[0:06] Hey, good morning everyone. Thanks for coming to our Lake County Board of

[0:10] County Commissioners work session. First item today's overview and

[0:14] discussion regarding transportation and safety related issues on state highways

[0:19] in Lake County. The topics today include, but are not limited to, Highway

[0:24] 91 safety, Homestake Trout Club and other private property access on Highway

[0:30] 24, semi-truck deliveries in Grand View West, and 2026 pavement and pothole

[0:38] repair schedule. This is led by Josh Becker, our deputy

[0:42] county manager, staff, and Ced. >> Hey, ready to kick things off. So, uh,

[0:49] this work session is a combination of a a number of things that are all traffic,

[0:52] transportation, and safety related. Um, we've had commissioner, um, level

[0:57] requests to discuss some issues. Um, we've had some some citizen, um,

[1:01] outreach, you know, requests on certain safety issues on on various county

[1:05] roads. So, we sort of packaged all of this together into one discussion where

[1:09] we can focus on transportation and safety throughout the county. Um, and

[1:14] yeah, this again, this is not limited necessarily to the topics on hand. So

[1:18] whatever the commissioners would like to discuss, we have folks on the room who

[1:21] can assist um from C do from our staff as well as members of public to discuss

[1:26] specific issues. So we do recognize that our C dot staff can only stay with us

[1:30] for a short time. So we're going to start with the highway 91 topic and this

[1:34] stems from a request from Commissioner Tharp about conversation we had at the

[1:38] COT update about a month ago now um to discuss uh general um potential safety

[1:44] improvements for Highway 91. starting point.

[1:48] » Yeah, >> welcome back.

[1:49] » Hi. >> Hi.

[1:50] » Glad to be here. This is my colleague Mark Bunnel. Mark is kind of our lead

[1:54] safety guy in the office there. So >> awesome.

[1:59] » So what can we do? How do we make Highway 91 safer?

[2:05] » Actually, I drove >> I live on mile marker 4 and I did have

[2:11] one suggestion. Uh is the S turn mile marker 2. There's three homes there and

[2:17] I don't know if if we could use a guard rail there because people get a big head

[2:23] of speed and then they hit that S turn and that's where they lose it. And uh I

[2:27] know there's at least one person that lives in one of those three homes that's

[2:31] really tired of having people come in at 100 miles an hour. So I don't know if

[2:37] you guys could think about doing a a guardrail just in the S turn. So, one of

[2:42] the things we we talked about as kind of an initial solution there would be to to

[2:46] place chevron signs. So, I don't think we have those on that curve there right

[2:51] now. And so, that was probably that's kind of an easier sort of quicker fix

[2:56] that we can do as opposed to guardrail, which

[2:59] » I see. >> It's a whole process. So, um I think

[3:02] » chevron. >> So, chevrons are the signs. Yeah,

[3:05] exactly like that. They're you see them on some curbs and so they're they're

[3:08] kind of square like this. They're black and yellow and they have the a kind of

[3:13] schematic arrows in them. >> Turning

[3:16] » reflector. >> Yeah. Yeah. Reflectors. Absolutely. Mhm.

[3:20] » And so that was a thought there. Um we could put them for both directions. Um

[3:24] so it' probably be a series of maybe three or four signs, something like that

[3:28] that that might at least just draw some more attention to the curve there cuz um

[3:33] you know, we we have looked at some of the accident data right there and there

[3:37] have been a few cars that have gone off there. Um, I wouldn't say the number was

[3:41] was huge, but there have been a few. So, um, that's that's kind of what we're

[3:46] looking at at the at the moment. >> Okay.

[3:48] » What about um mile marker? It looked like 11 and 12 get dinged a lot on the

[3:55] stats that were sent and then between 6 and 12 and 8.

[4:02] » Those look like hot spots based on your >> statistics. Are you able to put that in?

[4:10] or or what we sent or what was sent to them.

[4:16] » We're trying to get on Wi-Fi here so we can

[4:18] » Oh, yeah. So, do you see there's the >> or or if you have or if you have the

[4:22] information that we sent, we can look it in.

[4:25] » Yeah. Can we >> pull that up?

[4:27] » Candace, can you just It's my computer. >> Can we go to teams and pull up the stats

[4:33] from today's session? I don't think they'll ever sent it to me

[4:39] from C dot. >> You'll have to send them to the VOCC

[4:42] room in an email. >> No, they're in the packet.

[4:45] » Are they? >> They're in a folder that highway

[4:47] incident data 2026, 2025, and 2024 >> or who is that?

[4:51] » Oh, is that from Dan Dailyaly? >> Yes.

[4:53] » Oh, sorry. That's from Dan. >> Yeah. So, it's under the fire up. There

[4:56] you go. >> Okay. Sorry. I was not sure what you

[4:58] wanted here. >> I wasn't sure.

[5:00] » Which one you want me to pull up? >> That's what I was referring to. Sorry.

[5:04] Gotcha. um any one of them. It's the same. It

[5:08] looks really similar. >> Okay. Well, I mean, they're all just

[5:11] different years in it. I wanted the specific.

[5:14] » Okay. >> So, 6.5 to to 8 were showing up a lot.

[5:18] And then or mile marker 6.5 to 8 and then mile marker 11 and 12 if you look

[5:25] at other years as well. You want to pull up maybe another ear

[5:29] because this doesn't have that many.

[5:35] I can talk about those >> great. Yeah.

[5:40] » So, at the county line, what happens is um the winding blows the snow over the

[5:48] the bridge right there and it becomes white out conditions. So, we have a lot

[5:54] of either head-on collisions or just people not being able to see at all. And

[6:00] um we have a lot of accidents there. the area just past climax that you're

[6:06] coming down the hill for whatever reason that that roadway becomes a sheet of ice

[6:12] but over the years it has gotten better. Uh I think that that's one of se dots is

[6:17] on your radar uh because we've had multiple uh vehicle pileups right there.

[6:24] The other concern is where we've had a lot of head-on collisions as well. And

[6:29] that's going down from uh it's right by Chalk Creek right there where it's mile

[6:35] marker. Then you see the statistics there. It's mile marker between seven

[6:41] and nine. >> Mhm.

[6:43] » That's where it splits into the passing lane.

[6:45] » That's correct. >> Yeah. So many there.

[6:47] » One of you know you know that's a problem. Maybe a solution on that one

[6:51] would be a guard rail because they go over the edge right there and we've done

[6:55] over the edge rescues >> with them going over but also I believe

[6:59] that that's a passing lane as well. >> And so if it became a non-passing lane I

[7:05] don't know if people would abide by that but at least it's a safety

[7:10] measure that might be able to put in place. Um the other it was mentioned the

[7:16] actual mile marker six which is the corner.

[7:19] » Uh I don't know if that one has >> the signs that you talking about the

[7:24] chevron chevron signs but mile marker six all another problem for us and then

[7:31] and then uh commissioner you brought it up mall marker between two and three uh

[7:36] on those corners there. So those are our our

[7:41] areas on Highway 91 that we respond the most on whether it's non-injury or we're

[7:46] doing auto extrication or we're doing over the edge or it's major injuries and

[7:50] deaths. >> So at the in the 7 to9 area you said

[7:55] that there were there were issues with people going off the road but also with

[8:01] head-ons at the same time there. >> That's correct. We either we either have

[8:04] head-on collisions there or the accident is so bad and vehicles end up over the

[8:11] edge. >> Okay.

[8:13] » And is that that's typically when it's icy out?

[8:15] » It's when it's normally when it's icy. >> But when it's non icy, we had vehicles

[8:22] go over the edge as well because of the accident itself. We've had motorcycles

[8:26] go over the edge >> right there um during that summer.

[8:31] » Yeah. used to be a problem area.

[8:36] We got a lot of people that are coming out of Jo Creek during the winter which

[8:40] which creates an additional issue but because they snowmobile up there

[8:46] during the summer that's a great area

[8:52] popular area on the hillside that's very sideline

[8:58] going to the east

[9:04] corner just before you to that.

[9:09] » I know three people directly who have gone off that edge um just in in the

[9:15] time that I've been here. And I think the excessive speeds right there are one

[9:19] of the biggest contributing factor since that's a massive downhill and that's

[9:24] where people who have cars that aren't even that fast. It's the only spot where

[9:29] they can pick up speed to make dangerous passes when they're in a hurry. That's

[9:34] uh as someone who's made that commute thousands of times over the last 28

[9:38] years, that is probably the scariest spot for people driving dangerously

[9:44] that big hill. >> Yeah, absolutely.

[9:49] » So, could it be pulled up on a map so we can make sure on the exact curve that

[9:55] you're talking

[10:07] It's not cooperating. That tells me it's connected.

[10:18] » Maybe Google maps it. >> Mhm.

[10:29] Little mousy mouse. Here's

[10:46] Shot Creek. >> Okay. Oh, so it's on the It's on the

[10:52] west side of >> Yeah. And then this is high. This is

[10:55] like a massive embankment. So, you go straight down off the highway here and

[11:00] then you go straight up the hillside there.

[11:05] Right. That's what we're talking about. >> Mhm.

[11:07] » And this is where it becomes a passing lane.

[11:10] » That's where the climbing lane's at. >> Yeah.

[11:13] » Right at the start of the climbing lane. >> Yep. And

[11:16] » that's where people try and pass coming downhill,

[11:19] » right? >> It used to be a passing

[11:21] » It did. They closed it up >> and then now it's too solid yellow,

[11:24] which if you've lived here long enough, you can just disregard that.

[11:29] Go on the old >> Well, I I think I think I had a meeting

[11:33] very similar to this many years ago where we decided to do that.

[11:37] » Yeah. I remember. >> So, yes.

[11:40] » Well, and the state legislature just passed a law that increased potential

[11:44] fines for crossing on a double yellow. >> Yeah.

[11:48] » Right there. But this is so many head-on collisions here, right?

[11:52] » That's correct. >> So many. I mean, we all know people who

[11:54] have been in significant life-changing

[11:58] accidents here. >> Yeah.

[12:01] » And then I also think where is mile what is this mile marker, Dan?

[12:06] » Six. >> This is the This is nuts here. I'm

[12:11] astounded we don't have more, but I've seen countless accidents of people

[12:15] coming southbound and there's a there's a

[12:20] double or there's a do dashed yellow here and they try to make the pass going

[12:26] up this way before this turn. >> That's correct.

[12:29] » And people here come off the road to try to avoid a head-on collision. So, and no

[12:35] matter what the time of year is, you see that dry, you see that wet. Is that

[12:42] » Can you screen share? Sorry. >> Sorry, Andy.

[12:47] » No, it's okay. I just want to I want to be able to know what you're you're

[12:51] pointing out over there. >> I'm talking about this area here. The

[12:55] big the big curve. >> The first big curve as you're coming

[12:58] down the straightaway. >> Oh, yeah. There's always cars in the

[13:02] ditch there. It always cares right here because they're avoiding a head-on

[13:05] collision from people passing going northbound.

[13:08] » Does anyone get the feeling that that is an emergency like oh no because of

[13:13] people pulling in and out of high country?

[13:18] » I've seen people I have been a witness to accidents here where it was a

[13:22] head-on. They were avoiding a head-on personally,

[13:26] » but that's just anecdotal. Is there signage at the base of that area that

[13:30] says that there is a passing lane coming? Because I think part of that is

[13:34] people are trying to pass, not maybe not necessarily knowing that there's, you

[13:38] know, a two-lane climbing lane a mile up the road. So,

[13:42] » no, everybody knows. This is like locals doing.

[13:44] » These are local. >> This is not

[13:46] » local indie car drivers. But I guess with the I mean what do you think that

[13:50] would do any mitigation is if we had a like passing lane ahead sign you know

[13:55] people can pull off the gas for for a mile and then wait till that climbing

[13:59] lane comes. So, we are looking at doing that um kind of actually as the whole

[14:05] region goes and we're starting with Highway 40 because there's a lot of

[14:08] passing lanes up there and but we're going to migrate that down here. But I

[14:12] would probably agree that it's probably mostly locals that that know that.

[14:16] » Yep. >> They're just comfortable and so they're

[14:18] doing what they think they can do. >> It's our commuters. Like it's so many of

[14:22] us just know it really well. Mhm. >> To just clarify, you're talking about

[14:28] like the signs that say next passing lane 2 miles.

[14:32] » Yeah. You know, thousand feet or whatever and you see them on other

[14:35] highways. I'm just curious. I don't recall if there's one up there. But

[14:38] » I I'm going to guess not, but I'm not 100% sure.

[14:42] » Cuz people could be trying to make that pass because they know it's very short,

[14:46] you know, passing zone, not realizing >> trying to get a jump on it.

[14:49] » Exactly. Well, the passing lane isn't until Chalk Creek mile marker 11.

[14:56] » Seven. >> Oh, it's seven. Okay. Okay.

[15:00] » Sweet. So, that wouldn't be more than a mile.

[15:02] » Mile or so. >> I'm just saying if it said like it was

[15:06] four miles, that would make you want to do it more.

[15:08] » Sure. >> I'm not waiting four minutes to pass

[15:13] this person. >> I have a second question. And uh I'm not

[15:17] I know this is super contentious, but what's your guys' experience with

[15:22] cameras and speeding tickets? I know flock is a huge issue, but

[15:28] » maybe you want to speak to that a little bit.

[15:31] » So there is the ability to put speed cameras pretty much anywhere on on state

[15:37] highways now due to the legislation that came into effect actually August 1st

[15:41] » and some previous legislation. But um we have three areas in the region where we

[15:47] have photo enforcement and they're all three in towns. We have them in

[15:50] Glennwood, we have them in Vale, we have them in

[15:57] have them in Basalt pretty soon here. >> There might be a third one. But um

[16:02] » were those real contentious? Did you have to go through the local community

[16:06] or is that your >> Well, so the local community, the local

[16:08] sheriff's led those efforts. So, it's it's kind of one where C do DOT's not

[16:13] really pushing it or we're kind of impartial to it is what our position is.

[16:18] So, if if you wanted to do that, um, basically what would happen is we would

[16:22] work with the sheriff. They would put together basically an application and

[16:27] that would would go through us and also state patrol to be signed off on and

[16:31] then that system would be out there. So, I would say in an area like this

[16:37] it would be a little bit unusual. I mean, they're usually mostly in urban

[16:41] kind of areas. Um, not that it couldn't be done out here. It's a possibility as

[16:45] long as there was things like power and communications and some of that kind of

[16:48] stuff on the technical side. >> Um, but um,

[16:53] any place that there's a lot of speeding, they they can be put up. Part

[16:56] of the justification in the application is citing by how many citations you've

[17:02] given, what kind of speeds people are generally traveling. You know, it asks

[17:05] for some actual data like that. Um, >> but if all that is, you know,

[17:08] substantiates the need for cameras, then then it could be done for sure.

[17:13] » I can imagine that being real contentious. And I could also imagine if

[17:17] there was a sign that said, "Hey, there's there's a camera coming up,

[17:21] every single person would slow down." >> Yeah. I don't know. I'm just saying that

[17:26] » that's a can of worms for you. Like some some retail spots have like a you're

[17:31] smile you're on camera and then it's a fake camera,

[17:34] » but it's still a deterrent. >> Mhm. Is that allowed?

[17:38] » It wouldn't be effective. The word would get out.

[17:45] » A quick question on that. Would it require a camera for each direction?

[17:50] Like one for the people heading towards Leadville and one for people drive. Not

[17:55] that people will be speeding as much uphill, but it is still pretty wild

[18:01] watching people make three wide passes up there into oncoming traffic. But does

[18:06] that require two two cameras or does one camera check both uh all traffic

[18:13] » there? There's there would be a separate camera for each direction.

[18:17] For one thing, they want to try to get uh license plates on both ends. So, it's

[18:22] both cameras doing enforcement for both directions.

[18:27] » And so, so I I haven't really dug too much into how some of the communities

[18:31] have done this, but my understanding is that they essentially hire a vendor to

[18:35] come out and design and install the system and then the vendor is paid

[18:40] through some of the revenue that's generated. And it generally works out to

[18:44] be sort of a revenueish neutralish to the community. So, it's

[18:48] really not something that that that makes money or costs money. It's it's

[18:53] typically something neutral >> and that's generally born, like I say,

[18:56] by a third party. >> Okay.

[18:58] » So, um if you start if you want to think about that either either here or

[19:02] anywhere, um just know that that's kind of usually how those deals work.

[19:07] » Wow, that's contentious. I know people are cutting them down.

[19:12] » Yeah. Well, and and to separate that issue out, Flock is reading license

[19:17] plates going into a database. While this is also reading license

[19:21] plates, they're they're separate systems.

[19:24] » Oh, I see. >> That's you know, Flock is a nationwide

[19:26] thing, nationwide database. These speed cameras are the one location and they're

[19:33] not being paired with other things around.

[19:36] » And and these cameras don't even take a picture of the driver because the driver

[19:40] is irrelevant, >> right? So that those are all subtleties

[19:44] to the cameras out there on the side of the road that probably most people may

[19:48] not even believe exist. >> No, I'm familiar with it because I got a

[19:51] ticket, but my daughter was in Denver. She crossed into the the HOV lane.

[19:57] » Okay. Just crossed in and crossed back out. That cost me 100 bucks.

[20:01] » Thanks. Some people pay it. >> So reiterating and making this crystal

[20:06] clear for anyone who watches this later on recording or whatevers. Traffic

[20:11] cameras are not flock cameras. This is correct, right?

[20:15] » That's correct. >> Okay.

[20:18] » It's important to make the distinction though when we're signing a contract

[20:22] applying for it. >> Yes.

[20:24] » So going back to another thing you mentioned is, you know, there is a

[20:29] requirement to inform drivers that camera speed enforcement ahead.

[20:33] » Yeah. because it's it's intended to be a safety mechanism to get people to slow

[20:39] down. It is not to catch people and find them and and generate revenue. So there

[20:46] are advanced signs that are required as part of the deal.

[20:49] » I mean I hate to be the one that history will look back on and say, "Oh yeah,

[20:53] Bullock wanted flock cameras and then but we could change the highway all day

[20:58] long. It's really about changing people's behavior and people aren't

[21:03] gonna they're just not going to change their

[21:06] behavior unless there's some teeth. So, >> well, wait. Do you want plot cameras?

[21:12] » Well, they're not plot cameras. They're traffic cameras.

[21:15] » I feel like you've made a distinction has been made. Don't worry.

[21:18] » I don't know. I'm not saying I want it. Hope I'm making that clear. I don't not

[21:21] saying I want it, but seems like an important part of the

[21:26] » You know, you know how like um Oh, I'm sorry, Matt. Go ahead.

[21:30] » I think it would work. I think it's a solution that could be explored.

[21:36] » Go ahead, Andy. >> Um, other deterrents that I think are

[21:40] statistically proven to work are just the sign that has the little blue and

[21:44] red flashing lights on it when you're going too fast and how those like sub

[21:49] just those lights on the on the sign subconsciously affect people to the

[21:53] level where they are it's shown that they will slow down. Um, I don't know if

[21:59] that's something. It's sort of like that um uh officer Manny Quinn down in Twin

[22:04] Lakes. >> Do we have any old old uh cop cars

[22:09] laying around that we can just post up there and see if that makes a difference

[22:12] in the meantime? >> I I would think that works once and then

[22:16] the locals >> say, "Oh, that's just for the tourists.

[22:20] It >> doesn't apply to locals."

[22:22] » I don't know, man. I still slow way down when I get into Twin Lakes. Anytime I

[22:27] see that car sitting there, I know it's empty. I know there's nothing in there,

[22:30] but I still slow way down. It just reminds you like, "Oh, yeah, that's

[22:34] right. >> This is a spot."

[22:37] » I didn't know there was an actual name for the officer. I know the officer.

[22:41] That's >> well respected in the community.

[22:45] » So, okay, let's get this process straight. In order to Let's use the

[22:50] cameras. In order to get the cameras installed,

[22:54] we would have to go work with our sheriff

[22:57] to fill out an application to see DOT. >> Correct.

[23:02] » Okay. And then that in that application, we have to provide statistics

[23:08] and based on the statistics that um Dan Dailyaly has provided us with, what what

[23:14] more do we need than this kind of >> so so the main thing is is speed

[23:19] statistics. And so, >> okay,

[23:21] » so in my and I I'm speaking a little bit out of tone. I'm not 100% because I

[23:26] haven't gone through the process. I've just reviewed what I've seen, but um

[23:30] there's a requirement for a speed study. >> And so what that entails is it is

[23:34] entails either going out there with radar guns or some type of speed

[23:38] detecting device and showing that X percentage of of drivers are exceeding

[23:44] the speed limit by a certain amount. So you can draw then some conclusions

[23:48] between okay we've got it signed at 65 55

[23:54] 80% of the people are going 10 miles an hour over there or something like that.

[23:58] So there's conclusions like that that have to be drawn. I believe the vendors

[24:02] provide those speed studies as part of their services but I'm not 100% sure on

[24:07] that. So most of the information most of the data is is directly speed related

[24:13] rather than accident related. Okay,

[24:17] » if that makes sense. Yeah, >> it does. It does and it doesn't. So,

[24:22] what is our avenue to create any enforcement or like signage

[24:29] when it comes to accidents? Like an accident doesn't have to be

[24:33] speed related, >> right?

[24:34] » It can be just reckless driving related. So, how do we get any of the signage

[24:40] we've talked about or any of the traffic measures we've talked about?

[24:44] So >> like the sign like the chevrons, how do

[24:47] we get those? >> Um so so even for chevrons uh we we have

[24:53] um standards that we look at basically say you know you should experience x

[24:59] number of accidents related to these signs over a certain time period and if

[25:04] those thresholds are met with some a little bit of discretion in there then

[25:08] we can we can place those signs up. So that is that is little more than a

[25:14] request to us to say hey can you take a look at this

[25:17] » we if you have in incident data that you can provide that's helpful um because

[25:22] the accident data that we use in our database is doesn't include incidents it

[25:27] only includes something where an officer was on scene and and filled out a report

[25:32] there. So it doesn't include counter reports or some of the other kind of

[25:36] things that go out there. So our our data is not necessarily totally

[25:41] complete, but it's also very clean if you understand the sort of boundaries of

[25:46] what it's for. >> So So we can audit these locations

[25:49] ourselves. I was hoping we might be able to do it right here in front of you, but

[25:53] we're struggling with this. >> Sorry.

[25:57] » Do you want to email us anything? >> Um,

[25:59] » we can I can't even connect. Yeah. >> Otherwise, I would patch into our crash

[26:03] database and be >> pulling this what we're seeing on our

[26:08] » kind of what we'd hoped, but >> sorry.

[26:10] » That's all right. >> Do you have an HDMI? You could maybe you

[26:13] could just plug you in. >> Actually, I don't know if we could

[26:17] maintain the zoom >> to go to that level at this point. So,

[26:20] » I mean, you sent us an email just as as a formal request. Please look at these

[26:26] curves for us, >> okay? and we'll take it from there,

[26:29] which then means that um if we get to that point, then CEO

[26:34] just installs them. >> Okay.

[26:38] » Yeah. So, that's for signs like chevron signs. Um if there was

[26:44] other types of warning signs out there that that seemed appropriate like an

[26:49] intersection ahead sign or I don't whatever. Okay.

[26:53] » Um the passing line or passing signs, those kinds of things. Um other signs

[26:57] like the radar feedback signs like um he was saying online there um that you know

[27:03] show your speed and things like that. Those signs are not necessarily

[27:07] something that seed dot would provide. Those would be something that we would

[27:10] ask you guys to permit and then put up out there. Um

[27:14] » sorry for the radar. >> For the radar no for the radar feedback

[27:18] signs. So he was saying the signs that you know they say speed limit 55 your

[27:23] speed is whatever they have flashing lights and then they have you know they

[27:27] say slow down or they flash or whatever. >> Yeah.

[27:30] » So we >> those would be signs the seat would not

[27:33] provide but we would allow those if if they made sense in a certain area.

[27:37] » Okay. >> Like you've probably seen the ones in

[27:40] turn. Some intern got permission got a permit from Ced to install that and then

[27:47] they essentially own and maintain that device on the highway.

[27:51] » Okay. >> What are those called?

[27:53] » Radar feedback. >> Radar feedback

[27:56] » or speed feedback signs. >> We have one going into town.

[28:00] » We have several. >> I was going to say don't I think you

[28:02] have one on the south end, right? >> Yeah.

[28:06] » And Twin Lakes. Twin Lakes >> and coming into town

[28:10] » that way >> where it goes from 35 to 25

[28:12] » on 24 out by Mountain East and West coming into that area.

[28:17] » The one coming in from Escandido is out,000

[28:21] to fix it. >> Oh, not right now.

[28:24] » That's a good one though. That's >> also we were told that can't flash.

[28:28] » Yeah, >> that's correct. Yeah.

