Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome everybody to this regular city council meeting for June 1st, 2026. Maria, would you please call the roll?

Fritz?

Here.

Lyon? Callio? Here. Dora?

Here.

Manetza?

Here. We have no one for the invocation this evening, but please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, our next item this evening is reappointments to boards and commissions. Marie, would you read those?

Item A, reappoint Jerome Swifney to the Cemetery Board with a term ending June 30, 2031. Item B, Joe Middleton, Duncan Park Commission, term ending June 30, 2031. Item C, Eric Bai, Stork Conservation District Commission, term ending June 30, 2029. Item D, Amber Mendiola Suarez, Human Relations Commission, term ending June 30, 2029. Item E, John Simeon, Human Relations Commission, term ending June 30, 2029. Item F, Paige Howland, Human Relations Commission, term ending June 30, 2027. Item G, Todd Anthes, Main Street Downtown Development Authority, term ending June 30, 2030. Item H, Jerry Troke, Musical Fountain Committee, term ending June 30, 2030. And item I, Richard Norton, Zoning Board of Appeals, term ending June 30, 2029. All right.

I need a motion for these.

So moved.

Motion by Kelly Oh a second by Dora Questions or amendments to this motion I I'd like to have Todd anthus done separately if you're gonna do them myself personally Yes, you'd like to amend the motion to you. Yes.

I like to amend the motion to have 10 times on his own.

Okay Is there a second for that? I'll second better. Okay. I So let's, any questions on that motion? Please vote, let's call the roll.

Fritz?

Yes.

Dora?

Yes.

Caglio? Yes. Manetza?

Yes. All right, so now I need a motion, a separate motion for Todd Anthos to the Main Street DDA.

We still technically have the main motion on the floor. Mine is. Oh, I'm sorry.

That was the amendment. Okay. Any further changes? Please call the roll.

Callio. What are we voting on the original? So everyone listed mine is taught at this. So we're voting yes to yes to all the other ones except for Todd or.

Yeah. Okay. Pretty good.

Dora.

Yes.

Fritz yes.

Yes. OK, now I want to motion for Todd. Don't move. OK, motion by Adora, second by Calio to point out is the answers to Main Street DDA. Any questions on this motion? Please call the roll.

Dora?

Yes.

Calio? Yes. Fritz?

This is just to put it on.

No, this is a motion to put Todd on the DDA.

Oh, no.

Manetza?

Yes.

This motion passes.

Okay.

All right, and we have no new appointments this evening. I would remind the public that This is the time of year when we have a lot of appointments that are either expiring or coming up for reappointment or there will be open seats starting the 1st of July. And so if there's a place on the city's website called the how-to tab, you can look on that and you can see how to apply for boards and commissions. Anyone who's listening who's interested in serving on a board or commission, we have a number of vacancies to fill. So go there and look and see what's available and fill an application and we'll be talking to you. So, thank you. Okay, that brings us to the approval of the consent and regular agendas. Can I get a motion on that? So moved. Second. Okay, motion by Fritz, second by Calio. Any changes to either the consent or regular agenda? No. Okay, would you please call the roll?

Fritz?

Yes.

Calio? Yes. Dora? Yes. Meneza? Yes. Okay.

We don't have a work session, so we're here to call to the audience. This is the first of two opportunities. Members of the audience may address council on any item, whether on the agenda or not. Those addressing council are asked to provide their name and address and will be limited to three minutes of speaking time. Council will hear all comments for future consideration, but will not have a response at this time. Those not physically present who would like to call in may dial 616-935-3203. Who would like to address council? Keeping in mind also, we will have a public hearing this evening on the South Village proposal for incentives. But if you want to talk about that, then that'd be the time.

Jane Stopker, 54 Crescent Hill in Grand Haven. Well, good evening and thank you for your time. I will be reading a letter that was emailed to all of you as well as delivered to the President of the DDA and the Human Relations Commission of Grand Haven. The letter was signed by a group of concerned citizens. The letter reads, we live in a beautiful city, plain and simple. The setting of the lake, sandy beaches, woods, pier, boardwalk, and all the other amenities make Grand Haven a very special place for family, friends, and visitors. However, under all of the beauty that surrounds us in Grand Haven, there's an ugly undercurrent of racism and violence. It has come to our attention that on Sunday, May 24th, one of our local merchants, Murthy, had a group of young teens that came into her store and stole, vandalized, and verbally attacked her with racial slurs and comments. Following this frightening event, people in our community posted racial comments condoning the actions of the young teens. This is a gross attack on human rights and on a person living and working in our community. we cannot begin to comprehend the devastating impact on the owner of Murthy, Lico Burgers, and her family. In our effort and concern to support Murthy as a member of our downtown merchants and be a beautiful city inside and out, we are asking that the Downtown Development Authority, the City Council, and the Human Relations Commission look deeper into this problem and make a public statement in opposition to racism and violence in our community and respond with affirmation for mercy as well as initiate actions to address racism within our community. We look forward in a united manner to address this deplorable conduct of racism in Grand Haven. To be a complete community, all persons living, working, and visiting Grand Haven must feel safe and be welcomed with open arms. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Melanie Swiftney, 17035 Timber Dunes Drive in Grand Haven. I'm here on behalf of Grand Haven Pride, both the board and the festival committee, which we have the festival coming up next week. I just want to thank the city in advance for the proclamation supporting the LGBTQ community, for the support that you've continued to show over the years to make the festival a safe space for all who want to participate. who maybe do not feel safe other times of the year. And just thank you again. We appreciate it. And I hope you can all make it. So thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Go ahead.

I'm Jerry Troke, 11933 Juniper Hills Court down in the township. Just wanted to say thanks for reappointing me as a member of the Musical Fountain Committee. That's a privilege that I cherish, and hopefully we're doing a good job of keeping you guys up to date. I'll be back in two weeks to give you some more information about our spring update. But just as a report tonight, or an item tonight, we launched our fundraiser for the new lighting system today on our social media pages. So go there and chip in. Thank you.

Thanks, Jerry.

Hello, I'm Kara Schoenfeld. I live at 1536 Beech Tree Commons. I am co-chair of the board of directors of Grand Haven Pride, and I am here to really echo what Melanie has already said, which is to thank you for continuing the proclamation that June is Pride Month and continuing your support of Grand Haven Pride and I also want to uplift what you were sharing earlier about how we need to make sure that this community is open to all and I know that these conversations especially when we're talking about populations that have historically not been so supported just generally in the world. There's so much nuance and multifacetedness that is required of that. And I'm grateful for the conversations. I'm grateful that we are able to communicate about these things as a community. And I know that the Grand Haven Pride Board is absolutely welcoming to these types of conversations as well. So thank you for your continued support.

Thank you.

