Loading...
ITEM 5.2 Waterwater Master Plan draft surveyIV Ots11.r o MINNESOTA g DEPARTMENT INFORMATION Request for City Council Action ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: MEETING DATE: Administration Lori Johnson, City Administrator August 22, 2016 PRESENTER(s): REVIEWED BY: ITEM #: Lori Johnson, City Administrator 5.2 AGENDA ITEM DETAILS RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests input on the Wastewater System Master Plan draft survey. ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED? No No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: An important component of the Wastewater Master Plan is gathering input from residents, the City Council, and staff. To accomplish that goal, a survey was drafted by Scott Schaefer, AE2S. AE2S has used this survey technique in similar planning projects. The survey would be used at the September 20 open house and would be made available for an extended period to solicit input from residents who are unable to attend the open house. The Public Works Subcommittee reviewed the draft survey and recommended changes to the Stakeholder (resident) Acceptance section: 1. Change to a priority ranking of the categories instead of assigning a value. This will help determine which of the items is most important to the residents. 2. Add a question about user willingness to pay for the items they identified as priorities. 3. Clarify the meaning of the "Minimize Liability" category. Attached is the draft Otsego survey without the changes suggested above. The first page is the section residents would complete and the second page is the full survey. The second attachment is a sample of a similar survey used in another city to give you an idea of how the results are presented. Council input is requested before finalizing the su SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: X ATTACHED ❑ NONE Draft Otsego Survey Sample Survey POSSIBLE MOTION Please word motion as you would like it to appear in the minutes. No motion required. BUDGET INFORMATION FUNDING BUDGETED: ❑ YES Included in Master Plan Proposal ❑ NO City of Otsego - Wastewater Master Planning - Issue Prioritization Thank you for partcipipating in the planning process for Otsego's Wastewater Utility. The Master Planning will guide the development of Otsego's wastewater infrastructure as the City continues to grow. Please circle the appropriate general information and then circle the prioritization score for each category with 10 indicating the highest priority. Categories of equal priority should be given equal scores. Space is also provided below for written comments. General Information Stakeholder Acceptance • Otsego Resident? Yes No • Otsego Utility Customer Yes No F-- Reside near an Otsego Wastewater Treatment Facility Yes No Unsure Priority Category Value (1-10) • Aesthetics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • Public Safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • Minimize Odor Potential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • Minimize Noise Potential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • Minimize Liability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • Minimize Trucking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • Energy Efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • Environmental Stewardship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ditional Comments: DRAFT August 16, 2016 City of Otsego - Wastewater Master Planning - Issue Prioritization Priority Category Value (1-10) Category Weight Voting Groups Stakeholder Acceptance 20% Public and City Council (50/50) • Aesthetics • Public Safety • Minimize Odor Potential • Minimize Noise Potential • Minimize Liability • Minimize Trucking • Energy Efficiency • Environmental Stewardship Cost 50% Staff and City Council (SO/50) • Capital Costs 0 0 & M Costs • Phasing of Facility • Footprint of Facility Operations and Management - General 30% Staff and City Council (70/30) • Ease of Operations • Minimize Maintenance • Energy Effciency • Minimize Working Environment Odor • Minimize Working Environment Noise • Minimize Chemical Use • Flexibility for Future Regulatory Changes • Redundancy of Processes • Staffing Requirements © Operator Safety Operations and Management - Liquid Treatment Specific o Potential Effluent Reuse Opportunities • NPDES Permit Compliance Flexibility Operations and Management - Solids Treatment Specific • Hauling tF� • Regulatory Documentation Complexity Note: Value ranking based upon 10 being a high priority. DRAFT August 16, 2016 GETTING THE MOST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK The City of Williston was able to ensure they chose the alternative for their liquids treatment that gave them the most bang for their buck through the use of the Kepner-Tregoe' decision making process. CRITERIA AVG. WEIGHT 10.0 OPERATIONS N/A -"q% I Ease of Operations 9.1 Minimize Maintenance 8.5 Energy Efficiency 8.1 Minlmize Odor Potential 7.7 Minimize Chemical Use 8.1 Meeting Future Limits 9.8 Redundancy of Processes 8.1 Staffing Requirements 9.4 potential Reuse 7.0 Operator Safety 9.s COSTS NIA Capital Costs 9.0 OWA Costs 100 Phasing of Fadlity 9.3 Footprint of Fac&ly 8.3 PERFORMANCE SCORE Normallzed'fecu nMIN,vahte' NET PRESENT WORTH Normalized from MAX value BANG FOR YOUR BUCK THE PROCESS T shortlistalternatives Z Determine list of from six to4wo cdterla to rank alternatives 6 Weighted rankings i %' Alternative with multiplied by rankings highest score is,best and summed to possible solution to i reflect level of meet the criteria Importance;ot.each i �outllned' criteria �0 1; I 1J I rr IO LZ e cn w C d v Cr != jn 1 Vilton I $56,37Q,000 ' 1 $57,890,0 osm 6V I � i.000 1.1�7 1.075 1.038 3! Criteria ranked by 4 Weighted average 15. Each alternative project team (both rankings averaged to ranked based on City staff and AE2S) produce average i criteria i rankings useMn alternative analysis & Performance scores 91 overall net present 101 Normalized were normallzeffrom worthnormalized performance values the minimum value from•magimum value were divided by the normalized cost value to produce "bang for your buck"