Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the East Lancing City Council regular, sorry, East Lancing City Council discussion only meeting of March 10th, uh, 2026. The meeting will come to order. Could we have the roll call, please? Council member Whan here. Council member Meadows here. Council member Singh here. Mayor Pro Tim Griggsby here. Mayor Alman here. Uh could we have a motion to approve the agenda? So move. Moved by Meadows. Second. Second by Whan. Uh all those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. The agenda is approved. communications from the audience. Um, we're doing all in person tonight. Next week, we will have all the emails we received since the last business meeting will be attached to the agenda. But today, we're doing in person and uh callers, I will call the slips in which they the order in which they went into the box. Uh, Christine Root.

Good evening. I'm Chris Root. I'm the chair of the use of force committee of the independent police oversight commission. I came to your discussion only meeting last month to talk about the problems of the police department giving the police oversight commission considerably less information about use of force incidents than had previously been the case. I explained that the monthly use of force reports have been drastically reduced despite the fact that the council did not amend the ordinance language concerning the contents of these reports. I also said that Ellip was still awaiting response to three information requests we had made on January 14, including one for a spreadsheet of use of force data for 2025. The conclusion that I shared with you last month was that the city is going in the wrong direction on transparency about policing. I want to update you tonight. Unfortunately, the news is not good. The first page in your agenda packet for item 3.3 is a memo we received from the police chief the day before our March 4th commission meeting. It states in the second paragraph that information the police department provides to the commission about the opening of complaints will be corrected so that it complies with the ordinance. That part is good news. However, the statement about the change to future monthly use of force reports did not address the core problem of the recent loss of data in these reports. And the memo did not even mention the commission's three information requests that had been languishing for 40 days, almost twice the number of days allowed by the ordinance. The chief's memo said that more text will be written about use of force incidents beginning in the February 2026 report. But she told us at the meeting that the 20 or so fields containing information at the beginning of the description of each incident will that were dropped as of November are not going to return. These fields were

developed by ELPD with the cooperation of the commission's use of force committee at the end of 2024. So both both bodies would have good usable data, but now the commission has been denied access to them. The commission has been asked many times to be more cooperative with the police department. I'd like to note this enormously negative outcome that has just happened despite many hours of volunteer labor over five months by five members of the use of force committee working with the ELPD administration plus several significant discussions by the full commission on this topic. The data fields in the monthly report are also in the spreadsheet that the commission requested. And it is this re spreadsheet that we received at the beginning of 2025. At last week's commission meeting, when we asked the chief about our information requests, she told us that the city attorney had decided that it was compliant with the ordinance for the police department not to give the commission the data in the spreadsheet, either in the narrative reports or in an annual spreadsheet. This means the oversight commission will be unable to write an annual report about use of force by East Lancing police officers in 2025. We were shocked to learn this. We think people in the community will be shocked also. I hope each of you is also very concerned about this. I do not know whether that was the intention of the decisions, but that is clearly the situation now. We don't have the information from which to write a report. The overwhelming mood of the commission's meeting last week was that the system is not working. We can't do the work we were appointed to do. Our meeting with the city attorney the previous month and then the city

attorney's meeting with the police chief didn't work. Apparently, information from the commission wasn't communicated accurately and decisions apparently made by the city attorney were not clearly communicated back to the commission. The people whom the city council appointed to the oversight commission are a committed and persistent group of people. So, we are trying again in hopes that the decisions about use of force report and spreadsheet can be reconsidered and might be overturned. We decided to invite the city attorney, the police chief, the city manager, and the council and staff liaison to meet with us at the April commission meeting so that we'll all be together in one place at one time. We hope this meeting will take place and that it will be fruitful. Um, one final comment about the proposed new transparency page on the police department website, which is also part of the presentation that you're going to be hearing about tonight. Um the chief did ask Ellip for comments

seconds remaining about the transparency page changes. Um she certainly will be receiving comments from uh commission members because there are a number of significant improvements needed in these pages. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Um Greg Briggs. Hello, city council members. Uh my name is the Reverend Greg Briggs. I'm the pastor at Edgewood United Church of Christ here in East Lancing. Uh I've been a pastor here for about a year and a half, and I'm standing here to voice my opposition to both proposed ordinances that are trying to outlaw homelessness um here in East Lancing. Um I've been a pastor for a year and a half here. Um I've been a pastor for 15 years um and primarily in Michigan. Um, I'm not an expert on homelessness, but as faith communities often plug the gaps in social safety nets, I would say that I'm an experienced amateur at the very least. Um, since I've came here a year and a half ago, I've been trying to learn what exists in the city of East Lancing and in the greater Lancing area for a social safety net for our homeless population. And so far, I haven't really found a net, but a couple of tattered strings, at least something that applies and cares for everyone equally uh in homelessness it are homeless. Um, in terms of municipal resources, I've not really found anything. In terms of nonprofits, I've not found them that uh apply equally to everyone. They're usually focused on people in select different needs. So, the idea that this city council would look at trying to criminalize homelessness and not be doing anything to help alleviate homelessness is hypocrisy of the deepest kind. Um, and I think it's shameful that we are that month after month these conversations have been going on about trying to figure out these ordinances and there have not been conversations about how we can better help our homeless uh brethren in our communities. Um, I have spoken um previously with Mayor Prom Chuck Grisby. I usually can't come on Tuesday. So, um, I talked with you before about offering to be part of

trying to do the work to develop ways in which East Lancing can be doing a better job of supporting people. So far, I've not heard any follow-up on that. So far, decriminalize homelessness, even at the most at the lowest level, only makes it harder for people to climb out of the homelessness pit. Furthermore, with given our current situation with the federal government, um that uh ICE and uh Border Patrol will use the flimsiest of excuses of criminality to justify arrests, detentions, and deportations. And so, the city of East Lancing would then be passively aiding and abetting in this work that would be targeting any homeless immigrants or frankly even homeless citizens that ICE just decides that they don't like. I believe our government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people, especially for those most in need. So instead of trying to figure out how to criminalize them and chase them away, let's figure out how to embrace them in love. Speaking personally, as a man that has dedicated his life to following a homeless teacher named Jesus, u I don't understand how any Christian people of faith could ever think about voting to criminalize homelessness. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Uh Kath Edel. Good evening. Angela Davis said, "Prisons do not disappear social problems. They disappear human beings. Homelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy are only a few of the problems that disappear from public view when the human beings contending with them are relegated to cages. The ACLU provided a memorandum to you all that in part said, "Basic acts of survival should not be treated as crimes. There are a myriad of options for the city to employ that do not result in criminalization of individuals experiencing homelessness for existing in public spaces. In fact, arresting people for merely sleeping outdoors is not permitted by the US and Michigan constitutions. And the repeated arrest and incarceration of the chronically homeless is both ineffective and costly. Many of us in this room and watching from home representing many different populations, queer, bipac, disabled, living in impoverty, and unhoused have said the same thing in several different ways over the last few months. You cannot police your way out of homelessness. I suspect this council is tired of hearing from those of us who return week after week. But the problem is that you're hearing but not listening. Instead, you are listening to yourselves and others like you who benefit from the institution of policing which evolved out of slave patrols and black codes to keep wealthy whites in power. This is the America you can closely relate to and do not wish to look at it critically. Law and order seem immutable when you are on the receiving end of the benefits. However, in those gray areas, the discretion that comes with applying the law by officers whose biases are informed by a police chief who believes minorities come into our community and commit crimes, that we need to look critically at the use of the police department to address social issues. Neither individual public commenters nor

organizations addressing the needs of the unhoused communities and individuals has once said, "Well, if you just change the term in the proposed ordinance from camping in public to either conversion of public property in a public place or obstruction interfering with public events, activities or other uses in public places that will resolve our concerns about these ordinances. It is not an issue of wordsmithing. It is an issue of criminalizing people for existing in public. Many, many other alternatives have been suggested. Other communities, including Milwaukee and Houston, have demonstrated success without police involvement. And the best we can do is redefine camping in the face of public scrutiny. This is embarrassing. While my comments have been focused on the camping ordinance, the minor changes to the loitering ordinance do not make it more palatable for the same reasons. Hanging out should not be criminalized. The solution really is simple. take both ordinances off the table and use the available resources to create housing first initiatives. With housing secured, address the individual needs of the previously unhoused in hopes of creating health and security moving forward. Lastly, I want to comment on the belief that those people, meaning people making public comment, do not live here and therefore their opinions should not matter. Ignoring subject matter experts on the issues of the unhoused regarding ordinances about the unhoused is ridiculous. Furthermore, I'll remind you that the police chief, most of the police department, the city attorneys, the city manager, and many of the city employees who are included as stakeholders, not subject matter experts in the decision-making process, do not live here. And yet, they feel they know what is best for the unhoused in our community. I'll hitch my wagon to the unhoused subject matter experts over the clueless and the cruel every day. Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Sally Newton. Good evening. I'm here to talk about agenda item 3.4 in today's council packet. Uh it's a little confusing to some of my neighbors. It refers to property owner requesting that their property be removed from the list of properties in a rental restriction area. under our existing um section 5772 RRO ordinance process already exists. That's great. Uh the proposed draft ordinance has seems to have a very limited use. So the the draft could have many unintended um unintended consequences and add significant legal costs to our strap city. Our neighbors continue to feel the pressure of investors eager to buy our properties uh for their own personal gain while owner occupied home rates decline. It is more important than ever to preserve our established 50772 RRO ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you, Jill Young.

Good evening. My name is Jill Young and I live in Shaw States on Longfellow Drive. My comments are about the proposed ordinance concerning overlay districts. Several years ago, I was one of two lead individuals in getting half of our Shaw State's neighborhood classified as an overlay district. I will admit we jumped into the process because we learned of the application for a renters's license from a house within it. This possibility was met with significant opposition from our neighbors as we swiftly organized and learned what needed to be done. It was a process with collecting signatures, filing paperwork, and attending city meetings. Eventually, our petition was passed and our overlay district created. That was and is the process. This proposal doesn't change the process for being designated as an overlay district. It hijacks it. When I look at the proposed amendment, the first question I ask myself is why? I know generally there is no interaction in this audience comments time, but I would ask the other council members when having discussions to ask Mr. Meadows and Miss Eversol Singh who brought this amendment forward, who is driving a change to a long-standing classification of homes that do not allow a rental property within a discrete and spec specifically defined residential area. A real estate agent talking with homeowners or potential homeowners about their possibilities. a homeowner who wants to move out and now rent their home. Someone who owns a home in an overlay district that has decided that the rules shouldn't apply to them. Someone who has decided that the opinions of the group of neighbors that specifically said they did not want any rentals or any more rentals within their neighborhood no longer matters. that the people who brought their homes in who bought their homes in the area knowing there would be no more rentals potentially at the next house because of the overlay district can be ignored with an application that none of these homeowners matter just because someone feels that they should be allowed to do what they want to do. And with this proposed process, those neighbors would have no formal say

in making a change. It would be in the hands of the city council, probably none of whom who live within the confines of the overlay district or know any of the people whose homes would be affected by the change. Why would the city make a change to an ordinance that has been in effect for over 20 years? I asked myself again why. Mr. Meadows, I seem to remember at prior council meeting years ago, you're explaining overlay districts were created to stop neighborhoods from being overtaken by student rentals. Am I wrong in my memory that you were in support of, if not a driving force in creating overlay districts? Why would you support circumventing the process? Now, we all know what the elephant in the room is, finances. Someone wants to make money on a home they own as they want to move elsewhere. I and a majority of my neighbors want to keep the value of our property where it is, knowing that adding a rental property to a neighborhood in a college town can potentially decrease our homeowner value. Whatever the motivation of the twothirds of homeowners that sign to create an overlay district for their neighborhood is, their opinion should count for a lot. And it continues to be true for homeowners who buy a home in an overlay district believing that their neighborhood is protected. All their opinions should be considered and heavily weighed. This amendment has very specific lang is very specific in its language of applying only to one side of the city block and can apply only if there are no more than two owner occupied homes within that block. Seems like it was created to allow specific properties to be pulled out of an overlay. Perhaps in an attempt to diminish the number of homes it would affect and make its passage more palatable. If the council passes this amendment, I can almost guarantee that the next ordinance that will come to you will be proposing exceptions be made for both sides of the block and then for three homes and then for four homes and it goes on and on. I ask you please on behalf of the 52 homes in my overlay district and the over 3,000 homes in the other overlay districts in East Lancing

that it neighbors worked hard to go through the petition process. Please do not make this exception and allow this proposed ordinance to be adopted. It will be just the beginning. I would ask the question, have you notified the other 21 overlay districts to this proposed change in the rules? The desire of one individual or small group of individuals who are financially motivated to ask for a change should not be allowed to supersede the desires of the rest of the homeowners in the overlay district. And to end on a lighter note and quote a hero of mine, Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Thank you.

Thank you, Karen Hony. Hello. I've spoken here on this topic many times, as have many other people. So, I'm not going to go over everything that everyone's already said over and over again about why criminalizing homelessness is not the solution. I'm just going to again speak to our local city here now and again ask why like why do we need these ordinances? No one to to date has provided any evidence linking an increase in criminality in East Lancing to the unhoused population. There's actually the data shows that there's been a decrease in violent crimes in East Lancing. And I so I just don't understand why these ordinances were ever even introduced in the first place. They don't even have to be voted on. they just can be simply taken off the agenda when the last time they were on the agenda to be voted on and Mr. or at the discussion meeting and Mr. development asked for them to be taken off so that they could meet with many of the expert folks that have stepped that have come forward to speak on this seemingly with a genuine interest in in learning from them. And so what I want to know is do they buy into this? Have you gotten the have they signed on to this? And has this has this met their I mean what's the point of meeting with them if you're not going to listen to their advice and you're not going to follow through with the suggestions that they're making? Again, you had several meetings about homelessness with all sorts of experts and folks and they came forward with a myriad of ideas, not one of which was, let's write two ordinances to criminalize people, find them, and then throw them in jail. That wasn't ever in any of the suggestions. It makes no sense to me. And I'm looking forward to the discussion part of the meeting tonight because I'm assuming that there will be some data presented to back up the reason that these ordinances are

being proposed in the first place. Without data, it's absolutely it. There's no reason for it other than to think that it's because people living downtown, white privileged people living downtown in the in the um Newman lofts that came forward in droves to speak about not wanting to look at homeless people or maybe business owners thinking it's not good for their business. That is not a reason to create and to criminalize an entire group of people. So I ask you to please either show the data or just take this off the table completely. We don't need these ordinances. They don't need to be changed. Wordsmith altered. They just need to not happen. There's no reason for them. Thank you. Thank you. Nick Taceras.

Hello. My name is Nick Tacis. I live at 515 Division for a long time. I just wanted to come and talk about Did you raise your mic so that we could hear you? Thanks.

Uh I was here to discuss the overlay uh ordinance amendment that you know was on the table here. Living in the Bailey neighborhood is a challenge as a family anyway having two small kids. And when you move there and you live there you understand that hey it's a big university town. we have all these great things about it, but it's not an easy place to live in that neighborhood. So, the overlay is something that adds a lot of value to people who live there. Um, I get that people wanting to make an amendment to have options with what they want to do. That makes sense to me. I can see why most people literally move out of the neighborhood once they have a couple of kids because they're like, "Ah, we cannot. We just can't do this anymore. We don't want to do this anymore." So, it's really important that we have that protection in place. And I think once we start allowing exceptions, I don't know. I think that'd be a big mistake. Um, so that's long and short of it is that I think if you're going to have the overlay, you have to keep it the way it is and enforce it. If you start making exceptions, there'll be more and more and more. And with this proposal one passing a year ago, we saw houses turn over in our neighborhood that are not they're not rentals. They are rentals. They're buying the house. Five kids live there. How do you enforce it? I don't know. But it's a big deal and it's a big change in our neighborhood. This would be another not to say the way this is worded is very specific. Maybe this exact thing is not awful in its own right, but I think the idea of amending it is a problem and it's going to become a bigger problem. Um, so that's the long and short of it, but it is a big deal to people who live in that neighborhood. If you don't live in that neighborhood, you probably don't

care. Ah, sure, a guy should be able to do whatever he wants. Maximize your, you know, whatever you got. But if you do live there, it's a huge deal. So, please understand that. Thank you. Jeff Hank.

Good evening, council. Jeffrey Hank, 349 division. I'm here to speak in support of the proposed overlay change. I live in 300 block of division. I'm one of two non- rentalals on my entire block. When I bought the house as a young man, I didn't have a family and I lived down the street from the Tacerases. I know them well. And uh they're right. It is a challenge living there with a family. I I wouldn't buy a house there now as a family. It's uh you know when you're completely surrounded by rentals um it's a challenge and most reasonable people I think wouldn't move there. So um I think the proposal that was put before put forward is very narrowly tailored and I understand the emotion people have in protecting um primarily uh residential areas from um being uh overtaken by rentals and the overlay districts do that. This proposal doesn't change that. It keeps the overlays in place. Well, it allows for uh a modification which council has the ability to make in the first instance. So, it's really giving you the power at another time that you have in the first instance, which the current overlay uh ordinance does not do. It's actually incredibly inflexible, if not impossible to change because you would need every person's signature in there. To repeal, you can't amend an overlay district. If I'm correct, you can ask your city attorney about that, but you actually have to repeal it. So, if someone wants to change it, they're they have no option other than to repeal it. So, in the intern, what happens is all the people that are concerned if something gets repealed, then there's nothing to stop someone from applying from uh rental licenses in that uh area. So, um I think your uh proposal is very narrowly tailored and probably doesn't affect that many people and there are c certain circumstances that uh you know change after decades and the city council should have the power and authority to do that. And um I can understand some of the concerns people raise here tonight, but I think some of that's acting out of emotion rather than the actual factual specific basis of what this ordinance says. And uh there's

some there's some truth to what someone said about the needs of the many overweigh the needs of the individual. But there's also something called the tyranny of the majority. And I hear that sentiment from some people in this community sometimes where they don't have the empathy for what other situation someone else is in. So, I believe that you as a city council should have the power and authority to make reasonable, narrowly tailored modifications. And I've seen an insinuation coming from members in the BCA that council members were paid to do this. Um, I'm in support of this. I've never paid uh council member Singh or Mr. Meadows anything. I've never made a campaign contribution to either one of them. The only person I've contributed to was Mayor Alman. He he may not be in favor of this anyway. So, just for what it's worth, I uh I think people should be a little take a deep breath, read the proposal um before you react emotionally and start throwing out dispersions about what people might be up to. Thank you.

Thank you, Nathan Isadoric.

