Laserfiche WebLink
staff's perspective, it was very difficult to sell the concept of assessing for <br /> sidewalks. <br /> Chair Vanderwall concurred, noting that it came down to the political reality of <br /> assessing for sidewalks in Roseville. If there was no cost, residents were <br /> basically neutral; however, if there was a cost to them, it was not a plus and they <br /> would be against sidewalks. Chair Vanderwall opined that he was a believer that <br /> a system was needed to be built that worked and allowed access throughout the <br /> community for various uses (e.g. business, education, recreation); and spoke in <br /> support of the policy remaining as is for the time being. <br /> Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bloom concurred, based on their experience and previous <br /> discussions. <br /> Member Gjerdingen questioned why sidewalks were not a requirement for new <br /> road projects or reconstruction projects. <br /> Ms. Bloom responded that, if a pathway or trail had been recommended as part of <br /> the Pathway Master Plan, staff proposes it as part of any reconstruction project <br /> however, she advised that it was not a requirement for a "mill and overlay" <br /> project. Ms. Bloom clarified that the City Council was ultimately the decision- <br /> maker for what is required, with staff providing the plans and making <br /> recommendations, but the City Council deciding what is possible or required. <br /> Ms. Bloom, in response to Member Gjerdingen on a lack of requirement to install <br /> sidewalks, opined that the Pathway Master Plan addressed areas where a sidewalk <br /> would be most useful or most needed, rather than requiring their installation on <br /> every street arbitrarily. While recognizing that many cities may do so, Ms. Bloom <br /> questioned the success of such policies in those communities. <br /> With Member Gjerdingen opining that "pathway" had implications, Ms. <br /> Bloom offered to revise the wording to "off-road." <br /> Discussion ensued regarding the next steps for the policy, with consensus to <br /> include it for one last brief review and action to recommend the revised policy to <br /> the City Council. <br /> Member Stenlund questioned how the revised Assessment Policy affected the <br /> future use of"Complete Streets;" with roads, ponds, trees and other amenities all <br /> being part of the storm water management system and infrastructure as one piece, <br /> even while appearing to be separate components of future designs <br /> Ms. Bloom opined that the more flexible terminology of the revisions should <br /> address those concerns. <br /> Member Stenlund sought assurance that the "Complete Streets" concept was not <br /> deleted. <br /> Page 9 of 14 <br />