Okay, so we'll uh pick up where we left off.

We'll pick up with item number four and go to 4.1 discussion of option and lease agreement with new singular wireless.

And we have a representative from ATT, I believe, on the line if you have any questions.

But I brought this to work session just because this is the first time that this council have seen franchise agreements or sell um cell tower agreements and this agreement as I was talking with council member Freeman and then refreshing my recollections because it's been a while.

This isn't for a new poll.

So ATT will be putting some of their facilities on an existing poll, and so they need a little bit of property for like the power to s to serve that.

And so that explains the difference in the price.

So we'll we'll make sure that that's both the language and the table, the language or the They're consistent with each other.

But we don't have a lot of these yet in Lehigh City.

Um maybe five or six spread throughout the city.

But if you have any questions about any of the language, um I can try to answer those, or we have um somebody from ATT that could answer those as well.

And then I'll if you don't have any questions, then I'll explain 4.2, but they're very similar as far as the process.

Um I think I asked you my question, so I'm thank you for explaining that.

I yeah, I wasn't familiar with that before, so thank you.

Okay.

4.2, we we do have quite a few of these.

These are telecommunications franchises, so different than a cable franchise, which it's kind of you know 34 years ago, th 30 to 40 years ago, that's what we saw initially were cable franchises, 5% franchise fee.

These are basically for um internet service.

And so the the one for Century Link is um a renewal, it's a new one, but based on the old one expiring a few years ago, and they've been acquired um by a company called Lumen.

So we've been working through some cleanup issues and those have been resolved, so we're comfortable moving forward with the franchise agreement.

I don't think it will be too long until you'll also see a poll attachment agreement.

But one of our requirements in order to have a poll attachment agreement is that you first have a franchise agreement.

So we'll be working on that in the future.

So that's been they've been an existing provider in our city for quite a while.

Emery Telecom is a new one, and so they want to run fiber in in the through the city, and so that's just our standard telecommunications franchise agreement.

Um I can't think of anything that's unique or out of the ordinary from the others that we've done over the past you know, five years, ten years.

And so again, if uh we have representatives from both of these companies on the line if you have any questions that other than that, then we'll bring this back to you for a vote at the next council meeting.

This was just so you could ask questions.

I do.

This is just for right-of-way access, right?

Not okay.

I thought I heard somewhere that we can't tax internet providers or something, but this is something different, right?

No, that I mean we can't, so we can't charge a um a traditional cable franchise fee, which is five percent, but the state has a municipal telecommunications tax that's two and a half percent.

And so we use that um under federal law, we're allowed to charge reasonable compensation, and so that's what that's what most cities have gone with that they have in their franchise agreement, is that two and a half percent telecommunic telecommunications tax, and so that's the that's what's in this one.

So yeah.

That that we can get reasonable compensation, and both parties have agreed that that represents reasonable compensation.

I I asked you my questions earlier today.

I think I'm good.

Thank you.

Okay, with that we'll move to 4.3.

Okay, I'm actually gonna talk about this one.

Okay.

Um David, I've been working with David on this, and so um he probably knows more about it than I do, but I'll do my best.

Um so the reason that this came up is um after the election and kind of during the turnover changes between the council.

Uh internally, we had some like processing questions about what the compensation is.

And I don't know if you've looked at our code and compared it to the current salary, but it's very different.

Um and that was it was designed the code was designed that way on purpose, but um we kind of saw this that um it might it's not maybe the most transparent way to do it, um just because the salary that's listed in there is so off from what it is right now, um, even though there's an explanation for it.

Um so we just wanted to kind of bring this to you.

And we had like a couple of goals in mind when we were doing this.

Uh the first is that we we didn't really want to change very much of the code, so our intent wasn't to rewrite this whole this whole section.

So we're just taking very small portions and making little changes, and it's just for clarification.

So we're we're in um compliance still with what the state code requires.

This is just clarifying uh what we need to do.

And yeah, we really thought that uh having a public hearing and an ordinance and listing that specifically in our code would be more transparent.

That way it'd be easier for residents to find the salary, especially if it's done annually.

They'll be easily it'll be really easy to search minutes or agendas or ordinances and they'll be able to find the salaries that way.

Um it's also on the Transparency Utah website.

Um then this also just kind of simplifies the process um so that residents, yeah, just know where they can find it.

And then this uh if we do it this way, we don't need to make any code amendments moving forward.

So that kind of helps simplify everything as well.

And that's because it'll be changed as part of the budget process, right?

That'll be the ordinance that the salaries will and so we won't have to amend this code every year as their salaries change.

Yes, yes, correct.

But we'll have like a completely separate hearing so that the salaries will be addressed separately.

So just to clarify, it will be part of the budget, or it will be separate.

I guess I think we could probably do it either way.

We could probably do it as part of the budget ordinance, or we can just make a separate ordinance that's not codified.

Maybe I got ahead of myself on that.

We can have the answers, yeah.

Yeah, we can kind of work through that a little bit too.

Yeah, while that might be your preference, so I think either one complies with state law, but if you'd rather have it be broken out separately, we can certainly do that.

