I used to sit next to Ryan, but I thought this is a good idea.

I know I didn't know.

I guess both of them.

No, it's awesome.

Oh, easy.

It looks like you can swap or share with us.

Yeah.

We're back to rearranging things.

Oh, you're here.

Well, I'm the left.

So I was like, yes, can I get the left side so I don't elbow people?

It's like what's working with.

Thanks for being here.

Oh, you found one?

I am.

Aren't you?

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.

Uh everyone hear me okay?

Wow, this is kind of nice.

Uh welcome to the city council chambers for today's work session agenda.

Today's April 13th.

Uh there's no clock in here, so this is gonna be interesting.

It's four o'clock straight up.

Anyway, we will go ahead and get started.

We do have a full council today.

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

And we appreciate their attendance.

We also appreciate your attendance today.

Uh today is a work session, so re reminder that there will not be any public comment.

Um but we welcome you and are glad that you've come to participate with us today.

I've asked Councilmember Harrison if he'd offer an invocation to start our meeting today.

Our dear Father in Heaven, we are grateful that we were able to gather together as a council to work for the best interests of the city and the residents of Lehigh.

We are grateful for all the blessings that we've received.

We're grateful for this new building where we can uh conduct the business of the city and that the library is here and the citizens can utilize this building as well.

We are grateful for our first responders, and we asked for a special blessing upon them that they may be safe, they may return home to their families every night, and they may know how appreciative we are of their service.

We ask for thy spirit to be with us to help guide and direct us to do what's best for the city of Lehigh.

We say this in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Amen.

Thank you, Councilmember Harrison.

Okay, we'll get started uh with item number two, two A is Matt.

Matt is here.

Matt, welcome to the Snap, you're the first.

So we welcome you.

We'll turn some time over to you.

I know we wanted to kick off this like uh this new legacy and Lehigh with a park tax discussion, but if it can come up.

We have someone to pull down the screen.

So uh maybe while they're figuring that out for the benefit of the public, this is a carry-on of a discussion from a couple weeks ago when we were talking about the recommendations from the park tax committee.

Um we wanted to go back, have each council member go through and do a proposal of how they wanted to allocate.

So I have that here today.

We can go through and we can talk about any other adjustments or changes that we want to make.

The hope is after we've had this discussion today to come back in a couple weeks with a resolution on awarding the contracts.

So, I think that's a good idea.

Are you able to see this on your screens?

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

From the back row.

We're working on it, sorry.

In the meantime, feel free to discuss with what you can see.

Uh if you have anything that you want to discuss, you can go right ahead.

I don't know if you want to take these one by one.

Or if you want to just kind of take a couple that you didn't agree on or whatever.

So feel free.

I I think how do I work this microphone?

What do I do?

Is it working?

Do we push?

They should be on.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Oh okay.

Um I think it would be great if you wouldn't mind just saying the organization and if and just say three or more agreed, and we if anyone has any issues with it.

If not, we'll just consider it good.

Okay.

Is that that helps just kind of move?

Does that work?

Yep, we can work through that line by line, sure.

Okay.

So you can't see it, but you can see it.

We can see it.

So at the top is the Chabata of Utah County.

Um I've listed in a column over on the right.

If three or more council members have agreed on an amount, that is 10,000.

I think we were everyone pretty much agreed on that one.

The next one.

The Frituro Foodsol Academy Foundation, no recommendation for that one.

The Park Text Committee didn't recommend any funding on that either.

The grassroots Shakespeare Company.

Any comments on that one?

Following was Harrington Center for the Arts.

A recommendation of 20,000.

We had four recommend 20,000.

There was a recommendation.

So zero on that one.

Then we have a Hutchings Museum for their storage security.

That one, a recommended amount was 45,000.

That was unanimous or 45,000.

I think it was 4500, but I'm reading the line underneath.

It's not a really big storage facility.

4500 was unanimous.

The following one was 45,000 for the staff support.

That was also recommended.

Thanks, Rachel.

It's kind of hard to see it at a slant.

And talking to the microphone here.

And then the Lehigh Area Music Association.

Then for the Lehigh Arts Council for their show rights.

A unanimous recommendation for 48,650.

For the Lehigh Arts Council for the new mover lights.

Any comments.

Okay.

Then for the Lehigh Historical Society and Archives.

Who is it for their operating expenses request?

All recommended at least 98,748.

But a couple recommended something higher than that.

Is that something we want to talk about?

Matt, can I just ask a question about that?

So I guess I should check.

So the full amount that they requested included the money for the pins, right?

Yeah, there's the pins and also the trading cards.

So I added back in the trading cards and kept the pins out.

So you did the trading cards of the trading cards in.

I would add that too because they're not.

And so if they don't get the money for next year, they won't get to do them next year.

So I I would change mine to match Heather's at the 102.

That's where I was at too.

That I think they're gonna be a big hit, and I'd feel bad that next year the fourth graders wouldn't get them and would have like the slow year.

So well that's two.

I'll also change to 102.

And my 106 included that, so we're oh that's true.

So that then are we saying 102, 498?

I think there's consensus.

Okay.

Okay, the Lee High the Lehigh Roundup Rodeo had a recommended amount of 90,000.

We had at least four carry that forward for 90,000.

Matt, was there any specific thing they were going to use that for?

This was just the help put on the rodeo.

Um the reasoning they gave us on the committee was look we have regular operating expenses for the rodeo that we have to invest funding for.

But next year we have significant capital costs because UTA wants us to move bleachers, restrooms.

So they're trying to save money this year for next year because they know they're going to have significant costs that they have to cover next year.

Okay.

It looks like it'll pass anyway, and so my position is I want to stick really closely to state statute, and if it the city owns the facilities, correct?

Or we do, right?

Lehigh owns the yeah.

Okay.

So that would fit under um recreation facility, possibly.

Maybe not.

Never mind.

It passes anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Okay.

Love the rodeo, just not sure if it fits is the dilemma.

Anything else on that?

Okay.

Um we have Nashville and the Rockies.

They want to do a music fest.

There's a recommended for 6,000.

We had at least care three carry that forward for 6,000.

Then we have uh one from Thanksgiving Point Institute for their GrowTech Gardens.

Um that didn't receive more than three, so right now it's zero.

Any questions on that one?

Okay.

Can we make an argument for it?

Um I think that it does fit if you look at we look we're looking at natural history and what they're doing is it's specifically for um plants which have to do with natural history and studying them for children.

And I wouldn't I agree with the park committee where they um see Thanksgiving Point requested 146,000 and the park committee went recommended 87,000, and I thought that that was appropriate.

Um that's my reasoning, but I know we have limited funds, so yeah, I'm I'm supportive of O2.

I agree with your points that it absolutely fits.

Um I I know that we have other funding that's that we are approving for Thanksgiving Point.

I'd really like to see something that I think Thanksgiving Point has so many things that are amazing for our community, and I would love and they've done so much to make them accessible to those who are low-income and students.

I'd love to just see ways we can make them even more accessible to our community because I they continue to add more things, and it's this of a you know great thing, and the biggest thing I hear back from residents is that it's it's too hard for us to be able to afford to go.

So I want to find ways that we can get our residents into these amazing facilities.

Okay.

So would you like to recommend 87 Heather?

I would I would be supported if somebody else wanted to also join with Rachel.

Yeah.

But that would be my plea to Thanksgiving point, is that's what I would I would love to see more of that.

So talking about like a resident discount for something.

Yeah, and then they do residential days too.

They have residential weeks and that.

I think there's just ways that we can get the word out more and be able to have more offerings, even if it is like a discount on memberships too.

So I mean it's a it's a conversation we can continue if no one else wants to support it.

I'm happy to continue this at a future date.

Yeah.

Okay.

Move on.

Okay.

Um United Angels had a application for a sensory friendly lunar new year celebration.

That was $800.

That didn't receive more than three.

So that's zero right now.

They also proposed an adaptive and inclusive spring break minicamp for 1,215.

That did receive three, well, four.

