I forget it.

It's the intentions, right?

That's what matters the chance.

You meant to drink it.

I know.

It's not even full.

I really need to do better than that.

Welcome to our work session today, our pre-council meeting.

Starts at 4 30 today on March 10th of 2026 here in the Lehigh City Council Chambers.

We welcome all guests who are with us today.

Also welcome all staff who's with us today.

We do have a full council.

Councilmember Newell, Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Freeman, Councilmember Stallings, and Councilmember Lockhart, and are grateful they're each here today.

We will start our meeting today with an uh invocation that will be offered by Councilmember Newell.

Our dear Helen Father, we're grateful for the opportunity we have to meet together tonight as a city council and as a city and be able to discuss things and make decisions that can uh help our city continue to be the great city that he is that it is.

We're so thankful, Helenly Father, for the opportunity we have to serve and for those who serve with us for our staff or first responders.

Please uh bless them, Henry Father, along with our residents that they may be safe and protected and know that we support them and honor them and are so grateful for all the service that they provide to us.

Heleny Father, we ask that a thy spirit be with us throughout this meeting that we'll be able to um listen to each other and understand each other to show empathy and um be able to um act in the way that thou would have us act as thy children and we say you think St.

Just Christ, amen.

Amen.

Thank you, Councilmember Newell.

Okay, first uh thing we will start on um Roma numeral two number one.

We'll have a presentation report on the 2100 North Freeway and Pioneer Crossing Flux Lanes.

Uh update by UDOT.

If you'll just state your name when you get there, and we'll we'll welcome you.

I'm always concerned about whether things are working appropriately.

Can you guys see that?

There we go.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, members of the council and staff, uh my name is Andrew Jordan.

I am the project director for the Northwest Utah County Project Program for UDOT.

Um we felt that now was the appropriate time right before we get started with major construction on 2100 to come and introduce ourselves to the new members of council and the new mayor.

Um, and give you guys an update on where we're at on our program.

Um for those of you that don't know our program for the northwest Utah County.

It consists of a series of uh projects.

Um of you might know these very closely.

The first one I'll speak to is the Mountain View Corridor project that we just finished in December.

Uh that project was from 2100 north up to Port of Rockwell.

Um we were required to do that one first before we could start the freeway portions um on Mountain View Corridor.

We needed to make that connection.

We were able to uh complete that project four months ahead of schedule and open that to the public right before Christmas.

Um we're very excited to have that open and have that additional capacity uh between Salt Lake and Utah counties.

Um the next couple projects I'll speak to are 2100 North and Pioneer Crossing.

Um those are in our program as well as the freeway portions of Cory Rhine and Mountain View Corridor from 2100 down to SR73.

And then future unfunded projects that will be part of our program are Mountain View Corridor South and Saratoga Springs and Cory Ride phase two out towards Eagle Mountain.

Those are all freeway freeway projects.

So as you can see on the map, we have several projects and a large investment in the area.

Um the goal for our program, the Northwest Utah County program is to provide that one-stop uh location for the public or council or um really anyone to find all the information on what's going on with these projects.

So if you go to the website that's on the screen currently, um you'll be able to drill down into any one of those projects to get additional details in the schedule.

The first project we're going to highlight prior to Pioneer Crossing Flex Lanes project.

I'm gonna actually have my construction manager, Jeremy Baume, give an update on where this project's at and what's to come.

Thank you.

Mayor, Council, staff, uh Jeremy Baume with UDOT, the design and construction manager, part of the Northwest Utah County's program team.

Um so Pioneer Crossing.

Uh if you are in Lehigh, you are probably aware of this and have seen um seen it.

So uh we are under construction now and uh on schedule, uh looking to be able to from Redwood Road to I-15, looking to be able to have the three lanes in each direction capacity um later this spring, um hoping May time frame, and uh it's looking like the contractors on schedule for that.

Uh and then once we get that capacity built, we'll move to the next um part of that project, which is adding the the signals and uh such so that we can do uh as shown on the screen here the the flex lanes portion of that um schedules to complete that portion of the project by the end of this year.

Um and so with that, not only will we go from having two lanes in each direction currently to the three lanes I spoke about later this spring, but then with the flex lanes and those signals, we'll be able to shift um during the peak hours, um, four lanes in the peak direction and two lanes in the non-peak direction, and then midday shift back to three and three.

So um as shown on the screen here.

I do have a video, I'm not sure it's gonna work, so I probably won't jump over to that, but um, you can get that from the website that uh Andrew show um has shown earlier if you want to see that video.

Um and then uh here's here's what it looked like before cross section with what it'll look like in the future.

So we'll have those um overhead um signs helping you to see what lanes you can or should not be in.

Um on the previous slide, if you if you're reading, it said something about uh left turn restrictions.

Um this kind of helps show that, right?

If we were in the process of shifting this um what is the currently the left turn lanes in the center, um that would turn to a yellow X saying don't go into that lane, we're in the process of shifting lanes and then uh move you over to where it's supposed to be as that shift happens.

So just pay attention to the signals overhead when we get this opened up.

Um as I said, so the the major improvement is the flex lane system between I-15 and Redwood Road.

Um we'll also be adding additional westbound lanes between Redwood Road and the Mount View Corridor, so that in the evening when there's four lanes coming from I-15, it just doesn't go four to two and then continue to back up.

There's actually lanes to capture that traffic and keep them moving through Lehigh and off into the further west.

So that project will start.

Um we should be advertising for the contractor on that phase of the project here in the next couple weeks, and that one is also scheduled to complete by the end of the year.

So all work on Pioneer Crossing should be complete the fall of this year.

So yeah.

So construction's underway and we're on track for that substantial completion.

So and uh I'll give it back to Andrew, I believe, for the rest of the update.

Thank you.

Yeah, the only thing that I might add to uh what Jeremy said is the reason we went with the flex lanes concept here, is we're able to provide that capacity within the existing footprint of the existing corridor, right?

And that's the largest benefit we can we could have, right?

We're using the existing payments out there.

Actually, the contractor is recycling a lot of that concrete that they've pulled out to install drainage and stuff, and there is also recycling that back into the pavement section as well.

So we're reusing a lot that's on that corridor, and with minimal impact, we're not buying a lot of additional right-of-way or um acquiring additional properties there.

So that's a that's a huge win for us on this concept, and it really works well with the way that the traffic flows work in this corridor.

Is there any questions on that real quick?

Yeah, I have a question.

Um I see that the lanes look like they're gonna go down like a standard from what I understand from our streets department standard lane is 12 feet.

And it looks like they got some of them says 11 to 12 feet.

So I'm wondering what the speed limit is going to be, because I from my understanding with smaller lanes it's typically a little bit of lower speed just because to control the car from I don't know.

What do you what is your prediction?

So we are planning on reducing the speed limit on the corridor to account for there's no longer going to be a shoulder um on the edge and the reduced lanes, so we actually are reducing that.

Is it 40 or 45?

I believe it's 40, like the construction speed.

So we set the construction speed limit, but that that speed limit will maintain once we're done at 40 miles an hour.

Um can you go back one slide here?

Uh maybe one more.

Okay.

So what at what point uh sorry, the one with the the map showing.

So for um from Mill Pond Road to I-15, um, when is that planned to be modified?

So we will be modifying that as part of our project to uh line that up for the additional lanes.

So we will be continuing that over to I-15.

Okay.

Okay.

Um and then for the lighting, I know there's been some questions by the public on how dark it is, especially when it rains and everything reflects, and you can't really see what what type of um street lighting is gonna be installed.

Is it gonna be like LED low profile or and and then will that be installed um before those lanes open?

So a lot of the lighting infrastructure that we're gonna be put in will be in line with the gantries that we're putting in for the lane assignments, and that'll increase the uh lighting on the corridor along with that.

So that'll all come on online when we when we have all that infrastructure in place.

Okay, thanks.

Yep.

Any other questions?

Very good.

Uh next 2100 North Freeway.

Um we're ready to we're ready to roll.

Um actually our construction crews will be beginning some um some work along the corridor tonight.

Uh will be some lane restrictions as we start making access into that median um to prepare for work.

The first areas of work you'll see are um near the river.

Uh we got to do some work in there in preparation for the new bridges crossing the river, the new freeway bridges crossing the river.

Um before the increased flows um happen in the Jordan River.

We've been working in coordination with the river authority to uh make sure that we get that work done so we're not impeding any flows uh from Utah Lake into the Jordan River and to points north.

Um so that's gonna be a major um coordination point with our with our contractors.

So you'll see a lot of work kind of in that area to start.

Um we'll also be starting to work on uh grading out that median area in preparation for the freeway.

Um but yeah, work starting tonight.

Um so the concept for the 2100 North Freeway.

Um you saw some of it that we completed in the Mountain View Corridor project is you know, lining that up for that freeway portion in the middle between the existing frontage roads.

That'll uh continue where we left off over between Redwood and 3600.

Uh the freeway, if I'm traveling on the freeway headed east, we'll go over 3600.

Um we'll come back down the grade as we cross over Waterbury and uh um Jordan River, and then we'll actually go under uh 2300 west there and under the railroad tracks, and after we come under the railroad tracks, we'll start to climb um to come over Ashton and get up and over I-15 with system direct system ramps onto I-15.

So when we're complete, there'll be a non-stop from West Redwood Road on to I-15.

Um of the other improvements, like I said, we're the great separations.

We also have some trail improvements that we've coordinated with city staff.

Um, and those will be part of your work agenda, I believe, tonight.

There's two co-op agreements that we're looking for approval from the city on.

Let me see if I can get there.

The first one is uh co-op agreement.

This is a tri-party agreement that we're doing between UDOT Lehigh City and Utah County in coordination with major stakeholders and the city prior.

In coordination with major stakeholders and the city prior.

We will be constructing a trail connection from the Holbrook Park, uh future Holebrook Park, the city park there behind the hospital to the Jordan River Trail as part of our project.

We'll be constructing that.

This will be a pedestrian bridge that the city will own and maintain.

But it provides that connection between an already heavily used corridor of the Jordan River Trail into the park facility and provide that connection across the river for those neighborhoods in that area, kind of around the UTA station and over towards the hospital.

Well, we have a contractor in there, so I miss that's kind of the main points on that cooperative agreement.

Like I said, it's a triparty agreement because there's connections between the Utah County Trail System, the Lehigh Trail system, and uh UDOT right away.

The second one that we're presenting is a co-opreem for the rail trail bridge east of the UPRR tracks in coordination with staff and uh the future uh project to bring that rail trail from the UTA station down into downtown as part of our project.

We're building that structure for the city.

Um shown here, it connects from the skate park over to that south side and connects into that future um improved trail.

I believe that the city has funding in is constructing in the coming years improvements there.

So those are the two agreements, those are some of the main coordination points we've done.

We've done a lot of work with major stakeholders in the area, um, the Garf properties, uh, the um the Hadco property and the access to his yard as well as um access in and out of the hospital.

We've been working closely with the hospital to make sure that anything that we do, even during construction, is not impeding emergency services getting in and out of the hospital as well as uh light flight coordination uh with the helicopters to make sure that um as we have cranes and stuff in the area that we're not that we have close coordination, they're aware of what we're doing and we're aware of what they need from us.

So we're excited to start this project.

Uh general uh schedule we're starting now.

Um plan to have this completed by the end of 28 um 2028.

Three-year project.

Um, but yeah, we're excited.

There's a lot, there's a lot to do here, and uh we've been working closely with staff.

I've got to commend the Lehigh City staff and their coordination with us and um uh their willingness to work with us on a lot of things.

So it's been a great partnership, and we wish to continue it over the next couple years.

Um and then upcoming for our program, we do have a funded project that we will be starting as soon as we finish 2100 north, and that will be the quarry ride and mountain view corridor freeways.

Um we will continue from, like I said, from 2100 north down to 73, build a system interchange there at 73 and pioneer and um mountain view, and then continue that freeway and front of your frontage roads out to Eagle Mountain.

Um, which will help uh pull a lot of that regional traffic kind of out of the local systems and really get it into a freeway system, um, which will be vastly different than what we're experiencing today.

Um if you have any questions or would like to stay up to date, like I said, um please visit our uh our websites, and there's also the Facebook group where we will be posting construction updates, lane closure updates, and um really anything you need, you should be able to get it between those two sites.

So if there's any questions, I'd be helpful to answer.

I do.

Um I've been told that you're redesigning the interchange between um 2100 north and I-15.

Is that correct?

Yep.

Okay, as part of that, are you gonna reevaluate this sound study?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, the noise study that we completed during our environmental re-evaluation was based on the concept that we had.

Um our contractor that was selected based on our best value, um, has a a little bit different design to that interchange.

And as part of that, we will be redoing the noise analysis in the next couple months.

We should have field monitoring going in place.

Okay.

And then as they complete the design, um we'll be able to do that analysis on what uh what meets those parameters, and we'll follow policy on how that works.

All right, so this design hasn't been completed yet.

Not a hundred percent.

Um that area, we're between about a 30 and a 60% design.

We want to get really through that 60% where we know that the profiles and the alignment and the number of lanes aren't changing so that we have a very clear vision of what that looks like so we can run that noise analysis.

Okay.

And the last analysis, it seemed like it it would protect the people from the noise, but the cost was prohibited kind of thing.

And if I remember right, it was because of the geography or the train kind of thing.

So do you have any idea right now if this new design might potentially bring the cost down, or is it too far out to tell?

Yeah, I wouldn't be able to tell that right now.

We would have to go through the analysis.

Okay.

Cross my fingers again.

Um would you mind going through the bridges and then going under again?

I think I missed a part where you so 3600 west will have a bridge.

So we'll be going over 3600 with the freeway.

Yeah.

So the freeway over 3600.

So that intersection essentially stays the way it is today.

We will be doing improvements there to accommodate the city's plan of a widening for that, so that bridge will accommodate future widening of 3600 north and south.

Um there are things that we're doing to be in line there.

Um that's 3600, and then we go over Waterbury, which is a future city street connection that we're preserving.

Um, then over the river, then under 2300.

So after the river, you're gonna start the decline down.

I I guess my I I drive this road multiple times a day.

So the one that concerns me the most is the rail, right?

Going under the rail.

And so you're starting the descent at 2300 west or a little before, because you have to go under 2300 west, then the rail.

Yeah, so the frontage roads currently go under the railroad.

Right.

I think just that high speeds.

Uh in my mind, it just seems like we're gonna be doing this.

You does that make sense?

So that's why I must.

Yeah, so actually what happens is when we come across the river, uh, we don't climb to meet 2300.

If today it kind of climbs to meet 2300, we actually stay flat or fairly flat to go under 2300, or even actually depressed just a little bit to go under 2300 and then go under the railroad and then start coming up to go over I-15.

Okay, so how will that impact the on and off of the frontage roads?

Is my whole screen sharing?

Evidently not.

See if I unplug a few reclosed.

So that rejoins it.

I I guess I'm just imagining people flying down this at 80 miles an hour.

Which is hopefully not what they're doing.

So the um the speed through here will be set at a 65 mile an hour speed um for the corridor just because of the proximity of the system interchanges between each other.

We only have just under um three miles between the two.

Um there will be system ramps or slip ramps.

You already see the two that we installed with the previous project at tie-in before uh 3600.

There'll be another set to go on just um east of 3600.

I I have a question to put you back on that.

So the front existing roads that are there now are basically is it wasn't my understanding?

They're gonna be frontage roads.

Yeah, they're the one-way frontage roads.

They'll handle the local traffic.

And they'll kind of just stay the same how they are.

Yep.

Okay.

And aren't we gonna be able to slip on and off or no?

Yeah.

Yeah, so you'll be able to like get off at 2300 and then get back on.

So they'll they'll provide that.

No.

I can I can just think about it.

If it doesn't work, I'll just dream it.

I was trying to I trust me, I've been dreaming about this road for years.

So it's I was trying to share.

We have uh KMZ that we could provide to uh staff with the preliminary layout, but um there will be additional ons and offs as we move through the corridor.

Um like I said, you'll have the offset 3600, you'll have another set of offs between from the freeway to the front edge roads between 3600 and Waterbury, and then between Waterbury and the river, you'll have a set of on ramps to go.

Well, depending on which direction you're going, but um yeah, there's a there's a series of connectivities that we're gonna have slip ramps on and off the front edge road throughout the corridor.

Cool.

Okay, thanks.

Sorry for the tough question.

No, I wish I could show you because it's right here.

Yeah.

But you can see me afterwards or uh just reach out.

Um my information, or you can reach you know our PI group.

I believe we are updating the um the map on our website that'll actually show this as well.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Can you explain Ashton what that will look like?

So is if they're coming from Ashton direction, will they just need to get on I-15 or go?

There's no connection to it there, is that right?

Um so the existing southbound ramp that you use today between Ashton and State Street remains in place.

Okay.

So if you came around Ashton and you wanted to go southbound, that one's there.

Um trying to think.

What if you're going north?

If you're going north, you would have to go the way that you would today, underneath the I-15 12th west and get on the frontage road and then get on the same way you would today from Ashton.

And if you wanted to go Ashton to Redwood, you could go, I guess, under and use frontage road.

Like that would connect.

You would go underneath the freeway and make a left, the same as you would today, essentially.

Do you want to see if yours works?

Mine's not sharing.

There you go.

Kelly Ash is my uh design construction manager for 2100 North.

Do you want to run through some of the accesses for the council?

Sure.

All right.

Oh, you moved it.

Oh, I did something.

Okay.

I'll start over here at Redwood and just work our way over.

So you can see where we're tying into the existing or the pavement we just built and the bridges we just built here at Redwood.

These is your connection now back to the frontage road, and those will stay in place as ramps, but we'll build the freeway down the middle.

Uh this is 3600 west.

Um, and then you'll have an exit ramp here to go to 2300 west going eastbound.

Uh going westbound, you'll have an on-ramp to get onto the freeway from the frontage road.

And then these are the ramps between Waterbury.

This is the grade separation at Waterbury, and then the river, there'll be these slip ramps here.

And then you have 2300 west right here.

Um again, you got an on-ramp right there that gets you on to the freeway part, and then an off ramp get you off to access 2300 west.

And then here's the full system interchange, full grade separation at Ashton Boulevard, and then the you know, direct freeway to freeway flyover ramps that access the I-15.

So for the entrance um into I guess HADCO.

Is that gonna be pretty seamless?

Because I know before they were worried they'd have to go down and flip a U-turn, right?

And ideally they can just slip right into their property.

Is that on track?

Yeah, with the new interchange design here, you know.

