Ann Arbor city storm drain in action. (Chronicle file photo)

The meetings are part of a study of the Upper Malletts Creek watershed, being conducted by the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner under an agreement with the city of Ann Arbor. The year-long study is supposed to culminate in a final report due to the Ann Arbor city council in February 2014. Water resources commissioner Evan Pratt was on hand at the meeting, along with other members of the project team.

In response to direction from a citizens advisory group that’s been formed for the project, the team used the March 14 meeting to introduce residents to the basic toolkit for stormwater management techniques. The general stormwater management practices described at the meeting – without trying to analyze which solutions might be appropriate for specific locations in the area – ranged from increasing the number of catch basins in streets to the construction of underground detention facilities.

At least 60 residents attended the meeting, and seemed generally receptive to the idea that some money might actually be spent on infrastructure projects to reduce flooding in their neighborhood: “If you want me to sign up for you breaking up my street and putting [stormwater management infrastructure] in there, just give me a consent form and I will sign it tonight!”

The project team is also still in a phase of gathering information about specific experiences that residents have had with past flooding problems. And the same technology platform – an online mapping tool – can be used by residents for logging future flooding events. For help in using a smart-phone app, one attendee volunteered her grandson “for rent” to other residents. Members of the project team also indicated they welcomed information submitted in any format – including letters, face-to-face conversation and phone calls.

But it was a missing follow-up phone call – expected from one resident who’d attended the first meeting on Jan. 29 – that indicated some continuing frustration about the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program. The frustrated resident’s experience had been that after an FDD program sump pump was installed in his basement, he’d started having problems with a wet basement – problems he hadn’t experienced before. Project manager Harry Sheehan, with the county water resources commissioner’s office, extended an apology for the missed communication and an offer to arrange a site visit.

The FDD program removes a building’s footing drain connection to the sanitary sewer system and redirects that stormwater flow to the system designed to handle it – the stormwater system. The FDD program, which has been somewhat controversial, is not the focus of the Upper Malletts Creek study. But residents got an assurance that the additional volume of rainwater that goes into the stormwater system – as a result of the FDD program – would be accounted for in all the modeling that’s done as part of this study.

Meeting Overview, Context

This report begins with a legislative overview, and a summary of the introductory remarks from the March 14, 2013 meeting.

Overview: Precipitating Events, Funding

An arrangement for the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to study the Upper Malletts Creek area was authorized by the Ann Arbor city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting. The $200,000 cost of the study is to be paid for with city funds already held by the county water resources commissioner’s office.

The area to be studied, outlined in the agreement between the city and the water resources commissioner, included “the Malletts Creek Drain Drainage District in the Churchill Downs and Lansdowne sub-watershed areas.” Potential improvements mentioned in the agreement include detention, pipe upsizing, and green infrastructure.

Negotiations on that agreement with the water resources commissioner stemmed from a council resolution approved at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting. That resolution directed city staff to start negotiations with the county to conduct the study.

The staff memo accompanying the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 resolution mentioned the heavy rains on March 15, 2012, which resulted in street flooding in that part of the city. The city council heard complaints from the public at its meetings after the flooding. A map of historical flooding in the city – obtained by The Chronicle through appeal of an initially-denied request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act – shows that respondents to a survey conducted in the mid-1990s reported they’d experienced street flooding in the same areas that the flooding occurred in the spring of 2012.

Residents at the March 14, 2013 meeting wanted to know how big the March 15, 2012 storm was – from an historical perspective. They noted that on Scio Church Road there was water running through the yard, which hadn’t happened in the previous 20 years.

Ron Hansen, a Spicer Group engineer who’s working on the project, said that given the magnitude of the flooding, it was a very historic event. For many people, it was the most significant flooding they’d ever seen. But he’d heard from other people who said they’d had numerous floods over the last 20-30 years. The rainfall amount on March 15, 2012 was in the range of 1.7 or 1.8 inches in a two-hour period, Hansen reported. That doesn’t mean that the intensity over every house was the same as the intensity measured by the rain gauges, he allowed. And it was in the springtime, when the ground doesn’t absorb as much water – so you get more runoff.

Some frustration about the number of studies that have been done over the years was expressed at the March 14 meeting. And water resources commissioner Evan Pratt led off his introductory remarks at the meeting with an acknowledgment of that sentiment, noting that some attendees might be thinking, “Oh no, another study!”

Overview: March 14, 2013 Meeting Intro

Pratt asked for a show of hands of the roughly 60 residents in attendance – for those who’d attended the Jan. 29 meeting. From that he concluded that there were enough new attendees that it would be worth reviewing some of the information presented at that meeting.

He told the residents that they were in the right place if they wanted to stay engaged and help the project team work toward figuring out some real improvements that could be made so they didn’t have the same problems that they’d experienced last year on March 15, 2012, when there was so much flooding in the streets and in the yards.

Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

Pratt allowed that he’d only been water resources commissioner for a few months, but told the group that he had been working on residential flooding issues for about 25 years. [Pratt was elected in November 2012 and took office at the start of 2013.]

One thing he’s learned in that experience, Pratt said, is that the residents at the meeting still know more than he and the consultants do about the problems in their neighborhood. His team is still trying to understand where the problems were and how bad they were on March 15, 2012. He ventured that they had a pretty good handle on it from previous data collected, supplemented by information collected at the Jan. 29 meeting – but the project team is still collecting information. He also offered to arrange that evening to visit anyone’s property if that’s what they wanted.

He ventured that those in attendance would like to head home and say, “Man, we’re done! I understand exactly how everything’s going to get fixed and there’ll never be water in the yard or in the street!” That’s not something he could promise that night, or at the end of the study, he allowed. But the project team would figure out some positive solutions so that if it rains again like it did a year before, residents wouldn’t see the same severity of the problem.

Besides Pratt, other members of the project team introduced at the start of the meeting included employees of the Spicer Group, the engineering consulting firm hired for the study: Ron Hansen, a professional engineer and surveyor; Tim Inman, who works with GIS mapping; and Steve Roznowski, a design engineer.

Handling communications, website and media work on the project are Josh Hovey, a vice president of Truscott Rossman and Lauren Zdeba, an account executive with the same firm. Hovey noted that the location of the meeting, Lawton Elementary, was Zdeba’s old elementary school – so she’d grown up in the neighborhood. [Responding to a query from The Chronicle about the school's mascot, Zdeba confirmed it was the Lawton Leopards. "Our rivals were the Dicken Dolphins!" she said, referring to the elementary school in the neighborhood just to the north.]

Project manager for the Upper Mallets Creek study is Harry Sheehan, with the water resources commissioner’s office. Also on hand at the meeting were city of Ann Arbor employees Cresson Slotten and Jennifer Lawson. Slotten is an engineer and manager of the city’s systems planning department, while Lawson is water resources manager with the city.

In his remarks toward the start of the meeting, Sheehan said the goal of the project is to manage stormwater better and reduce flooding: ” … essentially what we’re looking to do is take a look at what happened on March 15, 2012 and provide solutions to make the effects of that storm much more manageable.”

Overview: Stormwater Management Toolkit

Ron Hansen, engineer with the Spicer Group, described how the goal of the engineering study is to develop a recommended plan that could be implemented to reduce the probability of flooding.

Ron Hansen with the Spicer Group.

The study would eventually identify the estimated cost of the recommended actions and weigh that against the benefit, he said. “It would nice to say we’re going to build a system that is so big that it’ll never flood again, but the reality of it is that would be cost prohibitive. When it comes to rainfall, there’s always the bigger and badder storm.” There’s always a chance of flooding, he said.

He also stressed that the solutions to be recommended should not adversely impact downstream property owners. The goal is not to push the problem downstream, but rather to manage the water within the study area, so that the flooding problems within the study area could be addressed without creating new problems downstream.

The goals are also to implement solutions that maintain or improve water quality, he said. Some of the solutions, he continued, would involve “hard engineering” approaches like installing new pipes. Other approaches are “softer” – such as installing rain gardens and infiltration-based systems. The key is to maintain and enhance water quality, he said. The recommendation should also be sustainable for the longer term – which means that it should be low maintenance.

Hansen then walked the March 14 attendees through a range of options for stormwater infrastructure:

• catchbasin enhancements
• street maintenance
• clean/repair existing drainage infrastructure
• enhance/modify existing detention management
• construct new surface stormwater detention
• construct new underground stormwater detention
• upsize/enhance storm sewer capacity
• bio-retention/rain gardens

He noted that they’d begin with low-cost options, like evaluating catch basins in streets, allowing that these might have a low impact as well.

He also described high-cost options like building underground detention facilities – which he described as big underground concrete boxes – or tearing up streets and backyards. He thought it was likely that some of that type of work might be called for, but the question is where to implement those solutions. And the location and type of facility would depend on the outcome of the engineering analysis and modeling of the study.

Along with the “hard engineering” approaches, Hansen indicated that “softer” approaches – like rain gardens – would be included in the options as well. Softer approaches would be included more than likely in addition to, not instead of, some of the harder engineering approaches, he said.  He drew laughs from the audience when he said: “My gut feeling is you can’t solve this problem with rain gardens.”

Geographic Area of the Study

Harry Sheehan oriented the audience to the area of the study – the northwestern portion of Mallets Creek. He pointed out how I-94 crosses through the area of study. He ventured that most of the attendees at the meeting that night were probably from the city of Ann Arbor, but pointed out that the Mallets Creek watershed, and the area of the study, goes quite a ways past I-94, into the townships. It reaches all the way to The Uplands, he said, west of I-94 and up toward Stadium Boulevard, and in the upper righthand corner of the study area is part of the Pioneer High School property.

Malletts Creek “smart map” showing the study area.

The blue line is Mallets Creek, Sheehan said. Describing Malletts heading upstream (from east to west), Sheehan note that at Landsdowne the creek is open water. But after it crosses 7th Street, it’s a piped system – continuing between Moorhead and Delaware, and across Churchill. It then makes a bend and goes through some backyards on the other side of Churchill Downs near Steeplechase, then goes through Churchill Downs Park. That’s where it opens up, he explained. There are two tributaries that split up in Churchill Downs Park – one of them goes north and one of them goes west, down by the Ice Cube and the Pittsfield branch of the Ann Arbor District Library.

Within the study area, the project team has mapped out areas of known flooding, based on previous information, but also based on information gathered at the first meeting on Jan. 29, Sheehan said.

He pointed out that while there had clearly been problems in the southeastern portion of the study area, that was not the only location.

Sheehan also pointed to problems that had been logged on Chaucer Court and up by the service drive on Scio Church Road. There were clearly a lot of locations to look at, he said.

