…in Downers Grove

I’m just this guy…

Archive for the 'flooding' Category


Another Piece To The Stormwater Puzzle

Posted by markthoman on June 28, 2008

I was up in Madison WI this week on business. I think the City Motto is “The USSR may have fallen but Madison marches on”. They’ve been on the west edge of where WI has been getting hammered by stormwater this spring, and the lakes are just about over their banks.

Being the state capital may help, but they seem to be a leg up on stormwater solutions too, and it has definitely helped.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in flooding, stormwater | No Comments »

PCPCP

Posted by markthoman on June 19, 2008

Another piece to the stormwater puzzle.

Read the comprehensive cold weather report on Portland Cement Pervious Concrete Performance. If you don’t want to wade through 70+ pages, short form: works great. Around here, it doesn’t eliminate the need for detention/retention, but it would significantly reduce runoff we continue building into our village now-despite knowing how much fixing the problem costs us later.

Thousands now; millions later. Pick one.

Posted in development, flooding, infrastructure, stormwater | No Comments »

Latest Green Roof Tests In Seattle

Posted by markthoman on June 6, 2008

Green roofs limit storm water run-off. If DG is to make a difference in how much stormwater we have that runs off, we will need to address things like this. From The Changing World of Stormwater Technology, by Dan Rafter, this report of a comparative testing of green roofs to determine the optimum design.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in development, flooding | 4 Comments »

GE Citizen Power Stays The Day At Ackerman Woods

Posted by markthoman on June 3, 2008

A friend asked me why I bother writing about this; it is not even near DG. No arguement about proximity, but here is a group of people who got mad, got organized, and got a plan.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in flooding, park district, trees | No Comments »

GE Residents To Lose Ackerman Woods

Posted by markthoman on May 29, 2008

I wrote briefly about Ackerman Woods before. Residents protested, and it appears have been ignored again.

Cutting down over 340 trees for a flood control project and soccer fields, according to the GEPD, is a necessity.

Posted in flooding, park district, trees | No Comments »

Not Alone, Not Unique

Posted by markthoman on May 20, 2008

Lest residents think our PD is the only one that cuts down trees to make way for better parks, here’s a little nightmare from Glen Ellyn, where it’s not about cutting down 40 trees.

No, try 342 trees.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in flooding, park district, trees | No Comments »

Village Stormwater Revenue Forecasts Through 2037

Posted by markthoman on May 5, 2008

Posted in budget, flooding, infrastructure | 3 Comments »

Doing Further Harm? Update

Posted by markthoman on April 23, 2008

Well; here we are, and here it is, so what will happen?

So far, not much.

It does not seem council is making the full connection between development and stormwater.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in development, flooding, infrastructure | No Comments »

Background Reading On Stormwater

Posted by markthoman on April 21, 2008

The city of Portland OR has struggled with stormwater runoff problems for decades and has established expertise on how to best deal with runoff issues. Meeting ASTM standards relating to stormwater has nothing to do with mitigating run off. The idea behind a Low Impact Design (LID) water garden type of storm water storage is to completely prevent the fist 1/4″ of rainfall from leaving the property at all.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in development, flooding, infrastructure | No Comments »

Doing No Further Harm?

Posted by markthoman on April 19, 2008

On Tuesday council will workshop an ordinance to amend the zoning of two manufacturing parcels at 715-719 Rogers Street from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to DT (Downtown Transition), an ordinance for a Final Planned Development with a variance to construct 16 townhouses, a Plat of Subdivision resolution that will subdivide the two separate parcels into 17 individual parcels, and a Special Use Ordinance for dwellings.

A variance is required to allow steps greater than four feet in height to extend into the required front yard. A Special Use is required to develop townhouses exceeding one unit per 4,000 square feet of land area. Council, in particular Mayor Sandack and Commissioner Tully, have opined often how Special Uses would be scrutinized with the residents welfare and protection in mind, that we could rest easy because Special Uses require specific council approval.

