← Back to the list of projects

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

← Back to messages

Mandatory FDD - Consensus?

Posted by Michelle Lovasz on 22 Feb, 2014
Category: No category

I smell a consensus.  Is there anyone among us who is open to recommending, going forward, a program involving mandatory FDDs? 

Michelle Lovasz, for one, is NOT.  This is based only on what I have learned thus far.  If someone is, I would appreciate any arguments FOR because I just cannot see them.

Having said that, and assuming as I have that very few (if any) would be in favor of this recommendation, I have to ask Charlie this:  in the scope of our role as a CAC is it possible to make any recommendation about those who have already experienced a mandatory FDD?

Comments

Frank Burdick on 23 Feb, 2014:

Here is another oldie from me...

i am dead serious that any continuation of the fdd program should come with a warning label.

____________________________________________________________________________

fdds should not be mandatory.  Those who refuse them should not be taxed  Those that want them should be able to "sell" the permanent invasion to their private property basement to the highest bidding developer that needs the "mitigation-credit" for their development.
 
 Then, all FDDS should come with a masssive and highly informative "WARNING LABEL BOOK" complete with MSDS sheet "type" descriptions of the health and safety hazards that accompany intallation.  

The second chapter of the Warning Label Book could start with some text right from the comments from the survey.   There could even be some pre-approved phone contact numbers of citizens who would be willing to make recommendations on the program to the new prospects.  This list of willing homeowners could include both pro and con representatives.

The next chapter could refer them to the links to the appropriate city websites.

The next chapter can desribe the risks of actual flooding and then the black mold impact.

 Local Real Estate appraisers should be consulted for the 4rd chapter on Real Estate Disclosure Forms and loss of value to homes due to FDD created flooding.   More chapters to come......  

Peter Houk on 23 Feb, 2014:

I do not agree that we should exclude mandatory FDD as a possible recommendation.  In that sense we do not have a consensus. 

The current mandatory FDD program as implemented should not be continued.  It would require some big modifications before I recommended its continuation.  Some good ideas for modifications have come out of this group--the floor drain proposal, for example. 

Also, to Michelle's question about whether we can make recommendations for those who have already received FDD, I would say the answer is definitely "yes".  OHM and Greg Marker are already doing that with their house-to-house visits of questionnaire respondents.  

 

 

Joe Conen on 23 Feb, 2014:

Recall that at the January CAC meeting, Craig Hupy asked if any of us would be interested in in helping design a remedy or remedies for homes that already had FDD. I did not think it was the right time (I wanted to wait until we were closer to our recommendation), but I think the door is definitely open for us to make a recommendation for those homes, although it may be outside the defined scope of our CAC (I don't foresee this as a problem).
I am between Peter and Michelle on mandatory FDD. I am very reluctant to see mandatory FDDs continue. Even if OHM's results show that FDDs would be valuable in reducing the sanitary backup risk, I am hopeful that a voluntary ("robust voluntary, incentivized") approach would be sufficient. I am interested in fully exploring alternatives other than mandatory  FDDs with homeowner sumps and pumps. I am not ready to actively consider mandatory FDD at this time.
Joe

Robert Czachorski on 23 Feb, 2014:

I would see no problems with the CAC making recommendations for a remedy for past FDDs.  Peter is right, this has already started with the work Greg is doing. It also fits in nicely with the broad objectives for the CAC that Frank Pelosi suggested at one of the technical break out sessions:  address sanitary sewer overflows to the river, basement backups from the sanitary sewer system, and water issues in the basement after FDD.

Michelle Lovasz on 23 Feb, 2014:

In "If Nothing Stood in the Way" I acknowledged a wish to totally separate sewer/sanitary.  At this point that looks a lot like FDD removal at the source.  I just don't want it to be mandatory.  I also liked an idea that pooped into Robert's mind while we were brainstorming-- using gravity at the residence and pumps periodically (1 pump per x# of houses, or flow, or distance). 

Peter Houk on 23 Feb, 2014:

Michelle--can you flesh out your idea for a non-mandatory source removal?  What would be a good enough incentive to make you want to do FDD?

Joe Conen on 23 Feb, 2014:

Peter,
The DOM program manages to find volunteers. We could try to tap their experience.
Separately, I can think of a number of ways to incentivize this. We can talk Thursday.
By the way, I am somewhat optimistic (by nature?) that "success" will not require 18000 more FDDs. If the number is small enough, we have more options.
Joe

Frank Burdick on 23 Feb, 2014:

Why does  no one want to talk about real source removal?

Michelle Lovasz on 23 Feb, 2014:

No more mandatory FDD’s as it has been done.

Michelle Lovasz on 23 Feb, 2014:

mn

Michelle Lovasz on 23 Feb, 2014:

mn

Peter Houk on 23 Feb, 2014:

Michelle--is there an incentive that would make you want an FDD?

Frank Burdick on 23 Feb, 2014:

i suspect that someone who has a sump pump pit with an open bottom that is potentially constantly pumping water table water out to the storm system would be an incentive to have a sump pump.  It may even be an incentive to agree to an FDD installation if one could know prior to the disconnect that ones home was discharging so much footing drain water into the sanitary system.   perhaps the city could investigate homes whose pumps runs very often and determine some prime candidates for remediation.

Michelle Lovasz on 23 Feb, 2014:

I own an FDD. Or are you meaning can I think of an incentive that I can
relate to that would be adequate/acceptable/attractive to any homeowner?

