My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2023_0328_PWETCPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
202x
>
2023
>
2023_0328_PWETCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/31/2023 8:12:59 AM
Creation date
3/31/2023 8:11:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/28/2023
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
�: <br />81 Chair Ficek asked if pathways on both sides were also planned for collector streets. <br />82 <br />83 Mr. Freihammer indicated even though some collector streets are very important, <br />84 at this time the plan is to only place pathways on both sides along arterial streets. <br />85 He noted the pathways to collector streets could be added with an amendment for <br />86 future work to be done if the Commission had that as a recommendation. <br />87 <br />88 Chair Ficek indicated the City is not adding to residential roads. <br />89 <br />90 Mr. Freihammer explained some residential roads are considered collector roads so <br />91 he would specify local roads and not residential roads. He noted if the Commission <br />92 wanted to make the recommendation and a motion the next time the Commission <br />93 discusses that and if there is a need to update the Pathway Master Plan to add <br />94 segments, he thought it would be a nice amendment to add as a goal in the Pathway <br />95 Master Plan. <br />96 <br />97 Chair Ficek added his own opinion for maintenance on County roads if there is any <br />98 kickback for the City to maintain them. 0 <br />99 <br />100 Mr. Freihammer explained staff has done a lot of pushback with the County to try <br />101 to change their policies. He noted the City did get a small change to the policy a <br />102 few years ago. It is a long-term gain, the County, now with the new pathways, even <br />103 if the City installs it, the County will actually own the pathways. The City still <br />104 needs to do the maintenance but long term when it needs replacing the County will <br />105 replace it. He indicated that is a gain for the City. <br />106 <br />107 Chair Ficek asked if staff is putting as much thought into the pathways along the <br />108 roads as what is planned for the roads. He thought the better the pathways are <br />109 designed the longer the pathways will last with less repairs and maintenance to be <br />110 done to them. <br />111 <br />112 Mr. Freihammer explained that was correct. The City builds pathways almost to the <br />113 same standards as the roads. Staff also tries to accommodate for drainage. <br />114 <br />115 Member Hodder wondered about the funding mechanism. He asked if the <br />116 Pavement Management fund included the pathways funding or is this fund just for <br />117 paving of roads. <br />118 <br />119 Mr. Freihammer explained the Pavement Management fund is just for roads. The <br />120 City does have the Pathway Maintenance fund which is designed for maintenance <br />121 of pathways. <br />122 <br />123 Member Hodder asked where the maintenance funds come from. <br />124 <br />125 Mr. Freihammer believed the maintenance funds is coming from local taxes. <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />Page 5 of 67 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.