City Council - Regular Meeting

Pre-council meeting today on July 14th 2026 5 p.m. Here in the Lehigh City Council chambers We have a full council council member Newell council member Harrison council member Stallings Council member Freeman and council member Lockhart and we welcome you to our meeting today reminder that this is a pre-council meeting so there is no public comment during this meeting and But we are grateful that you're here to participate with us. So with that, we'll go ahead and get started with item number one. We've asked Council Member Freeman to offer our opening prayer.

Our dear Father in heaven, we're thankful to be gathered here today to discuss the needs and wants of our city. And we're thankful for all of those who put in the hard work every day to make our city a better place. We're thankful for the residents and for all the city staff and officers. And we ask for blessings upon them and their families and upon this council to stay and the staff that are here supporting us. We love you and we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you, Council Member Freeman. OK, item number two, we'll start with presentations and report. We'll start with 2.1, with the Children's Center presentation. Welcome. If you will state your name when you get there, we'll thank you very much.

Any questions? I know I was over at Pioneer Children's the other day on your soft opening, and it looked like you had stuff going on over there already. So if you don't mind bringing those up, we'll distribute those amongst the council. And if there's no questions, we appreciate what you do. We appreciate how you work and take care of the business that you're involved in. Awesome.

Thank you very much Okay, we'll go to item 2.2 water conservation update that's Matt Hello everybody

I don't think there's questions, but thank you for the great report. I think that's important that we're adhering to those things, and we have it, and hopefully we learn to conserve as we move into the future.

Okay. Item number three, 3.1, the Lehigh Public Safety Impact Fee Study Discussion. I believe that's Dean.

So we're going to hear from the consultant about the study, about the 10-year projection and all of that? Is that what I understand? And why they got to this dollar amount? Yes.

Go ahead. Oh, thanks, Mayor. I'm not sure how to word my question. I'm going to try. It looks like the burden of the impact fee is falling onto the residential community, not the commercial community.

Yeah, but it's still significantly less than the residential community.

$292 for commercial there's a fewer of those so let's just look at the square footage of the building and do it based on that okay, but are the underlying assumptions like Property tax residents get a discount right, but are there any underlying assumptions? Between commercial and residential in the model that place the burden More or less Yeah, I'll have them address that okay.

Yeah, I'm just curious. I I mean, for example, a 4,000 square foot commercial building would pay $3,000. And a fire where a home would pay $300. So it's almost 10 times. So it's on commercial? Yeah. Yeah.

Dean, one question real quick. When was the last time we updated this? 2018. OK. Thank you. Any other questions for Dean on this item? Okay, Dean, I think you're staying right there, right? We'll go to item 3.2, the certified tax rate discussion.

Thanks, Dean. OK, item 3.3, discussion of the Bellevue parking issue and Lehigh's parking requirements, including lease parking, educational facilities in the historic district. So we will, Matt, welcome.

Yeah, I have questions. Yeah, so I was approached by some residents. It's been a while, at least a month or more for all this. So how many parking spots do you say the code requires a Fabian house to have? 16? And there are 16 because they lease 12 of them? Yes. Is that what you're saying? Okay. And so could it be that some of this other parking traffic is from other businesses, like some of the neighborhood commercial or the construction that's going on there or whatever?

Well, and I think part of it is that there's a little sidewalk that connects this neighborhood to that neighborhood commercial. Is that what I understand? At least when I've been driving, when I've driven down there a few times and seen it. Because I just want to make sure that the Fabian house has adequate parking. It seems like, I called them, I left a message, called a couple times, they never heard back. However, there's a It looks like they interacted with some of our city staff and explained that they did have a higher parking need and they had leased some additional parking in the past,

residents and be able to find a good solution because I haven't been able to get a hold of the commercial development so I've also watched the neighborhood with neighbors and have been out there and I noticed the same problem One of the questions I have is, they said that they made an agreement to do shared parking, but then they just aren't honoring that. And what are the actions that are available to them to make them honor the shared parking agreement? Is that civilly handled?

Yeah, I guess I'm just curious how, if they've made an agreement for development, why do the new owners get to ignore the agreement that that development is based on? And maybe that's a Ryan question. I'm not sure.

And one more question, if I may, to Kim. So the miscategorization of the... Fabian House being a daycare, what should it be labeled as? Instead of a daycare, what would be the proper label?

comments I guess I don't know if I have questions thank you for taking the time to look into this I know you out there and appreciate that looked into the options so thanks for your time there the feedback that I I got from residents there are several different options that you presented One was business-only parking, which I think would be hard to enforce. How do you know who's a visitor who's actually working there? The other one is limiting it to two hours. The residents didn't like that option as well. So I'm thinking the permit part is probably where we go. I do like the idea of maybe cer

And the other concern I have is it sounded like they had some kind of agreement. They met the requirements without the agreement, but they had one and they lost it, and this is kind of causing the problems. So again, it goes back to kind of a broader issue of entering into these contracts for parking or leasing agreements for parking, especially, and this is in the case here, but especially when it comes to meeting our parking requirements, things change. Plans change. And I believe in the past, we had something in our development code or municipal code, I can't remember, where it said that wh

Or access, yeah. Two different ones. A leasing where... They leased space from somebody else, but it does go back to the shared parking agreements too.

And what about the leasing of parking space?

But if we had that or if anybody had a leasing agreement with somebody else and they amended that, would that business owner still have to meet the parking requirements some other way? so if they if they decided they weren't going to lease as many stalls okay so an example somebody leases parking at the legacy center from us and we're like you know we want to expand the legacy centers we're going to get rid of this parking so we have to amend this agreement yeah then is it on that the business owner to find new parking to meet their requirements or how do we address that um i think in and agai

So do we ever have any agreements between two private property owners for leasing parking? And if so, do we require that if they're going to amend the contract and not provide that parking, they have to provide it somewhere else? Do you know?

Is it a little more honored, I guess, or protected?

It's almost like if you own a home and you're renting – basement right like once that owner moves or the owner can sever that agreement and it's it's just between two parties right but the burden of staying within code city code lies with the business that has to have X amount of stalls yeah okay and I think I mean my personal my personal view I agree with Michelle I think we for this immediate issue around Bellevue I would be supportive of the permit parking during certain hours and days just to solve it for them. I think any time we have Neighborhood commercial, this is going to be an issue.

I really like the designated permit time, hours, and days. I feel like that would be least impactful to residents who would have weekend visitors, night visitors. Hopefully they don't have to worry about as many permits. And my concern, as I've driven through the area to look at it and just blown away by the number of cars that are there, this is not a five stall under shortage. This is... like well beyond that. And so I worry as we focus on this area, where are they going? Like this is going to expand into other neighborhoods. And so I think we need to be really mindful of, okay, what's the p

Construction worker vehicles is what, yeah.

Thanks, Chief. Mayor, may I ask a question? So what does that civil enforcement look like? I mean, would there still be some kind of a penalty?

I was going to ask you another question, and I forgot it too. I guess we're done. Do you use this around the high school, and is it working well, or have you not?

I guess just a quick question for Kim. So who owns a sidewalk that connects the neighborhood? Is that a city? No.