As long as there's a public hearing and an ordinance is passed.

Just chipping in my two cents, I would like to see it separate just for the sake of the public and transparency so that they know that it's very clear and they don't have to dig through the budget to find it.

I I agree.

And I'm fine doing it with the budget because I just want to have one less honest thing.

And if it's all together, but I'm fine with like it really doesn't matter to me.

I just think it yeah.

As long as it we're this is basically the compensation for the mayor and members of the city council shall be adopted annually by ordinance after a public hearing and based upon the same compensation increase that is made available to all other employees of the city.

So basically we have hearings for the budget.

Um I don't know.

Yeah.

That last part of that um gives me some pause.

Um and I'm I don't know if tonight's the night that that needs to be addressed, but I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with um our salaries going up.

Like if we were to give a salary increase to all city employees, that's great one thing, but I don't necessarily think that that needs to be us every time as well.

So the word shall, I think um could be a may that way if we do it for the city, it doesn't necessarily mean us too.

Um again, creating that bright line of transparency for residents that if we do do it for us, that they can it's very distinct and different.

Um but there are pros and cons to that.

I just that's kind of where my initial thoughts are.

I I have a question for for Ryan.

Um is it is it codified?

Is it um I guess is it even legal for sitting council members to raise their own salaries?

Because I thought I read somewhere that um any any sort of increase would apply only to the next council.

Obviously, we rotate through, so it's not as clean as you know, like um other positions, but I just wanted to hear Ryan's thoughts on that.

Yeah, I'm not aware of a provision like that, but I could go like a check, but I don't think so.

Again, I think that's why the the requirement is a public hearing so that if the the council raises its own salary, then at least the public has the opportunity to come and it's not just a public meeting, it's a public hearing where they have the right to speak at it.

I'll double check, but I I don't know of one as I sit here today.

Okay.

I I just I thought I had read something on that previously.

I mean, obviously, at least personally I have no intention of raising uh pay for for council or mayor, but um I just wasn't sure if there was um you know legal restrictions on that.

So um thanks for that, Ryan.

Well, and I I think that's to my point is because the word says shall, right?

Um both James and I share the same intention, but because it says shall, if we give it to the city staff, then doesn't that mean it has to be applied to us as well?

And so that's why I think it'd be better if it was a May.

But I think but I think it has to I think it's saying shall be adopted annually by ordinance because it is it we have do we have to do we have to adopt compensation every year?

So I think I think you're referring to the last part, right?

It's all one sentence and shall be adopted and the what you're adopting is based upon the increase.

So I think it's all one sentence.

Do we do we have to adopt the compensation annually?

I guess is the question, or do we just once it's adopted we can let it ride until the next time it needs to be?

I think they increase is the concern.

So Tisha, is this something we'll be voting on?

So I mean my my suggestions are just the red lines there.

But if you guys want to make more changes to it, we can like you're suggesting right now, we can go back and work on those changes a little bit more and bring back something else.

Do you know what the I mean and I don't know if it was your language or David's, what was the intent?

Was the intent that every year when we adopt the compensation increase for the employees they they would automatically get the same increase?

Yeah, so the change was for yeah, so I mean that's how it was originally written.

So that's the original code.

Yeah.

So I'd say if you want if you want to change that, then just add language that makes that clean.

Yeah, and I think having it be a May leaves it on the table, but in a public hearing to the public, they know that we are choosing to do that.

And it's not just defaulting to that.

Um just creates that layer of accountability and transparency to the public.

And go ahead, James.

Sorry.

Um I I would agree with Emily on that.

I think um the compensation for city employees are obviously based on their full-time positions or even part-time, but but based around a wage um for their employment.

Uh this is being on the council or being the mayor, obviously this is a part-time role and this isn't like our living wage uh to support our families or anything.

So I think I would much rather separate it and not have a regular increase or at least have the option within the language as currently stated to not to opt out of pushing a wage increase for mayor and council and separating it from city employees.

Yeah, and this is still just on a work or pre-council agenda, so you're not voting on it tonight.

So just give us whatever feedback that you want and we'll bring the final draft back in a future meeting.

Yeah, I agree with the May.

And it I wouldn't feel comfortable.

I'm fine just freezing it, you know, uh for myself, but um I wouldn't ever want to do a pay increase for us when we might have to cut other places or something like that.

I mean it's it's not much, but I I agree.

I'd rather have it a May just to give us flexibility too.

And I'll play devil's advocate on this one.

Like we may have council members who are more affluent.

Doesn't really matter, right?

That we have other positions and uh those who don't take uh benefits because they don't need them.

Um that may not be the case in the future.

So when if you were putting and I so I I'm okay with the May, I could see the reason for the adjustment because essentially it's a cost of living um adjustment.

And so what you would be saying each year to those council members is you're going to be paid less than you were the first year if you're not doing a cost of living adjustment.

I just think that that's something to keep in mind when it comes to us when it comes to staff, that if you're not doing at least that basic cost of living adjustment, you are essentially giving them less the next year than you did the previous year.

