Will County Stormwater Management Planning Committee met June 1.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Municipal Representative, District 3 Jonathan Dykstra called the meeting to order at 10:07 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Robert Howard | County Representative, District 1 | Absent | |
| DJ Kruzel | Municipal Representative, District 1 | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | County Representative, District 2 | Excused | |
| Jonathan Dykstra | Municipal Representative, District 3 | Present | |
| Thomas Pawlowicz | Municipal Representative, District 4 | Excused | |
| Bill Alstrom | County Representative, District 5 | Absent | |
| Randall Jessen | Municipal Representative, District 5 | Present | |
| Paul Buss | County Representative, District 6 | Absent | |
| Ed Dolezal | Municipal Representative, District 6 | Present | |
| Norm Likar | County Representative, District 9 | Absent | |
| Ken Carroll | Municipal Representative, District 9 | Present | |
| Joe Hadamik | County Representative, District 10 | Present | |
| Scott Gapsevich | Municipal Representative, District 10 | Present | |
| Theresa O'Grady | County Representative, District 11 | Present | |
| Raymund Fano | Municipal Representative, District 11 | Present | |
| Tom Weigel | County Representative, District 12 | Present | |
| Will Nash | Municipal Representative, District 12 | Absent | |
| Bill Lamb | Municipal Representative, District 13 | Present |
Scott Pyles was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Jonathan Dykstra led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. INTRODUCTIONS
Imad Samara was present from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
Scott Tomkins and Ted Gray from Living Waters Consultants were present.
A moment of silence was observed in honor of Tom Weigel and his wife who recently passed away.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment was made in the USACE DuPage River Flood Mitigation Project. See those comments in the New Business section.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Stormwater Management Planning Committee - Regular Meeting - May 4, 2021 10:00 AM
Motion was made and seconded to approve the Minutes as submitted with no corrections or additions. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 11-0, with no corrections or additions.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Bill Lamb, Municipal Representative, District 13 SECONDER: Ken Carroll, Municipal Representative, District 9 AYES: Kruzel, Dykstra, Jessen, Dolezal, Carroll, Hadamik, Gapsevich, O'Grady, Fano, Weigel, Lamb ABSENT: Howard, Moustis, Pawlowicz, Alstrom, Buss, Likar, Nash |
1. USACE DUPAGE RIVER FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT
Imad Samara said as you know from me previously coming to your meetings, we had the Feasibility Report. Out of that Feasibility Report we got approved to move forward with non-structural measures in Will County.
As you guys know, we used the Flood Control Act of 1958 to do the Feasibility Report. We did that Feasibility Report with our partners, Will County and DuPage County. We are just now focusing on Will County in this project. There's another project that we're going to be doing with DuPage County. Everything that I'm talking about here is a project with Will County.
We're using Section 205, which comes from the Flood Control Act of 1958.
The Corps has authorization to move forward with these small flood control projects without going back to Congress and asking for additional authorization or approval. So, we were able to move forward with this. We were provided funds to actually sign an agreement with Will County. COVID got us a little delayed, but we finally got the agreement signed in May. I've been meeting with Brian and Scott to try to get a game plan for this work.
Will County, Illinois Posted: 10/5/2021 Page 2
Minutes Will County Stormwater Management Planning Committee June 1, 2021
This is basically a Flood Risk Management. We will actually mitigate for flood risks. We were able to approve three measures of non-structural, raised/flood proof structures, buyout, and flood warning and preparedness. That would be your flood plan and things like that.
One thing that I want to say for you to understand, the word Mandatory means the buyouts are mandatory. We have to get the buyouts out, because those locations are in harm’s way and we should actually buyout those structures.
Everything that we're talking about is here in Will County. You can see that it's all scattered here in Will County. I will actually have a list later on to show you which ones in Will County and where they are.
I’m just going to go over flood proofing a little bit.
What does that mean? It’s either dry flood proofing or wet flood proofing. Flood proofing is either dry or wet. The wet allows a basement to stay, but then you move everything up. Then you need to make sure there is a sump or something that will provide an exit for the water once the elevation of the water goes down.
The other one is just actually flood proofing all the areas that are in the flood elevation that we developed through the modeling of the H&H in the Feasibility Report.
As you can see, it’s different measures that we would be using. I believe 3 feet is what we are able to do with the flood proofing.
We can come back if you guys have any questions.
The next one is home elevation. As you can see here, we would actually elevate the structure. It would allow for parking or things like that. The whole house is actually elevated to where it’s not going to be inundated with water.
Any questions on either elevation or flood proofing?
