This proposal doesn't get to the root of the problem: it's unfair for the costs of FDD to be so unevenly distributed.  Furthermore--and this is the really galling part--the residents who fixed the problem of basement backups by disconnecting their homes are the very same and only who will endure those costs: damaged landscaping, increased noise, loss of use of part of their home, maintenance, insurance, increased anxiety, etc. 

The members of the CAC need to focus on representing the wishes and values of The City--not just city staff, but the whole City and its citizens.  What I've heard so far from the CAC is that we do value fairness and we do want FDD participants to be treated fairly.  Our proposal should reflect those values.  I don't think this proposal does. 

One final thought: the city may not be legally obligated to do anything at all, but they can still choose to do it.  If the community expresses that fairness is a high priority, then the city should find a fair and equitable solution, even if they don't have a legal obligation to do so.

I would like the city to expound on the concept that sewer rates can only be set based on the cost of the service.  I can understand that, but I would like more details on it. 

My house used to put a lot ground water into the sanitary sewer.  Now it doesn't.  The cost of supplying sewer service to my house has obviously gone down.  For one thing, the city won't have to pay to clean up anymore basements damaged by sanitary sewer backups.  For another, they need to treat less input at their facility. 

All of that cost saving is the result of what was done to my house.  When does my rate go down?

How are rates set?  Does the city staff  make that decision?  Or do they hire a consultant?  

I would like to take a closer look at sewer rates for people in the city.  Can we add that to the agenda of our next meeting?  

I gather that the larger team is not going to engage in a conversation on this topic via basecamp.  

Therefore, I propose the following: 

1.  Add this topic as an agenda item for our next meeting. 

2.  Continue with Charlie's proposal to remove "homeowner compensation" from the package.  Instead, replace it with  "Update Rate Structure to Reflect Different Levels of Sanitary Service."

Points that should be captured in the report as justification for this new recommendation include:

Sorry we have not responded to this sooner. I've been out of town and we had to meet internally to discuss first.  Based on this discussion, we would like to propose that when a rate study is undertaken, the issue of sanitary sewer rates for properties that do not have a footing drain connected to the sanitary sewer system can be considered.

 I'm sorry to have missed the last meeting, but have just finished watching the recording.

    The CAC and the sub-comm have worked a long time on plans to rectify the problems associated with the FDD problem, it is disheartening, to say the least, that "the Public Service Area" cannot support this plan. (#4. of response to sub-comm plan).  Is this the "city" replying, if not, then who?

    Charlie has offered suggestions that may appeal to the city- discounts for low income or seniors.... THAT is not related to the problem. 

   Charlie also said-- if rates were inc to compensate the people who had FDDs done, wouldn't the public wonder why they had to pay AGAIN for those with FDDs, since those people have benefited.  The majority people with FDDs have certainly not benefited (yes, the city as a whole has less water flowing into the WTP).  But you look at the numbers from the survey, people who didn't have a water problem, now do.  And according to the survey 168 people are no longer having problems.(Q#9)  But 103 now have problems. (Q#10)  This is out of the 819 replies. This is NOT great results.

    We have talked about NOT having the rate payers pay for the fixes.... This should be the responsibility of  CDM and Bidigare, the rate payers paid them, SIX MILLION dollars, to run this program, their engineers planned and inspected the work, THEY need to be held accountable !! and fix the problems.   CDM still has ongoing contracts with the city.

Pat - thanks for watching the video of the last CAC meeting. I appreciate your dedication to this process.

I wanted to clarify my statements from the previous CAC meeting.  When I asked the question regarding how rate payers would feel about having their rates increased to pay for FDD items, I was not referring to correction of out-of-spec installations.  I was referring to Homeowner Compensation and Backup systems. In addition, I would note that at the Sept. Public Meeting, Nick Hutchinson said that the City was planning on pursuing discussions with CDM re. out-of-spec corrections.  

Pat - thank you for your comments on this topic.  I think the discussion is very helpful.

