Chambers.

We recognize that we have a full council today.

Councilmember Newell, Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Freeman, Councilmember Stallings, Councilmember Lockar, we welcome each of you to the diasp.

Glad you're here.

We also welcome all those who are here joining us in the chamber today.

I remind you this is a pre-council meeting, so there won't be public comment today until our meeting tonight, a little later at seven.

We'll start our meeting today with an invocation that I'll offer and then we'll go to that point.

Our father in heaven, we bow our heads before the grateful for the opportunity we have to assemble today and to discuss the needs of this great city.

We're grateful for uh the time and sacrifice that goes into these meetings and to these issues and items that will be talked about and discussed this evening.

We're grateful for thy guiding hand and pray that that would continue to help us and guide us in as we work together in providing solutions and providing way for ways forward.

We pray heavily followed that that would bless our city with water as we find ourselves in desperate needs that the clouds may open and that we might receive the water that we need as we enter the spring season.

We ask a special blessing to be continued with our first responders uh that they might be washed over and protected and their families might also have that protection as they uh serve the public in uh their dire need of time.

Again, we're grateful for the opportunity we have to assemble today and pray that we might do this work uh with kindness and uh with a eye forward and these things we pray for humbly in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Okay.

We will start first with item number two number one with presentation of the park tax committee recommendations.

And I believe here we go.

How are you?

Good, good to see you, and we'll let you run.

Okay.

This worked.

When did we do this?

Last Thursday.

Oh, was it coming?

And then I just unplugged it.

Sorry, let's see.

Because it is a Mac.

Do I need to screen share?

Here we go.

Ta-da.

Start mirroring.

Okay.

Okay, but now where's my stuff?

Should I unplug this?

Okay.

Technology.

It's my favorite.

Um, I want to thank you all for the time today.

Uh, my name is Lindsay Gaiman.

I have we can't decide if this is my second or third year serving as the chair on the bar tax committee.

I have been on the committee since its inception.

Um, and I I think it's probably one of my most favorite volunteer assignments that I've ever had of any of the boards or commissions that I've served on.

Um, and I said this last year, and I will say it again this year.

This was really hard.

Um it gets more difficult every year.

Um we get more requests.

There's more conversation and more debate that happens around these requests that we get.

Um, but it it really is um just a really fun thing uh to be involved in, and I'm I'm really grateful for that.

So um some statistics for you.

Assuming it's showing.

There we go.

Okay.

Um so this year we reviewed applications from 16 different organizations.

That's two more uh than last year.

Uh a total of 34 applications submitted.

Seven of those were general fund allocation requests, um, which we'll talk about.

Um of the remaining applications, organizations requested a combined total of 895,172.

That does not include the general fund allocations.

That was about 493,000.

Um, committee of the appropriate 600,000 that we were given as budget.

We are going to recommend funding of 541,004 in awards, leaving about $59,000 in unallocated funds.

We had 15 requests or applications that we are going to recommend full funding, four that we're recommending partial, and 15 that we're recommending no funding at all.

So before walking through those, I do just want to address council's request for us to look at general fund allocations and potentially using park funds maybe before we fund some of these other requests, or can we do it in part?

And after a lot of deliberation and a lot of conversation, the committee is unified in its position that using park funds to cover general fund allocations first before we look at some of these other applications, is inconsistent with the intent of the tax when it was presented to Lehigh residents and when it was passed.

This was placed on the ballot, it was communicated as a way to bring new and expanded arts and culture programming to Lehigh, you know, as well as parks and recreation.

And so, you know, that we feel that that promise, you know, the committee feels that that promise was for growth and new opportunity, not just sustaining existing, you know, organizational budgets that are already being funded through the general fund allocation.

That being said, obviously there are some funds left over.

There is we are just given an estimate of what is available, so I know there are some additional funds that could be used for some of that.

Um, and we respect that it is ultimately council's decision.

But with our conversation and our recommendation is that it is to look, let the park process the grant process work its way through before we look at maybe prioritizing those those general fund allocations.

So walk through the recommendations that we have.

So these are the recommendations of no funding.

Um FUTSOL Futuro Futsal Academy and Utah Floorball Association, we felt did not meet the criteria of a cultural organization, nor was the programming or the funds that they were requesting for meet the definition of that arts and culture criteria.

Um there's some organizations that also don't meet the organization itself doesn't meet that criteria, but the funds that they're requesting or the programming that they're requesting to do, the committee feels does meet that criteria, so that's some additional um discussion to have.

But between the FUTsall Academy and Floorball, we felt that they the programming or the organization met the criteria.

For Rather World with quilts, there was a couple of applications they submitted for help with their Lehigh service events and Lehigh School events.

The committee is not recommending funding for those programs.

We feel that that is more closely tied to that organization's humanitarian efforts and purpose as opposed to the art of quilt making, which is what the committee has felt the last couple of years that they have applied is what something that does qualify them for requesting grant funds.

For the Lehigh Arts Council, there's three of their six applications.

We are not recommending funding for the upright piano, washer dryer, and fund feding machines.

Um these were lower priority items for the Arts Council, so definitely not a reflection of the committee's support for them, but just felt that maybe the organization could pursue other funding mechanisms for these particular items, and again, they were lower priority for them.

United Angels Foundation, another organization that the organization itself does not necessarily meet the criteria of cultural organization, but some of their programming does.

Um that criteria.

We felt that was more social support, but they did have a couple of other applications that we we have some recommendations on.

And feel free to ask any questions at any point in time.

So partial funding organizations that these were cases that we supported the program's purpose or the purpose of the grant application, but we needed to, we felt we needed to draw a line on what we felt was appropriate for park funds to be spent on versus not.

Um the Hutchings Museum requested $104,000 for support uh support staff.

We are recommending $45,000 of that.

Um that $45,000 is specifically for the educator coordinator position that is tied to programming that the museum puts on.

This is a position that was originally funded and created due to park funds that with the help of park funds, they were able to start this position.

Um, and as far as their reporting goes, it is pretty close to being able to sustain itself with the additional programming that they are able to offer at the museum.

So the committee felt good continuing to support that position until it can be self-sustaining.

But the additional request for staff support and professional or staff recognition and professional development, the committee felt would be better funded from a different source besides park funds.

Lehigh's Historical Society requested $106,498 for some of their operating expenses.

We're request uh recommending 98,748 of that.

Um this is one of those where we kind of went line by line through their application and decided what do we feel meets the criteria or what do we feel like is a good use of park funds versus potentially not.

Um so $64,000 for staffing includes uh payment for the part-time archivist and the fundraiser with some additional support for the director.

24,748 for office and archive supplies, which is uh central to their mission.

$5,000 for the historical market unveilings, $5,000 for Lehigh Heritage Days.

Um we are not recommending funding for the collector pins.

The grant did help that program get up and get started, but we feel like you know it should maybe potentially be paying for itself at least to be able to continue that as well as you know, hopefully raise some funds for the organization as well.

Um we also did not recommend funding for the fourth grade trading card program.

Um we felt like that was a very narrow focus and would like to see how it plays out in the schools if it is something that becomes popular.

Um but again, that's another one that we thought maybe there might be some other potential funding sources since it is more education related for that program.

Um the committee really is supportive of that fundraiser position as well because again, that's something that with a little bit of help to get started.

That's something that could really help the historical society become more self-sustaining and not have to rely on city funds so much.

Uh wrap the world with quilts.

Um, again, they requested 161,141 dollars.

We're recommending about 30,000 to cover again some of those expenses they have that are related to the art of quilt making.

Um, so things like their sewing machines and the space that they have where Lehigh residents can come in and volunteer to sew quilts, or they can learn how to sew quilts as well.

We felt that you know, again, that cultural element to that's that's tied to the art of quilting is important, but not the broader humanitarian mission of the organization.

Thanksgiving point uh requested 146,036 for their Grow Tech Gardens.

The committee is recommending partial funding of $87,000 for that.

Um we landed on this.

Um we feel that $82,000 for the two positions that are needed to operate that program, so a grow tech manager and an assistant manager, and then an additional $5,000 for an honorarium to the DNA and Navajo tribes that they partner with for their Harvest Festival that celebrates that program.

We feel the program itself is strong and very culturally meaningful, um, but again, just want to try to, you know, the committee does have concerns about ongoing reliance on these grant funds you know for operations.

Happy to support for new programming and pieces and parts of that, but don't necessarily want to become the full funding source for those.

Okay, now the fun part full funding.

Um we had about 15 applications that we recommended for full funding.

I'm gonna start with the um organizations that are based in Lehigh.

As a committee, we do prioritize prioritize organizations that are operating in Lehigh and providing programming in Lehigh.

So we'll start with them.

Um Hutchings Museums request $4,500 for storage and security.

Um, this helps them to safeguard and store the exhibits that are not currently in use.

Just for kids of Utah County requested enhanced production lighting.

Again, another organization where the group itself doesn't necessarily fit the definition of cultural organization with their their focus on special needs support.

But the Curtis Center itself, being a city-owned building, available not only for uh just for kids' productions, but for other entities to rent out and use, we felt that would be a valuable use of park funds to enhance the lighting there and make it a little bit better, not just for their productions, but for anyone that that uses that facility.

Lehigh Area Music Association requesting $12,500 for operations and growth and additional musical instrument.

This is an application that always receives unanimous support from the committee, even in our first year or the first year they requested funds, and we were not able to give that to them because of requirements.

Um but we've we've been able to make some changes to the park tax policy itself and the way that we look at volunteer hours and those types of things.

And this is one of those organizations that truly lives up to that standard.

Um they have strong community impact, they involve a lot of people, they entertain a lot of people across Lehigh and across the county.

They are very volunteer-driven and very, you know, they're very careful with their financial management.

And so we do recommend funding in full some of those additional musical instruments so that they can add and grow to the Lehigh Silver Band.

Lehigh Arts Council requested for show rights, set cost and rental, new mover lights and electricity to the garage.

The Arts Council does a lot in the city of Lehigh, and we recognize that you know things like show rights and some of those lights and electricity are essential to their operations and their ability to offer programming.

And it's it does represent some some pretty core infrastructure that ties directly to the work that they deliver to our community.

And last for the Lehigh based organizations is the Roundup Rodeo.

This one earned the highest score across our matrix, but also generated the most debate, I think.

Just trying to determine is it cultural, is it not?

I would love to hear what some of your opinions are.

We did receive this afternoon some good news that the Roundup Committee did obtain 501c3 charitable organization status.

That was obviously the first thing hinging on whether or not we could provide any funds to them or not.

But that really wasn't the debate.

It was that was kind of a cut-and-dry question, but now that they have that, you know, is it sport, is it culture?

Um there was a lot of back and forth and a lot of conversation on this one.

And ultimately, we did land on the Roundup Rodeo being part of Lehigh's heritage, part of Lehigh's culture.

Um part of the American West, which is where we live.

I think if we lived in you know New England and somebody was coming for the first time and saying we want to put on a rodeo here, you know, that that would have been a different story.

But just given the historical aspects and the area that we live in, we do feel that it would be good use of funds to contribute that to the rodeo so that they are able to better work on some of the infrastructure changes that they're gonna have to make over the next couple of years.

Um, uh the committee uh recognizes that some of our strongest applications come from organizations that are based outside of Lehigh.

They don't have a Lehigh address.

But their work and their efforts uh do land within our city boundaries and within our community, and we feel that the cultural value that these programs bring to our residents and the visitors that they in turn draw to our city is exactly the kind of impart uh impact that the park tax was meant to support.

So Habata of Utah County puts on a Hanukkah festival every year.

They were doing this in Provo for a number of years.

Last year they were able to do it here in Lehigh because they outgrew their capacity in in Provo.

So bringing it to Lehigh gives them more options to allow more people to come and celebrate and learn about the culture of Hanukkah and be more involved with with the festival.

Um there was some conversation last year.

Again, is this a cultural organization?

Well, no, it's a religious one, but the event that they're putting on is based in the culture and not necessarily the the religious aspect of the organization.

Grassroots Shakespeare Company is uh they again also based out of Lehigh, but have a strong uh commitment to educational programming in Lehigh.

They make Shakespeare fun and approachable and understandable.

Um I don't know how many of you totally understood Shakespeare when you read it in high school.

I know I definitely didn't.

Um, but the committee does recommend full funding for the events that they want to put on contingent on them scheduling events and classes and workshops with our two Lehigh High Schools with Sky Ridge in Lehigh.

Um they applied last year and were granted funds with that same contingency, and they understand the impact that that that makes and how important that is to the committee.

Harrington Center for the Arts requested for both chalk it up and the exploration of new works.

Uh, the committee was also in in strong support of both of these.

Um, chalk it up is very family friendly.

A great event, they were able to line up the dates so that it coincides with Roundup Week, so it just expands the the things that are available during Roundup Week to Lehigh families and our visitors.

Um, the exploration of new works is you know equally well regarded.

It's an opportunity for local writers to gain experience and for local residents to be able to participate in in that process and get that entertainment.

So Nashville and the Rockies, uh, six thousand dollars for outdoor concerts in Lehigh.

This is one of our new organizations that that requested funding.

Um we felt it was a modest request and so appropriate to provide that funding.

Again, it's going to be contingent on them being able to schedule their concerts and activities.

Um they are looking at Family Park, so something to add to kind of the calendar of events of things that go on in Lehigh in the summer, would be another great thing to be able to add.

United Angels Foundation, I mentioned them earlier.

Um, two other applications were for particular programming that we felt did meet that cultural element of the grants.

So the sensory friendly lunar new year celebration and their spring break mini art camps that they hold at the legacy center.

So again, bringing more people to Lehigh from around the county and providing access to different cultural events for those in the special needs community.

And last, WASAPT Contemporary Dance.

So for the general fund allocation requests, as I outlined before, our position is that a lot of these provide more baseline operational support and not necessarily new or expanded expanded programming.

And we feel that using park funds to cover those before we look at some of these other opportunities that we have to fund new programming would be inconsistent with what voters approved for for this tax to do.

Again, ultimately, this is is council's decision.

We're happy to answer any questions that you have.

There usually are a little bit of residual funds left over at the end of this.

Obviously, that is something that could very easily be allocated to one of these organizations or spread across some of these organizations to help ease that burden on the general fund.

We do recognize that.

And like I said, I know there is some.

What's the word for it, Matt?

The excess fund balance.

Fund balance.

There's fund balance available that could also be used for that.

But again, I think we do need to be careful because those are park, those are tax funds designated under a specific park.

We do do need to make sure that they are going to organizations that meet the qualifications of receiving funds from that grant.

With that, or if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Like is that a common practice?

It is.

So the very first year of the this tax being in place and being on the committee, there was an organization that requested a large amount, and our committee vehemently were like did not agree with it.

