07) Green Park Diana Mize City Clerk 11100 Mueller Rd., Suite 2 314-894-7336 www.cityoforeenpark.com floodplain ordinances received by fax (TB 4/11/07) Received floodplain ordinances on 712101(M.K.) message left (TB 4111/07) Accordance with MSD Hanley Hills (Vacant) Village Clerk 7713 Utica Drive 314-725-0909 Hazelwood Thomas W. Manning Public Works Director 415 Elm Grove Lane 314-839-3700 www.hazelwoodmo.orn found city code online, no floodplain or detention requirements (TB 4/5/07) none of city is within 100-yr floodplain, no ordinances (TB 4/11/07) Hillsdale Marvalda Jones ' Village Clerk 6428 Jesse Jackson Avenue 314-381-0288 Accordance with MSD Huntleigh Peter von Gontard City Clerk _ 515 N. 61h St. - St. Louis. MO 63101 314-446-4248 floodplain ordinances received by mail (TB 4/19/07) Jennings Richard Perry Public Works Director 2120 Hard Avenue 314-388-1164 www-cityofjennings.org found floodplain ordinances online. printed (TB 4/5/07) None found Kinloch Mary Hughes City Clerk 5990 Monroe Avenue 314-521-3335. fax 314-521-3368 fax received with stormwater tax ordinance (TB 4/13/07) possible need to call back for floodplain Kirkwood Ken Yost Public Works Director 139 S. Kirkwood Road 314-822-5819 www.ci.kirkwood.mo.us found floodplain ordinances online. printed (TB 4/5/07) None found Ladue Dennis G. Bible Public Works Director 9345 Clayton Road 314-993-5665 www.citvofladue=mo.gov found ordinances online. printed (TB 4/5/07) Received floodplain ordinances on 7/23/01(M.K.) message left (TB 4/11/07) floodplain ordinances to be mailed (TB 4/12/07) Depth less than 4 feet. accordance with MSD Lakeshire Jill Feltman City Clerk 10000 Puttington Drive 314-631-6222 1lmembers.ael.com/lakeshiremo Mackenzie Dorothy Berry Village Clerk 7149 Holly Hills Avenue 314-752-0625 Accordance with MSD Manchester Edwin Blattner Public Works Director 14318 Manchester Road 636-227-1385 www.ci.manchester.mo.us Received floodplain ordinances on 6128101(M.K.) found floodplain ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) None found Maplewood John Openiander Public Works Director 7601 Manchester Road 314-646-3640 www.citvofmaplewood.com Received floodplain ordinances on 6/27/01(M.K.) found floodplain ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) None found Marlborough Joy Porter Drennan Village Clerk 7826 Wimbledon Drive 314-962-5055 none of city is within 100-yr floodplain. no ordinances (TB 4/11/07) Accordance with MSD Maryland Heights Bryan Pearl Public Works Director 212 Miilwell Drive 314-291-6550 www.marvlandheights.com Received floodplain ordinances on 6l28101(M.K.) found ordinances online, printed (TB 415/07) _ floodplain ordinances received by mail (TB 4/13/07) Unspecific, accordance with MSD Accordance with MSD Moline Acres Nina Walker City Clerk 2449 Chambers Road 314-868-2433 Normandy Pam Rogers City Clerk 7700 Natural Bridge Road 314-333-3202 www.cityofnormandy.aov found city code online. no floodplain or detention requirements (TB 4/5/07) Northwoods Denise Johnson -Griffin City Clerk 4600 Oakridge Boulevard 314-385-8000 www.cit ofnorthwoods.com found city code online, no floodplain or detention requirements (TB 4/5/07) Norwood Court Dennis L. Callahan Town Clerk 7560 Norwalk Lane 314-993 4261 Received floodplain ordinances on 715101(M.K.) floodplain ordinances to be mailed (TB 4/13(07) Oakland Kathy Yahl City Clerk P.O. Box 220511 314-416-0026 www.oaklandmo.ore floodplain ordinances received by mail (TB 4/17107) Received floodplain ordinances on 7/5/01(M.K.) found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) Accordance with MSD To be established by Director. likely accordance with MSD Olivette Mike Gartenberg Public Works Director 9473 Olive Boulevard 314.993-0252 