Here in the Lehigh City Hall in our council chambers.

All council members are accounted for tonight.

Councilmember Newell, Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Freeman, Councilmember Stallings, and Councilmember Lockhart.

We welcome all guests and we also welcome all staff who are here with us this evening.

To start, we will stand, and I've asked uh Councilmember Lockhart to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge Elliot.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God.

Individual with liberty and justice current.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lockhart.

First item tonight is presentations reports.

I don't believe we have any.

So we're good there.

So we're gonna open it up.

We'll gonna go first to our citizens' comments.

Um let me give you kind of the rules of the lands here.

We we welcome you all if you'd like to come and make comment.

If you see that you have an item that's on our agenda tonight, there are some items that will we will open reopen it for public comment.

Uh so we'd ask that you would uh keep those comments to the root to the to the items on the agenda as we go.

However, we'd love to hear from you, so we'll open it um for public comment when you come.

We'd ask that you'd state your first your name, your whole name.

Uh you'll have three minutes uh to share what's on your mind, and uh so we'll we'll start public comment.

Mr.

Mayor and uh members of the city council, thank you for this public comment time.

My name is Chris Rollins.

I've been a homeowner in Lehigh for 11 years, over 11 years.

During the last City Council work session, there was a discussion regarding the 700 South bike lanes, and I would like to add my voice as a Lehigh homeowner to this discussion.

I love the protected bike lanes called a cycle track on the master transportation plan.

Me and my family use them every week.

I use them to commute to work, and my family uses the bike lane on 500 West to commute to church on Sunday, not commute to bike to church on Sunday.

In my experience, the cycle track or protected bike lane has a number of important advantages for all riders and joggers and others, but especially for biking with younger riders and his families on more common bike lanes where there are parked cars, then the bike lane, then moving traffic, people on bikes are riding between fast moving traffic on one side and coming up behind parked cars who aren't looking for you on the other.

At every moment, there's the risk of moving cars swerving or taking up your bike lane space, or drivers in parked cars open their doors into you.

On the other hand, the cycle track or protected bike lane uses cars that are parked on city streets to create a physical barrier between moving cars and children on bicycles.

Having biked individually and with my wife and children quite a bit all over Lehigh on both kinds of streets and all types of bike lanes, it is clear to me that this design is much safer and does promote active transportation and the advantages that come with that.

Of course, that does not mean that there aren't still places where there is risk, including at intersections.

And yes, cars and bikers, all users need to learn and follow traffic laws, but that applies to all bike infrastructure and road design.

I don't see how putting young riders closer to moving traffic would make them safer.

I understand that some residents really don't like them, and I can support exploring solutions to address concerns, curbing instead of the white poles, maybe adjust the width of the lanes, better signage at intersections, or going to a split track where there are single direction lanes on either side of the road.

But I strongly encourage and request that you keep them as a cycle track or protected bike lanes with a physical barrier between moving traffic and children on bicycles, as has been on the masters, the city master transportation plan for over 10 years.

I was watching the meeting earlier with the Y2K survey results in the vein of quality of life and all of that.

I'd like to say that the bike lanes, these bike lanes, and some of the other improvements that were made with the money that was originally designated for these bike lanes are some of the best and most direct ways that the city has improved the quality of life for me and my family since we've lived here.

And I asked my wife if that was hyperbolic, and she said absolutely not.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Rollins.

Hello, my name is Lynette McKenna.

I am a representative of the Ruth and Nathan Hale Theater that is in Pleasant Grove.

And just wanted to take this opportunity to make the citizens aware, the community aware of Lehigh that the Ruth is highlighting Lehigh City this upcoming week week, February 2nd through February 7th.

Tickets are available for the two shows that are playing.

Such a wonderful performance.

If you have not had the opportunity to see that show, it is fabulous and so entertaining.

And then also Fiddler on the Roof is playing.

So either one of those shows, any um citizens of the Lehigh community can get discount tickets for any show between the second and the seventh.

Tickets can reservations can be made online at the Ruth.org or can call the theater.

And you can all so there is a coupon code that you would enter in, Lehigh 5.

Just wanted to make everyone aware of that.

Thanks so much for the time.

Thank you.

I'm gonna set a timer for myself.

Also, I recently went to the Ruth Christmas Carol is fantastic.

Um what was your name?

My name's Hunter Page.

Thank you.

Yep, Hunter Page.

I've lived here for about four years.

Uh live also uh near North Lake Park.

Uh biked here tonight.

My favorite part was going down center street in the in the nice big bike lane.

Um for me.

Perfect.

Uh made sure I set my timer.

So for me, the sign of a civilized society.

It's not that people are forced to use public transportation, but that they choose to.

Um and I understand that we're in a car-centric world.

I love cars, I love off-roading.

Um I also bike to church um every Sunday with my family, my little one-year-old.

We hop in the cargo bike and head to church.

Um, additionally, I bike to the train and from the train.

Um, spending time on the train, I talk to a lot of people and ask them, they'll sit down, we'll talk about bikes, and they'll say, Oh, I love biking.

The reason I don't is because it's so dangerous.

Um, and ultimately, what I think we come to is that being in a car-centric society, and again, I love cars, is that we will constantly be making accommodations for them to make things easier for them.

Um, but ultimately, there's a lot of studies showing that we're at capacity for efficiency for vehicles.

Um, at this point, commuting times are only growing.

Um, and so the I think the best way to alleviate that traffic is to make cycling easier.

Um, in fact, my my biggest issue with the bike lanes on 700 as well as on Center Street is just that they're not more expansive.

Um, probably get some high rules on that.

Um, but again, I I appreciate your time.

Um similarly as as Chris said uh two speakers ago.

First time I biked down Center Street and and on 700 when I first saw it, my jaw dropped.

Um it was just a magical experience.

And uh not that I want to compare ourselves to any European cities or any other cities.

Um if you've ever been to Copenhagen and you saw the mothers biking their little kids to school on these big old bikes, it's a magical experience.

Um and I get to taste that every Sunday as I bike my little kid to school and plan to do so.

Um and hope hopefully they stay in a says safe way, and as they become more expansive um and we keep investing in cycling infrastructure, more people will use them and less people will be driving, and it would be better for everyone.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Page.

Hello, my name is Crystal Harmon.

I just wanted to talk about the 1900 thing that was talked about in the pre-meeting, because I'm one of the houses that's in the Lehigh part of that with the expansion, and I'm happy for the expansion to come.

Obviously, we do need the commuter there.

But my concern is is with the five lanes that there is not adequate protection for our neighborhood and our children that are there for the cars that are already going really fast.

Like we had a speed study done just a few months ago, and like 80% of the cars were going 42 or higher in a 25.

So I would ask that you guys consider what's part of the budget with expanding that, giving us something more than crosswalks where we're paying for the flags, you know, like try and help make it safer for these kids.

And our fence is there was a car that was commuting just like in December, and they hit a parked trailer and it went through the neighbor's fence, like two fence panels for my kids' playground.

Like we need to do something to protect these children from these commuters that are not really caring.

Matt, we're neighbors here.

And we I just asked you to consider what we could do to make it safer for us in on 1900.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs.

Harmony.

Good evening.

Uh Mayor Benz and Council members, thank you for your time.

Uh my name is Matt Redford.

I am uh the founder of uh Blaze Race Leaf, excuse me, Blaze 360.

Uh we're a Utah-based company that uh is focused on improving community risk reduction and emergency preparedness.

As Lehigh continue to grow and our buildings uh are becoming more complex for our fire marshal's office, uh code enforcement and first responders keep accurate up-to-date documentation on every commercial occupancy is becoming harder every year.

Uh pre-plans, inspection photos, building documentation often live in separate applications for certain certain jurisdictions.

Um they can get out outdated quickly, and firefighters may not have the most current information when they when an incident happens.

That gap costs time and in emergencies, time is everything.

Uh my company, uh Bleeze 360, as we create a full uh 360 doc degree documentation of every bit any building inside and out.

So firefighters and inspectors uh can virtually walk uh a property before uh they ever arrive.

Uh this includes digital pre-planning, high risk occupancy documentation, historical records of of remodels, easy sharing uh across departments as well, where not just the fire department building code and enforcement emergency management, but also the police department.

Uh it's it's a fast and accurate way of giving uh Lehigh a defensible, accessible digital record of every high-risk property here.

Uh this supports the you know the fire department's mission, improves safety for citizens and first responders and reduces liability for the city.

Uh many agencies nationwide are moving in this direction uh towards more of a digital pre-planning uh and Lehigh has the opportunity to be a leader in this.

Um so I ask you uh as a council uh to consider uh directing your your city staff, fire uh community uh development and legal teams uh to evaluate police 360 and how we can explore incorporating digital building uh documentation into Lehigh's existing code or uh inspection standards.

Thank you for your time and uh and for everything that you do for this community, and I'd be happy to answer any questions or schedule a workshop to dig a little bit deeper.

Thank you, Mr.

Rudford.

I appreciate it.

Uh my name is Jose Zuniga.

Um I am a member for the Western State Union Carpenters here in Lehigh.

There's a small group right now joining me with me in this meeting.

Um we just want to know that.

Well, I just want to say that we want to work with you with our city.

Uh there's a lot of companies right now that are doing business under the table, paying cash.

Uh we just want to have the opportunity to work in our city with our companies, uh, their union.

Uh, we do have a lot of uh teenagers coming graduating from high school that are having uh apprenticeship classes.

We just want to have a have a work with you in a friendly way and um have a fair share to work with you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Zunia.

Any other comments?

We will close the public.

We will close the public comment.

Thank you for those who shared.

Uh we'll go to item number four, the consent agenda.

Take any motions on that.

Any questions?

Mr.

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

So I have a motion from Councilmember Newell.

I'll second it.

I'll second from Council Member Stallings.

Any questions?

So we'll take a vote.

Council Member Lockhart.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, our next item, item number five is a public hearing.

Uh so at seven, let me tell you what it is.

It's the transportation impact fees.

It's consideration of ordinance 03-2026 adopting an impact fee facilities plan and impact fee analysis and amend the impact fees for transportation.

This is a public hearing, so it's at what time it is?

725, we will open it for public comment for our public hearing.

Okay, so if there's no comments, I will close our public hearing at 725 and bring it back to the council.

Any questions on the impact fees or this item?

Do we have someone present on it at all or no?

Or because they presented on it at the work session that counts.

Why don't you come up and present?

Hey, good evening, Council.

I'm Rachel Volick with Bowen Collins Associates.

I'm here with Andrew McKinnon to present on the Lehigh Transportation Impact Fee.

As was mentioned, I was here about two weeks ago to present at the work session.

This is just a condensed presentation for the benefit of the public.

Just as a reminder, some changes since the previous update, the last full analysis for the impact fee on the transportation side was completed in 2015.

