Stormwater Commission

STORMWATER COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY Wednesday, September 29, 2011 The following persons were present: Chair Joe Lo Verde, Steven Vinezeano, Andrew Vitale, Richard Wlodarski, Fred Kudert, Tom Polcyn and Jeff Wickenkamp of Hey and Associates. Also in attendance were Mayor Robert Callero and Village Manager George Van Geem. Residents in attendance: Two residents from Bruce/Knight Ct. area of Niles were also present. Absent: Mousa Nazzal, Scott Jochim, and Chuck Ostman. The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m 1. Approve Meeting Summary of Wednesday, September 7, 2011: Vinezeano provided the summary to members prior to the meeting. There was an amendment by Jeff Wickenkamp. The summary as amended was approved to be posted on the Stormwater Commission web page. 2. Old Business: a. None 3. New Business: a. Finance Committee Meeting Update. Chair LoVerde stated that the Finance Committee met on September 21 to discuss possible funding for the stormwater improvements. He stated that the Committee agreed that the amount to pursue is about $10M dollars to get the campaign off the ground. He stated that the Committee discussed a flat fee, utility/sewer fee, and all other possible fees that may best secure this amount. He stated that staff is going to be looking at all possible options. Also there was discussion about putting about $450K in the budget next year for cost share programs. The cost share programs and who gets them would need to be approved by the Village. The Finance Committee will meet again to discuss this further. He stated that the Committee thought that $10M is a good number to get started with the stormwater program. It was clarified that getting started would be May 1, 2012 (next fiscal year budget). The Mayor made a comment about how Des Plaines had a cost share program for generators and they were gone in twelve hours.  There was discussion how flood control cost share programs could probably assist a large number of households if they take advantage of it. Maybe 50% to 60%. There was a statement that the top two issues of protection are overland flow damage and sewer backup. Vinezeano stated that there are also a number of calls regarding street flooding/emergency vehicle access and yard flooding. Chair LoVerde stated that he thought $10M of a $35M project is a good start, not including phase II. b. Stormwater Program Planning Tasks. A sheet was provided to the Commission to review. Vinezeano explained how he received something similar from Ostman as a recommendation and tweaked it for discussion with the Commission. There are four parallel tracks: Capital Improvement Projects, Cost Share Programs, Funding, and Recommended Plan. These tasks begin in September 2011 and end in May 2012. Wickenkamp reviewed it with the Commission. Wickenkamp began with the Cost Share Program column. In this month of September (today) we want to discuss the cost share programs and make necessary adjustments based on $450K in funding. The second item this month (today) to discuss is how we want to begin discussing small scale projects that can be added to the project through cost share or maintenance programs. This is in response to staff feedback that there are probably some smaller projects out there that should be considered along with the larger system problem. There needs to be a mechanism in place that addresses and validates possible solutions for these smaller problems. An engineering firm will need to ensure that these solutions will actually help and do not just push the problem to a neighbor. This analysis and evaluation of small scale projects continues into October and November with reconciliation in January, with Hey and Associates. Jeff discussed the original scope, that Hey would review all projects in order to identify early out and quick start projects such as the flapper valve on Monroe. It was noted that most of the small scale/quick projects will provide relief but not necessarily meet 10 year storm conditions. Residents will need to be made aware of this. It was also noted that there are some small scale steps that could help against ponding and rear yard flooding, but they are outside of the current work scope. These extra quick small scale projects will probably not add any appreciable protection to the larger area wide problems, but some of them may help to address individual “nuisance” problems that would otherwise be difficult to address with a large scale change. The Mayor brought up the issue of downspouts that are directly connected to the sewer system. Jeff discussed how the Illinois Green Infrastructure Grant program is now open again for submissions this December and downspout and rain garden programs could qualify for the next round. Joe Lo Verde stressed that the engineering review must be conducted on any of these small scale or nuisance projects. He doesn’t want to spend funds and learn that they did not work or negatively impacted others. Jeff stated that the list of projects, such as those already recommended like high velocity grates or raised curbs, can be shared with Hey. They can then utilize their engineering tool to model and analyze them and determine if they are worth pursuing and the level of protection they will provide. It would be a quick endeavor on their part to provide efficient insight concerning these projects for the Commission. The capital improvement projects column on the handout was also reviewed. Currently we have a large number of 100-year alternatives in the set of projects which totals approx. $35M. This current solution set addresses approx. 