Laserfiche WebLink
however, he did not see any revisions from previous rankings; nor did he find that <br /> they reflected the October 22, 2013 e-mail from PWETC Commissioner Felice <br /> requesting reconsideration of that priority ranking for the southwestern segment <br /> of County Road B to Cleveland Avenue segment. Mr. Grefenberg opined that <br /> several members of the PWETC had indicated to him personally that they may be <br /> suggesting changes based on public testimony and other information received to- <br /> date; and noted that he came to this meeting expecting that to happen tonight. <br /> Mr. Grefenberg expressed concern that there was no public record of the NRATS <br /> meetings referenced by Members Gjerdingen and DeBenedet; and asked for <br /> clarification of Member Gjerdingen's summary given at the beginning of <br /> tonight's meeting. <br /> Mr. Gjerdingen clarified that consideration of funding outside of County Road B- <br /> 2 would not be restricted to the $2 million parks bonding allocation; with the <br /> remainder of the unallocated funds of$600,000 not able to fully address <br /> remaining needs. <br /> Member DeBenedet clarified that several projects had been recommended to staff <br /> to put into the "bucket," and out of that bucket, some of the remaining estimated <br /> $600,000 of Parks Pathway money could fund some of those projects, recognizing <br /> that there was not enough to do them all. <br /> At the request of Mr. Grefenberg, both Members DeBenedet and Gjerdingen <br /> clarified and reiterated that there had been no exclusion of County Road B. <br /> Member DeBenedet noted that, if at least a portion of the pathway on County <br /> Road B on the west end, it would be a benefit and a step in the right direction, and <br /> prove satisfactory, recognizing other community-wide needs. <br /> Mr. Grefenberg noted that the County Road B segment had mentioned more than <br /> a few times during the 18-month process of the landscape planning in the Parks <br /> Master Plan process; however, with a history of over 30 years of neglect, any <br /> comment from one resident should not reflect broader neighborhood concerns. <br /> Mr. Grefenberg expressed confidence that the PWETC process would serve to <br /> clarify, to some extent, what the neighborhood would like to see for a non- <br /> motorized pathway. If any project was approved, Mr. Grefenberg opined that the <br /> County Road B pathway was as eligible as any. <br /> County Road B Pathway Discussion <br /> Chair Vanderwall recognized Public Works Director Schwartz and asked him for <br /> a summary of last night's City Council meeting presentation and discussion <br /> specifically related to County Road B to address concerns expressed by residents. <br /> Mr. Schwartz began with reviewing the existing conditions and realities of <br /> County Road B: <br /> Page 5 of 18 <br />