Um so it's like I don't want to take into account my own financial situation without you know knowing what other future council members or mayors may be needing.

I don't want to ever limit these roles by um what uh people may be able to afford to do.

So I I think if it's a May and we look at it each year, but also looking at it through the eyes of if it is a cost of living increase, that's very different than a merit increase.

Yeah, and I I totally hear you on that.

That's why I think it'd be great to separate what we do for ourselves as elected officials to what we choose to do for staff.

Um so that there's just a clear distinct distinction.

So that there's just a clear distinct distinction.

And the use of the word May gives the flexibility where if like Councilmember Stalling said there's room in the budget for something like that, great.

But if it happens to be a difficult year we we're we're able to sacrifice before we make everyone else or and I it's a pretty small amounts, right?

But I um I don't know just more options for us to so we're not but I but I hear you and so I think the word May accomplishes both.

Right.

And I and it seems like this was something that was I remember this being put in at some point, right?

Because didn't they have to vote it on every time.

I wonder if it just takes out the the political hit because yeah I'm like no why am I gonna I'm not gonna take that political hit for an extra 20 bucks you know um but I also don't want to put other people in that position because it's g it will get to the point at some point where they're gonna have to vote on that and it's going to be political capital to do it.

We saw that at the county um and with Kennisher Beltran did not want to take the the raise and basically was forced to because it was aligned this same way so I do like the idea of being able to separate it.

Um because we can also see how salaries can get really inflated.

And that's a really good point.

Just m to add on to that if we were to move towards changing and I'll use the mayor's position as an example like to go like to a full time and then the roles and responsibilities changed and things like that, then I I I could see more like cost of living and being a part of that.

But as elected officials I feel like we're public servants, we're our staff, this is their careers and so it makes more sense for them and maybe not so much for us, but that the power of the May gives us that option.

So but I hear you may we ask a question sorry.

Yeah.

Just to clarify um it says based upon the same compensation increase.

So is that just cost of living increase or the merit I mean what I understand it's like one percent for the cost of living and then three percent it depends on the year.

So typically what we have said is three percent merit and then whatever percent last year we did a four percent total so one percent cost of living.

So in years past we've done two percent or but generally it's three percent merit and then whatever else for market or um cost of living.

So would this the language mean that three percent plus whatever or just the cost of so we've interpreted it to mean whatever we have budget, so 4%.

Okay.

And if I could just and again I I appreciate the conversation and and not to muddy the water further but um you guys do do a lot of work for not very much money and I know you don't do it for the money.

But again by by pushing it down the road you're forcing a future council to have to spend a lot of political capital to to make it worth their time whereas like we said you might disenfranchise unintentionally disenfranchise people that otherwise might run for office that simply might not be able to afford to but again I don't have a dog in a fight.

It's it's up to you guys.

And it might be something we look at later but and maybe just look at a cost of living increase instead of the cost of living portion of it.

That's the part that I would be the most concerned about and especially for that.

I don't want to do something to make me look great.

Oh I'm not taking a raise and then I'm pushing that off as we've seen other entities do to where it's like we're really only limiting this to those who are financially you know independent or they're retired and it's like an I I love having the full perspective I want to be able to that this is open to be able to work for other people not just me.

Yeah I agree I think the cost of living increase should be looked at just I know I I mean I think we all sacrificed them at our work to come here and to attend different other meetings and for people and luckily I can do that but you know if you're having to s to sacrifice that and a wage it might deter people that we would want to be an elected elected officials they were like I can't do I can't miss these nights right I can't miss these shifts that I'm working.

One other thing is on BNC where it says um alternatively when it says a monthly premium out to one half I think it's m of the monthly medical premium amount I think is what we need is it specified is what I understand.

So we might need to change that to since that's actually act the most accurate and and Jason are are you saying that last year the counts received four percent along with the city employees.

And then what percentage of city employees receive the merit increase?

I don't know off the top of my head.

We could find out for you.

Okay.

If words matter, I guess, if there's a merit and a cost of living increase, I don't see why uh the council should get a merit increase.

I think I think that comes along with re-election.

That's the merit um uh reward if you're doing a good job.

I don't think pay should reflect um merit for council members, but that's that's just my thought.

Well, like we said, we can we can look into this how we want to slice it, and and again, maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Any other input on this?

I think we're I like that direction.

Awesome.

Uh agenda item number five.

Additional questions, any questions tonight on tonight's agenda.

Okay, so we should be good there.

Any administrative reports from anybody from our staff?

Any staff?

Nothing tonight.

Any uh reports from the council?

Current reports.

The Olympics are happening.

Olympics are on.

Everyone?

They are.

And then coming here 2034.

Let's be ready.

Hey Mayor, I have I have just one update.

Sorry, Michelle.

Go ahead.

Um so this is just I guess it's not related to an assignment.

I've talked to most um members of the council about this already, as well as Ryan.

So uh just exploring options to pass um a term limit.

Uh I guess um not a resolution, but however we would want to frame that uh from the council.

Um obviously the details need to be hashed out, and so I've had some discussions with with Ryan on what that would look like.