All the red dots on the “smart map” reflect problems reported to the project team at the Jan. 29 meeting, he said. That first public meeting on Jan. 29 was spent primarily collecting that kind of information from residents who attended, Sheehan said. The information would be used to create a model that accurately represents the events of March 15, 2012, and that can be manipulated to model solutions to managing the stormwater.

From the audience came a request that Sheehan define “flooding” – as it was including in the annotations on the map where problems had been identified. As a definition of flooding for the purposes of the study, Sheehan offered: “If the piped system is overwhelmed or surcharged, and the water exits the piped system onto the street and the yards, or if … the water is not able to get into the system.”

By way of additional background, the Washtenaw County online GIS mapping system includes a number of different layers, including aerial photography, topography, flood plains and drains. The following images derive at least in part from that system.

Study “smart map” overlaid on 1940 historical aerial photography. (Illustration by The Chronicle.)

Malletts Creek topographical map.

Malletts Creek historical map

Geographic Area: West of I-94, Detention Ponds

Ron Hansen responded to a question from a resident about the part of the study area that’s west of I-94. The resident wondered if the drainage from that area were eliminated, would it reduce the flooding in the triangle of Scio Church Road, Main Street and I-94?

Hansen said he didn’t have the exact answer to that. The resident gave some further background for his question, noting there’s not a lot of open land within the city limits to create stormwater detention facilities. Even if the school yard at Lawton Elementary were torn up, “that wouldn’t give you what you want,” he ventured. But on the other side of I-94 there’s a lot of open land, he said. He asked if the project team was considering underground detention or detention ponds for that area. On the opposite side of I-94 is one place where those kinds of projects could be undertaken, he felt. The resident ventured that imminent domain would have to be invoked for many of the possible sites, because they’re on private land.

Harry Sheehan allowed that if you remove water from the system or you delay its entry into the system, that will have an impact. So large-scale stormwater facilities and large-scale rain gardens – which is to say, wetlands – are something that could be contemplated in the area west of I-94. Whether eminent domain would have to be used wasn’t clear, he continued, pointing out that there is some public right-of-way and land that can be purchased. There are also some smaller pockets within the city boundary, he pointed out, such as the area just north of Churchill Downs up by Scio Church Road, where the open channel of the creek runs.

The audience member followed up by saying he was a big fan of detention ponds – because he lives next to one, which is bounded by Scio Church, 7th Street and Greenview. Most of the runoff in the neighborhood runs off into that detention pond, he said. During the dry season, the pond level is down and during the rainy season it’s up. The detention pond controls the water in his immediate neighborhood, so he felt the same solution would work in many others. Hansen added that detention could be feasible, but the concept of diverting or shutting the water off is not too feasible – because if you diverted the water coming from west of I-94, that would push it onto somebody else’s property.

Responding to a question about how many acre-feet of detention ponds would be required, Hansen said that’s one of the questions the project team is studying. The goal is eventually to be able to answer all the questions like that – but they wouldn’t be able to provide answers that evening. The final report on the project will be done in February 2014. It will take time to calculate the acre-feet. It’ll take time to identify where feasible stormwater detention facilities could be placed.

Right now the team is still partly in the information-gathering phase, Hansen explained. The team is also starting to do its modeling and monitoring work. After that is done, the team will begin the preliminary analysis phase. At that point they’ll be able to make statements like: If we put 20 acre-feet of detention at this location, here’s the level of service you’d get. That answer is still a few months in the future, he cautioned. He described five or six additional neighborhood meetings that would take place from now through February 2014.

Stormwater Improvements Funding

Residents at the March 14 meeting wanted to know if funding would be forthcoming and when it would be forthcoming.

Stormwater Improvements Funding: Utility Fees, CIP

Harry Sheehan indicated that the funding stream for the city of Ann Arbor is set by the stormwater utility rate that shows up in your water bill. His own stormwater utility bill is about $25 a quarter, he said. In the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), Sheehan explained, the first two years are budgeted. The funding from the stormwater utility fee would come as projects are defined in connection with the Malletts Creek study and placed in the CIP over the course of the next few months. Within the CIP, projects are prioritized, he said, and those that are prioritized for the first two years of the CIP would be budgeted.

The number of projects that are programmed in the first two years of the CIP are those than can be afforded with funds from the current stormwater utility, Sheehan said. It’s been possible to double the amount of projects undertaken, because the city and county use the state’s revolving loan fund, and some grant money that goes along with that. A couple of projects that will include stormwater management components are already budgeted in the neighborhood within the current two-year CIP cycle: Scio Church Road from 7th to Main Street; and 7th Street from Scio Church Road to Greenview.

From the funding summary of the CIP [both projects are scheduled for funding in FY 2016]:

UT-ST-14-13 Scio Church Storm Sewer Improvements (Main to 7th) $750,000
UT-ST-14-22 S 7th (Greenview to Scio Church) $650,000

-
For other projects, Sheehan described how deeper soil borings can be done to find out exactly where the groundwater is, relative to the surface, and to locate any sand seams.

By way of additional background on groundwater, it’s measured on a regular basis at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. In the last 10 years, it’s shown a rising trend – something that factored into a recent discussion by the city’s park advisory commission on issues like the location of a tennis court in Windemere Park. Daily measurements from 1963 through 2012 are available on the USGS website. [Google Spreadsheet and interactive graph]

Groundwater levels measured at Ann Arbor municipal airport since 1963.

Sheehan described collecting video data from the storm sewers and capturing flow data, so it can be determined how much water needs to be stored at different locations throughout the neighborhood.

Stormwater Improvements Funding: Street Projects

Earlier in the meeting, Sheehan had pointed out that the road right-of-way represents an opportunity for stormwater management. Streets have a useful life, and when they have to be reconstructed, that’s a chance to increase the size of the detention and conveyance system underneath the street, he explained.

Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner.

If that kind of stormwater improvement is part of a street reconstruction project, Sheehan explained, it can earn the project additional points in the priority rating system used in the city of Ann Arbor’s capital improvements plan (CIP). If a street needs to be reconstructed because the road surface needs to be replaced – which is typically why a street would be replaced, he noted – it will be placed in the CIP. But if there’s utility work that needs to be done as well, that accelerates the street project within the CIP.

Underneath the roadway, Sheehan said that improvements would be made by installing larger-sized pipes or underground storage – similar to what would ordinarily be found in porous pavement systems. If there’s water coming under the street from another neighborhood, you might not be able to store it all, he said, but you might be able to put in some swirl concentrators to remove some of the pollutants in the water. Those are the kinds of stormwater management systems that would be deployed under roadways.

Responding to a follow-up question from the audience, Sheehan described how anytime there is a street reconstruction project, the different components of the project are funded by their respective funds – street reconstruction, sanitary sewer work, drinking water and stormwater. Only the part of a street reconstruction project that can be associated with stormwater management is paid for out of the stormwater utility, Sheehan explained.

Stormwater Improvements Funding: Can Money Be Spent?

An additional follow-up question focused on the city policy for expenditures on stormwater improvements: Was it the case that money was not being spent on stormwater improvements in this part of town, because they were considered speculative investments – and for that reason they weren’t going to get done? The question was prompted by an Ann Arbor Chronicle report of a May 11, 2011 briefing that systems planning engineer Cresson Slotten had given the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s partnerships committee. In that briefing, Slotten had explained that the basic utility rates could not fund replacement of utility systems before they’d reached the end of their useful life – things like upsizing water mains to support future development.

Cresson Slotten, manager of the city of Ann Arbor’s systems planning unit.

Sheehan gave an assurance that money is being spent every day on stormwater improvements. A project is being done right now on Traver Creek, he said. Four road projects are planned for this construction season in the city that have stormwater management components, he pointed out. It’s not accurate to say that money is not being spent on stormwater improvements, Sheehan said.

The response from the questioner was that it’s music to his ears to hear that stormwater utility money can actually be spent on stormwater improvements: “If you want me to sign up for you breaking up my street and putting something in there, just give me a consent form and I will sign it tonight! You can put it in my backyard – you can put it anywhere you like!”

Stormwater Management Codes

At the March 14 meeting, Cresson Slotten – an engineer and manager of the city’s systems planning unit – was challenged by a resident to describe what the city has done to keep more rainwater from “washing down into this neighborhood.” The resident wanted to know: What have you done? What laws have you put in place?

Slotten explained that in terms of ordinances, rules and regulations, Chapter 63 of the city code is the part that deals with stormwater management. The chapter overall deals with soil erosion, Slotten explained, but a key piece of soil erosion is stormwater and stormwater management. He reported that the first piece of Chapter 63 was put in place in 1979, but since that time, it’s gone through a tremendous evolution. In the 26 years Slotten has worked for the city, he said, it’s been revised at least five times.

By way of illustration, Chapter 63 includes different requirements for on-site stormwater detention, depending on the amount of impervious surface in the project:

Sites proposed to contain:
(i) Impervious surfaces greater than 5,000 square feet and less than 10,000 square feet require retention/infiltration only of the first flush storm events.
(ii) Impervious surfaces equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet and less than 15,000 square feet require retention/infiltration only of the first flush and detention only of bankfull storm events.
(iii) Impervious surfaces equal to or greater than 15,000 square feet require retention/infiltration of the first flush, and detention of bankfull, and 100-year storm event. Detention facilities designed for the 100-year storm event shall include a sediment forebay.

Slotten explained that when a new project is proposed – a new office plaza or a new subdivision – the project must include the required stormwater management facilities to hold the water and to slow it down. To illustrate, he described a little neighborhood on the north side of Scio Church Road for which he’d done the stormwater review back in 1988 or 1989. It was a development with about a dozen single-family homes. A certain amount of stormwater detention was required on the site, he said. The amount of impervious surface was calculated – for the driveways, the roof area, and the little road. From that amount of surface, the required stormwater detention was calculated. Responding to a question from the audience, Slotten said it was not “just a guess” but rather had been calculated out by engineers.

Slotten also noted that in the townships, similar rules apply. Washtenaw County also has a set of stormwater regulations, he said, which the city has now adopted. The resident who’d prompted Slotten’s description of the regulations ventured: “These rules don’t work.” Slotten responded by saying that’s why they continue to evolve.

Footing Drain Disconnect (FDD) Program

From the audience at the March 14, 2013 meeting, some questions arose about the city of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnect program.

FDD Program: Background

The city of Ann Arbor has separate sanitary and stormwater conveyance systems.

Where rain goes: 70% runs off, and 23% soaks in, becomes part of underground flows or is absorbed by vegetation. It’s the remaining 7% of the rainwater that causes a problem for the sanitary sewer system – because the sanitary system is not designed to handle that kind of volume. (Diagram from the city of Ann Arbor.)

However, during construction of new developments before 1980, footing drains – permeable pipes buried around the perimeter of a foundation, roughly at the depth of a basement floor – were frequently connected directly to the sanitary sewer pipes. Those connections were convenient to make, because the footing drains and the sanitary sewers are buried at roughly the same depth.