No response.
I just also wanted to let you know that this is the first flood proofing and flood elevation project that the Army Corps in Chicago is actually moving forward with. So, there is a little learning curve. The Army Corps has been involved in a lot of projects in past years. We have our sister district in Huntington and Nashville that do a lot of these. We’re actually asking them to help out our process and try to get this moving.
Like I stated earlier, we are having meetings with Will County and we’re trying to make sure that we work together. There is definitely a lot of people involved and we want to make sure that Will County is involved in any discussions or anything that we’re having with the homeowners and how we move forward. We just want to make sure that we’re doing it together.
Next, I’m going to go through the buyouts. That’s a whole different thing. Again, the buyouts are mandatory. So, we have to convince the owner to move out. There is a lot of steps and a lot of criteria that the Corps has for that buyout.
A lot of the buyout work is considered to be the local sponsor’s responsibility. Any cost that is incurred to do the buyout is all credited to your 35%. I’ll talk about that a little later in our conversation. A lot of the work in the buyout is County work.
The County will be a lot more involved in the buyout and spending money in the buyout than the Corps. The Corps is basically the elevation and the other one. They will contract and they will provide funds, but the non-federal sponsor will actually work with the owner for agreements, right-of-ways, and things to allow our contractor to do the work.
With the buyout, the non-federal sponsor will hire the surveyor, appraiser, and everything else.
Jonathan Dykstra asked, did you say how many buyout's are anticipated?
Imad Samara said the next one is the list. I believe we have about 33 structures altogether and 6 of them are buyouts.
Jonathan Dykstra said okay.
Imad Samara said again, we’re working with Brian and Scott in Will County to try to start discussions with the homeowners. As I stated before, everything else outside of the buyout is voluntary. If the owner doesn’t want us to do anything, then we just basically axe that structure and move onto a different one.
We have a Process Flow Chart to get us there. We are still in the beginning of developing this process. The first thing that we want to do is make sure that the homeowner agrees to participate. This is not the buyout. This is the Process Flow Chart for elevating a structure or for flood proofing a structure.
We want to have a meeting with the owners. We want to make sure that they want to participate and they want us to do this work for them. The next item is for us to get a right of entry. We would go and do an initial inspection. The Feasibility Report did not walk into any structure. Everything that is in the Feasibility Report is assumed to be like a typical structure that has these things.
Now, we’re going to go into homes and structures and make sure that we document everything. We have a checklist that we have to go through.
The next step is for us to conduct an inspection. Once we get a right of entry from the owner, then we will go into the structure. We just want to tell the contractor what we need him to check and provide. It’s similar to a design built. We would let the contractor, which has the expertise on doing these things, come back to us and give us the design itself. We approve that design and then we will hire contractors to actually go in and do the work. Or, it could be the same contractor if its design built. We’re still working those details out.
Once the work is done, the Corps will go and inspect and make sure everything was done correctly. Then, we will pay the contractor.
Now, there is a thought with the Corps that if the work is minor, and the owner would like to hire the contractor and do all of that work, there is a way that we could actually work with the owner. Once the contract is done, we would actually provide a check for the contractor and the owner. The owner does not have to up-front the funds and we pay them back. All the other steps are the same, but the owner hires the contractor to do the work. We’re still trying to figure that out, but we also want to make sure that the owner wants that burden of contracting things out.
This is the process that we’re actually working on. Again, we continue to work with Will County to make sure that they’re also in agreement with this process.
The way it’s showing here, the summer of 2021 is when all that work’s going to start. We’re hoping that by fall of 2023, everything will be completed.
This is basically the budget that we have for that work. This came out of that Feasibility Report. So, this is an estimate at this point, because things may change. Nothing will change without you guys approving and agreeing with, before the change actually takes place.
It’s about a $7,000,000 project. The Corps will provide 65%. The non-federal sponsor, which is Will County, will provide $2,500,000, just rounding off.
If you see that word LERRD’s, that is land easement right-of-way relocation and disposal site. $2,000,000 of that work is land easement. A lot of the reason that is high is because of those buyouts.
That’s the numbers we’re working with. Again, these are feasibility level designs. At this point, these are just estimates.
Any questions?
DJ Kruzel said I do have one question for you. I was just wondering. Is the work that’s going to be done on these properties going to be bid out as a whole project? Or, is it going to be up to individual residents to find these specialists in order to get this work done?
