Hello everybody.

We'll call the Monday, June 1st Building and Grounds Committee to order.

I'm joined by Alders Micklitz, Helgestad, Van Teraste, and Evert.

Is that right?

Okay, thank you.

So we've got a quorum if you join me for the Pledge of Leadance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Under God, individual liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Next, we're got public comment.

I see no members of the public here, so we'll move on.

Does it anybody have any changes to the minutes for the meeting of May 4th?

Any changes?

Changes anybody.

Okay, we'll pass those minutes by unanimous consent.

Next up, 5A.

Please have the city engineering department investigate marking potential improvements to enhance the existing crosswalk located on Hoover Avenue that serves and connects the Mindiola Park parking lot to the playing fields across the street.

Yep.

Approval of sorry to back up a moment.

Who was the first?

Who was the first and who is the second?

Yeah.

Alderman Ever.

Oh, she wants to show us the vote gotcha.

Yep.

Okay.

Yep.

All right.

On to five A.

So as may mention, this item was brought forth by Alderman Mannion to investigate the pedestrian crossing that crosses the uh from the Mindiola Park parking lot on the north side of Hoovern Avenue down to the south side down to Mindiola Park itself.

Excuse me.

Um if you're unaware of the actual location itself, um, the crossing is there highlighted in the red box there on Hoover Avenue.

Um Hoover Avenue runs east-west, and to have a little extra context, there's Sunset Drive a little further to the south that runs east-west, West Avenue to the west of that location and Grand Avenue, both of which are running north-south on both sides.

So Mindiola Park, you can see is on the south side there with the two newer soccer fields that were recently installed, and then that parking lot in which kind of services those soccer fields in conjunction with the other party lot to the south.

So, and then to kind of highlight more closely the location itself and the uh proposed improvements as there is no signing and marking for the crossing itself, and the crossing itself is a mid-block crossing.

Um the proposed improvement, as I had discussed with Alderman Manion, um Ron Groll from Park Rec and others from ParkRack is to put static pedestrian crossing signage as well as the city's enhanced crosswalk detail to further highlight the mid-block crossing itself, and with how we have some of the signs situated.

Um as you can see, even from this aerial, there's quite a few vehicles that even park on the street itself.

Um there are some no parking kind of in the area or using of like the driveway on the east side to have decent sight lines for those signs for westbound traffic or eastbound traffic to make sure that they can see the signs appropriately as they're approaching the mid-block crossing.

And then I'll pass it off to Alderman Mannion if he has any uh further comments for the crossing itself.

Yeah, I don't I don't have a lot to add.

Darren did a good job of explaining what we're trying to accomplish here.

Um I made this referral kind of on behalf of the park rec department who wants to see this uh move forward.

Um it's been talked about for a while and kind of been on the back burner, and uh um I actually got a constituent um reach out to me about it as well.

And uh since making the referral, I've had a couple of other alders um ping me about it, saying constituents had contacted them about potentially getting a uh crosswalk put in here.

So it's definitely something that uh residents are interested in seeing implemented.

It's something that the department is interested in seeing implemented.

Um so I'm uh I'm in favor of seeing what the uh staff has uh proposed tonight getting uh put in.

Um I've talked to Ron as well about it, uh, the park rec director, Ron Groll.

Um, and uh I know he via email did let us know that he was in favor or approving of this uh um plan as well as Greg Wilcox, who's the recreation facilities coordinator for park rec department.

So both of them gave their blessing and I give my blessing as well.

Um I did want to share one comment tonight.

Um I had talked to Alderman Wells about this because this used to be his district, and he's also on the park rec board just to get some background if this had been an area of concern.

Um he had intended to be here tonight to speak to it as well.

Um, but uh apparently he was unable to make it, and I wanted to share um just something that he um brought up in an email to me that I received just before the meeting.

So he said, My one concern um actually let me back up.

He said I'm broadly in support of whatever uh staff feels makes for a safer pedestrian and vehicle interaction.

