Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to our city council meeting tonight, Tuesday, October 28th.

Let's see, we're gonna go ahead and start with a prayer and the pledge.

Do I have any volunteers for giving the prayer this evening?

Okay, Mr.

Meekham.

Our Father in Heaven, we're grateful for the opportunity to gather tonight.

We're thankful for the blessings that we have.

We're thankful for this free country and opportunity to work together to build our community.

We pray that we will work together tonight and say this humbly in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Thank you so much.

And if everybody will please rise and we can say the Pledge of Allegiance together.

Thank you, everyone.

We will go ahead and begin with introduction, starting over here with Mr.

Fratto.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Dustin Fratto.

I'm with the City Council Office.

There are two other council staff members in the back of the room, Justin Sorensen and Liz Terriel.

My name's Tracy, I'm counsel for the council.

Chris Edwards with the council office.

I'm Zach Robinson, District 3.

Ryan Meekham, District 1.

Brooke D'Souza at large.

Alison Stroud, District 2.

Aaron DeKeiser at large.

Cindy Sharkey at large.

Martin Jensen, Deputy CAO.

Um Mayor Zoltanski will be here shortly.

Thank you.

And Councilmember Houseman, um, maybe joining us later virtually.

And that brings us into our agenda.

Uh public comment won't happen any sooner than 6 p.m.

So at a time appropriate in the middle of the agenda, we'll come back um after we've hit 6 p.m.

to take those public comments.

If you are in the room and would like to make public comment, there are blue cards in the back of the room you can fill out and then hand over here to Mr.

Fratto, and then they'll come up to me and we will call on those as I receive them.

Um and if you're online again, you can raise your hand virtually and we will get to you at that time when it's appropriate.

Uh for now we're gonna go ahead and go into item number one, which is an information item, amendments to title one of the land of the land development code related to boundary adjustments.

And Melissa Anderson, our zoning administrator, will be presenting this.

Thank you, Melissa.

I'll go ahead and hand it over to you.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh Chair and Council.

So um this is a proposal to amend our uh land development code in response to changes from the state legislature this year.

So these are uh basically required changes, they're not necessarily discretionary.

So this proposal affects three separate chapters in the land development code of Title 21 and Chapter 3, Chapter 30 subdivision review, and also 37 definitions.

And this year, the legislative session had adopted Senate Bill 140, and it's a new and revised code relating to boundary adjustments, otherwise known as property line adjustments.

So proposed amendments will bring the Sandy Code into compliance with the city code.

So this is just a simple illustration to exemplify the type of thing that a boundary adjustment would address, where you're just moving a property line between a budding neighboring properties.

And so I'll just describe a few things that were included in the Senate Bill 140 and then describe a few things that to address that that we're doing for our land development code to change that.

So a property line adjustment is now termed a boundary adjustment.

So they change the terminology a little bit.

That is an agreement between the adjoining property owners to relocate a common boundary that results in conveyance of property between the adjoining lots or adjoining parcels or adjoining lots and parcels, but only if it does not create an additional lot or parcel.

So this is not a subdivision, it's just moving an existing property line.

But the significance of this is that it simplifies the process to adjust a shared property line between lots or parcels, and it will not require a public meeting.

And so Senate Bill 140 also makes a distinction or has terminology or definitions for what is called a simple boundary adjustment versus a full boundary adjustment.

And so a simple boundary adjustment is when you're doing a boundary adjustment, but it does not encompass any of these things.

So it would not affect a public right-of-way, municipal utility easement, or other public property.

It will not affect an existing easement on site wastewater system or an internal lot restriction, or result in a lot or parcel out of conformity with our land use regulations.

And so if it does not qualify as a simple boundary adjustment, then it would be termed or be defined as a full boundary adjustment.

And so to address these state law changes in the state code, these are the changes that we're doing is the decisions that are listed related to planning commission and community development director, they are corrected in a couple places.

In the property line adjustment section, that's updated to be consistent with state law with the terms and the processes for a simple boundary adjustment.

It specifies what qualifies as a simple boundary adjustment.

It upstates the standards for the city approval and removes the requirement for a public meeting.

And so now we're back again to the simplified process.

So there's just reference to, you know, if you don't qualify for this, then you follow the existing procedures for a subdivision plat amendment.

And lastly, in the definition section, that is either definitions are added or updated to be consistent with the Utah code relating to these boundary adjustments, definition of subdivision, a lot of parcel, and a subdivision amendment.

So the planning commission heard this at a public hearing a few weeks ago and gave a unanimous approval to recommend to the city council to adopt the proposed amendments as presented.

Tonight is just information for the council to consider and to ask questions if you have any in a couple weeks on November 11th.

I'll be back for a decision on this code amendment.

So that concludes the presentation.

If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

Thank you, Melissa.

Council, are there any questions?

Councilmember Sharkey.

Thank you for that presentation, Melissa.

So in the red line version, um making amendments to 21-3?

Yeah.

Reasonable accommodation.

Did you land use authorities?

Yeah.

So B6.

Okay.

Yeah.

Is there a word missing here?

So bound so boundary adjustments.

So under the authority of the director.

Yes.

Boundary adjustments and vacating or amending a subdivision plat is set forth in this title.

Should it be should it apply only to simple boundary adjustments?

Because a full boundary adjustment goes to the planning commission, right?

So are we saying here that a is it a is a simple boundary adjustment?

Does that fall under the authority of the director to do that?

Yes, uh the director designates the staff to do the the procedures.

Uh but ultimately it is our director's approval.

But uh as a correction, the full boundary adjustment does not go to the planning commission.

Uh the full boundary adjustment is basically where you're making some adjustment to a subdivision plat to the lot.

It it will end up being part of that.

I mean, when you um when we thought of all the um situations where if it's not a simple boundary adjustment, well, it's gonna end up being part of or related to this a subdivision plat.

So we're just following the subdivision plat amendment process.

That is a director um decision after a public meeting.

So we do the notice, we hold a public meeting, but it is uh, and that's in the existing code the way we we do it now.

Um if you're subdividing though and creating even a single lot that goes to these planning commission for their uh decision.

So both kind of boundary adjustments, a simple and a full, both come before the director.

It says the director is hereby designated to review and decide the following.

Yes.

So the director is deciding both a simple and a full boundary adjustment.

Is that okay?

Just as the director it is right now the way it is uh is that the director after the public meeting that we hold makes the decision and we complete all the paperwork for a would be a full boundary adjustment and a subdivision plat amendment.

We're not creating new lots.

Um we're not subdividing, but yeah, that's the the procedure that we have now.

And um you know the yeah, okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

I have a quick question.

Uh so this came to us from the state, yeah.

Um but I'm curious how often might this happen in Sandy, like how often often does a boundary adjustment come to us right now and under what circumstances because uh James has to deal with it.

Sometimes sometimes we have these monthly.

I think uh a month ago we had four in one month, and then we probably went five or six months without any.

Um, but uh it is common, and generally it's common when two neighbors get together and decide hey, if we move this a little bit, I can do this or you can do this.

So they get together and want to do a boundary adjustment.

It's generally almost always between two neighbors that want to accommodate each other for some type of a reason or something like that.

The situations that you said cropped up the last little bit, those four were they would they have fallen under the simple boundary adjustments?

They would have, and they were almost I think all four of them were property lines that neighbors were just trying to help each other.

Hey, if you do this, I can extend my basket, you know, things like that that they've got together to work out together and and change their lines.

Okay, that's usually what it always is.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I don't have any other questions, and unless there's any other questions which I'm not seeing, then I will thank you, Melissa, and we will see you on the 11th.

Okay, thank you very much.

And then that brings us to um agenda item number two, which is public works department presenting a solutions development study for SR 201.

And Brittany Ward, the assistant director, city engineer will be presenting that.

Thank you, Brittany.

Good evening, council.

Thank you for having me tonight.

I do have about 40 slides in my slide deck.

The first half of it is going to be defining existing conditions, what's going on, the public open house process, and the second half of it is the identified solutions along SR209, which is 9400 south.

I'm just wondering, I'm gonna try and speed through it really fast.

Do you want me to spend a little bit more time on the existing conditions and the public open house information, or do you want my presentation to be more so focused on what the findings of the study?

Well, if I'm being totally honest, we have 30 minutes until public comment, and so you are welcome to take the time that you need.

Okay, okay, sounds good.

I'll rush through it.

It will take me probably up to about 30 minutes.

So this is the solutions development study for the state road owned by UDOT, SR209 and along 9400 South from 1300 East to Wasatch Boulevard.

So a little bit of background, the purpose and need on why the study came to be.

After numerous back and forth conversations with UDOT, we came to an agreement that this new solutions development study process that UDOT invented would be applicable as a side study to look at SR209 needs.

And so what came about it is because uh Mayor Z put together a task force for the issues to help solve the issues surrounding canyon closure traffic that we were experiencing in Sandy congestion and people sitting, idling, neighborhood access, so many other things.

Um while that task force was able to come up with immediate solutions to occur over the last couple years that we've been practicing, this study more so focuses on long-term improvement projects.

And the other purpose and need for this project was to identify what else was needed along the corridor, such as gaps in improvement, multi-jurisdictional ownership, safe walk routes, trails needed, um, access to neighborhoods, parking, um, etc.

etc.

So uh as I mentioned earlier, here is a map of the roadways.

You can see SR210 going from the canyon up towards the northwest, SR209 from that merged part goes west back goes westward through Sandy City, and then at that merge point where SR210 and SR209 merge going up the canyon further.

It is only it becomes just SR210, so SR209 ends.

The focus of the study, like I said, was between 13th East and Wasatch Boulevard.

However, there are some solutions for right-way cross sections that were brought up and mentioned in the study between Wasuch Boulevard and that merge point.

So to start out, I'll define existing conditions of the corridor.

So as you can see on the bar chart towards the south on the on the bottom end, south end, bottom end of this map, these are the traffic volumes going east of the corridor.

You can see that they significantly drop off.

