North Cook News

Village of Arlington Heights Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes March 13, 2017 met Monday, March 13.

na

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III.ROLL CALL

President Hayes and the following Trustees Responded to roll; Scaletta,

Sidor, Blackwood, LaBedz, Glasgow, Tinaglia and Rosenberg.

Trustee Farwell was absent.

Also present were: Randy Recklaus, Charles Perkins, Scott Shirley, Jim

Massarelli, Mary Ellen Juarez and Becky Hume

IV. NEW BUSINESS

A. Proposed Stormwater Action Plan and Analysis

Mr. Recklaus outlined the proposed plan for recommended concepts based on

last year’s study results from CDM Smith and Burke. Staff will continue to

refine the plan after this discussion. The potential improvements are not

designed to provide protection from a 2011 sized event. If such an event

were to occur again, it is likely that flooding would be experienced even if all

of the identified improvements were completed. Since 2011, the system has

performed well overall. Staff has developed recommendations based on the

principles and direction provided by Village Board in August.

1. Prioritization: Given that all improvements cannot be done at the same

time, the priorities are to reduce the incidence of structure flooding and

reduce the incidence of street flooding of one foot or greater. This level

of water in the streets makes it difficult for emergency vehicles to

respond and increases the chances of structure flooding.

2. Funding Mechanism: use of a flat or categorized storm water utility fee

(SUF).

3. Overhead Sewer (OHS) Program Enhancements: the use of overhead

sewers is the most cost effective and robust way to reduce structure

flooding in the Combined Sewer (CSTA) area.

The total cost of the new public improvements identified is $38,429,000. If

the OHS installation/relief sewer option was implemented in the CSTA and if

construction costs were shared with the road program, the total project costs

could be reduced to $33,413,000.

Costs will likely be lower as many residents will not participate in the OHS.

They may not participate because they don’t think they need it, they don’t

have the money, or the home has been replaced with one that has an OHS.

Mr. Recklaus walked through the estimated costs presented on Exhibit 1.

Because of cost constraints, all the improvements cannot be done at one

time.

Mr. Shirley presented the order of priority of the projects.

1. Provide immediate protection to the CSTA area residents through OHS

enhancements. This would provide these homes with 10 year flood level

protection.

2. In the Separate Sewer Ares, the goal is to reduce overland flooding in

the following locations: Cypress, Greenbrier/Roanoke/Wilke, Campbell

& Sigwalt, West Hintz, Race & Chicago, University Drive,

Roosevelt/Cleveland, Burr Oak & Dryden.

Staff looked at the benefit to cost ratio by looking at the following benefits

for each flooding area: Criticality of flooding, frequency of flooding and

overall infrastructure condition.

Mr. Massarelli said OHS is a private property improvement, so homeowners

must assume some financial responsibility. Homes that have the OHS have

shown it to be the best solution to flooding. Older homes will continue to be

at risk in future events. Today’s program of reimbursing up to $7,500 is not

sufficient incentive for many people as only 180 homeowners have taken

part. The average overhead sewer installation cost is $12,000. Most of the

flooding in 2011 was basement back up. To increase participation, staff

proposed to enhance the program in one of the following ways:

1. Lesser of 75% reimbursement up to $11,250

2. Lesser of 75% reimbursement up to $11,250, plus 5 year 0% loan for

resident portion.

Mr. Massarelli described how sewer flooding in homes occurs and how

overhead sewers work to solve this flooding. OHS systems supplemented by

a smaller amount of relief sewers will provide a higher level of service than if

all the large relief sewer projects discussed in the CDM Smith report were

completed.

Mr. Recklaus said the Village has spent $56,000,000 on storm water efforts

over the years (not adjusting for inflation). The Village’s Storm Water Control

Fund has received money transfers in from other funds, but has no dedicated

source of revenue. The Village needs to identify a sustainable revenue source

for this fund to ensure the Storm Sewer Rehabilitation and the Neighborhood

Drainage Improvement programs continue.