There was a new transportation master plan drafted in 2025, and that has directly gone into the impact fee calculations.

And there has been several previously identified projects that are now complete or nearing completion with actual costs known.

This final point's important just because it helps include the changing cost of construction over time between the planning period and the actual construction period.

So it allows the city to recoup that cost.

Just as a reminder, the purpose of an impact fee is to help answer this question of how can we pay for the new infrastructure required to service future growth so that existing users aren't subsidizing future users or vice versa.

Specifically, the impact fee looks at three different classes the existing user, the user within the 10-year window, and the user beyond the 10-year window.

And this allows developers as they come in to pay for impacts on the existing system or any new infrastructure that's required within that tenure window.

As part of this analysis, we completed an impact fee facilities plan and an impact fee analysis.

So the facility facilities plan identifies projects needed to accommodate growth and allocates cost of projects between existing and future users based on who specifically benefits from the project.

And an impact fee analysis calculates the appropriate impact fee based on information from that facilities plan.

So as was mentioned, we uh received projects uh from the master plan, the transportation master plan that was completed by Hales Engineering, and they provided us with projects that were expected within the tenure window, and those directly went into the impact fee.

Um and here's a summary of the impact fee analysis.

Just for context, the existing impact fee for transportation is 121 dollars and seventy-nine cents per trip, and we're um recommending that it be increased to 146 dollars and eighty-seven cents.

That's about a 20% increase.

If you'll notice here in column three, there's a schedule that provides uh credit for users within the tenure window, and that's specifically looking at deficiencies within the system.

There has been some growth that it was greater than was anticipated, and so there are some deficiencies currently in the Lehigh transportation.

Um this just allocates a schedule for that as you can't uh as a tenure user can't both pay for infrastructure through the impact fee in addition to um through taxes and things like that when they become a member of the city.

And so here's a schedule that kind of schedules that out.

Um if we're including the uh the credit, it's only about a 10% increase in 2026, and then that increases slowly into a 20% increase in 2035.

So we would recommend that the the council um adopt this impact fee.

Um and then just some conclusions again, it's about a 10% increase in 2026, 20% increase in 2025.

Um we would also recommend that the council update the impact fee every two to three years, just so that they can recoup as much inflationary cost as possible as is a part of the construction process.

And then just really quick next steps is the public hearing, which is right now adoption.

Should the council choose to adopt?

Um and then just a reminder that the impact fee doesn't go into effect until 90 days following the adoption.

Thank you.

Any comments or questions?

Any questions?

No.

Mr.

Wood, do I need to reopen that?

No, we're good.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'd be happy to take a motion.

Okay, we'll see if I do this right way.

Oh, you want to try?

We'll see.

Uh I'm Mr.

Mary move to adopt ordinance number three-2026.

Adopting impact fee facilities plan and impact fee analysis and amended impact fees for transportation.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Freeman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second from Council Member Harrison.

Any questions on the motions?

Would you also include in your motion that we should revisit this every two years for inflation cost increase?

Yes.

So we'll include in that motion then that we revisit this every two years moving forward so that we stay a little more current versus behind, correct?

Correct, yep.

Any other questions on the motion?

Nope.

Second.

Second stands with council member Freeman.

First with Councilmember Freeman, second with Council Member Harrison.

Uh we'll start with Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

And Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

So that passes.

Okay, item six consideration of resolution 2026-04.

Approving an amendment with RME for the construction of the sky substation.

So I know someone here is here presenting that.

Come and tell us your name.

Brent Thomas, the assistant director with power department.

I don't really have a presentation, just this is the agreement for the construction of the sky substation that we have put out formal bid.

Remy was the successful bidder on that and pending approval with the city council would like to start construction in mid-February.

So awesome.

Any questions?

I actually had just a construction question.

I noticed that on the uh bid, the line item to for like the erection of it was the largest.

And just curious, because I'm new to this and new to substation contracting.

What why would that be the most expensive part?

So this is one portion of the substation building process.

So this is just the the portion to be able to assemble the substation.

It includes the actual erecting of the steel, placing the transformer, the concrete, those type things.

So this is kind of the middle section of the process.

Cool.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I'll take a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move uh to approve resolution number 2026-4, approving an agreement with RME for the construction of the sky substation.

So I have a first by Councilmember Harrison.

It was a second from Council Member Freeman.

Any questions on that motion?

Mr.

Harrison will start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Thank you.

Item number seven, consideration of resolution 2026-03, approving amendments to the Pro Still Customs Development Agreement.

Approach.

Hello.

My name is Dusty Yates.

Okay.

So LeI City Council already approved this in May, and we loved it, but my mistake, I didn't realize that my name has to be on this, so that's all I wanted to do is add my name.

Malakus.

And then I I remember uh a couple things.

Uh might have been you or what um didn't like the U-Halls in here, so I took, I don't like U-Hells either.

Um took the U-Hall out, so that's uh no longer a part of it.

And then somebody else, uh I have a really long 180-foot park strip.

They didn't like the grass, and so I've taken that out and made it really, really beautiful park strip now.

So I've done everything, and so all I need to have is exactly what has already been approved.

And just add Malacca's my company name to it.

That's it.

Steph, any comments on this?

Uh no, unless you have questions.

Are there any questions?

Um I just had a question.

Uh the right turn lane southbound onto Main Street from 2300.

Um is there a current plan to have that an additional right lane, or is that set?

Do you want to answer that more?

Is it 2300 west on the northwest corner?

Yeah, right.

Yeah.

Yeah, we are going to put a turn lane in there.

Okay.

So that'll that'll come in to that property a little bit, correct?

Okay.

Wow.

Thank you.

Did you know that?

Okay.

Aren't you glad you came tonight?

Yes.

Mayor, can we ask a question?

Yes.

So, Kim, it and I remember this.

It was specifically for U-Hauls, but now we're opening it up for auto sales too.

Yeah.

Yeah, the way it was written, it said automotive sales, including U-Haul.

Um, so really the auto sales already encompasses U-Haul.

But but where he doesn't intend to do that any longer, we just took that part of it out.

So it still allows the definition of automobile sales and rental includes you know typical car dealerships as well as U-Haul rentals and things like that.

So it's not really broadening it.

It already allowed that.

Um, but the U-Hall was specifically mentioned because that was at the time that was the specific use that they were after.

But I think it did include auto just automotive sales in general.

I'm sorry.

I I thought it was specifically for you to rent U-Hauls, but you said it that wasn't part of it, or it was um, but originally you mentioned auto sales including U-Haul.

I I I don't know.

Yeah, it was my previous renter had kind of a mechanic shop for trailers, and then he tried to add U-Hauls without me even knowing about it, and he kind of threw it in.

So I have no intentions of U-Hauls myself.

Oh, I see.

So you don't want the U-Hauls?

Okay, yeah, I wasn't going to do U-Halls for the case.

That was the whole the point of the development agreement originally, correct?

Or just the set the sales.

Um they wanted to sell trailers that sell and uh now so just the sales of cars and uh just a simple car sales.

Okay.

And so it's a commercial zone.

Correct.

Yeah, zoned commercial.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um that's all the questions I have, thanks.

So mayor, if I may.

So to clarify, we're doing a development agreement here because it's zoned commercial and in our table of uses here.

It looks like car sales is in heavy commercial.

So we make we're doing the development agreement.

Um something I've looked at as I've looked at other codes, other cities' codes, is that they do have the car sales in commercial.

A lot of a lot of majority of cities I would say in Utah.

They typically do have some law restrictions um size, maybe.

Uh some do.

Farmington is half half an acre.

North Salt Lake has two acres.

Um I don't know if that's something that's here here.

It's one acre, and I have 1.27 acres.

Yeah, that council member Freeman.

Um I actually met with Kim this week to talk about that, and um council member Newell and I were gonna um have them start working on a draft of something like that to bring to a work session with the same intent of like having car sales back into the commercial zone.

Okay.

Okay, well opens the conversation.

There we go.

Mr.

Mayor, if I may, is there is there a limit under this agreement for how many cars can be on the lot.

Uh no.

Okay.

I think that would be we'd have to make sure they have enough area for customer parking and display.

But yeah, there is no set limit in the I don't I don't think there needs to be.

I was just curious.

Yeah.

Yeah.

There's all the questions I'll consider motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2026-3, approving amendments to the Pro Steel Customs Development Agreement and include all DRC comments.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Newell.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second from Councilmember Harrison.

Any questions on that motion?

So we'll start with you, Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes, and I would like to add, I'm I'm not a fan of development agreements, but I'd like to honor what was done by the prior council for you.

And so I am voting yes today to honor that.

All right.

And Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Yates.

Thank you guys.

Okay.

Item number eight.

Consideration of ordinance zero one-2026.

Approving the Cold Springs Ranch Area Plan amendment to allow short-term rentals.

The petitioner is Kenneth Glaude.

Is he Kenneth here?

Do you want to approach and kind of give us some.

We've received a lot of emails about this this week, so I'm pretty sure you did.

Well, good evening, Mr.

Mayor and members of the City Council.

My name is Kenneth Laud.

I'm just going to read if you allow me to.

I am a homeowner and a resident of Cold Spring Ranch, and I respectfully submit this statement in support of the proposed amendment to the area floor plan that would allow owner-occupied short-term rentals.

And I asked the City Council to approve these resolution as I believe it represents a fair, responsible and community focused approach to modern homeownership.

Owner-occupied SDRs provide homeowners with an opportunity to responsibly supplement their income while continuing to live in, care for and invest in their homes.

For many families, including mine, these additional income supports financial stability, helps offset rising costs, and allows homeowners to remain in their neighborhoods long term.

When the owner is pressing the present, the home is not a transcendent business.

It remains a primary residence and current accountability and personal stewardship.

Contrary to concerns raised by some opponents of these amendment, uh owner-occupied SDRs do not cause more harm to neighborhoods than long-term rentals.

Uh nor do they negatively impact uh own street parking.

In practice, SDR guests primarily use garage spaces and driveways, such as permanent resident permanent residents do.

These uh stays are short, structure, and monitor.

There is no evidence that owner-occupied SDRs generate parking congestion what already exists in any residential community.

Additionally, platforms such as Airbnb provide a high high level of accountability for both homeowners and guests.

These platforms rely heavily on reviews, rating, and documented behavior.

Guests are required to follow house rules, respect white hours, and comply with local ordinances.

Homeowners in turn are incentivized to maintain high standards of conduct and responsiveness, as negative feedback directly impacts their ability to receive future bookings.

This mutual accountability creates a strong incentive, strong incentive for cooperation and respectful behavior.

By comparison, long-term rentals often operate with far less oversight and accountability.

Often tends in long-term arrangements are not subject to public rekeep review systems, and issues may persist for extended periods before any resolution.