Um my one concern is that more explicit crossing area is going to provide a rationale for drivers not to yield to pedestrians crossing outside of marked locations, which of course they shouldn't.

Um granted, people shouldn't jaywalk, but that's not licensed to run them over.

He said my one suggestion would be painting parking lines at each shoulder to narrow the available drive lane and therefore slow traffic.

So I know Darren's just hearing that now, but uh I don't know if that's something that uh is up for discussion or something that could be done maybe in the future when we do striping in this area.

Um, but I did want to share that.

Um again, I'm in favor of what staff is proposing.

Park rec departments in favor of what staff is uh proposing.

Anything is better than the nothing that's there now in terms of marking and uh um signage.

So I'd appreciate your support tonight.

Thank you.

And in I'm also in favor of this uh this proposal that's before us, uh, partly because the crossing is mid-block and partly because of the greatly in inreased number of persons around with those two new fields, um, particularly on the weekends.

So does anybody else have any questions or comments?

Okay, all person mich?

Um, I have two questions.

Uh first, was a traffic study done on this or no?

We did not do a full traffic study.

The only thing that we did do was uh just gain some vehicle information on the roadway to understand how many vehicles traverse at the mid-block crossing and at the ends.

Um we did it on two weeks ago when they had their last big Saturday event because we wanted to make sure we lined up with that.

I can't remember what it is explicitly called.

But on the Friday prior at this mid-block location, in a 24-hour period, there were only 673 vehicles that crossed this point.

On Saturday, there were only 790.

And then on Sunday, there were only 57 vehicles that crossed at this mid-block.

I think a lot of times what's happening is vehicles that are coming over from Grand, coming into the parking lot, leaving from that same side and going back to Grand, and vice versa, coming up from West, coming in and on that side of the into the parking lot and leaving and going back.

Very not a lot of cross through across the crosswalk itself.

Okay.

Do we put up like no parking signs a certain distance from that so people can't park up to that?

So you can see the people that want to cross.

So at this location right now, on the north side, and to the east of the crossing, there is already a fire hydrant and per uh state statute.

I believe it's no vehicle can park within 15 feet of a hydrant, anyways.

If we find that at some point in time that you know it needs to be expanded further, I think that can be explored at a later date.

Um and then on the south side, as you can kind of see from the picture, it's it's a bit wider, the ramp itself, a little more accessible.

Obviously, and the path itself is wider.

Um it is signed as a loading zone only.

So I don't know the exact um distance, but I would roughly say probably 30 feet to the west and 30 feet to the east is approximate distance of the loading zone itself from the the crosswalk.

Okay.

Anyone else?

I'd entertain a motion.

Oh, go ahead.

You know, think about this as this park has evolved.

Um, I know in other like and not just park projects, but other city projects, there has been evaluation of you know things like this um as they've come forward.

Um I think it might be just a good idea.

I don't know if this is something that has to be a referral, but I'm just asking the question: should we think about how we do this in you know larger scale, like maybe as different phases of these projects go forward that weren't including you know things like this in those projects?

That makes sense.

Yeah.

So um I don't know if that's a question that could be proposed to I can ask that of the parks director, but I don't know if uh part public works you have any thoughts about that.

I would think that would be an appropriate ask of any time we are putting in a crossing facility in which it's recognized that it's going to be especially a uh heavily traversed location where we'll be a little more preemptive to it that discussion happened a little earlier, so that happens there instead of possibly in this forum and handled in with that project.

I think that would be appropriate.

Okay.

Uh with that I'll make a motion then.

Um I'll use the suggested language.

So recommend approval of the installation of the pedestrian warning signs and enhanced crosswalk pavement marking for the pedestrian crossing on Hoover Avenue between the Hoover parking lot and Mindiola Park.

All right, is there a second?

I second.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to 6A review and possible action on modifying city ordinance 7.04.6 point D, traffic parking restrictions, overnight parking, even odd days to only be enforced starting November 1st through April 1st.

