City Commission - Regular Meeting

Did they have snow on the moon?

I don't think so either. Watch, right? It's really cold. But you're doing I was saying you got the dark side. No sun at all. cloud. Yeah, you'd have to have moist or something. Great question.

All right, it's 6:00. Thanks for joining. If everyone can please stand and join us in saying the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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.

Liberty. Okay. First on the agenda is the approval of tonight's agenda. Is there anything that we would like to add or take away from this evening's agenda? Hearing none, we'll move on to public comment. Is there anyone joining us this evening that would like to make public comment to something that's not on this evening's agenda? Something that's not on this evening's agenda, now is the time to do so. Please come forward and state your name, please. Hello. My name is Kayla. Welcome. I was at the March 2nd meeting where y'all didn't vote on resolution 20262 despite active community support for this. During your public discussion of the resolution, it was clear that a decision had already been made. Commissioner Schwarz read from obviously prepared remarks and others followed with nearly identical talking points. And I'm here to tell you that this gave the appearance of a coordinated plan rather than open and deliberate discussion. EGR citizens who attended this meeting agreed unanimously. At best, this was shady and at worst, it raises questions about compliance with the Open Meetings Act. And then you didn't vote at all on it. That was the most surprising and disappointing part of this process. If a vote had taken place and the resolution did not pass, I would have accepted that outcome. But the way this unfolded felt dismissive, disorganized, and not reflective of how local government should operate. Some points of clarity that I'd like to offer from that evening based upon comments from some of you. The policy we're asking for is on behalf of the communities that ICE is affecting. The things asked for in this resolution are a direct reflection of what those communities are asking of us, of all of us. And by not voting on this resolution, you didn't fail those who

spoke in support and public comment. You failed the communities who are asking for help. What we've been asking for is a policy to reasonably limit East Grand Rapids public safety from cooperating with federal customs and law enforcement, not eliminate them within reason. No one here is advocating for criminals to go unchecked. That's not what this is about. The second draft of the resolution already reflected that balance with built-in exceptions outlined when public safety would work with customs and immigration. Yet, no one addressed this at all. Many comments from the commissioners also showed their ignorance on this issue, which is understandable because no one is expected to know everything, especially in a 247 news cycle. But as a city commissioner participating in a vote on a resolution related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, I would have hoped for a stronger understanding of the bare basics before making the decision not to vote on it. Also, many of you reiterated over and over that public safety already does all of the things outlined in the resolution. If that's the case, then what's the harm in codifying these practices? Director Bucha, I've been thinking about this a lot, and I would genuinely welcome a calm and open discussion on this. I'd really like to connect with your office to facilitate that conversation and I would appreciate the opportunity to do so. Mayor Faval, you talked about leadership during this meeting and how symbolic statements don't show leadership. Yet, you approved and encouraged each commissioner to release a personal pledge about how they will not pass a 287g agreement or allow an ICE facility or office in East Grand Rapids. So, how is a personal pledge less symbolic than an actual policy? Speaking of personal pledges, y'all never release yours. So, how about I start? I'm going to take my own personal pledge following your example. Given the lack of transparency and responsiveness to constituents, I pledge to hold each of you accountable to the responsibilities you were entrusted with. We expect transparent, open deliberation and how decisions and laws

are made. And we deserve a local government that consistently upholds that standard. We're watching you and we're counting on you. Thank you very much. Next, please. Welcome. Hi,

my name is Lauren Maize. I was also here last month. And I would just like to say tomorrow morning I will head to North Lake to pick up the only pregnant woman currently being detained there after paying her $7,000 bond this morning. She was detained in Pontiac, Michigan 6 weeks ago after she called police to report an assault. Once police recognized that she was an immigrant, they contacted ICE and she was taken. Pontiac doesn't currently have a G27 agreement in place, but that didn't matter. They did it anyway. She has spent the last 6 weeks in hell, newly pregnant and not receiving any prenatal prenatal care. She will be 17 weeks pregnant tomorrow. She hasn't had an appointment with an OB or received an ultrasound. Last month, I sat here with a majority of residents who pretty much begged this council to do something that isn't even hard, but would solidify our city stance on refusing to cooperate with a barbaric group hellbent on causing chaos and terrorizing our neighbors. We listen to a teareyed message from one of you about your own grandparents story and then tell people to help by donating to my GoFundMe. But the truth is, I wouldn't need a GoFundMe if police weren't coop cooperating with ICE. My GoFundMe is only treating the symptoms of this crisis. We need to address the root cause. And that seems lost on some of you. Also, taking a personal pledge, a pledge to do what? Not call ICE on your neighbors. How brave of you. But the worst part of that meeting was not not only did some of you not have the courage to do the right thing, you didn't even have the guts to vote no. So instead, you came up with a backroom

plan to avoid voting on it at all. Tomorrow, I will begin the process of representing a mother who was recently taken by ICE while walking to the store in Grand Rapids. She's been here since 1994 and left behind schoolage children at home that didn't know where she went. I'll let her know you've all taken a personal pledge to hope this goes away. I'm sure that will comfort her. I will also say this to anyone who will listen. I do not advise calling EGR public safety if you encounter ICE. Get out your phone, film live, get loud, and help your neighbors. Thank you. Next, please. or anyone that's fine. Welcome.

Uh I'm Robin. I'm actually kind of talking about two issues. The traffic calming policy to be addressed tonight and also um I'm the resident that initiated the process on Elmwood that is being referenced tonight. So um Sure. if you want to um are you speaking to the traffic calming measures because that agenda item will be up. Okay. After um after we take public comment on other stuff.

Okay. So, they kind of go hand in hand because the the current policy that we're supposed to be adhering to isn't being followed. Um, and I believe that the policy that they're presenting tonight is to override the policy that we're not following now so that they can do the speed cushions on there without any resident input. So, I'm not sure how you guys want to address that. Well, I'll still once we do that agenda item and then we have I think Doug, you're going to introduce that. Um, after we'll have the staff introduce, we'll ask some questions and then we can have you if that works. Thank you. First time here. I appreciate the director.

No worries. Thank you. Next, please. Welcome. Hello. Hi again. Um, my name is Liz Aldrich. I live on Oakwood. Um, I've I think this is my fourth uh commission meeting. Went from zero to four in the span of about five weeks. So, I feel like I'm getting a crash course in um the vibe. And um I was here for those other three meetings um in support of the uh resolution introduced by um commissioners Gra, Blazac, and Hunter. And as a community member, I was heartened by the support of their resolution. um as indicated in about 50 public statements on the record in support of it as well as a um a petition that was signed by 130 residents. Um to me that shows strong interest support. Um, and I I fully anticipated that uh there would be an honest vote on that resolution and showed up to the meetings in hopes of um seeing where people stood. And so what became really clear in the course of that meeting was that a vote was not going to happen on the resolution and that there was a very kind of fluid curve to uh the commission addressing um the motion that was introduced

instead of the resolution. and anyone who has any uh sense of what's going on in that room on this on March uh 2nd knew that the the agenda was changing and that it was being presented as um spontaneous but it clearly felt like there was um a coherent effort that was already underway and that we were seeing the effects of that in the meeting. Um, and so I was also struck in the midst of some of that to hear the resolution being termed um, performative policy by the mayor. Um, and I took personal issue with that as the idea that activism and community engagement with the city commission would be referred to as performative policy. Um, I think we can do a lot better than that. Um, ironically, the idea that these commissioners were doing something to cause a decline in trust was something that ended up occurring for many of us because we knew that the vote was not going to happen. And so, unfortunately, my sense of trust in the commission overall is actually what is declined. Um, and I'm sorry to have to report that. And it would have been easy enough just to have a vote and let us know where you stand. And if you didn't support the resolution, let us know that you didn't support it. But to avoid the vote altogether under these convenient pretenses felt disingenuous.

Thank you. Next, please. But I have to say, welcome, Mr. Anderson. To what you said, Mr. Anderson, if you can direct your comments to the commission. I am indeed Mr. Anderson, and I live at 435. Wonderful. Welcome. Here we are.

Um, two weeks ago, I addressed this commission to point out that you were being sent a master plan by the planning commission, whose recommendation for approval was conditional. The condition unanimously approved by the planning commission was, and I quote, to remove the parking graphics, which you did, and add some language indicating that future developments likely require a parking study, recognizing the widely held observation that parking's a challenge in the current state of Gaslight Village." unquote. Our planning commission has recognized something that this commission has repeatedly chosen to misrepresent and ignore. There currently is a parking problem in Gaslight Village, and that problem is going to be considerably worse for the years ahead during the high school remodel and during a 3 to fourphase PUD project. If we look at the roles and responsibilities of the city commission, you folks, and the planning commission is described by our city code, it's interesting because when dealing with the master plan, the roles of the commissions are reversed. And the following is from city code 5.24. And it says the city commission within 30 days from receipt of the same from the planning commission shall forward to the planning commission its recommendations and advice but shall be advisory only on the planning commission. According to our city code, the responsibility and final say for the master plan lies with the planning commission. This commission is not

empowered to change it as they see fit before approving it. And yet that is what you did. The master plan which you voted to approve misrepresents the wishes unanimously agreed upon by the planning commission. This commission is again violating its own city code in order to continue down a path of creating an urban downtown in East Grand Rapids. I'd like to think that maybe your vote was out of ignorance of the city code. Um I did notice that at that meeting this document was put up by Mr. Leblanc which said that you have the option of adopting a resolution to approve the master plan amendment with changes that does not agree with the city code. If you have changes, it goes back to the planning commission and they get to decide whether to accept those changes or not. Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Decker.

