← Back to the list of projects

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

← Back to messages

Updated Executive Summary for Nov 12 CAC Meeting

Posted by Robert Czachorski on 3 Nov, 2014
Category: No category

Folks,

Attached is the updated executive summary for review before the Nov 12 CAC meeting. The expectation is that we will review, finalize and approve the executive summary at the Nov 12 meeting. 

I have also attached a red-line mark-up that compares the changes to the previous version that was presented to the CAC (v7). Significant changes since the previous version include:

  1. The SSWWE project recommendation C6d "Formalize and perform a rotating maintenance program" has been revised to strengthen the language and reflect the comments from the CAC at the last meeting.
  2. The FDD Survey / Issues Resolution in Section B have been updated to reflect the final findings from the subcommittee and the detailed recommendations from the CAC based on the discussions at the last CAC meeting. 
  3. A new Section C has been added at the end of the document called "Additional Items" that addresses some items that have arisen during the course of the project. These include the innovative "smart sewer" option with the UM research, notes on the WWTP capacity, the City's plan to seal manholes, the use of water conservation measures, gravity sump pump backups, etc. Each of these items were previously addressed, and we thought it would be useful to include them in the executive summary to document them.

Although everything in the summary has been previously reviewed and discussed extensively with the CAC, there is a lot of new text, especially in Section B - FDD Survey / Issues Resolution documenting these items. To keep the next CAC meeting as productive as possible, I would suggest that you review the new text and provide any typographical or wording changes before the meeting in this basecamp thread. We will then incorporate any changes to the document before the meeting.

Please provide any comments that you would like incorporated before the CAC meeting by Monday November 10 to give us adequate time to revise the document before the meeting.

Take care,
Robert

Comments

Robert Czachorski on 3 Nov, 2014:

Also, just a reminder that there is an optional informational meeting on the Final Recommendations at Slauson Middle School at 6 PM on Monday Nov 10.

Take care,
Robert

Darren McKinnon on 3 Nov, 2014:

Robert-
It appears that the revised executive summary does not discuss the proposed changes to the DOM program.  Is this yet to be added?

Robert Czachorski on 4 Nov, 2014:

Thanks for the comment, Darren.

This was an oversight in the executive summary, and we will revise it to include the recommendations on the DOM program, and include the City's full recommendations in an appendix. I will post the City's final recommendations to Basecamp shortly. 

Peter Houk on 5 Nov, 2014:

Hi everyone.  I would like the report to include a statement that says, essentially, that the concept of fair treatment for FDD participants is important, even if the methods that the CAC has proposed are not viable.  My proposal for a statement is below.  I'd like to hear the opinions of other CAC members on what I have proposed.     

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

The CAC has generated several options for ameliorating the cost and inconvenience that FDD recipients have incurred as a result of their participation in the program. These ideas are intended to ensure that residents who participated in the FDD program when it was mandatory and city-wide are treated fairly.  CAC members are not necessarily experts in municipal law nor municipal administration nor sewer engineering, so some of the ideas that have been put forth may not be legal or feasible.  City staff have offered many critiques of the CAC recommendations and many possible explanations for why these ideas won't work.  Considering their knowledge and expertise in this area, they may be correct that the ideas put forth by the CAC are not legal or feasible.  Even if the CAC's proposals cannot be executed, the effort that went into formulating them should be taken as evidence that members expect the city to do more than they already have to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all FDD participants.      

Fair treatment for FDD participants is important to CAC members for the following reasons:
--their participation fixed the basement backup problem
--because of their participation, additional residents in the target areas and throughout the city will not need to have FDD done to their homes
--because of their participation, the city avoided a sewer system upgrade that would have cost millions and would have destroyed open space and natural areas in the city
--because the city needs to demonstrate that those who participate in efforts to improve the community will be treated fairly.  After all, this is not the last time the city will need resident participation to fix a big problem.

Robert Czachorski on 5 Nov, 2014:

Peter - we are preparing the agenda for the informational meeting on Monday and expect that your suggestion above will be a big topic for discussion at that meeting. 

-----------

On Darren's comment above about the DOM recommendations:

The City finalized the DOM revisions recommendations and I posted them to basecamp yesterday. I have worked with the City on short summary of the recommendations that we can add to the executive summary.  The text below will be added to Section B3 recommendations on the FDD Survey Issues Resolution.  

h. Developer Offset Mitigation (DOM) Program recommendations:

  1. Continue a DOM program. (10/08/14 polling results: All CAC attendees (10) supported this recommendation.)
  2. Revisions to the DOM program allowing mitigation City-wide except for the developments where flows pass thru one of the five identified SSWWEP project areas, re-examining the design flow rates, and eliminating the 20% recovery factor. (10/08/14 polling results: All CAC attendees (10) supported this recommendation.)
  3. Revisions to the DOM program to evaluate the ability of allowing developers to make a payment in lieu of offset mitigation. (10/08/14 polling results: (7) CAC members in support; (3) CAC member not in support.)
  4. Revisions to the DOM program eliminating the 24-month requirement and periodically revisiting the program. (No CAC polling results done yet).


