Behind you.

Are we there?

That we're here.

Thank you.

All right, welcome.

Uh it's four th four thirty-four on Tuesday, June 9th.

Uh, today for our um pre-council meeting.

Uh, we welcome all those who are in Tenance City employees and neighbors and residents of Lehigh, we welcome you.

We do have a full council tonight.

Uh, Councilmember Newell, Councilmember Harrison, Council Member Stallings, Councilmember Freeman and Council Member Lockhart, we welcome you.

And glad to have a full dias.

Glad you make it back.

Councilmember Stallings, welcome back.

Good to have you.

We'll open today.

I'll go ahead and offer an opening prayer and we'll go to that point.

Our Father in Heaven, we're grateful for this day.

We're grateful for the many blessings that we enjoy.

We're thankful that we could be of service today and to be able to work uh from the diasonite, and we pray, Heavenly Father, that that would be with us as we do so.

We pray for the residents and for the employees and for the first responders of our city that they may uh know of our appreciation of the work that they do.

We are thankful for our residents and pray for each of them also.

We pray for the land that's around us that's dry, that it may uh receive the moisture that it needs so that we can avoid those things that will uh be dangerous, and we might be able to live in a manner that would help us to prevent uh those accidents from happening.

We ask you to be with us this evening as we work that we might do so in a manner that would be pretty pleasing unto thee, and these things we pray for in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Okay.

Item two point one.

That presentation fell apart just a couple hours ago.

And so we will move that presentation to another date in the near future, probably a month or two away, potentially more or so.

That one will fall off.

So we'll go to two point two, the state auditors fraud risk assessment report from the finance report department.

We'll bring up Dean.

So this is just something we do every year for those of you who are new, the state auditor's office several years ago.

I'm going to say eight or nine, seven or eight years ago.

This is essentially just a self-assessment tool looking to see if we have good control, you know, if our controls are in place or things like that.

And I'm not going to go through every line item unless you would like me to.

But essentially it's just a self-assessment tool that we look at.

I think every every so often.

But this is the first year.

I think we have all of the points for this.

In other words, do we have different people reconciling our bank account versus who writes checks and uh is people who receive cash different than those who are making uh general ledger entries, things like that.

Um there's a separate checklist for that.

Um but we've always met that.

Most of all of these we've always had, we have uh policies related to procurement and credit cards and travel and cash receipting.

Um things like do we have some of the works of the city that's a CPA and has uh accounting degree.

Um the one we've typically not gotten in the past was internal audit function, but now we have someone who's uh feeling that role, and so we're starting to use HEMSO we did points for that.

The one thing I should point out, number um five.

I can't remember if I mentioned this or not.

I think I might have because Rachel was doing it.

So um there is a uh self study video thing on the state auditors website to look at that that as elected officials you're supposed to do every four years.

So if you haven't done that, please do it.

And uh there the link up there, maybe I'll just just I'll send out the link just so you have it.

I think Heather and Michelle did it last, did it a couple of years ago.

It's um anyways, you're supposed to do that within four years of of getting in office.

Um so if you haven't done that, I'll ask you to do that, and maybe just send you a quick email reminder.

But really, the reason I'm here doing it in per in person is because that's part of what we're supposed to do is present it at a at an open meeting at a council meeting.

So do you have any questions on this?

If not, I'll we'll be done.

We'll check this off our list and I'll get it submitted.

So no questions?

Great, thanks, Dean.

Okay, item three, 3.1 discussion of mixed use standards, the community development.

I believe that's you, Kim.

Yep.

There might be easier to present.

Okay.

Let's see.

So let me see if I can get this a little bit bigger for the screen here.

Um so the last time we went through this was at a work session back, it was at the very end of March.

So it's been a little bit of a little while ago.

Hopefully, some of this is still fairly fresh on your mind.

Um but yeah, you've got the new version in your packet.

It's dated June 3rd.

Um, so just I'll just kind of walk you through and then you can let me know if you have input if you like the direction it's going well enough that we can we'll we can start it at DRC and run it through the process.

Yeah, we I I've kind of reworked the main purpose paragraph.

Um, one of the things that came up at our last work session on this was that um the message I got was we really want mixed use to be primarily commercial with residential as more of a secondary component.

So we've tried to you know reword a lot of this to uh emphasize that change.

Um so yeah, we uh it talks about avoiding predominantly residential development that lacks meaningful non-residential activity.

Um I think somewhere in here, let's see.

Yeah, allowing residential uses as a secondary and supporting component.

So there's a pretty big shift in this where you can do residential, but it's very much secondary and limited versus what it currently is and what the previous drafts have been.

Um let's see.

Um so as we go through these different standards, it still allows, you know, if somebody owns one or two or three different parcels or more, they can pool those together.

That's what A is talking about.

And then B.

This is where we would require some if they have housing, at least 30% of that housing has to be designed for ownership, which would mean you know, townhomes or condominiums versus an apartment product.

Um then under C this is a new standard that part of what the concern was last time was we have these pockets of mixed use where you've identified we have a density map as part of our development code that assigns a total number of units for certain areas, but it doesn't ever really say, well, how do you who decides where those units can be distributed?

So this is at least a first attempt to where um you know it's saying the number of units that we've identified would be proportionate to the acreage, but we wanted to leave some flexibility.

You know, if somebody had a project that was maybe closer to the what we feel like is a central area, we could maybe give more than just what their acreage would be proportionate to.

So and then D, let's see, these are just all of the standards, and let's see.

So we would require um, let's see, we've changed it to 50%, uh has to be retail.

It used to be only 10%.

So that again is that huge shift, and you know, it's got to be primarily commercial in this zone.

Um then if if it's over two acres, then that actually ratchets up for each additional uh, you know, as the size of the project gets bigger, there's more of a commercial component requirement until it caps out at 70%.

Um and by the way, the I think the red is new since you've seen it last.

Pretty much all of this is new, but the red is the newer of the draft.

So and then it um no more than 60% of residential units.

This we changed.

I think there was some concern about, you know, we don't want to get too far along with the residential before the commercial is finished.

And we before we had that warm shell, but now we're just saying commercial has to receive a certificate of occupancy.

So that would guarantee that that commercial space is done and hopefully you know, in a leaseable state, so that it they can't just leave it partially finished.

Um, and then I think there's a couple of places in here where you wanted to be the land use authority for for these mixed use type projects before it was the planning commission, would have you wouldn't have actually seen mixed use projects as they come through the process.

So we've changed that to be the city council, but following review and recommendation by the planning commission.

And then let's see, three we took out because I think that was already covered on the very first one that I showed you.

Um let's see, I think we tried to simplify a lot of this.

We used to have kind of small and large, some different requirements, but we tried to just simplify it all.

Um it does still require that the ground floor um non-residential, let's see, ground floor non-residential or convertible commercial space shall be required as follows.

So if it has any kind of frontage on Main Street or State Street, which are very much the primary corridors, we want to make sure those have the non-residential use.

Um or if it's within 300 feet of a transit stop because those are kind of your hot spots, the core areas.

Um let's see, and then under the number three, we added um up to 30 percent of the total required non-residential finished interior gross gross floor area within the development.

And instead of uh let's see, can allow interim occupancy.

So we still could allow where you know if the retail isn't quite to where um the market will support it.

We could have them build it out as retail and use it for residential, and that was in there before.

I think we just um limited how much they could do of that.

So that's the 30 percent.

Um again, just to keep it primarily commercial, and then I think the other stuff is existing that we've already been through.

So anyways, we tried to capture all of the different input from that previous work session, and happy to take any more input that you might have.

Go ahead.

I don't know who you nodded to.

Oh, you go ahead and special.

Kim, thank you so much.

I know you've been working hard on this, and this looks really good in my opinion.

Um so I appreciate your work there.

And for kind of understanding kind of where we're coming in and capturing that.

I guess the only the question I have, the only one I think is um on E3.

Um let's see, allowing uh residential until the commercial market supports conversion.

I could just see that being taken advantage of.

I mean, how would you determine that?

How would you say, hey, you can convert it now?

You know, it's been a while.

Yeah.

Or any thoughts on maybe we could just time frame, you know, the time frame.

So maybe probably if they're gonna make the investment to finish it as you know future commercial but but residential so that it still functions.

I would think I'm I'm thinking of a good number might be 10 years, like after 10 years, it you need to just plan on it converting back over, but probably to to capture some of that investment to finish it as a a residential space.

Maybe maybe we uh if that sounds reasonable, or I don't know, we could brainstorm some other triggers or so maybe a time limit.

Yeah, yeah, just put a maximum, you know, this can be residential, but only up to X number of years.

Okay.

I can put a yeah, we can maybe we can look and see how I know there are other communities in Utah that have allowed this, and maybe we explore, see you know what is what's the trigger to have it convert back to commercial.

That sounds good.

Thank you.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Thanks, Mayor.

Uh so later on this evening we're gonna be talking about the HTRZ at Thanksgiving point.

And um in the application during when the state approved it.

Um I think we've all been through all the minutes and everything, but Mayor Johnson at the who was mayor at the time said that we're currently writing code that'll ensure a certain percentage of new builds will be for sale products, indicating 20%.

This code indicates 30%.

I'm just wondering how if you know we're passing things or not passing things, it depends on what the council does later this evening.

How does this, seeing as it's not a part of the process, will it have any impact on that?

Yeah, I think those would be you know, just like we have different standards in different zones.

This this would be our mixed-use standard, and then we did codify in our um TOD section, there's the the 20%.

So, anyways, yeah, just depending on which zone you're developing in, that's different standard would apply.

Okay, okay.

So we've we've hit it, and this isn't gonna impact any of that.

No, no, they would come under a separate zone.

So great work on this.

This feels like mixed use, kind of how I think the residents and all of us would interpret it to be.

So I think this is more fitting, and I think you you heard all the concerns and were able to implement them in a way that I think still gonna work for development too.

It's not gonna shut it down.

So just major props to you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thanks.

Hi, Kim.

Thank you.

Um, I was wondering, this this is just the appliance to mixed use in the TODs, right?

Because it's 38.

Um well, so TOD is its own zone, and then this we have actually a mixed use zone, and that's what it's okay.

We're we're gonna combine chapter 38 right now.

If you if I scroll up, there's all you know, the most of this chapter is actually all of the TOD standards, and then we're adding this because they're very similar, they're related, but but each section would be standard for the two different zones.

Okay.

So everything above this in this chapter 38 would apply to TOD, what that's actually zoned TOD, and then this would apply to what's zoned mixed use.

Okay.

So I was just trying to figure that out because in E on E1, it talks about building frontages facing Main Street and State Street.

And I noticed in the um general plan that there's mixed use around other places, like there's some on SR92, there's some above 200 north, Mill Pond, stuff like that.

So I just that was the only like I love this.

I thought this was so great, but that was the only sentence that kind of confused me because I thought, well, they're not all the mixed use places aren't going to be facing state in Maine.

But so I don't know how to word that so that it's a good idea.

Maybe if it they're on state in Maine, yeah, but if not, I mean there's a there's a lot of mixed use areas.

Yeah.

Not a lot, but there are several other mixed use areas, I guess.

So um yeah, no, I can put a note and maybe maybe we try and identify where those other areas are, like if it's um, I think there's some on 1200 West, anyways.

Yeah, there's just some a few places.

I mean, there's more now zoned, but in the general plan there'll be less, I think from what I was looking at that are currently zoned.

Yeah.

So I don't know how to reconcile that.

But that's the only thing that I saw.

Yep.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And I would just add, I think you're well aware this is where we're this is just part of our pre-council.

This is not for action.

So we'll I'll take these remaining couple of comments.

We'll we'll come up with another draft, and then we'll start it at DRC.

