City Commission - Regular Meeting

Everyone could please stand and join us in saying the pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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.

So, first on this evening's agenda is the approval of tonight's agenda. Do we have anything we'd like to add or take away from this evening's agenda? Okay, hearing none, I will move on to the KDL annual report. Welcome.

Well, good evening everyone. I am Kristen Cavell. I am the latest addition to the board, the trustee who's uh representing East Grand Rapids, also Ada Cascade, Grand Rapids Township. And well, first thing I want to say is Kent District Library exists to serve and further all people. And of course that can't be done without you. So I just want to heartfully thank you the commission for you know supporting us as as much as you do. And then also um next I'd like to share a little bit about what I love about KDL personally. So I am an English teacher and I'm also a parent. And as it's starting to warm up I'm getting very excited about the approach of summer wonder. Um this is all the special programming that they have for you know adults but also kids. And one of the most exciting things in the summer is kind of visiting a branch and seeing a kid just finish up their book reading goal for the summer and get a fresh new brand new book of their own in their hot little hands. I mean, it's a joy to a teacher, a parent, the whole bit. Uh, but the the other thing that's really exciting about being, you know, a part of the Kent District Library family now is just out of curiosity, have any of you ever participated in one of those community jigsaw puzzles that you've seen in a library? Never. They have these. Oh, you have. Good for you.

Not for long, but I did find out. That's why it's community. You can't take it over.

Well, that's I like to I like to get my hands on those myself. And I thought, you know, prior to being a member of the Kent District Library Board, it's kind of like I'm working on the outside pieces of the puzzle. Like I I see the librarians and the books and the programs, but now that I'm actually on the board, I get to see all those little inner inside pieces. like I have met with all the technology uh staff and also um the bookmobile drivers and ideiation room where you know we're think tanking our way for new ideas for KDL and and then also the green machine where they put the books on and it you know shows where they go and then they travel off like there are a lot of pieces to this Kent district library puzzle and right in the center of all of these pieces all these hardworking staff members we've got the leadership team. And so with us here today, we've got Jen Devault. She's the director of library operations and I am going to hand over my excitement of KDL now to her. So thank you.

Hey everyone. Yes, I am the director of library operations, which basically means I oversee all of the branches and the managers. So I'm super lucky to get to work with Scott and Shauna who oversee your branch. Um I brought a few extra. I know you received those. um they're on our website, but I thought somebody might want a hard copy. So, I'll just leave those right there. There are two things that I just want to mention before I let Scott talk a little bit more about the impact that he makes every single day. One is the return on investment. So, last year, residents saved $99 million by using their library, which is a $135,000 increase over 2025. Um, so we're super excited about that. The average value per library user is $1,417 that they get of using the library instead of having to go and buy things. That doesn't include programming or any of, you know, like public computer access. That's really just checking out material.

And then the other thing is your library is super well used by our young people, teens. Um they come over. I know that everybody who works in this building sees that every single day. Um but we had um 20,000 young readers uh complete summer wonder last year which helps prevent the um summer slide. And then the other thing that we have done which I think is really astounding is provide over 29,000 meals to local children throughout Kent County. Um and so Scott gets to do this every single day and I know most of you know him so I'm going to let him talk a little bit about the impact that he makes. Thanks. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Scott Nymire. I'm your East Grand Rapids library manager uh for 5 years now I suppose. Um it's be coming by fast. We're um we're just in a really good spot. Uh thanks to your support last year we added study rooms and this year uh with your support you provided us new carpet which is amazing and we just we're putting up a new mural right now to complement it. So we have an artist downstairs actually right now uh who's working on a project that'll take two weeks and the whole back wall will be a Reeds Lake montage starting underwater and going up into the sky with a bald eagle overhead. So it's a beautiful mural. You can see it before it's finished today if you like and then it'll be finished in a few weeks. But uh we're just so happy to be a part of the community. Uh when Carol Bost Weatherford came to the uh the elementary schools that was part of the library and the school foundation. Um and we're just in a really good spot. So in this book, one of the biggest stats is market penetration. How many people have a library card? KDL is one of the highest in the state and EGR is the highest in the county or in our district. So there's everyone in East Grand Rapids effectively almost has a library card. So we just are so grateful for your support. Um, and we're here to continue that uh going forward. But are there any questions you all have for the library or for myself?

I just want to say how impressive those numbers are just really just to break it down like that. That's so interesting and amazing. So, thanks for all you do, honestly. Excellent. Have a wonderful evening. You as well. Thank you.

Okay. Next on the agenda, we have public comment. So now is the time to make public comment to something that's not on this evening's agenda. So if you have public comment about something not on the agenda, now is the time to come forward. Welcome. Thank you.

Mark Armstead, uh 220 Homewood. Uh thank you. Um appreciate the opportunity to come up and speak before the commission and the city. Uh just want to talk about the gas light um development project a little bit. And one of the things that uh really concerns me is the uh the tax increment financing. Um I've expressed that before. But another thing to consider is um you know it's been it's been I mean the the property owner purchased the land a number of years ago and with the anticipation of uh developing the property but then the building was actually torn down or and the property has been vacant. So the city in effect has lost uh I mean they haven't been able to capture any any revenue from that. um you know from that time period. Um but then also you know after 20 years it would seem like the developer would have been able to procure resources andor have the confidence to move forward with something uh regardless of you know whether it's what what's proposed now or something else. I know some people in the community have expressed uh more restaurants and things of that nature. Um there's been a variety of things, but two of the biggest things that came up um seem to be people are tired of looking at the site the way it is. Um and and that's understandable and the other thing was lack of restaurants, but really the again um you know I don't understand why the city feels like it's their responsibility to fund or finance this project for the uh for the property owner. Um, again, there's a lot of a lot of development. Um, there's a lot of economic development throughout the city. Uh, you look at all the remodels, reconstructions, um, old homes being torn down, new homes being put up, uh, the maintenance and repairs that people

put into their homes. And again, you know, if we reallocate resources away from property uh property owners where they can't make their own repairs or do their own upgrades, um you know, I mean, and and then we're allocating that towards, you know, a single entity. Uh the other thing too, affordability, affordability is really home ownership. Um home ownership is somebody who's building equity in something. um you know and to put all of our resources to um build equity for one individual versus the entire community that just seems uh a little bit egregious. Um you know and it really and again you know I there's been you know a 20-year period where the developer or the property owner has you know been able to study and decide you know what will and won't work uh in East Grand Rapids. And the other thing too, the parking, the parking is really the property owner's um problem, not the city's problem. So, I don't know why the city is putting such a priority on the parking for the developer. Seems like we put a lot of resources into supporting the developer, but let's put some resources back into the community as far as supporting our residents. Uh, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Armstead. Would anyone else care to make public comment to something that's not on this evening's agenda? Welcome, Mr. Decker.

Good evening. David Decker, 925 Bellclair. I'd like to make a couple of comments and really a shout out to the uh the city engineering folks and the city planning folks and all the people that are involved in the road repaving and repair process which is as I know a multi-year project. Um, I don't always agree with some of the decisions that the city and its leadership makes, but I certainly respect all the time and effort, energy that you all put into supporting this city. And I got to say that the guys that have started the project over on Bclair, um, it's amazing the amount of professionalism and the planning that went into it. And, uh, they're certainly be to be commended. So, and it's not just the feet we see on the street, but all the planning that goes on before that that makes it all come together. And uh it was kind of interesting to hear that some of the street that's going to be mil um is going to be utilized and something we'll be talking about later this evening.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Decker. Anyone else? Okay, hearing none, I will close with the comment and bring it up here for comments from commissioners and any committee liaison reports which well actually we do have. Would you like me to start? Yes, Commissioner Schwarz. Thank you.

Yeah, we had a planning commission meeting last week. Um, and I did have to leave about an hour, hour and a half into it, so I missed the second half, but the main agenda item um was a proposed lot split uh at the um Blahett Mansion, you know, corner of Plymouth and Robinson. So there was some pretty um intense and sometimes heated discussion um about those factors and we did end up tableabling it um so that we could get some more information from attorney Huff and um pursuant to law we have to decide on their application to split within 45 days which means we'll be having a special meeting on Wednesday at 5:30 um here to finish that conversation. Um, I believe it will start. We don't have the agenda yet, but if you're interested in coming to watch or speak, I think we'll be starting with a closed session to receive some advice from legal counsel. So, I don't know if they'll take place here, back there, but just in case you're watching or in here, we might be out of the room, but we'll come back to have that conversation and decision here.

So, even that close session, that will all start at 5:30. Yep. So, um the the way the agenda's been posted or about to be posted has been posted. You looked at the clerk um that um we'll start the meeting at 5:30, go directly into um we'll ask the plan commission to vote to go into close session to receive attorney client communication. We'll enter close session and then once that's done, come out then begin the normal um meeting with public comment and um things of that nature. So, just want to make sure if anybody is watching or comes in and we don't see us, we'll be back. Yeah. I'm assuming we'll have somebody in the room just in case. Yes. Something else. Anything else?

That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Abby. Uh, nothing this evening.

Okay. I'd like to report back um on the uh class and extracurricular activity, we the people that took place uh this past spring and winter. Um East Grand Rapids did not place in the top 10. Uh East Kentwood, however, did. I think they finished third overall in the in in the country. Um, in my first experience with this group, uh, I would just like to say to the to the community, this is an amazing group headed up by, uh, Adam Horos and Pierre Suis at the, uh, high school, and they simulate congress, congressional testimony. Uh so you watch 16 and 17 year olds uh with a command uh and mastery over uh constitutional questions and concerns using all the amendments, bill of rights, all the president presidential court cases. Uh so for that group, it was just really fun to kind of watch them go through this process and go compete at nationals this past weekend.

That's great. That's great. Thank you. Commissioner Wesley, do you have anything? Nothing to add tonight.

Okay. Um, I just like to give another shout out to the library. Um, I have one of those teenagers that come to the library all the time and I think this branch does a very good job at being a third space for these kids to go to, especially when the weather isn't there um, all winter or when it's raining. Um, my kids will be here. Um, and you guys are always very welcoming and I very much appreciate that. Um, they also are using those new rooms for tutoring in the summers. Um we have some of our teachers, our local teachers that run tutoring through those rooms for our students. Um incredible resource to have. So I just wanted to really shout out and appreciate um how much this library does cuz it really is um a center of our community.

Absolutely. Commissioner Skaggs.

Yeah, I'd love to build on to that. I also have one of those uh teenagers, almost teenagers, who loves to hang out over here. Um but I wanted to compliment all of the work that you do for young readers. Uh, literacy is something that we're really having a moment about in the state and it's great that here in East Grand Rapids and around Kent County, kids can have access to books and to reading and to help to learn to read and I just think it's fantastic. So, thank you again for all you do. Um, I also just before we get to the conversation wanted to say a special thanks for uh bringing together what we're going to be talking about on microobility. I know it's been a lot of work behind the scenes and uh something that I'm really looking forward to having the conversation about. Um but just wanted to say I'm really grateful to everybody who's worked hard on on bringing this together so that we can help out the community.

