Uh good evening.

We'll call the uh buildings and grounds meeting for July 6th uh to order.

I see I have Alders Evert, Micklitz, Ben Traste, and Helgestead with me, so we have a quorum.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands one nation under God.

Okay, when I review the minutes of June 1st, I noticed that item 5A, uh item 3697 did not have the vote on it.

Oh, sorry.

Uh time for public comment.

Is it would you like to speak?

Just real quick.

Please go ahead.

I thought we were, I thought you were gonna talk at your specific item number, but go ahead.

Oh, I can too.

Whatever.

Okay, state your name and address.

Yes, my name's Emily Schultz, and I live on 379 Gascoin Drive in District 2.

Okay.

I noticed there was an item up for um parking on my street, and I just wanted to quickly mention that while that does solve the issue on the intersection of Pewaukee and Gascoin Drive, of the intersection not being viewable, that is moving the problem of people parking on both ends of the street on a regular basis directly in front of my house.

Um nobody wants that.

I have a two-year-old son that's autistic.

They have trucks and trailers that are allowed at all hours of the night.

Um and it also will decrease my visibility from the intersection right by the loop when I'm reversing out of my driveway.

Um so I'd like to propose just an extension of the no parking area just a little bit beyond my house, so I'm able to see that loop.

Um, and so we're not just moving the problem downwards down directly in front of my house because there's still issues with traffic flow, um, ambulances, buses not being able to get through the street, in addition to snow plows.

Okay, thank you for your thoughts.

Thank you.

Sorry, moving on to the minutes.

I noticed that June one minutes again item 3697 did not have the vote.

I believe the vote was unanimous for the five of us that were here on that day.

So, with that correction to the minutes, is there a motion to approve?

So moved.

Thank you.

Alderman Helgastad?

I second it.

Thank you.

Uh all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Okay.

Thank you.

So moving on to item 5A, review and possible action on traffic study on river crossing drive and tanglewood drive.

This was sponsored by Alderman Alderman Matthews.

Darren, go ahead.

Yep.

Yeah, so Alderman Matthews made this referral a while back.

I believe it was in January, February, to kind of look at the intersection of Rivers Crossing Drive and Tanglewood Drive with the park directly to the east and seeing how it all kind of plays together in uh reviewing traffic and and what could better serve the uh residents in the area.

So we did perform a bit of a traffic study for that location, and I'll kind of go down to some of the information from what we found, and we put some counters out there to get volume and um speed data information.

Um I think we have a better.

Oh I apologize.

I was on a different one, but uh so in the in the morning, it is uh pretty evident for, and actually, just to give some better perspective here.

My apologies.

Um rivers, the intersection of Rivers Crossing Drive and Tanglewood Drive is there highlighted in the uh red circle where it's uh south of River Drive, that is County Highway H, and then east of Salesville Road, which is uh highway 59 there.

So down in the subdivision itself, like this is the entire subdivision as well as Tanglewood Drive there.

Um that is the city of Waukeshaw, so it's pretty well um landlocked with the only ingress and egress being these three driveways up off of River Drive itself.

So anybody that's down in and around this neighborhood itself is those of the residents that that live in that area.

So specifically at this intersection, as you can kind of tell and infer is that during the mornings it's predominantly traffic going north, leaving the subdivision, then predominantly, and then in the PM, predominantly traffic going south for those individuals that live in the southern half within that in that subdivision.

I mean, obviously grabbing or getting some of the volume information for this location, it is not substantial by any means.

So kind of makes sense that it's pretty well even, so it's not a lot throughout the day.

I mean, in any 15-minute period, there's probably no more than 20, and that's at the highest end, and that's not even for a long substantial period of time.

Um, and then as we kind of go towards just the aggregated volume information, I'll kind of skip some of the finer detail of it, but just to get to the kind of global information.

So for the southbound direction over that 24-hour period, the average speed for southbound traffic just south of that intersection, because that's where we uh put the tube counters that also get the speed data.

The average speed was 26.9 miles per hour, with the 50th percentile being 27 miles an hour and the 85th being 30 miles an hour.

And then for the northbound direction, the average speed was being 34.6 miles an hour with the 50th being 30 miles an hour and the 85th being 35 miles an hour.

So obviously, as we can tell, northbound traffic is traveling at a greater speed as individuals are leaving their homes in comparison to them coming back towards their homes.

So this is information that I have relayed to the police department already for them to do some spot enforcement as they can uh sit at Tanglewood Drive itself and see traffic going north and south on River's Crossing Drive.

Um with with the fact that it's it is kind of a straighter stretch of roadway, and the infant of the referral itself was for the awareness of the park to the east of the intersection, and the crossing that exists between the residents on the west side and the park on the east side, just to have greater awareness to drivers of the park itself, and to reinforce that they should be slowing their speeds when the presence of children is there.

So there is already an existing uh playground sign with 15 mile an hour speed limit sign when children are present closer to the intersection.

However, we are also proposing further to the south because the park is so big and expansive, placing an additional one further south, um, just north of I believe that's uh still water, maybe that's the intersection just uh that runs east-west to the south there of the of the same messaging and signing, which is the appropriate messaging and signing of the playground sign with 50 mile an hour when children are present, and then additionally uh reinforcing it for the southbound direction as well with the playground 50 mile an hour when children are present, and then also uh providing acknowledgement of the crossing of the pedestrian crossing at that location too on the south leg of the intersection of Rivers Crossing and Tanglewood, along with just the more simple transverse uh painted markings for the pedestrian crossing along with a stop bar for those that are on Tanglewood Drive.

Okay, does anybody have any comments or questions?

Go ahead.

So based on the traffic study, it's all happening when people are going to work like seven to nine, right?

Correct.

And and kids aren't really present in the park during that time frame.

Correct, but that's not to say that you know, we obviously gather majority of our data during weekday hours.

And it certainly could be a different case and scenario for weekend events as well, where the park itself could be more well attended all throughout the day, and then you have greater variability from those in the residential neighborhood to the south and how they may be navigating through the neighborhood.

Again, it and then so it's just to make people a little bit more mindful that children could could be present.

So I I don't have an issue with that, but but I I guess just to add more signs to that aren't really saying anything, you know, there's no kids present.

I would like to see maybe another crosswalk south of there, you know, you have the two crosswalk areas and then put the crosswalk signs, and that might make people more mindful, not only of kids but pedestrians, you know, just people running in the morning or biking in the morning and that kind of thing.

That would be what I know what I would propose.

Anyone else?

I just want to ask a clear.

Sorry, I just want to ask a clarifying question to older woman uh McClisson.

Oh, could you guys hold on the conversation?

Sorry, just to ask a clarifying question because you were saying adding another crosswalk.

