Stormwater Commission

STORMWATER COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY Wednesday, May 2, 2012 The following persons were present: Steven Vinezeano, Andrew Vitale, Richard Wlodarski, Fred Kudert, Tom Polcyn, Chuck Ostman, Mousa Nazzal, Robert Callero, George Van Geem, Scott Jochim and Jeff Wickenkamp of Hey and Associates. Absent: Chair Joe Lo Verde The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. 1. Approve Meeting Summary of Monday, March 19, 2012: The summary was approved to be posted on the Stormwater Commission web page. 2. Old Business: a. Review of Tuesday Preboard on Recommended Projects. The Commission thought that the presentation went well. The Mayor mentioned that we did not go into detail on the cost share program, but that was by design. b. Flood Control Assistance Program. The Commission needs to make a final recommendation on whether or not this will be a grant, 0% or low interest loan from the Village, or through some form of savings/bank institution. It was discussed how a representative of Devon Bank was not interested, but would help refinance. A representative from North Shore Bank mentioned the possibility of a 6% loan, but those applying would still need to be reviewed ability to pay. The Mayor mentioned that the FDIC is putting a lot of regulations on banks and it would be difficult. The Commission agreed that a simple system is necessary to help residents help themselves quickly. There was discussion regarding the Village of providing a loan to the homeowner for ½ of the cost. It was discussed that it could be a low interest loan program similar to Palatine that pays for the full amount of the project. There was question of what happens when they do not pay? How do you guarantee this? Ten years seems too long. Five years? The Village is not in the business to loan money. If it was open to everyone for the entire price of the projects, too few projects would be done and it would cost more money per year. Morton Grove just implemented a program with loans and they only budget $50k a year. Do you make this a simple program and help people quickly and without much mess, while ensuring they have “skin in the game” through paying half of the costs. Most of the other communities make it a clean grant program. The program will support the goal of stopping backups and overland flooding. It is really a policy decision, but the recommendation will be a grant program. If the Board votes it down and wants it to be a loan program, the program would have to be brought back to the Board for a vote. It was mentioned that the inadequate sewers is a community and village problem and spending village funds to help right a village problem makes sense. This also gives the residents a voice to participate or not. It was put to a vote to see whether it should be a loan program or a grant (for ½) of the costs. The vote was five to four to recommend a grant program for ½ of the qualified costs of the project. Vinezeano shared a sheet titled, “Village of Niles Flood Control Assistance Program.” It has an introduction, program qualifications, program goals, and program implementation section. The goal of the information sheet was to provide the Board with as much information as possible on the proposed program. The Commission recommended changes:  Pressurized changed to surcharged.  “when sewers reach capacity” removed,  In some cases, there is an increase in the number of homes brought to code.  Multi-family was added.  On-site inspection “if needed” added.  It is their “primary residence” was added.  Permits must be applied for and paid for so they have some “skin in the game.”  Homes built before 1965 removed.  Priority given to those with record of sewer backup.  Under all cases, the home must have not existing code violations on exterior plumbing. There was some discussion regarding which applicants would qualify to get the flood assistance funds. If there is a homeowner who could flood because they are attached to a combined sewer, but has never flooded and wants to get an overhead sewer, should they qualify? It was discussed that they could, but the likelihood is low because they still must shell out a significant amount of funds. If you do not allow them to participate, are you telling them they may never flood? What if they are brining their home up to code? It was stated that this should be an emergency program to help prevent sewer backups and flooding overland. Why give public funds? It  was discussed that these homeowners would not be denied the opportunity to participate, but they would not be prioritized in the project. They would go to the bottom of the list and into the next year if necessary. What if a builder remodels a house to flip it, do they qualify? The sheet was changed to state primary residence only qualifies. There was discussion about Trustee Hynes comment at the last Board meeting regarding showing him and the Board the homes that would qualify for the program. A map could be made to show all homes that were built before 1965, which is when overhead sewers were code. There was discussion of how a past owner could have done work without the Village’s knowledge resulting in an illegal connection that a new owner is now dealing with and getting backup. Should they be kept from the program? The goal of the program is to stop backup in homes. The group agreed the individual who experiences backup should qualify. Why penalize a resident for the past owners mistakes? It was discussed that the homes that experience overland flooding can be identified and mapped. Regarding those with backup, it is basically any home that is connected to a combined sewer system, which is 70% or the sewer system in Niles. It was clarified that it should be for prioritization and not necessarily qualification for program funds. The Commission agreed that prioritization should be given to homes within combined sewer service areas with a record of sewer backups. But areas cannot be established beyond the combined sewer area because the homes with a record of flooding is too much of a “shot gun” shot group or scattered. A scoring system was mentioned for those program years where there are