City of Ann Arbor SSWWEP - Citizens Advisory Committee Coordination

Comments

Frank Burdick on 18 Jan, 2014:

I sincerely hope that all CAC members and team will read these comments. and maybe then, they might start to get a clue as to why I have been so vocal in my opposition to the FDD program as is it currently designed and implemented. In addition, I think it should required that all CAC members attend the Public Meeting to hear the concerns (both for and against) the FDD program. If the CAC is tasked with making a recommendation to City Council, it simply can not be done fairly without hearing from the citizens. In addition, many CAC members do not live in the Targeted areas so it unlikely that they have heard the horror stories from their neighbors.

Judy Hanway on 18 Jan, 2014:

I agree with Frank. I have met and talked with many neighbors (mostly in the "Morehead" area) since 2010, when this area experienced a huge flood. I have heard many of these "sad stories", but reading all of these additional comments was heart-breaking. I urge all of the CAC members to take the time to read these comments and to plan on attending the Public Meeting on February 6.

Charlie Fleetham on 18 Jan, 2014:

Glad that survey is getting read ... as I have said, I think the data will be very useful to the CAC as it forms its go forward recommendations. That said, I think the CAC members already had a foundation of understanding regarding FDD. The survey data will only strengthen it.

I do not support requiring CAC members to attend the public meeting; however, I hope that a large number do attend. CAC members are volunteers - not employees and it seems to me a simple request is sufficient. Furthermore, the public meeting date was not selected with CAC member input.

Kathy Boris on 18 Jan, 2014:

One comment mentioned that the survey mailing gave no indication of what the envelope contained, that the survey could have looked like junk mail to some of those who received it. Please bring a few samples of the survey mailing to the next CAC meeting. If possible, please bring a few surveys that were returned by the post office as undeliverable.

Frank Burdick on 19 Jan, 2014:

Charlie states: "I do not support requiring CAC members to attend the public meeting; however, I hope that a large number do attend."

I will just repeat my comment and encourgage the CAC members to attend the public meeting.

Jim Osborn on 20 Jan, 2014:

I showed up at Clague Middle School on Thursday at 6:30 and no one was there. I did not receive an E-mail or phone call cancelling it.

Nice.

Frank Burdick on 20 Jan, 2014:

Charlie, I am unclear as to what you are looking for from us in your statement above that reads, "We want to gather your input/requests before finalizing and distributing."

The Comments from the Survey are no surprise to those who oppose the FDD program. This was the case with the first survey performed by the city. The comment section has always been descriptively damaging to the program. In addition, a review of the other related Studies and their websites, also exposes the extreme dissatisfaction with the FDD program.

Regarding question 5 from the survey. Data indicates 69.81% of the respondents are satisfied with the "installation." There is a substantial difference between overall satisfaction with the installation process versus the overall satisfaction with the FDD program or sump pump in a respondents home. Hence how many respondents who have submitted negative comments ALSO indicated that they were "ok" or satisfied, with just the installation process? This same comparison could be made to questin 6, ".... would you recommend a sump pump to you neighbor.

Charlie Fleetham on 20 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Jim's comment on notification of the Clague Middle School cancellation. I sent out emails to all addresses that I had on Friday, January 10 at about 4:30 pm - see copy below. It obviously didn't make it to you, Jim. Sorry!

Greetings CAC Members,

We received an excellent suggestion from Judy Hanway to invite all of the survey respondents to the January 16th Public Meeting to hear about the survey results. The SSWWE project team discussed the idea this afternoon and decided to do it; however, we can’t effectively contact all of the survey respondents prior to the 16th. We have about 500 emails, but we would need to send post cards to the rest of the folks (300+). They wouldn’t get the post cards until Tuesday or Wednesday, and we don’t think we would get the participation all of us desire. Plus, we feel many folks would be turned off by a late invitation.

Therefore, we are pushing the public meeting to Thursday, Feb 6th at a site to be determined. Prior to the meeting, we will invite all of the survey respondents. We apologize for any inconvenience this decision may have caused you as you may have contacted folks in your network about the 16th.

We will be scheduling a CAC meeting shortly, and I look forward to getting your feedback on the public meeting agenda.

Also – I wanted you all to know that Judy Hanway has volunteered to participate on the CAC, thus she is receiving this email as a CAC member. I believe she will add value to our efforts! Thanks for all of your energy and support and have a great weekend!

