This question is has been on my log for over 2 months.  In my opinion, this type of question should be answered within a few days of the initial inquiry, unless some entity is being advised not to respond or to conceal information.  I am open to hear what other reasonable explanation there is, for a simple question, such as this, to be ignored or concealed, for over 2 months?

The following is the same question as it is entered in my Questions Log.  I will say it again, keeping the questions in a log rather than burying them in BaseCamp helps us all keep track of the open or pending entries as well as the extended duration that the City takes to eventually respond.

60 Was the installation of the horizontal bored storm sewer lines recently installed along the curbs in target areas (for the purpose of connecting subsequent FDDs) paid for by Federal Stimulus grant funding?

11/19/2013

FYI, this question is raised as it relates to the overall costs of the FDD program.  Refer to my previous post where the Survey Respondents provided a summary of costs to fix what the FDD caused in their homes.  I am interested to know the actual cost of the FDD per location.  If the Developer pays $10,000 per FDD credit and a the City (via CDM,) pays approximately $4,100 per home.... where does the remaining money go?    I assume that it DOES NOT go to pay for new horizontal curb line IF this line was funded from Federal Stimulus money.

The answer provided by the CITY, was No, it was not paid for by Federal Stimulus grant funding. 

I will submit your question about actual costs of FDD per location to the City for response. 

I don't understand why we can't get complete answers. 

1. Who at the City provided this response?

2. IF the horizontal curb line was not funded by Federal Stimulus money, then HOW was/is it funded?

I would like the City to provide to the CAC the data from the State Revolving Fund application from 2010 as it relates to Federal Funding.  

For those who consider this "noise" or a distraction,   I would request that you understand that the pending  response from the City goes to the "credibility" factor for the latest City response (above) as well as other non-attributed City responses that L. Byron has provided or written to date on all Question Log issues.

This is "noise", and I'm glad that its originator has labeled it as such. It has nothing to do with the "credibility" of the city, its staff, or OHM and the CAC. It is noise. We are not tasked with storm drains and especially if part of a project that is outside of our scope is paid for by the federal government or not.

Earlier this was posted, "...This question is has been on my log for over 2 months.  In my opinion, this type of question should be answered within a few days of the initial inquiry, unless some entity is being advised not to respond or to conceal information.  I am open to hear what other reasonable explanation there is,..."

This is a "reasonable explanation":

I'm a taxpayer, and I do not like paying a larger property tax than necessary. Therefore, I do not desire for the city to have a standing army of people to be at someone's beck and call, and to jump at every "noise" request such as log 60. Placing it at a low priority does not harm the credibility of the city but instead shows that it is not wasting resources.

The city also budgeted a certain amount and planned for a certain scope of work when writing the proposal for the CAC study. They have a certain amount of time in a day, and "noise" is of low priority, a cat 3 "other city projects", and is at the bottom of the pile. If we keep adding more, it will get buried even deeper.

Our task is to find the best solution within cost constraints, and whether the City of Ann Arbor or the Federal government pays is outside of our parameters. So is the building of storm drains, For that, someone should contact that CAC, which is separate.  Frivolous "noise" detracts from our goal and does not serve the rest of us well.

Some questions asked by this originator have been very good and have helped us towards our goal. This one is not.

Regarding the statement: We are not tasked with storm drains and especially if part of a project that is outside of our scope is paid for by the federal government or not.

Perhaps the author of this statement should become more familiar with the discharge line that accepts the discharge from each sump pump. This is NOT just a "storm drain." This line is germane to the FDDP as well is the cost of the FDDP program IF we are to recommend it's continuation.  Perhaps if this line was funded by Federal $, could we still continue the FDDP IF there was no longer funding available?  

Tracking #14, acknowledge and response log

Unfortunately, this study has boundaries, and storm drains are outside of it. We all need to abide by the rules, or boundaries, or we will never finish our assigned task, and anarchy prevails. I wish that this were not so, as I think that the two topics complement each other. A better thing to say is that FDDs are dependent upon the storm drain system. If rainwater is taken out of a sanitary sewer, then it either is drained away via a storm drain, or it remains on the property to slowly saturate the soil, sometimes leading to basement issues.

I would like easy-to-find and use links to this other study.

The city is not beholden to the feds, so it can continue, or not, based upon what it feels is the best option or choice. Even if the feds were to give Ann Arbor funding, we still should choose the best option. Funding of storm drains IS way out of bounds. So is how much is spent on public art.

