City Council - Regular Meeting

We're good. No, no, no. Okay. Good evening and welcome to city council for Wednesday, March 25th. Um, we are going to get started. If you'll bear with us tonight, we do have a quick meeting we need to take care of before our general meeting, which is our Herman City Fire Service area meeting. So, we'll call that meeting to order at this point. Our one item on the agenda is a public hearing in consideration of a resolution amending the fiscal year 2026 Herma city fire safety area budget. So Kyle, we'll turn to you.

Thank you, mayor. Uh this is a one item request. So, um, as, uh, the Herman City Council is aware, uh, the city is looking at purchasing some fire station land in the southeast corner of the city. However, we have received initial appraisals back that are significantly higher than what we had budgeted in the impact fee fund. Uh, so the budget amendment before you tonight uh, would use $900,000 of fund balance um, to put with the million that we do have in impact fee funding already uh, to accomplish the purchase. If the city council ends up um approving that transaction, uh the plan would be as we collect impact fees, it would get transferred back to the fire service area and reimburse the service area for that expense as we collect impact fees. Any questions for the public hearing for me? Thank you. I see none. Thank you, Kyle. Okay, at this point, we will open the public hearing for this item. Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Look for a motion to close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second by Teddy, second by Matt. All in favor? I. Look for a motion. Make a motion to approve resolution number R01-26, approving the amendment to the 2026 physical year budget. Motion by Matt. Second. Second by Jared. We'll go Jared. Yes. Teddy. Yes. Matt. Yes. Tara. Yes. And I'll vote yes. That motion carries. Okay. Look for a motion to adjourn. Make a motion. Second. All in favor? I.

Thank you everybody. Thank you Kyle. Okay. We'll now go into our regular meeting and we'll start that tonight with a pledge of allegiance by Chase Andrezy. Please repeat after me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Chase. Okay, we'll go to item 4.2. Any city council comments or recognitions tonight? Seeing none tonight, we'll move on to page our public comment portion tonight. Um, I'm just going to step in by raise of hands. Who's here to speak to the trail? Everybody. Not them in the back. Okay, let's do this for the trail tonight. Adam, you had reached out with expressing let's if council's okay with this, I'd like to do a public hearing where public comment during that portion. So, we'll just So, if you've got a public comment tonight on the trail, we're going to do that during so you can hear what our presentation is, what the results are. then we'll open the public comment and then that we kind of hear what we've the results are, what the study shows and then so if that's so if you're here tonight to speak to anything other than that right now at this point we'll open the public comment. Audience members may bring any item within the city's purview to the city council's attention. Comments will be limited to two minutes. State law prohibits the council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda. Public comments for this meeting will also be conducted electronically. Any person interested in

addressing the council may submit a comment by emailing recorder@hairman.gov or by visiting herman.gov/aggendas and minutes where there's a link to fill out an online public comment form. Your statement will be incorporated into the public record. So if there's any other public comment not related to the trail, we'll take it now. Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to our city council reports tonight. We'll start with Jared. just for public consumption because everyone here is is up to speed on the garbage board while at front waste recycling district. We've been in a process with them for nearly a year to separate from that district and then contract for um those services directly through a private provider. Those talks are moving along. um we kind of stalled out, but we worked with our partners and were able to change some of the legislation that lets us exit that service district a little bit easier. Um that's really where we are right now. I don't think we've had any real contact with them the last couple weeks since that legislation was passed, but we'll keep working on that from me on the board and then the committee that we have that we've been working with to negotiate that exit for the public. What that means is that really all you'll probably see is just a difference in the billing and the amount you'll pay will be less. We can go private and save about 25% or so. And then for UFA for the fire district, I won't bore you with all of that. We're in the middle of that budget season. Um we've had three committee meetings, a couple of board meetings, and now it goes to the finance committee um which I chair this next month or so and I'll report back with that.

Perfect. Thank you, Jared. Uh Teddy.

Um this week was the week of meetings. So um I actually uh got to go to West Jordan City Hall last night and listen to their um governing body speak at their city council meeting. And I'm glad we do ours our way. It's very different. Um so Jordan Basement Improvement District, we uh concluded our plant tours and our um RFQS or RFPs for our new plant expansion. We're in the um uh picking our contractor now, our engineer firm. So, that's going to be coming up very soon. Um we have a big conference uh the week before, league conference in April. Um I'll be down four for the sewer uh wastewater sewer treatment uh conference. They have several members getting awards from Jordan Basement Improvement District. So, it should be a pretty u big deal there for us. Uh South Valley Chamber, we had our update uh our board meeting this morning. We um talked about the update uh for the year. We had an update of uh the point and their development. We also had um an update on the Shark Tank for uh the youth entrepreneurs that the chamber does and also their new small business um award program that they're going to be hosting this year. So that's the reports I have. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Matt. I don't have anything tonight.

Okay, Tara. Um, I was able to go with the Herman Youth Council up to Logan for the USU leadership conference. We had a group of 19 of us total um there and was a great theme of united we stand. A real emphasis on um being able to have good conversations, leadership skills, um being able to work together even when we disagree at times. Um but it was a great experience for our youth council. And just a note um in the next month or two the applications will be open for next year's youth council and would encourage everyone to apply every high school students.

Right. So thank you. Clarification on that. Is that for incoming ninth graders? Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Tara. Um couple things I can report on. We did. I can't remember if we brought this up, but Herman was awarded a $50 million grant from the state this year for some roads out west. I don't know if we mentioned that in public two weeks ago. Um, but we were out of $70 million, we were awarded 50 million of that. So, that will help with some roads out west to accommodate that growth that is happening out there. And then the other report I was going to Sorry. Bear with me one second. Camera. That's what I was going to talk about. Or give me one second. Maybe that was it. Okay, I think that was it. I thought I had one more thing, but I can't track it now, so I won't make everybody hold up. So, um, okay, with that, we will move over to, um, our reports tonight. We're going to start with our, uh, UFA 2025 annual report. Um, we welcome Division Chief Anthony Whittison. Floor is yours, my friend. Good evening, mayor, council. It's a pleasure to be here to uh give you a a brief report. I will be uh brief. This is just a high level overview of uh fire and EMS service delivery in Haramman for uh 2025. Um this report really is just to give you a picture of what your fire and EMS system is actually responding to on a daily basis. um show how the system is performing and uh particularly the

response times and then highlight any trends that may help inform uh future planning. At a at a high level um in 2025 we we responded to uh 2,245 incidents within Herman City and about 40% of those incidents were what we call emergent calls or priority one calls. Um, so these are lights and sirens type type responses. Um, primary call type is medical emergencies and and um, you'll see that throughout this presentation. Um, that the majority of what we do is respond to uh, medical calls. They're they're medical in nature and not fire. Um, this is really consistent throughout all firebased EMS systems in the nation. Uh when we look at uh the the call volume, sorry, let me back up here. Um there are a couple things to point out here. Uh we're seeing a a gradual increase in uh volume over year-over-year. Um and there's a predictable seasonal pattern uh that we see as well. We tend to see higher activity in the summer and fall months. Um that's just tied to increased activity outside. uh people are moving around uh more travel and that uh this is a manageable and expect expected trend, but it's definitely something that we keep our eye on as uh the community continues to grow. Um when we break it down to what people in Haramman are actually calling 911 for um it becomes it's pretty relatable. Um we're talking about falls, seizures, uh breathing problems, cardiac issues, uh motor vehicle, uh crashes, um things that are happening in everyday life. Um again, most of these are medical in nature and this is what drives most of the demand. Um fire calls make up a a much smaller

portion of our overall workload. uh but when they do happen they are high risk, high consequence and high impact uh events. Uh that's really what drives the need for staffing uh training and equipment. Um when those incidents occur, the expectation is that we respond quickly and effectively. So even though they're they're less frequent, um they're still a critical part of the overall system. Um emergency response performance uh remained consistent throughout the year. Uh even during periods where call volume increased. Uh we didn't see any meaningful changes in our response performance. That tells us that the system is keeping pace with the current demand and uh from a city perspective that's what we want to see. We want to see see a stable stable reliable performance as the community continues to grow. When we look at response performance, we just a couple things that I want to mention about uh that performance data. Uh we look at dispatch time. Uh dispatch time is just when the 911 center receives the call to when they dispatch that to the station or the unit. We look at turnout times. Uh turnout time is when the station or the unit receives the call and uh and our in route actually in route to the incident. We look at travel time. So we that is from point of departure to arrival at the incident and then we also look at total uh total time for our metrics. Um we measure those based off of um uh data that is in the community risk assessment or the sorry uh benchmarks that are in the community risk assessment and the standards of cover. Um I just want to briefly mention that we have a regional response model and what that looks like. um we dispatch the closest available unit regardless of the boundary. Uh so sometimes you're going to see some Haramman units in uh

Riverton and some Riverton units in in Haramman. Um in fact um like station 123 has uh in their first due response area they have some of uh Riverton in that first due. Uh but similarly station 121 in Riverton has some heramin um in their first due response as well. So uh all of that is by design that is to improve the response time and help maintain the reliable system. Um a few things that uh are worth watching uh from 2025 is uh we continue to see that gradual increase year-over-year in total call volume. Um there's a there's a slight seasonal increase in emergent calls. Um and we continue to see that consistent demand for medical related emergencies. Um nothing here is really unexpected. Um but these are trends that can help guide our decision-m moving forward. On the other hand, uh a lot of things uh remain consistent. Like I've said, medical calls continue to be the the driver for demand. Uh fire calls, fire incidents remain to be low frequency but but high impact and our response times have remained consistent. So overall the system system is operating um as we expected. Looking forward, um, as Haramman continues to grow, we do expect demand for service to continue to increase over time, our focus is really on monitoring those trends, maintaining performance, and ensuring that the system itself evolves with the community as it grows. Um, lastly, before I wrap up, I just want to say I just want to recognize the city's support and leadership and prioritizing the rebuild of Station 103. Um that's a significant investment in both the firefighters and the community and and that facility is going to be a benefit to the Herman residents for years to come. So appreciate your partnership and moving that forward. With that I take any questions.

Thanks ahead. Yeah, Anthony, I would say sorry, I thought you were going to say something and Anthony, thank you to your to Unified Fire for your partnership for what the way you serve our community at events and all the extra stuff. You guys go above and beyond as well. And I know we've been having some individual discussions lately and I think that's been crazy beneficial. So, thank you. You know, and Jared, your representation on the board as well. So, thank you. So, appreciate the partnership and all you guys do. So, tell everybody thank you for us. We'll

do. Thank you. Thank you, Anthony. Okay, we'll go to on to item 9.1 tonight. This is a public hearing and consideration of an ordinance to approve the updated transportation master plan, impact fee facility plan, impact fee analysis, and an impact fee enactment that would impose a transportation impact fee. Bryce. Okay. Good evening, mayor and council and mayor. Good job on a mouthful of title there for this item. So, if it's that just the title, I don't want to know how long the presentation is. It's up to you.