65% of the specific “100 year problems” that have been identified by the surveys, reports and studies. Based on the new lower funding target of $10M set by the Finance the proposed program will be reviewed using a 10 year rain event as the design criteria. Hey will develop the alternatives and compare them to the original (current) proposal. The objective is to find the best combination of projects within a $10M budget constraint that will help the most people. The second item under September to be discussed today is to identify the specific details of the Phase II study. In October we recommend that Hey prepare project summary sheets that can be used by affected property owners to contract specific work at their residence. Hey would prepare small bare bones schematics and detailed descriptions of possible project components that can be shared with the property owners to start the discussion between them and the village. This early feedback will allow the Village to prevent the funding of projects that are not feasible and allow time to retool the solutions in order to reduce cost and improve performance. In November, Hey would begin phase II and reformulate phase I recommendations based on property owner feedback and staff input. Hey would then begin phase II and reformulate as necessary, based on feedback from phase I recommendations. By February, the phase I and II recommendations would be merged with the proposed $10M funding level and any additional funding amounts which can be identified or agreed to. The goal is to avoid having one project that costs $10M and to have a plan that has $10 M of phased projects with a set of additional projects that can be pursued if more funds become available through grants, etc. There will be a ranked project list. There was also some discussion about combining the solutions with possible road projects to help reduce costs and phase projects. Andrew, Chuck and Scot in Finance are addressing the funding question. They are looking at a number of funding mechanisms which may also include a utility fee based on pervious surface. In October the Board will be presented with the options for funding for the first time. This will include the proposed cost share and capital improvement projects. This will be made part of the storm water presentation by Scot. Van Geem stated that the first years cost share program would be covered by an increase in the general village budget. He also said that it would premature to say there will be a commitment to funding $10M, but it is a good time to introduce the concept. He stated that several meetings will be required to identify the working level of funding and options. The last column of the recommended plan discusses the presentation in October of the 4-phase program, the need to establish a cost share program and funding for capital projects. Around February there will be a public open house, after the two phases are reconciled. At the presentation we will show the flooding conditions that have been reported and modeled, the possible solutions, and a set of recommendations. The goal will be to obtain community feedback from a general opening presentation of the community wide “global” problem combined with separate displays for each specific problem area. At these station residents can ask questions about their neighborhood. The Mayor stated that he anticipates a good turnout at the October board meeting which would precede the more detailed general public open house. By March the actual (storm water master) plan document will be developed and provided to the Village Board before implementation in May 2012. Van Geem stated that the funding column in the proposed October Board presentation needs further detail because in his mind it is the most important issue. He stated the sheet needs to show more options such as utility fees, etc. because even the revised $10M target may be too large to be covered solely by a property tax increase. He stated that the utility fee is a new concept. It would ensure that all properties pay an appropriate share with the fees varying from small homes to large commercial lots. LoVerde agreed that a shopping center should pay more than a residential home. Van Geem stated he liked the concept of a utility fee because it does not vary with the amount of water used as it is based on lot size and impervious surface. Hey stated that they will be able to assist with the process to identify any appropriate credits and how they are issued. Vitale stated that he already reviewed the impervious surfaces concept and provided tables to Chuck and Scot N. for review. Van Geem stated that the Stormwater Commission and Finance Committee will need to work together on this. The Chair agreed with George that this work must get to the Board and public as soon as possible. The Mayor discussed what he thought the presentation to the Board in October should include. He stated that in addition to the primary presentation of the storm water engineering analysis that it should also include funding options. Lo Verde stated it is critical to the project that Jeff has an overall funding target and time frame for the program. He added that $10M should be a good target amount. Jeff stated that that it is not necessary to have all of the funding on hand at project start because of the significant time difference between design and construction. Funding can ramp up from initial engineering to