Um before we go to you, Darren, uh, would would uh Alman Van Traste brought this forward?

Would you would you tell us what's what brought what was your reasoning for bringing this forward?

Thank you, Chair.

Uh reason for this was uh in my district.

I have a lot of townhouses and single family homes.

And uh it was brought to my attention that the uh single family homes don't necessarily like all the hardware cars in particular, trucks in particular, on their side of the street.

Uh they've got uh uh parking uh when it goes odd and even it just uh puts a lot a lot of uh there's no curbing left at all on the single family side, and if they have events and everything, uh you know, parties and that sort of thing, there isn't any parking available until you get around the corner and and head toward towards the park.

So the reason for it is it just it would be more convenient for the residents of both the townhouses and the single family.

Thank you.

Uh Darren, did you have look into that?

I guess from just to have the discussion on this is to know and understand from the building and grounds committee, if this is an item that the committee deems appropriate for engineering staff to review as to it being appropriate to study this and understand if this ordinance is appropriate to update and modify, as this is a I mean, it's not a traffic study, but it is certainly going to be a study that many parties are gonna have to be involved, and it's not just gonna be engineering, it'll be fire, PD, park rack, transit, and uh patrol to understand the possible full ramifications that we can understand at least from internal discussions of the pros and cons of the alteration of this ordinance in which it might take place and and just some initial discussions that we have we have had with this is I reached out to patrol uh Michelle Grosnick to understand if we if we had this ordinance in place, what the ramifications might be for citation review or uh citation revenue, excuse me.

Um it was her estimate that there would be about a 10% decrease in in revenue, which would be a decrease in about 12,000 in revenue that would have came in, and that was using information from uh calendar year 25, or just the last calendar, you know, calendar year, whatever it might be.

Um, and then just some of the other things that we'd have to understand and take into consideration is some of our narrower streets that this would not be feasible in and try and understand uh where what those minimum width streets might be that we would have to look at and evaluate.

So we'd probably have to have a sweeping review of all of our all of our street widths, all the cross sections that this may um be involved.

Um then with that and understanding some of that information is how do we then with some of those streets, because now it's it's a global thing.

How do we give out that message to the citizens to let them know that this street, because of it being narrow, is exempt from that odd even um restriction?

Are we gonna have to put in signs then on those particular streets on both sides of the street to say no parking on the odd sides on this day and no parking on the even sides on on this day?

So because then we have to keep even odd parking in order to allow two-way traffic during the nighttime hours, especially for emergency services to make sure that they can get through safely if they need to, you know, if emergency comes through and takes place.

So that's just one of the things and the facets that we've had some internal discussions and and thoughts about for this item in particular.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Alderman Van Fraste.

Uh Darren, we had talked about the signage and that we could do overlays on those signs, just uh print new information on the current signage so that it could uh reflect the the ordinance change if that happens.

And also I wanted to mention to the board that uh Alex Stamien has endorsed this, he said he wouldn't do it if it was year-round.

But if if it starts uh November 1st through April 1st, that Alex is is uh in favor of it.

So is he in favor or he is he not opposed?

Well talking to the microphone.

I can't recall if he said it in favor and or not opposed, but uh he he didn't have any problems with it, so as long as it had the winter provision on there November 1 to April 1.

So okay.

Does anybody else have a gun?

Uh Alderman as uh Evert.

Yeah, my question is even if we got the evens and the odds, people that are parking on a street, they still have to have uh parking permit or something like that, correct?

Correct.

You just can't park willy-nilly, correct.

They will still a permit will still be required for any car on the street, correct?

Yep.

Alderman Van Traste.

With that, Darren, the way I understand it uh with the police chief is we uh permit now seven days a week versus what used to be five days a week for on street parking.

It's now seven days a week.

Is that correct?

Because that's what I heard from the chief anyway.

Yes.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Uh so with that uh the revenue difference, the 10%.

