2017-01-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

seeking a sidewalk in their area However, Mr. Culver noted the need to re-examine the entire city and hear from residents in abroader sense, causing excitement among staff to hear their perspectives. With Chair Cihacek noting the responsibility in deciding on those priorities for the next ten years, Mr. Culver reminded commissioners that nothing would be set in stone, and only used as a planning document, and identifying deficiencies in the current transportation network, including safety concerns and ways to address them. Mr. Culver noted that, as projects come up and funding becomes available, including opportunities for grant funds, all those components would serve to inform projects and their costs. Mr. Culver also noted that as new needs came forward, or the City Council was able to fund segments or projects not included as priorities in the current plan, they could be recommended at that time. Chair Cihacek sought clarification, with confirmation by Mr. Culver, as to the PWETC's review of the current plan and a potentially different ranking system for priorities and pathway sections within aten-year budget cycle; as well as the intent to reintroduce the plan as currently written to obtain public comment, even if it was found that it required significant changes. Mr. Culver noted that the process would also take advantage of other community plans for wider consideration to allow the city to be in a position to seek input from the public for PWETC consideration as it considered prioritizing segments. As to Chair Cihacek's concern as to how those connections are made based on the PWETC's recommendations, Mr. Culver clarified that the focuses with the transportation consultant for this portion of the comprehensive plan update would focus on public rights-of-way and transportation links; while the Parks & Recreation Commission's view was more from a recreational perspective versus the PWETC's view of transportation corridors or routes, even though they may frequently overlap. Chair Cihacek opined that in order for the PWETC to develop a strong plan, they would need recommendations on working them together to achieve an economy of scale; and therefore questioned why this portion of the comprehensive plan update was solicited separately from the overall consultant. Mr. Freihammer advised that, under the previous plan update, all chapters were updated jointly as a whole, with the general consultant using a subconsultant for their expertise. However, Mr. Freihammer reported that this less extensive update was seeking to retain more control and specialization in transportation planning, especially with pathway extensions and connections; hopefully providing more flexibility versus only serving as a small subset of the broader plan update. Mr. Freihammer clarified that whatever consultant is chosen for the transportation plan update would still be working closely with the general consultant, including coordinating meetings for public engagement, including how the transportation plan coincides with the broader comprehensive plan update (e.g. land use chapter). Page 7 of 17