My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-04-23_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013-04-23_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/27/2013 12:02:51 PM
Creation date
6/27/2013 12:02:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/23/2013
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Discussion included various high traffic count and safety concern areas; how to <br /> prioritize and address specific segments; gravel versus paved parkways; fill in <br /> items if funds remained from one year to the next; need to respect the community <br /> as well as Parks & Recreation community engagement process for any <br /> adjustments in accomplishing the build-out whether or not it fit into a <br /> constellation plan and allowing that flexibility; those areas that will need build- <br /> out after the Parks Renewal Program is finished; and current 2013 projects that <br /> incorporate sidewalks and can be eliminated from the priority list. <br /> Further discussion included prioritizing for 4-5 years; and inclusion of <br /> inflationary rates as a given to include in the budgeting process. <br /> Consensus was to have a budget goal of$1 million annually for the pathway <br /> build-out plan, and those years with the availability of other funding sources to <br /> use excess dollars for additional build-out or setting them aside for upcoming <br /> years. <br /> Ms. Bloom opined that inflation was not as prevalent for a shorter term build-out <br /> plan (e.g. 10 years) as a longer term plan (e.g. 20 years); would depend on the <br /> type of pathway (e.g. concrete, bituminous, or gravel) and needed to include other <br /> components (e.g. drainage, retaining wall, etc.). If the PWETC provided <br /> guidance, Ms. Bloom offered staff s review of those elements. <br /> Chair Vanderwall requested that staff provide maps of pathways already in place, <br /> while allowing visual integrity on those maps to avoid them becoming too multi- <br /> layered; with separate maps identifying projects; and another map showing <br /> potential projects and linked back to the table in use tonight (Attachment A). <br /> Chair Vanderwall suggested that this would allow individual members to <br /> personally review areas and make recommendations for connections and new <br /> trails throughout the overall system. <br /> Discussion included how to consistently score various components and priorities; <br /> allow for feedback from individual property owners; recognizing the need of the <br /> overall community as well as those individual property owners for decision- <br /> making for the good of all; breaking out some of the more expensive segments to <br /> determine their prioritization; and the PWETC returning with ideas for projects <br /> already intended, not new segments. <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that the first portion of the build-out plan totaled approximately <br /> $15 million without any new sections. <br /> At the suggestion of Member Stenlund for a field trip of the PWETC to see some <br /> of the issues; consensus was that individual inspections would be easier to <br /> manage and allow discussion time at meetings rather than taking time out for a <br /> fieldtrip to review those areas. <br /> Page 5 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.