Can I ask a question, Chief Paul? I'm just familiar with the one around Sky Ridge, and I talked to some of those neighbors, and it seems like they worked pretty well for that area. I don't know why, but do you find more challenges

Okay, okay. And then, Mayor, if I may, I just want to point out, so I don't know if Fabian House is classified correctly. Sorry, Jesus. But I just wanted to point out something just medically. So ABA insurance in Utah was, there was a change in state code And it came into effect about 2020, where health insurances were required to cover ABA therapy, which is autism therapy. And that typically is oftentimes one-on-one. And so there is another place like this. It's called Breaking Barriers that we have here in Lehigh. But for that type of thing, I'm just wondering if this is more of a medical es

So Bellevue, like the development? Okay.

yeah all of the piece of the Fabian house all the new retail in that basin so they own all of it even though the basin is right classified residential yeah okay yeah okay just point that out mr. mayor I know during work sessions we don't take public comment but I've seen a resident raise her hand several times and just wanted to bring that to your attention

I am aware, so I just want to make sure we get our comments in prior to. Kim, one of my concerns is Fabian House is also building a house now off of 2nd South. We already have a parking problem at one location. What's going to be the future parking of a, we're only adding to a major issue that's there already. So that's concerning also with, because the structure on 2nd South will be far larger than the structure on 12th West.

So anyways, there's still some moving parts. Any other questions for Matt? Corey, I know you're here. Do you want to come take the mic for a second? I'm sure that might help all of us a little bit. Yep, come on up. If you don't mind just stating your name for the record. Thank you.

Counsel, any other questions on this topic?

Is it all right to ask Corey a question? Sure. Thank you. So I really appreciate everything that you said. Thank you for additional context and for coming tonight. One question that I had is when I was on-site walking it, I did notice that some of the employees were leaving your facility and – Maybe being a little antagonistic with some of the pets that were behind Kate, like their fencing and things like that. In this period of time between now and October, what efforts are you making with your employees to about decorum parking, the way in which they treat the surrounding neighborhood, as I

Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead. So are you saying after October or November, you're thinking there'll be less parking requirements at Fabian House off of? I do.

So do you think you will have enough parking after that movement of programs, like come December? You think that you will have adequate parking with the 16 spaces you have?

I mean, so some developments, they've had to go amongst the other commercial owners or whatever leasers, and then they've marked their parking. That's not me. That's not just the city doing it. But I'm just saying that has happened.

Any other questions? So we have, thank you, Ms. .

I think you've given us some good information. I think that the council can come together, and I think we can come up with something that will work for both parties. So I do appreciate you coming. adding that to the meeting because I think that adds a lot of content that will help us over the next two and a half months determine how to help both you and the residents that live there and equally come out with a solution that will help everybody so we do appreciate that okay and I am willing to speak with anybody Rachel again I apologize for not getting back to you I'm realizing that that that t

Thanks again. Obviously, there's some more discussion with parking. I know there are some prepared parties tonight, but due to some time, I know Councilmember Stallings was wanting to discuss some of these things. I have made the proposal to her that we make a work session out of this in the coming meetings, because I think it's going to take a good hour. Kim of going through some codes and whatnot. I know Marlon's prepared. So are you guys okay if we set aside this other topic for a separate work session on parking? Are we okay with that? Great. With that, do we have any administrative report

Mr. Mayor, I was just wondering for... items 5.9 and 5.10 if we were able to move that up it's the last two items on the agenda if we were able to move that up just prior to the development code amendments there's a slew of them I just would like to tackle that a little earlier in the agenda

I think in January we talked about having decision fatigue and how we need to preserve our brain power.

So you're making a suggestion, Council Member Harrison, that we make it 5.5, 5.6, and then move everything down?

Yeah, just because if... I mean, I don't know how long that topic would go. I know a couple months ago it went until almost 1 a.m. And so I think I'd much rather have...

that earlier on the meeting just for our own sanity i guess if the council is good with it the only concern i have is we did do that before and we had some poor lady stay past that discussion to speak to code amendment so maybe ask if anybody's here for 5.6 through

We could, so maybe what I'll do is I will start at 5.5. If there's some people here that are for 5.5 through 5.8, we may move theirs and then we can adjust, but I can adjust that as we go. Okay. Any other questions with tonight's schedule?

Mayor, I do have a, I don't have the RDA agenda pulled up, but I, this has come up before we usually start with the soccer field parcel. I would, prefer to start with the Cornbelly's parcel.

Which we will. That's first on the agenda.

No, it's not actually. But I will make it go there. It's 2.2.

Any other questions? Great. Any reports from the council?

mayor if i may i just wanted to thank council and um the mayor and then of course all of staff for the involvement in roundup week it was incredibly successful and a huge shout out to all the staff members who made the rodeo watch party happen that was a really exciting event to go to and i just am very very grateful for those team members who went above and beyond to provide that activity for our residents so thank you to everyone involved and for everyone's participation in that

Just from the Environmental Sustainability Committee, they had a booth at Roundup, and that was a success, I believe. They are excited that the WaterWise Parade of Homes is coming up in August, and I'll have more information about that at another meeting.

Great. Any other reports? With that, I will take a motion to close this meeting, go into closed session.

Do we need to read this? Yeah, we need to read that. May I move that we close this meeting to include, let's see, to move it to a Discussion of purpose, exchange, lease, or sale of real property, pending or reasonably imminent litigation, the character, competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. Yeah. That's a closed session.

I have a second. All in favor? Aye. All right. Okay, we'll move to a closed session. Welcome to our City Council meeting tonight on July 14th, 2026, here in the Lehigh City Council Chambers. It's 7 p.m. and we're getting started. Our roll call tonight, Council Member Newell, Council Member Harrison, Council Member Freeman, Council Member Lockhart, Council Member Stallings has been excused. We welcome staff who's with us tonight. We appreciate you being here. More importantly, we welcome you as the public who have joined us tonight. We're glad that you're here. We'll go ahead and start. If you'

It just keeps getting better. Thanks, Todd. Thanks, Cindy. Congratulations. Okay, we'll go to item three, citizen input. We will open citizen input for 20 minutes. There are a couple rules that go along with this. You have three minutes. You'll see three minutes appear on the clock above me. If you get to three minutes, I would ask that you wrap up your statement. I won't ruin it. interrupt you unless you get to four minutes but if you're at three minutes we'd ask that you wrap up your comment as you come up we do need you to state your name for the record you will be on record as you look thr

Mr. Mayor, I don't have any questions. I was able to get my questions resolved with staff. It seems like we have some standard contracts here, and we talked about the certified tax rate previously, right?

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

So I have a first from Council Member Newell, do I have a second? second i have a second council member freeman any questions on that motion so council member lockhart we'll start with you tonight yes council member noel yes council member harrison yes council member freeman yes thank you Okay, item five, 5.1, consideration of approval for a change to the storm drain system located at 4218 West, 1700 North. Our practitioner tonight is Albion Development. Are they here? Come on up. I remind you to speak good into that microphone so all that are present can hear.

and um now we're seeking approval to amend the plot to allow us to bury the detention basin great is there anyone in the audience who is here to speak to this item tonight okay great council any questions for mr morgan

Mr. Mayor, I have a question for staff and you as well. So it says that the Lehigh, this has to be approved by both the council and the city engineer. And I just, Brad, is this something that you are going to approve?

And I guess this that might resolve my next question But it said the DRC red line comment that this design does not leave enough room for sewer and water mains in project and I did that comment get addressed and Yeah, our civil engineers addressing that comment and we were making room for all the needed utilities. Okay. Thank you.

