Aviation Board - Regular Meeting

Alright. We're gonna call this meeting to order. At 10:03AM, all board of public work members are present with the exception of director Trane who is excused. I will now move to the approval of minutes from 04/13/2026. Motion made by council president Dickinson.

Second by director Gallagher. Any corrections or discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Alright. Moving to our first agenda item twenty five one one seven four, bidders proof of responsibility. Director Gallagher.

Thank you, mayor. Only one for today, Weiser Brothers General Contractor Inc. Out of La Crescent, Minnesota for $70,081,450 for general contracting, etcetera. Recommend approval.

Alright. Any questions from board of public work members? Seeing none, please vote. Sorry. Approved by director Gallagher, second by council president Dickinson. I almost forgot that. Alright. Now you can vote. That motion passes unanimously. Moving to item twenty six zero four one three, construction contract change orders.

It the three? Four. So we have one for the La Crosse Public Library, wastewater treatment facility upgrades, Fire Station Number 3 renovation, and Fire Station Number 3 renovation. Any questions about any of the contract orders? Alright.

Seeing none, I'll make the motion to approve, second by council president Dickinson. Please vote. That motion passes with three yes, one no. Next agenda item twenty six zero four two four, proposed policy change regarding sanitation and restroom requirements for special events held in the city of La Crosse. Is the staff speaking to this or just can you just highlight a little bit?

Okay. Thank you. So I'll give you a little bit of context here. The Board of Public Works approved the original special events policy in August 2019. Under the policy, sanitation requirements follow Chapter 29 of the International Building Code, which sets the ratio of one toilet facility per 75 attendees.

So as part of the special event application process, organizers are required to report the number of toilet facilities they will provide, whether they're permanent fixtures or portables. If the application does not meet the required ratio based upon the anticipated attendance, the permit is held until appliance is achieved. Now I will note the reporting on the application and the enforcement piece is fairly new within the last year to two years. The policy has been in place since 2019, but it's just been of recent that that enforcement piece has been there. I was recently asked to review this policy, particularly as it applies to smaller, shorter duration events and where attendance is more fluid compared to the larger or all day festivals.

In doing so, I reviewed policies from several Wisconsin municipalities across the state, some of those including Appleton, Green Bay, Eau Claire, Janesville, Sheboygan, Waukesha. There was about 10 to 12 that I reviewed. I also consulted with the La Crosse County Health Department. Overall, I did find that our current standard of one per 75 with common practice, particularly for events lasting up to or over five or up to four hours. However, I did find some municipalities that allow flexibility based on duration, alcohol service, and the availability of nearby restroom facilities.

So based on this, I developed the proposal that's before you. What that looks like is for events lasting less than four hours that do not charge admission and do not serve alcohol would be required a minimum of two toilet facilities for crowds up to 500. The reason I went with the not charging admission and not serving alcohol is not charging admission, you're more likely to have people that are coming and going. They're not staying for long durations at the special event. Alcohol service is something that I did see overall that increases the number of portables that are needed.

So that's why I worked those in. Events exceeding 500 attendees would still be required to meet the one per 75 ratio. And then also, I did work into the policy that facilities may include a combination of permanent restrooms, private facilities, and portables. So this approach strikes a reasonable balance by introducing flexibility for smaller events while ensuring adequate sanitation for participants. And then just, you know, something else to note is the question of enforcement.

Do we wanna continue with the current practice of having applicants disclose the number of facilities on the application or whether we instead communicate the requirements and rely on the organizers to ensure that compliance.

Thank you, director Allison. Any questions from board of public work members? Alright. Seeing none, I'll take a motion. I also wanna say thank you for looking into this as well because this was something that I just kinda felt we needed to dive into specifically for events that fall out of the, I guess, regular code for particularly larger events.

And I see we now have a motion from council president Dickinson to approve, second by director Gallagher. Seeing no discussion or questions, please vote. Alright. And that motion passes. Moving to our next agenda item, 260438 Green Bay Street reconstruction design recommendation. Alright. Jenny, you got this? Alright.