I know Saratoga Springs uh has did it in the recent election.

Um so I just want to make the full council aware of that.

I know at least a majority have um given the green light on on using some staff time to to look into this, but I just wanted to put that out in the open um as as Ryan explores that a little further.

Thank you.

That is um that will be coming just so you know, so I know that's being worked on and will come in a future meeting.

So any other comments?

I just have a report.

So um the historic society and historic preservation committee.

We're gearing up going to have our planning meeting for the historical markers.

Just to prep the mayor and council members, we usually ask one of you to speak at those.

So we'll get those out if you and I'll get you the list of um which sites we're hitting, and if you like have a preference or something, one of them is special to you, just let me know.

So thank you.

Great, thank you.

Okay, I'll take a motion to to close our pre-council.

We'll take a quick five-minute break and come back.

So moved.

Okay, council member Nool, the motion and a second.

Second.

Second from Council Member Freeman.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

No one opposed.

Excellent.

We'll take five minutes.

We'll be back.

I am.

Awesome, thank you.

Okay, welcome to our uh city council meeting today on February 10th, Tuesday night, February 10th at 7 p.m.

We welcome all those who are here, both uh citizens and our staffs.

Uh we have a full council tonight.

Representative, excuse me, Councilmember Newell, Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Freeman, Councilmember Stallings, and Councilmember Lockhart.

And uh so we should be full tonight.

We will open our meeting today with the role with a Pledge of Allegiance, and we'll be l if you'll stand and remove your caps, we'll be led by Councilmember Freeman.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice world.

Thank you.

Okay, so we're gonna open up for a 20-minute citizen input.

I we only have one item on the agenda tonight.

And so what we may do if if there's some citizens that would have some input that has input that's not tied to um item number five of the consideration of the ordinance for 2026, amending the Lehigh City Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 3 of Noise Control.

So if you're not here to talk about noise control, we're gonna open it up for 20 minutes of citizen input.

You and you're welcome to come to the podium.

And you're welcome to come to the podium.

We ask that you state your name and we'll give you three minutes.

So if if you'd like to take a minute, please come forward and uh you'll have three minutes to talk.

I'll go ahead and stand up first I don't intend to spend as very much time here tonight.

But I'm happy to be here tonight.

And uh thank you, council and and uh mayor for your time.

I'm here to introduce somebody tonight.

I got a call today from Isaac Paxman, who is somebody I've been associated with for quite some time uh in a lot of meetings.

I've watched him perform very well uh in serving serving the citizens of this valley.

Um he is running for counting commissioner and he called me the sonat or this today and asked me if I was gonna be here, and I just told him I said, well, normally I don't really care to go to any more council meetings because I've done my time.

But I said if you want me to introduce you, I would be happy to.

So I want to just take a moment and introduce you to Isaac.

Uh what I know about him is he's uh he's a very good servant.

He understands uh politics.

Uh he's a very good uh uh disciple, if you will, of the laws that we have to follow in the state of Utah.

But he's also probably the greatest diplomat I've ever been associated with.

I've watched him in several meetings be able to navigate some very, very difficult issues.

He does it very well.

That being said, I just want to introduce Isaac to you.

Thanks so much.

Well I appreciate that.

Uh and I'll take my time if I might.

Uh Mayor Johnson, once a mayor, always a mayor.

Uh, and thank you, uh Mayor Bins and Council members.

Yeah, my name is Isaac Paxman for the last eight years.

I have been able to work in local government, trying to sometimes unify us to make sure we're going to the legislature as a as a unified body to protect our interests as municipalities and to do good things.

Been involved with the expansion of the Provo Airport, was asked to raise a little bit of money on that, and that project has taken off like gangbusters.

To the benefit of our residents and the benefit of our economy.

It's been one of those magic projects that when we I went to the first state senator to tell him about it.

He said, Isaac, look at the hair on my arms.

He said, it's standing up, and it's been that kind of a magic project.

With the right leadership, we can be ready for the future.

We can make sure that this county is the best place on the planet to live in the future.

And somehow I've been prepared with experiences to be able to add and contribute.

Not doing this because I need it, but because I I want to help, and I feel like I'm ready to.

And so I appreciate the chance to introduce myself briefly.

Sure appreciate Mayor Johnson, who's been a gentleman and uh and and willing to engage on the tough issues, to take the hard assignments, and I appreciate that and have respected him.

And it speaks to his character that he would go out of his way to come and introduce someone like this.

So I want to express my appreciation to him.

And with that, uh I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Paxman.

Thank you, Mayor Johnson.

Hello, my name is Teresa Gonzalez.

I hope I'm not overstepping bounds here because my concern that I want to bring before the council members is semi-related to the noise uh ordinance I think you're addressing tonight.

However, um the issue that I did want to bring before you regards the screening and the fencing between residential that's directly adjacent to commercial properties.

Um I have come this will now be the fourth time that I have come before you just to make you aware.

I I do have a residential property that is adjacent to a commercial.

Um right now in the code, it really has a fencing requirement of about six feet.

Um there's no obviously noise buffer.

