Council - Regular Meeting

hours even more. Who's that person?

music. Hey Welcome everybody to this regular city council meeting the Grand Haven City Council for Monday, February 16th, 2026. Maria, would you call the role? Fritz here. Calio here. Lion here. Dora here. Vanessa

here. Our invocation this evening is by Troy Troy Houser Brighten of the First uh Presbyterian Church. Please rise and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.

Let us pray. Gracious God, we come before you tonight with grateful hearts for the gift of community and the blessing of calling Grand Haven our home. Thank you for the beauty of our shoreline, the strength of our neighborhood, and the people who serve the city with dedication and care. We lift up the members of this city council and all who lead and serve here. Grant them wisdom beyond their own, clarity in moments of complexity, encourage to act with integrity. Help them to listen well, speak thoughtfully, and seek not personal gain, but the common good. When decisions are difficult, guide them with discernment. When opinions differ, anchor them in respect and unity. Bless the residents of this community, families, business owners, public servants, and volunteers. May we be a people marked by compassion, patience, and shared commitment to the flourishing of all. Lord, let tonight's discussions be productive, fair, and rooted in what will strengthen this city for generations to come. May our work here reflect your justice, stewardship, and hope. In your name we pray. Amen.

Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. So that brings us to reappointments to boards and commissions. We have one. Would you like to read that? Item A, reappoint Kevin Gan Cars to the Construction Board of Appeals with a term ending December 31st, 2026. Um, can I get a motion? So moved. Second.

Motion by Fred, second by um Sarah. Sarah, I almost said lines. Um, questions on this appointment. Would you please call the role? Fritz, yes. Calio, yes. Lion, yes. Dora, yes. Manets, yes. And we have two new appointments. Item A, appoint Brian Sitesma to the Construction Board of Appeals with a term ending December 31st, 2026. And item B, appoint Donald Lumen to the Musical Fountain Committee with a term ending June 30, 2028. Can I get a motion? So moved. Second.

Okay. Motion motion by Dora, second by Lion. Questions on either of these. No questions. Just thank you to both of them for taking over my spot and spot. So yeah. Yeah, you created two openings here. Yeah. All right. If there are no questions, please call the role. Dora, yes. Lion, yes. Fritz, yes. Calio, yes. Manza, yes. So, that brings us to our approval of the consent and regular agendas. Can I get a motion? So moved. Second.

Motion by Fred, second by Calio. Um, this point, is there any adjustments or changes to the agenda that we should entertain? Anything to take off consent? I have none. I have none. Well, then would you please call the RO? Fritz? Yes. Calio? Yes. Lion? Yes. Dora? Yes. Manetsa? Yes.

All right. There was no work session. So, it brings us to our first call to the audience. This is a I would also mention we have three public hearings this evening. So, if you're speaking to one of those public hearing items, you can save your comments for then. Otherwise, now would be the time to speak. Also, I would like to remind everyone that during regular agenda items, the floor is not open. So, if you want to speak to those items, you can speak at this time. Uh, sometimes council will have specific questions for specific individuals, but otherwise, if you want to make comments, now would be the time.

Richclap, 217 Grand Avenue here in Grand Haven. And, um, Mr. Mayor, I know, you know, I'm with the airport board. I've been on there for close to 10 years. I'm a certificate flying instructor. I have many ratings and almost 30 years of experience.

I I read the agenda tonight and I saw that you had approval from some of the different boards and um we were the only board at the airport that basically denied said it wasn't a good idea to utilize the overrun area on runway 27 for solar solar panels and electrification. The reason for that is as a flying instructor, the very first thing, and I've tried to bring a student in today to attest to this, but the one of the very first things we teach them is on takeoff, if you lose an engine below 1,000 ft, always land straight ahead. And there's a statistical reason for that because many times um if you lose an engine on takeoff, most of those don't end up well. If you're below a thousand feet and you're trying to turn back for the runway, you just can't do it. I've done it, but there were other circumstances that allowed me to do that. I said, "The FA designs airports with those overruns for the ri for the possibility of an engine failure on takeoff. We've taken a lot of money from federal government through grants. I would also hate to have to see us like to speak on the same uh topic uh the proposed project solar uh proposed community solar project at the airport. I attended the board meeting uh the last board meeting and one of the pilots had an excellent suggestion. He said you know at Ashkosh we have a commission and I just like to read the support letter on behalf of the city of Grand Haven Sustainability and Energy Commission. We respectfully submit this letter in support of the Grand Haven Board of Light and Power proposed small community solar installation located west of the Grand Haven Memorial Air po air air park. The sustainability and energy

commission serves in an advisory capacity of the city manager on manage matters related to energy efficiency, renewable energy, environmental stewardship, and long-term community resilience. In that role, the SEC has reviewed the general concept of a small-sized utility-led community solar project at the airport and believes it is consistent with the city's adopted sustainability objectives and public interest goals. There's a need for future additional power in the area and although modest in scale, a small installation at the airport would meaningful expand equitable access to clean energy energy while keeping ownership, operational control, and benefits within the local utility and community. A community solar program administered by the BLP would provide an important opportunity for residents and businesses who are unable to install rooftop solar due to rental status, shading, roof uh limitations or financial constraints to participate directly in locally generated renewable power. Furthermore, the Grand Haven City Council unanim unanimously supported the community energy plan at the 414 2022 city council meeting. Whereas the document specifically calls for community solar as its second highest priority. The SEC also emphasizes the importance of continued coordination among the city council, airport, board, BLP, and relevant regulatory agencies as well as transparency with the public as the project is further evaluated. We support a deliberate review process that addresses safety, land use compatibility, and community input prior to any final approvals. For these reasons, the Sustainability and Energy Commission encourages the mayor and city council to continue supporting the evaluation and potential development of BLP's proposed small community solar project on the west side of the airport consistent with city policies applicable regulations. Thank you for your continued leadership and commitment to responsible locally driven energy solutions. The SEC stands ready to provide additional input or assistance

as required. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Who else would like to address council?

Rex Slingerland, 15063 Lake Avenue, Grand Haven. Um, I've been a pilot for 30ome years and flying out of the Grand Haven airport exclusively for that amount of time. At one time I had two hangers. Now I have one hanger and one airplane. That's called retirement. And um anyway um each time I've ever come to talk to this body has been over either saving the airport or protecting the airport. And um I I just don't see a clear space as for uh solar panels as a good idea. Um, if I would have to uh crash, I think um a clear space without trees would be great. We have trees way down at the end, but uh just a thought. Um the other thing that uh comes to mind is the airport used to be 300 plus acres, which would been would have been plenty of room for something like this. Now that we're 150 some acres in in the clear space just doesn't make sense. The last thing is if you brought this to the FAA first instead of doing this to me backwards and found out what they think because we could do all this work and they could just say no way. and um my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, Jennifer Bears, 14981 Brierwood Street. I work at the FBO, the fixed space operator at the airport. I'm also a student pilot. I have the great privilege from my work experience to ascertain the unanimous value of safety in aviation. My lessons and teachings are from a lot of the pilots that we see here and that I meet at the airport and talk to on a daily basis. Also, the Coast Guard and military aviational aviation professionals that grace us with their presence at the airport along with the CFIs which are the certified flight instructors and the AMPs which are the mechanics. Now, my favorite CFI was Mary Kissan. No offense, Rick. And you know, she would advise as as do I to not put any structure in the clear zone zone that would deter from the community's safety and of pilots in a student pilots like me. The safety of keeping a clear zone clear seems like a paramount safety standard for the airport and the surrounding community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Earl Bears 17717 Sleeper Street. I was going to give the airport address. Uh airport manager as already indicated. I think one of the key items in reflection to the uh solar panels is certainly safety and um the land that we're talking about was purchased with federal funds as a clear zone. And uh as the name implies, clear zone, which means that we would prefer that no objects be placed, no objects or obstructions be placed in that zone. Period. Now, obviously, there's some things that could be put in there. for example, uh maybe a hayfield, but otherwise it's um the obligation of the sponsor of the airport to keep that zone as clear of objects as possible. And also we have uh federal grant assurances that um we're certainly obligated to um follow and um so number one uh the FAA certainly will have something to say about this. Uh we have various forms to fill out for um objects or obstructions that protrude

into the uh airspace and also land protection such as the runway protection zone. And at our airport, since we have a turbine aircraft on our on our field, we also have a clearway zone which extends 1,875 ft from the end of the runway outward. And that has a different uh ratio as far as airspace is concerned. Instead of 20 to1, which is a part 77 surface, the um surface is 80 to one. So it's four times more stringent and all of these things should be considered and again um I think safety is one of the most important things to be considered and sacrificing safety at the airport to put in solar panels at the at the beginning of the approach or the end of the departure zone is Not a very good ideal. Thanks.

Thank you.

Who else would like to address council at this time? After this, after I close call to the audience, then your next opportunity to speak will be at the end of the meeting. Unless Mayor, we have a phone call to the audience. Hello. Go ahead.