Charlie Fleetham

CAC Facilitator

Charlie Fleetham on 20 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Frank's comment on the survey:

1) The question about sump pump installation was submitted by Frank in a draft survey. We added the neighbor recommendation question to get a read on how people felt about having a sump pump operating in their home. As the variation in the responses indicate, people are differentiating installation from operation.

2) What am I looking for from the CAC on survey review? Conclusions that we have not drawn out of the data - like Frank's question - how many people who made negative comments would recommend it to a neighbor? We will try to extract that figure. We might have to make some assumptions about people who had an installation/O&M/water issues; though I would assume that people with negative perceptions would not recommend it to a neighbor.

Also - if you see an typo's or math mistakes or confusing charts, I would like to know so we can edit.

Thanks.

Frank Burdick on 20 Jan, 2014:

Hopefully OHM and you will work with C. Hupy and determine the locations
of all check valves / backflow preventors and correlate those with:
a. the former sanitary flooding locaitions
b. survey respondents addresses.

I regret that we did not include that question on the survey. That is what
happens when we don’t have enough engineers and experts in the field to
assemble the survey format.

Charlie Fleetham on 20 Jan, 2014:

Regarding check valve installations, Nick, Robert and I discussed this issue on Friday and the City will be providing the check valve installation sites and we will correlate with the survey as possible.

Charlie Fleetham on 20 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Frank Burdick's comment on how many people with issues also recommended a sump pump to a neighbor:

1. 240 respondents provided comments on Q19 (end of survey comment question) that we classified in the 1,2,3 of 4 issue category (see p. 10 of report).

2. 44 or 18% of those respondents would recommend a sump pump installation to a neighbor.

Note - this analysis doesn't include the comments for Q14 (see p.7 of report).

Frank Pelosi on 20 Jan, 2014:

The reports has some interesting findings. This is my back-of-the envelope analysis of the report, so if someone out there has more statistical acumen than me, I appreciate their thoughts.

Regarding the sanitary sewer data, 136 of 844 residents had sanitary sewer back ups before FDD--16%. If 9% had sanitary sewer back ups after FDD, that means that 75 residents had back ups after the intervention. That means that approx 39 of 708 residents that had no sanitary flooding before FDD now have sanitary sewer flooding. Therefore, with an absolute reduction of 7% in basement flooding across all residents, 14 basements would need to have FDD to prevent one basement from flooding from sanitary sewer drainage. If you already have a basement that floods, this will be a benefit. If your basement does not flood, you have a 1 in 20 risk of increased flooding after FDD.

If one looks at water flooding data, this shows that 20% had basement water before FDD and 17% had flooding after FDD. This means that about 35 residents would need to have FDD to prevent one basement from flooding. Because of the obvious overlaps in reporting, it would not be valid to include the seepage and moisture data for this analysis. The definitions of seepage and moisture are too ambiguous to clearly analyze that data.

Interestingly, approximately 20% of residents WITHOUT prior basement water flooding/seepage/ moisture before FDD now have these problems. This means that benefits of reduced water flooding are significantly mitigated by increased flooding/seepage/ moisture in homes that otherwise never had a problem.

A cost analysis is needed to to determine a cost effectiveness of this program, but I believe that the data reflects the common sense that most residents already know: If you already have sanitary sewer backups prior to FDD, it makes sense to install sump pump, but if you do not have back ups, it does not.

Charlie Fleetham on 20 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Frank P. comments on survey - we will include the # of respondents who did not have sanitary backs before FDD but had them after FDD in the next revision. Thanks.

Jim Osborn on 20 Jan, 2014:

This does not mention if people who do not have any sewer backups are uphill from those who do. They could be placing a lot of water into the sanitary sewer, and still have no ill effects, while a neighbor downhill has the opposite experience.

This problem is a collective one, ie filling up the sewer pipe, not an individual problem such as a clogged bathroom drain.

Frank Pelosi on 20 Jan, 2014:

where is the data on recommending the pump to a neighbor and how was the question worded? I did not see that in the report.

Charlie Fleetham on 20 Jan, 2014:

For neighbor question - See Q4 on P.3: "I would recommend a sump pump installation to a neighbor."

Frank Pelosi on 20 Jan, 2014:

thanks

Frank Burdick on 21 Jan, 2014:

I suggest that too much emphasis is being placed on the numbered data. READ THE COMMENTS. One commenter even said....., in so many words, "please listen to my feedback and do NOT just place my story in the statistical data bank!"

We are here to serve the Citizens and not just manipulate numbers and graphs.

Thanks.