Wonderful. Awesome. I don't have really have anything to add other than I also have teenagers that are there all the time. Like Commissioner Berdick said, you're just the center of the community. You just absolutely are. And um sometimes I'll sit in my office here at city hall and I just see the wave of kiddos coming in after school and it's just such a tremendous resource for the entire community, all the kiddos and the adults as well. So yeah, thank you for everything that you do. We're really grateful. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um first good to be back. Um yes, welcome back. Thank you. Um just a quick update. Um obviously we've had a tremendous amount of rain. um like were you able to find out?

I don't have confirmed exact numbers, but uh certainly it's been in a a short period of time um up there close to 2013. Um so we're we're glad to see the long-term forecast and a little bit of verri for everybody.

Yep. Um so the u Doug and his entire team as always has done an amazing job. We are seeing some localized flooding but everywhere it's supposed to. It's all within our designated um flood region. So, um they are keeping an active eye on the um um drain at Fisk Lake that ties into the Grand Rapids system. Um so, we are actively monitoring that. So, but so far um as um Mr. Fave noted that fortunately we're going to get a little bit of a dry dry spell and hopefully get some of this um water down in regards to that. Um as Commissioner Schwarz noted, we do have a special planning commission meeting this Friday um at 5:30. And then just a general kudos to public safety public Wednesday, excuse me, I wrote my note wrong. Wednesday um at 5:30. Um that um kudos to public safety, public works. It's been a busy two and a half weeks um between with all the storms and whatnot. And I know we dodged most of the nasty stuff, but still um kudos to the team for staying on top of everything.

Absolutely. That was all I Okay, wonderful. Thank you. All right, then we can move on to the regular agenda items. First on the agenda this evening, we have to consider the introduction of ordinance amendments to section 102 bicycles and section 105 helmets to include micromobility devices in both. And that introduction is by city manager Charles.

Uh thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, as Commissioner Skaggs noted just a moment ago, um, we have been working on this over the last few months, looking at how to update our ordinances to kind of match the reality of those with the promaggation of u micromobility devices commonly known as e scooters, ebikes, etc. The draft ordinances you've seen before you are predicated on a lot of the work our surrounding communities have done. Grand Rapids is we used as kind of a starting temp template as well as some input um that we've received from um other community um organizations with that uh infrastructure has taken a review of that. We're asking for introduction um it establishes um identifies microabilities where they can be can't be um as far as then um standards of behavior things of that nature. So we're comfortable with um where it's at right now. I think infrastructure um um I'll let them speak for themselves obviously um but uh I think we're all ready to start moving forward this. We do have two amendments to chapter 102 and to uh chapter 105 which deals with helmets um specifically just incorporate um these devices in there. So with that we are asking that commission consider introducing these. Um if it is introduced tonight we'll bring it back at the May 4th meeting for final consideration. Um we are gearing up um based on um this work for kind of a public education campaign part of which um um will include um a um some sort of video presentation. We've got it scripted out ready to go. We're just looking for volunteers for um to ride micromobility devices to show how what to do and what not to do. So we are looking for that. Um so if you know anybody or have anybody you can volunteer um that um we would appreciate that. Um um we are continuing to work with schools. Um we're probably not going to have any public education or formal education ready to go yet this spring with the schools. They've been

tied up obviously with the school project, the high school project. So that'll be a focus over the summer to get geared up for the fall and whatnot. But we are planning to have materials distributed um um once the ordinance is in place um to students and and active users and the team was working on that the last couple weeks and we'll touch base on with my team tomorrow um and um find out where we're at but be ready to go hopefully hit the probably not the best analogy be ready to get u move forward with this um after adoption in May. Okay, wonderful. Had a busy first day back. Yeah. In the back. Were there any questions uh for Mr. Charles?

Is now the time to like go through the different sections of the ordinance and ask how we got there or is that going to happen during discussion? We can start there if the commission would like.

Yeah. Okay. I have some questions. Great. Um so on I don't think it's numbered but page two of um section 102 I let's see handson controls I wondered if we want to um say like for bicycles a micro mobility devices with handles if we can define with handles that control the device

um just in case we're talking about like like the kind of bikes that you like sit in or if it doesn't have handles that control it. Um I I don't even know what devices we aren't thinking of, but I'm just I picture those like seat things that people that kids scoot around in where like you don't have to hold the handles. um one of the less important edits, but as I'm reading through it and just trying to think of what should be included under section 10.33 prohibited locations, do we have a definition of downtown anywhere? I see it capitalized. Mhm. Is that elsewhere outside of I don't think we do. Okay. Okay. So, we might want to define that.

Mhm. I don't. there is the appropriate signage in the gas light area. So I would think that you know it the spirit of what we're saying would fall under that next part of the sentence where it says upon any sidewalk were prohibited by appropriate signage. So then maybe what we looking at primarily is what would delineate the areas where writing was not going to be allowed. Um, and that give you the flexibility to change those areas as well or expand or contract them.

Okay. I if it's if the next section is meant to say that, then you could even just say upon any sidewalk. You could take out the within the downtown area and just leave it as upon any sidewalk where prohibited by appropriate signage. I just trying to I hear you. So, um, just a point of clarification on that. There is provisions and with state within state law that are specific that empower communities to prohibit these devices within downtown. So, and correct me if am I remembering that correctly, John? Mhm. Um, so that's I'm not I'm not against doing it. I'm just trying to make sure it's like properly defined. Like when there's a capital word, making sure that there's a definition. Okay.

Sorry, I'm a lawyer. Um, so I guess a more like conversational topic that I wanted to talk about was in that section because we're talking about no users riding in the downtown area and I was curious if the um infrastructure committee had talked about like toddlers like

under a certain age where they don't actually go fast and you know getting there's some logistics that go into a parent pushing a stroller and having a four-year-old, you know, p pushing a stroller with a baby in it and having a four-year-old on their scooter like going along with you. And once you enter the downtown zone, you know, like moving the scooter onto the back of the stroller to walk your kid with the hand. I just was curious like I don't want to over complicate it but also I feel like these conversations probably happened and I'd be curious what those sounded like or they didn't

I sat I sat in the meeting we didn't bring up the the toddlers or the young ones so to speak I think we were f hyper kind of focused on you know um yeah how do we uh what's the term like enfor enforcement and that kind of thing but uh um so I yeah I'm but I'm Sounds I don't know if there was a need to to sharpen the pencil on that or I I think with something like that it all comes down to what's the most reasonable, safest, most prudent way, especially for young young children. Nobody's going to give you a ticket for having your four-year-old ride on a scooter next to a stroller. But I can see where you want to kind of spell that out. Yeah.

But that's one of those things that would be, you know, a discretionary um enforcement. And in that case I that would be way more reasonable than not is the kind of the safest way to put it. So I wonder if it would be worth like saying like enforcement just there there is a discretion and enforcement for young people. I think that comes up in a lot of these areas that that kind of that same question. So okay. Yeah. It's similar with like speed. There's a lot of discretion there. Is is it safe to say then that this is more to try and discourage the behavior rather than to enforce it with this particular portion you're talking or the

perhaps with the whole Yeah. Um like like Commissioner Skaggs noted, there's a lot of discretion in in speed enforcement. Um and with this type of forcement, no different. If there was hazardous actions, they would be addressed. Um, but for something like with a four-year-old on a scooter, obviously, you know, it's not something we're going to put on our license sirens and pull you over for. But I would think that it would also offer the offer the opportunity when we talk about education and raising children young to abide by the rules of the road, but that's an opportunity too to with the young one to say this is where we walk our scooter and so forth. So, I think leaves leaves room for that opportunity as well.

Yeah, for sure. I'm just trying to be thorough. I don't I don't like prohibiting something and then saying, "Yeah, but we're not really gonna enforce that." So, I'm I'm fine leaving it in. Um,

so what sidewalks are the mobility devices able to be driven on? It seems like they're excluded in a lot of different areas of the entire city, but is is do we leave room open for certain sidewalks where they're uh allowable? So, the the way that ordinance is written, the only real area that we prohibit, and John on team, correct me if I'm wrong, is we're saying strictly on downtown. You can't ride on the sidewalks ever. I don't think we have any other prohibitions anywhere else um per se.

No, we don't. We have some um not quite sure how to label the language that would in some other areas if there were u lanes provided, bike lanes for example. Um there's discussion of what vehicles could be ridden out there in addition to bicycles, but it's not necessarily a requirement. It's an option at that point. Um, Commissioner Schwarz, did you have something else? I thought you were

Um, yes. I Sorry, I feel like I'm being so nitpicky. Um, but I did notice like under carrying packages. Um, I'll skip that one. Never mind. um under 10.34 equipment. This is just more of a comment on, you know, like if we're requiring um a lamp that emits light. I I wonder if this can be maybe something we can discuss with the schools foundation about like making having this be like a giveaway at school just so we aren't creating a a barrier to using. You look like you've already thought this through. We we do in fact coordinate with the schools to provide uh uh lights uh to uh all the elementary and middle school uh students. Um each year we partner with the Grand Valley Metro Council to provide those and drop them I personally have dropped them off at all the principal's offices that distribute to the the youth.

The youths. Thank you. And they're available here too, right? If you go to Correct. They they come out they fly out of here really fast. So, we try to we try to limit, you know, one per young adult, but we'll we do set up a table a couple times a year in a lower level lobby by the the children's library to also distribute bike lights.

Okay. Um then uh section 10.36 speed as the assumption that reasonable and proper would be like the maximum would be the actual speed limit of the road 25. Are we like okay with somebody who's on a bike like a road cycle going like the 27 28? They would be subject to the speed limit. Yeah. If they were on something other than a bike. Cool. I think we did talk about this in infrastructure as well. Um, and I think originally it had a speed limit, a specific sidewalk speed limit. Um, but we talked about the difficulty with enforcement and just kind of moved it to some more flexible language.

Okay. Um, and then this is sort of like a I have a question about the l issuances of licenses and and records under 10.39. Is it required that all bicycles be registered? This is optional. There was a time that was a requirement that we took it out as a requirement a number of years ago. We put it back in as an option so that somebody cuz we found that people who had traditionally done that like that ability to have that done. Okay.

And as we get into the public education portion of that, that's something that we'll continue to encourage that. While not required, we encourage you. That helps with obviously tracking the devices down if they suddenly go missing unexpectedly. Thank you for humoring all of my notes and I appreciate the infrastructure committee's time with this. No, thank you for reading it so thoroughly. Yes, absolutely. So perhaps just to I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner.

Perhaps to follow up on the comment about collaborating with the schools. um seems to me I mean this is dedic uh th this policy is aimed mostly at I mean it's aimed at everybody right but it's for the prim primarily the protection of kids um they are the ones who use the devices the most as well um is is there any collaboration with the schools that we could do to present um this policy if not as a reminder then as a you know way to explain to them that there are some new rules and regulations. We're heading into the final couple weeks of school, but um just a thought to or or the safety town um so

uh curriculum.

