City Commission - Regular Meeting

December 1st. I can do that. Okay. Six o'clock. I'm going to call this meeting to order. Everyone can please stand and join us in saying the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. First on this evening's agenda is the approval of the agenda. So, there are a couple. So, corrections. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

Yep. Uh, so, Madam Mayor, we're asking for two two modifications to the agenda. Uh, the first one, uh, due to some scheduling conflicts. Item number six, we'd like to remove from the agenda. Uh, the audit presentation will be next Monday at our December 1st city meeting, uh, city commission meeting. The second item is for item number 10 uh to change that from um change that to update on gaslight investors project. Um we will not be asking for action uh this evening on um any part of that um current project. Okay. And do we need to take a vote on those separately? So we um [clears throat] do one motion or two John I do two. Two. Okay.

Okay. So may I please have a motion for agenda item number six? Move to remove agenda item number six. Second. Wonderful. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. May I please have a motion for agenda item number 10? I move to amend agenda item number 10 to remove the action to approve a resolution and add update from city attorneys and staff. Second. That's right. Okay. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Motion carries or any opposed. All right. Motion carries.

So, next we will move on to public comment. If there's anyone that would like to make public comment to something that is not on this evening's agenda, now is the time to do so. Noting that agenda item number 10 is still on the agenda and we will be taking public comment to that agenda item at that time. Dr. Patterson. Good evening. Nancy Patterson, 21104 Gorm Drive Southeast. Good evening, mayor, commissioners. Thank you for all your hard work. These are challenging times. Two things brought me here this evening. Number one, the city manager forwarded the newest draft iteration of the master plan. It reportedly was based on the input from residents, 600 residents, from an online survey. I question if this was a valid survey based on the low number pled, how the polling was done. It was online. I never heard about it. whether the respondents were validated as EGR residents and how those respondents demographically compared to the actual demographics of our community. Was it a representative sample? I suggest this draft cannot be accepted unless and until these considerations are made. Of note, 44% of respondents said they would move out of EGR once their children finish school because of the high property taxes. Of note, my property tax consumes 23% of my social security check. I was always advised, do more with less. I encourage the city finance people to do the same.

Number two, Reeds Lake was tested in August for POS compounds and for metals. Some POS compounds were found elevated, but basically in line with our drinking water. That's not to give the water a pass because we'll soon find out that no POS is acceptable. The Washington Post on November 22nd revealed the EPA has approved the use of POS compounds in pesticides used on our foods. I'm concerned that the immaculate lawns of our city may soon be saturated with these forever chemicals which will end up in our waterways. I strongly urge this be a top concern for our environmental people. Several metals were tested for uh at Reed Lake at all depths. I was looking specifically for those toxic metals used in fireworks as these metals are released as particulate matter into the air which then fall to the earth and run off into our waterways. With the 250th anniversary of our country going to be celebrated next year, I expect there will be a lot of what is called the prettiest pollution being expelled into our air and ending up in our lungs and the water. Elevated levels of two fireworks metals, barerium and copper, were found in our lake. Other metals found in fireworks were not tested for. There have been multiple studies confirming the damage to humans, our lungs and heart, and to veterans with PTSD, also to our wildlife, the noise, sudden flashes, ingestion of toxins, and stress leading some to leave the area. The American Lung Association strongly recommends people with asthma and COPD avoid the smoke from fireworks if possible. And I thank you all for your patience and happy Thanksgiving.

Thank you, Dr. Patterson. I have a question. Is the HUD on the agenda or off the agenda? The we are going to have an um an update on the gaslight investors. Um any comment should come up at that time. Yes. Thank you.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen in the audience, commissioners, city staff, mayor. My name is Judith Baxter. I'm an East Grand Rapids resident and I'm here today to congratulate Commissioner Wesley on his uh reelection to the commission. But I'd like I'd like to point out some important facts about the data of his re-election. Number one, he run by four votes. That's 0.006% of the votes with 460ome votes going for him, 460% 460 votes going to his opponent. That's not a resounding endorsement of Mr. Wesley as a commissioner of the city commission of this the policies of this commission of the actions of this commission or this or the mayor I'd like you to take a minute to consider the data that you incurred from that vote and take a minute of whether or not you have you because you have an option right now you are at a turning point of what you can do with this material and this data that data shows a deep divide in the community a deep divide in the community about the commission's actions what it's doing how it's doing it and it was particularly over the gas light investors development. You have an opportunity here to continue on your way, continue what you're doing, continue the way you are going with this development and further this divide which has resulted in a lawsuit and a submission of a referendum dealing with those issues. Or you can take this moment to figure out the citizens are speaking. They are speaking loud and clear in their votes. They don't like what's happening. It is not a minor group of 10 or 20 people speaking. It's a larger and larger group on this division. And you can take a moment to address this now. It doesn't have to go any further. This fight doesn't have to go any further.

This tension doesn't have to go any further. the stress in the community doesn't have to be go any further. It doesn't have to become a civil war in the community and it's up to you. You're the leaders of the community. You're not the victims of this division here. This is a result of what your actions are doing and the committee the committee the community's response to those actions. The answer is obvious. You could do a city focus group. You could have citizens, the developer, representative from the developer, a representative from the city commission to sit down and figure out what everybody wants, try to include that in a program and work with the developer. That's the American way when we have disputes or disagreements is to come to find some resolution. And I don't see that happening in responses to the lawsuit that's been filed here or the actions of this group or this commission or individuals here. And I encourage you to take a moment now. You have a you have a chance to fix this. [bell] Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else care to make public comment at this time? Is something not on the agenda? Hello. Um, my name is Mark Armstead, uh, 220 on Wood Drive, uh, Southeast. Um, I've been up here several times, um, just asking for, uh, you know, again, for everybody [clears throat] to kind of recommmit to the community. Um, one of the things that, uh, is important to me is, um, you know, I mean, progress development, I'm not opposed to any of that. Um, but, uh, the the city has given, I think, um, a lot to, uh, the developer. Um, there's been some reasonzoning, uh, to allow them to, uh, do mixeduse development, um, as well as, uh, some other things. But, uh, one of the things that I'd like you to consider or think about a little bit is, uh, you know, I [music] think the the builder's in a very I can pause for a minute. Uh, the builder's in a very good position. You know, he's he's hedged a lot of his risk. Um, and uh I think I think you know and and I mean he's got a he he's he's achieved reszoning for uh mixeduse development. Um he has long-term um you know revenue that can come in with his proposal what he'd like to do. Um, but I don't really see the the city hedging the risk. Um, particularly with the uh the the tax increment financing. Uh, that's uh something [clears throat] I find uh just one thing that kind of

