← Back to the list of projects

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

← Back to messages

FDD and Developer Offset Mitigation

Posted by Robert Czachorski on 7 Feb, 2014
Category: No category

There is a discussion occurring in another thread that not everyone is subscribed to that has lead to some important points about the FDD program and the Developer Offset Mitigation (DOM) program that I thought the full CAC should be aware of.  The thread link is below, and I have pasted an important post that I shared clarifying these programs. 

https://ohm.basecamphq.com/projects/11735993-city-of-ann-arbor-sswwep-citizens-advisory-committee-co…

Take care,
Robert

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

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

Comments

Robert Czachorski on 7 Feb, 2014:

I asked Cresson to review the above information, and he confirmed the information and shared the additional information that I am pasting below.

Take care,
Robert

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

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Slotten, Cresson" <CSlotten@a2gov.org>
Subject: RE: [City of Ann Arbor SSWWEP - Citizens Advisory Committee Coordination] FDD and Developer Offset Mitigation
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.

Kathy Boris on 7 Feb, 2014:

I don't understand this:   "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."  

What is the $100 charge per month to those who choose not to participate in the FDD program?   If it is not a "surcharge penalty,"  what is the proper term for the $100/month penalty?

kb

Robert Czachorski on 7 Feb, 2014:

Kathy -

To be clear, I do not think that this is a matter of terminology for the penalty.  It is a matter of two different programs with two different processes and objectives.  

DOM is not mandatory, and residents who refuse *are not* assessed the $100/mo penalty.

The FDD Program is mandatory in the target areas, and residents who refuse to participate are assessed the $100/mo penalty.  This penalty, together with the City paying for the FDD, are incentives used to encourage high participation rate to reduce flows enough to reduce the risk of basement backup in the target FDD areas.

There is a misconception or a myth that has been propagated that the FDD program is being used to benefit developers, by forcing homeowners to construct FDDs to create capacity for developers.  This assertion is not true. Residents who perform FDD as part of the DOM do so voluntarily, without a threat of penalty by the City, through negotiated terms that the homeowner works out with the developer. The developer pays the cost.  

So in summary:  

  • FDD through the DOM is not mandatory, there is no penalty for not participating, the homeowner negotiates with the developer for the payment or incentives to do the FDD, and the these are done to create capacity in the system for new development.
  • FDD through the City's FDD program is mandatory in the target districts, refusal to participate within the target districts results in the $100/mo penalty, the City pays for the cost of the FDD, and these are done to reduce the risk of sanitary backup in basements in areas that experienced these problems.

Frank Burdick on 8 Feb, 2014:

I am sorry Robert.... but this IS NOT how the process is being presented to the Homeowners that  I know of.

As I have stated below there is no communication between the developer and the homeowner.  A home owner does not know where there FDD was applied..... did their permenantly impacted basement help to develop Zaragon Place or 411 Lofts....they don't know... They only know that the GOVERNMENT force them to install a sump pump or get taxed $100 per month.  
Thanks.

Michelle Lovasz on 8 Feb, 2014:

I am not sure who to direct this to. Robert? Nick? You both are
Engineers and this is a City question. I would like to see, on paper, the
form and the communication that was presented to each one of these homes in
these targeted areas, if that is possible. Was there a form? Or did folks
go out door-to-door to present the FDD program and explain the fee if they
did not participate? Thanks.

Frank Pelosi on 8 Feb, 2014:

How are te developers approaching residents to voluntarily disconnect their footing drains?

Jim Osborn on 8 Feb, 2014:

If "the GOVERNMENT force them to install a sump pump", then it is not a voluntary developer program, the DOM described in Robert's first bullet. It is the second. Just because a developer does not negotiate directly with a homeowner, but hires someone else to do so, the result is the same. The homeowner can accept the job on his terms, or say "no" 

It might be a good idea to say "yes" to a developer's deal, as it can be a lot better than what the city could require later on, if we decide to go ahead with FDDs instead of one of the other methods.

Robert Czachorski on 8 Feb, 2014:

Frank,

For mandatory FDDs in the target area there would be no communication between a developer and a homeowner. No developer is involved in that case. The city receives no revenue from developers for the City FDD program in priority areas. As Cresson stated above: “There are no “Mitigation Revenues” received by the City as part of the DOM.”