Good evening, council. Nathan Isidoric, 411 Marshall. Um I'm here tonight to talk about communication. I was I was up here not too long ago, uh maybe 6 months ago, basically saying the same thing. Um I don't feel as though I'm getting communication back from members of this council, members of this administration, members of city hall. Um couple issues here. The first one is, and I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I would like maybe somebody to look into it, is back on October 27th, I applied to be on the historic district commission. I submitted my application. I got a automated email back from Tammy's office that said, "Hey, we got your application. Uh, we'll review it over the next 45 days. um we'll ask you in for an interview and we will determine whether or not you're right fit for the board. I never got that interview. I never got any letters saying, "Oh, hey, we've selected anybody else or a reason why I wasn't selected to be interviewed." Um it's the historic district commission. I have a masters in historic preservation. I've been doing zoning and code enforcement since 2010. Um, I'm well verssed in everything that's going on with how these ordinances work and everything. So, um, it'd be nice to know why I was looked over or not even chosen. Uh which brings me to the next problem where uh I've I've reached out multiple times to a half dozen people. Um regarding an issue I have with how the process was done with something that was presented to the historic district

commission. Mr. and you were there that night um when there was a fence in discussion and I said, "Hey, look, there's no application for this fence and yet it's being presented to this commission like it's uh been approved." So, I'm kind of wondering why staff would write up a a whole staff report on a a change to somebody's property without even submitting an application for that. uh there seems to be an issue there and in transparency and and why that would happen. So, um, when I raised that issue, um, I end up emailing the city manager, um, Annette Irwin, Landon Brantley, um, Alicia Rman Wright, city attorney Japovich, uh, and the actual historic commission themselves. um saying that it wasn't right, that it wasn't going through the proper due process of what's laid out in the ordinance that's been intact since I think the early 80s. Um, I received a response saying that Annette Irwin did not see an issue uh with a lack of due process and that the commission did make a motion and moved um and and that was it. And so I I responded the same day. I said, "Could you please explain how the commission moved and approved an agenda item based on a non-existent application for a wood privacy fence on the sideyard?" Additionally, would you mind explaining how staff fabricated a report regarding a property development without an

application? And I asked the third question, is this service available to all city residents? I received no response. A week later, I followed up saying I would appreciate a response. Still nothing. A week later, I decided to email Mayor Alman, city manager Bman. Still no response. Yesterday, I emailed again. I'm once again reaching out to get an answer for my inquiries from January 12th. Surely 8 weeks is long enough for someone to make up some sort of reasoning as to why a staff report was presented to commission without an application. Further, I'd like to know why these communications are not included in the communications to citiz from citizens in the HTC packets. Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Cadia Ericson. Hello, my name is Cadia Ericson. I'm the executive director of the Mid Michigan Tenant Resource Center. I'm also the housing chair for the Lancing Branch NAACP. and I'm back again for the same thing to continue to urge you to vote no on both ordinances 1565 1566. I'd also like to add to it to also vote no on the property conversion as well. Um I've had some wonderful conversations with almost all of you and I look forward to a conversation with you Mr. Whan to discuss ample opportunity for the city of East Lancing to exhaust really all other alternatives to criminalization before turning to this. East Lancing really is not experiencing like an explosive problem of street homelessness. There's certainly so much more housing insecurity and instability in this area as opposed to street homelessness. Um and so again, that is another opportunity um for you to be focusing attention, energy, funding in the budget um and preventative measures to keep people in their home. And as far as the people that are on the street, you know, as I said in our meetings, through consistent and concerted outreach with folks, making sure that they're consistently in contact with case workers, that we're making sure that they're following along the the process to access documentation, and then once they have that, moving forward to access a voucher if that's what it is, get them access to a job if that's what they're looking for and are able to do, connected to other benefit programs so that we can get them into housing and

have them stabilized and remain there permanently. Um um through through my com all generally want the same thing which is for people to not have to live on the streets. We want them to be in housing to be stable, healthy and you know in some level being able to um you know exceed what they thought could be possible in terms of self-actualization. And we can't get people to that point if we're starting from a pathway of criminalization. And I have taken the time to read the new ordinances that are in the packet. I've taken a look at them and I understand that um in one of them we add a step of a civil infraction which I feel is kind of going backwards a little bit in terms of that. And then in the property conversion, while I do understand that it is not necessarily criminalization and that it would lead to a misdemeanor, um I would be remiss to not point out that um if these people could afford a $100 fine, they would be in a hotel. Uh they wouldn't be on the street. Um and so it's still not a realistic solution to deter people from camping on the street. Ways that we could deter that though is like maybe investing in jobs programs. Um I had talked to you potentially about like a rent smart program but for landlords where we're assisting them with accessing the funds to do repairs so that it's easier for people to remain in their housing. Um looking back at the contract, who can we get in there to do that to do that consistent outreach in East Lancing? um you know looking at some of the ordinances that have come up previously let's revisit those like how can we create more um you know extremely low income housing and I know people are sick of hearing that but it is a serious crisis across the country I know you're all busy professionals but I don't know if you've taken the time yet to read the GAP report that came out from the

National Low-Income Housing Coalition which points out that just nationally we're doing really bad um we have a massive massive shortage of housing that our extremely lowincome folks can afford. This is a national level crisis, right? And in my conversations with you all, I had discussed that we need to be partners in collaboration to seek out those state dollars and those federal dollars that we need in order to address the crisis that we're experiencing here, right? And as time goes on and if we aren't putting more of our time and attention into preventative measures, you will see the explosive homelessness crisis that you are concerned about. It will come here if people are not able to stay in the housing that they have. That is something that you can do now um to work on that. Eviction diversion programs work really well. Um rental arers are a huge issue just across the county. People cannot afford the homes that are in. So like lowering the cost of rent is really important for keeping people where they're at and preventing them from ending up on the street. When people are signing conditional dismissals, that's also a black mark, right? So they may have avoided an eviction on their record, but that conditional dismissal is a risk signal to the AI systems landlords are using to screen tenants. And so I 5 minutes is not enough to convey how deep the issue is. But I can promise you criminalizing or civil infractions is not going to achieve ending homelessness in this city. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Stephen Shablinsky. Hi everyone. Thanks again for having open discussion about um the ordinances that a lot of us here are concerned about 65 and 66. I'm here to encourage you once again to um reject the any need for either of these ordinances. I was able to look through um ordinance uh 66 where it first started as a camping ban um and then moved to options two and three. To me, it seems like options one and two are essentially the same thing. I applaud your ability to step back with incarceration as a punishment. But as Kada just said, when people acrew fines, those misdemeanors can very quickly turn into a bench warrant. A judge can then pull in an unhoused person for an arrest that can be tamed. There goes the carceral continuum for unhoused people. Or that's how it can start. Anyways, the third option seems so ambiguous that it's almost moot. It seems there's so many contingencies that um an individual would would spend all of their time with a police officer being shlept around Lancing or East Lancing trying to find support. I'm not sure that's a a good use of anyone's time as well. What could be done is just to avoid these ordinances altogether that would avoid the criminalization of unhoused people. Lots of great um ideas just came from uh Kada about what we could do proactively to actually help unhoused people. That is be more proactive in reaching out to um provide services, not have police interfacing with unhoused people at first crack, but trained mental health

professionals, social service workers. Um and yeah uh and I would given that I thought this was a discussion uh an open discussion meeting just a a question a a gentle question to to the council is where where is this coming from other than merely anecdotes and I and I don't mean that pjoratively. I'm just wondering where the ordinances the inspiration from these came from. Um, if we could have that discussion, that'd be that'd be wonderful because, as someone else had previously said, the the data appears to be lacking about why these ordinances um would be justified for criminalizing unhouse people when perhaps that that's really not an issue that um most people are experiencing in downtown East Lancing or other parts of East Lancing. So, just an open question for discussion. You know, where is this really coming from? I think a lot of people here are confused about that and reading these sort of iterations of ordinances and and not seeing a lot of change in them. So where is this all coming from is a is a question that I would pose to you all. But thanks for your time once again. I appreciate you listening.

Thank you. Um those are all the slips that I have. Is there anyone else in the room who would care to address the council at this point? Okay, seeing none, do we have any callers? There is one caller in the queue. Caller with the phone number ending in 954, you are now free to address the council. Did that Hello. Did that work? Uh, we can hear you.

All right. Thank you. This is Nicole Kway Vber. I live on Blanchot Street in East Lancing. Um I'm also certainly opposed to the ordinances that were brought up that would um criminalize people who um can't afford a home and you know are certainly I think we could and really need to do better as a society um for caring for one another and not just you know kind of going all in on a for profit prison system being supported and jailing. Um, I hope that I really loved the last men's question. Where did this come from? Is it beyond anecdotes? That sort of thing or sort of the kind of casual cruelty that I think a lot of people unfortunately might feel some sort of odd refuge in um and this kind of dehumanization. Um and there's really great alternative the report that's in with the um you know particulars for this meeting of the written communications that came from the ACLU and the housing commission. It's incredibly well done. I mean all of that uh footnoted studies and documentation and and very clear points made. I hope you all really, you know, took the opportunity to kind of take all that information in and sort of center your discussion around that. I'll be really interested in um, you know, what could possibly kind of have more uh impact than the information that was provided to you all um, in that particular study. Um, I hope that you know the that you kind of work with facts and with data and you know not worry about uh feeling like you have to compromise

with folks who are coming from an incendiary place that you know um just really doesn't come with solutions other than a kind of knee-jerk um lock them up attitude. So yeah, that's what I wanted to say. Thanks. Thank you. Are there any more callers? There are no more callers in the queue. Okay, very good. So that concludes communications from the audience. Um, communications from mayor and council members. Council member Singh. Um, I'll leave my comments for the agenda items. Thank you. Um, Mayor Prom Griggsby.

Yes. Um, there were a couple people in the audience that spoke about communication and the city getting back with them. I would hope that uh their testimony tonight uh reminds us about getting back with them and getting them some closure or some opportunity to resolve some of the issues they brought up tonight.

Thank you, Council Member Meadows. Um uh like council member sing u I've got plenty to say about the items we've got on but I'll pass for anything else now. Council member Whan do have a few things just to recognize officer Musa Ba. He is on the patrol division of the East Lancing Police Department. Right now he is um deployed. He is National Guard. He's deployed in the Middle East right now. So um I believe he's just been extended. He's an amazing person. Um a um quite a presence in any room. If you've not met Musa, he's a great man to me meet. So our thoughts and prayers are with him as he serves in the Middle East right now. Also, on a lighter note, KJ Torbert just got Mr. Basketball from the East Lancing High School basketball team, which is a huge huge thing. And we've had several Miss Basketballs and Mr. Basketballs in the past. That's a great great um achievement. And also the boys are playing right now at um Don Johnson Fieldhouse. They started at 7 o'clock and I'm supposed to hear how they do. It's the quarterfinals. If they win this game, then they play on Friday at the Breerland Center. That's all I have, sir.

Thank you. And I will just uh thank Miss Ericson for a productive meeting uh yesterday with uh the city manager. a lot of it the issues that came up uh concerning these issues were operational issues and I think there was a a good discussion of um ways in which we might partner in the future. So I appreciate that. Uh city manager report I have a couple items tonight. First, I just want to give a shout out to DBW, Alando Chapel, Homer Allen, and the crews because of the uh rain event that occurred Friday night and into Saturday, we had a lot of uh flooding, or I shouldn't say a lot, we had flooding within known locations in the city. A lot of it dealt with leaves blocking catch basins. And so, uh, they went out, they worked all night, they had a water man break that I think they worked on for 16 hours. Um, so I just want to continue to recognize the effort and the response. The second item I wanted to share is the uh, city's crystal award nominations are now open through March um, March 20th. community. The categories include community, business, diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, and spirit of East Lancing. Uh, April 16th is when we will honor the winner. So, uh, it's on the city's website. Uh, the information was shared publicly and so if there's nominations, please complete that form and submit it for review and selection process. I didn't know if Council Member Meadows wanted to add anything to that.

No, I'm glad that it's being advertised because I was getting nervous about how long it was taking to get get to this point. So, thanks for getting that up there. You're welcome.

Okay, thank you. That concludes uh communications. We are on to discussion items. Uh item 3.1 on the agenda is new officer uh introduction. Assistant Chief Craft, please. Good evening, Mayor Alman and council members. I have the honor tonight of introducing the newest member of the East Lancing Police Department, Officer Noah Curl. Officer Curl is originally from Braidwood, Illinois, and attended Reed Kuster High School, where he was recognized as an Illinois State Scholar. During his senior year, he enlisted in the United States Air Force and went on to serve five years in security forces. His assignments included missile security operator, convoy team leader, breacher team leader, fire observer, and group training instructor. An impressive range of responsibilities that speaks to both his capability and leadership. During his military service, Noah met his wife. They were married and welcomed their son in 2024. As a family, they enjoy spending time outdoors, hunting, fishing, and hiking, and also enjoy video games and reading. We are very happy to welcome his family into ours. Officer Curl earned an associates degree in criminal justice from the Community College of the Air Force, and I was just told uh in the hallway here that he finished his bachelor's degree this morning in uh organizational management from the University of Arizona's global campus. Uh Noah graduated from the community college police academy two weeks ago and not only did he graduate but he received the prestigious MOS award. This award recognizes exceptional performance acrossmies or I'm sorry academics excuse me skills training and professionalism. It's a significant honor in a Michigan police academy. Noah's achievement speaks volumes about the kind of officer he is going to be and we are very

excited about his future here in East Lancing. Thank you for your time.

Congratulations and welcome to Officer Curl and congratulations also to Captain O'Hario and Captain Boie on their promotions. Uh item 3.2 Two on the agenda is discussion of quarterly legislative update with Moren Watson Bulier of Macalli Malli Merchant. Good evening. It's nice to see all of you again. I am Moren Watson Bulier with Mckelby Merchant and Associates and um I'm here to answer questions you have about uh legislative issues that are going on at the state capital. I shared a few pieces of legislation with council before the meeting um that I thought might be relevant to the discussion. Um and if you have any questions about those um you know please feel free to bring them up. Um but maybe I will start first with um House Bill um uh I think it's 5031 related to um loud car exhaust noises. It's been an issue that council has asked questions about in the past and I think um residents bring up pretty regularly. So I wanted to let you know about some progress I think we're making around that issue. Um there has been previous legislation on this um that um would help communities, you know, attempt to um address uh how they respond to some of those loud noises. Uh the legislation um did move out of a committee last session. It has not yet been introduced again this session but they are looking you know sort of working through what's the right path forward and I think working through a process of coalition building with various stakeholder groups to make sure

that that gets sort of the best reception that it can moving forward. Uh so um I would just sort of let folks know that there is some potential movement there around that issue. Um obviously this has been a um legislative session with divided government you know with the Republicans in the House and Democrats in the Senate. So legislation does move rather slowly and we are heading close to the election. But there is I think um you know other communities that are raising a similar issue and are seeking you know if there is some additional state solution that will help them better respond to their residents concerns. questions for Miss Watson Bulier concerning the loudcar issue.

Questions? Remind me of who's the sponsor. The sponsor last session was Representative Natalie Price. And I think part of the coalition building has been reaching out to other communities that are maybe along that Woodward corridor that may experience some similar loud noise issues. Okay. So, I mean, does the speaker see is he gonna okay this considering he doesn't like to pass much of anything?

I think you're right. There's an issue there. Um, but I also think that um this is an issue that affects, you know, communities in a bipartisan fashion. You know, certainly up and along up along Woodward is not, you know, only one community. And so, I think there are a lot of voices that are sort of working to see what path is forward. And I should provide by way of context for those in attendance and those viewing that the city does retain Miss Watson's uh Watson Bulier's uh services as a lobbyist in the legislature to advance the city's interests. And so we have given her guidance on various issues that have been of interest to the council and one of them is of course allowed exhaust. That's driving everybody crazy. And then there are a couple of other issues that you may want to address next.

Yes, I would um touch base on the smart zone issue. The city is one community although there are several across the state that has a smart zone located um in the region and u many of those are going to be expiring quickly. Uh there's actually one in the southeast Michigan region that will expire before the city of East Lancings and so there has been a push to be able to um look to how this tool might be still available to communities that does require statutory changes um in order for that to continue. And so that has been one of the issues um that we have been you know watching that bill did move out of committee uh recently to the House floor. Again this is an issue that affects you know bipartisan communities. this isn't sort of a one side or the other. And as a result, I do think that there's a path forward in the House. And I believe there's strong support, you know, from a number of champions in the Senate to help make sure that um communities that are interested in the option to renew these types of zones would be able to make that decision locally that they wouldn't just expire at that state level.

Questions concerning that issue? And I just like

just like to note that uh the bill actually extends our ability to extend for a 15-year period the funding mechanism that we have right now for the smart zone uh the lancing east lancing smart zone although we're we're still working on getting the title right on uh some of the local information with regard to that. So thanks for your work on that. Uh it's an important extension. uh we can deal with other issues since right now we're the only um community that actually funds the smart zone and we'll be taking care of that if we can get this passed. Okay,

any other questions? I just like just a couple additions because for folks that may not know the activities of the smart zone, but it's really about supporting entrepreneurs and commercialization uh from our research university and the idea is providing a pathway to stay in the community as well. Um so we've been working closely for many years um with the MSU Foundation uh along those ends. I think similar question though um in terms of I'm just like with a time I know these communities have a timeline and a faster timeline than East Lancing does in terms of the sunset. Um, is having the MEEDC CEO as a co- signator on extending these along with the state treasurer going to create any issues for speaker hall and does it have a pathway? You mentioned it has a pathway out of the house. So, I'm I believe it does. It moved um, you know, in a bipartisan unanimous move out of committee. I don't think that would happen without that speaker sign off. So, I do think that that is an indication of a path forward. um but it has not yet been brought up on the House floor and that clock is really ticking. While it certainly is for East Lancing as well, um you know, I think that other communities are looking at even later this spring that their zones will expire. So, um you know, I think that there will be a strong push for continued movement

and last year he held everything till last minute for negotiating purposes anyway. So, you could see a really it could be a pattern rob Yeah. Yes. A strategy if you will. Yes. And locally the the Smart Zone funds the tech, right? The technology and innovation center. Is that one of the main? Yep. Okay. Which is a business incubator uh run by MSU Foundation, I believe. All right. And then there's one more set of bills.

Yes. Um and this one I would bring up. It's gotten a lot of attention certainly um in Lancing at the capital. Um it deals with affordable housing and um some various uh policy solutions to try and address that. Uh I think it's gotten so much traction because the governor did um call for movement on these issues in the state of the state. Um you know I think the the quote was build baby build. Um, and so I think uh that given that type of strong endorsement from the governor, uh, you know, these are a package of bills we should take a close look at and be aware of. Um, but I will also say they've drawn, um, a really there's a lot of friction around the conversation. Um, and there's been, you know, push back from communities all across the state that don't feel like it was as collaborative as it could have been. There are others, um, on the other side that feel like, you know, changes need to happen quickly. Um and so I just wanted to make sure that council is aware that those uh bills could be moving particularly in the house. It's a bipartisan package introduced by um uh Christian Grant from Grand Rapids and uh Joe Arona from Clinton Township. Um, and so when you see that sort of bipartisan group come together, that can be an indication that they'll move forward, especially with the state of the state emphasis on that.

Questions concerning those.

I'll just note that uh the municipal Michigan municipal league has come out in opposition to these these uh essentially I I I would say that it's nice that they're called uh you know an affordable housing package, but it isn't about affordable housing. What it does is it makes it easier for developers and landlords within communities because what it does is it strips some of our local authority away from localities. Now, there are some who say any kind of housing tank should should be consistent across the state of Michigan, but with regard to almost everything that is addressed in these particular bills, the the bills um are subject to local uh approaches. you know, a university community like East Lansancy may look at some of these things differently because they will not result necessarily in affordable housing in any way whatsoever, but we will lose our authority to to control them. And I think you've got five bills here

and there are four more out there that are on their way uh in this package. And I I haven't had a chance to look at those yet. So I don't know exact how we would look at those, but I'll just note uh that the municipal league has come out strongly opposing these.