Well; here we are, and here it is, so what will happen?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in development, flooding, government, infrastructure | 4 Comments »

Bond Debt Picture Developes

Posted by markthoman on April 1, 2008

The current agenda for tonight’s meeting includes the updated slides. There is one bullet point on the very bottom of page 4 that is not correct. It was an informative meeting, and I would urge everyone with an interest in knowing what is happening for the largest assumption of village debt ever to listen to the MP3 podcast file when it is posted.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in budget, elected officials, flooding, government, infrastructure | No Comments »

Bloomberg AAA Revenue Bond Rates

Posted by markthoman on March 31, 2008

Municipal Bond

National Municipal Bond Yields:
Triple-A Rated, Tax-Exempt Insured Revenue Bonds

  CURRENT
YIELD
PREVIOUS
YIELD
CHANGE IN
YIELD
28% EQ
YIELD
1 WEEK PRIOR
YIELD
1 MONTH PRIOR
YIELD
6 MONTH PRIOR
YIELD
2-Year 2.38% 2.37% 0.01% 3.31% 2.46% 2.44% 3.59%
5-Year 3.04% 3.04% 0.00% 4.22% 3.04% 2.88% 3.69%
7-Year 3.45% 3.45% 0.00% 4.79% 3.44% 3.17% 3.79%
10-Year 4.05% 4.05% 0.00% 5.62% 4.05% 3.67% 4.02%
15-Year 4.79% 4.79% 0.00% 6.65% 4.80% 4.31% 4.43%
20-Year 5.04% 5.04% 0.00% 7.00% 5.00% 4.72% 4.63%
30-Year 5.19% 5.19% 0.00% 7.21% 5.16% 4.87% 4.66%

General Obligation (GO) bonds typically are 1/4%+ or more higher. AA+ rates are a little higher than AAA.

Posted in budget, flooding, government | No Comments »

First Step To Biggest Debt Borrowing Ever

Posted by markthoman on March 29, 2008

Update:

Mark:

Thanks for the inquiry, it has always been our intention to place a
podcast/MP3 file of this meeting on the Village website.

If you have any other questions, please let me know.

Cara Pavlicek
Village Manager

Despite a light agenda for this Tuesday’s meeting, staff scheduled the village council to meet this Monday at 6pm in the Committee Room:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in budget, elected officials, flooding, government, public works | 3 Comments »

No more flag lots

Posted by markthoman on March 19, 2008

image004_3.jpgCouncil voted unanimously tonight to amend the muni code so as to ban further flag lots in Downers Grove. Commissioner Tully said he was looking forward to this day for seven years, and he had much to do with shepherding the ban through to approval. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in development, environment, flooding, housing, infrastructure, muni code, zoning | No Comments »

Heritage Tree Ordinance Part 3

Posted by markthoman on March 1, 2008

Some residents say we do not need any ordinance, that there is no problem with clear cutting property. Even lawyers suddenly do not remember definitions of words like unwarranted when facing the complexity of a simple ordinance.

I would ask this: Do you live next to a clear cut lot that was built out and now, as a direct result, have water problems? I have talked directly to residents who do now have water problems, and they do live next to, or near, property that has been clear cut and built out. It is not a coincidence: it is a direct connection. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in development, environment, flooding, trees | 3 Comments »

Heritage Tree Ordinance Part 2

Posted by markthoman on February 23, 2008

“Go away. We’re busy.”

The Village Manager and staff have decided the “Heritage Tree Ordinance” (HTO) is not going to happen right now. Unless someone on council takes exception to it, it will be left on the back burner. That is too bad. We need a responsible, moderate, heritage tree ordinance now, so we can measure and adjust it if needed in the future. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in development, environment, flooding, government, infrastructure, trees | 2 Comments »

Interview With Mayor Sandack

Posted by markthoman on February 14, 2008

 

Note: This started as an offshoot of discussions and postings here and at DGreport.com. I specifically would like to thank everyone who participated with questions, whether I used them or not.

 

We all can have different opinions, but in the end we all have something akin to affection for the village we live in: that is why we care, and that is why we share common ground.

Mayor Sandack, thank you for participating in this on-line interview, and let’s jump right in. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in blogging, blogs, elected officials, flooding, government, infrastructure | 4 Comments »

Silver Lining to Economic Trouble

Posted by markthoman on January 27, 2008


Interest rates are ratcheting down as the Fed tries to avoid a total economy meltdown.

That’s mixed news for us here in DG as staff and council wind their way along the stormwater issue. Bids will go out for a financial consultant to shepherd bringing $25 million in bond debt onto the books for stormwater projects.

Interest rates, but not bond rates, are at significant lows.

Posted in budget, flooding, government, infrastructure | No Comments »

Hit’s, Misses, and a Great Idea

Posted by markthoman on December 21, 2007

Hits

Applying for FEMA grant money.