Good morning, everyone. So

I'll

go over my memo briefly and then the survey response overview, but also attached to the agenda include the alternatives, parking study, the public involvement meeting presentation, and the website link. So the memo that I attached to the agenda item goes over the process for this project. But as I'm sure a lot of you know, Green Bay Street was partially reconstructed from 14th to Losey using STP urban funds, and the original plan for that section was a on street bicycle facility. And since that has been reconstructed, the city council adopted the 2024 bicycle and pedestrian master plan, which recommended protected bicycle facilities on Green Bay Street. So with the anticipated reconstruction of Green Bay Street from 9th to 14th, the engineering department asked planning staff to assist with gathering neighborhood input for how we move forward with this section of roadway.

So this topic went to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee in November 2025, and that committee unanimously recommended protected bicycle facilities from West Avenue to 14th. Since from 9th to 14th, due to the grade of the driveways, it would be unlikely that we would be able to implement protected facilities. The committee also unanimously recommended a future capital request for Green Bay Street protected facilities on the rest of the corridor. So the rest of the corridor from 14th to Lozey, as it's already been reconstructed, would need a future capital improvement plan request, likely down the line since that was just reconstructed. So since then, with the assistance of engineering staff, we worked together to coordinate public input.

We created a web page. We also created a survey for those who couldn't attend the public involvement meeting that was held on February 24. Postcards were sent to property owners along Green Bay Street, and a press release was sent out with this information as well. At the public involvement meeting, there were 47 people approximately in attendance. There was a mix of opinions and feedback.

One of the suggestions that came from many was to include Redfield Street, which is, I believe, just a block north as an alternative for bikes instead of Green Bay Street. Street. Some business owners were there and were concerned about where their staff were going to park. And at the end, we received 25 common cards, 10 in favor of keeping the current conditions, six mostly in the middle on all our alternatives, and eight were in favor of some type of bicycle infrastructure. We left the survey, the online survey, open for additional two weeks after the public involvement meeting, and we received 305 survey responses on that.

87% of people filling out that survey lived in the city of La Crosse. Notably, 18% live on, own property, or work on Green Bay. And of those 18% of survey respondents, 11% of them felt positively toward bicycle infrastructure on Green Bay Street. As for total survey results, so that's all 305. The current conditions was the most favored alternative at 66%, and then alternative one, which is the raised bike lane and one side of parking, was the most favored alternative among bicycle infrastructure at 30%.

Notable comments that were given during the online survey from specifically both sides, those in favor and those against, were suggestions to create bike routes on less traveled streets and corridors. And then I've also attached the survey response overview. So questions just to kind of go over a quick explanation, questions three through eight use a net promoter score of negative 100 to 100. So since the survey asked respondents to choose between zero as least favored, 10 to most favored, the net promoter score is calculated by subtracting the percentage of detractors and promoters. So a promoter is someone who ranked it nine to 10, so very in favor of the the alternative.

A detractor is anyone who ranked it from zero to six. So just as a quick explanation on question four, how likely are you to support keeping current conditions? There's a 181 promoters, so that means people who ranked at nine or 10. And there's a 101 detractors, so people who ranked at zero to six. There's 301 total survey responses.

So the promoters detractors are at 34%. So that gets the net promoter score of 26. 60% minus 34 makes a net promoter score 26. I know it's not the most intuitive, so I just wanted to go through that. Yeah. That's that's what's in my memo. That's the survey responses, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Alright. Any questions from Board of Public Work members? Director Gallagher.

Thanks, Jenna, for the summary so far. Could you maybe just quickly go over the four different alternatives that were mentioned in the survey and that were attached here just so the board members can hear them and and maybe give a sound bite or two regarding what those alternatives would look like and maybe what the impact is, like maybe how much parking would be lost for each one.

Sure. So there were five different alternatives. The first one being current conditions. So that's parking on both sides of the street as is. And again, that was 66% of respondents.