But then we learned a little bit afterwards that yes, park tax, you know, the zap tax, wrap taxes, things like that, not just across the state of Utah but across the country, are typically used for that is a very valid use of these types of funds.

So thank you.

So I thought you said grassword roots Shakespeare is located in Lehigh.

No, they are not located in Lehigh.

I just but they put on they do they will do workshops for Lehigh High Schools.

Um I was reading over this recommend guidelines for the park tax.

It says that qualifying organizations requesting amounts of 10,000 and one dollar or more shall be required to provide financial reports for the organizations prepared by a certified public accountants according and it gives it all like complete fiscal year if it's a hundred thousand or more.

Do you have you guys received all those?

Have you reviewed those?

Yes.

Yeah, that's part of so, and I probably should have kind of given this overview at the beginning since some of you are new to the council.

So how it works is we have an application period that opens staff, which is is currently Matt Lee, um receives all of those uh applications in and they filter through those to decide what fits, what doesn't, who goes where, um, and and he might be able to speak more to that.

But yes, part of that full application that they're filling out is providing all of that financial information, and that's dependent on the size of grant that they are requesting.

Um, and so yes, we receive that, it's reviewed.

If they didn't have that information, or if it didn't meet the qualifications, then their application would be rejected.

We were I think we would probably give them an opportunity to provide corrections if there was any, but if they didn't meet those qualifications, then we wouldn't be able to, or we might only be able to partially fund their request.

And that's actually what happened with the Lehigh Area Music Association our very first year.

They operate primarily on volunteer hours, and so their operating budget was very low, and we could only give them 50% of their operating budget, which was I think like $600 or something like that.

And so that was when we had the committee came back to council and asked if we could consider, which they did approve, adding in volunteer hours.

So there's a calculation that is used nationwide as well as by state to determine okay, if I have a hundred volunteer hours, that's where I think it's like 34, 32 or 34 dollars per hour is the value that that adds to an organization.

So if they have volunteer hours, they're able to add that into that those financials as well.

Okay, so just since we're making the final decision, I'd love to have the city council see those reports prior to make a decision in the future.

If you guys have seen them, it would make sense for us to see them also.

Okay.

Okay.

I assume that's some of the things that we're doing.

There were they should have been in the packet, the 260-page packet.

You probably read the whole packet.

I'm sure you did.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So continue with the rest of the process, right?

So the applications come in, staff reviews those, filters out what is and isn't uh allowed, and then the committee um we get a copy of those, we review those applications.

We usually set up a couple of two-hour meetings where each applicant is allowed to come in and present to us for about 10 or 15 minutes.

It gives us them an opportunity to explain a little bit more.

It allows us to ask them some questions.

And then we get together for about a three-hour meeting where uh well, we get a scoring matrix, a spreadsheet that we all use.

We score those individually.

Matt compiles those scores, and then we get together and hash it all out.

And it's a fun time if you ever want to sit in.

I will make sure you have those.

So I know I think that I think they came through, so we'll just double check.

Thank you.

Mayor, can I add oh I just wanted to ask a follow-up question?

You said volunteer hours are calculated at how much per hour?

I can't remember the exact amount.

It's either 32 or 34 something.

Okay.

I don't know.

Thank you.

You might know.

Did you calculate it?

It's roughly 34.

Yeah, th about 34 dollars an hour.

Yeah.

And it's a standard like third party calculation that we get from the state.

So any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you very, very much.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Appreciate your input.

Okay.

We will go to item two, uh, presentation of the budget amendment number four from the finance department.

Mr.

Dean.

Thanks.

I'll be uh quick.

There's just so there's three things on this amendment, and the amendment's not going forward to council until April 14th.

We'll have a public hearing that day.

Um and this is kind of a new routine that we're doing, try to maybe talk about them earlier, which should probably make some sense.

Um I'm just gonna go through there's three on here.

I actually want to talk about two other things really quickly, and we can add them to this one that goes on the 14th, or we can wait.

We'll do one more budget amendment in June.

There's really not an urgency to get it done, but it would if it's okay, we'll put it on there as well.

So the first uh first one was we received a cops grant.

That's a federal grant that allows us to pay pays a portion of uh police salaries for a period of time.

Eventually we'll absorb that full cost.

But um so we've seen $70,000 for that grant.

But uh we still need it in the budget in order to spend it, we still need council's authorization to spend it.

So that's the first one.

The second one is uh project on the Oak Hollow well, which I don't know if we have a public works person here, but I think I can explain it well enough.

It's a pressurized irrigation well that is critical to the Traverse area, I believe it's on the east side over there, and it's just it's struggling.

So they're gonna have a project to reline it and just allow it to go.

When Matt was talking to me about that earlier, it was $500,000.

He just, I just got this today that the bid's about $630,000.

So that's money that would be paid out of a pressurized irrigation out of water reserve funds.

Um the third one on here is um police overtime.

So with the UVU shooting that happened last year, the state has asked for more police presence on campus.

I think they are gonna fund some extra police officers over time, but there's been a request for other agencies to fill that staffing need until they can get those hired.

We've had officers over there for a time.

I did mention on here that so they're they're paying the cost, they're paying the overtime rate, but they're not covering the Social Security Medicare taxes and the workers' comp.

That's going to be our portion.

So that's the $300,000.

One thing that I should have had on there that I didn't, and I'll and uh so our firefighters sometimes they will participate with wildland firefighting.

We send crews, we send equipment out there, um, we get reimbursed for that, we can get reimbursed for the um the cost of their wages, the cost to backfill the fact that there aren't people there at the time and for the cost of equipment.

So we've received uh grants of about 153,000.

104,000 of that will uh go right back to the fire department budget.

This is one that I I mentioned I forgot to put it on this one.

If it's okay, I'll put it on in April if you'd rather I can wait.

Um and then the the difference between that this was adopted last year is that's gonna be just committed, kind of set aside to uh purchase future fire equipment and things like that.

So the difference between the 153 and the 104, so about $50,000 will go into that fund.

Um the last item that again I apologize I wasn't on here, but I learned about it just last week.

Uh associated with the the cops grant that we received.

So our police equipment by and large is on a subscription service.

Um we used to buy equipment and then replace it over time.

Now you rent it, I guess, along with the software that runs it.

Um so we have uh about eleven thousand five hundred dollars in equipment to equip those officers and pay that subscription uh for them for this year.

So that's on there as well.

So that's it.

If it's okay, I will add those to the one that's on the April 15th agenda unless there's concerns I could do them in the in the June one also.

Any questions for Dean?

Okay.

Thank you.

Good point.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Just one question.

Um do you want to discuss or I don't know if our fellow council members do we want to discuss the park items while we're up here?

Or are we good just moving on?

That was gonna be an agenda question.

So thank you for bringing that up.

I'm open right now.

If you want to discuss it right now, I'm gonna go.

Okay, I just want to make sure.

Yep.

I guess I'll go since I brought it up.

I I yield you five minutes.

My brain's on a five-second lag time, so um I I really appreciate uh the committee's diligence with this, and thank you, Lindsay, for for presenting the way you did.

I know this year is unusual compared to past years, and you guys uh did the best that you could with what you had and um and made uh solid recommendations, so I appreciate that.

Um and just to note, I think the the grants, so I think the committee was instructed to have a ceiling of about six hundred thousand.

Um but the total amount within that uh category is about one point one million.

And that that extra funds that came from leftover from previous years, it cannot be reallocated.

It's still within that um uh grant application bucket.

So I think you know, my my personal goal for for some of these organizations.

I mean, I love I love all of what they're doing.

I love what Hutchings does.

Um I think the goal is to strengthen um uh these organizations so they're more self-sufficient, but not doing it in a way that puts them at risk.

And um, you know, there's a large, I think the total amount for some of these are you know, two, three uh approaching four hundred thousand dollars total.

I think I think we have an opportunity to help these organizations maintain some level of funding, but over time become more self-sufficient so that there are more opportunities for additional grant applicants down the road.

Um my personal principle on this is not facilitating a permanent subsidy through the park grant program, but rather facilitating opportunity and and benefit to the residents.

So I think as we look at these and and Jason, let me know kind of what instruction you would like and and Matt and Lindsay as well.

Um but those are just my thoughts, and I'd like to hear the thoughts of my colleagues.

Well, yeah, my understanding with the general fund allocations is that we are trying to have organizations apply and to uh show a need, and instead of just automatically getting the funding, I don't know because I wasn't on the council last year when this decision was made, but that was my understanding.

And that's um, and hopefully that we will they will transition to this isn't an entitlement, this is not a given.

This is something that we'll transition to uh these applications show a need.

So I I do think that uh, you know, there are some that have significant requests, and I appreciate the the recommendations by the park um committee.

Um and I agree with most of them.

Uh one thing that else that I saw when I was looking through the recommendations for the guidelines for the park was the operating expenses are recommended to only fund half of operating expenses.

So for the Lehigh Historical Society, that would actually have it go down to 53,000.

They're asking for 106,000 for operating expenses.

That's one of the that's one of the guidelines that we only find fund up to 50% of that, which I like the Lehigh Historical Society, so that's not something or historical society.

That's something that I would want to do, but that's a guideline there.

And I do see some benefit for some of the general fund um allocations, as there are many of them are considered cultural, would be considered in the cultural organization or cultural aspects request.

Yeah, I I think the thing with the the general fund allocation is that as I've looked at other cities, other cities don't have that.

Um like I reached out to TIMP arts, they receive almost 250,000 each year from American Fork through park.

They don't receive anything in general fund, and they and I I kind of feel like that when we did the park tax that that's really where those funds should be going through.

Um that said, I think because we flipped it this year, there's been a lot of trepidation about what does that mean that organizations are not going to be funded.

Um but uh we have to realize this is just the park tax grant portion of it.

Um and right now there's a cap of 600,000 that we're looking at, even though there's some additional funds there.

So there's no way to fund all of the needs through just this park tax allocation unless we look at some of these other other things too.

So I know a lot of organizations have had concerns about like that this could be something cut very quickly, but that none of us want to see any of these organizations hurt or go away.

We want to make sure they're supported, but we also part of that needs to be that we need to support them in ways that they can become more um sustainable themselves.

And so like I think we all support that as well.

That we we love these organizations, we want to see them thrive, but also realize that we can't fund everything with 600,000.

Um I do think that this is the appropriate use for when it comes to nonprofit organizations that are not under the city's umbrella, that they should be going through this park tax process.

Um I would love to see any other cities that do fund, I mean it's almost half a million that Lehigh has funded in in past years out of our general fund.

Taxpayers are paying for um nonprofit donations and subsidies.

Um I think we've had some great things in Lehigh because of that, but I don't think it's the proper way and the the proper order of the funding and just how it should go.

Um I really want to support our organizations here in Lehigh.

I think that's uh why you know that it was supported for the arts and culture portion of the park tax.

Um, but it we also want to make sure that they're you know, just like organizations in other cities do have to go out and get other um other funding to help support them.

It just can't be a complete subsidy from the city, otherwise it should be wholly under the city's umbrella if that's the case.

So um I just want to put people at ease to know that we are not looking to close any organization or shut any organization down that we're I think we're all very supportive of our culture and arts.

Um and but there's just a better methodology to how we allocate funding from the city.

Mayor, may I ask a question of staff?

Yep.

This is for Dean andor Matt.

Can you clarify if we are um if those uh the grant fund balance is available to distribute?

Yeah, so that fund balance in there, I believe it's 568,000 that's in there.

So that's built up over the past four or five years.

It is available to use.

The committee didn't dip into it in consideration, but if you choose to use it by all means.

Um it's available.

Is there a reason there's such a high amount in the reserves?

Uh Lindsay touched on it.

We don't award the full amount every year in the spilled up.

Yeah.

And sometimes park tax collections come in higher than we anticipate.

So they they just add up over the years.

Okay.

Just adds up there's no specific reason to save it.

Okay, thank you.

So say Michelle too.

I know that there's organizations who've received grants and then they didn't fulfill it, like Regalo didn't take their $60,000 ones, so there's some of those too.

So I I probably I appreciate the park um grant committee for all the work they did.

We're going through budgets, it's hard.

You want to give everything to everybody.

Um I am gonna disagree a little bit about the intent of the the park grant as it was um passed by voters.

Um the ri the language on the ballot proposition um specifically states um that the sales and use tax would be to help fund recreational amenities, park facilities and cultural arts facilities and organizations in Lehigh City.

Um so when we look at the criteria, I know the park committee has gone through and and developed that over time, but the two criteria that I'm gonna look at the most is the original ballot language that was approved by voters.

Um that made it possible, and um so I think that's important to look at and especially when it says um organizations in Lehigh City.

I actually had a call from a uh previous city council member who was on the council when this um was voted on and approved and the language was developed, and I asked him about the intent, and he said it was for these nonprofits that are here in Lehigh that used to be under the city but now um we're separated out.

So the intent according to him, and I'm I'm I'm thinking the language in the ballot proposition as well is that the intent is to fund those organizations here in Lehigh City that have they're long standing organ organizations and we value them a lot.

Um the other criteria that I'm I'm looking at is also in state code, which is um also pretty explicit that um a cultural organization means a private nonprofit organization or institution having as its primary purpose the advancement and preservation of natural history, art, music, theater, dance, or cultural arts, including literature, motion picture, or storytelling.

Um so there's there's a lot of good organizations asking for funding.

Um their purposes are noble, but I don't believe that they've their primary purpose is um cultural as defined in state code.

And I made sure to look them up by looked up IRS 990 forms to where they have to state their purpose there to see what those um their primary purpose were.

So I I feel that there's a lot of things that were approved that um doesn't necessarily fit under state code as far as park grants go.

Um so my thoughts and recommendations are to fund one, those that their primary purpose is cultural, and two that they are located in Lehigh City.

So that will take out a lot of organizations, uh, but I think there might be um room to fund them if we feel they're important, maybe through the general fund if if we want to go that way.

Um but I I you know we've got a lot of applicants this this time around where um you know you can argue just about anything is cultural, sports activities or humanitarian things.

So I just think going forward we just need to be clear and clean on abiding by what that definition is.

Um I I strongly feel that we should fully fund the organizations that meet that criteria, and so that will include the Arts Council and the uh the Hutchings Museum and the Historical Society and others.

I I have talked with the Hutchings Museum, and we have been working towards um getting them to be uh more self-sufficient.

We've been on that path for a while since I've been given the assignment to be um a liaison with them.

Um they are working diligently towards that, and I appreciate their efforts.

And I I know their ask this time around was quite large, and I know that could cause some concern for some of the other council members.

So I reached out to staff and asked them what do you need to to stay afloat to stay in stay open.

And so they were willing to go down with the general fund allocation down to 200,000.

Um and they were good with the security at 4,500 and the the staffing at 45,000.

So they were willing to give up almost a hundred thousand dollars um to make it a little easier to vote for.