goes goes a little bit too far uh because it really it puts the onus on the backs of the of the community if the development if something doesn't go right with the development. you know, he's got all the upside. Uh but then we take we take all the risk. Um it seems like the you know, we the city's taking a little bit more of a speculative approach like this is going to be a good thing and this is going to uh in a lot of different ways and I'm sure there's going to be some benefit there, but I'd like to as a as a citizen and and the community, I'd like us to hedge our risk like the builder is. Um, I don't have a lot of time to go into the details, but uh I I believe that uh you know I I'd be happy to talk to anybody um regarding that uh and and what I what I mean. But uh again um you know it just uh the the other the other thing is is it does seem like things fall almost 50/50 and I I don't know if there's a better way. Um you know 50% is really not a passing score in a lot of uh areas. You know we consider 60 or 70% to be more acceptable. Uh so some of these things that we're passing, you know, the millages and things of that nature, um you know, maybe maybe we look at um you know, how we can do a little better job. Um but thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jerry Anderson, 435 Edgeir Drive Southeast. Um, I'm speaking partially for Mr. Decker who is on vacation today as many people are in this Thanksgiving weekend and unable to attend. Um, and I'm speaking specifically about the referendum petition that has been denied by the city. Um, and from 3 to 7 weeks ago now, I guess 1,482 people signed a referendum petition um in an effort to make their voices heard by this commission. and regarding the uh the development and that that was rejected and they don't know yet why it was rejected. There's some implication that the group Village Responsible Development might have been sloppy in their approach to it and I can assure you that they were not because they were guided by very capable attorneys knowing that uh the city might take every chance that they could to deny the petitions. So, uh, that group was told that the petition was being denied by Michigan code MCL168.482 subsection 8 that it did not meet the criteria of that code. And if you look into it a little closer, um, for the cameras two up there, this is the petition that was provided initially by the city clerk. This is the petition that was used by the group Gaslight Village Responsible Development. They had no choice but to use it be for a couple of reasons. First, because the one provided by the clerk must be handwritten in and the attorney said very clearly, never use one that's handwritten in. That just opens the door to all sorts of reasons for denying. And second, the city clerk

was not able to provide enough of those petitions anyway for the use by the committee. And when asked how long it would take to get more, she said it would take about 3 weeks, which was not going to work for the timetable. So, um, so under advice of an attorney, a second petition was used, this one. And I'd like to point out that the bottom of each of the petitions says on it, if you would not mind zooming in on that a little bit more, that would be great. This is in the bottom right hand corner of both petitions. The one that was given by the clerk is form number 410 provided by printing systems US and it says on it form approved by the director of elections state of Michigan and it even gives a date 4 of 25. The form used by the ballot committee says form approved by the director of elections, state of Michigan printing systems. And it is the same form number and it's actually only slightly more current than the one that was provided by the city clerk. I'm sorry I ran out of time already. I would if you would like to hear more detail on the little box right here whose words vary ever so slightly between the two petitions. That is the reason why,480 members of this community have been disenfranchised and told that their signatures would not be upheld by this commission. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anybody else care to make public comment at this time to something that's not on the agenda? Okay, hearing none, I'll post public comment and bring it up here for the report of mayor and city commissioners, including committee liaison reports. And I will start with Commissioner Schwarz, the planning committee. Yes, we had a planning commission meeting on November 12th. Um, so we had two items on the agenda. We were talking about the um potentially Kelvin College adding on to their uh or I'm sorry, Kelvin University adding on to their um existing football field that abuts it is in East Grand Rapids and sort of abuts some neighbors that are on Lake and Woodcliffe. Um so it was the introduction and we had a lot of feedback from the neighbors and one of the biggest issues there is the noise um because that backs up to a pond I think it has a lot to do with it has a bowl effect and it's creating a lot of noise um so we had we had a good discussion um heard from a lot of residents um planning commission had a lot of questions for the engineer for the school and um nothing was approved that evening we asked them to come back um um answering some of the questions. You know, we have I think we're very lucky to have a very talented community um of professionals, including those on our planning commission who are experts in this field and could ask questions that, you know, people like me just wouldn't have the expertise to ask. So, we have some good um questions out there. Looking forward to getting more information and u mitigation suggestions um from the school on that. The second

item um that we discussed was Corewell Health's request to add on to the parking garage at the corner of Plymouth and Wealthy. Um again, very lively and active discussion. Um a lot of push back on the engineers there um and the architects and the folks at Corwell. Um lots of good engagement from the residents [clears throat] um during the meeting, before the meeting, after the meeting. they've had um you know it's helpful that they they bring their experiences. You know we we heard a lot of helpful things from those residents on their suggestions for mitigation. You know some some as simple as like can we just turn the temperature down on the light bulbs you know get get a different range. So um no that that project is not you know received no approval from planning commission that evening. Um we had a lot of um factors for the um for Corwell to go back and consider. Um there was a lot of discussion about traffic and level of service at the corner of Plymouth and Lake. So uh we expect to see them back I don't know maybe the next December. I don't know if it's December or January or if that's even decided at this point. Um but uh thank you to residents on both of those for their engagement and um problem solving and you know looking forward to next steps on that.