So 1,215 is the recommended amount for now.

They also had an application for special needs teens and adult social and life skills activities that received three recommendations for $828.

And then the rest of these we had Utah Football Association didn't receive recommendation or recommendation from park tax nor from council.

We had a Wasatch Contemporary Dance Company.

The Park Tax recommended 12,000, but didn't receive any support from council set zero.

And then wrap the world with quilts for their Lee High Service Events and Lee High School events.

Didn't receive any recommendation.

So those are both zero.

And then the park tax committee did recommend some operating expenses for them of 30,000, but that was not carried by the majority of the council.

So that's zero right now.

I can just say on that, like um appreciate Rachel's comment too, because I do think the quilt making is an art.

I would love to see in the future if there was some because I I want it more than just tying quilts that want the and last year we did fund a significant amount to wrap the world in quilts for different rooms and things like that.

So I I think it's something that we can revisit in the future, but I really want it tied to more than the service side, the actual art making and that side of it.

Yeah, I I would echo that.

There it is a true craft uh quilt making, and it'd be so great to continue to see that side of it emphasized and supported.

So I'm I'll just throw this out here now.

Um I did say this is the last council meeting.

I think we have to be very careful to follow the state code on what the definition is.

And I I feel that you know we want to fund everything, right?

And we can't.

We just there's just not enough money to do everything.

Um so when we start um going beyond looking beyond what the primary purpose of the organization is to kind of say, well, it could be this or that.

You could do that for well, I think all of them have justified their themselves as an art and cultural organization.

Um this year we have a lot left over from previous years, but we're probably not gonna have that in the future.

Um and things might change.

So I I'm just one I want to follow the rule of law.

The second is we've we've got to be careful opening it up too broadly.

Um it's we can do that now, but that might not be probably won't be the possibility in future.

So my position is let's stick to strict reading of the language in Utah Law and look at organizations whose primary purpose meets the definition of a cultural organization.

And like wrapping the world in quilts, it's humanitarian, which is wonderful.

But this park grant, this is taxpayer dollars wasn't intended for those kind of purposes.

They might have other opportunities for grants or donations, but uh that's my position.

I you know, just please be careful going in the future.

We got a lot in the fund right now, but probably won't in the future as we spend that out.

Thanks.

Any other comments?

We'll move down.

So these next organizations were organizations that had been historically funded through general fund allocation.

Um the first one was Hutchings Museum.

Um that was request was for 260,000.

The park tax committee didn't make any recommendation for these, so these are uh dependent with well with what council recommended.

So with three or more, um, that's 260,000 in comments.

Yeah, um my gosh, sorry, I'm still getting used to the microphone.

Um I was the last council member to put my um numbers in on Tuesday night, and I saw that we had four people put 200,000 and one person put 260, and it's since changed.

So I would love to hear from those who have changed why they changed.

Um, I I would just love to understand my information given at the last meeting to me in the public meeting was that the Hutchings Museum could survive with 200,000 this year.

And so um that I thought was said on the record by a board member.

And so I think I just am curious like where the where the change came from, and could you help me understand that better?

Um I fully believe in the Hutchings um museum's mission and I like support them.

I think this just confused me from our last meeting to this meeting.

So I'd love to learn more about why the why the change of heart.

Yeah, and this is kind of probably the problem with putting in numbers so early.

I put mine in right the day you asked for them.

Um and more information becomes available and decisions change.

That's probably why you wait till the meeting to vote to commit to anything.

But talking to the staff, they just they said if it comes to that we can we can survive.

Um we would have to the board would have to work really hard to do fundraising to find new revenue sources.

And I spoke with the board and who does um more involved in the accounting side, I guess, and they're like it would be very, very difficult if not impossible.

And and they made a good point that it's not it's not really fair to them.

So they they in good faith did what was asked by the city council and staff to seek this funding for the park grant, which is what it's intended for, and that frees up money in our general fund to provide for those core city services.

Um so they did that, never expecting that it wouldn't get fully funded because they all of these organization well I'll say Hutchings Museum definitely qualifies under the definition um being a cultural organization, that's their primary purpose, and being located within the city of Lehigh.

Um it it really wasn't fair to spring this on them the last minute, and it would be quite a struggle for them to get by without what they were expecting to cover their operation cost.

And again, going through state code.

Um that to me that was the intent that it it talks about the um there's a purpose statement and it talks about having adequate and predictable funding for these organizations.

Um they were expecting this, or of course not entitled to it, but again, the tentative state code is to provide that kind of funding for them and to cover ongoing operations for these kinds of um cultural nonprofit organizations.

So me personally, after learning more about that and hearing from them, I thought it was appropriate to fund them, and we have the money so we can do that.

Um I'll just add that that was my understanding is I think it was probably Friday, um, where I heard that the 200 actually was far below what they would need to survive for this next year.

So I was happy to increase it.

Um the one thing I'd just add, I mean, being in the park grant process, it's a competitive grant process.

Um my goal, and I think I'm not out of turn in saying that we all love the Hutchings Museum and we want to see the Hutchings Museum survive long term and actually increase the revenue, increase foot traffic.

Um this this year is unusual.

I I don't feel fully comfortable giving over $300,000 to one organization.

Um however, I know that uh Hutchings Museum needs a little bit of time to to financially uh get on their feet.

And so for me, um while I'm on the council, I think for this initial year, giving them fair warning to um that you know this this amount may not always be the same amount.

Um next year I'd like to see that far closer to a total of 200,000 personally, because I think that that freed up funding will allow for other organizations to uh other qualified organizations to receive funding to support their operations and programs.

So that's that's why I know this year it's a lot, um, but I'd like to see that go down next year.

My take on it is that we not me, but the city had committed previously to the 260,000 for them, uh whether I like it or not.

Um just like the city committed to 100,000 for Thanksgiving Point previously, and I am a person of integrity.

I like to keep my word and I would like to keep city's word previously in their obligations.

However, I agree with Councilman Harrison that I think that it is a lot for one organization.

Um I received an email from the board of directors on Saturday morning explaining their financial situation.

And and since at one point they were a department of the city, this that relationship has changed.

But there's people on the board of directors that I trust their I trust their um I guess if they're if they're saying this is something this is you know, this was a commitment made, like I'll honor that um and this year, and let's have some conversations about in the future.

But you know, Mike Southwick, former city council, Steve Marchbanks, he's our parks director, Michelle Stallings, um, people that I feel like uh know the situation better than I do.

And um so I'm I'm going with that, even though I do think it's it's a significant amount of the park tax that I would like I would I don't know if it should be it should be that much going forward.

Sure.

So um uh again my issue is what what's a qualifying organization?

And there are a lot of asks and I guess what direction does the council intend to go with the park tax in the future.

So if we say we're gonna fund Hutchings Museum less, which I've talked to them about because the park grant is not guaranteed when it expires, you know, at the end of its ten years, it might not be voted on again, you know.

So I think it it's wise to prepare for that eventuality.

But while we have the park grant, is the intent of the other members of the council to fund just various organizations, even if they're questionable as to whether they meet the state definition or if they're located outside the organization itself is located outside of the city because there's two parts in state code where it specific specifically says within the city or in the city.

Um what is the direction GUC with the park grant?

Um funding multiple requests and small amounts, using it for um those nonprofits that do qualify, I mean solid qualifications, right?

Um even though it's a larger amount, I just kind of I think and the Hutchings Museum and the Historic Society and those other organizations probably need to know the direction the council wants to go on that as much as you can, you know, tell looking forward just to so they can be prepared to know how to handle things in the future.

Yeah, I think that's a ugly um question.

I like Councilmember Stallings like I see the what the thought process befying really adhering to the policies and the code.

The big concern I have over the 260 is one we were told they don't need that much, um, but also it violates the policy of 50 percent of the operating expenses, significantly violates that policy.

And so I think that in the in the future in the vision of what we're trying to accomplish, I would love, like you said, to be very close to, you know, as close as possible to those um the code and the policies, but we're clearly willing to make some exceptions here.