Based on Board direction from August, the ongoing storm water control

programs should be funded by a Storm Water Utility Fee (SUF), see exhibit

2. If new projects are to be undertaken, more funding needs to be

developed. This could come through an increased SUF, the issuance of

General Revenue Bonds or the combination of the two. Bonds could be

created upon the retirement of debt in 2020 and beyond. This would keep

property taxes at their current level and would generate enough to pay for

projects that would not be covered by SUF revenue.

Mr. Massarelli said grants will be actively pursued. Grants come with caveats,

and the Village may not be able to comply. In addition, grant funding may

not be available. Staff is not assuming that grant funding will be available,

but it should be vigorously pursued. The appropriate time to pursue grants is

during the design phase for each project. Engineering design firms generally

have close relationship with State and Federal agencies that issue grants, and

will generally be aware of which grants are active during a given period.

Mr. Recklaus said staff believes the following courses of action should be

pursued:

1. Aggressive pursuit of grant funding.

2. Establishment of a new storm water management fee of $6.25 per

month per single family residential properties with a yet to be

established but somewhat larger fee for multi-family, commercial and

not for profit properties. Based on the priority ranking completed, the

projects to be funded initially would include: Enhancement to OHS

program, Construction of the Cypress Area Improvement, Construction

of Relief Sewer for CDM Smith Area 4 (Campbell, Sigwalt, and Vail),

Construction of improvements in Burke Study Area D

(Greenbrier/Roanoke/Wilke)

3. Hold off on making a decision on future property tax revenues for

additional storm water project funding at this time.There could be large

changes in potential revenue based on the State Budget situation.This

would keep the Village’s options open.

4. Increase OHS incentive. Change it to a 75% reimbursement of up to

$11,250. Limit expanded flooding incentive to 400 homes.

Trustee Glasgow asked where the money came from for the existing Storm

Water Fund. Mr. Recklaus said it came from a variety of sources. Since 2014

it has come from transfers from the General Fund. In 2017, money will be

transferred in from the closing EAB Fund. Trustee Glasgow asked for

clarification of the $6.25 per month versus the $3.25 per month SUF

proposal. Mr. Recklaus said a $3.25 fee will only keep up with what exists

today. An additional $3 per month would pay for the OHS expansion and the

phase one improvements. Trustee Glasgow expressed concern on relying on

people putting in an overhead sewer. He said he couldn’t see how this could

be mandated. He asked what the numbers would look like if not enough

people participate.

Mr. Recklaus said overhead sewers are mandated for new construction. If not

enough people participate in the OHS expansion, there will be extra money

in the Storm Water Utility Fund. That money could be used for other physical

improvements or the Village could increase the OHS incentive funding.

Trustee Glasgow said he was concerned that a lot of people just won’t want

to do it. Mr. Papierniak said there are 800 homes that have or could take on

water shown in the model. There are more homes in the combined sewer

area.

Trustee Glasgow asked if grants are in the assumptions. Mr. Massarelli said

no. If grants become available, other projects can be brought forward.

Trustee Glasgow asked if GOB bonds were not used, would the Village be

able to fund all the projects. Mr. Recklaus said no, there is not enough

revenue and there are no other funding mechanisms. Trustee Glasgow said

he thinks GOB monies may be needed for something else.

Trustee Rosenberg asked if in Exhibit 4 the 2018 budget shows $10,000,000

from a GO bond. Mr. Recklaus said the $10 million would be from a Revenue

Bond and the debt service would be included in the $6.25. The $10 million

bond is part of the $6.25 financing plan. It would not be a maturing bond

that would impact taxes. The first $3.25 pays for neighborhood drainage and

storm water rehabilitation, the next $3.00 pays off the bond.