And they have the understanding, clear understanding that going forward um, you know, next time around will be a little less.

Um I'm just concerned if we you know cut their funding, um, that will put a beloved museum out of business, and we don't want to do that.

So as they work towards the goal of being more self-sustaining, I think we need to exercise a little patience on their part and um they've been through some rough things and they're dealing with a lot of challenges.

Um so I hope we can support them and continue to fund their needs as they work towards their goal of um standing on their own feet.

So that's my opinion.

Well, um I really appreciate all the thoughts shared by my colleagues up here.

Um this is my first time um on the council doing a park tax allocation, so I'm learning a lot and I'm actually very open to having my thought process challenged on this.

Um I think a lot about how what we're faced with this year as we've sat through budget meetings, we have a you know, a limited amount of funds that we can use to fund some of the priorities department by department.

And those um are a you know, a lot of those priorities are essential services, and they don't get to double dip in an additional tax.

And so I'm struggling to understand why we would allow nonprofit organizations to not only receive park tax funding but also general fund.

And so as I think through it, um I think about what the general fund is for, and I think about what the park tax is for and trying to make it fair for all who receive funding from Lehigh.

Um and so as it sits right now, I I do like the idea of keeping um keeping kind of this new concept, I guess, of having park tax fund these things, um, and the general fund being not a default but something that um would actually be spent more on essential services.

Um and again it goes back to those who are coming to us asking for our surplus in that arena, don't have the opportunity to double dip.

Um and those are essential services that the community relies on.

Um and I also strongly believe that arts and recreation have made a massive impact in my life and in the life of my children and my community.

I'm fully supportive of that.

Um, but I I want to find I want to find a way to treat everyone somewhat the same.

And so like I said, my first time being through it.

I'm completely open to having my thoughts challenged on this.

I'm not, you know, I'm I'm moldable in in understanding, and maybe it's a multi-year progression to that outcome.

Um I'm so grateful for those of you in the room that are from these organizations.

Thank you for all that you do for Lehigh and thank you for what the benefit you provide.

I want to be supportive to that, but I'm looking for ways to provide fairness for all who who receive funding from Lehigh and a tax benefit from Lehigh.

Um and I don't know if if giving the general fund allocation and allowing the double dip is giving fairness to our essential services as well.

So anyway, if as we continue down this path, like I asked my my colleagues to, you know, feel free to challenge my thoughts and and I'm open to debate and and look forward to funding all that we can in supports of the arts and rec recreation, excuse me.

Mayor may make a point of clarification.

So I I'm not sure what you mean by double dipping, but to clarify, um, and we've been through this last year.

The intent was to move the what was normally a general fund allocation to some of these nonprofit organizations to move that from the general fund to the park grant to free up general fund monies to provide um for city services, essential city services.

So this is part of that transition to be less dependent on the cities and more um self-reliant.

This is one step in that process.

So there isn't if we fund what is um I guess listed here as general fund.

I don't know what they listed it as allocations, it's it's not it was in the past a general fund uh contribution, but it's we were moving it towards the park grant.

That was a recommendation of city administration and staff.

Um I've talked to the organizations I'm involved with, and they were willing to do that.

It's it's a lot more work for them, and it's also um you know kind of unknown if they would actually get funded or not.

So I appreciate them doing that what was asked of them and kind of taking this leap of faith.

So I you know I hope we'll honor that path forward and um uh fund these these organizations through the park grant as intended.

I think I'll just add, you know, I think uh I like the direction we've moved in freeing up general funds.

I think that's a very positive direction because um like council member Lockhart and Solling said, we we need to use the general fund for essential government services.

And so I like the that these organizations are now in the park process.

It's also a competitive process, right?

Where it resets every year and it's and it's evaluated year by year.

Um and and so I think uh if we want to, I guess at least give direction, I assume Jason, this will come up for a vote um at some point in the in the next few meetings.

So I mean I like and thank you, Councilmember Stallings for for being the liaison with Hutchings because um I think we could, especially with the extra funds in the account, we can fund the 250 with the understanding that this is gonna come down over time as as they strengthen their marketing and their operations to be um to kind of close that margin between costs and revenue.

Um so at least with Hutchings, I I think that's a good path forward.

Um I'm I'm very comfortable using that excess grant money because I don't know, I mean there's no other use for it.

There's it's just kind of sitting there and growing, which I'd rather put it back into the community.

Um but I don't know if there's any other line items that we should discuss before we give direction to to staff um to put it up for a vote at a future meeting.

I mean, do you just want to go line by line by line?

Start with Shabbad.

Do you want us to put it up on the screen?

Would that be helpful or you want?

Um one thing I have a question about is for the chalk it up event, is that something that Lee High Roundup asks them, requests them to participate in?

Is that just some one I something that Harrington Center does?

Is that is that a Lehigh City we're asking them to do that?

Yeah, I missed that pulling this up, sorry.

No, you're fine.

You're fine.

Um a couple of years ago, I last year was the first year that the Chocolate Up Festival aligned with Roundup Days and Harrington did go through the process of getting it approved by the Roundup Committee as an official roundup event.

So it's not just that they do it in the same week, it isn't if it is now an official roundup event.

Any other questions or do we want to go line by line?

I think I think it'd be good.

Yeah.

If we went line by line at least for um so that we can vote on it at the next meeting, if that's okay with everyone.

I d I do have a question.

Just this was marked like put on the agenda as a presentation, but not as a working discussion item.

If there are any of these organizations who would want to be here for us working through the numbers, would we need to have like be very clear that we're gonna have a working discussion item?

I just don't want to have any of these organizations miss the opportunity to engage at this level when the but when the agenda only says it was a presentation.

Have they engaged in pre the park?

I guess in previous years for Heather and Michelle it's just uh it's no public comment at this time.

Okay.

They engage with the park committee, right?

Will they come to present to you?

Yes, they do come to present to the committee.

I would appreciate the opportunity to ask them some questions as well.

But if we want to have this today, that's fine.

I just um I thought of I'm gonna get the acronym wrong.

It's the dyslexia, the C B C B D G C D.

Yes, that funding exactly.

Whatever like whatever that acronym is, that one um they when they came and engaged with us at that level, I felt like that was very productive.

And while the park tax committee does this in their own right, now that we're you know taking a bit of a different approach this year, we might find value there.

Again, I'm happy to do this today.

I just want to make sure these organizations have had an opportunity to also engage with the council if we're gonna go this route.

But I mean it's up to you guys.

I'm just calling attention to something.

Yeah, I think this is a discussion item where we can put numbers to things and then kind of look at it.

And then we're not voting on this tonight.

So I think it's an exercise to go through and look at each one, see what see where everyone's feelings, see what we need to do.

We'll give you an opportunity to reach out before they're voted upon.

So I'm I'm okay to continue to the discussion.

So let's start with line item one.

You want me to start and lead this?

Sure.

Um so the Shabbat of Utah County recommended amount was 10,000.

Uh how's the council feeling about that?

I have a question though.

Um it might be useful.

I I wonder if we look at it holistically, because um we have it's not just the Hutchings Museum that received contributions.

We have a number that of organizations that really received quite a lot.

Um so I I wonder if we need to decide if that's something we would pursue because if we want to do that and it might change that how we fund all the others.

Um again personally I would like to stick to the language um in state law that we stick to those that have a primary purpose being arts and culture, but the others might think otherwise.

Does that make sense?

Um if we start here and like, oh yeah, 10,000 is fine, we might by the end, you know, not have enough to fund those what would normally come from the general fund.

So I think we should go back to the still would.

Um especially if I think if we're aligned on two fifty for Hutchings, I think the total amount for all former general fund allocations is four hundred and ninety-three thousand, but we would be taking some of that off of Billy's Hutchings.

So I think I think with the excess funds that we have, I think it's still all fits.

So it's just a matter of whether we think they qualify or not.

Okay, since there's larger amounts at the end, why don't we start at the end and go backwards?

Is that okay, Mayor?

No.

Do you want to start the general fund?

Sure.

Yep.

Okay.

Um I don't think that it fits within what is considered a cultural organization or cultural cultural or art or anything like that.

Um unfortunately I wouldn't say no to that.

Anyone else?

Let me ask a quick question before we proceed and may and this might help answer your question.

So all those recommendations are zero.

Is there any on that that would be a recommended yes that came out of the park?

And I think maybe we start there, and obviously I've heard a little bit about the Hutchings Museum.

That may be where we start.

Um would there be any other there that would um remember now we're gonna pull into the reserve pot, but are there any other there that that we want to discuss?

So Councilmember Freeman brings up the two.

Uh I think we start with the Hutchings, obviously that's the main one where we're discussing first.

So let's start there.

Is there any of the other ones that we need to look at?

I think the butterfly biosphere.

I think that that is natural history.

Uh when you look at the definition of the natural history, um, Lehigh Arts Council, Leah Historical Society and Archives.

Um, the Lehigh Area Music Association.

To me, those are all cultural organizations.

Or meet the definition of what is uh cultural has an impact with natural history, art, music, theater, dance, and cultural arts.

Yeah, I excuse me, I'd agree with that.

And also I hate to remind you the the Hutchings Museum said they would go to down to 200,000 if if needed.

I'm sure they would love that extra sixty thousand.

So but if it gets tight, they're willing to make that sacrifice, even though it it might be rough for them.

So I think with that, I would think it is appropriate to fund them 200,000.

And not more.

And just to clarify, not out of the general fund or out of the general.

So this is not general fund, this is park with a I guess what I'm looking at is general fund allocations.

Right, right, right.

And I just wanted to make sure that you're saying yes fund at the 200,000, but from the park tax.

Correct.

Okay.

That's I just want to make sure that's what I heard.

200,000 in this category plus the other two items, which would bring it up to 250.

Is that what we're saying?

So the two that it would be 45 for the um the and the other requests.

Yeah, 45 plus 4500.

Yeah.

And I think that uh my impression is that we would do it this year, but in the future years, they're gonna need to make applications for any funding, not just a blanket general fund allocation.

I would like to see like what we're talking about staff support, if we're talking about storage, what are what are we talking about here?

I think that would be appropriate just so it can fit in the same category so we don't have this vague general fund allocation.

Yeah.

And I think in the their applications, they kind of spelled that out, but I think that's a good point.

And yeah, confusion.

It does say operating support, but if we're looking at that, then it says that we can only fund up to 50% of their operating expenses.

So Hutchings would be 200 in this line item.

Yes.

Um I guess out of the rest of them, the only question I have, I guess is the butterfly biosphere and the museum of natural curiosity.

In my mind, the museum seems a little closer to something like Hutchings with natural history, but um I'm happy to debate that.

Just because I think my wife would know far more about this than I would.

To me, the natural museum of natural curio curiosity, very fun place.

To me, it's more of a STEM kind of thing, and it's been a while since I've been there.

Yeah.

The butterfly museum, I could totally see that as uh natural history ish kind of museum.

Um Yeah, butterfly, I mean it's all about bugs and butterflies, which is natural history.

So I think that's for me a a given.

Then I'd I'd be supportive of the biosphere.

Um I don't think I would be supportive of the Museum of Natural Curiosity.

I'd be supportive of both just because of the organization also that there's a commitment there.

I would rather see this go through the park tax grant rather than be pushed into the general fund.

Um I think they're very closely aligned with what we're doing with Hutchins.

Um, but I would rather see it there um rather than put it through general fund.

Um and I think that there's funding to do that, especially considering how much Thanksgiving point contributes to Lehigh and our economy.

Um especially when you're considering the amount that they do, the size of it, the impact that they have on the area versus you know some of the smaller ones that do take a larger funding source.

Do we have a commitment there?

I thought we don't.

That was clarified that well, there was an agreement, it's not binding, but there was agreement made for 20 years for $50,000 per year to the Museum of Natural Curiosity for capital improvements for the museum.

But it's not binding.

Neither one of those are.

Yeah, and again with Hadgee's Museum, we've dug into some documents and there's some language there.

Um that would could be viewed as providing funding, but it it doesn't bind the council to that, and I'm very cautious of that kind of thing.

I don't want to hold future councils to these kind of commitments.

So yeah.

I does it fit, yeah, I agree.

I mean, I'm looking I'm reading over their application.

They say it's for the water works area, which if we look at that, that would be considered with like geology or kind of uh some of that things w when they go, their kids are playing and trying to trying to show the direction that they can have water go and how it how it influences things.

So I mean that does fall under natural history.

But I do see lots of people from Thanksgiving Point here, so they can probably answer that for us too.

Uh you're right, I see arguments both ways, so I'm not firm on that.

Do you take a straw on each one of these and discuss if we need to discuss?

I have an idea.

What we could do is have the council each get a copy of this Excel spreadsheet.

They put in their own numbers, staff compiles it, and we look next meeting we can see everyone's m numbers next to each other.

I think that would go a lot faster and help us visualize everyone's priorities.

What we're doing right now line by line is is gonna take a lot of time where if if staff puts all of our collective efforts up, we could we could see everyone all at once if that makes sense.

Yeah that would just require next meeting.

But this isn't this is a presentation anyway, not a work item.

I do like hearing the arguments.

And I my mind can change on things, so I like the discussion if we need to save it for another time.

That's okay.

Well, I think we can all agree with Lehigh Area Music Association.

Okay.

Lehigh Arts Council, yes.

Lehigh Historical Society, yes.

No.

It's good.

So the only ones we need to decide on are the two Thanksgiving point.

Well, I think we agreed on the butterfly biosphere.

Unless there's objections to that.

I don't have objections to that.

I think that's a good question.

We can see where we're at too and come back to it one way or another.

I I can see an argument for it.

So appreciate that.

So what it there's for debating in our brain slides.

So you could put the 50 on the on the natural curiosity.

I thought we're debating that.

And both.

Um again, we'll come back as and vote.

So I think there's consensus there.

Any comments on just for kids you took county?

I'm looking up their application.

Anyone else?

Emily?

Really like my idea of doing this on our own, compiling it, looking at it, and having a productive discussion line by line after we've all kind of put our thoughts down.

It'll go a lot faster.

I think Yeah, I think I've already kind of done this since we we got the packet, so I'm ready to go.

But I don't think we have to to discuss every line item.

So are we council member stallings?

Are you good with the discussion that's been had to move forward if they send the if staff sends this out based on the conversation that we've had with these park tax and the reserves moving forward?

Are you comfortable?

Is there any of the questions or comments that we can answer or discussion items that you feel like we've maybe missed on?

So does commission or council member Lockhart suggestion just give our thoughts to staff and then come back?

So my c yeah, well, you can do that, or they'll send this out.

We can then pull it and look through it, review with staff, review with council, and then come back.

There would be a column for Michelle, a column for Emily, Heather, James, Rachel, and then at our next meeting we pull it up and we all can see very clearly where we're all at, have discussions on differences and make this an hour instead of more than that.