I have their recording on so it's echoing back. I'm sorry about that. Hello, my name is Trisha Harold. I'm sorry if there's a delay. I'm calling from out of the country right now, but I'd like to address the city council on the topic of solar panels at the airport. It's up all the way. My address is 1330 Pinoyer Avenue. Trisha, go ahead. Um, but you need to speak up. We have the volume all the all the way up. I can't hear you.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Um, first, uh, I would like to say that I am very pleased with the city's desire to pursue renewable energy. I think it's, um, a great asset to our community and I think it's, um, compassionate of us to find ways for those who are not able to install solar panels on their home to still participate in renewable energy. Unfortunately, I think that the location for this proposal is not the best, and I think we've heard a lot about safety this evening. In addition to being a private pilot, I'm also an air traffic controller for the Federal Aviation Administration. And I just want to reiterate that even this past year, I've witnessed the benefit that comes from keeping the clear zone clear as we had student pilot have an engine failure on takeoff and he was able to make a quick U-turn. We call it the impossible turn and return to the airport safely. Putting solar solar panels in this area seems like it might be less of a hazard than the trees, but the FAA prefers that we remove all obstacles in the area of the approach and departure areas. So much so that they would consider this a new obstacle or new construction compared to the trees which are an existing obstacle and therefore they consider it differently when approving this. In addition, first we have to address the fact that in order to get this through, it would be a lease that would require a release of the land purchased with federal funds. In order to do that, we would have to say that the property in question no longer serves the purpose for which it was made subject to the terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions concerned. Unfortunately, I don't think this meets that criteria. Incompatible land use and airport encroachment jeopardizes safety, restricts future use, future growth, and impacts operational efficiency. Grant assurance number 31, paragraph C says that land should be considered to be needed for airport purposes under this assurance if it may be needed for aeronautical purposes including runway protection zones or to serve as a noise

buffer. And additionally, the revenue from interim use of this land contributes to the financial self-sufficiency of the airport. So although the city would be funding the city's board of enlightened power would be funding this project, we do have a requirement to still provide fair value land use um payment through the airport fund. So that's another consideration for this. And in order to do that, there are many um fees that would be in conjunction with this project, such as the appraisal of the requested land. The um airport grant assurance must be all complied with. There would need to be a solar.

Hello, Trisha. Are you there? Hello. Yes. I'm sorry about that. Um, and all of these additional costs um are just part of the problem with this location because you'll notice that other airports that have solar panels at the airport don't have a main approach. So, I fear that all these things might in addition to impacting safety may reduce the juice not worth the squeeze for this project. Treasure, can you can you hear me? Yes. Morosa, your your three minutes are up. Can you Okay. Thank you for hearing me today. I appreciate it. She just said, "Oh, yes, that that's um that's fine. Thank you very much for hearing my comments."

Okay. Thank Thank you for calling in. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Who else would like to address council? This time I'm listening for the phone to ring. All right. So, we do have three public hearings and then another call to the audience at the end. So, let's move on then. And we have a presentation now on the fee schedule for the next fiscal year.

Yes. Emily Green, finance director for the city. Um I presenting the first draft of the fee schedule that will be included in the budget um the 262. And I just want to point out I think it was in the packet so you've probably seen that. But then the highlights um on the areas where show where the fees changed. Did you get the I don't have it. Okay. No.

All right. Um there the the highlighted areas in the in the purple show fee changes. If the highlights on the left and the fees on the right are highlighted, those are the changes to the actual fee schedule. If the whole line is highlighted, then that is a new item that is on the fee schedule. And then if they're redacted, those are items that are going to be removed from the fee schedule. So the first thing, this is the first draft. Um we will take your for your review and consideration. We'll take your input and if we need to make some changes, we can do that. staff is continuing to review and verify fees to make sure that they're covering the city expenses. That's something that we've been doing for the last couple years and we're continuing to do that. Um you'll notice that there are there seem to be fewer fee changes, new fees and deleted fees this year. Um it seems like as we get into this, we've made the changes that we need to make. And this one we focused um Mulligan's Hollow. You'll notice in Central Park Place, those fee structures we changed and we replaced them with per hour rates to better serve and meet public needs uh and giving renters a better experience overall and then also while reducing city costs. So that's Mulligan Hollow and Central Park Place. And then the I guess let me let me kind of drill down on those those few things. Central Park Place the fee structure was like per it was structured per event and instead of doing per event we're looking at the rooms and basing those per hour. So if somebody needs instead of a 4-hour rental they want to rent for two hours they'll be built per hour instead of having to rent for the four hours at the cost. Mulligan's Lodge. Um we are proposing an eight-hour rental option or

up to eight hour rental option and that's to offer flexibility to renters as well as help with operational efficiencies. And then another big one is the downtown trash pickup. The residential rate is going to be set to the standard residential rate throughout the city. the commercial and um restaurant variable is going to be based on calculations by lot and occupancy instead of how it was with the residential equivalent units and intensity fees. So basically the restaurants that use a certain dumpster in a certain lot will be charged for those costs for that dumpster and then for all of them instead of the costs being spread equally amongst all of the commercial and resident or um restaurant businesses. So that's kind of the highlight that I have. Um we again will continue to update this as we see changes that are needed. you know that that are brought forward, but I'm here for any questions if you have them.

All right. Thanks, Emily. Questions, comments? I think more of a clarification on um the airport fund, the tie down fee. Yes. Am I reading that correctly? That it went from $25 a day to $100 a month. Yes. Yeah. The airport board had that discussion. Um, and Tom called me last week and said airport board wanted to change it from $25 a day to $100 a month. So, okay. And as far Well, I guess then that's part of the budget conversation. Yes. In April and how that affect that. Okay.

As I recall that conversation, they weren't actually charging anyone $25 a day. But somebody who was there for a long period of time, they thought felt should pay something. Okay. So, it's more suitable to where they're actually operating. And then I guess my only other comment was I think um both the Mulligan Hall and the um Central Park Place just simplifies everything. And based on one of the meetings I attended, that seems to help a lot for a rental. Yes, exactly. Options. A lot cleaner when you look at at the fee schedule and you look at how much has been taken out and then look at what replaces it. I we agree and that was that was the intent. Okay. Great. I think thank you for this.

I think we'll help get Central Park Place used more often too than you know in small increments. Yes. Yeah. I think that was that was the desire of the community center board trying to find ways to make that more versatile and eas easier to understand for one thing. Mhm. Um I would be remiss if I didn't ask you why the uh bed and breakfast fee jumped from $50 to 100.

Yes. Um and and fair enough. Uh the so the bed and breakfast fee, this is the first time that it's actually on the fee schedule, the first pages of the fee schedule. It is however and has been on the last page under the list of ordinances. The bed and breakfast was listed there. So we we added it. I added it not only in the list of ordinances ordinances um but also put it in the fee schedule but that fee did not when we looked at the fees um relating to those types of inspections and administration that one was missed. So, it's the renewal. Um, it consists of time, background check, review by zoning, and fire marshall, and then site inspection. And so, to cover costs for those things, it was increased from $50 to $100.

Well, they don't get a new zoning inspection once they're established. They but the renewal um when they need to if they need to re when they when they need to renew the bed and breakfast they do um my understanding is they do have a site inspection. Well, they have to be inspected but there's you said something about zoning that that wouldn't that wouldn't be a factor for the initial for the initial zoning. Same. Yeah. So, some some of these rent rental inspection fees have an initial fee and then a renewal fee, which is smaller, right? And for those those that are established, I guess I'd like to know how much more work it is to inspect a bed and breakfast versus

anybody anywhere a rental dwelling unit because now you have them different. Sure. And I'm having trouble understanding that there is a difference and I can I can ask that question and follow up. Okay, fair enough. This I understand this is a draft. It is. I have a few um a few items that I will put in an email and get to Ashley for you that will be easier for you to probably take a look at and and get back to me with on that. One of the ones that I noticed though was like the events package for um Central Park Place.

Yes. Um, we were charging $2,000 for a 4-hour rental, which has now gone to uh $250 an hour. So, basically cuts the price of that in half. Um, a lot of the other ones either stayed the same or went up a little bit. Uh I don't know if that was something that was intentional or um maybe to try to get a little more use out of that area or I think well we are trying to get a little more use out of it but also there are different life there were several life events that were listed um and so I can look at that as well. Um, but I I don't believe Well, I'll I will I'll look at that to make sure that

we we there were several different life events listed and so we just put one life event with the per hour. Um, and I think given the use that it's had in the past that per hour made sense to us, but we'll look at that again. Yep. I I'll get the email to you. That'll be a lot easier than to sit here and try to go through them all. Perfect. Other questions, comments? Okay. Well, thank you for this ta taste of the fee schedule. Yes. And then we'll we'll revisit this in more detail when we have our work session. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Emily.