Frank Burdick on 8 Feb, 2014:

ok then  IT IS NOW TIME TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A FULL TABULATION AND RECONCILIATION OF WHAT HOMES/ADDRESSES WERE APPLIED TO WHAT PROJECT SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE DEVELOPER OFFSET MITIGATION PROGRAM. 

THIS IS CRITICAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE MULTIPLE MIXED MESSAGES COMING FROM ALL PARTIES, INCLUDING OHM, CDM, AND CITY STAFF. 

Robert, if what you say is true, then all of the development in the city since the inception of this DOM program was all accomplished by obtaining FDD credit OUTSIDE of the target areas.

I stand by my initial comment: I am sorry Robert.... but this IS NOT how the process is being presented to the Homeowners that  I know of.
As I have stated below there is no communication between the developer and the homeowner.  A home owner does not know where there FDD was applied..... did their permenantly impacted basement help to develop Zaragon Place or 411 Lofts....they don't know... They only know that the GOVERNMENT force them to install a sump pump or get taxed $100 per month.  
Thanks.

Frank Pelosi on 8 Feb, 2014:

Surcharge is carefully used to avoid the suggestion that this a fine or penalty or tax

Peter Houk on 8 Feb, 2014:

Frank B, I think you said it very well:

"Robert, if what you say is true, then all of the development in the city since the inception of this DOM program was all accomplished by obtaining FDD credit OUTSIDE of the target areas."

And I will add that the credits came from people who voluntarily had the sump pumps installed into their basements.  I suspect that, to you, it sounds like a crazy idea to volunteer.  But people do it!  Here are some of the reasons why they might want to do it:

--Having a sump helps some basement dampness issues (a friend did this recently with good results)
--They don't want water from their footing drains to contribute to sanitary backups in their neighbors' homes and overflows into the Huron River
--They are offered an incentive like a free radon mitigation system (http://www.protechenvironmental.com/radon_michigan_removal/free_mitigation_system.shtml)

Also, I reiterate my opinion that the DOM program is largely outside the scope of our CAC.  The tabulation you are requesting is outside the scope of our CAC.  I suggest that any complaints you have regarding DOM be taken up with your City Council representative outside of the CAC.

Beverly Smith on 8 Feb, 2014:

Peter,
We’ll said.
I don’t see how the DOM has anything to do with the mission of the SSWWE CAC.
The continued focus on issues outside of this CAC’s mission is just ‘noise’ and continues to distract us from focusing on our work.
Those who can’t let this rest should take it up in another venue.
Bev

Sent from my iPad

>

Jim Osborn on 8 Feb, 2014:

Beverly Smith said, "The continued focus on issues outside of this CAC’s mission is just ‘noise’ and continues to distract us from focusing on our work... should take it up in another venue."

I agree with Beverly that some are causing too much distraction from our core task, and bogs us down if we waste time with it.

I think that the DOM ties in with the mission of the CAC. If the FDD sump pumps installed via a DOM are poorly done, people will complain and no one will remember is the FDD was done by the city or a voluntary DOM. Also, developers should not be allowed to do a substandard FDD, with an unsuspecting homeowner trusting them to instead do a better job.

Frank Pelosi on 8 Feb, 2014:

I believe that the DOM should be considered in the context of the intent of the FDD program.

As I read the ordinance, the purpose is to( 1) reduce basement flooding in the homes of the target areas and (2) to reduce discharges to the Huron RIver. If the DOM program exists to reduce discharges, its impact  should be considered  as we explore alternative options for reaching our goals. 

Be it sewage or water, basement flooding is a serious problem for the homeowner that incurs significant expense and a reduction in home value.   A voluntary program may be a better solution for homeowners in the target areas.    Installation of a sump pump appears to help those who have already had sanitary sewer flooding.  For such a resident, it makes sense to voluntarily agree to FDD since the benefits for them outweigh the risks.

SInce the survey suggests that  FDD is associated with an increase in basement water problems in those who had no previous flooding, why would these residents want to agree to installation of  a sump pump?    We should not be required to install a sump pump unless we are willing to accept that risk.  A fine cloaked as a "surcharge" limited to only the targeted areas is nothing more than a coercive measure by the city to compel acquiescence.   

