Ordinance & License Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, let's call the August 31st meeting of the buildings grounds committee to order. Will you join me in the pledge of allegiance?

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

We do have a quorum this evening. I have Alderman Helgestad, myself, Alderman Miklitz, and Alderman Everett with us today. I see no members of the public, so we will move on from public comment. May I get a motion for approval of the minutes? So moved. That's moved by Alderman Helgestad. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. All right, that is approved unanimously. Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have ID 3965, review and possible action on establishing a no-parking zone on the north side of Dobbs Street from South Moreland Boulevard to 100 feet east of South Moreland Boulevard. Darren? Darren?

all right so this is the item from our last meeting this was brought forward by alderman camacho within his district and i had a chance to speak with him about this and just to give perspective of where the area is so um there is more than boulevard running north south And then at the top of the page is Madison Street running east-west, and St. Paul running northeast to the southwest. So Dopps Street right in the middle there, surrounded in the red box. So in speaking with Alderman Camacho, there seems to be... A bit of an issue with vehicles parking on the north side of Dobbs Street on a regular basis where they're getting, they're not in violation, but they are close to the sidewalk. And it is a bit obstructive to seeing the crosswalk for vehicles coming west on Dopp Street. And it sounds like there are a good amount of pedestrians that do cross Dopp Street along Moreland Boulevard there. He had spoken with the residents on the north and south side, and they were both in support of this no parking zone on this north side of Dobb Street to help clear up the vision area for vehicles coming down Dobb Street so they can see the pedestrians and they can see traffic along Moreland Boulevard. And it was also a little bit too where the, when vehicles were parking on the north side, it effectively, like many other streets, and because of vehicles parking there on the regular, narrows the roadway itself. So when vehicles are coming west on DOP, and then vehicles wanting to then go east on DOP. So if they're coming south on Moreland, to go east on DOP kind of tightens things up a little bit and just makes it a little tighter in this type of situation is the message that I received from Alderman Camacho.

Okay, and is there, I mean, since we don't have a budget, there's a fee for these signs?

So with this item from the previous meeting, that was taken into consideration with that budget from the last meeting. So this would have been a part of that.

So how much is it?

This item is $120. Okay.

Okay. Does anybody have any comments about this? I do. Go ahead.

I'm just curious why we have to have no parking from that area. Why wouldn't we just start a no parking forward from there as opposed to taking 100 feet out of that?

So just in this kind of west of the driveway?

Well, I mean, you can't park within a certain amount of feet from the intersection, right?

14 feet from a crosswalk.

So why why don't we just have one sign saying no parking forward from there as opposed to?

Making all this taking this whole space away So this this is what he had worked with with the residents with the residents in on the north and south of that area that they felt provided the best and safest option and for this situation at this area i mean it certainly with a greater parking area it opens more up so there can allow a little bit of more flexibility of movement of vehicles along that section of of roadway certainly um could it theoretically have been shorter Yes, but this was the recommendation that came forth, and this is what he had worked with residents and was presented.

I'd be curious to know what the reasoning was behind it, whatever he had to say about it, but obviously he's not here to tell me.

I saw him in the hallway. Do you have any other questions? No. Alderman Everett?

Yeah, you said it's $120 to put the whole thing together? Correct.

It's $120 from the buildings and grounds budget. It actually costs more than that because we've got to send somebody out there and put up the signs, and he had to do all the homework. So it costs the city a little bit more than that, but it costs this committee $120. It used to be.

When I was getting my driver's license, didn't it used to be like 20 feet from the corner out that you couldn't park? You just said it's 14 feet. Right, it's 14 now. I'm just saying.

Well, Jim, I'm so much younger than you, I'm not sure.

Oh, dear God. I opened myself to that one. I know I did. I know I did. No, I didn't think $120 would be that big of a deal, but...

I'm still unclear as what the complaint is.

I mean, roads are... Is the complaint that people are parking there and you can't see to get onto, what is that, Moreland?

Yes.

Or is the problem that somebody's got a party house and people just happen to park there all the time?