Further comments? So these are preeemption bills essentially that would preempt the city's uh ability among other things uh to control um auxiliary dwelling units uh in on residential properties. And so it would be possible for people to build um these sorts of units in their backyards, for example. Um and the municipality would not be allowed to restrict the use of an accessory dwelling unit to occupancy by the owner of the dwelling to which the ADU is incidental. And so this could be uh a large problem for our uh rental regulations and our overlays in particular. Any other updates for us? anything that we need to pass along

to Miss Watson Bulier. Does the city manager have anything? You know, Moren and I have been talking periodically. She provides me updates as things either pop their heads up in the legislature or are moving through. You know, of course, we have grant dollars that have been tied up in a court action uh based on a challenge or an opinion from the attorney general on the House's decision to remove those monies from the budget and whether the House had the authority to do that. And I'm not sure where that process is at.

Sure. It's um difficult to predict where that will end up, but right now it does appear that the parties sort of being the House, Senate, and Governor are attempting to resolve that outside of that court case. So, uh, it may be that we'll see a supplemental move that could address the spending authority on those items. Um, there was a supplemental that particularly related related to the Selfridge Air Force Base that moved through the House recently and some federal dollars associated with that. Um, that could be a bill that additional work project items could be added to, but there are many introduced bills in both chambers that this could also go into. So, it doesn't necessarily mean it has to go into that. Um I believe there are ongoing discussions. I've been in touch with both chairs and um many members of the staff and you know I think the the strongest you know direction is that there are deeper conversations happening and so whether that means we'll see that supplemental move before the spring break um uh recess by the legislature or not, you know, sort of remains to be seen. The House um will be on their break starting next week on Thursday. the Senate will remain in session for an additional week after that. Um, but it's also possible that they'll continue those discussions through the break and we'll see action in April. Um, you know, many of the organizations impacted obviously it was, you know, several hundred million dollars. So, there are organizations all over the state and in every community. Um, and so I think that they are continuing to seek how they'll address um those funds being frozen.

Thank you. Any final questions or comments? Mr. Jopek,

I hope it's okay if I just mention one thing on the uh the zoning preeemption bills that are being submitted. Uh it was mentioned that there's nine uh five in four coming. Uh and the MML has taken a position on them. The MML hasn't just taken a position in opposition. they are uh the organization is submitting uh alternate bills that approach affordable housing from another direction, a more positive uh direction as some might perceive. Um so if you're interested in that, they do have their information posted on the MML uh website for you to review and see what they're doing in that regard. It's called the My Homes program. Uh it's capital Mi, Michigan, My Homes uh program. Just thought you might like to know that information as well.

Thank you. That's good to know. Those are referred to government ops right now. Um and they do um I think they refer to that as the carrot approach as opposed to the stick approach and they would sort of have some dollars that would follow some of the changes they would attempt to make there. Great. Thank you for the update.

Thank you. Uh that brings us to uh item 3.3 on the agenda which is discussion of police and fire department updates. Assistant Chief Craft, Interim Chief Newman Good evening. Thanks for having us again. You want to go? Oh, never mind. So, the first slides in the packet are police. Would you like to lead off, Mr. Mr. Craft? I can.

Well, good evening once again. Uh, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on several initiatives and activities within the police department. In terms of our hiring, we're continuing to work diligently to fill open positions within the agency and are seeking to attract high-quality candidates through targeted recruitment and partnerships. We added Officer Curl this past week and have five other applicants with accepted conditional offers, plus several more in our process, including some lateral officers. We just completed a process for open jail positions and extended offers to two applicants. Our goal will always remain to hire the best and brightest to serve this community. Additionally, we are pleased to share that we have recently promoted Travis Boy and Adrienne O'Hario to captain positions within the police department. These positions will help to solidify leadership at ELPD for years to come and would not have been possible without the support of this council approving these positions. And for that, I wanted to say thank you to everyone here. On to training. Also, with the support of this council, ELPD has been able to uh contract with several nationally recognized instructors to bring important and relevant training to our staff in 2026. Our community has been clear about his expectations, transparency, accountability, and meaningful investment in prevention and training. And so, I'm happy to report that every officer has been through implicit and unconscious bias training already this year. The spring we will focus on deescalation and trauma recognition. And finally, over the summer, we will concentrate on ethical policing and professionalism. Each of these topics is vital to ensuring that we have officers who are resilient and prepared to serve the community with the highest level of integrity and respect. Next, so in terms of our technology, earlier this year, ELPD set out to identify and implement a system that would improve how we collect, analyze, and share use of force data. Our current software

systems require extensive manual entry into duplicate systems which limits both efficiency and transparency. We have recognized some shortcomings regarding our data software systems, the lack of automation and sharing and this has prompted us to partner with the Axon company in order to customize the platform for our reporting that will produce analytics in a more orderly and meaningful way. We kicked off our contract in February and we are planning to go live with this new product over the summer with a goal of a more streamlined and integrated output. In addition to the new software, we're in the final stages of constructing a transparency page for the website that will include a multitude of different stats and options for the public to see. Our administrator that is developing the page has spent countless hours researching other agencies on what data is being shared in their communities. We are currently in the process of engaging our community stakeholders for feedback on the page and hope to have it officially launched in April. Our goal will always be to share timely, accurate information with both the public and city leadership. And finally, in an effort to continue information sharing with Ellipo, Chief Brown issued a memorandum last week that seeks to address some of the concerns raised by the board. We are changing some terminology in the monthly report. The criteria and notification for complaints have been updated and tracking forms will be kept up to date for both complaints and motions filed by Aly. We hope these changes will help to strengthen our relationship and increase communication and transparency. So on the attached slide, you will see a snapshot of officer activity in terms of calls for service and traffic stops. The comparisons show a 5% increase in fall calls for service from January to February of this year. and a 6% increase in traffic stops. When we look year-over-year, we see that the calls for service have remained fairly similar, but we have increased our traffic enforcement over 28%. Our top concern from our neighborhood and community groups continues to be

traffic safety, and we have prioritized looking at this issue from several different angles, including education, enforcement, and engineering. These stops are important tool not only for our traffic safety, but also for crime prevention and community engagement. Council previously requested more comparison data and we are committed to providing those comparisons. If there are additional metrics that council would like added to this monthly report, we'd be happy to update the slide in the future. So, I do want to take a moment to highlight an initiative that uh ELPD has recently brought to our community through our social work program. Mental Health First Aid is an 8-hour instructional block of training that has been provided to all of our officers and will be presented to new hires as they come aboard. Its purpose is to teach participants how to identify, understand, and respond to signs of mental illness and substance use disorders and how to deescalate and provide initial support until professional help arrives. Not only have our social workers trained several city departments, but they are also training other groups in our region. If anyone is interested in this training, please reach out to our social work team for more information. And finally, last month, East Lancing Police and Fire, Meridian Police and Fire, and the MSU police were all presented with over 100 bravery bags from our local Kowanas chapter. These bags are created by our community partners to give out on calls where a child may have been involved in an incident, an accident, or experienced something traumatic. They contain a stuffed animal, a book, and other resources, and will be placed in our emergency vehicles for future distribution. We are very fortunate to have such great partners in the community. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide the update, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions for Mr. KF? Thank you for the update. Um, yes, please, Mr. Griggsby. I just had a couple of quick questions. um and a little bit kind of all over a little bit, but with the officers that you have in rotation to where you think you'll be 6 months from now as far as capacity wise, where's that number at? My hope is that we have uh 55 people on staff, uh which is our authorized strength by the end of the year. And what do we budget for? 57 55 55. Okay. So, you'll be fully

That's our goal. Now, that's also going to include folks that are headed to the academy. Um, and again, if we're able to hire laterals along the way, they can immediately be put into the field training program and hit the road fairly quickly. Uh, but we're looking at as many as two headed to the academy in May and then maybe an additional four to five, maybe even six in August, uh, to the Mid Michigan Police Academy. So, we're we're moving. Uh, thank you. And then um for the training that's already been provided um did you get any feedback from any of the staff your your your uh team in regards to what they thought about that um or what their experience was with that?

Yeah, from the folks that I talked to after um very well received. Um the instructor we had was charismatic and and uh enjoyed teaching the topic. He was a former officer um and so he was able to really relate to the staff and and really I hope change some perspectives. So, um, the first one was great and we're really excited about the next two.

Um, so I just, uh, I've been hearing from a few community members. I know there was a process that, uh, the agency wanted to kind of do anformational type roll out and then more enforcement when it comes to some of the noises and the noise ordinance uh, that we are now trying to address, especially with the weather getting a little bit warmer. I just wanted to get a little bit feedback about where exactly that is right now.

Uh from my knowledge, um we did put out some things through our socials and we did want to give a bit of a grace period so that folks can understand uh the change in the ordinance and I think we want to do about a 30-day window and we're about there now with moving forward towards more uh probably stops coming up and and again continuing the education piece of it.

Okay. So that's wrapping up and then so so can you tell me about and maybe I mean I know that u maybe you don't have everything but just generally speaking about the process of enforcement with that because I know it's a little bit challenging um when it comes to discretion and um we don't have the technology that really matches with some of the ways to address that. Can you just briefly walk me through kind of what your idea for how that's going to be enforced? Well, we are actually looking at technology. We've uh have some folks kind of doing some deep dives on on different things being used in other communities. So, that is something we are looking at different detection equipment and things like that. So, again, you know, most of this still is about education. We're not really necessarily super hyperfocused on enforcement. Um but those that are, you know, the different mufflers that are exceedingly loud, those are stops that we're going to start making and have that conversation with the drivers. Okay. Yeah. Um, yeah, I just asked some, you know, some interaction, some brief comments, and it seems like, um, right now it's really kind of getting revving up, if you will, in regards to some of those issues. So, I just wanted to bring that to your attention. You probably knew that already. Uh the other thing I wanted to ask you about if I may um is um with the reset or the reapproach to the transparency and some of the different um uh initiatives that you guys have in play and the cooperation with uh the community and with some of our commissions and and and are you are you are you guys pretty confident that we can start having a process that really addresses is some of their concerns, some of the community concerns in a way where we were moving in the right direction when it comes to some of those issues that they brought forward.

Are you speaking on on just transparency of stats or uh data transparency and communication process? I know we talked uh uh in a in a clo in a in a closed meeting about kind of some of those different steps going forward and really making sure that that people understand like the process and they're educated about what you're doing within that is really what I was trying to get at.

Yeah. I think that right now again we're still in that stakeholder um you know bringing different viewpoints into what people actually want to see and what they want to have reported. And so, um, I think the chief this past week sent out, uh, some examples to Ellipo for some feedback and some other groups. Uh, and then again, coupling that with this new software we're looking at where the analytic side of it will actually create these dashboards for the use of force things that people want to see. So, I I think that this conversation that we're had on on what the community wants, uh, we're listening and we are doing everything we can to direct our our focus towards that. So, we're on the right path.

Yes. And then that data system you're talking about, are you are you pretty confident that that will allow us and you to be able to generate a turnaround with the accurate information that you guys feel that will help you? Yes, because a lot of it's going to be moving towards automation. And so right now, a lot of what we produce is is manual. And again, it's in a couple housed in a couple of different places. It's it's it's archaic. Uh and so again, this this new standards platform, um as things go in, it it goes to a transparency page. And so again, we're really excited to again and that's customizable as well towards what people want to see. So we're there and we finally identified the the path. So it's just going to take some time to get it off the ground.

Thank you. And um I'm not sure does does the does the police department do an annual report. Do you know? I would assume so. I'm still fairly new on the role, but I would assume we do. Yes. Okay. And that has relevant data to like, you know, use of force, arrest, and all those types of things. Is that the kind of report that you're familiar with as far as how what I would be familiar with? Yeah. Again, I'm I'm not sure that one.

All right. Thank you. Any other comments? Um, so I um I attended the Darnell Blackburn training uh with a cohort of patrol officers and I agree he was charismatic and the officers were engaged and respectful and I thought it was effective and I think it was credit to the chief for uh setting that up. Um in terms of time to get officers on staff, there's sort of a separate question following up on the mayor pertmps question. So ideally we'd like to get back to five patrol officers, right? Which is where we were a while ago. Right now we're at three, which is sort of a source of some of the issues that people are seeing. Do you have I understand it's hard to predict, right? But do you have sort of an estimate of how long it might take to get to a full five patrol officer contingent?

Probably if honestly a year. A year. Yep. because uh as we get folks into a police academy, they typically take 16 to 17 weeks and then we have about a six-month field training program before we allow people to be on solo patrol where we could actually have everybody counting those numbers. We may have 55 on staff, but they may all be in different phases of training or academy service. So, um I would project out probably about a year and so it's going to take a little bit of time. Yes, sir.

We can't assume that it's going to start tomorrow with the correct. Um, I also want to follow up the mayor PM's question about the loud cars. I, you know, you have a lot of support in the community, but if you want to make them cheer, pull some of those people over. Um, because the last few days with the warm weather, it's just infuriating. And it's not just infuriating, right? It's it's damaging when one of those cars that sounds like gunshots

drives by you, you have fewer hair hair cells afterwards than you did before. And I say this as an older adult with hearing loss, right? I mean, they are doing damage to us and it's not fair and we have to do something. And um people need to be aware that there are there are these challenges, right? There are staffing issues. Um I think it's probably hard to do enforcement on the motorcycles uh because they're fast and you don't pursue. Correct.

Right. uh and there are limits under state law in terms of uh prosecution and that's what our lobbyist was trying to address in her presentation. So I understand there are challenges um but we've gotten out of our own way now by repealing the loud exhaust ordinance. Right. So um if if this is an issue that you could address perhaps in your next update. Okay. Uh either you know ideally in terms of updates terms of enforcement but also helping the community understand what the challenges are. Sure.

Because people will you know give anybody grace as long as you explain you know what the what the challenges are. So, um, anything else for the assistant chief? One thing, please. Given the fact that the East Lancing boys just won 72 to 60 and they're going to the Final Four, any concerns you have for this weekend? I'm sure that's f good. I'm sorry. Just Thank you. Go team. Right. All right, Mr. Newman.

Good evening. Thanks for having us. I wanted to uh start out with the before the presentation uh comes up on the screen there for you. Uh this time I changed the pictures out to give you an idea of some of the items that our fire prevention bureau uh that what they experience while they're out conducting the inspections throughout the city. Just to give you an idea what what is found. Uh the first slide, go ahead and change that next. There we are. Uh we're as was stated last month, our approved staffing level is 57. Uh we are down two personnel currently. Two of the new hires that were brought in uh have separated from the city. Uh both of those individuals were EMTs and they would have been going to paramedic school. uh but they have they've they've separated out of uh the department. Luckily, we had eight paramedics apply for the uh one open position as of last month. Uh this month it's two. All of the applications that we received were paramedics. So, we proceeded with just a to fill with a paramedic and not have to uh open the door for more schooling. We have three final candidates that were interviewed today. They passed the testing process uh and came out on top. Uh the testing process was last week on the 4th and the interviews were conducted this morning. We have uh all three of the candidates that were selected for interview passed well and we'll be doing conducting background checks and should be able to report to you next month on on uh replacement and filling those two positions. So, we're moving forward on that piece. Could you just uh explain what we're seeing in those pictures?

Uh I mean it may be obvious but it may not be obvious to everybody. Different uh tenants within the city are very creative on how to cover up their smoke detectors.

Uh they have found that multiple pieces uh set off the fire alarms whether it's smoke machines, smoking by itself, candles. Uh so they come up with creative ways of just uh covering them up throughout the building. The unfortunate piece with this is that it completely uh enables the fire alarm system from functioning correctly. So it takes that life safety protection out of the building altogether. Next slide please. And since we were already talking about photos, uh this photo is storage that has been piled up in front of the fire suppression system control as well as the alarm panel. uh and the the actual life life safety systems that are accessible in that back room. Uh this was a probably about a 2-hour project while our staff observed the occupants of the building clearing the way and finding a placement for all the stored items. As far as the uh community risk reduction and engagement, there's a list there of what your uh fire prevention bureau was able to accomplish this last month. They did have two fire investigations. Uh I unfortunately both the fire investigations were caused by cooking and it was were just human air while cooking uh that caused those fires. There were no damages to uh were there no injuries to individuals and it was uh they were smaller but still was an unfortunate loss for both homes. Next slide please. Last month was the uh unfortunate

anniversary remembrance of February 13 on campus. The fire department observed a mental health standown that week uh for our staff to really focus on mental health, raise awareness, and to communicate with each other to make sure that everybody was solid during that week. Uh it was a a good moment for everybody to spend time together. We also were able to attend peer support training which is our uh mental health support team. Deputy Chief Jim Leiski is our chair for that team. Uh very active in that peer support group throughout the entire metro area. uh they he organized and uh implemented that training for our staff during last month. They also had a training on building construction. We have found that with the younger staff that we have uh building construction is not a strong suit uh for the individuals. So it's something that we are really trying to build on currently. uh bloodborne pathogen training was held as a requirement for renewed continuing ed credits and our ice rescue training was held out at the MSUFCU headquarters area where they have their retention pond. Uh it's the probably the best place for us to be able to conduct that training. It's out of the way. Uh puts our people off the streets and into a parking lot able to conduct that training. It was a very productive training and beneficial for several of our new hires. I put a small note in there at the bottom regarding the uh number of hours that we staffed special events, large assembly events on campus for their sporting venues. We had 200 oh almost

209 uh manh hours that our staff stepped up and did outside of their normal uh shift work. I think that's important to bring about uh for the fact of uh when I am talking about the staff and the additional work that they're doing on top of their regular regular shift duty. It's a significant amount of time. Most of those events are anywhere from five to five to six hours that they're working additional on top of their shifts. There is in the documents that I provided for you uh separately. I wanted to touch on a couple of the items within that. There was a request for some trend information from council last month and I wanted to walk through a couple of those pieces that were listed in there in regards to uh run volume. So there was an overall increase small incremental increase on EMS runs. there was uh and the the beauty of this this doing this every month is going to show you what I was trying to communicate and we can't it's difficult to identify those uh increases in call volumes and give it a reason why uh last month we had there was actually a decrease of EMS calls on campus which was almost a 50% decrease on those calls on campus. Uh there were still the mutual aid calls out of our area that occurred. Some of those were up, some of those were down. Uh there's no change on the one identified for Lancing Township because we hadn't had one in January. Of the 33 calls last month, 126 did occur at senior living or senior care facilities. And all those facilities that we responded to are just in the in

the city of East Lancing. There were no mutual aid responses to any of those facilities outside our jurisdiction for the month of February. I can tell you those numbers are going to change currently and we're only halfway through March, but I'm already aware of responses outside of our jurisdiction for March and it'll again show those changes for you. Uh we had 127 ambulance calls that required the firetruck assistance and those were the calls that I had mentioned last month in regards to uh needing the additional hands uh for equipment and treatment of the patients yesterday. It was uh interesting. Mr. Bellman was able to walk over to uh a fraternity on Abbott Road across from city hall. They had a small one room in content fire. The crews went in, put a stop on it, and that was the once the stop is on it, now we know exactly how much time it's going to take and how much of our uh personnel we actually need, which at the time he went over and actually spoke with the incident commander. The incident commander was in the process of releasing one ambulance, one truck at that point because we had just been called for an individual not breathing on campus. So he was able to uh move those individuals off that scene and get them back onto campus. He also had reported to the city manager that which the fire occurred approximately 5:00. Correct. Uh and he reported to the city manager that for between the time frame of noon and 5:00 in the evening, uh they had handled 17 emergencies and that the crews hadn't make it back to the station for lunch as of 5:00 in the evening. So it gives an idea of there is no true it's because of this or it's because of that the the calls are

fluctuate by the demand of the community and sometimes there's not a reason or a rhyme for the the influx. I wanted to give you those pieces. Uh I believe those were the the trend pieces that I really wanted to communicate to you. We are I wouldn't say we're seeing an uptick in lithium-ion battery fires, but they are becoming they were very rare. They are becoming somewhat of a uh expected event

at this point. They just had another one on campus today. Small battery uh charger unit, remote battery charger unit that uh decided to separate itself in a in a one of the rooms on campus. So, it's one of the pieces that I will keep you updated on as to where we move forward. No injuries on that one. So, that was a positive piece. They were able to contain that and get that uh out of the building safely. Does anybody have any questions? I just have a couple. Absolutely. Um the training for construction I can you I don't know what building building construction building construction

what is that about so what we are educating them on is current materials used for construction in not only residential homes but also in the larger commercial buildings but it's educating them on lightweight what they refer to as lightweight construction small construction construction members, unfortunately, they fail quicker and they collapse faster. Okay? So, it's a matter of instructing them and teaching them the uh the amount of damage to a building and what they can actually assume is going to occur at what time by damage that's already occurred to the building.