So, that brings us to our consent agenda. Marie, would you like to read that? Item A, approve the regular council meeting minutes for February 2nd, 2026. Item B, approve the bill's memo in the amount of 571,91428. Item C, approve an extension to the contract with Tough Turf Mole Busters of Byron Center, Michigan for fertilization of city property in the budgeted amount of $48,25. Item D, approve a grant agreement for the pre-development accelerator program funding awarded through the Michigan Infrastructure Office for the grant reconstruction project. And item E, award a contract authorizing task order 27, task 37, CCR data collection work plan to HDR of Ann Arbor, Michigan in the budgeted amount of $232,377 contingent upon approval and reimbursement by the board of light and power and authorize the mayor and city clerk to execute necessary documents.

Can I get a motion on the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Motion by Dora, second by Fritz. Um, any comment on any of these items? Please call the RO. Dora, yes. Fritz, yes. Lion, yes. Calio, yes. Manza, yes. So, we have one item of unfinished business. Item A, consideration by city council of a final resolution to approve the zoning change request from TI transitional industrial district to PD planned development district and associated preliminary development plan for a mixeduse development at 1500 Kimman Street parcel number 70-03-28-301-019.

Can I get a motion? So moved. Second. Motion by second by Calio. Does anything new come up? No. Any questions or comments? No. This is our second reading. We passed this at our last meeting, but we're required by charter to do two readings. If there's nothing new, then I would just like to know if we've had any further discussions on the traffic issues that came up last time. If it who you want you want Brian to respond to that or the applicants? I'll start. Brian can start. So, you know, let's

Yeah, those uh issues that were discussed, I'm sure they'll be reached over to the respective departments uh that would be issuing that um regarding that because there's no changes have been made. But obviously when uh you have a use that's coming in that's more intense and you have in that in that case a lot of snowfall and sometimes where there's just learning, you got to be able to kind of com be compatible with adjacent uses. that's, you know, part part of the deal. And so I think uh that's just part of the process of be able when they go to um the final development plan, which would be the next step, those questions would need to be answered at that time. So that's can be part of our review process as a planning commission when we talk with public safety department about those concerns that were brought up at that time. And I'll let the applicant they had any other things to add, I'll let them say something, too. Todd Anths, Scolden Fan. Uh, business address 100 North 3rd Street. Uh, Grand Haven. There has been no uh, additional discussions. Uh, no, uh, reach out by anybody else on the street to indicate that there's any dissatisfaction with the ingress and egress. Um, but as the applicant pledged before, they're going to monitor it and and be a good neighbor essentially. And we don't have any other further comments. If there's questions or concerns or anything new from your perspective, we're happy to answer.

Okay. Thanks, Todd. Does that answer your question? Any other questions? No. Okay. Let's call the roll. Fritz, yes. Calio, yes. Dora, yes. Lion, yes. Manza, yes. All right, brings us to our first public hearing. this point I'll open a public hearing regarding the resolution of file to file special assessment rule number 605. So in this public hearing first I guess that should I call on Ashley or on Shandi?

Um either way this is again just a formality step in the process. you authorized uh this public hearing at your previous meeting and this is really the presentation of that role um as we near the end of our special assessment process and Shawni uh is here as well if there are any questions specific to that. Okay, Shi, did you have anything to contribute before we go to the public? I can add other than my

Okay, fair enough. So, the public hearing is open. Anyone would like to make a comment on the special assessment role for the principal shopping district. If no one would like to comment, then I'm going to close the public hearing. And now that brings us to our next item, consideration by city council of a resolution to file SPE special assessment role number 605. The MSDA recommends approval and administration recommends approval. All right. Can I get a motion? Moved. Second.

Motion by door. Second by Calio. Comments, questions. Anyone? Just one more step in the process. But now the now the city's assessor which is the county assessor has produced a specific rule that will be the basis of the assessment going forward for the next 5 years unless we reopen at some point and revise it. Okay, let's call the role. Dora, yes. Calio, yes. Fritz, yes. Lion, yes. Manets,

yes. All right. Now, we'll open a public hearing regarding the resolution to establish an obsolete property rehabilitation district at 123 Washington Avenue, partial 70324058. Legal description of West 44t of lots 161 162 original plat excluding the most northerly part used for alley purposes, the original plat. and to establish a finding that is an obsolete property in an area characterized by obsolete commercial property or commercial housing property pursuant to section 31A of the absolute property rehabilitation act public act 146 of 2000. So that is the public hearing and we will start with um Dana.

Yes, thank you. Good evening council. Uh so as the the mayor had just described, we have a project that we're very excited about um that is proposing to redevelop uh 123 Washington, which is commonly referred to as the floats building downtown. Um the owner is here this evening, Andrew Tots, and his representative uh Jared Bela that have prepared a request uh for the creation of an Oprah district. Um the county assessor has gone out and established that the property does meet the definition of obsolete property. Um and that was included in your packet. Uh they are proposing to rehabilitate the existing structure uh the ground floor commercial space uh for a retail or restaurant purpose and the upper story would be converted um or rehabbed rather the two existing residential units um to be rehabbed and a third unit added uh to the structure itself. Um the uh proposed project uh is um roughly a $2 million investment and the request specifically for the OPRA is uh approximately $252,000 $252,14, excuse me, in the abatement over 12-year period. Um they are also requesting uh MEEDC grant funding and tax increment financing funding um which is the second public hearing before you this evening. Um I will kick it over to uh the uh representatives of the project to expand on anything regarding the project.

All right, come up. Please introduce yourselves.

Uh I'm Andrew totes, the owner of the property. uh Jared Bela with Warner Norcross office address 150 Ottawa in Grand Rapids um working with Andy on this project. So uh we appreciate your time this evening and and uh and thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight. You'll have to excuse me. I was spent the weekend cheer coaching and cheering on my son in a hockey tournament Southbend. So I'm I'm a little horsearo so I'll apologize in advance but um yeah Dana gave a great overview. Uh this obviously the the floats building. Um, I'll start by saying uh the question that Andy got when he acquired the property and started proposing to redevelop this is what do you you're not going to take the facade off, right? So, uh they they've they've done painstaking uh um uh care and investigation and trying to respect that character uh and maintain that uh and that is their intent. Um, as Dana mentioned, the renovating, re kind of reconfiguring the upstairs existing units, adding an additional unit. I believe there will be a a rooftop amenity for the for the tenants. Main floor programmed. Um, Andy's really uh targeting for a restaurant uh for the first floor. Uh, he's he's talked to a handful of of of prospective tenants. doesn't have one lockdown yet, but obviously once hammers start swinging that brings in the excitement and and things become real at that point. Uh Dana mentioned the proposed investment that doesn't include um expected tenant buildout um which would obviously add to that that bottom line for investment. Um I think we all appreciate the fact the world we live in these days construction costs have gone nowhere but up. Interest rates uh you know remain high. Uh it makes these projects tough to pencil. So uh we're here tonight seeking your partnership with the use of the tools that Dana

outlined um to help this make financial sense. Um the project's been reviewed by Plant Moran. They provide a report which I believe was uh provided to you. Um that underscores the fact that this is a thin deal with a requested support. Um so your support would be greatly appreciated in being able to move this forward. uh Andy and his team stand ready to move forward uh if if we get that support. Uh so happy to answer any questions. I'll stop talking now and and allow you guys to answer or ask questions and again we'll be happy to answer them. So thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you. Well, we're in a public hearing at this point. So if members of the public would now like to come forward and comment to council on this particular issue, please do so now. If no one is coming forward, then I will close the public hearing. And on on this agenda, all we have is the public hearing because our policy says that we will wait till our next meeting before we actually take action. Just to summarize though, the absolute property district that we're being asked to create is a single building. Correct.

And this single parcel as described in this agenda item. Um, I guess I would if any members of the council would like to say something or ask a question, I think that'd be appropriate. Anyone? Yeah. I didn't know we were going to get to do this tonight. So, well, I mean, it's we aren't actually doing anything else tonight, but I just thought this wouldn't be a bad thing to if you wanted to say something. Otherwise, we'll wait two weeks.

Yeah. I mean, I for me, I guess I just want to know looking at this and going through all the information and reading all this today. Um, I feel like the Brownfield tax room and what's being asked for for 25 years, I I just think that's a lot. Um, and for me, when we're building apartments in this town and we're asking for 100% AMI and we're asking to rent apartments um, at 750 square ft at at least 30,300, which I think is way less than what those will be listed for, way less than what you'll get rent for, especially in this town right now. They'll be closer to,700, 14, 15, 16, 1700. Um, especially downtown. Um, that's just really, really hard for me. Really, really, really hard for me. Um, I have a hard time with 12 years for the Oprah, too. Um, I owned a restaurant downtown, so I'm with you. I understand what it means. I owned a business down there. I run one on the east side right now.

