My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-0428 PWETC Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
202x
>
2026
>
2026-0428 PWETC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2026 11:01:24 AM
Creation date
5/20/2026 11:01:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/28/2026
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Member Sandstrom asked for clarification that the draft prioritization in the <br />appendix would remain preliminary even after the bike plan is approved, and <br />confirmed that prioritization will be addressed as a next step. <br />Ms. Lowry explained that the bike plan is more conceptual compared to the <br />pathway master plan, which involves more detailed, segment -by -segment <br />engagement. She noted that while some outreach was conducted, additional <br />steps and input will be needed before implementation, and the council's <br />discussion will help guide the plan's next steps. <br />Member Sandstrom asked whether the map intentionally shows only public <br />schools and whether there was a specific reason private schools were not <br />included. <br />Ms. Lowry said it was not intentional that only public schools were shown. She <br />explained that before using schools as a planning factor, the city would need to <br />more clearly define and refine which types of schools or facilities to consider. <br />Motion <br />Member Fergus moved, and Member Luongo seconded, to recommend <br />that the City Council approve the bike plan. <br />Ayes: 9 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Ms. Lowry explained that the plan will be presented to the Parks Commission <br />before going to council, likely in June, to keep the process moving forward. She <br />noted that the goal is to align the bike plan with the pathway master plan over <br />time, avoid separate prioritization efforts, and gain council support to proceed <br />with next steps. <br />c. Pathway Master Plan — Continued Segment Review <br />Public Works Director Freihammer provided a brief review and update on <br />projects and maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated April 28, <br />2026. <br />Chair Ficek noted this was a continuation of prior discussions and that the group <br />would review the segments with the intent to vote on a recommendation for <br />approval, and asked for clarification on the exact wording of the motion. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that the group is continuing to review and refine the <br />pathway master plan by working through existing and proposed segments, <br />aiming to reach a consensus rather than a formal vote. He noted that as they <br />move further down the list, segments may be less prominent or more complex, <br />and introduced the next segment for discussion, a proposed connection along <br />Page 6 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.