So how I phrase it in our memo, I did a rating of seven or greater, assuming that someone rating it at seven was mostly in favor of that alternative, where the net promoter score has to be a nine or a 10 ranking, just to clarify that. But sixty six percent of respondents felt positively toward current conditions. Alternative one is a raised bike lane, and that would have one side of parking and then the other side of parking would have to be removed for the raised bike lane, so it reduced parking approximately 50%. And 30% of respondents were in favor of that. Alternative two was the at grade bike lane.

That still would remove one side of parking, but there would be no protection and it would just basically be be paint like Jackson Street. And only 8% of respondents felt positively toward that alternative. Alternative three was a protected bicycle facility. It was at grade, but there was a barrier of protection that would remove all parking from the street, and 19% of respondents felt positively toward that. And alternative four was a protected at grade bicycle facility.

So there was the bicycle facility was at grade, but there was some kind of concrete barrier or other sort of protection. That one would reduce the sidewalk width, but it would keep one side of parking. And 25% of respondents felt positively toward that.

Is there a world this is sort of unfavorable. I have something to say after this, though. Where as I'm looking at kinda this let's go to alternative three, for example. There's this, like, five and a half inch, two and a half. Is there a world where we kinda lessen, so to speak, the boulevard to have parking on both sides? Is that a thing?

Since you're looking my way, since I should probably

engineer in the room.

Since since I should probably answer on the record. I I think I I'm not quite sure about the, you know, the two and a half feet there kind of look like a I couldn't tell if that would be paved. I think that's just a curb and gutter. Okay. Maybe not.

And then about, what, five and a half feet for what I assume would be some sort of green space. I know that it's possible to to reduce a little bit with those types of alternatives, but very quickly, you're going to start sacrificing something. If you go less than four feet overall, you really shouldn't be planting any trees, and and that could be a negative impact. So, you know, then you're pitting parking against trees essentially. We do have to have some minimum amount of space for some snow storage, for signage, for any utility poles, or or other things like that.

So, really, you can't go much narrower than, like, a three foot boulevard in practice. It might be possible to shave a few feet off of that, but maybe Jenna would concur. I I don't know that you could just take one or two here or there and actually create another full parking lane. I think that's kinda where we wind up getting down to one parking lane or, you know, or even zero is with with design criteria needing to meet a minimum width for driving lanes and bike lanes and boulevards that there just really isn't the room there. Okay.

And then you talked a little bit about the bicycle pedestrian plan. And can you remind me that was implemented and voted on in 2023? Correct?

'20 it was in 2024 that the council voted. Yep.

Okay. So the council voted on 2024 that this was the plan that we're gonna be using moving forward. So I guess, if you don't mind, this is not necessarily a question, but something that I think about often because as bike lanes continue to come up, there's always this fight between, if you're pro parking, you're anti bike. If you're anti bike, you're pro car, etcetera. And, I mean, to some degree, I guess I can understand I could understand that.

However, I think when we make these plans, we start thinking about the future and our future of having multi, modalities of transportation is extremely important. And so while I didn't necessarily agree with 3rd And 4th Street, I do agree with this one. I do also, like, try to look at, like, are there other ways to do this? Can we do both? Does it have to be this one or the other thing? So but thank you very much for, presenting your information. Council member Dodd.

In the, second page, we talk about, there were approximately 18% who live on own property, business, or work or a business or work on Green Bay Street. So out of the 18, that's 73 people. And then it says 11%, of them fell positively toward bike infrastructure. That's 11. That's eight people.

So overwhelmingly, they're telling you they don't want it. And overwhelmingly, we're saying that they wanna stick with current conditions at sixty six percent. So I'm not sure why we're not looking at alternate things like they're asking for on Redfield or a different street because, overwhelmingly, the city's telling us they don't want this. So can't we come up with a plan that puts it on a less traveled street that makes it because I'm not. I'm I'm pro bike, I'm pro car, but I'm more pro safety, and I'm more pro taxpayer.