Understood. And this may be just way off, but um there's a possibility that we may have some development downtown residential development possibly down the road. And I had asked the developer when he was doing his proposal with his application if he was interested in talking with both of you in relation to some of the issues that may come with the development that's happening downtown. um with it being over a period of time of like 2 years and is there just thinking it out loud is there anything that comes to mind something that just to know to appreciate when it comes to something like that when it comes to development when it comes to maybe some of those issues that come along with that?

Do you mean uh the effect for demand on service over Yeah. services or, you know, maybe the access to streets, you know, things being kind of more restricted. I mean, is that is that is that a conversation that you normally may have with someone that's doing a development project downtown?

Yes, the fire marshall works handinhand with the building official and they both conduct plan reviews before buildings are constructed and the fire marshall is very intent on paying attention to life safety systems within the building. uh the the required construction of the building for occupant egress as well as fire department access which includes everything from driveway widths to road width uh access points for uh doors in highrises where the stand pipes are located which is our name for the water distribution system for our firefighting efforts. uh access building keys, key cards. There are lock boxes referred to as Knox boxes on the exterior of multiple buildings throughout the city of East Lancing that contain access keys and cards for us to be able to access buildings safely.

Thank you. If those are if that's what you're Yeah. No, I I was just curious how it worked. you know, this is my first rodeo with a lot of the things that are going on and I just didn't know the relationship or the collaborative relationship um when it comes to these projects. So, thank you. It's a very solid solid relationship with the building department. Um I just had one question about the the statistics and the increase and the decrease. I imagine that from month to month um things will fluctuate because you know there's and there's some systematic reasons for that because either MSU is in or MSU is out right some of that is some of it's random

is affects that there are a significant number of youth camps sports camps science camps camps that occur all summer long so that there are certain dorms that are never actually vacated throughout the summer they'll have hundreds thousand people without question.

So I was going to ask is in terms of the statistics I think it would be useful for us and possibly for the community to have the year-over-year change. Um because one of the things that I expect that will illustrate is the relentless increase of calls for service that you've been experiencing over the years. And that will help to sort of make it clear what you're contending with and would amplify comments like the one that you know you had 17 emergencies before and people still couldn't go eat lunch, right? That that that the calls for service data are are are pretty impressive and I think the year-over-year statistics as part of that update might sort of help reinforce that potentially. Okay. We can we can we can always draw more data in. And then it's like to like in the sense that it's you know January to to January versus month to month. Absolutely.

One suggestion. And then along those lines, I just wanted to uh comment for uh Mr. Craft that I appreciate the year-over-year increase in traffic stops. That was very apparent and you also mentioned it in your remarks. And people are noticing. We're hearing from people in their neighborhoods. They're really happy that traffic stops are happening in their neighborhoods and I've heard that from a couple of neighborhoods. So that's great. Anything further? All right. Thank you for the updates.

Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is discussion of amending the boundaries or type of a previously approved residential rental restriction overlay district. Mr. Meadows, I believe this is your initiative. I don't know if it's my issue, but I did ask that well along with um council member Singh asked that this be put on the discussion only agenda. So I I should address a couple of things. Number one, uh, as Jill has pointed out, yes, I I was a strong advocate for the creation of the overlay zones within or the opportunity for overlay zones within the city of East Lancing, and I'm not stepping back on that. I think they've been very useful within the community to control the spread of um, rental housing into the neighborhoods. We have, you know, one of the largest universities on the planet uh across the street from us. And at one point, uh the city was inundated with change to its neighborhoods when the university without any consultation with the city decided that sophomores no longer had to live on campus. So, um, that was the beginning and, um, Ordinance 900 came along in 1997 and in the early 2000s when Ordinance 900 wasn't didn't seem to be fully controlling uh, the activity. who felt that neighborhoods should be able to choose um how they wanted to be um occupied by uh rental housing and established the overlay zones. I think this is actually an extension of the

thought that we had at that time. And I'll just say that um while I I can see why someone might say that, you know, maybe this is a slippery slope, it doesn't appear to be. And uh also note that in terms of the I know we all received a couple of um emails that indicated that, you know, we already have language within the the ordinance that um could address this issue. We don't. And the language that it was referred to doesn't do the the thing that um some of the communicators had indicated. That language provides and I'm just going to read it here. No earlier than one year after the adoption of an ordinance establishing an overlay district, a petition for a change of the type of overlay district may be submitted by following the procedures for establishing an initial overlay district. What that means is that um since uh an overlay district can be an RO1, an RO2 or an RO3, let's say like Bailey, we have an RO1 in Bailey. Somebody could have after a year distributed a petition to change that to an RO2 or an RO3. That's all that that provision actually provides for. It doesn't provide for the removal of a particular property from uh the overlay district under circumstances of any kind. Uh in this particular instance uh you know a uh individual came to me to talk about the fact that they were surrounded by overlays. Uh I mean they were in an overlay and they were surrounded by uh rental properties and that after

whatever it's been 20 years um they felt that they they no longer had a a an ability to sell their home uh as a owner occupied home. This individual also indicated that they had signed the petition originally to have that house included in it. thought it was a great idea at the time and then now many years later we have changed their mind about the impact and that includes having a couple of kids who are now living in in that house as well. And so, uh, in looking at the ordinance, uh, it seemed to me that one thing that was missing is in a very limited circumstance, should someone be able to ask the council because we'll ultimately decide whether somebody meets any of these requirements anyway. Somebody would ask be able to ask the council to remove their home from the overlay district. And the result was this proposed ordinance which says and I there are some changes I think need to be made to this this proposal as well. I might add that that uh the applicant's property is located on the side of a city block where the other homes on the same side of the city block are not subject to the rental overlay district in question. and uh that the applicant's property is owner occupied, not rented, and no more than two owner occupied, unrened properties, including the applicant's property, exist on the same side of the city block. I don't think it should be the same side of the city block. That's one of the changes that I don't that I think we need to talk about because I think that we just look at a city block, both sides of the city block, and

determine whether somebody is in the wrong spot or shouldn't have been in in the beginning. And I'll confess that when I voted to establish the Bailey overlay, uh there were two properties uh in this same location that I thought, should we really have these in here? And part of that is that uh even when a petition is filed for an overlay district, the overlay district is subject to the city council's determination. We can add properties and we can make it smaller than people are asking for. So we could have at that moment in time removed this property from the overlay district and just not made it a because it didn't make any sense to have it in there, but we didn't. And I didn't make any motion to do it. Uh I think Bailey was the very first overlay district. I was pretty excited about the fact that we got it done and that the petitions were filed and that the overlay district was going to be approved and I didn't want to make any changes to it. I'll note that my colleague um council member Singh at the time had bet me that the courts would throw out this overlay ordinance um as being not lawful. uh bet me a dinner on that and I think I'm still waiting for that dinner I might add because the courts did support it.

Yes. The other thing there's a few

the uh the uh so you know that's why I I asked this beyond here because I I think that is appropriate for us to have some sort of authority to take a look at a location and determine whether the overlay district itself is served appropriately by keeping that particular house in. Um, I'll just note one other thing because Jill did mention the the fact that, you know, did we notify everybody about this ordinance? Well, that's, you know, publicly we've published the fact that we're taking a look at this ordinance and presumably we're ultimately going to take a vote on it, which was the process that we notify. But this particular ordinance also says that if somebody asks that or files a petition or a request to to be removed from the overlay, everybody in the overlays district has to be notified. So if you got 300 houses in there, every one of those 300 houses has to be notified so that they have an opportunity to weigh in on this partic the particular request that is made. And I I'll note this too that uh given this existing language that indicates that the type of overlay um district may be changed u you know with you know after one year after it's been established. I hope I'm not sure everybody really understands that, you know, an RO1 is there's not going to be any more licenses in that particular area. And and Bailey is an RO1. An RO2 uh says that you can get a class one, but only if you already live in

that district. In other words, a newcomer, a new purchaser, somebody who moves into the district. the overlay district can't have an RO1 and even if the person who sells them their house already has an RO1, it can't be transferred. And then RO3 basically says uh an RO1 or a a um class one uh rental license can be had by anybody in a particular district. A class one license is you can have one rumor and you must live there. That's it. So I don't think the passage of this is my opinion of course will do any damage to the existing concept of overlays. What it is is a fairness issue. I think that in the very rare circumstances that this would even apply and I'm not even sure it it would apply anywhere. For instance, in Jill's overlay, there's not a house in or out of that overlay that would qualify to um to be, you know, removed from the from the overlay district. So, none. So, the um so that's why I brought it forward and um I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has of me in particular. And I think probably council member Singh wants to talk about it too. So

well you've covered the ground so well. Um so I don't want to you know spend too much time echoing much. I do want to lift up you know we often meet with residents uh to talk about challenges they may be facing and draft ordinances come to be you know based on you know what we're hearing from the community. And I am you know definitely sympathetic to these folks that are find themselves in this position and and mainly you know in the prior couple of years we did an overlay in Glen Karen and I recall just as you articulated Mr. Meadows that um there were some streets not included or blocks that we and I believe mayor you moved to include some additional streets that were not included through the petition process. So that was an example within the current, you know, ordinance where we did make some adjustments based on more consistency of um surrounding neighbor neighbors. Um so that is essentially, you know, a little bit of context from my perspective on bringing this forth. So

Mr. couple of questions. Um, first of all, have so we're talking about in this situation we're allowing for two different houses, right? I know it's a general concept of the two houses on the same side of the street and I know that you want to possibly change that. Um, have we I guess we're at the public stage where we're going to hear from people. We have heard from a few. Have we heard from We've heard from one of the people that owns one of those houses. Have we heard from the person in the other house?

I don't think we've heard from the person with the other house since we we had this drafted and and put on the discussion only agenda. Okay. Um I I will say that I met with both of them at some point, but my my memory isn't it's just my memory because I don't really uh know the other person very well, but um they have already left the community. I'm not positive of that, but I think that might be the case. So,

cuz if it's going to directly affect them, I think having their voice also, um, is there a process right now? I know in my contact with the community, there's several people that were upset that their parent did not want to make their house a rental, so they're the only house in a neighborhood that's not a rental. And then a lot of different people, there's several fixes that need to be done. Can someone right now that is in overlay without having this ordinance appeal to us to be taking out of the overlay just their own house bas is there an appeal process for one neighbor to come to our governing body and maybe this is for city staff or city attorney if someone is saying I don't want to be in the overlay anymore is there any way for them to argue that they are have got these unique situations that they shouldn't be.

I' I'd be happy to address that initially at least. Um, anybody can ask for anything of city council of course with respect to its ordinances. Um and uh what this ordinance would do would be to identify it would be council speaking saying uh you can come and request this and here's what we want to look at these four the I'm sorry these three criteria in the ordinance. So in a way this is speaking and saying we're telling you in advance if you have these three items here we're willing to receive your request and process it. Doesn't mean that somebody else couldn't theoretically ask uh for the relief. Okay. So, if I'm processing that correctly, if this does go through, which I'm frankly concerned, if it does go through and there's another house that's on the same side and kind of fills these same criteria, they would still need to come to council or would it automatically that they're overlay be eliminated

on those houses? No, I'll just say that I wouldn't support that anyway. They there's no automatic that has to come to council and this is there is no current way to do that. So when you ask the question can somebody come and ask us to do that. Yeah anybody can ask us to do anything. There is no lawful way for us to do that at this point.

Are you in agreement with that? Well, you haven't specified any criteria like this elsewhere other than existing laws regarding adjusting zoning and zoning amendments. Here you're adding some criteria saying here's what we would look at. You're saying you can come to us with a request and have these three criteria and you as city council are saying you would look at it. Doesn't say that you would grant it. If you meet those three criteria, doesn't mean you get your you you get your request to be removed from the overlay district. It just says that the city will take that into consideration and look at that as maybe establishing a reasonable basis to remove you from the overlay district um based on your specific circumstances. is you would be identifying legislatively some of those circumstances that you would look upon in terms of considering that doesn't mean you would grant it. And you see there's language in here that very specifically provides for that. So it's not misleading property owners or the public into believing that if these three criteria are shown you get your removal from the overlay district. It is just saying you would look at it.

Okay. And you don't have anything like that right now that limits or identifies any sort of criteria like that. So, so you're saying there isn't a process right now, but this pro is that process? Well, under under zoning law, um you know, an individual could ask for zoning changes and petition or ask for that. Um, and uh, depending on how it's presented and if it meets the criteria, it could be considered. You're you're identifying some criteria over and above that that would trigger you looking at it and saying you will look at it.

So, can I say what I'm hearing in your answer that just as Mr. Meadows mentioned earlier if if they wanted to change to a different o type of overlay district they would have to get essentially those three they would have to notify those 300 residents in the hypothetical example of changing from an R1 to a two if that were to be the case. So there is no amendment process other than what is already on statute that you would have to notify gather petition even if you're just one property. Uh well there is there is a are you talking about Michigan zoning?

I'm talking about Michigan zoning and your own zoning ordinance has a process for amending the zoning ordinance where individuals can request it. So nothing's safe.

Well, that's your purview. That's that's that's that is your legislative purview. Uh um with this, you are expressing like I said, you're expressing a scenario and identifying terms that you're saying we will look at this and this is something we will take into consideration. Without that, uh, somebody could ask, uh, and you could, um, you know, make your decision without that or you could say it doesn't have these criteria and and and you're kind of speaking to the public and identifying a way um, how limited your consideration of removing properties from the overlay district would be. Very narrow uh, criteria at least in here.

Yeah. Mhm.

Let me let me rephrase the question then because I'm I'm I think uh it's a little confusing, but the within our existing creation of the overlay or the possibility of an overlay or the granting of an overlay, while there would be a request or could be a request to change the zoning, we have a limitation placed already in this ordinance that says you can do that, but to do that you have to follow the existing process and the only thing you can do is change it from an RO1 to say an RO2 or an RO2 to an RO1. But within the three qualifications, those are the only changes that are allowed. And that's a limitation that's stated directly in the ordinance.

Okay.

Am I wrong about that? Uh, I think, you know, perhaps this is something that I, if this is going to proceed forward, uh, I' I' I think I'd like to maybe provide you a a legal memo that that delves into it a little bit more and is able to explain it, uh, you know, with with a little bit more thought and, uh, analysis. uh if you're going to move forward with this ordinance if that is a key question for moving forward. Uh seeing as we're just at a discussion only meeting uh sounds like that's some information you need for purposes of deciding maybe even whether to introduce it.

Okay. But then the the question would be that other than the provision set forth at 50-775 PN4 which is the only provision in this entire ordinance or this overlay concept and was the intent I might add that that's the only way to change it once it has been established. Is that the only way is going to be the question? So,

um I I think it's important and and part of my analysis would involve section 50-31 which allows for changes or amendments to the to the zoning ordinance. Um it's a separate provision not within this particular ordinance uh or this particular section of 50-770 so on and so forth that whole uh area. It's in another section of the ordinance on administration of the zoning ordinance which provides for amendment uh to the zoning ordinance itself. And what this is talking about is amending a section of the zoning ordinance that establishes the overlay district to remove a property from it, which would be a text amendment and possibly a map amendment including potential reszoning. And so I guess my concern would be that section 50-31 uh would be a method for somebody to come in and ask to amend apart from that subsection 4 that you're referring to in um 50-777. I can't maybe that's the one but

well I think

I have it here. I mean my two cents uh is one like on top of that legal memo uh providing some ensuring that we are not creating any additional issue issues that we or intended issues we don't want um uh by moving forward with something very um targeted around boundaries like we gave the example around the Glen care and how we wanted to make sure that there or kind of consistent I want to say linear boundaries around that overlay where this is a the flip of that example with these two properties. Um I think the other thing that would be helpful is a map. Um so that's part of the exhibit um in a in a future meeting those two things. I know we Steve or excuse me Mr. Whan I'm sorry um the you mentioned some questions. I don't know if there's other questions. I'm just trying to huddle us around what next steps um in terms of additional information.

I think a memo would be useful. Um I am also very concerned about unintended consequences uh legally perhaps interactions with uh case law. Uh our overlay enabling ordinance has been litigated previously. It would be helpful to know whether this change would affect anything that might expose us to new litigation in the future. Uh potentially.

Yes, I I'd be happy to do that. I have obviously considered this in terms of how it's written to address as many potential issues as there are. Um the question that was asked is a a separate question not relating to whether this is legal or illegal. It's whether there is another method to amend these districts. Uh I will definitely address that. If I identify any issues um from spot zoning or anything else and that prior litigation does have an argument about spot zoning and it found that the overlay districts are not spotzoning. Um, I did look at this from that standpoint and because of the narrow tailoring of it, it's talking out on the periphery. So, I don't think the spot zoning issue would apply to this particular scenario, um, for instance. But, um, uh, but it could apply to if there's a petition to pull a property out of the middle of a district. That could be a potential issue there. One other issue that I am a little concerned about is the original intent of the ordinance was to allow for neighborhood self-determination. Right? So, it was a focus on the neighborhood getting together and making an agreement as a group and then presenting that agreement to the council for consideration. And the current process for uh changing the type of the overlay remains true to that spirit in the sense that it requires a decision by the neighborhood to make a change. whereas the proposed ordinance would deviate from from that and to the extent that litigation might have relied on this idea of community determination and this ordinance changing that I may be way far a field at this point. Um but that is one of the concerns that that I would have um in terms of the scoping out the unintended consequences.

Um any further? Yeah, I want to I want to just uh talk a little bit about 5031 because I want to ask about the u you know what could happen under that because frankly that that would be a lot broader than in fact we wouldn't it wouldn't protect any overlay ordinance uh that we have if it was interpreted in the manner that I think I'm hearing but the it provides the city council may have its own motion so we could just say hey let's Just let's just change the borders of overlay district in the Bailey neighborhood or upon shall upon a petition signed by the owners of a majority of the property proposed for reszoning which means that all Mr. Hank has to do is send us a petition to get rid of the zoning that applies to his his property. If that is is what um I'm hearing that u then there's no protection currently within our our ordinances to preserve the overlay districts. So when you do

your your analysis, you know, I'd like to have that addressed as well. Absolutely. And I I do believe that there are protections in the law and I'll get into that. Okay. um um in my analysis. So, I do believe they're there. I don't want to belabor it this evening unless you want me to, but might be best in that opinion or that uh memorandum to get into that and explain what those protections would be.

