Stormwater Commission

STORMWATER COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY Thursday, March 8, 2012 The following persons were present: Steven Vinezeano, Andrew Vitale, Richard Wlodarski, Fred Kudert, Tom Polcyn, Chuck Ostman, Mousa Nazzal, Scott Jochim and Jeff Wickenkamp of Hey and Associates. Absent: George Van Geem, Robert Callero and Chair Joe Lo Verde The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. 1. Approve Meeting Summary of Friday, February 23, 2012: The summary was approved to be posted on the Stormwater Commission web page. 2. Old Business: a. Recap 28 February Presentation to the Board. Vinezeano contacted each of the Board of Trustee members and offered to sit with them and Jeff Wickenkamp regarding the project and especially cost share. He outlined what each of the board members stated. A request for information at the Village Board meeting came from Trustee Preston and Trustee Przybylo. Trustee Preston asked about the other towns and 1. How long they had the program?, 2. How many years they plan to have the program?, and 3. How are they paying for the project? Vinezeano is working on gathering this information from the municipalities. There was a general feeling among the members that they would like cost share to be prioritized for those areas that will not immediately benefit from sewer improvements. The Commission discussed how even though a homeowner may get a new sewer, they could still flood without protection from overhead sewer, backflow prevention, or a check valve. To exclude anyone from the program would be wrong, but those who apply for the cost share and are in areas not benefiting from sewer improvements should have priority. The only way to guarantee sewage will not backup into a home is to have one of these devices. No sewer can prevent it. We cannot deny an applicant that has been identified as in a sewage backup area. It was discussed that it must be made clear that the cost share program will most likely not be 100% used based on the experience in other towns. Maybe for the first year or after large rains, the program will probably support anyone who qualifies, by a sewer project or not. Most likely this cost share funding will be reduced from the $250,000 in for the first year. Jeff stated that it should be flexible. Other towns handle this on a first come, first come basis. Jeff stated it should be an open application period (a month) and the Stormwater Commission can review the applications and prioritize them as necessary. However, the Commission does not believe the cost share funding will be used up 100%. It was discussed that before the May presentation, a solid method of how cost share will be implemented must be available. Fred stated we should prioritize the applications based on the number of applications, review past flooding data, and the engineering analysis to see. Jeff mentioned that maybe first come, first serve is the best way to go if there are not too many requests versus the funding. Rich believes that this Commission can legitimately determine who should qualify by looking at them on a case by case basis. No one would be denied based on where they are located, but if they are in an area that does not have lots of flooding they could end up going the following year. Andrew stated that if there is enough for 45 and 40 apply, they all should get assistance. Prioritization comes into play if there are more applicants than can be supported. Ostman stated that it is imperative that the commission develop some detail on how the cost share will work. Check out Northbrook and see what their standard operating procedures and modify it to work for Niles. Give them about 3-4 pages of how it works. This would give them some sense of comfort that we know how it will work. We should be detailed on how we prioritize the program. Get a batch of applications and look at them all. There is an application period, review, prioritization and award. The only basis to say no would be that they are much lower on the list and even then they would be pushed to the next funding year. The application will ask about the flooding they experienced and the number of times. Trustee Przybylo’s request was a bit more difficult. It was stated in an email that Trustee Przybylo believed the Stormwater Commission’s cost share proposal is not equitable. He asked the question, how many homes that flooded in the two most recent flood occurrences did not have overhead sewers? The Commission agreed that a question like this is impossible to answer without going house to house and physically looking in the home. He stated in his email that to make the program equitable, a cost share should include permanent generators. The Commission in the past discussed that at the most a cost share would only be for a generator large enough to run a sump pump would be agreeable, but that Des Plaines has some questionable issues with the resale of the units by recipients for a profit. Mr. Przybylo would like the generator to be larger and more permanent to the home with permit fees waived. Vinezeano asked how best to answer this request. Rich mentioned that only one town had a generator program. Jeff acknowledges the concern Andrew Przybylo has, but does not believe it eliminates the need for sewage backup