Um and so yeah, I think that's a great question to ask of us, and we do need to become united for the clarity of the organizations of what what the path is forward.

Um I would like to get organizations to a place where they feel like this is a supplementary to what they have.

This isn't the only thing they have.

Um it'd be great if this was some form of a match of like what we can do.

Um, but I I it does concern me that we're we're making a large exception for the 50% policy, um, which feels like a violation for the other organizations who didn't request maybe if they had known they would have asked for more, right?

Um so yeah, I think the asking for the bright line of clarity is absolutely warranted, and I'm concerned that we're we're not adhering to the rules that have been put in place.

That's that's fair.

Matt, can you clarify though?

Is policy something that the council is beholden to, or is it just a guideline?

I mean, to me, state law and what was on the ballot proposition, that it has to be adhered to.

But as far as policy, is it well the policy is adopted opinion.

Um I don't know the full history of it, Jason.

Do you know?

Of the 50 percent.

That's not in code, right?

It's not in order.

That's that's the yeah, I mean, I think there is language in a policy that it's at the discretion of the council.

So I I don't know, Ryan.

Yeah.

It doesn't have the force of state code or city ordinance, but it's definitely I mean the intention, I think it's been a while, but was to yeah, have instead of just every year a new set of guidelines, something to guide your decision making.

But if there's if there's reason to stray from it that doesn't violate state law, then you can do that.

Okay.

But I mean, to Councilmember Lockhart's point, I think it is fair to have clear guidelines for those who are applying for this.

So if we want to if we feel comfortable with that the policy criteria going forward, we could keep it, we can reevaluate it as well, I think.

But yeah.

Just to a point.

Oh, sorry.

No, they're good.

I didn't see you searching for you're so far away now.

I know.

Um, I think we have we're told we have 600,000.

I think Michelle, you were the most um, you know.

You looked at the at these these cultural organizations, the closest with the with the the closest eye um, and I think even then the total that you came up with was 74, 743,000, which is above that funding balance.

So I think in the future, even if we're having these organizations meet that you know, letter exact of the law and all the things, we're gonna have to make some tough decisions about where the money goes because that's right there, it's 143,000 over.

And um, yeah.

So even if they meet the guidelines and all the criteria, they might not end up with the full funding.

That's where a close look of policy might come into play is deciding between those.

If when we run out of the reserves, I suppose.

Um yeah, I guess I think these organizations probably would be grateful to have some clear direction going forward and understanding of what where you're at on it, what you'd like to see from the park grant, I guess.

Yeah, I'll just add in going back that um I had in 200,000 as well because that's when talking with the board member, that's what he said that they would be okay with.

And then I didn't receive that email until this morning.

There was a misspelling.

So I never think the intent was for any of us was to put the Hutchings Museum into a place that it was unoperationable.

And so I I totally see the need this year to not spring it on them and to be able to use this year, as James has said, to be able to look at some of these things.

I I would love to see some stipulations put in with it more as like a guideline to help, you know, to have an audit to look and see if they have the right number of employees for what they're doing.

Also, if you consider everything that Lehigh is putting into the Hutchings Museum, not just this, but the fact that it's maintenance and utilities, the rent is free.

Um it ends up being that Lehigh City is paying for over like 90% of this for something that we don't oversee.

It's a nonprofit.

And so we need to carefully look at that and see is this the right model?

I know if we, you know, we said this is the 260 is something that the city promised.

Well, that was back in 2017 for one year.

And this the intent was always that this was going to become something that where they can become self-sufficient.

And it's not to cut them off and say, now go swim, is how do we support that and make sure they have all the tools that they need and that they can be able to have the grant writers and be able to test it out.

You know, the other thing I'm looking at too, the number of tickets that are sold, it's not enough.

We aren't getting our residents in there.

Um if the city is funding this, maybe we need to talk about a pricing model that makes more sense because we want people in there.

Like if we're gonna have this facility and we're contributing this much to it, we need to have more than 20 visitors a day in there, and that we really value and appreciate it.

So what are we doing from our side to make sure that they have all the tools that they need, and there's other um people who are experts in this area in the city where we can use them for you know helping and consulting.

But I would love to see something where we go through and say, here's some things that we want to see.

We want to see an operational audit, and we want to be able to see that you have the right people in place.

We want to make sure you have um the right tools to be successful, how to make sure that your events are reaching everybody.

I don't want to think that we've you know set some kind of stipulation or guideline here and then we let them go an entire year and they come back and said, you know, we weren't we weren't able to do it.

So I think there's there's part of this on us too.

But at the end of the day, these are nonprofits, they're not under the city, and this is the proper place for them to be funded is through the park tax grant.

It's not um other than, you know, we were pulling in Thanksgiving Point, which had an agreement with the city.

Um so I I that is kind of something we're doing different here, but these should be funding through park tax and not through general fund.

And we are going to get to the point where there's going to be 600,000 and there's going to be a lot of these organizations that we really care about.

So whatever we can do to help as liaisons and other parts of the city to be able to get them to the point that we want to see them at, then we need to take that on our shoulders too.

I just sorry to comment just to be clear, they are a private organization.

And if we ask for them to do an audit, we'd have to ask every applicant to do an audit.

I mean, that's fair.

And also just wanted to point out that we have multiple nonprofits that are using city facilities that we're paying for the utilities.

The historic society, the Lehigh's Art Lehigh Art Council, the Curtis Center.

So I don't think it's fair to single out Hutchings Museum.

Um it's because they're they're receiving over 90% of the revenue from Lehigh.

If the other organizations were that high too, I would see doing the same kind of thing.

Okay, but as far as the facilities they're using, I don't know if that's a justification to have a lot of people.

No, it's just saying how much that the city is contributing.

And because the city is contributing so much, let's look at ways that, like, for example, the ticket pricing.

Is that helping them or hurting them?

I think there's things this is to help them.

It's not to hurt them in any way.

It's it's to be able to make them sustainable.

Yeah, to me, it kind of is like when you uh have your parents co-sign your mortgage, you know that they're gonna probably have a little input to what happens a little bit more than if you're just independent by yourself.

And just if we're contributing that much to their operating costs, I do see how there are going to be questions.

Um I don't feel comfortable going in and auditing or doing any of that at this point, but I'm just these are these are I think I understand these points, and I think it it makes sense what you're saying, because when there are guidelines that say 50% of operating costs, I mean maybe we look at that and we say, you know, 75%.

I don't know.

But if if it is a significant amount over that amount of operating costs percentage wise, I can see um how there needs to be there there could be some concerns about that.

Well, and the historic society, I think we I'm not gonna say 100%, but I think we do probably like 90% of their operating costs.

They don't charge for a lot of the things they do.

Um some of their fundraisers don't actually add much to their fund.

Um so again, I'm just uh I felt like Hutchings Museum was kind of targeted in the recommendations when we need to look at the other organizations as well, their operating costs, the what the city's contributing from the build the buildings they use.

I'm not opposed to that.

But if we're you know we're gonna pick on the Hutchies Museum, let's let's be fair about it and look at the others as well.

That's why originally I had less for the historical society personally, and I had less for the rodeo.

Like I I and then I changed my things on my on the spreadsheet because I read all of your comments and arguments.

That's good point.

Yeah, and um council members, I my first time through the process.

So if I've missed something, um, but I don't think there's another organization that's received around three million dollars over the past decade for right.

So 260,000 for almost a decade, but that's about you know it's plus maintenance and building costs and utilities, we're close to about three million over the past decade.

I I do think the taxpayers like it's time for some accountability, but not singled out.

Like I hear what you're saying.

I just think there's definitely time, and all of that came from the general fund, which gives me heartache.

Um so I really appreciate you and Councilmember Newell and the previous council for shifting it because um general fund, you know, and the part we've had that discussion, so I'll stop it there.

But um this is no surprise to anyone if you look at tomorrow's agenda, there is a potential property tax increase coming before this council.

And I recognize these are different buckets of funding, but two weeks ago I was um listening, you know, to our meeting as we were debating and I was told all about how we have so many funds in the city.