We'll we'll keep it pretty snazzy, but but but yeah, it's up to you. So, um yeah, as as you all know, we've been working on a update to our transportation master plan um for about the last year now. And so, we're finally at hopefully the you know, the finish line here on on getting this adopted. So, yeah, let's just jump right in. So as uh Trevor even kind of previewed this in the work meeting but the a significant portion of the work of the transportation master plan is really looking at socioeconomic data in Haramman specifically. So, Was Edgefront Regional Council carries a model for you know the entire well for most of the Wasedge front, right? What we do with the transportation master plan, we take their base model and we zoom in and make you know some adjustments to their model that we we believe could be a little bit more accurate or we're we're kind of more f focusing on the micro where their model is more of the the macro model. So based on that, we our consultant WCG uh took all of our development agreements, all of our zoning and looked at little traffic analysis zones in the city. So they're just kind of little trapezoids or other types of shapes within the the city that uh we account for how much households going to how much uh how many households are going to be in there and how much employment's going to be in there. And then based on looking at you know data that that's coming in what is the household size and then we project land use and population and and total trips uh for for uh the transportation system. So um yeah I mean obviously Herman is is continuing to grow. We show in 2035 the growth is going to continue all the way till 2050 is where our model ends. That's kind of

the final scenario. Um, and so like we said, obviously this is a projection. Things change. We've seen in previous models that the projections were higher and as we get a little bit closer, we're dialing in a little bit better on on our data. The nice thing is that in in working with Trevor, we've been able to use this project to be a base for all other master plans and even, you know, some of our data that we're looking at, we can refine and use this data. So um but yeah so so that's the the base for the transportation master plan to know how much traffic or how much trips are going to be we need the base data of how many people are going to be living here how many jobs are going to be in the city where are they going what are the roads going to look like so once we establish that we then look at three scenarios of years so 2025 when we were doing it was the existing year then we look at 2035 and see okay how much growth has happened and what is the traffic change. What does it do to the roads? Then we look out to 2050. And again, these are all projections. So in Haramman, we're we're generally updating our master plans, you know, every 3 to four years because of the growth and and how much changes. Um so based on the the traffic that we model, we then look at okay, where are roads failing? Where are where are we showing that we're over capacity? We have major delays, and then we build a project list based on that. And the project list can be widening projects, it can be new roads, it can be intersection improvements. Um, and so that's the base and what we're looking at today. There's a a PDF that summarizes all this. It's over a 100 pages. Um, and so that's what we're adopting, but there's also an online story map on our website that makes that easily digestible. It's an interactive map, so you can click on roads and see what phase they're in. So, that would be a suggestion to the public. You know, take a look at that if if there's

questions. Um, but but yeah, I'll just hit the highlights of the master plan and the impact fee analysis and kind of go from there. So, so yeah, like I said, there's two types of projects. We're showing intersection and roadway segment projects. So, this shows all of our intersection projects planned out uh by the master plan out to 2050. As you can see, a lot of phase one projects. So, we're calling phase one projects anytime from 2025 to 2034. Those are the red dots. The phase 2 projects are the blue dots. So, 2035 to 2044. And then phase three, which you don't actually see except for in a couple cases on here, uh, is 2045 to 2050. So, out quite a ways. Um, and again, as you can see, because of the growth, especially in Olympia, but also down in the South Hills area, we're seeing a lot of those projects be in the the phase one phase. And then, additionally, we look at roadway segments, right? So, these are the projects we're looking at. So, here the the key the color is still the phase, but then if you look at the line type, the solid line type means we're widening a road. The dash line means we're building a new road. Um, again, you can see what the the growth in Olympia. There's a lot of projects planned in Olympia and that area, but also projects down to the southeast of of the city. And then we do show Mountain View corridor as their project is coming up. But as I'll I'll talk about this, it's not part of our cost or any project cost to us, but it does impact the model once we have that freeway in uh the center of Mountain View corridor. It does impact how traffic gets in and out of the city. So with that said, we have those three

phases. We have these project lists. We then from the master plan look at the impact fee facility plan. So these are those phase one projects that we're looking at and we're we're calling those impact fee eligible. Now it it's a little bit more comp complex than that because some of these projects might be shared with South Jordan like up on 118th South a lot of those projects are going to be split with with the South Jordan. And additionally of these projects, the only so there's a total cost for the roadway, say it's $4 million for a roadway, the only percentage that is impact fee eligible is the growth trips. So the the intent of impact fees is growth pays for growth. So for example, Juniper Crest, we've we've got some partners here working on Juniper Crest connecting uh to to Mountain View corridor. when we build that road, there's going to be a massive amount of existing residents that use that road the day we open it, right? And we look over a 10-year period and say, how much of the new growth in the city is actually using that? So, if 25% of those of the traffic on that road is the new the new growth, the new homes, the new moveins over the next 10 years, that's how much is impact fee eligible. And that you'll see that if you look into the impact fee analysis and the impact fees facility plan because of the way impact fees are set up by the state in in Utah, generally we're looking at, you know, 20% to 80% of of the new roads even are impact fee eligible, which means we're covering not 100% of the costs, but a portion of the costs with the impact fees. the other is currently and and we'll we'll have to look into to you know the best way the other 50% might be coming from general

fund or a grant or from somewhere else. So it is is it is something to think about just kind of long term how we fund these projects and impact fees can only take us so far on on these projects. Um so based on that so we have the three documents the master plan that comes up with the projects the impact fee facility plan which uh narrows down what is eligible for impact fees that phase one project list and then from there we see okay of the total cost how much is impact fee eligible and then how do we translate that to charging new development. So on a on a building permit, these are going to be charged to a a new home or a new business. Um, and we see it based on on our our new model, the impact fees are actually going down quite a bit from what we had in 2023. And this is largely due to the adoption of public infrastructure districts in the city. So, South Hills and Was uh or Was and and DI has a has a PID in the southeast corner. And then we have the Auto Mall PID and the Olympia PIDs. Those were existing with the last uh transportation update. But then also one of the big projects that were was on our project list was 126 widening which has been uh uh discounted to for U DOT to to carry that cost. So based on those things, our cost per trip is what how the impact fee is calculated is is going down by about 27%. What this means is for like a single family home, the way they calculated it calculate that is how many trips or how many times to and from are you coming from your house in a day. They look at this on a national average. It's not

specific to to Utah. They say a single family home on average has nine trips a day. So whether that's, you know, going to the gas station, going to work, going to pick up at school, drop off, come back, each each uh trip is is one way. So they say, okay, on average there's about nine trips per day from a single family home. So we're going to multiply that by our our um cost per trip that we came up from the impact fees. So, in this case, uh, a single family home when they're applying for a building permit will pay $2,700 where it was previously almost $3,900. So, our impact fees are going down. Obviously, this has an impact to our our revenue and our model projections on revenue that we've been working on accounting for. Um, which means we we will have to make adjustments to the CIP in the long run. The bright side to the impact fees going down is it makes it a more inviting economic development area. A as you know that has come up to several of our businesses. They uh note how much the impact fees are specifically the transportation and traffic uh impact fee that that's you know one of the the the barriers from them you know building in in Haramman. So there is that bright side that you know economic development may see see a b benefit from having that lower impact fee. So finally then so again impact fees are focused on the next 10 years but again back to the transportation master plan we're looking out all the way to 2050. If we build all the projects and do all the widening intersection improvements and new roads how do we end up in 2050? Um, so the green area means, hey, our volume is below capacity. We're looking at a great level of service. Yellow means you're going to see delays at certain times of the day. And red means

we're at or exceeding capacity of that road. So you can see there's even with, you know, widening projects planned, there are some some major traffic uh patterns coming into Haramman in 2050 based on our land use projections. 71,7. So those numbers are in thousands of cars per day. So if you look at 126 South, the dark red that we're working with UD do again. It seems like every couple of years UD do's looking at what to do with 126 and how can they handle this traffic. I don't think it's been worked out or or solved at this point, but they are doing another study currently to look at 126. What can they do to accommodate this this massive amount of traffic in and out of uh the city? Um and and we see that that I mean as you can imagine from Mountain View to Bangader once the Mountain View freeways in and Bangaders's been converted to a freeway there is a massive amount of traffic between those two. So they've discussed a freeway to freeway connection or you know large widening projects flex lanes to go in more lanes in one direction uh in the morning and then in the afternoon shifting it the other direction. So, um, there are some challenges ahead that that we'll have to continue to work with UD do on or on on 134th, you see we're getting pretty close there in the Riverton area in between again Mountain View and Bangador that we'll have to work with Riverton on um being able to to, you know, make those solutions work. And then uh yeah, as we we our model does show if we do connect road uh at Rayal Vista Drive to the east um there is a big demand for that. a lot of people want to use that once that's connected. So, just uh something of note. But yeah, with that said, um I can answer any questions on any three of the documents. So, there's the master plan, the transportation master plan, the impact fee facility plan, and the impact

fee analysis that I can answer questions on.

Questions from council. I would just say like the interactive part of this and being able to go in and slide scales and see before and after the website's fantastic. So, if you haven't had a chance to take a look at that, like please do because it is it is really informative.

Yeah. And and like I said, these are just the highlights. Even on that that interactive map, you can get into, you know, safety, where where we're looking at safety, where we're looking at, you know, traffic projections where we're looking at, you know, all aspects of our transportation system, transit, kind of what are the plans there. And so that interactive map, I agree 100%. It's much easier to digest than our our 100page PDF that that then you have to go through page by page and try and figure out. But yeah, you can slide the scenario. If we didn't build this road versus if we did build this road, what does that look like? So yeah, I I agree.

Guess we're easy. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Waiting for more. I don't think we have any more, Bryce. Okay. All right. Thank you. We'll do the public hearing to see if we need you again. Okay. So at this point we will open this item for the public hearing Adam. Okay. Uh we'll close the public hearing with a motion. I'll make a motion to close public hearing. Motion by Teddy. Second. Second by Matt. All in favor? I. Any further discussion or look for a motion?

Motion to approve ordinance number 2026-06 adopting an updated transportation master plan. Second motion by Jared, second by Teddy. Jared, yes. Teddy, yes. Matt, yes. Terra, yes. And I'll vote yes. Look for that next motion. Motion to approve ordinance number 2026-07 adopting transportation impact fee facilities plan transportation impact fee analysis and an impact fee enactment that imposes a transportation impact fee providing for the calculation and collection of such fee and providing for appeal accounting serverability of the same and other related matters. Second yard. Second by Teddy. We'll go. Terara, yes. Matt, yes. Teddy, yes. Jared, yes. And yes, that motion carries as well. Auctioneering.

Thank you, Bryce. Thank you, Bryce. Okay, we'll go to item 10 tonight, our consent agenda. And I know we need to make a change here. Yes. Do you want to make that since Martera? Sure. Um motion to approve the consent agenda with the removal of item 10.4, approval of ordinance to amend section 4-2-3 of the Herabin City Code regarding fireworks discharge restrictions and adopting the updated restriction map. Okay, got a motion on the table. I'll second. Second by Tara. Uh Tara, yes. Matt, yes. Teddy, yes. Jared,

yes. No, vote yes as well. So, we'll bring 10.4 forward. Um, are you coming up, Wendy? Okay, we're gonna bring Wendy up. Matt, Terry, do you want to drive this one? Kind of just your comments.

Just like from the review um of the map, I just have some general concerns given uh the summer that we're looking at having with um just the dryness and you know, the water restrictions and all that kind of stuff. I just think that we need to take a just another look at that map and make sure that we are covering all of those um you know potential areas that have that may have increased exposure um you know given our our water situation that we're currently looking at. So um maybe just have um you know some additional input from the staff making sure that we've addressed those. Did you have a comment Nathan? Did you have us? Oh, go ahead.

I was just gonna say if you have specific areas you want us to focus on or um maybe specific rationale, areas you're concerned about that would guide us in how we look at this. So, particularly for me in the area of the city owned property that is behind the Cove Park, uh, which has, you know, a bunch of scrub oak, um, you know, dry, it's kind of like a a dry creek bed generally is what it is for the vast majority of the year. and and being able to uh you know potentially set off fireworks in areas that are directly adjacent uh you know to that. Uh so possibly looking at adding those areas as a restriction you know south of where Rose Canyon Road is heading uh you know to the west. um if there's any that's probably the one spot in my district um you know that we have concerns about and then I you know I I guess also in the very west border of of Haramman that borders high country one is that high country one right there um you know how the potential impact of being able to uh you know set up fireworks directly adjacent to that area that is

there a you know can be a a tinder box. Um you know we've had fires in that area recently in the last few years having to do with fireworks. So I I understand that you know high country is outside the city boundaries but I think we need to still in still in our coverage from our UFA stations.

Um maybe just a suggestion when this comes back have a discussion about it chief if you'll be prepared with just some some information on how we how we go about drawing this map and why I always get the question of why is this area red and why is this not it's right next to us etc. But then I'd like numbers, right? So the statistics, the number of fire calls, actual fires we respond to every year and the number of those that happen within that couple of weeks in July that are firework related, I always think is pretty eye opening. Yeah.

