Stormwater Commission

Stormwater Commission Meeting Summary Friday, February 24th Members Present: Fred Kudert, Steven Vinezeano, Joseph LoVerde, Rich Wlodarski, Andrew Vitale, Thomas Powers, Mary Anderson, Robert Callero. Others present: Jeff Wickenkamp and Jeff Macke from Hey & Associates, Jack Grana-Utilities Superintendent, Mike Shields and Pete Palermo Residents of the 8100 block of Wisner. The Stormwater Commission meeting convened at 8:00 a.m. in the EOC room at Village Hall. November 1st Meeting Summary: The Meeting Summary for the November 1, 2016 was approved. Old Business: The following topics were presented and discussed. Flood Control Assistance Program For FY17 $50,000 was budgeted and $48,000 has been obligated. One person has been placed on a waiting list. To date, approximately 400 homes have been helped at a cost of $1.6 million dollars. The $50,000 budget amount is proposed to remain unchanged for FY18. New Business: The following topics were presented and discussed Sewer Rodding Program Discussion Last year the sewer rodding budget was reduced to $11,000 which would cover 110 homes. The Board approved a service line warranty program run by the National League of Cities. In lieu of the new program it was recommended to end the sewer rodding program. Staff has noted that many applicants are repetitious. The commission indicated that if someone is rodding their sewer every three years then there really needs to be a repair made to the line. Under the new warranty program, residents enrolled in the program would be covered for repairs. A motion was made to recommend the elimination the budget line item for the sewer rodding program. The motion was approved. MWRD Park Case Study A case study was provided for Westcott Park in Northbrook which involved underground detention. The information was provided for the consideration of the Commission. The case study is a useful data point for discussion as Golf Mill park preliminary design progresses. The MWRD contributed $500,000 towards the project to reimburse Northbrook for the stormwater reuse system. It was noted that the project price tag was expensive for the underground detention. To date the concept costs for Golf Mill have been based on above ground open detention. Golf Mill Park expansion – Park Board Presentation The Village Manager will be making a presentation to the Park Board to discuss opportunities to partner with the Park District in the redevelopment of the area. The Village will request the Park District budget for preliminary design in the next fiscal year. Once agreement is made the Park design will progress at a subcommittee level. Stormwater Budget The annual budget process is ongoing. The Flood Control Project budget was discussed earlier in the meeting. The remaining budget items of note were 1) Flood Control Project design for a shovel ready project pending completion of stormwater update 2) Small project construction project 3) Demolition of 9101 Greenwood 4)Landscape maintenance for 9101 4) preliminary design of stormwater park south of Golf Mill. The value of having a shovel ready project was confirmed as necessary to improve the probability of obtaining outside financing. Stormwater Update Solution Workshop Hey noted that in the development of the Stormwater Relief Program, the Commission spent 3-4 days going over projects. The goal is to review the projects in an expedited manner this time around. Hey discussed the goal of prioritizing projects instead of problems. Hey also prepared a problem area summary to provide simple yes/no logic to the problems associated with each potential project. There was discussion regarding whether frequency was not included in the problem logic. Problem identified included structure flooding, flooding adjacent to structure, street inundation depth, street inundation duration, and combined sewer area drainage. Hey presented a scoring system to evaluate projects. Categories were studied for 25-yr and 100- yr storm events. Scoring systems were evaluated for reductions to first floor flooding, flooding adjacent to structures, and arterial or local street inundation depth. The scores were weighted to provide the most value for reduction in high frequency structure and arterial road flooding. The most common project benefit identified was a reduction in 100-yr lowest adjacent grade flooding. A list of projects and the results of the scoring system was provided. 30 projects were evaluated with an estimated total cost of $90 million dollars. Projects were scored for the number of structures with reduction of first floor flooding, flooding adjacent to structure, and number of locations of arterial or local street inundation depth reduction. In order to determine project value the estimated cost was divided by the score of a project. The projects were then ranked in terms of relative value. The Commission inquired as to whether the project ranking reflected the areas where the most complaints were made. Hey responded that the rankings are not based on call volume, but the problem areas identified with the most issues are represented at the top of the list. The projects were ranked based on cost effectiveness. An inquiry was made as to whether the color coding was score based. The color coding was done to help create categories of similar value projects and simple represent a 25% portion of the total projects. The Commission debated the scoring system and its ranking. Resident Shields inquired about whether alternatives were considered and whether the magnitude of the projects could be adjusted. Hey did include some sub alternates for projects with alternative solutions. Mr. Shields inquired about whether there were projects with a lower cost level which might provide a similar but lesser benefit and therefore score better. Hey indicated that the projects presented are intended to solve the problems rather than provide partial mitigation. The Commission indicated that areas of repeat flooding/high frequency should be taken into account with the rankings. The prioritization value of setting public expectations and communications was discussed. To the extent that the process can be explained would be of value to the residents. The crux of the issue is spending limited resources on a widespread expensive problem. It is important to follow a rational process rather than rely on emotion. A process of walking through the projects was undertaken. The first project discussed was East 5 and associated projects 17-5 and 17-25. The 17-5 proposed project conceives of a 24” sewer to an underground storage basin at Oakton Manor park. Additionally project 17-25 Merril Street would require underground storage and backflow protection