I think I think I heard the music stop. So I will, this is a Northfield City Council work session Tuesday, 05/20/2025. I'm calling this work session to order and requesting a roll call. Mayor Zweifel? Here. Councilor Peterson White? Here. Councilor Soukup? Here. Councilor Beamer? Here. Councilor Dahlen? Here. Councilor Holmes? Here. Councilor Ness? Yep. Thank you. Alright. Our first order of business, is a city council discussion of the 2026 Mill And Overlay And Mill Towns State
Trail project feasibility report and crossing improvements. Mister Simonson. Thank you, mayor, members of council. I also have Brian Nemeth with Bolton Mink. Him and I are going to do a joint presentation here. So as the mayor had mentioned, this is a discussion of the draft feasibility report for this project. We have contracted with Bolton Mink for engineering services on this project as well. So we'll go through our normal, scope, location, talk about a mill and overlay, some proposed improvements. We also have some crossing improvements on this project that we'd like to walk through and get some, feedback from.
We'll talk about a neighborhood meeting that we had and some public feedback from, information that we've sent out to property owners. We'll talk about the funding and then our process from here on out. So the project scope is just a two inch mill and overlay on Maple Street, Maple Court, Prairie Street, and Jefferson Parkway. We also have our normal, other improvements that we do with these types of projects which include, sidewalk and curb spot repairs, some new sidewalks, new trail sections. We'll walk through each one of them separately. ADA upgrades to everything, in and around the project, which is required. And then we also have storm sewer, sanitary, and water water,
valve adjustments that we'll be doing with the project. So what is a mill and overlay, you may ask? So a mill and overlay, we we go in and we grind off the asphalt, generally around the top two inches of the asphalt on the top of the road, leave the existing asphalt that's underneath, underlying, and then we pave a new, two inch layer of asphalt on top. Little bit different than a reconstruction. It's not as evasive and intrusive as a reconstruction. However, it does, provide us, new road surface, and help the road, again, gain more, years behind it before we have to do a more expensive reconstruction. We're looking to get about another fifteen to twenty years out of these roads for
use when we do a mill and overlay. And again, it's not as, intrusive to the property owners and businesses along the corridor. So that's just a picture of an example of what it looks like after we mill the surface off. We go through, fix, some imperfections that are underneath it, and then we put the new layer of asphalt over the top. So this project in particular, this is a pretty loud map, but we'll walk through each one of the, repairs as we go. So, the portion that we're doing milling overlay on is Maple Street from Meadowview Drive to Jefferson Parkway. Maple Court, which is just off of, Maple at the northern end of this proposed project. Prairie Street,
we'll be doing a milling overlay from Meadowview Drive to Jefferson Parkway. And then Jefferson Parkway all the way from Division Or Trunk Highway 246 to Spring Creek Road. Some pedestrian and bike improvements that we're, proposing for this. We'll be doing mills the Milltown State Trail along, Jefferson Parkway all the way through Spring Creek Park, and we'll have a map to show you the extents of that. But, looking at the one you're looking at now, that would be the red areas that's on the map, South Side Of Jefferson. We cross by Prairie and then we go on the north and then we navigate through Spring Creek Park. We have some additional new trails along Jefferson Parkway,
from Trunk Highway 4246 to Washington on the north side. That's on the left part of your map that's in an orange area. That would be an upgrade from a sidewalk to a trail. Same with Michigan Drive, trail on Jefferson Parkway from Michigan Drive to Spring Creek Road on the north side, down on your bottom right east end of the project. That's the orange. We'll be upgrading that a sidewalk to a trail there as well. We're looking to do some new sidewalk on Prairie Street, from Prairie View Court to Leah Drive. That's the blue that is shown. And, again, I'll have maps of these individual areas, and we'll walk through them. We're also looking at,
to protect the existing bikeway that's on Prairie. Prairie currently has a striped, bikeway on it. Right now, we're looking to do add protection to that. And then numerous, pedestrian crossing improvements, which we'll get into each one of them individually. That would be all the yellow dots on the map. So just walking through each, individual project. Maple Street, Maple Court, again, and mill and overlay spot repairs, ADA upgrades, and then we're looking at some crossing improvements at Meadowview Drive and Jefferson Parkway area. Prairie Street. Excuse me. Again, mill and overlay spot repairs, ADA. The new sidewalk that we're looking to put in, again,
is from Prairie Street from Prairie View Court to Leah Drive. We're looking to add the protected bikeway or the median on, Prairie Street from Woodley Street to Jefferson Parkway, and then additional crossing improvements, along Jefferson Parkway. The Prairie Street sidewalk, so that, is circled in red. It's the blue that's on your map. That was identified in the 2019 Ped bike, trail system plan as a gap in our system. If that sidewalk would be extended, right now from Prairie View Court again north to Leah, that would add a connection that, for a future connection, which is along Leah Drive,
Sumac, and Prospect on the north end. That would be installed in a future capital project. On the south end again, it will extend to the, south to Prairie View Court, but also add a connection to a new trail and bridge that we put in just off of Prairie, last summer. So and again, it'll be add a connection to Meadowview Drive. Meadowview Drive again will add a connection to Maple, which is, a direct route to Spring Creek Elementary School. This is looking at what the existing road width and what the proposed road width, the existing is on top. The road width does not change, still 44 feet.
No changes to the curve on Prairie. The change would be, if you look at the top, we have that four foot striped area right now for the bike lane. The bottom one is the proposed. That would be a two foot median, six inches high. And then there would also be, a stripe, a foot on each side of it. So it'd still be a four foot wide buffer between the cars and the bike lane. However, it would be a raised protected buffer. Proposed proposed improvements on Jefferson Parkway. Again, mill and overlay, spot repairs, all the same things that we would do in honor of the other roads. Again, we're we're doing looking at doing some upgrades of the replacing sidewalk on the South
side, with the trail. That would be the Milltowns Trail corridor, from Michigan Drive all the way to, excuse me, Prairie Street all the way to, 246. We're looking at some sidewalk replacements on the North Side again from Prairie to Spring Creek where that would be upgraded from a five foot current walk to a 10 foot trail. And then crossing improvements at numerous intersections along this, including Washington, Afton, Bunker, Wilcox, Maple, and Prairie intersections. Again, we'll be walking through them one by one here shortly. Additional trail, as I mentioned before through the Spring Creek Park, this trail would go from the crossing which would just be East of Prairie Street.
This trail would extend through Spring Creek. There's currently an additional or excuse me, existing trail that runs all the way to Huron Court that would be replaced with a 10 foot trail, which is required for the Milltowns Trail state regulations. And then we would extend this trail up to, Spring Creek Road. And then with our '20 '6 reconstruction of Spring Creek Road, that next piece would be built from Spring Creek Road to Wall Street Road or excuse me, Woodley Street. This slide shows the Southeast Corridor trails for, Minnesota DNR trails.
So the Milltowns Trail you can see is in the middle. Once the Milltown Trail is complete a %, we would have a connection, to the Sacotas Singing Hills Trail from Mankato to the Cannon Valley Trail in Red Wing. So that's the gap that we're currently working on. Partial to this project through town would be part of this, Milltown State Trail. And this is just, right off the Milltown State Trail website. This shows the portions of the Milltown's Trail that are city and then proposed in places that are established. So, between Faribault and Northfield, you can see there's portions that are built,
but there's portions that are still, under consideration for construction. So we'll jump into the Jefferson Parkway improvements. We had, Bolton and Mink do a pedestrian crossing analysis along this as well. We are looking at the goals of the city and the comp plan, about a safe network for all users within the city of Northfield. So again, following our complete streets, policies, we're using initiatives from the comp plan and transportation plan. The comp plan would just pass here shortly before this meeting. And then having a safe network again, promoting complete streets, policies and guidelines,
for public safety along all of our corridors. Again, the comp plan, there's some, introductions in the comp plan, that we, that was just adopted. So again, I'm just, bringing these to forth of a document, a working document that's been been, been adopted here. But again, there's, introduction in there, talks about, you know, streets are not just removing cars. You know, the comp plan is to help reduce car travel, connect people to jobs, and help kids get to school. Part of the comp plan again, there was a vision and guiding values in chapter two. During the comp plan process,
there was some, information that was collected throughout the process, and some of them revolved around mobility and how residents are not feeling safe crossing the highways, even when there's lights. And there was a need and, need for additional improved infrastructure for sidewalks pass and safe crossings that was identified through the comp plan development. Again, just some more vision and guiding values to you know, the comp plan mentions that Northfield wants to provide a network of transportation mobility options that enables Northfield residents and visitors move throughout the community safely and conveniently.
And one more, vision and guiding value that was in the, comp plan again is, you know, planning development services of proximity closer where they need to go. Northfield designed streets for safe and convenient trips, and I think, you know, it's highlighted in bold here. However, people choose to travel. So that means, you know, multiple different ways of people travel throughout the city. With that, I'll turn it over to Brian, and he'll go through a few slides about some of the crossing information. Thank you, mayor and councilors for having me here. Milltown State Trail again, Jefferson Side, South Side Of Jefferson Parkway.
So again, accommodating bicyclist traffic and pedestrian traffic on the 10 foot trail. Really the destination in this area, we have Spring Creek Park, which we also recognize has also pedestrian and bicyclist traffic besides the Belltowns Trail in that area. Looking at Minnesota's best practices for pedestrian and bicycle safety guidelines. So there's an FHWA table here that's shown on the right side. Minnesota and MnDOT has adopted this as a way to evaluate pedestrian crossings. So looking at when different safety enhancements are appropriate depending on the speed,
volume, and the the type of facility that you've got. So looking at high visibility, crosswalk marketings, race crosswalks, advanced yield signage, in street pedestrian crossing signage. Do you do curb extensions or curb bump outs, refuge islands, in medians if you implement rectangular rapid flashing beacons. Or or if you look at a road diet, again, if you have multi lane multiple lanes in each direction, you may end up doing a road diet, and then a pedestrian hybrid beacon. But looking at all these different alternatives, what makes sense depending on the facilities you've got. So everything here is on the right side.
A little more information about this corridor. So on Jefferson Parkway, we have daily traffic less than 9,000 vehicles. Highest volume really is on the West side at 5,000 vehicles per day. It's really a three lane with raised median. The three lane is one lane in each direction, plus a left turn lane at certain locations, but you do have a raised median overall. And then speed limit at 30 miles per hour. So you look at that. We're in that little red box there. A circle in the one, filled in circle means always consider those safety enhancements in this these types of situations.
Just the number says, well, think about it, but don't just do one of those. You have to do it in combination with something else. So don't just do one thing. You have to do multiple. And then blank indicates may not be appropriate for this this type of a situation. So looking at high visibility, crosswalk markings, parking restrictions, crosswalk approaches, lighting, warning signs, potentially a raised crosswalk, again, not allowed on just provision, not allowed on state aid streets. Anything with state aid money is not allowed to have raised crosswalks at this time. So that may change in the future. I'm
gonna jump back in on this one. So back in 2023, we had Ulta, who did our pet bike study. We also had them look and do an origin destination study throughout our city, looking at different intersections. They evaluated 45 intersections within the city of Northfield. I've highlighted the ones that are, that we had in the original proposal for this project, but as we've developed, we've, been through the public comment period, we've added five more intersections, to look at and analyze throughout this quarter. So, again, there was five to begin with. We've added five more,
and Brian is gonna step you through each one of those intersections and the, proposed improvements that we are gonna be looking for in this feasibility report. Yep. So the individual intersection, we have again five other intersections that we collected some data at. The other ones are really we're really focused on the connections that are provided there on other trails. And you'll see that as some of the, as I move through here. This one, we actually did collect some traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, bicyclist volumes, to just understand how everybody's using those crossings. So again, looking at all 10 locations, and those are listed there.
