City Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm sorry, I didn't get a chance to respond to your email.

I'm sorry, I didn't get a chance to respond to your email. Oh, okay, yeah, I didn't know what you were talking about. The role that you didn't talk about. I'd like to be a part of the, forget what you called it now.

Oh, no, I'm not even talking about what you said.

Six o'clock, I'm going to call this meeting to order. If everyone could please join us in saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

Okay, so first on the agenda this evening is the approval of the agenda. Commissioners, do we have anything to add or take away from this evening's agenda? Nothing, I will move on to public comment. Is there anyone joining us this evening that would like to make public comment to something that is not on this evening's agenda? If so, now's the time to do so. Welcome, Ms. Dirge.

Good evening, my name is Mary Dersh, 956 Lakeside and also the East Grand Rapids History Room. I would like to let everybody know that we're gonna have a historical signage unveiling within hopefully a month, hopefully before your next meeting. We did this through the History Room and the Community Foundation and the Parks and Rec, so I work with Derek Melville. Two signs up on the sidewalk level at Collins Park, what is now Collins Park, two 36 by 24 inch signs And they're beautiful. And one will be all the steamboats that were on Reeds Lake, a history of that. And the other one will be the beautiful buildings that were on Reeds Lake. And it's going to be great. And then stay tuned because then I'm going to approach about doing a couple other signs because I think that that's something that East Grand Rapids needs to do because we're a unique little town. with such a grand history. So I wanted to thank everybody for working with us and stay tuned. And hopefully everybody can come to the unveiling. Thank you very much. Thank you. And equally, thank you for all your hard work. Thank you.

Can I ask, when is the unveiling? Is there a date?

No. It's been ordered. I know Derek updated me early last week that we're close and once we get it locked in and we'll let everybody know and do our normal thing.

Great. Thank you. Would anyone else care? Okay. Please come forward. Welcome.

Thank you. Scott Damon, 625 Bridge Street. You know I'm here because of my interest at 425 What is that street? Lakeside. Yes. First off, Abby, I wanted to wish you luck on your upcoming campaign. You've been working super hard, authentic, and I'm sorry to hear some of the negative campaign you've had to deal with. It's very unfortunate. I wasn't planning to make any public comment at all today, but a friend asked me to come because, quite frankly, when I'm at work in big meetings, I'm very calm. I get more revved up. in front of you all here because I just have some baggage with the entire process that's surrounded around the PUD. And I think the parking thing, which we'll talk about later, will be tied into that. I wanted to follow up on the BRA and the unfortunate news that's even up for consideration to punt to Kent County. Courage is the word. Courage to directly represent your voters. You started that way last summer you pass something to create the BRA locally and somehow that kind of vanished. And then very recently we learned that the city manager was working on a different application to drive this directly with Kent County. It was kind of thrown on an agenda last minute. I think it was very alarming. There was no warning to it. And I do feel like this is another example where situations probably baked in for a vote. I also find it very perplexing that city manager Shay Charles sits on that board with this unique persona, Reed Charles II. It's really odd. I think for anybody to look at the experience of what's happened with Kent County to have an experience, domain expertise, quote unquote, you have to look at, they've done one project in Lowell, Michigan. It's a 17 unit housing done by a nonprofit ministries group. A far cry from the PUD experience that's in front of us today. It is very much profit driven. I want to wrap up saving our democracy. It was a huge political campaign in 2020. The fact that 69% of this community voted Harris, I would think that that's an important part. Yet four commissioners voted against a protest petition, a direct hit against democracy. That vote could have been tabled. yet we are here today that could have been studied more by the city attorney by a better recommendation yet we are here today if the excuses said we're going to put that on hold because we have a pending lawsuit then why is everything else happening why are we moving on with other phases bras and everything else i think the other thing is the referendum the work how people in your community work their asses off to comply with city requirements to bring that voter referendum and it got squashed And when you go into executive committee with my closing thoughts, Mayor, I know you're probably more than likely to be talking about the lawsuit situation. I think it is super important to understand why we are here today and how representation could be different and what you may be able to still do today to correct what's happened at this point. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Is there anyone else that wanted to make public comment to something not on this evening's agenda? Welcome.

Hello, everybody. David Decker, 925 Belle Claire. Unfortunately, this is the view that the world has of East Grand Rapids at this point in time. Groups opposing gaslight development ask judge for a ruling, Wood TV. Controversial East Grand Rapids development moves forward. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is. It could be something more like this. Charlie Munger was the wingman for Warren Buffett for many years. They built an amazing business. They had a lot of very big moments. The City Commission had a big moment on October 6th. Not nearly as big as some of the big moments that Berkshire Hathaway's faced. But if you look at the way that Charlie looked at what they were doing. It wasn't because it was big, it was because it was right.

That's what made it a big moment.

And if we look back at what happened on October 6th, what we see is that the Michigan Zoning Enablement Act really could have helped out in that situation because big buildings are permanent. They change communities for a long time. Once they're built, there's no going back. The Michigan Zoning Enablement Act gives residents an option to remind commissioners to build consensus in their communities, work together, find a plan that 80% of the community and 80% of commissioners agree on. On October 6th, three commissioners voted to approve an ordinance and three voted to oppose. It was a 50-50 split. Residents were split 50-50 as well. The Michigan Zoning Enablement Act was designed to address exactly that situation with a simple document, a petition signed by the landowners that border the proposed new development and the proposed new buildings. East Grand Rapids and all communities in Michigan are shielded from divisive actions from their city commissions, actions that divide communities instead of building consensus. Could have been a 7-0 vote for that development if there would have been efforts to truly build consensus. But there weren't. Very divisive. Tens of millions of dollars may be spent. Those are decisions that will impact all of East Grand Rapids for years to come. It was a big moment.

Did you do what was right?

The 1,400 voters that signed the referendum petition wanted to vote. to replace your vote with theirs. They didn't think what you did was right. Voters that filed a lawsuit are saying what you did was not right. A judge will probably agree that the protest petition was valid. Not following the laws, not doing what's right instead of pursuing that big moment looks like the wrong decision.

Thank you, Mr. Decker. Would anyone else care to speak to something not on the agenda? Now is the time to do so. Please come forward. Welcome.

My name is Chip Wisse, and I live at 2741 Boston Street, and I'm here to talk about the same proposal that's being discussed. I guess things, and I'm in favor of it, by the way, like most people are, and not as currently proposed, but I guess things are kind of on hold until Judge Quist makes his ruling. If he rules against the city commission, which I hope that he does, I suggest we drop back and huddle up and meet with the residents that signed the protest petition and come up with a downsized plan for the vacant land. It's too dense a project for the amount of property involved there. For instance, less condos and nicer condos. If Judge Quist rules in favor of the City Commission and if you are still determined to proceed with the current PUD, notwithstanding the comments that have just been made by these gentlemen here, put it on a ballot in November or have a special election in the spring. I saw you guys shut down the voter referendum on very, very sketchy grounds. Slight phrasing, couple adverbs, maybe an adjective. Highly unethical. Let's have democracy take place. If the city were to vote in favor of the current PUD, of which I'm opposed to, so be it. I'll take my football and go home. If not, let's start over with a plan more appealing to a broader constituency of the people of East Grand Rapids and the people on this board. Starting with less density and maybe mixing in an architect. Has anyone in this room seen the proposal, the building, the mock-ups for what is being proposed to be built on that property? I saw the mock-ups and I was appalled. Quick story, I got the pictures up on my, I have a big monitor on my desktop. I brought my wife down to live in East Grand Rapids for 40 years. I said, honey, look at these pictures of these drawings. She goes, oh, we've worked with Inner City Christian Federation. I've known Jonathan Bradford for years. She goes, oh, look how nice. Inner City Christian Federation is doing some nice Section 8 housing. I said, yep, that's it. That's exactly what it looks like. It looks like some really nice Section 8 housing. Gaslight village gaslight village investors. There's nothing remotely connected to gaslight village or the fact that it's a nine-iron from Reeves Lake or Ramona motif or East Grand Rapids neo-colonial or neo-georgian the buildings are grotesque Surely we can do better than this in East Grand Rapids. These buildings are a study in incongruity The fact that no one in the Planning Commission, no one on this body, cares about these buildings being aesthetically pleasing is, I think, demeaning to the City of East Grand Rapids. I would never live there. And I'm a prime candidate for someone to live there in five, ten years. And I don't know anyone in this room that would ever want to live in a building that grotesquely ugly. I also would like to say that the City should vote on the PUD. We should that we should vote on whether or not we're going to give the developer a twenty million dollar tax abatement or ten or five or whatever amount of millions and I am totally opposed and I trust every resident in the city of East Grand Rapids Would be opposed to punting this to Kent County Commission to have them determined for East Grand Rapids and what we're going to do with respect to giving this developer a $20 million or a $10 million tax abatement. And by the way, to try to deny that this developer is not going to ask for a tax abatement is sophistry, and everyone knows it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next, please. Would anyone else care to speak to something that's not on this evening's agenda?

