The DeKalb County Stormwater Management Planning Committee (SMPC) met on December 4, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administrative Building, Conference Room East, in Sycamore, Illinois.  In attendance were Committee members Bill Nicklas, Roger Steimel, Joe Misurelli, Donna Prain, Joel Maurer, Pat Vary, Bill Lorence, and Paul Miller.  Also present was Assistant Planner Rebecca Von Drasek, Joan Berkes-Hanson with the DeKalb County Information Management Office (IMO), Bruce Hamilton (IMO), Sheila Santos (IMO) and Elena Grimm.

                       

1.         Roll Call --  Mr. Miller noted Joel Maurer, Pat Vary, Bill Lorence, Ken Andersen, Tom Thomas, and Mark Biernacki were absent.

 

2.         Approval of Agenda

 

Mr. Misurelli moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Nicklas, and the motion carried unanimously.

 

3.         Approval of Minutes

 

Mr. Steimel moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Ms. Prain, and the motion carried unanimously.

 

4.         Welcome to Norm Beeh

 

Mr. Miller introduced Norm Beeh to the Committee.  He noted that Ruth Anne Tobias, DeKalb County Board Chair, appointed Mr. Beeh to the Committee on November 19, 2008 to replace Don Pardridge.  Mr. Miller highlighted that Mr. Beeh is a professional engineer and has provided engineering design and review services for the Villages of Shabbona, Waterman, and Hinckley.  Mr. Beeh also served on the first County Stormwater Management Committee that drafted the Countywide Stormwater Management Plan and Ordinance.

 

Ms. Vary, Mr. Maurer, and Mr. Lorence arrived at 3:05 pm and were introduced to Mr. Beeh.

 

5.         Review of 2008 Activities

 

Mr. Miller referenced the November 20, 2008 staff memo which recapped the Committee’s activities in 2008.  The six items included in the memo were: 1) identification of Phase II projects; 2) consulted with Baxter & Woodman to refine the scope and cost of Phase II projects; 3) deliberated on combining the stormwater with ground water investigations and the means by which the Committee could seek funding; 4) a consensus was reached that an advocacy group would need to be recruited to provide a public information campaign to market any future water studies; 5) recommended the creation of two-foot contour maps; 6) amended the Stormwater Ordinance to address stormwater discharge from sump pumps and gutters.  Mr. Miller asked the Committee if there were any additional items for the list.

 

Mr. Nicklas thanked Mr. Miller for the summary, he also extended his gratitude to the County Board for their support of the Committee’s objectives moving forward.  Mr. Nicklas noted that for the future he would like to see the identification of watershed related projects which the Committee intends to address.

 

Ms. Vary noted that the KREPS data had been delivered to the Committee in 2008 and had been provided to the IMO for inclusion with future maps.  Ms. Vary also felt that in the future the Committee should outline the principals that the Committee would like to see in place.  She provided as an example the information presented by Mike Richolson of the Natural Resources Conservation Service that portrayed the principal that farmers should not fill in depressional storage areas.  Mr. Miller thanked Ms. Vary for the reminder about the KREPS data.

 

Mr. Miller introduced Sheila Santos, Joan Berkes-Hanson, and Bruce Hamilton from the Information Management Office (IMO) and explained that he had invited them to the meeting to inform the Committee about new floodplain mapping features available to staff and the public.

 

Ms. Santos briefly outlined the GIS map system which is available at www.dekalbcounty.org.  She highlighted for the Committee the method by which the Flood Rate Insurance Maps, created by FEMA, were overlaid on aerial photographs.

 

Mr. Miller stressed that the FIRM maps depicted regulatory floodplain, and that during actual flooding events areas outside those depicted on the maps, may still flood.  He noted that the FEMA information was based on best available knowledge and that it would help in building the surface water map, since the regulatory floodplain would be one layer of the map.

 

Ms. Prain asked what would happen when the floodplain is marked opposite of the new two-foot contour maps.  Mr. Miller noted that the contour maps could be a tool to provide better information and for property owners in their discussions with a surveyor and FEMA.

 

Mr.  Lorence noted that the two-foot contour maps would not depict depressional areas that were less than two-foot in depth.  He also noted that there were two methods to create the contour maps, one was to create new photography and the second was to use existing photos.

