This is the sidewalk committee for city council, December 9, 2025. So we have an agenda. I think it
would be good to we're going to start with introductions and then go through our little conflict of
interest statements, if there are any. And then we'll get into past project updates.
future project recommendations. That will be a pretty casual conversation like we're used to. Hank Duncan
will do the presentation and lead us through that. And we kind of do a Q&A as we go, I think, right?
And we'll talk with the public. And then we'll see about if we're ready to make recommendations and
do a vote on that at the end and or if we need to schedule another meeting. Sound good?
Okay, I'll start. Kate Rosenbarger, City Council, District 1. 2. Isabel Piedmont-Smith, City Council,
District 1. Sydney Solik, City Council, District 6. Duncan, Miami Transportation. Neil Copper, Engineering.
Sophia? Sophia, Clerk's Office, McDowell.
go to Andy. Andy? Yeah, okay. I'm Andy Roth, a common council member at large. Kari Bennett,
council staff. Christine Chang, council staff. Okay, great. Okay, so then we just want to do a city
council conflict of interest. So this just happens if any project considerations are in anyone's district.
We like to just
recognize that and say say whether or not you're able to make an objective decision even though some
projects are in your district. We can also just do it all at once if you all would like and just acknowledge
that some of these projects are in our districts and we are able to make objective decisions
and recommendations here. I'm fairly certain most and not all of the projects are in district six but
I believe I can be objective. Great. OK, same for me. I am happy to make unbiased objective decisions
today. Yes, I don't think any of these projects are in district one, but. In general, I view this as
a as a whole community issue and not per district. So yes, I feel like I can make an unbiased decision.
Great, thank you. Andy's at large, so he is good to go. Yeah, okay. Rolling through our agenda. Unless
one of the items is like going by his house or something, I think that. Yeah, true. He's doing fine,
okay. So then I think Hank, oh, we're doing the next, I'm sorry.
iPad is so old as a city iPad and sometimes it just spins and I have to turn it off and turn it back
on. So that's where I am right now. Okay, so the next thing we're doing is actually the renaming of
the sidewalk committee. I forgot that addition. So what sometime in 2025 council had a deliberation
session to talk about the goals of the sidewalk committee and if those goals
have stayed the same or changed from finding connections that are missing and building brand new sidewalks.
That was like the very limited definition of the sidewalk committee, I would say like 10, eight to 10
years ago. Or if it is broader now and talking more about pedestrian safety, which is infrastructure,
like also crosswalks and ramps.
and other fun stuff, right? Like speed humps and everything. So we had that deliberation session with
staff, thank you all for coming. And it was decided that it is more of a pedestrian safety committee
and the fund is the alternative transportation fund, which is broader, is and can be broader than just
sidewalk connections. And so there is a resolution that will be coming to council about renaming the
sidewalk committee.
Isabel is a co-sponsor of that, is that right? And Hopi? I think so. Okay, I think so too and so a draft
of that was put in the packet and I just thought it would be nice if we talked about that a little bit
too to say to kind of lay the groundwork for what we're looking at this year as our potential projects and
I think too, just to go back to council, even though this will be before council in January, to say
the sidewalk committee did talk about it and we're happy or not happy with the new description and the
new name proposal. So I just thought it would be kind of nice to talk about it. This is not the latest
draft that in your packet is not the latest draft. So I don't know if staff could project that or.
I'll try to know that. Section one has been edited. Yeah. Here's some changes from one of the whereas
classes in section one. Oh, my laptop is not working. I do. This side of the table is on problems. Yeah,
I'm a little scared of trying to do something right now because of our technology issues seem to be
spreading.
Give me a minute. I think I need to get in on Zoom. Alternatively, I could email it to you, Sophia,
and have you project it? No? No. OK. Just no. I'll shut down my laptop and then. Yes, that's where I
am as well. We've started. Are you not able to share? Sorry, I was. I'm not in on Zoom yet. I can.
I just, I should have done that.
I think if you click on the Zoom link and the event, it can just make you a post from the council meeting.