Long-term renters are also more likely to host visitors over longer durations, which can increase on on-street, you know, increase on-street parking usage without the same level of monitoring or enforcement mechanisms found in SDR platforms.

In closing, owner-occupied SDRs strike a thoughtful balance between individual property rights and neighborhood integrity.

They support homeowners' financial goals, promote accountability, and do not introduce risks, often associated with no non-owner occupied rentals.

I respectfully ask the city council to co consider these facts and approve the proposed amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council, any questions.

I'm curious, Mayor, if we can have a raise of hands of how many people are here for this item.

Should raise my eye.

So three of you.

Okay.

There's a lot of emails.

Yeah, Mayor, if I can.

Um I guess this is more for staff.

There I can't remember who said it.

So Kim remind me, but someone said this may approval.

Obviously, this is an area plan across the city.

Obviously, this is an area plan across the city, it's allowed.

Um there's there's state code with specific rules.

The city allows it under certain rules.

Um and you said I think you said that it could open up a can of worms.

I don't know if that was you, Kim that said it.

Um just looking through planning commission notes.

Uh but if that was you, can you elaborate?

If not, then I'll pretend I didn't see that.

I don't remember saying can of worms.

Um, but you are correct, we do allow short-term rental through most of the city.

There are certain areas like Cold Spring where it might be excluded because of an area plan.

An area plan can supersede.

It's basically its own set of rules for that community, and they can, you know, most a lot of times they match pretty closely to what we allow in other areas, but in this case, this area plan excludes the short-term rentals.

I think um, you know, we have some pretty good controls.

We we do require the owner occupancy, parking.

You have to have parking based on how many bedrooms.

Um I you know we haven't ran into a lot of really big enforcement issues.

Um we have had a few, and they it was you know a matter of hey, you need to get a license or you need to make sure you live in the unit.

You can't just rent your entire house out as a an Airbnb.

But um by and large, you know, they seem to have operated okay in other parts of the city.

So it really to me this just comes down to I know the the HOA um has different feelings.

They feel like they should retain control and not allow those for their own reasons, and I'm I'm sure they'll probably be here to maybe speak for that, but um it really just comes down to if if as a city we don't have any issues of opening this area up as a city, and then they would have to decide how they're gonna react as an HOA if they want to continue to because they could try to continue to restrict those as a homeowner's, but that would be a civil matter, private, not Lehigh City at that point.

So thanks, Kim.

And Mr.

Glaude.

Yes, sir.

Um by your estimation within Cold Spring Ranch, how many how many homeowners would be interested in doing short-term rentals?

Um I really don't have a clue to that question.

I would say probably within 15 to 20 homeowners.

Okay.

So the D so DRC comments recommended that HOA uh was notified about this.

Um and then the planning commission, the president of the HOE spoke but said they were speaking as an individual law on behalf of the HOA.

Does it have the HOA?

Is there are they here?

Have they made a statement about this?

We could have a good idea.

We could probably do that in public comment if they're here.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

And is Mr.

Mayor, if I may, with that or are you finished?

Yeah, I'm done now.

Um by permitting this in the area plan, we we are not challenging the HOA's authority to dictate how their community implements that permitted, right?

So they the HOA could still say, like with HOA approval or you know, anything like that.

And so one framework that this item could be evaluated from is from like a local control perspective, um, where the city is uh essentially gonna say, yep, go govern yourselves, and this is um something that we want our citizens to do with their HOA.

Um and I I I appreciate that it would be consistent with th throughout the other areas of the city.

And then allowing the HOA and the members of the HOA to determine the rules of engagement.

A couple of questions, maybe.

Um kind of wondering the the difference with short-term rentals and long-term rentals with the requirements, the restrictions are short-term rentals have higher levels of requirement when it comes to parking, if you could speak to that.

And then also when it comes to enforcement ver uh city enforcement versus an HOA with the city, we have limited, you know, we don't have a housing authority.

How do we enforce this?

What can the city actually do to enforce um compliance with that versus what an HOA is able to do?

Okay.

So the yeah, the parking, it is based on the size of the short term short-term rental, how many bedrooms they have, and there is a maximum occupancy of ten, just because once you go beyond that, you actually start to get into different building codes where you have you know uh more of a group occupancy versus you know, it leaves that realm of the single family or or just a traditional uh family size occupancy.

So with the you know let's take a single family home for example, we require two parking stalls.

If you have a short term rental it adds a parking requirement for that short-term rental based on the number of bedrooms.

So you'd have to show that you know maybe you have a third car driveway that you can park your guests in that goes beyond what the just the minimum requirements for the home are.

When you get into ADUs and things like that, they have their own also their own parking and that's more of a long-term rental and the state has actually regulated how much parking we we can require on those so that we're not too restrictive.

But the short-term rentals again you know from what we've seen with the ones that have been licensed we there have been a few hot spots every and it was really early on and I think that was before we set the limit of 10 where we had some that just kind of overflowed with on-street parking and things like that.

But I think and then so as far as enforcement as a city it it is just on a complaint basis we there's there's not a really easy way to go out and monitor these.

In fact the state has restricted cities that you know you could go out and look on listings on Airbnb or or VRBO and say hey that there's a a listing here that they don't have a license for that we can't actually use that as a way to enforce so we have to just go based on complaints.

So if we have somebody that's operating one and they don't have a license the neighbors could complain and we could if there's a violation then we'd let them know these are the rules if you can meet those we can license you if not you need to stop operating.

I don't know if that answer and then HOAs you know would have a separate private remedy for enforcement they could impose fines they could you know I'm not sure what other HOA tools they have to to enforce but that would be a separate enforcement action separate from Lehigh City.

Yes do you check um to see if they have adequate parking if they meet the parking requirements?

Yes.

Yeah yeah they have to provide a site plan and show where their guests would park.

Okay and is there any way I mean you're saying that enforcement is based on complaints so how would the neighbors or residents know if they're licensed to have a short term rental or not?

I mean is that yeah I mean if they called we could check and you know if we have the address we could look it up and say yes they they have a valid license.

Now even if they had a license they might still be in violation of our rules so there still could be enforcement action that needs to be taken but yeah it would really just be a matter of when they called to if they had concerns or a complaint we'd we could check and then it would be yeah just information that we could provide them.

Yeah and I'm imagining that there wouldn't be complaints unless there is some other cars on the street that are noise or yeah.

So okay thank you.

One thing to clarify for owner occupied uh it could potentially be a situation where the owner is like on vacation and they're renting out their place or something like that.

Right that happens with these short term rentals it's it is own it is owned but that owner is not actually on site the whole time.

Like if it's one of those town a town home or something like that there's not I've seen I've seen that before I'm just clarifying that could be a potential thing that's happening.

I think if somebody was gonna you know um was on an extended travel or something but they have to show that it's their primary residence based on you know whether it's tax filing or whatever that that this is their permanent home their driver's license things like that that show this is my permanent residence.

So you know technically they could rent it out while they're not there and it does actually require them to have somebody a secondary point of contact that if there's an issue and they're not in town we have somebody else that we can call and say hey there's an issue here we need to get this resolved quickly and so they're they're required to provide that.

Okay.

I have one question Mr.

Is that filed against the primary homeowner?

Is it or is it filed against the guest?

It depends on the nature of the complaint.

Right?

If it's just if it's an unlicensed short-term rental, that would be filed against the owner.

If it's something like a noise violation or disorderly conduct, that would definitely be filed against whoever's renting the unit at that time.

Okay.

So it could it could go both ways, actually.

Okay.

Um one other comment.

I was discussing this with another city council and mayor from another another place, and they were saying that this helps increase affordability for their residents.

They've seen it as a solution to help people maintain and stay in their homes because they're able to kind of have another income.

So I thought that was a a great point that they made about that.

So expand on that, then does that open up potential as one of our goals that could be met through that always looking for goals.

Sneaky.

Sneaky leather.

Yeah.

That's funny.

Um yeah, I'd have to check.

Uh off the top of my head, I don't think it's specifically listed as one of the options in the state code, but we could you know there's those ones that say um you can set a goal to generally look at policies that would encourage affordability.

So that's probably a fair something we should look into.

Let's do it.

Any other questions for the petitioner tonight?

That's funny.

I would take a motion.

Oh, public comment.

I guess it's not a public comment.

So it's not a public comment, no.

You can open it up if you'd like.

I could.

Or I know there's a couple of you.

Do you wish to do you wanna stand at the microphone, state your name and take a minute or two?

Looks like there may be just one of you.

Maybe not.

Um I mean it depends.

We'd love to hear from if you if you I mean I have a motion.

So I don't want to give it to drag it out.

Give us your name.

Oh, sorry.

Um Brianna Hickon.

Thank you.

And um, my husband and I uh bought a home in Cold Spring Ranch with the intention of offsetting our mortgage with short-term rental.

And then about six months ago, we found out that the area plan prohibits.

So we have been on this wild roller coaster of figuring out what's allowed and how can we effectuate change and allow us to continue moving forward with that.

So we're here tonight um looking for support to change this amendment.

And um I guess some of the concerns that have been brought up, um, when I hear 10 guests in a home, that kind of scares, like that would scare me too.

So I think um really understanding that what the situation is, like our our personal residence, we would we have a three-car garage and we've implemented another driveway.

So we actually have two additional driveways um or parking spaces for guests, and our Airbnb is um a two-bedroom, so that would fit code.

So what it's one bedroom per stall.

So if you're thinking like there's gonna be ten guests in there, no, the max is four because you have one bed per bedroom.

So um and uh from uh I mean there's a select few of us who are considered owner occupied and none of us are going above even reaching that max limit.

Um another thing with HOA, um, just the point that sorry, I'm losing my train of thought here.

Um just the idea that we if we change this amendment, we would be stripping the HOA from any kind of authority.

I I think um the opposite would actually happen because we have to consider not only the current board but future boards may actually want that as an option for to meet community needs.

So if the area plan doesn't evolve with current ordinances, then you're limiting future boards from making that decision for themselves.

Um so I would just um have you guys consider the impact that you'd be making on future boards as well as this board.

Um I don't think I have anything else.

So thank you.

Yeah.

Any other comments to this?

So we'll close the comment.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any back to us.

Mr.

Mayor, will you entertain a motion?

Yes.

I move that we um approve the consideration of ordinance um 01 2026 with approving the Cold Spring Ranch Area Plan amendment to allow short-term rentals and include all DRC comments.

So I have a motion by uh Councilmember Lockhart.

Any second?

I second it.

I have a second from Councilmember Freeman.

Any questions or comments on the motion?

I do.

Emily, could you're used to this?

Can you add some findings?

In fact, and especially I would think two things.

The affordability, it it helps with affordability, which is a big challenge nowadays.

And the second, it makes our code consistent with the rest of the city.

Yeah, those are great.

