[0:02] Let's call to order Alpine City Council
[0:04] meeting for March 10th, 2026.
[0:07] We'll start with a roll call from
[0:10] Councilman Councilwoman Blackwell.
[0:14] >> Sarah Blackwell present. Chrissy Hammond
[0:17] present.
[0:18] >> Andrew Young present. Brent Rmler
[0:20] present.
[0:21] >> Jessica Smile present.
[0:22] >> Okay, we will have a prayer offered by
[0:25] Councilwoman Blackwell followed by a
[0:26] pledge led by um Councilman Young. Our
[0:30] dear father in heaven, we are grateful
[0:32] for this opportunity to be here and to
[0:36] serve our community. We're grateful for
[0:39] the residents of of Alpine. And we're
[0:41] grateful for this beautiful earth that
[0:43] thou hast created for us. We pray as we
[0:46] discuss matters that pertain to our
[0:48] community and our city that we might be
[0:53] um
[0:54] mindful of
[0:58] our duties and that we might um
[1:03] think clearly and logically and um we
[1:07] say these things in the name of Jesus
[1:08] Christ. Amen.
[1:09] >> Amen.
[1:11] >> All rise.
[1:14] Repeat after me. I pledge allegiance to
[1:18] the flag of the United States of America
[1:21] and to the republic for which it stands,
[1:24] one nation under God, indivisible, with
[1:28] liberty and justice for all.
[1:30] >> Thank you.
[1:34] » Okay, we'll move on to item two, which
[1:37] is the consent calendar. Are is there
[1:40] any questions regarding the items on the
[1:41] consent calendar?
[1:45] If not, I'll
[1:46] >> Yeah, the uh so we're we're just uh
[1:55] » uh
[1:55] >> just explain on the one item the
[1:57] >> Yeah, why don't you start there?
[1:59] >> The the cost for the 300 North Well, um
[2:03] Jason's here, but he was waiting on one
[2:06] item and so that didn't go out until
[2:08] about four o'clock today with the actual
[2:10] costs. Um, so
[2:14] if you want us to go over the details of
[2:16] that or however you want to handle that,
[2:18] we can.
[2:19] >> Yep.
[2:21] >> Jason, do you want to
[2:26] » You want to just explain?
[2:27] >> And while you're doing that, will you
[2:29] explain uh is this the same well, pardon
[2:32] because we just got this. Is this the
[2:33] same well that we did the uh 10,000 um
[2:37] Nickerson survey of or is that a
[2:39] different well? That's a different
[2:41] >> That's a different well. And then will
[2:42] you just explain like uh all of the
[2:44] things that this well is used for and
[2:46] kind of the capacity in comparison to
[2:49] the Healey just so I can get a bearing
[2:51] of because we've got so many.
[2:53] >> I'll take care of that part of it. Okay.
[2:55] So, so the 300 north well pumps into our
[2:57] pressurized irrigation system
[3:00] >> and it's it's a smaller well. uh Jason
[3:04] will get into a little bit. When it was
[3:06] originally drilled to add a higher uh
[3:08] pumping rate, but just with changing
[3:10] conditions, that's changed and that's
[3:12] part of the reason we're having to make
[3:15] some modifications to it, put a
[3:17] different size pump, different size
[3:19] motor. Um so this will pump at was it
[3:23] about 600 gallons a minute. The Hewell
[3:26] is like 3,200 gallons a minute.
[3:29] >> So,
[3:30] >> and this one is for the mid zone or
[3:31] lower zone. This pumps into the mid
[3:33] zone.
[3:34] >> Yeah. So that's that part of it. And
[3:37] then Jason can explain the
[3:40] modifications.
[3:43] >> So
[3:45] do we want to go over the cost or the
[3:48] >> maybe just an overview of what we're
[3:50] doing? And yeah. So, we as Shane said
[3:54] this, we've had some issues with this
[3:55] well and it came to light that we it
[3:58] would be best to replace the well um or
[4:01] the the pump, sorry, not the well, just
[4:03] the pump in the well. Um and with that,
[4:08] we originally looked, can we keep the
[4:10] same motor? And as we got into digging
[4:13] into that, um it came to light that
[4:17] using the existing motor probably isn't
[4:19] the best idea. Um, first, it's larger
[4:24] than what is needed for the well. Uh,
[4:28] second, it doesn't work as well with the
[4:30] equipment that will be installed. Um,
[4:33] we're also installing a, [clears throat]
[4:35] excuse me, a variable frequency drive
[4:38] with this. And that is the electronics
[4:42] that run the motor. And it it allows you
[4:44] to pump at different rates or different
[4:48] flows. And so it just gives us more
[4:52] control on on what actually gets pumped
[4:54] out of the well. Um, so we want to do
[4:56] that.
[4:58] Um,
[5:00] sorry. And so that only so the new pump
[5:03] only requires a 200 horsepower motor.
[5:06] The existing one's 300. So we just
[5:08] figured it would be better to to use the 200 horse. Um,
[5:15] the other thing with the 300 horsepower
[5:17] motor, it's over two decades old, right
[5:21] Shane?
[5:22] >> I think it's the original motor
[5:24] >> and so we do not know how much longer it
[5:27] could last. And so kind of those
[5:29] reasons, it'll be we feel it'll be
[5:32] better to
[5:34] put the new motor in. Um, and then
[5:37] looking at the costs, we reached out to
[5:39] three different suppliers, Delco
[5:42] Western, Nickerson, and Techflow. And
[5:46] Heidi, do you want to Oh, yeah. Heidi
[5:48] has that up. The the different costs
[5:50] from them. Um, we've worked with Delco
[5:53] Western a lot and Nickerson. Uh, I've
[5:57] worked with Techflow in the past. As you
[5:59] can see, the Delco Western is the least
[6:02] expensive and
[6:06] We feel that that that will be a good
[6:07] enough pump for what we need.
[6:12] >> Any questions?
[6:13] >> Uh just a few, but feel free if you have
[6:15] them before I do or I can just finish
[6:17] mine and and [clears throat] pardon to
[6:19] ask these. We just got this an hour ago.
[6:20] So that's why I mean it's a$ 114 to
[6:23] $138,000 decision. So that's the only
[6:25] reason I'm spending a little bit of time
[6:26] on it. I hope that's okay. Um, so, so
[6:30] just so I'm clear, uh, this currently
[6:33] does run. The the the motor or the the
[6:36] pump does run or it doesn't run?
[6:38] >> It does not run.
[6:38] >> So, just the motor is valuable, but not
[6:40] the pump.
[6:41] >> Can we do we salvage the motor and use
[6:43] it elsewhere?
[6:44] >> We can sell it. We, you know, we're
[6:46] probably not going to get a lot out of
[6:47] it, but we can put it on Pike Surplus
[6:49] and sell it.
[6:50] >> And as of right now, this pump is just
[6:52] obsolete, not working. the pump because
[6:55] of the sand that pumped through it. It
[6:57] It's like just run a metal against
[6:59] sandpaper. So, it just wears everything
[7:01] out. So, that's what happened. The
[7:03] pump's not worth anything.
[7:06] >> Okay.
[7:06] >> Scrap metal.
[7:07] >> And this isn't a like this this is
[7:09] something that like we uh we wouldn't
[7:12] want to delay on because we want to use
[7:13] this this this summer.
[7:15] >> Correct.
[7:17] >> Okay. Um
[7:19] those those are my only questions. I
[7:20] might think of one other one is so if we
[7:22] tabled this for two weeks just to do a
[7:24] little bit more research is that going
[7:25] to cause a big problem only because of
[7:27] the cost
[7:29] >> the reason we didn't push it off already
[7:31] is
[7:31] >> because of that just times
[7:34] >> was the first we're all hearing of it so
[7:35] that's why okay thanks does anyone else
[7:36] have any other questions
[7:37] >> Andrew I'll say if you've got questions
[7:40] afterward just feel free to ask
[7:42] >> just real quick of the 114,000 what is
[7:45] the price of the motor of that 114 and
[7:48] pull that up the motor itself itself for
[7:51] the Delo Western is just under 24,000
[7:56] >> for the reason you stated. The other
[7:58] one's working fine and it would be
[7:59] serviceable, but you just don't know how
[8:01] long it's going to last and it's kind of
[8:02] overkill.
[8:03] >> So, a couple things on that. Um, with
[8:06] the VFD, the variable frequency drive,
[8:09] it will need to be upsized for the
[8:12] current motor and that extra cost is
[8:15] right around $10,000
[8:17] to use the existing motor. Okay.
[8:20] >> Um, and then if that does ever go out
[8:23] and we use the the bigger VFD, we may
[8:28] have to change the VFD. Plus, there's
[8:30] also where the motor connects to the
[8:34] well itself. That may need to be
[8:37] adjusted as well. Plus, there's a cost
[8:40] to install,
[8:42] remove, and install the motor, too. So
[8:44] all those costs play into to choosing
[8:48] the 200 horsepower motor.
[8:49] >> Thanks for that clarification. That
[8:51] makes sense.
[8:51] >> We we kind of weighed the pros and cons
[8:53] of going one way or the other. And like
[8:57] it's a 300 horse motor because it used
[8:59] to pump more water, which means it needs
[9:02] more power to operate it, but it's
[9:05] likely not going to pump at that rate
[9:07] ever again. And so it's kind of biting
[9:10] the bullet now to to get it right. And
[9:13] it lasted 20 years, right? You're saying
[9:15] >> that one did. I mean, motors, it's hard
[9:17] to guess. It's like your computer. It
[9:19] might last
[9:19] >> like a Ford, you know,
[9:21] >> you know, a long time. It might last six
[9:22] months.
[9:23] >> Shane, does this include the
[9:24] installation, the hardware and
[9:26] everything? Or we is there another cost
[9:28] that comes along with this?
[9:30] >> That's everything.
[9:31] >> Is everything the full thing working?
[9:34] a little we'll need to hire a electrical
[9:37] contractor to come and just connect the
[9:39] wires.
[9:40] >> And um what's the timeline on this if we
[9:43] were to approve this when it could be
[9:45] running? Like is this a two-year timet?
[9:48] Is this a two week timetable?
[9:50] [clears throat]
[9:52] » I don't have a direct number for the
[9:55] Delo Western. Um the Nickerson motor was
[9:58] about a six to 8 week lead time.
[10:02] That means how long until they can
[10:03] start, right?
[10:04] >> Until they to order from the time they
[10:06] order to the time it arrives.
[10:07] >> And then how long is the installation?
[10:09] Like
[10:10] >> a week, maybe two, Shane.
[10:14] >> Well, some of the the electrical stuff
[10:16] could be done while the motor is coming.
[10:19] >> Yes.
[10:19] >> But then they and they could even set
[10:22] the pump if they wanted to, but there's
[10:26] going to be a lead time on the pump,
[10:27] too, of probably six weeks.
[10:30] >> Yeah,
[10:30] >> I'll bet. Thank you.
[10:32] >> So, yeah,
[10:33] >> we're just trying to get it in as fast
[10:35] as possible.
[10:36] >> I just have one question. With the new
[10:38] pump and motor, will it is it engineered
[10:41] differently so it doesn't take as much
[10:43] of the sand and
[10:45] or is that just a normal problem?
[10:47] >> We're going to put a sand separator on
[10:49] the bottom of the pump, which should
[10:50] help some, but reducing the flow rate
[10:53] should also help. And then with this
[10:57] variable frequency drive, you can pump
[11:00] like if conditions change, you can
[11:02] change the flow that you're pumping at,
[11:04] which should pull in less sand also. So
[11:07] there's a lot of different things going
[11:09] on. Um, and the whole reason we we're
[11:12] doing it is because the conditions we're
[11:14] dealing with there. So
[11:18] I just think with our summer ahead,
[11:20] every piece of equipment is going to be
[11:22] utilized and needs to be in top working
[11:24] order. So, thank you for being um
[11:26] >> on top of it.
[11:27] >> What is the word? Proactive. Thank you
[11:29] for being proactive.
[11:31] >> And when you mention the conditions
[11:32] there, is that because the water levels
[11:35] go in lower?
[11:37] >> Yes, it's dropped significantly since
[11:40] the well was drilled
[11:42] >> in the
[11:43] late 80s, early 90s.
[11:47] >> Okay. If there's no further questions,
[11:48] I'll entertain a motion.
[11:49] >> Well, hold on. We hadn't done C yet. Can
[11:52] I just ask quick about C? Yes.
[11:54] >> On C, I just uh I was trying to go into
[11:56] my memory bank. Was this the position
[11:59] where um originally Ryan was put in that
[12:02] position and then we're swapping it?
[12:04] >> Yes. Because Ryan's no longer here,
[12:06] >> right?
[12:07] >> And we don't officially have a member.
[12:08] So, we don't have anyone that has voting
[12:10] rights. It's usually the city engineer.
[12:12] We didn't have one. So, Ryan was
[12:14] >> right.
[12:14] >> The person
[12:15] >> Jed Jed went prior.
[12:17] >> Right. Right. Okay. Is there any chance
[12:19] in the future we can get a uh
[12:22] legislator on one one on this council?
[12:24] >> Not on the TAC committee. It's um I
[12:26] don't know anyone [clears throat] that's
[12:27] on the TAC committee that's isn't like a
[12:30] either a city administrator or a um
[12:32] engineer. That's who they suggest to be
[12:34] on it. It's a technical advisory
[12:36] committee
[12:38] >> on the staff report. I I took the the
[12:41] text in italics right off the MAG
[12:44] website.
[12:45] >> Right. and it they describe what the who
[12:48] makes up that committee.
[12:49] >> Are legislators able to do it or are
[12:52] they
[12:52] >> I'm not when I was there I don't recall
[12:54] ever having like an elected official
[12:58] >> usually have employees staff
[12:59] >> because it provides consistency. The
[13:01] longer somebody is there able to build
[13:03] those relationships and
[13:05] >> they know how it works and so you want
[13:07] that continuity.
[13:08] >> I I love I agree with that. I just
[13:11] assumed uh a legisle would be or a
[13:13] resident would be would as we are seeing
[13:16] be more consistent because they don't
[13:18] leave they can't they just like leave
[13:20] the job. So they actually I I'm with
[13:22] you. I would think a a legislator would
[13:25] actually be more consistent especially
[13:27] what we just have gone through. Um
[13:29] anyways
[13:30] >> but it goes from this body to an elected
[13:32] body. That's the what do you call your
[13:35] group mayor?
[13:36] >> The executive council.
[13:37] >> Yeah. So like when we uh applied for the
[13:41] Canyon Crest project with Highland, it
[13:43] went through the TAC committee. They
[13:45] rated it or ranked projects. We ended up
[13:49] u within the money they had for that uh
[13:52] funding year and then those projects
[13:55] went to the mayor's group and the
[13:58] electeds
[14:00] got to to approve those there.
[14:02] >> All right. Well, in the future if they
[14:04] allow legislators, I think it'd be
[14:05] helpful.
[14:08] Anything else? Any other questions? If
[14:11] not, I'll entertain a motion.
[14:16] » I move to approve the consent calendar.
[14:20] >> Is there a second?
[14:21] >> I'll second.
[14:22] >> Moved by Councilwoman Haniman, seconded
[14:24] by Councilman Rummler to approve the
[14:25] items on the consent calendar. Let's
[14:28] proceed with a roll call vote.
[14:30] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[14:31] >> Chrissy Henman, yes.
[14:35] Andrew Young, yes. Brent Rama, yes.
[14:37] >> Jessica Smu, yes.
[14:39] >> Okay, we'll move on to item three, which
[14:41] is public comment. We have two people.
[14:43] We have We'll first start with Mario and
[14:47] then followed by Dan Himenez. If you can
[14:49] step up and state your name and just the
[14:52] street that you live on in the city and
[14:55] then you have three minutes to make your
[14:57] statement.
[14:58] >> Good evening.
[14:59] >> My name is Mario Jimenez.
[15:05] Good evening. My name is Mario Jimenez.
[15:08] I live on uh Whitby Woodland Drive.
[15:12] Um I have uh reached out to Andrew.
[15:15] has helped me. He's forwarded
[15:16] this communication to you all. You all
[15:18] should have copies of it. I think the
[15:20] most succinct and efficient way of
[15:22] delivering my message is just to simply
[15:24] read it to you. Dear council members,
[15:27] first and foremost, thank you for all
[15:28] your genuine endeavors and unselfish
[15:30] dedication to the service of our beloved
[15:31] city. My name is Mario Jimenez. My
[15:34] family and I have been Alpine residents
[15:35] since 1998. We love our city and only
[15:37] seek what is edifying and beneficial to
[15:40] our community. My efforts via this
[15:42] communication center around a clearer
[15:44] understanding and hopefully the goal of
[15:45] an updated implementation of Alpine City
[15:48] Municipal Code regarding the use of golf
[15:50] carts on our public streets. As a
[15:52] succinct review, the current Alpine City
[15:55] Code currently only addresses golf carts
[15:58] regarding parking during snow
[16:00] conditions. The understanding of what is
[16:02] and not specifically allowed, license
[16:04] registered, is at best vague and
[16:06] unambiguous, and in today's environment,
[16:08] not an efficient directive. I've
[16:10] included an attachment.
[16:12] The reality is that the presence of golf
[16:14] carts on city streets is a cogent issue
[16:16] and one that will without a doubt
[16:17] increase in numbers and frequency. There
[16:20] is a myriad of reasons that this is
[16:22] factual. Certainly, the convenience of
[16:23] utilizing a transportation platform that
[16:26] has a lower carbon emission and decibel
[16:28] discharge as well as providing a smaller
[16:30] footprint in and around common public
[16:32] and parking areas. These methods of
[16:35] transportation have greatly evolved in
[16:36] recent years due to the advances in
[16:38] technology. Nationwide, there are
[16:40] thousands of communities of all sizes
[16:42] which not only allow but more
[16:43] importantly encourage the use of golf
[16:45] carts as substitutes for much larger,
[16:48] heavier, more pollutant and louder motor
[16:50] vehicles. Furthermore, the beneficial
[16:53] update of our city's municipal code is
[16:55] reflected a new in the assistance and
[16:57] support provided to our beloved senior
[16:59] citizens who due to a myriad of maladies
[17:01] will have on a less than optimum day an
[17:04] additional means of mobility. So, how do
[17:06] we update the Alpine City Municipal
[17:08] Code? If I may humbly profer, our sister
[17:10] city of Highland in May of 2025 updated
[17:13] the municipal code via the approval of
[17:15] specific reference to the approved use
[17:17] of golf carts. I've added an attachment.
[17:20] Interestingly enough, the specific
[17:22] language crafted in this newly codified
[17:24] update mirrors to the most extent
[17:26] possible the language already found
[17:28] within the Utah State Applicable Codes
[17:29] and Regulations. Utah State being the
[17:33] repository for the ultimate authority.
[17:35] Since the Lone Peak Fire uh excuse me,
[17:37] since the Lone Peak Police Department
[17:39] oversees public safety along with
[17:40] traffic enforcement in our city, it will
[17:42] be most effective to provide them with
[17:44] similar and familiar municipal document.
[17:46] May I then suggest that the Alpine City
[17:48] promptly update their municipal code by
[17:50] adapting an equivalent document to the
[17:52] Highland City did in the summer of 2025.
[17:55] As a final point of reference, I visited
[17:57] with Donwigley regarding this issue and
[17:59] is a source for the details of the
[18:00] current Alpine City Municipal Code. He's
[18:02] a
[18:07] » Thank you.
[18:08] >> Thanks, Mario.
[18:18] » Um, I'm here representing Mountain Bill.
[18:20] So, do I get an extra minute if I
[18:21] represent a group? That That's the rule.
[18:24] Extra minute.
[18:26] Okay. Um I'm Dan Jimenez. I live on
[18:28] Coventry Lane. Uh I, like I said,
[18:30] represent Mountainville Academy here
[18:32] tonight as our uh city council relations
[18:35] uh chair. Um I just wanted to make one
[18:37] quick public comment in support um in
[18:40] general of the recommendations listed in
[18:43] the traffic studies that were just
[18:44] submitted by fairs and peers. I think
[18:46] that or we think as a school that in
[18:48] general their recommendations are
[18:50] consistent with our view on how to best
[18:52] help alleviate uh and improve the
[18:54] traffic and safety situation in and
[18:56] around Mountainville. Um I'm not going
[18:58] to go through it in detail. I just need
[19:00] to hit some of the main items. You all
[19:02] have the reports. You're going to talk
[19:03] about it later, so I don't need to get
[19:04] into details. Just most broadly, the use
[19:06] of one the property on 100 South uh in
[19:10] conjunction with broader improvements to
[19:11] be made to the Mountainville site, I
[19:13] think would significantly increase the
[19:16] amount [clears throat] of uh on-site
[19:17] pickup and drop off and alleviate flow
[19:19] from Main Street and create a staging
[19:21] area for students and cars in a similar
[19:23] fashion as we see at Legacy Park, but
[19:25] moved uh on the other side of the street
[19:27] closer to the school. And I think it's
[19:29] particularly advantageous the use of
[19:30] that land for residents of Alpine who go
[19:33] to Mountainville as it, you know, being
[19:34] on the north side. Uh second, the use of
[19:36] Red Pine as a pickup area. We are happy
[19:39] to test it. We are happy to put in a
[19:41] sidewalk on the south side of the
[19:43] property to enable uh the students to
[19:46] access Red Pine without having to cross
[19:48] traffic. That was brought up in the
[19:49] study and that was already part of our
[19:51] bigger our uh broader redevelopment plan
[19:53] was to put a sidewalk there. Um, and
[19:55] then thirdly, uh, movement of the
[19:56] crosswalk, uh, to the south of where it
[19:58] currently is. We believe that would be a
[20:00] great increase in improvement in traffic
[20:02] and, uh, uh, traffic flow and safety
[20:05] would enable more pickups to happen
[20:07] south of the school. Um, and the school
[20:09] would make site improvements on our side
[20:10] to interface better with wherever that
[20:12] crosswalk lands. Um, as my last comment,
[20:15] I do think that um, since the study was
[20:18] requested by the city and the traffic
[20:20] council, uh, a second idea came uh, came
[20:23] up as to where exactly to place it,
[20:26] whether directly in line with the school
[20:27] in between the entrance and the exit or
[20:29] just to the north. Um, I think that the
[20:32] option of placing it just to the north
[20:34] is very much worth considering. Um if if
[20:37] it allows uh to retain the ability for
[20:39] vehicles exiting onto Main Street to
[20:42] turn left, but in a controlled manner
[20:44] under the direction of a crosswalk
[20:46] crossing guard or a traffic uh safety
[20:48] officer, that uh retainment of a left
[20:51] hand out would improve the egress rate
[20:53] out of the school parking lot. And that
[20:56] overall efficiency, it would only
[20:58] require us to double our flow rate out
[21:00] of the school parking lot in order to
[21:01] get all the cars through the parking lot
[21:03] during pickup. Um, so all the h the 50%
[21:07] that spill over onto side streets and
[21:08] Legacy Park, if we increase the flow
[21:10] rate there, uh, by which I think we can
[21:13] by 2x would be really helpful. Um, it
[21:16] would increase parent adoption and, uh,
[21:19] would help balance traffic.
[21:23] So, I'll just say that we're ready to
[21:25] funds as a school to
[21:28] whatever needs to be done.
[21:31] So, thank you and
[21:35] » [laughter]
[21:37] » father-son combo.
[21:41] >> I'm impressed. Very.
[21:43] >> Okay, let's um move on to item four,
[21:47] reports and presentations,
[21:49] the Main Street Traffic Study Review.
[21:53] >> Mayor, point of information, I
[21:54] apologize.
[21:56] on the last
[21:57] uh I don't know if it was defined so
[22:00] pardon if I missed it on the uh consent
[22:04] calendar we approved it but did we
[22:06] approve which budget the 114 the 137 or
[22:10] the 138
[22:11] >> we usually always go with the lowest bid
[22:13] >> is that the plan
[22:15] >> yes
[22:15] >> okay I didn't
[22:16] >> we should clarify it in the minutes but
[22:18] yeah that was the intent
[22:19] >> how do how do we go about clarifying
[22:21] something like that just so I know for
[22:22] in the future does it just kind of
[22:24] happen later or
[22:26] >> yeah, usually when we get it though, we
[22:27] usually just get it for the lowest price
[22:29] and award it.
[22:31] >> Do we need to add that in there?
[22:32] >> And it could just be that
[22:35] >> with our short time um allotted from
[22:39] information to meeting, right?
[22:40] >> We're just out of our normal sequence.
[22:43] >> I know we're out of the sequence, but we
[22:44] didn't define it and so I just don't
[22:45] know what they're supposed to do. I'm
[22:47] not trying to take time.
[22:48] >> Yeah. So, you can always assume that
[22:50] it's going to go with the lowest bid.
[22:51] Usually, we don't see the others. Um,
[22:53] usually it's presented with it or
[22:54] they'll say it and you know it's awarded
[22:56] to that. But yes, that um
[23:00] >> well we can include that detail in the
[23:02] minutes if the council's okay with it
[23:04] just to clarify and make sure we're all
[23:06] >> Does anyone object to going with the
[23:07] lowest bid unless there's some sort of
[23:09] [clears throat] uh problem that forces
[23:11] us to look at one of the higher ones?
[23:13] Chrissy or anyone?
[23:14] >> Okay, pardon the interruption. I just
[23:16] thought that would be helpful. The last
[23:18] thing is because there were so many
[23:19] residents, did we miss any of the
[23:21] residents that wanted to give public
[23:22] comment?
[23:24] >> No. Okay.
[23:26] >> Okay. Let's move on to the traffic study
[23:29] review. Jason, are you doing that or is
[23:31] Shane doing that?
[23:32] >> If I can just just mention a couple
[23:34] things just kind of how we got here. Um,
[23:36] so this item came up back in at the
[23:39] November 11th council meeting just
[23:42] during communication. um was requested
[23:46] that you know the crosswalk be
[23:48] relocated. Um so we said that we need to
[23:52] have a a warrant study to do that.
[23:55] [clears throat] Um we discussed it just
[23:57] a little bit in uh
[24:02] what was that must have been a special
[24:03] council meeting. It was on 11:18.
[24:07] But then on January 13th, we had on the
[24:10] agenda approval of this proposal from
[24:13] Fair and Pierce to conduct this main
[24:16] street crosswalk uh warrant study and
[24:19] then some related items. So um Michael
[24:23] from Fair and Pierce uh Michael Adamson
[24:27] uh is on Zoom tonight and he's prepared
[24:31] these uh studies and reports and will
[24:34] report on those to us and hopefully
[24:36] answer any questions that you might
[24:38] have.
[24:44] » All right, perfect. Thanks for uh
[24:47] introducing me and providing that
[24:48] history and and thank you for getting
[24:50] the uh slides up for me, council. It's
[24:53] great to be able to talk to you. I'll go
[24:55] ahead and put my uh video on because
[24:57] it's always weird to talk to someone
[24:59] divorced of uh of the face. So, uh it's
[25:03] good to uh chat with you all. Um, as as
[25:07] was stated, this study, the purpose of
[25:09] it was um to first warrant whether or
[25:13] not a crossing could be moved at all and
[25:15] then to explore what that movement looks
[25:18] like and how that would impact uh
[25:20] potential routing. Uh can we go to the
[25:21] next slide?
[25:24] Uh so the larger purpose of that routing
[25:27] study was uh mainly to evaluate ways to
[25:30] further mitigate the traffic condition
[25:32] and and safety concerns observed uh uh
[25:35] in relation to access to Mountainville
[25:37] Academy during that pickup and drop off
[25:39] period. uh with the three main issues
[25:42] observed during our site visit in
[25:43] January being uh the pedestrian crossing
[25:46] itself honestly being one of the main
[25:48] sources of a lot of that congestion that
[25:50] occurs in the northbound and southbound
[25:52] directions uh particularly during the uh afternoon uh pickup period. Uh
[25:58] just a lot of you know vehicles need to
[26:00] stop for that crossing. There are quite
[26:01] a few students that are crossing east
[26:03] west at that school crossing. Uh and so
[26:05] with waiting for those crossings to
[26:06] occur, you do see a lot of spill back uh
[26:08] particularly in that northbound
[26:10] direction. Uh unsafe uh left turn
[26:13] movements. One of the things that we
[26:14] observed at the access itself is um
[26:18] vehicles would take advantage when there
[26:20] was that opportunity and those gaps
[26:21] occurred as a result of the crossing
[26:23] blocking the way. Uh vehicles would turn
[26:25] left. But we also observed quite a few
[26:27] instances where between when um those
[26:32] the the crossing was open and vehicles
[26:34] could go through. Uh there were still
[26:37] quite a few left turns that were
[26:38] occurring and particularly lots of
[26:40] instances where there were near misses
[26:42] of vehicles trying to turn left and uh
[26:45] conflicting with southbound traffic that
[26:46] couldn't see them very well in the
[26:48] queue. Uh and so that's one of the main
[26:52] uh motivations behind trying to explore
[26:53] ways to improve that dynamic.
[26:55] Additionally, one of the things brought
[26:56] up and what that what we further
[26:58] observed particularly in the pickup
[27:00] period was parent staging issues and
[27:02] parent staging occurring on Main Street
[27:04] 100 South uh and Center Street.
[27:08] Particularly the staging on Main Street.
[27:09] We observed multiple instances where
[27:11] this led to conflicts when parents uh
[27:14] pulling out uh from the shoulder would
[27:17] either pull a U-turn or uh to conflict
[27:20] with the southbound traffic or would uh
[27:22] merge directly into northbound slowing
[27:24] down traffic and leading to further uh
[27:26] cues in that area. Uh next slide.
[27:32] uh in thinking through what potential
[27:34] solutions there might be. Uh the main
[27:37] recommendation and this recommendation
[27:39] originally stems from a study performed
[27:41] by Hails Engineering for Mountain View
[27:44] Mountainville Academy. Uh shifting the
[27:47] crossing to align with the on-site
[27:48] pedestrian area does present an
[27:50] opportunity to remove conflicts with
[27:53] vehicles leaving and turning right out
[27:55] of the site. which means by allowing
[27:58] those right turns to move freely of the
[28:00] pedestrian area, they also are no longer
[28:02] contributing to cues and vehicles
[28:05] waiting on Main Street because they're
[28:06] able to flow independent of that um
[28:09] crossing area. Additionally, um the main
[28:14] impact to potentially closing the left
[28:17] turn movement out of uh the egress, the
[28:20] main egress on Main Street. Uh that
[28:22] would result in roughly 190 a.m. uh
[28:26] trips rerouting and 130 p.m. trips
[28:28] rerouting. Uh we looked at potential
[28:31] choke points where they would reroute
[28:32] to. Um Canyon and Ridge was one of
[28:35] those. uh as well as um Main Street and
[28:39] 200 North were other choke points where
[28:42] they would reroute through neighborhood
[28:43] streets to those before moving on to the
[28:46] uh other corridors that would allow them
[28:49] egress from Alpine. Uh when we analyzed
[28:52] those choke points, we did not see any
[28:54] issues uh that weren't already being
[28:56] addressed by larger city plans. Uh when
[29:00] it comes to the staging area to Red Pine
[29:01] Drive, we found that it generally would
[29:03] operate acceptably and would allow for
[29:06] uh this staging to shift away from Main
[29:09] Street uh and from um the areas around
[29:13] city hall. Uh but it could affect nearby
[29:16] residents and it could also increase
[29:18] pedestrian activity in those areas. So
[29:20] it's it's worth exploring further and
[29:22] piloting before uh committing down that
[29:24] path. Next slide.
[29:28] Uh so I'm just providing an image of
[29:30] where we expect rerouting to occur if
[29:32] the uh left turn egress were closed at
[29:35] the main access to the site. Uh with
[29:37] move allowing for a new north egress to
[29:40] occur uh we would see as I've said
[29:42] rerouting to Canyon Crest as well as uh
[29:45] to 200 north over to Westfield.
[29:49] Uh next slide.
[29:52] So the final recommendations we came
[29:54] from this exploration was to first
[29:56] construct this north egress uh
[29:58] consistent with option 2A of the
[29:59] original traffic study uh relocate the
[30:02] school crossing from 120 south to align
[30:04] with the on-site pedestrian walkway.
[30:06] Restrict left turns at the main school
[30:08] access uh only temporarily during pickup
[30:12] and drop off period. So using cones,
[30:14] signage and enforcement from crossing
[30:16] guards uh and then restrict staging on
[30:19] main and 120 south and 100 south
[30:22] shifting that to a pilot of staging on a
[30:24] Red Pine Drive. If this is successful,
[30:28] uh we would recommend uh this on-site
[30:30] pedestrian route, a sidewalk on the
[30:32] south along the south edges of the site
[30:34] to be able to avoid conflict between
[30:37] pedestrians going southbound and those
[30:39] entering the site.
[30:42] And then uh maintaining the queue
[30:44] storage on the northbound main street,
[30:45] although uh this uh queue on the
[30:49] shoulder uh is spilling back from the
[30:52] site. We observed uh on site that it
[30:55] doesn't typically block the through
[30:56] line. People are still able to move
[30:58] north and the issues related to
[31:01] northbound queuing are unrelated to the
[31:03] shoulder uh cues themselves.
[31:06] So that's just a summary of the
[31:08] findings. I know you've had a chance to
[31:09] review the memo in more detail, but I
[31:11] wanted to walk through that before we
[31:13] were able to have a larger discussion.
[31:14] So, I I shift it back to the council for
[31:17] any questions you might have.
[31:22] Yes, we'll start with Sarah and then go
[31:24] ahead and move through the DAS.
[31:26] >> Um, if moving this the crosswalk between
[31:30] the entrance and the exit um or just
[31:34] moving it south, sorry, just north of
[31:37] the exit of Mountainville. Um, how would
[31:41] this affect right-hand turns? I know in
[31:43] your study you recommended that only
[31:45] right-hand turns be made, but if for I
[31:47] don't know if did what they reached out
[31:50] about Jessica's idea or Councilwoman
[31:52] Sme's idea.
