HomeMy Public PortalAbout1986 - Stormwater Management Plan - Black & Veatch - Authorized by Ord. 10133 CITY OF JEFFERSON , MISSOURI
OF 1 E EERl
www 0
0
� N
z � o 111 ,
Q c
1825
i q g ,,,
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared for
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BIBCIC & VeBCCh
Engineers-Architects
1986
IT- Y OF JEFFERSON , MISSOURI
Of 1 E EE�t
t i rl
C
M 1 7�
1�fPM
1825
r .
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared for
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORDS
BlaCIC & Veatch
Engineers-Architects
1986
r
CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS i
r A. FINDINGS
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION I-1
A. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY I-1
B. STUDY AREA I-1
1. DRAINAGE BASINS I-2
2. TOPOGRAPHY I-2
3. LAND USE I-2
4. QUESTIONNAIRE I-2
C. HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULICS I-3
1. PRECIPITATION I-3
2.- RATIONAL METHOD I-3
3. COMPUTER MODELING I-3
a. ILLUDAS I-3
b. Other Models I-4
D. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS I-4
1. CONVEYANCE I-5
2. STORAGE I-5
3. RUNOFF REDUCTION/RETARDATION I-6
4. EROSION PROTECTION I-7
II. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES II-1
A. CURRENT OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT II-1
1. NEW DRAINAGE FACILITIES II-1
2. MAINTENANCE II-1
TC-1
i -
f
t .
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
� - Page
B. OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES II-1
1. ORGANIZATION II-2
2. FUNCTION II-3
a. Plan Review II-3
b. Inspection II-3
c. Maintenance II-3
d< Contract Maintenance II-3
e. Design II-3
A 3. BUDGET II-4
III. DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES III-1
A. CRITERIA III-1
1. DESIGN CRITERIA III-1
2. COST CRITERIA III-1
3. PRIORITY SYSTEM CRITERIA III-1
B. BOGGS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN III-2
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION III-2
2. PROPOSED PROJECTS III-2
a. Mary Street III-2
b•. Hillview Drive III-3
c. Crestwood and Eastwood Drives III-3
r d. Brookdale Drive III-3
e. 220-224'Woodridge III-3
f. 316 Fredericks Lane III-3
g. Landwehr Hills Road III-3
h. Scenic Drive III-3
i. Hutton Lane III-3
j. Woodlander III-3
k. Eastland Drive III-3
1. McCarty and Eastland III-3
m. Knabel Drive III-3
I! n: Riverview Drive III-3
o. Taylor III-4
p. Hough Street Channel III-4
q. Grant and Hough Streets III-4
r. Wilcoxon Drive III-4
s. VFW III-4
t. East McCarty West of Grant III-4
u. Grant North of McCarty III-4
-- v. Vetter Lane III-4
TC-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
{_- w. East Miller Street and Vetter Lane III-4
x. Dockery Street III-5
y. Moreland Avenue III-5
z. Miscellaneous Projects III-5
C. MOREAU RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN III-5
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION III-5
2. PROPOSED PROJECTS III-5
_ a. Notre Dame III-5
b. Brookside Boulevard III-5
c. Green Meadow Drive South of Payne III-5
d. Green Meadow Drive North of Payne III-5
e. Edgevale Road III-6
f. Brookgreen Drive III-6
g. Cimmarron Drive III-6
h. Carousel Drive III-6
i. 2319 Knight Valley Drive III-6
j . Starling Drive III-6
D. MISSOURI RIVER DRAINAGE BASINS III-7
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION III-7
2. -PROPOSED PROJECTS III-7
a. 1130 East High Street III-7
b. Benton Street III-7
c.. Capitol and Riverside Streets III-7
d. State Street III-7
E. GRAYS CREEK AND COON CREEK DRAINAGE BASINS III-8
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION III-8
2. PROPOSED PROJECTS IN GRAYS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN III-8
a. Davis Street III-8
b. Wayne Avenue III-8
c. Marilyn Drive III-8
d. Forrest Hill III-8
i e. Ridgeway Drive III-8
f. Binder Drive III-8
g. West Main Street III-8
h. Norris III-9
i. Belair at Kermac III-9
j . Twin Hills Road III-9
TC-3
r
k '
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
k. Lola-Geneva III-9
1. 726 Dean III-9
m. Dwayne Drive III-9
n. Don Ray Drive III-9
,1
3. PROPOSED PROJECTS IN COON CREEK DRAINAGE' BASIN- III-9
a. Boonville Road and Main Street III-9
b. Ella Street III-9
c. South Circle Drive III-10
z� d. East Circle Drive III-10
e. Beverly Subdivision III-10
f. Cole Drive III-10
g. 137 West Circle Drive III-10
h. Chicago Road III-10
F. EAST BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN III-10
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION III-10
2. PROPOSED PROJECTS III-11
a. Sunset Lake III-11
b. 1410 Debra Avenue I-II-12
c. Swifts Highway and Southwest Boulevard III-12
to Stadium near Myrtle
d. 1222 Carter Street III-13
e. 1225 Carter Street III-13
f. Flora Drive III-13
g. Holiday Drive III-13
h. 1324 Monroe Street III-14
i. 319-321 Case Avenue III-14
j. 212 and 214 East Ashley III-14
k. Jackson and Atchison Streets to Jefferson III-14
Street and Highway 50
- 1. Jefferson III-15
m. Dun_klin and Chestnut Streets III-15
n. East McCarty Street III-15
o. Adams Street III-15
p. Major Drive III-15
q. Isom III-15
r. Rose Valley III-15
L
Il
! TC=4
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
I
4� Page
G. NORTH BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN III-15
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION III-15
j 2. PROPOSED PROJECTS III-16
a. Oak Valley Court III-16
b. 424 Meadow Circle III-16
c. Fox Creek Road III-17
d. Sterling Price Road III-17
e. Huntleigh Place III-17
f. Huntleigh Place and Huntleigh Drive III-17
g. Schellridge East III-17
h. Industrial Road III-17'
i. West McCarty Street III-17
J . Havana Street III-17
k. Brooks Street III-18
H. FROG HOLLOW BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN III-18
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION III-18
1 2. PROPOSED PROJECTS III-18
a. Frog Hollow Road- III-18
b. 1515 Timber Trail III-19
c. Cedar Hill Road III-19
d. Oakridge Drive and Cedar Hill Road III-19
e. Buehrle and Ponderosa Drives III-20
f. Tower Drive III-20
r g. Southwest Boulevard III-20
h. Missouri Boulevard III-20
i. St. Mary's Boulevard III-21
j. Satinwood III-21
I. MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS III-22
1. CHANNEL MAINTENANCE III-22
1 2. INLETS III-22
J. SUMMARY OF COSTS III-22
4
1
TC-5
i .
I ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
IV. FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES IV-1
A. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES IV-1
1. METHODS OF FINANCING CAPITAL COSTS IV-1
�r a. Federal and State Assistance IV-1
b. Local Funding IV-2
2. METHODS OF FINANCING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS IV-5
_J
a. Taxes IV-5
b. User Charges IV-6
B. PROJECT FINANCING OPTIONS IV-9
1. OPTION 1 IV-10
a. Revenue Requirements IV-10
b. Projected Operation and Capital Projects IV-11
Financing
c. Drainage System Service Charges IV-14
2. OPTION 2 IV-19
3. OPTION 3 IV-22
4. OPTION 4 IV-25
{r�
APPENDICES
1 APPENDIX A DRAFT STORM DRAINAGE ORDINANCE
APPENDIX B STORM WATER QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARIES
-71 APPENDIX C REFERENCES
r
i
TC-6
121
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF TABLES
t Page
f
r, I-1 SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES FOR VARIOUS STUDIES FOR I-4
10-YEAR STORM
u
II-1 PROJECTED STAFFING REQUIREMENTS II-5
y II-2. PROJECTED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE II-6
,_JI
1 II-3 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS II-7
i III-1 EFFECTS OF PEAK RUNOFF - FROG HOLLOW BRANCH III-19
III-2 MISSOURI BOULEVARD PROJECTS III-21
III-3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS III-23
{� III-4 PRIORITIES OF PROPOSED PROJECTS III-27
III-5 SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, 111-31-
111-6 MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM III-33
t
IV-1 PROJECTED OPERATION AND CAPITAL PROJECTS IV-12
FINANCING - OPTION 1 - REVENUE BOND FINANCING
i
IV-1A PROJECTED OPERATION AND CAPITAL PROJECTS IV-15
FINANCING - OPTION 1A - REVENUE BOND FINANCING
IV-2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALLOCATION UNITS IV-17
IV-3 ALLOCATION OF COST OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMER CLASSES IV-18
OPTION 1 - REVENUE BOND• FINANCING
IV-4 PROJECTED OPERATION AND CAPITAL PROJECTS FINANCING IV-21
OPTION 2 - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FINANCING
WITH NO GENERAL FUND SUPPORT
IV-5 ALLOCATION OF COST OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMER CLASSES IV-23
OPTION 2 - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND- FINANCING
WITH NO GENERAL FUND SUPPORT
it
TC-7
4
E
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
IV-6 PROJECTED OPERATION AND CAPITAL PROJECTS FINANCING IV-24
OPTION 3 - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FINANCING
WITH SOME GENERAL FUND SUPPORT
c. IV-7 ALLOCATION OF COST OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMER CLASSES IV-26
OPTION 3 - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FINANCING
WITH SOME GENERAL FUND SUPPORT
r--
IV-8 PROJECTED OPERATION AND CAPITAL PROJECTS FINANCING IV-27
c. OPTION 4 - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FINANCING WITH
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR ALL DEBT SERVICE
IV=9 ALLOCATION OF COST OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMER CLASSES IV-28
OPTION 4 - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FINANCING WITH
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR ALL DEBT SERVICE
l
IV-10 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY IV-30
RESIDENTIAL RATE LEVELS FOR STORMWATER SERVICE
1
1
r
77
TC-8
n
� t4
I
( F
=-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF FIGURES
f
a .a
Following Page
I-1 STUDY AREA I-2
I-2 RAINFALL INTENSITY-DURATION-FREQUENCY CURVES I-3
' II-1
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART WITH STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY II-2
III-1 BOGGS CREEK EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES III-2
L.J
III-2 BOGGS CREEK IMPROVEMENTS III-5
III-3 EAST BRANCH, MOREAU RIVER, MISSOURI RIVER EXISTING III-5
DRAINAGE FACILITIES
III-4 EAST BRANCH, MOREAU RIVER, MISSOURI RIVER IMPROVEMENTS III-7
III-5 GRAYS AND COON CREEK EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES III-8
bf�r
L �
III-6 GRAYS CREEK IMPROVEMENTS - III-9
III-7 COON CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS III-10
III-8 STADIUM IMPROVEMENTS III-13
III-9 JACKSON-ATCHISON-IMPROVEMENTS III-14
4 '
1
III-10 NORTH BRANCH EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES III-16
r III-11 NORTH BRANCH IMPROVEMENTS III-18
III-12 FROG HOLLOW BRANCH EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES III-18
't
n III-13 FROG HOLLOW DETENTION FACILITIES I1I-19
4`
' III-14 SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS III-20
-z
III-15 FROG HOLLOW IMPROVEMENTS III-21
r
? TC-9
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A A. FINDINGS
1. The Department of Public Works does not have sufficient funds
allocated for storm drainage to adequately maintain the system.
2. The drainage system, in many locations, does not have sufficient
capacity to carry a 10-year storm.
y�. 3. In some areas, corrugated metal pipe has been badly eroded.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
1.' It is recommended that a stormwater utility be created to
operate and manage the stormwater facilities. The utility
should ultimately be staffed as shown on Figure II-1. The
concept of contract maintenance should be utilized to minimize
staff requirements.
2. Maintenance of' all storm drains, including drains on private
property, should be provided by the utility. Maintenance of
t drains on private property should not begin until proper
easements have been obtained. In order to avoid piecemeal_
maintenance, easements should be obtained for a complete block
' before the utility assumes its responsibilities.
3. Maintenance equipment should be purchased as shown on Table
II-3.
r 4. The construction projects shown on Table III-5 should be
completed over the next 5 years.
5. The utility should be financed by user fees as shown on Table
v-3.
-
r
jJ! 1
r.
f .
1
r
cL-
I "
r
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The City of Jefferson has been- aware of the need to set goals and
objectiv s for the control of stormwater since at least 1963.
r "Realizing comprehensive drainage planning is required to
achieve the goals and objectives of an urban region, the
j City desires to undertake a storm water study which will
contribute to the community-wide planning process. The
City was aware of the importance of this need as early as
1963 when the last major stud effort was
_ , � y published; how-
ever, ,since then, little has been accomplished- towards the
goals set forth at that time. It is our intent to reini-
tiate this effort and to vigorously pursue implementation
of the resultant study which will contribute to the over-
all quality of life for City residents. It is our intent
to develop a comprehensive study that will not only be
( . used for long range planning but will also be a detailed
plan which will be utilized on a regular basis by City
staff."
The it then contracted Black & Veatch to
City perform a Stormwa-ter
Management Study that included the following major tasks:
1. Inventory and evaluate the •storm drainage facilities in the City.
2. resent a listing of improvements needed.
3. Review and recommend financial alternatives to implement the
recommended improvements.
4. Develop a stormwater ordinance to ensure that future development will
of create further problems.
^� 5. Develop design standards and design aids for use by developers and
ity staff.
r The end products of the study are this report, a Storm Drainage Design
Manual, stormwater facilities atlas, and a draft stormwater ordinance.
B. STUDY AREA
The City of Jefferson is located in Cole County near the center of the
state. The total area of the City is approximately 24 square miles-.
r
s
r_
" I
; i
i `t
f
7
1. DRAINAGE BASINS. There are six drainage basins within the City limits
which are shown on Figure I-1, and are named as follows:
o Wears Creek - North, East, and Frog Hollow (portion) Branches
o Gays Creek (portion)
o Con Creek
o Moreau River (portion)
a o Boggs Creek
o Missouri River (portion)
Except for the areas tributary to the Moreau River, the drainage is
generally northerly to the Missouri River.
2. TOPOGRAPHY. The relief in the area is hilly with soils of low
permeability. These conditions create high runoff and flash flooding with
this type of topography. The runoff coefficients are high and the time of
concentration is low. As a result, homes and streets in low lying areas are
susceptible to flooding.
3. LAND USE. Existing and future land uses were employed in making
hydraulic assessments of the drainage facilities. Future land use projections
are taken from current zoning maps provided by the Planning Department. These
maps are an extension of the land use plan developed_-in 1978 as part of the
City's Co prehensive Plan. Full development under zoning was assumed.
Existing; and use was determined. from aerial photographs taken in December.
j' 1980. Since the majority_ of the Frog Hollow Branch is outside the City
limits, a determination of expected land use was needed. Based on current
growth patterns, anticipated major road arterials and planning staff input.
4.- Q STIONNAIRE. A questionnaire was distributed to the citizens of the
City at tie onset of the project. The questionnaire was intended to locate
chronic- stormwater problems and determine attitudes towards
., p paying a monthly
' charge to correct stormwater related problems. Over 200 questionnaires were
returned. They revealed many stormwater problems. During the study, each
questionnaire response was field checked and corrective measures noted for
_ - inclusion in the plan.
The questionnaire revealed many problems not previously reported to the
City staff. Questions were also directed towards sanitary sewer problems. A
I-2
1 - I 3811913
SNISV8 3SVNIV2:10
IanoSSIW `NOS2:13333r 30 .l119
031VN91S30Nfl
r
113360
S99O8
� I
f_�
L
83A11,1
Ali V11 N311N3d)
6 NMOlNM00
N 33 e.i
S 1V3 M
lsti3
H3y21D
S21V3M
N3380
>13383
S2JV3M
NlifON
)13321J
SAV89
i
A 1.
listing cf sanitary sewer. problems was compiled and provided to the-Director
of Public Works and the Sanitary Utilities Supervisor.
C. HYDR LOGY/HYDRAULICS
1. RECIPITATION. There is currently insufficient rainfall data in the
City to (etermine historical rainfall events, and rainfall intensity curves
were dev loped by the use of the U.S. Weather Bureau Technical Paper No.
40,2. T esee- curves are shown on Figure I-2. Intensities from curves
are list d in tabular form the Storm Drainage Design Manual.
2. TIONAL METHOD. The Rational Method is the most commonly used
rainfall runoff method in urban hydrology in the United States. The Rational
Method formula is usually expressed as:
�r Q = ciA
-, where Q s the peak rate of runoff in cubic feet per second (cfs); "C" is the
dimensionless runoff coefficient representing that fraction of rainfall that
appears s surface runoff from the tributary area; "i" is the rainfall
intensitr in inches per hour for a duration equal to the time of
concentr tion; and "A" is the tributary area in acres.
The ational Method was used to calculate peak flow in the upper reaches
E ,
of each rainage basin.
3. OMPUTER MODELING
a. LLUDAS. The Illinois Urban Drainage Area Simulator (ILLUDAS)
model was used to model streams where the contributing drainage area exceeded
1, 300-400 acres. ILLUDAS uses a storm hyetograph and physical basin parameters
to predict stormwater runoff hydrographs from both pervious and impervious
areas. rhe model provides an objective method for the hydrologic design and
s
evaluatipn of storm drainage systems in urban areas. ILLUDAS can be used to
4 analyze Istormwater flow patterns for developed and undeveloped areas, existing
or proposed stormwater systems, and systems with or without detention storage
capability. The model can be used to determine the peak discharge (as well as
�4 the runoff hydrograph) with or without storage and can conversely be used to
determine the storage required to control downstream discharge to some
predetermined limit in any given reach.
1
1! r
I-3
I
r-(
f�Y
BLACK 9 VEATCH, 1984
� I
�J
'I
I �
O
Z
W
T N SO kR
RM RETURN INTERVAL-
c'S
z
/0
z S
} I.
1 0.�9
Os
W 07
4
z 06
1 J
j ti a 05
z 04
ir
03
-y 02
.1
G 5 10 15 20 30 40 5060 2 3 4 5 6 7 6910 12 18 24
MINUTES HOURS
DURATION
lu
i
CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
LI
RAINFALL INTENSITY - DURATION - FREQUENCY CURVES
FIGURE I-2
'1
c�—'�
� "
h��s
1 I
8_ _1
'G—�
�� k
�,
� �
:�
'� �
,�—�
� i
� d
j'i �
r
1
1 �
�>
,�t.
�'�.
�_ ,
r(
l� �.
�>
4
i
`�+
�--�
—�
,�
� 14
-r
i' For u e on this study two types of computer analyses were made:
o Routing all flow through channels.
o Sane as above but restricted discharge in subbasins where detention is
po sible.
1 \� b. Other Models. There have been several studies conducted on the
streams ia the City of Jefferson using the HEC-1 and HEC-2 computer models
developed by the Corps of Engineers in Davis, California. HEC-1 was used
-r to develop hydrographs, and HEC-2 was used to determine the water surface
profiles. Recently, the Corps of Engineers studied Wears Creek using the
SWMM model. This modeling was developed using existing land use. ILLUDAS
values were higher due to the increased urbanization in the North Branch and
r
Frog Hollow drainage areas. The East Branch discharge was lower than the SWMM
value since detention at Sunset Lake was not considered in the SWMM study.
Discharges produced by the three studies are shown in Table I-1.
Li
� i
TABLE I-1
SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES FOR VARIOUS STUDIES FOR 10-YEAR STORM
HEC-1 SWMM ILLUDAS
Wears- Creek Flood Study 1978 COE 1984 Current- Study
cfs cfs cfs
Frog Hol ow, Branch at 3100 2720 3240
Southwes Boulevard
} East Branch at Dunklin St. 1100 1710 1620
t
North Branch 3000 ft. 1100 1340 1770
Upstream of Dix Road
r
D. DESI N CONSIDERATIONS
.;JA principal objective of stormwater management is to
prevent or
systematically reduce flooding and erosion. This can be done by conveying the
i �
stormwat r to natural watercourses as quickly as possible; by storing the
runoff f r later controlled release; by reducing/retarding the flow of the
stormwat r; or by construction of erosion protection facilities.
I-4
f �
d
F uc
I
1. ONVEYANCE. Urban stormwater runoff is usually conveyed in one or
— more of 1he following ways:
o 0 erland flow.
o Gassed swales.
o Uimproved ditches.
o P:ved ditches.
o Street gutters.
o Pipes of various shapes and materials.
o B�x culverts, usually of cast-in-place concrete.
o Natural streams and rivers.
In t e City of Jefferson, deep drainage courses with steep sides are
i— common. These drar- eu-s�ualYl =have amius � _ _ , le carrying capacity, except
there de- elopment hasren_croached�on the floodway. In general, the practice of
conveyin storm flows to the nearest natural drainage course should be con-
tinued, while adhering to the design standard developed in this study. The
�J
draft stormwater ordinance proposes conditions for new development which
will les en flooding of buildings and minimize erosion.
Due to existing development and steep topography, direct conveyance of
i
stormwater runoff in most areas is generally the only reasonable alternative.
As a result, many of the recommended improvements are limited to conveyance
F
alternatves.
2. tTORAGE. Storage of stormwater can often be an effective, economical
componen of stormwater management. Storage of excess storm runoff is a
widely u ed method of peak flow attenuation. Under certain conditions,
storage an reduce peak runoff rates, reduce downstream flooding and erosion,
and prov. a aesthetic and recreational benefits.
Although the volume of runoff is not reduced, the flow is distributed over
a longer period of time, reducing peak flows into downstream drainage
channels.
Othe viable storage options include:
o Gassed, paved, or natural basins.
o R inforced concrete retention tanks.
o D pressed parking areas with restricted outflow.
o A tificial aquifers.
o C ncrete vaults, cisterns, or large diameter pipes beneath
p rking lots, streets, or open land.
J
I I-5
i�
A7 3
i '
( l
Significant storage can often be developed in low lying grassed sports
fields, playgrounds, or parks, where temporary flooding would not cause
substantial inconvenience. This is usually accomplished by constructing
y' outflow control structures to constrict runoff. It might be necessary to
i provide underdrains to ensure that the area dries out rapidly after a storm so
its designated use can be resumed.
- '
Storage on parking lots can be provided by grading to include a series of
depressions or by curbs constructed across the contour. This form of storage
is feasi le in flat areas which are generally zoned industrial.
I
The artificial aquifer is an innovative concept that can compete
economically with underground reinforced concrete basin storage. In this
l concept, a basin is excavated and filled with rock; the voids provide the
storage olume. The rock is covered with a carefully y graded gravel filter;
i
the surface can then be used for parking or as a sports field. A small
diameter pipe drains stored flow back to the stormwater conduit after the
storm.
Storage on curbed streets can be provided by reducing the capacity of
inlets. However, due to the topography, this form of- storage was not
yconsiderd.
3. :UNOFF REDUCTION/RETARDATION. Although there are several forms of
runoff reduction and runoff retardation, these methods of controlling
stormwat r were not considered in the determination of subbasin runoff.
Various lternatives for reducing or retarding runoff are shown below.
R noff Reduction
i o Gavel roads and paths instead of paved surfaces.
o Gassed or rock inverts to ditches, rather than paved surfaces.
o G assed or gravel slopes in lieu of paved banks.
o P rforated reinforced concrete or asphalt pavement, or "grass paver"
type slabs for parking and emergency roads.
o Routing peak flows over previous terrain.
I-6
f
{
r
r
�j
Runoff Retardation
r ,
o Maximizing overland flow of stormwater before it reaches
? gutters or pipes.
o Providing checks in ditches and drops in conduits, to flatten grade.
o P oviding rough inverts, such as grass or rubble, in open ditches.
o DLerting flow around steep embankments.
o- Pviding grassy strips on parking lots.
4. OSION PROTECTION. Erosion is the dislodgement of soil from its
} original location and conveyance by.rapidly moving water. The Stormwater
Design M nual provides the criteria for bank protection as a function of water
' velocity versus vegetative cover and soil type. The following methods
�4 are also available for erosion control.
o R duce velocity of watercourse by alteration of hydraulic .profile.
o Provide artificial slope protection (gabions, revetment, concrete
1 ning).
o El LUOSe watercourse.
{
F - -
I
i
{ V
1
�J
I 1
f ;
f
j ! I-7
1
l l
i
CHAPTER I - MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
A. CURRENT OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
!- + The urrent operation and management of the storm drainage facilities are
IL' the resp nsibilities of the Director of Public Works. Under his direction,
the Engineering Supervisor prepares plans and specifications for new drainage
faciliti s, and the Street Superintendent maintains the existing drainage
system. There is currently limited manpower for effective storm drainage
review of new developments and few ordinances provide for such services.
r 1. NEW DRAINAGE FACILITIES. The Engineering Supervisor designs public
} works pr jects. These projects include roads, sanitary sewers', storm sewers,
_ > etc. Wo king under the Engineering Supervisor are surveyors, designers,
inspecto s, and technicians. For most "in-house" projects, the City performs
' the sury ging, design and inspection. Under the current cost accounting
system, he time charges are not separated into various work categories.
i
Due o lack of man ower and enabling ordinances, storm draina a in new
evelo m nts receives limirPrl rep;pw As a result, new developments sometimes
-� create s ormwater problems, both within the development and downstream.
!
Additional review- Der 'n De artment are needed.