It sounds like there are people parking on the north side there on the regular, and then it's just obstructing the sight lines to see pedestrians that are crossing from the north side to the south side, and then at the same time... It's just narrowing up the road for cross traffic in that area, especially coming, entering into that roadway from Moreland if someone is also stopped. Those that are going west on Dom Street.

There's nothing on the south side of that? No, there is not. There's no restricted parking on the south side.

Are we finished?

Did you have a question? Go ahead. So just a point of order, just to clarify from my own memory, what is our remaining budget as a committee?

He said that this $120 was included. Remember that last meeting we had like 11 things? Yes. When they brought us from 11 things down to zero, this was included in the 11 things. Okay, so we have money for it. Yeah, we have money for this.

Okay. As a thought is, I know the proposal here is to install a sign, or a poll and two signs, correct?

Correct.

Okay. Would it be simpler as an idea, we'd still have to throw the poll in there, I don't know if it saves us a significant amount of money, but to throw one poll in and say no parking from here to corner, save us a sign?

Yeah, I had that thought too, but are you finished? That was my question. Okay. To me, this looks like legal parking and the road is designed to have parking on it. And if people are slowed down a little bit, I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. But this road is designed to have parking and I don't think this situation rises to the level of do anything. But that's just my personal opinion. So I'm open to the opinions of all of you.

Is there a sign currently up there that says no parking from here to the corner or something similar to that?

No, there is not. There's open parking on both sides of Dobbs Street east of Moreland there.

I would say that. We would install just one sign with the one with the one placard saying no parking from here to corner. As opposed to restricting 100 feet between those two those two areas.

Does that make a difference from the engineering point of view?

If we'd and the reason I had two signs here is because of the distance and. just not getting lost for drivers that were going west and getting past it and kind of forgetting about it, so to speak. So if the committee feels like they want to have one sign and one poll, then we may want to think about the sign and the poll to be on the west side of that driveway. if that makes sense. However, I do see that there is a terrace tree right to the west of that driveway as well.

I'm not objecting to your thing, but this is what the two residents and Alderman Camacho have agreed to, and if we override that, we may risk their dissatisfaction.

I would say let's hold it until next meeting and have Alderman Camacho explain it.

My thoughts exactly. I second that.

Okay. Are you comfortable with that? I'm fine with that. All right. We'll hold it over. If you'd like to come to the meeting, he can discuss it. Okay. Okay, so the next one is a traffic study from Matthews and you'll notice at the bottom of our agenda, we have a form about traffic review. So I'd like to hold item B until after we've had a chance to talk about this form and then go back and talk about this item to see if you think it applies or not. So that we have a chance to. I don't know, practice is not the right word, but if we choose to implement the form, then we can use that as an evaluation about whether or not the form works. Everybody okay with that? I'm okay with that. Yes. All right, then we'll move on to 5C. Please rescind the previously approved resolution dated 8-6-2019 of, quote, approved installation of a death child area on Cody Court near the intersection of Crestwood Drive and Court, end quote.

So we received the inquiry from the resident that made the inquiry to have this sign be installed for their child as the residents. As the resident since moved, asked Alderwoman Nicklitz to make the referral at council, which now has come to building and grounds to formally rescind that resolution so we could formally remove the deaf child area sign. Again, perspective in the red box there is Cody Court, so Madison Street runs east-west on the top of the page, and the west Waukesha bypass runs north-south to the left of the page there, and then just Showing you the sign in the poll that will then be there be removed with this item.

All right. Well, that is a handsome picture of this side. I Make a motion to remove the sign Okay, we have a motion in a second all in favor. Are there any further comments?

Oh

I can say that, you know. If we don't need the sign, we don't need the sign.

Yeah, we don't need the sign. So they've since moved.

The house is currently up for sale.

But it is a dapper sign.

If another deaf child moves in, we'll put it back up. Right. There we go. All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That is passed unanimously. All right, moving on to 5D. Please rescind the previously approved resolution dated 1-17-1994 of, quote, established no turn on red 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on southbound North Grandview Boulevard at Silvernail Road, end quote.