[28:31] » Okay. There's strict requirements in the national regulations on signage that

[28:37] » they have to follow >> at least on the highway.

[28:41] » Technically, I can't do it in the county either.

[28:44] » We're not going to patrol the county. That's your on state highways. Yeah.

[28:50] » Can I ask can I ask a question about the um uh the speed studies?

[28:57] » Yeah. Um, how how do you get those to

[29:03] um reflect accurately like how fast people are going? Like is it like is

[29:10] there someone out there with a a a radar gun or is it on a tripod right there?

[29:16] Because you know, like from a from a driver's perspective, when you see

[29:20] something like that set up, you're you're going to slow down.

[29:25] » Yeah. So, there's there's two ways that it's done. Um, the the original way is

[29:31] somebody would go out there with a radar gun in a non-conspicuous looking car and

[29:36] try to just find a place where they can pull off on the side of the road and

[29:40] sort of blend in and they would take the counts. Now, what we've been doing for

[29:46] most of our studies recently is we have these devices that we go out there and

[29:50] we just band them to a signpost and we leave them for a week

[29:54] » and we come back and get the data. So, they blend right in. Um, you can't

[29:59] hardly tell that they're there if you're not looking.

[30:01] » They're accurate. And so, that's kind of the way we've been doing it lately.

[30:06] » Great. Thank you. >> How many of those can we do

[30:10] » at a time? many as we have.

[30:14] » I'm just wondering to like be able to like kind of heat map the speeds of

[30:18] Highway 91, not knowing where the speed is,

[30:23] » right? >> Is contributing

[30:26] to the crash that might be later on. Just wondering.

[30:30] » So, so what we do if we're going to do like a corridor like this is we would

[30:33] take a look at it and go, okay, where do characteristics of the highway change?

[30:37] » Okay. So, as we near, for instance, a curve that we know is rated at a lower

[30:42] speed than the speed limit, we might put one right there. Um, you know, so I

[30:47] mean, there's there's there's kind of a kind of an art to where you would place

[30:51] them. Um, but that's one of the nice things about not having to have people

[30:54] out there with guns is you can put three of them up and just come back and and

[30:59] you have all the information. So, >> it's like a wildlife camera.

[31:03] » Yeah, it's kind of like that. >> Okay.

[31:06] How do we how do we ask for that?

[31:11] » Well, go ahead. >> Well, so that's that's something that

[31:14] you would do on your own. >> Oh, we do it.

[31:17] » Are you talking about for speed cameras or for just in general

[31:21] » in general to study the speeds, not for cameras, but just to understand

[31:26] » just to understand what the speed of >> Yeah. So that because it's lots of

[31:30] contributing factors to such a complicated roadway, right? and to such

[31:36] varied accidents in different places. Just how do we ask for that to compile

[31:41] the whole picture? >> So everything that's out there is a

[31:44] compilation of past efforts that have done exactly all of this.

[31:47] » Yeah. And so

[31:51] unless something has drastically changed, we would have to we would want

[31:56] to really identify why we would go take another look at it or in what areas we

[32:00] would take a look because of because of some change like what is different now

[32:04] than when we did the last speed study. And I don't know when the last speed

[32:08] study was done, >> right?

[32:09] » Um it might have been several years. Um it's possible. Um, I will tell you from

[32:14] experience that, um, you know, when we when we have sign when we have speed

[32:20] limits out there that have been out there for years and years and we go back

[32:23] and take a look at them, very rarely do they ever change unless there is

[32:27] something like I'm saying like a a big intersection that's gone in because of a

[32:32] development or something's being realigned in the highway or something

[32:36] pretty drastic usually. Otherwise, it's unlikely that it's going to really

[32:40] change any.

[32:45] to to your point about doing I mean you're talking about looking at the

[32:50] entire corridor and where are the speeding problems is that what you're

[32:54] trying to identify. >> I think that the the outcome that we're

[32:58] seeing is really fatal or drastic accidents

[33:04] » and if not then like near misses almost every time you go over. So, high

[33:10] exposure to those fatal accidents. So,

[33:16] so how do we look at all of the potential

[33:20] causes to find the root cause that we need to tweak to actually change that

[33:26] outcome? And if there's a different way to do it, great. But I'm just I'm just

[33:32] wondering like yes, I know that a lot of work has been done to make it the way it

[33:35] is, >> but we're still seeing incredibly

[33:37] dangerous driving there. So, so what is the next step by looking

[33:43] at the hole and not being like, well, you know, state patrol does this and see

[33:48] that does that. How do we as commissioners get enough information to

[33:51] look at the hole so we can ask the right person to change the thing that needs to

[33:55] be changed? Does that >> make sense of what I'm asking?

[33:58] » Yeah. So, so there's >> two components. One, we've got the

[34:03] physical highway and two, we've got driver behavior,

[34:06] » right? And I would say there's nothing out there

[34:10] inherently wrong or dangerous about the highway,

[34:14] but it's how the drivers interact with that that then can become a problem. So

[34:18] » we've speeding is one of those driver behaviors

[34:22] » that the state legislature has given the tool to do speed enforcement canvas

[34:27] » that you can do that. And so there's a part of if you were to map the corridor,

[34:33] you know, where people are speeding the most prevalent and then target that with

[34:37] cameras. Then you got the other aspect of where are people

[34:42] making poor choices in their driver behavior that are then also contributing

[34:47] to crashes and how do you specifically target

[34:50] » that? Yes. >> Yes.

[34:53] » Okay. >> There's there's those three things.

[34:57] You've got the driver behavior of speeding, driver behavior of other risky

[35:00] maneuvers, >> and then how does the highway interact

[35:03] with those two things, >> right?

[35:05] » And so I think it's a matter of, you know, looking at the crash data, the

[35:10] experience of those that are seeing it, responding it, and what could be done to

[35:15] address that behavior. >> And then you target the speed cameras

[35:20] where it makes the most sense. If you can target

[35:23] a handful of locations, will that bring the speed down elsewhere?

[35:27] » Right. >> Don't know,

[35:29] » right? >> Or is it that you know that the whole

[35:31] thought about speed bumps when you play speed bumps, people slow down to go over

[35:35] the bump and what do they do between the next bump?

[35:37] » They go faster. >> They go faster. So if they see the

[35:40] camera, are they going to speed up between that the next one?

[35:43] » Right? >> Don't know if that's the case.

[35:45] » We haven't had enough data to know on that yet. But

[35:49] » those are those are the three areas that I think you're talking about focusing

[35:52] on. Yes. >> Just to separate that.

[35:54] » Thank you. >> So this would be a thing where the

[35:58] county comes up with this effort to study and

[36:03] figure out where the speeding problems are occurring, where are those behaviors

[36:06] occurring? And then we work together to see what SE do on the highway and what

[36:11] can you do on the behavior side >> from the county's perspective. And then

[36:16] what can state patrol do to to work on that behavior also?

[36:20] » Okay. >> Does anyone know offhand like the

[36:23] regulations around sign placement for speed cameras? Not flock cameras, speed

[36:30] cameras. How how like if you could put the signs

[36:34] 3 miles, 6 miles, whatever out, that would contribute to people slowing down

[36:41] ahead of time and you get maybe get more bang for your buck out of something like

[36:44] that. Does anyone know how far out you can put signs for that?

[36:51] » It's a good question. >> Yeah, I'm not 100% sure what the

[36:55] distances are. I I know that there are there are specified distances in where

[37:02] the the warning signs has to be because I think I think there has to be two of

[37:05] them. Um I think they have to be explicit. I think they have to you know

[37:10] there's already a layout of what the sign has to look like. Um I want to say

[37:15] that the distance in front of the cameras is more like a quarter mile.

[37:21] it's pretty close and it depends on the speed limit that's out there as to how

[37:25] far you would put it, >> right?

[37:27] » Um, so those are all kind of part of the applications and stuff. So I I can't

[37:32] necessarily tell you off the top of my head, but um I mean the the corridors I

[37:37] I believe can be fairly long. Um, you know, I know the one that they have on

[37:43] 93 in Denver, I think it's for several miles. Um, even though a lot of the ones

[37:47] that we have in the region currently are are very short. They're usually like

[37:51] quarter mile, but they're downtown kind of things. So,

[37:54] » okay. >> Um, it'd be breaking a little bit of new

[37:58] territory for, you know, a rural application like this, but it's within

[38:02] the realm. >> We're pioneers up here.

[38:05] » Yeah.

[38:08] » Okay. So, regardless to in order to find out where there are high speeds, we need

[38:14] to do a speed study. And

[38:18] who we ask to do that is dependent on whether we're going to put cameras up.

[38:23] » Probably it's an option to go through one of those vendors. Um there are other

[38:29] traffic consultants out there that have the equipments and can put up the units

[38:34] and measure it for you. >> Okay. what what he was talking about,

[38:37] you know, they're they're nicknamed a sidefire radar because it's a it's set

[38:42] to the side of the highway, fires the radar, and then collects the data. And

[38:48] there's a lot of folks in the Denver area that have those that can compile

[38:53] the data, collect and compile.

[38:58] » Okay. And then in order to create the

[39:01] information about the risky behavior, the drive responsible

[39:08] driving behaviors, that's where we would work with our sheriff to determine like

[39:15] where these risky behaviors and accidents are happening or how do we

[39:20] come when you split it up into three. There was the speed, there was the risky

[39:25] driving behavior, and then there's how the highway interacts with all of those

[39:28] things, >> right?

[39:29] » So, how do we compile the information for

[39:32] » So, it's a combination of the the crash data that SE do has access to in

[39:38] conjunction with the other, >> you know, incidents that aren't

[39:43] reported, but you know, that the locals know about.

[39:47] You know, you talk the near misses >> is is the category that, you know, how

[39:52] close was it to a crash, but it was a risky maneuver, risky behavior, and so

[39:57] being able to compile that information with the crash crash data to see what

[40:03] could be done. So, it's >> okay,

[40:06] » COT, County Sheriff, State Patrol getting together and saying, "These are

[40:11] the locations that we're seeing it. We're checking the crash data and and

[40:15] putting that together. One of the things to understand is there's, you know, we

[40:20] cover the entire region for seed dots here. We have so many

[40:25] areas like this that unless there's initiative on the county side.

[40:30] » We're not going to come in and do this unless it's, you know, rises to the

[40:34] level within our crash data because we have so many areas that are up there. So

[40:39] if you're taking the initiative and bringing seed like you have today and

[40:42] you bring safe patrol together then more is going to more likely

[40:48] get done. >> That's what I thought. Awesome.

[40:52] Sweet. Um just a second Pete just uh had one more question. So when it comes to

[40:58] like near misses, should we be asking the public to call in near misses?

[41:03] Because otherwise how are we how would anyone collect that data?

[41:09] Except anecdotally from county commissioners

[41:12] » survey >> survey. Yeah. Like have you seen how

[41:16] people have compiled that data in the past

[41:22] » in in my work in this industry the term near miss and focusing on it has only

[41:27] been in the last few years. So

[41:31] » okay >> survey those types of things would be a

[41:36] new frontier I would say. I think you mentioned pioneering for this area and

[41:40] so it is an option to collect that information to where are you seeing the

[41:44] issues out there where you seeing the near misses put that on a map we overlay

[41:50] that with the crash data you know there's some aspect of our people

[41:55] exaggerating so we have to understand what they're telling us and how reliable

[42:01] is it and and what do we actually do with that information is correct

[42:06] » some of the near I guess stuff that I talk about is when we have issues with

[42:12] people running red lights, we will set up cameras through a vendor will set up

[42:17] cameras for us and collect 24 hours worth of video and then they're putting

[42:23] hard numbers to those near misses. >> People run red lights, how close were

[42:27] the cars, you know, within feet or within milliseconds, that kind of stuff

[42:31] to to an actual >> near miss. this out on a rural county

[42:36] section on a state highway with the higher speeds,

[42:39] » you know, we would not be able to put those cameras up

[42:43] » to make any meaningful data out of that kind of a near study.

[42:48] » Okay. But maybe we could like if we had enough

[42:52] information from our community about where they're experiencing new new

[42:55] misses and we put a camera up >> and we do find something,

[43:00] wouldn't that be >> could there be meaningful data from

[43:04] that? >> Yes. I'm just saying that over a

[43:06] corridor of however many miles >> trying to target the right spot,

[43:10] » right, >> to to video near misses

[43:13] » to actually catch one. where that's why he says we usually use do that kind of

[43:17] stuff in intersection because I mean constantly all day there's near conflict

[43:21] so >> that's kind of the

[43:24] » the main >> the main use

[43:26] we did a high use crosswalk adjacent to a ski area

[43:32] » uh for like 36 hours had over 300 potential near misses with pedestrians

[43:39] and when we say near miss that means it wasn't like they were about to get hit

[43:43] but they were within the parameters

[43:48] or they didn't like you

[43:54] on a county road, you know, like >> Mhm.

[43:56] » say highway in the county is it may not be beneficial and these are pretty

[44:01] pricey stuff. These are the typical intersection for 24 hours is about 10

[44:04] grand. >> Okay.

[44:06] » Wow, >> cool. So going the route of asking you

[44:11] doing some sort of a survey to target those areas where people seeing it and

[44:16] then that gives us a location or locations a few locations to then focus

[44:21] our efforts and look at that might be much better.

[44:25] » We can do that. I'm thinking a big map with pins

[44:32] » sticky notes. >> Yeah. And anybody who comes into the

[44:34] courthouse can put a pin where they've had near messes.

[44:38] » Just spitball it. >> That's cool.

[44:40] » Pioneering. >> Can Can you set up an online map?

[44:44] » Could we do that >> that people can go to a website, drop a

[44:49] pin, >> and the explanation of

[44:54] what what they saw, what they experienced.

[44:57] » I love this. >> Let's go. Let's make the highway safer.

[45:03] Okay. I hear there's multi-steps. I hear that it's multi- like

[45:08] » there is >> agencies. So, so I I think a a good next

[45:12] step for us is um you know, like I said, I apologize we can't pull up the data we

[45:18] sent you, but um we will take a look at the data that we have in this area and I

[45:25] think we can do kind of a highle study like we do in other areas and and

[45:31] identify hotspots, potential mitigations kind of from our perspective. And if

[45:37] there's some information that you guys can gain, whether it's from the near

[45:41] miss near miss stuff or or speed information or whatever, you know, I

[45:46] think we can come together after that and kind of maybe see where we land and

[45:50] maybe start to prioritize or look deeper.

[45:53] » That'd be great. >> I also hear loud and clear that if you

[45:56] change if you potentially change a behavior in one area, you might be

[46:00] pushing behavior to a different area and making

[46:04] it more risky. Totally hear that. So, I'm just want to say I'm not being

[46:08] overly enthusiastic about changing the highway. I'm being overly enthusiastic

[46:13] about collecting information to be preventative and not make things

[46:18] worse. >> Yeah.

[46:20] » Okay. >> So, I mean along those lines, just

[46:24] you talked about guardrail on an S curve. Well, could we target the

[46:30] behavior such that that guardrail is not needed,

[46:33] » right? the chevrons versus the guardrail. Right.

[46:37] » Right. >> Yeah.

[46:38] » Yes. And so, you know, when I look at the crash data

[46:43] and it's like, if we could eliminate no drinking and driving, people wearing

[46:47] seat belts, how many fatal crashes would go down,

[46:51] » right? >> And that's not a highway thing. That's a

[46:54] behavior thing. >> Totally.

[46:56] » There's so many behaviors that could be targeted that will have way more impact

[47:02] than what we do on visible. >> Yeah,

[47:06] » I think Highway 91 would need like an alarm clock program then because

[47:12] » everyone's in a hurry to get to where they left 10 minutes too late to go.

[47:17] » I was thinking the same thing, Andy. >> You got to swing by the liquor store,

[47:23] the weed store before you jump on that highway.

[47:30] » I didn't follow it, Matt. I'm sorry. I know. I just didn't follow.

[47:35] » Would it be helpful if we shared with the two of you the um the data from

[47:39] Chief Daily? >> Absolutely.

[47:40] » About the incident. >> Sure. Absolutely.

[47:42] » Maybe some other emails.

[47:48] » Absolutely. Well, from y'all's perspective, what

[47:52] questions should we be asking or like where do you think that we could be

[47:57] targeting more of our efforts to change driver behavior

[48:04] as opposed to just working with C dot and state troopers?

[48:11] » That's a tough question. That's something that we don't do a whole lot.

[48:15] No, I'm just saying from your from your experience and your p your position.

[48:19] » I I think any kind of of seasonal campaigns are very helpful. Um, you

[48:25] know, we see that in some of the the other areas where um,

[48:31] you know, they're just trying to get messages out there on when snow, you

[48:36] know, early when early in the winter time when seasons change. um you see

[48:40] things out there um when you know there's going to be trick-or-treaters or

[48:44] events or things like that. Any kind of local campaigns on what your safety

[48:50] folks are seeing or are expecting to see. I think that's helpful. I know

[48:55] that's those are not always easy things to do, but sometimes there's little

[48:58] things that can be done, but I think promoting any of that kind of stuff at a

[49:02] local level is helpful. >> Great.

[49:05] » Um you mentioned travel time. Yeah. >> Where are most people coming from,

[49:11] commuting from, and then sitting down and calculating, you know, what's the

[49:16] difference in 10 miles hour of a speed limit versus going the speed limit?

[49:21] » And then, you know, is that extra is that saved 5 minutes worth the risk

[49:27] » of a lifetime of, you know, someone dying or,

[49:32] you know, injuries that you're dealing with over a over a lifetime.

[49:36] » Yeah, that's a great idea. do the math for them.

[49:40] » Yeah. And you know there's campaigns out there, but if you target it specific to

[49:44] the drivers that you know are on 91, as you've mentioned, the commuters that

[49:48] left 10 minutes late, well, is trying to make up that 10 minutes worth the risk

[49:55] of what could occur? >> Yeah.

[49:57] » And putting those messages out. I mean, you know, C do DOT works with state

[50:02] patrol and we target the whole state, but if you can target specific to the

[50:07] folks to and from this area, it'll be more meaningful.

[50:15] » Pete D, you did you want to say something?

[50:17] » I I did. Um, this is Pete. He's an exparte member of board

[50:24] » from the community, representing the community. Um,

[50:29] one thing that hasn't been discussed is is active enforcement and maybe there's

[50:33] a reason for that. Um, you know, what about tickets issued? Um, you know, by

[50:40] by officers on the on the road, you know, where they were issued, what the

[50:45] speed limit was uh exceeded by, um, tickets that were issued for passing in

[50:50] a no passing zone. It seems like you know that's information that if there is

[50:57] enforcement um should be should be available and

[51:00] should should be you know part of the part of the data set and I don't I don't

[51:06] know what you know there must be statistics on how many tickets have been

[51:09] issued you know on highway 91 in Lake County for the you know per year and and

[51:16] then the the backup for that. You all get that from the state troopers or just

[51:21] crashes? >> We don't get that information though.

[51:24] » You don't get the tickets. >> State patrol would have that information

[51:27] though. I'm sure your sheriff has a contact there. I think they would

[51:31] provide that. >> Yeah, we need to get lots of data from

[51:34] Heath. >> He couldn't make it today. He really

[51:36] wanted to, but >> we don't see much state patrol activity

[51:40] really. >> And you know, Keith could be out there a

[51:44] little more too in my opinion. That would that would help solve a lot if

[51:49] like a cameras stationary camera is one thing once the word gets out like

[51:53] » look I got a ticket looks like I'm on marker four then the word gets out

[51:57] whereas a sheriff's deputy could be anywhere

[52:01] and the word would get out too like hey I got a DUI on the way from work so

[52:07] that's a good point Pete one other comment um you know there was discussion

[52:13] about how you know the where the passing and no passing lanes, you know, where

[52:18] they are have changed over over time. You know, it' be good to I'm sure there

[52:22] was good reason for changing it whenever it was changed last time, you know, but

[52:26] maybe that could be re re-evaluated because I think one of the issues other

[52:30] than speeding are people trying to pass slow trucks, multiple slow trucks at a

[52:35] time. If there were if there were more no more more passing lanes, legal

[52:40] passing lanes, then those might be, you know, used preferentially to the to the

[52:46] illegal passing lanes. So So it seems like that data ought to be available.

[52:51] You know, what's been changed over the years in terms of where the passing and

[52:54] the passing zones are. >> Yeah.

[53:02] Okay. Thanks Pet.

[53:09] » Should we move on to Highway 24? >> We should discuss it.

[53:15] » Yeah, absolutely. There's a couple issues on Highway 24 and um for our CEO

[53:19] friends, it would be helpful to have you here, but understand if your schedule

[53:22] requires you to step out. >> Oh, we can stick around for a while

[53:25] longer. >> Great. Great. Um so the next issue um to

[53:30] discuss from 91 to 24 uh is related to some um some citizen concerns raised I

[53:36] think to a couple commissioners as well as through public works u related to

[53:39] access into the home state trout club. Uh so we just wanted to give a little

[53:43] bit of background. I think this issue has has come up several times over the

[53:47] years. Michael has some background on it. Um just related to you know what is

[53:51] the county road? what is possible at that particular intersection given the

[53:55] the narrow entrance um which is challenging for emergency vehicles as

[54:00] well as larger truck deliveries and things but the limitations that exist

[54:04] related to the cattle guard etc. So, I hope you don't mind. I'll hand that one

[54:08] to you. >> Pull it up on mapure.

[54:18] » Let's over here.

[54:29] This friend is a cow guard right there. >> So, this doesn't actually show where the

[54:33] C dot rideway do rightway. outside of that. Um, that whole Gard is actually

[54:40] according to our property map is inside the way. So, that was a gate to a ranch

[54:48] at one time. Um, I'm not sure when the county took

[54:53] over county by 21, but it only goes through the ranch to private property.

[54:59] Now, the private property owner owns both sides of that

[55:03] on to the highway. Um

[55:09] it is narrow across the cattle guard. Um there is coming down from the north side

[55:19] which is 24. That's actually the west side.

[55:24] Um off the Tennessee Pass there's a corner just before it gets to this

[55:28] intersection right up there. You can leave the

[55:33] highway. >> Okay.

[55:36] Sorry. Catch up.

[55:40] Okay. Oops. You done? >> That was really cool.

[55:46] Elastic. >> Oh my goodness. Where is the curve?

[55:55] » You talking about this curve? >> Yeah. That looks really gradual on the

[55:59] map, but in in reality, that feels a lot sharper and blinder of a curve than it

[56:04] looks like right there. >> Michael, which curve you talking about?

[56:09] » Um, yeah, it's coming down from that way, but it's closer to the

[56:14] » this one. This big curve. >> Yeah, right there.

[56:17] » Okay. >> It's really It doesn't look like it. You

[56:19] don't have sight until you get around that corner.

[56:23] Um, which kind of the problem with traffic, you know, visibility.

[56:29] In my opinion, we need to This is actually a pretty big project to just

[56:32] change out a co change out of Calgary.

[56:37] Um, for the county, we'd probably have to get an online GPR because it's going

[56:40] to be really expensive to probably put in a del lane and an XL

[56:47] lane out of that driveway or county road onto Highway 24.

[56:53] Um, I know there's problems with traffic turning into county, road 21 coming from

[56:58] the south or the east. um because you stop in the lane, you have to wait for

[57:03] traffic to go by before you can turn. Um you know, those are just some of the

[57:08] things that I've looked at out there that were to change this, it would take

[57:13] a pretty big C do project to do that C do involved project even if it's going

[57:19] to the permits and everything. >> Is is there a way like I know ideally we

[57:27] could have the excel del lanes Um, and you know, do this in a way that every it

[57:34] checks all the boxes, but like a lot of things in local government, um, we were

[57:39] just touching on this this morning. Sometimes seeking perfection means

[57:43] nothing ever gets done. And I know one of the big issues these folks out here

[57:48] have is that if there's a fire, if there's a medical emergency, if there's

[57:53] a a big truck delivery, they just can't get in there easily. It's such a narrow

[57:58] entrance. So, uh, in the meantime, while we're waiting for, you know, how to

[58:03] figure out how to do these bigger projects, why why exactly can't we just

[58:08] widen the entrance?