Are you talking like down at Rocky Creek Drive?

Well, like looking at the map that's on the screen.

Yeah, right at Rocky Creek Drive, right?

Okay.

So that'd be Did engineering consider putting a crosswalk there?

No, that was not considered.

It was not considered because that was not directly within the referral itself.

Thank you.

I was gonna say, because my for my memory of that park too, there's not like a um I forget the right word is, but the the ramp for the crop like crossing, there's not one there on the other side of the street, so it'd be marking plus installing a ramp next to that driveway.

Um just something as you mentioned that as something if that's gonna come back, that would probably require that type of additional installation.

Does that make sense?

Okay, I don't know.

No, and I I apologize, I'm not trying not that's how I intend.

I just want to clarify.

No, because if they haven't had a chance to look at it, I don't want to put in any signs that don't have support from traffic data.

So you know, just us thinking it up on on you know, on the fly, the meeting, I'm not sure is a good way to go.

Um I I also I actually thought the that they were so mindful of the traffic speeds on the way south that this neighborhood does look after each other, and the fact that they're in a little bit of a hurry in the morning does not surprise me very much.

So I'm not sure if I'm not sure if we need any of these suggestions.

I'm not sure it will get everybody up a few minutes earlier.

Right.

So I don't know if we need to do anything, but I want to hear from some of you to see if what you think about it.

I had a different question, and maybe you can answer this.

So I wonder the proposed signage in here and where the placement would be is you know, this park has been here for a few years now.

Um, is this more in line with how the modern like the current standard for signage would be applied for this type of you know installation?

Or is you if my question, or maybe the rephrase that is what's there now out of date, essentially where it's placed.

Um this would be this type of installation would be more in line with how it would be proposed if this was a new installation, yes.

Just simply because the how spansive, especially the park is on the east side, how it takes up, you know, essentially two you could argue like three full blocks, or like that's a pretty good uh length where you can put in a sign sometimes, but uh sometimes we can be quick to forget of what we see and realize sometimes and having some reinforcement on what is adjacent to us.

Right.

It's not a bad thing.

Right.

Are you finished?

Yeah, I mean, I'll actually I should say generally, I mean the signs of the south makes sense to me, you know, just in thinking about the when I was reviewing the presentation earlier.

Um if we want to table this, I think that's what you were kind of leading towards.

I'm not opposed to that, but um well, I'd like to resolve it one way or the other.

I mean, uh talking about it again next month doesn't change much change much, right?

Yeah.

You have anything further?

No, I'll yield.

Okay.

I have one other question.

Could we not put you know, because we're gonna have the you already have a speed limit sign, you know, a child presence speed limit sign right where you want to put the crosswalk or the crosswalk, where you're gonna add crosswalk signs.

Couldn't we not move that sign a little bit farther back to the entrance of the park?

Maybe not as far back as what you show on the map, but closer to the driveway that goes into there, and then and then install the crosswalk sign, so that would make people a little bit more mindful and and go from there.

Then we're not not now we're not adding another two signs, we're just moving one sign and adding the crosswalk sign.

So re relocating the existing one that is out there just further south, just south of Rocky Creek Drive, and then removing the this other uh proposed set that is down here, yes.

Yes, that would be I I really don't want this is only my opinion.

I I don't want to I don't want us to overrule the engineering department.

So if I you know to change it, if so especially the you know, if I'm city staff and working out at the city garage and somebody wants me to dig up a sign and move it, I'm gonna think what are they doing?

So uh this is part of when I was talking about restructuring the committee.

This is kind of the thing that I was trying to think of.

It's like what kinds of things can we like globally say about our committee and how we want to structure these requests and what what do we do?

That's the kind of thing I want to think about when we when we work through you know this um uh decision making sheet that we're gonna work on in the next month or two.

So this is this is kind of the situation.

Like, do we want to second guess the engineering department and change their proposal?

Are we gonna are we gonna guess the proposal or no the proposal or you know, so that's kind of not for right now, but think about some of these issues when it comes up later.

Um does anybody else have a comment or is there a motion?

Go ahead, Mr.

Person?

I like what's I like what's there now.

I was just thinking about possibly putting that crosswalk right there, like you said before on Rocket Creek.

Because you said that this this this whole thing is a park area.

Right, right.

And it and and that's that's within the bounds there.

So why can't we just put the crosswalk there?

Because they would want it too.

It's on both ends of the uh both ends of the park.

You got the signs that are already there.

Yeah, I mean, so you also want to change the engineering recommendation?

I just wanted to add just the crosswalk on Rocky Creek there.

So crosswalks aren't free, and they have to maintain them.

So that's it.

One of the other aspects I want to talk about, not today, but as we move forward, you know, that this city budget is under some stress, and we have to deal with some of that stuff.

So as alder people, I think we need to support that effort by not adding things we don't need or you know, having some restraint in you know, suggesting all of this stuff.

Okay.

I mean, that's my current thinking.

I want to think it through with all of you as we as we get to that, and we're you know, we've got all the you know, all today to deal with before we do that, but um so just a passing thought.

Yeah, no, I that's that's why I want to think about it with with everybody, and that's why I'm bringing it up now to know going forward what some of the things I'm thinking about, so you have a chance to think about and decide, you know.

If if we want to change all of this stuff, we have the authority to do it.

So I like the proposal that it is.

I just thought about the crosswalk, that's all.

Okay.

Is that a motion?

I motioned that we accept the engineering recommendations.

Exactly.

I have a comment.

Oh, go ahead, Alderson Van Triaste.

Um my comment, Darren, is uh this.

Can you educate me on on the open circles uh versus the closed uh red circles that we've got?

Sure.

Yep.

So that's a very good question.

The open circles are actually existing poles and the closed circles would be poles that would be newly installed.

So those would be new poles that would need to be installed.

Okay.

So obviously, when we go through this exercise of locating or thinking about new sign installations or anything like that, we always try and use existing poles that might be out within cities right-of-way, or a light pole or a utility pole, or whatever it might be.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, thank you.

Second by uh Alderperson and Helgastad.

Are there any other comments or questions?

All right, all in favor say aye.

I that motion passes unanimously.

I assuming there's no objection since you all just voted.

Uh next item, uh 5B.

Please investigate possible pedestrian accommodations and speed reducing measures on Michigan Avenue between McKenzie Drive and Green Meadow Drive.

All right.

I'll just go over this real quick since uh Alder Woman McLitz is here, but um this referral came in from Alder Woman McLitz to review the section of Michigan Avenue, um, more or less from McKenzie Drive on the western limit to Green Meadow Drive to the east, um, as this is can be a busy area at times with Waukeshaw North High School being on the north side of the road and Lowell Park on the south side, and obviously is retend the fourth of July.