So we're looking at about 22 to 28,000 trips around 1300 east to Highland Drive, and then that decreases down to just over 15,000 trips, another big decrease down to 11,000 trips, then 9,000 trips, and then significant decrease again at Wasatch Boulevard up into the canyon.

It drops down to 3,000 trips.

This is the average annual daily traffic, and so these are the number of trips expected each day along the corridor.

Um averaged out annually.

Of course, these numbers are going to be fluctuated due to winter and summer conditions.

So looking at existing safety conditions of the corridor, you can see that the majority of the accidents occur between 1300 East and about Highland Drive.

It shows the most heat on this heat map.

Uh, between 1300 East and Wasatch Boulevard, the study corridor, there were 283 crashes reported between the year 2014 and 2023.

Um the most crashes again were the most heat showing on the map between 13th East and well, 2300 East, so just east of Highland Drive, there had 216 crashes.

So that was 76% of all the crashes that happened on that corridor was in that segment.

6% of the crashes classified as severe, not at the intersections, so on roadway segments.

So 6% of the total crashes were classified as severe between the intersections.

The statewide average for urban arterials is 2.7%.

And so we have higher crash, higher crash rate than the statewide average.

At the intersections themselves, our rate was 2.7% of all of the crashes at the intersections are classified as severe, whereas the statewide crash rate was 1.9% at four-way intersections.

36% of those crashes were injury related.

29.2% is the statewide average for five-lane arterial roadways, which SR209 is classified as.

Okay, thank you so much.

Go ahead, Brittany.

Okay, no problem.

So, like I said earlier in the presentation, it is a method that was developed by UDOT, and it provides need-driven solutions.

On the right side is a cylinder funnel cone demographic that you can see it starts at the top with stakeholders, it looks at the context of the area, and then it looks at problems, and then it provides solutions, and then that groups of solutions into different solution sets.

It helps to achieve the component of Utah's transportation vision, so it's in alignment with that.

And if the corridor needs to take the net step further into an environmental impact study, this does satisfy the first steps of that environmental impact study requirement.

So to give you context of the project itself, the funding that was spent on the project was 260,000 that was split about 5050 between UDOT and us at Sandy City.

There's a link here on this slide that you guys can go to to look at the project's website and see the story map.

There were many, many stakeholders involved in this, and we met with them and had several group and had several meetings to get their input and work with them, including WFRC, which was the federal government in our area, UTA, Salt Lake County, Cottonwood Heights, larger landowners that surround it, such as Beehive Academy and Waterford and the schools and the local public schools and district, local residents, police, and our community development and other city departments.

It also pulled in all past studies that were done in the area, and I have a whole list of them here on the right side.

I won't read them all to you.

And then it also, like I said before, identified adopted land uses that are within the corridor and also that connect to the corridor.

For example, like the Cairns District, because we want to connect that Cairns district up to Little Cottonwood Canyon.

So we wanted to make sure that we included the goals of the Cairns district within the study.

Also looked out the Canyon neighborhood center and then other commercial residential industrial uses along that corridor.

Project timeline this started in April of 2024.

We had three stakeholder meetings after the pub after the second stakeholder meeting.

There was a public survey that went out, and the concepts were developed, which were then presented at the third stakeholder meeting.

We then had a public open house to present those concepts, and then the study recommendations were finalized in May of 2025.

So for the two public engagement options, the two public engagement outsource items that were utilized by the team was both a public survey and a public open house.

The survey was done the end of the year in 2024.

It was sent to all the stakeholders along the corridor.

It was also advertised through Sandy's e-newsletter, and there were 194 responses.

So the following spring, it was advertised through the Sandy City Facebook website and the e-newsletter.

At that open house, we had 40 plus attendees.

I only said I say plus because not everybody signs in when they go to the public open houses.

So we had boarded people that at least signed in.

There were a lot of boards.

There were 25 display boards where attendees could go around and they had sticker dots that they can put on the different concepts that were suggested that they liked and that they supported.

If you go and look at the final report, you can see what the response rate was on how on which options were more supported than others.

And then at the end, they could give um additional feedback that they wanted and write their comments down.

We got 14 of those forms filled out and sent it back and sent back to us.

And then after that, we posted that public open house information on the story map and online to give anybody an opportunity who could not attend the open house to be able to give comments and feedback on those suggestions and those story boards, and then online we had 24 people respond to that.

So focusing now on the public survey for a second.

The key takeaway from the public survey that went out, it was to improve the pedestrian and bicycle safety to enhance public transit options to address traffic congestion and improve the roadway infrastructure.

Our top concerns were the bus options available to access the canyon and winter travel, the left turn movements before between 2400 East to Wasach Boulevard that includes both intersection and non-intersection, and then widening the corridor.

So in this image down here is just an example of what one of the survey questions looked like.

These are the lists of items that we got strong support on and additional suggestions that we got.

We had strong support for a roundabout and an extra lane at 9400 South and Wasatch Boulevard to add bike lanes and shared use shoulders.

We got general support for roundabouts in general to add bus lanes and to add a left-turn signal at Little Cottonwoods at Little Cottonwood Center.

The concerns that were identified was at the need and or the desire not to add raised mediums at Smith or the desire to add them.

Both ways people had opinions on both on either side that they wanted there.

So both of those, so the first the public survey was used to help identify and come up with suggested solutions for the corridor, and then those were the suggested solutions that were presented at the public open house.

So they were in tandem in a process that was followed.

Further items of discussion that we identified that was needed was this list of items through here.

Transit connections to Cairns, traffic signal at 1700 East and the phasing of that traffic signal, how it operates.

So that's all of our little background of the study.

Before I give you an overview of what the recommended solutions were.

Council Member Sharkey, and then we'll go to Council Member Robinson.

Brittany, early in the presentation, you talked under the purpose and needs slide.

You talked about multi-jurisdictional ownership.

All of SR209 is UDOT owned, right?

The roadway itself is owned by UDAT, yes, but it crosses through several jurisdictions.

Oh Salt Lake County and Sandy City.

And then Cottonwood Heights is close to it, but it doesn't have boundaries through the roadway.

Multi-jurisdictions are involved, but the roadway itself is owned by UDOT through all the multi-jurisdictions.

Correct, yeah.

Um I guess we'll get into the um possible solutions.

Um I was at that public open house.

When we get to it, I I would love to hear about how support for a roundabout at 94th or Little Cottonwood Road and Wasatch was determined because I didn't hear that.

So I really like to focus on that.

I also remember there was a lot of discussion about that signal at Raintree and having that the potential of having traffic move straight through that intersection, and then the problem with 7 Eleven and whether that was realistic or whether it was not.

Is that an insurmountable kind of problem?

So I'll be looking for some discussion about that.

And you're right, I did hear a lot of concerns from it.

Seemed like when I was there, it was almost all employees that were there, but it was interesting to listen to the um uh residents that were there, and of course, I think there was some concern about raised medians and how could that could be restrictive of movements and access, and so um I'll be looking to hear whether you think whether there's a thought that that might improve traffic circulation, or is it really just improving the safety aspect?

Really interested in that and what the purpose of those raised medians might be.

So I think those are all my comments for now.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Council Member Robinson is gonna wait.

All right, go ahead.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

So these recommended solutions are what the consultant came up with as solutions that could work or apply to that roadway.

There are many of them that do need additional study.

Um, and I will hint on that at some locations along the whole corridor.

Um whether these solutions are supported or not by UDOT Salt Lake County or us is up to us to determine this.

Is just the results of the study, and so we can develop those solutions further or find funding or implement them as just up to us.

This is just what's on the plate before us, and we can choose to partake or not.

So these are the solutions that were identified.

So the first one is at 1300 East, and you can see a crossing that suggested grade separated crossing for the pedestrians between Alta Canyon Hospital, which serves overflow parking from the Alta Canyon or from the theater, Sandy Ampatheater, for because there's not enough parking, especially on big show nights, and so there is a dangerous condition crossing there.

And I'm actually currently working with UDOT now to help implement a solution because it is a high safety concern of ours.

And then another solution here was to adjust the signal timing to help with westbound movements during peak flows to help because there is limited site visibility through there, sometimes going through the intersection because of the grades.

And adding an advanced warning signal so people can be prepared to stop as they approach the signal.

Most of the solutions that you'll see identified on here are in the yellow bubble call outs.

So moving east, we're looking at the stretch of roadway in front of Waterford school traffic.

And if you remember, I mentioned earlier that this was a heightened area of discussion within the study.

There are several accesses along this roadway, and it gets very congested during pick up and drop-off times.

And there are drivers that do block through traffic as they're accessing Waterford School District.

There are some suggestions that the consultant came up with to add race mediums, eastbound right turn pockets, etc.

etc.

redoing traffic flow on their lot itself, encouraging pickup and drop-off traffic to use 17th East instead of SR209, providing limited storage links in turn pockets, signalizing and legalizing U-turns at 17th East, and then also there are some solutions that help address the concern and issues of site visibility going eastbound and westbound, just to the east of 13th east.

There is a significant downgrade as you head westbound down that roadway, which causes limited site visibility for people turning on and off of this corridor.

In order to get the best optimal solution along this stretch, it is desired for Waterford to do a site wide traffic study to assess their needs and where their locations are for pickup and drop-off, their traffic volumes and trips, and so that Waterford, us as a city, and UDOT can work closely together to implement a solution that helps address the safety issues and site visibility and congestion along this stretch of roadway.

So moving east of 1700 east over to tramway drive.

You alluded to earlier, it helps with transportation flow.

So for example, in front of the Waterford School District, it provides specified turn pockets for accesses in and out of Waterford and other neighborhoods towards the north, so that it focuses and puts those vehicle and pedestrian conflict points into one spot instead of them being up and down that whole entire stretch of the of the roadway.

And then another solution that implemented was the U-turns, like you can see up here at 1700 East signal to help with those people wanting to make left turns along the corridor and bumps and moves all of those left turns to the intersection.

So it significantly reduces the conflict points there and stops turning traffic and platooning traffic from or queuing traffic from blocking through traffic.

Let's see.