[58:14] » Well, the thing is is it's not a permitted CO entrance as it is. Um,

[58:20] » I because I've checked this without just right away people. Um, it was never

[58:26] permitted. It wasn't a county run when it was first put in. It was a driveway

[58:30] to a ranch. Um the county took it over to make sure I believe to get people to

[58:35] the M state club cuz it ends at their first property line. Um,

[58:44] » so you know, I don't know that's why it would all have access would have to be

[58:48] permitted, which you know, kicks in a whole bunch of C dot stuff right

[58:53] » away from it. >> Yeah. My name is Sean Sprag. I'm with

[58:57] the Home State job board. I'm the vice president of the board out there. Uh,

[59:02] this has been a ongoing problem for six years now. We approached the county. uh

[59:08] when I was building my house out there during COVID uh and we approached the

[59:14] county because I we had to get inspections to make sure that a fire

[59:18] truck could get to my house in order to get permits. Um we have recently put

[59:24] almost a million dollars into the trial club and fire mitigation. We're trying

[59:27] to become the first uh association in Lake County to be firewise. So we've got

[59:34] grants from the state. We've also done a ton of work ourselves. Um, and we've met

[59:40] with Dan's team here to improve the roads, the bridges. Um, all the coverts

[59:47] have been extended to over 20 ft wide. Um, and we're trying to meet the class

[59:52] one classification for a fire truck to go in there. And this simply doesn't.

[59:57] That's 13 ft wide. the dip in the middle, which is extremely dangerous, um

[1:00:03] is over the uh restrictions for a class one truck to go over that. It dips

[1:00:08] almost almost a foot, foot and a half. Um and so in order for us to really

[1:00:15] achieve that, you know, you guys have dealt with this fire situation. We've

[1:00:20] this is not just reactive to willow fire. This is something that's been

[1:00:24] ongoing for the last 3 to four years. This fire mitigation that we're trying

[1:00:28] to achieve, we have homeowners that can't uh even get insurance out there.

[1:00:33] So, um, we were proposing just a simple gate widening, which, uh, I've reached

[1:00:40] out, we've reached out as a team, I guess I should say, uh, other board

[1:00:44] members have reached out to the state to get clarification on the issue that he's

[1:00:49] speaking to, um, about what would need if we just did a simple gate

[1:00:54] replacement. Um, so the simple gate replacement was not going to trigger any

[1:01:00] of the warnings. I have emails from that and that was over 5 years ago that we

[1:01:03] had that. >> We also had uh what I would call bad

[1:01:07] faith from the county of told not to speak about this issue which we are very

[1:01:13] aware of. Um and and so we had to reach out for

[1:01:18] council on this. So we reached out council. All we're simply looking for

[1:01:22] from home stakes perspective maybe when the you know we our understanding is

[1:01:28] that that we are an existing uh homeowners association and unless we you

[1:01:35] were putting in a new homeowners association you would need those turn

[1:01:39] lanes and that kind of upgrade but because we're not we're an existing

[1:01:44] homeowners association and I have emails to show that I've got clarification on

[1:01:48] this that all we simply we need to do is widen the gate. 20 ft wide is what we're

[1:01:53] looking for. A newer gate. They put a newer gate across the highway that

[1:01:58] doesn't serve anybody. Uh new cattle grade that doesn't serve anyone that

[1:02:02] goes to horse horse stable. So that was kind of questioning that happened after

[1:02:07] we asked for this to get done. Um but yeah, if we had that map of close call

[1:02:14] incidents, it would be a daily mark on this. It's a very dangerous turnout. In

[1:02:20] fact, uh there's a depth just right up the street that there was people speed

[1:02:25] on that section 55. Guarantee you it's 70 as an average through there. So,

[1:02:31] we're just simply asking that the county do in good work in good faith with this

[1:02:36] since it's been a six-year process uh that we get the gate widened

[1:02:41] immediately. We we've asked for it for six years. It's been put off. It's we've

[1:02:45] been slow played pretty big and it's we're not lot lot of lot of smart people

[1:02:51] working here. I I run a metro district. I know how the process works. We're

[1:02:55] hoping we can at least get this on the budget for this year coming into the

[1:02:59] summer. It probably wasn't budgeted for it anytime or going forward. I'm sure

[1:03:04] it's not budgeted now. So, we're just looking to see if we can get on a

[1:03:08] budget, at least get the gate replaced. And then as the people in Trout Club are

[1:03:15] becoming yearly, just a quick background, to buy a house,

[1:03:19] she she's a real estate agent, she knows to buy a house, you have to pay cash.

[1:03:24] So, to simply buy six, you know, there's little Kevin in there, too. But simply

[1:03:30] by $500,000 c cash uh offer for a house there. You know, you can tell what kind

[1:03:36] of clientele we're starting to get out there. We do have a lot of people that

[1:03:39] have got their cabins hand-me-down, but that's now changing. We got year round

[1:03:44] access. Got people that come up during the ski season. Um so yeah, I mean we

[1:03:51] really really I think the gate could go away. We'd be happy with that. There's

[1:03:56] no we don't have horses or cattle. I know Colorado is a uh fence. What is it?

[1:04:01] A fence out state, which is odd, but um >> Sean, can I ask you? I don't see a gate.

[1:04:07] » No gate. >> Well, you keep saying gate. No, you

[1:04:10] gate. >> Great. I should say guard. Yeah.

[1:04:13] » So, there's no real reason to have the cattle guard there.

[1:04:15] » No, we So, you can see there's a fence to the south, which is the left of that

[1:04:19] picture. if there were ever going to be any kind of horses or anything, that

[1:04:25] property, the property to the north, which is to the right, has never been

[1:04:29] used uh for for grazing or any purposes like that. So, truly, I think that the

[1:04:35] the point where the you know, you don't really need one there and our our

[1:04:40] homeowners really don't want one. So, it's really difficult to pull in because

[1:04:45] you kind of have to pull in at you're almost scared to pull in at a slow

[1:04:49] speed. So, you kind of have to pull in and then there's no apron there. It's

[1:04:53] all uh gravel. You can see the damage in the lower left there. Um from the gravel

[1:05:00] meets the Yeah. If you bring your mouse to the left a little more. Sorry.

[1:05:05] » Yeah. Right there. Yeah. Yeah. That's created because there's no apron. Um so

[1:05:10] maintenance is probably an issue with that for the highway department um at

[1:05:15] some point. It doesn't bother anybody right now. But um but yeah, I mean I I

[1:05:21] just think right now we'd love to see the gate disappear or or at least get to

[1:05:27] where we can safely get a truck in and out and during any kind of emergency

[1:05:32] have better access. That's our concerns. >> So couple questions for

[1:05:38] » those involved here. So heard earlier this is a county road.

[1:05:43] » Yeah, it's county road 21. Yeah.

[1:05:46] » Okay. So, county has jurisdiction over the access, but we've got private

[1:05:51] homeowners farther back as an association. When when was that

[1:05:56] group? When was the development put in? >> 1934.

[1:06:01] So, long time ago. Long time. >> Okay.

[1:06:06] So there's some issues on grandfathering accesses in I mean 1979 was the year

[1:06:13] that the highway access law was put into place. Anything at that point is

[1:06:18] grandfathered in. But then there's also a provision that is as traffic increases

[1:06:23] over time then the provisions of the code will kick in.

[1:06:28] But as a as a county road, you could apply for a C dot highway access permit

[1:06:34] and go in there and do the widening that you needed to. And part of that permit

[1:06:38] would say depending on what the traffic volume

[1:06:43] show, but it may show that left turn del, right turn del, you know, all of

[1:06:48] those auxiliary lanes would be up for for looking at whether they're required

[1:06:53] or not for per for the law. But at a minimum, you could come in first step,

[1:06:59] just widen the access, do what you need to do, and then budget for the larger

[1:07:03] project to come in and do the turn lanes at another point. We would seed dot

[1:07:10] would prefer that this is not on CO rightway and that cattle guard should be

[1:07:15] moved if it stays or if it's taken out. >> Removed. Yeah.

[1:07:19] » Yeah. But if it something needs to say that would be part of the permit is you

[1:07:24] move it off of the seed dot rideway so that it's farther back.

[1:07:29] » So one of the things with with access permitting is

[1:07:33] let's just say that by the book this location warrants a couple turn lanes.

[1:07:39] Okay. >> Mhm.

[1:07:40] » Doesn't have them. So you don't necessarily have to go to that

[1:07:46] extent to do anything if you're just doing a betterment.

[1:07:50] It doesn't necessarily have to meet every standard by the book that we would

[1:07:54] like to see there because it's still better than what you got.

[1:07:58] » So we do have the ability to permit betterments like what you're talking

[1:08:02] about um pretty simply. >> Right.

[1:08:07] One clarifying point on that, that works for a public road. If it's a private

[1:08:14] access, that's not the case. >> The just to reiterate this, I'll say it

[1:08:20] twice. For a public road, you have the option to do things in increments as a

[1:08:25] better.

[1:08:30] And just to be clear, why don't we can just take the cattle guard out,

[1:08:36] » right? There's no >> Yeah, I guess they're saying I can take

[1:08:39] it out.

[1:08:43] » I mean, I think I think our board has really felt like this issue has been

[1:08:47] kind of put aside by the county for quite some time. Um, we brought it up to

[1:08:54] previous commissioners. Um, and I coach volleyball. I've been here for a long

[1:09:00] time, 30 31 years now. Um, and I've actually had some conversations with

[1:09:07] those previous commissioners um, about this. So, we I have some insight as to

[1:09:13] how this kind of went down and was ignored purposely. It was just kind of

[1:09:17] painful and hurtful that, you know, I know my wife pulls out of there every

[1:09:21] day. So, you know, I I think um just moving forward would be nice that it's

[1:09:27] acknowledged. This meeting's amazing. Um that it's acknowledged and it's on the

[1:09:32] radar and it's something that we look to improve. Um yeah, I I really I mean our

[1:09:39] board would love to just see it disappear. It would be uh I think

[1:09:44] honestly cost just to pull it out, put in gravel um is a very low cost to get

[1:09:52] something done like that. So >> how many

[1:09:54] » I would agree. >> How many homes are up there?

[1:09:57] » 70. We have 72 cabins >> and some are seasonal or

[1:10:01] » um yeah, there it's starting to increase getting a lot more year round. In fact,

[1:10:06] I I would say seasonal, but they're using it both winter and summer now. uh

[1:10:10] because we used to not plow all the roads back there, but now we plow

[1:10:14] everything uh with the road improvements that we've made. So, um there's probably

[1:10:19] only 20 residents, give or take, uh now that are permanent year round. Um but I

[1:10:26] I would say the majority of them are are using it in the winter now just for the

[1:10:31] ski cabin effect kind of thing. >> Well, Sean, we'd really like to do the

[1:10:37] work at this point. Yeah, >> that would be great.

[1:10:40] » It seems like a really reasonable request. So, we'll we'll

[1:10:45] try and make it happen. Maybe next next year. I know this year is tight with the

[1:10:50] fire. >> I lost the summer time already.

[1:10:52] » Yeah, I'm sure. >> I I understand. I run a metro district.

[1:10:56] I understand how all works. You got a budget for it, so I'm not expecting this

[1:10:59] to happen in this budget year. I don't know how your guys's budgets are set up,

[1:11:04] but uh but I would hope that we would look to maybe get that on future plans

[1:11:09] for sure. >> We do try and avoid oneoff expenses, but

[1:11:12] » just to make a point, we have done a lot of work on this. Okay.

[1:11:16] » Yeah. A lot. We have changed all the culvers out on it.

[1:11:18] » Yeah. um at the main crossing there. This one was unproposed for one of our

[1:11:24] new bridges, >> but we only had a chance for five and so

[1:11:28] this one was the last one to drop, but that's why we changed to put only covers

[1:11:32] in there. >> Yeah.

[1:11:33] » So, that was one of the first ones we did in that that

[1:11:36] » system of the river flowing down the valley.

[1:11:39] » Make sure it would all flow pretty good. >> Um the beavers like it up there.

[1:11:46] » Yeah. Um there's a couple beaver dams on um Tennessee Creek that are getting

[1:11:53] really close to the highway right away or the highway surface.

[1:11:59] » Can I ask a clarifying question just longer term about future of the road

[1:12:02] itself? Is there so if I'm understanding correctly it only provides access to

[1:12:09] home state. Is there any benefit to homestake or benefit to the county that

[1:12:13] this would this road itself would be conveyed to homestake?

[1:12:18] » I think that was mentioned for sure. Uh we've had several discussions about it.

[1:12:22] Um I think especially after they've done the um the improvements to the to the

[1:12:30] river there access. Um yeah, I mean it it has to get permission from you guys

[1:12:38] to go that direction, but uh and we would have the means. No problem. We

[1:12:42] have the heavy equipment and we have we have a really amazing caretaker who

[1:12:46] would love to pull that gate out. So um but yeah, that I think that comes down

[1:12:52] to you guys giving us access or permission to be a full private road. So

[1:12:58] » Michael, on your side of things, like what is that like? It's about a mile of

[1:13:03] road that we maintain. So, we want to maintain it. Lastly, we do go all the

[1:13:07] way to the clubhouse because we have to turn around and get out where the

[1:13:10] properties start where the property start before the county road actually

[1:13:15] ends. Um, there's no place to turn around there.

[1:13:19] » Yeah. >> Well, that sounds like a solution

[1:13:22] or possible solution. Is there any drawbacks that we lose any funding or

[1:13:26] does it cost more to maintain than >> Well, the the betterment permit will

[1:13:30] only work for a public road, which I think is something we might lean on to

[1:13:34] get the widening done, >> right?

[1:13:39] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:13:40] » Good catch, Andy. >> I mean, it could be problematic for any

[1:13:43] future development is is the only thing out there,

[1:13:46] » right? I mean, you could convey it in such a manner that I think you could

[1:13:51] preserve that with, you know, preserving easements and so forth for the county,

[1:13:55] but but that's the one thing you'd want to think about is the future.

[1:14:00] » Is it something that the county could maintain ownership and delegate

[1:14:06] maintenance? >> We could probably use

[1:14:12] Well, Sean, we're going to follow up with this and we really I'd really like

[1:14:15] to see it. It seems like simple. It seems overly complicated and simple at

[1:14:20] the same time. >> Thank you.

[1:14:22] » So, uh, sorry it took so long. >> Yeah.

[1:14:27] » Jeez, we'll keep following up. I know this has been on Andy's radar for a long

[1:14:31] time. So >> yeah,

[1:14:35] » I think that my impression Andy's brought it up a few times to us and my

[1:14:39] impression has been trying to figure out who is responsible for what has been the

[1:14:42] biggest lift for us as new BOCC and all of our new staff. So now that we're

[1:14:48] here, happy to move on it. >> Yeah,

[1:14:52] » it's clear now. Sometimes it's hard to understand what the past and all that

[1:14:56] stuff, but >> it's great to now have some clarity and

[1:15:00] know that it's got to be on the list. >> I'm also really sorry for how you've

[1:15:05] been treated that you've been working on this for so long and have felt so

[1:15:08] discouraged. It's not how you I'm really sorry about that.

[1:15:12] » It's It's okay. It was just kind of a a stick in the eye when you're out there

[1:15:15] doing fire mitigation and the guy from the fire department's telling you that

[1:15:19] your roads must be to for us to bring a fire truck to your

[1:15:25] house, which is what you want. And you see a fire out your window, which we got

[1:15:30] great views this year. And then you know that he's telling you 20 foot wide and

[1:15:36] you know that the very entrance of your community is not that. So yes, it was uh

[1:15:42] it was why I asked to be on the board. Um uh Homestake, I'm usually pretty busy

[1:15:48] guy other than than that. I run a metro district and I coach for so long. So uh

[1:15:54] I actually asked on it because my wife's had several really close calls out

[1:15:59] there. If you're trying to stop and someone doesn't want to stop behind you

[1:16:03] to turn left to go in there, they go around you and that's really dangerous.

[1:16:08] Yeah. So we just just just just the close calls recently. I just said I we

[1:16:13] have to move forward on this and we got to draw some attention. So that's why

[1:16:17] I'm here. >> Thank you.

[1:16:18] » Yeah. >> Thank you Sean.

[1:16:23] You're welcome. >> We'll follow up.

[1:16:26] » So just to reiterate on the seed process, you would um apply for highway

[1:16:31] access permit. >> Okay.

[1:16:32] » To do any work in the highway rightway. So even widening on the side of the

[1:16:39] highway would require that cuz it's in the rightway.

[1:16:42] » In order to do the betterment, it would have to stay a public road.

[1:16:46] » Correct. Otherwise, you know, the study would potentially require a massive

[1:16:50] improvement. >> And it might be worth doing a study just

[1:16:54] to see what what's there. Anyway, I don't know. You know,

[1:16:57] » we could we do the betterment and have an agreement like you said where the

[1:17:02] homeowners association is maintaining the road with the county owns it. What

[1:17:06] happens beyond the C not right away is between you and the home association.

[1:17:11] » Okay. >> But this is definitely in the C not

[1:17:14] right away. >> Well, I that's what I'm hearing. I I was

[1:17:19] trying to pull it up on my phone, but now I've lost connection on my phone,

[1:17:21] too. So, >> no. What is happening?

[1:17:27] » There there's publicly accessible. You can see the what what C do show us for

[1:17:32] rideway bathrooms also in addition to your county AG. So that's right

[1:17:37] » and that is the same permit process if we're just going to do the Betterment

[1:17:40] who would do the access permit. >> Correct. It's all work at the access and

[1:17:47] it would all fall into that process.

[1:17:53] » Private Go ahead. >> Just something generally to be aware of

[1:17:56] for everyone in this room. We have applied for um the safe streets and

[1:17:59] roads for all grant to take a look at county all county roads. Um this was

[1:18:03] sort of precipitated by what's going on out on county road 4 um at the lake but

[1:18:08] um this would certainly fall into the scope of that of that project and I

[1:18:12] don't know if that you know assists or advances the study you all would need to

[1:18:17] um allow for an additional project in that area or if there's something

[1:18:20] specific they have to do. >> Yeah. So this is a plan for all of the

[1:18:24] county that they have to look at, not just January 4th.

[1:18:29] » This is one of them. So >> I mean things are moving. It's just

[1:18:33] slow. >> On that road study once we have it done

[1:18:39] opens us up to apply for additional grant funding. No.

[1:18:43] » Okay.

[1:18:50] » Okay. Any other issues, Josh, that we need to talk about on 24?

[1:18:54] » I think um so if we're done talking about home state, we do have another uh

[1:18:58] topic for for Highway 24 South. >> Okay.

[1:19:01] » Um the C CPD and public works are currently considering a driveway permit.

[1:19:07] Um at uh yeah, 20 2100 Highway 24 South. Um this is driveway access that drops

[1:19:14] directly down onto Highway 24. So again, we accessed off the state highway. Um,

[1:19:20] and Ann has some background to share on this. I believe we also have Tom Marson

[1:19:26] Engineering should be joining us who has some background on the design of this

[1:19:30] particular site. >> There's a folder in teams that says

[1:19:33] driveway. Do we want to look at the spot?

[1:19:37] » Thank you. I I >> No worries.

[1:19:42] » Um, yeah. So, if you can get to the location, I have sent an email to

[1:19:49] You should be joining us soon here. >> Go a bit further.

[1:19:53] » Oops. Excuse me. >> It's almost to the toxic entrance or

[1:19:59] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Wait a second. Let me just orient

[1:20:03] myself. I do know where it is. Give me a second.

[1:20:07] » It's like up >> here. A little more south.

[1:20:12] » Game changer. >> Game changer.

[1:20:15] There you go. Here it is.

[1:20:20] And then >> right down there. Right where the one

[1:20:24] Yes. >> Yep.

[1:20:26] » Do we want to look at it here? Should I pull up stuff on Teams and Andy will

[1:20:30] share with you? >> Okay. Thank

[1:20:32] » the engineer design for the driveway. >> So, um I've sent a quick email. Tom's

[1:20:37] been multitasking, I think. Um Ed will be joining us in a moment. Hopefully. I

[1:20:42] don't quite see him in attendance yet. Um, so just a little background on this.

[1:20:48] Um, this is the county's access um here um that we allowed the property owner to

[1:20:56] utilize to um for access for their driveway. Um this parcel is one of our

[1:21:03] um favorite probate plat out in um E Hill. And so um our first thought is,

[1:21:11] wow, this is quite the site to develop. Um but it did have a platted um ability

[1:21:17] to access it at this point. They approached Michael about being able to

[1:21:21] use our CO access point and um so they did coordinate with C dot on um the

[1:21:28] access and then this driveway design is something obviously that's been very

[1:21:32] challenging. So when they came in for building permit um and applied for the

[1:21:37] driveway, I did place a stop work order on this um driveway until we could get

[1:21:43] an engineer design on it. Um so they worked with um one design and recently

[1:21:51] um they disengaged with their previous engineer who actually had retired and

[1:21:56] have contracted with Marson Engineering and this is a redesign of the driveway

[1:22:02] access. This gets a lot of um public scrutiny um and concerns from our

[1:22:07] previous board as well as current board about the safety. So, we've worked

[1:22:13] really closely with Brian Kian from C DOT and Candace from C DOT. We've done

[1:22:17] site visits um at the site to look at the engineer design. This was the

[1:22:22] previous design. Michael goes by this obviously every day and is really our um

[1:22:27] eyes in real time to make sure that we have stability of that that slope and

[1:22:32] and safety um to kind of alleviate safety concerns. We do take a lot of um

[1:22:39] concerned comments from the adjacent property owner Paul Irwin in this area.

[1:22:44] And um so this does get elevated to Michael and I often. And um so just

[1:22:50] wanted to include this today to give you kind of a situational update of where we

[1:22:54] are in the process. The building permit has not been extended yet until we can u

[1:23:00] make sure that this new um engineered design is approvable. Um, the driveway

[1:23:06] uh permit needs to be updated with the design. So, Michael today, I think we'll

[1:23:11] have to kind of take that opportunity to hear from um Tom Marson on the new

[1:23:15] design. Hopefully, there he is. Tom is with us

[1:23:19] and you can kind of um before we introduce Tom, is there any questions

[1:23:25] that you have in regards to kind of the history and what led us to where we are

[1:23:28] today? >> I do have a little bit more history to

[1:23:30] add to that. Access is actually

[1:23:35] um approved and permitted by C do prior to these people owning this property was

[1:23:42] for an adjacent property that had to use the same access would be a public road,

[1:23:47] not technically a county road because it's in that subdivision,

[1:23:52] but that's why the county had to approve them accessing CO because it is a public

[1:23:57] road and that was permitted in that

[1:24:03] the early 2000s 2005 someone there um and I believe it was I think they've

[1:24:10] been trying to sell their property because they realize that they cannot

[1:24:14] access their property. >> Yeah. Be able to again you have the

[1:24:19] appropriate plots which consider access without taking into account really doing

[1:24:24] the engineering work and topography that it would need to make these feasible.

[1:24:28] So, it was the John White property that originally petitioned the county for the

[1:24:32] ability to to use the access to put in the road, but that road design has never

[1:24:38] come to fruition. >> Um, so this is the first improvement

[1:24:41] that's coming off of that in the form of the driveway.

[1:24:44] » So, and just to be clear, when he got his construction permit,

[1:24:50] he didn't have a driveway permit. >> He did.

[1:24:52] » He did. >> Oh.

[1:24:53] » Um, he did, but it >> was from Ceda. And then when I know that

[1:24:56] the first permit was issued by Michael, >> um, but when we did a bit of review

[1:25:03] looking at the attributes of the driveway and then started seeing the

[1:25:07] actual earth work happening on site, I actually I I did a stop work um and I

[1:25:14] spoke about it and and I gave him direction that he needed to bring in an

[1:25:17] engineer design. we were considered. We were um concerned about a lot of the

[1:25:21] design elements of this driveway >> and so we did a stop a stop work order

[1:25:26] and and then that was the the first time we ever seen the engineered design and

[1:25:31] then um Tom has come in and redefined that design.

[1:25:35] » Okay. >> So can I just ask one more question?

[1:25:40] » Actually two because that was the first one. Um

[1:25:43] let's see. Uh, so when did all this has this been because that's been built

[1:25:47] that's been going on for 3 years. >> A really good question of how long um I

[1:25:54] would say I think this was right when I took over the directorship. So I think

[1:25:58] it was right in 2022 >> that we started um on this project.

[1:26:03] » Okay. >> All right. Thank you.

[1:26:07] Just a little more background to you that when Michael says public road and

[1:26:12] talks about the probate courts, probate courts have the ability to essentially

[1:26:17] subdivide property without county approval. They can go in and any court

[1:26:22] can go in and issue an order. And so what happened is this property all got

[1:26:26] essentially subdivided these lots through court process, not a

[1:26:32] county process. And the court

[1:26:36] uh put on the plat that these are public roads even though I don't think we've

[1:26:43] officially accepted any of those roads or maintain them. So public roads is

[1:26:48] kind of a a loose term not necessarily a county road but it's really a little bit

[1:26:54] undefined what public road means in the context.

[1:26:59] » Isn't there access from up above too? >> That's where the contention comes in.

[1:27:04] » Okay. Right. >> And that belongs to

[1:27:08] all. >> So, I'm jumping ahead of

[1:27:14] » We went we we went with previous council and looked at what the plaque showed,

[1:27:18] but we couldn't establish um an easement that could be utilized in order to gain

[1:27:24] access from up. And that was the first solution that we tried to uh when I put

[1:27:29] in the stop work orders, the first thing I started working with our previous land

[1:27:33] use council to see if we could go back and establish access from a better

[1:27:37] bearing point, a more reasonable access. Um but we were unable to do that and we

[1:27:43] did not have the cooperation from the adjacent property owner.

