Stormwater Commission

STORMWATER COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY Wednesday, April 27, 2011 The following persons were present: Andrew Vitale, Steven Vinezeano, Mayor Callero, Chuck Ostman, Tom Polcyn, Mousa Nazzal, Richard Wlodarski, Scott Jochim and Jeff Wickenkamp/Patrick Lach of Hey and Associates. Also in attendance was resident Fred Kudert. Chairman Joe Lo Verde was absent. 1. Introduction and Opening Comments: Vinezeano welcomed all present. There were some preliminary discussions about sandbags and sand. Tom Polcyn stated that Public Services has sand and sandbags for residents if they request either. He also stated that residents can call the front desk and set up a time to pick it up or, if they are elderly, request ready bagged sandbags. Scott Jochim stated that there were a couple of residents in the past who have used them: Borowsky near the river on Harts and Finkler on Oconto. The Mayor asked for that information to be placed on the website. 2. Approve Meeting Summary of Wednesday, March 2, 2011: Vinezeano provided the summary to members prior to the meeting. The summary was approved for posting on the Stormwater Commission web page. 3. Old Business: a. Engineering Review Process. Jeff Wickenkamp discussed his proposal “Water Resources Engineering Review Services – Proposed Scope of Work and Engineering Review Fees.” The Commission was in agreement with the proposal. It was discussed that based on existing language in the Village Code, no new language is necessary now to begin implementation. However, the recommended “Fee Ordinance Language” provided by Hey in the proposal should be added at a later date to ensure clarification. There was discussion on when this process would be implemented. Whether work is done in-house would be determined by the Engineering Department. A subgroup will meet to discuss the process of implementation that includes Community Development, Finance, Engineering and Hey and Associates. Hey and Associates discussed the possibility of a contract or letter of understanding to take on the work. It was discussed that a contract does not exist for other similar work in Niles. A letter of authorization was then requested by Hey establishing the relationship. An escrow would be created by the Village through the developer and Hey would be paid for  their work with these funds. However, if there is extra work and the review fees are over what is in the escrow, the developer is still responsible for payment of Hey and Associates through language preventing escrow from dipping below a percentage. Escrow pays for reviews and inspections. There was discussion regarding the decision to use Hey and Associates for this work. The Commission discussed this in the past. Hey and Associates was chosen for the Stormwater Commission Study out of a number of firms and has now worked closely with the Village establishing a recently approved Stormwater Management Ordinance. Fees established by Hey and Associates were based on similar Village of Niles Fees and those of other municipalities within the Northwest Municipal Conference. It was decided that it was a firm matter of convenience and consistency to keep with the very qualified Hey and Associates for this initial project. This relationship can be reevaluated within a year after the process is developed and tested. b. Engineering Fee Schedule. Discussed above. c. Community Rating System Inspection. Jeff and Steve will meet with the Commission Chair to establish an inspection date. d. Cost Share Program. Seven options from members of the Commission were provided to be discussed at a later date when Hey and Associates has provided a list of alternatives and long-term plan. 4. New Business: a. Hey Modeling and Diagnosis. Hey utilized a PowerPoint presentation and some handouts. They wanted to focus on the east side of the project. The east side has receiving water (the North Branch of the Chicago River) and he was told by MWRD that they will take whatever Niles can divert to the Deep Tunnel Project. The west side system being studied is directly connected to the Park Ridge system and is very limited, unlike the east. Hey believes the existing system was probably built for 2-year storm performance. Modern systems are now built for a 10-year storm or better. Based on their analysis, it appears that when the sewers are filled to within approximately 4.5 ft. of street level, that home basement flooding from backups may occur. This 4.5 ft. “fill level” is likely to occur just at a “once in 2 year” rain fall which relates to a storm of approximately 1.8” of rain in a two hour period. The study also showed that the existing system appears to be capable of accommodating storm water from a “one year event”, a rain of 1.4” in a two hour period. While this capacity of somewhere between a one and two year rain event is low it is common for communities such as Niles in size and age. Newer systems are designed for a “once in 10 year capacity” of 2.6” of rain in a two hour period. There were about 30 areas identified for improvement in these maps. There was discussion whether or not the goal for modifying the Niles system to accommodate a 10-year level of performance is even feasible considering the costs of such a project. Several technical options for modifying the Niles system to accommodate a 10 year event, and their preliminary cost ranges are discussed below. Hey also stated that they would investigate the possibility of accommodating a one hundred year event, similar to the September 2008 storm, through a combination of sewer system changes for a 10 year event with other modifications that would accommodate surface water from a one hundred year event. Storage alternatives were discussed to achieve 10-year level of performance. 