Like, the I just feel that we use these plans and such. They're recommendations. They're not rules. So we need to figure out how do we balance this and how do we balance what's best for people that are riding bikes because they want to ride bikes or they need to ride bikes. But then the people that are driving cars and the people that are walking I mean, we kinda forget the pedestrian the whole time of this. So I'm just wondering, and I'm just hearing that we keep the public keeps saying no, but we keep telling, but you mean yes. But no. They mean no. So what can we do to reroute or rebuild this to to to make it something that everybody finds palatable?

Yeah. And just to clarify, I'm just coming here with the public involvement information, and then you guys are the board is making the decision. So what I would say is it can I'd say that Redfield could be evaluated. It would we had I think that Matt had talked with council members about this as well. We would take amendment to our bicycle and pedestrian master plan, but that's certainly not out of the realm of possibilities that we could look at that as an alternative instead.

Thank you. Council President Dickinson.

So I know someone that lives on Green Bay Street, and I'm trying to recall what year that that portion of Green Bay Street was repaired. Jenna, do you know that answer? It's just in the last three years, I

think, or less. Yeah, part of it was last summer from fourteenth maybe Matt knows better. This would be the section that I think

it was from 16th to Losey or even, let's say, 20th Street to Losey. And my second question is not directed at you necessarily, Jenna, but how much did we spend on that construction project, and when did we first start planning that project? I don't perceive that the person that lives on this street is looking forward to additional construction in the near future, And it was everything. Utilities underneath, loss of some boulevard space. I do not feel safe parking in front of that house because it's already too skinny.

There's an RRFB close by. So I'm not excited about changing what already exists because of those costs, etcetera. Thanks.

Director Gallagher.

Sure. So to answer council president Dickinson's question, so far, Green Bay has been reconstructed from 14th to Lozey, like Jenna mentioned, in three different segments. We first did the middle section because that's where some storm sewer capacity upgrades needed to start. So we went from from roughly East Avenue to 22nd. First, that was done with STP Urban Dollars three to four years ago.

And then last year, there were two projects happening roughly simultaneously from 22nd to Loewsie as a state run project and then the section from 14th To East Avenue, which was all city funds. So they've they've all been reconstructed within the last with definitely within the last five years.

I have can you okay. Go ahead.

I I couldn't get exact figures right now off off hand, but, no, we certainly could look those up. That's a really good question. We generally pay about 20% is the minimum we're going to pay on an STP urban project. That's an eightytwenty split with the state. But we do have to provide when I say we paying, I should clarify. The sanitary sewer pays for itself. The water utility pays for itself. The storm water and street funds are covered 80% by the state, 20% by the city. And then, obviously, that section from 14th To East Ave would have been 100% city. So we certainly can find those.

My guess is all told that was a ballpark 2 to $4,000,000, I mean, roughly. You know, not that the press should quote me on that because that's just to give you a ballpark idea. But that would be the the total at least for all three combined.

I have two questions. The first one and I don't know if you can if this is you, Jenna. But the street parking count, can you speak to that document, or is that Yes. Okay.

Is there a specific question?

Just can you just explain it? Like

Yep. One I'm gonna grab my laptop. One moment.

Alright.

Or maybe just kinda speak to the process, if you can.

Sure. So, yeah, this was obviously taken during the month of January. Specifically, I went out there during multiple times of the day, tried to get every different time of the day, especially knowing that there was peak times during the school day or during the work day. And it was clear after going out there that from ninth to fourteenth, there's significantly more parking than from fourteenth to Losey. And the percentages on this parking study show the percent of stalls taken up, and there's a specific formula used to see how many designated spots there are in a certain section.

As you can see on January 21, the South Side, from ninth to tenth, it's 125% full because the formula used is people can sometimes squeeze in more cars than the formula used to calculate how many cars can fit. So there were a couple times that from ninth to tenth, were 100% full, same from tenth to west. And, yeah, that would there was, I think, nine different times that I went out there to to calculate how many cars were parked out there.

