The purpose of this message/question is two fold:

1. To satisfy the request made by C. Fleetham on 30Jan2104  ( see below)

2. To remind the CAC Members that we have "parked" the Legality of the FDD program in the parking lot.  We've been told to continue with our work on the presumption that the FDDP is legal.  

I think is important to not lose sight of the legal issues as we eventually start to move forward to any final recommendations.

I also think that it is important for all the CAC to see the results of my requests to "Correct the Record" from the 9JAN Legal presentation.  

Please review the attached file in "word" format.  

The following is an excerpt from the LAISEY case.  When you read the words "Shaker Heights," please insert "Ann Arbor."

LAISY v. CITY OF SHAKER HTS. Since 1916, legislation has reflected a desire to separate storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems in the city of Shaker Heights. In 1949, the Director of Public Service was authorized to abate any condition in which the systems were combined. The 1976 ordinance repeated the idea of independent sewer lines. Plaintiffs' house was built in 1927. Plaintiffs purchased the home in 1977, and committed themselves to correct any violations pointed out to them. Not until flooding problems came to the attention of plaintiffs and defendant in 1981 did the city try to require costly correction. The plaintiffs had the right to rely on the fact that plumbing permits were issued in 1927 for their home. Furthermore, it was reasonable for them to feel secure when no point-of-sale violations were noted in 1977. The plaintiffs had the right reasonably to rely upon the city's tacit representations that all was well with their house and its appurtenances. They will suffer significant damage now if they are charged for the repairs necessary to comply with the ordinance. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant is estopped from enforcing Shaker Heights Ordinance No. 76-66 against the plaintiffs, and that the city of Shaker Heights cannot retroactively and unlawfully apply said ordinance to plaintiffs' property by requiring that certain of their house's storm lines be disconnected from the city's sanitary sewer and reconnected to the city's storm sewer.

Regarding the above statement...."And it goes without saying that any decision we make needs to be consistent with state and city laws."

How about federal law decided by the Supreme Court?  The City attorney did not convince me that the FDD is legal.  Ask Mr. Fleetham to send you the Laisey Case that only 2 of us on the CAC have received from the City Attorney (as far as I know.).  That will be up to courts to decide, very soon.  Hence, that is why we must focus all efforts on alternatives while we still can.  The litigation is in progress and it will ultimately impact the work of this CAC as it relates to FDDS.  Let's focus on alternatives, now, please.

Frank -  regarding "litigation in progress,"  are your referring to a current suit or an upcoming one? 

Thanks.