construction and can be appropriately spaced over a period of years. The Mayor also asked about current projects such as the new system installed by Assi Plaza, if this work should be included and count as part of the overall storm water plan once it is completed. Jeff stated that even a new development going in under the new storm water ordinance would qualify for inclusion in the overall program. Cost share programs were discussed and reviewed. Flood control systems were discussed first. The Mayor stated that the typical cost for overhead sewers is around $10k and he asked about backflow preventers, check valve systems. Rich stated that he sees them going in for around $6k to $8k, but these systems have pumps so they are more expensive. A simple system without a pump would be around $3k (also noted by Jeff) and it is a lower cost alternative for those residents that have less money available. Rich stated that the overhead sewer costs vary with the design of the home. Rich stated we should encourage overhead sewers because it is better for the overall Village system. With a backwater/check valve the drain tile water still gets into the system, but with an overhead sewer, you are truly separating water from general ground water going into the system. This drainage would instead flow into the sump and into the rear yard, being eliminated from the overall sewer flow. This is a feature that backwater/check valves do not provide and it is an important factor in addressing general flooding. An overhead sewer system basically separates a combined sewer at the home level, so only sewage goes into the system and the water inflow is removed and sent to a sump. Rich also commented that backwater/check valves simply prevent backup, but then the home system is unusable until flood stage is down unless a bypass pump is included in the installation. This feature raises the cost for a backwater/check valve system to the $6k to $8k range, or more. There was a recommendation to financially encourage overhead sewers through the structure of the cost share system because it should provide more reliable protection versus a backwater/check valve system. Jeff stated he agreed with Rich, but the only reason he included the backwater/check valve was to have a lower cost option for those who cannot afford a more expensive solution. There was also discussion regarding the need for homeowner education concerning how each of these systems work and their reliability. As an example Rich discussed how he went to the home of the resident that came to one of the last meetings and asked the Village to just buy his house. He said that they found that the resident had a flood control system but it had a faulty valve which was the reason that his residence flooded. The Mayor stated that literature must go out describing each of the systems and how to maintain them in order to educate the residents before they choose a system. The Mayor stated that we should consider allowing cost support for back flow/check preventers up to $2k and up to $4k for overhead sewers. Chair LoVerde then reiterated how a valve simply cuts off service and prevents you from using your interior systems and that a pump must be installed to allow system use during flood stage. Subsequently before and during the application process, the Mayor recommends we educate people about the systems they are pursuing. Joe stated that we should create an approved list of vendors with an established guideline of prices. Residents need to know what their options are and cost sharing support for each option. Regarding overland flooding of residences, Jeff outlined the proposal to include $50k of funding per year for potential use towards individual home flood proofing work up to 10k per home. He stated that the Village would have to check what the contractor proposed in each case and determine if it is okay. For general “green” approaches, which will provide a benefit the following was included in the draft proposal: rain barrels at 200 per year with a total cost of $5k and rain gardens with a max benefit of $2k at 20 per year. This was reduced to 10 per year with the $20k being added to flood control systems. It was stated that the individual controlling the overall yearly cost share program of $450k, as proposed, should be able to recommend and where appropriate make individual decisions on the best use of the funds. The line time allocation of $50k per year towards residential buyouts was included as a method to build a “war chest” of funds for possibly purchasing individual homes that experience chronic flooding which cannot be resolved by any financially feasible means. Van Geem asked if buyouts do anything for the “stormwater” system. It was stated that homes removed become either empty lots offered back to neighboring properties and/or are shaped to improve the stormwater flow path. There was discussion regarding FEMA criteria for home purchase and computations that must be done to determine what qualifies for buyout. When a home/property is purchased using FEMA funds, it is established that nothing will be built on that site again. It was determined that this line item would be removed and the $50k will also be added to flood control systems. FEMA acquisitions can’t even be done until the County has a mitigation plan, which is expected to require two more years. The proposal also includes local drainage improvements at $100k that is reserved for projects like the backflow preventer on Monroe and others. The $100k will pay for the engineering