 

Mr. Nicklas asked if the County would be creating a Request for Proposal (RFP).  Mr. Miller stated that the Highway, IMO, and Planning Department was scheduled to discuss the RFP with the County Administrator next week, and that he would report back to the Committee on the outcome of that meeting.

 

Ms. Vary expressed surprise that the contours could be generated from existing photographs.

 

Ms. Berkes-Hanson stated that IMO has a three-year revolving plan to take aerial photographs, and that 2009 was the third year.  She also informed the Committee that one prerequisite to any contour maps is that they must fit into the existing base map.  Mr. Miller added that the idea was to complete the aerials photographs and contours in conjunction with one another.

 

Ms. Santos asked the Committee if there were any other requirements for the contour maps.  Mr. Lorence added that the end product should be compatible with the software applications used by the County, not just the GIS system.  Mr. Maurer agreed.

 

Mr. Miller also added that the map should be able to be a layer similar to the FIRM maps.

 

Mr. Lorence and Mr. Miller then briefly discussed that the contour lines should enable staff to delineate watershed limits.

 

Mr. Beeh added that the two-foot contour maps would be a large improvement over the ten-foot USGS maps.

 

Mr. Maurer asked if the digital topography would be included in the purchase, and also if roof tops and roadways would be included.  Ms. Santos stated that she understood that the roof tops would be removed from the digital terrain model.  Mr. Maurer felt that the roadways would be an important feature to include for the City of DeKalb’s purposes.  Ms. Berkes-Hanson noted that there was a difference between bare earth versus terrain models. 

 

Mr. Miller and Mr. Lorence informed the Committee that they would report back as the County continues ahead with the contour map creation.

 

Mr. Miller concluded that with the layered stormwater map the Committee may have enough of the necessary information to rewrite the Stormwater Ordinance to reflect a watershed basis.  In the meantime, Mr. Miller proposed that the Committee address other pressing issues such as addressing the stormwater runoff from agricultural buildings or other best management practices the Committee felt should put in place.

 

Ms. Vary provided some example requirements such a bio-swales, permeable surface areas, etc. for new development which she thought could be required within the County Ordinance.  Mr. Miller reminded the Committee that the ideas could serve as useful suggestions to the municipalities, but the Committee may not wish to adopt such revisions as requirements in the Ordinance because the municipalities would then also be required to also adopt those more strict development standards.  However, such standards could be included as recommended best practices.

 

Mr. Nicklas stated that the entire residential development paradigm may be changing due to the mortgage crisis and economic recession.  He explained that the economy may shift the demand for new housing from the large-lot, large-home subdivisions of the past two decades to small lots and houses.  Mr. Lorence also added that what is the best method for one property may not be adequate for another.

 

Ms. Vary restated her inquiry asking what would be the carrots the County and Communities could extend to encourage compliance with greener methods.  Mr. Nicklas noted that density bonuses were one example.

 

6.         Goal for 2009

 

Mr. Miller then referenced the staff memo from November 20, 2008 which listed the prospective goals of the Committee in the coming year. He stated that the Stormwater Management Planning Committee is charged with creating Phase II of the Countywide Stormwater Management Plan, as well as changes to the County Stormwater Management Ordinance needed to implement Phase II of the Plan.  He added that discussions of possible elements of Phase II have focused on the production of a countywide comprehensive stormwater map and improvements to the Stormwater Management Ordinance.  Mr. Miller asked the Committee if there were additional items to included in the goals for 2009.

 

Ms. Prain asked that buffering waterways should be discussed.  Mr. Lorence noted that these were recharge areas for ground water.

 

Ms. Berkes-Hanson noted that there was a six-month turn around from flight to data for the creation of the contour maps.

 

Mr. Miller noted that the major projects were to be determined in Phase II, while the Committee envisioned the construction of those projects in Phase III.  He asked the Committee if there were enough items in Phase II. He added that the review by Baxter & Woodman included ball park costs for some of the projects.

 

Ms. Prain suggested that the repetitive loss areas should be identified.  Mr. Miller agreed that this could be another layer for the future map and for prioritizing those properties. 

 

Ms. Vary suggested that the principals of the Committee not be lost in the process of addressing specific projects.  Mr. Nicklas noted that the preamble of the Ordinance included the intent of the Committee without creating absolutes, he added that the preamble should be rewritten to include the Committee’s major concerns.  The Committee agreed to consider updating the goals and objectives of the Ordinance.