So, I know it's hard. I know what it means to build out. I know what it means. Like, I understand that it's hard. Um, I also know what it means. Like I also know what what I was doing for rent downtown and I know what my I know what somebody's renting the business now for downtown and I also know that number was low in your in your projections with plant man. Um, so I know the money that can come in from that and I think it was low all across the board in the numbers. Um, so I just have a hard time with the numbers across the board for what's being passed and I just want to make that known. Okay. Um, I'm I'm gonna always preface this conversation with I know that your job is to make your business as profitable as possible and our job is to take a look at the numbers and see what's feasible and the best value for our city. That's not always going to line up. But there's no I have no qualms with people asking for things. I think it's our job to um be the representatives of the city, particularly when we're looking at tax um concerns. And I would love to be able to see when we're talking about $262,000 what that could mean in value for our city. I'm always going to look at it from the um particip, you know, the people of our city and the tax dollars they pay. and $262,000 is a drop in the bucket of what we're going to be needing for um moving forward for our infrastructure, but it is how we grow um that fund to be able to pay for those things. And I think that particularly when we're not looking at a benefit of

workforce housing and we're not looking at extreme remediation or dilapidation, it is hard for me to be completely fine with um a tax abatement. So I would like to better understand the numbers also and I would also like to better understand our processes to make sure that we're doing we can to be a partner in that way um for developers without having to um kind of give money away at the end of it. So okay thank you

anyone else throw in your two cents? Yeah, the um tax abatements are always uh especially the tiffs are always a double-edged sword for us. We know that um developers, property owners such as yourself um look for these tools that are offered in order to u better be able to cover the costs associated with what you're doing. The downside for the city is it freezes the tax income for the next 20 25 years while our costs continue to rise. So, we have to be kind of careful on how many of these we actually give out because if we don't continually keep up with our rising costs, then we have budget issues that we fight all the time and we can't do the things that we need to do, such as clearing snow from sidewalks. I mean, is an example. Um, so it's um it's a double-edged sword for me. You know, we want the development. We want, you know, a vibrant downtown. We want to, you know, have all the things that go with that and look nice, but yet it's hard to keep a portion of the taxes coming in as well. So, anything that you can do to look at that and possibly reduce that to a shorter term or make it a little more palatable for the city's end would be great on my end, but I also understand you have costs that you have to deal with as well, too. So, appreciate that.

Thanks, Mike. Yep.

Anything Well, these are a lot of the tools that the state has set up for them to use and they have to follow strict guidelines in order to get that money. that I I agree with you, Mike, on the two-edged sword type look at it because without the development, you know, a good example is they had Grand Landing, we put it off, but now when it comes into futation like it is right now at this time, we're starting to see that come back to us really well because of the investment they put into it. So, if you don't get the investment, you don't get the big tax. If it just stays where it is right now, you're not going to go anywhere with it. But it's still a lot of money whether you like it or not. You know it. You're right. You're freezing the taxes for Well, we're actually we're in the obsolete one here be 12 years. So,

yep.

Then you got the other one on top of which is 25 on top of it. So, that's you join the two of them together and it's really at the difficult time. But if you don't get the investment, you don't get any kind of uh growth, you're not going to capture any tax. You're not you're not going to get any further ahead. So we have to be very careful when we say yes or no on these things. But the thing is if we keep if we saying no to everything, then their town doesn't grow. We need to have it grow somehow and we have to have it that that tool that they have to use is really a good tool for us. Um, uh, I'd like to see the money come down a little lower. Also, we always do want to see that. I one way or another. I I'm on the, uh, EDC board and that when they came proposed it to us, we were there. That's what I was questioning the dollars at the time.

So, that's my point. I just think the years need to be looked at, right? The time frame just needs to be reviewed. Okay. I think that, you know, the purpose of the public hearing, the purpose of the meeting tonight is to um get good good constructive feedback to the applicants and I think that they've gotten that tonight. So, appreciate everybody's thoughts and on that note because this will come up again at our next meeting as an action item.

On that note, I will move on to our second public hearing which is the same property. This one is for the brownfield plan which is the c tax capture portion of this which would be for a period of 25 years and u without further ado I'll open this public hearing Dana is there more to contribute or just roll into it just very quickly I would just add what the eligible activities are for reimbursement um I just want to hit on that quickly is demolition lead and asbestous abatement and rehabilitation uh of uh the units and the new unit for housing development activities. Okay. Any other comments from the applicants on this?

Um thank you. Hi again. Uh so I I I appreciate the the the comments and feedback and I'll I'll mention a couple of those things. um one the term I I I understand the term unfortunately is the term just given what the estimates of incremental value is generated right so uh the term of the tiff request is because that's what the projected tax increment obviously if if there's an investment of $200 million it and the same dollar amounts being requested it shortens that amount. Um, one item on on the rent component for it. Um, we actually were estimating higher rents in there. Plant Moran actually reviewed and pushed back and said they couldn't find any comps to support that. So, we actually brought those down from what we had originally anticipated based on their feedback. Um, is uh as far as the uh this is for the brownfield. I'll I'll save discussion for the the next meeting on the on the Oprah piece savings. But no, Dana summarized it up uh well. If you look at the costs, a good portion of those are demolition and abatement. Obviously, it's an existing old building um with significant challenges. Uh and that's really what's driving us being here uh requesting support from you. So, um I'll pause there and and and leave it at that. But again, we appreciate your consideration of this request.

All right. Thank you. So, we are now at a public hearing about the um the brownfield plan for Florida's building. If anybody would like to come forward and speak to council on this particular issue. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. And we kind of went around and shared thoughts on project in general. Do we need to say more? Are we ready to move on? Okay. So, this the only thing

on for the brownfield one there's there's there are only costs that they can go for. There's only certain things they're allowed to go for. Just so people understand. It's not where they just come and get money for it. These are actually costs that they have to follow through with on there's um right there was bestice in there and everything else. It's remediation for all that stuff. The same thing when we do a brown field, they can only they can only collect what they can do at certain things. It's not they can make a profit on it. So, just let them know. Yep. Eligible costs. They're well defined.

Everything is eligible. Okay. Well, then I guess we will at this point we'll move on with our agenda to our first item of new business. Marie, would you read that? Item A, consideration by city council of an easement agreement between the city of Grand Haven and the Grand Haven Board of Light and Power for the use of airport property for the installation of community solar contingent upon all required regulatory permitting and approvals. The Sustainability Commission recommends approval. The airport board recommends denial and administration recommends approval. Okay. Can I get a motion? Moved.

Second. wash my door. Second by Calio. So Ashley, do you want to take the lead on this?

Yeah, I'll just um very briefly say that staff is pleased to recommend that council entertain an easement agreement um ultimately with another city entity in order to accomplish a long desired um community solar project within the city uh limits. Um and just to clarify before I hand this over to um general manager Rob Shel with the board of light and power just to summarize the project. Um but it is our standard practice to ultimately pursue commentary and recommendation from our local advisory groups. That's why before you tonight you have the recommendation from our sustainability and energy commission um as well as the airport board in order to help inform you as you look to make a decision to not ultimately circumvent the regulatory process. But this would be incumbent upon the board of light and power to seek those approvals um through the state and federal process if this were to proceed after tonight. So with that, I'll hand it over to Rob to just briefly introduce the project and what's being proposed.

Okay.

Thanks for having me tonight. I'm Rob Shelley, the general manager of the board light and power. In your packet, we I gave you a um kind of a slide deck to kind of give you some oversight of what we're really talking about there. Um so I won't go through that in interest of time. I think there's some things in there that's it's really important is is a slide there for everybody is the what I call the BLP concept. kind of lays out what we mean when we talk about a community solar garden. So, what we keep saying to everybody, this is a community project. Um, so we're coming here for community support. This is not being done as a BLP project, but I would say as a power supply project or even a financial hedge to help with our power supply costs. So, this is really being done as a chance for others to be able to participate in a solar project that maybe don't have the means, whether they're renters or maybe they live on the dunes and they don't they're covered with trees, etc. So, there's there's been desire for this. So, we're trying to bring this forward and we're just trying to be the champion of that for for the community project. Um, the idea here is with an easement is we would have a project life of about 20 years a minimum. So what we're saying is that people would be able to lease or buy these solar panels uh for 20 years and they would get the output accredited back on their board light and power bill over that time frame. So buy it up front and then we credit you back as we go. The board has said they're willing to move forward and take on the risk of building the project at a 33 uh 33% subscription rate. So, we're saying we want one-third of the panels sold or leased to the community. And at that point, we feel comfortable enough to move forward with the project and up the rest of the cash to get the project done. So, nothing will move forward until we hit that criteria. Even no matter what happens tonight, if we don't hit that criteria, if you can't have a community project without community, right? Um the idea is we'll once we get going on this and we get some of the more of the