Yeah. So, short answer is yes. Um they've um schools have expressed a desire to collaborate on that what that looks like. Um those conversations have not progressed as much as we had hoped at this point in in part because the school administration has been tied up with getting the high school project out out the door. So as once that's um done, we anticipate those conver re-engage in those conversations um and we are in communication with them. They know that we're looking at this. They're they've expressed a openness on you know educating they're seeing the same challenges that we all are. So they're um in the um five years that I've five years that I've been here um the the feedback from the schools on collaborating on this is um been very positive. um more so on um um any other times that we've talked about um collaborating on different issues, educational issues. So um what that will look like, what you know, can we get into the classroom, things of that nature. Those are conversations that'll be occurring over the next few months with a really targeting towards fall being able to hit the ground. We are going to as I noted earlier that we're preparing materials to you know educate the um residents users of here's the new ordinance here's the you know be aware etc. get that out the door um before the end of school but then um looking for a much heavier lift um come this fall.

Any questions for me Charles? I have a question. Um I noticed that uh under well chapter 105 has a penalties and enforcement section but chapter 10 102 does not. Uh is will one be added or wondering why we don't have one or maybe I missed it number. just

was that something discussed in infrastructure? Yeah, was that discussed? We we touched base on it briefly. Um I'm just kind of asking that question again. I thought I'm partially because I don't really recall the exact answer. I thought maybe something was coming. I know that we this is something that we're trying to tee up and then more discussion around that but uh but I didn't know if we'd have at least something at least there and like similar to maybe what it's saying for the for the helmet ordinance um you know how it's enforced uh even some basic in u language at least just to kind of get us started.

So um let us because in the current 102 there is um um penalties and etc. So I think we're comfortable when I say this with looking at John um if going ahead and introducing and then when we bring forward the final version if we need to tweak that we'll have that ready for the next meeting and that does not reflect a substantive change that would require reintroduction. Is that fair to say John? That would be fair to say.

Okay. And I I think my recollection the evolution of this is at one point there was a um maybe I'll say a clear penalty section that there was some desire to not emphasize doing this on a punitive basis but doing this to encourage appropriate behavior and try and reward with you know kindness rather than punishment. Doesn't mean we can't put that in there. And there are things in here such as the the speed things where we talk about, you know, reckless operation which I think would still allow the issuance of tickets. But um and and we may need to put some language back in there to do that. With with regard to the helmet, the thought there was if you read it, it's a pretty benign provision which would require somebody to be a multiple violator before they would ever get ticketed. And once again, the thought was, we want people to do this. We want to do that to protect themselves. And only if we're having a problem where somebody is, you know, blatantly not doing it, they're underage and um they've received previous warnings. Would there be a possibility of some kind of a fine being assessed?

I'd be in favor of mirroring the bicycle language about like kind of three strikes and then a penalty. That's kind of what we're looking at. Yeah. Yeah. I I recall like, you know, we have um someone in the audience used to teach middle school and I remember him talking in the past about that fairness and like kids react better when it's known what the penalties will be and that everyone will be treated fairly. Um so as we're introducing something about treasured scooters, it might be nice to just have that ready and in place.

Yeah. I knowing that like the the ordinance in 102 is um the more complex there's a lot of variance of of something that might be oh hey that's kind of a slap on the wrist to something that may might be really reckless especially with how fast some of these e- scooters can go. So I'm I'm imagining it we'd have some general language in there starting at that saying hey maybe leaving up to the discretion I think or following obviously um the current ordinances that we have in place you know when it comes to traffic laws but then yeah I'd love to see us I think that's a great starting point. I'd like to see us start to kind of, you know, peel that onion a bit more and really kind of understand, you know, what because I think that the audience or audience the um the residents would like to know too like what is what's what would what would be uh what would trigger a ticket, what would trigger this, what would trigger that um the clearer it is for them, I think people generally want to follow the law. They just want to know

what is it. So, okay. Yeah. Well, thank you. So when we do if we do in um motion for this do we just include that addition or do we just um assume that it's going to be I think you just move to introduce it and we have comments written down about all these provisions that have been uh asked about and we'll take those into consideration. Great. Thanks. Wait, did I misunderstand that there is already something on the books related to enforcement? And so you just didn't put it in. And that's um yeah, so currently 10 we have 10.46 which um has a civil infraction um of not more than $100. Um so

okay, we'll go back and let let the team digest and we'll be ready for the next meeting. Okay. Okay. That sounds okay as well. And once again, part of this ordinance was based on the Grand Rapids ordinance and they in fact intentionally took their provisions out on that

and indicated the only time that they forsaw tickets being issued was if there was an accident that was involved. Um, kind of similar to some of the crosswalk discussions we've had. Uh, but that there wouldn't be separate enforcement. Um, in part because it's difficult to do and in part because the thought is we're not trying to be punitive. We're trying to be encouraging. Right. Makes sense. Mhm. Thanks. Yeah. Thanks. What do we need? Separate introductions for 101, excuse me, for 102 and 105. I think you should probably do two motions. Okay. Separate. Okay.

First, I will see. Is there anyone here um joining us this evening that would like to make public comment to this agenda item? Now is the time to do so. I would. Yes. I'm Jerry Anderson 45. I'm just listening and and I'm not clear about a couple of things and I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask you or not, but first is

if I'm a 14 Well, I'm going to say what I'm what's on my mind then. If I'm a 14year-old, are you telling me that I can't ride on the sidewalk? But that means if I want to ride, I have to ride on the street. And is riding in the street the intended unintended consequence of this? It's just not clear to me what the situation is. Secondly, um I understand that DNW is private property and it has a oneliner that it's up to the private property owner, but I've had close encounters in DNW. If DNW says that they don't want riding in their parking lot, will our public enforcement take it to like expand the area of enforcement to include DNW or not? Because that's a place where it seems like there's a a lot of action going on.

Okay, those are my only thoughts. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Decker. David Decker, 925 BClair. This is a complicated one and um appreciate you guys diving into it. Um it's not going to be easy. Not everybody's going to agree. You're going to get push back from some folks no matter what you do, but um do what's right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So just just to clarify that the prohibition on riding on sidewalks is limited only to DNW or D&W downtown to downtown, excuse me,

only to DNW. No, I'm telling you the jet lag. Um so with that, um and and furthermore, uh M. Charles, I think that the idea is that the kids can walk their their bike on the sidewalk. That's the idea that they're not on there speeding down because it's so congested. That's the idea. So that's the goal is not to push them into the street. Um it's to just create more more safety and a little bit more of a slower slow everything down slow everything down in the gas light area where it's the most dense with people. Right. Exactly. Because we don't want people riding fast and hitting Laura's toddler like we do everybody's children.

We we can acknowledge though that the 14-year-olds are going to end up in the street, right? They're not going to walk their ebikes through downtown on the sidewalks. There's just no way. But we'll see what they do. And they're allowed to do that. Yeah. Yeah. 100%. And that's between like the parents and the the kids on like, hey, are you guys cool with that or not? So that's more of a I I think it's silly to be like, well, they're just all going to ride their like walk their bikes on the sidewalks past Killwinds. There's no way. But they need to have that conversation between the schools, the kids, and the and the parents, I think, are the ones that have to decide like what their limits are, right? and what people have decided are the safe limits for for each family.

In fact, when we talk about the signage and the signage that's currently there that prohibits it, in fact, doesn't it direct them to walk their That's correct. bicycles. Yeah. Okay. So, these need to be addressed in two separate Yep. Okay. introduced. Yep. So, could I please um have a motion and a second for um chapter 102? So, move to approve the introduction of the ordinance amendments to section 102 of tonight's agenda. Second. Okay. Any further discussion on chapter 102? Okay. Then we can go to a vote. All those in favor say yes. Any opposed?

Okay. Motion carries. May I please have a motion on chapter 105, please? Move to approve the introduction of chapter 105 on tonight's agenda. Second. Wonderful. Any further conversations? I have a comment if I may. Yes, please. Um, this is such an important resolution our state um I think lets residents down because it doesn't require helmets to be worn at all uh on micromobility devices or bicycles. And so our city stepping up and saying that people under age 18 need to wear them is really important and I really appreciate it. Absolutely. Yeah, I second that. I'll go with that. I think everyone should be wearing helmets. Yes.

Just I mean, we should be doing it, but I'm glad we're starting with agree. I'd also just like to give a shout out to our residents who have been advocating for this for for well over a year and and thank especially the residents who worked on the white walk, ride, and roll group um who presented us with a white paper last year. Um and some of that made its way into the development of this ordinance. So kudos to them as well as to city staff who have worked to to bring this to us tonight. Okay, any other comments? Okay, we have a motion in a second. So let's go to a vote. All those in favor say yes. Any opposed? All right, motion carries. Next on the agenda, we have to consider a shared parking deck solution with East Grand Rapids Public Schools.

Introduction again is uh city manager Charles.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. Um so we're requesting three actions uh this evening. One is, and I'll discuss each of them in detail in a moment. Um, one is a cost sharing agreement for preliminary design work on a potential three-story deck on Bagley. approvement of a reimbursement resolution and then uh approvement approval of the construction of a temporary parking area um at the east end of the track complex um with the schools um providing funding of up to 40,000 $40,000 with 10% contingency as well as city staff doing that. Um, as everybody's aware, the schools are moving forward with their um, high school um, uh, reconstruction project. Um, based on their final design and is what they're going out to bid actually tomorrow. I I learned um, the net impact on parking on campus will be a loss of 71 uh, spaces. Um, city staff was made aware of this um, about probably about a year year ago is where they ended up on designwise. Um we started staff discussions. Eventually um the school members of the school board, members of the city commission were holding uh joint committees exploring different ideas of are there shared solutions, you know, both on the interim and then on looking at a longer term basis. Um where both um groups kind of ended up is focusing on um potential threetory deck um on Bagley Street where the current uh lot is right now. there's been enough effort and design or enough work done that um the size of the deck seems to make the most sense. Um from a traffic um um traffic impact standpoint um analysis done by city's traffic engineer shows that advent um if

a three-story deck is built um a light at um Bagley and Lake Street um would be warranted um etc. However, we're at a point um that um preliminary cost is estimated at 13.6 6 million. Um and um as we were discussing um this conversations with the schools were going along um kind of settled out at a potential 50-50 partnership. Um the city's portion would be potentially funded by a budore approved millillage. Um that ask cons um kind of laid out as it is right now would be in November. the city commission um had by August 11th, if I remember correctly, um that um would have to make a determination to put on the November ballot. Um the what we're asking for this evening is the approval of the cost sharing of preliminary design work. Um there's a lot of operational questions, a lot of design questions, a lot of there's a lot of questions that require now moving into um actual design work um to answer these questions. Conceptually, the first story of the deck would be open to the public um during the day with levels two and three um being dedicated for school use. Um whether it's uh students, teachers, etc., all those kind of details to be worked out. Um the idea is by the time we get to August um the commission will um we'll have enough information to make a decision and then also for our uh residents who are being may be asked to consider the funding requests we'll have a better understanding of what it is. Um looking to resolve a lot of kind of outstanding operational questions things of that nature. Um, we do envision a community engagement process during the summer um um assuming approval this evening. And I