[31:53] >> Yes.
[31:54] >> Okay. So if if that option I guess three
[31:57] or C um moving the crosswalk just north
[32:02] of the exit of Mountainville versus in
[32:06] between the entrance and the exit of
[32:07] Mountainville. if that was were to be
[32:10] put in place there, how would that
[32:12] affect right-hand turns? I know it would
[32:14] help with left-hand turns, but I'm just
[32:17] curious if you have any thoughts on
[32:19] right-hand turns.
[32:20] >> Yeah. No, I it's a great question and uh
[32:23] I want to make clear up front that um we
[32:25] didn't analyze that option three
[32:27] technically. Uh we were notified of that
[32:29] yesterday. Um but I have had a chance to
[32:32] kind of think through some of the larger
[32:33] implications of that. So from a right
[32:36] turn perspective, it's it's not as um it
[32:41] won't be consistent with existing
[32:43] conditions where you see a large queue
[32:44] spill back that comes and blocks the
[32:47] access making it so right turns just
[32:48] can't turn out at all while there's a
[32:51] queue there. Um but it will effectively
[32:54] be the same uh in the sense that when uh
[32:57] when crossings are occurring, those
[32:58] right turns can't go out. And I expect
[33:01] uh from what we've observed in similar
[33:03] sites that when the crossing is cleared,
[33:06] there will be a kind of gap jump that
[33:08] occurs with those right turns where
[33:10] right turns try and get in before the
[33:12] queue starts to move forward. Uh and so
[33:15] although that would potentially lead to
[33:18] more right turns being able to go
[33:20] through, it would still lead to a pretty
[33:23] a very similar condition to what's
[33:26] happening right now. So long story
[33:29] short, I would just say um although it
[33:32] could present a small amount of
[33:35] improvement for the right turns, it
[33:36] would largely lead to the same amount of
[33:39] storage issues on site as we currently
[33:41] see. Does that answer your question?
[33:44] >> Yes, thank you. Um, and this is
[33:46] something that I talked with Shane
[33:48] about, but if staging, and I know that would just be kind of by a trial to
[33:53] see if that would work,
[33:54] >> but there are some um elderly people
[33:57] that live down Red Pine. And this is a
[34:00] point that Shane brought up is that
[34:02] there are a lot of emergency vehicles
[34:03] that go down that road. So, that was
[34:06] just something I I mean, just to be
[34:08] aware of if we move staging there. Um,
[34:11] yeah, that was my only other comment or
[34:13] thought and I didn't know if you had
[34:15] considered that.
[34:17] >> Yes. No, I appreciate that comment and
[34:18] yes, we did consider it. Uh, which is
[34:21] one of the main motivations on honestly
[34:23] that we recommended a pilot rather than
[34:25] just moving forward is there are a lot
[34:27] of variables, emergency access. Uh, when
[34:30] we were there uh on site, we took a
[34:32] moment to walk down that street and got
[34:34] get a feel for it. and it it has a lot
[34:36] more of those elderly uh folks that that
[34:38] are walking the street. And so the
[34:41] larger context is to see if in the pilot
[34:44] confirming are we seeing any issues with
[34:47] um conflicts with emergency vehicles or
[34:49] with discomfort of the neighbors uh as
[34:51] part of bringing that staging there.
[34:54] >> Thank you. I don't have any more
[34:55] questions.
[34:56] >> Okay, Chrissy.
[34:58] >> Uh thank you very much. I thought the um
[35:01] report was really well written. We um
[35:04] have seen many of these and this one Dan
[35:07] also agreed with that he and I both
[35:09] agreed that it was easy to understand
[35:12] what you were trying to communicate to
[35:14] us. So we appreciate not only the
[35:16] numbers but the the story which was easy
[35:19] for us to understand. I did have a
[35:22] couple of questions. Um I'm going to
[35:25] take like my first way of thinking and
[35:28] then my second way of thinking. My first
[35:31] way of thinking is we have been working
[35:32] with a school administration feel like
[35:34] I'm talking to the space here like but
[35:36] anyways um and we want to cooperate and
[35:40] Dan I don't know if you were watching
[35:41] the be beginning but he's a
[35:43] representative from the school and um he voiced the support for many of these
[35:49] things that have been proposed and they
[35:51] are a little concerned about a a
[35:53] permanent um
[35:56] left restriction and so you did say in
[35:58] the the traffic study that we could put
[36:01] or they could put up cones and only um
[36:04] restrict it during the drop off and
[36:06] pickup time. Otherwise, they'd have open
[36:08] access to left-hand turns and you had a
[36:10] few other reasons like for the
[36:12] businesses in the area. Um is that a a
[36:16] strong recommendation? Because other
[36:18] times, other traffic engineers have said
[36:19] we could put a permanent median down the
[36:22] middle and restrict left turns at all
[36:24] times. So, it's definitely preferred to
[36:28] just have it during um peak traffic
[36:30] times. Is that I just want to reiterate.
[36:32] Is that what you meant to say?
[36:35] >> Yes, that is what I meant to say. That
[36:37] is our recommendation. Um the that the
[36:40] reasons for that are are twofold. As you
[36:42] mentioned, the business accesses with
[36:45] the way that the median would need to
[36:46] work. It would block access to those
[36:48] businesses on the west side,
[36:49] particularly the um the dermatology
[36:53] location and the uh uh um I believe uh
[36:58] glasses store that's that's right there
[37:00] on the on the west side. Uh the other
[37:02] side of it is uh just recognizing that
[37:05] outside of the pickup and drop off
[37:07] period, there's not really a problem.
[37:09] >> True. Uh and so a median feels like a a large step to make um for for again
[37:17] something that you can test through
[37:19] doing these more temporary solutions.
[37:21] >> Yeah. Okay. Um thank you. I two three
[37:24] other things. Um we've been looking at
[37:27] traffic calming measures in other parts
[37:29] of our city and they've had like an
[37:31] extended curb there which would also
[37:33] like allow a safer place for um the
[37:36] pedestrians or the students to gather
[37:38] and that wasn't a part of your study.
[37:40] Was there a reason for that or do you
[37:42] feel like it's not needed?
[37:45] >> Uh I wouldn't say that it's not needed.
[37:47] Um it is something that we discussed
[37:49] with staff originally and one of the
[37:50] things we came to is just recognizing
[37:52] that any um you know curb extensions or
[37:55] bullouts that you put in place uh may
[37:58] conflict with other plans related to to
[38:00] Main Street. I know one of those plans
[38:02] being a potential bicycle lane along
[38:05] Main Street either on one side or both
[38:06] sides of the street. when you put in a a
[38:09] curb extension. Uh in that case, there's
[38:11] additional design considerations that
[38:13] need to go in to make sure that a bike
[38:14] lane can still be in place. Uh in
[38:18] general, I would say uh the more traffic
[38:23] calming that you can provide around
[38:24] crossing, the better. So, if the city
[38:26] would like to explore that, just
[38:28] recognize that there would be tradeoffs
[38:30] that you would need to think about in
[38:31] terms of the larger corridor identity.
[38:34] >> Okay.
[38:35] Um, third point, um, Red Pine. Okay, I
[38:39] can't read my own writing. Get on
[38:41] glasses here. Um, oh, um, with a
[38:45] crossing guard having everyone gathering
[38:47] right where the walkway comes directly
[38:48] out of the school. Um, is it legal and
[38:52] our police chief is here too for her to stop the the cars entering so that we
[38:57] could cross kids if they just come down
[38:59] the middle walkway and if they want to
[39:01] access Red Pine just stop the cars from
[39:03] entering like the school premises. Is
[39:06] that a legal something that they could
[39:08] do to facilitate until we get a sidewalk
[39:11] built?
[39:13] >> Um, I will say from a safety standpoint
[39:16] that is advisable. uh from a legal
[39:18] standpoint, I may not be the right
[39:19] expert to ask. Perhaps the police chief
[39:21] would know better.
[39:22] >> Okay, we'll postpone that question, but
[39:24] he's he's listening. The fourth question
[39:27] I had was um I don't know if this was
[39:30] discussed with you, but um we had come
[39:32] across specifically me a model where
[39:35] they held back anyone who was going to
[39:37] be a pedestrian student until the like
[39:40] the peak um volume of cars had been
[39:42] moved off of like through. And then that
[39:46] reduce so many of the conflicts that
[39:47] we're seeing with vehicles and and and
[39:49] children that would um that is something
[39:53] that
[39:55] I think would help a lot in many ways.
[39:58] But would it have any negative impact
[40:00] because are we using the crosswalk in
[40:02] any way to create like a stopping
[40:04] traffic so we can um exit the property
[40:09] the the school property. Do you know
[40:11] what I'm saying? Like if we put it right
[40:12] in the middle
[40:13] >> Yeah.
[40:13] >> Okay.
[40:14] Good. You understand my question? Thank
[40:16] you.
[40:17] >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And apologies for for
[40:19] interrupting you there. Um uh that is an
[40:23] interesting question. I I I admit that I
[40:25] haven't put an a deep amount of thought
[40:27] into it, but my reaction to what you're
[40:29] saying uh would be yes, that that could
[40:32] work. Um it would create obviously more
[40:35] delays for those students and
[40:37] particularly if if if those students are
[40:39] pedestrians that are then going to uh
[40:41] the pickup area. uh the potential pickup
[40:44] area at Red Pine. Uh that creates
[40:46] potential delay for the parents. The
[40:48] other aspect of that that I would say is
[40:50] it would probably adversely impact right
[40:52] turns out assuming we're going to be
[40:54] restricting left turns. Um just because
[40:57] there would no longer be instances where
[41:00] the crossing is there to allow more gaps
[41:02] for those right turns to go. However, it
[41:04] would it would flow the flow of it would
[41:06] not be an intense amount different. So,
[41:10] I think if if you're exploring ways to
[41:12] remove pedestrians from from heavy
[41:14] interaction with the heaviest time of
[41:16] vehicles, that would be one potential
[41:17] option. I would just caution in that
[41:20] case that of course you'd want to shift
[41:22] the uh school zone timing appropriately
[41:26] to make sure that when the bulk of
[41:29] pedestrians are crossing there is uh the
[41:32] proper speed limitations in place.
[41:34] >> Okay. All right. That was my first way
[41:37] of thinking is how can we how are we all
[41:39] working together? Worst case scenario,
[41:41] we're left to to our own devices and the um school is um not willing to
[41:48] really put up cones or build a sidewalk,
[41:51] those type of things. Um Diana reassures
[41:54] me that that's not the road we're on,
[41:56] but I I am a worst case scenario
[41:58] thinker. So, if we were to not have that
[42:01] cooperation like to put up the cones
[42:03] specifically or any additional uh
[42:06] pedestrian refuge or um not build a
[42:10] sidewalk to Red Pine, uh obviously
[42:12] staggered release is 100% in their court
[42:15] is would you re would any of these
[42:17] recommendations change? Like would you
[42:19] for example want a solid um median
[42:22] because we have no way to restrict lift
[42:25] turns without a solid median. That's
[42:27] just one worst case scenario thinking.
[42:31] >> Um, one of the key recommendations that
[42:34] would certainly change right off the bat
[42:35] is the location of the crossing. Uh, the
[42:38] location of the crossing being between
[42:40] the two accesses. Um,
[42:43] needs that coordination with the with
[42:45] the school for it to occur properly
[42:48] because you can't have left turns going
[42:50] through that crossing. Uh, and so that
[42:53] would be the chief recommendation that
[42:54] would change if there were not that
[42:55] cooperation. uh to your point about the
[42:57] median as well that would need to be
[42:59] explored at a at a larger extent. Of
[43:01] course, even even then a median going in
[43:04] and changing uh access dynamics and
[43:06] requirements for businesses and the
[43:08] school would still require coordination
[43:11] with with those entities to to be put in
[43:13] place.
[43:14] >> Okay. Anything else that like stands
[43:17] out? Those are my way of thinking, but
[43:19] I'm not a traffic engineer. Anything
[43:21] else? Like if we're just like I said
[43:23] left with our own like our own lane that
[43:26] all we control is what's in our lane.
[43:28] Anything else that you would amend from
[43:31] your just those two things I brought up?
[43:35] >> I don't know if I would amend anything
[43:37] else. I would I would just say that
[43:39] generally this this is a problem that's
[43:42] a perfect storm between the school zone
[43:44] own the the city's own traffic trying to
[43:47] get in and out during the you know
[43:49] commute peaks of the day combined with
[43:51] the school and so collaboration is is a
[43:54] necessity in this case to make sure you
[43:56] can actually solve the problem.
[43:58] >> Thank you. That's all my questions.
[44:00] >> Hey Andrew,
[44:01] >> those were wonderful both of you. Uh
[44:03] [clears throat] before I go on, I have a
[44:05] video that might help uh in that folder.
[44:08] You can pull it up. If it doesn't work,
[44:10] don't worry. I I've got a lot of
[44:12] questions and and things to bring up
[44:13] that I think will be helpful. I spent a
[44:15] long time reading each of the studies. I
[44:17] don't know how many pages, 300.
[44:19] >> Uh
[44:20] >> there are quite a few.
[44:21] >> Yeah. And I really appreciate all the
[44:23] research you guys did in both studies as
[44:25] well.
[44:28] » Yeah. Yeah. Oh, you've already seen it
[44:30] all.
[44:30] >> Well, we live here. Oh, sorry. This this
[44:33] was just the other day and this helped
[44:34] me understand. This helped me put a
[44:36] visual on what actually we're dealing
[44:38] with in a small and I love children. I
[44:40] love the school and I love Alpine and I love this. But you can see the cars
[44:45] coming down. Sounds like everyone has
[44:46] seen it. Uh so uh but uh this is
[44:49] actually the root and the big global
[44:51] picture. Oh, you can see my wife down
[44:53] there on the screen. Sorry. Anyways,
[44:55] this is what we're trying to solve. This
[44:57] is all we're trying to do. We're just
[44:58] trying to fix this at the end of the
[45:00] day. all the little nuances of left
[45:02] turns and uh land changes and crossing
[45:05] guards and that's what we're trying to
[45:07] fix. We're trying to fix that area and a
[45:09] little bit south of that and uh keep
[45:11] those kids safe. Um before I go into it,
[45:14] it's actually a Shane uh a Shane Jason
[45:16] question. We've got a lot of great um
[45:20] things to try to fix this and I'm going
[45:22] to go through them to make sure I'm not
[45:23] missing one or that anything that the
[45:25] Mountainville is not okay with because I
[45:27] think we have to partner well. What is
[45:29] the best method to bring some of these
[45:31] solutions forward so it happens
[45:33] efficiently and mayor can answer or
[45:35] anyone how would you like to see some of
[45:37] these brought forward budget to to um
[45:41] city councilors um a team effort staff
[45:44] bringing them to us? What's the best
[45:46] method to bring some of these forward
[45:48] that you'd like to see? And anyone can
[45:50] answer who who
[45:51] >> it's on it's on here as a report tonight
[45:54] so we can get you the information. we
[45:56] can have the discussion because
[45:57] everybody has different angles of
[45:59] looking at it and might bring up
[46:01] something that someone else didn't think
[46:02] of. Um but in the end um you know we
[46:06] would want a motion from the council and
[46:10] at least a majority vote of which
[46:12] direction to go and then we could figure
[46:14] out you know the coordination and
[46:17] funding and and all those things. What
[46:21] >> mayor and mayor and Shane and staff and
[46:24] welcome Mr. Doxy, hope you drove in
[46:26] safe. You didn't You missed a good time.
[46:29] We had some good Okay. Anyway, um would
[46:33] you like us to lump them together? Mayor
[46:35] and Shane and council, would you like us
[46:37] to put several of them together or go
[46:38] one by one? Because
[46:40] >> right now, let's
[46:41] [cough and clears throat] let's if you
[46:42] have any questions.
[46:44] >> Well, that was the question. Why don't
[46:46] you No, I'm talking about to the study
[46:48] specifically and then after we everyone
[46:50] goes through and makes their comments.
[46:52] Maybe what we could do is go through
[46:54] again and see, you know,
[46:55] >> some strategies. Yes.
[46:57] >> Okay, sounds good. I'll go through them.
[46:58] >> They can move forward from that. But
[46:59] let's
[47:00] >> Sounds good. Thought you might have some
[47:01] preferences.
[47:02] >> Okay.
[47:02] >> I don't have any preferences. I would
[47:04] like, you know, I I read the study. I'm
[47:07] curious where everybody has. I'll make
[47:09] my comments.
[47:10] >> Okay. Well, so there's a that I'll make
[47:12] the comments now. So, uh, it might not
[47:15] be helpful to bring this up, but it's
[47:16] helpful for me because we have so many
[47:18] similar situations coming up that are
[47:20] just like this where we are working on
[47:23] fixing what we just saw, but if we keep
[47:26] doing the same thing, we'll end up with
[47:28] more of the same problems. The residents
[47:31] were adamant that this not be the way it
[47:33] is, and 20 years later, we're working on
[47:35] this. And that's not helpful. But when
[47:37] we make a land use decision, it outlasts
[47:39] all of us. So I was trying to think
[47:41] really big picture on on that and and
[47:45] being so aware that when we make a
[47:47] decision it impacts for 20 and 50 and 60
[47:49] years. So that was one thought that came
[47:51] from the studies. Um after reading all
[47:54] three of the studies I tried to whittle
[47:56] it down and it really looks like two
[47:58] things.
[48:00] The root of this problem is that 63% of
[48:04] the students and their cars
[48:07] are from the south. Okay. So, that's
[48:10] what's causing that and that it's on a
[48:12] busy road because Alpine Elementary is a
[48:14] little different. I pick up there from
[48:15] all the time. It's on the busy road, but
[48:16] 63%.
[48:19] And I read through all the studies and
[48:20] all of the solutions. And we actually
[48:22] cannot fix that. We We don't actually
[48:24] fix anything with any of the solutions.
[48:27] We just disperse it.
[48:30] And correct me if I'm wrong, but so far
[48:32] every solution on here is not an actual
[48:35] solution. It's just a dispersement of
[48:38] the problem to another area of Alpine.
[48:41] So, I realize just how big decisions can
[48:45] be where we're in a position where we
[48:47] just have to disperse it, not even try
[48:49] to fix it. Having said that,
[48:52] let's say we do all this, which I want
[48:54] to do, right? Let's say we do all of
[48:56] this. um if it doesn't work and we still
[49:00] have problems because the study and the
[49:02] residents line up perfect. They give it
[49:03] an A to E or an A to an F score level of
[49:08] service loss. Most of it is an E to an
[49:11] F. I didn't know there was that uh
[49:15] grading system, but the residents are
[49:17] right there telling me that we've got an
[49:18] F, we've got an F, we've got a problem.
[49:21] And so they're really aligned. The
[49:22] studies, the residents, they're all
[49:24] seeing the problem. And so we're going
[49:27] to fix these, but if they don't fix, I
[49:29] hope I guess the point is the only
[49:31] solution to this point that I actually
[49:33] think really solves this is buses. Now,
[49:36] I know people don't like to hear that,
[49:38] but it would solve it and it wouldn't
[49:40] diffuse the problem into other areas of
[49:42] Alpine. Now, I know that is not a
[49:45] reality, but I'm still trying to
[49:46] research that. So, I just want to bring
[49:47] that up. The last things I have is
[49:51] I tried to drill out because the studies
[49:53] are so so long. I tried to drill out the
[49:55] seven recommendations that they make and
[49:58] I'm hopeful that Mountainville Academy
[49:59] and any of you can let me know if any of
[50:02] these are not okay at some point. That
[50:05] way we can pursue the ones that are okay
[50:07] so we can at least try to diffuse this
[50:08] and fix it in the meantime and hopefully
[50:10] come up with a permanent solution and
[50:12] not repeat it. So this is this is what I
[50:13] drilled out and it's so important
[50:15] residents see this. the impact of one
[50:17] thing now impacting 200 north impacting
[50:20] Canyon Crest impacting 100 south but
[50:23] here's what we've got at this point 20
[50:25] years later
[50:27] [clears throat]
[50:30] okay between the three studies they
[50:34] recommend
[50:36] to put a zebra striping Danish offset
[50:39] crosswalk rectangular rapid flashing
[50:42] beacons
[50:44] on Main Street. So, that's the one thing
[50:46] they recommend that in a couple
[50:48] different ways, but they say it hinges
[50:52] on no left turn. So, I don't know where
[50:55] we're at with that, but they say it
[50:56] basically hinges on no left turn.
[50:59] Mountainville Academy has recommended
[51:00] that. So, I assume we're all in the same
[51:02] thing.
[51:03] They also said it's good to have this is
[51:05] their second. So, that's the first
[51:06] recommendation. Crosswalk on Main Street
[51:08] right by and we're deciding where to put
[51:09] it. Next one is crosswalk on Main Street
[51:12] and 100 South. Okay. Um, I think they're
[51:17] both great. Uh, so my question is if
[51:19] anyone has anything against these to All
[51:22] right. Uh, final things are repaint the
[51:25] current ones. I don't know if any of you
[51:27] drew that out of the studies. They'd
[51:28] like us to repaint the current ones. So,
[51:31] when we bring that forward, the the
[51:33] current one that is on 100 South and any
[51:36] other current ones we have. And then
[51:38] they would also recommend that we make
[51:39] them zebra stripes, not as they
[51:41] currently are. So, I thought that was
[51:44] really uh nice. They did recommend uh
[51:47] speed limit actually, I'm sorry, that
[51:48] was only one of the studies. Speed limit
[51:50] on Maine from 25 I'm sorry, from 30 to
[51:54] actually 20. So, I I love that. Um they
[51:59] recommended we do red curbs that we
[52:02] repaint our red curbs because we have a
[52:05] problem on each of those uh areas where
[52:09] um people are pulling out and they're
[52:10] not able to see. I guess currently
[52:12] they're not. So I pulled that out of one
[52:14] of the deep parts of the study and they
[52:16] recommended to keep the crossing guard.
[52:18] So I don't know if that falls on us or
[52:21] falls on Mountainville Academy. So I
[52:23] appreciate the uh um the deep lesson
[52:26] this is and I appreciate that we're
[52:28] working together. So if Mountainville
[52:29] Academy or the council has any problems
[52:31] with those, I'm happy to move on after
[52:33] this meeting on trying to get some of
[52:34] them done this summer so that we can uh
[52:37] get this tried to be fixed this summer.
[52:39] That's all I have. Thank you.
[52:40] Uh Andrew uh uh one correction I will
[52:43] make uh to what you said a lot of that
[52:45] uh jives exactly with what we
[52:47] recommended in the crossing study as
[52:48] well as in the routing study. Uh the one
[52:50] correction I will make is the the
[52:52] mention of a Danish offset crossing. Uh
[52:55] based on the dynamics of the area, we
[52:57] would recommend that just be a standard
[52:59] zebra stripe crossing. Although the
[53:01] Danish offset is an interesting idea, it
[53:03] hinges on a median being put in place.
[53:07] >> Thank you. Yeah, that only came from one
[53:09] study, just a crosswalk of any type, I
[53:12] understood. So, thank you for that
[53:13] clarification. Were there any other
[53:14] things that we missed that was also a
[53:17] solution that you guys would recommend
[53:19] or does that hit all of the solutions
[53:21] for what you guys have found with
[53:22] exception of
[53:23] >> I think between Oh, apologies. Uh,
[53:25] between what you've stated and the
[53:27] recommendations in the slide deck here,
[53:29] uh, I think you've covered it
[53:31] >> with exception of the buses, which is
[53:33] not one.
[53:35] >> Uh, yes. And we did explore that option.
[53:38] Uh there's there's a a minor discussion
[53:41] of that of what we did within the memo,
[53:43] although we had larger discussions with
[53:44] city staff. Uh that would be, I would
[53:47] say, a a higher investment uh and a much
[53:51] deeper collaboration with with the
[53:53] school, which is why we felt like it was
[53:55] perhaps not a near-term solution.
[53:58] >> No, I understand. Thank you. I'm so
[53:59] hopeful to get it to get it working
[54:00] again. So, thank you for your doing all
[54:02] your work.
[54:04] One other correction, I think on the red
[54:05] curbs, what they referring to is red
[54:08] curb right at right at the crosswalk
[54:11] because we have red curbs already on all
[54:13] of our uh radiuses at intersections. So,
[54:16] it's just right at the crosswalk. I
[54:18] think it was 30 ft.
[54:19] >> I think you're correct.
[54:19] >> Each way,
[54:20] >> just right by the crosswalks. I I that's
[54:22] good clarification.
[54:23] >> And didn't they say also at at
[54:25] [clears throat]
[54:25] driveways?
[54:27] >> Yes, they did. would be in a queuing
[54:28] area from the school southbound
[54:31] >> so that folks couldn't would be able to
[54:32] see. They were there were they were they
[54:34] were bringing up the whole list.
[54:36] >> That's I think that's part of the
[54:36] problem is the parents just aren't aware
[54:38] of the the driveways and into the alpine
[54:44] uh the rec center or the fitness center
[54:46] and the residential areas there
[54:48] >> painted. They recommended painting at
[54:51] the curbs, 30 feet at the curbs and 30
[54:52] feet at at driveways. I guess I guess
[54:55] the quote was to ensure sight distance
[54:56] isn't blocked by ensure sight distance
[54:58] right from the crosswalk south.
[55:02] >> Thank you.
[55:03] >> Yes.
[55:03] >> Did you have any questions?
[55:04] >> Oh yeah, just a couple. Um Michael,
[55:07] thank you so much. I thought this report
[55:08] was very well written, very clear. I
[55:10] have read a few engineering reports that
[55:12] aren't as clear. So that that's very helpful. And Dan, thank you so much
[55:16] for sharing in your three minutes um
[55:19] Mountainville Academyy's input. And
[55:21] that's I really appreciate how you and
[55:24] others have worked well with the city.
[55:27] Um, so this has kind of been a Main
[55:29] Street problem for quite a while.
[55:31] [clears throat] And what I like about
[55:32] this plan is it doesn't we can't take
[55:36] everything off of Main Street. That
[55:37] would be unfair to the other areas of
[55:40] Alpine that if we redirect everything
[55:42] off of Main Street, it creates another
[55:45] problem elsewhere. And Andrew kind of
[55:46] brought that up. So, I like how this
[55:48] plan
[55:50] disperses it fairly appropriately, I
[55:52] think, um, by still allowing the traffic
[55:55] on Main Street and giving parents the
[55:57] opportunity to use Main Street, but also
[56:00] to address how the changes will impact
[56:05] other neighbors, including our our prior discussion about Red Pine and the
[56:09] elderly residents there that Sarah
[56:11] brought up. That's a concern of mine as
[56:13] well. One question I have for you,
[56:15] Michael, is u when we talk about
[56:17] eliminating staging areas, I understand
[56:19] the areas north of 100 120 South along
[56:24] Main Street. I too have observed like
[56:26] you did and like Hails Engineering
[56:28] observed how crazy that can get with
[56:31] people making midblock Uturns and and
[56:36] trying to quickly make left turns in
[56:38] between the short breaks. So, I think
[56:40] limiting the staging north of 100 120
[56:44] South is critical, but what about still
[56:47] allowing staging on 100 South on the
[56:51] west side so the kids could cross the
[56:53] street there and then parents who might
[56:55] have kids at Timberline as well, they
[56:57] could go from Mountainville to
[56:59] Timberline or or that way. Have Have we
[57:02] thought about allowing still staging on
[57:05] 100 South on the west side?
[57:06] >> I think you're talking about 120 South.
[57:08] Oh yeah, 120 South. Sorry. Yeah, I'm I'm
[57:10] sorry. 120 South. Thank you.
[57:12] >> Clarify.
[57:14] >> I think this is a a great question. I
[57:16] think it's an important thing to to kind
[57:18] of pair between uh what we observed
[57:21] versus our recommendations here. The
[57:23] issues we observed mainly focused on the
[57:25] staging on Main Street. Uh the
[57:28] recommendations regarding 120 South and
[57:30] 100 South were more consideration of the neighborhoods than they were
[57:34] necessarily a a safety or operational
[57:36] issue. So, I would say that's up to the
[57:38] discretion of of council and staff to
[57:42] determine what where um you would
[57:44] restrict that staging, but for sure from
[57:47] a safety and operational standpoint,
[57:48] Main Street north of 100 South uh would
[57:52] need to be one of those restricted
[57:53] areas.
[57:54] >> Oh, perfect. That that helps a lot. So,
[57:56] that goes back to my statement about how
[57:59] you we can't move everything off of
[58:01] Maine. can't may I think it's important
[58:03] to disperse it as much as possible and
[58:06] if we do have that new egress out of 100
[58:11] south with a right turn only that will
[58:14] move quite a bit of traffic into the
[58:16] eastern side neighborhoods from 100
[58:18] south and if we put everything else all
[58:23] the staging on Redpine that would put
[58:26] quite a bit on Redpine. So my thought
[58:28] would be to allow staging. Oh, here we
[58:31] have that on the map on 120 south on the
[58:34] west side. That would make that would
[58:36] mean more children are crossing at the
[58:38] crosswalk. But we also see that crossing
[58:40] at that crosswalk creates n natural
[58:44] pauses in the traffic to allow a more
[58:47] free flowing traffic flow, especially if
[58:49] we allow left turns off of the new
[58:51] egress out of 100 South.
[58:54] So that thanks for asking that question.
[58:56] And then um again I appreciate how you
[58:59] addressed how this redirecting traffic
[59:02] to other areas might impact those areas
[59:04] and you offered some ideas on how um
[59:07] especially on Canyon Crest and Ridge on
[59:09] how that could be alleviated there. And
[59:12] then the last thing I have is on the
[59:14] bike lane. Jessica and I met with Shane
[59:16] last week and we went over a little bit
[59:19] about your report and I asked about the
[59:21] status of the bike lane because we
[59:22] talked about that in the past. We had a
[59:23] grant potentially to put a bike lane on
[59:27] Main Street, but it sounds like speaking
[59:29] with Shane, we haven't discussed yet as
[59:31] a council that there's just so much
[59:33] activity on Main Street with our um park
[59:38] and tunes or whatever it's called during
[59:40] the summer and other things that we
[59:43] might not want to do any kind of bike
[59:46] lanes on Main Street. So, if that's the
[59:48] case, Michael, are there other things
[59:51] you can think about, other
[59:52] considerations on why we might might not
[59:55] want to do curb extensions if we end up
[59:56] not doing bike lanes at this crosswalk?
[1:00:01] >> I would say the only the only thing that
[1:00:03] to always watch out for with with any
[1:00:05] traffic calming measure because
[1:00:06] typically what they're doing is they're
[1:00:08] narrowing the ride of way uh to help to
[1:00:10] imply slower behaviors, slower driving.
[1:00:13] Um, and so you'd want to be thinking
[1:00:15] about plowing uh and how this could
[1:00:17] impact uh plowing and and do proper
[1:00:20] training of plow drivers to ensure uh
[1:00:23] you're still allowing um those plows to
[1:00:27] operate properly. Uh the other thing
[1:00:28] would be emergency vehicle access. It
[1:00:30] wouldn't be an issue in this case
[1:00:32] particularly at the crossing, but you
[1:00:34] just want to be making sure that uh
[1:00:36] wherever you're putting that traffic
[1:00:37] coming in, it's not impacting how
[1:00:38] emergency vehicles route through.
[1:00:44] Okay, that's all I have. Thanks.
[1:00:47] >> Okay, Jessica. Um, Heidi, can you put up
[1:00:50] the slide that shows I think 190 a.m.
[1:00:54] and 130 p.m.
[1:00:57] >> from
[1:00:59] >> No, from
[1:01:00] >> should be under key findings.
[1:01:03] >> I don't I don't have the page. Okay.
[1:01:05] Yeah. Slide page three.
[1:01:10] » Yes, you were just there. in the
[1:01:12] presentation from Michael.
[1:01:14] >> Yeah, perfect. Okay, I I have to kind of
[1:01:18] start from the beginning. I appreciated
[1:01:21] every all the information. It was great
[1:01:23] to have everything concise in one place.
[1:01:26] And I apologize because when I heard we
[1:01:29] were having a warrant study, I thought
[1:01:31] that meant we were just determining if
[1:01:33] we could move the crosswalk. I missed
[1:01:35] the information that we were also going
[1:01:37] to be determining where the crosswalk
[1:01:39] went. So, um, now that I realized we're
[1:01:44] approved to move the crosswalk, that's
[1:01:46] when I started thinking about really
[1:01:48] what's the best location. I I didn't
[1:01:52] catch on that we were going to come with
[1:01:54] information about decisions on where it
[1:01:56] was located. So, with that in mind, um I
[1:02:00] know you got this at the 11th hour,
[1:02:02] moving it to the north, and I just like
[1:02:05] to explore that a little bit more
[1:02:07] because you said you haven't modeled it,
[1:02:09] but you've thought it through. And it
[1:02:12] seems that it would just be a repeat of
[1:02:16] what we currently have. And I need to
[1:02:18] understand that a little better because
[1:02:21] when I see restricting lefthand turns
[1:02:24] and I see numbers like
[1:02:26] 130 cars or 190 cars, what that looks
[1:02:30] like moving.
[1:02:32] Now, if we could go to the next slide,
[1:02:36] page four. Yeah. So, and I I consider
[1:02:39] now that those 130 cars and 190 cars
[1:02:43] right now,
[1:02:45] are you saying they can go left? Somehow
[1:02:47] they make it out. But if we restrict a
[1:02:50] left-hand turn now, we are burdening
[1:02:54] these streets with
[1:02:58] traffic that hasn't been burdened
[1:03:00] before. So the way I approached it was
[1:03:03] what if we could just do all of this on
[1:03:07] campus? Like is there a way to create an
[1:03:10] efficiency with a second egress
[1:03:13] because we don't block lefthand turns
[1:03:17] but we actually improve efficiency of
[1:03:20] left-hand turns. So cars could move
[1:03:22] quicker. Um a portion of the cars could
[1:03:26] go out a new egress. And could it be
[1:03:30] possible to keep the 65%
[1:03:33] that goes south going south on Main
[1:03:36] Street and not
[1:03:38] put that throughout all, you know, the
[1:03:41] rest of town, the orange, the purple,
[1:03:44] like what about modeling that, not just
[1:03:47] thinking about it in the 11th hour?
