To:         Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) Chair Tom Kartrude

From:     Stormwater Advisory Committee Members

The relationship between the SAC and the Public Works Director is not going well.

During the SAC meeting of Aug. 4, the SAC was trying to decide the best manner to increase public involvement and determine what material was needed to accomplish this.  Dave Felstul and Jim Hansen of Brown & Caldwell showed the SAC the following:

     1.   A map of the greater Florence area.
     2.   A visual of the areas flooded during a low rainfall year.
     3.   A visual of the areas flooded during a moderate rainfall year.
     4.   A visual of the areas flooded during the 1996-97 winter.

“Mr. Hansen stated that the next steps would be to 1) calibrate the model with known problem areas...”  “Frank Williams asked how many of the ‘next steps’ would be completed by the next meeting. Hansen said the committee could expect to see the final models ...” (See the minutes of the Aug. 4 meeting, page 2).

The SAC asked if the visuals could be enhanced to provide all of the streets and subdivisions with the 1996-97 overlay put onto the map.  We also asked that the flooded areas be shown in blue to represent flooding.  “No problem” was the answer, since they already had what was needed to create the visual.

During this entire discussion, Mr. Lanfear made no comments and added nothing to this discussion.

At the SAC meeting of Sep. 1, the SAC reviewed the map provided by Brown & Caldwell.  No Brown & Caldwell representative was present.  The map was determined to be totally inadequate since it did not show many areas where flooding was known to occur, and it showed flooding in areas where none had occurred.  Many SAC members questioned whether Brown & Caldwell had received all the information that had been provided to Mr. Lanfear.  Mr. Lanfear has assured the SAC that all the information had been provided to Brown & Caldwell.  A question that then arose was why Brown & Caldwell had not used that information in the construction of their map?

Mr. Lanfear then proceeded to explain that the errors in the map were not the fault of Brown & Caldwell.  “They tried to produce something they did not have adequate information for.”  Mr. Lanfear stated that the SAC created the problem because we “wanted another map to hang on the wall.”  How degrading for the SAC.  What a wonderful way for Mr. Lanfear to foster a working relationship with the SAC.  Not once before the Sep. 1 meeting had anyone, Mr. Lanfear or Brown & Caldwell, said that the maps could not be produced correctly on the schedule requested.  On the contrary, Brown & Caldwell said “NO PROBLEM.”

Mr. Lanfear then said that Brown & Caldwell has a schedule for producing material and the map requested was not to be delivered until much later in the project.  This is interesting again for two reasons: first, neither Brown & Caldwell nor Mr. Lanfear mentioned any incompatibility between the SAC request and the Brown & Caldwell delivery schedule; and second, the SAC did not know this.  When SAC members requested a delivery schedule so we would not ask for material before it was to be produced, Mr. Lanfear ignored the request.  No information has been provided on delivery schedules for Brown & Caldwell work before the request or since.

Mr. Lanfear did, however, get very upset when a member of the SAC related a conversation with Mr. Hansen of Brown & Caldwell and another member related a conversation with Jason Robertson of Barney and Worth.  Mr. Lanfear stated, “No member of this committee is authorized to talk to any of the contractors.  Everything is to be routed through me.”  This statement was made after the fact despite open comments made by the contractors at several meetings to contact them if any member had questions.

When the minutes of the Sep. 1 meeting were provided, the Sep. 2 letter from Mr. Lanfear was appended.  The letter is at best misleading, and at the worst, an insult to the SAC members.

Mr. Lanfear’s letter of Sep. 2, 1999 states “the map displayed at last night’s meeting of the SAC was not reviewed in an objective manner.”  This is not true.  The SAC did review it in an objective manner, and the SAC did not approve of it.  Mr. Lanfear explains the SAC error as one of not reading the legends.  Why did not Mr. Lanfear or Brown & Caldwell explain the problems in producing the map when requested instead of when the review showed the inadequacies in the map. Why the obfuscation about legends when Mr. Hansen of Brown & Caldwell said we could expect “the final models” at the Sep. 1 meeting?

The bureaucratic dodge of blaming the SAC for failing to read the “Legends” is too transparent to be considered valid.  The time to point out problems with the SAC request was at the time of the request, not after the product was shown to be worse than meaningless.  What we expected for the Sep. 1, 1999 meeting and what we received were not even close.  WHY?

As a result of the inadequacy of the map, the SAC decided to meet on Sep. 7 and mark a map with known storm water problems.  This map, with additional inputs from the public, would then be provided to Brown & Caldwell to help them determine the storm water problem areas.

At the Sep. 7 map marking, Mr. Lanfear warned the SAC members that marking the map may have the result of reducing property values.  What was the purpose of such a statement?  Was Mr. Lanfear trying to downplay certain areas where stormwater problems exist?  WHY?  It is felt that property values are more likely to be affected negatively if the City fails to identify known problems.  Also, if a property owner knowingly fails to include a known problem on the Disclosure Statement, that property owner may be liable for some penalties.  Despite questionable tactics by Mr. Lanfear, members of the SAC marked the map.

This approach was felt to be the most direct method of illustrating the areas of the city that are
adversely affected by stormwater.  One of the problems the SAC is trying to ensure is the credibility of the study results.  The public must participate in the development of the problem definition if the City is to have any credibility in having the public support the solution of the problems.

At the current rate, it appears as if the City project manager is more interested in power by
controlling all inputs to Brown & Caldwell and all outputs from Brown & Caldwell than he is in
producing an objective, meaningful study.

As a result of the above problems, the following action is requested:

     1.   The SAC chair work with the Public Works Director and the City Manager, assisted by the Mayor, to ensure that the City project manager for development of the stormwater Management Plan modify his approach to work WITH the SAC.

     2.   The Public Works Director provide the SAC with a listing, by title, of all material provided to Brown & Caldwell by the Public Works Director from the time of selection of Brown & Caldwell to this time.

     3.   The Public Works Director provide a detailed listing to the SAC of all Brown & Caldwell deliverable and the schedule associated with each.  A brief technical description of each deliverable would probably be useful.

     4.   The Public Works Director provide at each SAC meeting an update listing of changes in the material requested in action items 2 and 3.

To ensure the orderly development of the SAC desired public participation, it is requested that the above actions be completed by the Oct. 13, 1999 regularly scheduled meeting.  It is felt to be mandatory to have these problems resolved before considering any public workshop such as that anticipated for Dec. 9, 1999.