Well I would never think my place.

That's right.

That's true.

That's why I'm every day.

What would you stop?

I could tell me.

I can do this one.

I think it's called the slides.

Oh, it's kind of a dichotomy question then.

Um, do it once, so we're uh grateful for all the moisture that we had uh several weeks as uh it helps to fill their fill our reservoirs and uh keep our uh state uh beautiful and productive.

Uh we're grateful for the opportunity we have to gather together as a city council and for uh the items that we have to discuss uh and decide on this evening.

We'd ask though please bless that.

We'll be able to have the uh wisdom as we uh decide how to move forward on the various items.

Uh Heavenly Father, we're grateful for all the people that serve in our community, our first responders, and uh others that serve in various capacities on various committees that help uh make our city great and pray that that will bless them for their service.

And we say these things say may thy son Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen.

Thank you very much, Paul.

Okay.

Uh I think I mentioned this is our pre-council meeting.

Our regular council meeting starts at seven.

So if somebody came here thinking they were here for the regular council and was waiting for items on that agenda, you're early, but that's okay.

You can stay.

But just by looking at the crowd, man, it looks like we must have a lot of uh youth council members here tonight or something.

So uh we're gonna go to item two point one, which is a Lehigh City Youth Council oath of office.

This is an important one.

Hey.

Um, good evening.

My name is Tisha Wilson, and I have the privilege of serving as the Lehigh City Recorder.

Uh part of my role is to help make sure that the actions of our city government are done properly, transparency, and in accordance with the law.

And one of my favorite duties is to administer the oath of office to those who serve our community.

Today I have the auditor the honor of administering this oath to members of the Lehigh City Youth Council.

So, members of the youth council, if you could come up and state your name into the mic, Sherry and Melanie will give you your certificate of the oath of office.

And then if you could stand in front of the mayor and council, I'll then administer the old in alphabetical order, just caught up.

Nobody wants to be first.

Oh, that's so many.

I took all of them.

Sorry, awkward.

Sadie Wilson.

Do I feel it today?

Yeah.

Just come stand here.

They're gonna find your certificate and give it to you.

It'll be easier when they get to the end of all the names.

It just stands right up to the case.

Sophie's all wiggle and face that way, yep.

Callie Riddell.

Carly Green.

Lily Condy.

Miles Thurlow.

Serenko.

Claire Meetis.

Clive Burroughs.

Camden Botkin.

I on guard.

Keegan Deban.

Lila Jackson.

Eden Lovettao.

Do we love a tow?

Onica Cook.

Stephen Dixon.

Kenley Wood.

Lucy Collins.

Kylie Smith.

Zoe Tianner.

Michaela Rebo.

Nelson Burroughs.

Lonnie Menke.

Madeline Warner.

Abby Dotson.

Lizzie Pettit.

Molly Goodrich.

Jonah.

Zach Gray.

Izzy Dallin.

Malia Wright.

This is great.

This is a really big.

There's one more.

Just state your name.

State your name.

Taylor.

Perfect.

And then she has your certificate right there, and then just stand.

One more t shirt.

Oh, we have one more?

Okay.

Come on.

Come on up.

Are you on the youth council?

I'm just here for like a school project.

Oh, okay.

Then you can just have me.

We'll take we'll just take anyone that wants to serve.

I'm not anti-two.

Okay.

This this is a very meaningful moment for all of you.

Um taking an oath connects you to the tradition that reaches all the way back to the Constitution of the United States, which is the foundation of our government.

Every public official from the president to our local city leaders takes an oath to remind us that public service is an act of trust.

The oath you're about to take is a promise to serve with integrity, to be respectful and fair, and to use your talents and ideas to strengthen our community.

As members of the Lehigh City Youth Council, you represent the future of our city.

Okay, and repeat after me.

I do solemnly swear.

I will support obey and defend.

The Constitution of the United States.

Can you all see me right now?

Yes.

I don't want to be in them.

Okay.

I'd forgotten mentioned he was going there.

Yes, yeah.

What?

Just as you're leaving, I want you all to know that now that you've taken this ult, you need to memorize the Constitution and all its amend amendments.

Okay.

All right.

There'll be a test later.

Hey, Melanie.

Sherry, just for the record.

The first time the first year you guys were doing this, how many kids did it, do you think?

Maybe twelve?

You guys have grown this program like crazy.

It is so fun to see.

Nicely done.

I do have to correct myself.

I did not realize that Chris was still in Paris.

So Paul reminded me.

Or Heather reminded me, sorry.

The other Paul.

But uh so he is excused for this meeting.

Some of the international item two point two is a transit fresh look study presentation.

Come on up.

All right, just one moment, I'll plug this in so we can have some good graphics.

Let's hope it works.

So that's always good.

I missed them.

That's okay.

Okay.

Well, that's pulling up.

Um I'll introduce myself.

I'm Kendall Willardson, uh, transportation planner with the Mount Land Association of Governments.

Uh it's a pleasure to be with you all this evening.

And I'm gonna here be here this evening to talk about the transit fresh look study.

Looks like it's just taking a moment maybe to maybe Matt can help us.

Yeah.

Oh, is it maybe uh extended?

We also have the presentation in teams, which we can present it that way if that's whatever is the easiest, yeah.

Oh man, this is this is some really exciting stuff I want to show you, so hopefully it it pops up.

It will be worth the wait, I'm sure.

Oh yes.

It's the problem we have with all the best presentations.

We could try one of your little extensions if that's the issue.

It may not make a difference.

Okay, yeah, that look that that looks right.

So and if it's easy and as we go along, probably if it's easier, I can say next slide and I go from there.

Okay, perfect.

All right.

So this study started in 2024.

So it's been a minute, and I think the reason for that is uh we've we've taken a lot of a considerable amount of time reaching out to the cities and stakeholders and this is a sneak peek of some of that culmination of the work.

Um as we as we go through some of the slides, we'll go through some of the different um alignments uh with the transit fresh look as well as some of the next steps.

So with that, let's go to the next slide.

So just a a brief reminder.

I was here uh last year um uh as well as with Wasatch Front Regional Council, our partners up in Salt Lake City talking about it.

Um this is essentially a we want to align um on a unified transit vision for the Northwest and Utah County area and southwest Salt Lake County area.

Um it's really a focus on regional transit connections, so that's like light rail, which is like the tracks up in Solid County, as well as bus rapid transit, and that's for example UVX down in Provo.

Um that isn't to say that we haven't taken feedback on our local routes that um people are interested in seeing.

Um and there's also the opportunity for the BRTs and LRTs that were showing on this map to be first local bus routes as part of a phased implementation plan.

And this type of study has been done before, and with that recognition, um we wanted to take a the problem-solving approach of what would it take to um to get high capacity transit out into Lehigh into Northwest Utah County, and so this is that approach that we've taken.

So let's go next slide.

And to the point I mentioned that this is taken a little while, and I think it just speaks to the partnership that we've created.

This has included our communities down here, such as Saratoga Springs, um, Eagle Mountain, and the city of Lehigh, of course, as well as uh the Alpine School District, state legislatures, uh the variety of private sector ivory homes, um, and a lot of the develop some of the development and developers in the area.

Uh and of course UTA, Utah Transit Authority, U DOT, um our transportation partner up in Salt Lake with WFRC and um a myriad of others.

So with that, we'll go to the next slide.

Um participate in this, including uh Mayor Johnson and Jason Walker, uh Marlin Eldred, Kim Struthers, and Councilmember Paige Albrecht.

Um apologize, I hope I didn't butcher anyone's name um ahead of time.

But a um these are the partners we've been working extensively on.

Um as we go through this presentation, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to um ask here.

Otherwise you can also reach out to any of these folks, and they are happy to assist you.

And if there's any concerns, they can take that feedback back to us as well.

Uh next slide.

So really what have we accomplished up to this point?

We're we're coming towards the finish line.

Um we we really started brainstorming there were some maybe past work that's been done, but let's start off fresh.

Um we had a blank slate map.

We gathered all the land use, um, general plan um information that um that you've that you have had, as well as areas that um have potential opportunity for change in the future.

And then from there we uh worked on developing a vision scenario, so different corridors, the the different maps, refined uh the land uses from there and then collected some additional data.

And really all this is to the point of what is the the grandest um what's the grand vision ultimately uh for for transit in the area.

And so now we're coming to the end with completing the vision and plan for implementation.

The next slide.

With that, um there has been some development behind these um uh already that's occurred with some of these um vision scenarios, and that is because we had a meeting at the end of September.

The our consultants who've been helping up with us are diligently finalizing that map.

So I will note where there are some changes um to some of these alignments.

But this is for the major most part um showing what um what is final.

So if you flip between this slide and the next one, we initially had two scenarios.

Um if you flip back, you may see that the only real difference is actually in Salt Lake County, and that was primarily because they were looking at extending the red line from daybreak into the point development and whether it should be on Bangoder Highway or Porter Rockwell.

Um there has been some uh movement on that that it's Bangalore Highway is the preference.

So it is gonna be more so this vision scenario one that um will be moving forward.

So we can advance uh two slides.

So these are some projects that run through the city of Lehigh that we wanted to focus on.

Um if you have any questions, um I'll I'll go through this pretty quick.

I could spend hours looking at these things and seeing where they could potentially go and what what's gonna be nearby it.

Um so stop me if I go too quick, otherwise.

This is Redwood Road.

Um this is um oh, and I should mention as well, this study was also mainly focusing on the west side of I-15.

Um so that's where all these um lines you'll kind of see where they're they're connecting with.

So Redwood Road, this is envisioned as a bus rapid tra transit corridor and is either on Redwood Road or Mountain View Corridor.

Redwood Road is the um I will say the secondary option too.

If you click on to the next slide, Mountain View Corridor is the preferred option for um a higher frequency um bus rapid transit line.

So that it does mostly go through um Saratoga Springs.

Um and I think uh for the sake of um there's um some sections up above as well.

But um, yeah, I think it's uh uh an opportunity for it to be a great corridor that goes all the way up to connect into the red line and potentially further up maybe to the airport as a possibility.

So on to the next slide we have is 2100 north.

This really is a connector between that mountain view corridor line connecting with the front runner um Lehigh front runner station.

So really if somebody wants to get on quick and they're looking to get maybe further north than the red line up to Salt Lake and such, that is an opportunity um to do so.

On the next slide, we have um the Utah County connector.

So um this has there's two options.

It's either um envisioned as Pony Express alignment or Pioneer Crossing.

And um uh we wanted to we're we're gonna probably we're gonna keep this probably as an either-or option with the knowledge of the U dot um planning environmental link linkage study, the Pell study that's coming up that will further solidify what that alignment may look like.

But knowing that this is essentially from going from American Fork Station and then making its way into Eagle Mountain.

And then the next slide is essentially that same alignment, which could be on Pony Express or Pioneer Crossing.

And in fact, this is the one that Eagle Mountain prefers is that they're going all the way out to their Firefly development, is where that ends up.

And this east-west connector, uh, I forgot to mention in the previous, but it's uh it'd be a light rail um line, such as tracks up in Salt Lake County is the envisioned mode.

So with that, uh let's go to the next slide.

Um that can be.

Can you back up a couple slides before I forget this question?

Yeah, right there.

So the uh the one that's on Pony Express right now.

This this is an issue we brought up.

I think I'm pretty sure Kim brought it up as I did several times, is as a bus option.

We felt that there would be more ridership going through Lehigh if when it connects to I'm talking about the dark red line when it connects to Pioneer Crossing if we connected at 2300 West there because there's uh there's a lot more homes up there that would be uh that that would follow.

And we brought that up several times, and I don't know why it just never changed.

Was there any investigation on that at all?

Because that would actually serve both the north side and the south side of Pioneer Crossing if it did that.

So you're saying it it it shoots up the Pony Express quicker.

Where it turns up on 2300 West.

Our proposal was that it would continue on 2300 west and then turn on Pioneer Crossing and go east.

Oh, so it wouldn't go further east on Pioneer Crossing.

Is that no no no it wouldn't go east along 1900 south or 1900 south because the problem is is that 90 degree bend over there on the east side where it turns and then goes up to Pony Express?

Uh that's a very, very tight corner.

It's it's literally a 90 degree turn turn right there.

Gotcha.

And uh uh Kim, I'm sure you brought this up too, right?

That we just when you look at the number of households and everything, it seems to be clear that you would pick up more ridership, at least as far as we are concerned.

I don't care what happens west of us there, but for our ridership, it seems like it would serve a lot more people if it went up 2300 and then along Pioneer Crossing.

Okay.

And we've we asked for that several times, and then we've never it it was on the initial maps, and then it dropped off and it it came down to this alignment, and it's never changed.

And I was just I'm curious, I'd like to know why.

I'd like to know what analysis went into that.

Yeah, and I mean you're you is that even kind of from Lehigh's standpoint more preferred than just remaining on Pioneer crossing the whole thing.

I think we made that clear, didn't we, Kim?

Yeah, the last meeting, yeah.

Um Councilwoman Albrick and I were in a week or two ago.

We we definitely brought this up.

I think Kendall, you were there, but yeah.

We we made that point that you know, the farther north we can keep the transit line, you're gonna capture, we feel like more ridership because down by the lake, you're gonna basically have a dead zone on the south side of this transit facility.

But yeah, I don't know if we specifically talked about 2300.

It was really just should it be on 1900 or pioneer was the kind of the main issue in that meeting.

So and there were lots of different routes and options that everybody was weighing in on.

And I think correct me if I'm wrong, there was mostly consensus in the room on everyone but this one.

So and this one's still sort of up in the air, and they're looking at options as far as what they're gonna nail down for this.

The other routes, pretty much everybody was was in agreement that they were they were the best, but this one there wasn't.

I mean, we need to look at a ridership study because you just look at the number of homes.

And I brought this up one time.

We were in the meeting, we brought it up and you looked at all the rooftops, and it's really clear you're going to access a lot more rooftops going north on 23 and then getting on at least getting on pioneer crossing there.

I understand Saratoga Springs concern because they have the bus stop, you know, that's I get that.

I I don't want to negatively affect that, but once it gets in Lehigh, I've just always felt that we we need to look at that closely, and uh it would be nice if it would pick up the largest number of of riders that it could as it comes through our community.

Okay.

And so you're and then that's definitely speaking, you're saying for sure that immediate the local bus they're talking with the parking rights.

Yes.

Yeah.

Gotcha.

And I I I remember in our MPO board meeting that was brought up as well that that discussion will continue with with UTA and Saratoga Springs in Lehigh.

So I do remember that that was something, and that is something we are continuing to look at.

And I think kind of what are the next steps beyond that?

Does the this light rail alignment then follow something similar?

Um perhaps um I think has been mentioned before, and I think in uh in the final meeting that we've had, we spoke only mostly to either or not a hybrid of the two as far as what if it if a light rail works in that same way.

But if that's some we I can bring that back, that's no issue.

Well, I'm pretty sure light rail is not going to make those two 90 degree turns that are required for that alignment.

Agree.

This was this is definitely more uh uh very high level.

So um there's a a bit more work that would need to be done to iron out um same in Salt Lake County.

There's a lot of a lot of tight turns that are happening.

So well, and there in terms of engineering for cost estimates, it's very high level.

There wasn't a whole lot of specificity in that.

Sorry, Kendall.

So this would be light rail eventually?

That was what the envision mode what um was uh uh the partners thought would be the best, yeah.

Okay, so is there a lane preserve for that room on uh pioneer?

Are we gonna have to take out homes and expand it?

There's so in the right of um some of the right-of-way very high-level right-of-way analysis they did, that would be a possibility depending on how it's built.

Um so that is something that would need to be considered if it was running either on pioneer or pony and you're potentially expanding the road as well in the future.

So thanks.

Okay.

But to be clear, it's mostly the bus track our bus route now that we're looking at the 2300 option.

Yeah, yeah.

So that makes sense.

Yes.

Well, and Councilwoman Stellings, to your point, um, in the meeting, I I requested that they get more specific about what width would be needed because we need to look at it precisely.

The concerns that some of the concerns they had about pioneer also were you know where you locate the stations and safety for pedestrians getting to where they would get on and off.

But um they're not a hundred percent 100% sure whether or not they could fit it down the middle.

Um so they were gonna look into that further just to investigate what the true impact would be.

Sorry, so they're looking at putting tracks down the middle.

That's one of the the initial thing, the initial high-level S that we can we can share those slides generally.

