Stormwater Commission

STORMWATER COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY Wednesday, September 7, 2011 The following persons were present: Steven Vinezeano, Andrew Vitale, Mousa Nazzal, Richard Wlodarski, Fred Kudert, Chuck Ostman, and Jeff Wickenkamp of Hey and Associates. Also in attendance were Mayor Robert Callero, Trustee Andrew Przybylo, Trustee Chris Hanusiak, Trustee Rosemary Palicki, and Village Manager George Van Geem. Residents in attendance: Tom O’Malley, Dave Cottrell, and Bill Maloney from Bruce/Knight Ct. area of Niles. A resident from 8503 N. Oleander was also present. Absent: Chairman Joe Lo Verde, Scott Jochim, and Tom Polcyn. The meeting was called to order at 8:34 a.m. Vinezeano read a statement from Chairman Joe Lo Verde who was absent due to personal reasons: “Until recently, I believe elected officials did not have clear-cut responsibility for managing storm drainage. Over the many years the lack of a storm water management system plan did not prevent the construction of homes or commercial buildings. Therefore, Niles did not take any significant steps to minimize the risk of flooding; i.e. detention basins or open space, until more recent storms caused damage and inconvenience. Today, however, we as elected officials are increasingly aware that if we are to preserve the communities’ quality of life, then we must assume responsibility for storm water management. Assessing the need for implementing a storm water management system or for upgrading an existing one is necessary if we wish to maintain the quality of life in our community. Frequent nuisance flooding or intermittent floods of significant size are diminishing the public’s confidence in effective leadership. Flooding can also can threaten public health by causing sewer back ups in residences and businesses and damage the environment through erosion and the discharge of pollutants. Niles, working with Hey & Associates, has now taken the significant steps to address storm water management through a Master Plan. As we move forward with our Master Plan we will certainly face challenges, I believe it is imperative that we inform and educate our citizens on the importance of a storm water management plan, the cost of a storm water management plan and the need to move forward to provide any and all possible flood relief to those critical areas we have identified. Thank you, Joe” 1. Approve Meeting Summary of Wednesday, August 31, 2011: Vinezeano provided the summary to members prior to the meeting. There was an amendment adding Mayor Callero to reflect his attendance at the meeting. The summary was approved to be posted on the Stormwater Commission web page. Prior to the discussion of Old Business, the Phase I Analysis Summary and Recommendations, Dave Cottrell, a resident since 1998 at Western and Manor in Niles residing behind Tom O’Malley, who spoke to the Committee on August 31, addressed the group to express concern regarding the potential cancellation of his homeowners insurance due to flooding. He indicated that his insurance carrier notified him that his policy could be cancelled if another claim related to flooding is filed within the next five years, which may lead to mortgage default because of the lack of insurance. Speaking on behalf of himself and the other residents of his area (Bruce/Knight section) he asked that the Commission focus on a short term solution for this section for the reasons cited above. In addition, a resident of 8503 Oleander addressed the Commission later on in the meeting to present his situation and support for the proposal to provide a cost sharing program for individual homeowners for the installation of flood control or flood proofing, as appropriate for their individual situations. He stated that the basement of his residence flooded to approximately 29” in depth during the recent July rain event from what appeared to be sewer backup. He reported that his residence was constructed in the 1950’s and it is located in the lowest point of the block. He indicated that his neighbors did not have any similar flooding. He also mentioned that there have been (5) other occurrences of basement flooding at his residence in the past (10) ten years but that this is the first instance of sewer backup. He expressed his support for the cost sharing proposal as a short term solution to help address his specific situation. 