We will do a polling on #4 above at the CAC meeting next Wednesday.

Good catch, Darren.  The City was working on the revisions to the DOM recommendations, but we failed to include it as an item in the executive summary.  It is an important item, so I think the text above is a nice summary. 

Take care, 
Robert

Patricia Marten on 7 Nov, 2014:

I'm not finding Apendix XX, mentioned in this document ?
Thanks

Robert Czachorski on 7 Nov, 2014:

Pat,

The executive summary we are reviewing contains only the text for the document for now. Once the content of the text is finalized with the CAC next week, it will be assembled into a larger report that includes all of the supporting information referenced. At that time, all of these dangling references will be numbered and attachments assembled. This is a common process for efficiently preparing a large, complex report where the content is agreed to first, before the more time consuming assembly is done.

I believe that all of the items referenced as being in the "Appendix XX" have been previously submitted and reviewed by the CAC.  I know that the library of information for the project has gotten quite large. If there is anything in particular that is referenced in an Appendix that you would like to review and are having trouble locating it, just let me know and I will post it here for your convenience. 

Take care,
Robert

Beverly Smith on 7 Nov, 2014:

Peter and all,
I’m responding to Peter’s 11/4/14 post and request for feedback.
I agree that all citizens should be treated fairly and equitably, and particularly as it relates to those having mandatory FDD.
However, I am troubled by the tone of this message. I’m interpreting this as the city has not responded in any way to concerns raised by individual citizens or this CAC. I don’t think that is true, for these reasons:
-the city responded 15 years ago to citizen reports of regular sewer water basement backups; with the recommendation of a CAC, the city implemented the mandatory FDD, in the areas where citizens were reporting regular back up, evidence shows that this solution was successful
-the city agreed to survey citizens who had under gone FDD
-based on citizen feedback from the survey and follow up by OHM (Greg Marker) the city has committed to following up with citizens to correct identified issues

Also, I believe the implication that the areas that had mandatory FDD have shouldered the burden for the entire city is over stated. Those areas had mandatory FDD because citizens demanded the city respond to their concern. Other areas of the city, for instance Lower Burns Park where I live, were not studied nor did we have mandatory FDD, because we didn’t report regular, ongoing sewer water basement back ups.
All that being said, I am in favor of emphasizing fair, equitable treatment for all citizens who have participated in mandatory FDD. I do think that the city has the burden of figuring out the legal feasibility of doing this.
I look forward to further discussion and coming to consensus on wording to add to the final report.
Bev

Judy Hanway on 8 Nov, 2014:

Hello all,

I agree with Pete that a summary statement needs to be included in the final report that reflects the report from the FDD Mitigation Subcommittee. However, I would also expect that the entire FDD Mitigation Subcommittee Recommendations would be included as part of the Executive Summary.  

There were alternate ways to solve the problem of the original sanitary sewer backups, but the City chose not to do those. In the initial SSO Report, storage was an option. The FDDs that were done initially may have addressed some of the sewage backups, but the City continued with the FDD program long after the ACO had expired. I believe this was done to avoid the cost of upgrading the sanitary sewer system (as Pete has stated) and also to allow for continued development in the City. Basically, the City set up a system to have the FDD homeowners and developers pay for "fixing" the sanitary sewer system.

The original SSO CAC also stated that all FDDs should have backup systems and that radon levels should be addressed. That never happened. I am now hearing from some homeowners that they have elevated radon levels. This could be because of their sump pump. 

The damage to some of the homes that were identified as "out of spec" by Greg Marker and OHM are so bad that the affected homeowners fear the value of their homes has been diminished. How is this fair?  What would you do if this happened to your house? 

It's not a responsible government that fixes one problem by creating another for it's citizens. 

As a member of the FDD Mitigation Subcommittee, I stand by the recommendations from that group. The city should address the problems and follow through with the mitigation.

Judy

Robert Czachorski on 8 Nov, 2014:

Thanks for your comments Judy.

One clarifier: we have indeed included ALL of the recommendations from the FDD mitigation subcommittee in the executive summary. We will also be including the detailed meeting notes from the meetings themselves in the Public Engagement Report.

