City Council - Regular Meeting

Maybe not.

Are we there? Yeah, we're here. Thank you. All right, welcome. It's 434 on Tuesday, June 9th, today for our pre-council meeting. We welcome all those who are in attendance, city employees and neighbors and residents of Lehigh. We welcome you. We do have a full council tonight. Council Member Newell, Council Member Harrison, Council Member Stallings, Councilmember Freeman and Councilmember Lockhart we welcome you and glad to have a full dais glad you make it bad Councilmember Stallings welcome back. Good to have you We'll open today. I'll go ahead and offer an opening prayer and we'll go to that point. I Our Father in heaven, we're grateful for this day. We're grateful for the many blessings that we enjoy. We're thankful that we could be of service today and to be able to work from the dais tonight. And we pray, Heavenly Father, that that would be with us as we do so. We pray for the residents and for the employees and for the first responders of our city, that they may know of our appreciation of the work that they do. We are thankful for our residents and pray for each of them also. We pray for the land that's around us that's dry, that it may receive the moisture that needs so that we can avoid those things that will be dangerous and we might be able to live in a manner that would help us to prevent those accidents from happening. We ask you to be with us this evening as we work that we might do so in a manner that would be pleasing unto thee. And these things we pray for in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. OK, item 2.1, we are going to take off. That presentation fell apart just a couple hours ago. And so we will move that presentation to another date in the near future, probably a month or two away, potentially more so. That one will fall off. So we'll go to 2.2, the State Auditor's Fraud Risk Assessment Report from the Finance Department. We'll bring up Dean.

It worked that's great So this is just something we do every year for those of you who are new the state auditor's office several years ago I'm gonna say eight or nine seven eight years ago. I This is essentially just a self-assessment tool looking to see if our controls are in place or things like that. And I'm not going to go through every line item unless you'd like me to. But essentially it's just a self-assessment tool that we look at. Our external auditor does verify some of these things I think every so often. This is the first year. I think we have all of the points for this. The first one just has to do with separation of duties. In other words, do we have different people reconciling our bank account versus who writes checks? And is people who receive cash different than those who are making general ledger entries, things like that? And there's a separate checklist for that. But we've always met that. All of these we've always had. We have policies related to procurement and credit cards and travel. and cash receding. Things like, do we have someone that works in the city that's a CPA and has an accounting degree? The one we've typically not gotten in the past was internal audit function. But now we have someone who's filling that role. And so we're starting to use HEMSA. We did points for that. The one thing I should point out, number five, I can't remember if I mentioned this or not. I think I might have because Rachel was doing it. So there is a self-study video thing on the state auditor's website to look at that, as elected officials, you're supposed to do every four years. If you haven't done that, please do it. And the link up there, maybe I'll just send out the link just so you have it. I think Heather and Michelle did it a couple of years ago. Anyways, you're supposed to do that within four years of getting in office. So if you haven't done that, I'll ask you to do that and maybe just send you a quick email reminder. Really, the reason I'm here doing it in person is because that's part of what we're supposed to do is present it at an open meeting, at a council meeting. Do you have any questions on this? If not, we'll be done. We'll check this off our list and I'll get it submitted.

No questions? Great. Thanks, Dean. Okay, item 3, 3.1, discussion of mixed-use standards, the community development. I believe that's you, Kim.

Yep. I'll just come up there, make it easier to present.

Okay.

Okay, let's see. So let me see if I can get this a little bit bigger for the screen here. Okay, so the last time we went through this was at a work session back at the very end of March. So it's been a little while ago. Hopefully some of this is still fairly fresh on your mind. You've got the new version in your packet. It's dated June 3rd. I'll just walk you through and then you can let me know if you have input, if you like the direction it's going well enough that we can start it at DRC and run it through the process. I've reworked the main purpose paragraph. One of the things that came up at our last work session on this was that the message I got was we really want mixed-use to be primarily commercial with residential as more of a secondary component. So we've tried to reword a lot of this to emphasize that change. So yeah, it talks about avoiding predominantly residential development that lacks meaningful non-residential activity. I think somewhere in here, let's see. Yeah. Allowing residential uses as a secondary and supporting component. So there's a pretty big shift in this where you can do residential, but it's very much secondary and limited versus what it currently is and what the previous drafts have been. let's see so as we go through these different standards it still allows you know if somebody owns one or two or three different parcels or more they can pull those together that's what a is talking about and then be This is where we would require some, if they have housing, at least 30% of that housing has to be designed for ownership, which would mean townhomes or condominiums versus an apartment product. And then under C, this is a new standard. Part of what the concern was last time was we have these pockets of mixed use where you've identified. We have a density map as part of our development code that assigns a total number of units for certain areas, but it doesn't ever really say, well, how do you, who decides where those units can be distributed? So this is at least a first attempt to where, you know, it's saying the number of units that we've identified would be proportionate to the acreage, but we wanted to leave some flexibility, you know, if somebody project that was maybe closer to the what we feel like is a central area we could maybe give more than just what their acreage would be proportionate to so and then D let's see these are just all the standards and let's see so we would require see we've changed it to 50% has to be retail it used to be only 10% so that again is that huge shift in you know it's got to be primarily commercial in this zone and then if it's over two acres then that actually ratchets up for each additional you know as the size of the project gets bigger there's more of a commercial component requirement until it caps out at 70%. And by the way, I think the red is new since you've seen it last. Pretty much all of this is new, but the red is the newer of the draft. And then no more than 60% of residential units, this we changed, I think, There was some concern about, you know, we don't want to get too far along with the residential before the commercial is finished. And before we had that warm shell, but now we're just saying commercial has to receive a certificate of occupancy. So that would guarantee that that commercial space is done and hopefully, you know, in a leasable state so that they can't just leave it partially finished. Oh, and then I think there's a couple of places in here where, You want it to be the land use authority for for these mixed-use type projects before it was the Planning Commission would have you wouldn't have actually seen mixed-use projects as they come through the process So we've changed that be the city council but following review and recommendation by the planning commission and then let's see three we took out because i think that was already covered on the very first one that i showed you um let's see i think we tried to simplify a lot of this we used to have kind of small and large some different requirements but we tried to just simplify it all it does still require that the ground floor non-residential let's see ground floor non-residential or convertible commercial space shall be required as follows so if it has any kind of frontage on main street or state street which are very much the primary corridors we want to make sure those the non-residential use or if it's within 300 feet of a transit stop because those are kind of your hotspots the core areas let's see and then under the number three we added up to 30% of the total required non-residential finished into your ghost gross floor area within the development and instead of let's see, can allow interim occupancy. So we still could allow where the retail isn't quite to where market will support it we could have them build it out as retail and use it for residential and that was in there before I think we just limited how much they could do of that so that's the 30% again just to keep it primarily commercial and then I think the other stuff is existing that we've already been through so anyways we tried to capture all of the different input from that previous work session and happy to take any more input that you might have.

Go ahead. I don't know who you nodded to. Go ahead, Michelle. Cam, thank you so much. I know you've been working hard on this, and this looks really good in my opinion. So I appreciate your work there and for kind of understanding kind of where we're coming in and capturing that. I guess the only question I have, the only one I think, is on E3, let's see, allowing residential until the commercial market supports conversion. I could just see that being taken advantage of. Is there any, I mean, how would you determine that? How would you say, hey, you can convert it now. You know, it's been a while. Yeah. Any thoughts?

Maybe we put a time frame, you know, up to you. Probably if they're going to make the investment to finish it as, you know, future commercial but residential so that it still functions. I would think, I'm thinking a good number might be 10 years. Like after 10 years... you need to just plan on it converting back over but probably to capture some of that investment to finish it as a residential space maybe maybe we if that sounds reasonable or I don't know we could brainstorm some other triggers or so maybe a time limit yeah yeah just put a maximum you know this can be residential but only up to X number of years okay and put it yeah we can maybe we can look and see how I know there are other communities in Utah that have allowed this and maybe we explore see you know what is what's the trigger to have it convert back to commercial that sounds good thank you council member Lockhart

Thanks, Mayor. So later on this evening, we're going to be talking about the HTRZ at Thanksgiving Point. And in the application, when the state approved it, I think we've all been through all the minutes and everything. Mayor Johnson, who was mayor at the time, said that we're currently writing code that will ensure a certain percentage of new builds will be for sale products, indicating 20%. This code indicates 30%. I'm just wondering how, you know, we're passing things or not passing things. It depends on what the council does later this evening. How does this, seeing as it's not a part of the process, will it have any impact on that?

Yeah, I think those would be, you know, just like we have different standards in different zones, this would be our mixed-use standard. And then we did codify in our TOD section, there's the 20%. Okay. So anyways, yeah, just depending on which zone you're developing in, that different standard would apply.

Okay, okay. So we've hit it, and this isn't going to impact any of that? No.

No, no, they would come under a separate zone.

Great work on this. This feels like mixed use, kind of how I think the residents and all of us would interpret it to be. So I think this is more fitting. And I think you heard all the concerns and were able to implement them in a way that I think is still going to work for development, too. It's not going to shut it down. So just major props to you. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks.

Hi, Kim.

Thank you.

I was wondering, this is just the applies to mixed use in the TODs, right? Because it's 38.

Well, so TOD is its own zone, and then this, we have actually a mixed use zone, and that's what... Okay. We're going to combine Chapter 38 right now. If I scroll up, there's all, you know, most of this chapter is actually all of the TOD standards. And then we're adding this because they're very similar, they're related, but each section would be standard for the two different zones. Okay. So everything above this in this Chapter 38 would apply to TOD, what is actually zoned TOD.

and then this would apply to what's zoned mixed use okay so i was just trying to figure that out because in e on e1 it talks about building frontages facing main street and state street and i noticed in the um general plan that there's mixed use around other places like there's some semester 92 there's some above 2100 north mill pond stuff like that so i just that was the only like i love this i thought this was so great but that was the only sentence that kind of confused me because i thought well all the mixed-use places aren't going to be facing state and Maine. So I don't know how to word that so that it

maybe if they're on state in Maine yeah but if not I mean there's a there's a lot of mixed-use areas yeah not a lot but there are several other mixed-use areas I guess so yeah no I can put a note and maybe maybe we try and identify where those other areas are like if it's I think there's someone 1200 West anyways

Yeah, there's just a few places. I mean, there's more now zoned, but in the general plan, there'll be less, I think, from what I was looking at, that are currently zoned. So I don't know how to reconcile that.

But that's the only thing that I saw. Yep.

Thank you.

Yeah. And I would just add, I think you're well aware this is just part of our pre-council. This isn't on for action. So I'll take these remaining couple of comments. We'll come up with another draft, and then we'll start it at DRC. So you'll get a whole other bite of the apple, so to speak, when it comes back through. But then it will be for formal action at that point. if you have any other second thoughts or other things or you know you'll get one more chance to and it'll have to go through planning commission you'll get their input as well and drc okay great any other questions council members questions you're good good that's great okay thank you thanks kim yep okay item four are there any questions for the agenda specific tonight

No. I mean, I have questions, but do we ask them in the meeting too?