I adopt those findings.

Also, we can just have direction to staff to somehow incorporate this as one of our goals too.

Yep.

You're good with that motion, Councilman Lockhart.

Councilman, you second?

Any other percent.

Any other comments?

We'll start with you, Councilman or Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stollings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, item number nine, consideration of concept plan approval for the two property.

A 219 unit development located approximately at 600 south and 2900 west.

The petitioner of century communities or Mr.

Braden Cooper if he's here.

And we'll welcome you to the mic.

How's it going, Council members?

Appreciate being here.

Worked a long time in Lehigh.

I think I started when Kim and I were both in our 20s.

And it's a great city to work in.

But I'm Tom Romney with Focus Consulting.

We're a planning and consulting firm.

So yeah, so we're here looking at a redevelopment of the Chew property.

It's 56.5 acres.

I believe you guys have concept plans and have been able to see kind of what we're proposing.

Just to give a little bit of background, I think we recognize that this is currently zoned environmentally sensitive area.

We're wanting to get feedback from the council tonight because next month our hope is to rezone the property and go for a general plan amendment.

And you know, I think we like the way we've kind of gone about this is we recognize the environmentally sensitive area that you know we are dealing with wetlands, we're dealing with a floodplain, we're next to the Jordan River.

But there's also some other unique parts about this property where we're close to Pioneer Crossings, we're at the border of Saratoga Springs.

And so when we take a step back and look at it from a big picture planning perspective, you know, we want to definitely take into account the current zoning that it's under, but then also just the long-term kind of what's right for this property as we look, you know, now and into the future of Lehigh City and the people that would live there, and also considering the people who already do live there.

And so you know, under the ESA, it's currently zoned for 25 two-acre units, which I guess from a planning perspective in this location.

I don't I don't disagree that we need to take into account the environmentally sensitive area, but I don't think that um filling it with two-acre lots that seems like a lot less because of just the pure unit count, but the impact of doing something like that may be more detrimental to the environment than what I feel like we're proposing.

So we are proposing 219 units, which 53 are single family and 166 townhomes.

That can sound like a lot going from 25 to 219.

At the same time, on an overall density standpoint, um, we're only at three point you 3.8 units to the acre, which would be a low density overall in Lehigh.

Part of the reason we're doing this is to preserve 48 percent in in open space.

And so if this if we proceeded with this plan and could work with the city to keep it in Lehigh and to uh make this plan work, um that's a pretty big win to get to get 48 percent of a development that's 56 acres in open space.

It ties nicely into already a piece that the city owns as open space, and then everything that was done with Jordan Willows.

So Jordan Willows was also ESA Um typically surrounding this project is um like 8,000 square foot lots.

There's some larger lots to the east, but a lot of the lots to the north are in that, like even some down in like 6500 to 8,000 square foot lots.

And so they used a similar method in the ESA for Jordan Willows of smaller lots preserving open space, and so we um would like to do something similar.

Um in order, and I and I guess we understand that we're asking for townhomes, which we think this is a great location.

Part of that is when you look at Saratoga zoning map, and we understand this Saratoga is not your city.

You don't have a say on what they're doing, but just the reality is they have property at that boundary and have planned regional commercial.

And the intent here is not to support their commercial, but to just in natural planning transitions, you would have regional commercial followed by a little more dense product that transitions to your less dense product, which if you go even beyond Jordan Willows makes sense from a standpoint you do get to even your larger lots and then to the east, there's larger lots.

Part of this development, you know, when you think of this this community within the overall is you know, you're extending your open space.

There's opportunities to add trailheads.

You guys have a Jordan River trailhead pretty far to the north.

And then I think there's another Jordan River Trailhead to the south.

And so, you know, I think as part of this whole discussion tonight, that what her we're hoping to get is feedback and understanding is like can we bridge the gap to where something makes sense and we can talk through things like how do we improve access to the Jordan River for this community?

How do we, as part of our plan, we're proposing existing trail connections to go through our through this property and connect to the Jordan River.

I think there's opportunities to discuss just that whole open space area and what makes the most sense and how do we make it a real amenity for the city.

How do we you know preserve it, but then also make it very usable for this community and the other adjacent communities.

So I think um that's something.

And then with this, even though we don't control the Saratoga piece, it would open up a it would be the start of a road that would connect to Pioneer.

Um the Chu family is or Mr.

Chu has owned this property for quite some time, and he has been a part of the discussions, and I know Century's been a part of the discussions where they have secured with UDOT through that Saratoga piece and intersection on Pioneer Crossing.

Pioneer Crossing has a lot of restrictions on where you can and can't put an intersection and especially a lighted intersection.

So there would be a lighted intersection that would stub a road through our property.

And we don't control what Saratoga does, but it would be the start of connecting that road um through to Pioneer Crossings, and I don't think that the you know we're not opposed to go talk to that property owner and see what options there are as far as timing and what that looks like.

I know a lot of the concern is gonna be well now we're adding more units to an area and just how do they get to pioneer crossings, but the intent is to actually improve the existing connection to prior pioneer in that future intersection.

Um so I I just think with this project there is a lot of give and take, and we're we're willing to talk with the city and work with Lehigh to try to figure something out.

But obviously, we're here tonight to get your feedback, get questions, um, and see what interest there is and what we're proposing.

Thank you.

We'll uh open it up to the council.

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, if I can.

Um I think I guess I have the benefit of living in Jordan Willows, so I understand this area very well.

Um several concerns with this.

I I think the the current proposal doesn't really fit within that neighborhood very well.

Um single-family homes, um, I don't think there's much density until you get further further east on 700 south.

Um 600 south is a very, very narrow road.

Um we have plans to improve it down the road, no pun intended.

Um but uh you know the infrastructure currently as it stands uh wouldn't be able to support this much uh density.

Um I think eventually down the road we'll we'll be able to, you know, entertain, at least in my opinion, uh kind of a single family low density type of development.

But the and you brought it up with Saratoga Springs, it's very difficult to plan that area until we know what Saratoga's gonna do with it.

Um there's a couple different options of the city that we have.

We have either Saratoga makes those plans known and they start to have concepts that we don't have control over, but at least we can start to plan our side of the border a little more effectively.

Um then of course there's always annexation or some sort of land swap uh situation that we could arrange with Saratoga Springs, but we're not uh we're not there yet.

So in my in my personal opinion, I don't I don't think this fits within the character of that neighborhood.

The infrastructure can't really support it, and we're highly dependent on Saratoga Springs to help figure this area out.

Other comments?

Um yeah, something that concerns me is that much of a proposed development is in the 100-year floodplain.

This is according to FEMA.

Um I would be concerned about building anything there or near there uh, you know, with red with our residents.

I just also think that if it's zoned for 25 units and asking for over 200, that's a that that that's a no-go for me.

Yeah, I I think the hardest thing for me with this is usually when we we give a density, it's usually because we're maybe supporting something else that um like if we're gonna increase density by that much.

And the the thing that's hard with this is Saratoga owns the commercial piece.

So I really don't like the idea of us building the density for Saratoga Springs' commercial piece.

Like if we were able to incorporate that, there was a land swap, and then there was something where we're gonna, okay, we're gonna do this and be able to integrate it together.

And but I that's what I've seen pretty consistently as you look through the the lines here between Lehigh and Saratoga is Lehigh builds the houses and Saratoga builds the commercial.

And so I'd be wonder I'd be really sensitive to that of um building a higher density product, putting that number of units there and Lehigh not having a commercial component to this, uh which is what we just see consistently and hear complaints about.

So I would I would have a hard time justifying the the density because I I don't see the other side of it.

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, if I may.

Um I had conversations with uh Saratoga Springs, tried to figure out where they were at.

They have zero interest.

It's my understanding they have zero interest in doing any form of kind of land swap of any sort, right?

Would we have to do that?

Yeah, exactly.

Right.

Um especially because they're they're really um holding on to their commercial, which is understandable.

Um I appreciate the effort in trying to do some form of a transition though.

I see the thoughtfulness there.

I appreciate that.

Um, but I'm in agreement with uh council member Harrison and Freeman that um going from 25 to 219 is simply far far too great.

Yeah, I you said it sounds like a lot, it is a lot.

So I you know we have our general plan and we have our density planned out in the in the places that it makes sense, and to me this doesn't make sense.

So um and I honestly I don't like when sorry this happens a lot, but developers come in, they have land that they can't develop on, so hey, let's just turn it over to the city, we're giving you open space, but then that puts the burden on us to maintain it and take care of it and um to spend a lot of money on a fragmite mower.

So um I I don't like getting leftovers and and exchange for density and and then putting that cost on residents.

So um I don't think it fits the area, it doesn't fit the general plan.

Um our higher density is in the places planned for the places that it makes most sense in my opinion.

So I'll just add um just you know, to Councilmember Lockhart, her comment, like it's right.

We have um Saratoga has been very resistant to this.

I think in the past, um obviously with the land swap, it has to be a pretty equal and fair land swap.

And in the past, I don't think they've seen it that way, but personally I think we should still you know explore those options to make make this land more usable.

Um, but that's that may take many years to do.

Um but I personally am interested in that, so I hope you know uh I know this is a lot of hard work and it's it's land just sitting there that could be um used for profit, but I think there's a few hurdles we need to get through before um we can get to a concept.

I'll take a motion.

Um just really quickly, Mr.

Mayer.

And this is um me coming in with just experiences of concept plans.

Usually they um they would want some form of feedback.

I guess I would just ask the applicant, is this enough feedback that you've received?

Is do you do you need any more thoughts or any have any questions of us on any other pieces of your application?

Hi, Braden Cooper, century communities.

Um I would just um you know, we're here to present to to gain feedback.

I think that's kind of why we went through the process what we did.

Um I think it's most important to note that as we talk about you know big development and we talk about Lehigh City, there's also a third party involved, which is a landowner.

And you know, here's a landowner that has rights as much as uh um as much say in this as possible.

And I am speaking on behalf of him regarding the concept that's presented.

Um outside of that, I know that he as well as you know you know, he he wants to make sure his rights are protected and that he has the ability to use his land and do with his land as he wishes.

Um the reason we we're presenting is we're trying to figure out how that can be done within Lehigh City.

Yeah, and this is my effort to help you get there.

Um so we've obviously given feedback um on regards to the floodplain and in regards to the count of density units.

Are you wanting any other pieces of feedback on this application?

Um I don't think oh, actually there is a little bit of feedback because one thing that's not noted is that I would like to present is or obviously bring to your attention was present or brought to the attention by commission and DRC is the fact that this property faces challenges with utilities.

Um there is no, you know, uh we've uh as a count, you know, we've spent the last year.

I know we've mentioned the land swap several times.

We've spent the last year trying to make that land swap happen.

Um we at one point controlled the McLaughlin piece that allowed to make that happen.