www.olivettemo.com Overland Chuck Boone Public Works Director 9119 Lackland Road 314-428-4677 vrww.overlandmo.orq Received floodplain ordinances on 7/9/01(M.K.) found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) To be determined by Director. likely accordance with MSD Pacific Edward 0. Gass Public Works Director 300 Hoven Drive 636-271-0500 www.pacificmissouri.com found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/5/07) Most areas of city lie outside of MSD boundary Pagedale Fran Stevens City Clerk 1420 Ferguson Avenue 314-726-1200, fax 314-726-2604 Received floodplain ordinance on 6129101(M-K.) floodplain ordinances received by fax (TB 4/13/07) Accordance with MSD Pasadena Hills Kathy Runge City Clerk 3915 Roland Blvd 314-382-4453 message left (TB 4/12/07) Pasadena Park Peggy Deimeke Village Clerk P.O. Box 210357 314-383-0010 none of city is within 100-yr floodplain. no ordinances (TB 4/12/07) Accordance with MSD Pine Lawn Carol Calendar City Clerk 6250 Steve Marre Avenue 314-261-5500 none of city is within 100-yr floodplain. no ordinances (TB 4/12/07) Accordance with MSD Richmond Heights Bruce Murray Public Works Director 1330 Big Bend Boulevard 314-645-0404 www.richmondheiohts,orc found ordinances online. printed (TB 4!5l07) message left (TB 4/12/07) Riverview Megan Asikainen Village Clerk 9699 Lilac Drive 314-868-0700 Rock Hill George Liyeos City Clerk 9511 Manchester Road 314-968-1410 www.rockhillmo.nel message left (TB 4/12/07) Shrewsbury John Shaw City Clerk 5200 Shrewsbury Avenue 314-647-5795 www.cityofshrewsburycom Received floodplain ordinance on 713101(M.K.) call returned, no ordinances (TB 4/17107) Accordance with MSD St. Ann Matt Conley City Clerk 10405 St. Charles Rock Road 314-428-6801 www.stannmo.com found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/17/07) Outside the MSD Boundary NOTE: Information valid as of April 2007 MUNICIPALITY STORMWATER PLANS AND DETENTION BASIN ORDINANCES MUi'4 irr'LI I r CONTACT NAME CONTACT TITLE ADDRESS PHONE RESEARCH COMMENT DETENTION REQUIREMENTS MISC. COMMENTS St. George Marilyn Schneider City Clerk 9041 Southview Lane 314-631-1295 No ordinances per Mrs. Schneider on 6/28/01 none of cityis within 100-yr floodplain, no ordinances (TB 4/12/07) Accordance with MSD St John St. Louis James Phillips Public Works Director 8944 St. Charles Rock Road 314-427-8700 www.cityofstlohn.ora found ordinances online, printed (TB 4110/07) None found Sunset Hills Ronald Williams Public Works Director 3939 S. Lindbergh Boulevard 314-849-3400 www.sunset-hills.com found floodplain ordinances online, printed (TB 4/10/07) To be determined by Director. likely accordance with MSD Sycamore Hills Fred Batcher Village Clerk 2501 Hartland Avenue 314-426-5750 wv,w.villaEeofsycamorehills.com No ordinances per Mr, Batcher on 8114/01 none of city is within 100-yr floodplain, no ordinances (TB 4/12/07) Received detention and floodplain ordinances on 7/2/01(M.K.) found ordinances online. printed (TB 4/10/07) Accordance with MSD Town and Country Douglas Hopkins Public Works Director 1011 Municipal Center Drive 314-432-6606 www.town-and-country.orq Accordance with MSD Twin Oaks Patrick Kelly Village Clerk 119C Meramec Station Rd., #204 636-225-7873 www.vil.twin-oaks.mo.us found city code online. no floodplain or detention requirements (TB 4/10/07) found ordinances online. printed (TB 4/12/07) Accordance with MSD Prevent velocities above 5 fps University City Evelyn Shields-Benford Public Works Director 6801 Delmar Blvd. 314-505-8566 www,ucilymo.orq Uplands Park - Charlotte Graham Village Clerk 6390 Natural Bridge 314-383-1856 none of city is within 100-yr floodplain, no ordinances (TB 4/12/07) Accordance with MSD Valley Park Jim McMullen Public Works Director 