Lehi City Council Meeting Summary – July 28, 2026
Lehi City Council Meeting – July 28, 2026
The Lehi City Council met on July 28, 2026, starting with a 4:30 p.m. pre-council work session and followed by a 7:00 p.m. regular session. The pre-council focused on a heavy rescue vehicle discussion, the downtown facilities master plan, and a parking code presentation. The regular session included a public hearing, consent agenda, and action on several ordinances, including a public safety impact fee, stormwater plan updates, design standards, a subdivision approval, sign code amendments, construction safety measures, development application requirements, and mixed-use zone updates. The meeting was adjourned after approximately 2.5 hours of regular session.
Consent Calendar
- Approved City Council meeting minutes (item 4.1) and purchase orders (item 4.2) as presented, with item 4.1 struck because no minutes were available.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were made during the citizen input period (item 3) at 7:04 p.m. and closed at 7:06 p.m.
- During the public hearing for the public safety impact fee (item 5.2), no members of the public spoke.
- One resident, Bart Peacock, spoke on the Cortese Subdivision (item 5.5), expressing frustration about an email from the city attorney but stating he was willing to work with the applicant and accepting a 15-foot easement.
Discussion Items
Pre-Council (4:30 p.m.)
- Heavy Rescue Discussion (Item 2.1): Chief Craft presented the request to purchase a heavy rescue vehicle for the Lehi Fire Department. Councilmember Freeman expressed support and wanted to know if impact fees could be used. Chief Craft noted a 2-3 year lead time after ordering. Councilmember Stallings was supportive and had reached out to the county for facilitation. The council agreed to move forward with ordering to get in line, with the option to cancel later.
- Downtown Facilities Master Plan (Item 2.2): Jason presented the 2020 plan, which includes a city campus with a plaza, library/arts building, parking structure, and phased development (courts, fire station 81, library/arts, and eventual removal of old city hall). Council discussion highlighted concerns about the cost of a parking structure ($30,000–$40,000 per stall, estimated $12 million for 300 stalls) and the desire to prioritize the courts and fire station 81. Councilmember Newell expressed opposition to the plaza and parking structure, preferring to keep parking and use Wines Park for events. Councilmember Freeman and Lockhart supported moving forward with the court, fire station, and a legacy center study. No formal vote was taken; the plan remains a guiding document.
- Parking Code Presentation (Item 2.3): Kim and Mike presented a parking study of the nine-block downtown area. Total parking: 1,432 stalls (1,144 public, 288 private). Average daily use: 441 (31% of total). Peak hour (11 a.m.): 536 (37%). The busiest lot is the senior center lot (86% average use). Short-term strategies include striping, signage, and ADA stalls; medium-term includes better crossings and traffic calming; long-term includes a potential parking structure (not currently justified). Council discussed lease parking (currently $7,500/year for 30 stalls) and the trade-offs between parking requirements and downtown vibrancy. No action was taken.
Regular Session (7:00 p.m.)
- Miss Lehi Introduction (Item 2.1): Brooklyn Ward, Miss Lehi 2026, introduced herself and her community service initiative, Nourish and Strengthen, focusing on nutrition education.
- Public Hearing for Executive Compensation (Item 5.1): No public comments. The hearing was opened and closed at 7:06 p.m.
- Public Safety Impact Fee (Item 5.2): Ryan Smith presented the impact fee analysis. For police, the maximum fee per call is $390, with calls per unit varying by development type. For fire, non-residential development can be charged for apparatus over $500,000. Councilmember Freeman asked about including headcount in impact fees, but it was clarified that impact fees only cover capital costs. The ordinance adopting the maximum fees was approved 4-0.
- Stormwater Management Plan (Item 5.3): Shelby Brewer presented updates to comply with the renewed MS4 permit. Changes include increased public education and inspection requirements. Councilmember Newell suggested using social media and the environmental sustainability committee. The resolution was approved as a recommendation to the Public Works Director (4-0).
- Design Standards Chapter 2 (Item 5.4): Shelby Brewer presented amendments to include the 80th percentile stormwater retention requirement and allow sumps and retention basins. Council discussed delegation of authority to the city engineer for certain decisions. The ordinance was approved 4-0.
- Cortese Subdivision (Item 5.5): The applicant, Jay Cone, presented an agreement with neighbors for a 15-foot easement (reduced from 20 feet) for irrigation ditch access, with a fence on the eastern side. The resident Bart Peacock accepted the 15-foot easement. The council approved the preliminary subdivision with conditions: 15-foot easement, fence on the easement line, and a note on the plat that the berm on lots 4 and 5 is not to be altered. Vote: 4-0.