On two 2008 storm water related projects the village is an applicant for FEMA grant money, to the tune of a couple million bucks. There’s also the opportunity to be a sub-applicant to the state for more of the same FEMA money. FEMA has nation-wide funds of about $25 million annually for precisely this type of work, and the state gets a minimum $500,000 extra to dole out as it sees fit. Starting during Mayor Krajewski’s term, our village government got pretty good at writing for grant requests and filling applications (way, WAY harder than it sounds).

Last year all of the federal money was granted, but like I said, our village staff is pretty good at putting together a grant request, plus we have the detailed engineering study and can produce proper plans documenting what’s to be done. FEMA likes that.

In 2007, the state awarded only a bit over $100K of the $500K available. That left almost $400K unused. We could use that each year easy. I emailed VM Pavlicek and asked if we are applying both as an applicant (for federal money) and as a sub-applicant (for state funds), and Megan is supposed to get back to me.

Home Rule Sales Tax (HRST) Hike

Tuesday council approved raising our HRST based take from ½ cent to ¾ cent. Technically, they’re raising it 50%. It does have a sunset clause and “become null and void at the end of the debt service issued for stormwater related improvements.”

Each ¼ cent of Home Rules Sales Tax currently generates $2,300,000.

Misses

Non specific Tele-Tax hike.

They also approved a 1% hike in the telecommunications tax, from 5% to 6%, a 20% raise in the rate.

The proposed increase will take effect on July 1, 2008. Revenue generated by this increase in FY08 is estimated to be $410,000, which will be used to fund expenditures in the Capital Projects Fund. The full year revenue generated by this tax increase for FY09 is estimated to be $820,000.

There is no sunset clause for this tax hike, because it fuels the Capital Projects Fund. The money can be spent on whatever the village says, whether it be sewers or streets…or a new Fleet Services building, a new Police Station, or a new Civic Center.

A Great Idea

Linda Kunze reads minds.

Staff has been working on this one off-radar, but it’s a great idea and deserves to see the light of day.

I’ve been talking about a single downtown waste hauler since the last election; then we can do recycling downtown, cut down on garbage truck traffic, and we could make our alleys and business rear areas look a lot better. The village could also place recycling cans around downtown; permanent ones instead of the temporary ones we see at downtown events.

Talk about a topic no one wanted to hear.

Linda Kunze, Downtown Manager of the Downers Grove Downtown Management Corporation, thinks it’s a great idea, is in a position to do something about it, and is pushing forward. The village has committed to build a total of three common dumpster areas around downtown, to centralize and clean up collection areas, making it very easy for downtown commercial businesses to recycle just like we do at our curbs every week.

This means tons of paper, cans glass, all going to recycling instead of to landfills, and we get cleaner looking alleyways. That opens the possibility for further development. Check Naperville’s downtown: there are a couple areas where there are backyard restaurant patios, and rear-facing clusters of shops on former alleys. I’m not saying that’s what will happen, I’m saying those types of things become possible.

The first centralized collection area goes in this spring, the two additional units the following year. Downtown Downers Grove will get the businesses invested in the concept and use. Council can help move things along by making it clear they support this, and expect businesses to get on board.

This is just one example of recycling bins. Here’s another where local artists design and build recycling receptacles out of recycled materials. The possibilities are many.

Bravo, Ms. Kunze.

Posted in budget, environment, flooding, infrastructure, recycling | No Comments »

So when do we say "That’s enough"?

Posted by markthoman on December 10, 2007


Like most guys, I subscribe to the hypothesis that when a project is 80% done, it’s done. From then on, it’s just clean up. Employing the rule of 80/20 to the stormwater issue, we should be able to get to that 80% finished plateau for about $68 million. The last 20%, the clean up, will cost the remaining $272 million.

So I guess my question is this:

Do we really want it all done? Do we really want every possible problem, no matter how small or how expensive it may be, to be completely addressed? Maybe there is just some areas of town, like 40th and Glendenning, that need to be open unbuildable land forever, regardless of how much developers want to build. Maybe these are areas where public condemnation needs to occur for the better good. I can think of a couple homes that should be bought by the village and torn down, and the lots left empty.

I know: Mark, getting cold feet? No stomach for the tough decisions?

There’s plenty of cheap shots to be taken on this one, but I won’t be taking them on anyone thinking maybe $340 million is a little pricey. Maybe, like our other taxing bodies have found along the way, there’s a plan B that needs to be examined before we jump headlong into a 30 year commitment that may end up with at least $300 million in additional interest costs.

I’m in for the 80% done at 20% cost. If only that worked in real life, eh?

Posted in budget, flooding, infrastructure | No Comments »