City Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay great it's six o'clock then I'm gonna call this meeting to order. Everyone can please stand and join us in saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay, first on the agenda is the approval of this evening's agenda. Commissioners, do we have anything to add or take away from this evening's agenda? Okay, hearing none, I will move on to public comment. Is there anyone here tonight that would like to make public comment to something that is not on tonight's agenda? Now is the time to do so, please. Welcome, Mr. Damon.

Thank you. Scott Damon, 435 Lakeside Drive, Southeast. of want to make an overarching comment maybe provide an insight political insight and then talk real briefly on accountability with hopes that some of that will be happening in the near future earlier this month in a matter of six days a new path for egr was validated on august the 4th commissioner groff won the senate seat she collected District-wide, 47% of the vote, but in her home district, against a hometown opponent, she collected 61% of the vote. That's an outperformance of 30% in EGR. On August the 10th, a judge in Kent County sided with the democratic process and determined the PUD concept plan null and void. Why is the six days so important? Spanning back a few years back, many on the commission, including the mayor, were elected as part of a slate. That same slate pushed the now deemed null and void PUD through. It'd be my opinion that members of that slate offered some disrespect to Commissioner Groff. My point and the insight that I'm gonna offer, the political capital of that slate has expired. Second point is accountability. The judge made what was deemed a clear and obvious decision. The sky is blue. The process of this almost a year of time that wasted time for a productive development that needs to happen cost piles of money, taxpayer money, and residents who felt compelled for justice and created additional resident discourse. So I hope, Mayor, that we can move a path forward in taking those insights and hopefully create accountability to what happened recently. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Damon. Would anyone else care to make public comment to something that's not on this evening's agenda? Now's the time to do so. Welcome.

Good evening. I have lived here in East Grand Rapids for 18 years. Paid taxes, voted, supported local restaurants, attended cultural and sporting events, served on the board of directors at Lakeshore Club condos, and done my best to be a good citizen. I live very close to land that has been vacant for 20 years. It would be great to have development there, great. It would be great if you, the city commission, would support a plan seven to zero, a plan that enhances our city, that matches the character of East Grand Rapids, that is harmonious with the surrounding area, something we can all be proud of. Over the last two years, a plan was proposed for development, and you voted on that plan on October 6, 2025. I signed a protest petition that was presented to you on October 6th that said, quote, the reason for the protest include the proposed project's density, lack of adequate parking, lack of adequate setbacks, likelihood of creating traffic problems, and inclusion of buildings that are too tall to be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. That's what I signed on August 29th, 2025. Pretty simple. What was proposed was just too big and too much for the surrounding area. You folks on the commission chose to ignore this petition on October 6th. And your legal position in your statements to the court claimed that I, Anna Moore Butzner, did not have standing to bring this lawsuit. Well, last Monday on the issue of standing, Judge Quist said he was agreeing with the plaintiffs. with the plaintiff's documents, and that would be the finding of the court. Our attorney, Chris Zdarsky, had stated multiple times in our motions that I did have standing. And last Monday, Judge Quist agreed. The protest petition was valid, and the ordinance amendment did not pass. Judge Quist ruled it null and void. Now we need to make a clean slate. We all want development. Let me say that again, we all want development. Please help get the process started again and include residents that live in the area, business owners in the area, residents from all parts of East Grand Rapids. Work toward a plan that you can approve seven to zero. You represent the residents, people like me. Listen, please listen to us. Thank you, Ms. Butzner.