Um this will be basically access as it exists today at Ashton.

So thank you.

We're I just I live in Holbrook Farms.

We're so excited.

So thank you so much.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Okay, item two.

Uh Civic Center art installation discussion.

Mr.

Steve.

Okay, now we can talk about fun stuff.

No.

Um as we started building the civic center, we started talking about art, and how are we gonna make this more than just a city hall, more than just the library, and make it for a place that people want to come.

Um we've done several different options in that, as you guys have seen it.

Uh we have the community spaces, we have a lot of pretty areas, we want to make this an inviting an inviting building.

Um so when we when we started down the art path, we hired a consultant through Heritage Arts Foundation.

They work out of Alpine Art Center in connection with one of the sculptors that we've had do several things for us in the city, the infant cemetery monument as well as the um one of the monuments over here at the legacy center.

Uh we walked them through the building and said, Okay, these are the spaces that we would like to fill, these are the things that we'd like to see understand that we want mostly local artists in the building.

We want people that mean something to our area and to Lehigh.

Um, and so in doing that, uh they they've done a great job so far.

We've got a lot of the art going in.

Um, but this area that you see on my screen there is the main foyer.

Um, right as you come in, we've got this great big wall.

Um the sculptor is hit the one that we've got these concepts from is named Scott Streadbeck, and he, like I said, he's done a lot of different work for us, got a good relationship with him with the city.

Um so he said, Hey, let me let me take a stab at a couple different ideas for you.

Um, and so these are some of the ideas that he's brought back to us.

Um this one, uh some of my feedback was you know, this is a library space, but it may not always be the full library space.

So um I I love the kids, I love the idea, I love the concept, but we want to make it more broad.

Um he brought this idea saying, okay, well, we could do some sort of a wildlife theme.

That was kind of a miss for me.

I didn't, I mean, it's a really cool idea, but not not right.

And then he brought this one.

So this um the name on it, we'll have to change that for other reasons.

But uh this to me kind of stood out, and I'm like, okay, yeah, I I could I could go down this this path.

And if you look up into the tree, well, in fact, let me get out of this portion and kind of read the the mock up that they've done, and I don't read in public, so bear with me.

Um at the heart of Lehigh new new city hall and library stands a soaring 15 to 20 foot work of bronze set inside a building, uh Grand Central Tower and lobby.

The piece will not just simply decor the space, it will embody the spirit of Lehigh itself, just as the tower anchoring the civic prevent presence of the building.

The central sculpture, uh again, the name's wrong, uh presents the living tree rising upward with quiet strength, its trunk anchored deeply within the branches, reaching wide and welcoming.

The scene invites reflection to pause, breathe, and remember who we are.

At the base of the tree, two youth sit together uh in conversation.

Um their posture expresses not only belonging, but also the idea of not of every new generation finds wisdom and ground itself and the stories that came before.

Um sorry, let's try to scroll down within the leafy canopy clusters, visitors can view subtle woven themes and reflection elements of Lehigh's past, present, and future.

The images will not be or will intentionally be understood, never dominating, never demanding attention, yet uh present of those um who know what they're looking for.

So if we go back to the other, you can see the highlighted green pieces up in there.

As you zoom in, you can see a microchip in there.

You can see library books.

You can see an American flag in there.

Up in the top left corner, you can see the emblem of a rodeo of the rodeo themes.

You can see some of those ideas.

So going back to it, uh I think what the overall ask and question for tonight and for this council is we're we're down the road on this.

If this is something you guys would like to pursue, we can continue down this road.

If it's not, uh we can change direction if you would like to see something completely different, or if you would like to see nothing at all.

That that's also an option.

Um for funding on this, the statue is estimated at about 220,000 because it is a bronze.

I'm gonna mess up the name of it.

Anyway, but it it's a relief.

So basically it sticks out from the wall a foot or two up at the top, and then down at the base, the intent would be have the children as full-size statues.

Um so it would come out into the into the breezeway three to five feet.

Um, but it it has a very cool intent behind it and and feel.

Um we do have a little bit of funding left over from the art installations in the in the project from our original budget that we could potentially go through.

The other portion is is we are looking for public donors to to go towards this as well.

Um if it's something that you would like to see accelerated, we would have to find out a funding mechanism that you would like to put towards it.

Um but I think mostly what what we want is is this a good path to go down?

Is this kind of what a good vision that you would like to see?

Um I think it's a great vision for the space.

I love the theme of the tree.

I think that's something that's pretty universal.

Um I would love to see going down the path and see what we can do with private donors because I think it's great we have some on leftover funds, but it is a pretty big ask.

Yeah.

Well, and and realistically, the leftover funds we have is a scratch on the surface.

It's not like we're gonna go very far.

Um but we want to make sure you guys are okay with it before I go start pedaling and and they are willing to help with some of that.

Uh making sure I mean they they brought in a company two weeks ago and said, you know, are you guys willing to do this?

And I went, hold on.

Well, you know, we've we've gotta make sure you guys are still or you guys are on board with this before we get too far down that road.

Yeah, I think there's a lot we can do with naming rights with donors, or things like I think there's wealthy families who would love to have something like this that is they have given it.

So I think there's a lot we can do here and throughout the city, so I think that's a great way to pursue.

Um I think it is a really cool idea.

I would be happy, I would be fine with something simpler also, and with nothing at the time.

I mean, it's a really cool building.

It's a really cool space.

Um I understand naming rights, but I think that I this building has in will take a lot from the people of Lehigh just to pay for um in general, and I'm hesitant to put more money towards anything at this time.

And I think we could, you know.

I understand we have some art, some I don't know, artifacts, some some things that are stored that are maybe Americana or so some of our heritage, maybe you're already utilizing some of those, but you know, even like a simple American flag for me would be sufficient.

Great.

I um obviously private donors, that'd be great if we could go down that path as far as possible.

I like the design.

Um, just one the roots and branches.

That's it's a podcast, a local podcast.

But are we gonna put any words?

We'd have to do that.

So realistically, this is a rendering.

This is something that none of this is sticking.

This was his ideas, this was you know, this is my sketch, this is what we'd like to do.

If and when we get funding, if if the donations start amounting up to about half of it, he can start the actual renderings.

He can actually, and then at that point we would bring it back and say, you know, what do you think about this and do do more of a formal?

Um I think really what I need is making sure that you guys are okay with us pursuing funding, pursuing donations, um, and this is kind of the concept that we would show during those times.

Okay.

Steve, I I I like the direction this is going myself.

Um I think it'll be beautiful.

But um I'm with the other council members that it's a lot of money.

Yeah, that we spend a lot already.

You know, but we I guess we want to have high quality, so I'd love to have private donors.

Um we a while ago we had a group come in that offered to donate bronze statues.

Same group.

Oh, is it?

Yeah.

They won't donate this one to they were doing the same very similar for those bronze statues.

So basically they were going out finding donors for that park to say, would you like to do this?

They haven't been very successful on that end of it.

They have been very successful in other areas.

Um I think it's just you gotta write get the right person for the right thing.

Um I really do think that this one would probably take more traction than those did.

Yeah.

And um and Heather, I I'm not sure naming rights for the building, right?

But the building no, I'm just thinking like in general, there's ways where we can do some great things if we could sell naming rights or have donor where the donor would have a plaque.

Recognition.

Yeah, recognition, yeah.

And that yeah, okay, that makes more sense.

Yeah.

And frankly, that's fully the intent.

If we get a donor for this, it would be a plaque.

Plaque.

Yeah, donated by X.

Name the Civic Center, I'm thinking way higher than that.

Well, I would know about that path.

Yeah, yeah.

But um, yeah, and if multiple donors they can be recognized or something.

So yeah, I think that's a good direction to go.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, and I'll just chime in.

I love the concept and I echo the sentiments that um we should pursue private funding as much as possible.

Um I love the idea temporarily of an American flag.

I think that would be really pretty and quite a statement.

Um so anyway, but in the long term, I'd love to see something like this if possible.

Great.

Um so there is no time on this at all.

This is more or less we will be working on this in the background.

So if anything happens, I'll give you updates.

So yeah.

If you're gonna have a chip in there, you might be able to ask at least one company.

That company has already donated about I think there's six of them that is going in an art installation over there as well.

So awesome.

Yeah, thank you, Steve.

Okay, item three, city goal and staff goal presentation bow.

Is up well Cameron normally gives us presentation, so I'm your audible tonight.

Um for the first little bit of this, um, I wonder come back to our budget uh retreat conversation on our one thing goal, uh council's goal here.

And this is kind of what's been put together.

Um I'd like to take and maybe turn a little time over to Jason even uh to lead this discussion, but we'd like to take a little time to see if we're headed in the right direction or not on this.

And I've got Van and Mariah taking notes here.

So if you guys want to see changes to this, um we'd we'd like to have just a little bit of a discussion.

So Cameron put this together, kind of synthesizing the feedback that he received from the council.

Um again, if there's feedback, we we'd love to hear it.

Um we probably could go on for hours on on this, but for tonight, the interest of time, we wanted to keep it relatively short.

Um but if there is additional feedback or direction that you'd like to give us um we're all ears so thoughts, comments, concerns I actually like it.

Good job.

Now I'm nervous to make ask a change.

But um any way that we could change the word supports to values.

So foster a thriving family-centered community that values opportunity safety, belonging and a high quality of life, therefore um removing the sense that Lehigh City like is out creating some form of a support, if that makes sense.

Yep.

I don't know if that depends on how the council feels.

Maybe I'm being too nitpicky, but I think that would be good.

I actually I can't remember what the other words were, but I had a similar feedback when I was given the options.

But I think the support is a softer word than I think some of them were like create or foster was one of them, or you know, other things.

So I think in my mind, I feel like supports is a good enough word.

But I yeah.

I get what you're saying.

Yeah.

Any other thoughts, comments?

No idea how to fit this in, but um I I would like a I don't know, some kind of recognition that we're here for our residents that we value them.

Um parts.

I mean, I guess the family centered community kind of does that a bit.

Um but I I just feel that our role in city government is um just to value our residents and kind of help them provide services for them.

I don't know.

Would you like it if it said supports a thriving family centered community that values opportunity safety belonging and high quality of life?

Maybe two.

I have no idea.

Again, take hours, right?

For me to come up with the wording.

But what if we just put for our residents at the end?

Huh?

Yeah, something like that.

Just remembering why we're here, what we're doing this, who we're doing this work, and like that.

I like that.

For residents and I don't know, we can play with it, but yeah.

Because we want to support those who commute here to work and recreate and shop here also, right?

But single people that are here.

I don't know.

Sure, yeah.

So yeah, maybe we can play with that idea a little bit.

Okay.

Any anyone else comments?

So what I'm sensing is that we're close.

Yes.

Okay.

Honestly, if this was it, I'd give you an A plus plus class.

Well, why don't we try one more time?

Um we can play with that little ending and see what what feels right.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you, Bill.

I actually got a little bit more hair.

I wanted to recap kind of from budget retreat uh goals.

So it's important to realize that all the all the goals that you guys put forth aren't gonna be on this presentation.

Um we tried to focus on the ones that had council majority.

So that's what you'll see here.

And I'm just gonna kind of walk through those and show you how we as a city plan to support those goals.

So civic center completion was one.

Um the administrative department plans uh to develop a system for managing rentals of the community room, feature local artwork near the community room.

Library will provide comprehensive training to staff on the new library to ensure efficient service delivery, adjust staffing allocations to maintain appropriate coverage across multiple service desks, restructure library programs to deliver high quality accessible services for patrons across all each groups.

Community outreach.

Um prove community outreach through new website and monthly emails, promote city services and provide news and updates on major projects.

So administratively we plan to promote the new website with its texting and email capabilities.

Been told that's supposed to go live April 2nd.

Um the library uh engage residents through targeted email communications and social media platforms, expand outreach initiatives, ensure access to patrons uh unavailable to use the library in person.

Literacy center, improved marketing to reach additional students through school literacy nights and city events and recreation educate residents on the impact of recreation on families and celebrate 25 years of the Lehigh Legacy Center.

General plan update, implement changes to the general plan and city policies that are business friendly.

So economic development plans to support that by creating the Lehigh City Small Business Council and work with planning and zoning to make recommended changes to planning and zoning ordinances.

This will come in the form of budget requests and included in the mayor's tentative budget.

Fire department plans to strengthen recruiting and retention programs, ensure employees have an opportunity to advance their skills and knowledge through mentoring and training, and justice court provide fair and transparent criminal and traffic proceedings where rights are preserved and appropriate consequences are imposed.

Improved vehicle and active transportation throughout the city.

So community develop community development will develop a long-term solution for 700 South Cycle Track.

Coordinate with regional partners on the SR92 pedestrian bridge.

Update the bike and pedestrian master plan.

Engineering will expand 2300 West from Main Street to Pioneer Crossing with new traffic signals, additional lanes and pedestrian trails and public works.

We'll develop a priority-based sidewalk improvement plan.

Expand and improve bike lane connectivity.

So then we get into kind of the future priorities, three to five years priorities, parks and rec.

We have complete uh phase two family park, start the construction of Mailer Roads Park, public safety, um fully staff our public safety departments, uh build and staff fire station 85.

Transportation, complete the SR92 pedestrian bridge.

So that's just kind of recaps uh some of the things we heard on your three to five year plans.

And then kind of your someday stuff, parks and recreation, make Willow Park a regional attraction, and then transportation wise point of the mountain, connector road, uh complete sidewalks throughout the city, safe bike lanes and pedestrian crossings, and get everyone leeh get everywhere in Lee High in less than 20 minutes.

So I wanted to kind of show you how we structure our goals here in the city uh based on your one goal that the council sets.

So our departments, um this is how our department goals will basically state how we how uh will you support the citywide goal is is what the the goal is.

And then we have a strategy, so what's your strategy uh to meet the goal, and then your majors and actions, um, how you will know that you have accomplished your goal.

So I'll just share administrative's uh goal here.

Strengthen community engagement and invest in the growth and development of city employees.

So that's our goal to support your goal, essentially.

Um and then this kind of shows our strategies.

I won't go into the major actions, but our strategy for that is increase community outreach by continuing to improve current communication channels and implementing new engagement strategies.

Support emerging leaders with relevant training opportunities, and protective privacy of personal data collected through city programs and procedures, and then we have our major and actions there that support our strategies which support our goals.

Um I have I have one of these for every department in the city.

I'm not gonna go through there.

That's like 40 slides of department goal stuff.

So what I'm gonna do is I'm planning on just sending that out to you guys, and you guys can take a look at that.

If you have any feedback, please let me know.

Or Cameron.

Um with that being said, I think that's really all I have, unless you guys have questions.

Um, should we anticipate that the department goals reflect it's in somewhat like the budget requests that they're submitting, right?

That there should be some correlation to that.

Yes.

Okay.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

And the budget committee also uses these as a guiding document.

So when we're trying to decide between one worthy budget request and another, kind of what ties into your goals and what we heard from you.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Um, sorry.

No, no, go ahead.

Um, actually, Matt has something that Teal, she works so fast, put together based on our comment, our conversation just a minute ago.

I think Matt sent it to Bo.

Bo, can you send the council the slides?

I will send the also in the whole slide deck, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

We figured you wouldn't want to go through the whole thing tonight.

Yeah, I gave up taking that stuff.

Yeah, maybe we'll just have Matt plug in.

Yeah, just like the slide deck.

You get one shot at plug in.

If you unplug, you can't go back in.

Rejects, yeah.

So as I understand, this is the updated goal if it shows up.

So maybe feedback on this one.

Maybe this incorporates some of what you've said, Michelle.

It looks like we got rid of some words.

Uh-huh.

What if we just said safety and something else before?

Yeah.

What if we just add the last part of this to the other one?

Yeah.

That sounded like I'd like to see what that is, so I remember that.

Yeah, we can I forgot like five minutes ago.

I don't know.

Live work and play.

I think it's in C.

I think we need two little people climbing up that mountain too.

People come here to play sports.

They landed.

You know, though, if you just end it with high quality of life, you can imagine who that it could be for.

Yeah, I guess that can review.

Yeah.

I don't know.

I'd like to list the original.

We'll send out a couple versions of that via email and you guys can stew over it and my tent there is to remind us who we're doing this for and also be respectful.

I mean, we could promise lots of fun, amazing things and a high quality of life, but it's their money.

Um I you know, we want to provide a great city as much as we can, or you know, do what we can, but also keep that in mind, I guess is the thing as we go into budget seizing a lot of good requests, right?

Sure.

Um would you consider resident to mean taxpayer?

Yeah.

But I don't want to put that in the case.

No, the only reason why I say that is because businesses also pay into the system.

Yeah.

Which is why I like that it was live and work.

Yes, yes.

And I do want to be respectful of their tax dollars, but also make it a good place for them to do business.

Right.

So yeah.

Yeah.

Sorry.

That's it's all great feedback.

Like I said, we'll try and come up with something, get that out to you guys.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Bill.

Okay.

Steve, I have one question.

In the new building, when we plug in, will it plug in?

At least at first.

Thank you.

Just a little concerned now.

Okay, uh working discussion items number one discussion of mayor council term limits.

Um Councilman Harrison, we'll start with you on that.

Yeah.

Um, I just want to thank Ryan for uh his help on drafting this.

So I brought this, I brought this up just because it's it's very common to hear um in the public realm, whether it's federal, state, or local, the need for term limits.

And I think there's really good arguments for it.

There's also very uh good arguments against it.

Um but I think I think the arguments for term limits um outweigh uh the opposing arguments.

And I think for me, I've already I've committed to no more than two terms in the city council in this position, and and I think that's a good thing.

Um I've I've learned a lot over the last two months.

I think most, I guess four of us up here have learned um quite a bit.

Um but I think it's it's always good to see new faces come in to rotate.

I think you know, I've talked to a few of us up here.

Um I think if you're in a city like you know, parawan or or some small little city, I I don't know if term limits would make sense because you just you have a very small amount of people.

Um for Lehigh, as we approach and surpass 100,000 people, I'm I'm positive we have many, many willing individuals uh to to participate in local government.

So I think the one comment I'll have on on the draft is um I I tend to support um two terms per position.

Um so two terms in uh as a council member, uh two terms as mayor, um as the as the permanent limit.

Um but I'm I'm happy to hear other thoughts.

I think um we can go.

I've I've heard from from several folks, like maybe we should have just you know two terms period, no matter what the position is.

Um or three, or maybe a break in between terms.

Um I'd love to hear the thoughts on that.

Um but um there's one other thing I was gonna say, but I forgot.