review and construction. Program management was also discussed. Van Geem asked if a position like this could be shared with another town like Park Ridge. It seems possible because a position such as this would probably not be a full time position for each village/city. There was a comment that current staff should be able to handle this if the work is divided between the two departments of Public Services and Community Development. It was stated that this position would also be responsible for education of residents/homeowners and possibly inspecting homes before they are sold regarding the condition of any storm water systems that they may have in place. There was also discussion about how the project is highlighting the areas with severe flooding problems. The Chair stated that we need to be sensitive to this and continue discussing this as a communitywide problem and not focus on specific areas and specific flood prone properties. Vinezeano then opened up discussion regarding funding for the investigation of sanitary sewer systems that are known to overflow during specific rains. At one time it was recommended that funding for this activity should be include in the general maintenance budget and not included in the annual cost share program. Per Jochim, many homes east of Greenwood have direct connections to the sanitary system which would fit within this scope of work. Flow monitoring would be required to identify whether or not the inflow/infiltration is severe. The Mayor stated that this work should be considered and accounted for in the water budget. It was recommended that Jochim place funds ($80k) in this budget for sanitary system flow monitoring. There was also discussion on whether or not sumps can be added to these homes to reduce the amount of inflow into the sanitary system. Part of the problem is that foundation drains are actually going straight into the sanitary sewer. Do you disconnect these foundation drains? This will be determined in the study of this area. The Bruce/Sunset area was discussed regarding sewer/street flooding and the lifting of manhole covers by pressure in the sewer system. The sanitary sewer near Bruce has overflowed in the street and reached some homes in some rain events. Rich didn’t realize the sanitary sewer was overflowing. A brief discussion followed concerning the flow path from Bruce down to Sunset. The Chair asked why would the sanitary sewer system lids blow off and stated this is a concern which should be investigated in the spring by Public Services. Flow monitoring and equipment was also discussed. The key areas that have problems and should be monitored have to be identified. The Mayor stated he wants to be able to inform the residents in the Bruce and Sunset area that the Village is going to investigate the overflow of sanitary in the area. This would be part of the monitoring work. Rich raised a question concerning storm water flow off the cemetery and into Cumberland. Jeff stated that it is not significant when taking into consideration the cemetery improvements that have yet to be completed. The south end drainage is done, but the area by Roseview, Betty, Crain and Carol is still needed. A question was raised, what if the cemetery’s detention basin overflows? Jeff stated that it is designed to hold a 100-year storm. When the detention basin is online at 100%, it will hold most of their water. It was recommended that Engineering encourage the timely completion of the planned stormwater work at the cemetery. The Chair asked about the OLR area and if it would be possible to build some form of underground retention system, possibly by installing rock below the surface for storage. In this manner the property could still be used for carnivals, etc. This would also overcome the concern of residents regarding a deep open detention area. Jeff stated that using rock is not as effective as just putting in a smaller vault. A rock filled area has approximately one third of the storage capacity of a vault. Subsequently a vault may be more cost effective for an equivalent amount of storage capacity. This approach may be feasible with the reduced capacity under consideration of 20 acre feet vs. 60 acre feet which is associated with the 100 year rain event conditions. The Chair thought this was a better solution because it would also preserve park space and other useable property. The Mayor asked about the cost difference vs. open water storage. The Chair wants to seriously review other options that are not as intrusive as open storage solutions and the analysis needs to be conducted. This completed the discussion of the proposed annual cost sharing program. As a result of the review the amount of proposed funding for individual home owners for flood control systems was increased to $220k. Regarding the proposed change in scope to focus on solutions based on a 10 year rain event criteria, Jeff provided a map for review showing what is protected under a 100-year service target vs. 10-year design. It was noted that these maps are also highly sensitive maps. The map shows the impact of this proposed scope change. A solution that is primarily focused at a 100-yearrain event, such as the Ozark project, may no longer be needed. This will not be the case in all areas, but it is an example of some types of change that may be possible in defining the details of the storm water program with a revised criteria. This map also focuses on overland flow, which in the modeling is identified as overland flow that touches buildings/homes