However, during very heavy rains, that configuration leads to a volume of stormwater flow into the sanitary sewer system that it’s not designed to handle. That can cause two problems.

First, near the point where the extra water is entering the sanitary system, it can cause raw sewage to back up through the floor drains of basements.

Second, farther downstream at the wastewater treatment plant, the amount of water flowing into the plant can exceed the plant’s capacity. That can result in only partially-treated wastewater being discharged into the Huron River.

It was wastewater discharges into the river that led the city to agree to an administrative consent order with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to establish a way to offset the impact of new connections to the sanitary system required by new developments.

Footing drain disconnect (FDD) priority area in the southwest of Ann Arbor. Other priority areas, where nearly all the disconnections have been completed, lie in the northeast part of the city. The area of study for the Upper Malletts Creek study overlaps a large part of the FDD priority area. (Diagram from the city of Ann Arbor.)

That program essentially requires developers who are building projects that place additional burdens on the sanitary sewer system to pay for a number of footing drain disconnections elsewhere in the city, according to a formula. A city council resolution from Aug. 18, 2003 authorized the consent order with the MDEQ.

The footing drain disconnect program was targeted initially in five neighborhoods that accounted for about half of all reported basement sewage backups.

Since implementation, 2,538 footing drains have been disconnected, including nearly all of the houses in three of the five neighborhoods. In the two other areas, between 55% and 60% of footing drains have been disconnected.

The city council decided on Sept. 17, 2012 to suspend temporarily the footing drain disconnect program.

And at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, the city council authorized a roughly $1 million study of Ann Arbor’s sanitary sewer flows – meant to assess the impact of the decade-long footing drain disconnect program. The point of the study is to see how well the FDD program has worked: Has it had more impact or less impact than expected? Have residents’ preferences changed with respect to how they’d like to see the issue addressed?

The decision to suspend the FDD program came in the context of complaints from residents in the area of the current Malletts Creek study – about overland flooding in spring of 2012 as well as earlier.

The FDD procedure includes the installation of a sump to collect water from the footing drains – which previously fed into the sanitary system – and a pump to move the water from the sump to the stormwater system. And in some cases, the pumps were reportedly not able to keep up with the influx into the footing drains. In other cases, the discharge of the pumps reportedly exacerbated the overland flooding.

FDD Program: Increased Challenge for Stormwater Management?

Responding to a question from the March 14 audience, Ron Hansen said the impact of FDD is being considered as part of the Upper Mallets Creek study. He couldn’t, at this point, say if the FDD program is impacting the stormwater system. He hoped to be able to provide more information at upcoming meetings.

Evan Pratt also responded to the question, saying that regardless of what you think of the FDD program, there’s a sense that if the stormwater pipe is already full, then the water volumes associated with the FDD program don’t really matter – whether it’s a small or large amount that’s being pulled out of the sanitary system and put into the stormwater system. If the pipe is already full, then all of that FDD amount – whatever it is – will not fit into the stormwater pipe, Pratt said. He assured the audience that the study would calculate the FDD amount, and the design of improvements would consider how much water is getting moved from the sanitary system into the stormwater system. “That will absolutely be considered,” he concluded.

Responding to a follow-up question, Pratt indicated his understanding was that the city of Ann Arbor had placed a moratorium on the FDD program. But he noted that a certain number of disconnections had already been done under the FDD program. Pratt said the project team would work hard with the citizens advisory committee to get a clear consensus on the calculated amount of additional FDD water that’s being pushed into the storm drain – over and above what comes off the surface runoff. The design improvements will need to account for that amount, too. Like Hansen, Pratt indicated that he couldn’t at this point say if it’s a huge number or a little number – but in general he didn’t feel like it was an amount that should overwhelm the system.

Related to that, Pratt noted that there was overland flooding in the area before the FDD program was implemented in the early 2000s. It’s the project team’s understanding that during heavy rains in 1971, for example, water flowed down Churchill and Wiltshire streets. But he allowed that the additional FDD flow into the stormwater system was a legitimate concern: If the pipes are full, then any amount of water makes the problem that much worse.

FDD Program: Developer Mitigation

Cresson Slotten of the city’s systems planning unit was called on by a resident in the audience to explain the FDD credit system for developer offset mitigation. Slotten responded by explaining the formula for the developer mitigation program. The formula requires that for every 1,000 gallons of additional sanitary sewer flow a new development might cause, that amount plus 20% – or 1,200 gallons – has to be mitigated by performing footing drain disconnection elsewhere in the city.

Although some dissatisfaction was expressed with the amount of detail provided about the credit system, the resident seemed content to leave the issue for another time.

FDD Program: No Follow-up Phone Call

One resident at the March 14 meeting expressed concern about his experience with the FDD program. Since an FDD sump pump had been installed, he said, his basement gets wet even with routine rainfall. He’d attended the Jan. 29 meeting, and talked to a number of people who’d assured him they’d make a follow-up call: “You know who I heard from? Nobody.”

Harry Sheehan recalled talking with the resident, saying that he’d spoken to the resident and to three other people. He’d wanted to get the resident’s address, to compare it to the database of complaints logged before the FDD program was started. That database goes back to the early 1950s.

Flooding complaint map plotting data as far back as the 1950s. Each black dot is a complaint that was logged about water.

Sheehan said if he’d told the resident he’d follow up with a phone call, that was Sheehan’s error. He’d just wanted to see if there was a complaint prior to the FDD program for any of the four addresses that fit the category of apparently new wet basement problems arising after the FDD program. None of them had a history of prior complaints, Sheehan reported.

Sheehan also recalled talking to the resident about having an engineer come out to the resident’s property. If the resident still wanted to have an engineer come out, Sheehan still wanted to do that. Sheehan apologized for not making the follow-up connection. The resident responded: “You’re going to have a pretty big problem if you don’t call me and my basement floods. I’ve been struggling with this too long, and every meeting I come to I get madder and madder.”

Next Steps?

The project team described next steps, but residents were also interested in finding out if there’s anything they could do immediately to help improve the situation.

Next Steps: Immediate

Some residents wanted to know what could be done right now. Evan Pratt acknowledged that any projects that eventually could be implemented would not be started now, or even in February 2014, when the report was due. As he’d walked through some of the areas of the neighborhood, he’d thought that in some places maybe a big landscape berm could work, but he wasn’t really sure if that would be a good idea.

Harry Sheehan described the March 15, 2012 storm as a 10-year storm in engineering terms. And he said that as the days go by, this area is getting out of a window when rain might be falling on partially frozen and saturated ground. Still, residents wanted to know what they could to mitigate damage, if a similar storm were to strike this year.

Sheehan told residents there were a limited number of things that could be done. If a catch basin on the street is blocked, for example, that could be cleared. He told residents that if they weren’t able to do that themselves, to give his office a call.

Next Steps: Study Process

Sheehan described some of the next steps, including soil borings and flow monitoring, knocking on doors and collecting additional information.

Upper Malletts Creek study timeframe.

Soil boring data, including groundwater levels, will be collected as soon as the weather warms up a bit, Sheehan said. The information collected to date will then be compiled into a draft alternatives analysis to put out to residents and the citizens advisory committee. “It will be rough, but it will be more spelled out than what you’re seeing here, which is just categorical management practices.”

More numbers will be crunched based on reaction to that draft analysis. At that point, a revised draft will be created that will be roughly 90% complete. That version will include some associated costs and expected impact of the improvements. Another public meeting will take place to discuss that draft, he said. After that, a draft of the final report will be made and a public meeting will be held to get feedback on the report. A final report will be made by February 2014, and a public meeting will be held on that final report before it’s forwarded to the Ann Arbor city council.

Sheehan stressed that feedback can also be provided along the way by email if people get tired of attending the public meetings.

The Chronicle could not keep its head above water without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public issues like stormwater management. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Former Ann Arbor planning commissioner Evan Pratt hugs Wendy Woods, the commission’s vice chair, after receiving recognition for his service at the group’s Nov. 20 meeting. On Nov. 6, Pratt was elected Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and resigned from the city’s planning commission because of obligations for his new job. (Photos by the writer.)

The climate action plan includes about 80 recommended actions to help achieve those goals, ranging from possible changes in city code to actions that individuals or organizations can take voluntarily, like weatherizing buildings. [.pdf list of recommendations]

In his presentation of the plan, Nate Geisler of the city’s energy office told commissioners that the plan doesn’t tie the city to making firm commitments about these actions, but “it sets us on the path to doing this.” He indicated an urgency in taking action, highlighting the negative impact of global warming and the risks associated with doing nothing. The plan – which is coordinated with the city’s sustainability framework and with a similar effort by the University of Michigan – has already been recommended by the city’s energy and environmental commissions, and will be forwarded to the city council for its consideration.

Bonnie Bona, a planning commissioner who served on the task force that developed this plan, praised Geisler and Wayne Appleyard, chair of the city’s energy commission, for their role in leading the initiative. She offered the planning commission’s help in implementing the recommended actions. More information about the overall effort is online at a2energy.org/climate.

Also on the Nov. 20 agenda was a site plan and zoning request for a residential project at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road – called the Summit Townhomes. A similar version of the project had been previously postponed by commissioners in June of 2012. The current plan calls for building 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

On Nov. 20, the commission recommended approval of zoning the property R3 (townhouse dwelling district). That zoning proposal will be forwarded to the city council. But because of outstanding issues – including questions related to regrading the site’s steep slope – commissioners followed planning staff’s advice and voted to postpone a recommendation on the site plan.

In other action, the commission granted a special exception use that will allow the Memorial Christian Church to use a building at 1900 Manchester Road, off of Washtenaw Avenue. The building has been owned by and used as the Ann Arbor regional headquarters for the Girl Scouts Council. And six parcels in the northeast Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood – on Geddes, Seneca and Onondaga – were recommended for rezoning from R1B to R1C. Both are types of single-family dwelling districts. The rezoning would allow some of the larger lots to be divided.

During the Nov. 20 meeting, commissioner Eric Mahler gave a brief update from the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC), which is reviewing recommendations on changes to the city’s R4C/R2A zoning district, including a report from a study advisory committee. He said ORC is still working on the project and hopes to have a report ready for city council in the spring of 2013. [For an overview of the R4C/R2A initiative, see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Group Weighs R4C/R2A Report."]

The meeting included a formal commendation for former planning commissioner Evan Pratt, who recently stepped down from the group after winning election on Nov. 6 as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. Pratt had served on the planning commission since 2004, and had been its most senior current member.

Climate Action Plan

A draft climate action plan for the city of Ann Arbor, two years in the making, was presented to the Ann Arbor planning commission for their recommendation. [.pdf of executive summary] Nate Geisler of the city’s energy office, who had given commissioners a briefing on the plan at their Nov. 13 working session, again made a presentation at the Nov. 20 meeting.

