Stormwater Commission

STORMWATER COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY Friday, January 20, 2012 The following persons were present: Chair Joe Lo Verde, Steven Vinezeano, Andrew Vitale, Richard Wlodarski, Fred Kudert, Tom Polcyn, Chuck Ostman and Jeff Wickenkamp of Hey and Associates. Also in attendance were Mayor Robert Callero and Village Manager George Van Geem. Absent: Mousa Nazzal and Scott Jochim. The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. 1. Approve Meeting Summary of Wednesday, September 29, 2011: Vinezeano provided the summary to members prior to the meeting. The summary was approved to be posted on the Stormwater Commission web page. 2. Old Business: a. Stormwater Planning Timeline Update. Jeff Wickenkamp provided a Phase II update and then discussed (with a handout) tasks from September 2011 through June 2012. Jeff discussed a need for a public open house in March. Vinezeano stated an open house would be conducted at the Senior Center. There was discussion about the “cost share” program and the timing of sharing the details of it with the board and the public. The following dates were established:  Stormwater Commission Meeting to review open house and final cost share presentation (program/amount) - Friday, February 10 at 8:30 a.m.  Village Preboard on open house/cost share – Tuesday, February 28.  Public Open House at the Senior Center to show Stormwater Management Recommendations – Thursday, March 22 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.  Village Board presentation on recommended stormwater relief projects – Tuesday, April 24.  Village Board presentation of final “Stormwater Relief Program” – Tuesday, May 22. Jeff envisioned that the public open house would have several stations (representing portions of town/projects) with engineers and commission members available to answer questions and record comment. This will give residents an opportunity to ask questions privately and less formally. Jeff reminded the commission that the capital projects will take time and if there is a homeowner in an area which may not see a capital improvement for many years due to project priority, a cost share program may be all that is available for a resident to protect themselves immediately. The Chair brought up a concern he heard that questioned the need for cost share if the village implements the capital projects. Jeff stated that this is not correct and that the opposite is true. Van Geem stated that a concern voiced to him is that the average resident pays $300 a year in taxes and if you give someone $4,000 for a cost share, you are giving them back 13 years worth of taxes. The Mayor stated there is also a fear that someone who has a home that does not flood may get the cost share and those who need it do not. He stated that the program must specify how we ensure those who need the cost share get it. What will the commission suggest, how much will the commission suggest and how will the commission institute it equitably? The Chair stated that there is a great need to present the merits of a cost share program clearly to the board and get an approval before the public open house. Jeff mentioned that it may be equally important that the commission give the public an opportunity to see a recommendation on cost share and then share it with the board. It was reasoned that it may seem like recommendations are being filtered prior to being presented to the public. Van Geem mentioned funding for a cost share program would be taken out of the water fund. Joe stated that the Glenview issue makes it problematic. Vinezeano asked if it would be more palatable if the cost share program include overhead sewer and flood control only. An overhead sewer actually helps the village system as a whole and flood control provides relief for those who will not benefit form the construction of any sewers. The group agreed that the board of trustees do not understand the merits of a cost share program. Jeff stated how the cost share program was discussed in detail with the public and board at least twice, but it needs to be made clear how a cost share program is a functional part of a complete stormwater relief plan benefiting the entire village system. The question of who is in favor of a cost share program for flood prevention and flood control? The Stormwater Commission was 100% behind a program to be refined at the next commission meeting. Van Geem asked Jeff if he could show a correlation between the cost share value and capital projects. Jeff stated yes and that they have already done  that work. He stated that you could build public improvements in the public right of way to protect homes at a cost much higher than a cost share program that would also protect the homes - $3,000 per home with a cost share or $20,000 per home cost with a new sewer. The Chair wanted to ensure this point is given by Jeff to the board at the next meeting about cost share The Mayor asked how we pick and choose who gets the cost share first to ensure it is fair. We need to show how the cost share program could save total costs on the entire stormwater master plan. b. Cost Share Program Discussion. The discussion continued regarding the programs that have been recommended thus far. Vinezeano stated that based on feedback from board members, maybe the Commission should consider only Flood Control Systems and Floodproofing. Rain barrels are already provided at a cost reduction by MWRD and rain gardens may soon be promoted through MWRD as well. The local drainage improvements, if there are any, can be included in the capital projects program, and program management will need to be handled in-house through a consultant or in- house engineers. The cost would then be reduced from $450k to $300k or less depending on the agreed upon cost share amounts. Vinezeano stated that there were arguments against backflow preventers because they do not help the entire system as a whole like an overhead sewer would. An overhead sewer system removes the I/I by disconnecting the footing drains from the Village sewer and splashing this water in back yards. Floodproofing is important because it helps those homes