And I agree, we do.

And um it's really hard to think about going to residence and saying it's time you pay more.

But we're we're not telling the organizations that we are supporting through this bucket of funds to tighten up.

And I think it's it's I if you guys can help me process through some of that, but it's definitely a challenge that we're gonna go to the public and say that we're facing some costs that may merit an increase for your property taxes.

But these some of these entities that have said in a public meeting they will take the 200,000 and be okay, we're gonna give them more.

And and it's just hard for me to work through that.

If if any of you want to help me work through that, that's great.

I just don't know how to turn to the public and say you your costs are going up, but an entity who said they'll take less, it got more.

Excuse me.

I I thought I clarified that that I spoke to staff, and they said that they possibly could if that's what it came down to.

Because what I was hearing from other council members, they wanted to fund even less than the 200,000 dollars.

So the money is there.

It is tax the voters approved this, so they chose to add this additional tax to pay for these kind of things.

And I would love to see them dedicated to the intent in state law.

So this is not coming from taxpayers.

The fact that they moved, they were willing to move from general fund contributions to this park grant, which is still competitive, it frees up money in the general fund.

And that is one way that, at least me personally, I've I've worked hard on this last year trying to convince these organizations to take that step.

Um to me, that was one step that I did to be able to have less of burden on our own taxpayers and free up that money for the services it was intended for.

So it's I'm very comfortable going to the public and saying this is one thing that we are doing to free up money in the general funds to provide for the things that we need as a city.

And I I very much appreciate the organizations that were willing to do this.

It's much more paperwork, much more counting uh accountability for them.

Um but I think it's appropriate for them to get the funding for this park grant.

I think it's what it was intended for.

So I I'm very comfortable showing the our taxpayers that I'm working towards not having to increase their taxes.

Um but again, I'm so tell me if I'm right or wrong.

What I'm hearing is you intend to reduce their funding, and the purpose of that would be to provide for other organizations to receive.

So my intent is not to reduce their funding.

I'm not saying that now, but I'm saying looking at even the bare minimum of organizations that meet the standard would be 743,000.

We have 600,000.

So someone is not going to get fully funded, and I don't know who.

I I can't say now because I haven't seen the applications for the future, but I just there's a lot of that fit the criteria.

And so that's kind of the point I was gonna make as well.

Um, along with Rachel, is right now we have a benefit of about $570,000 in reserve fund that has been collected but hasn't been granted out.

We're dipping into that pretty significantly this year.

There may be one more year where we can do that, and then we're back to about 600 between six and seven hundred thousand dollars per year.

And so my perspective, my personal goal is to make sure that each organization has a fair shot, it's qualified, whether it's Hutchings or Thanksgiving Point or Historical Society or any other number of um grant applicants.

And then ensuring that just from a view of government perspective, that we're not the sole source to help any organization, whether it's a 501c or anything else as like the sole source of survival.

So I'd like, again, like I think this helps Hutchings.

Um I know that Thanksgiving Point has reached out to offer help to Hutchings in different forms and versions, and I'd really like to see Hutchings take them up on that.

I think Thanksgiving Point's been a very I mean they didn't have to do that at all.

They just did it because they're a good part of our community.

So I think anything on the table to help them get on their feet, and then we can more fairly um allocate funds that isn't like, well, we're gonna fall apart if we don't do it, sort of situation.

Just to clarify a couple of things.

Uh my statements are not to pick on the museum.

This is actually to support the museum, because if we don't make some of these changes in supporting them, it's gonna be really hard for this to go on in perpetuity.

So that that is definitely not a pick on.

It is how can we better help?

Because I don't I don't think we've been able to do that in the way that they need it.

Um so I if it was taken in any way like that, that is not the intent.

Um the other port too is you know, when we originally started this, we were talking about 600,000 in park tax funding without talking about the reserve.

The intent was never to defund anybody or make it so that it they weren't gonna be able to be successful.

The hope was to start moving everything to the park tax, and we would still have to have some kind of a lift with the general fund.

But the intent is to have the general fund be for the purpose of the general fund is for, and park tax to be for the purpose of the park taxes for, as you see in other cities.

I think Lehigh's been very unique and unusual to have these outside organizations funded with general fund money.

Um, but I think this is gonna be a little bit tough, and luckily we do have those reserves to make this transition year.

But the intent I don't think I've heard from anybody on council to um make it so these organizations were not operational.

It's like it was always that's where the 200,000 came from.

I understood that there was a uh miscommunication there and that you know they do need the the 260 this year.

Um I'm totally willing to support that, but I need to do that also knowing that I'm really truly supporting them and in a way that they're going to be successful long term and that they're going to be an asset to the community, and our community has opportunity to come and be a part of the museum and and see what they have to share.

Well, Mr.

Mayor, if I may I I would love for this to be a united decision.

And so I feel like what are those stipulations, Councilmember Newell?

Like if if if that's where we want to go to help them, and if I'm going to turn to the taxpayer and tell them we're at 90% for this organization and we continue to do that, like how can we get there and and hopefully we can make this a united decision?

Um what what can be done?

I mean, I'm happy to volunteer my own time if if anyone wanted my time to help.

Um what I'm saying is I'm open to the 260.

If we can truly make sure that that goes to to helping them get to a place where they're self-sufficient, I I want the taxpayer to know that they're there are you know, there's there's changes coming that will help them become self-reliant.

So I'll answer I'll answer to that too, just to kind of button this up a little bit.

Hutchings has made some changes from 2017.

Uh they are headed down that road.

I think they're very aware of where we are council-wise moving forward, and I know that they're doing what they can to make the changes within their own organization.

Using the 260 will help them stay on their feet this year and continue towards those goals.

So your original question uh I believe was answered by council member Stolings.

Uh that some additional information was gathered.

Um that information is there.

So my question back to you, Councilmember Lockhart, are you still for 200,000?

Would you be willing to go to the 260 or are you good with with what you've pledged at this point?

Yeah, I for me, and maybe between now and adopting the resolution, I'll have to meet with the board again.

I've met with several members and had this conversation.

But for me to get to the 260 and for that accountability, I'm going to need to see that um that changes are made that that drive traffic, get you know, create self-reliance, get more revenue for them.

Um and I'm happy to, like I said, give my personal time and and talents to help them do that.

Thank you.

Councilmember Newell, are you okay with 200?

Would you like to change yours?

Are you good?

Yeah, after after the email that I received, I it was never intended to have them be um at a point where they're going to struggle or they're going to have to do major changes right now without being able to have a holistic approach.

So I I think that's appropriate for this year, but also I agree with Councilmember Lockhart that we we need to know that this has to get to a better place because it's just not realistic to think that one organization is going to take 50% of the park tax in in the future.

Um but I would love to see their revenues increase dramatically higher than that, in including ways that they can get a grant writer involved, that they can get more social media involved, that they can um be able to make things more accessible for Lehigh residents.

So and I don't know that they have what they need to be able to do that.

So I want to make sure that you know that that that door is open and that you know that they have amazing board members who I you know you look and see what they've been able to do over the last um few years to be able to get back on track.

So, you know, maybe it's just uh a report to say, hey, this is what we're doing, we hear you, we're gonna be able to get back to this point.

You know, maybe we just have a timeline from them.

Maybe that's what we need to hear is that you know what what did they think is realistic for them rather than us saying, like, oh yeah, next year we'll do this amount and you know, I think I I want to hear from them what a realistic timeline looks like.

It's part of the park tax.

At the year end report, they do come up and report.

So that would be a good opportunity where they can break that down.

Report to the council.

Thank you.

Councilmember uh Council Member Stallings, any last comments on this before we move it forward?

I just if I mean they haven't received as much as some organizations in the past.

Um I won't bring that up.

Um so I just be careful.

Um if you require to audit of them, I would expect it from all of them.

And I hope we don't incur more costs to them that make things more difficult for them.

Um I do know that they've been working hard on this.

I've only had that assignment um for about a year now.

