Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting— 04/24/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 18 <br />had looked to the City's Parks and Recreations <br />Commission for their input and recommendations for <br />amendments and updates to the original pathways plan. <br />�ouncilmem�er Rough responded negatively. <br />Public Comment <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn provided a history of the establishment of <br />a ranking system and creation of the Pathways Committee <br />that established the ranking system, approximately 10 years <br />ago; and pointed out several shortcomings of the <br />Committee's research and process for ranking pathway <br />needs. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that she was convinced of the <br />need to re-examine and update the City's pathway plan; <br />allowing for broad community input, and further opined <br />that the community visioning process was the most logical <br />place to have those conversations. Councilmember Pust <br />noted that she'd had conversations with Ms. Reitz, but <br />wasn't sure of the neighborhood support for a pathway. <br />Councilmember Pust advised that she woulc�. not support <br />the motion directing staff to fmd money for this pathway <br />segment, but would support review of pathway priorities as <br />part of the community visioning process. <br />Councilmember Maschka sought staff comment related to <br />the policy of Ramsey County when a County road was <br />reconstructed and cost-sharing for pathway construction as <br />part of the overall reconstructionproject. <br />Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that the <br />County's policy was to only pay for pathways to replace <br />existing that were disturbed by reconstruction; otherwise, <br />new pathway construction was 100% a city-cost <br />responsibility. <br />Councilmember Maschka questioned if there were any <br />exceptions to the City installing a pathway when a County <br />road was reconstructed, at City cost. <br />