I'm sure now that it's seven, we'll be made up uh you know, for that twelve thousand dollar deficit, so to speak.

So and the additional two-day uh uh week permitting.

So yeah, I guess I'm just not sure when that transition took place.

Okay.

Alderman Helgastead.

Thank you.

Um I know I've had similar discussions about this in the past, and I know a concern that came from public works was about uh street sweeping, because the even odd parking allowed them to you know plan routes for the street sweepers to you know street sweep.

So um I imagine this would potentially then affect that and the quality of a you know being able to get in on all the cut-ins and cutouts and such.

Um has that been uh thought of or discussed with that is another item that'll have to come under review as well if we're to evaluate it further and understand the the ramifications of that and try and understand that similarly.

You know, just because I mean in my past experience I've fielded comments from uh residents in the past, not on this tonight, but in the past of you know, hey, my street, you know, there were four cars parked and they couldn't street sweep, and now there's a bunch of leaves or whatever, you know, in the the gutters, and that was a complaint I had fielded more than once.

So that would be something just to think about as we discuss this.

Go ahead.

So I guess I'm I'm still trying to wrap my head around why it was brought up.

Um so people in your neighborhood don't want the townhouse people parking on their side of the street.

It's actually people in my district.

It's what?

How many?

I've got 47.

And they all called you?

No.

No.

No, I know, but so if if I got a complaint, sorry, are you finished?

Go ahead.

If I got a complaint from one person or I got a complaint from 50 people, I would feel differently about it.

I went around some of the residents and okay.

Um I guess uh I'm fairly strongly opposed to this.

Um for a for the convenience of a few people, we're gonna change the rules for 72,000 people.

And uh Darren has described uh that we're gonna have to do a citywide you know monitoring of all these streets to to determine what the impact of this this is before before we go ahead and do it.

So I I think it's too much work.

I I think the rule has this rule has been in place for many many years, and I think people have accommodated it.

And um, I think easier rules, like simple rules are easier to follow than complicated rules.

And it and I think this easy rule has been in place, and most of our residents know what it is, so they know what's expected of them.

Re-educating the public is complicated.

Um I I think there's a concept of uh settled law now that we've had this rule in place for a long time.

There needs to be a compelling reason to change it, not just you know, not just a reason.

I when the rules are established, I think them it it makes it rises to a bigger issue before we try and change these these rules.

And I the residents don't I'm not finished.

Um when the residents know what the rules are, they know what kind of parking they need, they can buy property appropriately, they can store their cars on private property or in storage locations or in any other location.

They don't have we don't require people to store their cars on the public street.

So they've got when they know what the rules are and they buy their property, they know what inconveniences they're giving to themselves.

So I I just don't see where this rises to to the level of of changing the law over.

And I I live on one of the more narrow streets, and I don't think we should have rules that apply to streets that are 35 feet wide, then would not apply for roads that are 32 feet wide, because most people don't know how wide their road is.

So I'm I'm sorry, I just oppose.

Uh Alderman Van Traste, you can go at one time in the city of Waxha one-way streets were quite popular.

Uh now we have very little of that.

And uh the residents are much happier with two-way streets.

Thank you.

Okay, so this is on the uh does anybody else have a comment on this topic?

Yeah.

Alderman uh Helgestead.

Yeah, I get that's a good uh topic for discussion.

I just uh lack of a better term to use a phrase, I don't know the juice is worth the squeeze at the moment.

I'm just not seeing you know the overall benefits uh to use all that staff time.

And yes, I I understand we can reskin the signs.

I mean we've done that as a city for a very long time.

It saves a lot of money, but it's still against staff time then to go out, pull a sign down, reprint it, put it back up, inventory everything.

It's you know uh again, I just don't know that we're gonna see the the overall benefits that's worth it, I guess.

Um especially in my district.

I mean, we've got uh some of my streets are narrow with its one side parking anyways.

Um and downtown has got a very different, you know, parking overlay anyways for the Central City Business District.