This Executive Summary is the CAC’s report to Council. You control the content, and we would not omit a recommendation unless the CAC directed us to do so. We are preparing the initial drafts and making updates for your convenience, but the report is the CACs. Please feel free to make suggested revisions to the language if you feel that the current language is not sufficient.

We will be discussing the final language in the meetings this week with the CAC on Monday and Wednesday. If you can’t make the Monday meeting, please feel free to post your comments here, or send them to me or contact me and I will track them and make sure they are addressed.

Take care,
Robert

Patricia Marten on 9 Nov, 2014:

Did we set minimum depth for the curb lines?  I did see a discussion section on it, but wanted to be sure, the frozen lines don't happen to anyone else.
Thanks

Judy Hanway on 9 Nov, 2014:

Pat,

In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason that the frozen lines couldn't happen to anyone else who has a sump pump connected to the curb drain.

Judy Hanway on 10 Nov, 2014:

Robert and others,

Wasn't our modeling based on the contracts with the surrounding townships (Scio, Pittsfield, Ann  Arbor) remaining at the levels previously negotiated? Now there is an article in the Ann Arbor News about Scio Township wanting to send more sewage our way (http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/11/ann_arbor_approves_new_wastewa.html#incart_river)

This issue has come up before Council. Luckily, the vote was delayed. If this is approved by Council, what will it do to the modeling done by OHM? 

Judy

Robert Czachorski on 10 Nov, 2014:

Judy,

The modeling was indeed based on the surrounding Townships being limited to their current contract limits. However, the article does not explicitly state that Scio is looking to increase their capacity. It states that Scio currently uses about half of their contracted capacity and that the updated contract will adjust the boundaries to the service district. I don’t believe that this means the contract capacity is increasing, but we should check with the City to verify.

Nick – can you verify? Thanks.

Take care,
Robert

Judy Hanway on 10 Nov, 2014:

Here are my further comments on the Executive Summary Report:

1.The following quote is from Section A, Item 5:

"CAC Comments on the Action Plan
A question was raised about the potential impacts of stormwater surface flooding on the flows in the sanitary sewer system from footing drains. The City addressed this question in the Q&A log and posted the answer to Basecamp on August 29, 2014. That answer can be found in Appendix XX."

Regarding the above, when will CAC members see what is included in Appendix XX? Also, despite the City's answer that the stormwater  surface flooding has no affect on the amount of water in the footing drains, I remain unconvinced. I think there are other CAC members who would agree with me.

2.Where is the discussion of the "Mandatory/Voluntary FDDs"? I am copying the summary of the October meeting below. Why has this been left out of this report? 

"Mandatory FDDs as a Program Tool 
The project team posed the question, using Project D (Pittsfield Valley) in Executive Summary as an example. This area has suspected high weather flows, similar to five FDD target neighborhoods. Assuming that one of the six wet weather issues could be resolved via FDDs, are mandatory FDDs acceptable to the CAC as a program tool?

After discussion, group opted to change the item to incentivized, robust, voluntary FDDs. CAC members vote: 
     Eliminate mandatory FDDs as a program tool for City projects.

    Yes – 6; No – 4

    Comments/Questions:

     When modified to voluntary, incentivized and robust program tool?

    Yes – 9; No – 1

     Retain mandatory FDD program as is.

    Yes – 0; No - 10"

    3. I would like to see exactly what is included in the Appendix about the air gap issue.

    4. Will the Appendix have a section on the curb drains, including the depth (18 inches) and the possibility of frost upheaval, freezing, bellies in the pipe? 

    5. Will the Appendix include the report Greg Marker did as follow up to the homeowner survey?

    6. Will the Appendix say anything about the dangers of radon and how sump pumps could be a source of radon entrance into the home?



    Nick Hutchinson on 10 Nov, 2014:

    I wanted to confirm what Robert said above. Scio Township is not asking for any new capacity, only to change the boundaries of their service district.

    Robert Czachorski on 10 Nov, 2014:

    Pat & Judy - thank you for your comments.

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

    Regarding the minimum burial depth for curb drains and sump pump service leads, this item was addressed in the executive summary in Item C5 near the end. I've included a brief synopsis below. If you have further concerns about the curb drains freezing, we would be happy to include them as CAC comments in the executive summary report. 

    It is not at all uncommon for storm sewer facilities to be buried above the frost line due to limitations with grading and elevation of the receiving surface waters. This is an inherent challenge with storm sewer pipes in general, and is not unique to the City of Ann Arbor.  The common industry design basis for shallow storm pipes is to ensure that they are constructed with a positive slope and therefore will not have standing water within them, which minimizes the risk of freezing in winter. The risk of winter freezing of curb drains and sump pump discharge lines is further reduced by the fact that they convey relatively warm groundwater which would require additional cooling before freezing.  