He gave an overview of the plan’s premise – that climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, with a detrimental impact on the environment in a variety of ways. He noted that this year, several records have been broken globally for high temperatures, and Hurricane Sandy has raised the issue more recently. “These are changes that scientists across the globe are seeing,” he said, “and that we hope to have a response to in the form of our own climate action plan.”

Geisler reported that in the absence of a federal plan, local communities have been developing their own plans. The city of Ypsilanti, for example, adopted a climate action plan in July of 2012. Although Ann Arbor took its first greenhouse gas emissions inventory in 2003, the city until now hasn’t had a climate action plan.

The executive summary describes the plan’s purpose this way:

This Climate Action Plan is community focused, meaning it is not limited to addressing municipal government emissions, which in Ann Arbor make up less than two percent of the entire community’s emissions inventory. The actions found in the Plan may not all be feasible immediately; some may never be possible. There also may be emerging or unexplored ideas not discussed in these pages that will be identified in the future. As with any large-scale project or endeavor, actions that the municipality ultimately implements that require upfront investments will be brought before decision makers for consideration.

Underlying this Plan is the belief that the consequences to society and natural systems from continued inaction far outweigh the costs and challenges associated with the implementation of the proposed actions.

The plan states that in 2010, total greenhouse gas emissions in Ann Arbor – including the University of Michigan – totaled over 2.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), compared to 2.19 million metric tons in 2000. By category, those emissions in 2010 came from UM (30%); the commercial/industrial sector (25%); the residential sector (22%); transportation (22%); and waste (less than 1%). The category of waste includes solid waste collection and future emissions from landfilling, annual methane from the closed Ann Arbor landfill, and annual emissions from wastewater treatment.

The plan’s goals include a 25% reduction in community greenhouse emissions (over the year 2000 baseline levels) by 2025. This is the same goal set by the University of Michigan. In the shorter term, the goal is a reduction of 8% in emissions by 2015 – that’s an existing “energy challenge” goal set by city council set in 2005. Long-term, a 90% reduction is sought by 2050.

Nate Geisler, energy programs associate for the city of Ann Arbor, at the Nov. 13 working session for the Ann Arbor planning commission.

The plan provides a range of strategies for achieving these goals, divided into four categories, which align with the city’s recently adopted sustainability framework: (1) energy and buildings; (2) land use and access; (3) resource management; and (4) community and health. Examples of about 80 recommended actions include weatherizing existing housing stock, maximizing the purchase of renewable energy, providing incentives for the use of public transit, adopting a water conservation ordinance, and starting a community “net-zero” home-building/renovation contest. [.pdf list of actions]

The plan doesn’t tie the city to making firm commitments about these actions, Geisler said, but “it sets us on the path to doing this.”

He noted that to reach the ambitious mid-century targets, a major shift has to happen to move away from fossil fuels as energy sources. In Michigan, with voters not approving Proposal 3 on the Nov. 6 ballot, the mandate remains for utility companies to generate just 10% of their power from renewable sources by 2015, he said. [Proposal 3 would have mandated 25% renewable energy by 2025.]

Development of the plan was funded by a two-year $50,000 pollution prevention grant that the city received in 2010 from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. The effort has been spearheaded by the city’s energy commission, which formed a task force to work on the project. Members included planning commissioner Bonnie Bona, who has given periodic updates to the planning commission. She is a project manager for the Clean Energy Coalition, an Ann Arbor-based nonprofit.

Both the energy and environmental commissions recommended approval of the plan at their October 2012 meetings. Geisler pointed to the website a2energy.org/climate for more information.

No one spoke at the public hearing for the plan.

Climate Action Plan: Commission Discussion

There was little discussion about the plan among commissioners. Bonnie Bona thanked Nate Geisler and Wayne Appleyard, chair of the city’s energy commission. [Appleyard attended the Nov. 20 meeting but did not formally address the planning commission.] She described the task force as a well-informed group, and she urged commissioners to read every word in the report. Bona also wanted to support the energy commission as it moves the plan forward, and asked that the planning commission be informed if there’s any help they can provide.

Ken Clein said he was also supportive of the plan, and asked a question about the measurement of CO2 emissions. Geisler said that in a micro-climate sense, the city can’t easily measure what its parts-per-million CO2 emissions might be. So estimates were made based on emissions that would be generated from certain actions, he said, and the cumulative impact was calculated. He said the city’s plan talks about the need, in a global sense, to be close to 350 parts-per-million, but the plan isn’t specific about how Ann Arbor can contribute to that goal.

Tony Derezinski praised the plan’s goals. But he noted that it focuses only on lowering CO2 emissions. For that, using wind, solar and other renewable energy only allows you to reach a certain level. “Does this really push you toward nuclear energy as the source?” he asked, noting that nuclear energy generates very little CO2 emissions.

Precinct-by-precinct results of Prop 3 voting in the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf)

Geisler estimated that the current DTE grid generated about 20% of its power using nuclear energy. The climate action plan doesn’t advocate for a particular type of energy, he said, though there’s an emphasis to increase the use of renewable energy. He indicated that the city doesn’t have the ability to take action on the level of generating power. However, he pointed to the city council’s advocacy role earlier this year – in unanimously passing a resolution in support of Proposal 3. The statewide ballot initiative was defeated on Nov. 6, but Geisler noted that it passed in Ann Arbor, with strong support in Washtenaw County as well.

It’s hard to know how things will change in the coming years, Geisler said, and how those changes will influence the ways that energy is generated. But it’s important not to wait, he added, and that’s why there’s urgency in taking the kinds of actions that are outlined in the climate action plan.

Outcome: Planning commissioners voted unanimously to recommend adopting the climate action plan. The recommendations from the planning, energy and environmental commissions will be forwarded to the city council for consideration, likely at its Dec. 17 meeting.

Summit Townhomes

The site plan and zoning for a residential project at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road – called the Summit Townhomes – was on the commission’s Nov. 20 agenda. The request included zoning the property R3 (townhouse dwelling district). A similar version of the project had been previously postponed by commissioners in June of 2012.

Aerial photo of property for Summit Townhomes, outlined in black. The property fronts Ellsworth Road and lies southeast of the Cloverly Village condominiums. The north/south road to the left is Stone School. The north/south road to the right is Shadowwood Drive, leading into the Forest Hills Cooperative townhome development. The structure in the top center of this image is Bryant Elementary School.

At the June meeting, commissioners had approved annexation of the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council and is awaiting state approval.

The developer, Shawn Barrow of Orlando, Fla., had withdrawn his original proposal and in August submitted a new one, which was considered by planning commissioners on Nov. 20. Instead of an area plan, the current proposal is a site plan. The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

A public sidewalk would be installed along Ellsworth, with other sidewalks interior to the site. The city is planning to request a $14,880 donation to the parks system.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponing action. The development calls for extensive grading on the site, which includes steep slopes. Staff had expressed some concerns about that approach, which would require large amounts of soil to be removed from the site. According to a staff report, a postponement was requested so that the developer can address staff comments, and provide additional information about stabilization of the site and a natural features analysis. During his presentation to the commission on Nov. 20, city planner Matt Kowalski said that revised plans have been submitted, but the planning staff haven’t yet had the time to review them.

Summit Townhomes: Public Hearing

Snehal Shah told commissioners that he lived in the adjacent Cloverly Village, in a condominium that overlooks the proposed Summit Townhomes development. He was concerned about removal of 12 landmark trees, and wanted more information about that. Shah said his home overlooked the site, and he was concerned that the proposed townhomes would spoil the view and lower property values. He also asked about the elevation of the townhomes, and whether they would overwhelm the Cloverly Village condos.

Leonard Michaels of CIW Engineering in Rossford, Ohio introduced himself as the consulting engineer for this project. He noted that the project started in January of 2011 and that it’s been a “very arduous” process. There’s no question that it’s a challenging site, he said. Five different layout options had been submitted to the city, Michaels said. Under R3 zoning, it would be possible to build up to 29 units, he noted, but the proposed site plan has only 24 units – to make the layout easier. He said the project team could address the issues raised by the planning staff, but they were hoping for at least tentative approval that night because certain financing hinges on the project’s timing. He said he’d be happy to answer any questions.

Summit Townhomes: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by asking Matt Kowalski to address the question about landmark trees that had been raised during public commentary. Kowalski said he didn’t recall the exact species of the trees, but he pointed out where they were located on a schematic of the site, and said they would be replaced by a mix of deciduous and conifer trees around the perimeter of the site. [.pdf of landscaping plan]

In response to additional questions from Bona, Leonard Michaels – the project’s engineer – returned to the podium. He reported that the plan is to create a solid line of trees around the site’s periphery, which would fill in over time. On the east side there’s also a fairly large retaining wall, he noted.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Ken Clein.

From the audience, Snehal Shah of Cloverly Village shouted out that he had additional concerns about traffic onto Ellsworth, that he’d forgotten to raise during public commentary. Michaels told commissioners that one of the plans submitted to the city had included two driveways into the site off of Ellsworth, but the city’s traffic engineer had decided that only one driveway was necessary. The traffic impact of the project is so low that the city didn’t require a traffic study, Michaels said. He agreed that overall, traffic on Ellsworth is congested, but noted that the city’s traffic engineer didn’t feel the impact of the Summit Townhomes would be significant.

Michaels also noted that he was hoping to coordinate with the Ann Arbor Public Schools. The Summit Townhomes site is adjacent to land owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools, leading to Bryant Elementary School. Planning staff have suggested that the developer include pedestrian access for future connection with the school. Regarding the parks contribution, Michaels said that a contribution would be preferable to incorporating a recreation area onto the site.

Bona said she hoped the parks contribution would be made. When the commission previously considered this project in June, they’d heard from neighbors that there weren’t adequate parks and recreation areas in that part of the city, she noted. She asked planning staff to make sure that the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan addressed this issue.

Kowalski said parks planner Amy Kuras had been working with the developer about the parks contribution. Kowalski also had talked to Kuras about allocating the project’s parks contribution to the nearby Arbor Oaks park. The parks staff isn’t too concerned about the availability of parks and recreation options in that area, Kowalski said. Staff believes the amount of parkland is adequate. He also pointed out that the pedestrian connection to AAPS property is a request from the city, not a requirement.

Commissioners asked questions about the proposed retaining wall, stormwater runoff, site lighting, and issues related to the sloping of the site. Wendy Woods asked Michaels if he had any drawings to show the elevation of the retaining wall or the type of materials that would be used. Otherwise, she said, it would be hard for her to imagine what it would look like. Michaels replied that more detailed design would be based on estimated cost and available financing, which hadn’t been finalized.