Yeah. Just any questions if you had specific to how the agenda's written for this evening?

I think it's agreed, although I would like to have the NICE healthcare renewal agreement moved from the consent agenda to the regular agenda.

I'll be happy to take your motion when that comes up. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions? Great. Jason, any administrative report?

Nothing at this time, Mayor.

Mayor or council reports from committees or anything going on?

Whoa. Sorry about that. The mayor and I had the opportunity to go to Miss Teen Lehigh. And it was awesome. And I just was really impressed by the production. And all the girls are amazing and did a phenomenal job. So it's great to be there and support Miss Teen Lehigh.

Just a thank you for speaking at our last unveiling, how Lehigh got its name. And it was fun to see so many people there and our four generations of mayors there. That was kind of neat. So thank you for speaking. You did a great job.

Thank you. It was great. It was good to see that group. That's an interesting group to see. So it was great.

Last night, the Kiwanis Club What's it called? I don't know if that's a correct name. Kiwanis Club of the Point of the Mountain. They had their charter celebration, so it was their basically first event. And they, yeah, it's a great organization to add to that's coming to Lehigh. It's a service organization, and it helps sponsor the key clubs at the high schools. And they are going to be hosting the Chuckwagon Breakfast at the Lehigh Roundup Rodeo Celebration. And it will benefit the Lehigh High Key Club and as well as the Kiwanis Club. But it's a great organization. And I brought all of you information because they want you all to be aware. Consider even whatever the city's involvement can be. I also had both the committees that I'm a liaison to last week occurred, had their meetings, the Environmental Sustainability Committee. They talked a lot about they're going to do a water-wise parade of homes coming up. at the end of August to, I think, showcase, I'm not sure, but it's anywhere from 5 to 10 homes. And more information about that will be coming out. And we're also looking for applicants for both the Environmental Sustainability Committee and the Parks, Trails, and Trees Committee. The Parks, Trails, and Trees Committee is moving forward, but looking for more members. And so, yeah, that's what I have to report. Oh, and they also had the, there was that event on Saturday that Lehigh City put on with Traverse Mountain Trails Association, but it was the Parks, Trails, and Trees Committee helping kind of facilitate some of that, is my understanding, so.

Great, thank you. Any other reports? Okay, with that, we'll... We need to take a motion for a closed session. However, I know I have a resident here who wants to make a public comment. Do you want to wait till 7? That's two hours away. I might try to come back at another time. I have a very important meeting in the morning. Well, I'm willing to give you your three minutes if you want to take it right now so you don't have to, because I'll save you two hours. But if you'll, yeah, come on up. If you'll state your name, we'll give you three minutes. I appreciate you coming. You're just two hours, and I figure we'll give you that opportunity now if you'll take it.

Russ McAdams or James McAdams. But I lived 22 years in one community. back east. And my business and what I did was work for a big company, environmental specialty maintenance company. We're in automobile plants, chemical plants, steel mills, communities, cleaning up sewers and televising. But we had big, heavy diesel trucks. and water blasting, diesel, that we had to set up in communities to do special cleanups. And at times, the police would come by and say, you can't, you're disturbing the neighborhood. We'd have to reset up clear behind a building or something. But anyway, the ordinances, I just heard we have an ordinance now for noise levels and all. And I know growing up, The motorcycle, you can take the baffles out. Man, it's nice to have a loud thing. But I live over 2300 in Pioneer. At nighttime, I can hear those cars and vehicles and off-road vehicles, even next door. But go all the way up to Eagle Mountain in Saratoga at night and in the early mornings. And then load limits on trucks. these big tandem trucks hauling rocks and soil in and out of all new areas and construction. But going down 2300, those big tandem trucks going right through Main Street, When we have I-15, Redwood Road, we have 2100, we have Pioneer. They go right down 2300 all the way from 2100 through Thanksgiving Point all the way out to 2100. Is there load limits ordinances or restrictions with these big trucks? I had a big old tandem truck come through about 9 o'clock a couple weeks ago with a big, huge truck. Asphalt truck. I mean, we're in a nice, should be quiet neighborhood. Back east, we had a beautiful, quiet neighborhood. We never saw all this stuff coming through our residential area. It was nice and quiet. But this thing went right up. I thought he'd take a right up 700 and go into that addition. He went on through our residential area, up around the road, and back into that. And I've called Detective Swenson now twice because they were coming right down my house instead of coming off 2300 Pioneer and going down the road. So, I mean, is there an ordinance on load limits and trucks? It tears up roads. It costs money to replace those roads. Plus, well, we had more problems with bridges, too, though. We had more rivers and streams back where I lived.

Thanks, Russ. We will definitely take that and look at it and see where we're at. But I do thank you for coming in and voicing your opinions. Very, very good. Okay. I will take a motion to go into closed session specifically for the character, competence, and physical or mental health of an individual.

So moved. Second.

So we have a first from Council Member Freeman, a second from Council Member Lockhart. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

I think that's unanimous, so we'll go ahead and go into closed session. Tuesday evening at 7 p.m. Here in the City Council chambers We have a full council with us tonight councilmember Newell councilmember Harrison councilmember Stallings councilmember Freeman and councilmember Lockhart So we have a full council. We're grateful for that. We welcome all who are here with us tonight And we appreciate that you would come to our meeting We'll go ahead and start with the Pledge of Allegiance and that will be led by councilmember Harrison if you'll please stand I under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Okay, our first item today, item 2.1, is the Lehigh Roundup Rodeo Royalty Presentation. So come on up.

We brought a little gift for you guys today. This is a thank you for letting us come.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Tara Hicken. I am your 2026 Lehigh Roundup Rodeo Queen. Thank you for supporting us and supporting the rodeo, and we hope to see you sometime this week.

I'm Jensen Hamilton. I am the first attendant.

I'm Lydia Knappen. I'm the second attendant. And again, I'm super excited for the rodeo in the next couple weeks, and I hope to see you all there.

All right, and we just kind of want to talk a little bit about Lehigh Week, and hopefully all of you guys can come as well. So Monday we have the concert in the park. It starts at 7 p.m. We will be there representing Lehigh Roundup, so we're very excited for that. And Tuesday we have our Family Western Barbecue. We will also be serving food, so you guys will see us there as well. And Wednesday, we kick off the rodeo. So starting at 9 a.m., we have our Rodeo Slack, which is just an overflow from the rodeo. And since Lehigh Roundup tickets are sold out every night, families are welcome to come to the Slack for free. So you guys can come watch. They'll still be the top cowboys and cowgirls competing. So that'll be a lot of fun. And then our rodeo starts that night at 7.45 p.m.

And our Thursday night is the next night of the rodeo. It's also family night. And then before the rodeo is the stock parade starting at 6 p.m. And that will end at the rodeo grounds.

Friday night is the miniature parade. We will be there with the vehicle provided. And then that night we'll also be doing autographs for the especially little kids who are excited to get those. And then Saturday is our tough enough to wear pink night in support of breast cancer. And that's also our grand parade that will be in a truck throwing candy at everyone. So yeah.

And the grand parade starts at 10 a.m. on Saturday morning, so that'll be before the rodeo starts. Then you guys will have a little bit of time, kick back and relax, and then you guys can head to the rodeo that night at 7.45 p.m. Make sure that you wear your pink outfits to support the breast cancer awareness. So that's Flea High Week. It's in a couple weeks, and we hope to see you all there. We're very excited. Thank you so much for letting us come here, and thank you, Mayor, for supporting us and supporting the rodeo.

Thank you. We look forward to it. We hope everyone comes and enjoys the week. I know Lehigh should all be there, so we're excited to come. So thank you.

Perfect. Thank you so much.

With a sale like that, I'm excited to see all of you at the rodeo. So that'll be good. OK. Item 2.2, the June WaterWise Yard of the Month presentation. Todd.

Thank you, Mayor, Council, for another segment of Water Wise Landscape of the Month. We don't have any gifts to bring to you, like our previous scope. But let's see here. We have a beautiful landscape, though. And if I can get this working. OK. There you go. Let's get into presentation mode. OK. There you go. OK. So a little interesting note on this landscape was we actually voted for a landscape that was not the address that I went to. and presented the award to this family who lived on the opposite end of the street and had this beautiful landscape. And I just got the addresses mixed up. And so I gave them the award. And it was a very valid award. had put the landscape in themselves, and Susan Christensen was the one who takes care of it all the time. And she told me she put in every single plant herself. And so it was very, I guess, Appropriate they would maybe win this award, but I guess what it illustrates is that we're getting a lot of landscapes in the city that are turning into a water wise landscape and so I Don't know she would go I'll go ahead and turn it over I got a little monologue here for one today. This is Montanay Hamilton our chair of our environmental sustainability committee So you're on.

Yeah, so these are a couple of homes that we found near Sky Ridge. They're great homes. We're finding more and more of these, which is great. The thing that was confusing to them was I also shared a picture of my own to show them as of mid-June, we hadn't watered our front landscape at all it was vibrant flowering looked great so we really want to encourage people to to move in this direction and in that regard over the next month we're putting together a waterwise landscape parade of homes so that everybody can go and tour these and get hopefully inspired and do some fall projects and maybe take on their their uh park strips in the future too so um

I guess, basically, when I talked to Susan, she expressed that when they had finished building their home, they wanted to do something that was water-wise. And they decided to do a xeriscape. And the first thing, when they started to put the plants in, the neighbor came over and said, I see you're building a weed patch. And she was like... And he goes, yeah, these are just going to be weeds that you're going to have to take care of all summer long. The only way to really landscape is to put a lawn in and mow your grass. And so she was kind of hesitant and thinking maybe we made a mistake. But talking about it now, she just adores the landscape. And really, it's the envy of the neighborhood. And the curbside appeal is just stunning. And when I asked her, I go, so how does your neighbor feel about this now? And she goes, well, we're good friends now. And we just laugh about it. So anyway, you can have a beautiful landscape. You reduce your wear and tear on your lawnmower and have the envy of the neighborhood. Thank you. We appreciate it. The recipients are on their way home from St. George. They weren't able to make it in time for the council meeting. So they send their apologies. And I told them that I would let you know that they were grateful for it and everything. So awesome. Thank you. Any questions? We're going to be here again next month. So thanks.

I just wanted to have the people come up who participated in an intensive workshop last week. There were teams from eight communities, Alpine, Eagle Mountain, Highland, Lehigh, Provo, Saratoga Springs, Spanish Fork, and Springville. And I'm going to call them graduates, our team graduates, who did that. The team who was there included Cameron Boyle, the Assistant City Administrator, Dave Norman, Public Works Director, if you want to come up, Kim Struthers, Community Development Director, Todd Bunger, Environmental Sustainability Director, Matt Dalton, Pressurized Irrigation Operations Supervisor Trent Dyer, Parks Planning Manager, and Mike Overson, Parks Irrigation Supervisor. And over the course of two days, this team listened to professionals from Utah State, Utah Division of Water Resources, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Here, Kim, can I give this to you?

You got this certificate.