    In order for water from a sump pump to freeze, it has to have an opportunity to cool down from the relative warm (47-55 degree) temperature that is common with the ground water discharged from a sump pump.  That is why we suspected last winter in the area that experienced the frozen curb drain, that one or more of the sump pump service leads had a dip or belly in the lines. A dip or belly would provide a location where the water can pool and stand and have an opportunity to cool down. Such a dip or belly would not meet the City's specifications and should be corrected. We believe that it is the presence of such dips or bellies that is the issue that needs to be corrected. This was recommended as part of the Avondale investigation. The final memo on that investigation will be included in the Public Engagement Report and is attached here for reference. 

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

    Judy, to answer your remaining questions:

    1.Regarding the above, when will CAC members see what is included in Appendix XX? Also, despite the City's answer that the stormwater surface flooding has no affect on the amount of water in the footing drains, I remain unconvinced. I think there are other CAC members who would agree with me.

    The executive summary we are reviewing contains only the text for the document for now. Once the content of the text is finalized with the CAC next week, it will be assembled into a larger report that includes all of the supporting information referenced. At that time, all of these dangling Appendix references will be numbered and attachments assembled. This is a common process for efficiently preparing a large, complex report where the content is agreed to first, before the more time consuming assembly is done. I believe that all of the items referenced as being in the "Appendix XX" have been previously submitted and reviewed by the CAC. If there is anything in particular that is referenced in an Appendix that you would like to review and are having trouble locating it, just let me know and I will post it here for your convenience. 

    For reference, here is the City's response on the stormwater surface flooding. 

    https://ohm.basecamphq.com/projects/11735993-city-of-ann-arbor-sswwep-citizens-advisory-committee-co…

    Please note that it does not say such flooding will have no impact - that is not an accurate characterization of the response.  In fact, regarding houses that have flooding to the footing drain envelope it says: "preventing stormwater from reaching the footing drain contributing area through better grading around these types of homes would reduce the flows to the footing drains during an extensive surface flooding event."  However, it  goes on to show that this flow source is not likely a large contribution of wet weather flows for several reasons outlined in the response, concluding that: "These observations suggest that the footing drain flow generated from surface flooding that approaches the house is not a significant source of wet weather flows into the sanitary sewer system."


    2.Where is the discussion of the "Mandatory/Voluntary FDDs"? I am copying the summary of the October meeting below. Why has this been left out of this report? 

    The chart you are referring to will be included in an Appendix, as referred to in item B2g in the executive summary. I have attached the chart to this post for reference. We are happy to include additional language on this recommendation in the executive summary if the CAC desires.

    3. I would like to see exactly what is included in the Appendix about the air gap issue.

    This was shared with the CAC on June 30: https://ohm.basecamphq.com/projects/11735993-city-of-ann-arbor-sswwep-citizens-advisory-committee-co…

    The City updated the document to include more information and photos - the updated version is attached.

    4. Will the Appendix have a section on the curb drains, including the depth (18 inches) and the possibility of frost upheaval, freezing, bellies in the pipe? 

    The executive summary report addresses this in item C5, as discussed above, and the Public Engagement Report will include the Avondale report attached, with recommendations to fix and abnormalities in the sump pump service leads or curb drains.

    5. Will the Appendix include the report Greg Marker did as follow up to the homeowner survey?

    Yes.

    6. Will the Appendix say anything about the dangers of radon and how sump pumps could be a source of radon entrance into the home?

    We did not investigate radon, and so we do not have any technical information to include.  We would be happy to include any CAC comments about this concern in the executive summary. 

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

    Take care,
    Robert

    Nick Hutchinson on 10 Nov, 2014:

    Another note on the radon is that this was something that was evaluated by the original FDD program. That is why the sumps were installed with sealed covers. It was not part of the scope of this project to reinvestigate this topic.

    Joe Conen on 10 Nov, 2014:

    I would like item C.7 expanded. The general topic of using gravity as a back-up for a sump pump covered a number of different approaches. One approach would involve installing a floor drain adjacent to the sump (or, where appropriate, installing the sump adjacent to an existing floor drain). It is my understanding that this approach was used by several municipalities. Also, I believe we were told that this approach was used for more than one application in Ann Arbor. If these points are true, they need to be discussed in the report, and the executive summary should be revised to clarify that co-locating a floor drain with the sump may be an acceptable approach.
    Thanks
    Joe

    Robert Czachorski on 11 Nov, 2014:

    Thank you for your comment, Joe. These are good comments and we can reflect them in the report.  One note: I do not believe that the City of Ann Arbor implemented the floor drain approach anywhere.  We discussed that some other municipalities have, and we can reflect this in the report as well.