Good evening. Jim Hagen, 400 Lake. I'd like to just have a few words on snowmelt. I know last meeting an amount was proposed and we've got another amount proposed for this meeting and we have a letter saying we want to max it out at 80,000 per year. In view of what's going on with inflation, I'd rather not have fixed amounts. I think going with a percentage is much better. It spreads the risk. It also encourages good behavior. If we have a fixed amount that for whatever reason goes low, it's not reflective of the real economics, we're going to continue to push snow melt. And as a matter of fact, I think we need a meeting of stakeholders, and I think that's the DDA, the council, and the public. We have a $1.5 million penciled in amount for the 2028-2029 budget for a whole new snowmelt boiler system. Do we want to do that? Is using all that natural gas, creating all the CO2, something that we really should be endorsing it? I know there's a lot of money and there's decisions that were made in 2008, 2009, but do we stay with something that's not working and is not good for the environment forever just because a bad decision was made in the past? I'd rather say we don't. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is Tim Stoebker. My address is 54 Crescent Hill, Grand Haven, Michigan. And I'd like to address the letter that was referenced by Mrs. Stoebker, my wife, Jane, which I signed along with others. It struck me today as we opened this meeting that we said the Pledge of Allegiance. And the last phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance is justice for all. And we say that at every council meeting. We say it at every school. We say it at so many celebrations. Everything starts there. And if justice is denied to one, then justice is not for all. And so I would ask that the commission on human relations, along with the City Council and the DDA, but particularly starting with the Commission on Human Relations, really focus in to this incident, which was not just one. This was many. It started when her store was actually on Washington before she moved up into her new location. So it's not an isolated incident. And if we can't have a community that invites multicultural, multi-race people into our town to make investments, to live, work, and enjoy what we have here, then we are not a clean community and we've not fulfilled what we say in our pledge each day, each month, or each meeting at this city council. Thank you.

Thank you. Who else would like to address council at this time? There will be another opportunity at the end of the meeting to address city council on any item, and there will be a public hearing earlier, but if you'd like to address council before we make any other decisions, now would be the time. Seeing no one, we're gonna move on. At this point in time, we have a presentation. The June Pride Month Proclamation. I believe we have a member of the Human Relations Commission here.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. My name is John Simeon, a member of the Human Relations Commission and former member of the Grand Haven Pride Board of Directors and former co-chair of last year's festival. And I am proud to present this proclamation for Pride Month. Whereas the City Council of Grand Haven, Michigan proudly proclaims the month of June 2026 as Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex or Asexual Pride Month throughout the City of Grand Haven. And whereas all people are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and to us LGBTQIA plus individuals have made measurable contributions to the cultural, civic, and economic vitality of our community, state, and nation. And whereas the city of Grand Haven remains committed Two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual individuals possess inherent worth and the City Council calls upon residents, businesses, faith communities and organizations to uphold the principle through action, compassion and civic leadership. and whereas the observance of Pride Month promotes awareness, strengthens community connections, encourages meaningful dialogue, and affirms our shared responsibility to build a welcoming city where everyone can live authentically and safely. Whereas the City of Grand Haven celebrates the Grand Haven Pride Festival to be held on June 13, 2026, as a joyful gathering that brings together residents, families, businesses, and visitors in a spirit of unity, education, and celebration, highlighting the diversity, resilience, and ongoing contributions of the 2SLGBTQIA plus community within our city and beyond. And now, therefore, be it resolved that the City of Grand Haven City Council hereby proclaims the month of June 2026 as Pride Month in the City of Grand Haven in support of the 2SLGBTQA plus community and directs that the word pride be placed on the city welcome sign at Washington and 5th as a visible expression of the city's commitment to inclusion and equality.

Thank you, John. Well done. And that will be on our consent agenda for adoption. And that brings us to our consent agenda. Where would you like to read that?

Item a approve the special work session and regular city council meeting minutes for may 18, 20. Item B approve the bills memo and the amount of 1,320,556 dollars and 68 cents. Item C, consideration by city council of a resolution to approve the trade inspector contracts for Bob Moderski, plumbing and mechanical, Joel Hosko, electrical, and Chad Worden, building inspector, and Phil Brummel, building inspector, for the contract term July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2028. And item D, approve a proclamation acknowledging June as Pride Month in the city of Grand Haven.

Can I get a motion on the consent agenda? So moved. My first second by Dora any okay any questions on any of these items Please call the roll Fritz.

Yes, Dora. Yes, Callio. Yes.

Yes All right. We have one item of unfinished business this evening. I believe this one. Oh Go ahead and read it

Item A, direct the city treasurer to issue fiscal year 2025-26 snowmelt invoices in the amount of $73,511.29 to the applicable downtown snowmelt customers as designated on the annual snowmelt billing 2026. Okay.

Ashley, do you want to lead this?

Yeah.

Can I get a motion? Oh, you are correct. Can I get a motion?

So moved.

And second. Motion by Calio, second by Fritz. Now you're on.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, so as you mentioned at your previous meeting, City Council had postponed this item to issue the fiscal year 2025-2026 snowmelt billing to our downtown property owners who are adjacent to the snowmelt system to have staff find a more equitable approach to how we look to divide that billing amongst the property owners in the city. SO COMING BACK BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, AS YOU RECALL, THE PREVIOUS MAINTENANCE AND UTILITY BILLING ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND DDA PROPERTY OWNERS WAS A 25%, 75% SPLIT. THE BILLING TOTAL BEFORE YOU IN THIS RESOLUTION REFLECTS A 50% SPLIT. SO A 50-50 COST SHARE ALLOCATION OF THAT MAINTENANCE AND UTILITY TOTAL. IN ADDITION, THE MEMO REALLY DISCUSSES THE BREAKDOWN OF THAT HOW WE LOOKED TO DRIVE THAT ALLOCATION LOOKING AT THE TEN YEAR HISTORY AND WHAT THE IMPACTS WOULD HAVE BEEN USING THAT HISTORICAL DATA AS IT RELATES TO WHAT THIS ALTERNATIVE BILLING WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE FOR THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. AGAIN, THAT $80,000 CAP THAT WE PROPOSED IN THE MEMO REFLECTS THAT SIX YEAR AVERAGE OF THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT. Came up with that as a staff But tonight before you in this resolution is the total billing amount to be issued to those property owners at this time if we'd like to discuss or have a dialogue about that formula for future years, we'd be happy to do so and But as a reminder, in the ordinance language for snowmelt billing, it doesn't necessarily clarify what that split or allocation for how we look to bill for snowmelt maintenance and utilities is. So I think it would be an ongoing annual evaluation as we look to bring it to council every year. So at this time, between myself and Finance Director Emily Green, we'd be happy to answer any questions on how we...

All right, and as I recall, there was a resolution, a standing resolution for the 25-75 split, and we probably want to come up with something that we don't change every year.

Correct. Ideally, we'd bring back before you an allocation that everybody was agreeable towards.

Okay, and the issue before us, of course, tonight is the specific allocation for this year, but this sets the pattern. Yes. Okay, questions and comments from council members?

I supported the motion to move this to a later date for more talk and consideration along with Mayor Manetza, because I believe that the previous percentage probably took advantage of the business owners that were downtown. by probably an extreme amount. I think this is a much more fair resemblance of split between the city and those business owners. I do, however, have a concern about the cap of $80,000. I don't think we had a cap on it before. I would propose that we just remove a cap and it's a 50-50 split and That's would be what it is.

I think that's fair to us.