I I don't know if Kim, if you were able to see that they sent the more detailed presentation.

Yeah, and it has a couple of cross sections showing how the train could, but yeah, I think it was they weren't sure if that right away how if we'd need to widen.

Oh, I'm just wondering if they put in the middle that was.

How do people access the tracks?

In the middle of Piper.

The default that they were using was in the middle with everything, but that didn't preclude that it could be side running on the side.

Okay, and go on with your presentation.

Okay.

No, thank you for the questions.

I I definitely appreciate that.

So this is kind of what some of those things that were mentioned in our in our last meeting that we talked about.

So there were some more detailed travel time and ridership forecasts, uh cross some cross sections as well, cost estimates.

And the one that we're looking to really do in our next partnership meeting is the plan for implementation and what that looks like, including that do we have more local routes, um enhanced routes, and and I think that's definitely something that um something that we'll look to in the short term, building towards the long term with these higher um transit uh investments.

Okay, next slide.

Yeah, so uh when this um presentation was sent out, um the September meeting, I think was just ready about to happen or it already occurred.

So that September County specific partnership uh did did occur, and we're grateful for the city of Lehigh, the the representation as well from Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain.

And there was a lot of cleaning up of lines and a lot of consensus with a lot of the different lines, and um I think this is gonna make it a stronger document moving forward for sure.

Uh we're we're looking, it's gonna be probably more November, the final partnership wrap-up meeting, and that's where we're gonna talk about implementation.

Um additional feedback that came from any of these city council meetings that will be considered and then uh by the end of the year we'll have a finalized study product.

So I I believe that's my last slide.

Um if there's any additional questions, happy to answer.

Um council, other questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just take our information back or our concern back.

But yeah.

Will do.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Item 2.3 is a discussion discussion on shift differential pay policy, and Chief Paul is here for that.

Mayor and council, thank you for giving me just a few moments.

Um we just a little bit of background.

Um just over a year ago, we shift shifted our patrol model from a rotation to a bid shift model.

And we did that to uh have more officers out when our peak um calls for service were were occurring.

And so we we changed it up a little bit.

What we found in that um just over a year now is that um most of the new office so they went to a bid shift, and it the bit they bid on based on seniority.

And so too often the young officers or the officers with less seniority get stuck with the less desirable shifts.

And uh so we started looking at different ways that we could overcome that and looked at other uh cities that are doing a similar dealing with similar issues.

And then we we talked to city administration, HR, and finance about a shift bid.

And it's I have kind of a working draft, and I'm not asking for um any kind of uh confirmation to to begin the shift, but rather uh whether the council and mayor are open to us developing the draft and then presenting it in its final form for for a vote because we're asking to change compensation policies for for our officers.

But in just in a nutshell, the shift differential would pay an additional five percent for the graveyard shift for the officers, and an additional two and a half percent for the officers' work in the evening shift.

That's pretty standard across the board from other agencies that we looked at, and it would only apply to their primary shift.

So any of the other extra shifts that they they sometimes will ask to be work overtime or different things like that.

It doesn't apply to that, but just to the the shift that they they bid on.

In the policy, I think you have a a draft uh in as part of your packet.

It mentions 120 days.

That that 120 days is basically the duration of the shift before they bid for the next uh shift.

So uh the policy that you've you see is a draft.

We took it from uh a couple of other agencies and kind of um merged it into to one draft, and that's where we're at now.

So I'm I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, but what I'm really looking for is just uh a head nod or agree agreement that you're you're okay with us pursuing this and then putting together a final draft and presenting it in council for for a vote.

I think this makes sense to me.

I do have a question.

So is this um ongoing uh uh funds or does it need to go with next year's budget?

Is that yeah, so yeah, so we we would um working with finance, we'll we'll find a way to finance it this year, and then we'll work it into our budget proposal next year so that we can maintain the program.

So that's our that's our plan curious, have have you floated this past any of the officers as far as you know if if this because it it sounds like this isn't addressing the undesirable shifts like the the the seniority is still gonna determine the bid process, yeah.

Uh but for those that are being impacted and being kind of saddled with the undesirable shifts has it been floated past them.

We have not spoken with them directly about it.

W honestly, we wanted to kind of get your feelings before we presented it.

But talking to other agencies that are doing this kind of model, it does promote movement and and it does help so that everybody gets a chance to rotate a little more.

So it's been well received in other agencies.

Yeah, it's it seems to help.

And and I think um that goes to officer wellness, you know, work life balance, that kind of thing.

I do think also that it helps with our recruiting and retention of officers.

So I I think there's a lot of um uh pros to this kind of model.

There's probably gonna be some things that we'll have to work through and things that uh maybe are not or we could consider them cons maybe, but I think overall this is the best model forward for us.

So it'll it'll take a lot of experimentation, I know.

And a trial and error.

I know I was raised in a home where dad was offered shift work, right?

And he chose graveyards all the time, little extra money, right?

Yeah, but you get used to that, and that's then that's how you want to work, and sometimes that's not good either.

So yeah, so yeah, for sure.

And and so just for timeline purposes, our next shift change will start in January.

So our goal would be to uh launch this in January, but we would like to have it kind of worked out uh in November, which is when they start uh submitting their bids and stuff.

So if we were to move forward with it, we would implement it in January, but we would like to finalize the policy and work out all the bugs.

So I think it's a good question.

Um what percentage of our officers are on each of these shifts?

Is it so there are more day shift uh calls?

Our calls for service are heaviest during the daytime.

There are currently uh ten shifts total, there's six um graveyard shifts which would be eligible for the five percent, and there are five or or excuse me, there are four cover shifts that would be eligible for the two and a half percent.

Any other questions?

I do.

So is this a policy you'd bring back to the city council or an internal policy?

Yeah, I I think the intent is to uh figure out the policy and then get have the council vote on it.

Okay.

Thank you, Chief.

Okay, thank you.

Put it together.

Thank you.

It's a good idea.

Okay, item uh 2.4 is uh quarterly financial report, Dean.

Will this probably work if I plug it in?

Probably.

Okay.

Are you the 50?

Yeah, okay, you should be good.

Well, I don't have a Mac, so upside down.

First try.

There's no way to do all this.

Sitting down to it's logged in.

I didn't do it either.

I'm sorry.

There we go.

Okay.

No, it's it's gonna work.

Okay.

We were there.

You're optimistic.

Yeah.

Give it a second.

I just saw it.

Okay.

All right.

So we need to every quarter.

Part of part of it's just a requirement that we should give a finance report every quarter.

And I don't know where it went.

There we go.

And um, so I sent out a kind of a just a numbers report last Thursday, which has a lot of numbers and is more just for format, and I'm happy to answer any questions if we have anything on that.

Um I'll go through some slides, and if you have questions on the report I send out or the slides, ask them as you go or at the end, either one.

Most of the slides are kind of just related to where we ended up for the year.

So sales tax.

We've had a lot, we've had discussions on sales taxes.

It's been kind of a weird year because there were online sales weren't showing up for a good portion of the year, and then we got it all in one check in April.

So the shape of our graph is really odd this year.

So probably a normal shape would be that yellow line, which is what our budget um we came in a little above a little bit above budget.

Um we had more revenue than we originally budgeted.

And I've got a slide on that in just a minute.

So you know, we but going back to our three years, we are getting like this six or seven percent growth every year.

This past year it's probably more like three or four percent.

So it hasn't been as robust, but it's it's still positive.

So sales tax for the year.

I just put in a few lines to show where it's grown over the past four years and where we came in as opposed to budget.

So our budget was 23.7 million.

We came in at 25.2 million.

Um property tax.

Uh same thing we've been growing.

It doesn't grow maybe as fast as sales tax for all the truth in taxation laws and things like that.

Um we actually came in just a little bit less than budget for property tax, meaning we got a little less property tax than we uh anticipated.

It was pretty close.

Budget was 16.1%, and we got about 16 uh 16.1 million, and we got about 16 million.

So pretty close.

Um overall, so this is just our general funds.

And the general the part of the general fund that doesn't have any restricted and restricted revenue.

So tax revenues, budget of 46.3, actual of 48.6, development revenue.

What I'm including there is only business building permits, plan review fees, and inspection fees.

That's something that's trended down a little bit the past couple of years.

If you remember, we had a couple large, very large ones come in right at the end of the year.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have been, we would still been a little bit below budget, but our budget in there was 5.5 million, and we brought in 7.5.

Total revenue, which includes both development revenue and tax revenue, plus just other things like ambulance fees and other types of fees that we might charge.

We had a budgeted revenue of 59.6 million.

Our actual total revenue was 65.7 million.

That difference is the six and a half million that I've showing on this slide that we transferred to capital projects.

So if I look at our fund balance for the year, our unassigned fund balance started at just under 20 25 million, 24.9.

But if you remember that was we have a cap of 35 percent, and we were just barely over that cap.

So it needed to be reduced a bit.

Um revenues at 65.7, like I said, and expenditures, and then we transferred out 6.5 million into capital projects, and that'll be a discussion in the next budget year on exactly how that's that's spent.

So we get an ending fund balance of 24.5 million.

And if to follow up on our discussion in the budget retreat this year, we talked about setting kind of a fund uh general fund balance policy that where we set aside certain amounts for certain things.

Um I I should have prefaced this before I start.

We just starting our audit today, so there could be some small adjustments.

I don't anticipate any significant adjustments.

Um but where I look at it now is our fund balance will be just over 30 percent of one year's revenue with and was we've separated that into three parts.

Four million would be just our base five percent floor reserves that uh the state requires us to have.

Um our rainy day fund, which is primarily for revenue fluctuations, in other words, how would we deal with it if a recession or things like that?

How would we keep services going?

That's at 11.6 million.

And the risk management portion really related to uh natural disasters or other types of disasters, that's 8.9 million uh for a total of the number I had before.

So 24.5 million is what's in our general fund balance at the end of the year.

Um cash reserves for our enterprise funds.

We we've tried to keep that around 180 days, and uh different funds have different uh attributes.

So culinary fund, we're we have a healthy healthy reserves.

Pressurized irrigation fund, we've talked about this the past couple years.

We've had some large projects, we spent money on projects.

We are there their cash balances is they don't have much of a cash balance, although if we can if we combine it with the culinary water, that's kind of how they're able to to uh to go on.

In other words, the culinary water and the pressurized irrigation water are really one fund.

The culinary has a quite a healthy fund balance, but the pressurized irrigation doesn't.

The the water column that's in the middle, that's both funds combined.

So they're at uh about six hundred and eighteen days, which helps us uh not have to raise rates faster in the pressurized irrigation fund.

The sewer fund has a uh cash reserves of 123 days, and uh that was higher a few years ago.

If you remember, we've had these increases from TSSD, and we've passed some of that on to uh ratepayers, and we're trying to do it more slowly than then it would hit us in a way.

So and then the power fund, you know, after a really rough year in 2023, their reserves are are almost back to where they were.

And uh Joel and his staff are in the middle of doing a new rate study to uh get that going.

Storm drain looks like Storm Drain has a lot of days cash.

That's not necessarily a lot of money.

The Storm Drain Fund doesn't have a lot of money, so um, $10 goes a long way.

Right.

A million dollars there might is a lot different than a million dollars in the power fund.

Yeah.

The class C money, our gas tax money, um it's it was a healthy year for for that, which and remember remember that the gas tax money is based on gallons, not on dollars.

So when gas is a little lower, people tend to buy a little more, or if the economy is doing well, people buy a little more.

So uh it was a it was a healthy healthy year for that.

That's all money that goes into road maintenance projects.

I think that's the last slide.

So I know it's really brief.

I'm happy to answer any questions or again, we're in the we just started our audit.

We gave our trial balance to the auditor yesterday, and so she's working on that, and that will take four to six weeks to get through that, and then we'll put our financial statements together that will get out in hopefully early December.

Last year it was later December, but is there any questions?

Questions, guys?

That's good.

I'm glad the uh Amazon adjustment was made.

That was that was really really strange.

I don't I don't care where it came as long as it came.

It came and it was all in the same year.

So it it I mean it worked out.

And yeah.

I hope and nothing I ever said.

The the tax emission did everything made quote.

This was not their problem.

It was actually a software, I think I told you.

Yeah, you did.

There's this one cut there's this software that all these online sellers were using and it it uh messed up, and so they had a lot of work to fix it and they did a good job for us.

So I want to personally thank you for having all our ducks in a row on the truth in taxation.

Uh well, this year was a rough year.

I mean they they passed a new law and it had just has a lot more steps.

And that last one was a tough one.

A lot of them got caught on that last one.

Yeah, so next time we do that, we just we need to be there's just a lot of steps, and if you miss one, they can disallow it.

So next time we do that, we just gotta be really careful.

Follow all the time.

Yeah, they're not very forgiving up there now.

They're not so thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, are there any questions on the agenda tonight?

Okay, I will tell you that on item we will from now on, and maybe Tisha can explain this better than me, but we're required now uh to have the statement on a closed door session on every meeting.

We can't just decide we're going to have it if something comes up and we have to have it.

So do you want to talk about that a little bit?

Yeah, sure.

So it's um in the past uh you could go into a closed a closed uh meeting as if it was not listed on the agenda, so long as the council was unanimous in going into the closed session.

Um, but that is no longer allowed.

It has to be it has to be an item on the agenda.

So this will just be on the agenda for every meeting now, and then we'll use it if it's needed, and if not, we can just skip it.

So I'm curious on this.

Was this just somebody's reassessment of how the law currently reads, or was it that the law actually changed?

Oh, it it changed.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Somebody did something that somebody didn't like, and so they changed it.

Okay.

All right, administrative report.

I'll come up with something.

Uh well, I guess I could bring up that uh we talked uh in our senior staff meeting today about use of cell phones in our vehicles.

Um and if you are on a business call or in a business meeting, uh it needs to be on a hands-free device, and we clarified this also applies to city council members.

If you were on official business as a city council member and you're on a Zoom call, uh you need to poll over and not drive while you're on a Zoom call, or if you're on a business call, uh it needs to be on a hands-free um device, which most vehicles have now anyways.

So um but uh Scott Sampson's gonna clarify that with an email for for you to hear that.

So yeah, it still wasn't totally clear for me because almost everything's hands-free, but he it seem he seemed to indicate, well, if you had a hands-free device, you were okay, but then he said, but you have to pull over.

So I'm like, well, if I'm pulled over, what does it matter if it's a hands-free device?

I think the difference is the video call versus an audio call.

If it's a video call, uh you need to be pulled over.

All right, that helps clarify that.

Yeah.

What if it's a video call, but you're doing audio only?

I'll defer to Scott on that one.

Okay, I was thinking the same thing.

I know, because I'm like, I know I take in audio only video calls.

I don't do video in my car anyway.

Yeah.

As long as you're not looking at the screen for for presentations and stuff, I think that's the concern.

Okay.

All righty.

Anything else?

Okay.

Uh council.

Any reports on your assignments?

We had a a really good historical marking.

When was that?

Week and a half ago?

Yes.

And then another one's coming up.

Right?

They're speaking at it, so she should 23rd.

Yes.

Yep.

Okay.

That will be the flood.

1983.

Yeah.

Where are they where are they putting that monument?

Oh, I can't remember the one corner that's just a little bit south of Lehigh Lemon Tree.

It's kind of it's like a it's close to Wines Park, just like one street over.

Okay.

Yeah, property.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any any other reports?

Okay.

Um I can add one.

So I had the Lehigh Arts meeting council, and we were talking about they got an email from the about park um tax deadlines being moved up.

Um, but they were not aware.

One of the things we had talked about is that anything that was part of the budget requests for nonprofits in Lehigh that they put that into their park tax grant requests as a whole purpose of moving this up.

property okay any any other reports okay um I can add one so I had the Lehigh Arts meeting council and we were talking about they got an email from the about park um tax deadlines being moved up but they were not aware one of the things we had talked about is that anything that was part of the budget requests for nonprofits in Lehigh that they put that into their park tax grant requests as a whole purpose of moving this up they weren't aware of that so I don't know if those entities that do receive funding through the budget just make sure they're aware that they should also include that budget request um and then also just you know if we do need to fill some of that with budget we can but it would be important to send it through the park um tax process first to hopefully be able to fund it through those funds okay um the environmental sustainability committee um had a really great meeting they sort of um unintentionally wound up focusing a lot of their efforts this year on um recycling so they're looking at maybe sort of carrying that forward only the in the coming year making water their focus um so they'll sort of you know tailor their events and things like that around conservation efforts for that so that they can hone in a little bit more um for the parks trails and trees committee we actually had um special guest Jean-Thil came to our meeting um this last month to talk about ways that we can better inform the public when there are events because the parks department's put a a few really good ones together that were not as well attended as they had hoped for so they're like they're looking at other outlets for getting that information out and there was a really great discussion about how they can do that.