Matt, is well, I'm I'm ready to go.

I know what I support and don't, but is there a time we have to deadline to approve this?

Because we we intentionally move this up to get it before the budget.

Because you wanted to look at it before the budget.

So there's not a tight deadline.

The goal was to have these kind of finalized by next council meeting.

But if it takes two, we can do that too.

Can I I just can I ask the rest of us up here?

Do we have any intent of moving any of those bottom items back into the regular budget?

I personally don't.

No.

The only one possibly might be just for kids if it doesn't qualify.

Yeah, is there's that's the only one I want to really look at their um grant go through?

That's true.

I'd want to see any paperwork the city has between us and them.

Um for the city and that's the mayor.

Also, maybe this might be helpful too if we move in that direction.

Maybe we could have some kind of parameters and guidelines.

Do we where there's like 550,000 extra?

Do we want to say like, okay, maybe aim for a hundred, two hundred thousand that we might want to take from that?

But also knowing that as we kind of progress through this, it's gonna take some time for these organizations to probably adjust and for us to be able to help support them with other funding sources.

Do we want to put a limit on that?

Do we also want to I don't know how everybody feels about the idea of um focusing only on those who have a Lehigh resonance or Lehigh address?

Do you or do we just want to open it up and each council member doesn't really have perimeters and they know it could be anywhere from 600 to 1.1 million in allocations?

Is there any guidelines we want to put?

I'm those are my guidelines that I I'm gonna respect that, but you if you guys feel differently you can I would suggest not spending all of the reserves.

Um especially as we're helping some organizations come out of the general fund, there might be benefit to have some of those reserves next year and things like that.

So maybe we say half.

That's what I'm thinking too.

Like if we're working with Hutchins, I would love to see what's being done with Hutchings, how they can be better supported and what's being done to help them become more sustainable.

Um and maybe that's what we see from these organizations that are seeding large amounts of money of having them do presentations, um, making sure that they have the right people and tools in place to be able to help them become that way, because I know this has been talked about for years.

So I want to be very careful with how we're cutting Hutchings if they're you know, but it does need to be this kind of gradual step with making sure that it's never to the point that they they can't survive.

So it like, yeah.

Well, and if we if we if we have a healthy debate on the rest of the recommendations, um I like the vast majority of them.

There's a few that I don't agree with.

Um as far as the the recommended funding amount for those.

So I'm good to do whatever.

I I prefer not to prolong this more than you know, two I think maybe next session, if if possible, we can close this out.

But I'm I'm fine discussing however.

I'm looking at the time.

We've got some big things to discuss before a regular session, so I'm fine tabling it till next time.

And sending having each of us send our opinions or is that what you want?

Yep.

It's fine with me.

I can I can do however you want to look at it if you want to do a quick working session next.

But also vote on it in the regular session if you want to do that, if you're okay with that, or if you want to vote on it, the following one, either is fine.

You just let me know.

But I can send it out.

Yeah, I think my my suggestion would be yeah, maybe use the different columns for different council members where there's a disagreement, um, then we can discuss.

And I think some of these we may all agree on, so it'll save time.

Councilmember Freeman, you had a thought.

Are you good?

I'm good.

You good, Councilmember Stallings, you're good.

Okay, so Matt, if you will put together that and send it to each of our council members, they can fill it out as to what they think we can gather that data that way, then send that data back out and we can have a discussion at the next city council meeting.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you.

All right.

Our working uh discussion items, item number one, discussion of Thanksgiving point participation agreement.

Come on up.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council members.

Uh Ryan Thomas with Stack Real Estate and excited to be here to talk about our participation agreement.

Just to recap where we left off in our last meeting, we heard loud and clear that this council does not want to entertain a development agreement.

We were asked to come back with a vanilla simple no-frills participation agreement, and that's exactly what we did.

Um what we captured in this agreement is everything that's been approved to date from the HTRZ to the project details and kept it as simple as possible.

So I don't have much of a presentation.

I have some slides if it's at all helpful as we talk through things, but I think maybe a question and answer format might be the most productive.

So I'll hand it off and we can go from there.

Great, thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Thomas?

Are we just going over the agreement?

Um with the agreement, I just want to clarify.

Let's see, on item 4.7.

It talks about new taxes.

Yes.

Basically, what I get from that is if there are property taxes raised citywide, it will also affect the HTRZ zone.

Yes?

My um second sentence that it appears to say that.

Yeah, I might defer to the city attorney Ryan Wood.

Do you have any comment on that there?

I uh my understanding would be as taxes go up, the capture remains the same at 80%.

Okay.

That seems to be what the language says is if like if the Lehigh City raises property taxes, then that would also apply to the HTRC.

Yeah.

Okay, and then on item six on uh line item six five five, it talks about early termination by participant.

Then participant may any time elect to terminate this agreement.

So I'm just a little concerned that that might leave us with an unfinished building.

Yeah, it uh we wouldn't do that.

I can't really see uh an event that would lead us to terminate this participation agreement here.

We intend for it to run the full length of the HTRZ.

Yeah, the way I say that is it's an incentive, but it's not a guarantee.

The project gets completed.

So yeah.

Um and I can expand on that if at all helpful when we finance these projects with the bank, we'll have completion guarantees, personal guarantees, all that stuff.

So there's many, many parties that will be involved in these projects being completed, us included.

Okay, keep going.

7.4.

Um it talks about you know, basically delaying time, extending time.

Now you have 25 years to begin this project.

You have 45 years to complete the project.

I would say the 25 year window are the phases.

Those are tranches, phases, whatever nomenclature you'd like to use there, but the full HTRZ runs for 45 years.

So phases, you know, can start at the beginning, run for 25 years each, but we couldn't start a phase in year 40 and get 25 years out of it.

We'd only get the five years because that is the full window of the HTRZ.

Okay, but you have 45 years where most of us will probably not be here anymore.

Yeah.

Um I understand that there are things that are considered that would qualify to delay this and maybe need time.

Um things listed are war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts, riots, floods, acts of God, acts of public enemy, epidemics, things that we can't control basically.

And then there are things that we can remedy a little easier, like lack of transportation or uh labor materials or tools, like maybe they're gonna be more expensive, but they're to me those aren't the in the same category as acts of God.

And I think that this is reminding me of some of these insurance things, no offense to Mayor Bins, but some things that I read.

Maybe I you know buy a piece of furniture and it says we ensure your own furniture except for all these things, and then you think, well, then what's the point of the insurance?

Because there's all these exceptions.

So to me, I think we need to go through this a little bit more carefully.

I don't consider um maybe newly enacted government restrictions or lack of transportation equal to a war or riots.

So uh basically from where it says inabil um lack of transportation and then inability to secure necessary labor material or tools, blah, blah, blah, until entity, I would strike that.

Yeah, or couldn't or can we connect those things to the the beginning of the list?

In other words, if the lack of transportation or the you know those things are caused because of the prior list, are you comfortable with that?

I mean that's kind of the intent.

It's this is typical force majeure language.

This is a little bit more extensive than what I'm used to seeing.

But I think that's the concern is like some of these themes, like yeah, out of our control, some of them maybe not.

Sure.

Are we okay if we take the language and say, okay, as long as that second few things is tied to an event that happens in the first or I mean that was an idea, something like that.

Yeah.

Um I guess what I would say is we have been at this for a long time and we want to develop this project.

So I don't see too many delays.

Market conditions, of course, will be a delay as you know the cyclical nature of real estate happens.

But our HTRZ will be triggered as soon as we start our first phase.

So we will be incentivized to move this thing along, of course.

Um this is our day job.

We develop, so we will have every incentive to go out and build the project as well.

So I don't see that as a big issue, but we're happy to look at it if that would be helpful.

Yeah, I just think that some of those things are you know, we like you could tie them to or whatnot, but I mean lack of transportation, you have 45 years, so I think you got it.

And and I think the intent there was probably just if something happened and we didn't have access to the property, it's hard to lease it up if you can't get your residence in and out.

So just very good point, kind of standard protections in there, much like an insurance document, I guess.

Um for the affordability housing aspect of this, how is that enforced when these are all rental units?

Um the actual mechanism I think would kind of be determined by the city.

I know Goyo is involved with that as well, but we have to maintain that compliance or we don't get the tax increment.

So that is that's fully understood that we have to maintain that and manage to that as well, right?

And when we had this approved in 2023 the requirement for the legislation was only 10% of the units had to be at 80%.

So we went above and beyond that with the 60% AMI as well and spreading those out throughout the project.

So there's not just one affordable housing project it's spread throughout the community as well.

So however we however that is governed from the city side um I mean it's gonna be Goyo involvement as well too and the the numbers will be determined by HUD publications that you can find online.

Yeah that that to me is I think needs to be defined especially if we enter into this interlocal agreement.

I know at least the standard or the methodology needs to be defined because that you know if we sign it then it kind of leaves it up to interpretation and it may change as time goes along.

And I think in the agreement the participation agreement it does tie it to um the units will be neat need to be affordable as long as the participation agreement or increment is flowing through the project.

So there are those restrictions but if you're talking a formulaic approach certainly we can address that as well too.

To build on that council member I think it may be similar and um you know Jason helped me get there but I think it's like the same way that we verify that businesses are paying the correct sales tax right they report to us the sales that they've had and then I believe it's Dean that kind of goes through and make sure and his team make sure that that is reflective of the sales tax rate.

So I just I'm like I'm guessing but I agree with you it'd be great if we put it into this I guess that the same thing would happen.

They would report to us what you know what they've rented and and what income you know who's paying what and then we would compare that to what would be expected um which is what we do for sales tax as well.

So I don't think it's beyond like I think my concern is growing government to do this but I think what's already a mechanism that we do when it comes to sales tax that's me you know Jake Jason does that sound right yeah because it's a reimbursement so we have to make sure that they're following the terms of the agreement before the it's remitted back to them.

So but I I I think it'd be great if we put it you know something like that in there makes sense to me too yeah I think I guess just my um very honest opinion I think the entire HTRZ is bad for for Lehigh um I think this council is a very different council than that than the one that approved it but just speaking for myself um the HTRZ again was passed in 2023 I think it was 20 was it 2018 when the the units were approved 1800?

That's when the first conversations on this project started.

Yeah so so even without an HTRZ the you're fully entitled to build according to the zone I think I think I need more time to to dive into this agreement further.

I think it's been a busy couple months with uh four new people up here I would prefer to go through it in a little more detail to see how it can benefit the city more.

This is not a very popular thing in the in the public's eyes I don't think when I think of affordable housing I know rent's rent does apply um I think it's far more effective uh if it's for purchase but that's not what this development is so my personal preference is that we table this um I'd like a lot more time with Ryan uh to go through this in more detail uh line by line to see what is required what is optional and how we can make it better for the city since obviously the HTRZ is already approved understood the the only thing I'd say is that is part of the reason we're here today is to answer any questions you may have so more than happy to workshop thoughts and ideas.

I think we first came on February 9th or around there we tried to get this into the city as quickly as we can here and we don't plan to actually have a formal city council meeting till April 14th I believe.

So we do have some time I think between now and then and of course us as a team Gardner stack Thanksgiving point we're always more than happy to host anyone at our office for any you know informal question and answer as well too.

So I've thrown that out a few times we're happy to do that.

Did you have more?

I have more.

I'm I just calculated the what 60% of the AMA would be I could be wrong, but this is um I believe if we're basing it on Lehigh's, which has a higher area me median income of about 120,000, it would approximately we want to spend about I think 30 percent of that on housing per month, so that would be approximately eighteen hundred dollars per month for sixty percent IEMI.

And that would be total costs, including mortgage, utilities, HOA, if those units are sixty percent.

And then you do the same for and it gets you you're spot on, you're headed down the right path.

Where it gets a little complicated is it's based off how many occupants are in a unit, which is determined formulaically by HUD as well, too.

But you're right, utilities, rent, all those other income items, application fees are captured in that.

And I think the number that we had been running with was slightly lower than that.

But um because I know there's some sticker shock when you hear that number, but utilities are expensive as well, too, and everything that's included in there.

So I would expect it to be somewhat less than that.

Around there.

Okay.

One question I had is I saw in the interlocal agreement that it said the maximum.

See, it's one, a taxing entities consent, page two.

It says the taxing entity share entity share payable to the agency shall not exceed 152 million six hundred eighty thousand nine hundred and sixty-two dollars.

Um so and according to the original agreement, which was in uh HTRZ agreement meeting from November thirteenth, twenty twenty-three, it said that it would be a hundred and twenty-two million of tax increment, and that is thirty million and a little bit more than that from two years ago.

So I'm wondering where it's extra thirty million is.

That number was from a projection provided by Piper Sandler, um, an investment bank that kind of looks into this from the bonding perspective.

So they put all those projections together.

That was a part of our original submission to Goyo reviewed by Zion's public finance as well to make sure everything was in line with the expectations.

The 152 million dollar number was the total increment produced from the project.

So that is why that became the cap there.

Um as far as why is that changed, maybe it's an interpretation between how it was interpreted then and then now.

And of course, there's always growth rates as well too with assessed values and values.

So you're seeing the values increase.

Oh go ahead.

Sorry.

I just wanted to ask a question about that.

So to clarify, it's the cap has increased since your HTRZ proposal was approved?

There was no cap implemented at our approval.

There was just a projection put together by Piper Sandler.

And I have the approval, and I think we included that with our submission to the city um as an attachment.

Um there was no cap approved.

It was 80% of all of the increment generated within the HTRZ.

Okay.

Okay.

Anyone else jump in?

Sorry.

Just want to do clarifying.

Yeah.

Are you I you're done?

You can keep going.

Okay.

I got a lot of questions.

Um some of these are for staff.

Ryan, are you well versed in this agreement?

And okay.

So uh some of my concerns is that this it talks about additional land, that they can add additional land.

Um but if that wasn't in the HCRZ um proposal that was approved.

Can they do that?

And how does that affect the number of affordable housing units they're required to have?

Yeah, we had the Marlon and I had this conversation.

Where is Martha?

Oh, that's fantastic.

Um, because I I'm trying to remember that I I thought that the additional land was still within the originally approved, but you don't necessarily own it all or something like that, but it wouldn't be additional land approved outside the original boundaries that were part of the application.

And just to add a little color to that, we would have to amend our HTRZ.

And again, the HTRZ comes from Lehigh City.

So we would have to come to you, the council, and say, hey, we want to amend our HTRZ to expand the footprint of it to capture this parcel here.

You would then have to approve that and then allow us to resubmit or submit yourselves with our support to Goyo to amend the HTRZ.

So I would say you control the keys to that decision.

Well, then I'd like language in this agreement to clarify that that it would have to go through amendment process.

Um it's happy to add that.

I I think it you know, that that's the process.

Yeah, is what I would say.

Sure, sure.

My experience.

Um, so amend that.