will note that the schools are approving their half of the pro um of this effort uh tonight at their commission meeting or excuse me uh board of education meeting that um assuming approval tonight. Um we will um get together with uh school administration folks, lay out a timeline, bring that back, start targeting or start laying out potential community engagement. what does that look like? Things of that nature. And then um spend the summer basically analyzing this. The difference between um this type of work and some of the conceptual work is this is all intended that this is what we're going to build. We're going to have a in-depth understanding of size of the deck, what it looks like, how it functions, things of that nature. all those issues to be flushed out enough at a point that come August that if commission does ultimately choose to um pursue the requests from the voters and we have all that information and making that informed decision. The reimbursement resolution um speaks to that if we do end up going through with this issuing the bonds, it just enables the city to reimburse us ourselves for these costs that we're expending at this time from this point forward into the bonds. It doesn't commit us to it. It just enables us to do that. So, um, we're recommending approval of that as an, um, that again, that is strictly an option. It only occurs if we end up getting to the point of selling bonds and if we make the decision to reimburse ourselves. Those are all decisions that can be made in in the future. And then the final component um we have um spent a considerable amount of time um working with the schools and trying to identify um temporary parking area um for the loss of what approximately 1930 139 spaces in the senior lot and the lot uh behind the stadium combined. Um we've

identified the eastern end of the track. The western end will be used by the school's general contractor as a layown area for the high school reconstruction. We're um recommending the construction of a temporary lot. Um as noted in the memo, uh schools will be providing funding for that. City staff will be providing uh the labor, oversight, engineering, etc. to construct this. This will have a curve cut on Lake Street um closer to the intersection and then a um pedestrian um entrance and exit on Lake Side on the south side of the lot so people can um once they park and um use the sidewalks to get connect to the high school uh for that um estimated um cost out there is 40,000. Again, kudos to the public works team. We were out to bid very early for our street project. Um got some great numbers. We were able to work with that contractor and leveraged their uh pricing for bringing in. So process for the construction of the temporary lot is come June um the the track area gets turned over to the general contract school's general contractor. They're going to strip the track area completely, set up fencing, um basically give control of the eastern end to us um to construct the temporary lot. We'll move in, we'll leverage, um the um our street um um pavement contractor will bring in buildings at our direction. We'll smooth it out, grade it, do all the design, get it set up and ready to go come this fall uh for use um to provide that interim parking solution that will provide us parking for um for two years. Then come 2028, the schools will be moving to reconstruct the the track and um by then we'll be um we'll see where

we're at where the deck or all things parking at that point. But um with that um I would note and as we continue as we start to engage the public we'll have um you know obviously with the schools this is um being driven by their their high school re reconstru reconstruction projects. So um we'll going to let them take the lead on you know some of the decisions that were made in regards to that. We're just looking at um potential partnership. Um the only real commitment we're making this evening is um the commitment on the design work. It's not conceptual design. It is actual engineering that gets us to and you see in the proposal from pure architects that um will get us to a point that if we decide to proceed be able to go straight into developing construction documents, things of that nature. So, we'll be in a position uh to communicate um with our residents of um this is where u what we're looking at um the what the schools and the city are looking at and then um we'll go from there. So, that summarizes about a year and a half worth of work about 5 minutes. Um but with that, I can answer any questions on any part of the what's being proposed tonight.

I just have a quick question for clarification. So the partnership that you know with the city and the schools on this particular issue did this first come about when because originally in their plan they had underground parking.

Yeah. So what their conceptual designs that they presented in November of 23 24 um that um they um had conceptually laid out not losing any parking capacity um but um building parking um underneath the what is now the soon to be new east wing that's going into the senior lot as the once they add voter approval for the um for the new um bonds. They moved into actual design, discovered a number of technical difficulties um that ultimately led to them not pursuing that solution. Okay. So um

thus then seeking out other solutions solutions. Exactly. Okay. Okay. Are there any questions for manager? I've got a few. Go ahead. Um Shay, uh manager Charles, if if the parking garage wasn't built, u the the school is still building uh constructing some parking with their proposed renovation. Correct.

So, yes. So they the plan um that they're implementing at this time. Um they'll as I noted the 139 spaces will be offline uh during construction. Um once it's built and um all is said and done there will be a net loss of onampus parking of 71 spaces. Okay. So, with what we've got now versus what they will build when the construction's completely done, we'll we'll lose 71 spots. Correct. Okay. And then the parking garage is expected to create how many?

Um, so projection is uh 216 um excuse me, show on the right page. Um the deck will have 213 spaces and there will be um Doug help me. Uh do you remember the net gain off the top of your head?

I want I want to say the net gain exceeds the exceeds the 71 that are lost. There is a there is an increase there. Um the exact I think the exact difference is probably around 30 20 to 30 spaces more. Um we've had we've seen a from the conceptual stuff um we've seen a a little bit of a variation there but in terms of a net loss it's a net gain um overall. Okay. Just just so that I'm clear the like again we're going to lose set the schools are going to lose 71 spots without without the parking garage having been built. So our answer to that is we're going to create a lot with 213 spaces.

Correct. Okay. So we'll have another 162 spaces um additional that we wouldn't have otherwise had. Correct. So there will be a net gain for the area in the in the discussion was um again leaving that um particularly that first level and I I'm not going to give you exact numbers per level. It's about 70 70 spaces. It depends on final design and and everything like that. So, um I I just had one more, but I want to give sure anybody else a chance who might have one. Just go ahead. Sure.

Okay. Um I I guess if I must have overlooked the information either in your call, Shay, to me, uh just before spring break, thank you for keeping us updated throughout the last uh month or so. Um, I must have missed that the spot or that the first floor would be open to the city during the day.

Um, I, you know, I'm not, it's not a question. It's just more of a comment. I I can't imagine that the schools would be um, amanable to that. Just being very familiar with the lot as a lot of us parents are. Um, that's an filled from 7:00 a.m. to who knows 5:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Um, and I' I'd look forward to some obvious collaboration and input from the schools, whether that's directly or through city staff to to find out if that is something they're truly comfortable with. But it also seems to me that that's a like we're not trying to get too far ahead here, right? Let's let the city staff and designers do their work. But why include that particular detail if that's if we're not wanting to rush to details? That seems like a detail that could be flushed out later.

Can I weigh in from being on the subcommittee?

Yep. um when I was speaking, you know, for myself and trying to think of what we would all care about potentially asking our residents to contribute to this through a millillage. Um, we all took the position of like there has to be something for residents all day cuz you're right like I think in the past for good reason they've been possessive of the spots that they do have. But with the net so if there was a twostory deck that'd be close to them being like net zero. That wouldn't be something that you know city could say hey we deserve some of those spots. But when we think about going in on a partnership, we're creating a net gain, a pretty significant net gain, like maybe 60 70 over. And that's where we're saying we want those to be available to the public. And that's to serve our businesses. That's to serve our needs. And that's to serve them all day. And the idea is that this would be free to the public. Yeah. So, so the details I think to be worked out and there are so many, you know, to be clear, the subcommittee is not saying this is it. This is the best plan. We figured everything out. We think it's in a good place for us to say let's commit to doing the due diligence to see if this is something that we're comfortable asking voters to weigh in on. Um, so like the details about like where will students park, you know, like how how do we have do they have little RFID tags on their cars that open the gate to the top two stories? So that's dedicated to them. So the first stories for, you know, public use, for downtown engagement, like all of those things very much yet to be worked out and that's part of that design phase.

Okay. And again, I I appreciate that answer. Um, as a resident who happens to sit on the city commission, I'm got my public schools hat on entirely right now. Um, that's not going to be feasible in my in my opinion. Um, I'm telling you that that was the conversation with the school of representatives in that meeting.

Well, okay. And and that's what what what my first clarification was is how how are they comfortable with that? And again, I'm not saying this decision's been made, but for me, um, you know, I unloaded a the bass drum five for my eighth grader who's trying out for, uh, marching band, and he he made it. He got onto the drum line, uh, coming into nth grade. But we, uh, parked alongside of another already parked car. The marching band door is back there. Unloaded the bass drum with the car still running. ran it through the parking lot and got my son there like one minute before the tryyout started. Um, those are the dynamics that as a parent of three high school kids, I'm finding extremely hard to imagine working not only with a parking garage at all, but especially with with city resident or city um, uh, you know, we're combining two different populations, right? Somebody that's late for a business lunchon at Olives and a parent dropping off a kid for waves. So, I'd love to be a part of these conversations. I'm not going to be, you know, uh, a naysayer right off the bat. Um, but I have concerns overall and then the level one open to public just seems like a something I'd love to learn more from the schools and from our residents as to how they uh truly feel about that.

Any other questions? I just have a simple one. Yeah. Um, it says there's an attached drawing for the new entrance onto Lake uh Street, and I can't find an attached drawing. We will get it out to you shortly. I

I guess the reason I was looking for it was we have those uh crosswalks that are kind of mid street crosswalks already that I know that our public safety generally doesn't love the mid-street crosswalks from a safety point of view. Are they going to like line these entrances and exits ups with the the crosswalks? No. the the the direction for the the temporary parking if that's what you're referring to that directs them right onto existing sidewalks will already be on the campus itself. So they will so they're you know if they're if they're crossing it wouldn't be any different than today from from their particular location um to the existing senior lab if that's your if that's what you're imagining.

Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that that had been thought of as like getting on and off to Lake Street and and pedestrian safety on the new entrances if we're making new curb cuts. I'm sure you guys have. I'm just trying to get it on the record. Yes. The curb cut will be on on Lake Drive. It'll be just it'll be west of of the intersection. Um that's been fully vetted and reviewed by um our civil engineering team, our traffic engineering consultants. And then um as Manager Charles noted um putting more openings in the existing fence line they have there so that um students and visitors, gas teachers uh are able to um access from wherever they park the adjacent sidewalk, whether that be in Lakeside or Lake Drive uh to continue their destination to the schools.