Scope of the study looking at pedestrian safety and then looking at signing and marking. So reviewing where people are making turning movements, how many people are doing that per day, again, how many pedestrians and where the pedestrians are crossing. So Washington Street at Jefferson Parkway, this again is more of a connection. We do have a trail, an existing trail on the north side that comes into the, between both legs of Washington Street. There's a west leg and a east leg that kind of, two t intersections. So we have that trail on the north side. We also have residential connection on the west leg of Washington Street. There's a sidewalk on in that neighborhood,
coming out of that on the east side of that street. So adding a marked crossing on that east side and a pedestrian refuge in that wide median that we've got available space in. Looking at the trail is looking at a marked mid block crossing, and adding that bike bicyclist pedestrian refuge. Just recognizing that bicyclists will be using that trail to connect over to the Millstown Trail. They're gonna want a direct connection. If not, they're probably gonna jump the curb, at least some people will, and that provides a hazard to any vehicles that are along there and the bicyclists and pedestrians themselves. So making sure we have those those crossings
there. Looking at the first one, we collected some data at at Afton Street, really focused on conflicts and use. Those eastbound less, there's a lot of eastbound less, about 223. We collected just really daytime the 13 highest hours of the day. So 223 in those thirteen hours. Pedestrian use, we've had we counted four on the East leg and none on the West leg. Again, there's already kind of a crossing there. So if people are using that, it's recognized. We did collect on a really nice day in October, of 2024. So just to put that out there, it was a really nice day when we did that. So really keep a pedestrian keep a marked crossing on the east side,
add a pedestrian refuge. One, you know, thing that's kinda showed up in that FHWA table is reducing the conflict exposure, shortening the crossing as much as possible. So with that, we're adding a curb extension on that north side. We're eliminating there is a is a rice a striped right turn lane. But there's only 12 vehicles over those thirteen hour highest hours a day ever making a right turn doing that. So about one per hour. So recognizing that getting rid of that right turn lane is not an an impact to vehicles, but it'll make a big difference to pedestrians crossing the roadway. Bunker Drive,
the west leg, focused on, again, in conflicts and use. We had a pedestrian use. We had two on the East side, not on the West side. And there's there's, a crossing there in the median. Look at a marked crossing on the east side, adding that pedestrian refuge in the median. Again, shortening that crossing. Again, that right turn lane, westbound right turn lane, not used a lot. Six vehicles over those thirteen hours. Eliminating that, providing that curb extension. One of the thing you'll notice on here is we do have four bicyclists that are on the street, for Bunker Drive. So southbound coming on Bunker Drive,
they can stay on that east on that right side of the road as they're crossing and make it over. And then for going northbound across, you'd use the one on the right side with the pedestrians, and a bicyclist would then get onto Bunker Drive versus getting onto the sidewalk on that side of the roadway. So we're keeping the bicyclists on the correct side of the road as they're crossing. Wilcox, the west leg, eastbound lefts. Again, we have a left turn lane here. 46, vehicles are making that movement. Really even use of pedestrians, on both sides. We decided on the east side that provides a more direct connection to the park.
As you can see the park trail coming in. And then adding a pedestrian refuge in that median as much as we can. Here's a little bit of turning movement at an narrower intersection, that we're working with. We have low westbound right turns, so we're eliminating that right turn lane, through that area. Wilcox Eastlake, this is where the park entrance is. So eastbound, westbound, left, each about 50 vehicles that we counted in those thirteen hours. Eastbound rights is actually even a little bit heavier, about 70 vehicles. Pedestrian use, mostly everybody's using the east leg of this intersection.
So putting a marked crossing on there makes sense for pedestrians. One thing you'll notice that every other one, we tried to, make those pedestrian crossings as short as possible. Here, we're looking at that. We still have a turn lane that's within that area. So we are, you know, providing that curb extension to shorten it as much as possible on the east side, but we will add some some advanced crossing signage and and markings there. Bunker Drive East is very much like the other one that we have there on Bunker Drive West. Again, providing those, bicyclist connections across.
We have pedestrian use, three on each one of the legs. Really not any preference, but to maintain consistency with all the other intersections along there, keeping it on that that east side made sense, intuitively for pedestrians and bicyclists, and reducing that that exposure again. We had only three vehicles make that westbound right. So, again, get that curb extension in there. One thing we did do to make it better, pedestrian refuge in that median is shortening the left turn lane at Maple Street, which is just one intersection to the east. At Maple Street, again, we're focused on those connections and safety.
On the north leg of Maple Street, we have that two way, in street bikeway. So getting them up onto the, up onto a trail as they're crossing the intersections makes all the connections on the south side, all work together. Removing the eastbound and westbound right turn lanes, again, trying to shorten those pedestrian crossings as much as possible, knowing that those right turns are very low. Again, marked pedestrian crossings, pedestrian refuges where we can fit them in the medians, and then marked crossings. Meadowview Drive at Maple Street. So just north of there. Again, we have that that two way bikeway in street on the west side of the
roadway. Here we're just looking at doing some curb extensions, and I'll it's one thing that's noticed here is is, daylighting pedestrians. So this is getting the pedestrians out there, more closer to a little bit closer to traffic, but yet on a raised platform where you do have they're up at curb height. So being able to see those pedestrians as people are going along the roadway, and they're not so far off. And that you'll kind of see that consistency everywhere else. Prairie Street at Jefferson Parkway, again, very similar. We're trying to bring them, off that on street bikeway to a, shared bikeway trail here as we're getting across the street.
Again, adding in some median refuges where we can, adding a curb extension on the south side where it's just, shoulders today. So making use of that space to shorten that crossing. And then West Of Michigan Avenue at the trail there, focus on connection connections and consistency, adding those curb extensions within that those shoulders, adding that marked crossing, pedestrian refuge, and then shortening that crossing distance. This is just a overall summary of the different, pedestrian improvements that we're planning at each one of the locations. From our crosswalk,
it includes signage, better markings that are good for nighttime visibility and in rain and other conditions, pedestrian bike refuges in the medians where we can fit them, eliminating those primarily right turn lanes that are very lightly used and then add those curb extensions to shorten the crossings. So really just those curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, high visibility crosswalk markings, crosswalk warning sign warning signs with downward arrow plaques again next to those. Advanced crossing warning signs, potentially just more at the,
ends of the corridors. People would recognize that you don't need to have them everywhere. Otherwise, you're gonna be seeing a sign every hundred feet or so. We don't necessarily need that many signs to be understand it, but we need to have them with each crossing and some of those advanced ones, kinda coming into the corridor. Lighting, we reviewed it during the final design, working with the power company, on what needs to be out there for lighting and just assessing those nighttime levels. And again, as I mentioned on this multi lane approaches, adding some additional stop line, stop lines and pedestrian, stop your pedestrian signs that are, that MnDOT uses on those multi way multiple lanes that we'll be crossing.
So that should be it. Alright. So, with this project, we've had a neighborhood meeting, back on April 16. We just shared the overall project scope, of where the project is and just some proposed, initiatives, you know, based on what our policies that are passed. So we did collect feedback from people in person comments, comment cards. We did mail questionnaires to everyone within a three fifty foot, radius of the project. Again, just kind of an overview of what we heard there. You know, we heard we did hear some positive feedback about the crossings. That's where we developed additional crossings to look at and and,
analyze along Jefferson Parkway. There was mixed feedback on the on street bike ways. And, again, it depended on what type of bike way, that is proposed there. There was some negative feedback on the on street protected or the median, and I'm sure you guys have heard some of that as well. And then we did hear a lot of positive feedback on a lot of the trails that are being proposed for this appendix of the feasibility report, all the public comment and and everything we've received thus far. Looking at, preliminary cost estimates, again, we'll be refining this before we bring the final feasibility report. But right now, we're looking at about 4,700,000.0
for the, improvements that we're, looking at and studying with this feasibility report. Where we at in a project process? So, tonight, obviously, we're here talking about the the draft feasibility report. We have our second neighborhood meeting scheduled for June 11. Letters for that meeting will be going out next week. That will be for all the properties that are adjacent to this, project. And we're looking to finalize and bring the final feasibility report to council in August, on August 4. And then we will have our normal, a final neighborhood meeting after the first of the year,
and looking to get plans approved, in February, which seems to be kind of the, sweet spot for trying to get contractors geared up for the the next year. So the sooner, we have better success and more competitive bidding, if we can get through the process, get final design completed, and get these projects out in front and kind of be the the front runner of the projects that are out there for bid at the time, before all the contractors fill up. And again, this would be a project that we would construct in the, 2026 construction season. That's all we have. We're open for questions now.
Thank you. And, I also wanna prompt administrator Martig. We don't take action at work sessions, but staff is looking for input. So specific input, areas that you'd like to call out for us? Thank you, mayor, member, city council. We I did put specifically some feedback. We saw councilor, Beamer did make some requests for the Prairie Street, protected bike lane one. So that's probably one specifically. But I would say in preparation of going back to the neighborhood meeting and then coming back with a feasibility report, if you had other scoping feedback on anything else that you might have questions on,
Probably the engineering staff would be the ones to ask specifically, but if you had any concerns or feedback, even though we aren't voting tonight, we could pause, go around and get individual feedback. So if we clearly see there's some consensus on something that that input might be helpful in in staff expediting this as Mr. Simonson said to keep the project moving along. Exactly. Thank you. So let's start with questions and then we can go around and comment on the scoping feedback. Councilor Peterson White. Thank you. Could staff talk a little bit about why Prairie Street why you are proposing a median separated two way bikeway for Prairie Street?
And, like, what makes that into an engineer the right solution in that location? Mayor, members of council, I think it really gets back to our our goals for roadway safety and separating the the bikes from the vehicles and our our broader vision for our bikeway network. We've heard through input that continuity and consistency is very important because there's different type of bikeways in the community, and we and we're really moving towards the two way protected or ultimately it potentially could be off street. But really the the protection with the medium is really like a fiscally responsible way
to try to develop our bike ways and try to get them in place and get them protected at a lower cost, throughout the community. Yeah. Follow-up? Yeah. I mean, the cost is one thing that we hear from people about. Folks are sometimes concerned that there's a lot of extra money being spent on a street project in order to create this kind of median separated two way bikeway. Can you talk a little bit about kind of what the marginal cost of this is? If we think of it I mean, I guess, I I personally don't necessarily think of it as an addition to the street because I think the street should be built for everyone. But if we are working from the assumption that the street that the sort of
basic street is just for cars, and then we're adding on the bike and pedestrian infrastructure, I know this is really hard question that I've asked you a million times before, but, when you say it's a fiscally responsible way to do it, can you just give us a little bit more on that? And I'll verify I got it right with Sean, but I think Sean told me that protected curve is, like, a hundred and 50,000 on a $4,700,000 project. So it's a very low cost way to add protection on the roadway. Administrator Martig. Thank you. Mayor, I'm not an engineer, but I did also wanna say the you can correct me if I'm wrong,
folks. The, when we did the bike plan with the interest to either protect some of these major bike corridors or remove them off of the street behind the curb. The alternate one of the reasons why the it might be more cost effective is is if the alternative would be to extend a curb out to have it behind the curb would be more expensive. So when they looked out throughout the whole community on how you could create an interconnected network that would either protect on major corridors, bikers separate bikers and vehicles with a protection, putting in the curb in the existing flat street the existing street was cheaper than
pulling out curbs, which is more of a full reconstruction. So I think that even though there's an added cost, it was looked at as a more effective cost thing implementation if the interest was to implement over a shorter time period versus maybe over like fifty or one hundred years to get it done to be able to afford pulling curbs out to protect it. So correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a little added explanation as to the if you look at it from that perspective of, say, off and behind a curb in comparison to on street and putting in a protected curb. Yeah.
