WEBVTT 00:00:00.226 --> 00:00:09.207 - This is the sidewalk committee for city council, December 9, 2025. So we have an agenda. I think it 00:00:09.207 --> 00:00:18.188 - would be good to we're going to start with introductions and then go through our little conflict of 00:00:18.188 --> 00:00:25.822 - interest statements, if there are any. And then we'll get into past project updates. 00:00:26.210 --> 00:00:32.830 - future project recommendations. That will be a pretty casual conversation like we're used to. Hank Duncan 00:00:32.830 --> 00:00:39.137 - will do the presentation and lead us through that. And we kind of do a Q&A as we go, I think, right? 00:00:39.137 --> 00:00:45.382 - And we'll talk with the public. And then we'll see about if we're ready to make recommendations and 00:00:45.382 --> 00:00:50.878 - do a vote on that at the end and or if we need to schedule another meeting. Sound good? 00:00:52.386 --> 00:01:04.223 - Okay, I'll start. Kate Rosenbarger, City Council, District 1. 2. Isabel Piedmont-Smith, City Council, 00:01:04.223 --> 00:01:16.756 - District 1. Sydney Solik, City Council, District 6. Duncan, Miami Transportation. Neil Copper, Engineering. 00:01:16.756 --> 00:01:21.630 - Sophia? Sophia, Clerk's Office, McDowell. 00:01:26.466 --> 00:01:35.073 - go to Andy. Andy? Yeah, okay. I'm Andy Roth, a common council member at large. Kari Bennett, 00:01:35.073 --> 00:01:44.327 - council staff. Christine Chang, council staff. Okay, great. Okay, so then we just want to do a city 00:01:44.327 --> 00:01:54.229 - council conflict of interest. So this just happens if any project considerations are in anyone's district. 00:01:54.229 --> 00:01:55.710 - We like to just 00:01:55.874 --> 00:02:03.079 - recognize that and say say whether or not you're able to make an objective decision even though some 00:02:03.079 --> 00:02:10.855 - projects are in your district. We can also just do it all at once if you all would like and just acknowledge 00:02:10.855 --> 00:02:17.489 - that some of these projects are in our districts and we are able to make objective decisions 00:02:17.489 --> 00:02:24.766 - and recommendations here. I'm fairly certain most and not all of the projects are in district six but 00:02:25.474 --> 00:02:35.382 - I believe I can be objective. Great. OK, same for me. I am happy to make unbiased objective decisions 00:02:35.382 --> 00:02:45.192 - today. Yes, I don't think any of these projects are in district one, but. In general, I view this as 00:02:45.192 --> 00:02:55.294 - a as a whole community issue and not per district. So yes, I feel like I can make an unbiased decision. 00:02:55.554 --> 00:03:04.080 - Great, thank you. Andy's at large, so he is good to go. Yeah, okay. Rolling through our agenda. Unless 00:03:04.080 --> 00:03:12.441 - one of the items is like going by his house or something, I think that. Yeah, true. He's doing fine, 00:03:12.441 --> 00:03:17.822 - okay. So then I think Hank, oh, we're doing the next, I'm sorry. 00:03:18.306 --> 00:03:24.453 - iPad is so old as a city iPad and sometimes it just spins and I have to turn it off and turn it back 00:03:24.453 --> 00:03:30.538 - on. So that's where I am right now. Okay, so the next thing we're doing is actually the renaming of 00:03:30.538 --> 00:03:36.624 - the sidewalk committee. I forgot that addition. So what sometime in 2025 council had a deliberation 00:03:36.624 --> 00:03:41.310 - session to talk about the goals of the sidewalk committee and if those goals 00:03:41.538 --> 00:03:49.102 - have stayed the same or changed from finding connections that are missing and building brand new sidewalks. 00:03:49.102 --> 00:03:56.245 - That was like the very limited definition of the sidewalk committee, I would say like 10, eight to 10 00:03:56.245 --> 00:04:03.389 - years ago. Or if it is broader now and talking more about pedestrian safety, which is infrastructure, 00:04:03.389 --> 00:04:05.630 - like also crosswalks and ramps. 00:04:06.338 --> 00:04:13.354 - and other fun stuff, right? Like speed humps and everything. So we had that deliberation session with 00:04:13.354 --> 00:04:20.302 - staff, thank you all for coming. And it was decided that it is more of a pedestrian safety committee 00:04:20.302 --> 00:04:27.387 - and the fund is the alternative transportation fund, which is broader, is and can be broader than just 00:04:27.387 --> 00:04:34.334 - sidewalk connections. And so there is a resolution that will be coming to council about renaming the 00:04:34.334 --> 00:04:35.710 - sidewalk committee. 00:04:36.418 --> 00:04:44.651 - Isabel is a co-sponsor of that, is that right? And Hopi? I think so. Okay, I think so too and so a draft 00:04:44.651 --> 00:04:52.728 - of that was put in the packet and I just thought it would be nice if we talked about that a little bit 00:04:52.728 --> 00:05:01.118 - too to say to kind of lay the groundwork for what we're looking at this year as our potential projects and 00:05:01.602 --> 00:05:08.854 - I think too, just to go back to council, even though this will be before council in January, to say 00:05:08.854 --> 00:05:16.324 - the sidewalk committee did talk about it and we're happy or not happy with the new description and the 00:05:16.324 --> 00:05:23.794 - new name proposal. So I just thought it would be kind of nice to talk about it. This is not the latest 00:05:23.794 --> 00:05:30.974 - draft that in your packet is not the latest draft. So I don't know if staff could project that or. 00:05:31.842 --> 00:05:41.458 - I'll try to know that. Section one has been edited. Yeah. Here's some changes from one of the whereas 00:05:41.458 --> 00:05:51.357 - classes in section one. Oh, my laptop is not working. I do. This side of the table is on problems. Yeah, 00:05:51.357 --> 00:06:00.785 - I'm a little scared of trying to do something right now because of our technology issues seem to be 00:06:00.785 --> 00:06:01.822 - spreading. 00:06:03.778 --> 00:06:13.313 - Give me a minute. I think I need to get in on Zoom. Alternatively, I could email it to you, Sophia, 00:06:13.313 --> 00:06:22.943 - and have you project it? No? No. OK. Just no. I'll shut down my laptop and then. Yes, that's where I 00:06:22.943 --> 00:06:32.382 - am as well. We've started. Are you not able to share? Sorry, I was. I'm not in on Zoom yet. I can. 00:06:32.674 --> 00:06:40.286 - I just, I should have done that. 00:07:18.114 --> 00:07:25.649 - I think if you click on the Zoom link and the event, it can just make you a post from the council meeting. 00:07:25.649 --> 00:07:32.832 - I'm trying to get it switched from the council to me right now. It looks like Andy's line is council. 