Next, please. Welcome. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Commissioners. I am Russ Afton. I live on Maxwell Avenue, 948 Maxwell. I just had a few statements about the same thing that you've been hearing about already. My family and I have lived here for 39 years in East Grand Rapids in the same home. Our five children went to school here, worked with businesses, city, county governments, working with folks just like you and other organizations that are government-wide. I've invested time at the high school as president of the wrestling team, working with the Christmas tree lighting ceremony, the group, the city gaslight village business group. worked with boosters, worked with all kinds of things, so I have invested a lot into this community and into what we are building here. Maxwell Avenue, where I live, is a parking destination. Even though it's a residence area, it's a parking destination for people who are visiting here for sporting events, for activities at the high school, for recreation department events, the runs, all of those kind of things. Our street is normally full with parking at all times. I have, with five kids, have had a lot of problems getting cars in and out of the driveway because we have to stack them. Beyond that, those of us that live on Maxwell do a lot of walking up to the city center here. to shop, to attend events and do all that. And we've noticed over the last 20 years, the vacant area that we all would like to have developed. You heard it just a moment ago, we would like it developed. Now, moving forward with that, I was one of the seven plaintiffs that filed a lawsuit to stop the movement of the plan that was up. One of those people I also was out collecting and brought forth the petition and got signatures from people Because I disagreed with your movement forward back in October with that plan That plan was for a massive build in the city here that doesn't meet our character Doesn't meet our charm and I don't think it met our needs it just just was oversized Could cause parking issues could cause traffic issues I also have very concern with the new parking structure that's about to be started soon, and then having that development, having all three of them with the one at the high school now, being circling the inner city section, that we were going to be killing businesses, putting them out of business because there's so much construction going on. So, please keep that in mind as you go forward thinking about the next plan. Yeah, the four to three vote on October 6th didn't make me happy. I understood what you were doing, but it didn't make me happy. So, and following forward, the court ruled in favor of us, as you know. Was happy to have that because what I'd really like to see is a plan put together that includes the development and growth of this city, the use of that property properly, and the movement forward with a 7-0. We all would like a 7-0 agreement in support of a new plan. I'm looking forward to having a plan come forward and looking forward to being part of other meetings that we can hear what that plan's gonna look like and be like. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Astin. Next, please. Welcome, Doctor.

Evening, Mayor, Commissioners, Nancy Pattison, 2104 Gorham Drive, Southeast. Good to see you. I am here to discuss three things briefly. One, listening to the commissioners talk about our tax money, I would really, really, really, really like if you would quit spending our money so freely. Every year as I've said before my taxes go up and I pay $20 a day in Property taxes that that's a lot of money. So please think about a budget to parking at one point I believe I understand that the commissioners voted to allow the developer to remove the second story of their parking deck. And what I'd like to see happen is since they removed it and they're going to need it in their development, that with the new development you encourage them to build parking first before they run out of money. Because I know parking is really expensive. And they had suggested at the planning meeting that they would do that last. No, do that first. And that will do a couple of things. Then we don't have to extend waterfront park parking. We citizens don't want to pay for waterfront park parking for the PUD. And number two, you're going to find out that nobody wants to support the parking garage on Bagley. I mean, $9 million, really? Okay. That's not just, you know, that's not going to happen. So have the developers do their parking structure first. And lastly, yes, the citizens prevailed in court and I understand that there's probably going to be a discussion on whether you guys should appeal against we the citizens and continue to fight for the developers. And when you go into private session later this evening, please don't fight us. No more lawsuits us against you guys realize that we are committed to having a smaller development and we expect you to understand that and vote with that and I appreciate your time.

Thank you, Dr. Patterson. Next, please. Welcome, Mr. Decker.

Hello. David Decker, 925 Belle Claire. So Gaslight Village Responsible Development is one of the seven plaintiffs that filed the lawsuit against the City of East Grand Rapids last November. I'm the treasurer of Gaslight Village Responsible Development. It's a ballot question committee registered in Kent County that circulated the referendum petition And a side note, just jumping ahead here, the volunteers that circulated these petitions would do that again if they need to. But we're not there. Back to the present. Last Monday, Judge Quist ruled null and void for the PUD amendment. From that written order, point number six, the city's approval of the PUD amendment is null and void. when he talked he also addressed the question was the 2025 amendment of the pud ordinance administrative or legislative and he said that the court finds that it was legislative and one of the reasons was because the city commission treated it as legislative when they went through the process pretty crazy we've all gone through a legal process a lawsuit over the last 10 months. Hard to believe. And now it's up to you and your co-defendant to make the next move. Will you accept the judge's decision or will you appeal? We're looking forward to hearing what the result is. I can tell you that residents want to see the city commission get to work on a new plan for development To set a goal for yep a seven to zero Approval something that we can all get behind and support, you know hold meaningful thoughtful discussions with residents Document and share what you want the concept plan to look like and how to meet legal standards for approval of a PUD Get the case law which you didn't have the last time to help define character and harmonious with the surrounding area. It's out there in the state of Michigan. Share that case law with residents and discuss openly how you and other residents can join together to support a concept plan that works for the residents and for the developer.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Decker. Next please. Anyone else care to make public comment at this time to something that's not on this evening's agenda? Okay, hearing none, I will close public comment and bring it back up here for the report of the mayor and city commissioners, including committee liaison reports. Start with you, Commissioner Hunter. All right. Anything tonight?