Imad Samara said we’re still trying to figure out things. You guys can see this. For instance, all these homes are next to each other. If we were doing it, should we have one contract? There’s 3 buyout's, but all of these are dry flood proofing. We are still in the discussion of should we do this in 1 contract? Should we do this in multiple contracts? If it’s all the same work, maybe 1 contractor can come in here and do this work. So, I think it depends on the site and also us finding out who is going to participate and who is not going to participate. We are open to any suggestions if the homeowner wants to do that work by themselves. What I’m trying to say is, when the owner does things themselves, the Corps has to provide the owner with what he needs to do and give him guidance to where he will hire somebody to do the design. Or, we will hire somebody to do the design and he will be hiring the contractor to do the work in the house. But, the Corps is going to specifically say what needs to be done. That’s what I’m trying to say.
DJ Kruzel said okay, thank you for that. I, for one, am totally against trying to have the homeowner do that kind of stuff themselves. That’s going to be a hand holding process. If something’s not right, it might become an issue. I just wanted that for the record, that having those guys do this kind of stuff without having contractor oversight is just not a good idea in my opinion.
Imad Samara said elevating the structure, in my mind and the Corps opinion, that is going to be hard. Most of these structures are actually businesses, so it’s not homes. I believe that the Corps is not going to be suggesting that the owner do that work and we will want to try to do it. Again, we can work together. I agree with you. I have the opinion that we go in and we do the work. We pay the contractor and he does everything that he needs to do. Why burden the owner of the contractor not doing the work that needs to be done? I agree that we go in, we do the work and we go out, then everything is done.
Any other questions?
Judy Carrino introduced herself. I am one of the ones that is included in the buyout. I just have a quick question. The meeting that you want to set up, do you have an idea of what date you’re looking at or when?
Imad Samara said I will have to work with Brian and Scott. I know Scott is out of town, so when he comes back we can talk. I’d prefer the meeting to be in a library that’s not that far from you guys. That is something that I was going to suggest to Brian and Scott. You guys are pretty close to each other in that one subdivision. If there’s a conference room in that library, maybe we can actually do it at that location, which is not far from you guys.
Judy Carrino said there is a public library on 59. If you want, I can call them and find out if they have a conference room. I’m not sure if they do, but I can find out for you.
Imad Samara said if you would, that’s fine and you can email me.
Judy Carrino said okay. Just another quick question. The dates that you gave, the summer of 2021 and then fall of 2023, what’s included in those dates?
Imad Samara said that’s for us to finish the entire project, all 33 of the structures. Every structure is going to actually have a time table for itself. Again, the buyout is really a lengthy process that sometimes takes a life of its own. This chart is more towards us getting elevated structures or getting the dry flood proofing. There is a slide here that talks about the buyout. Buyouts are mandatory, we already talked about that. Preliminary valuation of property and relocation benefits included in Project Partnership Agreement (PPA). Will County receives Notice to Proceed. So, we have to give Will County a Notice to Proceed after signing the PPA. The Project Partnership Agreement has already been signed. We’re still working that out with Will County, then they would initiate appraisal, survey, title work, etc. Acquisitions will be made in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. As I said, there are specific steps for the Corps to use or follow. It also includes relocation benefits to the owner. Then Will County acquires the property. The cost share, as I said, all of those costs are going to be part of that 35%.
Judy Carrino said so we’re talking the buyout may not happen until maybe the end of 2022?
Imad Samara said yes, I would think so. Yes, that’s a conservative schedule. We have to work with Will County and find out from them what’s their ability of getting all of that done and when it would be done to come up with a schedule. Also, funding too.
Judy Carrino said yeah, that’s the important part, right?
Imad Samara said right, absolutely.
Judy Carrino said another quick question. We have to wait to have the meeting scheduled. I’m trying to think if there were any other questions. I will check with the library. Oh, that was the other thing. I could not get into WebEx. I didn’t have the event password. I don’t know if I was doing something wrong or whatever. Would there be a way that you could send me an email with the slide that pertains to the buyout?
Imad Samara said yes.
Judy Carrino said I could pass that along to Jeff Slota, across the street. He unfortunately had to work today and I’m the person that’s taking all these notes for everybody.
Imad Samara said that’s fine.
Judy Carrino said thank you so much for all of your help, Imad. I will watch for those slides and I will forward them to some of the neighbors that couldn’t make it. I will get that to them so they can understand what’s going on.
Imad Samara said Scott and I will work with you to set up that meeting. Again, if we are able to get a conference room that would really be great. We will let you know.
Judy Carrino said okay and I will let you know what I find out about the library. Thank you so much.
Imad Samara said thank you.
Jonathan Dykstra said thanks for calling in, Judy. Imad, thank you very much for the presentation. Any final questions? Did everyone get their questions answered?