[1:03:49] Would that be possible?
[1:03:52] >> Yeah, Jessica, I I really appreciate it.
[1:03:54] So, I had a chance to read through uh
[1:03:56] kind of your email of thoughts and and
[1:03:58] you went into tremendous detail, which
[1:04:01] was very helpful on um [clears throat]
[1:04:05] how this how shifting the crossing to
[1:04:07] north of the egress would work and the
[1:04:09] potential benefits of that. And I I
[1:04:11] think there's a lot of merit to to what
[1:04:13] you're saying. I think some of the some
[1:04:15] of the concerns I would have and I've
[1:04:17] already shared a portion of this would
[1:04:19] be how that access continues to interact
[1:04:23] with Main Street. I think one of the the
[1:04:25] chief purposes of of the study that we
[1:04:27] were asked to do uh was to see how can
[1:04:30] we improve conditions on on Main Street
[1:04:32] and disperse traffic in such a way that
[1:04:34] it doesn't have a a majorly adverse
[1:04:36] impact on on those other areas the areas
[1:04:39] mapped here. Um if the uh left turn
[1:04:43] egress were allowed to continue with
[1:04:46] that um crossing at the north uh you you
[1:04:50] had mentioned roughly 65% in in the
[1:04:52] bullets that you had sent uh would
[1:04:55] continue to want to use that that left
[1:04:57] turn which which is a I think a a fairly
[1:04:59] accurate number allow if we allow the
[1:05:02] north egress to also occur because some
[1:05:04] of those that would otherwise turn left
[1:05:06] would opt to take these other routes
[1:05:08] anyway to be faster.
[1:05:10] Um
[1:05:12] even so um in moments when the crossing
[1:05:16] would block there would be a potential
[1:05:19] uh for left turns to be able to exit at
[1:05:21] the egress. Uh however I wouldn't call
[1:05:23] that movement protected. And the reason
[1:05:25] I wouldn't say that uh is that at at a
[1:05:29] base um that left turn would be beholden
[1:05:33] to what's happening in the northbound.
[1:05:35] Would there still be cars waiting right
[1:05:37] at the crossing and still blocking that
[1:05:39] access? Or um uh if that's the case,
[1:05:44] then of course those left turns wouldn't
[1:05:45] be able to go. If that's not the case,
[1:05:46] they would be able to go. However, I
[1:05:48] would say not not the uh the majority of
[1:05:51] left turns would still be trying to go
[1:05:54] uh when a crossing's not occurring. They
[1:05:56] still be trying to go when there's a lot
[1:05:57] of southbound traffic moving and
[1:05:59] northbound traffic moving just by nature
[1:06:00] of how frequent those crossings are or
[1:06:03] infrequent because often the crossing
[1:06:05] guards try and block uh move blocks of
[1:06:09] students at a time rather than uh
[1:06:12] continually blocking traffic. And so
[1:06:14] there would still be quite a long
[1:06:15] stretches in which those left turns
[1:06:17] would not be able to go and would still
[1:06:18] opt to make unsafe
[1:06:21] uh or less visible movements directly
[1:06:23] into the southbound that could
[1:06:25] potentially cause accidents. So that would be my concern from a safety
[1:06:29] standpoint. Um, the other thing that I
[1:06:33] would say is if you were to um bundle
[1:06:36] this left turn with the crossing,
[1:06:39] basically allow it to be a more or less
[1:06:40] protected movement, it would require a
[1:06:42] much more trained individual than just a
[1:06:45] crossing guard to regulate that. So that
[1:06:47] would likely need to be a dedicated
[1:06:48] officer during the pickup and drop off
[1:06:51] times regulating how traffic is flowing
[1:06:53] or at least a trained traffic operator
[1:06:56] uh to make sure that those left turns
[1:06:58] can occur that the northbound is leaving
[1:07:00] proper gaps uh and that there is no
[1:07:03] instances where you might be
[1:07:04] unintentionally endangering those
[1:07:06] students crossing at that crossing to
[1:07:08] the north. So, I would say there would
[1:07:10] be much more that would need to be
[1:07:12] explored before uh that's something that we would necessarily recommend
[1:07:15] moving forward with. Does that uh do you
[1:07:18] have any questions on on how I've
[1:07:20] explained that?
[1:07:21] >> Yeah, I've I've just seen it done in
[1:07:23] other schools in a similar fashion and maybe because it's not on Main
[1:07:28] Street, but I've seen it work
[1:07:30] effectively where you actually have two
[1:07:32] crossing guards. So you would have a
[1:07:34] crossing guard that would stand at the
[1:07:36] entrance of the school to mitigate what
[1:07:38] you're talking about
[1:07:41] people still jumping out and then you
[1:07:43] have also the second crossing guard that
[1:07:47] does exactly what they're doing already
[1:07:50] stopping traffic on Main Street because
[1:07:52] we currently have a crossing guard that
[1:07:55] stops two-way traffic on Main Street
[1:07:57] every day. So, I'm not sure how that
[1:07:59] would differ because actually when
[1:08:02] they're stopping traffic on Main Street,
[1:08:04] cars are turning in and out of
[1:08:07] businesses. Cars are turning at the
[1:08:09] bank, cars are turning, you know,
[1:08:11] there's a lot of movement with with the
[1:08:14] current staffing and crossing guard
[1:08:16] that's existing.
[1:08:19] So, that's just one thought.
[1:08:21] >> Oh, please.
[1:08:24] And then secondly, you you mentioned
[1:08:27] that it would impact the right-hand turn
[1:08:29] lane. I went and looked at that today.
[1:08:31] It's about a 5:1 ratio. It may even be a
[1:08:35] 7 to one where you have seven cars going
[1:08:37] left and one car going right. So, I
[1:08:40] think the premise that that's going to
[1:08:43] impede that right-hand turn is actually
[1:08:47] needs to be also modeled because again,
[1:08:50] what's what's stopping the flow in that
[1:08:52] parking lot isn't the cars trying to go
[1:08:55] right. It's and I've talked to a few
[1:08:58] parents. I'm I say, "Why won't you go
[1:09:00] through the parking lot? Your your child
[1:09:02] is on campus." And they said, "Because I
[1:09:05] can't turn right. I gotta go somewhere
[1:09:07] where I can, you know, be closer to
[1:09:10] where I'm headed. Which leads to Council
[1:09:13] Member Young's comment that why don't we
[1:09:17] just send people back the way they came?
[1:09:20] Like they come in Maine, let's let them
[1:09:23] go back out Maine and not impact to the
[1:09:26] level we're talking about the rest of
[1:09:28] Main Street. Or at least model it. like
[1:09:31] can we at least look at one other
[1:09:33] option?
[1:09:36] >> Yeah. And and uh I you make a good point
[1:09:39] about the right turns. It's not a based
[1:09:41] on the traffic data that we've collected
[1:09:43] uh and that previous uh consultants have
[1:09:45] collected. It's more of a 2:1 ratio
[1:09:48] where there's about two left turns to
[1:09:50] every one right turn. Uh but the point
[1:09:52] still stands to to what you're saying
[1:09:53] that there are less right turns than
[1:09:55] there are left turns. Um that being
[1:09:59] said, a lot of the contribution for the
[1:10:01] queuing on Main Street does end up
[1:10:03] coming from those right turns. Uh and
[1:10:07] it's them contributing to waiting for
[1:10:10] that crossing to occur could lead to
[1:10:12] additional spillback down Main Street or
[1:10:15] to to the point that I raised uh
[1:10:17] potentially jumping out. Now, now to
[1:10:19] your point about two crossing guards and
[1:10:21] having that implemented at other places,
[1:10:22] for certain I I've seen that done at
[1:10:24] other schools. The the big
[1:10:26] differentiator to your point is Main
[1:10:28] Street. That Main Street is a much
[1:10:30] higher traffic roadway than what you
[1:10:32] would typically see in the ma see the
[1:10:33] main access of a school located on.
[1:10:37] >> Jessica, do you have any other questions
[1:10:39] for
[1:10:39] >> No. So based on that, still with a third
[1:10:42] option of turning left, you would still
[1:10:46] not
[1:10:47] recommend looking into that further?
[1:10:50] >> I wouldn't necessarily say that I
[1:10:52] wouldn't recommend looking into it
[1:10:54] further. I would say that I the the thing I would
[1:10:58] say is
[1:11:00] I wouldn't recommend moving forward with
[1:11:02] it without looking into it further that
[1:11:05] we would need to do additional
[1:11:06] exploration on what the impacts of that
[1:11:09] would be uh before we could say for
[1:11:11] certain whether that is a an a viable
[1:11:13] alternative.
[1:11:15] >> Okay, that's it. Thank you. As a follow
[1:11:17] to your last oh sorry to your last
[1:11:19] comment just what you just said we were
[1:11:21] planning you you mentioned a pilot would
[1:11:24] is it
[1:11:25] >> would you recommend we pilot both models
[1:11:27] of the crosswalk to the north and
[1:11:29] crosswalk in the middle or not worth
[1:11:31] piloting because it hasn't been studied.
[1:11:35] >> Uh
[1:11:38] that is something that you could
[1:11:39] potentially do. It's a little more
[1:11:40] costly to do a pilot of a of a crossing.
[1:11:42] you would you would need to uh still
[1:11:43] stripe it temporarily uh to make sure
[1:11:46] that has the proper level of visibility,
[1:11:48] but that would be a potential option.
[1:11:50] Yeah. Is is none of the solutions that
[1:11:52] we're recommending here are permanent
[1:11:54] fixtures other than the striping itself.
[1:11:57] And so that gives you the flexibility to
[1:11:59] explore and make that decision uh based
[1:12:01] on what you see the actual operational
[1:12:03] condition being.
[1:12:05] >> That was very good comment. I'll after
[1:12:08] this meeting I'll be like writing it and
[1:12:10] putting it in bold letters.
[1:12:11] >> So, Michael, I've got a question
[1:12:13] regarding um Councilwoman Smeuan's
[1:12:15] suggestion. Um when I first read it, I
[1:12:17] was like, how is that going to be any
[1:12:18] different than what we have existing? um
[1:12:21] you know and then talked about the
[1:12:23] protected and I'm doing it in quotes of
[1:12:26] the left-hand churn because that main
[1:12:29] street is how I enter the city and how I
[1:12:31] exit the city probably 99% of the time
[1:12:35] except for the 1% of the time that I
[1:12:37] remember that school is getting out and
[1:12:38] I try to go a different way and I always
[1:12:40] forget. So, what I've seen is if you
[1:12:44] move the crosswalk just north of the
[1:12:46] driveways and it's, let's say, you know,
[1:12:49] the crossing guard is there and the kids
[1:12:50] are crossing, all traffic is stopped and
[1:12:54] people are going to be queued right to
[1:12:56] the end. And you know, it'd be one
[1:12:58] thing, like you said, if there's an
[1:13:00] additional headcount that can manage
[1:13:03] that, but in most instances, what I've
[1:13:05] seen is that all traffic is blocked.
[1:13:08] Whenever
[1:13:10] there is a crossing going on with the
[1:13:12] students, both northbound and southbound
[1:13:14] traffic is completely halted. Every once
[1:13:17] in a while, if there is room, we do see
[1:13:19] people darting in and out. I feel like
[1:13:23] or my understanding of this is it's
[1:13:25] twofold. One is safety, which is
[1:13:27] paramount, and second is traffic. And
[1:13:30] you know, that is more of a nuisance
[1:13:32] than anything, but it's very important
[1:13:33] to the residents of our city. Um, far as
[1:13:37] putting the um crosswalk just to the
[1:13:40] north of it,
[1:13:42] I do feel like people would still try to
[1:13:45] dart out even if it's just competing
[1:13:47] with the traffic that's coming from the
[1:13:49] south to the northbound. That's why we
[1:13:52] need that other
[1:13:54] >> that's I know but it's you know we don't
[1:13:58] have one right now what that looks like
[1:14:00] whether you know I think that's
[1:14:02] something that you have to have a
[1:14:03] discussion with but you could still be
[1:14:05] in a situation where they're not going
[1:14:08] to be able to exit in theory yes that
[1:14:11] could totally work to an extent but is
[1:14:14] that also um Michael you mentioned that
[1:14:16] if we do divert the traffic to right
[1:14:19] hand turn only and they go up to six
[1:14:22] east canyon cra or to ridge and then a
[1:14:25] canyon crest then you saw a viable need
[1:14:28] for a roundabout at that point.
[1:14:31] But other than that, if we still allow
[1:14:34] left-handed traffic, which we could
[1:14:36] still have the safety issues, still have
[1:14:39] the traffic issues, but the need for the
[1:14:42] roundabout would no longer as far as a
[1:14:44] traffic load need is no longer existent.
[1:14:49] Is that right?
[1:14:49] >> Uh it would be it would be on the cusp
[1:14:51] that our study didn't necessarily
[1:14:53] analyze what growth might occur between
[1:14:55] now and when right uh the the
[1:14:58] Mountainville is fully reoriented with
[1:15:00] that new north egress,
[1:15:01] >> right?
[1:15:02] >> Uh it's it's close regardless. So I I
[1:15:05] would say yes, based on an existing a
[1:15:07] study of existing traffic, sure,
[1:15:10] >> but near-term future, it's it's very
[1:15:12] close to needing that roundabout even
[1:15:14] without this rerouting.
[1:15:15] >> Okay. Thank you very much. I'm gonna ask
[1:15:18] um Officer Charlie Thirstston to come up
[1:15:21] to the stand to the microphone um
[1:15:23] because I know you've been in our city.
[1:15:25] And then while he's coming up, Chief, if
[1:15:28] you have any additional insights in your
[1:15:31] observations of um the traffic issues
[1:15:34] regarding safety and traffic,
[1:15:41] » maybe I should have just viewed online
[1:15:42] today. No, I'm just teasing. What uh
[1:15:45] what would you like me to go over? You
[1:15:47] guys have covered it pretty thoroughly
[1:15:48] tonight with your observations and
[1:15:50] talking and discussion and question.
[1:15:51] >> What did you think about um well you saw
[1:15:53] the recommendations um how you know
[1:15:57] >> in seeing what the situation is
[1:15:58] currently? I know you've been there and
[1:16:00] like I said me just you know sitting in
[1:16:02] that traffic of waiting going both ways
[1:16:04] and seeing the behavior of the drivers
[1:16:07] and the kids because they are kids right
[1:16:09] and um
[1:16:11] >> and the you know drivers of you know of
[1:16:13] the road and also drivers of the school
[1:16:17] you know what do you think of the
[1:16:19] recommendations do you think it will
[1:16:20] help our safety and traffic issues that
[1:16:23] we're presently seeing? Uh my
[1:16:25] observation in moving the crosswalk
[1:16:27] south um I think is is good because you
[1:16:30] have that weird intersection with 100
[1:16:32] South, 120 South, and Main Street. I
[1:16:34] think getting away from that is going to
[1:16:36] be advantageous for sure. Um as far as
[1:16:40] exactly where to put it, I would
[1:16:41] probably rely on a future study. my own
[1:16:43] observations in how traffic goes. Even
[1:16:46] when an officer is out directing
[1:16:48] traffic, say on an accident with their
[1:16:50] red and blue lights going, traffic still
[1:16:52] does not perform how you think it would.
[1:16:55] And I think the biggest defeat to having
[1:16:56] the [clears throat] crosswalk to the
[1:16:58] north of that egress is it's going to
[1:17:01] get blocked and no one's going to be
[1:17:03] able to turn left. And that's coming
[1:17:05] from experience of again having red and
[1:17:07] blue lights on the side of the road with
[1:17:10] crashed cars in the middle of the
[1:17:11] intersection. They're still trying to
[1:17:12] get around. They're still trying to push
[1:17:14] the boundary of getting as close as they
[1:17:15] can and trying to get where they think
[1:17:17] they need to go. That would be the human
[1:17:19] nature.
[1:17:20] >> Yeah.
[1:17:21] >> Thank you.
[1:17:22] >> I can you explain a little bit um when
[1:17:24] they're all queued up along Main Street.
[1:17:27] We're trying to get them off Main Street
[1:17:28] queued in any way like why is that such
[1:17:31] a a problem for safety? I think you you
[1:17:34] explained it to the um task force, but
[1:17:37] just share your insights with the whole
[1:17:38] group.
[1:17:39] >> Uh I think that's a few. I mean,
[1:17:41] obviously, it's kind of an annoyance for
[1:17:42] the people that might live there or, you
[1:17:44] know, try to frequent if they uh have
[1:17:47] visitors in Red Pine Drive or whatever
[1:17:49] else it causes an issue there. I think
[1:17:50] they're pretty good about keeping Red
[1:17:52] Pine Drive clear. Um, but there was a a
[1:17:54] comment brought up about the driveways
[1:17:56] and stuff that are there. Um, the other
[1:17:58] thing with moving the crosswalk south, I
[1:18:00] think that might be in in regards to
[1:18:02] your comment that might be nice is the
[1:18:04] main street is a little bit wider as you
[1:18:06] go farther south. So, it might encourage
[1:18:09] drivers to use, you know, a little bit
[1:18:12] more of the width of Main Street as you
[1:18:13] go farther south where there's a little
[1:18:16] bit extra room to queue on that west
[1:18:18] side of Main Street, closer to the
[1:18:20] roundabout. Not that you're going all
[1:18:22] the way to the roundabout, but that
[1:18:23] might be a better option to where
[1:18:25] parents that are currently waiting at
[1:18:26] the park so that they don't have to turn
[1:18:28] around and then, you know, go back
[1:18:30] through traffic. they might come in a
[1:18:31] little bit early and head farther to the
[1:18:33] south where it's it's naturally a wider
[1:18:37] area anyway. So
[1:18:38] >> I for Thank you for bring I for totally
[1:18:40] forgot about that.
[1:18:41] >> I think you can probably agree with this
[1:18:43] that people will find a way they'll they'll find the shortest place
[1:18:46] possible. Absolutely. And if we restrict
[1:18:48] pickup north of uh 100 South, then
[1:18:53] they'll find other places. And I
[1:18:55] wouldn't be surprised, like you said,
[1:18:56] people would start queuing on the west
[1:18:58] side of Main Street, south of the new
[1:18:59] crosswalk, and they'll probably be in
[1:19:01] that parking lot of the business
[1:19:03] businesses there on the corner. I'm sure
[1:19:05] they'll go there, right?
[1:19:06] >> So, what I like about this idea is it
[1:19:08] we're never going to take all the
[1:19:09] traffic off Main Street. We're never
[1:19:11] going to make it
[1:19:12] >> ideal,
[1:19:13] >> but it does disperse it to different
[1:19:15] areas.
[1:19:16] >> The reality is it's there. You got to
[1:19:17] try to share the load,
[1:19:18] >> right? And if we have the right turn
[1:19:19] only, you'll have a good [clears throat]
[1:19:21] number of people that will come and turn
[1:19:22] on 100 South, go up the next block and
[1:19:24] come and go back south on Main Street,
[1:19:26] which will be fine because they're going
[1:19:27] south and they'll just have to deal with
[1:19:28] the crosswalk. If that gets too busy,
[1:19:31] then they'll go to the next street over
[1:19:32] and go over by Burgess Park. That's too
[1:19:34] busy, they'll go out Westfield. They'll
[1:19:36] find ways.
[1:19:37] >> But I think the I think the key here is
[1:19:39] that we try and find
[1:19:41] >> a way that disperses it enough so it
[1:19:43] doesn't is not too much of a burden on
[1:19:44] any one area, right? Like I'm really
[1:19:46] concerned if we say just Red Pine then I
[1:19:49] think that's caused especially with the
[1:19:51] senior senior housing there.
[1:19:53] >> I I would say
[1:19:54] >> a limited number on Red Pine that's a
[1:19:55] little bit further away. So I don't
[1:19:56] think most parents are going to want to
[1:19:58] go too far down Red Pine. I think
[1:20:00] >> uh the engineer mentioned that that it's
[1:20:03] going to the farther you get the less
[1:20:04] likely parents are going to use it.
[1:20:06] >> But have some go to Red Pine.
[1:20:08] Mountainville adds that sidewalk to make
[1:20:10] it safe for them to get past the chaos
[1:20:13] of the parking lot and go south. people
[1:20:16] will figure it out. The key is we have
[1:20:18] to have enforcement of the restrictions
[1:20:21] at least concentrate at the beginning of
[1:20:23] the school year and have the school
[1:20:25] really put out the message that if you
[1:20:27] park there you're going to be ticketed.
[1:20:29] Um that's those are some my thoughts
[1:20:31] >> right I do like the idea of people if
[1:20:33] they do go around the block
[1:20:35] [clears throat] excuse me and get back
[1:20:36] in southbound traffic. I like that a lot
[1:20:38] better than trying to dart out on a left
[1:20:39] turn though.
[1:20:40] >> Exactly. I was driving here on at 8:55
[1:20:43] last Thursday to come meet with Shane
[1:20:44] not during their peak but traffic time
[1:20:46] and a lady uh sorry a person a driver
[1:20:50] pulled out
[1:20:51] >> right
[1:20:51] >> because she I mean and I had to break
[1:20:53] and I was going under the speed limit
[1:20:54] and I still had to break and it wasn't
[1:20:56] peak traffic. It happens all the time.
[1:20:58] >> So I keeping that left-hand turn and
[1:21:00] especially those those midblock U-turns
[1:21:03] I think is critical. So this is I I
[1:21:05] really like the plan overall. Officer.
[1:21:07] >> So, Chief, are we currently ticketing
[1:21:09] people that are parking um on the
[1:21:12] sidewalk or parking next to sidewalks
[1:21:14] that are painted red during the pickup
[1:21:17] times?
[1:21:19] >> So, it depends on, [clears throat]
[1:21:20] excuse me, it depends on the day and the
[1:21:22] availability of the officers. We have
[1:21:24] there tickets before when they're there
[1:21:27] that there is contact made. Sometimes
[1:21:29] citations are issued, sometimes warnings
[1:21:31] are issued.
[1:21:32] Um, I sat there right before Christmas
[1:21:35] break for a few days and um, it's
[1:21:38] extremely difficult in a full-size
[1:21:40] vehicle to get in and out and and
[1:21:42] address issues. Uh, you either have to
[1:21:45] be on a motorcycle on foot in order to
[1:21:46] do that. So, it does make it difficult.
[1:21:48] I'm not trying to make excuses. It's
[1:21:49] just a challenge that we face as as a
[1:21:51] police department. I don't want to
[1:21:53] belver the point. Uh, I agree with
[1:21:55] everything that's been said. I will say
[1:21:57] this that I am glad that we're finally
[1:21:59] have a study that we're addressing this
[1:22:01] issue on Main Street. It's something
[1:22:02] that we've talked about as a council and
[1:22:04] as public safety and police department
[1:22:06] for years and years and Shane can attest
[1:22:08] to this and mayor, I think you can
[1:22:10] attest to this too. You've been around
[1:22:11] long enough to know that we've been
[1:22:12] having these discussions. So, I'm
[1:22:14] grateful that uh we finally have put
[1:22:16] this study together and and I would hope
[1:22:19] that we fih follow some of these
[1:22:20] recommendations and if there's
[1:22:22] additional study to figure out the best
[1:22:23] place to put this crosswalk to be able
[1:22:26] to disperse some of the issues off of
[1:22:28] Main Street, uh we're never going to
[1:22:31] alleviate it completely. We're not going
[1:22:32] to be able to go back to the days before
[1:22:34] Mountainville Academy was there. I
[1:22:36] remember the discussions. I've
[1:22:37] [clears throat] been around long enough
[1:22:38] to to be in those meetings when we were
[1:22:40] having discussions about Mountainville
[1:22:43] Academy and Main Street. And the idea
[1:22:45] was that Alpine residents for students
[1:22:47] were going to go to Mountainville
[1:22:49] Academy and they were going to restrict
[1:22:51] the enrollment which has in continued to
[1:22:54] increase over the years. So, we're just
[1:22:56] going to continue as enrollment
[1:22:57] increases and we and the school grows,
[1:22:59] we're just going to bring in more
[1:23:00] traffic. So, I'm glad we're doing this
[1:23:02] study. So, thanks.
[1:23:04] >> I agree.
[1:23:05] And it's good that we have the
[1:23:07] opportunity with the city now owning
[1:23:09] that property on on one south that gives
[1:23:11] us the opportunity to have a second
[1:23:12] egress and having a Mountainville
[1:23:14] Academy board who is uh being very
[1:23:17] cooperative and trying to work with us.
[1:23:18] >> Exactly. And and for that we're
[1:23:20] appreciative because it's not always
[1:23:21] been that way and we appreciate the the
[1:23:23] response and the relationship that's
[1:23:24] been developed. So
[1:23:25] >> one last
[1:23:26] >> Thank you for allowing us to be part of
[1:23:27] that conversation.
[1:23:28] >> I have a question just how does the
[1:23:29] crossing guards work? Does the school
[1:23:31] place the crossing guards?
[1:23:32] >> No, the city does. Okay. So, it's
[1:23:35] >> police.
[1:23:35] >> Yeah, it's the police department.
[1:23:37] >> Well, but then but they bill us.
[1:23:39] [laughter]
[1:23:40] >> It's through the police department.
[1:23:41] >> Yeah.
[1:23:42] I know.
[1:23:43] >> They provide they provide the training
[1:23:44] which which um I think Michael addressed
[1:23:47] that to simplify the crossing allows the crossing guard to do their job. If
[1:23:54] we make it more complicated, the
[1:23:57] training, the level of training and all
[1:23:59] of that is just they have a hard time uh
[1:24:02] getting that level of training for the
[1:24:06] rate that they're paying.
[1:24:07] >> Well, I don't mean the training piece
[1:24:08] like who determines
[1:24:11] there's a crossing guard that stands
[1:24:13] here. I guess it's the training and
[1:24:16] where they actually stand. So, when the
[1:24:18] crosswalk gets moved south, wherever it
[1:24:20] ends up, does the police department say
[1:24:24] this is where a crossing guard will
[1:24:27] stand?
[1:24:27] >> So, I'm I'm going to let Sergeant
[1:24:28] Thirsten answer this because he's the
[1:24:30] one that coordinates everything with our
[1:24:31] crossing guards. He's the best one to
[1:24:33] answer that question.
[1:24:34] >> Yeah, we do. And it's interesting you
[1:24:35] bring that up because one of the points
[1:24:36] that is a concern right now with where
[1:24:38] the crosswalk currently is is for the
[1:24:40] kids to to cue their um as they're
[1:24:42] leaving the school to go westbound
[1:24:44] across Main Street. They have to they
[1:24:46] have to either block the sidewalk or
[1:24:49] queue in the bank parking lot and the
[1:24:51] bank's not going to give us permission
[1:24:52] to openly just do that. And so they do
[1:24:54] that because kids naturally will do
[1:24:56] that. Um, and so that would be the other
[1:24:58] nice thing about having the crosswalk
[1:25:00] south is there's a spot designated for them to queue that's not immediately
[1:25:04] blocking the sidewalk.
[1:25:06] >> So the school reaches out to you and
[1:25:08] then you all work together or the city
[1:25:10] reaches out to you and you all work
[1:25:11] together.
[1:25:12] >> As far as which I I can comment on that.
[1:25:16] So, in certain situations with the
[1:25:18] MUTCT, the manual uniform traffic
[1:25:22] control devices, uh certain situations
[1:25:25] require a crossing guard. So, if you
[1:25:27] have a reduced speed school zone like we
[1:25:30] have here, uh so down to 20 miles an
[1:25:32] hour and it's an elementary, you're
[1:25:35] required to have a crossing guard. If
[1:25:37] you have that situation, I believe for a
[1:25:39] junior high or high school, you're not
[1:25:41] required to have a crossing guard. So
[1:25:43] technically, Mountain Ridge Junior High
[1:25:45] is not required to have a crossing
[1:25:47] guard,
[1:25:47] >> but we provide it.
[1:25:50] >> because it's not an elementary school.
[1:25:52] So that's his point.
[1:25:54] >> And then the city, you just collaborate
[1:25:56] with I'm sorry, the school or you just
[1:25:58] tell the school this is where this is
[1:26:01] happening
[1:26:02] >> or again it's
[1:26:03] >> as far as locations of crosswalks. Is
[1:26:05] that what you're referring to?
[1:26:06] >> Crossing guards. I think that that comes
[1:26:08] from the city where where there are the
[1:26:09] needs and it it all ultimately comes
[1:26:11] down to what they want to budget for.
[1:26:12] How many crosswalk crossing guards were
[1:26:15] kind of facing the same thing over on
[1:26:16] Timberline uh on uh Westfield Road where
[1:26:20] all those additional streets have opened
[1:26:22] up for access west of Timberline Middle
[1:26:24] School. It used to just be one where the
[1:26:26] kids would cross and now there's four or
[1:26:28] five spots. Do you pay four or five more
[1:26:29] crossing guards for every single spot?
[1:26:31] It's up to the city where they where
[1:26:33] they place those. And you're you're not
[1:26:35] you're supposed to have a certain
[1:26:37] minimum certain distance between
[1:26:39] crosswalks and different things, but we haven't added a reduced speed school
[1:26:43] zone for [clears throat] many years.
[1:26:45] >> Yeah. Quite some time. So I think
[1:26:47] Westfield might have been the last one
[1:26:49] and that was a long time ago. So then
[1:26:51] that just to clarify, the two crossing
[1:26:53] guards that are currently on Maine and
[1:26:56] on 100 are city placed and
[1:27:00] police approved or or
[1:27:02] >> Yeah, they're actually employees of the
[1:27:03] police department. Correct.
[1:27:05] >> So police department placed. Yes.
[1:27:08] >> But we fund it through our contribution
[1:27:10] to the public safety district.
[1:27:12] >> Because that was my other thought in
[1:27:14] looking at dispersing and moving all
[1:27:16] this activity closer to the school. So,
[1:27:18] as a parent, my I'm going to send my
[1:27:21] child where there's crossing guards. So,
[1:27:23] as a city, we have the ability to also
[1:27:26] guide those those routes.
[1:27:30] >> It's really probably a collaboration
[1:27:31] with the police department, the schools
[1:27:33] as they do their safe routes to school
[1:27:36] uh plan that they're supposed to do by
[1:27:38] state law and and the city. So, probably
[1:27:41] a joint effort. Okay. Plus, I do get a
[1:27:43] fair amount of calls from residents,
[1:27:45] especially if they're new to the area,
[1:27:46] saying, "Hey, you know, we have students
[1:27:48] that go to this school. Was there a
[1:27:49] potential to have a crosswalk here?" And
[1:27:51] I' I've always directed them back to the
[1:27:53] city because ultimately they're the ones
[1:27:55] that make the decision through
[1:27:56] everything Shane just mentioned.
[1:27:58] >> Okay. Thank you. Can we just um clarify
[1:28:01] on this why they're there? There's
[1:28:03] usually reduced speed. Do we have all
[1:28:06] those signs in place on Main Street or
[1:28:08] They're not there. They're all there
[1:28:10] >> and that's required. Um,
[1:28:13] >> and then when is is it just during a
[1:28:17] certain time period? Remind me. I don't use Main Street very often.
[1:28:21] >> It's right before they get out and
[1:28:23] right. It's like isn't it like 30
[1:28:24] minutes before 30 minutes after or 20?
[1:28:26] It's there time right before school
[1:28:28] starts and right after it gets out.
[1:28:30] >> Yeah. So, it's typically about five
[1:28:32] minutes before it gets out for the day.
[1:28:34] the crossing guard is there with lights
[1:28:35] on and then it lasts for between 25
[1:28:37] depending on location for 25 to 30
[1:28:40] minutes after school gets out and prior
[1:28:42] to school starting it's the same thing
[1:28:43] it's between 25 and 30 minutes um
[1:28:46] depending on how close it is to the
[1:28:48] school over in in Highland at Ridgeline
[1:28:49] over on 11800 North and Highland
[1:28:51] Boulevard it's farther away from the
[1:28:52] school so those times alter a little bit
[1:28:54] because it takes students longer to
[1:28:55] either get there or get from there so
[1:28:58] >> and we have all that operational right
[1:28:59] now at our current
[1:29:01] >> correct
[1:29:01] >> the crossings are turns the lights on
[1:29:03] and off
[1:29:03] >> correct
[1:29:04] Yes.
[1:29:05] >> Thank you. I wasn't sure how that
[1:29:06] worked.
[1:29:06] >> Just out of curiosity, if say
[1:29:08] Mountainville wanted to have a
[1:29:10] volunteer, employee or parent become
[1:29:13] trained to help with traffic. Is that
[1:29:16] >> we'll take them
[1:29:16] >> allowed? Yeah.
[1:29:17] >> Yeah. They would they would end up
[1:29:18] having to be become an employee of the
[1:29:20] police department to be a cross crossing
[1:29:22] guard and we do get a fair amount from
[1:29:23] them because then they're they're
[1:29:25] protected under liability. I have yet to
[1:29:27] find a school that will just let someone
[1:29:29] do, you know, as far as one of their
[1:29:31] employees because of the liability.
[1:29:33] Okay. And they could help with traffic
[1:29:35] as well or just crossing children.
[1:29:38] >> Li
[1:29:39] >> I [clears throat] was going to say
[1:29:40] usually like
[1:29:40] >> talking about liability talking about
[1:29:42] liability with kids. Yeah.
[1:29:43] >> You can't have random people stopping
[1:29:45] traffic, you know. Um so I think you
[1:29:47] have to go through the proper channels,
[1:29:48] but
[1:29:49] >> I was just saying
[1:29:50] >> considering if you know we still allowed
[1:29:52] left-hand turns if that was
[1:29:54] >> the question is if we're still hiring I
[1:29:55] would love to hire you for a crossing
[1:29:57] guard. No. Awesome.