That was a busier area and everything else, but obviously the park on the south has quite a few things going on.

Um, while there's limited street parking, individuals use the parking lot on the north side.

Um task the engineering department it looking at this area to see in ways to uh look at and evaluate the speed that's out there and provide some recommendations on what can be done to help reduce the possible speed issue if there is one and uh evaluate crossings as the existing crossings across Michigan Avenue only exist at least in proximity to North High School to Lowell Park on the south.

The only crossings that exist are at the west side of McKenzie Drive, and then the next closest one is at the west side of Green Meadow Drive.

Um, if you have additional things to say, old woman McLitz, I'll get into some of the other finer traffic study details that we that we have.

I'd like to hear the traffic study details.

Okay.

So as we kind of got into it similarly, uh just to show some of the volume data for the westbound direction in the so we kind of we we wanted to evaluate um and let me go back here because we know this is a little bit unique with the high school as the I'll just say the east driveway here of the high school is an enter only, and the west driveway here is an exit only, so that very much kind of dictates how vehicles are coming in and out every day.

So we place two different uh counters out there to kind of understand the speed east and west of those driveways to have a better understanding if there's a speed issue away from the driveways themselves.

So we had counters to the east of the entrance and to the west of the exit.

So just to kind of skip this because I create an additional little diagram.

We can get to some of the extra stuff there, but um created a tried to create a little bit of a speed profile information here.

So as we know the posted speed, the general posted speed is 25, however, it is posted as 15 when children are present, so let's keep that in mind as well.

Um so the dots that are showing are the approximate locations of where the tubes are in relation to where Michigan Avenue is there.

Uh so on the west side there and on the east side.

So with respect to the legend that is showed there, the in going in the eastbound direction, the average speed goes from 24 down to 21.2.

The 50th percentile goes from 24.1 down to 22, and the 85th goes from 29 down to 25 as we go in the eastbound direction.

Now in the westbound direction is a little little different here.

As vehicles are traveling west, the average speed stays pretty consistent at 24.1 to 24.6 as they're traversing.

The 50th goes from 25 down to 22, but then the 85th goes from 28 up to 31.

So it appears that vehicles are generally increasing their speed as they're going west across the park and the high school itself.

Um so and then the amount of volume that is going through this area in a 24-hour period ranges, and it's pretty consistent of a thousand vehicles going east and a thousand vehicles going west within a 24-hour period.

So as we looked at and understood this and watching the video, especially of um high school drop-off and pick up of as you can imagine, uh vehicles and and high schoolers all over the place and trying to find the most appropriate place to cross Michigan.

Um came up with a recommendation of the the mid-block crossing there that would be right adjacent to their entrance driveway, which would split the difference between McKenzie and Green Meadow, and also from the north, it aligns right out from their high school front doors, as this area here is the sidewalk that leads up to their front door.

So when they're coming out from the high school and vehicles that are parked on the on the south side, or if there's an event happening where vehicles are parking on the north side, now they have a they would then have a common place of where they should be at least crossing, hopefully, at that juncture right there.

Um that and it would not interrupt where the school buses stage themselves on the north side of Michigan, and it also would not interfere with transit that has a bus stop on the south side of the roadway, as well as you can see faintly a little bit there, is the uh transit shelter there on the south side, and then as a as a means of trying to say create a more order along Michigan Avenue here, and helping reduce the speed.

There's plenty of documentation out there of whenever you tend to make traffic feel more uncomfortable, they lower their speeds, and with this by adding the pavement marking with a double yellow in the middle and the edge lines and shrinking that footprint and actually putting markings out there instead of it being nothing at all, that would be the uh measuring the effort to help reduce the speed of traffic for both directions.

Thank you.

Did you want to say how this got came about?

Sure, it came back about from a constituent who was concerned that you know she can never cross the street.

She lives off of um, you know, she lives farther west from the school.

Um, and it and when the school is in session, you know, just like he says, is kids are just crossing wherever they want to, not really any you know, assemblance of any order whatsoever, and I get that with kids, but if we did have a designated area, people tend to gravitate towards that a little bit more, just like they do at Carroll College.

You know, people go to where the crosswalks are instead of crossing in the middle of the block.

And I think that this would help at North High School as well.

So anybody else?

Uh person Hugo said?

You mentioned uh where the buses line up.

Um, on the map that's on screen right now, where do the buses currently line up?

And I just because I'm not familiar with us.

Yeah, they they line up all along the north side of Michigan Avenue, Michigan Avenue here, and there is uh there are signs on the road of there's there's no parking from this certain time frame as it's busy the bus being there for the particular times.

So that's already exists.

Yes, okay.

Um then the follow-up question to that is you know, based on that where they line up, is that enough uh like site line for people trying to cross their like if the buses are parked there and pick and I'm thinking kids trying to cross to the um park.

Is that enough of a sight line?

Do you feel?

Sure, and we kind of thought of that a little bit too.

And so the other thing that we're saying is the high school, so it would be a little different.

Um yes, but that's not to say having the trying to force the traveling public to stay more within the middle of the roadway itself and not uh overtaking on the sides, should try and free that up.

And if we find that maybe we need to work with the high school as well to say, is it possible that we can see if the the buses can position themselves further to the east to help open up those sidelines?

I'm I'm sure that would be a conversation we can certainly have with the high school uh administration and you know resource officer and everything else.

Sounds appropriate.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any idea what the school board's uh plans for the high schools are?

I didn't I didn't ask.

I think that's a very big question that many are asking.

I'm wondering about and uh I was gonna use Carol as the opposite example.

They uh I've been contacted by Carol because well they used to be in my district and and then well, half of it, and then after we got redistricted, I don't have that problem anymore.

But they um they have the their students walk wherever they want, no matter where the the crosswalks are, and they you know that that's the problem with pedestrians, they can walk wherever they want.

I mean, the cars you can keep them on the road for the most part.

So um, not at today's meeting, but I want to think about some of these things like if we've got one person that has one complaint, are we gonna spend 25,000 dollars accommodating that one person?

Question.

Go ahead.

So on I you know, looking at the cover sheet, I know the recommend we have a couple of recommendations here, and the cost is definitely outside of our normal BNG budget.

Right.

So if this is to move forward, you know, we're gonna make a recommendation tonight to either go towards it, looks like uh things, uh you know, motioning to put it towards either the finance committee for a budget amendment to do it this year or put it towards CIP, right?

Right.

Um it seems like this is you know, because yeah, my math was like 25, 28,000.

It's not a small you know thing.

It seems like maybe that's a good question to ask if we you know rec make the recommendation to go to CIP, and that can then help spur that conversation with the school.

But are we gonna mandate that project or are we gonna let the engineering department put evaluate that project with all the rest of the projects they're doing?

