Skokie presents stormwater task force findings; recommends five priority projects and rebate program

Skokie village officials on Jan. 6 presented findings from a multi‑year review of the village’s stormwater system and recommended a mix of capital projects and homeowner programs to reduce basement flooding.

The presentation, led by Village Manager John Lockerbie and engineering staff with consultant Christopher B. Burke Engineering, concluded that the village’s system—originally designed in the 1980s for a 10‑year storm—now provides about a two‑year level of protection because rainfall intensities have increased. Jeff Jalkowski of Christopher Burke said the model and measurements “verify that original design,” and that the change in protection stems from updates to rainfall data rather than a failure of the infrastructure.

The task force and consultants recommended prioritizing five “tier 1” capital projects (out of 17 concept projects) that give the greatest protection per estimated cost, continuing to refine a second tier, and dropping or deferring a third tier as not cost‑effective. They also urged creation of a rebate program to help homeowners install overhead‑sewer conversions where capital projects are not cost‑effective, and to reassess downspout disconnections across the village.

The report noted survey results and local flooding experience as part of the rationale. Lockerbie summarized survey findings presented to the board: “74% of the residents completing the survey rated the quality of the village's stormwater management positively in 2024… and 25% of the survey respondents experienced basement flooding in the last 5 years due to weather.”

Consultant Jeff Jalkowski explained the technical baseline: the village’s system—built in the 1990s with inlet restrictors, street berms and underground storage—was intended to provide a 10‑year level of basement‑flood protection. Using updated rainfall statistics (the IL State Water Survey updates), that same design now corresponds to roughly a two‑year event (about 2 inches in 2 hours). “When the system was designed…it was designed for 10 years,” he said. “Today, that same storm event roughly is now a 2 year storm.”

To compare alternatives, the consultants developed a simple metric: estimated capital cost divided by the number of residences benefited. They compared that cost per residence to an assumed average residential overhead‑sewer conversion cost of $15,000. Projects with a lower cost per residence than that benchmark were prioritized as tier 1. The consultants recommended five tier 1 projects for early implementation, a set of tier 2 projects for further study, and a tier 3 list that is not recommended for capital funding at this time.

Trustees and staff discussed timing, funding and coordination. In response to a trustee question about schedule, Jeff Jalkowski estimated initial design and permitting could take about a year and suggested a construction pace of roughly one project per year depending on financing and property agreements; staff cautioned that agreements with property owners (for tanks placed on private or institutional land) can lengthen schedules. When asked about funding sources, staff pointed to regular Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) grants and, as a potential state option, Illinois EPA low‑interest revolving loan funds; a staff member noted EPA loans can extend to 30 years but carry additional administrative requirements.

Other recommendations included continuing and expanding technical assistance for private‑property drainage issues, pursuing grant opportunities, coordinating possible capital work with Park District construction schedules where feasible, and initiating a rebate program (likely a cost‑share model) that would prioritize homeowners not located in tier‑1 project areas.

The presentation closed with board discussion about next steps; staff emphasized that the report was informational and that funding and scheduling would be considered as part of future capital planning and budgeting.

Ending: The board had no formal action on the report; staff and the task force will refine project details, pursue funding, and return to the board as capital planning proceeds.