It's fair to the business owners and these times nowadays you don't really know what's going to happen with the prices of fuels natural gas and everything that goes along with it, so I would hate to put a cap on it that might I You know have the city end up with a larger portion than than the 50% would be so beyond the 80 grand So I would like to make a motion if possible to remove that part of it the $80,000 cap and just have it be a 50-50 split Yeah, of course the captain isn't in play this year because we didn't hit we didn't get that high right but We don't continue to look at it down the road or it goes by that it possibly could come into play. Okay.

All right. Other thoughts?

How was the 75-25 split, how did that come to be initially? Do we know how that was decided on?

We kind of know. Back in the day when we were trying to figure out how to do this, that was kind of a split on the – Energy cost it was pretty arbitrary we started out way back when we first put in the snowmelt system that there was a certain avoided cost of Because we weren't plowing we weren't patching freeze-thaw cycles potholes and all those things there was an avoided cost which was roughly 25% of in terms of dollars that came out to about that But then at some point it became more of a split on the energy cost because that was easier to figure out and And it just got adopted that way.

And that initial concept was based on the original having...

I think it made for easy math.

But having no natural gas involved?

No, it was no natural gas.

Yeah, but I'm seeing that that was kind of when it was.

Pre-sims closure. Okay.

Yeah, it was heat from SEMS plus the random auxiliary boiler part of the time.

Plus what we had for maintenance and plowing and everything else and that we figured out what it was. And it come out to be close to 25% at that time. but now as everything's escalated up more, it's... Well, pre-SIMS numbers are different than today. Absolutely. It's going to be totally different than what we have today.

So I think 50-50 in these terms is a great way to go forward today. I'm not sure what the procedure will be on how we establish what that will be in the future, but that's not what we're voting on today. I think that... I would just like to have a little conversation too about it's a community benefit. And so the split of the city, I certainly think the 75% of the business owners and residents is significant. So I do think 50-50 is better, but it is really a community benefit and even past our community. And so I think it's a broader conversation about how we move forward is smart. I think a broader conversation on snowmelt is smart, so I do believe that we need to have that work session sooner than later.

Well, certainly before everything has to be replaced.

Yeah, I would say before winter, maybe.

Yeah, good chance when we do that, it'd be nice to have it done while it's still warm out and not cold. 50-50 is fine. I tell you, the downtown merchants, you're right, Bob. We've been on the low side for a long time because we came up with the theory of it being with the manpower and stuff was to take all that snow away. We kind of figured it out that way. But today it's totally different now. We got the gas heat. We got pretty much basically what we know we have to do. And plus if we had to go back, you can't just shut it off. The system, you can't shut that down completely because we'd have to tear it all up then because the road and the design for snowmelt is totally different than a standard street. So we have to maintain that, and we have to maintain our businesses down there. If we can't help them, you're right. It is a public benefit for us to move forward. I mean, I walk down there. I see everybody down in the middle of winter. They're walking their dogs. They're doing everything. I don't see a whole lot of them stopping into the shops sometimes because the shops are closed, it's late, but they got that benefit. They got to be able to go out and get their exercise and be able to do it. So I think it's a point for the city of Grand Haven is that we need to go move forward and help them out down there. I don't know about the $80,000 cap, I'm not, but you guys came up with a figure on that. Can you explain the reasoning why you went with $80,000?

Yeah, we're looking at it a couple different ways. And maybe the 50-50 split didn't make it any less arbitrary. However, we felt it was more equitable. And looking at how we could try to put something a little more objective to it, we looked at that six-year average of the total. And we thought, given the difficulty placed on businesses with this specific fee every year, that presenting something that would be a little more EASY TO BUDGET FOR WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO INSERT SOME SORT OF MECHANISM INTO HOW WE EVALUATE THIS ANNUALLY THAT THEY COULD BETTER PREPARE FOR AS FAR AS A WORST CASE SCENARIO. Again, in looking at that 10-year average, granted costs keep getting higher, we haven't hit that $80,000 cap and wouldn't necessarily, I should knock on wood, hope to meet that $80,000 cap in coming years. But we wanted to try to insert something that you could point to in looking at that historical average that would give the businesses something to budget for a worse case.

do appreciate the predictability factor of this and i think that that should be definitely part of the conversation and however we move forward with that and um you know thank you for going through these exercises with the numbers certainly the way it was established way back 10 12 years ago however long it was ago that we adopted this percentage not necessarily relevant today. And I do think that this is, it's almost like having a city park in the winter when you can walk up and down the sidewalks. It truly is something that's an amenity to the public. And it's grown to be a burden on the downtown property owners.

And as discussed last time, just as a reminder, we are also keeping in consideration the fact that those businesses are also still being assessed for the original installation of Snow Mountain.

Yeah, there's still an active TIF on that. There's still being paid for. Yes. So all those things, but yeah, I think the 50-50 split makes sense to me. When I talked about this two weeks ago, I said, let's come up with a different split or possibly a cap or some other creative idea. I don't think we need to pile all the ideas on the same plate. So I like the 50-50 split. I think the cap is... no longer necessary once you do that. I think over time, if you look back in the historical charges, if you applied that 50-50 split over time, that you'd find that the city is gonna assume a lot more cost. And therefore, on those times, if we ever do exceed $80,000 as a 50-50 split, Passing that along isn't unreasonable because we know we picked up other costs. So most years will be leaner. This happened to be an extremely expensive year and we will probably get more. We'll also have other years when it's not so much. So I think the 50-50 split is adequate. For the purposes of what we're voting on today, which is this particular bill, I think it's fine. I think that if we wanted to further memorialize this process, Perhaps you could prepare a resolution for us to vote on saying that going forward until such time as we change it, 50-50 split simply, nothing more. Keep it simple. Don't have to put any kind of escalators or formula in it or anything like that. And then we could vote on that. But that wouldn't be tonight's business. That would be something to memorialize what we've discussed this evening. Thank you. But otherwise, the issue before us tonight is the specific billing. But applied to that, I think, has become about as reasonable as we can be and still have our snow melt system. And the future of it, yes, we have to have a discussion on the future of it. That's going to be a big conversation. Any other questions?

No, but I just have to echo what Sarah was saying, that we need to discuss this at a future time, too, instead of waiting until the last minute to do it. I think had to get a conversation together and all of us get together and start talking about it. This is good. I appreciate it very much.

Okay. So in a further conversation at some other time this year, hopefully, we will look at removing that cap?

Well, there's, I mean, the cap is, it doesn't show up here because we didn't reach it.

Right.

So we haven't really, all we've done so far is

All we've done so far is settle the specific billing for this year.

As long as we're going to discuss this again, and it sounds like we are, then I don't have an issue with it going like it is.

I think we should have a formal resolution saying this is going to be the split going forward. This is a little bit of a, not exactly impromptu, but this is kind of a solution to a specific problem.

As long as that's going to occur, I'm fine with it going like it is.

Okay. wouldn't change the numbers nope not one bit so since it doesn't change the numbers i think we're good for tonight any other questions please call the roll calio yes fritz yes dora yes manessa yes All right, at this point, we're going to have a public hearing. So at this point, I'll open a public hearing regarding a resolution to approve and adopt the Brownfield plan for the South Village Redevelopment Project located at 724 Robbins Road for a period of 21 years. And as I open the public hearing, I think I would invite Dana to introduce this.