In response to a query by Tony Derezinski, Kowalski said that planning staff still recommended a postponement. Although the developer had submitted responses to issues that had been raised by the city staff, Kowalski said he hadn’t yet had time to review those responses.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, observed that Michaels had suggested separating the zoning from the site plan, and she noted that the commission could choose to vote on those recommendations separately. The planning staff felt that the R3 zoning was appropriate. Rampson reported that because the zoning request would need to go through both a first and second reading at separate city council meetings, the process for zoning takes longer than for site plan approval.

Commissioners agreed to vote on the two recommendations separately.

Outcome: The commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of zoning the property R3 (townhouse dwelling district). That zoning recommendation will be forwarded to the city council. On a separate vote, commissioners unanimously voted to postpone action on the site plan approval.

Memorial Christian Church

A special exception use was being requested to allow the Memorial Christian Church to use a building at 1900 Manchester Road, off Washtenaw Avenue. It has been owned by and used as the Ann Arbor regional headquarters for the Girl Scouts Council. The church was previously located at 730 Tappan – the corner of Tappan and Hill – in a building that was purchased by the Michigan Alpha Chapter of Sigma Phi Epsilon earlier this year.

The request would allow the church to convert a 8,104-square-foot two-story office building to a church use for seating up to 111 people. This use is permitted under Chapter 55 (zoning) of the city code. No exterior changes are planned. The church hours are Sundays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Wednesday evenings from 7-9 p.m., and occasionally at other times during the week. There’s a 37-space parking lot on the site, with overflow parking on Manchester.

Memorial Christian Church: Public Hearing

The church’s pastor, Bob Brite, spoke to commissioners during a public hearing on the request, reporting that the church currently has 30-40 members. They are looking for a location where there’s room for growth, and this site will meet a lot of their needs.

Dan Mooney introduced himself as an architect representing BASEstudios in Ann Arbor. He said he was on hand to answer any questions that commissioners had about the project.

Memorial Christian Church: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked how the occupancy number of 111 had been set. Jeff Kahan replied that the site has 37 spaces, and the city requires one parking spot for every three people. The math is a straightforward calculation, working out to 111.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Bona told the pastor, Bob Brite, that she hoped the church could attract as many parishioners as the building’s capacity would hold. It’s a two-story building, and she wondered how the seating would work. Brite replied that the sanctuary will be on the second floor, which would hold up to 88 seats. They’re also planning to put a fellowship hall on that floor. The church hopes to lease space on the first floor to nonprofit tenants. He joked that unless someone famous joins their congregation, it will likely be a while before their group reaches the maximum 111. When they reach 88 parishioners, they’ll likely split into two services, he said. He invited commissioners to Sunday service.

Eric Mahler raised some concerns about traffic turning left onto Washtenaw Avenue, but Kahan clarified that there is no direct exit from the site onto Washtenaw. The parking lot exits onto Manchester, and there’s a signal at the intersection of Manchester and Washtenaw.

Wendy Woods said that as a former board member for the Girl Scouts and as someone whose daughters were Girl Scouts, she was glad to see the building used in this way.

Tony Derezinski noted that the neighborhood is accustomed to parking on the streets for church services. St. Francis of Assisi is located nearby on East Stadium Boulevard, he said. The Ann Arbor Assembly of God is even closer, at the split of Washtenaw and Stadium. Derezinski reported that he had voted there on Nov. 6 – it’s the polling station for his Ward 2 precinct.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to grant the special exception use. No action is required by city council.

Rezoning in Arbor Hills

A rezoning request for six parcels in the northeast Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood was on the Nov. 20 agenda. The sites would be rezoned from R1B to R1C. Both are types of single-family dwelling districts. The locations are 2014 Geddes Ave.; 2024 Geddes Ave.; 520 Onondaga St.; 2025 Seneca Ave.; 2023 Seneca Ave.; and 2019 Seneca Ave. [.jpg aerial view of parcels] These are six parcels in a block of 10 sites – the other four sites are already zoned R1C.

According to a staff memo, the rezoning was initiated by the city council at the request of property owners: Raymond Maturo and Ann Mulhern; Joseph and Suzanne Upton; Rishindra and Gwendolyn Reddy; Shahrzad Vazirzadeh and Chad Patterson; Vassilios Lambropoulos and Artemis Leontis; and the Clan Crawford Jr. Trust.

R1B zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Three of the parcels don’t conform with that zoning. Under the proposed R1C zoning, all parcels would conform with required lot size and width. The rezoning would potentially allow three of the parcels – each lot size currently about 17,500 square feet – to be divided in the future, if other city code requirements are met.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Rezoning in Arbor Hills: Commission Discussion

There was no substantive discussion, but Tony Derezinski noted that one of the property owners – Clan Crawford – had a statewide reputation in the past and was known as “Mr. Zoning & Planning.” Crawford had authored several books on municipal zoning and planning practices in Michigan, and Derezinski said he would call up Crawford for advice when Derezinski was doing work in that field. Derezinski reported that Crawford was supportive of the proposed rezoning.

Outcome: The rezoning was unanimously recommended for approval, and will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Farewell to Evan Pratt

Evan Pratt, who had served on the Ann Arbor planning commission since 2004, was elected as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in the Nov. 6 general election. That new job requires that Pratt attend Tuesday evening meetings of the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission, precluding membership on the planning commission, which also meets on Tuesdays.

Evan Pratt, former Ann Arbor planning commissioner who was elected on Nov. 6 as the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

Pratt attended the Nov. 20 meeting to receive a certificate of appreciation from his former colleagues. Commissioners around the table praised his work and congratulated him on his new endeavor. Eleanore Adenekan said that as a relatively new commissioner, she had learned a lot from Pratt and she’s sorry to see him go. Tony Derezinski said he’d remember fondly the discussions they’ve had and work they’ve done – “sometimes tough, sometimes controversial, but always with friendship.” He invited Pratt to join commissioners after their meetings every once in a while “to give us your words of wisdom.” [Some commissioners go out together socially after meetings, typically to The Blue Tractor.]

Eric Mahler joked that they’d know if Pratt was doing his job because they’d see reports from the water resources commissioner’s office for projects that they’d be reviewing at the planning commission. Mahler recalled that when he joined the commission, Pratt was serving as chair. “You set a very high bar for all the future chairs to come.” He said the business of the commission could not have been done without Pratt.

Bonnie Bona began by saying “I can’t believe it – I’m now the senior planning commissioner because you left.” She said she’d miss not just his engineering perspective, but also “your layperson’s way of explaining all of that.” It was very helpful, and she thought it would be a huge asset in the water resources office too.

Diane Giannola and Ken Clein echoed the sentiments of other commissioners, and wished Pratt luck.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, also thanked Pratt and said she appreciated his insights. He brought a great blend of his professional expertise and his layperson’s perspective to planning issues, she said. She hoped he would return with some Pecha Kucha presentations in the future, to provide some entertainment for the commission. [Pratt had given this kind of presentation to commissioners at one of their meetings two years ago, on the topic of roundabouts.]

Wendy Woods, the commission’s vice chair who was leading the meeting in the absence of chair Kirk Westphal, read aloud the certificate of appreciation and concluded by giving him a hug. Pratt said it had been great working as part of the team and with the planning staff. He thanked members of the public who attended meetings too, saying he appreciated everyone’s input. Commissioners and staff gave Pratt a round of applause.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Ken Clein, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, and Wendy Woods.

Absent: Kirk Westphal.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: Democrat Evan Pratt and Republican Eric Scheie at the Oct. 8 candidate forum for the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. (Photos by the writer.)

Scheie, who ran for Ward 4 Ann Arbor city council last year but was defeated by incumbent Marcia Higgins, is concerned that environmentalists have prioritized water over people. He said he’s against water pollution, but thinks that in some cases the government goes too far in over-regulating. He also took issue with the approach of current water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin, saying he’d heard “horror stories” from some farmers who think there’s a plot to push them off their land.

In contrast, Pratt has worked closely with Bobrin and he highlighted her endorsement of his candidacy. He stressed his experience in working on public infrastructure projects as a civil/environmental engineer, as well as his work with the Huron River Watershed Council, the Ann Arbor planning commission and other local entities.

Both candidates have more information on their websites. Scheie’s site includes a description of his philosophy, including a reminder of the position’s origins as drain commissioner. Pratt’s site includes a list of supporters, which he also highlighted during his opening statement. Scheie and Pratt also supplied brief answers to five questions about their background and approach to the job for the League of Women Voters Vote 411 website.

The water resources commissioner is an elected position with a four-year term. Bobrin has served in that role since first being elected in 1988. She was instrumental in broadening the focus of the job – as well as its title – from drains to water resources. Bobrin decided not to run for re-election this year. She endorsed Pratt in both the Aug. 7 primary, when he defeated fellow Democrat Harry Bentz, as well as in the Nov. 6 general election against Scheie, who did not face a Republican primary challenger.

The Oct. 8 candidate forum was held at the studios of Community Television Network, and will be available online via CTN’s video-on-demand service. It was the first of three forums on Monday evening. Others covered the races for county treasurer and county clerk/register of deeds. The full schedule of candidate forums this week is on the league’s website. The forums are broadcast live on CTN’s Channel 19 starting at 7 p.m.

Information on local elections can be found on the Washtenaw County clerk’s elections division website. To see a sample ballot for your precinct, visit the Secretary of State’s website. The league’s Vote411.org website also includes a range of information on national, state and local candidates and ballot issues, and a “build my ballot” feature.

Opening Statements

Each candidate was given one minute to make an opening statement.

Pratt: He explained that the water resources commissioner is responsible for over 500 county drains, stormwater management systems, flood control systems and lake-level management systems. He directed viewers to his campaign website for more information, and to look at his list of supporters to see if there’s someone they know and trust on the list. He said he stands for running a fair and transparent office operation, as well as a lean, financially prudent organization focused on water resources management. He cited his experience leveraging taxpayer money, saying that he’s assisted the current water resources commissioner in obtaining over $17 million in grants.

Scheie: The original purpose of the drain commissioner – the original title for this job – was to put people first and get rid of water, he said. Maybe that was going too far, he noted. There are now additional responsibilities, but he thinks the office now goes too far in putting water first. He’s seen a lot of extravagant projects. One example is Malletts Creek, which used to have a nice forest where he walked his dogs. It’s been clear cut and now has stagnant water in pools, he said – the water isn’t flowing well. Scheie also cited problems with the stormwater management project at West Park in Ann Arbor. These are examples of things he’d like to look at, he said. You have to consider the budget and everyone, not just water, he concluded.

Job Responsibilities

Explain the primary duties of the county water resources commissioner.

