← Back to the list of projects

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

← Back to messages

Univ of Michigan is funding most of the FDD program, CDM, and, now $10,040 per FDD is documented.

Posted by Frank Burdick on 17 Feb, 2014
Category: Category 3 - other City projects


The purpose of this question is fourfold.
1. To provide the data and facts surrounding the umich/fdd program payment.

2. To document the $10,040 reimbursment paid to the city for each fdd credit.

3. To identify the source of funding for some of the current fdd program so that our cac can know how the fdd program can continue to be funded if we end up recommending the continuation of the fddp. (Ie, who will be the source to pay for next round of mandatory fdds if UMICH does not fund this?

4. To provide data and facts to clarify the information that is being posted on basecamp and stated in Public by C. Slotta and other city staff.

1. We have been told in a previous response  that the city does not receive funds from developers, with the one exception for the UMich football statium.  Please review the attached city resolution # 10-11400.

As noted in the attached resolution,  the City was paid by the University of Michigan over $1.4 million in 2011 for the new work at the UMich football stadium for the purpose of FDDS.  In addition, the stated amount of $10,040 per FDD Credit is identified.   This substantial payment appears to be the primary funding source to pay CDM, and presumably the City approved Contractors for the FDD program.

2. C. Slotta has stated on Basecamp, at public meetings, and at the Technical Meeting on 12Feb that:
a. The City does not receive direct funding for the fdd credits
b. That the $10,000 amount per fdd credit is not a documented or actual fixed amount.  At the Techinical Meeting that I attended he indicated that $10k was the approx amount developers are tellling the city that each fdd is costing the developers.  

Neither of these 2 response seem to be in agreement with the language on the attached Resolution. Hence, for me, it makes me question the credibility of any or all  responses coming from the city.

I would ask the cac to review this document and make their own assesment of this and all forthcoming responses from the city.

In addition, I would think that if we were to recommend that the fdd program was to continue, we should request an accounting of how the UMICH funds were utilized, how much is remaining, and the remaining contract status of cdm.  This is a budget inquiry to understand how the fdd program (past, present, and future) is to be funded.

Comments

Michelle Lovasz on 17 Feb, 2014:

Frank, the CAC cannot possibly be responsible for documenting nor following the documentation of the UM Football Stadium funding of FDDs.  Nor do we seem to be responsible for following the language and follow-through of the Council and the City's budget sheets.  This seems to be past history that might have significance for some if they want to go through it, but that level of minutiae in looking at past practices seems would interfere with what our stated purpose is - recommending a path for going forward.  That task seems it would be for some other body.

It might be that after the football stadium, the City headed toward the Developer Offset Mitigation program to avoid over-involvement in the process.  We might keep this in mind to recommend that the City keep its involvement in some capacity, going forward.

Your statement that "it makes me question the credibility of any or all  responses coming from the city" invites me and each CAC member to question that credibility ourselves, and that seems to be beyond our capacity as members of this particular CAC.  At the most, in this CAC, it seems we would be able to recommend that some citizens' complaints regarding their FDD involvement should be addressed, and their experience should inform the process going forward.  Greg will be feeding in on that concern as his participation develops.

Perhaps we might break this out as a different topic altogether, since it seems to require so much attention to its own detail, but since it seems to be beyond the scope of this CAC, again, it seems it would be a task for some other body.

We've already been cleared of deciding the legalities of the FDD program.  I was not able to attend that meeting, but my understanding is that we are to proceed as if it is legal.

Joe Conen on 18 Feb, 2014:

I think this is informative. I am not taking this as a sign of anything about answers in general. But I am curious about what "FDD credits" are.
How does this translate into reducing sanitary peak flow, or at least not increasing it?
One of my concerns is whether this implied expansion of demand on the sanitary system will be offset by mandatory disconnects under the city program, rather than voluntary  developer disconnects.
This leads to the idea that the mandatory FDDs will be used to make room for future development.
Joe

Judy Hanway on 20 Feb, 2014:

I share Joe's concerns that  future development in Ann Arbor and some of the townships may lead to mandatory FDDs. I'm not sure that this hasn't already occurred--ie, when the Stadium was expanded and the University paid for 140 FDDs ($1,405,600), were any of these FDDs done in the Target Areas? If not, where were they done? 

It's especially troubling if some of these FDDs have caused flooding problems for the homeowners. 

Kathy Boris on 20 Feb, 2014:

This takes us back to Frank's request for a map showing all the FDD's that have been done.  kb

Peter Houk on 22 Feb, 2014:

I agree with Joe as well.  Development should not fund mandatory FDD.  If that has happened in the past, it should be stopped.

Lori Byron on 12 Mar, 2014:

Joe asked: But I am curious about what "FDD credits" are. How does this translate into reducing sanitary peak flow, or at least not increasing it?

[CITY] 
A.  The goal of the mandatory FDD program is to reduce the risk of potential basement backups in certain areas in the city where homes have experienced past backups.  The developer offset mitigation is in place so that new flows generated by developments do not exacerbate or negatively impact the system during wet weather events.  Staff has working on completing an FAQ regarding the City’s mandatory FDD program vs developer offset mitigation program. A draft of this document is attached.
         

Judy asked: When the Stadium was expanded and the University paid for 140 FDDs ($1,405,600), were any of these FDDs done in the Target Areas? If not, where were they done? 

[CITY]

A. The FDDs performed were upstream of the Michigan Stadium, which happened to include the Glen Leven area.