Okay. And so this is just something we monitor pretty much kinda just sporadically throughout the day?

Yes. Yeah. And specifically when looking at the possible removal of parking, we're we're trying to assess how much the parking is used on the street. Okay. So outside of the bike and pedestrian plan, is there any other reason we chose Green Bay Street as opposed to any other street?

So, yeah, the bicycle and pedestrian plan looks at a multitude of factors when looking at specific routes. And Green Bay Street is one of those streets, since we have connectors in our city that sometimes aren't always the most direct route. Obviously, it's a pretty busy road because it is a direct connector. And it is close to a number of destinations, including Central High School, Festival Foods, Gunderson. But that's kind of one of the criteria that chose Green Bay Street as a possible area for a bicycle infrastructure.

And I'm I'm glad you brought that up because that was one of my things where I was like, I can be in favor of this also because it's the only street that really directly connects to Central High School. And it's a block away from Logan, but it also sounds like Redfield Street is another part of that, which I can definitely understand Redfield. But then question would be, how would you get the students that are biking on Redfield to Central High School safely? You don't have to answer. That's not a question to you, but directly Gallagher.

Sure, mayor. I'd since you're asking about kind of the history of it, I sat on the original bicycle pedestrian steering committee that selected the consultant for the original plan back back in 2010 and sat on the the BPAC as well for several years. And Jenna summed it up well. The criteria that were looked at originally for neighborhood greenways as well as for recommendations of bike lanes involve the types of lands, the types of use, the type of facility it is. In this case, Green Bay Street is a straight shot from South Avenue to Lozey Boulevard.

It is near Fire Station 3. It is near Gunderson Amplify. It is where the students crossing to Longfellow go across, so they can it's a very one block away from middle school. It has got Central High School at the end of it. It also has a mix of of land uses. There's solidly residential in the Eastern Half. There's a mix of industrial and commercial in the Western Half, and then, again, those big institutions. So it just made sense as a type of facility that could facilitate biking of all types. You know, when we talk about biking, it's not just kids riding bikes. Sometimes it's commuters getting to and from work that are riding bikes.

So the idea is, are you gonna be able to accommodate not just the multiple modes, but, you know, appealing to bikers who would use it if there was a facility. So I think that's why that recommendation went into the plan originally.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion? Council president Dickinson.

I guess I'm really curious to know what is expected of us to either approve, vote on, or indicate, and then where does it go next?

So I think in addition to sort of satisfying the desires and curiosity of BPAC, engineering also needs some answer because we've delayed the project roughly a year with the state to allow for this time to consider different alternatives and and what shape bike facilities might take if there are any. So in order for us to resume, you know, our course of getting the remaining two to three block section done and also preparing for the final section from ninth to fourteenth, you know, or ninth yeah. This is ninth to fourteenth. So in preparing for this, you know, we need to have some direction of of what that's going to look like. So whether it's today or if it's referred, I I don't know.

But but, ultimately, we do need to just sort of put it to bed with what this project will do. That doesn't close the door on on future changes or upgrades because, obviously, as Jenna mentioned, you'd have to go back and retrofit the rest of the corridor.

Does this go to full council?

No. Okay. Typically, they don't.

Typically, they don't. Gotcha. Council president?

So in follow-up, it's our responsibility today to potentially decide which of these alternatives we would recommend moving forward. Is that correct?

Yes. I would say that's fair. You know, you you could even you could even amend them to to be something different if if there was consensus on the board. But, yeah, I think at a minimum, looking at these alternatives that were considered and seeing if there are any that we would like to decide on today to to keep it moving.

If we did decide to move this to, let's say, Redfield Street, what would that look like?