[1:27:46] » Okay.

[1:27:49] » All right. Well, shall we hear from Morrison Engineering?

[1:27:54] How's the How's it going out there on the driveway?

[1:27:59] » How's I haven't looked at it in a little bit, but we did drop some plans. Um, it

[1:28:05] was pretty much a redesign from the original permitted plan because there

[1:28:10] was some unique features in the permanent plan set that we didn't

[1:28:14] understand why they were there or how they could be built. They include a the

[1:28:20] original plan said had an approximate 18 foot wall on the fill slope which is

[1:28:25] this the steeper cobble slope that faces the highway and a six foot wall uphill

[1:28:31] side. It had a 30 foot wide uh platform on top

[1:28:37] that these return walls were built. We a normal driveway width is 12 feet

[1:28:44] wide. So why they drew it at 30 ft wide, I don't know. And there was again a

[1:28:49] retaining wall on the downhill side that started partially

[1:28:54] up the the steep slope. So it wasn't protecting all the steep slope. This

[1:28:58] proposed retaining wall. Talking the Thompsons, they didn't want to build a

[1:29:04] fill wall. I don't think they need to build a build a fill wall. That means on

[1:29:09] the the downhill side putting in a wall and filling.

[1:29:14] So maybe we could look at our plans. Chance, I have my uh colleague Chance.

[1:29:19] So my name is Tom Marson. I'm a civil engineer and land surveyor. I own Marson

[1:29:25] Engineering. I've been practicing in the mountain since 1995 is my background.

[1:29:32] Marson Engineering is about 20 personnel.

[1:29:36] We >> Yeah, if the host can enable a screen

[1:29:39] share, we can pull up some of our plans. Surely.

[1:29:48] » Oops.

[1:29:56] » Okay, you should have screen sharing ability and I might have accidentally

[1:30:00] muted you. Sorry.

[1:30:19] Oops.

[1:30:26] » Nice. We can see that. Um, but you're still muted. Just FYI.

[1:30:33] » She's good. Okay. >> Give us a moment.

[1:30:40] Is that large enough on an advisor's end?

[1:30:43] » Sure. >> Mhm.

[1:30:46] » Okay. So, this sheet we call our site plan. It

[1:30:50] helps us get orientated with uh what's going on out there. The you

[1:30:56] can see highway 24 and then you see a lightly gray shaded um

[1:31:02] road that goes up up the hill. That is what they've built to date.

[1:31:08] Um, and that roughly matches the original design plan with the exception

[1:31:14] of Can you guys see my cursor? >> Yeah.

[1:31:20] » Around here there was scheduled to be an 18t wall

[1:31:24] and for the request of the Thompsons and we

[1:31:29] don't see why it was needed. We've we've eliminated that wall and that steep

[1:31:33] slope. But to get the proper slope layback, the road had to move over into

[1:31:39] the hill a little bit u from the alignment that they built. So the darker

[1:31:45] shaded area is is the engineered road that we've drawn.

[1:31:52] Um a slight variance in the we're

[1:31:56] requesting a variance which I don't think should be a big deal. At the entry

[1:31:59] it's a 40 foot radius and at the switchback it's a also a 40 foot radius.

[1:32:04] in total uh 50

[1:32:09] by the land use code.

[1:32:13] So, we'll need some retaining walls. You can see the bright green, that's a green

[1:32:18] space. It's a two two-tiered boulder retaining walls. What's proposed on the

[1:32:22] uphill side? Um the downhill side will just be

[1:32:26] graded. And I know there's a lot of concern

[1:32:30] there. So, we did some studies and I'm gonna have Chance look the pages here

[1:32:40] section. >> Yeah, we'll just cut to the deep steeper

[1:32:43] part.

[1:32:47] Um, flip up to the plan view again. So, see

[1:32:52] those crosssections? What about the cross-sections?

[1:33:00] this one. Okay, scroll in. So, you see numbers like 5 plus 0 0

[1:33:09] uh four 4 plus 0 0. That's where these cross-sections are drawn. 4 plus 0 0 4 +

[1:33:15] 50 5 plus 0. And now we'll go back and look at the cross-sections.

[1:33:32] Um, let's go to

[1:33:38] here's an example of of what we're proposing. It also

[1:33:43] indicates what they've built. You see that the blue line?

[1:33:50] That's the steepest we'd want to stack um this type of

[1:33:55] mater one and a half to one. So for every foot of drop, we need to go a half

[1:34:00] horizontally. Uh we have a more conservative design

[1:34:05] with a dash line that's a 1.7 to one and you can see what the existing slope is.

[1:34:13] We did an analysis. We did the initial topo on this property

[1:34:18] and some of this has been disturbed but not greatly. We compared the topos about

[1:34:25] the same. So this slope had been standing at at that layback for

[1:34:31] um you know probably decades if not longer.

[1:34:37] We just pulled the road platform back. You can see where they've currently

[1:34:40] built the road platform. And then at the tip of our blue line

[1:34:46] here, you can see where the proposed road platform is. This is one of the

[1:34:49] worst uh crosssections, meaning more challenging sections to get through. And

[1:34:55] there's quite a bit of cut on the uphill side that's not 100% refined, but we get

[1:35:00] the idea that they're going to have to move some material around to get this to

[1:35:04] work.

[1:35:07] Uh the red line that's vertical on this cross-section indicates the right of

[1:35:11] way. You know, on the left side, it's the the highway rightway. On the right

[1:35:15] side is the private property of that vertical red line. And then the edge of

[1:35:20] traveled way is marked with an X and a and a little tag on the far left side

[1:35:24] there.

[1:35:28] At 1.5 to one or flatter, it's not likely that a boulder will roll

[1:35:37] or if it does, it won't go very far. It'll alter to the toe of the slope, but

[1:35:42] we're going to stop that they remove any loose scree or boulders on there. And we

[1:35:49] would anticipate that that the material would be stable after that.

[1:35:56] Hold on.

[1:36:00] » Wait, can can I get clarification on that real quick? You're going to request

[1:36:04] that they remove any loose boulders or any loose debris.

[1:36:08] » Is that what Yeah. Yeah.

[1:36:11] » Okay. Thanks. >> Who who would who would be responsible

[1:36:14] for ensuring that that's happening? >> Well, the

[1:36:21] uh the contractor would be the one responsible to make that happen. And I

[1:36:25] think the county has requested that we do periodic inspections on the

[1:36:28] construction of this work. So, we'll go out and

[1:36:33] u confirm that they've built this to what we intended them to build to.

[1:36:38] » Great. Thank you.

[1:36:42] » Hey Tom, this is Michael. I do have a question if you want to go back to where

[1:36:46] the access is to the highway. >> I believe the speed up permit says that

[1:36:50] has to be a 90° access from the highway.

[1:36:55] » And I think it turns really quick, maybe leaving the highway.

[1:37:00] » Okay, let's Our screen's got to catch up. Just hold on.

[1:37:04] » Yeah, it's trying. There you go.

[1:37:10] Okay. So, you can see in the light lighter gray shading, that's what

[1:37:14] they've built. And you can see in the darker gray

[1:37:18] shading, that's what we've designed. So, we have a 40 foot tangent per the C dot

[1:37:23] access code. So, it's a 40 foot straightaway 90 degrees to highway 24.

[1:37:30] Um, so,

[1:37:33] so it will be a 90 degree um axis. Okay.

[1:37:39] » The original plan was not drawn that way.

[1:37:42] » Ends right there in that in the green section. That's all the right away

[1:37:46] that's permitted with the seat out permit.

[1:37:52] That 40ft toner looks good. >> We realize that in these challenging

[1:37:56] terrain situations, it's not always possible. So, it's good to see that much

[1:38:02] is possible.

[1:38:08] Who was just making those comments? Uh, >> it's Mark Bunnel from Ced.

[1:38:13] » Do you guys ever allow a variance to the 40 foot tangent?

[1:38:18] uh occasionally the

[1:38:23] » it's the variance would be more on the the 40 foot length because we want that

[1:38:28] passenger car to be able to pull up and have good sight line both directions.

[1:38:35] So it would be more about shortening the 40 foot before we would entertain

[1:38:41] uh something that's not perpendicular to the highway.

[1:38:47] Um, sure. So, that's that's where I was going. We've been meaning to reach out

[1:38:51] to you and we've kept catch you live in front of everybody, but uh um it might

[1:38:56] help these guys a little bit where we see that green wall or we see a boulder,

[1:39:00] a green space, and a boulder wall. We'd be able to reduce that a little bit if

[1:39:04] we could reduce that tangent. But I wanted to get this concept in front of

[1:39:08] everybody. If it's if it's liked, this is a 90% set. If it's not liked, then

[1:39:14] we'll, you know, we'll go back to the drawing

[1:39:17] board and and tweak it per the requests of this meeting or

[1:39:22] from the county. But, um,

[1:39:27] regardless of that radius is proposed at 40, that tangent might be able to be

[1:39:31] reduced a little bit, but it will be a 90 degree axis.

[1:39:35] Um once we get up to station 2 plus 0 0 we'll be in that alignment.

[1:39:43] So reducing that tangent would just pull this out of the hillside a little bit

[1:39:47] and less walls would need to be built less earthwork.

[1:39:52] But again, this alignment once we get through this uh

[1:39:57] these corners would would follow the same track.

[1:40:08] » Yeah, you answered my question. >> So, just talk with go through Brian

[1:40:14] Kellian on that request on the variance.

[1:40:26] or Nick if you're at that stage in the process. Nick, no request.

[1:40:36] » Um,

[1:40:40] so just really from um 0 plus 40, which it means 40T from the

[1:40:46] highway to 2 plus 0. That would be just modified a little bit if we could

[1:40:51] shorten up that tangent, but otherwise the the road going up the slope, uh the

[1:40:56] driveway would be remain in its same location. We're proposing a 16 foot wide

[1:41:01] platform and that's what's drafted here and

[1:41:04] shaded with 12 feet being the traveled way and a 4ft buffer

[1:41:10] uh for guard rail or they might want to do earth and burm or

[1:41:14] boulders or something. But there needs to be some protection to prevent

[1:41:18] vehicles from going over the side of this boat.

[1:41:30] We have a a pull out proposed up at the switchback.

[1:41:35] Since they've already graded that area, it's not a big deal for them to in

[1:41:39] install that. We probably

[1:41:44] place one at the midpoint between the entry and the uh switchback. Also, less

[1:41:50] robust that you see there.

[1:42:02] So, kind of our hope today was to bring Tom in, answer any um questions about

[1:42:07] the design that the board had. Um, also let you know that this will be put into

[1:42:13] final review and then final approval of the driveway would be in um Michael's

[1:42:18] court to review the design um approve potential variances from the county

[1:42:24] standpoint and then um direct them to work with Brian um or C do on any

[1:42:31] variance requested on the access permit. Um, wanted to create some awareness that

[1:42:37] that's where your staff is working on ensuring the safety of this driveway and

[1:42:42] and ensuring compliance with our code is as well as working with CO for

[1:42:46] compliance on the access. So happy to answer any questions you might have.

[1:42:51] Thank you.

[1:42:55] » I don't have any questions. Uh, Andy, do you have any questions? you know, I

[1:43:01] don't have this spells things out really clearly for me and will give me a little

[1:43:06] bit of information to relay back to any concerned public members. Um, and all of

[1:43:13] this information that we're looking at right now, is that something that you

[1:43:17] have ready access to to allay um concerns? I mean, this has been a a

[1:43:25] pretty contentious topic. Um, I know that the BOCC has been uh

[1:43:32] um approached in in not entirely professional manners about how this

[1:43:37] whole thing's been um handled. And I just want to make sure that we we can

[1:43:43] get all this information out to the people who who might have the wrong idea

[1:43:47] about how all this is going down. >> Absolutely. This information is

[1:43:52] available in the teams folder. We provided the preliminary design like um

[1:43:56] Thomas indicated that we're at like 90%. So we haven't fully approved this yet.

[1:44:00] It's still in review, but this everything that we have in the building

[1:44:04] department um is transparent and sharable. So um but this particular

[1:44:09] design is in your team's folder now.

[1:44:14] » Okay, great. Thanks. I'm try I've been trying to open it and it's like real

[1:44:17] glitchy, but maybe it's um because I'm trying I'm on my computer watching the

[1:44:22] meeting and I'm trying to open it on a mobile device. So, it's probably it

[1:44:26] probably takes a lot of processing power to look at these files.

[1:44:31] » We'll go ahead and just um I can send it directly to your email if you'd like.

[1:44:39] » That would be great. Thank you.

[1:44:48] Well, Mark, thanks for working on that. We appreciate it. And uh keep keep an

[1:44:53] eye on them and we'll move forward with this.

[1:44:59] » We'll try and move forward.

[1:45:03] » Thank you.

[1:45:07] » You're welcome everybody. >> There's any further questions, let me

[1:45:11] know. Appreciate it.

[1:45:16] » No questions from us and good luck.

[1:45:23] » All right. Thank you. >> Okay.

[1:45:27] Okay. So, a real quick uh interview before we completely leave the the state

[1:45:32] highways and move to this the discussion about the the Grand Canyon USI

[1:45:35] deliveries. Just for board awareness, um a recent development and I saw Kurt

[1:45:40] Schweer was here a moment ago. Looks like he had to step out. But um Kurt had

[1:45:44] approached the Friends of Twin Lakes board in the county about potentially

[1:45:47] collaborating on a grant um down in in uh Twin Lakes. It was a DOT grant

[1:45:54] specifically around federal lands access. Um and they were thinking

[1:45:58] creatively about how they could utilize this funding to create safer access and

[1:46:03] crossings um from the village side uh onto the federal land. The parking area,

[1:46:08] rest area, and the trails are over there. Um given the timeline of that

[1:46:12] grant, you know, both friends of film lakes and the county really didn't have

[1:46:16] capacity to pursue that. We need to really think through what a partnership

[1:46:19] could potentially look like related to that. But um one thing that did come out

[1:46:23] of the discussion that we've been running down on uh the county side um as

[1:46:27] friends of Twin Lakes has asked for us to place some traffic counters right

[1:46:31] down there at the village so we can get a a good count and some data for

[1:46:35] potential future grant applications that might consider some safety measures

[1:46:39] across Highway 82 there. So um nothing more for real discussion at this point

[1:46:43] unless you have questions, but that was just an awareness item for everyone. I

[1:46:47] think we're we're we have one piece of information left uh to get the approval

[1:46:52] » traffic control.

[1:46:56] Put a traffic counter across >> there.

[1:47:00] All I have to get the permit. >> Do you have you have your own counter?

[1:47:04] » Yeah. >> The two counters.

[1:47:10] » Yeah. And so we're hopeful to have that place

[1:47:13] for Labor Day weekend to get a kind of a busy weekend down there to get a really

[1:47:16] sense of the the traffic counts, but unfortunately Kurt's not here to say

[1:47:20] thank you directly to, but we appreciate them sort of thinking through those

[1:47:23] partnerships and bringing that our attention down there. So

[1:47:28] » um any questions about that one or go ahead and move ahead?

[1:47:33] » Okay, Mr. Day, I believe we'll pass the the microphone to you to give us some

[1:47:37] background on the semi trucks. >> Sure. Sure. It's Grand West Estates and

[1:47:42] um you know I guess I just want to take the opportunity to to thank M and his

[1:47:47] team. It's taken a few years but you know we've made there have been a number

[1:47:51] of improvements made there. Additional speed limit signs and in strategic

[1:47:56] places um the little yellow tags that say what do they say? No no no exit or

[1:48:03] » no exit you know on the culde-sac roads. Um striping on the on the highway was

[1:48:09] refreshed a couple of years ago. Um what else did you do? Um

[1:48:15] » signs we did paint yellow lines on the road.

[1:48:20] » The yellow tags

[1:48:24] on that road. That's what's in the package. A lot of information from the

[1:48:29] county. So, um, thank you. >> So, I just wanted to thank thank the

[1:48:34] county and Michael in particular for, you know, for doing all of that.

[1:48:39] actually met all our our requests except for for one that has a se dot

[1:48:43] implication as well that not just um county road 99 but other county roads

[1:48:49] are are weight limited for for heavy trucks, you know, but if you're driving

[1:48:54] down a state highway, um you have no way to know until you make the the turn that

[1:49:01] that is a county road and it's it's weight restricted. So, I guess my, you

[1:49:06] know, my question is, is there is there any way to put signage, you know, when

[1:49:11] you're entering the county on on state highways to, you know, indicate that

[1:49:16] that county roads are, you know, are weight limited. Otherwise, you know, a

[1:49:21] semi-truck turning, you know, turning on to County 99, you know, sees the weight

[1:49:26] limit sign, you know, maybe 50 feet on down the county road, but, you know, has

[1:49:30] no choice but to, you know, but to keep going. So, how, you know, just from a

[1:49:35] general perspective, is there any way to to alert, you know, truck drivers to to

[1:49:41] wait restricted roads before they actually turn on to them?

[1:49:46] » Yeah. So, it's it's not a problem. I mean, we can absolutely permit a sign

[1:49:49] that says, you know, intersection ahead, name of the intersection, maybe it has a

[1:49:54] placard that says weight restrict or something like that. It's no problem at

[1:49:58] all. >> So, what's the procedure for doing that?

[1:50:01] send us a request and what the sign would look like and we would do a simple

[1:50:06] special use permit for that. Okay. >> Okay. And I know the agenda item had an

[1:50:12] intriguing thing about about semi trucks, you know, and um you know, there

[1:50:18] was one issue a few years ago where this came to point that Loop and Lane is one

[1:50:22] of the culde-sac roads off of County 99 and in the middle of the winter, you

[1:50:26] know, a semi-truck had had turned right onto Loop and Lane, gone up the hill,

[1:50:32] you know, and then there was a culde-sac turnaround and gotten completely stuck.

[1:50:35] Um why? Google Maps must have told them, you know, what to do and they, you know,

[1:50:41] that's why the the yellow tails are helpful to indicate the culde-sac roads

[1:50:45] have no have no exit. So, that was the intriguing uh teaser on the on the

[1:50:51] agenda item. It only happened once, but it created, you know, quite a bit of

[1:50:55] chaos to get that truck, you know, I think they had to back out or something.

[1:51:00] I don't I don't remember the particulars. Um, so, um, the only other

[1:51:06] issue with County 99 that that we broached both to Michael and and the

[1:51:12] sheriff was was enforcement. It's turned into a real racetrack. Um, there have

[1:51:18] been several several accidents. Um Dan may know about this on the you know as

[1:51:24] you're going west and you make the curb and you go down towards Leadville

[1:51:28] Junction. There have been several several cars that have you know gone off

[1:51:32] the road at a high rate of speed on the downhill side actually knock trees down.

[1:51:37] One of them a couple years ago just broke a tree. I don't think it was a

[1:51:40] fatality, but you know, but um you know, increased enforcement, not on just on

[1:51:47] 99, but on all county roads, I think, is is um you know, is is warranted

[1:51:54] recognizing the resource limitations, but but there's uh you know, there's a

[1:51:59] lot of speeding on on County 99. I think Nabel can probably attest to that as

[1:52:04] well. Um um so you know so greater enforcement um it'd be real easy for a

[1:52:11] sheriff's deputy to park on one of the culde-sacs and just do a radar hit as of

[1:52:16] traffic uh traffic going by. Um, you know, so that's just our, you know, our

[1:52:22] last request is some way, you know, to increase enforcement, not just on this

[1:52:26] road, but, you know, but all county roads. And again, it'd be interesting to

[1:52:30] know, you know, how many speeding tickets have been issued on county road

[1:52:34] 99 if >> the exact way everybody uses and they go

[1:52:39] from 99 to get on to 24, but then it's 90,

[1:52:44] » four, then five. It just continues. maps will actually route you that

[1:52:49] direction if you're coming from the south 24.

[1:52:53] » Mhm. >> You know what else I noticed too is it's

[1:52:56] a great right where the trees end there. That's a great place to throw your beer

[1:53:01] cans. >> Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. It's a

[1:53:06] » that the both sides of the road this thing are just lined with garbage.

[1:53:10] » Yeah. we're easily able to assess what the drinking trends are in Lake County

[1:53:15] just by picking up trash along that along that road. Um but again, did the

[1:53:21] traffic count? So, so we'll see because because of all the traffic um you know,

[1:53:25] but but um appreciate appreciate the efforts to uh you know to uh you know to

[1:53:32] make those improvements. It only took three or four years, not six years. So I

[1:53:37] guess we feel very lucky. tenacity as its uh rewards, Pete.

[1:53:46] » Okay. Shall we move on to this next item and let Are you all done? Josh, how can

[1:53:52] we follow up? Who's going to follow up on that? So,

[1:53:54] » I do have some information to share. I know it's in the package, but

[1:53:57] » Okay. >> Just some speed statistics on that road.

[1:54:01] » It's really scary. >> 95% of the people drive faster than 90.

[1:54:08] » Yes. 90 miles an hour. >> Yeah, that speed was recorded at 99.3.

[1:54:13] » I'm sorry. You said 90% of the people who drive on that road go 90 miles an

[1:54:18] hour. >> 95% 95 percentile is higher than 90

[1:54:24] miles an hour. 85.9. >> Wow.

[1:54:26] » Oh, the 90th percentile. >> 95%.

[1:54:29] Whoa. That's super different. Wasn't there a little uh underground um kind of

[1:54:36] racing scene that was popping up over there by Leadville Junction for a

[1:54:40] minute? Like I could I felt like I could hear them from Leadville North and uh

[1:54:46] you could and then you could see the burnout marks everywhere. Um I thought

[1:54:50] that was but I haven't heard it in in in a year or so maybe. But it was something

[1:54:53] that I wonder if anybody had any uh recollection of.

[1:54:59] No, they just like speeding on that road.

[1:55:01] » Yeah, >> they're in a hurry.

[1:55:04] » Yeah, that I mean, you're talking about, you know, maybe speed cameras on on

[1:55:09] state highways, but certainly there's also opportunities for speed cameras on

[1:55:14] on county roads, especially where there are the big, you know, the big

[1:55:18] straightaways. Um,

[1:55:22] » I'm honestly curious what he's like patrolling is like.

[1:55:27] I think this has come up multiple times in this room and we haven't really got I

[1:55:32] do wish he was here today. We haven't really gotten much of an answer from him

[1:55:35] about patrolling practices,

[1:55:40] especially in some of these hot spots around the county.

[1:55:44] » That's a good question, Elsa. I feel like Mountain View kind of funnels right

[1:55:47] into the whole Leadville North area, too. And it's the same sort of situation

[1:55:53] all the way down Mountain View. It's really hard to pull out. It's a 30 mph

[1:55:57] speed limit, but nobody drives 30 on Mountain View.

[1:56:02] » I do. >> I do.

[1:56:04] » Just to be clear, >> I do.

[1:56:06] » I catch myself sometimes. >> Low speed on this road, too, at 9.2

[1:56:10] miles. >> There's Michael around again.

[1:56:15] » Holding up traffic. >> Yeah, it's boring to go that speed on

[1:56:19] that speed.

[1:56:23] » Get a copy of it. We can have that. >> Oh, perfect. Thank you.

[1:56:28] » Well, one way to increase speeds is to repave everything. So, that's next on

[1:56:33] our uh agenda here, the 2026 pavement pole repair schedule.

[1:56:41] » Thank you guys so much, >> guys. Thanks for coming.

[1:56:43] » You bet. >> Thank you so much.

[1:56:46] » Thank you. >> Yeah, I think I get out.

[1:56:49] » Okay, Sean. >> Have a good day. Appreciate you.

[1:56:51] » Thank you. Thanks, Charlie.

[1:56:56] Um, can we pull up the website information on the website?

[1:57:02] » The website. >> Lake County website.

[1:57:05] » Yes. >> Lake County website.

[1:57:07] » Go to the Google or the Chrome. >> Yeah.

[1:57:11] » Which one? What are we pulling up? >> Um, go to road bridge or public works.

[1:57:19] » Bridge. >> Public works. Road bridge.

[1:57:25] down the bottom is on the side for the last tab on the left side

[1:57:31] » plan for the next five years.

[1:57:35] » Could we screen share this if you guys are looking at something I can't see?

[1:57:39] » Yes. Thank you, Andy. >> Thank you.

[1:57:49] So currently everything in the light blue color is what we're supposedly

[1:57:54] doing this year until we just got cut out from our asphalt source.

[1:57:59] » Oh, really? Bummer. >> Um because they weren't able to make

[1:58:02] enough material being shut down with the willow fire. So

[1:58:06] » got it. >> Um I'm working on backup plan of buying

[1:58:11] asphalt from BV again. Um, it just means higher price asphalt.