Thank you. Good evening, everybody. So this evening before you is An incentive request, a tax increment financing request for the former date project site at 724 Robbins Road. The redevelopment would transform a long vacant and challenging redevelopment site in the city of Grand Haven. Ultimately, the project is anticipated to yield 118 residential units with a mix of for sale and rental units. Detail was included in your packet, but for the public that includes 94 for sale townhome units and 24 rental units. The EDCBRA did consider the request and is recommending one of a few options. They are recommending what we're calling option two, whereby the development team, which is here this evening, would be reimbursed for a little over $10 million in reimbursable expenses over a 16-year period with additional time up to five years in local brownfield revolving fund funds as well. 24 rental units would be income restricted for 10 years at 120% of area median income. We did have a financial analysis performed as we do in other projects. This project through the report did reveal that but for the incentive, we would anticipate the project would not be feasible. Even with the incentives, projected returns were very modest on the particular project. We did also take a look at how the project lined up with our abatement and incentive guideline for numbers of eligible years to seek incentive, and this fits within those parameters where they were eligible for at minimum 16 years of reimbursement. So it lines up with that incentive guideline. As I mentioned, the development team is here to also provide additional context or answer any questions once we get to that portion, if necessary, from council.

All right. Well, I guess I would invite members of the development team to come forward and Introduce themselves. Then we'll take comment from the public.

Good evening. Joe Agostinelli with Miller Johnson Growth Advisors were the consultants on the project that prepared the brownfield plan. I first want to say thank you to Council for your consideration, staff for your support through the process. I have to say it's been really a pleasure working with everybody. A lot of really good back and forth with the Brownfield Authority a couple weeks ago around sort of what's the best way to structure this. I say this frequently, the blessing and the curse of this new housing tax and compensation So landing on what's the what's the right sort of structure that works for the development and for the community? Can take some iterations sometimes so we've gone through a few of those and I think we have a great plan that works moving forward So we're we're happy to address any questions that the council might have With me is The development team, I don't know if you want to give a quick overview of sort of what you have in mind, and then we'll take any questions that you have.

Yeah, I mean, Dana, your introduction was so good. I don't know that I have any more color to add to that. Okay, well, then tell us your name. Chad Koster, 940 Floral, Grand Rapids.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Well, in that case, at this point in our public hearing, any members of the public would like to offer their thoughts on this project. This is a public hearing.

Daniel Mueller-Liley, 15028 West 3rd Street, Grand Haven, Michigan. I've been a resident for 45 years. Kindly, just opposed to the scope of the project, The fact that removing date building and building properties people live in, that seems appropriate. Change is good sometimes. I do highly disapprove of the idea of building back into the woods. In fact, the units that are 13, 30, 32, 31, 33, and 34 would actually be in water right now. I have pictures from over the hill looking behind our yard. There's actually one to three feet of water standing there. The ducks land there, blue herons and others. And I don't understand why the artist's renderings of this project have kept going forward when they do not represent the property back there. There is also a concern for the Grand Haven aquifer that that is in, and also has there been any public presentation on a third-party representation to the soil properties behind Dake Building, especially the storage area where they used to keep paints and solvents. And I know for a fact, just from the odor alone, the amount of hydraulic fluids and stuff that were possibly dumped back there. My concern is, I don't know what the city is playing the game from this, especially if you're giving any kind of reproach on taxes. It does not bring in any new jobs. It creates a tremendous amount of traffic. I don't know if you've been on Robbins Road lately, but between the car wash, the railroad tracks, and the other businesses, it's very difficult to get around there. There are times at the four-way stop that is on Lakeshore and Robbins Road, I've had opportunity to be involved in traffic backed up all the way to Hayes Street. And that's just normal summer-type operation, especially when people are getting out of work. The other thing is Grand Haven school buses go across, and there is a railroad track. They must stop by law. and due to the fact that you're going to create basically a gridlock. If you've been up to Panaluna with the new changes they've made with their four-way stops, you can see how quickly the traffic will be backed up into the highway. The Department of Transportation approved this plan with the amount of additional flow of traffic, and has there been an official and approved third-party study of traffic for the area. And, of course, as I mentioned before, has there been any public disclosure of the soil samples? And, you know, great tear-down-dake building, but, you know, what are they trying to hide or cover up by putting a whole bunch of fill? Thank you very much for your time.

All right. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? And many of these issues have been discussed at planning commission level. So I know there's been ongoing discussion. Any other comments from the public? If not, I'm going to close this public hearing. We won't be taking any action this evening. This evening was to gather information from the public, gather comments and concerns. And our policy is that we don't take action on the same evening that we hold our public hearing. So I would anticipate this being on our agenda two weeks from tonight for action. Unless there's any feedback that the council would like to offer?

I've got a few things, believe it or not.

Well, if you think that the developer should hear them at this point, go ahead.

I think it would be, I did have a few questions. And I'm going to try to do this without beating a dead horse. But when I had first seen this book, I was actually really excited about it. I don't think that having a big building empty is a good thing for our city. So I value the fact that we have development looking into this. I think I had also initially anticipated that there would be an AMI of 80% of 20% of those units. That was actually what was presented in the Planning Commission meeting on March 23rd. When did the EDC meeting take place?

That was May 18th.

On our website, we didn't have the Minutes from that meeting? Not yet. No, those weren't available yet. So that was fairly recently when that conversation took place. So just a few questions. I think, to your point, it is a moving target because it's a difficult conversation to have with these TIFs to make sure that there's a balance between the value of what's brought to the developer and what's brought to the city. One of the things in our policy mandates that the benefit to the city must equal or exceed the cost of the incentives. So when we're looking at a $16 million incentive package, I would love to be able to see that dollar by dollar of how that truly affects our city.

10 million.

10 million. OK. So $10 million, I'd love to see that line by line. So when we do the 120 AMI, what is that? I think the three-bedroom apartments looked like they were going to be rented at around $3,000 a month. Am I reading that correctly? There's eight three-bedroom units, 120% AMI, or $3,000 per month. and 16 two-bedroom units of 120% AMI at $2,700 per month. I'm reading it from the Plant Moran page. So can you tell me, or a question I was considering is, what would fair market value be for those apartments? If we didn't put a limit on it, what would you be renting