Good evening. David Decker, 925 Bellclair. Two weeks ago, you reviewed and voted to approve a version of the master plan. Based on what Mr. Anderson just shared, your vote may not be legally binding. But let's talk about that version of the master plan. On page 14, it states, "The 2018 master plan included a parking study that concluded parking was sufficient." And on page 15, it states, "An updated study of all parking in Gaslight Village, was conducted in May 2025. Its findings were consistent with the 2018 study. So, parking was fine in 2018 and parking's fine in 2025." When the planning commission reviewed that exact language on February 10th, they unanimously wanted it changed. If you pull the transcript of that meeting starting at an hour and 28 minutes, you'll hear Commissioner Russ say, "I think the terms were glossed over." I think I would remove that commentary as well because it suggests that we're good on parking. And that was followed by the motion with conditions by Commissioner Miller to add language indicating that future developments require parking study. Add language to the master plan and add language to the master plan recognizing the widely held observation that parking is a challenge in the current state of Gaslight Village. The city commission decided to ignore the planning commission's condition for approval. And thus the master plan, if it's allowed to stay in place as it is good for the next 5 years, it clearly states parking in Gas Light Village was fine in 2018 and fine in 2025. The parking issue is being glossed over

to use the words that Commissioner Russ Marin from the planning commission used. The 2025 parking study includes 1310 parking spots. It's 47 pages long. 111 of those spaces are the senior parking lot which is effectively gone in a few months. 213 spaces are the DMW parking lot which has a sign unauthorized vehicles will be towed at owner's expense and it's fenced indicating that parking is only for the stores and businesses in the plaza but with a low fence indicating that the park that that um um with a low fence so that people can step over it. That's not a solution that the city or anyone else really endorses. a fence that people can step over. The best practice for people to walk in a city is on a sidewalk. Mr. Lefave says that the city is in communication with the land owners. You can work something out with them. You can also work something out with the developer that has a gated parking lot. There are ways that the city can help to work to make this situation better. You can improve it, but not if you gloss over it and ignore it. The city has a lot of work to do to address parking over the next 5 years. Having a master plan that says it's all good right now is not a good place to start.

Thank you, Mr. Decker.

Electronic copy. Miss Dun, were you wanting to make comment? Love to. Okay. Welcome. Thank you. Hi, Eric Dunton, 2100 Goreham Drive Southeast. Uh, I apologize if I missed this part. I just wanted as we go into spring to remind everybody that we do really need to get an ordinance in place for scooters or e vehicles. It's coming up. It's going to hit all our kids pretty quickly. Um, the more proactive we can be, the better. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Dun. Anyone else? Okay, then I will close public comment and bring it up here for a uh report of the commissioners and any committee liaison. Um, do you have anything to add, Commissioner Skaggs?

Sure. Um, I wasn't able to attend uh the meeting last time because I was at a choir concert for my daughter where she was performing. And I just wanted to publicly pass along my thanks to uh our department of public works director and to our city manager for all of the work that they've done on composting. It's a really really important uh topic, something that I hold really dear. So, I just wanted to express my appreciation that we're moving forward and making the updates to do curbside composting. Thank you very much. also um can report that we are at work on the ordinance. It'll it'll be here soon. Okay. Thank you. Anything?

I just want to thank parks and wreck and joint facilities for the new turf on Manny. Um we had our first playday for lacrosse on it this weekend and it performed beautifully. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Wesley. Nothing for me today. Okay. Commissioner Hunter. Uh nothing for me today either. Okay. Any comments? Sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Were you? Yeah, I asked for Mr. Oh, you just didn't say my name. That's all. Did you have any comments? Uh, I have nothing this evening. Wonderful. Commissioner Schwarz.

Sure. Um, so first I just want to say uh I appreciate the comments this evening and they are taken to heart. Um, uh, also quite timely on the heels of Mr. Anderson and Mr. doctor's comments. I have an update um regarding parking. Um so, as many of you probably know, we've had a joint parking subcommittee um with EGRPS and the city um some city staff and some uh few city commissioners, and we've been working together since the middle of like last year to discuss and collaborate on short-term and long-term parking solutions. U we have short-term needs related to school constru construction and long-term needs to address the lack of parking that we've had in Gas Light. Um so after months of work um we've had expert advice study on the issues. We're um making a group recommendation that will be on the April 20th agenda for full discussion. A lot of details um probably will be a long discussion, long agenda item, so bring snacks. Looking forward to it. Thank you. And I didn't have anything to add. I just would like what echo what Commissioner Skagg said. Um really excited about the composting and um Doug, that starts April 6th.

April 6th as well as regular yard pickup. Correct. We've done some storm cleanup and uh in the meantime we have the street sweeper out. Uh but officially that program starts April 6. Uh it does every year. Yeah, that's great. I have met with so many residents that are super excited about it. Um, and also wanted to mention that the city's done a really good job of getting the message out there with the dos and don'ts and all theformational pieces that have been put out there have been really helpful. So, thanks for all you've done. Okay, Mr. Charles.

Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple things. One, happy spring break. Um, so we're that time of year is upon us. Um, just to speak to the micromobility ordinance. Um, we anticipate introduction of that draft actually at the April 20th meeting. So that is um we got final revisions from the attorney earlier today. So we will be in a position for to bring that forward to the uh city commission for consideration. That's great. Wonderful news. Thank you.

Okay, we'll get on to the regular agenda items. First on this evening's agenda, we have to consider amending the traffic calming policy regarding the process for installation of speed cushions for traffic calming. And that introduction is by deputy city manager Mr. Lefave. Okay. Good evening, Madam Mayor and city commissioners. I'm g throw a wow. Uh I'll kind of explain I'll kind of explain.

This is more a graphical nature for y'all. Um the uh city staff's um worked on uh looking at uh potential uh amendments to the traffic calming policy, specifically a lowcost effective traffic calming solution um and deployment of of that solution uh which are speed cushions. Um uh we took the we took a look at the the traffic policy and kind of how that's worked in conjunction with other um initiatives regarding the rectangular rapid flashing beacons that we've deployed across doing studies and midlock crossings and how we were able to rapidly no pun intended deploy those throughout the community. We'll continue to do so as well as radar speed feedback signs and other traffic calming um um devices and items. uh the policy itself in terms of the the uh of deployment of these we basically um this was uh uh really more of an output from uh a request from uh Commissioner Wesley. Um the the existing process really wouldn't change uh for how we follow the different studies and different checkpoints for steps. So that's the the blue stretch here. But really what we're looking at and those really can be traffic calming things like traffic circles, um bumpouts, chicanees, all all different suite of different types of uh modifications. Those generally can cost anywhere from a couple hundred,000 to millions of dollars. So really really needs to have that that check and balance there with the infrastructure committee and the city commission when we're talking about those types of expensive of improvements. But we felt that um that we could we could uh enhance and more efficiently deploy um uh uh speed cushions by adding um a more administrative process here. That's really spelled out in the green here kind of kind of as a aside to that. Uh the installation of those and sets is anywhere between three and $5,000. Um something that we can we can track in

our uh maintenance budget. Um and then deploy these in two different ways. number one a qualifying aspect that allows administrative approval but also another path forward where where we might not even have a speeding concern or we would have a speeding concern but from the studies we're doing we're not seeing um that we we have an issue. So um basically in that that sense the divergent change is that um if 80% of residents on a a particular block or set of blocks um are requesting it they don't have to meet the the criteria of a 5 m hour 5 mile per hour exceedence over the posted speed limit. So this actually would allow for more deployment. Um, and as I noted in the memorandum, the policy allows for those to be prioritized in order of magnitude from those that do qualify and those that are uh more of the desire with that high super majority. Uh, we would just keep those in the queue and then execute those as funds allow from fiscal year to fiscal year uh going forward. Um, I should note that the actual guidance um of the installation um is not changing. So this is this is how we deploy them. These are from all the traffic engineering best practices, etc. So, when traffic engineers are looking at where they can locate them, not all streets are the same. Some have hills, curves, driveways that are too close to where you would you would do these installations. So, none of those are changing here tonight. Again, it's really just uh how we were able to deploy these um would be um a more streamlined process for administrative review. Um and and then in terms of the actual installation layout as as I noted here, there's nothing changing. Um with that, um the difference between speedome speed cushions, um we've deployed uh these here in the city. This is a kind of a cross-section and overhead view of what they look like. Um if you were to go to Woodlon, uh we do have an installation

there uh that's south of Maplewood. One of the one of the factors that um can be challenging with with these type of of traffic uh calming devices is noise associated with vehicles hitting them, particularly trucks, larger trucks that have wider axles. Speed cushions are designed to allow for fire trucks, buses, or larger public works vehicles or delivery vehicles to center themselves to pass through

without hitting um without hitting those. So, it it does provide that relief for that that driver, but also the noise associated with like speed humps, which are more monolithic across here, but um they will always catch at least one wheel path of a of a passenger vehicle. Um you can slip through one slot, but you'll hit you'll hit the cushion on the other. And um what we've learned from this deployment um the the initial deployment on Woodlon is uh that it's been very effective, has lowered speeds, and um uh great success for that particular uh street. Um as was noted by uh one of the residents in attendance this evening, we do have another another section that qualifies on Elmwood. Um that would be uh west of Breton. Um and um again this this action tonight would not would not change the installation piece to this but would change the process. So they would not have to go through the infrastructure committee the city commission for installation if approved tonight uh because they already qualify. That's something that staff could initiate um for um for moving forward. Uh so with that I'd be happy to entertain any questions.

Great. Any questions for Mr. Lefave?

Yeah. Um Doug, thanks for your work on this. I think uh this is a great improvement and enhance an enhancement for our safety of our city, especially the reason that we often cite here in in EGR about the reason we move here obviously mobility and schools. So we're talking about their kids on bikes and other e vehicles. Um, you know, the question came up in conversations with with one of the residents as to the other stretch of Elmwood. Could you just for the sake of the commission describe where we're implementing them, why we chose that location again, just for the specifics on the policy itself?