So I'd love to hear the thoughts of my my colleagues.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, if I may.

Um so I'm finding myself in a bit of an awkward situation, so I'm gonna ask the council members to maybe grant me a little bit of grace because I'm gonna try and say this.

Um and I hope you know I mean it with the utmost respect.

Um I'm the only person up here who lost an election.

The rest of you won on your first try, which is great.

Um but I learned a a big lesson in my loss, and it's ultimately that we are not in charge.

And that you can do everything you think you're doing right, and you can do everything they you know, send a mailer and knock a door and and do great in a debate and know the most or whatever it is, and ultimately we are not in charge.

That the residents decide who sits up here and we are simply temporary placeholders for the next generation.

Um I like I told Councilmember Harrison before when we discussed this, I don't really have a strong feeling either way right now.

Um I just don't know if there is an actual problem to be solved here.

I think the last election showed that Lehigh is exercising organic term limits, that none of our incumbents were re-elected.

Um in fact two of the three didn't make it through the primary.

So I like to solve problems, and I'm I we had we have a handful of issues that we need to address.

And I don't know if this is the problem that we need to focus on right now.

Um ultimately I've learned the lesson that we are not in charge, that the residents are already doing term limits.

They're already cycling us out as they see fit.

And um so again, like per on this specific policy, I'm I'm still somewhat neutral and would love to hear everybody's thoughts, but zooming out at kind of that 10,000 foot view with the perspective I have of someone who didn't win the race, um I believe that the that the residents are already doing what they're meant to be doing, and that um we this doesn't necessarily seem like it's solving it and the problem affecting Lehigh.

Um so it on that point, if this is something we choose to go down, I would much rather see this on the ballot than the than the five of us making this choice, because I do trust the residents.

And this if we're gonna t meddle with the way that they elect their leadership, I would rather them decide this than the five of us up here.

And Emily, thank you.

Just before we go to the rest, that's what I forgot to mention.

Um those are very good points.

But um, so the ultimate goal I think for for putting this up, I I think we can we can talk about it for a couple months until after budget season and determine as a council what we'd like to do.

Um I would love to see the council make a statement by by passing this by ordinance, and then uh in the next general election putting it on the ballot for the voters to either say no to or to support.

And and the reason for that is if if voters by initiative, and Ryan, correct me if I'm wrong, but um if we pass something as a council, another council can reverse it.

Um if we put it to voters, only voters can reverse it again.

And I think that shows respect, as you as you said, um Emily, for the voters to determine if that's the right thing.

And I don't think, and Ryan, tell me if if we did, let's say we we pass this in the next couple months and then we put it before voters in the general election and they reject it.

Uh then it will then our vote it wouldn't have applied anyway, right?

That's my understanding.

We didn't do a lot of extensive research yet.

But there's a consensus that we move forward with this, then we'll we'll look at all those issues for sure.

But I think that's true.

Okay.

And for me, I'm I'm happy I we talked about this a little bit, Ryan, but I'd love you to explain it to the rest of us.

Um I I would be totally fine if it was retroactively applied for myself, even though I know I've already set my own limits.

Um but legally that's not really applicable, right?

Yeah, again.

Better research, but the the research that we did seems to so seems to show that running for office is kind of a substantive right that residents have.

And so if you're already currently in a term, then it could only be two additional terms.

We couldn't say this counts as the one of the two.

But again, we'll verify that.

Because we didn't we didn't dig really deep on the case law, we just kind of did a quick check.

So thank you.

Okay.

So James and I d have debated this, I'm gonna say.

And some people feel like it does help to have term limits to I guess prevent people from taking advantage of the system and getting kind of lazy, not being as motivated and involved as a maybe legislative body or legislator.

Um I can see I can see the arguments for both.

And I actually I that's why I feel like I feel like this is a good compromise because you can having two consecutive term limits.

But if you know, because Mayor Bins is gonna do an awesome job, and if in 10 years we want Mayor Benns back and he decides he wants to run again, he could come back after a mandatory break of service of at least one full election cycle, which in my mind I think we say is four years.

Um you have to work hard to be elected again.

I think that's enough time for the new people that are elected to get uh roots and show what they can do, and it also gives you some time to some distance and to evaluate if you're going to run again and have to work for it a little bit.

Um I guess just that that's my view.

Um, I think we could I would be happy with the way that this is.

I think if we say if it's saying full election cycle, if we say four years or what we want to say define that as, but we say that it's contingent on is it do we call it referendum or whatever the voters passing that basically once you've passed it once you once you pass it, it would be a referendum.

So anyways, that's that's where I'm at with this.

All right.

Um so I can't support a policy that's going to take away the rights of the voters to choose who represents them.

And I also don't believe the voters of 2027 should be able to determine who the voters of 2037 represent either.

So I Michelle just said something I think was very powerful in the last um going through that.

She said, We're here for our residents, we value them.

Passing something like this tells me we do not value them and we do not trust them.

I think that I trust the voters of Lehigh.

I think they've shown that.

I think that you look back over past elections and our mayors have not gone beyond two terms.

Um council members other than Johnny Revel haven't gone beyond three.

Um Saratoga passed one to limit it to three, that a council member who's voting for a six.

Um I reached out to Mayor Carnes.

I said, I know you guys were talking about two.

Why did you determine three?

And he said, because we are concerned that there may we may lose someone who is really good.

And so we don't want to hinder too much.

Um, but I think our voters with this last election with the school district split, they've shown they can do the research needed, they can make really tough decisions.

Um I think putting a policy in like this two months in to a new council just shows that we assume they can't make those decisions for themselves.

Um I think it'd be very pretentious of me to say that I'm only gonna serve two terms.

I've been elected for one.

That's all that I have.

Um, and so I don't know that I would run again.

I don't know that I'd be elected again, but right now it's one, and that is all of us.

Um, and our voters have not had the chance to hold any of us accountable for anything that we said we would do or we have done or we haven't done.

So I think that um term limits.

I would want to go and really study this, but just doing a little bit of studying on it, it shows that it can force out leaders just when they become most effective.

Your first term is often spent learning the complexity of governing a city, is um experience and institutional knowledge matter, especially in a growing city like Lehigh.

Um studies show that limiting terms uh reduces that institutional knowledge and less legislative effectiveness.

It also shows that the power shifts when that happens.

We have a lot of turnover, the power will shift to staff, it will shift to consultants when those experienced leaders are forced out, and then also when officials know that they can't run again, their second term has shown that they're less productive because they're less accountable because they're not concerned about running again.

Um Lehigh is widely recognized throughout the state as one of the having one of the strongest economic engines, and despite some of the rhetoric out there, we've seen that our finances are sound, our city's in a strong position, and so that has come from having that steady leadership.

And so I think I think there's other things that we could look at too.

If we're worried about incumbency being a leg up, do we want to limit the amount that you can spend?

Because I think spending and the amount people spend on election can really have a huge impact on who is elected.

And I think it's really difficult to even imagine doing this level of service for eight, 12 years.

Um that would be really difficult for me.

I know it'd be difficult for my family, but if we have really great leaders who are doing really great things, I don't want to say that we five people have more knowledge that we know better than those voters in 2027 or 2037.

So that's why it'd be it'd be really difficult for me to do anything that I'm going to take away the voters' right to determine that.

Can I ask the follow-up question?

Yeah.

Um, would you be open for it to be on a referendum for the voters to decide?

Yeah, other than those voters are deciding what future voters are going to be able to able to do.

I think that's a better way to do it for sure.

Because I don't think us five and six should be making that decision, especially so new into what we're doing right now.

This I feel like this we're paving a new path.

Are we going to show that we're gonna be is Lehigh going to be better in two, four years than we were two, four years ago?

Like, what are we going to be able to do to prove with the the tuneover is new blood more important and more effective than institutional knowledge and past experience?

Which, you know, and and I think that's something that the voters are gonna have to weigh out.

It's not the five of us to determine that.

It's it's the residents of Lehigh who get to determine that, right?

Any comment?

Um I think there are definitely pros and cons.

Um, but in my opinion, and I've stood by this principle on other issues as well.

But anything that involves elections where the people are electing who represents them, they're the ones who need to set the rules.

I was firm with that on ranked choice voting.

I didn't think the council who would be affected by it should be making that decision.

I thought it should have been gone to should have gone to the vote of the people.

Um again, years and years ago, the city looked at changing the form of government, and I'm on record for saying that that should have gone to the vote of the people as well.

Um so with term limits, it would absolutely have to go to a vote of the people, and um and I would be okay not passing something.

I think just putting it on the ballot would be a strong message that we think this is possibly a good idea, but ultimately it's up for the people to decide that.

Um but I again I see pros and cons, but I I do want to say uh experience manners versus new blood.

Um having experienced both sides of that.

Um I'm thrilled having a new council and having new people elected.

I see new energy and they come in with great ideas and with the energy to change it, and they they're studying things out, and um I personally can see a huge difference and not just policy-wise, but just that idea of bringing energy to the council, and um because this is a tough job and it wears you out, and so I can understand how easily it is it would be to become just kind of like sedazical and just say, Yeah, staff we trust you, go for it, you know.

Um, so I see something good there.

Um, and honestly, I I tend to think people are doing this for the right reasons, probably don't want to stay a long time.

They they probably want, I mean, I think of George Washington, you know, he served well, but he was ready to step down after two terms and go back to his life and his family, which again, you know, going back to the motto or that we're working on, um we're here for residents to make uh provide for them a good life, and it should be a good life that us up here would like to go back to someday.

I know I would so there's that, and I I do want to point out I mean incumbents do have an advantage, and um Heather and I got elected when there was vacancies, two people stepped down.

So I don't know if we ran against incumbents if we would have got elected.

Um we had a mayor who stepped down, so we have a new mayor.

I think it's it's easier um when people decide to step down for people to fill their spots, and the incumbents they have connections, they know people, they have donations, so it's it's hard to for new people to run against them.

Um but again, I mean, there is some knowledge you would lose, and there's the lame duck.

Um but again, I mean, there is some knowledge you would lose, and there's the lame duck, uh you experience that whether it's term limits that make somebody step down or just their desire to step down, you get a lot of things happening that might not happen if they would be accountable during another election.

So there's pros and cons.

Um I think I tend to see more pros, but again, this is for the people to decide and weigh out and you know, they can have that discussion, but it will affect them.

And I'm okay with people deciding now uh in the future because they can always bring it back.

Um through an initiative or referendum.

Um but again, yeah, I see value in that, because if we just passed it on our own, the next council could undo it, you know, which would be their right to do.

So definitely go to the people and let them hash it out, and I imagine the debates will be fun to listen to, but I I'll let them decide, and I I think for the most part I'd stay out of it.

But um I support this.

One thing I do want to add though, the language in this, if you're gonna go off of the language that you presented, um definition of an elected official should include it somebody appointed as well.

That's state law includes that.

Um, but how you want to handle that, I don't know, because that creates something like in Emily's case, point appointed halfway through the term, would that count as her first term or not?

So that's something you might want to think through too.

I think the current language wouldn't exclude like let's say Emily gets re-elected, it would exclude the intentionally leaving out an appointed person.

I think so, and that's yeah, Ryan Ryan addressed that a little bit.

That makes sense.

So this is your freebie if it happened.

I don't know.

As far as I it's all the freebie.

Yeah.

I'm not guaranteed anything, and that was kind of my point.

You realize that just hard you don't have control.

It's not up to you.

And it never will be up to any of us.

It's up to the residents and the voters of Lehigh.

So and they're already organically doing it.

The so one concern I do have with running it this next year, I don't want to pay for ballots when we don't have an election.

I think if we throw it on with other ones, but that was something with the school district split where I don't know how much that costs us to do that.

Like 75,000 thousand to do this to put it forward because we'd have to do well, it would just go with the general, right?

So maybe it's 75,000.

But it's still a cost.

But I thought that was your intent, no?

So with 2027?

Yeah, I mean so T, you're saying if it was if it was next year's elections, twenty twenty twenty-seven municipal elections, that would be something we would have to before the county would it wouldn't be this year, it would be when we actually run an election.

Next year's election.

Um we want to do it on a municipal uh year, municipal election year does they have on costs.

Yeah, yeah, and that's and that's my intent.

Okay.

Yeah.

And I I'm flexible.

I kind of prefer just the two-term or three-term or whatever you decide limit and not have to keep track of years, somebody, you know, just to make it clean, but I'm flexible also.

I I I think if you were to do three terms, it's kind of pretty much in line with what I mean, it's in line with Saratoga, it's in line with what the residents have already shown, and then you don't have an outlier kind of like what other cities have had.

Um I think there could be stronger arguments made, even though I think two terms is perfect too.

I'm with you, as much as I'm just like get a stand on the we have one term and and work really hard.

But uh I I don't want anybody to take their second term easy, thinking that it doesn't matter because they can't be elected again.

I guess unless they want to take two years off.

But yeah, and I think Michelle, what you were saying is like I if I understood right, the counting between like the the first two terms and then if you come back after four or something like that.

I I the when James and I spoke about this on the phone, one of the things that I said to him is, you know, James, you and I are pretty young.

And if we come back in our sixties, right?

Like let's say we serve two terms and in our sixties we're like you our neighbors knock on our door and say, Hey, in 2027, you were awesome.

Can you come back?

But if we already served our two terms in our 30s, what why couldn't we come back, right?

So that I'm explaining that's why James was like, well, let's add in this, like as long as you have this break, then you could come back.

What if that person really is great and later in life they're ready for or the residents are ready for them to come back, right?

So again, I think it we're just getting really tricky and ultimately back.

I mean, I'm broken record, but ultimately it's just no matter what we write, it's really not ours to write.

It's the residents' paths are right.

Maybe I can make a suggestion.

If there's at least a consensus that three of you want to see something go on the ballot in 2027, and we can go do that research more in depth.

We can bring back a you know a version of this ordinance that kind of just has placeholders for the number of terms, for is it consecutive or is it cumulative, right?

So right now it's drafted that you can only serve two consecutively, but it would solve you know, if you said if there's not a total term limit, then you could come back.

You could serve two now and come back in your 60s and serve another two.

But we can just kind of put placeholders so you can have that debate when we get the rest of the issues, the maybe the overall issues worked out since we have a lot of time.

Um rather than having to have again it's up to you, but rather than having to have the the debate on the specifics tonight, at least we know that there's a majority of you in favor of the concept and then we can work on that and and bring it back to you to fill in the details.

Any comments on that?

Are we fine with letting Mr.

Wood run with some I think concepts?

Yeah, I think quick quick voice vote on our do we have a majority that are supportive?

I I am, obviously.

I am.

And and right now I'm leaning towards two terms and just leave it at that.

But I think we have time so we could have more discussion on it.

Um I'm fine with you doing research on it.

I'm not set on any certain amount of terms, and I argued with James about this already about being able to come back because I know I'm not as young as you guys, but I I have a little life left in me if I decide to come back in my 60s also.

Okay, I'm not so young either, but I might want to come back.

I don't know.

Probably want that.

Maybe no one will knock on my door, but we'll see.

And I I would just say like if if we do, if if we think that there should be a it's you know, two consecutive and then a break.

I would be in favor of maybe a longer break than two or four years, just because you know, human nature, unfortunately.

You know, if you look at Congress, you could have people go into Congress, pass laws to benefit their private business, then they leave, they go do their private business, and they come back and they make more law, you know.

So I think having a little bit longer of a break, like a ten year break, which would resolve kind of the the issue that Emily brought up.

Um but that that's where I'm at.

So I think we could draft something that has just the two the strict two term limit and then have something that has some sort of break in it.

And right now, I had to restart my computer, but I think it says two, the two years is if you will you can run you could serve two terms as the mayor, then you have to take a two-year break and then you could run for council.

You you can't take a two-year break and run for mayor again as it's currently drafted.

Right.

So do you care do you care whether it's a different elected position?

I thought it was currently drafted that there was no limit, that you could go right from council to mayor.

There wasn't a break.

Oh, maybe that's it.

But if you want to run for the same thing, the intent was two terms per position.

Um it said full election cycle as a break.

In my in my mind, I'm interpreting that as four years.

But it sounds like some interpreters that is two.

Yeah.

Any of the comments?

So Ryan, will you go and dive into this a little bit and then bring it back and we'll kind of go through that?

Yeah, we'll we'll do the research too on if if you don't there's got to be some action by the council to get it on the ballot.

It's and so we'll have to get a little bit without passing it necessarily and then putting it up for referendum, but that might be what you have to do.

But just we'll just make sure that we know the the procedures and make it clear that yeah, that we're and when you have the debate, you're passing this, but you're passing it for the purposes of putting it on the ballot.

So pass a resolution.

Yeah, something like that.

And we'll I'll have that fleshed out when we bring it back.

And that's something we would vote on, so if we get feedback from residents or think it's a terrible idea, we could just pull it.

Yeah, right.

But not until 2022.

Late summer 2027.

Well, that's that's what I was gonna on timeline.

Like we're a fresh council, and we're four of us have never done a budget cycle.

I would really like to push this off into maybe later this year, right?

Like it I don't want this on April or May.

I w I need we all need to be focused on that.

Yeah, I mean, if it's not gonna go on the ballot until November of 27.

But I'm okay with that.

Can we revisit in 12 months?

Like exactly.

And we'll research the time like I know there's certain days you have to pass it and then give a certain number of days for it to go on the ballot, and we'll we'll have that all work right when we bring it up.

Okay, so Ryan, this would be similar to the school district one would have to have this the public hearings and do those things and do the whole process.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Cool.

I just don't want to do my first budget experience plus the you know, an extensive referendum at the same time.

So let me give you all a day.

Today is day number sixty-five, so you know.

You're counting.

Oh, I know.

Do you have the chalk marks and I can't wait for day sixty-six?

I kind of lose up during the discussion.

Okay, item two discussion of Ivory Innovations Lease Agreement.

I think you're speaking.

Come on up.

Um we just have the contract that we've been working through with Ivory Holmes.

I also have Ashley Hadfield from Ivory Homes here.

Just wondered if you had any questions concerning the contract for the satellite literacy center.

Um I was just wondering where it says that it's I believe it's Lehigh City is responsible for the glass windows and glass.

That was the only thing that I was questioning there.

Is that if it we have breakage, actually?

I think it's just more intense, like if it's happening during the program.

Okay.

And how how how long is the since I you know obviously weren't here with the previous council who made the decision?

Is there a separate agreement of how long this is relationship is?

There's a I believe it's a 20 years.

It's in the contract.

Agreement.

Okay.

Yeah.