No response.
Jonathan Dykstra said so nice to see you again, Imad. Unfortunately, we have to be like this for now.
2. ROCK CREEK WATERSHED BASED PLAN / APPLICATION FOR IEPA 319 GRANT FUNDING LIVING WATERS CONSULTANTS
Ted Gray introduced himself. I am an engineer with Living Waters Consultants. We have Scott Tomkins joining us by audio also.
Thank you for the opportunity to talk to the Stormwater Management Planning Committee. We wanted to take a few minutes of your time and present an opportunity.
Scott Tomkins, with our company, has also had a lot of relevant experience regarding the project that we’re proposing. Scott has worked with Illinois EPA in the Nonpoint Source Management Program overseeing watershed-based plan development as well as project implementation for Illinois EPA.
We’re working together in providing this proposal to both Will County and Kankakee County for putting together a Rock Creek Watershed Management Plan.
Rock Creek spans both Will County and Kankakee County. It covers 121.28 square miles of area. The subwatersheds that this would include are the Black Walnut Creek, South Branch of Rock Creek, North Branch of Rock Creek, and the Main Stem of Rock Creek. So, we’re covering an area of Peotone and Manteno. You can see the covered area on the attached exhibit.
Scott Tomkins said it is a little over 121 square miles. That would include all of these HUC 12 segments. So, the Rock Creek is a large watershed with the aspect of the square miles. The area of concern that I originally came in contact with was the 4-H Camp Shaw, back in 2016, when I was working with the Illinois EPA. They invited me to come up and give a presentation about watershed planning and in particular, protection. The concern the Camp has is almost at the confluence of Rock Creek and the Kankakee River. Their campers fully use Rock Creek for swimming. It’s a very good place to cool off during the hot summer. The campers are readily in the stream and in contact with the stream. The concern that the Board has was to protect the water quality and improve it for the campers and the contact that they have in the stream.
Ted Gray said I also want to talk about what a watershed-based plan is. Why is it important? There are steps involved to prepare the plan. The purpose of this watershed plan would be to protect, improve, and enhance water quality of the Rock Creek Watershed.
The improvements in water quality would be documented and identified in this watershed plan. We would evaluate the existing conditions as well as the proposed conditions of the watershed area.
The recommended or proposed conditions would include a variety of projects that we would describe in some detail as well as assign costs to be associated with the watershed plan.
One of the main benefits of completing this plan would be that the projects that are identified would be much more eligible for grant funding. Illinois EPA has modified how it administers and prioritizes grant funding for future project implementation.
So, that could include projects ranging from putting in permeable pavers in a library parking lot to completing stream bank stabilization in an area that is in need where there are vertical and eroding banks. This may be maybe in a park or in a municipal site that’s in need of steam bank stabilization. So, those would be potential eligible projects. Another might be working in either Peotone or Manteno installing a water quality demonstration project to look at bioswales in an urban center area.
Once those projects are described, identified and listed in a watershed plan are much more likely to be eligible for future grant funding upwards of 60% of the construction cost.
This is a good opportunity for Will County and Kankakee County to participate in this planning effort.
One of the steps in the watershed-based plan are outreach to stakeholders. Outreach and education is a very important part of the planning process. Development of the plan itself, then we look at reviews and approvals of the watershed plans. This would be reviewed by the stakeholders and by the agencies involved.
Our consortium of stakeholders includes the Forest Preserve District of Will County and Aqua, who is a utility organization that manages Manteno and Peotone sanitary systems. We also have been speaking with Kankakee County Soil and Water Conservation District, as well as representatives, professors, and students at Olivet Nazarene University. Others range from environmental groups and advocates to government agencies.
Ideally, we would have started this process quite a long time ago. We are doing the best we can to pull these efforts together and submit a grant application for this project by July 30th. So, we’re trying to identify sources of funding.
A future aspect of completion of the plan would be the implementation of the plan itself. Another future aspect would be the evaluation of the plan and then continuing the momentum of the planning process.
Scott Tomkins said the important part of any watershed-based plan is to be stakeholder driven. As Living Waters we will be there to help them out as needed. Another thing with the water-based plan is that it is a living document. Once you develop a watershed-based plan, it shouldn’t be stagnant. The stakeholders should be involved. There should be continuous review of that plan. It was recommended when I was with the Illinois EPA that the stakeholders look at their watershed-based plan every 10 years at the minimum. This will let them know if the plan needs to be updated or improved. At any time, it can be opened up and improved or changed. So, this is stakeholder driven. As Ted said, government entities are involved with funding and assistance. Of course, we will be there and help them with assistance in getting the application together, submitting it, hopefully being approved, and then going on with creation of a grant. We’ll talk about that more within the next few slides.
