Committee member Brian (and other members) flagged an inconsistency in the capital-prioritization worksheet (referred to as 'Rory' rankings) that treats projects with no prior fiscal-year funds as a zero on one criterion while awarding recurring projects up to 100 percent. "So if it's new, you keep it as 0. And then if it had money and had been spent, then we put a 100%," a committee member said while describing the current scoring approach.

Members warned that this scoring artifact can alter median scores and change the relative ranking of projects, especially where the median is near a threshold. Brian recommended the committee consider applying the same convention the town used for consistency or otherwise agree on a common approach. Committee staff offered to assemble a list of annual appropriation items and remaining balances to help the committee answer the prior-fiscal-year spending question consistently.

The discussion covered practical options: leave zeros in place (consistent with the group's prior method), manually adjust entries in the system, or provide staff-supplied prior-year balances to inform scoring. Members noted practical constraints — the software requires manual edits for each project — and weighed whether the scoring variance materially affects final recommendations. Staff said they would prepare updated materials and notify members in advance of the next review.

The committee agreed to consider the issue in its next meeting and to watch the Select Board update on Dec. 3 when the recommended projects will be presented.