I think are we making our well okay?

Let me ask this.

Are we indoor is this motion that we're making tonight an endorsement to say to move forward and then work it within the CIP project then as public works sees fit because that's how I read it, or is it saying that it has to be done next year?

I don't know.

Do we know the answer to that?

No, that the determination for based on the the recommendations is up to the building and crowns committee on what they see most appropriately, whether it be a budget amendment or um a directive to engineering to have a CIP item for it for whichever year, whether it be in 27, 28, 29, whatever it might be.

Okay, well, this is your thought.

What do you think?

I I I would like to see that you know move it maybe push it towards the CIP budget, you know, get it on the CIP budget, and then at the same time, then that would maybe give me some opportunity to talk to the school board and see you know what what their thoughts are on it and you want to push it ahead of whatever else the public works department wants to put on their CIP.

Or you want it evaluated the way they evaluate every other project, right?

Exactly.

Okay.

Can we make a motion like something like that?

You want me to do that?

Yeah, okay.

Okay, I'll make a motion to uh move this item to a possible CIP item through uh building and grounds or public works.

I'll second that and have them evaluate it with the other things that they're gonna put on the next year's CIP?

Yes, okay.

Second that all right, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Thank you.

Um just for the poor resident in there in our thing that doesn't probably got the flavor of these meetings.

We'll move her item.

I believe it's uh item 39725i.

Review and possible action on establishing no parking zones on both sides of Gascoin Drive off Pewkey Road.

So we'll take that item next, and she can go home and watch soccer.

Sorry to throw you off there, Darren.

No, you're good.

Just make sure she joined.

All right.

Sure.

All right.

So there I so this referral came in from Alderman Evert to evaluate uh no parking on both sides of Gascoine on the east and west sides of Peewaukee Road.

So just uh provide provide some perspective of the area.

So the area in question is within the red box there as Pewaukee Road runs north-south there, and Moreland Boulevard is to the south that runs east west.

Um the the recommendation was to have no parking quite adjacent to the intersection, roughly 50 feet uh in both directions to help with sight lines for pedestrians and helping uh turning movements of emergency vehicles coming into and out of Gascoyne on the east side and west side, and as we know there's the the quick trip, especially in the northwest quadrant where there are some vehicles that do park on the west side of Pewkey Road on Gascoin that can park a bit closer than appropriate to Pewkey Road, so that's part of the reasoning for at least the no parking um area in the northwest quadrant, and it's also as there's been um some concerns with other vehicles parking closer to the intersection than appropriate, and um trying to move those vehicles or ensure those vehicles are more moved away from the intersection itself to make sure uh people can churn in and out more appropriately, and I will pass this to ultimate evert if he has more comments as you know.

Well, as you may or may not know, uh getting on to Pewkey Road from gas going is a trick in and of itself on a good day.

I believe it when you have people parking their cars all the way up to the corner, you've got you you can't see out, and then you gotta stick the nose of your car halfway into traffic, and Pewkey Road doesn't as if you're traveling that way, you don't like to see a car's nose pulling out, and uh so I propose to have this done, and uh I was going to have the lower right.

Why are why are the arrows on the top two signs pointed toward Pewaki Road and the arrows on the bottom two signs pointed away from Piwaki Road?

That would be a question for engineering.

It's the way in which you have to orient yourself as you look at the sign.

So the line itself is how the sign further than that would be installed.

So if you look you're looking south, the arrow would point out right.

Thank you.

Okay, so I was gonna take I was going to ask as to have the lower right one.

Uh-huh.

I wanted to move that.

It's not there now.

I was going to I wanted to move that to just drive just to the right of the driveway, right there.

Okay.

It sounds to me like some people are parking too close to the corner, which is already against the law, and this would be a um law enforcement issue.

Absolutely.

And Michelle told me that it was as such.

But she also told me that uh that there are certain people that uh have handicapped placards on each and every car that they own, have owned, or ever will own that uh, and I'm not getting into I'm not getting into whether or not they deserve it.

I'm just saying that with one of those, you get special privileges to park and don't have to move.

Okay.

And how did you pick the distance from the corner?

Well, because we've got the I didn't pick the original distances, that was engineering.

Okay.

I propose to move the one sign back here farther, only because of the lady in the in the gallery there.

She lives here.

She lives here, yeah.

No, she lives here.

So she lives here.

Yeah.

And she's the one with the autistic child that has a tendency to go into the road that doesn't.

And I just thought that if you if there was no parking, it would be clearer, at least just on the one side.

It would be clearer for people to see if the kid goes into the road or not.

And did you talk to all of these neighbors who are losing the parking in front of their street?

It's it's just it's just her.

Right.

It's at 379, and it's the one on the corner.

Three.

Okay, I've done this before, and I have no, I've I did not know until I got this particular position exactly how much people care about parking.

But they care about parking a lot.

And you know, so if you're gonna change these people's, like there's four people, and I suppose quick trip isn't necessarily, but if we're gonna change parking for these three people, have we contacted them?

I've spoken to I've spoken to the people here, and I spoken to her.

I haven't okay.

He's pointing at 1701.

We gotta say this for the record.

They the I I haven't been able to nobody answered the door at 1619.

Okay.

1622.

Uh I spoke to them, and they didn't seem to have a problem.

Okay, but again, you know, it that falls within the 50 foot area, and if if that is if people are parking there and people trying to get out and can't see, that is a safety issue.

I hear you.

You know, they could drive out of the neighborhood in a different direction and turn right.

I am not the I am not the vehicle police.

I don't know.

I I know that there's I know that there's another way out that goes to uh that goes out by the courthouse.

This is uh this is a uh little cul-de-sac area.

Did you ask the police department if we actually have any problems here?

Yes, I spoke to Michelle at uh at the police department ticket lady, yeah.

Yeah, parking enforcement, and she said that there's a problem there.

Okay, and these signs are gonna solve that problem.

Couldn't hurt.

I assume they will because if she if they park there, they're gonna get a ticket.

So, ma'am, do you mind coming to the so you see on the diagram there where the second dot is near your driveway?

So if we put the no parking anytime from there to Pewaki Road, you'd be satisfied with that?

I would, yes.

Um, the problem is the residents at 1701 and then 1619, they both park on the street.

So especially during snowstorms, they're not moving their cars.

The snow plow can't get through.

This school buses have trouble getting through.

So I believe if you put two parking signs across from each other, that will only solve the problem in that one spot.

It'll just move it down in front of my house.

So I do believe there needs to be a little bit more to direct it not to still both sides of the street.

So are you recommending something different than what they're talking about?

I think no parking signs are are great to have there.

I I do agree with it.

I there have been a car accidents there, and I know for a fact I have not been the only neighbor to complain about it.