So sorry, Hillary, do you want to set that?

Go ahead, step up here.

So I yeah, so this initials for 20 years, and then with any extensions, just acting on good faith between us and the council.

Um maybe some clarifications to make as well.

So this is with Ivory Innovations.

We are a 501c3 operating foundation.

Our two main missions is housing affordability and early childhood education.

Um and that kind of goes back and forth with our other foundations on the child education piece.

Um the Holbrook, the innovation park community is an affordable community that is here in Lehigh that we've been working with the previous council on doing that is that we're in construction for phase two and phase one has stabilized too, and I can talk through that.

But that's just a little bit of the background as well.

Just hopefully that adds a little bit more there as well.

Um so if I read this right, it was a dollar for 20 years.

Okay, when I saw that was like per year, per year.

Okay, because that was gonna be my next question.

Yeah.

Are you getting that annually, or do we just give you 20 bucks now?

Like that seems so you know, I I think it was more on a legal standpoint of having that per year that we just had to have it papered.

Okay.

But our our intent on this has been hey, we love the Rippy Center, and you know, even going back to um Hester Rippe who founded it with her intention of it, and we want to support great programs and cities doing great things like that to help um develop this next generation coming forward.

Okay, and I saw that in the agreement um we're the they would be property tax exempt, but the they would be sharing maintenance and insurance costs.

And so, and maybe this is a question for staff.

How if you're getting the insurance, how are we predicting what that insurance cost is and how you're allocating that to us over the 20 years?

Yeah, so we're planning right now on doing this on a typical CAM methodology.

So every year our team will say, hey, here's the budget that we have.

It'll be on a per square foot basis for what the costs are.

Um we'll go through and work together on approving that and then sign off on it and then just sprite that out monthly for the rent.

Okay.

I think I'm worried that insurance costs for whatever reason would spike, and we having no control over something like that would be subjected to paying for a spike we're not predicting or accounting budget-wise for.

And maybe I just don't know these cost-sharing programs well enough, but is that s something I should worry about?

Yeah.

Jason.

I don't know.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'll go.

Yeah, I I get what you're saying.

I don't know if there's language that we could put to kind of mitigate that that you guys would be comfortable with, but I think we just need to probably work it round through with our legal teams, but we're amenable to try to make sure that our whole intent behind this has been to make it as fair and equitable as proper possible.

And I do think that you know you guys are maintaining your own general liability and workers comp for this as well.

So it's just on the actual premise of how what's the best way to do that.

And if you want you guys can direct us to No, I think my concern is just we have a cost listed that's given no um numbers behind it and insurance costs from my understanding are somewhat unpredictable and rise at times, and so yeah, I just saw a risk to the city.

But um I wanted to call it out, and then if you guys want to think through it, great.

If not, I I mean I just don't do these enough to know.

Yeah.

So again, I mean you guys as part of your motion can direct us to you know research or negotiate this and come to uh something that we all feel comfortable with.

So I don't know.

Do you guys I mean Mr.

Mayor, I know this is kind of your world.

Is it my maybe risk where there is none?

Or well, normally in an insurance policy, then I would assume in Lehes and I've never read it, but in in an insurance in insurance policy, what happens is anywhere we do business, the liability extends.

So if we have a general policy here at City Hall, it would extend all of our properties outlining.

So it would it would clear this property, it would clear us of work comp, right?

And it would also clear us of the general liability, which is already written in there.

And that's already under the umbrella of the policy that's written here at the I City, I would guess.

Now, if I ask Scott, I would Scott would probably tell us the exact same thing, but that's normally how it works.

Yeah, I think the sentence that could like that I flagged was tenant shall be responsible for its proportionate share of maintenance and insurance costs associated with the premise.

Tenants proportionate share shall be calculated based on the ratio of rentable square footage.

We'll now into the northwest.

So Jason, can we get staff just to look at that?

Insurance wise, and then we'll get some answers back.

Yeah.

We can take a a stab at some of those other off ramps and language like that too.

Okay.

And um, because I know that this is a new council, I do have some um information about our impact reports and the mission that we do.

If you guys are interested, I'll just leave that with staff as well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh our third item discussion of a proposal to conduct a feasibility study for an ice center.

Marlon, we'll turn it over to you.

Um council, uh, before you tonight, we just have uh uh the proposal from Babcock Design is to do a feasibility study for to study uh the feasibility for uh two and or three ice sheets uh to create a um sports complex.

Uh the total uh for the stage one fee would be 33,725.

I did speak with Dean, and we would be looking at uh utilizing uh RDA funding to pay for this feasibility study.

Uh the feasibility study would uh come back and at least let us know is it feasible to look at uh creating some type of uh sports complex?

Um what would it look like?

Um and most of all, what would the cost be for the facility and would the facility itself make money, break even, or lose money on an annual basis?

So if the council uh so desires um we can go ahead, we would be able to move forward with this feasibility study that would then answer a lot of questions that we're probably wondering about.

Again, is this feasible?

Does it make sense?

Um and then once we get the feasibility study back, if it's something that the council would like to move forward with, then we can start looking deeper into uh future potential for land sites in some different areas that it might be able to might be able to be located within Lehigh.

Yes, sir.

Is this uh single use as in um this is only for hockey?

It's not a multi-use facility, right?

So we're looking at a two-stage facility.

The first one would be uh three rinks uh for ice hockey with an expansion to look at bringing in some type of maybe basketball courts and not just like one or two, we would probably look at like 15 basketball courts that could then also be transformed into gymnasium space for gymnastics or wrestling or pickleball tournaments or volleyball tournaments.

Um this would be a sports complex.

The sole focus of this would be for money generation.

So tournaments coming in on a regional national level, um allowing for sports teams to come in and do practices and stuff like that.

Are you talking about putting the floor over the actually we would we would design it such that you would have your three sheets, uh a center hallway, and then on the back side on the other side of the building, when you come down the main hallway, it would open up this side would be the basketball courts and stuff like this.

This side would be the ice hockey courts or the ice hockey arenas, the three sheets.

So it would be one large facility.

How long was the feasibility study take?

Uh they said it would take about 90 days, three months.

Is this anything we're looking at doing in conjunction with Utah County as a partner?

Yes, this is so would they also contribute to studying and we have not asked them for that.

Um but they have stated that they have looked at uh alternate funding sources to help uh fund something like this.

Um my personal view on this is that the county is very interested in seeing uh ice hockey located here in Utah County.

Um if another city has the opportunity to bring something forward, the county would also look at funding that.

I think it's gonna be first one to the finish line.

Um the the county is gonna be interested in looking at.

Now, is the county also looking at maybe one or two or three potential uh splitting up the pot that they have that I have not talked with the the county commission about, but I do know that they have committed funds to looking at uh building uh some type of a sports complex.

Right.

Okay.

So my view is that this is driven by the county.

I've spoken with the county commissioner.

I believe it's on them.

The impetus is on them to do the study.

Um because I know this has been a conversation that has come forward over and over again, driven by the county.

And I um yeah, I don't know if it this is with entering a new budget season as a new council.

I don't know if I feel comfortable committing to something like this at this time.

I just feel like it's a little bit early to pull the trigger on something like this, in my opinion.

Uh especially because I think we need to have some other conversations with the county before we do something like this.

Um I know that Lee High is highly uh favorable location.

It's very preferred, uh easy easily accessible if we're looking at tournament-wise and so yeah, I sent out uh to all the uh council.

I received a pro forma from the county commissioner that I sent out to the entire council.

It was based on a single rink, but I think I haven't had a chance to actually look at it myself, and I think that that's something we need to look at and to have some conversations with them personally.

Can I ask some operational questions?

So is that is that like is or would the study answer that?

I guess the study should answer it.

Um I did um preemptively went and looked at a three-sheet ice rink, and we were able to talk with the um general manager as well as the operator, uh main the main maintenance director.

Um he took us behind the scenes and showed us all the um everything that works behind uh as far as the chillers and the Zambones and everything like that.

So we were able to talk to him a little bit about you know, what are costs?

Um, you know, do these make money, do they lose money, do you break even?

What do you get?

So I can I can answer some of those questions just based on the information that I received from him, but we also still need to validate that information.

It was just received from him.

Okay.

So um okay, so I'll take your answers, I guess, with a bit of grain of salt, please.

That's what I'm saying.

If we had a private partner, this the county, and then we had maybe another private partner and the city, right?

Or whatever this structure looks like.

Correct.

Would the concept be that we profit share with all those entities, or Lehigh, they all pay in to build this, and Lehigh maintains, operates, and receives all of the profit from the tax revenue.

That is the general direction that I would recommend to the council is yes, that the funds come in to help build it.

But ultimately at the end of the day, the city, because we would be responsible as the city to own it, operate it, and then the revenue generation from it.

Okay.

And because we were owning operating, like we would see, like we'd get revenue, we'd have operating costs, we'd get profit, but then like are there any other sources that I guess would feed into the general fund, like fees or anything like that that we'd be charging people, I guess?

That I cannot answer.

I don't know.

I don't know.

Because I know that we've had conversations as a council during the budget retreat where we're trying to decrease the burden of property tax on our residents and find opportunities for sales tax.

Um I don't know if this ice rink could do that, but the study would tell us if it would do that.

And I know some of us have heartburn over RDAs.

And I'm like, well, this isn't an RDA, but it could give us the same effect of getting our general fund to grow without increasing property tax.

So I'm open to studying this because I I feel like that we just don't know.

And once we get the study back, we could know this information to make a confident decision of whether this was right for the residents long term.

Yeah, let me make one clarifying comment.

We're utilizing RDA funds to pay for the study.

We are not.

We are not going to use an RDA to build this or anything like that.

We're only stating utilizing some of the administrative funds that come in through well, some of the funds that come in through Texas instruments as the payment mechanism for the feasibility study.

Yeah, I'm glad you clarified what I was talking about was just simply, you know, an RDA tax incentive structure for a Costco or something.

Like that's one way of growing the general fund.

This, however, is a different way that and maybe it is, maybe it's not.

That's what the study would help us figure out.

But this would help us grow the general fund to provide the essential services, possibly, and we just won't know until we study it.

And so I'm absolutely open to learning more because if if if there's any way that we can do that without you know an RDA or increasing property taxes or anything, I'm all ears.

And a study is just gonna give us information.

So Marlon, how long will that study take if we were to like if we were to give you the go-ahead now?

How long would it take before we would have the answers?

Uh approximately approximately three months.

Okay.

May I ask some questions?

Sure.

So this isn't part of a RDA project area.

You'd use the administrative, we can do that, we can use RDA administrative fees for whatever we want, or well, in talking with Dean, Dean felt that the RDA funds that we receive can go towards the economic development, and this would be economic development.

So if you felt comfortable uh utilizing those funds for that.

I went to Dean and asked the simple question.

I'm asking the council to spend $33,000.

Where what pot does it come from?

And as Dean and I talked about it and debated it back and forth, he said, why don't we take it from the RDA?

So that was kind of the general consensus between Dean and I is to fund it through the RDA.

So you consider this, well, I guess you're saying it's profitable, so that you consider this economic development more than just a recreational amenity.

Is that we're viewing this as a sports complex, not as a recreational facility.

They seem the same to me, but I'll take your word for that.

So what city did you visit and look at the ice rink?

Uh it was in uh Denver, Colorado.

It was little, I think it was Littleton.

No, Aurora, sorry, Colorado.

Aurora, huh?

Yeah.

And it was uh suburban suburban, I think of suburban ice rink is what it was called.

I can get you the exact information.

Okay.

I probably looked at that one.

Yeah, it's an actual three rink.

It does have three ice sheets.

It does have the open basketball courts, and they also have a astro turf, uh, two astral turf facilities for indoor soccer, indoor uh lacrosse, and other uh programs that are slated for that.

Okay, and it's publicly owned and operated?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

I I did look at some in that area, and I know Denver had one that was private.

Um then there were two in the outline communities, and from what I saw, one was it ran a deficit and the other one broke even sometimes.

Um so I'll I'll just give my comments, I guess.

Um first of all, I I mean, we have the legacy center, same kind of thing.

We're almost two million and it's grows each year in deficit that we have to subsidize from the general fund.

Um let's get that fixed and figure it out before you start a similar venture.

Um the other thing is this would be a regional amenity or sports complex.

Um I don't want to go down that road again where taxpayers, Lehigh City taxpayers are gonna bear the financial responsibility of that when it's gonna service multiple cities.

So if you even went down this road, which I'm fully against, um I think it should be uh the other cities should have to have buy-in.

It would have to be some kind of interlocal agreement with them where they they're their residents are going to use this facility and they should um get to help subsidize it as well.

I don't see that happening.

I know Saratoga Springs, I've talked to their mayor and council members, and they're happy to use our legacy center, but they're not interested in helping us build another one out west.

Um I I feel the county is the one driving this.

Um I've talked to our county commissioner Beltrum about this.

Um, you know, and he's got a certain amount of money committed.

Um, but he says whatever size, this is the as much as we can give you.

Um I don't know if you've I've heard that you haven't had much conversation with him.

So it's um I think I feel the same as uh Rachel that if the county wants this, then they ought to fund the study.

Um they've some done some of that research already.

Um I heard their numbers, the pro forma came from LRB, so it's not just numbers they pulled out of the air.

Um I and I I think if the county wants this and they are looking at different cities to do this, um the county should operate it.

I mean it's it's easy enough to come up with one-time funds, especially when you have dedicated funds that can only be used for tourism, or you're getting grants from the state or whatever.

Um it's those ongoing costs that kill us.

And so I suggested, well, if the county wants this, they can um contract with a private entity to operate it.

And what I got response was a laugh.

We don't do that.

And I said, Well, you're smart not to.

Um, it's a big risk, and it's not a risk I want to put on a residents, and I'm not comfortable with spending even $30,000 on it because uh study can say one thing.

I've Heather and I have seen feasibility studies that from other entities that will tell them what they want to hear.

So yeah, this is not a direction I want to go.

I think we need to um we have projects that we need to finish what we started, you know, and there's some promises we made that we need to start those projects, and I'd rather focus on those.

And again, new council.

Um this is probably not something you want to take on right now, is what I would suggest.

So that's my two cents.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I would there's a lot of partners out there.

I mean, we've been talking about this for a while.

I've been talking with Utah County for a while about this.

I know what they've been going down with their path too.

Um there's a lot out there wanting to get this billed, including you know, Smith and Tenant Group.

Um I do feel like we're in a race.

There's a lot of cities that want to see this happen.

I think this could be uh incredible amenity for all the things we've said, but also for the schools that like there's to be able to have hockey teams and and things like that going on, so there's potential partnerships with school district as well.

I think our new school district, this could be something that would be a benefit to them.

So I think there's a lot of things with conversation that could happen.

I also think back to the survey that we just had from our residents that was shockingly surprised by the fact that they want more.

They want another legacy center and they'll pay for it.

So to have that kind of feedback coming from residents where we have a very conservative penny pinching council right now, I'm included on that, and then to hear from residents that they want more and to like see the the feedback when we didn't do the ice rink and how upset people were about that too.

So it's like we're trying to balance um the the needs and wants of residents who are in a lot of ways very conservative and don't want to do it.

And in other ways they're like we're in Lehigh and we're we've done really well and we want to, you know, there's a reason we live in Lehigh.

There's a reason we pay a premium to be here in Lehigh because we expect to have services and amenities that are above and beyond what other cities have.

So I think that there's potential for maybe you know, reaching out to the county, see what things we could do together.

I know that we would love to take what they have and build more with it and give, especially on the west side.

I feel like that area has really been because we with the park bond failing years ago and the slow build out and how long it's taken to be able to get ballparks and everything out there with Mailer Roads.

Um I don't want to lose an opportunity that could be there if we just started knocking on some doors.

So that's where my push would be.

I'd I don't want to close the door on something that I'd I don't know what could be this potential great benefit for Lehigh residents because of you know my own conservatism.

Um I think from my perspective, I I kind of agree with everyone on all the different views, right?

Um best case scenario, it turns out very profitable.

It it brings in more economic development, um, which helps us keep property taxes low, right?

It's a regional attraction and it and it bleeds out to other um you know retail and restaurants and stuff that bring money into the city.

Um and part of that best case scenario is it's mostly paid for in the construction.

Um and then of course on on the other side, worst case scenario, it doesn't pan out, right?

It's built, it's expensive, it's a drain on taxpayer money.

At this point, I just don't I don't have the data um to make that determination because some things are profitable and some things are a drain.

Um I would I would love it if the county would be willing to help um do the study to pay for the study so that if they're serious about Lehigh, I think they'd be willing to put out this money to to do the study so we actually know if if there's a chance of it being profitable.

Um because you know, Heather's right that a lot of residents want these things from our perspective, we have to be careful with money and and be respectful of taxpayer funds.

So that's kind of where I'm at.

I think if we can get the county to pay for the study, then great.

So my thought if I was a county commissioner and I had multiple cities in my county coming to me begging for the seven million they're offering, and then I go and do a study with Lehigh, it it's a it's a big slap in the face to the other cities who are asking.

And so I don't know if they'll help us chip in because they're already offering seven million.

Um would you be comfortable with giving the go-ahead to spend the 33, but asking, you know, asking Marlin to go and ask the county if they'd be willing to chip in anything.

If they chip in something, great, but if they don't, would you still be willing to spend the 33 to get the data you need?

Because right now, James, to your point, and I completely agree.

What if the like we just don't know what we don't know?

What if this increased the general fund by two percent?

Wouldn't that be great?

Like we just don't know.

And because we don't know the information, we're just walking away.

You know, like we have over $300 million budget.

We're talking about $33,000 to get information that could potentially give us an increase of the general fund year over year for who knows how long, right?

Like we are responsible for making good decisions based in data, and this study gives us that data.

And I if we can get the county to chip in a couple grand to help us out, awesome.

But I just don't know that we can walk away when we when like James said, we just don't have we don't know yet.

So let's go find out, and then we can have the philosophical discussion about if this is right or wrong.

But we just don't know.

Is it a slap in the face the fact that they're willing to put up seven million or they get it they were willing to put up seven million to somebody else like that's huge?

I didn't heard that number.

So I really hate making decisions based on opinion and not having data, and it really is it's it's a channel of previous council member, you know, it's a rounding error when you come to the list of the size of that budget if it's coming out of the RDA.

Um I wouldn't want to lose this, and I I think that we're we're risking something that could potentially go to somebody else.

Well, and maybe Dean or Marlin can help us clarify, but like the RDA funds that you're using, those are not property tax funds.

