Laserfiche WebLink
it out and varying budgets, with some projects exceeding available funds, while <br /> others possible if bundled with other projects or as a way to utilize available <br /> budget funds in certain years. Member DeBenedet rationalized that this was his <br /> perception in using rankings of#1 —20; and that he went to any project with a <br /> score higher than "90" on the original spreadsheet. After that, Member <br /> DeBenedet advised that he was hesitant to provide further rationale in addressing <br /> those lower ranked segments beyond that done by the original pathway committee <br /> to determine their ranking. <br /> Chair Vanderwall suggested reacting in scale for each segment rather than <br /> providing an absolute ranking in each case over too large of a dimension. <br /> Member Stenlund advised that his ranking provided for one (1) year and the five <br /> (5) projects that needed to be done. If the intent was to then move onto year two <br /> and the next priorities, Member Stenlund opined that he would be unable to <br /> complete that exercise, as all of the segments needed to be done. Member <br /> Stenlund justified his first individual approach as being more community-based <br /> across the spectrum. <br /> Chair Vanderwall recognized the logic behind Member Stenlund's approach. <br /> Mr. Schwartz expressed interest in Chair Vanderwall's suggested approach, and <br /> recognized the need to reduce the volume of numbers to simplify the exercise. <br /> Mr. Schwartz suggested using ranking of 1 — 5 or 1 — 10, or multiples thereof, <br /> with the best then rising to the surface. Mr. Schwartz noted that there may be <br /> reasons for one ranking lower than another to be done first, based on whether or <br /> not a nearby road, CIP, or park project indicated taking it on first. <br /> Member Stenlund clarified that the exercise was to consider ranking by years of <br /> construction. <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that, as often discussed by the PVVETC, the budget will be the <br /> driver for any given year; and further noted that the original rationale in breaking <br /> the areas into smaller segments was in recognition of the limited amount of <br /> funding realistically available in a given year. <br /> On behalf of Member Stenlund, Chair Vanderwall opined that if individual <br /> ranking priorities were considered, it could then be determined collectively which <br /> was best and which worst, with none required to be equal and allowing for some <br /> subtlety. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding various examples for specific segments; recognizing <br /> those items that will achieve consensus and those requiring additional <br /> compromise or discussion; how individual members had formed their criteria (e.g. <br /> safety, traffic avoidance, walkability, connectivity, drainage issues in that area, <br /> existing detriments, striping considered as an option, less expensive segments for <br /> Page 8 of 10 <br />