Moving east, we're over to Little Contwoods Center Commercial Center just west of Highland Drive.

There were several concepts proposed for this location, such as making ride in, right out, restricting some left turns but not all, identifying specific areas that can have U-turns, extending Q turn pockets for the traffic signal there.

Um the next page will talk about the Highland Drive traffic signal itself after we go through concepts for Little Contwood Center.

So, oh sorry, this previous slide was as concept one, which looked at the U-turn restrictions and raised medians.

This is concept two and three for that same stretch.

Concept two was um realigning Mason Drive to create a signalized intersection for the main access into that commercial center.

Um it would require one entire property take in order to realign it, but it would significantly reduce the number of conflict points on the roadway itself and help with the safety.

Um then the concept three is everything that concept two had two had except for for the next intersection to the east of where the new signal would go that adds additional left turn restrictions onto it.

Now we move over to the Highland Drive intersection.

Um the main solution that was identified here, which is easily and quickly implementable was added, extending the southbound right turn pocket to add additional cue storage for people making southbound right turn movements, and um also creating what's called a right turn overlap phase, which means during the time that the eastbound left turn traffic has a left turn protected area to turn, the southbound right turn movement also has a green arrow where it's a free flow so they don't have to stop at the stop bar as they're going during that time.

All other movements are stopped, including the pedestrians crossing.

Um then the other solution was looking at the um adding dual southbound lefts and northbound lefts on Highland Drive.

Um I think I felt some oh go ahead.

Um Council Member Sharpie has a question.

Okay.

Just before we move on.

Um the way I'm reading these options is that um from the neighborhood from Peruvian and Mason.

If these are if the especially if the raised medians are employed, so you can't leave the neighborhood and go east.

It's right in, right out.

So the only if you're leaving the neighborhood and getting on to 94th, you can only make a right, you can only go west.

Mason is a dead end street.

Um Peruvian, you can make your way through the neighborhood and ultimately wind.

If you wind around, you can wind up going eat going up to Highland, maybe through Falcon.

But you're forcing a lot of traffic through the neighborhood in order to head east.

Um Little Cottonwood, the only way you could head west from the exits on to 94th, would be if if we implement this signalized intersection because every other one, you can only go right.

So leaving the neighborhood in some of these options, you can only go west, and leaving the shopping center, you can only go east.

Yeah, we would have to do further analysis to see where those turn pockets should be located and what the trip demand is through those neighborhoods, and look digging deeper to where maybe people might cut through the neighborhoods.

This study did not look at the cut-through routes, they just looked at the trip volume that would be accessing each of those neighborhood streets and tried to keep the turnpockets at the intersections that had the higher traffic volumes, and then add legalized U-turns at the intersections as frequently as they can, such as like it in at signalized intersections to help with that issue.

But definitely would need further analysis.

I'm glad you're saying that there's more thought that needs to get put into it because and leaving the shopping center on 94th and only being able to go east.

A lot of people have to go west, so the only way to do that would be to go to Highland.

And it's like this first on the Highland Drive intersection map.

Like the one street that you can see exiting and on your map, exiting the shopping center and going on to Highland, that that doesn't have a signal.

And so you're gonna have a whole bunch of people queuing up and waiting for an opening in the traffic to go left so they can get to the signalized intersection and make a left.

I don't know.

It just I'm worried about it, but I'm glad that you're saying that there's a lot more consideration to be made.

I remember we did talk about this at the Alta Canyon, the construction meetings, and there was some discussion about putting a signal right there at that location to help traffic get in and out of out the new Alta Canyon, too.

And the thought was you can't put a signal there because it's too close to the signal at 94th and Highland.

So anyway, I just yeah, yeah, further analysis will need to be done, and then also looking at the traffic trip redistribution numbers as well.

So that the study didn't get into that.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Stroud also had a question.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I had a question on the slide for and then it showed Sterling Drive.

Um it just isn't like super clear where you've got there's like an extra little arrow, but it points that it's turning left, but it's actually going into the oncoming traffic.

I didn't know if that was included.

Yep.

Yeah, so I was that supposed to show a left hand out.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, so southbound, left out, um, westbound right turn in, southbound right turn out, and eastbound left turn in.

So that would be full access still.

Okay, so the arrow just didn't extend all the way.

Um, and that's and and I had some similar questions uh as Ms.

Sharkey, and I was looking at a little bit more, and I you've got a lot of them where they have U-turns.

Does that seem to prevent accidents by having the U-turns?

I you know, some of these where I can see that you're proposing or that UDOT's proposing to put in the raised medians, you can't make a U-turn unless you're gonna go over the median.

Um, but some of them there's probably still that opportunity to make a left-hand turn.

Um and I'm just trying to figure out if people are going to do that anyway, um, or if they're gonna go down and make a U-turn, and if the U-turn what the ratio is to having accidents there.

Uh you know, I I and I know going westbound, you know, if you're at the sun, if it's in the afternoon, I mean the sun is in your eyes, that makes it tough, you know, to look at that.

But you know, do we have are we going to have the same amount of of crashes when we're encouraging so many U-turns on a road that is you know traveled at higher speeds?

You know, what what is your perspective on that?

Um, I don't expect U-turns to have a higher number of crashes than left turns because U-turns have the same number of vehicle conflict points as left turns do.

You're still crossing the same number of travel lanes to do that U-turn.

Um, where U-turns can become a problem as if there's not enough right-of-way width to make them.

Also, um, yes, during while U-turn is being made, that does take more time than it takes for somebody to turn left.

So you would need to take and can take that into consideration while you're programming the signal and doing the timing, whether that's adding extra time for that turn movement, or if that's um only allowing protected lefts and not yielding to the opposite through traffic lefts.

So depends on the intersection.

And then as far as the need for additional right-of-way, the study did look at that as well on the look bare locations that they suggested U-turns.

I have not gotten to that location yet.

There are a couple of them where they've modified the intersections to allow additional right-of-way width, especially for larger trucks and larger volumes of traffic making making U-turns so that it can be um more efficient.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just while we're kind of talking about the U-turn topic, you know, my thoughts are, I guess we're similar in that it seems like we're encouraging a lot of right turns, and somebody making a U-turn competes with somebody making a right turn into that lane.

And um, you know, I think that uh in my own experience in driving and competing with people making U-turns, whether legal or not, you know, it it seems like those like no right turn on red are definitely better options for a very heavily U-turned intersection just to prevent that competition in traffic because to me, if again, if we're encouraging a lot of right turns, then it seems like there would be some natural conflict with U-turning.

But okay, yeah, that's true.

I agree.

Yep.

Okay, uh, go ahead and continue.

Okay.

Uh, let's see, we talked about Little Contment Center, Optimus 2 and 3, we talked about Highland Drive.

Okay, now we're looking at Canyon Center and Smith's, and this is where Beehive Academy is.

Existing conditions here, there is a lot of accesses east of Highland Drive, both going towards the north into Canyon Center, and towards the south and those commercial centers as well.

Um they're spaced close together, they're frequent.

A lot of people are using them, especially during AM and PM traffic and during school pickup and drop-off times.

So there is a lot of conflict points here, a lot of people making turn movements all along the median at times of day, the through traffic is stopped because there's just not enough room within the median to hold all of the queue for the drivers wanting to make those to turn movements.

Um there were solutions suggested here to add term movements and strategic left turn pockets.

Um, I will show you as we go forward through here the different options that were presented and suggested, including innovative intersection types at Range Tree Drive, and with the 711, I think who was it that mentioned 7-Eleven Ms.

Sharkey, yes.

Um, yeah, let's see.

So let's look at first concept one on.

Oh, let me go back real quick to here.

Um if you remember, I mentioned during the public open house feedback that we got from residents was both strong support to add raised medians along this to help the traffic flow better for the through traffic here, and also strong opposition against the raids medians because then that would limit their ability to make term movements in and out of to the commercial and school areas through here.

Okay, so concept one at rain tree drive was to um implement the raised medians that were shown on the previous slide, and add signalized U-turns at the signal at Range Drive.

Um, that signal on the north side, um, that north leg would be realigned to make it a four-way intersection so it could accept traffic more quickly and help the flow of traffic go through there for those accessing the commercial center on the north side that would include a full take of the 7-11 gas station there.

Um concept two to help with those U-turn because it would be a heavy U-turn movement, would be to add either like kind of like a half roundabout or a raised median there and add extra right-of-way width, like is shown here on the on this concept plan, um, adding it would act more like a through U-turn, like we're incorporating an underdesign on 450 West right now, or is like seen on 9100 South on Monroe to help with those movements.

Um, both of these options would help provide a better direct feed right into Beehive Academy School and push their queuing that's happening on 8400 South right now onto their site.

Uh concepts three and four at Range Ray Drive are both roundabouts.

Um, the first concept is a four-legged roundabout, and the second one is five legs, with that fifth leg being a direct feed into uh Beehive Beehive Academy.

Uh moving east, this one's pretty straightforward and simple between Range Free Drive and East Dale Drive, just adding again raised medians along the corridor.

Uh and I think I failed to mention at the beginning of the introduction for the concept plans along the whole corridor, it is suggested that the shared use path is extended all the way to the canyon from where it currently ends at rain tree drive, and also to straighten it out on the areas that it winds.

Um, but that would have to be a decision made closely with parks because I know there are people that feel strongly, including residents included that they like the windy sidewalk strolling path along the south side.

So whether it's straightened or kept windy, that's something we'd have to determine at a later date.

Um, and then the other solution that was applied corridor wide was extending the bike lanes as well as adding buffered bike lanes.

UDOT's long range plan does show buffered bike lanes along this corridor.

And now we're looking to the 3100 east intersection.

There has been two additional studies that were done prior to this one at this intersection itself.

One was called an intersection control evaluation, and that was done by UDOT ICE study for short, and it looks at intersection improvement options that are needed here.

And then that was done right before the solutions development study, and even right before then was another just plain intersection study done by UDAW at the request of Salt Lake County due to pedestrians crossing the East Lake here.