answers uh fully put down, we'll come up with the dollar value what that lease would be to participate in the project. We'd ask and solicit those funds and we'd put that money in an escrow account, hold on to it to the time of the project does go forward. If it doesn't go forward, we just refund th those those dollars. Um, as you can imagine, we're we're taking on the risk or the cost of ensuring the project, maintaining it, and we are planning on demoing the project when it's done. So, once the project is over, sometime after 20 years, we will plan on putting the site back to where it is. We'll move all the panels, remove the wiring, etc., etc., and put it back to open space. Um, one thing we I want to put put out there is a customer can transfer ownership. So, we're asking you to make a 20-year commitment as a customer to buy in. You can at that point, if you move in our system, you can move it with you. You can leave it on the building. And so, let's say you sold your house and you're going to move out, you could have that as a selling feature that you'll get a BLP credit on your electric bill for the next x number of years. Or we're going to allow you to transfer it to a nonprofit. So, once you buy this, you like I said, when we go to the selling this to the customers, it would be a 20-year commitment. So what is the really the ask at this point is we're kind of at a stalemate here. We need to know with some certainty before we can go into the design permitting etc phase of the project that we have an area picked out. That's the ask tonight. The easement is to say that hey we're we're committed to this idea. That means we're going to have to go out and do FAA permits. That means we're going to have to come back. We have to do a special land use permit because that will be considered a power generating facility. So, we got to go through the planning process. There's a sensitive area overlay issue we'll have to deal with there. So, there's lots of other things that we have to go through before anything ever gets done, but we need that certainty so we can move forward into the design phase. I can't put a design together and go get FAA permits if I don't know where it's going to go

or what it's going to look like. So, that's kind of where we're at that crossroads. So that's the idea tonight is is to see if city council shares that same vision that the sustainability committee the board late and power is looking at to try to move this forward and really get us into that next phase of the project. So in your p in your um packet you'll see the uh the actual easement agreement. This easement agreement has been reviewed by the and written by the city attorney. So it is uh done that. And I think there might be some things we want to tweak just for clarification, but it um for example, I think one thing that the mayor and I talked about is it says we'll clear the trees from the airport property. The idea is we'll do that if we move forward. We're not going to go out there tomorrow and start cutting down trees. We're going to wait to make sure the project's really go before we do any real spend or any unreversible tree removals. So, but in there it kind of gives you an idea of exhibit B in the in the packet is the uh easement area. As you can see, what we're proposing is just the the eastern or sorry, the western most 300 ft of that part of the property that is outside you heard some people talking about the runway protection zone or they call it the RPZ. It's outside the RPZ. Even if they extend the runway, we're out past that. We're out past the object free area. You know, we've looked at the FAA requirements. We think this is a viable solution otherwise we wouldn't be here. Um but once again it will require us to go to FA for approval. It will require us to once again go through the planning process all those things. That's not what's getting talked about tonight. Tonight tonight is just saying we agree with the concept feel free to move forward and and nail those things down. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions or have entertain any discussion.

All right. Thank you Rob. So questions and comments from council members. Well, after the discussions today about having an open area and having that discussion where there was an open area kept like splitting it and maybe lining further down the edge and keeping an area in the middle open for a landing strip or something through the trees. Have we thought of other ways to do it? Keeping the same like do they have to be all connected? Can there be a space between them where a plane could land?

So, what I'm proposing here right now is that area is about a five acres if I do it. So, about 300 foot wide by I think 750 ft in the north south direction. That should facilitate if we were able to use 100% of that land, which I'm not sure we will be able to about 1 megawatt of solar panels. We're proposing.3 megawws. So roughly we need about a third of that space today. Why did I want more land than that? In case this goes well, we can do a phase two or a phase three. So at this point, I would assume if I was divi designing it, I would want their south facing fixed panels. I would put them at the southern end. So I probably wouldn't just naturally go in that direction of leaving that middle open. But I did mention there's a sensitive area overlay there. So we will probably need to do a wetlands delineation to figure out exactly where we can put that those solar panels. So that may dictate some of it. So maybe not all that land will be usable. So we'll have to work that through with the design as well. But as as I think you can probably see from the aerial photograph, that area is fully wooded right now. We're planning on taking out for the easement. We're planning on taking out all the trees in that parcel for the airport. So they will have actually more clear space than they have today. Just to the west of there, the Borlink power already has a power line on 45 foot poles. Just to the west of that, Consumers Energy has an even taller pole power line there. We're talking about putting something in the ground that's going to be 10 to 15 foot high. So my personal opinion is I don't think we're adding any or taking away any safety. I think we're actually adding we're going to clear that. you're going to have more clear space than you have today. Those trees will be gone. Um, it helps the airport board in my opinion, the fact that they'll never have to trim trees again, right? They're going to be gone. Solar panels don't grow. You don't have to trim them. You don't have to come out

and put that in your lineed budget like they're doing. I know they're spending money this year to to remove some of those trees out there. I think they've got money spent already decided to do, I think, about three acres this year to take trees out in that location. So, this would be something that is uh a forever give, I how else do I put it, right? You're going to take these trees out and long as you mow it, they're not going to come back. So, I think there's this is a good example of how as a community we can work together for a win of getting a solar development for a community project. Anything we have to spend on this, we're passing those costs straight through. It's just going to raise the cost for people to ultimately buy panels. This land, I agree with them, it's dead land. There's not a lot of use for this land. You can't build a bunch of structures there. You can't really develop it. So, I think this is a win-win where they can get more clear space, the community can get a solar project, and um you're able to use land that is otherwise unusable. I just want to say um I appreciate the BLP uh you know taking the lead on this whole this whole project and that but the only thing I have a problem is is why what's the rush for one thing why are we rushing this through when we have uh our denial from our airport board with circumstances why and we have not heard from the FAA or anybody else on what we can do or can't do why can't why don't we why didn't we ask them beforehand to get the report to us. I don't have any reports here. I'm just going by you're saying what they're saying. I don't have the information. I would like to have that before I go forward. I can't believe we're rushing this through. Anytime we make a quick decision, it's it's not a good decision because there's consequences you might have to pay. You don't know. I'd like to have some kind of report. I want to know why we didn't get report from FAA. We had enough time to ask them questions. Did we did we ask them? Did anybody in

our group here ask FAA or any kind of report that we get back to us saying yes, it might be or no, it can't be. Why would we spend all this time? You're wasting my time up here. We don't have any answer. I don't have the answers right now. I can't make a decision on this because I don't have it. I don't think we should be making a decision on this until we get a clear view. You can say, "Yeah, it's going to be a clear area." But if the FAA says, "No, why you wasting my time here now? We should have had that in our information packet when we came here to do this job." That's what we should have before we make a decision on this. I'm not going to make a decision. I'd like to table this if we by any chance, if we could until we get some information so we can make a clear decision on whether to give an easement or not. I'm not against the solar panels and that. I really think it's a great idea. That's the reason why when we first came to us with it, I said, "Yeah, it's a great idea, but let's bring it to the board, our board, and see what their concept is. I want to make sure that we do this the correct way. I don't I don't want to waste your time. I don't want to waste my time. I don't want to waste staff's time. I'd like to see what what the results might be for us."

Rob, would you like to explain why you didn't go to FAA first? Absolutely. um just like you'd have in your planning or developments here. I can't come to you and or the FAA and ask for permits to build something that I don't have rights to. I didn't ask for permission. I just want to know if we do this, what would the consequences might be? It's the only question you got to ask build anything. What can we do here? If we can do that, it's be so simple.

It it it sounds like it would be, but that's not how they work. you have to give them details. They want to know where are the panels going to be, how high are they going to be, all those design details we don't have yet. So, we they have guidelines, the part 77, um the airport layout plan, so on and so forth that you can go through just like we have a building code, and you can look and say, okay, or our zoning ordinances and say, does this fit? I believe it does. I believe it does fit. So, now we're to the next stage. Okay, I believe it fits. Now, can we get the details together, bring it to the FAA, and say yes or no? And if they say no, we're done.

But I can't go to somebody and ask them for permission to build something that I don't have details for or I have approval to use that land. Did we ask I'm going to ask Asha, did we ask FAA if we do build anything on there, do we have to give money back? Not if it's in compliance with their regulations.

You don't have to give them a plan on it. I just want to know. It says if we plan on doing something, I a simple question to ask. If we plan on doing something, just ask the question. If we plan on building something or putting something on there, are we are we liable to give money back? You know how much money we have tied up in that airport with the FAA and that and state?