 

Robert Czachorski on 8 Feb, 2014:

I believe that the City's basis for making the FDDs mandatory in the target areas is that a critical mass of homes is needed to make a significant reduction in the flows and reduce the risk of basement backups.  That being said, other communities have achieved high participation rates in their FDD programs through voluntary participation. Auburn Hills and Westland are examples of this. In fact, in both communities, residents were lining up to get the FDD done because those programs had reputations of quality and effectiveness.  There are several factors that contribute to the voluntary response rate of FDD programs, including the quality of the program, the incentives offered to the homeowners, the extent of sanitary sewer backups, and public engagement around the issues with sanitary sewer backups and sewer overflows to surface waters.

I think we have to be careful about drawing the broad conclusions from the survey results, before we conduct the investigation and understand the causes of the problems.  For example, I do not think that we should generally conclude that the FDD is associated with an increase in basement water problems in those who had no previous flooding, just yet.  This could have been caused by something that has nothing to do with FDD such as groundwater or stormwater issues, it could be caused by differences in rainfall or seasonal wetness conditions, and it could be caused by a poor or inadequate installation. There are also several items inherent to an FDD and sump pump installation that could lead to that conclusion, such as pump failure or power failure. Some of these show up in the survey, but not all reports of water issues are caused by this.  It is important that we understand the distribution of causes first, and then draw conclusions.  This will be the focus of the investigation that Greg Marker will perform. 

Take care,
Robert

Frank Pelosi on 8 Feb, 2014:

Robert

I take umbrage with your suggestion that I am applying broad conclusions to a survey whose methodology is less than rigorous.  I said that the survey suggests these findings, not establishes a causal relationship.  You are right about drawing general conclusions from the survey-- I suggest that you also apply that to the positive conclusions that you pointed out in the public meeting.  For homeowners without basement problems, the survey raises more concerns rather than reassurances about the FDD program.

Robert Czachorski on 8 Feb, 2014:

Frank, I appreciate the discussion.  I think it is really helpful to root out what the survey is telling us and what we need to focus on next.  Please accept my apology - I did not mean to single you out in the message.   My intention was to provide a general reminder the entire CAC about what we can and cannot conclude from the survey. You make a very good point about the survey not establishing a causal relationship.  That is what I was trying to say too, although not as concisely and clearly as you were able to.

I do believe that the survey was rigorously conducted. The survey was not intended to provide a causal relationship.  This is not because the methodology was less than rigorous, but because the survey was kept short and simple on purpose to increase its accuracy and participation, in order to draw valid conclusions.

I thought that Charlie did an excellent job outlining both the positive conclusions and the negative conclusions of FDD from the survey at the meeting.  The full survey results and comments were provided to the public, and Charlie highlighted the comment distributions and focused on the issues, as well as the benefits.  The City also committed to follow-up investigations on the most critical issues. There is also an article on the Ann Arbor News this morning highlighting the negative comments extensively, as a result of publishing the complete survey results publicly.  I believe that we are doing our best to present the facts and "bifurcated" conclusions, as we called them several times on Thursday night.

Take care,
Robert

Charlie Fleetham on 8 Feb, 2014:

I think the survey pointed out issues and the City has already started investigating them.  In itself, I believe this is a valuable outcome and I am confident that the OHM team will deliver the requisite data to get a more in depth understanding of what is going on and what solutions are available.

I agree with Frank on one aspect - if I had a basement without any water problems, I would read the survey and have some concerns about getting a sump pump.

On the other hand, if I was having water issues in my basement, 178 people reported water flooding/seepage/dampness in their basement BEFORE FDD and no water flooding/seepage/dampness AFTER FDD.  These results would lead me to consider that a sump pump might solve my problems. And if I was having sanitary backups, the survey data would also lead me to believe that a sump pump could eliminate the problem. 

As a final point, I had a sump pump in my Farmington Hills home.  When we bought the house, the basement baseboard paneling was already water damaged.   During the many years we owned the house, the sump pump failed on occasion - major failure causes included stuck float (cat), sump pump unplugged (kids) and vacation (no back up).  (Power outages were not much of a problem). In seventeen years, we replaced the sump pump once.  I figured out pretty quick not to put stuff on the floor that could be damaged by water, but I did buy a wet vac and had to use it several times.  When I sold the house in '06, the water damage to the baseboard was noted by the purchaser, but there was no discussion about a price decrease.  We sold it for 1.5X the purchase price. The fact that it was water damage vs. sewage damage was the critical point.  PLEASE NOTE: this is my story only!  I am not extending it to anyone else.

