2013-08-27_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ms. Bloom advised that she had already shared some of the brochures she's picked up at the City of St. Louis Park with City of Roseville Engineer Kris Giga. Ms. Bloom recognized the various relationships and synergies available when cities shared their ideas; and assured all that she was not going to be that far removed from Roseville. Member Stenlund reported to the PWETC that, as previously discussed with the body, he had submitted two (2)Roseville projects as potential Capstone Projects for students: LED lighting and Low Impact Development. Member Stenlund advised that one option he'd suggested was development of a portable carwash system that Roseville could purchase and students could design for community group rental and fundraising, allowing the entire community to benefit from carwashes that would address water quality and stormwater runoff issues. Member Stenlund noted that this may initiate with students visiting the Roseville Fire Department to see if such a system was usable. 5. Pathway Master Plan Build-Out Rankings Ms. Bloom briefly summarized discussions to-date as detailed in the staff report dated August 27, 2013. Ms. Bloom advised that she had received individual PVVETC member rankings and thanked members for submitting them; however, the ranking criteria and/or methodologies were not consistent, creating too many variables and discrepancies in the rankings. Ms. Bloom illustrated these issues through a revised spreadsheet, provided as a bench handout to members, showing their individual rankings. Identifying this as one of the items on her short list before leaving the City of Roseville, Ms. Bloom sought further discussion and next steps of the PWETC. Discussion included how the spreadsheet had become skewed with the individual rankings and disparate methodologies used; how individual ranked high and low priority items; if and how individuals had ranked all projects or only their highest priority projects; and concluded with individual members recognizing that they needed to refine and re-evaluate their individual rankings criteria. Ms. Bloom advised that she had taken the totals from Attachment B and sorted them by number; however, she reiterated that individual methodology had impacted her rankings, but noted that she had used 1 — 5 with 1 being the highest priority and 5 the lowest. Member DeBenedet advised that his ranking indicated that if it was something he thought shouldn't be built or that was not within the realm of possibility, he didn't rank it. Member DeBenedet clarified that his ranking was that#1 was a project he supported, #2 the next obvious project; and noted that he had also provided a column for comments, addressing projects that could or should only be completed in conjunction with a Ramsey County or MnDOT project. Even though some of those projects may rank high on his individual list, Member DeBenedet stated that he also recognized that they could not be done unless coordinated with other Page 6 of 10