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

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion. I move that the City Council approve item 5.1, consideration of approval for the change to the storm drain system located at 4218 West, 1700 North. With the findings that it does conform to the goals and policies of the general plan, and that our city engineer has signed off on it. I would also include all DRC comments.

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

Great. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Thank you. All right, item 5.2, consideration of ordinance 27-2026, approving the Walker zone change on 2.58 acres located at 915 West State Street, changing the zoning from R18 to CH heavy commercial. The petitioner is Deborah Walker. Come on up.

Great. Before we have them come up, is there anyone in the audience who's here to speak to this project tonight? Because there's quite a few. So Mrs. Walker, we'll have you have a chair for just a brief moment. We will open it for public comment. We will keep those public comments to three minutes. I would ask that if someone has already made comment that you would like to make, that we don't reiterate the same comments. So if you would respect that. We would appreciate it. And so we'll go ahead and open it real quick for some public comment. And it is 723.

Okay, so I will close citizen input at 8.03, and I'll bring it back to the dais for discussion.

Mr. Mayor, may I ask some questions? Yes. So probably, Kim, this is a question. So for the surrounding area, is it mixed use or heavy commercial on one of the sides? I'm going to ask a few questions, so I'll just ask them and you can answer. What does the access look like to the park and ride, the UDOT park and ride? Let's see. Those are some main questions there, and then I don't know. I have some other points of discussion.

So I know the question now is the zone change, right? And the issue with the zone change is that it's not specific to the property owner, it's specific to the land, right? Correct. For the concept, Kim, I guess based on what you know of what they plan to do, and I know that's a future conversation, but is it light, medium, heavy, based on what they want to build?

And as I know Mr. Snow mentioned, they don't plan any access to Trinnaman. Is there any city restriction on access to Trinnaman if they already have a State Street entrance?

Yeah. Yeah, thank you. I think, again, if anybody followed the election, I think people know me and several others up here. are very supportive of commercial and retail development because that type of revenue in the city actually keeps property taxes low for residents. And at least the early concept plan sounds less invasive to the surrounding neighbors. But I still have some concerns. Again, I already mentioned the rezoning. would be for the property itself, not for the owners. So 10 years down the road, if ownership changed, they could go a much heavier commercial route than what you're pro

yes kim just to double check so before the general plan updated in 2022 this was residential is that right and then it was mixed use around it but i believe this parcel was residential um i can pull the previous general plan from before 2022 but my recollection was that it was mixed use but if you give me a minute at all i can pull that older version so i i can i can understand concern from the neighborhood that this is now a very short period of time where even if it was mixed use, that it is a pretty big change to the development. I think that's the one thing with the general plan, too. Even

Sorry, Brad, can you just answer my question about the park and ride? I just want to make sure I get it.

Mayor, if I may. So zoning is kind of what you have and the general plan is what you can become. And that without objection, essentially, right? That's what these documents give property owners is here's what you have and this is what you can do in the table of uses. This is your zone. Here's what you can be and you can have access to these without objection. And when that general plan was passed, those were given. And it's really hard for me to, I hear and empathize and absolutely agree with the concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods. And I'm bound by constitutional property rights for the

Well, and thank you for that. I think the neighborhood understands this would be the Walker family coming to the table when this is an option to them, but they're showing that they want to be a good neighbor. And so if every council member has felt heard, and the mayor is willing, I'll take a motion. Or I'll make a motion.

I don't know if in planning commission, and this might not be true for council, but if you come in late in the mid-item, you don't vote on it. I don't know if that's true for council.

So she came in during comment. Right, she was here for the entire portion of discussion.

Yeah, I just am clarifying because of what I'm used to.

Wow? Yeah, I do Well questions first Brad what is the status of the sound wall? Do you know? If I remember right there they looked at a possibility of putting it.

potential locations of the sound wall would affect this property or not?

Okay. I just wondered about that. Ryan, I Trying to pull up state code here, but as far as the development agreement, can we require development agreement for something they might be entitled to?

Yeah. I guess it's not rezoned heavy commercial, but usually, yeah, maybe that'll change it. My understanding was that if they're entitled to property rights, based on the zone that we can't enter a development agreement. But they're not really entitled to those rights at this point, because it's not zoned. It's just the general plan. Yeah, you got it. OK. So my comments are the general plan is just a general plan. It does not vets property rights. I think to deny it, we might have to have a little more findings to support that. But my opinion is that This is heavy commercial next to residenti

Sorry. I lost my train of thought. I think the point was made that we rezone this heavy commercial. It will open it up to any of the uses allowed in heavy commercial. So we just need to keep that in mind. Though I do appreciate the potential purchaser not wanting to do very intense things but we can't ever guarantee that it could be sold or plans can change so again just want to reiterate the general plan does not vest rights property rights it is just a general plan and i i i would be open open to looking at the general plan and making some adjustments there to provide that transition so i i

Mr. Mayor, if I may, no offense was meant with my comment. I'm just used to other procedures, and so I want everyone to have equal opportunity here. It was just used to a different procedure.

I hope you're totally fine. Thank you, Councilmember. Any other questions? Councilmember Freeman?

I don't have any more questions. I just have a comment, if that's okay. Sure. So, Tournament Lane is a challenge. It's like a microcosm of Lehigh zoning issues, and I feel like it's a pressure point. Some of you can nod or not, but I feel like there's a little PTSD from the Hadco situation there. I walked those streets last year at the campaign, and my son has a good friend who lives over there. I remember taking him to the park, which is a little scary when you're talking about a six-year-old by State Street. That's busy. But it is a challenge. It is interesting because Trenneman Lane has res

I have one more question that came up. Go ahead. Sorry. Kim, in the past, we had an applicant come with a proposal to do kind of an office warehouse, if I remember right, in a commercial zone. What is the status of that? And would that, we did that change, would that flex?

kind of like that idea I'm wondering if it wouldn't apply to this the proposed use here and maybe that can help with our this issue without having to go to a development agreement yeah we could

If we made that code change and it fit what their desired use was, it would

Well, couldn't we just give direction with a development agreement that would include having the zone changed to commercial rather than, I mean, and that would still change, that would still make a general plan change. But it seems like the underlying plan would need, or the underlining zone would need to be commercial, not residential with some heavy commercial use. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I guess a development agreement would be a quicker path forward, but I'm going to throw this out there that I did like that idea, so maybe the city can pursue it on her own. I don't know. Yeah, I like Flex Commercial too.

Any other questions or comments? With that, I'm happy to talk about a motion.

Mayor, I move that on the Walker zone change, item 5.2, ordinance 27-2026, that the city council table the item and direct staff to work with the applicant on a development agreement that narrows the scope and captures the discussed development that they've talked about tonight and also puts mitigations in to mitigate the impact on the surrounding properties.

So I have a motion from Commissioner Lockhart. Commissioner, how about Councilmember Lockhart? Do I have a second? Second. Second from Councilmember Freeman. Any questions on that motion? If there's no questions, we'll start with you, Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings. Council Member Freeman. Yes. Council Member Lockhart.

