CC_Minutes_2012_0709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 09,2012 Page 25 sion (PWETC) for consideration of those pathways listed as priority projects under the Pathway Master Plan and those addressed in the Parks Implementa- tion Master Plan and how they would be differentiated. Ms. Bloom noted that those items listed in the Pathway Master Plan as priorities would not be as- sessed; and would be clearly defined in an updated Assessment Policy currently being drafted by the PWETC for recommendation to the City Council in the near future. Ms. Bloom advised that those not listed in that Master Plan would then be considered under the TMP. Councilmember Pust observed that a lot of people in Roseville supported side- walks; and this could address the question of whether that interest remained strong and if they were willing to pay for them or not. Ms. Bloom briefly reviewed the petition process for sidewalks on regional or ar- terial roads and potential applicable assessments; and if outside that regional system,but inside the regional Master Plan system, they would not be assessed. Councilmember Pust opined that this made it critical that the City clearly review the Pathway Master Plan now that the distinction was included, and that it be factored into economic issues as well. Ms. Bloom noted that the City Council had already requested breakouts for the Pathway Master Plan. In response to Councilmember McGehee's question as to how this impacted Municipal State Aid (MSA)-designated streets, Ms. Bloom advised that the map included in the packet and displayed at tonight's meeting identified the specific jurisdictions of all roads within Roseville, and would be an addendum to the TMP, as outlined in Section 2.0. While MSA roads had different functions and funding, Mr. Bloom advised that if a proposed strategy changed any of those items, it would not be proposed. Regarding costs on Page 11, Table 3, Councilmember McGehee questioned how those costs were arrived at; with Ms. Bloom advising that they were stand- ard costs identified from the Mpls. ITE, and each project would be different. However, Ms. Bloom advised that the PWETC thought it was important that ongoing maintenance costs, while not assessable, be included in consideration for installation. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the latest version of the TMP, opining that it had progressed quite well through the PWETC; and offered his appreciation to them and staff for a job well-done. Councilmember Willmus suggested the TMP was nearing a point where action could be taken.