Michelle Lovasz on 23 Feb, 2014:

Robert, was someone else going to run rough-guess numbers on that system that was dreamed up at the Monday Panera brainstorm? 

And is there someone in the City who could help give us DOM numbers?  It may cost a developer about $10,000 per residence, but how many volunteer FDDs is a developer required to find?  One or two?  Three or four?  In other words, what is the total cost to the developer?

Robert Czachorski on 23 Feb, 2014:

Michelle - I was going to ask Greg to put something more formal together.  On the DOM, the City is preparing that information as part of the other questions being asked about DOM, I believe. 

Peter Houk on 23 Feb, 2014:

"are you meaning can I think of an incentive that I can
relate to that would be adequate/acceptable/attractive to any homeowner?"

Yes.  If you still had your gravity system, what would convince you to get an FDD?

Frank Burdick on 23 Feb, 2014:

regarding the comment above, "And is there someone in the City who could help give us DOM numbers?  It may cost a developer about $10,000 per residence, but how many volunteer FDDs is a developer required to find?  One or two?  Three or four?  In other words, what is the total cost to the developer?"

This has been defined in a few other basecamp postings and are buried somewhere within.  I will try to find it and post that again for Michelle.  In the meantime.. maybe you can get a better understanding by reviewing the attached document for the UofM Graduate Dorm- Munger.

Michelle Lovasz on 24 Feb, 2014:

Robert, the idea that wanted that info was to compare it to the (made up) cost of one of those "substations" that we made up at Panera.  What if the DOM did not involve individual volunteers who had been "convinced" or "incentivized" to participate but instead a solution that involved modifying how the City managed the water for the area.

Robert Czachorski on 24 Feb, 2014:

Michelle - Greg and I are working on it.

Take care,
Robert

Mark Wagner on 25 Feb, 2014:

I can no longer see recommending mandatory FDDs in their present form after looking over the hardships the city has forced on individual homeowners.

One could imagine that the city is responsible for the whole mess. When the subdivisions were approved in the 1960s' and 1970s' the city was aware that the sanitary sewer flow would include the flow from footing drains. Why did the city not require the developers to size the sanitary sewer pipes accordingly when the subdivisions were constructed?

Now the city is forcing what is a system wide problem on the back of the individual homeowner.  We should be looking at a solution outside of an individual's basement.

The CAC committee's final report should include any lawsuit against the mandatory FDD program by the lawsuit's name.  This is to show the Ann Arbor citizens dissatisfaction with the  current mandatory FDD program.

Frank Burdick on 25 Feb, 2014:

roger that!

Judy Hanway on 25 Feb, 2014:

I can't say it better than Mark has! Somewhere, on another thread, I expressed my feelings about the FDDP so I don't want to repeat it here, but I am (and have been) opposed to mandatory FDDs on private property.

Robert Czachorski on 25 Feb, 2014:

Mark - to the question - "Why did the city not require the developers to size the sanitary sewer pipes accordingly when the subdivisions were constructed?"

Ann Arbor, like all cities who connected footing drain flows to the sewer, did not realize the extent of the peak flows that were generated from footing drains.  This is not a problem isolated to Ann Arbor.  Cities all across the country are struggling with this same issue.  It's also the reason the building codes changes in the 70's and 80's to prevent the further connection of footing drains to the sanitary sewer. 

Frank Burdick on 25 Feb, 2014:

Perhaps, Ann Arbor and the consultants will say in 20 years after 20 years of failed sump pumps, that
"did not they realize the extent of the peak flow basement flooding that were generated from mandatory sump pumps."  


Mark Wagner on 27 Feb, 2014:

Robert- Thanks for your answer. I take it that the engineering was not as advanced in the 60's.

Michelle Lovasz on 27 Feb, 2014:

Peter, your question to me is still floating, sorry.  I would feel comfortable recommending an FDD that the City stayed involved with, somehow. 

Nick Hutchinson on 27 Feb, 2014:

Hopefully this will help with the terminology.  This is part of a response that will get posted shortly on the Q&A Log.
 
The 5 study area names (Orchard Hills, Glen Leven, etc.) are simply neighborhood names that were chosen to identify the study areas, not "sanitary sewer sub-district names".  These neighborhoods typically fall within larger sanitary sewer sub-districts.  Hopefully this helps.
 
Also included in the Q&A Log post will be the following info on the number of FDDs done in the various study areas:
 
Bromley
 
229
 
Dartmoor
 
297*
 
Glen Leven
 
537
 
Morehead
 
352
 
Orchard Hills
 
346
 
Other Areas
 
1356*
 
*include multi-family FDD equivalents
 
 
The "multi-family equivalents" is simply a way of looking at disconnects on places like apartment buildings so that we compare it to single family homes (i.e. an apartment building's flow is going to be equal to multiple single family homes).
Also, a map showing this data is in the works.  It's taking some effort to get it all plotted, but we should have it soon.
 
 
 

Kathy Boris on 27 Feb, 2014:

I particularly agree with this paragraph from Mark Wagner:

“One could imagine that the city is responsible for the whole mess. When
the subdivisions were approved in the 1960s’ and 1970s’ the city was aware
that the sanitary sewer flow would include the flow from footing drains.
Why did the city not require the developers to size the sanitary sewer
pipes accordingly when the subdivisions were constructed?”

I think that Mr Hupy said that future development, even in places outside
of Ann Arbor, has already been “factored in,” and that A2’s sanitary sewer
system will be able to handle the flow from new development. This leads
one to ask why the flow from the city-approved footing drains was not also
“factored in”?

kb