Questions by Meeting

Response to KW2023 Questions Posed to the Village Board on September 1, 2015

When are the revised construction plans expected to be completed?
The design engineer is revising the progress set of plans (dated 09/10/15) and working toward development of drawings adequate for the bidding process. The plans were revised again prior to the Public Works Committee and dated 11/04/15. Further revisions are not expected until receiving further direction from the Village Board.

What brought about the decision NOT to pursue a direct discharge to Lake Michigan as proposed?
There has not been a decision to abandon the pursuit of a storm water outfall to Lake Michigan.

What has the Village determined they should do regarding individual homeowner connections to the sanitary system for non-sanitary flows (e.g., sump pumps, downspouts, etc.)?
The Village Board has not made any determination regarding those types of connections at this time. The primary focus at this time is on separating the largest volume of storm water from the sanitary sewer which primarily comes from the roadways and some overland flows.

How has the Village informed the homeowners of the engineer’s assessment that in periods of high rainfall the streets will become flooded with storm water?
The Village has and intends to continue utilizing a number of sources to reach residents ranging from in-person meetings to newsletters and electronic communication.

Is the Village aware that the water table in all of the construction area is 4-5 feet below ground level and are residents aware of this fact and its impact on the “passive” storm water retention?
Early in the design phase, the Village contracted for a number of soil cores to be conducted along the project area. Those core samples (taken within the roadway area) found the water table to range from 7.5 to 18.5 feet below grade. Additionally, our own Public Works staff conducts most of the water and sewer repairs within the roadway and has expressed similar findings.

Has the Village asked the engineers to calculate the storage capacity of this water table?
Based upon the water table depth encountered, it is not expected to impact the under-roadway/parkway storage areas which are approximately two feet below grade. Therefore, we did not feel there was a need for that additional information.

Has the MWRD approved a backflow preventer on the separated storm water piping? If not, when will that approval be granted by the MWRD?
The current plan set has not been submitted to the MWRD for permitting. The prior set was submitted and reflected the installation of blackflow prevention devices. While comments were received on the overall plans, no comments were received from the MWRD regarding the backflow devices. We do not know how long the MWRD will take to review the plans for permitting.

Has the MWRD approved a backflow preventer on the sanitary piping? If not, when will that approval be granted by the MWRD?
Please see the response to question number 7.

How does the Village plan to manage homeowners who accept or shed storm water to their neighbors to the detriment of others?
The Village has historically addressed such complaints as they are brought to our attention. The Village is currently working through potential changes to the Village Code that will us to more adequately respond to the complaints. Additional information regarding the drainage and grading revisions is available through the work of the Plan Commission and ultimately Village Board.

When is the expected start date of the construction on the streets?
The Village Board has not made a formal decision for the project to proceed. If the work goes to competitive bidding and the project is awarded the Village would work with the selected contractor to determine and announce a project start date.

When will the public meetings regarding the project be held?
The Village is continuing to hold public meetings on the project. Please visit the homepage of our website to see the most current meeting schedule. We hope to have new technology in place by January 2016 to allow residents to sign up for automatic updates as meeting dates are posted.

-END-

Response to KW2023 Questions Posed to the Village Board on September 21, 2015

What is the date for the first informational meeting with the residents regarding the draft plan?
The Village has been hosting ongoing public meetings regarding the project and residents are always able to attend any of the Village Board meetings to raise questions. The next public meeting to discuss the current plans will be held by the Village Board on November 16th at 7:30p.

Has the Bleck Report dated October 9, 2014 been updated to take into account the actual water table level in the affected areas, also taking into account the new roadway grades?
Prior to developing the project drawings, the Village commissioned the taking of core samples. Those samples determined that the water table was at a level that would not have a direct impact upon the underground detention areas. The Bleck report cited was commissioned as an independent assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed plans.

Does the Bleck report accurately reflect the recent changes to the construction details of the roadway (changes since the Bleck report was complete)?
No, the Bleck report was completed before the recent modifications to the proposed plans for Cumberland, Roslyn and Melrose. Bleck Engineering was contracted to make the design plan changes and has incorporated design improvements which increase the effectiveness of the system.

Has the Village created a full-size and accurate segment of the actual roadway including an actual “full size and to scale” rain garden device for residents to inspect?
No, the Village Board did not feel that doing so would have been an efficient use of tax dollars.

If “no” to question number 4, why not?
Spending the money to design and construct a full road segment as a demonstration area would not be an efficient use of limited financial resources with very little return on such a significant investment.

What is the official Board Position and decision regarding pursuing an outfall permit to discharge storm water to Lake Michigan?
The Public Works Committee and the Village Board have both discussed this concept. The Village Board authorized the development of preliminary outfall design drawings necessary for permit submission. After that work started, the Village Board received the results of an analysis that determined the proposed plans for Cumberland, Roslyn, and Melrose would reduce the severity of flooding events. Therefore, the Village focused its efforts toward reducing the severity and frequency of flooding events by finishing the storm sewer construction project. The work toward a preliminary design and permit for the storm water discharge to Lake Michigan is anticipated to continue after the Cumberland, Roslyn, Melrose project decision is made.

If such a decision exists, what is the date and page of the Board Minutes?
The decision to pursue the preliminary engineering services for the potential storm water outfall was made on July 21, 2014 by the Board of Trustees. Prior to that, the matter was discussed and recommended by the Public Works Committee on July 17th. All of our approved minutes may be found on our website in the section entitled “meeting minutes.”

If the Board has approved pursuing an outfall permit, when was the funding to pursue that permit acted on by the Board and detailed in the Board minutes?
Please see the answer to question number 7.

President Russell refers to an EPA attorney regarding the outfall. On what basis is the attorney’s fee contingent?
The Village has been working with an attorney that specializes in environmental work. The attorney does not work for the EPA, rather is in private practice. The attorney is retained and compensated on an hourly basis.

Please identify three recent (since 2013) outfall permits to Lake Michigan granted by the EPA, ILEPA, and ACoE and to whom they were granted?
If such permits were granted, they were not done so by the Village. To obtain the information requested, we recommend that you contact those agencies directly.

The October 2014 Bleck report indicates that with the No Outfall option, there could be an increase in surcharging along the [MWRD] interceptor between Melrose and Kenilworth Avenue. What is the Board viewpoint regarding the success of the project assuming no outfall permit is granted achieved should the Bleck report prove to be accurate?
If the Board approves the project as submitted by Bleck, it is doing so because it believes it will have an overall net positive benefit, with or without an outfall.

-END-