Administrator Mardick is correct. So if we would, you know, take this as an off street bike path, you would have to, pull the curb out on one side of the road, the entire curb out, and then pour a new curb, you know, narrow the road up and get that as an off street trail. These, what they're actually called quick builds is what they're called in the Ped bike plan that we passed. This was one of the the quicker the the like Ben had said, if we waited for a reconstruction on Prairie, you know, you're gonna be waiting a long time because the road just ain't in a condition where it needs utilities, water, sewer, and all that.
Right now, these quick builds as they were identified in the pet bike plan are a more fiscally responsible way of getting implemented to the goals that, and the policies that the city council had passed for these, types of, facilities. Thank you. Other questions? Councilor Beamer? Would you say that it's more cost effective to paint the stripes or hog out two and a half feet of fill at cut asphalt and drop a curb in? I pretty much know the answer to it already, but I'm gonna ask it anyways.
Mayor, madam, council. Certainly, if you just stripe the roadway, it's a one way to get it implemented. It it probably doesn't get us to our full all ages and ability goals that we talked about in our plans, but certainly, it's a way to get it on the street. We may not get the full use and the target of who we're who we're trying to provide that facility for, but it would be marked. Thank you. Councilor Holmes? This is a I'm getting to a point with these questions, but this might seem like a weird question. When we go out to, go out for bids and and we bond this project, how is it ten year,
twenty year, fifteen year? How many years is it? Mayor of council. We've typically been doing ten. I think with some of the stuff we have, this might be a fifteen year bond on this project. Okay. That's in our plan. Okay. So let's say it's a fifteen year. Just I just wanna clarify that, yes, it might seem like a hundred and $50,000 is a lot, but that's over the cost of the project over those ten fifteen years. So really we'd be looking at just on the impact of the levy itself, it would be very nominal. Right? Like, if it was a fifteen year if it was a fifteen year project, let's say it's a hundred and $50,000,
that'd be $10,000 a year, which is not something that the individual homeowners would necessarily feel on their tax. Maybe it's a dime if if that much on your tax statement for the year. Correct? We could certainly run that, but I it it seems like that could be accurate in terms of the grants. It's a nominal, right? Like, so if we were worried about the tax implications of this addition, it's very nominal compared to other projects we might be doing. Mayor Council, we could certainly provide that number from,
like, a hundred 50,000 finance and share that. But but I don't know. I don't know that I need I mean, I feel like I have the answer, but I just want it to be clear because I talked to a lot of constituents about this spending is ridiculous. And to me, that's very minimal compared to, I don't know, say a nice arena. Alright. Thank you. Councilor Soakup. Question? Just to follow on that, I I would love to have that information if it's if it's simple enough to get, for with conversations with constituents. It seems like it kinda breaks down into whether or not people like the separated
curb or they don't as a thing that exists, and one reason given is that it costs a lot of money. And I think if, you know, on a policy level, people don't agree that we should have separated bikeways, that's the conversation we should be having. If it's, you know, we often talk about what does this cost when we bond, what does something cost for the, you know, medium median household in Northfield? And I think that'd be really helpful, number to even if it's a ballpark of if it's a hundred and $50,000
this time, you know, it could be within range of that next time. But, like, that kind of, like, does this add each year in a in on average, how many cents to your property tax bill. It would be helpful to kind of take away that portion of the conversation. We can actually have a debate about whether or not people think that a separated curb actually keeps bikers safer or if people just don't like them. I think it gets the the cost of them takes away from the conversation because
people can just say, the city is spending way too much money on these things. We're spending a lot more money on other things. So I would I just wanted to echo that or at least say that I would be, I I would find that really helpful in conversations with with, constituents about spending. And then, I had a question in about the neighborhood meeting because I know this will come up at the neighborhood meeting. Can you did you say I know it's on June 11. Do you know what time and where it is
so people have that? Yeah. The June 11 meeting will be from 05:30 to seven in the Second Floor Training Room here at City Hall. Okay. And, again, we'll be sending out, invites to that, council included here, end of next week, I believe. Awesome. Thank you. Thanks. I I have a I'll throw a question in here, on, bump outs. So as a pedestrian, I love bump outs. I see a much a very high correlation to having a bump out on, Lincoln Parkway. Pre pre bump out, I would say maybe one out of five cars stop for me now with a bump out.
Maybe it's more like half the cars stop for me when I step out there. But I know that when we put them on Woodley Woodley Street, bicyclists didn't like them because it forced them further out into the lane of traffic. So is there any solution to that conundrum of which, yeah, which form of non motorized, activity are are we lifting? Yeah. Thank you, mayor. Yes. So we did actually with our 24 College Street reconstruction, right over here at the intersection of College and, Woodley, we did put, like, what we call kind of a slip ramp.
Mhmm. So the bicyclists do not have to go out, and we just did it on that one intersection. We put a slip ramp in there, so the bicyclists, would be able to, maneuver up onto a ramp, and cross the intersection or go across the street without having to navigate into the traffic lane. So that's what we have, again, the Woodley Street, we were a little bit, kinda had our hands tied with that design due to that being a multi jurisdictional road and what we are allowed to build and whatnot. But yes, we have come up with some designs and we're looking at putting those type of slip ramps in so we can have that bicyclist not have to go out into
moving traffic when navigating those intersections. So will the bump outs that you showed us here tonight have the slip ramps? So the bump outs that we're proposing, the majority of them on Jefferson Parkway already have off street trails, so we won't have that, won't have that interaction. The bicyclists are already on an off street trail, so they're not in the street. However, like the intersection of Jefferson And Maple, where we have protected in way bike, they will be going up, as we showed onto a raised surface where they can be visible. So, I don't know, Brian, if there's any additional bump outs where the actual bikes are in the street.
I think everything is, off street trail for this project, so we will not have any of those, I don't think. Yeah. And I I think, you know, I mean, we do know that there are bicyclists that probably will still ride in the street, recognizing that, you know, that that will still those bikers feel more confident in the street that they can still go around the short bump outs that we have. We're not doing a full width of the lane or something like of that that shoulder or that that lane. It's a little bit shorter than that. It's only a couple feet extra out into that. So there's enough space there,
but they will definitely have to watch watch out for traffic. But then again, you're all ages and all abilities. Again, as Sean had said on the Milltowns Trail, that's where we expect those all ages and abilities to be. So not having to provide something that gets people off that shoulder. But people who are riding in the street, yes, they will still have to go a little bit around, but it's recognized that only the more advanced bicycles would do that. Great. Thank you. Good. Mister Bennett has a comment. Just maybe one would wanna add. So so so Woodley and Washington Street are probably good examples of the bikers are
biking in the shoulders, which are for parking of the vehicles, and they're not comfortable riding in the street. So then they have to merge out into traffic. So it's just really a it's kind of a you know, I think we've learned that that's not a good example of a bike facility on those roadways. They're just not set up good for people that wanna bike and merge out. Now one of the things that you already kinda have going with Jefferson Parkway, you have these right turn lanes where people may be like, okay. The shoulder's running and twirling, but then that drops, and you're already pushed out right now on the roadway because the the the road
is narrower once you get past the turn lane. So I think we're trying to accommodate. I think there'll be some on street park, bikers, and then they'll be on the trail system too. Okay. Mister Marjick. Thank you, mayor. This might be a question for, Brian or Sean. I did a quick look on the slide deck. And is the, Meadowview Drive going on to Maple Street a bump out that maybe doesn't have a trail there? As far as would that one have a slip one or am I again, I just quick did it based on the question that was posed. I I do have that the slide I have up on the screen,
is that the one you're looking at, the Meadowview Maple? So that one has, you know, protected bikeway on the west side of the road there, so people are actually off the street. So majority of the bicyclists should be on that lane, but as Dave said, you know, you're gonna have the people that are still gonna be in the lane. So, that one does have the separated or off street bike on the West Side Of Maple already. So that one probably isn't the greatest example either because, people you know, majority of the bikers will be on that bike lane. Thanks. Councilor Beamer.
It's more of a point of order question. Are we just questions only right now, and then are we gonna have a discussion so we can make Yes. Are are there well, yes. We're still on questions. Are there still more questions floating about? Counselor Holmes. Thanks. I have a few questions about, crossings. So particularly both Bunker West and East and the Wilcoxes. You can stop on any of them. So that extra I understand the logic for the extra crossing there that would be for bikes in the street. What I worry about is if we're trying to
reduce our exposure conflicts that people who are all ages and all abilities might not go they might go on that one or pedestrians might go there and it's not marked. And so I I just feel like does it is it is it the best use of of how we build this out to have those two types of crossings right there with confusion, driver confusion, whether it needs paint or whether we we have bikes. Have everyone go to one? I guess I just I want a little more information about that because I don't
feel comfortable with it as it is. Part of it is that, as we've kind of looked through it, so looking at, the Transportation Research Board and the Pedestrians and Bicyclists Committees that have looked at these types of situations as trying to put the focus on your nonstop vehicle again on Jefferson Parkway where the vehicles are looking. If you can mark one crossing, that's what you wanna do because you wanna focus their attention on the one crossing that is the most vulnerable users. And again, providing that where the the pedestrian connection is across. Having the other one is you have those,
you do have the curb ramps and truncated domes and everything else that would allow somebody to get across there. But the feeling is that the one that's marked, the one that has signs, those are the ones that the pedestrians will gravitate toward, except for pedestrians that are tend to be more all ages. And they may cross. It still is a legal crossing to be able to cross the other one, but to focus the attention on the the striping and the the markings at the one location. And just having that will help people add at both locations at the same time. But really that is is that,
again, as somebody coming southbound on Bunker Bunker Lake as a as a bicyclist, Otherwise, you're gonna be doing a crossing maneuver, kind of actually almost heading in the opposite direction of westbound traffic on Jefferson Parkway. We don't want that to occur. So, you know, as somebody's kinda crossing there, that's why we wanted to provide that there. That said, I mean, it could be reduced down just just to the east side, but that was the thought there. Thanks. Councilor Soukup. Thanks. I just had a question about the pedestrian refuge in general since there's a median along Jefferson Parkway.