Um per Michelle, the parking supervisor at the police department.

Numerous neighbors have been contacting.

They keep ticketing them, but it keeps happening.

Okay.

Um so I do think no parking signs should be put there, but I believe also enforced too.

Okay, thank you.

Does anybody else have a comment or a question?

Is there a motion?

So the way he's got this diagram here.

I propose that we pass this like that.

Uh start with I move.

I moved to I move to I move to insert no parking signs as designed in this diagram.

Very good.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman Helgestad.

Uh uh all in pla all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Thanks for coming in.

Thank you, Mr.

All right.

So we're back to item five C.

Uh review and possible action on establishing a no-parking zone on the north side of DOP Street from South Moreland Boulevard to 100 foot east of South Moreland Boulevard.

So this item was brought forward by Alderman Camacho.

Um as read it is to establish a no parking zone on the north side of DOP Street uh for a distance of a hundred feet east of Moreland Boulevard, and just to give an idea of where it's at, Moreland Boulevard there runs north-south, and further to the north there is Madison Street that runs east-west, and St.

Paul Avenue there that runs predominantly east-west to the bottom of the page on the south.

So DOP is a bit there in the in the middle area.

Um as far as the actual reasoning behind the establishment of the no parking zone itself.

I did not get that explicit information from Alderman Camacho, but the the recommendation from his referral is what is shown on the uh on the screen here.

Okay so without any understanding of why we wanted this or whether or not these property wielders have been contacted.

It's my thought that we should uh vote this down.

I and he's didn't give me an explanation, he didn't come in to make an explanation.

Yeah.

Or should we table it for a future meeting so we can have the opportunity to be here?

We could do that.

All right, we'll set this meet this uh item to the next meeting and we'll I'll contact uh Alderman uh Camacho and see if he'd like to explain himself.

Do we need uh motion to table it or do we can just no we can just put it to the next meeting?

Okay, one do one sure.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Uh item five D review impossible action on installing quote cross traffic does not stop, end quote, warning signs to supplement stop signs on Spring City Drive at Chapman Drive.

All right.

This referral, excuse me, came in from Alderman Wells as the item mentions to install the crosswalk or excuse me, cross traffic does not stop uh supplemental plaques underneath the existing stop signs that exist for Spring City Drive at Chapman Drive, and just to give some idea of where this intersection itself is surrounded in the red box there where Sunset Drive there runs east-west on the towards the bottom of the page there.

Um and Century Drive is runs north-south just to the east there.

Um I know this referral came in from Alderman Wells.

However, this used to be uh Alderman Mannion's district, and I do believe maybe Alderman Mannion may have uh some knowledge or some information he may provide as far as to this referral itself.

Do you have something for that?

Yeah, um it's it's not my district and it hasn't been my district.

Um, but Alderman Wells did make the referral kind of at my request.

Um I actually had a resident who lives in my district contact me about this particular intersection.

Um it's also based on personal experience at this intersection, as I am there almost daily um through this intersection at least once a day.

Um sometimes more.

Um it the intersection is an artery that comes out of the shops at Fox River and is fairly well traveled.

Um I have personally witnessed um a couple of near misses with cars pulling out in front of other vehicles.

I think as best I can tell, expecting that or suspecting that that's a four-way stop rather than a two-way stop.

Um the intersection that is to the west of there that is more in the shopping complex itself is a four-way stop.

Um this one is you know just to the east of it and is not.

Um Chapman in my district south of Sunset does have a number of two-way stops like this.

Um one of them that is on the road just south of Sunset, which the n the name of that road escapes me right now, but uh it was recently switched.

The the two-way stop was switched directionally.

Um this signage was added when that when that intersection was uh switched.

Um the two-way stop was switched uh onto the side road rather than on Chapman.

So it's a very similar intersection to this, and it does have the signage.

Um I thought it was a reasonable suggestion to improve the safety there.

I agree with that, Steve, and it'll be additional north-south traffic with the water utility opening there.

So um does anybody else have any thoughts?

Is it cheaper to put another stop sign there than to put it the placards are 180 dollars?

And if we put in two new stop signs there, so because the traffic is gonna get increased, would that be cheaper that way then as opposed to adding those two placards?

Adding additional stop signs would be more expensive.

Uh the cost of the stop signs themselves are more expensive, and then I do believe we would need two more additional poles for that as well.

And I don't know if you'd want people to stop twice in two inner two adjacent intersections.

Yeah.

You used to stop a lot of people.

Um does anyone else have any sugg thoughts or comments on this?

Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the cross traffic does not stop signs as indicated in this diagram.

Second.

Thank you.

Uh all person Helgastad.

Uh, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Is that everybody?

Okay.

Thank you.

Five E.

Review and possible action on removal of the one-hour parking restriction on West New Hall Avenue between Walton Avenue and South West Avenue.

So this referral came from Alderman Manion to review and possibly remove the one-hour parking that exists on New Hall between Walton Avenue and West Avenue, and to give an idea of where that area is.

Um New Hall there is the area in question is surrounded in red.

Uh College Avenue runs east-west to the north there, and West Avenue runs north-south just on the eastern limit of the of the area in question.

Um there is one hour from 7 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

Except Saturday, Sunday, and holidays on both sides of the road within both of those limits.

Doing uh some historical digging.

This has been in place since 1978.

So it has been there for quite some time, and there has been some general turnover in the area.

And I apologize, could have put some historical information in there, but there was certainly a change in some of the land use that has taken place in that area where the to the south side it always appeared to have some sort of industrial use.

However, it appeared that maybe they didn't have as much of the parking usage as it currently does.

Then as the years kind of passed and progressed, they did actually create better and newer parking, and in the same light, uh Saratoga Park to the west that we kind of found out that parking lot that's there on the southwest.

We did kind of find out or kind of have put together that parking lot was created at some point after the fact of when the that one-hour parking did take and come into effect.

So we're kind of trying to piece a couple of different things together because we don't have exact documentation as to exactly why the one hour parking itself was there.

Um so just trying to give a little bit of historical perspective, I guess, on just some digging we were trying to do to try and know and understand a little bit, but I'll pass it off to Alderman Manton if he has any other uh comments regarding the the referral.

Okay, thank you.

Um thanks, Darren.

So yeah, um the the request really came from um one of the residents that lives on this stretch.

As you can see, there's um there's basically one house that has frontage um on that block between Waverley and Walton.

Um that's the resident in question that made the request.

Um they've lived there for approximately 20 years and now have teenage drivers, so there's additional cars and uh this parking zone got enforced when it rarely was in the past, and uh got a ticket, and uh were um upset about that and wondered if uh if the zone could be um changed or removed.

Um and as I went out there and surveyed it, what I will say is as Darren mentioned, the uh the zones have existed since 1978.