    Would the wording below address you comments?

    -------

    7. Gravity Back-Up for Sump Pumps – A suggestion was made during the project to examine the potential of a gravity back-up system for sump pumps, whereby if a sump pump failed, the footing water would be allowed to discharge to the sanitary sewer system by gravity before it backed up into the basement. The proposal included a check valve for back flow prevention and an automatic gravity overflow below grade if the sump pump fails. The City’s building department reviewed this option and found that it would not meet State building codes and the City’s sewer ordinance. The SSWWE project team is not aware of any municipalities that have implemented such a gravity backup system. Some municipalities have adopted the practice of placing a floor drain near the sump pump to provide an outlet over the floor to a drain in the case of pump failure. The City’s building department indicated that such a practice would not meet the City’s building codes because of the intent to discharge footing water to the sanitary sewer. 

    -------

    Take care,
    Robert

    Robert Czachorski on 11 Nov, 2014:

    Folks,

    In response to Judy's comment #2 above on "Where is the discussion of the "Mandatory/Voluntary FDDs"? ", I have drafted the text below for an additional recommendation in the report.  Please let me know if this addresses the concern.

    Take care,
    Robert

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

    a.     FDD as a program tool (for City projects). The SSWWE project team recommended the discontinuation of mandatory FDDs in the target areas because the FDD program to date has significantly reduced the risk of basement backups in those areas and additional FDDs are not needed. The use of FDDs as a program tool for the City on future projects going forward was evaluated by the CAC with the following results:

                                                   i.     Do not retain the FDD program as is. (10/08/14 polling results: All CAC attendees (10) supported this recommendation.)

                                                  ii.     Eliminate mandatory FDDs as a program tool option. (10/08/14 polling results:  6 CAC attendees support/ 4 CAC attendees did not support.)

                                                iii.     Modify the FDD program to be voluntary, incentivized and robust, with program changes that align with Best Practices and that gather input from candidate neighborhoods. (10/08/14 polling results:  9 CAC attendees support/ 1 CAC attendees did not support.)

    Judy Hanway on 11 Nov, 2014:

    Robert,

    Thanks for updating the wording and moving this information into the body of the report rather than in the Appendix.

    Judy

    Joe Conen on 12 Nov, 2014:

    This is in response to Robert's proposed revision to C.7.
    First, I am fairly confident we heard that perhaps two installations in Ann Arbor included installing a floor drain adjacent to the sump. I will try to find this information, but maybe Greg Marker has some info on this. It may also be somewhere in this basecamp data.
    Second, at least at our meeting with the city on this topic, I thought the city was open to this, as long as there was no attempt to  directly drain, such as with a channel. Please let me know if anyone has more specific information on this.
    Thanks
    Joe

    Robert Czachorski on 12 Nov, 2014:

    Thanks, Joe. I connected with Greg, and he has indeed observed a few installations with floor drains nearby that function as over-the-floor relief in Ann Arbor during his inspections.

    When we met with the building inspector, I thought he was pretty clear that installing a floor drain at the same time as a sump pump for the express purpose of functioning as an overflow from the sump would represent an “intent” to discharge the sump water to the sanitary sewer, and as such he would not approve such an installation. This was my recollection of the discussion. Perhaps the City can shed some more light on my memory of that discussion, or we could clarify with the building inspector.

    Take care,
    Robert

    Peter Houk on 12 Nov, 2014:

    Joe--I have one example for you in my basement!  My FDD sump is about 3 feet from the floor drain. 

    That's an accident of my "alternate sump location". 

    Vince Caruso on 14 Nov, 2014:

    It was also noted by Greg Marker at our last meeting that the installation of a floor drain near the sump pump will have major 'construction issues' as the sumps are near the edge of the wall and floor drains are not an option, in almost all cases, to install at that location. At least that is my take, the minutes of the meeting will have the details.

    Seems he was saying this option is not a viable real world solution without major efforts on each install.

    Thanks,
    Vince

    Greg Marker on 14 Nov, 2014:

    Hi Vince,

    The main point about the floor drain I was expressing is that installing a floor drain is not a one-size-fits-all solution.  Any point in the basement floor below the lip of the floor drain has a high percentage chance to have water on it during a sump failure event as water comes up through cracks and pores in the existing floor.  If that elevation analysis is not completed as part of the decision about installing a floor drain, then the real value of a drain, trap, and Studer vent is not known and it may not do what the home owner thinks it would.

    Thanks

    Greg