Laserfiche WebLink
444 <br />Mr. Freihammer responded the red letters represent new segments that were not <br />445 <br />previously on the Pathway Master Plan. He noted that number 11 should actually <br />446 <br />be number 27 and number 27 should be number 11. Also, numbers 27, 28, and 29 <br />447 <br />were added based on public input. They also added number 30, which would be an <br />448 <br />off-road pathway between County Road B and County Road C to provide a crossing <br />449 <br />of Highway 36 along Snelling Avenue. The items highlighted in yellow did not <br />450 <br />have a full analysis done on them because of the way they are currently defined. <br />451 <br />Both of the pathways currently have a pathway on one side, but a lot of the master <br />452 <br />plan is describing both an on and off-road pathway. <br />453 <br />454 <br />Chair Cihacek commented the scoring rubric this is a very clear, objective, and <br />455 <br />participatory and they can make changes as needed. <br />456 <br />457 <br />Member Heimerl inquired how ranking for availability of funding from other non - <br />458 <br />City sources is considered with these criteria. <br />459 <br />460 <br />Mr. Culver responded they need to determine what this list now actually represents. <br />461 <br />Is the result of this list really for the needs of these segments versus the true priority? <br />462 <br />The priority is going to have other criteria involved with it such as constructability, <br />463 <br />cost, and available funding. Snelling Avenue across Highway 36 should be one of <br />464 <br />the top priorities for the City for a bike/pedestrian connection. However, the cost <br />465 <br />and complexity of it will probably keep it at the top of the list until Mn/DOT does <br />466 <br />something with the bridge. A lot of these segments will be similar until an <br />467 <br />opportunity arises. This ranking will be used to identify segments they will seek <br />468 <br />outside funding for. <br />469 <br />470 <br />Member Thurnau commented this is a wish list, and inquired if they will apply this <br />471 <br />ranking to what they already have in order to preserve and maintain it. <br />472 <br />473 <br />Mr. Culver responded he hopes they do not get to a point where they have to <br />474 <br />prioritize their infrastructure in this way. They decide what needs to be replaced by <br />475 <br />determining what is in the worst condition. <br />476 <br />477 <br />Member Wozniak commented he likes the changes that were made and that transit <br />478 <br />and density are considered. However, it overweighs existing structures at the <br />479 <br />expense of underserved areas of the community. If an area has a pathway now, they <br />480 <br />get points because they are close to a pathway. It also does not take away points if <br />481 <br />there is already something close. <br />482 <br />483 <br />Member Misra inquired if it is a priority to have a pathway on both sides of a road. <br />484 <br />485 <br />Chair Cihacek pointed out the policy for the pathway plan makes that <br />486 <br />recommendation, and they can discuss it further when they review the policy. <br />487 <br />Page 11 of 15 <br />