Charlie Fleetham on 21 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Frank Burdick's comment - "We are here to serve the Citizens and not just manipulate numbers and graphs," One definition of manipulation is "Shrewd or devious management, especially for one's own advantage." If this is the implication in this comment, I take offense to it - for the CAC, the project team, and any citizen in Ann Arbor who wants to work with the data. Analyzing the data, finding different conclusions from the data, forming a new hypothesis about the data is not manipulation. And working with the data does not imply that a CAC member is not serving the Citizens of Ann Arbor.

Frank Burdick on 21 Jan, 2014:

Regarding the above statement, "too much emphasis is being placed on the numbered data. READ THE COMMENTS." Read one negative comment and pause, read another, and then start to wonder, read them all.... including the postive ones, and you still have to conclude that there is something fundamentally flawed with this FDD program. More than one negative comment should cause this same reaction. Consider also how many disgusted FDD homeowners were too upset with the costs and floods in their homes to even want to respond to the Survey.... during the HOLIDAYS, to boot. Consider how many FDD homeowners likely did not even consider filling it out because they thought it was junk mail as previously noted above, and threw it out....oops, I mean recycled it!

Charlie Fleetham on 21 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Frank's comments to "consider how many FDD homeowners likely didn't not even consider filling it (the FDD Survey) out ..." -

1) Postcards were sent out a week before notifying all FDD homeowners that a survey was coming.

2) Typical municipal survey response rate is 20 to 40% - at 36% the FDD response rate was higher than average.

3) Our goal was to achieve a statistically significant sample and that goal was achieved.

4) As to the holiday period, the CAC was well aware that the holidays were coming and as far as I know, no objections were raised to administering the survey in the holiday period.

5) Although the number of complaints about throwing away the survey due to lack of external labeling were small (less than 5 out of 859), if I had to do it over again, I would stamp the outside with "FDD Survey" inside and clearly note on post card that the survey would be coming from Project Innovations.

6) We entered any survey received after the holiday period - about 40.

Kathy Boris on 21 Jan, 2014:

Maybe the numerical data and the comments have equal importance. No offense meant to anyone.

Frank Burdick on 21 Jan, 2014:

Regarding the statement "Although the number of complaints about throwing away the survey due to lack of external labeling were small (less than 5 out of 859)" how do you know how many people actually threw them away. Ie: 2000+ sent out, 859 people returned a survey. Over a 1000 did not respond. Why not? Junk mail interpretation, too busy during the holidays, too exasperated with mandated program and costs incurred to date.... Maybe they just didn't pay attention to the mail ...kids threw away the post cards, dog ate the mail... Maybe if the local Press was notified with an aggressive reach-out to M-Live / Ann Arbor.com, Ann Arbor Chronicle, Heritage Newspapers, etc, etc as was discussed and written in the roll out of the survey and supported by the somewhat a non-descript press release from the City....we would have heard from more responders with both positive and negative comments. It appears to me that once the numbers reached a certain data point, that that was more important than hearing from actual citizens. My attempts to gain the attention of the A2 News during the roll out of the survey fell on deaf ears. A professional reach out by OHM, Project Innovations, and the City would likely have produced much better results.

Frank Burdick on 21 Jan, 2014:

Speaking of local press coverage, please take the time to read the article from the Ann Arbor Chronicle from this week at the attached link:

http://annarborchronicle.com/2014/01/19/backups-lawyers-sewers-pumps/

This is thorough representation of the FDD program, and many other related issues. It also is thorough recap of the 9Jan14 CAC Meeting. The journalist was present for that meeting.

Judy Hanway on 22 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Question 3 (overall satisfaction) on the current Draft: in retrospect, this question isn't specific enough as it doesn't differentiate between installation and operation. Perhaps there could be a footnote added.

The numbers and percentages are the quantitative data and the comments are the qualitative data. Both are equally important. I would ask that the full report (including comments) be made available to the public on the SSWWE website before the February 6 meeting, as well as have hard copies available at the meeting itself.

Beverly Smith on 22 Jan, 2014:

I think we need more information from homeowners who:
1. Had no sanitary sewer backup prior to FDD, but have problems now. Can the engineers explain why this would happen?
2. Had no seepage or dampness prior to FDD, but do now. Where is the water coming from? Can the engineers explain why this would happen?
3. Many comments about the installation work, physical placement of the pump, lack of adequate backup system and lack of city response to concerns. Suggest we mark this as an area for investigation and follow up.