to provide relief from Oakton sewer back up. The storage in the street is a commonly required solution across the projects, as many streets do not have enough capacity to drain. The 17-25 project is dependent on the 17-5 project. The 17-25 project is required in part as a result of a legacy sewer project which directed flow to Merrill. If the Wisner inlets were tied into the storm sewer Keeney would flood. Currently the residents report that Keeney generally floods before Wisner and also drains first as well. Mr. Shields asked about the feasibility of a project with a lower performance level. Hey asked for guidance from the Commission about projects with a lower standard. Previously the Commission has looked negatively on duration projects. Recently Park Ridge had a problem recently when proposing a project that provided 10-yr protection. The Commission stated that even though the 100 million dollar total price tag is concerning, the Village will continue to address problems now and in the future. Hey recommended that areas that are subject to frequent flooding may be good candidates for lower cost/lower level of service solutions. The 100-yr storm has occurred more frequently recently, four of the five major storms that flooded Wisner were approaching the hundred year storm. Commissioner Callero indicated that a lesser solution involving oversized storm sewers was originally installed near Our Lady of Ransom. However when houses began to flood during larger storms, the residents were no longer satisfied with the project. The Village had to come back and build the OLR basin as a result. Hey also indicated that the solutions were intended to remove adjacent grade flooding, but still allow some street flooding. The Commission indicated that frequency should be taken into account for determining priority. Hey indicated that the projects with 25-yr flooding were given higher weights in the scoring method. Hey felt that at the level of specific project design, reducing the level of performance is appropriate. However unless the performance level is adjusted across the board at the screening level it would not be appropriate to only adjust some. There are some areas that may have a lower existing level of service that are worth ranking higher. If frequency is to be considered, it should be done from a problem area perspective. Hey has already done some value engineering in the analysis to date regarding what is feasible and accomplishable. The Commission talked about the key to the project being funding. It is important to rank the projects but also to be realistic about what can be accomplished and how to fund the projects. The process for the original Stormwater Relief Program went from study to preliminary engineering. After the study phase $60 million dollars in construction projects were identified, which the Board provided a funding commitment for $15 million. Preliminary engineering was prepared based on the $15 million commitment. Hey recommended that for fiscal year 18 the next step would be to enter into preliminary engineering for the top ranked projects. Once a commitment in terms of future budget is made, then the top projects can be preliminary engineered. A rough estimate of 2-3% of construction cost would be typical for preliminary engineering. Staff felt the line items already in the budget for final design and small projects could be utilized for preliminary engineering in FY18. The commission agreed that utilizing the existing budget items for preliminary engineering was a good approach. Hey provided a brief summary of the top tier of projects. The following projects were presented: Primary Area(s) Project # Project Addressed Description North 7 17‐14A Churchill Sewer Connection Relief storm sewer to shorten duration of flooding on Churchill. Dobson Jon Quil Regrading to lower neighborhood overland flow route. 17‐9c East 12 Seward Relief Culvert and Relief sewer or culvert with improved overland flowpath 17‐3B Channel Improvements East 8 in forest preserve. 17‐3A Seward Relief Sewer East 8 Relief storm sewer from Seward with new outfall to Greenwood and Ballard 17‐13 Storage Basin and Conveyance North 4, 5, 6, 17‐13 Improvements and 9 New storm sewers lead to storage basin on Greenwood t 17‐22 Touhy/Milwaukee Chicago South 2 Adjust weir structure in Chicago sewer. Implement separate sewer service from Oconto and 17‐7A Oconto Conveyance East 9, East 12 Mulford to new outfall at the river. Construct berm/floodwall with interior drainage system 17‐18B Western Ave. Floodproofing North 2 to protect one house. Extend Cleveland storm sewer to the west and north to 17‐4 Cleveland Sewer Extension East 14, 4, and serve additional areas.  Underground storage facility at or near location of flooding with separation and backflow prevention on 17‐25 Merrill‐Oakton East 10 adjacent storm sewer systems. 17‐11 Prospect Court Project East 15 Underground storage facility on Prospect Ct. 17‐8 Jonquil Terrace Improvements East 11 Underground storage facility at or near location of flooding. Sewer separation along Wisner and Keeney to convey 17‐5 Oakton Manor Storage East 5 stormwater to underground storage underneath Oakton Manor. 17‐9A Dobson Relief Sewer New East 12 Relief storm sewer from Dobson with new outfall to Outfall river. The Village manager asked whether the number of properties affected and/or benefitting for the project could be mapped. In particular the number of calls being plotted against the projects proposed. Hey indicated they already have counted the houses that benefit from the projects. The commission clarified that the data would be used as a calibration check against the project list. Hey indicated that there is an interesting policy discussion about how call volume should be accounted for and what is the appropriate amount to spend to address some of the more isolated call locations. Staff commented that the cost estimate should account for other Village capital improvement plans and offset costs accordingly. Staff asked about green infrastructure funding and whether that was a option for any of the projects. Hey thought the Prospect Court project was the best candidate for a stand alone green infrastructure project. The open house was discussed. The goal of the open house would be to present a plan of upcoming stormwater projects. The key information that must be available for the open house was the identification of funding for a five-year stormwater plan. The open house will not be a success without a plan in place to fund and execute on some of the projects. Next Meeting Date The date of the next meeting will be determined at the call of the Chairman. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.