And there was an intensive workshop where there was a facilitator. And I myself was included there. We were led through a series of work sessions to develop a concept action plan to become water smart in our land use and water planning. I think it's especially timely this year with the drought that we're experiencing. And we'll continue to meet regularly to refine our plan and engage the city council and other staff to accomplish goals and objectives. I learned a lot. And I was really impressed with all these professionals who devoted and sacrificed their time. And away from here, it was in another city. And yeah, it was overnight, a couple nights. So thank you so much for those of you who were able to be there. And anything you want to say?

really it was no it was really great it was a great intensive few days and I think we learned a lot and have a lot to bring back to continue working out with the city so and and kudos to you as well for joining us yeah thank you really good experience not your typical workshop you actually you we've got it dug in and it was very intensive I thought yes

Thank you. That is a phenomenal team, so thank you. OK, it's 7.13. We'll go ahead and open the mic for public comment. A couple rules with public comment. If the item that you want to make comment about is on the agenda, we would ask, and I will open it for comments. during the meeting tonight but if there's if there's something that's not on the agenda that you'd like to make a comment about we invite you to come up a couple things is we open it up for three minutes you'll see three minutes up up above if you look at the big screen it'll just count down if you get past three minutes i may interrupt you and and help you get to your to the final your statement so with that said at 7 14 we'll open up for public comment Last rule, you have to state your name.

My name is Jared Franklin. Scott Murph. We live over on 900 North and Charlotte Street. I'm calling to ask that we look at some changes on the 900 North, 300 West intersection by Bandwagon Park. I'm sorry if I'm a little emotional. I'll try not to. But on Saturday, my My 11-year-old son was involved in an accident on his bike involving a car. Luckily, he is okay and just broke a collarbone. And as I started going back over to that park, I've noticed a few things. One, our church building is there. And so I've been on that road a lot, 900 West. Or sorry, 300 West there. And a lot of us probably know, but... The speed limit is constantly, I can feel like people, the speed limit is 25, but I sat there for about 45 minutes today, and I feel like the low end, 50% of people were going 25, and upwards of 80, 90% of people were going 25, over 25. And my son was very lucky that he actually T-boned the car. And when I went over there Saturday to pick up the bike, It was a busy Saturday at the park, and there was cars all up and down that, you know, parked along 300 West there for parties. And I have a lot of pictures, but even just with my single truck there today, it's a complete blind spot looking west there. And I just, you know, the reports, we were lucky that the car was going, the police report said the car was only going 28, and we've actually spoken with the The lady, the victim, the other person that my son also hit, it was traumatic for her as well. And even last night as I drove by there, there was a teenager walking in the crosswalk, and he was hard to see, even just at dusk on my way home from work. So I feel very fortunate that my son is alive and that didn't happen, because if it was a few seconds earlier, he could have been hit and, you know, the luckiest that he hit on the side. I think if nothing else, the changes that we've made on a 500 West with that four-way stop has made a huge difference, just even having a four-way stop there. So something like a four-way stop, or I think even better would be some type of flashing indicators there that really alert anybody that's walking. It teaches our kids to push the button and hopefully to be more aware of that. To be honest, we're moving in a month, not because I don't like Lehigh, but this doesn't really affect me. But hopefully, I feel like even with that park there, there's so many kids at that little tiny bandwagon park. And I think it would be a great change there.

I'll just pipe in as well. I'm a neighbor as well and got young kids and super busy street. I think we all know. I think that's the one street that there are no stop signs all the way down. So you just kind of zip, people zip through. So I think whether it's lights, speed bumps, I think there really is something that can be done and should be done just with the amount of kid traffic. And there's so much new construction going on kind of that feeds that direction that I think it's just kind of become an issue that we should really look at. So thank you. And thank you to the councilwomen who have been in touch with me via email. We'll follow up with the city traffic engineer, and we appreciate your consultation. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. And I sent some pictures to Michelle. I'll probably get them in your email, but just some things to look at. Thank you.

We hope your son heals well.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the council. Thank you for your time tonight. And I echo their thanks for the responses that I've gotten also in my communication. My name is Kirk Wright. I'm here on behalf of my neighbors regarding the letter I recently sent to each one of you around traffic issues that we're facing. And just real quick, if my neighbors would stand up. I know a few might speak, but not all of them. I think we have... just under half of all of the houses that are affected by this issue. So our neighborhood's dealing with an overflow of vehicles that's overwhelmed our narrow residential streets. It's no longer just an inconvenience. It's become a genuine safety hazard. Delivery drivers, visitors, and residents alike were struggling to navigate the streets as they're now being lined on both sides by parking from the neighborhood from the businesses that border our neighborhood. So I want to point out the description directly from the Lehigh City Development Code website that explicitly states, quote, The development code contains standards, provisions, and requirements intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Lehigh by ensuring that neighbors and adjacent properties are protected from the potential negative impacts in the development and the use of the land. I thought that was so well written. It's so good what we have there. But right now, our neighborhood and our adjacent properties are not being protected from these negative impacts. We do love our community. but the current situation is unsustainable and compromises the very safety and welfare that the code is meant to guarantee. So first and foremost, we're asking that the city strictly enforce the development and parking codes that we already have on the books. Enforcing the codes as written would resolve the issue immediately, aligning the positive intent of neighborhood commercial businesses with the preservation of the bordering, very low-density housing. However, if we're unable or unwilling to enforce these existing codes to resolve the issue, then we're officially requesting that the city establish a neighborhood permit-only parking zone within our neighborhood. To show how this is deeply impacting the community, I have a petition signed by every single one of our neighbors who is affected and is asking for this relief. We'd love to work collaboratively with you to fix this before a major safety incident occurs. We really appreciate your time, attention, the leadership on this, and thank you. Can I leave this with the recorder?

Yeah, Mr. Wright, also, can you, when you leave that with the recorder and then come back, would you give me the address of what you're, an address of where you're talking about?

Yeah, this is where the strip mall area is on the corner of 3200 North and 1200 West, and we live right behind that, directly to the southeast of that intersection.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

My name is Ryan Hill. I'm one of Kirk Wright's neighbors. We also live just south of the Bellevue Assisted Living. All new faces. Our neighborhood knew the old city council very well. A lot of them knew a lot of you guys by name. So we've been through a lot of stuff with our neighborhood in this area. The neighborhood commercial at one point was supposed to benefit the community, benefit the neighborhood. Some of our concerns when this was going in, a lot of these were residential lots that were turned into neighborhood commercial. The intent, I think, even where the Symphony homes were, just to the south of us, was also supposed to be neighborhood commercial. And luckily, they turned that back into residential on their own dime. But one of our frustrations was the access that we have from our neighborhood. I know that the city code talks about having accessibility. I think we have five different ways to get to, the neighborhood commercial from our 12 homes um the longest one being maybe a five minute walk the quickest one maybe being a 15 to 20 second walk so i think that's also created a lot of reasons why our neighborhood is actually being negatively excuse me negatively impacted by this is because there are so many access points to our our street from from those businesses um again i just wanted to second what kirk wright said And I ask that you guys enforce the city ordinances and codes. And if not, then permit by parking. So thank you guys.

Thank you.

I'm Tyler Anderson. I'm also one of the neighbors in that area. I just wanted to add a couple extra details. I'll try not to repeat the same things. I'm in agreement with everything else that's already been said. So especially the Fabian House there is where the majority of the parking comes from. They have 7,000 square feet, which per city code requires them to have one stall per 300 square feet. which would require 24 spots. They have 15 parking stalls, so I'm not sure why they were able to get a business license that didn't meet code. But beyond that, last week I counted 39 cars parked in our small residential area that were non-residential, and on my way to work, I drove past their building, and they were using one of their 15 parking spots. So they're intentionally choosing to use our spots over theirs, and whether that helps their business with the drop-off or different things, I don't know the logistics, but that seems like that directly doesn't go with the code that they had to have these required spots, they should be using them if they have them. So for that reason, I would recommend that we do have the residential, either that we resolve this with enforcing that requirement or that we have residential parking like other like all the other schools in Lehigh have and lots of other cities. The other morning I left at 7.30. It must have been the same to take my son to the Legacy Center. And it must have been the same time that they were all coming. It was like event parking, just everyone just parking all at the same time. I've had multiple reports just within the last week or so of people parked their own direction, three different fire hydrants they were parked in front of, as well as two people I know of specifically within the last week where they just, after work or coming to park, just flipped a U-turn without even looking and almost hit the neighbors. And there's no space for anything. If a friend wants to come over, a delivery, if we need to have something repaired, there's just nowhere for them to park because our entire street is full of cars. And so, yeah, so I agree that it is definitely a safety hazard. There's lots of kids that play in that, and it's easy for them to just step out in front of a car and you wouldn't see them. And, you know, as neighbors, we kind of know what to expect, but as these other people for the school, it doesn't seem like they're paying as close of attention. So thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Chris Ogden, and I am also a neighbor, and don't want to waste your time with repeating things that have already been pointed out, but I guess I just, as we were driving here, literally on our way here, the U-turn happened, and Sharon just about got hit, and they were doing an illegal U-turn coming into her driveway as she was coming out, and this is not an unusual event. And the 39 cars is not an exaggeration. Like, we're not talking about just a dozen spread throughout the neighborhood. It feels like an event and not just like a little baby shower or a party. Like, it is lining everywhere. And so it has really gotten extreme. And as Kurt said, we're not asking for, like, a change in code. We're not asking for anything to be changed. We're simply asking for things to be enforced. So we hope that you can consider that, and thank you very much.

My name's Troy Sheffield. I'm the one that almost got branded just a few minutes ago. In addition to what you've already heard, I have a fairly wide driveway. And most, if not many, of the people who have been parking there have been using my driveway to drive in and out and make a U-turn in my driveway until I parked a truck in the middle of it, which is there now. and will be for the rest of the week at least. But I had HVAC people come to work on my house Monday. Their front wheel of their vehicle was equal with grass in my parking strip. The rest of their vehicle was in front of my driveway because there was no other place for them to fit because of these people. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll just, my name's Chad Ogden. I'll just add one additional thing. While the strip malls have been put in there, I mean, there's been a lot of construction workers and stuff that have been parking along, you know, and we understand that. Temporary things, temporary, and we're not complaining, but this seems to be like this is going to be forever. The lease is five years. for the businesses there. And so it's not going to be just a temporary thing. This is something that looks like it's going to be ongoing. So I'll just say that.

Thank you.

Okay, if there's no other comments, we will close the public comment at 7.30 and bring it back to the dais. With that, we'll go to item number four, the consent agenda. Any questions on the consent agenda?

Mr. Mayor, may I? I have a question about 4.3. Can you explain that again? Brad, I think you were talking about that last night.

Yeah, I'd be happy to. So back in 2022, an agreement came to the council for the relocation of fiber appurtenances. This is between the hospital and the UTA right-of-way. These are fiber lanes that need to be relocated so that we can construct what we refer to as the hospital loop road that runs along the east side of the sanctuary and ties into Triumph Boulevard. In 2022, that was approved, but we were not able to construct or have those fiber lines relocated because of some property issues related to UTA. We've since resolved those property issues and we sought to get an updated bid from AT&T to do those relocations and this is that contract for us to continue with those relocations.