Pratt: As laid out in the drain code [Public Act 40 of 1956] the job duties are to deal with water quality and quantity, Pratt said. That’s one reason why the position’s title has been changed to water resources commissioner. He said when he’s talked to people about flooding problems, or when he’s investigated water quality or quantity issues, it comes down to two things. It’s like what Walt Kelly said, Pratt noted: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Most people say there was a problem on their property when they bought it, or that someone else did something and caused the problem. Most flooding and water quality problems are caused by human interaction with the existing environment. So it’s not really true that it’s a choice between water and people, Pratt said. You need to see what the water’s doing first, before you develop and build things, because there’s definitely going to be an impact.

Scheie: Saying he wasn’t speaking of Pratt, Scheie said there are a lot of people in the environmentalist movement who think that people are the enemy of nature. The current water resources commissioner has a reputation, he said. He’s talked to farmers and landowners who really feel threatened. One man told him that a drain hadn’t been maintained – it hadn’t been cleared since 1937 – and it has turned the land into unusable wetlands “and now he’s in trouble.” The office needs to be more considerate of people who’ve been here a while, Scheie said. They’re not going to be able to turn Ann Arbor into what it originally was, but sometimes he wonders if that’s the philosophy of some of the environmentalists. He hoped that’s not Pratt’s philosophy.

Experience

What professional experiences led to your run for water resources commissioner, and what was the most significant in preparing you for this office?

Scheie: He said he’s a licensed attorney in California – he’s not practicing in Michigan. He’s been a local volunteer. He was a police review commissioner for the city of Berkeley, so he has administrative experience in government, though not elected experience. When he was running for a seat on the Ann Arbor city council, “water kept coming up in a strange way.” [Scheie ran in Ward 4 against incumbent Marcia Higgins in November 2011, but lost.] People were up in arms about the city’s footing drain disconnect program, he said. That’s a major issue now, and it’s a question of drainage. As another example, County Farm Park is one of his favorite parks, he said, but he watched it become defoliated [because of the Malletts Creek restoration project]. These things have led him to look critically at what’s going on, and that’s why he’s running.

Pratt: He’s spent 25 years of his professional career working in water resources and other public infrastructure work. It’s been interesting to learn how government processes work, he said, and to understand how people need to have a say in projects that impact them. He’s also served on the Huron River Watershed Council, and gained understanding of why it’s important to protect natural resources. Certainly there can be situations where a drain hasn’t been cleaned out, he said, but sometimes trees grow into drains – and if you want a drain cleared, you sometimes have to cut down trees so the water can flow. That’s probably the reason why trees were cut down in County Farm Park, he said. Pratt says he brings 25 years of construction experience on public projects. That will help him manage the fine line between helping people and damaging the environment.

Values, Beliefs

What values or beliefs do you hold that would influence your conduct as water resources commissioner, or impact the choices you’d make on behalf of the office?

Pratt: It’s critical to be fair, open and honest in these projects that are being considered. Projects done under the drain code are different from work done on streets, sewers or water mains, he said. The water resources commissioner is not involved unless people have a problem and want to get the office involved. Landowners have to make a petition, and there’s a specific process to involve those landowners in the decisions that are made, he said. The people who live in an area know a lot about what’s going on there, he said, and it’s important to listen to them. That value or belief would guide him the most, Pratt said. From the financial or fiscal side, he said, it’s cheaper to dig a ditch than to lay a pipe, and the ditch is more environmentally sound. So in simple terms, it pays to be environmentally aware.

Eric Scheie, Republican candidate for Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

Scheie: Philosophically, he said, he’s not comfortable with the idea of central authoritarian figures telling people what to do. That’s why he as a problem with top-down micromanagement telling people that they can’t do certain things or farm certain land.

The stories that farmers have told him have horrified him, Scheie said. The state Dept. of Environmental Quality has told farmers that any drain at all – even tile in a drainage ditch – is a navigable waterway.  He said he’s as much against water pollution as anyone else. He grew up in Philadelphia, where there was real water pollution with industrial waste. It’s a much cleaner situation here, he said, and he’d like to keep it clean. But he doesn’t like the idea of ordinary roof runoff being treated as pollution – he thinks it’s going a little too far. “We do have a city here,” he said.

Neighboring Communities

Since water resources are affected by policies of surrounding communities, what are your plans for working with neighboring communities?

Scheie: He’d like to become as informed as possible – and he said he suspects that Pratt is a bit more informed about these issues. The water resources commissioner does interact with Ann Arbor a lot, he noted, although Ann Arbor has its own policies. The water resources commissioner doesn’t have a lot of power beyond what’s allowed by state statute, he said, which is to maintain the drains and keep them running, as well as to manage soil erosion and sediment control. But other than contacting people for input, the office doesn’t really have a lot of say-so in the rest of the state, he said. It’s a big job here, so he’d keep focused on that, though he said he’d also try to do as much outreach as possible within the limitations of the office.

Pratt: This question applies to three levels, he said – drainage, water quality, and pooling resources. The last category includes things like sharing equipment for cleaning, mowing and tree-cutting – whatever can be done to minimize the cost. Many public works departments already work together on this, he said. Regarding water quality, the current water resources commissioner is involved in the Middle Huron initiative, which focuses on pollution in the section of the Huron River where the MDEQ has found that E.coli is above legally allowable limits and substantial work needs to be done to cut that. There are other orders from the MDEQ that are being worked on as well, he said.

Future Challenges

What challenges are facing the office in the next two years, and what are your priorities for managing them?

Pratt: It’s the same challenge that all agencies have been facing for five or six years, he said – how to manage increasing responsibility with declining budgets. He said he’s given presentations on this topic in Michigan, Tennessee and Ohio. There’s a lot of work to do – not just footing drain issues, but other flooding problems too – but there hasn’t been money to solve them. So dealing with those fiduciary issues is the main thing, he said. That’s why it’s useful to have his experience bringing grants to projects that qualify for grants. It’s an important skill, he said – taking a project that’s needed and that people want, and shaping it into something that fits into a grant mold. He’s worked with a number of communities that have taken this approach.

Scheie: It’s a big enough job just to manage and take care of the drains, he said. With the additional responsibility of soil erosion and sediment control, it’s probably twice as big. He said he’s visited the website of the water resources commissioner and there’s more about the issue of soil erosion and sediment control than about drains. What bothers him is that the county has fewer resources. While the drainage systems tend to pay for themselves – because the drain commissioner has the power to impose taxes for such projects – some of these other projects, like Malletts Creek and West Park, are very expensive multi-million dollar projects, he said. Scheie said he’d want to look at how much of that is needed, and whether there are diminishing returns. He realizes that Malletts Creek has some problems, like a deficiency of macroinvertebrates, but how far do you go? Do you want to make a pristine stream? Scheie said he didn’t think it’s ever going to be pristine again.

Allen Creek Greenway

What are your thoughts and preferences for the Allen Creek greenway?

Scheie: He’s visited one of the city of Ann Arbor properties where the road commission was previously located and where there’s now a big surface parking lot [415 W. Washington]. He doesn’t think anyone objects to that property being turned into something else – because right now it’s an eyesore. If the voters like the plan, he’s all for it – this is a democracy, he said. But he’d be very wary about the cost. Sometimes you get into complex mistakes that have to be dug up and redone, he said. People in Ann Arbor are fed up with traffic associated with endless construction projects, he said. And a lot of people are upset about the character of Ann Arbor being altered by tall buildings and other things. As far as creating a nice park, he said he doesn’t have a problem with that, but he’d want to look at the money involved very carefully.

Pratt: It’s a two-fold issue, he said. Some people think more about Allen Creek, but others think more about non-motorized transportation. He defined the corridor as running from where the creek flows to the Huron River just downstream from Argo Pond, up to the area around Michigan Stadium. He said he’s met with people who serve on the Allen Creek Conservancy board and talked to them about their vision. He thinks they’re open to the idea that the project could be a number of different things. It’s hard to say that he’s for one thing or another, because there isn’t a specific proposal yet. It would be great if there’s a cost-effective way to restore Allen Creek and to include a greenway. It’s fairly common to have a low-lying flooding area used for non-motorized transportation. The city of Austin, Texas does a great job of that, he said.

Long-Term Vision

What’s your long-term vision for this office? What projects would you like to start now for the next 10-20 years?

Evan Pratt, Democratic candidate for Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

Pratt: He said he’d like to work on a program more than a specific project – a program that would lead toward his children not having to stay out of the Huron River for 48 hours after it rains, which is the current situation. You’re not supposed to have full body contact during that period, because of what’s in the river. The situation is better than it was, he said. He’s seen photos from the 1950s and ’60s. There were tanneries in the area near the area where DTE now operates. Cleanup is happening there now, and you can see oozing black tar coming out. He’d love to see that site cleaned up, and a mix of uses there – parkland as well as a nice place where he could go have dinner with his family. He wants to do things that enhance the river so that people won’t turn their back on it. In a totally different category, he said, he’d like to help out farmers with their agricultural drainage fields, which relates to an entire different set of needs.

Scheie: It matters what the local community wants, not what he would want. There are a lot of arguments, especially in Ann Arbor, over things like the removal of the Argo Dam. He’d like to see some effort to have community consensus so that people don’t feel that projects are rammed down their throats. A lot of people feel that way now, he said. A project starts and people start asking questions about why it’s happening. He’s like to see projects like this brought to a vote, perhaps by amending the city charter in Ann Arbor and looking at what the whole county thinks. There’s too much acrimony, he said, and he’d like to try to reduce that.

Open-Ended Question

What question wasn’t asked tonight that you’d like to address?

Scheie: He said he hasn’t really talked about some of the horror stories he’s heard from farmers. The further you get outside of Ann Arbor, you get the picture that it’s really scary. Some farmers think there’s a plot to push them off their land, he said, to take their land away inch by inch – by restricting what can be done on the land. One thing that bothers him is that you have to go through the water resources commissioner just to get a building permit for almost any exterior work. That doesn’t seem right, he said. There’s too much government, and he’d like to have some discussion of that.

Pratt: He would liked to have been asked what people are talking to him about. In general, people are telling him that they don’t want water pushed their way. A lot of times when someone wants to fill in a low-lying area or put something on their land, they aren’t thinking about the fact that water gets stored there. If you fill a low-lying area where water gets stored, that becomes someone else’s problem. That’s why there’s a drain commissioner, he said, dating back to 1847. He said he explains to people that the drain code is set up not to push anything onto people, but to offer people the opportunity to have at least five landowners petition the drain commissioner to help them fix a problem that they can’t solve themselves.

Closing Statements

Each candidate had the opportunity to make a two-minute closing statement.

Scheie: He thanked the league for hosting this forum – it’s good for Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County. He’s running for an office that most people he talks to have never even heard of. He points out to them that this office has more power than the governor, in terms of the ability to impose taxes unilaterally. When there’s a drain put in, the office has the statutory power to levy taxes. A lot of people don’t think about these things. He’s concerned that there’s too much emphasis on putting water first. He said he goes swimming in the Huron River and cares about water quality. But in a populated area, you have to balance things. That’s why he’s running. Things have gone too far in the direction of over-regulation.