00:07:32.832 --> 00:07:40.156 - I think multiple people can be logged in, at least on our account again. Yeah, I don't have it. I never 00:07:40.156 --> 00:07:46.142 - could figure out how to have my own. So I probably just use the common council link. 00:07:46.690 --> 00:07:54.847 - Is that okay or should I not be doing that? I think it's all right. It's fine, yeah. Okay. Do you know 00:07:54.847 --> 00:07:56.510 - how I can get to it? 00:08:40.386 --> 00:08:50.888 - It's cold. It's good though. It was on air conditioning. There's two. People think of only that one, 00:08:50.888 --> 00:08:59.518 - but there's one in the back. I have one now. I think you have it posted over here. 00:09:28.098 --> 00:09:36.774 - Because I'm logged out. Okay. Also, I'm just logged in because my computer restarted itself, so. If 00:09:36.774 --> 00:09:45.711 - he just clicks on the link, he should be able to join just as a participant. I don't know why he would 00:09:45.711 --> 00:09:54.474 - log in as a council. So, I'd love someone to send him a note. Yeah, he should be able to just log in 00:09:54.474 --> 00:09:56.990 - with his own Google account. 00:10:03.938 --> 00:10:10.734 - Send him a quick message. But then he'll only have it for 45 minutes, is that right, if you're the free 00:10:10.734 --> 00:10:17.334 - one? No, that's only for the post. Oh, did you say that? Yeah, I don't know why he would use camera. 00:10:17.334 --> 00:10:24.130 - Yeah, I know, it was not out of the office. Yeah. Yeah. And then he figured out how to do that, because 00:10:24.130 --> 00:10:30.861 - I'm like, I don't know how to do that. That's how it goes. It's much easier. It's much easier than any 00:10:30.861 --> 00:10:31.710 - of yourself. 00:10:32.866 --> 00:10:47.131 - I'm sorry, this is taking so long. Technical issue. Yeah. I don't know if that's me or if that's Andy. 00:10:47.131 --> 00:11:01.950 - Oh, that's me. Oh, I think I got it. Yay. Oh, yeah. And there's another. I think that one's probably Andy. 00:11:04.418 --> 00:11:20.901 - in the waiting room. Andy, are you there? We're muted. Oh, there's Andy. I don't know what happened. 00:11:20.901 --> 00:11:33.630 - It just went off. I don't know what happened. It might have been when we were 00:11:33.794 --> 00:11:43.592 - pull in the getting logged in and pulling things up, but we should be good now. Okay. Is running through 00:11:43.592 --> 00:11:52.923 - this for the committee. Sure. So you may have noticed the version that's in your packet also talked 00:11:52.923 --> 00:12:02.814 - about bicycle and micro mobility infrastructure and hoping I thought that we should focus on pedestrians. 00:12:03.810 --> 00:12:12.074 - But in all the facets, not just sidewalks. So the whereas clause that you see there, the second to last 00:12:12.074 --> 00:12:20.100 - one, just takes out bicycle and micromobility. Just to make it more general, the work should include 00:12:20.100 --> 00:12:28.126 - broader consideration of pedestrian safety. And then in section one, we do give a few more examples. 00:12:28.834 --> 00:12:38.199 - consideration of pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to sidewalk installation and improvements, 00:12:38.199 --> 00:12:47.476 - pedestrian access points, traffic calming, and other safety improvements. And then the pedestrian safety 00:12:47.476 --> 00:12:55.870 - committee, I think that was in the, that was in the one that we had in the packet. So I think, 00:12:57.538 --> 00:13:04.855 - Were you going to co-sponsor it too, Kate? I didn't. I was ambivalent. Okay. Well, I mean, I think as 00:13:04.855 --> 00:13:12.243 - a co-sponsor, I wanted feedback, not just like, here it is, you know. So if you all have some tweaking 00:13:12.243 --> 00:13:19.703 - you'd like to suggest, please feel free. I think it makes sense to separate pedestrian safety from bike 00:13:19.703 --> 00:13:26.302 - infrastructure, if only because like that's very different looking infrastructure and cost. 00:13:26.434 --> 00:13:34.266 - So I do think it makes a lot of sense, especially given the limited funds that are available to this 00:13:34.266 --> 00:13:42.330 - committee, to focus specifically on pedestrian. That is not to say that I don't want to also prioritize 00:13:42.330 --> 00:13:50.162 - bike infrastructure from a different fund. So I will make that clear. Yeah, I agree. Well, there are 00:13:50.162 --> 00:13:54.814 - also things that are both, and this fund can still do that. 00:13:55.874 --> 00:14:05.997 - Where we don't have sidewalks and things. Staff did look at it and just kind of preferred the pedestrian 00:14:05.997 --> 00:14:16.024 - safety committee name as opposed to the other option. Staff, do you have anything to add now? OK. Andy, 00:14:16.024 --> 00:14:24.798 - do you have any feedback? No, thanks for checking, but I mean, I guess it makes sense. OK. 00:14:25.762 --> 00:14:33.312 - So if we wanted to just recommend this, if you think that would be helpful for us to take a vote and 00:14:33.312 --> 00:14:40.787 - recommend it to council, we could do that. We don't have to, but we can. But if you want to move to 00:14:40.787 --> 00:14:48.262 - vote, I'll move that this current sidewalk committee recommends this resolution for approval of the 00:14:48.262 --> 00:14:50.430 - full common council. Second. 00:14:57.474 --> 00:15:08.849 - need to vote on that. Do I call? Do I call? Oh, okay. Isabel? Yes. Sydney? Yes. Andy? Yes. Kate? Yes. 00:15:08.849 --> 00:15:20.671 - Okay, so Sidewalk Committee will recommend four to zero that the Common Council approves this resolution. 00:15:20.671 --> 00:15:24.574 - Great, thank you. So, doo-doo-doo. 00:15:26.658 --> 00:15:36.345 - I guess number three on our agenda, we do have $500,000 in the alternative transportation fund to recommend 00:15:36.345 --> 00:15:45.762 - today. This is the same as last year. I think this is our second year at $500,000. Okay. Then now, Hank, 00:15:45.762 --> 00:15:47.646 - if you would like to 00:15:57.314 --> 00:16:04.529 - My name is Hank Duncan, Safe Streets Program Manager. I will go over an update of previously approved 00:16:04.529 --> 00:16:11.886 - projects from 2025 Council Sidewalk Committee and go through staff recommendations for the 2026 Council 00:16:11.886 --> 00:16:18.960 - Sidewalk Committee. As always, if you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to stop me and 00:16:18.960 --> 00:16:25.822 - we can have a discussion. I'd much rather this be a back and forth rather than just a monologue. 00:16:29.442 --> 00:16:36.726 - A quick status report from 2025 sidewalk projects going through the list. Last year we allocated $300,000 00:16:36.726 --> 00:16:43.941 - for repaving coordination projects. Essentially those are projects that we can improve pedestrian safety 00:16:43.941 --> 00:16:50.882 - with while coordinating with street department and public works when they're resurfacing the street. 