Ted Gray said there are 9 basic elements of the plan. First is to identify causes and sources of water pollution as well as estimate existing pollutant loads. Then we would help the stakeholders to set water quality goals that are achievable and helpful to the watershed. I should mention too, that some of the projects that are described in the plan are not only water quality improvement projects, but they can also help with flood control as well. Some of the examples would be the bioswales and the bioretention areas, which are becoming much more prevalent across the country. Point #3 is describing the management measures needed to achieve load reduction targets. This is where some of the project descriptions would be identified throughout the watershed. #4 would describe the technical and financial assistance, the costs of the projects or planning efforts and the authorities needed to implement the plan. #5 is the education component and the outreach. #6, there is a schedule to follow for recommendations of implementation. That schedule can range from a few years to 5 or 10 years, depending on the elements involved. #7 would be to identify the milestones to achieve the water quality goals that are being sought after. #8 is identifying interim benchmarks for achieving goals. #9 is developing a monitoring component.
Scott Tomkins said this is guidance given by the U.S. EPA. It is guidance from 2013. These elements have to be in an approved watershed-based plan, or they would not be considered for funding under the Clean Water Act. So, these are guidance that have been established and put out back in 2013 that is needed, as you go forward, with the development of any watershed-based plan for funding consideration.
Ted Gray said we have prepared a budget for this project. Again, our plan is to apply for the grant application, which would be a grant request of $72,000. The total project cost to prepare the plan is $120,000. The grant would administered by the Illinois EPA. It’s actually a federal source of funding. That would be a 60% grant allocation, which is equal to $72,000. The remaining monies are considered local match, which is 40%. They could be from any source as long as they are non federal sources to be eligible for local match funding. That is one of the reasons that we reached out to Scott Killinger regarding Will County participation. We are having conversations with Aqua regarding their potential interest in helping out with the local match. We have also reached out to Kankakee County and just started reaching out to their Soil and Water Conservation District, as well as to the Kankakee River Basin Commission. The Kankakee River Basin Commission is likely going to help with some more of a nominal level of funding, perhaps up to a couple thousand dollars. We’re still looking to see what funding would be available from the other sources. Again, with Aqua operating in both Will County and Kankakee County, it is looking like they would be interested in participating in the project as well. So, the grant request would be 60%. The local match is 40%, or $48,000. The cost overall is consistent with other watershed-based planning efforts that Illinois EPA has supported.
What we don’t have on here is a schedule, as a slide at least. I can go through that briefly. The grant application is July 30, 2021. The grant awards would typically occur in the spring of 2022. That’s when we would be notified whether or not we were successful in obtaining grant funding. Then we’re given approximately 1-1/2 years to complete the planning effort. So, that would be through July, 2023 when typically the planning effort would come to a close. That’s a brief snapshot of the schedule.
Again, once that plan is complete and projects are listed in it, those projects are much more eligible to be funded actually through this same funding source. This is the Illinois EPA Section 319 Grant, which also allocates funding for construction projects that are designated to improve water quality.
As was mentioned previously, there could be multiple benefits to these projects. They could range from nuisance flood abatement, to aquatic habitat enhancements, or to recreational components.
Whether it’s a park district, city, or homeowners association, those types of organizations would be eligible for future grant funding for project implementation once those projects are described in the planning effort.
Scott Tomkins said I wanted to note that the Kankakee River is one of the big priorities for planning. It’s an every 5 year cycle. With the Section 319 funds, they prioritize 3 categories. One is planning. One is implementation. One is nutrients. Nutrients pretty well stay consistent. The other 2 with the aspect for planning. Implementation goes in a 5 year cycle. Under my previous employment with the Illinois EPA, I reached out and was working with the Camp Shaw Board and Members back in 2016. I presented a presentation to the Kankakee River Basin Commission in 2018 about watershed planning and protection. It hasn’t been just thrown together. We’ve had years of contact with the Camp Shaw Board. What really put this on fast track is that the Kankakee River is a priority funding for the 2022 funding cycle year. I reached out to them this winter, talked to them and they are interested. That’s when Ted and I came aboard and encouraged them to get this process going and start to put the framework and the basis together. We realize that this window is very short because of the July 30th deadline.
