In a practice town-budget exercise, is an equal split always the fairest compromise?

Our civic club gave each table ten counters representing an imaginary town budget. The choices were repairs to a play area, extra evening transport and a small arts programme. These were exercise options, not estimates of real costs.

I wanted to divide the counters as evenly as possible. Another participant asked whether my compromise would leave every option too short to do anything. The exercise cards listed a minimum allocation for each, and I hadn't read that part.

Then someone said the entire pot should go to the option with the most urgent need. We hadn't agreed how to judge urgency or what would happen to the other two.

This was only a practice exercise, but I recognised my habit of offering everybody a little so nobody can accuse me of taking a side. What questions would help us make a defensible choice when an even split looks considerate but may not fund a usable result?