Stormwater Commission

STORMWATER COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY Friday, February 10, 2012 The following persons were present: Chair Joe Lo Verde, Steven Vinezeano, Andrew Vitale, Richard Wlodarski, Fred Kudert, Tom Polcyn, Chuck Ostman, Mousa Nazzal, Scott Jochim and Jeff Wickenkamp of Hey and Associates. Also in attendance was Mayor Robert Callero Absent: George Van Geem The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. 1. Approve Meeting Summary of Friday, January 20, 2012: 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. Vinezeano provided the following:  Stormwater Commission meeting to review open house and begin south study discussions – Thursday, February 23 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 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.  Village Board presentation on recommended stormwater relief projects – Tuesday, April 24.  Village Board presentation of final “Stormwater Relief Program” – Tuesday, May 22. b. 3rd Party Property Owners (Proposed Temporary Storage).  Mary Hill Cemetery - Scott Jochim and I met with Michael Hackiewicz (Technical Services) and Steven Jankowski (Supervising Engineer) on February 9 to discuss the issue of detention at the southeast corner of the cemetery near Milwaukee and Main. Michael and Steven provided 1998 plans of similar stormwater storage that was never installed. Steven stated that we could have the hard copies of the plans and if digital were required, to make the request and they would attempt to get them from the engineering firm that created them.  There was discussion at the Mary Hill meeting about the depth of the 1998 planned detention. It was only about 4 feet in depth due to how it would drain. The Hey and Associates conceptual drawing had it at 8 feet in depth with connection to a Village sewer. Michael mentioned that they would need to bring the issue up to the next level and return to us. Vinezeano stated that there would have to be some answer before the Village’s open house on the overall plan for stormwater. He said that we did not want to show detention in an area that was not going to be okay with Mary Hill. It was mentioned that the work would be financed through the Village’s stormwater relief program. Jochim mentioned that Michael approached him about the annexation of the cemetery property into Niles. He did not say it was tied to this project one way or another. Currently, the cemetery to the south is annexed in the Village. Ostman stated there have been no issues with the cemetery to the south that is annexed in the Village and that he sees no issues with annexing Mary Hill. There was further discussion about cemetery overflow concerns pointed out by the Stormwater Commission. Steven and Michael stated they were looking at installing a flap valve in the system to prevent it from overflowing to the south, but they needed to see it as an issue before they made the improvement. Scott stated that if there is a problem in the next substantial rain, he will approach Mary Hill about the flap valve installation.  OLR – Vinezeano reported that there is a meeting set for Friday, February 24 at 11:30 a.m. There was brief discussion of why work was not allowed in the past at Ransom due to the school nearby and parents that did not want detention in the area. The school, though used partially for daycare, is now gone. The liability issue must be addressed. Jeff stated there are ways to design these facilities to make them safe and address these issues. The Mayor stated that the storage proposed near Lincoln is currently used for parking by OLR.  Park District – Vinezeano asked in general if the Park District would be favorable to a land swap for Greenwood Park vs. the old maintenance building (rain garden included). It was stated that the fuel pump, truck scale, and carwash have value still for the village. The Chair mentioned the park facility on Oak Park could be put back on the tax roles. It was discussed by the Chair that Oak Park was not run by the Park District, but Greenwood Park was discussed. The Chair stated his concern for  being under the needed park acreage for a park district. Jeff reiterated that all the detention proposals are conceptually shown at max capacity and that they can all be scaled back to meet the needs of the design. Something at any of these sites is better than nothing at all. c. Discussion “Small Projects” 2nd Review. Jeff restated the issue at Lincoln and Normal and what was being considered. He mentioned the high capacity inlets that would not benefit the area due to the sewer conveyance on Normal. This Normal sewer was looked at for upsizing and he saw that during the 10- and 100-year event it did help that specific area. It reduced the overflow going to Lincoln in the 10-year. In the 100-year it was less effective. The goal if this type of improvement was to happen would be to do it in such a way that it did not negatively impact those on Western while providing relief on Bruce. There was discussion about 10-year/100-year rains in the area. Vinezeano stated that based on the rain data, the only 100-year rains we experienced were when the flood was on its way to a 100-year event. If the detention was put in at OLR and the Park, this type of project may not be needed, but the goal of this project is to provide quick assistance in the short-term. If OLR becomes a long-term project, this may be an option to move on. Greenwood Sewer relief and OLR curb were not reviewed further because the OLR project would make them irrelevant if it went it. If OLR became a long-term project, they may be considered. Vinezeano recommended that these small projects be listed in the final report in some manner to prevent them from being overlooked in the future if they become relevant. There was brief discussion about an empty lot on Sunset and how it is not large enough for storage and would not qualify for FEMA removal funds. d. MWRD “Understanding Your Sewer” Brochure. Vinezeano informed the Commission that this document was being printed and should be to the residents before the March 22 Open House. e. Village Hazard Mitigation Plan. Vinezeano informed the Commission that retired Fire Chief Barry Mueller was tapped for the project and it is currently in the FY 2013 budget document. It was reiterated