2. MAINTENANCE. The Street Superintendent maintains the existing
drainage system with limited success. Having budget and manpower constraints,
the Publ c Works bepartment maintains the drainage system on a complaint basis
with limited preventive or routine maintenance. Some replacement of inlets
and culverts is done on an "as needed" basis. Approximately 3 man-years are
currentlallocated toward maintenance and minor replacement. To maintain the
drainage system adequately, additional equipment, people and materials are
-�-
needed.
J
B. OPETION AND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
!
Seveal alternatives for operating and managing the stormwater system were
reviewed. The most appropriate method for operation and management is to
create a stormwater utility (Enterprise). The utility would be established,
L
1"
F
4
{r
i
r {
il,--J
and a sub equent vote on a user charge system would provide the financing.
1 The legal and financial aspects of the utility are described in Chapter IV.
Ly In this s ction the organization's function and expenses of the recommended
stormwatec utility are described.
1. RGANIZATION. Expanded engineering and street departments would be
the most appropriate organizational structure for operating and- managing a
f
stormwater utility. The suggested organization is shown on Figure II-1.
The figure shows additional manpower requirements for design, surveying,
i
inspection and plan review. It also shows the creation of_ a stormwater
c ,
construction and maintenance section in the street department.
-t Phas d staffing of the utility functions is recommended. Initially, the
City shou d create a new engineer position under the Engineering Supervisor.
The assig ed engineer would check new private development plans for compliance
1
with the Stormwater Design Manual and the stormwater codes. The Department of
Planning and Code Enforcement would cover the stormwater ordinance require-
ments in their plan review.
Having developed guidelines for new construction, emphasis should be given
4 to the establishment of a minimum stormwater maintenance crew. This crew
would be fully dedicated to performing routine maintenance and emergency
repairs. The crew would start with a supervisor, operator and maintenance
worker. As work increases, the crew would be expanded to five.
As the City operates in this mode for a few years, the utility could be
completely staffed to provide all services. However, at that time, the
feasibility of contract maintenance should be evaluated in lieu of creating
the Seco d maintenance crew.
i One crew is needed for routine cleaning of conduits and other routine
maintenance throughout the year on a continual basis. The second crew would
undertak a more seasonal role in creek maintenance and other preventive type •
work.
Witt. increased staffing for design, inspection and maintenance, the
utility would be able to operate and manage the storm drainage facilities.
II-2
4�
f ` BLACK 6 VEATCH, 1984
,J
Li
!l DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
f 1
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS (10%)
i
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY (10%)
SECRETARY (10%)
(20%) STREET FTEWATER UTILITIES ENGINEERING (25%)
UPERINTENDENT PERINTENDENT SUPERVISOR
� f
�j
.- CIVIL.. -ENGINEER I (50%)
TRAFFIC ND STREET
SPECIAL SE VICES CONSTRUCTION
SUPERVI OR a MAINTENANCE
1 SUPERVISOR
r
DESIGN SURVEYING
I DESIGNER I TECH 17
I TECH III a_TECH III
STORM. WATER
CONSTRUCTION a MAINTENANCE I TECH II I TECH I
1 SUPERVISOR* I TECH 11* I TECH I*
,—i
_FUTURE
INSPECTION
.I SUPERVISOR* ` I ,SUPERVISOR* I SR INSPECTOR (5%)
I 'OPERATOR i OPERATOR* 2 TECH III
I
' 1,, MAINT, [1* 1 MAINT. 11 y� I TECH II
2 MAIWT. 1* Z MAINT:: I* i TECH II
I `
� CD NEW POSITION
! J * WORKING FULL TIME ON DRAINAGE UTILITY
(10% WORKING PART TIME ON DRAINAGE UTILITY
Y
I__.J J
t
1 CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
' ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
WITH STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY
FIGURE .II— I
� I
similaro the role of the wastewater utility.
2. F CTION. The stormwater utility eventually would have the responsi-
bility o all stormwater related activities.
1 a. Plan Review. Under the Engineering Supervisor, all plans and
specifications prepared for storm drainage facilities would be reviewed in
accordance with the Stormwater Design Manual, stormwater regulations, and
other related codes adopted by the City.
5�
b. Inspection. Under the Engineering Supervisor, each construction
j project for drainage facilities would have an assigned inspector.
c. Maintenance. Under the Street Superintendent, one fully staffed
crew would provide routine maintenance, emergency repairs, preventive
maintenance and minor drainage improvements. Street sweeping would remain
with the street maintenance crews though possibly increased in operation.
d. Contract Maintenance. As an alternative to employing the second City
crew, ma ntainance of ditches and drains could be awarded to private
contract rs: This alternative has the advantage that year-round staff would
not be r quired to cope with seasonal problems. The disadvantage is lack of
! direct c ntrol. Careful forethought would be required to ensure that the
maintena ce contract clearly stipulates the requirements. In addition to such
routine tasks as mowing and brush cutting, special work such as inlet
4
replacement, reseeding, mulching, or fertilizing could be included. The
J
contract could include hourly costs for personnel and equipment to assist in
emergenc work, such as clearing logs and brush from creeks and culverts
during or immediately after a storm.
The contract maintenance concept has been very successfully employed by a
large De ver urban drainage district.3 The responsibility of the district's
staff was purely to administer the program, with no field maintenance staff or
equipment.
e. Design. The Engineering Supervisor would continue to design public
I works projects. However, time could be allocated to the design of stormwater
facilities and charged to the stormwater utility.
II-3
7J
i_J
3. IUDGET. The organization as described above requires personnel,
equipmeni and materials to operate. A budget was developed based on the
anticipa ed operation and management expenses of the stormwater utility for
the firsfive years of operation.
Tabl s II-1, II-2 and II-3 show the projected staffing requirements,
operatior and maintenance expense, and equipment requirements.
} The largest portion of operation and management expenses is related to the
staffing requirements of the storm drainage utility as shown in Table II-2.
r Costs for maintenance are also a major expense. Equipment to be purchased
for the first maintenance crew is as follows:
i Z
0 0 e backhoe.
o 0 e 10 ton tilt top trailer.
o One 1 ton pickup truck.
o 0 e 5 yard dump truck.
t o O e air compressor and generator.
o Miscellaneous handtools (chain saws, axes, shovels, etc.).
1 '
Additionally, the City could purchase a truck mounted crane and
flusher-vacuum truck as major equipment to be financed with bond funds.
As the maintenance staff increases and services are expanded, additional
equipment will be needed. Some of the equipment will be a portable welder,
'
jackhammer, drill, ropes, another pickup truck and another backhoe (Table
II-2). A four bay garage with offices would be required to house most of the
r
equipmen .
In a dition, the projected operation and management expenses include
materialg and supplies, fleet maintenance, office expenses, an allowance for
general Eund overhead, and capital additions funded from revenues. The
General and Overhead is an allowance for expenses related to the City
f
Council, City Administrator, finance, accounting, billing and collection, and
other City personnel costs. Capital additions are primarily equipment and
vehicles purchased from current revenues and are based on the anticipated
t�
equipment requirements of the storm drainage utility.
The projected total annual budget amounts are shown on the last line of
Table 11-2 and range from $234,700 to $375,100.
i
f
II-4
i '
i TA131 II-1
PRaJE= STMMU RFqTIIMT1S
Equivalent Rill Time Position
s
Fiscal Year Ending October 31,
Pos�tion 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Administrative & Engineering:
Diretor of Public Works 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
-� Administrative Secretary 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
ySecretary 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Engineering Supervisor 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
ci Engineer 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
r Inspector 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Te ian 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Str t Superintendent 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.20
Stoxnwater Construction and
Kintenance Supervisor - - 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sub tal 3.20 3.20 4.30 4.30 4.30
Operat Persocmel
Su �rvisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Opetator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
� I
maintenance Worker 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
Sub otal 3.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.00
Total ersoimel 6.20 6.20 8.30 9.30 9.30
II-5
_f
i '
Table II-2
PRQ]F= OPERATION AND MAIRIENANCE EXPENSE
t�
Fiscal Year Ending October 31,
Line
No. 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
j 1
Personal Services:
�Y 1 Administration and Engineering 65,200 68,800 98,000 103,000 108,000
2 rating Crews 49,200 51,900 70,600 90,900 95,500
b
3 lary Overheads (309) 34,300 36,200 50,600 58,200 61,100
4 total 148,700 156,900 219,200 252,100 264,600
J
5 Materials and Supplies 25,000 26,300 27,600 28,900 30,500
6 Vehcle Maintenance 11,000 14,600 17,600 18,500 19,200
7 ral Office Egmm 8,000 8,400 8,800 9,300 9,700
-' 8 Accounting, Billing and Collection 42,000 44,100 46,300 48,600 51,100
9 To Operation and Maintenance Expense 234,700 250,300 319,500 357,400 375,100
f
L,
r ,
t
I '
i
5
1
+J II-6
1
i
I
(�1 `
f
TABLE 11-3
BQUI IMM RB DUN Qf IS
Line Fiscal Year Ending October 31,
No. Item 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total
$1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
1 Lckboe 45.0 - - - 45.0
2 10 Ton Tilt Top Trailer - - - 4.0 - 4.0
3 *kup - One Ton 10.0 - - - - 10.0
4 Truck Mounted Crane (a) - - - 80.0 - 80.0
5 lIump Tuck - 30.0 - - - 30.0
6 lusher - Vacuum Truck (a) - - 50.0 - - 50.0
-' 7 Mr Compressor - 12.0
12.0
8 Generator - 1.2 - - - 1.2
9 1 ffscellaneous Equipment 4.0 - - 4.0 - 8.0
10 total Equipment 59.0 43.2 50.0 88.0 0.0 240.2
11 ss: Items to be Financed
vith Bond Funds (b) 0.0 0.0 50.0 80.0 0.0 130.0
12 total 59.0 43.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 110.2
13 Cost Escalation Factor 1.05 1.1 1.16 1.22 1.28
14 calated Cost 62.0 48.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 120.0
(a) On half of Cost Assumed to be Financed by Sewer Utility.
(b) Inc odes Truck Mounted Crane and Flusher - Vacuum Truck,
II-7
S 4
CHAPTER III - DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES
A. CRITERIA
1. ESIGN CRITERIA. The existing facilities were analyzed for a 10-year
design s orm using the Rational Method or the ILLUDAS simulation model.
Additional deficiencies were found from the stormwater questionnaires and
interviews with City staff. Where possible, all new drains were designed to
maintain a minimum velocity of 3 feet per second and a maximum of 15 feet per
second w en flowing full. The minimum pipe diameter used was 18 inch CMP or
15- inch 1CP. CMP was considered only for culverts. All other design criteria
are cont fined in the Design Manual.
The drainage improvements were based primarily on existing contour maps
providedby the City. In some instances surveying was performed to obtain a
better a aluation of selected existing facilities. Before implementation of
drainage improvements, detailed topographic surveys should be- obtained. In
certain reas, where a parallel drain is suggested, the structural condition
of the- existing drain should be re-evaluated before the parallel drain ,is
designed since it may be desirable to abandon the existing drain.
2. OST CRITERIA. Construction costs are indexed to October 1984.
Total im rovement costs include 10 percent for engineering, legal, and
administ7ative expenses and a further 15 percent for contingencies. Inflation
allowanc s are included in the financing plan presented in Chapter IV. The
cost for acquisition of easements has not been included. Costs were not
develope for future projects nor for projects involving other agencies, such
as the S ate- Highway -Department.
�v 3. RIORITY SYSTEM CRITERIA. To develop a 5-year improvement plan, each
project was classified as either high, moderate, or low priority.
L For i project to be judged high priority, the problem to be corrected has
one or more of the following characteristics:
o P. tential high dollar property damage.
o P tential• traffic interruption on key arteries.
s
o P tential impact, on a large number of people.
o- Oa the City's present priority list.
f � -
III-1
!. For a project to be called low priority, the problem to be corrected
satisfies all of the following criteria:
o N gligible or minor potential property damage.
o F w people potentially affected.
o Nc potential traffic interruption.
Projects which .cannot be categorized as High or Low Priority are placed in.
the mode ate priority group.
i -
High and moderate priority projects have been ranked in order of relative
importan e. The rankings are acknowledged to be somewhat subjective. The
rankings were made without regard to jurisdictional responsibilities, or
potential funding sources; therefore, they provide an unbiased priority list.
It is al
o recognized that, as these proposed projects are further evaluated,
factors as funding and easement acquisition will strongly influence final
implementation.
' B. BOG0 CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
- 1. ENERAL DESCRIPTION. Boggs Creek is located on the east side of the
City gen rally east of Riverview and Moreau Drives and north of Seven Hills
Road. Tie watershed is developed in areas north of McCarty Street and the
area west of Cardinal. Much of the watershed is undeveloped. Zoning is
primaril single family residential with areas of commercial and multiple
family dwellings. The existing commercial/industrial properties are along
McCarty 3treet with Planned Urban Development (PUD) at 1 Elm and south of
Highway 50.
The majority of the drainage system is unimproved open watercourses.
Stormwat r problems in the area are generally flooding caused by undersized
road culverts, and erosion problems in the area are encountered generally at
' the discharge of the storm drains and culverts. Figure III-1 shows the
existing drainage facilities in the Boggs Creek drainage basin.
2. PROPOSED PROJECTS
�J a. ary Street. The existing drain under Mary Street is undersized. A
i 15 inch CP with inlets will reduce the flooding at 2926 Hillview Drive. The
new drai should be connected to the existing drain on the downstream side of
7 the str et.
III-2
- — - -- -- - -- - -- -
\ BLACK 8 VEATCH, 1984
A s qq� \
r MISSOURI RIVER \
WATERSHED
Al a \\
5" T �• "IVAN 0
P
p 12" 4 30
11
•4 F 12E „N
0JG5'cb 2
!?' ��. k4 F3 15" G i.• WARDS ST
w \. R�vF
�
o0 1 ON O� DBUBLE 9'H x 9'W
h 24' 18 Q. ) 2� C19NC. BOX -
F Jy 0 27'�0� ti• 24�P w I� a � y Gq f f
7 v c J }q Gt 2 24"= `� Y S TO 30" Rff RD.
9� BO E. ,McW,, ST.
p O 10 x 10
CONC. BOXN H z 3'W a J 12 o Q'
OP •00 00�`� ��F!12 S 9pf z NC. BOX �j O
z a
44 x
0 CONC. BO p COU/ 3
_g' ,F- 4" 30' TWIN x II'W S o
�1 15" o CONC. X ! 6'H x 4'W Q it
C f f 12�, 21' 27 OQ, w O C. BOX MO
a ST 42" 4.5 x 5.5 BOX IB \O
z T
a m36" 12
249/2 18' BETWEEN INLETS
12 " 18 x 4'W J� A FS 18' 60" UNDER ROAD
a: 21" SON 50� CO BOX ( Rd
0 OSA ELMERINE o 63 2
NES v P� JOE �4'H x 9 F.
0P c, C y� N ,Q 4 T CU T
�
� (2 tV 1n0�.18' c 5 COU!
30' S °P C NC. BOX o
4ORECA �—El CERRITO
cyiNv c�9CL � 0 �" W
�O 2.3'x 4' 9!O DEL CER 0 DR. CT 4'H BO /i Tedi c�9T TCH 60 / D'P< v o Q S m
BOX °O 6F
4 u�( O� 9 9FF ON 5(. v 0 owe o MID Y 9 31
G4 1B" O �P gyp.
P�y00 y `r V 1B„ y� r �! o N�tj 0 24,3 m CRE WOOD TOWnP P OP
� A LG
O
50 tip 18 qA -�
� ¢ S o 0
`Q Rp 15„ 0 18„ /f IV �W��y
6" pR. vNG � RIDGEMOUNT O� q
\\ Pp 0" � o HILL I E W OR Oe/2S0
5� BOGGS CREEK o �P 2
8" 3
x SEVEN HILL SCHOTT SKY \� Q A vL
MOREAU RIVER
c� z \��� ��\,` 50 63 °9
P\
C w
;ar1i Ir
rn
CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI _
BOGGS CREEK
EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
i�
I
b. Eillview Drive. The existing drainage channel at Mary Street should
be enclosed and connected to the sewers east and west of the channel. The
channelfrom' the enclosure to 232 Mary Street should be widened and redefined.
c.'_ Crestwood and Eastwood Drives. New catch basins and a drain should
be installed from the intersection to reduce flow to the cul-de-sac.
d. Erookdale Drive. Under future conditions, an additional 42 inch RCP
will be zequired. An alternative would be to use the corner property at
`
BrookdAle and McCarty -for storage. Site grading would be required.
e. 20-224 Woodridge. Bank erosion is occuring. Both banks should
- be protected with a triple tier gabion wall.
f. 16 ,Fredericks Lane. The existing drain is undersized and should be
i
replaced with a 30 inch RCP.
g. Mandwehr Hills Road. Under future conditions, an additional 48 inch
RCP should be required to. prevent flooding of the road. Some portions of the
field east of Landwehr Hills Road may experience flooding.
h. Scenic Drive. Under future conditions, the existing creek enclosure
will be insufficient, and an additional 8 foot x 6 foot box will be required.
Storage 1pstream (south of Highway 50) was investigated and found ineffective.
The purchase of homes may provide an economical solution.
i. Hutton Lane. The existing culvert is undersized and an additional
42 inch RCP culvert should be installed.
j. Woodlander. The existing culvert is undersized. However, there is
} minimal raffic and a 10-year storm would not flood homes. A 21 inch RCP
culvert ould be required, with a probable cost of $7,000.
k. ,Eastland Drive. Under future conditions, an additional 15 foot by
8 foot box may be required.
1. ]4cCarty and Eastland. Due to potential flooding, construction should
be restr'cted on the southwest corner of McCarty and Eastland Drive.
M. aebel- Lane. The existing .drain is undersized and an additional
18 inch ICP should be installed.
n. liverview Drive. The existing drain is undersized and an additional
21 inch RCP should be installed.
_- III-3
o. Taylor. Sheet flow at the alley should be redirected by construc-
tion of a concrete dish gutter- and berm from Hough Street to the creek. The
culvert under Taylor should be paralleled with a 36 inch RCP.
p. Bough Street Channel. The open channel south of Hough Street should
be selectively reshaped and lined. Gabion construction on the north bank is
recommended. A 20 foot high retaining wall should be built at 101 Lincoln and
i the channel at 98 Lincoln relocated. Purchase of vacant property will be
required for the channel relocation. -
q. Grant and Hough Streets. Under future conditions, the double box
culvert under Grant Street will need to be paralleled with an additional
9 foot by 6 foot box.
r. Wilcoxon Drive. The existing sewer along the back of the south
properti s of Wilcoxon is undersized. Lincoln Avenue floods since there is
inadequa a drainage on Wilcoxon. A parallel 24 inch RCP should be constructed
with lat rals intercepting street drainage on Wilcoxon. This drain should
provide relief behind Wilcoxon with runoff diverted from the Wilcoxon and
Lincoln ntersection.
f ! s. ;FW. The drainage from the VFW parking lot needs to be collected,
and a diersion channel should be constructed to direct the sheet flow away
from thelast
properties behind the VFW and the area west.
r f -
t. McCarty West of Grant. Under future conditions, an additional
12.5 foo by 10 foot box will be required.
u. Grant North of McCarty. The existing culvert under Grant Street
north of McCarty is undersized and should be replaced with a 36 inch RCP.
V. etter Lane. Sheet flow from Church Street should be diverted by a
small co crete channel along the back property lines extending to the alley.
The alle from Church Street to Vetter Lane should be paved and 8 inch curbing
installel to prevent runoff to the properties on East Miller. Alley runoff
should M conveyed to the new drain in a storm drain.
w. East Miller Street and Vetter Lane. The existing sewer is undersized
and should be replaced with a 36 inch RCP.
+ III-4
I
i
x. D cker Street. The existing 30 inch drain is undersized and a
24 inch P relief should be added.
y. oreland Avenue'. The existing box culvert is undersized, and an
addition 1 8.5 foot by 2.5 foot box should be constructed.
Z. iscellaneous Projects. There are several projects throughout the
drainage basin that would reduce erosion and flooding. Drains should be
extended to the rear of the lots at 253 Eastwood Drive, 203 Fredericks Lane,
324 Land ehr Hills and 321 Carl. An additional inlet should be constructed at
812 Houc in Street. The drain north of the Eastwood cul-de-sac should be
replaced.
- � Figu a III-2 indicates the locations of the proposed facilities.
C. MOREAU RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION. A portion of the City south of Ellis Boulevard
drains south to the Moreau River. The drainage basin is sparsely populated.
Land use is primarily residential except for Hough Park Golf Course. The
majority of the drainage system is unimproved open watercourses. Problems in
l the basin are primarily primarily caused erosion of the- open watercourses.
V The exis ing storm- water facilities are shown on Figure III-3.
2. PROPOSED PROJECTS
a. Notre Dame. The existing open channel and enclosure from the
golf cou se- to Hough Park Road should be enclosed with a 42 inch RCP.
b. 3rookside Boulevard. Future consideration should be given to lining
the channel west of Brookside Boulevard and possibly providing storage
depending upon how the area to the west is developed.
c. GreenMeadow Drive South of Payne. Additional inlets should be
installed along Green Meadow Drive. The culvert under Green Meadow Drive will
t
require frequent maintenance. A retaining wall should be installed downstream -
from the culvert on the west bank to prevent further yard erosion. A wall
approximately 200 feet long will be required. Vegetation which impedes stream
flow- and collects debris should be cleared from the channel.
d. Green Meadow Drive North of Payne. Two additional street inlets `
- should �be installed approximately 400 feet north of the existing inlets and
piped- to -the east with a 24 inch RCP.
III-5
BLACK 8 VEATCH, 1984
12 MISSOURI RIVER
12WATERSHED
KIVAN
On, 12 4
/
\\ r✓y. \\ �� h4?l`:31f G, �. 0-RDS ST
r $`•,`\ �� �� �� l 0 p
tLCp`�4 ,O�i Q 37UBLE 9'H z 9`W H c'd. iir�.
t.?� C£iNC. BOX
J� 27 G� �R� / 24�P 'n Ifs �t \�:y,,� C:ia'f:(.• ..�_+�.�••-
2 S i G w is i b\\ NrR
U 24 �--1 �-- 52t2:P.S TO 0�nU v - Ep RD.
0„\ ``^• ••_^'`-t_,-__
"BOX nAr.C!`,RTY `•�T , P e: -._..__
CONC. BOX �i� a S2�•, 3� �_
3'W
NC. Rox\v
" %,�
/ tr 4'W %
me- +�' % \ �\/r o 30:�, CONC. BO
y!o 24� \\ \\\\ ij \-TWIN 8;�'{ii x 11'W \5...
15" ` ��l \ CONC. SM G y .„�6'H x 4'W
(E'F I2"VX 21` 27" Q.•I 1Z 'Z7BA1,C. BOX "mak.d cj i
�• „`S> 42" Oi 18 �`�.•ri"\=-=-_—_=M,�'4.
4.5 x 5.5 BOX I / � �:.r `•�
Jr i'-f.___._M-_E__R.`1VA,IE��.`\C\�oFq\•ri t`yF -`-��+'"2%1•..'•..1.7...g%,r�+,`JI((.Ns.%5I:R.'...,%�N��•?jc.Q( l12 `�;L��-.,v,>.�/\'•,:,`sj`�\\ \',\:.'��/� J�\\<JC�'0riC�"�/�`9f,'r9•�`®�TA.�/�70,Gs/`CF�i�Q/o--,�.`%.r.rz'/>^T�:•�:fi•.�--.�U.'�ry7S,`..4c-%£R�,'�Yv1,p.D�a/r6J 0/°�IB,":�(`Icj'„: \\\r.1\8�.�..
T
\„S
r
!S1",
-z
y'B',Cq!qiE
:
TWEENh0,I.N�L!E,
:
1T�
S
p % B
24F60° UNDER ROAD
-Jr CO BOX
H W I,'
4 H x 9Av. X CU3'tST
. Nk
IS 41x 24" /'g
i
3O C NC. BOX
BOX ')DEL Z' — RC'
"\yDz4H BOkORt Pl-
"ruW' r
i`.t, i
oEYn\C.RE $WOGD
18°�\rr :\ \� c;� off, I \-24�•I
30
p1- �` p"' tens i
\ �0�:::�•. i9�i� FYIDG6MOJNT i ,c\
\• c,�c__. 0" v!' '10 `:H 1 L L E
"' W GR
, )�
h� BOGGS CREEK *
i MOREAU RIVER _ `z
ir
m CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
BOGGS CREEK IMPROVEMENTS
N
-ILI 381-191A
S3111-1I0d3 30VNIV J1J ONIISIX3
83AI8 lelflOSSIA
83AI8 n1/380N
H3NV 8 1SV3
I8f10SSIW `NOS lar 3O Allo
L_
83AI8 flV3HOW
•aa
SIIIH
N3A3S
,I
m
OaaVW10
w
13380 NVO
4
„8
Io
13
4,
830
' „Si
130
„Si
opt`3S0a
0
xxo
O
HONda8
3801
3Nta3pyl3
a30va
va08nv
VA Nn5
N01aa3HS
'b x ,£'£
„L
1
S131MS
1.31M5
'd 0£
NVAI„�1
83A1a
m
w
-4
0
0
Ianosslw
SONOW03
„0
en
•80 OOOM394Iaw ,
•
1
f
i
iv
e. Edgevale Road. The open watercourse from Ellis to Edgevale Road
should be enclosed with a 36 inch RCP. Between Edgevale Road and Brookside-
Boulevard a 48 inch RCP should be used.
f. Brookgreen Drive. The 18 inch culvert south of Cimmarron Drive is
undersize and should be replaced with an 21 inch RCP on the west side of the
road and 27 inch RCP at the inlet connection.
g. C mmarron Drive. The existing culvert does not have sufficient
capacity for the tributary runoff. This culvert should be replaced with a
{
48 inch %rousel
P.
h. Drive. The 66 inch culvert under Carousel Drive is under
sized for present flow. Several alternatives were studied. The culvert can
;r
be parall led with an additional 24 inch CMP at a probable cost of $9,500.