And if there are issues where we might need to uh amend our zoning ordinance in other locations to address oversightes, that might also be helpful to mention. Um, I would like to ask uh director of planning, building and development um to come up and address some questions because I think there's some historical context here that would uh help us all understand uh what we're about to do here potentially. And given this discussion, do you have to push back your retirement date by at least five years?

So, I had a couple of specific well, a couple of guideline questions, but would be interested in your you know, you've you've been here for many years and have experienced a lot of the issues surrounding rental overlays and rental regulations. And I uh when we were talking about this the other day, um you mentioned u that you get you regularly get calls from people who are interested in um being removed from overlays. Um so that would be if you could address that that would be helpful.

Sure. Yep. Our office does receive calls from residents and prospective purchasers of property within overlay districts. We often get calls from uh real estate agents and prospective purchasers of a property that doesn't have a license and is in an overlay and they are interested in seeking how or if they could have the um that property licensed somehow. was just today I took a call from a a woman who wanted to know if there was an exception or a way to appeal so that if she purchased the home for her um she was she explained to me she was purchasing the home for her son. They were going to deed it to him um and he would live there for a couple of years but if in the future they couldn't sell it or had trouble selling it that she wanted to be able to rent it. And so, um, you know, we get a whole variety of reasons from folks interested in in doing this.

And what do you tell them? I I tell them that no. Well,

sorry, but that um there isn't it's in a for in this case, it was a property that was in an RO1 overlay district. And so, um, I had said there was no, uh, legal method right now in our ordinances where she would be able to petition or ask for, you know, there's no exceptions. Cuz she had seen the exemptions from needing a rental license, which I explained, sure, if you fit one of those exemptions, then you don't need a rental license. This is only if you're going to use the property in a use that would um require a rental license. Uh so um there's just not a method right now for us to be able to send them in where they could have their property in any given area removed from an overlay. So, uh, Council Member Meadows mentioned the, uh, the provision in the ordinance, and it's in 50-775, uh, paragraph 4, which refers to the method for the process for changing the type of the overlay, right?

Um, in the petition that people get when they circulate for signatures for an overlay, it has some information about the nature of overlays. Um, and here it says once a residential rental restriction overlay district has been approved, it can only be changed or removed, changed or removed by using the same process as was used to establish the overlay. So that language changed or removed is a little broader than just changing the type. Yeah. And that's not in the ordinance language itself, right? Yes.

No, that's in that's on the petition, but it means that people signing that petition will think that

they can be changed. And so I guess my question was is that how we've been interpreting it? Um I would say that is my understanding that we've interpreted that if some not to remove necessarily one particular property somewhere anywhere within there but if in some way the um folks that were in that particular overlay wanted to look at removing that overlay. It was my understanding that the interpretation was that they would essentially go through the same process in reverse. So, it sounds like there's maybe some disagreement about what that provision actually says in the ordinance or means because the way we've been talking about it here is it focuses specifically on the type.

Yes.

Which is RO1, RO2, RO3, exclusive of other changes. And just along those lines, in the FAQ on the city website, it says it it sort of quotes the ordinance. Okay. And what it says is no sooner than one year after an overlay is approved, a neighborhood may petition to modify an approved overlay by obtaining signatures uh yada yada yada. So that that language indicates modification which to me includes not just type but potentially boundaries. So along those lines, I guess I have a question for city attorney. If we look at that language in the ordinance that specifies uh no no long no earlier than one year after the adoption of an ordinance establishing an overlay district, a petition for a change of the type of overlay district. Could we just amend that to say a petition for a change of the type or boundaries of overlay district? If I could do this, I I think I'd like to I'll add that to my legal memo uh to analyze that for you in an attorney uh communication.

Yep. That would be helpful. And then um and at the second question that I had for you was you had mentioned that uh in prior years there had been a couple of examples of people bringing forward ordinances that created exceptions of some sort under certain conditions and you'd mentioned one related to ordinance 900 and one related to the to the pandemic. Could you just briefly characterize what what happened there? what the idea was and what what the disposition was ultimately.

Yes. Um and again I'm doing this from memory. Y so um the the first that I could recall is there was and I don't remember the ordinance number without going back and researching a bit but I would say this was probably 20 years ago or so, but there was an ordinance that council um looked at and discussed that was kind of the last house on the block. we we staff fondly called it. I guess you would say that was not the technical term, but it was because after ordinance 900 was passed and ordinance 900 is when um the rental licensing zoning changed in the R1, R2, uh an RM8 zoning district. So basically our residential neighborhoods because it used to be before ordinance 900 that folks would depending on the house, the size, the lot, etc., you know, would get a license for four or five. And with the passage of ordinance 900, that greatly changed and reduced that to only two unrelated or a family um in a non-owner occupied property. So that was a huge change I think in um our zoning ordinance and then how that impacted rentals and rental licensing. And then there was the discussion of well everyone around me already is a rental and just because I didn't get my rental license before this ordinance passed now if I get a or a rental license I'm I only have two and I I should get four or five because my neighbors on both sides of me have four or five. Um and so that was something that was discussed and in my memory that just didn't gain the traction to pass at the council level at that point in time. Um and then the second time we had done some research um

and that was really research that uh the housing commission at the time um had asked us to do and had asked council to consider and work with the city attorney to draft an ordinance that kind of gave an outlet. And this was during the um recession. The recession that was

Yes. So the the really hard recession that impacted housing where a lot of folks had bought in um maybe at a higher level and the recession hit so hard that um you know they just couldn't sell their house. They were underwater. There were significant folks not just here and not just in Michigan but um in many areas that were underwater. And if so, if you were in an overlay district and you were in that situation and you didn't have a job here and you needed to move in order to have employment, um folks were coming to the housing commission saying can there be some sort of an exemption? This is ex you know unusual times we are in. um boy heard that before and uh so you know can something be done and so we had done a significant amount of research and worked with uh the housing commission and the city attorney at the time and drafted an ordinance that was really centered around that issue and I I would have to again see if I could locate it didn't get passed so um I had come across it just recently but it's one of those things I'm not sure if I have in my possession anymore but it was based on kind of a percentage of how far underwater according to the market currently they were and then gave them a very short period of time in which they could rent until the market changed or or they their job situation changed and they came back. Um but that also did not did not pass at the council level at that time.

Thank you. Any questions for uh Miss? Not a question, but I do remember the the last house on the block uh discussion. Uh and I I think that was relatively soon after ordinance 900 had been passed there. There was really just no no way we were going to adjust that. And um I think we've proven over the years that that was a good decision that we weren't going to uh lower once once we had gone to two unrelated we were sticking with it uh for the future and and it's worked out well for us. So council member Singh

thank you. That was all I had. Okay. Uh I do have a couple of comments um on this issue. I think um I think well I know that this would be the first exception that we would be making uh in the history of rental restriction overlays except for the existing language that's an exception also in the sense that it can be changed

the first time that a property owner has come forward asking to be exempted from an overlay right I And I think that's a big deal. Um because I think that we're standing at the start of a slippery slope. I think we are. Um and another way to think about it is, you know, why make an exception? There has to be a really good reason for that that unless we want it to be a pretty sleep steep slope is going to be hard then for the next person to replicate. Right. And um what what will happen I think is that other people will say well out of fairness uh for the following reasons and they will be wellconsidered reasons. Um, we also need to be exempted from our overlay. And we would like our own ordinance narrowly targeted to our corner of our particular overlay. And it will be harder to say no in that instance because we said yes in the first instance. It will be harder politically and it will be harder legally. And so that's something that we need to consider unless we're willing to entertain a slow erosion of the overlays compos composition over over the years. Um, I think the the history that Annette was able to provide, especially with the the proposal that came out of the Great Recession, you know, to me that as Annette sketched it, it seemed pretty reasonable. It was temporary. It would sort of sunset after a while. It would help people who have a real who had a real burden at the time, right? they couldn't make their mortgage.

Um, we're dealing with a different situation here, right? We're, as far as I could tell, there were, you know, this language is targeted at one corner of one one particular corner of one particular overlay in the city and I think it would affect three properties by by my account. uh for two of those properties, the people who bought the property bought it after the overlay went into place, so they knew exactly what they were buying. And the third person signed the petition for the overlay. Okay? So for me, that's a very different posture than I'm going to lose my house if you don't let me rent it for a couple of years. Right? That that very very different. And and if we accept the reasoning in this case, then I think it's going to be pretty hard to argue against future exceptions. I think uh I think the other issue is that to to keep you know we we heard this idea that overlays were about the neighborhood choosing uh their their future self-determination and it's actually written in the ordinance and I think that any opt- out provision should remain true to that basic proposal. If if somebody has an argument that's convincing to council members to let them out of an overlay, then maybe it'll be con convincing to the to their neighbors as well. Um, and I'm, as I mentioned earlier, I'm very concerned about unintended consequences. When you write a policy to target one specific case like this, uh, you really are potentially opening up a a can of worms. So, those are my comments. It sounds like we are going to wait for an opinion from the city attorney. Any further discussion or comments on this issue for now? All right. Thank you everyone. Um

that brings us to item 3.5 on the agenda. review and discuss ordinance 1565, an ordinance amending uh 1491 to add a new subsection relating to prohibited uses of city parking facilities. Um Mr. KF, if you would join us and Mr. Jopic, could you give us a bit of a a summary of where we are and where we need to be? I think he's gonna go first, right? Matt's gonna do that.

Okay, great. Perfect. Good evening once again. Uh for the past several months, we have come before council to move forward two ordinance two ordinances proposed by the downtown solutions committee. The proposed amendment regarding parking ensures that parking facilities are used for their intended purposes such as parking a vehicle, walking back and forth to a vehicle, or paying any fees. It does not apply to those seeking shelter from severe weather such as tornadoes or thunderstorms or those simply cutting through the lot to get to another destination. The focal point of this change is to increase community safety by preventing large gatherings from occurring inside of the ramps and giving our officers the ability to move people along. From the fall season of 24 to the fall season of 2025, the police department has seen crime reported in the downtown parking structures more than double, including assaults, and a stabbing that made local news. Officers additionally reported multiple lararsenes, damage to property, and disorderly conduct. Community members have also expressed feeling unsafe in the ramps. The report filed by our community partner, Advanced Peace, documented having contacted with affiliated gang members both in the streets and parking structures last fall. This group often had difficulties getting people to disperse and had to request police assistance on several occasions. So again, this proposed ordinance change simply adds language to ensure that the facilities are used for their intended purpose and will allow safe usage for all. Enforcement of this ordinance first calls for any subjects to be warned by an officer and if the person refuses to comply, a noncriminal civil infraction citation will be issued. So on behalf of the downtown solutions committee, I am hopeful that council will continue meaningful dialogue and consider future adoption of ordinance 1565 and ordinance amending 1491 to add a new subsection relating to prohibited uses of city parking facilities. So with that, I will do my

best to take any questions you have. Questions for the assistant chief? Mr. Weller. Um, first of all, I applaud Advanced Peace. They're an amazing group that has really provided some solutions um in our community and I actually talked with them on some of those evenings. They're a great group. Also, I believe there was an added provision of people just cutting through the ramps. Yes, we added language. So, just getting from one place to the other. Yes, sir. Yep. Um, that that's permissible if you're cutting through to get to a different destination. So that's part of the current language. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Other questions, Mr. Griggsby?

Okay. Uh, I have one question. Um, the misdemeanor infraction, sorry, the municipal civil infraction that's specified in here, does that give you what you need to solve the problems that you've seen? I think it's a start because it allows us to make contact with folks um make them aware of the ordinance and give them an opportunity to comply with it and if not they would receive a citation. So I do believe it gets us there. Um you know I don't think that typically folks that are gathering you know necessarily needs to rise the level of a misdemeanor but um I I do believe that the civil infraction would get us there. Okay. That was the only question I had. Mr. Will.

I'm sorry. So this from some of the public I believe there's been some miscon misconception that this is addressing any situation with the unhoused or anyone in that community. This is really not targeted at that. It's more of a situation where people are not using the ramp for the intended purposes. That's correct sir. Anything else? Yeah, please

comment discussion and and I know um just I'm going to reiterate some things that I've said prior um so forgive me for those that have heard it more than once, but I know you know this, you know, some of the public comment and other pieces that we mobilized a set of solutions around are stemming back from late summer, early fall. Um a variety of those components as Mr. Whan Whan mentioned is a set of activities and conduct happening um within our parking garages. And and I hate highlighting or mentioning it, but I know our community has seen, I believe, three suicides um within parking uh structures. Um as well as the some of the violent occurrences that you mentioned in your report. um as well as my own personal experience of being in the parking garages and seeing speeding or the like. I think help you know council supporting or taking a step forward um to have these structures used for their intended purposes. park your car, go to our businesses, go to the university, go to Ann Street Plaza, go enjoy the community will help us identify any perspective um situations that we could maybe engage in. And um and I know one of the other solutions we mobilized um was adding an additional social worker um that can work with the team um whether that is to you know help um uh deescalate any type of situation that may be happening um or considerations an individual may be uh thinking about taking risk to themselves or others. So, um, thank you for

as I talked at you for a few minutes, but just want to mention those few things, Mr. Griggsby.

Yes, thank you. So, um, I'm so you you probably have to correct me on this. So I thought a lot of the issues in the parking areas was associated to the lack there of enforcement because there was not enough officers available to make uh patrols um if you will within these areas. Is that is that is there any truth to that where now you are in a situation where you have two additional officers, another social worker, and it seems like there's now more resources to enforce what's already there without these ordinances. The the the staffing while it's on the uptick and we're we're working diligently to improve that, um really what this ordinance helps us to do is give us the the legal reason to contact folks that are not using those structures for their intended purposes. Um so simply, you know, saying move along uh without any legal um structure to fall back on doesn't really allow us to to take any type of enforcement or have any teeth to it in terms of asking folks to move along. So that's what this provides us is that ability to identify people and warn them, explain the ordinance, and if people still refuse to comply, then that's when we have the ability to write that that citation.

Yeah. Um and I I get it. I really do. What my concern is though, what do if you have someone that is for example there and you know they don't really have any place to go and um you know just because they're in a circumstance I you know I'm really concerned about enforcement. Um, I'm really concerned about um, you know, people who are in a situation where I mean a civil infraction. I mean, I guess maybe I have a quick question for you. Like, are these civil infractions independent of each other? Like, so, for example, I'm down there. I I don't have any means. I I get a civil infraction, but, you know, I'm down there again. Are they are they compounding or are they each individual events when it comes to the infractions? If you know, if you do you get what I'm saying?

Yeah, I do. I do. Um, you know, a civil infraction can this would be a civil infraction. Speeding is a civil infraction. If you're speeding on a road and you get pulled over and get a ticket for speeding and then you take off and you speed some more, you can get pulled over again and given another speeding ticket. The same thing would apply here. So yes, they they it could be recurring um incidents of uh the violation. Um and and you were also touching upon and if I can move on real quickly. Is that answer your question? No. Please go.

Okay. Cuz I also wanted to mention you started to touch upon it could impact um perhaps on housing individuals and and that's not untrue. I mean both of these ordinances uh this and the next ordinance are written to be applicable to anybody. They are not specific uh in the ordinance targeting I hear that term quite a bit. Neither of them target um unhoused individuals or other individuals with this particular ordinance. Um, as as was explained, the impetus for it or the reason that it's that it was brought forward and and for your consideration is to address some of the incidents that have been occurring in the parking structures that are unrelated to the purpose of the structures. um and and uh gatherings of individuals and uh uh in some instances u you know violence and and and various other things like that to the point where individuals feel unsafe using the parking structures. So getting back to the basics of what the purpose of the building and the structure and the facility is to say this is here for this purpose. Um just like city hall is there for a certain purpose. um you as city council have the ability to do that. You're taking a facility saying its purpose is this and also for health, safety, and welfare. You have cars driving through there, parking, backing out, and if individuals are um not moving on their way and and and and using it just for what it's uh necessary for, you could also have some, you know, traffic interactions that that could be dangerous and unsafe. So there are a number of public um health, safety, welfare type legitimate concerns being addressed by the ordinance. Um and and it it it could be any individual whether they are um a teenager, an adult, an

unhoused individual, a very rich individual, they're all subject to this. Okay, I appreciate that. So I guess and I apologize. Uh and maybe I should know, but like let's just wipe this off the table for a second. And this doesn't this is not before us. Are you telling me right now legally right now we have no ability to address these issues that are happening in these garages?

You know what I mean? That's what I'm I'm confused about because how can it not be up until this time now that we are unable to address these issues but then now all of a sudden if we do this then we have all the room and wiggle room to be able to do that. So, I guess I'm a little confused because I don't know the previous language of what's already on the plate right now, if you will, to where we are going forward.

Yeah, it it's a fair question. It's it is a new section in the ordinance because there is not another section in the ordinance that enables this to be addressed. Um, and sometimes that's just how things progress uh in terms of city council enacting ordinances to address things when when situations or problems arise. Just like when you uh you have park rules that are in place, at one point there were no park rules, but you realize you needed those rules to address various issues in the park. And you may amend those rules from time to time to govern how your park facilities are being used. what you can and cannot do in those park facilities. Uh you presently don't have anything uh on the books for these structures for whatever reason. I don't know, maybe because it just hasn't been an issue in the past like it has uh recently become or a big enough issue.

Go ahead. Go ahead. My only addition is I mean law enforcement has the ability to address an incident when it occurs, but this language is intended to be preventative and to stop the large gatherings turning into the assaults and the activities that we saw in the fall.

And I'm all about that. I mean, like I said, I I definitely get it. I just um I just I just you know this is this is something that you know has to be done in a way that is equitable across um everyone and I just really want to make sure that we are approaching it that way um just because of the sensitivity of some of the issues that we're dealing with and I know that that there's more public safety um issues that we need to address and this is one of those. And so I I don't have a problem with the concept of that. I'm just really want to make sure that we understand that if this was to go forward that you really have a a responsibility in the enforcement in the way that um is equitable and really addresses public safety as opposed to um uh a circumstance of a person. Um, and so that's really my concern. Um, and I hope I I don't know if I said that clearly or not, but uh, but that that's where I'm at.

Just react um, and in reference I know uh, the mayor prom and I uh, had a couple of meetings with some of the advocate advocate groups that we've heard from the podium as well. mainly around 1566, the next um agenda item. And one of my takeaways from those meetings were some of the things just as you referenced are on the books to be addressed um or that are able to be addressed today. And I think you know I'll leave those pieces for the next agenda item. But that's where I saw as we heard from Mr. topic the parking structure uh conversation a bit different and uh specific to conduct um you know in a location where we don't have anything in the books um to enable you know a safe safe surroundings and such. So, and it also in even in this provision, I think there's the um nothing for an unhoused individual hanging out in the parking garage, you know, their first um interaction has to be with an officer or a social worker engaging on services. So, in light of the possibility of someone that may be find themselves in a situation, um, you know, there's kind of a two three-step recourse before they would even see a ticket or a civil infraction. Um, and and again, it it's not an arrestable offense. Um, it's a civil infraction ticket. Um, which is um, again, another piece that I took away from our conversations. Further comments, Mr. Meadows,

did you have something you hear?