It looked like they were kinda different dependent on where it falls, but does that basically just mean because in some areas, it's already concrete. Is that more of just a striping painted and striping where there's already concrete, or is it a whole new facility being added, or does it really depend on the intersection? It depends on the intersection on a wide that pedestrian refuge that we can get. We try to get at least a six foot pedestrian refuge. That's to meet ADA requirements to be called a pedestrian refuge.
That's where somebody feels confident that they can wait there just wide enough for a bicyclist. Eight feet is preferred for a bicyclist. Anything shorter than that can at least split up the crossing and may not be officially a pedestrian refuge, but it does provide some a little bit level of crossing half at a time, you know, that, you know, you're really paying attention to one one lane at a time. You can stop there for a short period of time. Don't expect them those wider ones were expected at pedestrian might wait a little bit longer versus one one that's much more narrow. But we're just trying to provide a little bit of refuge there to at least
put up the focusing on one direction first, then the other direction. Councilor Ness? Thank you. You read my mind. Oh, you're reaching for the button. I was. On this drawing, a westbound car on Jefferson, are they gonna have stop lines or just signage? On westbound because we have a multi lane approach there. We have a through lane, through right lane, and a left turn lane. At that crossing, we will put a stop line about where that curb extension, kind of starts. There will be a stop stop line there. And then in the MUTCD,
there are like a stop here for pedestrian signs that we'll put on the median side and on the right side. And part of that is vehicle, let's say, is a through vehicle stops too close to that crossing and a pedestrian starts to cross in front of them, if somebody coming up from behind, that vehicle is blocking that pedestrian. So by having everybody pull back further, that other vehicle can see the pedestrian before they get to that crossing. So it prevents that dual threat. Yes. How about how about as in the picture, if if that car were going eastbound Mhmm.
They won't have a stop line, but they will have signage? They will have signage. But then the eastbound, there's only one lane crossing. So eastbound, there's only one lane. So that's the only lane that we're worried about. So there, we wouldn't need a a they could stop right in front of the pedestrian crossing and prevent any other vehicles from getting around them. Yes. One more. The stop line on the westbound side will extend into the left turn lane. Correct? Yes. K. Other questions? Good. Alright. I would love to go around the dais and,
give staff any scoping feedback that you'd like to give them tonight. And do you mind, councilor Ness, we'll start with you and go around? As you know from previous discussions, I'm opposed to on street protected bikeways. I think they should be if they are gonna be protected, they should be off street behind the existing curves. I think paint is just fine, and that's just mine. And I had a whole stack of research done that said these things are not as safe as what everybody says they
are. And I can dig it out of my archives, but I'm I'm just not in favor of any on street protected. I think Maple Street from Woodley to the school is the biggest disaster in town. The people that use the bike lanes is UPS, FedEx, because if they stop their trucks on Woodley Street in a true driving lane, they've blocked the entire street. Cars cannot especially if there's a parked car
right next to them. That closes that street off for all cars. And from residents in that area, they are the ones who use that more than bicyclists. The people directly affected by the bike lanes watch the traffic, and FedEx and UPS use those more than bicycles. So I don't like voting against street projects, but if this one has on street protected, I will vote against it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Peterson White? Thank you. I think the plan of staff have brought it is really solid.
I, I hear from families with kids, especially kids who go to Spring Creek all the time that they love and use the, bikeway on Maple Street. So and and that it and and I myself have used it with my children and would not have previously biked there with my two young visually impaired bicyclists. So, I, I really appreciate all the ADA improvements here and, also as a resident of a neighborhood with some relatively recent bump outs. I guess they're not that recent anymore. They still feel new to me on Washington Street but they're not new. I can attest to the fact that those,
really make a huge difference to pedestrian safety and accessibility, for all users. Mostly, I just I think that we have, Northfield has some really great plans in place to, over time, build our street infrastructure to be accessible to all users and to be truly complete streets. And I hope very much that we can stick to those plans and, continue moving forward with, improving the network for all users. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Soukup. Thanks. Yeah. I I'm I'm really excited to see more of Milltown's Trail going, and, improvements along Jefferson, I think, are gonna be great.
I I, agree with counselor well, I shouldn't say agree because I don't actually know where counselor Holmes stands on this, but the question that she asked about, the Wilcox And Bunker kind of double pedestrian crossing, bike crossing, I I find that really confusing, and I don't feel like the level of traffic on Wilcox And Bunker really, really kind of mandate that double crossing just for bikes who might be coming off of those streets onto Jefferson wanting to get on Milltown's trail.
So I would be in favor of of reducing that down to the very clear crossing. I think, you know, throughout these few years now where we've been talking about street projects with improved access for every type of mobility beyond cars. I think the hardest part for me has been the changes that make the system we currently have kind of cobbled together for good reason. We can't do all of it at once, but I think that that has caused some confusion. And so I appreciate plans the plans we're seeing where there's,
like, less as little confusion as possible. I think the separated bikeway on Prairie is still something I wanna learn more about, and so I'm looking forward to the neighborhood meeting and talking more with people along that road specifically because I think there's I I think Maple Street and Prairie Street are really very different in their layout and how people use them. And, but it makes sense in in terms of continuity to keep actively separating bike bicyclists from where people drive.
So, Yeah. I'm looking forward to learning more, and, thanks for all the work that you've done so far. Thank you. Counselor Holmes? Thanks. Good assumption there, counselor Soukup. I agree with you on the on the crossings there and feel Understand the logic behind it and also feel that the traffic on Wilcox And Bunker might be I guess I just I just want to eliminate as much confusion as possible because I think a lot of our implementations have left people confused. Even comfortable bicyclists, I am comfortable riding in the street and don't think that I would ex don't
know that I would intuit what I need to do with that other crossing and see the other one. So I I just feel like it's I don't know, I just wanna create, as much clarity and safety as we can particularly for because that's so near the park, people crossing, pedestrians and anyone crossing there. So I guess I I probably feel more comfortable having just one that we focus on, but, but I again, I'm open to the expert opinion. And if and if it seems like that that other one is necessary, great. But I think having seeing what we get back in when we have this again
in in August would be helpful. Obviously I think the biggest thing here with this project and because that portion is in my ward, I've I've heard a lot from people about Prairie Street. I have since my first meeting on council, we've talked about protected bike lanes, and I think that my philosophy while it's while my understanding and my feeling about protected bike lanes has definitely shifted since in my time on council, there's a few things that that I know to be true. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I believe that paint is not safer particularly because I rode with my then five year old on Prairie and a car entered the bike lane we were riding in because there was only paint. Fortunately the driver, he was on his phone. He was an adult. I can't even blame it on being a kid. It was it was a man probably in his thirties or forties looked up just in time as he was about five yards away from hitting my five year old. So, not cool. I understand and I know because I live on a street with painted bike lanes that is heavily used.
Hundreds, probably a hundred bikers a day. I sit and view that all day as I work from home. I can count the bikers that go by on on Fourth there. And I also see UPS, everyone going in the bike lane. So there is no doubt that there is a lack of education and understanding. There is no doubt that it is confusing. And we can't build separated bike lanes on all of these streets. So I think that it's important for us to to build as safe as we can. I will not be in favor of I will not I won't approve any project
that is just paint. Particularly if it's we have, we're changing traffic patterns. We won't be changing traffic patterns because it's something that's been there on on Prairie, but in future projects, if we're creating that, path on the side, paint is not adequate for me. So I wouldn't I wouldn't approve that. I do another belief I hold is the importance of continuity and consistency. And so ensuring that we have formats that are used consistently, and connect into the system that we have. We just passed our comprehensive plan tonight, and in that there is a law there is a in-depth discussion,
about the the bike and, the bike infrastructure and thinking about neighborhood routes and principal routes. I think it's important for us to decide to, the point that Councilor Soeckup made earlier when we're asking questions about policy because I think we're going to continue to have these conversations. And as we think about the principal routes and the neighborhood routes and why we do what and and how we implement them, I think it's gonna be really important that, we have a policy that we can use and that we have an approach to
this that doesn't get that doesn't make things feel more piecemeal than they already are. So I look forward to hearing I know I've had a lot of conversations with constituents and I've talked to them about how my views have changed on this, and have won people over about the the safety of the the bike lanes. So, yes, it's confusing. Yes, there might be, impacts in terms of having to educate people, but also if we're truly holding to all ages and all ability, I think that that's important for us to to keep in mind.
So I look forward to attending the, the community meeting. I wasn't able to attend the previous one because I teach on Wednesday nights, but it's my semester ended last week. So I will be there, to hear people's concerns, but then also to talk about why we have approached things the way that we have. Thank you. Councilor Dolan. I'll try to be quick. One of my best, goals tonight would be looking at Sean and Dave to really help me really know where to divide that line between where we defer to the professionals, you guys and both in the main and then where we look at the compromise
we have to make with constituents who have really strong views on what they want their neighborhood to look like. So the more arguments I understand about how what our arguments or maybe it's not even that, it's more of a philosophy of how to then move along on that compromise because we're in the business of compromise. We're in the business of politics, understanding constituents. And so when I went and came into office, this bike lanes was a very big deal. I didn't really understand it because I just bike where I want to bike and try to do it stay on the right side of the road.
But I've come to understand a heck of a lot about it from people who are just very passionate. So I'm just struck by how in my whole life I defer to the professionals. I just defer to you guys. You know engineering, you know traffic rules, you know highway goals, you know the principles of the profession. It's extensive. I have to be able to transfer that over to what's politically real. And because these are very smart people who are complaining about bike lanes. It's not as though they're not experts either, but I think I can sell, Well, this is why the professionals say this: I can't just lay it out there and
say it's part of a grand plan. I can't say that it's you know, even lines like we're trying to build bike lanes for mobility for all ages. That will just fall flat, because the people I know are worried about their children biking and then teenagers and maybe the very old who are. That I pay tremendous attention to. Everybody else is kind of willing to play more they're really even more willing to defer to the consultants, to the experts. So and that may be a rough generalization,
but I'm in the middle of this not because I'm an expert, but because they want me to make a good judgment about how to meld the professionalism and bring to the table. And that's what and then what we can sort of keep public support for. Because if the whole town turns against us, we're all going to be in the soup. So we and whether it's 51% or 60%, I don't know. But I look at you because I see it as a collaboration between us and where you tell me this is what makes it work for the engineers,
the professionals, the experts, and this is where I can fulfill my duty. Simple as that. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. Councilor Beamer. Thank you. I think we're all missing the main point. The we do these community presentations to get together feedback. And having been the only guy that actually showed up in April and heard what everybody was saying in there, with the exception of very, very few. The countless emails that I've received,
the Prairie Street's not even in my ward, and I'm getting mass amounts of emails, text messages today. Couple of them actually while we were in the, in the regular meeting. What is the point of even having of even having those sessions if we don't take the input that the people that are there tell us and implement it? What's the point? People are telling us that they don't want them. The people told the previous council that they didn't want them on Maple.
They didn't want them on Roosevelt. Who are we to decide what we do to those people's front yards? It was pretty apparent what happened during the first major snowfall that we had this year. It turned into a massive disaster. I was feeling phone calls from people on Maple Street who aren't even in my ward. I who were angry, angry, angry. I know there was some malfunctions, some issues down there. Hopefully, we've got that all squared away at this point. But the problem is nobody's listening.