that will not benefit from the larger infrastructure projects. Both programs have a good argument. He provided copies of worksheets made to explain the programs. There was discussion about backflow prevention valves. Jeff was asked if these systems pass sewer water to the neighbor and he said yes. Unlike overhead sewers that take drain tile water away from the system, it is just blocking what used to go into the basement and pushing it downstream. There was discussion about how it seems silly for a municipality to expect it to be okay to allow the stormwater to go into a basement for storage. The problem with not allowing backflow prevention is that it may not be economical for some homeowners to protect themselves with an overhead sewer, so backflow prevention is the only option. The Chair asked if the floodproofing solutions of blocking water from going into a stairwell may impact the neighbors and cause them to flood. Jeff stated that the level of water at that point is so high that if that neighbor is a “hair” away from flooding, they too should be considering protection anyway. He stated that most likely, the rise in water due to it not going into a stairwell will be miniscule and not flood a neighbor. The Chair wants to make sure we don’t implement floodproofing programs that are going to negatively impact a neighbor. Jeff stated that a grouping of homes would probably be considered for something like floodproofing to ensure residual flooding of neighbors is considered. The Mayor mentioned that regarding the three homes off Bruce that have water running through them in a 100- year rain, he does not think that if they protected themselves with floodproofing it would be worse for others because it would not raise the water that much in his area. The Mayor mentioned that a board member was concerned that only a limited number of homes could be helped with the cost share program each year due to limited funding. Jeff stated that the first project coming out of the gate could easily be $1M going to cost share to protect the largest number of homes immediately. It will take a number of years to assist all of the homes that require flood control, but not everyone will take the cost share for whatever reason. Wlodarski stated that there are good reasons for the cost share programs. The Commission agreed that both backflow prevention and overhead sewer be considered for this cost share program. Some average prices were discussed: an overhead sewer is $7-9K; a plain check valve (not preferred) is $3K; a backwater valve is $7-8K; installing door dam is $1K and labor; permits for backwater valves cost $40 and $100 for overhead. It was discussed that there should be education provided that encourages the best level of protection by residents which is overhead sewers. Chuck mentioned that most people are installing backwater valves and not check valves or overhead sewers. The check valves will not protect against a charged sewer. Vinezeano asked why we would promote check valves if it is not recommended. Jeff asked if maybe check valves should only be allowed with separated sewers and the group agreed. It was determined unanimously that both backflow prevention and overhead sewer will be provided at a 50/50 cost share with a max of $4K. The total amount for this program will be $250k. Education that encourages the best solution over the most cost effective solution should be included. Fred Kudert stated that there are two things he finds important: the basement flooding and overland flooding occurs to private properties because the public system cannot convey the water. The Village’s options are to redo all the sewers at a great cost or provide individual homes with protection. The best option is some combination of both. Tom favors education with the programs to ensure the best systems are deployed by the homes. The Chair stated that we have a responsibility to protect the quality of life and public, health and welfare. He asked about low interest loans and liens on homes to help. It was discussed that other towns do not use these types of loans and that they would be problematic with the high level of foreclosures, etc. The Mayor stated that his priority is funding a cost share program and funding for the stormwater relief program. Fred stated that it is a public problem because the public system is inadequate. Although a resident only gives $300 a year in taxes and will be getting a cost share of maybe $4k, they are still adding private funds of equal value to benefit the public system. It is not the private homeowner’s problem alone because they did not do it to themselves. The Chair asked if there is an example of a street that may only have a few homes that have basement backup and how a cost share would benefit them at a much lower cost to the village then a sewer. Jeff mentioned how the July 2011 flood was more of a random shotgun blast and that you cannot build sewers on all the individual areas, but you can provide a cost share program. Jeff said he could come up with specifics. Jeff stated that overhead sewers are code. The argument that they are bad does not work. It has been code since the 70’s, so if they are bad, why are we still requiring it for new homes? There was brief discussion about overhead sewers adding to rear yard flooding issues, but the group was unanimous that it is better than having the water in their basement. Vinezeano explained the second worksheet on floodproofing. The argument made for floodproofing is that it provides relief for homes that will not benefit from any public infrastructure improvements. Jeff reminded everyone that even where the projects may be proposed, they will not necessarily be big enough to prevent flooding 100% in a large storm. Instead of three feet of flooding, maybe they only have four inches, etc. The floodproofing or flood control should be for anyone that may not be protected 100%. There was discussion about doing whatever it takes to get the program in place, even if it is below the average of what other towns spend on cost share. Once it is out there and it is successful, maybe then it could be improved upon. The commission unanimously