Well, and we can say broader as well, but our community as well as our coverage area. Yeah. We should also point out there are properties on here that are cross-hatched at the request of they're either the schools or other large property owners who've said they do not want fireworks on their on their property and requested that we cross-hatch it out. So you'll see sometimes my house on there. Why is that one in there?

Yeah, there's the civic buildings and uh community buildings. I I think from years past we've talked in intense depth about these maps and dialed it in and there's very good reasoning for these areas. I think it probably wouldn't hurt to expand a lot of those areas especially on the borders of the city where it may be adjacent to property or in the county property but it's still adjacent to to uh dry dry stuff out there. We're all bracing for for an extreme fire here. I mean, even even our city parks, I I'm assuming they're all on here. All our city properties ashed out. So,

all the city properties are, but there could be adjacent properties that are right next to like the cove. Yeah, that where they are allowed. I mean, I would love, this is me saying this, so take it for a grain of salt. I would love a ban on a lot of it, especially maybe for a year or two till we see what's happening. But um as you know I enjoy my fireworks. But um that will be a foregoed uh event this year. We'll have something else there because of this danger. It's just a lot more risk and exposure than I want to take personally. So council member Anderson, did you have something to add? No. Okay.

Wendy, I would say the one thing I like to I think what Matt was talking about earlier too is a lot of these areas we have the area covered. That's like where there's brush, but we don't have it just next to it, you know, permitted, right? So, I think that adjacent area, I think we need to expand those. Like I look over by Slick. Seems like we have a fire over by Slick every year if I'm not mistaken. So, yeah, we have that hashed out, but that neighborhood just to the north of that needs to be because they could shoot from their Well, it's neighborhood from that line. So, yeah, we're limited by state code two, right? Again, as long as we're looking at I guess those are the areas I'm I guess those are the areas I'm concerned about. Those areas adjacent to all that brush area.

I mean, it's going to be hard to visualize 200 feet on this map. Even if we did another core, another different color hashed out, it's going to look convoluted, but I think it's very hard for people to see 200 feet and know what it is. Yeah, cuz I looked at this map and I look at this that I can't shoot them in this area. I mean, that I'm reading that, but some people are going to look at the map. That's where I'm concerned. Some people are going to look at this map and just think that's the only area they can. Yeah. I mean, there's there's a lot of cities, well, I shouldn't say, there are some cities that just flat out have a citywide ban. Um, and as we get closer to the season, if it is indeed looking to be extreme conditions, then I mean, I don't want to I think that's

I don't want to be alarmist, but I think we need to set some expectations that like this this is an extreme year. Yeah. And I think that's a good question for Whittison. Um, we we adopt a map every year. We go through this process and have to turn it into Salt Lake County for for their records and for them to have if something does change and it is does become an extreme year for for fires. What do they do with that map at that point? I've seen some municipalities change that, right?

Okay. based on conditions that are as far as seeing this where you are county and they make that into if you can. Okay. Question. I see that the neighboring civic places just to the north of us are not hashed out. It's not our map. That's their map. Okay.

So, they submit their own each municipality. So, this map, the boundaries take in account the 200 feet, right? It's not the crosshatch plus 200 ft. The cross plus 200. That's where I didn't understand it either, too. just yeah can we make a map that includes the 200 ft so is it like a real map is that hard won't be hard for it it would be in it's hard it's hard for enforcement the width of a line I think

road one side fireworks the other side because and maybe another time Like I'd love to hear more about enforcement. I know my neighborhood is in the crosshatch and there's fireworks every year. Yeah. And I'm sure that's really difficult, but I mean it's hard to make a map if we can't enforce it to Right. Right. But maybe it helps with citations. And that's the other level of like if if the worst happens and there is a ban or that's what we choose to or increase the limits the enforcement feature of those two three weeks triple quadruple

that's I just made sidebar comment unfortunately I think we're inching closer and closer to how how do you pick and choose and how do you enforce something I we're just inching closer and closer to what some other cities have done or just yeah just for the safety of our city and enforcement's sake etc. There's just a ban in the city. Let's keep talking. I think we got to keep I mean we got some week we got a couple of weeks I think to see how the weather shapes out and where the state's going with it. See if anything comes from the governor and the legislature and

but I also think it brings up a good point about a potential issue even with our own events. what we do there as well. But that's a little bit different because it's a professional firework display and higher Yeah. Yeah. It's a different discussion. Controlled people on staff people Yeah. improper areas. Yeah. We're highly regulated by fire. They're there. So, okay. Well, I think let's make a motion to continue this and bring it back then. Okay. Are we okay with that? You got enough feel like you got enough Wendy Nathan chief to go with that. Okay. Can we make a motion to continue this item? Go ahead.

Second. Is that a motion? Gotcha. Okay. Motion by Jared, second by Teddy. Um, roll call, right, Jackie? What's that? Okay. All in favor? I. Thank you.

Okay. We'll go to 11.1 tonight. discussion regarding the results of the community meeting on the intersection of Herman Rose Boulevard and Herman Main Street. Rice. Okay, now let's jump into this one. So, uh, it's a topic we've discussed many times over the last two years. Um, the intersection of Herman Rose Boulevard and Herman Main Street, which is just down the road from this building. Um, so quick background to bring everyone up to speed. Um, back in 2024, um, the city police department and the school work together to relocate the crossing of Main Street for this safe route to school for Silver Crest Elementary. from the intersection we're talking about uh Herman Rose and Herman Main Street which is uncontrolled no traffic signal no stop sign um to the adjacent traffic signal at um just to the east there about 600 ft. Um when this happened, there was um a lot of concern from the public and and mostly from the school count uh the school community of students uh walking that detour that they would they were used to crossing at Herman Rose and now they had to go all the way to the east to that traffic signal on the right side of the page, cross Herman Main Street, and then come all the way back uh back to the west here to the school. Um, and so the the uh school community asked us to look at solutions. We uh we looked specifically at that intersection for a traffic signal, whether it would warrant for a traffic signal. Um, this was in September of 2024. Um, based on our study, we looked over two weeks of traffic data. We look at pedestrian data. We look at crash data. And there's a national standard that's established on when we should install a traffic

signal. We call it a traffic signal warrant. at that time it did not meet any of those warrants for a traffic signal at that location. If it did meet the warrant, we still from an engineering perspective have a few concerns about the location of installing a traffic signal there. Uh you can't this picture cuts it off a little bit, but on the west side you have a curve and on the east side you have a curve which limits visibility of that intersection which is part of the reason why the safe route was moved towards uh the traffic signal to the east. Um but additionally the proximity to the to that traffic signal would create some disruption in traffic patterns. So that this was back in in the end of 2024. We looked at a traffic signal said doesn't warrant. If it did warrant, we'd still have to figure out some some solutions for this being a bad location for the traffic signal. Um then a community meeting was held uh in December of 2024. mostly the the uh community that showed up water were specific to Silver Crest Elementary and and getting uh kids to school there. Um and so we heard from that meeting, hey, we don't like your your setup. You got to make something safer at Haramman Rose for for the kids to get to school. Now, that could be attributed to to many things. Speed on on Herman Main Street. looking at, you know, that intersection specifically, what could we do to make the school crossing or the crossing safer there? So, we looked at, you know, many uh scenarios. We looked at, you know, a full median, just, you know, continuing a median right through the road, not allowing, you know, any movement through that median. We looked at a roundabout because that was suggested. Uh roundabout wasn't feasible. We looked at um some hawk signals um and just at some preliminary analysis and we'll get into that a little bit later. Again, a bad location for it just because of the the

sight distance issues. Um so we came up with with an alternative that was a little bit out of the box. It was, you know, creating a median in the middle of that intersection that allowed a pedestrian to bypass left turns so they're never in conflict with the left turn. And it kind of enabled them to snake through the intersection in a median, right? So they would cross to the middle of the road and then be in a med a pedestrian refuge median, cross over and then cross uh the the other side of the road. Um so based on this we discussed this with council and the community uh the school community council and in in discussions we agreed that we could apply for a safe route to school grant that is uh administered through UD do um and that was in May of 2025 we we uh presented that project and then few months after UD do notified us that we were the uh selected to win the award for that grant in September of 2025. And then when we uh were notified by U DOT later, probably a couple months later, UD do notified us because we discussed this. Okay, now that we could do this project, the funding could be in place. U DOT's uh funding was contingent on making that the safe route to school. That was what the funding was based on was safe route to school funding. And so we uh brought that back to council and said, "Hey, it does require us to make that the safe route to school." Um, and then council gave the feedback, hey, let's go to a public meeting, see what the feedback is before we make any decisions. So, that's when we held the community meeting in February. We sent out notices. There were a lot of postcards that went out, very good uh, attendance at the meeting. And on those postcards and on our notices, we put out QR codes that if they couldn't make the meeting, they could submit a comment and

we would track that comment. And then if they and then at the meeting we had some screens up but again we were using that QR code to track all of the official comments. Now we had discussions and council members had had discussions with with people that I'll talk a little bit about. But jumping to that community meeting feedback. Um well before I get to the results this is the project that we were proposing there on the left side of the screen. like I said, kind of a a refuge for pedestrians in the middle of the road to cross a shorter distance, not have to conflict with left turns um and and reduce the you know conflict points with the crosswalk. Now again, it it still would be an uncontrolled intersection. There would be uh the lights that we have there and it would be shorter distance, but it still isn't, you know, a controlled intersection that someone gets a red light and then a pedestrian gets a walk symbol. Um so yeah, that that was the project. there would have if we would have done it as a as the safe walk route there would have been a reduced school speed zone uh upgraded lights and our RFBs here. Now, when we took this to the community meeting, part of the the point of the community meeting was, hey, we've really been engaged with the school uh community, you know, families that had students going to Silverest, but this project would impact not only this the school community, but everyone in that neighborhood, whether they had kids going to that school or not. We are restricting a movement with this this new project that would not allow them to turn left out of their neighborhood or go straight through the intersection. You can kind of see that there. It would allow left turns in but into the neighborhood but not left turns out. And uh as we took that concept to the public, there was strong opposition against the project. Uh um yeah, the the idea of restricting left turns out of the neighborhood was not something that

was uh you know wellreceived uh by the neighborhood. they felt that this was not a project that they could, you know, accept the sacrifice of of that mobility. We kind of talked about, hey, we're generally in Haramman, we're were a little bit more car focused on some of these intersection. This turns the dial to make it a little bit more pedestrian focused. We're we're limiting the access of the vehicle in favor of some increased safety and mobility of a pedestrian. uh based on the comments we received on the QR code and at that meeting generally speaking that was a sentiment that that the neighborhood and and the community did not agree with. Um yeah, you can see here that kind of pie chart or donut chart I should say. Um there was 85% of the comments that we received and and we announced at the meeting, hey, the official comments are going to have to go through the the QR code because that's how we're going to track and you know, rate all these things. So based on those comments, that's the blue area that was against the project. 85% only 5% the green area was for the project and 10% weren't necessarily, you know, saying for or against. they were more asking questions or neutral on the project. Um, so lesson learned, the the support for for crosswalk or pedestrian uh enhancements or upgrades was highly contingent on maintaining the vehicle and neighborhood access in and out of there. Any questions so far on on that? Okay. So, um, oh, and and what we did hear a lot in the meeting and on the online comments were was, "Hey, why can't you just install a traffic signal?" So, again, the traffic signal did not meet uh the warrants that we would require to