Now's the time to do so.

Okay, hearing none, I will close public comment and bring it up here for the report of mayor and city commissioners, including committee liaison reports. I will start to my right. Commissioner Skaggs, do you have anything to add? Nothing tonight, thank you. No? Commissioner Wesley?

Nothing for me tonight.

Nothing to add this evening.

Okay. Abby, do you have anything to add?

I do not have anything to add, Mayor Fevelli.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm kind of stating the obvious at this point, but Planning Commission met and had the continued hearing on the Gas and Investors Phase 1 final proposal. This was the second meeting, and there was unanimous approval to send Phase 1 final design to us here at City Commission. along with the PUD draft agreement, finding that it had met all of the legal requirements. And as a reminder, we heard this because there is no automatic mechanism to halt this process after city commission approved it in the fall. Plaintiffs could have filed a motion, set an injunction, something like that to stop it, did not. The developer is taking a risk here and that this all could be unwound as a result of the pending lawsuit, but we have to move forward and hear the phase one proposal at Planning Commission and then whenever it comes up here, and I don't think we have a date for it to come here. I won't say anymore, so Attorney Roth does not shoot daggers at me. The only other thing I'll say about the project, while Mary Dersh is here, is that, um, I don't think it was this last meeting, but the one before it, um, former mayor Fry had brought up doing some sort of signage historical reference. Um, that's still top of mind for me and I think others and trying to find the right place for that to talk about what used to be at that site. So that is it for me.

Great. Thank you for the update. I don't have anything to add. Manager Charles?

Just a couple things. The final parking engagement session for the potential lot on Bagley is this Wednesday at 6 o'clock in the little auditorium at the high school. And just a reminder, everybody, we've been obviously dealing with the smoke from the Canadian fires. Encourage everybody to follow the lead from Kent County Health Department on kind of best practices for that. I know with our team, We've been working with them to kind of keep them as safe as possible in this environment. So with that, that's all I have.

Great. Thank you. Okay. So we move on to the regular agenda items. So first on the agenda is to discuss funding options for the potential parking deck on Bagley. That introduction is from Manager Charles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just to clarify, we're not looking for a decision or direction this evening, but this is a follow-up to a request from the commission of what are potential options for funding the potential deck on Bagley. Obviously, no decision's been made to even proceed, or if we do proceed, what kind of funding mechanisms we did with that. So with that said, just to go through this kind of more on a high level, that there are kind of three choices in regards to funding is try to identify existing cash resources within our budget. The other is then issuing debt. And those two options are utilizing existing general fund revenues to finance the vet. Those are referred to as limited tax obligation bonds. Then the other is asking the voters to consider a millage to support. any debt referred to as unlimited tax obligation bonds. The millage supported debt is similar to what we have for the playgrounds for the community center debt that there's a millage that is levied each year that is enough to pay the annual debt service. We are looking at if a borrowing is done at a 20-year borrowing, selling bonds, and going from there. That millage only is levied for what is needed for that debt service. And so what we have seen historically is those millages tend to come down over a year as tax base grows. So we've seen that consistently over probably the last 10, 15 years. Overall, the limited tax obligation bonds can be issued by the City Commission, does not require a vote of the people, though it does require the adoption of what's referred to as a right of referendum, random resolution. That opens up a 45-day period upon publication of the notice that residents can or circulate petitions, and if you get 10% of our registered voters, then the city is then required to put that question on the ballot if you are to proceed with the borrowing. Looking at the limited tax obligation bonds, right now the city transfers about a million dollars to our street funds miscellaneous projects. It's something that we've done over the years. Has been noted correctly is that the city will be receiving, though amounts are unknown at this point, additional new revenue from the state of Michigan for streets as part of the 2025 road package. In that package, the restructure of fuel and gas taxes eliminated the 6% sales tax on sales at the pump, which had a direct impact on the city of reducing our constitutional revenue sharing of $110,000. What MDOT is projecting for yet this fiscal year, we'll see is that about $429,000 in additional funding. And then in the memo, we note what are the projections for future funding. One option for the city to consider is that instead of using the general fund dollars, basically taking advantage of the new revenue and using the kind of offsetting, if you will, for potential debt service. So that is an option we can also, the commission can also say, you know, please find the ability to do that within our general fund revenues. So both are options for the city to consider. In regards to the road funding, a concern we have at a staff level is we're now into July and we still have not gotten our first round of payments from MDOT. And within the memo it has a graphic kind of, you know, the filling of the pots. There were a number of other funds that were to be those funds, the new taxes were allocated towards those funds first, and then once those funds have reached the respective levels, then the fund starts to come to the local road agencies. That includes cities, villages, road commissions. At this point, we've not received any funding. I shared with you the update from MDOT. Talking to Michigan Municipal League staff, They're saying maybe August at this point and the amounts are unknown. There's also a component of that road funding package that with the marijuana tax that is still undergoing legal challenges. And I just share that to advise the Commission of from a budgeting standpoint, I and the team have taken the approach of we're not counting on those dollars until the check's clear, so to speak. So kind of everything we've modeled out, we're not accounting for that revenue at this time in part. It's a new revenue stream. We're all waiting to see how it actually plays out in regards to actual funds being generated by the new road tax structure. So one last thing, just an additional observation as we were talking about it amongst the team, With state road funding, which we often refer to as Act 51 funding, that's the state law that governs it, with Act 51 funding, there are restrictions on what we can and can't do with it. It's limited to specific types of expenditures associated with streets, maintenance, et cetera. The advantage that we've been able to avail ourselves sometimes is With the general fund transfer, we're able to maybe address some projects within the road system that those Act 51 dollars necessarily wouldn't be eligible expenses. So that keeps us in the good graces of MDOT when we do our annual report. We have to submit to them on an annual basis what we spent the money on, how much is left, et cetera, things of that nature. So that's an annual process and we do those certifications every year. The street millage money, which I noted in the memo, that is, the language on that is clear in the ballot. That's intended for kind of streets and sidewalks. It's a generic phrase, so to speak, but that general fund dollars gives us a lot of times some real flexibility when either unique situations come up or commissions ask us to take a look at Something else that may there may not be eligible for frack $51 or something that we don't have to worry about so that's just an operational observation for that but the only other comment I would make is in regards to the LTG owes and dedicating general fund dollars is a in the event of an economic downturn and we see revenue declines, first dollars out are always bond payments. Those go out the door first. We have to pay those bonds. So if we did make the commitments to do these bonds with general fund dollars, just understanding Those dollars now are spoken for for that 20-year period. So with that, I included an updated bond projection from our financial advisors based on current interest rates. This is just kind of a snapshot of today. It assumes the city's high credit rating and strong financial position. So that's why you see the potential interest rate at about 3.91%. The reality is with bond sales, you don't know what the interest rate until the day that you go and do, until your bonds. So with that, I can answer any questions and go from there. Great.