[1:58:17] So, I haven't figured out exactly what I have to cut out of this year right now.

[1:58:22] Um, >> our asphalt plants off of

[1:58:24] » the RSA plant will not be operational. Um, people that are out there that were

[1:58:30] out there making are out there making asphalt right now. So, it would be 3 to

[1:58:35] 5 million to replace that or to bring it up to specification.

[1:58:39] » No operation. So, $30,000 in there is not going to touch it in my budget.

[1:58:46] » Dang. >> Um, but we have started county road 11

[1:58:51] already. We've got the east side lane almost to Highway 300.

[1:58:58] » Um, the other side we got about 50% before they quit making asphalt for us.

[1:59:04] Um, so we will definitely finish that. We need to get asphalt over the bridge

[1:59:09] on county road 5A. The blue kind of blue dot over on that corner of the loop.

[1:59:16] » Um I would would love to do 9D and the bottom of Mountain View cuz there are a

[1:59:24] lot of traffic and they're pretty well torn up. Mount that part of Mount View

[1:59:28] was not the big project going from Mount V from Highway 24 to um Silver Hills.

[1:59:41] Once we get if we can get a lot of this done, that ties a whole lot of

[1:59:46] roads that everybody uses 100% use at some point or another. And

[1:59:53] then the next few years, we can start looking at moving into town doing

[1:59:58] streets. I was just talking to Matt earlier about writing some letters to

[2:00:02] get them out to residents, utilities, and stuff that if they're going to need

[2:00:08] to put something in the road like sewer lines, gas lines, water lines that they

[2:00:12] get it done >> before this time because they won't be

[2:00:16] allowed to do it afterwards for at least two years. Correct. Um, so we don't have

[2:00:21] like what happened out here on Sixth Street where they repaved it and the

[2:00:25] next year they're kept it up or cut it up and they're doing more of it now.

[2:00:32] » So looking at there is a legend. You probably can't

[2:00:36] see it, but the next year is Red Lines. >> Mhm. 2027.

[2:00:43] And there's those streets in town, but there's also some down towards Twin

[2:00:48] Lakes and some patching down around toward Fin Lakes.

[2:01:04] The >> room 10 down there is a big one, but I'm

[2:01:07] also looking at some other options with that one because the asphalt is actually

[2:01:10] still in pretty good condition. It just it's cracked and the cracks are sinking.

[2:01:15] So, if I can get those filled up and maybe do a couple of chip seals over the

[2:01:19] top of it, kind of like we did the airport.

[2:01:21] » Yeah. >> Um I know it's airport's coming back,

[2:01:24] but that was like six or seven years ago. Um I get some more life out of that

[2:01:29] asphalt cuz it's actually good asphalt. A lot of our asphalts are really good.

[2:01:33] That's why I'm just doing overlays right now and then come back and do um chip

[2:01:38] seals over the top of them to make them go another 10 to 15 years.

[2:01:43] » And like Grand West, we've done we did with Grand West and a bunch of those

[2:01:46] roads out there >> and they're all in really good condition

[2:01:49] still. So, >> yeah.

[2:01:51] » Um that's our plan. Um and like I said,

[2:01:56] there is a legend on there someplace. I just don't know where it is. I think

[2:01:59] it's behind where the cameras are. >> It is upper right hand corner. Um, but

[2:02:02] you can see all the years broken out up to 2030. And it also has our bridge

[2:02:08] projects on there that we're supposed to be doing. Um, this summer we're supposed

[2:02:13] to be doing one for the Forest Service up in Half Moon Creek. Um, we we're

[2:02:19] supplying labor, but it's part of that grant, too.

[2:02:24] Um, I was hoping to get be able to get two this summer, but I don't even have

[2:02:29] the bridge for can't even for order yet. I'm still waiting on engineering.

[2:02:36] » So, that will probably be next to the bridge.

[2:02:41] » County Road 4 is up in the air. We just don't know what we're going to do there.

[2:02:47] » Yeah. I mean, the bridge is being designed. It's almost to where they can

[2:02:50] order it. >> Oh, I see. if they're just working with

[2:02:52] the bridge people to make sure it fits in everything in there right now. Okay.

[2:02:56] » So, the final plan should be available to construct the bridge or to

[2:03:01] manufacture it. Um I just don't know if we'll get it in the ground this year.

[2:03:05] » To clarify, that's not at the turquoise closure,

[2:03:08] » right? >> Yeah, that is that one is still very

[2:03:10] much up in the air. useful. >> And I think um for just bigger picture,

[2:03:17] this this um agenda item was I think a commissioner bulk request and part of it

[2:03:22] was to provide you all some information as to how to respond as you're getting a

[2:03:26] lot of public comment and people reaching out to you about what's going

[2:03:29] on with XYZ Road. >> Yes. Um, one of the things that we

[2:03:33] realized through one of the outreaches is that um, for some reason the color

[2:03:39] coding got turned off on this map and so it's always been public and available

[2:03:43] for people to look at the coming year's paving plans, but um, all of the lines

[2:03:47] were showing as black for some reason. So Michael and and Ann worked with

[2:03:51] Shelby to get this updated so that it's it's showing according to the legend

[2:03:55] now. So, at least gives about a fiveyear outlook um in terms of what we're

[2:03:59] planning. Um and you know, Michael kind of referenced this, but sort of a lot of

[2:04:05] headwinds going against us this year in in terms of getting a lot of this

[2:04:09] accomplished. So, the fire obviously stalled everything that had this

[2:04:13] reciprocal effect of u being able to make asphalt. Um the the folks at United

[2:04:18] companies who we have the agreement with are working on the highway 24 projects

[2:04:22] both north and south of town. Um, so they have basically they have enough

[2:04:27] asphalt to do those projects, but no more to sell to us at the reduced rate,

[2:04:31] which is kind of what our agreement stood at. So

[2:04:33] » they they did supply the contracted amount to us. So I can't complain about

[2:04:36] that. >> They they told us that they give us

[2:04:39] a,000 tons at no cost for using the pavement material.

[2:04:44] » And I could purchase more at $79 that time instead of $95 a time. Mhm.

[2:04:50] » But because they weren't able to crush all the material they needed, um they're

[2:04:55] strapped with what they can do for C dot. So,

[2:04:59] » okay. Yeah, I guess helpful like having now

[2:05:02] looked at this, you know, summer 2026 what we've planned. This is all planned

[2:05:07] based on it's timely because we're having the budget discussions for next

[2:05:10] year, how much we want to put towards paving towards, you know, across all

[2:05:14] departments, but in particular as you look at this, if it raises any questions

[2:05:19] or concerns about should we be doing more, why isn't this getting done versus

[2:05:24] that, that's certainly the time if you have any guidance for us about how you

[2:05:28] would want to budget for that for this coming year. Um we we can plug that into

[2:05:32] the budget numbers that you ultimately have presented in a couple months a

[2:05:36] month and a half or so. >> I think it's important to note that

[2:05:39] because he Michael and you know road bridge fund any money he did not spend

[2:05:44] this year does not leave his fund. >> It is still in the fund.

[2:05:49] » We would just be bud. So, you know, when you do your budget, you've got your

[2:05:52] beginning fund balance, your revenue, your expenditure, your ending fund

[2:05:56] balance, and that ending fund balance just can't be in the negative. So, I

[2:06:01] feel like I should explain this because I think there was some misunderstanding

[2:06:05] of the public. Anytime we don't touch the money in a fund, it just stays in

[2:06:11] the fund and is available for use the next year. I think there are a lot of uh

[2:06:15] comments about deficit spending and especially in the Ronin Bridge fund. If

[2:06:20] something changes and we didn't get to a certain amount of paving this year, that

[2:06:25] money is available. We just plan it. We plan to use it. We show that we plan to

[2:06:30] use part of that fund balance. It's not really deficit spending,

[2:06:35] especially if you built up the reserve. Um, which we have. We've built up the

[2:06:41] reserve across many of our funds. Um, so in terms of like the road and bridge, if

[2:06:46] we plan to do more next year, you know, based on what Michael knows he can

[2:06:50] accomplish, we're okay to touch that money we did not spend this year because

[2:06:54] it's sitting in his fund available for use. So I think that is also helpful,

[2:06:59] you know, to know. It's not like, you know, if you're in the general fund like

[2:07:02] Ann's right here, she's in the general fund. She doesn't keep a balance. That

[2:07:08] rolls back up to our general fund reserve, but it's a little different.

[2:07:12] » Yeah. Candace, >> go ahead. Go ahead, Andy.

[2:07:17] » Oh, um, I was gonna say, is that like a good talking point for um the convert

[2:07:22] like converse uh questions we get as well when people are like, "Oh, well,

[2:07:27] you didn't spend any money on snow plowing this winter, so why aren't my

[2:07:31] roads getting paved?" Is that kind of like the same way you'd want to talk

[2:07:35] about that as well? >> Yeah. I can't take money that was And

[2:07:39] that's not how dual budgets work. I can't take money that was appropriated

[2:07:42] for one purpose. You guys did a supplemental. We appropriated a certain

[2:07:46] amount of money for grooming, whatever, whatever it is you appropriated for. I

[2:07:51] don't get to go plunk it in another fund and use it for a different purpose. Uh

[2:07:55] you'd have to amend the budget at that juncture to do that. You can do that. Um

[2:08:01] but if we haven't spent money on something, it just goes right back into

[2:08:04] our fund balance. So at the end of 25 um we had a couple million I can't

[2:08:13] remember exact the exact amount without looking at a fund balance for the end of

[2:08:16] last year that we didn't spend and we do that every year we bring in revenues so

[2:08:21] we will plan to spend them something changes or you know we didn't fill every

[2:08:25] position we thought we would fill that happens every year uh and then that

[2:08:29] rolls back up into our savings account and is available for use in the next

[2:08:33] year should something come up that or that we want to invest in like landfill.

[2:08:39] So that I think that is important for people to understand.

[2:08:45] » So Michael, I remember last year we were talking about your bath plant and you

[2:08:50] had some machinery that you thought you could get working on. That's not

[2:08:54] happening anymore. That's not possible. >> Um no, cuz I put like 30 grand in the

[2:08:58] budget to start working on that and start building it up. Um,

[2:09:05] this asphalt contractor said he just rebuilt one like ours and it cost him $3

[2:09:09] million. >> Got it.

[2:09:11] » I I need $33 million for something else, not an asphalt. Not saying that it's not

[2:09:17] a good idea to get it that way, but you know, I think we need a land more than

[2:09:22] » Yeah. And so, in the future, where will we get our asphalt? Um, you know, unless

[2:09:28] that we have somebody using a pit close in in the county like ours or even ACAs

[2:09:34] where we can buy it from them, it's get going out of the county to purchase it.

[2:09:37] » Okay. >> I don't like that, but

[2:09:41] » it's like a two-hour trip to go to BB to get asphalt.

[2:09:46] » Wow. >> Keep the operators.

[2:09:50] You got two out right now. >> Yeah. keeping a crew that I can help pay

[2:09:55] with cuz I got two that are out sick right now. One just got out of the

[2:09:58] hospital the other day. >> Unfortunately, the same problem I had.

[2:10:02] » Um, so it's really been really tough this

[2:10:06] year to, you know, keep moving forward with stuff. I was planning on being

[2:10:10] paving by June 1st. >> Yeah,

[2:10:12] » they put it off to the 20th. They put it off to the 1st of July and we just

[2:10:17] started paving like two weeks ago. Okay. Control part of the willow fire.

[2:10:23] » Y >> and you couldn't get to the pitch that

[2:10:26] was in an evacuation zone. So they couldn't get there.

[2:10:31] » Does ACA ever make asphalt regularly or do they need a contract from the state

[2:10:36] or somebody else? >> Um yeah. No, they make ACA makes asphalt

[2:10:40] regularly but they don't make it up here. Right.

[2:10:42] » They need a contract from the state to make it up here. Yeah.

[2:10:46] » They make it all the time. A lot of times in the winter time down

[2:10:51] there, too. >> Yes.

[2:10:53] » Where we can >> they just like to know in advance how

[2:10:56] much.

[2:11:00] » Wow. That's two trucks every two hours trying to pave.

[2:11:04] » Yeah. Miles of road. >> And if I only have two drivers, that's a

[2:11:07] long day.

[2:11:11] » Goodness, >> that is slow.

[2:11:12] » So, this week we're not paving. Um, we plan to pick it up next week, but then

[2:11:17] the following week, the guys are out of town at a conference.

[2:11:21] » I'm staying in town, but

[2:11:26] » Wow. >> It's hard to believe that it's September

[2:11:30] already, >> is it?

[2:11:32] » I did also, >> um, also on the website there, there are

[2:11:37] service requests. There's a a place you can go to service request. Mhm.

[2:11:42] » Anybody can put a service request in anytime. If there's a pothole that needs

[2:11:46] to be filled that we don't see because we didn't drive that road for a while.

[2:11:51] » Um, put a service request in. It's trackable so I can make sure that the

[2:11:56] guys get it done. Um, I know we do that a lot people putting requests.

[2:12:02] » Where where's the service request? On the website.

[2:12:04] » It's on Yeah, it's under public works. >> Okay.

[2:12:06] » And actually, there's a bunch of tabs all over for that service request.

[2:12:11] » Got it. It's on the first page where the departments are. I think it's underneath

[2:12:15] public works, but it's clickable there. >> Okay.

[2:12:18] » Well, cool. That's good information. That's that's great.

[2:12:21] » And you know, maybe we weren't plowing this winter, but we were doing a lot of

[2:12:25] potholes. >> Um, we did do a lot of other work like

[2:12:29] signage um all over the county.

[2:12:34] » That wasn't Oh, I'm sorry. That wasn't me saying that. That was just questions

[2:12:39] I get from the the community. I know you guys were working your butts off all

[2:12:43] winter. >> We we had several people call us on

[2:12:45] that. >> Yeah.

[2:12:48] » Do you guys re use that rock uh the stuff from Wyoming that comes in a

[2:12:54] bag? Is it called rock sal? >> Rock asphalt.

[2:12:57] » We we do have we have been using some of that especially in the winter time.

[2:13:01] » Yeah. >> Gets kind of expensive. I can get you

[2:13:03] know stuff cheaper in Denver. >> Yeah. But I like that because it's got a

[2:13:08] three-year warranty and I'm waiting to use that threeear warranty up there. But

[2:13:11] it seems like the asphalt keeps breaking out around that and not that material.

[2:13:17] » Would that work well in the cracks on the millboard?

[2:13:21] » Um it could >> rock asphalt. How do you apply it? Do

[2:13:25] you just shovel it in >> and then tamp it down? Um you don't have

[2:13:28] to do anything else with that cuz it's asphalt. It's rock. It's impregnated

[2:13:32] with asphalt. >> Yeah.

[2:13:33] » Naturally. And they they mine it with that in there. And so it sets up really

[2:13:39] nice. >> They did the big one by Grand West

[2:13:45] sign in Grand West in the highway. >> Big one.

[2:13:49] » The Rockwell guy put that out there. Filled that hole for a test.

[2:13:58] » Yeah. He's proud of us. >> He is. Do you do you guys remember about

[2:14:02] how much that was a bag and what kind of minimums were needed to order a batch of

[2:14:07] that? >> Um, it cost me for um a China cost me

[2:14:12] $1,700. But that I don't pay shipping on that or

[2:14:16] anything where if I go to Denver to get 15 tons, it's about $2,000

[2:14:21] and we go through 15 tons pretty quick and it comes back out. We replace it.

[2:14:25] » Pick that up. >> We have to pick it up. Mhm. So, got an

[2:14:29] operator on the truck. >> So, it's one ton for 1,700 or 15 tons

[2:14:34] for >> three grand, something like that.

[2:14:38] » Wow. What are we going to do? >> We go to Denver quite a bit.

[2:14:42] » Yeah. >> And it comes in bags.

[2:14:45] » Um Yeah, that does. We, you know, um they deliver it that way.

[2:14:48] » Wow. >> And it it shovels out. I'm not quite

[2:14:53] sure how the mechanics of it work. >> Yeah. because you can shovel it out of

[2:14:57] the bag under the ground and then pack it and it's it's back in there.

[2:15:00] » That's cool. >> And we were told not to use any

[2:15:02] mechanical >> means of doing it like compactor or

[2:15:07] anything. >> Wow.

[2:15:10] » Would that work on somebody's dirt driveway? Could you spread it out?

[2:15:13] » I don't know. You probably could. It might be a little bit expensive to get

[2:15:16] here, but I mean that's what they use in Texas on their highways, so they just

[2:15:20] roll it out on the highway. >> Wow. Cool.

[2:15:32] » Well, great. Thank you for the updates. Anybody else have questions for

[2:15:37] » Roaden Bridge? >> No questions for me. It's one of my

[2:15:41] favorite subjects, though. Just going to say that.

[2:15:45] » I will say that County Road 10 coming off the Twin Lakes is rugged.

[2:15:51] » It is. And I I don't like driving that one no more myself. I usually take 24.

[2:15:56] Even though it's got some bad spots, too. And that's why on the on the map

[2:15:59] it's got some patches on it, too. They're hard to places that are pretty

[2:16:03] bad. >> I have a question that's not road

[2:16:07] related. Just since you're here, Michael,

[2:16:10] um do you think it's possible like that Dutch Henry project will happen this

[2:16:14] year? >> I'm pushing it really hard.

[2:16:16] » Okay. He's working on the permit for the um

[2:16:21] core of engineers right now. >> Okay.

[2:16:26] » I've already checked that the pipe is still available at ACA.

[2:16:30] » Great. >> They'll deliver it and we just have to

[2:16:32] install it as soon as we get the permit. >> That's awesome.

[2:16:35] » That's something that could happen later, you know, even in October as long

[2:16:38] as it doesn't freeze up. >> Yeah. And it's just we've been trying to

[2:16:42] make it happen so that the college the construction comes in the first semester

[2:16:48] » can help work on that. >> Yeah.

[2:16:49] » Right. >> That's great.

[2:16:51] » That would be great. That would just that would be so awesome.

[2:16:55] » I met with Ben about it last week and updated him on the

[2:17:01] » Thanks y'all. >> And the permit. We just don't know when

[2:17:04] when >> Yeah. Then he'll go.

[2:17:08] » We'll just wait. Okay. >> I mean, could we ask a

[2:17:13] representative or senator to check in on that and push it along?

[2:17:18] » Yeah. Do you have any relationships you'd like to

[2:17:22] » Yeah. I mean, Britney Patterson's up here all the time.

[2:17:24] » They're constantly like, "What can we do? How can we help everybody?"

[2:17:27] » Yeah. >> Um,

[2:17:31] who's it with? Who's the the Army Corp of Engineers is with the

[2:17:35] the State Department? No, >> it's

[2:17:38] » Army. >> No, I know the state. Sorry. Which

[2:17:41] department in the federal government? >> Department of Defense.

[2:17:44] » Yeah, >> I was close, y'all. State Department's

[2:17:47] pretty close. >> Department of Defense.

[2:17:50] » Isn't that the Department of War? >> Yeah.

[2:17:52] » Absolutely not. Absolutely not. >> Something like that.

[2:17:56] » Department offices in Canyon City.

[2:18:00] » Oh, really? >> Yeah. They have like one person, one to

[2:18:04] two people that work there. That's why it takes so long to go through all the

[2:18:08] permitting. >> It's really capacity issues. It's hard.

[2:18:12] » We have to work with them all the time. >> They're just under a lot of capacity

[2:18:17] constraints. >> Oh, I think that's a great idea to reach

[2:18:21] out to Britney. >> Yeah, I was going to ask Bennett.

[2:18:26] » Oh, Michael Bennett. >> Just cuz Delaney is up there. Okay,

[2:18:29] whoever. Does it matter who I ask? >> Doesn't ask them all. Can you send me

[2:18:33] the permit number so I can be really explicit?

[2:18:38] » They go around. >> Great idea, Elsa.

[2:18:41] » Also, maybe it would impel him to like get more funding to that department,

[2:18:47] too, you know. Okay, cool. If you could get me the permit number, I'll reach

[2:18:52] out. Thank you.

[2:18:58] And I'll cite our seasonal trickiness

[2:19:03] » and how the timeline >> our time. Yeah. Snow makes us

[2:19:08] » months of three construction months a year.

[2:19:10] » Yeah. >> And hopefully that's true this year. I

[2:19:13] don't want to say that, but hopefully we get more snow this year.

[2:19:17] It could also be helpful to site the partnership between CMC because we're

[2:19:21] intending to do the cowork installation but then we have like a whole student

[2:19:25] program it's going to help up the dirt work so on workforce development

[2:19:31] » on it. >> Brilliant.

[2:19:34] » Thank you Elsa.

[2:19:38] » All right keep your head up bridge. >> Oh yeah.

[2:19:42] This is right. >> Thanks and w

[2:19:46] can't imagine miles. >> I don't I don't I don't question it at

[2:19:51] all because I almost get rear ended every time I go to check con.

[2:19:56] » I don't either. It's right outside of Safeway. I think it was probably a

[2:19:59] sheriff's truck. I've been in an emergency but between the stoplight on

[2:20:06] the highway and Harrison Avenue, they were going to

[2:20:12] That's scary.

[2:20:17] » We have 10 minutes before the next topic if

[2:20:20] » Yeah. Should we take a little uh >> point of privilege?

[2:20:23] » Great. That's great.

[2:20:30] » All right. We'll be back at 1:30. >> Thank you, staff.

[2:20:43] Shall we continue? >> Item number two,

[2:20:48] overview and discussion regarding the Lake County Gateway Mobility Plan. This

[2:20:52] will be led by Ann Schneider, our community planning and development

[2:20:55] director. >> Thank you so much. Um so in the packet

[2:21:00] of information that we provided you this is kind of a legacy project um that was

[2:21:05] championed by um the previous board of county commissioners Jeff Beer. So, you

[2:21:10] know, we've actually invited Jeff in to kind of just educate us on kind of what

[2:21:15] the thoughts were that informed applying for this grant and, you know, largely it

[2:21:21] was um wanted to be utilized and leveraged to be able to kind of have a

[2:21:26] seat at the table um and be competitive to get our projects in line with COT. Um

[2:21:33] uh Jeff mentioned noticing that um a substantial amount of planning work

[2:21:38] needs to be done in order to be competitive um for range planning um

[2:21:45] with CDOT. And so, um, in applying the for the grant, we were awarded roughly

[2:21:50] just a little over $933,000 to do this this planning work, um,

[2:21:56] that's really been focused on safety and mobility, some um, traffic calming in

[2:22:03] um, our gateway areas both at the intersection of 91 and 24, as well as

[2:22:07] extending down into our busiest county intersection at County Road um, 17 and

[2:22:14] Popular. um looking at um kind of connecting um increasing safety and

[2:22:21] connecting our communities um in the Mountain Valley estates east and west

[2:22:26] and then looking at our um southern entrance into the community at McQuey

[2:22:31] and um Highway 24 South as well as um the potential there was kind of an

[2:22:40] add-on and we've had a lot of discussion for several years about funding and

[2:22:46] creating a bypass road to take off the pressures of our downtown main street

[2:22:52] area and just all of the associated safety concerns that we have in that

[2:22:56] area. So this study also looked at the possibility of looking at um adding that

[2:23:03] connectivity in different locations in and around um the county and the city of

[2:23:09] where could we potentially uh create a effective bypass. Um so that just kind

[2:23:15] of leads into a little bit of the history and why. So, we're at a point

[2:23:20] that uh we've engaged with uh DJNA as our consultant to our traffic experts

[2:23:26] and Bill uh Delo is here with us today um to just present to you the outcome of

[2:23:33] the feasibility study that was contracted. Um once we get through that

[2:23:38] presentation um with Bill leading that we're going to talk a little bit about

[2:23:42] we have a surplus of funds left actually a considerable amount of surplus of

[2:23:47] funds left um that we can utilize then to go into um what we've got proposed is

[2:23:54] is uh some future um uh work that would make us even more competitive that we're

[2:24:00] hopeful in um contending for being in the running to get on C do DOT schedule

[2:24:06] for these improvements um within our community. So, we're going to talk about

[2:24:10] that. We'll jump back in. Um but unless you have any questions for staff, I'd

[2:24:16] love to turn it over to Bill and let him walk us through the um outcome of the

[2:24:22] feasibility study thus far. >> Yeah. Um this is also part funded by

[2:24:30] GPR. So, that's very important thing to get in front of them. Um funding is

[2:24:36] planning to move forward with implementation. So we are see to

[2:24:44] move this forward. >> Right. And um I think that Mark talked

[2:24:48] about this with you when he did that's joining us now. You know just

[2:24:52] we've been working um with him to just kind of understand the history of the

[2:24:58] work and and where we're at and and kind of next steps. So we'll be sharing that

[2:25:02] afterwards. So, thank you, Michael, for that and bringing that kind of into the

[2:25:07] equation.