Um so it's something that this has gone on for now probably six years from the first time that I came before you guys.

Um and it does uh I really appreciate that the council tries to really thoroughly think things through and not just do something knee-jerk.

But it certainly feels like it's kind of been kicked the can has been kicked down the road a bit.

Um and so I do really want to uh I guess bring it before your attention that you would address the the fencing and the screening requirements right now.

It's I think it is six feet is all that's required, a six-foot fence, no no sort of noise buffer, anything like that.

You know, as a resident, I'm certainly pro-business, so I don't want to uh, you know, I don't want to do any undue burden upon a commercial property that I know will go in there.

At the same time, uh I would request that you would consider and the planning zone consider planning commission consider a minimum of the eight-foot fence and maybe consider some sort of again.

This is a noise, uh, some sort of buffer that way.

Um so I did I did want to uh just be a little more um I don't want to say aggressive, but just make sure that it's on the agenda.

And um again, yeah, it's it's been probably four to six years that this has gone on for us.

So thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Mrs.

Gonzales.

Okay, so we'll close that portion of public comment.

Um 709.

T-shirt will close that at 709.

We'll we're gonna reopen that here in just a minute.

Um obviously there's some comments that need to be made, so that's great.

So we'll go to item agenda number uh agenda item number three, the consent agenda on purchase orders and city council minutes.

Any questions there?

I'll take a motion.

Mr.

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

So I have a uh motion by Councilmember Newell.

I second it.

And a second from Council Member Freeman.

Councilmember will vote go.

Any questions on the motions no?

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Council Member Stollings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, item number five, consideration of ordinance zero four-2026, amending the Lehigh City Municipal Code, Title V, Chapter 3 of Noise Control.

So I think what we'll do is I will now open it for comment at 71.

I will remind you again.

When you come to the podium, please state your name.

And you'll have three minutes uh to share what's on your mind.

Um I do remind you to share uh what might be on your mind.

So with that, we'll go ahead and open up that comment uh period right now.

Ross Carter.

Um yeah, I'm I'm in favor of the changes that are being uh made.

I like how we're addressing the time in the morning, this noise.

Um the noises being made, and then I like the fact that they're lowering the decibel level.

Um I'm concerned about the enforcement still.

Um how that's exactly gonna work, you know, if you know my situation and we're being woken up at say we're being woken up at two in the morning.

How do I measure that noise?

How do we enforce it?

Um I've shown you videos of examples of pounding on the tailgates or the trucks, and by the time we get an officer out there, you know, how do we how do we take care of that?

So one of my neighbors the other day called them, had to call Hadco because they were dropping big concrete blocks to bust them up, you know.

And as he called the employee, the point said, Well, it was a mistake, it shouldn't have been here.

He says, That's not my problem.

You're shaking the house, all this noise is being made.

So we you know we got stuff like that going on all the time or often not all the time, but enough that it's it's impacting all the neighborhood.

And so I'm just concerned about how we enforce the changes that are that are on the table.

So thank you.

Hi, I'm John Hatfield, owner of HACCO Construction.

Uh we are a family business that employs over 750 in individuals with an additional 200 people working along alongside us through our subcontractor of the base.

Many of these individuals are Lehigh residents, your neighbors, whose livelihoods are directly connected to Hadco's operations.

Twenty plus of them are here tonight.

I'm here on their behalf and my behalf and our family.

Can I speak about the real impact of the proposed noise ordinance to it have on the working families and in this community?

As many as you know, we've been part of the Lehigh city since we first formed back in the early 1980s.

We've been proud to be in Lehigh, and we've been operating all of these decades.

Our business is to provide construction and excavation services from basements and driveways to bridges and freeways.

At our facility at 1850 North, 1450 West, we've been operating our business since 2001.

Our work is to provide services to the developers, businesses, and government.

This involves construction equipment, which is repaired and temporarily stored at our facility, as our work is elsewhere.

The equipment we have includes safety features required by federal law.

This means our equipment makes noise.

This is done for the safety of the people.

We also have to run our equipment at different times, including during the night.

We are involved in night work and day work, and we've always operated our business this way.

We've always been sensitive to our neighbors.

In fact, we've helped build many of the neighborhoods that are near our businesses.

In the case of our current facility, as part of the original transaction, a buffer was created on the east side of our facility.

The buffer included land dedicated for a park, as well as additional ground that was facilitated by the city and quick claim to the adjacent homeowners.

Each of these lots gained approximately 75 feet of additional depth, equating to roughly 0.14 acres or 6100 square feet.

In addition, we purchased and planted trees along the park, cited our own expense that unfortunately were not well maintained by the city.

We did this as a buffer deal back in the 2000s because it had always been understood the Hadcoast facility was going to continue to operate at this location.

People coming to this neighborhood knew and understood that they were locating near our construction yard.

Some of these neighbors themselves have built shops and park cars and trailers on the very ground provided.

I'm here tonight to let you know that we are concerned that the current draft of the noise ordinance does not appear to have any exceptions for historic businesses.

So the city doesn't apply this ordinance in an unconditional way.

