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
Parks and Public Works Department needed to work cooperatively in <br />coordinating efforts. <br />Further discussion included the staff -level coordination between the Parks and <br />Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. <br />Ms. Bloom advised that she would be attending a Parks subcommittee meeting in <br />June, and noted how instrumental Park and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, <br />and Jeff Evenson had been in developing the Pathway Master Plan, a city -wide <br />effort, not just that of the Public Works Department. Ms. Bloom noted the intent <br />of the Parks Master Plan Implementation group in having her attend their meeting <br />was to serve to coordinate with the PWET Commission and Ramsey County's <br />"Active Living" efforts. Ms. Bloom noted that things were moving farther ahead <br />in coordinating regional pathway systems and connection due to more effective <br />advocacy by Ramsey County. Ms. Bloom advised that her emphasis to the <br />Implementation group would be that the Pathway Master Plan was a city -wide <br />Roseville effort and everyone should work together on it; however, she noted that <br />funding was a huge challenge. <br />Further discussion included value added considerations for increasing property <br />taxes for amenities such as pathways; proactive communication between the <br />PWET and Parks Recreation Commissions related to trees, drainage and soil <br />erosion; and how to address funding for maintenance and the need to develop a <br />process or multi -year schedule for pathway maintenance. <br />Members concurred on the advantages of considering a joint meeting of the <br />PWET and Parks Recreation Commissions. <br />Member Stenlund requested a discussion during the joint meeting alerting the <br />City Council to recent presentations at the PWET Commission about trees used <br />for storm water treatment and complete streets, and other applicable learning <br />presentations held at PWET Commission meetings, perhaps by providing the City <br />Council with a brief recap of educational and guest speakers. Member Stenlund <br />reiterated his personal request for the PWET Commission to have an opportunity <br />to review proposed developments, providing value to the City Council and <br />engineering staff to incorporate storm water and bike transit. Member Stenlund <br />also noted the great benefit for field trips for the PWET Commission, such as the <br />one done to review unsafe intersections. <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would review past agendas and minutes to make <br />sure those accomplishments were highlighted for the City Council. <br />Member Stenlund expressed his interest in doing additional field trips, such as a <br />review of bike trails, erosion controls related to illicit discharge; and mentioned <br />the benefits to the PWET Commission in viewing the geothermal fields and being <br />able to inspect the vacuum street sweeper. <br />Page 6 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.