how this update of the plan is required for future FEMA grant funding and assistance. f. Cost Share Program Discussion. Vinezeano shared the updated worksheets titled, “Flood Control” and “Flood Proofing” for comment. Some changes were recommended by the Commission. Vinezeano reiterated that there has been a concern that the Village Board of Trustees are not fully informed to the benefits of cost share and why it is an integral part of a total four part relief plan. Jeff mentioned that the flood control sheet did not include overhead sewer or backwater and check valves, but should. It was agreed and it was mentioned it was an oversight. There was discussion about how some on the board believe that flood control put in by one person negatively impacts the person downstream. If it was overhead sewer, that would definitely not be the case because now all the inflow from drain tiles is being emptied into the grass/yard and not the sewer. This puts less pressure on the downstream system. It was reiterated that the commission agreed that it should not be okay to allow home basements to be used for storage of stormwater. Overhead sewers that remove I&I will be promoted through education, but it is more expensive and more disruptive of an installation, so there should be an alternative. Check valves and backwater valves should be okay if the downspouts (already illegal) be removed. The ultimate goal is to reduce flooding in as many homes as possible. There was some discussion on how a check valve, backwater valve and overhead sewer function. A sectional sheet was used to demonstrate. The key is education with those who choose the cost share program. They must know the difference in the options and how the systems other than overhead sewer can fail. The problem with a check valve is that although it blocks the sewage from coming in, a prolonged period of a charged sewer will result in drain tile water eventually flooding the basement. It was mentioned that it is at least not sewage. A check valve with a pump is the same as a backwater valve. The Mayor asked the question of who will go to homes to verify and educate homeowners. Currently it is Community Development. Chuck recommended that a part-time plumber be involved in this and not an engineer. Anyone who takes the cost share would need to know it is not a 100% fur sure thing they will never flood again and the Village is not liable. Chuck favors someone in-house handles the issue of going to homes and educating homeowners. Some homeowners have put in check valves and have not had problems since. At least it prevents, if done correctly, sewage backup into the basement which is more of a health issue. Is there an answer for those who say a check valve or backwater valve is just pushing the water down the street to your neighbor? The group mentioned that homeowners have the right to protect their homes from sewage. The number one public health and safety issue with flooding in Niles is the sewage damage that leads to high levels of mold and long-term health risks. These three solutions prevent sewage backup. There was discussion of whether or not it is factual that if someone gets flood control, will it impact the neighbor downstream? It is theoretically possible, but the water levels in the system as a whole are impacted by many, many factors. What is the likely hood that it would not happen? Jeff stated that it is theoretically possible that the neighbor could get flooding due to a neighbor to the north getting flood control, but it in general it would not happen. The Mayor brought up the possibility of a cost share program of providing generators for those with sump pumps. There was discussion that generators for sump pumps and homes for when the power goes out is a convenience issue. This would be used even when it is not raining/flooding and can be used for other than sump pumps that should have battery backups as well. There was discussion that the price could be between $1,500 to $12,000 to protect the sump (+) or the whole home. If it was a consideration for this program, it would have to be a small system only for sump pumps. There was mention of Des Plaines that had a program and how some residents who benefited from the program may have sold them for a profit. It was discussed that this is more of a power outage issue and not a stormwater issue. Vinezeano pointed out the last page on the Flood Control worksheet with a list of municipalities and what they have in cost share programs. He pointed out that only Glenview has a large annual budget for cost share and it is most likely due to it being the first year. Many of the other towns have had this program in place and many of them even said that although cost share participation picks up after storms, they never really had the number of applications they thought they would get. However, he was also told that the number of calls complaining about the sewer system was reduced tremendously after a program was developed. There was discussion that the $250,000 or $300,000 would have to come from the $15M. There were some changes recommended to the worksheets by the chair. It was asked if the Village would be providing a list of contractors to complete the work and it was discussed that the Village would not do this, but could provide information on those companies that have Niles business licenses.  The chair reiterated that there are some residents who would just say that they are flooding because the sewers in the streets are inadequate and cause flooding, so why should they pay for a new check valve. It is the areas that will not benefit from early projects or not be helped at all with new sewers that must have this as an option because building a sewer in some areas would cost much more than the $4,000 cost share. The Mayor mentioned that we have not discussed the flood proofing or barriers to be used to block over land flooding. Vinezeano mentioned that there are not as many that will be helped by this, which is why only $50k is budgeted. There are temporary solutions like “door dam” and more permanent solutions constructed in place. Ostman mentioned how his family used the door dam on his property in Northbrook, which is in the flood plain. He stated it is simple and functional. There was a request if flood proofing includes fixing foundation