All we have to do is tell everybody it's put out the rumor it's going to be closed on Sunday right and that's everybody shows up either one of the donuts donuts or Joe nuts.

Okay.

Alrighty if there's nothing else uh it is we have 30 minutes before a regular session so uh we'll go ahead and take a break out of pre-council and then we'll come back and start the regular uh session in a half hour I know what this right now well I got some calls to make so that works our city council meeting tonight it is October 14th 2025 uh this is a regular session of the agenda uh as a matter of roll call our council members are here except for council member conde who is excused uh this evening he's on vacation uh that being said we start this meeting with a pledge of allegiance and Heather said she would help us with that yes please arise allegiance to the Fly of the United States of America and to the Republic which I don't think we had any presentations that came out for tonight okay uh item three is 20 minute citizen input uh that's something we do and in this session of every one of our council meetings where we take input from the general public if you came here to comment on something that's on the agenda tonight we ask for you to wait until that item comes up because that's the best time to make your comment uh it's it's also uh an opportunity for the council sometimes to respond to that we don't always respond during the 20 minute uh citizen input at this time but if you have something for the council something for uh staff or something that just needs to be brought to our attention this is the appropriate time to do it we do ask that you leave uh limit your comments to no more than three minutes if you come up and uh that being said is there anybody here who would like to speak tonight on something that's not on the agenda.

Okay here's the rules you need to come up to the podium and you need to give us your full name and uh and your name goes on your permanent record so my name is Jessica Willardson I'm here to express my concern about the lack of a safe pedestrian walkway to the east of my son's school which is an academy on the north I'm sorry nine hundred north and I've already been in contact with the city's traffic engineer about these things but I just wanted to bring this the attention to the council here as well.

Right now there's no sidewalk on the south side of 900 north which is east to a Sen Academy and there's no crosswalk that allows them to safely reach the north side where there is more sidewalk this leaves children who walk home with no safe option to get home either they have to walk along the side of the road or they have to cross the street without any protection.

I understand that traffic congestion is a challenge during drop off and pickup.

However not every student could be picked up by a parent and those who walk home still deserve a safe and reliable way to get home.

Whether that be through a crosswalk, crossing guard, more sidewalk infrastructure or combination thereof.

So thank you for your time.

He'll mention that.

Do you mind if I pass these around just a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit more?

Yeah, so you guys have to pass them around.

That's fine.

Thank you.

And before you start, I will mention this.

Luke and Luke Skills.

Yeah.

Luke.

Sieg Miller has been working with the school very closely since this incident occurred.

He has, I think, some very good suggestions.

Luke has been fantastic, and we've actually had some conversations with him.

School, as you know, he's very schooled on the M U T C D and what we of course that's our guideline of what we can do and what we can't do.

He's going to make some proposals.

So with that being made, uh known, I just want you to be aware that he will make a presentation here tonight.

So I just wanted to anybody who's gonna want to comment, uh, you'll want to you may want to listen to his presentation.

So uh so yeah, real quickly, I'm Joey Willerson.

I'm a civil engineering consultant, uh mainly focused on uh public infrastructure design.

Uh I've been uh living in Lehigh for the past eight years, and I love being a part of the community.

Um so yeah, just to restate, uh I guess uh our purpose is we're here to advocate for pedestrian improvements along 900 north, primarily associated with students at a Sentin Academy, going to and from.

Um we can uh try and clear up a couple things, and and Luke is well aware of this, but um uh in speaking with uh school administrators, we're not here to try and accommodate the carpooling situation.

According to school uh officials, the carpooling situation that they have in place, the guidelines that they give when they are followed, it works very smoothly.

Uh we are here mainly for those that walk or bike to and from Ascent Academy.

Uh so if you reference your exhibit, uh main issue is that there's an adequate pedestrian access to and from Ascent Academy, and it's led to an increase in risk to pedestrian traffic.

Um obviously causes our development through the years, especially in this area of Lehigh.

We've seen a lot of growth.

Um increase in uh traffic along, especially along this road.

Um parents parking at the church lot to the north of the school at Ascent, and they have their children cross uh rather than wait in the pickup line.

Uh once again, this is their choice.

It's against the advice of the school, um, but it is an issue.

And then obviously lack of sidewalks and school crosswalks for children walking and biking to and from school east of Ascent Academy.

Um couple of solutions that you can see on this exhibit.

We got one on the north side, it's that one option in red.

Uh it's a combination of a crosswalk right at the school, and then to finish the sidewalk at those properties 1930 West and 1920 West.

Uh this will accomplish this will allow students to get to 1700 West where there are two crosswalks and allow them to access those neighborhoods.

Uh the other is uh, you know, I I I guess the some pros to this is it's much less costly than the option B, the one in blue or sorry, option A in blue.

Um, it could uh interrupt the carpool situation that uh occurs adjacent front of the school on 900 north, and it could make uh could complicate uh their current system that they have.

Uh sorry, option A is the longer one, the blue one, and that's uh put providing sidewalk and infrastructure on the south side of 900 in between a Senate Academy and 1700 West.

Um while this is a more costly option, some of the pros are that um it allows uh it doesn't interrupt that carpool traffic that we talked about.

Um it's directly adjacent to school, so there's easier access access for students to get get to that area of Lehigh.

I'll uh just leave exhibit two for you.

I mean, it just kind of shows the areas of uh that part of West Lehigh that with these improvements, over 800 households uh would have safe pedestrian access to Ascent Academy through sidewalks and wouldn't have uh would have an uninterrupted path to get to school, walking or biking.

Thank you.

Uh let me let me ask one how many by the show of hands, how many of you want to speak on this subject tonight?

Okay, a couple more.

Yeah, let me take those two and then we'll let uh if there were more, I was just gonna have Luke present now because he'll probably answer some of the questions.

But if if it's just two of you, why don't you come up and make your statements and then I'll let him present.

My name's Michael Ray.

This is a little bit hard for me.

So my son was the one hit at the school last week.

And that's just needs to be addressed.

Um he walked across, he looked both ways, cars were stopped, and the girl went around the stopped car, not seeing him and hit him.

He is okay.

He's gonna be okay, but the next kid might not.

It could have been way worse talking to the cops that were on the scene.

Um my point is there's no crosswalk.

The school has no crosswalk.

My husband and I drove around different schools in Lehigh, seeing crosswalks, multiple crosswalks, um, guard crosses, yellow flashing lights, school zone signs.

We have nothing.

The Senate Academy has has no signage.

Um I did talk to Luke.

He's been amazing.

We didn't have see I die, our first conversation.

Um he told me this is a public school.

I have gone in and talked to the vice principal.

The principal is not in town.

She kind of let me know.

Good luck with you guys.

Um, it's been requested, it's been requested by Lehigh City, and they haven't had any help.

So I'm here to help because it's my child.

Luke did.

I went back and forth.

He did, he is aware that um this school is the only school in the area that does not have any crosswalks.

Nothing.

So these kids are dodging cars, getting hit, and it's not okay.

Um we need we need help there.

We do.

He did say parents do need to pick up their kids, go through the carpool, pick up kids.

Some kids don't have the opportunity.

Some parents work full-time.

Both parents are not there to help.

They do have bike cracks on the grounds, so apparently they can ride their bikes to school.

He did let me know that that's not a safe option for kids walking to school or riding bikes, but every other school has kids riding bikes and walking to school.

That's some of their only options.

Um he has been great.

He did call me back today and he did talk to me.

He said that he thought about it, and I did have some very good points.

Um, after talking to him, there will be a crosswalk installed.

Thank you.

Um a cross guard would even be awesome.

I'm uh I don't know I could volunteer at this point.

I'm willing to help.

These little kids are I'm at that's hard.

It's hard for for that phone call.

Um he did tell me there's gonna be sidewalks, which I'm grateful.

That'll help our kids, that will help Lehigh residents, that'll help a lot of improvement just in the city.

And that's all I have.

That's all I have for you guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I'm a Katie Green.

This was just uh a question I had, especially with the upcoming week.

Um with the new laws and policies coming out about cell phone use in class.

Uh, how do you plan to f further uh implement these kind of policy rules with uh other electronics such as uh smart watches, uh maybe iPads, stuff like that, I'm guessing.

Well, that's not under our purview.

Um I'm not sure.

I know there's been discussions, legislative discussions on that, that I'm not sure it's gonna go through the state or the individual school districts.

I'm not sure it is anybody familiar with that.

I I have listened to the news reports on it, and I'm not sure where that discussion is appropriate, but I think it's some legislators who's been bringing that up.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, just wondering.

Go up to the go up to the state capitol during the legislative session.

They would love to hear from you on that.

So any other comments.

Okay, Luke.

Oh, wait, wait, we got one.

Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Spencer Fife.

I'm not sure if you guys are like part of this, but in our class we were talking about how Utah's changing their congressional maps, and I was just wondering what your guys' view is on that, and like if you think it should be changed, and if you think that like the Salt Lake region should be split again.

We don't usually answer questions.

I think they need to follow the law as it was written.

Obviously, I agree with the judge.

Uh my only concern right now is when I look at map C, which is seems to be the map, the favorite map.

I can't tell where Lehigh sits in that.

It seems to bisect our city.

And I'd love to get in the details of that.

I think we see together in that one.

Yeah, it's kinda hard to tell when you look at it though, because the image is not very good.

Sorry, I don't have any more specific things.

Thank you so much on that.

So Luke.

Go ahead and close the public comment.

Let's see, that should pop up.

Um it's absolutely tragic whenever one of our students gets hit, and we definitely take it very seriously.

I appreciate the residents and parents have and how they've been willing to work with me on this and help me walk through walk it through and think it through.

We've resisted installing a school crosswalk, and so has the school.

So to not encourage parents to drop off and pick up in the church parking lot.

The school adamantly wants, you know, is that the safest way to drop off and pick up kids is in their drop-off loop and they want these parents to come this way.

So what changed in the discussion was the discussion of the number of kids walking east and west to and from the school.

And I we counted today.

I had uh um a coworker help me count.

There were ten kids walking east and west on the north side of the road.

The minimum requirement for a school crosswalk is is more than ten kids.

It's eleven, but I think you know, close enough.

Um count one of them twice.

What's that?

Count one twice.

Yeah, one twice.

That's right.

Exactly.

So Nicole's was home.

I think we're there.

We we have enough kids walking to and from homes, we can ins install a crosswalk.

And part of that is is there only there's only this gap in the sidewalk.

I can zoom in a little bit.

And that coordinates with the map that just coordinates exactly with their map.

That's been designed, it's been approved through the approval process.

Streets department is waiting till spring to install that.

So once that's in, I you know, I would see we'd have even more kids walking.

Um we are gonna move forward and install a co school crosswalk.

Uh I my initial thought was to install it here.

Uh, but I I called the principal, Trisha Remington.

Uh she's on vacation, but she's been good to take my calls about this.

And she so they close this left turn uh and and during drop off and pickup and for force all the parents to turn right.

So her thought was well, it probably better on this side of of the driveway, but we're gonna continue to work with the school and make sure we get the crosswalk in the place that makes the most sense.

I think this crosswalk justifies a city crossing guard.

I'll recommend that to the police chief.

He usually he usually follows my recommendations.

I also think that we're going to uh it's gonna warrant a 20 mile per hour school zone as well.

So I I collected some data this afternoon in regards to the.

If you have a crossing guard, the M U T C D is gonna demand that.

Not not always.

Not always.

If you have a 20 mile per zone, 20 mile per hour zone, you have to have a crossing guard, but you can have a crossing guard without a 20 mile per hour zone.

But I I think we're gonna be there.

So um and and so the crosswalk is being installed for these kids.

Of course, the parents using the church parking lot, they can they'll use it as well, of course.

And but um the church could close their gates and you know, we're not encouraging that.

We're not encouraging that.

It's private property, you shouldn't use it for drop off and pickup.

The school does not have an agreement with the church.

Um the church could choose to gate their driveways at any time.

Um so that's that's it.

As far as timing, I need to get with the streets department and see.

We'll need we'll need pedestrian ramps installed so there'll be concrete work and um we did actually remove a 20 mile per hour zone on 2300 west because the traffic signal was installed.

Um so we may have we may have signs in our shop to to do that.

But Luke Luke, out of curiosity, I I understand like the with the sidewalk curb and gutter in front of those couple homes there uh that it has to wait till spring for decent weather and whatnot, and and even with like the the ramps and even on the crossing guard on the crosswalk.

Is the is there any way to have kind of a temporary crosswalk where it's not fully fully functional as far as the ramps and whatnot in the meantime because we're coming up on you know if it waits till spring then we've got all winter.

So I do know we have quicksilver there a contract we use for installing pedestrian ramps.

They're still on the books to come into the city this in the next few weeks.

We haven't I have a list, I have a few crosswalks that they need to get done that they haven't got to yet.

So I'm hoping that this can just be added and we can turn this around pretty quickly.

That'll just be uh it would at least provide at least a little solution, even if for that stretch they have to walk in the road uh little stretch.

But then they'll have a crosswalk with a crossing guard and can safely do that part.

Yep.

Any questions?

That was a question.

How many did you say were walking now?

North of the I counted 10.

Or I I had a staff member help me, she counted 10 kids crossing.

She counted at this intersection.

There were 10 create kids after school that crossed this lake of the intersection.

So this came up in February.

Yes.

You had emailed us in February.

It was a concern then about having a crosswalk, and that was the same concern that with Mrs.

Bomb saying that we didn't have enough kids.

And I I didn't know if maybe with the new school year, they're getting more kids there.

I'm really glad we're doing this.

Right.

And that there's we can get that put in, but I I know that was that's hard when we have talked about it and we had concerns about it, and then you know, we we couldn't do it back then.

Yeah, yep.

I I'm trying to remember if at that time we knew this sidewalk was being done.

That's kind of part of it.

Yeah.

Since this is eminent, it really makes sense.

Um and it might be my fault.

I was I guess I was kind of stuck thinking north-south when I should have been thinking east.

And that was probably my partly my fault.

So you want to I just thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thanks.

So if my wife gets back to me, I just text her to ask her how many kids are in that school right now.

So just so you know.

I've had this conversation on a number of occasions.

And when we knew in the past it didn't meet METC guidelines, so we're concerned about that.

I've I've had conversations with the principal, the cute blonde girl that helps direct traffic every morning happens to be my wife.

And we were gone Thursday when or Friday when it happened.

And uh and uh her phone rang immediately, and we spent a long time on the road and like we were traveling, so there wasn't much we could do about it.

But she felt pretty bad because she wasn't there to direct traffic that day.

So yeah.

But uh I appreciate all the work Luke's put into this.

He's uh quite a bit, he knows his stuff.

Evidently you know the M U T C D better than me.

So uh appreciate that, but we'll get to work on this, and we appreciate those who are interested and curious on this.

But I would like to say this wasn't something we've ignored in the past because we actually have had a number of conversations on this very thing in the past on this site.

So uh South Side, I wish we could get sidewalk on the south side, but there's some ownership problems there still.

And by the way, I I didn't know this until this occurred, but the house to the east has changed ownership, and that's been a barrier for us, so we may want to approach that owner.

So okay.

All right.

Let's uh come back and let's go up move to the consent agenda.

This is item number four, and we've got a few items on the consent agenda, council.

Do you have any questions on the consent agenda?

Item 4.3 is uh procedural issue.

Uh Tisha, do you want to talk about that a little bit?

Um I could just mention that um just in order to meet some uh timeline deadlines and things with the state for the filing and recording of this um disillusion, we just need to have it reapproved so that we can fit within those deadlines.

Any questions?

Okay, I'll take a motion on the uh consent agenda.

Mayor, I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented.

Okay.

I have a motion by Paige.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have second.

Any questions on that motion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Uh item five is consideration of ordinance 59 2025, this approving a development code amendment to chapter 37 at connectivity standards.

Uh Kim.

Okay, yeah, we are uh proposing to add some flexibility into the connectivity standards.

This came up as we were in discussions about the project on Timpanogas Highway and uh morning vista.