And that's it for me. Great. Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving. I have nothing this evening.

I have a couple things quickly. Um, first off, on November the 12th, I was lucky enough to be chosen um by the uh statewide We the People organization to judge uh a handful of teams down at Grand Valley on November the 12th. Um I was not a We the People participant uh back in high school, but it's a tremendous organization that East Grand Rapids uh high school really specializes in and and does pretty well um both in the state and national tournament. So, um, great great way to see young people getting involved in, uh, civic education. Finally, this past weekend, I'm sure there will be some other shoutouts down the line, but, um, the girls swim and dive team brought home their 155th, well, East Grand Rapids's 155th uh, state championship. It was Coach Briggs 40th for the girls uh, for the both swim programs combined, 28 total for the for for for the girls. So amazing tradition of uh swim and dive here in EGR as well.

Wesley, do you have anything to add? Nothing tonight. Nothing? No. Commissioner Berdick? Uh yeah, Parks and Recck met last night. Um therefore, this is our Tuesday meeting this week. Um and among other things, um I'm happy to announce that we in early June, um are going to have the art fair come back. So, that'll be downtown from June 5th um for 3 days and uh we're all very excited to get that back in town. That was a very popular event before CO and we're we're happy to see it back.

That's great. Yeah, I saw that in the agenda. I'm glad it was approved. That'll be fun. Commissioner Skaggs, do you have anything to add? I just wanted to wish everybody happy Thanksgiving and give some preemptive [clears throat] thanks to people who are working at the gobble wobble event on Thanksgiving morning to our public safety officers who are going to be working that day. Um and to potentially our Department of Public Works snowplow operators. Uh snow is coming so everybody gear up for that. Um and hope everybody has a great weekend. Great. Thank you. Um I just wanted to check when does the leaf pickup stop? Is that the 5th? December 5th. December 5th. Okay. Right. Out. Yeah. Exactly. And moms. [laughter] Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I have nothing to add. So, Mr.

Just a couple things. As Commissioner Skaggs noted, uh, winter weather is upon us, u apparently. So, we'll see what actually happens. We have estimates between adusting to probably 60. We were joking, 60 in. So, so we'll see. Um, also, um, just a reminder everybody, uh, if the plows are out, um, please keep your distance for your safety and their safety. Um, Leaf Pekka the mayor just noted and just reminder of the tree lighting event um hosted by the Gas Light Village Business Association is Friday night at 5 sorry um Jerk's not in his normal place. Um so at 5:00 so we're looking forward to uh that event kicking off winter season.

The tree lighting officially I believe is at quarter after 6, right? I think quarter after 6. Yes. Thank you. See Derek for details. So perfect. Hold on. All right. So, um, with that, that's all I have. Okay. Thank you. So, now we will move on to the regular agenda items. First on tonight's agenda, we have to consider the approval of the amended city poverty exemption policy to raise poverty incomes, limits, [laughter] asset [clears throat] limits, and eliminate section seven that allows for special circumstances. And I believe we're

I'm going to start with me. Um, so before you this evening, you actually have a revised revised proposal. uh um excuse me um poverty um policy. Um in researching today and um researching a question that had been to me um by Commissioner Skaggs on certain information that was requested, we discovered that the state late last week updated the bulletin related to the poverty exemptions. So um we Stacy Hayes, our assessor, did an amazing job of getting it pulled together. the two revision two revisions Stacy or one revision.

Uh so both the guidelines and policy and the the resolution have been um updated. But yeah, I did receive an email um today actually from the state tax commission um stating that they did eliminate form 5739, one of two of forms that were required to um apply for the poverty exemption. So now you just have to file one form um 5737 and um and then provide all the documentation such as federal and state income tax returns and then also meet the income and asset guidelines. So instead of having two forms, they they brought it down to one form. So,

so the revised policy does change the income levels from um federal um poverty guidelines to two times the guidelines as well as setting an asset value for a home's uh total asset value of $40,000 and a list of what what isn't included included and excluded. This matches what uh commission direction was um a couple meetings ago. So, um we are asking for approval of this this evening. um that um so that we can get this in place. Uh December 9th is kind of the magic deadline for this. That's when December border review is and so we need to have this in place particularly when it comes to the income and asset level discussion. We want to have that in place for the December 9th meeting. So um with that I can answer any questions or what huh

December 1st maybe. Oh, so um and um there is a request um um from Commissioner SC did ask um you know can we modify the amount of information we can ask. It's on the state form. Um we've got inquiries into the state um treasury department and the as well as the state tax commission. Um trying to get some clarity on that. So um um so we will have an update on the December 1st at the December 1st meeting hopefully in regards to is that something we can modify or not. commission will recall the state generally set sets the policy says this is what you can do. The only thing in regards to the poverty exemption is our ability to set the income levels and the asset level. So kind of all the other stuff is guided by state

correct by the state itself [snorts] but we're verifying a couple um other other items on that. So So what we're asking tonight is just for the approval of the levels. Yeah, we're asking for approval of the revised form. there's a resolution um in there that does adopt the revised form. So, we're asking approval for that resolution this evening which updates everything and then um as I noted, we'll be back on December 1st with some additional information that may require another more action on the first potentially. Potentially. Okay. So,

okay. That being said, are there any questions for Mr. Charles? Oh, I'm I'm happy to talk, but I thought I'd wait until there's a motion at the table. Okay. Do you have a question or no questions? I was going to comment on the piece that just comments. Okay. All right. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Charles or Okay. So, no questions. Um, so we I will take public comment at this time. Is there anyone here to make public comment to this agenda item? Now would be the time to do so.

