← Back to the list of projects

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

← Back to messages

Accommodating Growth

Posted by Michelle Lovasz on 20 Feb, 2014
Category: No category

At the Brainstorming at Panera, Robert showed that, alone,  the projected population growth of Ann Arbor is not significant in terms of what pipage would be needed over the next several decades. 

I just would like to put it out there that while that may be dependable information, I still feel compelled to acknowledge the growth of Ann Arbor and thus the increasing need for pipage accommodation.  While it may not be our own census-counted, taxpaying population, the dynamic of growth for our City is undeniable.  Just to name a few:  places like the Stadium, the Cube, Main Street, and the University in all its complexity all make Ann Arbor a destination for "visitors" who will be flushing and running water.  While the City will experience the economic benefit of this "destination" status, there seems also a responsibility for accommodating it.

Comments

Robert Czachorski on 20 Feb, 2014:

Thanks for sharing, Michelle.  I thought I would provide the reference that we looked at to the rest of the group.  It was the SEMCOG projections made for Ann Arbor.  The City may have their own populations projections from their own land use plan that might be different.  For the SEMCOG projections, it shows population growth of less than 10% in 30 years.  Here is the link:

http://www.semcog.org/Data/Apps/comprof/people.cfm?cpid=4005

Take care,
Robert

Joe Conen on 21 Feb, 2014:

I don't think we should ignore growth, but I feel there is a higher level of obligation to to prevent sanitary backups and overflow from the current commitments of the system. When approaching growth in sanitary demand that is not part of the current commitments of the system, I would offer the following:
  • How much is it worth impacting current homeowners with hypothetical or indefinite growth?
  • Can this growth be accommodated by future efforts just as  (or more) effectively as things we do now?
  • In a sense, if we force FDD to support growth, we are transferring value from the current homeowner to a future development. Should that be mandatory or a voluntary "sale" of that value, like the DOM?
Joe

Michelle Lovasz on 21 Feb, 2014:

Well, Joe, what I'm after with an acknowledgement of growth is that I want to take it into account as we consider the systems.  We might recommend a, b, or c to address individual or small-groupings of sanitary backups, but that expense might be undertaken in addressing this, only to have (pick a number) five years from now to have to implement something system-wide anyways.  In other words, dollars spent now should acknowledge and feed into what might possibly be needed down the road.

I think we, as a CAC, should acknowledge that FDD is supporting growth at the expense of individual residences, or small groups of areas when in fact it should be a City-wide expense.

Joe Conen on 22 Feb, 2014:

Michelle, I am 100 per cent with you there. Franks posting of the ordinance that UM "bought" FDD credits for its stadium expansion highlights this exact issue for me. While the details are left to inference, it appears that the stadium expansion has been (will be - are the FDDs done?) supported by mandatory disconnects. This does not sound fair to me.
Joe