Um there's you're not limited to the three phases with the new legislation.

Correct.

Just the 45 years.

Um then uh Ryan looking at some of the other um HCRZ agreements.

Some cities have like a reporting requirements or monitoring requirements.

Um I understand that the tax increment is supposed to go to specific purposes like the parking infrastructure and I I may be wrong, but the the electric infrastructures, the power infrastructure as well.

How do we make sure that that's where the money goes that it's being built and that sort of thing?

I I think what the legislation says, especially with the new edits, but what we were approved under was it can go towards income targeted housing cost, structured parking, enhanced development cost, and then horizontal vertical construction cost and property acquisition.

Okay, that's right.

I remember the vertical those are what I would say is pretty all-encompassing what it takes to build these projects here.

I know we've always intended the majority of this money will go to structured parking and then fall well short of covering all of that because every structured parking stall is about 25 to 30,000.

Um structured parking?

That is that was the original intent with the money there.

But I think when you wrap in vertical construction costs, horizontal construction costs for power infrastructure upgrades as well.

It's kind of all encompassing.

And I think we need that ability, like the legislature.

Right, but I just want to make sure that parking structure is built and that's not used for other things.

Yeah.

Um again, there's new legislation, but as far as I know, or as I understand it, um we're supposed to enter into this agreement to make sure that um the to implement the approved proposal.

Um so I'm just wondering.

It might be helpful if Marlon was here, that we can get some language in there that's a good idea.

Okay, because it's reimbursement, right?

Like the county collects the taxes, they'll it'll come to the RD, or the city, then to the RDA, but there'll be a verification, like they'll have to submit invoices to who?

To the RDA.

Okay.

Right, in order for to the expenses to be reimbursed.

So I don't know the exact mechanism.

I don't know who on the city side will do that, but because that's the nature of the transaction, that it's they don't get the money and then go spend it, they spend the money and then get reimbursed, but there'll be an invoice verification process before before we cut them a check.

Okay.

Is there any way that we can make sure that the money goes towards a parking structure?

Because we just wouldn't reimburse it.

Yeah, I mean, I I I don't know that the agreement limits it to that, right?

There's a list of expenses that are allowed by the statute.

And so we haven't we haven't negotiated an agreement that says you must spend it on just this one thing.

It's any of those re any of those expenses that are allowed to be reimbursed by the statute.

By statute or by the proposal that they got approved.

By the statute.

Yeah, I don't is that I don't know if that's different, but my understanding is by the statute, but I haven't read the proposal.

Okay, that's something I like to look into.

I can pull it up here if it's at all helpful to see.

One thing that I as you guys review this, because it sounds like you're gonna spend some time to do that.

What would be really helpful is if you're very familiar with the HTRZ legislation and the approval.

Because what you told us last time was I don't want to approve anything more or less than was already approved.

And we've done our darndest to make sure that this is like right in line with the statute and the approval.

So if there's things that you guys bring to the table and say, here's the statute, and here's your approval, and this is different than that.

That's what we we absolutely want to know so that we can fix that for you.

Well, and I I said at the last meeting, I want you to hold you to what is and was approved in the HCRC proposal because you promised some things.

There were trail connections, there was certain square footage of commercial and that sort of thing.

That's what you presented to the state committee.

That's what got approved, and that's what we're beholden to, even though we'd rather not do this whole mess.

I'd rather have that tax money go to our school district.

Um so we need to make sure that you're getting you're getting a lot of money from this.

We need to make sure that you are held to that agreement, what you presented to them.

So that that's where I'm at.

Um there's a lot of language in here about the area plan, but I would like to see reference back to the what was approved in your HTRG proposal.

Um see if I have more.

There's a few other things.

Um that's my main point.

That's my main concern.

I just want to say thank you for taking out the PID.

You're welcome.

I really appreciate that.

Um I think that's made this a lot more easy for myself, at least I can speak for myself and saying I appreciate that that is not in there.

And just want to clarify for the public, those listening, that that is not part of this agreement any longer.

So thank you for doing that.

Good.

Any other questions or council here?

I have one more question for staff.

If we have some changes we'd like to see, do would we work with Marlon on that or you?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so go ahead.

That was gonna be our next question is steps forward from here as it sounds like we need to get changes that the council has funneled to you and then to us so that we can review this.

So what we'll do is we'll uh we'll send ours, send our questions and concerns to Mr.

Wood and Mr.

Eldridge, and then we'll get the he'll they'll be in contact with you and then we'll they'll work through the contract period and then re back and then they'll get a copies of and we'll go from there.

And do you guys have a time frame that you can commit to on getting comments to staff so that we can set expectations on our side?

I I would like to vote on this in on the April meeting.

Um this has been a two-year process and multiple councils for them to deal with.

Um what I see, I I'm so grateful for the call-outs today.

I think those are things we can implement.

But my major concerns have been addressed with a situation I may not be happy with but have to live with due to another council's decision.

And so um out of respect to the applicant who has spent years now trying to get here, I would like us to put this on the April agenda and move forward and allow them to develop their land.

And just to clarify, um staff and the developers were working on this for years, but it's just recently come to the city council for our input.

So I I understand you want to get moving on this, and I you know we do have a deadline, I guess.

Um if we don't get it done, then we'll have to report to the state and explain why.

So I'm okay moving forward with it.

But I think the council ought to have some input.

This is kind of a huge thing.

Um so it's sometimes worth taking time for that.

Yeah, and in no way, shape or form did I say the council shouldn't have input.

I actually extended an appreciation for the thoughts given, and I hope that you continue to give your thoughts to staff.

But these applicants have been through a lot and they've been respectful and met this council's needs of removing the PID and things, and so it's time to get out of the way and remove the red tape and and do continue to provide feedback, but let's let's allow them to develop the land now.

So let me interject.

That gives us three weeks.

So our next meeting would be April 14th, which gives us three weeks.

Is that correct, Patisha?

Um council, are you okay with I know go ahead, Councilman Councilmember Harrison?

I mean if if I feel comfortable with it, great.

Yeah.

If I don't, and it comes before the council for a vote, I will vote a heart now.

Right.

So council member, you'll you're okay to we'll do some homework here in the next three weeks with Marlon and Mr.

Wood and head down that road.

Okay.

Councilmember Freeman, you're good there.

Sure.

Can I have another ask another question?

Yep.

Okay.

For the soccer agreement, page four.

Um, and it talks about an J.

What is that?

I don't even know.

J for 4.1J.

It talks about three tax increment collection periods.

But then it says that they're um not applicable.

Can you explain that to me?

Um that just has to do with when our legislation was approved in 2023 and the latest amendments to that legislation lock in your approval to the legislation at the time it was approved.

So there was no cap on phases at that time.

So that's how this one would be governed.

Okay, there was no cap on phases at the time, but now there is cap one phases.

I believe so, yes.

Three.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, just looking at April.

We'll have a meeting on April 14th.

We'll also have a meeting on April 28th.

So we'll work towards those dates.

Um I'm I'm sure someone will be in contact with you as we move forward.

So uh we appreciate your coming tonight and walking through this, answering our questions, and we'll definitely be in contact as we move forward.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Appreciate it.

Okay, item two, discussion of proposal to conduct a feasible study for an ice center.

I know Marlon was going to do this.

He had to step out, so I don't know if the council wants to have a discussion.

Yes.

But we can push it off until the work session or I don't know, something in between.

I think we can discuss.

Okay.

It's open for discussion.

Do we have?

We have time.

Go ahead.

Yeah, you're you're good.

All right.

I mean, personally, I I love the idea of an ice rink.

I know my kids do.

Um I'm a relatively new fan of hockey.

Um I think it would be incredible personally.

I think it'd be um a value add to the community.

However, with that said, I have some concerns that would prevent me from even supporting a feasibility study.

Um the first is, you know, based on my own research, based on the research of several of us up here, um, several residents in Lehigh who have also helped research this.

I think profitability is very, very rare for ice rinks.

Um, you know, even in areas in the north in Minnesota, Michigan, um, Vermont, uh most of them are still subsidized.

And I think the only the only possible way to to even have a chance at being profitable would be a very, very large facility.

Um three ice rinks plus extra a multi-use space.

Um I don't know if we're in a position right now with the 100 million dollars in bond debt to to commit to something like that when we have other priorities like our legacy center, um like our parks.

We have promised parks like Miller Roads that are not yet complete because a lot of those funds had to be used for another park.

Um the second the second thing I'm concerned about is um you know, if if this is profitable, if we're very confident that it would be profitable, why doesn't a private organization do it?

I think private organizations run on what's profitable, what brings in revenue.

And I would love to see a private organization run something like this, and I think the city could go above and beyond in supporting a private organization that would build this.

Um I know the county is pushing very hard on it, and the county has every right to build it themselves and fund it themselves, and they're not doing that.

They're choosing not to, um, likely because it won't make money.

Um personally, as a conservative person myself, I am very careful about how how much we overextend and use taxpayer money.

Um things like the legacy center, they benefit the entire community.

Parks benefit the entire community.

This would would benefit parts of the community, but not the entire community.

Um I get you know it could it could boost economic development around hotels, hotel tax is great revenue for the city.

Um but with that said, it it's still theoretical.

And the last thing directly related to this item is that this this feasibility study is by Babcock Design.

They are not economists.

They're not telling us if this is gonna make sense from a government run perspective, right?

The it's a design uh company that has a uh very specific interest in seeing this approved so that they can uh potentially get a contract to design it.

These are not economists.

I would trust a PhD candidate and uh at BYU or the U to go through this and see it from a much less biased perspective.

Um I think even with if I can find it.

Um within their letter to Marlin, Babcock Design in the first paragraph, it's praising uh the Utah Mammoth, NHL franchise hockey is growing at unprecedented rates with this growth.

The demand for public ice rinks is also very high.

And there's a significant shortage of ice rinks, like right there off the bat.

It's not a it's not an unbiased study.

I I would not feel comfortable spending 33,000 on a study that is already designed to tell us to put in an ice rink and use data, selectively use data to do that.

Um so again, like for the study itself.

I I disagree that this would even be um you know a comprehensive unbiased study to tell us if it's worth it.

Um and beyond that, I don't think it's our role at this position at this period of time in Lehigh to fund something like this through bonding.

Um those are my thoughts.

Other thoughts on a feasible feasibility study.

You know me, I like data, I like information to make good decisions, but I also think that for many of us, this is our first budget season, and I would really like to go through that with all of the asks that we have before even considering extending ourselves for something else, um, especially the research I've done.

Like again, I know Marlon sent out some research he had done, um, some other things that it would be difficult to have it be profitable, and I am concerned about getting a bond.

Um basically in other people's names and our taxpayers' names for potentially you know, tens of millions of dollars.

Uh it it talks about how we would most likely need to look at land purchasing also and things like that.

And I just don't think it's appropriate time.

I don't feel comfortable with it as a new council member with my lack of experience with doing our just general budget and seeing the needs there.

Um I know that when I was elected, I was elected based on my conservatives on my fiscal conservative.

I can't even see it.

I'll be conservative in all the ways, including fiscally.

And um there was there have been criticisms of some of the purchases and buildings and things like that that the city has made recently, and those are things like the city hall.

I mean, we're talking about something like that versus an ice rink.

So for me, I don't think it's appropriate this time.

Yeah, I'm I'm in the mind I want data.

I don't know if it is a good thing.

I don't know if it isn't.

Um it's just all opinions that I'm hearing now.

So uh I yeah, it's hard when there's you know, seven to twelve million out there towards this, a lot of partners, a lot of partners that could come forward.

I just don't know what I don't know.

So uh that's where I would seek data.

Um we went through the school district split.

We sought a lot of data to be able to make a good decision on this.

Um I don't think I would be in that same position if there wasn't partners already there before there's even a feasibility study.

Um yeah, maybe it goes to another city, maybe another city benefits from it, and maybe you know, some council members are okay with that.

Um, but I do think that this is something where if we you know, I don't I don't want to get it wrong.

You know, I'm just I I don't have the information that I need to make uh a good decision on that.

And um also just to speak like with Babcock Design, I wish Marlon was here because I think he can speak a lot better than any of us can to this.

Um they're doing the design, but they would they also have consultants that would be outsourced for doing the things that they're not experts in when it comes to the economic analysis.

I'd also want to know the profit loss statement on it.

There's a lot of information I would want to know from it.

Um but yeah, I I want to operate from a place of good data from reliable export sources to be able to make good decisions for Lehigh.

Councilmember Stallings.

U Yeah, I kind of said how I feel about this whole thing last meeting.

Um, but I do want to point out this this uh fee proposal that we're you know asked to look at and sign.

It it's more about designing um an ice skating uh complex rather than uh looking at the economic fes feasibility of it.

It's not I mean I look at the what it's proposing to offer us um floor plans, elevations, overall site plans.

Um you know, they're offering to come to city council meetings and sell it to the public kind of thing.

So I think this more is more about um designing a product rather than looking at um really if it's feasible economically and financially for the city.

So I uh I I I am concerned it it was presented to us as a as as a feasibility study and as a way to get that data, but uh looking at what this actually is, it's not that um I don't think we would get data from them and is um Councilman Mayor Harrison pointed out is certainly not unbiased data.

So um whoever they hire as a consultant, I'm sure would have um a very subjective opinion.

Um yeah, I I don't like this.

I mean if we want true data, then we we need to get financial advisors, not architects and um interior designers.

The other thing is promises of revenue flowing into the general fund.

I did a lot of research on if this actually works.

I looked here in Utah, I looked at the ones that Marlin presented to us, especially the ones that you know had a profit of a couple million.

Um very rare never.

I not one of them did it actually did that revenue, the profit go to the general fund.

It was um they were operated as enterprise funds, they stayed within the facility, it went back, the profit that was generated went back into capital improvements, so which is probably why they're successful, to be honest.

Um I don't like these promises on return of investment because I'm not seeing that happened.

I I would be happy if it broke even, but I a lot of them don't even do that.

So again, um, as was pointed out, um I also ran as being fiscally conservative.

I believe we need to be responsible with taxpayers' money as I sit through the budget discussions and hear all the needs throughout the departments in the city.

There's no way it could support this.

Um we've got parks we need to finish, parks we need to even start.

We we took on a county park that we need to put a lot of money towards.

Um we have our first responders who need competitive wages, we need to staff our police department.

Our our fleet is getting older.

Um there are things in the city that are so old that we don't have replacement parts for them.

So to me, just going down this road with the lure of promises of profits.

Um it's probably not a wise decision.

Let's take care of the needs we have now before we venture into something like this.

Council Member Loch Art.

Okay, bear with me as I spoke with residents.

I um committed to asking some questions.

Um I'm gonna go through some of that and respect to the commitment I made to the residents today on this item.

I want to make sure that they know I heard them and asked the questions they asked me to ask.