So you'll get a whole nother bite at the apple, so to speak, when it comes back through, but it'll be then it will be for formal action at that point.

So if you have any other second thoughts or other things, or you know, you'll get one more chance to and and it'll have to go through planning commission.

You'll get their input as well, and DRC.

Okay.

Great.

Any other questions?

Councilmember Hurtson questions.

You're good.

Good.

It's great.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, Kim.

Yep.

Okay, item four.

Are there any questions uh for the agenda specific tonight?

Yeah.

No.

I mean, I have questions, but do we wait and ask them on the in the meeting too?

Yeah.

Just any questions if you had specific to how the agenda's written for this evening.

I think it's great, although I would like to have the nice health care uh renewal agreement moved from the consent agenda to the regular agenda.

I'll be happy to take your motion when that comes up.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Great.

Jason, any uh administrative report?

Uh nothing at this time, Mayor.

Uh and mayor or council reports from committees or anything going on.

Whoa, sorry about that.

Uh the mayor and I had the opportunity to go to Miss Team Lehigh.

And it was awesome.

And I I just was really impressed by the production, and all the girls are amazing and did a phenomenal job.

So it's great to be there and support Miss Teen Lehigh.

Just a thank you for speaking at our last unveiling.

How Lehigh got its name, and it was um fun to see so many people there in the our four generations of mayors there.

That was kind of neat.

So thank you for speaking.

You did a great job.

Thank you.

It was great.

It was good to see that group.

That was that's an interesting group to see, so it was great.

Um last night the Kawa the Kawanis Club.

What's it called?

That I don't know if I don't know if that's the correct name.

Kawanis Club of the Point of the Mountain.

They had their charter celebration, so it was their basically um first event, and they um yeah, it it's it's a great organization to add to that's coming to Lehigh.

It's a service organization, and it helps sponsor the key clubs at the high schools, and they are gonna be um hosting the Chuck Wagon breakfast at the Lehigh Roundup Radio Celebration, and it will benefit the Lehigh High Key Club and and as well as the Kawanas Club putting on.

But they it's a great organization, and I brought all of you information because they want you all to be aware and consider even um the city, whatever the city's involvement can be.

Um I also had both the committees that I'm at least on to last week uh occurred, had their meetings, the environmental sustainability committee.

Um they talked a lot about they're going to do a water wise parade of homes coming up in the end of at the end of August to I think the showcase, I'm not sure, but it's newmarked five to ten homes, and it's gonna it'll that'll more information about that will be coming out.

Um we're also looking for applicants for both the environmental sustainability committee and the plant parks, trails, and trees committee.

The uh parks, trails and trees committee is moving forward, but looking for more members.

Um so yeah, that's what I have to report.

Oh, and they also had the there was that event on Saturday that Lehigh City put on with Travers Mountain Trails Association, but it was the Parks Trails and Trees Committee helping them kind of facilitate some of that was my understanding.

So great, thank you.

Any of the reports.

Okay, with that, we'll we need to take a motion for a closed session.

However, I know I have a resident here who wants to make a public comment.

Do you want to wait till seven?

That's two hours away.

I might try to come back at another time.

I have a very important meeting in the morning.

Well, I I have a medical problem.

So I'm willing to give you your three minutes if you want to take it right now so you don't have to because I I'll save you two hours.

Uh but if you'll yeah, come on up if you'll state your name.

We'll give you three minutes.

I appreciate you coming.

I you're just two hours, and I figure we'll we'll give you that opportunity now if you'll take it.

Russ McAdams or James Mac Adams.

But uh I live 22 years in one community back east.

And uh my business and what I did was work for a big in uh company, environmental specialty maintenance company.

We're in automobile plants, chemical plants, steel mills, communities cleaning up sewers and televising.

But we had big heavy diesel trucks and water blasting diesel that we had to set up in communities to do special cleanups, and at times the police would come by and say, you can't, you're disturbing the neighborhood.

We'd have to reset up clear behind a building or something.

But anyway, the ordinances, I just heard we have an ordinance now for uh noise levels and all.

And uh I know growing up with a motorcycle to you can take the baffles out, and man, it's nice to have a loud thing.

But I live over 2300 in Pioneer at nighttime.

I can hear those cars and vehicles and off the road vehicles, even next door, but go all the way up the Eagle Mountain in Saratoga at night and then the early mornings.

Um and then uh load limits on trucks, these big tandem trucks holding hauling rocks and soil in and out at all new areas and construction, but going down 2300, big tandems going trucks going right through Main Street when we have I-15, Redwood Road, we have 2100, and we have Pioneer, they go right down 2300 all the way from 2100 through Thanksgiving Point, all the way out to 2100.

Is there a load limits ordinances or restrictions with these big trucks?

I had a big old 20 tandem truck come through about nine o'clock a couple of weeks ago with a big huge asphalt truck.

I mean, we're in a nice, should be quiet neighborhood.

I back east, we had a beautiful quiet neighborhood.

We never saw all this stuff coming through our residential area.

It was nice and quiet.

But uh this thing went right up.

I thought he had taken a ride up 700 and go into that edition.

He went on through our residential area, up around the road and back into that.

And I've called Detective Swinson now twice because uh they were coming right down my house instead of coming off 2300 pioneer and going down the road.

So I mean is there an ordinance on load limits and trucks?

It tears up roads.

It costs money to replace those roads, and uh plus well, we had more problems with bridges too, though.

We had more rivers and streams back where I lived.

Thanks, Russ.

We will uh we'll definitely take that and look at it and uh see where we're at.

But I do thank you for coming in and voicing your opinion.

It's very very good.

Okay.

Um I will take a motion to go into closed session specifically for the character competence and physical or mental health of an individual.

So moved.

Second.

So I have a first from council member Freeman.

A second from Councilmember Lockhart.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Hi.

I think that's unanimous, so we'll go ahead and go into closed session.

Tuesday evening at 7 p.m.

here in the city council chambers.

We have a full council with us tonight.

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

So we have a full council.

We're grateful for that.

We welcome all who are here with us tonight, and we appreciate that you would come to our meeting.

We'll go ahead and start with the Pledge of Allegiance, and that will be led by Councilmember Harrison, if you'll please stand.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Okay, our first item today, item 2.1 is the Lehigh Roundup Rodeo Royalty Presentation.

So come on up.

We brought a little gift for you guys today.

This has a thank you for letting us come.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Tara Hickin.

I am your 2026 Lee High Roundup Rodeo Queen.

Thank you for supporting us and supporting the rodeo, and we hope to see you sometime this week.

I'm Jensen Hamilton.

I am the first attendant.

I'm Lydia Nap and I'm the second attendant.

And again, I'm super excited for the rodeo this in the next couple weeks, and I hope to see you all there.

All right, and we just kind of want to talk a little bit about Lehigh Week, and hopefully all of you guys can come as well.

Um so Monday we have the concert in the park.

It starts at 7 p.m.

We we will be there representing Lehigh Roundups.

We're very excited for that.

And Tuesday we have our family western barbecue.

We will also be serving for food, so you guys will see us there as well.

And Wednesday, we kick off the rodeo.

So starting at 9 a.m., we have our rodeo slack, which is just an overflow from the rodeo.

And since Lehigh Roundup tickets are sold out every night, families are welcome to come to the Slack for free.

So you guys can come watch.

They'll still be the top the Cowboys and Cowgirls competing.

So that'll be a lot of fun.

And then our rodeo starts that night at 7.45 p.m.

And our Thursday night is the next night of the rodeo.

It's also family night, and then before the rodeo is a stock parade starting at 6 p.m.

And that will end at the rodeo grounds.

Friday night is a miniature parade.

We will be there with the vehicle provided.

And then that night we'll also be doing autographs for the especially little kids who are excited to get those.

And then Saturday is our tough enough to wear pink night in support of breast cancer.

And that's also our grand parade that will be in a truck throwing candy at everyone.

So yeah.

Perfect.

And the grand parade starts at 10 a.m.

on Saturday morning.

So that'll be before the rodeo starts.

Then you guys will have a little bit of time, kick back and relax, and then you guys can head to the rodeo that night at 7.45 p.m.

And make sure that you wear your pink outfits to support the breast cancer awareness.

So that's that's Lehigh Week.

It's in a couple weeks, and we hope to see you all there.

We're very excited.

Thank you so much for letting us come here.

And thank you, Mayor, for supporting us and supporting the rodeo.

Thank you.

We we look forward to it.

We hope everyone comes and enjoys the week.

I know Lehigh should all be there, so we we're excited to come.

So thank you.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

With a sale like that, I would I would I'm excited to see all of you at the rodeo.

So that'll be good.

Okay, item 2.2.

The June water wise yard of the month presentation, Todd.

Well.

Thank you, Mayor, Council, for another segment of waterwise landscape of the month.

We don't have any gifts to bring to you this like our previous school.

But let's see here.

We have a beautiful landscape, though.

And if I can get this working.

Okay.

There you go.

Let's get into a presentation mode.

Okay.

There you go.

Okay, so a little uh interesting uh note on this landscape was we uh actually voted for uh a landscape that was not the address that I went to uh and presented the award to this family who lived on the opposite end of the street and had this beautiful landscape and I just got the addresses mixed up and so I gave them the award and uh it wasn't it was a very valid award.

They uh uh had put the landscape in themselves, and uh Susan Christensen uh was the one who takes care of it all the time.

And she put she told me she put in every single plant herself.

And so it was very, I guess uh appropriate that they would maybe win this award.

But I guess what it illustrates is that we're getting a lot of landscapes uh in the city that are turning into a water wise landscape.

And so um I don't know if she would go, I'll go ahead and turn it over.

I got a little monologue here for Mount.

This is Montana Hamilton, our chair of our uh uh environmental sustainability committee.

So you're on.

Yeah, so we've these are a couple of homes that we found in near Skyridge.

They're great, they're great homes.

We're finding more and more of these, which is which is great.

Um thing that was confusing to to them was I also shared a picture of my own to show them as of mid-June.

We hadn't watered our front landscape at all, and it was vibrant, flowering, looked great.

So we really want to encourage people to to move in this direction, and in that regard, over the next month, we're putting together a waterwise landscape parade of homes so that everybody can go and tour these and get hopefully inspired and do some fall projects and maybe take on their their uh park strips in the future too.

So um I guess basically that just when I talked to Susan, she expressed that when they had finished building their home, they wanted to do something that was uh water wise, and they decided to do a Xeroscape.

And the first thing when they started to put the plants in, uh the neighbor came over and said, I see you're building a weed patch.

And she was like, you know what?

And he goes, Yeah, these are just gonna be weeds that you're gonna have to take care of all summer long.

The only way to really landscape is to put a lawn in, you know, and and mow your grass.

And so she was like kind of hesitant and thinking maybe we made a mistake, but uh, you know, talking about it now, she just adores the landscape, and and it's really it's the uh envy of the neighborhood.

And uh, you know, we have the curbside appeal is just stunning.

And when I asked her, I go, so how does your neighbor feel about this now?

And she goes, well, we're good friends now, and we just laugh about it.

So anyway, you can have a beautiful landscape.

She you reduce your uh uh you know, your wear and tear on your lawnmower and have a you know the envy of the neighborhood.

But um thank you.

We appreciate it.

Uh we the recipients uh are on their way home from St.

George.

They weren't able to make it in time for the council meeting, so they send their apologies and I told them that I would let them know, let you know that uh they were grateful for it and everything.

So awesome.

Thank you.

Any questions or we're gonna be here again next month, so thanks.

Yeah, got it.

Okay, yeah.

I just I guess I could go up there.

I'll stay here.

Um I just wanted to have the people come up who participated in an intensive workshop last week.

Um there were community, there were teams from eight communities.