Pratt: He also thanked the league and the viewers. It’s not just the water resources commissioner, but many others who work hard to help out people. Water is our most precious resource, he said, and he’d like to continue a career of protecting this valuable resource for his young children and everyone else in Washtenaw County. He noted that the retiring water resources commissioner, Janis Bobrin, has worked hard to improve water quality and address flooding issues, and she supports him. Pratt read a quote from her stating that he’s the most qualified candidate.

He’s a licensed engineer in Michigan and a graduate of MIT’s civil engineering program. He cited his community experience relative to water resources, including nine years on the Huron River Watershed Council, eight years on the Ann Arbor planning commission, and service on the Washtenaw County planning advisory board. He said he also brings experience as a treasurer for “two relevant nonprofits and a $20 million private corporation.” That gives him a proven record of success in financial oversight for multimillion-dollar budgets and projects, he said. Pratt asked voters to consider these qualifications when they go into the voting booth on Nov. 6. People shouldn’t have to pay for something that they don’t need or want, he said. He’s committed to protecting water resources, listening to people, and finding that right balance between a project’s benefit and cost.

The Chronicle would not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government – we hope you elect to subscribe. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

From left: Democrats Harry Bentz and Evan Pratt are running for the position of Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. (Photos by the writer.)

Scheie is not challenged in the primary, so it was only Bentz and Pratt who attended a July 9 candidate forum moderated by the League of Women Voters of the Ann Arbor Area. Questions asked during the 30-minute event covered issues directly related to the position, or dealt more broadly with water and environmental quality issues, such as fracking and the Pall/Gelman groundwater contamination. Other topics included regional collaboration, financing for drain projects, and the Allen Creek greenway in Ann Arbor.

Pratt emphasized his experience as a civil and environmental engineer, including work on local water resources projects. He also stressed the fact that he is endorsed by Bobrin. He noted his involvement with groups like the Huron River Watershed Council and the Ann Arbor planning commission. He stressed his financial experience – in managing projects and as treasurer for various professional groups.

Bentz stressed the importance of ordinary citizens getting involved in local government, and described the job of water resources commissioner as an administrative position. He put himself forward as an alternative to the “political machine” that he says had taken over local government. Bentz noted that he’s a lifelong resident of Washtenaw County, and could provide new blood in the political process.

Both Bentz and Pratt are Ann Arbor residents, as is the Republican candidate, Eric Scheie.

With offices on Zeeb Road in Scio Township, the office of the county water resources commissioner – formerly called the drain commissioner – is responsible for stormwater management, flood control, drainage systems and a wide range of other issues related to water quality throughout Washtenaw County. Recent projects include the Malletts Creek restoration, the RiverSafe public education program, and the Traver Creek stabilization project for a section that runs through the Leslie Park Golf Course.

The July 9 candidate forum was held at the studios of Community Television Network, and is available online via CTN’s video-on-demand service. Candidates gave opening and closing statements, and answered nine questions. The format was not designed for interaction between candidates, but each candidate was given an optional one-minute rebuttal to use once during the forum.

The deadline to register to vote in the Aug. 7 primary has passed. Oct. 9 is the last day to register to vote for the Tuesday, Nov. 6 general election. Information on voter registration can be found on the Washtenaw County clerk’s elections division website. To see a sample ballot for your precinct, visit the Secretary of State’s website. The League of Women Voters also has an online voter information site – Vote411.org – which includes biographical information on some candidates, stances on issues, and a “build my ballot” feature.

Opening Statements

Each candidate made a one-minute opening statement.

Pratt: The Washtenaw County water resources commissioner is responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of over 500 stormwater management and flood control systems for county drains, Pratt explained. He directed viewers to his website for more information about his background, qualifications and supporters. Pratt said he offered three main commitments. He stands for being fair – to constituents, property owners and communities of all kinds. Second, he’d run a lean and financially prudent organization. Finally, he said he’s experienced at leveraging taxpayer money. He’s assisted the current water resources commissioner, Janis Bobrin, in securing and administrating nearly $17 million in water resource project grants.

Bentz: Every day we hear how the political process is controlled by lobbyists, special interest and the revolving door between business and politics, Bentz said. The only thing we can do to regain influence on our government is to have an ordinary working-class citizen step up and offer an alternative to the political machine that’s taken control over government positions. The position of water resources commissioner is an administrative position that should maintain a diverse staff of talented individuals, dedicated to customer service and the needs of citizens. It should never be a platform to hire industry consultants – people who’ll endorse unnecessary projects. “Please let your vote count,” he concluded, “and allow new blood in the political process.”

Purpose and Qualifications

Why are you running for water resources commissioner, and what makes you the better qualified candidate?

Pratt: The main reason he’s running, Pratt said, is because he has a passionate interest in protecting our natural resources, protecting the river, and addressing pollution problems that have been around for years. He said he has devoted his entire career to this, through his service on the Huron River Watershed Council and other volunteer organizations that have focused on public service for the community. He agreed with Bentz that focusing on service to “the folks who are paying the bills” is the top priority. This position demands someone who’s anything but ordinary, Pratt said, and having a background – in engineering, planning and funding – will help him do an excellent job.

Bentz: He’s running because he’s a lifelong resident of Washtenaw County. What happens in this county concerns him. He’s seen mishandling of resources in the past, and damaging events like the Gelman groundwater pollution and the long-term consequences of those things. He said he’s a product of Washtenaw County – a graduate of Huron High, Washtenaw Community College and Eastern Michigan University. He’s proud to put his foot forward to be a candidate for this position.

Name Change

The position was previously called the drain commissioner. Explain the name change, and any larger vision this might indicate for your service.

Harry Bentz, candidate for water resources commissioner in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary.

Bentz: Previously, the drain commissioner only regulated levels in the lakes, and made sure that creeks and tributaries were properly maintained to prevent flooding and maintain proper water levels, Bentz said. It’s evolved into dealing with water quality issues and overall environmental quality issues involving water – especially with issues of contamination, industrial accidents and how to prevent pollutants from getting into the water system. It becomes a larger picture than just flood control, he said.

Pratt: The primary reason for the name change is that there were more drain commissioners in Michigan who had an interest in protecting water quality, Pratt said, and who felt their responsibility in their district was for water quality. The state enabling legislation – Public Act 40 of 1956, also known as the Drain Code – identifies the same statutory obligations now as in 1956, outlining the job’s parameters and responsibilities, he said. So while the statutory responsibilities haven’t changed, real pressures of water quality problems, more frequent flooding, “flashier” storm events – these are all things that have broader impact. He said he’s very familiar with the area’s major storm events, and with parts of the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County that have a variety of issues. For example, in the southeast part of the county, the groundwater is higher than in general, he said. In Ann Arbor, he added, there have been some very flashy storm events in the southeast and southwest part of the community that have caused real problems.

Financing for Projects

Give us your specific ideas for increasing funds for maintenance of current infrastructure, as well as raising funds for new projects.

Pratt: One of the things that water resource commissioners throughout the state must contend with is statutory limitations on fundraising. Without a project, there is no funding source, he said: The folks who benefit are the folks who pay for the project. The unique feature in Washtenaw County is the city of Ann Arbor, Pratt explained, with its own stormwater ordinance and stormwater fee. It acts much like a water utility, he said – collecting funds from taxpayers in the city at large, from property owners who have water that drains through a storm drain. Then the city pools that money to do larger projects, because there are larger problems in the city. In more rural areas, the projects are more like the traditional drain work, he said, with primarily agricultural drains. There are not many opportunities in rural areas to raise additional funds, other than a direct cost and benefit. But Ann Arbor has been able to leverage about $17 million in grants off of its stormwater utility funds, which is a big benefit, he said.

Bentz: It’s no secret that funding sources are limited now and for the future, Bentz said. The state seems to be in a rollback, as is the entire economy. Therefore, we have to be careful about new projects, he said. The only new projects should be those that are absolutely necessary for public safety or health. We have to be careful that we don’t ambitiously initiate new projects that we don’t have the funding for, and that will ultimately fall back on the taxpayers. Taxpayers are in revolt about property taxes – they want a halt to it. The county has to maintain basic services, making sure these drain systems work, Bentz said, and that should be the primary focus.

Water as a Resource

This region prides itself on its water resources. What threats do you foresee in its both quality and quantity, and how would you counter those threats?

Bentz: The threats are difficult to deal with, he said. One of them is the invasive species that have hit our waterways. Using volunteers has been the most successful strategy, he said, to pull purple loosestrife, for example. Zebra mussels are another threat. Using chemicals is not a good option, he said. Prevention is probably the best method, making sure the public is educated that when they move their boat from one body of water to another, for example, they could potentially be carrying organisms with them that could contaminate the new body of water. Weather events are probably the most serious thing to deal with, he added, including floods or drought.

Pratt: The No. 1 issue Pratt said he hears as he’s out knocking on doors is fracking – the use of chemicals and high volumes of water to extract oil and natural gas. That’s a very serious concern, he said, and he knows some state legislators are working on it. A second concern has been around since the early 1980s following a court decision in Lake Isabella County that relates to wastewater treatment plants, Pratt said. Many communities have smart, managed-growth plans to help concentrate development in certain areas. Unfortunately, he said, private wastewater treatment plants are an opportunity for developers to expand development, while at the same time adding sources of wastewater discharge – primarily into the Huron River, where efforts are underway to limit the amount of wastewater discharge. He said he’s very supportive of smart growth.

Regional Collaboration

How does the office of water resources commissioner relate to the city of Ann Arbor and other municipal entities along the Huron River? Does the office facilitate collaboration?

Evan Pratt, candidate for Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary.

Pratt: Currently, the office facilitates collaboration, but it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, Pratt said. He’d like to continue that approach of working with all communities based on their needs or desires. Many communities have pooled their resources to comply with the Federal Phase II Stormwater Quality requirements, for things like public education. Why should each community send out a flyer, he asked, when you can save money by developing one flyer that goes out to all the urbanized areas in the county and another one for the more rural areas. He said he wholeheartedly supports collaboration. If his department has a piece of equipment that’s not being used full-time, for example, he’ll find out whether another entity might want to rent it. The office should share equipment, labor  and whatever they can.

Bentz: Referring to the previous question, Bentz said he agreed with Pratt about the issue of fracking, and it’s unfortunate that the issue can’t be affected at the local level. As for collaboration between other communities on the waterway, everyone faces similar threats, he said. Sometimes the upper river might get flooded, and other times it will be the lower river that gets flooded. Everyone needs to be flexible and support each other in those times. There is not one entity that can afford to take on major problems all by themselves. Having a disaster plan in place and making sure people are ready to respond is important, he said.