The kids are up on the curbs. I drive Roosevelt multiple times a day because I live off of Roosevelt. They're riding on the curbs. The streets are so narrow. You get one of those trucks with the tow mirrors on it. One of those kids gonna get smoked up there on that curb on their little scooter or a bike or whatever. The little ramp up onto the curb is that's like an invitation for a kid to jump up on top of that thing and start riding. It puts them closer to the traffic. It doesn't separate them. It puts them closer.
The we have way more miles of painted bike lines in this town already than we do curb. We got, what, about a mile and a half of actually curb protected bike lane. Roosevelt's a little less than a mile. Maple Street's maybe a little over half a mile, so about a mile and a half, give or take. How many miles of painted lines do we have in town? I think the precedent was already set. Why are we changing it? The to replace all of those painted lines with curb over the years, I know it's incrementally in the project cost,
and I get where you were going to. I understand all of that. But to do that over time, we're just throwing more and more money in it, and we're not listening to the people. The the people have clearly spoken, and I think the new faces at the day is here probably represent that to some extent. And they just want people they want us to listen to them and then act on what they're saying. We may not always agree with what they want us what they want us to do, but it's our responsibility as their representative to represent what they're wanting.
And I I think that's been lost on a lot of people. And I I really think it's time to listen. I won't support a curved bike lane. I I there's I just don't see the point, especially along Prairie. We already have a painted bike lane up there that's been working perfect. You talk to the residents that live along there. I have had conversations from several of the with several of those residents. They witnessed people riding in those bike lanes, and I've talked to several people that won't use the bike lanes. They'd rather ride on the street because they wanna ride with the traffic.
So to continue to go down a road where we're not listening to the people, I think it's just I think it's wrong, and I don't think that that's why we were elected in the first place. Thank you. Thanks. Alright. I'll, throw my 2¢ out there. I really appreciate the bump outs. Love, love, love bump outs. See a market improvement with, bump outs and pedestrian safety. Very much appreciate the work on the Milltown Trail. That all looks, good to me. I am from the West Coast, Portland, Oregon. I also have family in Davis,
California, 2 cities that have very effectively used paint, for their bikeways and have used the timing of traffic lights to, help things be safer for bicycles. So, at this moment, I'm still in the painted, bike lanes preference. And but I do note, the issue with distracted driver, and I'm wondering if, we could have a conversation around, how we can effectively decrease distracted driver campaign. I know, again, in in Oregon, if you touch your cell phone while you're driving, that's a ticket. So yeah. So I I don't know how many people have gotten tickets like that,
though, because the people who don't stop for me at the when I'm crossing Lakeland Parkway are holding their phone. So I also think, yeah, it brings up a good point about distracted driving. I think that's just another another conversation, we should have because, again, we yeah. We can't put curb and curb protected bike lanes everywhere to protect everyone from every distracted driver, nor do I think should we have to do that. I think people shouldn't be on their phones while they're driving. So those are my points. And yeah, great. Do we want to are we okay with wrapping that,
having all set our piece on where where we're at? We we're not making any decisions tonight about the design, just giving staff some feedback about where we're all, how we're all thinking about the the issue. Councilor Peterson White. Yeah. I think I just, since I think there were some some comments on the on the service of colleagues here, I think I just want to say that, all of us hear from a different subset of the community, and none of us should assume that we're hearing from everyone or that we know
what the people want. And all of us get different feedback. And that's one of the really hard things about this job is that all of us hear from different people. And, so I think sharing that feedback respectfully with each other is a really good tool for ensuring that we're arriving at the best decision for the whole community. I think I also just wanted to share that, you know, I I think it's really important to remember that the street network is actually for all the users, not just the people who live right there next to the bike lane. It's actually it's and and while people may perceive the use of the public right
of way as being put in their in their front yard, it's not actually. It's it that that property belongs to everyone in the community. And it's actually our responsibility to ensure that that publicly owned right of way is used for the benefit and safety of all the users. And, of course, we don't wanna make life unnecessarily difficult for the people who live adjacent to that that street. None of us want that. Of course. We want to find compromises and ways to move forward that help us all achieve our goals of safety for all users. And I continue to believe that we all share that goal,
and we just have different ideas about how to get there. Certainly, there's been a tremendous amount of listening, and, I will continue to try to listen to, all the input that we get from the community, not just the loudest or most amplified voices, but but all. And, personally, I'm gonna try to remain flexible on this project since I think that's what's best for the community. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. I think you have, the, hopefully, the information you need to think about this. We have, as we've said, multiple times. We have another, open house for folks to come on June 11,
from 05:30 to 7PM in the Second Floor Training Room. So, we're really interested, in feedback on that. So Can I just say one more thing real quick just for a second? Yes. Just I know that I said I would not vote for paint, meaning I'm not gonna hold up a street project because of that, but that my favorite my preference is not to add more paint and to use that as an intervention for us. So I just wanna clarify that that my what I said there wasn't that I wasn't gonna vote for this. I'm to echo councilor Peterson White's, I'm staying open and flexible to things,
but future projects, I'm not going to vote paint. Got it. Thank you. Thanks for the clarification. All right. That moves us on to, Woodley Street and Spring Creek Road intersection, which is again, Mr. Simonson. Thank you, mayor, members of council. Brian is gonna give a presentation on this as well. So just to reiterate back in February 2025, the feasibility report for this project was approved. However, the intersection in the feasibility report, we said that we wanted to do a deeper dive into that intersection to see
how we, could study that and and try to improve that. So tonight, we had an updated intersection design, or excuse me, report that Brian from Bolton and Mink Nemeth will go through, and then, we're looking for some, again, feedback from council, for final design. And thank you, mayor. Thank you, council members, for having me here. So looking at this intersection, of Woodley Street and Spring Creek Road. Woodley Street is a county roadway, and Spring Creek Road is a city roadway. We have Milltown State Trail, I guess, maybe we've been talking about all evening. East side is Spring Creek Road,
running north south. 10 again, a 10 foot trail, expecting more bicyclist traffic, more pedestrian traffic as that's installed. There's also an improved roadway to the south, looking at more vehicle traffic, more pedestrian traffic as time goes on. And then we're just, like, addressing potential safety concerns, knowing this is a a busy intersection, relatively compared to all the other intersections that we're looking at, accommodating more traffic, and this intersection is on a curve. That is something that we just definitely don't love in the traffic engineering community, just because it does, potentially introduce some safety issues.
So looking at we again, we did this in October again last year, looking at pedestrian bicyclist volumes, on a nice weather day. You can see here we have the North Crossing, the AM and PM peak hour. That's kind of like the peak traffic hours. People are still using that. The highest pedestrian peak hour was in three to 4PM, using 21, pedestrians and bicyclists using the North Crossing. We also recognize that there's about 15 pedestrians and bicyclists that are using the East Crossing, again, during that that same time of the day. So it is being used today and is expected to increase in the future.
Overall, we looked at safety. That's looking at crashes, looking at the sight lines, and looking at speed of traffic, and then looking at the, different traffic control that we have out there and, specifically, looking at a multi way stop and looking at the justification if we want to consider that. Again, Woodley Street is a county roadway, so we did meet with Rice County, to make sure that they're on board with what is being planned out there, and making sure that that that it satisfies their recommendations and their policies that they do have. And then recognizing the city Spring Creek Road City Street,
we did did collect some crash data, looking at the Department of Public Safety and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to see what they did have for crash records out there. Luckily, I mean and it's a good thing that we've had zero reported crashes out there for the years from 2019 to 2024. So looking at that five year period, nothing has been reported. That's not to say that there haven't been any crashes, but they haven't been reported to the Department of Public Safety or to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. We did look at sight lines. We look at two different driver stop locations. One is traditionally right where the stop sign is,
recognizing that's where both people first stop. They'll look and they'll see if they can't see around some foil foliage or other fences or anything else that you have. People can, by state law, they can pull forward. And, again, people a lot of people do that, especially on neighborhood streets. You pull forward, you pull, you know, cross the sidewalk or the the crosswalks there or anything else to be able to see around traffic. As long as you're not impeding that other cross street traffic, it's considered safe and it's in a compliance with state law. And then we look at the speeds. So one thing we did notice,
east and west of Spring Creek Road, we are seeing some higher speeds, especially East of Spring Creek Road. Typically, we set speed up the speed limit based on the eighty fifth percentile, speed. So right now, posted speeds at 35 miles per hour. That eighty fifth percentile speed on the east of that intersection is about 43 miles per hour. So definitely a lot faster, than we want, and what we would be designing the road for. So looking at the traffic control, the Minnesota manual on uniform traffic control devices is the manual that we look at. Also, Rice County ends up looking at.
It's actually used throughout the implementation throughout The United States and its territories. So ensures consistent traffic control. The Minnesota specific MUTCD is just a little bit they have some certain signage and some certain striping patterns and configurations that are a little bit different from the federal manual that they feel that the is better. And so every state has they either follow the federal manual or they can adopt their own state manual that can be sometimes a little more restrictive. So the right now, it includes warrants for different traffic control options.
So, again, always stops and multi way stops and traffic signals, to the the main most common ones, looking at traffic volume, traffic delay, crash history, the location, and the types of users that are out there. Specifically, in this evaluation, we're looking at multi way stop control. So considering the issue of when when you can you put in an always stop control in, where signal is justified. So you're you're planning on putting a signal in the in the future. You just wanna be able to put something in right now until that signal is in place, you can put it on multi way stop control. You have five or more portable correctable crashes in a twelve month period.
Correctable means is that there's a types of crashes that would be improved or reduced with adding multi way stop control. So rear end crashes are not a correctable crash because those could still happen under that type of traffic control. Now a right angle crash where somebody's come off side street, somebody's on the main line, they crash. Typically, an always stop would reduce those types of crashes. And then there's a minimum volume. So we're looking at, the volume on the the main roadway and then also the cross street. Cross street does consider vehicles, pedestrians,
and bicyclists. The main line just considers the vehicle traffic. So the the light that doesn't stop today, that's only considers the vehicle traffic. And then looking at speeds where we do have an eighty fifth percentile approach speed greater than 40 miles per hour, we can look at a lower threshold for any of those, down to 70%. Then you can look at a combination of 80%, but we're already looking at 70%. So that's what we're gonna be looking at. Then there's conflicts and characteristics, which I'll talk about on the next slide. So approach volumes. So we did look at those all the way from 6AM to 10PM.
We did do some traffic counts out there. Our volumes are very low today. I mean, that's I'll I'll say it. Today, we are we don't come anywhere close to those thresholds, and we did use the 70% recognizing that that's not speed limit, but that's what we measured out there is more appropriate to what we need to be and the thresholds we need to meet. Looking at more conflicts and characteristics where the left turns cannot make, turn cannot make the turn concurrently. This is where you might have from two different directions, a left turn, each direction. They're using the same space in the intersection, and they can't be you be done be completed at the same time.
That doesn't apply in this situation. There's a high pedestrian volume generator nearby. Typically, that means a school or maybe a busy transit stop or something that's producing a lot of pedestrians right there, right right next to that crossing. Sight lines, again, because Minnesota law allows people to move forward without impeding that side street traffic. Anything out there right now today is really is foliage. That's in the way of anything that's can be seen. That can be cut back and vehicles can pull pull forward. They can already pull forward today from that foliage, but that foliage can be cut back even more.