Um Alpine Eagle Mountain Highland, Lehigh Provo, Saratoga Springs, Spanish Fork in Springville, and they're I'm gonna call them with them graduates, uh, our team graduates who who did that.

Um the team who was there included Cameron Boyle, the assistant city administrator, Dave Norman, public works director.

You want to come up?

Kim Struthers, community development director, Todd Munger, environmental sustainability.

Um Director Matt Dalton, pressurized irrigation, operations supervisor, Trent Dyer, Parks Planning Manager, and Mike Overson, Parks Irrigation Supervisor.

And over the course of two days, um, this team was sent to professionals from Utah State, Utah Division of Water Resources, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Here, Kim, can I give this to you?

Got this certificate.

And um, there was an intensive workshop where there was a um facilitator, and I myself was included there.

We were led through a series of work sessions to develop a concept action plan to become water smart in our land use and water planning.

I think it's especially timely this year with the drought that we're experiencing.

And it was um we'll continue to meet regularly to refine our plan and engage the city council and other staff and to accomplish goals and objectives.

But I I learned a lot, and I was really impressed with all these professionals who devoted and sacrificed their time.

And um away from here, it was it was in another city, and uh yeah, we it was overnight.

A couple nights, so thank you so much for those of you who are able to be there.

And anything you want to say?

Okay.

Not really.

It was no, it was really great.

It was a great and uh intensive few days, and I think we learned a lot and have a lot to bring back to continue working on with the city.

So and and kudos to you as well for joining us.

Yeah, those really good experience.

Not your typical workshop.

You actually we got it duggy in and created.

It was very intensive, I thought.

Yes.

This is just the star.

So I guess that's the big takeaway.

Okay, our we take it.

Okay.

There you go.

Thank you.

That is a uh a phenomenal team, so thank you.

Okay, it's uh 7.13.

We'll go ahead and open the mic for public comment.

Couple rules with public comment.

If if the item is that you want to make comment about is on the um agenda, we would ask, and I I will open it for comments during the meeting tonight.

But if there's if there's something that's not on the agenda that you'd like to make a comment about, we invite you to come up.

Couple things as we open it up for three minutes.

You'll see three minutes up above.

If you look at the big screen, it'll just count down.

If you get past three minutes, I may interrupt you and and uh help you get to your to the final your statement.

So with that said, it's 7.14.

We'll open up for public comment.

Last rule you have to state your name.

Okay.

My name is Jared Franklin.

Uh Scott Murph.

Uh we live over on uh on 900 North and Charlotte Street.

Um I'm calling to ask that uh we look at some changes on the 900 North, 300 west intersection by bandwagon park.

Um sorry if I'm a little emotional, I'll try not to, but uh on Saturday.

My 11-year-old son was involved in an accident on his bike involving a car.

Um luckily he is okay and just broke a collarbone.

Um as I as I started going back over to that park, I've noticed a few things.

One, our church building is there, and so I've been on that road a lot, 900 West, and and uh or sorry, 300 west there, and it's uh lot of us probably know, but the speed limit is constantly.

I feel like people it's been those 25, but I sat there for about 45 minutes today, and I I feel like it the low end 50% of people were going 25, and upwards of 80, 90 percent of people were going 25, over 25.

Um my son was very lucky that he actually T-boned the car.

And I went over there to when I went over there Saturday to pick up the bike.

Um there was a it was a busy Saturday at the park, and there was cars all up and down that you know, parked along 300 west there for for parties.

And I have a lot of pictures, but even just with my single truck there today, it's a complete blind spot looking west there.

And um I just I by you know, the the reports uh we were lucky that the car was going for the police report said the car was only going 28.

And we've actually spoken with the the lady, the victim, the other person that you know my son also hit.

It was traumatic for her as well.

And um and even last night as I drove by there, it uh there's a teenager walking in the crosswalk and he was hard to see, you know, even just at dusk on my way home from work.

And uh so I feel very fortunate that my son is this alive, and that didn't have because if it was a few seconds earlier, he could have been hit and you're lucky so he hit the on the side.

And um I think it if nothing else, the changes that y'all that we've made on uh 500 west with that four-way stops made a huge difference.

Just even have a four-way stop there.

So something like a four-way stop, or I think even better would be you know, some type of flashing indicators there that really alert anybody that's walking.

It teaches our kids to push the button and and hopefully to be more aware of that.

And uh to be honest, like this is uh we're moving in a month, not because we don't like Lehigh, but this doesn't really affect me, but hopefully I feel like even with that park there, it's there's so many kids at that little tiny bandwagon park, and I think it would be you know a big change, great change there.

So I'll just pipe in as well.

I I'm a neighbor as well, and um got young kids and super busy street.

I think we all know.

I think that's the one street that there are no stop signs all the way down, so you just kind of zip people zip through.

So I think whether it's lights, speed bumps, I think there really is something that can be done and should be done just with the amount of kid traffic, and there's so much new construction going on, kind of that feeds that direction that I think it's just kind of become an issue that we should really look at.

So thank you.

Thank you all.

And thank you to the council women who have been in touch with me via email.

We'll follow up with the the city traffic engineer, and we appreciate your consultation.

Thank you, thank you for your comments.

Some pictures to you, Michelle.

I'll probably get them in your email, but just some things to look at.

So thank you.

We hope your son uh heels well.

Yeah, he's that's hard headed like luckily one that withstand it, but you're good evening, members of the council.

Thank you for your time tonight, and I echo their thanks for the responses that I've gotten also in my communication.

My name is Kirk Wright.

I'm here on behalf of my neighbors regarding the letter I recently sent to each one of you around traffic issues that we're facing.

And just real quick, if my neighbors would stand up, I know a few might speak, but not all of them.

I think we have just under half of all of the houses that are affected by this issue.

So our our neighborhood's dealing with an overflow of vehicles that's overwhelmed our narrow residential streets.

It's no longer just an inconvenience.

It's become a genuine safety hazard.

Uh excuse me.

Delivery drivers, visitors, and residents alike were struggling to navigate the streets as they're now being lined on both sides by uh parking from the neighborhood uh from the businesses that border our neighborhood.

So I want to point out the description directly from the Lehigh City Development Code website.

It explicitly states quote the development code contains standards, provisions, and requirements intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Lehigh by ensuring that neighbors and adjacent properties are protected from the potential negative impacts in the development and the use of the land.

I thought that was so well written.

It's so good what we have there.

But right now, our neighborhood and our adjacent properties are not being protected from these negative impacts.

We do love our community, but the current situation is unsustainable and compromises the very safety and welfare that the code is meant to guarantee.

So first and foremost, we're asking that the city strictly enforce the development and parking codes that we already have on the books.

Enforcing the codes as written would resolve the issue immediately, aligning the positive intent of neighborhood commercial businesses with the preservation of the bordering very low density housing.

However, if we're unable or unwilling to enforce these existing codes to resolve the issue, then we're officially requesting that the city establish a neighborhood permit-only parking zone within our neighborhood.

To show how this is deeply impacting the community, I have a partition signed by every single one of our neighbors who who is affected and is asking for this relief.

We'd love to work collaboratively with you to fix this before a major safety incident occurs.

Can I leave this with the recorder?

Yeah, Mr.

Wright also, can you when you you can leave that with record and then come back?

Would you give me the address of what your an address of where you're talking about?

Uh yeah, we're this is where the strip mall area is on the corner of 3200 north and 1200 west.

And we live right behind that, directly to the southeast of that intersection.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

My name is Ryan Hill.

I'm one of uh Kirk Wright's neighbors.

We also live uh just uh south of the Belleview assisted living.

Um all new faces, our neighborhood knew the old city council very well.

A lot of them knew you know, we knew a lot of you guys by name.

Um we've gone through a lot of stuff with our neighborhood in this area.

Uh the neighborhood commercial at one point was supposed to benefit the community, benefit the neighborhood.

Some of our concerns when this was going in, a lot of these were residential lots that were turned into neighborhood commercial.

Um the intent, I think even where the symphony homes were, just to the south of us was also supposed to be neighborhood commercial, and luckily they turned that back into residential on their own time.

But one of our frustrations was is it just it was the access that we have from our neighborhood.

Um I know that the the city code talks about having accessibility.

Um I think we have five different ways to get to the neighborhood commercial from our 12 homes.

Um the longest one being maybe a five-minute walk, the quickest one maybe being uh uh 15 to 20 second walk.

So I think that's also created a lot of reasons why our neighborhood is actually being negatively excuse me, negatively impacted by this is because there's so many access points to our our street from from those businesses.

Um again, I just wanted to second what Kirk Wright said and ask that you guys enforce the city ordinances and codes.

Um and if not, then uh you know, permit by parking.

So thank you guys.

Thank you.

I'm Tyler Anderson.

I'm also one of the neighbors in that area, and just wanted to add a couple extra details.

I'll try not to repeat the same um things.

I'm in agreement with everything else that's already been said.

Um so the um, especially the Fabian house there is where the majority of the parking comes from.

Um they have uh 7,000 square feet, which per city code requires them to have one stall per 300 square feet, which would require 24 spots.

They have 15 parking stalls, so I'm not sure why I'm not sure why they were able to get a business license that didn't meet code.

Um but beyond that, um last week I counted 39 cars parked in our small residential area that were non-residential.

And I uh on my way to work, I drove past their building and they were using one of their 15 parking spots.

So they're intentionally choosing to use our spots over theirs, and whether that helps their business with the drop-off or different things, I don't know.

The logistics, but that seems like that directly, you know, doesn't go with the code that they had to have these required spots, they should be using them if they have them.

So for that reason, I would you know recommend that we do have the residential, either that we resolve this with um enforcing that requirement or that we have residential parking like other, like all the you know, other schools in Lehigh have and other you know, lots of other cities.

Um the other morning I left at 7.30.

Must have been the same to take my son to the legacy center.

And it must have been the same time that they were all coming, it was like event parking, just everyone just parking all at the same time.

I've had multiple reports just uh within the last week or so of people parked their own direction, three different fire hydrants they were parked in front of, um, as well as uh two people I know of specifically within the last week where they just after work or or coming to park, just flip the U-turn without even looking and almost hit uh the neighbors.

Um and there's just there's no space for anything.

If a friend wants to come over, a delivery, uh you know, if we need to have something repaired, there's just nowhere for them to park because our entire street is uh full of cars.

Um so uh yeah, so I agree that it is a definitely a safety hazard.

There's lots of kids that play in that, and it's easy for them to just step out in front of a car and you wouldn't see them.

And you know, as neighbors, we kind of know what to expect, but as these uh other um people for the school, um, it doesn't seem like they're paying as close of attention.

So uh thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Chris Ogden, and um I am also a neighbor and don't want to waste your time with with repeating um things that have already been pointed out.

But um I guess I just as we were driving here, literally on our way here, the U-turn happened, and Sharon just about got hit, and they were doing an illegal U-turn coming into her driveway as she was coming out, and and this is not um an unusual event.

And the 39 cars is not an exaggeration, like we're not talking about just a dozen spread throughout the neighborhood.

It it feels like an event and not just like a little baby shower or a party, like it is lining everywhere.

Um, and so has really gotten extreme.

And as Kurt said, we're not asking for like a change in code, we're not asking for anything to be changed, we're simply asking for things to be enforced.

So we hope that you can consider that, and thank you very much.

Thank you.

My name's Troy Sheffield.

I'm the one that almost got branded just a few minutes ago.

Um, in addition to what you've already heard, I have a fairly wide driveway.

And most, if not many of the people who have been parking there, have been using my driveway to drive in and out and make a U-turn in my driveway until I parked a truck in the middle of it, uh, which is there now.

Um will be for the rest of the week at least.

Um but I had uh HVAC people come to work on my house Monday.

They their front wheel of their vehicle was equal with grass in my parking strip.