Hello, my name is Katherine Creekbomb, 2249 Estelle Drive Southeast. I just wanted to thank uh the commissioners for all the time and consideration that you've given to this policy. It really means a lot to me and I believe it will provide meaningful change for um non- veterans with disabilities and senior citizens on fixed incomes. And um I think generally it'll make our motto true to its word that East Grand Rapids is genuinely a better place to live. So thank you very much. Really appreciate the time you've put into it and have a happy holidays.

You too. Thank you. Would anyone else care to make public comment to this agenda item? Okay, hearing none, I will bring it back up here for a motion in a second. I move to approve the amended city poverty exemption policy as listed in item number seven. Second. Wonderful. Any further discussion? Do we need a second? We got it. We got I'm sorry. My bad. Okay. Yep. No, commission. Was it okay? That's why I was Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. [laughter]

Um yeah, before we finalize this and um I want to thank everybody as well for all of the time and attention. I think that we're going to take this into a better spot for for people in East Grand Rapids. Um I wanted to note that there are some documents that are requested in the resolution. I don't see them listed in the guidelines uh that I I find to be burdensome and invasive and so I would prefer to see these taken out. Uh the items requesting a full year of utility bills, medical bills and prescription costs, insurance premiums, documentation of food stamps or bridge card payments, and any other monthly bill copies. Um these items do not help the board of review with assessing a person's income nor their assets. And I frankly just don't think it's the Board of Reviews business what people's medical bills or prescriptions are or whether or not they have food stamps. I am concerned about stigma um and would rather us eliminate those pieces from the resolution. Um and as I said I don't see them requested in the actual policy. So

yeah, sorry. Do you know? So where did you see them before? They're on They're in the resolution. The resolution but not in the policy itself. Okay. Okay. So yeah, that's a good question. Like where did the list in number six come from?

Stacy. Yeah, I think we just copied it from um number 10 and 11 on the application and we looked at um like the actual poverty application that they have to file 5737. um number 10 and 11, they actually have to list um their debt and their monthly expense information. So, I believe we just took the items from here and listed it on there, but I guess they did the So, they do have to list it on here, but

correct. Correct. state and the form require for any documentation just like they fill it out when they when they answer the form, right? So, if they listed their expenses at $2,000 a month without any detail of the actual items, we wouldn't push back on that and say we currently that's what's listed in here to do, but

I'm at Yeah, I do have an email out to the state asking if that is a requirement that we have to do that or if they can just list it on here and we can be okay with that. If it is a requirement, could we write into our policy that we couldn't deny the exemption based on the lack of uh applicants uh not placing that on their application? I mean, it does say to be completed in its entirety [laughter] at the top. So, and the board could

Yeah. So, those are those are those are the things that we're trying to get clarity from the state of Michigan on and we just we don't have those answers tonight. Um and um and um Stacy, correct me if I'm wrong, is that these were things that were in previous versions of the policy. This was not this is not a new ad. I know. Yes.

Yeah. So, this is something that's been in there. This is not an addition. Um with that said, um we are um checking with the state in regards to this and getting trying to get some clarity and direction in regards to can we can we not. Um so um we have multiple messages in to um various state um departments as well um including the state tax commission and just to go you know um is this really a yes no question for us is can we or yes or no is this something we can modify or not

right and then we just don't have that answer yet tonight so we will continue to do that. So then I if we are still working to adopt this resolution tonight, can we change the language in number six to just say something like produce required information information required by the state and take the list out.

What what I would I guess what I would recommend this evening is let's go ahead and do this. And I and Commissioner Skaggs and I chatted earlier today that um because we're um I want to want to make sure we're what we adopt um does adhere to state guidelines and just want to take that that moment of a breath and go okay yes or no and and whatnot. So we just don't have the answer. I don't know if we can or can't and that's because of the board of review meeting that's that's coming up. And I understand what you're asking. I understand what you're saying, right? But

I'm trying to see if there's a path for us to both adopt this resolution and policy that can still be changed, but remove this list because I think that Commissioner Skaggs makes a good point that if these are not required, right, then let's not require them. And so I would hesitate to adopt a resolution with that language in there if it doesn't need to be in there. We can provide an amended resolution on December 1st. the 9th is the the deadline um in regards to that. So, it just we don't have we just don't have the answer tonight. So, and we did So, are you saying that like the state is the states recommend you're checking the state guidelines because they might have a guideline that recommends that we include this exact language in our policy?

Yep. Okay. So, we couldn't just say other required information. So, we don't again Sorry. I'm just trying to like I'm [laughter] trying to fully understand. I know. I know the questions are out there. Yeah. Go ahead. I guess to come back to though, we know that the pol the policy cannot be amended, right? Mhm.

And the resolution does not also does not need to mirror everything that's in the policy. So I I I guess I'm just saying I recognize the deadline that we're looking at. We do have another meeting on December 1st if we want to just say, well, let's see if we can hear from the state. But I I truly would hesitate if these are not required to vote yes for an a resolution that includes them. Commissioners discretion your options or you can um post. I'm sorry.

Were you going to say something? Well, I was wondering if there's maybe a similar but alternative path where we approve tonight, but we also are clear that we will come back on December 1st with an answer and if we are able to make an amendment, make the amendment. I find nothing in state law that says that these are required um to be produced, you know, along with the form. There are things laid out in state law that are required. Mhm. Um you know the the tax returns for example.