[1:29:58] >> I don't know how, but Alpine has like a
[1:30:00] resident that does it.
[1:30:01] >> And just and maybe Dan can clarify. Um I
[1:30:04] did speak with him earlier today. The school does have a cap on amount of
[1:30:08] students they can enroll, right? So
[1:30:10] that's not planning on growing.
[1:30:12] >> Can I just make
[1:30:13] >> Is that okay, Carla?
[1:30:14] >> Sure. Come on up, Dan.
[1:30:16] >> Yeah, just on that point. Um so that's
[1:30:19] right. So our charter is set by the
[1:30:20] state. It's capped at 750. It's been
[1:30:23] that way since the start. Um the
[1:30:26] enrollment average has been between 675
[1:30:29] to 725. Uh it peaked I think in 2022
[1:30:34] when the school still had s 7th 8th and
[1:30:36] 9th grades. Um when the middle school
[1:30:39] years or junior high years were removed
[1:30:40] it went back down below 700. Um and so
[1:30:44] in order to change that uh charter
[1:30:46] amount it takes an act of Congress. It's
[1:30:49] through the state legislature and it
[1:30:51] actually isn't determined by the amount
[1:30:53] of available square feet on the
[1:30:54] property. It's determined by population
[1:30:56] growth and we don't have the population
[1:30:58] growth in this particular area to my
[1:31:00] knowledge to even warrant that. So I
[1:31:02] don't believe that there is any viable
[1:31:04] path for the school. Even if there was a
[1:31:06] board that all of a sudden woke up one
[1:31:08] morning and wanted to increase the the
[1:31:10] charter limit, I don't think that
[1:31:12] there's a path to even do it. Um and
[1:31:14] it's never been discussed as as a a
[1:31:16] preferred option. And in fact, like we
[1:31:18] love the the the size that we're at
[1:31:20] right now, but we are below the limit.
[1:31:22] If it ever pushed up, if there were
[1:31:23] demand for more than 750 students to
[1:31:26] attend, uh that triggers the ability for
[1:31:29] the school to give preferential
[1:31:31] admittance to Alpine City residents. And
[1:31:34] so right now, because we're below the
[1:31:36] cap, it's kind of random, first come,
[1:31:38] first serve. If uh all of a sudden there
[1:31:40] were need for 900 students to come, then
[1:31:43] we could say, "All right, Alpine
[1:31:44] students get first preference." and then
[1:31:46] it spills over to residents from
[1:31:49] anywhere in the state. So that's just
[1:31:50] like the current.
[1:31:51] >> And did that change? Because I thought
[1:31:52] in order to increase your charter, you
[1:31:55] guys just had to go to the state charter
[1:31:57] school board and get permission from
[1:32:00] them to increase your charter, which is
[1:32:01] what you guys did in what was it 2017?
[1:32:05] Was it 2013?
[1:32:07] >> It would have been earlier than 2017, I
[1:32:09] believe. I can go back and I can come
[1:32:10] back another meeting and like hey here's
[1:32:12] the exact
[1:32:12] >> I think I believe that's how because I
[1:32:14] was asking about what that process was
[1:32:16] and um
[1:32:17] >> yeah I'll come back with better facts.
[1:32:19] My understanding is that it is has to go
[1:32:22] through the legislature too. Um
[1:32:24] >> maybe they consider the state charter
[1:32:26] school board part of the legislature but
[1:32:28] that was the process before unless it's
[1:32:30] changed in the last couple of years. I
[1:32:31] can come back with a here's the exact
[1:32:33] process, but I will give the just the
[1:32:35] overall broad message that no board uh
[1:32:38] no one on the board in any recent
[1:32:41] history has there been ever discussion
[1:32:42] to want to increase the charter size.
[1:32:44] So,
[1:32:45] >> thanks D.
[1:32:46] >> That's all I got.
[1:32:47] >> Hey, mayor. I have two two quick things.
[1:32:50] >> Okay. Uh, one is in my first year
[1:32:53] serving on the city council in 2024, the
[1:32:56] Mountainville Academy board was much
[1:32:58] less receptive to working with the city
[1:33:00] uh to do this and and I really
[1:33:03] appreciate Dan and the current board for
[1:33:04] being much more willing to do so. Just a
[1:33:07] caution to the rest of city council
[1:33:09] members that board can change very
[1:33:11] quickly as we just I just discussed 2024
[1:33:13] to 20252026
[1:33:16] it changed significantly and so granted
[1:33:19] the circumstances have changed somewhat
[1:33:20] as well with the desire to have a STEM
[1:33:22] building and kind of a little bit
[1:33:24] forcing Mountainville Academyy's hand
[1:33:26] but I would just caution that any any
[1:33:29] decisions we make consider the potential
[1:33:32] of a future board being less receptive
[1:33:34] to changes. So, while we have this
[1:33:36] opportunity, which I think is an
[1:33:38] excellent opportunity, let's really try
[1:33:39] and get it right. And to the chief
[1:33:42] Williams comment, we have this
[1:33:44] opportunity. It's been around for a
[1:33:45] long, long time. The city buying that
[1:33:47] property was instrumental in getting us
[1:33:49] to this point. So, let's try and get
[1:33:51] this done as soon as possible and so it
[1:33:53] can take effect in the fall for the new
[1:33:55] school year. And then the second one,
[1:33:57] Michael, is Michael still on
[1:34:01] >> the engine here?
[1:34:03] >> I am. Yes.
[1:34:04] >> Okay. I have a quick question. I really
[1:34:05] like the idea of a sec another crosswalk
[1:34:07] at at 100 South. For me, as a very
[1:34:10] frequent pedestrian on these streets as
[1:34:12] a runner, I I uh I appreciate the
[1:34:16] opportunity to cross more safely with a
[1:34:17] marked crosswalk versus so many unmarked
[1:34:19] crosswalks. I just want to clarify,
[1:34:22] you're not if if we do put this
[1:34:24] crosswalk in, it would not be considered
[1:34:26] one for the school. Even though we would
[1:34:29] use a zebra type striping, but we would
[1:34:31] not be putting a a crossing guard there.
[1:34:33] It would just we would just have the one
[1:34:35] primary crosswalk for the school.
[1:34:38] >> Uh the our recommendation is actually
[1:34:41] that that 100 uh south crossing not have
[1:34:45] zipa striping. It would have standard
[1:34:46] >> okay
[1:34:47] >> striping. So yes, it would it would not
[1:34:48] be it's considered a non-school crossing
[1:34:51] based on how we analyzed and it just
[1:34:53] makes more sense. The the major any
[1:34:56] school traffic they're going to want to
[1:34:57] use that crossing to the south and we
[1:34:59] don't want to encourage any other
[1:35:01] crossings for school related crossings.
[1:35:03] Excellent. Thank you for that
[1:35:04] clarification.
[1:35:04] >> Michael, just to clarify, if if I
[1:35:07] recall, and I I might misremember this,
[1:35:10] the crossing across like north and south
[1:35:13] across First South, you recommended a
[1:35:15] zebra crosswalk there, but the new one,
[1:35:18] >> correct?
[1:35:19] >> Across Main Street, just a regular,
[1:35:21] right?
[1:35:21] >> That's
[1:35:22] >> correct. Yes.
[1:35:26] » Two last things that I missed to remind.
[1:35:28] Uh, I didn't realize this hinges on the
[1:35:31] left turn, but we didn't bring it up. We
[1:35:33] kind of breezed over it. It hinges if we
[1:35:36] diffuse everything on the roundabout. I
[1:35:38] don't know if you all saw that in there.
[1:35:40] And then I can't believe I didn't bring
[1:35:42] it up, but it's just understood by
[1:35:43] everyone. This all assumes that we do
[1:35:46] the north um egress. So,
[1:35:51] >> I don't know if you're all crystal clear
[1:35:52] on that, but I
[1:35:53] >> You mean the new the new Yeah. Second
[1:35:55] egress. It definitely all assumes that,
[1:35:58] >> right? It all assumes that, but maybe
[1:36:00] people didn't realize.
[1:36:01] >> Hinges on option 2A out of the health
[1:36:03] study, right?
[1:36:04] >> Yeah.
[1:36:05] >> Is that a right turn only? I I saw one
[1:36:08] of the diagrams that showed that, but I
[1:36:09] do think it needs to be restricted to a
[1:36:12] right turn only.
[1:36:13] >> Yeah,
[1:36:14] >> it does.
[1:36:14] >> It's a right turn only on this diagram.
[1:36:17] >> Yeah, that's that's our recommendation.
[1:36:19] The level of um enforcement you provide
[1:36:22] on that is is up to the city to
[1:36:23] determine, but that's our initial
[1:36:24] recommendation.
[1:36:26] Mayor, if I can just bring one other
[1:36:28] point up that hasn't been made tonight,
[1:36:30] and it's it comes from the study and
[1:36:32] then I I think we can let Michael go. Uh
[1:36:35] on the second page of the rerouting
[1:36:38] assessment, um it's mentioned that uh
[1:36:44] yeah, it's mentioned that Tuesday
[1:36:46] traffic was on average 13% higher than
[1:36:48] Wednesday traffic. And that's due to the
[1:36:52] uh Timberline, they have an early out
[1:36:54] day or something. And my point is, he
[1:36:56] brought this up, but
[1:36:59] coordinating with schools to potentially
[1:37:01] make some of those adjustments on more
[1:37:03] day than days than one could be a small
[1:37:06] piece to a larger puzzle to help.
[1:37:09] >> Yeah. No, and I think Chrissy made that
[1:37:10] comment regarding early out versus
[1:37:13] regular out days and how that kind of
[1:37:14] helps,
[1:37:15] >> but not in this meeting. It was a
[1:37:17] private email.
[1:37:18] >> I hadn't heard him mention and I thought
[1:37:20] it [clears throat] was an important
[1:37:21] thing. No.
[1:37:22] >> So, I did um they did bring that up in a
[1:37:25] private conversation, but I'll make it
[1:37:26] public now, said that he talked to his
[1:37:29] board about that and they weren't
[1:37:30] particularly
[1:37:32] um keen on it specifically because
[1:37:34] parents do have a need to get their
[1:37:36] children places. And so, um this I guess
[1:37:39] is a reflection. Thank you, Shane, for
[1:37:42] bringing this up with a 13% there was a
[1:37:44] 13% decrease in the overlap. I I'm not
[1:37:47] sure how to state that again, but do you feel that it I hate to keep using
[1:37:54] that word, but it's warranted to to
[1:37:56] request a shift in times or 13% is
[1:37:59] negligible like
[1:38:07] » sorry, is that a question for me?
[1:38:08] >> Yeah.
[1:38:10] >> No, sorry. I I had a private
[1:38:12] conversation with Dan about the
[1:38:14] Mountainville Academy changing their
[1:38:16] time and the the there they weren't in
[1:38:18] favor of that. So going back to the 13%
[1:38:21] is that something that is I know there's
[1:38:24] so many trait moving parts but 13% is
[1:38:27] that something you would see like on a
[1:38:29] scale of 1 to 10 like of importance
[1:38:32] would it be below five or above five?
[1:38:34] You know like
[1:38:35] >> I would say I think the scale of 1 to 10
[1:38:37] is a great way of grading that. I would
[1:38:39] say it's below five. Okay.
[1:38:41] >> It does have an impact, but it's not
[1:38:43] going to be enough to tip to tip the
[1:38:45] scale.
[1:38:46] >> Thank you. Thank you.
[1:38:51] » Well, I I needed I I Yeah.
[1:38:55] >> Okay. Anything else? Um if you guys want
[1:38:58] to. So Michael, did you want to go over
[1:39:02] your um what fair Pierce is your final
[1:39:06] recommendations for
[1:39:08] um for this traffic study particularly?
[1:39:11] Okay, there we go. It's up. Okay, so we
[1:39:14] have what fair Pierce is recommending as
[1:39:16] they study the traffic pattern. Why
[1:39:19] don't we go down starting from Sarah
[1:39:22] and see whether um you support this or
[1:39:25] if you have alternatives and then let's
[1:39:27] discuss that and then um kind of give um
[1:39:31] direction for staff to study that out
[1:39:35] and how it's going to be implemented and
[1:39:36] then they'll bring it back to city
[1:39:37] council to vote on to actually implement
[1:39:40] it.
[1:39:41] >> Go ahead, sir. Um I I did like Jessica
[1:39:44] or Councilwoman Smeuan's um idea of just
[1:39:47] don't bring all the traffic back into
[1:39:49] Alpine if they're just going to be
[1:39:50] leaving. So, I do love that idea, but
[1:39:52] after hearing some of the comments from,
[1:39:54] you know, the police officers and safety
[1:39:56] and um I mean, I'd be open to studying
[1:40:00] that option a little bit more, but um
[1:40:03] so, but but if this is what we have and
[1:40:06] just based off of today's conversation
[1:40:08] and the study, I would I would recommend
[1:40:11] moving the the crosswalk south in
[1:40:14] between the egress and the the the
[1:40:17] entrance and the exit. Yeah.
[1:40:22] Chrissy.
[1:40:23] >> Okay. Um, yeah, I think I was open to
[1:40:27] the idea, but I did hear enough
[1:40:29] hesitation on moving forward. It
[1:40:31] wouldn't be my first option to put it
[1:40:33] this what she called option three. So,
[1:40:35] just move forward with what the study
[1:40:37] was asked to do, which was the specific
[1:40:39] location. And also with all the
[1:40:41] dispersement information, I feel like we
[1:40:43] need to try that first. And if it's if
[1:40:47] it's a if it there's other ways we could
[1:40:49] modify that would be second. My primary
[1:40:52] um suggestion which I wrote down and
[1:40:55] have been verbalizing
[1:40:57] um is like we need to run up come up
[1:40:59] with a plan and I I have a list of
[1:41:02] people I feel like would be instrumental
[1:41:03] to that plan. One of them would be
[1:41:05] Charlie. He's been very involved. Um uh
[1:41:09] Jason our engineer. Dan is from Mountain
[1:41:12] the Mountain Bill. And then Janice is
[1:41:14] the administrator there. and then a
[1:41:16] parent which I have different options
[1:41:19] and they'd sit down and like make the
[1:41:21] exact plan and then that's what we're
[1:41:24] actually voting on in two weeks. Like I
[1:41:27] don't think we have time to delay and
[1:41:29] talk about bigger picture ideas. we need
[1:41:32] to come up with something so then we can
[1:41:33] run the pilot and um my idea would be to
[1:41:36] have the pilot run and then they would
[1:41:40] like to do a survey of parents and that
[1:41:42] um I've talked to the their PTA or their
[1:41:45] FSO president and she's for that as well
[1:41:48] and then um also I was thinking we need
[1:41:51] a place to give our residents an
[1:41:53] opportunity to give feedback because as
[1:41:54] Jessica's point out they'll see more
[1:41:56] traffic on their streets or they might
[1:41:58] notice [clears throat] things. So to get
[1:41:59] feedback from the residents who are
[1:42:01] impacted and the parents who are
[1:42:03] impacted then we we get that feedback in
[1:42:07] time um that we could adopt a like or
[1:42:11] amend and run a second pilot before
[1:42:14] school's out. So to me, I feel like um
[1:42:16] timing is really important and I don't
[1:42:19] have any disagreement or any questions
[1:42:22] about what's like if we just go full
[1:42:24] boore and do everything that they've
[1:42:26] recommended and it fixes the problem and
[1:42:28] we don't have to run a second pilot and
[1:42:30] we get tons of positive feedback. I'm I
[1:42:33] can also be a positive thinker, not just
[1:42:34] worst case scenario thinker. But uh
[1:42:37] anyways, that's what I would like to see
[1:42:39] is us be able to move forward with a
[1:42:41] pilot enough time that if we need to
[1:42:43] make adapt adaptation, we have time to
[1:42:45] run a second pilot before school gets
[1:42:47] out. I'm more worried about timing than
[1:42:49] these other secondary issues in my
[1:42:51] opinion.
[1:42:52] >> So, you [clears throat] want to have the
[1:42:53] pilot before the school year's out.
[1:42:55] >> Oh, definitely. I want two pilots. I
[1:42:57] want time for two.
[1:42:58] >> You're talking about like these months
[1:43:00] and like like now this year school.
[1:43:02] >> Yes. Which I mean, we have to bring it
[1:43:04] to this board. we have to bring it out
[1:43:05] to this council and then we have to
[1:43:07] bring it to the Mountainville council
[1:43:09] and we have to get the message out to
[1:43:10] all the school you know all the the
[1:43:12] parents were running this and you know
[1:43:14] coordinate and striping and all I mean
[1:43:16] that's that's like a big job and we have
[1:43:18] a limited time. Do you think that's
[1:43:20] feasible with the 100 South? We'd have
[1:43:22] to grade it and and put the gravel down
[1:43:24] and do all the painting, striping, new
[1:43:26] crosswalk before school gets out in two
[1:43:28] and a half months, two months.
[1:43:29] >> Kind of depends on if that's part of the
[1:43:31] pilot. Like this study, I don't think
[1:43:33] talked about that part of it. It's
[1:43:35] something that I mentioned as a
[1:43:36] possibility. There would be some expense
[1:43:38] to it. I think the pilot that was
[1:43:40] mentioned in here was uh the cones in
[1:43:44] the middle to prohibit from coming out
[1:43:46] of the school and like taking 20 or so
[1:43:51] it seems like res um parents or whatever
[1:43:54] and having them stage on Red Pine Drive.
[1:43:57] I think that's the pilot,
[1:43:58] >> but it would all be contingent on having
[1:44:00] a second egress on one south.
[1:44:02] >> We we
[1:44:04] >> is it contingent on that?
[1:44:05] >> Absolutely. If you restrict left turns
[1:44:07] and only have one It's just it's going
[1:44:09] to be chaos. I think
[1:44:11] >> that's Yeah, that's what I would caution
[1:44:13] is if you're going to pilot the uh left
[1:44:16] turn restriction, you likely will need
[1:44:17] the north egress first. Otherwise, the
[1:44:20] perception of how that restriction is
[1:44:22] working will be much more negative.
[1:44:24] >> Okay.
[1:44:24] >> I think we really need to push this and
[1:44:26] but I just don't know if it's feasible
[1:44:28] to do it before school's out and to try
[1:44:30] and do that in the last little bit last
[1:44:32] couple weeks of school.
[1:44:33] >> School has to remove their concrete wall
[1:44:35] and then we have to put in temporary
[1:44:37] like gravel or something. and grade that
[1:44:39] property. So, a temporary drive.
[1:44:41] >> I'm not worried about the physical work.
[1:44:42] I'm worried about
[1:44:44] >> we move pretty slow around here. It's a
[1:44:45] great idea as a council and
[1:44:47] Mountainville like all buying into it.
[1:44:49] Like getting people to move is a lot
[1:44:51] harder than getting equipment on site.
[1:44:52] >> I think we can move as a council very
[1:44:54] quickly. I'm I'm ready to move. This has
[1:44:56] been far too long, but I think we should
[1:44:57] move quickly on this. Make our decision.
[1:45:00] Get all our ducks in a row. Work with
[1:45:01] Mountainville Academy and get it ready
[1:45:03] to start at the school year. Communicate
[1:45:05] really well with the parents what the
[1:45:06] plan is. You'll have a lot of new
[1:45:08] parents at that point, too. And then the
[1:45:10] nice thing about this is none of it's
[1:45:12] permanent.
[1:45:13] >> You know, if we sell the lot to
[1:45:14] Mountainville Academy, that's permanent
[1:45:16] with, you know, that second egress. But
[1:45:18] the other things we can change. We can
[1:45:20] always add a
[1:45:21] >> I think we could I think we could try to
[1:45:23] do it right before school gets out and
[1:45:25] try to go for that goal if um you know,
[1:45:28] we don't it's not a heavy snow year. We
[1:45:30] do have some public works guys. Um this
[1:45:32] could be a project that they could work
[1:45:34] on as a pilot. you know, and see if it
[1:45:36] even works. It might not or it might.
[1:45:39] You know, we might as well try it and
[1:45:40] see how that works. And then parents um
[1:45:43] can kind of get an idea of what it's
[1:45:44] going to look like the following year.
[1:45:46] And it won't be brand new with the start
[1:45:49] of a new school year. It'll be some, you
[1:45:51] know, this is a routine that they've
[1:45:52] already gone through. It's just tweaked
[1:45:53] a little bit. And um try to go through
[1:45:56] that.
[1:45:56] >> I I do think um having time for feedback
[1:45:59] and tweaking is always optimal. And so
[1:46:04] like part of it is Mountainville meets
[1:46:07] um March I'm going to pull up my
[1:46:08] calendar. March so we we will meet again
[1:46:12] in two weeks which is March um
[1:46:14] >> 28th
[1:46:15] >> 24th
[1:46:15] >> no 24th sorry
[1:46:17] >> classes um March but they meet March
[1:46:20] 20th. Is that correct Dan?
[1:46:22] >> 27th or is it the Thursday right after
[1:46:24] that?
[1:46:25] >> Is it the fourth or the third Thursday
[1:46:27] >> this month?
[1:46:29] >> Okay. Well, and so I would like to have
[1:46:31] like a black and white written up plan
[1:46:33] that we plan to do with a lot of talking
[1:46:36] before so that everybody's sort of on
[1:46:38] the same page and it's um so that we can
[1:46:42] get both approval on the 24th and the 20
[1:46:46] sorry this this doesn't tell dates.
[1:46:48] Okay, the 24th and they meet on a
[1:46:50] Thursday the 26th. Is that what you're
[1:46:52] telling me, Dan? Okay. So, the 24th and
[1:46:55] the 26th and that would allow us the
[1:46:58] entire month of May to get the pilot in
[1:47:01] place and going.
[1:47:03] >> Well, and with that said, I think, you
[1:47:04] know, collaboration was the key word
[1:47:06] that Michael used before we vote on a
[1:47:10] pilot, shouldn't we get Mountainville's
[1:47:13] input at least where the crosswalk
[1:47:15] should go or where their preference is
[1:47:17] that the crosswalk should go? because if
[1:47:21] you know I do think it would be worth um
[1:47:24] modeling that
[1:47:26] for the benefit of maybe their goal of
[1:47:29] onscampus pickup like we haven't talked
[1:47:31] to them on what are their goals and what
[1:47:34] do they want to accomplish so should we include that in what we're
[1:47:39] looking at to pilot
[1:47:40] >> yeah I think that when we vote on the
[1:47:42] 24th we would have it pinned down
[1:47:46] >> and I thought Dan mentioned in his
[1:47:48] comments about where they thought it
[1:47:49] should be. Did Did you
[1:47:52] >> Yeah.
[1:47:54] >> Okay.
[1:47:55] >> So, I'm more worried about the timeline
[1:47:57] and whether we started on the north or
[1:47:59] the center like that's not as important
[1:48:01] to me as we try it once.
[1:48:03] >> Try something in April and then modify
[1:48:05] it in in May if we need to because it
[1:48:07] didn't work very well.
[1:48:08] >> I think we should go with the
[1:48:10] recommendation and then see how that
[1:48:12] works and then get feedback and if it
[1:48:14] doesn't, you know, we could try to
[1:48:15] modify it. But what is your thought?
[1:48:18] That's That's good. I like the pace
[1:48:19] you're all moving at. I like that.
[1:48:21] That's faster. I was hoping for summer
[1:48:22] and so the fact that you guys are that
[1:48:24] early, I like it. I I'm for all of these
[1:48:26] as really good fixes. I like that they
[1:48:29] overlap. I think this will work. Um this
[1:48:32] leave this final recommendation leaves
[1:48:34] out two and several other small ones,
[1:48:36] but that's fine. So, so I'm for all of
[1:48:38] these as a great diffuser model with the
[1:48:41] hope that if there is still frustration
[1:48:44] in a year, they allow us to get buses.
[1:48:48] >> So, what do you mean by allow you to get
[1:48:50] buses? Like, you're willing.
[1:48:52] >> No, there's not. That's just me talking.
[1:48:53] I know that's not an official deal. I'm
[1:48:56] just saying we're going to do this and
[1:48:57] this is going to work,
[1:48:58] >> okay?
[1:48:59] >> But as a last resort, please meet me
[1:49:01] there if it doesn't work. That's all I'm
[1:49:03] saying.
[1:49:04] >> He's just a worst case scenario. That's
[1:49:05] not a word. That's a hope to get it
[1:49:07] fixed.
[1:49:07] >> Brent, what is your course of action to
[1:49:10] kind of
[1:49:12] give guidance to staff?
[1:49:14] >> Yes, I like the idea of try of of moving
[1:49:16] forward with the recommendations and I'm
[1:49:18] glad it doesn't preclude other options
[1:49:21] in the future if we decide that this
[1:49:22] isn't working the way we intended. I
[1:49:24] would suggest allowing staging or
[1:49:27] queuing on 120 South on the west side
[1:49:31] just primarily because you'll have
[1:49:34] parents who are going to Timberline
[1:49:35] afterwards or or what for whatever
[1:49:37] reason and it disperses a little bit
[1:49:39] more than pushing everything east by
[1:49:42] allowing some parents to have some
[1:49:43] options to go west. that might alleviate
[1:49:46] some of the issues with Red Pine and
[1:49:49] those who live east of Main Street on
[1:49:53] 120 South.
[1:49:54] >> Okay. Thank you, Jessica.
[1:49:56] >> And then you had said that Mountain Bill
[1:49:59] did express like this center works for
[1:50:02] them or would they like to see other
[1:50:04] options or what what's the position if
[1:50:07] we're making motion in this direction? I
[1:50:10] would say the preference would be to
[1:50:14] >> you need to come up to the mic, Dan. We
[1:50:15] can't hear.
[1:50:18] >> I always say my comments will be shorter
[1:50:19] than there. Okay. I would say our
[1:50:21] preference would be to maximize do, you
[1:50:24] know, obviously whatever's safest for
[1:50:26] the kids. And then if we're talking
[1:50:28] efficiency improvements, whatever would
[1:50:30] maximize the egress or exit flow rate
[1:50:33] southbound onto Main Street would be
[1:50:34] preferential for our parents given the
[1:50:37] twothirds are trying to go that way.
[1:50:38] Okay, that would be the quickest. So, if
[1:50:41] the placement of the crosswalk just to
[1:50:43] the north enables that without too many
[1:50:45] other drawbacks, that would be our
[1:50:46] preference. If that doesn't pencil, then
[1:50:49] we're still supportive of moving it
[1:50:50] south as outlined in the traffic study.
[1:50:54] So, hopefully that's clear. Well, and
[1:50:56] it's my understanding that we currently
[1:50:58] have two trained crossing guards that support the school so that we could
[1:51:04] just move them to that location if need
[1:51:08] be.
[1:51:08] >> So, I'm hearing that four of the council
[1:51:11] people want to proceed with what is
[1:51:14] >> Well, I didn't outline my specifics
[1:51:16] because I was moved on too quick. It's
[1:51:19] okay. Uh I am for either. I don't care
[1:51:23] where it goes. I think it could go
[1:51:24] either. If y'all like what Jessica's
[1:51:26] proposing, I say put it there.
[1:51:28] >> I'm not proposing it. It's what the
[1:51:30] school again,
[1:51:31] >> I apologize. The sense of collaboration.
[1:51:33] >> No, you did. No, you're proposing it. It
[1:51:35] doesn't matter. There's three options,
[1:51:36] right?
[1:51:37] >> Right. I'm for either place of that
[1:51:39] location, but having one there. I mean,
[1:51:40] it's a difference of 12 feet. So either
[1:51:43] way,
[1:51:44] >> but it's a huge difference. And
[1:51:46] >> I But but I I like either. So I'd be in
[1:51:48] support of either. So I'm in support of
[1:51:49] both.
[1:51:49] >> Okay. So you're in support of either
[1:51:50] >> but the other things are there
[1:51:51] >> two for the
[1:51:52] >> Right. Right. But but just because
[1:51:54] you're nailing us down, this doesn't
[1:51:56] include all of the tiny things, the
[1:51:58] painting, the red curves, the zebra
[1:51:59] stripes, the the several the speed
[1:52:01] limit,
[1:52:01] >> right? No, this is justeneral, but but I
[1:52:04] am supportive of this, but I would like
[1:52:06] those other things that it recommends as
[1:52:07] well. And
[1:52:08] >> that can go into motion, but this is
[1:52:10] just a discussion
[1:52:11] >> and good for both. But just to get you
[1:52:12] where I'm at, good for both, either
[1:52:14] Jessica's placement or the study's
[1:52:15] placement. I mean I oh I my preference
[1:52:18] is that they are able to just go left
[1:52:21] and get out of town but I understand
[1:52:23] that we have this study that says that
[1:52:25] right is probably recommended. So since
[1:52:28] we already have a study stating that
[1:52:30] maybe this could be the pilot and then
[1:52:31] if it doesn't work but I'm open to the
[1:52:33] left idea. I actually really like that.
[1:52:36] >> Yeah. I think
[1:52:38] to me I would suggest that we go with
[1:52:40] the study, the recommendations of the
[1:52:42] study, see how that goes and then you
[1:52:45] know or what you can do is maybe at the
[1:52:47] end of this year we do this and then you
[1:52:48] can move the crosswalk over the summer
[1:52:50] and in the fall try the other but either
[1:52:53] way but we need to give staff direction
[1:52:55] on one way or another so they can come
[1:52:57] back with the proposal. I guess you can
[1:52:59] come back with both. And you know what?
[1:53:01] Why don't we come back with a proposal
[1:53:03] for either or and then they can vote on
[1:53:05] it when it comes back on the agenda?
[1:53:07] >> I I think that the committee could come
[1:53:09] up with a consensus because they're
[1:53:11] weighing,
[1:53:13] >> right? But ultimately it's going to be
[1:53:14] the council that's going to vote on it,
[1:53:16] right? I think the committee can give a
[1:53:18] recommendation
[1:53:20] um and then it'll be ultimately up to
[1:53:22] the council. I just want to point out we
[1:53:24] can keep talking about the the alternate
[1:53:26] but putting restricting left turns was
[1:53:30] three other studies. So this is the
[1:53:32] first time we've heard it
[1:53:34] >> and it doesn't mean it's the right
[1:53:35] solution. It's just three times
[1:53:36] >> but I think that was based on
[1:53:37] assumptions given. I think it was
[1:53:40] direction given of study this with no
[1:53:44] left-hand turns. So you have to
[1:53:46] understand how studies are conducted in
[1:53:48] >> that assumption was not given when the
[1:53:51] original Horoc study said we you know we
[1:53:54] have this issue please come up with a
[1:53:57] solution and I feel like you're I think
[1:54:00] you could be right in that based on that
[1:54:02] original study they kind of went off of
[1:54:04] that that's what they studied but our
[1:54:06] ask of fair and pierce was look at it
[1:54:08] with fresh eyes that's why we didn't go
[1:54:10] to Horox we didn't go to
[1:54:13] >> what was its
[1:54:14] >> hills
[1:54:15] We didn't go to the same one. We wanted
[1:54:17] a fresh set of eyes.
[1:54:18] >> And the current Hails report that
[1:54:21] Mountainville Academy
[1:54:22] >> commissioned, they wanted they suggested
[1:54:25] a a raised median permanently
[1:54:27] prohibiting left turns.
[1:54:30] >> There were very that was their their p
[1:54:33] >> there were just very subtle differences
[1:54:34] between the results and that was one of
[1:54:36] them.
[1:54:36] >> They have all said no restricted.
[1:54:38] >> Yes. I I will say with this one, if we
[1:54:41] follow this, it will kind of give us a
[1:54:43] better idea of traffic at ridge and
[1:54:45] maybe help us give some insight as to
[1:54:48] roundabout, that sort of thing as well.
[1:54:50] So, this could be beneficial in more
[1:54:51] ways than one.
[1:54:52] >> Yeah. And also, we just want to make
[1:54:54] sure that when we do the pilot that we
[1:54:55] restrict the staging north of
[1:54:59] 100 south. So, all those signs would
[1:55:02] have to be put up and enforcement ready.
[1:55:04] Right.
[1:55:06] >> Okay.
[1:55:08] So I think we've got um direction. Let's
[1:55:10] move on to item B which is financial
[1:55:12] reports.
[1:55:16] » Yes. Oh, thank you so much.
[1:55:18] >> Thank your whole team.
[1:55:21] >> Thank you all. Appreciate your time.
[1:55:25] >> Okay, Shane with the financial report.
[1:55:27] >> Okay, for the the financial report, um
[1:55:31] we can take as much or little time on
[1:55:32] this as you want. One highlight I wanted
[1:55:35] to mention and [clears throat] I think I
[1:55:37] mentioned it at the last meeting but the
[1:55:40] graphs here now uh the the one year yeah
[1:55:43] that one. So the sales tax uh our
[1:55:45] revenue was up um so year-over-year
[1:55:50] we're like 6.43%
[1:55:52] which is great. It's nice to see the
[1:55:54] line starting to go away from the other
[1:55:56] one instead of be on top of it. Um so
[1:55:59] hopefully that will will continue. Um,
[1:56:02] there's some things we actually
[1:56:04] originally had planned to have the kind
[1:56:06] of midyear budget adjustment on this
[1:56:08] agenda, but there was another item on
[1:56:10] that ended up getting pulled off late,
[1:56:13] so we had left it off, but we have to
[1:56:15] have a public hearing, so we couldn't
[1:56:16] just throw it on. So, but um it's just
[1:56:20] to clean some things up. So, it's it's
[1:56:23] uh just making you aware of why that's
[1:56:25] not on here. Um
[1:56:28] anyway, so we're
[1:56:31] let's see, we're going on 75% through
[1:56:34] the the budget here here in another
[1:56:36] couple of weeks and um things are in
[1:56:39] order and
[1:56:42] projects are moving forward. Some are
[1:56:44] complete
[1:56:45] and um I don't see anything that's
[1:56:49] really out of balance point.
