← Back to the list of projects

City of Ann Arbor SSWWEP - Citizens Advisory Committee Coordination — City of Ann Arbor

← Back to messages

2.84 -C- Why does the current FDD program NOT FUND 100% of the cost for back up systems, check valves, site restoration, etc.?

Posted by Lori Byron on 22 Dec, 2013
Category: Category 2 - about potential recommendations

Frank Burdick’s Log Number: 76
Submitted by: Burdick log
Category (1,2,3): 2
Status: Closed
Estimated date to address: TBD, CAC to prioritize

Q. Per the review of 2001 SSO Report, page L-2 "Final Recommended Program," the following items were recommended to be FUNDED from the Sewage Collection Systems Users Fee: Sump and sump pumps, *Back up systems (both water power or battery) check valves at specific houses, *basement restoration,* Radon gas testing and remediation, exterior discharge piping and *exterior site restoration. The current FDD program requires the homeowner to fund these (*) and other costs involved with the FDD.  Interior and exterior restorations do not fully restore the area back to the initial condition prior to the FDD installation.  Why does the current FDD program NOT FUND 100% of the cost for the items noted with an asterisk (*) above and full restoration of interior and exterior conditions?

A.76. 

Comments

Lori Byron on 13 Feb, 2014:

[CITY]

The program does fund exterior and interior site restoration.  The question of backup systems was answered previously. Regardless of what was determined to be implemented as part of the original FDD program, all of these things can be considered as part of the alternatives analysis for the SWWEP study.

Patricia Marten on 13 Feb, 2014:

I talked with a man (at the public meeting, 2/6) who's home was one of the pilot study homes and for those homes a back up pump was put in, he got a water back up and the water will be paid for also.  Yes, back ups were part of the SSO recommendation, but got cut when plan was put in place.

Jim Osborn on 13 Feb, 2014:

How will the water be paid for? A separate water meter? Why pay for water for the back up but not the electricity?

".. but got cut when plan was put in place." I think that a lot got cut or was never included in the original program.

Joe Conen on 13 Feb, 2014:

You would not need a separate meter. Connect upstream of the meter that is already there.
Joe
Regarding Patricia's comment. I have not read the entire report, however, the recommendation from the initial 2001 report was to include a backup pump. It's unambiguous.

Frank Burdick on 14 Feb, 2014:

This QUESTION is CLOSED.... so based on Lori B.'s presentation last night.... any further questions, revelations, input, or process will not end up helping the group.   Note, that only a few members are receiving this "string." 

The end result of any this conversation will also not make the City Website because this issue is closed.

 Per Lori, she would rather we make more NOISE and create ANOTHER QUESTION.  I don't get it.

Michelle Lovasz on 14 Feb, 2014:

Frank, I might not be "receiving" it, nor responding, but I'm reading it.  It is available.  I think the behavior of the past FDD program is certainly to be considered (so that we might recommend something different) but that's about it.  The minute examination of what WAS done seems to be asking questions outside the scope of this CAC.  It will be a relief when we define, clarify, and limit our objectives.

Jim Osborn on 14 Feb, 2014:

I think that "closed" means that Lori has finish her part. We can still discuss it. Joe made a great comment about hooking up a back up water driven pump water supply up stream of a water meter, for example. I used that idea when talking to councilman Eaton who thought that this type of back up would result in very high water bills. 
I'll go on the record saying that the city, if FDDs are decided upon, should provide backs up for all, including those who had FDDs installed years ago. It is wrong to not do that, as it is to install a cheap, noisy pump.

Peter Houk on 14 Feb, 2014:

Jim--that kind of backup pump can indeed result in high water bills.  If your primary pump fails and the backup runs for a long time, then you would use a lot of water. 

***However***, I still think these pumps can be part of a good backup system.  In my case, I am pretty sure I would be able to hear the difference between the hydraulic backup and my electric sump pump.  But I would also install a water sensor that would beep at me if the main pump had failed.  

Also, I agree with you that FDDs (past and future) should include backups.

  
   

Joe Conen on 15 Feb, 2014:

Assume your sump puts out 4 gpm for a peak hour, averaging 1 gpm over the remaining 23 hours around a large storm. For that day, your sump would pump 1620 gallons, requiring about 3240 gallons of water. This is 433 cubic feet, or 4.33CCF.
At the highest water rate of $4.88/CCF this is $21.13.
Assuming that one also has to pay the associated sewer charge of $3.65/ccf (may not always be true) would add $15.80.
So total 24 hour cost would be about $37 dollars.
If you pump fails while you are out of town for 2 weeks, the exposure is potentially quite a bit higher. Hard to guess, but a factor of 5 might approach worst case, so maybe $200.

If it is metered flow.
Joe