Perfect. Yeah, I I expect that as as much. I just was trying to head off some questions I know might come in from that and a picture will totally help me. Right. Um and uh and then yeah, speaking on the on the deck, um I just want to thank um our city staff and the school staff's time for how much work they put into this. This was a long process of um with a lot of data needing to be involved to even get to the point where we're at currently, which is the like uh presented to the public and see if it's something they even want to do. I can speak for myself as someone that supported this plan and this idea that I thought it was very important um to take this to uh to our residents um to give them all the data to give them the pictures to give them the the the the kind of the idea that we have and the vision that we have and it's see if it's something that they want to sign up for. Um we don't want to just take this money out of the general fund. We want to get an affirmative from you guys that this is something that you guys would like to see. Um we've heard in the past that um parking, especially level one service parking in our downtown is limited and people have been asking for it and that traffic and pedestrian conflicts are heightened in our downtown. And we're looking at this as a possible way to lower those um on our own terms uh with a partnership with the schools. So we can have a shared parking solution that's getting used during the day by the schools and then by um by the uh the the downtown when it really really needs it, which is a lot of times is in the evenings and on the weekends when the schools are not uh using it as much. Um, so I'm I'm really looking forward to seeing those public engagement sessions, hashing out more of those details cuz like you said, uh, Commissioner Schwarz, we have a ton of unanswered questions about access and even about, you know, which where they're coming on and off the street, uh, for where that's going to exit and enter. Um, and we want you to know that that's all um, we want to

get there, but we we need to hear from from the commission that it's worth spending some money to to to move forward on this. and then we need to hear from the people that it's worth uh investing our our tax dollars into uh into a shared solution here.

So, I'll say upfront that it my hesitancy with the proposal is uh the timeline and specifically the ability to get truly full community engagement within the timeline that we're being presented. Um, and so the questions for followup that I have to that are on page two of this memo, we outline a cost breakdown for the design work. Um, and the initial schematic design costs about $50,000. Can we authorize our half of that $25,000 and say, "Let's get the schematic design that we can take to the community to support conversations and get input and develop something that we think could pass in a millillage if we think that's the way to go and if the community seems to support it and then move forward, which could then mean, and this comes to my next question. Um, is it essential that this has to be on a ballot in November? Can it go next March? Can it go next August of 27? Um, can we take the time to do our due diligence with the community to to to really truly engage them in this conversation?

Do you want me to speak to like what the subcommittee talked about? I don't want to step on I just I just kind of want to know first technically do we what is the what is driving the timeline and can we break those costs and those steps down in terms of design work.

So on the subcommittee we talked about both of those. um on the timeline. Um this timeline if we were able to achieve it would mean that we if if you know weather participates those sorts of things this gets construction completed around fall winter of 28 which aligns closely with when this temporary lot would need to go offline. So we were trying to think of like what's the least pressure on the entire community and if that timeline is achievable then you know that's great. I personally don't see pressure to absolutely be ready to say yes or no to putting it on out for a millillage in August. Like if we're there, we're there. If we're not, then I I wouldn't vote to put on the millage if I didn't feel like it was a good idea. delaying it does create some pains for future parking, but I don't think it's worth like gambling millions of dollars because there's like a little bit of time pressure. That's my personal thoughts on it. Um, similar kind of related to that was talking we talked about the design schematic design work and the design development phase. And so one any any delay in between those two cuz I had actually had the same comment like what if we just do the schematic design pause and then say do we want to invest further? Um, and I think we certainly can like if if we four weeks into, you know, maybe they give us some initial schematic designs and we go, "Ugh." Or our inboxes are full and public engagement says, "Whoa, we don't like this." Then my understanding was that we could say, "Let's let's pause on investing in that design development, the the larger

dollar amount if that was our decision. But with this, we have to know that any delay in that 16 weeks starts pushing some construction plans because like you can't break ground in different seasons. So it was, you know, it's a it's just a lot of moving parts. So just trying to give the full picture of why certain dates came up when they did. If we do want to go forward with a millillage, um these are optimal dates to cross our fingers hopefully not have a citywide interruption in a significant number of parking spots. Doesn't mean we have to. This is not like a set course that we must go on.

Okay. So what I hear is that it's the preferred timeline, but it's not necessarily a a timeline that carries huge risk other than inconvenience with parking potentially throughout the system.

So So and just to just to build on this, this is a time and material contract. So that we get to week six and just go we discover a fatal flaw, week some whatever. um at that point then we go okay we either want to pause or say no we don't want to proceed any further. We're not obligated for the full 100,000. We're only obligated for the work that has been done to that point. Um the um um as I noted before the board of education tonight is voting um on um this proposal. Um slight slight nuance on that. they are um getting authorization to go all the way through um I believe construction documents um but that is also contingent on city participation um and that's just an operational question of when do when do they go back to their board for future approvals things of that nature um so but the um um but in regards to the contract um if it is um approved this evening for the requested amount. Um we have the ability to stop the process and only pay for work done to date. We're not fully obligated for the 100,000.

So follow up to that and this question has come up already from from residents who have reached out on this. Um and I know that we can't predict the future and we don't know what the status necessarily of the gaslight investors property is going to be. Um but we have to consider parking as a system and not just separate entities. Um were there any additional options such as the existing parking that's in on the gas line investors property to to alleviate any restrict temporary restriction we might experience as a result of taking a longer period of time to do this with the community. the the Castline Investors has been engaged um in regards to that. We actually at one point had a proposal for um some potential renting some spots for um for that. The question is going to be their construction timeline. When are they comfortable? How comfortable are they saying, "Yeah, we're we'll make these spaces available um or you know allow these spaces to be util uh utilized." Um that depends totally on a myriad of factors. Uh you know you know are they going to when if and when are they going to be in construction um things of that nature. That's also part of the conversation I think um as we go through the summer. Um seeing where they're at um where we are. Um obviously we have the litigation piece working out there. There's a lot of moving parts right now. Um, but as Commissioner Schwarz noted, this was laid out as kind of we think this timeline works, but at some point um if whether the city, the schools, the however we get to a point

of going, okay, we need to tap um slow down um and um not um stay on this timeline, then obviously we have that ability to do that. um assuming approval tonight um that um we'll be meeting with school representatives actually Friday to lay out very specific timeline looking at targeting when when we when how do we do community engagement when are we able to um provide information things of that nature and we're um so we'll we'll be delving uh um straight into that um the latter part of this week assuming approval this evening

Mr. Skaggs. Yeah, I have a couple questions. First, as a follow-up to that, um, would community engagement be able like with renderings be available sooner than 16 weeks in Okay, in that first timeline here that we're talking about. I'm sorry, I forget what it was called, the first $50,000 thing. Yep. Um, okay. I think that's really important. Otherwise, we're, you know, maybe going to be asked to put a millage on the ballot at the same time that drawings are ready. Um,

so I think it's really important that we look at the system. I know that that's something that you, Doug, and Jay have both done and and given us some studies about parking. Um, but as we're going forward, just having a comprehensive parking plan that takes into account the future of the development at Gaslight Investors, um, the future of Waterfront Park phase 2 and the schools. I think we we have to do it. I want to be able to see all of it working together. Um I'm going to keep asking for it. Um I think we do need our parking to go up, not out. And so it is really important to continue to evaluate this. I I would like to see it done. Um but I also really want to and I'm going to continue to ask for a full financial analysis. Our funding for roads just changed at the state level. We get more money for road funding now from the state than we used to. How does that interact with our streets and sidewalks millillage which is dedicated to street sidewalk um and infrastructure projects and is that something that could alleviate or go toward this project as well? Um I I really want to get an understanding of that before we're looking at putting anything onto a ballot and asking our residents for more money. Um, last thing I want to say is that I am thrilled that there will be a light at Bagley and Lake Drive. That is overdue and I'm really looking forward to it and I feel for the crossing cars who work there, who struggle there. Um, so I'm really glad that that's going to be put in place. If I may, I I thought it might be helpful to provide a little bit of context to like coming out of a subcommittee work

and like why we even thought this is worth having this discussion or why residents might want to invest in this. And it's because we do hear comments and feel personally like there are parking pressures. We also see studies from our staff that say we have enough parking. And I think what we teased out in the subcommittee is that systemwide like the parking is is technically there, but it feels like residents are demanding that level of service. A and I'll admit like I'm one of them. If I'm if I'm leaving work and I want to pick up dinner downtown and gaslight, I'm like, how many times am I going to have to circle to park to pick it up? I'd love to patronize a resident or patronize our our restaurants, but like how does that fit into my day? So when we think about all of the residents who are saying I want some I want that level of service a experience um a lot of times our response is we don't have the property like we don't own property downtown we're working with what we have we do the best we can with what we have and so for me and talking with the schools this was an opportunity to use a piece of land that otherwise was not available to us. you know, the schools are going to do what they're going to do with their property, but this is this could be one of those like once in a generation opportunities to go up and to give us that capacity for parking that we just otherwise wouldn't have had. So, essentially, our our community could decide to, you know, for the folks who are saying, I want better parking, literally put your money where your mouth is on this and say, I'm willing to pay a bit more in taxes to make this possible. Um, so it doesn't mean that we have to, you know, the studies say parking is there. It's it's more walking. Um, but if if the community is interested in level of service, a like this is how we can get to it. Um, I agree with Commissioner

Skaggs and we've had those types of conversations of, okay, we can kind of see these dollar amounts. What would we actually put on the millillage though? Because we do have some surplus funding. We do have funding changes that are happening. How does that how does that mix happen so that we can ask for the smallest amount of millage as possible? You know, also thinking about what money we need for the future to make sure that it's maintained because as staff said to us repeatedly, you know, they cringe at the idea of a parking garage because of the long-term maintenance. So, I think it's incumbent upon us to do this diligence now of how do we set aside those funds so that we don't find ourselves in a bad um bad position later. So, I I think um you know, it's a lot to unpack and and try to put into a memo or have these conversations now. And it's not meant to all be here because the intent is long-term engagement to figure out if we are even if each of us is comfortable saying in August, yeah, we want to even put this out to the public for them to vote on it. Um, so just for anybody with concerns um or interest, just thought it might be helpful to have that background on why this even came up and what is coming. This is by no means like down the the path of of yes, there's a lot to unpack um and and understand from the diligence that we would get through the design phase and through all these conversations. to kind of dubtail off of that. Um when you're talking about the what you're hearing from residents for that level service, you know, um the A level of service, that's something I kind of also heard from school board members just in terms of because I also want um people to know that city staff did their due diligence above and beyond. and thank you so much for all the hard work that city staff um put into solving this problem for the

schools once that underground deck was realized that that was not going to um be a possibility. City staff really put in a lot of effort and time into analyzing the parking options citywide and presented um you know this is what we have, this is what this looks like. all these different, you know, all the analysis they presented to the subcommittee and to the school board and the school board really because what I heard from them was um you know that level service a not only for the residents but the reality of student behavior, right? Like um the reality of student behavior is much different than the behavior that you well they can go park at waterfront park or whatever they was also looking at the reality of student behavior and safety behind that. So that is another reason that level service of a but also reality of of behavior um and what that looks like in terms of this being one of the options to explore.