We believe the noise ordinance should be fixed so that it won't be applied to historic businesses.

We've enjoyed being a part of Lehigh, and we attend to be a part of Lehigh going forward.

We appreciate the support of our business and ask any new ordinance respect the rights of all property owners, including those with businesses like HADCO.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Hadville.

Good evening.

My name is Mike Bentley.

I would agree with John that uh that business does impact the livelihood of people in that area.

From the order of 12 to 14 years, we've been looking for help.

Um the livelihood of the fact that I get woke up probably four to five nights a week this morning, even this morning at 4 45 a.m.

by a truck out there with high RPM sitting there for probably 30 minutes.

Um the livelihood of the fact that that our allowable use of our backyard is directly delegated by what noise he's conducting.

In fact, last year on Father's Day, they had a steam cleaner over there cleaning the trucks.

We had to move the the Father's Day festivities into the house because it was so loud you couldn't talk across the yard.

So to say that yet that they directly impact the livelihood of others.

Yes.

We've been working with the HADCO trying to get stuff fixed, trying to get stuff repaired, and it's all it's fixed, and then it's rewound and it's fixed and it's rewound and the A-ball is always moving down the road.

I would like to think we can coexist together, but when you have you know hundreds of dump trucks a hundred feet out of your back window, I don't see how that's feasibly possible.

Um so I do I do um thank you for putting forth this motion to adjust the ordinance.

I do thank you for putting forth the effort to work it, and I do think John, because he has put forth some effort, but I think at some point, you know, square blocks just don't fit in round holes anymore.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Bentley.

Okay, with the uh silence, then I will go ahead and close the public comment on this item at 717 and we'll bring it back up here.

Um do you have this ordinance or whose I do are you taking up?

So we didn't have been to the council before, so we um based on the last meeting we made the red lines that we thought represented a consensus.

So we don't really have a presentation just to verify that what's in the current draft is what you expected, and of course, to answer any questions or add any additional language that you would like to see in the final ordinance.

Mr.

Mayor, if I may.

Um, could you help under us understand the practicality of the enforcement of this ordinance and what that would mean?

Um, and is in much as much detail as possible if you don't mind.

It's unfortunate that Craig's out of town this week because I think it would be beneficial to hear it from a pros from a prosecutor's perspective.

So I'll do the best that I can.

So yeah, an ordinance like this that has uh the measurement of a specific decibel level is going to be I mean it's it the enforcement mechanism is laid out in the ordinance, but the practicalities of it are you know, trying to record a decibel level when the sound is made.

And so that there is a practical barrier to get through.

If we don't, if a prosecutor doesn't have the evidence that meets the ordinance, and in this case a specific decibel level, it's going to be hard to prosecute on that basis.

So when a complaint comes in, the code enforcement officer will go out, do the best that he can to measure it.

Um but to charge under that section of the code is gonna have some challenges.

Now again, if we have, you know, if if there are recordings of incidents like that was mentioned by the resident, dropping of concrete, and a prosecutor can at least well, I shouldn't say prosecutor, because that would be evaluated first by the code enforcement officer who would then do a report and send that to the prosecutor and any evidence to be evaluated for charges.

There is a criminal nuisance statute, right?

And so things that may not meet the specific decibel level because they it just the difficulty in measuring it.

Um both the code enforcement officer and then a prosecutor can evaluate that and see if it could be charged under that kind of a scenario under criminal nuisance, right?

So if we if we have a recording of something and it's just obvious to a reasonable person that would, you know, interrupt or affect somebody's health safety and welfare in the middle of the night so loud that it's waking people up shaking the house, then uh criminal charges could be brought on that basis, but there are definitely hurdles to enforcing a specific decibel level because we have to have that.

It it's it's the difference between having a radar gun and catching somebody speeding and then having an eye an eyewitness saying that guy was going really fast.

We can't proceed on that basis.

Um that's kind that's kind of an analogy here.

Fortunately, we do have the criminal nuisance statute that at least gives us a backup when evidence is brought to us that's that's egregious, but maybe we don't have a measurement on that specific event.

So to that point, um in this code, as I understand it, there's very uh specific language around what type of device can be used to record the violation.

So to your point though, um if a I'm trying to figure out like does the evidence have to be gathered with that particular device, and if so, can it be gathered by a resident, or does it have to be gathered by a representative, like a code enforcement officer or a police officer?

Yeah, it would have to be it does have to be that specific advice uh device.

The question of whether it could be gathered by anyone is an interesting one.

Um I can't remember if there's a specific requirement that it be gathered by law enforcement.

Again, j if there is, then yes.

Generally speaking, right, any anybody that witnesses or is the victim of a crime can make a report to the police and give their own evidence.

Again, this is pretty specific as to a very narrow kind of um charge, but I I think the ordinance does require it that it be gathered by uh the law enforcement or the code enforcement officer.

That is correct.

It's in 535.

It says the designated individual responsible for measuring noise intensity shall be either a peace officer or the city's designated code enforcement officer.

Okay, and I and I think um any noises across the city um, you know, they can happen 24 or 7.