The rest of their vehicle was in front of my driveway because there was no other place for them to fit because of these people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll just uh my name's Chad Ogden.

I'll just add one additional thing.

Um while the strip malls have been put in there.

I mean, there's been a lot of construction workers and stuff that have been parking along our time, you know, and we understand that.

Um temporary things, temporary we're we're not complaining, but this seems to be like this is going to be forever.

The lease is five years for the businesses there, and so it's not gonna be just a temporary thing.

This is something that looks like it's gonna be ongoing.

So I can just say that.

Thank you.

Okay, if there's no other comments, we will close the public comment at 7.30 and bring it back to the dais.

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

Um questions on the consent agenda.

Mr.

Yeah.

Um I have a question about 4.3.

Can you explain that again?

Um, Brad, I think you were talking about that last night.

Yeah, I'd be happy to.

Um so back in 2022, um, an agreement came to the council uh for the relocation of fiber.

Um pertinences, this is between the hospital and the UTA right-away.

This is these are fiber lines that need to be relocated so that we can construct what we refer to as the hospital loop road that runs along the east side of um the sanctuary and ties into um Triumph Boulevard.

Um in 2222 that was approved, but we were not able to construct or have those fiber lines relocated because of some property issues related to UTA.

We've since resolved those property issues, and we sought to get an updated bid from ATT to do those relocations, and this is that contract um for us to continue with those relocations.

Thanks.

Mr.

Mayor, I would like to request that item 4.5 be on the regular agenda.

So you'd like to make a motion to remove 4.5 for its own.

Yes, I would move to remove that to the regular agenda.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Freeman to move 4.5 to its separate.

Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

I have a second from Councilmember Lockhart.

Any questions on that?

Councilmember Newell will start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

So go back to the consent agenda minus 4.5.

Any questions on the consent agenda.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve the consent agenda minus 4.5.

So I have a motion by Councilmember Newell.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Any questions on that?

Councilmember Harrison will start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Okay, so that passes.

Let's go back to item 4.5.

And that is the approval of the NICE Health Care Annual Renewal Agreement.

I think David's here.

Andy's here if we had questions that I don't have I don't have questions per se.

I just I believe in access to care, health care, and I believe in keeping costs low, but I don't believe that this is the way to do it.

I see that we have a lot of benefits for our for the employees' health, the health insurance, which sickness insurance, um, wellness program, the free legacy center membership, uh we have a good PTO um policy if someone is is sick.

And um I believe that this nice health care um plan is redundant of some of those things.

It I to me, as a board certified nurse practitioner and advanced practice registered nurse.

I think it is also misleading because it touts itself as preventative health care, but it does not cover um all preventative health care.

And I think that it's really important for people to have a medical home.

Um it's expensive when I did the calculations of how much that we paid um per visit.

The first quarter of the year is typically the busiest for health care.

That's when you have cold and flu season.

That's when people use the doctor the most or health health access.

And we don't know what those visits were.

There was 126 visits.

Um, based on the calculations of that and how much was paid, it was about 355 dollars a visit is what the city paid for that.

And I mean that could have been physical therapy.

If that was one person doing physical therapy, maybe twice a week, that's 10% of those visits, which normally would be around 150 dollars under 25 or even 100 on the free market.

Um that we have health insurance.

We have that for employees, and I I don't think that this is filling the need um in primary care or in urgent care as there is uh as the intent uh that in my opinion.

So I think this is an imitation of a true medical home, preventative care and after hours, access to care because there isn't even some of the after hours.

Um I personally and professionally believe this is a this is bad medicine, this is a bad product, and I don't I did not support that.

So any other comments on 4.5.

Mr.

Mayor, if I was just curious if uh if Andy's here from HR, if you would like to maybe comment on that because I'm curious about this debate.

I am not a board certified medical provider, but I can speak to the um response that our employees have had to the service.

Um in the slide deck I shared with you all yesterday, our employees have expressed that they feel like they've gotten good care.

Um they've felt like they've been able to receive explanation to their um concerns and questions.

And um I just anecdotally know that there have been several employees that I've spoken to that have um appreciated the service, but um obviously this is your decision on to as to whether or not this is the something that should be approved.

And can you remind us what the total cost is annually?

So it's going to fluctuate depending on how many are on the medical plan.

Um last year we had uh 331 employees, and that came out to 179,000.

And and I guess to council member Freeman's question for you.

So the 100 and there's 12.

There's 126 visits in the first quarter.

Okay.

So if I divided the 179 by four, then I get 44, like for a quarter, it was about 44 or something, thousand, divided that by how many visits there were, and it was approximately 355.16 cents a visit is what the city was paying for that service.

And visits could be encounters.

We like we count them as encounters, whether it's you're encountering something that you have a sore throat, or you're doing physical therapy, telehealth, or you're having something like that.

So I just I I don't see it, I'm not convinced.

Maybe I don't have all the information because it was a a new agenda item.

Uh, you know, some new information presented last night, but I'm not convinced that this is a wise imprudent use of taxpayer money and as an additional health benefit considering all the other health benefits that we have.

So that's my opinion.

Mr.

Mayor, may I ask a question?

Yes.

Is there a deadline of this needs to be approved today for a renewal purpose?

Uh our renewal expires at the end of this month.

So we would need to have another meeting.

Okay.

So that cost, is that also factoring in the decrease that we pay towards our medical premiums then too because we have this.

So the medical premium.

So PEHP reduces our premium by about $83,000 a year.

And then I reached out to GPS, our broker today, to try and have them give us an estimate on if they could give us a guess on how much we are seeing a reduction in our because those visits are not hitting the plan.

And they gave us an estimate of 205,000.

Um so that total would be 288,000.

So based on that, you're saying we're saving more.

And then also if you factor in time lost of employees taking time off, specially salaried employees to go to medical visits.

That's kind of where I saw the benefit of it being.

Um and that it would continue to grow.

But I saw it as a cost savings and a benefit, especially to employees.

I I'm thinking myself working full-time, having kids, doing this, it's difficult to get to those appointments.

Um so that that's where I think like it there is a true benefit, but also I I don't know that the calculations are correct.

If we're saying 355 per visit, it's not factoring in all these other numbers with it.

So I guess that's where it's hard too to like we to quantify exactly where the full benefit is.

And you said that it was saving 206 hours of um work.

I think it was last night.

Yeah.

So yeah.

Do they do our employees have access to telemed with their regular insurance or was there if I understand it right, there was an option just to do that?

And this is CHP does offer uh a telemed option.

It doesn't it's not as expansive as this nice health care.

They don't offer the physical therapy, the prescriptions, they don't offer um mental health counseling.

Um it's just uh uh you know a telemed service.

Okay.

So the the current insurance aside from this doesn't offer mental health.

Not as a not as a telemed option.

Yeah.

This is concierge.

This is a concierge service.

So this is a different than telehealth.

I just want to make that differentiation.

When I last night, that's something that came up.

This is not telehealth, this is concept.

They offer several different things, right?

But the cities opted for the concierge level, not that just the telehealth of the nice.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that.

So in the contract, there was two options.

And the only option that we were presented at the city council was the concierge service.

That's what the city had the that's what HR department had chosen, but there was a telehealth option.

Oh I see what you mean.

I I I thought, sorry, the direct primary care.

So it's these different four options.

The primary care, the mental health counseling, the prescriptions, and the physical therapy is is what the package includes with nice health care.

And I just want to point out that again, it's not a substitute.

It says it's not an insurance.

It like it says that, right?

It's not insurance.

It's just a service where you the city pays a fee per employee per month.

Right.

And they have this, but however, it it doesn't include things like pelvic exams or breast exams or vaccines or things that would be important.

And I think that's especially I want to make sure that we are like I I'm concerned that people, if they're doing this, they think all their bases are covered.

But we're looking at things like preventative care like colonoscopies or things like that that are not.

And then this is a I just think that it's m being misrepresented.

I don't think it's a good model, and it's not you.

It's I'm seeing that as for not as nice.

I don't disagree.

I don't think anyone has tried to say that this is going to cover all of your medical needs.

Um this is just an option there for um convenience for those things that they that they do provide.

And Andy, you said 300 around 350 employees have opted to it.

331 was what was on it last time.

Um do you know of how many how many of those 331 have used it within a year?

Um I have the last quarter's usage, and that was our utilization was just over 13 percent for that quarter.

So I don't know, you know, I don't know who used it in quarter two versus quarter one.

I I don't have that.

Okay.

So 13% of the employees used it in that quarter.

Yes.

Um I imagine a lot of those are the is that 13% different individuals or is it like 13% of those 330?

Right.

Okay.

13 percent of the three three.

Right.

If we don't approve it tonight and maybe table it because there's some good points that have been brought up, and I I think I would like to understand a bit better.

If the contract lapse, can we still in a month or two, whatever, um enter into that contract again?

I don't know.

I don't know the answer to that.

Any other questions?

Sorry, Andy, can you just say the contract period?

Was this a two-year contract?

It's a two-year contract.

We did negotiate a 60-day walkaway period if for whatever reason in this like after year one, if we don't want to renew, we have to provide 60 days notice and we can we can terminate that in between, if that makes sense.

So we could do it for a year and walk away.

If we provide 60 days notice, but a minimum, okay.

And it's already been done for two years, right?

Uh we've been doing it for four years, I think.

I think this is our fourth year.

Happy to entertain a motion.

Well, I would move to Mr.

Mayor.

I would move to deny um the approval of 4.5, nice health care annual renewal agreement.

Do I have a second?

And if no one agrees, that's fine.

I'm just saying that.

I'll second it.

So I have a second from council member Stalling.

Any questions on that?

I do have a question.

Um it sounded to me like this is like from a financial perspective, this is a net gain for the city on savings.

Have we has I just want to ask the council, are we sure we're gonna deny something that saves us money?

I just want to make sure I'm following correctly that this helps us save money on health insurance costs.

Well, I would be I would be much more comfortable tabling until we maybe had a deeper dive.

I don't with with you know, I just want to make sure we aren't walking away from some savings.

I mean it it is said that they'll pay 83,000 more on the PHP.

So the pa the city might pay more, but I guarantee you that this will cost us 179,000.

So I have a I have a motion and a second.

Um with that, if there's no other questions for the motion, let's go ahead and take a vote.

Um council member Stollings will start with you.

Um seconded a I did.

So we can second it to move it along though.

So she can start with you.

Uh I yes, I would really like more information on this, but I'll I'll vote no on it for now.

Councilmember Freeman.

Excuse me.

I vote yes to the motion.

Correct.

Okay.

Councilmember Freeman.

I vote yes.

Councilmember Locker.

I vote no with I would prefer this to be a motion to table.

I'm not quite sure on the savings aspect.

And I want to make sure we don't leave money on the table for the city.

Councilmember Newell?

No.

Councilmember Harrison.

Also a no for the same reasons that Councilmember Lockhart stated.

So with that, that does not pass.

Now I look at legal.

Now what I do, right?

Ask for another motion.

Oh, it's time for another motion.

I'll make a motion to table.

I understood from Andy that we can't table it, that he needs to know.

But can I just have some clarification?

Did he leave?

Although you're right there, like yeah, smart man.

Get out of the room.

Um that's my worry that we don't have another meeting before this is due.

What happens if we table it and is it kind of up in the air if we're able to start the contract again in July?

My understanding is this our contract with them ends at the end of June.

And this renewal would kick in in July.

And so if we don't have a meeting before July, we are that's that's my understanding.

Okay.

I was just gonna say, so obviously this company wouldn't say no to a contract if even if it was delayed.

So I think my recommendation would be to ask if they could provide a 30-day extension.

Um if not, and we come back and we say, okay, it makes sense to do this contract.

It might just have a couple week lapse before we meet again in mid-July, if that makes sense.