Ted Gray said as far as other relevant experience, we’ve been working with the Village of Melrose Park and the Silver Creek Watershed Committee since 2010. We have 7 communities there in the Silver Creek Watershed that we’ve been working with since that time. We’ve been implementing various projects where we help to prepare the watershed plan. We are continuing to implement different phases of projects for improvements along Silver Creek. We also serve as a watershed coordinator in the Silver Creek Watershed. We’ve also assisted in the completion of watershed plans for other areas such as Jelkes Creek Fox River Watershed. Also, previously worked with CMAP, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, and had the opportunity to complete a number of different watershed initiatives through that organization. That’s just a little snapshot of some of our background as well.
That concludes the presentation. If you have any questions, we will be happy to answer them.
Bill Lamb said I have a question. I assume the $120,000 is strictly for the planning part of it. Based on your experience with the other watersheds, what kind of additional cost is going to be involved to implement the plan?
Ted Gray said that’s a good question. The implementation of the plan will really vary according to #1, how many stakeholders we identify that have projects that they want to support. For example, if there are large expanses of streambank area, for instance, that are in need of stabilization, that’s a project cost construction wise that could range from $100 to $150 per linear foot, if the erosion is severe. Those are just construction costs. Bioretention and bioswales costs could range from $50 to $100 per linear foot or more depending on landscaping and other components. So, the costs can vary. For the Silver Creek project, which was a smaller watershed, we probably identified construction costs upwards of $20,000,000 to $30,000,000. One thing I’d like to emphasize though is that there’s no harm in identifying projects and showing construction costs in this plan. It’s more advantageous to make sure those projects are in the plan, so that if they go to a future funding phase, you then have those already identified. So, there’s not really a limit, per se, to construction costs.
Scott Tomkins said the intent is how is this going to interject with the aspect of watershed-based plan components? When is every source inventory done to assess the water quality conditions in that given watershed? Also, there’s a summary that is put together as another component of a watershed-based plan. Then of course, the watershed-based plan itself. As I mentioned before, it is stakeholder driven. It’s dependent on who participates, who is interested, and who has concerns with water quality issues. They will come to the table during this process and will go forward with presenting their concerns and their input during the process. As Ted said, it’s difficult right now to really give you a cost of what the implementation would be before the plan itself has been drafted.
Bill Lamb said it helps to have information ahead of time before we award the projects. Being somewhat ready is a good way to get projects approved. I’ve been with the Village of Plainfield for quite a while. One of the things that we did well was to put together projects so when money became available they could be done and get approved. It’s the same concept you’re talking about. You identify the prime areas and see what happens with time. As things become more desirable, things will happen.
Ted Gray said as Scott Tomkins mentioned, this is a priority year for getting a grant to fund the Rock Creek Watershed. That only happens once every 5 years and we’re trying to facilitate that.
Scott Tomkins said there’s been more activity over on the Indiana side of the Kankakee River. There has been watershed-based plan development and there’s been commissions put together. So, with this being on the Illinois side, we’re excited on the aspect that this could potentially be the beginning of our activities on the Illinois side in an active group, which would be good.
Ted Gray asked, any other questions or comments?
Ken Carroll asked, can stakeholders include the municipalities that are currently in that watershed?
Ted Gray said yes, the stakeholders would include the municipalities. They would actually be very important stakeholders that we would like to engage in the process. I know for Silver Creek Watershed that was a very valuable component.
Scott Tomkins said the more diversity or the larger picture of people or stakeholders involved coming to the table, the better the plan would be. So, we are going to strongly encourage all the stakeholders in the watershed to come to the table during the planning process and be open for their input and their involvement.
Ken Carroll said thank you.
Jonathan Dykstra asked, will there be any opportunity to expand and study the floodplain of Rock Creek since it’s unstudied right now? Establishing floodplain elevations like other Creeks? Is that in the plans or is that something else?
Ted Gray said that is something else. The express flood management or flood concern usually is not something that’s part of this watershed-based planning effort.
Jonathan Dykstra said I just wanted the Committee to be clear on that. Sometimes they may encounter developers that ask what the floodplain elevation is or what the BFE is. That won’t be part of the goal of this study.
Ted Gray said correct.
Jonathan Dykstra said I just wanted it to be clear for everyone. Thanks.
Scott Tomkins said under the Section 319 Program, the emphasis is given to a Nonpoint Source solution, identification, reduction and then maintaining the water quality. That is the primary emphasis under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act Program.
Jonathan Dykstra said thank you. Any other questions?
No response.
Scott Tomkins said thank you for the opportunity for Ted and I to come and talk to you this morning.
Jonathan Dykstra said we’re going to open it for discussion with the Committee. Thank you so much for putting that PowerPoint together and working with our meeting arrangement. We appreciate everyone’s help. Thank you.