Okay. We'll table that, and Kim, that's back in your court. Okay. Great. We will now go to Item 5.3, consideration of preliminary subdivision approval for the Courtsy subdivision, an eight lot residential development located at 1450 West, 1220 North in the R-122 zone. And grow development, we'll wait for grow development. yeah we'll wait for half a second okay why don't you come on up

Is there anyone in the audience here to make comment on this item? If you'd come forward, state your name. You have three minutes.

Thanks, Mr. Peacock. If there's no other comments, we will close that citizen input and bring it back to the dais. Questions?

Yeah, I just would like Grow Development just to come up and explain. I saw your email on the new proposal. Can you just explain what progress you've made, what kind of access? Do they have to go beyond the fence?

I think toward the west, so the northwest corner, the ditch doesn't line up perfectly with the property line, right? So part of the ditch is out, and like... at least from the imagery i saw in the last meeting some of the property line went right through the ditch is that correct yeah so some of that we will have to operate within the existing irrigation easement as an irrigation maintenance to install the new sections of the pipe okay and so and then on the west side you're saying there's 20 foot easement where the property owners technically own that property outside their fence line for tha

So how far in the fence line is the head gate?

Do you know how far into the property within that fence is the head gate?

Are you done, James? Yeah. OK. So it looks like you responded yesterday at 5.17 PM to Kim and all of them. Because I know that I was waiting anxiously for you to respond and to give the city some information. Something that I've noticed as I walked the property was there is an existing fence that's there that's been there for 25 to 30 years. And Mr. Trapp and the previous owners of the Trapp property Mr. Peacock have maintained that area where the ditch is for many years and prior to them. And there's something where if there's an existing fence that's accepted as a boundary line between two o

I think just to add on to that, Rachel, I agree with Rachel's concerns. I think from the surrounding property owners with rights to that water, I think the main question is the practicality of it. So making it as, I mean, the property owner's gonna own it, right, but if they need to go and ask permission or inform them for their own safety every time they need to access the head gate, if there's some sort of an emergency, if we're having flooding or whatever and something needs to be done they don't even have time to do that i think that that becomes just a impractical solution for them um to

I would go for that. So the headgate would be on the outside of the fence? Yep.

Doesn't the property line go through that?

So you would pipe it, or you're saying that you would Move the fence line or something on the north side or what?

So you're saying you would redirect the pipe to stay outside the property?

Okay, so that's the north end. For the west side, I like what you just said as far as keeping the fence or keeping the head gate and access to the entire ditch outside of the homeowner's fence line, right? Because I think, and I don't know if I can get a head nod if that's a better solution for Bart. I don't understand what they're saying. Okay. I think what they're saying is the fence line would be pushed toward the home until your head gate is no longer within the fence. So is that correct?

You're talking about where the existing chain link fence is, right?

So the new fence would be closer to the homes? Yeah.

Council members, if I could add, I met with a concerned resident who I don't see in here tonight. I've met with several. And they actually described that they had a similar situation happen just off Main Street several years ago, and that they did what he just mentioned. I was going to mention it, but they moved the fences, created this easement, and then it was overgrown, full of weeds, and That just was the consequence. But then as soon as they no longer, people were no longer using that ditch, then they moved those fences. And that was how they solved that problem. It was just off Main Stre

Okay, that's a question just to understand this better. So if the pipe is going to be buried and under, Why would we need to have an easement? Was there any reason? I understand the head gate to have access to that if there was like no fencing or anything full open access to that. So no one has to enter a backyard. But I don't understand why we'd want to protect the ground on top of a pipe.

So to access the head gate, you'd either have to walk on someone's personal property or you'd have to walk up the easement. Well, get the head gate. Yeah, and the head gate's halfway through the property, like through that. So you have to walk up through Lot 7. Is there any way to screen share, Kim? And you can't. You'd either have to go through Mr. Trapp's property. So Mr. Peacock wouldn't be able to access it unless he goes through. Oh, so you'd need to walk to the head gate. That's what it is. And at 2 AM or 3 AM, you don't want to have to go jump the fence on your neighbors that you don't really know.

But those who are going to access it are the ones who are on the other side of the property, right? So it would be their property. No, there's some that are south. South of it? OK.

four by four box so it'd be yeah solution scenario that dotted line is where the residents would put their fence until the line was no longer needed then that pipe closes and they move there they had the opportunity to move their fence 20 feet West yep guess my question is does it need to be a 20-foot easement

all along that entire property line if the only thing they need to access is the head gate do they just need a walking path to be able to get to it i will refer to the irrigation users at this point okay you need access if you have to work on it so you need like you need wider to be not just walking

So the fans will be where the dotted line is.

Yeah, if you're going to speak, you've got to come to the mic so it's on recorded. So Mr. Peacock.

Basically the same as now. Same as now. But you'll actually have more space. My understanding is right now it's not a full 20 feet to where the existing fence is. There's going to be actually more space for you to maintain that. Okay.

I don't know. We measured it out when I was out there, and it was about 20 feet.

Well, I think, you know, if Bart and the Trout family, if you guys are good with it, I'm much more comfortable with it. Because that was my main concern, so that you wouldn't have to deal with property owners and getting inside their fence line. I think this helps solve the problem if you guys are comfortable with it.

So how much is that going to be under? Is it all going to be buried or only partial?

You're asking about the north or west? The north. So it's 0.9.

Because I remember from the last discussion, I think that's all going to be still open, right? So he'll need to maintain it.

Sorry. Go ahead. And that's offset, right, for burning? I think we dealt with that the last time we met.

So how close is the fence to the ditch? that you're proposing? Because it looks like it's pretty dang close. How far is the fence to the ditch? On the north side. The fence would be on the property line on the north side. Is it that dark line with the X's? Yes.

Wouldn't you have to maintain the easement there too? Even though the ditch isn't on your property, the easement is, correct?

okay okay gotcha I'm just concerned that there's a fence close to a ditch that could get burned or moved back from the potential burn site

I think it's more for the property owner, right? It's not on your property and you can still burn the ditch, right? You just don't want to melt their fence. So I don't know if there are requirements or if you you can put in a different like a cinder blocker or something that's non burnable yeah just to protect those yeah we'll look at the other options that are non flammable within the no climb definition in the code is there a way that we can make sure that what's being said is done staff

think just just one more question with we talked about at some point in the future i think there's three users of the water is that right park yes okay so for this one section okay for the section going north and south there's three okay um So at some point in the future, if it's no longer being used, if the ditch isn't being used, obviously the property owners will be able to extend their fence and utilize all of their property. But, I mean, if two of the three no longer use it, is it – and maybe this is for you, Brad, or Kim – It has to be zero users, right?

I mean, for the stipulations, obviously we can table. Or can we approve with stipulations that solve this problem? OK, Kim's nodding. OK. Because as long as we have it in the motion, then it will be solved before the final comes through.

Okay, there won't be any more comments. We'll take this up here and move forward. Any other questions?

Yeah, I guess just to make sure that they understand, like, even if we were to move it with conditions, it's not done. Like, they would still have to, this is just one step. So, yes, we could table it. It would slow it down, but there's still more steps to go. The one thing I'm hearing right now tonight is that he is willing to dedicate 20 feet of his land, pay property tax on it, to give an easement that they cannot access. Property owners would not be able to build on or access, but they'd be paying property tax for it. That's a pretty big offer. If we table it, that offer's gone. That's som

Mr. Mayor, if I can ask him. So, like Heather said, I think there's an advantage to move it along with those conditions so that they can still be addressed and, like, you know, Mr. Peacock and Mr. Trapp expressed, I think that'll require them to deal with it, right? So they can move forward with their project, but they can't do much until it's resolved, right? So, Kim, can you explain the process? So if we approve with these conditions, can you explain the processes for the residents?