install a traffic signal at this location. We've discussed that uh uh at length at some previous meetings, but just to you know iterate why we why we wait for a a traffic signal to be warranted before we install it. There's there's kind of multiple reasons, but number one is safety. There's a reason there's a threshold before we install traffic signals. If we were installing traffic signals before they're warranted, it has been shown in studies that you actually increase uh you know rear end accidents. So people are stopping at reds and people aren't paying attention because they're not expecting a traffic signal there. Um and so installing the traffic signal at the right time, make sure that we're installing it in a safe way and and get the best uh safety improvement with that traffic signal. Number two, uh is you know fiscal responsibility. It's good to have a threshold on when we're going to install a traffic signal or we get a request for a traffic signal at this intersection, they say, "Hey, you installed one there. Why aren't you installing one on this side of the city?" Or we don't listen to just the loud minority, right? We we have a threshold on how we're using those funds and responsibly uh spending on traffic signals or any kind of infrastructure upgrade at intersections. Um and then the last one is liability. So there is a manual that establishes this this national standard. It's called the MUTCD and that is actually adopted by the federal government. So, it's a federal regulation and they require that each state adopt their own uh MUTCD manual on uniform traffic control devices so that um all the cities, everyone is is kind of uniform in how we do things and traffic signs, striping um and the state has adopted that as well. So, we're kind of under those

jurisdictions and anytime we step outside of those uh recommendations, we're opening ourselves up to liability. So, if there's a wreck at the intersection, a car crash at the intersection, and we installed a traffic signal that wasn't warranted, we're much more liable to get sued for that as a city because we're stepping out of, you know, engineering best practices at that point. Um so again that that's why we we generally like to see the the warrants met before we install a traffic signal. Um the second most common request we heard now I will say and and John can speak to this. He he you know processed all the public input. There wasn't really a true consensus on you know this needs to be a traffic signal for those that were opposed to the project. This was just, you know, some of the things that we heard the most. The the next one was a pedestrian signal or sometimes we call it a hawk signal. Um, and we have the same concerns as a fold traffic signal when you install it right at the intersection um of that of Herman Rose and and Main Street. Poor visibility. The best visibility is if we were to offset that pedestrian signal, you know, 100 feet to the west. But then it gets a little bit dicey with, you know, cars stopping in the middle of the intersection. Are are we gonna even have, you know, the students or the kids walk o over 100 ft to walk back 100 ft? Kind of the similar detour question that they might just end up running across the road at the intersection. Anyways, um if we did proceed with that, it would be a major change in scope of what was submitted to to the UD do. So, we're not sure if those if we did go that route that the grant funding could be able to cover that. We don't know. I mean, that's something one of the options is we could kind of explore that. Um, and then again, we we kind of learned that, hey,

it's not just the pedestrian crossing that that's a concern at this intersection. There's safety concerns even from a vehicle standpoint with these offset lefts that we're not addressing by installing a hawk signal further down the road. Right. And then I already mentioned this if because it you know the if we pushed it to the to the west a little bit it's likely I mean you always hope that when you have a signal or something close to another signal that you know vehicles are going to see that and stop and leave the intersection open. But because this isn't a frequent signal, it it would only turn on red during, you know, when there's someone requesting the cross time that you're probably going to expect that traffic not to be ready for that and, you know, back up through the intersection. And then we also looked at, okay, if we did that that Hawk signal, you know, there there are still a lot of students going to Silverest Elementary to the east of this intersection that it probably still makes sense. and is safest to cross at the traffic signal that they are crossing at today. So we have some students from Riverton, we have, you know, around the U road, the town center area that it may still make sense to have students cross at that traffic signal. So then you'd have two two crossings really close to each other and we'd have to staff both crosswalks, have reduced school speed zones. And so that was kind of part of the reason why we didn't, you know, propose the Hawk signal in the first place. Um, so those are again that that doesn't answer all of their suggestions or recommendations, but those are the kind of biggest ones on why we didn't go down the the that road. Um, so our recommendation based on the feedback is to retain the existing safe route to school. Um, using those those improvements that we already have, a traffic signal that that is controlled

and has walk phases and red lights to allow the crossing time. um that would mean we would not utilize the grant funding. Um we would uh notify UD do that that the project would not go forward. Now this doesn't mean that nothing would happen at the intersection. We if you saw on the master the transportation master plan that got a blue dot to look at you know intersection improvements kind of general. We don't know what that would look like. We could look at you know additional warrant studies in the future if you know there's a lot of growth which we we anticipate there will be. Maybe one day it does warrant a traffic signal and we can look at maybe we can mitigate some of these these issues that we're seeing. Like I said, the visibility and the the proximity there. There may be ways around that, but at this time we're we're recommending to um essentially keep at the the safe route to school as it is today and not pursue additional improvements. at this time. I can answer any questions now or if we have any other, you know, questions. So,

Bryce, thank you. Um, that meeting was was very well attended from pretty much the whole community, not just the the uh ones affected by the school crosswalk. Um, is there a complete list or a breakdown of the data that's open to the public? Like they can go find it, search it, or is it just You mean the comments, the public comments? Uh, John, maybe you can speak to that a little bit more than I can. I have a spreadsheet with everything. We haven't made it available to the public yet. We just have the summaries, but we can we can release that.

Okay. Yeah. there there may be some potential questions on that or what they saw. Um because I know that the QR code was a very useful tool and even though we had private conversations, we tried to direct everybody to put their info there. So

yeah, I'll say in the meeting itself, we announced it probably five different times. Hey, we are open to discussion and we'll take your discussion, but for tracking purposes and to you know know exactly where uh you know the numbers are at and and for future reference, it's best to leave it on the on the online record. So we we push that in the meeting. We push that on the notices that hey this would be the best way to get your comments in record. And and to one caveat, I I mean I love the outside of the box thinking about the the the pedestrian island and the crossing. Um I still did not feel comfortable of putting my own child on that rather than walking 600 feet. And I know that I'm not alone in that. Um I know that the the police department would ensure that as well, that the safest place is at that controlled intersection with a crosswalk, with a full stop light, and with a crossing guard. So, um I think we made the right choice here on this. Um and it may be in discouragement to some people that may want something there right now. Um but I think you've exhausted your resources on what you think and can you can do and again in three to five years. We'll look at it again and it may be next year we might have to look at it. Uh so we'll take that under advisement. But um I just want to say thanks for you and the other staff members that were there that night and for all the work that's been put into this. Um, out of curiosity, do you know how many people total took the survey?

So, I had 59 submitted comments. Okay. Thank you,

Bryce. I'll say this. Obviously, I think this is the right decision, right? I And I've made this comment before. I don't know how even today I made it. I would still like to see some I think this is a I mean right out front here this is a this is supposed to be a pedestrian friendly area. It just is. I would like to see some reduced speed limit looked at some other low I know budget's an issue right now obviously budget but some lowcost alternatives to slow down traffic through here. I mean it's I don't care if it's to the school to the library to the rec center full of neighborhoods we've got to slow the speed limit through here. I know there's a we're trying to move people through this area, but it just to me this is too critical of an area right now. That's personal. That might just be me, but I think we've got to take some steps through this area.

I don't think it's just this area, mayor. I think this area is key because we have so many civic buildings and community buildings really close in proximity, but I think it's throughout. I mean, you're looking at 134th, Main Street, 126, 5600 West. Um, I know we have some engineering traffic concerns on most of those intersections and roads. Uh, we also have some enforcement stuff happening. So, I think there's a caveat to it all. I think it's it's the citizens taking their own due diligence and driving the speed limit and watching out for pedestrians. I I would love to see the speed limit reduced on Main Street um specifically for this area. I don't know how we do that effectively um or what that may actually cause. Um 5 mph reduction. I don't know if anybody's going to drive 5 miles an hour slower. So

yeah, I I can speak to that a little bit. So just lowering the speed limit itself probably wouldn't be effective without, you know, enforcement all a lot of the time. Now to to the mayor's point, could we, you know, do some infrastructure or or things that help slow people down? Do we we do some things that you know encourage uh vehicles to look for pedestrians. I think we can look at that and and we did get that comment that you know we were looking at the intersection specifically because of the school community but it's a corridor you know that that we're looking at as a whole. So as soon as you come off 126 we have a a crosswalk at the dog park that you know maybe we need to look at a little bit more. We have the rec center crosswalks that have traffic signals, but you know, we do have an issue sometimes with people blowing through a red light, which isn't safe even at a traffic signal to to walk, right? So, I think you're right. I think there are ways that we need to look at the town center specifically. Can we make it a a safer walkable environment? What does that mean? I don't know, but but I think that we could take take a closer look at that as a corridorwide. and and part of the master plan, I didn't get into this too much on that interactive map, has some safety recommendations that we could do throughout the city that, you know, we could do these small improvements, whether it's changing signal timing to allow, you know, for a a lead time for pedestrians to get out into the crosswalk for a little bit longer before they see a flashing yellow that's opposed to them. Or we we just get rid of a flashing yellow altogether and only do a protected green at, you know, school areas. That's something we're looking at right now. So, um, yeah, we'll we'll continue to look at it. I think the speed limit change, it would require some additional things besides just changing the speed limit. Um, but but I think yeah, it's something we can consider and look at and and discuss as a group.

Okay. Any further comment or I'll look for a motion. I'll make a motion to maintain the existing safe walk route to school continuing across children at the traffic signal and deadlined the funds decline. Sorry, declined the funds for the intersection improvements. Okay, got a motion by Teddy. Second. Second by Matt. Uh we'll go a roll call. Tara, yes. Matt, yes. Teddy, yes. Jared, yes. And

I'll vote yes as well. That motion carries. Thank you, Bryce. Okay, stay there. Bryce, uh 11.2, discussion regarding the results of the community meeting regarding a petition to vacate the trail near Rose Creek Estate subdivision.

Yes. So, uh kind of a a similar topic in a request to look at, you know, an area in the city. Um and that we had some some public feedback and and community meetings to look at it. So, specifically, this is a a trail in the Rose Creek Estates neighborhood um that connects just north of of 134th and just west of 5600 West or Rose. So, just west of that commercial area where the Vasa, the KFC, the car wash is, that's kind of the area we're talking about, a trail in in a neighborhood. Um so, here's a a little bit better map of that. So, that's the trail there. The red lines are all trails, but the one that's kind of vertical in between the two culde-sacs there, uh, coming north of 134th and and coming up through the neighborhood, it's between, you know, the backyards of of lots. And so that's that's part of the background here. We received a petition from those that live along the trail to to consider vacating the trail. And the original petition that we received was signed by 13 of the 16 residents that live on or their backyards above the trail. Um so we we kind of took this to to the to this meeting to city council to uh look at how we wanted to handle this. So we were directed, okay, look at the cost. What would it take if we did, you know, choose to move forward with vacating the trail? What would it take? So there's a cost to get rid of property. we would recommend doing it with plat amendments. Uh that's the cleanest way to to do it and then whenever a record search or anything would would come up, it would be the cleanest way moving forward. It would also require the signature of all the property owners. So, it's a good way to to make sure that, you know, we're not giving off a piece at a time and then we have just one piece vacated

while the other piece is not. Um and and then in discussions with our city attorney, he researched and said the options open for us on if we did choose to vacate the trail, we could do it all to one side to to one side of the trail or we could split it down the middle and uh give it to each side of of the trail. Um so with that, we also discussed, okay, we've heard, again, this is similar to to our last item, we've heard from the people right on the trail. let's now go and get feedback for the rest of the neighborhood. Uh see if they're using it. See if it's an asset to the community. See if it if no one's using it. Um so similarly, we sent out uh it was same time frame uh postcards to this whole neighborhood and a little bit north of the neighborhood. You can kind of see how there's, you know, some trail connections to the north. Um and then again put the QR code to say, "Hey, we're considering uh vacating this trail. give us your feedback and what you think of that, what what your use is of the trail. And so, and then that was a week before our community meeting. We had the community meeting. Oh, and I should say right at the entrances of both sides of that trail. We set up an A-frame as as suggested by council that had the QR code, had the meeting date, um so that anyone using the trail would know, hey, there's a meeting coming up. If you can't make it, you can leave your comment on the QR code. And then uh in February, so that was in February. We held the meeting in in February. There was a discussion there. Again, we said, "Hey, we'll have the discussion here, but we would like you to submit your comments on the on the online form so we can track and and really understand where the where the sentiment's coming from and and keep that as a record. So, um yeah, here's just a a a zoomed in, you know, portion of that. like I