Thanks. Mr. Mayor, I would like to request that item 4.5 be on the regular agenda.

So you'd like to make a motion to remove 4.5 for its own item?

Yes, I would move that to the regular agenda.

So I have a motion from Council Member Freeman to move 4.5 to its separate. Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

I have a second from Council Member Lockhart. Any questions on that? Council Member Newell, we'll start with you. Councilmember Harrison, yes councilmember Stallings. Yes councilmember Freeman. Yes councilmember Lockhart Yes, so go back to the consent agenda minus 4.5 any questions on the consent agenda Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the consent agenda minus 4.5 I So I have a motion by Councilmember Newell. Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second. Councilmember Lockhart, any questions on that? Councilmember Harrison, we'll start with you. Yes. Councilmember Stallings? Yes. Councilmember Freeman? Yes. Councilmember Lockhart? Yes. Councilmember Newell? Yes. Okay, so that passes. Let's go back to item 4.5, and that is the approval of the NICE Healthcare Annual Renewal Agreement. I think Andy's here if we had any questions.

I don't have questions per se. I believe in access to healthcare and I believe in keeping costs low, but I don't believe that this is the way to do it. Perhaps I was caught off guard last night getting the information about this and then discovering that it is a concierge service. I see that we have a lot of benefits for our employees' health, health insurance, sickness insurance. wellness program, the Free Legacy Center membership. We have a good PTO policy if someone is sick. And I believe that this NICE healthcare plan is redundant of some of those things. To me, as a board-certified nurse practitioner and advanced practice registered nurse, I think it is also misleading because it touts itself as preventative health care, but it does not cover all preventative health care. And I think that it's really important for people to have a medical home. And it's expensive when I did the calculations of how much that we paid. Per visit, the first quarter of the year is typically the busiest for healthcare. That's when you have cold and flu season. That's when people use the doctor the most or health access. And we don't know what those visits were. There was 126 visits. based on the calculations of that and how much was paid it was about 355 dollars a visit is what the city paid for for that and i mean that could have been physical therapy if that's one person doing physical therapy maybe twice a week that's 10 of those visits which normally would be around 150 125 or even 100 on the free market that we have health insurance. We have that for employees, and I don't think this is filling a need in primary care or in urgent care as there is, as the intent, in my opinion. So I think this is an imitation of a true medical home. Preventative care and after-hours access to care because there isn't even some of the after-hours So I personally professionally least is it this is bad medicine.

This is a bad product and I don't I did not support that so Any other comments on 4.5 Mr. Mayor I was just curious if if Andy's here from HR if you would like to maybe comment on that, because I'm curious about this debate.

I am not a board-certified medical provider, but I can speak to the response that our employees have had to the service. In the slide deck I shared with you all yesterday, our employees have expressed that they feel like they've gotten good care. They've felt like they've been able to receive explanation to their concerns and questions, and I just anecdotally know that there have been several employees that I've spoken to that have appreciated the service, but obviously this is your decision as to whether or not this is something that should be approved.

Can you remind us what the total cost is annually?

So it's going to fluctuate depending on how many are on the medical plan. Last year we had 331 employees, and that came out to $179,000.

And I guess to Council Member Freeman's, there's a question for you. You said there's 120? There's 126 visits in the first quarter.

So if I divided the 179 by 4, then I get 44. For a quarter, it was about 44-something thousand visits. divided that by how many visits there were, and it was approximately $355.16 a visit is what the city was paying for that service. And visits could be encounters. We count them as encounters, whether it's you're encountering something, you have a sore throat, or you're doing physical therapy, telehealth, or you're having something like that. I don't see it. I'm not convinced. Maybe I don't have all the information because it was a new agenda item, you know, some new information presented last night, but I'm not convinced that this is a wise and prudent use of taxpayer money and as an additional health benefit considering all the other health benefits that we have. So that's my opinion.

Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question?

Yes.

Is there a deadline of this needs to be approved today for a renewal purpose?

Our renewal expires at the end of this month, so we would need to- We don't have another meeting.

Okay.

So that cost, is that also factoring in the the decrease that we pay towards our medical premiums then too, because we have this.

So the medical premiums, so PHP reduces our premium by about $83,000 a year. And then I reached out to GPS, our broker today, to try and have them give us an estimate on if they could give us a guess on how much we are seeing a reduction in our because those visits are not hitting the plan. And they gave us an estimate of $205,000. So that total would be $288,000.

So based on that, you're saying we're saving more. And then also, if you factor in time lost of employees taking time off, especially salaried employees, to go to medical visits, that's kind of where I saw the benefit of it being, and that it would continue to grow. But I saw it as a cost savings and a benefit, especially to employees. I'm thinking myself, working full time, having kids, doing this, it's difficult to get to those appointments. So that's where I think there is a true benefit. But also, I don't know that the calculations are correct. If we're saying $355 per visit, it's not factoring in all these other numbers with it. That's where it's hard, too, to quantify exactly where the full benefit is.

And you said that it was saving 206 hours of work. I think it was last night. Yeah. So, yeah.

Hi. Do they, do our employees have access to telemed with their regular insurance, or was there If I understand it right, there was an option just to do that, and this is?

PHP does offer a telemed option. It's not as expansive as this NICE Healthcare. They don't offer the physical therapy, the prescriptions. They don't offer mental health counseling. It's just a telemed service.

OK, so the current insurance aside from this doesn't offer mental health?

Not as a telemed option, yeah.

This is a concierge service, so this is different than telehealth. I just want to make that differentiation. Last night, that's something that came up. This is not telehealth. They offer several different things. But the cities opted for the concierge level, not just the telehealth of the NICE. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that. So in the contract, there was two options. And the only option that we were presented as city council was the concierge service. That's what the city had. That's what the HR department had chosen. But there was a telehealth option.

Oh, I see what you mean. I thought, sorry, the direct primary care, so it's these different four options, the primary care, the mental health counseling, the prescriptions, and the physical therapy is what the package includes with NICE Healthcare.

And I just want to point out that, again, it's not a substitute. It says it's not an insurance. Like it says that, right? It's not insurance. It's just a service where you, the city pays a fee per employee per month. Right. And they have this. But however, it doesn't include things like pelvic exams or breast exams or vaccines or things that would be important. And I think that's especially important. I want to make sure that we are, like, I'm concerned that people, if they're doing this, they think all their bases are covered. But we're looking at things like preventative care, like colonoscopies or things like that that are not. And then this is, I just think that it's being misrepresented. I don't think it's a good model. It's not you. I'm seeing that as nice.

No, I don't disagree. I don't think anyone has tried to say that this is going to cover all of your medical needs. This is just an option there for convenience for those things that they do provide.

And Andy, you said around 350 employees have opted into it?

331 was what was on it last time.

Do you know of how many of those 331 have used it within a year?

I have the last quarter's usage, and our utilization was just over 13% for that quarter. So I don't know who used it in quarter two versus quarter one. I don't have that.

Okay, so 13% of the employees used it in that quarter. Yes. I imagine a lot of those, is that 13% different individuals, or is it like 13% of those 330? Right. Okay. Yeah, 13% of the 330. All right.

If we don't approve it tonight and maybe table it, because there's some good points that have been brought up, and I think I would like to understand it better, if the contract laps, can we still, in a month or two, whatever, enter into that contract? I don't know.

I don't know the answer to that.

Any other questions?

Sorry, Andy, can you just say the contract period? Was this a two-year contract?

It's a two-year contract. We did negotiate a 60-day walkaway period. If for whatever reason in this, like after year one, if we don't want to renew, we have to provide 60 days notice, and we can terminate that in between, if that makes sense.

So we could do it for a year and walk away?

If we provided 60 days notice. But a minimum, okay.

And it's already been done for two years, right?

We've been doing it for four years, I think. I think this is our fourth year.

Happy to entertain a motion.

Well, I would move to, Mr. Mayor, I would move to deny the approval of 4.5 NICE Healthcare Annual Renewal Agreement.

Do I have a second?

And if no one agrees, that's fine. I'm just saying that.

I'll second it.

So I have a second from Council Member Stolling. Any questions on that?

I do have a question. It sounded to me like this is, like, from a financial perspective, this is a net gain for the city on savings. I just want to ask the council, are we sure we're going to, deny something that saves us money? I just want to make sure I'm following correctly, that this helps us save money on health insurance costs. I would be much more comfortable tabling until we maybe had a deeper dive. I just want to make sure we aren't walking away from some savings.

I mean, it is said that they'll pay $83,000 more on the PHP. So the city might pay more. But I guarantee you that this will cost us $179,000.

So I have a motion and a second. With that, if there's no other questions for the motion, let's go ahead and take a vote. Council Member Stolings, we'll start with you. You seconded a denial.

I did. She can second it to move it along, though. So we'll start with you. Yes. I would really like more information on this, but I'll vote no on it for now.

Council Member Freeman?

Excuse me. I vote yes to the motion. Correct.

OK. Council Member Freeman? I vote yes. Council Member Lockhart?

I vote no. I would prefer this to be a motion to table. I'm not quite sure on the savings aspect, and I want to make sure we don't leave money on the table for the city.

Council Member Newell?

No.

Councilmember Harrison. Also a no for the same reasons that Councilmember Lockhart stated.

So with that, that does not pass. Now I look at legal, now what do I do, Ryan?

Ask for another motion.

Oh, it's time for another motion.

I'll make a motion to table.

Can I ask a question? Yeah, go ahead. I understood from Andy that we can't table it, that he needs to know. Can I just have some clarification? Did he leave? Oh, no, you're right there. I'm like, yeah, smart man. Get out of the room. That's my worry, that we don't have another meeting before this is due. What happens if we table it? Or is it kind of up in the air if we're able to start the contract again in July?

My understanding is our contract with them ends at the end of June, and this renewal would kick in in July. And so if we don't have a meeting before July, Yeah, that's my understanding.

I was just going to say, so obviously this company wouldn't say no to a contract even if it was delayed. So I think my recommendation would be to ask if they could provide a 30-day extension. If not, and we come back and we say, okay, it makes sense to do this contract, it might just have a couple week lapse before we meet again in mid-July, if that makes sense.

or could we table it and you come back to us and if we need to call a special meeting to get in just to pass this one if there's any kind of concern i would prefer a special meeting like a meeting to pass like if we can do this in july great but if you have any concerns then we can if we have to come in to make what if we split the baby and yeah ask the question if they would be willing to give us an extension and if not then we have a special meeting but if they are then yeah

Is there an issue with this matching the fiscal years and the budget requirements? Just because we've allocated budgeted money for this, if we don't spend it for 30 days, we would still get 11 months of that contract, right? I just want to make sure we're not misaligning our contract with the fiscal years.

Well, there's also a concern that if this is saving us money, that we haven't budgeted money to cover not having it.

Yeah, that's why I'm worried about the budget.

There's an insurance broker involved as well.

Yeah. Yeah, I guess I'd have to have finance speak to the finance aspect of that, yeah.