I'm trying to get it switched from the council to me right now. It looks like Andy's line is council.
I think multiple people can be logged in, at least on our account again. Yeah, I don't have it. I never
could figure out how to have my own. So I probably just use the common council link.
Is that okay or should I not be doing that? I think it's all right. It's fine, yeah. Okay. Do you know
how I can get to it?
It's cold. It's good though. It was on air conditioning. There's two. People think of only that one,
but there's one in the back. I have one now. I think you have it posted over here.
Because I'm logged out. Okay. Also, I'm just logged in because my computer restarted itself, so. If
he just clicks on the link, he should be able to join just as a participant. I don't know why he would
log in as a council. So, I'd love someone to send him a note. Yeah, he should be able to just log in
with his own Google account.
Send him a quick message. But then he'll only have it for 45 minutes, is that right, if you're the free
one? No, that's only for the post. Oh, did you say that? Yeah, I don't know why he would use camera.
Yeah, I know, it was not out of the office. Yeah. Yeah. And then he figured out how to do that, because
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
of yourself.
I'm sorry, this is taking so long. Technical issue. Yeah. I don't know if that's me or if that's Andy.
Oh, that's me. Oh, I think I got it. Yay. Oh, yeah. And there's another. I think that one's probably Andy.
in the waiting room. Andy, are you there? We're muted. Oh, there's Andy. I don't know what happened.
It just went off. I don't know what happened. It might have been when we were
pull in the getting logged in and pulling things up, but we should be good now. Okay. Is running through
this for the committee. Sure. So you may have noticed the version that's in your packet also talked
about bicycle and micro mobility infrastructure and hoping I thought that we should focus on pedestrians.
But in all the facets, not just sidewalks. So the whereas clause that you see there, the second to last
one, just takes out bicycle and micromobility. Just to make it more general, the work should include
broader consideration of pedestrian safety. And then in section one, we do give a few more examples.
consideration of pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to sidewalk installation and improvements,
pedestrian access points, traffic calming, and other safety improvements. And then the pedestrian safety
committee, I think that was in the, that was in the one that we had in the packet. So I think,
Were you going to co-sponsor it too, Kate? I didn't. I was ambivalent. Okay. Well, I mean, I think as
a co-sponsor, I wanted feedback, not just like, here it is, you know. So if you all have some tweaking
you'd like to suggest, please feel free. I think it makes sense to separate pedestrian safety from bike
infrastructure, if only because like that's very different looking infrastructure and cost.
So I do think it makes a lot of sense, especially given the limited funds that are available to this
committee, to focus specifically on pedestrian. That is not to say that I don't want to also prioritize
bike infrastructure from a different fund. So I will make that clear. Yeah, I agree. Well, there are
also things that are both, and this fund can still do that.
Where we don't have sidewalks and things. Staff did look at it and just kind of preferred the pedestrian
safety committee name as opposed to the other option. Staff, do you have anything to add now? OK. Andy,
do you have any feedback? No, thanks for checking, but I mean, I guess it makes sense. OK.
So if we wanted to just recommend this, if you think that would be helpful for us to take a vote and
recommend it to council, we could do that. We don't have to, but we can. But if you want to move to
vote, I'll move that this current sidewalk committee recommends this resolution for approval of the
full common council. Second.
need to vote on that. Do I call? Do I call? Oh, okay. Isabel? Yes. Sydney? Yes. Andy? Yes. Kate? Yes.
Okay, so Sidewalk Committee will recommend four to zero that the Common Council approves this resolution.
Great, thank you. So, doo-doo-doo.
I guess number three on our agenda, we do have $500,000 in the alternative transportation fund to recommend
today. This is the same as last year. I think this is our second year at $500,000. Okay. Then now, Hank,
if you would like to
My name is Hank Duncan, Safe Streets Program Manager. I will go over an update of previously approved
projects from 2025 Council Sidewalk Committee and go through staff recommendations for the 2026 Council
Sidewalk Committee. As always, if you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to stop me and
we can have a discussion. I'd much rather this be a back and forth rather than just a monologue.