Trustee Rosenberg noted that in the OHS area, three areas don’t impact

sewer cost. Mr. Recklaus said those three areas only have an overhead sewer

component, no relief sewer large or small would be needed. Trustee

Rosenberg asked if none of the homes put in OHS, what would be the

additional cost to the Village for installation of bigger sewers. Mr. Shirley

said in the areas where there is a smaller relief sewer it’s the cost differential

between the smaller/larger relief sewers. The cost would be $11.4 million

just for the 8 areas in the CSTA. This would not include Burke study areas or

structure flooding areas. Trustee Rosenberg asked if it made sense to put in

large relief sewers where there are fewer affected homes. Mr. Shirley said it

is more cost effective to put in OHS. Trustee Rosenberg asked about resident

education. Mr. Recklaus said nothing has been done to date since the

program may change. Once the Board makes a decision, then it would be

appropriate. Trustee Rosenberg said it was his inclination to leave it where it

is and explain the merits to the residents.

Trustee Scaletta said he liked the methodology to prioritize how this is to be

addressed. He asked if anyone can take advantage of the OHS. Mr. Shirley

said anyone in the combined sewer area can and it increases property values.

Trustee Scaletta said although the recommendation only accounts for a small

amount of homes, many might take advantage of program. Mr. Recklaus said

the assumptions are reasonable. Trustee Scaletta asked if the 798 homes

would be notified directly. Mr. Recklaus said communication hasn’t been

developed yet. If communication is targeted to those homes, would be

something to address. Trustee Scaletta asked about the money in the fund

now. Mr. Recklaus said the money going into the fund is from one time

transfers. Staff wants to establish an ongoing reliable source of funding. The

forecasting does not assume any future random transfers. The EAB funds are

not in this fund yet. Some of the money came from the General Fund, some

from the Capital Fund some will come from EAB. None of it was from a

dedicated part of the tax levy. Mr. Recklaus said there is no tax levy money in

this fund. Trustee Scaletta said as much as he doesn’t want to increase OHS,

he understands the benefits of it and it will save money in the long run. He

said he will support it. He said he feels for the people who have done it

already. He said he understood that the Village has to do something to

engage residents to help us help them.

Trustee LaBedz said she agreed with the OHS and improved public education.

She asked if a gutted home is required to install an OHS? Mr. Massarelli said

teardowns have different levels of remodeling, so he was not sure where this

requirement comes in on a remodel. Trustee LaBedz said if a home is being

flipped, she would like to know. A lot of people won’t do it because they

believe Village should be paying for it. Trustee LaBedz asked what the

Neighborhood Drainage Improvement Program does. Mr. Massarelli said it is

a method for people who are having drainage issues, like a back yard that is

a bowl and water sits for days. The program allows for an extended storm

sewer connection to a location. There is some resident financial involvement.

The program gives options where there aren’t any others. Trustee LaBedz

said she was concerned that there may not be many grants available. She

believes grants are tax money too and is in favor of promoting the OHS.

Trustee Tinaglia asked why the Village wouldn’t consider targeting the 800

homes. Mr. Recklaus said that is a policy decision, not an ethical issue. There

are several thousand that would qualify for OHS, maybe as many as 10,000

properties. If 800 homes participated, it would cost $7.2 Million. The $3.6

Million allows the Village to spread out costs with other sewer needs. Trustee

Tinaglia said he strongly encouraged an educational focus on the 800

homes. He suggested that fees could be assessed to new construction, tear

downs and permits, to help offset the cost in the neighborhood. Mr. Recklaus

said Engineering works with new home plans to minimize their storm water

impact. Larger developments are mandated to have storm water control.

These owners would argue they are impacting community less than before.

Fees can be looked into. Trustee Tinaglia suggested if the cost of a

renovation is beyond 50% of existing home value, that could be a line that to

encourage overhead storm systems to be put in. Trustee Tinaglia said

overhead sewers work only when the power is on and so people need power

back up. He asked beyond the 800 homes, how many homes will have

trouble with street flooding. Mr. Papierniak said about 80 homes are close to

greater than 1 foot of standing water. Mr. Recklaus said in Phase 1 there are

non-combined sewer projects for structure flooding issues. In some areas,

street design is to blame.

Trustee Blackwood asked if there is another energy producing pump driver.

Mr. Shirley said battery backup systems are improved and can now pump

close to what a primary pump does. A natural gas generator is another

option. He recommended an automated transfer switch if you are not home.