The culvert can be replaced with a 72 inch CMP at a probable cost of $12,500.
Flow dete tion south of Cimmarron Drive between Brookgreen and Merlin Drives
could be rovided. A four foot dam could be constructed with a 15 inch CMP
outlet and a four foot wide concrete spillway at a probable cost of $26,000.
No work would be done at the 66 inch culvert.
Sinc the area north and south of Cimmarron Drive is primarily undevel-
oped, flow detention, though with the highest initial cost, appears to
be the mot feasible alternative in that it will lower the cost of future
downstrea drainage structures in an area with potential future growth.
i. 319 Knight Valley Drive. Yard flooding and swale erosion has
occurred in this area. The apparent solution to this problem is to build a
north-sou h artificial aquifer with,a 15 inch RCP drain to the drainage course
on the west side of the road. The artificial aquifer would be built by
digging a ditch approximately 4 feet wide by 10 feet deep and approxi-
mately 30 feet long behind the homes; filling the ditch with rock and-,
by using E small diameter pipe, slowly draining the aquifer. Problems in this_
area cannot be solved by conventional storm drainage practices. When the
area to the east is developed-, this area will have severe problems.
j . §tarling Drive. A drain should be constructed from Flamingo Road
! northerly along Starling Drive. A 3-1/2 foot high dam east of 2401 Starling
i
-- III-6
r
I �
r� will collect the water before it sheet flows over the front yards of several
homes. he project will require 18 inch RCP, four inlets and a flared end
section.
The locations of the proposed improvements are shown on Figure III-4.
D. MISSOURI RIVER DRAINAGE BASINS
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION. There are three primary drainage basins in the
— City thal border the Missouri River. One basin is to the north of St. Louis
Road on the east side of the City. The other two basins are downtown,
generall north of East High Street from the Capitol to Riverside Drive.
There are very few stormwater problems in these basins since the areas are
rather small and have had considerable stormwater work done under the Urban
Renewal and Community Block Grant programs. The existing facilities are shown
on Figur III-3. '
2. PROPOSED PROJECTS
a. 1130 East High Street. An area inlet and sewer should be built at
1130 East High. A large amount of runoff flows across this yard and the
adjacent yard. The existing 8 inch drain in the adjacent yard is insufficient
to handle the flow. Also, a new 18 inch RCP should replace the existing drain
between Dawson and Olive. Additional inlets should be built on East High to
intercept the flow before the drainage flows onto Dawson Street.
b. Benton Street. The existing drain between Benton Street and Dawson
is undersized and should be replaced with 21 inch and 24 inch RCP. An
- additiona inlet should be built east of Benton at the bottom of the hill.
c. C itol and Riverside Streets. A 15 and 18 inch RCP drain should be
extended Llong Riverside and East Capitol Streets. This extension will reduce
runoff on o Benton and East Capitol Streets.
r �
d. S ate Street. The existing drain is undersized and should be
replaced with 18 inch through 36 inch RCP with a headwall at the discharge
end. The location of the proposed projects is shown on Figure III-4.
III-7
-111 3t:11191A
SIN3W3A08cliAll H3NV89 1-1/80N
t:13Alel M/380/41
HONVele 1SV3
lanossiw `NOSI:13Ad3r AO )J.13
1 .:;-• '
\‘‘•- ...--)-,
rm
,,,..;
/
:13A18 nv3How
....., . :' .L.
......
,• ,.;/;:....' //:,.., '
• .•
,..
s
os
el 4t
,--::,
,$)
4v ... \
_ii :
• 1:,
‘,...ar7..,..,
•,,
't,' v 2.2
,,,,. • c",.. 4., ...,',.
X08
1 ''',:...
a
. N
\\'—‘-1,''',.-..4,446;17:-73i '''''. •
• 4--...,'''''
./'
_,„,c,Q,,81 ,i 7/ : . 'e.:',•,-.,:,:,..____ _ , ,-. •9 \ 9 £1'.''. ;
......e.
,./...-10,, -, =,.• I .f,'„>,,
1 --
• ,:--,'
fo
XOtl",,,illx
• , el
/)...,
,.%
X08 G
12
„12
871/.
1
II •
,k 9 ‘ , / :::?, ‘..._,......,,,,."•,,,,,;' 3): `,..,..,..:,../t0f: ../.. '-,?,,i'::
./"..-
//,,,,i
01,
\. // ‘i,•'-isi.
sii:(
/ . x, i......,,,,,1 \\Yi-i ,../i/
-- A `'‘< // /iii
) t, `k\i-?>''' 'kk / £ 4:43,,.....',L ,
,,\ - t" i' //,,,!.•. k ... \,-,/ gN..
•.-, ,--;',.\
L2 \ ..
, ,,'„< / c..‘ -
'.'a //6, ", ,',././
.6"/ „81 ?:/ifr
'..... \
xc
-
/”.
V2 /....
„
, ,„..
...." ) \ • \
..\ %/ /4'
•-K:',
,'-,
,, .
,-..,' .1. ':"5``
„el .4.--,.• /,-",,,,
-,„
2
‹, 21 •
,.4'.. .,., ,
'''):08/2- ''
, , Alloo.,:7 ,,,,. • .:.,,..
,., ,, \,:.:
\\,',....„, . \, ,,),."",.21''''' ;'.
)Wi', ! , 1' \ 5
. \ ,,-,:" \ ; - z<'
.:.• \ k\
.b :•3.,...„,... 1 , a ..,,,,,, /. \
/4, -4k(1
•.„.;1'., \ ' IN,„
A38 s , 'Isnossiti4 ,—.-- ./
/
'...,........-_---
-.-.-..,,,..,
-,,.....-_
---,::-*' ' ,•=•-;',-,",'.''.-''
.., \
--..,.
N
',.
9,
GI,
-;>
'
.
,., ' \, >,-
N„)
,-...Ai•76-/
)b
3. 4
a/7\xp, \.
1\
,•</\\N
td7
„21
/ :/'\ 4b " •N'
\..
.'".. N.
-------- , ::" .<'=,,...\,,,`,..,2 •.,,,,,:,,,,,,-62.1 ,...?,„51
.."/ t 9V.-:''
. , ..
•
\ '''-',,,
\ ' `':'• ''''>;•-e .
'''-'-'-
"--' \.‘ ' ' :,' ..•;..-
`,. • -'77.--' .
--• - 11‘,,,-,?y,e1.--1,..,,, ,,
\'''...\\' '-' ''''.•:" ../., ""--- :.7,Y.*.,- ' ', .f.,.:3,
2
/' 0« All
'.--'')
/0011011:;.,".
/ -^
./..,.,
..././ ,;„
.. .,
.', ,...., '..,
, /
, 7
0001/ '''''''a ''
//.:•,,.‘ ,,,„,:,-
/1”
5
it
IJ
„
▪ „01,D
I 1,
06' 10,,,i?;
12
12 ‘/
1d
<
`- E. GRAYS CREEK AND COON CREEK DRAINAGE BASINS
1. G NERAL DESCRIPTION. Grays Creek and Coon Creek are located on the
north sid of the City generally north of West Main Street. Only a portion of
Grays Cre k watershed is in the City whereas the entire Coon Creek watershed
is within the City. The split between the,watersheds is approximately
Boonevill Road and Hayselton Drive. Both areas are residential in land use
with indu trial/commercial zoning along West Main Street and Rock Hill Road.
The m jority of the main tributaries of the creeks is unimproved open
watercourses. Much of the area is severed in a rather non-conventional
fashion. Solutions to the problems include channel enclosures, sewer
replacement, relief sewers, channel lining and miscellaneous improvements.
The existing drainage facilities are shown on Figure III-5.
2. PROPOSED PROJECTS IN GRAYS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
a. Davis Street. The existing drain is undersized and should be
replaced with a 30 inch RCP.
b. Wayne Avenue.The area has discontinuous drainage facilities which
are undersized and create unnecessary hydraulic losses. The area should be
drained by a 42 inch RCP. The inlets at the corner of Bolton Drive and Wayne
C `
Avenue should be connected to the 42 inch pipe.
c. Marilyn Drive. The channel between Forest and Marilyn Drives
shouldbe enclosed with a 78 inch RCP.
d. Forest Hill. A 42 inch RCP should be installed between Forest Hill
and the poperty line of Memorial Park.
e. Ridgeway Drive. A 30 inch RCP should be installed between Ridgeway
and Willow Drives to Oakview Drive.
f. B nder Drive. The channel from Oakview Drive to Binder Drive
should be enclosed with 42 inch through 54 inch RCP.
g. West Main Street. A 15 inch CMP drain has been installed through the
southeast corner of Riverview Cemetery. While the pipe size may be adequate
in the up er reach, the piping is discontinuous in an apparent attempt to form
inlets. However, these uncommon inlets are not in the natural drainage
i course. A 24 inch RCP should be installed from the first open pipe joint,
�I
III-8
BLACK 9 VEATCH, 1984
CREEK
3'Fl x 7 ESLEY\ Q�ORC G CO CH 2� 411? e.. 1
s o 4 1
36' 18
179 3 24 R 9
48" 182 2 L 8.. A 6 CO y`
24 = w N " AIR DR. 0 CHA
18 Nv\EW J
8 w GAR 0 > a z P
21;1' o w z wo 0
u- z �p
i 5 "0 42" �
5
Y DW NE 18 �� IBI 12
18 18 5J R. 44r
24W m AC Off. Off. 15
p 18�� DR 24 WIN HILL 10�W x 6'H �gJ� _
2 AREA I ET INTO CONC. - i1.
J IB 4'H X 54 BOX 2' x 2' tl DER STREET P�\ 6" 18"� II
DOUBLE 7'W x 12'
5'H CONC. BO 24 9 1 c� I 2�
15 36.. ��♦ �� �s
cl r 42118 2.� F 12' 1 s0
vq Oo a 18 15L1 IN o� °I 12It
GRAYS CREEK m30 ° 0�2 12"
J ME 18 � p
80 YN �p Ilk
�. HI SDALE F7 " 1 000 O� 1
12 15
�15I. >- CAM
IL D 15 1 12"15
I 0 w 3048
12 „ __ f8i A °�
DR. Q
1, 2 �Ij w 179 30 M �1 0 z0 5° COL 0
D E2r
l� \ /
/ - R.
U
0 30 24 2' x 3' CON W J j 15 c1� DRIL
w PLA A DR.0 ® BOX UNDER 15 3 o rt2 w „
0 w 0 21 12.. m_ 24 BEVE Yl*.
0 6 30 24 15 _ I 15. `8
ER i
24 Q 1 `\NZ� w 42 IRQlg U
66 z � COON CREEK �n
x w z�5 a 104 x 6�H o z Is --A
C F 0 -i CONC BOX -so„ I N
0 W�.iI�I I��
m " 0 co �48� v I� [a /_15_ ■ - __ lO�r .[-mm
m CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
GRAYS & COON CREEK
VI EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
ynorth of est Main Street to Belair. Also, area drains should be constructed
at approximately 200 foot intervals.
h. Norris. From Belair to James Drive, a 42 inch RCP should replace
the existing drainage facilities.
i. Belair at Kermac. The culvert under Belair does not have sufficient
capacity to carry the tributary runoff. A wing wall should be added to this
culvert. The channel between Belair and Belmont Drive should also be lined.
Gabions would be suitable for channel lining.
j . Tin Hills Road. The channel from US 41 culvert to Leonard Drive
should be enclosed with 78 inch through 90 inch RCP.
k. Lola-Geneva. Scattered drainage facilities are in the area north of
Lola betw�en Ihler and Geneva. By doubling the catch basins on Lola and
rerouting the flow along-Lola to Grays Creek, the channel behind Geneva should
be enclosd with a 36 inch RCP.
1. 7;6 Dean. A side opening area drain should be installed at the
y existing inlet.
m. Dwayne Drive. The open channel between Dwayne and Don Ray Drives
should be enclosed with a 24 inch RCP. The inlets from Kaylyn and Dean Drives
--` should alio be piped to this proposed drain.
n. Don Ray Drive. The ravine is eroding north of Don Ray Drive and
should be lined with gabions for a distance of approximately 400 feet.
The p oposed major improvements are shown on Figure III-6.
3. P OPOSED PROJECTS IN COON CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
a. B.onville Road and Main Street. Some street flooding occurs at this
intersection. However, there are sufficient inlets in the area and the
- conduit crrying the runoff away from this area is only slightly undersized.
The flooding is probably caused by plugged basins. No construction project is
recommended, but the area catch basins should be cleaned periodically.
b. Ella Street. The catch basins should be cleaned and the street
curbed and guttered to control the runoff. The catch basins should be piped
with 18 i ch RCP, to Main Street. New catch basins should be built on
Main Stre t and piped north with a 24 inch RCP.
III-9
if
I o�
.1�
�d
O
d�
k
J �
W
m y
tp
s a
\ Z11LIVINGSTON
o GP���\�G�
JAMES DR
W
i >
i p
42 �Q 54
SII r
HILLSDALE DRIVE
"? 78
I 2��
L O
OAKVIEW DRIVE FOREST
WILL)w 42u
30° p
Ir J_
W
m Z
� Z
t wFs 3�
in
r
IL
'1
SrR
FFT
H
� i W
0
I E�
t f
1 ,
CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
GRAYS CREEK IMPROVEMENTS
i
FIGURE III - 6
f
,I
i
1 �
r.
c. S �uth Circle Drive. The open channel between Lavinia Street and
East Circ a Drive should be enclosed with a 54 inch RCP. The culvert under
East Circ a Drive is adequate.
d. E st Circle Drive. The channel is lined from East Circle Drive for a
distance f approximately 200 feet. The lined portion of this channel does
not have ufficient capacity to carry rainfall runoff. A 48 inch RCP should
be installed from East Circle Drive to the existing culvert near Allen Drive.
V The existing 4 foot by 4 foot culvert is undersized and should be replaced
with a 60 inch RCP.
e. B verly Subdivision. In the future, the channel from Allen Drive
through tie Beverly Subdivision will need to be lined.
f. C le Drive. The 36 inch CMP on the north side of Cole Drive is
undersized and should be replaced with a 42 inch RCP. This pipe should be
extended to the new culvert near Allen Drive.
g. 137 West Circle Drive. Water ponds in the backyard of 137 West
Circle Drive. An area inlet should be constructed in the yard and a' 15 inch
RCP connected to the existing storm sewer at Chicago Road:
-- h. Chicago Road. The gap between existing piping occurring between.
Chicago Foad and Cole Drive should be piped with a 30 inch RCP.
Proposed improvements are shown on Figure III-7.
F. EAST BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The East Branch of Wears Creek is located in the
- central \ art of the City. The East Branch parallels Highway 50 to Adams
Street; eanders north to Marshall-and McCarty Street, turns to the south and
parallel Lafayette (on each side) to Leslie, turns west and parallels Stadium
Boulevar to Myrtle, and turns south to Sunset Lake. There are several
tributaries to East Branch generally flowing in a south to north direction.
4-
III-10
i
i \
444
\� \
COLE FAr
�o 0
CHICAGO ROAD F
_ o
w oc SLY
J
J
j NORTH CIRCLE pR
z
0
0 LlF
m w
w
m
1 N
` r Q
Z 41
Q �
J Q
a SOUTH CIRCLE
J
U
U
I
h GREENWOOD STREET
ti �e
w
a
3
it
MAIN STREET
� r
- F
o <<'q o
I
ST.
co
s Q
� o
I �
r I �
i CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
COON CREEK
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
1 FIGURE III-7
r.
�f The m jority of the drainage basin is developed north of Stadium
_h
Boulevard- The basin includes the downtown area, Lincoln University, the
commercial area along Madison and Dunklin Streets, Stills Hospital and the
residenti 1 properties north of Ellis Boulevard. Development is currently
{ taking pl ce in the southern portion of the drainage basin.
The channel is improved from approximately Highway 50 to Leslie. The area
north of Stadium Boulevard is severed with both newly constructed drains and
antiquate drains. The downtown area is completely severed.
Due to the old sewer systems in the drainage basin, many of the storm-
water com laints are about flooding. Also, within the last several years,
Sunset Lake was drained. Before this time, the lake attenuated peak runoff
h from the pper 90 acres of the basin. Currently the channel below Sunset Lake
is _experiincing erosion and flooding due to the increased runoff.
1�
The E st Branch up to Lafayette Street was included in the 1978 flood
study. U ing that information, the East Branch was analyzed from Sunset Lake
to Lafaye to using the ILLUDAS simulation model. Both detention and
non-detention alternatives were evaluated for the drainage basin.
2. PROPOSED PROJECTS
4 a. Sunset Lake. Sunset Lake was drained several years ago after a
Phase I Dam Safety Study indicated the structure was in non-compliance with
the Corps of Engineers' regulations. The property is privately owned and no
y developmet has been made on the parcel. Since the draining, there have been
9
i numerous lases of flooding and erosion immediately downstream. There are two
` primary alternatives - storage or "no action".
~: (1) Storage. The dry lake could be used to attenuate peak runoff by
storing r noff for delayed release. By restricting the flow to as low as
zero discharge during a storm event, there is adequate storage volume on the
property. The discharge from the lake would be restricted by utilizing a
small orifice or valving system. The facility would be classified as a dry
detention system since all water would eventually be released through a 15
inch pipel The lake property would have to be acquired to implement this
alternative.
, t
s
III-11
t ,
4
~i
Anothr storage alternative would be similar to the one just discussed;
however, t permanent pool would be provided of adequate depth and volume to
permit re reational use such as fishing. Swimming in the pool would require
considera le cost due to the water quality requirements for "Total Body
Contact". Cost of recreational facilities has not been determined. This
storage a ternative would require additional piping and an overflow structure,
capable oE passing approximately 400 cfs.
Under both storage alternatives, the land could be converted to a
?^' Cityowned park. Recreational facilities which would suffer little or no
damage du ing periods of high water, such as tennis, racketball and handball
courts, p cnic, restroom and playground facilities could be built at the
9
higher e1 vations. In the more flood-prone areas, facilities for horseshoe
pitching nd basketball goals (without fences). could be constructed.
Either storage alternative would cause a reduction in peak runoff and
! r
consquent' y would reduce the flooding and erosion in the channels behind Debra
Avenue- and Stadium Boulevard.
(2) No Action. Under this alternative, no work would be done to the
Take and the land would not be purchased. The channel which runs-along
Debra Avenue and then Stadium Boulevard should be paved to Highway 54.
Additional culvert sizes would be needed along Stadium Boulevard east of
s Highway 54. Under this alternative, Stadium Boulevard would flood because the
stream flow reaches such a height that flow surcharges the storm drains and
1 prevents rainage off Stadium.
b. 1 10 Debra Avenue. The existing storm drain should be connected to
the areaZfts
lets and then piped to the creek.
c. Highway and Southwest Boulevard to Stadium near Myrtle. The
30 inch C P at the bottom of the hill has sufficient capacity to carry the
f flow to tie channel. There are two problems in this area. One is that the
stream fl)w reaches such a height that the flow is backed up in the storm
drain, presenting a problem which would be greatly reduced by flow detention
in Sunset Lake, but is otherwise unsolvable by the use of other gravity
schemes. The other problem is that the overland flow simply is not getting
III-12
i
�- � into the trea inlets and catch basins; the area is so steep that the water
bypasses the inlets causing yard erosion and street flooding. Two inlets
! should be installed approximately 300 west of 1407 Stadium Boulevard. These
inlets shpuld be piped to the open channel with an 18 inch RCP. Two
additional inlets should be installed between Myrtle Avenue and the two
existing inlets to the west on Stadium Boulevard. These two new inlets should
be piped directly to the open channel with an 18 inch RCP. A storm drain
should be constructed between Southwest Boulevard and approximately 1501
Stadium Boulevard. This line would originate as an 18 inch RCP and an open
sided area inlet. After approximately 300 feet, the pipe size shoud be
increased to 24 inch and another open sided area inlet constructed. The 24
inch RCP would extend and be connected to the existing 30 inch drain. An
additional area inlet should be constructed near the midpoint of the 24 inch
RCP.
While storage in this area may be possible, it would be of no value to .the
residents living in the low areas along Stadium Boulevard. The runoff from
this area peaks long before the runoff from the area tributary to the open
channel r aches this point. For storms of long duration, the detention
4 facility would be filled before peak flow arrived.
This roposed improvement is shown on Figure III-8.
d. 1 22 Carter Street. The small channel behind this property should be
cleaned a d reshaped. In the future, this channel should be enclosed.
e. 1 25 Carter Street. A drain originates behind the residence at 1225
Carter Street. An additional 18 inch RCP should parallel this existing drain.
Area inle s should be installed at the beginning of each drain. The new drain
should originate approximately 250 feet upstream from the existing drain.
f. F ora Drive. The 60 inch CMP culvert under Flora Drive will become
undersized if the area upstream develops. Stormwater detention should be
part of any future development.
' g. Holiday Drive. The 3.5 foot by 6 foot and the 4 foot by 6 foot
ellipitic 1 culverts under ,Holiday Drive will be undersized if future
III-13
L.`
,N,
241512��
SWIFTS HIGHWAY
18,1
24'1 w
24 11
a
� w
> J
J F,
m �
F- g
cn
w
3
x
F-
0
N 30'1
- 8
15��
STADIUM BLVD
18 it
No
U-)
m THOMPSON STREET
CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
ao STADIUM IMPROVEMENTS
`-J development occurs. Stormwater detention should be a part of any future
development.
-' h. 1324 Monroe Street. Basement and yard flooding occurs at 1324 Monroe
Street. These problems reportedly did not start until curbs were added to
T John Street several years ago and an area inlet removed. The curb is
considerably -higher-than the yard, effectively forming a dam. Runoff comes
from as far away as the Charles Still Hospital. An open sided area inlet
should be installed at this location.
i. 319-321 Case Avenue. The existing drain between Union and Case
`—' Avenues s ould be replaced. with a 24 inch RCP.
j . 212 and 214 East Ashley. A 3 foot by 3 foot drain runs exposed
through t e basement at 212 East Ashley. This drain is cracked and water
leaks fron the drain into the basement during moderate rains. The City built
} a retaini g wall in the backyard to help prevent overland flow from flooding
the home. A similar wall has been constructed on the adjacent lot, 214 E.
Ashley. We recommend these properties be purchased by the City and
converted to public use.
k. Jackson and Atchison Streets to Jefferson Street and Highwa 50.
Existing drainage facilities have insufficient capacity. We recommend the
existing drain be relieved on 'Monroe- Street between Atchison and Ashley
Streets with a 36 inch RCP extending northerly along Monroe Street.
Additional relief is recommended in Ashley Street between Monroe and Madison
r -+
t Streets with a 36 inch RCP extending westerly, joining the new line in Monroe
Street. From Ashley Street, a 54 inch RCP would be constructed in Monroe
l` Street to just south. of Dunklin Street. The existing drain for this area
would be connected with an 84 inch RCP extending to the enclosed channel. At
-I Dunklin Street, this new drain would be approximately 25 feet deep and
r probably in rock.
r_ A sto mwater pump station was evaluated and was considerably higher (3
times) in cost. The proposed improvements are shown on Figure III-9.
r
III-14
i �
� ao�
QCD
't!
O\�o�
02
c O
qs/11
! a
ry
P
f }
�c 0
yes .�cb
0y JP6
i
' I
I �
f
I
!
J
i I
' CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
JACKSON - ATCH,ISON IMPROVEMENTS
, t
FIGURE JH-9
-I
Y
1. Jefferson. The sewer between Dunklin Street and Highway 50 is
1
undersized and should be replaced with 24 inch to 30 inch RCP.
m. Dunklin and Chestnut Streets. A parallel 24 inch sewer should be
_ constructed to relieve the existing sewer. There are sufficient inlets to
�i
! pick up the runoff.
n. East McCarty Street. The existing sewer from Lafayette Street to
the East Branch is undersized. Another 27 inch RCP is recommended to
,_ f
relieve this drain.
o. Adams Street. The existing drain from McCarty Street to the East
Branch is undersized. A 36 inch RCP is recommended to relieve this drain.
p. Major Drive. The existing sewer which crosses Major Drive is
undersized for the given pipe burial. Two alternatives have been considered.
_ The pipe can be replaced with a 30 inch RCP or an artificial dam can be
constructed at the existing pipe to provide the water depth needed to force
the runoff through the pipe. For temporary relief, we recommend berming
around the pipe. A permanent solution would be 'to replace the pipe, extend the
pipe 50 feet upstream and downstream, and provide additional drop inlets on
Major .Dril e.
q. Isom. The drains from Major Drive to the intersection of Isom and
Hough Park are undersized. The 18 inch drain should be replaced with a 24
inch RCP; the 36 inch CMP should be replaced with a 42 inch RCP; and the
3 by 3 fo t box should be replaced with a 48 inch RCP.
r. R se Valley. On Rose Valley between Carol Street and Leslie
Boulevard, the 60 inch culvert is undersized. This culvert should be replaced
with a 90 inch RCP.