[1:56:52] >> Okay, let's start with Sarah. Do you
[1:56:53] have any questions regarding the
[1:56:54] financial report? I do not.
[1:56:57] >> Chissy,
[1:56:58] >> I did have four questions. Um, I Brian
[1:57:02] happens to be here again. I think he was
[1:57:03] the one who asked this. Brian, I figured
[1:57:06] out where he got his garbage. He said in the public comments that on this
[1:57:11] first page it says waste collection
[1:57:13] sales of 730. Have you already figured
[1:57:16] this out? You're nodding.
[1:57:17] >> I saw it. Yeah.
[1:57:18] >> Okay. And then here it's the garbage is
[1:57:20] 758. So, we're operating at a loss. That
[1:57:23] was his question. We don't have to
[1:57:25] answer it tonight because we'll get this
[1:57:26] again and we've spent a lot of time on
[1:57:28] other things. If we could have that
[1:57:30] answer next meeting, it
[1:57:31] >> it will actually be a cleanup item on
[1:57:33] the uh Okay. mid year.
[1:57:36] >> So anyways, I I Brian Brian's not the it
[1:57:39] was here before you got here, Brian. So
[1:57:42] he just want to point it out and it
[1:57:43] became clear to me and I was looking at
[1:57:44] this report which I really liked. Okay,
[1:57:47] sec that was question one. Question two,
[1:57:50] um, our our class roads, class C roads,
[1:57:53] which is the next page, we're at 100% of
[1:57:56] plan already for expenditures. How does
[1:57:59] that work?
[1:58:00] >> So, is this where you are?
[1:58:02] >> I my screen isn't working. I'm I'm
[1:58:04] sharing with sharing with Sarah. It It's
[1:58:06] in the um budget report for February
[1:58:09] 2026, page four. That would be one, two,
[1:58:12] three.
[1:58:12] >> Page 11.
[1:58:13] >> The red and green report is what Shane
[1:58:16] refers it to.
[1:58:18] And it has percentages in the red.
[1:58:26] » Yeah. Well, it's Is that Yeah, you're almost to the red and green.
[1:58:31] >> You're asking why we've expanded 100% at
[1:58:33] this point the year.
[1:58:34] >> Yeah,
[1:58:35] >> because we we typically do our projects
[1:58:38] in the uh late summer and fall.
[1:58:42] >> Okay. I assume that
[1:58:44] >> some cities do them like in the spring
[1:58:46] of the following year and it can get
[1:58:47] kind of either way can be chaos but we
[1:58:50] typically do it on the front. Okay.
[1:58:52] First half the budget.
[1:58:53] >> Yeah. Because our revenues are not in
[1:58:54] the same sequence but it'll play
[1:58:56] catchup. Okay. The next one was on um
[1:59:00] our growth specifically the um because
[1:59:04] our impact fees like we're not having
[1:59:06] the same growth. Are are you at all
[1:59:08] concerned because are are all the impact
[1:59:11] fee revenues are really low?
[1:59:14] >> They're they're low because we have I
[1:59:16] think the report I just got we have uh
[1:59:18] 16 new homes now. I can't remember if
[1:59:21] that was a budget year or county. I
[1:59:22] think it was a budget year. So we look
[1:59:26] for about 30 or plan for about 30.
[1:59:29] >> So we are below our projection. It's
[1:59:31] real. It's not a timing issue. But
[1:59:33] they're I mean they're funds that are
[1:59:36] only spent on related projects. So it's
[1:59:40] >> okay. But I just wondered if we're if
[1:59:42] that is a timing issue or we're just
[1:59:45] below our projection.
[1:59:46] >> It's just a timing issue.
[1:59:47] >> Oh, maybe by the by the end of June
[1:59:49] we'll have the the remaining. Okay. This
[1:59:52] is my last question then. Um on the
[1:59:54] water, we've spent so much time talking
[1:59:56] about water in these last few meetings.
[1:59:58] The water fund. I noticed that. Um,
[2:00:03] do you have that up there? Sorry.
[2:00:05] >> Yeah, I do.
[2:00:06] >> No. No. Heidi,
[2:00:07] >> are you on the red green report?
[2:00:08] >> I'm on red green report. It says water
[2:00:11] utility.
[2:00:17] » No, keep going down.
[2:00:19] >> Right there. No, keep going.
[2:00:22] >> Oh, sorry.
[2:00:23] >> Down. Down. Down.
[2:00:26] >> Okay, keep going.
[2:00:29] Really?
[2:00:30] >> Yeah.
[2:00:34] » You're getting into it there. Yeah.
[2:00:37] >> Okay. You're probably
[2:00:40] >> click on one of those pages and we'll
[2:00:42] >> Nope. Keep going.
[2:00:43] >> Oh, you are. You do need to go further.
[2:00:46] >> Okay. Now you're getting into
[2:00:47] >> Yeah. With all these heavy lines across
[2:00:49] it.
[2:00:51] >> Okay. We just talked about close C class
[2:00:52] C how it was 100%. You go to the next
[2:00:54] page.
[2:00:56] Keep going.
[2:00:58] Um, impact fees are low, which we talked
[2:01:00] about. Not a big deal. There we go. No,
[2:01:02] it's it's water.
[2:01:04] >> Water.
[2:01:04] is after capital projects.
[2:01:07] >> Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Um, so I didn't
[2:01:10] realize that we um when we use an
[2:01:12] appropriate we're going to be talking
[2:01:14] about fund balances in the near future.
[2:01:16] Um and so when we've planned for the
[2:01:19] appropriated fund balance here out of
[2:01:21] the water utility and you can see down
[2:01:24] here at the very bottom um cash balance
[2:01:26] at the beginning appropriated fund
[2:01:28] balance. So we're you of the 3.9 million
[2:01:31] we started with we're going to use half
[2:01:33] a million to bring it down to 3.3
[2:01:35] million. Um is that or do we have any
[2:01:38] type of restriction on that's for like
[2:01:41] not restriction or how do I want to say
[2:01:44] this methodology maybe where those are
[2:01:46] for capital improvements only and never
[2:01:50] for operations or
[2:01:51] >> that's how you that's how you plan for
[2:01:53] that okay all right I just this this
[2:01:56] one's easier to follow than some of the
[2:01:58] other ones we look at and and that same
[2:02:01] thing happens again in the sewer and the
[2:02:04] PI fund is the same thing where we're
[2:02:06] using fund balance. Okay. And so that even though it's not detailed in
[2:02:11] this report, that is the methodology you
[2:02:12] use. Yes.
[2:02:13] >> Okay. I tried to talk quickly. That's
[2:02:15] it.
[2:02:16] >> Thank you, Shane.
[2:02:17] >> Yep.
[2:02:19] >> Shane, I just have two quick ones. Um
[2:02:22] the numbers are the same on page uh 229
[2:02:26] as they are in these others roughly. I
[2:02:29] think you're
[2:02:31] >> you don't have Yeah, you sure you can.
[2:02:33] Our biggest expenses coming up are the
[2:02:35] fire department and water. Is that
[2:02:37] correct?
[2:02:39] >> Sales tax revenue.
[2:02:40] >> No expenses.
[2:02:42] Those our biggest expenses that were
[2:02:44] >> two of the biggest I guess streets is
[2:02:47] you know around a million for projects.
[2:02:50] >> But isn't fire department we're looking
[2:02:52] at three to five million? Isn't that the
[2:02:55] range
[2:02:55] >> year or for the total?
[2:02:56] >> No, just budgeting out of this budget.
[2:02:59] >> I'm talking really big picture. We
[2:03:00] budgeted three million out of this
[2:03:02] budget year for the fire station
[2:03:04] project,
[2:03:04] >> right?
[2:03:05] >> And then there it will actually cross
[2:03:07] three budget years.
[2:03:09] >> Wow.
[2:03:10] >> And
[2:03:11] >> okay. And then the water.
[2:03:13] So just help me understand what funds
[2:03:16] we're taking, for example, the wells
[2:03:19] that we and I emailed you, but it's
[2:03:20] okay. The wells from that we did today
[2:03:24] and then which funds the uh barge
[2:03:28] station comes from. And then how and
[2:03:30] then I can find out from that what we're
[2:03:32] looking at how much we have left over.
[2:03:34] >> So the well project that was approved as
[2:03:36] part of the kinsan calendar would come
[2:03:38] out of the 55 fund which is pressurized
[2:03:40] irrigation.
[2:03:42] >> Okay.
[2:03:43] >> Yeah. The fire station um the current
[2:03:47] budget has funds coming from two
[2:03:49] different funds. Um some from the
[2:03:51] general fund and some from the capital
[2:03:54] improvement fund.
[2:03:56] Sorry, she must be looking at page 29 in
[2:03:59] the report. I was just talking about 29
[2:04:00] in the um 229 in the uh actual
[2:04:06] uh city council packet.
[2:04:09] >> Sorry. Would you mind saying that once?
[2:04:11] >> Yeah. Would you mind saying that once
[2:04:13] more, Shane? That's why it was confusing
[2:04:15] to people that that she went on a
[2:04:17] different page.
[2:04:18] >> So, the um the pro the well project
[2:04:22] that's coming out of fund 55.
[2:04:24] >> Oh, right. I got that. the fire
[2:04:25] >> project. So that's pressurized
[2:04:26] irrigation. The fire station project is
[2:04:29] coming out of for this budget year two
[2:04:31] different funds. Um part from the
[2:04:33] general fund and part from the capital
[2:04:35] improvement fund.
[2:04:36] >> Okay. And then this one is for later. I
[2:04:38] emailed asking if I could just see what
[2:04:41] or or understand what it's hard to make
[2:04:45] financial decisions when I don't know
[2:04:47] how much we have to work with and where
[2:04:51] we're hitting red lines. And then um if
[2:04:54] you don't know how much you have to work
[2:04:55] with, you don't know how much you you
[2:04:58] don't know how much is a is a small
[2:04:59] amount or a large amount for something.
[2:05:01] Does that make sense? And then I'm still
[2:05:03] confused at where we're pulling money
[2:05:05] from and where we can't pull up money
[2:05:06] from. So anyways, that's a longer
[2:05:07] discussion. I can have it later. And
[2:05:09] >> yeah, in those times that we have where
[2:05:10] Shane [clears throat] has availability,
[2:05:12] make an appointment,
[2:05:14] >> but that will help us to know when
[2:05:15] 114,000 is a lot for the PI system or is it not? And then I read through our
[2:05:20] PI system and I find the $175 million
[2:05:23] amounts for the complete and the 16
[2:05:25] million and the 15 million for for their
[2:05:27] recommendations and I have nothing to
[2:05:29] gauge it off of. So anyways, that's that understanding will help. Uh so
[2:05:33] thank you.
[2:05:34] >> I was going to say in council comments,
[2:05:36] but I'll just say it now that we're
[2:05:38] meeting as a finance committee on the um
[2:05:40] 20
[2:05:41] >> Oh, thank you.
[2:05:41] >> on the 26th
[2:05:45] to 26th of March, same day as
[2:05:48] Mountainville. Anyways, and if you have
[2:05:50] questions, you can send me um we're
[2:05:52] going to have topic discussions. I
[2:05:54] already have like an agenda, but one of
[2:05:56] the agenda items is answering answering
[2:05:58] council questions. It's at 8:00 in the
[2:06:01] morning um right here in this room. It
[2:06:03] is advertised. And so, if you have
[2:06:05] questions, you can send me. We're
[2:06:06] forwarding those on to uh our uh auditor
[2:06:10] who's coming and presenting to us. And
[2:06:13] that is exactly the questions like how
[2:06:15] to be how to use our financials in the
[2:06:18] way we want to use them and that's one
[2:06:20] of the topics we're going to be talking
[2:06:22] about. So
[2:06:23] >> I'll send those
[2:06:24] >> Shane is our best resource in
[2:06:25] understanding our budget but
[2:06:27] understanding maybe the bigger picture
[2:06:28] like
[2:06:30] >> I'm in DC at that time but I'll send
[2:06:32] them because because that's that's I
[2:06:33] really want to learn more about that. It
[2:06:35] gets a little bit complicated because
[2:06:37] you have your fund balance, you have pro
[2:06:39] some projects are 100% complete, some
[2:06:41] might be 30%.
[2:06:43] >> And so it's
[2:06:46] uh yeah, it's hard to just like put it
[2:06:48] right on paper in a way in a way that it
[2:06:51] makes sense, but I'm happy to spend
[2:06:53] time.
[2:06:54] >> I'm getting there. So, thank you. That's
[2:06:55] all I had. Thank you.
[2:06:55] >> Okay, Brent.
[2:06:57] >> Yeah, no questions. Just
[2:06:59] >> maybe keep encouraging your friends and
[2:07:01] neighbors to buy online so we can have
[2:07:02] more sales.
[2:07:03] >> I know, right? Hey, nice to see those
[2:07:05] numbers going up. I double check.
[2:07:07] >> But don't go to Walmart in in Lehi or
[2:07:09] wherever or
[2:07:11] >> We are higher than Cedar Hills
[2:07:15] >> for sales tax.
[2:07:16] >> Yes.
[2:07:17] >> And they have a Walmart.
[2:07:19] >> But Walmart brings in I mean they get
[2:07:21] almost a million dollars in sales tax
[2:07:22] revenue just from Walmart.
[2:07:23] >> But with their Walmart?
[2:07:24] >> Yeah.
[2:07:24] >> Not just online.
[2:07:25] >> We're higher than them overall.
[2:07:27] >> Yeah. But they
[2:07:28] >> Well, they just put in a new coffee
[2:07:29] shop, so that might change things.
[2:07:31] >> There you go. Jessica, do you have any
[2:07:32] questions regarding finance the
[2:07:34] financial report? Okay, let's move on
[2:07:37] then. Action items and discussion items.
[2:07:41] A, consideration for approval of a
[2:07:43] five-sided lot on 1147 East Mountain
[2:07:48] Drive.
[2:07:50] >> Shane,
[2:07:52] >> Ryan is actually on and this this had to
[2:07:54] go through the planning commission and
[2:07:56] so he has agreed to
[2:07:58] >> present this.
[2:08:00] >> Yep. Can you guys hear me? Okay.
[2:08:02] >> Yeah.
[2:08:03] >> Okay. Um, yeah. So, in the in the city
[2:08:05] code, it says lots have to be uh uh five
[2:08:08] sides or less. If they want to be more
[2:08:11] than five sides, they have to go through
[2:08:13] the planning commission and city
[2:08:14] council. In discussions that we've had
[2:08:18] about this, it's really to avoid So,
[2:08:20] each lot and each zone has to have a
[2:08:22] minimum square footage. Uh, it's really
[2:08:24] to avoid some I think this is a legal
[2:08:26] term, Steve. you'll have to check me,
[2:08:28] but just just to avoid some funky lots
[2:08:30] that aren't that they just create to to have some some weird boundaries to
[2:08:36] meet that minimum lot size. Um, this lot, like the mayor said, um, is uh they've want to combine two lots that
[2:08:46] they've already that they have. Uh, one
[2:08:49] of them was already five sides and was
[2:08:50] already uh uh funky to it's a weird
[2:08:54] shaped lot. Heidi, I don't know if you
[2:08:56] can pull that up, but
[2:08:57] >> um
[2:08:58] >> that weird part to it. I'll switch
[2:09:00] screens so I can I can see what you're
[2:09:02] showing, but um that that funky little
[2:09:05] leg piece that comes off was already
[2:09:07] part of it. They're adding a a piece to
[2:09:09] the west or uh I think it's in the front
[2:09:11] side of it of the of the lot on that
[2:09:14] east uh mountain drive there. But
[2:09:16] they're combining two lots there. Uh it
[2:09:19] again is over five sides. So it went
[2:09:21] through the planning commission. We had
[2:09:22] a discussion on it. uh they included in
[2:09:25] your packet, they made a motion to
[2:09:27] recommend approval of of the more than
[2:09:30] five sided lot. So, as a as a city
[2:09:32] council, you're the final say on that.
[2:09:34] Um and yeah, you guys you guys get to
[2:09:37] vote if if you want to grant an
[2:09:39] exception to it's an exception to the uh
[2:09:42] no more than five sided lot requirement.
[2:09:45] So, uh it it's it's fairly simple, but
[2:09:47] if there's any questions or anything,
[2:09:48] I'd be happy to happy to go over that.
[2:09:51] >> Hey, Brian. Um,
[2:09:53] >> yes.
[2:09:54] >> In planning commission, it was kind of
[2:09:55] helpful to do the parcels. Do you want
[2:09:56] me to do that, too?
[2:09:58] >> Yeah, that's if that's okay. Yeah, if
[2:10:00] you kind of want to see what it is now
[2:10:02] and what it'll what it'll look like.
[2:10:04] >> Um,
[2:10:07] >> I have a question, Brian. Are there any
[2:10:09] uh structures on these?
[2:10:12] >> Um, there's a
[2:10:13] >> everything's undeveloped. Yeah, my my
[2:10:16] understanding that there's a single home
[2:10:17] on on one of the lots on the kind of
[2:10:20] that main lot there that not the not the
[2:10:22] funky offshoot but the but the main lot
[2:10:25] there
[2:10:28] and and once Tidy pulls this up, you'll
[2:10:30] be able to see it.
[2:10:32] >> Sorry.
[2:10:34] >> No, that's okay.
[2:10:35] >> Once he's done
[2:10:40] » Brian, did you have anything else to add
[2:10:41] to the presentation?
[2:10:43] >> No, that's it. There's no public hearing
[2:10:45] or anything on this. So, yeah, but just
[2:10:47] combining those two lots. You can see on
[2:10:48] the
[2:10:49] >> on the parcel map there, there is that
[2:10:51] one.
[2:10:53] >> Uh there's there's a home on there
[2:10:55] already.
[2:11:03] » Yeah.
[2:11:04] >> If you go to the satellite view, Heidi,
[2:11:06] sometimes that helps a little bit just
[2:11:08] to show what's what's on there.
[2:11:16] Yeah. So, they're just just combining
[2:11:17] that 001 and 004
[2:11:20] and the partial numbers there are the
[2:11:22] last four. Yep.
[2:11:23] >> Let's um proceed with questions. We'll
[2:11:26] start with um Councilwoman Blackwell.
[2:11:29] Um, I just wanted to clarify, my
[2:11:31] understanding after listening to
[2:11:32] planning commission was that they wanted
[2:11:34] to build an additional barn and I just
[2:11:37] want to clarify that that barn will
[2:11:39] still have to meet the setback
[2:11:40] requirements and go through all the
[2:11:43] proper channels. Okay.
[2:11:44] >> Yep. Yep. So, any anything they build
[2:11:46] going forward, they'll still have to
[2:11:47] meet all the setback requirements and all the reviews and building reviews and all that fun stuff.
[2:11:52] So, yep. This this doesn't change any of
[2:11:54] that.
[2:11:56] Do we have any idea how this lot got
[2:11:59] right there in the middle kind of
[2:12:01] >> Oh gosh. I I don't know. I
[2:12:04] >> There are a few There are a few lots
[2:12:07] like this just throughout the city that you just kind of scratch your head
[2:12:11] as is how it got to where it is. But I'm not sure. Shane might know better
[2:12:15] than I do, but I'm not sure how
[2:12:16] >> how it ended up like that. But I sh I
[2:12:19] should note that the one the funky
[2:12:22] shaped it's that's a legal term
[2:12:25] [laughter]
[2:12:26] that is actually a parcel and not a lot.
[2:12:29] So what they're proposing is to combine
[2:12:32] a parcel with a lot. Parcels don't have
[2:12:34] that five-sided restriction,
[2:12:36] >> but they're they're proposing to combine
[2:12:38] it, which would actually reduce the
[2:12:41] total number of sides.
[2:12:45] Uh, Mr.
[2:12:47] >> Did you have any questions? Well, let's
[2:12:49] just go in order.
[2:12:50] >> I was just gonna ask about something you
[2:12:51] just said. I can wait till it's my turn,
[2:12:52] though. Go ahead,
[2:12:53] >> Chrissy. Did you have anything?
[2:12:56] >> Um,
[2:12:57] I I like where Sarah's going. Like, as
[2:13:01] far as now that it's one contiguous lot,
[2:13:04] um,
[2:13:06] will they like is that considered the
[2:13:08] frontage then? What we're looking at?
[2:13:09] So, they can't put a barn like right by
[2:13:12] the sidewalk. In other words,
[2:13:15] >> no, that would still be and and Steve
[2:13:17] can correct me on this, but from looking
[2:13:18] at it, that would still be the front lot front yard set back. I believe
[2:13:23] in the I I could be so wrong on this, so
[2:13:26] Steve, jump in. But the definition of a
[2:13:28] front yard, it's ab budding the street.
[2:13:31] Um, so that that would all be considered
[2:13:33] the front yard. Yep.
[2:13:35] >> And then every other that's the only
[2:13:38] line of the whole many of the funky lot.
[2:13:41] That's the only line that has um like a
[2:13:44] frontage. Therefore, everything else
[2:13:46] meets the minimum uh setback
[2:13:48] requirements. Every other wherever they
[2:13:50] put it, it it would every other line
[2:13:53] will be treated equally. Is that what
[2:13:54] I'm understanding?
[2:13:56] It's hard to know front back side in
[2:13:58] this one, right? So, like if they wanted
[2:14:01] to put it in this area um part of the
[2:14:03] left where there's um trailers and
[2:14:05] stuff, it's as if every single line back
[2:14:08] there is a backyard line, right?
[2:14:13] What setback rules would apply? That's
[2:14:14] >> your question.
[2:14:15] >> Thank you. A better question. What
[2:14:16] setback rules apply to everything other
[2:14:18] than the frontage?
[2:14:21] >> For sure. The north property line where
[2:14:23] the cursor is the north line if a
[2:14:26] building was back there would be the
[2:14:27] rear and then east and west would be
[2:14:31] sides.
[2:14:32] >> Sides, right? Yeah, in the in the code
[2:14:35] and and again in the code it's pretty
[2:14:37] good at defining the front yard and then
[2:14:39] the the backyard is the the yard that's
[2:14:41] opposite the front yard and then the
[2:14:43] sidey yards are not the front and the
[2:14:44] back is if if I remember right. So at
[2:14:47] least the front and the back is clearly
[2:14:49] defined on those. So that's that's what
[2:14:50] it looks like to me anyway.
[2:14:52] >> So I guess I'm not following. So the
[2:14:54] front can you I know you can't touch the
[2:14:58] screen because you're Zoom. Which is the
[2:15:00] back? What's the front? And then
[2:15:01] everything else is the side. I mean
[2:15:02] there's so many lines on the this.
[2:15:05] >> Yeah. So Mike and and Shane and Steve
[2:15:07] can you know say not not so on this but
[2:15:10] the where our cursor is now I think
[2:15:12] would be the front yard uh front front
[2:15:15] yard. The the north those north lines
[2:15:19] would be the would be the rear yard and
[2:15:22] then everything else would be a
[2:15:24] sideyard.
[2:15:29] » Okay. What about the long long line?
[2:15:31] That's narrow
[2:15:32] >> in between.
[2:15:33] >> Yeah,
[2:15:33] >> that's a side.
[2:15:34] >> North line would be
[2:15:36] >> rear.
[2:15:37] >> Oh, that is rear. So, any of the north?
[2:15:39] >> Yeah.
[2:15:39] >> Okay.
[2:15:40] >> Yes.
[2:15:42] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:15:43] >> I want to make that clear because when
[2:15:45] they when somebody takes your place
[2:15:47] someday, Ryan, and comes to try and
[2:15:49] build something, I want to, you know, I
[2:15:51] want them to know and me to know and the
[2:15:53] owners to know what we're talking about
[2:15:55] in this very
[2:15:55] >> odd. Great clarification. Yep. And
[2:15:58] Heidi, could you move the cursor to the
[2:15:59] far left and all the way down to that
[2:16:01] southern part of that one? This line.
[2:16:03] That's the one that's unclear on
[2:16:05] >> this one.
[2:16:05] >> Right. So that's not neither a side nor
[2:16:07] a front.
[2:16:09] >> No.
[2:16:10] >> Yeah. Ryan, I don't recall a specific in
[2:16:13] the ordinance that would identify what
[2:16:15] setback would apply there. It's
[2:16:17] something we don't run into very often.
[2:16:21] Um,
[2:16:23] so maybe if we don't have it in the
[2:16:25] ordinance, we'd have to decide which is
[2:16:26] most appropriate for that. It's maybe
[2:16:28] more of a sideyard or a or a back since
[2:16:31] it absuts this other home.
[2:16:33] >> I don't know. Just either clarify the
[2:16:35] ordinance or
[2:16:36] >> come to a reasonable conclusion with
[2:16:38] attorney input.
[2:16:39] >> Okay, let's proceed with um Andrew's
[2:16:42] comments or questions. [clears throat]
[2:16:44] >> So, this this is just bear with me. Um
[2:16:48] uh I'll try to go through this. I'm I'm
[2:16:49] not looking at homes. I I grew up in
[2:16:51] these homes. I I know these well. I know
[2:16:54] who lives there now. I know who used to
[2:16:55] live there. Um I I got to give some
[2:16:58] background though, otherwise this won't
[2:16:59] make sense because the owner is here and
[2:17:01] I respect him. Uh you're not going to
[2:17:04] like me, but I I respect you and I but I got to explain that when I ran for um
[2:17:11] for this. I was very surprised going
[2:17:14] around all of Alpine and finding out and
[2:17:16] then I can give some history on this lot
[2:17:19] that the number one thing was traffic.
[2:17:20] But the most surprising thing second to
[2:17:23] that what residents all over in all
[2:17:27] neighborhoods all over the one I live in
[2:17:29] the far west side up north down south
[2:17:32] was something I didn't know how to
[2:17:34] express but put it in the title of
[2:17:38] extreme construction.
[2:17:40] Uh it was the second most brought up uh
[2:17:43] frustration that residents in Alpine
[2:17:45] would have. So just to give you some
[2:17:46] background, I would go and they would
[2:17:48] walk me over to a place and they would
[2:17:51] say, "How could you let this happen?
[2:17:53] It's so bizarre." They would call them
[2:17:55] albatrosses or double lots or quadruple
[2:17:58] lots. I'm only bringing this up because
[2:18:00] I'm sensitive to the relationships of
[2:18:02] the people in this room. So, it's very
[2:18:04] hard like my heart's pounding to to to
[2:18:06] like try to explain this and express why
[2:18:08] I think this is such a disaster of an
[2:18:10] idea and I apologize. It's not you. It's
[2:18:13] it would be if my mom was trying to do
[2:18:15] this, I would say the same thing. The
[2:18:17] history of this lot is the home where
[2:18:20] you're seeing it was purchased and then
[2:18:23] divided. Okay, so that's how we got this
[2:18:26] weird shape. Um, and so that probably
[2:18:30] shouldn't have happened either. Now, why this is a legislative decision? We
[2:18:37] are trying like our job, I don't know if
[2:18:39] everyone's sick of listening, but our
[2:18:41] job is to literally preserve the look
[2:18:44] and feel of that city.
[2:18:47] The look and feel of it. This is
[2:18:49] legislative. This is not administrative.
[2:18:51] It's [clears throat] completely
[2:18:52] legislative. The look and the feel. I
[2:18:55] would not have like issues or even have
[2:18:57] a background or a story on this had I not seen or have I not already
[2:19:02] seen so many things just like this all
[2:19:05] throughout Alpine which have created big
[2:19:08] problems surprisingly not just for the
[2:19:10] neighborhoods but for the person who
[2:19:12] creates them. It's very surprising when
[2:19:16] someone has created one of these which I
[2:19:18] would call like a complex a multi-lot
[2:19:21] size in a mismatched neighborhood that
[2:19:24] it does not give them the f fulfillment
[2:19:26] they're seeking for whether it's to
[2:19:28] build some huge thing on the lot and
[2:19:30] they end up leaving often we have one
[2:19:32] right by this where they end up leaving
[2:19:35] uh or and it's just sitting there and it was very and it's very similar
[2:19:38] there's a very there's a very similar
[2:19:39] story and these are not made by people
[2:19:42] who are
[2:19:44] I don't know how to say it normal
[2:19:45] regular people. These are outliers and
[2:19:47] very good and very intelligent and very
[2:19:49] successful people and this is why
[2:19:51] they're doing this and it has this weird
[2:19:54] consequence of completely upending the
[2:19:57] neighborhood. And so that's what I've
[2:19:58] been hearing. That's what I've been
[2:19:59] experiencing. I just want to explain
[2:20:00] that I respect everything he's doing,
[2:20:03] but long term I have seen this turn into
[2:20:06] a definite disruptor of the
[2:20:08] neighborhoods. If if if I could if I could explain this in such a
[2:20:13] way as a friend, I would be like, "Yes,
[2:20:16] build a barn. Yes, make this sweet
[2:20:18] complex, this cool uh man cave because
[2:20:21] this is happening." Oh, this cool lazy
[2:20:23] river or this awesome beautiful house.
[2:20:26] But you got to do it on a fiveacre lot
[2:20:28] where the fiveacre lots are because what
[2:20:30] it does is it disrupts every single
[2:20:32] neighbor around them. And it creates
[2:20:34] this problem that I have no idea if and
[2:20:37] if this land ever changes what you're
[2:20:40] going to do with it. Going back to some
[2:20:42] of the earlier conversations we've had,
[2:20:44] if you're not thinking 20 and 50 and 60
[2:20:46] years ahead, you're giving the next
[2:20:47] council a big difficult problem that
[2:20:50] maybe they not they won't be able to
[2:20:51] solve and they're just going to have to
[2:20:52] diffuse it and go on a plan B like what
[2:20:54] we're trying to do with Main Street. So,
[2:20:57] I I respect the owner. I love that. I I
[2:21:00] honestly respect his
[2:21:03] like business like nobody else. Um, I
[2:21:07] don't think he's going to get the
[2:21:09] fulfillment that he's hoping for by
[2:21:10] doing this given what I've seen in so
[2:21:12] many other cases. I do think it is a
[2:21:14] blatant disruptor to the core of Alpine.
[2:21:19] I'm sorry to to land there. I think this
[2:21:22] will only set precedent for terrible
[2:21:24] more of this. I don't think we have any
[2:21:26] explanation to the residents of Alpine
[2:21:29] to explain this when there are so many
[2:21:31] examples just like this multi-lot weird
[2:21:34] lot that they are just scratching their
[2:21:36] head saying how on earth did you guys
[2:21:39] allow this to happen
[2:21:41] I have no idea anyways
[2:21:43] >> Andrew can I ask a quick question like
[2:21:45] what what's your biggest concern with
[2:21:47] this is just what they would build on it
[2:21:49] is that what you're getting at or what
[2:21:50] are you
[2:21:51] >> it's not the concern of what they're not
[2:21:54] the concern of what they build on it. It
[2:21:56] disrupts the uh
[2:21:59] the ecosystem of the neighborhood in
[2:22:02] which it exists. It is a complete
[2:22:04] outlier because of the shape and it
[2:22:07] >> not just the shape but for
[2:22:09] >> the size.
[2:22:10] >> It's already happening.
[2:22:12] >> It's it's already happening and we I I
[2:22:14] seek to make peace with the res. This is
[2:22:16] why it's so hard for me to say this type
[2:22:17] of stuff because I don't want to make a
[2:22:18] problem with a resident who I respect.
[2:22:20] But I do know the feelings of all the
[2:22:22] residents surrounding this and it's
[2:22:23] already creating problems with a fence
[2:22:26] system. Okay. And I don't
[2:22:27] >> This has nothing to do with off the
[2:22:29] fence. This is dealing with
[2:22:31] >> approving this. No, you're you're not
[2:22:33] you're comparing one thing to another.
[2:22:34] >> You didn't let me finish it. It does
[2:22:36] because it is going on the lines of this
[2:22:39] weird lot. And if it was a square lot,
[2:22:41] the fence would be very different than
[2:22:42] zigzagging in between four and five
[2:22:45] other lots. So, it does it does have
[2:22:47] ramifications. The ramifications we're
[2:22:49] seeing is yes, uh, structures get put on
[2:22:51] and they get put on in weird locations.
[2:22:54] Okay, they upset the neighborhoods with
[2:22:57] and I didn't make this up. I'm observing
[2:23:00] it in multiple scenarios within Alpine
[2:23:03] if I wouldn't observed it because they
[2:23:04] brought it up to me.
[2:23:05] >> Toby, so the question from Sarah was do
[2:23:09] you feel like
[2:23:10] >> Yeah. What exactly are you against? What
[2:23:12] if we combine this lot, what are you afraid of? I'm not afraid
[2:23:17] of anything. What I am doing is I am
[2:23:19] observing where this has already
[2:23:21] happened and the big problems that has
[2:23:22] created and these are the problems that
[2:23:24] it creates.
[2:23:25] >> What are the problems that it creates?
[2:23:26] >> I'm explaining often it creates a large
[2:23:30] complex structure which does several
[2:23:33] things
[2:23:35] blocks views. This is this is very long
[2:23:38] construction durations and this is
[2:23:40] already beginning to start. And again,
[2:23:42] I'm I'm not against the family. I love
[2:23:43] the family and I love the neighborhood.
[2:23:46] It does create
[2:23:48] a deep problem with the surrounding
[2:23:51] neighbors. This is what they would bring
[2:23:52] when I would go and I would talk to
[2:23:53] these neighbors. I say, "What's going on
[2:23:55] over here? I have no idea what's going
[2:23:56] on on Feiferhorn." They would walk me
[2:23:59] over and they would point that it's been
[2:24:00] going on for three years. It's just so
[2:24:02] big that the construction time, the view
[2:24:04] block, the um and then and then I would
[2:24:07] say the deeper thing is once you build
[2:24:10] an albatross, which this is what they
[2:24:12] have called it, it becomes very
[2:24:14] difficult to pass on or sell. So I can
[2:24:17] think of several several examples where
[2:24:20] when the owner has created this and
[2:24:22] there's one right by this who I also
[2:24:24] know the the family and I'm not trying
[2:24:25] to say anything mean about them. I'm
[2:24:27] just trying to explain the situation.
