2016-08-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

676 However, Mr. Culver noted that the negative of that process, was the two year 677 comprehensive plan update. Mr. Culver noted that no identified funding source 678 was available for pathway updates anyway; even though several groups had 679 petitioned for specific segments, and other areas had received heightened demand, 680 but at this time, no intentional public process was in place to address those 681 segments. 682 683 Member Wozniak noted past discussion about revisiting the ranking system for 684 the pathway plan. 685 686 Mr. Culver clarified that the current Pathway Master Plan was updated and re - 687 prioritized in 2008; but the ranking systemeferenced was an effort of the 688 PWETC done in 2013 and subsequentc cerns of the City Council with the a 689 method and inconsistency in criteria to how segments were rated. While 690 appreciating the effort, Mr. Culver 4ted concerns of the City Council as to the 691 validity of the outcome and time needed to address criteria and focus on updating 692 priorities. Mr. Culver noted that a number of segments had been completed since 693 the last master plan update; but agreed it was worthwhile to address the master 694 plan while reviewing zoning, transportation, and transit chapters of the 695 comprehensive plan; and include that discussion at the same time to allow for 696 public input. 697 698 In the 2017 work plan, Chair C ek asked staff to plan on providing the 699 PWETC with an updated pathwa map of what had been accomplished to -date as 700 a template over missing segments still remaining. Chair Cihacek opined that 701 would provide important priority areas and those areas recognized as gaps; 702 discussions going forward and prior to moving into the comprehensive 703 pla s. Chair Cihacek opined that known gaps are a different context than 704 those segments the city would like to plete. Chair Cihacek noted this would 705 also address tangible deficits and areas of safety concerns or connectivity; where 706 the segments fit into the overall efforts, and those segments requested, those 707 completed, and those remaining, gaps in the infrastructure system. Chair Cihacek 708 stated he was seeking discussion across those three different map concepts. 709 710 Member Wozniak suggested that the PWETC also identify other criteria for rating 711 pathways, based on City Council concerns with the PWETC's 2013 ratings and 712 perception that they were insufficient or irregular. Member Wozniak opined this 713 would allow for criteria identified and an exercise of weighting or rating pathways 714 in advance of comprehensive plan activities. 715 716 Chair Cihacek agreed that provided a context for integration of this PWETC-level 717 piece and priorities in the comprehensive plan discussion, but also was early 718 enough in that process to provide context for public input. Chair Cihacek 719 suggested that discussion also include connectivity with the regional efforts to St. 720 Paul and Minneapolis and infrastructure demands also. Chair Cihacek suggested Page 16 of 19