Yeah. Yeah, and I would just add if it's not in violation, that wouldn't be a concern. But again, it's been standard practice for us over time to seek concurrence from our boards and commissions as advisory commissions to council prior to seeking outside regulatory approvals. Um, again, I wouldn't suspect there'd be a concern if we're not in violation of FAA rules. Um, but we discover that through the permitting process. Um, and again, this is not an uncommon thing. uh as advised most recently by uh the provider that assisted us with our community energy plan for the county. Uh these kind of projects happened all over or do happen all over on airport property. So again, we would certainly work within the compliance um of our regulatory bodies, but we wouldn't expect there to be a concern, nor would we act outside of um what's permitted. I can understand the the points that you're getting at, Mike. Um, I've been to several presentations that Rob has given at the airport board and and other places. I've been to several of the airport board meetings. I've kind of delved into a lot of this on my own and I feel like I know just maybe enough to be dangerous with it. Not I don't feel like I know all the answers and I don't I don't like that. I don't like to make a decision when I don't know all the answers and the consequences of those. Um, I've done some research online and a lot of the things state that, you know, if you're developing a lease, um, the first thing you want to do is run run it past the local authorities and the FAA to make sure that it meets their criteria so that your obligations don't pop up and you have to pay a bunch of money back because it didn't meet what they think it should. I'm not saying I don't want the panels there. I I think

sustainability and energy approves the panel concept and they would probably approve it of just about anywhere we decided to put it. If we said let's put it on Harbor Island where the old soccer field used to be because nobody uses anymore. I think sustainability great place. So you know they support the project and necessarily maybe not where it is there but they would anywhere else as well. Um, so I guess you know I' I've been through all the, you know, the runway protection zones and the clear areas and uh, you know, the obstacle free areas and obstruction free areas and all the abbreviations of all of those. uh and and spent a whole day on the computer trying to figure out what we can do and what we can't do and never really did find a good answer other than you can't put a fuel depot there, you can't put a church there, you can't put a shopping center there, you can put a golf course there or an agricultural use. um when it comes down to solar panels, it says that um yeah, maybe with uh FA approval um but only after jumping through uh a bunch of hoops and explaining to them why it can't be located any place else. Uh, I mean it seems like a a you know a description of each alternative lo location including a narrative discussion and exhibits or figures depicting the alternative you and then they ask for cost estimates as to why where you're putting it is cheaper than where it isn't. I mean there's like 13 different things to go with this form. Um so it it seems like there's a lot of effort that's going to be involved in this to get them to say yeah or no. Um, I'm not quite sure that it's worth it. I mean, when I looked at the presentations for the payback that you're estimating for people who are going to own these,

uh, I kind of wonder if it's really, um, I mean, I understand the green energy and the solar aspect, but you're not buying them as an investment, believe me. Um, so I'm just I'm kind of where Mike is. I'd like to see somebody come up and say, "Yeah, you can actually do it and let's make a decision to do that then or no, you can't." Uh, I understand the the safety aspect. I appreciate all the people from the airport that came and presented that. Um, the one thing I didn't hear any of them mention, everybody was talking about the the safety for the airplanes taking off. You know, you hear on WAWWL, you read in the paper all the time, skydiver misses his mark and lands on top of a roof over here and he's in a tree over there and he had to cut loose. It didn't open. The last thing I want to hear is skydiver misses his mark and lands in a bunch of solar panels. Um, you know, I guess you can't protect everybody from everything, but

trees are better. I mean, trees are better. Like I don't know if a tree is better or not. I mean, so I I would kind of like to know as well. I mean, Mike had some good points that, you know, does the FAA say, "Yeah, that's an area where we can do it, go ahead and do it." I mean, if if they're on board with it, I'm on board with it. If they say, "No, you can't do it there," then we'll find another spot. But, you know, maybe the old soccer field, I I don't know. But that's that's kind of where I sit. I mean, I'd like a lot more information.

Yeah. And that's what I said. One of my next question was going to be do have we talked to the FAA and I guess from our standpoint if we don't want to sign an easement, right? Something so formal. Would we be be willing to sign a letter of intent? So if it's a cart before the horse situation and the FAA wants something from us that says if they say yes, we'll say yes or you know like so that there isn't a stalled out situation. Can we do a memorandum of understanding or a letter of intent that says we are willing or we're cons, you know, like what if they are going to say yes, would we say yes? You know, I what's

Well, I guess if I can chime in because I've been following this very closely and I've been listening to both sides. I've been to all the airport board meetings. I've talked to Rob a number of times and I think that exactly what Mike Doris said was the problem that Rob has that in order to get the FAA to tell you anything they have to go through all that stuff. They have to present all that and Rob doesn't want to put that much time and effort and money into it unless we're willing to make a binding commitment that well if you do all that and they say yes then we'll move forward.

I think that's the case where we're at now. this chicken and egg thing that we're talking about is somebody has to express this willingness to move forward in a binding manner before he'll spend all that money to figure it out and FA won't give him an answer until he does that. And so going to the FAA first would have been a waste of time because they would have sent it right back well where's all this stuff and then it would be back to is the BLP willing to do all this without knowing whether or not council would say yes. So I think the easement that's in front of us is one we highly conditioned on FA approvals and us not having to pay back for land and all the various things. I mean the uh airport board had a number of things that uh they were concerned about. They were they passed a resolution saying recommended denial. They had a number of points. They felt that there would be uh a fair market value associated with rent even though it's a department of the city and another department of the city and the land is commonly owned by all this land is titled to the city of Grand Haven. I'm not sure where this fair market value figures in but that would be a question that FA would have to weigh in on at some point and here again until you ask with the right detail you're not going to get any kind of answer. Uh they talked about this um extra runway length. Whether that's whether or not that's applicable, whether or not crashing into solar panels is worse than crashing into trees. I'm not sure I'd want to crash into either. Uh this at least gets the trees, which are taller and denser out of the way. Uh Trisha didn't like the language of the proposed easement. Well, the easement is prepared by legal staff and by administrative staff and that's where easements come from as opposed to um boards and commissions. Ben was concerned about the FA money used to purchase the clear zone carries this obligation that would be an obligation that FA would speak to once you get to the point of asking them this

question which won't be asked if we are unwilling to say move forward with some kind of commitment. Um there was potential loss of airport use of the property going forward which could be forever. Um but the use of the property is basically this geometry of this clear zone approach and such which they're over in an area where there's 60 foot tall power poles already and they're they're basically in the shadow of all that. Uh so I'm not sure how FA would view that but again the question won't get asked of FAA without some kind of um commitment on the part of this council and I believe the easement before us is conditioned on all those answers being positive and um and the only way that we find out is if they're willing to spend the time and effort to prepare the documents to get the answers. And so we're at this catch 22. you go first, you go first. And so somebody needs to go first and if we need to postpone and come up with more thinking time on this. But I think that's what I think that's the situation we're in now. We've heard numerous people from the airport board speak. There were concerns with safety. There was also concern of the future use of the airport. Um this runway extension, this is beyond where the runway extension would have an effect anyway. It's beyond that next section of the RPZ on the ground. This region, this area one in zoning which says nothing can be built there. It's beyond that. It's in a place where there's already tall things and there's already tall trees. Um so I I think that Rob has done a lot of homework on this on his own. He's he's worked with consultants to understand the regulations. The airport board is concerned about whether or not the airport remains viable going into the future. But the but the actually the

plans for that extension of the runway were approved in September of 2001. And we've done nothing in the past 25 years to talk about extending the runway other than just talk. And I don't foresee it happening in my lifetime. And even if it did, it wouldn't affect this project. So for all those reasons, you know, I would be in favor of saying, well, if if this is heavily conditioned on those FAA approvals and not putting us in a bind with losing our property rights and having to pay back grants, that I would move forward just to get the process moving along. That's that's my feeling. All the other questions won't get answered until we have the means to ask the questions. Go ahead.

Um, I'll wait. I want to thank the the people that came from the airport board and spoke about safety. I mean, I think that's an absolute concern of all of us on this um committee. But I what I'm hearing very clearly is that I think what we're voting on and I think what you just said is that we're voting on if the FAA approves this property and approves the safety of it and we are not required to pay back that we are saying that this property is where we would approve to be building solar panels. And so I think there are so many, you know, conditions to this vote besides, you know, the actual land itself. All we're voting, I think, on today is whether or not you have enough ability to say to the FAA, yes, if if it is decided that it is a safe um place to build and we don't have financial problems um or having to repay back anything that this is a place that our city has agreed that we could build solar panels.

Correct. Is that correct accurate? Okay. Yeah. you are the airport sponsor, so I can't go once again and ask to do things on your property without your permission. I mean, that's kind of a very basic thought process here. That's what I'm trying to get at is all I'm asking for is your nod today that yes, if this is all we we cross all the tees and dot all the eyes, get that get our approvals. I mean, like I said, we got sensitive overlay to do. We've got special land use permit. I got it with the planning commission. all those things before anything's ever going to happen. And then past that, so say the FAA comes back and and approves, is there another vote for the council to take the next step?

Well, you'd be granting an easement at this point with those conditions. Conditions satisfied, the easement is granted. Okay. That that's the way this is written.

Okay. I I'm for this in the sense that I believe that having the protection of the FAA and MDOT looking at this, it feels like it's a hard enough pass to get through it that they're going to be looking at the safety and and requirements of it. Um that being said, once once we have those details, I hope that everyone would feel more confident about it. Um but you know sustainability is is an important part of our moving forward and um we have very little property in this city and so I understand how hard you've had to work to understand um where options are to put it and it's a it's a tricky it's a complicated issue. Um, but I'm very hopeful that either the FAA gives us the green light to say no, this is a viable option, or they'll say, "No, it's not." And then that can at least give us the option to move forward one way or the other.

Yeah. They'll either say yes or no, and that will determine if I take a left or a right. That's all there is to it. I'm really excited about this. I was one of the people that said very likely to be a part of this project. I mean, I'm very excited about it and I hope we can find ways to do more of them. Outside of the FAA, is there not also a state is there not a state level that we also have like that we would go through first before the FAA or do we do them in kind of in conjunction? They're kind of conjunction. It's M. Arrow is is actually who you put all that through and then they

pass it up through the food chain and do their things. So, you we've been through these permits before. I mean, just even rebuilding the power line on 160th we did last year required us to go through some of these steps. So that that's at least my experience is the question about FAA. Can you build a power line there? Where are you going to put it? How tall is it going to be? D and you have to have those details. So once again, when it comes down to it, they will tell us yes or no. And like I said, if it's no, then we've got our answer and we'll we'll we'll put a pin in this location. If the answer is yes, then we'll move forward with even more. and you'll you'll probably see it again once again because we have to use a special alien permit. So I believe you guys will you'll see this again, right?