Yeah. echoing some of the words of some of the residents in attendance tonight. My remarks are that obviously we've had this series of events occurring over the past few weeks, resulting in what we now know as sort of a summary of the events of the past few years. You know, if you're a member of the EGR responsible development group, you were fairly crystal clear on what was happening, but now, you know, the rest of us are taking stock of it. And that is the collective voice from the message being sent by voters on a myriad of different elections, public commenters on their variety of topics, voices from up here on the commission. And now a judicial system have agreed that it appears the city commission, and EGR City staff have not been listening to the residents. Taken from a Commissioner's point of view, there has been a lack of inclusion and dialogue around topics prior to them appearing on the agenda. There's been a suppression of opinions regarding PUD and the input that comes with a small margin, like a four to three margin, kind of having a, you know, we have the votes mentality. An agenda that's both literally and figuratively seems to be void of a systemic or organic decision-making process. for setting priorities and goals for the city, as well as allowing those commissioners input prior to its biweekly creation of that agenda. So the process has felt absent. We get that in terms of its ability to speak to the greater whole. attempting to understand each commissioner's input, which is really input from you, our residents, often opting for oftentimes a forced and hurried analysis by commissioners, just days or in some cases hours preceding us sitting here speaking to those issues. So for the resident groups and individuals, I'm sorry that it took so many of you to prove that you weren't the small, vocal minority. I'm sorry it cost you the unknown amount of money and legal fees and for the investment of time and effort to ensure that you had a voice and a legal standing in these oftentimes tense negotiations. However, the good news is that we now know there is a different way, and I'd like to just offer up a few solutions tonight. What if this commission endeavored to enact a meeting of the whole? I know we've talked about that in the past. It's done in other municipalities. This meeting allows for commissioners to see, hear, and begin to feel out the information being proposed to first begin understanding, you know, it's oftentimes complex matters, but also in the space allow for a straw poll to be taken then around whether the idea should actually appear on the agenda. If this is not possible, should we maintain that a phone call or email is proactively sent by a member of the city staff, mayor or subcommittee to participants to include the other commissioners on these issues being discussed? You know, we've all reached out to each other in the past, and I would say that as residents, your voice is pretty clear in that you'd like to have us be doing that more prior to coming into these meetings. None of us like to see some of the, you know, events that have unfolded here on the dais, as far as some of the communication and other, you know, interactions we've had up here. But, You know, the neighbors, my neighbors, fellow residents, you know, we do deserve a process that's transparent, it's understandable, so that commissioners can both before, during, and after help to educate and take questions in and feedback from our residents. And, you know, I would like to thank all those that, you know, carried the mantle far before I was here, two and a half, you know, short years ago, and that have shown the leadership to kind of have a lot of these changes take place. But to, again, you, our residents, it seemed like a lot. And we hear that. So it's my hope that with these large and important projects that require significant public and commissioner contribution, that the input far before an item appears on the agenda is brought forth, that it receives proper input from all those involved. And underscoring that point in the coming weeks, let's take up and explore what it could mean for not only a committee of the whole to be enacted, but also this, that the beginning date on a revised concept plan to be submitted to the EGR Commission no sooner than November 15th, 2027. for the next new PUD. This will allow a new commission with a fresh set of eyes to take up this project again. Think about it, if we pursue it sooner with all the steps that we now know are required in this process, it could be rushed and hurried. versus us as commissioners speaking to residents once again, re-engaging with a fresh, clean slate, beginning to dialogue also with the developers and his business partners to immediately better understand their end goals for this project in terms of both its function and design and financial matters, Then once a new commission is seated, the process for approval will flow much more easily and more efficiently than last time and hopefully benefiting all stakeholders involved. So thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Burdick, did you have anything you'd like to add?

Well, thank you all for coming out and speaking to this. I look forward to hearing more on the decision from our city attorney. during our closed session. As for steps moving forward, I'm just curious to hear what's gonna happen there, because as I see it, we don't have a seat at the table right now. It's kind of back in the court of the developer, and if he wants to bring a new PUD or not, and kind of like the last 22 years, it doesn't seem like we've ever had a way to compel him to do that. So that's up to him. I'd love to see development, but Ball's kind of in their court on that one at this point right now, but like I said, I look forward to, that's kind of my initial feelings on it, but I look forward to hearing more from our city attorney on that later. And a much more fun note, I want to remind everybody that Wednesday, starting at four, is the rally on Reeds Lake. It's the third year we're doing it. It's our girls volleyball team at the high school. They play outside on the football field. It's a super cool event. It takes place alongside the Taste of East, which is also happening in Gaslight. So everybody get out. The weather looks great for it again, which is incredible seeing as it's outdoor volleyball. But I will be there and I hope to see a bunch of other people there as well. That's all I've got.