A quick status report from 2025 sidewalk projects going through the list. Last year we allocated $300,000
for repaving coordination projects. Essentially those are projects that we can improve pedestrian safety
with while coordinating with street department and public works when they're resurfacing the street.
Those specific sites were bump outs and crosswalk improvements on East 2nd Street at Dunn, Grant and
Lincoln, those three intersections. And those have not been constructed yet. Street had to move the
repaving to 2026, so we are still coordinating with them, but that construction will happen this coming
year. Along with that, and honestly, because this line item was broad enough to allow some flexibility
with repaving options, we were able to install an additional
pedestrian refuge island on East Rogers Road by Spicewood and the Sherwood Oaks Church. That was previously
not really thought about at the time of this meeting, but because of this nine item and the coordination
efforts we were allowed, we were able to add this in and improve pedestrian safety at this area. So
that's been constructed? That has been constructed, yes. Pedestrian island? Yes. That's nice. Sorry,
not part of my district anymore. Absolutely fine.
The North Union Street crosswalk improvement. This is a raised crosswalk on Union Street between 7th
and 10th Street. This is connecting the IU campus and some residential buildings over there with a parking
lot and other residential buildings on the east side. And that has not been constructed yet, but that
will be constructed in 2026, correct? In the summer while the students are there. Yes.
And then the North Jefferson Street sidewalk. This was prioritized by both the 2024 and the 2025 council
sidewalk committees for design and partial construction. We allocated $70,000 for construction of this
sidewalk, knowing that it would not fully fund the construction. The estimated construction cost was $300,000.
We actually received bids in the past couple of weeks. We received lower bids than expected, so the
total actual cost will be $238,000 in change. And because some of the other bids for the repaving came
in lower than expected, we were able to allocate more funds towards the Jefferson Street sidewalk than
expected. So we ended up allocating about $180,000 towards this project, which still does not fully
fund the construction, but gets us most of the way
and I'll talk more about this project later. And then lastly, we touched on the Fee Lane and Law Lane
intersection improvements last year. This is a safe streets for all high priority intersection. We've
received a lot of comments about this and the committee approved design funds for this intersection.
After the fact, we learned about a street maintenance project that's happening on this corridor in 2027.
And honestly, there's more opportunity here than just this single intersection project. So there are
ongoing conversations with both street and Indiana University to partner on a more corridor wide pedestrian
focused improvement project. Yeah. How has IU been as a partner for this? So far, there's
been no formal commitment. Those discussions are still ongoing. But there is interest in partnering
with this project. There is still a lot of details to figure out. There are discussions happening over
there. But we are hopeful that we can both financially partner in this project. Thank you. There is
definitely a shared vision of increased pedestrian comfort and safety on this corridor. We both understand
that thousands of pedestrians use this corridor every single day.
and just talking about broad scope items that we would like to see, wider sidewalks, better curb,
tree plots, et cetera. There is a shared vision for those items. Great. Thank you. Yeah. So in general,
when the allocation was less than what was actually used, how did that work?
Did we approve like the chair to rearrange the money to match projects? Yes. So last year and in previous
years, in this meeting, which we will do this meeting as well, if projects are recommended and approved,
there is a vote that allows the chair to approve minor changes within this item regarding construction
costs, whether they're above or below the estimates.
Yeah, so the chair has approved the Union Street increase, but has not yet approved Jefferson. We haven't
formally said, hey, can we put the rest of the money into Jefferson yet? Yeah, because the Jefferson
is more than twice what we allocated. So I wouldn't put that in the category of a minor change. But
I think we knew that that was going to be the case. Did we not?
Well, because it was partial construction last year, we sort of put what you all recommended toward
potentially the first phase of Jefferson, knowing that we would most likely fund it more in the next
year or the next two years. And I don't think there was a I think in the
Approvals last year. I don't think there was like a limit. It didn't I don't know that ever said minor
I think it said that share had approval within the approved projects to shift funding around as appropriate.
I don't think it was like a within a certain percentage Any other questions on the 2025 status report.