These apartments out if you could not limit it So there's there's a couple a lot of a lot of questions there, so let me let me back up on Just to clarify any confusion so that 16 million dollar number you're talking about which was based on 80% ami units for Generates a much longer duration of the TIF reimbursement so that was some of the discussion with the EDC and Brownfield Authority was, you know, the trade-offs here for deeper affordability means more subsidy is needed because you're reducing rents further below market rate, which takes longer to reimburse. So we went from a 22-year Brownfield plan down to a 16-year Brownfield plan. That was the trade that the Brownfield Authority asked us to make. Either one of those options work for the developer. The longer duration... with deeper affordability works in the pro forma. And so we presented two options, and that was the option the Brownfield Authority asked us to move forward with. The second question, well, one of the other questions that was raised was related to sort of benefit to the public. One piece that we haven't talked about, I think, that's important here is there's Just shy of $700,000 of environmental cleanup and remediation that's necessary as part of this project, along with about $1.2 million of demolition and abatement to address the vacant blighted structure that's there right now. So nearly $2 million of that $10 million request is just getting the site to sort of a greenfield condition before we start talking about the cost of constructing new housing units and And then also delivering some affordability into into the mix So your question directly was around the hundred and twenty percent of my unit restrictions and so there the the pivot from eighty percent units to 120 Takes away any reimbursement of direct rent loss reduction or gap financing in the project So that's what's eliminated. So there isn't candidly a significant difference between the rents for market rate and for the 120 AMI restricted units. What's happening is the developer is limiting the size of their tenant pool, meaning not everyone can rent those smaller group of units. So if we have somebody walk in the door who's making a million dollars as an example and somebody who's making $80,000 as an example, we can't rent those income restricted units to that million dollar income household. We would have to rent those units to the AMI restricted pool. So that's a smaller pool of potential tenants that drives potential vacancy into the project because you have fewer people to rent them to. But I'm sorry, that's a long answer to your question, which is, is there a meaningful difference between the market rate and 120? The answer is no, there is not a meaningful difference.

And in all fairness, probably someone that's making $4 million a year is probably not going to be looking in that direction. I was giving an extreme example, yes. But so yeah, so the $2 million cleanup, I think there's still $8 million then that we're talking about that. I would love to understand the difference between a business plan and a TIF requirement. So there's cost. There's overhead of doing business. There's also profitability in doing business. So I think that's where I always get hung up on these two is I understand the remediation. I understand why that property is not considered

An easy property built to build on right now two million dollars makes sense in that It's it's the remainder that yeah, no, it's a great question that comes up in every single City Council meeting I attend presenting one of these and you know the this project Five years ago the exact same project in five years ago construction costs in five years ago interest rates would have made sense with just the two million dollars of environmental remediation Since then, cost of construction's gone up 50%. Interest rates have gone up 2 1⁄2 times what they were then. And rents have not moved that much during that period of time.

So five years ago, a three-bedroom would have gone for $3,000? And $400,000 townhouses?

I'm sure they've gone up some, but not at the rate. I guess what I'm trying to explain, the trend line change. Yeah. You know construction cost is doing this interest rates doing this and rents still going up, but at a much lower rate So over time you're seeing a growing Viability gap where market rate development candidly doesn't make sense largely in any market in Michigan except the city of Ann Arbor right now as we're modeling these with with other clients, so the TIF becomes necessary for the market rate project to make sense before we even have a conversation around affordability. And that's, I think, evidenced by the third-party report that the city hired Plant Miranda to conduct.

And I appreciate this, and these are the questions that I feel not only is it important for me to ask, but I'm being asked by my constituents, too. So as an open forum and an open hearing, I think this is the proper place to do this.

And these are good things, too, that you can come back in two weeks with detailed answers for you if he knows your questions.

Yeah. This is maybe a Dana. I'm not quite sure whose question this is. So I haven't seen one that's not a rental situation before. So a large percentage of these will be purchased townhomes. Those owners will be paying taxes. How does that work within a TIF? So you're going to have a community TIF and then people will be paying taxes.

Correct, but the original developer is outlaying the initial upfront costs, and those are the eligible activities that they'll be reimbursed for.

So the homeowners themselves will not get a tax break on the properties? Okay. And then just a quick question, too, is when we've done these exercises, how many times has Plant Moran come back? saying that a tax abatement was not necessary to be.

There have been zero, but candidly, most of these projects are not coming forward at all if they don't think It's necessary. It's costly on the front end for them to go through the process to even ask. So they're not bringing forward projects that the market is there and they don't need the incentives. So it is highly likely that nearly, if not all, they'll come back with the but-for, but we're asking Plant Moran to evaluate the legitimacy of their numbers and assumptions and what they're presenting forward to make sure that it's grounded in market reality and what they're seeing and what they're knowledgeable about. So it is likely most of them would come back as affirming what the request is.

Back to the $10 million, actually back having a conversation about traffic, that Robbins Road, Fifth Street, Sheldon, whatever that is at that point, is a busy place. You get schools come get out of school and you're backed up. Was there a third party traffic?

Well, this is a planning commission thing that they've, in order to satisfy planning commission.

I was just curious if it was third party or if it was done through. Yes. Okay. So it was done. As third party, OK? There will be additional cost as the city has a new development in town. There's just more overhead with more residents. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I do think that that should be considered. When we're looking at an additional $10 million in tax incentives. So. That's all I have right now, I think. I think as an overall conversation, the part that I'll be beating a dead horse with is I really do believe we need to continue to look at this economic development policy. I would even consider, I don't know if this is something Lake Shore Advantage would do, but we have a partnership with them. I don't know if they've audited our economic development procedure or had another pair of eyes on it.

They have reviewed it. Sorry. I mean, yeah, they haven't audited it for the sense of, I think they've compared it to others. We've had the MEDC look at it as well and give input before it was presented to council. But I do want to follow up on your point and the work session that we had. We are working on changes to the incentive policies. So we're planning to funnel those through this summer to the EDC BRA, and then they would come before council. So we are working on that. We just haven't brought it back forward for you all.

I think that's all I have.

All right. Well.

Thank you.

In two weeks from now, we can ask for a deeper explanation to address some of your questions. Well, then that would be a good time for them.

Anyone else? No, I'm fine with what was presented. The only thing I find discouraging is these typically always start out with 80% AMI and the promise that we're going to have some of those. And it seems to be that as it gets closer to fruition, that goes up to 100 or 120. And then the next time it gets presented as well, it's not... affordable for us to do that at all. And they go by the wayside like they have in Peerless Flats and some of the other developments that we've had. So I would encourage you to do everything you can to keep at least in the 80 to 100% range I understand it may be a lower draw for people that are going to rent it, but I believe if you look at all of the information that's been provided to us, the 80% to 100% AMI seems to be where there's the largest pool of available people who are looking for affordable housing. It isn't in the folks who are looking for something more than that. It seems to be in that price range is a very large pool. So I don't think that's going to restrict you for finding people interested in renting those units. I think you'll find that there's probably quite a few of them who will want to. If it's anything like you know Robinson Landing where we had I mean we had a List I think the mayor could probably speak to it that was filled up in no time at all folks. We had 200 applications for 16 houses So I don't think you're gonna run into that problem, but I would just encourage you to continue to look at that and try to keep that Yeah, absolutely and

I'll say no question on the finding qualified tenants, absolutely. Lowering the rents to what's affordable for a household at those price points creates a sort of house of cards problem with the overall economics of the project without additional incentive. So that was the first option that we presented to you. That was our original request, was to do those 80% units, which requires more incentive to do that. That's an option that council could still pursue if it wanted to, and it works for the development team. But that's the trade-off, is a longer duration and a larger-sized incentive, because you're removing rent from the pro forma, and that needs to be replaced somewhere in order to have a project that's financeable.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, and that was the issue before the EDCBRA was that The larger request would have had 12 units at 80% AMI, 12 units at, 12 correct, 12 at 120, and that's actually a zoning requirement. The zoning required them to have those 24 units at least 120%, and they had said, well, we could make 12 of them at a lower percent, but it would require more incentive. And the EDCBRA thought that that was more in the interest of the city to go with option two, which is what's before us, which is why it's a smaller number.