And again, we I think we made progress moving out of the general fund into the park grant.

And we've been talking already about things that we can do to get income, to get more revenue.

Um they are they've been doing those things that they've increased the revenue and they've they've been bare bones for a long time.

Um I'm I appreciate what they've done and they've had a lot of challenges.

And if if you knew all the details, you I think definitely um maybe be a little more pre appreciative of where have they been and how far they've come.

So thank you.

Can I can I soften that rather than like the thought of like this hard audit to because to me it was more like um something that was volunteer, especially you know, as James brought up that Thanksgiving point has offered, that's the the kind of operational audit that I'm talking about, having an expert come in and say, do you have the right people in the right places?

You know, do you have the right number of employees with the right talents?

So I the to me would be a volunteer kind of thing that we'll make up next time to be able to say this is what we've done.

So to change.

But yeah, I I agree with you that to say like, oh, we need to do some kind of hard audit on these organizations wouldn't be appropriate.

Who would so an operational audit would they have to pay for that?

Are you saying a volunteer?

No, I would say volunteer.

Okay.

That's what I'm saying.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I just want to restate because it it um I fully appreciate the museum and all that they do.

My comments come from a place of love for what they do.

And I want them to succeed.

Um and I and I want them to grow and reach more students.

When I went when I was there, there was virtual um showings of the fish in the tank and all of that, which is phenomenal and fantastic.

But when now that we're in a park tax environment, they can't, it's not realistic to assume they'll take 50 percent of the fund every year.

And so it comes from a place of how do I help them be self-su-sufficient.

Thank you.

So Matt, I think we leave that at three six uh excuse me, at the 260.

I've been to Hutchings uh wonderful people.

Okay to do a great job.

They are taking steps in the right direction, which we appreciate.

Uh we'll continue to bolster them.

Um quite honestly, they're a foundational piece to our city.

Well, they've been here a long time.

Um was a long time ago.

I'm 50, and I wasn't even born close to 1951.

So uh I'll throw that out there, but we'll I appreciate the discussion on that item.

So uh you want to go to the next slide.

Uh the next one was just for kids, Utah County.

Um they have been receiving 20,000.

I think it was recommended to leave that funded by the general fund.

Yeah, I just had a question of clarification on that one.

I didn't know if that's how the rest of the council felt.

And I didn't know how to like put an asterisk and explain that, but I would like to see that funded.

That's the one thing that I thought belonged in the general fund.

Was that where everyone else stood, or do you not want to fund it at all?

Yeah, I don't think that should have been pulled into park tax.

And I think it could be a general fund disc discussion, but I don't think this should have been pulled over.

That's a it doesn't qualify.

Okay.

Is that where you were at?

Yeah, I agree with Heather.

I feel like it, you know, we'll have to look at the whole budget.

Um but it doesn't it doesn't qualify for me as recreational or sculptural.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Moving on.

The next one was the O Lehigh Area Music Association for 2500.

That was the majority recommended 2500 to move that from general fund to park tax.

Lehigh Arts Council had 78,000 in the general fund.

The majority agreed to move that also to park tax at 78,000.

The Lehigh Historical Society and Archives had been receiving 33,000 in the general fund.

33,000 by the majority.

And then Thanksgiving Point had 250,000, one for butterfly and one for their Museum of Natural Curiosity.

It was recommended to carry those over as well.

Park tax 50,000 each.

Can I save us one full meeting agenda item in the future?

Mr.

Mayor.

Um I think just stepping back one step.

Um we talked about state code, and I think this is where um our attorneys can help us, and Michelle's brought this up before.

Um for next year.

I I would like to see what's allowed in State Code and how it matches up with our policy that was passed by the council in 2024 and seeing and see if we do need to adjust that to make it more clear, because obviously state code trumps everything else.

And and that'll provide very clear guidelines for the future park tax applicants for next year.

If that's something that the rest of the council is comfortable with, um I would love to dig into that with Ryan and the council.

I I would I would support looking at the policy again, but it's also implement implementation of our interpretation of state code.

So I went through that and some of the things that are recommended here and by the park um committee.

I don't agree with.

I don't know why.

These organizations are for special needs or humanitarian, which are valuable, tremendously valuable, but I don't see that they fit here.

So a lot of it comes back on us, how we interpret it and how we want to implement that.

But I would support looking at policy.

Yeah, I guess that's my question is what's non-negotiable based on state code and what what gives the city discretion on how to implement that by the same.

So would you like that before it comes back for a I'm talking about next year because I think like toothpaste is out of the tube this year for the applicants, but for next year I think it could help us kind of streamline everything.

So I have just so you're I've made a note this is a potential work session item that we can dive into a little bit potentially uh on another work session meeting.

So I appreciate that input.

Yeah, I would support.

Would you like to speak, Councilmember Ferma?

Maybe we can come.

I would support it maybe November.

Maybe we can start looking talking about future budget at that point.

So there's clear guidelines.

Okay.

Any other questions for Matt on this um park tax spreadsheet that we've built out.

So Matt, I think we have a clear is everybody clear on the path that we're on.

It appears that we're pretty clear.

Is everyone comfortable with that?

Sure.

Three or more, I agree, Colin.

Okay.

So what we'll do is we'll allow Matt to move that forward and it'll come forth in a future um meeting.

So thank you, Matt.

I appreciate your time.

Okay.

Discussion item 2B.

That's the discussion of auto sales use in commercial zones.

Kim?

Welcome to the stand.

Thank you.

We'll open it up and have you start.

Yeah.

My computer is in rebooting.

And I just I just emailed everyone that document, because I don't think it's attached, or I can't get it to work.

Oh, are you chapter 100?

Okay.

Oh, so this is yours.

Okay.

Cool.

Okay.

One or the other.

All right.

So this discussion, I think it came about by a few of the council members that had raised uh I guess the interest in revisiting how we regulate auto sales.

So this first document is our table of uses.

And so this shows uh a draft red line.

Right now, in order to do auto sales, you've got to have a site of one acre or larger.

And so this first um, I guess probably the largest single change would be to eliminate that requirement for the one acre, and we just um list the auto sales use, and then we would make it, I guess the other major change would be we would now allow it as a permitted use in our commercial zone.

Whereas right now if I go up to the top of this table, it's only allowed in the heavy commercial, regional commercial, light industrial, some of those other zones.

So that is the first change.

And then along with that, in chapter 12, we have a lot of different supplemental requirements or standards for for various uses.

Auto sales is one of those.

So we've also proposed some revisions to those standards.

So and I'll just kind of walk you through these.

Um this first paragraph, um, we want to make sure we do have safe access.

Uh we we've we've had some discussion already about this, um, but I know we want to make sure it's still safe so that fire and police or or even just the customers and and um employees can get around the site.

We're taking out the requirement.

So the um the paragraph below that first one that's that has the strike throughs.

We and this is you know, our current code, we say you need so much space for each inventory stall, and um so the direction that the current draft goes is it whatever they want to fit on their site as long as we have the dry vials that meet our 24-foot standard just to make sure, like I said, for access.

Um and then as we go down through the document.

I think a lot of this is just um more cleanup language.

I think this felt kind of redundant.

Um, that customer and employee parking shall be clearly we just say designated instead of visibly posted.

Um then we do still want to make sure they have an office on site.

And I think that's actually part of the state requirements to have your dealership license that you have a physical place of business.

Um let's see, I think four was just more wordsmithing cleanup.

Um five, we're just instead of trying to restate these lighting standards, we're just gonna refer them to a separate section that has all of those lighting standards already listed.

Uh and they do, you know, under that separate section 1210.

It it does say they have to be shielded and they can only be a certain height based on the size of the parking area, things like that.

Um strike through there.

Um right now we require some landscaping between the public right-of-way and where they can start their car display again, based on previous conversations, the direction that this draft heads is that we would just take that out, that we're not really that concerned whether they have landscaping on their side of the public right of way.

And then let's see the next paragraph down that's uh strike through.

Um this deals with some of that one acre minimum.