Um and we went down those lines and didn't um weren't able weren't successful at doing so.

Now it's to a point where part of that land swap has to do with the fact that Lehigh can't actually service this piece of of property in Lehigh and Saratoga, the other piece that was supposed to be swapped, can't service the piece or lee it can't service uh that piece in Saratoga.

And so it's definitely a complicated um land swap when it comes, you know, to to discussing that.

And I think more than anything tonight, we're just trying to present an option to be able to try to figure to have figured that out in the sense of having Lehigh be able to handle the the oversight of that.

So I don't I don't know if outside of the utility part of that, um, I don't know if there's any other feedback that we can you know we can get from you other than you know what are your thoughts on you know landownership and the rights of of a landowner to be able to do what he you know he needs to do to for his his rights.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

I am I think we would all probably have a different um way of putting our opinion on on property rights, but I I I respect the property rights that your applicant has, and so I appreciate you bringing that to our attention.

Um if you feel like you've received the feedback you need for the concept, that's just before a motion's made.

I just wanted to make sure the applicant can be.

I appreciate that.

And so there was some gist of like um, you know, maybe 219 is too many, 25 is what's currently zoned, and so I guess the feedback would be, you know, is it the units?

Is it the you don't like the idea of town homes?

And so just maybe a little more direction on like, you know, and and I get it, like Lehigh kind of has their TODs and has decided where they want density, just when and and it is tricky with Saratoga.

I don't think the intent is these people are only gonna shop in Saratoga.

I think again, when you're planning your city, these people will go to Traverse Mountain, they're gonna go to the different areas.

You know, they are on a major transportation corridor, so I think as a planner, that's the only thing I have a little bit of heartburn with.

I totally recognize the timing, but we would have to provide the reports that like that support the timing of the infrastructure, and maybe there's infrastructure things that this development can help with to get that figured out.

And so typically with development, the development just doesn't come tomorrow, but it takes time and reports and determining like what can it currently support with like a first phase, and then maybe to get a third phase, maybe they would have to get an easement and build out onto Pioneer Crossing.

And so just we recognize that there's a lot to figure out, but I think really the feedback is you know, if there was a place to put townhomes in Lehigh, is this is or or this amount of units, is this the right place?

And you know, is it like we're open to the open space conversation if Lehigh doesn't want it, but typically, you know, where most of it is native, the most of the improved open space would be in the townhome HOA community.

A lot of this open space would be native and pretty easy to maintain and take care of.

But at the same time, if the city didn't want that, uh, you know, I think we would be open to kind of those discussions.

But sorry, I'm kind of elongating the question of like it's kind of vague of like, is it a unit count?

Is it uh product type?

Um I think a little more feedback on kind of where we are on that gap would be helpful.

I guess have you have you developed I'm looking at your your plans and it says concept D.

I mean, so obviously there's other concepts you've considered.

Have you considered um under the current zoning, which is I think 25 units per acre?

Is there a concept or a plan that you have in mind for that?

So they're current zoning with 25 units?

Very five years.

So which is point of 25 units.

Yeah, so they would all be two acre lots.

And so you would have in order to viably develop something like that in this location, you would have to look at um mitigating wetlands.

Um, as far as the floodplain concern, a lot of this area, a lot of areas are developed in floodplains, they're just rules you need to follow.

You in essence have to get your development out of the floodplain.

And so it's one of those things where I just worked on a project on the east bench of Salt Lake City and everyone was excited that it was going to be 19 lots, but now it's 19 mansions, and now all the neighbors and the mayor is complaining because what seemed like not very impactful turned out to be more impactful.

So sometimes like townhomes seem really impactful, but then when you look at this full 56 acres when half of it is gonna be left untouched for the perpetuity of time, and you know, at that point it can't ever be developed.

There is some give and take.

And so it's just, yeah, when we when we look at those concept plans, you could in essence develop across the whole piece two acre lots.

I just don't when I look at Lehigh City, I don't think this is the right place for that type of a development.

You could still preserve some wetlands and open space and you could do smaller single family lots, but it just I don't know that it's viable at this time for the property owner.

I don't know that it would ever pencil to go to that much effort on this piece of property based on its location.

And you know, when you consider marketability, if you were looking for a you know, half acre to two acre lot, is this where people are I'm I'm not saying people wouldn't buy it here, but is this the right place as well?

I know that's not necessarily you know the code is what the code is, which is why we're here trying to kind of say, well, what do we think would be the best plan for all parties?

My my understanding and other people can agree or disagree with you on the council is that what we found is homeownership is people want to have a a separate a single family home more than town home.

That's just kind of how we high seem to um we've got they've gone one way with apartments and some townhomes and um kind of realize that a lot of times those units end up becoming rentals and not like when we're talking about home ownership, we're talking about meeting the governor's goals of having these homes.

Um they don't have to be large homes in my opinion.

Um I don't know if maybe Kim can expand on the floodplain protected wetlands area, what Lee has traditionally done.

Um what are some things you know, mitigation things like that that would be involved?

Yeah, so the the ESA we we can't not allow any development.

So our our general plan and the the way the zoning is set up is it's one unit per five acres.

And so that's where if you do the math with their acreage and and they do have some over on the far east side that's not in the floodplain, and so that area is very low density residential agricultural.

So if you take that unit yield and the and the ESA, that's where we came out with the 25 units.

But um so generally our our policy, if you read through the general plan and and our zoning code, we try to avoid development in those areas.

You could you can fill them in.

You have to go through a pretty strict process through FEMA and you have to certify, you know, what is the flood elevation, and then you have to show that you've put enough fill in that area to get it above that base flood elevation so that all of your homes are out of the floodplain.

But um, you know, our our goals are more let's just avoid development to the as much as we possibly can.

Now they could take you know the 25 units, or if there's some form of increase if we feel like there's some merit, you know, maybe the trails and if they're gonna dedicate a lot of that natural area to Lehigh City, you know, maybe maybe there is some modest increase in density, but you could cluster those all over closer to the east, which is kind of where they have their main footprint.

But but I think that's where maybe the feedback is, you know, what is our level of interest, you know, how much additional density?

It sounds like 25 is far too few units for them to make it anywhere profitable.

But but I think if you could cluster all of the development and just keep it as much as we can just out of those natural areas, it would reduce your infrastructure costs, you know, it could work to cluster all of that.

And uh Lauren and I were just looking in the Jordan Willows along that southern boundary, some of those lots are in the 7,000 square foot range, so but single family detached versus attached products, so maybe that you know I guess that's maybe where you would want to give them some feedback is are you willing to entertain any increase or do you just want to keep your general plan the way it's currently uh outlined?

I mean, for me personally, uh I think it's matching the character of the neighborhoods to the to the north and lot size.

I I would be very open to that, assuming the infrastructure um can meet the demand.

Because again, that road, it's it's hard enough just getting two cars to pass each other on that road.

Um but uh but I do think, you know, just backing up what council member Freeman said, it's uh we've built a lot of townhomes and apartments in Lehigh in the last five to ten years.

Um and what my concern is in the next 10 to 20 years, you know, we talk about those as starter homes or attainable or affordable homes.

Um what happens is the the supply of single family homes will drop off completely, right?

So there won't be any options for single family homes because there'll be like way out of price, right?

There will there will only be you know townhomes and apartments that are affordable for your average income family.

So I think there is a there is a desire for for more single family homes with a yard with a garage, um, and there's I don't think there's anything wrong with with having a concept that increases the supply of that type of housing.

Okay.

Um and then I just am curious.

Um we we talk a lot about incompatible uses, and I want to do everything I can to make sure that we don't end up in some s situations we have in Lehigh that are not ideal.

Uming that this is commercial for Saratoga Springs.

I I just would like you when you think about the concept, just maybe recognize that I'll speak for myself, but I again that's why I called attention to somewhat of a transition you had tried to do, because I recognize that that commercial's there, but I echo the comments made where um I I I don't think that what you've given tonight is correct.

Um but I appreciate that you considered the transition and and I would if there's a middle ground there, that would be my feedback to you.

Okay.

That's very helpful.

I support the 25 units.

Good to know.

Yeah, I oh no, um two things.

I'm kind of flexible.

We come in here 25 to whatever over 100, and that's not reasonable.

So I can be flexible, but not much, I guess.

Um not that high.

The other thing I do want to talk about is property rights.

And I I just hear that term thrown around all the time that we should be able to use our property however we want to.

We need to make a profit.

Okay, you have the legal right to the legal use of your property.

And it's our job as a council to make sure we use zoning to protect everybody else's property rights, right?

And we have to provide you services.

If you're out in the middle of nowhere, not in a city, um, that's not going to depend on the fire and the police and everything else that we have the residents will have to pay for, then you probably could do whatever you want with your property.

Um but we're in a city and we're obligated to provide services.

So we need to make sure we'll be able to do that.

And we need to make sure they have access to the roads, that they they have the water and that they have electricity and that sort of thing.

Um we need to make sure it doesn't negatively impact the surrounding neighbors, the current residents.

Um I think residents of Lehigh have seen how uh too much growth too quickly, not well thought through, does negatively impact them.

So when you talk about property rights, yes, within reason within the legal use, which is the zoning that you're allowed.

That that is your legal use, is what the zoning dictates.

So it's I don't believe it's our job as a city council necessarily to find a way to make it pencil.

That's your that's your job, right?

And our job is just to make sure that it's it's workable for the rest of the residents and for the city to to take care of those residents' needs.

So that's my position on property rights, and I'm sure there's others that disagree with me, but um I have studied it a lot because it's come up quite often.

But I I'm with that in mind uh you know, uh it's V L DRA, and I I think I heard somebody say that was two-acre lots.

You well, if you have I'm just saying, like so in the ESA, your five-acre lots, that we have this piece that is VL VLDRA.

And so when you combine it all, just on an overall 25 units on the total acreage is two acre lots.

It could be a mix of five acres and smaller lots, and I guess and I I totally appreciate your kind of context on property lot rights.

I think one thing that just we have talked about is this property owner has provided dedication for the Jordan River.

He provided dedication for the road that services Jordan Willows that allows it to even be built.

And that's not your responsibility to like pay him any favors, but he's been a workable um he's been workable with Lehigh to for that area to let it grow, and so I think he's asking us to come and say, well, beyond all of that, just what is the right thing for this location?

And I think when you take a big look back at Lehigh and its location and what's happening in the future, and not so this all the feedback is great.

But I just think if you were to now today say where should five acre lots go in Lehigh from a planning standpoint, I don't see it.

I just this to me, which we can disagree that this isn't the lo the location for it.

And we have an opportunity to with a lot of the feedback I've gotten, you know, we'll go talk and decide where to go from here.

But I think it's been very it's been helpful to get that that feedback and even your opinion on property rights is valuable.