Yeah, I wasn't, I read through that and I saw that. I just, the part of that I didn't like was the guarantee for lost income.

Adding that into there. I wasn't real keen on that one.

Well, that didn't make it. That didn't make the cut.

I'm sorry. Can I add one more point? I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Mayor. Just so I'm clear, the AMI number that we use, is that Ottawa County?

You mean what falls into 80% to 120% of AMI?

When we just use the word AMI, is that based on the numbers from the county, or is it based on... When we say in our budget for the year that we have an average median income of $60,669, that's not the number we're using, correct? It's probably the county's number?

Sorry, I think I'm getting turned around in what you're asking. I apologize.

Maybe you're following, Joe. So the Michigan State Housing Development Authority which is the state agency that also needs to approve this, establishes the AMI levels at the county level.

At the county level. Thank you. So actually, when I look at the income at the 100% AMI at the county, that's $79,600. And we have a lower average income in the city at $60,669. So even though all of this is per state and county, federal initiatives in reality 120 ami is probably closer to 145 ami for the city of grand haven which would mean that about 75 of our city would not be able to afford to rent one of these um units so

That's the math I get. If it's incorrect, I'm not.

It's just a concern. It's a concern that we use this as a marker for an incentive if it is not providing a specific value. I think there is a lot of value to this development. I genuinely do. I don't know that that is part of it.

All right, well. Thank you. We've given them a lot to think about. So when we come back in two weeks, they can respond better to your questions. Okay. That's the whole purpose of a public hearing. All right. So we have closed the public hearing and we've given some initial feedback from council and that's all we're going to do with this this evening. So we'll see this again on our next agenda. Okay. That brings us to our first item of new business.

Well, wait a moment while the audience leaves.

Well, I guess now you know. I guess.

I never do.

We were kind of talking up front before the meeting as to why we had such a large crowd and really didn't know.

All right. Okay, we've had a brief pause here. We've had some people leave.

We'll talk really close into my microphone. Item A, consideration by City Council of a resolution to approve a new event on Thursdays during the summer of 2026 for Grand Haven Free Fridays to host concerts in various city parks. Administration recommends approval.

Can I get a motion? So moved.

motion by fritz second by dora uh... brian would you like to explain this yes sir good evening city council brian jerose waterfront events manager for the city before you this evening is a request from community free fridays these are the organizers of grand haven free fridays at lynn sherwood waterfront stadium on fridays during the summer community free fridays would like to expand their community concerts to thursday nights at three different parks in town They're requesting approval to host three concerts at Central Park, two concerts at East Grand River Park, and one at Mullinans Hollow. These concerts require very little setup and only need access to power. As always, their concerts are free to attend and bring live music to Thursdays in Grand Haven.

Okay.

Any questions, comments? Good to go.

I love it.

The more music, the better for me. I enjoy music anyway, so...

I like the fact that you're showcasing our parks.

The old saying is music calms a savage beast, right?

Okay. And us too. That's us. Any other questions? Please call the roll.

Fritz?

Yes.

Dora? Yes. Calio? Yes. Manetza? Yes.

All right, next item, please.

Item B, consideration by city council of a resolution to amend the ordinance section 21-17 for bed and breakfast operations to modify the licensing inspection cycle from an annual renewal to a three-year rotation. Administration recommends approval.

Can I get a motion on this? So moved.

Second.

Okay, motion by Adora, second by Caglio. Let's see. Chief Hudson.

Good evening. We sure know how to clear a room, don't we?

We sure do.

Nicole Hudson, Director of Public Safety. So before you is a request to try to get the bed and breakfast on the three-year schedule for inspections and licensing, just like short-term rental. Bed and breakfast under the current City of Grand Haven ordinance is a lot stricter with those regulations, and we operate three within the City of Grand Haven, two of which have been around for and they have always been in compliant, very easy to work with, and from an administrative inspection all around operations, it will be easier to get them on the three-year cycle to match short-term rentals. The fees will not change. It'll just be a three-year renewal that we're asking for for the bed and breakfast.

Any questions? No, get them on the same schedule as everybody else. That's good. Makes sense to me.

I love initiatives like this that have proven history. That can be some kind of cost savings, continuous improvement activity. I think it's really great. So thank you.

Thank you. Okay, and just as a matter of procedure, this would be the first reading of an ordinance amendment. And so if we vote yes tonight, then we see it again at a future meeting, and then it would become actually an ordinance in itself to amend an ordinance. That's what we're doing tonight is the first reading. And I think the text of this amendment is in our packet for anyone who wants to read it. If there are no other questions, please call the roll.

Dora?

Yes.

Calio? Yes. Fritz?

Yes. Manetza? Yes. Next item, please. I see Chief Hudson has not moved.

Item C, consideration by City Council of a resolution to amend the ordinance section 9-203 of the City Code to increase the fines associated with violations of the rental registration and compliance requirements as written in section 9-201 Section 9-202, Section 9-205, and Section 9-206. Administration recommends approval.

Can I get a motion on this one? So moved.

Second.

Okay, motion by Fred, second by Calio.

Chief? All right, so before you is just an increase in the short-term rental fines. These fines have not been touched since 2009 and due to inflation, cost of enforcement, administrative cost, this is becoming an issue because the costs right now currently are not a deterrent in any way, shape, or form. And when you get a rental property that is not registered and hasn't gone through the proper safety inspections, it puts our citizens and visitors in danger. And so we are looking at trying to increase those fines to at least make them a deterrent instead of doing It's the cost of business by our current fine structure. We're hoping that these increase in fines will be more of a deterrent, bring short-term rentals into compliance, make them register, and then that way they are inspected for the safety of their tenants and our community. So we're looking for, as of right now, the fines is $250 for the first violation, $500 for a second, $1,000 for a third. That is the current fee schedule. Again, that has not been... So with this current, it's gonna be 1,500 for the first fine within a 36-month period, 2,500 for their second violation in a 36-month period, or 2,000, sorry, and then 2,500 for the third violation in a 36-month period, We did check with our city attorney to look at the fees, make sure that we are within our lawful parameters of what we can chart. And so that will be provided to you at the second reading. But we are within our parameter to be able to have that third violation at $2,500.

Is there a reason why we have and or suspension of certificate of compliance instead of simply saying and a suspension?

It's always nice to have options because if you do and, and it's going to be a requirement, and there's always going to be those outliers in situations that we don't want to bind our hands, that's necessarily we're going to do that. So it's nice to have that and to allow us a little bit more room for compliance.

Of course, by this time, this is their third violation.

Correct.

So I think they've had two strikes already. We can leave it this way. I just thought it would be a little more impactful if it's set and suspension.

Well, luckily, we can still suspend them, even the OR is in place. And so, again, that ties our hands to making sure that we are going to condemn them. And so, obviously, there's always outliers. So I'd hate to put something in there that doesn't allow this, that wiggle room for enforcement, and then all of a sudden, five years, that short-term rental uncompliance comes up, and then we don't have that word to give us some gray area. But I see what you're saying with that.