more requests than funding can support - clear need, moderate need, and low need. Order of application can be used within those need groups. Its open to everyone in the Village that can show a clear need, but prioritization will be used if necessary. c. Trustee Przybylo Request. Generators in Des Plaines were discussed. It was stated how people from Des Plaines took the funds from the City and resold the generators at a profit. Battery backup systems was also discussed. Ostman stated that a large number of homes with sump pumps do not have battery backup and if they do, they do not maintain them properly. It was discussed how the loss of power is a separate issue (power reliability) and not a sewer issue (sewer reliability). The program is to stop sewage backup and overland flooding only since these are the causes of an inadequate sewer system for the rains that cause the majority of flooding issues. A household generator is not something the Commission can  support. Can the Commission support a battery backup system? The Mayor asked if there are funds available, can a battery backup system, instead of a generator, be included in the program. It was discussed that overhead sewers already stop the sewage from entering homes, which meets the goals of the program already. It was mentioned that battery backup is an education issue. If there is an overhead sewer, it should already have a battery backup system. It was discussed that the cost of battery backup systems and small generators is not cost prohibitive as an $8k to $10k overhead sewer system. The Commission wants to move forward with the recommendation as what was originally proposed only. Homeowner education was reiterated regarding internal and external flood control/stormwater systems. Too many people buy homes and do not understand what they have and what is necessary to maintain what they have. It was restated that the Commission sees a need for a part-time “Stormwater Specialist” who is trained to investigate local stormwater issues and educate residents. This person would be paid about $25 per hour and only work 35 hours/week for 26 weeks. There would be a limit of 1000 hours. There was discussion about having Hey and Associates handle this project, but the Commission thought an in-house person seasonally would be the best. This needs to be a person who can deal with the requests and follow through with the residents recording each visit and recommendation. It was discussed how this would be funds well spent. 3. New Business: a. Additional Assistance Opportunities. The Wilmette programs were discussed and the Commission did not show an interest in the programs. There was brief discussion on 8249 N. Osceola regarding the Cleveland project and the alley. This person suffers from backup and flooding in rear yard. It was mentioned that after preliminary engineering, the work may change and impact the homeowner more than it seems to be impacting them now. 9805 Lauren was discussed briefly, but it was pointed out that staff have already gone to the property and provided recommendations that the homeowner refuses to implement. This person suffers from overland flooding. b. Final Presentation to the Board. There will be an executive summary and two resolutions provided to the Clerk prior to the May meeting. At the May meeting, a final Stormwater Relief Program will be available. The two resolutions will be for the flood control assistance and the capital projects. Jeff plans to discuss “what next” at the Board meeting. It was stated that a whole presentation would be needed at a pre-board. What has happened since September of 2009 will be presented too. Project management structure should also be established for this second phase. 4. Open Discussion: a. Review Catch Basin at 8404 N. Greenwood. This project was revisited by Hey and Associates as a secondary project to be done within the first couple of years of the program. It is small and has high value. b. Plastic Pipe from 8540 Ottawa to Lee Sewer. Public Services did not see a connection for this pipe to Lee. The plastic piping is most likely failed or full of dirt or roots. A property owner stated that it was probably put in 20 years ago by the Village. c. Oakton Laundry. It was determined that the project does not require the stormwater storage as initially thought. d. ComEd Transformers. There was discussion about the power outages in 2008 and 2011. Two ground level electrical transformers are in the area of Bruce and Lincoln neighborhood. Community Development has reviewed the two locations for further action. The goal will to go back to ComEd to see if they will pay to lift the transformers. Vinezeano mentioned that a new municipal contact is coming to Niles and we need to include them to get it done. e. Touhy Sewer Proposed Project. Ostman stated that this project may not be required in Tier Two because he had discussions with a resident in the area who says it is not flooding on Neva. This project will not even be considered for ten years and would be reviewed in more detail in the future. f. Rear Yards and Backflow Preventers. It was mentioned how this should be added to the study as short term programs that need to be done. There are a number of homes with rear yard drains that fill up and flood rear yards when sewers and streets flood. Hey will develop a detail for homes with rear yard drains and funds for existing rear yard drains that require them. g. Phase II, Implementation and Management. It was discussed how the Engineering Department must become much more involved with the second implementation phase of the stormwater project. There was discussion about who would go to the third party property owners and other districts and it was determined that management staff would be important for this, but construction and engineering planning would need to be Engineering. Would it be a project engineer from the engineering firm or in-house? Yes and no. The Village Engineering Department will need to be intimately involved and accountable for the project during implementation. h. The Mayor thanked the Stormwater Commission members, outlining their work up to this date. 5. Next Scheduled Meetings: TBD