Paul Roberts
Councilmember
My notes utilizing AI:
Based on your current agenda item language and the TMUTCD requirements, you technically can move forward and approve the item as-is, but only if the Council is satisfied with using engineering judgment in lieu of a formal engineering study.
However, to comply more cleanly and defensibly with the TMUTCD, here’s a breakdown of your options:
If the Police Department or Director of Public Works verbally confirms at the meeting that, in their judgment:
Risk: This is lower-risk as long as no one challenges the decision later, but it does leave the City more vulnerable to liability claims if a crash occurs at the intersection post-installation and someone claims the stop sign was not warranted.
If you want to ensure full TMUTCD compliance and a clean administrative record, you could request:
Upside: This provides a clear basis for your legislative decision and satisfies TMUTCD’s "engineering study or engineering judgment" language. Delay: Likely a one-meeting delay.
Right now, your agenda item says PD and Public Works will evaluate it prior to the meeting, but if they don’t actually show up or provide input, then you're missing even the minimum "engineering judgment" standard TMUTCD requires.
You’d risk installing a traffic control device without any professional input, which is not compliant and may pose a liability issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
If PD or Public Works is present and can verbally affirm that the stop sign is justified based on safety, you can approve it at this meeting and simply make sure that affirmation is documented in the minutes.
If they are absent or noncommittal, you should table the item and ask for a one-page memo before bringing it back.
Based on your current agenda item language and the TMUTCD requirements, you technically can move forward and approve the item as-is, but only if the Council is satisfied with using engineering judgment in lieu of a formal engineering study.
However, to comply more cleanly and defensibly with the TMUTCD, here’s a breakdown of your options:
If the Police Department or Director of Public Works verbally confirms at the meeting that, in their judgment:- The intersection is unsafe or confusing,
- The proposed stop sign will enhance safety,
- And the decision is consistent with local precedent,
Risk: This is lower-risk as long as no one challenges the decision later, but it does leave the City more vulnerable to liability claims if a crash occurs at the intersection post-installation and someone claims the stop sign was not warranted. If you want to ensure full TMUTCD compliance and a clean administrative record, you could request:- A brief written memo from PD or Public Works,
- Documenting their site inspection, their opinion that the intersection poses a safety risk, and
- That a 3-way stop is an appropriate solution based on driver confusion or visibility issues.
Upside: This provides a clear basis for your legislative decision and satisfies TMUTCD’s "engineering study or engineering judgment" language. Delay: Likely a one-meeting delay. Right now, your agenda item says PD and Public Works will evaluate it prior to the meeting, but if they don’t actually show up or provide input, then you're missing even the minimum "engineering judgment" standard TMUTCD requires.You’d risk installing a traffic control device without any professional input, which is not compliant and may pose a liability issue.
RECOMMENDATION:If PD or Public Works is present and can verbally affirm that the stop sign is justified based on safety, you can approve it at this meeting and simply make sure that affirmation is documented in the minutes.
If they are absent or noncommittal, you should table the item and ask for a one-page memo before bringing it back.