Tracking #505, responses log

Once again, Mr. Osborn is confusing storm drains, with the new curb drain that is installed for the sole purpose of the sump pump discharges.

Lori, can you please add Robert C. and Charlie F. to this string. I no longer want to keep repeating myself.

As to the validity of considering the horizontal discharge line installed in the sidewalk extension that then drains into the storm water sewer as part of our discussion, this horizontal line is what many of the FDDs are connected to. So it is part of the current FDD program. There have been many issues with it not working as it was supposed to. One of my neighbors had his sump pump connected to this curbside line and no matter how hard his pump worked, the water could not exit his sump, the water backed up into the sump pit, and his basement flooded. Repeatedly. 2.5 - 3 feet worth of water. The City and CDM checked to see that his pump had enough power (it did).  I think he actually installed 2 pumps in the one sump pit. The homeowner believed that there was too much stormwater in the curbside line for it to accept his sump pump flow. The City and CDM could not come up with a reason for this problem.

Robert and Charlie, 

Frank has requested that you be included on this discussion thread. 

The original question concerned funding, and this CAC has not been tasked with considering funding sources directly as part of its duties.  Certainly project costs of an alternative might be something this CAC wants to consider as one of its many potential community values, but I don't thing the funding source is relevant.  The City staff will worry about funding once the CAC has made a recommendation.

The curb drain obviously is the hand-off point between the FDD discharge and the storm sewer.  If we thought that insufficient design or installation of the curb drain itself was contributing to the issues, then it might be applicable.  But I do not think that is the case.  The issues with sump pumps not discharging properly is mostly likely an issue with the storm sewer system and not the curb line itself. So I do not think the curb line is relevant, but the storm system capacity may be. All this being said, I believe that if the storm system backs up and causes issues with the sump discharge, that is very relevant. 

I can image a very simple recommendation that this CAC might want to consider as part of the April meeting with the topic of: "If FDD were to continue, what changes are needed" - that the storm system is investigated prior to conducting FDD to ensure that it has adequate capacity to handle the sump pump discharges. To me, this is the logical overlap and boundary of this project and the stormwater model calibration project.  Is everyone commenting comfortable with that focus, rather than the focus on the curb drain?

Regarding, "To me, this is the logical overlap and boundary of this project and the stormwater model calibration project.  Is everyone commenting comfortable with that focus, rather than the focus on the curb drain?"

I am 100% opposed to that line of thinking and focus.  The curb line is installed soley for the sump pumps. Without a PROPERLY SIZED and installed curb line, the sump pumps won't work. This is the REASON FOR THE AIR GAP modification to the poorly designed sump discharges. Not focusing on the FDD CURB LINE is like not focusing on the gas tank when the car doesn't work.  I am totally shocked at Roberts line of thinking and I will be writing him "off" Basecamp to convey my severe disappointment.  WE NEED ENGINEERS on this CAC that can challenge the data being provided by the City and CDM.  Up to now,  I WAS counting on Robert and OHM to fullfill that role.  

Please refer to the questions log for many the many pertinent questions regarding the curb line.  For example:

77 OHM has indicated that the October 31,2013, flow test performed on the horizontal bored curb line included 5 total FDD homes. It has also been stated that the location of many existing catch basins is such that only a limited number of homes (5,6,7,8) are connected to the new curb line before being discharged into the nearest catch basin. On Winsted Blvd, there is only one catch basin to handle the entire cul de sac. There are 10 to 12 homes per each side of the street. Will the capacity of the new horizontal bored curb line be adequate to accept the simultaneous flow from 10 to 12 FDD sump pumps? 12/11/2013 78 As related to question 77 above,  What is the impact to the flow of the horizontal curb line IF the catch basin is totally surcharged from storm surface water flowing   into it from along the curbs? Note, this total surcharging DID occur during the March 2012 event, and it is also "substantially"   full during most heavy storm events. 12/11/2013

Frank -  as you know, we will be discussing behavior norms on Thursday.  I think your email above violates one of proposed norms:  The discussion of issues, ideas, and direction will not bring about a personal attack and return to haunt someone in the future.   

To me, it's fine to be 100% opposed to "that line of thinking and focus," but to write him off BaseCamp is a personal attack and is not team oriented. Robert has repeatedly responded patiently to your questions over these many months.  Please retract your statement.  Thanks.