So go ahead. I mean, so I I sure since we're doing comments and before you I might have a few more comments after public comment, but uh I guess I'm also on that um that subcommittee as well and and I guess I was maybe one one of the only ones that had a bit more pause cons I mean some of the concerns that were brought up today were the concerns I have like hey why are we trying to push this thing through fast so so quickly um the short answer is that we're on the school's timeline there and trying to be good stewards and good partners uh with them um while also coming up with a solution that would benefit the the residents. Um but you know my question is you know and I might as well is what happens if if we do go through with a bond millage what happens if it fails and then the school will be uh can they afford and this is something I was trying to flush out a bit in the sub in that subcommittee is do they have enough money then to do a two-story deck if if they need it. Um we did I mean and and the city staff was great. they they um looked at every potential option that and presented it back to the schools. Um and uh it just works out that this it's their property. They really wanted to do the twotory deck. Uh we kind of realized, okay, maybe a threetory giving again increasing that level of service for our our residents uh might be appetizing. Um so that's where we were like, hey, let's let the people decide based on a vote. Um but again I have concerns about you know if it does fail what happens then? Um and you know and then the other smaller question smaller things are like how do we police uh the those those students knowing that the students will do whatever they really kind of like like water they're going to kind of go where they kind of want to and settle. Um how do we police them or or condition them to use the top two decks and not park where the on the main floor? Um we haven't flushed out you know how does that how does security work and all that that stuff. Uh uh

that's kind of touching on Commissioner Hunter's comment. So So a lot to flush out in in kind of a short amount of time. So um I'm a little bit concerned, but um again I I want to do what what the public wants. And um and again I think that I I I feel comfortable. I think if we want to decide to put this on on on a bond mill and let the people decide, I think that's that's the smartest move. Um and you know and I also we also understood that we had to spend a little bit of money in the planning because of course we can't just say hey let's have these public uh talks about this potential parking deck when we don't have any pretty pictures to show and um and also realizing what that felt like when we were um going through gaslight development and not having the the the photos that people wanted to see. Uh this we're hoping to kind of capture that in in the initial design here. So, um, you know, I'm I'm optimistic, but I'm a little bit concerned. So, that's just wanted to share that with with everyone.

Thank you. And I think just one of one point to make is we're at in the process that to um provide clarity for the commission, the public, the board of education. We're at a point where um dollars need to be invested in the actual design work. um we've moved past conceptual um design. It's now getting to what is this going to look like? How does this work? I there's a lot of um questions and ultimately we may get through this process and go, you know what, this isn't the right solution. Pause, step back and look at other alternatives. And um so this is really the first step in getting all the questions answered. Yeah.

Did you say that we do have conceptual designs of what the parking garage would look like? No. No, I'm sorry. Um, no. No. The city does not

the the schools had this preliminary conceptual of you more of a feasibility of could a deck even fit. Um, and they've done that. We're at a point though as far as do we um does the schools proceed with this um of getting into actual design to go um and there's a lot of technical issues and we've talked about the operations there's you know pickup drop off there's just a myriad of questions that we're at a point where to get all these um research analyze we've got to get into actual design to go yes we've got solutions or you know, no, we can't solve this. Is that a fatal flaw or not? And

so, we don't yet know if it is truly feasible or not. It's we're comfortable enough to say yes, we're um that we think it's feasible, but the design this this next uh step in the process will um provide that absolute clarity of yeah, we can do this or no, we can't. we're comfortable enough to say yes, it's worth the or the investment makes sense at this time to get to that decision point. Do we have and we have to spend the full $100,000 to get to that certainty?

We have to um the full the full hund,000 gets us to um um as you notice in the pure um architect proposal gets us to that point of okay, yeah, we know what it's going to look like. We know it's going to be this, but this is how it's going to function and enables us then to move into developing actual construction documents and it's on page three of the pure architect. You'll see schematic design, design, development, then construction.

I guess maybe the qu a more clear question I could ask is what is the minimum amount we could spend at this point to get to certainty that it would be feasible and that we could share with the community? Do we know that? I would say getting us through design development

because there gets into questions, technical questions of fire suppression. How do we handle do we do snow melt? Do we do um um as Commissioner Wesley noted, you know, security in regards to um you know, do we do gauge? Do we do do we do do we do all those are um get their um in regards to that design development um in our conversations with um the schools is that's that we're going to absolutely look at the public and say this is what's going to be built.

If I could add mr. Charles a little bit more sitting in that subcommittee and and um Commissioner Schwarz uh might be able to um maybe add to it too. I think we uh we had those questions about hey what's the minimum amount of money that we need to spend because we don't want to spend we don't like to spend a money if we don't have to and so that question came up going hey what what's the minimum amount we need to spend and at first like can we just get some you know nice beautiful nice drawings and so people can see that but to Mr. Charles's point is that then they started saying, "Well, I think people are going to come back and go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, where's this going to be? Where's that more questions?" The the vagueness of the photo that we could get for the little bit of money will just create potential Pandora's box of even more questions. And I think going through what we went through just recently with the gaslight development um exercises about not having renderings, not have enough uh visual answers for people. I think that this is a chance for us to be able to do that. That's why they we were specifically saying up to um obviously if we start to get a bunch of push back, we start realizing this is not the direction that the public wants us to go. We could start pumping the brakes, which is why I I like I like that. But it you got to we have to this is the this was articulated to us um from true that this is the bare minimum in order to be able to get enough detail to be able to answer the questions that people are going to probably going to be asking

because it's not necessarily just design. It's logistical, right?

Well, I can I I can speak a little bit of this, too, because I I I think we all had a little bit of push back on spending all the money upfront before we asked the people if they actually wanted this. And as you see on some of the breakout on these things, it would be like bidding and negotiation money and construction administration money. And that seemed like that was getting the cart before the horse on on asking and spending money for something that we we aren't even sure if we're going to do yet. So, we kind of had to figure out a point where we could solve the problems like what it's going to look like, how the traffic flow is going to go, but we didn't need to know like the tensil strength of the rebar yet, right? We can figure that out once we know if we're going to spend that money or not. And we can um and and we can better commit to actual construction documents, actual bidding and negotiation, construction administration costs once we know that that's something that we actually are going to commit to. This gets us though to the like here's how it'll look, here's how it'll flow.

That's that's good enough response, right? I mean, you know, no, I I I I think it is. Honestly, I'm not I'm not saying that sarcastically. I think that you you put it well, Ryan. There are

construction details that we would not know the answers to until committing a certain amount of money. And at some point, it's either keep fishing or cut bait. And we we can make that decision here as a commission. Mhm. I guess, you know, we talked about timeline during our finance subcommittee just before we walked in here at 6 p.m. Uh, but something Commissioner Goth Blazak brought up, I guess, just makes me hone in on this a little bit more, and that is uh August when pretty much you could fire a cannon down most streets here in East Grand Rapids and you wouldn't hit anybody cuz nobody's here. And if it's less than 30 days where we get a final conceptual drawing and ask residents to vote within less than 30 days at a at the 30 days where there's few fewest people here out of the entire year. Number one, it wouldn't be enough time if it was January. But I think that gives me additional concern and additional pause in terms of that time frame to really include public engagement, community voices that, you know, we we know like like Commissioner Wesley said from our last um gas light investors proposal, you know, we spent all spent a lot of time listening to residents. um how are we, you know, able to sit here in in front of the microphone, vote up or down on something that that the public just hasn't been able to weigh in on um is where I'm now suddenly. And you know, when people ask, okay, what if we do nothing? And I can honestly say we're going to lose 70 parking spots. Um I'm I'm very interested to know how many, you know, residents would say that's the better alternative. So, I mean, those are the type of responses I do want to hear from residents and then to ask them to turn around to vote to whether we or will vote in August, right, to to determine whether they want to vote in November um on the millillage is again kind of like a little bit of a tough

timeline for me to digest right now.

It's tough. I think we all felt the same the same feeling, you know, feeling okay, it's it's it's a tough timeline. That's why we thought, okay, it's important. And we were crunching numbers, kind of working from the time that we needed to be done and working backwards to go, oh gez, we better get this on this on this on the docket to talk about if we're going to talk about it at all. Um, and and then to to your point, it's like, you know, could the community go, you know what, we're okay with a negative of 71 spaces or not. That's where we're like, hey, you know what? This is this could be a decision for the this is a really easy one for the decision decision to lie on the people with their vote. Um the only thing we're we're looking at is going, "Hey, we need to decide if we're going to spend um some dollars to get something get a design for people to at least digest and see. Um and again, if it's and that's again, you can understand my concern then if what happens if the bond millage gets on gets on the ballot but doesn't pass. Um but but again if the uh if the residents like it and see it and uh they'll basically uh decide by vote. So um felt like it was a a safer move. Uh and obviously we don't want to spend make that decision without the this was an easy kind of straightforward one for us to be able to go yeah let's just put it on on the ballot.

Well thank you for all the work you guys did to put all that information together. Honestly, were there any question any more questions from manager Charles about this um design and and what the decision is before us? Were you signaling? Yes. Yes. Okay. Does this investment get us to the point that we have the clearest possible cost for what this structure will will take to build in in this building environment? Yes. Okay. So,

thank you. That's helpful. I never thought like it would be like Kate Skagg's budget hawk. That's not really me. But um I I it also I just like keep hearing that it's this like foregone conclusion that this is going to be a mill and I just I just I really want to see these numbers. No. And and that's and and that's part of the commission's due diligence as we look through all this um and make those ultimate policy choice choices of how do we fund this and whatnot. Absolutely. I have that those kind of conver kind of conversations and I understand that. So those conversations will be ongoing through this process as well. Okay.

Um and my apologies to the commission if you see me grimacing up here. I had a pinched nerve right before the meeting. So no turning this way is challenge. So I'm not making faces at you on just my neck too like that. Any other questions for manager Charles before I go to a public comment? I just wanted to clarify one question on on number uh number three. Um I think this is what we discussed in the subcommittee is that we you know we are it's going to be more like the sweat equity that we're putting in that's our portion and the $40,000 is coming from the city from the school. Yes. Correct. So so they're paying our dollars and we're using our our our team to to do it which is

and and as we as we work out the value of that it's about equal is kind of the net net value. So and cool good idea too by the Yeah, because the city's involvement um from the project where it stood initially to then the city getting involvement and using their connections and their expertise cut that project um about in half is what I remember right to to the amount. So yeah. Yeah, I think it's a great idea. Uh you know, so shout out to Doug Lefave and then of course even just the idea of utilizing that uh that track um to create those parking spaces is eloquent. Good job.

Yeah. Yeah, the time that um city staff put into this was was tremendous on both both fronts. So, yeah, thank you. I mean, I can't thank you enough for all of that. So, at this time, um I'm going to open this up to public comment. If there's anybody here that would like to make comment to this agenda item, now is the time to do so. Please come forward. Don't be shy.