Well, sometimes predictability is pretty compelling as well. All right, so any other questions?

No, about time we raised it. To be honest with you, I've been trying for how many years now? I've been saying the same thing, but thank you very much for bringing it forward to us. I think it's about time. We need to keep moving forward with it even more.

I agree. I would like to see us offer a finder's fee for anybody that finds the people who aren't registered and brings the information to us. Give them 100 bucks or something.

And they get a cut?

Hopefully that would come out of the city budget, not DPS budget.

Well, I don't know. It's got to come out of this.

Well, luckily we have a full-time code enforcement officer who is a very hard worker. So we are excited to be very proactive with the amount of short-term rentals that are not registered. Good work.

Thank you.

I think our planning commission is working hard to keep the designation small in short-term rentals. So having... the other side of it, like you said, not just be part of their business strategy is important. So I appreciate it.

And I would like to point out that we can't use the word fees and fines interchangeably. These are fines. These are punishment.

Correct.

Whereas fees are... charges we make for services rendered, such as permits, inspections, and things, this is a punishment, and it's intended to be a deterrent. Correct. And so this should be an effective deterrent.

Hopefully. Okay.

Please call the roll.

Prince?

Yes.

Callio? Yes. Dora? Yes. Meneza?

Yes. And again, this is the first reading of an amendment to our ordinance. Because any time we do an amendment, it requires two readings, and this is the same process as any other ordinance adoption. And it will be properly formatted for next time. Okay, next item, please.

Item D, consideration by City Council of a resolution to amend Chapter 2, Administration, Section 2-178. Schedule of fines established within the City of Grand Haven ordinance. Administration recommends approval.

Can I get a motion?

So moved.

Second.

Motion by Doris, second by Callio. Chief?

All right, so this one before you, our fines for certain violations within our city ordinance have not been looked at in over 15 years. And due to the cost of operations, administrative enforcement, we took a look at different areas. We looked at Spring Lake Village, Spring Lake Township. Holland to look at their fines to make sure that when we look at trying to increase, we aren't going to outprice for the area. And we were pretty comparable. What we brought for you prior to that, we were very low. And obviously we classify our city or So with that chart, just as an example, different classes for the city of Holland, we don't have that. We strictly just have first, second, third violation. So before you tonight is just a proposal to show you we've got the first violation. in the proposed first new fine as well as the second and third violation. So it just allows us to re-look at the fine schedule from 15 years ago, try to bring it into current trends, but also make sure that we are to be fair and consistent, but also to make sure that those rising costs are justified with these fees. So when we get to the second reading, we are not proposing this chart to go into the city ordinance. This is just the easiest way to display that information for you all. So you could see what we currently have, what we're trying to propose, and also what the other municipalities.

Okay, thanks. Questions, comments? Looks good. Okay, keep us current and up to date. All right, call the roll, please.

Dora?

Yes.

Calio? Yes. Fritz? Yes. Manetza?

Yes. And that is our last item of due business. So at this point, I would open it up to report by city council. Who would like to go first?

I'll go first. I first wanted to say that it was such a pleasure to take part in the Memorial Day parade. And it was very moving, and I was very honored to be a part of it. And thank you to everyone who was involved. I also want to say congratulations to all of the graduates at Grand Haven High School, Central High School, and Grand Haven Cyber School. We're very proud of you as a town. I also want to congratulate the graduates in our neighboring communities, particularly my nephews from Spring Lake. And then tonight I want to speak briefly about what truly defines Grand Haven, specifically about a topic that was brought up this evening. the end of the day a town isn't its infrastructure it is its residents our guests and how we choose to treat one another we are neighbors and true neighborliness in an act is an active choice it is measured by how we care for one another how we protect one another and who we embrace in everything we do we are setting an example for the young people watching us let's commit to being a town where no one is left and where every single person feels safe, respected, and valued. We can do better, and I choose to believe that we will. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Mike? Yeah.

We all participated in the Memorial Day Parade. It was quite an honor. I've been doing it for, what, 22, 23 years. I've been a part of council here. But reading all the names and the people that were in there, you know, you look at them, and I can tell you that I probably knew over half of them myself personally. So as you go through that list, but as it gets older, the more and more you see them leaving us. Without them, we have no freedom. So I thank them very much for what they did for us. But also I have to agree with you, Sarah, is that we can't condone this kind of stuff happening in our town. What happened at Murphy was not Grand Haven. I'm telling you what, people have to step forward and they have to take us. We have to do this as a community. We have to work hard at it. And I thought in the last five, six years we've made great strides, you know, in going forward. And to have something like this happen is definitely uncalled for. And I really think the HRC and us together, we should be working on something and try and get out and stress that this is not what we're accepting. We're not going to accept this. It's definitely not for me. I'm tying on it, but it's not good. We need to do something as a council and also for our HRC and to get the word out there and tell people, hey, if you see something, whatever, Please report it. Let's stop it. Try and say something. We can't let that happen to our town. So it really bothers me. And no, Tigers, well, they find a way to lose. But it's okay, I guess. I was there when they had 100 and some losses before, so I'll be there again.

All right. Life goes on.

Life goes on. Oh, by the way, I want to say thank you to the Parks Department, Central Park. The flowers look beautiful in there, and the fountain's back up working again, so that's good. Our parks are looking great, so I want to say thank you for all their hard work.

Yeah, it does look nice. I participated in the Memorial Day events as well, and it is a somber reminder that freedom is truly not free. There are many that paid the ultimate price so that we may all live and enjoy the things we do on a daily basis. I'd like to thank the Legion and the Memorial Day Association for bringing those events to us and keeping those folks' thoughts in our minds. Harbor Island cleanup, spent the morning out there cleaning up all kinds of stuff. I'm not sure what even some of it was. Parts of it looked like they were from a Model A. I'm not sure what they were, but there's a lot of stuff out there. But we spent a day cleaning it up, a morning, and I think it looks better than when we were there. So certainly more to do, but it does look nice. And to echo the comments from Sarah and Mike, racism and treating people poorly or differently than anyone else is not an acceptable thing here. I understand we've been having some issues with some youth groups or groups of youth in our downtown area, creating problems in some other facilities as well. I can only encourage our public safety to stay on top of that and keep us suppressed of what is going on because it truly is not a city that we want to be. Other than that, I hope the Tigers win someday. I mean, I'm telling you, I'm having a hard time watching.

All right. Yeah, Memorial Day was a wonderful event. Well done, as it is every year. I appreciate it very much. On our city website, we have a mission statement, and it was written by the HRC, adopted by us, and placed on our website years ago. And these are words which are meaningful to us. I'll read it, but you can read it for yourselves anytime. City of Grand Haven respects, values, and celebrates the unique attributes, characteristics, and perspectives that make people who they are. The pillars of equity, diversity, and inclusion are vital to a vibrant community. We believe that bringing diverse individuals together and encouraging all voices to be heard allows us to build a stronger community. City of Grand Haven upholds these pillars as crucial to healthy people and healthy community. These aren't just words. These are a mission statement of the city. We take them to heart. I think it's a broad pattern of misbehavior going on. I think it's partly the racial part of it is not tolerable to us. We have to speak out against it, and when we find it happening, we have to take action as best we can. Other misbehavior, whether it's vandalism, whether it's disrespect, whether it's harder crimes, you know, public safety does as good a job as they can with the information they have. You know, they track these things down. When people see them in the public, then they bring them to our attention and we deal with them. So these aren't just words. These are words that we live by. This is our intent as a community. I think that we need to keep that in mind. It's on our website here. We mean it. And sometimes you're limited in just how far you can go with trying to make people see things in a sympathetic and compassionate manner. We keep trying, and we will keep trying. And we stand beside those who are offended, oppressed, or put down in any way. So it's just who we are as a community. I don't think I can add much more to that, so I'll pass it off to Ashley.

