Stormwater Commission

Stormwater Commission Meeting Summary Thursday November 14, 2019 Members Present: Fred Kudert, Steven Vinezeano, Thomas Powers, Andrew Vitale, Joseph LoVerde, Robert Callero, Fred Braun, and Chuck Ostman. Residents in attendance: Rosemary Palicki, Leonard Palicki, Karen Diamond; Donna Lopatka, Bill Markos, Chleng Lam, George Michel, and Faro Vitale. Others in attendance: Jeff Wickenkamp, Hey and Associates; Jack Grana and Tim O’Brien, Village of Niles The Stormwater Commission meeting convened at 8:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers at Village Hall. Old Business: The following topics were presented and discussed. 8607 National The resident who had requested further discussion on this item was not present. The item was tabled. Oconto and Mulford Residents from the Oconto and Mulford were not in attendance when this agenda item was reached. The residents showed up later in the meeting to voice their concerns over flooding that occurred in August 2019. Refer to public comments section below. 8127 Prospect, 8131 Prospect The Niles sewer department requested that the Stormwater Commission discuss the flooding that occurred in the past. There is a rear yard area that floods to a depth of about 4-6 feet. In the past the Niles Public Works would pump out the back yards, however that no longer is the Village policy. Village staff explained that private property is no longer dewatered by Public Works due to liability and manpower concerns. Chuck Ostman indicated that one of the redeveloped property’s in this area installed a stormwater pump. Rich Wlodarski confirmed there is a pump that discharges to Washington. The location of this stormwater issue was noted for recording keeping purposes. 7804 Neva/7805 Nora- The resident on Neva indicated that their neighbor on Nora had placed some fill which caused them some problems. The Mayor requested that a topographic survey be performed to determine the drainage situation. The Village Engineer explained that the survey indicated that the houses are the high point of the lots, the front yards drain to the street, and the rear yard drain to the back. The survey indicated that there is no defined overland flow path out of the rear yards. The rear yards would pond with 12” of water before overland flow occurs. While the Nora property is generally lower than Neva there is a 3”-4” high planting bed approximately 5 feet off the property line on the Nora property. Based on the grade the planting bed has minimal impact on flooding and the Nora property actually stores more water than the Neva property. The Village code indicates that the grade must match at the property line and the survey documents that condition. Village staff prepared five drainage improvement recommendations for the property owner on Neva. The property owner on Neva indicated that they never had a problem on their property but recently 25 yews died. He claimed that when the garage was built that the neighbor placed several yards of dirt when the garage was built. At a later date gutters were installed on the garage. He also indicated that the neighbors to the north experienced rear yard flooding. There was also some previous disagreement among Village staff as to whether the gutters were a code violation. Community Development which is the department ultimately responsible for code enforcement determined the gutters were not a code violation. The question was asked as to whether the survey showed evidence of fill around the garage. The Village Engineer indicated the survey indicates the grade is flat behind the garage. Chuck Ostman indicated that the drainage easement isn’t meant to be a channel but is often just an area for water to collect. . Staff reconfirmed the small amount of berms is not an enforceable code issue. The Chair asked that Village Staff go over the recommendations with the property owner. Golf Mill Park/Greenwood Basin Update - A public open house was held at the Golf Mill Mall to collect public feedback on the plan for the park. There were concerns raised about festivals and minimizing impacts to the park district. A staff level meeting is planned to take place on site the following week. The meeting would be an information gathering meeting to determine impacts of phasing the project. The chair asked for clarification that sewer work would begin in July 2020. Staff indicated that was correct and also confirmed that the MWRD asked that the schedule not slip any further. New Business: The following topics were presented and discussed Back Yard Flooding Program Considerations Hey presented an update to a 2016 memo on Backyard flooding. The update was presented in presentation format. The agenda was to introduce the topic, discuss other communities approach, and ask for guidance from the commission. The feedback gathered today would be used to develop a program and policy. Hey indicated that historically we referred to the yard drainage problem as a “nuisance”, however for the residents suffering from significant rear yard drainage problems it is more than a nuisance. Nuisance flooding is a yard drainage problem that does not include structural flooding. The backyard drainage problem is a function of how Niles was designed without dedicated overland flow areas. Historically the subdivisions were designed for just the streets to drain and rear yard drainage systems were not considred. Yard flooding is typically defined as non- structural property flooding. Public Works receives about 30 yard drainage complaints per year. The requests range from neighbor complaints, technical assistance requests, to sewer maintenance requests. Village staff handles the majority of the complaints with Hey assisting 2- 3 times per year. Village code addresses blocking drainage, connecting downspouts, footing drains, and maintenance/grading requirements. The NWMC completed multiple surveys on rear yard drainage programs. There are about 35 responses from communities on two sets of survey questions. One third of community’s provide financial assistance. Generally assistance maxed out at $4,000-$5,000 of assistance with a cost share component. One third of community’s provide a list of professional to assist homeowners. Many communities provide details and technical assistance. In 2016 the stormwater commission discussed rear yard flooding and determined the following: - Rear yard