Um all the signage that is out there looks like it's been there since 1978.

Um rather than uh replace a whole bunch of signage that is horribly faded, and by the way, um Darren just I don't know records-wise if it says that it's two-hour parking on what would be I guess the north side of that street.

I just made that.

But it is actually signs signed as one hour parking along there.

I think uh something did not copy over for me.

Gotcha.

Um so anyway, I I looked at it um just for some perspective in case you're not really familiar with this area.

I know I know Beth is, but um, that's the armory in that southwest uh corner um of this stretch.

There's basically one what I would consider manufacturing or industrial user on that other um basically just to the east of the armory, and then an open lot that's adjacent to what used to be the DMV back in the day, and then there's basically two other houses that have frontage um on that block um between uh Waverly and West.

Um the mail delivery wouldn't be affected by this.

I did ask that question.

Um it's what it's a walking delivery route, so they don't have mailboxes on the street.

I know that's a concern sometimes with parking.

Um why do we need the no parking anytime on the bottom right?

So I yep.

I added that part because this one hour parking that was kind of established in this in this block over to the east on the south side of New Hall, east of West Avenue.

It's actually no parking on the south side, and the sign that is installed further to the east, it just says no parking this side.

So I wanted to make sure there was a clear terminus to that no parking zone.

So that's why just that one singular no parking sign with the left arrow for the south side.

So where that's where the side ends, gotcha.

Yep, yeah.

Yep, because there's an exit existing one on the other on the on the west side of West Avenue.

Okay.

And does does the I assume the armory doesn't care?

Uh they look like they have enough of their own parking.

Yeah, they have an ample lot.

Um, so I don't think they're really using street parking.

Um, I don't think so.

I've been over there a few times during the day researching for election stuff in there, they fit in their parking lot.

They the other thing I'll say, you know, this is basically adjacent to Saratoga Park.

Um, and you know, we Darren and I or Darren's speculation was maybe this was established back in the day to prevent people from parking there, you know, with park activities, although the time doesn't necessarily sink.

We recently removed a very similar parking restriction all along Prairie Avenue, which is on the other side of uh Saratoga Park.

Um, so this is kind of consistent with what we did there to create some less parking restrictions for the park itself.

So like I said, I I thought it was a reasonable request given the the neighborhood around here.

There is a lot of other two-hour parking restriction.

It's it's kind of a hodgepodge in this neighborhood as to what the parking restrictions are on different roads, but uh as I went out there and surveyed the condition of the signage, I'm like either we're gonna replace these signs or we're gonna get rid of them all together.

So I opted for what I thought was the cheaper option, and uh and a reasonable option of removing the parking restrictions that are there.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any comments or questions?

I'll make a motion to approve the and rescind the previously approved resolution dated May of 78 of establishing a one-hour parking on both sides of New Hall Avenue and Walton Avenue and West between 7 a.m.

and 5 p.m.

Except Saturday, Sunday, and holidays.

And include the no parking any time sign.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Uh all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Thank you.

We're up to five F.

Uh review and possible action on installing advance, quote, no trucking, no trucks, three tons and over, end quote signs for southbound river valley road.

All right.

So this referral came in from Alderman Matthews to review and assist with the trucks that go down River Valley Road and help inhibit or make truck drivers aware in the southbound direction of River Valley Road that there, in fact, is no trucking through the subdivision itself.

So kind of the again, the area in question here, surrounded in red is River Valley Road and Les Paul Parkway is right to the north, and this is right adjacent to that uh newer quick trip that was installed right uh right by the the bypass there.

Um so in the diagram here, there is an existing no truck three tons and over further down River Valley Road.

However, a bit of the problem is that it's further down the road and around the corner, and by the time uh trucks see it, it's a little bit too late, and they're almost a little bit committed, so to speak, to either to basically go into River Valley Road and navigate the rest of the way through it, or possibly um get off at Lawrence Drive to the west and and hit highway 59 over there.

So the recommendation was to provide some advanced warning of the no trucking of no trucks over three tons, 300 feet ahead, and we place it at that location specifically because still within that area technically trucks are allowed, and it is more specifically for those that need to get into the quick trip, whether it be for their fuel tankers or their supply trucks that come into service quick trip itself, and obviously, as we know, QuickTrip takes in a lot of customers every single minute and everything else.

So and I had some information here that we pulled previously from the drawings for QuickTrip where this does show that the trucks, the those service trucks go further down River Valley Road, and then they will come and park adjacent to that like southwest side of QuickTrip itself, so they can unload the their goods to restock, and then similarly the fuel trucks that need to go a little further past Elkhart drive there still as well, so they can loop around and uh reload the the fuel tanks that are that are underground there.

So we kind of picked that location with the impedance that trucks can still use that little stretch, still provide advanced notice, but they could use that elk hard drive if it was just a very blatant um, you know, someone erroneously just using Google Maps and not paying full attention and hopefully having better awareness and they can turn around with what might be available there at that point.

Thank you.

Um do we know whether or not trucks are actually using River Valley Road?

We we have it comes in that yes, trucks go down River Valley Road as we are told.

Okay.

Anybody have any comments or questions?

Yeah, so the it says here there's one.

I'm just looking at what the what the recommendation is.

So there's one no trucking sign, one over 300 over over three ton sign, and then one 300 foot warning.

So is that one pole with all these signs on it?

That is correct.

Okay.

All right, is there a motion?

All right, it makes a little bit of sense to me to tell them that the sign is ahead.

Um so I guess I will make a motion to approve the no trucks three tons and over as presented.

Is there a second?

I second Evertess.

Um all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Next, we have 5G review and possible action on installing no engine braking signs from the intersection of interstate I-94 southbound to the intersection of U.S.

Highway 18, state highway 59, as well as the northbound traffic between these two points along the by Wakshaw Bypass.

So this referral came in from Alderman Van Trieste has made mentioned to install engine brake muffler required signs for the section of the Waukeshaw bypass from 94 down to Highway 18, which is Summit Avenue.

Um, with this being a bit of a unique case and situation, those any of those signs installed along Highway 318 are permitted through uh the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, WISTA.

So we have to go through WISDOT to get their approval for any of those types of signs to be installed as they be installed via a permit.

So I've had some preliminary conversations with WISDOT with the with this sign to be installed at those two locations.

They were they have tentatively approved for the one to be installed for the southbound direction as shown on the screen as it is coming into the city limits, as that is one of their criteria for this sign is that it has to be entering within the city limits.

However, they will not permit for the other sign for the northbound direction on highway 318 north of Summit Avenue because it's already within the city limits, and because there is already a engine brake mufflers required sign on eastbound highway 18 that we have permitted through them already, and one on northbound highway 164 that they have said.

