City staff on the Committee of the Whole agenda presented a draft standard operating procedure (SOP) for traffic management that formalizes how the city will receive, evaluate and respond to resident traffic concerns, and the committee took no formal action.

The SOP, presented by David Wieke and Matt (last name not specified), establishes an internal Traffic Management Committee and a four-step process the city will use to handle incoming complaints or requests: (1) intake and initial action; (2) short-term educational and enforcement measures; (3) neighborhood petition and engineering study; and (4) design, funding and construction with a post-construction effectiveness study. Wieke said the SOP "solidifies existing practices and services, as an integral guiding document for addressing traffic related concerns."

The document matters because it assembles staff roles, public outreach and technical review into a single, repeatable sequence so residents, council members and city divisions have a common expectation of how requests will proceed. Council members pressed for clarity about petition thresholds, appeals and publication so residents can follow the process without repeated ad hoc requests.

Staff described the committee and process in detail. The Traffic Management Committee will include representatives from three departments and five city divisions and meet roughly once a month to review requests that come via residents, city departments or council referral. The presenters framed the city’s overall approach as three strategic pillars—education, enforcement and engineering—and then explained the four-step operational workflow.

Short-term steps (1–2) focus on quick remedies such as increased patrols, placement of speed awareness trailers or temporary signage and public education via city channels. Longer-term steps (3–4) apply when engineering analysis or community-backed petitions suggest capital improvements are needed. As explained by staff, a neighborhood petition submitted for study should demonstrate broad local support; presenters said the SOP aims to capture signatures representing roughly two-thirds of the affected area and about 80 percent of households on the block or study area when appropriate. Staff also said they will assist petitioners with petition forms and guidance.

Council members raised multiple operational and policy questions during discussion. Councilor Schultz asked whether the SOP will be posted online so residents can find petition forms and see the review flow; staff said that is the intention. Several members used a recent stop-sign installation at Center and Lone Tree as an example: engineering reported the location did not meet traffic-control warrants, but the neighborhood pressed for the sign and the council approved it. Staff said that even when engineering does not recommend a physical improvement, a neighborhood petition can still be advanced and ultimately presented to council. Wieke summarized, "If we get to that point where we...determine this is not warranted...we will report that back...and then, if they wanted to pursue the issue...they would come to the council."

Staff said the SOP is informational and internal rather than an ordinance; the presentation repeatedly noted there was "no action to be taken" at the meeting. Director Burdie (public safety) described likely enforcement responses for speed complaints: "It would depend what the claim is, but if it was a speed complaint for speed calming, probably a combination of both. Probably the speed awareness trailer and doing enforcement with marked units." Staff committed to providing residents formal notice of committee findings and to help petitioners understand next steps, including how to bring a disputed decision to the council.

The SOP also identifies special coordination needs: Met Transit (bus turning movements, stop locations), the University of Northern Iowa (event-generated volumes and student parking) and the City of Waterloo (cross-jurisdictional events and differing construction specifications). Staff said recommended capital improvements would be programmed through the city’s capital improvement plan and brought to council for funding and final approval; engineering would perform a post-construction study to measure effectiveness.

Council discussion closed with general support for documenting a repeatable process while acknowledging that exceptions and neighborhood-driven outcomes may continue to arise. The Committee of the Whole did not adopt the SOP as an ordinance; staff will return to council for project-specific approvals where funding or construction is required.

The committee moved to the next agenda item after the discussion.