[2:25:11] » Welcome, guys. Go ahead, whoever's first.

[2:25:17] » Great. Thank you. Yes, as Ann mentioned, Bill DLO with DJNA and I'll be walking

[2:25:22] through a presentation here shortly that provides an overview of the planning

[2:25:26] work we've done to date on the gateways mobility study. Um, with me today I have

[2:25:31] Mike Dagler who's also with DJNA. He was our lead engineer um on the project and

[2:25:36] so he'll be here and available to help me answer any questions that you might

[2:25:40] have um after we present. I do need to get um permission to share my

[2:25:47] presentation. >> Okay.

[2:25:50] » Absolutely. >> Yeah.

[2:25:55] » Okay. You should have permission. >> All right.

[2:26:05] Okay. So, yes, once again, thanks um for the

[2:26:10] opportunity to be here today and present uh on the gateways mobility plan. uh

[2:26:16] really happy to share the uh the work that we've been doing uh on this project

[2:26:20] with you all and talk a little bit about the the recommendations and then that'll

[2:26:24] certainly set the stage more for Ann and team to talk a bit more about the

[2:26:29] potential next steps on the project. So start off provide an overview of the

[2:26:35] study objectives. There were three primary objectives um as part of this

[2:26:39] study. first was identifying uh potential multimodal improvements that

[2:26:43] would serve uh users of all ages uh and abilities and we focus in as Ann

[2:26:49] mentioned and we'll walk through in the presentation three areas um within the

[2:26:54] county and within the city of Leadville um as uh particular um locations of need

[2:26:59] u where we really focused our study efforts. We evaluated and uh then

[2:27:04] recommended different alternatives for each one of these locations really to

[2:27:08] address the needs that were identified through our technical analysis as well

[2:27:13] as the needs that were identified uh by the community through the engagement

[2:27:18] effort uh that we undertook as part of this process. And we up to this date

[2:27:23] have prepared uh very conceptual level uh diagrams for the preferred

[2:27:28] alternatives in each location. and we'll be walking through um each of those um

[2:27:33] preferred concepts here within the presentation.

[2:27:37] So, as we mentioned, there were four distinct uh focus areas for this study.

[2:27:42] Uh first was up in Mountain View Village northwest of town uh in that location.

[2:27:48] We'll walk through some of the challenges in in that area, but the

[2:27:51] community is biseected by US 24. So it creates challenges in terms of uh being

[2:27:56] able to uh cross the highway to get from one part of the community to the other

[2:28:01] and being able to do so in a in a safe manner. Uh we also looked at the

[2:28:06] northern gateway area. This is the area around Safeway and then as US 24

[2:28:10] continues up to the intersection uh with Highway 91. Third, we looked at the

[2:28:17] Colorado Mountain College area, specifically the intersection of US 24

[2:28:21] with College Road and McQuei. Uh, this is a location where there's an existing

[2:28:26] crosswalk, uh, rapid flashing beacon. Uh, but there's still challenges with

[2:28:30] people being able to cross the highway safely. Uh, we do, um, and heard through

[2:28:35] the community engagement observations around um, high traffic speeds along US

[2:28:40] 24 in this location. uh and there are a lot of challenges with the sanitation

[2:28:44] district dump station located near the intersection and queuing that's

[2:28:47] generated uh by that facility. And then as Ann noted, the the fourth component

[2:28:52] of this study was uh taking an initial look and evaluating the potential

[2:28:57] feasibility for uh an alternative truck bypass route that would help to reduce

[2:29:02] uh truck volumes through downtown.

[2:29:07] So, starting off in the Mountain View Village area, uh walk through each of

[2:29:12] the the four project areas. We'll talk a little bit about existing conditions in

[2:29:16] each location and then the uh potential recommendations uh for each location

[2:29:20] after that. So, with Mountain View Village, as I mentioned earlier, US 24

[2:29:25] bisects the community. So, you have about half the twothirds of the

[2:29:29] community on the west side of the highway and another third of it on the

[2:29:32] east side. there's no uh designated p pedestrian crossing uh across the

[2:29:37] highway. So uh residents if they want to get from one side of the community to

[2:29:42] the other are kind of on their own for crossing the highway where wherever they

[2:29:45] may want to. Uh and as you can see from the exhibit, there's a a pretty good

[2:29:50] curve in the highway that limits visibility both for drivers and

[2:29:53] pedestrians. Uh so it doesn't make that crossing of the highway um very easy or

[2:29:58] very safe. Additionally, one item that was highlighted through the engagement

[2:30:02] and through our analysis is there's a fair number of people who would like to

[2:30:06] be able to walk or bike into town and there's no existing facilities along uh

[2:30:11] highway 24 to make that connection. So, a lot of people currently today walk in

[2:30:16] the uh the shoulder of the highway in the dirt adjacent to the pavement.

[2:30:24] So, we looked at several different options for this location in terms of

[2:30:27] being able to address the uh the crossing with pedestrians. Um reviewed

[2:30:32] these options as well um with C dot just for an initial kind of gut reaction uh

[2:30:38] to the potential for different um improvements. So, I'll walk through them

[2:30:41] and talk about what some of the uh the potential next steps would be here. So,

[2:30:46] the first item that we looked at or first option that we looked at was would

[2:30:49] be an atgrade crossing. So, this would end up having a marked crosswalk that

[2:30:55] would connect uh the two sides of the community together, which we've shown

[2:30:59] here in about the middle of the exhibit. Uh this crosswalk, you know, in and of

[2:31:04] itself can exist on it own its own. It needs some sort of um protection,

[2:31:09] traffic control of some sort given the volumes on the highway and the uh the

[2:31:13] speed of traffic. So, we've identified that that crosswalk could either be

[2:31:18] controlled by a um rapid flashing beacon, which is similar to what is in

[2:31:23] place along US 24 down by Colorado Mountain College today, or what's called

[2:31:28] a pedestrian hybrid beacon, which is the the overhead lights that turn uh solid

[2:31:33] red and then flashing red uh when pedestrians are are crossing uh a

[2:31:38] particular crosswalk in the intersection. So we've talked about uh

[2:31:42] those different treatments with C dot a few of the items that they highlighted

[2:31:46] um for these to be feasible. One would be um changing and kind of communicating

[2:31:50] a bit of a change in the uh the highway environment. So having drivers expect

[2:31:55] that there might be pedestrians in this location. So, also on this exhibit,

[2:31:59] you'll see we've shown locations in orange here for new sidewalks. Um, in

[2:32:04] kind of the pink or purple color here in the the middle where we would have a new

[2:32:08] median, raised median that would be present in the highway and then a

[2:32:12] sidewalk on the uh the east side of the highway as well to communicate to

[2:32:17] drivers hopefully slow traffic as well uh but to anticipate that there may be

[2:32:22] uh pedestrians and then that crossing device may be activated. In addition to

[2:32:27] those treatments in those locations, we also have proposed in this concept uh

[2:32:31] fencing along the south side of the highway to direct pedestrians to cross

[2:32:36] at the crosswalk so that they utilize that infrastructure u for the purpose

[2:32:40] that it was implemented for. Uh and then additional signing both um westbound and

[2:32:45] eastbound on Highway 24 in advance of the crossing to alert drivers to the

[2:32:50] presence of the crossing. uh and then also to activate ahead of time those

[2:32:54] signs, those warning signs when there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk. So that's

[2:33:00] option one really identified as a lower cost and nearer term uh improvement.

[2:33:06] Option two for this location was uh identified as the potential for an

[2:33:11] underpass under US 24. So here on the east side of the community, the the

[2:33:16] highway starts to generally and gradually go up in elevation and so

[2:33:21] there's opportunity to potentially put in an underpass underneath the highway

[2:33:25] using kind of the the natural grade of the terrain in this location. Uh and

[2:33:30] then we would have a grade separated or separated pedestrian crossing under the

[2:33:35] highway to be able to connect uh the two communities together. Within the plan,

[2:33:39] we identified this uh undercrossing. You know, certainly acknowledged it as a

[2:33:44] more expensive option and something that could be uh analyze potentially more as

[2:33:49] a long-term improvement for this location.

[2:33:54] And then the uh the other item that I'll identify here in terms of

[2:33:57] recommendations is down here in the green is a new multi-use path that would

[2:34:02] connect the uh Mountain View Village down to the northern gateway area. And

[2:34:07] as we go through a few slides um here further into the presentation we'll

[2:34:12] provide a little bit more detail but we are showing the uh the connection for

[2:34:15] that and then both options both the uh at grade crossing with the sidewalks or

[2:34:21] the underpass would then connect both sides of the community to that that

[2:34:25] multi-use pathway.

[2:34:30] Right. So then we jump down to the northern gateway areas. We mentioned

[2:34:34] this area covers um the area here um Mountain View Drive by the Safeway

[2:34:40] » up along US 24. >> Okay, just

[2:34:43] » I will die. Thank you. >> Sorry. All right.

[2:34:47] » No, no problem. Um and then up here to the intersection uh with Highway 91

[2:34:53] within the uh the concepts and as we walk through these other concepts um C

[2:34:57] DOT did share the concept plan for the roundabout at that intersection of uh US

[2:35:03] 24 and Highway 91. And so we've superimposed that initial concept um

[2:35:08] onto our plans just so we can make sure that we were planning with the the

[2:35:12] ultimate configuration of that intersection and didn't propose anything

[2:35:15] that potentially conflicted with with C do DOT's plan in that location. So, US

[2:35:21] 24 and the the intersections here today are very autooriented uh very much

[2:35:26] focused on serving automobile traffic, but the uh character of this uh area

[2:35:31] within town is changing quite a bit with the railard development going to bring a

[2:35:35] lot significant number of new residents to this area, a lot more pedestrian and

[2:35:40] bike activity. And so we focused uh our recommendations and concepts around

[2:35:46] serving those uh additional uh pedestrians and cyclists that will be

[2:35:50] coming with the new development. We also um spent some focused time on the

[2:35:55] existing bus stop that's currently located um kind of within the uh the

[2:35:59] drive aisle or parking lot for the uh Safeway and looking at ways to enhance

[2:36:04] that bus stop, relocate it and put in a location that where more amenities could

[2:36:09] be provided for riders and it would be uh more accessible for uh individuals

[2:36:14] especially from the intersection of Mountain View Drive and US 24.

[2:36:20] So, this slide shows uh some of the proposed improvements. We have the in

[2:36:24] green here, the multi-use path connecting in from the the south side of

[2:36:28] US 24 in Mountain View Village. There is an existing sidewalk along the west side

[2:36:33] of the roadway here um which we have identified could potentially be widened

[2:36:38] um to the full width of a multi-use path at least 10 feet wide to provide for

[2:36:42] two-way traffic for cyclists and pedestrians. We then identified a series

[2:36:47] of improvements at the intersection, mostly focused on enhancing the existing

[2:36:51] crosswalks, either adding additional crosswalks or refreshing the striping on

[2:36:55] those crosswalks, uh, and making sure that the, uh, pedestrians who are

[2:37:00] crossing at the intersection there can do so in a safe and convenient manner.

[2:37:05] We looked at several different potential locations to relocate the existing bus

[2:37:09] stop based upon uh available space within the uh the roadway, available

[2:37:15] rideway and where the uh the buses are heading. And then down here at the south

[2:37:20] end, we propose continuing that multi-use trail along the uh the east

[2:37:25] side of the roadway so that it's able to serve the railard development and

[2:37:29] ultimately connect to the mineral belt trail to the south.

[2:37:34] And then here on this slide, we show the uh full connection, full extent of the

[2:37:39] proposed multi-use trail between the Northern Gateway uh and Mountain View

[2:37:44] Village. This trail is proposed to be located on the south side of US 24 would

[2:37:49] be about two and a quarter miles uh in length uh and would

[2:37:56] here we've shown down here a transition where it would stay on the south and

[2:38:00] west side of the roadway where the roundabout is developed some different

[2:38:04] concepts to ensure that there's the ability for uh pedestrians and cyclists

[2:38:09] to cross on the west leg of the intersection and be able to access uh

[2:38:13] Mountain Valley Estates and other properties here uh to the north of US 24

[2:38:18] on the west side of Highway 91 as well.

[2:38:25] Then also wanted to touch on the uh the concept for the uh the bus stop. So

[2:38:29] we've shown that here uh a potential proposed concept. So, the existing bus

[2:38:34] bus stop is up here in the uh upper leftand corner of this image where

[2:38:38] there's an existing uh power pole in the uh the middle of the uh entrance to the

[2:38:44] parking lot and the bus stop is signed um by this power pole. In this concept,

[2:38:49] we've proposed extending the existing sidewalk from the intersection on the

[2:38:53] north side of Mountain View Drive, creating a bus pull out and a full bus

[2:38:59] stop along the sidewalk, which could include benches, a shelter as well, um,

[2:39:03] if desired, and a more convenient and safer waiting space um, for bus

[2:39:09] passengers that's outside of the uh, the drive aisle and traffic operations

[2:39:14] within the uh, the Safeway parking lot. We also show the u refreshed and new

[2:39:19] striping for the crosswalks here at the intersection with US 24 and mountain

[2:39:23] view as well on this exhibit. So I'll jump now down to the third

[2:39:29] location, Colorado Mountain College. So we focused in this location primarily on

[2:39:34] the intersection here, McQuey College Road and US 24. As mentioned, there is

[2:39:39] the existing crosswalk that is uh controlled by a rapid flashing beacon

[2:39:43] here on the west side of the intersection. Uh but traffic is free

[2:39:47] flowing along US 24. The speed limit in this location is along the highway is 35

[2:39:52] miles per hour, but certainly in field reviews we've done, what we've heard

[2:39:56] from the community is a fair amount of traffic does seem to travel at a higher

[2:40:01] speed in this location, especially in the uh the west or southbound direction.

[2:40:05] As people are heading out of town, the roadway starts to kind of go down in

[2:40:10] elevation as you start to go out of town. And so people start to pick up

[2:40:13] speed as they're uh moving out of downtown and moving um to the south.

[2:40:19] There are a few other items that we wanted to uh to point out uh with this

[2:40:23] is the uh mineral belt trail here crosses US 24 here to the west, but

[2:40:27] there's no marked uh crossing in this location. Uh so it's a midblock crossing

[2:40:32] that uh is not marked. Um, ideally folks would travel up and make this crossing

[2:40:37] here where the beacon controls it, but it takes folks quite a bit out of their

[2:40:42] way. There isn't necessarily a sidewalk along the highway, so there's not a lot

[2:40:46] of compliance with that um movement and and making that diversion. And then, as

[2:40:51] we mentioned, the existing dump station here with the sanitation district

[2:40:55] located right just adjacent to the roadway. Um, really enough room for one

[2:41:00] vehicle, one vehicle with a trailer or an RV. uh and that tends to cause uh

[2:41:04] queuing either onto US 24 or over here on Quincy Street east.

[2:41:11] So there were two options and two uh alternatives that we identified as

[2:41:15] potentials uh for this location. The first would be to signalize the

[2:41:19] intersection of US 24 College of Mathy, add full crosswalks in that location uh

[2:41:25] as well. And then as part of both options, we propose to realign the

[2:41:31] mineral belt trail uh to encourage and direct users to cross at the

[2:41:37] intersection. Within this concept here, we've shown the uh the trail here along

[2:41:42] the south side of US 24. There's also the potential concept where the trail

[2:41:47] could cross here to the south kind of at the south end of the exhibit and connect

[2:41:51] in with the trail that connects up to the college and then directing users

[2:41:55] here along the west side of college road. That is an option where if we did

[2:41:59] go to a greater level of design uh for this concept, we could look at both of

[2:42:04] those options in a bit more detail. We then have shown in purple here just kind

[2:42:09] of in general terms um the proposed sanitation districts uh concept to

[2:42:14] relocate uh their facilities and the dump station to create uh more room for

[2:42:18] queuing to happen off street. So we also looked at the a concept with

[2:42:25] a roundabout at this intersection and within the plan this concept is the uh

[2:42:29] identified or recommended preferred alternative uh to implement a roundabout

[2:42:33] in this location. uh same treatments as before with the realignment of the

[2:42:38] mineral belt trail. Uh the implementation of the sanit sanitation

[2:42:42] district's proposals for a a reconfigured facility. Uh and then the

[2:42:46] crossing for the trail on the west leg of the intersection here. U we did talk

[2:42:52] with COT at least in a preliminary basis about the potential of the roundabout. I

[2:42:56] think in general C dot was open to the concept. There does need to be some

[2:43:00] additional analysis to look at and ensure that the roundabout would operate

[2:43:04] appropriately given traffic conditions and that it would be uh designed to

[2:43:08] accommodate all of the different vehicles in terms of trucks and

[2:43:11] emergency vehicles in this location. But at least as a general concept, um C do

[2:43:16] was open to studying the concept uh further in this location.

[2:43:23] And then finally, I'll walk through uh the examination we did with the uh the

[2:43:28] truck bypass alternatives. Uh this exhibit shows the various different

[2:43:32] routes and alternatives that we looked at. There were six in total. Uh so

[2:43:38] starting here at the top in the dark blue, uh we looked at an alternative

[2:43:41] that used county road 99. um along with additional roadways, County Road 9 here

[2:43:47] uh down to the south connecting to Highway 300 and then intersecting US 24

[2:43:52] down here at the south with that connection. So really kind of keeping uh

[2:43:56] truck traffic as far west as possible um of town. Uh the next option here is in

[2:44:03] the pink um which utilizes a very similar alignment up here along County

[2:44:07] Road 5A and then County Road 9 and then cuts across on Mountain View Drive um

[2:44:13] over to where the Safeway in Northern Gateway area is to reconnect with US 24.

[2:44:18] There's then the uh the green route which again follows County Road 5 and

[2:44:23] then follows County Road 4 uh east across town and then makes that

[2:44:28] connection in the Northern Gateway. Then in the dark green, we use uh an

[2:44:32] alternative that uses McQuey uh and then makes the connection um up and avoiding

[2:44:38] downtown. And then in the red is the current alignment along US 24. And then

[2:44:43] over here, the final option here in purple um utilizes US 24 till just south

[2:44:49] of downtown and then cuts across to the east on County Road 8. um avoiding

[2:44:54] downtown but still running through generally um the center of town uh to

[2:44:59] make that connection. Here we have shown in blue um a location where there isn't

[2:45:05] an existing roadway but there could potentially be um a future roadway that

[2:45:10] we discussed with public works at least at a high level. Um so we've shown that

[2:45:14] at a as a dash line here that could make that connection and avoid um some of the

[2:45:20] constraints that are present here along County Road 5.

[2:45:24] So a few items that we wanted to point out with the truck bypass alternatives.

[2:45:28] Um certainly as Ann mentioned, you know, trucks today cause uh quite a bit of

[2:45:32] impact within downtown. Based upon se dot traffic data, there's about 400

[2:45:37] heavy trucks on average a day that pass through downtown along US 24. that's

[2:45:42] projected to grow to about 450 trucks per day by 2040. So in the next 14 15

[2:45:48] years. Um but as we looked at these different alternatives, all six of them,

[2:45:53] they all have different constraints and in some cases very significant

[2:45:56] constraints. There's narrow travel lanes, narrow roadways. Um there's no

[2:46:01] shoulders along many of the roadways. uh many of the roadways the pavement

[2:46:05] condition the pavement cross-section is not set up to have significant amounts

[2:46:09] of heavy truck traffic uh travel along those roadways. So just from a a

[2:46:15] physical condition standpoint uh pretty much all of the uh options that we

[2:46:20] looked at would need significant improvements um to the roadway to the

[2:46:24] roadway shoulders the width of the roadway and the pavement cross-section

[2:46:27] in order to be able to accommodate increased uh truck traffic. Another key

[2:46:32] item, especially on the far west side along County Road 5, are the existing

[2:46:37] bridges. They're not designed to accommodate uh heavy volumes of trucks

[2:46:41] and heavy trucks with that. And so there's uh significant either retrofit

[2:46:45] or replacement of those bridges that would be required uh to be able to serve

[2:46:50] uh truck traffic. There's also on the west side uh very significant potential

[2:46:55] wetland and wildlife habitat impacts. Um you're getting outside of town into

[2:46:59] areas where there are existing wetlands. there's a significant number of wildlife

[2:47:03] crossings that occur and so there's a a good chance or a significant chance of

[2:47:08] potential conflicts with truck traffic um and wildlife as well. Many of those

[2:47:14] alternatives also uh travel through heavily residential areas within the

[2:47:18] county and within the town. And so there are sign potentially significant um

[2:47:23] impacts related to to noise um with uh trucks traveling so close to uh

[2:47:29] residential properties as well. We did look um at a very high level

[2:47:34] based upon some of those alternatives or those issues at the county road 9 or

[2:47:39] sorry county road 99 alternative which is this uh dark blue line here. Uh and

[2:47:44] it based upon looking at those constraints, the potential upgrades that

[2:47:48] might be needed could be anywhere from 25 to $60 million to be able to make

[2:47:53] that um alternative and that route um acceptable uh as a truck route in terms

[2:47:58] of roadway width, pavement cross-section, and mitigating um other

[2:48:02] potential impacts as well. We would expect the the other options that we

[2:48:06] looked at and the other routes that we looked at to have pretty similar cost

[2:48:09] ranges um as well. So, it's a pretty significant um investment if it was

[2:48:14] something that would be uh pursued further.

[2:48:18] And uh with that, I'll turn things over back to to Ann to talk about a little

[2:48:22] bit of the uh potential next steps. >> Thanks. And and I um also love to just

[2:48:30] kind of um take a break and see if the commissioners have any questions. There

[2:48:37] was a lot of information. Um these next steps are some um potential ways that we

[2:48:43] can continue to utilize um the funds um that are in the grant. This is does have

[2:48:48] a 25% match. Um and so we just want to kind of get an idea if you have that was

[2:48:55] a a lot of information. So seems like a natural place to take pause and see if

[2:48:59] you have anything about what you've heard thus far.

[2:49:04] » So the grant was over 900,000. How much have we used so far?

[2:49:09] » So we've used just under 200,000 I believe of that. So in in in just broad

[2:49:16] and I know Catherine's here is that what we

[2:49:20] » Yes. >> Well I I think the total is that we've

[2:49:23] used

[2:49:29] » so we we've got five surplus um to be used in this planning. And so that's

[2:49:35] what we're going to talk about next. Also just to clarify the grant itself

[2:49:39] like grant funding is 700,000. It's the the 9333

[2:49:47] is is the total project cost >> with the match.

[2:49:51] » Yeah. So the 25% match that we're committed to if we use up all of that

[2:49:56] funding is 233

[2:50:00] um total. But so far we have only spent like

[2:50:07] the 333 part of the um match commitment. >> So if we continued if we used up all of

[2:50:14] the rest of the grant funding, we would be committed to not quite 200 grand.

[2:50:24] » So the grant is a planning grant. It's not a construction grant. Correct. So,

[2:50:29] so some of these next steps would be um taking um those three study areas um

[2:50:36] Mountain View Village, Northern Gateway, and um Con Mountain College, taking them

[2:50:41] to a 30% design um and evaluating them in more detail.

[2:50:47] Um and so this just kind of goes through all of the future work that can be done

[2:50:51] on those areas. the um early estimates on this work on these three different

[2:50:58] stere uh study area areas would be roughly $200,000

[2:51:02] um to look at at those and then um Oh yeah,

[2:51:08] Mark has a question. >> Mark from COT, you want to jump in

[2:51:12] there? >> Sure. And I appreciate the commissioners

[2:51:17] uh allowing me in on this one. I just I'm a little confused. So, are we

[2:51:25] finishing what's being presented and talking about

[2:51:28] that before we move on or what do we what what is the effort here? because I

[2:51:36] feel like we jumped from one to to really talking about finishing this this

[2:51:42] section because honestly my concern my one of my main concerns for joining

[2:51:47] today is making sure that the contract Lake County has with DJNA

[2:51:56] is completed is have they are they doing everything they're being asked is this

[2:52:02] because when I looked at the RFP I never saw the contract and this was couple two

[2:52:07] three years ago when it was pushed forward. Um I'm not sure what your

[2:52:13] contract with DJNA is and if this completes it and so if this does then

[2:52:19] this needs to be tied up and and finished and and then we can talk about

[2:52:24] potential next steps. Um because unless they're contracted to move on and I'm

[2:52:30] not sure that they are. So, can we clear that up with me real quick? What is is

[2:52:37] this the end of their contract? And I don't know if they need to kind of

[2:52:42] I mean, if they if they need to finish and if we want to finish discussing what

[2:52:46] they have presented cuz they still need to like put a bow on this and present it

[2:52:51] and seed needs to get the documentation. And there's a few things I wanted to

[2:52:55] talk about their presentation before we jump to the next steps. But I mean I

[2:53:00] I'll follow along. I just wanted to raise that concern.