41 acre feet of water storage capacity above or underground would be required to provide a 10-year level of protection. This capacity would be used to hold water out of the current sewer system until the sewers were able to convey it without possible basement flooding. This is estimated to cost $45 million for below ground storage. Above ground storage would be about 20% of that cost for construction. However, this would require about 69 Village sized lots at four feet deep to capture enough above ground space necessary and that would increase the cost to about $25 million. Open spaces could be considered, but would require working with those property owners. The issue with planning for storage and not conveyance is that at some point the storage, especially if only designed for a 10-year event, will be breached in more substantial storms. Past study identified six locations for storage (Mary Hill, Oak Park, Notre Dame, Oakton Manner, Grennan Heights, and open space at St. Johns). Storage only provides downstream benefits mostly. The storage locations may not really help other locations. So, knowing how much storage is required, how much detail should be put in storage locations as alternatives? Next would be the upsizing of pipes. These storage options could be beneficial if conveyance solutions are not the goal. Storage under the street is possible, but very expensive and less effective and not appealing. Mix and match? Yes, possible to blend solutions. Need feedback on above locations. There was a question regarding splitting sewers away from combination sewers. Hey stated it was more economical to just upsize the existing combination sewers, along with many feasibility issues for easements and existing utility. Hey stated that under current regulatory environment and the fact that the Village has clear access to the MWRD system, combined sewers that are increased in size would be a clear choice. District is willing to take our flow and future EPA testing can be prevented, however, the option is available and can be considered at a later date during design consideration. In addition, it is possible that splitting the sewer may really remove some of the overland flow and not significantly impact the basement backup issues. The Mayor brought up the Chicago Tribune article on climate change and the impacts of future rains. Hey and Associates called into the question the relevance of the article due to the true needs of the Village’s sewer system. There is a sliding scale of risk and the Village must just determine where the goal should be. However, there will always be challenges in the system. The Village should consider what can be done for the “macro” system and then what can be done for the other pockets with specific needs. Vinezeano outlined how the Commission’s goal was based on preventing “persistent” issues, but could never protect against another 100-year storm. Hey mentioned that there will always probably be a need for homeowners to protect themselves with overhead sewers or some form of flood control. The cost of this project to bring in 10-year level performance is scary and it is only one area, which happens to be the worst section of the Village. There was discussion about green infrastructure. Knowing how much storage was required (42 acre feet), it was determined that 50% of all impervious structures would need to be improved to get the 10-year level of performance. As a stand alone option, it is not truly feasible. What about 10%? It is still very significant what would have to occur. The level of risk in the Village will never be reduced without a large capital improvement project. There was some discussion about green streets and future grant opportunities that may be available. Green infrastructure could never solve the problem of stormwater alone. There was extensive discussion about the problems with the Seward sewer and how it was placed flat and that water just does not move well enough. There was discussion about how 15 years ago, the homes east of Waukegan would complain about basement flooding and so changes were made to the sewer system that floods the street instead. Now the homes complain about flooding in streets. A handout for problem areas similar to Seward was distributed for review. It was discussed how much of the yard and other overland flooding can be eliminated through the 10-year level of improvements. What if we just provide all homes with a cost share on overhead sewers? Hey stated that it will help with basement problems, but not overland flooding issues that cause damage to some homes, yards and floods streets. What does it take to get 10-year level protection? That is the starting point. The expense is in the construction and placement and not necessarily the pipes being placed. What are the most critical areas? What should be completed first? How do we assist the most homes per dollar? It is important to look at homes damaged by overland water. Jochim mentioned that he knows really of only a couple overland flooding areas on Monroe and Oconto with Ms. Finkler and not many others. Vinezeano mentioned that those who reported overland flooding through the surveys or other means, were contacted to verify the flooding occurred more than just during the 2008 100-year storm. The goal was to get persistent problem areas identified. Hey discussed options of focusing on making the system a 10-year level of protection or just going after the worst of the problems. The Village can do what they can to fix overland flooding issues and then only provide basement protection through overhead sewers. If you gave overhead sewers to everyone who needed it, it would not fix yard flooding, in-house overland flooding, or street flooding. With overhead sewers, they can get relief immediately or wait for flood work to occur. This is only one area, yet it is the worst. The rest of Niles could be similar in price as this area being discussed. There was discussion about possibly bringing it to the Board of Trustees, but Hey stated that there was much more that needed to be worked through before we are ready for that step. Hey envisioned having a comprehensive solution available before bringing it to the Board. There was discussion about 400 plus homes that installed overhead sewer since 2008. They want to take the results of the meeting and have an extended east side solution and also work on the west side as well. Over the summer, they hope to be ready for a community workshop. Alternatives in the middle also need to address the overland flow problems. As identified in the US Geological Survey for this area, Niles is inherently in a low land flow path area running from North West to South East and through the “O street” region and also some of the other problem areas. This natural geography condition also relates to some of the localized flooding issues. Unfortunately it cannot be readily corrected. It is part of the existing design conditions. Should the Village begin to document damage to homes to allow for possible IEMA buyouts? Does the Village buy a $3 million dollar pipe to save one or two homes? Hey provided a list of proposed areas that require conveyance improvements that need to be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission reviewed each of the 28 locations. Resident Fred Kudert stated that as a resident he wasn’t surprised that the cost for the 10-year level of protection is so expensive and that as a resident he would expect a minimum of overhead sewer protection for the short-term. The goal after that would be to keep water out of the houses at the least. Yards and streets would still flood and it may not be possible to do anything about it at an economically justifiable level. How do we get it across to residents that it is better to have the water in the streets than in the basement of neighbors? Is it worth $40 million to protect flooding in streets that may only last for three hours? Your taxes can pay for immediate flood protection now with overhead sewer improvements or you can fund macro improvements over 20 years at a cost of millions of dollars. It seems pretty clear that a Cadillac level improvement is cost prohibitive to protect against the potential of two 10-year rains a year. There was discussion about Monroe and how it is a bowl that collects and floods mostly by the water that lands within it. The area by Harlem seemed to always flood, but the area by Waukegan has been more recent. The Commission reviewed the handout with 28 locations identified as worst of the worst. The areas highlighted in bold will be studied further by Hey. 1. Mulford at Octavia and Oconto. This is a mini one block retention system and the sewer is close to the surface adding to the problems. There was a question on whether or not this area had big flooding issues. Two homes were identified for flooding in the home. An additional pipe was put in the area about 10-15 years ago. 2. Harlem at Jonquil Terrace. Considered part of same system as Mulford and will be reviewed with it. 3. Seward and Oakton Ct., east of New England Ave. Was discussed earlier. When main sewer is at 6/20 and sewer is at 6/20, there is not much that can occur to improve the situation. There is not much room in right of way for storage and since it is flat it would require pumps. Can it be rerouted or can capacity be added with backflow to protect it from filling the Oakton Ct. sewer? Rerouting it toward Morton Grove water system reservoir could be problematic. 4. Olcott at Monroe and Cleveland. Tom stated that it is a problematic area, but just requires system maintenance. It was mentioned that it is an alley. We can return to this if identified later. 5. Monroe and Keeney between Harlem and Waukegan. State will not let us tap into their system. 6. Grennan Heights (Oconto, north of Monroe), (Odell and Kedizie, north of Monroe), (Octavia, north of Monroe). 7. Cleveland, east of Harlem and west of Waukegan. 8. Neva, south of Howard. A restrictor was placed and no complaints since that time. 9. Wisner, between Monroe and Keeney. 10. Ottawa and Lee; Oriole and Lee; Oleander, between Main and Greenleaf; Olcott, between Main and Greenleaf; Osceola, between Main and Greenleaf. 11. Olcott, between Greenleaf and Dempster; Oleander, between Greenleaf and Dempster; Osceola, between Greenleaf and Dempster. 12. Ottawa, north of Oakton. 13. Milwaukee and Main. No work done by cemetery in this area. 14. Keeney and New England. Area very flat without much grade and water sits in yards and mostly confined to the street. 15. Crain and Elmore; Crain, Merril and Ozanam. 16. Ozark, between Monroe and Oakton. Flooding on a consistent basis. 17. Oketo, south of Main. 18. Greenleaf, between Oketo and Harlem. Some rear yard drains were put in this area, but not all homes participated. 19. Lawler and Oketo. 20. Main and Oconto. 21. Kedzie and Ottawa. 22. Dobson and Nordica. Area considered poor with vehicles being flooded on the street. Wakes and yard flooding. 23. Washington, Wisner, Elmore, south of Main. Two twelve inch pipes cross under Milwaukee. Area requires further site study. 24. Ozark, north of Monroe. 25. Keeney and Oketo. 26. Osceola, between Kedzie and Monroe. 27. Monroe Ct. and Newland. 28. Merril, south of Main (backyard drain). Back yards lower than the streets in that area. 5. Ongoing Projects and Open Discussion: a. North Park in Park Ridge. There was discussion regarding a conceptual study from Park Ridge. There are concerns about a proposed area being considered for retention of stormwater. No funds have been allocated for the project study by Park Ridge. The City Engineer stated it was not even in the current budget. Also, they need the park district to okay the project through an agreement, which has not been done. Engineer of proposed project is only a concept. There is no engineering done for this project, but the concept it to provide relief for the area during extreme storms with an under drain system that helps to prevent retention of water. This has been done successfully in other municipalities without problems. b. There was brief discussion about St. Mathews and a storm sewer they paid for in the past – early 1970s. The Village Engineer is investigating the issue. c. 7200 Block of Nora. The Village Engineer shared an issue between two neighbors, tree placement, and stormwater. There was a berm constructed by the neighbor across the street, but the berm was flooding the neighbor adjacent to it. The berm was removed. Now the Village proposes to put in trees/bushes (8) to beautify the section in the right of way, but neighbor is fighting it because he thinks there will be flooding. The fence is from Shaul’s property and does not belong to the Village. It was proposed by Hey and Associates to simply place the trees/bushes in the proposed area, but to eliminate the third tree/bush leaving open an area for stormwater movement. The Stormwater Commission agreed. 6. Next Scheduled Meeting: TBD.