agreed to change the max benefit for floodproofing to $4K from $10K. Jeff mentioned that it is important for those voting on the program to know that this commission spent three years on this program and discussed it thoroughly and in depth. There was discussion that the commission never really discussed why cost share is important to the community. We need to focus on the benefits and to address the concerns. There was discussion that if it was any lower of a cost share, people will not take advantage of it and then it will not benefit the village. Some municipalities are increasing the cost share to encourage more use. The Mayor informed the group about the flooding he gets through his window wells since they are not sealed and how floodproofing would allow him to install concrete window wells or seal what he has. Glass block would be an option as well. There was discussion about home and flood insurance. Cost Share will now only have flood control systems and floodproofing at $300k. Steve will work with Jeff to rewrite the worksheets for the Feb.28th Board meeting. At this meeting it will only be a presentation on the program and not a vote of whether to do it or not. The Mayor mentioned that Chuck’s department will need manage the program. Three quotes will be needed by residents. Rear yard flooding was brought up by Ostman. Vinezeano pointed the commission to the overhead sewer worksheet that shows which the towns with a rear yard program. It was discussed that there are multiple places in town where water impacts multiple yards and structures. Jeff thought this would be under the umbrella of local drainage improvements and not cost share. The goal of this commission and the Village should be to remove the basement and overland flooding first. The Chair mentioned that several projects could be identified and packaged in a bid. The Mayor suggested that we must know How we will allocate this and to Whom. The hot zones will be priority. Jeff stated that he could answer this question in general and explain it will be based on historical flooding and worst areas. The details will be worked out once the program is in place. Areas that will not benefit from capital improvements would be key for these projects. Andrew asked about those residents who have not  responded since this study started. The neighborhood in general would be considered in the case someone comes out that has never responded historically to flooding. The Chair asked if we could get some data on how much money was funded for cost share programs per year in the other towns on the sheet. How did the program occur when it started? Any data on how it went in these towns would be helpful. c. Finance Committee Update. The Chair reported that $15M was discussed for capital improvements related to stormwater. A vote will be held on Tuesday for the quarter cent sales tax increase. It was mentioned that some board members may not want to vote on the sales tax increase without the plan being completed first. Jeff stated we already showed valuable projects in the order of $35M to $50M and now we are working to shrink this work down into funding of $10M to $15M. The stormwater relief program will be voted on separately and each individual project will be voted on separately, so there are several opportunities for control. Jeff asked if the board has seen enough to know there is a need for the funding. It could take at least 18 months or 2 years before a project is even done. Jeff mentioned that first year costs are estimated to be about $800k. Not all $15M would be spent at once. The projects can be identified once we know the amount that will be funded. Before the first bond is ever sold, the village will know what will occur over seven years or so. Van Geem stated that the financing is the easy part. d. 3rd Party Property Owners (Proposed Temporary Storage). Vinezeano gave an update regarding Mary Hill Cemetery. He met with Pete and was given some details on how best to approach the proposed open detention project proposed for the corner of Milwaukee and Main. A meeting will be setup through Scott Jochim with Steve and Mike at the cemetery to discuss it further. There is a meeting with OLR’s Fr. Chris at noon today to discuss what is proposed. There was a question of how this and the other projects would be paid for. It was stated that construction of these open detention facilities would be part of the $15M in funding. It was mentioned that these gravity based systems would be designed to drain in hours and not days. It was discussed that if they become lakes, it could be a problem with the pre- school at OLR. Jeff mentioned that the plans provided for this open detention are aggressive and if necessary, we could do less. The intent would be to have an easement for the projects and not property acquisition. The goal is to probe the property owners to determine what is possible. We need to know an answer as soon as possible so Hey can provide a final plan. There was discussion about the work that was done years ago when there was a school in place. The Mayor brought up the property to the southwest on Mary Hill and the issues that exist there now. Scott Jochim will contact the cemetery about this and finishing the stormwater projects planned for the northwest. Greenwood Park was discussed briefly. The Chair mentioned that once it is made into a detention facility, it is no longer usable property. The basketball courts and the other facilities were not touched in this plan for Greenwood Park. Would the Park District want to sell this park for this use? Is there something that can be swapped for the property? If detention cannot be put above ground, it would be proposed for underground, which is much more expensive. It was discussed that water from OLR could be sent to Greenwood Park. With all the storage being proposed between these two properties, the stormwater on Western, Bruce, and Sunset would benefit. If the park or OLR property is not used, can homes be purchased? A question was asked by Vinezeano on whether or not the plans for this detention will be kept in the plan if the 3rd party property owners do not cooperate. Vinezeano