Great. Thanks for the reminder.

Commissioner Skaggs? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I did not realize that she was not going to be here tonight, but I want to certainly congratulate Commissioner Graf Blazek on her victory in the Democratic primary for state Senate. She ran the race that she wanted to run and focus on the people that she hopes to serve. and looking forward to impressive things from her in Lansing and wish her all the best in higher office. I was gonna also talk about the rally on Reeves and taste of East. So I would just say thank you in advance to all the partners, staff and volunteers who put on this like truly incredible showcase event for East Grand Rapids.

Great. Thank you. Well, I won't echo all of that. I just, as we'll point out though, in terms of process this evening, our executive session, we are not voting on anything. So after our executive session, we will not be coming back to chambers just as a heads up on the process for tonight. Go ahead.

The only two things I'd like to add is we are having a ribbon cutting Thursday, four o'clock at John Collins Park for some new historic signage. organized by the GR History Room, Mary Dersh. So everybody's welcome to join us. We'll be closer to the docks or?

Yes, it'll be in between the upper seating area above the restrooms and the boat launch along the sidewalk.

Look for Derek.

And Mary.

And then secondly, You will see some maintenance work on our concrete crosswalks in Gaslight Village. That work will not impact Taste of East, or rather reads our intent to get in, get out before school starts. So you will see that over the next, starting tomorrow? Correct. Okay. So with that, that's all I have.

Great. Thank you. All right. Then we'll move to the regular agenda items. First on the agenda is to consider the introduction of amending chapter 32, section 3.38 regarding public ways or clear vision areas. And that introduction is by deputy city manager, Mr. Lefebvre.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Commissioners. As is outlined in the memorandum for this first reading this evening for Chapter 32, Section 3.38, the city's had clear vision triangles in place adjacent to driveways and properties that have been intersecting with streets for many years. And generally that's worked well. However, we have seen some different landscaping trends, most notably around some more of the wildflower type habitat. and it seems to be migrating into the right-of-way and unfortunately some of those plants can reach some heights that create some issues for us in the right-of-way. So as I've noted in the memorandum with some photos and measurements, we don't have any sort of enforcement mechanism for those because those are exempt from the grass provisions or weed provisions because they're neither. So what we are recommending is that as is noted in I'll put this up here. Zoom in on that. As close as you can in the graphic. Currently, the ordinance for street side has a private property, a 20 foot by 20 foot triangle here that's noted in red. I know it's a little hard to see maybe on the screen. What we're recommending is that we don't change the dimensions of any of those, but we just project those to the streets, which picks up the right of way there too. So that way when we're looking at, or the city staff's looking at, or we receive complaints from residents regarding seeing vehicles that are backing out by sidewalks or into streets, that we can keep those areas clear so people can see children and others. The other piece to this is a reduction in vegetation height from three feet or 36 inches down to 30 inches when consulting with some other communities with these types of ordinances, really to align with the height. We've provided some information from the CDC, the height of children, young children, and as well as those mobility-assisted wheelchairs, and lower-profile vehicles for that site line being right around 30 inches. So we tried to essentially keep the ordinance provisions very similar to what they are, but just make sure that they're covering other areas where we want residents to be able to enjoy gardening and having those native plantings, but we want to make sure they're also safe for residents and guests, vehicles, pedestrians, and mobility users. So that's essentially what we've covered here this evening. So I'm happy to answer any questions that any of you may have on these requested amendments.

Any questions for Mr. Lefebvre on this agenda item? No? Okay, thank you. Okay, if I could have a motion and a second on this agenda item.

Second.

Okay. Quickly, before we go to discussion, I will take public comment on this agenda item. If anyone here cares to make public comment to this item? Okay. Hearing none, is there any further discussion, commissioners?

I was hoping, can we just walk through the notification process? I see it's noted in here how that works, but I was hoping you could just Speak to it a little bit.

Sure, in terms of violations or?

Yeah, if somebody's violating. And then how also is that determined? Does somebody, a neighbor call in or are you guys driving around and you notice it?