Um, but for other neighborhoods, I think folks, like you said, are very used to this.

Um and I even I know my friends out in Milwaukee where their rules change seasonally like this, and it's a pain for them as it is to know what day it is and make sure that you're on the right side and all that jazz when it changes from the season to season.

So just keeping us simple and consistent, I think is a benefit.

Thank you.

And just because I did fail to mention it before, uh, I was contacted by the fire chief, and he is opposed.

Uh Alderman.

I was just curious, Darren or or Alderman Van Trieste, where where did the idea of the I guess November through April date restriction or date specification come from?

And and the reason I ask is I've always heard that this uh was a big benefit for snow removal.

And I'm guessing that it's from that, but I would just point out that winter in Wisconsin, spring and fall in Wisconsin are very unpredictable, and it is not unheard of to have significant snowfall in October and significant snowfall in April.

So I'm just curious about that date restriction and if that was part of the reason for it.

Alderman Van Treste.

Thank you.

Uh I I think it comes from uh what was it three weeks ago we we had a little bit of snow falling, it didn't stick.

So I mean it could happen in May as well.

But the general consensus is uh in the communities that it goes from November 1st to April 1st, and that's where that came from.

We also have other signage within the the city to that is parking restrictive from November 1st to April 1st, specifically for snow plowing efforts on some in various cul-de-sacks or very sharp curves throughout the city because of snow plowing efforts that to make it easier, obviously, and and so is a bit to kind of overlay on top of that, so to speak.

Yeah, I'm opposed to it as well.

I I don't it's for overnight parking, it's not for like during the day parking.

So there's not that many cars on the street, or it's not prohibiting anybody from you know having their party or whatever and not letting people park there because it's it's overnight parking, it's you know midnight to 6 a.m.

So I don't understand again.

I'm trying to understand why you know the people don't want people parking in front of their house.

Okay, so obviously to change a city ordinance, we would need a new ordinance, right?

So have you talked to the attorney's office?

I haven't talked to uh running this office about this.

I I was letting in the process work its way out because I did talk to Darren about it at length, and uh you know he told me the ins and outs of uh what it would take to do this, and I figured I'd let it play out until we got to a point where there we were stuck on something, and then we go from there and uh can confer with the appropriate uh people.

Okay, that makes sense to me.

Yep, and I did speak with uh attorney Brian Running, and he said the appropriate um avenue was it first to come through building and grounds, and then if it was to continue forth, then it would go to ONL for its approval there then too.

Okay, so would it go from building and grounds to the common council?

Correct.

Okay, or it would go from building and grounds if it was to be approved at building and grounds, the referral would then go to ONL for ONL's approval, and then if it was approved at ONL, then it would go to council for their approval.

Okay.

So is there a motion.

Okay.

So uh item A uh fails for lack of motion.

6B, uh uh please investigate possible pedestrian accommodations and speed reducing measures on Michigan Avenue between McKenzie Drive and Green Meadow Drive.

And uh as a correction to something I'd said to uh Alder Person McLich before, I didn't understand that there was a different strategies for reviewing crosswalks, so maybe there is a more streamline, not full traffic study to look at a crosswalk, but we'll ask you those questions after you give it the presentation.

Sure.

Yeah, I'll make this brief and then I can I can pass it off.

But as you mentioned, the uh referral is to review uh Michigan Avenue between McKenzie Drive to uh Green Meadow Drive, and as you may know, it's uh right in the heart of the area where North High School is on the north side of Michigan Avenue there, and um uh Lowell Park on the south side.

So there certainly is a good amount of pedestrian foot traffic, whether it be just from the um high school connecting to the park from the north to the south, or individuals parking on the road and and crossing the street and a bit of the concern is that the only uh available crossings between the high school on the south on the north side to the park on the south side is all the way to the west at McKenzie or all the way to the east at um at Green Meadow, so which spans a distance of approximately a thousand feet with no pedestrian crossing in between, and then that I'll hand it off to Alderman McClitz.