And so I'm just trying to understand the practicality of enforcing something that happens at two in the morning.

In this particular ordinance, we are saying that it has to be a particular individual from Lehigh City in a certain spot, right?

So it to me, I'm just one I'm I'm to some of the residents' points.

I'm just not sure if the practicality of enforcement has been fully vetted.

Yeah, I mean, those are good points.

And in and again, I'll use the kind of the radar analogy, right?

There's certain calibration of a rad of a radar gun that has to be done before it can be admissible.

The evidence gathered by that radar gun can be admissible in court.

There's a section of this ordinance that requires that calibration both before and after.

So the practicalities of having a resident do that is just makes it very difficult for then a judge to rule that that evidence is admissible because the you know, if an officer comes to testify, they're going to testify about their training.

Have they been trained to calibrate the advice or the device?

What did you do to calibrate the device?

And so that makes that um evidence admissible.

I don't know how to overcome that.

Um it's just it gives us it gives us a tool, but it is a difficult tool to wield.

So mayor, may I ask a question?

Yeah.

So police chiefs isn't here right now.

I don't see him.

But Kim, you might know this answer.

I believe we've discussed this already that our officers, even our night, those on duty during the night will have the advice uh device with them.

So they'll be able to um is me.

He's hiding in the city.

There's a big crowd.

Okay.

Yeah, so you could you address that.

Yeah, I I just walked in.

Was the question will we have a device to measure the.

Yes.

My understanding was that you have the a device that meets the code requirements that we're voting on today, and that those who are in patrol during the nighttime will have that with them so they can respond to calls.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Yeah, so there'll be a device at the PD that will every officer will have access to it and will be trained on how to use it correctly.

So they'll use they'll grab it and then use it and it'll be available for everybody.

Okay.

Yeah, I appreciate that clarity.

I think I what I was trying to draw was a bright line that it would have to be a code enforcement officer or a officer from the police department specifically trained in calibrating that, right?

And I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that.

Um that it was for the enforcement side of things.

Yeah, that's correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'll go sit down.

Yep.

So, Ryan, when we first started down this path a year or more ago, one of the things I asked is that if we were to make these changes, could it constitute a regulatory taking, which is what has come up tonight too, and making sure that we're protecting the city.

I feel like we tried really hard to align things with what other cities are doing.

So we're we're aligned in as far as the hours go as the decibels go, and trying to like make sure we're conformed there.

But uh, you know, I do have a real concern about it has brought up historical businesses, even though I I know that you know we do need to protect our residents from these nuisance things too.

Yeah.

That's I mean, it's a good question.

It's one answer which is a little bit of a punt, would be if there's a constitutional defect in the ordinance, it was already there.

Because my understanding is that the decibel we were trying we were just having this conversation.

I don't think the decibel levels have changed from the current ordinance.

And so, you know, the the the argument of vested rights or being grandfathered in well, since the decibel levels haven't changed, then there's there's nothing to be grandfathered into.

And I don't you don't have a constitutional right to be grandfathered into a certain device that would be used for enforcement.

On the other hand, right, so again, maybe inherent in the current ordinance would be if there's a use that's approved, but even under the current ordinance couldn't be reasonably conducted under those decibel levels, could give rise to that kind of an argument.

I've done absolutely no research in that area, so I'd really want to look into that.

But I can see an argument could be crafted along those lines.

So it wouldn't necessarily be a vested rights argument.

It would be, hey, I'm allowed to do this.

And your ordinance is so restrictive, it's almost more of a due process argument.

I can't engage in, you know, the government's supposed to protect my life, liberty, and property, and because this is so restrictive, I can't even do what I'm allowed to do.

My understanding is that most of the you know historical complaints by the residents haven't really had to do with regular operations of the business.

They're the loud beep when the when trucks back up or they're dropping concrete or they're emptying trucks and they're doing it at again allegedly five outside the the hours that are allowed.

So again, that's my understanding of the historical um complaints that have been made.

And so you know, I I don't think the constitutional argument holds a lot of weight, but it's certainly a possibility.

So basically taking what's already been there, but essentially giving a process behind it, how we actually go about enforcing what's been there before.

Yeah, I don't just because we're trying to find a better way to enforce it doesn't mean it leads to a regulatory takings claim.

Okay.

And my go ahead, council Councilmember Harrison.

Yeah, uh just a comment.

I think I this is just one aspect of um a lot of different code changes that we're making.

Uh this is we've noticed, and I think the previous council also noticed if there's an ambiguous code or ordinance, it leads to a lot of gray areas that create conflict.

And so this change isn't, you know, obviously there's there's some folks from HADCO, but um this is relevant across the city, right?

It has to do with dogs barking or grocery stores operating outside of normal hours or you know, this is applicable to all businesses, all residents.

Um so we're just trying to make it fair, and I think we we went through extra effort with Kim and with Ryan on ensuring that you know whatever modifications we make, uh like Heather mentioned, is in line with pretty much every other city in the state of Utah, um, or at least a vast majority of them.

And so I think if we were to create cutouts, even you know, in this case the term was used historical businesses or um you know uh other other kind of cutouts, I I don't think that would be applying the law equally across the board.

