Stormwater Commission

STORMWATER COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY Thursday, December 9, 2010 The following persons were present: Chairman Joe Lo Verde, Richard Wlodarski, Andrew Vitale, Steven Vinezeano, Mayor Callero, Chuck Ostman, and Scott Jochim. Also in attendance were Jeff Wickenkamp of Hey and Associates, Sewer Department Supervisor Tom Polcyn and resident Fred Kudert. Absent was Mousa Nazzal. 1. Introduction and Opening Comments: Vinezeano welcomed all present. No new faces. 2. Approve Meeting Summary of Thursday, September 30, 2010: Vinezeano will get the minutes to members earlier to provide for an efficient approval of the summary. The issue was delayed and the minutes were approved by the end of the meeting. Summaries are published on the Village website under Stormwater Commission. 3. Old Business: a. Stormwater Management Ordinance Recommendation. Chuck Ostman requested additional time to review the Stormwater Management Ordinance proposed by Hey and Associates for discussion on September 30, 2010. The Commission requested that Hey and Associates once again provide that PowerPoint presentation for discussion. This will be placed on the next possible agenda in January, 2011. b. Ordinance Amendments i. Staff worked with Hey to develop the definition for “Impervious Area” as it relates to Code of Ordinances, Appendix B, Zoning Ordinance, Section VII, Resident Districts. Hey proposed “Surfaces that do not readily allow for the penetration of rain into the ground, and include but are not limited to rooftops, paved areas and graveled areas.” The Commission discussed another version, “Any hard surfaced, manmade area that does not readily absorb or retain water or allow for the penetration of rain into the ground, including but not limited to, building roofs, parking and driveway areas, graveled areas, sidewalks, and paved recreation areas.” There was discussion about decks and whether or not they are pervious. Due to the use of plastic or other materials meant to prevent weeds from growing, placing decks into the definition seemed questionable.  o A final definition will be presented with all other approved amendments at the next meeting. o The Commission agreed that a broader review of impervious surfaces will be required at a later date. c. NFIP Audit Update. Hey and Associates provided a brief overview of NFIP and the purpose of the internal audit. Once the NFIP documents are in order as per Chapter 50-Floods, the Village may pursue a preferred CRS rating to reduce the cost of flood insurance. Each of the 12 properties with buildings that fell within the floodplain was reviewed and a comprehensive folder was created for the Engineering Department for future tracking. As per Chapter 50, the Engineering Department must track substantial improvements to ensure the cumulative percentage of improvements of any structure in the floodplain does not equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the structure. With the audit complete, the Stormwater Commission is seeking to move forward with the Community Rating System Program (CRS), a voluntary incentive program recognizes and encourages community floodplain management that exceeds the minimum NFIP requirements. It was explained that insurance costs could be reduced by 10% by just submitting to a review. Also there is the opportunity for Preferred Risk Flood Insurance for residents who are impacted outside of the floodplain for about $200 per year. Niles has 29 flood insurance policy holders with average annual premiums of about $1,193 per policy. o The Commission agreed that homeowner education is key once improved flood insurance opportunities are available. o Engineering, Community Development and Hey and Associates must meet to discuss Chapter 50 and the process of permitting within the floodway and floodplain. o Engineering will need to develop a Guide to Repairs and remodeling in the Floodway/plain (web and hard copy). d. Guidelines for Flood Prevention Response. The original title of the document “Standard Operating Procedure for Flood Control Response” was changed by request of the Public Services Director. The Commission agreed. Unfortunately, the wrong copy of the document was provided to the Commission for review. Tom Polcyn reviewed the proposed guidelines with the Commission.  There was extensive discussion regarding the logging of calls made by residents during flooding events. One top goal of the “guideline” is to put in place a procedure for the logging of calls that are made “after hours” when Public Services is not open and Police (and in extreme cases Fire) are fielding flood calls. The Commission agreed that Fire, Police, Public Services and General Government should all use the “Flood Complaint Form” to log calls even during regular work hours when a heavy rain event occurs. In the future, the Mayor would like to see this process computerized for accuracy and simplicity in reporting. A hot-line was discussed briefly, but due to the number of calls generated during a heavy rain event, it was decided that it wouldn’t be practical. Calls would still be made to all departments anyway. There was brief discussion on locking down manholes to prevent illegal dumping and making changes to barricades to prevent citizens from moving them and causing wakes. It was agreed that the most the Commission could recommend regarding barricades is to educate the public on why not to move them. e. Plan Review Process and Billing for Engineering Department. The Village Engineer prepared a “Plan Review Process” document to be used with an RFP in an effort to move the