2. Old Business: a. Phase I Analysis Summary and Recommendations. Jeff Wickenkamp presented the summary details in the format proposed for presentation to the Board of Trustees on September 27. Copies of the presentation were provided. The presentation encompasses (21) twenty one charts outlining the analysis details for the East and West sides, a recommended program to address flooding in these areas, priority recommendations and projected costs, and a cost estimate for mitigating flooding in the North and South sections, which will be refined as part of the Phase II engineering activities of the program. The phase II Engineering review and analyses requires separate Village Board approval. Jeff presented the Phase I details and addressed questions as the discussion proceeded. For continuity the time order of some of the specific questions and responses from the review was changed and some will be presented later in the summary. In Hey’s presentation, four aerial photos of Niles were presented which identify the boundaries of the analysis areas, the key geographical features of the region (watersheds and flow paths), and the location of the major combined and separate storm sewer outflow connections for each section. It was noted that there is good correlation between the actual flooding patterns and the modeling, and the geographical overland flow paths, the natural rain water drain paths, which are still present in Niles. A chart summarized the types of flooding problems (basement backups and overland flooding) that have been experienced in the East and West sides, and the approximate number of homes involved in total, in both regions. It was noted that overland flooding of a residence is defined as water adjacent to or touching a foundation, not necessarily reflecting actual water ingress into a residence from surface flow. Program recommendations followed. A four step program was presented involving 1) Specific Capital Improvements, 2) Cost Share Programs, 3) Regulatory Program and 4) Maintenance and Monitoring. The Regulatory and Maintenance programs are already in place and ongoing. The Capital Improvement and Cost Sharing program proposals are new and would require the authorization of new Village spending by the Board for implementation. A change in presentation order was recommended and will be incorporated into the September 27 presentation. The ongoing programs, Regulatory and Maintenance will be presented first, followed by Cost Sharing and Capital Improvement. The Capital Improvement Program involves (10) ten major activities including conveyance changes (targeted sewer additions, modifications and connection changes) and various storage projects (underground and detention areas). The projects are outlined by priority based on providing the greatest amount of flooding relief in the initial stages. Of note, later in the discussion Van Geem identified for general purposes that this level of spending, on an annual basis of approximately $2.5 million per year, may reflect a possible 50% increase in the portion of an individual’s property tax that relates to the Village of Niles. This is not a 50% increase in overall property tax liabilities, just the component related to the Village of Niles. It could also reflect a possible 25% increase in water service fees if funded via this method. Funding details are to be addressed at the September 21 Finance Committee meeting. The (10) ten specific projects were presented in priority and by timing. Projects 1 and 2 related to sewer changes/modifications for the East side, Monroe/Keeney and Grennan Heights reflect approximately $11million in spending and approximately six years to complete overall. The Monroe St. modifications would be first and could possibly be accomplished in a two year time frame, years 1 and 2, followed by the installation of the Grennan Heights/ Cleveland St. relief sewer in years 3 through 6. Projects 3 through 6 which encompass additional East side modifications (specific sewer changes and the addition of specific detention areas), the West Side and a first phase of North/South modifications reflect approximately $21 million in spending in years 7 through 12. It was noted, based on a question from Vinezeano later on in the meeting that it is possible to combine projects 1 through 6 to start simultaneously in order to provide an earlier benefit to West Side residents. This change, if accepted, would result in a higher annual spending rate for the earlier years. Projects 7 through 10 which involve an additional storm sewer outfall at Dobson, the installation of specific underground storage in several East side locations and some storm/sanitary sewer separation would follow in years 13 through 20. It was also recognized in the discussion that the details of these long term projects is subject to change as results become available from the preceding projects and new information is developed regarding the need for and the details of specific next steps as the latter years of the program are approached. Two important aspects of the Capital Program surfaced during the discussion. They are the need to expand discussion beyond the general contact initiated by Hey and Associates with Cook County Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD), and the Forest Preserve District concerning the proposed relief sewers which will pass through Forest Preserve property to connect with the Chicago River and the need to begin to investigate land acquisition required for storage and detention, including possible alternative sites. There is some flexibility for alternate sites without compromising performance but cost changes may occur. If FEMA buyouts become available, which are not anticipated at this time, additional site options are possible primarily using existing residential space instead of open land which