cracks. No, that is a maintenance issue. Flood proofing is to prevent overland water flow from pouring into windows and doors. It was pointed out that if a home is surrounded by water for a day or more, it will not help. 3. New Business: a. Stormwater Commission Open House. Jeff had a PowerPoint presentation that he shared. It was discussed when and where the open house will occur, the setup, and that there will be Hey engineers at each of the stations. There will be the ability to show animation of flooding to anyone, the solutions, and animations of how the solutions improve the flooding. Historical rain events will be available for past 20 years. Sewer performance will be shown and how it conveys certain rain events. It will show how most of the existing sewers are less than a 2-year level of protection compared to the modern 10-year level built in new projects. The information provided will show the max cost to bring systems to a 10-year level and that these improvements would still not ensure basement backups will not occur without the protection of overhead sewers. Just in this first east side area, it would take $10k per home to fix compared to $4k per home with cost share. It was pointed out that it should be stated that no matter what is done with MWRD and the increasing of their storage in the future, the problem on the east side is that the sewers are not big enough to convey the water to MWRD. The straw going to the tank is not big enough to take all the water away fast enough. Jeff was discussing how we may have to share, for the first time, with residents that they may or may not be in an area that will benefit from a project that is within the first $15M project. The prioritization of the projects will be based on need and the ability to help the largest number of homes first. At the Commission’s next meeting, this is something that will be reviewed between what is in the south and to the north. This public house will help to guide these decisions. It will not be easy to address, but it is the cost share program that is the answer. By March 22, the conceptual solutions will be ready to share with the public. There was a brief discussion on the timeline and being prepared for the open house. What is it that we want the public to see and learn? Is it best to show up at the open house with conceptual plans or more finalized plans? Will homeowners want to see solutions or be part of the solutions? There will certainly be an opportunity for education. It is a chance for the consultant to speak directly with the public and build trust. The chair stated that the open house should educate the residents about the value of the cost share program, what the options are and how they would work The public should trust that this commission identified the hot zones and prioritized the work necessary for these hot zones and if someone is not in the area with an early project, they should have an option of cost share. The chair thought if it takes $2M in cost share to make (the relief program) work, so be it. Jeff discussed how engineers will be at each of the three stations to discuss directly with the public specific issues and projects down to the block. They should be able to hear what is happening in their area at this open house, which they may not hear in a board presentation. In his experience, he said the public usually feels well served when they get the individual attention. Jeff discussed the other tables for MWRD, FEMA, the Village, and IDNR. Jochim mentioned the past workshop in 2009 and how people approached him and were very interested in what he was going to do to fix the problems. “What are you going to do for me now?” He stated that they didn’t care about what needed to be done or what the problems were, they just wanted to know what he was going to do to fix it. Vinezeano asked if we should be going to the open house with solutions. Jeff stated that we are and that we will show what will and what will not occur based on priorities and funding issues.  The chair mentioned that a key for him is to get to the next board meeting to explain the merits of the cost share program and why it is an important part of the entire program. If they decide that cost share is not the way to go, there are going to be a lot of people who will not be helped or potentially not helped for a long period of time. It was discussed that cost share is going to provide the better bang for the buck as compared to sewers that do not serve enough homes. Should the public hear about cost share first or should the board vote it down first without the public knowing it was a valuable option for the over all plan? The February pre-board at 6:00 p.m. must end before 7:00 p.m. The presentation should outline the importance of cost share. b. Glenview Discussion Update. Jochim informed the commission about a meeting with Glenview. Jeff shared that he will share his model with them to look at possibilities of improvement. There was discussion about the possibility of using ComEd property for storage. Glenview will set up a meeting with ComEd and Niles will attend to see if a joint project can be considered. 4. Open Discussion: Fred provided a drawing titled, “Probable Flooding Incidents (Homes/Structures Affected) – 2008 Equivalent Rain Fall.” Jeff will see what he can do to complete the open slots. The purpose of the drawing was to provide a simplistic way of showing the value of sewer modifications. It would show that what MWRD is going to do in the future to complete the storage, will not impact or improve Village flooding. Also, it would demonstrate the difference between the improvements from $15M and from $50M. A box for cost share could also be listed on the drawing. Jeff reiterated that what MWRD does or has ever done will not impact the Village of Niles sewer system. Niles has storage issues to the west and conveyance issues to the east. The structures for MWRD are big enough to handle anything Niles sends it. The problem is that the sewers don’t get the water to MWRD fast enough or in a large enough volume. If MWRD did fill, the sewers would just dump into the rivers, so now it is a water quality issue. The sewer water is 20 to 30 feet higher in elevation. 5. Next Scheduled Meeting: February 23, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.