Both results of the results of both those two studies came up with the number one recommended solution was to clear the site visibility restrictions at this intersection.

And they both recommended installing a roundabout here as well.

And then so this SDS study incorporated those suggestions as well into here.

UDOT's not fond of the roundabout at this location, just because it is a major arterial roadway, it could be widened in the future.

So I'm still working with them on that to come up with innovative solutions for here, but currently they are actively pursuing ways to clear up the site visibility here and make it safer for vehicle turn movements and pedestrians.

And now we move to our last intersection.

Sorry about that.

I'm gonna move down the road a little bit down the hill.

It kind of surprises me that there are no solutions proposed for the intersection of Little Cottonwood and Mount Jordan Road.

Did I assume that traffic counts were a big part of this, even up the street?

It just seems to me, and this is anecdotal.

I I do use this route a lot.

Seems to me there is more traffic entering and exiting Little Cottonwood at Mount Jordan than at 3100.

I I may have that wrong, but that's just what I've always noticed.

Seems like the if that that was it seems like that that intersection was skipped, and I'm not sure why they think that's not a problem to be addressed, or do you have an opinion on that, Brittany?

Um I I'll have to look at that closer and see what the traffic volumes are on those.

This study did not take traffic counts, it used existing data such as UDOT EPMs, which is just their traffic count data and accident data website that they use.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh last intersection, we're looking at Wasuck Boulevard and 9400 South.

Uh, the only two suggestions that came they came up with here was to put in a roundabout, and then the other one was to do uh ITS components to the traffic signal itself, which included different phasing, um, reviewing green times, traffic loading, advanced warning signals, advanced detection, so they can look at those platoons and finding where the heavier queue is in term movements seasonally, um, innovative things such as extending green time for emergency vehicles and snow plows and things like that.

Um, so lastly, I wanted to touch a little bit on the right-of-way cross-section options.

Um, this corridor varies quite a bit on the right-of-way widths, and it also varies quite a bit on what pavement exists.

So just because maybe an area has narrower pavement, it doesn't mean that the right-of-way is narrower.

A lot of properties do extend their improvements, driveways, gardens, yard, into the right-of-way that's already owned by UDOT, and at some places at the narrow spots, the right-of-way and property lines are indeed closer into the center of the roadway.

These right-of-way concept plans were produced and given to the public at both the public open house and then the and then the following online open house to get feedback from the public on what they prefer to see within the right-of-way.

Um do they want a median?

Do they want no median and travel lanes?

Do they care about shoulders?

Do they want a wider trail?

And if so, on what side of the roadway, are they okay with bike lanes, or do they want those bike lanes to be buffered and do they care about park strips?

And so that varied along the along the length of the corridor between 2300 east to Washatch Boulevard.

Um they came up with three different concepts.

Umber one was looking at an 88-foot proposed right-of-way that includes a um a trail on the south side of the roadway, 10 foot wide trail.

Um number one was looking at an 88-foot proposed right-of-way that includes a um a trail on the south side of the roadway, 10 foot wide trail, on the north side, our standard five foot bike or stand for sorry, our standard five foot sidewalk and five foot park strip, a buffered bike lane on the um north side of the roadway to because cyclists are going faster because they're going downhill when they go westbound, and so that's why the trail is placed on the multi-use trail on the south side of the roadway, um, because going uphill on a bicycle, you're going slower, and you can navigate going around pedestrians walking a lot easier, but going downhill, the cyclists are gonna want their own space because they're going quite a bit faster.

Um, and then a turn lane was suggested a median uh to help with the various accesses along that roadway, and then the very favorable um option and desire of uh the from the feedback that we got was a uh shared use shoulder.

That shared to shoulder acts as a bus lane or a transit lane during winter canyon travel options to help with um getting people in and out of the canyon and connecting it to our downtown cairns during that winter time.

Um there's less vehicle trips during during the summer, even though you know there is quite a bit, but there is a little bit less in need of those lanes, and so during the summer uh it would act as an additional um place for cyclists or active transportation to be in.

Concept two gets rid of the median um in order to provide for a narrower right-of-way um and less right-of-way take needed at 71 feet.

And then um, oh, I'm sorry, there's only two concepts that were preferred from the feedback and recommended at the end.

And then lastly, like I mentioned before, between Wasatch Boulevard and where SR209 and SR210 um merges, the preferred right-of-way was for two 12-foot travel lanes, um, a buffered bike lane, and a multi-use trail, and then an adjacent six-foot sidewalk because the right-of-way width is narrower through this section, um, we have less right-of-way width to work with, so things couldn't be added, such as uh median or a park strip, uh, which is fine.

There's less accesses along this stretch that would need or call for that median.

And so, where do we go from here?

Uh, like I mentioned earlier, few um a transit-specific corridor studies needed.

They're not there's not a lot of UTA facilities going through this, so they would need to do further studies on what they would like to provide through this and what we would want on how to connect to our downtown area, um, adding improvements to the Highland Drive Mobility Hub, uh, doing transit service priority at signalized intersection, so letting transit go first, and then taking that next step to do a full environmental study, and then um doing the Waterford transportation study for their whole site.

Um, in the interim, some short some short-term projects that we can do is look at signal timing at 13th east, incorporate an advanced warning signal that same intersection, and then like I mentioned earlier, doing that southbound right turn um extension and right turn overlap and the signal phasing.

And that wraps up my presentation.

What other questions do you have?

Thank you, Brittany.

Uh, Councilmember Robinson.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and and thank you for this, Brittany.

I appreciate the presentation.

I had an ongoing question the whole time of and and I think Ms.

Sharkey asked it and you responded.

I just gotta make sure I understand the logic behind it because it doesn't make sense to me, I'll be honest.

How can volumes not be taken into account for this study?

And and where I'm going with that is I'm failing to see the logic behind some of the concepts and recommendations.

I I just don't flat out understand.

So I'm hoping you can add a little more context there.

Um and like I said, I had that question from Wasatch all the way down to 13th.

Uh, because to me volume has to be accounted for with some of these solutions.

So I just don't understand, so I'd love to hear the response.

Sorry, yeah, I apologize.

I probably didn't explain that very well.

Um volumes were definitely taken into consideration.

That's where they determined where the um where the signals were needed to be located, where we needed to add additional cue storage for those turn pockets, where the concentration of the left turn pockets needed to be added.

I'm just what I said, what I meant was that the consultant didn't take their own traffic count.

So they used existing data that was already available, um, traffic counts that I already had on hand, traffic counts that the state already had on hand.

So there was already a significant amount of data available that they could use so that we didn't have to pay for the extra cost of having them go out and do additional counts that would have just told us things that we already knew.

Thank you for that.

Um still struggle a little bit with some of the concepts though, even based on that response.

But like I draw I drive this this corridor all day long.

This is how you get to my house, this is my neighborhood, you know, like so.

I I'm in this area a lot, and to me, the volumes, specifically on the roundabout sections, like Wasatch, Rain Tree, which is my least favorite intersection in Sandy City, I despise it.

Uh, and then the the potential uh like of the impact with 7 Eleven, that whole area, the Mount Jordan, I think is a good call out.

3100 East, all of that.

I I'm failing to see how that solution could handle the kind of volume that I see when I'm driving there every day.

And I'm I will admit as well, it's total anecdotal information, it's just high volume.

Yeah, yeah, you're right.

Yeah, that's something that we'll need to study further going in the future, just additional analysis at those specific intersections.

For example, um, the I study that was done at 3100 East right before the solution development study, it honed in and looked directly right at that intersection and came up with several solutions that that could be implemented there, but really it is up to UDOT and us as a local jurisdiction on what what we really see as the need there.

I mean, the numbers show one thing and what's needed, but as engineers and planners are foresight into the future of what those intersections are going to look like and what they need, that gets taken into consideration as well.

So maybe while a roundabout will be good at 3100 east now, while there's one lane in each direction, UDOT might say, Oh, we need to widen this road to five lanes or seven lanes in the future.

We don't want to put in a 10 million dollar roundabout here when we might widen it in in 15 or 20 years.

Okay.

The other question that I had that was sort of ongoing throughout the entire presentation as well is, and I'm I should know the answer to this, but I apologize if this is a dumb question.

I'm just gonna say it right out of the gates.

How how um how much are our codes, you know, like for development?

You know, I I'm thinking about the shopping centers, the ins and outs there.

How much does this study take into account our our our like our our development codes?

And and again, the the logic behind that question, whether it's good logic or not logic, is does it make more sense to adjust those codes of where ins and outs can be as opposed to ins and outs onto roadways?

I don't I hope that makes sense.

If it doesn't, I apologize, but like how much are we accounting for that in here?

Um and you can be like that's the dumbest question I've ever heard because that's what I think you might say.

No, I think it's a great question, at least as far as I understand the question.

Thank you.

Um you're just trying to find the tie between how implementable are these solutions based on our current standards.

Well, I think what I'm I'm stabbing at is it easier to change some of our planning in the planning phases of these developments where ins and outs for parking can go or access, you know, to development, or neighborhoods even.

Is it easier to go that route and keep traffic flowing along the main arterials as opposed to building raised medians?

Yeah, so uh the study does um some good things.

First, what it did is it took all the existing conditions and what it looks like, um, analyzed it, saw where the concerns and issues were, and then recommended solutions based um based on on what existing conditions look like.

We do have current development codes and standards like how closely spaced accesses can be, right?

Arterial roads, they are required to be further apart from each other, but existing conditions just don't just doesn't meet that standard.

And so when a development comes in, um we will do several things with them.

Number one, require a transportation study, traffic impact study from them, and require them to utilize this study and the suggestions from it, and we will tell that developer, you know, um, these are the stuff, these are the solutions that we want to see here.

We agree, these are the concerns, these are things that need to be implemented, or make these tweaks instead.

This solutions development study will provide a great guide to help the traffic engineer that does the study for that development, um, identify existing solutions and the things that they're up against and facing in order to help their development be the best that they can be.

And so then it's still the responsibility of city staff and the developers to still make sure that city codes are met.