is extremely limited. In the event that land acquisition of any reasonable form is not possible then a change in above ground storage methods to a possible underground system will have to be considered at a significant cost increase. This is a main concern for the West Side program which relies heavily on a storage solution, which is the only really viable technical solution available when one considers proven technologies, costs, etc. Discussions of the Cost Share Programs followed. There are four main areas all focusing on supporting individual homeowner changes. They are: 1) Flood control systems for backups, 2) Flood proofing for protection from overland flow, 3) Green Infrastructure (rain barrels and rain gardens) and 4) structure buyouts. Support in each of these areas, other than a buyout, involves a 50% cost share with a dollar cap and a yearly limit on applications. Flood control systems (backflow prevention or overheads sewers) work and are very common in North Eastern Illinois. Wickenkamp noted in response to a question that it is possible but not very likely that one homeowner may adversely impact another homeowner, causing flooding that did not previously occur, through the installation of flood control. Hanusiak asked if payment will be made retroactively to homeowners for any flood control systems that they may have installed prior to the formal initiation of the program. It was recommended by the Commission to not include retroactive payments. Flood proofing is primarily focused on “dry” methods involving preventing overland flow from entering an individual home. This involves activities such as raising window wells, creating mini levees or other features, etc. around a specific home. Approaches of this type, to address short time frame flooding conditions which is what is experienced in Niles, are successful and a good “library” of solution methods from the Army Corp. of Engineers and other agencies and groups exists for reference. Activities in this area can be implemented relatively quickly if approved. It is not anticipated that “wet” flood proofing which provides flow paths for storm water through a residence, such as a depressed garage, etc., in order to minimize damage will be required to any degree, if at all. But it is included as an option. There are significant opportunities for implementing individual green approaches. They have merit and can provide measurable support in flood relief. The potential for structured buyouts appears to be limited in scope and probably difficult to achieve in terms of obtaining financing support from FEMA. Financing support requires completion of the Cook County Hazard Mitigation Plan, currently underway but requiring an additional one to two years to complete, and the necessity for each property to meet a cost benefit ratio of greater than “1”. This is the ratio obtained from dividing the costs of flood damage by the cost of the home. Essentially the potential damage or benefit costs must equal or exceed the value of the home. The number of Niles homes that may be candidates if a buyout program is possible is estimated as 10 to 12 by Hey and Associates. Subsequently the plan, as currently proposed, allows for only one buyout per year. The recently enacted Storm Water ordinance is highlighted in a chart describing its key aspects and focus: to control storm water runoff, manage it by amount and rate in new and redevelopment projects preventing new problems. The ordinance is consistent with Cook County and MWRD. The Sewer Maintenance and Monitoring program focuses on reducing the infiltration of water into the system from cracks, etc. In addition it is planned to monitor, by instrumentation, key areas of the system where there is a high frequency of sanitary sewer backups in order to determine if there are any unusually high “wet areas” or other currently unknown problems/causes that need to be addressed. Overall the activities in this area are an important aspect of the program. As noted earlier in the summary, a series of questions were asked as each chart or topic was discussed. The following are the additional questions, not included in the above, that were raised and addressed: Przybylo: In Cost Sharing, are there some residential areas where the problems are so severe that the specific support provided will not matter? Wickenkamp answered that overhead sewers will work in all cases. Overland flow is more difficult but flood proofing from barriers and the other methods described above will help. Flood proofing is applicable now and will prevent most of the events that are occurring but it will not eliminate all of them. In addition it was noted in further discussion of this question that further conveyance changes (getting more storm water flow to the Chicago River) beyond the current proposal becomes less feasible with increasing proximity to the center of Niles, to the “ridge” of the East/West watershed divide between the Des Plaines and Chicago Rivers, because of the depth that would be required for the necessary gravity flow. It is not a viable option. Also regarding conveyance, there is no