Um unfortunately, Marlon isn't here, but I did speak with him prior to this meeting and got some of these questions answered.

Um it comes to uh the design company, um building a facility like this, like council member Harrison mentioned, really could be successful at a large scale.

My understanding is that the reason why the design company is involved is to offer us costs at a different type of scale.

How could we possibly even talk about economic impact if we haven't talked about the cost of these facilities at different sizes?

So for a feasibility study to be accurate, not only do we need the economic impact, but components of that economic impact are the scale and design of these facilities.

This particular company just recently did the South Jordan SEG facility.

So not only do they have costs, but they have costs in Utah within the last 12 months.

So they would be providing us the most accurate information of cost, which then allows us to have the greater economic opportunity or not so much opportunity conversation.

But if you don't have the design components, we wouldn't know the costs.

And so I think it is a false argument to say that we can't have a design company get involved when we wouldn't know what to even we can't talk about cost without design.

They're married.

Um I also know that they are partnering with other entities to um fill the gaps if they can't give us the economic studies.

And I'm sure there's you know, we could maybe ask for an economist with a PhD to be involved.

Um but that would be you know our prerogative as the council.

Um a lot of you guys, I don't think the public even knows, but I was actually involved in the initial conversations over the school district split.

I was in those initial meetings.

I actually called them and got the councils together, pieces of the councils together.

And um we did not choose an option that was presented to us in those studies.

In fact, all the councils got that data and did something that wasn't even recommended.

What did the feasibility study provide?

A launching point, a conversation piece, something to come around and talk about.

But it was not an excuse to stop the work.

I believe that this feasibility study would be a launching point into more conversations, more analysis, and critical thinking.

It wouldn't stop at what they tell us would work.

Instead, we would do it the Lehigh way, and we would get to work.

We would pioneer a way that was successful.

I believe we can.

And even if we couldn't, I would love to be able to go to the residents and say this is why we couldn't.

But instead, when the residents who have expressed interest in this come and ask us why don't we know these answers, I have to say because this council wouldn't even ask the questions.

And that's frustrating.

So another question I have, and I and I want to be very clear.

Um I do not think that using RDA funds for economic opportunities is fiscally irresponsible.

And I get I take issue with this concept that anyone who would think of using funds that are designated and restricted this way appropriately is therefore fiscally irresponsible.

I am fiscally responsible.

And a part of that fiscal responsibility is to diversify the type of revenue that Lehigh City is getting, or what will happen is my residents will see a drastic increase in property taxes because we won't be able to meet the needs due to inflation and the demand on services.

And I do not want to see that happening.

So it is fiscally responsible of this council to look for opportunities and ways to find more options for revenue.

I prefer the sales tax revenue because it is use-based.

Property taxes you can't opt out of.

Sales tax you can.

If you don't want to participate in the Whole Foods RDA, don't shop there.

If you don't want to participate in the ICE rink, don't go.

But if we can't, we won't be able to offer them anything if we don't know the answers to these questions.

And we are accountable to them to know these answers, and we have a mechanism of getting there.

But I won't be able to give those answers to my residents.

And that's frustrating.

Ultimately, I think every resident in Lehigh wants us to make data-driven decisions, not sit in a place of principles, but instead apply our principles with data and make the right decisions.

This data we could take to private organizations and ask for help.

Hey, this is what it says.

What is your private area expertise and what do you think?

Could you contribute?

We have no idea where this could go.

And guess what?

We never will because the council's decided not to ask the questions.

Thank you, Councilmember Lockhart.

I I think at this point in time we have three, we have a majority that is not willing to move forward on the feasibility study at this time.

My recommendation, and I would look for some head nods up here, is that we um put this on the shelf for a time until a later date to discuss, and that may be years from now, which is okay.

Um but I'm looking at at those of you I know two of you would probably be a yes.

I know three of you are uh rather a no.

So I think at this point in time we're we have a majority that we won't uh seek the feasibility study at this point in time.

So we'll if everybody's based on what I know and what I've heard, I think that's that's the road we'll move down.

Okay.

Um discussion of updates to the power standards manual.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Um again, my name is Brett Thomas with the power department.

Um thank you for taking a minute to review this.

And we we are looking to update the power standard specifically related to power quality and customer-owned equipment.

Um this is an effort to clarify the customers' responsibility with protection of their own equipment versus the city's responsibility.

Um in the last year or so, we've had several claims of damages to electronic equipment in their homes that um falls under the responsibility of of the homeowner or the customer.

Um, and we were in it in an attempt to try and clarify that.

That's what the update to this standard is.

Um this follows the update from 2020 in the National Electric Code that required um search protection for for homes, and then again they expanded that in 2023 for search protection for all occupancies.

Um so this is just us expanding our standard to encompass that and to clarify it for for homeowners.

Um it also includes an update for um single-phase protection, which doesn't apply to homeowners, it's only for three-phase customers, um, which usually applies to to commercial customers.

It's only for three-phase customers, um, which usually applies to to commercial customers.

Um so that that is the kind of the summary of what we're trying to accomplish with this to not only clarify what is the responsibility of the customer, but to also limit the liability of the city um under normal operating procedures in a in a power system.

So any questions with that?

Any questions for Brent from the council?

Looks like we're good, Brent.

Looks like you answered all the questions.

Thank you.

Um item four is the discussion of mixed use zoning requirements.

I I believe you're leading that discussion in a spirit of time and a bio break in a closed session that we need to hold here real quick.

Would you be opposed if we added that to the end of our city council meeting?

No, not at all.

Happy to do that.

Yep, we postpone it.

And if the meeting goes late, we can put it on the next meeting.

Whatever you're yep, there's no urgency on our part.

I think it was just something that council, would you be okay if we move that to the back side of the council meeting?

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay.

Okay, any any questions on the council meeting tonight?

There's currently four items, now five, but any questions on those.

We're just talking about the regular agenda items, right?

Yep, regular agenda items that will be on the agenda this evening.

I'll have questions that come up as we go along.

Awesome.

Okay, let's uh we'll do an administrative report.

Jason, anything on the administrative report?

Um Mayor and Council reports.

Any reports from the council?

Do you want to report?

What are you looking at?

We usually just look right now.

I'll start, yeah.

We didn't start over here.

I you know, some of us had the opportunity to go out to Washington, D.C.

Um, the youth group went also.

Um I'm strange and I enjoy those kind of things and listening to federal legislation.

Um especially excited about um the basics act where they're proposing a federal transportation money could come directly to MPOs and not through the state.

So I don't know if it'll pass, but that I think might benefit us in some ways and some other good legislation federally.

Um always fun to take tours of the Capitol and that sort of thing.

I guess I'm to the left as well.

Yep, you're good.

Go ahead.

Uh well, Councilmember Freeman and I, I don't want to steal your thunder or but we had the opportunity while you guys were in DC to attend the 2100 North freeway groundbreaking.

And I was told um that I was the most excited about that road of anyone who was there.

So anyway.

Yes, I yeah.

First.

I think I got the third and fourth scoop.

I wasn't first, but anyway.

No, we are so excited, and uh huge thank you to you dot and uh and all of those you know who's who sacrificed, including our staff and and um everyone who made that road possible.

And so anyway, it was a really fun opportunity, and I'm glad we were there.

Councilmember Freeman.

All right.

Going this way.

I'm making council member Newell last.

Oh, okay, okay.

Uh nothing to report from my committees.

Um, yeah, 2100 North uh groundbreaking was wonderful.

I and I am grateful I was there, able to listen to a lot of people of our legislators speak.

And um, I was able also to do a little training with the police.

That's what you guys missed uh with trying to be a SWAT team, lead team lead, which was quite the experience.

So I hear there's a video about it.

I'm looking forward to it.

Um just to piggyback on what uh council member Stalling said, the the DC trip was um we had a few, I guess a few reasons for it.

The National League of Cities Conference, um, that was very useful.

Um sometimes we try to recreate the wheel thinking that we live in a vacuum, but it it's interesting to hear what other cities are doing, what they're concerned about, and it's and it's very strange to see you know people on the far left end of the spectrum politically all the way to the far right, um, all applaud Rand Paul as he gives a speech about local control and federalism.

Um so that was that was very um uh insightful and and interesting.

And then of course meeting with our lawmakers and and pushing things that are important to the region.

I I saw Mayor Benn's support, Mayor Carn out in Saratoga Springs helping them uh promote uh their legislation to get a post office, which would literally requires an act of Congress to get a post office, um, which helps them, it helps us, it helps Main Street traffic stay a little better.

Um so that was a great experience.

And then were you gonna mention what were you gonna mention?

I don't want to steal your thunder.

Oh, I can mention if you want, yeah.

You do fire.

Oh, fire.

Oh yeah, and the bailing.

I forgot to mention that.

Yeah.

Um but we had the honor of uh going to the the fire department awards banquet uh last week, which was really cool to see.

Um so many incredible uh first responders in that room.

Um Chief Kraft is uh is a world class leader.

I think we have a lot to learn from him and how he leads to his department, so hopefully we can support his department in the same way he supports the residents of the city.

Um and also a shout out to our neighboring cities who filled in in all of our fire de fire stations to allow our firefighters to to be in that um banquet with their spouses and significant others.

So thank you, Chief Kraft, for hosting that.

Yeah, really really busy week.

I thought it was really cool that Chief said that was the first time you've had all council members and mayor attend.

So it was awesome that our schedule is all lined up that we could be there and just let you know how much we appreciate you and it was amazing to be there and and hear those who had won awards and what they and their service.

So that was really special.

I think we've just had a really busy, fun week.

Um I love DC and being able to get to know more of the council mayor on more of like a personal level too, instead of sitting behind here um all the time.

It was amazing to be out there at the youth council.

We have incredible youth.

Um I was with the youth council during the the tour of the Capitol, and that was fun.

Although I heard that with being with Congressman Kennedy is the way to be because he just pushes buttons and goes wherever he wants.

So I'm just like I need to make sure that that happens.

But um, Senator Curtis said he wanted to take the youth council, so I thought I'd better stick with uh with them.

Um we uh did the really city hall unveiling on Saturday, and Sister Eubanks was there to speak, and she was incredible.

It was a really special event to have her there.

Um I've just I love seeing these community events.

Um there was like 125 people that came to this.

It seems to just be growing more and more, and the Historical Society continues to receive praise from all um sources say talking about that no one west of the Mississippi is doing what our Lehigh Historical Society is doing, that they are the model, and so I think that's just an amazing thing for us to be able to have them here in our city and be able to benefit from what they're doing.

But yeah, it's been a great week.

Thanks.

Just one thing to add, um Chief Kraft sent me an email today.

Um our fire department was founded February 28th of 1901.

So they are officially 125.

Uh we have passed that information on.

We are working on a future resolution that will be put forth in a future meeting uh in the next one or two, Chief Kraft as I text you today.

So uh that is now being worked on, but I think it's important that we celebrate um 125 years of uh Lehigh fire.

Um it's been a busy couple weeks.

It's been awesome.

And uh there's a lot going on in Lehigh with everything that's that's happening.

So the other thing that's happened is we have a permit to occupy the building next to us.

Um I know staff is already working on some dates for a future open house.

And uh also potentially, let me lay word hard on that word potentially.

This could be our last meeting in this room of this style.

So interesting as I've thought about that this week.

I thought, boy, if those walls could talk, well, what they tell me.

And uh I'm sure I'd have to sit down with a pen and paper uh to listen to what the walls would tell me.

Uh but there's been a lot of great things that have happened in this room.

And so as you exit tonight after our city council meeting, remember that potentially this is the last city council meeting that will be held here.

And uh the history and the things that have happened in here are remarkable when you look at how city government runs the remarkable nature of what happens.

So thank you.

Um I would consider a motion to enter into a closed session for a specific purpose allowed under the open and public meetings act, Utah Code 52-4-205, including to discuss the purpose of lease or sale of real property.

So moved.

Second.

Second by council member Harrison.

Any questions on that motion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nope.

We'll go to closed session.

Held here at Lehigh City Hall in the Council Chambers at 7 p.m.

We recognize our full council tonight.

Councilmember Newell, Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Freeman, Council Member Stallings, Council Member Lockhart.

We appreciate that they're here and that we have a full council tonight.

And we welcome each of you, and we're glad that you're here.

First, we'll start.

We ask all to rise as we uh participate in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Councilmember Harrison will lead us in that.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands on nation under God and the visible Tall.

Thank you, Councilmember Harrison.

Okay, I don't believe we have any presentations or reports tonight, and so we'll get through there.

So we'll first start off tonight with citizen input.

And uh let me maybe give you some ground rules from citizen input.

If you look at our agenda or you look online at the agenda and and the item that you came to speak about is not on the agenda, uh we're gonna open it up for public comment.

You have three minutes.

We yield you each three minutes to speak what's on your mind and and uh what's going on.

We would invite you that when you do come to the microphone that you would state your name.

Uh so we that we do have your name at the end of the three minutes.

You'll see a red light go off.

If you'll finish your comments um when that red light goes off of the buzzer, uh that would help us.

If you don't, uh then we will help you and your comment.

Um, but we like to do it in a professional way.

So you will have a uh a light, you will have uh you'll kind of know that three minutes is there, um, and we appreciate that.

So with that, at 713, we open the microphone for public comment.

Hi there, my name is Eileen Miller.

I'm with the Utah Valley Home Builders and the Parade of Homes.

And I came to um distribute the list of the parade of homes this year.

We've had to limit it to 40 homes because we had more homes that we wanted to participate in the parade than we have space for.

Um the parade will be from the 4th of June to the 20th of June.

And um just wanted to invite everybody to be there.

I have a copy of list of um the homes, the addresses and the towns that they're in.

And um we have a couple of very expensive homes this year.

Um, one of them is near 40 million dollars.

So it's a record for caught the price of a home.

We had one home last year that was uh 20 million dollar remodel that was in the parade.

So anyway, just thought I would let you all know, invite you all to come and share a wonderful time with us at the Praet of Homes this year.

Thanks for having me.

I'll I'll give this to the planning director, and maybe he can pass it around.

Thank you, Mrs.

Miller.

Good to see you.

Thank you very much.

Uh I don't have a copy of the agenda, but I was told that one of the topics is the Willow Park Pond uh over by the Willow Park or the whatever it's called, Willow Creek Pond over by the Jordan River.

Is that in discussion tonight?

No, so you can go ahead and make comment.

Go ahead.

Oh, okay.

So my wife and I live right on the pond.

Give us your name.

Uh Glenn Rimkus.

Thank you.

And we live right on the pond.

We're in one of those houses that's on the uh east side of the pond.

We live there for eight years.

Um I understand you're proposing a paved walkway around the pond or a black top walkway around the pond.

There's already a road around the pond that's that's road uh.

It's compacted gravel, it's road base, okay?

It's very smooth.