320 Benton St 636-225-5171 www_valleyparkmo.oro found ordinances online. printed (TB 4/10/07) 2 acres or greater, etc. Velda City Deanna Jones Village Clerk 2803 Maywood Ave. 314-382-6600. fax 314-382-7988 none of city is within 100-yr floodplain, no ordinances (TB 4/12/07) Accordance with MSD Velda Village Hills Tajuana Clark Village Clerk 3501 Avondale Ave. 314-261-7221 www.veldavillaaehills-mo.00v floodplain ordinances to be mailed (TB 4/12107) none of city is within 100-yr floodplain, no ordinances (TB 4/12/07) Accordance with MSD Accordance with MSD Vinita Park Rick Murray Public Works Director 8374 Midland Blvd. 314-428-7373 Vinita Terrace Wallace Richard Public Works Director T 8005 Monroe Ave 314-427-4488 none of city is within 100-yr floodplain, clerk can check on detention ordinance next week (TB 4/12/07) Warson Woods Kathy Mahany City Clerk ' 10015 Manchester Rd. 314-965-3100 www.warsonwoods.com none of city is within 100-yr floodplain, no ordinances (TB 4/12/07) found ordinances online, printed (TB 4/12/07) message left (TB 4/12/07) Accordance with MSD Webster Groves Dennis L. Wells Public Works Director 4 E. Lockwood Ave. 314-963-5313 www.webstergroves org Accordance with MSD Wellston — Eldright White Public Works Director . 1414 Evergreen Ave. 314-553-8000 Westwood Dennis Pratte, II Village Clerk 4 Westfield Ln, 314-497-6900 www.villaoeofwestwood.com none of village is in 100-yr floodplain, village has detention requirements (TB 4/12/07) Maximum discharge of 2 cfs for 25-year frequency; use minimum 25-year frequency City has P,I, chart and table for max discharge for frequencies greater than 25- Wilbur Park Sue Schleicher Village Clerk 4832 Hershey 314-544-5420 none of village is in 100-yr floodplain, village has detention requirements (TB 4/12/07) Accordance with MSD Wildwood Ryan Thomas Public Works Director 16962 Manchester Rd. 636-458-0440 www.cit ofwildwood.cgm found ordinances online. printed (TB 4110107) Accordance with MSD Some areas of city lie outside of MSD boundary Winchester Barbara Beckett, CMC City Clerk 109 Lindy Blvd. 636 391-0600, fax 636-391-6365 floodplain ordinances received by mail (TB 4l17107} Accordance with MSD Woodson Terrace Margaret Wilson City Clerk 9351 Guthrie Ave, 314-427-2600 www woodsonterrace.net none of cit is within 100- r food lain, no ordinances TB 4112107 Accordance with MSD Outside the MSD Boundary NOTE: Information valid as of April 2007 MUNICIPALITY STORM. . ER TAX DATABASE ' T- - T' T • 1 i ;--r-1 r- MI Municipality Storm water Tax Yes/No (Yes= parks and storm unless noted otherwise) Sue 644.032 L Date Adopted RSMo) Mo ) Tax Rate None 1 - Coidwater Creek 1-A Coldwater - Wedgewood Creek 1-B Coldwater - Upper Paddock Creek 1-C Coldwater - Paddock Creek 1-D Coldwater - Fountain Creek 2 - Maline Creek 2-A Maline - BlackjacklDellwoodCreek 3 - Watkins Creek 4 - Sugar Creek 5 - Meramec River Basin (Sanitary only) 6 - Missouri River - Bonfils (Sanitary only) Q N d O I; 7-A Deer Creek -Clayton Central 7-B Deer Creek - Creve CoeuriFrontenac 7-C Deer Creek - Black Creek 8 - University City Branch RDP 12 - Wellston 14 - Shrewsbury Branch RDP 9 - Gravois Creek 14 - Loretta/Joplin 11 - North Affton 13 - Seminary Branch RDP 13-A Seminary Branch RDP - Marlborough BALLWIN yes - parks only 10/01/01 0.50°/ X X BELLA VILLA no X BELLEFONTAINE NEIGHBORS no X X X X BELLERIVE no X BEL-NOR no X X BEL-RIDGE yes 07/01/05 0 50% X BERKELEY yes 10/01/05 0.50% X X BEVERLY HILLS yes 04/01/96 0.50% X BLACK JACK no X X X X BRECKENRIDGE HILLS no X BRENTWOOD yes 04/01/98 0.50°/ X X BRIDGETON yes 04/01/98 0.50% X X X CALVERTON PARK no X X CHAMP no _ X X CHARLACK no X X _ X CHESTERFIELD yes - parks only 04/01/05 0.50% X CLARKSON VALLEY no X CLAYTON yes 10/01/97 0.50% X