protection. Fred stated that sewage does not go into a home with an overhead sewer if the power is out and the sump is not working. Jeff thought he heard Andrew mention that sewage can still enter a home with overhead sewer, but that is not true if the overhead sewer is constructed properly. Fred reminded everyone that the focus of the cost share is to prevent the backup of sewage into homes and homes with overhead sewer do not get sewage backup. It is a separate issue. If you have an overhead sewer and the power goes out and it is not raining, you can still flood. It is all part of owning a home and there is a need for battery backup in general. What if everyone has a generator and the pumps burn out, do we have to start funding extra pumps? A point was made that flood control is permanent, but generators can still be removed and taken with the homeowner if they move. Do we have to replace it like we would a recycling bin? Where do you draw the line? There was a discussion about the costs for a permanent generator that could be $4k to $7k. Vinezeano asked for clarification regarding a home with an overhead sewer and one with a back flow preventer. If they are both out of power, would they both flood from ground water? The group answered yes. He asked, if we are helping the guy with the overhead sewer to not flood from ground water with a generator, what are we giving to the guy with just a backflow preventer? We would have to give them sump pumps with generators. Rich stated that the half hour to hour of time has always been the drawback to flood control using check valves and backwater valves. How do we establish a threshold of support? Jeff stated that the far more common form of flooding in Niles does not occur due to power outages. Andrew may be asking us to prove this, but do we have numbers to prove this, do we do another survey? Can we ask ComEd about outages during the two big storms Andrew refers to and overlay that with the flooding in Niles? Vinezeano stated that Eric from ComEd will attend the next meeting to discuss this and other issues. There was discussion about the underwater transformer in 2008 that could be lifted. Vinezeano stated that ComEd requires that the Village either raise it or get the area back to what it was when the transformer was installed. Would this be enough? There was discussion about the 24 hours given by Andrew and the group thought that is much too long. 1 to 2 hours is the most a battery backup will last in a heavy rain. The run time given on websites is 7 hours. Chuck  asked how you determine if this overlay of flooding to outages will work when there are people like his son-in-law who had a generator for several people on his block to run sumps. Jeff stated that in Elmhurst, ComEd had to provide reports on power losses and how they would quantify fixing the issues. They provide an idea of who and how often power is loss. What about these areas where there are problems? Pressure them to fix it? Who losses power more than 2 hours a year? Vinezeano will contact the ComEd representative and provide the data before the meeting. Short of going and viewing every home, it is impossible to answer the question. However, what data do we have that makes us believe the biggest issues are not overhead sewers and is sewage backup. Fred stated to make sure we explain to Andrew that the flooding for those with overhead sewers is not sewage, which is what we are trying to stop. b. Review of Open House Exhibits. Vinezeano outlined what he has on hand already. Historical overland flow paths map to be provided by Hey. Sectionals of sewer systems are done. Rain garden and rain barrel are done, the emergency vehicle map is only partially done by Hey. A historical rain chart is done. There was a question about possible attendance. It was discussed that there were at least over 200, but there was a storm a few days prior to the event. 3. New Business: a. Discussion of North Niles Analysis. Jeff provided a PowerPoint using the 2D modeling program. The first area discussed was Grace/Glendale area near Glenview. Using Glenview data and Niles data, Hey modeled the area and the flooding. Most of the flooding starts in Glenview and as they fill, they flow down to Niles. There is a low spot by Grace that causes yards to fill impacting sump pumps. The inlets north of Maynard are a low spot where there are repeated complaints. The sewer system in Glenview is undersized, which actually helps prevent the flooding in Niles from happening quicker. There could be backups occurring in the homes if the sanitary sewer is being impacted by overland flow. The problem with Grace is that it is low, so the sewers on Maynard are taking the flow from Glenview and then backflows to Grace. If the street is ever rebuilt, it could be rebuilt higher, but driveways would need to be re-profiled. This would be expensive to fix. Jochim mentioned that the street flooding is complained about, but he thought it is on the back burner and not as important as basement flooding. Vinezeano stated that a special map will be developed for emergency vehicles. The Fire Chief and Police Chief have seen the prototype emergency vehicle map and will be able to make rescue plans in the future for heavy rains with flooded streets. The problems in Glenview are much worse. Homes are under water in Glenview when roads are flooded in Niles. Glenview is motivated to solve the issue. They have two concepts. 