My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-06-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-06-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2011 9:08:16 AM
Creation date
6/28/2011 8:53:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/28/2011
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.
/
110
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
Chair DeBenedet opined that the timeliest discussion should be the organized <br />trash collection issue. <br />Member Vanderwall opined that the City Council not be given conclusions, since <br />there are many different opinions within the community and the City Council was <br />not privy to the background research and information compiled by the PWET <br />Commission's due diligence to -date. <br />7. Traffic Management Policy <br />Chair DeBenedet noted the sample Policies provided by staff as part of the agenda <br />from the cities of Blaine, MN, Evanston, IL, and Des Plaines, IL. <br />Member Felice noted another policy from the City of Kent, WA that she had <br />liked, specifically their rating chart assigning points for various components. <br />While noting that such a ranking process would create more work for staff, <br />Member Vanderwall noted that such a rating chart would provide a good way to <br />evaluate a project and get direct participation from a wider group of stakeholders, <br />as well as creating more support. <br />Member Vanderwall noted staffs previous comment on three requests for such an <br />evaluation already pending; and questioned whether part of the question for <br />Public Works was whether that was part of the value for consideration in a <br />ranking process. <br />Mr. Schwartz noted the increasing number of requests being fielded for additional <br />enforcement, traffic calming measures, and other traffic management concerns. <br />Ms. Bloom opined that, if a policy was in place, the City would field even more <br />requests, since the typical staff response for those requests now is that there are <br />insufficient funds to implement such measures unless a street reconstruction was <br />being done. <br />Discussion ensued on how and when the point system would be used; whether <br />extra points would be applied if construction was planned or in progress; whether <br />traffic calming measures are a good investment and safe, or whether they are <br />bicycle friendly and would not force them into traffic; benefits of vertical <br />elements and their effectiveness in slowing traffic; snow plowing and <br />maintenance issues; advantages of signage; advantages and disadvantages of <br />things to consider during the analysis process, as facilitated by diagrams of actual <br />use; and how ranking would be influenced by the origination of the request. <br />Further discussion included rationale for developing such a policy and the <br />perceptions of how involved government should be or not be; other needs that <br />would serve the public good but can't be accomplished due to a lack of funding <br />and how such a policy ranked in the overall priority scheme; residential versus <br />Page 8 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.