So yeah, so just yeah.

I mean, we have a responsibility to the residents.

And um, yeah, there's limits on all rights.

So I just want to address that because I guess it's pet peeve.

But um yeah, that's like two cents.

I'll just add I I like matching the character of the neighborhood.

I've been trying to look through lots and I'm I'm seeing like around 9,000 square foot lots over on the west side, quarter acre lots to the north, there's some third acre lots.

So that's kind of where I would lean.

I think that that could potentially, you know, quarter acre lots, it would fit the character of the neighborhood.

It would potentially give more, considering, you know, because I when I spoke with Braden, he let me know about like things that have been dedicated, things we potentially would have given a density bonus for, things that have been done with the property um to have it match the character.

And I also you know do consider having buffering between commercial and the homes too.

So I think there's like there's there's flexibility give and take there, but I think the multifamily would be a hard sell in the area.

I think that the residents in that area generally in most areas, they feel like they are willing to have homes come in that match the same character of their neighborhood that you know fits their have a harder time when there's extreme jumps in the the size of lots.

So that would be my feedback.

This um this begs the question.

I don't know if I want to open this can of worms, but if maybe we need to do a general plan update.

Just Emily's like, no.

How much money do you want to spend?

May I'm just letting that flow.

Um speaking of general plans, so the general plan, as you noted, um we organize or put our density in certain places where you thought it would make sense.

So if we granted more density to this area, is that meaning we're taking density away from other areas?

And is that gonna I mean right now with the general plan, it's outlined in the property owners know where the density is.

So is that gonna devalue somebody else's land to to help theirs, or can you address that thought?

Yeah, it's not a requirement that if we increase in one area that we decrease now.

That's been the goal that we've tried to keep kind of a cap, which was you know, goes back to two uh 2022 when we looked at our build-out population.

So we're we've tried to do that balancing, but it's not a requirement.

You could definitely, if you wanted, you could increase the density and not decrease it anywhere else.

So it but yeah, I um like we said in our DRC comments, I think if we were gonna increase density, we there's a lot of other priority areas that we would recommend a staff versus putting it in a floodplain area in an area that has you know much lower density than than what this proposal was.

So you know we talked a lot about roads earlier today and the cost and and they're sorely needed.

So and I guess that's that's where I'm at again.

It's we planned where the density should go in the places that make sense, hopefully by transit that hopefully will come someday, or the major roads and the freeways and and such.

So um yeah so to me it's the density in this location it to me it just doesn't work.

I would yeah my guess though is in those locations you're talking upwards of 20 units to the acre and on this we're four units to four three point eight units to the acre so from a density standpoint it would still be considered a low density development and you know things would just be archived.

You've got to look at numbers the the actual numbers as well no I mean per acre versus well that's what it is well like at that yeah I know what you mean that area it gets dense but it also I think is going to hit a product type I know you have town homes these are going to be for sell town homes I think it's going to hit a product type and a prize point that Lehigh is going to need and it's you know maybe this plan doesn't have enough information to show what the architecture looks like and what the community really would be.

And so if we proceeded you know if we proceed forward um you know probably need to provide more information to s to show what that exactly would be I would also wonder how we could ensure that the green space you know that you have here that's not developed that would be this green open area how would that be able to stay how would we have a it would be platted perpetually so in the plat that would be perpetually dedicated either to the city or to an entity or the HOA or you can dedicate it to some federal groups that it's open space.

So by developing in Lee developing this piece now under a plan like this or not like this in that scenario it would be platted as open space that nobody could come later and redevelop that piece.

So I think you know the reason this is like a similar to a master plan or a PUD what you what that community is getting is 50% open space which is well 48% which is not typical for any development Jordan Willow Willows would have given something I'm pretty confident it wasn't 48%.

Any any other comments does that give you enough fire to go on that's great appreciate it.

I'll take a motion mayor I move uh to deny approval for the Cho property a 219 unit development located at approximately 600 south and 2900 west I second that a motion by council member Harrison and a second by council member Lockhart.

Any questions on that motion probably just the in a denial it's always good to add some findings and you know that it it doesn't meet the general plan and other concerns that you have.

Yeah I think I'll try that again.

Okay.

Move to let's see move to deny approval for the Cho property 219 unit development located approximately 600 south and 2900 west with findings that include um the need for uh the proper infrastructure um consideration of uh the land to the south in Saratoga and having a a plan for um that uh budding up to the the property under question and something and does it meet the the general plan um intentions my second stance yeah okay any questions in on that on those motions yeah okay council member freeman yes yes council member stallings yes council member lockhart yes council member new yes council member Harrison yes okay okay moving to number 10 consideration of ordinance zero two zero two six approving a development code amendment to chapter twenty of home occupations adding adult daycare I think Kim this is yours yes and I will just give a a really brief um summary of what we're trying to accomplish so home occupations are a very limited way that you can operate businesses within neighborhoods we currently allow child daycare as one of those uses which is a very common one of the more common home occupations that we see but in the last six months or so we've actually had a few requests to do a similar type of a daycare but for adults for whether it's um elderly individuals or somebody that has a disability that needs care during the day but they have um their family or whoever um so they don't need 24 hour care is just during those daytime hours so this this would open that up to that additional because right now it's um very specific that it's only for children 12 and under so this would now open it up for adults any questions yes I have a comment maybe more than a question.

So this this would open that up to that additional because right now it's um very specific that it's only for children 12 and under.

So this would now open it up for adults.

Any questions?

Yes, I have a comment, maybe more than a question.

Um looking at the draft of the code, it um it says any day care home occupation shall um well shall obtain and keep valid um Utah Department Health Child Care Certificate.

And then it goes on and references um strict compliance with um a certain rule in the administrative code.

Um I actually didn't look it up, but I'm assuming it um has to do with child daycare.

So I'm not opposed to this at all, but I would want to add that um for adult daycare that they would have to be licensed for adult daycare with the Utah Department of Health, and then also that they would um have to strictly comply with um Utah Administrative Code R 501-1, which does have to do with um adult daycares.

I was just wondering, um I actually had a job in college for two years, taking care of people with disabilities in a home.

Like I could group home setting.

Do we have group homes in Lehigh?

Do we have that type of you know residential facilities?

But they're I mean, where I worked, it was a home with three women in it.

And we were 24-7 stuff.

Yes, and that would fall under a different type of use, or yeah, that um we do allow those.

It just uh this is if you're just doing it in your home part, you know, part of the day, but it's still your full-time residence as you know, not uh a group home like you're describing.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm aware of a um I I had a family member who had a business in a different city, even they during the day they would um care for adults with special needs in their in her home, and then they would leave at the end of the day, and that's where she lived.

And I it's my understanding that that's what this is about, not so much like the group home portion.

Um but I think it's an it's a great service to offer to those families who need that additional care for their relatives.

Is there can as far as licensing goes?

I think Michelle kind of mentioned it with child child care, but does that go along with the business license itself, or is this just not need a license for this type of business?

Uh we would require a city license, and then if there are state requirements above and beyond Lehigh Cities like with the child daycare, we yeah, we probably we would want to add, yeah.

Um I think now I've seen where you were your question earlier uh in the day today.

Um we'd want to make sure that we specify that they also have to meet any state licensing.

Yep.

Yeah, that's a great addition.

And they I mean that's my that was my concern because spending who you're caring for, adult daycare can be much harder than child daycare.

Yeah.

You know, if you're dealing with dementia or something like that.

So the Department of Health, Utah Department of Health, they have pretty strict requirements, and so I that's why I feel comfortable with that as long as we require those things.

Any other comments?

I'll entertain a motion.

Okay.

Um I'll make the motion.

I uh move that we approve ordinance 2-20 26 approving a development code amendment to chapter 20, home occupations, adding adult day care.

Um, but also but include um I'm I'm gonna read this statement because I think this should be included.

In order to obtain and maintain the validity of uh the high city business license for any adult day care, the applicant shall obtain and keep a valid, keep valid a Utah Department of Health Adult Daycare license and an annual fire life safety inspection.

Any adult daycare home occupation shall also strictly comply with all of the requirements set forth in Utah Administrative Code R 501-1.

And then include the DRC comments.

I second that.

Okay, so we have a motion by Councilmember Stallings, a second by Councilmember Freeman.

Any comments on the motion?

Well, Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Item number 11, consideration of resolution 2026-5 of the Lehigh City Council.

Urging preservations of local land use authority and opposing new statewide high density or quote by right unquote housing mandates included in House Bill 0184 and Senate Bill 0039.

Our petitioners Councilmember Harrison, I'll turn that to you, Councilman.

Yeah, I think the I think you read the old title.

Yeah, that is, because I do know that the House Bill and the Senate bill both have been stricken from the resolution.

Yes.

It's good.

It's good.

As long as someone doesn't say the motion that way.

Yeah, so just some background on this.

This is meant to simply state a principle that I think we can agree on.

I've edited the language, I've taken feedback from my colleagues up here.

And I'm happy to take any additional feedback we could we can include in the motion.

But I think you know, this this goes without saying, but I should say it.

We're very fortunate to have capable state lawmakers.

Um there's many that are are looking out for cities' rights.

Um there are many bills that you never hear about uh because you know, ULCT, the Utah League of Cities and Towns and others um lobby hard um for the rights of cities to determine um how we can uh uh design and build and take care of our residents.

Um so these are uh I'm I'm referring to kind of the next four items because they're all uh related.

Um two of them are uh for Lehigh City alone, and the other two are for other municipalities if they do if they decide to um sign on to this as well.

Um so again, this is this is a basic principle.

I had a great conversation with with Cam at ULCT and we talked through this and um he was he was supportive, um especially removing specific references to bills um because obviously bills have names attached and and the bills do change and even some of the bills that we're concerned about have already undergone some some changes in our favor.

And so I decided to take those out, um, and it was really good advice.

Um and this is simply stating our principle.

And I think uh council member Newell had a um some great feedback on the timing of this.

Obviously, we're in new council.

It's hard.

Um, you know, we've been kind of in in full speed mode this month.

Um I think going forward, maybe later this year, um in the early fall, uh we can do something again just to kind of state our principles um prior to the session starting to ramp up and bills starting to be drafted.

Um we're just kind of behind the curve, just simply because we all entered into office.

So um happy to discuss uh these bills.

I think the the principle I'm alluding to is is cities should absolutely have the ability to um have local land use authority, um, uh zoning authorities, and then the other um the other items deal more transportation, but I think we can cover that in the next item.

Mr.

Mayor, if I may I would feel more comfortable if we removed the um the part in I think it's the third paragraph, um the parentheses more than Davis County and Weaver County combined.

Um I I just don't want to poke at anybody.

And so if we could just even though I I recognize it's not necessarily intended as poking at them, I would um I would I would just be really um I'd feel terrible if Davis County and Weaver County commissioners saw that and took offense.