Those those are not coming from residents, right?

That that's coming from the RDA with Texas instruments, which to me, I feel really comfortable.

If residents ask me why did you pay for that study, well, a part of the RDA with TI was that we could pursue economic development, TI paid for it.

They didn't pay for it, TI did.

So I feel really I feel a lot more comfortable about the 33, knowing that the residents didn't pay for this.

Excuse me.

Oh did you want to say that just where I'm at is I feel like I would table this for two weeks and have more conversations with the county.

I I think that it's it is an option worth exploring with if we're using RD funding.

I have no four people who own four different gyms, basketball court gyms.

Uh unique was actually multi, multi multiple courts up there, basketball gym that went under, ended up, you know.

I knew the person who managed that.

I know it can be very difficult to be profitable in the private sector, even.

So I do see that there, but there, you know, like I said, I know people who do it.

So I just think that I would like to have some more conversations.

I would have told you guys this before with council.

I still feel the same way.

I just think we haven't had enough time to fully discuss it, and I don't know if we're gonna get anywhere exactly tonight without full information and from the county in my opinion.

And I would add, yeah, let's let's look at the data and let's look at how many ice skating rings, public ice skating ranks are actually turning a profit that can help fund the general fund.

I'd like to know that based, you know, just that alone.

Um I'm pretty sure what I'm gonna find there.

Um but the again I've I I've asked this for ever since I've been on the council.

The legacy center, again, running such a huge deficit.

Let's do a study on that and make it a little more profitable so we can subsidize it a little less.

Sitting again through we're day two of budget discussions.

Um there's a lot of needs in the city.

And yeah, I people want the amenities and some people are willing to pay higher taxes.

Not everybody.

We've got to be considerate of all our taxpayers, not just the ones who are vocal, not the ones who do the make comments on Facebook or whatever.

We've got to be very respectful of our text uh taxpayers.

Here's the thing.

If this is as profitable as is being presented or suggested tonight, the private private entities would do it themselves.

The county could contract a private entity to do that.

I mean, Seven Peaks went through this.

I went through the history of that.

Um and it started out as a partnership with Provo City and the county and then county balled on them.

You know, I I don't want to put our residents through that, and I I don't want to go down the road of investing in a feasibility study, because once we head down this road and get people excited, they're gonna expect it.

And I just this is gonna be a huge burden on taxpayers.

That's what I see.

So let's fix the legacy center first.

Let's see if we can actually run thing these things well before we start investing all this money and time and energy into the something that honestly I don't see whatever turn a profit to help with the general fund.

Well, and I would like to see sorry.

I would like to see anywhere in the United States where that actually happens, where there's millions of dollars that can go to the general fund from something like this.

I would like to see that before we even go any further.

Well, and I think council member, that's what this study will do.

We can direct the people running the study to give you that information.

No, uh it's easy enough to do a search before we have to spend this money.

And you know, if administration fees for RDAs can be used for economic development, there might be something better to use that money for.

Well, and one thing I want to clarify, just because I've been in the sports area for a while, um, is this is different than the legacy center.

This is like a fee for in my understanding, and because I travel to tournaments all over the US is you pay to use it.

Each team pays hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to come.

It's like you might have an hour that is like open to the public to do that Lehigh City would designate, but it's not this isn't like a recreation center.

This is like a fee for rental of these facilities where you will make a pro you're hoping you'll make a profit.

You have to at least cover your costs, is my like.

I don't know, we had a basketball tournament at the Rangers in town in Texas.

They laid they laid courts over the baseball fields and there's associations that do this.

So I don't know.

So it's a little different.

Just a question about that.

So it it's not just open to that general public too.

Well, not tip something like this from what my understanding is, correct me if I'm wrong, Marlon, but it's you might have designated public hours, but it's typically you're gonna ha it's gonna be limited.

You'll have like teams or clubs that are renting the surface to use it.

And um, like if there's a tournament, it'll be a w over a weekend.

That's like a three-day thing.

Um and you'll you're the goal is to get every weekend full.

That's how you and I mean it takes a lot of work to do that because like I said, I have multiple people who do it, but the goal is to to host these tournaments to and then you want to have people that are regularly practicing there every single night, multiple hours from whenever school gets out at two until 10 p.m.

If you can host things during the day for homeschool, for preschools, whatever, like you're just trying to get people to reserve your facility to pay the fees, and you basically have a monopoly on it, I guess.

Well, and the unique thing about hockey is you you can practice soccer in your backyard.

You can only skate on it on a sheet of ice.

So it's actually like these teams will essentially only be able to either practice uh uh, you know, seven peaks if if this I Lehigh thing happened and then the sandy location when the mammoth aren't on the ice, right?

So we we're holding the the ice that they they can't practice anywhere else.

They definitely can't go out onto Utah Lake.

So it's a little bit of a diff the sport itself creates a little bit more of a hook.

But I do want to echo what Michelle said because I also share a concern with the legacy center.

And I would love to do what she's suggesting, which is to figure out how to change that and and turn make you know improve that where we can.

Instead of doing either or I'd love to do both.

Because and and when I say do both, let's focus on you know w helping the legacy center where we can, and can we get more data or and do the study around the ice rink so that we can make a well informed decision.

So maybe do a study on profitable if we have the legacy center.

Yeah.

I think that's a great idea that she had.

Yeah, sorry, go ahead.

Oh, just to Rachel's point that this is a tourist thing, and again, it's regional, right?

Location's gonna matter.

I know the county is looking at Willow Park.

So I don't think that's successful.

I don't think it fits.

I know James had thoughts on and also developing.

And I'll jump in on that.

I don't think any place is determined as where this would go.

I know again it's a good idea.

That's a huge part of this.

And that could be problematic, right?

If we actually have to purchase land.

Um study.

That's why you would have to study it to know.

Or you're just saying that.

No.

What I'm saying is i and I think we we uh I'm with the conversation here, and I'll I'll add my two cents.

To make money, sometimes you have to spend money.

I know that's a that concept is really, really odd sometimes.

Um for $33,000 to get a study to help us make a decision puts us way further ahead in the game than going around.

Because here's the deal.

No one here in Utah has three sheets of ice.

No one.

No one here in Utah has what we're looking at or uh or under a proposal.

And so I think I think in order to make a calculated decision, you have to have calculated data.

When you have calculated data, then it comes back to us, we all have it, then you can make a a decision.

There is no decision on where or or how this would go until you study it.

And so I think I think sometimes we can pull this way beyond what we're looking at.

We're looking at right now a feasibility study.

Do we want to do a feasibility study or do we not want to?

That's the question.

So I'll bring that back to the five of you of do we want to proceed with $33,000 of our own and go to the county at some point and say, hey, can you pitch in?

Or do we not want to?

That's the question uh that's sitting before us tonight.

Yes.

Sorry.

To me, it could be even more uh uh not an either or, right?

And I like what Rachel said, table it.

I would like some preliminary information.

Show me where that I think our economic director can find this.

I think I can do some research and find this.

But I would like to know in the United States where a publicly owned and operated facility like this makes a significant profit.

I just like to know that.

Show me that it can happen, and then I'll listen.

But right now I'm I'm not seeing that.

I see these things as money pits.

If it was profitable, I think the private sector would be doing that.

I think the county would be doing that.

You know, and honestly, I'm okay if other cities decide to do this and our residents can travel there and benefit and there, their residents can take on that financial burden.

But so right now I'm just asking one, like what Rachel's did set mentioned, let's have the county, are they willing to um do a study for us or for whatever city?

I mean, this would apply to any city interested in it, right?

And the second thing, just that preliminary information where where some examples of where this actually happens.

So I have a no from you.

I have that you would be a notion.

Talk to the table it and talk to the county and get that information that's on there.

Can I make a motion?

Can I make a comment?

Yeah, we're making a comment first.

Go ahead.

Uh I think we're making an argument for never doing parks or anything.

Uh roads mailer, don't do it.

It's gonna be a money pit, amount of people, the amount of cost, everything we do with recreation is a money pit.

So yes, I am supportive of having the data to be able to determine this.

I don't know that we're gonna make money on it.

It might be break even.

We might have to subsidize a little bit to have this amenity for the city and the county.

I I want to know where at least we're going in eyes wide open, but this argument that's being displayed just means that we should not spend money on anything unless we can turn a profit.

So I want the I want the data, but I don't I don't like the path we're heading down, especially when we have a survey from residents.

It's not Facebook, it's a survey from residents saying that this is something that they support that I can lean back on and say I'm following what the information is from residents.

So I'm I'm yes for feasibility statements.

Mayor, I I need to address that.

I know.

That's an impropri in a inaccurate representation of what I said.

Okay.

This is not an amenity.

This is not recognized recreation.

This is a sports complex for economic development.

It's an entirely different thing.

And I specifically said we need to start what we've finished what we started, family park, Miller Roads.

We need to do those things.

So please don't misrepresent what I say.

I'm saying the same thing about the Lake Center.

You're not going to find a a profitable recreation center in the city.

And I said let's make the city.

So that it's has it would be less subsidized.

I think so I will bring it back again.

So I'm going to go one by one.

Are you okay with a feasible with the feasibility study?

Yes.

Council member.

Councilmember Harrison.

I would be okay with it if we take it for two weeks.

Marlon can do some research on publicly run ice rinks.

And if there are examples of them being profitable, then I'm willing to to vote on that in two weeks.

So let me take that Marlon.

Can you contact who you where you went?

You can gather some information from there.

Okay.

Yeah.

No.

Michelle's correct.

I mean, we've got we've got rinks that are probably located back east and stuff like that that we can take a look at.

What I'll try and do is get, you know, three or four however money I can and show, but I'd like to also try and get some that at least three sheets and then get the pro forma for all of them.

Are they profitable?

Are they not?

What differentiates them and stuff like that?

Just so that we can at least give you some information.

I can also reach out to the county and have a conversation with uh Commissioner Beltran, see if they would be willing to help fund the feasibility study as well.

Okay.

Keeping in mind that if they do help fund it, then they have access to that study as well.

Correct.

So I'm okay with us funding it with the RDA.

Um I believe that the county's vision is a two as a double sheet.

So have a conversation with them, but I would be happy to table this for two weeks.

I think this is important conversation that we continue.

And I I want to give it the time we can.

Councilmember Stallings.

I would not want to pursue a feasibility study that we pay for ourselves, and I would like this information.

Okay.

Councilmember Lockhart?

I really feel like we can do all things today.

Like we can we can get the study.

Marlin at the same time can can get us that information in the next two weeks.

We can get the study going that takes 90 days.

We have multiple cities competing for this money.

They're not wasting time talking about that like they're they're all moving faster than we are.

And so I don't think that we need to stop.

I also would if I were able to make a motion, it would include something where, hey Marlon, could you could you please before you spend the 33, ask if the county is willing to, if not spend the 33.

We can do all these things tonight and get all the information you want and have everything we need to stay competitive and not lose out on this chance.

And what I heard is three yeses.

Like I I just don't know why we would wait.

So Councilmember Harris and Councilman Firm, you're you're the two, so I have two.

Well, so what I'm saying is some of this information we don't have to pay for, right?

Like if Marlin's able to just find some basic examples of profitability.

It's RDA money.

It we're not spending general fund money.

But I mean it's I mean what the RDA money is still the city's meant for this.

Mayor It's meant for this.

Just a quick quite clarifying question for staff.

What would that money be used for if not this?

Where does it go?

That's a question for Dean.

Okay, taste here.

Yeah.

So our RDAs were able to charge an administrative fee to cover kind of our costs.

And but it can cover studies and stuff like that.

So if it doesn't get used for this, it would be used on the cover our costs for administrating the RDA.

Which goes where?

I mean to salaries or your Yeah, it would offset other costs that we have in the city related to RDA.

It's literally money meant for this.

So it's not money.

I I don't want to misrescent.

It's not money that we if we don't spend it, we or if we don't use it for this, we don't use it.

Right, we'd use it, but it's it's not gonna be a good idea.

It's a part of the budget, right?

You wouldn't allow it, you wouldn't give us the recommendation that it's okay if it wasn't a part of what's budgeted.

Yeah.

So we have professional fees and things that come up sometime with the RDAs related to like your guy.

Uh the attorney guy.

Yeah.

So sometimes we have cost related to the RDA, and so we'll spend it for that.

If it doesn't get used for that, but it can't offset Marlin's salary or a finance salary or things like that.

So it's not like I don't want to say that it's gonna sit there and only be used for studies or things like that.

It could be used to offset our cost, but it's it's okay to use for economic development studies in the city.

So we're not using money outside of its me.

I was asking the question.

Go ahead and show.

Thank you.

Um so that the administrative fees, does it stay in the um redevelopment agency?

Or does it if we don't have a use for it, it gets it it does go to the it would go to the general fund to offset, like I said.

Marlon stayed out of the general fund and so it would go to the general fund, meaning that we can use that money to pay you, and it would free up money for other things.

Is that correct?

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So there's always costs.

So if we put the money towards a study, it would not go to something else that you know down the line can free it again.

Sitting through the budget discussions, there's a lot of needs in the city.

That's my position.

But it currently sits in a budget line item that is meant for this purpose.

Like it it can it includes this purpose.

Yeah, so yeah.

Yeah.

It could be used for either, I guess is what I'm saying.

Exactly.

Yeah.

We're not misusing it by using it for this, but it could be used for either.

Okay, so let me let me finish this due to lack of time.

Um Marlon, if if we gave you two weeks, what kind of information can you produce to bring back?

My hope would be that um I can have a conversation with the county to see if they would be interested in helping fund the study.

And then the second part of that would be reaching out to uh public entities that own at least three I sheets or more and have the conversation with them to see if we can if public entity, hopefully they'd be willing just to give us their their profit and loss of the pro forma statements on those facilities themselves so we can break those out.

And um more than happy to to see how many of those we can come back with.

And okay.

What are we looking at?

T Sha, do we have time on our 24th pre-council meeting?

We do.

Um a little bit.

A little bit.

This much time.

Okay.

Councilman Newell or you or Councilmember Newell, are you okay if we went two weeks for him to guess begin to gather a little more in in-depth information?

Would we be okay if he emailed counsel if he found out earlier?

And do we need to wait two weeks?

So that everything is ready to go.

Um so that we're not having to come back and say, are you guys good with us pulling sure?

It's a yay or nay in in two weeks.

So we have we have the study lined up, we have the contract ready to go.

Um, and then at that point you guys can tell us if there's three of you that are on board.

I'm good with that because what I just really need to remind us all this is a work session.

We're not actually gonna make a motion.

We're not gonna actually do stuff right now.

So what we would do is we discuss it in pre-council again, and then or or not, and then we would bring the proposal, right?

And we would by then have at least some more information.

I mean, I can literally AI some of this stuff, and then we can call these places.

I mean, I can tell you how I would do it if I was investigating.

So are we are we okay with presenting one?

I think if Marlon heads down this path and he's like, yeah, this isn't going nowhere.

Then we're good.

We're not gonna go further on starting to prep.

But if he's like, hey, this has teeth, then we're not wasting two weeks.

So let's go ahead and do that, Marlon.

Let's uh get yourself prepped and we'll be ready to go.

Okay.

I can do that.

Okay.

Um item four.

Mayor and council any anything on the regular session that anybody has a question on coming up?

No.

I think we can just ask at the time also.

Can can we, Mayor?

Okay.

Any administrative report items that anyone needs to report?

Library's been moving books.

They hauled on it and super ex everybody's super excited about it.

So I know we're all excited about this too.

Um, which means uh the piano that was donated is going to be able to come in too.

They wanted to hold off on that until the books were moved, so I'm excited about getting out of the space too.

Um we had a great trip to DC with our power department and Jason.

Um got to meet with uh our lawmakers in DC and and promote good legislation or oppose bad legislation that would affect uh taxpayers' power rates.

Um I'm not as smart as Joel, our power director, and I probably never will be, but he was very, very helpful.

It's a very, very complex issue, and so um I just want to uh show appreciation to Joel and um UAMPS and all those folks and and Jason for facilitating that.

So are we doing administrative report or council reports?

Administrative reports, council report, council reports.

They're both they're both there.

Okay.

Uh okay, so the environmental sustainability committee.

Um they've been reviewing the sustainability plan and uh I think it's great.

They've they have given each council member one of these uh special um I want to say does he decrease the waste of plastic water bottles.

We can um then this is locally made.

So good job, environmental sustainability committee.

I'm impressed.

They're very organized and they have great questions.

Um the parks, shells and trees committee has also been reviewing um the code ser surrounding their committee and um coming up their waterized c water-wise classes for the first three Wednesdays of April.

Open to the public and all city council members, anyone is invited to attend.

Um ends around Earth Day and Arbor Day.

Um I think we have a grant for tree planting, and I'm hopeful we can use for some neighborhood parks uh that need them.

Upcoming neighborhood parks.

Um I think I'm also liaison for the budget audit committee, which obviously hasn't met yet, but we're in the middle of budget discussions.

And as such, I've noticed that there are several boards where we have liaisons of uh city staff, but we are giving them significant amounts of money to these boards and organizations.

And I personally I know we talked about the budget tree, but I think we should come back to that and consider uh elected official to be there.

It's the power of purse is there, and I'm just bringing it to your attention tonight.

That's what I have to report.

Yeah.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yeah, I got to go out to DC with some of our elected officials here.

And um I did uh just want to add to what James said.

It was a once we finally got there, it was a good visit.

We had some trouble with because of a blizzard back there, but um it was hopeful.

I was able to present and James also to some of our congressional delegation.

And one of the issues I brought up that was a concern of some of the other cities there was data centers.

And even though we don't have a uh data center here in Lehigh, it still impacts um our utility costs.

There's always this competition of resources.

Um they understood that and they recognize and I I think the president had his State of the Union that one of the nights too, where they emphasize they want you know to promote energy dominance, but they also want to keep it affordable.

And that's one of the big challenges that we face right now is again competition for resources for water, for even natural gas, the um the infrastructure that needs to go in um with this huge demand, it's uh driving up prices.

So they understood that, and hopefully um they'll help us with that challenge.

Thank you, Councilmember Lockhart.

Um I attended the Jordan River Commission meeting, and we all need to pray for water.

No kidding.

Okay, calendar items.

Um I don't know that there are any calendar items between now and we'll be in DC.

We will be in DC Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday.

I know a good group of us.

So it should be a good time.

I we need to go.

We do need to go into the closed meeting, correct?

We do not, so that's done.

Okay, so I'll take a motion to close this meeting.

So move to motion to adjourn.

So I have a motion from Council Member Freeman.