I think both Jen and I could answer that. But what I told councilmember Slesnico, who is online here, is that, really, it's not so much the idea of putting bike facilities on Redfield Street, but I think looking at whether or not that would be suitable as a a neighborhood greenway, whether that, you know, is something that has connectivity to other streets. When the five neighborhood greenways originally laid out, 22nd, Farnam, 17th, King, and Avon on the North side, you know, the four south side ones were meant to cross each other to provide some connectivity so the bike riders could have some some consistent signage and an experience to get to and from some of the bigger institutions or places. It shouldn't be random. It should be thoughtful.

So I I guess that would be the discussion we could have next, which I recommended ultimately resulting in an upgrade or or an amendment to the bicycle pedestrian plan to highlight Redfield as a potential neighborhood greenway. And then that could have facilities, you know, traffic calming facilities for vehicular traffic and potentially bicycle facilities installed.

Okay. Thank you. Can I talk to council member Sesenko? Okay. Council member Sesenko, can you chime in as the chair of the bike and pedestrian committee?

Thank you, Mayor. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Well, I appreciate the discussion. You know, I I hear I believe you understand from BPAC that the desire from the committee is to have that through way with the bicycle on Green Bay. I mean, the the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee definitely are advocating for bicycle and pedestrian access, multimodal access. You've heard from Jenna about the latest bicycle and pedestrian master plan. We did go through with the public, you know, survey with the public engagement option and I did wanna thank engineering and planning for the work that they did with that.

I had reached out to director Gallagher about Redfield because that was something that was brought up, you know, during the survey and with the public engagement. That is, I mean, that is an option. It's unfortunate that Green Bay got to the point that it is where part of it had already been reconstructed and this wasn't considered uniformly, you know, through the entire infrastructure of the street. I think, yeah, again, unfortunately, bicycle and many times pedestrian access access has not been adequately addressed when we're moving through with planning and design. I think that's definitely getting better not only within our municipality, but within the state because of concerns, because of discussions.

So I know it's a challenge for this, you know, committee to look at this and make a recommendation. There has been good discussion and I can see a number of viewpoints with this. Again, Deepak would prefer that this actually moves forward and then retrofitting takes place because it is the most direct route. It avoids having to cross other streets. One of the concerns is always getting eventually to low z I mean, to some of the streets that you would have to put, you know, a a rotating or a flashing beacon like West Avenue to get across.

There's already, you know, lighting there, stoplights to be able to allow bicycles to move through without additional, you know, accommodation. But again, Redfield is a consideration. And as director Gallagher said, it would require modification or would need modification of the bicycle pedestrian master plan and trying to figure out what would need be needed for that because of our capital improvement budget and moving things out. We I'm assuming that would take quite a while before that would actually move forward. You know, moving things out five years, public engagement, design, consideration, how that works.

Unfortunately, without the revenue that we would have on hand to move that more quickly, Again, so many of these infrastructure projects are long term considerations. And that's why originally, the idea of having this section protected and then moving it forward again, a long term consideration. Unfortunately, that reconstruction is relatively new, but definitely something to consider, you know, for board of public works. And I'm not sure if you have other questions that I might be able to answer.

Council president?

I don't have a question for council member. But I I do feel like we need another week on this. And in that referral for one week would be, I am much more a visual person that I need to see the potential options more from a bird's eye view and the actual reality of what changes and what what do they look like. Maybe I'm spoiled because the DOT does that for us at the final thing, but I would also like Redfield included in that. And maybe that could enlighten us on the potential obstacles or hurdles that we would have to do to make Redfield a natural green way.

That is definitely where I'm leaning. But at this time, I think it would be fair to get a little more information based on, some visuals so that we'd understand what's already there, what's been improved, and, things like how driveways affect where a bike lane would be located. And just some of those safety issues, I guess, is what I'm trying to visualize from a different perspective than the pictures that we have right now. Those don't exactly do it for me. It's it's too much of a snapshot instead of the whole picture all the way through. Thank you.

Thank you, council president. Thank you, council member Slisenko. Director Gallagher.

Thanks, mayor. I don't have a question for Jenna. I was thinking more about getting into some of the discussion on the issue and seeing how the board wanted to deal with this. But I did notice that the council member of the district, council member Troost is online and and didn't know if she had any thoughts on this, seeing as how I think most or or all of this might fall within within her district.