[2:24:28] when they go on to try to sell it, it
[2:24:30] often sits for years and years and years and someone has to demolish
[2:24:35] it. Someone has to try to sort it out. I
[2:24:38] think the problem is not necessarily, if
[2:24:40] you want a specific what I'm afraid
[2:24:41] about, it's the reality that someone's
[2:24:43] going to have to deal with this in 40,
[2:24:44] 50, 60, 70 years and it's never going to
[2:24:46] be easy. And it didn't used to be like
[2:24:49] this. Just so you know, this this is a
[2:24:51] second job. This is a second dividing.
[2:24:54] The first time it was divided in a way
[2:24:56] that it probably shouldn't have been
[2:24:57] divided and that has already caused
[2:24:59] problems because the neighbor is not
[2:25:02] able to utilize land in such a way that
[2:25:05] a normal lot they would utilize. Okay.
[2:25:08] Now, now I want the the resident
[2:25:10] >> Wait, what do you mean the neighbor
[2:25:11] can't utilize the land?
[2:25:13] >> Well, what I I agree. I agree. Um,
[2:25:17] >> you mean utilize this person's land or
[2:25:19] their own? I'll just I'll just say it is
[2:25:20] as respectfully as I can knowing
[2:25:23] >> people know my intention is to preserve
[2:25:24] Alpine. What it is is part of the land
[2:25:28] used to be part of another lot. And so
[2:25:31] because there's a house built before the
[2:25:33] division, it changes the depth. It
[2:25:36] changes the setbacks. It changes how
[2:25:38] much space there is. The the barn used
[2:25:41] to be part of the other house.
[2:25:44] Okay? It used to be a different house's
[2:25:47] barn. It was divided. So I I respect
[2:25:51] >> that property owner sold his property.
[2:25:53] Am I understanding correctly?
[2:25:54] >> Yes.
[2:25:55] >> And so now that property owner is
[2:25:58] worried about his backyard that he sold
[2:26:00] off.
[2:26:00] >> No, no, no. Okay. Well, I'll tell the
[2:26:02] story as best.
[2:26:02] >> I'm just trying to understand.
[2:26:03] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so property only sold
[2:26:05] this lot. If you bring it up, it's the
[2:26:07] middle one.
[2:26:08] >> That was
[2:26:09] >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Well, he bought it from
[2:26:11] the property owner who I'm talking about
[2:26:13] before either him or the current
[2:26:15] resident lives there. It used to be a
[2:26:19] lot that included the barn and the back
[2:26:23] walkway and that other parcel. So, it
[2:26:25] was not as extreme back then as it has
[2:26:28] become. And this will make it more
[2:26:30] extreme. Does that make sense? If I I
[2:26:32] can point it out if you if you would
[2:26:33] like to see it. It It's the fish home.
[2:26:36] and the fishes used
[2:26:38] to own the farm and and that
[2:26:40] >> and they sold that.
[2:26:41] >> Yes. They sold it and then it was
[2:26:43] divided to what it is now.
[2:26:44] >> Right.
[2:26:45] >> Does that make sense?
[2:26:46] >> Yes.
[2:26:47] Okay. So,
[2:26:48] >> and then
[2:26:49] >> and now it's being
[2:26:50] >> But now you're saying that they're
[2:26:51] worried about their backyard because it
[2:26:52] wasn't because that was originally part
[2:26:55] of their property. I'm
[2:26:56] >> No, no,
[2:26:57] >> I'm confused at what you're
[2:26:58] >> the changing Well, the the lot is
[2:27:00] smaller now that that has been divided
[2:27:03] here. Let me just point over really
[2:27:04] quick so you can see.
[2:27:09] » This lot used to be like that. It was
[2:27:12] all one.
[2:27:13] >> Okay. It still was multi-sighted. Okay.
[2:27:16] Um, maybe I actually don't know if this
[2:27:18] was separated or how it was done. At a
[2:27:20] certain point, it was bought and then
[2:27:23] this part.
[2:27:24] >> Can you turn on the annotation?
[2:27:26] >> Yes, I can.
[2:27:29] >> Oh, can you take that? Where's the
[2:27:31] eraser?
[2:27:32] >> I don't
[2:27:36] use it for a while. I don't remember.
[2:27:38] >> Wait. Usually there's like a Usually
[2:27:40] there's like a little Oh,
[2:27:43] >> no.
[2:27:45] >> that just went green.
[2:27:47] >> And then I just have some questions.
[2:27:48] Those are those
[2:27:49] >> We've never got this far on the
[2:27:50] annotation, so I don't know if I'm much
[2:27:52] help. Sorry.
[2:27:58] » Where's the eraser?
[2:28:00] >> Someone just did a little eraser.
[2:28:08] » Okay. So,
[2:28:09] >> so I can finish up if you'd like.
[2:28:11] >> Okay, that would be great. Can you
[2:28:12] finish up?
[2:28:12] >> Finish up. this this is extreme. It
[2:28:15] doesn't fit Alpine. We have several
[2:28:16] other examples like this. They have not
[2:28:19] served the owner who does them well and
[2:28:22] they have created big long-term problems
[2:28:23] not only for the council and or not only
[2:28:26] for the council but also for the
[2:28:28] neighborhoods. I respect and deeply want
[2:28:31] the owner to achieve these goals. I
[2:28:33] think he can do them better in a more
[2:28:36] rectangular lot that is bigger like a
[2:28:38] 5acre lot or something where you buy
[2:28:40] like a farm. There are some in Alpine
[2:28:42] and elsewhere where you can build these
[2:28:43] big barns and they end up
[2:28:46] >> Okay.
[2:28:47] >> Is that it, Andrew?
[2:28:48] >> Well, no. And then I had two last
[2:28:50] questions.
[2:28:52] >> What is that?
[2:28:53] >> If and and I don't know how is is there
[2:28:55] a way, Mr. Doxy, this is my question,
[2:28:58] where he can still build his barn
[2:29:00] without connecting these or or I'm
[2:29:03] sorry, is there a way he can build a
[2:29:05] structure on that parcel without having
[2:29:07] to connect him or is he locked in that?
[2:29:10] So accessory structures under the
[2:29:12] current code are allowed when there's a
[2:29:15] principal structure or principal
[2:29:17] dwelling. This is a residential
[2:29:19] neighborhood.
[2:29:19] >> So that's why it needs it needs to have
[2:29:21] a home on it.
[2:29:22] >> Needs to have a principal dwelling, but
[2:29:23] the frontage, as I understand it, is not
[2:29:26] wide enough for a principal dwelling to
[2:29:29] be built on that parcel.
[2:29:33] >> So So that's that's it needs to connect
[2:29:35] to have that parcel with a farm. So So I
[2:29:38] respect it. It's a I uh it's it's a
[2:29:42] >> Do you have a second question?
[2:29:43] >> Uh no, I didn't have a second question.
[2:29:46] I I think I'm wrapping up, but you
[2:29:47] understand and I I appreciate the time.
[2:29:49] Thank you.
[2:29:50] >> Okay.
[2:29:50] >> Just a sorry, just a clarification,
[2:29:52] Andrew. I just want to make sure I
[2:29:53] understand. Yeah. You're not opposed to
[2:29:54] him putting a barn or some kind of
[2:29:57] accessory structure on that property.
[2:30:00] No,
[2:30:00] >> it's just the shape and the size of the
[2:30:03] lot in this neighborhood
[2:30:04] >> and generally what they turn into when
[2:30:06] we've made these and allowed these
[2:30:07] things to happen. And there's several
[2:30:09] examples near where you live and near
[2:30:10] where all of us live. And they've turned
[2:30:12] out to be very difficult problems, not
[2:30:15] only for the neighborhood, but for the
[2:30:16] city moving forward. We have one being
[2:30:18] built right now, and it's creating
[2:30:19] electricity problems just because
[2:30:20] they're so weird. They create logistical
[2:30:23] problems, they create social problems,
[2:30:25] they create relationship problems, and
[2:30:27] they create identity of the city
[2:30:28] problems.
[2:30:30] >> So, I have no other questions.
[2:30:31] >> Okay. Jessica, do you have any questions
[2:30:33] or comments regarding combining these
[2:30:37] two lots?
[2:30:39] >> No, just the original code is we don't
[2:30:42] allow for lots that are more than four
[2:30:45] sides. Correct.
[2:30:47] >> Five more than five sides.
[2:30:49] >> Okay.
[2:30:49] >> Unless they come in for an exception,
[2:30:51] which we have approved, I think, every
[2:30:53] other ones that have come in. But
[2:30:55] >> but that doesn't set precedent and it
[2:30:56] doesn't mean we're required to continue
[2:30:58] that approval. Correct.
[2:31:00] >> Correct.
[2:31:00] >> Okay.
[2:31:02] Yes, just like any other land use
[2:31:04] exception, land use ordinance, they have
[2:31:06] exceptions for a reason and the that
[2:31:08] reason is not every situation is the
[2:31:11] same and the reason for the ordinance or
[2:31:14] the restriction if it's not applicable,
[2:31:17] that's why you have an exception to
[2:31:18] allow it. There's never it doesn't
[2:31:19] create a presence.
[2:31:20] >> Can you go to the um proposed motions
[2:31:24] page?
[2:31:24] >> Well, and then just one other comment as
[2:31:26] we're working on our accessory dwelling
[2:31:28] and height and all of those things.
[2:31:31] anything we do right now would supersede
[2:31:35] those changes that we're looking at
[2:31:36] making in the future. Correct.
[2:31:40] >> The the code today would apply. Right.
[2:31:42] >> Right. So, as we're working on
[2:31:46] protecting view corridors, as we're
[2:31:48] working on um making sure that
[2:31:53] the identity of Alpine is maintained and
[2:31:56] we're looking at massing and bulking and
[2:31:58] all of the things that we're looking at
[2:32:00] reviewing and implementing,
[2:32:04] that would not apply to anything that if
[2:32:07] it was changed today. Correct.
[2:32:10] >> Yeah, that's correct.
[2:32:11] >> Okay. Could I ask one more question?
[2:32:14] Just because it seems like the intent is
[2:32:16] to build a barn um that cannot be a
[2:32:20] detached ADU like it can't have
[2:32:22] >> a living quarters in it. It's just maybe
[2:32:26] more for storage or
[2:32:27] >> and it has to meet all the setbacks
[2:32:30] and everything else that is already in
[2:32:32] place.
[2:32:32] >> Okay.
[2:32:33] >> And usually when we see anything like
[2:32:35] that um Mr. Doxy has come up with an
[2:32:38] agreement where they can't do like a
[2:32:40] rental and ED and whatnot. Although
[2:32:45] the state legisl I forgot to follow up
[2:32:47] on that bill. Do you know what happened
[2:32:48] on it?
[2:32:49] >> It's in limbo.
[2:32:50] >> We looked We don't think it passed.
[2:32:51] >> Okay. A little bit.
[2:32:53] >> I thought it was going to pass. Everyone
[2:32:55] >> we got it changed to 11,000.
[2:32:57] >> Kane and I looked at it today and it
[2:32:58] said dead.
[2:32:59] >> I'm notware. I'm not aware that the
[2:33:01] detached ADUs passed.
[2:33:02] >> Okay. So, we do have an agreement that
[2:33:05] is um on the
[2:33:07] >> It's for non-residential accessory
[2:33:09] structures. It's um yeah, it's recorded
[2:33:11] with the county the agreement. So that
[2:33:14] it prevents that.
[2:33:15] >> So with that being said,
[2:33:17] >> one last comment that the sample motion
[2:33:18] is worded incorrectly, just so you know.
[2:33:20] So
[2:33:21] >> make a motion. It needs to be
[2:33:23] >> for more than a five second.
[2:33:25] >> Okay.
[2:33:26] >> And that's that's my fault, not Ryan's.
[2:33:28] I wrote it.
[2:33:28] >> Okay. So with that, I will
[2:33:31] >> accept it.
[2:33:33] >> I will um entertain a motion.
[2:33:36] >> Oh, I did have one question. Sorry. um
[2:33:38] your comment about the difference
[2:33:39] between a parcel and a lot. So, a parcel
[2:33:42] cannot have a home on it.
[2:33:45] >> There's a parcel may have a home on it.
[2:33:48] This particular parcel, if it's left as
[2:33:50] a parcel and not combined with the with
[2:33:53] the lot that's adjacent to it, would not
[2:33:56] be able to have a home because it
[2:33:57] doesn't have sufficient frontage.
[2:34:00] >> But in any other circumstances,
[2:34:03] what does it mean? Well, and and people
[2:34:05] say parcel and lot interchangeably, but
[2:34:08] the technical term in the code and both
[2:34:11] the Utah State code and in our own code
[2:34:14] is that a parcel is any land that's not
[2:34:17] in a subdivision.
[2:34:19] >> Okay.
[2:34:19] >> So, a lot is a is
[2:34:22] basically a parcel, but it's in a
[2:34:24] recorded subdivision.
[2:34:25] >> Okay.
[2:34:25] >> I remembered my second question if I can
[2:34:27] do that unless you're not finished. Um,
[2:34:29] I just feel like um I I I hear you with what you're saying with the
[2:34:35] concerns being voiced by residents. I've
[2:34:37] heard them too. I do I've said this
[2:34:39] before and I'll just repeat it. um that
[2:34:42] we're going to attempt to limit or put a
[2:34:46] buffer to to the um
[2:34:49] whatever however you describe these new building things that are
[2:34:53] coming along through massing um limiting
[2:34:56] our semi
[2:34:59] what's the word Steve semi
[2:35:01] >> impervious surfaces
[2:35:02] >> semi imper I forgot the m semi-imperous
[2:35:04] surfaces um ADU restrictions and other
[2:35:08] things I believe that this particular
[2:35:10] ISS issue is not addressing the resident
[2:35:13] concerns that you're talking about. And
[2:35:15] I believe that when we when we combine a small piece that isn't really usable
[2:35:21] in any other way with um a larger piece,
[2:35:25] it actually does accomplish what our
[2:35:28] residents want, which is a more rural
[2:35:30] feeling, more space between um
[2:35:32] buildings. And so it it actually will
[2:35:35] limit that no other I guess no other
[2:35:37] home could have ever been built, but it
[2:35:38] makes that just creates buffers between
[2:35:41] neighbors and things. So it's making it
[2:35:42] a bigger lot, creating more buffer. Um,
[2:35:45] and it's making it a permanent addition
[2:35:48] to this lot. So we can only ever have
[2:35:51] one residential unit here. I mean other
[2:35:54] than ADU, but I just think it's it's
[2:35:56] adding it's it's enhancing
[2:35:59] um many things about the property just
[2:36:02] creating space and things like that from
[2:36:04] the neighbors.
[2:36:06] >> Thank you.
[2:36:07] >> I'm done.
[2:36:08] >> I remember my second question, but just
[2:36:10] to respond to that since you was uh
[2:36:12] asking, it hasn't done that in the
[2:36:14] examples I've seen. It hasn't enhanced
[2:36:16] and made more open space, nor will this.
[2:36:18] It will make less open space because it
[2:36:20] will get filled with bigger buildings.
[2:36:22] So, it hasn't done that. I wish it had.
[2:36:24] And also to bring up your Well, hold on.
[2:36:26] Let me just address what you said.
[2:36:27] >> No, that's what I was going to say is
[2:36:28] the big bigger buildings need to be
[2:36:30] addressed through massing, not through
[2:36:31] lot sizes, lot lines and stuff. That's
[2:36:34] not
[2:36:34] >> Sure. Sure. But just to address it on
[2:36:35] the massing and all those uh ordinances
[2:36:38] that you're bringing up. We we have an
[2:36:40] ordinance for lot size and you're just
[2:36:42] throwing that one out because we're
[2:36:44] breaking it completely right now. So So
[2:36:46] why why do we hold so fast to these
[2:36:48] other ones and then just break the other
[2:36:49] one?
[2:36:50] >> Lot size or minimum lot size?
[2:36:51] >> Yeah. Andrew, do you did what was your
[2:36:53] second question?
[2:36:54] >> Second question was this, and this is
[2:36:55] where I hope we can find a compromise.
[2:36:57] Is there any way, Mr. Doxy, we can grant
[2:37:00] a uh exception or a permit for him for
[2:37:04] the owner to build a barn but not break
[2:37:08] our ordinances on uh lot sides? Could we help meet him in the middle
[2:37:15] where we can help him build a barn but
[2:37:18] not crush and follow the we'll crush the
[2:37:21] ordinance of
[2:37:22] >> lot sides and uh continue to do what
[2:37:25] we've been doing that hasn't been
[2:37:26] working in Alpine. Is there any way we
[2:37:28] can get him an exception on a parcel to
[2:37:29] build?
[2:37:30] >> That would require a text amendment and
[2:37:32] that would apply that a text amendment
[2:37:34] to our code
[2:37:36] >> if you wanted to allow accessory
[2:37:38] structures with no primary dwelling on
[2:37:41] the on the parcel or the lot. That would
[2:37:44] be a text amendment.
[2:37:45] >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Doxy. I'll
[2:37:47] entertain a motion.
[2:37:48] >> Okay. I move to approve Oh, glasses. I
[2:37:52] move to approve the proposal for a more
[2:37:55] than five-sided lot at 1147 East
[2:37:59] Mountain View Drive with the following
[2:38:01] conditions or changes. My only uh
[2:38:04] suggestion on the condition is that we
[2:38:06] identify which lines um which setbacks
[2:38:10] apply to prior to uh recording the lot
[2:38:15] or the change um at the county level
[2:38:19] just administratively.
[2:38:21] >> I like that. Is there a second?
[2:38:25] » I'll second that.
[2:38:27] >> It's been u moved by Councilwoman
[2:38:29] Hanimman, seconded by Councilwoman
[2:38:31] Blackwell.
[2:38:33] Any further discussions?
[2:38:34] >> Is on the conditions, Mr. Doxy, can
[2:38:39] something go in that says that view
[2:38:41] corridors cannot be blocked by structure
[2:38:43] or some kind of parameters around the
[2:38:46] building that they build? Because there
[2:38:48] are many examples where someone has
[2:38:52] built a barn and probably
[2:38:56] removed 90% of the neighbors views.
[2:39:01] >> My understanding is that views are not
[2:39:03] protected in the Utah State
[2:39:05] Constitution.
[2:39:07] Is that correct?
[2:39:08] >> Exception.
[2:39:08] >> I know, but I was talking to So you want
[2:39:10] to go against the Utah State
[2:39:12] Constitution?
[2:39:12] >> No, it doesn't say that views are not
[2:39:14] protected.
[2:39:14] >> It does. I was I've been up at the state
[2:39:16] I've been at the state legislature a lot
[2:39:18] and discussed this because we're trying
[2:39:21] to figure out how do we do this in a way
[2:39:23] that is legally defensible and they're
[2:39:26] like well the well don't you know that
[2:39:28] views are not protected by the Utah
[2:39:30] state constitution and I've had that
[2:39:33] told me by several people up there so so
[2:39:37] is that correct Mr. D. So what I would
[2:39:40] suggest land
[2:39:41] >> clarification
[2:39:43] >> one of the functions of land use
[2:39:45] regulations which include height and
[2:39:47] setback restrictions
[2:39:50] is to
[2:39:52] >> help
[2:39:52] >> is to help with that or accomplish that.
[2:39:55] So, I would suggest if you're concerned
[2:39:57] about that that you review specifically
[2:40:01] or have the planning commission review
[2:40:03] and make a recommendation to you on
[2:40:07] setbacks and height restrictions for
[2:40:09] accessory structures in particular
[2:40:13] um
[2:40:15] you know in in particular areas or
[2:40:17] citywide you know depending on the zone
[2:40:20] or otherwise.
[2:40:22] That's the direction
[2:40:23] >> that would be the way to to kind of
[2:40:27] achieve that purpose.
[2:40:28] >> And I believe our ordinance has that if
[2:40:31] you for the if you have a higher you're
[2:40:33] still at the height restriction, but if
[2:40:36] you're building at a certain height, it
[2:40:37] has to have a greater side setback.
[2:40:40] >> Is that Yes. Correct. Yes. For
[2:40:42] >> it does account for that. So if it's in
[2:40:44] it's if it's insufficient
[2:40:46] protection in the in the mind of council
[2:40:49] members, then yeah, we go back to the
[2:40:50] drawing board and if we remedy that.
[2:40:53] >> But we don't have that in place today as
[2:40:55] we're looking at this exception
[2:40:57] >> for accessory buildings. We do have so
[2:40:59] you can you can go up to 20 ft tall at
[2:41:02] the minimum setbacks in that zone. Uh
[2:41:07] but if you have an additional two feet
[2:41:09] of setback in each direction, you can go
[2:41:12] up to 30.
[2:41:12] >> But again, it's been proven to be
[2:41:14] insufficient. So I understand it.
[2:41:16] >> No, no, no, no. you're talking about the
[2:41:18] reason where it's become insufficient is
[2:41:20] it's not necessarily a detached
[2:41:22] accessory. It's been when people have
[2:41:25] attached it with a breezeway or a what's
[2:41:28] another
[2:41:29] >> well both it's been in
[2:41:30] >> it's there's multiple areas where it's
[2:41:32] been a detached barn that then has
[2:41:36] been talking about
[2:41:37] >> can I follow up with what Mr. you just
[2:41:39] said really quick just to so before I
[2:41:41] forget you you mentioned height.
[2:41:43] >> I think we need a vote at some point.
[2:41:44] We've got a motion. We have a motion and
[2:41:46] a second on the floor. We can't digress.
[2:41:49] >> She asked for discussion.
[2:41:50] >> I know we're just discussing and he
[2:41:52] brought up a point and so I wanted to
[2:41:53] follow up with it. We try to give you
[2:41:55] the same respect when you have concerns.
[2:41:57] >> Anyways, uh Mr. Doxy, you brought up
[2:41:59] height and setbacks. Would you not also
[2:42:02] agree that uh um grading can also be
[2:42:07] just as instrumental because that's
[2:42:08] actually where we're experiencing most
[2:42:09] of our problems. The 20 ft is pretty
[2:42:11] good and the other setbacks work. The
[2:42:13] problem is we change that anytime we
[2:42:16] want with
[2:42:17] >> those are those are all considerations
[2:42:18] that you can bring up in context of a
[2:42:21] text amendment or a code amendment.
[2:42:23] >> Okay.
[2:42:23] >> Um right now there's no building permit
[2:42:26] application. And all this, as I
[2:42:27] understand it, is an application for a
[2:42:31] subdivision amendment that would allow
[2:42:33] this parcel to be combined with the lot.
[2:42:36] >> Yes.
[2:42:37] >> That's that's all that's before you
[2:42:38] today. And staff has already
[2:42:40] conditionally granted that subdivision
[2:42:43] amendment conditioned on approval of
[2:42:45] more than five sides for the lot. And so
[2:42:48] that's what's before you now. Do we give
[2:42:50] them a lot that's more than five sides
[2:42:52] or do we say no, we'll stick with five
[2:42:55] sides or less? I understand. Thank you.
[2:42:57] >> Okay, so let's proceed with a roll call
[2:42:59] vote starting from Councilwoman
[2:43:00] Blackwell.
[2:43:01] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[2:43:02] >> Chrissy Hannaman, yes.
[2:43:04] >> Andrew Young, no. Brent Rmler, yes.
[2:43:06] >> Jessica Smun, no.
[2:43:08] >> Okay, motion passes. Okay, let's move on
[2:43:11] to item B, resolution R26,
[2:43:14] R2026-10.
[2:43:17] Um, did you want to go over this or is
[2:43:21] Brian doing this? I can't remember. So
[2:43:23] I'll just give a brief and then he can
[2:43:24] fill in the gaps because he knows this
[2:43:26] very well. So the issue here is uh
[2:43:30] they're trying to correct uh a
[2:43:32] discrepancy between the the city
[2:43:35] boundary and the deed lot line. Um so
[2:43:39] Draper city has already went through
[2:43:42] this process at least the front end of
[2:43:44] it.
[2:43:45] Um [clears throat]
[2:43:46] so so the process to adjust a boundary
[2:43:48] is to approve a resolution that you're
[2:43:51] basically
[2:43:52] willing to look at this, then um state
[2:43:56] law requires a public hearing to be held
[2:43:58] no sooner than 60 days after an action.
[2:44:01] Say if you approve this resolution
[2:44:03] tonight, it can't be any sooner than 60
[2:44:05] days from now, you'd have the public
[2:44:09] hearing, let the public comment, and
[2:44:11] then you can vote. So, it would take a
[2:44:14] positive vote to adjust the city
[2:44:16] boundary from both Draper and Alpine for
[2:44:20] this to happen. And so, um, as I
[2:44:24] understand it, the subdivision was
[2:44:26] originally proposed, um,
[2:44:30] in a way that would meet what they're hoping happens or at least the
[2:44:34] start of it tonight. But for some
[2:44:36] reason, the county recorder made them
[2:44:38] pull that back. And Brian can um, go
[2:44:41] into the details on that because he's
[2:44:43] been very involved with it. Sure.
[2:44:46] >> I guess Jessica, are you in charge now?
[2:44:49] Is it okay if you
[2:44:53] I [laughter] didn't notice the mayor had
[2:44:54] left.
[2:44:54] >> Please approach and state your name.
[2:44:58] >> I'm short so
[2:45:00] number your mother's maiden name please.
[2:45:02] >> Yeah. [laughter]
[2:45:03] >> Name is David T. Mortonson. I'm with
[2:45:05] civil science. Um like he said um this
[2:45:11] is kind of a crazy crazy situation that
[2:45:15] started in 1855.
[2:45:19] long time ago, way before any of us were
[2:45:22] even thought, right? When Alpine decided
[2:45:25] to annex this area, um they started from
[2:45:29] a section and went west,
[2:45:33] 176 feet and then just went two miles by
[2:45:35] two miles. So, I don't know if you guys
[2:45:38] know sections very much. So the entire
[2:45:42] US except for the first 15 col first 15
[2:45:47] states out east are split into six mile
[2:45:51] by six mile townships and ranges. Each
[2:45:54] of those are split into mile by mile
[2:45:56] things typically.
[2:45:58] This section is these sections are not
[2:46:01] that. So Alpine just annexed it in 1855
[2:46:06] two mile by two mile thinking that's
[2:46:08] what it was going to be. the sections
[2:46:10] where we're talking about weren't even
[2:46:12] finalized
[2:46:14] for a year later and the actual section
[2:46:17] where we're portion of the section where
[2:46:19] we're at was even later than that. So,
[2:46:22] it's actually a little bit longer than
[2:46:25] the two mile by two mile or mile
[2:46:27] sections east west. It's just bigger
[2:46:31] because mathematically that's what it
[2:46:32] had to be. All all our parcels are based
[2:46:36] on these section lines. The intent of
[2:46:39] that city was to stay that,76
[2:46:43] to the west of the property. That's
[2:46:46] where And I don't know if you can pull
[2:46:48] this up on the county's website.
[2:46:51] >> I don't know.
[2:46:53] >> The parcels
[2:46:54] >> the parcel.
[2:46:56] >> Yeah. On that thing,
[2:46:59] I can kind of explain it a little bit by
[2:47:01] showing this to you guys.
[2:47:06] You can type in a parcel number if you
[2:47:08] wanted to.
[2:47:13] » Uh 11 1 08.
[2:47:17] >> Yeah.
[2:47:18] >> 03.
[2:47:20] Sorry, three zeros.
[2:47:23] » Yeah. And it's just a little further
[2:47:25] north.
[2:47:33] » Yes. Yes.
[2:47:37] » So that's that's the parcel just to the
[2:47:40] north, which the city line um
[2:47:44] Yeah. So we're talking about that one
[2:47:46] plus the two lots to the south there.
[2:47:49] The two lots to the south, the deed line
[2:47:52] for the the 00003 and that whole
[2:47:56] subdivision was over on the west side of
[2:47:59] that gap parcel there.
[2:48:02] That's where it was. The north line of
[2:48:04] that or the west line is basically 1,076
[2:48:08] feet west of the section line, which the
[2:48:11] section line is the east line of that
[2:48:14] subdivision.
[2:48:16] So, the intent of the subdivision was to
[2:48:20] deed or split that one [clears throat]
[2:48:22] big lot into four lots, which they
[2:48:26] actually staked out. That's what the
[2:48:29] deed showed before the plat was done.
[2:48:31] And the plat went through Alpine City
[2:48:34] was approved all the way through which
[2:48:38] was actually signed by everybody in the
[2:48:41] city, the mayor, everybody. It then goes
[2:48:44] down to the county recorder's office and
[2:48:47] the county recorder said, "Hey, wait.
[2:48:49] You can't approve a a subdivision that
[2:48:52] crosses this imaginary city line."
[2:48:56] Right? So they made them erase on a
[2:49:01] myar, which is not an easy task. Erase
[2:49:04] the myar and write in numbers that made
[2:49:07] it shorter and created that little gap
[2:49:10] piece. Now the subdivision, the person
[2:49:13] who did the subdivision, the surveyor
[2:49:16] actually staked out the property for lot
[2:49:19] 4, which is that
[2:49:22] 00004 parcel.
[2:49:25] If you extend those lines over to the
[2:49:27] west line, that's where the property is
[2:49:30] actually pinned on the ground. That's
[2:49:33] where it is on the ground because that's
[2:49:35] where the property was. That's where
[2:49:38] Alpine City approved it to be. It's just
[2:49:41] because this arbitrary two mile by two
[2:49:45] mile thing city line came in from 1855
[2:49:49] which was before
[2:49:51] that the national surveyors created the
[2:49:55] actual section lines. So the intent of
[2:49:58] these parcels was that west line was to
[2:50:00] be the sub the city line and that's all
[2:50:04] we're trying to fix is just put that
[2:50:06] back where it was intended to be.
[2:50:08] Draper's parcel lines up with that same
[2:50:12] line.
[2:50:14] Draper has no problem with this. We're
[2:50:17] just waiting the time for the 60 days to
[2:50:19] get it approved.
[2:50:21] >> They set their public hearing for April,
[2:50:23] right?
[2:50:23] >> April 7th is when it is.
[2:50:26] >> So, it's about it's roughly 20 feet,
[2:50:28] right? It's it's not cons. It's not
[2:50:30] parallel lines, but
[2:50:31] >> it's not a parallel line. It's a weird
[2:50:33] line. And where the county actually made
[2:50:36] it be doesn't actually match where I see
[2:50:39] that annexation line is. There's three
[2:50:41] lines there, but they just chose this
[2:50:44] arbitrary line. So, we're just trying to
[2:50:47] fix the ambiguity.
[2:50:53] » Right. So, with that parcel, the
[2:50:56] vertical parcel, the narrow strip,
[2:50:58] there's no ownership of that parcel. Is
[2:51:00] that correct?
[2:51:01] >> There's currently no ownership. They
[2:51:03] just created this gap parcel back in
[2:51:06] 2017 when they recorded that plat.
[2:51:10] And this this line actually goes through
[2:51:12] that parcel to the north. So, I'm trying
[2:51:14] to fix it for everybody. And this this
[2:51:18] subdivision or this annexation to the
[2:51:21] south has happened several times.
[2:51:25] And so, I'm just trying to match those
[2:51:26] as well to fix it for the property
[2:51:30] owners.
[2:51:33] >> [snorts]
[2:51:34] >> I have a question.
[2:51:35] >> Sure.
[2:51:35] >> Um, it seems like the county was the one
[2:51:37] that had the issue. So, you have Draper,
[2:51:39] you have us. What is the county have to
[2:51:41] say about this?
[2:51:42] >> So, the county surveyor, who is the
[2:51:44] person that has to sign the the the
[2:51:47] boundary annexation plat
[2:51:51] is all for it. He's the one that told me
[2:51:53] to do it this way.
[2:51:54] >> Thank you.
[2:51:56] >> Is it my turn?
[2:51:57] >> Um, go ahead. So, this little sliver
[2:51:59] currently
[2:52:01] is not owned by anyone. Is that
[2:52:03] >> in in the county's eyes? Yes. It's not
[2:52:06] owned by anybody. In my eyes, it's owned
[2:52:08] by the person of lot four and the person
[2:52:10] of lot three
[2:52:12] >> because that was the intent of the
[2:52:13] subdivision.
[2:52:14] >> So, if we decide not to
[2:52:18] annex,
[2:52:19] what happens with that little sliver of
[2:52:21] land?
[2:52:22] >> It just stays the way it is.
[2:52:25] But on the ground it actually is owned
[2:52:27] by lot four and lot three.
[2:52:30] >> Great. I I Can you explain that a little
[2:52:32] bit? Who actually owns the square
[2:52:34] footage of that dirt
[2:52:36] >> currently? Nobody. Per the assessor's
[2:52:40] plat, nobody owns that gap.
[2:52:42] >> Sorry, Sarah. Is that what you
[2:52:44] >> But the intent of the subdivision and
[2:52:47] where it's marked on the ground, lot
[2:52:50] four and lot three of that subdivision
[2:52:52] have more claim than anybody else to
[2:52:55] that land.
[2:52:56] >> But currently as stands, they do not own
[2:52:59] that little sliver of land.
[2:53:01] >> So by title, no. By
[2:53:04] >> okay,
[2:53:04] >> actually on the ground, yes.
[2:53:06] >> So if it's not approved to be annexed,
[2:53:08] they're not allowed to put a fence or
[2:53:10] build or anything in that sliver. Is
[2:53:12] that correct?
[2:53:13] >> That again is up to a lawyer. I'm not a
[2:53:16] lawyer. So in my opinion that the ground
[2:53:19] is
[2:53:19] >> in dealing with the county and their
[2:53:23] lawyers regarding a couple of other
[2:53:24] things that we discussed. Um
[2:53:27] yeah, so it just stays no man's land.