It's kind of both. We don't necessarily actively look for these things. However, if they're obvious and we have a job site or something right there, we're not going to ignore a hazard or concern. And certainly we have residents who report these as well. We typically will start with a notification more on education. Oftentimes residents are just unaware of the situation. So we start with the education piece and then we'll request a timeframe for it to be mitigated or a plan essentially. And based off of that, we do have deadline. And if it's not met, then we will proceed with removal according to the specifications from that point.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, we can go to a vote. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right, motion carries. Next, we have to consider approval of the draft community center code of conduct, and that introduction is by City Manager Charles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Before you have a draft code of conduct for the community center, kind of our general public areas, we have rules and regulations as they are associated with room rentals, things of that nature. However, we had some behaviors last winter from some patrons that realized that we had no general rules of conduct for our general common areas. The team took a look at what our partners at KDL have for their code of conduct for their buildings. that applies to all the KDL properties. To that end, we developed the attached code of conduct for city commission consideration modeled primarily off of the KDL policy. So we have alignment for both what happens inside the library and then also what happens outside. So we put in for reference the KDL section. So you cross-reference this. We wanted to make sure both policies aligned so there's no conflicting on which side of the line you were standing on. So with that, we are requesting approval this evening. Infrastructure and Finance did have an opportunity to review this prior to consideration this evening.

And they found it to be in order?

They found it to be in order. They had a couple of small changes that we have incorporated in the proposed code of conduct.

Perfect. Thank you. Any questions for Manager Charles? Commissioner Skaggs, do you have a question?

I was going to make a comment. Oh, sure. Do you want me to save it? I will. Go ahead. I was just going to say that we had a really robust discussion in committee about this and wanted to make sure that we provide a welcoming environment in our community center and that it's a place where we're not stigmatizing people who are unhoused. So you see that reflected in the edits that were made.

Thank you for having that discussion and, you know, having that robust discussion, because, yes, we want it to be welcoming, but also with, you know, behaviors. So thank you. Any other questions for Manager Charles on this? No? Okay. Anyone joining us this evening that would like to make public comment to this agenda item? Now would be the time to do so. Thank you and welcome.

Good evening. I have my notes on the phone. I don't own a printer. That's all right. Kyle Cunningham, 961 Maxwell Avenue. As a longtime East Grand Rapids resident, class of 2004 graduate, and a current father of four young children in the district, I care deeply about maintaining a safe, welcoming community where families can comfortably use our public facilities. Over the last two years, my family has personally experienced both criminal activity and a significant discomfort when using both the library and the city center. I had my bike stolen from an office located in Gaslight Village. which was sourced back by public safety detective to an individual frequently using only the IT services at the library. A verbal assault against my wife while she was in the parking lot with my children in the library parking lot and more recently witnessing a shirtless individual washing himself immediately outside the library entrance on a Sunday afternoon. In addition, I have also personally observed and documented individuals regularly sleeping in the common areas of the community center with such consistency and the behavior resulted in a persistent unpleasant odor. I support the city's efforts to establish a community center code of conduct to address this issue. I've been in frequent contact with the city officials over the last three months. Thank you to both city officials and the public safety for addressing this. I also believe the code needs to be specific and enforceable enough to address recurring inappropriate use of facilities and the public's safety officials to keep the community safe and enforceable. In particular, I would ask that the one-hour IT and computer use limit be explicitly enforced, address odor from poor hygiene or marijuana use on every occasion, that sleeping prolonged and prolonged occupation of common areas, particularly the bathrooms, have consequences for every individual. Finally, repeated violations should be documented and subject to meaningful enforcement. and use of the facilities. My concern is not who someone is or where they live, but whether their conduct allows families, especially women and children, to feel safe and other residents to comfortably use a public facility that is intended for its intended purposes and the misuse capable of enforcement. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else joining us that would like to make public comment to this agenda item? Hearing none, I will close public comment and bring it up here for a motion and a second.

So moved.

I will second. Any further discussion, commissioners? Okay. Then all those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next on this evening's agenda, we have to consider amending the on-street parking regulations policy as noted. That introduction is by Deputy City Manager, Mr. Lefebvre.