Jim, can you also make a condition that the final plaque comes to city council on this item?

Is that? I guess we did that with preliminary, so. Well, I am. I mean, I don't have a problem tabling it for two weeks and just having an updated drawing that comes back. Because I just don't feel like it's reflective of what's being said. And I'm one of those people that needs to be in writing. We have it. It's on a record. It's recorded. Staff understands what we want. And I think everyone here, we're all kind of coming to an understanding. But the little lawyer in me that I'm not says, put it in writing, and then I will Then we're all locked in, like, let's rock and roll two weeks. So that'

I support Council Member Freeman's position.

Okay. I'm fine with that as well. I just want to thank the developer for taking the efforts you've made. I think that's come a long way. I mean, last time I talked to Mr. Peacock, that was the main thing. He didn't want to be... knocking on doors and climbing fences or whatever in the middle of the night or early morning hours. So I think that solved a huge part of the problem. But if we did table it just to finalize and clarify those last items, I want to move it fast for everyone here, but I think that might be a good step to take. As long as everything presented tonight will stay on the tab

Well, and I just want to say I would like to move it along. And I think the developer, if we wanted to move it so fast, then we could have received some of this information much sooner than last night. So it just shows how fast all parties want to move. And if not all parties are moving quickly, then it's not moving quickly.

I just a quick comment I'm fine tabling it or putting in the conditions but I do appreciate the developer and it's come a long way since last time it was presented to us and I appreciate the you know piping and the effort you went in to make sure that these people have right access to their water they have those rights to so either ways I'm fine but again appreciation to the developer for sure happy to entertain a motion there's no other comments

Okay, Mr. Mayor, I move to table item 5.3, consideration of the preliminary subdivision approval for Cortesi subdivision for till July 28th. Well, and with hopeful that the developer will bring back an updated plot that reflects the agreements made tonight, verbal agreements.

So I have a first by Council Member Freeman, a second by Council Member Lockhart. Any questions on that?

Can I make a question on the motion then? Yes, you can. Would you include what Brad just stated with having the utilities also?

So those of you who have made the motion, would you include?

I would be amenable to that, but I would be amenable to also just have something written from the developer saying that I will do xyz i will do these steps that we we discussed if if updating this plot is too much for two weeks just as long as we can have in writing what was said tonight about moving the fence about piping the ditch about access to the head gate about no climb fence about no preventing some burning whatever those sort of conditions in writing that's what i'm looking for so however we can meet that second stance

Any other questions to that motion? Do we need a new motion, Ryan? We're good. You got that, Tisha? OK. Any questions to that motion that's by Councilmember Freeman and seconded by Councilmember Lockhart? OK. Councilmember Stallings? Councilmember Freeman? Yes. Councilmember Lockhart?

Councilmember Harrison? Yes. Great. OK. Let's go to item 5.4. After 5.4, we will ask for a recess for a bio break. We'll go to item 5.4, consideration of ordinance 2026-28, approving the press switch zone change on 1.9 acres, 1.09 acres, located at 2004 north, 900 west, changing the zoning from RA1 to R2. And the petitioner is TN Contracting LLC. Are they? Come on up.

I read here that it says that you originally requested R3, but you moved it down to R2. And can you just talk to me about why you chose to do that?

i don't have i don't have questions i just have a comment um so on the i drove past there that looks like udot's purchased some nearby land for future interchange and tore down some homes that are nearby so um i talked to a resident who lives there they don't they don't have any issues with this development it seems like the neighborhood is favorable and there will be a little bit of increased kind of noise or traffic but i think it's a I'm in favor of that. I'm not in favor of the increased noise and traffic.

I'm in favor of the sound change. To clarify. That's going in the paper.

I have a lot of kids, so they have a lot of noise and traffic.

Any other questions? If no questions, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve. Item 5.4, consideration of ordinance number 2026-28, approving the press switch to zone change on 1.09 acres located at 2004 North, 900 West, changing the zoning from RA1 to R2.

So I've got first from Council Member Freeman. Do I have a second?

Second with questions. Will you include the DRC? Yeah, and include DRC comments, please. Second stance.

So I have a second from Council Member Newell. Any questions? So we'll start with you, Council Member Freeman.

Council Member Harrison. Yes. And Council Member Stallings. Great. Thank you. Have a great evening. Real quick, before we get to the next items, is there anyone here tonight to discuss item 5.1, excuse me, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, or 5.8? Jessica's here. Jessica, but she's a sitting employee. Jessica is. Which one? Thank you.

Can you do that one? Which one? Do hers. 5.6. She had two of them.

I think she's got two. With that said, let's go ahead. I would take a motion to take a 10-minute break.

Okay, we'll take a quick 10-minute break. Let's make sure we're... approving a development code amendment to Chapter 12, Chapter 39 of Table 05.030A and Table 05.030B, adding a neighborhood exchange structure use. Kim, I believe this one is you. Okay. Okay.

Mr. Mayor, I do. I just want to clarify that no permit is required for these. It's just this is how they are compliant with code once installed.

that's my understanding yeah it's just placement so that it so if somebody put one up and it was in violation we could have something that says you can't have it here yeah they don't have to apply for a permit or anything like that okay thank you so in the description it says it also talks about install or installing a variation of it at least seven times but in this in the in the definition it talk doesn't talk about installation So the only thing is I want to just make sure that we say that the structure is installed so that we're not talking about a lemonade stand. We're not talking about s

So that we know what we're talking about, not like... Yeah. Yeah. I like that. So I just think that would help clarify it if we just say that it's installed and then continue on for the exchange or distribution of items. That's the only change I would make. And otherwise, I think this is great.

Any other questions or comments? If there are none, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Murray, I move to approve item 5.5, consideration of ordinance 2026-29, approving a development code amendment to chapter 12, chapter 39, table 5.030A and table 05.03B, adding a neighborhood exchange structure use, including to chapter 39 definitions that the structure is installed for the exchange or distribution of items, et cetera.

So I have a first from Council Member Freeman. I have a second. Council Member Lockhart with a second. Any questions? We'll start with you, Council Member Lockhart.

Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings. Council Member Freeman. Yes. I started with you, Council Member Lockhart, correct? Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Item 5.6, consideration of ordinance 2026-30, approving a development code amendment to chapter 35, community forestry, adding requirements for trees affected by migratory birds, and clarifying the city's recommended public tree planting list. Come on up, Jessica.

So this would be in section 35.120 of the code, I believe, is what we're talking about? Yeah.

And Jessica, you like this? You approve of this, Jessica? You approve of this version here?

What is a qualified environmental consultant? What would be qualifications? Like who are we looking for?

But we're not defining what qualified environmental consultant means in the code?

Like it's an industry standard kind of thing. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we didn't get people without a specific cert. If we wanted a specific certification, I would want it listed. Yeah, they would have to have those certifications on it.

And this applies equally to the city, right? Okay.

I'm fine approving it with the finding it will protect migratory birds and leaf.