So I I can get there and be comfortable because I understand there's a deadline and we do need to take care of the section about special circumstances. Um but I guess I'm saying help me construct it in such a way so that we will come back at the next meeting. We will we will come back. Um, so that's so it's clear from the direction from the commission this is to be on the December 1st agenda. It will be now I will tell you because the packet has to come out tomorrow there may be to be provided because we're again researching and and trying to get this but we will put you'll stay on the agenda tomorrow. Okay. And so we're going to Monday. Yeah. For Monday. Okay. Okay.

And that's that's okay with you, Commissioner Skaggs? I can I can live with that. Um I will continue to make noise about it. [laughter] So, just to to be so I'm really not trying to be dense here, but if we have until December 9th and we don't have the language yet and it's going to be on the agenda for December 1st, why don't we just take action on December 1st instead of tonight? It's permission's discretion.

Well, I mean, it's being proposed for a certain reason. I'm just trying to understand the reason. No, I just and the logic behind it is u and it's a fair question, commissioner, is the logic behind it is we know this conforms to guidance from the state. Um so we if nothing else just wanted to get this done with the understanding that we will bring it back an update on the first of yes we can, no we can't or we don't know um where we're at. So that's the that's the only reason we were asking asking action um asking for action this evening. the um questions before the house or excuse me before the commission on these matter on this um this topic um we know what we're comfortable what's being presented conforms we don't know if the proposed changes will are permissible by this by the state of Michigan so the only reason I was thinking is and what I shared with commissioner Skaggs is kind of feels like we're rushing this a little bit and I always get that makes city managers nervous when we have something like of this nature So

that we're rushing what we're rushing changes to the policy from what what what we know conforms to do we make changes on this or not. So that that's just our thinking. Um again this was something that was um part of the delay on this was um our um Miss Hayes was on vacation up until today. So we were How dare she go on vacation? That was you know I [laughter] never Okay, thank you. So, um, with that said, are you comfortable moving forward tonight? Um, being Yeah, I'm just taking a straw. Well,

I could go either way. I I I plan on being here on the first and I would be happy to hold my vote until then. I think we all know I six of one, half dozen the other, right? like we vote for it tonight and if something changes we amend it on the first or we just wait until the first having had this discussion 6 days prior. So if someone feels strongly one way or the other I'm okay with that too.

Can I just ask is there any reason to do it earlier because we need to have something on file with the state and show that we've corrected this section that needs to be fixed. Not that you know by before December 1st or correct before December 1st or by December 1st. By December 1st. Well, you mentioned Well, the only thing that we need is that they have to have our their paperwork to us by the 8th. So, they're going to all the people that have the exemptions will need to have the documentation in front of them so that they can provide whatever we decide that they need to provide by the 8th. And they'll need time to prepare for that.

Correct. [clears throat] You need your microphone. Did do you have something to add?

Yeah. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Uh, so yeah, I think my a couple comments. I think that the the amended city poverty exemption policy. I think it's a step in the right direction. I'm really excited to see it going moving in this direction. Um, I think there's some great questions that came up about item number six in the um amendment. Um, but you know, knowing that there's a motion on the on the floor, I'm I'm want to might as well just pass uh pass this get this in play uh and I can wait patiently so we can talk and get the um and make the amendment to item number six of the amendment if that makes sense. Uh on in the early uh December meeting. That's sounds all like sound to me.

Okay. My only concern is December 1st is Monday. Today is Tuesday. Tomorrow is basically a holiday. Thursday is a holiday. Friday will be a holiday. Monday is Monday. Are we going to get an answer? Yes. No. Maybe. Okay. And and I and not to be flippant in regards by that is just just as you noted that this is we're up on a holiday. We know trying to um get communication from the state in time. Um I've asked Mr. puff. Um they have um tax right panel folks um internal to also kind of can they get us some guidance on this. So we are we're continuing to do this um we continue to be diligent on this. It just we're

right. I just also hate to burden somebody unnecessarily because we ran out of time and the state didn't get back to us because the state is the state. Right. So I mean that's I I think that's a a fairly major consideration. Okay. So, we do have a motion and a second on the table. There any other comments? We can just go to a vote. I think I do have one more question. Yeah.

Is there um if we were to remove the items from the resolution number six and the city sorry the state does not and the state does not get back to us. Is there a penalty? Is there something bad about having that written incorrectly? We do have an uh state audit in 2026. So, um Okay, I could fail that. Say no more. [laughter] Okay, thank you.

Good question. Great. And I guess I'm just of the opinion and it sounds like I'm I'm I could go either way on this, but hearing from a a burden point of view and making sure we have something correct on the books. I can trust our city staff that if we do get a answer from the state that we'll get that, but we need to get something on the books and sooner rather than later. I'd rather have this as it is. At least it's legal and it's ready and we know it's we're confident it's legal and if we're able to amend it before the before that next date and the state does get back to us, we we have assurances we're going to be able to do that. Um that's that's that's where I stand on it. Perfect. Okay, great point. Okay.

Sorry, I have one more thing then. What if we trying to trying to split the baby a little bit? Say produce the additional following information. um if required by the state to assist the board of review. Could I pop in with a probably something better cuz I'm just spitballing here before we go to I mean if we remove the list the bulleted list and say produce all documentation required by the state to assist the board of review in acting on a poverty exemption application. Yeah. Does that does that cover us? Like I I don't know. I I honestly I honestly don't know. Um is there something magic about having the list? Um

like that like I mean I know you don't know the answer but like are you thinking that there is something key about having the list that would make us incomplete? So one of the things that um is the the advantage of having it on the list is and as Miss noted a moment ago our applicants know what to expect. They can look at our policy and say oh I need you to go da da da da da that nature. So from that perspective versus them hunting down the 5737 form things of that nature to you know well what does this mean and whatnot by having it clearly articulated in the policy then our our potential applicants understand what is expected of them. So

so then what applicants get is the policy right not the resolution. We do typically give them both for new applicants. We give them a copy of the resolution. I do. [laughter] I know. Just cuz you're so thorough. The new applicants and then people that Yeah. Yeah. I just I Yeah. I wonder like so that maybe we don't even have to come back to this on Monday if we leave the resolution open and the policy can list the things or the policy can omit the list of things or whatever needs to happen. Hold on one second. Commissioner Skagg, you wanted to add something.