Okay. I'm sure we have a bunch of questions for Manager Charles.

I have a couple that don't necessarily need to be all asked in a row. So I allow and invite other commissioners to jump in. But I think the first question I had was just sort of taking us back to the beginning of the process. You know, there's been a lot that's been talked about within the community as far as, you know, whose idea the parking garage was originally. And I think our residents ought to know if they don't already, if it's been said by the commission, I apologize, I just don't remember hearing it. And I've had the question, was it the schools that brought it to us or was it us that brought it to the schools?

The schools brought it to us and as the schools developed their initial concept designs, they had envisioned having parking capacity under the new wing that's adjacent to the athletic facilities. Once the voters approved their millage and they got into design, they started to run into a number of code issues, cost issues, things of that nature. It eventually moved away from that design and as they finalized it and et cetera, and I believe in when they shared the actual designs I may be off a year here that at that point they had identified that they were going to have a net loss of parking approximately 72, 75 spaces and at that point they began internal work with their design team to say what are our options and they had sized and looked at a potential deck on the Bagley lot. Subsequent to that once the project was approved by, the renovations were approved by the school board. They then started to engage first at a staff level, and then we created the subcommittee that we're thinking of doing the deck as an opportunity for a partnership, kind of building on past work or past partnerships. So that's my long answer to the school board. Thank you. I wanted to clear that up. Thank you. Do you want me to go ahead and ask another one?

When did we transfer the money to the streets fund under the miscellaneous line item? Does that transfer already happening or you're saying it still could?

So the million dollars to the street funds? Yeah. We do that on an annual basis. Okay. So sometime during the year. Yeah.

It's done every single year? Yes. Okay, and so those are the funds that right now would be earmarked to be placed either back in the general fund for the building and construction of the parking garage or they'd stay in streets?

So we would reduce the transfer equal to what the annual debt service would be.

Thank you. Can I try saying that in another way? Because it was partially my question. So what I understand from the briefing documents is that we have about $4.5 million a year to work with for streets, sidewalks, traffic safety, funding, et cetera, between general funds, Act 51 money from the state, neighborhood roads fund that we hopefully are going to get, and the streets and sidewalk millage. So, sorry, what?

Go ahead.

And it would be about $575,000 per year debt service is what the memo says. Is that approximate?

Approximate.

Okay. So we would be looking at using $575,000-ish of 4.5, really, of that million dollars, because that's where the flexibility is at.

Correct.

Okay. I just want to make sure I have that down.

And commission doesn't have to make that decision. Commission can ultimately decide, no, we want to do the million transfer and direct staff to find that additional resources. But we're, for the purposes of tonight's discussion, saying this is a potential option.

Okay. So when we're thinking about that $4.5 million total, if we're taking a $575,000 chunk out of it to say yes to that and to say yes to a parking structure, like what are we saying no to? That's, I think, a huge part of my question and part of the evaluation.

So today, can I point out, oh, this won't happen, this won't happen, this won't happen, the answer's no. But as we've seen, as we kind of move into our next round of street improvements, we've been able, And I think everybody has seen a dramatic improvement in the overall network. A lot of the initial work that was done on streets throughout the system and the system trees that you saw 10 years ago are entering that natural cycle that we see with roads. As we start to go and look and evaluate what's next is obviously we, I won't say obviously, we continue to use our pager rating as the basis of which street to focus on. The additional funds that are now available give us a chance and an opportunity to maybe do some more comprehensive work on the system. One of the things, classic example that I'd like to refer to is on, not Elmwood, Edgewood, Englewood, on the south side of the city. I'm blanking on the street name. There is a driveway where we resurface the street and because we weren't getting into a more intensive rehabilitation, it has what we refer to as a birdbath when it rains, so you have water trap. As we go through the next time, we'll start to do a lot more of that type of work, curb replacement, stormwater improvements, things of that nature, that those funds enable us to take a more comprehensive approach to each of these. It can be for anything as simple as additional curve to undercuts some things of that nature.

I don't know if there's any other No, I would just say that it would be the approach we have to It's always a challenge where you where you start where you stop when you're evaluating Because each street in this community is very site specific and was built at different times. And so Even when we do core samples and our planning years prior you get a very different a very different core sample of what's 200 feet apart. So a lot of times what we have to do is build some flexibility into our projects too to make sure we can successfully accomplish those projects. So basically we would have to reduce the scope of what we've been more recently doing to address street projects and also what we align with our utility funds, fund water and sewer improvements.

So does that mean you'd have to reduce the scope and extend the timeline like it would just take longer or you would have to reduce the scope and it would never get done?

No, I wouldn't say never you know we can We have a very resilient team. I mean we can make a lot of things work, but it's just a matter of what the expectation is of the community and you all as policymakers and We were the front lines have to explain that to residents when they call us and ask us why we're not doing something or why we're doing something and There's a cost all those things so we'll certainly be able to accomplish any mission. It is It'll just be the scope that we can afford Yeah

I've been trying to understand, you know, like, well, I think there's like the first question, like, do we, don't we have a parking garage? And then if the answer is yes, how do we pay for it? So I'm trying to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly because we have so many unknown revenue sources. You know, we currently have a surplus, like we're doing well, knock on wood, but like, we don't know what's coming. And so I understand, I completely understand staff's, Concern was saying like, oh, just find the money for the next 20 years of paying this. What I would like to know is like with these unknowns of what these new road funding numbers might actually shake out to be. And then also we have the wild card of, you know, if Gaslight Investors develops this whole property in the next five years, even if they do seek TIF funding, and if we agree to some or a part of that, there's still money coming in. And so if we have like more money, What do we do with that? How do you give a rebate back to residents? How do you pay down the debt sooner if we decide that we want to focus on getting rid of the debt for the parking garage or some other debt source? Just the way anybody would at home if you have an unexpected bonus or a raise. How do we effectively manage the money and what's legal? Because I remember you saying something about you can't just pay down a bond early. Can you help me understand or talk about this more for everybody?

Sure. for the commission, when a community borrows, we, again, as I noted, issue bonds. And that's a series of commitments that will reimburse the bond owner their capital at year five, six, 10, 15, wherever, whoever's holding the bonds. In the interim, we pay interest, which is distributed to the bond holders. With issuing bonds, it does not work like a mortgage where we get to pay off early. The exception being is that we generally include what are early call provisions, and those are normally about 10 years. If you go shorter than that, then you pay an additional premium in interest rates. So you get to the call period, say 10 years, And what a lot of communities will do at that moment, depending on where interest rates are, they may choose to refinance the bonds, pay off those and they reissue them at a lower interest rate. We did this with the community center bonds in 2021, where we were able to take advantage of the interest rate environment and get a lower debt service, which resulted in a lower tax levy for our residents. So that's kind of the way it works. It's not just like, again, house mortgages is not the same. It's a different funding structure. So that's when we talk about paying off early, that's the option.

Okay. So just to make sure I'm understanding, so let's say in five years we realize, hey, we have like $800,000 in extra revenue. we can stockpile that year market for paying down and refinancing when a date comes that we're allowed to, say the 10 year mark?

Conceptually, yes.

Can we, sorry, even if we can't pay off the millage, can we stop charging our residents the millage rates and just pay the millage out of our own funds?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Do you have any other questions?

chew on this for a little bit. Thanks.

Chris? Commissioner Wesley? Yeah. I'm ready to ask another one, but we just haven't heard from you.

I'm sorry, what?

Did you want to ask a question? Go ahead. I'm just trying to be.

Oh, I appreciate it. Yeah, I don't have any questions. I just have some comments, but no questions at this time.