Thank you. And I don't have necessarily anything. And just to, again, reiterate our commitment to inclusivity and safety, I'd just defer my comment to Chief Hudson to quick update on that incident.

Chief Hudson, Public Safety Director. So we are aware of the incident, as unfortunate as it is. investigating everything thoroughly. We have identified the subjects. We are going to let the criminal justice system work its way out. And with that, we are continuing to work with our partners for the commitment of making sure everybody is treated here equally in the city of Grand Haven. Whether or not you're a citizen, a resident, a tourist, visitor, juvenile, adult, senior citizen, you are all one and equal here at So we have road patrol that is well aware of the destruction that is being done downtown. So be on the lookout for extra patrol. Be on the lookout for potentially people that don't necessarily look like officers. Because we need to be visible. We need to be present in a positive way to try to be proactive, but also continue to build those relationships to make sure everybody is safe within this community. So again, just know that we are committed to the safety and we'll do whatever we can to continue to make sure that city of Grand Haven is not defined by this one moment.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chief. Hey, Bob. Yeah, can I have just one thing I want to say? I was brought to my attention by one of my neighbors. He is in a wheelchair and stuff like that. He says e-bikes. These things are driving everybody nuts around town, and is there anything we can do to get the legislators to finally put them down as a motorized vehicle? And is there anything we can do to help regulate them? Because it's very hard, somebody in a wheelchair, and they're so quiet when they come, and they come flying up behind them, and it's very unstable for them. He brought that to my attention last night, and also, I've been hearing about how they've been going through Mulligan's Hollow and stuff with them and they're tearing everything up because they got extra power. It's not a pedal bike, it's got assisted power. Is there anything we can do to our legislators or we have to do to get some kind of regulation on those things because they classify them as a bike but if you see them go through town, they're on their back wheel and they're doing everything else and they're doing 31, they're supposed to be only 31 but some of them you can juice them up to about 40 some miles an hour real quick.

Yeah. And we do continue to have a dialogue internally about that and chief Hudson may be able to provide more insight, but that also doesn't necessarily also lean into the fact that these things are, they're, currently being driven where wheels aren't permitted in the first place. So whether that be the boardwalk or certain parks. So we do encourage people to call the non-emergency number dispatch to have us at least be aware of these incidents. That way we can do a little bit more on the side of a directed patrol to make sure we're catching them. in the act in real time when they're on wheels where they shouldn't be. Again, that's the electric bike piece aside. I'm not as well-versed as maybe Chief Hudson might be. She's looking at me nervously.

I know that when scooters were the big thing starting out, you always had to get a tag. You still got to get a tag for the back. I'm going to get them registered. Is there anything we can do to get to legislate? We can get numbers on them or whatever, a tag, and have them go through it. If they're young, have them go through a training class like they used to do for scooters. You had to go get a training for them. I remember that when I was younger.

Yeah, this is something that every municipality is beating their heads against the wall. And so we are looking at what type of ordinance that we can pass to reduce the amount of behaviors that are being done on these bikes, but also not law-abiding citizens that are using the e-bike. And there's three different classifications with e-bikes. And so try to determine if it's a class three and how old that person is. I mean, they have rights as well in terms of detaining them. It's a tricky situation that we're in. A lot of municipalities are now just saying no wheeled vehicles that are self-propelled on anything. And I have seen a lot of municipalities pass that. But you're looking at no bikes on sidewalks, no bikes on boardwalks. And so at some point, we've had the continuous conversations To see if that's something that we can do here. Obviously, again, we do directed patrol with our patrol officers to catch them in the act when they are doing the wheelies and everything else, because that takes it to a whole new level of being reckless. And so, again, we continue to have those ongoing internal communications and we're all. what everybody else is doing, what the legislators are doing. And we're hoping at some point there is something else. But this also starts at home. People are buying these children bikes. There's a reason why there's three different levels. And so we just ask that also at home have those conversations because they are not as safe as what people would think.

Thank you.

Thank you.

How's that? Good OK. Anything else from Ashley?

Nothing, thank you.

That brings us to our second call to the audience. This time is the audience may address call on any item, whether on the agenda or not. Please give us your name, your address and let me speak into three minutes.

Hi, I'm Cindy Cashmere, 815 Verhooks, Grand Haven. I'm a former owner of downtown Grand Haven, and the snow melt, you know, I was here to talk about the kids, but that caught my attention, so I'm gonna first address that. As a former downtown owner, The snowmelt bill that came to us each year was always difficult for small businesses to pay. And so I agree that as a business owner, they choose to be in those first three blocks. It's a benefit to them to have a business there. But maybe a smaller percentage, maybe even 25%, because so many people use that sidewalk all winter long. Our running club does. I do it with my dog. All of my friends do it. And we do it so we don't slip and fall, and we get our exercise, and we do our loops. So I also agree that I think all the residents of townships should somehow pitch in and pay for that snowmelt. If we can't figure that out and or you still are sending a bill to the businesses, maybe change the date of when it's sent. When I had my business, it seemed as though I received the invoice at the beginning of the summer. We haven't even made our income yet for that year. We're barely surviving in the winter. And if we could get that bill September 30th, we would have the resources to more easily pay the invoice. Just a suggestion. Secondly, I'm wondering about these misbehaving kids. I have been downtown because I owned a business. I will stop the kids if I see them on skateboards in the first three blocks. They almost run you down. And I'll go, wait, wait, wait. Time out. Slow down. Really? You shouldn't be on the sidewalks right now. There are signs. And they're belligerent. They swear at you. They call you horrible names. I've had friends who say, you know, it's inappropriate language and they just swear at you even more so somehow we have to take ownership of our town back and When my kids were young they behaved like that. They got more chores maybe we need to make them work for the city if they get caught and You know make them have some sweater could be in our town make them be better community members So just an idea And let's see here, our graduating class, so I'm gonna put my board hat on, 89 academic achievers this year, 4.25 average GPA, amazing. And our teachers do an amazing job, and I don't think we say that often enough. It's amazing what they accomplish. I viewed Rosie Mound today. That school is so crowded, you cannot believe it. If I had to take music class there, I would be claustrophobic and I'd have to run out of that room. It's crazy. So we have to get our bond passed. And also there's exciting things happening at Lakeshore Middle School. They're starting a MIRA program, manufacturing and engineering. It's gonna start this fall. We need $175,000. Thanks. Thank you.

Everyone else? All right, if no one else wants to speak, and if there's no further business, then we are adjourned. Thank you.