00:16:50.882 --> 00:16:57.822 - Those specific sites were bump outs and crosswalk improvements on East 2nd Street at Dunn, Grant and 00:16:57.922 --> 00:17:05.390 - Lincoln, those three intersections. And those have not been constructed yet. Street had to move the 00:17:05.390 --> 00:17:13.158 - repaving to 2026, so we are still coordinating with them, but that construction will happen this coming 00:17:13.158 --> 00:17:20.850 - year. Along with that, and honestly, because this line item was broad enough to allow some flexibility 00:17:20.850 --> 00:17:25.406 - with repaving options, we were able to install an additional 00:17:25.570 --> 00:17:32.109 - pedestrian refuge island on East Rogers Road by Spicewood and the Sherwood Oaks Church. That was previously 00:17:32.109 --> 00:17:38.466 - not really thought about at the time of this meeting, but because of this nine item and the coordination 00:17:38.466 --> 00:17:44.520 - efforts we were allowed, we were able to add this in and improve pedestrian safety at this area. So 00:17:44.520 --> 00:17:50.635 - that's been constructed? That has been constructed, yes. Pedestrian island? Yes. That's nice. Sorry, 00:17:50.635 --> 00:17:53.662 - not part of my district anymore. Absolutely fine. 00:17:55.810 --> 00:18:02.517 - The North Union Street crosswalk improvement. This is a raised crosswalk on Union Street between 7th 00:18:02.517 --> 00:18:09.623 - and 10th Street. This is connecting the IU campus and some residential buildings over there with a parking 00:18:09.623 --> 00:18:16.396 - lot and other residential buildings on the east side. And that has not been constructed yet, but that 00:18:16.396 --> 00:18:22.174 - will be constructed in 2026, correct? In the summer while the students are there. Yes. 00:18:24.066 --> 00:18:31.564 - And then the North Jefferson Street sidewalk. This was prioritized by both the 2024 and the 2025 council 00:18:31.564 --> 00:18:38.919 - sidewalk committees for design and partial construction. We allocated $70,000 for construction of this 00:18:38.919 --> 00:18:46.846 - sidewalk, knowing that it would not fully fund the construction. The estimated construction cost was $300,000. 00:18:47.906 --> 00:18:54.200 - We actually received bids in the past couple of weeks. We received lower bids than expected, so the 00:18:54.200 --> 00:19:00.683 - total actual cost will be $238,000 in change. And because some of the other bids for the repaving came 00:19:00.683 --> 00:19:07.166 - in lower than expected, we were able to allocate more funds towards the Jefferson Street sidewalk than 00:19:07.166 --> 00:19:13.460 - expected. So we ended up allocating about $180,000 towards this project, which still does not fully 00:19:13.460 --> 00:19:16.670 - fund the construction, but gets us most of the way 00:19:17.826 --> 00:19:25.101 - and I'll talk more about this project later. And then lastly, we touched on the Fee Lane and Law Lane 00:19:25.101 --> 00:19:32.377 - intersection improvements last year. This is a safe streets for all high priority intersection. We've 00:19:32.377 --> 00:19:39.581 - received a lot of comments about this and the committee approved design funds for this intersection. 00:19:39.581 --> 00:19:47.070 - After the fact, we learned about a street maintenance project that's happening on this corridor in 2027. 00:19:47.234 --> 00:19:54.713 - And honestly, there's more opportunity here than just this single intersection project. So there are 00:19:54.713 --> 00:20:02.710 - ongoing conversations with both street and Indiana University to partner on a more corridor wide pedestrian 00:20:02.710 --> 00:20:09.374 - focused improvement project. Yeah. How has IU been as a partner for this? So far, there's 00:20:09.570 --> 00:20:15.687 - been no formal commitment. Those discussions are still ongoing. But there is interest in partnering 00:20:15.687 --> 00:20:21.987 - with this project. There is still a lot of details to figure out. There are discussions happening over 00:20:21.987 --> 00:20:28.104 - there. But we are hopeful that we can both financially partner in this project. Thank you. There is 00:20:28.104 --> 00:20:34.649 - definitely a shared vision of increased pedestrian comfort and safety on this corridor. We both understand 00:20:34.649 --> 00:20:38.686 - that thousands of pedestrians use this corridor every single day. 00:20:38.786 --> 00:20:49.170 - and just talking about broad scope items that we would like to see, wider sidewalks, better curb, 00:20:49.170 --> 00:21:00.191 - tree plots, et cetera. There is a shared vision for those items. Great. Thank you. Yeah. So in general, 00:21:00.191 --> 00:21:08.350 - when the allocation was less than what was actually used, how did that work? 00:21:09.378 --> 00:21:17.205 - Did we approve like the chair to rearrange the money to match projects? Yes. So last year and in previous 00:21:17.205 --> 00:21:24.959 - years, in this meeting, which we will do this meeting as well, if projects are recommended and approved, 00:21:24.959 --> 00:21:32.564 - there is a vote that allows the chair to approve minor changes within this item regarding construction 00:21:32.564 --> 00:21:36.478 - costs, whether they're above or below the estimates. 00:21:36.706 --> 00:21:44.522 - Yeah, so the chair has approved the Union Street increase, but has not yet approved Jefferson. We haven't 00:21:44.522 --> 00:21:51.969 - formally said, hey, can we put the rest of the money into Jefferson yet? Yeah, because the Jefferson 00:21:51.969 --> 00:21:59.343 - is more than twice what we allocated. So I wouldn't put that in the category of a minor change. But 00:21:59.343 --> 00:22:04.062 - I think we knew that that was going to be the case. Did we not? 00:22:04.226 --> 00:22:11.769 - Well, because it was partial construction last year, we sort of put what you all recommended toward 00:22:11.769 --> 00:22:19.388 - potentially the first phase of Jefferson, knowing that we would most likely fund it more in the next 00:22:19.388 --> 00:22:24.894 - year or the next two years. And I don't think there was a I think in the 00:22:26.434 --> 00:22:34.667 - Approvals last year. I don't think there was like a limit. It didn't I don't know that ever said minor 00:22:34.667 --> 00:22:43.381 - I think it said that share had approval within the approved projects to shift funding around as appropriate. 00:22:43.381 --> 00:22:51.614 - I don't think it was like a within a certain percentage Any other questions on the 2025 status report. 