Does that answer your question?

Sort of.

Uh I mean you touched on it, so we'll we'll leave it there.

And then my last question is, and you and you kind of touched on this too, is the next steps.

Can you add a little more detail on what these next steps are?

And then what kind of involvement will Sandy have?

Because we know this is UDOT, they're making the decisions here, but obviously we're a massive stakeholder.

So how much impact are we going to have moving forward?

So a lot of that depends on what projects we see that need to be implemented sooner rather than later, what type of funding that we have.

For example, for a long time we've been adding sidewalk and curb and gutter along SR209 through our safe routes to school program as we're able to get funding to do that.

Um most of those improvements, pretty much all those improvements actually are all in place along SR209 that are within Sandy City jurisdiction.

The missing gaps are within Salt Lake County jurisdiction.

So as those areas get annexed into Sandy, we can continue to move forward with that momentum and adding improvements.

And I had a conversation with UDOT actually just yesterday about getting a letter of support from them to install the roundabout, and that's not a solution that they support because they are looking ahead, and that's why I brought it up earlier in my discussions.

And so if UDOT isn't in support of a solution here, I'm not gonna go out and still apply for funding for something that they that they don't want.

That's something that I'll skip on.

And so we work very closely with UDOT hand in hand.

Um when we apply for federal grants, that is on um significant roadways that are um that that connect.

I'm struggling to find the correct word for it, uh, regionally significant roadways to apply for those larger grants, and so we work with them closely to apply for those grants on UDOT roadways, and we are successful at getting them and implementing those solutions at those intersections, which you know, again is funded either federally with us matching it or support from UDOT matching it as well.

And so that's usually how big projects get implemented.

Also, UDOT goes and implements them on their own through their own when they see needs for it.

For example, right now they're working on the site visibility restriction issues at 3100 East on their own.

Well, well, I appreciate the insight, and I'm I'm really glad that you had mentioned that there's gonna be future thought, and we're not all the way there yet.

That's how I heard your comment.

We're not all the way there yet on some of these things, and I just I feel like you know the the goal is to move people, and I felt like some of these solutions are not moving people.

I I feel like we're creating more bottlenecks, and I understand there's a safety element with slowing people down.

I get that, but I guess again, anecdotally, I feel like we're just gonna add more traffic in different places.

So it's it's it is nice to hear that we're gonna be you know continuing to look at this, and I appreciate the work you did on this.

It's really informative.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you, Councilmember Robinson.

Are there any other questions?

Councilmember De Kaiser.

Well, thanks so much for the presentation.

I just wanted to point out that the first key takeaway was improving pedestrian and bike safety.

And I don't get so much of that from this, so it's a lot about moving traffic, but just in terms of a philosophy, I think really we need to prioritize safety and speed is the number one issue for accidents.

Um you know, it's just interesting to me that it hasn't been discussed, and so I want to encourage maybe some reductions.

I don't know if this is appropriate from a transportation planning perspective or not, but I know that as you're approaching the roundabout by the city hall in Cottonwood Heights, the speed limit is reduced.

Same thing on 1300 East as you're coming into Draper to the roundabout, the speed limit is reduced.

So I'd encourage maybe looking into some of those reductions.

Also, you said the line of sight is bad as you're coming from the east, approaching 1300 east.

So awesome that we'll have a flashing signal there, but also potentially reducing the speed limit there.

And finally, in terms of pedestrian safety, the beehive parking lot is currently fully protected.

Um, if you're there during school drop-off times, that place is a zoo.

So adding a roadway to bring people into that to access commercial traffic, that seems like something I wouldn't want as a parent.

So I just want to point that out and just you know, advocate for safety first in our transportation planning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, so I just I had a couple of I guess one of the questions that I had pertained to the suggestions that were were that came back from the studies and um like the open house and whatnot.

Were the suggestions provided as options from you know Sandy and UDOT standpoint, or were they more just like open-ended?

Give us your feedback, you know, was it guided in some way?

Yes, um, both you and um Jeff DuPay was the project manager on UDOTS and then I was the project manager from Sandy City.

Um we were very heavily involved and guided the project along the whole way.

If they came up with some type of solution or a suggestion that we didn't support or couldn't see a viable option, um we made sure that that wasn't uh wasn't something that um moved forward with with a lot of strength, you know.

For example, if I mean they didn't say to take away the signal island drive, but it was something like that, you know, we would say, oh no, we're not gonna remove that traffic signal and put it in a roundabout, you know, just pretty obvious stuff like that because we knew the demographic in the area.

Um we helped guide the right-of-way options, especially on what was needed through the corridor because we're very familiar with it and we know what's needed the most.

For example, the stretch east of Wasatch Boulevard, um, we felt it was more important to have those active transportation lanes than it would be to have a center medium to make term movements.

Um and so when we uh narrowed down those different options and suggestions, then they were presented to the public as options that the whole project team worked on to get their feedback and input from it.

Okay, and you know, as far as the roundabouts go, I my experience in roundabouts mostly stems from the fact that I live on the northeast corner of Sandy, and the closest commercial area is happens to be in the Draper um area, and there's lots of roundabouts all throughout Draper.

Um the one on 13th and Pioneer, they've undergone a couple of different renovations trying to manage the traffic because the traffic that it gets is at a higher volume than the roundabout can appropriately accommodate.

Um, and oftentimes you get stuck trying to get into the roundabout by traffic that's coming through that just never stops, and so you're backing traffic up in other ways.

Um, you know, I I um run to the post office in Draper often, and they have that roundabout right there that now feeds a uh neighborhood and commercial and you know, the post office and more residential and then more commercial as you get towards 123, and the same thing, you know, like it's the the higher the volume of traffic the less beneficial it seems like a roundabout would be.

Um, and so with some of the suggested suggested um intersections for a roundabout, um I get it I I do question whether or not it's the right move given the level of traffic and how um like restrictive they can be, um especially when you're limited in size.

Uh the one out in daybreak is incredibly large.

I think that one works a lot better, but they were able to plan for that up front versus trying to retrofit it into existing easement space.

Um, and so arguably I'm not a huge fan of roundabouts, um, though I you know I do see that they can be uh useful in certain circumstances, but in these high volume um roadways, I get concerned about do I even want to drive on these roads anymore if those things were to be implemented?

So I just giving that feedback in terms of I want to make sure that before anything like this gets implemented, like there is significant study to ensure that we that that the solution really will solve the problem and do it better.

Um you know, and and Zach's question, I'm I'm wondering, Zach, maybe you can tell me.

I'm gonna paraphrase your question back and see if I'm asking it right.

It seems like you were maybe asking if the plan is aligned to our current city code.

Are there better ideas that maybe could come about if we were prior if we weren't prioritizing our existing city code but instead looking at changing our code to match the good ideas?

Is that kind of what you're asking?

No.

Yes.

Much much closer than probably not asked.

Well, I'm I was just kind of wondering the same thing, you know, if if if there are better ideas on how to approach that, does our does our current city code impede our ability to look for current for better ideas, or are we or is that not an issue?

Yeah, um, I don't think that our city code is a handicap on those standards.

Um it helps us implement solutions that are more engineering um sound solutions such as access to space at a certain distance apart.

For example, if you're going into a commercial center that has access points frequently along the roadway, our city code helps us to reduce the number of accesses and concentrate those points to maybe a signalized intersection or other areas that are safer and helps us concentrate where those queuing and term movements are gonna be.

So certainly if we're finding out through traffic studies or new inner innovative solutions, our city code is definitely something that we can rewrite and address.

Yeah, we're always watching it and looking at it.

We look at our standard detailed drawings every year to see what updates that we that we need for it.

So when a development comes in or a certain project comes in, we will do a close detailed traffic study of it.

And those traffic studies, Ivan Hooper and I and our development review coordinator will make sure that the suggestions in that site specific study is coherent with our city code.

Okay.

And then the only other, I guess, piece of I don't know, comment or concern goes back to future study before any major implementation.

And some of the raised medians that have been proposed and the restriction of left hand turns and the encouragement of right hands and you know those U-turns.

Again, Draper has done some really weird things with 123rd, and don't tell them I said this, but it's kind of a mess out there.

And I don't want us to make some of those sane mistakes by you know trying to solve these problems in piecemeal, and then after implementation, it's it's created other problems that maybe weren't considered, and now they just keep trying to you know go after it.

So you know, at State Street and 123, how you can't turn left and you have to you're forced into a U-turn.

And instead of people doing that, I think people would would rather almost turn right a bunch of times than you know, go into this weird left to turn left to come back around.

Like it's just it doesn't seem um intuitional, I guess.

I don't know.

Um, but more traffic has been forced into areas and roads that weren't meant to accommodate the amount of traffic that they're now getting for people trying to circumvent having to utilize some of those really weird traffic practices, you know.

And so I just want to make sure that before anything permanent and and you know uh changing gets implemented, that we are taking the time to study, you know, like what is the natural path that people may take that's not the one that we're trying to you know um coax them into and make sure that we aren't putting more traffic through our residential areas for people to try to get around some of the oddities that they may feel this would be.

Yeah, for for um yeah, for projects that big that affect traffic that much, traffic modeling is done as part of that traffic study, and then if we go to implement any projects, um, we of course do come to you for that funding and that grant match, so they do come back to you guys for your um review and feedback and approval to help fund those projects as well, so you will be able to see them before they're implemented.

Um that same the same thing goes with uh through our development review process as well.

Okay, thank you.

Um, Council Member Stroud.

Um so it you know, a lot of this, and it's you know, you take any of the little sections to it, and you're like, oh wow, yeah, that I've heard complaints in that area, or you can see you know the amount of crashes in that area.

Um, but I'm and I'm looking at this going, it's about a three-mile stretch, and there's a lot of proposed changes to the traffic.

And I I took some notes, you know, of going, what was what was the uh the instigation, you know, the instigator to look at this, you know, was it you know to improve traffic flow?

Was it to minimize crashes?

Was it to increase the active transportation, or was it traffic calming?