Welcome, Mr. Anderson. Hi again, Jerry Anderson from Edgeir Drive. Um, fascinating topic. My mind is swirling about it, but I'd like to frame it in terms of uh the recent history of the parking situation in Gaslight Village. So, I'm going to go back to 2004 first when a contractual agreement was signed between Gaslight Investors and the city. And part of this agreement pertained to the parking structure on Wealthy Street. And the agreement said, I quote, "The parking structure must be retained and maintained in order to meet parking requirements. The developer will make the structure available for events such as high school sporting events or concerts." Okay, I'm going to jump now 19 years ahead to November of 2023 when a major school improvement bond was passed. As we know, it was evident that there'd be large inconveniences to traffic and parking during the renovation, and it's been known since 2023 that there was not a viable parking plan yet for after the construction. Jump ahead to October of 2024. Gaslight investors asked this commission for permission to destroy the wealthy street parking garage, eliminating the 198 spaces contained in the upper deck. During the discussion, Commissioner Scaggs asked if there were any safety concerns regarding the parking deck, and Deputy Manager Lefave assured her that inspections had been conducted as scheduled and that the structure was safe. There was nothing wrong with it. with the full knowledge that the parking structure was sound, that the developer was contractually obliged to re retain and maintain it, and that major disruptions to the Gaslight villages

parking situation were on the horizon. This commission voted to allow the demolition of the parking garage. No reason was given other than that the developer wanted it demolished by the end of 2024. No discussion at all took place about the long-term impact of losing the parking spaces. Move ahead now to 2025 and 2026. For the past year and a half, we've been told repeatedly at commission meetings that there is no parking problem in Gaslight Village and there are not going to be any problems in the foreseeable future. And now today we find ourselves talking about asking taxpayers to fund possibly a $13 million parking structure across the street from the one that was decided we did not need and we allowed to have destroyed. The optics of it to me are confusing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Ducker, welcome. Well, that brings us to today. And we have a problem. There's not enough parking. How'd we get here? A failure of leadership. Leadership at the high school and leadership at the city. Failing to plan. Where is that comprehensive city, public, private, city parking plan? We've got fires here, fires there. Quick, we got to come up with something. Take all the city resources, shift them over here, put them to work. What's the plan? Leadership that dragged their feet, they kicked the can. And now taxpayers will have the option to kick in another $13 million. Let's be clear, we need parking. We need it during the high school construction and afterwards. Residents want parking. We want a fully functioning high school and city. And that requires parking. And we need leadership to make it happen. So get to work on this and don't kick the can down the road and then make a quick, poorly thoughtout decision. You did that leading up to the October 21st, 2024 meeting that Mr. Anderson referenced. And look where it's gotten us. leaders recognized their mistakes and learned from them. 198 parking spaces that the developer was legally required to retain and maintain and make available for high school events were quickly demolished before the end of 2024. Was the high school notified that these were going away? They the high school and the

residents were the beneficiaries of that contract and those parking spaces and you the city leadership gave them away. It happened very quickly and with only a couple of minutes of discussion as to why and no discussion on the long-term impact of removing the spaces for interm parking. They're still the first deck of the parking structure. What are the options to lease some of the space during the high school construction? Those spaces are actually closer to the east end, closer to the high school than the parking at the east end of the track. Shouldn't both options together be considered for long-term parking? There are only four high schools in the United States that have their own parking structures. Have we stopped to consider why parking structures may not be a good fit with high school students and drivers? Have you consulted with the owners of DNW, Sheldon Cleaners, Gaslight Investors, and the people that live in the Bagley town houses on what they think is a good solution? Perhaps the $13 million option is not the only one and not the best one. Citizens of East Grand Rapids expect you to include them in exploring options and finding parking solutions. Please show leadership and get to work.

Thank you, Mr. Decker.

Welcome, Mayor

Nyall De 701 Laurel Circle. Thank you. Um, I I find this proposal for you for the $100,000 incomprehensible. I don't have any comments about the $40,000 portion of it. I'm presuming that's been thought out and is sorted out and the city's getting fairly reimbursed, but the $100,000 is premature. if you could if you just had a way to immediately sit here and go back and forth and say how many times you all said, "Well, there's more questions. We haven't sorted it out yet. We'll sort it out over time." Uh, but let's throw $100,000 at it tonight. I I think that's called real money. That's the taxpayers funds. $100,000 to vote to approve that tonight. If you're realistic, that puts you on a slippery slope. Don't be naive. It's like saying the 14y olds will walk their bike through Gaslight Village. The idea is to get you to vote for this, put up $100,000, and then as you try to sort out all these issues that you all talked about were questions and not clear yet, you start stumbling on all of them for who knows how many months. This is a this is the school's problem. And it's not to just ignore the schools, but they knew what they were headed into. They got excited about their plan and they overdid it. Now they've got a plan that calls for more than they can produce. And so they go to Bagley. Baggley used

to be six houses. Then it was turned into 15 town houses. So that's from 60 trips a day to 150 trips a day. And now you want to add four or 500 more trips a day from what's already there from the school surface lot. The there's supposedly a loss of 71 spaces when all this is done. 71 spaces and you're going to spend 13.6 million if the estimate's any good. Hopefully, you don't have a cost overrun like some construction projects do. You're spending almost $200,000 a space to cover this problem. $200,000 per parking space. 71 spaces, you're up to almost 14 million. it it just you haven't sorted this out yet. Now you also have the question this can be cleared up easily if the developer at Gasite Village would just move his and rebuild the space there. But I'm not going to get into all that. But you not only have very expensive spaces, but you are headed down a slope that you're going to have trouble getting out of. And you have all these other issues that aren't sorted out like the drop off and the the stores on wealthy that uh happen to use that for their in and out at the

back of their each of their stores. You're not going to have all that much space there. It supposedly is going to give you 217 spaces on three stories. That's 70 spaces per floor. Great. I went and counted them tonight. There's only 50 on the surface lot. The surface lot is full. There's only 50 on it. But you build it into three stories and there's also all of a sudden 70 on each one. This hasn't been sorted out yet. I know there's a lot of work that's gone into it, but this is premature. I suggest to you this is Pandora's box. Don't open it.

Thank you, mayor. Would anyone else care to speak to this agenda item? Mr. Armstead.

Hi, Mark Armstead. Uh 2202 Homewood. Um I think um what we're hearing from the community a lot is just um the we're getting exhausted with all the spending. Um we don't know how we're paying for things in the future. And um we you know we've we've done a lot of investment. Uh you could call it that or you could just say a lot of wants. I'm not sure if we're talking about wants or needs. um you know there's other ways of dealing with um a lot of these issues uh that are a lot uh less expensive. um we seem to pick um expensive ways to deal with problems here in East Grand Rapids um rather than um you know just uh again I mean a a service um you I don't know what that means or is I think of places I probably don't go you know first class hotels and resorts or things of that nature but uh anyways I it's just I think it's just too much. I mean, we're we're you know, we're just draining bank accounts and we don't seem to be replenishing them or we don't seem to really have uh any forethought or much forethought put into how do we maintain what we what we already have. Um I mean, what are we how are we going to pay for the next time the parks need to be updated? how I mean how are we going to um you know pay for other infrastructure improvements um or maintenance um you know we I mean we we all know that we have maintenance because every meeting I mean we're talking about replacing tiles or flooring or roofing or other things like that but you there's a lot of there's a lot of expenses out there and you know

the these millages I mean they become permanent taxes is, you know, is from from my standpoint. I've been here over 25 years and these millages just seem to um I mean roll it's like, well, you're not going to have nice roads if we don't pass a road millillage. And I mean, so people kind of feel trapped. Um you know, the playgrounds, we're not going to have nice playgrounds if we don't, you know, have pass a millillage. Wh why are we replacing all the playgrounds in one year? Why can't we replace a playground every two or three or four years? Why can't we spread out some of these costs? Why can't we, you know, why can't we do a better job of instead of um again I mean we all hopefully we all have savings accounts but I mean if we keep tapping our savings accounts or if we keep draining our our funds and um I mean there's only so much before you exhaust it and you know so I think um really let's look at rebalancing the portfolio and I mean setting setting some priorities ities, but uh you know just um millillage after millillage just doesn't uh I I I don't think um I I think we're exhausted of that and um you know we the other thing too is as a community I I mentioned this earlier in one of the other meetings if we're looking for carbon net zero let us as homeowners upgrade our homes put new windows in put insulation in buy new appliances whatever else I mean we can achieve carbon at zero far far far better than you know the the city implementing a few things. So there's just there's a lot of alternatives. Um so thank you.

Thank you Mr. Armstead. Mayor, did you have anyone anything to add? Did anyone else care to comment? Mayor, did you want to comment as well? Okay. Okay. Have a solution.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. At this time then I will close public comment and bring it back up here for discussion. If I may, I'd like to respond to a couple of the comments that were brought up. And this is not this is just for the the sake of accuracy. The the mention of $200,000 spend per space is not accurate. I think you're the denominator. It's not divided by 71 spots. It's divided by all of the spots of 213. So it's not

71 spaces. You're curing it with a 13.6 million correction. So the the delta though isn't just 71 because then it's also adding spots. I I don't want to debate it. I just want to make sure that we're all like aware of what numbers we're talking about. Um, and on the numbers, the 13 million that we're talking about wouldn't be the city's contribution. That's the overall cost split. Again, like this is like people can differ opinions, but just like while we're starting these conversations, knowing what numbers we're talking about, I think um is important.

Well, and I I think you bring up a good point that um for the conversations and for accuracy because I think it is a little confusing a bit. Like for example, manager Charles mentioned that the school board is also voting on this on their end tonight. It's a partnership. It's not like to your point um a city project. It's it's a partnership. So I think that you bring a good point. Yeah.

Um any other comments? So, I'd like to say it and I hope that this has come through tonight and on other nights that I I fully support a shared parking solution and approach to our parking system and the challenges that we face. Um, and I am reluctant to approve the $100,000 tonight. Um because even though I hear we can cut ties at at any point, I think that we are in a spot where we've done a lot of learning over the last year or so that perception and reality can be the same thing. Um and committing to the full amount even though we can pull out I think does might give the impression that um we're fully committed. And I I have we've mentioned that the school board is voting on this tonight as well. I have also received feedback um about the optics of that um and residents not having the opportunity to go to both meetings and and speak. So, we I want to encourage us to continue to just be very mindful of optics knowing that we're doing the right things, that city staff is doing the right things, and it's important that we do the best that we can to to meet residents where they are. Um that means that I'm not necessarily opposed to spending that money for design. uh but because I think that the community engagement is so important here is essential here and it's such an opportunity for us to build trust with the community and to really engage in conversations. We we hear that parking is a challenge all the time. Um, and we know that people have lots of different opinions about what those solutions are to engage in that kind of authentic conversation and to really view that as an opportunity that I would want to see how these phases of design would fit into this community engagement plan so that we can be very clear and very deliberate upfront to say, hey, we've we've heard your concerns even about like getting a say and doing this to again

together. um that we can say this is how this iterative process is going to work along with you. Um and and fundamentally I voting on this tonight I I don't know where my residents are on this um other than anecdotally and and from the residents that we've heard tonight. So I need more time to talk to residents I think about what their initial feelings are so that we can really start to get an indicator of whether this has a chance for success or not. That being said, I would be interested to see if other commissioners might have an appetite for um tableabling or postponing this so that we can see how community engagement would work along the way and that we just really have a full plan for bringing community along.