Um I'm here to argue against spending money for that paved thing that has been proposed because I think that Lehigh should have pockets that maintain the rural feel of what Lehigh used to look like.

And I don't see why Lehigh, like every open space in Lehigh has to be developed into what looks like a overdeveloped inner city park.

I think that would ruin the whole rural feel of it.

Okay.

So I'm just here to point that out.

I think it's and it's so smooth.

My wife walks our grandkids around it in a double stroller.

And it's perfectly smooth.

You don't need a black top roadway around that thing.

I think it would be much smarter to spend that money on planting some trees where they were ripped out years ago and just trying to beautify that pond, maybe get rid of some of the phragmites that are grown completely around the shore of that pond.

Um because the pond used to be beautiful and it's not anymore.

And as long as we're talking about the pond.

A year or two ago, you guys or someone started putting catfish in that pond, like a truck full of catfish from Arkansas came.

That destroyed the fishery in that pond.

It destroyed it.

About six years ago, they trucked wild bass and bluegill from Steinaker Reservoir and put them in that pond.

And they spawn and they lay eggs.

And there used to be fantastic bluegill and bass fishing in there.

The catfish are bottom feeders.

Well, they feed all over, but they are bottom feeders.

They eat all the eggs of the bluegills and the bass.

I don't think there's a single bluegill left in that pond.

And the kids used to love to catch bluegills and bass.

I haven't seen a bass in a while either.

But there are no bluegills left between the pelicans that come and the catfish that eat the eggs, they're none left.

So please, who's ever ordering these catfish?

Can you stop?

And just like even if it's a Utah DWR, you can tell them no, because you're Lehigh City.

You can say we don't want those.

Please, we don't want those.

There's catfish in the Jordan River right next to it.

There's catfish in the Utah Lake.

The Jordan River catfish get three feet long.

And the kids know how to catch them, okay.

So I'm just here to say that.

Um, you know, I I wish Lehigh City could do some things to beautify that pond instead of just making it look worse, which it has over the eight years, eight and a half years we live there.

Sorry if I sound a little sour about this, but we've watched it all happen.

Um we've watched drug busts happen back at that pond.

We've called police on what we think is a drug deal going down, and it was.

So and my wife and I are the only ones who pick up litter on that pond also.

We love it.

We spent $30,000 more for that lot because it's on the pond and we love it.

But please, you know, consider what I've said, if you would.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And and thank you for coming to talk.

We appreciate it.

So no salty.

You're good.

Okay.

Thank you.

My name is Susie Remkes.

That is my my my husband.

No, my mother, my husband.

I'm nervous with this microphone.

Um, so he introduced us.

Um we do pick it up delivered, and we are more than glad to do that.

We are so glad doesn't have a bathroom on a pond, doesn't have a trash can there, because that would be more work for us to remove the trash and put it out.

And most people don't put in the trash, they just put there, but we are okay, we clean, we have pelicans there.

We have how many varieties of ducks we have a glen in the pond?

14.

Umicans.

We have some uh fish that is the I don't know, has a bunch of things that and we just love looking there.

Um I just want to make I I want to say thank you to Lehigh City.

They are always so nice to me.

I go there away from my two grandchildren pushing them, and uh they are collecting the fishing lines because those are very hard for my fingers and my husband.

They remove that, and they have put some things in a fragment, but they are coming back, so they need to keep doing that.

So that's uh the catfish is a problem.

But that's okay.

Here at that.

I have one thing that I want to tell you.

The pond line of fabric is visible in a lot of places.

When it used to be close, the line of the fibro come all the way up, and we have big rocks to keep it then.

Um, as you know, if you go around, they saw vandalize uh the kids, adults, and others, adolescents, they throw those big rocks inside the pond.

So you can see all that line going down.

So if you could collect from the pond and put the rocks, I don't do that because it's still have and can be slammed to me too.

I had three falls there doing that.

Um but or just by new ones and put there.

But I think overall we are doing okay except for that catfish and maybe some trees.

I would like to see the trees back.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Okay, it appears there's no other comments, so I'll close the public comment at 720 and bring it back to the dais.

We'll move on to uh item 10, the consent agenda.

Any questions on the consent agenda?

Yeah, I was wondering if you could clarify uh we could clarify what the fleet items were or for?

But that meant fleet surplus.

Is that ones that we don't need?

Is that surplus?

Is that ones that we need to buy?

Is that and what are these for?

Surplusing old vehicles, so they no longer have useful usefulness to us, so we put them to uh auction.

But they have to be voted on by the council.

Yeah.

So above a certain value, any pro any personal property that the city wants to get rid of, you have to declare a surplus before we can sell it or give it away or auction it off or anything like that.

Mayor, were there some items removed from the agenda that were in the consent agenda?

Yes.

So in an email earlier there were item number three and item number five and item number one were all removed.

I don't want to.

Any other questions?

Councilmember Stallings?

Okay.

Okay, I did have a question on number five.

If it's been removed from the consent agenda, but I believe the start date is for April first of this year.

Is that gonna is that gonna cause a problem that if we are we just pushing back the start date?

Yeah.

I think Cameron had to leave, but I think earlier he said it now wasn't until April 20th anyway.

Okay.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't gonna cause an operational issue.

Thank you.

Any other questions to the consent agenda?

I would honor it.

I would uh entertain a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve the consent agenda um removing items one, three, and five as presented.

Do I have a second?

I can second that.

I have a second from Council Member Lockhart.

Any questions on that motion?

So we'll take a vote.

We'll start with you, Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Council Member Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Okay, that approves.

Thank you very much.

Okay, moving to the regular agenda, we'll start with item one.

Consideration of ordinance 10-2026, approving a development code amendment, adding chapter 12-D, flood damage prevention in compliance with FEMA.

Uh Kim, I believe.

Kim, is this your item or it was go ahead and tell us who you are and walk through this?

Yes, my name is Shelby Brewer, and I'm the stormwater management plan engineer for Lehigh City.

And this is a flood ordinance that we're required to implement from FEMA because Lehigh City is a member of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Um because we follow FEMA's minimum standards, residents within Lehigh City are able to purchase flood insurance.

And FEMA recently did a new flood study on both the Provo River and Utah Lake, and they remapped it using a new mapping method, which changed it to a flood zone V, which required us to update our ordinance to implement that.

So that is what this ordinance is doing.

It's meeting FIM FEMA's minimum standards to keep Lehigh in good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program.

So with that, we'll open it up.

Is there anyone in the audience who is here to speak to this?

Um so we'll close public comment.

Any we'll bring it back to the dice.

Any questions on this?

Happy to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to approve ordinance number 10-2026.

A development code amendment adding chapter 12-D, flood damage prevention in compliance with FEMA.

So I have a motion from Council Member Harrison to have a second.

I second that.

Council Member Freeman with a second.

Any questions on this motion?

Councilmember Harrison will start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

Council Member Walker.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Now go to item three, consideration of ordinance 12-2026, approving the Vivian Estates Phase 5 zone change on 11.58 acres, located at approximately 2125 north, 600 east, changing the zoning from TH5, transitional holding, to RA1 residential uh slash agriculture.

Is there anyone here from Wait, hold on, sorry.

Mayor.

I think we're skipping an item.

Did I print did I print the wrong no?

We skipped two, but you could come back.

Oh okay.

Oh, I did skip two, didn't I?

Thank you.

Sorry.

I was excited about three.

All right.

Well.

All right.

Never mind.

We're gonna start with uh we'll go back to item number two.

Thank you.

Consideration of ordinance 11-2026, approving a development code amendment to chapter 27.

Removing the exception for a maximum setback if there's a module of parking allowed.

Kim, are you gonna speak to this?

Yes.

Yeah.

I almost skipped you, I apologize.

Oh no, that's okay.

I don't mind.

Um so this we're trying to clean up um what we've noticed is an ongoing uh exception that's needed.

So in we have certain design standard districts, and they have um requirements for setbacks and and whether or not parking is allowed in front of the building or not.

So in these two districts that we're proposing to amend tonight, they do allow for certain uses, like um probably the best example is an office warehouse building where you we where we do allow parking between the street and the building, but then there's still this maximum setback of 50 feet.

So we see time and time again projects that come in and they're allowed the parking, but then that almost automatically puts their building out of compliance for that setback because a a module of parking, by the way, is uh one full parking stall, an aisle, and then another parking stall.

So they're allowed quite a bit of space.

That's usually about 62 feet.

So we're just trying to fix this um constant need for an exception on that, so that if the parking is allowed based on the type of building, then they automatically um get a I guess uh an exception.

Well, it wouldn't be an exception.

They would not have to meet the 50-foot building setback.

So we're just trying to clean that up.

Is anybody here in the audience who's came to speak to this item?

Okay, so we'll close that.

So we'll bring it back to the dais.

Any questions for Kim on this?

I don't I don't I don't have questions.

I just was looking at the figures and it looks like there is some redundancy there.

Just uh figure 78 is same as figure one nineteen seventy nine, same as one twenty eighty, same as one twenty-one, eighty one, same as one twenty-two.

So I just think for simplifications they could be nice to just have four figures instead of eight when there's redundancy, but otherwise, no questions.

Any other comments?

I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Do you want to make the motion with your how I would do that?

Remember redundancy.

Speak to that.

We are working on a an overhaul of the entire chapter because if there are similar standards, each district, we've tried to put all of the standards.

And so I we are going with that approach.

We haven't gotten the draft put together yet, but we do want to simplify it.

There is a lot of repetitive things in there.

What we were after the original draft.

Whatever district you're located in, we just wanted all the standards so that you didn't, you know, if you're in one district and it said C figure here.

We tried to put each one so it was standalone, but we agree it just gets really lengthy and we don't we're gonna try and compile all or compress all that into a shorter version.

So we're working on that, but we're happy to take whatever.

Well, and sometimes you can do it where the reference where the figures are at the end of the chapter, so then they just look and they can reference all the figures of that.

But anyway.

Good idea.

Yep.

I think it's fine written as it is.

It's just yeah, yeah.

Okay.

I'll make a motion.

Uh Mayor, I move that we approve um ordinance 12-2026 approved.

That's not it.

Sorry.

Round number two.

See, I was ahead too.

Okay.

I move that we approve ordinance number 112026 approving development code amendment to chapter 37.

Removing the exception for the maximum setback if there is a module of parking allowed.

So I have a first from council member stallings.

Do I have a second?

I second that.

A second from Council Member Freeman.

Any questions?

Council Freeman Councilmember Freeman will start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now to three.

You've heard it before, but you're gonna hear it again.

Item number three, consideration of ordinance 12-2026 approving the Vivian Estate Phase 5 zone change on 11.58 acres located at approximately 2125 north, 600 east.

Changing the zoning from TH5, transitional holding, to an RA1 residential agriculture.

Is there someone from uh developer who would like to speak?

Welcome.

Thank you.

Uh name's Austin Cooper.

Um with J H.

We uh yeah, so this is the last phase of uh Vivian.

We've done phase one, two.

I think we're actually working through phase two, B and three right now with the city.

Um and this is just in preparation to do the development on phase uh five, get it from transition into a zone that we can we can work with.

So pretty straightforward.

Does anyone from the general public here to make comment on this item?

Guess we'll close that.

Any questions from the council mr.

Mayor, if it's okay, I do.

Um have you gotten the water rights that you need for this development?

In the process of doing that, yeah.

We're the there's the family that owns the the land, they have several water shares, and we're trying to figure out exactly how much they have compared to how much we need.

Um and then figure out the difference.

So you feel like you'll be able to meet the standards of the zone with the water shares that you need.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions, comments?

Happy to entertain a motion.

Uh I move to approve ordinance number 12-2026, a zone district designation amendment and zoning district map amendment located approximately 2125 north, 600 east.

Change the zoning from TH5 to RA1, including all the RC comments.

So I have a uh first from Councilmember Freeman.

I have a second.

Second.

Second from Council Member Newell.

Any questions?

Okay, we'll start with you, Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Council Member Lockhart.

Yes.

Council Member Newell?

Yes.

Council Member Harrison.

Yes.

Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, item number four.

Consideration of ordinance 13-2026 approving a developmental development code amendment to chapter 35.

Urban forestry creating a limit on rock mulch.

Kim.

Yes.

Um I think it's been two or three years ago we adopted some water conservation standards, and that was actually a requirement from the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.

Um we have existing standards in place.

There is currently not a limit on how much rock mulch you can use in any given landscape setting.

So this uh amendment would set a cap at 60% of your landscaped area, could be could contain rock mulch.

Um, one thing I would want to make sure we keep in mind is even in within that 60 percent, you still have to have 50 percent plant coverage.

So it's just talking about the mulch that you would put in around your plantings.

Um the reason that this has come up as a concern.

I I think it was originally raised by the parks department.

They've seen some issues with when you have too much rock mulch around your trees and the the it can absorb a lot of heat in the summer and reflect that heat and it causes issues with plants, not just trees, but other plants.

So they felt like there should be some kind of a an upper limit.

Uh there was a lot of debate if you read the planning commission minutes and they um went back and forth over to different percentages and ended up landing back on the 60 percent.

I think the the original proposal was 30 percent.

It would have limited it much more, but in discussions with engineering and parks and everyone, we settled on that 60 percent number.

We all felt good about that.

It was it limits the amount but not extreme.

I know there's concerns um with our own road projects, for example, that uh that that would cause some difficulty to to not be able to use more rock mulch than uh 30 percent.

So anyways, that's where we land that's where the planning commission's recommendation landed.

That's where the current draft is with a limit of 60 percent rock mulch.

So happy to answer any other questions on the the draft.

So anyone in the audience that came to speak to this item.

Please state your name.

Eileen Miller with the Utah Valley Home Builders Association.

Um two years ago in February when the Utah Valley Conservancy District started their flip the uh strip program.

Um Provo City appeared before my government affairs committee, and in that committee we have several builders.

Well, in an effort um to conserve water and to try to um basically do a pilot program on rock mulch.

Um some of the builders had had uh gone ahead before it was ever uh proposal and had tried this out as part of their landscape.

It was really interesting when uh Provost City showed up to our committee hearing because we were able to convince them to do their own conservancy program.

Provocity, as you know, has a lot of trees down the centers of their streets, and and um they're very proud of that because there's a lot of shaded areas to park.

Um but anyway, through the course of that um that meeting, we were able to convince them based on the builders' testimonies that those who had tried it in their landscape before found that putting rock up against a foundation radiates cold in those in the winter, which increased the heating bills, and radiated heat in the summer, which increased the cooling bills.

So one of the other things we've been going around with uh on water, which you know, he who owns the water rules the world right now, is people need to understand that water is really never lost, it's recycled, it's the most recycled substance in our of matter in our universe.

And so people need to understand that um there's an ecosystem that's under the dirt that is very vital to for vegetation to grow in.