And then that I'll hand it off to Alderwoman McClitz.

I'm gonna ask if you had a picture of that case because I can't see the mine doesn't have them.

So actually, there is no crosswalk at McKenzie either.

It goes all the way from Green Meadow to university before there's any crosswalk.

So there's one on the the west side of the intersection of McKenzie.

So if I grab it a little further.

I don't think there's one there.

Where there?

Well, there's no okay, there's no hash marks that go across the street.

Correct.

Okay, gotcha.

Okay.

So yeah, so in this parking lot that you're showing over here on the left side of the of the of North High School is no longer there.

So kids don't park their yeah, that's gone.

Okay.

Um the only parking lot now where everybody utilizes is North High School's parking lot, and then the you know, the students all come out the sidewalk there, and then they go to their cars, which are all parked on the street, and then the you know, they cross all willy-nilly to get to their car wherever their car may be parked.

So there is you know, high traffic that crosses that street to get to where their cars are parked.

The other issue is you know, they've they've opened up this uh to the right of North High School or to the east of North High School, they opened up that roadway now so people can go from Michigan Avenue down that road and then to park in the back of the in the back of the um high school then as well.

So if there's you know a large event going on at Lowell, everybody parks in North High School, uh the fireworks, winter jamboree, you know, tennis matches, that kind of stuff, that's where everybody parks, and then they all have to cross the street at no crosswalk area.

So that's why my referral is.

Thank you.

Um so does her suggestion require a traffic study?

It would require a greater traffic study just because of um internal discussions, there would be likely a greater dollar amount associated with the possible improvements that would take place in order to what would likely be a mid block crossing that would have to be created for this type of um improvement that would take place.

Okay.

So now you think is appropriate time for me to talk about traffic studies?

Yeah, yes, okay.

So one of the this committee is most of you know was uh chaired by Eric Payne for 18 years.

So just because we have a new committee and some new voices, I just wanted to have a conversation and to just talk about some of my thoughts on traffic studies and see where all of you are so that we can give direction to staff, and I want staff's opinion to, and I want everybody to be happy with the product.

Should we go forward with this?

So one of the things uh I'd noticed over the years is um the per prior procedure was an aldering could just insist on a on a on a traffic study.

And what I'd like there to be is a little bit of a standard in there where we don't do traffic studies if we've done one in the last say five years.

So we don't study the same area over and over.

And then the second, you know, like one of the strategies would be like Mindyola Park is a good example because there's new facilities there which changes the traffic patterns, which makes it more like a reason the a reason to do this.

So if there's no reason to do it, and we've done it three years ago, you know, and then the one other thought I had, and I will I'm I'm still thinking that I'm not advocating a position right now, I'm just thinking out loud.

The um sometimes we do traffic studies and um nothing happens, and so what so if it's really likely that we're gonna do something or unlikely we're gonna do something, changes how much I value a traffic study.

And then one of the thoughts I had was to establish a form that had some of these criteria on it that aldermen that want a traffic study would you know complete this partly to um gather their thoughts and present this all in a comprehensive way uh so that you could see you know what the thinking was when they asked for the study, and then um at this committee would you know give the yes or no to go forward with the study so not one person gets to use up uh staff time because these cost thousands of dollars, and but the as a group, the five of us would if you can if you can give convince two other people or three people if you don't have a seat on this committee to go forward, then we would go forward with whatever.

And I I would imagine that most of us would be because all these requests are referrals from other older people, so I would imagine we would you know prefer to say yes, you know, and let let certain studies go through.

But if it doesn't meet even the minimum standard, I'm thinking of uh just not saying yes automatically, but having to have a reasonable argument that we would want to do that.

So I was thinking at this point just to talk to you about it, and then ask staff to um you know use this discussion to come up with what type of form would it be, and we would look at this form and decide if we're gonna go forward.

Uh I mean this makes a lot of sense, you know, just being more efficient and being more mindful with how we move forward with things and how we spend money, of course.