Are any of you here to comment on this? No. Okay. Any other questions? I'm happy to take a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve ordinance 2026-30, approving a development code amendment to chapter 35, community forestry, adding requirements for trees affected by migratory birds and clarifying the city's recommended public tree planting list.

So I have a first from Council Member Harrison. I have a second.

Second with question. have a second from councilman renewal with quite which question can specify that we would like to insert the language prepared by Craig chambers yes for the migratory and then were there DRC comments I didn't look

Yeah, there's some. There would. Yeah, so I'm good with both of those.

And can we include the findings that the proposed development code amendment will protect migratory birds in Lehigh and, yeah. And with an add yeah. Yeah, yeah, and is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan.

Okay, any other questions? Great. So we'll start with Council Member Nolan. Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings.

Great. Item 5.7, consideration of ordinance 2026-31, approving a development code amendment to chapter 26, accessory uses of the development code updating the requirements for detached accessory dwelling units. DADUs to meet 2026 state legislation. Kim, I believe this one's yours, correct?

Any questions for Kim? Kim, do you have a rough idea how many additional homes in Lehigh this would open up to?

too much yeah because yeah you know anything yeah anything now ra1 r122 already allows it so yeah thank you mr. mayor I have a question for Kim I'm worried about item let's see D where it says located at least six feet away from the primary dwelling Is that enough? Six feet? I guess if it's what state code says, but I'm concerned that that's really close.

What's that? Is there impact fees charged for this?

Mayor, I have a question. So can we have some requirements about the placement of windows near adjoining properties, but it doesn't look like it applies to these. Is that correct?

Number two, it says ADU, so that applies to DADUs too. What's that? Okay, number two, it cannot be within five feet, so five feet. It has either no windows or two small opaque windows.

Yeah, I'm just wondering if that applies to the detached taters.

Oh, OK. Sorry, I misread. The six feet is away from the primary dwelling, not necessarily the property line. So that's from the- We have larger setbacks for the property line. OK. I was thinking it would be that close, and then we might want to do the same thing so you're not peering down in the backyard.

Other questions for Kim? Anyone from the public here to make comment on this item?

okay any final questions for kim before i entertain a motion hey kim how do we reconcile having this increase increases with the density caps we have it's a fair question with whether it's internal or detached

Sorry, just to clarify, is it 5-0 or 1-5? The 15 or 50? 50. 5-0.

Any other questions? Happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance 2026-31, approving a Development Code Amendment to Chapter 26, Accessory Uses of the Development Code, updating the requirements for detached accessory dwelling units, DADUs, to meet the 2026 state legislation and include all DRC comments and the findings by the Planning Commission.

So I have a first. Council Member Newell, I have a second.

Second from Councilmember Freeman. Any questions on that motion? Councilmember Stallings, we'll start with you.

Councilmember Harrison? Yes. Great. Item 5.8, consideration of ordinance 2026-32, approving a development code amendment. to both table 05.030-B and section 12.130, updating the regulations for automobile sales businesses.

open to that but yeah I hope it's for the the last round of discussions we had at your work session is there anyone here to speak on this item good great any questions for Kim yeah I was just wondering the DRC comments talks about the tree requirements and how you know we want to make sure they're not not exempt from tree requirements but then when I'm looking down the code I'm trying to figure out this green strike through the landscaped area shall include street trees is this getting rid of this is this ad like do you do you know or because they the recommendation is to have them have the tr

For the 10-foot setback, is that gone altogether?

Was that granted to the new auto sales business on Main Street and 23rd? Because I know that's, I mean, honestly, I kind of like that they don't have it because they can market their cars better. Yeah. Because it's a gravel lot with just sidewalk and then the cars park up to the sidewalk. So I just don't want to, I just want to make sure if that was an exception granted, then great. But I don't know.

Yep. Can I just ask one more question? Sorry, on the code. We're under two. It says customer and employee parking shall be clearly designated and posted. So what does it mean by, I mean, I understand it's designated, but posted, is that a requirement to have it like a placard mark?

Yeah, I think I agree with all this code. I just think that we do have to have it designated. But that's probably where I would just end the sentence.

And then I just wouldn't say and post it.

Just because, just like with other businesses, I just allow them to label it if they want. I mean, it's designated. If they want to label it with a sign, great. If they don't, I don't know. That's just how we could modify it. They can designate how they want to designate, I guess. That's still my only thing.

OK. Mr. Mayor, I just had a question on number three. where it looks like we're automobile sales, and then we've added and rental businesses. Help me understand. I thought the scope was pretty narrowed into auto sales, but why are we adding in and rental businesses?

Because I didn't know we were, my understanding up to this point is we were just dealing with sales, not like car rental business. Yeah. Does that give anybody concern? It's just not where my brain was at. But when I noticed that addition, I wanted to make sure that.

Have we always had them kind of together? Yeah. So it's automobile rentals. It's not like rent. something else for your house or something. Right, yeah. That's specific to auto rentals.

And rental businesses is added in. That's new.

Right. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to call attention to that. I don't remember us kind of discussing that, but I didn't know if a council member had requested that addition, and if so, I just wanted to hear the thoughts on it. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? If not, happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve item 5.8, consideration of ordinance 2026-32, approving the development code amendment to both table 5.030-B and section 12.1330, updating the regulations for automobile sales, businesses, and rentals, apparently. And I would submit that we strike and post it on number two. Second.

So I have a first from Councilmember Freeman, a second from Councilmember Lockhart. Any questions? Okay, we'll start with you, Councilmember Freeman. Councilmember Lockhart. Yes. Councilmember Newell. Councilmember Harrison. Yes. Councilmember Stallings. Great. We will now get to item 5.9, consideration of adjournment for the Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency meeting. Happy to take a motion.

Welcome to the Lehigh Redevelopment Agency meeting today, July 14th, 2026.

Roll call. We have Council Member Newell, Council Member Harrison, Council Member Stallings, Council Member Freeman, and Council Member Lockhart. We are going to start tonight with item 2.2. We will do that one first. And that is consideration of... Actually, before we do any of that, I will take a motion to untable these items. So moved. Second. So I have a first, Council Member Newell. Second. Second from Councilmember Freeman. All in favor? Aye. Okay, so we're now officially untabled. Is there anything else there, Tisha? I think that's all we needed, correct? Great. All right, item 2.2, con

Other comments? Okay, we'll close comments, and we will bring this to the dais.

Thank you, Ryan, for all of your help on this. It's been a lot of emails and back and forth. And now I understand very much firsthand why government moves as slow as it does sometimes. But I think based on the feedback and the help from staff and the input from others up here, I think we're in a much better position for the city to approve this. There's things that benefit the developer, and I think there's more language that protects the interests of the residents of Lehigh. So I'm happy with it. I think the, you know, not everything's going to be perfect in it, but I think we're in a much be

other point so you go ahead Rachel I saw you reaching for the microphone and then I'll come back well if the applicant or the developer is here I was going to thank them for their patience we could table it and I think that it and just everyone who hasn't been involved in this process I think that I just appreciate the time to provide input and I first heard about this also in December and and um i think it's come a long way i think that it's it's kind of like the budget it's taken a lot of patience on a lot of people's part thank you for that so um i think there's a few little things here and

One point in the participation agreement 9.1, and maybe, Ryan, you can help me with this if I'm missing something. Probably about halfway down the new paragraph in the red line, there's reference to the allocation schedule. Is that something we can have as an exhibit?