[2:53:05] » Thank you, Mark. >> Yeah, thank you so much, Mark. And I

[2:53:08] think I think you're absolutely right. I think it's um you know, time to take a

[2:53:13] bit of a pause and look at the information that's in front of you. And

[2:53:17] I think that we have um spent some time trying to kind of research what the

[2:53:23] original RFP um in included and um perhaps Bill, you can help us uh with

[2:53:30] this as well. I think that this would be um and I think that Mark, we all met

[2:53:37] with you um and public works and DJNA together to try to kind of sus that out.

[2:53:44] So, I'd love to hear um maybe from your perspective, Mark, as well as um bills,

[2:53:50] if um where we're at right now. Um and kind of fine-tuning this plan with input

[2:53:58] back from the board on direction. Um it would be all inclusive of what the RFP

[2:54:06] was designed to do. So that's kind of been our intent mark from you know

[2:54:11] staff's intent from kind of taking on this project as a legacy piece from uh

[2:54:17] previous leadership.

[2:54:23] » Who can shed light on this RFP and what it entails and is it coming to an end?

[2:54:28] Bill, can you help us with that? Yeah, I would note um I think for for our scope

[2:54:33] of work that we have contracted with the county uh the plan the draft plan that

[2:54:38] we presented here today was the primary in deliverable um for that um scope of

[2:54:44] work. Uh so obviously any comments that you all have here today um comments that

[2:54:51] may come from Mark or from C dot uh we would have still a process we still have

[2:54:56] within our current scope of work um the kind of addressing those comments making

[2:55:02] any updates to the documents to reflect those and then finalizing that document

[2:55:07] and submitting it uh to the county. So, as part of our base scope, it was

[2:55:11] preparing this plan and the uh concept level uh designs that we have and that

[2:55:16] we've provided to the county. Um, but our current scope did not include

[2:55:21] advancing anything further in design up to maybe a 30% level or something.

[2:55:26] » All right, then that is that is exactly what I wanted to hear. Thank you, Bill,

[2:55:30] for doing that. So then let's back up a little bit and talk just if it's okay

[2:55:35] with the the county commissioners. Let's talk about this and let's focus in on

[2:55:42] completing what Bill and DJNA has done and put in some comments on that. That

[2:55:48] way they can kind of get wrapped up. So, if you'll go back to

[2:55:53] at least I had a couple of questions specifically of the trail along State

[2:55:58] Highway 22 24. Um, yeah, there was the one that showed it

[2:56:04] all the way around. So, yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, that is a really long trail

[2:56:10] and it looks like it flows all along Cot right away. I just want to give Lake

[2:56:15] County a heads up that there's we're getting a lot of these requests now from

[2:56:20] mountain communities where the road is really tight. Our maintenance forces

[2:56:25] have a huge safety concern when it comes to these type of things. One, we're not

[2:56:31] even sure how much rightway we really have there. A lot of times when you're

[2:56:35] coming through these mountain easements, it is mostly Forest Service e easement

[2:56:40] and the rightway can get really really expensive just letting and this is just

[2:56:44] as an FYI. Um, also for safety concerns in the winter when we have when we have

[2:56:51] snow, and I hope we do have snow, that when the plows come through, I mean, if

[2:56:58] you look at the Glenwood Trail, the Glenwood Canyon Trail, we close that

[2:57:03] about 6 months out of the year just because plow drivers along, they can't

[2:57:08] be checking to to make sure people are along there. and those rooster tails

[2:57:12] coming off the plow. And a lot of times go, "Oh, this is a great little uh cross

[2:57:17] country ski trail, blah blah blah. We can use this year round." This gets

[2:57:21] become really a safety issue for our plow drivers

[2:57:25] because again, you just you never know exactly what's going to be coming and

[2:57:31] and what the weather is and on and on. We're having these issues even down in

[2:57:35] Grand Junction and Mesa County where that we have the trail alongside the

[2:57:40] interstate and we can those rooster tails can get thrown off pretty far into

[2:57:45] those bike trails. So just just be aware this looks simple but not always. One of

[2:57:52] the other things when I was looking at this is it can kind of come off right

[2:57:57] there at 99 and back around the backside into town where there's less traffic.

[2:58:02] But anyway, that's something that can be looked at down the road. I don't know if

[2:58:05] that was even considered, but that's just one of the comments I wanted to

[2:58:10] make because our maintenance forces are getting these requests and it's getting

[2:58:15] getting kind of touchy on that note. Um, also when it comes to bypasses, I would

[2:58:22] strongly encourage Lake County and Leadville to visit with Delta, the city

[2:58:28] of Delta and the city of Montro. They've done some bypasses that have been fairly

[2:58:34] successful. They've had some Delta, the city of Delta especially has had a

[2:58:38] little bit of trial on that. Excellent opportunity for you guys to

[2:58:42] communicate with them and kind of get a feel on what's worked, what hasn't, and

[2:58:47] what's still kind of working. Montro worked really well. And in fact, what

[2:58:52] they ended up doing, they ended up devolving the downtown. they're take

[2:58:57] they took over the downtown and we took over the side street that became the

[2:59:01] bypass and again there's there's potential along those those lines that

[2:59:06] really can be beneficial to the city of Leadville. Um and so definitely

[2:59:13] encourage you to talk to and communicate with Leadville on that that effort. Um,

[2:59:19] also if you do go down those roads, you might want to look at state highway 13

[2:59:27] as it bypasses Rifle, not goes through the town of Rifle, but bypasses

[2:59:33] they do. When we put that in, we protected that um with some zoning

[2:59:38] because it is a three-way. We we spent extra money to make that a three-way, so

[2:59:43] the speed limits could be a little higher. And when that was built, there

[2:59:48] wasn't a building up around it. You always want to protect that once you

[2:59:54] spend the money to do something like that. That way, you don't have to

[2:59:56] continually cuz once you build a bypass, businesses come, next thing you know,

[3:00:01] other businesses, other things come and then they want to slow it down. That's

[3:00:05] not the purpose of a bypass or a three-way. It's to get people or trucks

[3:00:10] or whatever. And then just be aware that that can cause its own

[3:00:16] uh repro repro re repercussions

[3:00:23] and that's really other than that I think what you guys did was a great plan

[3:00:27] layout. Um yeah highly compliment on on the effort so far.

[3:00:36] Mark, I like what you said about, you know, doing a a trail 99 that would

[3:00:43] actually connect to Leadville Junction, which may be on the list for a trail

[3:00:49] down uh one of the county roads from town. So, I

[3:00:53] I think that's smart. >> It'd be a whole lot more scenic. I do

[3:00:57] know that it'd be a little shorter, a little less expensive as far as that.

[3:01:01] And you know, maybe maybe a shorter section trail along the state highway

[3:01:06] would be more palatable. You know, you look at some of those curves as you look

[3:01:11] at this really long stretch. It'd be in the shade a lot. It'd be

[3:01:17] there's just a lot of struggle on that. I think especially around those around

[3:01:22] that hump. And so just just as an FYI, I as I was looking at that on some other

[3:01:29] things, I really like that dropping off at 99 and going around. That's how I

[3:01:34] would take a bike. >> Is there another study studying the bike

[3:01:39] path from town down to the lake? >> Um, so I think that's part of what is

[3:01:44] that the saber routes or is that going to include that? I know that the trails

[3:01:48] coalition folks were looking at that and direct was granted

[3:01:52] » a um grant to look at that um but we have I I don't know what the status of

[3:01:58] that is

[3:02:01] right now to extend the trail that we don't have right

[3:02:07] » so the study area was four to nine over that way to the north side of

[3:02:12] » lake

[3:02:15] and so that Pros had um initiated that with the

[3:02:19] trails coalition. They had worked um on that and and we've been working with

[3:02:24] them, but we've had a bit of turnover. So, I'm not sure where that project

[3:02:28] right now. >> So, Bill and Mike, are you catching all

[3:02:33] this? It doesn't seem feasible that we're going to get a bike path on that

[3:02:36] highway. It'd be better to take it 99 to county road four and work with

[3:02:42] » Yeah, that's what it sounds like. And I think that's something, yeah, we could

[3:02:45] certainly uh modify within the document, modify this u this exhibit. Yeah. And

[3:02:50] highlight those issues. Yeah. That Mark identified with it.

[3:02:54] » I think it's a good suggestion. >> If we go to County Road 4, I just I just

[3:02:58] got to point out that it seems like once again all of Leadville North gets

[3:03:03] circumvented by everything. There's, you know, half a dozen neighborhoods out

[3:03:08] here and the kids have no way to get into town. They're stuck on the side of

[3:03:13] Mountain View Road, which has no shoulder, and people are constantly

[3:03:17] trying to walk or bike up and down this road. Um, you know, it's it just feels

[3:03:23] like there's there's got to be at least 120 houses out here that have no way to

[3:03:27] get into town. And from bus routes to proposed paths or sidewalks, it seems

[3:03:33] like everything in Leadville North completely gets overlooked.

[3:03:38] So, is that the Mountain Valley Estates that you're looking at or the Mountain

[3:03:42] View Village >> that gets bypassed?

[3:03:46] » No, everything's called Mountain View. I'm talking about Mount Mountain

[3:03:49] Mountain View Road, which is uh what are we? County Road

[3:03:54] » um 17.

[3:03:58] Yes, >> the the there is a path that stops at

[3:04:01] Eagle's Nest, >> but beyond that, you've got a whole

[3:04:05] section of West Park um which almost ties into the new developments over

[3:04:09] there. You've got Turquoise Street, you've got um Load Stone or Homestake,

[3:04:15] you've got uh Gem Valley Estates, you've got Silver Hills, you've got Four

[3:04:20] Seasons. >> Yeah. Okay. Oh, no. Go ahead. Continue.

[3:04:23] I finally found a separate map to look at that. So, yes,

[3:04:27] » there there's a just a large amount of houses out here. There's a lot of young

[3:04:31] families. There's a lot of kids, and they've got no way to get into town

[3:04:34] except go through the woods, go through the cemetery, or go up Mountain View,

[3:04:39] which has no shoulder until you get just about into town.

[3:04:44] » Okay. So, on that note, just just as an FYI, that's is that all Leadville proper

[3:04:49] or is that in the county as well? >> County.

[3:04:53] » County. Okay.

[3:04:56] So again, in my coming off 99 from what I'm seeing,

[3:05:01] it would just and again I don't know if it would tie into that Mountain View

[3:05:05] Drive and then a bike path beyond that Mountain View Drive

[3:05:09] through the county. I don't know. I And again, that then would tie in with that

[3:05:13] Leadville North community and then bring it into Leadville itself.

[3:05:20] » Does that make sense what I'm saying? >> Yeah. I just with the last discussion it

[3:05:26] it sounded like, you know, oh, if we don't do a bike path up 24 or a

[3:05:31] pedestrian path, bring it in 99 and go up uh go up County Road 4, you know, and

[3:05:36] it's just County Road 4's already got a gravel path going just about all the way

[3:05:41] down it. It's already got something people can use. Mountain View there. The

[3:05:46] the Yeah. That that reddish one. Uh it has nothing

[3:05:51] » until you get to West Park like further up like almost most the way to Safeway.

[3:05:57] » Yeah. So, and what I was thinking when you come off 99, if I were riding a bike

[3:06:01] from the trailer from those uh Mountain View Mountain View Village, I'd take 99

[3:06:08] to get off the highway, come around and then either jump on nine or 17 depending

[3:06:15] on how big a hurry or how the scenic and come around that way and around. I mean,

[3:06:20] it's not You could look at that. I'm just I'm just suggesting and and on and

[3:06:24] on. We could look at that. that would then take it off of that put it on the

[3:06:28] county which may have a better or different rightway take it through

[3:06:33] communities and on and on and then it would it would benefit through that

[3:06:37] whole group and then you'd come out mount drive around either Mount Massive

[3:06:42] or Mount Elbert Drive right around town and that First Baptist Church of

[3:06:47] Leadville

[3:06:50] » thanks Mark that's good input that's >> to I mean, it's much more scenic. It's

[3:06:57] It's And it may It's It's off the highway. Again, I'm not This is

[3:07:03] Leadville and Lake County's plan, and I'm not sure where the town limits stop

[3:07:08] and start, but again, I think that would be something to look at down the road.

[3:07:14] And then you control the speed limits. You control all the all that all that

[3:07:19] traffic through there. >> Yeah, it's safer. seems much safer, too.

[3:07:27] » Again, this is the spirit of this today is to get feedback. So, we've been

[3:07:30] working closely with Bill and we can take this information back and come up

[3:07:35] with some ideas and and bring those back.

[3:07:38] » So, just to be clear, is there another I didn't catch that there's another study

[3:07:43] about a bike path to connect for all the way? So there is um there was a grant

[3:07:51] that was obtained by recreation and that was looking at connection between the

[3:07:57] mineral belt trail um to county road 4 to have a safer route. And so like you

[3:08:05] probably recall, we have entitlements built into our trails that are built

[3:08:09] into Mountain Gate subdivision, Timber Ranch, Westwoods that would help to

[3:08:15] create that connectivity to nine and then looking at taking at 9 to the

[3:08:19] junction. >> So I think that the effort may have be

[3:08:24] might be on hold a little bit. Mhm. >> The biggest barrier with that was that,

[3:08:30] excuse me, the grant amount is not actually enough to cover the whole

[3:08:35] feasibility study. And so that's kind of where we're stuck. But thankfully, we

[3:08:40] have some more time to figure out what we want to do with that.

[3:08:46] » Uh Pete, did you want to say something quick? Yeah, I just wanted to point out

[3:08:49] um in regards to the bike path along County Road 99 that um when when that

[3:08:55] subdivision was built, there was an extra wide county rideway designated. I

[3:09:01] don't remember how wide it is specifically for a future bike path. And

[3:09:05] that actually shows on on the plat for the for the condos. So So there's

[3:09:11] adequate adequate rightway to put a bike path down County Road 99. And I think

[3:09:17] early on I I gave um Bill Do a you know a copy of the plat map. I can't remember

[3:09:24] anymore. >> Okay, we'll follow up on that note. Uh

[3:09:28] » Grand West is a PUD and so there was um uh the Grand West condos are a PUD and

[3:09:35] then Grand West is a subdivision and so yeah standard practice for um

[3:09:41] subdivision review is to create um connectivity and access through trails.

[3:09:49] » Well that that's good information. Thanks for interjecting Mark. Is there

[3:09:53] anything else in this uh in this presentation before we move on that

[3:09:58] you'd like to address and like input on? >> No, just the just those bypass and again

[3:10:03] that's very if the city and the county want to continue that conversation. It

[3:10:08] was just the bypass and then the trail along 24. Okay.

[3:10:16] Otherwise, if they'll put in those comments and any other comments you have

[3:10:20] and wrap it up in a bow, then I think DJNA can can get their what they were

[3:10:24] contracted to do completed. >> Okay. One one thing that I don't see uh

[3:10:30] Bill and Mike is is a bike path or any connectivity on 91

[3:10:36] from, you know, some bike path or trail. There's a lot of people that walk the

[3:10:40] highway there. 91 from the trailer park up to Safeway. Was that part of your

[3:10:45] scope or No,

[3:10:49] » that extended a little bit further north than the limits of our scope. Our scope

[3:10:54] went to the 91 US 24 intersection. So we do within the plan talk about though the

[3:11:01] need for uh with the roundabout uh each plan for the future here a way for there

[3:11:09] to be a crossing on the west leg of the intersection recognizing that yeah

[3:11:12] people do from the park here and from other developments here do need this

[3:11:18] connection along along the highway there.

[3:11:21] But that was kind of the the extent of our our scope there was that

[3:11:24] intersection.

[3:11:28] » Okay. >> May I ask a clarifying question then of

[3:11:32] Mark? Um Mark um I I think then just so that we have clarity as staff in helping

[3:11:38] to administer the grant and uh uh further planning once we've taken in the

[3:11:45] feedback to DJNA and they can complete the plan. Um maybe we have misunderstood

[3:11:51] a little bit but we thought it was within the scope even if you know we

[3:11:55] have to do a second RFP within the the um grant funding that we have available

[3:12:03] to then go into further design work. Um is that did we misunderstand um that

[3:12:11] communication with you or is that still a possibility for these funds? Now, now

[3:12:16] we're getting into the difference between there's the IG, which is the

[3:12:20] governmental agreement, which actually cements the funding versus the scope of

[3:12:26] work with DJNA and with grant applications. So, if we're done with

[3:12:31] with this part, then we can now move on to kind of the next step. And let me

[3:12:36] give just a really broad explanation here. um the grant application asks for

[3:12:42] a certain thing from the inner mountain TPR which was agreed to blah blah blah

[3:12:48] gave you 700,000 you had to add a match in there 900,000

[3:12:53] um you then we then did a scope of work then that

[3:12:58] was attached to the IG and in this scope of work we talked about what could

[3:13:03] potentially be done sorry I'm talking with my hands and it's showing up on the

[3:13:06] screen but that's okay um it's interesting seeing myself and then in my

[3:13:10] screen and in your screen. So um the IG itself then says okay you are you are in

[3:13:19] covering so much funds to do this and then you have a scope of work with DJNA

[3:13:26] all these bits and pieces that you have contracted that Lake County has

[3:13:30] contracted with DJNA. So now now we get into technicalities

[3:13:36] which I will give you a a very firm technicality

[3:13:41] in that you can only do so much before then you risk going beyond what's

[3:13:49] allowed and then that would be a statutory violation and I will have to

[3:13:53] say no you can't do that. Now we're getting to some minor gray areas.

[3:14:01] Now, so is it possible to ask DJNA, and this is just an example, you talked

[3:14:08] about north of 91, go down to where that trailer park is. I'm guessing Mountain

[3:14:14] View Estates is what I'm seeing it as on my map.

[3:14:18] To me, that's a small thing that you could It's called a change order. That's

[3:14:24] But I'm not approving it. I'm from from what here on out what I'm saying is

[3:14:30] discussions would have to happen and we would have to get approvals and and

[3:14:34] documentation on this. So from here on out this is just ifs and whatifs.

[3:14:41] So please understand that. So if you said hey it's not too much a big deal

[3:14:47] and there's agreement amongst the my IG folks. Yeah, it's not too much a big

[3:14:54] deal to to change that and have DJ and look at Mountain View Estates coming up

[3:14:59] from 91. It's a little piece. They could kind of look at that, draw it in or

[3:15:03] whatever. That's that's something I would have to get approved and I could

[3:15:10] try and get see if that would be what it would be to get that done. I don't know.

[3:15:17] But again, you have come to a point with DJNA that they have hit their scope. And

[3:15:24] here's here's the bottom line. In all fairness, when you go out with an RFP

[3:15:28] and people do an advertisement or or when people bid the the project,

[3:15:34] that has to be fair. And I will not budge on that fairness. So, if another

[3:15:39] company said, "Well, we could have done that cheaper." And you're just thrown in

[3:15:42] a bunch of work on somebody who's already got the the bid. That's not fair

[3:15:47] and I I cannot allow that and I will not allow that. So we must maintain fairness

[3:15:52] across the board. The other issue has really come that these funds have lagged

[3:15:58] for quite some time and have not been spent really well which be that be what

[3:16:03] may we're moving through that process the best we can. So

[3:16:10] what you would have to do regardless now to do any design to to really decide

[3:16:16] okay you have this $500 and some thousand

[3:16:20] what do we do with it and how can it be most efficiently used? So, here's some

[3:16:25] ideas. What you could say maybe, and I'm putting this as a hard maybe,

[3:16:32] is you could request to me, hey, we may want to do a change order to allow DJNA

[3:16:37] to look at 91 just to make sure we we're treating everybody fair and look at what

[3:16:43] it would be, how many miles, what, you know, but do we really want again a path

[3:16:48] along 91 or do we actually want to maybe come out Crystal? you know, that could

[3:16:54] take an actually bigger lift of a study than what we're expecting because if you

[3:16:59] really look at it, there is no alternative on my map that would allow

[3:17:05] you to get off of 91. So, I I just don't know. And so, that may be something that

[3:17:12] you want to put down on a okay, maybe for the next study or maybe for the next

[3:17:17] effort. But either way, DJNA may have come to

[3:17:21] their into their SC scope into their contract. And so we'll close that out

[3:17:27] and I'll have to get clarity on this, but

[3:17:32] we'll have to either go back to the TPR and they'll say, "Yeah, you can go ahead

[3:17:36] and finish spending," which I think they would expect, or you may not have to go

[3:17:40] back to the TPR and they and because we'll have to look at what you actually

[3:17:44] applied for when you're applying for that grant. And if they if there's

[3:17:48] wiggle room in what you applied for and applying for that grant that you could

[3:17:52] actually go on and focus on one or two of whatever the things that came that

[3:17:58] DJNA came up with, then we will have to go back out with another RFP to then

[3:18:07] open up a scope of work for somebody. But I would want to sit down with Lake

[3:18:12] County and really get an idea on or or come to some firm concepts on the limits

[3:18:22] of that RFP and what you'd want to do because your options now from DJNA and

[3:18:27] and this is really what we wanted to do. We wanted to have a broad view from the

[3:18:31] study and then say, okay, what is critical? What is important? What is

[3:18:36] some lowhanging fruit that we can do? Because there's with 500,000 there's

[3:18:41] very little you could actually do for construction on this.

[3:18:44] » Yes. >> So what could you actually get designed

[3:18:48] that would make sense that could possibly be built in five years? Because

[3:18:54] anything on that sits on the shelf in design longer than five years you either

[3:19:00] lose an opportunity um you you have to pull it back off the

[3:19:05] shelf. and talking to engineers. A shelf life for engineering plans are 3 to

[3:19:11] seven years max. So, I mean, they're still good, but you

[3:19:16] you'd still have to go back and work it out. So, if you're going to spend

[3:19:20] 500,000 on design and get it all the way through to really good design or even

[3:19:24] 30%, or you could take two things and say say, "Okay, we're going to see what

[3:19:28] rightway is there. We're going to see really what utilities there and what,

[3:19:32] you know, what potential could be." And so,

[3:19:35] That could be part of the discussion, but anything else, you can't really ask

[3:19:40] DJ and A to do anything else after what they've done now. And you

[3:19:47] can't add, you can add maybe a tiny bit, but you can't add a lot. And I'd have to

[3:19:53] find truly what the difference is between a tiny bit and a lot because at

[3:19:58] some point some other company could say, "Hey, you're you're going beyond that."

[3:20:03] and then they get Lake County and Mark Rogers in trouble. And I I don't want to

[3:20:08] be in trouble. >> So,

[3:20:11] honestly, you know, let's wrap up DJNA's contract with making sure you have good

[3:20:18] documentation, making sure you have as much out of what their scope of work as

[3:20:23] you can get. And then we will say, okay, and and we can do this right now. if of

[3:20:32] those four priorities that they looked at and again I I I did a screenshot of

[3:20:36] their four four priorities um

[3:20:41] they they had they had the identifi I pulled the wrong screenshot sorry their

[3:20:45] four areas um was

[3:20:50] 24 coming around there CMC the intersection right there around

[3:20:55] Safeway and then the bypass so you could pick one or two of those maybe and say,

[3:21:01] "Okay, really what is the priority here? What is if we had 500,000

[3:21:07] plus to spend?" Well, four 500,000 with the grant and then 25%

[3:21:12] you'd have to add to it for your local match. What is it that you are

[3:21:18] priorities? What would you really think are the priorities to do? and then maybe

[3:21:23] look at design, look at further investigation

[3:21:27] and then you guys can go into executive session after, maybe not today or even

[3:21:32] two weeks from now, whatever. And then you can say, "Okay, once we're

[3:21:37] done with DJNA, and once all those bills are sent in, we'll know exactly how much

[3:21:43] is left, then we'll try and hit priority Y or Z, whatever." So, I've talked a lot

[3:21:48] now and I'm going to go ahead and mute my mic and then you guys can go ahead.

[3:21:53] But is there any questions on that specific explanation of the difference

[3:21:57] between these various grants and awards and and rules?

[3:22:03] » Hey Mark, I I appreciate you explaining. I think it would probably be good

[3:22:06] context for you that none of the commissioners that are here nor myself

[3:22:10] were here when this grant was taken on and we recognize the importance of

[3:22:14] having a fully baked plan with a multi-year budget so that it gets picked

[3:22:17] up and are doing that with staff now. Um I think really that's why we're in here

[3:22:23] today is to figure out what did these guys want to do with the project that

[3:22:26] they've inherited that may or may not have had a full scope or plan.