2026 funding recommendations. I will get into a lot more detail about these line items in a second,
but broadly, now that we have bids for the Jefferson Street project, we can accurately estimate how
many funds are needed, how much funds are needed to complete this project, and that's about $60,000
if approved
Um, this project would be constructed in the summer of 2026. So very, very soon we're excited about
this project. The safe streets priority projects. I will go into a lot more detail about this
one, especially. This is a broad line item to focus on pedestrian centric projects along the safe streets
for all priority network. That is almost all of the projects that engineering and planning are working
on are along this
SS for a priority network. We have an adopted city goal, a vision zero by 2039. We have an adopted six
streets for all action plan. And so there is a responsibility of city officials, staff elected officials
included to focus on this network especially. And these projects will focus on pedestrian specific projects,
that being sidewalk, gap completion, crosswalk improvement, tree plot construction, et cetera. The things
that we've already talked about
in this committee, but focused solely on this network. If you need anything for an official document,
the total is wrong. I believe it should be $500,000. Yes. Good point. Which is OK. I just wanted to
point it out in case you needed to make changes. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah. Good point. And then
change orders. This was a request from engineering, essentially, with previously approved projects in
case there are small changes needed in the contract.
Say, for example, with the union street crosswalk if there are small increases in funding needed. This
would make it much more efficient and easy for engineering to continue that project without having to
slow down. It's sort of a placeholder item. Hopefully.
It's not needed at all. Sometimes change or the positive, sometimes they're negative, but just having
the item in there and the ability to use it. And then we could go to the chair and say, Hey, it was
actually $6,000. Will you approve, you know, this change or we don't need it. And we put it into the
safe streets priority projects. Thank you. So in the safe streets priority projects, I was a little
confused about the maps.
So you have the priority corridors map. You have the priority intersections map. Is that for all modes?
That is for all modes, correct. So I guess I want to just make sure that the funding from this committee
goes towards the pedestrian safety aspect and to ameliorate places where pedestrians are involved in
accidents rather than the cars. Yes.
They're all on the same map. Just wanted to clarify. They are on the same map. I... And we can narrow
it down more specifically if you would like, but looking at any of these corridors on this map, there
are absolutely pedestrian challenges and places where pedestrians have been injured or there is a risk
of them getting injured. I can't think of a single place along this map where that wouldn't be the case,
and that's why
we made it as broad as we did because this is the priority network to improve city streets for all users.
But when you're improving safety for pedestrian users, you are often improving safety for other users
as well. And so this is the network that doesn't just, we have a high injury network for pedestrians
specifically, but that is just the retroactive look on where crashes have happened. This priority network
looks at both
the high engine networks and the risk, the demographic data of who might be walking or rolling here.
And then it incorporates public input as well. So this is the one comprehensive map that we have that
we've been moving forward with. But if there needs to be extra verbiage in whatever approval there is
that specifies pedestrian projects, we can actually do that because that is the intent here. And I assume
you would be
To what extent do you just go with the highest rated ones and work your way down? And to what extent
is it dependent on what projects are being considered for other improvements? Yeah, that's a great question.
And honestly, that's why I made this one item so broad, because there is a gray area. The answer is
it depends. And I have a little bit more information
on this bullet point here, projects chosen based on efficiency, feasibility, and SS for a priority.
Obviously, we want to hit the highest priority locations first. That is where the most FSIs have happened.
That is where the public is saying, I feel unsafe. That said, if an area is on the priority network,
it is a priority. And if there is an opportunity to coordinate with street, or IU, or other stakeholders,
If it's low-hanging fruit, then we go into that efficiency aspect of, if we can get a bang for the buck
here at this location, maybe we just knock off this location and then move on to others. So again, there's
no perfect science to it, but it is a balance between all of these three things of efficiency, feasibility,
and actual assets for a priority. What do you mean by efficiency? That is just coordinating with other
stakeholders that bang for your buck aspect of, say with this,
Fee Lane project that I'll get into in a second, if we can coordinate with Street and a maintenance
project and IU and their funds and we can contribute some sidewalk funds as well, that's a bang for
your buck rather than doing a sidewalk project solely and then maintenance separately and then maybe
IU wants to do something separately as well. Thank you. What about the, I mean, we're, you know,
the city's potentially redoing college walnut as a major project. I would not want this going toward
a project that is in itself improving safety for all road users. I wouldn't want to supplement that
because I think that money should be coming from just a different budget. Do you see what I'm saying?
