PlanningTable

A city's planning committee is allocating infrastructure development funds among four geographical areas. The committee evaluated each area with respect to each of the following aspects:

• the state of existing infrastructure
• capacity for economic development
• readiness for economic development
• projected 25-year level of economic growth
• likely percentage return on investment (ROI) in infrastructure

Each area received a rating from A+ to E for each aspect evaluated. Letters earlier in the alphabet represent higher ratings. A plus following a letter indicates a slightly higher rating than the letter alone, while a minus indicates a slightly lower rating.

Funding Criteria

The committee members debated how to rank the areas for allocation of spending based on the evaluation referred to in the Planning tab.

Mr. Hernandez argued for prioritizing allocation of funding to the areas that received higher overall ratings from the committee.

Mr. Li argued for prioritizing allocation of funding based on need, determined as follows: the lower the rating for the state of existing infrastructure and the higher the rating for projected 25-year economic growth, the greater the need.

Ms. Tansey argued for prioritizing allocation of funding to areas that have been given higher ratings for both capacity and readiness for economic development.

Ms. Wahid argued that areas that are expected to yield a larger percentage return on infrastructure investment should have a higher priority for funding, since this would generate more funding for future infrastructure development.

Table

The following table shows the ratings that each of the areas received for each factor in the evaluation, as well as an overall rating for the area: