2016-07-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

However, Mr. Culver noted that the negative of that process, was the two year comprehensive plan update. Mr. Culver noted that no identified funding source was available for pathway updates anyway; even though several groups had petitioned for specific segments, and other areas had received heightened demand, but at this time, no intentional public process was in place to address those segments. Member Wozniak noted past discussion about revisiting the ranking system for the pathway plan. Mr. Culver clarified that the current Pathway Master Plan was updated and re- prioritized in 2008; but the ranking system referenced was an effort of the PWETC done in 2013 and subsequent concerns of the City Council with the method and inconsistency in criteria used as to how segments were rated. While appreciating the effort, Mr. Culver noted concerns of the City Council as to the validity of the outcome and time needed to address criteria and focus on updating priorities. Mr. Culver noted that a number of segments had been completed since the last master plan update; but agreed it was worthwhile to address the master plan while reviewing zoning, transportation, and transit chapters of the comprehensive plan; and include that discussion at the same time to allow for public input. In the 2017 work plan, Chair Cihacek asked staff to plan on providing the PWETC with an updated pathway map of what had been accomplished to-date as a template over missing segments still remaining. Chair Cihacek opined that would provide important priority areas and those areas recognized as gaps; informing discussions going forward and prior to moving into the comprehensive plan process. Chair Cihacek opined that known gaps are a different context than those segments the city would like to complete. Chair Cihacek noted this would also address tangible deficits and areas of safety concerns or connectivity; where the segments fit into the overall efforts, and those segments requested, those completed, and those remaining gaps in the infrastructure system. Chair Cihacek stated he was seeking discussion across those three different map concepts. Member Wozniak suggested that the PWETC also identify other criteria for rating pathways, based on City Council concerns with the PWETC's 2013 ratings and perception that they were insufficient or irregular. Member Wozniak opined this would allow for criteria identified and an exercise of weighting or rating pathways in advance of comprehensive plan activities. Chair Cihacek agreed that provided a context for integration of this PWETC-level piece and priorities in the comprehensive plan discussion, but also was early enough in that process to provide context for public input. Chair Cihacek suggested that discussion also include connectivity with the regional efforts to St. Paul and Minneapolis and infrastructure demands also. Chair Cihacek suggested Page 16 of 19