said next to Vasa Ace and and KFC. Um so the results of our of our comments. So there was um you know a good mix of of comments. In general, the majority of the respondents from the neighborhood indicated that they do utilize and enjoy the trail and therefore were uh opposed to vacating or or getting rid of the trail. Um there was a good contingency that was in favor of vacating generally again we're we're talking about those that you know see the impacts of the trail because their backyards but right up to the trail and from the comments from the meeting from even before the meeting we had heard some of these concerns loitering late night activity security and privacy along the trail uh trash we we've heard uh stories of of these backyards receiving trash from those using the trail, motorized vehicles getting on the trail, um lack of maintenance was a concern. Um so those are kind of the the main concerns we were hearing from those that were in favor of vacating it. Um like I said, the you can see the breakdown there. About 60% of the responses were in uh opposed to vacating, 30% were in favor, and then again 10% we had either neutral or more asking questions about the trail. Um before I move on from that, any questions there? Okay. So, so based on this, our re recommendation based on the majority uh saying that they do use the trail and would like to see it open, we're recommending that we retain the trail as a public facility, but there could be some, you know, small improvements we might be able to do to address some of the concerns. Obviously, we can't address all of the concerns. Um, so additional maintenance and Anthony can maybe talk to to any questions we have

here, but uh they've already bumped it up on their their list to to trail not to forget about. So the weeds on the side is something that we heard a lot of concern. We also could potentially we have a lot of material at our public works yard called recycled asphalt. So the milled asphalt that we could maybe put on the shoulders. It's not going to, you know, prevent all weeds, but it might slow them down a little bit, give a better appearance on the edges of the trail. Um, and then additionally, we have done this in a lot of our trail connections is a gate, especially like one on 134th where you could get a vehicle or a side by side or even a motorcycle, you know, entering that trail. We could install a gate and it's not your typical gate like a pedestrian gate. It's just a gate that restricts the width of someone going in there. So, a pedestrian can walk through, but a side by side wouldn't be able to, right? and and a bicycle can even fit through, but a but a a larger vehicle could not. Um that would incur a cost, right? There generally our our parks department actually fabricates that themselves, but the material and the labor cost uh is a cost to the city. So, in talking with our parks department, they estimate about $1,000, you know, in material and time and labor to get that gate installed. But it's something that we could do if we retain the trail to uh prohibit, you know, motorized vehicles from getting on the trail. And then yeah, and then additional maintenance, like I said, they they've got it on their list now to to keep an eye on those weeds, whether it's uh cutting them down or or spraying them, um to to make sure that we keep that that trail not looking like it's abandoned. So, with that, I can ask any questions and and like I said, if if we have any maintenance questions, Anony's probably the best one to answer those.

I mean, it's not, but we're going to do public comment. Yeah. Questions now before we go to the public. Yeah. I'll wait. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Bryce. Okay. At this point, we'll go to the public comment on this item. Just going back to my comments before about the public comments. So, any public comments on this item?

Good evening. Um, Adam Jacobson. I know you most of you know me, so uh I really do appreciate what you guys do. I I know a lot of people don't understand what it takes to do what you guys do. So, thank you. Um, the reason I'm coming to speak to you is I'm a longtime resident in this neighborhood and specifically I'm the one that actually initiated the petition so you're all kind of aware. Um, over the last two decades me and my family have lived in our home and we've seen a huge change in our neighborhood and what that is changed is as it's gotten more transient and more traffic along 134th. This trail trail trail deadends into 134th. So even the idea of improving trails to tighten it up, a lot of the challenges especially is as you widen 134, you're going to put that traffic right up to those people. And so the reason why we we bringing this up is it's a magnet for loitering unauthorized motor vehicles and the future safety as we as you guys just approved that 134 uh widening will put this right next to that. So even this gate we're talking about would be a future challenge you're going to have to deal with. Um, the reason why uh we had 13 of the 16 people sign the the trail to vacate is almost every one of us have had security. We've had people in our backyards. I've had people that you had to actually get out of our own playouses. So, not only do you lock it, most of the neighborhoods, we all had trails, trail accesses off the trail. Originally, um, most of them have actually ripped those out and put in privacy fences so that because we have so many people getting into our backyards. And so it's creating even more of an alley because of the lack of narrow design. Um you might assume that it provides a central connect connectivity, but I actually timed it to walk from my house, which is the dead end of Arling Ridge to the Vasa to kind of give you a scale. It takes eight minutes. If you do that on the public roadway, it takes you nine minutes. So we're talking about a 60-second savings. And more importantly, we have that potential of putting people right on

that that dangerous. So I know the staff's recommending what they are. I've been working with staff for the last 20 years to talk about different topics of how to manage the trail access into 134. And as you saw from the last trail discussion you guys had in the crossing because 134 is so critical. It just this trail is not uh an enterprise uh sorry it does not meet the Herman trans trail master plan as intended. Um that's for direct access. This is just a little stub trail mostly feeding just this neighborhood. So, thank you for your guys' time. Thanks, Adam. And thanks for what you do as well. You've done more of this than I have than any of us have other than Jared.

I'm not as prepared as Adam. Could you state your name just so we have it? Daniel Murray. Okay. And I live my house backs up to the trail as well. Um, the biggest issues I have is the same thing with loitering and then security. I mean, we've had people look into our yards over the fence. We've had people cut through our yard to get into the neighborhood for who knows what. Um, it has gotten like when we first moved in, we've been here 23 years. So, when we first moved in, it was nice to have. Now, it's an inconvenience. And to be honest, right at the end of the road, there's there's a it's not really a park, but it's kind of a lower area. I think it's for drainage. There's a fence right there that'll take you right in behind the

soda place. Fizz. Yeah, it'll take you right in behind fizz and then you can cut over. So, his nine minutes over to Vosa is actually even shorter. Uh my son and I take that route during the summer to go to Vosa. So, it's it's even shorter if you go that way.

And it's not just uh getting to Vosa. I mean, I know a lot of people cut through there instead of having to go down 134th, but for the few that it does benefit, there's a lot of uh not benefits and mostly those are late at night when people are back there um we hours of the morning doing who knows what. Lots of I don't want to be the old man, but lots of teenagers, lots of lots of things and giggling and things happening back there that who knows what, right? And and I don't you know my kids are grown but there's still a lot of younger kids in the neighborhood and I just feel it's a it's a concern. My neighbor has a lot of young kids and and they've watched people eyeing them down as they're coming through. I mean thankfully they have dogs and I think that's a deterrent but still it's I don't see the benefit in keeping it. It's not like it I love our trail systems. This is this is just seems like a one-off and it seems an oddball as far as the Heramman trail system. It doesn't really connect to anything. I mean, it does go over to there's one other trail, but then it goes to 134th. So, it's not like it's a major convenience. So, I I am absolutely in favor of if we can just get rid of it, not use it. I don't think it's that beneficial. So, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Jim Peterson. I also live in the neighborhood um on Arlin Ridge just off just off to the side. Um I'm happy to see that the public comment most of it is supporting keeping the trail open. I'm a big proponent of the trails. I'm here to speak in favor of keeping them open today and I appreciate your time and letting me do that. Um, the large network of community trails that were built in the Rose Creek estates are one of the most vital assets of our community and part of why Haramman is such a great place to live. I've been using these trails for the entirety of my 20 years living in this community and one of the reasons I purchased my home here. In that time, I've used the trail to take my dog to the vet, to go pick up prescriptions, to go to the park and buy groceries. I pushed my kids in strollers and followed along as they were learning to ride bikes and even a short-lived attempt at rollerblading that did not end well. All of this on this segment of the trail. Every day I walk for an hour throughout the Rose Creek community and the majority of my walking takes place on these trails. I walk this particular segment every day. Uh it's not just me. The trails are heavily used by the community, especially in the warmer months where I where I may pass upward of 50 people using these trails. These trails keep pedestrians and kids and families off busy streets and safe safely connects home to parks, open spaces, and natural areas. They also allow people to walk to walk or bike to destinations every day like nearby shops and grocery stores without having to rely on a car. The trails in Rose Creek should be the model for development as Heramman continues to expand rather than the exception. Studies confirm that walking paths enhance community health, boost property values, and improve social connectivity. When this community was originally built, these trails were a core part of

the design and the value of the neighborhood. At the time, homeowners paid an HOA fees specifically intended to maintain shared amenities like trails and parks. The HOA was eventually dissolved and Heramman absorbed the responsibility of maintaining the trails and parks. Instead of paying the HOA, these fees were rolled into our monthly water bills. if you let me finish. That's okay. Um, my neighbors and I are still paying these maintenance fees and availability to these amen amenities. Closing any portion of these trails feels unfair when we are still bearing the cost that we were promised long-term access when we bought our homes. I'm also concerned about the timing of this proposal. Um, you know, obviously we put up the A-frames in middle of end of January and I realized that we also sent out postcards to the community to to uh garner feedback. Um, I just think it's kind of a end of January walking trails in a in a cold climate is probably not the best time to put up, but I guess that's here nor there at this point. Um, closing this section of the trail uh would break a connection and otherwise well-designed network. Once that connection's gone, people will be pushed back onto the sidewalks. Once that connection's gone, uh, which segment of the trail will be vacated next. Once that section is gone, the ease of movement will be restricted and access to the parks and open spaces will continue to be reduced. I I attended the previous meeting. There was there were multiple people talking about closing other trails, including the one that runs directly behind my house. I I share the concerns of of my fellow neighbors of of you know, loitering and whatnot, but I do see that it benefits overall.

Okay. Can you wrap it up for us? Yep. Yep. I respectfully ask the council to keep this trail open at the at or at the very least delay decision until additional public input can be gathered during the warmer months. This trail is a valued part of our community. Uh thank you for timing and uh considering the voices of your president.

Thank you. Okay. See no further comment. I'll bring it back to council for discussion. So yesterday I had a chance to go out. I just, you know, walked that trail and a little bit of of the other trails that are that are to the north of that going um north and south. And um you know I I think there's there's no doubt that uh that we could do a little bit better job of of maintaining you know that. Um my kind of my baseline uh the way I'm looking at this is um you know there's going to have to be a a pretty decent you know reason why we remove um a trail uh you know which is a an amenity to um the entire uh community. Um, I would be curious, chief, do any, you know, issues in this area that that you guys see on any type of a, you know, a basis to, you know, make a comment on.

Yeah. I mean, as as we were looking at some of the data associated with it, there's definitely calls that occur there. the the primary issue is when the trail originally was built. Um, if you're like me and been here for 30 years, you had the the three rail fence that backed up the trail and so there was visibility. It was open. As more of the section of trail is uh closed off with the privacy fence, what you get is an alley and alleyways historically uh attract unscrupulous behavior. Uh and so it certainly is uh something for us to pay attention to to be concerned about that that because of the way the trail is situated, the length of it, and the fact that it's pretty closed off now. Um there's always that potential. So yeah, it it's certainly unique as most of our open trails go and and can attract that type of behavior. So,

I'd be also um you know curious and maybe one of I'd be willing to have one of you come back up and talk about who who I mean these the teenagers are these teenagers from the neighborhood uh you know that are you know there are these people from other parts of the city coming um you know logically I would think that these would be you know kids from the general area.

Uh, mayor, I think because you let one of the other speakers speak in longer that Yeah, that was a little jab, but let me So, it used to be the case and it still is good neighbors like we have down the street. The issue is at night it's not a lot of it's the skate park kids coming down cutting through to get to the fizz. Um and so it isn't kids that you can supervise. I mean a lot of this petition was I mean I have a hot tub and I've had people stand in my back of my trees. You walked it, you saw my green giant tall trees. Yep.

