Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners say Safe Routes grant awarded; some question Elm Avenue traffic islands
Summary
City staff told the commission the community was awarded a Safe Routes to School grant; commissioners said they want the grant agreement and attorney review before accepting and debated whether proposed traffic islands on Elm Avenue would actually improve safety for students and whether parking changes are needed.
The Munising City Commission was told the city has been awarded a Safe Routes to School grant, prompting commissioners to ask for a copy of the grant agreement and attorney review before committing to the project.
Commissioner (S2) said the grant had been awarded and asked to see the agreement “to review it before we accept it.” S2 and other commissioners recalled concerns raised during the school presentation and stressed that preliminary engineering and preliminary plans required by the grant could be changed later. “When we sat through the presentation from the school, we had some concerns about the items,” S2 said.
The main point of contention centered on proposed traffic islands on Elm Avenue. S2 said he could not see the value of islands “on Elm Avenue or Maple” and questioned whether islands on the highway would calm traffic; he suggested the plan did not address on-street parking near the elementary school and said parking on Elm Avenue remains the most dangerous part of student drop-off and pick-up. “I see no point to having the islands on Elm Avenue,” S2 said. Another commissioner (S3) replied that the plan did address those parking concerns.
Commissioners also discussed the city’s financial obligations under the grant. S2 asked whether the city would be obligated to spend the full grant if it decided to reduce the scope. S3 said her understanding was the city is not required to spend the entire grant but acknowledged this was her “first time through this grant” and she did not know the grant’s precise terms. Staff and commissioners agreed an attorney review of the grant agreement was appropriate before the commission accepts it.
No final decision on accepting the grant was recorded; staff said an MDOT meeting and further internal review were expected before the commission acts.
The commission directed staff to provide the grant agreement for review and to bring substantive details back at a future meeting so the commission can decide whether to accept, amend scope, or negotiate local match obligations.