— The 1 cation of proposed improvements are shown on Figure III-4.
G. NORTH BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The North Branch of Wears Creek is located on
the west gide of the City, generally south of West Main Street and north of
Highway 5). The drainage basin is partially developed, with most development
III-15
E � -
i I
i
} I
occurring along the major arterial roads. Considerable industrial and
commercial property is developed, including the Mall located at the inter-
section of North Ten Mile Drive and Highway 50. The area is well developed
residentially east of Dix Road. West of Dix Road, there are clusters of
residential development. Future developments are expected to be
residential, multi-family and office.
The majority of the drainage system is unimproved open watercourses.
_J Some deve opmenthas encroached on watercourses and some channels have been
relocated for development. In the eastern portion of the drainage basin where
the. more established residential areas are located, the drainage systems are
inadequate in capacity. Much of this system is old vitrified clay pipe with
small inlet openings and grates. Sewer system replacements are proposed in
these are s.
The a isting drainage facilities are shown on Figure III-10.
2. PROPOSED PROJECTS
a. Oak Valley Court. The existing culvert is undersized, although
=- there have been no known complaints in this area. As a result, the culvert
crossing ountry Club Drive backs up causing water to. cross the' road east of
the inter ection, where a concrete chute provides controlled discharge to the
creek downstream from.Oak Valley Court. Unless problems develop, "no action"
4
is recommended. The silt-plugged culvert under Country Club Drive requires
constant naintenance.
b. 414 Meadow Circle. Exposed conduit behind this house is catching
debris Anil promoting erosion. The responsible utility should relocate these
conduits. Yard flooding occurs between Valley Park Drive to a point beyond
Meadow Circle. The channel could be improved by removing small trees.
The c annel has also tried to reroute itself behind 424 Meadow Circle.
Storm flo s presently appear to follow the old channel. The newer, shallower
channel s ould be filled to prevent further scouring of the property.
Yard looding also occurs due to runoff from Rock Creek Terrace and Meadow
Brook Dri e, where only one inlet intercepts the flow. Two additional inlets
R �
�.J
y III-16
r •
BLACK B VEATCH, 1984
12 i \
GRAYS CREEK m M 6" 3° °�°? Iz 1 a
0
12° O. 15
IL R IS I 12"I5'
`, „ 12 O F o 3046"
9 / 12 p 12 1/ 179 30" M �y
O
24° 2'a 3' ON 15" pR2 I\ F-9
TEN PLA ADR. BO% UNDER 15' p I A2
w
�� 6"24 BE VE Y13'T.
3 24 15
y
/ 24°o IS 24" w 42 IROfl
6� aa COON CREEK m \ \
CONC. BOX 30^
W. 6r'I
/
48 1 M 40'0 f.' 15 rc W e( A ¢IOm a @ l
O ,- 15" 3�S W.
'$CHELLRIDGE R 179 M�
A Y �❑ „ iw aT,
4� 4 O a w
' m o L PL NORTH BRANCH
J z m V n SCHElLRIOGE„~ w:
15° IB"H t 24"W w 3 VIEW TER. x T
HO S A. CONC.
BOX
a le' O O
> 24 6'W a 4'H M
36 p z 1618' Jw o 21 30° Ry
a VALLEY FRARIDIGEWOOD
r R, p 24„ R. w OCK _ 12" I6" I J
20"H a24°W 15" Is 3 J IBRK DOUBLE 4 S ■
CONC. BOX HOGAN DR, 24 IB CN O 2 a z a ¢
3ONO a 24°H F 3fi'H a 6 MISSOURI BLVD. 1 24 ■ 1
CONC. BOX y w 3
1„�O 67°H a 76°W I6„ m O O � 3T MARY'S
O 36 Iz” 50 W KE 3 _'■z 42" d _z a u a z" 12
7218 L U
PAARK 15 O0. 36 36"> 2 ',�
3 E.PARKW O I 2'a 8' .•�/
D 24'
21" IB 21 p'
3
G)
C
m CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
m
NORTH BRANCH
EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
all
1 ' •
7`J
1 '
{
should be constructed on Meadow Court at the intersection of Rock Creek
Terrace and Meadow Brook Drive. The inlets should be connected with an 18
inch RCP along Meadow Circle to the open channel.
C. Fox Creek Road. Two inlets should be constructed at 339 Fox Creek
Road to prevent downhill, street and yard flooding. An inlet should be
installed on each side of the street and connected to the existing 48 inch
' drain wit an 18 inch RCP.
d. Sterling Price Road. The North Branch of Wears Creek between Fox
` Creek Roai and Sterling Place should be riprapped to prevent further erosion.
Also, the drainage facilities in this area should be extended to the channel.
e. Huntleigh Place. The inlet pipe at the cul-de-sac on Huntleigh Place
is undersized and should be replaced with a 21 inch RCP. The inlet pipes to
the east of the cul-de-sac are undersized and should be replaced with 21 inch
RCP from the inlets to the creek.
f. Huntleigh Place and Huntleigh Drive. The existing 30 inch drain is
undersized and requires a 36 inch drain. Since no complaints have been
voiced, "no action" is recommended at this time.
g. S hellridge East. Inlet pipes west-of Ladue Road are undersized and
should be replaced with a 24 inch RCP. The drain should be extended to the
back property line.
h. I dustrial Road. The existing storm drain from McCarty Street
east of J rdan to DeLongs' property across the railroad spur is under-
sized. ThB drain should be replaced with 21 inch through 36 inch RCP with
an inlet constructed north of the railroad tracks.
i. West McCarty Street. The existing drains between Hub and-Manila
-
Streets are undersized, and should be replaced with 24 inch through 36 inch
RCP.
j . Havana Street. The existing vitrified clay pipe is undersized and
should be replaced as follows:
o The 12 inch VCP should be replaced with 21 inch RCP.
o The 18 inch RCP along West McCarty Street should be replaced with
-"
30 inch RCP.
III-17
o Tie drain between Hart and Hamlin north of West McCarty Street should
b replaced with 18 inch and 24 inch RCP.
k. Books Street. The existing sewer at West McCarty Street is under-
sized, and should be replaced with a 24 inch RCP.
Proposed improvements are indicated on Figure III-11.
H. FROG IOLLOW BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
1. G NERAL DESCRIPTION. The majority of this drainage area is outside
the City. There have been numerous flood studies made on this creek and
simulatioa models have been made of the area from the confluence with the
Missouri liver to Stadium Boulevard West. The 1963 Stormwater Study
recommended a retarding dam be built outside the City to attenuate peak
runoff. k 1970 Corps of Engineer study recommended not building a dam. The
flood stu y conducted in 1978 developed the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The 1978 study was based
on current land use, and future development in the drainage basin wad not
considered. For this current study, development similar to Boggs Creek
watershed was used to determine future runoff rates. Existing drainage
facilitie3 are indicated on Figure III-12.
2. P OPOSED PROJECTS
a. Fog Hollow Road. The creek was studied using simulation models for
current d future conditions. Detention storage was determined by
restricting the flow in Frog Hollow near Frog Hollow Road. The various
calculated peak runoff rates at Southwest Boulevard are shown in Table III-1.
III-18
F
[-'-| [--- - [ - r --' [-- F-'- ['-' �'--' �--' F--- ( � / ' � - � -- - - [-
�___ `--_ ` L__ �___ `___ � --� , _ � --' �-_- ' ` - � '� _ - '_ _ '/ `-
31 - III 3811013
S3III1IOVA 3OVNIV60 ONIISIX3
HONVd9 M0110H 9O Id
18f OSSIW `NOS83333C 3O AllO
I)
HONV89
LSV3
..51
n�ID
„81
.,0
0
,bZ
oanv /m
'aa
a3Ova
�t9
A311VA Nns
'a0 NMOL
3180),
0
1
VS
nd
1S NOSd W
80 1VI801N31A1
L
S1dIMS
'AMH SIJIMS
0
r
o �
O11OH 9083
c
Zb
0
r
0
S,AaVIN
lanoss/M
V961 `H3JV3A 13 )NOV1E1
o 0ooM30018
SlsNvaa
a co
HONVd9 HUJON
M„8L x H„L8
•e 3lenoa
H,b x M.9
„ZI
'ld H -I 11N
1
l
r
TABLE III-1
EFFECTS OF PEAK RUNOFF
FROG HOLLOW BRANCH
STORAGE
CONDITION PEAK RUNOFF VOLUME
(cfs) (acre-feet)
r ,
1. Current development 1560 0
2. Futur development 3240 0
3. Current development 630 260
w/ detention
4. Futur development 1230 330
w/ de ention
It is apparent that detention would reduce the peak runoff considerably.
The benef is derived from storage would be the reduction both in construction
cost and n flooding along the creek. The Booker Report recommends rather
extensive improvements in Wears Creek downstream from Southwest Boulevard. A
detention facility in Frog Hollow may reduce the need for some or all of these
facilitie .
This study has determined that storage in Frog Hollow is feasible and
beneficial. Further study is needed to determine the optimum size -and funding
of such a facility. The site selected has the storage volume capabilities to
retain the 100 year storm and -provide a- permanent pool level, if desired.
Figur III-13 indicates the possible location of a detention facility.
b. 1515 Timber Trail. The existing inlet is ineffective and needs to be
replaced.
c. C dar Hill Road. The existing culvert is undersized and should be
replaced with a ,6 foot by 6 foot concrete box.
d. 0 krid a Drive and Cedar Hill Road. The culvert under Oakridge Drive
- is slight y deficient but need not be replaced. The twin culverts under Cedar
Hill Road are deficient and should be replaced with a 72 inch RCP.
III-19
i_J
�►:. ,ll �� _ '---Pfd: _
�►` I ,
7/fir=�_��' • �`��r� —�� ,�-- ���— '�j.�l.�
WE
WE
OWNFIRS
100,
��I///_
r
,fir l
'-' e. B ehrle and Ponderosa Drives. Yard flooding occurs in this area.
The situation has- been improved by the City by adding two catch basins and a
24 inch RCP drain on Ponderosa Drive south of Melody Drive. Debris should be
expected to occasionally plus the concrete box at 2105 Buehrle.
f. Tower Drive. The drainage channel from Primrose Drive to Autumn Lane
has beenmodified-in the past by the property owners. Short stretches of the
channel have -been enclosed. In one reach, the channel has a concrete floor
and timbez siding. In the future, the channel should be completely enclosed
with a 48 inch RCP.
g. S uthwest Boulevard. The channel between Woodclift and West Wood,
west of S uthwest Boulevard, should be enclosed with 54 inch through 72 inch
RCP. Inlits should be provided along the channel and at street crossings.
The installation will be somewhat complex since the channel is very close to
some home and passes under a garage on Bassman Road.
The pipe would cross Southwest Boulevard at West Wood Drive and join a
proposed elief sewer on the east side of the street. Street and yard
flooding occurs along Southwest Boulevard. The flooding is caused by water
bypassing inlets and insufficient pipe capacity, in the Tower Drive reach.
This prob em can be alleviated by disconnecting the inlets at Tower Drive and
paralleling the existing 42 inch RCP with a 48 inch RCP. The new pipe should
extend to the drainage course without intercepting additional flow. The old
line shoud be plugged north of Tower Drive.
The u e of more efficient inlets would further relieve this problem. It
is recomm nded that all inlets between West Wood and Woodclift Drives along
Southwest Boulevard be converted to Type A inlets with guide vanes.
v_
From -West Wood Drive, the drain would be a 90 inch RCP to the channel and
i
Figure IH-14 indicates the proposed improvements.
h. Missouri Boulevard. The storm drains along Missouri Boulevard
between H isinger Road and Southwest Boulevard are undersized and should be
i replaced. Along the north side of Missouri Boulevard, starting at Heisinger
III-20
i
_ r
i
NORTH PKWY 90"
3
Y
N
L_ F- W Q�
7
O
U
O�
O
rb
!
l� W
K
W O
1 ' N J
W m
K
72° N
W
� 3
d ~
o
N
! I W K
I > N
> Opp 3 C
0
I_ F
co w
W Ft >
i t 10�� o
N
O� Q
W
\,pPO 54° p
f Z
PgSMPN
B
WOODCLIFT DR
Q
W DR
N
K \F
\$OODC ~
j a �
CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
MAPLEWOOD SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS
�_f FIGURE III — 14
Road, the 18 inch and 24 inch CMPs should be replaced with 24 inch and 36 inch
RCP. The same drain crosses Missouri Boulevard, connecting to a 24 inch CMP,
which sho ld be replaced with a 36 inch RCP. - Table III-2 indicates existing
sizes and required replacements:
TABLE III-2
MISSOURI BOULEVARD PROJECTS-
Recommended
Location Existing Pipe Replacement Pipe
dia. dia.
North 15" CMP 27" RCP
North 18" CMP 33" RCP
North 18" CMP 42" RCP
North 18" CMP 42" RCP
North 24" CMP 48" RCP
North 30" CMP 48" RCP
Crosses North 29" x 45" CM Arch 54" RCP
{ to South
South 12" CMP 15" RCP
L
South 12" CMP 18" RCP
South 15" CMP 24" RCP
Crosses South 42" CMP 54" RCP
to Creek
As a alternative, additional inlets could be provided and piped- directly
to the drainage channel.
i. St. Marys Boulevard. A street inlet along St. Marys Boulevard is
piped directly onto Ohio Street. This inlet should be piped directly to the
creek.
j . atinwood. The channel behind 1306 Satinwood needs cleaning and
-- r
straight ning. In addition, two inlets should be installed to the north with
flow dir cted to the channel.
Figu a III-15 indicates the locations for the proposed improvements.
_ III-21
1_
gl - 32:111013
SIN3w3A08dwl M01 -10H 902:1d
IJIflosslw ` NOSM3333r JO A110
I l\.
'00-'
HONVMB', 1SV3
01 x ,S•b
LZc s„iy .,
/9:1 ,(
'
S
'b
ZI
4E
..y
8
3
„94
aty:
`\
U£�
0£
O1-1OH 9083
� e,
z6
., S 1
„6 Z'8b
H
9
9£
cs-
ZI ,
r r I 1 v : 71;,
6961 `H01113A 9 N0V18
„81
HONd89 HiHON
•8 31l0G
H ' x M 9
ji0£ „IZ
J
gr
1 '
I. MISCELLANEOUS
There are several miscellaneous projects of a general nature that should
be included in the capital improvements program.
1. CANNEL MAINTENANCE. Due to the topography in the area, diversion
channels and natural drainage channels become silted. As a result, either the
• channel becomes filled in and no longer diverts runoff, or the ditch ponds
water and becomes a nuisance. Areas on Theresa, Mary, East High, Carter and
South Lincoln either have stagnant water, erosion and/or flooding. In most
cases the remedy is routine maintenance or reconstruction of a channel.
2. INLETS. Many of the drains are inadequate because the runoff cannot
enter the sewer at the inlets. High velocities rush the water past inlets
resulting in either excessive amounts of water in low areas or the uncon-
trolled flow of water over street curbing. Additional inlets and replacement
of older type inlets is recommended. The locations are widespread and, in
Many cases, already placed on a "future" construction list by the Department
of Public Works. This type of work can be built under annual rehabilitation
projects. In many cases, the replacement of the flat grate with a "vane"
grate wo ld direct runoff into the storm drains.
J. SUMMARY OF COSTS
Construction costs were based on October 1984 prices. Costs shown in
Table III-3 are the probable project costs including 10 percent for new
non-construction costs and a 15 percent for contingencies over the
construction costs. Costs for easements or rights-of-way are not included.
Table- III-4 indicates the priority for each project, and Table III-5 Indi-
cates the recommended improvements for each drainage basin.
III-22
1 -
TABLE III-3
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROBABLE
DESIGNATION LOCATION PROBLEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST
BOGGS CREEK
� a MARY STREET FLOODING 15" RCP WITH INLETS $20,000
b HILLVIEW DRIVE FLOODING CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 14,000
c CRESTWOOD & EASTWOOD DRIVES FLOODING NEW STREET INLETS 17,000
d BROOKDALE DRIVE FLOODING 42" RELIEF FUTURE
a 220-224 WOODRIDGE EROSION GABION PROTECTION 12,000
f 316 FREDERICKS LANE FLOODING 30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 29,000
9 LANDWEHR HILLS ROAD FLOODING 48" RCP RELIEF FUTURE
h SCENIC DRIVE FLOODING 81X 61 RELIEF OR BUY—OUT FUTURE
i HUTTON LANE FLOODING 42" RCP RELIEF 16,000
j WOODLANDER FLOODING 21" RCP RELIEF 7,000
k EASTLAND DRIVE FLOODING 151X 81 RELIEF FUTURE
— 1 MCCARTY & EASTLAND FLOODING RESTRICT BUILDING FUTURE
m KNAEBEL LANE FLOODING 18" RCP RELIEF 7,500
n RIVERVIEW DRIVE FLOODING- 21" RCP RELIEF 9,000
o TAYLOR FLOODING DIVERSION & RELIEF 27,500
p HOUGH STREET CHANNEL EROSION/FLOODING RESHAPE & LINE CHANNEL 180,000
q GRANT & HOUGH STREETS FLOODING- 91X 6' RELIEF FUTURE
r WILCOXON DRIVE FLOODING PARALLEL RELIEF DRAIN 64,000
s VFW FLOODING AREA INLET AND DRAIN 14,000
t EAST MCCARTY W. OF GRANT FLOODING 12.51X 101 RELIEF FUTURE
u GRANT N of MCCARTY FLOODING 36" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 10,500
v VETTER LANE FLOODING DIVERSION & PAVING 32,500
w EAST MILLER & VETTER LANE FLOODING 36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 16,000
i
x DOCKERY FLOODING 24" RCP RELIEF 9,000
y MORELAND FLOODING 8.51X 2.5' RELIEF 26,000
z MISC. PROJECTS EROSION/FLOODING VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS 25,000
TOTAL FOR BOGGS CREEK $536,000
MOREAU RIVER
a NOTRE DAME FLOODING 42" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 18,500
b BROOKSIDE BOULEVARD EROSION CHANNEL LINING FUTURE
c GREEN MEADOW S of PAYNE EROSION RETAINING WALL & INLETS 39,000
d GREEN MEADOW N of PA_YNE FLOODING, 24" RCP DRAIN & INLETS 15,000
e EDGEVALE ROAD EROSION 36"-48" RCP ENCLOSURE 102,500
f BROOKGREEN DRIVE FLOODING 21" & 27" RCP REPLACEMENT 9,000
q CIMMARRON DRIVE FLOODING 48" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 15,500
h CAROUSEL DRIVE FLOODING DETENTION STRUCTURE 26,000
i 2319 KNIGHT VALLEY DRIVE FLOODING ARTIFICIAL AQUIFER 22,500
j STARLING DRIVE FLOODING DRAIN EXTENSION 46,000
TOTAL FOR MOREAU RIVER $294,000
III-23
. I
s
TABLE III-3 (CONTINUED)
s SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROBABLE
DESIGNATION LOCATION PROBLEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST
MISSOURI RIVER
a 1130 E. •HIGH STREET FLOODING 18" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT $ 59,000
- b BENTON STREET FLOODING 24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 25,000
c E. CAPITOL & RIVERSIDE FLOODING 15"-1'8" RCP DRAIN EXTENSION. 58,000
STREETS
d E. STATE STREET FLOODING 18"-36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 80,000.