Yeah, there's a lot of unknowns, and we would have to get input from the company. We'd have to have the broker probably. Yeah, so if we were to table it, we could make phone calls tomorrow, and then we could let you know if we needed to have a special meeting or not. But I think a lot of these questions, there's just no way for us to know without speaking to them. But at the very least, if we did table it, like I said, we could always say, hey, we absolutely have to make a decision on this right away. We could schedule another meeting.

I just want to think, what is the worst if you don't approve it? I mean, what is the gap? There's health insurance. There's care still provided.

So we just haven't budgeted to lose the savings that we get by having this program. So our budget wouldn't be balanced. That's what I'm concerned about. So I'll go ahead. Mr. May, if you're open to a motion. Yes. I'll move that we table item 4.5 with direction to staff to reach out to the contractor, ask for a 30-day extension, and gather the information from the questions being discussed today And if a special meeting is necessary, convene us before June 30th so we can vote on this with more information. Second.

So I've got a first from Council Member Lockhart, a second from Council Member Newell. Any questions on that motion? So Council Member Freeman, we'll start with you.

I'm a no. I believe this is bad medicine, and I'm explaining my vote. In the Journal of Health Economics, a study from UC Berkeley found that concierge medicine enrollment corresponds with a sharp increase in total health spending with no change in patients' mortality rates.

Council Member Lockhart?

Yes.

Council Member Newell? Yes. Council Member Harrison? Yes. Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

So we have a four to one, so we will table that item, gather some information. Thank you. Thank you, Andy. Okay, we'll get to the regular agenda now. Item five, 5.1, electric cost of service and rate design study and fee schedule amendment. This is set for a public hearing. We'll go ahead and open that public hearing. What time is it? It's 7.51, so we'll go ahead and open that public hearing. No one's here to speak. We'll go ahead and close that public hearing at 7.51. And then we'll go to item B, consideration of resolution 2026-40, adopting the electrical cost of service and rate design study and amending the Lehigh City consolidated fee schedule for power rates. Any comments on this or questions? We do have Joel here who's

Thank you, Joel. You did a great job of answering our questions at the last work session, and phone calls, and texts, and emails.

If there's no questions, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution 2026-40, Adopting the Electric Cost of Service and Rate Design Study. and amending the Lehigh City Consolidated Fee Schedule for power rates.

I have a first from Council Member Newell. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Council Member Freeman. Any questions on that motion? With that, then we'll start with you, Council Member Lockhart. Yes.

Yes.

Council Member Newell?

Yes.

Council Member Harrison? Yes. Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

Council Member Freeman?

Yes.

Thank you. Item 5.2, consideration of Resolution 2026-44, approving an agreement with Prolec-GE, Waukesha? Waukesha. Thank you. Waukesha. To purchase two substation transformers. Any questions or comments on this item?

Joel, can you just explain what this is for, for the general people that are here?

Sure, I'll be brief, and then we can go into more questions if you have them. We're just planning ahead. These transformers take a long time to get here. These will get here in October of 2029. We've looked and studied our load growth, and we're forecasting we'll need these either at the Carter substation to replace the smaller transformers, or we'll need them to build the Cold Spring substation as planned.

Any other questions? I'm happy to entertain a motion on this one.

Mayor, I move to approve Resolution 2026-44, approving an agreement with Prolick G. Waukesha to purchase two substation transformers.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Freeman. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Councilmember Harrison. Any questions on that motion? We'll start with you, Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings.

Yes.

Council Member Freeman. Yes. Council Member Lockhart. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Item 5.3, consideration of resolution 2026-41, approving a development agreement on 7.1 acres of property located at 2424 West, 900 North, allowing 13 lots in the current very low density residential agriculture designation. Is there anyone here to comment on this one?

Just me?

Come on up.

Hi. I'm Terry Bishop. I'm the petitioner in this case. Nice to see you all again. We were here a few and everything went well as far as we were concerned with the stipulation that there would be a development agreement worked up, and Kim helped us with that. We've come up with that and proposed that this be moved ahead as we've fulfilled all requirements so far. Thanks, Mr. Bishop. Any questions? Any questions for the petitioner?

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions amongst the group? If there's no questions, I'm happy to take a motion.

I just want to say that I appreciate how all the residents came out and supported you, all your neighbors, that really spoke volumes to me. As I don't love giving increased density, I felt like this was a really good way and common ground that we found. And I appreciate the staff who came back to the drawing board with it. So thank you.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2026-41, approving development agreement on 7.1 acres of property located at 2424 West, 900 North, allowing 13 lots in the current very low density residential agricultural designation, and include DRC comments.

Second. Can you do it with the finding that the development agreement aligns with the goals and policies of the general plan?

Yes. So do you want to redo your initial motion? I can add. Yeah, amended as stated.

And second stands.

OK. Any other questions? Great. We'll start with you, Councilmember Harrison. Yes. Councilmember Stallings.

I'm going to vote no. Not because this is a bad product. I think it'll be great. I see value in retaining the larger lots for large animal rights. So I'm sad to see that go, but I appreciate that you're willing to reduce it not as much as you could have, I guess, if we did a zone change, but just a little. So I think it'll be a great project. I just thought it could have been better. Thank you.

Council Member Freeman? Yes. Council Member Lockhart? Yes.

Yes, and I'm not a huge fan of development agreements, but when we talked about this and how it has the infrastructure need and the public benefit, that's where I was able to find support for this.

Great. Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Great, that passes. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. OK, I will take a motion to adjourn our council meeting so we can enter a Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency meeting.

So moved.

So I have a first from Council Member Freeman and a second from Council Member Newell. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Great. Welcome to our Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency meeting. We do have a full council. We have Council Member Newell, Council Member Harrison, Council Member Stallings, Council Member Freeman, and Council Member Lockhart. We do have a full council tonight. With that, we will move to item. Item 5.5. Consideration of Resolution 2026-43, approving an interlocal agreement between the Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency.

Sorry, Mayor, you don't have the RDA agenda.

Oh, I don't have that form. That's what I was on board. Thank you. So we will go to Item 2.1, consideration of Resolution 2026. R-2026-06, approving a participation agreement between Lehigh Redevelopment Agency and the Stack Soccer Field LLC. So we'll bring you up. Before you come up, is there anyone here in the public that is here to speak to this item? Okay, come on up.

Ryan Thomas, Stack Real Estate. I'm not sure how we want to do it, if we want to address the Stack soccer field first or kind of the greater project. But I think they're similar enough that however we want to progress there.

Council, is there any recommendations? Do we want to approach the Thanksgiving Point development first and then these two second? Or do we want to approach this? You mean do item 2.2 first? Correct.

My question is as the development as a whole. So wherever you would like me to ask a question like that,

I think we're probably fair to answer any questions at this point in time. So why don't we go that way, and then we'll take them one by one as we approve and vote.

Perfect. Then I'll tee it up. Mayor, members of the council, I will keep this short. The agreement in front of you tonight is not the first one we brought to the city, as you all know. In fact, it's moved significantly in Lehigh City's favor draft after draft. And I'll be honest with you, it may not be a perfect agreement in Lehigh City's eyes. It's not a perfect agreement in our eyes either. But that's what makes a real agreement. Both sides giving up something they wanted to land on something they can each live with. As you know, we've spent years on this collectively. We've spent six months with this council working through this together. We've gone over the concerns line by line, one at a time here. And we're not here tonight to reopen any of it or to renegotiate anything. Respectfully, we're here to just ask for your vote. Because the constraints we've accepted in this agreement are as far as we can go to still build this. The constraints are the limit of what this project can bear. We took them on for one reason, to move this forward. And because we share an aligned goal, and that is delivering successful Thanksgiving station, TOD, that can be built and that gets built right. So my ask is simple. We ask that you take a vote tonight on the participation agreement for approval as presented. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, if I may. I just respect your ask. I just have a question. My understanding is that as a whole, you are allowed 2,000 units across four different sections. There's the corn belly section, there's the soccer section, the UTA section, and what I call the TSAT building section. When I add up the requested units for all four of those sections, I'm finding 2,100 units instead of 2,000. So I just want to know, you can have 1,800 in the three that belong to the HTRZ, What are you going to do with that extra $100? Is it coming out of the T-SAT section? Can you shine some light onto that?

Yeah, very fair question. I understand the reason for some confusion there. If you actually look at the area plan as it was approved, There's several exhibits in there that provide a range. All of the units, as you described, are kind of placed in four quadrants. And the soccer field and the Corn Bellies parcel have a range of units just for market dynamics, different unit sizes. As you know, it's a long-term project. So we are fully capped at 2,000 units. UTA's piece is 200 units minimum, maximum. Down there by the T-STAT buildings, it's 200 units minimum, maximum. We know that between Corn Bellies and the soccer field, there are only 1600 units there. So the only interchanging of units would be between the soccer field and Corn Bellies there, with a not to exceed 1350 on Corn Bellies and a not to exceed 350 on the soccer field. If we go to the full $1,350 there, we're capped at $250 on the soccer field, and vice versa. $1,600 between those two. Hopefully that clears it up. I know it's a little confusing.

It does clear it up. But can you point to in the contract where you're using the word maximums? Maybe I didn't see it when I read through it a few times.

It frankly is unnecessary in the participation agreements because we're governed by the area plan. So nothing in the participation agreement could undo anything that's in the area plan there. So we default, as we've always said, to our governing document, the area plan. So that is where it's covered there. That's where it's addressed. In order to get more units, as you all know, we'd have to come back to the council and request that. So we are capped.

Mr. Mayor? So I just had a couple of concerns and big concerns when it comes to the roadways and the transportation. I know that was something that I was pushing through. So the one about the roadways, I think it's being interpreted as the city would be the ones who would be funding it, where the point of that part was because we have grant funding to be able to study and have a plan to help address the failure of Triumph Boulevard, failure in that area, that's where the city has funds to commit. But I would not want anything in there that's committing the city to have to pay for it. My biggest concern, I know the concern of the past council why this never came forward, is because we had the funding for a solution with Clubhouse Drive. And I know that doesn't work for us now. It doesn't work for Thanksgiving Point and partners to be able to do that. But my big concern is passing this and not having a solution and just having the idea of like, we know we need a solution. We know there's some funding out there to study a solution. We know that Lehigh wants to sign off on that, what that solution is. But I am really concerned that because of the way that we're putting it in now that we're holding you, to support what solution comes up, but we don't have a solution yet. So I'm worried that as we get to what's projected to be a failure of Cheyenne Boulevard in 2033, that it's going to come back on this council, that we passed this and allowed a funding mechanism to go forward for development, and then we're going to have road failure. to me is really difficult to do that when we don't that we need that solution as part of this because otherwise what's what's going to hold anybody to finding that solution if it's not already set in there what this is and that's where I like I just have real concern about moving forward with this because and it's not on Lehigh to pay for we had the money for it and now I feel like it's no longer our responsibility because we weren't the ones that took it off the table and Um, so I don't know if developers or the state or somebody to be able to make this development work, there has to be a solution to that. And we don't have it yet. We just have the idea. We know that there needs to be one and it can't be clubhouse drive. That's all we know.

Sure.

Yeah.

Yeah. So if I'm hearing your concern correctly, it's future proofing for future traffic demands that may be related to the project, but may just be background growth that are happening in this area that need to be solved for.