I It was basically the exact same thing. Okay. Why what information are applicants getting? Um, and does it include how do they know that they need to provide all of this documentation? So, it's not in here and it's not the form. I've read the form. The form doesn't say that you need to attach anything to it except for the tax returns if you have them.

Correct. So, they do get the resolution and the guidelines and policy. They do get both of these. We do provide Yep. Both of those along with the application. So, they get the whole packet. So, so quickly just so that I can understand if an applicant comes in and they produce bank accounts but not investment accounts or they produce an electric bill but not a water bill. We're not saying hey go get the water bill, right? Or we would have that but um I still Yeah, we provide the form to the board of review and then it's up to the board of review to make that decision. So yeah,

I mean I it just strikes me that we're caught between following provisions or letter of law from the state so that maybe in other communities or ours, I don't know, you know, we're ruling out potential fraud, but we're also trying to be as sensitive as we can to this process to maintain people's dignity to not have to be too in, you know, intrusive. So I'm I'm good either way. I'm I'm I' I'd vote for the amendment on the first and proceeding tonight.

Does Mr. tough have an opinion necessarily on the solution that Commissioner Grath Blazic offered that perhaps we say all reform all forms required by the state of Michigan rather than listing out that number because perhaps the forms that the state requires changed down the road and now we have a flexible policy in place that says we require the forms. I I really don't have an opinion on this issue. Okay. I think you guys can go either way that we that we your opinion is we could go either way on it. Okay, then I actually really like that solution.

Do we make a motion to do that? Uh move so motion to remove the list on item six in the resolution um and adjust the language to say simply produce all documentation required by the state to assist the board of review in acting on a poverty exemption application just second. So that was a motion to amend the original motion to include that. So you're so you're um if you approve that motion that changes the original motion to approve the policies as presented to include your modification. Yes. You second. I second. Yes. Thank you.

Great. All right. You got all of it. It was K. Excuse me. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor say yes. Yes. All right. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. So, we need now to vote on the original motion which has been amended to approve the policy as amended by Yep. recently approved motion. And that's just Do we need a motion and a second on that? No. Those You have a motion on the floor that's been amended. So, that that that motion is ready to be acted upon. Okay. All right. Then all those in favor say yes. Yes.

Yes. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Okay. Next, we have the financial reports for the 3-month period ending September 30th, 2025. Good evening, everyone. I am going to talk about the first quarter and how the city is doing. Um, pretty similar to last year where we've collected 99% of our budgeted tax role. Obviously, most of our taxes are collected in July. December taxes, winter taxes will go out December 1st. So be looking for those bills for your winter taxes. Uh so that's about 77% of our revenue in total. Um the second main source of revenue is state revenue sharing which we get uh after the state's um fiscal year begins on October 1st. Uh so we hadn't received any payments by as of 9:30. Uh and as we will see um in the budget adjustments, we did receive um funding from at the MOOLS for three of our recruits that are currently at Grand Valley and will be graduating soon. Um so we did not budget we budgeted the expense originally, but not the um the revenue because we didn't know if that would be part of the state's budget. Uh as far as the general fund is in expenditures, um you can see we're at 21% of expenditures. Um the only difference really is is if we hadn't made our full pension pension payment or the pension payment, um we would be at 18% of expenditures. So at a quarter first quarter, you usually expend about 25%. Um so [clears throat] we're currently about 18% in overall um general operating in the general fund. Um and as noted in there, we uh the acquired required contribution um that came in from our actuarial um is only 684. So that is what we've paid thus far. We do have $1.1 million budgeted

for that pension payment. So that'll be a decision later on down the road if you would choose to uh make the rest of that pension payment, but it is not required. Um the the fund, street funds, nothing much to report. We receive um our act 51 money. Um and then uh in our municipal streets, we do uh it's funded by the taxes. Uh water and sewer fund. It's pretty similar to last year. The only thing that I have to note uh is we um received $111,000 from our re reimburseable um lead service line discovery grant. So that's us doing our process of finding lead service lines. The state approved a discovery grant up to about 500,000. Um we received 11,000 111,000 reimbured this year. In total, we've received 253,000 for discovering those lead service lines. Um, nothing else to note. The revenue and expenditures are good as far as everything else in all the different funds. Any any questions? Any questions for Miss?

No. Thank you. Just going to stay here. Oh, that's right. All right. You're up next. All right. Next on the agenda, we have to consider approval of the attached resolution amending the fiscal year 2025 2026 budget.

Okay. So, um couple of budget adjustments here. I've talked about mostly of these are in the general fund. Um we do I pro um provide you with the general fund and all special revenue funds that are um potentially getting budget adjustments. Um the first one again as I spoke before was the $60,000 that we received from MC Coals for our recruits. Um so like I said we hadn't budgeted the revenue because we were waiting for state budget to be approved. Uh number two um in the general fund you will see um about two under city buildings um about two uh between city buildings and gaslight uh you'll see um about 256,000 that includes the one of the boilers um and gaslight uh the boiler at wealthy pools and we also had a new hot water heater. Um those were projects that were approved in last year's budget but moved to this year uh because of delayed completion either by the vendors or ordering the the the items. Um we moved the remaining cost of the airboat which we received last week. Um so we we had to pay 35 30% upfront. Um and then um the rest of the balance 83,000 was moved uh into this year which was approved last year. Uh the last one u major change in the general fund um uh is a program expenses for the courthouse basketball program which is a facility in Byron Center. It's not the district court um but it's a courthouse b basketball which is done by parks and w uh they had put a revenue um they had budgeted a revenue placement but we didn't know where expenditures were because we didn't know what enrollment was going to be because this is a new year new year program. So we were able to realign the expenses and um revenue um for that. So in total these changes