X X X COOL VALLEY no X COUNTRY CLUB HILLS no X COUNTRY LIFE ACRES no X X CRESTWOOD yes 01/01/01 0.50% X CREVE COEUR no X X X CRYSTAL LAKE PARK no X DELLWOOD yes 01/01/99 0.50% X X DES PERES yes - parks only 01/01/01 0.50% X X X EDMUNDSON yes 04/01/98 0.50% X ELLISVILLE yes - storm water onl 04/01/96 0 50% X X EUREKA' yes 04/01/01 0.50% X FENTON yes 04/01/97 0 50% X FERGUSON yes - parks only 04/01/05 0 50% X X X FLORDELL HILLS no X FLORISSANT yes - parks only 10/01/98 0 25% X X X X X X X FRONTENAC yes - storm water only 04/01/05 0.50% X X GLEN ECHO PARK no X "Outside the MSD Boundary NOTE. Information valid as of August 2007 Municipality Stormwater Tax (Statue Yes/No (Yes- parks and storm unless noted otherwise) 644.032 Date Adopted RSIVIo) Tax Rate o Z_ Y L 6 m Itl �j r X Cl) .a 0 3 -0} 7 `m ri -0 U - Y a) 2 U Y 0 -00 a Q D a`+ 3 -0 U m _lc d U u O -u Q. `m "' a v 9 Cl) cJ G a) 7 u_ m 3 v v o Y d 2 N c E C' Y a)G i U O o —�' Q Y tp u m C M N Y 2 U C w M Y ° U i° rn OMCI O 2' .�, CO' c N ID '_ 7 E E E u, Districts) 7 O :a C U! 4/1 .0 m v ] it _ 0 ''g Y m 2 v d I.— C U o 7. ro U .2C 2 U Cl) U ra C N O u m o Cl) dl U m E U m m m .X m U ra m a i ti Cl) a r- p ` m �+ v W > CO Y ' d U (n o ej m .E o ? g 2 o^ G .5 < S 0 r c N cv N O U m c C E rn O 9 `- "� !). - L C m Cl) G d a a p U co tD 0 o m GLENDALE yes 10/01/98 0.50D/a X - GRANTWOOD VILLAGE no X GREENDALE yes 04/01/04 0.50% X X GREENPARK no X HANLEY HILLS no X HAZELWOOD yes 04/01/02 0.50% X X X X HILLSDALE no X X HUNTLEIGH no X JENNINGS yes - parks only 01/01/06 0.50o/ X X ICINLOCH yes 10/01/05 0.50% , -. X _. KIRKWOOD yes - parks only 10/01/98 0.50% X X X X LADIJE yes - storm water only 10/01/03 0.50% X X X LAKESHIRE no X MACKENZIE no X MANCHESTER yes 10/01/01 0.50% X MAPLEWOOD yes 04/01/98 0.50% X X X MARLBOROUGH yes - storm water only 04/01/04 0.50% X X MARYLAND HEIGHTS yes 04/01/96 0.50% X X X MOLINE ACRES no X X X NORMANDY yes 07/01/05 0.50% X NORTHWOODS yes 01/01/03 0.50% X NORWOOD COURT no X OAKLAND no X OL1VETTE yes 10/01/02 0.50a/ X X X OVERLAND no X X X PACIFIC no X PAGEDALE yes 01/01/03 0.50% X X PASADENA HILLS no X PASADENA PARK no X PINE LAWN yes 10/01/98 0-50% X RICHMOND HEIGHTS yes 01/01/98 0.50% X RIVERVIEW no X ROCK HILL yes 04/01/00 0.50% X SHREWSBURY yes 01/01/97 0.50% X X X X ST. ANN yes - parks only 01/01/00 0.50% X X ST GEORGE no X ST JOHN _ yes 10/01/05 0.50% X X _ 'Outside the MSD Boundary NOTE Information valid as of August 2007 I WOODSON TERRACE I WINCHESTER I WILDWOOD WILBUR PARK WESTWOOD WELLSTON 'WEBSTER GROVES IVVARSON WOODS VIN#TA TERRACE VINITA PARK IVELDA VILLAGE HILLS IVELDA CITY VALLEY PARK UPLANDS PARK UNIVERSITY CITY TWIN OAKS TOWN AND COUNTRY SYCAMORE HILLS [SUNSET HILLS 3 a C) a co Y 0 no DM 0 0 MD 0 0 yes MMM 0 0 0 no no yes - storm water onlyi no `C N `G C. `C N no 3 O Stormwater Tax (Statue 644.032 RSMo) Yes/No (Yes= parks and storm unless Date noted otherwise) Adopted Tax Rate C7 O OO N C7 -, O O o A O_ cD 01 C3 A a- CO C7 O b- CID C p CC 0.50% I O cn 4 1,,,,' O in Q a O Gl O o O N Ui o O in O 8-- x x x xx xx x `None O 3 520 - n R vs x x 1 - Coldwater Creek 1-A Coldwater - Wedgewood Creek 1-B Coldwater - Upper Paddock Creek 1-C Coldwater • Paddock Creek 1-0 Coldwater - Fountain Creek x 2 - Maline Creek 2-A Maline - Blackjack/DellwoodCreek 3 - Watkins Creek 4 - Sugar Creek x x x x x x 5- Meramec River Basin (Sanitary only) 6 - Missouri River - Bonfils (Sanitary only) x x 7- Deer Creek i 7-A Deer Creek -Clayton Central x 7-B Deer Creek - Creve Coeur/Frontenac x 7-C Deer Creek - Black Creek x .) x x 8 - University City Branch RDP x x 9 - Gravois Creek 10 - Loretta/Joplin 11 - North Affton x 12 - Wellston x 13 - Seminary Branch RDP x 13-A Seminary Branch RDP - Marlborough 14 - Shrewsbury Branch RDP