I would think it is, I'll have to look on this one.

In the, let me find it. This isn't my usual draft, so. There is the portion, the reimbursement schedule, where it has the per product amount.

Anyway, James, sorry, what was your solution? Yeah, I think as long as maybe we rephrase it to be the reimbursement schedule if it's already referenced in 5. Okay. Just for clarity.

Yeah, I agree. Just thanks to staff and everybody, there was a lot of work that's gone into it. And some of it I know we're still working through and weren't able to get it into this agreement. There was two amendments that I would like to include with transportation. I can read those out now and also why I'd like to have those included. One is a traffic impact study. Before, and this would be the amendment below 4.2, before the city issues the first building permit for the project, an updated traffic impact study must be submitted to and approved by city engineering. The traffic impact study

needed a writing yeah i made it again slowly so to clarify yeah it does not obligate the city i i felt like the beginning portion kind of did um no it doesn't it says the so with the amendments so the amendments would be before the city issues the building permit for the project the developer needs to provide an updated traffic impact study so it does not obligate us to

other than for the city engineering to approve it okay and then i just emailed it to you oh okay i can read it um what this ryan or brad um the so an updated study and will we therefore need to amend the area plan to put that in there

We can't require them to do that, right?

Can we require the traffic impact study, like the first half of that idea, that we require a traffic impact study, but then we don't require a timeline? for the completion of the alternative? Because we don't have that. I don't know.

And I guess the concern is that that traffic study was then based on the Clubhouse Drive extension being there post-2031, which we're now moving into with that development. So if we don't have something else there, and we have roads that fail as a result of this development, and we're silent on transportation, what does that say? So I totally get the I don't want to have the conflicting things. I also want to make sure that we're covering our bases because they don't support an extension that is for part of the beyond 2031 requirements.

I would just say I'm not opposed to this at all. I think it would be a good thing to do. And if we can do it as a question, but then also can we hold up units based on the projected failure triumph if it's not necessarily that failure is due to this development? How can we prove that? How do you prove that?

the requirement for the 2,000 units that I guess that's a concern is some things have changed but the total density here hasn't changed so has has that allowable density changed those the traffic study or the triggers or everything else changed. Does that make sense?

that is obviously a line that we can't cross well that and that's something that concerns me because i was reading through the updated document with all the suggestions from council and most everything was backed up by like state code or this proposal and and I think if we have that and it was already in there like these are already agreed upon entity like things then that's fine and here it talks about parking and it talks about transit ridership But it doesn't really talk about roads much in the proposal. It doesn't talk about transportation, unfortunately. I mean, it does talk about public

Could we give direction as part of the motion to?

Maybe come back with an amendment You know after you explored that topic and maybe found an avenue that we can for sure.

And it's all transit-oriented here, I guess. That's what I'm finding. Yeah. When, how long, I mean, Brad, let's say, you know, you presented us with an idea for transportation last night, but that takes months to kind of integrate into the master transportation plan and then possibly, you know, explore those things. I mean, I would say at least six months, but what's kind of the timeline on that sort of thing?

Holbrook and Hardman and anyway, so I Have a very lengthy motion, but whenever any other questions I

I just want to make sure everybody's had a chance to speak.

That's what I want to make sure everyone's... Okay. If there's no further comment, I am happy to entertain a motion.

I'll make that motion, and I just want to say bear with me because I have very lengthy finding of facts just so that our reasons for including what we did in this agreement are... made clear. So yeah, we'll try it. May I move that we approve resolution number R2026-07, approving a participation agreement between Lehigh City and Thanksgiving Point Station Development Partners, LLC, with one amendment changing allocation to reimbursement schedule so the language matches. and allowing legal to do any other cleanup language that's required. And then give direction to staff to explore how to implem

So I have a first from Councilmember Stallings. Second from councilmember Harrison do I have any questions?

Can I just further clarify? The one section that is staff exploring our options for the updated traffic impact study Consider the language for both the impact study and clubhouse drive alternative as read during the discussion as guidelines for what we're trying to include and the reasonings for it I

But I would also like to say I don't think we can require area plan amendments. So I would strike that instruction that we try to amend the area plan, because we can't do that. And we can't force the developer to do that. Just at the beginning, I think it was instruction to staff to look into amending the area plan.

My instruction or Michelle's instruction? Michelle's. Okay, gotcha. At the beginning.

And we can't require them to amend. We can't legal, we can't require them to. We can ask. We can say no. But if you, either way. Heather, that's up to you because that's your.

Yeah, however we need to do that legally. That's just what I feel like we had legal advice we were given.

So right now the direction is basically for staff to explore options. Okay. Are you okay with that, Council Member?

Council Member Harrison? Yes. Any other questions?

Yeah, there's one thing I talked about with a few. I think Heather suggested it. If we look under five, it says developer will support transportation solutions, we're talking about transportation again, that do not adversely affect the Thanksgiving Point golf course or the project. And I believe that in the multiple, like, I thought that we stroked, striked? Yeah.

Okay. That's what I thought it was. Because I clicked on it. Okay. Well, this is, I think it's still good to include it since it's not the online one. So it's already striked?

That's good. Okay, we'll start with a vote. We will start with you, Council Member Newell. Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings.

Yes, and I just want to clarify the retail requirement as a trigger because in the proposal, the projections show the first development is a 70,000 square feet of retail. So that's another justification there for that.

The first time that I had this document in its completion was yesterday evening when it was posted online. As noted by public comment today, as well as by residents who have called me, I don't believe that there's been adequate time for residents or myself to understand everything within here and to... fully understand the scope of what this is. And so on that principle, I would like to have had more time for our residents. And for that, I'm going to vote no.

OK, so that passes 4 to 1. So now let's go to 2.2. And that's the consideration of resolution R2026-06, approving a participation agreement between Lehigh Redevelopment Agency and Stack Soccer Field, LLC. Any questions or comments on that?

Just want to thank Ryan again for all his hard work and

may be more glad than we are to have this done of course it's not done is it okay sorry take that back that remains to be seen comments have been struck i spoke too soon i apologize i am happy to entertain a motion on this one mr mayor

Okay. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution R2026-6, approving a participation agreement between Lehigh Redevelopment Agency and Stack Soccer Field LLC. Do I have a second?

I'll second, and I'll just maybe add, Heather, if you're good with it, not all of the language is entirely relevant from the previous item to this one, but I think a lot of the sentiment and explanation that Michelle provided in her previous motion is also relevant to this one. Clearly different products, different developers, but around the certain legal language and justifications for changes. I would like to add that to the lesson.

Agreed. Yeah, if the developer feels like it. Ryan said.

We'll add those comments to the motion. You're both good with that? Yes. Any other questions then to this motion? Okay, so we'll start with you, Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings.

Yes, and I just, from my reading of this, it looks like this just clarifies and implements state code, the proposal, and all of the founding documents. Council Member Lockhart.

For the reasons listed on item 2.2, as well as the comments made, that there wasn't much time to review for the public. And my first access to this document was last night when it was posted. I'm going to vote no, because I believe the principle of government transparency and time for our residents to review such a hefty document.

Okay, item 2.3, consideration resolution.