above moved a use of fund balance from 549160 to 795910 uh mainly because of those rollover projects that we have on from year-to-year basis. um what was not included in your packet but was um put it on placed on your table were the was the backup for all of those which shows each individual line item that was done that I kind of went over um already and and oh sorry the other thing that I forgot to mention is I did um increase we budgeted originally uh 275 for um interest and as of 10 u as of today we are about 285. So, I did bump it to 325. Um, I kind of like to do that slowly because I never know what the market's going to do. So, we've again already received a lot of interest this year, which is great. Um, otherwise, I've kind of gone over all the other budget adjustments. Um, 202 and 203 didn't have any real true budget adjustments. It was just moving between line items, so no change in fund balance. And then 204 which is municipal street funds. Uh that is rolling over the expenses for the Cascade Robinson Road project. Uh we we are build by the state for that project as our portion. And so we rolled it over from last year because the state hadn't invoiced for that. And that usually takes up anywhere up to two years if not more to receive that. So we'll just keep rolling it over until the state bills us for it. So, any questions on budget adjustments? Any questions for Missy? Great.

Thank you. Okay. Can I please have a motion in a second on this agenda item? So, moved. Okay. Second. Wonderful. Is there any further comments, commissioners? Okay. Then we can go to a vote. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right, motion carries. Next on the agenda, we have the update on the gas light investors protest petition and that introduction is for you, right? Correct.

Um, so Madam Mayor, um, Mr. City attorney Huff um, has a couple quick comments. Um, for that, we are not going to do a lot of discussion on this. Um, but Mr. Huff did want to uh, update the commission on where things are at at the moment. So with that, Mr. Hoff. Uh thank you. Um as you know a lawsuit was filed against the city uh last Wednesday the 19th. It contains two counts. One count deals with the protest petition and one count deals with the city not accepting the referendum petition because of errors in the petition. Uh the city disagrees with the positions taken and asserted by the plaintiffs in their complaint. It is the city's policy not to comment on pending litigation. So from this point forward, any public discussion of this matter by the city will be in a courtroom until this matter is resolved. The project itself is on hold during the pendency of the litigation unless a court rules otherwise. and this project will not appear on a city commission agenda again until the court reaches its decision.

Thank you for the update. Um, commissioners, at this time if you'd like to ask Mr. Huff any questions, but also knowing we are going to be going into executive session after this meeting. So, okay. Thank you, Mr. Ro. Okay. Okay. So, at this time I will open up public comment on this agenda item. My name is Sarah Buck. I'm at 308 Manhattan Road. I'm going to talk about disenfranchisement. Schools already dismissed. We are only 30 hours away from Thanksgiving yet again. And notwithstanding what you just talked about, we are dealing with another potential decision scheduled at the most inconvenient moment for the very citizens you were elected to serve. This scheduling of the gaslight investors agenda item tonight is not an accident and it is a pattern. It is part of a pattern. We've watched this same scheduling tactic play out repeatedly at key public comment times and at earlier major votes. When controversial moments are consistently scheduled on inconvenient dates and times, it's not business as usual. It is a deliberate barrier to participation, an attempt to sideline and silence citizens. It is disenfranchisement. Whether you support this version of the PUD or not, the city's procedural games shenanigans are on full display, demonstrating a deep disrespect for the people who pay the taxes, fund the services, entrusted you with their votes. You may follow procedure, you may check the legal boxes, but if the process is designed to suppress

participation, it is not democratic. Our recent city election made one thing clear. There is no overwhelming mandate for this project. Yet past decisions show that you are behaving as if you have a mandate to push this through. You clearly do not. Across social media, public meetings, and door-to-door conversations, the sentiment has been of concern, skepticism, and opposition. Yet your decisions do not reflect citizen viewpoints. Instead of treating disscent as a guiding signal, you have treated it as background noise. When citizen input is treated as an obstacle, when scheduling is used to limit turnout, when razor thin election margins are treated as a mandate, something is deeply wrong with our representation process. At this point, certain members of the commission are no longer reflecting the will of their constituents. They are overriding it. Commission, you still have a choice. You do not work for a developer. You do not work for staff. You work for the people sitting behind me and those who could not be here tonight because of when you chose to hold this meeting. You can either reinforce this pattern of disenfranchisement or you can break it. Please do your job and stop hiding major decisions in holiday weeks and off hours and respect the voters who put you in those seats. Thank you and happy Thanksgiving.

Thank you. You too. Next, please.

Hi again, Jerry Anderson, 435 Vegir Drive. Um, madame mayor and commission commissioners, you find yourself in a precarious place right now. The vote to approve the ordinance amendment purportedly passed this body by the slimmest of margins. The voice of residents has been temporarily suppressed. A protest petition was literally ignored for 7 weeks in counting. You could still choose to act on that if you wanted to. A referendum petition where 1480 residents stated loudly loudly that they wanted their voices to be heard is being temporarily disallowed through, as was said, legal shenanigans. The actions and inactions of this commission have divided the commission itself and the voters it represents. The outward appearance is that you're silencing your residents to support the profit motives of a developer. I don't believe this is where any of you expected to be or wanted to be at this point in time. Fortunately for all of us, there's an off-ramp. You've been told repeatedly by Attorney Huff that the decisions made by this commission are its own. Not his, not city manager Charles, not the developer or his lawyers. This commission can vote how it wants on every issue put before it. That's the nature of legislative actions in a representative democracy, which this is. Your hands are not tied. You're not legally obligated to vote one way or another. The protest pet petition provides you with an off-ramp to the quickest possible way forward towards