Because each of them, you know, as as I look at it, my minimal knowledge to it.

Um, but you know, each of them are trying to kind of take a piece of that, and it makes me worry a little bit that maybe there is too much change proposed along this three-mile stretch.

Um, like the roundabouts, you know, and I whatever you know, Google, you know, but Google said that the average traffic flow of a roundabout in an urban area was 15 to 25 miles per hour.

9400 south, there's no area that is 15 to 25 miles per hour.

Um, and so you're compressing, and I think that we'd be stacking a lot in those roundabouts.

Um minimizing the left-hand turn out, it's pushing a lot of vehicles through neighborhoods.

We have complaints like crazy of excessive speeding in neighborhoods, and I think that that increases the frustration for somebody going, I used to be able to do this and now I can't.

Uh, so I think that there are some potential consequences to pushing the traffic to say you can only turn, you know, it's right in, right out.

So I I mean I I am primarily concerned with looking at everything all at once in this three mile section of what could be done with it being so different.

It's not well, along here we're gonna be putting a median, um, except it'll minimize just left hand out or left hand in.

Um, or we're just adding in a multi-use path.

You know, it'll we'll reduce the lane width a little bit, people have to get used to it, or we're going to add in a traffic signal.

Um, there just seems to be a lot of different things.

Is there a plan to implement in just one section?

Is there a plan?

Because I I mean, every slide you have, there are multiple things that you have on a small, you know, four or five block section to it, as as you dot proposed, or would they say, Oh, if we're gonna move forward, then we're just gonna run with it.

Do you know what they're yeah, all of these projects wouldn't be implemented all at once?

We would have to do them one by one as the need arises, as development occurs, you know, as the demand for it comes up, as opportunities arise.

The solution to development study did look at everything that you mentioned at the beginning of your com comment, you know, safety, uh, traffic flow, access, bikes, peds, vehicles, all of it.

Um the project budget for this was very small.

It was only 260,000.

So all of the detailed analysis that we're wanting and aiming towards looking at to help justify these solutions, or to help us make a determination if it's really a great perfect fitting solution, or if we need to look at something a little bit altered and changed, you know, to do that detail of a study for this whole corridor.

We're looking at, you know, nearly maybe 10 million dollars.

So it's quite detailed.

And so absolutely we'll definitely need more study for each individual solution or area as we move forward to implementation.

Does that primarily fall on you dot?

Are we still looking at a 50-50?

I mean, that's you know, a 10 million is far from the you know, quarter million of what we did, but to find a um most effective least impactful negatively, but most impactful positively.

What does that look like then?

It just depends on who approaches it first.

So if it's if we identify it, for example, we annex areas in from Salt County, and we see a need to add sidewalk at that location, and it's a great candidate, and something we believe that we can get funding for, then we'll go apply for it.

If UDOT sees this like a detailed need based on complaints and requests that they're getting from either jurisdictions or local residents about site distance at an intersection, like they have been doing with 3100 East, then they'll approach it and do it.

They can work with the property owners to clean that up.

Um, for example, that intersection of the north or the southwest corner is within Sutler County jurisdiction, and so we as a city haven't been able to do anything to help clear up those site triangle obstructions, but UDOT could approach it from their end, saying, Oh, this is a safety issue, and then approach Saltley County and work with them in the property or to get that cleaned up.

So it just really depends on who approaches it first and what each each entity's uh priorities are.

Thank you for your very detailed presentation with a lot of slides and a lot of time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Councilmember Turkey has a follow-up.

Just one more.

I I think I share the apprehension that sounds to me like every council member has expressed in some aspects of this plan.

Um I do want to show enthusiasm over the interim projects though, please.

Right away, I love all those.

Those seem obvious and really really beneficial.

Um to the roundabouts.

I'm just trying to picture in my mind how at Wasatch and Little Cottonwood.

When you have an intersection that at times is completely jammed with traffic, um, and you've got the red snake coming down, you know, coming down the canyon.

How would anyone that has to yield ever get in?

Because you have so much traffic coming down that they're just be dominating the roundabout.

I would think you have to stop them at some point to let everybody else go.

I just I'm not picturing how that's working.

I have seen a roundabout work really well, and that's the one that was just the best ever is the one in um Cottonwood Heights near the city hall.

That was where there were two signals within about a hundred feet of one another, and everybody had to wait such a long time for their turn to go.

But letting everybody but it was low speed, low, low amount, low volumes of traffic.

It is the best thing ever.

But I just don't picture that at Wasatch.

Anyway, but I I just did want to say I love these interim projects.

I think they make a lot of sense, and I would love to see us roll forward with those as soon as possible.

So thank you, Brittany, for this presentation.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Agreed, and um, thank you again for your time.

And this is a this is an important topic, and I'm glad that we got to cover it.

So thank you so much.

That will kind of finish out item number two, and we can go into our public comment portion.

I do have three cards here in room, so if there are any other people that would like to speak to the public comment, you will have three minutes.

Cards are in the back of the room.

You can fill one out and bring it up to Dustin.

Um I will go ahead and start with Sharon Jensen.

Excuse me.

Start my timer so I don't go.

Oh, yeah.

Excellent.

Um, thank you for allowing me to be here today.

Um, my name is Sharon Jensen.

I live in Historic Sandy.

We built our house there in 1996.

Um I have come several times to the Sandy City to talk um three or four times for Korhara wholesale, very important.

That was important.

Several times for the Sandy City Boys and Girls Club, also very important.

Um I always listen in if we're gonna do it when you're talking about improvements to the bicentennial park, which by the way, they're using the pickleball courts nonstop.

That was great.

That was great to change that up.

Fantastic.

The kids are using the playground now that it's covered.

Fantastic.

Um, I listen in when we're talking about improvements to the main street park.

But I'm here tonight because um of the black eye that happened with the murder at the park near our home at the at the main street park.

And it gives Sandy City a black eye, it gives historic Sandy a black eye, that the um addiction issues of people would then cause a murder in our city, and I walk my dog around the historic Sandy nonstop.

Don does too, Cynthia and and her mom are what her sister are walking.

We are out walking constantly.

I am not a not in my backyard person, but I want to make what I think is kind of a low-cost suggestion for a safety improvement.

But I want to point out why I think the safety improvement is needed.

So there are a couple things that I'm stating the obvious, but I'm stating it on record.

But there's a couple things that make Historic Sandy in more need of my suggestion.

Of course, you have a walking trail that leads up to a track station.

The walking trail is excellent, the track station is needed.

Excellent, but you also then in close proximity have a liquor store, and then you have the corridor of State Street and 90 South.

So all of that converging in one area makes that particular area in need of more patrol.

Now it is a somewhat low-cost solution to just up the amount of patrol through there.

Um, I, as an administrator in Jordan District, when you're doing safety of a whole school, parts of the school don't need as much looking out as other parts of the school.

Sandy City, I know is a huge city, but historic sandy is not that far from where the officers come and go and clock in and clock out.

So just to up patrols as they're clocking in and out is kind of a low-cost solution because what we're looking for is deterrence.

Deterrence saves everyone time and makes everyone safer.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next we have Henry Butters.

I want to come tell the city council.

Thank you to Sharkey, Brooke, and Ryan for going out with me that Saturday for the truck thing.

Um thing I want to bring up, I totally forgot we didn't cover that day, is over by the fire station.

Right there.

We can park trucks right there because that's not in residental areas.

That's right there on that road.

Um we can park some trucks there too for truck parking.

I was actually thinking about that too.

Um another thing is what can we do better?

Because I'm the security for my wardhouse.

I have had break ins over there too.

Um I have been happening to bounce some people out of there myself and throw them out.

I don't care.

But there's some ways we need to look at our safety there too.

Um where can we go better to help the trucking community?

Um, these roundabouts, I'm sorry, they're my arch enemies.

I am not joking.

You go drive a wide load between a roundabout at a hundred and ninety-eight thousand pounds, a hundred and fifteen feet long.

You go ahead and try to do that, and I have to get permits from the state of Utah DOT, and they say you go down this road, and I have to go through a roundabout.

Yeah, right.

I did Little Cottonwood Canyon asphalting that whole up and down that mountain.

That's crazy.

Putting a roundabout there, that's calling for a disaster.

There's no way I have had a buddy that lost brakes up on that mountain and almost killed himself because of an accident down at the bottom of that canyon.

He had to bury a truck in the tree lines to save many other people.

There's my concerns on that.

And U-turns, yes and no, they can be good and bad from a truck driver's point of view.

But look at all that.

You're taking a 14-foot wide load through somewhere.

You get routed by DOT that way.

What if I get stuck there?

I have took I took my last machine up there at 298,000 pounds of Little Cotton Canyon, and I'd bring that machine down the canyon.

There's a roundabout.

What if I lost my brakes?

Think about that.

That's how I looked at it.

Have a good night, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Don Sidwell.

Uh Don has asked for five minutes and it's been granted.

Can you hear me okay?

All right, good.

As with Sharon here, I am here in regards to the shooting at Main Street Park about a week ago.

It is also known as historic Sandy, the city part of Sandy that you guys refuse to recognize as part of Cindy.

We're the Sandy, we're the stepchild.

Okay, so the shooting last Monday, a week ago on Main Street Park.

This was just the frosting put on a cake that has been baking for years, and nobody is willing to step up and do anything about it.

As someone who lives within two blocks of the park, I like Sharon and the others walk a lot in the area, and I actively see things that are very very suspicious.

Sometimes I report them, sometimes I just have to sit there and go.

Let me give you a few examples.

I won't give you all my examples, or we'll be here to midnight.

These are just in the last little bit.

Um I was at the park out this summer, and I was watching three gentlemen walk on the sidewalk.

I sorry, gentlemen, it's not the correct word.

Three males walking on the sidewalk going in different directions.

Finally, after minutes, they sat in the pavilion, and I was parked right by the pavilion observing.

I knew something was wrong.

So long story short, they came back and sat in the pavilion.

I sat in my car, I outlasted them.

They left.

I know what was going on.

One instance when I called the non-emergency line and explained everything, and they have a right to be there.