00:22:57.314 --> 00:23:04.861 - 2026 funding recommendations. I will get into a lot more detail about these line items in a second, 00:23:04.861 --> 00:23:12.409 - but broadly, now that we have bids for the Jefferson Street project, we can accurately estimate how 00:23:12.409 --> 00:23:19.956 - many funds are needed, how much funds are needed to complete this project, and that's about $60,000 00:23:19.956 --> 00:23:20.862 - if approved 00:23:21.186 --> 00:23:28.125 - Um, this project would be constructed in the summer of 2026. So very, very soon we're excited about 00:23:28.125 --> 00:23:34.647 - this project. The safe streets priority projects. I will go into a lot more detail about this 00:23:34.647 --> 00:23:42.002 - one, especially. This is a broad line item to focus on pedestrian centric projects along the safe streets 00:23:42.002 --> 00:23:49.149 - for all priority network. That is almost all of the projects that engineering and planning are working 00:23:49.149 --> 00:23:50.398 - on are along this 00:23:50.786 --> 00:23:57.450 - SS for a priority network. We have an adopted city goal, a vision zero by 2039. We have an adopted six 00:23:57.450 --> 00:24:04.242 - streets for all action plan. And so there is a responsibility of city officials, staff elected officials 00:24:04.242 --> 00:24:11.294 - included to focus on this network especially. And these projects will focus on pedestrian specific projects, 00:24:11.294 --> 00:24:18.152 - that being sidewalk, gap completion, crosswalk improvement, tree plot construction, et cetera. The things 00:24:18.152 --> 00:24:20.222 - that we've already talked about 00:24:20.386 --> 00:24:27.019 - in this committee, but focused solely on this network. If you need anything for an official document, 00:24:27.019 --> 00:24:33.523 - the total is wrong. I believe it should be $500,000. Yes. Good point. Which is OK. I just wanted to 00:24:33.523 --> 00:24:40.286 - point it out in case you needed to make changes. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah. Good point. And then 00:24:40.286 --> 00:24:46.919 - change orders. This was a request from engineering, essentially, with previously approved projects in 00:24:46.919 --> 00:24:50.366 - case there are small changes needed in the contract. 00:24:50.530 --> 00:24:57.754 - Say, for example, with the union street crosswalk if there are small increases in funding needed. This 00:24:57.754 --> 00:25:04.908 - would make it much more efficient and easy for engineering to continue that project without having to 00:25:04.908 --> 00:25:08.766 - slow down. It's sort of a placeholder item. Hopefully. 00:25:09.282 --> 00:25:16.221 - It's not needed at all. Sometimes change or the positive, sometimes they're negative, but just having 00:25:16.221 --> 00:25:23.024 - the item in there and the ability to use it. And then we could go to the chair and say, Hey, it was 00:25:23.024 --> 00:25:29.894 - actually $6,000. Will you approve, you know, this change or we don't need it. And we put it into the 00:25:29.894 --> 00:25:36.697 - safe streets priority projects. Thank you. So in the safe streets priority projects, I was a little 00:25:36.697 --> 00:25:38.398 - confused about the maps. 00:25:38.722 --> 00:25:47.688 - So you have the priority corridors map. You have the priority intersections map. Is that for all modes? 00:25:47.688 --> 00:25:56.741 - That is for all modes, correct. So I guess I want to just make sure that the funding from this committee 00:25:56.741 --> 00:26:05.448 - goes towards the pedestrian safety aspect and to ameliorate places where pedestrians are involved in 00:26:05.448 --> 00:26:08.638 - accidents rather than the cars. Yes. 00:26:08.962 --> 00:26:15.711 - They're all on the same map. Just wanted to clarify. They are on the same map. I... And we can narrow 00:26:15.711 --> 00:26:22.459 - it down more specifically if you would like, but looking at any of these corridors on this map, there 00:26:22.459 --> 00:26:29.274 - are absolutely pedestrian challenges and places where pedestrians have been injured or there is a risk 00:26:29.274 --> 00:26:36.222 - of them getting injured. I can't think of a single place along this map where that wouldn't be the case, 00:26:36.222 --> 00:26:37.214 - and that's why 00:26:37.506 --> 00:26:44.850 - we made it as broad as we did because this is the priority network to improve city streets for all users. 00:26:44.850 --> 00:26:51.918 - But when you're improving safety for pedestrian users, you are often improving safety for other users 00:26:51.918 --> 00:26:58.916 - as well. And so this is the network that doesn't just, we have a high injury network for pedestrians 00:26:58.916 --> 00:27:06.260 - specifically, but that is just the retroactive look on where crashes have happened. This priority network 00:27:06.260 --> 00:27:07.230 - looks at both 00:27:07.618 --> 00:27:14.485 - the high engine networks and the risk, the demographic data of who might be walking or rolling here. 00:27:14.485 --> 00:27:21.420 - And then it incorporates public input as well. So this is the one comprehensive map that we have that 00:27:21.420 --> 00:27:28.355 - we've been moving forward with. But if there needs to be extra verbiage in whatever approval there is 00:27:28.355 --> 00:27:35.562 - that specifies pedestrian projects, we can actually do that because that is the intent here. And I assume 00:27:35.562 --> 00:27:36.446 - you would be 00:27:37.346 --> 00:27:45.679 - To what extent do you just go with the highest rated ones and work your way down? And to what extent 00:27:45.679 --> 00:27:54.671 - is it dependent on what projects are being considered for other improvements? Yeah, that's a great question. 00:27:54.671 --> 00:28:02.921 - And honestly, that's why I made this one item so broad, because there is a gray area. The answer is 00:28:02.921 --> 00:28:07.294 - it depends. And I have a little bit more information 00:28:07.682 --> 00:28:14.591 - on this bullet point here, projects chosen based on efficiency, feasibility, and SS for a priority. 00:28:14.591 --> 00:28:21.984 - Obviously, we want to hit the highest priority locations first. That is where the most FSIs have happened. 00:28:21.984 --> 00:28:28.962 - That is where the public is saying, I feel unsafe. That said, if an area is on the priority network, 00:28:28.962 --> 00:28:36.286 - it is a priority. And if there is an opportunity to coordinate with street, or IU, or other stakeholders, 00:28:36.642 --> 00:28:42.906 - If it's low-hanging fruit, then we go into that efficiency aspect of, if we can get a bang for the buck 00:28:42.906 --> 00:28:49.351 - here at this location, maybe we just knock off this location and then move on to others. So again, there's 00:28:49.351 --> 00:28:55.856 - no perfect science to it, but it is a balance between all of these three things of efficiency, feasibility, 00:28:55.856 --> 00:29:02.059 - and actual assets for a priority. What do you mean by efficiency? That is just coordinating with other 00:29:02.059 --> 00:29:05.854 - stakeholders that bang for your buck aspect of, say with this, 00:29:06.050 --> 00:29:12.393 - Fee Lane project that I'll get into in a second, if we can coordinate with Street and a maintenance 00:29:12.393 --> 00:29:18.735 - project and IU and their funds and we can contribute some sidewalk funds as well, that's a bang for 00:29:18.735 --> 00:29:25.142 - your buck rather than doing a sidewalk project solely and then maintenance separately and then maybe 00:29:25.142 --> 00:29:31.294 - IU wants to do something separately as well. Thank you. What about the, I mean, we're, you know, 00:29:31.810 --> 00:29:39.271 - the city's potentially redoing college walnut as a major project. I would not want this going toward 00:29:39.271 --> 00:29:46.658 - a project that is in itself improving safety for all road users. I wouldn't want to supplement that 00:29:46.658 --> 00:29:54.192 - because I think that money should be coming from just a different budget. Do you see what I'm saying? 