← Back to the list of projects

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

← Back to messages

been there done that

Posted by Frank Burdick on 18 Feb, 2014
Category: Category 2 - about potential recommendations

upon review of the 2001 sso report three important conclusions can be found  
one, is water conserving toilets and other fixures were recommended

two, when considering alternatives to remedy the sso's, those options that did not require access to private property received the highest recommendations of the task force. options outside private propery received the highest marks
the city staff and current consultants often remark that the fdd was selected by the sso city and city council. 

no menition is made of the scoring noted above and that fdds were not highest recommended alternative for all neighborhoods. a current member of our cac and a member of the sso task force has made that point at recent meetings

currently murat with ohm is being paid to provide the hydraulic data indicating the pipe size, capacity, and flow status of the sanitary waste pipe system. a careful review of the 2001 sso report reveals that the city paid for a similar study already... hence ....been there, done that.  the city is asking our cac, consisting of non-experts in this field, to come up with alternatives. i suggest that ohm study, tweek, and present to us the alternatives that were rejected by the sso and the council in 2001.  it seems me that we are dealing with the same flow oringination all trying to flow down the same pipes as 2001.  let's take that study and focus our "altenatives" discussion on that in lieu of re-inventing the wheel.  ohm could apply their sample town analysis as well as any new technology to those alternatives and we could come up with some educated solutions sooner.  then maybe ohm could give the city back some money for their reduced scope of work and we could buy a catch basin or two.

ohm/city staff... can we begin focusing our attention on the previously paid for conclusions?

Comments

Robert Czachorski on 18 Feb, 2014:

Frank,

As we have presented, the flows in the system have changed significantly since the 2001 study as a result of FDD.  It is important to understand how this change has affected the risk of basement backups. The sewer model that Murat is using was developed in 2000/2001 during the previous study, and the use of the previously developed model was already factored into out budgeting for the current study.

Take care,
Robert

Frank Burdick on 18 Feb, 2014:

robert,

regarding your statement, "...the flows in the system have changed significantly since the 2001 study as a result of fdd."

as i have mentioned to you many times in the past, when you make these broad statements attributing the changes in the flows to only the fdds it transmit the appearance of bias supporting the fdd program. the statement would be less bias if it was stated similar to, " ....the flows in the system have changed significantly since the 2001 study as a result of fdd and possibly other city pipe repairs and other non fdd factors." 

as a volunteer cac member, i can be biased against the fdd program and have made no bones about this.  ohm, however can not and should not transmit this bias as continually has since the inception of this cac.  some may say that i am reading too much into this bias perception....my response is maybe these same members may be reading too much into my all caps and bold text.  

Robert Czachorski on 18 Feb, 2014:

Frank,

I stand behind my statement and assert that it is not a bias in favor of the FDD program, but rather based on measurements, data and scientific evaluation. We looked at three (3) independent different sources of data and evaluated that data using five (5) independent, scientific techniques.  All methods and measurements are in very close agreement, and consistent with common industry metrics for flows from footing drains.  

The three (3) independent measurements were:

1.  Flow metering data from 2000 and 2013
2.  Sump pump monitoring performed by CDM
3.  Curb line measurement suggested by you.

The five (5) independent techniques used included:

1.  Scatter plots on the flow data
2.  Control district on the flow data
3.  Continuous hydrologic modeling on the flow data
4.  Scatter plot evaluation of the sump metering data (by CDM)
5.  Flow evaluation of the curb line data

For the evaluations on the 2000 and 2013 flow metering data, we quantified the statistical confidence in the reductions, and they showed statistical significance for most of the districts and methods. I can say with very high certainty that the differences in flows between 2000 and 2013 are the result of FDD, and not from other City repairs, check valves, or other items such as leaf accumulating and roof gutters.  

The City has not performed wide spread programs of flow removal besides FDD, and has stated as such. There is a question in the Q&A log to provide documentation of locations where the City has performed other sewer repairs, and this information is in process and will verify this.

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

This question has been asked and answered several times.  It is time to put further discussion around this item in the technical parking lot, and for the CAC and team to proceed in their evaluation of alternatives with the flow removals from FDD as a given fact. 



Nick Hutchinson on 18 Feb, 2014:

I agree with Robert.  I believe this item is appropriate for the technical parking lot.

Frank Burdick on 18 Feb, 2014:

agree so,.... as noted above:

ohm/city staff... can we begin focusing our attention on the previously paid for conclusions?

Frank Burdick on 19 Feb, 2014:

Regarding the statement: "I agree with Robert.  I believe this item is appropriate for the technical parking lot."

Please see the attached.... the parking lot is getting full........

Robert Czachorski on 19 Feb, 2014:

For the record, the only 2 items that I am aware of that are in the parking lot on your list are #7 & #8.  On #7, Nick and I have placed the flow removal item in the technical parking lot. The City still owes the publication of other sewer improvements (pending), and has stated that the improvements are not widespread.  On #8, the CAC has agreed to consider FDD legal for the purposes of completing the project, unless it is found otherwise during the project. 

As far as I know, all of the other items still have open threads of discussion and exploration.

Charlie Fleetham on 19 Feb, 2014:

Regarding the survey envelope ... we sent it to the Kathy Boris (the requester) on Jan 20.  See attached copy of email and material sent to Kathy. Sorry I didn't send it to everyone.  This takes it out of the parking lot.

Frank Burdick on 19 Feb, 2014:

Regarding the survey envelope... the above response does not seem to address the concerns of the CAC.  That is, it has been stated that some people may have disposed of the envelope containing the survey because it looked like junk mail.  I presume that it did not appear like an official document from the city..

It should be noted that the citizen that attended the 13Feb cac meeting that C. Fleetham attempted to stifle when she tried to ask a question, told me after the meeting that she has an FDD but never recvd a survey.