Um the large retail center that's going in there is was is required to make a connection to a uh neighborhood street um on the north end of their project.

We didn't have any way to not require that.

So this uh would add for uh and I know in that particular project case they want to move forward just making the connection, but this does add the flexibility so that in the future if that ever comes up.

Uh we have other ways of dealing with uh our connectivity standards.

So in a nutshell, if this if the road connection to a local street is going to push traffic volumes over what we would deem an acceptable level, then they can go to other methods.

We we still want bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, uh, but it would allow an option to not have vehicular connection through that street.

So anyways, that's what the intent of the amendment is.

Um yeah, let me know if there's any questions.

Okay.

Any questions for Kim on this?

Was there a public comment on this?

Okay.

Counsel.

I was I was just gonna say, thanks for moving forward with this.

Yeah.

I know that we were trying to do something really creative for Morning Vista to be able to justify when there could be a case where we don't have to do the connectivity.

I thought this is a pretty great idea.

It's too bad the developer um wasn't willing to move forward with it, and I'm glad that we have other ways to be able to get the traffic down on um that road for those residents on is it sunrise?

Yeah.

And so I'm excited that you still went forward and worked on this, so we have it for the future, so thank you for doing that.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments?

I have a question.

Uh not necessarily about the ordinance, but why didn't the developer I mean we can grant exceptions, correct?

Yeah, and the the way this is worded, um, it has to be uh they have to be willing to propose that exception, and they just said they didn't they didn't want to.

I think they were far enough in their design, it would have changed their layout significantly enough that it would have uh cost a lot of money for civil engineering things.

So they felt like so that they are in that case, they are gonna mitigate.

We're gonna put a an island on the road to the east to discourage people from coming into the commercial development from that neighborhood to the east.

And I think we'll monitor that if that's not enough.

I think you know, working with Luke we'll see what other solutions we might be able to come up with.

But yeah, it was uh the way we've written it, they are the ones that get to choose if they want to ask for some flexibility.

And after we we showed them the amendment, and they just said, yeah, we're too far along in our design.

We we just want to move forward.

So but if we'd gotten it to it sooner, maybe possibly, yeah.

I mean to add that too.

The one thing you said is that they had um they had those retail pads that were there.

They already had um uh client, yeah, that were part of that who felt that uh they would be basically closed off.

So they weren't amenable to it.

Um, but the developer did like spend like a month like going back and forth and seeing if it would be possible, but I think it was more those clients not having the access that they thought they would have to move in.

Yeah, okay.

Any other comments?

I'll take a motion on item number five.

Um, I move that we approve ordinance 59 2025, approving a development code amendment to chapter 37 connectivity standards and include all DRC comments.

By Heather, do I have a second?

I'll second.

And uh second by Paige.

Any questions on that motion is stated.

Okay.

This is an ordinance, so we'll go by roll call vote.

I'll start with Michelle.

Yes.

Heather?

Yes, Paul and Paige.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh acres located approximately 1500 south, 1100 west.

Uh this is in three parts.

We will have a public hearing on this, and that is part A.

Part B is consideration of resolution 2025-74.

That's approving an annexation agreement with the owners of the property that is subject to the JDH Holson annexation.

Part C is consideration of ordinance 63-2025.

Approving the JDH Olson annexation with R122 zoning.

Austin Cooper is listed as the applicant.

Okay.

Okay.

So yeah, the we have the five acres to the south of this.

Uh we just purchased this this five acres and are just wanting to get them both acres and uh both parcels into Lehigh so we can develop it.

Okay.

Council, do you have any questions?

Okay, why don't you sit down for a moment?

We'll see if there's any public comment.

Is there anybody here tonight that would like to make public comment on this annexation?

Okay, seeing none.

I'll close the public hearing.

Item B is consideration resolution of the resolution.

Council, do you have any questions on the resolution?

I'll take a motion on item B.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2025-74, approving an annexation agreement with the owners of the property that is subject to the JDH also in annexation.

Okay.

I have a motion by Heather.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

And a second by Paige.

Any questions on the motion as given?

Okay.

I am going to uh uh start the vote on the resolution with Heather.

Yes.

Paul.

Yes.

Paige?

Yes.

And Michelle.

Yes.

Okay.

Item say C is consideration of ordinance 63 2025.

Any questions on that one?

I'll take a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve ordinance 63-2025 approving the JDH Olson annexation with R122 zoning and include all DRC comments.

I have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

And a second.

And I have a second on that as well.

The same motion.

Individual and the same second.

So any questions on that motion.

Hearing none, I'll start with Paul.

Yes.

Paige?

Yes.

Michelle?

Yes.

And Heather.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

Item 7 is consideration of ordinance 62 2025.

This is approving the Lee General Plan amendment on 0.50 acres located 1035 West Main Street, changing the land use designation from MDR to commercial.

Come on up.

Have you state your name and then tell us your interest here?

So I'm I'm Robert Lee.

And our interest is that we run a real estate company at property management, Handy Man services.

And we've got an office, you know, further towards Saratoga Springs, and we'd like to become a little bit more central to Lehigh and a little bit closer to the freeway.

And we notice that you know across the street is commercial zoning, couple doors down is neighborhood commercial, and coming in from you know the east.

There's more and more commercial.

So we're just hoping we could use this property for our business purposes.

Okay.

Questions for the applicant.

Why don't you sit down and we'll see if there's any public comment?

Is there any public comment on this tonight?

This is item number seven.

Okay, hearing none, I'll bring it back up here.

Council, do you have any questions for staff I do?

Kim.

Sorry.

Are these um uses or the surrounding residents?

Are they uses or are they zoned residential?

Uh yes.

Yeah, you have A1 agriculture to the east, RA1, residential agricultural to the south, and then I believe it's also RA1 to the west.

But yeah, across the street is commercial, and then a couple of parcels to the uh two parcels to the west, or what yeah, actually just one parcel to the west.

That's where it changes to neighborhood commercial.

So it's kind of a it's a transitional area.

Across so I just took down the map.

Across the street is commercial, but surrounding it is residential, right?

Yes.

And sorry.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, council.

I'll take a motion on item number seven.

Yeah, I thought I did.

There was no public comment on this one.

Yeah.

I'll take a motion though.

Somebody's ready.

I can ask the applicant a question.

Yes, please.

Um we went.

It's back there.

Okay.

Uh Robert, come on up.

So is your plan to operate the business out of the existing home?

There you're not planning to have any outside storage or anything at all be stored internally.

No, current currently the home suffices for what we need.

Okay.

Um so we wouldn't need to do anything necessarily.

Okay.

And in a commercial zone, you wouldn't be able to either have that outdoor storage.

So no, we didn't ever plan on having outdoor storage.

I think that was sorry, that was my question.

Oh, no problem.

Yeah.

No out.

Sorry, kind of related to that.

The sorry, did you say real estate or property management?

We do both.

Okay.

So but you have indoor storage for the lawn care.

Yeah, there's already a two-car garage on site, so that would be plenty of space for anything that we need.

Thank you.

Okay.

Somebody wanted to make a motion on it.

Any other questions?

I think so.

I think we can go ahead and sit down.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve uh ordinance 62-2025, the Lee General Plan Amendment on 0.5 acres located at 1035 West Main Street, changing the land use designation from MDR to commercial, uh, and include with that all of the DRC comments and any planning commission comments.

Okay.

I have a motion to approve uh by Paul.

Do I have a second?

Paul second.

Second by Heather.

Any questions on that motion?

Okay, we'll start uh the vote with uh Paige.

Yes.

Michelle?

No.

Heather?

Yes.

And Paul.

Yes.

Okay, that passes through you one.

Okay.

Item eight is consideration of ordinance 60 2025.

This approving the Bull River Road General Plan amendment on 1.48 acres located approximately 400 West Bull River Road, changing the land use designation from low density residential to high density residential.

Perry Holmes is the applicant.

Who is here representing them tonight?

Come on up, please.

Give us your name.

I'm with Perry Holmes here on the request for the general plan amendment.

Um as presented in front of you in the staff report, we're looking for high density residential as and in further consideration of comments that were provided at planning commission.

Um I've gone through and we looked at this, and Commission member Iyer communicated during that meeting that the request for the 14 units that we had proposed in the outline of the conceptual plan that we had presented was too much.

And I wanted to communicate that the intent is to provide for transitional development that is consistent with numerous other areas within the city of adjacent industrial and commercial uses as it transitions into single family residential.

Our intended to provide that transition.

In looking at the historical context of how the property came to where it was, there was some questions that were raised at planning commission on why wasn't this included.

These potential these pieces were initially part of a larger parcel that was annexed in by Perry Homes.

And as it went through the annexation and the zoning for the subdivision, there was a need for public facilities and other developments that were on Bolt River.

So there were three parcels that were held out specifically on Bull River Road.

One of them was uh developed into a power substation that provides power to the area.

We were required to pay for that, the cost of that to bring that in and provide those facilities in.

The second piece was developed into the industrial use, and the third is this last remaining piece.

And what I can communicate in in all of those applications moving forward throughout the entire process, it was in every single application that those were communicated, and the intent was to either be commercial or public facilities.

When the public facilities came in and determined they only needed this small piece on the one side, it left this remaining piece.

So in looking at it and looking at all the further comments that came on board, I know that there has been attempts to take it to daycare facility, other comparable uses that are transitional in this instance where it's in an infill kind of remaining piece.

And all of those comments were based on traffic view walls.

And so the application in front of you and the concept that was provided as part of our application, I had thought we're addressing all of those items.

We weren't proposing access.

We weren't putting a huge wall.

I sat and invited the neighborhood to have a conversation and communicate the things and the concerns that they had.

Several did show up.

I communicated we were committed to not having that vehicular connection that was there.

And I understand there's quite a few neighbors within that residence that are here, similar to how they were here at Planning Commission.

The things that I would ask is we are willing to go down to 10 units.

Commissioner Iyer said that he would be more supportive if we were down closer to 10 planning staff in their report communicated that eight units are allowed by code, including the ADUs that would be allowed with those singer family residents.

So again, I'm trying to find a good use that would fit in this particular piece of property that does have the infrastructure and improving Bull River Road.

And so while it's saying that people rely on, yes, they rely it for general purposes, but the purpose of the general plan also states that while it provides for the current communities, it's also not to inhibit the future communities.

And I think right now the big strategy across the state is to provide alternative housing for affordable uses and other types of dwelling units.

So in the strategies of coordination and sustainability, strategy two specifically states interestingly it brought brought this project up on developments, transition and capital facilities.

A picture of our development with this substation, the commercial and the residential is the primary picture of this and example that was used in your general plan.

As far as strong communities are concerned of the residential development, what I'm proposing is consistent with all of those.

It provides for a lifecycle of housing for a varied number of residents, not just people that can afford a large home that sits on a 10 to 12,000 square foot lot.

More importantly, on the strategies of residential development, the request is consistent with each with each of those strategies and providing varied communities and opportunities for all constituents, not just neighborhoods that are immediately adjacent to property.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, I have one.

So the the idea of the zones across the top for the public facilities and then the storage unit, and then the idea that this might have been something else doesn't fit with what the zoning, the existing zoning is R110.

There's nothing in the narrative that goes with this property that suggests what you're suggesting, which is new to this conversation to you know, kind of say what might be.

I mean, if you look around at what zone there is the homes that are adjacent to it, it's not town homes, it's not small lots, it's not um, it's these single family homes.

And if they you know they do want to put an ADU there, they may not.

I can understand the argument they could possibly get up to eight, but really is for four.

So that's that's when like it's part of your narrative of saying like this follows the general plan, or this is how the narrative uh the general plan may say within the narrative.

That's what I'm not I'm not seeing that with the history of this property.

I think the history of this property shows that it's R110.

That it wasn't ever intended to be part of that that strip of of what you were saying of different things that were completely different than the neighborhood is adjacent to.

So do you mind me asking, right?

It was brought in and annexed in all under that.

So if that was the scenario, the public facilities and the commercial hall came in with the understanding that there was that continued communication that that piece along Bull River Road because of Bull River Road and it being fronting on that, right, on the freeway, would it would allow for additional transitional uses?

So if you're saying it doesn't fit.

Well, I'm saying if that was the intent, why doesn't it show it in the right?

I understand.

I I can go back to the back.

I'm saying hindsight is 2020, right?

It should have instead of being communicated throughout the entire process, it should have just all been done clean at the very beginning.

Um then I would expect to see that along the entire Bull River Road too, not just you know, then it would have if we're saying that we need a transition to the road, it wouldn't be these one third acre lots that would go in all along it just like this one for some purpose, this one two acres is supposed to be a transition for the entire area, and that's that is a smaller piece of transition for short.

Yeah.

It doesn't it doesn't fit what I'm seeing here.

So I can understand uh a developer wanting to have more density, but I don't think saying that this was the purpose of the land coming in, that doesn't fit with what I'm seeing in front of me for the history of the land.

If if I could mayor I I guess my my concern is I uh I'm I may be I guess the three of us probably live as close to this as anyone.

Uh I I run along the Murdoch Canal a fair amount.

I understand the constraints of Bull River.

My kids all went to Sky Ridge and on occasion probably bothered the neighbors on Bull River because they would use that as a cut through at times, I'm sure.

Uh but it it is a small road coming popping out onto uh 1200 west is also a problematic uh area.

Uh so that causes some issues as far as people, you know, it could get backed up there.

Uh and and I don't think like like council member uh Newell's stated to say that it's going from eight to ten and that's not that big of a change, I think is not completely accurate because while they there could be ADUs, the look and feel is very different having four single family homes that all have ADUs in them as opposed to high density town homes.

Uh and that's uh you use the term kind of a community for everyone.

One and a half acres and ten units does not make a community.

Uh and so uh from that perspective, that's where I have have issue with this.

Uh see no just knowing where this is.

I I drive home almost every day up 1200 west, so uh I I'm very familiar with the project site.

Other others have come and tried to do something similar to this, and uh, you know, if that was the intent all along, it should have been documented, it should have been uh in writing, it should have been communicated at that time.

Uh and unfortunately this seems to be a pattern uh with with Perry we're having a similar issue with the East Canyon uh and the grading that was done there, and now they want to move density down, and so uh I I'm starting to see a pattern that I'm not really comfortable with.

Okay.

Other comments, questions.

I I just have one.

I know you've worked hard with the residents, so you come and talk to all of us, and a lot of developers don't do that.

They don't spend the time reaching out to the residents.

So I I'm disinclined to support this also.

Um it's a big leak to go from low density to high density.

To me, that's not a transition, but I do appreciate that the time that you spent with the residents working through this.

So is that makes you feel any better?

Is there any consideration to even go to a medium density that would allow the 10?

Or is it just right?

Because if you're looking at I I'm just have a question, right?

If the traffic the concern is traffic, right?

I can drive through that neighborhood and there's five to six cars sometimes at any given home, right?

So you're saying that these would provide more traffic than those single family homes that could have similarly four or five people living in them, right, in those homes, and then you put an ADU on top of it.

There's a likelihood that those single family homes, just based on the size, could have potentially more traffic than that who would be able to afford to live in the townhomes.

It it would be in my opinion, it would be worse with the town home, especially with changes to state law where they have the tandem parking allowed.

Um I believe that's for townhomes as well as apartments and additionally, the eight units is a guaranteed number of uh units as opposed to the four.

Uh you know, my my house, I had four drivers at one point because I had kids from you know ninth to twelfth grade.

So at one point we had six drivers in my home.

That's not the case anymore.

There's two of us.

And so there's you're gonna have transitions in these homes where I'm sure some of those homes that might have five cars sitting in front of them now as their kids graduate and move on, that's not gonna be there.

But if you have eight homes, you're guaranteed very likely at least two drivers, and you might still have four to five drivers in each of those eight homes as well.

So that that I just curious on feedback if you're talking about traffic because you know that I've seen it come up in a number of other communities.

So yeah.

Well, and the I mean the traffic counts, I can see this haggling back and forth all night.

You know, is it town homes that have more cars?

Is it single family that has more cars?

At the end of the day, that's not really the issue, right?

I mean, it is the issue.

The traffic and the additional people on the impact is the issue.

Um if I'm misunderstanding.

No, if you had it, then but you're asking us to grant something different.

Um and I haven't seen justification to do so.

The neighbors are not wanting this to go through.

Um and it's not vested.

I understand.

For you guys.

So I also understand that, right?

That while there's a representative representation of constituents that are in immediate neighborhood, there's also representation of constituents across the entire city.

