← Back to the list of projects

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

← Back to messages

Aiming for Consensus - Mandatory FDDs

Posted by Michelle Lovasz on 28 Feb, 2014
Category: No category

We appear to have a loose consensus.  Mark Wagner's message has seemed to say it best for most, and I've copied it from the previous thread to here as a keystone to this consensus we're trying to establish.

"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." --Mark Wagner

Comments

Michelle Lovasz on 28 Feb, 2014:

Peter, I'm sorry I didn't move to your end of the table last night because I wanted to hear you on this.  I just got wrapped up in the momentum at the other end..

You have expressed reluctance to this consensus and I wanted to hear you.  I'm guessing that you want to keep it as an option because footing drains need to be disconnected to relieve the system, and in the event not one volunteer is found then mandatory needs to be an option?

Peter Houk on 1 Mar, 2014:

I  completely agree with Mark Wagner's first sentence.

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

Any mandatory program would need some major improvements over the existing before I endorsed it.  

Even with all of its other drawbacks, disconnection removes the source.  When the source is removed, it will not cause a backup or overflow, even during an epic rain event.  When the source is removed, the community does not have to pay to treat that non-sewage ground water.  The storage and upsizing options do not appear to achieve those two things. 

I like Joe's idea of a voluntary and incentivized plan, but I am having trouble envisioning how one would be implemented with an incentive that is good enough to be REALLY convincing.  If we can't identify good incentives, then the only way to remove footing drain sources is through a mandatory program.   

I haven't given up on identifying good incentives, though.  I just haven't found them YET.  So, does anyone have some good ideas on how to incentivize voluntary FDD source removal?  I would welcome some good discussion on that.  
 

  

Michelle Lovasz on 1 Mar, 2014:

Peter, I like Joe's idea too, but I am envisioning a different way.  Unfortunately at this point it appears very expensive.  It involves disconnecting the footing drains from the sanitary sewer, but instead of a sump pump in the house, the footings drain to a City pipe that is City pumped (up, since sanitary is so deep) to the City Storm pipe.  The City maintains the pipes and the pump.  Robert drew it up at the first Panera meeting, and Joe C and Frank P were there.  The "system" that Robert drew up (Greg is working on costing it) would involve several houses at a time participating.  I like it because it removes the burden of water management from the homeowner, and leaves it on the City.  It looks verrrrrry expensive, though. 

Joe C also keeps reminding that when we get a better analysis of present capacity, it may become clear that fewer disconnects need to be implemented than we might now surmise.  In which situation this "system" might could be implemented in just a few places, thus being more affordable. 

I also am thinking that the $10,000 (more or less) per home in costs to the developer, or the City, may be quite underestimated if the additional costs are taken into account.  To actually install the pump might be roundabout 10k, but there is maintenance of the pump in electricity, water, parts, and replacements.  Among other costs.  So if those extra costs are taken into account the 10k increases.  Even so, there is nothing that says that we must recommend something that matches the cost of FDD as it has been practiced. 

Peter Houk on 1 Mar, 2014:

"Joe C also keeps reminding that when we get a better analysis of present capacity, it may become clear that fewer disconnects need to be implemented than we might now surmise."

I am hearing this from OHM as well.  And the fact that there was only one backup during the March 15th storm indicates that this problem might be fixed or almost fixed.     

What this would mean is that the system-wide problem was fixed by the small group of residents who were mandated to do FDD first and complied.    In exchange for fixing the problem, they have received only the added cost and inconvenience of maintenance, pump noise, increased risk of flooding, etc.

This is another reason why I like the idea of an incentivized program.  The incentive can be applied retroactively.

If this small group of residents who fixed the problem is left behind, it will set a dangerous precedent in the city.  The next time there is a problem that requires a city-wide response, who is going to agree to go first?  



Joe Conen on 1 Mar, 2014:

I would expect that we can bring parity of some sort to those who have already disconnected; this should not be difficult once we have developed recommendations going forward.
I have a pretty well formed idea for an incentivized plan (in my head). I will try to write it up and post it this weekend. One of the reasons I hope that we can use voluntary is that the burden of a disconnect is not uniform. A voluntary program should attract homeowners who feel the lowest burden, allowing the homeowners with complicated circumstance to avoid the disconnect. Their support would be in the form of supporting the incentives for the volunteers (as would the rest of the community, since my view of this is a community problem.)
One dimension of this could be to extend/revise the moratorium ordinance for a period of time to allow recruitment of volunteers.  This allows some flexibility based on how well recruitment goes.
Joe

Peter Houk on 1 Mar, 2014:

Sounds like we're on the same page here.  Looking forward to seeing your idea.

Beverly Smith on 1 Mar, 2014:

Following this thread… I’m not ready to discount mandatory FDD; as the evidence is clear to me that source removal is the best way to ensure against backups.
That said, I do agree, that the past mandatory FDD program in it’s current/past state is not acceptable. I’m in favor of the improvement suggestions I’ve heard thus far, including: homeowner control over the location of the sump pump; enhanced back up system; ensuring interior finishes and exterior landscaping are done to the homeowners satisfaction; a city ombudsman to help the homeowner navigate the process.
I like Joe’s incentive idea of a discount to the homeowners who participate (voluntary or otherwise).
I’m looking forward to Greg’s report as he completes the detailed follow up with homeowners. I think it’s important to really understand what hasn’t worked well in the past. That will ensure we are recommending solutions that fix the problem.

Kathy Boris on 1 Mar, 2014:

Generally, I agree with Joe’s comments that begin, “I would expect that we
can bring parity…”
kb