People stand back there and put their faces through. So, a lot of that is they just literally and especially as as as Cody shared like as it gets more privacy fence, it gets narrower and it's getting worse. And so that's why again the city's invested in this trail. I should have said this five times and it's not getting better. It's going the other direction. It used to be an equestrian trail and no one ever used it. So the city paved it at the city's cost. And so it just it seems like we keep trying to solve a bad idea better. And this was approved originally as part of the planning commission in a separate subdivision than the entire estates at Rose Creek. It was not actually tied to it. It's part It has the same name, but it's not the same PUB that was approved on the other side of the street of 134. So it was more of an idea fairy and that's why it's so narrow. If it would have been 40t wide, you probably saw it all the dogs. It gets to the point where you literally walk down it. Um, seriously, and I I'm trying to wrap up on Sunday for an hour and a half, people were just walking back and forth, and it wasn't the fun family on a stroll. It was kids just messing with people's dogs, and they would go back and forth. And so, it just gets to be so nuisance style. And I know a lot of those style calls we wouldn't actually always do because it shear is the volume that wouldn't happen. But it is not. There is people that use the trail for good purposes, but not to the same level. And my point in this whole conversation is we're talking about a minute. There's still city still has great sidewalks. We still have public infrastructure all around there.

Thanks, Adam.

Just echo the same sort of the same thing that Adam said about a lot of that traffic is a skate park. They're coming down from the skatepark heading over to Fizz or to whatever's, you know, subway or whatever's over there. Um, and that's that's a lot of the traffic we're seeing. I I do agree. I don't want to set a precedence of just shutting down, you know, trails because we don't like them. This is this seems like a a one-off, an exception, right? Like it wasn't it doesn't feel the same as the other trails. I love our Herman trails, but this one doesn't feel the same. It's more closed off. It's more, you know, with the privacy fences. Some of us, we didn't even know we could put in privacy fences. If I thought I could, I would just because I don't like people's looking or or putting things in the backyard, right? Um, but to answer your question, traffic from the skate park. Um, but I, you know, I just really think this is a one-off. Our trails are fantastic. This one isn't. That's Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. That help? Yeah, a little bit. make my decision a little bit harder. Oh, just in discussion. Um, can we put the map back up? I'm just gone.

Yeah. In general, I have the same kind of sentiment that I don't want to take away any public space, right, that's been designated as such. In this case, I'm I'm inclined the other direction for a number of reasons. However, I might kind of stop short for a couple reasons. So, number one, looking at the a lot of times we look at things in a vacuum. Well, if we pan out a little bit, yep, it's part of the overall development. And originally, these are put in as bridal paths, right? So, be for 30 years. Where I where my folks live, they they're all halfacre lots and they have bridal paths. And it used to be horseheavy, right? They that's what they was put in for. In the 30 years that they've lived there, I've never seen a horse go down that path. It is overgrown. Like it's just it it it's become a nuisance and there's nothing that any of them can do about it. But it's isolated. It's in just just in their neighborhood. It doesn't connect anywhere else. It's not adjacent to anything. So the only real nuisance are the feral cats that are back there. This one I have a hard time with saying that we've got to preserve it as a as a trail because it doesn't it doesn't really connect to directly to another trail. It doesn't connect to the park at the end. It has a c it's close in proximity to that commercial center versus being in the neighborhoods where you get primarily the residential uses in in this sort of trail. It dead ends onto 134th. That actually becomes I know this was talked about while I stepped out, but it becomes dangerous for kids coming out there. Now we've got all the ebikes and e- scooters and all those sorts of things. We've already had a death recently. I mean, there's all those things that creep into it. Um, it invites those kids to hop across their street to the skate park at an unsafe crossing there. Like this particular

stretch to me poses a lot of of issues. removing it, I don't think damages the rest of the trails there. Um, and connectivity, if we're looking across 134th, well, you you need to cross at an intersection and connect to those anyway. And yep, we can do that with the other trails and the sidewalks, etc. If this if this connected directly to trails, connected directly to a park, if it wasn't close in proximity to commercial, if it was just in the neighborhood like like those that are above it and that do connect the park, I'd say yeah, it's not even a question to me. The problem so the couple of problems in looking to vacate it is we've talked about some in some of the work meetings. If we were to do so, how do we do it appropriately and fairly, right? I mean, you're drawing property lines and people have put in privacy fences. Now, they're responsible for it. They have to take on that liability. Um, I'm not sure why three of the 16 properties that bordered it didn't sign, but we'd have to reach out to each one of them and make sure that they are all in agreement, right? That they all agree to taking it on. We'd have to drop some sort of agreement where they accepting that liability, all those sorts of things. But if it's 100% of them agree to that, I'd actually kind of be in favor of it for all of those reasons that I mentioned. That's about all I have.

Um question are uh Mr. Peterson stated there are paying an extra cost on their water bill. Do we is that a fact park fee? That's the same thing everybody's paying. Okay.

All right. I just wanted to clear that up. Um, and then obviously the maintenance. I know that we've talked about it and it makes more sense. It was started HOA and then turned over to the city. So, it's little things like that get overlooked. Um, I I'm honestly siding on the side of Jared as well for a lot of those reasons. Um, it may not be the the public opinion, but I all I see here are neighboring yards, neighboring yards, and there's no green space such as the one to the west of my house where there's 40 ft of grass uh and a trail connectivity there. Um, I if I live there, I'd be hardressed to keep that open as well. So that's where

sorry I said all I have one last thing I wrote down I didn't circle back around to is things change have changed over 30 years and with all the developments that that we mentioned and you can see on here you have the unintended consequences right that that creep in from those um and then the the dark alleyway. Yeah, it just invites Yeah, it doesn't matter who it is that's back there, but you have a dark alleyway and that's really what it is. There there's no way way to police it. There's no way to throw resources at it. Yeah, it there's a legal term attractive nuisance and that's kind of what it becomes.

Any thoughts there? Um, well, I was just wondering I was under an impression that you couldn't put up a privacy fence on this kind of area. Is that correct? That is correct from our current Yeah, from our current statute.

So, I was just wondering about that because of course like you don't want people seeing into your yard, but also you have created the alleyway, correct? Um, with by putting up a privacy fence. So, I was just curious about that. I'm concerned about precedents. Um, even if it does seem like a unique situation. I think a lot of people have unique situations. And then also, I'd be interested in exploring some kind of um, lights. Um, not tall ones that shine into yards, but maybe like a mid- height one. Um, so I think I've seen things like that before. I don't I don't know anything about that. I'd be curious about if there's a way to light it that stays mid height, like mid-person height.

There's ballard lights and stuff they could do. What? Like those three foot ballards with cap light stuff, but yeah. Um that I'm sure would not solve all the problems, but might help as well. So that's where that's where I am. Good question, John. How many respondents did we have? 25 on this one and I attended that meeting as well. I can't remember you you were there as well. Yeah. So, it was a great conversation and and quite a good attendance too. There's more than 25 people there. But yeah,

everybody looking at me. I mean, I get both sides, right? I'll be honest. I get I have one regret, one boat that I really regret and that actually was closing the trail we did out west. I still look back and I don't know that that was the best decision still to this day. But are you are you talking about the one off 64? Yeah, the one off 6,400 just looking back. But um I mean I get all the arguments, Adam. Absolutely. I get all the arguments both ways. It's one of those I don't know.

Just a suggestion for tonight. This is not an official motion, but what we just a suggestion is that we can continue the item and direct staff. I'd like to get a little more information on kind of both options. So, if we were to keep it open to alleviate some of the attractive nuisance and maintenance issues, right? I I like the idea of putting some, you know, lights through there so it's not as attractive, but I mean from an engineering and cost point of view, right? It's probably cost prohibitive, but I mean, if staff can give us an idea of what some of those solutions would be and then on the other side,

like I said, I still struggle with it with the issues of closing it and how you we realistically go about doing that fairly, equitably, etc. So, I don't I don't have an an answer, but those are just the issues I see on either side of it.

I I I just want to be careful using the phrase attractive nuisance. It probably is not legally an attractive nuisance. People are maybe irritated by what's happening on it, but that this it's a public trail. We're not talking uh homeless camps or other things on there that are causing problems. It's just some kids back there. So, I just from illegal,

I'll explain the the definition. An attractive nuisance is um something on a private property that uh where where kids are attracted to some sort of thing that's dangerous and can cause injury. So, I think this would be uh more akin to it's causing it maybe causing nuisances to the property owners, but it it doesn't meet the the legal definition of attractive nuisance. Just to be clear, I don't want somebody who create an attractive it could be a nuisance without being an attract

to me that the term applies in that Yeah, it's attracting nuisance behavior. It's nobody's going to sue us for it or or I can't say nobody would but right doesn't meet that that definition or that threshold but yeah it it is attracting activity that's unwanted that's not intended

I would say like I'm I'm probably in the same ballpark as Jared like I you know for me like the the president of like just taking that away like that's hard for like I'm having a hard time with that but I also recognize the issues that it's causing uh you guys in your backyard. Um and I I I do think maybe get some direction from staff with some information on you know ideas to mitigate that, mitigate your concerns. Uh figure out what those costs are. And then, you know, also if if this, you know, if this were to happen, like all 16 would need to be on board and we would have to, you know, figure out the details and, you know, make sure that everybody knows that they're responsible for, you know, the fence and all that kind of all that kind of stuff.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. I'm just, you know, I'm just thinking out loud for staff. Okay. Bryce. Yeah.

Yeah. Just to answer some of the questions. So, the there were two options for how we would go about vacating or getting rid of the property and closing the trail. So, we could do a quick claim deed for every piece along there. We're not suggesting that because like I said, you might end up with two property owners that say no and then what do you do with that property? They don't want it. So you have, you know, a peace mill of a trail closed but not kind of open. The plat amendment would require um so there there would actually be three plats now that I'm thinking about it. So the west side of the trail is a plat or a subdivision that was created. The east side of the trail was a a separate phase as was discussed. Um so that has a plat and then the bottom corner we haven't really considered it would actually if we split it down the middle would go to that commercial professional office site. So that would be an additional uh plat amendment. So we would need but on those plat so on the west side you'd have to have everyone sign it uh to adjust the property line to extend their property line to the middle. um for the west side also for the east side you would need the same thing everyone on the east side and then at that bottom corn uh corner and I apologize it looks like all I I've been meaning to say this that all the labels for the commercial got wonky there but um so the plat amendment does you know we wouldn't we couldn't record the plat without all of the signatures um so it does address the idea that we wouldn't be able we wouldn't peacemail it but there is a cost associated with that, which we haven't, you know, if we did go down that route, who pays for that cost? Is it the city? Is it the property owner that's benefiting from the the, you know, uh, vacation of the trail that they're receiving more property? Those are things that, you know, if if we do go down the route of exploring vacation, that that would need to be answered by and direction from the

council. Todd, can we We can't force them to do or take action on their property, could we? Like actually close that trail off, take up the asphalt, extend their fences. We can't once they get the property, it's their property. Um I'm guessing we would make it a condition of of them getting that property. Okay. But yeah, we we could do it in a way that once that property is theirs, it's theirs and they can do what they want with it. But what I'm hearing is it's the way that this would be recorded like it would be all or nothing. All or nothing. Yes. So maybe our recommendation.

Okay. So I think maybe the first step is to figure out if everybody's on board and if everybody is not on board this is this is a moot point. Can I ask one question about that? You said three plats and that's if you split it down the middle, right? Yes. Sorry. That Yeah, that's a good clarification. And we're assuming it that we're splitting it down the middle and then half of the trail would go to the adjacent side and the other half to the other side. So which is Adam. Adam, come on. Adam, I got to keep you. Sorry. Sorry. I love you. But yeah. So

to that question, yeah, if you were to choose that the trail all goes to one side, it would be just one plat amendment. That that west side h plat goes all the way down to 134. So potentially if the council so chose uh to vacate and they wanted to uh vacate the trail and have that property all go to one side, uh the potential is there to do just one plat amendment. So it bring the the cost down a little bit because we're paying a surveyor to to draw these lines and get it recorded with the county. Um, but if you chose one and it went to the east side, you would then have two plats because of that that uh professional office area at the bottom.