flooding was a lower priority in town compared to structural flooding - The Commission supported Public Works assisting homeowners with technical assistance - Village staff should utilize consultant assistance during time of higher call volume - The Flood Control Program should continue to focus on structure flooding as eligible projects Hey discussed ways that rear yard flooding could be addressed in the future. The first area that was addressed was ordinance revisions. Hey is working on a standard design for rear yard pump systems. New program elements might include rear yard assistance. Some items to consider for eligibility included: - How long does water sit for? - How many property are affected? - Is the property taking water from their neighbors? - Is there ponding against the foundation? - Is it an inherited problem? Typical solution might include: - Pipe with discharge to surface or to existing sewer - Overland flow route improvements - Exterior/yard pumping system - Rain garden or bio-infiltration systems - Infiltration trenches The chair noted that his review of the notes indicated that often citizens did not create the problem, but often inherited the problems. The chair asked how many properties suffered from man-made problems versus natural grade problems. PW staff indicated the majority are due to the grade rather than man-made neighbor code violation issues. Hey pointed out that some of the problems are due to increases in impervious lot coverage and it is often cumulative. For that reason one of the eligibility criteria could be assistance for properties that take water from multiple lots. Community Development reported that the current Flood Control Program is budgeted at $50,000. Three projects are in the pipeline, one is completed and two are underway. The $50,000 would typically support 12 properties. Historically the full amount has been used and it is hard to predict what will happen this fiscal year before the spring rains. The commission felt the rear yard cost-share should be separate from the flood control program. The commission also felt that any sewer installed should be private responsibility for maintenance and that should be documented. The Chair asked why downspout discharge is allowed to discharge to the rear if it creates a known problem. Community development noted that often the grade is such that getting the water out to the front is not possible. In particular garage’s that are set far back on a property pose a difficult drainage problem. Hey indicated that the ordinance revisions could add some language to regulate new garages and homes to not direct the downspouts to the rear in areas of known drainage problems when the grade will allow drainage to the front. Historically the commission prioritized reducing flooding in the basements and streets. The yard program would be a third new priority. Commissioner Callero advised caution to not allow the yard program to eat funds away from the basement and street flooding reduction programs. The Chair noted that originally the Flood Control Program was budgeted at $250,000 and the budget demand appears to be going down. The Chair inquired about outside agency funding assistance. Hey indicated that the major stormwater funding agencies generally treat this as a municipal problem, however there may be some non-profits which offer grants for private raingardens. The Chair called for discussion on whether the Commission should consider a program to assist the homeowners. Multiple members indicated that the program has merit to assist homeowners who are topographically disadvantaged. There was discussion that it would take time to plan and prepare but perhaps a program could be budgeted for FY21. It was also noted that the definition of yard flooding needed to be well defined. Minor standing water should not be addressed, however deep, persistent, and repetitive yard flooding would be eligible. Duration would be a key parameter to consider. One way to direct funds to the most impacted people would be raise the eligibility criteria for the first few years of the program and then at a later point lower the criteria to 72 hours. Commissioner Ostman inquired if instead there could be an application period and then the engineering department could score and rank the applications rather than disqualify someone when funding might be available. It was determined that Hey would do some more research on neighboring program administration, and then return with some options and a framework for implementing the rear yard drainage program. 5-year Capital Plan - The Village Engineer indicated that Staff is updating the 5-year capital plans for the Village. Currently we are trying to identify efficiencies with street rehabilitation, watermain, and stormwater projects. If there are overlapping projects then often it makes sense to make all the improvements at once. While the 5-year plan is not binding, it does provide a framework for the planning of future work and expenditures. In Fiscal year 22 and 24 there are Quartile 1 projects which overlap with planned street and watermain projects. The Village Engineer requested input from the Commission on whether to include the stormwater projects in the 5-year capital plan. The first project is 17-26 in FY 22 which is a 42” sewer on Odell. The project is an extension of the Cleveland Sewer project, the estimate for the project is $700,000- $900,000. 17-26 would be coincident with a watermain project in the 5-year capital plan. The second project is 17-7a which is a large scale project going from Mulford and Oconto to the Chicago River. In 2019 we constructed the outfall portion of the project with the Howard Street project. Mulford west of Harlem is included in a 5-year street plan in FY24 pending roadway funding availability. If just the Mulford section of sewer is completed it would only be the 36” upstream end of the sewer at a cost of approximately $850,000. Constructing just the upstream segment would not provide a large benefit to Mulford and Oconto area. The chair inquired about how much the 17-7a project costs for the entire project. It was also noted that stormwater CIP indicated 15 million in expenditures with an expected 10 million in outside agency revenue offsets. The chair noted that 5 million over 5 years was not a huge expenditure. The question was asked if the 17-7a was the next highest ranked