Um and so I like the changes.

Um, I I grew up in a in a home that was doing asphalt work and striping parking lots and so forth, and we ran uh the business out of our home.

And and you know, we had to make adjustments as regulations came down, and I think um I think that's just kind of the nature.

Uh we had a good discussion during the work session yesterday with commercial zoning and auto sales, and you know, even though there may be one or two applicants, it has application across the city for future applicants and future businesses.

So I think our role here is to apply it as fairly and equally as possible across the city.

Um and those and that's just kind of my my two cents on this issue right now.

Can I jump in real quick?

Yeah, I mean that's a great point, James, and I've I meant to make that as my final point is that uh this isn't and and again haven't verified this with research, but my my first analysis of this is that this isn't a land use ordinance.

So again, vested rights has to do with land use ordinances, not ordinances of general applicability.

I think I used the analogy earlier.

Just because I've had really loud parties, let's say the city had no no noise control ordinance, and at my house we've had really rowdy parties for the last decade.

Well, just because the the city now adopts a noise control ordinance doesn't mean that I'm grandfathered in to continue to have my really loud parties, right?

It's not a land use ordinance, it's an ordinance of general applicability.

And so you seem to say anything else, James?

Okay.

Um yeah, and I'm just coming at it from a health perspective, just in healthcare, we study environmental noise a lot.

Excuse me.

We know it's detrimental to our patients.

There's many, many studies on this.

We know we recognize that, right?

And so we're we're we're when we are pr to protect the health, welfare and safety of residents.

I look at this as like, you know, we're here to be stewards of the city of residents, and we're here to represent them just like I represent my patients every day when I'm at work.

And um I think if anything, it creates predictability for all parties involved, and so that we know what to expect, we know what we're responsible for.

And and it just kind of shows like, you know, in hospital you have OSHA who is making requirements and making different changes and we adjust and we we know it just creates predictability.

Um I think when we we evaluate these decibel levels, it was actually pretty mild compared to some of the more restricted um requirements that we could have put in place when compared to other cities.

Um I do think that you know I I don't know how the enforcement works, and I trust the Chief Paul and the code enforcement can kind of figure that out and and um and I trust them to do that.

Um to also note, because I do want it to be fair for all is is if we look down at 537 where it talks about exemptions.

Uh specifically it we added it looks like it was added in sounds emanating from Lehigh City municipal buildings or property when said sound is the result of a government function.

And to me, I'm not I'm not okay with that because I feel like that we as Lehigh City should be held to the same standard as other businesses and as other other zones.

And so if we are saying that it's for it like an essential government function, we're talking about no emergency vehicles, emergency repairs, uh, you know, public works, like it's an essential, the power has to be on.

But I other than that, there's no reason that the parks department or city hall should be, you know, violating a no noise ordinance that any other reasonable business shouldn't.

So I would hold us to the same standard as we represent the residents and we represent the good and the health of all all re people who are here in Lehigh.

Um I also support um what councilmember Freeman said, and um believe that's a great idea that she had.

We're um on number six, adding in the word essential.

I I support that and think that was a great idea.

I don't think we have any concerns with that at all.

Any other comments, questions?

I'll take a motion.

Mayor make a motion.

Um sorry, let me get to it.

Um I move that we approve ordinance number four-2026 and men in the Lee High City Municipal Code Title V, Chapter 3, noise control.

And I would just change it or include in line six.

Um essential government services.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Stallings.

Do I have a second I second that I have a second from Councilmember Freeman?

Any questions on that motion?

Would both of you mind saying uh five-three-seven-six for the word essential?

Is that okay?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

I would pull that.

Yes, so I'll mend my motion to include that.

And you're good with that, Councilmember Freeman.

Okay, we'll take vote.

Uh Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes, and Mr.

Mayor, if I may, just explain um my vote.

I I do believe it's time to take a step forward, and I do believe that it is um in the right direction.

I I do want to echo that I have concerns about enforcement.

And um whenever heading down this path, it concerns me that regulations cause more problems than resolutions.

Um and so as we as we move through and if things come up, I would ask that the city staff please let us know if there are issues with enforcement so that we can pivot into a different model.

If it's causing more problems, um, then it's really not solving a problem.

So I'm I sub my vote is a yes.

Um, and that would just be my big caution is on the enforcement side.

Great, thank you.

That's uh all the items we have on our agenda tonight.

So with that, I will take a motion to end.

Um Mr.

Mayor, I did notice on the consent agenda 3.2 that we didn't take a motion to approve the minutes.

Very good.

Would you um hear a motion from me on that?

Actually, we didn't approve.

Oh, you didn't do the whole consent agenda.

Oh, you did the whole agenda.

Oh, I thought you just did purchase orders.

I think we just did the whole agenda.

Thank you.

That's good eyes.

Uh so I'll take I'll take an adjournment motion.

Motion to adjourn.

Any second?

I'll second.

I'll have a second from Councilman Stallings.

With that, we will adjourn.

Thank you.

Oh, hi.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a good night.