Is there anything different about how um the plat adjustment is treated with a commercial versus a residential property? I'll say the contacts are a little bit harder to uh to who would sign for the property, but as far as the actual plaque goes, it requires a signature of the owner of the property. Um, it's just a matter of getting in touch with the right person that represents that that property. But as far as the plat goes, it it looks the same. And can I just ask? You're good. Um, so I would be curious about the total cost of making the change and how much that might balance against how much like additional lighting would cost, right? Either way, the city's paying something. So

potentially. Yeah. Yeah. So, back to the recommended uh you know mitigations. I think we didn't uh recommend lighting because that is a significant cost that would cost more than anything we've discussed as far as plat adjustments. Um there are options for for ballards, but you got to find a power source. You've got to run a power line down the road. So, you're you're you might be, you know, digging into the the trail just to install these. Um and so, yeah, that that cost is pretty significant to do lighting. The gate, like we said, is, you know, an internal cost of about $1,000 is what parks department estimated. And then the ongoing maintenance is when they're doing their their treatments of of weeds, they would just make sure it's on the list, right? So,

thank you. I don't know if did did that answer your question? Okay. Okay. I think I mean, I look at this with the three different options you're splitting either down the middle, just to one side, or the other side. I think you're going to have different opinions on who, what, where, why. 13 out of the 16 would like this trail abated, but or vacated, but now what is their understanding? Are they getting the trail? Are they getting the property or are they getting half of the property or none of the property? So, I don't know what that I think that probably is. Yeah.

Refresh my memory, Blake, if you can. How this was how the trail was originally platted with their phases. Right. So was it was the trail basically included with the one phase or was it So the trail was established with the plat to the west. So it was dedicated as part of that subdivision to the west. Um and and and like it was said it wasn't paved at that time. Uh a few years later it it was paved as a trail. But what I'm looking for is so yeah that's what I how do you appropriately look at this and and that would be one good way in my opinion my

um however it's still to me it would still have to be unanimous of all those residents and if there's even one that says nope I don't want it then I'm not going to force that on so let me try to wrap this up

yeah no let me try to wrap up where I think because I love the lighting I I Love I love the thoughts about mitigating. I don't know that we're going to be able to mitigate enough, right? I really don't think we are. I don't think we're going to be able to mitigate. I don't love the lighting because that's another again just a cost, right? I don't think the cost will ever get there with that mitigating is just going to be patrols, which we already know we're stretched on patrol. part of that mitigation um because of the fences that are uh non-conforming with code would probably involve some code enforcement as well. So the cost to mitigate some of that would go back to the residents uh and not necessarily to the city uh to bring the fencing into compliance with code. So that's that's part of should be part of the conversation

because that would definitely have to happen at this point. I don't want to go back the fencing issue. We don't allow double fencing in the city. So, if they're going to put up their own fences, we there's a lot of issues, right? Well, that's what I'm saying. Think there's a lot just going, "Oh, they just keep adding on. It's like a dumb way."

Well, that's where I'm at. I think there's I mean, I I agree that to me, this is where I'm at. I agree there's this trell is probably I know a few people use it. I do. I agree that some people use it, but I do think it's served its purpose. I think it's but then I take the next step of how do we vacate this and then it just gets so hair like I don't know that for me I don't know that taking those steps is worth it for me to take to do all those steps because it's going to be I think it's going to be hairy. So I guess where I'm trying to get I guess is we need to get a a motion in play. We need to get a step. What are we going to do? Is it like is it I guess I'm trying do we start with just vacate or no? And if we do vacate, is it just does it have to be uh unanimous? And then if it is, then do we take like from the residents, right? Not from us, right? Clearly from us, from the resident, from the neighbors. And if it is unanimous, then we come back and decide which

you see where I'm trying to go. I'm trying to get I think you might need a direction of what are if we if we vacate, yes or no? And if if we do, how are we splitting it back to the west plat or we splitting down the middle? We have to give that direction to staff. I believe it would uh staff would also want to know who's paying for that. Are you putting that on all the taxpayers or just those who are going to benefit? Oh man. So again, what I

what I'd like to see is give staff the direction to show show me both. Right. So give me your recommendation for mitigation and the cost, right? Both one time and ongoing. and then give me your recommendation. If we vacate it, here's how we recommend you do it and what it costs and then we would have to decide. Yeah. Who in either case it costs us something. Do you also want to cost to the residents? Well, we just need to know what the cost is and then and then we would have Yeah. And then we would have to decide that all right if we want to pursue that.

Do do we does the city do it or do we tell the residents here's what the agreement would be and here's what you would have to agree to and your cost in it. etc. But the starting point to the mayor's to the mayor's point is we we need we need some more information I think for either one. I'm not I'm not hellbent on on either one. I want to try to find personally I just want to find the best solution right now and be if there if it's mitigation is the best solution for now the option to vacate in the future is always there right um but I guess I just need a little more information give me some spec if you're going to if we're going to do mitigation tell me this is how we recommend you do it this is the one-time cost to install these features here's the ongoing cost to maintain etc if we're going to vacate it here's how we would recommend that you do it and here's the cost and then council, you hold the purse strings, you decide how to do that.

I think that puts the public in a tough ultimatum at some point, too. If they do not agree, they're going to have to comply with the maintenance and the the code enforcements. So yeah, then we as a decision-m body then we have, you know, information correct to at least for me, I I think we're making progress, but I don't I don't feel comfortable dictating either one because of the the impact it will have. Well, Todd, Jackie, can I ask is it because I don't want to make a motion, but I'm trying to get some

I'm trying to get some feedback on what direction to go. Can I take an informal poll about interest in closing it before we take because if there's if there's three votes to close it based on you know pending the stuff then I think we need to take it but if there's not then I don't want I think it's a motion to deny in either one depending on the information I get from the things I just that's what I'm saying so you're open to that's what I'm saying you're open so we can still so let me take that informal poll. Is anybody on the council opposed to closing the trail right now? Yes.

I'm not opposed right now. Okay. Okay. So, it appears there I am actually right now actually. I'm just I think it's going to be complicated, but there's three votes right now to look into it. So, I guess let's look for a motion to continue it. Right. be my motion to continue it with the direction I mentioned. Okay. Is everybody kind of more information is great. Okay. Again, we're going to sit here and just go back and forth because we're not going to have all the information we want. So that way at least we give you direction, narrow it down to to two things to give us some information. But what's the information? Let's let's put it out there for staff so they're clarify. Let's

So what's the information we want? At least for me, I if I want their firm recommendation if we were to close it, their recommendation on how to go about it, the rationale why and what the cost would be and then it's up to us to decide, right, how that how that goes. And part of that's legal, what how to go about it includes the agreement, you know, each resident would have to sign, right, with whatever conditions we want to put in. And on the other side, if we're going to mitigate it and keep it open, what's your recommendation for those mitigation efforts, the one-time cost to install features, and then the ongoing cost to continue to maintain it?

I might add that maybe we contact the three property owners first because if anyone's adamantly against it, then this just doesn't matter at all. I can't I can't, Adam. Sorry. We'll talk we'll talk to him. We'll talk to him. I'll I'll talk to you offline. We'll talk to Yeah, we'll talk to But yes, we absolutely, like I I've said several times, it has to be unanimous. So if there's even one of them that says no, then that's a moot point as well.

Okay. And I mean, also, I mean, we talked about who's going to front the cost. I mean, I can tell you right now, and I don't know how everybody else feels, you know, for me, it's it's going to be the individual owners of the of the property that are going to front the costs to do whatever needs to be done. So, if if that feeling is is mutual among us, we should just say it now. That way, everybody is that what happened last time

knows. I would say that that depends on what the cost is, right? In relation to what. So if we say mitigation, well, a lot of that is it's part of the part of our city. The mitigation would be as far as I think we have to take into account that if we go the mitigation route, part of it's going to be enforcement. So those people that have put in those privacy fences, we're going to have to go tell them take them down, right, Adam? What did you do to us? I

I think there was a question about what happened on the the other trail. The other trail was a significantly different situation. This is a platted trail that was an easement across their individual lots. And so when we gave up the easement, there were no plats. There was anything. just vacated the easement on property they already owned.

This one is different. That's that's why uh there really wasn't a a cost on the last one just to vacate it. This one there would your your surveyor if the city does it, there's going to be a pretty significant cost with the surveyor and all those other pieces. That's why I say when it comes to costs, Matt, it depends on what that cost is, the nature of it, and like we can decide, we can we can decide what we want to do. And and the and the cost that I'm referring to is if if we decide that we are going to get rid of this trail and everything's going to get replotted and people are going to have to move fences and all that kind of stuff. That's on them and that part of the agreement. Correct. Yeah. Yep.

Okay. Well, let's do a motion to continue then if I could with the direction that we've talked about to staff. Am I good with I already said that's my motion? Probably not. Jackie says yes. Second. If I had a motion on the table, I have a second. Um Jared, yes. Teddy, yes. Matt, yes. Tara, yes. And I'll vote yes on the continuation. Okay, we'll be in touch. Thank you guys. Okay, let's go to 11.3. Discussion and consideration of an ordinance amending chapter 6-6 of Herman City Code relating to the parking permit program. This should be an easy Black discussion. Okay.

What this code change does is changes administrative authority to the city manager or designate from the community development director, which the community development director never did the parking program at Blackidge. So, we're cleaning that section up. And then it also limits the amount of personal data that the city collects u based on our new data privacy u tools the state has mandated on us. So that's that's the code change. Look for a motion. Any questions or concerns?

Just to reiterate, this is kind of we're just kind of moving assignments of who is responsible. We're not changing any codes with regards to the no who where parking fees anything like that. The permit program remains the same. The boundaries remain the same. Um, this is just some cleanup language for the city manager designate and also restricting how much data privacy private data we're collecting on our residents. I think I think it has always been in the city manager's office as far as I can tell. Right. We're just making it clear. Yep. Okay. Let's do a motion. I'll motion to approve ordinance number 2026-08 amending title 6 chapter 6 relating to the parking permit program. Perfect. Second. Um, motion by Ter, second by Teddy. Terara, yes. Matt, yes. Teddy, yes.

Jared, yes. Yes. That motion carries. Holy cow. 114. Discussion and consideration to approve the Heramman Parks mowing contract. Anthony.

Good evening. Um, yes. So, we're going to talk about the mowing contract and our recommendation for the contractor um for that. So, just uh just to give you an idea of the the mowing areas that we uh maintain, this is our our mowing map. It's uh just over 8 million square feet that that we maintain. Um these are our large park areas in addition to all of the uh park strips that we we maintain here. Uh little background here. Uh last year we brought the mowing contract uh for approval. council expressed uh that uh they wanted us to uh bring it back or put it out this year to bid. Uh so we did that. Uh we prepared an RFP, put it out uh on the 10th of February. Uh submissions were due by the 27th of February and we did receive 19 proposals. So we did we had a a good response to that RFP. Um the proposals were scored by a fivep person committee uh representing three separate city departments and the scoring criteria is as follows. Uh so 25% was based on organization and qualification, 25% was understanding the scope. Uh 25% was based on cost and 25% was based on schedule. So the cost was uh an objective uh number. Um everything else was subjective and uh the the opinion of each uh committee member and then at that point once we received all the uh total uh scores they were they were then averaged and that that's where we get got our final uh scores from. So this is a compilation of all those scores. The highlighted uh scores are the top five scoring uh companies that submitted proposals. uh starting with cutting edge landscaping, elite grounds, horiculture group, huskys landscaping

and lawn butler. So those were the top five scoring um companies that we that submitted proposals. our our uh the committee selection uh overall the highest scoring uh proposal was from Husky's Landscaping who has been our uh mowing contractor in the past. Um they've shown they they've proven um that they are successful. They they do high quality work. They've been reliable and efficient for us. Um they they've been able to meet all the qualifications of the contract in the past. um and they are um able to um do all that work with with minimal oversight, which really reduces the administrative burden on on us as as city staff. Um they've been great at communicating with us if there's ever any any issues. Um they're they're quick to respond and take care of those issues for us. Um, and we felt like as a committee, we felt like it was the best overall value. While not necessarily the lowest um, option or lowest costing option, we felt like they did provide the best value. Um, here are the cost comparisons as we break them down. Again, these are the top uh, five or the least um, expensive options. Um, cutting edge landscaping was was the third lowest. Elite Grounds uh number five, Horiculture Group came in at the lowest um with the lowest cost proposal. Husky's Landscaping was fourth and Lawn Butler Holdings was second. Um when we're we're just looking at costs there. So again, our our U proposal is or our recommendation is to go with Hussy's landscaping going forward. But again, we're we're um open to any

questions or discussions on how we came about with our recommend or came to our recommendation. I think it's impressive you got that many applicants. Yeah, it was a pretty good response to the RFP. Um, I also know that keeping the same maintenance or landscaper pays dividends that you can't just see on a bottom line for a dollar budget. So, I think you're scoring metrics pretty well. So, I agree.

