Frank - please provide data that SSWWE CAC members were told not to pay attention to the 1997 Surface Water Study - meeting, date, email, source, etc.

I've never heard about this1997 study, nor to ignore it.

 Go to the Pittsfield Library to read the (what should be MANDATORY READING)the 2001 SSO Task Force report.   The  1997 Study is sitting on the same shelf.

Regarding Mr Fleetham's question.  Had he been in attendance for the HUPY presentation at the 9JAN14 meeting he would have hear what Bill Higgins states below:

Hutch- Mr. Hupy made those remarks in the recent SSWWE 

Meeting.  You can check the minutes / video.

I had previously brought the ... paper copies of the 1997 and

the 2001 Reports  and displayed them to the CAC because

both reports- at considerable taxpayer expense- contained

maps of pipes and other data*which would be helpful to the

understanding of our infrastructure problems.

At a later Meeting (Mr. Fleetham was not there), Mr. Hupy

stated that we should not pay any attention to the Black and

Veach Report since the industry had  adopted a method of

"not sending the water problem downstream".... This was

the same meeting wherein "you never employ a a single pump

because it will fail; you always use two and possibly three".....

All those attending at that time will remember that because of

the many apparent sump pump failures or relate problems as

discovered in the Survey .        *Surface and Sanitary

We don't benefit by a word war here, but Mr. Fleetham was

not present during  Mr. Hupy's remarks  so HE should do some

homework as well. 

William Higgins

Mr. Fleetham should recall that both the 1997 and the 2001 reports in paper form were presented to the CAC at the end of a meeting, and at the last meeting, the 1997 report was disparaged by Mr. Hupy as "surface water only" and that the industry has now abandoned the methods cited in that report (don't move the problem downstream.) The suggestion was made that the CAC could be informed about the Ann Arbor Sanitary System and it's inter-relationship to the on-going Sanitary studies, by visiting the Pittsfield Branch Library. Mr. Fleetham has his own records in the form of minutes as well as recollections of all who attended that meeting, to verify what took place. W.Higgins

Kathy, 

I did forward your request to the City. Here is the response received today:

[CITY] A: Due to Homeland Security concerns, the City cannot provide maps of the underground public utility systems to the general public.

Kathy, 

I will follow up with the City regarding a public version of the underground utility systems. 

Kathy - we will have maps of the systems for you to study at the CAC meetings for sure - this will be a integral part of reviewing findings and alternatives.  I will leave it to the City to address the question of delivering maps for you to keep.

Frank - Regarding the 1997 study, please recall a couple of the norms:  first seek to understand, and don't throw members of the team under the bus.  The suspicious tone in your messages is that Mr. Hupy and the City are encouraging the CAC to ignore information to try to conceal something - that is not the case. Another norm that would be helpful - please help me and the CAC understand how the point you are making about Mr. Hupy is relevant and applicable to the CAC's objectives (i.e the accusation that he directed the CAC to ignore reports)?  Help me understand - I am not seeing it.

Mr. Hupy was simply trying to provide some commentary and insight into the 1997 report - that methods and philosophies around stormwater have recently changed.  The CAC might want to be aware of that before allotting a large amount of resources to the 1997 study.  Given the limited resources and time available from the CAC, I am sure he meant it as a helpful suggestion, not one of concealment.  The Mallets Creek study and the City's stormwater model calibration project being performed now are probably more applicable references for the Stormwater issues.  I think a very valid suggestion to the CAC would be to be aware of the stormwater issues, as documented in the 1997 study, and the two on-going studies. Unfortunately, I fear that that very good message might get lost because of the tone and accusations in this thread - that's really why we have the norms.

I also think it is important to be reminded that Mr. Higgins is not on the CAC and therefore did not agree to the same norms as the CAC.  He is free to speak out and write messages that say whatever he pleases - he is not held to the same standards as this CAC, which has made a commitment to each other to work as a team. Please keep that in mind when reviewing his messages or reposting his text here.

Take care,

Robert