I fully support that.

Okay, okay.

Yeah, I'm I'm actually really glad that you took the incentive there.

I'm a little tired right now.

But anyways, the you you did this, James.

Good job.

Initiative, there's the word.

The initiative it did this, James.

Um, I think that it's it really local land use um authority and just ha keeping this decisions closest to the people is the best.

And I uh you know, I fully uh support and property rights and and the fact that we are different than other cities than every other city and every other city has a unique identity and they have the right to develop and to zone what fits them best.

And to me, that's very important.

I'm not going to dictate how they do it in Washington County.

I'm not and I'm hoping that no one dictates to us how we do it.

And I and I think that that's you know, I just support that because I think that this verbalizes that uh very well.

I'll just echo that and just appreciate your willingness to take feedback, incorporate that feedback from here from others that you've spoken with.

Um I think that you got the tone right.

Um I know that this these are always kind of delicate things to do.

Acknowledging that our land use authority comes from the state.

So that you know, we we do need to push back.

This is where land use should be designated from, the ones who are closest to it.

Um we're trying to get government closer to the people rather than have you know these uh one size fits all solutions coming.

And so I I think that it's uh something that can encompass where all of us fill and support, but in a way that we're not trying to, you know, do something that we're gonna have any kind of like uh ruin relationships or being able to um find ways that we can collaborate better because I think the more that we can explain our point of view, things that we're doing, things that we're we're trying to help our residents um, you know, and and the reasons that we're doing the things that we're doing is good for Lehigh, it's good for the state to look that way.

So I I think it's good that we can you know put it out there and just really appreciate the your collaboration on it.

Uh thank you, James.

I mean, you get into office and you're just going for the I appreciate that the energy is amazing.

Um I appreciate that you point out that we need a diverse supply of housing.

I mean, you t told the developer, you know, we absolutely need affordable starting homes, but we're gonna need another, you know, other homes for people to move up into, or we're gonna be in another mess.

Um I appreciate that you especially you pointed out that um do you recognize that there's a shift um that you shift the infrastructure to cost to local taxpayers.

Um I think that's so important.

A lot of the tools that the legislature has given us um to help with the density or whatever it is is shifting costs to uh residents and and now they're concerned about um property taxes, right?

And it's like you kind of created this problem.

Um that I I do appreciate that you're bringing this forward, and I think um I'm fully supportive, and I think if we pass it, um it it shows that us as a council that we agree on this and we can use this resolution going forward when we're talking to other state legislatures.

And it's not egregious, it's it's common sense and it's what most cities have been saying all along.

Um I I think actually taking a step to pass a resolution can uh start a conversation and that it can follow up with requests for meetings to have uh deeper discussions about this thing.

So um I again appreciate that you took the initiative and that you're putting this forth, and um I fully support it.

Let me just say a word to this.

I uh normally don't comment on these.

I will come on on this because I've worked uh pretty hard for since last Wednesday talking to our people up at the Capitol to former government uh to the Utah League, um and we've had some great collaboration and um I uh I wish we had more residents here tonight.

I Lehigh City is one of the first that will do this, and we do it for our residents.

And the reason we do it for our residents is because we've been asked to do it.

And uh that's that's a uh a foot forward.

And so as you you look on a council tonight, uh we've been asked to to go and make sure that we take care of Lehigh.

And this is a step in that direction, um, albeit difficult and albeit all week of working through proper language and dealing with uh the people we deal with, but I'll tell you what, it's uh I think it's uh it's a great step forward.

Um I think it means wonderful things in those people that I have communicated with in the last week, and I think I think it's a that's a great step forward.

So with that, I will take a motion.

James do it, James.

All right.

I motion to approve resolution number 2026 05 urging preservation of local land use authority and opposing new statewide high density or by-right housing mandates.

Will you include striking the with striking the line that says more than Davis County and Weaver County combined?

Yeah, just that parentheses section.

Yeah, and I can second that if James doesn't want to second.

I'm trying to pay respect to you and all the okay.

So we got a motion from council member Freeman and a second from Council Member Lockhart.

Any any comments on that motion?

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Okay.

Item 12 is virtually the same item.

It's consideration of resolution 2026-06 of the participating municipalities of northern Utah County.

Urging preservation of local land use authority and opposing new statewide high density or by right housing mandates.

Any questions on any of that?

No, I don't I again this is very much copy and paste, except it's it's invite our neighbors.

I don't think that this is not new information, just you know, so the public knows I I've alone, and I'm sure many of everyone up here has had multiple conversations with senators, representatives, other municipalities about these thoughts in the last few weeks, if not months.

And uh we're just actually formally putting a resolution together, but these are things and thoughts that we have verbalized and had a lot of conversations with our uh with other elected officials about.

So other comments?

I would just ask for the same change if that's acceptable, yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Harrison, any closing comments on it?

I'll take a motion.

All right, I'll I'll do this one.

Umor, let's see, let me make sure I'm on the right one here.

Uh mayor, I move to approve resolution 2026-06 of the participating municipal municipalities of northern Utah County urging preservation of local land use authority and opposing new statewide high density or buy right housing mandates and also removing the references to Davis and Weaver County within that resolution.

Do I have a second?

Second.

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

Any comments on that?

Good job, James.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Council Member Lockhart.

Yes.

Item 13, consideration of resolution 2026 07 of the Lehigh City Council urging additional um equitable transportation funding for Utah County.

Um so on this one, I'm I'm very much open to basically three options.

Approve as is.

Um I'm very happy.

This is more specific around language um related to numbers.

And the reason why I use Davis and Weber County is not in a negative way.

It's more like I'm very happy Davis and Weaver got that funding.

It's awesome.

I have family up there.

Um so it's well deserved and they absolutely need it.

Um it's just comparing essentially the the economy and the population uh between those two counties and and Utah County.

Um and just you know, not decreasing funding by any stretch for Davis and Weaver, but just helping Utah County uh reach that level.

And so I I'm open to um making this more like the last one that's more just purely principle.

Um I think it takes out a lot of the the kind of data that helps this resolution.

Um I'm also opening to tabling it until until later in the year.

Uh I think this is a much more complex issue.

I I know I had a uh conversation a few weeks ago with um Councilmember Lockhart and she brought up some very good points about federal funding and um state funding and everything in between.

Um so happy to hear your thoughts.

One one thing that I should bring up.

So I helped write a letter in November for MAG.

Um it was a joint letter.

It was signed by all three Utah County commissioners and 20 mayors about the transit and transportation and the fact that Utah County is 15 years behind, and also the fact that our UTA funding um did not, you know, we didn't come through this year either.

Um I should have sent this letter to you guys earlier, like it was something that I was like thinking of today that maybe you should look at this letter, see if there's things from that because there's a lot of sources that are cited in it.

Um it's not necessarily a comparison on any other county and uh and it did have that wide support by MAG.

Um and so maybe that would be good to kind of use that as a baseline and things that could be incorporated there.

It can be like something where we want to incorporate that, but it would also be joining with their voices and the Utah County Commissioners.

Um thought that I um when I was reading through this, something that just gave me concern and um is this it's I believe it's paragraph one, two, three, and it says, yet critical regional connections and capacity projects remain unfunded or underfunded.

And while I think I know exactly which ones you're talking about, and which would make that a true statement um with what happened last year and the f or in 2024 with the funding we received.

I think I think this might the way in which it's worded, people might feel like maybe there was a lack of appreciation for the billions that came.

So that was just what I was hoping we could massage out tonight and and maybe um maybe it would take more than just this evening to do, but um that that was really the particular piece that I felt needed to be addressed thank you.

I do think it is nice having this comparison here with I I mean I think we could compare with others than even Davis or Weeber.

We could I don't know how many Washington County has I don't know.

But we were we have approximately the estimated population, Utah's County 747,234.

Is there another county that we can Salt Lake County that has that many?

I think they have even more and they probably have double or at least the process though.

That's something to yeah, anyways.

I don't know.

That's something I just on my mind.

I do like the idea.

Like if if we do if we do want to save this for for later in the year prior to the next session, um we can obviously do much more um data, even have like uh an appendix with with comparisons and and kind of show it in more detail.

I'm totally open to that.

Um it sounds like there may be a letter already out there, right?

I think if you were to do that too, it could be something where you would have the time to be able to get cities on board, work with Mayor Benz, get it in front of MAG and you know, being able to work it that way.

Because I I think the more that we can be united regionally, the more powerful we are.

Because even when it comes to MAG, despite the fact that you know the size of Lehigh, we still just have one vote.

So, you know, that the I think combining the voices together and making sure that I just don't want any kind of pushback, like um Councilmember Lockhart's talking about where they say, well, what about this, and then they ignore everything else, all the points you've made.

So I think it would it needs to be really solid.

And I would love to see the comparisons because I don't think others are doing that.

And that was something that was pretty eye-opening to me too, as we dug into it, realizing just how far behind we are in Utah County.

So if we tabled it, Tisha, that's indefinite until someone brings it back.

If we postpone it, we give us specific specificity.

I mean, you can table it to a certain date, right?

Um mayor, may I ask a question of staff?

Yeah.

So Brad went home, but maybe you can help me.

So with the Pell study that's I guess it started or they've got the team or something.

Um my understanding is they're really they're gonna make some solid decisions about what roads are needed.

Um how is that that's a year-long process?

Do you know?

I I don't know how long the it's called the 55, but I I'm not sure how long it takes.

I don't know.

It goes through a lot of process.

They've already started, they wanted to do meetings, one what yesterday or one yesterday, one.

One today.

But it goes through quite a while.

So I I don't remember the same uh final date.

So my my thought with this, I mean, you're pretty as part Pony Express Parkway being included in there.

Um I guess you know, with the discussion we had today, we ought to look at what what do we really want to happen with that?

Do we want you dot to take it over and extend it through American Fork and Lehigh?

I think if we come back with specific asks, um, we'd have better success.

I mean with funding, I mean, it's a huge process.

You've got to have designs and plans.

I mean so I I think we need to pin down what exactly we want, and then the pointing the mount east-west connector.

I I know there's several different options for that.

I can't remember the Pell studies gone that far north, but um we might want to wait till we're further along in that process to know what that study will support, and then use this resolution to get you know make a statement to try to get funding to say I'm good tabling it.

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, if I may, is this something that we need to collectively need to say, hey, we want to direct staff, like please put time and attention into this working with to make sure that we've got like to um council member stalling's point that we've all come together like and and got everything correct, right?

Just I mean, I think I don't I'm not sure if we need to formalize it to the extent of like asking you know staff resources to be put on this, but I would support that.

Um, yeah, I I think we have specific asks and we would obviously need their input.

Um so it is that required or I was just saying that would be helpful for us.

Help them to give staff some direction.

Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

I I think maybe finding a just backwards planning, right?

So if I guess would if this was you know, if we want to put it out October 1st, for example, and have it had multiple cities signed, everything's done and over with.

We've already voted on it.

Um backwards planning.

I think maybe by July, August, we could have our initial draft language and then we start talking to the other cities and the league.

Um and then it gives a couple months for cities to consider and vote on it, and then hopefully we can have just a final vote and and release.

And that would give us two months to pound the pavement and and give other cities time to adopt it.

Remember, we have MAG, right?

So MAG's gonna give us probably the majority of all information because they already have it.

So that's I think we'll we'll have to definitely use that to our advantage and pull on those that information.

When are we saying it would be most efficacious to do something like that?

Because I do think October might be good.

Um it's election season again for some of our state officials, so they might be listening more to cities.

I don't know.

I I would think so because around that timeline is when they're they're drafting.

I know like with other bills, like they they start about November, really like going out to the communities.

So I think before, you know, October for sure we would want to have that.

So August 1 be up.

So August 1, August 1 being when staff is completed everything, and then we start socializing it with other cities.

Okay.

That's great.

So I'll take a motion, and I think we can include item 13 and 14 in that same motion if you would like to.

I can try.

Go ahead.

Okay, I um I move to table resolution number 20 2607, a resolution of the uh urging additional and equitable transportation funding for Utah County, as well as resolution 202608.

Um for the participating municipalities in Northern Utah urging additional and equitable transportation funding for Utah County until August.

I may direct staff to have to work and direct stuff.

Yeah, by August 1st or something.

And direct staff to work towards uh bringing it back to the council August 1st.

Yeah, what meeting are around.

Approximately the last meeting in July, you know, if you're done early.

Approximately beginning of August.

I don't know.

When council with approximately are you okay with that?

James?

Yeah.

So I have a motion from Council Member Freeman.

I have a second from council member Newell.

Any comments on that motion?

Okay, Councilman Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Okay, let's circle back to our start of our meeting, just real quick.

Agenda items.

We've covered all the agenda items.

Administrative reports, Jason.

Only thing I wanted to tie up uh the loose end about the meeting on February 24th.

Is everyone okay if we were to cancel that meeting?

The staff we felt like we could distribute the items.

So my only concern is that um we have a policy of February and what is September for general plan amendments.

And so if we council a meeting where people want general plan amendments, I don't want them bumped six months.

So that's my only concern.

Sorry.

No, you're fine.

Kim could answer.

My understanding is they just have to file in that period.

Yeah, we don't have to be talking about general planning.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, as long as the application comes in any time during that month.

So it wouldn't affect when we hear it.

Okay.

Yeah, you probably wouldn't even end up hearing it until March or April.

Probably April really.

That was my only concern is I didn't want to bump you know these applicants the six months.

And I did check, and I think we only had one item that was on that agenda right now, and it was actually one that they weren't in a big hurry.

They'd already bumped it off one agenda, so I think we would be fine to not hold that meeting.

We can just put the other stuff on the March meeting.

Everybody okay with that?

Is that the week we have a Monday work session?

Do we need to cancel that as well?

No.

We don't have one that's the first week.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I guess Jason, for as we head into budget season.

Um can you talk about kind of when that's gonna start hitting council meetings?

Is it March?

So yeah, let me we just had the budget calendar go out.

I can pull it up.

I don't want to tell you around.

Okay, so we have the retreat on half the retreat on the 29th, the other half on the fifth.

And then we will have staff goals due on February 20th, and then that will come budget requests due on the 27th, and then on March 9th and 10th, we will have the presentation of staff goals to the council.

So they'll again they're setting their goals based on what they hear from you at the budget retreat.

So that's where we kind of make sure that we're in alignment there.

So can I ask why are we doing both the ninth and the tenth if the night's a work session and the tenth would be a regular city council meeting?

Yeah, I yeah, I think if there's um lead over yeah, we need to continue.

It's meant to be a collaborative process.

I mean, the mayor does have the responsibility of presenting a preliminary budget, but we do want you guys to feel like you've been included along the way.

Um so when it does get turned over to you that you can feel comfortable making decisions, making changes.

Uh but we're always here to answer questions.

So do we need to work in more time on the ninth for that sort of thing?

Um I don't think so, but if if we can if you'd like to I've never done this before, I have no idea.

I don't I don't know.

I was just gonna say Jason's together knows.

Yeah.

I don't I don't think so.

I think that's more than enough time.

Yeah, no.

Okay, so we're good canceling the meeting on the 24th.

Okay.

Anything else, Jason?

No, um just trying to we can send this out to you if you haven't received it already.

You might be copied on this, but um you know we do have the in the internal department meetings.

We can't have more than two of you at those meetings at a time, but we can arm wrestle for it or something.

You guys can decide which ones you want to be at.

And then um Can I just say if you end up not attending a meeting, just let the rest of us know?

Because that I got bumped from one and then found out the person didn't attend, so I was kind of bummed about that.

So yeah, and I have no idea I didn't I've never I don't know when the internal department meetings are, so if you can send me that information.

No, we'll we'll send out the the schedule, but as as a rule, not all of you can come to all of them.

We're gonna have to share.

So Jason, can we get seems like the departments submit um kind of the rationale or something?

Can all the city council have those get those?

Yeah, they put a budget request form together.

So not only do the do they put their numbers, they put their yeah, their rationale or the reasoning.

Why they want what they're asking for, what they would do if that request is not funded, possible alternatives, and and that's kind of what we contemplate as we look over the budget.

So and one other question uh for the small business council.

Yeah.

Um would we be good to put that on probably early March?

I think that gives you enough time.

You know, Marlin had a call today with Minneapolis, because they have one.

Um he's talked to another city.

What was it?

I can't remember.

It was another larger city.

So he's done a lot of work.

I I'll ask him and see if March is is good, but I would I would imagine that'd be a dead time.

Okay, yeah, right.

So I know he's been working on it.

Anything else, Jason?

Um not unless there's any other questions for me.

We'll get this budget calendar sent out to you.

Um it doesn't have the specific department's dates and times.

We don't have that put together um yet, but it's forthcoming.

Yeah.

Teach you anything for us?

Any uh any reports from the council on committee meetings or anything that's going on up there?

Do you want to report on?

I have any nuance.

I other than I guess well last night we got a new superintendent.

Yeah, I was going to read the remote.

Yeah.

So and I'm very excited that it's uh Dr.

Jill Perkins.

Um he opened SkyRidge and I think Skyridge ha is a fantastic high school.

You look at the programs and the things that Skyriage has compared to other ones, and it's um it's a model.

So I I think everybody is very excited about having him be the superintendent.

And they are continuing to push for the business administrator position.

It closes on February 13th.

Um this one they've expanded to be a much farther reach to you know, those who are involved in public finance and not necessarily just education, public finance, but so I think they've been getting quite a few applications for that, and they'll probably do the same thing that they did with the superintendent search and have uh the have a group of community members and community leaders go through those applications.

Mayor, I also have something.

Um last night, uh Councilmember Stallings and I attended a housing discussion.

Thank you, Rachel, for sharing the information.

Um I just wanted to put HB68 on everybody's radar.

That's the housing reorganization bill that Representative Roberts is running.

Um he went through and explained um the intent is uh currently all the housing policy is spread out amongst lots of different agencies in the executive branch.

Uh this bill brings all of those housing polities under Goyo.

Um the governor's office of economic opportunity.

His rationale for that was they um are all about creating economic growth and they should also be addressing the supply side, right?

So demand and supply.

Anyway, it was a great meeting.

Thanks for sharing it.

Um I just wanted to put that on everyone's radar if it wasn't already.

Okay.

I'll just say the um the league meeting yesterday was was very interesting.

Um we voted on priorities.

Uh we talked about the different bills up, but actually one of the more fruitful parts of that trip was um uh talking to representative Malloy.

Um I went to a breakfast in the morning and he happened to be there and we we talked for a bit and then I joined him on the floor um of his election reform bill.

Uh and that was that was very interesting, but I I just think it's it's great to get to know our representatives and um I haven't talked to him in a few months, but uh I think you know it goes to show I think we could probably have some more regular even in our work sessions or in a council meeting um presentations by each lawmaker.

It's great as if we do it as a group, but um even better if we can do it one on one um or I guess council on one.

Um and just and just express what we're trying to accomplish.

I think the resolution helps, but talking through other issues and allowing them to ask questions as well.

You're ready to go, aren't you?

Council member stallings.

Sorry.

Um really quick.

Yeah, uh so I was at the meeting also with Cal Roberts.

I just want to put this on staff's radar that and we'll see where it goes.

But he has a bill that's not numbered yet where he wants to consolidate all the housing infrastructure financing tools like HCRZ, which is the one we have.

And the one thing I brought up to him afterwards was okay, what are you gonna do if you get rid of that and they're still in progress?

You you you know, we have that state committee that oversees it.

Um so I we probably have somebody on staff that watches the bill, so that he's like, oh yeah, that's a good point.

So we'll see what happens with that bill.

But um yeah, and the the league meeting was great.

It was they didn't even talk about land use bills, but they still had it done.

A lot that we have to watch out for.

Um just other actually fun things.

Um the Hutchings Museum is going to offer Lehigh City employees free passage to the museum.

So we're working with David Kitchens about how to go about doing that.

But they that's just a thank you to the city um for their help in the funding.

Um and then just the we're the historical society and the Hutchins Museum are gearing up for America 2050 or anniversary, and um they're hoping to display John the John Haas presidential collection.

Um which I'm under I was told it's being stored in the basement of the building of the cemetery or something, which is kind of sad.

So kind of exciting that we can pull that out and dust it up and get it displayed for our 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

So that's all I have.

Okay, I'll say something.

It's been a great week.

It's been fun having the legislation session start and just reading over a lot of bills, talking to a lot of people.

I think we've all all been doing it and uh being apprised of you know on text with different uh lawmakers and being able to watch the school board on my phone as I was driving towards it and they got the superintendent in and I sat in my car and watched the rest of it, you know.

There's just been a lot of great things happening in Lehigh and in Utah in general, and it's it's a good exciting time.

So thankful for everyone's work and everyone's involvement.

I think we're we're doing great.

Okay.

I uh would agree.

It's we're busy.

It's uh I know in the offices here on the city campus, we're busy.

I know we're tracking bills and we're getting ready, but the the day is coming, so have your phones ready.

Uh because the day of calling and needing to call is coming.

So be aware that I had a nice talk this morning with uh Cam Deal about that.

And uh so just be ready as we kind of approach start to approach these now week by week, and it gets a little bit hotter uh as the weeks go by.

With that, I will uh our next meeting again then will be on Thursday.

Um but I'll go ahead and take a motion motion to adjourn this meeting.

Second.

Take a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.