All right, so... This is a referral brought forth by the engineering department with support from alderman fan tree stay as it is with in his district. Again, provide perspective. The area in question is at the intersection of Grandview Blvd and Silvernail Rd. I'm sure we all kind of generally know where that intersection is within the city. So what we're looking at is to get rid of the southbound direction signs that say no turn on red from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. There's a sign on the near side of the intersection, and the same signs exist on the far side of the intersection. And the signs originally were installed because that BP that used to exist in the northwest quadrant has now gone away and as you can see from the picture here it is being redeveloped into a uw credit union and when the bp existed there there used to be a driveway very close to that intersection Well, with the development of the UW Credit Union, engineering worked with them to completely eliminate that driveway altogether so their access to their business is more appropriately further away from the intersection. So the impotence of the sign being in place for this now anymore is... Not. Necessary.

Sounds good to me.

I'll make a motion, but with a question after that to remove the make the motion you're making a motion to remove this requested signs as presented. Yes, second Alderman Helga said seconds and are there any comments?

I'm just wondering why the why the times are different from what we have as the resolution and what's on the sign?

That is a good question. I tried to go back on the the history between the change in. Where the change happened from the 6 AM what was in the resolution of 6 AM to 8 PM to what the placard out in the field right now says 11 AM to 4 PM and I could not find. How or why it changed OK?

So you wanna move both signs, no turn on red and the time restraints? Correct.

Okay. Because the time restraint supplemented the no turn on red.

Gotcha. Okay, and you're both comfortable with the motion light as it is? Yes. All right, any other comments? All right, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that is approved unanimously. Moving on to 5E, review and possible action to install a northbound no left turn sign with when line is formed plaque on sentry dive to access the drop-off center entrance.

So another referral that has come through from engineering staff, and this is to assist with the drop-off center. As you all know, it can be quite busy during recycling time or, you know, just waste disposal, drop-off, whatever it might be. And for the safest operation for the drop-off center is for vehicles to go south on Century Drive. So as we know, Didn't necessarily highlight it, but we know the drop-off center is on the west side of Century Drive, and it has the one driveway as an entrance and the other driveway as the exit. In a general perspective, it's best that everybody enters from the north. However, if There is no line of vehicles from the north, and someone is approaching from the south. The recycling or the drop-off center Fine with them approaching from the South, but we, we know if. There's a lot of vehicles coming from the North and there's someone just sitting in the northbound lanes, trying to. Finagle their their way in when there's a long queue of. Of vehicles, it can be a bit disruptive or. You know, northbound vehicles trying to. go around that those one or two so our recommendation there is to basically post a no left turn sign when line is formed and and they've done this in a very um casual casual yes there we go in a casual manner that has proved to be effective in its own right and um we believe by having it in more of a permanent setting and having on permanent structures on both sides of the road, that it'll really drive home the message and be much more enforceable and hopefully just make everything just much more safer for everybody.

All right, anybody have any comments?

Go ahead, I do have a question. Why would you need a sign on the north side when it's the South people that you want to pay attention to this? So, basically, so those people know what's going on.

And what, when you're sitting there in line, it's hard to tell what all of these people are doing, but it's informative to those people about what. What the other oncoming traffic is doing, because they're all making new terms and. They come this way and they make a U turn and it just helps everybody understand what's going on with the line. I have a question.

Go ahead.

So both those signs are going to be facing southbound, correct? Correct.

They will be facing the south. I thought one was facing... No, they'll both be facing the south. To the south.

That's how I interpret it, too. So that way, then, when the driver's driving north and they're looking to their left, not paying attention to the sign on their right, they can see it from both sides of the street.

Correct. And we wanted to put it both on the left and the right because while the left one can be the more effective sign, as we know, individuals that could be going to the drop-off center, they could have a trailer full of things, and it could be obstructing that sign. So hopefully the supplemental sign that would be on the right side could... reinforce the message and. You know my dad know what they then need to do.

Alright, I make a motion that we would approve this.

OK, I second alright.