Yeah. Yeah. So, as as I noted, um, it's kind of in the bullet points under uh, section B of the conditions of use and placement. And again, these aren't these are not like just standards that we just pick. These these are widely accepted in the traffic engineering field. Um so we we designate them for public act 51 designated local streets. Uh so those are your low speed volume streets. So not something like Breton Road for example. Um the roadmate segment the roadway segment has to be at least 1,000 ft long uh with traffic control devices. It must be not be within 300 ft of a controlled approach or within 75 ft of a cross street. Must not be placed in front of driveways. Uh not on curves. must not block roadway drainage um subject to the policies what we're talking right now. Um and generally their spacing is 300 to 500 feet apart. So if we have a conflict somewhere there where we have um uh too many driveways that are close together um while maybe the the entire stretch of the street would like to see more um it's not appropriate to put those too close to someone backing in and out of their driveway. Um there's some safety concern obviously there. Um, so, uh, speaking to that particular request, and I I'm sure we'll hear from that resident this evening, um, we did have our engineering staff go out and and locate where, um, where they measured off that it met all the criteria, um, in the field, not on a computer system or something like that, uh, but physically in the field. Um, so sometimes things don't get installed exactly how one might envision because of the other, uh, variables that are in play. Uh but we're going to generally we start with meeting all the criteria and if there's some unique nuance to it um after we do a study we'll we'll look at if there's an alternative alternative method um moving forward.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? I just one point of clarity I think just to make sure it's clear that I think they still so we in order for the speed cushions to to to go down that path you still have to pass that first speed tube test right has to show that there is is that true

yes or yes and no um so so yes if you want to follow the the 5149 rule for for petitions these things are not always uh uniformly accepted on a block I can tell you that so so if we do have a defined speeding problem which is defined by the uh the 85th percentile at 25% or not exceeding that by more than 5 miles per hour. That's the that's the technical requirement. But what we're allowing for in this version um would be that very same version where you qualify just that because of the low cost of this deployment. Um it's it's actually quite a bit um less expensive than um the RFBs that we use for mid block crossings would would be for if those criteria are met. We we we identified a problem from studies. We have petitions from the the stretch of road that the neighbors are on that um city staff can work with them and if we have that criteria met, we can have those installed. Um the caveat to that is what we have seen is that um when we've um when we've had certain stretches of road where they don't where where we we don't meet that criteria, there's there appears to be a very strong desire from residents um that they still want to have this application. And uh the perspective internally that we discussed was for the the low cost of the deployment um perhaps if we looked at more of a um in those situations more of a super majority uh to install them. So so that's why we went with the 80%. um that if we have that level of support on a on a block um that we would still be able to approve those. But again, as I noted, the change in the actual traffic calling policy would be for us to move forward with with uh segments that we we do have a defined problem or issue and that we would stack these in the order they come in and that in that were a priority along with what funds are available in budget from fiscal year to fiscal year.

Great. So that so I understand the priority and how the priority list works. Yep. So that if we had 80% of of of of signatures or support on a street, they don't necessarily have to even pass that first.

We want them to start in that start in that space because a lot of times it's education piece too. Um I know when public safety um goes out um they may may show you know what the the the speed radar shows. Um our tube studies are to the extent they are um the most unbiased you can get. Um obviously if you use radar speed feedback signs or other types of of uh ways to measure speed or um those do have an impact on behavior. So the tubes generally are the best we can do right now uh for for way to measure that. Um but again I think what we've been experiencing is that there's a desire by residents to have another way and so we're trying to respond to what we're hearing from residents.

Thanks. Great. So follow up to that and I know that we had some discussion on this at infrastructure but I think I'm still trying to clarify I think based on what you just said right um so the changes that were made here it seems to me and reading through it there have been now two pathways created one that is the for essentially the former the former requirements and one which is a new resident initiated has fewer requirements but it gives you more flexibility right so it's actually an eight-step process. It's to Yeah. So, just maybe that might be more clear, I think, in the document.

Um, but I also just heard you say that uh you want everybody to start on the former process with the 80%. No. Well, we would do No, we would start them in the the traditional process. We want to have that interaction with them and then we would move them over as it stated in the policy if they if they would prefer to move in the in the different direction like let's say the results they get back are not favorable or let's um they they could elect to do that. We we would leave that up to the the the residents of the street. So we want them to do the speed studies but they don't have to do the speed studies. Is that right?

That's the process we're going to initiate with them because it doesn't we do that all the time. So, we're going to we're going to initiate that anyway. Um not not necessarily specific to the the policy, but we do we do speed studies regardless of traffic calming all the time throughout the city. Sure. Um so, and a lot of the a lot of a lot of segments that we we have repeat requests, we have quite a big data set anyway. Um so, we would we would probably look at our most recent. If there's something that's been done in the last 5 years without any major changes to the streets, those are still effective. about how long does it take to get through those studies?

Um, well, under the current process, it could take over a year. And, you know, we with with this more streamlined process, something we could probably knock out uh within a month. Okay. So, it' be a lot less um I think as you you may hear from the uh the resident who's attending this evening, uh the the current policy takes a long time to get through all those different studies and all those different steps. This certainly would streamline that. Okay. I do have one more question, but we'll seed the floor if anyone wants to pop in or has follow up on that because I'm going to switch shift gears for a second.

Yeah, I think just the last, you know, thought and and question that I had, Doug, and we we've talked about this on email just for the sake of the rest of the group uh and the residents in in uh attendance. You know, again, the term administrative, right? It it to me is a is a boxchecking yes or no kind of flowchart towards a towards an end outcome. Um, and if it meets it, it shall be done. If it doesn't, it shall not be done, right? Um, we we kind of went back and forth a little bit on the usage of the terms within the policy generally and usually,

right? Those are just not to me strong objective terms that helps us get to one side or the other. Could you just speak to that too?

So a lot of times what that really defers really the difference there is to engineering judgment. So a licensed civil or traffic engineer is allowed to have uh some flexibility based on their opinion assessment of of the situation. As I noted earlier, um there are sometimes variables that are unique to a block or a stretch of road that if we just had a black or white way of viewing it, um um just in the in the industry, there's there's given that difference much like an opinion from a from an attorney or from from a physician or other professional fields out there um where they're allowed to based off their education and training makes make some decisions. So um this gives this gives the the um residents the uh the the the various paths forwards for different types of traffic calming. Um but there's in any one of those there's always that aspect uh for the traffic or civil engineers involved.

So do you feel the the addition of the new p uh pathway to a yes for residents would help clear up some of the concerns that may have been seen during the last process in terms of the usage of those subjective terms? We'll probably have a we'll have um we'll have uh many more requests and we'll probably be stacking those. But I I think you know over uh probably the next um 3 to six years we'll probably see those streets that are interested get in the queue. Um and so I think that's where we're going to find out who who wants them whether whether it's be because there is an issue that we can measure or it's it's a preference for the residents that live in the community and that's what they want.

Sure. So this this process this conversation has you you feel in your judgment has probably brought this conversation up to maybe some other streets that Yeah. I mean for sure. I mean I um I I'm certain that if this is approved well we'll probably have a lot of lot of requests from some residents um that we've we've been in contact with for some time. Um but as I noted, this really is a way to streamline the process um and u still allow for the more robust path forward that has a lot of um requirements and engagement with infrastructure committee and city commission on some of those that are much much more expensive

um types of changes. But for these lower cost um type uh solutions, uh we we feel like having those go through an administrative process would would make uh more sense for the residents. So we'll be able to be more responsive to them in a quicker manner, more efficiently, and most importantly for a quicker change in measured outcome. So great. Thank you. Any other questions?

Yes. one my last comment what I said in an infrastructure meeting is I think I appreciate you finding a better way you know um finding another way to streamline something that you know the community wants and and and kind of hearing them and seeing okay yeah this process uh it could be daunting a bit and finding a a way that if the residents want something and the only outcome is just calming traffic regardless of just people I'll go slower which is a kind of a great great outcome so so I appreciate your effort in kind of brainstorming that and also the flowchart too I think putting that together I made a I made a crude one and and and yours looks a little bit more put together. Appreciate it. If you could read it, but yeah. Any other questions for Mr. Lefay?

Um, one that Well, actually, you know what? I'll hold until we hear from I think the residents and maybe it will be a question, maybe it won't be. Okay, great. Thank you. So, at this time, I will open up public comment to this agenda item. So, please come forward if you have any any comments at this time. Welcome again.

Thank you. Um, first let me start by saying uh I applaud your efforts. I think it's great to try to streamline this process because let me tell you, I've been in it for three years and we still have nothing. Zilch. Um, in 2023 was when I initiated the process. May of 23. Um, I actually started with the petition because I didn't realize there was an actual traffic calming process when my Google searches pointed me to the petition template. So, that's where I started. I walked from Breton Road all the way down to Lennox. I talked to neighbors. I heard their stories. All the close calls. We were a lot of young families, right? Um, and we had over 80% of our block sign that petition and and that was because not everybody was home. I think we probably could have gotten almost everyone. Um, so we went through the notions. They had the speed radar set. Um, public works sent me to the police chief because we needed to report the problem first, which fine, that's okay. We did that and it came back. There was a car on our street 95 miles an hour. How does that happen? Wait, we have no controlled approaches on Elmwood. We have over 2,000 feet of road. So, we have a stop sign at Bratton Road, but even at the the end where it comes to a T onto Lennox, we don't even have a yield sign there. We have nothing. So, when I'm reading these policies and trying to get clarification on why we're not getting more speed bumps, I'd like to see how many feet from a driveway we have to be or not be because he's telling me it's his professional judgment. But when I walk out there, you can clearly pull out of a driveway and have a speed cushion there without

hitting it. There's no question about that. if if any if anybody walked out there. He's also referenced in all of these documents between Laurel and East Lawn. So, I'm having a hard time believing that that entire stretch was considered. I think this was done in a rush because I was diligently following up and it wasn't until a girl was struck on our street while she was riding her bike that this started to move forward and actually be treated seriously. I'd also like to point out that we haven't been given any options. I've been told this is what we're getting. And as I pursued and tried to get more explanation as to why we're not getting any remediation on the rest of the street, I was told that they could just not put the cushions in at all. Maybe I could start the process over. Well, we'll do something else. You You don't need the cushions because I don't like the placement apparently because I'm questioning it. So, I would like to ask you guys if it would be possible to have the third party contractor, whoever it is, this licensed engineer, come and walk those other parts of Elmwood and see if it would be possible to have speed cushions pushed because we have 2,000 ft without controlled approaches. And by definition of this policy sitting in front of us of these cushions, we should be having an addition additional two to three speed cushions on that stretch of Elmwood. And I think that that's okay. With regards to the policy itself, I think that there's room to combine them and simplify it for our residents and the city officials.

Thank you. Would anyone else care to comment on this agenda item?