That's going to happen and it should happen in the way that is
Potentially planned right like we have two designs and one wall, I guess potentially get chosen But
I don't feel like this I feel like if this budget were to be used there. We're like losing this Budget
in a way like it's getting absorbed into a place where it should already just that product should be
funded. I Don't know if I particularly agree with that take But that's not for me to say I I think my
opinion would be that
These and again touching based touching on the opportunities there on projects that these funds could
supplement. There are projects that the city is working on, like East 10th Street or College and Mall
or other projects that if there's an opportunity for an extra pedestrian aspect to it that may not be
included in the funding or maybe that maybe the bids came in higher than we expected. This could be
that source of well,
we could add a pedestrian refugee island here with these funds or say, and I'll get to this in a second
with the city's SS for a grant application. We don't know if we've been awarded that grant yet, but
when we are, there will absolutely be other funding sources used for those grant application projects.
But if there are bids that come in higher than expected or these variables that we might not encounter
or may not
intend on encountering like right-of-way acquisition or topographical challenges, then these funds could
be used to supplement and actually make these projects real and up to the standards that we'd like.
I could see that with potential extras, but I think something like right-of-way acquisition topographical,
I mean, that's engineering stuff, right? And like that's going to get figured out pretty clearly before
the project
starts construction right i mean right away acquisition we basically know how that's going to go down
i think on a like on a bigger project like college and walnut yes we would and i think there's a shared
intent that on a project like that like we don't staff doesn't want to take the council sidewalk money
and just bump it into a bigger project already happening and then it's like you're not getting anything
extra the desire would be
These bigger projects have their own funding sources, like you're saying, and then the council sidewalk
funding is going and doing these other kind of standalone things. But there may be a situation where
a project doesn't, isn't fully funded or bids come in high, or we want to add something in and there's
not funding for it unless we can supplement.
With council site, I think that's what I'm saying. There might be opportunities like that. So he doesn't
want to say, no, we're never going to combine with another project. That might be the best choice.
And I see, I mean, it is like a gray area. And we did talk about this last year with the repaving
coordination projects that we didn't want to just be supplementing a project that would happen anyway. And
releasing funds for that department to do something else that is not pedestrian related. You all understand
that. Yes. So under what scenario would you use alternative transportation funds for right-of-way acquisition?
Seems like something you need for roads, not for sidewalks. No, it comes up pretty frequently on sidewalks,
especially if there's a brand new sidewalk and there's not a sidewalk there. And you're trying to,
you know, you have an existing road and there's no sidewalk. That might be private property where you
build that new sidewalk. That's true. You can all that. South High Street. Yes. I stand corrected. Andy,
we can't see you. So do you have anything?
Well, I mean, I really follow what Kate's saying. And I was just a little concerned by one thing that
I believe Hank just said, that with these bigger projects, if it's not this, we might want to be able
to dip into this source, this fund, if projects aren't fully funded.
That seems to be a little different than saying, well, there may be associated extra additional aspects
that we might want to add and use to plan a major project. And then the funding could come from this.
That sounds seems a little different. I'm a little concerned about that statement a minute ago that
I thought I heard you say, well, you know, we want to be able to encase this project's not fully funded.
in reference to one of the bigger projects. I don't know, maybe I misheard that. Sorry, Andy,
just to clarify, I did not mean if project is not fully funded. This is if a project has another funding
source and say bids coming higher than expected, or there is an addition that we would like to make
to the project, say based on public feedback, then that could be an opportunity here. But I am not suggesting
if this is a funding source for other projects.