Any other comments? All in favor please say aye aye aye any opposed.

All right.

That is approved unanimously. 5F, review and possible action on updating this committee's name from buildings and grounds committee to traffic and parking regulations committee.

All right. So this is an item that engineering has thought about for a little while. In our opinion, building in grounds does not necessarily... speak to the mission of what this committee really does. We don't really deal with buildings. We don't really deal with ground being lawns or anything like that. And if we look at the message that is on our website, it says the building and ground committee oversees repairs, maintenance, and remodeling of city-owned buildings and public properties. That's not necessarily what this committee does. If any of those items come up, they actually go to the Board of Public Works. This committee is more so everything that encompasses traffic, that being speed limits and parking restrictions, signage lighting municipal lot parking and everything else so in our opinion traffic and parking regulations regulations committee best entails the vast majority of things that we deal with, and from a three-year span example of items, in a three-year span, we had 149 items And of those 149, 112 of them were related to parking. So that was 75% of the items. And then the other remaining 37 items were traffic-related items that dealt with speed limits or speed feedback signs or lighting or informational signage. So signs within the public right-of-way, informational signs. in signs that have to do with the METCD, or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. So when individuals are then residents from the city that are actually coming to the website that want to have and know information of where they need to, or provide or get information it's a little more intuitive than at that point and then obviously updating of the message on the website as well

Do you imagine a groundswell of, you know, a riot of people in here with pitchforks being upset about this?

What's that? Sorry.

Do you think there's going to be a, you know, a riot of people in here upset about this name change? I think we'll be okay. Okay. I'm generally in favor of the name change, although I would like to delete the second sentence of the description. I don't think the committee shall adhere to the guidelines and regulations set forth in the manual on uniform traffic control devices. I'm not... I don't like the word shall, because it's mandatory, and I don't think it informs the public much more than the two sentences it says, the sentence before and the sentence after. So, I mean, as a sort of a non-expert description of the committee, I think that middle sentence would be more confusing to people on the website than it would be helpful. And I think in general, it's a good idea to adhere to those guidelines, but I don't know that I want to be handcuffed to it. I know that some of our parking regulations can be neighborhood specific that might not be in that uniform code. So I think as a habit of this committee, I think it's a good idea to maintain that because the consistent traffic regulations makes following traffic regulations easier that regular drivers have a regular expectation of regular signs. That makes sense to me. But I'm open to the committee's thoughts on that.

I'm not opposed to that, if you don't mind. Because I know, for example, downtown, we have a crosswalk that was re-patterned after a UK pattern crosswalk, which is not, I'm going to guess, not in that document or in that guide. No. But everyone recognizes it as a crosswalk. It adds a bit of character. It does. And I don't think any of us are opposed to that.

No.

Um, we want to try and, as you said, be kind of look towards that document as a. Guiding kind of, you know, point of reference.

Yeah, a strong recommendation.

Right? And I, I agree with that.

So, all right, you too.

So, in a general sense, then. which would kind of fall in line with the MUTCD. To your point, shall is a very, yes, hard line. You must do this. So if we just changed it to should, in that case, it provides the flexibility for the exception to standards.

Well, this description is written for the public, right?

Correct.

I mean, if you had to guess how many members of the public knew what the manual on uniform traffic control devices is, what percent of the public you think knows about that?

I'm sure not a lot, but a quick search could certainly enlighten them.

I don't like should either. I'm just trying to see if there would be a different way to write to write it.

So, again, to clarify, this is not changing the description of this body in terms of our. Ordinances and such as, like you said, just our public facing description, just the title, just the title. Well, the title and description, right?

It says it says the updated committee description would be and it's in quotes, right? So. I still like removing the second sentence. And if anybody wants to spend any time with us, we'll be more than happy to explain that. And I just think it's simpler and more direct without that. Because it says what the committee is. The description says what the committee is, and that second sentence says how the committee operates, which is a little bit different than what the committee is.

That's my recommendation. Yeah.

Fine.

Are you all right with that?