My follow-up comment is I think there's a fair amount of financial projecting we can do. I think for the purposes of tonight, I mean, we need to know how we're going to pay for anything. That's kind of the rule when you buy something. But I think we're getting too far into a myriad of different projections and outcomes that, for instance, I mean, interest rates going down or having an extra 800K, you know, we should also be entertaining the flip side of that. What if interest rates go up? obviously you can't refinance or bring the interest rate down, or what if we have an 800K hole? But I'd like to just go back to the group exercise with Progressive AE. My thought is that when we came out of that event, that we'd have another committee, or I'm sorry, not a committee, but just a commission type Discussion maybe offline Like we're doing later tonight With with Varnum, but but just amongst ourselves to say what was the outcome? Like how do we distill down the sentiment of that group exercise with progressive? I'm just wondering Was that because I was a little surprised to see it again on the agenda for tonight. Was it scored in some kind of way qualitatively numerically How did we derive from that meeting that it was even an idea that was worth being pushed forward and for us to have another conversation on this evening?

As far as the deck itself or as far as?

Yeah, the deck itself from coming out of that group conversation.

No, I appreciate the question. So what staff took away from our work session June is is that we anticipate being back before Commission to talk about parking management strategies and talking about Okay, give everybody a chance to digest this the question Before the Commission or the pending question for the Commission is If the Commission is to place this on the November ballot then August 3rd is kind of the Decision date of are we going to put it on the November ballot or not? The actual deadline I think is the 11th 12 something like that so that's the last commission before the Can count on for to get it on the November deadline or excuse me November ballot Commission can At that time choose. Yes place it on the ballot can choose to say, no, we need additional information or choose not to move forward with the project. The only reason that we are having this discussion this evening is more of this question is going to be posed to the commission at the August 3rd meeting. And we wanted to give you an opportunity as far as the funding tool, not speaking to the efficacy of the deck or anything like that, but more of Just discussing how What options could the Commission consider if you choose to proceed with the deck? And that's that's the entire the goal of tonight's Discussion just to provide that as we go into August 3rd and you're evaluating that decision. So again, the only reason we're moving this forward at this time is That deadline to be on the November ballot, which is something that that when we broached this with the commission, April, may I forget now, that that was a date certain that, again, solely just to get on the November ballot.

Okay. Yeah, the question just stems from what I think, at least myself, I'll just speak for myself, coming out of that exercise, you know, we were debating the merits I thought that evening of should we proceed with a conversation of a deck or not, right? That was kind of what I left with that night. And quite honestly, I believe the settlement coming out of that meeting was not equivocally a yes, right? I don't know if it was equivocally a no, but it sure didn't seem to me like it was something that the commission was, if we had a vote that evening would have passed. So, you know, I'm just, but there's dates that we have to adhere to and that's the process as of now. So that does answer my question. Okay.

And I will say that, at least from my experience, I know that this was kind of a just informational and just to get the information before we have to make a vote. Because I have had a number of people and commissioners reach out saying, is the millage the only way? Can we make it a line item? What are the options? So this is just informational to figure out what all the options are so that everybody's informed before making any kind of a decision.

I think that that kind of gets to my question, and maybe I'll just Question slash comment here is that what I was going to ask was that the memo that you provided to us in the packet this evening starts with the statement at the August 3rd meeting, we'll be asked to consider a resolution to place a debt millage request on the November 3rd ballot. So we'll have language in front of us and we'll be asked to say yes or no to that. But then the memo closes with we will be presented with final parking design concept, updated estimates, and then we'll have some decisions to make about Do we move forward with the parking duck? Do we delay a decision, et cetera? And I think to Brad's point, we haven't yet had an opportunity to debate the merits of what we want to do, whether that's a resolution to put on the November ballot or not, absent the pressure of making a time bound decision. And so, I mean, in bringing us resolution language at the next meeting, there's the expectation that there's going to be a vote yes or no on that. Is that correct?

I'm expecting the commission to say, yes, we want to proceed with placing on the ballot. No, we don't want to place it on the ballot or we need more information. And again, the only reason it's on that schedule was that There is a direction given to staff of if we're going to place it on the ballot, we'd like to get it on the November ballot because the longer delays and the longer the decision of to deck, to build a deck or not. So the next window of opportunity would be, if he looks at the city clerk, May election.

At this time, I would say May.

Okay. There's some stuff going on at the state as far as election dates, yeah. So that would be the next window to put it on the ballot. Communities can no longer, under state law, call special elections. We can't say, gee, we want to wait 30 days, get to some additional information, then make that decision. You're limited to those three dates of May, August. November. State law limits us those. So the window of opportunity to place it on the November ballot is the deadline is basically August 3rd. So that's why we're asking for this. The design team has refined the concepts. We'll be presenting those tomorrow night. We anticipate or no, excuse me, Wednesday night. then we'll be sharing that information with the commission. We're getting updated cost estimates based on now that we have basis of design to be able to say, we think it's gonna be this much. So that's, there's a lot of moving pieces on this right now.

Yes, so one follow up question, but first I'll start and say, I'm already anticipating so that that's going to be a big ask, right? This is going to be another I think it sounds like situation where we are provided a lot of information to digest in several days and then be asked to make a really big decision on it, including final designs, theoretically reports from community engagement and what the community has had to say, the actual language of the resolution and so forth. And we've had a fairly long timeline leading up to this, which brings me to my question. You made the comment that staff was given direction that it needed to go on the November 3rd ballot. Can you say more about that direction?

So in our conversations with our partners at the school and we were laying out in order to, again, if the decision is made to construct the deck in order to put us on a quicker schedule to be able to build the deck is November, for a voted millage, the November ballot is the first opportunity for us to be able to put it on that ballot. And there was enough interest expressed by the commission to say, yes, let's target this and whatnot. So that's why we're requesting or we'll have on the agenda for The third is, that's the deadline to get it on November 3rd ballot. Again, if commission's not ready to make that decision that evening, then we'll see who we're at at that point. If commission is comfortable, yes. And just to clarify a little bit, and you'll see this Wednesday night, when we talk about final design, there's still some architectural features, things of that nature, kind of the size of the deck, the operations as far as in-out accommodating for drop-off, those issues have been resolved. We've gotten through all the technical issues in regards to size, things of that nature. So we're comfortable at this point saying, yes, this can be built. This is, you know, whatnot. We do have some outstanding questions in regards to architectural features, things of that nature. But as far as number of level of the deck, things of that nature have been at a point where we're comfortable to present it to the commission and say, if you ask what you're being asked to build, it's this is this and this is that.

Yeah, I think this is just, I want to express that I'm feeling discomfort about having at most five days to talk to residents and constituents about how they feel about this leading into that August 3rd meeting.

I appreciate that. And to follow up on my previous comment, I'll duck out. You know, the work session with progressive AE, I mean, you cite city staff, you cite either a majority or members of, I'm trying to remember the verbiage that was used, of the commission. But again, that progressive AE work session and exercise, if it was not assessed in some manner that the commission can feel comfortable with, A, what was the purpose of it? And B, what was the outcome of it? I heard members of the commission and the mayors express concerns and hesitancy around the actual solution of the parking deck. So I assumed, again, there's a timeline here, but this now starts to feel a little compressed in terms of a timeline and if it has to punt till May. you know, things have to wait in life. But in terms of how that work session was scored, I'm uncomfortable in knowing without any sort of, you know, again, expect some kind of, you know, rubric or scoring sheet, but it seems rather highly interpreted in terms of what actual sentiment was taken out of that exercise.

If I may, just real quickly, is that our intention for the session was to provide that common language when we talk about a shared parking environment. We were not seeking commission direction on that evening, but when we talk about parking demands, level of service, all the terminology that we use at a staff level, as we start to engage the Commission on different parking management strategies that we wanted to give the Commission kind of a baseline of, okay, here's the world, the shared parking world, and that was the intent of having progressive there. We view that as the start of an additional conversation. Beyond the question of to deck or not, is there are some parking management strategies this commission may be asked to consider in the future and what those are. We're adjusting to our new normal with the high school lot being offline. We're getting a sense of where people are in our parking. We will see another shift in behavior at the start of the school. We know that's coming at us. staff is evaluating potential recommendations, in part waiting to see how's the system gonna react. We know that's coming at us in regards to that.