TOTAL FOR MISSOURI RIVER $222,000
GRAYS CREEK
a DAVIS STREET FLOODING 30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT $ 34,000
b WAYNE AVENUE FLOODING 42" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 60,000
c MARILYN DRIVE EROSION 78" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 350,000
d FOREST HILI. EROSION/FLOODING 42" ,RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 25,000
® RIDGEWAY DRIVE EROSION 30" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 41,000
£ BINDER DRIVE EROSION 42"-54" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE- 175,000
g WEST MAIN STREET FLOODING 24" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 34,000
h NORRIS FLOODING 36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 105,000
i BELAIR AT KERMAC EROSION/FLOODING WINGWALL. & GABION PROTECTION 14,000
j TWILL HILLS ROAD EROSION 84"-96." CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 575,000
k LOLA—GENEVA FLOODING 42" RCP CHANNEL'ENCLOSURE, 75,000
ADD'L INLETS & RELIEF DRAIN
1 726 DEAN FLOODING INLET IMPROVEMENT 2,,000
m DWAYNE DRIVE EROSION/FLOODING 24" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE, 24,000
ADDIL INLETS & RELIEF DRAIN
-n DON RAY DRIVE EROSION GABION PROTECTION 31,000
TOTAL FOR GRAYS CREEK $1,545,000
COON CREEK
a BOONVILLE ROAD & MAIN FLOODING "NO ACTION" FUTURE
STREET
b ELLA STREET FLOODING 18"-24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 28,000
c S. CIRCLE DRIVE EROSION 54" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 75,000
d E. CIRCLE DRIVE FLOODING/EROSION 48.."-60" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 80,000
e BEVERLY SUBDIVISION EROSION CHANNEL LINING FUTURE
f COLE DRIVE FLOODING 42" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 39,000
& EXTENSION
9 137 W. CIRCLE DRIVE FLOODING NEW INLET & DRAIN 8,000
h CHICAGO ROAD FLOODING 30" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 6,000
TOTAL FOR COON CREEK $236,000
III-24
,
TABLE III-3 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROBABLE
DESIGNATION LOCATION PROBLEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST
EAST BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK
a SUNSET LAKE FLOODING/EROSION DETENTION FACILITY 210,000
b 1410 DEBRA AVENUE FLOODING CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 3,000
c SWIFTS HIGHWAY & SOUTH- FLOODING NEW DRAIN SYSTEM 80,000
WEST BOULEVARD TO STADIUM
NEAR MYRTLE
d 1222 CARTER STREET FLOODING RESHAPE CHANNEL FUTURE
e 1225 CARTER STREET FLOODING 18" RCP RELIEF DRAIN 34,000
f FLORA DRIVE FLOODING DETENTION FACILITY FUTURE
q HOLIDAY DRIVE FLOODING DETENTION FACILITY FUTURE
h 1324 MONROE STREET FLOODING ADD'L AREA INLET 2,000
i 319-321 CASE FLOODING 24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 35,000
j 212-214 E. ASHLEY FLOODING PURCHASE HOUSES 150,000
k JACKSON & ATCHISON STREETS FLOODING NEW RELIEF DRAIN SYSTEM 900,000
TO JEFFERSON STREET &
HIGHWAY 50
1 JEFFERSON FLOODING 24"-30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 50,000
m DUNKLIN &CHESTNUT STREETS, FLOODING 24" RCP RELIEF DRAIN 75,000
n E. MCCARTY STREET FLOODING 27" RCP RELIEF DRAIN 65,000
O ADAMS STREET FLOODING 36" RCP RELIEF DRAIN 85,000
p MAJOR DRIVE FLOODING 30" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 12,000
q ISOM FLOODING 24"-48" DRAIN REPLACEMENT 55,000
I ROSE VALLEY FLOODING 90" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 125,000
TOTAL FOR EAST BRANCH $1,881,000
NORTH BRANCH OF WIARS CREEK
a OAK VALLEY COURT FLOODING "NO ACTION" FUTURE
b 424 MEADOW CIRCLE FLOODING/EROSION CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 15,000
` & ADD'L DRAIN WITH INLETS
c FOX CREEK ROAD FLOODING 18" RCP DRAIN EXTENSION 7,000
d STERLING PRICE ROAD EROSION/FLOODING BANK STABILIZATION & 18,000
DRAIN EXTENSIONS
e HUNTLEIGH PLACE FLOODING 21" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENTS 6,000
f HUNTLEIGH PLACE & FLOODING "NO ACTION" FUTURE
HUNTLEIGH DRIVE
9 SCHELLRIDGE EAST FLOODING 24" CMP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 3,000
h INDUSTRIAL ROAD FLOODING 21"-36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 33,000
i WEST MCCARTY STREET FLOODING 24"-36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 22,000
j HAVANA STREET FLOODING 18"-30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 44,000
k BROOKS STREET FLOODING 24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 12,000
TOTAL FOR NORTH BRANCH $160,000
III-25
i
i
TABLE III-3 (CONTINUED)
1
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
i
PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROBABLE
DESIGNATION LOCATION PROBLEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST
FROG HOLL40W BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK
m FROG HOLLOW ROAD FLOODING DETENTION FACILITY FUTURE
b 1515 TIMBER TRAIL FLOODING INLET REPLACEMENT 2,000
c CEDAR HILL ROAD FLOODING 61X 6' CULVERT REPLACEMENT 55,000
d OAKRIDGE DRIVE & CEDAR FLOODING 72" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 30,000
HILL ROAD
M1 e BUEHRLE & PONDEROSA DRIVES FIAODING NEW 24" RCP DRAIN COMPLETED
d f TOWER DRIVE FLOODING 48" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE FUTURE
9 SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD FLOODING 48"-90" RCP DRAIN & 1,310,000
CHANNEL ENCLOSURE
It MISSOURI BOULEVARD FLOODING DRAIN REPLACEMENTS FUTURE
{ i ST. MARY'S BOULEVARD FLOODING 18" RCP DRAIN EXTENSION FUTURE
j SATINWOOD FLOODING CHANNEL STRAIGHTENING & INLETS 40,000
TOTAL FOR FROG HOLLOW BRANCH $1,437,000
`l
TOTAL. FOR CITY $6,311,000
i
i
. q -
J
f
III-26
f i
i
TABLE III-4
� t
PRIORITIES OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
i
PROJECT PRELIMINARY HOMES
DESIGNATION LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION EFFECTED 3 PRIORITY
BOGGS CREEK
a MARY STREET 15" RCP WITH INLETS 1 LAW,
III b HILLVIEW DRIVE CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 0 IOW
c CRESTWOOD & EASTWOOD DRIVES NEW STREET INLETS 1 IOW
d BROOKDALE DRIVE 42" RELIEF — IOW
e 220-224 WOODRIDGE GABION PROTECTION 2 IOW
* f 316 FREDERICKS LANE 30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT S MED
9 LANDWEHR HILLS ROAD 48" RCP RELIEF — IOW
h SCENIC DRIVE 81X 6' RELIEF OR PURCHASE — IOW
1 HUTTON LANE 42" RCP RELIEF S MED
j WOODLANDER 21" RCP RELIEF S IOW
k EASTLAND DRIVE 151X 8' RELIEF — IOW
1 MCCARTY & EASTLAND RESTRICT BUILDING — LAW
m KNAEBEL LANE 18" RCP RELIEF 2 MED
n RIVERVIEW DRIVE 21" RCP RELIEF 2 MED
0 103 N TAYLOR DIVERSION & RELIEF 3 LAW
p HOUGH STREET CHANNEL RESHAPE & LINE CHANNEL 15 MED
g GRANT & HOUGH -91X 6' RELIEF — IOW
* s WILCOXON DRIVE PARALLEL RELIEF DRAIN 15+S HIGH
* s VFW AREA INLET AND DRAIN 2 HIGH
t EAST MCCARTY W. ,OF GRANT 12.51X 10' RELIEF — LOW
u GRANT N of McCARTY 36" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 1 LOW
* v VETTER LANE DIVERSION & PAVING 9 HIGH
w EAST MILLER & VETTER LANE 36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 2+S MED
x DOCKERY 24" RCP RELIEF 2 LOW
y MORELAND 8.5'X 2.5' RELIEF 4+S HIGH
2 MISC. PROJECTS VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS 7 IOW
I
R MOREAU RIVER
I * a NOTRE DAME 42" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 16 HIGH
b BROOKSIDE BOULEVARD CHANNEL LINING — LOW
* c GREEN MEADOW S of PAYNE RETAINING WALL & INLETS 2 HIGH
* d GREEN MEADOW N of PAYNE 24" RCP DRAIN & INLETS 2 HIGH
e EDGEVALE ROAD 36"-48" RCP ENCLOSURE 15 MED
f BROOKGREEN DRIVE 21" & 27" RCP REPLACEMENT 4 HIGH
9 CIMMARRON DRIVE 48" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 4+S HIGH
h CAROUSEL DRIVE DETENTION STRUCTURE 6 HIGH
7Y_F i 2319 KNIGHT VALLEY DRIVE ARTIFICIAL AQUIFER 6 MED
STARLING DRIVE DRAIN EXTENSION 2 IOW
r
1 LISTS NUMMER OF HOMES AND "S" FOR STREET
* CITY PRIORITY PROJECT
III-27
1 '
TABLE III-4
PRIORITIES OF PROPOSED-PROJECTS,
PROJECT PRELIMINARY -HOMES
DESIGNATION LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION EFFECTED s PRIORITY
1
MISSOURIRIVER
a 1130 E. HIGH STREET 18" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 2+S MED
} * b BENTON STREET 24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 5 HIGH
c E. CAPITOL & RIVERSIDE STREETS 15"-18" RCP DRAIN EXTENSION 5 HIGH
d E. STATE STREET 18"-36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 8+S HIGH
„ GRAYS CREEK
* a DAVIS STREET 30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 20 HIGH
b WAYNE AVENUE 42" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 6+S HIGH
c MARILYN DRIVE 78" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 9 MED
d FOREST HILL 42" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 4 HIGH
e RIDGEWAY DRIVE 30" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 7 MED
f BINDER DRIVE 42"-54" RCP CHANNEL ENCL. 8 MED
t g WEST MAIN STREET 24" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE- 2+S MED
1 h NORRIS 36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 6 MED
i BELAIR AT KERMAC WINGWALL & GABION PROTECTION 4 HIGH
j TWILL HILLS ROAD 84"-96" CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 24 IOW
f * k IOLA-GENEVA 42" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE, 7 HIGH
ADDIL INLETS'& RELIEF DRAIN
1 726 DEAN INLET IMPROVEMENT 1+S LOW
m DWAYNE DRIVE 24" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE, 9 HIGH
ADDIL INLETS & RELIEF DRAIN
n DON RAY DRIVE GABION PROTECTION 7 IOW
1
COON CREEK
a BOONVILLE ROAD & MAIN STREET "NO ACTION" — IOW
b ELLA STREET 18"-24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 7+S HIGH
c S. CIRCLE DRIVE 54" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 1 LOW
* d E. CIRCLE DRIVE 48"-60" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 2+S MED
e BEVERLY SUBDIVISION CHANNEL LINING — IOW
f COLE DRIVE 42" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 10 HIGH
& EXTENSION
I
* 9 137 W. CIRCLE DRIVE NEW INLET & DRAIN S MED
h CHICAGO ROAD 30" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 2 IOW
1
'i
III-28
r�
1
J
TABLE III-4
a t
v PRIORITIES OF PROPOSED PROJECTS`
4 PROJECT PRELIMINARY HOMES
f
_ DESIGNATION LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION EFFECTED 3 PRIORITY
.1,
EAST BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK
* a SUNSET LAKE DETENTION FACILITY 25+S HIGH
{ * b 1410 DEBRA AVENUE CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 4+S HIGH
* c SWIFTS HIGHWAY & SOUTHWEST NEW DRAIN SYSTEM 11 HIGH
BOULEVARD TO STADIUM NEAR
t; MYRTLE
d 1222 CARTER STREET RESHAPE CHANNEL — LOW
* e 1225 CARTER STREET 18" RCP RELIEF DRAIN 5 HIGH
f FLORA DRIVE DETENTION FACILITY — LAW
a
9 HOLIDAY DRIVE DETENTION FACILITY LAW
h 1324 MONROE STREET ADD'L AREA INLET 1 IOW
i 319-321 CASE 24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 4 MED
j 212-214 E. ASHLEY PURCHASE HOUSES 2 HIGH
* k JACKSON & ATCHISON STREETS NEW RELIEF DRAIN SYSTEM 50 HIGH
TO JEFFERSON STREET &
HIGHWAY 50 ,
S 1 JEFFERSON 24"-30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 4 HIGH
m DUNKLIN & CHESTNUT STREETS 24" RCP RELIEF DRAIN S IOW
n E. MCCARTY STREET 27" RCP RELIEF DRAIN S MED
0 ADAMS STREET 36" RCP RELIEF DRAIN S MED
* p MAJOR DRIVE 30" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 4+S HIGH
* q ISOM 24"-48" DRAIN REPLACEMENT 4+S HIGH
r ROSE VALLEY 90" RCP CULVERT.REPLACEMENT — MED
i�
NORTH BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK
1- a OAK VALLEY COURT "NO ACTION" — LOW
b 424 MEADOW CIRCLE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 3 MED
& ADD'L DRAIN WITH INLETS
c FOX CREEK ROAD 18" RCP DRAIN EXTENSION 1 LAW
1
* d STERLING PRICE ROAD BANK STABILIZATION & 4 HIGH
DRAIN EXTENSIONS
e HUNrLEIGH PLACE 21" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENTS 2 LOW
f HUNTLEIGH PLACE & HUNTLEIGH "NO ACTION" — IOW
DRIVE
r
r I * q SCHELLRIDGE EAST 24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 2 MED
* h INDUSTRIAL ROAD 21"-36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT S HIGH
* i WEST MCCARTY STREET 24"-36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 15 HIGH
* j HAVANA STREET 18"-30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 20 HIGH
k BROOKS STREET 24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 4 HIGH
i
111-29
TABLE III-4
PRIORITIES OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
PROJECT PRELIMINARY HOMES
DESIGNATION LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION EFFECTED x PRIORITY
1
FROG HOLLOW BRANCH OF WEARS CREEK
* a FROG HOLLOW ROAD DETENTION FACILITY — LOW
b 1515 TIMBER TRAIL INLET REPLACEMENT 1+S NED
c CEDAR HILL 61X 6' CULVERT REPLACEMENT 2+S HIGH
d OAKRIDGE DRIVE & CEDAR 72" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 3+S HIGH
HILL ROAD
* e BUEHRLE & PONDEROSA DRIVES NEW 24" RCP DRAIN 4+S COMPLETED
f TOWER DRIVE 48" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 1 HIGH
1
' * 9 SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD 48"-90" RCP DRAIN & 40+S HIGH
CHANNEL ENCLOSURE
* h MISSOURI BOULEVARD DRAIN REPLACEMENTS — LAW
i ST. MARY'S BOULEVARD 18" RCP SEWER EXTENSION — LAW
i
j SATINWOOD CHANNEL STRAIGHTENING & INLETS 4+S HIGH
1 �
f
1
c
III-30
lfl
TABLE III-5
i
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROJECT
DESIGNATION LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST
C BOGGS CREEK
f 316 FREDERICKS LANE 30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 29,000
a
r WILCOXON DRIVE PARALLEL RELIEF DRAIN 64,000
s VFW AREA INLET AND DRAIN 14,000
v VETTER LANE DIVERSION & PAVING 32,500-
y
2,500y MORELAND 8.51 x 2.5' RELIEF 26,000
Jt TOTAL FOR BOGGS CREEK $165,500
MOREAU RIVER
— a NOTRE DAME 42" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 18,500
c GREEN MEADOW S OF PAYNE RETAINING WALL & INLETS 39,000
/ d GREEN MEADOW N OF PAYNE 24" RCP DRAIN & INLETS 15,000
t ;
f BROOKGREEN DRIVE 21" & 27" RCP REPLACEMENT 9,000
9 CIMMARON DRIVE 48" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 15,500
h CAROUSEL DRIVE DETENTION STRUCTURE 26,000
C
TOTAL FOR MOREAU RIVER $123,000
1
I
MISSOURI RIVER
b BENTON STREET 24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 25,000
c E. CAPITOL & RIVERSIDE STREETS 15'"-18" RCP DRAIN EXTENSION 58,000
d E. STATE STREET 18"-36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 80,000
i TOTAL FOR MISSOURI RIVER $163,000
GRAYS CREEK
a DAVIS STREET 30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 34,000
1
b VUZM AVENUE 42" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 60,000
d FOREST HILL 42" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 25,000
~ fi i -1 BELAIR AT KERNAC- WINGNALL & GABION PROTECTION 14,000
k L0XA-GENEVA 42" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE, 75,000
ADDITIONAL INLETS & RELIEF DRAIN
DWAYNE DRIVE 24" RCP CHANNEL ENCLOSURE, 24,000
ADDITIONAL INLETS & RELIEF DRAIN
f
TOTAL FOR GRAYS CREEK $232,000
t J
111-31
. i
,4
TABLE III-5 (CONTINUED)
y SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROJECT
DESIGNATION LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST
COON CREEK
b ELLA STREET 18"-24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 28,000
c� d E. CIRCLE DRIVE 48"-60" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 80,000
f COLE DRIVE 42" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT & 39,000
EXTENSION
9 137 W. CIRCLE DRIVE NEW INLET & DRAIN 8,000
TOTAL FOR COON CREEK $155,000
t i
EAST BRANCH OF WkARS CREEK
a SUNSET LAKE DETENTION FACILITY 210,000
_ b 1410 DEBRA AVENUE CHANNEL ENCLOSURE 3,000
^i a SWIFTS HIGHWAY & SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD, NEW DRAIN SYSTEM 80,000
TO STADIUMNEARMYRTLE
e 1225 CARTER STREET 1811.RCP RELIEF DRAIN 34,000
E� k 212-214 E. ASHLEY PURCHASE HOUSES 150,000
k JACKSON & ATCHISON STREETS TO NEW RELIEF DRAIN SYSTEM 900,000
JEFFERSON STREET & HIGHWAY 50
< 1 JEFFERSON 24"-30" RCP. DRAIN REPLACEMENT 50,000
i p MAJOR DRIVE 30" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 12,000
P q ISOM 24"-48" DRAIN REPLACEMENT 55,000
TOTAL FOR EAST BRANCH $1,494,000
NORTH BRANCH OF IEARS CREEK
d STERLING PRICE ROAD BANK STABILIZATION & DRAIN 18,000
4
EXTENSIONS
h INDUSTRIAL ROAD 21"-36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 33,000
i WEST MCCARTY STREET 24"-36" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 22,000
y
j HAVANA STREET 18"-30" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 44,000
k BROOKS STREET 24" RCP DRAIN REPLACEMENT 12,000
} TOTAL FOR NORTH BRANCH $129,.000
III-32
I `
TABLE III-5 (CONTINUED)
I- SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROJECT
DESIGNATION LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST
r
FROG HOLLOW BRANZH OF WEARS CREEK
b 1515 TIMBER TRAIL INLET REPLACEMENT 2,000
c CEDAR HILL ROAD 6' x 6' CULVERT REPLACEMENT 55,000
d OAKRIDGE DRIVE & CEDAR HILL ROAD 72" RCP CULVERT REPLACEMENT 30,000
9 SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD 42"-90" RCP DRAIN SYSTEM & 1,310,000
CHANNEL ENCLOSURE
j SATINWOOD CHANNEL STRAIGHTENING & INLETS 40,000
TOTAL FOR FROG,HOLLOW BRANCH $1,437,000
TOTAL PROBABLE COST $3,898,500
t ,
r
L �
1
III-33
F
J
r -
TASLE III-6
MAJOR CAPITAL IlWROVEMM PROGRAM
Fiscal Year Ending Cttober 31,
d Line
No. -Item 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total
� $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
1 Boggs Creek 43.0 26.0 32.5 32.0 32.0 165.5
2 Mo eau River 27.5 30.5 26.0 - 39.0 123.0
3 East Branch 15.0 34.0 480.0 480.0 485.0 1,494.0
4 North Branch 12.0 25.5 25.5 22.0 44.0 129.0
5 Grrjs Creek 14.0 25.0 75.0 58.0 60.0 232.0
6 Co Creek 8.0 28.0 39.0 80.0 - 155.0
7 Missouri River - 12.5 12.5 58.0 80.0 163.0
8 Fmg Hollow Branch 25.0 30.0 460.0 460.0 462.0 1,437.0
t 9 Major Equipment - - 50.0 80.0 - 130.0
10 Maintenance Building - - 250.0 250.0 - 500.0
11 Total 144.5 211.5 1,450.5 1,520.0 1,202.0 4,528.5
12 Cost Escalation Factor 1.05 1.1 1.16 1.22 1.28
( 13 Es ted Cost 152.0 233.0 1,683.0 1,854.0 1,539.0 5,461.0
s-_
' ly
i
i
III-34
1 �
1-
IV. STO MWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING
- r A. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
The tormwater drainage system requires funds to finance both the capital
costs of improvements and the ongoing operation and maintenance. Histori-
cally, the City of Jefferson has financed stormwater drainage system
maintenance and improvements primarily from the General Fund. However,
s
because of the present need for significant improvements to the stormwater
drainage system, alternative methods of financing major improvements to the
stormwater drainage system should be considered.
1. METHODS OF FINANCING CAPITAL COSTS. Several alternative methods
are available to finance capital costs for stormwater drainage improvements.
While the first consideration should be to obtain all available federal and
state financial assistance, recent cutbacks by federal and state governments
limit the availability of these funds. For this reason, it is anticipated
l that the bulk of the cost for stormwater improvements will require local
`-
financing in the form of .bonds, special assessments, revenue financing, or
r-` a- combin tion thereof.
-' a. Federal. and State Assistance. Federal and state governments have
established numerous programs over .the years to assist local governments in
financing necessary or mandated improvement programs. In general, these
grant programs either reimburse a given percentage of a projectfs construc-
tion cost or they consist of outright grants to be used at the state's or
local government's discretion.
l`K! (1) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA does not fund separate
storm drainage programs except under unusual circumstances. Due to
reductions in the EPA Construction Grant program, it appears unlikely that
such funding will be available in the future.
(2) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD offers
F i funding for drainage improvements under the Community Development Block Grant
and Disc etionary Grant programs. The objective of these programs is to
develop ' viable urban communities, including decent housing and a suitable
t -
-� IV-1
�,_.r
r
J
f
living environment, and expand economic opportunities, principally for persons
of low arid moderate income." Since the Cit of Jefferson has a
1 y population of
under 50,000, it is not eligible for the Block Grant or Entitlement program
j but it i for the Small Cities or Discretionary Grant program. The Small
'I
Cities program is administered by the Missouri Department of Community and
Economic Development: The City of Jefferson can make applications for
Community Development Grants from that state agency, but it will be competing,
with oth r small cities for the limited funds that are available. In general,
�i drainage improvements have received little or no funding because of- higher
priorities given to housing rehabilitation. - It appears unlikely that funds
will be vailable from this source. The City, however, should regularly apply
for thes grants.
(3) General revenue sharing. The General Revenue Sharing program is
basicall3 a system of automatic grants to state and local governments based on
statutor3 formulas that take into account population, per capita income, and
tax effort. In 1984, the City of Jefferson received approximately $675,000 in
General Revenue Sharing funds. These funds are available to the City with few
f
limitations on how they may be used. They have- been used by the City pri-
marily for capital improvements including storinwater drainage improvements.
DependinE on demands for these funds., it may be. reasonable to continue funding
a portio- of the stormwater drainage improvements in this manner as long as
} the program continues.
r
(4) State of Missouri. The recently approved $600 million bond issue
t provides among other things, for grants related to construction of storm-
water co trol improvements under Sections 192.600 through 192.620 and
204.031 f the State statutes. The first sections deal with grants to
r ; public water and sewer districts, while the second section deals with
grants f r control of stormwater in the City of St. Louis and St. Louis
f County. Recently, the State Legislature approved use of some of the funds
for storm drainage improvements in Jackson County. It does not appear,
however, that any funding from this source will be available to the
City of efferson.
b. Local Funding. There are a number of local funding alternatives
for fina Ging stormwater drainage improvements. Depending on the level and
r
IV-2
F P
r
b
I
,
r
scheduling of the financing needs, the following alternatives could be used
individually or in combination.
(1)- Special assessments. While general property taxes are levied to
sustain regular activities of government, special assessments are levied
F against- property which receives some special type of benefit from a particu-
lar government activity. The special tax is justified solely on the basis
-' of the special benefit enjoyed by the assessed property.
Special assessments are not used by municipal governments as frequently
i .
today as in the past. There appear to be three primary reasons for the
decline in popularity of using special assessments particularly for stormwater
drainage improvements. First, many cities, including the City of Jefferson,
require developers to install stormwater drainage improvements as a condition
r -
'! of subdivision plan approval. The cost of the improvements is thus reflected
. ti
in property prices.
The second reason is that often the urban areas requiring new storm
drains are often older, lower income areas of a city. The use of special
1
assessments in these areas may not be practical because of the heavy burden
r such assessments may place on the property owners.
The third -major reason special assessments are not frequently used for
stormwater drainage improvements is the legal, administrative, and engineer-
ing difficulties associated with the method. Unlike sanitary sewer assess-
ments where individual property benefits are readily apparent through a
direct -physical connection or potential future connection to a sanitary
f sewer, benefits provided by special assessments for storm drains are not
f always readily apparent and often not clearly understood.
The a are communities, however, that do make limited special assess-
ments to recover a portion of stormwater drainage improvement costs from
property owners directly affected by or adjacent to the improvements. It
is suggested that the City of Jefferson also follow this practice where
possible.
Projects funded through special assessments are often financed through
4 special assessment bonds. Under such an arrangement, construction work com-
pleted during a year is assessed to property owners who have the option of
v
s ; IV-3
I
1
f �
paying the lump sum amount or making annual payments assessed on the
ti property tax bill.
(2) Bond financing. Bond financing is often used when a significant
amount of capital is needed for major improvements. Financing of long-lived
improveme is through the issuance of long-term debt reduces the annual costs
f and ensur s that both present and future users share in the costs of
improveme ts. Two types of bonds available to finance storm drainage
g
improvements are general obligation bonds and revenue bonds.
,_i (a) General obligation bonds. General obligation bonds are backed by
the full faith and credit. of the issuer. Such bonds are normally repaid
from general taxes, although repayment can be made from service charge
revenue or other sources with security provided by the issuer's taxing
t
capability.
' Gene al obligation bonds have substantial advantages as a means of
raising f nds. Because of the security provided by the pledge of full faith
1_,; and credit of the issuer, interest rates are generally lower than with other
--,If types of bonds. Their security features and general standardization for
market purposes usually results in good marketability and low transaction
costs. Ii Missouri., issuance of general obligation bonds requires a twothirds
majorityZigation
ter approval. The City of Jefferson has a very limited amount of
general debt currently outstanding and could readily issue such
debt for naking capital improvements.
The se-of special assessment bonds to finance local improvements was
== discussed previously. However, special assessment bonds can be set up some-
what similarly to general obligation, bonds and the assessment becomes a lien
on benefited property.
(b) Revenue bonds. Revenue bonds are payable from revenue derived
from char es made for services provided. In The City of Jefferson, no direct
charges are presently levied specifically for stormwater drainage. Revenue
bonds usel solely for storm drainage improvements can be issued once a
dependabla source of revenue is established to ensure repayment.
In g neral, the success of revenue bonds depends on bond market evalua-
tion of tie dependability of revenue source. In rating revenue bonds,
k'
i
IV-4
J
I
potential buyers consider factors such as economic justification of the pro-
posed project, reputation of the issuer, management and organization of the
issuer, methods of billing and collecting, rate structures, ability to in-
crease rates to meet costs, reserves, and soundness of financial projec-
tions. Providing buyers with the above information usually results in a
greater selling expense for revenue bonds than general obligation bonds.
J In additi n, revenue bonds tend to have somewhat higher interest rates than
- general obligation bonds, but they require only a simple majority voter
approval in Missouri. The amount of revenue bond debt is normally limited
only by the marketability of the bonds and considerations of maintaining
adequate revenue levels to meet debt service and coverage requirements.
(3) Revenue financing. It is common practice for governments and
utilities to set aside some portion of annual operating revenue for routine
capital i provements. Less common is the setting aside of significant
operating revenues to finance major improvements. A stormwater drainage
improveme t program could perhaps be financed from current revenues once a
revenue s urce is established and adequate revenues collected. While
financing major improvements on such a "pay as you go" basis would eliminate
interest osts, it could also place a great burden. on current users. This is
particula ly- true in this case, given the magnitude of the proposed program.
T Since improvements made to the system will be useful for many years, a fair
share of the costs of these improvements should logically be borne by future
system us rs. This will not occur if all the improvements are financed from
current r venues.
2. METHODS OF FINANCING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS. While alternative-
methods are available to meet the annual operating costs of the stormwater
drainage system, only few such methods could be considered equitable and
practical Ultimately,, these annual operating costs will most likely be
financed the system user, either di t char es or in-
II
directly :hrough ta&e&
r a. Taxes. A good stormwater drainage system benefits property owners
directly y reducing or preventing the incidence of flooding and flood- re-
lated dam ge,. In addition, the community as a whole is indirectly bene-
fited by reventing deterioration of communi.ty property and disruption of
IV-5
I
vital services and daily economic activity. Since tax levies at least
partially allocate system costs to those benefited, several forms of taxation
could logically be used to finance annual operating costs of the storm
drainage system.
{T (1) Property taxes. The exclusive use of property taxes for financing
" the annual operating costs of the storm drainage system places the total
cost of the program directly upon the owners of developed and undeveloped
property. A distinct advantage of property taxes to finance the storm
drainage program is the presence of mechanisms to collect such taxes. Dis-
advantages of property taxes occur in that users may not pay in proportion
to their use of the storm drainage system or to the benefits received and
that, in_ times of inflation, revenue from-property taxes tends to lag and
thus fall short of needs. Also, property taxes are probably the most un-
popular of taxing methods used. by local government and increases in property
tax levies can be expected to encounter voter resistance:
(2) Sales taxes. The use. of sales taxes to raise local revenue has
increased steadily throughout the country in recent years. Major advantages
of this form of taxation include the ability of revenues to keep pace with
inflation, the ability to raise substantial amounts- of -revenue with a
rela-tively low tax rate, and the ability to recover revenues from nonresident
users of ",ity services. A distinct disadvantage of sales taxes with regard
to a storn drainage system is that users of the system will not be taxed in
pro do to their use or the benefits received.
= - b. User Charges. User fees for services provided by municipal
governments have become increasingly popular in recent years. Generally,
in order for user fees to be accepted, services must have clearly identifi-
able beneficiaries. Two user charge systems which could raise annual revenue
f
for the stormwater drainage system are discussed below. They are the City's
wastewater charges and a possible new drainage system service charge.
(1) Wastewater charges. User fees for one specific service are some-
times used to raise additional revenue for other services. In the past,
many cities used water service charge revenues to finance wastewater service
IV-6
� 1
I
�T
costs. C rrently, some communities use wastewater service charges to pro-
vide reve ues for at least a part of their stormwater drainage system costs.