Hi, my name is Nicole Vicetta. I live on Elmwood and luckily I'm between that Laurel and East Lawn area or Pinerest and East Lon. So, we will be getting the speed cushions. But just for some additional perspective, this process has been wildly inefficient. As Robin stated, it had been 3 years and it was me who emailed after that little girl was hit. And I had to hear that from my kitchen window, heard the car hitting her bike, heard her fall, scream, and run out of my house as fast as I could to see what was happening. And thankfully, you responded to me and were very kind and empathetic. But the rest of the responses were not enough. But finally, it pushed to actually do something. Our street is full of young children. I've been on that street for 10 years. We have children from, you know, toddlers to teenagers on that street and they play in the front yard. They don't play in the backyard. They're running across the street from home to home. And I have seen so many near misses. It is wild. And to hear that somebody went 95 miles an hour down our street and we still had to keep pushing to get something done is incredibly disheartening. We moved to East Grand Rapids specifically to have a safe community for our children to grow up in. And the fact that I have to watch people fly down my street every day and even my family who comes over from the east side of the state, my husband's family when they come and they watch that, they can't believe that that is allowed. But our street is such a popular cutthrough from Hall to Breton that we have people in the community, we have people outside of the community that are constantly using that street. So, I am appreciative that we're finally doing something, but unfortunately, it's not enough. You've not only got the stretch that Robin lives on, but you

have the stretch from Breton to East Lawn that people also speed on that also have children, and we need to do our best to take care of them and also to act in a professional manner. To see the email chain with them threatening to pull the speed bumps because Robin asked questions is incredibly unprofessional and should not happen. We have worked so hard. Robin has worked so hard to get to this point. All we would like to do is keep our children safe and it's really disheartening that it doesn't seem like this process is set up to do that. So that's great to hear that it should only take a year. Why did it take three? And hopefully moving forward with this new process, it can go much faster for these other streets that would like some help protecting their children.

Thank you. Anyone else? Oh, welcome. George Lessons. I live on 836 Pinerest. I am that guy. Been here uh East Grand Rapids 26 years. I've seen two generations of kids grow up. Don't have any dramatic stories, but I started a process for our street. If you know where Pinerest is, it comes right off the west end of the high school. Um, I don't know what the traffic studies say. They say how fast people are going, but they don't say where the cars are coming from. I don't know your situation. Are they coming from outside of East Grand Rapids or are they within the city?

Mr. Leon, if you just make your comments up here. I know you were doing we're doing recording. I'm sorry. That's okay. I'm used to addressing a large crowd. Um,

ours are typically high school students and it's four times a day driving 40 to 50 miles an hour down our street looking for parking because they're always late. Um, rest of the day if you did a traffic study, 85% of the people will be driving below the speed limit. So, we would not meet that 85%. we would meet 100% of that during the four times a day, morning, two breaks, and the evening. So, um, we started a process in 2017 and had to go through the chief of police was immediately shut down saying it's doesn't qualify. Our our street I think is 1500 ft long with a traffic circle at Argentina and Pinerest. and he said that was enough. That's not two between the two controlled points. All the all the traffic goes really fast through that area. So, we were shot down immediately. I went and did um go to the residence with a signup sheet and got more than 80% and then was told it's not on the correct form. Couldn't find the form on the East Grand Rapids site. So, you know, once you're shot down twice, you really kind of give up. Now, I'm applauding the chance that we can do this from a resident standpoint. That's the only reason why I'm here to say thank you for for considering that. I'm not exactly sure that the speed pillows or the speed cushions are the right idea because it's going to allow kids to go through with one wheel in the track and one knot. But if we can do something, that would be great. And that's my comment.

Thank you, Mr. Lessons.

Hey, hi everyone. I'm aesthetic. I also live in Elwood 2133. Um, I didn't want to pile on. I think they shared the experience that we've had on Elmwood really well. Uh, the policy at face value seemed like an awesome thing. I saw the uh wood TV uh journalism piece on it. Um, and at first pass I was like, "This is great. We're trying to streamline. We're trying to make things more cost-effective." Uh, my concern with the policy though after kind of having lived vicariously through Robin's experience is and also uh Mr. Hunter, you you mentioned the you the use of usually in generally. I I don't quite understand who makes the ultimate call and that that worries me. I I worry that there's just a little bit kind of too much discretion on autonomy within the city works office of deciding then which which ones to do and not do. And when we've met the threshold over uh you know, we're one of two streets that have met the bigger threshold and it's still taking years to see some resolution. and it sounds like we've only put in a few a few speed cushions on Woodlon within six years. Um the idea of streamlining it is great, but I do worry that we're uh we're we're potent potentially not really putting the right level of discretion and autonomy on the the community. Um so that's that's what I wanted to add.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else care to speak to this agenda item?

I'm Lauren Ben. I also live on Emwood uh 2211. Um I second everything that was said here. Um I also am not familiar with the flowchart and I couldn't read it because it was very tiny. But I just wanted to add that it would be I think beneficial to have part of the policy is that when a study like this is initiated by concerned citizens on the street, could there be steps in between that include increased enforcement by police? If somebody is sitting there and is handing out, say, high school students a ticket in the morning, I bet they won't do it again. It would be nice if it wasn't like you have a concern and then a year later you get a traffic cushion. Could it be increased enforcement for traffic? Having somebody sit there on one of the cross streets that see that doesn't cost anything. I would think we have our whole dedicated public safety um force that I think does a great job. Um, and then on top of that, I don't know if there's increased um, opportunity for on that particular stretch of road that we live on, there are two cross streets that you could even just have a stop sign at. And I don't that's even less cumbersome than the traffic cushions and you can't in theory fly through them. So, um, again, everything that everyone here said was true. I also heard that little girl go down on her bike and um you know my daughter was outside at the time. She was right there and uh to not know if that was her um coming down was devastating. So, thank you for your time and I'd like to see additional thought put into traffic concerns on these streets that people have concerns on. Thanks.

Of course. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Anderson.

Thanks, Jerry Anderson. Again, by Vladimir, I do applaud the efforts that are taking place on this issue. I think it's great. Um, streamlining the process sounds wonderful. Um, I'd also like to acknowledge what um, Miss Denton said and and she stepped out early, it looks like, but our problem is in East Grand Rapids is not just speeding. And I think we all know that we have young drivers going fast. We have distracted drivers. We have elementary school kids who have are not required to have a lesson a license riding very quickly above the speed limit even on ecooters. And all of that combining is going to turn into disaster sometime soon for this community. And I just strongly urge you rather than looking at these pieces separately, put together a group of people including people like this in the community and take a a holistic look at everything that we're doing, certainly including public safety, and see if we can't come up with a plan to make this a safer place. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Okay. At this time, I will um close public comment and bring it up here for a motion and a second and discussion. So moved. Second. Okay. Wonderful. Any further comments? So I I do have a question. I really liked um one of the residents comments on measures that can be put into place like increased policing on a block after a complaint like this. what like what would that look like? How is that feasible? How could we implement that?

So the the first step in the process is exactly that. So it's it's to contact the Department of Public Safety to make sure that the the the complaint is recorded, logged. They go over other types of speed reports, etc. Citations, those types of things. Um and then generally that's where they'll they'll look for targeted enforcement. But um and I'll let I'll defer to Chief Buke on on the rest of this, but police officers can't be everywhere at all times. That's why these types of interventions are are effective because yes, while they are there, they may be effective, but when they leave um the the the area um you really need to have the more permanent impact effectiveness there. So, I'll defer to Chief Buke on the other part of that.

Yeah. In the memo, uh the speeding complaint handling process is listed in there and part of that is um reviewing uh former speed studies as Doug mentioned. We also do a traffic crash report usually in the past five or 10 years depending on the on the road. Um and then one of the first interventions that we do is put our speed trailer out there and I think everybody in the community has seen that at some point in time or not. that actually does give us a speed study as well. Um, we don't really count that as a speed study because most people when they see the

the uh the speed wagon lower their speed. So that's not listed as an official study. Um and then depending on some of those results, uh we will either request additional patrol or what we have is a mandatory direct patrol where an officer based on some of our speed studies will try to hit some of those targeted times and do increased enforcement. Typically, um we do issue a lot of warnings, but we do issue citations during that time. So that helps us get u a little bit more information as well. So that whole process in and of itself, depending on the street, um can take a couple of weeks depending on, you know, how long we have the speed trailer out there, how long our uh extra enforcement is. But we do typically pull the speed wagon off of the street in question before we do our enforcement because again, we want to try and maximize that efficiency and that duration. So, and we work very closely with engineering as far as communicating uh the results of our direct patrol. um our speed wagon studies and then um make sure that everything is off the street by the time they do their tube studies as well.

Okay. So that kind of kicks off within a few weeks of the complaint. Yeah, oftent times it it would be less than that. Okay. One more question. How like how long would do you do those um direct patrols? Not to give away the Yeah, it's here. It's not not some undercover strategy. I'm not asking so I can speed.

Um, sometimes it'll be a week, sometimes it'll be two weeks. If we're out there for a week, we usually re-evaluate our findings after a week. And they'll take an incident report each day and list how many traffic stops were made, how many violations were observed. And if they're continuing, we will keep that direct patrol continuing until we see some compliance and some decrease. So that varies. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments?

My my followup or final comments um on the conversation this evening are again thanks to city staff for um getting us to the place that we are today and very very sincere thanks to our resident group and an and official petition group here tonight. um using time that you know is is limited in in your lives that that you could have just looked the other way and said let's just hope it doesn't happen again. But thank you for taking the time to get us also to this point that we are at. Um I would I mean I share your concerns. I've lived on Hall Street for uh 20 years next week, two different homes. Um we lost a family pet on Hall Street. Um, and then I will never forget our our door from our kitchen looks directly out of the garage and down the street and my son was playing with a ball in the garage and it looked he was four years old. looked totally un, you know, not any sort of great potential for harm, but the ball started running rolling down the driveway and I kind of peeked the door open and my son was just running after it and he stopped it right like in the where the curb would be in the middle of our driveway. Uh, and then a car went rushing right by. So, it's a moment that I think all of us parents have probably felt or or been close to at some point in time. And I don't I don't want to make a a problem, you know, out of out of nothing. Um I don't think we have a widespread problem that we can't solve in East Grand Rapids. I I think there are issues though at different points and places around the city. Um so I'm again really glad we're having this conversation. I would, you know, invite Commissioner Wesley and myself who are are W 2 um commissioners because I think this is where most of the issues will or

most of the additional concerns will probably come up from resident groups. It seems like the wood streets are the long 25 mph streets that that more groups could come and um potentially give some concerns to. Um so again I just want to stay close to this issue with with other resident groups if if they do appear um in front of us. And the final question that I had uh Mr. Lefave is do you think this is any other concern placing these traffic cush uh cushions in our roadways? Are there any other concerns for pedestrians group group groups of you know cyclists or anybody else that you know might come in contact with these? Are there any other issues with with placing them on our streets?