Please keep in mind that Greg Marker's field investigation examined the conditions for 77 of the homes from the survey that companied of problems (101 of the most critical responses in the survey were identified for inspection, but 24 of those contacted did not respond, resulting in 77 investigations performed).  Greg's findings showed that only 10 homes out of those 77 were definitively caused by out-of-spec FDD installations. That means that to date, only 10 homes out of 850 survey responses have been identified to have issues from the FDD, which is just a bit less than 2%.  At an incident rate of 2%, about 50 of 1800 homes in the City FDD program may not have been installed according to specification. The City has committed to correcting out of spec FDD installations. 

While there were a lot of survey responses that companied of water after FDD, Greg's investigations showed that the vast majority of these were actually caused by items that had nothing to do with the FDD.  Some of the items that caused the water issues besides FDD that Greg noted were:

These items are normally the responsibility of the homeowner, and the City can not be responsible for correcting items such as these. There are also legal issues that would also prevent the City from correcting items that are the responsibility of the homeowners. 

These issues can be very tricky to separate out and diagnose.  Please consider these facts when judging the results and making recommendations. I think that doing so will make the recommendations from the CAC much stronger. 

Take care,

Robert

Nick--thanks for the reply.  Can you also answer about how rates are set?  Or else review it during the meeting?  During the DOM meeting Cresson mentioned that the city can only charge for the service it delivers.  I'd like to know more about how that works.   

Thanks

Pete

To clarify--I don't need to see the numbers on how current rates are set.  I would like to know:

--what are the inputs into a rate study

--how often do utilities usually do them and how long since AA did one

--who does them

--how does the public get to comment on/be involved in the study

--how is it OK for the city to charge an extra $100/month unless that really reflects the costs that they incur

It is wrong to state that those who had a FDD performed "benefitted", especially is they were uphill of their neighbors. The main beneficiaries could be those down stream at the bottom where the sewer pipe fills up. This homeowner can benefit even if he (or she) doesn't participate in the FDD program. To use Robert's medical analogy, I do not need to get a smallpox vaccine is everyone else on the planet has received one and the Russians' supply has been destroyed.

I have gone on record stating that those who received mandatory FDDs or faced a $100 per month fine or rate surcharge should be made whole by being provided with a proper backup system. I also understand that the state has passed legislation prohibiting such compensation to be paid to these homeowners by the existing rate payers. Wonderful, so, what-to-do?

One idea or possible solution is to have dual sewer rates. The city already does this, giving me the idea months ago. It is that our sewer rates are based upon our average water usage during the month of November, enabling us to use a lot more water during the summer for outside irrigation without paying higher sanitary sewer rates.

The precedent has already been set. Ann Arbor should explore having dual rates, as Peter has mentioned last week. The only thing to decide is if this should be only for those who have had a mandatory FDD, a DOM, too, or include those newer homes that were built with sump pumps or ancient homes with none?

In other words, should those homes known to have a Footing Drain that dumps water into the sanitary sewer pay a higher rate?

Next: while backups may not be able to be paid via rates, there are other methods, such as property taxes... I'm robbed to pay Paul all the time... OK this is Dead On Arrival. 

A better solution is for the city to set lower rates for water consumption when a water powered backup system is used. I had a similar experience last winter when I was away when it was minus 10 and a pipe burst in my basement. I had a 1/4 inch in my basement that went to a floor drain and my water bill was $600. The water dept agreed that it was a burst pipe since my normal consumption is always less and reduced it to 40% of that. (I brought in the burst sections to be sure). With the new smart meters they could tie this consumption to the exact day, I suppose. They could also reduce the rate to even less, even ZERO for FDD folks for power outages. These homeowners will still need to install the water pump at their own cost, but this water reduction will help a lot. The city could also do something about the expensive valve inspection that is needed every few years. Have their own person do it or hire someone to do it for a fraction of the present cost.

1) dual sewer rates (lower for those with FDDs)

2) much lower water rates of even zero above a certain point, for water used to power a backup sump pump during a power failure,

Jim -  thanks for your lengthy post ... lots of interesting thoughts ... though I have a different perception re. benefits.  The folks who had FDD who no longer have sanitary backups benefited from the program in my opinion.