Uh so we wanted to take all of that out since we're gonna remove the size restriction.

Um is a new requirement.

And and again, you know, all of this is just open for discussion.

That's why we're having it as a as a work session item.

None of this is set in stone yet.

Um so we're just seeking additional direction.

But number seven, um, I think was a staff recommendation that you know, maybe we if we're gonna open up our entire commercial zone, maybe we still have some limits on where those can go.

So this says that you have to have direct frontage on an arterial roadway.

So, you know, State Street, Main Street, 2300.

We have a lot of, and that's probably honestly where they would want to locate because the whole, you know, a lot of what drives their business is visibility.

So seven, whether we want to keep that or not.

And then eight, um, I think we maybe this is also staff recommendation.

Maybe we feel a little bit more strongly about where uh this does restrict it, even if you're in a commercial zone, but if you're within 500 feet of a mixed use or a TOD area, we would restrict uh auto sales in those areas because we're in those zones as we've talked about in the past, we're trying to build walkability and auto sales is kind of one of those uses that is much more vehicle oriented and not you know, it doesn't fit maybe quite as well into the uses in those areas that we would hope for.

So that is a new restriction.

So, anyways, that's the current draft.

Like I said, we're just here seeking input.

I've you know, we balance this thing around between some of the council members through emails and things, but so yeah, just want to know where we sit currently and if you like it or if you want to make some changes, we're open to direction.

Any questions for Kim?

Yes, Jim, do you want to go first?

All right.

On number seven, the arterial road.

So um if members of the public wanted to know, they could go to the master transportation plan, right?

And find all the arterial roads and then any commercial next to that would qualify.

Correct.

Um, other than just being near lots of traffic, is there any other rationale for the arterial road specifically?

Um that's probably the main one.

And just that that seems like those roads already have a lot of auto-oriented type uses and maybe some of the other commercial areas, you know, in a in a shopping center or whatever, we probably want to reserve those more for retail or service restaurant, things like that.

So but again, um you could probably debate it either way on that one.

So is it possible when it comes back to us?

Could we take I mean, is it possible to get like the the commercial zones and and then show the arterial roads?

And and basically for council to be able to visualize like these are the parcels that could qualify based on this requirement and not.

I think that would be helpful because if it ends up being a regulation that actually doesn't give that much more opportunity, it it what's the whole point of all of this?

Yeah, I think yeah, maybe we could just remove it.

Yeah, if we could get a visual of like, okay, how does this impact?

I think that would be really helpful if that's not too burdensome to staff.

No, no, we could use our GIS um system and overlay the arterials and then just say what parcels meet that criteria.

We could do the same thing with the TOD.

Yeah, that would be great.

Yep.

If if the council feels like that would be helpful, I think it'd also be helpful to members of the public who are interested as well to see okay, like this is these are the parcels that get this, not all commercial parcels or things like that.

Um I have a couple more questions, but go ahead, James if you want to.

Um yeah, I'll just do a quick one.

So I guess number eight, I'm not quite sold on for I mean TODs can be somewhat large, and I'm not sure what automo sales automotive sales would do to hinder walkability.

Um Kim, if you have more context to that to help me understand or anybody up here, um I'm not sure if that's a needed regulation.

Yeah.

Yeah, I don't know if I I maybe we put some thought into that one.

Is it justifiable?

But yeah, really mixed-use TOD buildings are normally oriented up to the street so that as a pedestrian or cyclists or anybody who's not in a car, the experience you have there will determine a lot of how successful those areas will be.

And so if it's if you've ever walked on, well, I'll pick on Aurum.

We we probably have similar areas on our state street, but State Street, you know, you're walking down that corridor as a pedestrian, it's really not super friendly place to be and you know, a put a desirable place to be.

And so we're just trying to see if we could keep uses that are less pedestrian-friendly, a little bit separated, so that maybe we transition, you know, maybe there are um other commercial uses that have parking in front of the building, but they're they lend themselves more to that pedestrian traffic.

That makes more sense.

I I think maybe instead of doing a blanket restriction, it might be better to require businesses to I mean, if they're within a certain development or within a certain zone, like the TOD, I guess, because mixed use is a little bit different.

Um smaller geographic footprint.

But at least, you know, if there is going to be automotive sales that they have to adhere to a certain standard, not simply prohibiting them altogether, if that's something that's kind of some good middle ground.

Yeah.

And there are dealerships in some of the bigger cities.

If if you've been to, you know, New York or Chicago, they have auto dealers that have their display, like literally in a you know, a display viewing window so that as a pedestrian, you know, you're oh, there's the latest model of this vehicle.

Um yeah, I think we're uh it we already restrict, they're not allowed in TOD or mixed use.

So unless we change that table further than what it is currently, they're already uh not allowed in those TOD and mixed-use zones.

But yeah, I think we're just thinking of that transition area between the you know, a place that is really more built for cars versus a place that we're trying to build for people and yeah.

Yeah, I mean it uh I'm trying to maybe give a good visual, like if you were walking along Park City's main street, which is a very, you know, and probably what every everybody in this room has been there, and you see all the little window shops and things like that.

And then if you had a car dealership and you have asphalt parking lot and the vehicles on display, it just doesn't, you know, I mean it's not that placemaking type of use that you would want to see.

So we're trying to think as you transition into those more specialized pedestrian areas, should we limit auto sales because it's so different than those pedestrian walkable areas.

So again, you know, we can we'll we'll adopt whatever policy the council decides.

So yeah, that was just our thought.

So it's all three treatment like this.

Okay, go ahead.

I can't see you guys.

I don't have my peripheral vision.

Um, point number seven in the commercial zone, automobile sales and rental use shall have direct frontage on an arterial roadway.

Um it sounds like it's kind of an optional thing, maybe for this code.

I I would assume that business owners would want to have frontage on any direct arterial roadway, probably just for their own commercial you know, viability.

Yep.

Um so I don't know if we need to make that requirement.

Like my personal opinion is that that might not that's might not be necessary.

Um and I also question eight.

I understand the pedestrian and the transit-oriented, but since transit is so slow in coming to us.

Uh I don't even know.

When do we even know when we'll ever get tracks here?

You know, it's gonna I think we have to literally have an act of Congress to move some of that end of the line of the track of the railroad.

So for me, I I'm not quite sold on eight, but I I think it's a good discussion to have.

We do want to make sure we have adequate parking, but I I think you did a good job there.

Um I uh agree with Councilmember Freeman.

Number seven.

Um I think the business owner could probably know where to put their um auto lot.

Um I I don't think that's necessary.

Number eight, I disagree um with having it limited within you know 500 feet of mixed use or TODs.

So thinking right now on State Street, there I don't know if it's still in business, but there was a little car lot on the corner that's right near, probably within the TOD.

Yeah.

It's within.

On First East.

Okay.

So they're probably just grandfathered in at this point.

Yeah.

Yeah, that would be a legal non-conformity.

So if they're already there.

So that's interesting.

Um but we do have a lot of mixed use on Main Street and State Street, and those are some places I could see where car lots would want to come in.

So I would support removing that section.

Um the reason I would keep it out, if anything, was you know, mixed use and TODs are intended to be walkable to encourage pedestrian traffic.

And if there if there was more car traffic because of the car lot, maybe I could see that.

But um I think I see more cars coming in and out in grocery stores or other retail stores than from uh auto sales business.

So I I love it, except I would remove seven and eight.

That's my thoughts.

Um my next thought was on number two.

So the um customer and employee parking with the ratio of every seven inventory vehicles.

Um why why are we monitoring the inventory levels of the car lots?

Like if we're gonna require customer parking, an employee parking, why are we using the variable of inventory to determine that?

Do you it is that just common practice or what's that about?

Yeah, that's how we I think this language has been in here for a while.

I don't remember how that ratio is determined.

I do know we want to make sure we provide some some form of parking just so that yeah, of all the industries that which you know, maybe to their credit, they're they they usually overdo it on their inventory, so they're scrambling to find places they have overflow lots.