1. Take drainage through the ComEd right-of-way with bigger pipes, but it would be like pulling the plug on the neighborhood and would flood Milwaukee Avenue. The problem is transferred to someone else. This is not even a short-term option. 2. Detention in the ComEd right-of-way would be required for this to work. Jochim mentioned that ComEd should be open to it, but there will be a cost. It will not eliminate the problem at Glendale and Maynard, but it will improve it greatly. Jochim asked about a short pipe Glenview had interest in improving. Jeff stated that it would be a marginal improvement and not worth the cost. Both communities need to work together to fix this problem. Jochim stated that Glenview flows into Niles, Niles into County, and County into the State and asked who is responsible for the water? Jeff stated that the project would cost about $4M, but it is mostly for street flooding. Vinezeano stated that based on emails from residents in the area, a majority who flood do so because sump pumps can’t keep up. This may work if Glenview pays for a majority of the project. It would be cheaper to buy bigger sump pumps for the homes impacted. Even if this was done, where does the water go? It just swirls around the house. The real solution is to collaborate with Glenview, but at a lesser amount of maybe $1M and they pay the rest since they get much more out of it then Niles. Putting a bigger pipe on Grace or any other street in the area will not improve the situation. It may even make it worse because of the amount of water to the north from Glenview. Jochim made the point that the amount of storage needed to prevent what is happening cannot be developed through buying homes, which would not be cost effective. Another problem with the sewers and making them bigger is the slope that would be required to make the water move in the pipe. Pat Lach from Hey took over the presentation to discuss areas south of Glendale and Golf Road. The first hotspot he discussed was at Maryland and Milwaukee by the Bradford Exchange and XSport. He stated there is no detention, so after the Bradford area floods, it runs over Milwaukee. He  said the sewer flows well, but the low point in Bradford pops is the lowest location. The box culvert under Cortland works well. However, the larger storms fill this and floods Cortland, Maryland, Callero Drive, etc. Since the water stops at the Bradford Exchange, it has nowhere to go but across Milwaukee Avenue. Callero Drive cul-de-sac floods and is a problem as well. The area by Chateau Ritz is a problem as well. But they were not sure about Joey Drive issues the modeling showed, but was not mentioned by the commission report. The Oak, Grand, and Prospect area. During the 2011 storm, several homes in the area reported backup. Chester Avenue north of Dempster. Gemini School has local flooding problems. Jochim mentioned that Gemini has plans to make additional improvements. There was a brief discussion about the Golf Mill property. Jeff stated that the amount of storage on the property is about .2 inches of storage, so taking into consideration the storage on property would not significantly impact a model of flow. Milwaukee is higher than Greenwood and the water simply flows west toward the Greenwood Drive area, which is unincorporated Cook County. Pat Lach discussed possible solutions. Underground storage at the Bradford Exchange parking lot or XSport parking lot would provide relief for the area on Maryland, Cortland, and Woodland (to include Bradford Exchange and Milwaukee). The cost is high and it would be private property. Jeff mentioned a concern of having solutions for storage on private property at the open house. A quick solution for Callero would be a backflow preventer from the north business area (Ford dealer). The runoff from the shopping center shouldn’t be allowed to flood out the residential street. The storage in the ComEd right-of-way that is west of the Park District property would help the Glendale area and the Cortland area. Underground storage in the Chateau Ritz parking lot is a possibility to prevent flooding near Joey Drive and behind the Chateau Ritz. 4. Open Discussion: a. OLR Discussions. There was a question about how the discussions with OLR representatives went on February 24. Vinezeano stated that they (Jeff, the Mayor, Ostman, and Vinezeano) met with Father Chris, their engineer Steve Dolan and a representative from the Archdiocesan. It was stated that  it was a positive meeting. They wanted to ensure that the facility was a dry facility, maintained by the Village and safe. They were concerned with liability as well and Joe Annunzio addressed their concerns. Jeff mentioned how important it was to get across that it is all conceptual and that anything can be worked out. His goal was to ensure that we could represent the storage facility on the maps and they were open to the project. The message to a resident is that they are receptive to the idea, but much needs to be worked out. This is a priority project most likely, but the commission still needs to discuss it. 5. Next Scheduled Meetings: March 19 at Noon. The Mayor will purchase lunch.