Laserfiche WebLink
216 <br />Ms. Bloom advised that she had already shared some of the brochures she's <br />217 <br />picked up at the City of St. Louis Park with City of Roseville Engineer Kris Giga. <br />218 <br />Ms. Bloom recognized the various relationships and synergies available when <br />219 <br />cities shared their ideas; and assured all that she was not going to be that far <br />220 <br />removed from Roseville. <br />221 <br />in conjunction with a Ramsey County or MnDOT project. Even though some of <br />222 <br />Member Stenlund reported to the PWETC that, as previously discussed with the <br />223 <br />body, he had submitted two (2) Roseville projects as potential Capstone Projects <br />224 <br />for students: LED lighting and Low Impact Development. Member Stenlund <br />225 <br />advised that one option he'd suggested was development of a portable carwash <br />226 <br />system that Roseville could purchase and studen 'y could design for community <br />227 <br />group rental and fundraising, allowing the entire community to benefit from <br />228 <br />carwashes that would address water quality and stormwater runoff issues. <br />229 <br />Member Stenlund noted that this may initiate with students visiting the Roseville <br />230 <br />Fire Department to see if such a syst was usable. <br />231 <br />232 5. <br />Pathway Master Plan Build -Out Rankings <br />233 <br />Ms. Bloom briefly summarized discussions to -date as detailed in the staff report <br />234 <br />dated August 27, 2013. Ms. Bloom advised that she had received individual <br />235 <br />PWETC member rankings and thanked members for submitting them; however, <br />236 <br />the ranking criteria and /or methodologies were not consistent, creating too many <br />237 <br />variables and discrepancies in the rankings. Ms. Blo illustrated these issues <br />238 <br />through a revised spreadsheet, provided as a bench ha out to members, showing <br />239 <br />their individual rankings. Identifying this as one of the items on her short list <br />240 <br />before leaving the City of Roseville, Ms. Bloom sought further discussion and <br />241 <br />next steps of the PWETC. <br />242 <br />243 <br />Discussion included how the spreadsheet had become skewed with the individual <br />244 <br />rankings and disparate methodologies used; how individual ranked high and low <br />245 <br />rionty item* if and how individuals had ranked all projects or only their highest <br />246 <br />iority projects; and concluded with individual members recognizing that they <br />247 <br />ed to refine and re- evaluate their individual rankings criteria. <br />248 <br />249 <br />Ms. loom advised that she had taken the totals from Attachment B and sorted <br />250 <br />them by number; however, she reiterated that individual methodology had <br />251 <br />impacted her rankings, but noted that she had used 1 — 5 with 1 being the highest <br />252 <br />priority and 5 the lowest. <br />253 <br />254 <br />Member DeBenedet advised that his ranking indicated that if it was something he <br />255 <br />thought shouldn't be built or that was not within the realm of possibility, he didn't <br />256 <br />rank it. Member DeBenedet clarified that his ranking was that #1 was a project he <br />257 <br />supported, #2 the next obvious project; and noted that he had also provided a <br />258 <br />column for comments, addressing projects that could or should only be completed <br />259 <br />in conjunction with a Ramsey County or MnDOT project. Even though some of <br />260 <br />those projects may rank high on his individual list, Member DeBenedet stated that <br />261 <br />he also recognized that they could not be done unless coordinated with other <br />Page 6 of 10 <br />