Although iot necessarily equitable, wastewater -service charges could be in-
creased t finance stormwater drainage system costs and improvements., Such
iTl
an increase, if considered, could be in t e form of either a customer
service c I aarge or a volume related charge, or a combination of the two.
tJ` The ise of wastewater service charges to raise stormwater system reve-
nue has s veral disadvantages. A volume related charge would be inequitable
because tie amount of water used or wastewater discharged bears no equitable
relations ip to benefits received from a storm drainage system. A service
charge wo ld be inequitable because many properties that would benefit from
the storm drainage system, such as parking lots and developed properties
not connected to the City's water or wastewater systems, would not pay for
services rendered.
r (2) Drainage system service charges. The concept of charging user
!_ fees for - tormwater draina e s s em se is relativel new an ias t ussfaF
received )nly limited a 'o . However, charging user fees for waste-
water ser ice is also a comparatively recent development and has become
popular only in the past two decades as costs of wastewater service have
increased. Charging for drainage service is a viable concept which, with
- proper st dy and the use of sound engineering principles, can be established
such that charges are related to the impact of stormwater runoff from
s ecif'c ro erties dischar in a draina e s e ; this is analogous_
to a sewer use ch e, in that all flow generated by the property is handled
by the receiving system.
._,
At feast four methods of charging for drainage service can be con-
sidered:
o Assess charges proportional to the>.AL area of each piece-
of property.
o Assess charges based on th_e equivalent imperv�ous ar_ea� this
method takes into account stormwater runoff coefficients to
weight relative responsibilities between developed and un-
developed land.
s ,
IV-7
I
i 1
i�
4
o Assess charges proportional to only _the impervious surface
'gr—ea-on -each- piece of property; this method attempts to levy
c arges on t o asis o t e primary cause of stormwater
runoff -- development in general.
o Assess flat charges for all customers-or- within
several genera classes as residential, commercial, ancr
in u aWMMMt charges can a based on�comput'teed re ative
stormwater runoff responsibility for each class of customers,
or they can simply be property benefit charges based on
assessed valuation or total land area without recognizing
j runoff characteristics.
A fat rate method offers a great amount of simplicity and may be de-
sirable where charges are relatively small or when a system is first imple-
mented. A method based -on-the area of each property is believed to be mgre;�
cost-res onsive in that the size of each property, as well as its use,
infiuenc s the total amount Ater runoff.
The use of drainage system service charges to raise revenue for the
drainage system has several advantages, the most important of which is. the
relative equity of the method in .assessing charges commen w,' costs.
Other advantages include the ability to adjust charges as needed without
effect on other service charges, the ability to account for drainage revenue
separately from other revenue, and the fact that such charges represent an
entirely new source of revenue.
The use of drainage system service charges also has several disadvan-
tages in that, whichever methodology is selected, it may not be easily
understood or accepted b -the eneral ublic. A property owner could be
.paying a drainage system service charge while continuing to have drainage
problems on his property, either because capital improvements for his area.
are scheduled far in the future or the problems are deemed his responsi-
bility and not funded by the service charges. Also, property owners may
not believe that they are receiving direct benefit from the stormwater
drainage system. Voters in a number of cities have r ecte imu a en atig}�
of stormwater drainage charges.
�J
IV-8
l •
' )I
r
,
Cites and drainage districts in the United States currently using storm
V, drainage service charges to finance capital improvements and operating
expenses include the following:
it sAurora, Colorado *Denver, Colorado
Bellview, Washington Detroit, Michigan
Billings, Montana Fort Collins, Colorado
S Boulder, ColoradoPortland, Oregon
Cincinnati; Ohio Tacoma, Washington
.Corvallis, Oregon Vancouver, Washington
}
In Missouri, Columbia and the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
are considering implementing stormwater drainage service charges.
(3) Practical aspects of collecting charges. The City currently uses
v the services of the Capital Cities Water Company for collection of waste-
water se vice -charges. If a system of flat rates is implemented, it may be
`—! possible to have the Water Company also bill for stormwater service at least
to those customers also receiving water and/or wastewater service. The City
would probably need to identify customers not receiving water and/or waste-
water service and render bills itself to those customers. Implementation
of a mor sophisticated system based on RroRerty size or impervious area
would li el re -wire es ish a e Cit -oneat�dJ�i11ing,
system at, considerable expense.
L ; (4) Legal Requirements. Implementation of stormwater drainage
charges will require a vote of the people under the Hancock Amendment to
the Missouri Constitution. Future increases in the charges would also
require 50 percent voter approval unless revenue bonds are used to finance
capital improvements. It is believed that separate votes will be required
to initi lly implement the charges and authorize issuance of bonds for
financing capital improvements.
i
B. PROJECT FINANCING OPTIONS
The section on Financing Alternatives discussed various methods for
financing the capital and annual costs associated with municipal storm
I
drainage management. Based on analysis of the alternatives available to
IV-9
r -
the City, four financing options have been developed for this project. , All
r
options assume a separate stormwater management utility would become opera-
tional a fective with the start of the 1986 fiscal year, that is, November 1,
1985. A ive-year initial study period is also assumed. The options include:
Option.l A complete self-supporting utility with all revenue require-
ments financed from customer user fees and revenue bonds.
Option 2 A self-supporting utility with all revenue requirements
financed from customer user fees but relying' on City general
obligation bonds instead of utility revenue bonds. (Note
that bonds are to be paid off using utility generated
revenues.)
Option 3• Similar to Option 2 but including a subsidy from the City
- General Fund of $150,000 in 1986, $190,000 in 1987, and
$200,000 thereafter.
Option 4: A utility with all revenue requirements other than debt
` service financed from customer user fees and debt service
- " obligations fully subsidized by the,-City General Fund.
,. 1. OPTION 1. Option 1 is based on a complete self-supporting utility
with all revenue -requirements financed from customer user fees and- revenue
w
bonds.
a. Revenue Requirements. The annual costs, or revenue requirements,
of the City's storm drainage system consist of operating expenses, debt
service or principal and interest payments on bonds, reserve deposits,
routine annual additions or-improvements financed through revenues, and bond
coverage requirements. Estimates have been developed for each element of
annual r venue requirements. The financial projections presented in this
`J
report axe based on establishing the storm drainage utility and initiating
system service charges at the beginning of fiscal year 1986.
The capital costs of the storm drainage system consist of all annual
costs -th t are not considered operating and maintenance expenses. These
J ! costs include debt service (principal and interest payments) on outstanding
-1 bonds,- .b nd reserve deposits, routine annual additions, and a cash reserve
IV=10
'-1
Is
u
requirem nt. The issuance of revenue bonds will also require that net
operating revenues of the storm drainage system be sufficient to provide
coverage in excess of the annual debt service. A minimum coverage level of
125 percnt has been included to recognize possible bond covenant require-
ments.
Deb service, often the largest single capital related cost, is largely
dependent upon size and timing of the capital improvements program. As dis-
cussed p eviously, Table III-6 summarizes the major capital improvements
�i program annual costs for fiscal years 1986 through 1990. The figures pre-
sented ir the table include an inflation allowance of 5 percent per year.
b. Projected Operation and Capital Projects Financing. For Option 1,
projecte operation and capital projects financing estimates related to the
storm dr inage system for fiscal years 1986 through 1990 are summarized in
Table IV 1. Projected service charge revenue from the initial rates shown on
line 1 of the table is based on a deferred collection allowance of 85 percent
of an estimated total billing for stormwater costs of $605,000 beginning in
fiscal year 1986. This collection allowance recognizes uncertainties related
to initiation of a new system of service charges, limited accuracy of land use
and area measurements, and potential resistance of certain customers .to paying
stormwat r service charges. The collection allowance is included at 90 and 95
percent of the bill ings for fiscal years 1987 and 1988, respectively.
Projected revenues for fiscal years 1989 and 1990 are included at 98 percent
of billings. Total billings, before the deferred collection allowance,
include an allowance for system growth through new development in the City of
1 percent per year. Projected revenues from initial rates range from $514,000
in fiscal year 1986 to $617,000 in fiscal year 1990. Revenues from anti-
cipated future rate increases necessary to finance the capital improvement
program are shown on line 2.
Total operation and maintenance expenses from Table II-2 are shown on
line 4, with the resultant net operating revenues on line 5. Interest in-
come, shown on line 6, has been included based on an 8 percent interest rate
IV-11
1'-
i �
J
i
5
TABLE IV-1
PROJECnD OPERATION AND CAPITAL PROJECTS FITIANCIM
OP'T'ION 1 -REVENUE BOND FINANCING
Fiscal Year Ending October 31,
Line
No. Item 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total
$1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
OPERATIOM FINANCING
- Service Charge Revenue:
1 Initial Rates 514 550 586 611 617 2,878
2 Subsequent Increases 0 0 59 222 427 708
3 Total Service Charge Revenue 514 550 645 833 13,044 3,586
4 Operating Expense 235 250 320 357 375 1,537
5 Net qerating Revenue 279 300 325 476 669 2,049
6 Interest Income 3 3 4 4 5 19
7 Total Revenue Available for Capital Costs 282 303 329 480 674 2,068
8 Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 0 0 182 375 534 1,091
9 Debt Service Reserve Deposits 0 0 36 75 107 218
10 Routine Capital Additions 62 48 0 10 0 120
11 Transfer to Capital Rmd 180 250 100 20 19 569
12 Total ital Costs 242 298 318 480 660 1,998
13 Net Anmal Balance 40 5 11 0 14 70
14 Cumilative Net Balance 40 45 56 56 70
15 Indicated Increase NA 07 107 247 247
16 Coverage NA NA 1797 1277 1257
CAPITAL fROJECTS FINANCDU
Source oE Rmds:
17 Funds on Hand 0 28 45 126 64
18 Transfer from Operations 180 250 100 20 19 569
19 Proceeds from Sale of Bonds 0 0 1,600 1,700 1,400 4,700
20 Interest Income 0 0 64 72 56 192
21 Total Ruids Available 180 278 1,809 1,918 1,539 5,461
22 Major Capital Improvements 152 233 1,683 1,854 1,539 5,461
23 Ending Cipital Balance 28 45 126 64 0 0
IV-12
applied to the average cumulative net balance and cash reserve requirements.
Line 7 of the table shows total revenue available for meeting capital costs.
Line 8 of Table IV-1 shows debt service requirements on the proposed
bond sales shown on line 19. These revenue bonds would be issued to finance
the majo capital improvements program. Projected debt service requirements
i are based on equal annual principal and interest payments over 20 years at
-' a 9.5 percent average annual interest rate. Projected debt service reserve
deposits shown on line 9, are based on 60 equal monthly payments until an
amount a ual to maximum future annual debt service is accumulated. Routine
capital dditions financed from revenues are shown on line 10; these figures
are takei from Table II-3 and should provide for purchases of equipment and
vehicles and miscellaneous items. Transfers of revenues to assist in
financing capital improvements are shown on line 11.
J As shown on line 15, a 10 percent revenue increase will be required
i effectiv , November 1, 1987 in order to finance both the. capital improvements
program and the projected annual operating costs of the storm drainage
system. This increase in rates is required to provide sufficient funds to
support Issuance of $1,600,000 of revenue bonds necessary to fund planned
capital improvements. An additional 24 -percent increase in service charge
{ revenue will be required effective November 1, 1988 and November 1, 1989 in
order to provide sufficient revenues and coverage to support issuance of
$1,700,0 0 in revenue bonds at the beginning of fiscal year 1989 and
$1,400,0 0 in fiscal year 1990.
Capital projects financing, shown on lines 17 through 23, consists
primarily of proceeds from the sale of revenue bonds. Based on requirements
of the c t
pital improvements program, shown on line 13 of Table III-6 and
line 22 of Table IV-1, it is anticipated that during the five-year period
sale of S4,700,000 of revenue bonds would be required to finance the
majority of the $5,461,000 capital improvement program. Transfers from
`- operatin funds and interest income earned on idle construction funds would
provide Idditional financing to meet the balance of construction costs for
IV-13
stormwat r system improvements. Interest income on idle construction funds
is projected on the basis of an 8 percent interest rate.
The financing plan shown in Table IV-1 has been specifically developed
to avoid the need for a rate increase until the third year of utility opera-
tion. It is believed that the prospect of stable charges for the first two
years will be a positive factor toward gaining public acceptance. In addi-
tion, twc years- is a reasonable time frame for the new utility to resolve
any pote tial operating problems before moving forward with a major bond
issue in 1988. At that time the utility would have- two years of history
prior to the bond sale. It is planned that the first- two years of capital
improvement program requirements can be financed with system revenues. An-
other reason that no rate increases are shown prior to -the first revenue
bond issue is that under the Hancock Amendment voter approval would be re-
quired. Once revenue bonds are sold with a rate covenant as part of the
bond ordinance then rates can be adjusted without a vote.
Table IV-lA presents a slight variation on financing Option 1 termed
Option 1A. Instead of revenue bond issues in both fiscal years 1988 and
!
1989, a single bond issue at the beginning of fiscal year 1988 is shown.
The issue amount would be $3,200,000. As shown in the table, a bond issue
of that magnitude would require a 34- percent revenue increase effective
November 1, 1987. However, no increase would be required the following
year. The additional interest that could be earned on bond proceeds would
enable a slight reduction in both the level of operating funds to be trans-
ferred to the capital improvement fund and the projected bond issue for
fiscal year 1990. The savings are an advantage of Option 1A. The disad-
vantage of Option 1A is the large revenue increase.required at the time of
!
the first bond issue, although the increase is directly attributable to the
~ sale of bonds.
c. DrainagelSystem Service Charges. Under Option 1 (and 1A), it will be
necessary that a schedule of- storm drainage service charges be implemented
by the City to finance annual costs of the drainage program. The schedule
of charges developed herein reflects the basic elements of a formula used
IV-14
TABLE IV-1A
PROJE= OPERATION AND CAPITAL PR WIS YINANCING
OPTION lA - REVENUE BOND FINANCING
Fiscal Year Ending October 31,
Line
No. Item 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total
$1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
OPERATIOM YINANCING
Service Charge Revenue:
1 Initial Rates 514 550 586 611 617 2,878
2 Subsequent Increases 0 0 199 208 416 823
3 Total Service a Revenue 514 0 8 81 1 01
Charge 55 7 5 9 ,033 3,7
4 Operat3*31gExpense 235 250 320 357 375 1,537
5 Net qerating Revenue 279 300 465 462 658 2,164
6 Interest Income 3 3 4 4 5 19
7 Total a Available for Capital Costs 282 303 469 466 663 2,183
8 Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 0 0 363 363 528 1,254
9 Debt Service Reserve Deposits 0 0 73 73 106 252
10 Routine Capital Additions 62 48 0 10 0 120
11 Transfex to Capital Elrod 180 250 30 19 15 494
12 Total Caital Costs 242 298 466 465 649 2,120
13 Net al Balance 40 5 3 1 14 63
14 CLmulative Net Balance 40 45 48 49 63
15 Indicat Increase NA 0% 347 07. 25%
16 Coverage NA NA 128% 127% 125%
CAPITAL PROJECTS FINANCING
Source of Rinds:
17 Rinds or. Hand 0 28 45 1,784 18
18 Transfer from Operations 180 250 30 19 15 494
19 Proceeds- from Sale of Bonds 0 0 3,200 0 1,450 4,650
20 Interest Income 0 0 192 69 56 317
21 Total Rinds Available 180 278 3,467 1,872 1,539 5,461
- 22 Major ital Improvements 152 233 1,683 1,854 1,539 5,461
23 Ending Capital Balance 28 45 1,784 18 0 0
IV-15
in deter ining the peak quantities of potential stormwater flow. By apply-
ing the lasic elements of the formula (that is, an impervious area coeffi-
cient estimate for each major customer class multiplied by its associated
E �
area), estimated allocation units based on equivalent impervious areas are
derived or each customer class. The results of this analysis are shown on
Table IV 2. The estimated street area within each class of property use
has been included to recognize and allocate responsibility-for the asso-
ciated amount of stormwater runoff. Total equivalent area by class of
property, weighted by its runoff potential, is shown in column 9 in Table
IV-2. AE shown in this table, total estimated equivalent impervious area
for single and two-family residential property is 1,720 acres, or approxi-
mately 32 percent of the total; 191 acres for multi-family residential which
is about 4 percent of the total; 1,700 acres for commercial, industrial,
and public and semi-public property, also about 32 percent of the total;
and 93 acres, or about 2 percent for what is classified as community
k property, basically parks. Public and semi-public property includes
schools, churches, government property, and other similar property. Approxi-
mately 1,636 acres, or 30 percent of the total, is vacant or agricultural
land.
Total net area figures in column (4) of Table IV-2 are based upon numbers
develope from the City's existing land- use maps. It is hoped that, upon
completion of the state-wide reassessment program, a more complete computer
data bas can be accumulated on all properties within the City potentially
subject to the 'proposed drainage system charges. Such data base should
i -
include total property area by customer class and individual account, and
other pe tinent data. Until such improved data is available, it is recom-
mended t at flat charges per account for most residential and non-
residential properties be implemented.
Table IV-3 shows the allocated cost of service to each customer class
_ for the ear ending October 31, 1986. Total cost of service is based on
IV-16
�1
`J
i
TABLE IV-2
DEUEf pig OF ALmA'TTON UM
C1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Allocation Units - Weighted Runoff Fquivalent Area
Est. Street Street Total
Total Est. % Area of Net Runoff Equiv. Runoff Equiv. Equiv.
' Class Area Streets Streets Area Coeff. Area Caeff. Area Area
acres % acres acres acres acres acres
Residential
Single and Two-Family 3,200 25 800 2,400 0.45 1,080 0.80 640 111720
Multi-Family 285 15 43 242 0.65 157 0.80 34 191
Total Residential 3,485 843 2,642 1,237 674 1,911
[Jon-Residential
Comiercial 785 20 157 628 0.75 471 0.80 125 596
Industrial 425 15 64 361 0.75 271 0.80 51 322
Public and Semi-Public 1,475 10 148 1,327 0.50 664 0.80 118 782
Total Non-Residential 2,685 369 2,316 1,406 294 1,700
Community Property
Parks 360 10 36 324 0.20 65 0.80 28 93
Total Conmmity Property 360 36 324 65 28 93
Subtotal 6,530 1,248 5,282 2,708 996 3,704
—Agriculture/Vacant/Water a 8,178 0 0 8,178 0.20 1,636 0.80 0 1,636
Total 14,708 1,248 13,460 4,344 996 5,340
IV-17
TABLE IV-3
ALLOCATION OF COST OF SERVICE Td cJsTan CLASSES
OPTION 1 - REVENUE BOND FINANCING
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Equivalent Cost Est. Cost
Impervious of No. of Per
Class Area Service Accounts Account
acres $ $/Month
Res tial
Single and M%T -Family 1,720 280,940 9,580 2.44
ti-Family 191 31,197 200 13.00
Total Residential 1,911 312,137 9,780
NResidential
Comercdal 596 97,349 900
I In fustrial 322 52,594 50
Pu lic and Semi Public 782 127,729 203
To tal Non-Residential 1,700 277,673 1,153 20.07 (a)
Comn ty Property
Ci ty Parks 93 15,190
To Cc enmity 93 15,190
TotAL 3,704 605,000 10,933
(a) Accounts with a total property area in excess of two (2) acres shall
be charged at a rate of $9.99 per month per acre.
i
TV-18
� f
the total billable amount of $605,000. This total amount is allocated to
'customer classifications based upon total class equivalent impervious area
shown in column (1) of the table. These areas are the same as shown in
column (9) of Table IV-2. The monthly unit cost per account in column (4)
f of the table provides the basic structure for an initial schedule of rates
for residential and non-residential property. Basic revenue will come from
the initial retail service account charges of $2.44 per month for single
and- two-family two- mily residential service, $13.00 per month for multi-family resi-
dential service, and $20.07 per month for non-residential service. Schools,
churches, and local and state governments will also be responsible for a
$20.07 per month ,charge for each property. The City would be responsible
for $15.,190 per year for parks.
Whe a non-residential properties exceed two acres in total area, a
charge o $9.99 per month per acre is shown. The charge is based on the
average of all non-residential acreage. Charging large properties on an
area bas's vastly improves the equity of the charge system. It is suggested
that, when implementing the stormwater service charges, the non-residential
rate foro be set at- $9.99 per acre per month with the $20.07 per month
charge set as a minimum. In that manner, all non-residential properties
could initially be .charged the minimum. As data on each account's total
area is gathered, that account's charges could then be based on the $9.99
per acre per month charge if it is found to have-more than two acres. Ac-
counts with less than two acres would continue to be charged at the minimum.
It is believed that the majority 'of non-residential accounts have less than
two acres thereby maintaining most non-residential accounts on a simple,
flat-ratE system.
2. OPTION 2. Option 2 is similar to Option 1 except that City-backed
general obligation bonds would be used instead of utility revenue bonds to
finance major capital improvements. Note, however, that under this option,
all bonds are still to be retired using utility generated revenues.
As discussed in the Financing Alternatives section of the report, use
of City general obligation bonds does have- certain advantages over using
1
IV-19
revenue londs. These include lower interest rates and elimination of bond
covenants requiring maintenance of reserve funds and coverage. The prin-
cipal disadvantage is that general obligation bonds require a two-thirds
majority voter approval as compared to a simple majority required for
utility ievenue bonds. In addition, the use of general obligation bonds
would nol relieve -the City of the need to have future stormwater utility
rate inc eases subject to voter approval under the Hancock Amendment.
Table IV-4 shows projected operation and capital financing for
Option 2. This table is similar to Table IV-1 developed for Option 1 with
the following principal exceptions.
o In lines 1 through 3, the required service charge revenues
are reduced to reflect the lower cost of financing using
-general revenue bonds.
o In line 6, interest income is reduced to reflect elimination
of interest earned on reserve requirements which are not
required under this option.
o The addition of line 7 to show that even though City general
obligation bonds are used, no City General Fund monies are
being used to retire the debt.
o In line 9, a reduction in debt service requirements reflects
the use of general obligation bonds assumed to have a 0.25
percent lower interest rate. -
o Line 9 from Table IV-1 (Option 1) is deleted to reflect
elimination of reserve deposit regirements.
o Line 15 indicates that annual rate increases to become effec-
tive November 1 of each year will be required. The first
two increases would be a modest 5 percent followed by a 19
percent and 20 percent increase the subsequent two years.
o In line 16, maintenance of coverage is no longer required
under a City general obligation debt issue.
IV-20
TABLE IV-4
P%ITE= OPERATION AND CAPITAL PROJEC7.5 FINANCING
OPTION 2 - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FINANCING
WITH NO (ORAL FUND SUPPORT
-' Fiscal Year Ending October 31,
Tana
No. Item 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total
$1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
C�ERATT FINANCING
Service Charge Revenue:
1 Initial Rates 485 518 552 587 593 2,735
2 Subsecpient Increases 0 26 57 183 341 607
3 To Service Charge Revenue 485 544 609 770 934 3,342
4 Operat:rating
Expense 235 250 320 357 375 1,537
5 Net Revenue 250 294 289 413 559 1,805
6 Interest Income 3 3 4 4 4 18
7 Timnsferc from General Fund 0 01 0 0 0 0
8 Total Revenue Available for Capital Costs 253 297 293 417 563 1,823
9 Debt Service - General Obligation Bonds 0 0 178 368 524 1,070
10 Routine Qpital Additions 62 48 0 10 0 120
11 Transfer to Capital Fund 152 249 100 37 38 576
-- 12 Total Capital Costs 214 ' 297 278 415 562 1,766
13 Net Annal Balance 39 0 15 2 1 57
14 Cumulative Net Balance 39 39 54 56 57
15 Indicated Increase NA 5% 5% 197. 207. 0
16 Coverage NA NA NA NA NA
CAPITAL IFaJECTS FINANCING
Source of Funds:
17 Raids on Hand 0 0 16 95 47 0
18 Transfer from Operations 152_ 249 100 37 38 576
19 Proceeds from Sale of Bonds 0 0 1,600 1,700 1,400 4,700
20 Interest Income 0 0 62 69 54 185
21 Total lUnds Available - 152 249 1,778 1,901 1,539 5,461
22 Major Ca ital Improvements 152 233 1,683 1,854 1,539 5,461
23 Fnding ital Balance 0 16 95 47 0 0
IV-21
Table IV-5 shows the allocation of cost of service to customer classes
under Op ion 2. This determination is developed similarly to Table V-3
develope for Option 1. As shown in column 4, the required single and two-
family residential service charge under Option 2 is $2.30 or 14 cents per
month below that required in Option 1. The multi-family residential charge
is $12.2! , or $0.75 less than Option 1. As for the non-residential class,
the minimum service charge under Option 2 is $18.91 or $1.16 per month below -
that req fired in Option 1. Under this option, the City will be responsible
for an additional $14,312 as shown in the next to the last line of column 2.
The per acre charge is $9.41 per month. While use of general obligation
bonds do s enable all rates to be somewhat lower, the cost of holding an
election each year to ask for voter approval to raise rates probably negates
any savi gs.
3. OPTION 3. Option 3 is similar to Option 2 except that utility is
shown to be subsidized with sufficient monies from the City General Fund to
reduce the initial residential monthly service charge to $1.60. Table IV-6
shows pr jected operation and capital financing for Option 3. This table
is simil r to Table IV-4 developed for Option 2 with the following principal
exceptio ss
o In lines 1 through 3, the required service charge revenues
are reduced to reflect the lower customer service charges of
$1.60 for single and two-family residential customers.
r
o In line 6, interest income has been eliminated entirely to
reflect the fact that no interest earnings are assumed' to
i
accrue to the utility on General Fund monies.
o In line 7, transfers from the City General Fund are shown in
the amounts of $150,000 for 1986, $190,000 for 1987, and
$200,000 per year for 1988 through 1990.
oL In line 15, the indicated rate increases to become effective
November 1, 1988, 1989, and 1990 are 5, 31, and 32 percent,
respectively, to reduce the need for 'even greater subsidies
from the City General Fund.