We've seen that even with the our poor showdy dealership where they really struggle to have even space for their own inventory.

So we just want to make sure, you know, if a customer rolls up or the employees that are gonna be working there all day that we have somewhere for them to park, but is this the best method?

I don't know.

We could probably revisit that.

Yeah, one idea I had is instead of trying to manage the inventory levels, because I don't know how the city would enforce that.

Like, you know, go to a business owner and say, show me your inventory on your balance sheet, right?

Like I don't think we should be doing that.

But one idea I had is could we do the square footage of the building?

Because that's how we kind of do it in other ways, right?

Like you parking stalls based on the square footage of your building.

Because that in some ways could be more accurate of like the size of the operation, maybe possible.

I mean, I'm just throwing an idea out.

Yeah.

Trying to do it differently where we're not regulating to a business owner what they you know based on their inventory, but more so on like the building that's been permitted for the space.

I don't know how the idea.

So maybe let me speak to this real quick because I drive by it every day, but Ken Garf Land Rover or Lehigh Land Rover was out of space and they used every one of their stalls permitted.

They had cars all the way down Ashton Boulevard.

They were unloading cars in the median.

They were unloading cars in the median so as a person driving through it is very, very dangerous because you have people opening their doors into traffic you have a man bringing cars off the truck in traffic.

So I can understand I do understand why there would need to be at least a ratio of some the owner or an employee to have a place to park their car.

In the world of auto sales obviously every lot that you can park a car for sale is to your advantage right but at what point are we we costing public rollover into a public street because of and we've seen that now at at Lehigh Land Rover.

That problem has somewhat fixed itself as they have now managed their inventory but they're still parking inventory clear across the street.

So there's I I can understand some of the thought process behind that.

Anyway that's a little bit of insight for you.

Makes sense so looking on table see chapter 37 112 we have I think automobile sales maybe maybe I'm mistaken but I think it says one stall per each 500 square foot of gross showroom area plus one space per employee in addition to inventory stalls.

Is that am I reading that right?

Yeah normally we do it based off the square footage for other uses this is this inventory piece was yeah just kind of I mean I'm not a good judge of how many square foot you should have per parking but I think I'm reading that on the Yeah it seems like in our email thread that did come up that I think there are different requirements.

So we just needed there's a yeah I was actually going to ask you amended this to do look at that.

And I as far as parking for employees I like this one one space per employee in addition to inventory stalls but I I don't think we should base it off square footage of this showroom because especially small lots they don't they have a little office space but it's tiny you know um so I think inventory might be a better predictor of the number of customers but I don't know or can we do square footage of the area?

Yeah like the area not the showroom the law size maybe a ratio square footage.

I just don't know if you can enforce inventory.

That's the right like I can I guess we can we know what's been yeah we know what's been permitted right we know their lot size we know their building size that went through the building and permitting processes but inventory is something that like we'd literally have to say show us your QuickBooks or what you know and I don't know if that's where we want to go as a council.

I was going to say the other thing too is if they don't provide customer parking they're not getting customers on their lot.

Yeah.

It's up you know I I like the idea that it's a parking cell for every employee who's on site at the time because if you're just have like a one or two person operation but you've got 50 cars do you need that many employee parking lots but I parking stalls but yeah that that's where I'm like they want to make sure that they have parking because if I I drive up to a lot and I have to walk a block to get yeah they don't want to give up their yeah they might again I think in the small ones that I've seen around town they might well you I guess they might want you to have on street parking yeah you're right so that's a concern but so I like the idea of uh employee parking for the number of employees on site at a time and then maybe you know because inventory fluctuates maybe the number of inventory stalls base your amount of customer parking on that the you know not necessarily inventory itself but just how many how much they could have they could get that information right at early yeah when they do their site plan we should have a a rough idea of okay we're gonna have room for 24 cars or 50 cars or whatever.

Yeah anyway I have a couple more questions if that's okay.

But I just thought that that would maybe there was a different variable we could use to enforce that kind of stuff.

Probably this would be my suggestion is just like we did with the lighting maybe we just strike all the parking requirements in this section 12 and then just amend the parking table and maybe we just um keep the one stall per employee and then we say we can research that maybe it's one per 10 inventory stalls or we'll look and see if we can come up with there might be some like there's the Institute of traffic engineers parking table they might have something that we can look at.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Um my next question was on number four and I know um we've kind of discussed this also applying to other uses but the asphalt concrete or pavers um it's so expensive to like asphalt a parking lot and all those kinds of things is this requirement burdensome to these small businesses because I I was just driving by the one we did I specifically came to this on Maine to look at the one we did the development agreement with I'm pretty sure I saw gravel.

And I'm pretty sure I saw gravel.

So do we care that much if we've allowed that one to be gravel in are we putting a burdensome costly regulation on a lot of the businesses in Lehigh but obviously we're talking about auto sales today by having something like this any new business we require hard surface for drainage and I mean there's a lot of other reasons probably on that one where the way it happened that you know they've had temporary uses on that property fireworks stands and other I think it was trailer sales before and maybe we should have covered that in the development agreement.

Or they could be out of compliance should we check?

I I don't know.

Yeah I don't I don't think it was part of the development agreement because it's standard we require that for everything parking for anybody.

But but generally speaking I think if we don't require it for auto sales we want to look at it for any other but yeah I I think just for maintenance purposes like I said storm drain things like that I I would think we'd want to keep the standard that if you're if you have a commercial business you should have a hard surface parking lot but that's okay.

I don't know.

I don't know if you guys have thoughts on that.

I have a thought um I wonder if it's if it is kind of a tough ask for small businesses just having had a family member with a small business to have you know the requirement for the paving I think maybe there would be a way to I wonder I don't know if there's a way to give them a little bit of window to say it has to be paid within a certain time period but sometimes you know to put all that tens of thousands or hundreds thousand dollars up front to pave it's kind of a lot for a new business so maybe we can say even like within six months it needs to be paved or within I mean two years max in my opinion but you know kind of they have to get some some traffic going to make money I guess to put forth money is an idea.

But can I ask I'm not married to that's just for along those lines I think Kim you mentioned drainage is one concern.

What are the other concerns?

I think just like if you if you have a gravel parking lot it's I guess not as uh like the current aesthetically people you know they may not I don't know like when you go to an event and you have to park in a gravel parking lot it just doesn't feel as finished and I don't know maybe it's like a a home and you leave the exterior with the OSB sheeting which might function you know as a technically but it just looks nicer and it's just a more finished look.

I I think I like what you brought up Rachel for you know maybe having a period of time before they have to finish it because I'm thinking of like if I'm a small business owner and I'm able to scrap together enough money to start a business and get a plot of land and then it's like oh you need like 25,000 square feet of asphalt put in that may kill a business idea pretty quickly.

So I think you're right this goes beyond just auto lots so maybe this is a broader discussion but I think it would be good to say solve the drainage problem that's a requirement that you have to have but as far as a paved lot maybe give some leeway like 12 months or something like that.

How would you police that I guess I mean you especially a car lot they would have to remove all their inventory pave it and then put their cars back or do they put their cars in the meantime?

I I just see it as problematic and I assume when somebody's uh starting a business they have their business plan they get the loan for all the cost and then they take care of it.

The other thought too is with gravel because I have chips in my window window I'm thinking of those I would not go to a car lot that you know you could take it out for a drive and come back and get a chip.

I don't know that's a good point.

Well maintained um and even even for the lot like on Main Street in 23rd um I mean maybe maybe they would say no let's just do it now because it would be too much of a pain to do it later on.

I mean they they have they they're pretty used to moving cars around so I'm sure they could move an entire lot off for for 24 hours.

And an expanded thought on the same line is Family Haven the um organization that came in for the C B D whatever money I can never say it right but they actually were delayed in opening because the city said you don't have an asphalt car or you know a parking lot and um you know it it's that kind of stuff that I feel like might be a little burdensome.

But they actually were delayed in opening because the city said you don't have an asphalt car or you know a parking lot.