Sure.

Or could we table it and you come back to us and if we need to call a special meeting to get in just to pass this one if there's any kind of concern.

I would prefer a special meeting, like a meeting to pass that.

Like if we can do this in July, great.

But if you have any concerns, then we can if we have to come in to make it.

What if we split the baby and ask the question if they would be willing to give us an extension?

And if not, then we have a special meeting.

But if they are, then we can do it in July.

Yeah, that's what satisfyable.

That's what I'm saying.

Okay, okay.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Is is there an issue with this matching the fiscal years and the budget requirements?

Or right just because we've allocated budgeted money for this, doesn't if we don't spend it for 30 days, like we would still get 11 months of that contract, right?

I just want to make sure we're not misaligning our contract with the fiscal years.

Well, there's also a concern that if this is saving us money, that we haven't budgeted money to cover not having it.

Yeah, that's why I'm worried about the budget.

There's an insurance broker involved as well.

Yeah.

Yeah, I guess I'd have to have finance speak to the finance aspect of that.

Yeah.

What?

Yeah.

Uh there's a lot of unknowns, and we would have to get input from the the company.

Yeah.

So if we were to table it, we could make phone calls tomorrow, and then we could let you know if we needed to have a special meeting or not.

Um but I think a lot of these questions there's just no way for us to know without speaking to them.

Okay.

But at the very least, if we did table it, like I said, we could always say, hey, we absolutely have to make a decision on this right away.

We could schedule another meeting.

Okay.

I just want to think what is the worst if you don't approve it.

I mean, what is the gap?

There's health insurance, there's care still provided.

So we just haven't budgeted to lose the savings that we get by having this program.

So our balance wouldn't be or our budget wouldn't be balanced.

That that's what I'm concerned about.

Um so I'll go ahead if Mr.

Mayor, if you're open to a motion.

Yes.

Um I'll move that we table item 4.5 with direction to staff to reach out to the um contractor, ask for a 30-day extension, and ask, you know, gather the information from the questions being discussed today.

And if a special meeting is necessary, um convene us before June 30th so we can vote on this with more information.

Second.

So I've got a first from Councilmember Lockhart, a second from Council Member Newell.

Any questions on that motion?

So Councilmember Freeman, we'll start with you.

I don't know.

I believe this is bad medicine.

And then I'm explaining my vote.

In the Journal of Health Economics, a study from UC Berkeley found that concierge medicine enrollment corresponds with a sharp increase in total health spending with no char change in patients' mortality rates.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

So you have a four to one, so we will table that item gather some information.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andy.

Okay, we'll get to the regular agenda now.

Item five, five point one, electric cost of service and uh rate design study and fee schedule amendment.

This is set for a public hearing.

Uh we'll go ahead and open that public hearing.

What time is it?

It's 7 51, so we'll go ahead and open that public hearing.

No one's here to speak.

We'll go ahead and close that public hearing at 7.51.

And then we'll go to item B, consideration of resolution 2026-40, adopting the electrical cost of service and rate design study and amending the Lehigh City consolidated fee schedule for power rates.

Any comments on this or questions?

We do have Joel here who's thank you, Joel.

You did a great job of answering our questions at the last work session.

And on phone calls and text and if there's no questions, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Ayer, I move that we approve resolution 2026-40 adopting the electric cost of service and rate design study and amending the Lehigh City Consolidated Fee Schedule for power power rates.

I have a first from Councilmember Newell.

Do I have a second?

Second.

The second from Council Member Freeman.

Any questions on that motion?

With that, then we'll start with you, Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Thank you.

Item 5.2 consideration consideration of resolution 2026-44, approving an agreement with ProLecE.

Wakesha.

Thank you.

Walk a shot.

To purchase two substation transformers.

Any questions or comments on this item?

Joel, can you just explain what this is for for the general people that are here?

Sure, I'll be brief.

Uh, and then we can go into more questions.

If you haven't, we're just planning ahead.

These transformers take a long time to get here.

These will get here in October of 2029.

Um we've looked and studied our load growth, and we're forecasting we'll need this, these either at the Carter substation to replace the smaller transformers, or we'll need them to build the Cold Springs substation as planned.

Any other questions?

I'm happy to entertain a motion on this one.

Very move to approve resolution 2026-44, approving an agreement with ProLECG Wakush Wakecha to purchase two substation transformers.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Freeman to have a second.

Any questions on that motion?

We'll start with you, Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Item 5.3, consideration of resolution 2026-41, approving a development agreement on 7.1 acres of property located at 2424 West, 900 north, allowing 13 lots in the current very low density residential agriculture debt uh designation.

Is there anyone here that to comment on this one?

Just me.

Come on up.

Hi.

I'm Terry Bishop.

I'm the petitioner in this case.

Nice to see you all again.

Um we were here a few times ago, and uh was everything went well as far as uh we were concerned with the uh stipulation that there be a uh development agreement uh worked up and Kim helped us with that.

Uh we've come up with that and proposed that this be moved ahead as uh we've fulfilled all requirements so far.

Thanks, Mr.

Bishop.

Any questions for any questions for the petitioner?

times ago and uh was everything went well as far as uh we were concerned with the uh stipulation that there be a a uh development agreement uh worked up and kim helped us with that uh we've come up with that and proposed that this be moved ahead as uh we've fulfilled all requirements so far thanks mr bishop any questions for any questions for the petitioner thank you thank you any questions amongst the the group if there's no questions I'm happy to take a motion I just want to say that I appreciate um how you're the all the residents came out and supported you all your neighbors that really spoke volumes to me um as I don't love getting giving increased density and I felt like this was a really good a good um way in common ground that we found and I appreciate the staff who came came back to the drawing board with it so thank you Mr.

Mayor um I move that we approve resolution twenty twenty six-41 approving development agreement on 7.1 acres of property located at 24 24 west 900 north allowing 13 lots and the current very low density residential agricultural designation and include DRC comments second can you do it with the finding that the development agreement aligns with the goals and policies of the general plan yes so do you want to redo your your initial your initial motion I can add so amended yes amended as stated.

And second stance.

Okay any other questions great we'll start with you Councilmember Harrison yes Councilmember Stallings I'm gonna vote no not because this is a bad product I think it'll be great.

I just I see value in retaining the larger lots for large animal rights so I'm sad to see that go but it I appreciate that you're willing to reduce it not as much as you could have I guess if we did a zone change but just a little so I I think it'll be a great project I just thought it could have been better.

Thank you.

Councilmember Freeman yes Councilmember Lockhart Yes and I um I I don't I'm I'm not a huge fan of development agreements but when we talked about this and how it has the infrastructure need and the public benefit that's where I was able to find support for this great council member new yes great that passes thank you Mr Bishop okay I will take a motion to adjourn our council meeting so we can enter a Lehigh City redevelopment agency meeting.

So moved so I have a first from council member Freeman and a second from council member new all in favor say aye aye great welcome to our Lehigh City Redevelopment agency meeting.

We do have a full council we have council member Newell Councilmember Harrison Councilmember Stallings Councilmember Freeman and Councilmember Lockhart we do have a full council tonight.

With that we will move to item item 5.5026-43 approving an interlocal agreement between the Lehigh City Redevelopment agency of the RDA sorry mayor you don't have the RDA oh I don't have that form there's fine that's what I was in board thank you so we will go to item 2.1 consider as a consideration of resolution um R 2026-06 approving a participation agreement between Lehigh redevelopment agency and the stack soccer field LLC so we'll bring you up before you come up is there anyone here in the public that is here to speak to this item okay come on up Ryan Thomas Stack Real Estate.

But we can I I think they're similar enough that however we want to progress there.

Council is there any recommendations do we want to approach the Thanksgiving point development first and then these two seconds second or do we want to approach the you mean do item 2.2 first correct my question is as the development as a whole um so wherever you would like me to ask a question like that I think that I think we're probably fair to answer any questions at this point in time so I don't what why don't we go that way and then we'll we'll take them one by one as we approve and vote.

Uh and I'll be honest with you, it may not be a perfect agreement in Lehigh City's eyes.

It's not a perfect agreement in our eyes either.

But that's what makes a real agreement.

Both sides giving up something they wanted to land on something they can each live with.

As you know, we've spent years on this collectively.

We've spent six months with this council working through this together.

Um we've gone over the concerns line by line, one at a time here.

Um we're not here tonight to reopen any of it or to renegotiate anything respectfully.

We're here to just ask for your vote.

Because the constraints we've accepted in this agreement are as far as we can go to still build this.

Um the constraints are the limit of what this project can bear.

We took them on for one reason to move this forward and because we share an aligned goal, and that is delivering uh successful Thanksgiving station TOD that can be built and that gets built right.

So my ask is simple.

We ask that you take a vote tonight on the participation agreement uh for approval as presented.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, if I may.

Um I just uh respect your your ask.

I just have a question.

Um my understanding is that as a whole, um you have you are allowed 2,000 units across four different sections.

There's the Corn Belly section, there's the soccer section, the UTA section, and the what I call like the TSAT building section.

Yeah.

When I add up the requested units in for all four of those sections, I'm finding 2100 units instead of 2,000.

Sure.

So I just want to know you can you can have 1,800 in the three that belong to the HTRZ.

What are you going to do with that extra hundred?

Is it coming out of the TSAT section?

Um can you give shine some light onto that?

Yeah, very fair question.

I understand the reason for some confusion there.

If you actually look at the area plan as it was approved, there's several exhibits in there that provide a range.

You know, all of the units as you described are kind of placed in four quadrants.

And the soccer field and the corn bellies parcel have a range of units just for market dynamics, different unit sizes.

As you know, it's a long-term project.

So we are fully capped at 2,000 units.

UTA's piece is 200 units minimum maximum.

Down there by the TSTAP buildings, it's 200 unit units minimum maximum.

Um we know that between corn bellies and the soccer field, there are only 1,600 units there.

So the only interchanging of units would be between the soccer field and corn bellies there, with a not to exceed 1350 on corn bellies and a not to exceed 350 on the soccer field.

If we go to the full 1350 there, we're capped at 250 on the soccer field and vice versa.

1600 between those two.

Hopefully that clears it up.

I know it's a little bit it does clear it up, but um is can you point to in the contract where you're using the word maximums?

I maybe I didn't see it when I read through it a few times, but it it frankly is unnecessary in the participation agreements because we're governed by the area plan.

So nothing in the participation agreement could undo anything that's in the area plan there.

So we default, as we've always said, to our governing document, the area plan.

So that is where it's covered there.

That's where it's addressed.

In order to get more units, as you all know, we'd have to come back to the council and request that.

So we are kept.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Um, I just had a couple of concerns and big concerns when it comes to the the roadways and the transportation.

I know that was something that I was pushing through.

Yeah.

Um the one about uh the roadways, I think it's being interpreted as the city would be the ones who would be funding it where the point of that um part was because we have grant funding to be able to study and have a plan to help address the failure of Triumph Boulevard failure in that area.

That's where you know the city has funds to commit, but I would not want anything in there that's committing the city to have to pay it for it.

So my my biggest concern, I know the concern of the past council why this never came forward, is because we had the funding for a solution with Clubhouse Drive.

And I know that's not that doesn't work for us now.

It doesn't work for um Thanksgiving Point and partners to be able to do that.

But my big concern is passing this and not having the solution and just having the the idea of like we know we need a solution, we know there's some funding out there to study a solution, we know that Lehigh wants to sign off on that, what that solution is.

But I'm really concerned that because of the way that we're putting it in now, that we're we're holding you to support what solution comes up, but that we don't have a solution yet.

So I'm worried that as we get to what's projected to be a failure of China Boulevard in 2033, that it's going to come back on this council that we passed this and allowed a funding mechanism to go forward for development, and then we're going to have road failure.