Frank Burdick on 8 Feb, 2014:

Regarding Roberts statement above: I believe that the City's basis for making the FDDs mandatory in the target areas is that a critical mass of homes is needed to make a significant reduction in the flows and reduce the risk of basement backups. 

It was a critical mass of Class Action Lawsuits resulting from Sanitary backups that started this whole mess.  Now we have a whole new set of homeowners with basement flooding caused by the FDD program.  The city has trade one Class Action lawsuit for an other lawsuit. Or to put more succinctly.... traded 200 sanitary back up flooded homes for a similar quantity of FDD flooded homes.  ( Rember, C Fleetham said on 6FEB that we could  "just about double" all of the survey results.

Frank Burdick on 8 Feb, 2014:

Regarding the above statement: Also, I reiterate my opinion that the DOM program is largely outside the scope of our CAC.  The tabulation you are requesting is outside the scope of our CAC.  I suggest that any complaints you have regarding DOM be taken up with your City Council representative outside of the CAC.

1. I have and will continue to reach out to many city council reps.
2.The tabulation has a direct correlation to the funding, the process, the specifications, and the contracts with the consultants that manage the FDD program (CDM) and to the severe LACK of communication between the FDDCAC and the SSWWE CAC.  This then impacts the ability to learn, evaluate, and move on.  It is not outside our scope to have all of the data regarding the FDD and DOM program if we are the ONLY current study out of the $2mil + being spent to evaluate sewers. If not us, who? If not now, when?  Read the comments from the survey results, listen the people at the public meeting. Hopefully you heard the one participant from the SSOE Task Force that felt like they were not getting the data that they needed to make their recommendation in 2001.  This can't happen to this SSWWE CAC. This FDD thing has got to stop or be made 100% voluntary!

Frank Pelosi on 8 Feb, 2014:

Robert

A statistician would not need much time to point out the weaknesses in the survey.  First, it was voluntary.  Second, the survey was not powered to estimate statistically valid conclusions. The report does not detail the distribution of responses and whether the  FDD was done on their own or because of the ordinance.

I am sure that everyone worked hard to get this out, but the purpose of this type of survey is identify clues for further study.  

Why can't the city offer a voluntary program of sump pump installation across the entire city?  They may get more residents to agree to installation and reduce flows to the water treatment plant, which I am beginning to believe is the real reason the city is pressing hard to get this done.

Frank Burdick on 8 Feb, 2014:

Regarding the statement, I don’t see how the DOM has anything to do with the mission of the SSWWE CAC.The continued focus on issues outside of this CAC’s mission is just ‘noise’ and continues to distract us from focusing on our work.
Those who can’t let this rest should take it up in another venue.

This is not noise.  Is goes to a key issue.  That issue is CREDIBILITY.  We on this CAC  are ultimately going to be tasked with making a recommendation to Council.  This should only be done based on FULL, ACCURATE, and TIMELY information and data.  To date, the city has failed to provide full or timely information on many issues,  and, unfortunately, we have also received some inaccurate information represented as facts.  Hence, if there is the appearance of a lack of forthrighness or if facts are misrepresented on some issues, how/when can we be assured of the credibilty of any city responses.  Fortunately, we live in a democratic republic where it is OK to question the authorities.  I apologize if my passion and tactics are too abrupt or aggressive however, I feel strongly about this issue and I will continue hold the city and the consultants accountable to the mission at hand as well as the citizens of Ann Arbor.  

Judy Hanway on 8 Feb, 2014:

I also believe our CAC needs to consider the DOM as part of our work.

I agree with Frank Pelosi's statement: As I read the ordinance, the purpose is to( 1) reduce basement flooding in the homes of the target areas and (2) to reduce discharges to the Huron RIver. If the DOM program exists to reduce discharges, its impact  should be considered  as we explore alternative options for reaching our goals. 