I just wanted clarification on that not fully funded comment that I heard. That's all. And so I'm pretty
clear. I understand what you're saying, that this would not be used to fund a major project that came
up short. But it could be used to fund an aspect of a project that was in addition to increase safety
or increase pedestrian friendliness or pedestrian access.
it on top of the overall original project? Yes, correct. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And I mean, I know that it
is hard to think about it as separate when we're saying we also want to make sure that it gets used
in the best ways because it does become like all this money kind of like in a bucket together a little bit.
Right? That, um, but you are the safe streets coordinator. And so you just are kind of in this year,
kind of asking, you know, in a way to like be the steward of these dollars and like decide how they
get used a little more than normal. Essentially, we don't know fully what opportunities will exist this
year yet, or what feasibility concerns may arise this year, this coming year.
It may be that Indiana University doesn't want to commit financially to this field project. So I don't
want to commit funds from this committee towards a design or towards that project until we know that
there is a commitment on their side. That's just one example. Also, repaving efforts for 2027 repaving,
we would like to do something similar that we did last year by adding
bump outs or raised crosswalks or something else to existing repaving projects. So we can get that thing
for your buck on the SSRA corridor. But as I'm sure you all know, repaving schedules come and go, and
there is a lot of variability there. So we don't fully know exactly which streets will be repaved and
when they will be repaved and how engineering then can coordinate with street when that happens.
Yeah, it makes sense. And I know we're meeting earlier this year. I mean, this was like the original
timing of our meetings because you want to finish. You're bidding some things out right on North Jefferson
or you're getting, and that is for January potentially. And so we're here now. And so then because we're
here now, we don't know about the safe streets grants yet.
And so I did want to go into a few specific projects that these funds could be used for. That'd be great.
Again, this is not all inclusive by any means, but just giving a little bit more insight into what projects
were included in the Safe Streets for All grant application to give you some idea. So for one, and we've
talked about this project before, South Walnut Street Pike. This is on the priority corridor.
are on the priority network. There are intersections that are on the priority intersection network.
And there was recently in the past year or two, I believe, a fatal or severe injury crash. So it was
fatal. There are areas on here that do not have a complete sidewalk network. There are intersections
on here that could absolutely be improved to assist pedestrians better when crossing.
North Kinser Pike, the cities just began a quarter study on this entire Kinser Madison Rogers corridor.
But on this corridor, there are sidewalk gaps that absolutely need to be filled. There are intersections
like Gorley Pike or Rupdale that do not have crosswalks up to the standards that we would like as a
city that could easily be improved. So those are just a couple of examples in this grant application
that we applied for, but
If we don't get this grant, or even if we do, these ones could be used to assist in those projects in
some way or another. Is that near Kinzer Flats? I'm not sure where Kinzer Flats is. It's like a block
south of the bypass. Yeah, so I think that building in the lower right corner is Kinzer Flats. OK. And
that would generate a lot of pedestrians. And then not many. It's interesting that, sorry. No, no, no,
you're fine. Go ahead.
This is a highest priority corridor, but South Walnut Street Pike is only medium, right? I will say.
Probably the number of pedestrians. I imagine that Kinzer Pike, especially at this area of Gorley Pike,
is at the highest priority level because of the bypass, because of the intersection with the bypass
and the FSIs that have happened at that particular intersection. Yes, that is Kinzer Place. Thank you.
Because the bypass intersection is pretty bad, right? Yes. Mostly for cars or for pedestrians? For both.
Okay. Everyone involved. Everyone. Yes. Okay. Can we do anything at that intersection or is, I mean,
it's state-owned, right? That is state-owned. I am aware, and Neil can probably talk about this more,
but I'm aware that there has been some coordination between city and and dot at that intersection. We've
talked about
the state-owned. Because I remember the Mark Stostberg data says that's a pretty horrible space to get
across. I will also add, Isabelle, you were talking about medium-low versus highest priority. There
is a gray area in terms of where the separations are in the level of priority here.
There is some level difference, but quite honestly, if it is on the priority list, it is a priority.