No, I think they're they're highly effective. They're low cost and the number one uh safety aspect of an accident is the speed and anything we can do to lower speeds and on a more permanent basis versus just enforcement. That's why we feel like the this this revision in the the policy will make it very short, much easier for uh for us from administrative level to get these out. I I think similarly to um some policy changes that the city commission um approved in recent years as I noted with some of our midblock crossing treatments by allowing us to have the criteria for the studies and the authorization to implement. Um I think um you can see that that we're very active and certainly would be with with this as well. Okay,

West. Oh, sorry, Mr. We're next.

Well, I was just going to maybe close this out just saying just kind of reiterating my uh my my happiness to see that it's coming to fruition and and finding a way to streamline the process and putting the power a little bit more in the resident's hands. We've been, you know, as I've been up here, we've had a terrible issue uh situation that happened. I think it was last year um in my ward and um and you know to the residents that are here talking about this is is it's it's powerful. It's um I speak on behalf of everyone but in myself too is that you know I think of um your kids as my kids. We're all one community and we don't want I mean that's the last thing we want ever to hear is that another tragedy happens and we're trying to do our best to be as proactive as possible. So um with that being said, I'm glad that this is that you know first step. by all by no means does it mean that the jobs are done. We're kind of keep moving that ball forward. Um and and hopefully this will help streamline so there is no longer these uh longer wait times. Um and this hopefully makes it much more clear of a process. Uh and then the last thing in and just to just to bring uh to talk about you know the I brought up a question when we were in infrastructure about when we take these tests and you know right now unfortunately based on the way the tubes sit we can only do them in the spring. um and the summer and because we have fall uh the leaf pickup and all of these other cool services that we do, it will disrupt and and mess up those lines. So, there is technology out there that we're looking into uh that can even more discreetly capture uh speeds and record them without the need of putting something physically out there so that we could then capture more data during the school year, which would be the fall and the winter. Um, you know, knowing that summer's out, you know, we may see different it's a different type of speeder. I think that's out there than the than the the ones that are in school. Um, so I'm I'm excited about seeing seeing that come to fruition and and and I'm sure as we, you know, Doug does a great job. So, I'm sure as as you guys flush that idea out, I'm going to be very a big advocate for that as well.

So, I appreciate your hard work. Thank you so much. And I appreciate everyone coming and speaking tonight on this as well. Thank you.

Great. Thanks. I guess I would just speak um out for anyone watching um especially for Ward One residents. I'm speaking for myself. If an issue like this comes up, uh use us. Uh we're here to help move these through the process. We're here to help find those forms, connect you guys with Doug, follow back up with city officials, and kind of take all of the input that you guys are giving and get it to the right sources in the city. It's one of my favorite things to do um where I feel like I'm actually being useful and not just sitting up here is when I have residents come to me with a problem. Um and then I'm able to to help them navigate the system because it is complicated and it in the forms can be hard to find and our website can be difficult to navigate. We're fully aware of that. So, anyone listening, I'm speaking for myself and I'm sure this will be echoed by all the other commissioners up here. um cut an email, uh write me a text, give me a call, stop me while I'm walking my dog, um and and and let let us help on this on on this and other on other things just like this.

Yeah, great great thoughts. Yeah. So on that topic um or kind of on that on that line of thinking um something that I've been kind of grappling with up here listening uh to our residents who have come to speak about this issue is that that's three years of history that that we don't have up here and it's a lot to take in right now. Um, you know, I think in general and as with previous policies, I'm always happy to vote yes to hand off uh authority to make decisions that rely on our staff expertise um when that makes sense. And I I think that this is one of those things. Um I also, you know, I think it land the comment that was made that lands well. It was something to the effect of just by cutting this red tape doesn't necessarily mean that the outcomes are going to be changed or the timeline is going to be changed or so forth. Um and then uh hearing Commissioner Berdick say you know reach out, text me, call me. I think that might be a missing piece here in in this policy or this process. Um and I look at the is just looping in commissioners when this is happening. um that you know I look at the Department of Public Safety speeding complaint handling process and the letters C or D and all of those is communicate findings with someone and if we can say communicate findings with reporting party and representative commissioners report findings with department of public works and representative commissioner just so that when something like this is happening it's on our dashboard and we know and we can help facilitate I think that that thing that commission er verdict you're talking to. Um and so I I mean I know that this butts right up against a fundamental tension of our form of government. Um but I think the more that we can keep each other informed in this process and kind of bake that in, the better off it'll be

for our residents. So I'm I'm curious as to what others think of of potentially doing that.

Any other comments? I mean, if I could, Commissioner, I think you're aware that um anytime we're doing any sort of change, even if it's a crosswalk crossing, we provide you guys with a weekly update of things are happening for exactly that reason, so you're aware of it. I think in terms of Elmwood, you know, there's a few pieces that make that made that process longer than um than we would have liked. Anyway, uh, one of those is, uh, I think as Commissioner Wesley noted, we can only do, uh, traffic studies during certain times of the year, and we're trying to capture the school population, too. So, we do that in the spring, we go through the summer into the fall, and then when we change seasons, we can't really effectively do um, plus you would see in the winter time, you would see overall um, those types of studies generally have lower numbers. Um, and we don't want to skew the results. So, uh, so some of it is when someone started a process, if they started in late summer, they're going to wait till the next year anyway. And then the other piece on Almond in particular was we had a whole season of construction there, too. And so, we can't we can't do any analysis when we have an entire year of construction. So, um, I just thought I'd add those those aspects of it that are just part of how we do our jobs. And then part of it is just the aspects of how um, construction, other things are going to have an impact to that timeline, which we regret. But um I'm sure the condition of the road um was probably something that was of concern too. Um I think in terms of mandating you know uh a report to you certainly you can do that. Um I think the challenge is you know sometimes it's um are we not doing our job you know if I'm not reporting to you and you don't feel like the updates we provide to you they're insufficient or whatever they are um that's fine too. Um we also generally will post these traffic improvements to our website. So, if you look at our construction page, you'll see like the 12 or 13 intersection or or midblock crossing improvements we did with RFBs this last year, too. Not just to educate you, but the rest of the community on what we're doing. Um, but if you need to have that in in written form because we're not trusted, that's okay.

No, I I want to speak directly to that. It's certainly not that you're not trusted. I I think it's uh you know as I prefaced my question with it is I do respect your expertise and I'd like to hand off this responsibility when it makes sense. What I see this potential change doing is helping us do our job in this scenario. Um because as I heard you say earlier, we anticipate that with this this new policy, we may see an uptick in these things being requested. Um which means that they're going to be happening more frequently, which means that

we may be hearing it more frequently. And if we hear it at the same point in the process every time, that would really help us do our jobs representing our residents. and and I'd be immuneable to some friendly language that just notes that we'll we'll provide the notification to the city city commission

and and part of this too and um and I think commission has had enough um kind of um experience now that there are at times um what sometimes is relayed is not necessarily kind of all the all the details on the facts with that um and said that um we will continue to endeavor to u assure that commission remains informed there is that balancing act because there we we deal with so many issues that um that balancing act of when do we elevate this up to city commission just to make you aware we we strive to do that so and we will continue to do that so but there is there is some nuancing there that um I think is really important as we consider those types of requests

I mean I did hear Mr. Lefay say that he'd be amendable to some friendly language and I am curious to hear what other commissioners might think of this especially given Commissioner Berdick's comments.

I personally am happy with the the updates we already get. I think that city staff does a very good job of keeping us in the loop and you know when residents reach out I think um Commissioner Berdick's point was you know reach out. That's what we're here for is to reach out for us. we to engage with our residents. That's our job. I don't know that it's necessarily um necessary for city staff for us to micromanage city staff on this issue. Um I think that in my opinion staff does a great job of informing us on everything. The weekly update is more than thorough. In fact, basically almost every traffic stop or any citation is, you know, laid out individually and anything that public works is doing is laid out individually and all projects are available. I don't I don't personally feel the need to micromanage on this this issue. I feel s um confident that city staff will keep us informed as they always have, but that's that's just my thought. I I think when Miss uh Pat Robin and her family brought me into the conversation this past week and I dialogued uh with Doug and his staff, um I hope my questions and they were mostly questions. Uh a few interpretations here, but no strong statements. Uh would hope hopefully have been viewed as micromanaging. I think at this stage in my career and life, um I feel pretty confident in knowing my line of uh overstepping my bounds. I do not have a traffic engineering degree or any of the certifications or classes that you've taken. I have my own professional life that um I know where those lines stop. So, so I hope you didn't feel I was micromanaging you this past week.

I will. Thank you. Yeah. Any other thoughts on this agenda item? Sorry, I do have one more. Oh yeah, for sure. It's kind of it's kind of changing the subject a bit. Um

I mean it is changing that subject. Um I was thinking of what Mr. Lesson said about the time periods and we don't have to like this policy today is a good step, but I just wonder if in the future we could consider windows of time when we think about those 85th percentiles. I live on the parallel Floral Lav highway and good part of the day it's fine but those windows of time it's like quite scary and I don't want to like make a policy just for certain roads certain experiences but if in your immense spare time if we could explore like how we could make windows

I think despite some of the some of the conversations this evening I think we're very much aligned on the same page between the residents and and the city commission I mean this is a staff issue requests brought by myself to you because I recognize that the current policy that I lead with my team is not really getting the job done. Not necessarily based on them, but for the types of interventions perhaps we have a better way to do it. And also ways to do that where you're not beholden to as you noted, you know, that sometimes and uh sometimes there are uh periods of time that you know results are going to be different based off of local factors. And that's why we wanted to have we wanted to have a opportunity or way for residents to bypass that um as well. So I really feel like um you know based off our experience with the community members with with the city commission that this initiated approach is really accomplishing all the things that we're talking about here whether it's the residents, the board or staff.