[2:53:31] >> No one to No one's objecting to this,
[2:53:33] right? The countyy's not
[2:53:35] >> county's not objecting to it. Draper is
[2:53:37] all for it.
[2:53:38] >> Everybody's for it. There is no there's
[2:53:41] no reason to have a gap piece of land in
[2:53:43] the in the world. There's not an intent
[2:53:47] to ever do that. There should not be
[2:53:48] gaps in people's land.
[2:53:50] >> And if we add it, that's a And if we add
[2:53:52] it, that's a little more property tax we
[2:53:54] can collect.
[2:53:55] >> It is 100% little bit.
[2:53:57] >> Wait, are we just freeing or we doing
[2:53:58] the thing where we go? It's okay.
[2:54:00] >> Okay. Um again,
[2:54:02] >> so my understanding is we're just saying
[2:54:05] that we're going to um that we're going
[2:54:08] to basically be scheduling a hearing,
[2:54:10] right?
[2:54:10] >> Yes.
[2:54:12] >> Sorry, one last question. If we do annex
[2:54:15] it in, it automatically is assumed that
[2:54:17] it belongs to these two land owners. Is
[2:54:19] that correct?
[2:54:20] >> In the way of some surveyors, yes. In
[2:54:23] the way of title, maybe not.
[2:54:25] >> Okay. So, if we don't annex it, it still
[2:54:27] stays a buffer.
[2:54:28] >> There there are lands there. There are
[2:54:31] laws that you can do a boundary
[2:54:33] adjustment between those pieces
[2:54:36] now per the state that just happened
[2:54:39] last year.
[2:54:40] >> Okay.
[2:54:42] >> Or there's ways that you as a city can
[2:54:45] force us to do it. If we wanted to do
[2:54:48] anything different with the land, then
[2:54:49] we would have to go through your
[2:54:51] process.
[2:54:52] >> And is there, and this is maybe more for
[2:54:54] Shane, are there any advantages to
[2:54:56] having a buffer as a city?
[2:55:00] the property to the west is developing
[2:55:02] right now.
[2:55:04] >> Um
[2:55:07] » I'm just thinking access to open space.
[2:55:11] >> Yeah. Um
[2:55:17] I mean I guess depends on how you look
[2:55:19] at we if you go to the north up to the
[2:55:21] hard vigen parcel the first one that
[2:55:23] Heidi pulled up.
[2:55:24] >> Yes.
[2:55:25] >> It doesn't appear that that gap is
[2:55:27] there. is that
[2:55:28] >> that's because the de they didn't
[2:55:30] subdivide their lot. So if this other
[2:55:32] parcel wasn't subdivided, it would still
[2:55:35] be a part of that.
[2:55:36] >> If you laid the city boundary on here,
[2:55:38] it would show
[2:55:39] >> Yep.
[2:55:40] >> which is if you show that uh the amended
[2:55:44] or the annexation plot that's in your packet. That's where I'm showing
[2:55:49] the line to change.
[2:55:51] >> And
[2:55:52] >> but I guess if I can just
[2:55:54] >> Yeah. Sorry.
[2:55:56] If there's a gap there, it doesn't mean
[2:55:59] that it's the cities.
[2:56:01] >> It's not.
[2:56:02] >> That makes sense.
[2:56:03] >> Yeah.
[2:56:04] >> But Alpine does own the lot below it.
[2:56:07] >> Below that little sliver,
[2:56:10] >> but the ones to the west and north are
[2:56:12] private private land.
[2:56:14] >> That's correct.
[2:56:21] questions.
[2:56:22] >> Anybody else have any other
[2:56:23] >> right now? It's just open space, but I
[2:56:25] have seen where there's not a good
[2:56:27] lineup of fences and nobody. I mean,
[2:56:30] this is a very developed urban area,
[2:56:32] which is not what we're talking about.
[2:56:34] And it becomes like a weed patch and
[2:56:36] full of like beer cans and hang out
[2:56:39] where people shouldn't. So, I've been in
[2:56:42] more urban [clears throat] areas than
[2:56:43] alpine. So, I I I can see how it would
[2:56:46] be a disadvantage if this were an urban
[2:56:49] area, but I never thought of it like my
[2:56:52] council person that maybe this is just
[2:56:54] empty land, a 20 foot strip access to
[2:56:57] all these trails that are getting cut
[2:56:59] off. So, um you're not a land person,
[2:57:02] but we do have a lawyer here. Is that
[2:57:06] like what what do you think, Steve?
[2:57:08] Like, is that a pie in the sky that we'd
[2:57:10] have unlimited access to all those
[2:57:12] trails through that little strip of
[2:57:14] land?
[2:57:15] >> Who who owns that strip of land
[2:57:16] currently? Nobody.
[2:57:18] >> Everybody in the United States.
[2:57:20] >> Well, technically it's owned by the
[2:57:23] person that did the subdivision is what
[2:57:24] the county recorder would say. But the
[2:57:28] intent of the plat is that it's part of
[2:57:30] those lots four and lot three. And so
[2:57:34] those truthfully, and I would take this
[2:57:37] to court, would be those that's owned by
[2:57:40] them.
[2:57:41] >> Okay.
[2:57:42] >> As a land surveyor, I would say that.
[2:57:46] And I'm not the only one that says that.
[2:57:48] I've talked to several other land
[2:57:50] surveyors in the state and they all say
[2:57:52] the same thing.
[2:57:53] >> Okay.
[2:57:54] >> I I just had a couple questions. Thanks
[2:57:56] for coming.
[2:57:56] >> Sure. Um current I I read through it all
[2:57:59] and um it's very interesting and I just
[2:58:01] had some questions on 004 the the I
[2:58:05] believe it the Whitbecks. Is that who
[2:58:07] lives there?
[2:58:07] >> Yep. That's their lot. Yes.
[2:58:10] >> Beautiful area.
[2:58:11] >> I read that uh I tried to call. Sorry if
[2:58:13] I wasn't able to get a hold of you, but
[2:58:14] uh I understand they're not able to
[2:58:16] build there during this time or or my
[2:58:18] question is can they build there with or
[2:58:22] without us doing anything? Can they
[2:58:23] start building their home? They could
[2:58:25] start building their own. They just want
[2:58:27] to make sure that they get their correct
[2:58:28] land.
[2:58:29] >> But are they being held up right now
[2:58:30] from building?
[2:58:31] >> Please. Yeah, go ahead. Is that okay to
[2:58:33] ask? Because that seems relevant to the
[2:58:35] conversation.
[2:58:40] » So, yes, technically we
[2:58:42] >> Oh, David Whitbeck,
[2:58:44] >> thank you for your response. Thank you.
[2:58:46] So, um, technically we can build on it
[2:58:49] according to what the county has, but
[2:58:52] when we purchased the land, um, we went
[2:58:55] up with the surveyor and we walked the
[2:58:57] lot and went out to the to the stakes
[2:58:58] that are there and that's what we
[2:59:00] purchased or what we thought we were
[2:59:02] purchasing. We hired our um our
[2:59:09] architect.
[2:59:10] >> Oh, right. I read the story. It was a
[2:59:11] great story. the architect, he sent up
[2:59:13] another surveyor and the other surveyor
[2:59:15] says, "No, it doesn't go up to this
[2:59:16] point."
[2:59:17] >> And that's where you got stopped, right?
[2:59:18] >> Well, and so the reason why we got
[2:59:20] stopped is because we because of the
[2:59:22] setbacks from that point.
[2:59:23] >> Oh, so it's the setbacks because now
[2:59:25] they're measured from a different spot.
[2:59:26] >> Exactly.
[2:59:27] >> Okay. I I inferred that, but I didn't
[2:59:28] know if that was the case. Why it
[2:59:30] upended your home building.
[2:59:32] >> Yeah. Right. So he he drew up the plans
[2:59:34] and uh we're wanting to to put it closer
[2:59:37] to our property boundary on that side
[2:59:39] >> and that's why held it up because then
[2:59:40] the move
[2:59:40] >> and the architect says no because it
[2:59:42] doesn't go that far and so that's why
[2:59:44] we're
[2:59:44] >> so are you currently locked because that
[2:59:46] setback has been shortened.
[2:59:48] >> We're wanting to get this resolved so
[2:59:50] that we can you know we don't want to
[2:59:51] pay for all the engineering and have
[2:59:52] everything done
[2:59:53] >> and then not be able to do it. You know
[2:59:55] when they do the engineering they want
[2:59:56] to do it based on where the house will
[2:59:57] actually be placed.
[2:59:59] >> That makes sense. Thank you. The second
[3:00:00] qu appreciate that. And
[3:00:02] >> can I answer his question about that
[3:00:03] other surveyor? The other surveyor was
[3:00:05] just looking at the plat. They weren't
[3:00:07] looking at all the other
[3:00:09] >> other things and the history of the
[3:00:11] land.
[3:00:12] >> At one point 10 years ago, I was
[3:00:14] surveying the piece of land in Draper
[3:00:16] >> as well. those lands per the deeds, per
[3:00:20] the intent of the plat, per the intent
[3:00:22] of the person that was approved through
[3:00:26] Alpine City that that west line was the
[3:00:30] west line of the plat. The west line of
[3:00:32] those lots
[3:00:34] and
[3:00:34] >> Thank you. The second question, I
[3:00:36] appreciate it. The second question is
[3:00:37] when I was reading through the uh the
[3:00:40] whole uh report um is and that was
[3:00:43] brought up in the report. That's why I
[3:00:45] think it's okay to bring up here is that
[3:00:47] there is intention and willingness on
[3:00:49] the owner's part that if this is dealt
[3:00:52] with and changed, the boundary lines are
[3:00:54] changed that there is uh an intent to
[3:00:58] potentially then make a deal with the
[3:01:01] city and correct me if I'm wrong, make a
[3:01:03] deal with the city for that area. Am I reading into things wrong? That's
[3:01:06] what I'm understanding. And that the
[3:01:09] homeowners or the property owners are
[3:01:11] okay with that after this all goes
[3:01:13] through. Who is that?
[3:01:15] >> That was my understanding.
[3:01:16] >> Is that the understanding? I I want to
[3:01:18] make sure I have it right because it
[3:01:19] >> is potential, but that goes through your
[3:01:20] process.
[3:01:22] >> It wouldn't be for
[3:01:23] >> No, not for the whole area. Just some
[3:01:24] sort of segue, right? Or some sort of uh
[3:01:27] >> Yeah, you'd have way
[3:01:29] >> 10 foot Okay. I'm trying
[3:01:32] >> protection strip on that west side.
[3:01:33] >> You all read that in the report that is
[3:01:36] >> part of it.
[3:01:36] >> This is really hard on Deian. So, either
[3:01:39] they need to be at the microphone or you
[3:01:41] need to stop talking over each other.
[3:01:42] >> I apologize. Will you please come to the
[3:01:44] microphone so that we can read it
[3:01:46] clearly?
[3:01:46] >> Well, they answered my they answered my
[3:01:48] question.
[3:01:50] >> Yes. Okay. I can repeat the question and
[3:01:52] they can do the response when you're
[3:01:54] ready. Deian. Thank you.
[3:01:57] >> Okay. I'm sorry. We're going to have to
[3:01:58] take a break. I need a motion to extend
[3:02:00] the meeting beyond nine.
[3:02:02] >> My timet is not working.
[3:02:04] >> You It's close though. Closer.
[3:02:09] » Jessica, you're so great at these. I
[3:02:11] move to extend the meeting to
[3:02:15] 9:40.
[3:02:17] >> Oh, look at you. I second it
[3:02:18] >> at the latest.
[3:02:20] >> Okay.
[3:02:23] >> Is there a second?
[3:02:24] >> No, he second it. Didn't you just second
[3:02:26] it?
[3:02:26] >> Yes, but I need to back up.
[3:02:28] >> If we No, no, no, no, no. We've got a
[3:02:30] motion on the table.
[3:02:31] >> Okay, I retract the second because I
[3:02:32] have a question.
[3:02:33] >> You can't retract it. You did it.
[3:02:35] >> I Okay, I did it. Go ahead. Would you
[3:02:38] >> vote? You can You can vote to move it.
[3:02:40] shut it down, but I won't shut it down.
[3:02:42] We've got a motion to extend the meeting
[3:02:43] to 9:40 at the latest.
[3:02:46] >> Um, and then we have Councilwoman Smean
[3:02:50] and then a second by Councilman Young.
[3:02:52] >> Yes.
[3:02:52] >> Let's do a roll call vote.
[3:02:53] >> Sarah Blackwell. Yes.
[3:02:55] >> Chrissy Henman. Yes.
[3:02:56] >> Well, wait. We We have to discuss the
[3:02:57] motion. We have to open up for
[3:02:59] discussion.
[3:02:59] >> No, we're just voting now.
[3:03:01] >> Well, no. Generally, you make a motion,
[3:03:02] then you have to discuss the motion
[3:03:04] >> in the interest of time to get all the
[3:03:06] matters of this.
[3:03:08] >> No. Okay. Okay. It's fine. It's fine.
[3:03:10] Yes or no?
[3:03:11] >> Andrew Young, no. Brent roller, yes.
[3:03:14] >> Jessica Sme, yes.
[3:03:15] >> Okay, motion passes. Okay, I'm sorry
[3:03:18] about that. Okay, so the question was um
[3:03:22] so the original agreement was with the
[3:03:26] original developer, I believe, but the
[3:03:29] agreement is no longer in place. But are
[3:03:33] you saying that you're still willing to
[3:03:34] deed over 10% or a 10-ft strip behind
[3:03:39] your house or behind your lot?
[3:03:41] >> So, what we're talking about here with
[3:03:43] this issue is about a about 20
[3:03:45] >> 20 foot, right? Um, and so we don't need
[3:03:48] the whole 20 ft, but in our original in
[3:03:51] my original agreement with the developer
[3:03:53] who was here, um, I told him that I
[3:03:57] would accept 10 ft less with my
[3:04:00] understanding that was coming from the
[3:04:02] stakes. And so I would, you know, if he
[3:04:04] can make an agreement to add lot five
[3:04:06] with Alpine City, I told him that I
[3:04:09] would accept that
[3:04:10] >> to lose 10 feet from there. But I don't
[3:04:12] want to lose 10 feet from the 20T that
[3:04:14] we've already lost in our, you know,
[3:04:16] sub.
[3:04:17] >> My understanding with the original
[3:04:18] developer was there were a lot of
[3:04:20] conditions on what the city needed for
[3:04:22] the fifth lot. That agreement has
[3:04:24] expired.
[3:04:25] >> And um one of the main conditions was a
[3:04:28] connection to the Draper City Trail that
[3:04:30] the developer was responsible for. And
[3:04:33] is Ryan still on? Ryan?
[3:04:38] >> Yeah, I'm here.
[3:04:39] >> Wow. Tell me if I'm wrong that um that
[3:04:43] the developer um
[3:04:47] chose not to put the trail in. Is that
[3:04:49] correct?
[3:04:50] >> Yeah. In my conversations with him, that
[3:04:52] wasn't something that they could they
[3:04:54] could end up doing and meet the
[3:04:55] standards that the city has for trails.
[3:04:58] And that that original agreement expired
[3:05:00] like
[3:05:01] a year a couple it at least a year ago
[3:05:04] in September.
[3:05:07] » Okay. Thank you. the developers here if
[3:05:09] you wanted to ask him questions. I'm I'm
[3:05:11] just interested in
[3:05:13] >> No, totally. No one understand.
[3:05:15] >> Did you have any other question?
[3:05:16] >> The final question was what you answered
[3:05:17] and it sounds like that is a
[3:05:19] possibility. I read it in the report so
[3:05:20] that's why I brought it up. And I guess
[3:05:22] the last question is subjective, but
[3:05:24] it's more like what what is the
[3:05:26] intention and the goal? But I can ask
[3:05:27] that after like what is the intention of
[3:05:29] doing this so that we have and I think I know but I just wanted to
[3:05:32] understand further and I can do that
[3:05:33] afterwards. So thank you. You don't want
[3:05:35] to hear it because I mean this is going
[3:05:36] to be I mean I guess
[3:05:37] >> well I thought I I didn't want to take
[3:05:39] too much time so it's fine. I can ask
[3:05:40] them after and I have their contacts.
[3:05:42] >> Okay. But
[3:05:43] >> for us we just want the property that we
[3:05:44] thought we were buying.
[3:05:45] >> No for sure.
[3:05:46] >> I was it was more the the long term of
[3:05:48] the whole development but I'll ask it
[3:05:50] after. Thank you. And I hope it works
[3:05:51] out for you.
[3:05:52] >> Okay.
[3:05:53] >> Anything else
[3:05:54] >> Jessica?
[3:05:56] Okay. Um,
[3:05:59] so again to clarify, this is a
[3:06:01] resolution to um allow the public to
[3:06:05] have input and then we'll have a public
[3:06:07] hearing in is it 30 days or 60 days? I
[3:06:09] don't remember. 60 days. Okay. So that
[3:06:12] is the resolution that we will be
[3:06:14] meeting on. Is there a motion? I move to
[3:06:17] approve res resolution R2026-10
[3:06:21] expressing Alpine City's intent to
[3:06:23] adjust its common municipal boundary
[3:06:25] with Draper City affecting parcels 11
[3:06:28] 008 0012
[3:06:31] 66579003
[3:06:35] and 6657900004
[3:06:38] authorizing and scheduling a public
[3:06:40] hearing for May 12th 2026 and providing
[3:06:43] for notice thereof.
[3:06:45] Is there a second?
[3:06:47] >> I'll make that second. Okay.
[3:06:49] >> It's been moved by Councilman Rumler,
[3:06:51] seconded by Councilwoman Hanaman.
[3:06:54] Any further discussion
[3:06:57] >> on just on the motion, right?
[3:07:01] >> That was what I thought we had on the
[3:07:02] last one. Sorry. Go ahead.
[3:07:04] >> Wait, are we starting the vote?
[3:07:06] >> Yes.
[3:07:06] >> Sarah Blackwell, no. Chrissy Hammond,
[3:07:09] yes.
[3:07:13] Andrew Young for the process of this
[3:07:16] going forward. Yes. Brent Rler. Yes.
[3:07:19] >> Jessica Sme.
[3:07:20] Yes.
[3:07:22] >> Okay. Resolution passes. Item C,
[3:07:25] appointment of the water um Alpine Water
[3:07:28] Citizen Advisory Committee.
[3:07:30] >> We made it.
[3:07:33] >> Okay. So, we sent out an updated uh
[3:07:36] resolution today that had the names on
[3:07:39] that the [clears throat] mayor provided.
[3:07:41] And I just want to say the names that
[3:07:43] are on the resolution are um people that
[3:07:47] filled out the application for the water
[3:07:49] committee.
[3:07:50] >> Go ahead.
[3:07:52] >> Yeah. And so the names that are proposed
[3:07:54] to be on this committee uh five names,
[3:07:56] Jeff Davis, Brian Irving, Clyde Staler,
[3:08:00] Stephen Burroughs, and Will Jones.
[3:08:04] um they would have staggered terms as
[3:08:08] identified on this uh resolution and we
[3:08:12] did correct a couple of issues on the
[3:08:14] cover sheet and the resolution as well.
[3:08:18] >> Okay. Are there any questions? If not,
[3:08:21] >> I think Sarah's first.
[3:08:23] >> Did you have a question?
[3:08:24] >> Oh, no. No questions for me. Chie,
[3:08:27] >> I um I was excited to see this quickly
[3:08:29] because like I said, we're on a tight
[3:08:31] timeline both with school out and um
[3:08:34] water melting. Um we did talk about this
[3:08:38] and some of our new committee members
[3:08:40] are here. Brian and I don't remember who
[3:08:43] else was here but
[3:08:44] >> Mr. No, I mean before he he's he was
[3:08:47] here for the previous discussion. So
[3:08:48] yes, anyways, we talked about how like
[3:08:51] the city is responsible for the
[3:08:53] engineering side, like having all the
[3:08:54] infrastructure there, funding all of
[3:08:56] that, um, keeping the rates at a a rate,
[3:09:00] a place that can fund all of that and
[3:09:03] taring them as is responsible by state
[3:09:06] law. So the committee's real um, help is
[3:09:11] really helping educate people and also
[3:09:13] enforcement. I feel like I talked to Don
[3:09:15] Quiddley and enforcement isn't um
[3:09:18] uniform or easy. And so those are just
[3:09:20] the two things that I remember from our
[3:09:23] discussion and I'm happy to be corrected
[3:09:26] or re reddirected.
[3:09:29] Um and so I'm super excited for that. I
[3:09:32] think that um
[3:09:35] water is a long term something we're
[3:09:38] going to be dealing with over the long
[3:09:41] term. Not just not just this summer but
[3:09:44] over like the next long time
[3:09:48] much much longer than um when I will be
[3:09:51] sitting in this chair. So I'm grateful
[3:09:53] that uh we were making this an official
[3:09:55] committee and uh with that I had some
[3:09:58] other ideas which I'll speak to them
[3:10:00] directly about where we took the goals
[3:10:02] of the two um plans that were approved
[3:10:04] by planning commission and we sort of
[3:10:06] say like this is how we're going to this
[3:10:08] is how we're going to educate then this
[3:10:10] is how we're going to enforce so that we
[3:10:12] can see those goals like moving forward
[3:10:14] and Steve has already uh presented many
[3:10:18] like plans and and articulated many
[3:10:21] things And so, um, I feel like we're
[3:10:24] have a head start. So, thank you for
[3:10:26] your willingness to serve and I
[3:10:28] appreciate the council supporting this
[3:10:30] idea.
[3:10:33] >> Hey, Andrew.
[3:10:34] >> Uh, three minor things. I I I love
[3:10:36] everyone on there. I really appreciate I
[3:10:38] uh would make a suggestion and I don't
[3:10:40] know how this comes out and that is that
[3:10:42] we get some folks on there um that don't
[3:10:45] just all live up in the north. That's a
[3:10:48] very uh concentrated uh group of people
[3:10:51] and I I think a a lawn lot down south or
[3:10:55] one of his neighbors or something or
[3:10:56] someone in the center of the city or
[3:10:59] someone on the east side would really
[3:11:00] balance that out if I'm if I'm right in
[3:11:03] knowing
[3:11:04] >> on the east side. I don't know him. He
[3:11:06] just send it
[3:11:07] >> he's a good guy. I know.
[3:11:09] >> I don't know him, but I just saw that
[3:11:10] his address was Village Way and I know
[3:11:12] that
[3:11:13] >> that would be your that would be your
[3:11:14] closest.
[3:11:14] >> But for as far as people, I totally get
[3:11:17] it. I like equal distribution. That's
[3:11:18] why I tried to do planning commission.
[3:11:21] Um but these are the only five
[3:11:23] applications that I received and we
[3:11:25] needed at least five. Yes.
[3:11:27] >> Okay.
[3:11:28] >> I received no other applications.
[3:11:29] >> Well, thank you for accepting them all.
[3:11:31] Okay. Thank you. if if also put in his
[3:11:34] application. Did you get one from
[3:11:35] Sullivan?
[3:11:37] >> No.
[3:11:37] >> So, for example, just since it's been
[3:11:39] brought up, someone like Sullivan, would
[3:11:41] that be some This is my second question.
[3:11:43] Can we add another member? Is there a
[3:11:44] limit on this committee size?
[3:11:46] >> No, I don't know. We can eventually.
[3:11:48] Yeah, we can, but it's just
[3:11:49] >> I recommended Sullivan that
[3:11:52] >> I think you'd do great.
[3:11:53] >> The way our committee ordinance is
[3:11:54] written, it it says a minimum of five
[3:11:57] members.
[3:11:58] >> Okay. So, but then we can have more than
[3:11:59] that. Okay. So, I would It's it's a it's
[3:12:02] two questions and then the slight
[3:12:03] recommendation to add a couple more that
[3:12:04] would distribute that because water has
[3:12:08] such an important issue to the
[3:12:09] southerners and the uh um the central
[3:12:12] folks that lack that pressure and they'd
[3:12:14] really be uh crucial on there. Um and
[3:12:18] then just one minor thing to Chrissy
[3:12:20] since I guess
[3:12:21] >> are you whispering because it's a public
[3:12:22] meeting.
[3:12:23] >> Sorry. [laughter] One minor thing. We we
[3:12:25] created this kind of together. I guess
[3:12:27] it was kind of hodge podge. Um I know
[3:12:29] you want education and enforcement. I
[3:12:32] don't know how residents can enforce
[3:12:34] against other residents if they have any
[3:12:35] power to do that. But in the committee
[3:12:37] and I am kind of whispering in the
[3:12:39] committee description it does say that
[3:12:42] they should look into the infrastructure
[3:12:44] of the city and try to help with that as
[3:12:46] well. So you might
[3:12:49] >> which I don't think is which I don't
[3:12:50] think is a bad thing. I think just let
[3:12:52] them do all things water.
[3:12:53] >> Yeah. Let's clarify that. If I recall,
[3:12:55] the way it's worded is that they can
[3:12:58] offer support to the city basically
[3:13:01] building their
[3:13:01] >> mastermind,
[3:13:02] >> right? So, it's not just education and
[3:13:04] not enforcement. They're able to
[3:13:06] research, they're able to help in any
[3:13:08] way with the infrastructure as well. I'm
[3:13:10] not saying they're going to grab a
[3:13:11] hammer and start drilling pipes, but
[3:13:13] they are that sphere is open to them in
[3:13:15] according to what we wrote in the
[3:13:17] committee just so you don't feel like
[3:13:19] they're going beyond their description.
[3:13:21] I think that will only help as they try
[3:13:23] to research wells and things. It will
[3:13:24] not hurt.
[3:13:25] >> Okay.
[3:13:26] >> Anyways, that that was that was all and
[3:13:27] I really appreciate you doing this,
[3:13:29] Chrissy, and letting me be a part of it.
[3:13:31] Did
[3:13:31] >> you have any it will be great.
[3:13:32] >> Now, just thanks to those who are
[3:13:33] willing to to participate and help out.
[3:13:37] >> Yeah. And just some clarification if it
[3:13:39] goes into the scope. Again, that's not
[3:13:42] that they're taking action or doing
[3:13:43] anything beyond recommending. Is that
[3:13:46] correct?
[3:13:46] >> Correct.
[3:13:48] I think I think the first order of
[3:13:49] business would give we would give the
[3:13:51] members a copy of the resolution that
[3:13:53] created the committee and it will say
[3:13:55] right in there. I don't think it says
[3:13:57] they change like the city's
[3:14:00] infrastructure plans. It just says offer
[3:14:02] support.
[3:14:02] >> Yeah, maybe what I meant was we have a
[3:14:05] lot of we focus a lot on that those two
[3:14:07] elements as a council and as staff and
[3:14:10] we don't have a lot of focus on the
[3:14:11] other things. So that's how where we
[3:14:12] really need more help.
[3:14:14] >> Maybe I should have said it that
[3:14:15] differently.
[3:14:16] >> No, that's fine. Yeah,
[3:14:17] >> just but any help they get, it's going
[3:14:18] to be amazing. So that's all
[3:14:22] » you're going to submit, right?
[3:14:24] >> Wait, would you like to be on the
[3:14:25] council? I mean on the committee.
[3:14:26] >> I'm going to add you, Sullivan. Stay
[3:14:28] back.
[3:14:28] >> Wait, wait.
[3:14:30] >> Okay. Well,
[3:14:31] >> okay.
[3:14:31] >> I hope he submitted. I'll get on him.
[3:14:33] >> No, he did. I just found it. I just
[3:14:36] never printed it and I totally forgot.
[3:14:38] >> He lives in a very different area. Ready
[3:14:39] for a motion?
[3:14:40] >> Yes.
[3:14:40] >> I move to approve resolution R 2026-12
[3:14:43] appointing the following
[3:14:45] >> Oh, where'd it go?
[3:14:47] No, go back.
[3:14:48] >> We got to get the names.
[3:14:50] >> Jeff Davis,
[3:14:51] >> Brian Irving, Clyde Staer, Steven
[3:14:54] Burroughs, Will Jones, and Sullivan
[3:14:57] Love.
[3:14:58] >> Will you add him to um
[3:15:01] >> the term for December 31st, 2026? Cuz um
[3:15:05] that only has one, so that will even it
[3:15:07] out.
[3:15:08] >> All right. At the for the term stated
[3:15:09] with Sullivan Love being included with
[3:15:12] for the term that date that ends
[3:15:13] December 31st, 2026.
[3:15:15] >> Thank you. We all second that.
[3:15:17] >> Okay.
[3:15:17] >> Mayor, may I just clarify the
[3:15:20] >> the packet and the resolution? So, the
[3:15:22] sample motion says R2026-12,
[3:15:26] but the resolution itself says -13
[3:15:29] >> and that's how it's noticed on the
[3:15:31] agenda. So, I'd probably just reumber.
[3:15:33] >> I'll clarify that to be -13.
[3:15:36] >> Okay.
[3:15:38] And are you okay with the amendment to
[3:15:41] >> You're busy. Okay.
[3:15:42] >> Uh, yes, I am. I have approval of that
[3:15:43] amendment.
[3:15:44] >> Let's proceed with the roll call vote.
[3:15:46] Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[3:15:47] >> Chrissy Hanaman, yes.
[3:15:48] >> Andrew Young, yes. Brent R, yes.
[3:15:50] >> Jessica Simone, yes. Quick question. If
[3:15:53] some of these members decide they want
[3:15:54] to extend that service, they can. And
[3:15:57] Okay. As long as we still have
[3:15:58] >> you just get reappointed for a
[3:16:01] three-year ter.
[3:16:02] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:16:02] >> So, like this fall, we would in like
[3:16:05] December, November, we would address
[3:16:07] that. Okay. Thanks.
[3:16:09] >> Okay. Let's move on to item D.
[3:16:14] Okay. So, this one
[3:16:19] uh we had a we currently have on the
[3:16:22] books a res actually an ordinance at
[3:16:25] that time um that created the historic
[3:16:28] preservation commission and there was a
[3:16:31] proposal by uh council membersh and
[3:16:34] Blackwell to amend this and add in um
[3:16:39] arts and culture. And so in doing this
[3:16:44] we're the commission was created
[3:16:47] under a different ordinance and we made
[3:16:50] changes since then. Uh we call them
[3:16:52] citizen advisory committees. Uh we kind
[3:16:56] of if you look in the whereas section of
[3:16:58] the ordinance, we outline kind of the
[3:17:00] transition from the commission to uh the
[3:17:06] committee, the citizen advisory
[3:17:07] committee and kind of what the
[3:17:10] responsibilities are. And then
[3:17:12] [clears throat] the intent of this
[3:17:14] original commission that was created was
[3:17:16] to we had to have an ordinance uh in
[3:17:20] place or resolution to be able to
[3:17:21] qualify for certain grants. And so it
[3:17:24] it's longer than most of our committee
[3:17:27] creation resolutions now. Um it was a
[3:17:31] model ordinance from the state and so we
[3:17:34] tried not to affect kind of the meat of
[3:17:37] that and just add some things in to
[3:17:40] bring in arts and culture. So um uh I
[3:17:45] went through it like we had suggestions
[3:17:47] submitted to us. we try to incorporate
[3:17:49] those in or I tried to then I had uh
[3:17:52] Steve review it. He made a few edits um
[3:17:55] to get to where we are right now. So the
[3:17:58] redline version and the clean version
[3:18:00] are in the packet
[3:18:02] um for consideration to approve those
[3:18:05] and then we would do a similar thing. I we have some appointed committee
[3:18:10] members. Their terms are probably
[3:18:11] expired, but I don't think that
[3:18:13] commission at that time was active and
[3:18:17] this would kind of rejuvenate that and
[3:18:19] we'd have another resolution to appoint
[3:18:21] members to the committee. This one um I
[3:18:25] mentioned just previously, our ordinance
[3:18:28] for creation of citizen advisory
[3:18:30] committees says a minimum of five. Um it
[3:18:33] was written in here to have a maximum of
[3:18:35] nine just to kind of sometimes if you
[3:18:39] get too many it gets hard. Um so that is written into this uh amended
[3:18:47] resolution
[3:18:48] >> and the nine came from that original
[3:18:50] >> That's right.
[3:18:51] >> Yeah. We there was an original arts
[3:18:53] council 20 years ago.
[3:18:55] >> So in looking at this that language I
[3:18:58] just tried to integrate as much of that
[3:19:00] and they had nine. So that seemed like
[3:19:03] that should be used as a threshold
[3:19:07] number not to not to exceed.
[3:19:11] >> Yeah. So I think it's clear in here um
[3:19:14] kind of the intent there they would be
[3:19:16] like a recommending body. They're not
[3:19:18] like approving projects or anything like
[3:19:20] that. They would make recommendations to
[3:19:22] the council and then the council would
[3:19:25] decide if something moves forward that
[3:19:27] comes from that committee.
[3:19:30] So,
[3:19:31] >> okay.
[3:19:32] >> Any questions or comments?
[3:19:35] >> Um, no questions. I love it.
[3:19:38] >> Chrissy.
[3:19:39] >> Um, I was just curious about um
[3:19:44] how do I explain this? Uh,
[3:19:47] how how do they
[3:19:49] how do what is the right integrate with
[3:19:53] what we're doing? because um I think I I
[3:19:56] became like more aware of
[3:19:59] the historic nature of some of the
[3:20:01] buildings that the city owns and um
[3:20:06] how and so like I researched just for
[3:20:09] fun how like this building was
[3:20:12] designated to be on the National
[3:20:14] Historic Register, things like that. And
[3:20:16] so would that would we don't ultimately
[3:20:19] decide what belongs on the National
[3:20:22] Register. It's like this their own
[3:20:24] committee that's like their own world
[3:20:25] out there, their own criteria, their own
[3:20:28] processes. So are they have authority as
[3:20:32] citizens to like whether it's on the
[3:20:34] state historic register or the national
[3:20:36] historic register to move forward? So
[3:20:39] how do they integrate with us?