And um, you know, the it it's that kind of stuff that I feel like might be a little burdensome.

But that could be to the the greater conversation as the regulation as a whole.

But um Mr.

Mayor, if it's okay, I have one final question on this.

Um Kim.

For number six when it talks about landscaping.

I was just curious why we eliminated the landscaping requirement completely when we don't have that eliminated in other um uses.

And and and driving by the one on Maine, I did notice that he they were all the cars were right up to the sidewalk.

Yeah.

And um the side the gravel had weeds in it.

So I was like, I is that technically landscaping?

I don't know.

But um I I don't know if I'm comfortable giving all of the landscaping requirements away.

I think it used to be 20 feet or or 10.

Um I think we do need to have something because all the other uses also have that.

Yeah, I would agree.

We I think it was on our previous discussion that came up and several said let's just not have that landscaping requirement, so we took it out.

But I I I would easily add it back in if that's the preference of the majority.

I think driving by the one on Maine, that that's when I was like, oh, okay.

I I think it would actually be even even you know five, ten feet or something, it just helps make the lot look finished to your point earlier.

But yeah, I I think that came up last time.

And I think I think for auto sales in particular, I wasn't a fan of having the landscaping because a lot of a lot of times they want to park it as close to the road as possible for visibility.

And actually that particular lot, I'm I have a teenage daughter that's about ready to get her permit in six months.

And she reminds me all the time.

So I go past and I can see all the all the cars.

I think I think for this specific business use, I'm okay without the landscaping requirement.

Um but that's just my personal thought.

Kim, are there any standard setbacks or landscaping requirements for commercial another as if it's next residential in general?

Yeah, yeah.

Um it's similar to the lighting.

I don't uh for whatever reason we almost restated a lot of these, but for any standard commercial business, you do have to have a 10-foot separation between the back of the sidewalk and the start of the parking or whatever whatever it is.

Yeah, yeah.

For we could exclude that if like um Commissioner Harris or Councilmember Harrison is saying if this we think this is a you know I guess merits different standards to allow them to come closer.

We could eliminate it in through this language, or if we if we just take it out, it would default to that standard 10 foot.

So it's yeah.

I do like some buffering between a sidewalk and a business myself.

But if yeah, I think when it comes back, um just going to that one on Maine.

Tell me obviously I know you guys already drive by it all the time, but I may I specifically went there today, right, to make sure on my way here, and I was like, oh, that that is kind of different than all the other uses and all and it changes the look and feel a little bit.

But yeah, those were those are my questions.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you for allowing me to ask so many.

You're yielding back your time.

I'm for now.

Thank you.

No guarantees in that closed meeting.

Any other comments for Kim?

Kim, have we given you a little bit of a road to run on a little bit?

Yep.

Maybe some tweaks.

Yeah.

Great.

If you'll do that for us, we will I just take one comment.

Just so you're clear.

Remember the state has actually said that we can't dictate what's on private property.

So it's hard to say, yeah, you can't hold up a building permit or anything.

So I just want to warn you, yes, we'll put it in, but uh enforcing it's a different issue.

And and the state did that what was it several years ago?

And so it's the same.

It's really been it's really been tough on us.

Yeah.

So we can't bond for parking or anything like that.

Any private improvements.

So we don't, but the business owner would.

Yeah.

Or no, we can't hold them to that.

Right.

So if we do say it has to be hard surfaced, we just have to rely on them to meet our standard.

We can't put that in a bond.

The only thing we can bond is our public infrastructure.

So if they need utility connections or they're installing public sidewalk, curb and gutter, those things we can bond, but landscaping, parking, we just we can still have a standard, but I think what Lauren's saying is they don't guarantee it through a bond.

Just don't get mad at us when we can't report it.

Well, I will I won't keep talking in this meeting because Lauren, your comment prompted like 30 questions in my mind.

So maybe maybe if we can get some email information on that and what are the consequences?

What are we legally allowed to do?

What if they refuse what what happens at that point?

Are you ready just uh to bring this back for an action?

Like do you want us to go ahead and schedule this or do you want to have additional discussion before we start the formal process through DRC planning commission?

Can you just go go over what you felt the direction was?

Oh right now.

There might not be like what you're gonna go back and look.

Yeah.

Yeah, I can summarize my notes.

Um so let's see, starting with number four.

There was a question about whether we should should or should not require that.

It sounded like and maybe that's one that if all of you kind of want to give your full vote so I know which direction do we want to require the hard surfacing or at least have it in here as a standard?

Or are we okay with gravel?

I would like the hard surfacing.

I just want the hard surface.

I think right now we keep it with four, but we look at we relook it kind of for all businesses in the fe like just we kind of consider this conversation.

But we could look at a timing provision that gives them, you know, it must be completed within the first one or two years of operation.

I could get on board with that, yeah.

Okay.

Just throwing this out there.

If we do that and we can't require it really anyway, I mean we could put it there, but we can't enforce it.

I think we're gonna get more gravel if we give them a couple years to do it, they'll probably never get back to it, especially if they we just don't tell them it's I know, but now they know, right?

Sorry.

Well, I think I I think since this is this is on the docket to potentially go through DRC, we just we can keep the requirement as you know, but revisit the parking.

Ultimately, you know, if it comes back formally for action, you can still, you know, even that night in a couple months from now, it would probably be when it reaches you again.

You can still you could table it, you could I mean it's not the this isn't the end draft, whatever we come out with tonight.

So um so yeah, and then I had a note uh we'll do some mapping to show where you know where the provision for the arterial roads, you know, w how restrictive would that be?

And and we'll probably just throw in the same thing on the although I I got the impression from the majority of you just to remove eight.

I I'll just chime in with borrowed time, but I do like eight.

Um so I think eight is important to for the not today's Lehigh, but for Lehigh 30 35 years from now.

Um so that would be my one thought.

I would also love to get public comment and planning commission and DRC comment on eight.

So if you guys are okay with keeping it so we can get the input from others, and then if we remove it when we take action, that's fine.

But I think that one the like getting the public comment and the planning commission's thoughts on that would be helpful.

We're talking about removing seven?

What about seven?

I think it's seven, probably seven and eight.

Yeah.

Yeah, so I'd rather see those removed.

I don't I mean we we're short on commercial space and auto sales um generate a good deal of tax revenue, and I don't want to I mean the whole intent is to expand opportunities here, so I prefer not to limit them.

My thought on that one too is we have so many of these areas where people want to come through and do like a TOD, but we don't have our transit yet.

We're kind of like in this like middle area.

This is kind of this too, as these areas become more developed, then it's probably pretty expensive land to have a car dealership on.

It might naturally transition that way too when we actually have so yeah.

I'd I'd be in favor of removing seven and eight.

Okay.

Sounds like the majority tonight are thinking we'll just take both of those out.

Yeah.

And then the only other notes I had were on the parking that we talked about.

We'll just remove the parking paragraph from this chapter twelve, but we'll update the table and bring that back.

37.

Yeah, and and make sure we have at least one stall per employee, and then we'll do some research and figure out a good ratio and base it on the amount of inventory because that's probably gonna determine how many customers they would expect.

So not necessarily inventory in stock, but I guess spaces that would allow car display or yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, so you'll run that, send an email.

We can bring this back before we vote on it just to make sure that we have it, and then we'll send it through DRC and everywhere else.

Okay.

Thanks, Kim.

Oh well, I think it's going through DRC.

I I I'm ready for it to go through the property.

You guys, you're good then?

Councilmember Renew, you're good for DRC send it?

Yes.

Yep, send it then.

Okay.

Start it through.

Thank you.

Okay, item three, consideration of a motion to enter into a closed meeting for specific purposes allowed under the open and public meetings act, including to discuss the purpose, exchange lease or sale of real property, litigation, the character, competence, or physical or mental health of an individual individual, or any law other lawful purpose.

I so move.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Freeman, a second from Councilmember Harrison.

All in favor?

Okay, we'll move to a closed session.

You guys look good, clear in the back row.

There's plenty of seats up here too.

So far away.