I've widened this thread out to subscribe the full CAC because I think this is a critical issue.  Please click the link and read the full thread for the background.

----------------------

I think it is a reasonable suggestion that the focus should be on the capacity of the storm sewer system to accept flow from the FDD program.  We have no evidence that there are issues with the curb line drain, but there is potentially a lot of evidence of issues with the storm system capacity.

It is fairly straightforward to size a curb drain pipe to handle the flow from the FDDs that connect to it.  But if the receiving storm sewer system for that curb drain has inadequate capacity, it does not matter how big you make the curb drain.  That is why I believe that the focus should be on the storm system.  Ensuring adequate outlet capacity from an FDD in the receiving system, is an very appropriate focus for the SSWWEP.  I am simply suggesting from what I have seen, that too much focus on the curb drains could detract on the underlying and more likely causes of some of the issues - the stormwater conveyance system.

--------------------

As Charlie said, we will be discussing on Thursday's CAC meeting the norms and processes that we follow for conducing this study and for the CAC to arrive at recommendations.  There are several potential modes of failure that this CAC could fall into that would make the resulting process ineffective, such as: a) dismissing too much information into the parking lot and making a decision based on inadequate information, b) being overwhelmed with information and focusing on tangent issues that are not central to making a decision.  I think that there is a far greater risk right now of item b.  This CAC has limited resources and time to spend on this project and recommendation, and there are a lot of non-central issues in the Q&A log.  My suggestion on Thursday will be to focus on the central issues involved, to avoid failure mode b.  The stormwater conveyance system is one area where I would make such a suggestion, after the City provides an answer to the questions that have been posed about the curb drain, if it shows what I suspect (that the curb drains have been adequately designed). 

I desire a better explanation about "curb line" sizing. What if a group of homes produces a lot more water at a peak period than the norm? Is this pipe, the "curb line" still sized sufficiently? I suspect that the "curb line" may fill up in some areas, but it may be from the storm drain that it connects to being overloaded and therefore there is no place for its water to go, backing up the "curb line"

I have done scores of auto repairs, including rebuilding an engine. Cars may not work when a tire is flat, a radiator is leaking, a water pump bearing has failed, a clutch is worn out, or a battery is dead, all having nothing to do with the gas tank. Likewise, it is quite possible that a FDD curb line is not worth focusing our limited time on. I'd like to hear a more detailed explanation from Robert, and then hopefully move on.

This short video link shows part of what I believe Frank is talking about. I have seen it done for electrical and fiber optic, but not sewer pipes.

I found it interesting.

Frank - regarding my assumption that you violated a proposed norm with the statement of "writing him off BaseCamp", I now see your statement was literal - i.e. you then did write Robert through email, (off BaseCamp). I thought you mean that you weren't going to communicate with him anymore on BaseCamp.   I apologize for my misinterpretation.

Charlie

Ok, now that we have come "full circle," can the City provide the answer to this question: What were the Federal Funds that were received in 2010, 2012 via the State Revolving Fund application actually used for as it relates to the FDD program per the application?  For those who don't understand the relevency of this, and consider this "noise".... please keep in mind that this response requires NO EFFORT from the paid consultants on this SSWWE effort.  It, like, many, of the questions, only requires a brief and timely response from the City.  It is only a distraction to our mission, if adds to the list of unanswered questions.  Robert and Charlie don't need to be distractred by these types of questions.  Lori just needs to provide an attributed response.  Thanks.

I'd like a separation of pertinent questions and those that are not as time is not limitless.

[CITY]

2010???

While SRF plans are not completed every year, there was also a plan done in 2011 and 2013. I think we posted the 2010 Plan because someone specifically asked for it.

Please keep in mind, that these are plans for lists of projects related to stormwater, not sanitary sewer, and as such are really only peripherally relevant to this project.

Nick, I understand stormwater is peripheral to sanitary sewer, except that the very nature of our CAC examination of wet weather events necessitates our examination of storm as it impacts sanitary.  Increasing storm sewer capacity in some situations relieves the sanitary sewer problems.

I was only trying to put into perspective what the SRF Plan is, that's all. It isn't a city-wide comprehensive stormwater plan - it is specific to individual project locations.  I guess that was my main point.

Frank's question was