Just a quick comment. I believe it was Sherry um this last year that asked that we do the RFP. And whether it's this contract or others, I do think it's a good practice to periodically um do that RFP, right? Um so I don't know if we have a policy, Nathan, that you know, every so many years, right? We we we're pushing that uh process. It's five years, Kyle. We So if you remember a couple years ago, Kyle did bring you a long procurement policy. It has it in there. We are trying to remind our trying to remind all of our managers to be looking at that. Perfect. Training next month.

Okay, I'm good with it. I'll look for a motion. I'll make a motion to motion to approve and award the Herman City Parks mowing services contract to Huskies Landscaping as the highest ranked proposer and authorizing the city to enter into a enter into contract negotiations. Second by Jared. Second by Teddy. Uh Jared, yes. Teddy, yes. Matt, yes. Terret,

yes. and I'll vote yes. That motion carries. Thank you, Anthony. Okay. 11.5 discussion and consideration of an amendment to the DAI and Wasatch South Hills Water Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement. Justin, good evening, Mayor and Council. Um a little over a year and a half ago, we brought an agreement to the council um to allow a developer to build water infrastructure, specifically two water tanks and a pump station and some pertinent pipelines um in the south portion of the city to allow development to continue because development couldn't continue without that infrastructure. Um, so in August of 2024, council approved an agreement, a reimbursement agreement to allow that to happen. Um, in the agreement, it stated that there was 18 months to complete the infrastructure. And if that infrastructure wasn't completed within 18 months, then the developer would have to post an assurance completion bond for the remaining total and that balance. Um, so construction started about two months after the contract. So late October is when construction happened. There was some pre-planning that happened. Um, some preliminary work on site that was happening and then it started. And then if you recall, I think it was June of last year, uh, some of the council went up and took a tour of those tanks. So the tanks constructed very well. Since then, construction has been moving steadily, kind of roller coaster, sometimes more quickly than others. Um, but it has been slower than anticipated. Um, there was a portion last summer where we actually had to postpone some of the construction because because of some of the delays, the cutting into the

existing water line, which is the only feed out of that tank that's existing there. We couldn't allow that to happen during the summer months because it would need to be down for several days which we couldn't. That was a uh one of the reasons for prolonging the project as well. Um but overall the developers done uh move done well moving the project forward. There's just been delays as I mentioned in the staff report. Um if you have any other questions about the delays um there's a representative here um from the developer that could answer those questions. Um so just moving forward what they're requesting in the amendment is only to change the deadline date for completion of the project. Um the completion deadline was February 22nd based on the 18 months. They're requesting to move it out to October 31st to allow them to complete the project. Um the water tanks themselves are essentially complete. the one is functioning right now um providing water to that development area. We just don't have a pump station to pump the water there. Um that's there's a temporary pump that's feeding that tank right now. The other tank, the lower tank, um they're running utilities and site work there before they um are able to fill that tank and do leak testing. The pump station is the furthest behind. Um they've installed the underground piping, they're doing the foundation walls, and over the last two months, they've made a lot of progress there. Um and I think the completion date for that is the end of August now. And then they'll take a month or month and a half to get everything commissioned. So that's why the date is October 31st right now. So um essentially that's it. I'll go into some detail on the what the completion and assurance bond would look like. So, at the end of January, when

the time the staff report was written, there was about $7 million worth of work that still needed to be complete of the $15.9 million that's reimburseable in the agreement. Since then, obviously, there's been continued uh work that's happened and paid out. So, that number would be a little bit different, but as of the end of January, they would need to post a completion assurance bond um for around $7 million. Um the developer has stated that obviously posting that bond could you know impact their ability to complete the project. It could impact their ability to continue to develop water lines within their development um to actually serve water to the portions of existing Haramman that this tank would this infrastructure would supply. Um so that's why they're requesting the extension is because it could impact the overall project. Um, as at this point, staff is recommending approval of that. Based on our knowledge of the developers, been continually moving forward. There's never been a time where they've just not been doing something. There's just been construction complications and and hold up um that sometimes do occur on these types of projects. So, um, happy to answer any questions or if you have questions, uh, Chase is here. He can address those as well. I just have one question. Um I was curious when you were notified that it like we wouldn't meet the deadline.

Yeah. So we we started having discussions about that in around the first of the year and they the developers trying to figure out what they wanted to do and I would say it was probably 1 of February when they said promoted you know proposed that they would like to do an amendment and then they wrote the amendment got it to us and then we were able to get it on this meeting. So it wasn't just last minute, the day of or after. We had discussions around the first of the year.

Okay, sounds good. I think we're good. Let's do a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the first amendment to the water infrastructure reimbursement agreement between Haramman City and DAI Rose LLC and Wasach South Hills Development Company. Second. Motion by Teddy. Second by Matt. Uh Jared, yes. Teddy, yes. Matt, yes. Cara, yes. And I'll vote yes. That motion carries. Thank you, Justin. Thank you, Chase. Thanks for staying for that. The trail was on when I was still in the city. Bring it back up. Wow, I love it.

Okay. 11.6. Review and consider a recommendation to amend the Herman city official zoning map from OP office professional to C1 commercial for 0.97 acres of property located at 6319 West 134th South. Michael,

thank you. And the uh applicant is here in the audience tonight if the council has any questions. Um, this of course is a legislative item that has had a public hearing with the planning commission and a recommendation. This is just the general vicinity of this uh potential zoning amendment. The property is just a little under one acre. It fronts on 134 south. In our current general plan, it is neighborhood commercial and the current zoning district is office professional and that is consistent with the current general plan. The general plan um also allows C1 zone which is a which is a lower intensity commercial zone within the city. So that is also consistent with the general plan. The applicant is hoping to repurpose or reuse this older home on the property for a bike shop. Um you can see in this list of land use items in the C1 zone that a repair service and repair uh general retail is permitted in the C1 zone, but they are not allowed in the office professional. So that's what is driving the reszone request is to introduce this land use and and hopefully reuse this property which has been a difficult property. it it it really has never had a good land use in the eight years that I've been with the city. Um, this again is the general plan. This was a a map in your packet and uh this is the current zoning map and of course again they're requesting that it be a C1. Um again it is consistent with the current general plan so no general plan amendment is needed. Planning commission did have the public hearing and did recommend uh approval with a 60 vote. We did have some public comment on this item. Um the residents who came were really quite anxious to

see the property have some type of regular routine use. Somebody who's occupying the property, maintaining the property, uh addressing some of the um code issues or just general property maintenance concerns with the with the lot. And then they also uh specified that they would like to see some type of a wall or a fence that goes around the property. And of course, we have that requirement in our zoning code. Anytime we have what we call an incompatible land use and where this is a change of use from a residential home to a commercial structure, uh we will require that that fencing uh be installed with establishing this new land use if the zoning is changed. So again, uh, planning commission and staff is supportive of this, uh, zone change.

That fencing is a pre-cast wall, you said. Um, so it's between commercial and residential, so it would be a masonry wall of some type. Yeah. Will you go back to the allowed uses? Yeah. And of course, this is just an excerpt, but this is all of the uses for the seaw zone. That's my question with these things. As was rightly pointed out, I've been up here for a while. It's not a question of um what what's being proposed now. It's what would be allowed in the future, right?

Probably the only one that is a little bit odd to me is this resource recycling collection point. I mean, I guess thinking is it's a collection point uh closer to the neighborhoods, but those I've also have seen those. I mean, that's a collection point, but it's also sorting, bundling. I mean, they're not great. But you could make that as a zoning condition that that not be allowed. But I also think we should revisit that as a maybe removing that from the C1 zone personally. But

so I guess that's the point I wanted to make to the council is if there's any uses that we don't think are compatible next to residential. Not right. I believe there's residential on the east and the south. Um yes that's correct. Yeah. But we can always put a zoning condition on it that if there's any uses. Can we do that? We don't want Yeah. When we change zoning, we can put a ZC on it and say you can do anything but these. Yep. You can restrict land uses. Talk to me about wireless communication facilities. So that would be a a monopole, right? Yeah. Or stealth. Mhm.

So I have some if we can do that. I have I mean I mean this where you've got experience you've got more on as far as that part. Well, I would say for me, I think church we've been real careful about. It's conditional though, so it'd have to be still you got to have a good reason. I would like to see again if we're going to make the change, I would like to see church, of course, the wireless telecommunication facility. substation. Utility substation hospital hospital statutos

mobile store. That seems like a very broad definition. What what what can go in? So this is um it is a conditional use. So it would it's just like what it sounds. it would be a a mobile business that would locate on that property. Um we were able to do the drone up um with that tool. Okay. It's just you know you you see these temporary land uses. Yeah. And and footnote 32 talks about a temporary use permit. So it sounds like it's a temporary use. Um we have a lot of footnotes in that chart.

Okay. I'm gonna start at the top then. Tell me. Let's go down and you guys tell me. I'm gonna just church. No. No. Hospital. I mean, I don't think that would happen, but I don't know if we need to include that, honestly. Um, I would love the post office. I think we need to go to Congress to make that happen from what I understand. Recycling. Uh, utility. Hold on. Recycling. Recycling. Recycling. School. Okay. Schools. any of the schools. Go ahead, Nathan. I just asked Todd that question. So, both with churches and schools, there are also well schools, there's some state law that dictates worried about churches, federal law,

overlays, yeah. So, with churches, um, they are permitted to be in zones where any like use is also permitted. Um, I don't know what that means for how that looks for all of Haramman. Uh, but there's there's FURPA laws uh that that protects churches from be to allowed to be in those zones and that we can't discriminate just because they're a church. Yeah, we just ran we're running into that right now. I think we need to keep churches off of it as far as restricted use. I just it's residential right now. It's not that's not we're not going to like I said I think legally we're in a gray area anyways with churches.

Yeah. And and a church can always request for uh a change to be made and we can make a specific look at what the zoning is, what's allowed, what's not allowed. So you're saying we could include the church and the zoning condition to restrict it. Say zoning condition that a church is not allowed. Yeah, I think that's okay. Is the concern traffic? I mean, it's looks like it's right next door to a dentist. So, like I mean there's dance studio. So, the dance studio when that drop off and pickup is it gets uh exciting really close to that intersection. Um it Yeah.

Yeah. But I don't know if we want to limit that though based on that. We're going to li The problem is if we limit this too much then we're I think we're pigeon hole. I mean for me it's worst case scenario and then when that use comes in can we make these all conditional? Yeah they have well correct me if I'm wrong the process Michael right so if the use let's say it's the dance studio when they come in it's allow it's already allowed they have to go but they have to go through planning and the permitting process and adhere to parking and distances and whatnot. I don't mind it. I mean, even a church, I don't mind a church. It's residential right now. I mean, we'd like to protect commercial spaces when we

And that would go to Sorry, that would go and that would go to the planning commission. So, if there's concerns about that, then they could put some restrictions on those sorts of things. And even a chart like school like I don't again, they'd have to go through the process. I don't want It's not a big enough piece. It's not a big enough to do anything serious. If they do it might be a