at their foundation in 10- and/or 100-year rains. Cleveland remains as a primary project due to the number of homes that are impacted by overland flow. Vinezeano stated that the initial report and direction was that the Village would most likely not be able to protect against a 100-year rain such as that seen in 2008, but it would try to tackle “persistent” flooding that was occurring. Regarding this, it was noted that there were four 100-year rains including 1987: 1987, 2008, 2010, and 2011. Subsequently Vinezeano stated that protecting against the 10-year rain may accomplish the goal of addressing “nuisance flooding”. Jeff stated that there have actually been very few 10-year rains that have occurred in the past twenty years. Most of the rains in the past 20 years have been in the 2 and 5 year intensity range. The goal of the map is to help show how a project like the Cleveland project will be reformulated from a 100-year level to a 10-year level. Jeff discussed the layout of the Cleveland project which would involve sewer runs from the west and Grennan the east by the river. In the original concept the goal was to protect most homes from the 100-year flood level. This involved a $10.9M solution. With it approximately 72 homes would be protected from a 10-year rain and 132 in a 100-year event. In the revised design, based on a 10 year event, the sewers were decreased in size. The new alternative ends up being 50% less costly at approximately $5.6M and it would be capable of solving the 10-year issues and possibly some 100- year issues. A part of the savings also came from a project timing change by not building some connection sewers at this time, but adding them when road reconstruction occurs. The main savings, as Jeff stated, comes from the fact that costly special sewer components at 30k each are no longer needed with the smaller system and much lower cost and more common components are now feasible. Even with the change this specific project would still help many residents. For example, even if you live on the top of Odell you are going to benefit from the main sewer going in on Cleveland. This would be a new storm sewer and it would separate the combined sewer. It was discussed how this would also provide some help on reducing the frequency of basement backups as well. Fred asked what Jeff thought the percentage change was in capacity from the 100- to 10-year design. Jeff stated that he did not compute that number. Jeff stated he would now work through the rest of the projects and reduce them from 100- to 10-year design as he demonstrated with the Cleveland project. There was general discussion about the size of the separated sewer in the Cleveland project and how it is still very large at the 10-year level. Jeff stated that the computations will need to take into consideration the reduced size and cost to ensure that a cost benefit realized. Vinezeano made a statement regarding how it seems that the Commission is establishing a level of service. There was a 100-year level of service and now we are working down to a 10-year level of service. Jeff stated that we are on the path to this, but when the final cost is available for the program at the reduced service level that it may still make sense to go with the 100- year of protection if the cost difference is small and manageable. There may even be some projects that make sense financially at a 10-year level and some at 100-year level. There was some discussion about the last 100- year rain on July 23 and how it impacted the Village due to the amount of rain that fell in a short period of time. Jeff stated that this type of storm (less rain in a short amount of time) impacts the Village much worse than any other 100-year equivalent rain condition (more rain over a longer period of time) that is described in the Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 70, which is the standard reference used for flood water design. The Chair was concerned about reducing the level of protection based just on cost. Jeff stated that even though there are discussions of designing for a 10-year condition instead of a 100-year, every property would see a difference in the amount of protection since flood water. The Chair stated it would be difficult to look at the person who is paying increased taxes for flood projects that will not protect their property. He stated he would rather keep it at 100-year level of service and do it over a longer period of time. He doesn’t feel like a project should be reduced in scope, but then does not protect everyone equally. Vitale stated that he is uncomfortable making a decision that would have some people fall between the cracks due to la reduced project scope. The Chair stated he must see what the final calculations are for cost versus levels of service before he can make a decision. Jeff stated that the Commission and Hey are not committed to just a 10-year level of protection. The Chair stated that the decision made regarding flooding is going to impact the Village of Niles in the long term and that he is uncomfortable letting the funding dictate which homes will be protected. The Mayor also stated that 100-year level of protection could be realized, but just over a much longer period of time as funding is available. Jeff stated that the level of protection is basically a sliding scale and that what is now a 100-year level of protection could later become a 50-year level of protection through climate change. Jeff showed the Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 70 