IV-22
,I
I
TABLE IV-5
ALm nCN OF COST OF SERVICE TO c[MMER CLASSES
- OPTION2 - MERAL OBLIGATION BOND FINANCING
WITH NO GENERAL RM SUPPORT
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Equivalent Cost Cost
Impervious of No. of Per
Class Area Service Accounts Account
acres $ $/Month
Residential
S e and Two-Family 1,720 264,687 9,580 2.30
Mj ti-Family 191 29,393 200 12.25
Total Residential 1,911 294,079 9,780
Non-mResidential
Camercial 596 91,717
In trial 322 49,552
P63lic and Send.-Public 782 120,340
E To Noor-Residential 1,700 261,609 1,153 18.91 (a)
Cow ty Property
Ci ty Parks 93 14,312
To tal Commmity 93 14,312
Total 3,704 570,000 10,933
(a) kcounts with a total property area in excess of two (2) acres shall
_ e charged at a rate of $9.41 per month per acre.
i
IV-23
TABLE IV-6
PRQlEC!nD OPERATION AND CAPITAL PRWECIS FINANCING
OPTION 3 - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FINMCING
WITH SOME ORAL FUND SUPPORT
Fiscal Year Ending October 31,
Line
No. — tem 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total
$1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
OPERATIONS FINANCING
Service Charge Revenue:
1 Initial. Rates 337 361 385 409 413 1,905
2 Subsecpmt Increases 0 0 19 154 337 510
3 To Service Charge Revenue 337 361 404 563 750 2,415
4 Operating Expense 235 250 320 357 375 1,537
5 Net Olerating Revenue 102 111 84 206 375 , 878
- 6 Interest Income 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Transfers from General Rmd 150 190 200 200- 200 940
8 Total. Available for Capital Costs 252 301 284 406 575 1,818
9 Debt Se ce - General Obligation Bonds 0 -0 178 368 524 1,070
10" Routine Capital Additions. 62 48 0 10 0 120
11 Transfer to Capital F1md 152 250 100 25 49 576
12 Total ital Costs 214 298 278 403 573, 1,766
13 Net Anruwl Balance 38 3 6 3 2 52
14 (lmiulat ve Net Balance 38 41 47 50 52
15 Indicated Increase NA 07 57 317 327 0
16 CoveragNA NA NA NA NA
CAPITAL PRQTECIS FINANCING
Source of Rmds:
17 Rnds Hand 0 0 17 96 37 0
18 Transf from Operations 152 250 100 25 49 576
19 Proceeds from Sale of Bonds 0 0 1,600 1,700 1,400 4,700
20 Interes Income 0 0 62 70 53 185
21 Total Flak Available 152 250 1,779 1,891 1,539 5,461
22 Major Czpital Improvements 152 233 1,683 1,854 1,539 5,461
23 Ending pital. Balance 0 17 96 37 0 0
IV-24
Table IV-7 shows the allocation of cost of service to customer classes
under Option 3. As shown in column 4, the required single and two-family
residential service charge under Option 3 is $1.60. The multi-family ,resi-
dential charge is $8.53. As for the non-residential class, the minimum
service charge under Option 3 is $13.17 with an area charge of $6.56 per
acre. Under this option, the City would be responsible for an additional
$9,968 as shown in the next to the last line of column 2. It is noted that
4 a General Fund subsidy of $150,000 would, if funded with property taxes,
require about a $0.09 tax levy per $100 of assessed valuation.
4. OPTION 4. Option 4 is similar to Option 3 except that in Option 4,
the utility is subsidized with sufficient' monies from the City General Fund
to pay all debt service cost associated with general obligation bond funding
of the utility. Table IV-8 shows projected operation and capital financing
for Option 4. This option is similar to Table IV-6 developed for Option 3
with the following principal exceptions:
o In lines 1 through 3 required service charge revenues are
reduced to reflect the lower service charges required if debt
service obligations are paid from the City General Fund.
o In line 7, transfers from the General Fund are shown in the
amount of debt service payments shown in line 9. -Sufficient
amounts are shown in 1986_ and 1987 to help cash finance the
initial proposed improvements.
Table IV-9 shows allocation of cost of service to customer classes
under Option 4. As shown in column 4, the required single and two-family
residential -service charge under Option 4 is $1.49 or $0.95 per month below
that req ired in Option 1. The multi-family rate is $7.95. The non-
residential class would be charged a minimum service charge of $12.27 under
Option 4 with an area charge of $6.11 per acre per month. Under this option,
the City will be _responsible for an additional $9,290 per year as shown in,
the next to the last line of column 2.
r �
. f
IV-25
i '
s ,
f�
TABLE IV-7
AL)CATION OF COST OF SERVICE TO CUSIOM M CLASSES-
OPTICN 3 - GENERAL OBLIC&TION BOND FINANCING
WITH SCME ORAL FUND SUPPORT
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Equivalent Cost Cost
Impervious of No. of Per
Class Area Service Accounts Account
acres $ $/Nbnth
Res tial
Single and mono--Family 1,720 184,352 9,580 1.60
ti-Family 191 20,472 200 8.53
r.,
T tal Residential 1,911 204,824 9,780
w
Non-
Residential
Cc rcial 596 63,880
Ti dustrial 322 34,512
p blic and Semi-Public 782 83,816
T tal Non Residential 1,700 182,208 1,153 13.17 (a)
Con unity Property
ty Parks 93 9,968
T tal Comnmity 93 9,968
Total
3,704 397,000 10,933
(a) Accounts with a total property area in excess of two (2) acres shall
e charged at a rate of $6.56 per month per acre.
IV-26
1 �
TABLE IV-8
PRQTECIED OPERATION AMID CAPITAL PRQTECZS FINANCING
OPTION 4 - GROMI OBLIGATION BOND FINANCING
WITH GUiERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR ALL DEBT SERVICE
Fiscal Year Ending October 31,
Line
No. Iten 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total
$1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
OPERATI FINANCING
Servic Charge Revenue:
1 Initial Rates 315 336 359 381 385 1,776
2 Subsequent Increases 0 0 0 19 19 38
h
3 To Service Charge Revenue 315 336 359 400 404 1,814
" I
4 Opera Expense 235 250 320 357 375 1,537
5 Net qierating Revenue 80 86 39 43 29 277
6 Interes Income 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Trans f s from General Fund 152 233 178 373 535 1,471
8 Total Rimenue Available for Capital Costs 232 319 217 416 564 1,748
9 Debt Service - General Obligation Bonds 0 0 178 373 535 1,086
10 Routine Capital Additions 62 48 0 10 0 120
�^ 11 Transfer to Capital Fund 152 233 35 28 30 478
12 Total Qrpital Costs 214 281 213 411 565 1,684
13 Net Balance 18 38 4 5 (1) 64
14 Cwula ve Net Balance 18 56 60 65 64
15 IndicatAd Increase NA 07. 07. 5% 07. 0
16 Coverag NA NA NA NA NA
CAPITAL PRaTECTS FDWCRU
h
Source f Rinds:
17 Fluids on Hand 0 0 0 13 4 0
18 Transfer from Operations 152 233 35 28 30 478
19 Procee from Sale of Bonds 0 0 1,600 1,750 1,450 4,800
20 Interest Income 0 0 61 67 55 183
21 Total Rmds Available 152 233 1,696 1,858 1,539 5,461
22 Major Capital Improvements 152 233 1,683 1,854 1,539 5,461
23 Ending ital Balance 0 0 13. 4 0 0
��� IV-27
I
T
TABLE IV-9
ALLOCATION OF COST OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMER CLASSES
OPTION 4 - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOM FINANCING
W M GMAL FUND SUPPORT FOR ALL DEBT SERVICE
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Equivalent Cost Cost
Impervious of No. of Per
Class Area Service Accounts Account
acres $ $/Month
Res ential
e and Family 1,720 171,814 9,580 1.49
v' K 1ti-Family 191 19,079 200 7.95
T tal Residential 1,911 190,894 9,780
N Residential -
- �rcial 596 59,536
trial 322 32,165
Public and Semi-Public 782 78,116
T tal Nor-Residential 1,700 169,816 1,153 12.27 (a)
r
CoEmuni
ty Property
lCity Parks 93 9,290
Tc tal Ccmnu-dty 93 9,290
To 3,704 370,000 10,933
r (a) Accounts with a total Property area in excess of two (2) acres shall
be charged at a rate of $6.11 per month per acre.
r
i
IV-28
r '
t I
l;
1
Table IV-10 summarizes the proposed- monthly single and two-family resi-
dential stormwater service chargesunder the four options for each of the
F five years in the study period. Options 1 and 1A have the same rates in
1986 and 1987. Option 1 has annual adjustments the next three years while
Option 1A has only two rate changes. Option 1A would be at a slightly lower
rate level by 1990.
ill
r,
4
j^f�
IV-29
� 'F
I
'I
TAME IV-10
j SDDM OF ANTICIPATID SIN(ME AMID TWO-FANNY
RESIDENTTAT• RATE LEVELS FOR STCRNbJATER SERVICE
Fiscal Year Ending October 31,
y 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
i
- OFTION 1 2.44 2.44 2.68 3.33 4.13
OPTION 1A 2.44 2.44 3.27 3.27 4.09
1 �
OPnON 2 2.30 2.42 2.54 3.02 3.62'
OPTION 3 1.60 1.60 1.68 2.20 2.91
_ OPTION 4 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.56 1.56
� s
, G
I
�� IV-30
1 '
� I
Appendix A
I
l
I_
n
I
r
l
I
i '
T BILL NO. 55- 1&0
1
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEPIC�l�Gh��1
ORDINANCE NO. _55
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI , IMPLEMENTING A
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, REGULATING CONSTRUCTION, PROVIDING
A PLAN OF ADMINISTRATION, REQUIRING PERMITS , AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS;
WHEREAS , THE COUNCIL FINDS AND DECLARES THAT EACH PROPERTY OWNER
OR LAND D VELOPER WITHIN THE CITY HAS A DUTY TO PROVIDE ,
MAINTAIN, ND PROPERLY OPERATE ON HIS PROPERTY, ALL REASONABLY
_ NECESSARY DRAINAGE AND DETENTION FACILITIES TO ENSURE ADEQUATE
DRAINAGE AN CONTROL OF STORMWATER ON SAID PROPERTY.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JEFFERSON, 11ISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. TITLE
This Ordinance shall be known as the "Stormwater Management
Ordinance o the City of Jefferson, Missouri."
SECTION 2. CHAPTER ADOPTED
A new chapter of the Code of the City of Jefferson ,
Missouri , s hereby enacted to be known as Chapter 27.5 and to
read as fol ows: CHAPTER 27.5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
SECTION 27. 5-1. DEFINITION OF TERMS
Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases in this
Chapter sh ll be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they
have in common usage and to give this Chapter its 'most
reasonable application.
CITY - The ity of Jefferson, Missouri .
COUNCIL - The City Council of the City of Jefferson, Missouri .
DESIGN YEAR STORM - The selected or established frequency or
return period of rainfall time-duration for which drainage
facilities are to be designed.
DETENTION BASIN - Any man-made area which serves as a means of
controlling and storing stormwater runoff.
DEVELOPER - A person directing or participating in the direction
of improvements on and/or to land, including but not limited to
the owner f the land, a general contractor , or a commercial
agent engag d for such activity.
1
1
r
DEVELOPMENT. - Any change of land use or improvement on- any 'parcel
of land.
DIRECTOR The Director of Public Works or a delegated
representative.
i ' DRAINAGE BASIN (WATERSHEDS) - The catchment area from which
�_J stormwatex is carried off by a watercourse or storm drainage
system. The area served by a drainage system receiving storm and
other surface borne water. The boundaries of a drainage basin
are a pro uct of natural topography and drainage system
configuration.
'. � DRAINAGE FACILITY - A man-made structure or natural watercourse
for the conveyance of stormwater runoff. Examples are channels,
_ pipes, dit hes, swales, catch basins, and street gutters.
g�^ DWELLING UNIT - One or more rooms in a dwelling occupied or
intended to be occupied as separate living quarters by a single
a family as defined herein.
' i
FAMILY - Cne or more persons related by blood, marriage, or
adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as an individual housekeeping
organization-. -A family may not include more than two persons not
related by blood, marriage or adoption.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE - Surfaces on real property where infiltration
of stormwater into the earth has been virtually eliminated by the
works of man.
r
IMPROVED LAND - Land having improvements that are impervious to,
or alter the flow of stormwater within the limits of a platted-,
=_1 or otherwi a distinguished, parcel of land.
IMPROVEMENT] - A structure on or other alteration of land.
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - Individually platted lots containing
two or fewer dwelling units.
OWNER - Any person, firm, association, syndicate, partnership,
corporation, trust, or any other entity having legal title to, or
-' a sufficient proprietary interest -to legally transfer, real
property. roprietary interest shall include, but not be limited
to, estate administration, trusteeship, guardianship, and actions
=! under- a valid power of attorney. Proprietary interest shall not
include an agency or a bare employment relation.
PERSON - A natural person, corporation, partnership or other
entity.
t � STORM DRAI - An improved storm drain is a closed conduit or
paved open ditch for conducting collected stormwater. An
_ unimproved storm drain is an open ditch, natural or specifically
constructed for conveying collected stormwater.
t �
2
I `
STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL - ' A City manual for use- by land
developers in the design or storm drainage systems such as storm
�f drains , culverts , streets , gutter flow hydraulics , - natural
r drainage s ales and storm inlets. ' The Storm Drainage Design
Manual may include drainage policy to be followed, standard
� . design met ods, computation forms, and City standards.
'i
STORMWATEA DRAINAGE SYSTEM - All drainage facilities used for
collecting and conducting stormwater to, through, and from
drainage areas to the points of final outlet including, but not
limited to, any and all of the following: conduits and
appurtenant features, canals, ditches, streams, gullies, flumes,
culverts, streets, gutters, and pump stations.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - A. City master plan describing the,
development of, and facilities required for, the stormwater
drainage system and additional improvements and actions necessary
to the management of stormwater drainage, entitled City of
Jefferson, Missouri Stormwater Management Plan, as approved by
a 1 the Council and from time to time amended.
SWALE - - A relatively wide shallow ditch - around or between
structures used to carry stormwater runoff.
UNIMPROVED LAND - Land in its natural state.
WATERCOURSE - A stream, usually flowing in- a particular direction
(though it need not flow continuously in a definite channel) ,
having a bed or banks and usually discharginginto some other
stream or hody of water.
SECTION 27. 5-2. PERMIT REQUIRED
No stormwater drainage facility shall be constructed,
altered or reconstructed without first obtaining a permit. All
such construction shall comply with the "General Requirements" '
and "Design Procedures" as set forth in this Chapter and the
criteria f the Storm Drainage Design Manual. Stormwater
drainage facilities shall comport with the Stormwater Management
Plan. No c Barin grading, borrowing or fill_incf of land s
be done wit out obtaining a permit fromtie Director. "
SECTION 27. 5-3. DUTIES OF PR-OPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS,
s DETAILED PLNN REQUIRED
Prior to the issuance by the City of a building permit for
�y any low d nsity residential construction, the staff of the
} Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning and
Code Enforcement shall visit the site and prepare the permit
noting any special conditions to be met for storm drainage. This
shall be accomplished within three (3) working days- after receipt
f�- of the application.
j Prior to the issuance by the City of a building permit for
r
3
any other type of construction , the prope-rty_ owner , the
developer, or their agent shall have a detailed drainage plan
approved b the Director in accordance with this Chapter. The
property owner, developer, or their agent shall, at his own
IDL expense, submit necessary plans, designs, and specifications to
the Director for review and approval.
Provi ions of this Section for plan requirement- shall be
waived provided no land is disturbed and no trees, shrubs, grass
or vegetation is destroyed` or removed for construction ,
reconstruction, repair or alteration of any building provided the
improvement does not alter or increase the flow of water.
t
' SECTION 27. 5-4. INSPECTION
The Director or his designated representative may
periodically inspect the development site. Through such periodic
inspections the Director shall ensure that the drainage plan is
properly implemented and that the improvements are maintained by
the develo er or owner until such time if any as maintenance is
' taken over by the City.
SECTION 27. 5-5. EASEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE
Whenever improvements to land are made, easements for the
stormwater drainage system shall-be provided across private
property. Easements through existing developments may be
obtained as deemed necessary by the Director. Drainage easements
shall include access from a convenient public street.
Maintenance of stormwater sewers, lined drainage channels, and
related facilities located within public drainage easements shall
be the responsibility of the City. The City may undertake all
maintenance activities, deemed necessary by the Director, of
natural watercourses and other unlined drainage channels located
within public drainage easements; however, assumption of such
`-
maintenance activities does not relieve the property owner of the
C responsibility for normal maintenance including: (1) debris
removal , ( ) cutting of vegetation, (3) repair of erosion, and
(4) removal of silt. Maintenance of storm water facilities
located on private property and not within any public drainage
easements hall be the responsibility of - the property owners and
_ shall incl de (1) debris removal and cleaning, (2) cutting of,,
vegetation (3) repair of erosion,' (4) removal of silt, and (5)
maintenance of structural facilities.
SECTION 27.5-6. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The following shall be complied with in any development:
a. STORMWATER. Stormwater shall be carried in enclosed
<<' storm conduits or open channels on the basis of
criteria established in this section, - subject to final
4 determination and approval of the Director. It shall
be understood that the requirements outlined in these
4
tandards are only minimum requirements.
b. OPEN CHANNELS. Open channels shall be located in
rainage easements designed to provide a 50-year flood
lain. The developer may be required to pave a channel
f such paving is necessary to attain ultimate, design
F` 7 apacity or to stabilize the embankments and channel
Towline. If the channel extends between buildings,
I onsideration must beiven to
g provide adequate
rotective measures such as paving the channel invert
i
Ind side slopes, bank protection or fencing. . Open
channels in residential areas shall generally be
located along the rear or side lot lines.
C. IDE LINE DRAINAGE. Storm drainage along the side lot
ines of residential property for pipe sizes through
4" diameter shall be in conduit for the full length
f the side lot line or the nearest natural drainage
ay of a larger tributary stream. Discharge protection
hall be provided to minimize erosion and disperse
low.
Storm drainage along the side lot lines of
esidential property for pipe sizes above 24" through
8" diameter shall be in conduit to a point thirty
L 30) feet to the rear of the front building line or ten
10) feet beyond the rear line of the structure,
whichever is greater. Extension of the system shall
hen be continued from this point the full length of
he side lot line or to the nearest natural drainage
ay of a larger tributary stream with a stable ditch
i ection.
Storm drainage along the side lot line of
v esidential property for pipe sizes above 48" diameter
hall be designed with a stable ditch section.
1 ; In all instances a surface swale shall be
rovided over the drainage system to contain at' least a
ifty (50) year storm.
d. I NDER ROADWAYS. Where culverts are placed under,
oadways, they shall extend to the limits of right-of-
ay or the toe of the roadway embankment if that
istance is greater, and proper hydraulic structures
—' hall be provided for dissipation of velocity to
revent erosion. Embankments shall be protected by
} iprapping or some other approved method, to prevent
rosion against a 50-year frequency storm.
e. EUTURE CONNECTIONS . Pipe drains or culverts
constructed to intercept the flow of ditches or
channels, which may be enclosed in a conduit at a
future time, shall be laid at the required depth to
i I '
5
1
permit their extension -at the same required depth.
f. INTERSECTIONS. Curb inlets shall be installed at or
ear intersections where they are deemed necessary for
he safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Curb
inlets * shall be placed so as to intercept the
-' stormwater before it reaches the crosswalks and no curb
inlet shall be located within a crosswalk. The above
is particularly - important in commercially zoned areas
and other areas of high pedestrian traffic and is
considered desirable in all other areas.
g. DRAINAGE ONTO SIDEWALKS. Tributary areas where
sidewalks exist or are proposed, and which drain across
a public sidewalk, must not exceed 3, 01010 sq. ft. of
impervious area, including roofs discharging upon paved
areas , or 9 , 000 sq. ft. of sodded areas , or in
proportional amounts for a combination of. such areas.
Paved, roofed, or other impervious areas exceeding
3 , 000 sq. ft. shall be provided with drains for
discharge 'into storm conduits, channels , or street
4 g tters.
h. D WNSPOUTS. Downspouts shall be connected to the
drainage system when possible by a method approved by
tie Director. Where no system exists they shall not
be directed to adjacent lots or structures. They shall
n t be discharged directly onto sidewalks or entrance
ways.
i . F OW TOWARD STREETS. Any concentration of surface flow
i i excess of 2.0 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the
13-year frequency rain shall be intercepted before
r aching the street right-of-way and shall be carried
br an enclosed storm drain to connect with a drainage
structure at the low point in the street right-of-way
`J
or to discharge to a watercourse.
J_ PARKING LOTS AND GARAGES. Adequate -provisions shall be
made for the disposal of stormwater from parking lots
aid garages. Plans shall be submitted for approval to
the Director to insure measures are taken to limit the
flow of water onto adjoining property or adjacent
sidewalks- or streets in a quantity that would be
detrimental to or inconvenient to persons using the
r ;
streets or sidewalks.
k. D TENTION BASINS. Detention basins shall be designed
u ing state-of-the-art methods acceptable to the
Direc-tor. Detention basins shall be designed by a
registered professional engineer or architect ,
authorized to practice in the State of 'Missouri who
shall provide a statement as to the characteristics of
i I
7
6
5
i
- ' he achieved stormwater flow restrictions. If the
asin is to be owned, operated, or maintained by the
ity, only a registered professional engineer
uthorize'd to practice in the State of Missouri shall
esign such a basin and he shall be required to affix
is seal, set forth in Section 27. 5-7 (d) (8 ) ,. but
ubstituting the word "detention basin" for the word
"drainage design", to such a design.
1. EASEMENTS. The minimum width of easements for
tormwater drainage shall be fifteen (15) feet. Where
storm drain consists of a closed conduit, the width
hall be the -greater of fifteen (15) feet or the sum of
he conduit diameter and twice the cover depth over the
onduit.
SECTION 27. 5-7. PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Drainage plans shall include the following:
i !
a. A boundary survey for unplatted parcels by a licensed
surveyor.
b. retail defining the alignment, boundary and acreage of
any natural drainage course, drainage facility or
ubdrainage area on the land in question.
in
C. retail draw
. g of profiles and specifications for
construction of channels , condu-its, detention ponds,
culverts, bridges, and all other drainage facilities
easonably necessary to , ensure that flood and
tormwaters, including drainage from other lands which
ill contribute runoff to the subject property, will be
adequately drained, stored or otherwise controlled.
included in the drainage plan shall be a schedule
ontaining the estimated dates of completion of
jconstruction for all stormwater drainage facilities
shown on th-e drainage plan. If the drainage plan is
pproved and the building permit issued, the applicant
hall comply with said schedule.
d. Specific plan details shall include the following:
(1) Plan sizes shall be 24 inch x 36 inch or 22 inch x
' 34 inch Plan and Profile. Minimum horizontal scale
f 1" = 50' and vertical scale of 1" = 101;
� 4
(2) The cover sheet key map of the entire project to
scale 1" = 2001, showing storm drains and facilities,
both existing and to be constructed;
- (3) Plans and profiles of each storm drain,. showing
location, size, design flow, flowline elevations,
gradients, and materials; boring information and rock
7
levations along the proposed storm drain anywhere
pplicable; location, depths, and sizes of adjacent or
crossing wastewater lines and utilities; and special
-tconstruction requirements such as concrete cradle or
ncasement, backfill, size, and class of pipe,' etc.;
4) All elevations shall be based upon USGS datum with
location noted of bench mark used;
5) Typical cross-sections of swales, ditches or
channels;
(6) Details of special structures , culverts ,
transitions, headwalls, aprons and junction chambers,
all adequately detailed and dimensioned including
placement of steel. Unless otherwise indicated,
standard City structures are assumed where applicable;
( ) For all detention basins, if. any, a plot of storage
�• volumes with corresponding water surface elevations and
of the basin outflow rates for those water surface
elevations; and
(8) The cover sheet shall contain the following
certified statement by a registered professional
engineer or architect:
4
I , a (registered professional engineer )
(registered architect) authorized to practice in
the State of Missouri , hereby certify that this
plan for the drainage design of
was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision in accordance with the
provisions of the Stormwater Design .Manual for the
owners thereof and I have hereto affixed my seal.
(SEAL)
e. A drainage area map showing topography shall be
-` furnished for the development. For low density
residential development this shall be in conformance
with platting procedures, Section 7.0 of Ordinance
-f 9L419. For any . other development a drainage area map
s ow-ing topography , shall be furnished for the
development. The scale of such maps to be as follows:
Acreage
0 - 10 Horizontal scale 1" = 50' contour interval 1'
- over 10 Horizontal scale 1" = 100' contour interval 2'
f. DESIGN. The following basic design criteria shall be
included:
8
r -
S
(1) Frequency of rainfall; -
(2) Percentage of imperviousness;
(3) Runoff for drainage area;
(4) Time of concentration;
I(5) Loadings; and
(6) Other pertinent design criteria.