The um Well, I can't really discuss this without actually referring to the next item. So, I want to I want to just ask why do we need this? Um, you know, in one sense, if as I look at this particular ordinance, uh, you know, we're we're talking about, you know, use, occupy, or remain in any part of a city owned or operated parking structure or parking lot for any purpose. And then looking at the purposes and the exceptions because 2664 without any amendment in it already says lying, sleeping or sitting in a parking structures and city-owned public restrooms for purpose of using structure as a shelter which you know we can we can add the word camping but that's using something as a shelter. the, you know, if you pitch a tent in a parking structure, you're still using it as a as a shelter. We already have an ordinance on the books that addresses that issue. I think the one thing about that this ordinance has that 2664 seems to have currently seems to have uh absent is the exceptions. person's temporarily using a parking structure for shelter during a tornado, tornado warning, sleet, hail, or thunderstorm. And I I guess I would add among other things because there probably are reasons why we would it would be okay uh that are not listed here or city personnel, contractors, or others permitted to use, occupy, or remain on the premises of a parking structure. That's what we already have other than those exceptions. So why would we need

1565 for any purpose? And then we in the next ordinance which I know we're going to talk about and you know I can reserve uh comments with regard to that. Um, we just simply somehow say, but if you identify as homeless, which frankly I don't know what that means. They're just dressed wrong. They look kind like they didn't take a shower. What What What is the identification as homeless? Then you have a different process. If we need to include that process, why aren't we just why don't we just make those changes and and leave it the way it is because we already have language that has addressed this and has addressed it for many years. It's a question of enforcement as the mayor prom indicated and the question really is why aren't we enforcing the existing ordinance? If it is uninforcable as written, then I think we need to know we've got a, you know, we've got a bad ordinance and and that would be the advice that we'd get from the city attorney. So, that's that's my those are my comments.

Sure. I'll I'll and I'll invite other uh input on it. Um I think that the ordinance that we're that you're currently talking about addresses something different than sitting, sleeping, or lying in a parking structure. It it is talking about individuals that are um could be tailgating. Pardon me. They could be tailgating.

They could be tail they could be engaging in any activity and not necessarily lying. And and the individuals that um that again gave cause to look at an ordinance like this were not I don't believe sitting, sleeping or lying in the parking structure. they were engaged in um group activities that resulted in fighting and and as they gathered as a group or merged with other groups they got into disputes and and it resulted in that. So the idea is to uh have an ordinance that that covers that and addresses it um outside of what's in 2664 presently and beyond that. If you do nothing with 2664, it would address another issue perhaps. Um, but it wouldn't I don't think it it would get to the issue that is giving rise to bringing this ordinance before you as as I understand it. I don't know if there's anything additional that staff would like to add to that or correct me.

Mr. Whan,

thank you. I think this does address an issue that is not in the current law. It addresses people that are having alternative motives inside the ramp. I have had um quite a few people address the fact that they would be parking there and then there's someone standing there staring at them or if there's someone um gathering there for with their bikes or with their motorcycles or with their cars that are causing other problems. just the fact that they're not using the ramp as a place to park your car and then go to the shops and go to the stores or go to your apartment. I think that's what this is really addressing is the nefarious issues that are coming up from people that are not there with using it with the intention of a ramp. Obviously, our open open areas in town are open for anybody to want to sit, stand, um to hang out. We obviously have a constitution gives people a right to being in those open areas. I think in the closed areas where people feel more vulnerable, that's what this is addressing and that's my concern. Um and yeah, this is um been a concern for me for many years. Um and I think this resolves that issue of allowing people to feel more safe andor alerts someone if there is a concern of someone that is um not using the parking structure for the reasons that were intended. Does anybody go ahead please?

If I can just make one comment because the you know we're talking about uh particularly in the next ordinance which I I think we don't need the current one that we are discussing here. It's part of the disorderly conduct section of our of our ordinance. And even though this is a change to 2664, 26 PN9 says disturb the public peace and quiet by engaging in any fight or brawl in any public place. So it already covers a fight in a parking structure. So I don't think we've left anything out here. I think this is a very comprehensive uh disorderly conduct uh ordinance as it exists right now and clearly can be enforced and if we need to make changes to it to address this issue other than those changes that are currently set in 2664 that seem to which I think appropriately add a process if we have encounter a homeless person to try to provide some services to that individual. I don't see any reason to make any change other than that. So,

Mr. Griggs,

yeah, I I thank you. I think that was I mean trying to I guess say that a little bit more eloquently as as you did, Council Member Meadows. And yeah, when I think about a group of people in a garage who are up to no good, um, gathering disorderly, you know, and be preventive, I think that's falls within that hat. And and and maybe I'm just ignorant to how enforcement works when it comes to um what's going on down there. But yeah, I think there's I agree. I think I think there's other ways to address this in the disorderly conduct uh area of our ordinances and and being able to address these issues. I did see you council member uh Whan shake your head know um and I would be interested to hear uh because we are having a great discussion about why you don't think that it's disorderly conduct issue if I think I understood your body language correctly.

I'm sorry. I probably shouldn't have done that. Um, so from what I understand how the law is read, if you have a group of 30 people that you want to hang out in the ramp that there is nothing in the disorderly code, if you're standing there in the ramp and you're gathering and you are um gathering more and more people, there's nothing in the disorderly code that addresses that from what I understand. or if you want to stand in the ramp yourself. If I want to stand in the ramp and just stand there and watch people all day, there's nothing in the disorderly code that prevents that. I think this addresses an issue that and also I'm very very thankful that there's a police department here that is willing to say, "Hey, by the way, you can't be just hanging out here in the ramp. Why don't you go ahead and step on?" Um, I think as compared to um so I think that there's a warning in that situation. That's the habit of um the police department as I've known it. Many many things um someone gets informed that there's a situation there. So in information is a huge piece in this um situation. Um Assistant Chief Craft, would you agree that information for a crowd or a individual is critical? it is again the explanation piece and the warning piece and that's that's written here as as we're going to let folks know what what's allowable and give everyone a chance to comply and then you know the enforcement side again is just civil infraction versus typically in disorderly it becomes a misdemeanor offense for for most uh

sites in here. Um so again we we're just looking for that ability and that legal grounds to contact people and and let them know um that they need to move along and this is a civil infraction. Yes, sir. Okay. I'm sorry for initiating that. I should have further comments.

No, I I think it's a great discussion. It's a good discussion. Um and I'm I'm I'm good I'm glad to kind of hear and understand um different perspectives and understandings of what the intent is. And I and we'll talk about this and I'm as we talk about the next thing here, you know, you know, what is the intent? You know, what are we trying to do? and public safety obviously is important to me and and and uh quality of life and making sure that those areas are safe for individuals to come down and and enjoy that. Um and so I I'll stop there.

Any further comments on this? So I have a question for everybody which is this is going to be on our agenda next week for a vote. Uh, does anybody want any changes at this point? That would mean we would want different versions or something on the next agenda because now would be a great time to ask if you have Mr. Meadows would consider some, but I mean consider I mean given that this is going to be on the agenda.

Turn your mic on. Given that this is going to be on the agenda, I would suggest one change in uh 11B. Um and I would just add uh after where it reads using a parking structure for I would add comma among other things, shelter during a tornado, tornado warning, etc. to give uh the city the opportunity of also recognizing that there might be something that we don't have listed here.

And that's that's beyond my my uh feeling that we don't need this, but um that I think would improve it.

Yeah. Would you also consider extreme weather such as sub zero temperatures where someone's trying to get out of the wind, trying to get out of the elements? We just added $30,000 for our budget this year to help support people to get into, you know, housing for that type of situation. That's the only thing I would be on the tornado situation that's already listed. I mean, I would hope again the social worker I think I'm assuming because I know our uh Elaine Hardy helped work with our unhoused population to ensure that they had accommodations um during the extreme weather. So, I assume that there is a system in place. Maybe I shouldn't assume, but between the social workers and the officers, is that true?

We identified folks. We were Yeah. We transported a lot of people to to hotels and housing when it was really cold out. Yeah. And again, that a lot of these calls, you know, that what you're referring to, sir, is is um you know, when we have unhoused or people that that may need services, um those calls come in weekly and they go directly from parking to social workers. That that's that's typically not officers that go on those calls. They directly go to the social workers and then they respond out there to see how they can provide aid. And that that's already happening on a weekly basis. Thank you. Yes, sir.

So, I would like to suggest that we have a second version with Mr. Meadows change and it would be helpful to have comments from the city attorney and the chief, I guess, or uh whoever is representing ELPD about whether they think that that would uh make things harder or easier or be neutral. Does that work? Yeah.

Okay. All right. Um, anything else on this issue? All right. Thank you. I think that was productive. Next item, uh, 3.6, discussion of ordinance 1566, an ordinance amending sections 26-51, definitions, and 2664, conversion of public property with an additional option to include language regarding interference of uh public events. Mr. Craft.

Uh, the proposed amendment to the campaign ordinance reflects a thoughtful and coordinated response to the challenges currently impacting our downtown. It is a result of months of collaborative work and engagement. Before you tonight are three options for consideration. Option one has been presented previously and prohibits persons from camping in any public place. Enforcement of this ordinance first calls for the subject to be warned and if they refuse to comply, a noncriminal civil infraction citation will be issued for the first offense and a misdemeanor charge will be issued for the second and any subsequent offenses. If the person identifies as unhoused, enforcement will not be taken without the officer first making reasonable effort to place a person voluntarily in appropriate social service or treatment facility. Our second our second option prohibits persons from converting public property for the purposes of maintaining a temporary residence in any public place. Enforcement of this ordinance first calls for the subject to be warned by the officer and if they refuse to comply, a non-criminal civil infraction citation will be issued. If the person identifies as unhoused, enforcement will not be taken without the officer first making reasonable effort to place a person voluntarily in appropriate social service or treatment facility. And our third option prohibits persons from obstructing, impeding, or interfering with public events, activities, or other uses of public places. Enforcement of this ordinance first calls for the subject to be worn by the officer. And if they refuse to comply, a misdemeanor charge will be issued. If the person identifies as unhoused, enforcement will not be taken without the officer first making reasonable effort to place a person voluntarily in appropriate social service or treatment facility or a consultation with a city social worker. Downtown East Lancing is a shared environment for residents, students, business, and visitors. Proposed amendments help the city maintain safe, accessible, and welcoming public spaces while continuing to invest in long-term supportive strategies that address underlying issues. On behalf of the Downtown Solutions Committee, I'm

hopeful that council will continue meaningful dialogue and consider future adoption of ordinance 1566, an ordinance amending sections 26 or 51 definitions with one of the proposed options for you tonight. So with that, I will again attempt to answer any questions that you have. Questions for Mr. KF or the city attorney? I have comments,

please. Well, I you know, just again, um I think it's important to reference some of the um public comment that we've taken in on this subject over the last several weeks. Um as well as some of the alternatives that have been developed. Um, as I referenced earlier, uh, the mayor prom and myself had a few discussions with, um, uh, some advocates and nonprofit community. And, and this is where I took away a few lessons. One is, um, some of the unintended consequences of the original draft um, that was before this body. Um, I don't and then I was reflecting back to the fall again when we kind of had this onslaught of community comment as well articulating some of the challenges downtown. many of which I do believe um you know we already have ordinances or laws on the books like urinating in public um like following someone into their apartment you know enclosure um uninvited um uh some of the other um uh public comment those are you know specific instances um those are already and on the books where officers could um if you know on the scene or called could respond to. Is that true? I just want to make see how he turned that into a question. That was good. Right.

Um now I don't I want to be clear. I have no interest in alternative one or alternative two on camping or conversion of public property. Um I am interested again from my lessons from the advocates I've engaged with that you know target I don't like that word focusing on conduct that has actually been a challenge um and I know the example that has come to be is you know whether we have an individual occupying a stage and we have a concert planned what is the instrument to have uh that person or ask that person to move. My understanding is there isn't none. Is that correct, Mr. Jabic?

That is correct.

Look at that. That's two questions. Okay. So, um I say this all to say that um you know, I'm interested in the alter alternative number three. And I also want to say once again as I've I've stated before um and we've talked about at these meetings, one other housing support, okay, and some other solutions that we do as a city. One is we do have CDBG dollars that go to security deposit and first month rent for qualifying individuals. Um I have recently talked to our city manager um about the continuum of care um collaboration. We have uh Matt Apostle who represents us on that body. Should we since this is a regional challenge, we should be talking to Eaton and Clinton counties about is there anou? Is there a way that we can more collaboratively work together? Um I've mentioned already tonight additional social worker uh that has been hired. There was I know a

conditional offers made waiting for her to graduate in May.

So we have uh someone starting later in May hopefully. Um and this is after we our current social workers have uh I know last month the chief reported have helped find housing for two uh unhoused individuals. Um, and this, um, and I know folks may not being directly connecting to that dot, but another discussion we've been having at this body is the diverse housing, um, uh, ordinance where new develop for market rate housing. Do we change what we currently have on the books for a fee and lube program? And this is an example that is under consideration. What could we do with a fee and lube program? Could we buy back licenses in Bailey? Could we offer more supports for renovations of property or expand the program that we currently do with CDBG dollars? Um there's a whole slew of, you know, opportunities that we could look at on top of, you know, adding additional supports to develop uh more affordable housing. um in the city of East Lancing because as we've talked about in the past, federal programs and Misha PO programs are not easily adopted or received in um a community like East Lancing because of our census tracks um in terms of um the economic levels here. So, I just want to reference some of the housing pieces we are doing um because we should be criticizing, we should be doing more. I think we have a path and an outline to do more as a community and collaborate regionally, but to be responsive to at least some of the public comments downtown in a focused

way around specific conduct, I'd be open to alternative number three. Thank you.

Further comments or questions, Mr. Whan? So I am um number one there aren't illegal people. There are people that um their behavior hurts or inhibits someone else. I am opposed to the first and second proposals for this just as um council member Singh had just articulated. Um I do I am concerned that there is an issue that the third option does resolve. Um and I think that does resolve it well. I think that there's been a characterization and this is the challenge as I'm learning on council. I would like to respond every time someone gets that that podium, respond with maybe additional information, people's hearts, people's desires. Um, I have worked with people that were challenged with their housing for 27 years and my heart goes out to them. My heart goes out to their situation. My wife and I are very, very involved. Um I don't characterize this as um just a single issue. It's a concern for safety and access of the entire community um to make sure that we are a welcoming community to all. And when I say welcoming, when you meet someone that looks like they're challenged, how can you help them? How can you support them? How can you um give them a lift? And I think I love the fact that our community is concerned about that. I I would love to have had response over all these weeks of people saying stuff that are um

not necessarily where I've seen this body trying to head. So um again, I I agree with the fee and Lou. I agree that we need to continue working hard at the issues that um Council Member Singh raised. So that's where I'm at. comments. Oh, Mr. Meadows.

I I do, you know, I think given that uh you know, I had submitted the the change from camping because I thought that was an appropriate uh reference uh by submitting something that said conversion of public property, which is really what it was, then uh it'll probably be a surprise that I I also am only in favor of three. Number three, um, number one, it it eliminates the criminality uh that has been complained about. In other words, criminalizing the conduct of being unhoused. I I do have some concerns with regard to it in the sense that like the other ordinance I'd like to see um a change to be so that it at least recognizes that there might be other other circumstances other than a structure during a tornado tornado warning or or during a sleet hail or thunderstorm that people might want to um be in and use public facilities. ities have to uh protect themselves. And um I still have the question about how we would identify. It says if the person identifies as an unhoused individual. So presumably that means the person would have to say I'm an unhoused individual in order to obtain the services that are identified in that particular section. So I just want to make sure that in any language that um that we provide these services where they they appear to be needed and not rely on the fact that the individual has to say, "Hey, I'm I'm

unhoused." Um, I think we offer those no matter what when we're identifying with someone who's um at least um subject to this particular ordinance. So, I also like three and I would say that we we can move forward on that. Although, if we're going to wait to get other information, that would be, you know, I could see waiting a little while. So, that's it. Is there more information that you were requesting? No, I thought there had been a request for the city attorney to um make some some comments with regard to this in the future. Uh my request was in response to your request for additional language. Okay.

I just wanted to know whether that additional language would be whether there were any implications we might need to think through. So, it sounds like we have a request for an alternate version of version three which has similar modifications that Mr. Meadows requested for the previous ordinance. Do you have sufficient guidance? Mr. Jopic? Um, if I could ask for a little clarification, please.

Okay. Uh if I could start with the um the area of the ordinance that talks about if the person identifies as an unhoused individual. Uh the the intention there was to not make any assumptions or offend anybody and and kind of be a little careful in how that language is used and it is important I do believe. Um and um so is would language along the lines of if the person identifies or is identified as an unhoused individual um is I'm not sure exactly how to address the issue I suppose is what I'm getting.

Yeah. And I'm not particularly clear on it either. Presumably we might have a policy that the police officer through observation may ask are you an unhoused individual? If that person responds and says yes, then all of this comes into play. But that's not how this seems to be worded to me and I'm not sure what the appropriate wording would be to get us to that point.

Can I just reference that we like our social workers have been trained in street outreach and then we have nonprofits like Miss Ericson's in the community that do street outreach too. So maybe there's a a question in terms of is there something the appropriate way to engage that we put in or at least con confide with them on a path forward.

Yeah. I think another way of maybe dealing with this is just to say if the person is an unhoused individual period then it leaves up to the circumstances to identify that individual as an unhoused and doesn't say that they've got to you know push it out which is how it would normally happen anyway.

Mr. Jin, do you have comments on that point? I I'd be fine with that as long as we're clear in terms of implementation that there's a request uh that is included. Um I'd hate for a situation to arise where we miss somebody because we don't realize that they are an unhoused individual um and don't identify themselves as such and so they get missed and don't and we don't go through this process to try and help them. Um that's my only reservation. As long as there's a way to implement that administratively through, you know, training and so on and so forth to make an inquiry, uh, I I'm fine with that. And then, Mr. Meadows, you had also asked for a second change to

B, it's basically the same change because it's the same language. Uh, actually that's in the other ordinance. Um it would read this section shall not apply to persons temporary temporarily using comma among other things a structure uh during a tornado uh tornado warning or during a sle hail or thunderstorm.

Could I also ask about that? um is the um you know I'd be concerned that that language opens it up to any other things um that the imagination might be able to come up with if it's that open-ended. Um if that's the intent um of course you're city council and that that is the way you'd want it. I was wanting to ask if if the idea is to capture um other instances of emergencies or events requiring individuals to take shelter. Great. That's a perfect language. So, okay. Add that at the end. I will I will use that then. Thank you. In both in both ordinances. In both ordinances. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. That's awesome.