Good evening again, Madam Mayor and city commissioners. The city currently has had a longstanding policy in place, as noted in the memorandum, where we have a petition process that moves through committee, multiple reviews by city staff, and ultimately all the way up to the city commission level to change parking restrictions on residential streets, essentially depending on what the review shows in accordance with what's preferred by residents of those specific streets. And what staff is requesting is kind of a two-prong approach here. One where we take an approach similar to what we've taken with some of the traffic calming procedures so we can make those more streamlined for residents for the implementation. So following a similar model that we have in place for traffic calming with speed cushions, if we have a section of street that has a desire for whatever the parking restrictions are, if they submit to city staff petitions at 80% of what that change is that we review, that would authorize myself as the Director of Public Works to implement those changes for those blocks. And that would be, as is noted in the policy, in the residential zoned areas specifically. and then also keep in place the process for those thresholds who might be less than that, let's call it a super majority or super, super majority that's above 50% and in that bandwidth that would then move through the existing process through all the way up to the city commission. So essentially it's giving those streets that really have a cohesive Approach with one another for us to be able to take care of something like that and more of like a month-long process Versus something that takes a lot longer In understanding we did leave that in the policy that we can also staff depending on what the request is Because we don't know what they all can be that we can defer Any requests that are really outside of what we would typically see under normal purview to the City Commission as well also noted in the the recommended policy amendment. We did just specifically call out some other things that we already do in terms of temporary parking for road closures, those types of things for construction. They're not necessarily listed in a policy, but certainly are a part of what we do, just so it's clear to the residents and the public of who's making those decisions and why. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have this evening.

Any questions for Mr. Lefebvre?

Um, yeah. Does this give, um, I think I know the answer to this, but does it give city staff any additional latitude or flexibility with, with creating any of the new restrictions or is this going to be entirely resident led and originated?

Entirely resident. I mean, we don't, uh, you know, every there, you know, from one street to the next, there can be different types of situations that happen throughout the community. And we recognize that that sort of variety of parking needs depending on where residents are located. So we really want to put that in the hands of the residents. And what we would do is if we had a request from residents to say, hey, we would like to change parking, as noted here, we would do a mock up of what that would look like, accounting for things like fire hydrants, driveway approaches, those types of things, so we can show them exactly where parking could be restricted outside of time limitations, those types of things, close to intersections, and provide that to that resident so they can go and talk to their neighbors to see if they can build that consensus at least to that 80% threshold. And if they do sign off on that after reviewing that, then that would empower staff to implement. So really the goal is to really allow that interaction with residents on their specific street for their specific needs and impacts. And then just with that being that majority, because of course we'll never probably get everybody right, but we've seen that be pretty effective with a couple installations of speed cushions where it's really empowered those neighborhood groups to work with staff for a decision. And we've seen great success with that and we felt based off of these requests that sometimes it can be so prolonged that it doesn't serve the more immediate needs of residents. And so we wanted to look at that as a model and the success there with this policy as well.

Any other questions for Mr. Lefebvre?

I just wanted to generate a little bit more discussion on this. I took a couple of calls from residents over the past few days, obviously with the conversation around the parking garage, right? Residents are thinking hey, we're eliminating more on street parking And again, I don't Know I mean the two issues right if it's within service level a or B around the parking garage would be eliminating parking and it seems like to some that this measure is being done in concert with the passing of the parking garage. That's just a comment, but be that as it may, are there any groups that you're working with right now or a certain street or streets? Obviously you included the concern from the one resident on Briarwood. Are there any ones that you have sort of targeted right now?

We have, I mean, there's a few areas that we will occasionally hear from on one street that comes to mind. They've never moved forward with the petition process. I don't know the reasoning for that. It would be Greenwood, basically from Lakeside around to Wealthy. We've had conversations with residents there. I think part of it is with the existing process and how it works is you could still undo it. It just takes more time to undo it. And we wanted to try to provide more flexibility. So even some of the solutions we look at are more interim, like a pilot solution where when we have conversations, sometimes Parking's a very complex topic and I can, I'll use one example we had on a section of Gladstone a number of years ago where we did work through the city commission process even on a pilot and then for permanent parking changes where there was some issues with students from Aquinas College parking on their street and taking up spots, but part of the issue is if you have open and available spaces that are free, oftentimes people will take advantage of that, right? What we learned together with the neighbors is that they have just about the on-street parking needs themselves if it's parking on one side of the street. And so, when we did the pilot, they found that they were occupying all those spaces. There wasn't any access capacity for students to take. So, obviously, then they have to find somewhere else. So, I just envision it being more along those lines where we can have some live and learn, too, with residents in a shorter time frame where we can make those changes. Like, we thought that would work. we'd like to change it, those types of things too, without having to be a really long process.

I think the mock-up and pilot program would really help with this process. So thanks for making that available. I think those were the only two questions that I had. Thank you.