So for an example, right?

If a family has a divorce, and then it provides for an opportunity for a parent to live in a bigger home and another parent to buy a home in a similar community for the kids to be able to have access to both parents.

This is something that it provides.

Otherwise, the other commun the other communication that was given is the only place that townhomes belong in are by commercial and industrial areas.

So it's the segregation of the type of homes and affordable homes saying you don't belong in our neighborhood.

So I I live in Travers Mountain, which is a master plan community.

We have dozens and dozens of apartments and townhomes.

They're an integrated part of our community.

It's not segregated.

This is an acre and a half that you're asking to pigeonhole an island into.

That that's my bigger concern.

It's not part of a master plan.

It's not part of creating a broader sense of community and welcoming certain people in.

This is an island, and that's and that's my bigger concern.

When it's on a master plan basis, I drive past apartments and townhomes going into my neighborhood.

It's not a problem.

I I I knew that when I s when I signed up for it, uh, because that was part of the area plan or it it it because in a master plan communities, I'm sure you know, it the area plan essentially acts as the general plan for that area.

And so with this being the general plan in this part of the city, it just runs contrary to what that what that was intended.

And especially with it being an acre and a half, it's it's just such a small pigeonholed island.

Uh and with it not being entitled uh for that, if if this were entitled, and that's what you had, it you we'd have a much uh it would be almost impossible for us to deny it.

I can appreciate both sides.

I I also like come from a position of you when you have communities that are built out, right?

And then you have redevelopment of communities, you have infill pieces that are been either left over or a back of piece that you can come in and create, I would say, quality types of developments that take in that provide for an advantage to the community, they add to a community, and they're not always just islands.

It's just being effective in working with the remaining pieces and invalid pieces that are available in communities.

So I understand both perspectives.

For me, it has nothing to do with the traffic.

You could you could prove that traffic was there, you have the all the infrastructure, it's their residents deserve to have the confidence and the predictability in the general plan and the zoning.

Because we have a sea of residents here tonight who um purchase their home.

They know what's zoned around them, and that's what they're expecting to have there.

Um for these kind of you know, what you're talking about, I'm expecting amenities, there's things for them, there's services there's closer to it.

Um to make a change, there needs to be a clear benefit to residents or city.

So like the last item for me, right?

That that was kind of hard choice for me because it's on Main Street.

It fronts main street is not a great place for single family home.

That home is um that area is medium density residential, which could become high density on that, or it could fit the neighborhood commercial across the street or around what might be developed there.

That's that's kind of like okay.

I might be able to see how that works.

Um this one I don't.

It doesn't, it doesn't fit what the residents were predicting to be as part of their their neighborhood.

It we don't have anything around it with it, and it's not built as part of a master plan community.

So the only benefit I see here is that it's a profit for the developer.

That's the only that's the only benefit I could see for it.

But the only reason to do this is because it pencils over and that's not our decision.

We never make a decision based on whether or not it's feasible for the developer.

You could come and say, I cannot build this with the four.

We have to have eight, I can't build it.

I'm like, sorry, you can't build it.

That's where that's where we're at because we don't make our decisions based on the feasibility.

Completely understand.

Yeah.

If I could make one request, there was another comment that was put on public record that people are allowing their kids to play in the vacant lot that's there.

I would ask that everybody observe its private property and that there shouldn't be anybody riding bikes playing on their it's a liability.

So that's understandable.

Appreciate it.

How this is Perry homes you've owned this property since 2016.

Is that correct?

Um actually 2020 is when we had next in about since two years.

Yeah, we brought the subdivision platinum 2012 and then started developing homes closer to 2016.

Was there a reason you didn't bring it forward earlier?

I I I recently joined Perry two years ago.

So I'm not sure on the history.

All I can tell you is that everything that I looked at, including what Kim provided is that it transitioned to public facilities and went to storage in all of our applications.

It says the intent was for it to be commercial, but I can't explain what happened since then.

No, I'm I'm curious too.

Is the history because yeah, you you look you look at the zoning map and everything, and it looks like it's been intended to be residential for quite a while.

And so why don't you sit down for a minute and we'll take some public comment.

I'd like to limit the public comment to two minutes if I can.

Uh two minutes per person.

Yes.

Two minutes per person.

Sorry.

Should have made that clear, but I just thought that was obvious.

Okay.

My name's Shannon Totham.

I live right off of Bull River Road in the affected area.

Um the idea that uh a divorced family's only option would be these ten homes that they themselves are building is nonsensical, especially when you consider that there are dozens and dozens of small homes right on the other side of the power plant.

And when you consider that the Lehigh Council just recently approved and allowed to build all of the town homes on 300 West and 3200, which is right there as well.

There are small homes all over Lehigh.

There is availability.

There's no need to change the zoning for, as uh Phil was mentioning, such a small area.

There's no need to have a transition.

We have a zoning plan already in place.

My husband has attended many meetings and has frequently heard the um excuse or defense that the council has to approve when a developer comes and asks to do a project that's already zoned for that thing.

Changing the zoning is a completely different thing.

There's no need to change zones to appease developers.

There's no need to cram high density housing into every corner that we can find in Lehigh.

Um I obviously strongly oppose the change and would ask Lehigh to follow their own plan.

Uh thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jonathan Madsen.

This is a great body.

I've been before you a few times.

I live in the property with the giant wall that is running contiguous to the east of this property.

Um I want to say we appreciate that Perry reached out to us.

I think I speak on behalf of a lot of us.

That was awesome.

And it it allowed us to think through it.

It allows us to be here.

Um unlike other things, that was great.

And we really appreciate that.

Um I I want to say that Perry's plan that they brought forward is consistent with what you would do with the variants in moving to a high density or even a medium density thing.

And I think it is consistent.

We recognize that.

We s we listen to them.

What I want to say is it's not a vested property.

We've seen that on the other side of things.

And it needs to be a compelling reason to change it from what's already there in the general plan.

I was actually told by Perry when I bought my home that was low density residential.

I literally relied on that.

I should have thought a little bit better about the commercial property that's sitting on the other side, but I did rely on that from Perry themselves when I was talking with them and building my house.

So I I really appreciate what Perry did.

I think a lot of us did.

I do think that they're trying to work with us.

The fact that they're willing to go down to eight is awesome.

And it is very consistent.

But I think to make this change, I would put before this body that it needs to be compelling.

And I've heard a lot of arguments that most of us are like, look, it's low density residential.

It fits with all the houses surrounding it except for that one side.

So I think it should remain low density residential.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Alan Hawley.

I live just in 425.

That cul de sac, just right south of the property in question.

Um just a couple of high points here.

Just uh essentially it affects the character of livability and safety of our neighborhood.

Um for me, it's totally out of character of what you know.

If you look at it, it's essentially touching a cold de sacs.

You're putting high density in a cul-de-sact.

So the very nature of high density seems to you be totally incompatible with Cold DeS Act.

Um seems pretty absurd to me.

Um also the livability.

We have kids, you know, in our cul-de-sac.

We have a lot of kids in our neighborhood.

Little kids are always in our cul-de-sac.

Any kind of high density housing would probably make our cul-de-sac into a parking lot.

It's definitely not something that we want.

Um, and also safety.

So talking about safety with kids.

Um also a lot of uh adults, families, people.

We cross Bull River to get to the Murdoch Trail all the time.

So having additional traffic and cars coming and going um would be a safety hazard um just overall.

So I just wanted to correct one thing.

The uh the commercial it's it's commercial, it's not um uh what she said was uh uh um I think she said something other than commercial.

Um so yeah, it's it's commercial.

We don't need to transition from commercial to low density, it's all low density, that commercial that the mini storage is essentially surrounded by low density.

So it's totally out of character, um, out of the character of livability and safety of our neighborhood.

And I think has as been touched on, really the only beneficiaries of this change would be Perry Homes, and it would be at the detriment to essentially the whole neighborhood.

So I would I would definitely ask you guys, please don't approve, keep it low density.

There's no reason to change it to high density or even medium density, low density makes sense, four homes would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comment.

Hi.

Um my name's Casey Barrett, and I live in the cul-de-sac on 425 West, just south of the lot in question.

Um we bought our home in a cul-de-sac, we obviously bought it for all the obvious reasons.

But I have three really young kids, and so playing outside safely was a big concern.

Um they say that they aren't going to make it a through street into Bull River, but obviously with 14 units that they proposed, there would obviously be added traffic and our cul-de-sac would essentially turn into a parking lot as they would be able to access their townhomes from our parking lot.

And so there's just a ton of little kids in our neighborhood, especially within our cul-de-sac.

Kids are playing out there all the time, and safety is a big concern.

I know some of you have seen Bull River.

It's not a road that was ever meant to have high density houses right off of it.

It doesn't make any sense.

If you haven't seen it, I encourage you to come and take a look.

But it doesn't make sense.

Um I think what feels like the biggest slap in the face is that we all paid premium lots to Perry to live in a cul-de-sac under the guise that this was always going to be low as low low residential housing.

So then to have our own builder try and change that into high density is really disappointing.

Um so I encourage you to not approve that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Appreciate you that respawned.

Um I want to echo exactly the same as my neighbors.

I live directly adjacent to the property.

My fence would share their property.

Um the disingenuous of Perry Homes.

When I bought my home, Wendy Mortenson, who was a representative of them, said you will never have to worry about this being anything besides homes.

It's rated for exactly what it is, and that's what we're gonna build.

Eight years later, this is the case that Perry's now want to change it.

So I agree with my neighbors.

Please do not change this zoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comment.

Hi, my name's Kurt Dole.

I live on 425 West, which is the street that has the cul-de-sac a little bit further south on the street, is where I live.

However, one of the concerns we had as a community was the increased traffic along that road, especially if it becomes high density and the opportunity for that property or the cul-de-sac to become a parking lot.

Um there may be some questions to how would that become a parking lot, but within the design standards, the Lehigh City design standards, Section 37.040, section F.1, it does state that there is a requirement that there should shall be a pedestrian um walkway provided between the end of the cul-de-sac and any adjoining road on the other side.

But if that uh is required, it would definitely become a through way, a passageway for high density residential uh to park in the in the cul de sac and use that walkway.

Um less likely to be an issue with the current um zoning with uh low density residential.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Daniel Einiger.

Uh I'm a military brat.

My dad was in the Navy, and my whole life I grew up uh two to three years in a home moving around.

Um so when I grew up and wanted to pick a job, I chose the military and subjected my family to that very same uh lifestyle.

Um a few years ago in 2018, I had the opportunity to leave active duty and finally for the first time in my life put down roots, and I chose this neighborhood.

I live on 200 West.

Um currently serving in the Air National Guard for Utah.

And uh and this is where I want to raise my family.

There's the opportunity I wanted to give them in uh having having the the low density housing, I think would would or changing that would be disingenuous.

Uh I like your point that it's an island that it just doesn't make sense.

There's no reason to have it there, and it it changes the opportunity and why I chose of everywhere across the U.S.

to live in this corner of Lehigh.

Um that would that would change my decision having done that.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Let me let me ask a question here and uh these are still a number of people.

I don't know how many more people want to speak.

But I'm gonna ask how by the raise of hands, how many of you live in the neighborhood and are not in favor of this.

And let me ask the opposite question.

How many of you live in the neighborhood and are in favor of this?

I don't think it's necessary to take any more comments tonight.

Is that okay?

I think the council is they're pretty bright up here, all of them, and I think they understand the message.

Um I will say that the applicant through due process has a constitutional right to come in and present.

And that's what they've done.

So we appreciate that.

And and the council listens to that, and so did the planning commission.

We go through this process, and I'm thankful we all have that process so they go through for this and anything else that's critical in our lives.

So I'm gonna close the public comment on this.

I'm gonna bring it back up here for any final comments from the uh council members.

I'll I'll just say thank you to the neighborhood.

We have an incredible neighborhood who's very engaged.

I think I answered about 20 emails that were all unique and heartfelt and personal, and I just think that that's incredible.

It's the kind of neighborhood we all want to be a part of.

Um thank you for showing up tonight and being respectful and voicing your opinion and and helping us get things right.

So just thank you.

Other comment.

Oh, go ahead.

I was just gonna echo that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, yes.

I probably didn't get to all your emails.

I got a lot of other ones on another topic, but thank you.

Uh, the ones that I did get to read were well thought out.

You had really good points.

I appreciate that.

Um the issue for me, it's always been important to have a transition, a smooth transition between zones and going from low density to high density is not that transition.

And I I feel bad enough that you're stuck with that commercial there.

That it got approved somehow, and I I I feel for you.

Um, but I I just want to acknowledge that you know, the representative of Perry Holmes, that there is some contradiction in our our general plan and our development code.

In one instance, it does talk about lifestyle housing in a mix and that sort of thing.

And in our development code, there's criteria that we're supposed to consider when we make an amendment to the general plan.

And I I stick to that that criteria.

Is it compatible with the surrounding areas?

You know, is it um will it have an undue effect on the surrounding properties?

So those are things I look at, and that's why I voted no on the the last issue.

Um I but I I kind of feel for you because I I see that contradiction, it comes up a lot, and maybe that's on us that maybe we should go back and look at that and and fix it and decide which way we really want to go.

Um but again, I I'm looking at the compatibility and a transition, and to me, going from low density to high density, and if we approve it high density, we will get whatever comes with high density, whatever rights are tied to that.

And if we approve it high density, we will get whatever comes with high density, whatever rights are tied to that.

So yeah, I think I agree with most of the council that this is probably not the right place for that.

Council, I'll entertain a motion on this item if somebody is ready to make that.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we deny ordinance 60-2025.

The Bull River Road General Plan Amendment on 1.4 acres located approximately 400 west Bull River Road.

Changing the land use designation from low density residential to high density residential.

I have a motion to deny by Heather.

Do I have a second?

Second that, Mr.

Mayor.

And a second by Paul.

Any questions on that motion as stated.

Okay.

I think I'm starting with Heather.

Yes.

Paul.

Yes.

Paige?

Yes.

I'm Michelle.

Yes.

Okay.

African is, of course, able to come in and develop under the current zone, and that's and we'd encourage that.

I think housing up there is probably important.

So that moves us to item number nine, this consideration of ordinance 61 2025, this approving the starter home attainable residential ordinance, creating an opportunity for the development of small single family homes.

Brittany, I think is here to present.

There she is, right there.

Um I really just wanted to say thank you to all of you for working on this.

It's been a huge long journey of you know, it's starting with Chaws and the Naha's and now Shar.

All acronyms.

Um we don't have to go into the story about that either.

Let's just say the lesson is acronyms matter.

Yeah.

We've used the whole alphabet at this point, which is great.

Um, but I really hope that you feel like it's as much yours as staff's now.

Um I don't feel like it's my brain child in any way, shape, or form.

You know, it's great that it started with the developer.

It's had a lot of input from staff, a lot of input from all of you, and um it's been great to have that collaborative effort and going back and forth.

Um I know we wanted maybe something to show to all the cities and be like, this is the best thing, you should all follow it.

Um and maybe it'll be that, but I think it really is the best thing for Lehigh because we've really thought about what matters to us, homeownership and um single family homes, having all of those things in place.

Um I guess just to go over the changes.

Um we made two big changes since the last time, and it was based off of some of the things that Michelle had brought up.

Um we added that the standard homes and the attainable lots can't have ADUs, which really gets to the fact that it's just a substitution, right?

It's right taking away that density from like a basement apartment and having it be a single detached home.

And then also we thought let's just start with some of the more high density zones, so it's R112 and smaller that we would start with it and then you know, maybe see how it goes and add it to the other ones later or just keep it in those.

Um I didn't really have much else I wanted to go over unless you guys have questions or things you know to discuss.

Okay.

Questions, council.

I know we've been through this a lot, but maybe for those here just give us a question.

High level depth.

Yeah, sounds good.

Um so um I guess it comes from we have to have goals for um that we report to from the state.

So this was a goal we set.

Um and the goal of this really is to get at attainable residential starter homes.

So attainable meaning for affordable, it has to be 80% AMI.

We're going for attainable, just trying to bring down the cost of homes so that people just working families can get into a home.

Um so we're looking at a goal price point of 400,000 with the ability for some flexibility if it doesn't work.

Um that's something we can consider different prices.

Um it includes um a 1.5 density of what would be allowed in the underlying zone, which really does equal what we consider would happen with ADUs.

So it really shouldn't be an increase in the number of people or units really.