Council member Trois, wanna chime in?

I do not, but thank you for the offer. I will save my comments for some other time.

Okay. Thank you.

In that case, if I could continue, I guess, I as we maybe move towards some sort of motion to do something here, you know, I I'm personally on the fence with with Green Bay. I I think Green Bay Street does make sense for a number of reasons to have some bike facilities on it and recognize that it was in the plan, and it was in the plan for a reason. You know, my my conflict comes in the idea of having to retrofit or tear apart some newer streets and and make another investment of of a lot of money in the blocks that were already built. And that would be something certainly that would be up to the council. That would be something that, as I mentioned, offline to council member Slesnikau would be, you know, a a future CIP project to ensure that the whatever facility gets built, if any, within, you know, the 14th To To West Avenue section, that it continues to the east and isn't just two blocks that we get accused of building, you know, like, raised bike lanes to nowhere or whatever.

We we frequently hear a lot of criticism from trolls, you know, online, and, you know, it's tiring. But, again, I want I want whatever decision to be thoughtful and be deliberate, and I I certainly would support something being on Green Bay. I just struggle right now with whether or not it should be a raised bike lane, and it's not because I don't believe in raised bike lanes. I think as as council member Slaznikow mentioned, it's really just an unfortunate matter of timing. Had that been something that we had really fleshed out as a desired alternative, years earlier, you know, had the the the master plan been updated years earlier, it certainly could have been included in the other sections.

It just wasn't. We did make a deliberate effort to leave width on the street to build some type of bike facility if that was the direction. It's just there's not quite that compatibility between what we've built and what the is desiring.

K. Is there a world, director Gallagher, where you're able to use multiple alternatives on one street?

I I wouldn't say no. I I think I'd need to see a little bit more what those alternatives might look like, you know, what what the corridor looks like if we're talking Green Bay specifically. I think the answer is yes. That's actually what's being proposed. The idea is that some sort of on street facility or shared facility would would ultimately be recommended for the stretch from 9th To West Avenue because of the the more industrial nature of that where you have longer, wider driveways, and it would be difficult to have off street bike lanes.

But maybe you could paint them in the street. And then when you get into the more residential area to the east, that that's where you might have the space and the ability to build it off street. So I think you could be looking already at different types of Mhmm. Of treatments within one longer corridor. This is quite a long corridor. But, again, it it's kind of you know, can you apply those in a meaningful and deliberate way, and would they satisfy, you know, the goals of that corridor and accommodate those types of transportation needs? You know, each case is a little different. Okay.

I do as we're thinking about this too, I do want to also keep in the forefront the the resounding no, right, that that we're seeing from some of the surveys as well. But it's also I don't know. It's like, you hear people say no, but you also wanna make sure you're building for the future and not just the right now. And I think that's kinda where I am also somewhat torn. Is there emotion? If not, I have one. But your yours is on the floor. Was that a real that's a motion. Okay. So your so your motion is to refer until next week.

And with that motion, you're looking and wanting more designs and bird's eye view information about what's currently present and what this would change.

Correct. I yes. That's

a that's a Listen. Okay. So there's a motion of referral on the floor by council president Dickinson. I'm just gonna go ahead on a second that. Seconded by me. Any other discussion? Alright. Director Gallagher?

I guess the question would be, you know, I don't wanna create work for ourselves, and it's difficult to turn this stuff around in just one week's time. But you did bring up the issue of cost and whether or not we should be looking at what the cost would be, you know, to retrofit the other section with the desired raise or separated separated bike lanes or or what these different alternatives might be if they were applied to what's already been built for you, the motion maker. So is that something you you'd you'd wanna request?

We can include that in my request for more information. Thank you.

You got all that? Alright. Any other discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Alright. The motion for referral passes three to one. Oh, well, happy Monday, everyone. Hope you all have a great week. This meeting is adjourned.