[3:20:44] How do you envision that?
[3:20:45] >> I again there's a lot going on
[3:20:47] historically. So it's like with any
[3:20:49] committee like with the water committee
[3:20:51] we have we're able to now to get citizen
[3:20:54] involvement and for them to go out
[3:20:56] research let's say it's identified that
[3:20:59] we have a community asset that could be
[3:21:01] on the historical register then our
[3:21:05] committee would get that all prepared
[3:21:08] and then in that case I don't know if
[3:21:12] that's a council requirement you know I
[3:21:14] think you can go on the state or
[3:21:15] national registry even as an individual
[3:21:18] idual, you can place your own home.
[3:21:20] >> Yeah.
[3:21:20] >> So, it would probably depend on is that
[3:21:23] a
[3:21:24] public building then that would be under
[3:21:27] our city council purview. Is that a
[3:21:29] private individual? That would be, you
[3:21:32] know, under their purview. So, again, it
[3:21:35] just adds more people to our historical
[3:21:39] preservation and gives us the capacity
[3:21:42] to expand our efforts.
[3:21:44] >> I guess maybe I answer I asked that
[3:21:46] question backwards. If we have a group
[3:21:48] of people that are this is their like um
[3:21:50] it says that there had to be some
[3:21:52] expertise and things to to be on the
[3:21:54] committee. Um how do we like how do we
[3:21:58] har do we as a council harness that
[3:22:00] energy like to make um maybe more
[3:22:02] awareness or projects or in this
[3:22:05] particular we're expanding the scope to
[3:22:07] art and other things. So, how do you
[3:22:09] foresee that working where we can I know
[3:22:11] like the prime time um we they are like
[3:22:16] utilizing like funds and and people and
[3:22:19] places other that are outside of our
[3:22:21] purview, but we are like um facilitating
[3:22:24] it in some way. So, it would be similar
[3:22:26] like that.
[3:22:27] >> Like I'm going to use an example. We
[3:22:29] have these bricks on this house next
[3:22:31] door that we want to restore or to save.
[3:22:34] So we have now a historical committee
[3:22:37] where we have multiple people that we
[3:22:40] can say can you help us with this? Do
[3:22:42] you know someone that can help us with
[3:22:43] this? It's about sharing um and carrying
[3:22:47] that load to preserve history. I don't
[3:22:49] know Sarah if you have any other
[3:22:51] thoughts on that how that would look.
[3:22:53] >> Yeah. and um Councilwoman Smeuan and I
[3:22:56] met with some of the um residents of
[3:22:59] Alpine who are affiliated with the DUP
[3:23:01] and have interest in this and and just
[3:23:04] talking to I know Jess um Councilwoman
[3:23:06] Smeuan has talked to a lot of residents
[3:23:08] that have lived in Alpine a long time
[3:23:10] and and in in um campaigning I did as
[3:23:14] well and it they have so many amazing
[3:23:17] stories, oral stories, written stories,
[3:23:20] photographs
[3:23:21] that it would be nice to be able to to,
[3:23:23] you know, collect and preserve. But in
[3:23:25] addition to that, like for example, um
[3:23:27] the resident, I think her name was
[3:23:29] Susan, who spoke about the monument in
[3:23:31] the north end of the cemetery, you know,
[3:23:34] like um you know, there's quite a few
[3:23:37] residents that are very passionate about
[3:23:39] preserving a lot of this. And so I think
[3:23:42] there's a good connection between also
[3:23:44] the history and the arts and the
[3:23:46] culture. and we could get a bunch of I
[3:23:51] mean, I think there's enough energy
[3:23:52] among the residents to be able to put
[3:23:54] some momentum into either helping fix
[3:23:58] that monument in the cemetery or other
[3:24:01] projects, gathering things for the
[3:24:03] history wall, cleaning the bricks,
[3:24:05] preserving that, you know, just
[3:24:08] >> Yeah. No, that's good. No, I I just was
[3:24:11] um I was trying to envision how to um I
[3:24:14] do feel like specifically like you guys
[3:24:17] were all here or maybe you two weren't
[3:24:18] when we were putting the roof on like I
[3:24:20] wasn't even aware this even though the plaques right out front was not
[3:24:23] aware this was on the national historic
[3:24:24] registry and when I was reading what
[3:24:26] does it mean to be historical and to
[3:24:29] prepare for this night it says like keep
[3:24:30] it authentic. Well just sort of out of
[3:24:34] the way things evolved we ended up with shingles on the roof. Well, if we
[3:24:38] if I would have known that was historic,
[3:24:40] that would have decision done. Yeah.
[3:24:42] >> That was one of the things that I did
[3:24:43] mention was that because this is on the
[3:24:45] National Historic Registry when we're
[3:24:47] having that discussion,
[3:24:49] >> but I didn't understand that that meant
[3:24:50] to keep it on the once it's on the
[3:24:52] registry, that's an element that that
[3:24:54] preserves the retains the historical
[3:24:57] nature of a bill. Anyways, I was just,
[3:24:59] you know, ignorant. Okay, let's just be
[3:25:00] honest. So, [laughter]
[3:25:02] so anyways, I do feel like um well
[3:25:05] that's what I'm trying to say is how do
[3:25:06] we harness this knowledge, this passion
[3:25:08] in our citizens so that we like as a a a
[3:25:12] municipality are embracing our own
[3:25:15] history and not letting I'm not saying
[3:25:18] not letting like fine go put stuff on
[3:25:19] the registry but what is that how do we
[3:25:21] get engaged in that process so that
[3:25:23] we're we're stewards of the history
[3:25:26] ourselves. So that's my challenge I
[3:25:28] guess to the to your committee is how do
[3:25:30] we um keep keep the council because we
[3:25:33] all change places right and you guys
[3:25:35] might be passionate about this and then
[3:25:36] in 10 years you're gone you know and so
[3:25:39] how do we keep our city municipality
[3:25:42] engaged in preserving the historic in
[3:25:45] addition to like we put money into parks
[3:25:46] like we have park we we do things but
[3:25:48] how to just bring awareness better to
[3:25:51] our own municipalities um the elected
[3:25:54] officials and um the people that are the
[3:25:57] stewards of our these n these city
[3:25:59] treasures that we are stewards of. Okay,
[3:26:02] that was my sort of trying to to um
[3:26:05] merge uh what's been done in the past
[3:26:09] with what we can see in the future. So
[3:26:11] that was my question. Thank you for
[3:26:14] listening.
[3:26:14] >> Okay, Andrew,
[3:26:16] >> I have nothing. I'm total support of it.
[3:26:18] I hope it goes great and would love to
[3:26:20] be a part of it. I I will just add one
[3:26:22] thing since I have a little bit of time.
[3:26:25] We're going to not finish by 9:40. And I
[3:26:28] think there's
[3:26:29] >> Okay, let's just let's try. Let's try.
[3:26:32] >> It's a question. It's a literal
[3:26:33] question. Is it possible for us to add
[3:26:36] 15 more minutes for communications when
[3:26:38] we get to that point or did we make a
[3:26:39] motion that just seals the deal? That
[3:26:41] was what I was trying to ask when we
[3:26:43] made the motion. If we could include
[3:26:44] communications, if we can't, then we've
[3:26:46] done it. But I don't know the procedure
[3:26:48] now that we've made.
[3:26:49] >> So, the motion was made by
[3:26:51] >> Jessica and it's passed. So, we're doing
[3:26:54] the cut off at 9:40.
[3:26:56] >> Okay.
[3:26:58] >> Nothing else. No.
[3:26:59] >> Okay. I have a motion. Okay.
[3:27:01] >> I move to approve resolution R2026-14
[3:27:05] establishing the historical preservation
[3:27:07] arts and culture citizen advisory
[3:27:09] committee.
[3:27:11] >> I'll second that.
[3:27:12] >> Okay. It's been moved by Councilwoman
[3:27:13] SMU, seconded by Councilwoman Blackwell.
[3:27:16] Um, let's proceed with the roll call
[3:27:17] vote.
[3:27:18] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[3:27:19] >> Chieman, yes.
[3:27:20] >> Andrew Young, yes. Brenler, yes. Jessica
[3:27:22] Simon. Yes.
[3:27:23] >> Okay. Let's um proceed with staff
[3:27:26] reports. Chiefs, anything.
[3:27:30] >> Heidi.
[3:27:33] Jason. No. Shane, [clears throat]
[3:27:36] >> a couple quick things. Uh Cody Smith was
[3:27:38] here, but he had to catch a flight, so
[3:27:40] he text me that he had to leave. But um
[3:27:43] just there's a couple things being done
[3:27:45] up around the rodeo grounds. Uh there's
[3:27:47] been a it was a little just like a
[3:27:50] little detention basin for the drain on
[3:27:53] the PI reservoir and it was in a great
[3:27:55] place when it was built but now the way
[3:27:57] we use it for parking and everything
[3:27:59] it's not. So they were just the guys
[3:28:01] have been moving that over. Just wanted
[3:28:03] to make you aware of that work. And then
[3:28:06] [clears throat] they they need to
[3:28:08] increase the size of the announcer stand
[3:28:11] and make it more accessible. And so
[3:28:13] that's something that they've got some
[3:28:15] volunteers lined up to um work on. And
[3:28:18] so if you see work going on, that's what that is. Um also just uh
[3:28:25] this was a kind of a project we had
[3:28:27] budgeted um smaller, but it was uh to do
[3:28:32] some tree trimming. Um we had a company
[3:28:34] come in and do tree trimming in some
[3:28:36] select areas at Creekide and uh Burgess.
[3:28:40] Um, it's good for the health of the
[3:28:42] trees and we don't have an arborist. Um,
[3:28:45] so we had to hire this done, but Troy
[3:28:48] said they they cut a lot out and
[3:28:51] hopefully it'll be good in the long run.
[3:28:54] >> I hope so. I
[3:28:55] >> mean, they're [laughter] they're not
[3:28:56] like doing at the point it's problem
[3:28:58] issues like they take all the crossing
[3:29:01] branches out of the canopy. They call it
[3:29:03] a crown clean, I think. I'm not an
[3:29:05] arborist, but that's what I was told.
[3:29:07] So, um just so that project is done. um
[3:29:13] fire station. Um we've been moving
[3:29:16] along. Um we're we've been trying to
[3:29:18] work on the overall cost
[3:29:22] and so it's it's higher than what
[3:29:27] um CIRC's early early cost estimate was
[3:29:30] now that we've you know got the design
[3:29:33] and got the elements that's wanted. And
[3:29:35] so we've been talking about how to move
[3:29:38] forward with this. And what I suggested
[3:29:40] is we get their um best cost any other
[3:29:45] value engineering items that they have
[3:29:47] kind of have a list of all those. If we
[3:29:50] put all of them in, it's this much or if
[3:29:52] we take this one out, it's that deduct.
[3:29:55] bring that to council in two weeks so
[3:29:58] that we can get a final,
[3:30:01] you know, we're ready to push forward
[3:30:04] and finish up construction documents.
[3:30:06] They're they're kind of at a point where
[3:30:07] they they need that. Um yes, we're
[3:30:11] behind this even if it's going to cost a
[3:30:13] little more than original
[3:30:15] um so that they can move it forward and keep on schedule. So that's planned
[3:30:20] for two weeks from tonight. Uh just a
[3:30:24] reminder, Lone Peak Public Safety
[3:30:25] District meeting uh tomorrow morning at
[3:30:29] 7:30. Yeah, 7:30. Um the water meeting
[3:30:34] tomorrow night at 7. Maybe the mayor
[3:30:36] will talk more about that. Um we did
[3:30:39] hold the kickoff meeting for the parks
[3:30:41] master plan um last Thursday and talked
[3:30:46] about, you know, how the public process
[3:30:48] will go with that. And so you'll be
[3:30:51] getting more information on that as
[3:30:53] well. Um,
[3:30:56] let's see.
[3:30:58] And funny enough, Ryan, are you still
[3:31:00] on?
[3:31:02] >> Yep, I'm here.
[3:31:04] >> Ryan, he's still kind of with us, but
[3:31:07] kind of not. All of a sudden, he leaves
[3:31:08] and we get this rush of subdivisions
[3:31:10] coming in. So, we've had Smooth Canyon
[3:31:13] Plat B, which is the north half of that
[3:31:17] vacant property south of the Smooth
[3:31:18] Canyon Park that's came in. I don't
[3:31:21] recall how many lots. Um, we received
[3:31:24] the Page property today, both sides of
[3:31:27] Dry Creek. And there's another one below
[3:31:30] the Healey Well, that parcel that was
[3:31:32] owned by the church. They're in the
[3:31:34] process of trading some property with
[3:31:36] someone else. and uh they've been in and
[3:31:39] looking at doing a three or four lot
[3:31:41] development. So, um yeah, there's a lot
[3:31:45] going on,
[3:31:46] >> a lot of stuff going on on that side of
[3:31:48] it.
[3:31:49] >> Uh and that's all I have.
[3:31:50] >> Okay, Brent.
[3:31:51] >> Yeah, just we um Chrissy and the mayor
[3:31:55] and I with Shane have the L public
[3:31:57] safety district meeting tomorrow. Just
[3:31:58] so you know, just like we're going
[3:32:00] through our budget process, we're
[3:32:01] starting the process for the fiscal year
[3:32:03] 27 budget with them and we'll try and
[3:32:06] communicate with the council members how
[3:32:08] that process is going. Just so you know,
[3:32:10] the police department says it's been 12
[3:32:11] years since they increase staffing
[3:32:13] levels. So, they are proposing a a
[3:32:16] requesting two additional officer
[3:32:18] positions. One will be a sergeant, one
[3:32:20] will be a patrol officer responding to calls. So, just so
[3:32:24] you know, that's that's been one of
[3:32:26] their requests. And the uh fire
[3:32:30] department noted that last year there
[3:32:33] was an an approval for a staffing
[3:32:36] increase to get to the four and four in
[3:32:38] the station, which has been discussed
[3:32:40] back and forth or for a long period of
[3:32:42] time, but the chief patent brought up at
[3:32:45] our last meeting that the increase to
[3:32:47] nine um might not do the full job of
[3:32:50] getting to four and four, that there
[3:32:52] might be a need for a tenth. So that's
[3:32:54] will be part of the discussion and the
[3:32:57] board requested more historical data
[3:32:59] from the police to look at call volume
[3:33:01] and call volume types, crime increases,
[3:33:04] crime rates to help the board make a
[3:33:05] more informed decision on that staffing
[3:33:07] level request. And we'll do the same
[3:33:10] thing for any increase with fire as
[3:33:13] well. Just want to keep you updated on
[3:33:14] that.
[3:33:15] >> Thank you, Brent. Um, I just want to
[3:33:17] make a motion to extend the meeting to
[3:33:19] 9:45 so we can get through comments and
[3:33:22] reports.
[3:33:23] >> No, because you already made the motion.
[3:33:25] You said no later than 8:40.
[3:33:27] >> And I'm amending that.
[3:33:28] >> No, because it's already been voted on.
[3:33:31] >> You voted it on that. You can't amend
[3:33:33] it.
[3:33:33] >> Okay. I'm making a new motion to go to
[3:33:36] 45.
[3:33:38] You said to go no later than 8:40.
[3:33:40] >> 9:45 to finish reports.
[3:33:42] >> How can you do that?
[3:33:43] >> Can you make a motion? It would be one
[3:33:44] thing if she said till 8:40, but she
[3:33:46] said no later than 8:40. That was the
[3:33:49] motion
[3:33:50] >> or 9:40. That's my understanding of the
[3:33:52] motion.
[3:33:52] >> 94.
[3:33:53] >> Come on, let's just do this. How does
[3:33:55] that have that motion?
[3:33:56] >> I'm actually curious if she can like can
[3:33:59] we do it in a meeting or is that legally
[3:34:01] illegal?
[3:34:02] >> You can make another motion
[3:34:04] >> to supersede a previous motion.
[3:34:08] >> I'm not all for extending the meeting. I
[3:34:10] think the mayor is trying it long. 4
[3:34:13] minutes
[3:34:13] >> if possible.
[3:34:14] >> Do you want to do it?
[3:34:15] >> Minutes to 9:45.
[3:34:17] >> Okay. Is there a second?
[3:34:18] >> Well, wait. You You're supposed to ask
[3:34:20] for discussion.
[3:34:21] >> No, no, no. I'm asking for a second.
[3:34:23] >> Okay. I'm asking for a second.
[3:34:25] >> Hold on. Hold on.
[3:34:26] >> I don't think you even need a roll call
[3:34:27] vote on this, mayor.
[3:34:29] >> Okay, let's move. It's been moved by
[3:34:31] Councilwoman Smeuan, seconded by
[3:34:33] Councilwoman Blackwell.
[3:34:36] >> Let's proceed.
[3:34:36] >> What? To 9:45.
[3:34:38] >> To 9:45. All in favor?
[3:34:40] >> I.
[3:34:41] >> Any opposed? No.
[3:34:43] >> Okay. So, Andrew Young is the only one
[3:34:45] that's opposed. Okay. She
[3:34:47] >> mostly just off the procedure we just
[3:34:48] did, which is
[3:34:49] >> I will You can make another motion at
[3:34:51] 9:45 if you would like, but for right
[3:34:53] now, let's proceed. You said you didn't
[3:34:54] have anything else. So, just wanted to
[3:34:57] um just reiterate the water meeting. We
[3:34:59] are going to have either a
[3:35:01] representative also or um at least
[3:35:04] information from the central water Utah
[3:35:06] conservancy there. Um, I will contact
[3:35:09] everybody. The most the people from the
[3:35:11] water committee already are aware of the
[3:35:13] meeting tomorrow morning at 7 pm. Um,
[3:35:16] Jeff is going to be there. We'll have a
[3:35:17] couple from staff to help residents um,
[3:35:21] download the app and be able to log in
[3:35:23] with their accounts because not
[3:35:25] everyone's going to I don't know my
[3:35:27] Alpine City account number. So we are
[3:35:29] going to have them available so they can
[3:35:31] um have the app and kind of educate them
[3:35:33] how to use it and then talk about cons
[3:35:35] water conservation. Um just wanted to
[3:35:38] say that um announced that we have
[3:35:42] another donor for our community center.
[3:35:45] Altabank has come aboard as and it will
[3:35:48] be the Altabank community room.
[3:35:52] And then um Shane and I have been
[3:35:55] furiously working on an application that
[3:35:57] we will be getting into through Senator,
[3:36:00] not Senator, Congressman Kennedy's
[3:36:02] office, which is due by tomorrow
[3:36:04] morning. And um in fact, I just
[3:36:07] forwarded a bunch of letters of
[3:36:09] recommendations to Heidi to get this
[3:36:11] application going, but it is for
[3:36:13] upsizing of our culinary water tank to
[3:36:16] the 1.5 million gallon tank. Um it won't
[3:36:19] cover even half. I just read that the
[3:36:22] maximum is three million on it and the
[3:36:24] cost of the project is 6.9, but it's
[3:36:26] better than nothing. So, that's what
[3:36:28] we've been working on. I have a ton of
[3:36:30] other things, but I will defer.
[3:36:32] >> Um, really quick on that on those
[3:36:34] Senator or Yeah. Um, Congressman Kennedy
[3:36:37] projects. Are those things that we
[3:36:38] should have also applied to or is that a
[3:36:41] staff thing just in the future so I know
[3:36:42] if that comes?
[3:36:43] >> No. All we No. So that's an earmark for
[3:36:46] any of the congressmen or senators
[3:36:48] within our district
[3:36:50] >> um that we can apply for. And what we
[3:36:52] did was we looked at our big ticket
[3:36:53] items of what needed to be done. So our
[3:36:55] PI water tank or PI well didn't um
[3:36:58] qualify, but Shane is working on a
[3:37:00] separate federal grant for um the the
[3:37:04] well on Heritage Hills Drive or the
[3:37:07] Heritage Well for um drought mitigation.
[3:37:12] Um, so that and then all the, you know,
[3:37:14] we looked at different road projects. We
[3:37:16] looked at, um, the fire station.
[3:37:19] None of that really fit into this. They
[3:37:21] have like eight different categories.
[3:37:22] And then they have a huge [snorts] list
[3:37:24] of what it can and what can't be. And
[3:37:26] none of those really fit in except for
[3:37:29] this. and and um I appreciate um
[3:37:31] Congressman Kennedy's office to help us
[3:37:33] cuz you know we like went through and we
[3:37:35] couldn't find anything until they
[3:37:37] directed us to this thing under like
[3:37:40] tribal and it was kind of crazy but
[3:37:43] anyway
[3:37:43] >> so just like process-wise in the future
[3:37:45] if there's something like that that's
[3:37:47] something that staff would apply for is
[3:37:49] that funding or do council members help
[3:37:52] apply with those or fill out those
[3:37:54] applications or submit those
[3:37:55] applications or is it more
[3:37:57] >> usually like they just want you to do
[3:37:59] one application they say you can do more
[3:38:00] than one but part of the application
[3:38:02] processes is are you applying for more
[3:38:04] than one so it should really you know
[3:38:07] but yeah if there's ever yes
[3:38:09] >> yeah but if you find out about a grant
[3:38:10] from some other way you can you can have
[3:38:12] the idea and staff can help and
[3:38:15] >> we can also consider hire hiring
[3:38:17] consultants or or lobbyist type things
[3:38:19] we've done that in the past
[3:38:20] >> this has been frantic like so Ryan and I
[3:38:24] um I contacted congressman's office set
[3:38:27] up a meeting back in December mber and
[3:38:30] the latest um allocations and the
[3:38:34] restrictions for the programs or the
[3:38:36] program information, it came to us like
[3:38:37] 10 days ago and um since Ryan's no
[3:38:41] longer with us, it's we've been trying
[3:38:44] to kind of go through it ourselves. Um
[3:38:46] but yeah, so
[3:38:49] I'm assuming this is our first time ever
[3:38:51] doing it,
[3:38:52] >> so we're just kind of muddling through
[3:38:54] it and so we'll see.
[3:38:56] >> Thank you for that. I'm I have a few
[3:38:58] things, but I'll just share one. Um so
[3:39:00] last um council meeting, Jen Wadsworth
[3:39:03] came and talked about this um community
[3:39:06] neighborhood ambassador team. So I've
[3:39:07] been discussing with her, you know, to
[3:39:09] just the goal is to help improve
[3:39:11] communication throughout the the city.
[3:39:13] So more resident input to the council
[3:39:15] members and vice versa, like more
[3:39:17] council members communication to the
[3:39:19] residents. And so um I've spoken with
[3:39:22] Councilwoman Smeuan and Mayor Merrill
[3:39:23] about this. we have some ideas going and
[3:39:26] um it would require a a little bit of a
[3:39:29] collaboration from all the council
[3:39:31] members which is part of the reason why
[3:39:32] I'm bringing this up is it would require
[3:39:35] a little bit more effort on our part to
[3:39:37] communicate with we've divi the idea is
[3:39:40] divide the city into 10 zones and each
[3:39:42] of us take two zones so we can we can
[3:39:45] help communicate those important things
[3:39:48] to those two zones or if there's
[3:39:49] something that um is on the agenda that
[3:39:52] applies specifically ally to one zone or
[3:39:55] one neighborhood in that zone. It's a
[3:39:57] great way for them to just receive an
[3:39:59] additional like reminder. Hey, you might
[3:40:01] want to show up to uh city council
[3:40:03] meeting or planning commission meeting,
[3:40:05] vice versa. But so I guess my request is
[3:40:08] that you as council members just think
[3:40:10] about that and your time. I know you
[3:40:12] already gave so much, but if that's
[3:40:14] something you're willing to do, I'll
[3:40:16] just I'll probably reach out to you
[3:40:18] oneonone and get your feedback.
[3:40:21] >> Thank you.
[3:40:22] >> Okay. Um,
[3:40:24] one thing, the sculpture garden, um,
[3:40:27] group is being more active and there's a
[3:40:29] movie, there's a little film being put
[3:40:31] out and I hope you don't mind that I
[3:40:33] spoke on our behalf. So, you can give a
[3:40:37] thumbs up or thumbs down like Netflix
[3:40:39] after you see it.
[3:40:42] >> That's right.
[3:40:42] >> It's your dream.
[3:40:43] >> It is my dream. Um Carla um the mayor
[3:40:48] asked me before I was on council to help
[3:40:50] out with our um Alpine City Legacy
[3:40:53] Foundation. It's a nonprofit and I think
[3:40:56] that we could um we've been doing some
[3:40:58] paperwork and I've been looking at the
[3:41:01] donation history. We could really ramp
[3:41:03] that up a little. So with um more
[3:41:06] exposure and I was thinking specifically
[3:41:08] of the historic arts like if there's
[3:41:10] people who are just really passionate
[3:41:12] and they want to do something for the
[3:41:14] city and they want a tax write off then
[3:41:16] we just simply donate it to this
[3:41:17] foundation and forward the money onto
[3:41:20] the city. So I just want to uh promote
[3:41:22] that as a way to um if because
[3:41:24] specifically like sometimes people
[3:41:27] anyways that's an option. We'll bring
[3:41:29] more details in the future. Um, so far
[3:41:31] it's been mostly for the um baseball
[3:41:34] field. So, which we haven't named yet,
[3:41:36] by the way.
[3:41:38] Is it Is it printed anywhere on
[3:41:41] >> There's a sign out there.
[3:41:43] >> Oh, well, I walk there all the time. It
[3:41:44] must be a very small sign.
[3:41:46] >> Yeah,
[3:41:48] >> on the concrete, isn't it? Back up.
[3:41:50] >> Uh, I will look for it and report back.
[3:41:52] Thank you. Sorry for that misstatement.
[3:41:54] Take strike that from the minutes. Okay.
[3:41:56] It's We're up. It has a beautiful sign.
[3:41:59] We're very grateful for it. Okay. Um, I
[3:42:02] will be I already announced I'll be
[3:42:03] meeting with the Mountainville Traffic
[3:42:05] Force uh traffic task force again on
[3:42:07] March 23rd. I hope that we are like
[3:42:10] ironing out the details of the plan. Um,
[3:42:12] then the 24th we vote and the 26th is
[3:42:15] the uh Mountainville Academy. So, just
[3:42:17] remember those dates. I think showing up
[3:42:20] in person um Andrew couldn't go and so
[3:42:22] he text me and said, "Can you run over
[3:42:24] there?" I think it just helps to like
[3:42:26] get to know each other. So, um, don't be
[3:42:28] afraid to attend a Mountainville Academy
[3:42:31] board meeting.
[3:42:32] >> It's the 26th of March.
[3:42:34] >> What?
[3:42:35] >> I don't know. Okay.
[3:42:36] >> Seven.
[3:42:37] >> And where?
[3:42:38] >> You know what? We'll get you those
[3:42:40] details. We We'll get you those details.
[3:42:42] Um, it is the evening of the 26th. Okay.
[3:42:46] Um, April, we're having the Utah League
[3:42:48] of City of Towns Conference. Um, April
[3:42:50] 22nd through the 24th. And so, um, I've
[3:42:53] I know my hotel has already been
[3:42:56] reserved. So, just if you're not if
[3:42:58] you're not planning to attend and having
[3:43:00] second thoughts, I want you to be aware
[3:43:02] of the dates. Finally, um the I visited
[3:43:06] our Alpine Library and um they've
[3:43:09] expanded. One thing I wasn't aware of is
[3:43:11] two things I think is important for us
[3:43:12] to understand as a city is they now have
[3:43:14] a permanent home. And I'm talking really
[3:43:16] fast. They have a permanent home because
[3:43:18] the the home and the land have been
[3:43:20] donated to their nonprofit. So, they are
[3:43:22] no longer looking for a location that is
[3:43:24] permanent. The second thing is they've
[3:43:26] advanced from a children's library to a
[3:43:28] fullfledged library and they'd like to
[3:43:31] expand their services. That's it for me.
[3:43:34] >> Andrew,
[3:43:35] >> well, what do you want me to do? Because
[3:43:37] it's 9:45. I
[3:43:38] >> know. You got one minute.
[3:43:40] >> Well, [laughter]
[3:43:41] >> can I make a motion to
[3:43:42] >> You can make a motion if there'll be
[3:43:44] >> I'd like to make a motion that we extend
[3:43:46] the meeting till Andrew is finished with
[3:43:48] his comments.
[3:43:49] >> Well, that's dangerous.
[3:43:50] >> No longer than five minutes. [laughter]
[3:43:52] >> I'll second that. I'll second the five
[3:43:54] minute. Okay.
[3:43:55] >> 5 minutes.
[3:43:55] >> Okay.
[3:43:56] >> 950. Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We
[3:43:58] got a motion and a second to 950. All in
[3:44:00] favor?
[3:44:01] >> I.
[3:44:01] >> Okay. 950.
[3:44:05] >> Jessica.
[3:44:07] >> Okay. Got four minutes now.
[3:44:08] >> Okay.
[3:44:08] >> Go. Andrew.
[3:44:09] >> Heidi. You could bring up a couple
[3:44:10] images in that folder. This is very
[3:44:12] quick. Folks at the Smooth Canyon Park
[3:44:15] would like a sign that keeps the dogs on
[3:44:19] leashes. Guess there was a biting.
[3:44:22] Sorry, not that one. Not that one. You
[3:44:24] can go through it. Not that one. Not
[3:44:25] that one. Keep going. Um, they would
[3:44:28] like it so that there is Well, you can
[3:44:31] envision the park. It should be in
[3:44:33] there. You might have to refresh.
[3:44:36] Oh, those are good. All right. We can
[3:44:38] talk about those later. Anyways,
[3:44:40] >> Smooth Canyon Smooth Canyon Park would
[3:44:44] they would like a sign. How do I get a
[3:44:45] sign that said that's just like the one
[3:44:47] on the other park? You can let me know
[3:44:49] in an email or whenever you'd like. They had a dog biting and they've been
[3:44:54] uh interested in having a sign put up.
[3:44:56] People are using Smooth Canyon Park as
[3:44:58] an off leash dog park and I guess there
[3:45:00] was someone they they'd like us to do
[3:45:01] something. The Alpine Highway Easement,
[3:45:03] if you bring up a couple of those other
[3:45:04] images. I just had a couple that that uh
[3:45:08] one uh keep going. This one? That one?
[3:45:11] Go back. Uh so this is probably
[3:45:14] important. I don't the the we're going
[3:45:16] deep diving in to figure out who owns
[3:45:18] this land. Okay. There's an easement off
[3:45:20] of Alpine Highway. We're trying to
[3:45:22] figure out who owns it. I'm about to
[3:45:24] just do it myself. However, I wanted to
[3:45:25] ask how we went about the process with
[3:45:28] the last land that we tried to find out.
[3:45:31] You can email me how that process was if
[3:45:32] the city did it or I'm talking about the
[3:45:34] trail um by Ridge Drive.
[3:45:40] >> Yeah.
[3:45:40] that was it was a council motion
[3:45:43] >> and just as a personal I've gone through
[3:45:44] it. it looks like Alpine City owns it
[3:45:46] because if you can see Alpine's the only
[3:45:48] thing connected to it uh where the park
[3:45:50] is. So once we establish ownership and
[3:45:54] before doing that are you guys okay or
[3:45:56] does anyone have any qualms with me
[3:45:58] working with the private owners to put
[3:46:00] up a sign that says private throughway
[3:46:02] no through traffic. Is there any thing I
[3:46:05] should be I should be aware of to not do
[3:46:08] that? That's what the private people are
[3:46:10] asking for and I said I'd bring it up in
[3:46:12] council.
[3:46:14] the easement. No one knows who owns it,
[3:46:15] but they own their own property. It
[3:46:16] would be on their own property. Does
[3:46:18] that create a problem? I don't know. If
[3:46:19] it does, let me know.
[3:46:21] >> Not not on the sign, but on the
[3:46:24] potential what you call maybe city
[3:46:26] property.
[3:46:27] >> Okay.
[3:46:27] >> And just remember that the city property
[3:46:32] um the extension of Alageney Way has
[3:46:35] only been there for,
[3:46:37] >> you know, 15 years or something like
[3:46:39] that, right?
[3:46:40] >> And this gap existed way before that.
[3:46:43] >> Right. No. Okay. So, anyways, we're
[3:46:44] working on it.
[3:46:45] >> We're working on it. Hope to find
[3:46:46] answers. You might see a sign. If you
[3:46:47] have a problem, let us know. Uh because
[3:46:49] right now, no one knows who owns it. Uh
[3:46:50] working on a trail ordinance. The trail
[3:46:52] committee is asking for a trail
[3:46:53] ordinance so they can put up sign for no
[3:46:55] motorized vehicles. The Alpine Sculpture
[3:46:57] Garden had a big update. Uh and
[3:47:01] basically, it's too long to tell. Uh but
[3:47:04] yeah,
[3:47:05] >> next next time.
[3:47:06] >> Next one. Uh, I just was hoping to find
[3:47:08] out if there is any status on the fences
[3:47:10] amendment or if you wanted me to do
[3:47:11] anything with that or the three others
[3:47:13] that we have submitted. Um,
[3:47:15] >> we we have an offer going out to
[3:47:17] someone. I didn't update you on that
[3:47:19] position. Sorry, I
[3:47:21] >> take your time.
[3:47:23] >> What's that?
[3:47:26] » No, we don't.
[3:47:30] » All right. I I can save the other things
[3:47:31] for after. Thanks for all the time.
[3:47:36] Okay. If there's nothing further, I'll
[3:47:38] entertain a motion to adjurnn.
[3:47:39] >> I move to adjurnn.
[3:47:40] >> Is there a second?
[3:47:44] >> I second.
[3:47:45] >> Okay. Councilwoman Smeuan moved.
[3:47:47] Counciloman Hanaman seconded um to
[3:47:50] adjurnn. All in favor?
[3:47:52] >> I
[3:47:53] >> opposed.
[3:47:54] Okay.
[3:47:56] Meeting
[3:47:56] >> adjourned.