Um it's just changing those ADUs to detach single family homes that someone can own instead of renting.

Um it's deed restricted to be owner occupied.

So the goal again is home ownership, and that really should help these communities too to have people who are invested in the community, invest in keeping their home and yard nice and all of that.

And it'll be mixed in with standard homes in the zone.

Yeah, I don't know.

I think it'll be done by development agreement, so everyone will have the opportunity to comment on it, the public and gives the city council some level of discretion and requiring specific things, making sure that it still looks good and fits in with the community.

Yeah.

Does that cover what you were thinking, Paige?

Brittany, um, I do have a question.

Can you so it's gonna be a mix?

So they they're allowed the base units with those lot sizes.

Is that right?

Um standard.

Yeah, so the standard lots will still be there's some flexibility because in order to actually get the 1.5 density, they probably won't be all the standard size, but definitely closer to that.

Which um already happens a lot with our PUDs.

Yeah.

A PUD maximizes the density, so there's flexibility with lot size and everything, but still close to what the underlying zoning is.

Brittany, let me let me ask you a question here because going through the commissioner's notes here.

There's brief information we have here, and I didn't have time to listen to the or watch the video, right?

In the evening.

Obviously, there's there's some cities now who's starting to make their way through a sim very similar ordinance, right?

They're starting to build affordable housing.

Uh those were received quite well at the League of Cities and Towns presentation.

I don't know, was you there?

Did you get it?

I don't know if you were there or not.

Not for the conference, no, but uh it was interesting and and pretty attractive.

And here we are, we've been working on ours for over a year, and we can't seem to make everybody happy with it, but I don't know how we get there.

And so uh my question was and this would be more appropriate for the planning commission, but maybe you can kind of some summise their their comments.

They all seem to like this except for some portion of it.

So how do we get around that?

Because we're trying to, our backs are are kind of up against the wall here with state ordinance right now.

Right.

I don't know that we can satisfy every one of these comments.

Uh for instance, deed restrictions.

Almost every one that was presented at the leak were they were all deed restricted.

Those other communities felt fine with that.

And some of these other issues are are very similar.

So give me your thoughts on that on error all these comments and why they all voted against it, because if we don't, we go back to the drawing board and we start all over again because we have to have this ordinance.

Yeah, yep, I agree.

Or an alternative.

Or well, that's what I mean.

We go back to the drawing board to come up with an alternative.

But it doesn't have to be this one.

We just need something that would be.

But it's gotta be it's gotta be cover goal number.

It's gotta have this effect.

Right, exactly.

It's gotta have the same effect.

And I'm what I'm my fear is every time we go back to the drawing board, there's gonna be people who's like, well, I don't like this about it, and I don't like that about it.

And I felt when we first started down this road, we were we were hitting a home run.

And so I'm a little disappointed that everybody's picked up something they don't like out of it.

But we have to come up with something.

So give me your thoughts.

Well, I guess a little side tangent.

I was thinking about this when I was running this evening.

I was thinking, you know, I feel like any time there's something new, the initial thing is fear, right?

And I think that's what we've really seen with this, is it's something different enough that there's a lot of fear that comes with it.

And so I think a lot of comments kind of reflect that, right?

It's just this is something different.

And and kind of with what you were saying too.

I really would love, I think Michelle, you brought up it'd be great to have a committee and have you know to keep looking at this and keep talking about it.

And I think that is a great idea.

I think all of our ordinances, right?

We get something in place and we start to realize, okay, maybe there's tweaks here and there.

And that's just part of writing code, and especially something that's so new, like is it in its perfect form?

No, but until we get something going and get people applying, we're not really gonna see all of the holes, right?

And I think we've done a good job.

I think we've taken longer on this code than any other code.

I would absolutely agree with you on that.

Yeah.

And so I think we've done a good job.

Well, except for maybe the Thanksgiving porn area plan.

That's true.

Um but yeah, so I think you know there's still maybe some concerns, some holes, some things that we can fix, but getting something in place will be a good first step, and then we can talk and continue to have this discussion.

I hope this isn't the end of it.

It's just get something in place so that we can move forward.

Um, you know, with the deed restrictions, we tried to do a presentation, we have legal present on property rights and deed restrictions and almost every property, any property that has an HOA is deed restricted, right?

So deed restrictions aren't something new.

Owner occupied deed restrictions are a little bit more new.

And I mean, we still have the question of how do we really enforce it and that's a big one for me.

I mean, I haven't heard a good answer to that yet.

And I'm not sure there is one.

So for me, that's a kind of a big deal.

I mean, we're putting this in this deed restrict for me.

The whole selling point of this has been, you know, the generational wealth category and things like that.

And unless we can enforce it, then we're getting maybe something we didn't want without any kind of the benefit that we did want.

And that's a big concern for me.

I mean, have you had any inspiration in the middle of the night about enforcing anti restriction?

Um, you know, I think there's some things we can do.

I think the state is also aware of that, and so they're looking at other things.

Um cities do pretty well, but it's harder because it's like private public partnership so that the public has more say in enforcing it.

So I think with this one it will be a little bit more hard just because it's not we don't have ownership in the lots.

Um but yeah, I mean, I think if it if someone complains to us, we can write a letter like we do for most of our code import.

I guess it won't be any different than any of the code enforcement currently.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's a big concern for me because I don't want to undergo you know the potential change in a neighborhood without any of those guardrails in place.

Yeah.

Brittany, have we had anybody reach out that is interested in even doing this?

Is there been any developers?

Yeah, developers.

Yeah.

We've um had some people can think of at least two developers in like recent since like Jason Harris, um, who've reached out and we've gone over the ordinance with them and um I think there definitely is interest um penciling it out.

I mean, I I think once we have in place, they'll be able to see like, oh, does this pencil more and get more feedback?

Yeah.

Like I guess my concern is throwing code out there that we don't really know what's gonna come out of it.

You know, kind of like we know we have we have this deed restriction piece.

We're not quite sure how it's gonna fit, but we think it's gonna fit.

So I have concern putting that out there.

And I think that's maybe why it's taken us, I mean, we're 14, 15 months into this process.

Or two and a half years from the very beginning.

Yeah, because I mean it was something where I'm like, you know, I was part of the um with Paul, you know, when he needed a second can like staff look into this and work on us like, yeah, and I don't know where we're gonna come up with, but I think we we need to pursue it.

And I'm still in that that mindset of, yeah, I I think it's still there.

I think we still need to work on it.

I'm terrified of the bills that the state throws out because they're obviously not spending two and a half years on their ideas of how we can make more affordable um housing and have home ownership.

I'm also sitting on the other side of it too, like push back on the state again that you know we don't have the transportation in our area that we need.

Um you know, the UDOT has said that they they built the freeway in Davis because they're anticipating growth.

And then we get you know, 1.4 billion because we have explosive growth and we're trying to keep up and we just don't have what we need from the state.

Um so I have a hard time saying, hey, we're gonna provide the solution for you on housing when you aren't providing the solution for us on transportation.

So it's almost like something where like I don't want to pass this, and then it becomes a TOD moratorium that we can't do it because we don't have the infrastructure in place from the state to be able to, hey, we're gonna we're gonna have more density there.

And I I get the argument that it's gonna offset the potential for ADU, but I also get that we're not exploding with ADUs yet either.

So it's it's it's almost like I want to have this out there as hey, we have a solution, it's a possibility.

Um we need more support from the state on some of these other things that we need in our area rather than and almost like this tabled moratorium on, hey, we're we want to be part of this, but I also want to have it be really clear that we can make these deed restrictive because that that's the passion point for me.

I want deed restrictive homeownership and definitely.

I know that's my piece in there because that's the the thing that I care about.

And that takes the character of our neighborhood, it takes our culture, it takes everything out, and others will come in and replace that.

And it'll be a new character, it'll be a new culture.

And I don't want to lose that.

So I'm I'm really passionate about this.

I want it to work, but I I'm also like knowing that we have these other fires too that I I want to help get solved.

And then maybe it's a little bit easier to make this go forward.

I don't I don't think that if we don't pass it tonight that it's dead or we stop working on it or stop having even presenting with the league and saying, hey, here's an idea that's a lot better than the state coming and saying every acre gets eight units and every you know, six thousand square feet gets a home, and that's it, and we walk away.

I think we have we've done a lot of good things to be able to say this is what we want in Lehigh, but I also gotta address the fact that there's a lot of things we need to to be able to make this work together.

And I'm I'm just kind of worried about some of these pieces that we don't have definite answers on and passing it to then hope that we'll get the definite answers on.

But I think the work you've done is incredible.

I wish that you were working for this on a much larger scale to be able to help all of us and keep our our families and our communities here and becoming homeowners and being able to build that wealth that you know most of us have been able to do because we were lucky enough to be born, you know, 20 years earlier to be able to get these homes here in Lehigh for 150,000.

So that's kind of where I'm just like I love it, I I want it, I want to make it work, but I also have these guardrails that I just worry aren't in quite fully in place yet.

So I had the opportunity to sit down and uh have a long discussion with one of our these heat congressmen today.

Very appreciative of that, but this is what we talked about.

You know, having providing housing, affordable housing for our kids.

Because if we don't find a way to do it, we're going to be in trouble.

You know, it's just it's gonna be it's gonna be a problem.

Uh he's really worried about us losing a lot of our children.

They're just gonna move have to move somewhere to find housing, right?

It's not gonna be in the state.

Uh yeah, it's this is this is a concern.

And we need to figure it out.

I'm not sure that deed restrictions is a problem for me because that was the other concern he had is you know, is that we need to find a way to do to have these uh ownership by the by the people who and you know purchase these homes and live in these homes that they actually own these because he was also very concerned about these outside interests that come in and buy blocks of housing, right?

And then just rent them out.

So I don't know a way to get around that unless we test it and put in restrictions and they're going to have to be tested by the courts.

That's just what's gonna have to happen.

I think we're gonna prevail on that because I think there's enough people out there that have the very same interests.

I'm not sure that flies in the face of of any of the uh property rights that we honor right now in the Constitution.

So there will be changes no matter what we do.

But I'm also quite certain we've got to find a way to make attain or to come up with attainable housing.

Or we don't realize it yet.

But uh there will come a time, and I I think it's coming quite quickly where we'll see people's people's ability to stay ahead of the financial curve in their life is going to start dwindling, and that concerns me for the mayor.

Yeah, go ahead.

I I was gonna say uh you know, y we've been in this journey for a while.

This has been a passion of mine.

Uh I've got kids now that are 22 to 25 that are struggling to find homes.

And so it's you know, hits close to home for me.

Uh I I appreciate like has been said, all the work that you've put into this.

Um one of my concerns, you know, I I kind of a dual purpose when I started down this path.

One was uh, you know, hoping to find a solution that would allow my kids to have that homeownership wealth creation option.

But the other and almost more important.

Uh and Heather kind of alluded to it is the the law, the bills that are being passed to the state legislature where i if at some point we don't come up with something, they're gonna force something down our throat.

And it will likely be as much as people are as upset and have concerns and fears about this as it's proposed, and I'm I don't think it's perfect, it will be worse.

I mean, I I haven't seen a bill come out of the state legislature that is a mandate across you know the entire state that is like hit they really hit the hit the you know but the nail on the head or you know whatever whatever phrase you want to use.

It's going to be a cookie cutter bill, it's not gonna fit the character of Lehigh.

So uh if this doesn't pass, uh it'll be, you know, especially with as long as these take it, it'll be left to the new mayor and council to kind of move something forward on this.

Uh and if it gets if somebody doesn't tackle it, the state's gonna make that decision for us.

And so I I hope that this conversation will continue if it does continue.

The one thing that I will say too, uh, and I that I think is critical to all this, and Heather mentioned it, you know, again, the you know, get the North County, Davis County getting funding, uh attended a MAG meeting last week that that the mayor presented on around uh funding and after uh after the meeting, one of our representatives uh referenced the amount of cash that the state is sitting on.

And I want to say it was twenty was it twenty-six or was it thirty-six?

Thirty-four.

Thir 34 billion with a B.

And so when they're pushing these mandates upon us as far as affordable and table housing, yet they're just sitting on this piggy bank.

And and and we look, as a city, we have our own piggy bank.

We have our reserve fund, and and there's a there's a rationale for that.

Like I'm I'm not suggesting they should drain the entire amount, but I guarantee it's more than what's needed there just in case something happens.

And so if they really want to make this happen, if they really want to follow through with what the governor wants, which is enough affordable new units that's essentially the size of the city of Oram across the state, then maybe they should unlock some of that funding that they've got city in there and build some of the infrastructure that's needed so that the infrastructure is there before the housing comes.

Uh and so whoever sits in the seat when I'm gone here in a couple months, that's what I would encourage them to do is work with the legislators, not only here locally that represent us, but across the state, to look at getting the infrastructure funding in place before we start thinking about this these other things.

And and to clarify, the money is that's in those accounts, some of that is committed, you know.

That's like retirement funds and it's it's it's to deal with some of the debt service and everything, but still that's just an enormous number.

Yeah.

And the and the representative from from this the governor's office who told us that was he was all in favor of saying we need to take some of that and we need to apply it to transportation fixes, right?

And infrastructure fixes.

So he was in complete agreement with us.

So but that's the good right now.

That's the governor how the governor's housing authority, though, not our representatives.

So yeah, and uh, it's just 35,000.

But you're right.

I I've I've seen the list of some of the things the legislature is going to talk about this next session, and they are ramping up their game.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

That's really where I'm at, is that we have this infrastructure deficit and it's not ours.

It's we need that state support.

They could give us the three million for the the Freedom Free Air Connector and solve a lot of problems and probably won't even notice it.

Three billion dollars.

Three billion.

Did I say three million?

Yeah, three billion.

Three million, well, three billion.

Well, this is you know, and they won't even notice it, right?

Almost like it's Paul's always likes to say it's arounding there.

Um but uh yeah, this that and this I'm I have a I can see where residents would have a hard time thinking we're trying to find ways to get more density when they're struggling on our roads and and to you know add to a policy too, we are providing a lot of infrastructure needs for our cities out west who are then being pressured to build more too, and so I know that that's coming, but you know, we have city council members out west, they're recognizing that hey, you know, if we want pony to be five lanes, we need to pony up because it is our residents who want to use that road too.

So I think there's a lot of things that we if we can get some of this infrastructure to the right place, then maybe it unlocks things where it's like, yeah, now we can now we can worry about some of this the homeownership and attainability pieces as well.

But it it feels like putting the cart before the horse and okay, I would say yeah.

Maybe the opposing thought to that is a lot of people are moving out to Eagle Mountain because it is cheaper, right?

And then we have the impact of them driving through our city, where if we provide more affordable housing, maybe we can have some of those people live in Lehigh, and then it's not as big of an impact, right?

Maybe they're not going all the way through the city.

They're hopefully living working here, you know, just well and then the counter-argument is that housing in Eagle Mountain is now more expensive than Oram.

You know, it's like we're not really finding places that you can go be.

Um, and I think probably what would happen is we'd have would still have a house in Eagle Mountain, even if whether or not we put it in Lehigh.

I don't know.

I don't know if it's a rush for who gets the water to make the the build first, but yeah, I I agree.

I would rather that we get our density closer to I-15 or even hopefully if we can get uh freeway on the on the west side.

But right now, since we don't have that, it seems hard to be figuring out how we get even more housing in.

Brittany, if you don't mind sitting down for a while, let's see.

Is there anybody here would like to make public comment on this tonight?

Okay, let's let's go ahead and take some public comment on this.

Same rules apply.

We need your name when you come up.

So hi, my name is Laura Stevens, and um I'm against this.

Um these are some reasons I'm against it.

Um the price target is uh 400,000.

Um I don't know how you're going to keep it 400,000.

Like that's a whole um like how is the government can gonna control how people sell their and buy their houses five, ten years down the road.

Um and most young adults I know can't afford this.

They can't afford 400,000 house.

Um lacks transparency because developers don't have to disclose up front, they'll use it, or if they if they'll use it.

Um density can change after the purchase.

Affordability isn't enforceable, and neighbors often only learn about it after decisions um are made.

Uh if my neighbor decides to sell his property, I want him to get top dollar, not a middleman.

This leaves a lot of room for predatory buyers to take advantage of our older generation.

If it's rezoned without going through the proper channels, our city has less negotiating power to provide infrastructure that we desperately need.

Um the fact that this overlay is for the entire city is alarming.