So it goes back to then efficiency and feasibility. If there is a project that we can do at any of these
locations, regardless of level of priority, we would like to do it. And that intersection doesn't have
a priority. State Road 4546 and North Kinzer.
has a blue dot, so it's not on the priority list because it's an in-dot jurisdiction. Yes, that is simply
saying if it were a city intersection, it would be a priority intersection, but because it is an in-dot
intersection, it's blue. That is, yeah. Gotcha. So for anyone watching, call your legislators. But I mean,
The prioritization does mean something. Yes, absolutely does. But I don't want to discount the level
of priority that Walnut Street podcast has. Cool. Yeah, that one's yellow. And orange.
And then a bit more on the fee lane project. I've already touched on this a good amount, but some more
detail. Originally we had talked about the fee and law intersection specifically. The street is planning
on repaving this corridor from 10th to 17th in 2027 and along with that replacing some curb on the sidewalk
across parts of the corridor. And so that was what spurred this discussion of, well, if there's already
concrete work going on,
What else can or should we do that helps with the efficiency of something here? And then that spurred
along the conversations with IU saying, hey, this might happen. We have this vision for the corridor
that might include tree plots, a wider sidewalk, better crosswalks here. What do you think? How can
we work together on this? And that's where we are right now in the discussions. Does IU own any of those?
streets. IU owns Law Lane and then if we were to build a tree plot and widen the sidewalk we would almost
definitely get into IU property and that's especially where that partnership could come into. This is
the intersection that has a bus stop right across the street from Briscoe that students
Have quite a long ways to walk before they hit an intersection that would allow them to yes the picture
the picture on the right there is up by the briscoe quad about a few hundred feet south of 17th Street
and We've been aware of this This area and there have been student groups who have reached out Advocating
for a better crosswalk here What about
intersection of 17th Street and Eagleson. Yeah, that's been an ongoing discussion as well. Absolutely.
High risk. Sure. Neil might be able to talk more about that, especially for the short term items. I
know Kindle was the project manager on that, but I don't know if you have anything to add.
So that intersection was originally, it was part of one of our prioritized intersections and a federally
funded project.
which have very long timelines on them. So we're looking at construction in like 20, 29 or something
like that for the project. So we have, we are moving forward with a short term implementation to use
temporary materials to install a pedestrian refuge island at that intersection. Has it been considered
for signalization? It has been considered. I'll say at this point, we're not moving forward
with signalization, but as part of the discussion.
Thank you. That was kind of a tangent. How do we let the Change.org organizers know that things are
being done to 17th and Eagleton? That's exactly what I was thinking. I would say as a representative
of a lot of IU students, that is something that you absolutely could do. OK, fabulous. Great. It is
kind of murky over there for sure. OK, so more questions. Andy, anything?
Okay. What are you all thinking about this kind of new approach? Not super new, you know, but following
Safe Streets for All priority projects. What is it really?
change in practical terms compared to what we would have done viewing it without the state streets.
I say it gives a little more flexibility to staff to fund priority projects as they present themselves
and to get some things a little more shovel ready that are seem to be in the pipeline like the ones
you are talking about here as potentials.
I think it takes away some administrative work, I guess, that engineering and planning have to talk
with the chair a lot if things are different. So I think it gives flexibility and more of a go ahead
for you all to just get going on those projects. I think just I answered that question, but I think
for me, I'm leaning toward like, let's try it.
see what happens. You know, I think last year was actually pretty great with the repaving coordination.
I mean, I know we didn't use all that money, but there are some, I think the bump outs and some of those
intersections are wonderful. You know, it totally changed the crossing length for pedestrians. And I
think that is just wonderful. And to just get it, get it done as it comes. So I guess I'm leaning toward
just doing this with, you know,
Hank and Neil and especially Hank, you know, like understanding the description of the committee and
the goals and yeah, just moving forward like this. I agree. I think given the timeline and just how
many things need to be approved by next year, I do think it makes sense to go ahead and allow that leeway.
Is there any need, does anybody think, to engage the full council on this or? Well, they have to vote
on it anyway. Yeah, we would report back to council and then council would take their official vote.