00:29:54.192 --> 00:29:58.846 - That's going to happen and it should happen in the way that is 00:29:59.042 --> 00:30:05.935 - Potentially planned right like we have two designs and one wall, I guess potentially get chosen But 00:30:05.935 --> 00:30:13.034 - I don't feel like this I feel like if this budget were to be used there. We're like losing this Budget 00:30:13.034 --> 00:30:19.995 - in a way like it's getting absorbed into a place where it should already just that product should be 00:30:19.995 --> 00:30:27.026 - funded. I Don't know if I particularly agree with that take But that's not for me to say I I think my 00:30:27.026 --> 00:30:28.542 - opinion would be that 00:30:29.346 --> 00:30:36.118 - These and again touching based touching on the opportunities there on projects that these funds could 00:30:36.118 --> 00:30:42.889 - supplement. There are projects that the city is working on, like East 10th Street or College and Mall 00:30:42.889 --> 00:30:49.661 - or other projects that if there's an opportunity for an extra pedestrian aspect to it that may not be 00:30:49.661 --> 00:30:56.300 - included in the funding or maybe that maybe the bids came in higher than we expected. This could be 00:30:56.300 --> 00:30:57.694 - that source of well, 00:30:58.018 --> 00:31:05.139 - we could add a pedestrian refugee island here with these funds or say, and I'll get to this in a second 00:31:05.139 --> 00:31:11.987 - with the city's SS for a grant application. We don't know if we've been awarded that grant yet, but 00:31:11.987 --> 00:31:19.040 - when we are, there will absolutely be other funding sources used for those grant application projects. 00:31:19.040 --> 00:31:26.093 - But if there are bids that come in higher than expected or these variables that we might not encounter 00:31:26.093 --> 00:31:26.846 - or may not 00:31:27.010 --> 00:31:34.216 - intend on encountering like right-of-way acquisition or topographical challenges, then these funds could 00:31:34.216 --> 00:31:41.078 - be used to supplement and actually make these projects real and up to the standards that we'd like. 00:31:41.078 --> 00:31:48.421 - I could see that with potential extras, but I think something like right-of-way acquisition topographical, 00:31:48.421 --> 00:31:55.558 - I mean, that's engineering stuff, right? And like that's going to get figured out pretty clearly before 00:31:55.558 --> 00:31:56.382 - the project 00:31:56.994 --> 00:32:02.904 - starts construction right i mean right away acquisition we basically know how that's going to go down 00:32:02.904 --> 00:32:08.930 - i think on a like on a bigger project like college and walnut yes we would and i think there's a shared 00:32:08.930 --> 00:32:14.898 - intent that on a project like that like we don't staff doesn't want to take the council sidewalk money 00:32:14.898 --> 00:32:20.924 - and just bump it into a bigger project already happening and then it's like you're not getting anything 00:32:20.924 --> 00:32:22.430 - extra the desire would be 00:32:22.530 --> 00:32:28.317 - These bigger projects have their own funding sources, like you're saying, and then the council sidewalk 00:32:28.317 --> 00:32:33.938 - funding is going and doing these other kind of standalone things. But there may be a situation where 00:32:33.938 --> 00:32:39.670 - a project doesn't, isn't fully funded or bids come in high, or we want to add something in and there's 00:32:39.670 --> 00:32:42.174 - not funding for it unless we can supplement. 00:32:42.466 --> 00:32:48.577 - With council site, I think that's what I'm saying. There might be opportunities like that. So he doesn't 00:32:48.577 --> 00:32:54.339 - want to say, no, we're never going to combine with another project. That might be the best choice. 00:32:54.339 --> 00:33:00.043 - And I see, I mean, it is like a gray area. And we did talk about this last year with the repaving 00:33:00.043 --> 00:33:06.270 - coordination projects that we didn't want to just be supplementing a project that would happen anyway. And 00:33:07.106 --> 00:33:15.121 - releasing funds for that department to do something else that is not pedestrian related. You all understand 00:33:15.121 --> 00:33:23.358 - that. Yes. So under what scenario would you use alternative transportation funds for right-of-way acquisition? 00:33:23.938 --> 00:33:30.841 - Seems like something you need for roads, not for sidewalks. No, it comes up pretty frequently on sidewalks, 00:33:30.841 --> 00:33:37.170 - especially if there's a brand new sidewalk and there's not a sidewalk there. And you're trying to, 00:33:37.170 --> 00:33:43.690 - you know, you have an existing road and there's no sidewalk. That might be private property where you 00:33:43.690 --> 00:33:50.401 - build that new sidewalk. That's true. You can all that. South High Street. Yes. I stand corrected. Andy, 00:33:50.401 --> 00:33:53.150 - we can't see you. So do you have anything? 00:33:53.474 --> 00:34:03.779 - Well, I mean, I really follow what Kate's saying. And I was just a little concerned by one thing that 00:34:03.779 --> 00:34:14.083 - I believe Hank just said, that with these bigger projects, if it's not this, we might want to be able 00:34:14.083 --> 00:34:21.054 - to dip into this source, this fund, if projects aren't fully funded. 00:34:22.626 --> 00:34:29.192 - That seems to be a little different than saying, well, there may be associated extra additional aspects 00:34:29.192 --> 00:34:35.632 - that we might want to add and use to plan a major project. And then the funding could come from this. 00:34:35.632 --> 00:34:41.945 - That sounds seems a little different. I'm a little concerned about that statement a minute ago that 00:34:41.945 --> 00:34:48.574 - I thought I heard you say, well, you know, we want to be able to encase this project's not fully funded. 00:34:49.378 --> 00:34:54.867 - in reference to one of the bigger projects. I don't know, maybe I misheard that. Sorry, Andy, 00:34:54.867 --> 00:35:00.998 - just to clarify, I did not mean if project is not fully funded. This is if a project has another funding 00:35:00.998 --> 00:35:06.836 - source and say bids coming higher than expected, or there is an addition that we would like to make 00:35:06.836 --> 00:35:13.259 - to the project, say based on public feedback, then that could be an opportunity here. But I am not suggesting 00:35:13.259 --> 00:35:16.062 - if this is a funding source for other projects. 