Will Yes. I don't want to get too far from what this actually says. obstructing, impeding, interfering with public events, activities or other uses for the public places. No person shall occupy, use or occupy a place in a manner that interferes with, obstructs, impedes, otherwise inconsistent with the preparations of setting up, engaging in public attendance or participation in, and cleaning up after an event activity. I could keep on reading. Really, this is designed to if we have Folkfest or we have the art fair or we have a concert and someone's like, "I'm not getting off the stage. I want to be on the stage." Like, well, there's actually an event going on. We need you to move along. Um, and that's not with me. That would be someone else saying that. Um, I think the heart behind assisting the unhoused in our community doesn't change anything here because the fire department deals with the unhoused 10 times a week, chief, right? 15 times a week. taking them to the hospital, taking them for services, um tr taking people for a housing situation or if there's a um medically or they're having some kind of mental crisis. All those things need to happen no matter what. So, our city is a compassionate city to deal with people's needs at the time. this does make a unique situation that if someone is choosing to impede and saying nope I'm going to be here and I'm going to sit on the stage. It's like well no we we've got things going on we need to do it allows this that situation

to be remedied and I know this has been an issue in the past. So I think that I don't want to get beyond what this is saying. This is a pretty limited ordinance and I think it's an added to it's since it's added to the disorderly code it makes sense and I don't see that that has been addressed in other issues that's that's where I see it. So um I got to go. So I have a procedural question. Uh we have three versions of what are nominally the same ordinance right on the agenda here. I'm not hearing any support for two of them. And for the third one, we've had a request for a modified version for the agenda on a week from today. Could we just have version three with an attendant version four with the new language? or would be would be would we be required to have the first two versions because they have carried over from previous meetings?

Well, considering you can't take votes at a discussion only meeting, I think at this point they are part of the materials. Um and um I I see city manager Bman has a thought. Well, we've discussed that as part of the motion being able to dispose of prior versions. Yeah. That may have been meant to be brought back, not brought back, or in this case, put to bed some of what's been previously presented in that motion. Yeah. I think it's ordinance 1560 is what you're referring to. So, that's specific to 1560. Here, we're talking about three different versions of 1566.

1566. And your recommendation would be that all of them plus the new one would appear on the agenda for next week. Um I I think um we would have them in the packet of materials but in the agenda we could identify alternative three as the action item on the agenda but include all of them in the packet just so that it's a complete set of materials um and have a recommended or suggested motion. That seems fine to me. Any concerns with that approach from anyone? Thank you. I think that concludes the site. Is there anything more that we need to know? Yes, Mr.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page. You're asking for 1566 version three A and B. Yes. Bing the suggested changes council member Meadows made. Yeah. And so council has a choice to either vote for the one that's currently in front of you as version three or version 3. Yep. Two. 3. M. Yeah. Whatever. Yes. Mark. Yes. Mr. And for the public that we are not looking at version one,

perceptions, unintended consequences, the big discussions of those things. We are not considering that issue. Um, I almost somehow I don't know how we can get the information out to the community. Well, um, but I think we can try to say something in the agenda item report to that effect. Anything else we need to know from perspective? Yeah, please.

I think the only other thing I wanted to mention uh in followup to what council member Whan pointed out that this is limited to that specific area of an event that's taking place. it doesn't cover other areas of the city. Um, and in fact, it indicates in subsection D that an individual it would be allowed to relocate to another area that's outside the area of the event. Uh, even if it's city property because you're not adopting any regulation in connection with those areas. So, it does allow relocation of, for example, an unhoused individual if if they're the individual involved. And that's why that is in there to make it clear that this is just the area of the event to enable the city or whoever is uh permitted to have the event there to have it take place.

Thank you, Mr. KF. Anything we need to know from the perspective of police on this? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bellman. Anything? No, I'm good. All right. Thank you. So that concludes that agenda item. I think again that was productive. Thank you all. Um and Mr. Jopic, you are released. Thank you.

Uh we are now on uh item 3.7 discussion of Albert El Fresco and other downtown East Lancing seating amenities in 2026. Mr. Apostle and Miss Pope. Good evening, council. Uh, Matt Apostle, community and economic development specialist here with the city of East Lancing. Good evening. Good evening, Heather Pope, director of community and economic development.

So, today we are following up on our conversation from the January 13th uh, city council discussion only meeting regarding Albert El Fresco. During that meeting, community and economic development staff presented three potential options to council for review related to Albert Alfresco seating, infrastructure, and events. Option one, if you recall, was the status quo. Uh essentially doing what we've done for the past two years for Albert Alfresco for the road closure timing for our event schedule and for seating and infrastructure around downtown. Option two was to essentially spread out seating and other infrastructure to other areas of the downtown uh but not have a road closure for Alberta al fresco and additionally expand our event schedule to intentionally include events in April and September. And then option three was essentially a combination of options one and two. It was to have a road closure for Albert Alfresco and then also distribute seating more thoroughly throughout the downtown as well as intentionally have those April and September events. During that meeting, council directed staff to uh go through a consultation period with various bodies to get their feedback on those three plans. Uh that feedback is briefly included within the agenda item report for your review. Uh but overall uh we spoke with the downtown development authority, the downtown management board, the downtown solutions committee, East Lancing Police Department, Newman Lofts Residents, and the University Student Commission. Uh option two was favored by ELPD, Newman Lofts, the DDA, and the Downtown Solutions Committee. I will clarify that the DDA and downtown solutions committee clarify that they were recommending option two with the addition that there is also no seasonal seating put out. Uh and I will also clarify that at the time

ELPD and Newman Lofts were not presented with the idea that they could recommend an option two of no seasonal seating. So perhaps they could have recommended that as well if that was presented to them as an option. the DMB DMB reb recommended B recommended opt larger distribution of uh infrastructure and then the university student commission favored option three but inevitably did not move forward a formal recommendation uh and they stated that was because most Michigan State University students are not in East Lancing when Albert alresco is in place. That is sort of a brief summary of the feedback. Heather, anything you'd like to add? No, I think he covered it right.

Questions for staff, comments, direction. Mr. Whan,

I applaud city council for creating Albert alresco. Um, I think it was fabulous in the beginning. I think it served a great purpose during COVID and a great purpose for along the way. And I also absolutely love all the events that the city does a fabulous job of running. I applaud both of you and also your teams for all that um that occurs downtown. I also would support number two um as we when we're together enjoying a festival that we can all truly enjoy that festival and walk freely in the streets and um when we're not having a festival that we would use the streets as intended. Further comments, council member Sing.

I So when you say option two, did you say without seasonal seating? So the DDA and the downtown solutions committee recommended option two with the no with the addition that there is no seasonal outdoor seating. So that means none of the furniture, none of the games. Yes. Aside from during specific events. When we proposed option two though to council, it included seating. Yeah. This was just something that the DDA recommended as part of 2.0 A. Yeah.

Is the recommendation that no furniture be included. So, I got to tell you, and I I think I've said this maybe on one-on-one conversations, but um you know, I think I I think um recognizing across the board the challenges, public safety challenges that we've had, I've kind of taken a step back what I want to see downtown for summertime because it does feel like we have to get, for lack of a better phrase, our house in order before, you know, what I would like to see in the future as a prospective social district for art walks and other community events and prospects. So that's a long way of saying and I I have had other you know mainly families that I run into around my kids school disappointed like as we have shrunk Elrasco and I get the businesses have not seen the bump in business in the summer uh since co but I also think guess what they're not coming regardless like like unless we get we have to maybe reimag Imagine, which I know has been talked about by staff um and others, you know, something to really bolster our downtown. We've referenced some of the perspective projects on campus, uh the region. If we want to continue to be a destination, we have to lean into developing our space and that's partly our arts. That's partly that includes music and events and beyond. and being and creating a space downtown in the summer in particular, if not more extended, that folks can enjoy. So, that's a long way of saying overall I am disappointed, but I I understand where we are today in kind of the

accommodations we need to make. Um, with that said, honestly, I don't um, you know, if if there seems to be consensus developing amongst the boards, um, I mean, just again, it's just more salt into my alfresco wound, if you will. Um, that, uh, with no furniture, my kid will be bummed out and no games, you know, unless it is during, uh, one of those events. That's that's a reality, you know, it's something we do every summer. Uh, and I'm, you know, I I'm reflective of just one family, you know, that I I do think enjoys those amenities. So, that's my comments. Mr. Griggsby,

yeah, just a clarification for the uh seating for when there is an event. Um, let's say the event's like at 4:00. Is the seating for the throughout that day that for I mean is that is there is the mindset where okay today we have an event we're going to have the outdoor seasonal seating or is that not been detailed in as far as kind of what they were thinking?

So our existing inventory of outdoor seasonal seating uh is large heavy and would be infeasible to reasonably move all of it or a significant portion of it out for a one-day event. Uh staff are in thinking about the idea of not having outdoor seasonal seating throughout the summer are thinking about getting very modular, very lightweight, perhaps colorful seating that we can put out when there is a a summer concert or something like that, but none of that has been purchased at this time.

Yeah. I mean, and I appreciate what you said about what I'd like to see and what the reality is uh and kind of how things have changed since. appreciate um Council Member Whan's comments about the intent and where we are now with getting our house in order as well. Um option two, you know, just based on and thank you for going out and I mean that seems like a lot of work to go out and have these conversations with so many different people. So I appreciate that. Um, but it seems to be to be like a good in between because you got buy in from the people that are experiencing and living in those areas. Um, selfishly, I think what I think would be cool would be, okay, if we're not going to do that major outdoor seating, um, I think when there's an event down there as an opportunity to still have those games in some of those different areas to do that, might not necessarily maybe have again those whatever you said, it's not feasible, but having an alternative. And I don't know about the the budget situation and how realistic that is to that anyway, but uh that's what I'm leaning towards of something that I like about option two and also adding that and then of having those activities available because I think it creates at least for that day an environment of something's going on downtown and if you're not going to do the event, families still have that opportunity to enjoy that. And I think with some of the issues that we've had traditionally with having those seats all the all day long there all year long all summer long um is a little bit more uh mitigated as far as some of the issues that may be associated with that by just having limited time frames for that.

Can I ask clarification please? So would there be a possibility, let's say, well Folk Fest is Friday, Saturday, Sunday. It's three days. Glamfest is one day these one-day events. Could it be shut down on Friday afternoon and then reopen on Sunday night? So it encompasses the weekend. So then if some a family does want to go down there that weekend, could that be an accommodations where it's still put up on straight time and then taken down either Monday morning or Sunday night? I don't know. I don't know the logistics of that. But if it's a one day event, could it be the weekend?

So you're referencing the furniture having the street closure and bring furniture in for from Friday. Sometimes there's a ping pong table this and that. I don't know. I'm just asking. I think it would be challenging um for like the ping pong table and other things. What we certainly could do though is for the events make there's other games and things that we could bring out um and you know we're open to having the road closure longer but you would want to make sure that you're activating that space. I understand.

Thank you. Thank you for responding to that. And I would want to defer to the staff on when it would open up and when it would shut down. I don't think that we need to make that decision, but I'm not sure how that works. Mr. Meadows, uh, did uh did any of the respondents indicate why on version two they didn't want the seasonal seating? Uh, I mean, it's scattered all over downtown. in in the plan that's there. Is Is there a reason the DDA thought that was like a bad idea?

I I can be the resource for that because I was there and it was actually my motion.

Um I think that as council member Singh said, we're trying to get our house in order here with some of the issues downtown uh camping related. I'm not using it in the form of the ordinance, but um I think that given where we are right now, it's appropriate to reset a little bit and go back to no amenities, sort of normal streetscape and then see what we need to do to achieve the kind of things that everybody wants to achieve. It just seemed like a a reset was the appropriate approach at this point and it simplifies things for staff. Um, and I think at the same time everybody re everybody likes the events, right? The events are really important and uh we can still do that. And I think if we could do some of the lightweight games, you know, and bring that out and sort of make it a more c celebratory atmosphere, I think that would be great if it wasn't too much of a of a burden. So that was that was kind of my impulse. We have to I think we have we're going through a phase right now where we need to uh try to wrap our arms around other issues in the downtown and I think that this option option two without the street furniture would help us do that. That was my thinking

and the just so I can you know as I look at the proposal at least um with the the seating you know it isn't just seating it's you know a rocking bench we got a rocking bench um you know it added a Ronda chair um a lounge chair uh we're not putting any um hammocks down there,

which was one of the issues that I think we were dealing with. Um, and it's, you know, it's a little bit of additional seating in Fountain Square, the 500 block alley, Bill Sharp Park, uh, the Marriott Plazas. I mean, there isn't a lot that's being done with this. And, and saying that, I just want to say I think it is time for a reset on this. uh that just based on there's some changes, you know, that we need to take a look at. And if if it's the, you know, the will of the council that that we're going to do it without any of this additional seating, um you know, I'll go along with that. I I just do think that the additional seating is something that we can use in the summer and that it it won't be associated with some of the issues that we were dealing with because it's really small scale. This is, you know, an extra six tables in the An Street Plaza with some chairs around them. it's, you know, it's not really a lot of uh things that I think would um be a problem or or develop as a problem and I'll just rely on staff as to whether they think the same thing. But um I'll go for it uh the way that that has been recommended by the DDA. But I'll just note that while we were on council um previously the you know the discussion at the DDA was always about the weekend which uh council member Whan talked about and the plan was to energize the downtown from Friday night to Sunday night by closing down Albert all the way down which is

what we do in festivals. So, it's it's not it doesn't get the same response as saying, "Hey, we're going to close you down for four months." It it is a different thing. And I don't think that either financially or um you know, considering the workload of the DPW right now that that's a viable option at this point in time. So option two is the option that that I would go for, but I do think it would be okay if we had this additional seating in the downtown during the season. Mr. When,

maybe this is a strange time to mention this. What if we had like a neighborhood association adopt a section of the street during during the festival? neighborhood association adopt like our neighborhood association at our picnic. They're always special games or special stuff. I don't know how the public and the volunteers would work on that. Maybe it's just a creative idea um that I had someone share with me about um cooperating with the neighborhood. Brookfield is going to sponsor this or White Hills is going to sponsor that. Just an idea. I'm not I don't need your response, but I think that could be something without councils jumping into it or not, but I think that there I think I would be I would love to have our neighborhood jump in and be responsible for something other than just serving ourselves.

So, volunteers. Sorry, excuse me. I Please. It's gotten to that part of the night where I'm going. Yeah. No, I get it. Okay. Sorry. Um, so I think I got what I'm hearing, but please speak up is that option two uh sounds like it's popular and it sounds like the one that we're leaning toward is pretty lean on the furniture. Unless that was not your intent. Again, that's just

uh I never do that. I can't believe I just did that. Um yeah, I I just think that it's a such a great opportunity to have that event, but also have an atmosphere and opportunity for people who are not going to do that event, but want to come down there with young families. So, have minimal furniture and games. I don't know how safe that is if the seat if this street is not uh sectioned off or how realistic that is. So that was just a thought out loud but minimum seating at least uh I think would be would still be good.

So is that sufficient direction? And are people comfortable if we put this on consent next meeting? Sure. Yeah, I'm good with that. Okay, I will say yes to that. Okay, great. So, anything more that you need from us? No, I think we're all So, thanks for all the leg work. That was really useful. I mean, talking to all the the constituencies, I think really helped inform the discussion. So, thank you for going through that and I think it was probably also going to be appreciated in the community, too. So, thank you for your work on that.

Thank you. I would love I just love their opinion on that decision. I'm gonna slide out due to a Maya green and all that fun stuff. Um

I I know you're just I was prompted by our city manager to mention that. I do on the um RFP for labor selection just mentioning I think because we have a price point differential it's important to have an a thorough process with that includes interviews. Okay. Thank you for weighing in on that and I hope you're feeling better. Um item 3.8 discussion of bond financing for facility capital improvement projects. Uh, Mr. Director Drinkie, I think actually Robert might be introducing this one.

So, I'll start. So, I think we've mentioned and we did during the uh fiscal year 26 budget process that the general fund did not include any funding for capital improvements because we were contemplating bonding for those capital improvements. So tonight really is to start that discussion about projects that need to be undertaken and Justin has done a nice job at identifying those projects be it at city hall community center fire station um the aquatic center as well as uh parking that we're asking you to look at whether we need to prioritize um before we move to the next phase of officially pursuing bonding for these projects to make it more affordable and less pressure on the general fund. So the city has historically cash funded a lot of these and I would present we're not in a position to do that and sustain that approach. And so that's the reason why in this document there is the laundry list of what we know needs to be done and a proposed bond for those with or without the third floor of Hannah um and what those dollar amounts need. So, I'll turn it back over to Justin to kind of highlight some of the projects in each of the locations. Uh the one project I added to the list came from a meeting I had at the fire department and that is their current accommodations uh in station one is challenging for separation of gender um or even privacy

uh if you walk through their sleeping quarters is not you know appropriate and so it's one thing that I want to take a deeper look at. So go ahead, Jose.

Certainly. Um, so yes, I want to also just acknowledge the work from my team, specifically Carlos, Lois, Jane, and Jim for helping to identify the projects and prioritize those. So, you know, a lot of eyes have been on this to kind of identify what are some of the most critical projects that we need to accommodate with our our public infrastructure. Um, and so, you know, there's a number of projects on that list. I know that it's late, so I don't want to necessarily read all of them to you and go detail by detail. you know, I'm happy to take your lead on if there are specific questions that you you have about these projects, but you know, high level overview is that we are, you know, looking at projects where they've significantly exceeded the expected useful life for certain pieces of equipment. Um, while also trying to prioritize things like energy efficiency or reducing utility consumption um to hopefully, you know, help uh kind of see some sustain improvements overall in that area. questions, comments?

I I don't have a question necessar Well, I do have a couple of questions, but I just want to I know Justin knows I brought up bonding at the parks and recck commission uh meeting. I I feel like I was clairvoyant now. So the um I I would just say that you know I don't have a problem with us approaching this in this way and I I think it's the appropriate way for us to deal with it rather than try to pay it for these things out of general fund uh dollars that uh you know this type of infrastructure type improvement is what bonding is designed to to deal with. Are there any of these items that were not on the capital improvements program uh that were added in some way? I just want to know that. Um I could get you a detailed breakdown on that. Um I believe that the fire department sleeping quarters was not on the 5-year capital improvement program. All of these projects are on the draft for the upcoming um renewal of that program. So it'll be on the 27 through 2031 list for your review and consideration. Um, but I do not believe that was on the 2026 list.

Okay. And can I just add a followup to that? So, it was my understanding when the recent renovations to the fire department took place using some ARPA dollars, I think the living sleeping quarters were originally contemplated, but were cut out because of cost issues. And I don't know if interim chief Newman can add anything to that or not. Mr. Newman.

Yeah. Thanks. I appreciate that. Happy birthday, by the way. Thanks. You're welcome. I know this will be memorable. It's just another day, right? We're all We all have work to do. Yeah.

That's not a complication. the renovations for the uh building. There were there was discussion initially on some changes for the dorm area, but there was no discussion as to how to permanently adjust it with the space that's actually needed to create those adjustments. Uh with that looking at the need in order to to adjust it, make those spaces available that the building has to be expanded to get that accomplished. There's no way around it. Uh and when once that was identified, it was taken off the table during the last renovation piece. But now it's feasible.

I'm sorry. But now it's feasible with the current with the funding that we had under the dollars we had with the ARPA fund piece. It was not feasible to do it then. They the the dollar value wasn't there. Now we're looking at if there's another way to get it accomplished then that's something that would So now is kind of um John also shared I think is it Delta recently did some renovations for their sleeping quarters. Uh Delta did uh Delh High Township Delh High

with their new the new station that they uh just constructed. Meridian Township is actually looking at doing a similar change addition and change as what Mr. Bellman has proposed. They don't have the correct accommodations for their quarters either. Okay, Mr. Weller, mine is more big picture than Sorry, I wasn't I'm sorry. Go ahead. That's okay.