So sight lines are acceptable. If that were a tighter curve, that may not be the case. So again, it's a case by case basis that we look at. The intersection of two residential neighborhood collector streets, again, because this is the county road, higher functional class, these aren't two collect of residential streets. So if you had have it within a neighborhood, houses on all four legs close-up to the intersection, those would be two neighborhood streets that you may wanna do an all multi way stop and would be justified in that situation. So looking at always multi way stops implementation outcomes,
there is was a, there's a traffic study that a lot of traffic engineers, look at. That actually just provided a a summary of a lot of other studies that have been out there. So when it doesn't when you don't meet warrants, really unwarranted situation of putting an always stop in, they found that you have poor compliance. There are 19 study references. So, basically, people feel that they don't have to stop. So, again, if you're on, Woodley Street and you had to stop, but there's no cross street traffic and 90% of the time, there's no cross street traffic,
people tend to do a rolling stop. So they don't actually stop. They kind of do a roll through. And then when the possibility of especially with some of the sight line issues with mainline to see people coming up on those side street stops, especially on the inside of that curve, when that vehicle was in there is a vehicle, it's a surprise. So that's when you end up some of those crashes. And we have seen some multi way stops, especially in Dakota County, especially on some of those Dakota County roads that we've seen is having an always stop that does produce a lot of right angle crashes.
And that's kind of the situation that we've kind of run into sometimes. An increase in speed some distance from intersections. It's really hypothesis on what's happening here. We feel that, you know, maybe because they're slowing down or they're they're stopping that they gotta speed up and they gotta make up their time. So we've seen some higher speeds away from the intersections. Safety of pedestrians, decreased. Again, kind of the same situation as as the poor compliance is. The the through vehicles tend to kind of slow down but they don't really look, and then that pedestrian expects that vehicle to stop but they don't. And that can produce some pedestrian safety considerations.
And then costs, think about well, it's just some stop signs. They're very easy to put out there, but you end up in enforcement. So you end up have using your police, your sheriff, everybody else out there to be able to make sure people are stopping. So those costs can be increased. You know, one good thing is, you know, putting them out there even when they aren't warranted. You can reduce crashes where there are sight distance problems. Again, we're not we're almost there, but we're not exactly there. But there were just three study references. These were volumes that didn't meet the threshold. Crash history, and that's all three of these ones had crash history where they just didn't meet
the five. They didn't meet four. They were like they were three within a twelve month period or they were five within a thirteen or fourteen month period. So they were so close to meeting the threshold for crashes that if they did if they just put it in, it does produce those types of crashes. So that is one positive if you do have that crash history. Here we don't have that. So current recommendations and again this is with Rice County. Rice County follows the MUTCD and follows through on everything that's in there. Reduced speed. So we want to reduce speeds with improved pavement markings.
Adding a dynamic speed feedback sign for westbound traffic. Getting them to recognize that speed limit is 35 miles per hour, getting that flashing sign to them. Improving those sight lines as much as possible, reducing those vegetative obstructions that we do have out there. It's on primarily on that Northwest, corner. There's also, on the Northeast corner, there's some bushes there. And then the Southeast corner, there's some trees and bushes there too. So, the county had said, you know, anything within their right of way, they would wanna cut back anyways. That's just just a county policy to be able to keep those sight lines clear.
Enhanced awareness of the crossing, adding hot those again high visibility crosswalk markings, markings that can be seen in dark and in poor weather, crosswalk flashing warning signs. But then also there's an implementation of flashing beacon there. So again, the the pedestrian can hit a push button there. They'll have the back the flashing beacon to be able to see that the vehicles be able to see, and that'll be added with that 2025 project. And then again, reviewing the lighting levels. So as we get get into darker weather here over the next winter here, is looking in working with the power company out there and just making sure we
have good lighting levels out there. Future recommendations, you know, that is what the traffic is today. Again, Rice County says traffic is their number one thing. They're looking at the traffic volume and the crash history. If it doesn't have that, they're not gonna allow enough multi way stop at this time. So again, evaluate it, continue looking at it, especially as the traffic volume increases. And again, pay attention to those pedestrian and bicycles volumes, not just vehicles. So as Milltown's trails put in, as that pedestrian and bicycles traffic increases, make sure that there's monitoring of that.
And are we getting closer to that threshold where Rice County is gonna be able to accept it? And then, you know, and the county would be okay with this is considering a roundabout, is kind of if and would would be reconstructed, recognize that would be eventually will be reconstructed is that would provide a a slowdown point as you're kind of entering the community and, and be a good fit within that that intersection area. So Rice County was on board with that. And again, they were willing to allow a a roundabout once an all multi way stop is justified. So providing the same justification.
And thank you. Any questions? Counselor Ness. Thank you. Does Rice County determine the speed limit from the city boundary to the east into town? They do not. It actually is set by the state. State. So the state has all jurisdiction for speed limits throughout the entire state of Minnesota. There was a legislative law passed, I think it was in 2019, that allows cities to to set their own speed limits on their roadways within their communities. So this wouldn't apply to Woodley Street.
If they develop a policy and, and a procedure for how they're gonna implement speeds. So there are a lot of communities that have done that. Minneapolis, Saint Paul specifically, but also Edina, Bloomington, Richfield. There are other communities that have implemented, speed limit policies. Yep. Quick follow-up. Kind of a same topic. Can Northfield buy and pay for a four way stop without Rice County's blessing? No. Not on Rice County's, jurisdictional roadway. So they have jurisdiction over their roadways, so no. If we talk nice to them,
you can try. Thank you. Other questions about the intersection? Councilor Beamer. Thank you. I guess a couple of just real quick questions. The county right of way setback on the Northeast Side, Do we know what that distance is? Primary primarily because of the row of arborvitae, that was pointed out to me that, mister Simonson had told those homeowners should be no problem to plant there when they planted them there.
And I guess just is there any opportunity to, you know, talk to the county and have them reconsider doing a controlled intersection there. We all know that that traffic's going to increase drastically once that Millstown State Trail is developed through there, especially once it takes it all the way out to Waterford. Just an ounce of prevention goes a long way. So I just that that is a bad intersection.
I that one that I drive quite frequently. So anything that we could do there, if we have to talk to the commissioners or is that possibility something along those lines? I'll just relay what the the, the, county engineer had said there is that they follow the policy throughout the entire county, from the MUTCD. And again, MnDOT and all the other counties follow that throughout the state of Minnesota. So, that's their policy is once the volume gets to that point, then they'll put it in. But before the volume meets that or the crash history meets that,
they're not gonna consider it. Yes. Mister Bennett. The the vegetation is outside of the right of way, so it is on the private property side. So, certainly, I think when we go through our steps of our phases, those would be more challenging to try to work through outside of the right of way on private property if we did do any trimming. So of bushes to improve sight lines. So I think that'll be challenging in that area. Certainly, we can talk to those homeowners to see if they'd be willing to to do that, or we coordinate with them if they would allow that. I think I think the the county engineer is really supportive with our phased implementation
approach to really try to adjust address the changes at the intersection with the pedestrians, and can then do continued monitoring. Thank you. Counselor Holmes? This isn't really a question. It's more of a clarification just in the conversations that I've had with neighbors in this project over the past year and a half. It's not the North South that's a concern and the sight lines. It's more of the East West that's a sight line. So I don't know. I don't feel like the conversations that I've had with people hasn't been about who do they see. It's it's been more about will the people coming, driving eastbound,
see the people crossing at Milltowns and not so much about the vegetation on either the Northwest or Northeast corner. Thank you. And, I just wanna clarify. There was a comment about this being an uncontrolled it's not an uncontrolled intersection. There is a stop in one direction. Yes. There are stop signs on the North and south lanes today. Because we do have uncontrolled intersections in town, and this is not one of them. Alright. Thank you. If Kristen's listening, I just wanted to clarify that. Yes. Counselor Soukup.
This is just because I'm curious, if I'm remembering right, the the intersection of Prairie Street and Woodley was a four way stop, and then it wasn't, and then it was again. Is the traffic volume at that intersection, which is not far from this intersection, really that much higher to warrant a four way stop there versus a four way stop at this intersection, which in my experience, people are going a lot faster by the time they get to this intersection than Prairie and Woodley, and I know that that's is that still a county that's still a county jurisdiction
on Woodley at Prairie Street. So is the traffic really that much different at those two intersections where we'd have a four way there and not in my conversations with the residents who live around this area and who are pedestrians really often in this area, they they were not understanding either why there could be a four way stop at Prairie and Woodley and not a four way stop here. So I'm just curious if if that's been studied or if that was a community movement as well that to get a four way there.
That hasn't been a that hasn't been studied, at least by me, but I see shaking his head too. Thank you, mayor, members of council. So that, four way stop, I believe, was added as part of the project when it was reconstructed in 02/2008, '2 thousand '9. I don't believe there was any study done. However, the county did allow that one, if I remember right. But I am going back about sixteen years on that. So Yeah. But that's my recollection of that. That's a good question. Mister Bennett. I don't have the the south leg of Prairie Street, but it looks like,
yeah, on the twenty twenty three counts, it's at least three times higher on Prairie Street than it is on Spring Creek Road in terms of traffic volume. Yeah. Thank you. Other questions? Is there anything additional that staff would like to hear from us? Mayor, members of the council. I think, those are probably the recommendations that we're gonna proceed with. So unless I'm not really hearing any big changes really on that, so I think we'll we can move forward that way unless council has more input on us. But I think what's been recommended is what I'm hearing is we'd probably move forward
with. Councilor Soukup. I'll just say that I really support a four way stop here. I know it's not justified, and I'm happy to list all the great reasons that you, you know, I believe what you're saying here. There are a lot of people in this area who would love a four way stop, especially with the trail going in, and there was, you know, to a certain extent, some concessions, I think, were looking to be made for the significant, alteration of that intersection because of Milltown's trail, and the anticipated development south in the future. I know a stop sign can always be added at you know,
it's not it doesn't need to be a major road reconstruction at a stop sign, but, I know that, I had a conversation with our county commissioner, and he seemed to be in support of a four way stop as well with conversations with residents. And so I'm just curious. I guess, I think it it's worth I mean, I'm happy to reach out to residents again, but, you know, I I told them that I'm in favor of a four way stop just being a person who uses this intersection as a driver and really not under I get
that the flow of traffic or the volume of traffic doesn't warrant one, but I think the the, what's the word I'm looking for? The, use of it. That's not the right word, but the way people drive through this intersection to me warrants extra stop. But I so I'm just hoping that if this is how we move forward because there's enough support to not put a stop sign there, that we, a, confirm that that's true, and b, do the due diligence of following up with the residents there and and have enough
support to kind of see what happens with the Middletowns Trail and how the volume increases there. So I hope that made sense. Yeah. Thank you. I do think I'm hearing consensus for could we ask again? Could we double check and make sure that Rice County won't allow a four way stop here? Councilor Peterson White. Yeah. I mean, I think the the the the analysis that shows that stop signs are sometimes more dangerous is valid. I mean, as I've said a million times, I'm not an engineer, but I believe you.