00:35:18.978 --> 00:35:27.464 - I just wanted clarification on that not fully funded comment that I heard. That's all. And so I'm pretty 00:35:27.464 --> 00:35:35.707 - clear. I understand what you're saying, that this would not be used to fund a major project that came 00:35:35.707 --> 00:35:43.951 - up short. But it could be used to fund an aspect of a project that was in addition to increase safety 00:35:43.951 --> 00:35:48.638 - or increase pedestrian friendliness or pedestrian access. 00:35:49.122 --> 00:35:58.765 - it on top of the overall original project? Yes, correct. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And I mean, I know that it 00:35:58.765 --> 00:36:08.219 - is hard to think about it as separate when we're saying we also want to make sure that it gets used 00:36:08.219 --> 00:36:18.430 - in the best ways because it does become like all this money kind of like in a bucket together a little bit. 00:36:18.530 --> 00:36:25.778 - Right? That, um, but you are the safe streets coordinator. And so you just are kind of in this year, 00:36:25.778 --> 00:36:32.954 - kind of asking, you know, in a way to like be the steward of these dollars and like decide how they 00:36:32.954 --> 00:36:40.417 - get used a little more than normal. Essentially, we don't know fully what opportunities will exist this 00:36:40.417 --> 00:36:46.014 - year yet, or what feasibility concerns may arise this year, this coming year. 00:36:46.626 --> 00:36:53.060 - It may be that Indiana University doesn't want to commit financially to this field project. So I don't 00:36:53.060 --> 00:36:59.369 - want to commit funds from this committee towards a design or towards that project until we know that 00:36:59.369 --> 00:37:05.865 - there is a commitment on their side. That's just one example. Also, repaving efforts for 2027 repaving, 00:37:05.865 --> 00:37:10.238 - we would like to do something similar that we did last year by adding 00:37:10.754 --> 00:37:17.531 - bump outs or raised crosswalks or something else to existing repaving projects. So we can get that thing 00:37:17.531 --> 00:37:24.114 - for your buck on the SSRA corridor. But as I'm sure you all know, repaving schedules come and go, and 00:37:24.114 --> 00:37:30.697 - there is a lot of variability there. So we don't fully know exactly which streets will be repaved and 00:37:30.697 --> 00:37:36.958 - when they will be repaved and how engineering then can coordinate with street when that happens. 00:37:38.754 --> 00:37:44.974 - Yeah, it makes sense. And I know we're meeting earlier this year. I mean, this was like the original 00:37:44.974 --> 00:37:51.563 - timing of our meetings because you want to finish. You're bidding some things out right on North Jefferson 00:37:51.563 --> 00:37:58.029 - or you're getting, and that is for January potentially. And so we're here now. And so then because we're 00:37:58.029 --> 00:38:01.662 - here now, we don't know about the safe streets grants yet. 00:38:02.498 --> 00:38:09.445 - And so I did want to go into a few specific projects that these funds could be used for. That'd be great. 00:38:09.445 --> 00:38:16.524 - Again, this is not all inclusive by any means, but just giving a little bit more insight into what projects 00:38:16.524 --> 00:38:23.405 - were included in the Safe Streets for All grant application to give you some idea. So for one, and we've 00:38:23.405 --> 00:38:29.566 - talked about this project before, South Walnut Street Pike. This is on the priority corridor. 00:38:29.858 --> 00:38:36.942 - are on the priority network. There are intersections that are on the priority intersection network. 00:38:36.942 --> 00:38:44.096 - And there was recently in the past year or two, I believe, a fatal or severe injury crash. So it was 00:38:44.096 --> 00:38:51.250 - fatal. There are areas on here that do not have a complete sidewalk network. There are intersections 00:38:51.250 --> 00:38:57.342 - on here that could absolutely be improved to assist pedestrians better when crossing. 00:38:58.690 --> 00:39:05.490 - North Kinser Pike, the cities just began a quarter study on this entire Kinser Madison Rogers corridor. 00:39:05.490 --> 00:39:12.356 - But on this corridor, there are sidewalk gaps that absolutely need to be filled. There are intersections 00:39:12.356 --> 00:39:18.895 - like Gorley Pike or Rupdale that do not have crosswalks up to the standards that we would like as a 00:39:18.895 --> 00:39:25.499 - city that could easily be improved. So those are just a couple of examples in this grant application 00:39:25.499 --> 00:39:27.134 - that we applied for, but 00:39:27.682 --> 00:39:34.382 - If we don't get this grant, or even if we do, these ones could be used to assist in those projects in 00:39:34.382 --> 00:39:41.083 - some way or another. Is that near Kinzer Flats? I'm not sure where Kinzer Flats is. It's like a block 00:39:41.083 --> 00:39:47.849 - south of the bypass. Yeah, so I think that building in the lower right corner is Kinzer Flats. OK. And 00:39:47.849 --> 00:39:54.615 - that would generate a lot of pedestrians. And then not many. It's interesting that, sorry. No, no, no, 00:39:54.615 --> 00:39:56.126 - you're fine. Go ahead. 00:39:57.026 --> 00:40:04.273 - This is a highest priority corridor, but South Walnut Street Pike is only medium, right? I will say. 00:40:04.273 --> 00:40:11.736 - Probably the number of pedestrians. I imagine that Kinzer Pike, especially at this area of Gorley Pike, 00:40:11.736 --> 00:40:18.911 - is at the highest priority level because of the bypass, because of the intersection with the bypass 00:40:18.911 --> 00:40:26.302 - and the FSIs that have happened at that particular intersection. Yes, that is Kinzer Place. Thank you. 00:40:26.754 --> 00:40:33.938 - Because the bypass intersection is pretty bad, right? Yes. Mostly for cars or for pedestrians? For both. 00:40:33.938 --> 00:40:40.849 - Okay. Everyone involved. Everyone. Yes. Okay. Can we do anything at that intersection or is, I mean, 00:40:40.849 --> 00:40:47.828 - it's state-owned, right? That is state-owned. I am aware, and Neil can probably talk about this more, 00:40:47.828 --> 00:40:55.013 - but I'm aware that there has been some coordination between city and and dot at that intersection. We've 00:40:55.013 --> 00:40:55.902 - talked about 00:40:56.354 --> 00:41:04.116 - the state-owned. Because I remember the Mark Stostberg data says that's a pretty horrible space to get 00:41:04.116 --> 00:41:11.652 - across. I will also add, Isabelle, you were talking about medium-low versus highest priority. There 00:41:11.652 --> 00:41:17.982 - is a gray area in terms of where the separations are in the level of priority here. 00:41:18.466 --> 00:41:26.395 - There is some level difference, but quite honestly, if it is on the priority list, it is a priority. 