Ted Gray said thanks for the invitation. Would you prefer that we log off for your discussion or do you want us to remain online?
Jonathan Dykstra said you can remain on here. There might be a question or comment that you might be able to clarify right away, so feel free to stay on.
Scott Killinger said I put the Resolution to fund this plan on this meeting. I wasn’t trying to rush this. Ideally, we probably would have heard this and then maybe considered the Resolution next month. Because of the Independence Day Holiday, I’m not anticipating that we would have a quorum next month and their deadline is August 30th. So, I made the decision to put the Resolution on and let you consider it today.
Ted Gray said Scott, it is July 30th.
Scott Killinger said sorry. So, our August meeting would be after the application is due. To be the most meaningful, if you want to pass the Resolution, it would be best to do it today. It would also give them some momentum going into their discussions with Kankakee County. The money for this would not come out of our 50/50 project money. There is another line item in the Stormwater Committee’s budget, which is for design and things like this watershed plan. So, going forward with funding this would not affect your 50/50 program. I guess the only other thing that I’d add would be that it would be a benefit to Will County in our MS4 reporting. I would certainly document the fact that Will County is a participant in this watershed planning process in Rock Creek. I thought this was attractive because we do a lot of work in the DesPlaines and the DuPage River area. Obviously, that’s where most of the population is, so that’s reasonable and logical. This would give us a project in the Kankakee River Watershed, which is something in the eastern part of the County. Those are the reasons that I thought this should come to the Committee. I wrote in the Resolution to fund it, but not to exceed $25,000. That would be your contribution. I also crafted the Resolution with the help of the State’s Attorney, Matt. If Ted and Scott go to Kankakee County or whoever, and they’re unable to secure the remainder of the match, then the Resolution is null and void ab initio, which means if they can’t get the rest of the local funding or if the State doesn’t accept the grant or approve the grant then this Resolution dies. If there’s other questions, I’ll answer them.
Jonathan Dykstra said I’m impressed by your knowledge of Latin, Scott. Scott Killinger said actually, I have to give the credit to Matt for that.
Jonathan Dykstra said anyone that wants to present comment or discussion on this, please do.
Bill Lamb said after listening to Scott and what he says, it makes good sense. I think the Resolution is worded properly to give incentive, but also protects us if nothing happens. I suggest that we approve the Motion.
Jonathan Dykstra said I agree, it sounds like a good idea to be supportive of this.
Tom Weigel said I think we should approve it, but I don’t think we have a quorum. Maybe we could approve it subject to contacting the other members that aren’t here so we do have a quorum.
Scott Killinger asked, can we use previous roll call?
Scott Pyles from the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office said we’re going to need to make sure that we have a quorum.
Scott Killinger said okay.
Jonathan Dykstra said I think we lost a couple, we might be down to 9. Let’s see if we can confirm if we have 9 or 10. I think we need 10.
Ted Gray said I hope it wasn’t due to our presentation.
Jonathan Dykstra said no, you guys did a good job.
Ted Gray said thank you.
Jonathan Dykstra said I’m counting 8 or 9.
Scott Pyles said if there’s a time sensitive nature to this, you can always do a Special Meeting to approve this if you’re running up against a time deadline. Maybe put it on a day where the County Board’s going to be meeting and other people will be attending on another meeting and they can piggy-back it on.
Bill Lamb said I suggest we go ahead and vote and register the votes that we have. I think we have nothing to lose with that, at least it says what our intent is.
Jonathan Dykstra said let me ask this. Is there anyone who would be against this? No embarrassment at all, if you’re against it, say you would be.
No response.
Jonathan Dykstra said no need to call names, I think that everyone on here would be in favor. We’ll just have to find a way to have a quorum. If that means a Special Meeting, Scott we’ll have to arrange that.
Ted Gray said in terms of the timing, it’s not absolutely necessary to have everything approved before July 30th. That’s just the date that we’re submitting the application. We have opportunity to describe local match funding as either pledged, in-hand, or other descriptions. If we’re expecting approval, we can describe that in the application. I’m not sure when the expiration on the matching funding occurs, but we wouldn’t be using the money technically until spring of 2022. That is assuming that we get approval for the grant. So, we may have need to continue to outreach with solidifying local funding match, if necessary, depending on Aqua and other situations in Kankakee County that could drag on beyond July 30th. I just wanted to clarify that for everyone’s understanding. It would be wonderful to get the approval by July 30th, but even if we have a pledge of support that would be helpful.