A portable generator works, but you have to be home. July 23, 2011 was bad

because everyone was asleep. Battery backups cost between $200 and $300.

Overhead sewers do not stop overland flooding.

Trustee Sidor asked if $12,000 was the average cost for an OHS. Mr.

Massarelli said of the180 installed, the average cost was $12,000 based on

permit submissions. Finished basements will cost more than unfinished

basements. Trustee Sidor asked what other communities have done. Mr.

Papierniak said in Palatine a storm water utility fee of $10 per month was

added and the city bought homes and created detention in neighborhoods.

They also installed an oversized sanitary sewer system. Trustee Sidor said it

will take savvy marketing pieces, not the average mailing or water bill

message to make this successful. He encouraged the Village to consider

outsourcing the communication effort to make sure consumers embrace the

program. He asked about multifamily properties. Mr. Recklaus said on a per

parcel basis, a larger fee could be assessed for larger properties. He said a

lot of larger properties have to maintain their storm water on their premises.

He said staff will look at options for multifamily properties at a later date.

Staff will also look at what neighboring communities have done.

Trustee Sidor asked for the Design Commission to develop a Green Program

for homes to promote holding water back. Mr. Recklaus said that Green

programs are a component of an overall strategy. The now defunct MWRD

Rain barrel program is an example of one of the ways the Village promotes

water retention. Education is important to give people tools to do things on

their own properties. The Village is looking at Green options on its own

Police Station project.

Trustee Tinaglia suggested new homes could be charged a fee for having

down spouts at grade level. Mr. Recklaus said that can be done, but this will

not get the Village out of this situation. Trustee Tinaglia said the Village

should partner with the Library and Park District in obtaining grants. Mr.

Recklaus said one of the challenges is that the Village has to fix things when

they deteriorate, sometimes, it cannot wait for grant money. In this process,

the Village has a little more flexibility.

Mary Jo Warskow of 809 S. Mitchell said she has a lake in her backyard in

heavy rains. She said she had water seepage and back up in 2011. She has

replaced 3 sides of her home, put in new roof and has a daughter in college.

She said she can’t afford $6,000. If it cost $3,700, she would think seriously

about it. There is a perception that these large new homes have displaced all

the water. There is only so much space left. If it is going into the sewers

there is more potential for back up. If you are going to ask people to pay, the

new homes should pay some of the price. She said the Board should

consider the quantity and quality of water. The water that is traveling over

concrete and driveways contains pesticides that are going into water ways.

The more we can let the ground handle it, the better it will all be. She said

she wants to see green infrastructure and policy carried through the process

and communicated through the community.

Marc Adelman of the Westgate Subdivision said the Village should look at the

number of people who took advantage of overhead sewer program before

and after 2011. He said this report looked at the cost effectiveness for the

Village without consideration for residents. The 7 of 8 projects to be handled

early only help a few homes. He questioned $13 million to protect 63 homes.

The cost per homes in the first sections outside combined area is $124,000

to $ 833,000 per home. In the combined area the cost per home is much

lower. People are already at a disadvantage in the combined area, they are

already getting sewage in their homes. In areas where residents get clean

water in their homes it costs more to fix. He asked why the parcel on Euclid

and Wilke can’t be used for retention. He said not to say grants may or may

not be here. The point is that any money you get pushes the expense away

from residents and the Village.

President Hayes said he would love grant money. There is no magic pot of

money that does not come from residents. It comes from the tax payers one

way or the other.

Paul Culhane said Green infrastructure is very important and the Village

should not focus on mistakes of the past and make sure we don’t make

similar mistakes in the future. He said the Village should make requirements

to keep water on the ground and less in the sewers.

Mr. Recklaus introduced questions for Board feedback.

1. Pursue grant funding? President Hayes said it should be aggressively

pursued. It was also recommended that staff should work with other public

bodies in pursing cooperative grants.

2. For the purposes of further planning, does the Board support the

development of new Storm Water fee of $6.25 per month for single family

residential properties, with a larger, yet to be determined fee for larger

properties?