00:41:26.395 --> 00:41:34.637 - So it goes back to then efficiency and feasibility. If there is a project that we can do at any of these 00:41:34.637 --> 00:41:42.723 - locations, regardless of level of priority, we would like to do it. And that intersection doesn't have 00:41:42.723 --> 00:41:46.334 - a priority. State Road 4546 and North Kinzer. 00:41:47.490 --> 00:41:57.290 - has a blue dot, so it's not on the priority list because it's an in-dot jurisdiction. Yes, that is simply 00:41:57.290 --> 00:42:06.905 - saying if it were a city intersection, it would be a priority intersection, but because it is an in-dot 00:42:06.905 --> 00:42:16.798 - intersection, it's blue. That is, yeah. Gotcha. So for anyone watching, call your legislators. But I mean, 00:42:17.730 --> 00:42:28.318 - The prioritization does mean something. Yes, absolutely does. But I don't want to discount the level 00:42:28.318 --> 00:42:37.438 - of priority that Walnut Street podcast has. Cool. Yeah, that one's yellow. And orange. 00:42:44.066 --> 00:42:50.887 - And then a bit more on the fee lane project. I've already touched on this a good amount, but some more 00:42:50.887 --> 00:42:57.841 - detail. Originally we had talked about the fee and law intersection specifically. The street is planning 00:42:57.841 --> 00:43:04.993 - on repaving this corridor from 10th to 17th in 2027 and along with that replacing some curb on the sidewalk 00:43:04.993 --> 00:43:11.881 - across parts of the corridor. And so that was what spurred this discussion of, well, if there's already 00:43:11.881 --> 00:43:13.470 - concrete work going on, 00:43:13.730 --> 00:43:21.095 - What else can or should we do that helps with the efficiency of something here? And then that spurred 00:43:21.095 --> 00:43:28.388 - along the conversations with IU saying, hey, this might happen. We have this vision for the corridor 00:43:28.388 --> 00:43:35.608 - that might include tree plots, a wider sidewalk, better crosswalks here. What do you think? How can 00:43:35.608 --> 00:43:43.262 - we work together on this? And that's where we are right now in the discussions. Does IU own any of those? 00:43:43.458 --> 00:43:51.868 - streets. IU owns Law Lane and then if we were to build a tree plot and widen the sidewalk we would almost 00:43:51.868 --> 00:43:59.960 - definitely get into IU property and that's especially where that partnership could come into. This is 00:43:59.960 --> 00:44:06.942 - the intersection that has a bus stop right across the street from Briscoe that students 00:44:07.394 --> 00:44:15.382 - Have quite a long ways to walk before they hit an intersection that would allow them to yes the picture 00:44:15.382 --> 00:44:23.293 - the picture on the right there is up by the briscoe quad about a few hundred feet south of 17th Street 00:44:23.293 --> 00:44:31.435 - and We've been aware of this This area and there have been student groups who have reached out Advocating 00:44:31.435 --> 00:44:34.430 - for a better crosswalk here What about 00:44:38.978 --> 00:44:45.633 - intersection of 17th Street and Eagleson. Yeah, that's been an ongoing discussion as well. Absolutely. 00:44:45.633 --> 00:44:52.093 - High risk. Sure. Neil might be able to talk more about that, especially for the short term items. I 00:44:52.093 --> 00:44:57.973 - know Kindle was the project manager on that, but I don't know if you have anything to add. 00:44:57.973 --> 00:45:04.756 - So that intersection was originally, it was part of one of our prioritized intersections and a federally 00:45:04.756 --> 00:45:05.790 - funded project. 00:45:06.146 --> 00:45:12.609 - which have very long timelines on them. So we're looking at construction in like 20, 29 or something 00:45:12.609 --> 00:45:19.072 - like that for the project. So we have, we are moving forward with a short term implementation to use 00:45:19.072 --> 00:45:25.663 - temporary materials to install a pedestrian refuge island at that intersection. Has it been considered 00:45:25.663 --> 00:45:31.550 - for signalization? It has been considered. I'll say at this point, we're not moving forward 00:45:31.550 --> 00:45:34.814 - with signalization, but as part of the discussion. 00:45:38.018 --> 00:45:45.356 - Thank you. That was kind of a tangent. How do we let the Change.org organizers know that things are 00:45:45.356 --> 00:45:52.767 - being done to 17th and Eagleton? That's exactly what I was thinking. I would say as a representative 00:45:52.767 --> 00:46:00.104 - of a lot of IU students, that is something that you absolutely could do. OK, fabulous. Great. It is 00:46:00.104 --> 00:46:05.534 - kind of murky over there for sure. OK, so more questions. Andy, anything? 00:46:07.618 --> 00:46:25.297 - Okay. What are you all thinking about this kind of new approach? Not super new, you know, but following 00:46:25.297 --> 00:46:35.326 - Safe Streets for All priority projects. What is it really? 00:46:36.450 --> 00:46:44.630 - change in practical terms compared to what we would have done viewing it without the state streets. 00:46:44.630 --> 00:46:53.055 - I say it gives a little more flexibility to staff to fund priority projects as they present themselves 00:46:53.055 --> 00:47:01.235 - and to get some things a little more shovel ready that are seem to be in the pipeline like the ones 00:47:01.235 --> 00:47:04.670 - you are talking about here as potentials. 00:47:04.962 --> 00:47:12.593 - I think it takes away some administrative work, I guess, that engineering and planning have to talk 00:47:12.593 --> 00:47:20.300 - with the chair a lot if things are different. So I think it gives flexibility and more of a go ahead 00:47:20.300 --> 00:47:27.931 - for you all to just get going on those projects. I think just I answered that question, but I think 00:47:27.931 --> 00:47:31.518 - for me, I'm leaning toward like, let's try it. 00:47:31.618 --> 00:47:38.072 - see what happens. You know, I think last year was actually pretty great with the repaving coordination. 00:47:38.072 --> 00:47:44.588 - I mean, I know we didn't use all that money, but there are some, I think the bump outs and some of those 00:47:44.588 --> 00:47:50.856 - intersections are wonderful. You know, it totally changed the crossing length for pedestrians. And I 00:47:50.856 --> 00:47:57.372 - think that is just wonderful. And to just get it, get it done as it comes. So I guess I'm leaning toward 00:47:57.372 --> 00:47:59.358 - just doing this with, you know, 00:47:59.938 --> 00:48:07.702 - Hank and Neil and especially Hank, you know, like understanding the description of the committee and 00:48:07.702 --> 00:48:15.389 - the goals and yeah, just moving forward like this. I agree. I think given the timeline and just how 00:48:15.389 --> 00:48:23.614 - many things need to be approved by next year, I do think it makes sense to go ahead and allow that leeway. 