If that is the case then, what other "options" are included for the use of Offset Mitigation Program revenues? Can the City provide examples where these funds were used for other "options" in lieu of FDD's?

The Offset Mitigation Program does not specify or require footing drain disconnections as the only option for peak flow mitigation. Developers have the option to propose other forms of mitigation, which require review and approval of the City (and the MDEQ in some cases). Developers must implement these measures, as opposed to making a payment to the City.

Who provided this comment?  Name and date

Regarding the above response: "Developers have the option to propose other forms of mitigation,.."  This was not the question.  For example if an alternative to FDDS or other type of mitigation is for a larger pipe in a neighborhood that is remote from the proposed development, a. Why can't Mitigation Revenues be used for that purpose.  and b. Why should developers have to propose this?  The City should establish a prioritized list of projects where this funding could be applied. Does the City have a prioritized list?

In addition, C. Hupy stated at the 9JAN13 meeting that other uses of the funds have occured.  What are the details of that use of funds?

Excellent discussion-- thanks Frank.

Getting everyone to explore the use of alternative options, is really what's needed.

(since this question is marked as "closed", will it still be forwarded to get answered?  Or do we need to re-load it, as a new question?)

As far as I am  concerned, NO question is "closed" until I am satisfied with the response.  I think the CAC should take some time at each meeting to review all questions and clasify them as closed, pending, or open.

again.....

I see three questions here which answers are going to be informative.

1.  Can Mitigation Revenues be used for alternative options?

2.  What is the City's position on fielding these alternatives? 

3.  What have been other uses of those funds?

In other words, there is this water problem, which has been ongoing, and growing, and the City has inevitably taken steps along the way of development.  These steps become informative of the City's unfolding position on the water problem.  Developers become familiar with what the City has and has not approved, and tailor their proposals into that familiarity.  A pattern develops, and an ad-hoc framework is built.

A discussion of this is relevant.  It reflects a dynamic already in play.

Frank says, "As far as I am  concerned, NO question is "closed" until I am satisfied with the response."

I disagree. Questions can be closed when a majority of us feel that it is closed and we want to move on. Not by one individual. We cannot get tied down by any one topic.

I took the word "closed" to mean that it was answered by the city or consultants, and they do not need to get any more answers. This does not mean that the question or topic is closed to our discussion. When most of us stop discussing a question, or ignore it, then it is effectively CLOSED.

 

This Q. asking for examples has been logged in a month ago, are there any answers yet?  Maybe posted somewhere else, that I'm missing? Thanks

wrong

"In addition, C. Hupy stated at the 9JAN13 meeting that other uses of the funds have occured. What are the details of that use of funds?"

This is a separate question, and an answer will be interesting.

I think it is important to keep in mind that Developer Offset Mitigation (DOM) and the FDD program are two different programs with two different objectives. I am not the expert at the City's DOM program, but I will do my best to compare how things work between the two programs here.  The City is in the process of preparing more information about the DOM, and we will share it when it is ready.  I will also make sure that the City sees this thread so that the can address questions and verify that my description below is accurate.

The FDD Program was implemented to reduce the risk of sanitary backups during peak wet weather events. To be effective at accomplishing this goal, the FDD must be performed in focused areas to remove a significant amount of stormwater from the sanitary sewer in the areas experiencing frequency basement backup.  For that reason, the program included a large incentive to perform FDD, both in terms of the City covering the costs, as well as a surcharge penalty for those who do not perform the FDD. The FDD program is within the scope of this study and the scope of the CAC, only is no much as it may be an alternative that the CAC wishes to consider when we get to the alternatives phase of the project. Understanding the issues with the current FDD program and what changes might be needed, is relevant to evaluating it as an alternative, and is the main topic of our April CAC meeting. City Council suspended the FDD program, pending the outcome from this study. 

The DOM program was implemented to require developers to create capacity in the sanitary sewer system for the new base flows that they will be discharging to the sanitary sewer, by removing a commensurate amount of flow from the sewer system (the requirement is actually to remove 120% of the development flow, to provide a 20% cushion).  While it is mandatory for developers to remove flow to build new development, the method of flow removal or locations is not specified - the developer is free to explore other options of flow mitigation. If a developer selects FDD, the resulting FDD is not mandated by the City on the residents. It is a voluntary program for the residents to participate in to do FDD under the DOM.  The developer must find volunteers and negotiate with them and offer their own incentives to perform the FDD.  There is no surcharge penalty applied if a resident does not agree to a DOM FDD.  The DOM program is not within the scope of this study or the CAC, other than if information can help learn about the pros and cons of FDD or how to improve the FDD program.  City Council did not suspend the DOM and the program is continuing, as driven by development needs.

It appears to me that most of the questions being asked about the DOM are not within the scope of SSWWEP.  For questions about the DOM that remain, please help us understand how the question is relevant to the focus of the SSWEP and the CACs recommendations - assessing the risk of basement backup and alternatives to address that risk.  This will help us better understand the question and its relevance so that we can accurately address it.

Take care,

Robert

Sharing the information from Cresson in this thread for the record.

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

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Slotten, Cresson" <CSlotten@a2gov.org>

Date: February 7, 2014 at 1:44:26 PM EST

To: "Czachorski, Robert" <robert.czachorski@ohm-advisors.com>

Cc: "Hutchinson, Nicholas" <NHutchinson@a2gov.org>, "Charles (Charlie) Fleetham" <charlie@projectinnovations.com>

You’ve got it Robert.  Nicely done.

 

The one simple (I think) thing that I would add for ultimate clarification is the statement:

 

There are no “Mitigation Revenues” received by the City as part of the DOM.    

 

The city does not get any funds from developers that can be utilized for any alternatives, thus truly being an item outside of the scope of the SSWWE as far as looking at alternatives.  The only “thing” the City receives from the DOM (other than permit fee revenue which goes to the Community Services Area, f.k.a. the Building Department) is the flow removal/reduction.