Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pavement Markings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shorewood committee reviews 10-year cost of proposed pavement-marking policy for Capitol Drive
Summary
A Public Works Committee meeting reviewed draft pavement-marking policy and a 10-year cost estimate that would raise annual marking costs to roughly $115,000; staff recommended guidelines or a policy be forwarded to the full board for budget consideration.
The Shorewood Public Works Committee on April 7 reviewed a draft pavement-marking policy for the 2025 Capitol Drive Pedestrian Improvement Initiative and a staff estimate of the 10-year cost of implementing the committee’s selected marking criteria.
Public Works Director Leanne Bushlik told the committee the estimate assumes a 3% annual inflation factor, epoxy markings for new capital projects with an approximate three-year life on high-activity intersections and a five-year life on other epoxy markings. Using those assumptions, the projected average annual cost over the next 10 years is about $115,000, compared with about $114,000 under current practices, Bushlik said.
The committee discussed trade-offs between marking frequency, material choices and the village’s long-term levy capacity. Bushlik noted Shorewood’s recent levy history and said a 1% property tax levy increase would raise roughly $134,500, and that recent net new construction was about 0.74%, which limits automatic revenue growth tied to levy limits.
Trustees said they want to prioritize main pedestrian arteries — including Capitol Drive crosswalks and key intersections — while keeping the village’s overall budget constraints in mind. Some trustees favored retaining guidelines and addressing funding year-by-year rather than locking the village into a policy the first year; others said a written policy would help staff with work planning and budgeting.
Bushlik offered alternatives staff could model, such as extending maintenance intervals for some markings (for example moving capital epoxy markings to a five-year cycle and others to seven) to show cost differences. She also said the department has budgeted money this year and recommended that painting proceed this year under current guidelines rather than delay work while policy discussions continue.
The committee directed staff to prepare additional materials, run alternate scenarios on life-cycle intervals and bring the matter to the full village board so trustees there can review budget implications before a final policy or funding decision.
The discussion was technical and fiscal in nature; no formal committee vote adopting a final policy was taken at the meeting.