All right, then I'll make a motion to approve and recommend to council the updating the committee's name from Buildings and Grounds to Traffic and Parking Regulations Committee with the committee description as indicated in the cover sheet with the omission of the sentence, the committee shall adhere to the guidelines and regulations set forth in your manual on uniform traffic control devices.

Is there a second? I second.

Alderperson Miklitz seconds. Any other comments? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that's approved unanimously with that change in the description. We still have a business item, but I would like to do the communications and referrals before we go back to that business item. So did you get one of these forms? Yes. Everybody's got one. Yes. All right. So I had asked the engineering department for a form for other older persons to fill out to more. To 1st of all, to have discussion with the engineering department about what changes they would like to make in traffic and what kinds of things are there have everybody understand legislative history and clarify through engineering. What exactly are you asking for and. Gives this committee some. A background on what the situation is and whether or not it's got more widespread support and what the person is coming for. So traffic studies aren't free. And so if a older person comes forward, I think they ought to be required to justify what they're asking for. And I think this committee should use this form when we're going through these business items to say whether or not we're going to approve a study. So did anybody have any comments on the form itself? Or sorry, did you want to go first?

No. Okay.

Does anybody, did anybody have any comments on the form?

I do. Go ahead. I'm just wondering if there should be something that says kind of what, I don't know what a traffic calming request is. I guess that's the biggest thing. I'm not sure what a traffic calming request is. So I wouldn't know how to even check that box. The other ones I can figure out, but that would be one thing.

Traffic calming is having traffic slow down. And part of the purpose of this form is to get some communication in between the alderpersons and the engineering department so that they can understand their request. And if they said, oh, I want traffic to slow down, that everybody's racing through, say, Roberta Avenue at 3 o'clock in the afternoon when everybody that's driving is under 20 years old, they would be able to identify that you had just asked for a traffic calming. So part of it is this discussion between the alderpersons and the city so that we can have a general, you know, a common understanding between us and staff about what's being asked for and what the goal is. Okay.

Go ahead. Weren't we supposed to talk like these things with Tony or something? Didn't Tony say something about express line and you gotta hand everything off to him?

That's a broader thing. That wasn't specific to this committee. That was a broader thing. Like right now, all of the older people you guys probably know now too, if you had a request of engineering, like for a traffic study, most of us would go directly from the council to buildings and grounds, and then we'd go here. His suggestion is if we go directly to him with some of these requests before we make a referral, he would provide guidance and... So some of his concerns are some of us are racing around having his employees do work that he thinks has already been done. He wants to have a conversation and you can listen to him, you can not listen to him, but he gives them a chance for input before we go chasing off down some.

I was just under the impression that that's kind of what those building thing, the building block things were for us.

Yeah, well, those are for referrals and I worked with Tony developing this form. No, this is fine. This is fine. I kind of think the same thing. It's not that it's his decision, but he does have an advanced degree in running cities.

I would think that he'd have more important things to do than to do each one of these individually.

Yeah, not necessarily the traffic studies, but how these things are done. This is not on the agenda, so maybe we should move on, but next time you get to talk to him, go ahead and bring that up. But this was designed or thought, my thought was, is to ensure that anybody that brings a traffic study to us has talked to engineering and just kind of fully developed their idea, because sometimes we come up with half-baked ideas and they're not exactly sure... what we want and so this is to try and clarify what are we asking for what are what are our goals and will what we're asking for actually solve the goal so to be clear we talked to we we would we would have the idea or we'd get it from a constituent we'd we'd write it down we'd talk to them about it first and then bring it to a referral and if you didn't do it in that order if you can made the referral first We would go back to you and say, would you kindly fill out this form? So we get some background on that. They would work it around. And by the time it gets back to us, we know to actually be on a meeting, it would have all of this information there.

Got okay.

So, and it might. It might avoid having all of the alderman come in if they, if this is complete, and they think that we don't need their input. Then, you know, they may or may not have to come to the meeting. It depends on them, but this would be this is trying to have good communication between all of us and. the city staff that has to do all this stuff.

Understood.

