Laserfiche WebLink
completion first rather than larger segments, etc.); with Ms. Bloom recognizing <br /> the extensive thought process and system used for ranking by Member <br /> Gjerdingen, using four categories. <br /> Chair Vanderwall suggested using rankings between#1 — 5, with any fractions <br /> between, with staff then adding numbers on a consistent scale for more accuracy. <br /> As a way to allow easier ranking for individual members, Ms. Bloom suggested <br /> that her next spreadsheet iteration only provide columns for ranking, removing <br /> previous numbers. <br /> Members were of the consensus that this was a good idea, as they were no longer <br /> relevant to this discussion. <br /> In response to Member Stenlund's expressed a desire to rank projects that remove <br /> or avoid bottlenecks or those that would require a large CIP expenditure to work. <br /> Member Gjerdingen brought up Member Stenlund's comment earlier about <br /> ranking projects according to what year they should be done and suggested such <br /> ranking would not be relevant, and since some of the streets were already <br /> scheduled on the CIP and some not, it would be simpler to base prioritization <br /> from#1 — 5 simply on the merits of each segment. <br /> Members concurred. <br /> Member DeBenedet noted that some of the low-hanging fruit may happen due to <br /> other situations unknown at this time. <br /> Ms. Bloom advised that Member Felice had also provided her initial rankings; <br /> and advised that she would alert her to tonight's discussion and next step in the <br /> exercise. Ms. Bloom advised that she would edit the spreadsheet and provide it <br /> electronically to each member to allow them to refine or redo their rankings for <br /> each individual segment, including either/or situations. Ms. Bloom advised that <br /> she would attempt to make it as uncomplicated as possible to provide ranking for <br /> each area from#1 — 5 or fractions in between; and advised that she would share <br /> Member Gjerdingen's point system with them. Ms. Bloom noted that the weather <br /> still allowed the PWETC to visit sites at their preference, before winter, to <br /> continue this project and allow for further discussion at their next meeting; with <br /> Ms. Bloom committing to the PWETC to keep it updated through her time at <br /> Roseville. <br /> Chair Vanderwall recognized that when combined with other individual rankings, <br /> his individual rankings had become topsy-turvy; and admitted that he wanted to <br /> refine them using the new spreadsheet, but also wanted to do so sooner rather than <br /> later. <br /> Page 9 of 10 <br />