Thank you. Any other thoughts on this agenda item? I don't have any. excuse me, thoughts that haven't already been shared. I'm uh happy to move this forward and hope that it'll be helpful to DPW and to residents as well. Okay, wonderful. Then um we have a motion and a second on the table, then we can go to a vote. Can we clarify before the vote? Are we introducing friendly language that will keep commissioners in the loop or no? Or is that a motion that needs to be made? I think we we already have a motion on the table is the agenda item as it stands, right? which means I think the motion would need to be amended. So I'm I'm asking would there need to be an amended?

So if the commission is amanable this evening is just uh give Mr. Lefave and I chance to um connect on um potential language. We would ask that this get approved tonight

um and then Mr. FA and I can take an opportunity to kind of explore how do we want to um um look at a potential um update to to that to address what's being discussed this evening and kind of think through that a little bit more. So my recommendation is let's approve this tonight. Staff has understood the um desire of the commission of can is there a way to tweak this? give us an opportunity to um uh reflect upon that with and bring back um something in the in the in the in the foreseeable future in regards to that. Need an opportunity to connect okay

with our team just to go okay let's make sure we're not missing something here. All right. Thank you. That being said, we have a motion and a second. Um can we get a vote for this? All those in favor say yes.

Yes. Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Next on the agenda, we have to consider approving a purchase of two Lenovo Think Systems uh servers and Lenovo Think System uh SAN storage area network in the amount of $7,88.98 including shipping. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh so I present to you tonight the purchase. First, I'll talk about the servers. Um those were actually budgeted to be purchased uh this year in the amount of 16,000. Um our IT personnel went out to make get another quote in November just to kind of see if we were in line and it was $18,000. And so when he was in the process of getting the quote to actually go and do the purchase to see what they cost, it jumped to 37,000. Uh so we will be doing a budget adjustment to change that amount. Um and then this and those are at end of life. So those are necessary to replace our SAN which is will be at end of life next year and it was budgeted in next year's budget um which would have been presented to the commission. Uh when we went out to get pricing to budget it for next year, we were thinking it would be around 19,000. Um he got a quote for a total of 22,000. Um and so then he went out and got uh other quotes and as you can see by the chart at the back that those quotes came in the 50,000s. Um so we talked to I3 the provider to make sure that they would hold that pricing and actually went ahead and did order that sand uh for fear that one they said they would hold the pricing which they did. Uh, however, we were um we were unsure if we were going to actually going to be able to get that piece of equipment if we

waited any longer. So, we're asking to approve that emergency purchase uh to get the sand at the cost as well as approve the purchase for the two servers. Um, we have taken that out of the budget for next year's presentation and moved that actually into we'll be doing a budget adjustment for the sand and the server cost. Any questions? Any questions for Miss Seth? I lost your audience. It's such an exciting item.

I have a question. So, what happens with the old equipment knowing that maybe it's not completely like I mean it's usable. Do you resell it? Is there any value? Do we get any money back from that or is there another way forward? It in end of life is end of life. it. Um, so I mean I know it's a year but they'll just take it and recycle it. So

we don't we we're not surprisedly up before recent events um we just don't see that um um demand particularly for this type of equipment. Having said that we'll um continue to evaluate. One of the things that the teams are always really good about is is that okay something shifted. do we need to change our approach and this may or that window of opportunity may or may not um be there um in the near future. But um these are items that again we attempt to stay ahead of avoid critical failure. So um but with that said um um continue to evaluate our um options. Great.

Any other questions for Miss Heath? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, no one here for public comment. So, may I please have a motion and a second for this agenda item? So moved. Second. Wonderful. Any further conversations? Okay, we can go to a vote. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Next, we have to consider approving or authorizing the purchase of 27 Kenwood Viking VM8000 mobile radios in the amount of $159,300 with 5% contingency for the Department of Public Works.

Okay. Good evening, Madame Mayor and commissioners. Again, um the request you have before you um is a a budgeted purchase with uh with a few changes to it. Um, a number of years ago, uh, the Kent County Dispatch Authority completed a transition to 800 megahertz radios for communications, um, uh, countywide for police, fire, emergency personnel, um, and, uh, public works agencies, um, or or those similar to them in the county, um, did did place uh, or did purchase some of these radios at that around that time. East Grand Rapids Public Works has 12 of those currently mobile units that are in uh trucks or equipment. Um with uh continued changes to migrate to that system, um it's it's vitally important to make sure that we can um uh speak across departments and agencies um for emergency responses that happen within the city, but also regionally or statewide. Um and the the existing analog system that's still out there and active will be uh transitioning phased out over the next coming years here. Uh so with that we had budgeted to outfit uh 27 additional pieces of equipment or vehicles with the department of public works uh so that we're able to have those communications with law enforcement, fire, emergency response personnel. Uh, one of the changes that's happening uh, at the statewide uh, uh, the statewide is the Michigan public safety commission systems that governs um, the 800 radios is is going to be going to um, encryption on the 800 radios, which means that uh, public works, even if you have an 800 radio, won't be able to communicate uh, necessarily with uh, law enforcement or fire um, in the future here. So the reason for the additional cost that we're noting that we're going to absorb through other projects and expenditures um is really due to that factor. Making sure that we're planning for the future so that we're able to actually communicate with police and fire if

there is an emergency. Um, public works doesn't respond to all emergencies, but um, around here, anything that's, uh, you know, storm related, uh, those types of things, we work very handinand together with public safety. And, uh, sometimes any any anything that that can impact the the response from having to call central dispatch, then to find somebody um, public works just to talk to public safety is a challenge. and we want to make sure that we stay ahead of the curve so we don't end up with a situation where we're not able to communicate. Um, so as noted here, this is a my deal contract purchase. U, we have worked with the Kent County Sheriff's Department. They've been great uh to work with uh to help us with a with a purchase along with the Kent County Road Commission who's also going to be making this change. Um, like I said, other agencies in the in the metro uh area and Kent County are all making this move as well to make sure that we are able to communicate and avoid some uh uh potential issues that could arise if we don't have those capabilities. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any question? Oh, go ahead. Yeah. Um, I'm curious about the 12 that were purchased in 2023. Will they meet the standard that these new 2023? They will not meet the encryption standards. So, we will move those to um the types of vehicles or equipment that generally don't don't respond to uh emergency response. So, we'll still be able to utilize them with internally with our staff, but once that encryption piece moves over, those won't be able to communicate. Um, as I noted, the uh the life of these is expected to be 10 to 15 years. So, when we get to the next cycle, we would just batch those up to whatever it is at that time. Makes sense.

Any other questions? My other question which is similar to what I gave to Charlotte which is like assuming that the frequency that though the old radios are not in the same bandwidth of of what you speak to with police and fire, right? Because that's resellable then to like maybe we're still going to use those radios. We're just saying we're going to deploy them and maybe like sidewalk plows or something that's not going to be in the scene of a of a situation. So we'll still be able to talk within our within our group but won't be able to talk with law enforcement per se at that time when such a change is made. Got it. Thanks. Any other questions, Doug? Uh, do they have location tracking on them?

I'm sure they do for dispatch. Um, we have our own internal tracking system for vehicles and equipment. I think you've seen some of the stuff we share related to uh like uh plowing service. Um, we do that for yard waste and other things too. So, we have different GPS that we use, but I'm I'm certain maybe Chief Bugo can speak to that. certainly do have a way to like find my iPhone type thing. I'm sure it's even better. But find my radio. There you go. Find a radio.

Yep. And we're and I should say we're going with the mobile units. So they're mobile in vehicles. Um they're not portables in terms of um okay that that you'd be wearing. Uh for our type of operation, we generally feel like we would probably damage those frequently or they might become lost at a construction site. So, we're going to keep those safe and in trucks and vehicles, which are almost always close to where we're working anyway. I can say I was nerding out reading the brochure, and they do have built-in GPS. Yes. Thank you. Thanks. Great. Right down my alley. Okay. Thank you. Y Thank you. All right. Again, no one here for public comment, so I will ask for a motion and second on this agenda item. I'll move. Second.

Wonderful. Any further conversation? Okay, we can go to a vote. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Next, we have to consider authorizing a professional services agreement with Marsh in the amount not to exceed $88,410 for consulting and design services related to the waterfront park improvement project. Yay. That introduction by Mr. Melville.