Second.

Second from Council Member Stallings.

All in favor?

It's perfect.

We'll read

We'll read a two.

And uh she will do that, and we're all set.

Thank you very much.

Okay, now we have time for citizen input.

Uh, let me just kind of give you some parameters to our citizens' input.

Um, each is invited if they would like or has something to say that's not on our current agenda this evening.

Um, if you would like to come forth, we'll give you three minutes.

You will be on a timer.

Uh we'll give you three minutes.

All we would ask is that you state your name and um talk through uh what you have to say tonight.

So we'll open public comment at seven fifteen.

Uh I've talked about this to councils in past, and I would like to talk about it once again.

Uh and I'm here to briefly outline my concerns regarding this road.

So the minor collector road, or so the city, the Lehigh City Master Transportation Plan approved in 2015 designated this road as a minor collector with a dedicated bike lane.

Despite this designation, no changes have been implemented over a decade or possibly longer.

This minor collector road, which is supposed to include a 66 foot width, sidewalks, bike lanes, travel lanes, painted lines, is currently 20 feet short of the required width along my house.

Furthermore, this street lacks additional requirements like sidewalks, bike lanes, et cetera.

So this raises a question.

What's the purpose of designating these improvements in the master plan if there are no concrete plans or timelines for this completion?

If there's no passway resolve pathway to resolve these issues and implement this necessary safety informations for residents, such as sidewalks, bike lanes, et cetera.

The designation of this road as a minor collector is essentially meaningless.

The high volume of rush hour traffic on 200 South pause po poses an ongoing safety risk to the community.

Vehicles off often use this as a side street to Lehigh Main, going east and west.

Um and they significantly increase in car volume in an area where children are frequently walking to and from school, the outdoor pool, and the Carmelone Center.

This is this consistent usage creates a persistent safety concern for residents and patrons.

And this brings me to my next point.

In April 2021, a traffic was study was conducted by Lehigh City.

In this study, the numbers that came out of it identified a significant safety risk in the speed that cars drive down this road.

So the city adhering to the national and state guidelines suggests that vehicles should travel within five miles an hour of the posted speed limit.

However, the study revealed that the speed of cars surpassed 30 miles per hour, the safety goal, 75 and a half percent of the time of all 15 minute measurement intervals.

Furthermore, an average of 160 cars were recorded going traveling in excess of 35 miles an hour, which is 10 miles uh in excess.

So this downtime, so furthermore, the downtown revitalization plans study specifically states that the highest priority is a bike boulevard on 200 south, which connects downtown from east-west to parallel Main Street.

Page 140 in the same study states that the corridor should could initially benefit from a quick traffic build calming project, laying the foundation for future upgrades such as curbs, landscaping, and in ground trees.

The comprehensive plan states on page 141 details sever several traffic calming measures for the roadway emphasizing a transition of more human scale environment.

I understand that there's a lot of different parts of Lehigh that caught or that are I understand that lots of different parts of Lehigh are in needs of things, and I also understand there's a high level of prioritizing.

I urge the city council to please take a look at 200 South and the problems that are on my street.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Palmer.

Okay.

We will uh close public comment at 720.

Uh thank you uh for the comment made tonight.

We appreciate that.

Uh next time of business is the consent agenda.

Any questions in the consent agenda?

Mayor, I I did have a question about some of the minutes.

Is that if I have a concern about those?

Do I talk to Tisha about what to usually puts them together, but I can take anything forward to her?

She should be back later tonight, probably.

If there's changes, you could just put it in the motion to have that modified.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I don't think so.

I I asked about the uh playground replacements and just FYI is it's for two playgrounds and uh one of them is Summercrest.

I went past there today.

There's a damaged playground, they can't replace it.

And yeah, so that's exciting to have a new playground for some people.

Yeah, I I I asked the same question.

Um and I what I was told is those playgrounds have expired.

I guess they're over their 20-year limit or so, so this is replacing those.

I think that's great for safety and things like that.

So I I want to make sure if you have changes, if do you want to make the motion?

I'm I can make it if you've got changes.

I don't know other comments.

Okay.

Um I'll just say I move that we approve the consent agenda with the only change to the city council mem minutes removing line three sixty-three.

I it was a little flowery, and I don't know if it was you can read the line.

Um yeah, that's my motion.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Stolling.

So I have a second second.

Um so would it just go to acknowledgement?

So if she strikes 363, would you start at acknowledgement?

Or just amend it appropriately.

I I don't think I said that, and I certainly didn't praise.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

So do you want to strike the word oh okay, just amend it appropriately.

Just take out the maybe just pulled up.

Council Starling to recognize the diverse housing needs and knowledge the infrastructure costs.

You you could approve you could move to approve the consent agenda without approving the city council meeting minutes, and you can talk to Tisha about that separately, and then they can bring it back next time.

Just FYI.

If you want to work it out with her or with Kate, it's not a big deal, but it's planning permission.

We if you say with the amendments, then we can just roll it all into the one motion and we'll fix that for you.

So back to your uh original motion, council member.

Start the sentence stallings.

You want to go ahead and give that motion one more time?

I move we approve the consent agenda and just strike line six three sixty-three, and then just amend the next line to make it a complete sentence.

Second stance.

I have a second from strike praise to tax.

I have a second uh from council member Newell.

Yeah, Councilmember Solid.

Oh, I'm so let's go ahead and take a vote.

Council member Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, a regular agenda item number one, consideration of resolution two uh 2026-13.

Approving an agreement with U DOT for the design, construction, and maintenance of a pedestrian bridge over the Jordan River as part of the 2100 North Freeway Project.

And I look up and he's right there.

So we'll go ahead and turn the time over to you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um this pedest Jordan River Pedestrian Crossing Agreement.

The project was discussed by Andrew Jordan in the pre-council meeting.

I'm just here to answer any questions if you have any.

And Kelly Ash is here with UDOT if you have any from them too.

Um I was wondering, do you have an estimate of the maintenance costs of some of these?

You know, I think it's really cool that we're doing it with UDOT or UDOT's doing it, I should say.

Um trying to figure out because U DOT is gonna design construct, and but we're we will we have seated we'll maintain.

Yes.

Um yeah, item one, two, three, maybe, I don't know.

Uh um actually I I don't have any estimates on the maintenance costs.

This is this would be one of many bridges that we do have.

We have the rail trail bridge over SR92.

That was a project that's over UDOTS roadway.

Um we have the Triumph Bridge, the Patricia Bridge over Triumph.

So I that's not a I I don't have those costs.

So I I would imagine that initially those costs are very low.

Um in the future they may be painting, I'm not sure.

Okay, and when so there's two images submitted.

There's the one the one that shows the red lines and the purple lines, U DOT versus Lehigh, and then this second one.

Um, but the bridge portion is the purple section over the river, right?

Because I there's these two things that at first when I looked at I was like, why do we have two bridges?

But then I realized, oh no, bridges go over water.

So I was like, that's what that is.

But what are those two things that are not?

The color, the the color it represents who is responsible for the maintenance.

So if it's shown in red, then it's responsibility of Utah County.

If it's shown in the purple, it's responsibility of Lehigh City.

Okay.

For maintenance, sorry.

For maintenance, yeah.

Okay.

I'm excited about this project.

So it sounds like pedestrian bridges are great, and I think it'll give people access to that park there, so it's a good thing.

Any other questions or comments?

I'll take a motion.

Mayor, I move to approve resolution 2026-13, approving an agreement with UDOT for the design construction and maintenance of a pedestrian bridge over the Jordan River as part of the 2100 North Freeway Project.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Harrison.

Do I have a second?

I sec I second it.

So I have a second from Councilmember Freeman.

Any questions on that motion?

Nope.

So they could vote Council Member Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Snarlings.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Thank you.

Item two, consideration of resolution 2026-14, approving an agreement with UDOT for design, construction, and maintenance of a shared use path as part of the 2100 North Freeway Project.

That's back to you.

Again, this is another bridge that UDOT has agreed to construct across.

This would be so the other bridge was across the Jordan River.

This pro this bridge is across um uh 2100 north, just east of the existing UTA UP bridge that goes across the furniture roads.

Um pretty much the same agreement.

Um other other than it's it's two party instead of three party because Utah County is not involved.

Otherwise, most of it's the same.

Um they'll build the bridge, we own it and maintain it.

Can I just ask what is the difference between a shared use path and like the cycle track or you know, is a shared use path?

It's not a sidewalk, it's not just for pestrians, it's for all non-motorized.

Yes, for all modes of active transportation.

All modes of extra okay.

Any questions?

I'd take a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Um Mayor I uh move that we approve resolution 2026-14, approving an agreement with UDOT for design construction and maintenance of a shared use youth path path, sorry, as part of the 2100 North Freeway Project.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Stallings.

Do I have a second?

Second.

So I have a second from Council Member Lockhart.

Any questions on that motion?

So we'll take a vote.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison, that's right.

Yes.

Thank you.

I'm reading through my chart too fast.

Okay.

Item number three, consideration of resolution 2026-15, approving an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah County for the Utah Lake Trail.

Back to you.

Yes, thank you, Mayor and Council.

Um so back in June of last year, Lehigh City signed an agreement with Utah County for the extension.

We're going to call it our phase one of the Pony Express Parkway.

Roadway.

That's a two-lane roadway extending from Lehigh Center Street to approximately American Fork 700 West.

Um last fall, Utah County approached Lehigh City with a project.

Um Utah County is currently funded through MAG to construct the next section of the Utah Lake Trail.

Part of the challenge is that um Utah County has is because this um this trail runs through wetlands.

So it it has its own challenges going environmentally.

So Utah County reached out to Lehigh City and is proposing that large portions of this trail may be built along the same Pony Express Parkway roadway that we that we are currently designing.

Um and so they requested that that we you that we build the trail for them.

We we funded as that they would fund it, but we would design it as part of our project.

They would pay for all design environmental construction costs out of their own pockets if we would build this trail with our same contractor that we have on the Pony Express Parkway roadway.

So we we saw it as uh we saw it as a benefit um to do it that way just because we have the same contractor, we're in the same corridor.

We we do the same environmental work for the roadways we would the trail.

It's in this it's all in the same area, so it made sense to us and when they agreed to pay for all costs, not asking for us to pay our match.

We were willing to help them out.

Maybe do I.

Yeah, I think that was my question.

Um were we gonna have to s manage two different contractors and would Utah County get to pick which one and all that?

But if essentially Lehigh gets the full control to get it done with no costs, right?

Then I think that makes sense.

We would hire the same engineer to do the roadway design, they would just integrate the trail design with it, and the same with uh with a contractor, contractor would build both projects.

And the same with uh with a contractor, the contractor would build both projects.

Okay, thank you.

So is it um kind of a protected trail?

Is that what we're or is this I'm I'm looking at the design.

And it looks like there's a couple different options.

Is that what it's showing here?

The reason we showed different designs is because until we get into design and until we start coordinating with with landowners, we don't know whether it will take the northern or there's or the southern route.

Currently, right now, the Utah Lake Trail runs from our north North Lake Park all the way into Saratoga.

It's an amazing trail that's existing.

It it's heavily heavily used.

Um but we just don't know exactly the alignment.

So this is the this is what we're proposing.

It's obviously conceptual.

Um if we end up having to run the roadway along the roadway for the most part, it would take that green route.

Otherwise we we obviously we like it when it can be kind of off into the native terrain, but wetlands and environmental could be the challenge that will help us on that.

Brad, what you might want to mention that uh with trails you can't go out through Timbuktu with our any powers.

In other words, if they agree to a trail, that's fine.

If they don't, then you really you can do it along a road though.

So that's probably why it shows both.

We'd love to have it down here, but if the property owners say no, then you're really stuck with going back up.

Yes.

And so who's going to is well there'll be like an environmental impact study and all that done and concept concept plans talking to landowners?

That'll all be done by we don't do full environmental studies like UDOT does.

That's not a requirement that we have.

But this project's actually been going for quite a long time.

When uh TSSD, TSSD has a major sewer lane down here that they are currently designing.

They um when they heard that our road was coming through that we were extending the road, they actually paid for our wetlands mitigation.

We we're two years into wetlands mitigation studies as well as some of our threatened and endangered species for botanical.

So we're we're well along the process on this right now, and so it just made sense for um Utah County that we would kind of team up together.

We would use our same consultants, whether they be our design consultants or environmental consultants or our contractors to do the project together.

Any other questions?

I would take a motion.

Uh I'll make a motion on item three consideration of resolution uh number 2026-15, approving an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah County for the Utah Lake Trail.

I move that we approve um this resolution.

So I have a first from Council Member Lockhart.

Do I have a second?

Oh, and I should add some findings, right?

That the that this is beneficial to Lehigh and in our best interest.

Second?

The second one, Councilmember Newell, any questions on that motion.

Okay.

Councilmember Stallings will start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you, Brad.

Item number four, consideration of the Clark Meadows subdivision concept plan.

An 11 lot residential project located at 9227 less, 7550 South, or approximately 1800 West, 1300 South, with a request for an exception in the form of density in lieu of in lieu to allow flexible flexibility on setbacks.

Welcome if you'll state your name.

Yeah.

Name is Austin Cooper.

Thank you.

Um we're here uh just asking for uh Dennis and Lou, kind of working with the city um planners.

Um there's a uh trail going on the south side um and and putting that trail in.

Uh the thought was that it gets uh density and loo on the the setbacks and a couple lots.

Um we can't fit eleven lots without the um without the trail.

Uh but uh we'd like to work with the city and and put the trail in and then and then have it be where we can still have those eleven lots.

Um in doing so uh there would be seven of the eleven lots that wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't get the uh half acre, which is in the zone, but we still have four lots in this development that are in the the half acre.

So that's where we're here asking for.

Any questions?

Yeah, so which which four?

I'm counting three that still go above the half acres.

Three three on the east side, um, and then the one where the existing home is.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

And and what I guess the impetus for for adjusting this, is this because there's the other path on the the property to the west?

So the city city asked.

Uh we we had it designed without the path, and the city asked if we could put that in and connect that connect the path that is to the west of us with the hope that as soon as the development comes into the east of us that they would connect into I think that's that's 1300 or whatever that is.

1700?

1700, yeah.

Um that street on the on the east side.

Kim, do you want to speak to that maybe?

Sure.

Yeah.

Um so this is very similar actually to what we did on the development to the west.

Um we do have it's dry creek that that borders this property on the south, and it went through the property to the west.

Uh in that case, we did a very similar uh I guess agreement to what they're proposing where we gave some additional, uh we actually gave some additional density on that one and flexibility on lot size and frontage.

Uh so as you look at that subdivision to the west, um I think their lots range from 15,000 to 18,000.

Uh they actually don't have any lots that are the half acre.

So it's really a trade-off.

Um if we'd rather have them go with the conventional subdivision.

I think either way we're gonna we're we would have to uh either pay for the right-of-way for the for the um trail and to be able to widen the ditch from top of bank to top of bank of existing ditch.

We normally expect that uh because it's kind of a prescriptive area that that we're already maintaining.

Uh but to get what we would need, either way, we're gonna have to deal either we can go ahead and give it give some flexibility.

Uh in this case, the conventional layout gives 11 lots.

They're not asking for any more lots, they just want the the lot size flexibility.

I did do a quick analysis on this particular layout.

They have a an existing road that stubs in on their west boundary, so they they have to connect to that road.

So if you took the area south of that road and down to where Dry Creek is, uh let me pull up my numbers here.

Uh that area is about 1.7 acres of the total and the area that we and these are rough estimates.

I just did some quick math.

The area that we would probably need for the ditch and the trail is about 0.54 acres, so about a half an acre.

So if you take um if you take that area, the point five four that we'll need out of that area south of that road, either way, we're gonna end up with probably about 16 to 17,000 square foot lots if to be able to make this work.

Otherwise, we wouldn't get the ditch or the trail, which we're on our master plan.

So anyways, just some analysis that we did.

Well, it's good explanation.

Any other questions?

Uh so I think my my main concern is um animal rights on property, right?

And we can only have that above a half an acre.

Um I like that you're not requesting any additional lots, and I know this is at the request of the city.

So I have some hesitation because uh you know Lehigh is unique in that sense where you can drive through pretty much any suburb in Lehigh with the exception of maybe Traverse and Holebrook where you can you can come across farm property or at least um half acre or more lots with with animals.

So I think it's pretty cool that um we have those lots and even new lots that are at least a half an acre giving families a chance to build with those additional rights.

Um I guess Kim, how so you said this is in our master plan.

Um I went out there today just to look at the area.

I find that it helps to see it in person.

I mean it's still very rural, it feels like there's those new development to the west and the east, but there is a little family park on the on the east side of 1700 west.

So there is at least space.

If they didn't give that green space in that southwest lot but gave the bottom sliver of those three lots on the south, would that still accomplish the purpose?

Yeah, I think at a bare minimum we we need to widen the ditch.

So we could probably shrink a little bit of the open space that they're showing.

Because they've got to detain their storm water before it gets discharged into Dry Creek.

So I think some of it will still be needed to handle their stormwater.

You're talking about parcel A, the okay.

But it so you said it's 1.7 acres, and we'd need about 0.5 acres.

So it'd be 1.2 and then you divide it by three.

And so we would end up with less than half acre lots anyway, is what you're saying there, whereas the requirement is 22,000, which is half acre lots.

So I mean, what is a you know, if a developer comes and they have this ditch, I mean are what would you normally do if you don't if the city doesn't do it that they're just gonna have a ditch in the in the homeowner's backyard?

Is that what it'd be part of the property, maybe unusable, but it'd still be technically part of the property.

Okay.

Yeah, we may have to look at easements or other things, other ways to deal with it, but I think no matter what, we'd have to give some kind of a compensation for them for accommodating this those city facilities, whether it's property ownership or easement.

Yeah, I appreciate that you're not asking for an increase in number of lots.

Um I it sounds like the city has a asked you to do this and it would cost the city at least $300,000 to buy back that property.

So I I really appreciate that.

And good job.

Well, I think so too.

We would have to buy the property and then pay to make the improvements as well.

So yeah, I I agree when we're not actually giving density.

I can understand and coming, you know, with the planning commission of wanting to preserve as many horse properties as we can.

Um we see this often if it's something that's so important to us, then why don't we look at um you know lowering that down to 20,000, you know, point four six of an acre for horse properties on on some of these where we have a little bit of flexibility because it seems to come up a lot where we want trails, so what do we value more?

Do we want the trails for the whole community?

Do we want to make sure that we have 11 horse properties instead of four?