responsible, safe, beneficial development in the heart of our city. You simply need to vote to uphold the protest petition that was filed 7 weeks ago. This allows you to re-engage with the developer, the residential neighbors, the commercial neighbors, and each other to come up with the development plan that will pass this commission by a 7 to0 vote. Something that would be beautiful to all of us. You don't have that far to go. Use the approved 2004 plan as your starting point. Ensure that every change to that plan adds safety and value to our city. Please honor the protest petition. Get to work next week on a development that will make all of East Grand Rapids proud. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, please. Good evening, Madame Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Christopher Zidarski. Um, and I am council for EGR responsible development, Gaslight Investors, uh, Responsible Development, and the five individuals, uh, residing in East Grand Rapids, um, who filed the lawsuit that Attorney Huff, uh, mentioned a little while ago. Um, I came tonight to speak to you about the protest petition and the proposed resolution that was on the agenda. I still plan to talk about that. Um, and this will kind of be a summary of the letter that I submitted um, to input at eastgr.org. or um and copy the city attorney and some other city officials. The uh the bottom line is that we urge you to uh oppose any resolution that rejects the the protest petition and the quickest way to get a development um for Gaslight Village is to um accept the fact that the protest petition is valid um that it's a legislative act and that it complies with the statutory requirements. Um and as a result that 4 to3 uh majority vote that occurred on October 6th uh did not result in a in a passage of the resolution amending the PUD. Um so two two points I just want to emphasize and the first is that um this there's been a debate about whether um the protest petition or or the passage of a PUD amendment um is um a legislative act or whether it's an administrative act. Um and there's it and it's has been urged uh by city officials that this is an administrative act. Um that is not the case and it's clear just if you follow the rules of the road um that are governing this body and that is the zoning ordinance um and

the zoning enabling act. Um and if you look at that the the city zone zone zoning ordinance um outlines the road map for how a PUD is amended and there are two different roads you can go down. You can have a what is what the ordinance calls a minor change or you can have a major change. Um the city's own website and the zoning administrator in countless memos has identified the development at Gaslight Village a major change and that should come as no surprise. As a result, case law is clear that this is a legislative um act and therefore the protest petition as a matter of course is the appropriate mechanism to file. Um secondly, the deficiencies identified in the proposed resolution about requirements, so-called requirements in air quotes that were not satisfied, um are simply not requirements under the statute and not required to be included in the petition. The reality is is that though on the face of that protest petition, the city clerk and the city is able to determine by looking at the records, property records, and doing calculations about the the zone and 100 ft outside of the zone to determine how it is that they have 20% of the of those owners that is required. just like you do in any other circumstance in which you need to have a certain threshold like the referendum petition in which the city clerk certified that there were certain uh sufficient um signatures for that referendum petition. So, thank you for your time and attention this evening.

Thank you. [clears throat]

Uh good evening. My name is Pat Lennon. with the Huntingman firm uh here on behalf of the applicant. Nice to see you all again and um like to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. You probably won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with Mr. Zadarski. Uh I'm here actually to speak in support of the actions that the city has already taken. Uh first with respect to the protest petition, it's well settled that protest petitions do not apply to administrative administrative actions of the city. They only apply and can only be accepted when the city is making a legislative decision or acting in its legislative capacity. The substance of the government's action as opposed to the form, name, or label given it is examined when determining whether the action is administrative or legislative. In this case, the application is an amendment to an existing site plan approval. It's limited to a single site. It doesn't even reszone the site. It doesn't reszone sites around it. For those and other reasons, the city properly determined it was an administrative action and not subject to a protest petition. [clears throat] But even if it was a legislative action, the protest petition submitted didn't pass muster. Specifically, it did not include the overall size of the land area within the 100 feet surrounding the property. It did not include evidence of who holds title to the land surrounding the property. It not did not include the percentage of the land area that is owned by the signers of the petition such that the 20% threshold was satisfied from the face of the petition. It did not show the signers with respect to the entities that were landowners actually had authority to sign on behalf of those entities. Um, [clears throat] contrary to the project opponents, the city can't s simply trigger a

supermajority requirement without verifying that all the requirements for the protest petition have been satisfied. When the petition was not accepted by the city, the commission proceeded with a vote and approved the application. The decision was made. The application was approved. The resol resolutions were signed by the city and the applicant. And the process has moved forward. Even if it wanted to, the city cannot turn back the clock and apply different rules to a vote it has already taken and a decision it's already made. With respect to the referendum, the same principles apply. It was an administrative decision. There's no referendum on legislative actions. But even if there were, as I think will be shown in the lawsuit, the flaws in the referendum petition were numerous and extreme. We think that process will play out in court. Um, we're not part of the court action at this point, but we thank you for your consideration and we wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. [bell]

Thank you.

Next, please. Would anyone else care to make comment to this agenda item? Okay, hearing none, I will close public comment. And there's no action. Oh, forgot my mic. Sorry. Oh, sorry. [laughter] So, there's no action. So, now we will move on to the consent agenda items. May I please have a motion and a second for tonight's consent agenda items? So, moved. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Any

opposed? All right. Motion carries. Um next we have an executive session request. So we will be attending an executive session um for attorney client communication in accordance with section 88 of the open meetings act. Um and that and we need a motion and a second to go into executive session. So moved. Second. Second. A roll call. That's a roll call, right? Yes. Okay, we've done it. Commissioner Bing, yes. Commissioner Grac, yes. Commissioner Hunter, yes. Commissioner Schwarz, yes. Commissioner Skaggs, yes. Commissioner Wesley, yes.

Mayor Favali, yes. Motion passes. Okay. We will not be coming back. There's no action taken. So this meeting is adjourned.