← Back to the list of projects

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

← Back to messages

March 20, 2014 CAC Agenda and Forced Ranking Prep Request

Posted by Charlie Fleetham on 14 Mar, 2014
Category: No category

Please find attached an agenda for next Thursday's CAC meeting at Slauson Middle School, starting at 6:30 pm and running to 9:00 pm.

I have also attached a community values forced ranking exercise. These values (or modifications of them) will be used in your decision making process. If you will complete this exercise prior to the meeting and email to me, I will have the results to present and discuss on Thursday.

Please note:  We will be showing the DOMP video Thursday night. We are still editing, based on City Staff/Project Team feedback (rolled out beta version yesterday to the team.)  Sorry, we will not be distributing in advance of the meeting as planned.

In the meantime, an updated DOMP FAQ will be distributed by Lori.

Thanks and looking forward to a productive meeting!

Please contact me with any questions about the forced ranking exercise.

Comments

Joe Conen on 16 Mar, 2014:

I have uploaded a first cut at the ranking, and it includes a number of comments on the listing of some of the individual values that may help in refining this list. If others post their views, it may help me  consolidate my thinking on these.
Thanks
Joe

Peter Houk on 16 Mar, 2014:

Joe--I disagree with your note 5.  Part of our recommendation should be that the city finish the incomplete FDD work that they have already started.  They completed the source removal on 60% of Morehead homes (for example), but they didn't do all the other stuff that was necessary in order to keep the program in line with our community values.  So I count those homes that have already received mandatory FDDs as unfinished business in the larger effort of reducing basement backups and WWTP overflows.  Therefore it is in our charter to make the existing FDDs part of our recommendation. 

Saying it another way--the remaining 40% may not need to receive FDDs, but we should recommend that the existing 60% be completed.  

Look for my own forced ranking worksheet soon.

Thanks

Pete  

Peter Houk on 16 Mar, 2014:

My worksheet is attached.

Joe Conen on 16 Mar, 2014:

Peter,
I absolutely agree that those homes are unfinished business and that we need to rectify that situation as part of what we do. My point was that whatever we decide to do for those homes is not in competition with (as in ranked against) recommendations for future mitigation.
Once we determine what actions are required for future mitigation, we need to go back and determine how to correct these past FDDs. I view these as sequential decisions, not as competing values.
Also,  I have attached a clearer version of my notes.  I looked at the list from Feb 12 to get context for a couple of the listed items, and I am still not sure what to make of all of them. Please look at the revised notes; hopefully they make a little more sense.

Patricia Marten on 17 Mar, 2014:

I can't find a "list from Feb 12", was it a similar list of questions ?
Thanks

Lori Byron on 17 Mar, 2014:

Yes, Patricia. It was a messaged titled, "Community Values Discussion." The list of potential values were very similar to those Charlie posted here as part of the Forced Ranking Exercise. 

Patricia Marten on 17 Mar, 2014:

Thanks.  When I searched  for Feb 12, just got a lot of info on tech briefings. 

Charlie Fleetham on 17 Mar, 2014:

Please find attached a list posted on Feb 12.

Kathy Boris on 17 Mar, 2014:

Thank you, Charlie. I have the list, I just need a little more time to
consider it. kb

Kathy Boris on 17 Mar, 2014:

Hi, Charlie—
Here is my ranking of the list:

1—All Ann Arbor…
2—Mandatory…
8—Increasing…
4—The solution(s)...
5—All users…
9—A uniform…
3—New infrastructure…
6—Regulations…
12—The solution must…
11—Keeping user…
7—Our solution(s) should constrain…
10—If Developers can…

Thanks for your patience.

kb

Michelle Lovasz on 18 Mar, 2014:

1. All Ann Arbor homeowners should receive equal protection from sanitary
backups.

1. New infrastructure should not detract/destroy/limit our city’s natural
features.

1. Traditional thinking should not be a barrier.

1. The solution should balance technical/community/climate…etc factors

2. The solution must include back up system.

2. Keeping user fees low is most important.

***************************************************************

I cannot say mandatory FDD is least acceptable because it depends on too
many contributing factors.

I would like user fees to not be a barrier, but just me thinking so does
not make it so. That would more than likely be a vote. The City is
responsible for its water.

I do not think all users should pay to correct issues raised by past
mandatory FDD homeowners.

I would like a uniform solution but not as that sentence says. I would
like a solution that acknowledges the needs of the City as a System without
putting a larger burden on any one neighborhood, no matter how that
neighborhood might contribute to the whole cost of the larger City System.

I don’t think our solution should, as the sentence says, constrain growth.
I think the City should be responsible for managing the water that affects
it. As growth happens (or doesn’t) the System should be modified to
accommodate. Our solution might be to suggest a System that can grow and
accommodate as the City does.

I will not make a statement on whether or not I think growth “should”
continue. If developers are “growing” the City, then of course their
development should accommodate the effect it is going to have on the City’s
water.

Judy Hanway on 18 Mar, 2014:

I am also still working on this list. Will try to get to it soon.

Patricia Marten on 18 Mar, 2014:


Patricia Marten on 18 Mar, 2014:

Here is my list

Judy Hanway on 19 Mar, 2014:

Here is my list. 

Patricia Marten on 19 Mar, 2014:

Judy-- good comment on this one.
All users should pay to correct issues raised by mandatory FDD homeowners in the FDD Survey, including but not limited to battery or water siphon backup, compensation for damages, amelioration of anxiety, etc.
I agree that this might be considered later in the process, however, I don’t think taxpayers should be responsible for faulty installations by pre-approved 
contractors and city-hired engineers.

Michelle Lovasz on 19 Mar, 2014:

Perfectly put Judy. 

Peter Houk on 20 Mar, 2014:

Judy, Patricia, 

I agree with what you are saying as long as the city is coordinating the repairs.  The contractors should have to pay for the fixes.  

However, the city has to coordinate the effort.  I do not expect good results if individual homeowners have to try and convince contractors to come back and fix their work years after it was completed.  I had trouble trying to get the contractor back to finish the job, let alone do minor repairs.  

Also, some of these contractors may be long gone now that the FDD work has dried up.  If the company that did the original installation is uncooperative or no longer in business, we can't leave the homeowners holding the bag.  

  

Kathy Boris on 20 Mar, 2014:

I do wonder why CAC members did not have a hand in developing the community values to choose from. 

kb

Judy Hanway on 20 Mar, 2014:

I wondered about this too. Who were the authors of this list?

Lori Byron on 20 Mar, 2014:

This is a list of thought starters for community values; it's not meant to be the end. Tonight's meeting will include discussion of values.