+ -r
} g. DESIGN COMPUTATIONS. The engineer or architect shall
have detailed design computations available to support
-y is design and shall submit them to, or review them
with, the Director.
h. Drainage plans for property. to be owned, operated, or
maintained by the City shall only be designed by a
registered professional engineer who shall affix his
seal to the plan as required by subsection d of this
section.
SECTION 27, 5-8. DESIGN PROCEDURES
The d sign procedures stipulated in the latest edition of the
Storm Drainage Design Manual, shall be followed insofar as they
are applicable. Written justification for all deviations must be
prepared nd submitted in accordance with "Variances" as set
forth in this Chapter.
i -t All drainage plans shall meet the design requirements of any
City Ordin nce regulating floodwater control and subdivision of
— land.
SECTION 27. 5-9. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
a. IOCATION OF STRUCTURES. In addition to any other
requirements set forth by Ordinance for construction in
esignated flood hazard areas , the following
restrictions for construction adjacent to all
tvwatercourses and other drainage facilities shall apply:
1) No house or building and no other structure which
is not flood proofed shall be constructed within
thirty (30) feet of the top of bank of a
watercourse or other drainage facility nor shall
any such structure be constructed with openings at
an elevation below four (4) feet above the highest
bank of a watercourse or top of other drainage
facilities which traverse or are adjacent to the
- parcel being developed. (2) The Director may vary
the above requirements in Section 27.5-9.a.1 upon
visiting the building site for low d.ensity
residential construction or reviewing plans for
i any other construction should such revisions not
�r diminish the overall intent of this Chapter.
4 -
I
9
b. E ISTING STORM DRAINS. No cuts shall be made nor fill
deposited over existing storm drains nor shall existing
torm drains be altered without the approval of the
Director.
SECTION 27 . 5-10. DEVELOPMENTS'
a.
ONFORMANCE WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Drainage
Tans submitted by developers must be developed in
onformance with the Storm water Management Plan in
I ffect at the time of the submissison.
ti
b. ESTRICTION OF RUNOFF. The City may require that storm
rainage systems for tributary areas upstream of
xisting storm drainage facilities include on-site
tormwater detention facilities limiting the peak
ischarge to that which would have occurred for the
�. pxisting land use type prior to a zoning change or
rior to development of the area. The City may waive
duch requirements for detention facilities when the
eveloper makes satisfactory arrangements to improve or
provide a downstream drainage system of adequate
ydraulic capacity for peak rates of discharge to the
system, including discharge from the developer's site,
o a point downstream where the rate of total runoff
-` I rom the site is ten (10) percent or less of the total
unoff rate conveyed by the downstream system measured
{ t the time of system peak rate. The City may, at its
ption, also permit downstream system improvements and
etention combinations that provide the same level of
i
control.
C. qTORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FACILITIES. Drainage plans
end facilities constructed by developers for
developments encompassing more than 43, 560 sq. ft. in
total area, including areas not directly subject to
improvements , must include any improvements not
' reviously constructed, which are planned as part of
he stormwater drainage system on the affected property
pursuant to the Storm water Management Plan. For
urposes of this Subsection the Stormwater Management
Ilan in effect at the time of submission of the
1 rainage plan shall govern. Also for purposes of this
Subsection, the affected property shall include any
� C djacent property under common ownership with, and
�_J v ithin 100 feet of the limits of, the parcel of
property being developed. Where the cost of such
torm water related improvements exceeds ten (10)
percent of the total cost of the development excluding
he cost of land, the developer may petition for City
- i anticipation in financing and/or contribution to the
funding of the improvements.
10
-1
d. LTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS. In reviewing petitions for
ariances from the requirements of this Section, the
ity will consider alternative improvements or types of
improvements proposed by developers which the City
eems to be equivalent for the purpose of stormwater
anagement.
SECTION 27 . 5-11. INTERFERENCE AND DAMAGE
�J
No pe son shall damage or discharge or place any substance
into the d ainage system which will or may cause obstruction to
flow or of er interference with the operation of the stormwater
drainage system. Any person violating this Section or damaging
the stormwater drainage system shall be liable to the City for
all expense, loss , or damage incurred by the City due to such
violation or damage, in addition to any other penalties set forth
herein.
SECTION 27. 5-12 . REMEDIAL WORK
If it is determined that development is not proceeding in
_ accordance with the approved drainage plan, the Director shall
issue a written stopwork order to the developer detailing the
nature and location of the non-compliance and specifying what
remedial work is necessary to bring the project into compliance.
s The developer shall immediately stop work on all aspects of the
development except the required remedial action, which shall
i begin. The developer .shall complete the remedial work within a
reasonable time after receipt of said order. Upon satisfactory
completion of the remedial work the Director shalt issue a notice
of compliance and the development may proceed.
`- SECTION 27. 5-13. VARIANCES
a. GENERAL. Where undue hardships or practical
r-' difficulties may result from strict compliance with
his Chapter the developer may petition for a variance.
The Director may recommend, and the Council may
approve, variances so that substantial justice may be
one and the public interest secured, provided that any
such variance shall not have the effect of nullifying
he intent and purpose of this Chapter and further
provided that the Council shall not grant variances
unless they find and determine that:
� I
1) The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public safety, health, or
4 welfare , or injurious to other property or
improvements;
-i 2) The conditions upon which the request for a
variance is based are unique to the property for
= which the variance is sought, are not applicable
l
r-
s �
�i
generally to other property, and are not self-
imposed;
p) Because of the particular physical surroundings,
shape or topographical conditions of the specific
property involved, a particular hardship to the
owner would result, as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience, if this Chapter was strictly
interpreted and carried out.
b. CONDITIONS. In recommending variances and exceptions,
i ! he Director may recommend and the ,Council may require
vsuch conditions as will, in the judgment of each,
secure substantially the objectives of the standards or
requirements of this Chapter.-
c. EROCEDURES. A petition for a variance shall be
submitted at the time of filing for a preliminary plat
r for application for building permit. The petition
hall state fully the grounds for the request and all
acts relied upon by the petitioner.
;_' SECTION 27. 5-14 . ENFORCEMENT, VIOLATIONS, PENALTIES
a. ADMINISTERING AGENCY. The provisions of this Chapter
shall be administered and enforced by the Director.
The Director shall prescribe forms for attainment of
the purposes of this Chapter and for the proper
enforcement thereof. The Director may delegate the
administration of this Chapter, or any part thereof,
subject to limitations of the ordinances of the City,
E
to duly qualified employees, deputies, or agents of the
City.
b. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. Any person found guilty of
violating the provisions of this Chapter shall upon
i�
conviction be fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars
( $500.00) and in- addition shall pay all costs and
e penses involved in the case. Each day such violation
c ntinues shall be considered a separate offense.
N thing herein contained shall prevent the City of
J fferson, Missouri, or other appropriate authority
f om taking such other lawful action as is necessary to
prevent or remedy any violation.
! SECTION 27'. 5-15. LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY
4
_ Floods from stormwater runoff may occur which exceed the
1, capacity oE stormwater drainage facilities constructed and
maintained under this Chapter. This Chapter does not guarantee
that property will always be free from stormwater flooding or
flood damage. This Chapter shall not create a liability on the
part of, or cause of action against, the City or any officer or
employee th reof for any flood damage. Neither does this Chapter
12
purport tc reduce the need or the necessity for obtaining flood
insurance.
SECTION 27 . 5-16 . CONDITIONS, INTERPRETATION, CONFLICT
a. CONDITIONS. Regulation of stormwater drainage and the
ttachment of reasonable conditions thereto is an
xercise of the valid police power delegated by the
tate of Missouri to the City. Property owners have
he duty of compliance with reasonable policies,
— egulations, standards, and conditions established by
he City for design, construction, improvement, and
estrictive use of the land so as to conform to the
hysical and economical development of the City, and 'to
romote the health, safety, and general welfare of the
ommunity at large.
b. {NTERPRETATIONS . The provisions of this Chapter
Nall be the minimum requirements for the protection of
e public health, safety, and general welfare.
C. CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC_ AND PRIVATE PROVISIONS .
Public Provisions - Where any provision of this
hapter imposes restrictions different from those
�mposed by any other law or regulation, whichever is
lore restrictive or imposes a higher standard shall
ontrol'.
) Private Provisions - This Chapter is not intended
o abrogate any easement, covenant, or any other
rivate agreement or restriction, provided that where
the provisions of this Chapter are more restrictive
or impose higher standards or regulations than such
rasement, covenant, or other private agreement or
estriction, the requirements of this Chapter shall
overn.
SECTION 3 . SAVINGS
This Ordinance shall not be construed as abating any action
now pending under, or by virtue of, prior existing stormwater
drainage 6rdinances or regulations , or as discontinuing or
altering t �e liability of any person, or as waiving any right of
the City u der any section or provision existing at the time of
adoption of this Ordinance, or as vacating or annulling any
rights obtained by any person by lawful action of the City under
prior stor water drainage ordinances or regulations, except as
shall be expressly provided for in this Ordinance.
SECTION 4 . SEPARABILITY
If a y part or provision of this Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstance is adjudged
13
invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment
shall be confined to the part, provisions or application directly
involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have
been rendered and shall not affect or impair the validity of the
remaining provisions or the application thereof to other persons
or circumstances. The Council hereby declares 'that it would have
enacted the remaining provisions of this Ordinance without any
f f such part, provisions or application, which has been held to be
- ' invalid.
j SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
This - rdinance shall take effect and be in force from and
after its assage and approval.
�J
Passed r' - Approved
- President of 'the Council Mayor
j
-
ATTEST: e
City Jerk
i
4�-
�j
'JI
� I
17
i'
14
I
i
Appendix B
i
- TABLE B-1
HOMES WITH FLOODING PROBLEMS
ID ADDRESS CROSS/STREET
1005 1414 WILLCOXON S LINCOLN
1010 1422 WILLCOXON LINCOLN
1012 406 VETTER LN MILLER
1013 410 VETTER LN MILLER
r 1015 212 S LINCOLN E HIGH
1016 103 N TAYLOR HOUGH
1017 2024 E McCARTY LANDWEHR LN
101.9 2926 HILLVIEW MARY
ry 1020 208 S. LINCOLN HIGH
1021 111 S. LINCOLN WILLCOXIN
1024 2916 HILLVIEW CITY VIEW
i 1037 103 N. GRANT MCCARTY
2001 .212 E. ASHLEY MADISON
2003 1020-22 E. HIGH ADAMS
2005 102 W. FRANKLIN JEFFERSON
200.7 1224,1226 W. MCCARTY HART
2009 323 MANILA 1500 W. MCCARTY
2018 707 WASHINGTON DUNKLIN
4 2019 701-703-721 MULBERRY MULBERRY
2020 214 E. ASHLEY MADISON
2021 705 WASHINGTON ASHLEY
2026 1221 W. MCCARTY HAMLIN
_ 2028 1518 RIDGEWOOD W. MILLER
2029 723 OHIO MISSOURI
2030 1211 W. MCCARTY HAMLIN
3002 510 BEL AIR TWIN HILLS
3004 2025 MEADOW MARILYN
3005 317 STERLING PRICE -----
3006 600 BEL AIR BELMONT
3007 339 FOX CREEK SCHELLRIDGE W.
3008 201 BEL AIR W. MAIN
' 3012 216 ARGONNE W. MCCARTY
3013 150 FOREST HILL -----
3014 911 GENEVA LOLA
3016 211 BINDER HILLSDALE
3018 1731 W. MAIN VISTA
`-' 3019 1418 WILLCOXON S. LINCOLN
3024 2401 OAKVIEW RIDGEWAY
3025 916 GENEVA,211 METRO INDUSTRIAL
3029 2227 HILLSDALE BINDER
3030 137 W. CIRCLE CHICAGO
3033 803 DEAN DON RAY
3039 2213 HILLSDALE OAKVIEW
3041 202 BELAIR HILLSDALE
3044_ 2016 WAYNE DOUGLAS
3045 2200 BUEHRLE SATINWOOD
3047 1608 BEVERLY HAYSELTON
3048 2819 DWAYNE DR. KAYLYN
3052 2919 VALLEY VIEW- VALLEY PARK
Y
TABLE B-1
HOMES WITH FLOODING PROBLEMS
ID ADDRESS CROSS/STREET
3055 2925 ROCK CREEK VALLEY PARK
4006 1421 DEBRA THOMPSON
J 4008 2105 BUEHRLE PONDEROSA
4009 824 CRESTMERE CT. WESTWOOD
4012 1806 BASSMAN SOUTHWEST
4013 1805 BASSMAN SOUTHWEST
4014 1805 BASSMAN SOUTHWEST
4015 1020 SOUTHWEST BASSMAN
! 4021 803 LINDEN PAMELA
4022 2203 WEATHERED ROCK MILLBROOK
4026 905 WESTWOOD SOUTHWEST
4028 1225 CARTER STADIUM
i_j 4032 1501 STADIUM SOUTHWEST
4035 1016 DOGWOOD TOWER
r 4036 1414 STADIUM MYRTLE
4038 1412 STADIUM MYRTLE
4039 912 SWIFTS HWY. PAMELA
4041 1102 PAMELA LINDEN
1 4042 1324 MONROE JOHN
! 4043 1020 SOUTHWEST -----
4044 9.03 WESTWOOD SOUTHWEST
4046 1218 DOGWOOD BURKLEY
4048 1006 SOUTHWEST TOWER
4051 1506 STADIUM MYRTLE
4052 2401 STERLING IDELWOOD
4054 1411 DEBRA THOMPSON
-' 4056 826 CRESTMERE CT. GLENWOOD
5004 1322 MORELAND MOREAN
f 5005 1420 MAJOR ISOM
5006 511 MESA HOLIDAY
5009 715 HOUCHIN DUNKIN
5013 319 CASE ADAMS
5014 321 CASE ADAM
5019 1303 ISOM HOUGH PARK
5022 1417 CHESTNUT CAROL
5024 1103 MAJOR ROSE VALLEY
5027 1410 BALD HILL CARDINAL
5033 2319 KNIGHT VALLEY CAROUSEL
5034 808 HOUCHIN BALD HILL
5035 712 HOUCHIN DUNKIN
5038 1216 LEE LEE
5043 1819 GREEN MEADOW -----
5044 1120 LEE STREET LEE LANE
TOTAL NUM ER OF HOMES: 92
TABLE B-2
HOMES WITH EROSION PROBLEMS
ID ADDRESS - CROSS/STREET
1001 257 EASTWOOD RIDGEMONT
1002 324 LANDWEHR HILLS CARL LANE
-� 1005 1414 WILLCOXON S LINCOLN
1006 232 MARY HILLVIEW
1007 203 FREDRICKS ST. THERESA
1008 321 CARL LANDWEHR
1009 317 FREDRICKS LN LANDWEHR- HILLS
1010 1422 WILLCOXON LINCOLN
j 1012 406 VETTER LN MILLER
1013 410 VETTER LN MILLER
1014 253 EASTWOOD RIDGEMONT
1015 212 S LINCOLN E HIGH
- ' 1016 103 N TAYLOR HOUGH
1017 2024 E MCCARTY LANDWEHR LN
j 1024 2916 HILLVIEW CITY VIEW
w` 1025 108 BUCHANAN HOUGH
.1026 316 FREDERICKS LANDWEHR HILLS
10.27 224 WOODRIDGE MCCARTY
E 1028 98 S. LINCOLN HOUGH
1029 101 S. LINCOLN HOUGH
1030 220 WOODRIDGE MIDWAY
f 1034 1130 E. HIGH BENTON
1035 206 BENTON E. CAP
2001 212 E. ASHLEY MADISON
2004 1130 W. HIGH HAMLIN
2006 104 W. FRANKLIN JEFFERSON
2008 1226 W. MCCARTY HART
2013 1612 W. MCCARTY HUB
2014 1608 W. MCCARTY HUB
2016 1606 W. MCCARTY HUB
2018 7.07 WASHINGTON DUNKLIN
2019 701-703-721 MULBERRY MULBERRY
2020 214 E. ASHLEY MADISON
2026 1221 W. MCCARTY HAMLIN
2028 1518 RIDGEWOOD W. MILLER
2029 723 OHIO MISSOURI
_. 2030 1211 W. MCCARTY HAMLIN
3001 2502 ROYAL AIR BEL AIR
3002 510 BEL AIR TWIN HILLS
- 3003 135 DOUGLAS DAVIS
3004 2025 MEADOW MARILYN
3005 317 STERLING PRICE -----
3006 600 BEL AIR BELMONT
3007 339 FOX CREEK SCHELLRIDGE W.
3008 201 BEL AIR W. MAIN
3009 2511SCHELLRIDGE LADUE
3010 607 _SUE SCHUMATE CHAPEL
3012 .216 ARGONNE W. MCCARTY
3014 911 GENEVA LOLA
i�
TABLE B-2
HOMES WITH EROSION PROBLEMS
ID ADDRESS CROSS/STREET
3015 2900 DON RAY KAYLYN
3016 211 BINDER HILLSDALE
3017 213 BINDER MARILYN
3018 1.731 W. MAIN VISTA
3019 1418 WILLCOXON S. LINCOLN
3020 439 VALLEY VIEW VALLEY VIEW
J
3021 ----- -----
3022 720 DEAN SUE
3023 119 RIDGEWAY OAKVIEW
3024 2401 OAKVIEW RIDGEWAY
3025 916 GENEVA,211 METRO INDUSTRIAL
} ! 3026 2014 REDWOOD WAYNE
1.j 3027 726 DEAN SUE
3029 2227 HILLSDALE BINDER
y 3031 1814 ALLEN HAYSELTON
3033 803 DEAN DON RAY
W 3034 309 STERLING PRICE SCHELLRIDGE
3035 430 BOONVILLE LIVINGSTON
3036 520 BELAIR -TWIN HILLS
3037 313 STERLING PRICE -----
3038 424 MEADOW BROOK CT. ROCK CREEK TER.
' 3039 2213 HILLSDALE OAKVIEW
3040 514 BELAIR -----
3042 920 GENEVA LOLA
3043 133 BOLTON DOUGLAS
3044 2016 WAYNE DOUGLAS
3046 609 NORRIS BOONVILLE
3047 1608 BEVERLY HAYSELTON
F 3050 426 VALLEY VIEW VALLEY VW TERR
3052 2919 VALLEY VIEW VALLEY PARK
3055 2925 ROCK CREEK VALLEY PARK
3056 2911 ROCK CREEK ----
4001 1222 CARTER SWIFT
4002 1302 SATINWOOD_ STADIUM WEST
4004 1.807 TOWER SOUTHWEST
4005 1423 DEBRA THOMPSON
v' 4006 1421 DEBRA THOMPSON
4007 1425 DEBRA THOMPSON
4008 2105 BUEHRLE PONDEROSA
4009 824 CRESTMERE CT. WESTWOOD
4011 1809 BASSMAN SOUTHWEST
4012 1806 BASSMAN SOUTHWEST
4013 1805 BASSMAN SOUTHWEST
4014 1805 BASSMAN SOUTHWEST
4015 1020 SOUTHWEST BASSMAN
4016 1022 SOUTHWEST BASSMAN
4018 900 WESTWOOD SOUTHWEST
4019 1407 INGLENOOK GREENLEAF
4020 1534 TIMBER TRAIL CEDAR HILL
TABLE B-2
HOMES WITH EROSION PROBLEMS
ID ADDRESS CROSS/STREET
4021 803 LINDEN PAMELA
4022 2203 WEATHERED ROCK MILLBROOK
4023 1407 DEBRA THOMPSON
4024 912 WESTWOOD CRESTMERE
4025 1701 SWIFTS HWY. SOUTHWEST
4026 905 WESTWOOD SOUTHWEST
W 4027 1415 STADIUM SOUTHWEST
t 4028 1225 CARTER STADIUM
4030 902 WESTWOOD SOUTHWEST
4032 1501 STADIUM SOUTHWEST
4033 1403 STADIUM SOUTHWEST
4034 1407 STADIUM MYRTLE
4035 , 1016 DOGWOOD TOWER
4036 1414 STADIUM MYRTLE
4037 1410 DEBRA THOMPSON
4038 1412 STADIUM MYRTLE
4041 1102 PAMELA LINDEN
4043 .1020 SOUTHWEST -----
4044 903 WESTWOOD SOUTHWEST
4045 1505 STADIUM MYRTLE
4046 1218 DOGWOOD BURKLEY
i 4048 1006 SOUTHWEST TOWER
_ 4049 1411 STADIUM MYRTLE
4050 1013 'STADIUM CARTER
4051 1506 STADIUM MYRTLE
4052 2401 STERLING IDELWOOD
4053 1515 TIMBER TRAIL CEDAR HILL
4054 1411 DEBRA THOMPSON
4056 826 CRESTMERE CT. GLENWOOD
4057 1707 VIETH -----
4058 2311 KNIGHTVALLEY CAROUSEL
4059 2316 KNIGHTVALLEY CAROUSEL
4060 2318 KNIGHTVALLEY CAROUSEL
5001 1927 GREENBERRY SEVEN HILLS
5003 620 B E. MILLER LAFAYETTE
5004 1322 MORELAND MOREAN
- 5005 1420 MAJOR ISOM
5006 511 MESA HOLIDAY
4 5008 701 NELSON ELM
5009 715 HOUCHIN DUNKIN
5010 812 HOUCHIN' BALD HILL
5011 1324 ROSEVIEW LESLIE
5014 321 CASE ADAM
y 5017 2003 TANNER BRIDGE -----
5018 2007 TANNER BRIDGE ELLIS
5020 2008 GREEN MEADOW PAYNE
5021 1417 CHESTNUT CAROL
5022 1417 CHESTNUT CAROL
5023 1515' ROSEVALLEY CAROL & MAJOR
-' TABLE B-2
HOMES WITH EROSION PROBLEMS
ID ADDRESS CROSS/STREET
5025 1516 ROSE VALLEY CAROL
5026 1304 BALD HILL CARDINAL
5028 1333 MONROE TANNER BRIDGE
5029 1403 ROSEVALLEY LESLIE
5031 1821 GREEN MEADOW PAYNE
5032 1704 PAYNE PAYNE
5033 2319 KNIGHT VALLEY CAROUSEL
- 5035 712 HOUCHIN DUNKIN
5037 715 CARDINAL DUNKLIN
5038 1216 LEE LEE
5041 2009 GREEN MEADOW PAYNE
5042 1911 GREEN MEADOW PAYNE
5043 1819 GREEN MEADOW -----
5045 1918 GREENMEADOW PAYNE DRIVE
i
�) TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMES: 161
f
; i
I
i
TABLE B-3
HOMES WITH SANITARY SEWER PROBLEMS '
i
ID ADDRESS CROSS/STREET
1019 2926 HILLVIEW MARY
1029 101 S. LINCOLN HOUGH
1033 102 MCKINLEY -----
1034 1130 E. HIGH BENTON
1 1037 103 N. GRANT MCCARTY
2003 1020-22 E. HIGH ADAMS
v 2005 102 W. FRANKLIN JEFFERSON
2006 104 W. FRANKLIN JEFFERSON
2007 1224,1226 W. MCCARTY HART
2008 1226 W. MCCARTY HART
2018 707 WASHINGTON DUNKLIN
2020 214 E. ASHLEY MADISON
2023 819-21 MONROE ATCHISON
3004 2025 MEADOW MARILYN
3005 317 STERLING PRICE -----
3006 600 BEL AIR BELMONT
3007 339 FOX CREEK SCHELLRIDGE W.
3008 201 BEL AIR W. MAIN
3013 150 FOREST HILL -----
3014 911 GENEVA LOLA
3016 211 BINDER HILLSDALE
' 3017 213 BINDER MARILYN
3018 1731 W. MAIN VISTA
301.9 1418 WILLCOXON S. LINCOLN
3033 803 DEAN DON RAY
3037 313 STERLING PRICE -----
3039 2213 HILLSDALE OAKVIEW
3044 2016 WAYNE DOUGLAS
3051 434 VALLEY VIEW CT VALLEY VIEW CT
-- 3055 2925 ROCK CREEK VALLEY PARK
4018 900 WESTWOOD SOUTHWEST
4026 905 WESTWOOD SOUTHWEST
4031 1503 STADIUM SOUTHWEST
4032 1501 STADIUM SOUTHWEST
4033 1403 STADIUM SOUTHWEST
4034 1407 STADIUM MYRTLE
- 4035 1016 DOGWOOD TOWER
4040 902 SOUTHWEST WESTWOOD
4042 1324 MONROE JOHN
4044 903 WESTWOOD SOUTHWEST
4048 1006 SOUTHWEST TOWER
4049 1411 STADIUM MYRTLE
4051 1506 STADIUM MYRTLE
5002 529 LAFAYETTE ELM
5003 620 B E. MILLER LAFAYETTE
5005 1420 MAJOR ISOM
5012 1308 E. DUNKIN HOUCHIN
5021 1417 CHESTNUT CAROL
5022 1417 CHESTNUT CAROL
,_I
TABLE B-3
HOMES WITH SANITARY SEWER PROBLEMS
ID ADDRESS CROSS/STREET
5027 1410 BALD HILL CARDINAL
5028 1333 MONROE TANNER BRIDGE
5036 811 HOUCHIN BALD HILL
5037 715 CARDINAL DUNKLIN
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMES: 53
Appendix C
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
1. Horner & Shifrin, "Storm Drainage Improvements", (1963) .
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Technical Paper 40,
"Ra'nfall Frequency Atlas of the United States", (1961) .
3. Hunter, M. R. and Tucker, L. S. "Contract Maintenance for Drainage
and Flood Control Facilities". Paper Presented at APWA Congress,
(1932) .