Trustee Rosenberg said he would like to see what other communities

have done, and perhaps seek guidelines from the Northwest Municipal

conference. He asked if these projects would be taken one by one. Mr.

Recklaus said once a funding source is created, these projects would be

plugged into the CIP. The will be looked at based on the prioritization

developed in this memo. If the $6.25 is in place, then that would be

enough to fund the OHS enhancement, Cypress, Campbell & Sigwalt and

Greenbrier/Roanoke/Wilke. The merits of the order can be discussed

further in the CIP process. Trustee Rosenberg said he would like to

reconsider prioritization. Mr. Recklaus said the CIP discussion would be

the appropriate time for that discussion. Trustee Rosenberg asked if

there were any alternatives. Mr. Shirley said these are the most cost

effective options to provide a uniform level of service throughout the

Village. There are no cheaper options for the level we are seeking. Mr.

Recklaus said the Village is planning to limit the OHS program to the

first 400 homes at a cost of $3.6 million. If the $6.25 fee were

introduced, there would be sufficient funding for that.

Trustee Tinaglia said he supports it, but large renovations or teardowns

should be required to put in French drains or detention systems or pay a

price to compensate everyone else. Mr. Recklaus said staff will research

and present this idea as part of the project.

Trustee Glasgow said $6.25 seems prudent. He said he could not

support a bond issue until 2020.

Mr. Recklaus summarized that the Board is in support of continuing

to further plan with the assumption of the $6.25 with some

potential new regulation and fees for new construction. No Trustee

is in opposition of planning with this fee.

3. Is there support for delaying discussions for timing and funding of

projects beyond Phase 1 until the financial climate of the State can be

reassessed prior to the retirement of debt in 2020?

Trustee Scaletta said it is wise to not go too far out considering the

condition of the state.

Trustee Sidor said he would like to see the justification for

prioritization. He asked about Waterman and why it was not looked at in

these studies.

Trustee Rosenberg asked if the $10 million bond was a part of this. Mr.

Recklaus said yes, it was a revenue bond, supported by the storm water

fee revenues. #3 is a GOB, the village is not committing to another GOB

in 2020.

4a. For the purposes of further planning does the Board support the

proposed OHS incentive plan 75% up to $11,250 of up to 400 homes?

President Hayes said yes.

Trustee Rosenberg said if he were a homeowner, he would want to be

compensated so it was fair. Mr. Recklaus said the amount of

reimbursement has increased a few times. Any amount that would be

used to compensate past users reduces the program for future projects.

People who took advantage of the earlier program have already

benefitted. Mr. Massarelli said in 2005 it was $2,500, in 2009-$5,000

and lastly in 2012-$7,500. Mr. Recklaus said this will never be 100%

fair, but the Village needs to do what it can so the majority of the

Village is not susceptible to flooding.

Trustee Sidor said 798 homes still need OHS. He suggested a decreasing

incentive to promote buy in. Mr. Recklaus said using 400 is easier to

budget.

Trustee Glasgow moved to approve the OHS program incentive at

75% up to $11,250 for up to 400 homes. Trustee Tinaglia seconded

the motion.

Mr. Adelman said the Board should not make a motion before receiving

meaningful feedback from residents.

Mr. Recklaus this motion is for further planning. Staff will develop a more

fleshed out plan and present it at a formal Board meeting. There will be

plenty of opportunities for public feedback.

Ayes: Glasgow, Tinaglia, Scaletta, LaBedz, Blackwood, Sidor, Hayes.

Nayes: Rosenberg The motion Passed.

4b. Is there support for inclusion of the Phase 1 project in the 2018-2022

CIP? President Hayes said this does not authorize expenditure at this time.

Trustee Sidor said the dollar amount is place holder. Mr. Recklaus said if the

goal is to include projects this steps up the time frame. The CIP process

begins in June.

V. OTHER BUSINESS

VI. ADJOURNMENT

Trustee Glasgow moved to adjourn at 9:45. Trustee LaBedz seconded the

motion. The motion carried.