So with that, then the uh proposals to have the sign be installed for the southbound direction, meadowbook meadowbrook road, highway 318, just south of Silvernail Road there of the engine brake mufflers required, and it has to be installed with respect to uh WISDOT requirements, and that's what all the subsequent pages and exhibits and everything else is for for your leisure reading.

Wisd out is very thorough.

Um Alderman Van Treste, do you want to make a comment and tell us how that this came up?

Thank you, Chair.

Um how this came up was I've got uh residents on the west side uh southbound.

Um on uh Meadowbrook Road uh bypass, and they uh they've got a bunch of arborvitae out there to try to limit some of the noise.

And uh they've got uh another instance where they've got a child they that uh has disabilities wheelchair bound, and uh they like sitting out there on their patio, and uh there's a lot of a lot of truck activity that goes down through there, and it's not just from uh the uh their building just north of the uh pro healthcare rehab center.

That's part of it, but then just ongoing traffic.

It's it's uh really untenable.

I I stood out there with them, and uh it's pretty incredible.

You you can hear it.

Uh I live down over the hill, and you can hear it uh depending on what kind of truck it is.

So yeah, it uh this uh it would be a uh an expense from WISDOT, the way I understand it right correct there.

What's that?

This would be on on WISDOT.

No, this would this would be on us, the city, yep, the city would have to adorn the expense.

A 300 sign.

Uh yes, is that's what I had laid out.

It would we would be it's 170 dollars between the the sign and they require a four by six wood post.

Okay that has to be okay.

Yeah, that's that's all I've got on that.

Would you like to make a motion?

Sure.

I'd like to can you turn your thing back on?

I'd like to make a motion.

ID number 26-03970.

Uh no engine braking uh on the Waukershaw bypass.

Well, that's not what the sign says.

We can't wait.

The motion has to be see the screen.

WISDOT permitted the sign that says this right here.

Okay.

Uh the proposal is engine braking mufflers required signage.

And again, that's uh regarding uh 26-03970.

And you're moving to approve that sign?

Moving to approve.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Uh does anybody have any questions or comments?

All right, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Next, 5H review impossible action on extending the existing no-parking zone on the west side of North Hartwell Avenue in front of 530 North Hartwell Avenue to 30 degrees south.

Or 30 feet.

Yep.

This referral came in from Alderman Helgastad to, as you mentioned, move a no parking zone 30 feet 30 feet south that exists on the west side of Hartwell, um, just on the to the west of Fulton Street.

So again, the area in question here is surrounded in the red box where Hartwell Avenue runs north-south in that area, and East Broadway runs in that northwest southeast direction.

So again, it's just on the west side of Hartwell Avenue opposite of Fulton Street, and just to hone it in a little further of relocating the existing pole hand itself, 30 feet south.

And if Alderman Househead has additional comments to it, I'll pass it off to him.

Thank you.

Um yeah, this came in from a residence.

Uh they reached out to me.

Um, really, this stems from a couple different issues they've had with um when this was originally the way it was laid out when the YMCA had the driveway um in a different position.

You know, there were um people would park there and such, but generally they could then still get their uh trash out.

But um since that moved, people are still parking there, and it's become a growing issue over the last I guess couple years where they cannot reliably get to their trash out to be picked up by the uh the trucks.

Um also with you know folks parking there.

Um it's been an issue for snow clearing as well.

So when the uh YMCA you can see the new part uh entrance there that's to the very bottom of that image.

So wouldn't that move um it ended up resulting where if we move this sign there it's gonna be a net zero change in the number of parking spaces there?

Um just because of again that that's been repositioned and rearranged.

Um this will let them get their trash picked up more reliably.

Um I also talked to PD because there was also just been an ongoing parking issue there that they're still working on as well, but they um also supported uh this change as well.

Okay, is anybody have any comments or questions?

Uh Alderman Helgastad, is there a motion?

Uh I'll make a motion uh to approve to extend existing no parking zone on the west side of North Hartwell Avenue from the south side of the driveway for 530 North Hartwell Avenue to 30 feet south.

I'll second it.

Thank you.

Are there any comments?

All right, all in favor, please vote aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right, so we'll move on to item five J review impossible action on installing caution with children with disabilities area, warning signs for northbound and southbound meadow lane.

Okay.

So it's kind of a smaller stretch of road that kind of transitions, but uh metal lane there is surrounded in the the red box there, and Grandview Boulevard runs north-south just to the east of Metal Lane, and Silver Nail Road runs call it east-west just to the north of this location.

So the the referral came in, and it's more particular for the family lit that lives on the west side in that lives on the west side to provide better awareness for this family that has more than one child with with disabilities to provide greater awareness to the traveling public that their children that are with with disabilities and handicaps to kind of slow the fact when they're coming around the bend of both directions of Meadow to provide greater awareness for their children that are on the west side.

Thank you.

Yeah, my uh this constituent is on 1816 uh uh Meadow Lane.

Uh she has uh four adopted children, and all of them have disabilities.

Uh the only place that we currently have a uh handicap restricted area before the driveway if you kind of go down to right right in the middle.

Yeah, she's she's parked just a little bit uh further north of there when she's loading, but the the problem she's got is uh she lives in a building that does have a garage, but it doesn't have an elevator that goes down to the garage, and it's a slope going down into the garage.

So um she loads and unloads out on the street, and uh we've got uh egress uh going into uh the smoothie place and and uh walgreens over here as well.

There's just a tremendous, believe it or not, tremendous amount of traffic.

We've got uh McDonald's over there, goodwill.

Uh there's Office Depot around this corner down on the bottom.

You got Quick Trip right there.

It's kind of a narrow road, it's not super narrow, but I don't think it's any wider than about 40, 45 feet, something like that, Darren.

Could you confirm some somewhere in there?

And so what we're asking for is both uh the northbound and the southbound, just to give people a heads up that uh there's there's uh you know we we need a little bit of space around it.

There's been two, just uh to be clear.

There's been two uh accidents there.

One was a hit and run, and I don't know about the second one, but there were uh parked cars there where she loads and unloads, and that's where these cars have been hit.

So that's what we'd like to get those signage up there to help her out a little bit.

Is that a motion?

Yes.

Uh this will be a motion for um where am I at?

Uh ID 2603979, and the motion would be for proposed signage stating caution children with disabilities are going both the northbound and southbound directions on metal lane.

In the locations and the presented diagram.

Yeah, it is, yes.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions or comments?

All right, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Next, uh 5K review and possible action on installing either a stop sign or a yield sign for northbound winterbury drive at tall grass circle.

So this referral came in from Alderman Rimp Rick Lemke to review possibly installing a yield sign or stop sign for uh winterbury drive at tall grass circle, and then just to give some idea here.