Um so we'll have to walk through all those processes. So this is just the first step in approvals of many. So we're approving this actual lease agreement that's before us. It's an easement. Yep. So that's what we're actually approving. That's what's on the agenda. Pardon? That's what's on the agenda. Yep. Um, so one of the issues that was brought up at at the airport board and I think you you may have been there at the time uh was that it appeared to have no end to it

uh other than your estimation of the useful life was 20 years and you would you would stop investing in it then and however long they lasted would be great. Um, one of the things that was brought up was the possibility of of putting on here um that it would have a 20-year with uh several 5-year uh agreements uh for extensions. Uh I don't know what your thoughts are on that. Well, I guess I would say that all my off the cuff because that's the first I'm hearing it. My off the cuff response that would be I'd hate to put people in a position where you you're guaranteed 20 years. So, we're going to guarantee him that. Yep.

But if this stuff is still viable and next thing you know, I come in here and whole different city council. In fact, 20 years from now, it won't be me either. So, you know, city council 3.0 or whatever you want to call it, and they say, "Well, we want to rip those panels out even though they're still producing."

So, that's why we thought it would make sense to just do the auto extend. And then once we say, "We're going to demo this project," we demo it and then we we're done. The e the easement evaporates at that point. So to me, it makes sense to tie it with the life of the asset because that's what's going to be there. It'd be frankly very foolish. And I guess if I was buying into these one one of these panels with the payback period like you mentioned earlier, I want it to go as long as possible. I don't want to see it get pulled out from my feet at year 21 when I might have had another three or four years of payback in it. So, I think the way we written it, well, that's why I wrote it the way I worked with Ronda to write it the way we wrote it is I think that makes sense that it will be there just for the life of this project.

Yeah. I just I didn't see anything in here that indicated what that life was expected to be. And there was no nothing in here that says after 20 years we're going to stop investing in it and however it remains viable after that is what it'll be. Um there was there there was nothing. So, it it appears to me when you read it that it's just open-ended as long as the BLP decides to keep investing money into it and replacing the panels. Uh, which was one of the concerns that, you know, the airport board had as well. I mean, you say 20 years, but you know, in 20 years, you're not going to be the guy who's making those decisions. 10 years down the road, there may be somebody who says, "Yeah, we're going to keep this going for the next 40 years." uh which was a concern that that the airport board had as well. So I I don't know if there's something you that you can we can add to this that puts some type of a lifespan on it other than you know you're you're telling us 20 years and you're going to stop investing.

Yep. Well, I guess the hard part about that too is if we look at this I'm trying to lock up the land now for multiple phases. Yep. So let's say 5 years from now we decide we got all the other panels and we want to do phase two. So it's almost to what I'm speaking exactly to what they're concerned with. Well then it's no longer 20 years from today, right?

It's going to be 20 years from that day. So I'm trying to come up with a agreement that will cover those options and and give you know yeah you're you're tying up that land. I guess there's no other way to put it. Mike, I I I understand the concern. I understand your point, but it was written that way on purpose so that way if you do a phase 2 or a phase three in the future that you would have this already ready to go, we're not back here having the same argument in in five years or six years again.

Okay. Didn't we uh just okay to have um hangers built by private individuals and that and possibility of maybe corporate hangers of some sort out there? Not at this location. No, not that location. I'm talking at the airport. We just okay to have them so we can build in so we can at least have maybe a possibility of a corporate uh hangers privately owned here. Yeah, privately owned or even corporate can come in and we've had some corporations and there again those would be a land lease situation.

I know but I'm just saying is you're going back to 2001. I'm just going back to you Bob is the extension of the runway. If one of our companies want to come in, we have a larger airplane and they want to expand out into that area and we give we get the lease out. We just got done saying we want corporate airplanes out there. We want to be able to have have their own lease out there. We said yes to a lot of the uh the improvements on it. I just want to make sure that we're not shortch changing oursel that we can expand for a larger airplane to come in there if they wanted to and we could make more money on it. Well, I think that if somebody were to build a hanger that they would be aware of the limitations of the airport.

If we put solar panels on there, you won't be able to. Well, actually, that's not the case because they're outside of the extended zone. I'm talking about the extension. I said that. I just said that we're outside of the extended zone. If they extended the runway, he's beyond that. Okay. I just want to make sure. Am I am I correct or am I am I misunderstanding something here?

You you are correct. The area I'm talking about is outside the RPZ in those areas even if the runway is extended. So I took I'll say best case scenario for the airport, worst case scenario for me and pushed them as far back as possible so that they are outside of any future expansions that are shown on any of the airport plans as of today. I still have a problem that we can't talk to somebody and you have to have a plan. Well, I really find that hard to believe. And how long you've been involved in government? Yeah, I know. But I'm just saying I have a chance as we go down, we talk to our legislators and we don't get nowhere with them, but at least we get a chance to Well, there you Well, there you have it.

You know, we've only had a few few successes with them. But at least we at least we have a chance to talk to them and they listen to us. Well, I think and they can get answers for us. I think the answer you'll get was where's your details? The investment he's not willing to make. I just like to have some more information. I understand. I really do. All right. Other thoughts, comments, questions? Done.

Okay. So, the the motion is for this easement. The easement contains language referencing FAA approvals and such. Do we need to clarify any of that? I think that it says that here. Otherwise, I think if we're done talking around, I would call for a vote. Yeah, I'm like I said, I've I've done a lot of studying and I spent a whole day on the computer trying to figure this out. I give credit to Rob for dealing with this because I'll tell you what, it it is it's a mess.

It's about eight layers deep before you even get to find the subject you want to talk about. So, um, I'm I guess I'm willing to take a leap of faith with what you have presented and what you are saying and and put some some aspects into the FAA and M. Arrow and and see where it goes.

Call the vote. Dora, yes. Calio, yes. Lion, yes. Fritz, there's a hesitation here. I don't feel comfortable saying yes, but I will say yes only because there's safeguards there, but I just don't feel comfortable with it. I did say yes. Yes. Okay, Manetsa. Yes. All right. So, there's a lot to be learned yet. that this enables another step. Believe it.

All right. Next item, please. Item B, consideration by city council of a resolution to approve a contract with Michigan Paving Materials Company for the 2026 street resurfacing and the budgeted and not to exceed amount of $497,966. Administration recommends approval. Can I get a motion? Moved. Second. Motion by Lion. Second by Calio. Yes. Logan Cington, streets utilities manager. Now I know your name. Nice to meet you all.

Um what you have before you are a detailed supporting staff recommendation to approve um Michigan paving and materials um to um repave the city streets for the 2526 year. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. questions. Oh, I just really appreciated the bid process being explained so clearly. It was great. Yeah. Um the uh last year we changed the uh mixture a little bit I think on the asphalt if I remember correctly. Did that seem to work out a lot better than the old style because the old style seemed to want to crack a lot quicker.

Does this seem to be a better off for us or we don't know yet? I don't think we'll know yet. I mean, maybe we'll find out this spring with the harsh winter, but cuz I I was pretty impressed with it to be honest with you cuz I I remember over the years gone by a lot of times we get done within about two or three years from now, it usually ends up starts cracking again on us. Mhm. Uh just want to know make sure that we're going to end up with the same kind of mix so we can kind of be consistent. I think we've stayed consistent with the mix in the last few years um with the 5 EML and that's worked out pretty well. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Yep. So, we got a little bit extra money to pave a little bit more road. Yep. Yep. We're still looking at um what we want to do with that extra money, but we're also um going to be rating the roads here in the spring to um get a better picture on what we want to do in the future as well. Okay. When's the last time we did a pacer rating? I think 21. So, when are we due for that again? Mhm. Yep. This spring. Okay, I guess you said that. Yep. Appreciate it. Okay, any other questions? Just call the roll. Lion, yes. Calio, yes. Dora, yes. Fritz, yes. Manza,

yes. Next item, please. Item C, consideration by city council of a resolution to award the contract authorizing task order 28, task 38, nonCCR data collection work plan to HDR of Ann Arbor, Michigan, in the budgeted amount of $232,377 and authorize the mayor and city clerk to execute the necessary documents. Administration recommends approval. Can I get a motion? So moved. Second. Second. Motion by second by Doron. Um, let's see. Oh, Derek is here.