Thank you for the excitement. I I share that. Uh good evening, Madame Mayor and Commissioners. Yes, I am excited to uh share the next step in the Waterfront Park phase 2 implementation. Um just as a brief uh summary, you may recall earlier this year the the city was recommended for funding for a DNR grant uh for Waterfront Park. Uh combined with that grant uh it is the next park that was recommended uh by the parks and recreation commission and the city commission for implementation as part of the parks improvement millage plan. Uh so the next step in the uh in the phase is to select a consultant to help guide the the city and its residents through the uh community engagement and design development process. Uh so to help kick us off and to help us select a consultant for that, uh the parks and recreation team, we issued a request for proposals or an RFP earlier this year um to solicit uh uh proposals from qualified architectural landscape architectural engineering type firms um who were interested in working with the city on this uh proposal. uh that uh that proposal requested for those firms to submit uh their staff bios and qualifications, any uh relevant projects that their team has been involved in that mirror the waterfront park phase 2 development. Um a narrative of their understanding of the project. Um a proposed schedule to walk us through the steps to make sure that we're um meeting our timelines. Um and then a cost uh for their services that they're providing. Um and again um with the excitement that I share um we were pleased that we received 14 uh different submissions from um so from 14 different firms um not just here in Grand Rapids but across the state of Michigan and some outside of Michigan even um of of firms that um were interested in working on this project. So um and by comparison um in my experience usually when you get three, four or five submissions you think

that's a pretty good response. Uh here were a three-fold of that. Um included within your packet was a cost breakdown of all of those submissions. So you'll see the the low cost firm there. Um Avon Marsh, who I'll talk about a little bit more in the $88,000 range. Um up to um there was one outlier at $500,000. Um unfortunately sometimes the the firms don't maybe understand the scope of what you're asking for. So that that one was an outlier. Um but quite a few in the mid100s up to $200,000 range. um very pleased with all of the submissions. Uh uh but um we did take a look at all of them and narrowed it down to two. Uh trying to find that best balance of experience. Um firms that have worked on projects uh such as this before and finding the the firms that share the our excitement for the project but also have that understanding of what we're looking to do uh at Waterfront Park. Uh and so we did narrow down that that field down to two firms. um Avon Marsh and then MC Smith and Associates or MCSA Group. Um and we interviewed both of those firms. Uh we had a an interview panel uh with parks and recreation staff members and support from the city engineering team um who also had a chance to look at those proposals. Um and ultimately the um Avon Marsh um was um the top candidate that was um identified by that firm and that's who um I am recommending your uh consideration this evening. Um the reasons that Avon Marsh um stood out to us uh number one when we looked at their uh submission they have relevant experience recently. They do a lot of work along the lake shore um excuse me along the lake shore and in um like in Indiana. Um they've recently added a location here in Grand Rapids. Um they are a full service firm. So they have

all of the staff to do uh the work on this project inhouse uh which is um one of the differences between some of the other firms that had submitted. Uh sometimes uh smaller firms will um package sub consultants and bring in partners on the project to help um help uh provide expertise in certain areas on this project. The wetland restoration piece is one of those areas that they were bringing partners on. Um and Avon Marsh their team has all of that in house. Um they also have done business here in East Grand Rapids before. they've um uh worked on behalf of Corwell Health on the Blahett project uh and the city engineering team had interfaced with them during that project and was uh really impressed with their uh their team. Um so uh with that I'm I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about the um about the submissions that they um submitted. Um but um really in summary uh we we feel like Avon Marsh has a great understanding of uh what we're hoping to accomplish at Waterfront Park. U they have the the local resources here to help accomplish that. Uh and um of course the um the price point there too um was amunable to the project. So

any questions for Mr. Melo? Uh quick first question is about the pricing. I did notice that there's a phase 8 that both of the firms you ultimately interviewed have included that isn't actually in their bottom line price there. Um, and I wondered if you could walk us through that a little bit. Um, because it does elevate what the total cost would be presumably if this is something that you're considering.

Yes. So phase eight that's outlined there is the construction inspection/administration. Uh so uh included within their proposal is uh they'll help with community engagement. Uh they'll help with conceptual design development uh putting together bid packages for the project and then um like bi-weekly meetings throughout the construction process and helping with uh payment processing uh of uh for the for the project. Uh, one of the, uh, components that that, um, that phase 8 would add in would be a construction observation. So, having staff actually on site during the construction process or during certain phases of that process that would require, um, expertise, construction expertise oversight. Uh and so um the reason why it was included in on the RFP um but not as part of this award recommendation was to get a sense of uh number one their understanding of the project what they felt like that um that scope of services would cost. Uh but ultimately we didn't we're not recommending that for this evening knowing that the uh the conceptual design is just that at this point. It's we don't have a final design and the uh the scope of that may change and which would have a direct change on the uh construction observation um effort. And so that that was um that was included on the breakdown to to see where they were at and what their thinking was. Um but ultimately that would be a decision that would be made closer to um when the project is bid and when it's um going to be going into construction and depending on what scope items are included within that to see if if that um if those services are necessary or not.

Okay. Did that answer your question? Yeah. Yeah. I think so. Like it's confusing to me that some people included this phase 8, some people didn't. Some people had a much much higher phase 7 which seems to be kind of the same thing but I could be wrong. Um so I just was curious like why the the huge disparity there and then like you know they had a whole different section that other people didn't include. It was just confusing to me.

They did and then I could speak to that a little bit. That's where this uh breakdown is uh we try to do um to give us like a a brief picture of where those costs lie. Um when we go through these 14 proposals, not everyone sets them up the same way. So sometimes uh they'll lump uh different phases together or um in some cases they might not even offer a price for that. So we try to um separate that out to help make sure we're looking at it from an applesto apples perspective as best as we can. Um and then um I guess just to um provide further context the phase and and and even for me sometimes too it's the phase seven is more of the administrative pieces of the construction. So um again like the um the pay the pay applications making sure that the contractor is providing uh what we're paying for whereas the phase 8 is like physically like an engineer or a qualified um construction personnel on site watching to make sure that the contractors are um meeting the specs that are as part of the of the project. uh and and so in in some cases depending on what the scope of work is sometimes um you don't necessarily need somebody there throughout that whole phase but there might be pieces of that. A good example is for the uh the playground projects that we just completed at the well just it's a couple years ago now it seems like yesterday um there was certain um pieces of work like the the retaining wall in the parking lot at the uh at Lakeside Elementary etc where we wanted to have more direct oversight during those um phases of work. So, we added um um construction observation, but for like the playground installation and um the um landscaping, things like that where you can do more of a visual inspection even after it's built um that doesn't require that level of oversight.

So, so just kind of piggybacking on Commissioner Skagg's comment or question, will the 30 absolutely be included in the 88? No. Okay, that that's a okay. Thank you for clarifying. If

um you've done so already in your previous response, I apologize. I just I just wanted to follow up. Um you know, I was during finance made uh given the same presentation, so thanks for presenting again to us. Um I was very glad to see when going to the website for Abon Marsh um that they've done work uh for two river projects, St. Joe River and Black River Park. Um and then two sites on Lake Michigan, including a sensitive dune uh walkway and and area there in clearly sensitive environmental areas. So, you know, I I assume they're bringing some awareness of uh even though it's not, you know, in the rows, extra one, extra two, extra three, soil and topography, sensitive species, wetland, preserving wetlands as much as we can. I mean, this is a area of town that's still very green and it it'll allow our residents to interact with it more certainly, right? uh after the park is done. Um you know, I I turn my thoughts to the Egg Green uh group here in town that several members of us uh here on the commission are have have been members of in the past or are still at this time. Um maybe too much for today to to decide, but uh would you be open to you know having that group uh be a part of some of these conversations initially in terms of the concept that's being proposed and you know just to kind of allow them to hear the presentation to allay their potential fears about uh an area that is I think at this point still considered wetland if not officially you know by the DNR. So, um, it'd be great to get that group's either input or, you know, again, allow them to be, uh, part of those conversations.

Yeah, thank you for bringing that up, Brad. That's one thing I I kind of went over quickly is, uh, the, um, community engagement when, and when I say that, it will be a robust community engagement opportunity. Um, there'll be multiple phases of that. Uh the plan is for the um this team um if if awarded the um the contract will we'll do an initial um kind of kickoff with city staff etc and get a schedule of dates put together for the first round of community engagement. There'll be multiple sessions um and we can certainly invite groups um of that nature to come and um hear uh what we have conceptually proposed but then to listen to hear what other ideas might be out there to help develop an updated conceptual design. And then after that first phase uh and the design team goes back to work and and creates updates based on that feedback, there'll be a second round of community engagement to uh kind of vet the updated plan u which will include stops at the parks and recreation commission and the city commission of course as well. Uh so um that to me is one of the um the exciting pieces that will mirror what we did for Manhattan Park to hear from residents with um um you know different interests.

Great. Thank you. Is it um this accurate that that you would think about the first public round of public engagement being already in April?

Um I I think maybe late April would be the um updated timeline. Um but potentially early May, some somewhere in there. We um we already have the conceptual design and we would like to try to get some of that feedback um going. So, um to help us stay on the timeline, um not to muddy the waters too much here, but the um you know, we're working towards uh um we we need to get the eagle permit for because of the wetlands there and and that's something that can take a little time, but we need to have uh designs first to do that. So, we do um certainly not rushing this, but uh we're ready. We're poised and ready. It's been a long time coming. Uh, and I I think that the the team at Avon Marsh is um they're also poised to help us uh stay on track of that schedule um so we can meet our um our timeline.

Yeah, you're right about um No, Rush, this has been I think part of the plan since 2012, right? If I'm like some of those old things we've seen 2012. I remember um your predecessor Fred Bun coming to a community foundation meeting and one of our plans was to try to start fundraising for this and this would have been I think in like 2015. So yeah definitely a long time coming. This is good to see. Um my last question is so they worked on some of the blahit what aspect of blahit I'm just curious. So they were the the architects and engineering firm uh that handled the the four to fiveyear uh project expansion there. So

from our experience um they were um very helpful in helping um work through some issues with adjacent residential properties and property owners um and help help to really facilitate that between the owner Corwell Health um and the city to really even add a lot of things that were um um things that residents really wanted to see or learned that they would like to try to solve. um they were very helpful at really going above and beyond and helping um with that project. So, great. That's good to hear. Thank you.

Can you say a little bit more about what the public engagement sessions are going to look like, where they'll be held, how they'll be public, all that kind of good stuff.

Yes. So, um, some of that is to be determined, but what we've have found to be successful in the past and specifically with the Manhattan Park project, um, is to have openhouse style, um, where, um, you know, different design boards up with different ideas of of the scope items and what they potentially could look like. Of course, have the conceptual design and then the Avon Marsh team and city staff would be present to answer questions or help talk through residents through that. Um we've had success having uh those meetings here in in these rooms uh for the Manhattan Park. We did one out at uh the pavilion or the the previous pavilion. Um and so that was one of the ideas we had of maybe doing one at Waterfront Park, but um we want to talk that through a little bit further. Also, as part of each phase, we will have an online survey for so for residents that aren't able to come in person uh would be able to appine in on online um with a a similar type um feedback structure. Um and then um as far as uh publication, we'll certainly hit the um the usual um like the East Express, etc. uh for Manhattan Park, we we also did a a postcard to residents with like a QR code type thing that we would um plan to replicate that as well. Um we we um love having feedback on this. Um so we'll um try to match if not um exceed what we had at Manhattan Park.

Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Mild? Okay. Thank you. All right. May I please have a motion in a second on this agenda item? So moved. Second. Any other thoughts? Yeah, I I had something a quick question I guess before we jump in. Um well, two questions. One, uh for Mr. uh Charles, do we just the park improvement millillage and some of that is going to be going towards this project? Do we have an idea of how much we have left earmarked for? Um about 600,000's left in the fund.

Okay, thanks. And then the um the other thing is I just thought, you know, I it's not a surprise that I'm I'm an advocate for getting all of the uh uh truck trailer spa uh parking spaces out of the downtown area. And I thought this would be a great opportunity to to see if there's any appetite on the commission to add in, you know, um some some language underneath one of these bullet points for for uh uh where it could say something like, you know, adding um you know, considering adding, you know, a number of truck trailer spaces, uh and making this the only allowable lot for truck trailers to park. You're talking boat trailers?

Oh, yeah. Specifically, like trucks with uh trailers with boats. Um if I was I thought it'd be a great space for it for it to get all of those uh truck trailers out of the downtown area. They tend to hog up two to three spaces at a time. They get there nice and early and I think that it impedes other people especially when we were talking about parking and how limited knowing that we do have parking but maybe the level service is not as high as we want it to be and we're working um hard with strides to change that. Uh this could be one of those aspects where we could then eliminate truck trailer parking spaces um and free up two to three spaces per per truck and then having a dedicated area which is a safer space which are deeper lot deeper spaces for those truck trailers to be able to pull in and out um without having to try to parallel park you know um on the street.

I fully support this. I have if we can get the the boat trailers off street parking that would be great. Is that something that you would have to look into the grant about or any kind of limitations with that? Is that something you have to noodle on?

Um, so the way that we uh wrote the grant um we left a lot of things open-ended because our design was conceptual. Um and so the um kind of the intent was to go through the public engagement process and then um once we have an updated plan go back to the DNR and and say here's uh the plan that we feel meets the um the grant requirements um specific items like that they would not be they would not object to as long as we were meeting the um the criteria of the grant. Okay. Um, and I um I just whispered to Doug that he reminded me that the um they did have a conceptual design for the parking lot that um previously was um not implemented that did incorporate some of that. So um that that discussion has been out there before.

I'm in support of it. I would also though not want to pinhole us, if it makes sense to look at that Department of Public Works lot as well that already has a lot of trailers and trucks going through it. And if we can alleviate some actual cars to this new area and move more trailers over to an area with a lot of plows and heavier equipment, I think I I I don't want to just make it where it has to be there, but I'm with you and I support the idea of like let's use this as a as a good tool to to move those trailers out of that area. Yeah, I agree. I think that that's Yeah, we've we've talked about this before and I think it's a great idea to get the parking off of in front of John Collins Park. I know that you've had a couple clo near misses there, right? Yeah.

Yeah.

I would unequivocally uh reject including that language. I I I highlighted uh one aspect in particular that this is a sensitive environmental area and I'm not in favor of of expanding any of the parking if that's again there's no there's no definition for how much parking we have right now built into this plan. Uh but that would clearly increase the amount of parking that would have been I I guess in some sort of original concept up to this point. Um this is a waterfront park. It's not a parking lot. Um, you know, in addition, so from the environmental concerns, uh, secondly, this has to be taken into account from a larger parking perspective. Um, if we're going to solve parking, we're not going to do a peace meal, just one-off plans here and there. So, holistically, we should be taking into account a larger strategy rather than one-offs.

If I'm understanding this correctly, though, you were making the suggestion and Ryan Berdick was saying that this is just opening up a larger conversation, right?

Yeah. A couple things on that. So thanks Madam Mayor. So um yeah I just thought we would add in the language let's say under one of the bullet points where it says expansion of existing parking lot and additional security lighting including dedicated park truck uh spaces. Uh starting the conversation that way putting it in the hands of the staff and as well as the uh designers to go hey could this be a good spot for it. Uh knowing that our level of service is is lower than we want uh to see on parking. I think it'd be a great uh a great and a safer way with safety being the number one, you know, priority for us, you know, and I think that we kind of established that last year when we were like, hey, what's our priority? Priority, in my understanding, is safety for our children and for people number one. Number two, then, you know, save the eagles. Um to that point though, I'm a huge advocate for um and I'm on the E-green um initiative group, too. And so, uh knowing that the area is uh first of all, the parking lot is not on the water. It's um it's on the other side of the street uh back and then it's surrounded by uh woods which I am I was told and understanding that those are invasive trees. So I would think that maybe we would probably get some strong support uh from um those who are protecting the uh the other native trees and and and stopping the invasive trees from continuing to to flourish. So um but again I I could be I could be corrected. I'm not that's what I heard. Um and I think that's what that's what I'm going off of. So, so if I if I may, um the request this evening is um to award it to the um Arvin Marsh um as we move through the development process and whatnot. These are all ideas that we will take an account of and as we heard this evening, we have multiple viewpoints and whatnot and that's as we do um with everything that we do um on especially large projects like this. It is a holistic approach. Um that's why we have um almost every department um involved in these conversations to identify okay we have this issue here we

have this issue we have it this issue here so I'm I'm comfortable that um I know this is something that was actually as um Mr. Melville pointed out that we actually have a full fully designed engineer um version of this that was considered back in 2021. The commission at the time decided not to pursue that. So, it's going to be a point of discussion and where we end up we will get through the process. Does that work with you, Commissioner Wesley?

Yeah, I just again I'm just going to keep trying to put that push that ball forward and um that move that ball down the down the field and hopefully we'll get it in the end zone sometime soon. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Uh, we can go to a vote. All those in All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Moving on to consider approval of the wage increases as outlined. That again, Mr. Melville.

Yes. Good evening again. Um, as outlined in the memo, the parks and recreation uh team has the pleasure of employing um seasonal and and and part-time and temporary staff members. um throughout the year um most of which are lifeguards, but we also have uh um part-time youth officials and table workers at the middle school games, etc. Um we generally have somewhere between 60 and 100 um part-time staff that work for us. Um these positions uh begin at like the entry level with the youth table workers and then um we also have with the lifeguards positions that require a certification and and additional responsibility. Um back in 2022, the uh the city did a um a large wage adjustment for these positions and they received a large pay bump at that time uh due to uh there was difficulty in finding and retaining specifically lifeguards but also um other part-time staff. Um and so uh something that we've noticed as a parks and recreation team that u at that time the the city was kind of one of the leaders in the area for pay especially for lifeguards and other other um part-time positions. Um we've started to notice that some of our area counterparts have um provided wage increases for similar positions that we offer. Um, and so to help us continue to uh not only retain um our existing staff, but to help us uh recruit and um and and ultimately retain our staff, uh we are recommending some wage adjustments for those part-time positions that again have not had uh pay increases uh since 2022. Um so as outlined in the memo, uh most of the positions uh were selected to receive like an incremental bump of 75 cents. Um, also, uh, some of the positions like our summer help, which is our summer grounds maintenance staff members that, uh, sometimes are, uh, we only have them for one season, but sometimes they may

come back. And when we, we have returning staff, there's a lot of efficiency there. Um, so we're u building in the request to have them receive um annual 75 uh cent pay increases to um number one reward them for coming back but also to recognize that they do have a year of service um and a year of um experience working in the city. Um and then specifically for the uh lifeguard piece um we are recommending that we do uh delineate between um the pay for our youth lifeguards and our adult lifeguards. Um the main um specific reason for that is the adult lifeguards do have um a higher level of responsibility. They um they are the key holders responsible for locking and unlocking doors. Um there are times when um the adult lifeguards are the um they're the only ones working. Youth lifeguards cannot uh work solo um um due to work permit uh restrictions. Um, and then lastly, I'll point out we have had in the past a an early morning shift premium um to recognize the efforts for getting out of bed at 5:00 in the morning. Um, and so um that was $1.50 for the longest time. Um, we are recommending to uh bump that to $2 an hour again just to help um incentivize our our team members to pick up those less desirable shifts. um which we would recommend to also extend to like the um Friday night and and weekend shifts. Um those are the the shifts that we have the most difficulty uh filling and as outlined in my memo. Um at times when those uh shifts are gone unfilled, they're filled with parks and recreation staff who are, you know, full-time staff earning a wage that's higher than this. So, it would be a nice um opportunity to maybe balance some of that out and um provide a little incentive to the the hourly staff to pick up those shifts instead of having um a higher paid staff performing those duties. So, I'm happy

to answer any questions you may have. I have a comment if that's okay. Absolutely. So, I mentioned this in personnel committee, but I just want to put it out there on the table. Um, I think it's really important that we continue tracking this next year as well because our minimum wage is going from 1373, I think this year, to $15 an hour in 2027. And so I want to make sure that we're continuing to provide strong rates of payment for people. Um, and so I would just ask that we bring this back in a year and take another look at it and ensure that we're we're doing right by our employees.

Absolutely. That was honestly going to be my comment too was I was happy to see this is back because I remember when we had this initial conversation of we can't find lifeguards and we said well let's try paying them more and and this was the initial one. I'm glad that you've brought it back this time for an adjustment and I totally support commissioner Skaggs with with um with revisiting it again. Absolutely. Stay on top of it. Mhm. So my one request when we do approve this that to note also that the seasonal parks and maintenance way schedule will also apply to the public works seasonal crew. Okay. Good. Just notice that made on the

Thank you for that note. Any other questions for Mr. Moville? Okay. Can I have a motion in a second for this agenda item? So move. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Next, we have the consent agenda items. May I please have a motion and a second to approve tonight's consent agenda item? So move. Second. Wonderful. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Next, we have to consider entering a close session to discuss non-UN or union negotiations in accordance with section 8C of the Open Meetings Act. That introduction is by Andrew Charles. As noted, we're requesting a a close session to discuss union negotiations.

Wonderful. And so, may I have a motion and a second for that? So moved. Second. In a roll call vote. Commissioner Berdick. Yes. Commissioner Gick. Yes. Commissioner Hunter. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Skegs. Yes. Commissioner Wesley. Yes. Fabali. Yes. Okay. I think we'll just stay in chambers. Everybody's here comfortable.