And, we, and, you know, we've heard that at various other in various other situations in town. I think that and I, you know, I, there is a lot of evidence that shows that an additional stop sign here would not necessarily make it safer in the current condition. But I agree that moving forward, the use of Milltown's Trail is gonna change the volume of pedestrians or bicyclists to this intersection. And, will that will continue to change. And I guess I think I I mean, I I agree that we should go back and say really,
but really. And also, failing that, if that truly is not deemed to be a safety improvement to add a stop sign, then I would be in favor of pulling out all the stops to ensure maximum safety at the crossing. And you have some good ideas here. I think, I would be curious how the dynamic speed feedback sign is working on Lincoln. That's relatively a relatively recent addition, I think. And maybe we have some data there. I don't know. I drive that way sometimes multiple times a day and see people driving real fast past that speed feedback
sign. But I, around a curve. But I maybe there are various designs for such as feedback sign. You know, I just I think we gotta, I guess, pull out all the stops is the best phrase I can think of. So thank you. Thank you. We're good? Okay. Great. Thank you. I think we might have time to do our last discussion item. We've got fourteen minutes. What do you think? Give it a go. Mayor, members, sir, city council, Sarah Hoffman, deputy city clerk, executive assistants giving the presentation.
And if Ben doesn't speak, then you might get through it. So I will agree not to speak on this one. To miss Hoffman then to to to, give us an update on board and commission governance discussion items. Thank you. Mayor and members of council, I'm gonna try to get through this as fast as we can. We plan to kind of stop along the way to get feedback on certain items, but I'm gonna just push through the presentation and then I'll leave it up to council discretion, time permitting, if we if you wanna give feedback. All right. This first slide here is just for reference,
kind of a refresher for members of council who may have seen all of these presentations or for new members who may want to go back and kind of see what we've done on the board and commission governance effectiveness review, which has been ongoing since really 2021. I'm not gonna cover too much on what we've done, but I do wanna touch on a few, initiatives that we've done along the way. And this was a, part of an initiative from the now previous strategic plan. So this is where that came from. The first thing we did was a lot of research on both our internal boards
and commissions and also comparable cities, where we are, how they differ, where there's gaps, what we can do to improve that. The first real initiative we did or the action we took was to shift and update the board and commission meeting times. Previously, some boards were meeting at eleven in the afternoon. Some were meeting at four. Some were meeting at six. We had some that were meeting on the same nights of the month. So what we did is we spread the boards and commissions out so we didn't have as much overlap. There are occasionally boards and commissions that meet on the same night,
but it doesn't happen as much as it was. They all start at six with the exception of a couple that are five or seven. They're recorded now and live streamed whenever possible. So we the public does have that, transparency. And then we also did some standardized orientation and onboarding. We created a board and commission rules of business. Previously, they were using the council one, so we there were a few discrepancies or a few changes, so we we did a separate one. We did a, kind of a member guide, which is orientation for new members and also kind of refresher,
for existing members. We did what else? We did some videos. We created some videos for our onboarding. We did a staff liaison guide to give our staff liaisons a little bit of guidance on how to handle certain issues as they come up. And, really, the goal of all this was to standardize as much as we can. We did standardized city code. We did ordin we passed ordinance ten sixty one last year that created a separate section of code that was applicable to all boards and commissions. And I'll get to it here shortly, but we are gonna look at another update to code that is really specific to
the individual boards and commissions. And then this year, we did transition some of our boards and commissions to bimonthly. We were finding they didn't maybe not have enough on their agendas in to go monthly. Some of them had subcommittee meetings, so now they're meeting on that off month, and it allows them that flexibility. So some of the pending initiatives we're doing now, again, as I mentioned, that update to city code, again, to the board and specific, commission specific sections. As part of that, we're reviewing the role of council members on boards, commissions, and committees. We're reviewing the, appointment timeline and the scope and the sizes of some of the boards and commissions,
and I'll get into more on that. As far as the code update, we're looking at standardizing wording across the boards and commissions. Some of them have have not been updated since they were initially, created or the enabling legislation came out. So we're trying to standardize that a little bit, bring it down to, more applicable wording. We're looking at the ACC maybe transitioning more to a public arts commission instead of that cultural aspect. A lot of their public arts policy is also duplicated in code, so we're just trying to streamline that down. Some possible things we're looking at, is potentially combining some boards and commissions.
Northfield has a significant number of boards and commissions, and the work they do is invaluable. And we really appreciate everything they do, but it also takes a lot of time, a lot of staff time to create agenda items, to create packets, to run these meetings. So we're looking are there ways we can combine some of the boards and commissions who have similar, goals or maybe bring some of them together and kinda put them in the same direction so we can find that, kind of balance? One of them some of them we're looking at are maybe the EDA, HRA. It came up. Maybe the EQC and park board,
we could find a way to combine those. These are just initial ideas staff has had, and we're not you know, nothing is concrete yet. These are suggestions that are not included in the, the code updates in your packet. One another suggestion was, are there a way to eliminate boards and commissions or hand off maybe to another entity? For instance, Northfield Alliance for Substance Abuse Prevention is a city board, but it's really run by HCI staff.
So is there a way we can hand that off to HCI control? The city would still be involved like we are with Age Friendly where we rely on them for their feedback on certain initiatives like the recent cannabis ordinance, but it would not be a city board. Another thing that came up is decreasing the number of members. We with a lot of boards and commissions, we need a lot of applicants and people willing to serve on the boards and commissions, which can be problematic at times to fill that many roles. So do we move some of them down to five members? A benefit of that would be we can maybe add two youth voting members to
bring a total member to seven as opposed to the one we have. So these are suggestions, that we we have kind of Band Aid around. And this is really the feedback. The first feedback we're looking for, is just, first of all, the updates that were in the packet. Is there anything you see in there that you'd like to, you know, change or additions? And then also those other things like combining, eliminating boards, transitioning to find members. Those are things we kind of are foreseeing in phase three of the code update. We'd like to get the board and,
commission specific code updates passed and then start to to look at some of those initiatives. One of the big issues that has come up and we've heard feedback from council is that you are on a lot of boards and commissions and committees, and it takes a lot of time. And so we are looking at is there ways we can streamline that for you and free up some more time maybe for, public engagement and other initiatives you'd like to do? Currently, council members are on three to five boards, commissions, and committees outside council, any council meetings,
council work. And this has come up. Back in 2011, the council voted on discontinuing council liaisons to boards and commissions. So it is an issue that has been up, coming up for for a number of years now. We looked into which ones are required, which boards, commissions, and committee are required by, statute, agreements, or other documents to have a council member or multiple council members on them. That includes the EDA, the city hospital governance committee that is in the hospital playbook, so that could be amended, the council employment and finance subcommittees,
the CVV board, Millstown Trail joint powers board, and the Rice Steel Center Board. Those are the ones right now that are required. These are some proposed options we were looking at for, council liaison rules. Option one would be the required one only. If we went that way, it would go from about three to five boards, commissions, and committees to most council members would only be on two with one member being on three. So it would take it about in half of of of what you're doing now. The second option would be required, and then any other board or commission council might deem necessary.
And it would be concrete that would just it would be in code that maybe the planning commission would have a council member or the hospital board would have a council member. So it would be black and white and in code. Option three is the current process, which is a little more fluid. It is the required ones, but then it has kind of been at the mayor's discretion. If initiative is coming up, somebody's maybe put on the park board or the planning commission. So it's it's been a little more fluid, and that's kind of what option three would be is to continue with that. Another initiative that has come up is looking at the appointment
Timeline. The current process, these are just, high point there's a lot more different steps in our appointment process, so these are just kind of the high level. It starts in June with, us reviewing the appointments, who's up, whose terms are over, and then notifying them. Vacancies are published in July. July through September are mayoral interviews, with, chairs. The city administrator meets with staff. The mayor also meets with the members of council and all the applicants. Appointments made in October and start in January. If you could pause for one moment. I think councilor Holmes has a Yeah.
Motion. I'd like to move, move to extend the meeting until we finish our business. Is there a second? Councilor Peterson White? Second. Alright. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Please proceed. And this time line, it's important to note that in a year of mayoral transition like we had this year, it would be the outgoing mayor who would make these appointments. This is what our current process is and what happened last year. So this is the option proposed option we would like to provide council, and this would be the
in a year of mayoral transition, the incoming mayor would make the appointments. So this was kind of push everything back about four months. So, the staff review and everything would begin in October. Vacancies would be published in December. The interviews would start January to March after the mayor, takes office. The appointments would be made in April, and the terms would start in May. Along with this, we would align it with the youth appointments. We would move the youth appointments up a month, and so they would align, which would give the benefit of one, orientation for both the adult members and the youth members.
This is just a summary of those options. And this is kind of what we're tentatively looking at for this first, or phase two, really, of code update would be the first reading on June 3. But, again, this can shift based on, any feedback we get from council and staff. Great. Thank you. Do people wanna weigh in on this tonight? Or we could I see why not we could sit with it and weigh in at the next work session potentially. Or if people are ready, we can weigh in and give feedback to staff tonight.
Peterson White. I have a question. Oh, yes, please. I have a question. Are there forgive me if I missed this. I'm sure you'd know. Which of the existing boards and commissions regardless of whether council's required to serve on them, which of them are we required to have? I'll let Mr. Marta answer this. Maybe clarifying because I would say that, Ms. Hoffman is probably the expert because she did all the research and she's very dug into it. But are you asking like could maybe go to that one slide, Sarah, that has the one where it says if it's required or not. Are you, maybe for clarification for counsel,
are you, like, asking about, like, the if the state law mandates those versus, like, I we made a note on the hospital governance committee that that could be amended by council or you could amend the employment committee. Is is that what you're asking on those? Because most of them, I think, would be the well, anyways, that's the maybe clarifying. Is that the question? Yeah. I'll clarify. So, I'm, like, I'm looking on the city website of the list of boards and commissions. And so I'm wondering, these are the ones that are required to have a council member on them. But we're not just talking about whether what council members should be doing.
We're also talking about whether we could condense the total number of boards and commissions here. Right? So what I'm wondering is, are we statutorily required to have a human rights commission, or can some other body be responsible for human rights issues? Like, I think that I think there's a statutory responsibility of some kind to have a designated body to address human rights complaints to the city. I think. Don't quote me on that. I'm not an engineer. I'm also not an attorney. But, and, like, some of these I know we created. Right? We don't need to have a transportation advisory committee unless we want one.
There might be another way to do that work. I know the EDA and the HRA have to exist, but I also know there are other cities where the city council is the EDA and so on and so forth. So I'm wondering, are there others that are statutorily required to exist as themselves. Mhmm. Yeah. Thank you. I think it's best we do some research on that because I do know there are some that we have created by ordinance. And then there are some that are statutorily. And I don't wanna quote something that is Right. Yeah. Because I do some more research on that and definitely I think that would be
super helpful. And also, I think, the council can also serve as the HRA too, for example. So, yeah. Administrator marching. Yeah. I'll be quick, but I would want a disclaimer that I'd wanna verify it. But, charter commission, because we're a charter city unless that were changed, we'd be mandated to have that. Other than that, as I'm looking at the list, I would say I could speak specifically to human rights because I've been involved in that in the past. There is no state requirement to have that, so not every city has it. And there aren't any specific provisions, related to the actual human rights violations.