Yeah. Good evening, your honor, council members. Uh, Derek Adis, uh, project management director for the city. Um, this is the last task we have um to do before we will start getting into actual remediation uh alternative. Um, you'll see that uh task order come in the next couple months. Um, but just uh the last three major tasks is one to get a full survey of all the the ground. That's that's part of this task. a bio bioeteric I don't if I said that word right um was actually the survey it's excuse me just underneath the water so um uh where the island goes into I think it's about 4 feet uh of of the river and and wetlands so they can uh have a full survey um to understand the dynamics of our options um and the last thing is a pump test which actually is it's pretty expensive but it's really necessary to find out how the water moves through the island uh when and if one of the options is is to pump and treat some of the the treat the uh contaminated groundwater because the dunamp uh you don't always have to do it I don't believe um but because our island is so unique with all the trash and all the things we buried out there over the years it's not just gener general soil that you would deal with uh on you know a different site so um that test is scheduled here for the 1 of March or beginning of March all this is contingent on the BLP passing their portion of it if you notice it's a really similar number. The only difference is the POS testing compared to um the uh CCR testing. So, this was one of those things where we've we've split it um pretty much 50/50 because both uh the POS um regulated um I guess activities and the CCR activities are there wasn't a it wasn't 5941. It was really just we both need it. Um so, we split it basically in half. Um, one one thing to note though is um, Tapcon uh, sorry, the contractor that's going to be

bringing equipment out there um, is a uh, is a contractual number. So, we're hoping this is it's a maximum uh, under our contract. We're hoping to be underneath that and actually save some money so not to exceed. Um, but if something does happen and we we can't disperse the water in the manner which we we plan, um, which we did save a ton of money by getting Eagle to allow us to discharge it back on the island, um, HDR saved us hundreds of thousands of dollars of treatment costs in that. Um, then we'll have to we'll have to step back and, uh, and get a change order. But, but, but the idea is we're, uh, we think we've got it covered and we actually save some money. So, it should be less than this as our antic. So, the BOP will take up their portion uh, at next Monday's BLP meeting. Okay, questions, comments?

Um, we just need to make sure the number is actually correct. So, the 232 377 was actually the number for the previous one we approved. 2328.

Yes, you are right. On the actual Hold on, let me let me just so close. They were It was only a few hundred more in uh 232889. That's You're correct. That's what this this resolution should say. The BP literally so close. 377. We we won. We won. Uh if you want to consider that a win, then we had the higher number. Um y But thank you for pointing that out. What's that? This is golf. Golf scores. Yes. If there's any questions, I'm I'm I apologize if it says somewhere else, but do we need to have this then designated as dependent on So this is our portion.

So So either way, we are proceeding with this regardless of So they're they're both together. If the BOP does not, um the HR task order says they both need to be approved. So you approve yours, our our city approves ours. Um and and the BOP will approve theirs. If they don't approve theirs, then we're we're stuck in conundrum and we wouldn't move forward with this contract. Okay? But we don't need to specifically call that out in here. Okay. The one on the consent order tonight was specifically spelled out that was contingent on them approving it. Okay. And that's more or less for the reimbursement portion because we front the cost and then seek reimbursement from the BLP. Okay.

So, do we need to amend this to correct the dollar amount? Yes. All right. We need I need a motion to amend this agenda item to $232,289. $88 800. Don't listen to me. $889. So moved. Second. Okay. Motion by Kelly, a second by Lions to correct the dollar amount to 2328.889 0. Call the roll, please. Calio. Yes, Lion. Yes, Fritz. Yes, Dora. Yes, Metsa.

Yes. Any other questions on the main motion now? The the amended motion? Call the RO. Britz, yes. Dora, yes. Calio, yes. Lion, yes. Vanetsza, yes.

All right. Well, that concludes our regular business for the evening. It brings us to our report by city council. Who has a report? Well, I'm two days late, but Valentine's Day was Saturday, and uh Friday, I was walking down Washington, and it was sunny, and I was seeing a lot of red and um tan checked bags with chocolate in them. And I stopped at the card shop and, you know, all these amazing shops that we have downtown. And I heard a woman in front of me saying, "Oh my gosh, I love visiting this town. I just love it here." And she was telling her husband and her son. And I think sometimes we um start to forget, especially when there's, I don't know, 600 inches of snow and gray and all of that. Um kind of we forget how special of a place this is. and it's nice to have one of our guests and tourists remind us of what a special place it is. So, it was just my little love letter to Gran Hayden.

Thank you. Good to have an upbeat note once in a while, right? Mike, potholes. Potholes. Do we have a number for people to call that they can get a hold of us and let us know where potholes are? We used to have the call number, you know, we used to have something like that. Do we have anything or do you just want them just to call down to DPW or do we have a specific place that they can leave a message?

Calling DPW is the easiest to connect um with our staff or calling really any of our our general lines, but we also have the general inquiry form online where you can submit those kind of observations. Um but calling the department directly is always a quick and easy way to get a hold of somebody. Okay. Just want to make sure because that's the big thing right now, the freeze thaw and everything else and we're going to see a lot of that. So, and we just don't want them to get bigger. That's all. So, if people out there, if you're listening,

hear from the city manager, call down the DPW and let them know if you see a big pothole out there so they can get it taken care of because if it gets bigger and bigger and bigger, it costs us more and more and more. So we try and ma keep it maintained to a small minimum but in that and also pitchers and catchers have reported for Tigers and they've had a full squad and Saturday they uh play the Yankees so seems like we'll be doing we have a good pitching staff at start on paper just hope our bats come through and that's all I have to say today. Okay. And and do you recommend not posting first on Facebook, but calling us instead?

Our staff does try to monitor online, but that is not where we're spending all of our time. So, phone call is always the easiest or an email. So, news flash, Facebook's not the first choice. If you take that picture, send it to us by email. Don't post it online. Okay. Thank you. Aaron, I spent the last 10 days in Costa Rica. Um, it's very warm there. just in case anybody wants to know. Very happy to see the sun today coming home. Thank you. All right. What do you think?

We've um seen a lot of videos and and drone footage um recently online of um all the folks out on the ice in Lake Michigan walking along the the pier trying to get out to the end. Um it is very hazardous. It is uh not the place to go for a stroll this time of year. Um there's folks walking out on the ice within five feet of where the water is. You know, there's a shelf underneath there where the water kind of hollows out a spot under the ice and you walk out a little too close and hit where it's weak and you go in 32 to 40°ree water, you don't have 15 minutes. I love our Department of Public Safety and I think they're great for response times, but boy, you know, no one wants to cut it to the end with 15 minutes to go and everybody's busy doing something else and they don't get to you. So, please, please, I I just beg you, be careful. If you're going to walk out on the ice or out on the pier, wear cleats, wear something, you know, have a life vest or an inflatable jacket. Wear something to protect yourself because it's in all its beauty, it's it's not worth the ultimate cost. So, please be careful.

Amen. Yep. Or just don't go there. Or just don't go out there. Okay. Amen, Mike. Thank you.

Right. Excellent. Um, yeah. All good thoughts. Um, I attended a planning commission meeting last week and there was a work session where they talked about housing challenges in Grand Haven and some thoughts about things that are being done in countywide or other communities and such. Some of these were reminiscent of what we got from our 2018 affordable housing task force which we did implement some of that in our zoning in 2021. And some of it was um a little bit that and more so and some new ideas. So, it's good that they're having this conversation. I don't think they had specific action items coming out of this work session, but they kind of started the conversation up again. So, I think that's a positive thing. So, hopefully they will come back with some some more ideas to kind of um enhance us from a regulatory aspect. I think our housing challenges are more economic than regulatory, but if there's some things we can do to help, we should at least explore that. And you know there's always this nod to the character of the community that we are a builtout community and we do have considerable character here even though it's very eclectic in a lot of our neighborhoods. You know it's quite a mix of things but we still we call it home and we like it here and so we don't want to change change drastically. We do need to accommodate new generations, new people coming in and so it's going to be a balancing act that going forward. So I appreciated their conversation. That's all I've got. So, I'll turn it over to city manager.

The only thing I have is with uh kicking off of our budget dialogue this evening with the fee schedule, um we need to look to schedule our conclusion budget work session. Um which typically takes place in April. Um so staff is looking at potential dates for April being the end of February. It's coming up quickly. We're looking at April 15th. That's a Wednesday. It's roughly the same time we've had the budget work session within the month of April the last couple years. Uh but wanted to offer that date early to see if we had consensus so we could work backwards from that. Typically do six o'clock. U we'll likely have space at Central Park Place that we would utilize.

Tax day. It's tax day. I'm okay. I'm good. Look at Emily as I say that. I'm fine with that. I'm available. If there are there are alternative dates that work better, we're open to those as well, but wanted to start somewhere. Um, okay. Works for me. Okay, we will plan on that. April 15th about 6 pm start time. And that's all I had this evening.

Okay, brings us to our second call to the audience. This time, members of the audience may address council on any item. Whether on the agenda or not, those addressing council has to provide their name and address. It will be limited to 3 minutes of speaking time. Council will hear all comments for future consideration will not have a response at this time. Those not physically present who would like to call in dial 616-935 3203. Who would like to address councel? If no one would like to come forward, then I will close call to the audience. If there's no further business this evening, I will declare adjourned. Thank you for coming.