Yeah, I just wanted to piggyback off of this conversation of what was and wasn't that work session, because I think perhaps we all maybe thought it was something different. I thought it was that discussion on the overall system, And then like you said, commissioner Hunter, we all left with a lot of questions or ended with a lot of questions. And one of those questions was how do we pay for it? Which I think is what led to tonight. I don't think we have all the answers. I think we're working towards the answers. I have, I agree. Like August 3rd is coming very quickly. You know, at the same time, there's a reason for the deadline and the choices to be made. And if we're not ready, that's one thing. But I do want to speak a little bit for the schools and the system in that, as far as I understand, getting it on the November, the benefit of getting it on the November ballot, if that's what we want, is that there's a world in which the deck, if it's voted for, could be finished. when that temporary lot goes offline and then that's less disruption in the whole system. Now, I don't think it's worth rushing decision if we all have bigger concerns, but that, that like, to me, that is the like, okay, let's see what we can know. And if we can feel comfortable enough to say, this is a question to have in November and a conversation to have between now and November, because we aren't making the decision in August, we're deciding whether we think the community is ready to make its decision in November. So that's just my personal framing of it. And in the conversation, I've had phone calls with residents today over the past couple of weeks who followed that planning commission meeting and talking about the system and getting excited about the possibilities that a deck could provide us. To me, I think the schools need the two decks to function. The third deck is a possibility for the city that could open up those, you know, different parking solutions, such as, you know, maybe we do metered parking on Wealthy. Maybe we have more bike lanes, e-bike lanes. It just, to me, it gives those possibilities. And that's, to me, what's worth continuing this conversation. Just to provide that different perspective, I think we might have taken different things out of the meeting. And so I just thought I'd share mine.

Commissioner, if I may, just to clarify, you're referring to not decks, but two to three levels?

Yeah, sorry. Levels within a single parking deck.

Are we doing comments right now?

Is that what we're... Actually, right now, we're doing new questions. Okay. I have no questions. Sorry. We'll bring it back up here for comments. After the questions, I'd like to open it up to public comment, but go ahead.

I don't see in the briefing, if we were to do an initiative, what would the millage rate be?

There should be... Did I miss that? The chart from MSCI, if you look at the far right column, it has the projected rates.

So 0.35-ish? Yeah.

So initially, based on current taxable value and nominal growth of 2%. It starts at 0.51, and then by the life at the end of the bond, we'll be down to 0.35 mils. 0.51, okay. You know, put the caveat, all this is subject to if we do sell, when we go to, if we do sale and the actual sale date, that'll determine the interest rates. So it's something, it's a competitive bid process that we go through. especially for an issuance this size that we'll put out a, let me get on it right now, basically an offering statement. Here's all our financials, things of that nature, and then various financial institutions will submit bids to us, which are then evaluated by our outside independent financial advisors, and we'll receive the recommendation from them. And that would be true for voted millage and for a, um, if we were to do it with just general fund dollars, that process is the same.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for manager Charles? Okay. So at this time I will open up this agenda item for public comment. So if you would like to make public comment to this agenda item, um, about the potential parking deck on Bagley, now is the time to do so.

I have not been involved in the parking discussions at all. But I've wondered, does it ever come up about having driverless cars, and they really just drive their car to school, and they go home and park in the garage? Would that come up at all in any of the discussions?

I don't believe it has. Yes? It has? It did. OK.

Thank you, Mayor. That's all I needed to know.

Thank you, Mayor. If anyone else would like to make comment to this agenda item, now would be the time to do so.

Dennis Benoit, 420 Rosewood. I've lived in the community for 31 years. I've seen the previous high school millage program that took about eight years to build. This is a sizable one, obviously. I was against it to start with, but I shouldn't say that. Anyway, we're moving forward with a big improvement to this school. There's a sizable footprint in impact. And it sounds to me like listening to Mr. Charles that possibly there was a design flaw or design oversight that maybe caused this oversight of 75 spaces that now needs to be addressed with a potential additional level of the garage. I do not feel that this is the city's problem. I think the schools should take care of this if they have to increase the rate of their millage. fine. It won't affect the city's bonded millage capacity. I think, and it sounds to me like you're talking about taking maybe 12% of what the city spends on street funds and redirecting this to a parking garage. That's what I overheard from the numbers. Maybe I'm off with that, but that's, I'm not really in agreement with doing that. And I think as far as the schools, they should look at additional funding sources, school parking fees for students to discourage students from driving to school. When my kids went to high school, it seemed like a lot less kids were driving to school. That's what I'll say. I just see a lot of cars and there's a lot of streets. in the area that are gonna get parking pressure, even if there is a garage. Because if there's a garage, I think there's a lot of people that are personally having aversion to parking in a garage and they're gonna go out on the streets and walk a half a block rather than using a garage. I think I've covered everything I wanted to cover. Just double check here. Millage rates, yes. I think that's pretty much it. So, thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Welcome, Mr. Kronowski.

John Kronowski, 775 Bagley Avenue. Good evening. While there is a perception of a parking shortage in Gaslight Village, data from the March through May 2025 parking study indicates otherwise, I think. There was an article written by a Fox 17 reporter this past February who said the area contains 1,310 spaces. 726 are public spaces. 363 belong to the school and 221 are private, which can be used by the public. With peak utilization never exceeding 72%, well below the 85% threshold. Even with the loss of the 71 spots at East Grand Rapids High School because of the renovation, the study shows that existing capacity is sufficient. Despite this, the City is considering a partnership with the EGR School Board District to build a 14 million dollar mixed-use parking deck or structure on Bagley Avenue When the city of EGR and the school district asked the test Taxpayers to make an investment of this magnitude the standard cannot be we think it's a good idea The standard should be compelling evidence transparent analysis and and it demonstrated public need. I haven't seen that at all. This parking structure is totally unnecessary and financially excessive. $14 million for a parking structure. I was an educator for almost 50 years. You don't spend $14 million on a parking structure. which you can put back academically into the school. Furthermore, placing a deck designed for over 200 vehicles on a street only 600 feet long and 23 feet wide introduces significant safety, security, and environmental concerns. Increased traffic, noise, and pollution conflict with EGR's identity as a walkable, bike-friendly, and sustainable community. Additionally, maintenance costs are high, $150,000 to $200,000. Who's gonna pay that? As demonstrated by a recently demolished Gaslight Village deck, which is another story in itself. Fiscal responsibility isn't measured by how much the city can spend. It's measured by how carefully it spends money that belongs to its taxpayers. This is an economic and social issue, not an educational one. And I think the school district is trying to make it an educational issue. I urge the City Commission to pause this process, reconsider the partnership, and provide greater transparency and look at the alternative solutions that were considered for high school parking.

Thank you, Mr. Gronowski. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

My name is Anna Nielsen. I live at 739 Bagley and I agree with what John had to say. There's a lot of concerns with the parking ramp going in. I live on the street. It's already congested. And if I leave for work at that time in the morning, I can hardly pull out and leave. So there's a lot of questions I think we have about alternatives that haven't been answered. Um, and there was a letter on November 10, um, to Doug from progressive and it stated that after reviewing, hold on, um, after reviewing the options, uh, progressive recommended constructing the high school expansion without any parking improvements. So, uh, I want to make sure that everybody has seen this letter. and has read it, they also suggest in here busing pilot. And it could be a shuttle, but that's a great option that they have instead of spending, now it looks like $16 million, instead of, spending 16 million is a lot of money. So busing a pilot doing a shuttle, kind of like the hospital does, is a great option to consider. So I just would encourage all of you to reread this letter from progressive dated November 10, uh, seeing their recommendation of no additional parking and a busing pilot.