And to me is really difficult to do that when we don't that we need that solution as part of this because otherwise what's what's going to hold anybody to finding that solution if it's not already set in there what this is.

And that's where I like I just have real concern about moving forward with this because not on Lehigh to pay for.

We had the money for it.

And now I feel like it's no longer our responsibility because we weren't the ones that took it off the table.

So I don't know if developers or the state or somebody to be able to make this development work, there has to be a solution to that.

And we don't have it yet.

We just have the idea we know that there needs to be one, and it can't be Clubhouse Drive.

That's all we know.

Sure.

Yeah.

So if I'm hearing your concern correctly, it's future proofing for future traffic demands that may be related to the project, but may just be background growth that are happening in this area that need to be solved for.

Well, just knowing that it's it's going to fail in 2100 north is not going to be enough to stop that from happening.

And we put 2,000 units there, it's going to exacerbate it.

Yeah.

And I I know you've been involved with this council and planning commission for a long time, so you've kind of seen how this project has progressed.

And I think one big misconception, especially from the public point of view, is that our project has always been attached to Clubhouse Drive.

You know, we were never the ones proposing Clubhouse Drive or any of those things like that.

When we went through the public input process and the substantial traffic engineering process, um multiple, multiple traffic studies that I uh Lauren was here, he could attest to.

We looked at all these variables, and that is how those traffic triggers were put in place in the area plan.

Where Gardner and Stack took on our piece of the, you know, we call them minor improvements because they're only minor in comparison to 2100 north becoming a freeway or Clubhouse Drive going through a golf course and going and connecting up to wherever it was destined to connect.

But our projects, our roadway projects are substantial that we have to complete.

And the city has taken on some of their own as well and done those.

But I think at the end of the day, um that's all been settled for in the area plan there.

And going forward, when you're talking about a regional traffic solution, that's that's just not a developer-solved problem right there.

That is solved by regional planning authorities.

Um the traffic engineers, the UDOTs, the regional planning associations that look into this and find solutions for those things, and that's where that public funding comes from.

Yeah.

And so my feeling on this is that's what you had was approved.

But the HCRZ funding that was approved by the state is essentially saying, okay, there's more here.

There's more being given.

There should be more that's in place to make sure that we have these traffic solutions for the area in place.

Because I do feel like this is going to be something that is going to be a traffic nightmare there.

It's going to be blamed on this development.

It's going to be blamed on this council for not making sure that when we're being asked to provide more that we don't ask for more on top of that.

And I I hear your concern.

I do.

Um I think the solution is to work with those regional planning agencies, but also remember that this project is not going to drop 2,000 units tomorrow.

It's going to take a very long time to deliver this, and there's going to be anticipation.

There's going to be a traffic study completed with each project that comes in.

So we're going to incrementally add these units.

And the overarching theme here is that we are adding units to a TOD, right?

If we are adding sprawling units, I can certainly understand the traffic concerns there of think of sprinkling 2,000 units throughout Lehigh City that are not next to the transit station that are not in close proximity to I-15 as well as kind of an alternate option there as you know frontrunner becomes more adopted and whatnot.

So I I I guess my answer to that is this is the smartest way to add housing.

Housing's coming no matter what here.

We have our traffic triggers, the agencies that do their thing best, which is regional planning and traffic projections are the ones that would be involved in that process.

So we have agreed to the language that you proposed.

I know we we took feedback from all the council members here.

We've accepted that.

We've agreed to support any traffic solutions there as well.

And we will continue to chip away at traffic studies as we work through this.

And we're we're a partnership here, Stack Gardner, Lehigh City, Thanksgiving Point, we're going to solve problems when they come up together, and that's why we've agreed to provide our support to those.

I'll just add to that.

I think it's more than just regional traffic.

I think it's the local traffic on the west side of Triumph that's going to get overwhelmed.

And I think just a counterargument for the traffic, right?

If you if you spread out 2,000 units across Lehigh, I mean that's pretty diluted.

But if you put 2,000 units, and given it's next to a transit area, so your hope is that people are taking the train.

But the reality is that probably the vast majority of those renters and those um in those units will still have a vehicle of some sort.

So it's kind of it's pinpointing that traffic, right?

And I think we made the right decision in the mayor by taking Clubhouse Drive off the equation because I don't see why those people would be commuting into Holbrook Farms past an elementary school.

So I'm glad we're we're more focused on you know east of the golf course.

Um but yeah, I think Heather has some good points about transportation.

Um I've been looking through this for the last several days since you guys emailed it to us.

I do appreciate reaching out to each council member and taking our feedback and applying what you could.

Um there's a document in here that shows the summary of accepted changes, um, but only the ones that have been accepted, right?

And so personally, I think some of those changes that I requested, and I know colleagues up here would feel the same.

Um I would still feel more comfortable if those were included.

Um my goal is to make this fair and approve it according to state law and the HTRZ agreement.

Um but again, we're we're kind of in a position where we're back to the agreement that I feel like should should be tabled so that we can go back to the drawing board, and if it would be acceptable to to my colleagues up here, I would I would prefer to even use a small amount of RDA funding to get an external um attorney that uh focuses on this to just help us draft something that would be fair to all parties and could include um some of the other things that that haven't been included in this agreement.

And I I counted just by pulling a couple of us up here, there's still about 27 items that we would like to see included or addressed within the agreement.

So that's that's where I stand.

Okay.

Um I I certainly understand your concerns there.

Um but I think at the end of the day, it's kind of how I said we we can't be all things to all people.

We can only bridle kind of the project with so many things that'll allow it to accomplish our shared goal of a successful project here.

So we've we did everything we possibly could.

And I think if you remember where we started with a PID, city backed sales tax into the bond and everything like that, where we've come through to today, uh, there's been some pretty substantial changes in the city's favor.

So I I hope that's remembered.

And the last thing I would add is um before several members of this council came in, Gilmore Bell did represent the city, and this is exactly what they do are these types of agreements.

So you did have class A council on putting these degrees agreements together.

And that was bond council, correct?

Correct, yes.

Correct.

That was very much in your favor, and I don't even think the past council was for that.

Yeah, that we had the development agreement and the participation agreement um that they were representing on.

But yeah.

So I was supposed to.

Sorry, go ahead.

Um I would support what um council member Harrison is um suggesting.

I I do appreciate the time that you spent with us and that you at least listen to our request that I I felt, at least when um Councilmember Friedman and I met with you, they were our requests were consistent with um state HTRZ code, and also what was approved, the proposal that was approved.

Um I appreciate that you did implement some of those.

I want to recognize that.

Um, but more significantly, I think, is the things that you didn't approve, which are game changers for me.

Um one of them is as I mentioned to you, is my concern that one developer first didn't get access to all the HTRZ funds before possibly other property owners get in there and have access to that.

We understand from what was presented in the proposal that the HR funds won't cover the entire gap.

They only cover about 51% of that gap that is created by the high density housing, ultra-high density housing, um, the parking structure, um, and densifying this area.

Um that that was important to me.

And also this by law, this needs to be a mixed use.

And I wanted, I made it very clear.

One of my high priorities is to make sure we retain some of that HDR funding to incentivize non-residential development.

This is something that none of us here voted on to go through with an HCRZ proposal.

It was past council.

And it is it's going to be very impactful to our city to other taxing entities, especially a school district, taking 80% of the property tax generated by this project for up to 45 years.

And with all the demands that those 1800 units are going to put on the city without that money to help pay for those those costs.

So those are the two things that I am sticking fast to that I would like to see happen.

And I hear what you're saying.

I would like to remind the council is a self-imposed cap.

The cap was formulated by a projection based off Piper Sandler, the investment bank to put this together that shows that basically what I'm getting at is no project can still increment from another project.

A project can only get 80% of its property tax reimbursement, we'll call it for the 25 years.

And that is exactly how that projection was made to come to the number that the council has decided is the cap there.

Well, again, state code says the projects not to exceed the tax and commitment amount approved in the HCRC proposal.

That's in addition to the it it talks about the 80% up to 25 years per parcel, not within the 45 year period, but in addition, it says not to exceed that cap.

So it's state law.

We were required to set a gap, which we did.

Well, let me just correct that real quick.

We were approved for 80% of the property tax generation from each project for 25 years for a maximum of 45 years.

That was our approval there.

We were not approved to a capped amount, just to clarify that.

To clarify though, the approval, the HTRZ application that was presented to the state HDRZ committee included that amount, and that is part of what is required by state law.

So that cap was a requirement.

And it was in the proposal that was agreed.

And then to the point, I think that Heather made you're getting a lot of tax increment, 45 years worth, pretty much.

122 million dollars.

Um by state law, we now have to, you know, previous council entered into this, but we are obligated to enter into an agreement with you.

Um we're going a participation agreement route.

Um again, according to state law, which I'm reading right here, that participant participation agreement should include the project area development, the amount of the project area funds the person may receive, and the terms and conditions under which the person may receive project area funds.

So we you're you're asking for a lot, and I mean, as a council, we know what when we get grants, there's conditions tied to those grants, and sometimes we have to give them back when we can't meet those conditions.

But again, according to state law, what I'm reading, we have the right to set terms and conditions, and I would like to see a more proactive role by the city to set those conditions.

Respectfully, we have responded at the 122 million.

We did exactly what we wanted.

We incorporated the changes on the traffic.

I mean, we've been going out of this for six months before this council.

Just to remind you, I know it wasn't this council, but Lehigh made the application.

Lehigh did.

We're just asking you to approve what we've started with Lehigh.

And I realize it wasn't you, but we have been trying to bend over backwards to make this work.

And we really have.

You asked for retail.

We gave you the retail.

You asked for these items.

It's not perfect.

I agree.

But we are at a point where we have spent plenty of money.

We donated the water two weeks after the this was approved.

We've done everything you've asked us to do.

And now you got you you want to ask for more time.

Uh just give us a vote.

Okay.

Um you haven't given us everything we asked.

You haven't given us everything in the proposal.

I'm ready to give a vote.

And my vote on this.

We've done the best we can.

Just sorry, I'll give you a second to talk about it.

Um if you're asking your vote, I would vote no on this with direction for to spend again uh RDA money to hire outside council to draft our own participation agreement that we can approve and follow state law as far as that goes.

Okay, I'll be in.

Um thank you for your all the time and effort you put into this.

Likewise.

And I was there planning commission as a public member when you came in December, and I have seen it transition a lot.

I think we are almost there, but I think there are a few things that we just want in writing.

And I don't know if it would actually change um drastically uh from your perspective, but it would make the city at least it would make me feel more comfortable.

I'm not gonna speak for everyone else.

But um, you know, I just want to make sure that we're including some things as exhibits.

Um I do agree with everything that has been set up here.

I I appreciate um councilmember Lockhart's findings and councilman renewals with the traffic and and um and that we can specify I would I would think that the product type also that we can do that and I I said that about the piece of the pie and how every piece has a different value and we should uh we should um assess that to that.

So and I know that that wasn't something that you decided to put in there, but there there are definit definite things that I think we could come to an agreement, and if we could I would I would agree with Councilman Harrison's assessment of just so councilman Freeman, thank you for that.

So what I'm hearing from you is that you would like to have some additional ex agre exhibits, great.

And you would like it to be prorider percentages per acreage.

Well, I think we I think it was about the um attracting the gap analysis with a certain amount per residential unit and um a certain amount per square foot of non-residential development.

Um and I think that was in an email that I was CC'd on that uh uh Councilman Stallings and I we discussed we discussed this when we met with you, and then she sent in a follow-up email with an HTRZ agreement from South Jordan and then sent another email that also specified some.

I think the response there was we just want to stick to what the approval allows us to get rather than.

Yeah, and we've done this in other cities, and we didn't do it that way, we did it this way.