Well, just knowing that it's going to fail in 2100 north is not going to be enough to stop and we put 2,000 units there, it's going to exacerbate it.

Yeah. And I know you've been involved with this council and planning commission for a long time, so you've kind of seen how this project has progressed. And I think one big misconception, especially from the public perspective, point of view is that our project has always been attached to clubhouse drive you know we were never the ones proposing clubhouse drive or any of those things like that when we went through the public input process and the substantial traffic engineering process multiple multiple traffic studies that lauren was here he could attest to we looked at all these variables and that is how those traffic triggers were put in place in the area plan where Gardner and Stack took on our piece of the, you know, we call them minor improvements because they're only minor in comparison to 2100 North becoming a freeway or Clubhouse Drive going through a golf course and going and connecting up to wherever it was destined to connect. But our projects, our roadway projects are substantial that we have to complete. And the city has taken on some of their own as well and done those. But I think at the end of the day, that's all been settled for in the area plan there. And going forward, when you're talking about a regional traffic solution, that's just not a developer-solved problem right there. That is solved by regional planning authorities. The traffic engineers, the UDOTs, the regional planning associations that look into this and find solutions for those things, and that's where that public funding comes from.

Yeah. And so my feeling on this is that's what you had was approved, but the HDRZ funding that was approved by the state is essentially saying, okay, there there's more here. There's more being given. There should be more that's in place to make sure that we have these traffic solutions for the area in place. Cause I do feel like this is going to be something that is going to be a traffic nightmare there. It's going to be blamed on this development. It's going to be blamed on this council. for not making sure that when we're being asked to provide more, that we don't ask for more on top of that.

And I hear your concern. I do. And I think the solution is to... work with those regional planning agencies, but also remember that this project is not going to drop 2,000 units tomorrow. It's going to take a very long time to deliver this, and there's going to be anticipation. There's going to be a traffic study completed with each project that comes in. So we're going to incrementally add these units. And the overarching theme here is that we are adding units to a TOD, right? If we are adding sprawling units, I can certainly understand the traffic concerns there. Think of sprinkling 2,000 units throughout Lehigh City that are not next to the transit station, that are not in close proximity to I-15 as well as kind of an alternate option there as, you know, Front Runner becomes more adopted and whatnot. So I guess my answer to that is this is the smartest way to add housing. Housing is coming no matter what here. We have our traffic triggers. The agencies that do their thing best, which is regional planning and traffic projections, are the ones that would be involved in that process. So we have agreed to the language that you proposed. I know we took feedback from all the council members here. We've accepted that. We've agreed to support any traffic solutions there as well. We will continue to chip away at traffic studies as we work through this, and we're a partnership here, Stack, Gardner, Lehigh City, Thanksgiving Point. We're going to solve problems when they come up together, and that's why we've agreed to provide our support to those.

I'll just add to that. I think it's more than just regional traffic. I think it's the local traffic on the west side of Triumph that's going to get overwhelmed. And I think just a counterargument for the traffic, if you spread out 2,000 units across Lehigh, I mean, that's pretty diluted. But if you put 2,000 units, and given it's next to a transit area, so your hope is that people are taking the train. But the reality is that probably the vast majority of those renters in those units will still have a vehicle of some sort. So it's pinpointing that traffic. And I think we made the right decision in the mayor by taking Clubhouse Drive off the equation, because I don't see why those people would be commuting into Holbrook Farms past an elementary school. So I'm glad we're more focused on east of the golf course. But yeah, I think Heather has some good points about transportation. I've been looking through this for the last several days since you guys emailed it to us. I do appreciate reaching out to each council member and taking our feedback and applying what you could. There's a document in here that shows the summary of accepted changes, but only the ones that have been accepted, right? And so personally, I think some of those changes that I requested, and I know colleagues up here would feel the same, I would still feel more comfortable if those were included. My goal is to make this fair and approve it according to state law and the HTRZ agreement. But again, we're kind of in a position where we're back to an agreement that I feel like should be tabled so that we can go back to the drawing board and if it would be acceptable to To my colleagues up here, I would prefer to even use a small amount of RDA funding to get an external attorney that focuses on this to just help us draft something that would be fair to all parties and could include some of the other things that haven't been included in this agreement. And I counted, just by pulling a couple of us up here, there's still about 27 items that we would like to see included or addressed within the agreement. So that's where I stand. Okay.

I certainly understand your concerns there. But I think at the end of the day, it's kind of how I said, we can't be all things to all people. We can only bridle kind of the project with so many things that allow it to accomplish our shared goal of a successful project here. So we did everything we possibly could. And I think if you remember where we started with a PID, city-backed sales tax into the bond and everything like that where we've come through to today uh there's been some pretty substantial changes in the city's favor so i i hope that's remembered and the last thing i would add is uh before several members of this council came in gilmore bell did represent the city and this is exactly what they do are these types of agreements so you did have class a council on putting these agreements agreements together and that was

Bond Council, correct?

Correct, yes.

Because at the time you wanted a public infrastructure district and you wanted municipal-backed bonds.

Correct.

That was very much in your favor, and I don't even think the past council was for that.

Yeah, we had the development agreement and the participation agreement that they were representing on, but yeah.

Sorry, go ahead. I would support what Councilmember Harrison is suggesting. I do appreciate the time that you spent with us and that you at least listened to our request that I felt at least when Councilmember Friedman and I met with you they were our requests were consistent with state hdrz code and also what was approved the proposal that was approved and i appreciate that you did implement some of those i want to recognize that but more significantly i think is the things that you didn't approve which are game changers for me um one of them is as i mentioned to you is my concern that one developer first in gets access to all the HDRZ funds before possibly other property owners get in there and have access to that. We understand from what was presented in the proposal that the HDR funds won't cover the entire gap. They only cover about 51% of that gap that is created by the high density housing, ultra high density housing, the parking structure. and densifying this area. So that was important to me. And also, by law, this needs to be a mixed use. And I made it very clear one of my high priorities is to make sure we retain some of that HDR funding to incentivize non-residential development. This is something that none of us here voted on to go through with an HDRZ proposal. It was passed council. Um, and it is, it's going to be very impactful to our city, to other taxing entities, especially a school district taking 80% of the property tax generated by this project for up to 45 years. And with all the demands that those 1800 units are going to put on the city, um, without that money to help pay for those, those costs. So those are the two things that I am sticking fast to that, um, would like to see happen again the best way I saw that was to attach reimbursement to performance certain square footage of non-residential and certain number of residential units so I absolutely support the idea of you've had your shot on it and I think if we keep doing this thing it'll just keep we'll just be going in circles so I would I would like the city to have And especially, I guess, the city council to be able to weigh in and get an agreement that, again, honors state code, honors what was approved by the HTRC committee, and go forth from there. And then if you want to make changes, you can come to us.

And I hear what you're saying. And I would just like to reiterate, that's exactly what we've done here is followed our HTRZ approval. I know you proposed something there that was different from that. It just didn't work for the project here. So we prefer to stick to the statute, the 80%, which our approval allowed for there. The cap, I would like to remind the council, is a self-imposed cap. The cap was formulated by a projection based off Piper Sandler, the investment bank, to put this together that shows basically what i'm getting at is no project can still increment from another project a project can only get 80 of its property tax reimbursement we'll call it for the 25 years and that is exactly how that projection was made to come to the number that the council has decided is the cap there well again state code says the project's not to exceed the tax increment amount approved in the

hdrc proposal and that's in addition to that it talks about 80 up to 25 years per parcel not within the 45 year period but in addition it says not to exceed that cap so it's state law they're We had every right. We were required to set a cap, which we did.

Well, let me just correct that real quick. We were approved for 80% of the property tax generation from each project for 25 years for a maximum of 45 years. That was our approval there. We were not approved to a capped amount. Just to clarify that.

To clarify, though, the approval, the HTRZ application that was presented to the state HTRZ committee included that amount, and that is part of what is required by state law. So that cap was a requirement, and it was in the proposal that was agreed. And then to the point, I think that Heather made, you're getting a lot of tax increment, 45 years worth, pretty much, $122 million. And by state law, we now have to, you know, a previous council entered into this, but We are obligated to enter into an agreement with you. We're going a participation agreement route. But again, according to state law, which I'm reading right here, that participation agreement should include the project area development, the amount of the project area funds the person may receive, and the terms and conditions under which the person may receive project area funds. So you're asking for a lot, and I mean, As a council, we know when we get grants, there's conditions tied to those grants. And sometimes we have to give them back when we can't meet those conditions. But again, according to state law, what I'm reading, we have the right to set terms and conditions. And I would like to see a more proactive role by the city to set those conditions.

Respectfully, we have responded to the $122 million We did exactly what you wanted. We incorporated the changes on the traffic. I mean, we've been going at this for six months. Before this council, just to remind you, I know it wasn't this council, but Lehigh made the application. Lehigh did. We're just asking you to approve what we've started with Lehigh. And I realize it wasn't you, but we have been trying to bend over backwards to make this work. And we really have. You asked for retail. We gave you the retail. You asked for these items. It's not perfect. I agree. But we are at a point where we have spent plenty of money. We donated the water two weeks after this was approved. We've done everything you've asked us to do. And now you want to ask for more time. Just give us about...

Okay. You haven't given us everything we asked. You haven't given us everything in the proposal. I'm ready to give a vote. Am I voting on this?

We've done the best we can.

Sorry, I'll give you a second to talk. If you're asking your vote, I would vote no on this with direction to spend, again, RDA money to hire outside counsel to draft our own participation agreement that we can approve and follow state law as far as that goes.

Okay, I'll weigh in. Thank you for all the time and effort you've put into this. Likewise. And I was their planning commission as a public member when you came in December, and I have seen it transition a lot. I think we are almost there, but I think there are a few things that we just want in writing, and I don't know if it would actually change drastically from your perspective, but it would make the city, at least it would make me feel more comfortable. I'm not going to speak for everyone else, but I just want to make sure that we're including some things as exhibits. I do agree with everything that has been set up here. I appreciate Council Member Lockhart's findings and Council Member Newell's with the traffic and that we can specify. I would think that the product type also, that we can do that. And I said that about the piece of the pie and how every piece has a different value. assess that to that so and i know that that wasn't something that you decided to put in there but there are different definite things that i think we could come to an agreement and if we could i would i would agree with councilman harrison's assessment of just so council agreement thank you for that so what i'm hearing from you yeah is that you would like to have some additional existing green exhibits great and you would like it to be pro rata percentages per acreage Well, I think it was about the gap analysis with a certain amount per residential unit and a certain amount per square foot of non-residential development. And I think that was in an email that I was CC'd on that Councilman Stallings and I, we discussed this when we met with you. And then she sent in a follow-up email with an HTRZ agreement from South Jordan. and then sent another email that also specified some requirements.

I think the response there was we just want to stick to what the approval allows us to get.

Yeah, and we've done this in other cities, and we didn't do it that way. We did it this way. So we would like to stick with this.