recommended that this part of the plan be made conceptual in the case things change and properties become available at a later date. Otherwise, this option is removed from the plan and is never reconsidered. Jeff stated that it is important to find out what is feasible now in this area. If creating the open detention is not possible then it will need to be determined that other underground or home purchasing solutions are too expensive, so no work will be done in the area until such time the open detention becomes feasible in the future. It could be a problem going to the public with options that are not seen as feasible in the foreseeable future. The Chair mentioned that using Greenwood park is possible, but the Park District is woefully below the needed acreage of park land. There would need to be a property swap. The northeast corner of the park at Lee and Ottawa was shown on the screen for possible detention. It would provide an outlet for the water flowing from Lee. The Chair mentioned that it was infringing on the ball park left field. Jeff mentioned that it could easily be made smaller because there is value in any level of storage at that and the other sites. e. Preliminary Discussion of Small Projects. Vinezeano outlined the projects that were reviewed for possible implementation. Hey was asked to review the projects for feasibility. There was brief discussion about Grennan Heights and the northeast corner. Joe mentioned that is was designed for detention, but the Park was waiting to see what comes out of the stormwater study. Hey should review this project for implementation.  Our Lady of Ransom and a possible curb. Hey reviewed the project proposed, which was the installation of a curb along the north side of OLR play field to prevent/slow discharge to the north. Hey, using existing topo, analyzed what would occur with a 6-inch curb along the driveway and it was determined it would hold .1 ac-ft of storage and it would require a new drain behind the curb. It was stated how much water accumulates with a 2-yr runoff = .05 ac-ft, a 10-yr runoff = .13 ac-ft, and a 100-yr runoff = .33 ac-ft. Jeff stated that the curb would reduce flow passing through backyards on Sunset, but could negatively impact the homes to the north along Westside of Greenwood. Ostman stated that the homeowner believes water from Greenwood is entering the field. Once it fills the field, it goes into his backyard. Ostman asked whether or not a curb entering the church yard could be installed to prevent it. Is it possible to guide the water away from the homes and directing it to Sunset without it going through yards? There was discussion about the catch basin to the north and how it sits lower than the Greenwood sewer. Ostman asked if this impacts the capacity of the Greenwood sewer by reducing it. The relief sewer is 2-ft lower than Greenwood. Ostman mentioned the catch basins in the back yards and Jeff said they got those from the OLR plan already. There is a question of which taxing body owns the catch basins and sewers in question. Andrew will review this and get back to Hey. Hey will conduct additional analysis of this project.  Bruce/Knight and installing a flapgate to reduce backflow from Western into area. Jeff stated that there is always positive flow toward Western and there is no backflow. It could backup, but a flapgate would not help that situation. Fred mentioned a sectional map brought up in the past. Jeff stated that the Bruce sewer if 5-feet higher than the Western sewer. It was determined that this is not a feasible or beneficial project.  Lincoln/Normal and increasing capacity of curb inlet to reduce flow into Bruce/Knight area. Hey analyzed a number of inlet sizes. Jeff said it is not an issue of inlet capacity, but pipe capacity on Normal. As  water tries to flow down Normal, the lack of capacity in the pipe stops flow through it when it is charged resulting in overland flow. Hey showed how the inlets had no effect on the depth of flooding toward Lincoln. Hey will take a second look at what would occur if the Normal pipe was made larger to allow the water to flow. The problem could be that the water now gets to Western faster, but the water is flowing there anyway via the homes at the corner of Bruce. Hey will conduct additional analysis of this project.  Lincoln/Normal and install “speed bump” to prevent overland flow from flowing north on Knight. This may work in small rains, but in larger rains, it begins to impact other properties on Madison and Lincoln. It was determined that this is not a feasible or beneficial project. 3. New Business: a. MWRD “Understanding Your Sewer.” Vinezeano shared the brochure from MWRD. It was explained that this document was tweaked to appeal to Niles residents and MWRD agreed to print 14,000 copies if the Village pays for postage. The commission agreed to mail this document to homes along with a letter from the Mayor’s Office. The estimated Village cost for the handling and postage is $3,190.45. b. Village Hazard Mitigation Plan vs. County Plan. Jeff explained that IEMA has funds waiting for municipalities to apply for grants, but applications require that the municipality have a mitigation plan. It was discussed that retired Fire Chief Mueller may be able to head this project up. The Mayor asked Vinezeano to contact Barry and inquire whether or not he could assist. Jeff mentioned the Hazard Mitigation Plan with the County is moving too slow to depend on. Jeff mentioned that other towns have spent $30 to $40k on these plans, but we should only spend under $10k. He stated we should just take a plan like Des Plaines and retool it for the Village. The Mayor asked about the types of grants available. Jeff stated property buyouts that qualify require a 25% local match. The project on Sunset could possibly qualify and be eligible for grant funds. Right now there are only about six communities eligible for the funds, but when the County establishes their plan, there will be more competition for the funds IEMA has from FEMA. 4. Open Discussion: None. 5. Next Scheduled Meeting: Friday, February 10 at 8:30 p.m. to discuss the cost share program presentation to the board.