Kathy Boris on 9 Feb, 2014:

I want to join Judy in agreeing with Frank Pelosi's statement:  

As I read the ordinance, the purpose is to( 1) reduce basement flooding in the homes of the target areas and (2) to reduce discharges to the Huron RIver. If the DOM program exists to reduce discharges, its impact  should be considered  as we explore alternative options for reaching our goals.

The FDD and the DOM programs seem to have common goals.

kb   

Joe Conen on 9 Feb, 2014:

There is a similar comment associated with the FDD CAC meeting minutes.
I think follow up is warranted.
Joe

https://ohm.basecamphq.com/projects/11735993-city-of-ann-arbor-sswwep-citizens-advisory-committee-co…

“Some of these may be the “developer mitigation” activities that may not be a significant net total reduction (but could be locally significant) and others appear to be something else, like multi-unit facilities. Would it be possible to have a short presentation on what was done in 2013 (and a brief explanation of why the work was performed), where it was done (in terms of OHM’s calibrated results, if possible), any net I&I reductions or local improvements? The point would not be to have anyone defend these disconnects; it would be to provide us with information we could use when developing our recommendations. ”

Joe Conen on 9 Feb, 2014:

So, some aspects of the DOM program matter to us, as follows (at least in
part):

1. The FDD ordinance was suspended in 2012, but, based on my reading of
FDD CAC minutes, DOM FDDs have continued. Locations and numbers of these
disconnect may aid in interpreting results of OHMs report.
2. When we are reviewing those results, we may conclude that additional
FDDs in target areas or other areas are desirable. Using voluntary DOM FDDs
may be sufficient to address this, if we allow and encourage the DOM
contractors to emphasize these areas. (Note that when procuring bids for
our FDD, one of the plumbing contractors indicated our home would not be
eligible for a DOM FDD since we had received a disconnect letter. Does this
make sense going forward?).
3. We may be able to learn how the DOM induced people to volunteer and
build that into a recommendation that involves more FDDs: “A robust,
voluntary, incentivized approach.”

Joe

Jim Osborn on 10 Feb, 2014:

Robert said, "...In fact, in both communities, residents were lining up to get the FDD done because those programs had reputations of quality and effectiveness..."

I would like to learn more about this, since I feel that in the past, the Ann arbor FDD program has had many flaws with respect to how the disconnects were done. I'm also curious if these cities also coordinated a storm drain study with a sanitary sewer study, as a flooded property will produce more footing drainage. In addition, did those cities look at how a home was landscaped? If water drains towards a home, then this contributes to footing discharges and either a lot of rainwater entering the sewer or a sump pump running a lot.

Judy Hanway on 10 Feb, 2014:

I'd like to try to clear up a couple of things that might shed light on the FDDP and the DOM. I have some questions too.

The temporary restraining resolution (which temporarily suspended the FDDP) was issued and voted on by City Council in September 2012. It only stopped the City FDD program in the Morehead and Glen Leven Target areas.  It DID NOT stop the City from proceeding with 90 day letters in Dartmoor (Pinelake and Walden Hills for example) or in Orchard Hills or Bromley (the other 3 Target Areas). Also it DID NOT prevent any homeowner from any of the 5 Target areas from contacting the City and saying they wanted a FDD. And it DID NOT prevent the DOM program from continuing with FDDs.

In February of 2012, I received my "90 day letter" from the City. It was dropped off on my front porch. It is a packet of materials about the FDD program, what is required of the homeowner etc. Also included is a "Footing Drain Disconnect Construction Program Release" which the homeowner is required to sign before funding can be pre-approved and work reimbursed by the City.This release is very confusing as it appears that the homeowner is signing away any rights to complain to the City if anything goes wrong with their FDD.

The DOM program has continued throughout the City. The Developers (via one of the pre-approved City FDD Contractors) can postcard or flyer any neighborhood (except in the Target Areas I believe) advertising that they will provide a "free" disconnect.. I have a copy of a postcard Bidigare (one of the 5 pre-approved city contractors) distributed in summer of 2013. It says homeowners could get a free sump pump and benefit UM student housing at the same time. I believe this is a reference to The Varsity student apartment building.