- Sign Code Amendment (Item 5.6): Jacob Curtis presented a comprehensive update to Chapter 23 (Signs). Councilmember Freeman raised concerns about including SR-92, 2100 North, and Mountain View Corridor in the pylon sign section, arguing it conflicts with residential areas. She also requested adding public safety back to the purpose statement. Council debated whether sign exceptions should go to the planning commission or city council. Councilmember Stallings moved to table the ordinance to August 11, 2026, with direction to staff to incorporate council comments and clarify that the city council would be the approving body for exceptions. The motion passed 3-2 (Councilmembers Lockhart and Newell dissenting).
- Temporary Construction Site Safety (Item 5.7): The ordinance adds Section 3.08 to the Design Standards, requiring fencing and warning signs for commercial and residential construction sites. Councilmember Freeman questioned the scope, but the ordinance was approved 4-0.
- Development Application Requirements (Item 5.8): Kim presented updates to Chapter 11, including a new process for utility projects and housekeeping changes. Council discussed concept plan vesting and the planning commission's role. The ordinance was approved 4-0 with amendments: add
Meeting Transcript
Yeah, I don't think you can spend too much time. Oh man. Okay, welcome to our um council meeting today, our pre-council meeting at four thirty here in the Lehigh City uh council chambers. Um currently we have Council Member Stallings, Councilmember Freeman, Councilmember Lockhart that creates a quorum. And uh we welcome all of you who are here with us today. Um we'll start with opening comment that'll give them be given by myself and then we'll go on to item number two. Our Father in Heaven, we are grateful for the state, grateful for the opportunity we have to pause and to thank thee for the many blessings we enjoy. We're thankful for uh this city and the opportunities we have to serve and to uh help and bless the lives of the residents that live here. We're thankful for the rain that's fallen and pray that thou would continue to bless our land with moisture that we may receive the needs that we need at this time and that we might be able to use those in a wise manner. We pray for our first responders and also the employees that work here that they may be washed over and protected, that their families may be mindful of their time that they might have the blessings they need as they serve. We ask the to be with us this afternoon that we may be able to uh have clear minds and clear thoughts as we think about the direction our city goes that we might do so in a manner that would be pleasing into the we're thankful again for all that we have and ask for thy blessings today and do so in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. Okay, we'll start with item two point one, the heavy rescue discussion from the Lehigh fire departments. Uh what this discussion is around is the heavy rescue that uh we asked for in the budget. Um there was a lot of positive comments. I personally didn't hear any negative comments, so I'm taking that as a bonus. But because it wouldn't be paid for in this budget year, it was denied on paper. But what we were looking for was did council actually want us to move forward with that. Is that did I put that right, Jason? That's essentially what we were looking for is did you actually want us to move forward with purchasing that heavy rescue that we wouldn't get for two or three years or was that on pause. I think I talked to Dean about possible like impact fees being able to pay for this. Now realize but then if impact fee, it has they have to look at it and say it's not like it all can be paid with impact fees, a portion could, because they have to look at it and say how much of this can be used relative to new growth. So it's not gonna 100%. But like uh Chief was saying, I think in the original budget it was in there, but there's nothing really to put in the budget because there's no dollars for several years. So it's probably just that discussion. But so I I I it made a long answer for a short question, but um it's in there, it doesn't have a huge impact just because they have to allocate it out. Okay. So some of the impact fees can be used to pay for this. Yes. So from my opinion and perspective, that's the information I was waiting on. I wanted to know if we could use some of the impact fees to help pay for it. I'm supportive of it. Um just wanted more information on how to finance it. So anyway, that's where I stand. Thank you. I I just assume we were going forward with it just because there is a long lead time, correct? And like if we get it going now, then we would get it in a few years or that sort of thing. And yeah, we think uh well, I haven't engaged the manufacturers too much because once you do, then they just won't leave you alone. So um, but what we're hearing um is still two to three years out from from signing the contract, really. So even if I ordered it today, we'd have to do some design work and stuff like that. And then once we finish that, we'd sign the contract two to three years from then. Yeah, and I um I agree with both Emily and Michelle. I had I was supportive of it. I thought that it was in the works, I guess. And I had our actually even reached out to the county to see if they could help facilitate some of that. So I think that was that was my that was my understanding, and I was kind of waiting also for more information for about impact fees. Yeah, we're still hopeful on that, right, Jason. We're um in con in talking with uh Commissioner Beltran about that. So hopefully that can work out and offset some of those costs. Other questions? So, Chief, just one question I have.
openpublica.com