Any comments? Any other comments or

I mean, well, some comments, but then just to answer that, I I don't I hear you. I think that uh if I feel comfortable spending a little bit of money to start flushing this out, especially and then let the let the public decide. Uh we'll have those public engagement uh meetings that and times for us to be able to engage our own um ward residents to get their input. And again, I think that uh like Mr. Commissioner Hunter said, we could, you know, start pumping the brakes as as a one of the powers of the commission is we can pump the brakes at any time. So if we start spending money and we're we're getting some serious push back could be like hold on we need to find another another solution kind of pause and and and stop the spend. But again if we want to try our best to follow the timeline and and and be good uh partners with the schools we we I think it's smart to to to move forward with with the spend. Um, a couple other comments I had, uh, you know, I think some of the comments that were here today, too, uh, was interesting, you know, because, um, I think that the parking deck at the the old parking deck that was at gas light, uh, to my knowledge, it was on the verge where it needed to be either maintained or because it was on the verge of not being sound is my understanding. That's why they was like either they have to maintain it or or take it down. And then um my to my understanding it was significantly underutilized um which hence is part of my concern for a parking deck which I've articulated um I've spoken to um in our subcommittee meetings going do we need that many parking spaces yada yada yada. So there's a concern there if it's going to be utilized and um and parking decks are expensive and they are expensive to maintain. The difference though is that uh the question was why are we docking one or taking one story down on one parking deck and then building another one. I think it really kind of falls into one that is privately held and this is one that we can partner with the schools and it'll be on school property a little bit more control that the

schools and the city has and this is something that we can open and have control open up to the public. Um, again, this is stuff that we're trying to think uh through to go what would this what would the uh people want and again they can decide based on vote. Um, and uh and I also to my knowledge I don't know if this is true or not but I thought that the high school students were not allowed to park in that gas light deck. So again that doesn't that's not a viable solution for the schools. Um I think that the also touching base on the other options just because we're not able to articulate all the options that we're looking at all the time and flushing out all of these you know all these different rocks that we're looking under doesn't mean we're not doing that. So, we did spend a lot of time. We were talking about I know that we have uh some some grant money. We're talking about what waterfront park is going to look like, what parking is there. We're thinking about different angles for more parking. San La Triangle, not really disrupting the actual grass, but like what what could we do maybe around that area, even discussions and reaching out to D&W um to talk about their parking uh situation, how maybe we could coexist better. So, we're trying our best, you know, uh we're trying our best. And again, from where I I stand, it it feels like, okay, um learning our lesson from uh going through that gaslight uh uh exercise, I'll call it, uh that we um we do need to spend a little bit of money to to flush out some ideas to give the uh residents um enough to see and chew on. Um and um and then from there, then they can help decide. And again, I'm I'm really looking forward to hearing, you know, what what everyone has to say. And and again, I'm also say that even uh even the people that are suing us uh don't agree on parking. Some say that we have plenty, some say that we don't. Uh and again, I try to, like I've said in the past, rely on um the studies, the engineering uh studies too. They come back saying, "Yeah, we have just enough, but the level of service is what we're talking about. That's the we're we're

looking at a grade maybe like a lower grade there. Um, and we're thinking if we want to be this premier cool spot in the city, can we elevate that uh level of service for everyone to make it uh a little bit more comfortable and easier and and take those barriers of of entry from people being able to come in and spend more dollars in our downtown community and like help patronize more of our businesses. I think that's the that's the goal for all of us. So, um, so that's why I I feel comfortable voting yes tonight. I just want to comment I I'm also in support of this. Um well and and mainly because when we do engage our community with this and when I do get calls and I do get emails I want to have better answers for them then trust me this is going to look good and trust me this is how it's going to work. And so I do understand um that spending some money on this now when we haven't committed to doing it is um it it's necessary uh just just to get those answers to determine if it's a if it's a good thing to ask for. I if we were here and this was for asking for the whole $600,000 including the construction planning and the bidding um that would give me pause. Um, but where we're at now, I feel very comfortable um getting spending some money to get those answers to um to be able to to paint the whole picture to our our residents that ask us. So, I'm I'm I'm good for it.

Okay. I'm in favor. I'm ready to vote yes on this. I do want to say one thing, and I apologize in advance if it sounds prickly. I please just take it as feedback. some of us were in this conversation for a lot longer than others of us who were in it. And so there's been more to adjust for the three of us who weren't. Um, and you know, we just it's been tough to be out of the loop and get up to speed this quickly. That said, like I think this is really important and um you know, we need to move forward with with being able to answer the question and know what the next thing is in our plan. Okay. Okay. Just to wrap up, I was going to let you have the last uh comment there, Commissioner Skaggs, but that's right.

Thanks for all the input. I guess just to summarize, um I came in tonight uh wanting to advance all three of the measures here uh under the vote, under the proposed actions. Um but I think I've uh come to a point where I have more questions and answers. The the financial aspect to me gives me concern. um whether the myriad of ways it could possibly turn out and I'm glad that there are discussions about uh potential ways that not only the first phase that when we're designing but also building could could definitely turn out you know up or down from a from a certain place. Um, so we're already starting to put some sketches out there and and I like that. Uh, you know, we all want information as Commissioner Berdick said and we can provide that to residents. But then you go back to the timeline and I don't think it gives residents enough time in in August to fully digest a lot of the information. Um, you know, something I didn't come in with tonight was the history on gaslight investors. Again, that was just sort of out of my periphery. And you know, you think back on the demolition and whether you know, the agreement that was in place on the previous, you know, did did all those covenants go away with the demolition or some of those covenants potentially still in place? Uh then we talk about the logistics. And in my experience, I've never not been able to find a suitable for me parking spot if I'm visiting a store. My inconvenience has come from when I'm dealing with my high school students. I don't see that being improved uh by a parking garage. Um I would I would love to know what the conversations were with the land owner who currently allows free parking on their property. We say we can't do we can't say or do much with private land owners in terms of what they decide to do with their property. Um, you know,

I'd love to know what the conversations were like with with DNW in terms of what both the current and future uh potential, you know, actions are with with that lot. I think we ought to consider the fact that that there's a huge uh savings both in time and money right now for our community um with that with that square footage of that lot. um you know, so I guess I'd wonder with the commission if there's an appetite to split um some of the actions here. I I would absolutely would be in favor of number three. I think that we do need a solution and I didn't want to come here and vote no because I don't see any other solution having talked to a lot of the members of the commission and city staff about this. there isn't a clear way forward and that scares us sort of I think sometimes into into into making and a step forward. Um, but I'm just not comfortable with this particular step. And I would just want to know if if uh we would be interested in in approving number three uh and potentially splitting some of the actions there under the uh overall um action here tonight. I would see Commissioner Gag or Commissioner Schwarz. Go ahead.

I'd be interested in that. Go ahead.

So, I I want to be clear. I'm not beholden to the timeline. I wouldn't want to approve spending, this cost sharing agreement to keep marching towards a date. I personally think that this $100,000 is the cost of quality due diligence and having those facts and figures to fuel the discussions that I want to have. I I don't want I don't want to say I don't know, great question. you know, I'm happy to say that, but I want to know that we're working towards those so that in August, if if in August we feel we're ready to answer the question of do we want to put it out to the residents? Um, I want to have that data and you know, it'll be questions like how will this even work? Like, do I have to have a sticker? You know, how does this work? That's all those 16 weeks. And again, if if I if I see along the way that this is not something that people are interested in or I don't like the initial findings, I'm more than happy to come up here and say, "Let's stop spending money." But I do feel and I I totally understand the other points of view. But I do feel like um you know I've I've seen and heard enough I probably also because of to Commissioner Skagg's point being surrounded by this um for quite a few months to say I I want to know more and unfortunately we have to spend the money to know more. Um so that's why um you know I respectfully disagree and think that now is a good point um to do this and and again this is this is to decide if the residents want to add on to the school space. You know to your point this meeting the school's parking needs is a school's problem. What we're talking about is an opportunity for shared parking that gives the city more

parking.

I I very much hear you with that. Right. And I think if the parking here's what I here's what I envision as someone who's not been a part of this and I think that offers a different perspective, right? Like you've been immersed in it and so sometimes the forest and the trees get get um convoluted is that I think from a resident's perspective if if we approve this tonight and move forward, it feels like the message we're sending is the parking garage is the solution. And that doesn't leave us the time to do the the due diligence with residents to say either to say and again I'm not sure the full the full scope of these conversations either is what other solutions were considered why why were they not preferred um etc. Um which is why I I think that that puts the cart a little bit before the horse and I say that understanding how frustrating that can sound as someone who's been very involved in these conversations and already knows all the answers to that. Um, but I think it would just go a long way for us. It's essential for us uh to know how we're going to engage the community in those conversations before we make this commitment. And for that reason, I'd be very in favor of Commissioner Hunter's proposal to split off number three because I I think that that is yes, absolutely. Let's move forward with that. Get a temporary solution in place while we work on the timeline that makes sense for our community.

Okay. I think that everyone has made their comments. Um, and what I'm hearing is I have we have um the majority as a yes to to move forward with this tonight. So, I'm going to ask then for a motion and a second in this agenda item. Do you how do we want to read that? So, there's three three actions that we're asking for. One is to approve up to $100,000 cost sharing agreement for plumbing design work of a three-story deck on Bagley Street. That's action one. Action two would be the reimbursement resolution. And then action three would be the uh temporary lot. I will move. Yeah,

I'll move to approve action items one and two on this agenda item. Um I think or do you need them all three? I was trying to give people the opportunity to vote the way they want to vote. No, no, no. So, so the bond the bond resolution I would ask we do separate just cuz bond council gets weird on us every so often. So, so three separate motions. Yes. Yes, please. Okay. Could you just quickly summarize number two again for us? Yep. And no. So number two, all that does is any funds that we spend going forward on this project,

if at the point that we decide that yes, we are going to issue bonds and um whether we do millage or not and setting all that aside, the that resolution enables us to roll the costs that we're expending from this point forward into those bond proceeds. It doesn't commit us to do that. We may get to that point and say, you know what, we're just going to go ahead and not borrow that extra money. Or we may say from a cash flow standpoint, yes, it makes sense to reimburse us. That's all that does. It doesn't commit us that. It just enables us to do that in the future if we so choose if we ultimately issue bonds. Mhm.

Thank you. Okay. I will uh move to approve item one, approving up to 100 Sorry, what? Did someone say something? No. Oh, okay. Commit. Um, I would move to approve uh item number one on this agenda item. Second. Okay, we go to vote. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Opposed? No. No. Two no votes. Motion carries. Next, please. I'll move to approve item number two on this agenda item. Okay. And a motion, please, or a second. Thank you. We'll go to a vote. All those in favor say yes.

Yes. All right. Motion carries. Any nose? Any I didn't hear any nos. No. That was Yep. Oh, wait. Motion carries. Next. I'll move to approve item number three on this agenda item. I'll second that. Wonderful. All those in favor say yes. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. So, next on the this evening's agenda, we have the consent agenda items. May I please have a motion and second to approve tonight's consent agenda? So, moved. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes.

Opposed. Motion carries. All right. This meeting is adjourned. If anybody doesn't want their KDL community report, you drop it off over here