It infringes on infringes on everyone's property rights.

So either you are for property rights or you're not.

And in my opinion, if you vote for this, you're not for property rights.

Uh if we want to comply with the governor and not push back, uh, we need to look at this section by section, not the entire city.

Uh I grew up in Highland in American Fork area, and I couldn't afford to live there.

Um, and so that's why I bought in Lehigh.

This is where we bought our first house was in Lehigh because it was affordable, but it wasn't close to where I grew up.

Um I don't I don't appreciate the fear mongering that if we don't pass this here in Lehigh that the government will bring something worse.

I think we can keep looking at alternate options.

So, in in my view, this overlay reduces transparency at a time when residents are asking for more openness.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Kaylin Osborne.

Um, we already have other I'm against this, by the way.

We already have an like in my where I live, I have a TOD overlay.

So does that mean I'm gonna have two overlays on my property?

It doesn't make sense to me to I mean how that would all work.

And I think that this needs to be thought through more.

There's no rush, even though sort of like what she said, everything what she said, but ditto.

But um, I was reading some of the analysis on there, and I just so you know, it goes goes through all the different zones that are you know, R1 was a R1.

Oh, I'm sorry, R3 to R twelve.

And so anybody can apply for that, and then um those that apply are get a density bonus of now that says 150 percent.

That just seems like a little crazy to me.

So yeah, it's because then we'll just I already have if you remember, I a couple years ago, I my neighbors subdivided and made a flag lot, and it was a huge deal because they are the ones that brought in the ADU, and I was very much against that.

And and some of you guys were saying, well, uh a house is better than the ADU, and I didn't want the house, but I ended up getting the house, and just I mean, some of it's not your fault because the neighbors lied, but now I have a house that is for these this poor struggling family that's uh um 5400 square feet, and they have two families living in it, which was my other point on here, because it would it said that these um would be single family um dwelling units, but there's a problem with that because single family isn't it's a single family, but then if they have their siblings in this little house and they want to have their and they're married and they want to have their brother that's married and has families, like you can have up to like three or four families.

So I think I hope that you guys will think this through, and we're not in a big hurry to pass that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Hi this is on the deed restrictions um and I just happen to have some experience my brother lives in Arizona it's a retirement area um and they have master plan communities they have retirement focused communities they have a lot of communities with deed restrictions and it's kind of cool deed restrictions are good they did not think through enforcement so how it's enforced is with these little gestapo neighborhood community units I'm not joking and they police the neighborhood and there's money passed under the table and my brother's just kind of going crazy about it and uh there are physical altercations and it it's all mobography and and this is all happening and and and then the issue that the mayor brought in is it's also Arizona so they're they're affordable housing their retirement type housing and a California investors are now coming in and buying up like 20 houses in the community and in the communities with HOAs then they control it and they hire Gestapos to come in and do these things.

It's crazy.

So my only suggestion is build in the resources for city enforcement and the code for city enforcement otherwise it will go crazy.

So there you go thank you.

Just as a counter that I'm involved in a lot of retirement communities here in Utah and Los Angeles Front and they just follow the federal guidelines and it's very clear how that has to be enforced.

I've never heard heard anybody coming in enforcing I should say just to be clear it's the master communities that are among the retirement communities so it's not the overall HOI.

Yeah all of them okay yeah but it's yeah the Fed federal guidelines have very clear uh ways to manage the deed restrictions for 35 and older housing okay my name is James Harrison and I also oppose this plan.

We in the previous agenda item um I think uh Heather and Paul made some very good points about the density and the compatibility this plan comes across as very half baked um there's so many questions around enforcement the role of government interfering with market prices um there are other places that do this um Silicon Valley I know we're Silicon slopes but there are certain things that I don't want to become like Silicon Valley they do have deed restrictions and your average apartment cost um in those areas are three to four thousand dollars a month in rent um I don't think we're prepared for this I don't think it's our job to change the character of Lehigh to be able to fix affordability typically when the government tries to do that it doesn't work and certainly not with this plan.

I mean everybody wants affordable housing I want my kids to eventually come back to Lehigh and and raise their families here but by changing the character it doesn't work.

I grew up in Weaver County and 20 years ago there were certain cities that were doing very very well and they decided to go for more density and it became incompatible and there are certain cities that went downhill very very fast.

It's now low income communities with severe crime issues.

And so to keep the neighborhoods that we moved into the way we want it to be in a transparent and enforceable way I think we should reject this plan and I um hope you can do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi I'm Rachel Freeman we've had a few discussions about what attainable or what affordable housing is and I just want to review that so that we all know we can look for the future what we're trying what the goal is here.

So we base these on the the uh area median income which in Lehigh is about 1200 if we're looking at affordable housing we're looking at something that's less that's going to be less than that right so we're looking at affordable housing would be lower income households usually 60 to 80% of the AMI whereas attainable housing is for the middle income or missing middle which is 80 to 120% of area median income.

So if we're looking at the area median income is 1200 we're and we're looking for something that's attainable we got to do the math to figure that out and the average college graduate right now in Utah makes 6300.

So that's gonna be that's about almost 50% of what is the area median income in Lehigh we have a high area median income.

This isn't gonna give these new college graduates a place to stay.

The price is not gonna be attainable for them or affordable for them, even.

And you know, just my personal experience and all my siblings and the oldest of six graduated from a school in Utah.

We all left Utah.

We all went our ways and found places that were more affordable, to be honest.

And we came back after a significant amount of time after we had kind of built our careers up.

And that's just that was our path.

That was the that was the road.

I'm not saying that's for everyone, but but um there are other options besides saying we have to do this for children because it's not necessarily gonna even meet those goals with the way that the incomes are right now and the way the housing is right now.

So yeah, I oppose Shar also.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Shannon Topham.

Um can I start by just trying to understand what is happening?

This is not the issue I came for.

But based on other comments, um, it sounds like this is essentially not for a particular area, rather it's changing the rules of the zoning for everywhere that's zoned for high density.

Is that correct?

No, it's it's not for every uh every area, certain areas that can handle the infrastructure that can have potentially higher density, but that higher density has to be the homes are restricted in size.

So basically, we're looking at building homes that are these are similar to post-war homes, which by the way, this has happened before.

This isn't the first time I grew up in a post-war home.

And uh it's 900 square foot.

And uh so these homes are going to be restricted by cost, primarily by their size.

They they also have to be clear they have to apply for it, and the city council has to approve it through a development agreement, so it's not an entitled one.

Yeah, they it's not automatic.

They have to make a proposal.

Okay, thank you.

Um I would just like to say before my time runs out.

Um, I think that for the last decade or two, or maybe more, um, all over Utah, we've seemed to run on this idea that high density equals affordable.

And that has proven over and over again not to be the case.

Over and over again, the changing to high density zoning has come through sob stories of what about the divorced single women?

And once it's built, they then charge double or triple what a normal house cost.

Well, once those high density houses are going for two and three times what a normal house is cost, then all of the houses raise their prices because obviously they're worth more than these tiny homes.

So, in my opinion, the excessive use of high density housing is what's driving up the price of housing in Utah.

So that should be taken into consideration when trying to decide how to fix it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Hi, council and mayor.

My name is Emily Stembridge.

I am a Lehigh resident.

Um I am in opposition to the proposed SHAR housing development.

Um I agree that I didn't feel that the presentation was transparent enough or clear enough on exactly what is happening.

I'm sure all of you have been informed, but as a member of the public, I would have loved more information on what exactly this entails.

Um I appreciate the thoughtful comments you shared tonight on this issue and on um agenda item eight, which I didn't come for, but really appreciate hearing how um you handled that and the thoughtfulness that went into it.

Um I echo many of the comments that already have been shared on this issue and some from the council as well tonight.

Um, such as the comments that this plan does not appear to be fully developed and ready to implement.

Seems like there's a lot more discussion and understanding to be done first before we pass code that we don't fully understand, and then try to address holes and issues that could and will likely arise.

That sounds like a recipe for disaster to pass code you don't fully understand yourselves.

Um just like your comments to the Perry Homes high density issue.

If it was already in place, it's pretty hard to deny and pretty hard to change.

Um if you pass this code without fully understanding the repercussions, it's only more headache and burden, not only on yourselves but on residents and in the future.

Um, Mayor, you mentioned this happening in areas that can handle the infrastructure.

I can't think of one area in Lehigh right now that can handle the that has the infrastructure to handle more and more and more.

Um heavy traffic on nearly every road, considerably overcrowded schools, overwhelmed and understaffed emergency services and utilities and water systems that are already stretched thin.

Road projects and infrastructure upgrades are constantly struggling to catch up, often redoing work and never getting ahead.

Lehigh deserves careful, balanced and fully developed and understood plans, especially by the leadership in place to pass them.

I can appreciate your position with the state.

My work takes me to the state capital and working with legislators, and I can understand that they often pass things that they don't fully understand maybe the repercussions of as well.

But as a Lehigh resident, we deserve a plan that you yourselves as residents fully understand and can fully enact.

And I really appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and I urge you to vote no on SHAR.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And there have been many presentations on this over many, many months, but still have thoughts.

We can talk about the property rights of the standard residential of those in the standard residential lots.

But we know that properties will inevitably change hands.

And what about the property rights of the new owner?

They should be able to sell to whoever they want, including a corporation that's gonna rent it out for top dollar.

Ultimately, I only see this benefiting developers outside entities and corporations and individuals who will snap up these properties at a later date and turn them into rentals.

Consequently, this just makes our current problem even worse.

And we can't pretend that this would solve it in the long run, anyways.

Um we also know that traffic and parking problems are um that there are problems when we increase density.

Um but um I I remember a number of months ago we saw a map of this being applied to, I think it was it was like a sorry, it was like a um cul de sac or something, and there would be people parking on the street for um from just one home, and then on that map, I just kind of laughed and I said if we had a number of homes with this density and with these lot sizes, um, there would be not a single inch of curb space left because there will be nowhere to park.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I'm gonna close the uh public comment, bring it back up here, council for discussion.

Um Brittany, for goal number six.

I mean, we have to turn this in by December 1st, yes?

Uh is that one annual reporting is in August.

Okay.

Um to satisfy goal number six.

What I mean, what could we do?

Um so I I mean, could would annual progress?

That's pretty subjective.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um so I mean, we've already submitted for August first this year, haven't received back if we passed or not.

We'll find out.

Um they are talking.

One of the things I have talked about, it was brought up that cities who are doing more, it can seem like they're being penalized because you have this annual reporting.

So they have talked about if you're meeting certain things, and one of them is doing something like this.

Um they have a goal that's pretty similar.

Um that that will count for multiple years, and so they're really trying to talk about incentivizing and benefiting those who are doing stuff.

Um I think honestly, it probably is to our best benefit to, and I don't know, maybe may or you could talk to this, but and and a little bit to your point, Heather.

I think when we do more, it kind of creates more leverage with the state because they're like, oh yeah, look, the city, we love it, they're doing all these things.

I think us trying to threaten the state comes back to us being, you know, they're like, we have the bigger hammer, we're gonna slam it down, you know.

We're gonna slam it down, you know, like but yeah.

So right now we've reported for this year.

Next year, hopefully it'll be different, but we'll have to see what the legislative session brings.

But um I actually they did change, it already was last session they did change to a goal like SHAR can count for three years.

They're just talking about other ways of making it so it's like just you don't have to keep doing more.

And as written this is 100% discretionary.

Yeah.

For any reason at all.

Yeah.

Yeah, there's nothing that says that you have to approve it.

Um and then my last comment goes to Evans' concern about parking because from the DRC meeting in August, it sounded like without having the 30-foot without having the right-of-way, you would have to depend on people parking on only one side of the street to make it passable.

Um I have a lot of faith in humanity, but parking on only one side of the street is gonna be really difficult.

So if I mean safety is always the top concern, right?

So has anything come up that would address that.

And I mean that's arguable, right?

Because some cities do have smaller right-of-ways than that, and they do have parking on both sides, and you make it work.

It's kind of a traffic calming thing.

So I mean, pros and cons, right?

Everyone's always like, people are speeding through my neighborhood.

Well, if we narrow it and there's parking on both sides, people won't be going down your streets really fast.

So pros and cons, right?

Um we can enforce it, we can put signs up if it becomes an issue, or paint a curb red and take it, you know, there's ways to enforce it if we want to.

Um, but it would just kind of guess depends on the case.

I I might be able to answer that question if I remember right.

The question came up from our fire marshal that he felt like that in narrowing the uh pavement width to 30 feet that that was that was too small.

We wanted at least 32.

Yeah, the reason um that we felt okay about it was because the as per the Shar as currently proposed, we're using a roll roll curb and gutter, so it's not the same type of curb and gutter, so the cars could pull further into the curb, they can kind of park somewhat within the curb, and so leaving the leaving the drivable lanes about the same as they are now.

So it's it's more of a how many.

What are we gonna put up a sign to say make sure you park on the curb?

Uh well, no, it's essentially a car right now could kind of park in the pan of the curb.

This gives them a little bit more of a pan.

But I'd just say for there to be a fire at the end of the street.

And you you know where I'm going with this, right?

Yeah.

And I hadn't seen that comment pop up before.

Um, but from the August 25th meeting, I mean that's the last one, and that's when it was raised.

And so, that's kind of the first time that we had heard this from uh from the um fire department.

But um that's what that's what our thought had been is that we in this case we have more of a curb pan for the for the vehicles to park against without parking on the curb on the sidewalk, but anyways.

Yeah, and well, and I could we have lots of off ramps in terms of you know how we could deny something, and that could be one of the off ramps.

Um the problem is we we have so many off-ramps, you think.

Well, first nobody's gonna want to comply with the way we're gonna want to build.

Um so I don't really think anybody's gonna apply.

But second, if so many off-ramps, you think there's it's a skeleton of what we've tried to build all all along, right?

But my concern now is we need to make sure and satisfy the requirements the state currently has in place in terms of the moderate income housing goals.

So I want to know where we sit on that and what we are compelled at this point to do based not on future legislation, but on what's currently in place.

So right now it would it covers that goal and would cover it for three years.

So if it will pass.

If it were passed.

Yeah.

And maybe just a quick overview of the moderate income housing requirements for everybody here.

Yes.

Because there already is a little hammer.

Yeah, yeah, definitely.

So yeah, we have to have five goals in order to pass and not be fined.

What is it, 250 dollars a day?

I think it's 250 a day.

Um if we're non-compliant.

Um and then if we do seven goals, we get prioritized funding for some different things.

And there's a list of options so we can select which of those options we want.

Um we have to put it in our moderate income housing plan, have the goal strategies, and then annually report on it with a bunch of other information of what we did to achieve those goals.

And they do read it very thoroughly, as we found out.

Um words are off, it's a fail.

Um they did so they did email me about two of the goals and said we need more information about how you actually met this goal.

Um so yeah, no, they're very thorough on it, and it's something that we we have to do, or you know, pay 250 dollars.

We have to comply with or pay what they say we have to pay.

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

Brittany, which I mean, I know we have our goal, which is to create an affordable housing overlays on, but under state code, which is the new new goal that would satisfy it fall under, yeah.

Um I would have to look it up.

It's one of the brand new ones.

They added two this last legislative session.

Um yeah, I can try and look it up really fast, but I still not have it on the top of my head.

We haven't updated our goals.

We need to do that for this upcoming year, and we'll use that wording.

Um just didn't happen after the last legislative session before reporting.

Was it the one work with a developer or something?

Um that was our goal, but that's not the way it's worded for them.

It's um yeah, to provide like owner-occupied affordable housing or yeah.

All right, let's see if I can find it.

You had it in the staff report to you, Brittany.

Oh, what's that there I yeah, so I guess with Paige's question, you said if we pass it, we have three years to implement it.

Is that we have three years, it counts for three years, like just approving it is three years of being complained.

And then what if we don't approve it?

Um then we have to meet the five or seven other goals.

Okay, because we we kind of did more goals than we needed to.

Is that so we have seven so for the prioritized funding?

Um if we do five, we don't have to pay the fee, but we don't get prioritized funding.

Okay.

Does this only count for one of the seven?

Um so there's the subsection.

Um it says this a qu uh notwithstanding the requirements, which is all the list of the other ones that we do.

If a sp specified municipality without a fixed guideway public transit station implements or is implementing by ordinance or development agreement, one of the following moderate income housing strategies, the division shall consider that one moderate income housing strategy to be equivalent of three moderate income housing strategies.

