HomeMy WebLinkAbout200117 Prioritization Activity DirectionsPrioritization Activity Directions
Task Force members are asked to rank their top ten possible flood risk reduction actions based on community enthusiasm, informed by community held positions and interests related to
flooding.
Positions are surface statements of where a person or community stands. Interests are the underlying reasons, values or motivations that explain a certain position. Based on perceived
community position and interests, the Task Force is asked to rank the action items in terms of community enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is the community’s interest or approval of the action.
Considerations for community enthusiasm include the following;
Tradeoffs
Community impacts
Land, other services
Sustainability goals
Environmental outcomes
Social outcomes
The action you believe to have the most community enthusiasm should be ranked number 1 and the action you believe to have the least community enthusiasm should be ranked number 10.
Why rank (1-10) instead of rate (Yes or No)? Imagine if you’re planning to serve dessert and you poll your guests, “Do you like apple pie? Chocolate chip cookies? Red velvet cake? Ice
cream?” Your guests could reply, “Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes”. How much closer are you to determining what dessert to make? It is much more informative to ask them each to rank their top
choices.
Please email your top ten, indicating the action with the most enthusiasm with a rank of #1, to Jessica at jwilson@EdinaMN.gov. The due date is Monday, January 27th.
We’ll aggregate the individual Task Force member responses and summarize them in ranked order ahead of the next Task Force meeting on February 4th. A summary of this group’s ranking
of possible actions will be included in the final Flood Risk Reduction Strategy.
Actions Sheets Key
Sector: The sector of work under which the action would fall. Infrastructure (I), Regulatory Program (R), Outreach and Engagement (O), and Emergency Services (E).
Task Force Rank: To be determined. Rank will be based on aggregate of individual Task Force member rankings.
Cost Score: Staff scored.
$ Minor; Savings or efficiency, takes minor amount of staff time, or can roll into existing duties with existing staff time and resources, <0 to 20hrs, <0 to $2K
$$ Modest; Modest additional costs, modest amount of staff time. 20 to 100hrs, $2-10K
$$$ Moderate; Moderate additional costs, takes moderate amount of additional staff time, or can be contracted out in future budgets. 100-500hrs, $10-50K
$$$$ High; Additional costs, takes additional staff time, can be contracted out with additional resources. 500-2000hrs, $50-200K
$$$$$ Major; Significant costs, takes significant amount of staff time, or can be included in future capital improvement plans. 2000+hrs, $200K+
Staff Rated Effectiveness Score: Staff scored. Based on effectiveness and confidence at reducing community vulnerability to flooding, at reducing community exposure to flooding, and
at reducing the community share of climate change drivers.
Action Category:
Quick Win = do now or contract under flood risk reduction effort.
Planning = develop a plan as part of flood risk reduction effort, or include in Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan amendment, future budget, or Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Development = may be worth doing with additional resources, a special circumstance, a partnership, or as technology improvements change cost structure.
None = benefit is not worth the cost or effort.
Summary of changes to the Action Sheets since December 17th DRAFT version
Incorporated feedback from December 17th meeting. Notes from Kathy and notes written on posted action sheets were considered. Added detail and clarification throughout.
Removed I.21 – this idea was baked into several of the outreach and engagement items already and seemed redundant.
Removed I.22 – redundant with I.06
Removed I.23 – redundant with I.24
Added I.25 – per Roxane
Added R.08 – per Michael
Renamed ‘communication, education and engagement’ sector to ‘outreach and engagement’ to match staff report. Also updated alphanumeric to match.
Some activity names were updated to be shorter
Some cost score and staff rated effectiveness scores were refined