25_0930_PWETC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

79 Concept C1 or C2 was advanced, with architect and construction management 80 services requested. A construction manager at risk will be chosen by October 14, 81 and an architect by October 15. A final design stakeholder group for the Civic 82 Campus will be formed, involving various commissions and residents, and updates 83 will be provided as consultants are onboarded. 84 85 5. Pathway Master Plan 86 Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer explained that the last Pathway Master 87 Plan update was in October 2021, which focused on completed and removed 88 segments. The current plan includes a preference list based on GIS analysis, 89 prioritizing segments using various criteria. The plan is intended to be updated to 90 address current needs, incorporating new studies and developments. It will guide 91 future pathway projects and funding decisions. He mentioned that public feedback 92 will be solicited on which parts of the plan should be updated and how the 93 preference list should be revised. 94 95 Mr. Freihammer explained that interns documented the desired paths in Roseville, 96 highlighting areas where residents walk despite the absence of official pathways. 97 Examples include the north side of County Road C east of Victoria, the south side 98 of County Road C west of Victoria, and Fernwood Court. These desired paths could 99 be prioritized for future pathway projects, considering railroad crossings and other 100 infrastructure needs. Public feedback will be gathered on how to incorporate these 101 paths into the Pathway Master Plan. He noted that the commission will need to 102 discuss the best way to engage the public and prioritize these segments. 103 104 Mr. Freihammer explained that the current preference list is based on statistical 105 analysis, prioritizing segments according to various criteria. The list includes 106 segments on arterial roads with more than 4000 ADT, following a policy to add 107 pathways on one side before the other. The commission should discuss whether this 108 threshold needs reevaluation and how it should be integrated into the ranking. He 109 mentioned that funding considerations will be discussed, including the use of State 110 Aid dollars, grant funds, and dedicated funding for new pathways. The commission 111 will also explore ways to make the plan more useful and understandable to the 112 public. 113 114 Member Fergus commented on the evaluation criteria, saying it was generally good 115 but questioned whether further adjustments were needed. 116 117 Mr. Freihammer addressed the problem of tied rankings and the confusion they 118 create, highlighting the need for clearer separation. He emphasized the list's role in 119 project prioritization, recognizing feedback from the previous commission. 120 121 Member Luongo suggested comparing the criteria with the bike plan to ensure 122 consistency and logical application, and also reviewing the list of criteria against 123 city goals to identify similarities and ensure alignment. 124 Page 3 of 6 Page 172 of 175