Thank you. Would anyone else care to make a comment to this agenda item? Now's the time to do so please. Mayor. Welcome. Hello.

My name is Niall Deem, 701 Laurel Circle. Just to try to be brief. It's interesting sitting back there and watching y'all go through this because it really doesn't make sense. I think I was gone for one of the joint meetings, but I've otherwise attended everything else in the meetings with the Bagley folks. And you all had the work session you've talked about somewhat. And if you remember that consultant that you hired and the sheet they put down and what it said, Schools Parking Problem. That was the bold title of their presentation to you. Schools Parking Problem. And the schools have a parking problem from the earlier speaker that pointed out they have a design flaw. And at the most recent meeting where your city manager and the assistant superintendent talked to some people from Bagley, they said that, yeah, we first noticed the parking problem in 2024. Now they're here to say, well, they've come up with the solution to be the city should join us to help pay for whatever this, I've watched the numbers float all over, $14 million or whatever for this parking ramp, which it's humorous, you can't even tell how big it is. They've called it three stories. The design they showed the Bagley folks as we were sitting there, it's four stories of parking. nothing really matches here the total numbers have been between it'll cost 11 million by the time you're through doing all the servicing and paying back the bonds to up to 18 million i've seen any number of sets run and what happened the school's parking problems they decided let's also make it the city's parking problem and then they said oh and by the way we're in a hurry so you got to hurry up and do this So they've not only dragged you into their problem, but they put a deadline for you to hurry up and jump in the pot before you've really sorted things out. You don't know how the development over at Gaslight Village will affect this and the parking garage that person is obligated to build under the contract you have with them from October 2025. And you haven't sorted out any of that and you're rushing to throw a 11 million or 14 million or something tax burden on your citizens that is citizens money that will be paid for this and it's not going to do anything to improve the quality of life of the people in east grand rapids thank you thank you mayor

Anyone else care to make a comment to this agenda item? Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Brent Slay. I live at 757 Bagley. Seems like it's an association meeting, but it really isn't. Just a couple of things. Needing a parking structure and wanting one are two different things. You might want one, but you don't need one. As Anna pointed out, Progressive Engineering in their letter to you said, it isn't needed. There's adequate parking for students off street. The other thing that there's been a lot of talk about the money, and that's a good thing to do, but it's really an issue about safety. pointed out before in a couple of remarks that I've made, I would invite you to come over and sit on our patio, watch the traffic on Bagley the way it is right now without additional congestion. It's this narrow street, semis park on that street every night. Kilwins, what's the big trucking company that has when they hire out for the people along, wealthy, to bring in their provisions. I mean, it's a mess. Kids, when they come out of the high school at noon, they don't walk to the corner and walk to the crosswalk. They run right across the street. I hit a kid once in Minneapolis that did that. You don't want that to happen here. And that's a safety issue. The other point that I would make is you've got three former mayors sitting in here. Judy Fry, until what, three or four months ago, owned one of the units. Bagley. When you have a couple of mayors, even though Anna Seibold, who isn't here tonight, but spoke before, and yeah, we're all getting old, but think about how many people voted for those mayors. And here they are telling you, you really don't need this. So money, yes, safety should be the overriding concern of what happens. to the kids and the citizens of this community. And that parking structure is going to enhance their safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Welcome back.

Thank you. Scott Damon, 625 Bridge Street. Commissioner Schwartz, as much as I love your idea about returning excess funds, the fact that this is a 69% Harris voting city, you guys will figure out a way to spend it, I'm sure. When we talk about parking, I come back to a memory from a commission meeting probably about a year ago. There was a gentleman, I think he's lived here for 50 years. He's parked his car 40 or 50 years on Plymouth Road. I can't remember his name. I believe he was a former managing partner of Varnum. All he wanted to do is save his parking space and take care of that garden that his late wife helped him set up. I remember that story. So every time I walk down Lakeside, I get a grin when I walk by the developer's house where all the parking spots have been cleared away so he has this beautiful view of his baby. Question I have just is on vision. There's been a lot of talk and Commissioner Skaggs was talking a lot about micro mobility. So we have micro mobility for the kids. You've just approved a lot of new concepts for sidewalks and whatnot and biking paths. So I'm curious, is this a micro mobility community or is this a driving community? I think that vision needs to be set before making these types of decisions. And I did watch the work session, Commissioner Wesley. I listened to a lot of salient points you made. I agree with you on your rationale for opposing the project. Thank you for expressing those. And really kind of as a wrap-up, we're talking about the potential of having this rush for a vote. That just seems completely irresponsible to even consider that. But there's these two other lingering options that have been proposed, which I'm really surprised by. But keep in mind that both those two other alternatives do not empower residents to vote. I think we're back at this stage now where we'd be very cognizant of residents with their ability to vote when we're looking at expenditures over $10 million. As a final piece, whether this is relevant or not, I obviously harbor a lot of skepticism with a lot of moves made around the PUD, and I do think that this is also a potential fallback to be a crutch for the not enough parking for the PUD, and that hasn't been stated, but I do have an opinion that this may be part of that. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Baxter, welcome. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Judith Baxter. I live on Hall Street. I agree with all the comments that have been made here by all the residents who took the time out of their day to come in here. They have obviously educated themselves on this proposal, educated themselves on the parking deck. They have data supporting their positions, not a lot of which I've heard from the discussions here by the commission. And I know it's early for all of you, but the data has come from the citizens again here in front of you. As a person who's been involved in law enforcement all my professional career, I would like to point out one thing that hasn't been discussed here. Enclosed parking structures are notorious locations for criminal activity. And that is something East Grand Rapids does not need. It's not part of the East Grand Rapids community. But enclosed parking structures, whether they have air conditioning and heating elements on the floors or air conditioning on the top or whatever, And you can conduct this, I ask you to consult your official, our chief of police and our East Grand Rapids public safety and notorious problems for law enforcement in theft, assaults, drug use, drinking, whether they're kids or adults, homeless people taking shelter there. It's a notorious problem and that has to be considered for safety of the people that use this parking deck. Finally, I'd like to point out to you that again, there has been no demonstrated need for this parking deck. This is a school problem, not a city problem. The city taxpayers have already paid a lot of money into that school millage to get that school redesigned and renovated. That is their problem. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay twice. That's a lot of money for the taxpayers to pay for something that's not a demonstrated need. You have the design people telling you that it's not needed. And like I said, wanting is different than needing. And the taxpayers' money should go to need, not wants. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Hearing none, I will close public comment and bring it up here since there's no motion, there's no vote tonight. It's just, if there's any other comments anybody would like to share before we move on.

Have we been provided with a copy of this letter from Progressive? I don't recall seeing it.

You have not. some nuance to that letter, I will share it with the commission. There's also a follow-up letter which progressively modified their comments as we shared that analysis with the schools and provided some feedback that led them to amend their letter. So we will get that to the city commission.

Thank you. Was it provided and discussed at the parking committee?

Yes, I was, yes. So to provide more color on that, I didn't realize everybody didn't have that. Do you guys want the letter?

No. We have it. We'll distribute it to everybody.