I DO think it's important for the current CAC to get an answer on where and when these DOM FDDs have been done. The City makes the Developers buy the FDD credits. So I think we should know where they have been used. Are they really offsetting 120% as  Mr. Hupy has said? What if the installed sump pumps never run (as some of the FDDP sump pumps don't seem to)? Then no flow is being mitigated at all. If the City doesn't provide these facts, then we have no idea how much flow is being mitigated. And since there is a real concern about too much sewage flow in the pipes, that should be something we consider in our talks about this program. 

I'm curious to know whether the DOM has paid for the Pinelake and Walden Hills FDDs that have been done recently by CDM or has this been paid for by the City. Pinelake and Walden Hills are in the Dartmoor area.

Robert Czachorski on 10 Feb, 2014:

Jim - we will be sure to include information on the Westland and Auburn Hills programs at the April CAC meeting where enhancements to FDD as an alternative will be discussed. I do not know the details of the stormwater aspects that went with those programs, but I suspect that they did not have major stormwater issues in the areas with FDD.  Greg Marker will be able to speak to items like landscaping and grading adjacent to a house, how this affects the FDD flow and sump pump, and how he addresses these issues during FDD.  In short, I believe that he evaluates these conditions and works with the homeowner to address them, but I will let him speak to that.

Judy - you are asking a lot of good, detailed questions that the City will have to address on the DOM program. I will look to Lori to add to the Q&A log for the City to address.  I like the thoughts I am seeing so far about which aspects of the DOM are relevant to the scope of this CAC.  Understanding how the DOM FDDs impact the system flows and how they impact customer satisfaction with FDDs in general both seem like relevant items.  

Take care,
Robert

Greg Marker on 10 Feb, 2014:

Jim - The landscaping and grading adjacent the house was evaluated and discussed with the homeowner during the initial property evaluation (that evaluated and documented the work associated with a disconnection at that home) with regard to any negative slopes around the property that steered surface run off toward the building and subsequently its foundation.  Our logging revealed that although these negative slopes contribute toward a given property's sump pump running more often, a bigger item contributing to a given properties rate of sump discharge was whether the home tapped into a porous underground layer of soils that allowed the footing to dewater more than other adjacent houses.  Whether a given house tapped a porous layer was not know till the disconnection was performed and the sump logged.  The grading around the house can be seen easily, however it doesn't always correlate to increased footing drain activity. 

We did not perform grading operations to divert downspouts or repair negative slopes, however we did discuss these areas with the homeowner and let them know that these items would contribute toward the sump running more often during and after wet weather events, and that if they were repaired, there was the possibility that the frequency of the sump pump operation could be reduced.  Some homeowners would work with the Contractor to get these items repaired as part of the other work.  In those instances, we only monitored the work plan and work to ensure the Contractor was not planning on being paid through the Contract for that work, and there was a clear agreement with the homeowner that appeared to be beneficial for both parties.  This additional work was not often done, however it did happen.

Judy Hanway on 11 Feb, 2014:

Greg--your description above sounds as if you worked with CDM here in Ann Arbor. Is that the case or are you describing work you did on FDDs in other places?

Also--your comment about "porous underground layer of soils" is very interesting. Especially as Washtenaw County and the City of Ann Arbor are just wrapping up the Upper Malletts Creek Study which has revealed many underground streams that run through the Morehead and Glen Leven areas. The Study has recommended a series of retention ponds be built in this area but Jennifer Lawson of the City Water Department stated at the last meeting that there wasn't money to do this work. That is something else that should be considered as we ponder what we might do. Because it is clear from the Upper Malletts Study that there is a heck of a lot of water in this area and I'm pretty sure that water is finding it's way into the sanitary sewers.

Lori Byron on 11 Feb, 2014:

Judy,

Just to clarify, when Greg mentioned specifics about grading and what he
discussed with homeowners, he was referring to his work on FDD programs in
Westland and Auburn Hills (and perhaps other communities.) He did not work
with CDM on the Ann Arbor project.

Nick Hutchinson on 11 Feb, 2014:

In response to Judy's comment: 
"I'm curious to know whether the DOM has paid for the Pinelake and Walden Hills FDDs that have been done recently by CDM or has this been paid for by the City. Pinelake and Walden Hills are in the Dartmoor area."

Pinelake and Walden Hills were done by the City's program, not DOM.

Frank Burdick on 13 Feb, 2014:

We need the complete inventory list showing the homes completed under each program,  asap.