The Human Rights Commission is primarily referral to the state. So, there's no requirement on that one. There might be some requirements on the to have a planning commissioner zoning board of appeals of some kind. But kind of to the mayor's point, you might be able to achieve that through the council. So I think most of these, I think, if not all, with the exception of the Charter Commission, might be discretionary on that. And again, of course, you're probably going to need a hospital board of some kind, with that. But anyway, that's the short answer, but we can get the answer specifically. Alright. Councilor Ness and then councilor Soukup.
I know the nine one one board, the joint powers agreement requires one. Yeah. Councilor Soukup. Yeah. Price, same for Milltown Trail for any of our re joint powers. Thank you, mayor. Sorry. On my comments, I kind of excluded, like, where there are joint powers agreements that exist. My brain was mainly thinking of our boards, but, yeah, those other ones would be by contract. Councilor Soke. I'm I have two questions. One is, are there current boards that are have been really difficult to fill with members? And is is that part of your analysis of,
like, recommending which ones could be consolidated or eliminated? Or It kind of goes from year to year. Some years, we it depends on how many vacancies we have to, something like last year, we had a lot of library board applicants. The year before, I think we had a lot of park boards. So it really swings from year to year. But we do we have in the past had issues filling, where we end up going to applicants who applied for other boards and commissions, which may work out well. In some cases, they're put on those boards, and then they realize that didn't quite work. So we don't have a lot of extra applicants.
It's the same way we've had some vacancies come up this year, and we don't have a large pool to pull from. So it is a concern, but it's you know, it really doesn't fall in one board or commission is harder to fill. It really kind of swings from year to year. Yes. Counselor Soka. Other question. In terms of the appointment schedule change, shifting it to a different part of your that makes a lot of sense. If that happened, would the current would current member board member's terms just be extended for a few months? That was the initial thought we had that if we did extend it,
we would just, bring something to council to extend the terms. Because terms usually end at the end of the year. Few. And so they just move be moved to May kind of thing. Yes. And we would one thing I failed to mention is that some of the boards and commissions we are affiliated with through joint powers would still have to fall on the January through December timelines. So we would and the Charter Commission is required by statute certain timelines for filling that. So we would have still two timelines, and we'd have to work around that. But, but I think we can work that. Counselor Peterson White. I have a kind of big picture question.
I don't expect anyone to have an answer to this. But I think that one of the questions that I'm mulling over as I look at this and consider, how could we shift to, be more efficient and to make the best possible use of staff time, council time, and volunteer time? There have been several mentions of things. Well, the council could do that if there wasn't a border commission. And so I will be interested as as we move forward with discussing this, maybe tonight, maybe later. I'll be interested in hearing from staff as to in which cases it would actually make it less work if council were to do
the work versus not making it less work. I can see it going both ways depending on the work. That's a very stupid comment. I think it was, you know, during my time on the council, we went from four meetings a month to three meetings a month. And there that has been something that I think has been really good for staff's time management and council time management and just overall has been really I haven't heard a bad thing about it from anyone. And indeed, probably there are responsibilities of these boards and commissions that could be taken on by
the council, but I guess I wonder what the what the trade offs are and where where are there actual opportunities for efficiency there versus, as I said, perhaps less efficiency? I'll if I may throw out that, Sarah and I have already we worked on adding more questions to the application process. So hoping that that will shorten the the amount of time for interviews. I'm requesting more information of people who do apply, to help with that. And and making appointments, as there are vacancies,
which also was not a standard practice previously, which is maybe why we don't have as many, like, kind of in the hopper as you will because people aren't used to, this where we're appointing people as there are vacancies. So also kind of a educational campaign too around, yeah. If you're interested in a board of commission, apply. Apply now. Any time of the year, really. But, yes. And that is something we have also as one of the initiatives is we've started to we've created some one pagers, some informational things on the boards and commissions.
We've tried to get on that Pride in the Park and Hispanic Heritage, and we've tried to get it out there. So we are getting more awareness, to people. Councilor Beamer. I think whenever we could like, for instance, the planning commission where, you know, I was the liaison and counselor Holmes was a voting member. Whenever we have a scenario like that, the liaison seat really doesn't make sense. You know? I think that's a great idea. I'd also be very open to looking at that
switching who you know, whether the outgoing mayor appoints the vacancies or the or the incoming mayor. I I think that it's it could it could really set things up awkwardly with the outgoing mayor appointing seats for the next four years, when they won't even be in office. So I'd to me, that makes perfect sense, and that's something I'd definitely be willing to, to support and and and help with there too. Who have you spoken yet? Counselor I'm gonna go to counselor Holmes.
Thanks. I think just to follow on to that, I would this isn't explicitly stated here, but in the liaison rules, I would not want council members to be voting members unless statutorily required. I'm I moved from a liaison role on the parks board into a voting role and didn't really realize, like, that wasn't a thing. And then then it was appointed as a voting member on the planning commission and, like, I just feel like it's not right, because there's things that I voted on three times in in both boards and and on council.
And I think that the voting members, unless it's statutory statutorily required, should be community members. I think high level you don't have to answer this now, but I think that to me the question about combining or eliminating boards like What problem are we trying to solve? Like is it staff time? Is it because it just feels like it's a solution in search of a problem that I don't know that that it's necessarily the right solution to I guess, like, my initial gut was, oh, with, like, Parks Board combining Parks Board and EQC. I'm like, yeah. There's some crossover,
but, like, oh. So I guess I would want a better understanding of the problem we're trying to solve, and would probably be more in favor of moving down to five voting members if, you know, if it's more of a trying to fill seats, but that's something that we can discuss later. And I think there was one more, but I didn't have it written down. Oh, well. Oh, the question then about, like, yes, if the timing is what I got it came to me. It came to me. If the timing is a start a May start, what would the council member's time be? Like new council members.
Right? If, so for for instance, in this this year, would the new council members not start until May or would it be like the new like, so I get I think just like thinking about that that timing in terms of council members replacing council members who are no longer if if we have liaisons. If we don't, then I mean, obviously, we'll have some. But And I think that's one of the nuances we would have to work out with the new timeline, the same with, like, Charter Commission having to fall on, you know, the old timeline. And I think we would have to figure out the best way of doing that if we make you know,
maybe even make council appointments at the beginning of the year, whereas the other vacancies fall on the new timeline. I think we would have to Okay. Redo that closer. And maybe it's less important if they're not voting members. Right? So that takes me back to point number one. Thank you. I've got councilor Soukup and then Peterson White and then Beamer. Thanks. I think in general, I really enjoyed that we've moved our updates to the front of the meeting and that we all I feel like I know a lot more about what's going on because of the liaison setup.
So while I would love to have more time to do other council related work, I do see the benefit of having liaisons because we we also all don't have time to pay attention to any of the boards we're not on. At least, I don't I have a really hard time showing up at meetings that I'm not assigned to, just because there's so many meetings. So I can kinda see the pros and cons of both. If we did decide to have fewer liaisons or to have certain boards without liaisons,
I would hope that we could have more like, either the chair of the board could come present more often about, like, their work plan for the year or that there may be a little bit more dialogue between the board in a different way absent a liaison, if that makes sense. Mhmm. Thanks. Thank you. Counselor Peterson White. Thank you. I just realized I hadn't commented on the question of sort of when the appointments are made in the post election period, and I I can really see pros and cons both ways. I think that with the way the appointment process has been done over the last
several years, it's takes months and would be difficult to do in between an election the November and get all those boards and commissions up and running in a reasonable period of time without everybody's December being ruined. Right? I think that would be really difficult if we were trying to do all of these with a newly elected mayor. I think that, but I certainly can understand why people would want the newly elected mayor to make the appointments. I think that's kind of obvious why people would think that was better. So I think if we were to move that,
I I would just have some big questions about how is that practical, sort of. And, or are there and and I I guess I would also say, like, it's there there are always gonna be some board and commission appointments for a newly elected mayor, and there are gonna be always gonna be some people who are seated who carry forward from one administration to the next. It's not like everybody gets unappointed after an election and then reappointed by the new mayor. So I think whatever the decision is should be taken just for practical reasons more than, political ones,
I guess. Because I I think it should just be about what's realistic for staff to manage and realistic for both mayors to undertake since I think we all understand as elected officials that we have a certain sphere of influence and some of our influence may continue after we leave office and some may not and there and whenever we come into office we live with the legacy of some people who held office before us and that's the cyclical nature of the work. So, just I think being flexible and really focusing on what's practical makes most sense there.
Oh, sorry. Hold on a second. Administrator Martig. Thank you, mayor. I just wanna make a quick comment on the counselors. One one suggestion I would personally have as a recommendation related to that appointment is is it's not clear in the code as far as is it it doesn't give, like, black and white clarity on whether that how the should the appointment be done by the upcoming mayor or the new one? And I do think being explicit might avoid public discourse, negativity around it. Just make a decision either way to make it clear in the code revisions. Yeah. Councilor Beamer.
Just a quick touch base on, councilor Holmes and, councilor Peterson White's points. I agree with both of you. I think leaving it to the May, you know, to the May deadline for the appointments for the non council seats makes sense. And perhaps the incoming mayor could just focus on appointing the council members that needed to get, well, you know, appointed prior to that January 1 deadline so that the overlap happens at that point,
with the council members, and that aligns with their with their swearing in and and whatnot. So just just a point that I wanted to bring up. Thanks. I'll just throw out to you. One of my goals hasn't come up yet, or haven't mentioned yet is that, I would like the mayoral position and the councilor positions to be available to as many people as possible, that they can see themselves in these roles and they think, that there is time, you know, that they can craft the time to do this, and it's not an unreasonable amount of time. And, the current appointment process,
is for a full time mayor, which we don't have, and I am not. And the salary does not reflect that. If the salary reflected that, I might be making different choices, but it doesn't. So I'd I'd I'd love to see it, being on the council, something that anyone in the community feels like I can do that in, in terms of time. So I think that's that's a goal that just hasn't come up. Yep. I I think we all I don't I think many of us share that goal. So but I just wanted to lift it up. Okay. Councilor Holmes. One other thing that I would just add in here too in terms of the
voting members, and this is more for the members of the boards and commission that I I don't know what other boards I don't know how many of them have non voting members other than, like, other than youth. I mean, the parks board has always had one or two non voting members and youth non voting members, and I feel like that's I don't know. Why would anyone serve and be a non voting member on a board? Like, I feel like that's a waste of volunteers. So I would I would be really clear on that in terms of we have the number of people in their voting members, and it gives them that that weight. Alright. Yeah.
Thank you. You've gotten quite a lot of feedback tonight. I hope it's helpful. Thank you. Yeah. Any, counselors was good. I think I yeah. I'm I'm impressed with our discussion at this time of the evening. So thank you everyone for hanging in there and having this conversation, and, this will come back to us at at at maybe not with this time line, as it is in the packet because, I don't know that there was it sounds like we need some more information about how many boards and commissions we need to have and some more options to think about. Yes. We will come back to you with that information.
Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for sticking around. Thank you. Okay. So I'm looking for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Councilor Ness? Move to adjourn. Councilor Beamer. Second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.