Scott Tomkins said you took the words out of my mouth, Ted. I was thinking the same thing that if we could get a letter of support from your entity that would be helpful.
Ted Gray said we can reach out to Scott Killinger about that.
Jonathan Dykstra said it’s looking favorable based on who is still on the meeting right now. I wouldn’t anticipate a large enough objection once we get a quorum.
Ted Gray said great, thank you very much.
Jonathan Dykstra said thank you very much for coming and presenting this to us.
Scott Tomkins said thank you for your time.
3. 2021 Project Program Discussion Itemized Budget for Will County Storm Water Management Committee 2021
Scott Killinger said we are still able to fund more 50/50 projects if people have them.
Jonathan Dykstra said I’ve told people to keep submitting them.
Scott Killinger said I know with the pandemic it’s a different kind of year. We’re coming out of the pandemic, but we’re not there yet. I’ve been on the phone with several of the local sponsors and I think we’re going to get some more. I would anticipate that probably at an August meeting we might have some more projects. Maybe we could formally approve this Rock Creek Resolution at that time also. In the meantime, I’ll work with them to get them something with your signature Jon, saying it was discussed with the Committee and it looks like… I’ll figure out how to word that.
Jonathan Dykstra said we won’t make it binding, just in case. Maybe something like a favorable intent and we plan to vote on it in August, which would be right after their deadline. It sounds like yes, they have their application deadline, but they’re not going to have all their ducks in a row yet. So, with ours maybe lagging a little bit it will be okay. I think if they know we’re going to support it, they can keep moving forward.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Joint Funding Agreement with Village of Monee Main Street Storm Sewer Phase4
2. Joint Funding Agreement with Wilmington Township Kankakee River Drive Headwall and Culvert Repair
3. Joint Funding Agreement with City of Joliet East side WWTP DesPlaines River Slope Stabilization and Naturalization
4. Support of the Rock Creek Watershed Based Plan and partial funding of the local match required for IEPA Section 319(h) Grant
Ed Dolezal made a Motion to remove item #4 (Support of the Rock Creek Watershed Based Plan and Partial Funding of the Local Match Required for IEPA Section 319(h) Grant) from the Consent Agenda and approve the other 3 items. Theresa O'Grady seconded the Motion.
DJ Kruzel made a Motion to use previous Roll Call. Tom Weigel seconded the Motion. Voice vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 11-0.
| RESULT: ASSIGNED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ed Dolezal, Municipal Representative, District 6 SECONDER: Theresa O'Grady, County Representative, District 11 AYES: Kruzel, Dykstra, Jessen, Dolezal, Carroll, Hadamik, Gapsevich, O'Grady, Fano, Weigel, Lamb ABSENT: Howard, Moustis, Pawlowicz, Alstrom, Buss, Likar, Nash |
2. Joint Funding Agreement with Wilmington Township Kankakee River Drive Headwall and Culvert Repair
3. Joint Funding Agreement with City of Joliet East side WWTP DesPlaines River Slope Stabilization and Naturalization
4. Support of the Rock Creek Watershed Based Plan and partial funding of the local match required for IEPA Section 319(h) Grant
Ed Dolezal made a Motion to remove item #4 (Support of the Rock Creek Watershed Based Plan and Partial Funding of the Local Match Required for IEPA Section 319(h) Grant) from the Consent Agenda and approve the other 3 items. Theresa O'Grady seconded the Motion.
VIII. REPORT OF OFFICERS, SUBCOMMITTEES, STATE'S ATTORNEY AND/OR STAFF None.
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Jonathan Dykstra announced that Scott Gapsevich will be retiring. Will this be your last meeting, Scott? I think it is. If so, we just want to thank you for all of your time on the Committee and all of your input over the years. I certainly wish you well. We're all jealous. Scott retires and comes back, and retires and comes back. There's a lot of that going on it seems like. So, we wont hold our breath, Scott, because who knows, you might be back. I don't think we have anything put together yet like a certificate or anything. It might be after the fact. Thanks again, Scott.
X. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn Meeting
Bill Lamb made a Motion at 11:31 AM to adjourn the meeting. DJ Kruzel seconded the Motion. Motion passed unanimously, 11-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Bill Lamb, Municipal Representative, District 13 SECONDER: DJ Kruzel, Municipal Representative, District 1 AYES: Kruzel, Dykstra, Jessen, Dolezal, Carroll, Hadamik, Gapsevich, O'Grady, Fano, Weigel, Lamb ABSENT: Howard, Moustis, Pawlowicz, Alstrom, Buss, Likar, Nash |
Alerts Sign-up