00:48:30.850 --> 00:48:39.686 - Is there any need, does anybody think, to engage the full council on this or? Well, they have to vote 00:48:39.686 --> 00:48:48.435 - on it anyway. Yeah, we would report back to council and then council would take their official vote. 00:48:48.435 --> 00:48:56.318 - We just recommend. Okay. So we would, I mean, that's a good question, Andy. So we would be 00:48:57.410 --> 00:49:06.267 - potentially recommending this and then we would go to council and I would do a report out on this meeting 00:49:06.267 --> 00:49:14.622 - and we would say our recommendations and then we would all discuss it and have public comment on it 00:49:14.622 --> 00:49:23.646 - before a vote. Yes. Is that on this upcoming December 17th meeting? Not yet. Okay. We'll have to talk about 00:49:23.778 --> 00:49:30.303 - getting the report ready. We'll have to talk about getting the report ready. Sorry, I was whispering 00:49:30.303 --> 00:49:36.828 - that, but I don't need to whisper anything anyway. Yes. Okay. I have a question about the timing. So 00:49:36.828 --> 00:49:43.288 - for the North Jefferson Street sidewalk in your memo, you said that it's going to public works, the 00:49:43.288 --> 00:49:49.878 - Board of Public Works on December 16th. We'll award the construction contract on that day and then we 00:49:49.878 --> 00:49:50.782 - will encumber 00:49:51.138 --> 00:49:56.954 - all of the available 2025 funding with approval from the chair. And then that's enough for us to open 00:49:56.954 --> 00:50:02.770 - a purchase order, award the contract with partial funding, and they won't be starting construction in 00:50:02.770 --> 00:50:08.699 - December. You know, they're going to construct at some point. They could actually do concrete work over 00:50:08.699 --> 00:50:14.572 - the winter. So as early as possible in 2026, we'd like to open the remainder of the funds knowing that 00:50:14.572 --> 00:50:20.958 - they're not actually going to spend enough to need that little bit until they get further along in the project. 00:50:21.826 --> 00:50:27.656 - But you're going to start a project before the full funding is approved, which is really common, right? 00:50:27.656 --> 00:50:33.262 - We would be doing that knowing that we have department funding that we would, we would kind of, uh, 00:50:33.262 --> 00:50:38.924 - I don't know if we would actually open a purchase order, but we would set it aside as a, we have the 00:50:38.924 --> 00:50:44.642 - full funding. We can, we can say we have it all, but the intent isn't to use that funding. The intent 00:50:44.642 --> 00:50:48.286 - is to use the remainder of the council site. Okay. I understand. 00:50:53.442 --> 00:51:01.445 - Well, I think that overall, this kind of begs the question of the purpose of this committee. I mean, 00:51:01.445 --> 00:51:09.845 - if we have $500,000 and we're giving, what, 80% of it to a big bucket of things, it's like, do you really 00:51:09.845 --> 00:51:17.927 - need us anymore? That's what comes to my mind. Which has kind of been a question for a long time too. 00:51:17.927 --> 00:51:18.878 - Yeah. Yeah. 00:51:21.026 --> 00:51:33.053 - And it's one of the reasons we had the deliberation session, or and some council members really like 00:51:33.053 --> 00:51:45.557 - having this committee and didn't see a reason yet to give it up, I think. Go. I would ask for a mid-year 00:51:45.557 --> 00:51:50.558 - report from staff just to let us know how 00:51:50.914 --> 00:51:58.721 - What projects are being funded with the money that we allocate if the council agrees to allocate it? 00:51:58.721 --> 00:52:06.606 - Does that sound reasonable? Yes. Absolutely. Something similar, I think, to just this before council, 00:52:06.606 --> 00:52:14.877 - the two charts with some images. I can absolutely do something, say June. Is that fair? We'd go on recess, 00:52:14.877 --> 00:52:19.902 - but early June could work. Early June, OK. Actually, early June. 00:52:20.418 --> 00:52:31.466 - Because things get hairy after we get back. I would say June just because when we get back, everyone's 00:52:31.466 --> 00:52:42.515 - going to be on budget. So y'all might not have time either. It might just depend on funding timing for 00:52:42.515 --> 00:52:50.238 - the Safe Streets grants and if there is anything to report yet, really. 00:52:50.402 --> 00:53:00.503 - Yes. OK. I have a hard stop at one just to let everyone know. If any more discussion from committee 00:53:00.503 --> 00:53:10.603 - members? If not, we could entertain a motion to vote to recommend. Yes, I move. Public comment. Oh, 00:53:10.603 --> 00:53:18.078 - public comment. Yes. OK. Thank you so much. I have the agenda right here. 00:53:18.274 --> 00:53:31.533 - Let's open it up to public comment. So if anyone is on Zoom, I don't think there's anyone here in person. 00:53:31.533 --> 00:53:41.790 - So just raise your hand on Zoom if you would like to talk. OK. Looks like no one. 00:53:48.866 --> 00:54:00.602 - the recommendation for the 2026 funding allocation to be recommended to the full Common Council. 00:54:00.602 --> 00:54:12.701 - I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. I will call Raul, Andy? Yes. Sydney? Yes. Isabel? 00:54:12.701 --> 00:54:18.750 - Yes. Kate? Yes. So we will recommend this funding 00:54:19.458 --> 00:54:28.320 - 60,000 for North Jefferson, 435 for Safe Streets for all priority projects. We'll have a discussion 00:54:28.320 --> 00:54:37.536 - on that at our council meeting. Two things before we adjourn. Yeah. And I think you're on it. You, yes, 00:54:37.536 --> 00:54:47.550 - wanted to. And we might not need it as much this time, right? But OK. We need to also approve the prioritization 00:54:47.874 --> 00:54:54.803 - of projects in that list? So within the approved project list, so we have three North Jefferson Street 00:54:54.803 --> 00:55:01.530 - sidewalk, Safe Street priority projects and change orders. Approving a priority list of those three 00:55:01.530 --> 00:55:08.257 - projects, I would recommend doing it in order of the list of Jefferson one, Safe Street two, change 00:55:08.257 --> 00:55:14.782 - order three, in case there are funding changes that are needed. Does that align with your needs? 00:55:15.458 --> 00:55:23.183 - Yeah, I think that's fine. And then I don't know if that relates to the chair being able to approve 00:55:23.183 --> 00:55:30.907 - any changes. So I think, yes, I think that's right. We could just tackle both of those at once. But 00:55:30.907 --> 00:55:39.250 - I think we would like to vote on prioritizing the list in that order and then giving the chair the approval 00:55:39.250 --> 00:55:44.734 - to work with staff if funds need to be allocated a little differently. 00:55:45.666 --> 00:56:00.486 - And so that would mostly among the three, among the three, among the three. Yes. Okay. Second. Okay. 00:56:00.486 --> 00:56:12.958 - I will call all Sydney. Yes. Isabel. Yes. Kate. Yes. Andy. Yes. Okay. Anything else? 00:56:15.202 --> 00:56:17.342 - Okay, we are adjourned.