Wauwatosa staff outline three spending tracks for vehicle-registration fee; committee directs staff to draft policy

City engineering staff presented three proposed investment strategies for revenue from the vehicle-registration fee to address reckless or aggressive driving and to catch up on roadway maintenance: (1) a neighborhood traffic management program, (2) targeted arterial street safety projects, and (3) increased street maintenance activities. Committee members broadly endorsed the approach and asked staff to draft a policy for committee review.

Michael May of the engineering department described the proposed revisions to the neighborhood traffic management program, which would allow any person to submit a request (not only residents) and would run requests on a first-in, first-out basis for data collection. Staff proposed using a point-based prioritization system that incorporates an “80 fifth percentile” speed threshold greater than 5 miles per hour over the posted limit, an “excessive speeding” threshold (10% or more of drivers exceeding posted speed by 10 mph), daily traffic volume, crash history and severity, proximity to schools, parks, transit, and the presence of pedestrian accommodations. Example interventions include speed humps or tables, chicanes or medians, curb extensions and neighborhood traffic circles; Kavanaugh Street, Wells Street trials and traffic circles were cited as prior examples.

Staff noted the existing program required resident applications and full cost assessments that residents rarely complete; the proposed change would remove the resident-pay requirement and allow the city to fund projects to improve equity and ensure work is completed. Staff also described engineering constraints that can limit certain measures (for example, underground utilities, emergency response routes and detection equipment), and suggested some project types may be inappropriate on specific emergency routes.

Committee members raised equity and operational concerns. Alderman Foley asked whether a neighborhood could still pay for measures if it qualified but did not receive funding; staff said donations or neighborhood fundraising could be permitted as a middle ground. Several members said speed humps have trade-offs—noise, parking loss, and potential emergency-response time impacts—and that other alternatives (traffic circles, curb extensions) should be considered depending on the street context. Members asked for clearer public communication about priorities and suggested publishing rank orders before awards are made.

For arterial streets, staff proposed annually reviewing crash histories to identify high-crash locations and targeting investments such as signal modifications, relocated protection for frequently struck objects, and curb extensions (North Avenue at Ninetieth was an example). Staff noted opportunities to pursue state highway-safety grant funds, which can cover a large share of signal and roadway improvement costs, and cited Menomonee River Parkway and Swan as examples where sight-line and signal work could help pedestrian and bicyclist safety but where right-of-way or county-park ownership complicates work.

The street-maintenance category would fund crack sealing, seal coating, anti-skid applications on hills and curves, and ADA-compliant crosswalk repairs and repaving. Staff said the program will be a mix of in-house work and contracted work and emphasized the desire to show annual, programmatic results tied to data-driven priorities.

The committee generally endorsed the proposed framework and directed staff to draft a formal policy and return to the committee in the coming months with details, including a prioritized list of projects and communications to explain the program and expected timelines. No formal vote was recorded on the policy at this meeting.