Laserfiche WebLink
Member Gjerdingen concurred, that both sides were heavily used, and he had <br /> observed people often walking in the street. <br /> Member Felice noted that it became increasingly difficult during winter months. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that he was unsure how it been omitted from the rankings, but <br /> would review that and add it back in. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that the rankings were provided, individually and the <br /> composite; with some columns eliminated for easier reading at this stage of the <br /> process. Mr. Schwartz sought input from the PWETC on how they thought <br /> packaging should be completed by priority rankings, advising that staff could then <br /> develop final costs, including inflationary markers consistent with current 20-year <br /> City of Roseville overall CIP projections. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding feasibility in developing a 5 year and/or 10 year CIP <br /> for pathways, and projected annual funding of approximately $1 million for a 10- <br /> year build-out and $500,000 for a 20-year build-out; with Mr. Schwartz opining <br /> that even a 5 year CIP would be very difficult to develop, as there were no <br /> dedicated tax monies for pathways at this time. <br /> While it was recognized that funding resources had not yet been discussed at <br /> length, Mr. Schwartz noted that staff provided the City Council with annual <br /> proposed sidewalk and pathway improvement projects for maintenance, including <br /> funds set aside to rehabilitate, repave and other maintenance issues, up to <br /> approximately $6,000 per mile per year in the Pathway Maintenance Budget. <br /> Members concurred that it was a good thing for the public to know those types of <br /> details and take them into consideration as an ongoing cost. <br /> Further discussion included significant variables in individual rankings, and the <br /> impact on composite rankings; with staff highlighting those individual rankings <br /> for which they had questions or needed further clarification to understand a <br /> member's rationale. Members discussed how to establish the key to make this <br /> system work for the entire community to address exercise and wellness, safety, <br /> access to businesses, and all other issues as the core focus of this exercise. <br /> Further consideration included how and where to cut off ranking for priority <br /> projects with those less vital to the health, safety and welfare of the community. <br /> Member DeBenedet addressed various options available for some segments (e.g. <br /> Victoria Street), and some areas (e.g. north of County Road C)that appeared to be <br /> duplicated numerous times. Member DeBenedet questioned what the PWEC <br /> really wanted to recommend to the City Council. <br /> Page 3 of 19 <br />