And as I noted, Leaving the commercial business district out of it, that's obviously larger, bigger decisions and that would be held with the city commission. We're really trying to focus on impacts to neighborhoods, understanding that some of those may be close to locations like schools, the hospital, the business district. We have a variety of restrictions all over the community and that's because it's really been over the years in the hands of residents themselves to help make those decisions.

Mr. Skaggs? Yeah, just a quick question about accessibility. You know, the first step on here is that folks have a petition. It's assumed that they do. They're making the written request. How do they find that information, though? Like, what's the accessibility? How easy is it on the website, or do they have to call the city?

Yep, I mean, obviously people stop in. They call us. They can find it on our website, too, so it would go on our Our parking and traffic calming policies are all on our traffic page so it's similar to people doing a Google search if you go to our home page if you just if anybody who Searches parking they'll find that they'll find that page and that'll be posted right on there And of course if they contact us We can email them the link send it to them print it off hand it to them if any stops in that kind of thing Thank you.

Thanks for making it as successful as possible. I mean, I appreciate it. Yep

I kind of have a followup to the accessibility. Um, how will residents know if one of these, uh, is being circulated? Um, seeing as it doesn't need a hundred percent participation, it needs 50%, correct?

Well, that would be, that would be the, the, process if it fails the 80% test from an administrative process to legislative. We follow up with notices to residents and we'll let them know we've received the petitions. We send them back. Typically we'll send them back what the signatures are with what we have for the property and we'll check whether they met it or not, send that back with the plan to say you've met it. And so we give them a timeline for when it's going to occur or not occur or if they fell short. So we do provide communication back and forth to residents. Again, very similar to what we do with the traffic calming policy piece. So they're aware of, you know, it gives them a little bit of time too, I guess, if there was something that was not in order for us to address. But we do follow up with, we received this, this is what we have. It's met the criteria. Here's what we're looking to implement. Please reach out with any other additional feedback, et cetera. And then we move forward with the changes.

And just a follow-up to that, did I understand correctly that you give them copies of the petition so that they could see and verify that, yes, I did in fact sign?

Right, so when that gets submitted to us, we'll go back through and as it's noted here, we'll just verify that those folks either live there or own property there to sign it. There's not a resident requirement for that. And we send that back out to everybody on the block for what we've reviewed and go from there.

Great.

Any other questions for Mr. Lefebvre?

Well, just as a clarification to compare when we eliminated on street parking on Plymouth, uh, that process was essentially city staff responding to perhaps residents, your own analysis to kind of say, all right, let's bring this in front of city commission.

That that's a little bit different. This is, this really is focused on resident initiated petition. So, so residents of a block, have a desire for changes, whatever they may be. In that particular case, it was really, we provided options to, you know, a myriad of options to not change anything, to make different changes. I think we had three, at least three options, I think is what we presented. And that was really when we're looking at a project basis to look at implementation of our mobility plan that the city has. Just to give you guys the final say on that, we did do and we always do on those resident outreach typically well in advance of a project. I know on that one and most of those projects, I personally will go to residents' homes over multi-months to have one-on-one discussions with them, have group meetings with them if they prefer that. They have more information and background of, you know, what we're doing or what we're looking at doing rather than, you know, learning about it in the more formal channels. And then that way when it does get to the city commission, they're pretty well, you know, versed on what's happening or why or why not or what the different options are. So that way when they come to interact with you all in this setting, everyone has information on the different criteria. For a construction project, those all come through the city commission, but what we're trying to do from a staff level is at least look at options that align with community vision plans that we have, whether they're master plan or mobility plan, et cetera. That way we're doing our due diligence with that community vision, but ultimately with providing those to the city commission and the residents for those decisions.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

At this time, I will take public comment to this agenda item. Is anybody joining us this evening to make public comment to this agenda item? Hearing none, I'll close public comment, bring it up here for a motion and a second, please.

Move that the City Commission consider amending the on-street parking regulations policy as noted.

Second.

Any further discussion, commissioners? Comments? Okay. We can go to a vote. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed? All right. Motion carries. Next, we have to consider designating a delegate and alternate for the annual Michigan Municipal League business meeting held during the annual convention. That introduction is by City Manager Charles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Before you have a request to designate a delegate and alternate for the annual MML business meeting on the dates that you noted, so just need someone to volunteer. In the past, I've served both as either as the delegate or as alternate. I understand Commissioner Burdick will be attending? I can go.

Yes. In the past, I have gone. This year, I do believe that I will be traveling out east, so unable to attend. At this time, are you suggesting that Manager Charles, you're the alternate?