Thank you. So I'm trying to recall exactly the details of the letter, but it was It reflects what was said here. And I think what we've been saying and what we've heard from progressive when they came to speak to us, which is we have enough parking in the city. Like that, that is a bottom line. We have enough parking in the city. Um, the question is what is the level of service that residents want? Um, and then there's also, I think the related point that has been pointed out today by, by people here of, you know, this being a school problem. Um, and I don't want to like kick the schools, but like, this is what it is. It's school property. Um, and it is them trying to find parking for their, for their students and for their staff. Um, so, you know, we don't, the whole system doesn't need more parking, um, on paper, you know, as we have these discussions and discussions with a business owner today. I was like, sure, there's enough parking, but what's happening is school users are parking in our 15 minute parking, our two hour parking, and people can't come to our businesses. They're parking here. And so that's, I think it's more nuanced than that. And I think we should all see the letter to have the context to it. But I think it, I think in a large part, like we're all on the same page of like, there's technically enough parking. What do we want to do with that? Where do we go from there? The schools are trying to do what they need to do to fill their needs and maybe that's them doing a two deck, sorry, a two level deck. And then as we looked at other possibilities for the city, I don't know that it would have made sense to participate in other solutions. It's participating in the the possibility of participating in a third level of a deck that is a city's choice for opportunity. And as Mr. Damon noted, we have micro mobility goals. Does moving parking to a parking deck help us facilitate those goals? I happen to think so, but I think that's part of our bigger discussion here. Sorry, I don't want to go too far off track, but the letter itself was talking about how technically there is enough parking. Where do you want it?

Madam Mayor. Thank you. Yes. I only used two minutes. Can I have another 30 seconds?

I closed public comment. I'm sorry, sir. We're going to bring it up here. We're just having discussion here. But any comments you have beyond this, feel free to email our city clerk and she will distribute your comments to all of us. My apologies. Thank you. Any other comments to wrap this up?

I will just reiterate that this makes me feel even more frustrated that we do not have the information at this point in time and we have not been provided with the information over time leading up to this decision that we're going to be asked to make on August 3rd. You know, even in terms of having a presentation and a special session, we have not been provided the opportunity up here amongst ourselves to really grapple with this issue, debate the merits, ask tough questions and I really think that we need the opportunity to do that before we are asked to look at a resolution.

Yeah. I have not been compelled in the past to provide a written statement, but it's only 1,700 words. I'll read super quick, so hopefully it goes by. fairly quickly. But I just wanted to make sure all the thoughts were here on page. But I guess what I'm most concerned about here this evening is that, about this proposal, is that we're really at the point in time here this evening of debate and discussing the merits of how we're going to pay for it. We are, it seems, and it feels, at least to me, like we're endorsing this as the decision, and we're not looking holistically at the problem. We don't have all the information we need at this time. What I think we ought to be doing is starting with numerous ideas and eliminating options based on pluses and minuses as we go down a list. I would think that the commission would function. For instance, I mean, as just with this one option, I've heard a resident this past week say we could buy every single Bagley townhome for a million dollars and own an entire city block and have a million dollars to spare. So I'm concerned like many residents that amongst the other unfinished business and this being a one choice option in front of the city, that the agenda setters have placed this proposal in front of us as a commission this evening to the point that it is now. And it feels, I'll echo Commissioner Groff-Blazac, pretty frustrating to know that we're here at this point sometimes deadlines are deadlines and you choose to not make a decision just out of the threat of meeting the deadline. So I mean the what of parking garages is pretty simple and they are undeniably expensive both in original construction and an ongoing basis. I don't know many you know based on a simple revenue and and and Expense calculation, if this was a household budget, how many of us would be actually making this buying decision? So secondly, they're inefficient. Same amount of entries and exits, but four times the number of cars. They are unfriendly. So as we're seeing in downtown Grand Rapids, who's intentionally building less parking for the Akershire Amphitheater and the soccer field, that's by design, because we know that cars are unfriendly. They bring out the worst in an unfortunate combination of people and schedules. And most importantly, this violates our master plan and spirit and practice as it pertains to community character. So, but then there's the how of how we got here. You know, There's not a single taxpayer I've talked to in the last two weeks or month, I should say, who understands how the parking design really changed. We've heard that it did change, but we've heard safety concerns. We asked the next question, what were the safety concerns? And I'm not sure We ultimately know specifically what those are so when you know in the absence of facts confusion and frustration rain You know we've been told tonight that the fire lane and the kids drop off has been remedied But I've yet to see that except for a plan to say that we'll drop them off on wealthy Street I I guess in the middle of a street across from the restaurants and so forth. But more importantly, sharing the parking garage with the city is antithetical to both the city's goals and the school's goals. Those two populations cannot exist. We don't invite people into the school building without registering or going through some sort of vetting process to allow them in the front doors of our school. I don't think we should be allowing them in our parking garages. any individual that's not having school business parking next to my son or daughter in that parking garage. So again, the downtown Grand Rapids model and example for me really started to get me thinking that we are building structures today and designing cities around mobility. We're building them around friendliness and getting our steps in. And this seems like we're going in the exact opposite direction, really accounting for the variable of automobiles instead of people and mobility. So again, I've already mentioned my hesitations about how we got here in terms of the progressive AE study or the work session that we had. What I believe about this community, we're fairly academically focused group of long-term residents. This one possible solution business is not how many of us make decisions in our other organizations. Really, I feel it's beneath the Commission to be making a binary yes or no And with a timeline about a one single solution option. There are other options out there. I was called by a Salesperson essentially from a parking, you know, he's talking about parking meters she sells parking systems to cities. And so she explained that through technology that they've found ways to maximize parking spots. And it is through enforcement of long-term parkers for Commissioner Swartz's concern about people parking there all day. There's technology out there today. And I think we were all emailed it, unless I was the only commissioner who got it. And I took her phone call. She explained that there are ways Mitigate this and so not having a parking problem Right now as is this could even free up spots throughout the day more frequently like they do in gr By putting parking meters and some other technology in place You know, we we chose this work and And there's been some good moments, some tough moments, especially around the PUD. And I just feel like ushering in another wave of decision-making on a shortened timeframe and without all the information And with a one-choice option really just limits the the true ability for the City Commission to Work with residents to find the right solution. I would be in favor of also this evening I Guess or next meeting if it were to come up with a vote Adding the language that if the litigation is not decided upon in our favor regarding the PUD that this goes away entirely Because we cannot be making as one of the residents said a decision about parking without knowing the outcome of that In fact, we really shouldn't be waiting on the outcome of that before deciding on this so I I just feel like, as it's been said in the past, maybe I said it, maybe somebody else said it, that it's a solution in search of a problem. I would love to see behaviors change, us do nothing and pause on this, gather more information and just see if kids might walk an extra two blocks to school and if businesses really could not see that much of an impact to their bottom line in Gaslight as well. So thank you.