Um and then I don't know if we have any data on the city, how many half acre and above lots actually have horses on them.

So it's like are we preserving um these areas for horses but may never be utilized in that way?

I would, you know, I've I've lived next to horse properties, they have way more than a half acre when they do it, but I also know ones that put a in a neighborhood right next to me.

So because they had a half acre and they could do it.

Um so it's it's hard to tell, but if that's something that we're really passionate about, maybe we should consider a little bit more flexibility on that, knowing that we do sometimes have to adjust these lots to make up for other amenities that are really important to us too.

Any other questions or comments?

Yeah, Kim, can you clarify?

There's the narrative and then there's the staff report, and then I think the narrative says 12 lots and staff report says 11.

So it may be that there was an earlier layout that had the 12, but but what is in front of you is the 11.

Okay.

I'm not sure.

I've seen the 12 before as well.

I'm not sure where the 12 is.

I've never I actually have personally never seen a 12 lot layout, so I'm not sure where that number came from.

It's 11.

All right.

And so you're saying that even if we don't grant this he still wouldn't have the half acre lots set.

Yeah, we'd we'd have to negotiate some kind of a right-of-way through there.

Now maybe they could swing the road north a little bit so that it takes it out of alignment and then they have enough lot area, or they just do a a really big lot or two lots along there just to keep the lot size, but you'd have really wide lots.

Okay.

So I I mean they can still lay it out.

Uh it just wouldn't look probably in the same form that it is right now.

I I'll just make a comment then that I'm not thrilled with this kind of a deal.

Um I want to stick to the the plan.

But in this case and I here's a problem right we could give you the the flexibility I guess is not increased density.

Instead of yeah this is sorry I'm thinking out loud here.

Yeah I I'm kind of with James I want to preserve this because you know typically it you know this is the way people can get those large animal rights um but if you can't get that lot size anyway then I guess I'll be okay with it.

Yeah I I just really want to make sure we don't increase the density um so I like that council member stallings called out the 12 I I it also concerned me because the discrepancy so as long as we're staying at 11 um and that's included for clarity in the motion um then I could support this and like uh councilmember Freeman said I I appreciate that you've thought of our connectivity and our master plan and things like that any other questions I would entertain a motion Mr.

Mayor I move that we approve the Clark Middle Subdivision concept plan which is a 11 lot residential project located at 927 West 7750 north approximately 1800 west 1300 south with the request for exception in the form of den of density in lieu of allowed flexibility on setbacks I will add to the motion that doing so saves the city three hundred thousand dollars in potential uh cost of land plus the cost of um constructing the trail and and moving the ditch so this is a good benefit to the city um and then that um I would also like to include all DRC comments and the planning commission comments do I have a second sec oh sorry second but a question to motion too okay so we have a second from council member stallings um sorry oh any questions I do have sorry we probably think of the same thing can you just add that it doesn't increase density overall or the number of units it does increase doesn't increase sorry I'm like wait what did I miss it doesn't okay it does not increase the density that the 11 lots is what is allowed in the plan and to strike the person that talks about the 12 lots in the narrative yeah second still stand yes sorry one quick clear clarification you mentioned flexibility on setbacks but we also would need flexibility on the lot size just to clarify include that and include the flexibility on the lot size as well another question um it in the DRC comments a highly recommends adhering to the five foot distance from the canal is that when you included that DRC commons is that also okay yeah good council member stallings your second still stand yes so we'll take a vote council member lockhart yes council member noole yes council member Harrison yes council member freeman yes council member stallings yes thank you okay uh thank you item number five consideration of resolution 2026 09 intending to annex the sleigh holdings annexation four acres of property located at approximately 2300 west 300 south is there someone here from sleigh holdings welcome if you'd be kind enough to state your name for us my name is Shane Yates my proposal is to annex uh a parcel land approximately four acres a little over four acres on 2300 west and approximately 300 south adjacent to the Drake Grays Drive uh road annex it into the city any questions so maybe this is a question for you maybe this is for Kim it sees that it says the requested zonings are one flex but it looks like the neighboring zonings are one fifteen and I know we're not deciding on zoning tonight but I just wonder if that might be a better option for that land when the time comes just because it's adjacent to the it's the adjacent zoning at least provide some information on that.

We allowed that low density category.

So that so he's within his right to request it.

But anyways.

Just an explanation of why that zoning is allowed versus what's on the neighboring property.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor, I have a question for staff.

That has nothing to do with your zone, but just reading through it.

The uh Utah, oh Utah Light and Power is in the county.

Is can we annex that or does it because they're uh state entity, we don't do that or yeah, the piece directly south.

There's there's this is part of a uh rectangular county island.

It goes down three or four parcels.

It's just one of those little islands that's been left over in the wake of everything that's happened around it.

Um so I guess your question is can we sweep them in with this?

Um that's a that's a good question.

We did that with U.T.

property, if I remember.

Yeah, yeah, we've done it with UDOT up by um HADCO.

Um they would have to pay their engineer to to modify their plat and things to to bring in that other parcel.

I don't know if I and they may protest, they may not may want to stay in the county.

That I'm I'm sure at some point Rocky Mountain will end up annexing, we'll have to fill that island in at some point.

But there are if that was maybe the last piece of an island, maybe we'd look I mean you could still look at it, but that might be a stronger um reason to do that.

But there's still three or four other parcel sellings.

And I don't want to hold the applicant up to do that.

So just I was just curious.

Sorry.

Good question.

Is there uh we're gonna that's a good question, Councilmember Freeman.

Are there anyone in the audience that wants to speak to this?

I don't know if there was or not, but I don't think so.

Okay, awesome.

Any other questions?

Any other questions for this one?

Oh sorry.

Oh, this is related to the last one.

I was told that I we would have an opportunity to speak if you did not ask me there in the comments in our so we had the 20 minutes of open comment.

That's for items not so you're right.

So that means that we would have to go back and reopen that.

Let's finish with this one.

And then we'll go for that we'll go forward.

So on this on this one specifically, are there any other questions?

I think it's the confusing thing on the agenda.

That's what's causing the confusion.

So you're not required to open it back up, but you can for public comment.

Yeah.

Right.

So we'll finish this one.

Any any comments for Mr.

Cooper?

If it's in the case, oh excuse me.

Yes, any comments on this one.

But now there's no opportunity for that.

Okay, so I will entertain a motion.

Um Mr.

Mayor, I'll make a motion on item number five, consideration of resolution number 2026-09 intending to annex this lay holdings annexation, four acres of property located at approximately 2300 west, 300 south.

I move that we approve the annexation with the findings that it is a benefit to the city of Lehigh.

And include all DRC comments and planning commission comments.

Do we have a second?

I second it.

Councilmember Freeman.

Any questions?

Yeah, I just want to make it clear, at least on my agenda, we have two number nine items.

So we'll just I guess can we clarify in the I don't have two lines.

I don't have two nines.

I have a two nine and a ten.

Okay.

Mine goes from three four nine five, six, seven, eight, nine again.

Yeah, the one that's publicly listed.

Okay.

Oh, we have an old yeah.

I saw that earlier.

Never mind.

It's on graduate.

Okay, okay.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we will I will make a um we're gonna go back to item four, because I would like to hear, and you've come and I will open that for you.

It looks like there's some confusion on this.

If you'd like to speak, we'd we'd invite you to come and state your name.

And you have three minutes, we'll give you three minutes to speak.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

And I there's at the planning meeting, someone specifically asked, and they said that we would have an opportunity to speak at this meeting.

Right, there's a little confusion on the clarification on that.

So no problem.

But I appreciate you opening it back up.

So I wrote this down so I don't ramble.

So my name is Andrew Ward.

My home borders the property to the northwest of the Clark Meadows development.

And because my property directly borders the proposed subdivision, the design will significantly impact my home.

A major reason.

While this proposal may technically stay within the overall density limit, it does reduce the lot sizes and setbacks.

That decreases privacy for neighboring neighboring properties and weakens the intent of the zoning and changes the character of the neighborhood neighborhood.

Over time, once these standards start to be relaxed, exceptions become the new baseline.

Residents who choose to live in the R22 neighborhoods did so with the expectation that these standards would remain consistent.

Those standards also protect something that has historically been part of Lehigh's identity.

The ability for residents to maintain full animal rights on larger properties.

As lot size shrink, those rights effectively disappear, losing the aspect of the semi-rural living means losing an important part of Lehigh's heritage.

Tradition, like the stock parade, reflect that heritage, and they risk fading as the animal rights are gradually reduced.

It was mentioned that the South Creek subdivision received similar flexibility where they went from 17 half acre lots that contain full animal rights to 21 that none of them have it now.

And I do live in that subdivision.

The same thing with the Clark Meadows would be 11 lots down to four that would maintain those full animal rights, which in getting to know the previous you know, property owner, that was a big deal for her was to maintain that and to have those horses.

So this also is, you know, the this would border the South Creek where the lot sizes were already reduced, and then that just keeps happening from one development to the next, and it just shrinks that up.

Um so over time that just the R22 has a completely different meeting, is no longer zoned, is that um so zoning centers only work if they're applied consistently and said that you know uh we love the trails, we're not against development.

We know that that's gonna happen.

We love the green spaces, but the trade-off in this case for you know putting in a green space.

There is a park in our subdivision 200 yards away.

You're gonna put in a 40-acre park two or three hundred yards the other direction.

So I don't think a park rate here is necessary.

And I would argue that it'll, you know, it's not gonna cost the taxpayers anything, but once we receive that green space, taxpayer dollars are gonna go to maintaining it forever.

Um so I guess I would say that you know, maybe consider decreasing the lot size on the bordering you know trail area rather than putting it wholesale and the whole development or changing it so that that you know that that street knuckles and doesn't go through as a through street.

Um some options, but um I think zoning decisions shape neighborhoods for decades.

Short-term development short-term development pressures or budget considerations should not lead to long-term erosion of the standards that protect the character of the community.

And this is I wrote I respect uh that we would uphold the zoning uh for this area and protect the intent of the zoning and the summer rural character that makes uh Lehigh unique.

And then I would just point out at the end that the existing lot there in that home is well below grade for our div our subdivision, and if those other houses are gonna have basements, it's gonna create a bowl.

So that house is just gonna flood constantly.

So I'm not sure that that would necessarily be the most appropriate thing for that house anyway.

So but I do thank you for reopening it and listening.

Yep, thank you for your coming.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else here to comment on this?

Okay, so I'll close the pub public comment on item number four, bring it back to the council.

Any comments or any other questions?

Yeah, uh yeah.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Mayor, um, so this is a concept plan.

Um, and so the council has approved the 11 lots.

Um, my understanding with with the trail and and the basin, what we also approved the flexibility.

Um, and so this public comment that was just made could still be incorporated as this is still a concept, right?

So they can they now have flexibility.

We could ask you know, staff to make sure the applicant had the opportunity to hear the comment just made and look at their design and see if they can do anything to give us a few more half acres, right?

Yeah.

So um I Mr.

Mayor, thank you for allowing the comment because um, if the council's okay with it, I'd like to ask staff to make sure the applicant listens to the public comment given and does their best to incorporate that into the site plan.

Can I make a comment?

Can I ask a question?

So how does that work if we get information after the fact and we've made the motion?

Is this direction we would need to have included in the motion?

Could we go back and add it or is just direction of three or more good enough, Ryan?

Yeah, I mean, when you're talking about that would have been ideal, but when you're just talking about something, you know, it's not gonna be a requirement, but just asking staff to make sure that the developer has the comment, that's okay.

Okay, so we can't require it, any adjustments, but we can we can always ask you.

Yeah, you can't require the developer to make any adjustments, but you can certainly ask staff to give them the comment and ask them to consider it.

Or that council member Harrison, you had a question.

Um no, I just it was Andrew.

Um I really appreciate your comment, and I 100% agree.

Um I think my vote again, it's a concept plan as council member Lockhart mentioned, and and hopefully there can be some adjustments.

Uh the re the reason I voted the way I did was to save significant taxpayer money, obviously, but uh that was a I completely agree.

And and we should reduce the number of exceptions that we make in any approvals like this going forward.

So I appreciate that comment.

Any other comments?

I'm so sorry, but I have one more.

Just to clarify, even if we didn't grant the flexibility with the lot size, because we need that space for the trail, the lot size would have been less than half acre.

Is that correct?

Yeah, yeah, the three kind of the three of them.

That's a reason I voted for it.

Um not so much.

I want to save taxpayer dollars, but we've done that so much.

I'm anyway.

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that.

But hopefully the developer can take that in consideration, maybe and make some of the lots a little bit bigger and maybe the staff we can reduce that parcel A somewhat or whatever.

We can't yeah, and and just the process of development.

This is a the uh like infancy stage of concept plan.

So while there are some now the developer has some assumptions based on the council is approving this concept, they they can come back with change sizes to try and maximize if they so choose.

And so if if I could get a verbal from at least three of us to have staff make sure the comment gets to the applicant, I think that would be go really far.

Yeah, I I would just say the the significant piece is that the money like we just approved uh yesterday about using federal grant funding, about 300,000, the same instead of do three blocks worth of sidewalks.

So it's like being able to do these amenities and be able to do the trails and be able to do things, it's hard.

It's always like a trade-off.

Um where this is these are these are bigger lots than what's to the west, you know.

So we are increasing that.

I I think that there are things that we can look at to be able to try and get a win out of both of these and preserve the real true thing is preserving the horse properties.

There's things that we could look at with that, but I think these trail connections are really important, and if we can save money so we can do more, um, and still these are very big lots.

Um I think that there's a a way to do it, but I'm all for being able to have the developer listen to the residents.

Um can usually come up with something far better when they they do that.

So I think that's great that you point out this is a concept plan and nothing's fully baked.

So yeah, and I appreciate when I was looking at it, is that the three um half acre lots border the ag the more agricultural area?

Um I live in a neighborhood similar to this where someone has a hor horses and some of us have chickens and um yeah, so I'm I appreciate that there is some consideration of that.

Um I definitely wouldn't want I I'm trying to stay true to their zoning, but also realize that we have this ditch and trail that we have to account for.

So I think you have three there.

We will we'll put that in the notes.

Um I think we're good to move forward.

Is that correct, Ryan?

Awesome.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, item six, uh consideration of resolution 2026-10 intending to annex the Cedar uh hollow holdings annexation, 15.31 acres of property located at approximately 400 South Center Street.

The petitioner is Gary Cooper.

Is Gary here?

Anyone here to speak on behalf of Mr.

Gary Cooper?

Mr.

Tony Train.

I got nominated, but yeah.

Gary had another activity tonight, but just uh annexing down on the south side to bring a subdivision in.

The main push is uh the church is looked for a spot and this was a viable spot for them.

So that's uh that's one of the main reasons to push it forward, but to come in with that annexation and that requested zoning, which is according to the general plan.

So but answer any questions you have.

Just curious, I don't know if this is can where would the church be?

Kind of in this properties of the south part, the south.

This is the most south by the tracks.

Yep.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Is there anyone from the public here to speak on behalf of this item?

Okay, so we won't have any public comment.

Um I'll take a motion.

Do you want to do it?

I can.

Yeah, I'm trying to pull it up right now.

What you lean forward, we all know.

Okay.

I move to uh approve resolution number 2026-10.

Um of the intent to annex Cedar Hollow Holdings.

Um what else do I try to read?

With it.

Include all the well, you can read the description if you want.

Sorry, my computer's being slow.

Um 15.31 acres of property located at approximately 400 South Center Street.

So I have a first to have a second.

And can we include all the ERC comments, please?

And planning.

And planning commission.

Okay.

Second.

I have a second from Councilmember Lockhart.

Any questions?

So Councilmember Harrison, we'll start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stullings.

Yes.

Councilmember Locker?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Okay.

Item seven, consideration of ordinance zero five-2026 approving the Parker zone change on 2.4 acres located at 300 North Palomino Way.

Changing the zoning from A1 agriculture to R122 residential ag agriculture.

And Mr.

Adam Albrecht is he is he here.

Any anything you'd like to add to that or no?

Um we'll have most likely three half acres and one uh point seven one acre law there.

Awesome.

Any questions?

Is there anyone from the public here to make comment on item number seven?

Okay, so we'll close that.

Any questions for the petitioner happy to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve ordinance 05-2026, approving the Parker zone change on 2.4 acres located 300 north.

Palmino Wade, changing the zoning from A1 agricultural to R122 residential and include all DRC comments.

Do I have a second?

Second out.

Councilmember Freeman.

Any questions?

So we'll start with you, Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

Item number eight, consideration of ordinance zero six-2026, approving the 1400 east 1220 north zone change on 5.25 acres located at 1450 West 1220 North, changing the zoning from A1 agriculture to R 122 residential agriculture.

Changing the zoning from A1 agriculture to R122 residential agriculture.

And our petitioner tonight is grow development.

We have someone here.

If you will tell us your name when you get up here.

So we appreciate the chance to be before you and request your support and approval of it.

Any questions?

And was that able to be addressed?

Like what is that a concern for you that borders some of the property they talked about flooding, possible flooding, possible mitigation strategies.

I don't know what the requirements would be, what your ideas are.

Yeah, great question.

Obviously, with irrigation water and irrigation ditch, those that are receiving it and those that enjoy it on their property are responsible for the tailwater and where it goes.

As well as we will have to elevate the road just a little bit to ensure we get the proper sewer depths on our future homes.

And so we'll we'll dive into that, but those would be the plans to address that and take care of that.

When that property does get developed, uh it'll be their responsibility to pipe or terminate the ditch.

So just to echo that, um great proposal.

I love the the low density.

Um concept looks good.

I think the concept had the the one lot on the northeast side.

I think that's kind of the only concern is for uh the neighbor to to burn that ditch, right?

Um I worry about structures that were are within or you know, five feet away from the fence line.

I think that's the current code.

Um so really my I think my only concern or comment, I guess, and I've talked to Kim and others about this is figuring out how to put that um at least next to the lot um piped.

Um and I know that's not your responsibility because it's not your property, but I think um you know, for insurance purposes for flooding, so you know if if the neighbor can't maintain the ditch, then the flooding uh chances increase and a berm can help.

Um but again I I I'm concerned not only about the the flooding but the fire risk.

So if I guess my question to you is is the concept plan now, are are you looking to make modifications to it outside of the berm?

Are the are the homes and the lots about exactly what you're going to put in there?

Are you gonna change those at all?

Yeah, we are um we would look to maybe reconfigure it a little bit, but it would still essentially stay in the same layout.