Um one of the uh officials from Spanish Fork, um, the chief building official there, he testified that one of the problems that they had with the um drip pro the drip systems, they require a high amount of maintenance, and they're constantly being replaced.

And also the plants that rely on those, they lose more than half of them.

So it all goes down to the radiation of the heat and the cold that has to do with rock mulch.

So that's something that you might want to consider.

So Provo abandoned their support for the Utah water uh district conservancy districts program, and they came up with their own, and they what they did is they held the big meeting between all of the departments in their city, and they brainstormed and came up with their own.

So you might want to talk to Provo City and see how they resolved a lot of that issue, but it is a big problem.

Um a lot of uh what happens too is that you a lot of weeds, and then you're using a lot of chemicals to kill the weeds, and there's a uh layer of sediment that that gathers over time between the rocks.

So they grow a lot of weeds, and it before long it becomes a very um unsightly.

And um, so anyway, you might want to talk to Provo City and see um how they resolve their issues with this.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other comments on this?

Okay, so we'll close comments, bring it back to the dias.

Any questions or comments for Kim?

Mr.

Mayor, if I may.

Um for Kim.

For so my front yard is zero escaped, uh, is how we purchased the home.

Um I heard that if someone was were to take it right from rock mulch or zero escape to grass, that there's an appropriate is there an approval process through that to be able to do that because obviously you're using additional water.

Um I heard I heard that and I wasn't sure if that was true or not, so I wanted to ask.

Yeah, no, and I I probably should have clarified.

I mean it's all I guess relevant to the overall discussion, but the standards that we're talking about tonight are only for non-residential uses.

Residential homes are mentioned in our standards, but it's all recommendations.

There's no fixed requirements.

It just says that we we encourage homeowners to follow the same principles, but it's not a firm standard.

So these would apply more to you know your office building, your your commercial projects, churches, things like that.

So I was wondering on um H 35-12.

It talks about the park strips for non-residential and multifamily residential each.

This is the very top.

It says um and should contain at least 50% living plant cover, and then it talks about organic mulch should be used within three feet of tree chunks.

But then it says exceptions to the park strip requirements may be provided for public agencies, comma, including Lehigh City, comma administered transportation projects.

So is it is it trying to say there's exceptions for public agencies or just transportation projects that are administered for public agencies?

I don't that's not clear.

There's no what what like what is that?

What does that mean?

The intent was whether it's UDOT or Lehigh City um road projects could be exempt.

A lot of times we'll put improvements in in an area where you uh sometimes even the downtown we put park strips in and the homeowners don't want to maintain a park strip, so uh we've used rock in those areas just as to put something in there instead of just leaving it dirt.

And and I know UDOT has similar areas where it's just it's hard to maintain.

Um I think that's partly why Pioneer Crossing landscape didn't last very long and it got a ban and it was dangerous for park staff to go out into the median.

So I think it's trying to allow those situations.

I don't know, Lauren, if you have any other thoughts, but if it's not clear, we're happy to string them out.

Yeah, yeah.

I think it's just tough sometimes those areas uh it's narrow road, it's really tough to maintain it.

Uh some of these actually mentioned pioneer.

After a while, we wouldn't even send our crews out because it's so dangerous to be in that middle where you're maintaining some of this.

In Pleasant Grove, they actually do have some of the middle, and they take care of, but it's scary when they go out.

I watch them and so it it's the intent is to give us an opportunity.

We that doesn't mean we can't put it in.

It just uh gives us the opportunity if we need sometimes on the freeway, they don't want to water it.

We don't want to have it watered, and so you'll see those rock models.

But the I think they try to make them more artistic the best they can.

I just wanted to clarify the exception wasn't for all public agencies, it's for public, it's for public agency transportation or administered transformation projects only, not for like Lehigh C Lehigh City as an exception.

It's just for the transportation project part of it, right?

That's what we're saying.

We're not saying around City Hall or anything like that.

I think I would be good to probably say that it's for transportation projects.

Just the way it's worded, it's a little it's a little confusing.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions?

I'm happy to talk about a motion.

I'm happy I'm happy to accept one, Councilmember who will uh Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve ordinance 13-2026 approving a development code amendment to chapter 35 urban forestry, creating a limit on a rock mulch, and include the DRC Commons.

I have a first from Councilmember Newell and second I would like to include Councilmember Freeman's changes.

If do you have a what you'd like it to be?

Um I would think instead, where's that?

On D 2.

It would say exceptions to the parkship requirements may be provided for public agencies administrator administered transportation projects.

And then in parentheses, you can put including Lehigh City.

I just think that makes more sense.

Would if you'll adopt that, then I'll second that.

Yep.

Okay, seconded.

So second by council member Lockhart.

Any questions on that?

Councilmember Blockell, we'll start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Council Member Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Thank you.

That's the last item there.

We have one additional item tonight, and it's the discussion of mixed use zoning requirements.

And it's the discussion of mixed use zoning requirements.

This one we transfer from our previous meeting, so there'll be no public comment on this.

Kim, I'll turn it over to you for the to lead the discussion.

Okay, thank you.

So we have a our our mixed use zone currently allows multi-family as a standalone use.

Our primary focus in a lot of what's in our current code is Main Street and State Street, those two historical areas.

There are a few other areas, for example, North Center Street where Ivory Ridge, that that area is mixed use.

It's within their area plan, but it's designated as mixed use.

So really a lot of the focus isn't on these historical state and main areas.

So as we've had some projects come in, um specifically some of these standalone, we had a residential project.

I think it's been about a year, maybe a year and a half ago, come in on State Street.

And the question was, you know, shouldn't we always require commercial with a mixed-use project?

If we really want true mixed use, let's have a set requirement for the commercial component.

So we looked at it.

The first approach was just a very straightforward, you know, any mixed-use project, you've got to have 10% minimum commercial.

But as we did some research and looked at other cities, not only in Utah but outside of Utah, what we found is that you can end up with projects that are kind of defunct because it's hard to force commercial.

I think you've all seen as we've developed, it's hard to you know guarantee that you're gonna have a commercial use in certain areas.

The commercial tends, you know, it's very fickle and it needs certain criteria with rooftops and things like that, location.

So the current draft is trying to strike a balance between we we want to avoid those single use, just straight residential projects, but then we don't want to get so restrictive that we lock everything down because somebody might have a piece that's a little bit off the main road and there's no real true viability for the commercial.

So I guess just to summarize really quick.

Um, what we've done is uh we've tried to break it down for projects over two acres and projects under two acres.

So if you're over two acres, we actually would like to require that you have more of a unified plan.

So there could be multiple owners within that two acres, uh, or it you know, maybe they consolidate and buy up a bunch of properties and and it's one developer.

But if it's over two, we feel like they have an opportunity to do a little bit more master planning and actually require in that larger property that they have a certain percent commercial, which we're proposing would be 10%.

Um then on the smaller projects that are less than two acres, um, you could have standalone residential, but you would have to show certain things, like if it was within I think it's 600 feet of an existing commercial area.

So that we're trying to show, you know, if they can prove that hey, we're we're still contributing to this mixed use area.

We may not have commercial in our building, but we're close by commercial, so people who live there still have access to that, and it creates this mixed-use neighborhood that we're after.

Um it it also has a few other exemptions.

If it's less than six units, there is no requirement uh for the commercial if it's just six or less residential units.

Some of the other things um we do we do feel really strongly if if we could when we tried to identify if they have actual frontage on Main Street, State Street, or if they do choose to do more of a master plan and they have a a street, let's say, you know, if we took State Street and they have a street within their project that directs people towards the future transit station, and we know that's gonna be a more of an active corridor where you'll have people walking.

We want to see that commercial on the ground floor, so we would require it in those instances.

The other um flexible part that we feel like we should include is um let's say a project, you know, we don't have the transit yet.

Somebody wants to build something near that future station on along State Street, but it may be you know five, ten years before we really feel like the viability is there for commercial, so they can build the building in a way that sets up that ground floor for retail when the time is ready when it's ripe, but in the meantime they could use it as residential, so it would kind of phase into it.

So anyways, those are I think those are kind of the basics of what we're proposing.

But we are, you know, we don't claim that this is a perfect ordinance.

That's why it's on for just a general discussion.

We'd love to hear your feedback.

Are we generally heading in the a direction you like?

Or would you like to go more towards just you know, we just have a firm requirement, 10% any project and call it good.

So thanks, Kim.

Any any comments, Councilmember Dohl.

I know when we talked about this, Kim, like I I would I wanted it to be really close to TOD and uh 30%.

And you and you explained why you were concerned about that.

I almost wonder though, if we had other um depending on the size of the project, as they get as the size and acreage goes up, maybe we can increase that requirement.

I can understand where there was a concern where if it's under two acres and some of these smaller ones, but maybe when they're larger in size, we can get we can have a higher requirement of and just seeing if you felt like that would that would still work within your concerns.

Um also I think it an important part of that is that the um 30% of housing needs to be for um individual ownership.

So and that was also paralleling with the the TOD.

But yeah, I was wondering if we might be able to kind of get that range.

I know the other council members when they have talked about this too that you know to be able to try and get more commercial, so maybe there's ways that we can do that and make sure that mixed use does have that component.

Yeah, no, I think it's a good idea.

Yeah, for me, I would support increasing the um minimum of non-residential.

I I think you know, this kind of first from my observation of the previous council kind of first surfaced when we're looking at they were looking at TODs versus mixed use and TOD has a requirement, but mixed use doesn't, so oftentimes mixed use is just using an excuse to build identity, and then there's none of the actual mixed part of it, right?

Um so I would is I I think I would love to see that increased in all plots of land facets of that.

Um one question I had was um would would parking requirements be in here or isn't that separate parking table?

Yeah, they're in the separate parking table.

Okay.

And then under C3 and D2, um it talks about how if let's see, I'm trying to look here, so I know exactly where page 38-18.

Um, how if there's alternative phasing and that if the applicant demonstrates that site, blah blah blah.

Anyways, the planning commission can approve this alternative phasing.

Is that something that the planning commission normally does?

Is that something that could just you know come back to city council?

I just really like having things go to city council if possible instead of planning commission.

I know that there's certain requirements for planning commission to have certain items, but I just really like having elected officials make decisions about things like that.

Yeah, yeah, we could put the council in place of the planning commission for sure.

So that would be I think on 38-18, there's it's C3, and then I believe it's down the next page.

It says D2 and also says as other community blah blah blah as approved by the planning commission.

So I would love it to not really skip city council, I guess.

So if you say planning commission and city council, or if to make it easier for the I don't know if that makes it easier for the applicant, if it makes it harder, I'd like it to be easier for the applicant personally.

I want us to have development that's smart and balanced and and um thoughtful, and so whatever way we can do that.

Would you support still having it go through the planning commission process but end with the city council, right?

Is that what I mean?

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, I just think that it shouldn't end with planning commission if it if it can go through an elected body, I believe it should go ahead.

Um I Kim, I want to make sure I was understanding you correctly.

So if a par if a parcel under two acres is close enough to mixed use and they want to just have residential, they can make a claim that they're contributing to the commercial around them.

Um I take major issue with that.

Um I I don't know that just seems very odd from anything we've done in the past.

And I think it challenges some of the it challenges the use entirely.

The standard you should comply to.

If they want to create like a application around merging, you know, multiple property owners coming together with a grand idea, that's one thing.

But just because you happen to be near commercial doesn't mean you you're absolved of your commercial responsibilities.

And so I I that is a part of this that I have concerns with.

Chapter 5, it gives a kind of an overview, a really broad description of each zone.

But then with a lot of you know planned community, a lot of those zones, then it you have a whole chapter dedicated that drills down and gets into all the details.

So we it was just a way we felt like it might fit with the organization, but we're we're not married to that either.

If you want to move it somewhere else, we can I just wonder if it would be hard for people to find code.

Um you guys you didn't receive the you know, we have a the full draft, and the reason we didn't give you all of it because you have you know 12 pages that nothing changed on, but at the very beginning of that chapter, we would call it TOD and mixed use standards so that it's clear that both standards are in that chapter.

Okay, that makes sense.

Great, yeah, great question.

Um appreciate your work as always.

Um I do have a lot of concerns.

I I think mixed use has been a problem since the general plan got updated several years ago.

Um and one of the big problems that I don't see addressed in this um update is just how to distribute the maximum number of units allowed in each you know, pod of mixed use, I guess.

Um I haven't seen it lately, but um for a while we were getting people coming in who first come get gets all the density and leaves little for anybody else.

So I would love to see that addressed a little more or some at all.

Um the other thing is it's okay, never been a big fan of mixed use.

I just don't see it working very well as far as the walkability, you know, the intent there.

Um but as you pointed out, most of these are on State Street and on Main Street, and to me those are wonderful commercial corridors, and I get we have a stationary plan and that sort of thing.

Um but I would like to see more emphasis on the commercial part with the option to add some housing.

And right now it's kind of a default to me, it's kind of a high density workaround, right?

You know, it's a way to get high density and not necessarily the commercial, so it's not really a mixed use.

Um so I personally would like to see more emphasis on the commercial, especially in these areas and their yeah, um I I'm not thrilled with the idea of the I think it's in C2, the you know, there's a trigger, I guess, that 60% residential can receive the certificate of occupancy um while that main floor non-residential could just be an empty shell, and I just would hate to see a lot of empty building space on the bottom floor.

I you know, especially on the bottom floor, they'll have to build that anyway to get the rest of it.

So I'm not a big fan of that.

Um I agree with council member uh Freeman.

Um I want the final decisions um to come to the the city council.

Um the other thing too is there's a couple places where you just refer to the city.

This is one I see here is in uh C5, the city may approve a land use plan.

Um that need probably needs to be defined who who is at staff or if it's land use plan again, I like it to come back to city council.

But I think there were a couple of instances of that language.

Yeah so I those are the main things.

Deal with the residential area.

And honestly you know again a lot of us have been talking about the need to have more commercial um and if the direction you're going with mixed use is to have more apartments and a little bit of commercial you know that might be appropriate for some areas but maybe we might want to look at changing zoning then and make some areas just more commercial rather than mixed use another thought but it just slipped my mind so I guess I'll end there and I can email you if I it comes up thank you.

No great input thanks any other comments for Kim Kim does that give you a good road to run on a lot of notes so we'll go back to the draw that's perfect.

That's what we were hoping for.

Everyone's uh comfortable with council given so that's great.

Well to end our meeting tonight I appreciate the council appreciate each of you who have come and and participated it's important that you come and hear and see and have an opportunity to speak so we do appreciate that you came tonight.

With that I'll take a motion to adjourn the meeting so moved I second it's a that is the longest wait I've ever been so much fun we don't want to leave Councilmember Newell and I have a second from council member Freeman it was me that Councilmember Blockhart all in favor?

Okay.

Thank you again for coming so like silence I might have