Yes.

Okay. Commissioner Burdick, Willing to go?

I am willing to go and accept the heavy weight of responsibility being our delegate.

Okay, that sounds good. Is there anyone here that would like to make public comment to this agenda item? Okay, hearing none, I will close public comment and bring that up here for a motion and a second.

I will move to designate Commissioner Burdick as a delegate to the annual MML business meeting and City Manager Charles as an alternate.

Second.

Wonderful. Any further comments, commissioners? Just to note, people, everyone's welcome to go. Oh, yes. Yes. So everyone's welcome to go. It's just we do need these kind of things just assigned so that they know who's going to be there. But, yes, any commissioner is welcome to go. So please do so if you are able. So we will go to a vote. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda we have to consider authorizing $105,725.50 of city contributions to the Joint Facility Fund to be used for a light replacement project on Mainy Field. This introduction is by Parks and Recreation Director, Mr. Melville.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Commissioners. Yes, as outlined in the memo before you, this request is related to the athletic field lighting at Mainy Field, which is heavily used by the high school athletic programs, parks and rec programs, and some of our partner programs like the lacrosse and field hockey programs. So over the last couple of years, due to the age of the light fixtures that are there, we've had some reliability issues that have resulted in some repairs that are needed, sometimes mid-season. or last minute when some of the light fixtures do go out, which has also resulted in bulb replacements. And if you think about the height of those poles and the locations, they're not the most easily accessible places to be replacing light bulbs mid-season. Also, the technology in that lighting system is older and is not the most energy efficient. So with all of those things combined, the school staff and city staff did review the options there for replacement. and took advantage of the school construction bidding that has been going on for the project over at the high school and implemented some alternates to receive pricing for the replacement of the athletic field lighting at Maney Field. That is a joint facility, so that is under the purview of the Joint Facility Committee. and we did receive pricing back for the replacement and as outlined here in the memo is Requesting authorization for awarding that project to the low bidder the total project amount is the two hundred and eleven thousand four hundred and fifty one That's outlined in the memo that as with all things with joint facilities We do share in those costs with our partners at the school. So the city would be a 50-50 partner in this project also The city and the schools as well each year annually contribute funds into a joint facility fund that helps pay for operational costs throughout the year. like temporary restrooms at the facilities, new windscreens and different things, and also projects like this. And so the funds that are being requested to be authorized are already in place. This would not require any additional funds from the city. It would be utilizing existing funds which are held in that joint account. This was brought before the Joint Facilities Committee earlier this summer, and it was approved, but due to the use of city funds and also the amount that we're requesting authorization, it's before all of you this evening as well for an additional layer of review. The timing of the implementation, of course, we're in the high school sports season, so we'll definitely be working with the contractors that are selected for this to make sure there's no interruptions to athletic events or practices. But certainly due to some of those aforementioned reliability issues, the intent would be to complete these as soon as possible, potentially in season, again, not impacting any of the athletic teams. So happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Are there any questions for Mr. Melville? I will also note that this was reviewed in finance prior to the meeting and was found to be in order. Mr. Melville, thank you also for that explanation of the joint facilities. For people who are attending tonight, it's just very thoughtful when it was put together years and years and years ago. So thank you for the explanation for people who didn't know what joint facilities is. So no other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to make public comment to this agenda item? Hearing none, I will close public comment and bring it up here for a motion and a second, please.

I move for the commission to authorize $105,725.50 of city contributions to the Joint Facility Fund to be used for a light replacement project on Mainy Field. Second.

Any further discussion commissioners?

I can say as a coach that coaches spring sports on that field specifically having the lights working and usable just lets us use those turf fields more and as that's a fixed cost every time we could put more kids out there the cheaper it is for every hour we get to use it so it's a great use of money and it lets us use another one of our great resources more often which is great.

Absolutely. Okay, you can go to a vote all those in favor say yes. Yes any opposed? All right motion carries Next on this evening's agenda. We have approval of the consent agenda items May I please have a motion and a second to prove tonight's consent agenda items so moved second All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? Motion carries. So lastly, we are going to vote to go into an executive session. Tonight we have an executive session. It has been requested for attorney-client communication in accordance with Section 8 of the Open Meetings Act. May I please have a motion and a second to go into executive session? So moved.

Second.

A roll call vote? Commissioner Burnett? Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. And as I stated earlier, there will be no vote taken in this executive session. So we'll be not coming back into chambers this evening. So this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.