additional capacity in the Park Ridge system for West Side flow. The West Side technically needs a storage solution. Regarding this aspect Trustee Palicki asked if Niles needs to work with Park Ridge concerning the West Side program and will the proposed approach adversely impact Park Ridge; add to their storm water flow? Wickenkamp answered that there will be no impact on Park Ridge in terms of adding to their storm water flow, that the Niles storage approach will actually provide a benefit to Park Ridge by reducing the current amount of natural overland flow to Park Ridge, by detention in Niles. It was suggested that this benefit could be a point of negotiation, possibly financial, with Park Ridge and expanded contact with Park Ridge regarding the West Side program should be considered. Regarding the detention method, it was noted that in the 1950’s and 60’s when Niles and the surrounding areas were primarily developed that no detention rules were in place. This is why this region and many parts of North Eastern Illinois have limited water detention areas leading to the problems experienced today. The new Storm Water ordinance addressed this in recognition of the problems associated with the past design regulations. Mayor Callero asked about the general design of detention basins. How long do they need to hold water? Wickenkamp answered that they should be designed to hold water for 1 to 2 days with no to very little release of water in the first five to six hours after a storm. This is the most critical time period when sewer surcharges are expected and the time that they will need to clear before additional storm water can be accepted into the system. Van Geem asked a question about the timing and criteria for opening the Chicago River flood gates. Will an earlier and or more frequent opening help Niles? Wickenkamp answered that any benefit is unlikely, even in a one hundred year event, because Niles is higher in elevation than the Chicago River. Drainage from Niles is governed primarily by the overland flow and sewer flow rates and not by the River. It was noted that the proposed plan would have environmental benefits to the Chicago River as it would separate some of the combined storm and sanitary sewers reducing the amount of sanitary flow into the river in storm conditions. This should be a benefit to the MWRD. Other questions and discussion also followed among various persons in attendance concerning the Deep Tunnel and how this system operates, in particular the general public opinion or belief that gates/valves are or can be opened in flood conditions that can greatly improve the drainage rate and perhaps prevent some of the flooding that has occurred in Niles. Regarding the Deep Tunnel, it’s completion will not affect Niles in any measurable manner other than it may be of slight benefit to the Tam Golf Course as it conceptually may reduce some of the flood stage in the Chicago River. With respect to the flow of water into the deep tunnel, Wickenkamp explained that a flow control system, a sluice gate, does exist and that it is adjustable. The sluice gate in simplistic form is a valve that controls the division of incoming water into two separate outflow streams, between flow to the Chicago River and flow into the Deep Tunnel. It can change this distribution between the flow into the river and the Deep Tunnel, which is how it is operated under certain conditions, but it cannot change the amount of flow that can be accepted into the system. Changing a sluice gate setting will not allow Niles to drain faster or drain more water. It will only change where the water from Niles flows, with more or less going into the Chicago River or the tunnel. Trustee Palicki commented that this is an important aspect for public communication. A question was raised concerning the City of Chicago “Rain Blocker System” and applicability of this approach for Niles. Could it help? Wickenkamp explained that the rain blocker system utilizes berm types of structures to temporarily hold water, like a detention approach but using the city streets as the reservoir. It is also in use in Evanston and Skokie and it was investigated regarding Niles, and deemed to be of little to no benefit. Niles already experiences a significant level of street flooding resulting in low to no additional storm water capacity in certain areas and there are other streets were flows are continuous and significant berms would be needed. It is not a good candidate for use in Niles and subsequently it was not included in Hey’s recommended solutions. For the record it was noted by Nazzal that some berms are in use along Milwaukee and Dempster for this purpose. Wickenkamp noted that it will be important to educate Niles citizens on street flooding, that it will still occur to some degree in large rain events, such as 100-year conditions of 2008 and July of this year, after the improvement program is completed. There will also be some emergency access limitations but they can be planned for.  