And I'm not an attorney, and I won't pretend to be, but I would like to... I think that it's a good idea. You guys have your attorney. We have our city attorney. But I don't think, I think that it would be good to consult someone who has a little bit more knowledge in this. So, yeah. That's where I'm at.

Any other comments? I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Just one quick question, Mayor, for, since these are all kind of tied together with the, I mean, we're covering pretty much 2.2 at this point, I believe. But we also have the interlocal agreement and the stack soccer field. Are we able to, are those different motions, Ryan, or is it? Each will carry its own motion.

Yeah, but you could probably do the RDA motions together, but then you need to do the other one in the city council meeting. You're not in the city council meeting right now.

He's asking if we can do 2.1 through 2.3 together. Sure. Just do it as one?

Yeah. OK. OK. So I would move to table 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. with the intent that the council can find some external attorney to be able to come and redraft this agreement and then propose it to the applicants at a later date.

So I have a motion from Council Member Harrison. Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second from Council Member Newell. Any questions on that?

is a motion for 2.1 2.2 and 2.3 correct yes um i have a question council member harrison um is there any direction you would like further direction i guess as far as what that agreement would look like or again maybe just um like the developers did take input from individual council members separately so We're not in violation of OPA.

Yeah, I think having the entire council involved without violating Open and Public Meetings Act and then coming to a consensus as individuals until we're comfortable with it to present.

That would be good. Thanks.

Any other questions on the motion? Council Member Freeman, we'll start with you. Yes. Council Member Lockhart?

No, I would like to make a vote tonight. I don't love everything in here, but as I was prepping for this meeting, I felt like we could have made some amendments and found some common ground. Something that concerns me about this is I don't know how much these attorneys' fees are going to cost. I don't know what an outside attorney who specializes in HTRZ funding and RDAs costs, and I hate to voice approval for something with unknown costs attached. I also feel like this is a reflection of bad faith negotiation on our part. I've seen the emails. I've met with the developers. I know you've met with the developers. And while not anyone in this room is 100% happy, that's the art of the deal and the negotiation. Again, I think that I don't love everything about it. I came prepared with a few amendments in mind. I would have much rather done the work now, solved the problem now, than operate in bad faith with our applicant.

Council Member Newell?

Yes.

Council Member Harrison?

yes and i would just add that i don't think any of us are acting in bad faith i think we're representing the residents and their concerns and i do want this to be a fair firstly for the residents and then of course between the two parties council member stallings yes and i just add that i think there's value in getting outside council to help with this none of us are attorneys i

I considered making amendments from the bench up here, but I don't think I'm qualified to do that, to get that language right in a contract. So, yeah, I very much support this direction.

Okay. I will take a motion to adjourn the RDA meeting. So moved. Second. Council Member Harrison, Council Member Freeman. All in favor? Aye. We will go back to The City Council meeting and we'll start with 5.5 consideration of resolution 2026-43 approving an interlocal agreement between Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency and the Lehigh City regarding the Thanksgiving Point housing transit reinvestment zone

Oh, we're their lawyer. Question. When we're doing motions, is it better for us to do our motion all the way through and vote for it? And then if we would like to add something, a comment at the end, is that the appropriate way to do it?

I mean, we follow the Roberts rules loosely. So it's kind of whatever you guys agree to do.

Sorry, question? Nope, you're good. I guess this would require a motion to table as well. If everybody agrees. I would assume you can go ahead and make a motion. Then I'll go ahead. Sorry. I move to table resolution 2026-43 approving an interlocal agreement between the Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency, and Lehigh City regarding the Thanksgiving Point Housing Transit Reinvestment Zone. So I've got a first from Council Member Harris.

Do I have a second? Second. Council Member Freeman, any questions on that table? So we'll start with Council Member Lockhart.

No, and my comments from the RDA meeting about 90 seconds ago stand and apply to this vote as well.

Council Member Newell.

Yes, I'll add my comments here that I still just have concern that when it comes to our transportation piece that I'm going to have regrets that we haven't addressed everything we need to. And I know we don't have everything we need to at this point to be able to fully address it.

Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

Council Member Harrison? Yes. Sorry about that. And Council Member Freeman?

Yes, and I appreciate that we've all come prepared and that we're coming together as a council to work on this. And I appreciate the good faith efforts that we're making.

Great. We'll go to item 5.6, public hearing for the executive municipal officer's compensation increase. This is a public hearing. So any that are in the public that wish to speak to this item, we'll open the public hearing at 8.32. Okay, we'll close the public hearing at 8.32 and we'll go to item 5.7, elected officials compensation. Item A, that's a public hearing for the elected officials compensation. We'll open this public hearing also at 8.32. Okay, we'll bring it back. It's still 8.32, that's good. And then we'll consider 5.7B, consideration of Ordinance 26-2026, adopting elected officials' compensation for the fiscal year of 2027.

May I ask a question?

Yes.

So when it says that... Sorry, give me a second. Is the... So there's a salary increase up to 4%. But then there's also a targeted market increase also up to 3%. Is that a 4% total, or is that a maximum of 7%? It should be 4% total. 4% total, OK. So sorry, Jason, that includes COLA merit and the market adjustment?

market adjustments are a different bucket but as far as the general employee increases it's a total of four percent sorry so it am i saying it wrong Dean so we In the proposed budget that we're going to get to here in a minute, we have a $50,000 bucket for general market increases, and we also have two other buckets for police and fire market increases. But for the average employee, it's a 4% maximum increase. I like that officials would fall in that bucket. Yes. elected officials would match that 4%. But I think what we propose is that there would be no increase this year. There's no increase for elected officials this year.

OK, so maybe I'm confused. I'm talking about the executive municipal officers, not the elected.

Oh, we should have. Yeah, that was just the public hearing.

Yeah, are we voting on it?

No.

No. No.

No, we're talking about item B, consideration of ordinance 26-2026, adopting the elected officials' compensation for fiscal year 2027, which is no increase.

My question still stands. But I think I understand. So we get the 4%, but there's an additional market up to 3%, but within $25,000, according to what the documents we were given. Yeah?

Allison says yes.

Allison said yes. That's what I was wondering. Just wanted to know. Thank you.

I would just add, Mayor, I appreciate working with my colleagues up here on this. I know we elected not to have an increase in pay this year based on the budget. I think that was fair considering... the many obligations we have and the priority to fund public safety and infrastructure first and foremost. I know it's a drop in the bucket compared to a lot of funds, but I think it does make a difference, and I'm good with it, and I appreciate all of your hard work. I know the mayor works many, many more hours than most of us up here. It's nearly a full-time job, if not a full-time job. So I appreciate that and all of your work, as well as the finance team in helping us put together this one part of the budget.

Can I say something? Yes. Yeah, I agreed to not receive any increasing compensation for this, but I recognize that the mayor did not vote. And I would see that it's appropriate to increase the mayor compensation, but I know at this point probably won't happen. But I just want to say that I appreciate all the work that you do. And I wish that your full-time work reflected that, really, because it's a lot. And I will just say, this was presented to me six to 12 hours a week.

It's 20-plus hours.

So we all are doing more than I think we knew what we were getting into. So thank you.

Any other questions on this item? If there's not, I'd be happy to entertain a motion.

Mayor, make a motion. I move that we approve Ordinance 26-2026, Adopting Elected Officials' Compensation for Fiscal Year 2027.

So I have a first from Councilmember Stalling, so I have a second. Second, Councilmember Newell. Any questions on that motion? If not, we'll start with you, Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes, I do think that in our next item, as we talk about the budget, it's very important to me that the 4% remain for employees. And I don't believe that the council should take compensation if we don't protect the employees' 4%.

Council Member Noble?

Yes.

Council Member Harrison? Yes. Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

Council Member Freeman?

Yes.

Okay. Item 5.8, budget amendment for the fiscal year of 2025 to 2026. This is a public hearing, so we'll open that public hearing at 8.38. Appears there's no comments. We'll close that public hearing at 838, and we'll move to item B, consideration of resolution 2026-42, amending the budget for the city of Lehigh for fiscal year 2025 to 2026. Dean, do you have any?

No, we talked about all of these items a couple of weeks ago, so I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any, but

I just had a question on the Carnegie donation for the library. How did that come about? Did we solicit it, or was it brought to us independently? I wasn't involved.

Looks like Allison knows. We got a check in the mail with a letter that said as part of the America 250 celebration, they were donating $10,000. I don't know if we applied for it, or if it was just they did it to libraries across the country, And the check cleared? The check cleared. Great. The check cleared. I wasn't expecting it. I wasn't, yeah. Nobody knew about it, so. We'll take it.

If anyone else wants to donate money to .

No, I love it when private industry helps. And so I was just curious. So I have to research this. Is it just Carnegie?

It's just the Carnegie Library. Carnegie Library, OK. I have the letter in my office, but yeah. Perfect. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Great, and happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution 2026-42, amending the budget for the City of Lehigh for fiscal year 2025 through 2026.

So I have a first from Councilmember Newell, so I have a second.

I second it.

Councilmember Freeman, any questions on that motion? So we'll start with you, Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

Council Member Freeman? Yes. And Council Member Lockhart?

Yes. I do want to echo my comments from the work session. I am disappointed in the roughly $20,000 spent on City Council office spaces and cubicles here in the building and wish that that had come before a formal vote before making that expenditure.

Item 5.9, consideration of Resolution 2026-38,

Just add something. I feel like this is the most appropriate time. I just want to thank you for all the work that you've done on this. I think one of the most common questions I have out in the public from other cities is, how's your new mayor? I'll tell you what I tell them is you're doing a fantastic job. I love how you've come in. I think you've built up a camaraderie between our employees. I know you had a lot to carry with this budget cycle, and I don't think that everyone recognizes how much work you put into that working with staff. proposals that you made to take care of our staff and i just i really admire you and respect you for doing that and thanking thanking you for getting us across the finish line when we had we were coming at this from so many different points and perspectives so i'm grateful that we were able to pass this budget for you finally so thank you for all your hard work thank you i appreciate that i appreciate the non-raise this year too so that's perfect

That thank you is worth a million dollars. I appreciate that. All right, back to 5.9, the consideration of Resolution 2026-38, adopting the budget and consolidated fee schedule for the City of Lehigh for the fiscal year 2026 to 2027, July 1st of 2026 to June 30th of 2027. Any questions or comments?

Mr. Mayor, I just, again, echoing what Heather just said, I think we've had quite the season for the budget. I'm happy with where we ended up. I think there were several different routes we could have gone, but just some of the successes. And I know, unfortunately, staff had a front row seat to how the sausage was made, and it's not a great process. I like hot dogs, but I don't want to see how they're made. And that's how the budget went, but it's necessary, and that's what we signed up for. I think it was really critical to note that we avoided a tax increase. I feel, at least from my perspective, that that's what the residents preferred. We increased funding for our great firefighters and for the police. we hired I believe through the water fund we had hired for we're going to hire for new employees to find water leaks because we're over 30% leakage in our culinary water and in a drought that's that's 30% too much and so I appreciate the efforts especially Rachel her engagement with the water department to make that happen we got other employees and parks and other parts of the of the city so i know that i think every one of us would say this isn't our perfect ideal budget but i think we came to a really good spot and um i think very critically the the wage increase stayed at four percent um so thank you to all of my colleagues up here and staff for making this happen

I also want to say thank you. I do have a question about the fee schedule. I was wondering if we could look at something, a new fee that's come up. It's on page two, and it's for the piano. And I just was wondering about that. And I know I asked Jason. I asked some other city council members.