Continue. I'm sorry. My my situation is more big picture than each item. Yes, the women need to be able to you you need to deal with these issues. The the police department's women locker room is ridiculous. There's a lot of different issues. I I wouldn't argue with any one of these issues. Um my bigger issue is a bigger philosoph philosophical issue is that um we really when I go into a car dealership I don't say can I afford the payment I say can I afford the car. So I I am concerned about our community that we are going to be have issues financially in the future. We've already talked about that and there will be bond payments. I will admit that I don't 100% understand how bond payments compared to so I think this is maybe I am wanting to be educated maybe in a in a different setting. I think it's too late now that um Mr. Bellman and I can sit down and talk about this more. I'm just a little bit more concerned about $20 million is a lot of money for a community that just voted down the parks and recck millillage and other concerns. So, um, so I'm still in process. That's just one of my knee-jerk responses that, um, even though I think a lot of these things are needed, I'm not sure that we can afford them.

Mr. Meadows, please.

These are not revenue bonds. That That's not what you're talking about, right? This will be voted on by the people. The um just a couple of questions actually probably for the city manager. um City Hall, Valley Court Community Center, those two in particular, you know, we've had a number of conversations about uh future redevelopment of those locations. And um I want to make sure that what we would be putting in here the 3,522 for instance at city hall if we are thinking we are going to move city hall still or redevelop that property. I just want to make sure this investment is necessary at this time and will pay off for us as we go forward. And I would say the same thing about Valley Court Community Center, even though that's only $310,000. I know that's still a lot of money, but $310,000, you know, I want to make sure that needs to be done and that can facilitate the value of that property going forward if it is subject to redevelopment at some point.

So yes, that would definitely be in the final analysis. The bigger question is if we look to relocate from city hall, the time frame is right around probably 3 years max or minimum that some of these improvements need to happen because they're at the end of the useful life. And I would not want to be in that building if the um heating system failed and we couldn't operate for a period of time because of the cost associated with replacing it. um and the timing would cause that disruption. So those are why some of those items are on the list.

And then just uh a couple of comments really. I want to um I realize that they are expensive changes uh to our parking structures. But based on what are recent um suicides on those structures or off those structures, I think these changes are necessary so that we can protect someone who is so desperate u from taking their life um at least by jumping off of one of our parking structures. And then um from a personal point of view, I would not be favor I would not favor finishing the third floor of um Hannah at this point in time. Although I know that we need additional programming space. I'd like to see just a longer study on that to to see whether there are other alternatives for us as well to to expand our programming not only for seniors but on all the other things Justin is in is in charge of uh at that location.

So I'll just follow up on the parking structures. The um suicide prevention that is being proposed here is also being submitted as part of some congressionally directed u funding opportunities as part of our grant application. So we would prefer to get the grant and not need to bond out but it would only pay for 50%. So we'd still maybe need to bond out for the other half of the project cost. So we are looking at other revenue sources to in the case of the parking structure help us with that project. Okay. Good. Anything further work? Anything further? No, I'm done.

Were you just speaking to the third floor Hannah center?

No, I well we've submitted third floor of Hannah several years in a row for federally uh appropriated dollars and have not been successful. Um, part of our look is whether or not we need to have an exterior uh fire escape or egress from the third floor, which is really the heaviest lift component of the single investment on the third floor. So, I don't know if we have a response back on that yet or if that's still being reviewed by the fire department and the building department, which would take about a million dollars off of the uh table of renovating that third floor of Hannah.

Yeah, we are still awaiting the kind of final confirmation on the code compliance requirements for that piece because it sounds like it's been a complicated calculation. I don't know if you have anything more to say on that part. Not yet. still still reviewing code

other so I have a couple things um I I appreciate getting the short list on the on the first page I think um so the the one number for city hall is 1.3 million the other number for the Hannah is just shy of a million sounds like we kind of have to do that no matter what we do right and so we should just sort of bite the bullet And these we would have to this is a bond that would be voted on by the people. Is that right? Well, what we do is issue a notice of referendum. Yeah. And the voters have 45 days um from when you adopt that resolution

to submit a petition or referend I mean to put it on a ballot. You don't have to automatically go to a ballot unless residents demand it.

Okay. That's what I thought. All right. Um I think a couple other comments sort of loosely connected. One is it's a little hard um to evaluate the the different variance of this proposal without more context about the budget which is a version of version of what council member will I think was was saying. Um and so my focus at the moment would be to keep it as minimal as possible. Um because we just don't know what the budget is going to look like. I will say that um prior to the fall election when I did my my own math to try to estimate what our structural budget deficit was, I got to 4.2 million. And the way I got there was by assuming half a million dollars in bond payments. And here we're talking, if we do the whole list, excluding the third floor, I think we're talking about 1.2 million annually in bond payments. So that takes us from 4.2 million to 5.4 million as a structural deficit by my math. Not all of that would be picked up by the general fund.

That's right. Okay. So, parking would pay for a portion. That's the aquatic center would pay for a portion. So, it would be allocated out.

Good. Okay. So, that's that's good to know. So, um I I think just in in context of talking about, you know, the budget and so forth, I I think we need to keep in the back of our minds that we may need to sell some of our assets, including the u the aquatic center and the soccer complex and potentially even this building. I think that needs to be something that we have to think about in as well as possible redevelopment of city hall and other locations. I think that um you know we'll we'll know in a few months maybe or in the next couple of years whether it's going to come to that but I think we need to keep that in the in the back of our minds. And so I'm I'm not that anxious to go rebuild the parking lot at the at the um at the aquatic center for example because I'm not sure it makes sense for us to continue to maintain that that amenity. Um, I do want to revisit to something that I started talking about about 11 years ago, actually, which is um doing something in city hall that would facilitate employees going out and doing recreation during the day and coming back and being able to have a shower. Um, I think that's not really possible right now. And I think that, um, you know, well, wellness is important. It's only becoming more important because people are working harder um than than they ever have. And I think being able to go take a fast walk for your lunch and come back and be able to spruce up would be a really great amenity. And that was something that I talked about in 2015 when I got elected. And then we ran into a budget crisis at that point. And so that sort of dropped off the radar. But we are doing things to city hall now, right? We are reconstructing different areas of it. We're talking about um doing something with the ELPD women's locker room and I'm wondering if there's

some way to to slide that in there. Well, what would prevent those employees from coming here and using the existing showers at Hannah after maybe that's the answer after they work out whether they work out here or they're out and about come here for the shower to refresh. May maybe that's the answer and this is not this is not actually a a a problem that needs to be solved. But I I mean I'll definitely bring it up and have a conversation with staff about and I don't know how busy the showers are here um and whether

just depends on the time of day. Yeah. So we'll have to gather some more information on that. Yeah. and it it it just occurred to me so I wanted to put it on the No, but I I agree with you and I want to encourage that activity and wellness, you know, right for the staff. Yeah. Exa Exactly. That was my thought. Those were my only thoughts. I don't know how much guidance this has provided you, but Okay, we'll prepare the next step and bring it back to you. Okay. Uh for your consideration. I'm glad we're starting this earlier rather than later this conversation. So, thank you and thank you and happy birthday.

Thanks for for another hour, right? All right. Um, is there anything more on that that we need to know or think about? Not at this time for me. Okay. All right. Thanks. So, that brings us to our last agenda item 3.9. Review and discuss selection process for city labor and employment attorney services. Mr. Bellman, would you care to brief us on what we need to accomplish here?

Absolutely. At your January 13th, 2026 discussion only meeting, council directed me to issue an RFP for uh labor and employment attorney services. That RFP was issued on January 26. Uh due date was back on February 27th. We received two proposals, one from Guro Marco and the other one from Rosati. uh proposing to provide uh labor and employment law services. We did have one firm decline. For the opportunity, you were asked to uh you were emailed those proposals by the city clerk, asked to review them March 2nd through the 6, which brings us to tonight on whether what's the next step. You have two proposals. Um, if you're looking at doing interviews, it was suggested for April 14th, but nothing prevents you from moving that up in light of the communication you received today that Gary Sasha may be switching firms. And the effective date of that um transition, I believe, is March 30th. And so I'm looking for direction from city council is to the next step in this process so that we can identify a labor an employment law firm to handle our work and council can um either adopt a contract for those services and issue a notice to terminate with Ogal Tree the current law firm that we're using. I'm

happy to weigh in. Um, you know, personally I see no reason to do an interview here. U, basically we've interviewed both the firms who have um put in for this job within the last six months. and uh we made a decision with one of these firms not to retain them or continue to retain them and move to our current uh law firm which has also made um an application here. So from my standpoint, uh that um response to the RFP was only enhanced by the fact that our current labor lawyer, which I was perfectly willing to continue to retain. Um has switched to that firm and become a partner there. I think that is quality legal services that we've received, very high quality, and that we seem to continue to receive from the current firm. So, from my standpoint, it's time to move forward. We've done it this way in the past, and we've done interviews in the past. And I I recognize that at least two of our members haven't interviewed both these firms at any time in the past. So, they may have a different viewpoint with regard to this. But personally, I'm ready to take a vote on this. So,

Mr. Griggsby.

Yeah. I just because of my um my rookiness, if you will. I I thought the process uh was something that was important um not just for me but just for the process with these type of negotiations and just really having a healthy comparison and um understanding of a different two different things or three different things in regards to making an important decision. And that was just really where I was coming from. And um I'll just say that I'm not necessarily uh stuck on that. Um you know, I I I kind of have an idea where where I'm leaning and how I feel about it already anyway, but um I just know that um I was asked and that's what I had said, but I'm not fixed in. Um, and I know uh, Council Member Singh also was interested in the in having um, the interviews. Um, so um, so I'm just throwing that out there as far as kind of where she's at with that as she said. She just remember she said that on the way out, but uh,

yeah, that's where I'm at with that. Mr. Will, um, for the record um, our city attorney has stepped out of the room. for those that are watching TV. Um, so it's clear that because his firm is being questioned here that he is not here. Y for the record. Um, so is there any cost with and again this is my first time also. Is there any cost of doing the interviews? No, not really except for our time and their time. Right. There is no cost.

Okay. Um, I'd like to have um, Council Member Singh articulate more. Oh, she's not here. So, she gave the opinion. I guess I don't have an issue with having interviews. Um, but um, and I'd like to have heard her concern more, but I would not be an opposed to doing interviews. I guess I could be convinced the other way, too. But I guess if there's a if there's a either way, why not have more communication?

I have a couple of questions. Uh, Mr. Bellman. So, we have a slightly complicated situation now because we have an attorney who no longer works at a firm that we have a contract with. Well, as of March 30, as of March 30th, right? um and is working for a firm that we do have a contract with, but that contract does not cover labor services. That is correct. To my knowledge, it does not.

So, I'm trying to figure out what we have to do to avoid being without labor counsel as our negotiations commence. And one question I have is, can't we contract with attorneys as needed to cover certain services? You could contract with other attorneys as needed. I'm not sure who else you would look to contract with and the value those attorneys would bring. It may take them a while to get caught up on some of the issues. Then we need to provide advice. The attorney I was thinking about was Gari Sashal.

Well, Gari would be working for a firm. So, in essence, you'd be contracting with one of the biders that have submitted on this service. And I think that would be unfair to the other bidder. If you're truly going to invite them in for an interview, I think it would more or less indicate where you lean because of Gari. Anybody have thoughts about that? Uh yeah, the u well uh Gari doesn't become a a partner in this firm until March 30th, I think. That's correct.

Yeah. And at at that point, our relationship with the other law firm that we are currently contracted with that she's associated with ends. Well, we would have to terminating we we would terminate it according to the contract in in which case we wouldn't have any there is no law if we act by if March 30th March 30th. Yes.

Yeah. So essentially what what I think we're looking at is that we got 20 days to to do the interviews if they're going to be if there are going to be interviews and make a decision. and we have one meeting left with the 17th. So if we're going to do interviews or if anybody wants interviews, they should be done in the next six days basically if possible to so that we don't have any lag. Yeah. Okay. Um unless we're willing to do another special meeting. Yeah, we could do it that way too that last week of March. You mean

that last week of March? And then so do you do we all think it would be feasible to have a special meeting and do the interviews and then after the interview make a decision? I thought there was going to be people missing on that last week. Uh well, let's check our calendars. I think that's right. I think someone mentioned I knew Tuesday the 24th did not work. I didn't know if Monday the 23rd worked. Yeah, I know that was those were those were problems for me. But the let me let me look at the calendar here. But there are upstairs two other days in that week.

Yeah. And I just defaulted to Tuesday. So, and what time did we set the uh the 16th at 6 PM? 6 pm. So, we have a special meeting at 6 PM on the 16th. On the 16th, and I believe that was predominantly for a closed session, correct? Right. That could take as long as it took. And then we have our issue with regard to the 17th already. Um, what if what about the 18th?

Well, are people around on the 16th? We could just make it one longer night. Yeah, I'm good with that. I mean, I'm going to have to skip Commission on the Environment to do the special meeting anyway. So, Mr. Whan, I am available on the 16th. Mr. Griggsby,

I think I'll be okay. Um, my wife's having uh surgery, but I think I I should be okay. Well, that's I don't know. You know, I I don't want to be the I don't want to be the I I I hear some tables turning here. Yeah. I You know, you kind of put me in a situation here, guys. Mayor, clarification. Is that too short a time to give these attorney firms time to do a presentation to us? No. I mean, they ought to be happy to get to us whenever they can. Okay. Yeah, I I'm aware unaware. So, well, Mr. Griggsby, let me follow up. We We had tentatively set a meeting for 6 p.m. that night anyway. Does it Does that make you think that

this isn't going to work? That that meeting is not going to work? Um, what's that? What was your question? We had tentatively set another special meeting for 6 PM on Monday the 16th to primarily for purposes of a closed session. Um I think we'll be okay. I think we'll be okay. Um uh I I can't believe I said that out loud. She's probably She's probably upset with me. Um, do you want to phone a friend before

uh uh I think we'll be okay. Um, you keep saying that, but I'm not sure what that means. I think we'll be okay. I think I think you should be saying, "I pray we'll be okay." Yes. I I I I think we're good. I think we can we can get away with it. Yes. Okay. Well, so the question is whether we want to make that a longer night or um we could meet on the 18th. Personally, I think you know if why don't you let the mayor know tomorrow after you've presented this to your wife and gotten a response as to whether you can the 16th is going to be okay.

Okay. That so that wouldn't dim you guys up too much if I just needed 24 hours time. Um what we do need to do though is and we need to think about um alternate date an alternate date for that special meeting. How do what do what does the 18th look like for people? 18's wide open for me. Chuck, how would that work for you? So we still meet on the 16th and then we're also meeting on the 18th. Well, that those are somewhat related questions. So you're going to let me know whether the 16th works for you. Okay. But I'm thinking of I'm thinking of an alternate date if it doesn't. Yeah, the 18th is easy. Okay. That means we have council meetings 16th, 17th, and 18th.

Exactly. No, we have them 16th and 17th or 17th and 18th. Unless we do the interviews on the 18th. Then could we move the 16th to the 18th? We could. Yeah. because uh the 16th I was thinking and we have one of our So let me let me throw a wrench in this. Okay, please as the clerk just pointed out uh the deputy clerk AJ and and other staff are going to be away that week at a conference and training that whole week.

The whole week. So Emily was planning to cover city council meeting on the 17th and now being made aware of the close session on the 16th, she'll be covering that one. I just don't know how much more. I think it's burdensome to have all three nights. I think we should narrow it down if we can to the two nights. Yeah, I think we should go with the 16th and 17th and if something crazy happens, I could talk about it, but I think I'm sorry. All right. I think we'll be okay. Okay. So, on the 16th, are we okay doing both interviews and the special meeting? Yes, I am. I think that's

Yeah. How long how generally long those interviews take? I think last time it was about a half hour. Oh, okay. Yeah. Per firms. So, each It is a public meeting, so we'd have to have open public comment. Yes. Yes. Well, that depends because we've done interviews in the past where we don't have all the council members in. I'm not sitting in on those interviews. I've already stated my viewpoint on this without interviews. So, there's no reason for me to be there. So, well, we still may have more than a quorum. I I mean, I'll be there for the meeting, the special meeting. I'm just saying I'm not going to sit in on an interview. That's not part of the close session anyway. Right. Okay. Okay.

Um, so I'm add a little another branch. Okay. Justin just told me on the 16th and the 18th they're booked here and no space available. So, can we have it at city hall? You can meet at city hall conference a you would have to use the tabletop uh recording device that we've used in the past. Fine with me. Okay.

That's fine with me. Okay. So terms of scheduling, do we plan to have the interviews first and then we have to leave time for a decision? Right? Because we're the whole point of this is to make a decision. So, do we start that meeting at 6:00, have it plan for it to run until 7:30 approximately, and then go into close session?

Can I ask a question? The I guess I was envisioning this differently. So, um, if we were doing interviews on Monday the 16th, we would schedule those interviews at whatever 5:00, let's say, for a half hour each, and then go into close session to continue the discussions that we've had most recently in close session, but we wouldn't take action on the interviews until the 17th because they would be on the agenda to choose a So, we wouldn't we wouldn't need anything other than the special meeting for the close discussion and interviews. Right. Right. Okay.

I I don't know. Maybe that's not what you had contemplated. That could work. And then on the 17th, so the 17th is going to be a long night potentially. Well, you could put it on a consent agenda at that point. Well, but how would we know what to put on the consent agenda? You you you you would have two items on your business agenda. The notice of termination and notice of selection. You would leave it blank until motion is filled. We've done that previously. Yep. And then you vote on whose name goes into the slot and we would do that on the 17th. You could do that on the 17th. That that's fine with me. Does that work for everybody?

Yeah. Okay. That argues that it should be on the 16th then. So that means the interview should be on the 16th. Interview should be on the 16th. The interview is on the 16th. I like that. And we vote on 17th. And we vote on the 17th. So we'll plan to start the meeting in city hall at 6:00 on Monday the 16th. And for the first hour, we'll have the interviews from 6:00 to 7:00 and then we'll have the close session. Does that work? We think for everybody any reason to start that meeting earlier five. I I'm good with starting earlier, but Steve, we're we're missing a member here. So that's the hard part.

That's the hard part. We agreed to six o'clock earlier. We sh Okay. Okay. That might help Chuck to have it later. So yeah, earlier would probably be more time just for that day. Six o'clock. So six o'clock. So six o'clock. 6 o'clock was okay. All right. Okay. Any um further concerns from staff about any of this? I see some puzzle looks in the back. Do we have to worry? Are there any issues that Okay. I don't want to step in something. I think they're going to be waiting for us in the parking lot.

They might. So, I I just want for my staff's uh knowledge, I recommended the 23rd or the 24th, but for for what? The special meeting on the 23rd or the 24th. Okay. Just for their Okay. But it sounds like we have a plan now. Yes. And I appreciate everybody's patience. And uh anything more on that item? Nothing for me. Do I make a motion to dismiss? Uh, you may make a motion to adjurnn. Adjourn. Second. Moved by Whan. I was in court too much.

Second by Griggsby. Is uh the motion is to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you everybody for sticking through this.