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