This program already gives 'credits' for certain things, maybe people with FDDs could be given a credit here.  

Pat & Jim,

What you are describing with a "dual rate" or a "credit" for houses with a FDD is what the City was committing to examine when Nick posted above: "when a rate study is undertaken, the issue of sanitary sewer rates for properties that do not have a footing drain connected to the sanitary sewer system can be considered."

I think it is outside the expertise of the folks involved in this SSWWEP to make a specific recommendation on what such a rate system looks like and what is legal.  So I think it makes sense to make the recommendation that the City examine this the next time a rate study is undertaken and a rate expert can be consulted. I hope you will concur.  The City can speak to the questions asked by Peter about some of the questions about how rate studies work, and I think they will be prepared to answer some of those questions tonight. 

Take care,

Robert

Robert, I would point out that the city (Craig Hupy) opened this up by asking for volunteers from out committee to look into this. The city could have chosen not to expand our scope and dealt with these issues separately, but did not. Now, in my view, the city needs to work with us on this. I do not think a "someday" proposal is coming far enough.

Joe

It is my understanding that some of the initial FDDs performed for the city included backup pumps (water powered, I believe). Can the city provide information about this?

I am specifically interested in any available information regarding the following:

I am also posting this as a separate message given the specificity of the topic and amount of information sought.

Joe

Charlie said, " though I have a different perception re. benefits.  The folks who had FDD who no longer have sanitary backups benefited from the program in my opinion."

I agree, everyone who does not have backups, and those who do not need to pay for a more expensive remedy to stop backups (which is all of us)  benefits. Certainly, a homeowner who had backups and now no longer does gets the most benefit. But I would expect the city to provide this "benefit" of no backups. It is the goal of all.

I feel as if we have been beating our heads against a wall. As Joe said, Mr Hupy suggested a committee to investigate FDD mitigation. A number of us spent precious summer hours serving on this committee and, frankly, it now seems as if that was a big waste of time and energy. Perhaps the only answer to the mitigation issue is a legal one. 

I will restate (for what seems the millionth time) my thoughts:

1. CDM and other contractors involved with the installation of "out of spec" FDDs should definitely be held responsible for the cost of correcting these mistakes. There is absolutely no reason the ratepayers should pay more to solve this problem.

2. In the original SSO Task Force report, it is stated that a "legal framework" had to be put in place before the FDDP could go forward. Since this was done to create the FDDP, then why not create a "legal framework" for correcting the problems caused by the FDDP? 

 

3. I believe the frozen pipes issue is severe--certainly for the homes where this occurred. And it is my understanding that nothing has yet been done to correct this problem. With frost upheaval of the ground, it is possible for more of these to happen as time goes by, even if the winters are not as cold as last year. I think it's a big unknown. 

4. Since the city did provide backups initially, and also, the SSO Report stated that backups should be included, I don't see why there is so much resistance by the City to provide backups for the FDD program. 

I believe that there is a legal precedent or a law that was passed about a dozen years ago that prevents rate payers from being charged to pay for something that they derive no benefit. This is why I suggested the alternative of differing rates. 

I would hope to hear more about this topic this evening. (briefly on the legal part)

Charlie--while some homeowners realize individual benefit from the FDD program, I do not see any indication that many FDD participants were also beneficiaries.  (Though everyone in the city benefits from a cleaner river and a properly functioning sanitary system.)  But in my immediate neighborhood, we didn't have sanitary backups before FDD and we don't have them now.  

This asymmetrical distribution of cost and benefit was OK with me when the whole city was going to participate in FDD.  Everyone with footing drains was going to participate, but those with homes that are downstream or in lower areas would receive a greater benefit.  It was asymmetrical but not egregiously so.    

Now that FDD is likely to be limited only to the ~2000 existing participants, it is lopsided in a way that is very unfair.    

  

  

Can OHM clarify why "install backup pumps" is not one of their best practices suggestions?  Did it not work out when other municipalities installed them? 

We will scan the log for open questions and include Peter's best practices question as well as the ones from last night and will attempt to respond before the final meeting.