We just recommend. Okay. So we would, I mean, that's a good question, Andy. So we would be
potentially recommending this and then we would go to council and I would do a report out on this meeting
and we would say our recommendations and then we would all discuss it and have public comment on it
before a vote. Yes. Is that on this upcoming December 17th meeting? Not yet. Okay. We'll have to talk about
getting the report ready. We'll have to talk about getting the report ready. Sorry, I was whispering
that, but I don't need to whisper anything anyway. Yes. Okay. I have a question about the timing. So
for the North Jefferson Street sidewalk in your memo, you said that it's going to public works, the
Board of Public Works on December 16th. We'll award the construction contract on that day and then we
will encumber
all of the available 2025 funding with approval from the chair. And then that's enough for us to open
a purchase order, award the contract with partial funding, and they won't be starting construction in
December. You know, they're going to construct at some point. They could actually do concrete work over
the winter. So as early as possible in 2026, we'd like to open the remainder of the funds knowing that
they're not actually going to spend enough to need that little bit until they get further along in the project.
But you're going to start a project before the full funding is approved, which is really common, right?
We would be doing that knowing that we have department funding that we would, we would kind of, uh,
I don't know if we would actually open a purchase order, but we would set it aside as a, we have the
full funding. We can, we can say we have it all, but the intent isn't to use that funding. The intent
is to use the remainder of the council site. Okay. I understand.
Well, I think that overall, this kind of begs the question of the purpose of this committee. I mean,
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
need us anymore? That's what comes to my mind. Which has kind of been a question for a long time too.
Yeah. Yeah.
And it's one of the reasons we had the deliberation session, or and some council members really like
having this committee and didn't see a reason yet to give it up, I think. Go. I would ask for a mid-year
report from staff just to let us know how
What projects are being funded with the money that we allocate if the council agrees to allocate it?
Does that sound reasonable? Yes. Absolutely. Something similar, I think, to just this before council,
the two charts with some images. I can absolutely do something, say June. Is that fair? We'd go on recess,
but early June could work. Early June, OK. Actually, early June.
Because things get hairy after we get back. I would say June just because when we get back, everyone's
going to be on budget. So y'all might not have time either. It might just depend on funding timing for
the Safe Streets grants and if there is anything to report yet, really.
Yes. OK. I have a hard stop at one just to let everyone know. If any more discussion from committee
members? If not, we could entertain a motion to vote to recommend. Yes, I move. Public comment. Oh,
public comment. Yes. OK. Thank you so much. I have the agenda right here.
Let's open it up to public comment. So if anyone is on Zoom, I don't think there's anyone here in person.
So just raise your hand on Zoom if you would like to talk. OK. Looks like no one.
the recommendation for the 2026 funding allocation to be recommended to the full Common Council.
I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. I will call Raul, Andy? Yes. Sydney? Yes. Isabel?
Yes. Kate? Yes. So we will recommend this funding
60,000 for North Jefferson, 435 for Safe Streets for all priority projects. We'll have a discussion
on that at our council meeting. Two things before we adjourn. Yeah. And I think you're on it. You, yes,
wanted to. And we might not need it as much this time, right? But OK. We need to also approve the prioritization
of projects in that list? So within the approved project list, so we have three North Jefferson Street
sidewalk, Safe Street priority projects and change orders. Approving a priority list of those three
projects, I would recommend doing it in order of the list of Jefferson one, Safe Street two, change
order three, in case there are funding changes that are needed. Does that align with your needs?
Yeah, I think that's fine. And then I don't know if that relates to the chair being able to approve
any changes. So I think, yes, I think that's right. We could just tackle both of those at once. But
I think we would like to vote on prioritizing the list in that order and then giving the chair the approval
to work with staff if funds need to be allocated a little differently.
And so that would mostly among the three, among the three, among the three. Yes. Okay. Second. Okay.
I will call all Sydney. Yes. Isabel. Yes. Kate. Yes. Andy. Yes. Okay. Anything else?
Okay, we are adjourned.