Um so like this is I think this item is a good example, um, where we have a motion, we've had a referral, we have an intended you know, results or project, you know, where however you want to call that tied to that study.

So I think this is you know, I think that's probably a good idea to be honest.

Um tying it to an actual request or a need or something, you know, just again brings that you know, full accountability full circle that we're not again spending money unnecessarily, potentially or spending staff time, I should say older person micklit.

I agree.

I I don't have a problem having a traffic study done on it just to see where we're at.

The only problem with that is schools out at the end of this week.

So you we thought of that they put the things out before schools out to country traffic before that happened.

Oh, okay.

All right, then yeah, no, we weren't gonna make you wait till fall, like you know, it's not you know, because it's because of the school situation, they did put the counters out in time so that this would not be held for months.

Thank you.

So I know the pri I know this process is making it change, so I don't want to hold your item up because we're thinking about this.

I'm just using this as an example of how, and I'm not I'm not opposed to having crosswalks to parks.

I think parks in particular is you know, we expect people to walk to parks, so I mean it's just much greater use in other locations.

So what did do you have any thoughts on the form or the that having to have some standard to get one?

No, I I think that's a great idea, especially being a new older person.

That kind of gives me a better idea of what is what are the check boxes I need to check, you know, and and does it does it meet all those all those things?

So I I'm for that.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman Ben Traste.

So uh recently I had uh an experience of six-tenths of a mile silver now road was repaved in concrete, and uh we had a traffic study done, and it was why they why we still had uh orange cones to pick up.

So typically people when they see orange cones, they don't go as fast as they normally would.

And within that traffic study that that we did through public works, what happened was the separation between the two uh trip points.

One of one of uh the trip points, I I don't know if it was a four or aft one, but it was it was damaged and it wasn't even collecting data.

So we got to make sure going forward, I think this is important.

If uh a road's been repaved, we should wait a couple months and let everybody re return to the normal traffic patterns and see from there what the speeds look like and and uh and make a decision after that.

So that's my uh opinion.

Okay.

Alderman Everett, you're good.

Okay, is that enough to start the form process and whatever, and then we'll bring back um Alderman Micklich's item next week for possible action?

Yes.

Okay, I think that that should work and that'd be appropriate.

Thank you.

Anyone else on that topic?

Thank you.

All right, so that was a discussion item only.

Uh 6C current building and grounds budget.

All right, and there was no change from the last meeting as there was no items that were hitting the building and grounds budget.

So um beginning balance was 17 for the year, 17,126.78 cents spent to date five thousand three hundred and ninety-two dollars and forty-eight cents with a remaining budget for 2026 being 11,734 and 30 cents.

Thank you.

Just because we've got some new people, how much is the stop sign cost?

A stop sign about 225 just for the sign and about 75 dollars for the poll itself.

Thank you.

How about a crosswalk?

I'm curious how much it's a crosswalk.

What part?

The painting part.

The the painting about 300.

Okay, anybody else?

Um go ahead.

Staff traffic step.

I'm talking about uh before with Alderman here.

We were talking about all these different people have to chime in before we can do something.

Sure.

What is what is a general study cost?

It can vary from the level of $3,000 to $5,000, depending on the number of staff that have to be involved to fulfill the full allotment for the study, because for instance, deploying of tube counters or a camera to monitor one location, two locations, and then reviewing of the footage to do the count for the intersection, and then additional uh review.

If we're also needing to know the amount of pedestrians crossing at the location as well, if we're not just looking at vehicles, if we're also looking at pedestrians as well, doing that analysis and also doing the speed, yep, as well.

And we may also have to get into contact with PD and have them do additional if they have history on the location as well, and then determining if uh you know if if greater level and effort is needed, if something at a future CIP needs to be programmed, possibly for the improvement because the building and grounds budget may not be have have enough funding associated for whatever improvement may possibly be needed.

All right, anybody else?

All right, if there are no objections, we're adjourned.