Standards and Enforcement

Are you satisfied with the current water quality standards and enforcement? If needed, what changes would you make in the standards and verification? As commissioner, what measures would you take to monitor the remediation of the Pall/Gelman dioxane contamination as a threat the water supply?

Background: Gelman Sciences was a medical-device manufacturer based on Wagner Road in Scio Township. It began pumping industrial wastewater into holding lagoons behind its factory in the 1960s. Contaminated groundwater leeched into underground aquifers, and by 1985, tests showed some local residential wells were contaminated with 1,4-dioxane, a substance that’s considered a carcinogen. Legal action by the state has forced cleanup action of the contaminated groundwater plume, which is ongoing and overseen by Washtenaw County’s 22nd Circuit Court. Pall Corp., a New York-based conglomerate, bought the company in 1997 and later closed the local facility. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Residents Frustrated by Dioxane Decision.”

Bentz: The Pall/Gelman situation is appalling – no pun intended, he said. He’s lost friends that have lived in that plume. The current system of pumping out groundwater and putting it into Honey Creek, which flows into Barton Pond, is unacceptable, he said. He wasn’t sure if building an incinerator on the Pall/Gelman site would be an option. The situation has been “totally confused,” he said. We need to protect our water resources, he added, and those who polluted it should be the ones who pay for it.

Pratt: He, too, would like to see Pall’s cleanup move in a different direction, but he noted that the local government has limitations on its authority. It’s been driven a lot by the state, he said. A lot of people collaborated to get the best deal they could at the time, he said, “but these are different times.” He’d like to see a better deal. [Pratt did not indicate what that better deal might be, or who should advocate for it.] Secondly, he said, problems like that need to be prevented – like fracking, which Pratt said fits hand-and-glove with the Pall/Gelman situation. Collaborating with state legislators on these issues will be an important role for the water resources commissioner in the foreseeable future, he said.

Allen Creek Greenway

Give us your thoughts on further opening the Allen Creek in Ann Arbor. How would a greenway affect the drain? Explain what’s currently underway on the west side of West Park. This project has resulted in Ward 5 flooding and has redrawn many of the floodplain lines.

Background: In the early 20th century, Washtenaw County built drains through West Park to collect stormwater, and directed the flow of Allen Creek into underground pipes. In 2010, the city undertook a major renovation of West Park, driven in part by chronic flooding in certain areas of the park. [Parts of the park do lie in the floodway and floodplain. Maps indicating the location of the floodway and floodplain were recently revised by FEMA, independently of renovations to the park.]

The stormwater portion of the renovation project was undertaken in partnership with the county water resources commissioner’s office. It included installation of some underground water treatment units – swirl concentrators – on the west side of the park, in the north and south branches of the Allen Creek drain. The purpose was to divert some of the water from the stormwater system, treat it, and remove pollutants before reintroducing it into the system to flow eventually into the Huron River. But those swirl concentrators failed in late 2010, and since then work has been done in an attempt to address the problem. The city’s park advisory commission was given a detailed update at its January 2012 meeting, and were told at their meeting in June that final repairs would be finishing up this summer. Though some residents have argued that the project has resulted in more flooding in the area, city staff have disputed that claim.

Separately, an effort to create an Allen Creek greenway has been underway for several years, spearheaded by the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, a nonprofit group.

Pratt: After a pause, Pratt said he didn’t think he could conclusively say what has caused the flooding on the west side of Ann Arbor, but he does know that it’s been documented there for up to 100 years. It doesn’t appear that one specific project has caused it, but rather a collection of development in that area. If the water wants to get out of the stream, it doesn’t matter if the stream is enclosed or open, he said. Opening up the stream would likely make it quicker for water to get out – that’s something for people to think about, he said. A robust public process is the only way to solve that issue. The city and the office of the water resources commissioner have a strong history of listening to the public, Pratt said. His personal experience in working with over 100 water resources projects is that no matter what he’s learned at MIT or in working on projects over the years, the people who live in the neighborhood always know things that he and his team don’t know, and he can learn from them. He would look to the neighbors to help solve that problem.

Bentz: The real issue is how advocates for the greenway and for opening Allen Creek would come up with the money to facilitate the project they’re trying to do, Bentz said. The city won’t want to pay for it completely, he noted. There also needs to be a system that’s safe and efficient that works. If a greenway could provide parkland and a nice resource for people to see and use, that would be wonderful, he said. But he doubted whether the funding is available for that kind of “esoteric delight.”

Stormwater Utility Department

Would you advocate for the development of a stormwater utility department like many other municipalities have? What advantages and disadvantages do you see with that?

Rob Cross, a producer at the Community Television Network, attaches a microphone to the tie of Harry Bentz, a candidate for county water resources commissioner.

Bentz: He first  asked for clarification on whether the question was directed at the county level. It was, answered Susan Greenberg, the forum’s moderator. Bentz said there are some examples of that in other communities, like a sewer system developed in the Chain of Lakes. As far as stormwater management, he said the current organization handles that pretty well.

Pratt: He’s worked with several public works departments as a consultant, sometimes working for them, sometimes just observing. He noted that he does training for about 100 public works officials each year. There are only two ways that departments operate – by working in organizational silos, or by creating an integrated system. Making that decision about how to operate depends on issues in the community, he said, and how the community wants to tackle those issues. Pratt said he personally favors keeping all of the public works and utility operations folded together, and having people cross-trained – thinking with a wide field of vision instead of focusing on just one area. The advantage to having an integrated operation is that people can work together to tackle difficult issues, particularly on the funding side. The disadvantage is that there’s some redundancy when the county works with communities that already have people who are very familiar with their own stormwater systems, he said.

Fracking

The issue of fracking has been mentioned in several responses during this forum. What role do you see for the water resources commissioner?

Background: Fracking is a term used to describe the drilling technique of hydraulic fracturing, used to extract gas and oil. Concerns have been raised recently about the practice coming to Washtenaw County. See Chronicle coverage: “County Board Tackles ‘Fracking’ Concerns.” The county does not have jurisdiction to regulate the practice.

Pratt: The state enabling legislation for zoning does not allow local entities of government to have any say in oil or gas operations, as natural resources. So the role of the water resources commissioner is to offer to provide expert testimony, which he says he has the background to provide. He would also rely on the Huron River Watershed Council, which he said has done a good job gathering hard data from around the country about issues related to fracking. The role of the water resources commissioner should be as an advocate, an expert, and to help in the public education process – letting people know what’s going on, and coordinating public forums or working with other agencies to do that. He thanked the county board of commissioners for putting time and energy into facilitating public debate on this issue.

Bentz: He said he agreed with Pratt. Fracking is an issue because Washtenaw County hasn’t historically been a natural gas-producing area. There’s some natural gas here, but to get the high volumes that companies want, they have to use fracking. It’s ironic, he said, because in general natural gas supplies are at an all-time high, and the prices are lower than what they have been in the past. So the advantage that companies will get from fracking is very limited, he said. It’s important for the water resources commissioner to stand as an opponent to this practice. Even though it can’t be affected at the local legislative level, every authority that stands against it sends the message, he said.

Closing Statements

Each candidate had two minutes for a closing statement.

Evan Pratt draws a number from a hat to determine the speaking order at the July 9 League of Women Voters forum. To the right is Judy Mich, one of the event's moderators.

Pratt: He thanked the league for their thoughtful questions – he said he probably could have answered some of them better, and he’d be happy to talk to people about any of these issues. Contact information is on his campaign website, he said.

The county’s retiring water resources commissioner, Janis Bobrin, has worked to improve water quality and solve flooding issues throughout the county for the better part of 24 years, Pratt said, and she supports him for this office. According to her, Pratt said, he’s the most qualified to ensure that the office of the water resources commissioner will continue as a leader in water resource protection, and she’s thrilled to support him on Aug. 7.

The water resources commissioner must have integrity, experience, financial and technical expertise, he said. “You really have to play with a full hand, and I’ve got these qualifications and more.” Pratt cited his 25 years of professional experience, including design and management of over 100 water resources projects. He wholeheartedly agreed with making a project as small as possible to solve a particular problem, as Benz had alluded to in his remarks. He said he’s a licensed professional engineer in Michigan and four other states, and a graduate of MIT’s civil and environmental engineering program. He has extensive community service leadership, including with the Huron River Watershed Council, the Ann Arbor planning commission, service on the Washtenaw County planning advisory board, and a lot of volunteer work with many professional organizations. He said he brings experience as a treasurer with some of those organizations, and as a board director for a multimillion-dollar business. “I know how to watch your money like it’s my own,” he said. He asked voters to consider these qualifications at the voting booth on Aug. 7.

Bentz: Other than being on stage with his band, Bentz said, this forum has been the best chance to see who he is and what his values are. Washtenaw is his county – he grew up and lived here all his life. He knows the issues – water, environmental and political. He said he’s seen mistreatment by our leaders on all of these fronts. He said he’s a candidate that the electorate can rely on as the other choice – who won’t have any agendas of expensive projects that will increase taxes. He owes no political favors to consultants, engineering firms or corporate political donors.

Bentz said he seeks to protect our water from acts of terrorism, industrial and transportation accidents, and intentional acts of environmental disregard. He also seeks to protect the populace from property damage, loss of crops from flooding, and the threat to public safety by using a proactive response to emergency planning. He’s hard-working and seeks to use the skills he’s mastered, along with his education and lifelong experiences. Every department in Washtenaw County is challenged by funding shortages, he said. He’ll take a major effort to preserve the department’s functions, enhance customer satisfaction, and diversify the staff to reflect the community’s standards. The Democratic Party is committed to equal opportunity for all. “I will have a culturally diverse staff,” he said.

The Aug. 7 primary will be the one chance that voters have to affect any control on our entire political system, Bentz said. This is the election that will determine the respective political candidates, and after that it will be a matter of party mechanics to determine a winner. “Look into your heart, at your values and what you expect from the Washtenaw County water resource commissioner, and cast your vote for me,” Bentz concluded.

The Chronicle would not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Pratt, who currently serves on the Ann Arbor planning commission, is a senior project manager with the Spicer Group, a professional engineering firm with offices in Saginaw and St. Johns. He is also chair of the board for the nonprofit Huron River Watershed Council. According to the press release, Pratt is a licensed professional engineer in five states, including Michigan, with expertise in stormwater quality and management, capital improvement project management and funding, and public works budgeting.

In her endorsement of Pratt, Bobrin stated: “I’ve known and worked with Evan for fifteen years. No one could be more qualified to ensure that the Office of Washtenaw County Water Resources Commissioner continues as a leader in water resource protection than Evan.”

Pratt currently serves on the city of Ann Arbor planning commission. He was re-appointed to the planning commission on June 7, 2010 for a three-year term that ends on June 30, 2013.