I'm not sure what it is either. Okay. I just got given the fees so I will have to find out. Okay.

Well, so I think my understanding of the piano was that it's for people to be able to use and kind of Just like we have the Broadbent room available for the community, we want these community rooms here. Or what are we calling it? Yeah, community rooms. And I saw in there that to move the piano, there was an add-on fee for $250 to move it to the community room. I am guessing that's to tune it, but I guess I'm going to reveal more about myself. So I've taught piano since 2009, and my mother's a professional musician and all that. My understanding is, and I confirm this with research, that it doesn't need to be tuned every time it's moved in the same building. It's the environment, and if the humidity changes, it's recommended to just tune pianos twice a year, probably maximum four times. So I'm worried that that fee, if you add that on to using the community room, which is $150 an hour, that's prohibitive for someone to really use it. Like our community, to use the community room and like the community piano, that's something that I'm concerned about. And I don't think that it's I don't think that it's necessary to tune it. I don't think research support is necessary to tune it every time it's moved. That's a concern I have about that fee. And I don't know who sets the fees. I don't know where they came from. That was a question I had.

These particular ones came kind of last minute to me, so I didn't have a lot of time to research them. So my assumption is that... when I read them that it was like people could rent the piano to play in the community room as well as in the hall. And the fee was to move the piano into the community room to use the piano in the community room for a rental.

Yeah. And I guess I'm just confused about that. Cause yeah, I rent the piano in the civic center hall or you can rent the piano in the hall, which I don't know what that means exactly where the hall is, but, or you can rent to move it into the community room. in the Civic Center and rent it. And then, yeah. And I was going to call you about this earlier today, which I probably should have. But here we go. So yeah.

And I think even if you adopt the fee schedule, we can go and look into it. I mean, we don't have to start doing it tomorrow.

And we could not charge the fee, and then maybe whoever suggested that, we could do some more research.

I would just love to have it be more accessible to people. And I think that if we charge What is that, $400 for someone to use it for an hour in the community room? That seems a little prohibitive.

Well, I think that $250 is just a flat fee. It's not a per hour. The moving fee is just a one time. So it would be the $150 an hour. But then you have to move it into there. Yeah, so the rent the piano.

I guess maybe it's confusing just the word achievement, so maybe that's why.

Yeah, so yeah, I can look into it, that one. As I was typing it and writing it, it was confusing me as well.

Okay, well, we're agreeing then.

I think this is just staff's best attempt to make sure we covered our costs, because again, I think they were operating under the impression that we had to tune it every time it was moved. I'm not a piano guy, so I don't know.

Yeah, so we can just do the... We can just start charging the fees and just come back to the piano fees after. Come back to the tuning. Yeah.

Because when we met with a Steinway tech who tuned it the first time, he said exactly what Rachel had said, that you don't need to tune it every time you move it. It's only if you're transitioning from outside to inside. So I do know that facilities was concerned about just the manpower to be able to move it. So I know that's part of it, too. But I would assume, because you have the residential per hour on the weekdays for the Civic Center is 150, and then to rent the piano in the Civic Center per hour is 100. So I would think that would be 250 plus another 250 to move it. I think if it's in that space, you should just be able to use it. like there shouldn't be a necessarily a piano rental fee but i i know we want to have something baked into that to make sure we're covering our costs for the times we do have to tune it if it's four times a year also the manpower to move it but i know from the donor's perspective they they want to have a play they want to have it enjoyed by the community i would love to see it the that we get people there playing you know now like and um and so also with like the renting it rent the piano in the hall with the booking i would assume that would mean that we would have a recital and chairs and everything set up for them to rent it but that we i know there's also plans to have it that people can just sign up to play it too and not have to to pay any money to do that so maybe we need to look at something with the stacking but but I agree. It just needs to be looked at again. If you're going to rent the space, I think that the piano should be something that you just get to include with maybe some cost on top for whatever the actual cost is to move it.

Yeah, it just seems a little disconnected when we have the broadband room for $50-something, and then that's going to be $200.

low over there, too. Which could be.

So, Dean, we can pass this and amend the fee schedule as we look into it.

I mean, I think you could even pass it and tell us, hey, let's not charge the piano fee until we get it.

Or we could not charge the whole section of the piano rental fee section. Until we figure it out.

Because whoever suggested that, I would like them to have a chance to say what they think.

I think we should charge something. I mean,

moving a big piano is kind of hard I don't know it is but I think that's something we can take care of in just a few weeks you know what I mean and it's possible we'll have to readdress the rental fees I mean like Jason said we took our best guess I mean the community rooms are going to be rented They're larger. There's a larger space than the broadband room, right? I think there's going to be more facility staff time required for the community room rentals than there is for the broadband room.

Well, and it might be good to have it broken down, whether it's the large community room, or I know that they can partition, right? And I don't know if that's broken down either, but that's something to look at in the future. Yeah, we could also look at that too.

So, yeah. I mean, like, and also the fee schedule is a maximum amount we can charge. Like, if we chose to, I think if we chose to break it down. I think if we chose to break it down, we could break it down. But if we wanted to have it spelled out, we could also do that, too.

Okay.

Yeah, I would just add, I think, I would like to see the fees a little bit lower as well. So, I'm happy to support any motion that at least pauses that discussion for a little while until we, I mean, I think, Yeah, especially if there's no moving involved, I would like it to be a little more accessible with a lower dollar amount for the residents.

So you're talking just the piano part, or are you talking the whole community room part?

To rent a piano that doesn't require moving, I think we should try to make it as low double digits, just so that if you have a 10-year-old that wants to come and practice the piano because they don't have one at home, I don't want it too cost prohibitive for residents.

Yeah, and I would hope in that instant that they would be able to just come and play it for free. And, you know, they could just come and reserve a time to play it. I think this would be specifically for recitals. Where we have a larger.

I mean, I'd be willing to ask a question on the rent piano in the hall with booking. I don't know. Yeah, because I think it's 50, right? Yeah. So even that. I don't know if that's like you booked it. Because we had talked about. I don't know. That they could have a recital.

They could have a small recital there. But maybe that's why they felt like at that point they could share in part of the maintenance and tuning costs that go on. But it would be a smaller fee because they wouldn't have to move it. But I agree.

I apologize that I didn't ask more questions.

Well, sorry. I ask a lot of questions. You know that.

We're glad you do. If you miss something, Rachel will catch it. Yes.

Well, I mean, I think I'd be good with... this and as long as we i think just move piano i would just probably remove the moving because i think that the cost is baked in or if you think you want to go back and talk to the person who suggested it what what do you think discussion it sounds like again i think the largest part was again the the understanding or the thought that we had to tune it every time so we put that alone pulling that out is going to drop it significantly yeah

So, yeah, I think it's really up to you whether you want to take it out or whether you just want to instruct us not to charge the fees for the piano.

The other thing, too, you could probably add in is they could request to have it tuned. If they're doing a certain concert, they want to make sure it's tuned before and add in what that cost would be.

Yeah, we could have a piano tuning cost because typically tuning is at least around $200 or something. So it's true. If they're like, hey, this needs to be perfect for me, I mean, yeah. true so i so i think maybe just i would change it instead of saying move piano into community room for booking i would just change that to piano tuning if like i don't know i don't know yeah and i think we do still need to figure out that moving fee because i know that that was going to take facilities some effort to move that's why i think it would be good to have yeah suggested these fees discussing with them okay so i think rather than changing the wording or changing anything just maybe

not have us charging, not have charged those rental fees until we decide what we're going to do.

That makes sense. I know I was down at the St. George New City Hall, and they had a new community room there that they hadn't yet figured out the fee schedule yet, and so they kind of just had waited, so that makes sense. Well, I just, I want to thank you besides that. Thank you, Allison and Dean, and for all of your work with the budget and the whole budget committee. Can I make one? Yeah.

I didn't think about this until this afternoon. I'm assuming we're going to adopt this budget tonight. Whoever makes the motion, I think it would be helpful if you would just say that we're going to accept the certified tax rate, which means no tax increase. We have to have a resolution. adopting a tax rate at some point. But I don't know what that is yet. I will probably know, they say, by June 13. But I think it would be helpful if we had something in the motion just stating that we're adopting a certified tax rate, if that's OK. OK.

Yeah, and I know I had a lot of questions, and I appreciate it. And so I think there's always, this is definitely a good thing that we've come to an agreement on and a lot of back and forth, and it's been exciting. But yeah, I would be happy to, I'd be happy to, with this budget, there's always things that I think our needs and wants, and we all have different competing interests and competing priorities, so I guess we can't all get what we want, and that probably means that we've sat on really great middle ground with it, so yeah.

There, just a quick comment. I just want to reiterate, Dean and Allison and Karma, thank you so much. I think I need to bring you some cookies or something, but I know you, it was was a long process and it was kind of crazy but i appreciate that you took our input and you i'm going to give the credit to you guys for finding the funding and avoiding attack increase and protecting employee wages and i think you're miracle workers and um i think we have some work going forward to set um also but just appreciate what you've done and And I felt from the beginning that we could find a way, that we can find solutions. And for a minute, I thought maybe I'm overly optimistic, but you pulled it through. So I appreciate that very much. And I'm, again, pleased with the outcome, understanding that there's some work going forward to make sure that we don't defer some staffing needs and that sort of thing. But thank you very much.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Mr. Mayor, may I too?

I'll just echo that. Dean, Allison, Karma, you guys are incredible. We never would have got here without you. How you take what we say and somehow make the numbers work and find things and have it all make sense is just amazing. And we are sure lucky that you're here and just the fantastic finance team that we have. And just grateful that we're able to get this budget to the point it is and take care of the most pressing needs.

Mr. Mayor, if I may, thank you for your leadership and thank you to the finance team and every department head and every staff member who's participated in the process. I'm so grateful for your guidance, mentorship, and just the education that I've received over the past six months on municipal finance and the way that the city runs. um thank you and i trust you and i appreciate all that you do to help support our residents because this is for them and and i know that your heart is there with them as well so thank you any other comments questions on the budget if not i am happy to ask for a motion mr mayor and i make a motion to i move to

I move to approve Resolution 2026-30, adopting the budget and consolidated fee schedule for the City of Lehigh for fiscal year 2026 to 2027, and accept a certified tax rate without a tax increase, and accept for the Civic Center piano rental fees on the fee schedule. So I have a first from Council Member Freeman.

Do I have a second? Second. I have a Council Member Newell with a second. Any questions on that motion? If not, we'll start with you, Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings. Yes. Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Council Member Lockhart.

Yes.

Council Member Newell. Yes. Okay, that passes. We're done with that. With that, we're at the end of our meeting. I'm happy to take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Council Member Newell, I have a second. Second. Second. Council Member Harrison, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you for coming and participating with us this evening.