By Dee Longfellow
For The Elmhurst Independent
While a great deal of progress has been made in storm water mitigation in the City, the residents in some areas are still struggling to keep water out of their homes, garages and basements. In the Crestview and the Bryn Haven neighborhoods, it has come down to helping individual home flood-proofing by putting some money aside to help residents pay for a service like this basement waterproofing in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in order to minimize any future water damage in their properties.
The Elmhurst City Council meeting on Monday, Sept. 21 began with City Clerk Jackie Haddad-Tamer reading a recommendation of the Public Works and Buildings (PWB) Committee “that the City Council budget $96,000, with an appropriate funding source, for individual home flood-proofing in the Crestview Park neighborhood, in the budget years that funds are made available, and that staff be authorized to approve property floodproofing improvements for reimbursement.”
Later in the meeting, virtually the same recommendation was made to budget $152,400, for individual home flood-proofing in the Brynhaven Subdivision.
As Chair of the PWB Committee, Alderman Jim Kennedy (6th Ward) explained the recommendation and asked for the Council’s support.
“To start off, we’ve been on the subject of storm water for a long time and now we have come to a point where we need to address the definition of overland flooding,” he said. “It relates to times when we cannot keep the water in the [streets] and it ends up going over the curbs and lawns and into people’s homes and basements.
“Work started off with the Burke study about overland flooding that directly affects homes. In these areas in question, we tried to look at options. We looked at schools, parks, even home purchases, but none of those options would help those individual homes.
“The only option is individual flood-proofing of the homes in these areas.”
Kennedy said there were 15 homes in the Crestview area, but it was determined that only eight homes have overland flooding. He felt confident the City had done its due diligence to define which homes should be helped with flood-proofing. Those that have fought for help with flood proofing, may also have a need to renovate certain areas of their homes, especially if over time the flooding has affected their foundation. For instance, if they have a downstairs bathroom that has had multiple issues, homeowners may want to contact a bathroom contractor (click here) to speak with them about how they can work through this before their flood proofing is put down to protect their new renovation.
“We discussed in Committee how to protect the City’s investment,” Kennedy continued. “We decided to put in a ‘clawback’ provision. That means, any time within the next five years, if the home were to be sold, we could ‘clawback’ that money. That helps insure that the money is well-spent and that the homeowners are serious about what’s going to happen in their area.”
Kennedy then noted that individual home flood-proofing would cost about $10,000 per residence.
“We do not have a current funding source,” he said. “We’ve not gone out for G.O. [General Obligation] bonds, nor is in the budget.”
Alderman Mike Brennan (7th) supported the report, saying that flood-proofing individual homes is the most cost-effective way to handle storm water in these neighborhoods.
“There has been a healthy discussion and I agree with the decision for the City to absorb all costs,” he said.
An amendment is proposed
Alderman Marti Deuter (1st) began by praising the hard work of the Committee and City staff on the issue, but proposed an Amendment to the report, saying she felt the residents should pay a portion of the cost of the flood-proofing.
“What we’re doing with these projects is looking at a particular home,” she said. “But there is a benefit to the homeowner, so I don’t believe the City should absorb the entire cost. The homeowners should share a portion of the cost.”
Deuter aligned the flood-proofing issue with the overhead sewer program or the check valve system.
“When a sanitary system backs up into the home, it is usually because the City’s system is not functioning as it should be,” she said. “We recognize that to get that system where it needs to be, it would be a long-term project and quite costly. The City has some responsibility to protect these homes, but I feel the homeowners should pay 50%.
“We do cost-share in many cases and I think it’s good to consider it for this flood-proofing as well. And, there are more storms coming as well. I encourage a more conservative approach and share the cost with the homeowner.”
Deuter then moved to amend the recommendation to ask for 25% of the cost to be the homeowners participation and to remove the clawback provision.
Should residents pay part or not?
Alderman Bob Dunn (2nd) supported the Amendment.
“Flood-proofing topic has been discussed for years,” he said. “I think the report is very good, the methodology, the proposed program is well thought-out, but an initiative where the homeowner is accruing capital improvements to their own home that are favorable to them and to the resale value, it would be appropriate to ask them to ‘have a little skin in the game.'”
Dunn didn’t think a 50% cost share was necessary but “something in the middle,” so he proposed the homeowner pay 25% of the cost.
“I think 25% is a reasonable amount,” he said. “Many homes have reverse-slope driveways which costs more. I think a cost share is appropriate.”
Aldermen Noel Talluto (4th) supported the original report as written.
“We didn’t ask for funding for Golden Meadows or any of the large infrastructure projects,” Talluto noted. “Just because we CAN’T do an infrastructure project there, then the homeowners have to pay?”
Alderman Michael Honquest (6th) noted that this was not an individual home issue but that the problem was City-wide so the solution needed to be City-wide as well.
“This is a community problem, that’s why we ordered the Burke report and we stepped up with the lead of Ald. Kennedy to execute a lot of these projects, but the other choice was to keep flooding a problem in various neighborhoods. It was a tough decision, but a good decision. We are bearing the brunt of that debt and I still feel like we’ve done what we had to do.”
Bram seeks policy, questions liability
Alderman Michael Bram (3rd), who formerly served on the PWB Committee, feels the City needs to create a policy about how to handle these situations, rather than handling them on a case-by-case basis. He also questioned the City’s liability.
When I served on the Committee, we discussed as per policy, not a program, not a project,” he said. “And what about the liability factor. If we go forward on this, we’re paying 100% and what happens if these improvements fail? That’s why, when I was on the Committee, we discussed if this was the right direction to go? Should we do this in the first place?
“In terms of liability, who is culpable, what kind of improvements should be done, this should be in a policy. Once the policy is set, then you deal with what comes up but you have a policy in place when things come up in the future.”
The vote is taken
Kennedy then summarized the issue.
“When we started off with storm water management, we agreed to try to do the most good to the most people in the shortest period of time at the lowest possible cost,” he said. “As far as the Park District [helping with flood water mitigation], that door has been shut. They do not want to do any more projects for flood mitigation, they’ve advised us they won’t do anything else.
“I believe we started as a project and we should continue as a project.
“When the question of liability, just as we’ve done with other projects, that situation becomes a relationship with homeowner and service providers with oversight by the City. They will come together and we will be there to provide the funds. It’s between those two parties to work that out.”
Kennedy reminded the Council that when there were numerous illegal sump pumps on the south end of town, the City got involved to fund their removal.
“I think we helped 254 homes,” he said. “So we have a history of doing these types of things and paying for it.
“There was a comment about having skin in the game. We all have skin in the game.”
The Amendment to the Recommendation, which called for homeowners to pay for 25% of the cost of the flood-proofing failed by a vote of 9-4 with one vacancy*. The original Recommendation as read passed by a vote of 9-4 with one vacancy.
The vote was identical for both recommendations, for Crestview and for Brynhaven.
This means the City will be absorbing the costs of flood-proofing homes but will retain a clawback provision.
A funny side note…
Later in the meeting, City Manager Jim Grabowski brought up the subject of trick-or-treating as Halloween approaches. He said that trick-or-treating will be allowed, but safety guidelines are being drafted and would be forthcoming shortly.
“Shouldn’t we make sure all the children wear masks?” quipped Alderman Levin. “Oh, I guess they do that on Halloween anyway!”
[*vacancy: This represents the open seat of Norman Leader who recently stepped down.]