So, and it will give us some general information on whether or not, if our fellow alder people can't justify the request for the work, you know, we should be saying, well, you know, can you develop that idea a little bit more to, you know, give us... Some of the work. Yeah, you should have a good reason to make the city do work. It shouldn't do just, well, just for the hell of it, I'd like to see what happens. You know, if we're not solving a problem... And I would love to solve a problem for more than one person at a time. The perspective is not just the one person in front of you. The perspective is we develop this as a city, and while we have the city's best interest in mind, we also have the person's in mind, and we also have the neighborhood in mind. So this is helping us with that perspective of what are we asking for, what do we think it will do, and do you want to move forward or not? Nice.

Mm-hmm.

Two more questions.

Go ahead. So on the farm also, it shows, has the area been studied in the past five years? Would that be something that engineer would have that information? So would it be on the, should it be on the next page? I don't.

So you are on. Page two. Yep.

That was actually going to be my question. Okay.

So if that's something that you need to ask of, because obviously you haven't been an older person for the five years, that's fine. You can say, you know, And maybe we need to add one extra box of, I don't know, and you can just say, explain, I'm not sure, I haven't been in my position long enough to know if it has been or has not been.

Well, I mean, some of that can answer when we come to you and say, hey, here's our form, can you go over it with me? And you'll say, oh, we just looked at that two years ago. I think you'll have a better idea. So that's why I'm wondering if we just put it on the engineering department review side as opposed to the alder side. I don't know. And then the other question I have is on that engineering review side, would you have an idea of the projected cost of one, the traffic study, or two, if the traffic study goes forward, how much, you know, what the signage or what cost, that kind of thing?

I suppose we could give round estimates for something like that, yes. If, yeah.

That was all I had. And make it two pages.

One thing I would like, like she was trying to describe where the, you know, has it been area. If we put a column to the left side and numbered it, we could say page two, line five, and then everybody would be able to find what question we're asking for. So we don't need to vote on this though, right?

What's that?

Sorry, we're not going to vote on this. No, yeah, so this is this is just, you know, are you generally in favor of this form?

Yes, generally I'm in favor of it. I think there's maybe as we use it and learn as we actually put it into practice, I think there's gonna be some workflow things that we won't have to.

Yeah, I think that too I streamline it right? Yeah, I'd like to work with it a while and if we'd like to improve it, but yeah, anything comes up if we think.

Yep.

And I'm a little curious about the resistance from our colleagues, but I think this is generally a good idea.

I mean, this form, this makes data collection a little more streamlined. It makes it more consistent. I imagine it's going to help our staff do their job more efficiently.

Well, I'm hoping it helps people understand what they're asking for. And then as they approach these situations in the future, they're going to know what we're going to ask, you know, what are we asking? So then they can ask better questions of the people that, you know, so that they can develop, you know, a reason, a reasoning system for this.

Along those lines, again, I don't mean to push, you know, shoot too far down the path is as new alders, for example, come on board to those questions of what is a traffic calming request. Maybe that's something we develop over time is like a glossary or, you know, again, just something so that as folks approach this, they can decipher it a little bit easier.

Sure, but I don't want to diminish the goal of it was the exchange with staff. And if they don't know what a traffic callman is, that's another reason to call staff.

It is, yeah. Again, just as we live with it, we'll probably have to figure that out. Yeah, sure. Absolutely.

Okay, any other comments on this? And everybody's generally in favor? Okay, so if we go back to the business item on 5B, police conducted a speed study on River Valley Road from USH 18 Les Paul Parkway to CTHH River Road. And this was brought forward by Matthews. You want to go ahead, Darren, or...

Yeah, this item was brought forward by Alderman Matthews to perform a speed study along River Valley Road from Highway 18, which is Les Paul Parkway down to County Highway H, which is River Road. Then just to give you guys an idea, River Valley Road is the entire stretch here

This is the quick trip.