project after the Golf Mill project. Hey responded that the quartile system was meant to be a batch of projects to be pursued if there were efficiencies identified. The Village Engineer clarified the large 17-7a project in total was $7-$8 million. The Village Manager indicated a project of that size would require grant or IEPA SRF funding. If funding is available the entire project should be pursued. If funding was not available the partial project would be revisited. CRS Update – New Rating 5 – CRS is the Community Rating System that FEMA uses to rate the Village on how well we follow the stormwater and floodplain rules. At the next board meeting FEMA will present the board with a plaque acknowledging this achievement. The improvement in the rating is a direct result of the policy recommendations that come out of the stormwater commission. Commissioner Ostman noted that there are very few communities nationwide that are a CRS level 5, and the increased rating will reduce flood insurance rates for Niles property owners. MS4 annual report update – The Village is required to review the MS4 annual report at a public meeting as part of the MS4 program. Tim O’Brien presented the changes to the MS4 stormwater plan. The changes included changing the name of Public Services to Public Works throughout the report. The outlet map was updated for the Howard Street outfall, and the water solutions project website was removed from the report as the website is no longer active. Finally the MWRD CSO website address was updated. The Commission and public attendees had no comments on the changes to the plan. Public Comment Bill Markos from 8048 N. Washington Street in Niles testified that he was notified that he was responsible for a sewer lateral repair. Mr. Markos indicated that he televised his sewer and the video did not indicate deficiency. The Village then televised the sewer main and determined that the leak was at the connection of the lateral and the sewer main. Following the televising the Village notified the property owner that he was responsible for the repair and made reference to the Village Code of Ordinances. Mr. Markos felt that the after reading the ordinance it was not clear to him about the connection being the homeowners responsibility. Mr. Markos also felt that a previous Village lining project may have damaged the service. Mr. Markos felt the Village lining did not include the grouting of the connection and that was responsible for the resulting sinkhole. Mr. Markos felt that as a result he was not responsible for the repair. The Utility Superintendent explained the history of the situation from the staff’s perspective. There was a sinkhole that developed in the street and the Utility Manager requested that the property owner televise their sewer lateral to determine the cause of the sinkhole. Both videos showed that the sewer service separated from the mainline at the connection which caused the sinkhole. The sewer was lined in 2001 and there may be historic VHS video of this. Public Works Staff reviewed both the Village and homeowner’s current video on an 80” TV and the location of deficiency was clear. The sewer service had separated from the sewer main. The ordinance states that property owners are responsible for all sewer service deficiencies from the mainline to the home. The repair has not been made yet. The resident and Village staff are in disagreement about who is responsible. The sewer lateral is not currently connected to the main so the Village feels the ordinance is clear that the homeowner is responsible. Sewer services becoming disconnected from the main is quite common. The current practice is to provide a sewer saddle for service connections to avoid this. No work has taken place on the sewer service since the property owners moved in in 1972. The Village Manger indicated that Staff must follow the ordinance unless the Board gave them direction otherwise. It was determined that this is not an issue to be determined by the commission. This issue has been raised before at many locations and it was determined that the connection belongs to the property owner. If the owner does not make the repair they are at risk for their service being plugged with sediment. Since this is an ordinance issue it is subject to be reviewed by the Village attorney and any change would need to be approved by the Village Board. Faro Vitale from 7700 Oconto commented that his block has a much more severe problem than backyard flooding. He is of the opinion that a street project years ago changed the grade of the street and caused problems. He is aware there is a plan but he wants to know when the improvements will be made. Mr. Vitale is frustrated that he has raised the flooding concerns in the past and nothing has been done. His home is surrounded by flood waters during large rainfalls. He purchases flood insurance annually and has had to make past claim claims for home flooding. The Street recently flooded on August 26th, 2019. The Commission indicated that the project that serves his home is still under consideration and was discussed earlier in the meeting. The Village has made a commitment to stormwater funding, however funding for the project in question has not been identified. As discussed earlier in the meeting a project is included in the 5-year CIP pending funding. Finally the Chair asked about an old business item on Wisner. He wanted to know the status of evaluating the feasibility of tying the rear yard of Wisner to the sewer main. Commissioner Kudert mentioned that a similar question was raised previously about basement flooding. Commissioner Kudert believed there was an email about the loss of storage capacity from the basement flood control which could be extrapolated to the yard situation. Mr. Palicki indicated that when he pumps out his yard it goes directly into the combined sewer anyhow. During a rainfall event last week he pumped his yard out for 4 hours into the sewer. Chair Loverde asked for a pro and con on the removing backyard storage areas from the stormwater or combined sewer system. Commissioner Vinezeano also asked for clarification on whether the ordinance would allow a direct connection. Hey and Associates would evaluate the effect of losing back yard storage Village wide. Next Meeting Date The date of the next meeting will be at the call of the chair. The meeting was adjourned at 10:13am