Well, yeah, Mr. Mayor, from my understanding, this document has been available to the public for over a month. And I would love to be able to have a dialogue. I have a concern on this document. If we end up tabling, great. But if the council is open to at least dialoguing on this document, I'd love to be able to voice my concern that I have.

You're on 2.3, correct? Yes. Let me read this, and then we'll open that. Councilmember Lockhart, you can ask your questions. 2.3 is consideration resolution of R2026-08, approving an interlocal agreement between Lehigh City and the Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency regarding the Thanksgiving Point housing transit reinvestment zone. So with that, Councilmember Lockhart, I'll turn it back to you again for your question.

Thank you, Mayor. So, yeah, just to clarify, Ryan, this document is the same document that was presented in June. There haven't been changes to this.

Yeah. Okay, so I feel comfortable. A month is definitely adequate for the residents. I... I have concerns with number four, the roadways section, specifically the last sentence. It says, the city will use commercially reasonable efforts to work with a traffic engineer to develop a transportation plan to address the future failure of Triumph Boulevard. obviously we are working with our own traffic engineer as we heard last night to come up with solutions for triumph i i would love to hear from the you know the council if you feel this sentence is necessary i'm concerned that we're binding ourse

I would feel comfortable eliminating the entire section, or at the minimum, the last sentence, because I, from a month ago, expressed concern over this. So I would be, I think I would be very happy to eliminate section four.

And just to add to that, it, my opinion doesn't seem to fit in an interlocal, which is just an underground between the agency and the city council. Absolutely.

and that that's what we discussed too and shifting because we had talked about the the portion about the city not being financially responsible for any like alternatives and then we spoke about like it really doesn't none of that belongs in here just take it out and move all of that i think that was actually brad's suggestion to just include all that in the participation agreement anything with transportation roadways should not be here yeah and i know

Heather, you and I have talked about this several times. We've had discussions over the last several months about it. So I just, yeah, Mayor, thanks for allowing the dialogue. I think that's really important that in a public meeting we can talk it out and make sure we're all on the same page. And if we're not on the same page, have the opportunity to voice that. So I would support the elimination of paragraph four as well.

Yeah, I think even if we table it, we could still give direction to just exclude that.

Any other comments, questions on this one? Thank you, Councilman Blocker.

So if we pass this, it is... we're like we can look look into the transportation which could take months or whatever time but we can we can pass this we can pass interlocal without problems with striking oh you're just worried that the amendment might i mean you're worried that the amendment might take a long time to come back so it would delay passing You know, the developer wanted us to vote on this, what, a month ago? And it says time is of the essence twice in here, actually. And I just want to make sure that we are looking at that.

I guess would it be an issue, Ryan, if there are material changes the developers come back with? that we can amend this as well? I mean, is there any legal concern or would it be better to table it? That's my preference.

Well, if we table it, could we strike section four the next time it comes back? Yeah.

Oh, I see. I see what you're saying. I see what you're pointing at.

It's right here. The first sentence, if I'm understanding, it says, the city acknowledges that public roadways providing direct access to the project must exist and remain adequately maintained to allow for the successful development and operation of the project.

Okay. Yeah, my apologies for not tracking that completely.

Yeah, no, thank you. Appreciate the clarity.

Thanks, Marlon. Oh, hey, Marlon. We'll stay this long just so you know. Thank you. We have more questions?

well oh sorry i don't have a question but i was you are good flirt i yield you some time i was going to make the motion oh i'm even grateful to take a motion okay um well i just want to clarify what a motion to table is it's a pause on the item and the item will come back um before us and um Yeah, I just appreciate that this has been available to the public for a significant amount of time. So with that, I will move that we pass, or excuse me, we table item 2.3, resolution R2026-08, approving an interlocal agreement between Lehigh City and the Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency regarding the Tha

So I have a first from Council Member Lockhart.

Second with a, do we need to clarify section or other paragraph? I guess it's section, or yeah, section four, paragraph four.

You're still good there, Council Member? No. So we have a first and we have a second. Is there any questions on that motion?

Can we also eliminate one of the time of the essence things? Just as a duplicate, that's all. Redundancy on either 15 or 17.

So I, Council Member Lockhart, would you, I would prefer not to give direction to add another amendment to a participation agreement unless the developer, the property owners feel the need for it. So can we Leave that part out.

Yeah, I think I said it because that's how Ryan said it, but I'm happy to make that change.

That's kind of what I intended. Okay, so we'll include that in the motion. Any other questions on the motion? Great. We will start with Council Member Freeman.

I have a question. Sorry, I have a question. Oh, you do have a question. I do have a question. Go ahead. Is this tabled? Indefinitely? What does this mean?

That's a good point. But we have passed other two participation agreements.

So can we just pass this in two weeks? Look at this in two weeks? I mean, what's...

When the participation agreement is signed by the other party? I don't know. I'm just... I'm trying to... Or... If we need to amend it more, yeah.

I would support that idea because once they've signed the participation and stack agreements, then we're done with any potential amendments they may propose, and then we can bring this forward at the following meeting. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Is that okay?

Yeah. So what is it? We're just indefinitely tabling this until the sign?

come to an agreement with the HRZ agreement. Because that's why I just want to make sure that we've fulfilled our duty as a city to pass the come to agree. You know what I mean? So we were asked to vote and to make a decision. And we needed time to think about it. We tabled it. I just want to make sure we feel fulfilled. If this is the last period, let's give it a month. And then that's what I would say.

If we put a date for maybe the first August meeting next month.

That meeting date is August 11th. Tuesday night, August 11th, if you want the date. If you so choose to use that date in your motion. I think the family is good with it.

So you're good with that date any of the questions to the motion tabling it till August 11th, correct With striking section 4 and maybe a time of this Any other questions to the motion Okay councilman councilmember Freeman Councilmember Lockhart. Yes councilmember Newell. Yes councilmember Harrison. Yes and councilmember Stallings. I will take a motion to adjourn the Lehigh Redevelopment Agency meeting. So I have a motion from Council Member Harrison. Do I have a second?

Council Member Newell with a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We now go back to the Lehigh City Council meeting. We'll take roll with Council Member Newell, Council Member Harrison, Council Member Stalling, Council Member Freeman, Council Member Lockhart, and we will go to item... 5.10 consider it consideration of resolution 2026-43 approving an interlocal agreement between the Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency and the Lehigh City regarding the Thanksgiving Point housing transit reinvestment zone I'm happy to take a motion.

So this would be the same idea that we would table this until the first Until August 11th. Okay. This is the other half

OK. OK. Someone else wants to do it again. OK. I move to table item 5.10, consideration of resolution 2026-43, approving an interlocal agreement between the Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency and Lehigh City regarding the Thanksgiving Point housing transfer reinvestment zone. same day until August 11th.

Do I have a second? I have a second from Councilmember Harrison, a first, excuse me, from Councilmember Freeman. Any questions on that? Did you, Councilmember Freeman, did you include striking paragraph four?

I did not, but we can strike paragraph or number four and One of the time of essence.

Are you okay with that, Council Member Harrison? I am. Any other questions on that motion? Great. I will start with you, Council Member Lockhart. Yes. Council Member Newell. Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings. Council Member Freeman. Yes. Council Member Lockhart, I started with you, correct? Yeah. Okay. My circle's getting shorter. Okay, with that, I will take a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. I have a first from Council Member Newell, a second from Council Member Harrison. All in favor? Aye. That is unanimous.