So we would like to stick with this.

But if it's and I'm not an attorney, and I won't pretend to be, but I would like to I think that it's a good idea.

You guys have your attorney, we have our city attorney, but I don't think I think that it would be good to consult someone who has a little bit more knowledge in this.

So yeah.

That's right, Mah.

Any other comments?

I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Um just one quick question, Mayor, for since these are all kind of tied together with the um, I mean, we're covering pretty much 2.2 at this point, I believe.

But we also have the interlocal agreement and and the stack soccer field.

Um are we able to are those different motions, Ryan?

Or is it each would carry its own motion?

Yeah, I mean you could probably do the RDA motions together, but you need to do the other one in the city council meeting.

You're not in the city council meeting right now.

He's asking if we can do 2.1 through 2.3 together.

To do it as one.

Okay.

Um I would move to table 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

Um with the intent that the council um can find some external um attorney to be able to come in and redraft this agreement and then propose it to the applicants at a later date.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Harrison or have a second.

Second.

I have a second from Councilmember Newell.

Any questions on that?

That is a motion for 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, correct?

Yes.

Um I have a question, Councilmember Harrison.

Um is there any direction you would like further direction, I guess, as far as what that agreement would look like, or again, maybe just um like the developers did uh take input from individual council members separately, so we're not in violation of OPA.

Yeah, I think um having the entire council involved without violating um open and public meetings act.

Um and then coming to a consensus uh as individuals until we're comfortable with it to present that would be good.

Thanks.

Any other questions on the motion?

Councilmember Freeman will start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

No, I would like to make a vote tonight.

I don't love everything in here, but as I was prepping for this meeting, I felt like we could have made some um amendments and found some common ground.

Um I something that concerns me about this is I don't know how much these attorneys' fees are going to cost.

Um I don't know what an outside attorney who specializes in HTRZ funding and RDA costs, and and I I hate to voice approval for something with unknown costs attached.

I also feel like this is a reflection of bad faith negotiation on our part.

Um as we have I've seen the emails, I've met with the developers, I know you've met with the developers.

And while not anyone in this room is 100% happy, that's the art of the deal in the negotiation.

Um again, I think that I don't love everything about it.

I came prepared with a few amendments in mind.

I would have much rather done the work now, solved the problem now than operate in bad faith with our applicant.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes, and I would just add that I don't think any of us are acting in bad faith.

I think we're representing the residents and their concerns, and I do want this to be a fair firstly for the residents and then of course between the two parties.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes, and I just add that I think there's value in getting outside council to help with this.

None of us are attorneys.

I I considered making amendments from the bench up here, but I I don't think I'm qualified to do that to get the language right in a contract.

So yeah, I very small support this direction.

Okay.

Uh I will take a motion to adjourn the RDA meeting.

So motion.

Council Harrison, Councilmember Freeman.

All in favor?

Okay, we will go back to the city council meeting, and we'll start with 5.5.

Consideration of resolution 2026-43 approving an interlocal agreement between Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency and the Lehigh City uh regarding the Thanksgiving point housing transit reinvestment zone.

Ryan, can I ask a point of order?

Um where's our lawyer?

I mean question.

Uh when we're doing motions, is it better for us to do our motion all the way through and vote for it?

And then if we would like to add you know, add something that a comment at the end, is that the pro appropriate way to do it?

Or I mean we follow the Robert's rules loosely.

Right?

Okay.

Okay.

Sorry, question.

Okay, good.

I guess this would require a motion to table as well.

That's right.

If everybody agrees.

Sorry.

Um I move to table resolution 2026-43, approving an interlocal agreement between the Lehigh City Redevelopment Agency and Lehigh City regarding the things point Thanksgiving point housing transit reinvestment zone.

So I've got a first from Councilmember Harrison.

Second.

Councilmember Freeman, any questions on that table?

So we'll start with Councilmember Lockhart.

No, and my comments from the RDA meeting about 90 seconds ago stand and apply to this vote as well.

Councilmember Noel.

Yes, I'll add my comments here that uh I still just have concern that when it comes to our transportation piece that I'm going to have regrets that we haven't addressed everything we need to.

And I I know we don't have everything we need to at this point to be able to fully address it.

So Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Council Member Oh, Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Sorry about that.

And Councilmember Freeman.

Yes, and I appreciate that we've all come prepared and that we I think it's coming that we are coming together as a council to work on this.

And I appreciate the good faith efforts that we're making.

Great.

We'll go to item 5.6 public hearing for the executive municipal officers compensation increase.

This is a public hearing.

So any that are in the public that wish to speak to this item, we'll open the public hearing at 832.

Okay, we'll close the public hearing at 832 and we'll go to item 5.7, elected officials compensation.

Item A, that's a public hearing for the elected officials compensation.

We'll open this public hearing also at 832.

Okay, we'll bring it back.

Still 832.

That's good.

And then we'll consider 5.7B consideration of ordinance 26-2026 adopting elected officials compensation for the fiscal year of 2027.

Mayor, may I ask a question?

Yes.

So when it it says that give me a second.

Is the um so there's a salary crease up to four percent.

But then there's also um a targeted market increase also up to three percent.

Is that a four percent total or is that a seven maximum of seven percent?

Four percent total.

Okay.

So uh sorry, Jason, that includes COLA merit and the market adjustment or um market adjustments are a different bucket.

Um but as far as the general employee increases, it's a total of four percent.

So there's a sorry, so it's am I saying it wrong, but I think that's a good question.

So we in the proposed budget that we're gonna get to here in a minute.

We have a fifty thousand dollar bucket for general market increases, and we also have two other buckets for police and fire market increases.

But for the average employee, it's a four percent maximum increase.

Elected officials would fall in that bucket.

Elected officials would match that four percent.

Oh, but I think what we propose is that there would be no increase this year.

There's no increase for elected officials.

Okay, so maybe I'm confused.

I'm talking about the executive municipal officers, not the elected.

That was just the public hearing.

Yeah, that was just the public hearing.

Yeah, are we voting on it?

No, no.

No.

Nope.

We're voting, we're talking about item B consideration of ordinance 26-2026 adopting the elected officials compensation for fiscal year 2027, which is no increase.

My question still stands.

Uh but I think understand.

So we get the four percent, but there's an additional market up to three percent, but within 2500 25,000 dollars, according to what the documents we were given.

Yeah?

Alison says yes.

Allison said yes.

That's what I was wondering.

Just wanted to know.

Thank you.

I would just add Mayor.

Um I I appreciate working with my colleagues up here on this.

Um I know we we elected not to have an increase in pay this year uh based on the budget.

I think that was fair considering um the many obligations we have and the priority to to fund public safety and infrastructure first and foremost.

And I'm good with it and I appreciate all of your hard work.

So I appreciate that and all of your work as well as the finance team in helping us put together uh this one part of the budget.

And I'm can I say something?

Yes.

Um yeah, I you know I agreed to not receive any increasing compensation for this, but I recognize that the mayor did not vote.

And I would feel uh I would see that it's appropriate to increase the mayor compensation, but I know at this point that probably won't happen.

But I just want to say that I appreciate all the work that you do, and I wish that your full-time work reflected that really, because it's it's a lot.

And I will just say this was presented to me as six to twelve hours a week a week ago.

It's 20 plus hours.

So we all are doing more than I think we are we knew what we were getting into.

So thank you.

Any other questions on this item?

If there's not, I'd be happy to entertain a motion.

Mayor make a motion.

I move that we approve ordinance 26-2026 adopting elected officials compensation for fiscal year 2027.

So I have a first from Councilmember Stalings or I have a second.

Second.

Second from Councilmember Newell.

Any questions on that motion?

If not, we'll start with you, Councilmember Lockhart.

Uh yes, I um I do think that in our next item, if we as we talk about the budget, um it's very important to me that the 4% remain for employees.

Um I I don't believe that the council should take compensation if we don't protect the employees 4%.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Okay.

Item 5.8 budget amendment for the fiscal year of 2025 to 2026.

This is a public hearing, so we'll open that public hearing at 838.

It appears there's no comments, so we'll close that public hearing at 838, and we'll move to item B consideration of resolution 2026-42 amending the budget for the city of Lehigh for fiscal year 2025 to 2026.

Dean, do you have any?

No, we talked about all of these items a couple of weeks ago, so I'm happy to answer any questions if if you have any.

But I just had a question on the Carnegie donation for the library.

Um, how did that come about?

Did we solicit it or was it brought to us independently?

I wasn't involved.

Looks like Alison knows.

I know really we got a check in the mail with the letter that said as part of the American America 250 celebration they were donating $10,000.

I don't know if we applied for it or if it was just they did it to libraries across the country or the check cleared.

Check clear.

Great.

Check clear.

I wasn't expecting it.

I wasn't, yeah.

Nobody knew about it.

So we'll take it.

If anyone else wants to donate money to no, I I just I I love it when private industry helps.

And so I was just curious.

Um I have to research this.

Is it car it's just Carnegie?

It's just the Carnegie Library.

Carnegie Library, okay.

I have the letter in my office, but yeah.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Yep.

Any of the questions or comments?

Great.

Happy to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2026-42, amending the budget for the city of Lehigh for fiscal year 2025 through 2026.

So I have a first from Councilmember Newell.

So I have a second.

I second it.

Council Member Freeman.

Any questions on that motion?

So we'll start with you, Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

And Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes, I do want to echo my comments from the work session.

I am disappointed in the 20,000, roughly 20,000 spent on City Council office spaces and cubicles here in the building.

Um and wish that that had come before a formal vote before making that expenditure.

Item 5.9, consideration of resolution 2026-38.

Mr.

Mayor, can I just add something?

I feel like this is the most appropriate time.

I just wanted to thank you for all the work that you've done on this.

I think one of the most common questions I have out in the public from other cities is how's your new mayor?

And uh I'll tell you what I tell them is you're doing a fantastic job.

Um I love how you've come in.

Uh I think you've built up a camaraderie between our employees.

I know you had a lot to carry with this budget cycle.

And I I don't think that everyone recognizes how much work you put into that working with staff and the proposals that you made to take care of our staff.

And I just I really admire you and respect you for doing that and thanking thanking you for getting this across the finish line when we had we were coming at this from so many different points and perspectives.

So I'm grateful that we were able to pass this budget for you finally.

So thank you for all your hard work.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I appreciate the non-rays this year too, so that's perfect.

I I thought thank you it would go a long way.

I appreciate that.

All right, back to 5.9, the consideration of resolution 2026-38, adopting the budget and consolidated fee schedule for the city of Lehigh for the fiscal year 2026 to 2027, July 1st of 2026 to June 30th of 2027.

Any questions or comments?

Um Mr.

Mayor, I just again echoing what Heather just said.

I think we've we've had quite the season for the budget.

Um I'm happy with where we ended up.

Um I think there were several different routes we could have gone, but just some of the successes.

And I I know unfortunately staff was uh had a front row seat to how the sausage was made, and it's not uh a great process.

Like I I like hot dogs, but I don't want to see how they're made.

Um and that's how the budget went, but it's necessary, and that's what we signed up for.

Um I think it was it was really critical to note that we avoided a tax increase.

Um I feel, at least from my perspective, that that's what the residents preferred.

Um we increased funding for our um great firefighters and for the police.

Um we hired, I believe through the water fund, we hired four, we're going to hire four new employees to find water leaks because we're over 30 percent leakage in our culinary water and in a drought, uh that's that's 30 percent too much, and so I appreciate the efforts, especially Rachel, uh her engagement with the water department to make that happen.

Um we got um other employees in parks and other parts of the of the city.

So I know that I think every one of us would say this isn't our perfect ideal budget, but I think we came to a really good spot and um I think very critically the the wage increase stayed at four percent.