Obviously, this is a little outdated, but there is ongoing development that is happening in the the area that I have highlighted there, which is uh phase two of their project is on the council agenda for Tuesday.

Ah, there you go.

Okay.

But uh so with that there is already the connection of Winterbury Drive up to Tall Grass Circle and the intersection is uh surrounded in the in the red square there and Summit Avenue running east-west to the south there, provide some information and and Meadow Drive or excuse me, Meadowbrook Road to the left of the screen there running north-south.

Um so typically for these kinds of installations, um, he asked us to look at and evaluate evaluate whether we do a yield sign or stop sign, but typically we tend to um lean towards the installation of stop signs instead of yield signs as we have seen that we get better compliance with stop signs than yield signs, just because we've we found and seen yield people will still just kind of blow through it, whereas and this intersection itself obviously has no control, no stop signs euro signs for any direction, and then for this type of of um intersection layout, we would inherently uh install a stop sign on the the T part of the intersection itself to control that leg of the intersection, which would fall in line with the driver's expectancy for this type of intersection.

Okay, with the changing neighborhood, that probably makes sense to me.

Is there a reason the people in the Winterbury um development?

Is there a reason they would go north and then go out tall grass circle?

Is there is that faster for some direction of travel?

I can answer that.

Please go ahead.

Uh that that uh takes you back out to the bypass, which then you can connect with I-94.

Okay, so it makes sense to you that people would be using that direction.

Yep.

Okay, thank you for that information.

Does anybody else have any comments or questions?

Anyone want to make a motion?

Will you turn on your microphone?

Sorry.

I'd like to make the motion 260 uh 3980.

This is uh review of possible action.

Uh uh stop sign.

Yeah, proposed stop sign at Winterbury and Tallgrass.

Okay, is your motion to approve the installation of the stop sign as indicated?

Yes.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

I second.

I second.

Thank you, Elder Person uh Ebert or Evert, sorry.

Um are there any further questions?

All right, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

That passes unanimously.

All right, back to you, Darren, on the uh current building grounds budget.

All right.

Prior to the start of this meeting, um, so at the beginning of the year we had a beginning balance of 17,126 and 78 cents, because that had some carryover from 2025.

Um spent to date has been 14,517 and 48 cents because of an item associated on the public works item agenda that installed guardrail on Madison Street, thus the remaining balance prior to the start of this meeting uh was two thousand six hundred and nine dollars and thirty cents.

So basically, with the items that were approved through this meeting through the end of this meeting, and presumably they all get approved through council, there will be a zero remaining budget.

Uh, do you know the circumstances of that guardrail on Madison Street about why we needed it?

Or are you not familiar with the project?

Um when I reviewed it, there were some run off the road concerns and issues of vehicles going off the road at that location and trying to provide protection for pedestrians and the residents that lived at that curve in Madison Street.

Okay, and that decision was made by public works staff.

Through the public works committee, yes.

Oh, I looked at I looked at that was at the public works committee meeting.

After we spoke on the phone this week, I looked at the public works agendas and was searching for the meeting.

Do you know when they approved that?

Uh March 5th, I believe is when that meeting is back, and that's why you don't know about it, is because they did it before you got elected.

Okay.

Okay.

Does anybody else have any questions?

Yeah, where in Madison is this um up from Delafield Street.

So it is so it's at this other section of the Madison Street curve, like further up.

This is existing guard rail here, so there was additional guard rail installed here, and I believe it was just recently installed within the last week or two, I believe.

Can you just help me understand?

So if they approve something, does it does it not come here then for us to also approve it?

So we're aware of that is coming out of our budget.

So from what I understand, they because of the type of item that it was, because it was not affiliated or associated with any um CIP budget or item, and it was requested to be installed in haste, they had to find a funding mechanism for it to be installed, and one of the only available budgets for it to be installed associated with was the building and grounds budget, and that and that is how it was laid out on the the cover sheet for that item for its installation was for it to come out and through the building and grounds budget.

And they might have been chair at the time too, because I wasn't chair back then.

Okay.

Because you know, I didn't show up until April like you did.

Right.

And I I don't know about you guys, but I don't read everybody's cover sheets from all the meetings I don't go to.

Yeah, go ahead.

Uh Darren, uh seeing so this is guardrail and BNG really isn't in the guardrails.

How come it's gonna come out of our budget?

That's just because of the reason being because they're roadway materials.

Yeah, it was because it was desired to be installed as soon as possible, so they had to find a budget in which they could install within this calendar year because there was nothing explicitly set aside that in this year because it came up in this calendar year, so they had to find a funding mechanism for it in the one.

I was just thinking we have a lot of real estate before December 31st hits them.

You know, we're gonna be probably out of cash, I would think very soon.

We're already out of cash.

Well, oh, I thought we still had 26.

We just spent it just today.

Just today.

Okay, okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay, does that you want to make a comment?

I was thinking, you know.

Is your microphone on?

It is okay.

Um, for this body, you know, be for the work we have again left for the rest of the year.

Should we I don't know if it's a referral or how we should talk me with the city administrator and you know what you know what we end up doing for the rest of the year.

Well, I thought I'd make a comment at uh council when it's my turn to address this committee's business.

I'd just tell everybody that we have no budget and we're not I would have we're not taking any, we're not taking any referrals that cost anything.

Yeah.

So if you've got something that doesn't cost anything, bring bring it forward.

Yeah, and then we're just gonna take it easy.

Yeah, I mean, do you see an alternative?

I don't want to spend next year's budget in September.

No, and I don't either.

Um, unless I like I said that's the only thing I can think of is maybe you know, again, bring it to the city administrator.

Is there some other way we can basically backfill our budget?

But it sounds like there probably isn't, but I don't know what else to do.

I yeah, I'm gonna go.

Yeah, you can talk to them at the next time it's time to for your meeting.

I I'm gonna do that, but I will say I'm frustrated.

Well, yeah, I mean it's it's a big item that we didn't know about, and but you know, I I'm assuming they told the chair at the time and they just didn't nobody told me because I wasn't you know yeah.

Well, there you go.

So any other thoughts.

Hey Darren, uh a while back when we were talking about uh some other referral, uh I refresh my memory here.

Were we talking about uh re-overlays, uh new overlays on signage that we could do here with the with uh the employees that we've got in the city where we can take a sign off the post, re redo it, make it as new again, and then reinstall it?

I mean, that's usually what we do if we can if the sign is still in in good condition, but it's still not all bent up, but that sort of thing, right?

But yeah, yeah, going forward, maybe that's the way we've got to address some of this potentially.

Thank you.

Neither of you have a comment.

Okay, then we'll move on.

I guess that's it.

Are there any objections to adjourning?

All right, we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.