Um thing to note on that we would be required as as long as they keep their agricultural use, we have to do an agricultural grade fence.

So it'll be a pre-cast fence.

So it won't won't melt if uh somebody's burning weeds next to it.

Won't be a vinyl fence.

Um but yeah, it's it's obviously it would be on the property line if they choose to do how they want to on that side, that'd be their responsibility for any damage and things that they cause.

So less concern being a pre-cast fence.

Uh obviously if it's a vital fence, that'd be a big concern.

But um, yeah, it's uh they have every right to maintain their agricultural use and do their agricultural uh experiences and things on there.

Um but we we will do our best to follow the code, put up the fence, um, burn the property, protect ourselves.

Uh but again it's it is the landowner's responsibility who uses the irrigation and uses the tailwater to direct where that till water goes.

And and Kim, would you mind just talking about the the part and code?

I think Michelle highlighted.

Yeah, right to farm.

So yeah, as part of their preliminary subdivision process, it does require the right to farm analysis.

And so, you know, we they do have a concept plan.

Some of these issues came out at the planning commission.

Uh but I I think before we can really dive into knowing exactly what those issues are and how we can or can't mitigate those, we we need that right to farm analysis, and we need to make sure we know what their preliminary plat looks like, and that would be the time that we could actually start to deal with the specifics of of the development.

So do you know when that will be?

When you'd finish that.

Yeah, we'll kick that off as soon as we understand that the use moving forward is what it's requested as.

So yeah, if we can get approval at rezoning, we'd step right up on that and hopefully be back here and well, back before planning commission as soon as possible.

Mayor have a question for staff?

That's okay.

So in in that respect, I mean we have a whole section of code, chapter 18 on right to farm.

Um one of it includes the irrigation right of way and urban easement.

So I know we have to get the analysis, but were you on that email with Craig about that or yeah?

I probably was.

I know I I've had some conversations about okay, because there was a question that um that it could come back to the city council, but at the you know, the the site plan it doesn't.

Yeah.

Um is that a process we would have to put in place or so the I mean the right to farm analysis section says, and I don't remember the list, but planning commission or the city council can consider those and impose those conditions.

So if you want that after the right to farm analysis is done, I think you'd be safe to say as part of your motion tonight if you approve the zone change, but you want the preliminary subdivision to actually come back to you for approval.

You can put that in your motion and then you know include that the planning commission then would just be a recommend there recommend uh recommending body as usual, and then you'd have the final say on that.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

That didn't come out really great.

But I thought we'd have to do a code amendment or something.

No, I think it's already in there.

Yes, yeah.

It just wasn't clear.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, we'll open this up a little bit for comments.

Is there comments?

One comment, so please give us your name.

You have three minutes.

Bart Peacock.

I appreciate Councilman Harrison for coming out and meeting with me and showing him my concerns.

I appreciate the developer trying to come up with some things.

A pre-cast fence is not gonna work.

I've already run into that problem on another piece of property where I do live.

I got the specs, they're not fireproof.

They will melt because I got told I couldn't burn the field or my ditch along that fence.

The there was a six-foot no climb fence put in, and then the property owner put up a pre-cast fence.

They're not.

I should have brought the paperwork.

They're not fireproof.

So I I don't know.

And yes, the ditch is my responsibility to keep clean, maintain, and use.

But if I can't maintain it, what's the next part?

Some things to think about.

I understand they're just in for zone change, I guess, tonight, but it's things to look at in the future.

One of the biggest problems that I see is the setbacks on the property.

They can build within five feet, correct, Kim?

Depending on the height of the you're talking about accessory structures, the sheds and garages.

I've got one that's eighteen inches off my property, and then the rest are five feet.

I worry every time I irrigate, I worry every time I burn my fields.

18 inches.

In fact, his air conditioning units are on property line.

So things to think about.

I have to get my irrigation.

That is a right.

We can look it up in the Utah codes.

I've I've got it here if we want to go into that tonight.

I think we're aware of that.

So I have them rights.

I've gone to an attorney, we've got them.

We've got them.

I've got documentation.

I have a right to use that ditch and maintain it.

Thank you.

Mayor.

Mayor.

Thank you.

May I ask a question of the president?

So it's so it's remembered public comments.

Yes, and I'm asking you if I can know I don't know that we're gonna open that up to ask questions from the public comments.

Then I can talk to the resident later.

So you need to ask to suspend the road.

Just to keep that motion to suspend the roads.

So there's three seconds stuff and three minutes stuff and that.

You people and the developers get hours and hours to work on it.

Hours.

That's right.

Of public taxpayers' money.

And then we come, we get three minutes.

We can't get a hold of half of you when we want to ask questions.

It's very concerning that we can't ask the questions and get them brought for it.

Any other comments.

Any other comments from anyone tonight?

Okay, so we'll close comment.

I've any other questions for the petitioner.

Um I have a question, I think for Kim, not the petitioner, but well, and maybe this is for Ryan.

So, you know, there's different ways to clear an irrigation ditch, right?

There you can burn it, you can just do it manually.

There's there's other ways.

If if a if uh if someone burns it and if that fire affects the neighboring property, are they liable for that fire that spread, or if there is a flood?

Like what's the liability?

Where does it end, you know, property rights?

He has a property right, but the this development, the I'm sorry, I don't remember the people that are selling.

Yeah.

Yeah, the Cortez family.

They have property rights too.

So there's a at what point, you know, this is the what we're trying to navigate is I think those are I mean, those are all issues that we'll probably have to deal with with the preliminary subdivision process.

Generally speaking, um, you know, a ditch user, ditch owner definitely has the right to maintain the ditch.

I'm not a I'm not enough of a ditch expert tonight to know whether burning is the only way.

Um, you know, if there are there other ways to clear out the ditch, that might be the easiest, but does that mean we have to protect the easiest way to clear out the ditch?

And then certainly it has to be done non-negligently, right?

If somebody burns the ditch in a negligent way, then they would be liable for the damage caused, not just not just adjoining property owner because a fence is five feet from the property line or on the property line or something like that.

So I think that's why I think the right to farm analysis is important because we're gonna have to explore some of those issues when it comes back.

But those so those are kind of general statements of the liability and the and the responsibilities.

But again, I don't I don't know enough sitting here tonight to tell you where where that line is and especially on the different ways to clear out an irrigation ditch.

So they're good questions, and we'll have to wrestle with those when it comes back.

So no, I was just gonna say I'm checking my inbox.

I'm usually very diligent about responding.

I don't see any emails, so maybe if he can forward that to me again, I can do that right now.

And mayor.

Thank you.

Any other comments, questions?

Mayor, I just do a quick comment.

Yeah, with right to farm.

It's you know, there's things in state law, and we also have a section in our municipal or development code to protect rights, including irrigation rights, and what I'm thinking of is some kind of an easement to allow the the user of that irrigation ditch to be able to maintain it.

Um I don't think that would affect your zoning.

I think it would just affect future structures, whoever builds their house there.

Um maybe it would have to not allow the accessory units or whatever structures so close.

So I don't think it'll affect you and your development, but maybe the future property owners might have to respect an easement or something like that.

That's that's what I'm thinking, but we'll get down there and we've got legal to help us with that.

So can I ask another question?

Uh-huh.

Um, Kim, if we're talking about, you know, building up to five foot of the five feet of the line.

Saying that air conditioning units, is that are those included in that, you know, not being able to be within five feet of no the building code would would dictate the structure itself.

So it does if somebody has their wheelbarrow stored behind it or air conditioning unit, that's not part of the structure.

And it depends on the height.

In fact, Mr.

Peacock was instrumental in helping us craft our current ordinance.

It used to allow up to 18 inches within a property line for a detached building in somebody's backyard, as long as you weren't within an easement.

But now if it's under 16 feet, it you can go up to within two feet.

If it's between 16 and 24, it's five feet.

If you go over 24 feet, it's eight feet that you have to be set back from the property line.

So we appreciate his help when he did that and brought it to our attention and and we addressed it.

So thank you.

Can I respond to some of the comments?

Sure.

Okay.

Um and I appreciate and respect uh obviously the concern of the neighboring property owner.

Um we would do everything on our property to not hinder or you know, uh prevent him from doing anything on his property.

Um for him to to burn the ditch, obviously that's a once-year thing in the springtime.

Uh I understand that, I get that.

My challenge is with these being R122 half acre lots, the the value of the homes and the value of the property is impeded on that particular lot.

Um it is pretty significant to to pay for to develop this property and they will be expensive homes, upwards of you know, 1.52 million dollars.

And so if it's impacting the building envelope of the lot that are already on um expanded larger setbacks due to the R122 zoning.

Um it's just again you can go burn your ditch, but you can't burn ten feet beyond your ditch and say I'm just doing weed control.

Weed control is a different thing.

Um I would just ask for that consideration as we are uh adhering to all the requirements and everything within the zoning and the feedback of the the planning commission and to just continue impeding on the zoning um that follows the general plan, follows you know all the regulations that we're trying to adhere by, it does just impact the value of that lot and the buildability of it.

So I I really like uh oh yeah, I think we're I don't have any more questions, I was just gonna make a comment personally.

Um But I really like what Councilmember Stalling said about the idea of bringing the site plan to us um and uh not making the final stop planning commission on this particular item.

I think it would be good for all of us as this is um a right to farm issue and it would be good for us to vet it out and see it.

So um if that's a part of the motion, I would support that.

Councilmember Harrison.

Um I'll make a comment if we're done.

So we're done.

Are you are you I'll make a comment, but I don't know if you want to keep them up here.

Oh, you're you're free to make a comment.

It'll stand there to take a motion, so you're good.

So I'm uh this is just a comment uh because the applicants in in every he's within his rights.

But this is one of those situations where Mr.

Peacock also has rights to farm.

He didn't choose to have it developed.

Um, imagine you know, living on your property doing your thing, and because of something happening next to your property, now you have to invest 200,000 to pipe water, right?

And if you don't do that, you lose the water, you increase flood um chances, right?

Or you're putting this new development at risk because of fire.

And and I've been down there.

I've walked through that ditch with Mr.

Peacock, and it's not like a couple weeds here and there.

It's thick, thick brush that um you can't just get a weed whacker with.

And I'm not aiming anything at you.

I'm just kind of venting and expressing my existential thoughts here.

But um but you know, again with the fence even.

Um if that's gonna melt as he burns his ditch, it's property damage causes problems.

If um if he doesn't maintain his ditch, it could flood, it can go into other properties.

So so what I'm I guess what I'm trying to get at is we've seen other instances in the city where there's conflicting properties that have individual rights in each property.

And they're they're they're conflicting with each other, there's an issue.

And when that happens, it's up to the city to try to come up with a a good solution to respect the property rights of both parties.

And I think you know, just reciting numbers and code.

Um obviously that's important to know, but there's some common sense adjustments that we need to make sometimes.

And if we need to to do that in this situation, I strongly support it because I don't think, in my opinion, a farmer shouldn't be out of pocket a dime to be able to maintain his ditch.

Um so I support um council member Stalling's uh suggestion that we bring this back to council and we can uh discuss in further depth in detail because you know this isn't gonna be the last time this sort of a conflict comes before the council, and so we need to set a good precedent and not push it off.

Um Mr.

Mayor, I may ask a question.

Uh Kim Um So yes to the existential thought, like that you were kind of explaining in the and the the push-pull dynamic to property rights.

Um we are in a position though where the applicant has applied and therefore like what we have now is what they can use.

And so I would just make sure want to caution that even when the site plan comes back to the city council, we can't require more of an applicant than what our code says, even if it were to be common sense.

And so it would it's being incumbent upon the the two parties to try and find some common ground, that would be the most ideal because we're limited in what we can you know put on you if it's outside of the bounds of the code.

Um and so I'm not sure if the fence type like this is me thinking cinder block fencing would be fireproof, but I actually you know if it's not my bad.

But uh we we couldn't require cinder block, right?

If um it's not in our code.

So we just want to make sure that when we go to protect one, we aren't infringing on the rights of the other, and that hopefully the two of them could come together with some common sense.

And if they figure it out on their own and come to bring it to us, then that's where we could all work together.

So I would just echo councilmember Harrison and and hopefully find a common sense solution among the three parties.

So with the comments and questions.

Any other questions or comments?

So I'll entertain a motion.

I have a motion, I hope.

Um Mayor, I move that we we're on number eight, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

I move that we approve ordinance number six-2026, approving the 1450 west, 1220 north zone change on 5.25 acres located at 1450 maybe okay.

West, um, 1220 north, changing the zoning from A1 agriculture to R122 residential agriculture.

And I will include that we bring back um the pre preliminary subdivision to the city council and the planning commission will be a recommending body to that.

And when it comes back to bring the right to find farm analysis to the city council to review under chapter 18, right to farm in our development code, um, so that the city council may consider other actions and site planning options to minimize conflicts between the pres proposed new uses, buildings and structures, and the existing or potential agricultural operations.

Oh, yes, and include the DRC comments.

I second that.

No, just DRC.

Okay.

Councilmember Freeman, any questions?

Okay, we'll start with Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes, I do want to explain my vote.

I would have preferred to include the planning commission comments as they incorporated those in the application.

But if so, yes, I support the motion, but I I wish the planning commission comments as they were incorporated into the applicant's application were involved in the motion.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um number nine, consideration of ordinance zero seven-2026, approving the snow zone change of 0.66 acres located at 150 east to 1450 north, changing the zoning from TH5, transitional holding to R1 Flex residential.

And the petitioner is Mr.

Lawrence Snow.

That would be Lawrence Snow.

I am.

Okay, welcome.

Thank you.

I haven't got anything.

I'm good.

You're good.

You just want to transition this up.

That's it.

Any questions for Mr.

Snow?

Um I was just wondering why you, you know, just wondering why you're why you're looking at doing the R1 Flex instead of the R112 or R110, since those are in adjoining adjacent adjacent ones, properties.

I have no idea.

That's just what they told me.

Okay.

We tore down a 115-year-old home because it was dilapidated and we're building a new one.

Any other questions?

Is there anyone here from the public that has a comment?

No.

Okay.

I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Um Mayor, I move to approve ordinance number seven-2026, approving the snow zone change on.66 acres located at 151 east, 1450 north, changing the zoning from TH5 transitional holding to R1 Flex residential.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Councilmember Newell.

Any questions on the motion?

Did you include DRC?

And include DRC.

Sorry.

I'm like and DRC is included.

You second that?

Yes, I'll second, yeah.

So we'll start with you, Council Member Stallings.

Yes.

Council Member Lockhart?

Yes.

Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Council Member Harrison?

Yes.

Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Thank you.

Item number 10.

Mr.

Schnell, thank you.

They were all that easy.

Yes.

They are all that easy, Mr.

Snow.

Okay, item number 10, consideration of ordinance 08, 2026, approving the 498 North 900 East zone change on.91 acres located at 498 North, 900 East, changing the zoning from R1 Flex residential to R18 residential.

Looks like we may be on that one, Kim.

Yes.

Yeah.

So let me give you a little bit of background.

Um this property they came in last fall with the they actually just recently rezoned it to the R1 Flex with the intent, there's an existing home, and they have two additional lots that they're trying to create.

And the lots are actually fairly large.

But in the R1 Flex zone, there is a maximum density of 3.25 units per acre.

Their subdivision ended up being 3.3 units per acre.

So they still meet all of the you know the 8,000 square foot minimum, but it put it just slightly over that maximum density.

So by going to the R18 zone, which still is you know a qualified zone under the general plan, that would clean up that issue, and they and they wouldn't be subject to that maximum density.

It doesn't change the lot configuration, it's still the same three lots.

The lots were big enough.

I think one of the lots is 17 or 18,000 square feet.

There's a great big lot, the smaller one where the home is, and then another substantially about a 10,000 square foot lot.

But yeah, we felt like because the staff and the planning commission, nobody had really caught that as it went through the original zone change, and then as they filed that preliminary plat, uh that was when it was picked up, so we decided to kind of run run the ball on this as the city and just change that zoning designation from the R1 Flex to the R18.

Is anyone from the public here to make comment on number 10?

Okay, thank you.

Any comments or questions for Kim?

Okay, happy to entertain a motion.

Okay, I'm gonna try this again.

I'd like to motion.

I'd like to move to approve ordinance eight-2026, approving the 498 north, 900 east zone change on 0.91 acres located at well.

Uh changing the zoning from R1 Flex residential to R18 residential.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Second councilman member Harrison.

Any questions?

DRC comments.

It says no comments in the DRC comments, so it's not much to nothing to nothing to include there.

So we'll start with you, Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Council Member Harrison.

Yes.

Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Thank you.

Item number 11.

Consideration of ordinance 092026.

Approving a development code amendment to Chapter 5, Table of Uses Non-Residential, and Chapter 29 to add automobile automobile accessories and installation.

Kim, I'm assuming this is also you.

Correct.

Yeah.

Last one.

Last but not least.

So this is a staff initiated amendment.

Right now, and I think you're especially with the some of the current conversations we've had about automobile sales.

Automobile sales and service lumps a lot of different uses related to cars into one use on our table of uses.

So whether it's auto repair, auto, you know, oil change body shops, or you have the window tinting, car stereo, things like that.

So our uh thought was there's really shouldn't be any reason that we couldn't allow some of those less impactful, more light car uses in our commercial zone.

Um so this proposal would open up the automobile accessory, which we have a definition for, um, which is you know the tinting and the stereos and anything that's not uh doesn't require floor drains, you know, the the repair, the heavier repair uh uses we think it's fine to just allow those.

We we actually by development agreement um allowed and I think that's what got us thinking about this is in the grant's corner project just over by the rodeo grounds.

You had a gentleman that came in and the the auto anything auto related was restricted.

Well, he wanted to do window tinting in that building, so we amended the agreement, and that's what we got when we got thinking you know this really doesn't have an impact if they're not doing some of the heavier car related businesses.

So that's that's our proposal.

Anyone hear it from the public to make comment on item 11?

Okay, so we'll bring it up to the council.

Any questions or comments happy to take a motion?

I'll make the motion.

Um Mr.

Mayor, I move that the council approves um ordinance 09.

That's weird.

Is that where you got the double, James?

Because yeah, okay.

Ordinance 09 2026, approving a development code amendment to chapter 5, table of uses, non-residential, and chapter 39 to add automobile accessories and installation.

I I move that we approve this and find it to be a benefit to the city.

Um include all DRC comments and planning commission.

I second that.

Second by council member Freeman.

Any questions?

No questions.

So we'll start with you, Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes, Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to an end.

So I am happy to take a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

So I've been cut a first by council member Newell.