So it's not worth my time to do that.

I need to move on, and let me see.

This summer group of homeless people were hanging out in the park.

They'd arrive at eight and leave at 10.

I have witnesses for three days.

An officer did park his car there, his vehicle, and watch them, kind of maybe determine, but they don't believe.

And you guys have a picture up there.

Correct?

That I'd like you to take a look at.

This happened.

This is what one morning a couple of days ago at 10 o'clock.

I leave my house and go around the corner, and this is what I observed.

That is not a baby in the buggy.

That is a homeless person laying on the street on a pathway that children walk to school.

I don't know the rules on this.

So I sat there and watched for about an hour, called the non-emergency line, and that's the extended that.

But how many of you have to get up to go for a walk and have this outside your house?

Don't see any raise of hands there.

I do not blame the police or the code enforcement.

The police are very, very on top of it when they know about things.

Code enforcement in our area.

We have five code enforcement officers to cover all of Sandy.

Well, in my areas, probably could use all five of them.

I know we have a judge, and that is enforcing the code enforcement.

Great, wonderful, but we need more in my mind, code enforcement to handle all of it.

And my next issue I have here is with the at large.

Cindy, Aaron, and Brooke.

To my knowledge, at large means you help everybody in Sandy.

I have never seen any of you participate or take part in helping historic Sandy.

So if you got a different view, please let me know.

I'd love to hear what you do and the amount of time instead of putting it up at Alterc, put it down and the money down in historic sandy, bring historic sandy up to code with resources like the east side that all of you seem to work for, and you all live up there, except for Alison and Ryan are the only two people who occasionally have supported me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have any additional cards in room, so we'll go ahead and move to the online audience.

I know that there's only a couple of attendees due to the issue, but yeah, thanks, madam chair.

Um yes, uh there are a couple of folks that have um dialed in, which we did put that out on social media as well.

Um, and I've uh passed that along to a few folks who've reached out via email.

Um but if you if you are dialing in and you'd like to comment, you can um you can push star nine on your phone keypad and it will raise your hand, and then you'll have three minutes to chat and or I'm sorry to comment, and then once I uh call your phone number because I don't have your name, you can hit star six on your keypad and it will unmute you.

So if you'd like to uh comment, hit star nine to raise your hands.

I don't see any hands raised, madam chair.

Thank you so much.

We'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of the meeting and bring it back to the agenda.

Uh the next item on the agenda is the consent calendar, which includes a proclamation of the city council and mayor recognizing November 1st as extra mile day, as well as approval of the October 14, 2025 draft meeting minutes.

Move we adopt the consent calendar.

I have a motion, second, and a second.

All in favor, say aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

And that brings us to item number five.

Um, it has changed, but I think um, and so I'll go into that, but I because there's a possible closed session, we're gonna go ahead and do standing reports first.

And so if you would like to lead us off on that, Dustin.

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, just a reminder to everybody uh that we do not have a council meeting next Tuesday as it's the general election, and so we have canceled uh next week's meeting.

The next regular meeting is the following week, November 11th.

Um, and then I just wanted to give you an update on the um RFP for the public utilities management study.

So uh Justin and I will be meeting with Tom and uh a couple of his uh staff tomorrow and combination with the purchasing agent to have the pre-proposal meeting uh with any of the folks who might be submitting uh proposal, and so we'll build answer questions and uh give them the direction that they need, and then the uh um RFP actually closes uh next week on November 5th.

Uh once it closes, depending on how many proposals we receive, the uh selection committee, which uh the council's outlined who's on the selection committee in our council policy, but it does include all seven of you uh will receive uh all of the um proposals and we'll narrow it down to three per policy, and the three are who will be uh interviewed, and we're at this point we're planning on doing the interviews sometime that week um prior to the week of Thanksgiving.

Uh so right before that full week of Thanksgiving, sometime that week is when we'll do interviews.

Um we'll have more details on that as uh we get closer, though.

Uh and so that's my that's my report, madam chair.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Council member business.

Umber Sharkey.

Um yes, thank you, madam chair.

Um I was able to attend with council member Stroud the Wasat Choice Vision meeting, the fall meeting.

It's always really nice.

It's a chance to do some transportation planning, wide area, um, long range.

It's a great chance to talk to people from UTA and UDOT and WFRC and get a heads up on what might be coming and put in a plug for our city too and our needs.

So that's always enjoyable.

Um I was able to attend to the Shamrock Food Service Warehouse ribbon cutting.

I was that was fun to learn about them.

A family-owned business for a hundred years, and um it was nice for them to wind up in Sandy, and it was just fantastic to see as part of the ribbon cutting.

Uh they donated, they handed a $5,000 check to the Utah Food Bank.

So, right at the most important time to get it.

So that was really gratifying for all of us to be able to see and participate in that.

Um PC had some interesting things.

Um, the news.

Um, the there might be a move in the legislature to do a motor fuel tax reduction, removing the tax exemption or part of it from refineries.

And um, so that would have the impact that that's part of why we tend to have the high some of the highest gas prices around.

It's just these additional um taxes that are levied.

Um a lot of discussion about you know property taxes and what may happen with caps.

I was at them also today, the women in business lunch that the chamber did, and I got a chance to talk to Tracy Miller about this a little bit.

And um, just the hope that they leave that alone and leave it in our hands instead of placing caps on property taxes.

There's a lot of discussion about it that maybe caps ought to be placed on it and limits on how much it could be raised every year in order to limit impacts on taxpayers.

Um that is under a lot of discussion, different legislators coming up with bills.

Um we will just have to see what they decide to do.

Um on the homelessness front.

There were there will be three more years of winter response requirements made of cities to try to find uh opportunities, um places to house the homeless uh when winter response kicks in.

We don't know right now who will pay for the new resource center, the 1300 bed resource center.

Um there's no funding attached to it.

We don't know how it's gonna be funded.

We do know that there will be some changes to the mitigation fund that we are drawing on right now as a shelter city.

Um housing.

Looks like the CHAW is going to be dissolved, and GOIO is probably gonna take over the housing, um, all the housing issues in Utah.

That'll be an interesting change.

Um political science.

Somebody is somebody is gonna run a bill, it looks like on political signs.

So here are the kind of things they brought up.

This is interesting.

That on any sign under a yard sign or smaller.

A sign must have stamped on it or say somehow on it.

Who paid for the sign?

It's almost like the same kind of disclaimer on an ad.

That was interesting.

They must be removed by 14 days after election day.

It is an infraction with that could be imposed to have fee to attach a sign to polls or signs or things like you know, public things like that.

It's a class B misdemeanor to remove a sign.

And if cities confiscate illegal signs, they must keep them for five days and then they can dispose of them.

There was some need to contact at least make a reasonable effort to contact the sign owner and some maybe a fee of $20 from the sign owner for placing a sign in an illegal spot.

And here's a thing.

In park strips.

Anyway, I don't know how you would that would be okay, but not other public property.

But anyway, it's something that may be on the horizon that is coming our way.

Oh, I'm sorry, that deadline passed that passed on Friday.

Sorry about that.

One more thing.

The legislature may address e-motorcycles.

I know we've been getting a lot of outreach about these e scooters, e-bikes, e um motorcycles, so it sounds like the legislature may take a stab at that too.

That's it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Sharkey.

Council Member Houseman did join us online and does have some business that she'd like to share.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Are you able to hear me okay?

Yes.

Okay, perfect.

Just a couple of things, uh, uh a few thank yous to share.

Um I want to say thank you again.

The housing workshop.

Um I I think I mentioned briefly, but I just want to elaborate a little bit further.

Uh I had several several residents who attended that our most recent housing workshop and and they followed up with me and told me how how much they enjoyed it.

Um, and the though they found themselves not wanting to leave, even though it was a longer meeting than they expected, they did not want to leave, they found it to be incredibly valuable, interesting, etc.

So Lynn and the whole team who put put that workshop together.

Um, again, I think it it it we are doing, I feel like our due diligence to really engage our community, help them understand the depth at which we are exploring potential next steps and our constant desire to have the community engage with us.

So thank you for making that possible.

I received a lot of very good feedback on that.

And then I just want to thank um Dan and his team for for how responsive he's been with some outreach I've received recently from from a resident expressing some um concerns and desire for some beautification along uh 1700 East, and he's been very responsive to her and sort of folding it into some ongoing conversations that that he and I have been having, and Martin as well.

Thank you so much for um your your insights and the things you are contributing as we continue to think about trail connectivity.

As I as you all know, I've been really thinking a lot about this ever since our we went through the process of our parks and recreation master plan.

Um, and I just love that we're looking at all kinds of ways to increase connectivity and think regionally about that um trail connectivity.

So I just want to say thank you to Martin and to Dan and for the responsive nature as as residents reach out.

That's all I had.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Houseman.

Uh we are ready for the mayor's report.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to address the uh public comments tonight as a city, city leadership.

We're all deeply troubled, so saddened by the shooting the homicide in Main Street Park.

Uh so troubling, especially because we all of us here value the community, the history, the diversity, uh, unique challenges and the unique opportunities of the historic Sandy community, and it's not just the historic mile, but the greater area between from 80th South to 9400 South, uh, everything between State Street and 700 East.

We as a city put an immense amount of resources.

Sometimes you don't always see them because they're happening 24-7.

And I look forward to working with the residents of Historic Sandy very closely through the police leadership and city leadership in the days ahead.

Not only sharing what we've accomplished where we began five years ago when the area was plagued with drive-by shootings and gang activity.

We have made a lot of improvements.

No.

It is something that we are constantly working on and always adapting to changing conditions, whether it's seasonal, community, poverty, uh, substance abuse.

There's a lot happening there, and we are sensitive to all of that, but we are deeply committed to public safety of historic Sandy.

That is the number one priority.

And to that end, I want to share a couple things with the community.

I've spent the last five days knocking doors in historic talking to people if they how about their sense of safety, and I'm happy to report people who've lived there said yes, Mayor.