Regarding Chicago, it was noted by Wickenkamp that the City of Chicago sewer system almost completely combines the storm and sanitary functions into one single sewer. For reference Niles has approximately 70% combined sewers. This is of importance to basement flooding as the primary vehicle for basement flooding is the back flow from the combined sewer when it becomes surcharged by storm water. Again this reflects 1950’/1960’s design practices which were common to this area and surrounding communities. A question was raised by George Van Geem concerning overland flow into Niles. Does Niles get overland flow from some other area? Wickenkamp answered that some storm water from Glenview does enter Niles via Glendale. There was also discussion about water that flows from Park Ridge near Jonquil Terrace Park. Jeff Wickenkamp of Hey and Associates made a comment recommending that the Village of Niles consider adding staff to manage the detailed activities of the stormwater master plan, to include the cost share programs, education, etc. 3. New Business: a. Phase II Engineering. Hey reported that they will follow the same approach used in Phase I to address Phase II, the North and South sections with detailed investigation and modeling. In the South section it was noted that the area behind the old public works building and water tank will require detailed analysis and some overland flow paths, from Chicago, may need to be included in the analysis of this area. The North region will be more complex and difficult than the South because the overland flow path is more complex and there are some significant unknowns with the sewer system details in this area, some of which was discussed at the August 31 meeting. The malls, the Milwaukee/Maryland area, depressed driveways in some residences and the Prairie Creek area also add to the complexity. There will be four tasks as part of the scope of services. Task 1: Conduct sewer system analysis and modeling; Task 2: Amend prioritized capital improvement plan; Task 3: Prepare stormwater master plan; and Task 4: IGIG Bioinfiltration design/engineering/construction oversight.  Vinezeano stated that currently, there are two grants at play for this phase of the project: a DCEO grant funded through SB2414 and an IGIG grant funded through the IEPA. 4. Ongoing Projects and Open Discussion: Van Geem raised a question concerning funding, whether or not a special service area should be considered vs. community wide funding as not all areas and individuals may directly benefit. The general direction is to address this as a community wide issue and fund accordingly. Vinezeano asked if sanitary sewer manhole covers should be sealed and/or prevented from “popping off” when the sewers are overloaded and also prevent citizens from removing manhole covers to try to accelerate draining flooded streets. Wickenkamp answered that manhole covers lifting off when a sewer is surcharged provide a “relief valve” function and it does not impact flooding in any way. It’s OK. Removing a manhole cover for any reason is poor practice that should be discouraged and prevented if necessary because unwanted contaminants and potentially detrimental foreign objects could enter the sewer system from an open manhole. He commented that Niles should consider educating residents to not remove manhole covers for these reasons. It was suggested that sanitary manholes be specially marked in another color. Based on some concerns voiced to him by others on the Commission, Vinezeano asked if there was any reason to consider buying all of the homes in the Bruce/Knight area vs. spending approximately $7 million on improvements and extended this question to include all of the East Side as a general what if alternative. Wickenkamp answered that a Village wide buy out would be expensive and probably exceed the overall projected cost based on purchasing 200 homes at an average price of $300, 000, resulting in a $60 million buyout and work remaining to do. This would be a major acquisition program that would most likely have to follow the natural overland flow paths and in essence return a large section of the Village back to open wetlands. All of this would need to be considered along with the loss of property tax revenue and population. Based on the length of the Phase I presentation at this meeting, Mayor Callero asked that the agenda for the September 27 Village Board meeting plan for a presentation of approximately one hour without questions, followed by a question and answer period for a total time of no more than 90 minutes. Vinezeano outlined what the timeline of future meetings will be. The Finance Committee plans to meet prior to the September 27 Village Board presentation. A Phase II contract extension with Hey and Associates will be proposed for approval at a future Board meeting. A public presentation of findings is anticipated for the Winter and a final stormwater master plan for Spring 2012. 5. Next Scheduled Meeting:  September 27, 2011 - The purpose of the September 27 meeting is to formally present the results and recommendations of Phase I of the storm water analysis to the Board. ****Meeting Postponed**** The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 AM.