Yep, so Highway 18 Les Paul Parkway up here. So there's there's the quick trip up on the north side and County Highway H River Road is down here on the south side. So this entire stretch of roadway is River Valley Road So we've we've had a bit of history with with this road and It's gained some... It's had more vocalization since it's been connected to the bypass itself, where it used to be pretty dead-ended, so... there is more traffic that goes up and down river Valley road. So just to give a little bit of an idea here before it was connected, there was an effort done by engineering, I believe in, uh, 2021 or 22 where all those red dots along River Valley Road are intersections where it's an all-way stop controlled intersection. So with the speed study that was asked of us, it's a bit hard to find locations where we can find vehicles that will be going at speed because there is a stop sign every two to three blocks along river valley road so really the only two locations that we that we grabbed to get speed data was the on the north side so the two blue dots there at wind gateway and just south of foxborough court so if i just zoomed in to show the data and information that we gained so at uh Wind gateway for the northbound direction average speed was 31 50th percentile was 29 miles per hour 85th with 33 and in the southbound direction the average speed was 31.3 50th percentile is 29 and the 85th was 34 and then down at Foxboro Court the northbound average speed was 30.1 50th percentile is 29. 85th was 32, and in the southbound direction at that location, the average speed was 29.2. The 50th was 29, and the 85th was 32 miles per hour.

So I'd like to just take this under advisement. This is interesting information, but then I think we ought to send this back to Alderperson Matthews to fill out this form with this information that all of us have now and ask, at this point, what does he want?

That was my question. What exactly is he, he wants to open it all up so that he doesn't have all these stop signs or does he want to increase the speed limit or what is it?

Well, I can only speculate, but the prior alderman went through all of this and we went back and forth, back and forth and added all these stop signs. And that was only a couple of years ago. So that's why I would like to ask, you know, because this is not my district and it's not my situation. So I would like us to Hold this over to the next meeting and ask to ask him questions. So, but I did have 1 question of you, Darren. Was it your understanding that we would fill out this reform before we got this data?

Correct?

Yeah. So we're going to do it after the fact this time and. Move it forward next time. Is everybody comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with that? Yeah. Because with this information, I'm not sure.

You know, can I ask one more question? Go ahead. So I just want to be able to understand that. So when people are traveling southbound on River Road, they're going an average of 30 miles per hour based on all of the traffic that we collected, correct?

From the data we collected, yep.

Yep. So I don't understand the 50th and the 85th percent.

So the 50th percentile means the bottom 50... number of 50 vehicles so if you have 200 vehicles the 100th vehicle and lower we're all going at 29 miles an hour or lower okay and then the 85th 85th percentile speed so if you had 200 vehicles it'd be a 170th vehicle that one was going 33 and everything there and below was going 33 and lower okay i get it do we ever keep track of highest and lowest yes okay Those are usually, sometimes can be extremes though. Because it could be law enforcement going to a scene. So it's kind of hard because they can be anomalies.

Point of clarification. So you said this was done in 2021 roughly?

The sweet study, yes, or the data right here is recent.

Oh, this was recent. Oh, okay. So then the, and then the stop signs were put in, you said then a couple of years ago. Yeah. Okay.

So this is again, just to make sure that I still, because we asked him a whole bunch of questions, because to us, this looked like a lot of signs on 1 row.

Yeah.

But all of those residents wanted them.

Correct. I just want to make sure that again.

They wanted a deterrent for people blasting through. Well, not blasting through so much that they didn't want their road used at all.

They didn't want it. OK, I get you now.

Because before it was a dead end and after the quick trip was put in it, it went through and everybody had a lot of concern about that. I'm not sure that all of those concerns actually came to fruition, but that's what the concern was. And if they thought if you had to stop every other block that you'd be likely to choose a different route.

Gotcha.

Is that your understanding?

Yes. Thank you, I appreciate that.

Okay, anybody else? All right, so we'll hold open item 5B for the next meeting and you'll contact Alderman Matthews for that and I'll see him tomorrow night and we'll also give him the heads up.

Okay.

All right, so what else is on our agenda? Did you have any communications?

Nope, we just had the form on the communications and referrals.

Okay. If there are no objections, then we're adjourned. All right. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.