If we feel very, very safe in historic in uh all up all up and down the streets from State Street to 700, and I've personally have committed a lot of uh hours every day for the last five days, and I know that we can always do more, and so I wanted to invite Chief Sieberson up to the dias, Madam Chair.

If we can have a minute, talk about some future plans for um police community policing and what's happening so the council can have a report, and while our community members are here, thank you for staying a couple extra minutes to hear this.

I wanted you to hear from the chief about what's being um what's being planned here in the days ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh good evening, council and uh to our residents.

Uh based on what was uh heard tonight, we thought felt it was appropriate to kind of address this here on let you know what we're doing.

Uh since the homicide down in Historic District, we have upped our patrols immensely.

You should see our traffic unit in historic every single day.

Uh we have also moved up Main Street Park to install a camera.

I believe that camera has been purchased and is in-house.

We are just looking for a location to place it at the park.

Um we are always committed to historic.

We always have been.

It's always been the area where we have had the most calls for service, and we will continue to focus our efforts in that community.

We are definitely with them.

Um to address some community concerns and do some community outreach.

Uh I don't know if you made it out to Coffee with the Cop and Pastry with a PUP at 106th and 7th at the coffee shop up there, but uh on November 15th from 9 to 11 uh on a Saturday.

We will be at uh Olaw Law Coffee down in Historic right off of 90 South at 150 West for another coffee and a cop coffee with a cop and pastry with a pup vent.

So uh please come out, uh please come out and uh speak with us.

Uh we'll be there to hear you hear your concerns and try and address some of these issues uh together.

So that'll be the first one.

There will also be another one upcoming uh to be determined date later in January.

So thank you.

And the chief, the uh Amy Bryant's post about the neighborhood call for neighborhood watch participants.

Yes, that is uh thank you, Mayor, for reminding me.

So we have actually put out a post to the historic community.

We are looking for a neighborhood watch uh coordinator uh back when we did have that spate of uh gang violence in two 2021-2022.

Uh we had some interest, but that's since fallen off, so we are looking for somebody in the community to really step up and help us uh organize.

Uh like I've always said, the you know, the our our residents are our eyes and ears.

We can't be everywhere at once.

We need some help out there, and we're looking for somebody to step up and take that on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Thanks.

We've had a lot of success working with our residents, responding to concerns, um, um identifying areas that need of homeless liaison officer attention, uh, uh clearing out camps, uh, making our parks inhospitable to those with uh illegal activities and um bad intent.

We want our parks safe for kids to ride their bikes and play on our playgrounds.

You want them inviting.

Uh that's what we're working to do.

That's why we spend uh so much time in community communication, knitting together the relationships because the neighborhood is only as safe as the strength of the neighborhood bonds between each one another.

When something is irregular, out of order, whether it's a garage door up or a broken window in a window well, people who know one another are more likely to look out for one another, let the police know when they see something out of the ordinary, and our old fashioned community policing beat cops, walking the neighborhoods.

That's what you can count on for historic Sandy.

This is not just a flash in the pan.

We need sustainable commitment from the community.

We need the support.

This is a call from your mayor, your city leadership, your police department, get involved, take ownership.

People should be able to empty their car for their groceries and get to their house to the curb without getting their property stolen in the middle of a day of the day.

Saw a post on social media, a gentleman who had his tool bag stolen.

And when that happens, that hurts not just the resident who lost his tools for his livelihood.

It hurts all of us.

We need to work together.

So this is my plea for people to please come and participate, come to the coffee with the cop, connect with Amy Bryant.

There's a notice that's gone out on social media through uh alert sense, and it's on the website.

I will share it on the mayor's page tonight after this meeting.

Let's get a sustainable uh neighborhood watch program for historic and move forward together.

Thank you, residents, for sticking with me for a few extra minutes.

And if you um don't mind hanging around, I have a bit of good news.

Um celebrated a 100th birthday with a Sandy resident, Marva Ternan.

She lives at she lives at Sunrise Senior Center right up by Raintree.

And uh boy, this lady was sharp as a tax, lived in Sandy for six since 1960 and raised uh four sons.

She went back to college to get her master's degree when her adult children were college age.

So it's uh happy birthday, Marva, happy 100th, you make 100.

Yours look great.

Um yesterday we toured the medically vulnerable people shelter and the Connie Crosby family shelter with a group of legislators and board members from the homeless services board state board, and that state board allocates homeless mitigation funds.

And as you know, council, and as our residents know, those reimbursements to the city are so essential to funding two new police officers that are homeless liaison officers, three new paramedics, uh purchased a fire a fire ambulance for our department and have purchased two new police vehicles.

This year alone, we received 460,000 dollars to the from the homeless mitigation fund.

So these are the people who are in charge of allocating this pool of resources that goes out to cities like Sandy who host shelters.

But we are the host city, and the providers are subject to the conditional use permit that the council set, the requirements on security, reporting, a lot of operation conditions, and we collect a lot of data as a city.

So that data collection then is submitted to the state board who allocates millions of dollars to shelter cities.

So it was a great opportunity to have legislators, board members, state uh staff and uh county staff here in our city at the MVP, and I was so pleased to report the good things happening.

The MVP has been open almost two years, it opened January, uh January 24th 2024.

So it's almost in two years of operation, and in that time, we've had a lot of improvements and have been very adaptable.

But Chief McConaughey and Chief Sieberson were there present and uh spoke to the board with data about with heat maps and impact to the community from being a host or a shelter city, and then also uh how we work with the shelter service providers to coordinate resources and how they have been so adaptable to our requests, meeting continue to meet with the MVP staff every week with administrative staff.

So that's going on.

So while the council has reduced the reporting requirements here publicly, the hearings to once a year.

We've gone from quarterly, you'll remember to now once a year.

Uh the staff still continues diligently close closely connected with the operations of the MVP, and that's that's happening every week.

Okay, now for my good news.

You know, I always like to save the best for last, right?

Because you know, I serve on the uh county track board, that's the tourism recreation convention and culture board that is responsible.

Well, actually, it's responsible it is a big responsibility, but it is also a great pleasure to serve on that board because I've served for four years, and we have the responsibility of allocating uh funds for tourism and recreation culture all around the county this year.

Sandy applied for GAAP money to close the gap for Alta Canyon Rec Center, the rebuild of the Sandy Community and Recreation Center.

We came to the council by staff, Martin presented to the council about having a need for three and a half to four million dollars.

And this year the board had about seven and a half million dollars to allocate countywide.

We asked for four million dollars of that as Sandy, and I thought they were going to kind of scoff me out of the room.

But on October 17th, and this has now been presented to the Salt Lake County Council as part of the mayor's budget.

Now the county council has to approve the final budget that won't happen until December, so I don't want to get ahead of ourselves or count our chickens before they hatch.

But they came the the track board gave the mayor a very strong recommendation for Alta Canyon funding, and I'm just gonna announce this here in a second.

The county council has never in track history uh reduced those recommendations for the track board, and the mayor made those same recommendations in whole.

The track board recommended Sandy receives three million dollars for the build of Alta Canyon to the completion of our new recenter.

So three million dollars that will virtually close the gap.

Uh there are a couple conditions as we presented.

Condition number one, consider this a two-year application because of the track requirements.

We will not be able to go back next year and request more money because the project is already underway, and so you have a window of time.

Your project can start in April of your application year and has to be completed by the following year.

So Elta Canyon, Sandy Rec will no longer qualify for track funds.

Okay, that's number one, and then number two.

I promise that we would seek, it would be my recommendation to the council to expand the county mayor's uh free rec for children.

So by the county funding Alta Canyon to this extent, three million dollars is a record for the track board, it's and a one-year award, it's a record.

So if the count if the county approves that, we would seek to expand and apply that every um my county rec pass to uh mirror that in Sandy City so that every child and Sandy could have a free rec pass so they don't have to cobble together quarters to run to the pool.

If they're a Sandy kid, they play at the new Sandy Rec Center for free.

So those are the caveats, council.

That's my recommendation.

Of course, it will take the council to consider and deliberate that, but this is a great step forward, such a strong recommendation.

We are the finish line is in sight, and I want to share this good news with you, especially as we are just getting ready to prepare for the groundbreaking on the new recenter, which is November 11th.

November 7th, it's the next a week from Friday.

Sorry, it's been a the date.

So there you go.

There you have it.

Well, we have community outreach underway in historic.

Uh the MVP and the County Crosby tour, very, very important meeting.

I want to thank our chiefs, uh, Kim Bell, Deputy Mayor, for arranging with all the legislators and all the people of decision making influence who came together working with Mayor Gettle from Midvale.

This was a critical meeting for the board members to come to our backyards, our front yards, our our shelter homes in Sandy, and see how people, the residents in the shelters are being treated with care, dignity, and respect, mainstreamed into the community with a lot of committed support.

Uh and then I want to share the good news about the track board recommendation and know that that's all subject to the county council approval, but we're very in a very strong position right now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Martin.

Are you doing the CAO report?

Don't have anything tonight.

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

Uh we are now at the council voting item number five, which is a possible closed session to discuss and the changes pending or reasonably imminent litigation as opposed to real property this time.

And so uh I would like to make a motion to close the meeting to discuss pending a reasonably imminent litigation.

And we would be meeting in the council office room.

Second.

All right, we have a uh motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

All right, uh if you'll do a roll call vote, Miss Edwards.

Ms.

T'Susa.

Yes.

Mr.

Robinson?

Yes.

Ms.

Houseman?

Yes.

Ms.

Sharkey.

Yes.

Mr.

Meekham.

Yes.

Mr.

Duck Kaiser?

Yes.

Ms.

Straub.

Yes.

Madam Chair, that motion carried seven to zero.

All right, thank you.

Do we need to say who's in the meeting?

No, I think we're good, Madam Chair.

I think everything's fine.

Uh Martin, do you have anybody that you specifically would like to invite?

Uh Mayors Oltansky, Lynn Pace, myself, and James Sorensen.

Perfect, and we'll just meet in the council conference room.

Thank you.

But it'll probably go as long as the PlayStation.