process of professional engineering services along. There was discussion regarding whether or not Hey and Associates should be utilized since they have already been through the RFP process for this project and will be working long-term with the Village. The Commission Chair reiterated that although he is confident in the capability of Hey to do the work of engineering reviews, he feels that the municipality should seek out competitive bids on new projects as a matter of due diligence. o Engineering will work with Hey and Associates to develop an RFP for engineering review services. f. MWRD Request for Small Stream Maintenance. Vinezeano and Jochim investigated stream sites (Prairie Creek) believed to be impeded. A map was made with pictures and sent to Senior Civil Engineer Brian Levy (thanks to the help of Hey and Associates) of MWRD’s Small Streams Maintenance Program. Due to the extensiveness of the work required, the goal was to go directly to MWRD for this work and not to simply upload the request on their website. Vinezeano briefed the Commission on the initial MWRD response. o In the spring, Public Services will work with MWRD to remove “woody” debris near the strip mall on Greenwood Avenue and Ballard Road. o Staff should complete Form B Worksheet from MWRD for these issues.  g. IEPA Illinois Green Infrastructure Grant Program for Stormwater Management (IGIG). Hey and Associates and Vinezeano worked together to identify a project for the grant and then write the grant for submittal by December 15, 2010. The site of the proposed project is where Public Services dumps snow. Vinezeano checked with the Mayor, Village Manager, and the Public Services Director on whether or not the project was feasible. The Public Services Director was concerned about losing the only site for snow dumping, however, it was agreed that with limited infringement on the site and an adjusted dump routine, it was possible. It was discussed that the design of the project is merely conceptual at this stage and that the Public Services Director will be involved with the final design if the Village is approved for the grant. Jeff from Hey provided a brief description of the project and how it will benefit the Village. There was discussion of how the combined sewer and storm sewer that run through the proposed project area actually combine into a combined sewer that then enters the MWRD system. Hey stated that if MWRD is serious about improving CSOs in this area, they should be very interested in separating the block or so of storm sewer. o The section of storm sewer in question will be investigated further for possible MWRD involvement. 4. New Business: a. Community Rating System. This was discussed earlier in the meeting. b. Hey Modeling Update. Hey and Associates presented information on an updated modeling tool that they will use for the project. After several weeks of evaluation with two vendors, they selected the XPSWMM 2D model. This modeling tool allows for the use of the two dimensional digital elevation model (DEM) for representing overland flowpaths and flooding. The results are more detailed, more easily understood, and will more easily be exported to the Village’s GIS. Modeling activities are continuing. Initial results on problems and problem diagnosis are expected in late January or early February. Presentations on preliminary alternatives and solutions are planned to begin in late February early March. Recommendations and the draft CIP are planned for early April. There was a discussion about the upcoming budget cycle and what the Commission anticipates should be budgeted for stormwater. Hey stated that the Village can anticipate budgeting engineering and any cost share programs, but construction projects will most likely not occur until 2012/2013 budget year. The Chairman voiced his concern that the process continue to move forward and the Mayor agreed.  o Hey anticipated budget needs for engineering, etc. 5. Ongoing Projects and Open Discussion: a. Ostman stated that MIS have all the properties that are in the floodplain in CityView for flagging when permits are requested. He asked questions about what is allowed to be built in these areas and what triggers review. He also asked which department is responsible for permits within these areas. Vinezeano stated that Chapter 50 establishes Engineering as the authority to permit this type of work, but that both departments and Hey should meet to discuss in detail. o Engineering, Community Development and Hey to meet and discuss Chapter 50 requirements and permitting. b. Jochim stated that the meeting scheduled with Glenview on October 6th was canceled. He stated how he simply wanted answers from Glenview on whether or not their hired engineering firm investigated the issue. The Mayor reiterated the need to meet with Glenview. o Jochim to schedule a meeting with Glenview. c. The Mayor asked about the work at Maryhill mentioning the pipes on the ground as reported by residents in the area. No update was available from Public Services. d. Jochim asked about buildings that are allowed to build on the property line and how difficult it becomes to manage stormwater runoff in those situations. It was discussed that the Stormwater Management Ordinance that the Commission is working on and will be discussed at the next meeting addresses the issues. There is a real concern about providing management for stormwater runoff so that it does not negatively impact surrounding properties and yet does not deter development. 6. Next Scheduled Meeting: TBA. Items to be discussed: Cost Share Programs and the Stormwater Management Ordinance.