Sent from my iPad

Frank Burdick on 22 Jan, 2014:

The City staff, past consultants, and current consultants most often use a typical or average flow per sump pump in lieu of obtaining actual data on a per-home discharge. Flow rates as high as 10 gallons per minute 24 hours/7 days per week, (or 3 to 5 gallons per minute) have been used to validate other studies, to settle State Consent Agreements, to apply for Federal Funds, or to size future storm water impoundments. Keeping in mind the use of averaging / applying this data to ALL homes, please consider these calculations. Per question #12 total restoration costs for Storm water flooding for 158 homes: $456 000 or $2886.08 avg per home. Question 13 states other non restornation FDD costs of $545,353 for 346 homes or an average cost of $1,570.38 per home. Add both of these averages: $2,886.08 + $1,570.38 =$4,456.45 average cost per home for restoration and upgrades x 2700 homes with FDDS = $12, 032, 442.97 FDD costs. Then add the $10,000 fee per FDD that a developer must pay for each FDD. It is assumed that this fee pays the costs for CDM, all city paid costs to the contractors, and other unknown costs. Take the $10,000 x 2700 FDDs = $27,000,000. city paid costs + homeowner paid costs noted above $12,032,442.97 = $39,032, 443 total costs to date for 2700 FDDs. Questions: 1. Based on a cost of $39 million, is the FDD program still the lowest cost option? 2. How much storage capacity or larger sanitary pipes could have been built for $39 million? 3. What will the total cost be for all FDDs throught the city? Does using these average costs and applying it over 2700 homes seem ridiculous and unreasonable? If so, then why have the consultants and city staff been allowed to apply some random average flow rate to all homes to reach the desired outcome of their studies?

Frank Burdick on 22 Jan, 2014:

Judy is 100% correct. The survey results must be made available to the Publc, well in advance of the Public Meeting.

Charlie Fleetham on 22 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Beverly Smith's comment on survey follow-up, the City has initiated this effort. Starting with the Q19, 1,3, and 5 categories, we are classifying surveys for house inspections, phone call follow ups, and written follow ups. We hope to furnish the information to the City COB tomorrow.

Regarding the request to put the survey on line for the public prior to Feb 6, we plan to do this early next week.

Frank Burdick on 22 Jan, 2014:

Regarding the request to put the survey on line for the public prior to Feb 6, we plan to do this early next week.

This is encouraging news. Let's hope it actually happens.

Robert Czachorski on 22 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Frank's comment on the cost evaluation of alternatives: a cost-based evaluation of alternatives will certainly be performed and will be one component that the CAC may want to consider in evaluating alternatives (amongst others).

A few caveats on the specifics of the cost evaluation in Frank's message:

We must first understand that status of the existing system and what problems are desired to be solved before we can evaluate alternatives. The risk assessment and hydraulic capacity analysis will do this.
It is not clear what caused the stormwater flooding or even sanitary back-up in basements in the survey comments, so it is not clear that it is appropriate to add these restoration costs to the FDD program alternative. As Charlie stated, the City is preparing a plan to investigate these in more detail.
There may be additional costs that are appropriate to include, such as a suitable backup system. The City and the CAC are both aware and considering this item. There may be others. These may come from recommendation from the CAC stemming from the further investigating of the survey comments with water in the basement.

I think it is also important to note that we have not been applying a random flow rate to all homes. The initial flow rate estimate was developed by CDM from the results of a pilot FDD study using data collected by sump pump monitors. In the current study, we have evaluated the flow removals using three different sources of data: the on-going sump pump monitoring, the pre- and post-FDD flow metering data and the curb line flow measurement. These results show the flow removals by district, and most of the values are consistent with the initial estimates. (The large exception is the Glen Leven district). These results were presented to the CAC on December 12 and can be found in the presentation posted here:

http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/systems_planning/waterresources/sanitary-sewer-projec…

Take care,

Robert

Joe Conen on 23 Jan, 2014:

Several comments:

First, I have no suggested changes or corrections for the survey report.
Regarding Robert's comment, "We must first understand that status of the existing system and what problems are desired to be solved before we can evaluate alternatives. The risk assessment and hydraulic capacity analysis will do this." I agree and do not believe it will be productive to dive too deeply into alternatives until we know where problems are, might be, and are not. It is not out of the question that a combination of solutions might be recommended.
Regarding Frank's discussion of the costs, the important thing I take from this is that we need to consider "external" costs (e.g. costs and risks transferred to individual home owners, for one) when evaluating alternatives. The survey comment section provides a sobering reminder of how uneven the impact can be.