chart with an area boxed out in yellow for the storms that he believes negatively impacts the Village of Niles the most. The 10-year one hour storm was used in Park Ridge for their design, which differs from what Jeff found as the most severe condition for Niles based on the modeling work. Critical duration analysis was run in the models for Niles to determine which condition most negatively impacted the Village system. Which storm resulted in the highest stage of flooding? It changes based on where you are in the system. Fred stated that as a resident, this chart and information is very useful and shows how there is a window of protection that overlaps different time periods. Jeff stated that you could show the rain events that have occurred and where they fall within the yellow box (or window) of protection. The duration is why someone may have flooded in 2011 and not the 2008 100- year storm. At a public event this chart can be used to show what has happened in the past in Niles and where the rains fall in the window of protection. For the October Village Board Presentation, the presentation to the Board in will not include the specific solutions until further work can be done to determine what will be possible at the level of proposed funding. The presentation will discuss a Phase I overview, the stormwater program beginning with regulation, followed by capital improvements, system management and then potential capital improvement costs. The critical Village areas that have been identified will be shown, but just not with the detail solutions. The presentation will be at a pre-board meeting which will include question period for the Board and the public. The presentation will include a funding discussion based on what the Finance Committee determines. It will be divided as follows: 30 minutes for the presentation from Hey on their study followed by 30 minutes for questions and then 30 minutes for the finance portion. Fred Kudert provided specific thoughts on the presentation via an email and he shared it with the Commission. He suggested that some background information be added about why Niles floods. He discussed the geography with the east/west divide and overland flow paths and then infrastructure with how it was designed in the 50s to a 2-year rain event, no detention was required, it was primarily combined sewers, and no overhead sewers were required. The message should be that the Village of Niles didn’t do anything wrong, they just did what was done at the time like everyone else. Vinezeano added that it may answer the question of “why did you let my house be built?” Jeff stated that it is true that towns were built to established engineering standards in place at that time. Fred noted that a comment about this from Hey provides credibility to this issue. Hey also recommended that this chart should be included in the open house for people to see along with comments about the deep tunnel “lever” issue. Regarding the Phase II Scope of Work, Vinezeano laid out a map depicting the persistent flooding in the municipality. The areas to be considered for phase II are: Grace/Maynard area, Callero/Cortland area, Wisner/Dempster area, and Chase/Neva area. The pipes that will be studied run to and away from the area. It was discussed that the price of the study is based on the number of pipes to be analyzed. The first proposal was to look at the rest of  Niles to the north and south. 28 miles of pipe needs to be included in the phase II analysis as compared to 32 miles in phase I. The Chair voiced his concern that we should not just be looking at all the pipe. He also stated he wants to stay away from any assumptions and study what must be studied. Vitale stated he is working on getting the North Maine sewer atlas information which is needed for the full analysis. He expects to have this information in two to three weeks. North Maine did state that their information could be incomplete and old, but it is still believed to be useful. The Chair asked if the (GIS) information gathered by Hey is going to be used later. Vitale stated that all the information gathered will be used. The Mayor stated that anything not studied now may be done two years from now if necessary. Jeff discussed how the tail waters information from the planned work at Prairie/Farmer’s Creek will need to be requested from MWRD. There was discussion on how those who do not show up on the phase II study locations would qualify for assistance through the cost share program under flood proofing. It was determined that what is not done will be considered for Phase III. There was discussion about using interns used along with a Public Service employee to reduce the costs for invert data collection. Van Geem suggested a part-time possibility and Jeff stated that he could remove that line item from the proposal. Jeff had two of his personnel on this data collection, but could also cut it in half if the Village can provide a Public Service person. The Chair thought it may be best just to let Hey do the work to ensure the information is collected and done right. Special Staff Meeting & To Do List. A special meeting to discuss the existing “To Do” list and begin discussions on “Local Drainage Improvements” will be held on Wednesday, October 26 at 8:30 a.m. 4. Open Discussion: None. 5. Next Scheduled Meeting:  October 25, 2011 – Presentation to the Village Board.  October 26, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. – Special Staff Meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:36 AM.