Um so thank you to all of my colleagues up here and staff for making this happen I also want to say thank you.

Um I do have a question about the fee schedule.

I was wondering if we could look at something.

A new a new fee that's come up.

It's on page two, and it's for the piano.

And uh Alison can I I just was wondering about that, and I know I asked Jason, I asked some other city council.

It's for the piano too.

I'm not sure what it is either.

Okay, I just got given the fees, so I will have to find out.

Okay.

Well, so I I think my understanding of the piano was that it's for people to be able to use and kind of um just like we have the broadband room available for the community we want these community rooms here, or what are we calling?

Yeah, community rooms.

And um I saw in there that to move the piano, there was an add-on fee for 250 dollars to move it to the community room.

I am guessing that's to tune it, but I just um I guess I'm gonna reveal more about myself.

So I've taught piano since 2009, and my mother's a professional musician and all that.

My understanding is um, and I confirm this with research that it doesn't need to be tuned every time it's moved in the same building.

It is it is just be it's the environment and if the humidity changes, it's recommended to just tune pianos twice a year, probably maximum four times.

So I I'm worried that that's fee if you add that on to using the community room, which is 150 dollars an hour, that's prohibitive for someone to really use it.

Uh like our community, our community to use the community room and like the community piano.

That's something that I'm concerned about.

Um I don't think that it's like we're not gonna I don't think that it's necessary to do it.

I don't think research supports a necessary doing it every time it's moved.

That's just uh that's a concern I have about that fee.

And I don't know who sets the fees.

I don't know where they came from.

That was a question I have.

So yeah.

Um these particular ones came kind of last minute to me, so I didn't have a lot of time to research them.

Um my assumption is that when I read them that it was like people could rent the piano to play in the community room as well as in the hall, and the fee was to move the piano into the community room to use the piano in the community room for a rental.

Yeah.

And I guess I'm just confused about that, because it yeah, I rent the piano in the civic center hall, or you can rent the piano in the hall, which I don't know what that means exactly where the hall is, but and or you can rent to move it into the community room in the civic center and rent it and then I yeah.

And I was gonna call you about this earlier today, which I probably should have.

But Rico.

So and yeah, and I think like even if you adopt the fee schedule, we can go and look into it.

I mean, we don't have to start doing it tomorrow.

We could change the fee and then maybe whoever suggested that we could we could do some more response.

I would just love to have it be more accessible to people, and I think that if we charge what is that, $400 for someone to use it for an hour in the community room.

That seems a little prohibitive.

Well, I think the $250 is just a flat fee, it's not a per hour.

The moving fee is just a one time so it would be it would be the $150 an hour.

But then you have to move it into there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the rent the piano.

I'm just I guess maybe it's confusing just the worded even, so maybe that's the same.

Yeah, so yeah, I can look at I can look into it.

That one as I was typing it and writing it, it was confusing me as well.

So we're agreeing.

Then I think this is just best attempt to make sure we covered our costs.

Because again, I think they were operating under the impression that we had to tune it every time it was moved.

But I I'm not a piano guy, so I don't know.

But um, yeah, so like we can we can just do the um we can just start charging the fees and just come back to the piano fees after.

Back to the tuning.

Yeah.

Because when uh when we went with a Steinway tech who tuned it the first time, he said exactly what Rachel had said that you you don't need to tune it every time you move it.

It's only if you're transitioning from outside to inside.

So I don't I do know that um facilities was concerned about like just the manpower to be able to move it.

So I know that's part of it too.

Um, but I would assume because it's you have the to uh residential per hour on the weekdays for the civic centers 150, and then to rent the piano in the civic center per hour is a hundred.

So I would think that'd be two fifty plus another two fifty to move it.

I think if it's in that space, you should just be able to use it.

Like there shouldn't be a necessarily a a piano rental fee.

But I I know we want to have something baked into that to make sure we're covering our costs for the times we do have to tune it if it's four times a year, also the manpower to move it.

But I know from the donors perspective, they they won't have a plate.

They want to have it enjoyed by the community.

I would love to see it, the that we get people there playing, you know, now like and um and so also with like the renting it rent the piano in the hall with the booking.

I would assume that would mean that we would have a recital and chairs and everything set up for them to rent it, but that we I know there's also plans to have it that people can just sign up to play it too and not have to to pay any money to do that.

So maybe we need to look at something with the stacking, but I I agree that like it just needs to be looked at again.

That if if you're going to rent the space, I think that the piano should be something that you just get to include with maybe some cost on top for whatever the actual cost is to move it.

Yeah, it just seems a little disconnect when we have the broadband room for you know fifty something dollars, and then that's gonna be a good thing.

Well, yeah, and and part of that came from the thought is are we charging too low over there too?

Which could be.

I'm just yeah so Dean we can pass this in a uh amend the fee schedule as we look into it.

I mean, I think you could even pass it and tell us, hey, let's not charge the piano fee till we get it.

Or we could not charge the charge the whole section of the piano rental fee section.

So we figured out until we figured out.

Yeah.

I think I think we should charge something.

I mean, moving a big piano is kind of hard.

I don't know what it is.

But I think that's something we can take care of in just a few weeks, even though it's possible and it's possible after readress the rental fees.

I mean, like Jason said, we took our best guess on I mean, the community rooms are gonna be rented.

They're larger.

There's a larger space than the broadband room, right?

I think there's going to be more facility staff time required for the community room rentals than there is for the broadband room.

Well, and it might be good to have it broken down whether it's the large large community room, or I know that they can partition, right?

And I don't know if that's broken down either, but that's something to look at in the future.

Yeah, we could also look at that too.

So yeah.

I mean, like and also the fee schedule is a maximum amount we can charge.

Like if we chose to.

I think if we chose to do that, learning I think if we chose to break it down, we could break it down.

But if we wanted to have it spelled out, we could also do that too.

Okay.

Yeah, I would just I was just out.

I think I I would like to see the fees a little bit lower as well.

So I'm happy to support any motion that at least pauses that discussion for a little while until we I mean I think Yeah, especially if there's no moving involved.

Um I would like it to be a little more accessible with a lower dollar amount for the residents.

So you're talking just the piano part or are you talking the whole c the whole community room?

I think we should try to make it as I mean like low double digits.

Um just so that you know, if you have a 10-year-old that wants to come and practice a piano because they don't have one at home, I don't want it too cost prohibitive for for residents.

Yeah.

Yeah, and I I would hope in that instant that they would be able to just come and play it for free.

And that you know, they could just come and reserve a time to play it.

I think this would be specifically for recitals where we have a like larger.

I mean, I'll be able to ask a question on the rent piano in the hall with booking.

I don't know.

Yeah, yeah.

So even that's I don't know if that's the same.

Because we had talked about that's not I don't know.

That they could have a recital.

They could have a small recital there.

And but maybe that's why they felt like at that point they could share in part of the maintenance and tuning costs that go on, but it would be a smaller fee because they won't have to move it.

So I agree.

Like if we I apologize that I didn't ask more questions.

Well, sorry, I ask a lot of questions.

You know that.

We're glad you do.

If you miss something, Rachel will catch it.

Yes.

Well, I mean, I think I'd be good with this.

Um as long as we I think just move piano.

I would just probably remove the moving because I think that the cost is baked in.

Or if you think you want to go back and talk to the person who suggested it.

What would you think would be?

Again, I think about it.

The largest part was again the the understanding or the thought that we had to tune it every time.

So we've got to be able to do that.

Well, that alone pulling that out is gonna drop it significantly.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So yeah, I think it's really up to you whether you want to take it out or whether you just want to instruct us not to charge the fees for the piano.

The other thing too that you could probably add in is they could request to have it tuned.

You know, if they're doing a certain concert and they want to make sure it's tuned before and add in what that cost would be.

So we could have a piano tuning cost because it typically tuning is at least around 2002 or something.

So it's true.

If they're like, hey, this needs to be perfect for me.

I mean, yeah.

That's true.

So I so I think maybe just I would change it instead of saying move piano into community room for booking, I would just change that to piano tuning if I don't know.

I don't know.

Yeah, and I I think we do still need to figure out that moving fee because I know that that was going to take facilities, some effort to move.

That's why I think it would be good to have whoever suggested these fees.

Okay.

So I think rather than changing the wording or changing anything, just maybe not have much charge.

Not have charge those rental fees until we just decide what we're gonna do.

That makes sense.

I know I was down at the St.

George's um new city hall, and they had a new community room there that they hadn't yet figured out the fee schedule yet.

And so they kind of just have waited, so that makes sense.

Well, I just I want to um I thank you besides that.

Thank you, Alison and Dean and Karma for all of your work with the budget and the whole budget committee.

And I um I make can I make one?

Yeah.

And I should I I didn't think about this until this afternoon.

I'm assuming we're gonna adopt this budget tonight.

Whoever makes the motion, I think it would be helpful if you would just say that we're gonna accept the certified tax rate, which means no tax increase.

We have to have a resolution adopting a tax rate at some point, but I don't know what that is yet.

I will probably know they say by the by June 13th.

But I think it would be helpful if we had something in the motion, just stating that we're adopting the certified tax rate.

That's okay.

Okay.

Yeah, and I um and I know I had a lot of questions and I appreciate it.

And um so I I think there's always this is definitely a good thing that we've come to an agreement on and a lot of um back and forth, and it's an exciting.

Um yeah, I would be happy to I'd be happy to with this budget.

There's always things that I think our needs and wants, and we all have different competing interests and competing priorities.

So I guess we can't all get what we want, and that probably means that we've sat on really great middle ground with that.

So just quick comment.

Um just want to reiterate Dean and Alison and Karma.

Thank you so much.

I think I need to bring you some cookies or something here.

But I know you it was it was a long process and it was kind of crazy, but I appreciate that you took our input and you I'm gonna give the credit to you guys for finding the funding and avoiding a tax increase and protecting employee wages and I think you're miracle workers and um I think we have some work going forward to set uh um also, but just appreciate what you've done and and I felt from the beginning that there was we could find a way that we can find solutions.

And um for a minute I thought maybe I'm overly optimistic, but you you pulled it through, so I appreciate that very much.

And I again pleased with the outcome understanding that there's some work going uh forward to make sure that um we don't defer some staffing needs and and that sort of thing.

But thank you very much.

Mr.

Mayor might I'll just echo that.

Dean Alison Karma, you guys are incredible.

Um we never would have got here without you.

How you take what we say and somehow make the numbers work and and find things and and have it all make sense is I it's just amazing and uh we are sure lucky that you're here and just the fantastic finance team that we have and just grateful that we're able to get this budget to the point it is and take care of the the most pressing needs.

Mr.

Mayor, if I may thank you for um your leadership and thank you to the finance team and every department head and any every staff member who's participated in the process.

Um I I'm so grateful for your guidance, mentorship, and and just the education that I've received over the past six months on municipal finance and the way that the city runs.

Um thank you, and I trust you and I appreciate all that you do to help support our residents because this is for them and and I know that your heart is there with them as well.

So thank you.

Any other comments, questions on the budget?

If not, I am happy to ask for a motion.

Mr.

Mayor.

Um I make a motion to move, I move to I move to my gosh, we are tight with this.

Approve resolution 2026-38 adopting the budget and con consolidated fee schedule for the city of Lehigh for fiscal year 2026 to 2027 and accept a certified tax rate without a tax increase.

Um except and except for the Civic Center piano rental fees or the fee schedule.

So I have a first from Council Member Freeman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Council Member Newell with a second.

Any questions on that motion?

If not, we'll start with you, Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Council Member Walkart.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

We're done with that.

With that, we're at the end of the board meeting.

I'm happy to take a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Councilmember Newell have a second.

Second.

Second, Councilmember Harrison, all in favor.

Hi.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming and participating with us this evening.