Joe Conen on 23 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Robert's comment, "It is not clear what caused the stormwater flooding...", I partially disagree. Many of the survey comments specified pump failures, power failures (disabling the pump), and level control failures that resulted in water in someones basement. Beyond the comments, I am aware of a specific example in our neighborhood where the failure of a level switch resulted in flooding on a dry summer day. While it will be important to followup and gain additional details, especially for suspected sanitary backup, we need to keep sight of the fact that sump pump installation can and does lead to water intrusion events.

Robert Czachorski on 23 Jan, 2014:

Great discussion going here. I thought I would comment on a few items.

Joe - I did not mean for my comment to be dismissive of the survey responses that made it clear of the specific water issues that were experienced. I did want to point out that it would not yet be appropriate to add all of the restoration costs to the costs of the FDD program, when it is not yet clear that all of the restoration costs were caused by the FDD program.

I would entirely support the CAC in the desire to examine "external" costs in evaluating alternatives, as you have outlined. We just have to make sure that any external costs considered are indeed appropriately assigned to the FDD alternative. For example, if it were found that a lot of the water in basement was caused by something like inadequate drainage on the property or a clogged service lead, damage from those conditions is not appropriately assigned to the cost of an FDD alternative. However, items such as risks from power outage, battery back-ups, sump pump burn out, and sump pump maintenance may be. The term we use for these items in engineering is "life cycle cost". The City is currently preparing a plan to further investigate the occurrences of the water issues identified in the survey and to understand their causes and potential corrections. This should be very valuable for identifying these external costs and recommendations going forward, if an FDD alternative is evaluated.

I think it is great to begin discussions on the parameters of the alternative evaluation now. I also concur that we should not dive too deeply into specifics until the risk assessment and capacity evaluation are ready. These will tell us what problems need solving, if any. We are performing these evaluations now, and expect this information to be ready in April, as scheduled.

Take care,

Robert

Frank Burdick on 24 Jan, 2014:

Two points from Frank Burdick:

1. Regarding Mr. Fleethams comment; .Regarding the request to put the survey on line for the public prior to Feb 6, we plan to do this early next week.

a. Did the survey info get furnished to the City COB on Thursday as indicated?

b. I think that it is very important that the survey results be sent, formally, to the FDD CAC, and City staff managing that program, and CDM. They need to read the comments and data. At present, from my vantage point, that FDD CAC is ignoring ALL inquires from the SSWWE CAC.

2. Regarding Robert's comment, " However, items such as risks from power outage, battery back-ups, sump pump burn out, and sump pump maintenance may be. The term we use for these items in engineering is "life cycle cost".

I submitted the "gravity back up" design at the August CAC meeting as a compromise solution. It has been summarily rejected by the city code officials with no consideration for compromise. It seems to me that the City could apply for a variance from the State Code to allow this design. It can be accurately stated that flooding caused by failed sump pumps or recycled water from the air gap causes "health and safety concerns" for the homeowner. A. Ilias indicated on 9Jan that current Contruction Codes can be retro-actively enforced for health and safety concerns. Why can't an interpretation of current codes be considered for compomise for similar health and safety concerns? A. Ilias comments regarding the health and safety impact of storm water v/s sanitary water were without merit. Water of all types can damage personal property and creates black mold in inaccessble stud cavities, below flooring, or other areas. This is a health and safety issue and a COMPROMISE CODE INTERPRETATION is appropriate at this time especially for homes built and code approved prior to 1982. A hallmark of the city position was previously stated that "all solutions would be on the table...................." Except this one!

Charlie Fleetham on 24 Jan, 2014:

Regarding Frank Burdick's question about furnishing survey data to the City - yes, the data base was furnished yesterday as planned.

Patricia Marten on 24 Jan, 2014:

I was reviewing info on the city’s site and found the “five year survey” results.
Thought it would be interesting to compare the results to the recent one.
Esp, this part.

Questions 3 and 4: Did your home experience water in the basement
before/after the disconnection?
Before After Change
No water in basement 48.9% 52.6%  3.7% increase
Yes: clear water 25.5% 35.8%  10.3% increase
Yes: wastewater 10.6% 7.4%  3.2% decrease
Yes: not sure which kind of water 6.4% 4.2%  2.2% decrease
I don’t know 8.5% 0%  8.5% decrease

http://www.a2fdd.com/survey/FDD%205-yr%20survey%20results%20final.pdf

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:41 PM, Frank Burdick <notifications@ohm.basecamphq.com> wrote:

Judy Hanway on 24 Jan, 2014:

In August 2012, a professional statistician (who lived in one of the Target areas) looked at the 5 year survey that was done by the previous FDD Study Group and his opinion was that it was not a valid survey because so few people had responded (13%). It's good that we have a better response rate this time.