Oh, so yeah, it also counts.

So it counts as three four three.

Uh-huh.

Yep.

And it has a qualifying affordable homeownership density bonus for single family residential units.

Um yeah.

And then it's yeah, so it counts for three strategies, and then it also says it will count for the year in which the specified municipality submits the initial report or subsequent report and two subsequent reporting years.

So yeah, three strategies for three years.

Sorry, how many total goals do we have though?

Seven?

We have seven goals right now.

And this counts as three.

So three of the five.

So this would be for next year, right?

Because we're past the reporting for this year.

So for next year, we could count that for three, and then we'd only need to do two or four more, depending on if we want to have prioritized funding or not.

Well, you choose others as well, right?

Um different goals.

Sorry, what was the question?

So we would yeah, we would still have to have two other goals with that.

But we we don't have to choose this one.

We can oh yeah, different ways.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, um, and that was my question.

I mean the mayor saying we have to come up with something.

Uh it seems like we're okay, not if we choose not to go this route.

Um so I'll just make my comments, I guess.

Um and I know that the there's the second phase of the state housing plan that's coming out, and that's from the governor's office.

But that's not enforceable.

They're the executive branch, not the legislative branch, so we're gonna have to see what the legislators come up with.

And just what I'm hearing is they're a little more understanding of our problems, they understand the issue of infrastructure issues.

Um, you know, they I'm not as doom and gloom and fearful about what they're coming up with, you know.

That it I think most of them the legislature or the governor's office.

Legislature.

And we're yet to we've yet to see what you know the new housing plan's gonna look like.

Um but even that is just their plan, their recommendation.

It's not it's not gonna come down on the cities until there's bills that are passed based on that.

And I know there's some that want the sticks, you know, but I think there's a lot more who understand the carrots.

Um and I the 34 billion that we're sitting on.

I was just talking to somebody from AC today about traffic, roads, funding for all the things that we need, and he painted a different story that's very tight with transit, the competition for federal funds.

We're competing with states and cities with huge mut metropolitan areas that have the density that can get those the funding and to you know to meet the requirements needed for that funding from the federal government.

And I don't see the state having the money to do that again.

We're in competition, money is tight.

That's what I'm hearing.

Um maybe those you talk to are saying something different, but um so there's that concern, right?

We're putting in the density.

Leh's come on, we've put in density the high density housing for years now at the request of the state, right?

Or at least that was the justification for it.

Um and I don't see us getting the roads that we need to sustain that.

Um so there's that issue.

Um the other issue is I we just turned down a zone an application, but now we're trying to do an overload uh overlay zone that's going to do the very same thing that is going to take an island surrounded by you know other zones and try to fit something in there that doesn't really fit that's not consistent, and we're gonna kind of take the general plan and toss it aside um and do this overlay zone, and I I do appreciate that you've cut it down to some of the um higher density zones, I guess, but still not high density.

Um so uh to me.

We deny things for certain reasons, but now we're uh allowing them for the same reasons, and um I think the residents deserve the transparency and the consistency.

I think the developers do too.

I mean, I again I I just tonight we had one come in who asked for commercial surrounded by very large residential lots, and it was approved, no residents showed up and it was approved.

And then we have another come in with you know something a little more compatible with the surrounding residents that was denied, and you know, if this was transparent and we and the residents knew and they can give their input, um then we we can you know take that in that is often taken into consideration when people actually show up for meetings, but if they don't, if this slips through the cracks and nobody shows up to speak against it, then it's gonna get approved.

So I I don't like the that kind of arbitrariness, I guess, to some extent.

Um I don't think it's fair to the developer, the landowner, and I don't think it's fair to the residents.

Um to me, um, and I think I've said this before, I preser prefer to have it our remaining land looked at and see where this fits well, and then everybody can know this is this would be a good spot for these kind of houses.

And we will know, I mean, instead of doing all the studies and and then the developers gotta wait to find out.

I mean, that's one of the issues, right?

Is um that period of time the developers have to hang on to land, they have to wait and find out if it fits or not, if there's infrastructure.

Um if we do that ahead of time, they'll know and they'll not have that risk.

Um so I I kind of like having that option to have these small homes, um, and no garages and whatever else.

Um, but I don't like the process.

I you know, that it's overlay, and I don't like that it's through development agreement.

Um and I I'm guilty of this.

I think we zone too much by development agreement, and I think that's probably because we need to look more closely at our zoning ordinances, our development code.

Um yeah, so I I would like to hold off on this, and I would like to see what the state comes out with and what happens.

Um they might have some good ideas, who knows?

They might.

Um but I I I think there's for me at least there's some fundamental problems with it.

But I oh Brittany, I appreciate your work so much.

And um almost want to vote for something just because of the hard work you put into it, but on principle, I don't I don't think I could support it, but I I sure do appreciate you.

So to clarify, are you in favor of tabling or are you in f in favor of denying outright?

I I'd be in favor of denying it.

Um we got the paperwork, we can always bring it back.

Um I think the the people who spoke here brought up some really good points about we've got to work through some things.

Uh I I don't want to experiment on our residents, you know.

Um I think we do too much of that.

So again, for me it comes back to principle.

So if you can address those fundamental principles, I I'm good I'd vote against it.

I think we're largely on the same page here.

I I think it's interesting though, because your your comment about we legislate by development agreement too much and we should evaluate our code.

The problem is when we evaluate a code, this is what happens.

We get to that.

We get to the point where it can never pass.

And so that's why we legislate by development agreement, which in my opinion leaves just as much up in the air for our residents.

I I I'm I I'm with you that I think this is probably not at a position to there's just too much up in the air.

Uh, but there's a reason we legislate by development agreement, is because when there are hot topic items like this that are trying to solve big problems, it's almost impossible to come up with a consensus between the council as well as the residents that are that are that that raise concerns.

And I let me just respond to that really quick, sorry.

Um I agree.

But I do appreciate like tonight, where we ran into a problem, we fixed the code, right?

So that next time we solve it.

So I I would you know, maybe that's on us, but I would like to see more of that.

Um we see the problem, we've got to fix it with the development agreement as a temporary fix, but maybe go back and and find a permanent solution, I guess, is the thing.

And I and I think you're, you know, I I guess I'm not as optimistic about you as far as what the legislature is that they understand our concerns because the history has not suggested they understand our concerns.

And I I think we should work on that.

You know, and the league has been very good about encouraging cities to meet with our our representatives, um, show them, bring them out here, show them our problems, and residents, you can have their ear too, please.

Um so we can do our part on that as well, I think.

I'm on the legislative policy committee.

I mean that I'm the liaison for us to the league, and I think they are making strides on that.

I don't know if we're there yet.

I mean for those of us who are here, I mean the time and years and work that went into making sure that we had about two years for a very carefully crafted ADU policy, and then just sledgehammer bulldozed it.

I mean, they came in and said none of what you put in place matters.

We're just gonna put in this blanket policy for everybody in the state, no matter what your circumstances are.

So I think we we do have I mean a little a little bit trauma from that from having worked so hard and having to come through.

Um the only reason I would even think about doing this is because there is that development agreement.

I mean, absolute discretion on the part of the council.

Um the problem is I'm not gonna be here forever.

So it places a lot in the hands of future councils and future directions.

Um and and I worry about where it could go in the future.

For perspective, mayor, I still live in poor post-war housing.

It's about it's not very much bigger than what you're talking about.

My mom still lives in that house.

I love it.

It's great.

I don't think any of my kids are all that interested in it.

Um so I understand the problems.

I mean, to to speak to the period from earlier, I was in that position, the divorced mom looking for a place to live in Lehigh.

And for me, what was on the line is if I couldn't find something I could afford, I would have had to resign from my job.

Um fortunately, we had some post-war housing available, and that's where I live.

Um so I get the problems and what's going into it.

I just don't know that we found the solution here.

And what they're demanding of us in terms of find the solution or be penalized, um is very frustrating to me.

But the conversations the league is having, um, the things I've seen with the representatives, I think there is reason for hope in the future.

I'm waiting to see if they'll prove that to me.

Well, as somebody who's spent a few years on the board at the League of Cities and Towns.

I also probably do not have a lot of faith in our legislators right now, even when I work have worked with them very closely.

And I don't say and locally usually get along really well with your legislators and they listen to you, but there are several legislators out there that have the ear, uh both the House and the Senate, and every year they're coming up with new housing bills.

Uh Jason Walker sent me a thing a while ago.

I was just trying to find it on my email, and I couldn't find it.

But there is a push, and I know the league is concerned about it, of just them just getting rid of any zoning regulations on density.

So in other words, any partial land can have not just a high number of uh single family homes, but also have multi-homes on any parcel that they can fit.

And it's those conversations that make me nervous because every year they come out with new housing ordinances, and they don't seem to have the effect that they want them to have.

And every year it ramps up more and more.

So I just the league is doing a good job pushing back.

We last year we had great strides holding off some of the things that the legislators wanted to pass.

I'm just not sure how strong our arms are to keep that up.

I have a question.

Yeah.

Uh and I don't know if Brittany or Kim, you know you mentioned the, you know, if we don't comply.

Is that per item that we miss?

So in other words, they they want us to have five.

If we only have four, do we get charged the two fifty for the one we missed, or if we missed two, do we get charged five hundred?

It's just non-compliance.

Just non compliance in general.

Pass or fail.

So j just in general.

So, first of all, if if we don't approve this tonight, which it looks like that's the way we're heading, I still think we should try to find something so the state doesn't force a zone something down our throat that way.

That being said, if I did my math right, which is pretty simple math, especially with the help of a calculator.

Uh $250 times 365 days is $91,250.

That's not that big of a stick.

It might be worth just building that into our budget and saying, look, there are just times it's just not gonna happen.

We're gonna ignore you from now on and we'll pay the price.

They'll up the tax.

I was gonna say, yeah, that could be sure they will, but at least as a starting point.

And I and I think these are all worthy goals, worthy things to work towards.

But that's I guess I would rather take the brunt of the stick as opposed to pushing forward something that is not fully prepared, just for the sake of avoiding what seems like a relatively small stick to you know, somebody used my rounding error comment before $91,000 is kind of a rounding error.

I guess what do you feel like isn't as well prepared?

I'm I hear deed restrictions, which is more just I guess waiting for more understanding of how that gets enforced, and I think honestly it's gonna be somewhat if the state puts something more in place or having someone dedicated as staff to enforce it.

I mean, there's things that we could do, but I think it would require something more on our part if we want to enforce it more than what we would do.

Um then I'm not sure what else really is feeling like it's just not fully formed or you know, I'm gonna make a suggestion here.

I'm not gonna answer your question because I don't know how to answer your question.

Okay.

But at least there were three presentations.

Two of them are actually pretty good.

I can't remember if they were running the first one was Ephraim, believe it or not.

The other one was Heber, I think it was.

We ought to look at those presentations that just took place at the League of Cities and Towns and perhaps go down and visit, visit with them, find out how they did it, look at them really hard because it's actually pretty similar to what we've done.

It's not it's not exactly the same, but they were dealing with deed restrictions, they were dealing with uh attainability costs.

They were they'd done some of the very same analysis we did on affordability on what those costs of those homes would be.

And and they were all, by the way, restricted by size, right?

They were all restricted by size.

Uh we are we've already heard the developers' arguments, some developers' arguments, and not all developers agree with this that just give us a 4,000 square foot lot and then let us build a $700,000 home on that lot, right?

I mean, we know the developers would like to do that.

I actually actually know a developer right now that's has a project going up on up in uh Weber County, and it is exactly patio homes.

They're very small, 4,000 square foot lots, you know, no basements, single level, uh, two to three bedrooms, and the price point is right where we were trying to target these to be, right?

I know it's possible, and I know developers will build those, right?

Because there are some I've talked to who said yes, I will build that product.

But there's no question we need to know the best mechanism to to do this.

And perhaps that's what we do is we spend a little time talking to these other cities that are that have now already passed their ordinance and have these things in construction.

Right.

I think we can learn a lot from their experiences.

Yeah.

For me, uh I think that we can take this bit by bit.

I mean, we we're proposing making one of our goals because we shaved off 500 square feet on our ADU requirements.

So like with this one, whether it's an outright denial, or even if it's a table based on things that for me it needs to be clear and legal way to enforce deed restriction, what's our plan for that?

And then even if it's locked down really small, then we have to shave off 500 square feet.

And if we're like, okay, we'll we'll do this on R2.

We're gonna just do it on really small they probably, you know, we're gonna kind of just figure it out and just have it, or maybe do you know R3, and so that when it is implemented, it's not just you know, going crazy.

And it it's probably like I'm talking about zones where they never do this because they can build, you know, multifamily and stuff, but it it's that kind of idea that opening the floodgates a bit at a time, but for me, we're not in a place in this city where I think that we can we have the infrastructure in place for some of these things that are really important um to be able to find out ways to put more housing in.

Um so that that's my my heartburn over is like we those are the unanswered questions for me.

So I don't know if the question is and what it's better if if we just write out deny it or if there is a tabling saying that hey, once these things are in place, then we can bring it back and talk about it again.

But right now I have a hard time passing something and then having my questions answered after it's I can't pull it back.

Quick comment too, sorry.

Um I know that's thrown out there a lot.

The state's gonna come in and get rid of any zoning ordinance and you have to allow whatever anywhere kind of thing.

But I I know the league talked about this too, and the states that are doing that are getting sued.

So I think uh hopefully Utah will pay attention, you know, our state legislature will pay attention to other states that are doing that approach.

Um but I I'm hat I would love to look at what other cities are doing.

I was pulled up my notes from the conference, and you know, I think you mentioned Heber and looking at my notes, and they they actually have that in their general plan, and it's a transition um between their commercial corridor and um the lower density.

So I agree.

I I like to look at other cities, look for best practices, see what they're doing, how it's worked, learn from them, because already in my notes they're like setbacks was a problem, you know.

So let's let's learn from their mistakes and maybe build on it.

Um I I like that approach.

Ready to motion, Mayor?

I'll take a motion.

Um Mayor, I'll move that we deny ordinance 61-2025, the starter home attainable residential SHAR ordinance, uh, create an opportunity for the development of small single-family homes, uh, with the concerns being around deed restrictions, uh applicability as far as even with the limited uh zones within the city where it where might be applied and where it would uh cause concerns uh and direction to look at those as well as uh other cities where similar ordinance has been passed to look to see if we can uh find something that would be compatible.

Okay, I have a motion by Paul and a second by Heather.

Any questions on that motion?

Brittany, let me ask you a question on that motion, because we already have the framework of something here that you've spent a lot of time on, right?

You're your your staff, right?

Spent a lot of time on.

If if we were to find something that that would work, but maybe similar to this.

If we just deny this, how hard is it to bring it something else back?

Would we say, well, no, that's we've already denied that.

It's too similar to that.

Um I don't want to make it impossible to bring something back if we find something that's palatable.

Yeah.

Um I mean we do have where it says the same application can't be submitted for two years in the code, so I don't know if it would fall under that or not.

I guess it's if it's different enough, then it probably wouldn't.

Yeah, I would say if we denied it without prejudice.

Um I think you could do that.

I think no matter what we bring back, there's gonna be some kind of a substantive change that there wouldn't be any reason to invoke the that that whole rule exists just so that you don't get you know this over.

Yeah, same application, same request.

Yeah, if we bring back anything that we bring back, it'll probably have enough change that it would be substantially different.

I don't see that as a concern.

But if you want to do it without prejudice, that maybe strengthens that the that you like some of the principles.

Leaves the opportunity open for the council in the future.

Sure.

That's the only thing I'd suggest change the motion.

Without prejudice.

Without prejudice.

Can the direction still sit there as far as what the concerns were?

Yeah.

Oh no, it stays the same.

It's just I'm I'm just saying different from tabling it.

No, I I I'm just saying uh, you know, I talked about the deeds restrictions and the other things.

Those can still stay in place, even though I'm saying without prejudice.

Right.

Right.

Uh motion amended.

Second stands.

Yeah.

Any other questions on the motion?

Start with uh Paige.

Yes.

Michelle?

Yes.

Heather?

Yes.

And Paul.

Yes.

Okay.

Alrighty.

That's our last item for the night.

We don't have to take a we don't have to take a vote on adjournment anymore.

This doesn't feel right though.

We need closure, right?

I've been doing it for years.

I found out there's not that necessary to take a vote, so I'm gonna adjourn the meeting.

So we have to adjourn the meeting.