OK. First of all, I appreciate everyone coming out and sharing their opinions. And I think the last meeting I've said quite a bit about my position and how I started thinking. And initially when I first came, when this first kind of crossed my desk with the idea of a parking deck, I was pretty potentially excited to think, okay, what are those positives? But as I started to dig more and realizing that, yeah, we are pushed up against a time limit, and understanding the costs that are involved with the parking deck, I just, I lost my taste for a parking deck. I can talk all about that, but I'll save a lot of that for a more eloquent written out thought process at our next meeting on August 3rd. I think what the staff is looking for is just some direction going, hey, if I'm understanding it right, it's going, OK, we have now essentially three options if we do want to pay for this. three options. And if we're like, hey, option one makes the most sense, that's what's going to be kind of weaved into the decision or the proposal or the thing that we consider on August 3rd. So option one, again, is Option one and option two are bonds, basically, right? One, that we can pull a bond, but we need the approval from the public. Number two, option two is we pull a bond. We don't need the public to vote and weigh in on. And the third one is just dipping into some general funds to spend money today for, projected potential money coming tomorrow. Okay. So with that being said, I'm just going to speak specifically on that and then I'll say my opinions on the actual deck and what's made best for East in the next meeting. So with that being said, I think out of the three options, again, I don't know if I'm, It's hard because I really am hesitant to spend any of our money and our tax money on any of this. But I think that knowing that we're not confined, we're not handcuffed this time when it comes to following the law, whether it's saying, OK, this is a legislative versus judicial or administrative, it's very clear that we could and this is what was kind of I think the general gist of what came out of that subcommittee is like well you know let's just hey let's just let the public decide and if they don't want it well then they vote it down and okay um I'm concerned that we're putting a We're basically putting a target on our back. We're already dealing with a lot of emotion with the gaslight development. And to champion something like this is concerning. So out of the three options, the lesser of the three evils, in my opinion, would be option one, let the public weigh in. Option two is, I think, is a huge, huge mistake to try to make a decision that's, you know, starting at $7 million and upwards to maybe $10 after it's all paid for. That's a big decision that I don't feel comfortable making without the public weighing in on. And then the last one is spending, I mean, I think it's just... Personally, as a business owner, it's really bad business to spend money today with a potential of making some money, having that money tomorrow to cover that expense. I think that's a real, that's not a very fiscally smart move, in my opinion. So again, Just to recap, I think the lesser of the three evils would be option one, but I do have some significant concerns about the deck in general. And former Madam Mayor, I was the one that brought up the self-driving cars and the idea of what future brings. I think we're, again, on the cusp of finding that cars in a full parking deck may not be may not be needed even as close as within a 10 year period. We may find other, we're already finding that there are other modes of transportation and their technology is just, it's going so fast that legislation can't even keep up with how to regulate this stuff. So we see this trend and also just Laura kind of talked a little bit about what the architects said, their report back in November. Again, if you follow my track record, I watch and I listen to the experts, because I don't know what I don't know about parking and all this, and they give you a lot of numbers and it's really helpful. But they were the ones that threw out a bunch of other ideas of what we could do or what the school could do And the parking that was the last they said hey you try to go without it if you can because it is expensive the maintenance is insane and we already have a potential parking that coming in across the street potentially so and then then we had this whole what do you call it, when we had the icebreaker with the architects again. If you notice, reading between the lines, they're basically saying, look, they're trying to prove to say, look, parking deck spaces themselves are not only just wicked expensive, but they take up even more space than surface or street parking. I'm just reading what they're essentially trying to guide us to say and based on the data that they have. And I'm really curious to see what The information we get, was it in about next week or week and a half from now? But what I'm gathering is that they're like, hey, pump the brakes. And they're like, we exhausted everything. And I think the answer is we haven't exhausted everything. And we do want to be good stewards to the school. We do want to be good partners. But we have a, our first job is to be fiscally responsible. We have fiscal responsibility for the city. And I guess we have to listen to the experts. And if they're saying, hey, we have enough, maybe the level of service is not quite where we want it to be, it is what it is and i think especially now after the last meeting when we were talking about what expanding potential parking at waterfront park and i felt a little bit like well no one wanted to discuss that idea of expanding it and now i'm and uh but we're still considering a parking deck which doesn't it doesn't seem like it makes a whole lot of sense because it's a lot cheaper to um to put that over at waterfront Expand parking there and that would be something that property that we would actually own and control So again, I again, I guess I did it again. I just kind of went on a rant bit, but I apologize but again I'm not a fan of any of the options, but if I to choose one I choose option one. Thanks.

Thank you Did you want to follow up with anything sure I appreciate that we all come at this as problem solving moment from a different perspective. And what's rolling through my mind here as we're talking and I'm thinking is the land use perspective. And that's the question that I'm asking myself and that I'm concerned about from a systems perspective is surface lots might be lower cost, but they don't necessarily provide the highest value. And I think that's the question that I wanna ask and I wanna know the most about. I understand the arguments about the schools and kids making different decisions about driving to school. Your kids might make different decisions than other people's kids make. But if that was a business that was in our downtown, we would be throwing a fit if the city was just like, eh, people will park where they park. I don't think that that would fly. So I think we do have to be really intentional and thoughtful about a solution. I also think that if once we have this piece of the puzzle it might influence other portions of development that are coming into gaslight village also always keeping in mind commissioner burdick talked about it quite a bit last time we had this discussion the dnw lot it's privately held it can go offline at any moment and we we need to be systems based here so i'm also thinking a lot about can we do this without asking residents to pump more money out of their own wallets into an ask for the city. Five mils is not a ton. At the same time, this is just a really, really difficult moment in time for a lot of families in Eastern Rapids is no exception. And so to ask for more when we have the opportunity potentially to do it with what we have within the means we have, that's important to me. That we take a really hard look at the finances and understand if this is a value that we believe in and want, can we afford it without asking for more? That's where I'm at. That's basically it.

Commissioner, if I may, just real quickly, you mentioned five mills. You mean, I think you meant 0.5 mills? Sorry, yes.

And five decks.

And five decks, yeah. Just from as a way of information to provide, is there any kind of outstanding questions in regards to the financing piece that staff can provide, or do you think we've been able to? Just want to make sure I've answered the the funding question setting aside to deck and all the other system questions But were there any kind of specific questions to the financing mechanisms?

If not tonight over the course of the next you know few days weeks feel free to reach out I do have one more question.

I don't do you want to I don't know if you've given your comments, and I can save my questions Go ahead. Okay. So, sorry, this is Lily. I was looking through my notes from talking with folks this week. So talking to people who are interested in the deck and the possibility, but also skeptical operationally, I'm wondering if staff can come back to us with answers to a couple of questions for our discussion in August. And the main sticking point with residents is, And we've all seen the information that during the school day, top two floors would be dedicated to staff or students. And so one question there is from the schools, will it be students? Will it be just seniors? Will they have permits? Will it be just staff? What I've been hearing is a desire for that to be something for staff, like as a nice thing for teachers and admin to have covered parking and dedicated parking. It also would potentially relieve some of the burden. You wouldn't have kids scooting out in between classes and putting more traffic on badly. So there's a question of what are the school users for those top two decks? And then for the main floor that would be open to public use for gaslight businesses throughout the day, how do we make sure that students don't use that? Will the schools be committing to policing it? Do they have a plan? Are they going to have a teacher down there saying, come on, you're a junior, get out of here, go park somewhere else? What does that look like to make sure that If we, as a city invest in this, that we're getting that return. And it's not just, you know, not, not saying that juniors in high school, aren't also residents, but the point is to help our downtown businesses and to help us, you know, shift parking into the group. I shouldn't say our point. My goal would be to shift parking from other sources into the garage so that we have those mobility lanes. for other people. So the real like function questions of, sure, yeah, it sounds great. We're going to have a whole main floor, you know, lower floor parking for business users. But how do we make sure that's actually how it works?

Actually, I had a business owner reach out to me with that very same question today. And so, yeah, thanks for bringing that up.

Might have been the same one.

Yeah, and I guess one follow-up question as well that was in my notes was, you know, how specifically was that fire lane issue resolved and the drop-off concerns for both, well, all clubs and activities I think have used that parking lot, but specifically the EGR waves, I think their youngest participants are eight years old. And it's year round, but it's obviously more intense in the winter time when it's pitch dark out. So that drop off dynamic is still one that if it has been resolved, I'd like to know logistically what that looks like, and then as well, were those constituent groups, those activities and clubs consulted in that process? That might be more of a school's question, I'm not sure.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, and thanks everyone for showing up and providing comment. Appreciate it. So next on the agenda is the approval of the consent agenda items. May I please have a motion and second for approval of tonight's consent agenda items?

So moved. Second.

All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? Motion carries. So next on the agenda is to go into an executive session. We are to consider entering into a closed session to receive updates On collective bargaining in accordance.

Sorry, that one's wrong. It's for attorney-client communication this evening. Okay. Yes, I know. She was wrong.

It's right on my paper.

May I please have a motion and a second to go into executive session?

So moved. Second.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Hunter. Yes. Commissioner Groff-Lasek. Yes. Commissioner Schwartz. Yes. Commissioner Skaggs.

Yes.

Commissioner Wesley.

Yes. Mayor Vivaldi. Yes. Commissioner Perry. And we will not be coming back. There will be no deliberation, no votes taken, so we will not be coming back. So this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.