Michelle Lovasz on 29 Jan, 2014:

To Frank Burdick's comment: "and you still have to conclude that there is something fundamentally flawed with this FDD program."

Not a foregone conclusion. Even with difficulties or imperfections with the FDD program, that does not rule it out as a potential solution to the water issues that this area is experiencing. At this point, if nothing else, it might be clear that the FDD alone is not going to solve the water issues.

Jim Osborn on 29 Jan, 2014:

I came to this group with an open mind, which I still have. I am forming some opinions, but nothing enough to decide that one method is better than another. We still have data to examine and stuff to read. And, questions to ask and have answered.

I would hope that all of us also have an open mind, as a jury should, and have arrived here with one's mind already made up.

Peter Houk on 29 Jan, 2014:

Well said, Jim.

Frank Burdick on 30 Jan, 2014:

We are not a jury. We are not tasked with Jury duties. Our function is to provide a report to Council that they can choose to ignore. We need to consider the results of this 12 fdd program and then represent our neighbors. Convince your neighbors of your position, and encourage them to contact council. Hence:

READ THE COMMENTS." Read one negative comment and pause, read another, and then start to wonder, read them all....

FDDs should NOT be mandatory. Those who refuse them should not be TAXED Those that want them should be able to "sell" the permanent invasion to their private property basement TO the highest bidding developer that needs the "voodoo-math-generated-mitigation-credit." Then, all FDDS should come with a masssive and highly informative WARNING LABEL BOOK complete with MSDS sheet "type" descriptions of the health and safety hazards that accompany the radon window, and stagnant water containing suimp pit. The second chapter of the Warning Label could start with some text right from the comments from the survey. The next chapter can desribe the risks of actual flooding and then the black mold impact. Local Real Estate appraisers should be consulted for the 4rd chapter on Real Estate Disclosure Forms and loss of value to homes due to FDD created flooding. More chapters to come......

Fix the problem in the right of way, were the solutions are legal. and install check valves at the problem areas homes. I have a few more more postive solutions to share if and when the CAC ever starts to focus on alternatives and are willing to listen.

Beverly Smith on 30 Jan, 2014:

Frank,
I find your comment ’...when the CAC ever starts to focus on alternatives and are wiling to listen’ both puzzling and insulting. Your constant badgering, bullying behavior on email, Base Camp and at the meetings is single handedly distracting this committee from focusing on the work we are charged to do.
I will no longer read any post you make to email or Base Camp.
I hope that you will do some self reflection and come to understand that the behavior you are exhibiting is disrespectful and childish. You are doing nothing to represent the citizens of Ann Arbor and your neighborhood.
Beverly Smith

Sent from my iPad

Jim Osborn on 30 Jan, 2014:

Oops, I said, "I would hope that all of us also have an open mind, as a jury should, and have arrived here with one's mind already made up"

I should have said, "I would hope that all of us also have an open mind, as a jury should, and have NOT arrived here with one's mind already made up."

Although Peter knew what I meant, I'd hate to have this mistake read later in a newspaper, saying ""I would hope that all of us...have arrived here with one's mind already made up"

I think that this is why the vote was overwhelming to keep basecamp private.

Jim Osborn on 30 Jan, 2014:

Frank Burdick said, "We are not a jury. We are not tasked with Jury duties. Our function is to provide a report to Council that they can choose to ignore. We need to consider the results of this 12 fdd program and then represent our neighbors. Convince your neighbors of your position, and encourage them to contact council."

This means that he feels that it is fine if some people come to the CAC with their mind already made up and not examine, yes examine all methods of solving this problem and then make a recommendation.

While we should act as an impartial jury, some are acting more like a witness for either the plaintiff or the defendant. This is why attorneys are given a chance to "adjust" the jury so they have an impartial one at the start of a trial.

I'll repeat it again, we are to act like an impartial jury and examine ALL of the evidence prior to reaching a decision. The city council did not go to all of this expense to have facts ignored and hear a biased opinion

Frank Burdick on 30 Jan, 2014:

you and i need to have a cup of coffee or a beer sometime...

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

DRAFT FDD Survey Report

Comments