[3:22:31] » Yes. And the timing on this is very good because the timing is we can wrap up

[3:22:36] with DJNA as much as we need to get that totally completed. If they really do

[3:22:41] want to say, "Hey, can we do a change order to bring in 91?" That's a

[3:22:47] conversation I can have with people who have

[3:22:52] authority to make that decision and then we can go that direction. Otherwise,

[3:22:57] we'll close out with DJNA and move on. But I'll go ahead and mute.

[3:23:02] » Mark, one real quick question. Is there a world I I was kind of hearing you

[3:23:06] dance around this a little. Is there a world in which we would not be able to

[3:23:09] continue to spend the remainder of the grant funds?

[3:23:13] » It's a very small small world. And let me tell you the problem with this.

[3:23:17] There's two little caveats in this one. because it's gone taken so long and the

[3:23:24] the legislature the Colorado legislature has actually been pulling

[3:23:29] MMO funds we've the seed dots still worked hard to make them available your

[3:23:35] guyses are locked in so they couldn't really take those but they are watching

[3:23:40] how fast they are spent and they're watching the draw down and these have

[3:23:45] kind of languished for this and whatever you do we'll need to say we will get

[3:23:51] these spent. Now I don't think and again I don't think but there is a minor

[3:23:57] possibility that you'd have to let the inner

[3:24:01] mountain TPR know, you know, because these funds are still out there. But you

[3:24:05] just say, "Hey, it took a while. The commissioners changed over." You tell

[3:24:09] them the truth. And then they'd probably say, "Okay, go ahead and finish spending

[3:24:12] your 5,000. It's already there." Because if it does come back, they risk losing

[3:24:16] it, too. So I don't see that really happening. I I think it's a very very

[3:24:20] minute chance, but I cannot say it won't happen because I've seen the legislature

[3:24:25] continue to pull these MMO funds. These local agency funds need spent at an

[3:24:31] efficient rate. >> Okay.

[3:24:36] » Okay. Thank you, Mark. And then uh just one question. Uh this is Matt Bulock,

[3:24:40] county commissioner. Is it fair to future RFP recipients for us to discuss

[3:24:47] this further or do we need to because this grant is from C do DOT so I

[3:24:53] understand that we can't really even talk about county road for alternates

[3:24:57] for our bike path. Shall we continue with this next phase?

[3:25:02] » Um I I don't see anything because really what we're finishing is we're finishing

[3:25:08] discussing maybe some priorities maybe other things. It's free to anybody who

[3:25:12] who wants to look because they can look at this public documentation or whether

[3:25:16] they can look at the minutes or whatever. And I don't think you're

[3:25:19] really releasing any proprietary information that they wouldn't all have.

[3:25:24] What would be wrong is if you were private about it and just gave it to

[3:25:27] DJNA and so then they'd have some sort of leg up on the competition. I think

[3:25:33] it's better you actually discuss it in public. That way, anybody who can look

[3:25:37] at the minutes down the road would have the same ability to compete fairly.

[3:25:42] That's what you want. A level playing field. That's part of my job is to make

[3:25:45] sure we have a level playing field. >> Well, that's that's great. That's what

[3:25:51] we want. So, uh,

[3:25:55] just to move things forward here, I'll just kick it off. Considering

[3:25:59] everything that we've seen here, if it was up to me, my priority would be 24,

[3:26:06] the roundabout or the stoplight, but maybe the roundabout because we have

[3:26:10] other plans down there uh with a sledding hill and the mineral

[3:26:15] belt trail. So, of of all the options, I would like to see personally that plan

[3:26:21] move forward and the other ones put on a back burner.

[3:26:26] So, if we could use the other 500,000, you know, maybe that would cover it.

[3:26:31] Maybe not. >> Uh, I'm glad we're talking about this

[3:26:36] because I feel like what has come up in the community more and more, what has

[3:26:40] come up in the community for the longest time is the connectivity of Mountain

[3:26:44] View East and West and the that dangerous highway that goes right

[3:26:49] through it. So maybe not connecting the Mountain View Park to town, but

[3:26:59] safeguarding that intersection better for the pedestrians that are crossing to

[3:27:03] bus stops >> and for kids who are connecting across

[3:27:08] their neighborhood. I I I knew not to talk about it in the

[3:27:13] last meeting we were gonna have, but this has been one of my biggest

[3:27:16] curiosities is where is the work with C dot for connecting Mountain View east

[3:27:22] and west? And >> so now I have a question on this one. So

[3:27:25] you had traffic there. Did they not want you to talk about it? I'm really

[3:27:29] confused here. >> Well, no, I just knew that this was

[3:27:32] going to be on our docket. >> Okay. Because I really I really kind of

[3:27:36] was hoping the traffic folk were stay. I was kind of watching them in their

[3:27:39] presentation and they gave a good presentation. But yeah, there's there's

[3:27:42] so much about that those two parks and on and on, I really wish traffic had

[3:27:46] stayed. But even having some studies and on and on and looking at just taking

[3:27:50] that out to 99. But anyway,

[3:27:56] » no, I agree now that Elsa says it, I do see a lot of kids on that road.

[3:28:00] » Yeah. crossing back and forth and uh but that seems like a with the signs with

[3:28:07] the design that is there doesn't seem that difficult to put a flashing light

[3:28:12] some signs and stuff. I mean that doesn't seem I know everything's

[3:28:18] expensive but it seems like most of that work

[3:28:22] is done. Well, that's why I say when we're looking at lowhanging fruit, like

[3:28:26] a roundabout is gonna way go over $500,000,

[3:28:31] » whereas some signage and maybe some striping or

[3:28:34] » or um sidewalk work. Yeah. Like that would be able to be lowhanging fruit

[3:28:40] with this. >> So, any construction any construction

[3:28:45] may blow this budget. What you what I would suggest is really focus on design

[3:28:50] of something because I think any unless you're talking just five 800 feet of

[3:28:56] sidewalk or whatever. I mean it's it's entirely because the design you'd still

[3:29:00] have to go in and design the sidewalk check right away and right away again

[3:29:04] maybe tight through there. Um I would really look at DJNA's contract. Would

[3:29:12] did were they supposed to look it right away? Were they supposed to? I mean,

[3:29:17] this is another thing, Bill. Do you know if if that scope of work that you were

[3:29:22] contracted had you look at right away?

[3:29:29] » Oh, yeah. You know, just seeing what the, you know, C do rightway width is.

[3:29:35] And so con concept level. >> Okay. All right.

[3:29:42] Mark, a clarifying question that we had in some of the factf finding on this is

[3:29:46] um potentially a 30% design would get us to the point where we could put this in

[3:29:51] front of the IMPR for consideration for longerterm project. Is that correct?

[3:29:56] Would we need to advance a single project further than that 30% threshold?

[3:30:01] No, you could do one project to the 30% threshold, but the problem is you didn't

[3:30:06] contract with DJNA to take anything to 30% threshold. What you did with them is

[3:30:12] do a really broad, which I think is great. You did a really broad look at

[3:30:18] what their priorities are. Now, your job gets a little more difficult. You've got

[3:30:22] to actually go in and pick a priority or two priorities and say, "Okay, we want

[3:30:26] to advance X or Y or X and Y to 30% level plans." And then you'll have to go

[3:30:34] out for an RFP and we'll try to really rush that you not rush it through, but

[3:30:39] we'll try to make sure it's efficient in a timely effic it's efficiently done in

[3:30:43] a timely manner. >> Sorry for the double speak. Just

[3:30:48] » that's that's really helpful. Well, I think for our purposes for this meeting,

[3:30:51] if we can walk out of this room with guidance for CPD in terms of the

[3:30:55] direction from the BOCC, which of these we would like to pursue, all of that

[3:31:00] kind of RFP development, that all comes after, but I think we need the guidance

[3:31:04] on the next steps from the decision makers in this room as to which of these

[3:31:08] do you want the energy to go into to get to that 30 or 60 or whatever threshold

[3:31:12] of design. Can I can I add to that because the

[3:31:16] numbers that we gave you in that email are like $260,000

[3:31:21] to move all of them forward >> to to 30%.

[3:31:24] » Mhm. >> I know you read that you have that

[3:31:26] opportunity, but I just want to be clear. Um so one idea is to keep them

[3:31:31] all alive. That would be one way to do it. Um versus moving one forward.

[3:31:37] » I like that. Yeah, that's that's so 200,000 was and these these are just

[3:31:43] ballpark amounts. Of course, we would have to go out to RFP to and you know

[3:31:48] close out the plan then go out to RFP. So, our intent was to to do as as um uh

[3:31:57] Mark has indicated, close out the plan, but get feedback today on what you're

[3:32:01] hearing and what your thoughts are on that and then look how we could

[3:32:07] further leverage these funds to be more competitive. So, it sounds to me like

[3:32:11] with the funds left, we could do we could look at advancing all three of

[3:32:16] these projects and then push the decision to a later date once we once

[3:32:23] we've established our priorities. I mean, that sounds reasonable to me.

[3:32:27] » It's like the four. It's actually all four.

[3:32:29] » Okay. >> 200,000 was just and these are

[3:32:32] ballparks. We'd have to sus this out better. Um and we will have to work

[3:32:36] directly with Mark to make sure that you know finalizing the plan then going out

[3:32:41] through RFP to look at taking these priorities to um a 30% design you know

[3:32:48] but working very closely with them to make sure that we're within our

[3:32:52] statutory obligation the grant is obviously what we would be doing too. M

[3:32:56] » but um if if that would be possible for us to have enough funding to look at

[3:33:02] those. So maybe we have an idea of what maybe your number your your two highest

[3:33:07] priorities are. But if we have the possibility to look at at all of these

[3:33:11] that have been identified that would probably be your first choice. It'd be

[3:33:14] great to have maybe a second choice. >> I I love that. Is this is our match

[3:33:21] already budgeted for that work? it. I think it should be.

[3:33:26] » Yes. I mean, this >> is it. Is it in your budget?

[3:33:29] » It's not. >> It's not in my The only thing that I do

[3:33:32] is just make sure that the invoices match the work that's been done.

[3:33:36] » This was in Duncan. Was that >> or where?

[3:33:38] » I think it wasn't Tim. >> It was I mean Tim

[3:33:45] Feedler project. So, it never even originated in CPD either.

[3:33:49] » Bringing it up. >> Honestly, I'll have to look at it. as

[3:33:52] well since we account for grants a little bit differently. If not, I mean,

[3:33:58] we can figure it out if we want to finish expending the money, but I don't

[3:34:01] know what to talk about without looking at the budget.

[3:34:04] » Yeah, >> I think that would be my only

[3:34:05] consideration of just choosing one as opposed to going out and doing the full

[3:34:10] 270 for all three. If if it's unlikely that we could do all three and it's an

[3:34:16] extra cost to us to match the grant, that would be my that's why I would

[3:34:20] choose one. So we can it' be great to know finding that out.

[3:34:23] » Thank you. >> Commissioner Lee, you still with us? you

[3:34:29] want got anything you'd like to add before we uh

[3:34:33] » Yeah, I just uh am wondering, you know, it sounds like Commissioner Bullock, you

[3:34:42] you're kind of keen on the roundabout situation and and taking the planning of

[3:34:46] that forward as well as the um Mountain View Village East and West. Elsa, you're

[3:34:52] really championing for Mountain View East and West. And then um I I am

[3:34:59] partial to the uh pedestrian path that gets people from Mountain View east and

[3:35:04] west into town. >> What was the fourth one? Was that the

[3:35:09] excuse me, sorry, the the north gateway, >> sidewalk enhancements,

[3:35:16] » safely. Yeah. Yeah, bus stop bus stop and and just that traffic

[3:35:23] combing and some ways to have better mobility in that area.

[3:35:26] » And then and then for our next steps, we're looking at right now

[3:35:32] uh wrapping this up, putting an RFP out to take how many of these next projects

[3:35:39] to 30% completion? All all four or three or two?

[3:35:47] » All four. Yeah, we'd like to look at all four, but having like a second plan if

[3:35:51] that doesn't work after we talk to Mark and have a better idea of where we're

[3:35:55] at. So, we had >> Okay.

[3:35:58] Commissioners have identified maybe two priorities.

[3:36:02] » Did you hear that, Andy? >> Yeah, I did. What that kind of aligns

[3:36:07] with what my concerns were with that trying to use what's left in this in

[3:36:13] this pot to take all four projects to a 30%

[3:36:18] planning completion felt like a stretch to me.

[3:36:26] I also I worry that

[3:36:31] like number one, we don't have to spend all these funds and we don't have to

[3:36:35] match all of these funds. So, anything that we're not matching is money we're

[3:36:41] saving. So, if there are any of these that we don't need to do, like that's

[3:36:45] money that we won't spend. I just want us to have that little flag.

[3:36:50] And then the MMO funding that comes through the IMTPR,

[3:36:56] like has been said already in this room, is at risk. It's at greater and greater

[3:37:00] risk every single year with like the things that are going on the ballot, the

[3:37:04] way that the legislature is trying to mitigate those impacts. Like MOF is

[3:37:10] going to we don't know how much it's going to be

[3:37:14] around. So, I think I personally would rather have like a streamlined let's get

[3:37:18] this one thing that done that we can get done now knowing that we won't be able

[3:37:23] to get all four done or probably even two. Um, it's just a consideration I

[3:37:29] wanted to bring up in case it impacts how we would make a decision.

[3:37:35] » Well, I just to remind you this grant is just planning and design.

[3:37:41] » I know. So, we can't actually like use this funding to implement anything.

[3:37:46] » I know. I'm saying that >> getting it done.

[3:37:48] » To get it done is less and less likely in the future. So, if we know we're not

[3:37:53] going to be able to get it done, why spend even the extra matching dollars

[3:37:57] » to do the planning, >> right? A plan that's not going to

[3:38:01] » we Yeah. If we know it's not >> Mark, did you want to chime in there?

[3:38:05] » Sure. >> In your hand.

[3:38:07] » Sorry. I do. I do. I try not to interrupt. It's just hard to find the

[3:38:11] hand here. Here, I'll give you some reasons why you want to continue. One,

[3:38:15] yeah, your funding may be kind of iffy right now in the future, but future can

[3:38:21] get really future could be here really fast with new funding. You just never

[3:38:27] know with local agency funding. Um, it just depends in four years, five years,

[3:38:33] you could have that. So, you want to continue down the road you're looking at

[3:38:38] because if it's not there, you're going to eventually have to get 30% plans at

[3:38:43] some time. Now, to better understand 30% plans, what you're wanting, and Bill,

[3:38:49] you may want to help me out a little bit here,

[3:38:52] you're basically going to be getting a good rightway set of plans of what's

[3:38:58] there and what's not, what the potential has. Because at 30% plans, what you're

[3:39:03] really looking for is it's better than back a napkin, but it's not you can't

[3:39:08] really start construction on it yet. You want your rideway done. You want to make

[3:39:13] sure if there's any utilities are in the way. So, you'll kind of do a a overview

[3:39:18] of what utilities are there. Rightway is crucial because right away can kill a

[3:39:24] project before anything else does because it gets so expensive that you

[3:39:28] can't do anything. So you want to look at rightway, you want to look at

[3:39:34] feasibility type stuff. So if you've got really steep terrain

[3:39:39] and you don't want that and you're going to have to do some curves kind of you

[3:39:43] you're going to basically it's called field inspection review is 30% plans.

[3:39:48] You're going to get estimates that are not just kind of guesses. You're going

[3:39:53] to get good estimates on those projects. You're going to have the rightway plans

[3:39:59] or not plans, but you're going to have at least known sections and and those

[3:40:04] are good for, you know, if you if they're not going to get sold off, it's

[3:40:08] like state property or whatever. If it's private property, you know, you want to

[3:40:11] avoid it. So, with the FIR, the field inspection review plans, you're going to

[3:40:17] have a pretty solid concept of the elevation, you know, where it's going to

[3:40:22] go, if if it's even feasible. you're going to have the rightway and and

[3:40:27] potential utilities and also envir environmental look at that and typically

[3:40:32] the environmental is covered within region 3. We go out there and just do a

[3:40:36] brief review. So that's cover all our local agency projects are covered by we

[3:40:41] don't charge when we do our environmental review. So really, you'd

[3:40:44] just be paying for really good concept designs that can

[3:40:52] kind of show elevation, show feasibility, and the rightway. Those

[3:40:56] that's really what you want more than anything out of your 30% plans. And

[3:41:04] the the bypass would be a little bit harder to do because it's so some of

[3:41:09] those areas are so big and you're going to be crossing so much through there.

[3:41:13] But definitely on the other three you can get pretty good could could get

[3:41:18] pretty good through FIR level plans. So then you have that because these funds

[3:41:27] right now they may not be coming around right away but you have them now. I

[3:41:33] would use them and then just cross your fingers and hope that more local agency

[3:41:40] funds become available down the road. >> Okay. Well, thank you, Mark. Uh,

[3:41:48] yeah, I think I'd be willing to uh eliminate the bypass and then I guess

[3:41:54] the question is could we get all the remaining three

[3:41:59] to 30% with the funds we have left? That's that'd be ideal. And that's what

[3:42:03] you're saying, Mark. So that'd be the next step. And then we prioritize those

[3:42:09] three. If we can't get those three done with the funds we have left, then we

[3:42:14] start we eliminate one at a time. >> And it sounds like from staff that we

[3:42:18] can get that done, >> that we could get all three to 30%.

[3:42:22] » 270 >> is what it would cost to get all of them

[3:42:25] » and the bypass. >> And the bypass. And I just want to

[3:42:28] triple check that that so just for context

[3:42:32] grant matches should be carried forward >> should be

[3:42:37] » um if they were recorded in restricted account codes uh I was not here neither

[3:42:42] was Will at that time so I just want to make sure that's actually what happened

[3:42:45] with the match. So that's what we need to know first.

[3:42:49] Yeah. >> Does this cost us extra money or have we

[3:42:52] allocated the funds? >> And then number two, we will create an

[3:42:57] RFP for the 30%.

[3:43:00] » Design >> for all four.

[3:43:02] » For all four if that's the case. If it's not the case that we have the funds,

[3:43:06] then we'll come back and have a conversation about how much we want to

[3:43:08] spend. Yeah. And then prioritize from there.

[3:43:12] » Okay. >> Great.

[3:43:14] » Talk about a roundabout. Holy moly. It's felt harder than it needed to be.

[3:43:26] » Can I add one other thing >> also? I would really love to have a

[3:43:31] schedule. Sorry if I keep I would love to have a schedule to make sure that we

[3:43:35] keep on a path here. So, a schedule as far as when DJNA,

[3:43:41] all that information is done and closed out and then we could because we could

[3:43:46] be talking about the RF, the future RFP while we're while they're still going on

[3:43:51] there and then once we have that closed out, we know exactly how much is done.

[3:43:56] » We hear you loud and clear, Mark. We really appreciate that input.

[3:44:01] » Yeah, thank you for that, Mark. One of one of the things we clarified is the

[3:44:05] IGA we have with them is good through July of of 2033.

[3:44:10] » Okay. >> So even though maybe we could be going

[3:44:13] faster, we've got some time. >> Yeah.

[3:44:15] » But what we hear you though, Mark, and and we'll we'll start working on that

[3:44:20] directly with you and make sure or at least check in with you and have those

[3:44:23] checkpoints. But that makes total sense.

[3:44:28] Mark, how big is the list of deliverables you would want to see on a

[3:44:32] schedule?

[3:44:36] » A very high level. So, basically, it's just going to be

[3:44:41] we're going to go out to add with an RFP X, you know, by certain month and year.

[3:44:47] We're going to close it out with DJNA by a certain next and month and year. And

[3:44:51] then because you I really don't want you going out for another RFP till DJNA is

[3:44:56] done. And I mean, we can discuss it. We can get it all drafted, but we don't

[3:45:00] want to go out until we have that taken care of. That way, we know exactly how

[3:45:06] much money is out there. That's the key. And then as soon as we get a new person

[3:45:12] on or a new or or we get DJ, whatever, when we get the that one filled, then

[3:45:20] they need to have a scope that they go right in and they know exactly what they

[3:45:24] have to do. They have to get the rightway. They got to get the utilities.

[3:45:27] They have to get all this done and present it to you.

[3:45:31] » Okay, >> great. Thank you.

[3:45:34] » I think we got path forward. Thanks for your input, Mark.

[3:45:38] » Thank you. >> If you guys are done with me, done

[3:45:41] questions. I'll go ahead and let you go ahead. Any other questions?

[3:45:46] » Okay. >> None for me. Thank you, Mark.

[3:45:49] » And again, I have my phone number. If there's something you guys need, be

[3:45:53] please give me a call. Thank you so much.

[3:45:56] » Thanks, Mark. >> You got it.

[3:46:04] » Okay, next steps.

[3:46:08] Pete, >> can I make a general comment?

[3:46:11] » Sure. >> I think you need to um um the DJNA

[3:46:18] proposal had, you know, a lot more public interaction, you know, than you

[3:46:22] guys just deciding right away. I think that certainly would be appropriate to

[3:46:27] have a town hall and and you know address the the um the projects and see

[3:46:33] what what the people are interested in. Um I think that was contemplated. I'd

[3:46:38] hate to see that you know that taken out of the out of the process. Um and um

[3:46:46] let's see. Um

[3:46:51] yeah, I I just think that there needs to be more public process in this and I

[3:46:54] think that was promised. The other thing is that you know there's no data draft

[3:46:58] report out there that should be made available to the public as well to you

[3:47:02] know to inform the public as to what DJNA has done, what conclusions they've

[3:47:08] reached, how they've reached them. Um I've been asking for the draft report

[3:47:12] for about six months now and it's always been, you know, in county review. So,

[3:47:16] there's got to be some paper out there that's available for review and the

[3:47:20] public ought to have a chance to to review it and comment.

[3:47:25] » Thanks. >> Thank you, Pete.

[3:47:28] » Yeah, I can appreciate that sentiment as we go back and and look at this and talk

[3:47:32] with Mark. um because this grant has been lingering

[3:47:37] out there for a while. It will really depend on like how much time we have to

[3:47:42] do something with it, especially because there was not a fully developed plan

[3:47:47] that we I think all have in front of us to follow. So I think whether we can do

[3:47:52] that or not will partially depend on the timing of the funding that's left

[3:47:58] available and and what was written into the grant when it was applied for. But

[3:48:03] we can definitely update you once we have some conversations with him about

[3:48:07] how much time we have left to explain the

[3:48:10] » and if the the match truly good. >> I was just talking about,

[3:48:16] » you know, Mark was making a big deal about closing out the DGNA part.

[3:48:20] » You know, what what deliverables, you know, they had in their in their

[3:48:24] proposal that were in the RFP that still need to be to be done. And I think the

[3:48:28] public interaction piece still needs to be done.

[3:48:32] and and the plan does um include there was engagement um done by the

[3:48:37] consultants. Um so I did include public engagement that

[3:48:42] that is within the report that we've provided.

[3:48:46] » That's what I was >> So there was some included we had to

[3:48:50] pivot just a little bit on an actual event in the um manufactured home

[3:48:54] community. Um but other than that um I don't know if you want to hear about

[3:48:58] that or not but there was public engagement done as part of it.

[3:49:02] » Thank you. >> I remember that.

[3:49:03] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[3:49:04] » It kind of over overlapped a bit with the L community project.

[3:49:07] » Y trying to tie it together since we knew we had people gathering anyway. Y

[3:49:12] » so it was during that time. >> It was like the beginning of when we

[3:49:15] were seated. >> Yeah.

[3:49:18] » Right. >> Yeah.

[3:49:19] » Yeah. >> Yeah. That's true.

[3:49:21] » But it was part of the scope and it was included. Yeah. And we didn't want to we

[3:49:26] didn't want to send out the draft until the board really had an opportunity to

[3:49:30] review it. So, you know, that that's part of why and it's been six months

[3:49:36] easily. >> Okay.

[3:49:39] » Well, good. Well, thanks for the hard work on this, you guys. Let's uh take

[3:49:44] all this input and move forward. Hate to see this money disappear before

[3:49:50] we can use it. >> Yeah. Any

[3:49:54] questions you have for us, Bill or Mike?

[3:49:59] » Um, not right now. I think, uh, you know, we heard Mark Mark's comments and

[3:50:04] I think, uh, have good understanding of some items to revise as it relates to

[3:50:10] that uh, the bike path concept within the document. Um, and then we'll circle

[3:50:15] back with Melissa and Ann for any other um items that we need to to clean up or

[3:50:21] incorporate in uh to put together uh a final draft of that document.

[3:50:27] » Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks.

[3:50:29] » Thank you.

[3:50:34] » All right. Should we close it out? Conclude our Lake County Commissioners

[3:50:40] work session. Thanks all for coming. Thank you everybody online.

[3:50:45] » Thank you chair. Thank you Elsa. Thank you staff.

[3:50:50] » Thank you Andy. Get better, Andy. Hey here.

Lake County CO 08.25.2026 BOCC Work Session - 11:00AM

Transcript