Laserfiche WebLink
401 suggested staff spend time summarizing the key things on what the suggested <br />402 priorities should be. Member Misra stated she would like to know from staff where <br />403 good decisions have been made with the pathway program to help guide them in <br />404 identifying priorities. <br />405 <br />406 Mr. Culver referred to the model sent to him by Member Thumau, and stated it <br />407 looked at census data, proximity to pedestrian attractors, and other things. They set <br />408 up the thresholds for each one and assigned points. They can map it and generate <br />409 the data. <br />410 <br />411 Mr. Freihammer stated at their focus group meeting, they heard good reviews on <br />412 their County Road B2 sidewalk project. <br />413 <br />414 Mr. Culver explained the County Road B2 sidewalk project was funded by park <br />415 renewal bond funds. They wanted to do a connection that met some of the park <br />416 constellation connection and it was rated number two on the Pathway Master Plan. <br />417 Another example is County Road B west of Cleveland. They kept getting interest <br />418 from the residents, it was highly ranked and low cost, so they decided to do it. With <br />419 Victoria, they have received a petition for it, there has been a lot of discussion, and <br />420 there is a demand. It was ranked number eight, but from an implementation <br />421 perspective, it is going to be very costly to build. Until another project comes <br />422 through or they identify a different source of funding, it will be difficult to do. <br />423 Based on the outcome of this process and if it is still highly ranked, they may ask <br />424 the City Council to try to find some funding sources to apply for. With Larpenteur, <br />425 they received some community block funds for a high interest area identified by the <br />426 City Council. The County Road D segment between Lexington and Victoria was <br />427 done because the roadway was reconstructed. <br />428 <br />429 6. PWETC/City Council Joint Meeting Review <br />430 Mr. Culver suggested they postpone discussion on the City Council Joint Meeting <br />431 Review to a future meeting. Mr. Culver stated sometime in August or September, <br />432 he would like to look at what Duluth and other cities have done with ranking and <br />433 criteria, and present the Commission with a proposal that they can further discuss. <br />434 <br />435 Chair Cihacek commented he supports tabling the City Council Joint Meeting <br />436 Review, excluding the seal coat and lead since those are things staff can update the <br />437 City Council on. <br />438 <br />439 Mr. Culver stated they had good discussion with the lead, so he is not concerned <br />440 about that. With the seal coat, they may provide an update to the Commission on <br />441 how it is going. <br />442 <br />443 Motion <br />444 Member Misra moved, Member Trainor seconded, to table the PWETC/City <br />445 Council Joint Meeting Review to the August 22, 2017 meeting. <br />446 <br />Page 10 of 11 <br />