Council declines immediate guardrail installation; opts for signage, reflective tape and vegetation review

Staff presented crash history and technical guidance about guardrails for a steep curve that has seen three accidents since 2013, including two involving inebriated drivers. Engineering and maintenance staff described federal and state standards, high materials and installation costs, and ongoing maintenance obligations.
Jason (DPW) and staff reported that guardrail systems must meet MASH crash‑testing standards, that material and installation costs are high (maintenance supervisor examples in the packet showed sections costing thousands of dollars) and that guardrails can create hazards if installed incorrectly. Attorney Adam Florie cited the Governmental Tort Liability Act and explained that artificial roadside hardware such as guardrails can be treated differently in liability law than natural features; he said damaged guardrails must be kept in working order or they can create legal exposure.
Council discussion emphasized alternatives. Staff and the attorney recommended passive measures — enhanced signage, reflective tape, speed signage and possibly vegetation buffers — rather than an immediate guardrail installation. Staff also noted fiber‑optic and new water main alignments in the area that limit planting options and that any planting should come after utility work is complete.
No motion to install guardrail was made. Instead the council directed staff to update signage and reflectors and to re‑evaluate the location after phase‑2 water main and utility installations are complete.
Why it matters: The question affects public safety, maintenance costs and potential municipal liability; staff recommended lower‑cost, lower‑liability options that could reduce crash risk while avoiding the high cost and maintenance burden of guardrail systems.