Please post the original envelope that contained the survey.  

Charlie Fleetham on 19 Feb, 2014:

Frank -  I did attach a copy of an original envelope.

Regarding the claim that I attempted stifle someone at the CAC meeting, all CAC members know that non-CAC members can only participate in the public comment section of a CAC meeting.  I was maintaining that rule. 

Michelle Lovasz on 19 Feb, 2014:

Frank, the lady who was asked to wait until after the CAC meeting to participate did in fact participate after the meeting.  She was talking quite a bit with Greg.

Robert Czachorski on 19 Feb, 2014:

Regarding the survey, the response rate was excellent and provided a suitable sample size to draw meaningful conclusions about the status of the FDD program. I connected with Nick on this item, and he and I are in concurrence that further rehashing of the survey format, envelope, language of the survey questions, etc. is off the table. 

The question asked about the envelop was answers. The survey is done and provided valuable information.  There is nothing to be gained from continued focus on the survey process.  

Charlie Fleetham on 19 Feb, 2014:

I didn't create the public comment rule (the misnamed stifling rule).  Ann Arbor uses the public comment rule to allow committees to do their work without interruption and to allow observers to comment.  This rule is used throughout our nation in thousands and thousands of governments.  On Feb 6, we had public meetings in which public comment is taken throughout the meeting.   I think our public comment process  is useful and support it.  Needless to say, calling it my rule and assigning the "stifling" label casts me in a negative light. 

Frank Burdick on 19 Feb, 2014:

Regarding the statement: The question asked about the envelop was answered. The survey is done and provided valuable information.  There is nothing to be gained from continued focus on the survey process. 

It was not my intent to continue or extend the conversation regarding the survey.  My intent was to display an example of one of many loose ends that had not been addressed.  The City has been notorious for delayed or non-responses, and many loose ends.  The "envelope" example was to display a loose end example under the control of the consultants.

I still think that we should do a doodle pole on the change in the public input process.  It's bad enough that interested parties are excluded from basecamp.... it seems that we could find a compromise to slightly expand the public involvement....  

"If you always do, what always did, you will always get, what you always got"

Judy Hanway on 20 Feb, 2014:

I would like to add that although the "Public Comment Rule" might be part of the norm in Ann Arbor, it appears to be interpreted differently by different groups. For example, if you want to comment before City Council, you must either sign up in advance or wait until the end of the meeting (and have a 3 minute time limit). But I recently attended a meeting of the FDD CAC and although I expected to have to wait until the end to ask questions and speak, myself and the other non-FDD CAC people present were allowed to ask questions and converse with the FDD CAC. 

I think it would be good public relations if we at least acknowledged and thanked the citizen/s who took the time to come to the meeting and express his/her opinion. 

Robert Czachorski on 20 Feb, 2014:

There are over 200 questions in the Q&A log, and over 90% of them have been answered.  Many of them require extensive research and work effort to address. The City meets weekly to review the questions, prioritize and make assignment to perform the research and answers.  I don't think that it is appropriate to characterize this as being notorious for delayed or non-responses, and many loose ends. Doing is so throwing team members under the bus, and not supporting each other, and it is not appropriate. It is not constructive and serves no purpose.  Please stop.  

If there are specific questions that are really important to you to get answered quickly, or with more information, please identify them, and help us understand why, and the entire team will do the best they can to meet that request. This will help the City prioritize the numerous questions and requests for information.

The Upper Mallets study was run by Harry from the County Water Resources Commissioner's office. They followed the format for those meetings required by their organization.  This is a City project, and we are following the format desired by the City, consistent with other City meetings.  Calling this process the "stifling rule" and implying that it is a deliberate action by Charlie to stifle the public is not appropriate. I think you should apologize to Charlie.  

The City and Charlie extended numerous invitations to the public to join the CAC and participate in the process.  In fact, the public is still welcome to join the CAC, provided they agree to abide by the CAC norms and conditions for joining the CAC late (doing the work to catch up, etc). No interested party has been excluded. Allowing interjecting comments from the audience or interrupting the CAC meeting with questions is not productive and is disruptive to the CAC to complete their work. 

Nick and I have been charged with successfully conducting this project, defined as meeting the objectives of the project as reviewed with the CAC and public, completing the scope, and creating a suitable environment for the CAC to receive and review information to make unbiased recommendations that consider all options. The processes and norms we have established are to help us achieve that goal.  When the processes and norms are repeatedly violated or ignored, we risk project failure.  That is why the processes and norms have been and will continue to be followed and enforced. Many of your contributions to the CAC have been valuable and helped explore ideas and alternatives. We would like you to continue to serve on the CAC, and to do so, we need you to follow the norms that the group has agreed to.  

Thanks you.
Robert


Robert Czachorski on 20 Feb, 2014:

Judy - 

I recall that at the end of the FDD CAC meeting, that Mr. Higgins took the floor for 20-30 minutes and went on a tirade where he accused the City of lying about the stated objectives of the project, claiming the he could ready Craig Hupy's mind and knew that he was lying.  This was not appropriate and was a distraction for the meeting.  Perhaps the FDD CAC should be following the meeting processes and norms more rigorously. 

It is a good idea to acknowledge the citizens who take the time to come to the meetings and express their opinions in the appropriate format. Charlie usually does that, and we will especially focus on it.  We can also remind them of the ability to join the CAC, as you did, and the other venues that are planned for public participation and information dissemination, such as the other public meetings being conducted and the City's web page on the SSWWEP.  

Take care,
Robert

Robert Czachorski on 11 Mar, 2014:

FYI - I have deleted a post in this thread by Frank Burdick in reference to the public comment rule and an unnecessary characterization of the use of that rule that violated the norms - throwing Charlie under the bus.

Robert