City Commission - Special Meeting

U.S. Open for chess is happening in Grand Rapids this week. Really? Really. It's day three, so you've missed the first two days of round robin.

But it goes through Sunday.

You have time. Down at DeVos Center. I'm going to go this afternoon. Are you? There's like tons of nerds.

Can I remind we're live?

I'm okay with that. I'm also a nerd. I'm going. I play. They are so much better than me. Go to an over-the-board chess thing. Like, I'm self-calling myself out here.

Is there, like, an audience? Yeah.

They have the boards up on the wall. No pressure. Like, projected, at least for the big games.

You have cheering sections? Big people.

I bet it's very quiet. I bet it's a lot of mumbles.

Ooh. What kind of clang do I have? The crowd goes murmur. God, this is bad.

I'm going to go check it out. It could be cool. Bobby Fischer won that back in the day. Yep.

We've got all kinds of humor before 8 in the morning right now.

website is down race car um just like the agenda section like planning commission so this is the commission youtube is like in the woods and then you wake up at like eight in the morning do these things going okay it's eight o'clock in the morning welcome everyone call this meeting to order if everyone can please stand and join us in saying the pledge of allegiance

one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. The agenda item this morning is to consider a resolution to correct a technical error to the parking deck bond resolution. That introduction is by Manager Charles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And first of all, thank you, Mayor and Commissioners, for being here this morning. Last minute meetings are not my thing to do normally, but we had a unique opportunity just to correct literally a number in the adopted resolution. As I noted in my memo, the resolution that was adopted Monday night was in the second paragraph on page two of the, in the millage language itself, was supposed to say 0.4925, the resolution that was adopted had been drafted said 0.44925. Been talking to attorneys more in the last two days than I've ever wanted to, but that while it is not a fatal flaw, we have an opportunity to be able just to do the simple technical correction. Kind of corollary experiences, Sparta Township had a library millage on actually Tuesday's ballot that was missing a word, And it still went under the county clerk has confirmed because we passed the resolution on Monday the previous language Unless amended by the Commission is going on the ballot as so all that said talking to Roger sweats our bond council that while it's not a fatal flaw, we have an opportunity to correct. So we're just asking for approval of a quick approval of the corrected motion. Both the city attorney and bond counsel has thoroughly reviewed this version to make sure that we don't have to ever do this on this again. So it is ready for consideration.

So essentially we are here to correct a typo?

A typo, yes.

Are there any questions for Manager Charles on this agenda item?

Okay.

Hearing none, we will go to a motion and a second to approve this agenda item and this typo change.

Move to approve the corrected resolution authorizing ballot proposal for parking facility bonds for up to $9 million for the November 3rd, 2026 election.

Second. Okay. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Opposed?

No.

Okay. I abstain.

Abstain as well. We missed comments, though.

Public comments, we're going to take at the end of that.

Our comments. We went straight to a vote.

Oh, you'd like to talk about this? Sure, absolutely. Sorry. So you can now state your comments. The motion has passed, but you can now make your comments.

I would just like to state that, you know, trust in public officials and public bodies is a paramount principle. when we received a last-minute 20-page document on Monday and were told unequivocally that we could not find time for a special meeting later in the week to have time to digest and then come back and discuss that does not help our desire and our ability to build trust. And so I'm disappointed in that process.

Thank you. Commissioner Hunter, you wanted to make comments?

Just a quick explanation on my abstention from the vote. It's due to my occupation as a financial advisor, i.e. an SEC registered representative. The licenses I hold restrict me from having a vote as a public official in any capacity where creation of municipal securities, in this case municipal bonds, are voted on by this body. This could involve me profiting from the placement of these bonds inside of my clients' portfolios and a clear conflict of interest exists.

So you are abstaining due to a conflict of interest? Correct. Which is according to the Commissioner handbook. Commissioner Groff, why are you abstaining? Do you have a conflict of interest as well?

No, and that is not the only reason that someone can abstain per that same handbook. I have abstained both today and on Monday because it was not provided ample time to talk to my constituents about the proposed language.

Mr. Hough, according to our commissioner handbook, the reason to abstain is due to a conflict of interest, correct?

That is what the city handbook says, yes.

My reading of that same handbook says that our rules of order are Robert's rules of order. And I believe the statement in the handbook is that commissioners are expected to vote. I don't believe, and it gives conflict of interest as an example, but I don't believe that that language makes that an exhaustive list of reasons, especially given that our rules of conduct are Robert's Rules of Order.

Robert's Rules of Order also explains that each commissioner has a duty to vote.

But it also says that they have the ability to abstain, and it does not require an explanation that everyone else accepts.

Would it be prudent for the clerk to make notes that Commissioner Grofblazek has abstained in violation of the commission handbook?

I can make that note.

Thank you.

I don't believe that we have established that and I would be in opposition to that.

Thank you.

I will note that as well. Thank you. May I make an additional comment?

Yes. I just wanted to address the point about holding a special meeting and I'm I completely hear that, hear that criticism. I'd also point out that we all made about 15 minutes this morning available to have this meeting at 8 o'clock, which is not a time when residents can engage. You know, we came into Monday's meeting having had the packet and the language that any of us could have come to that meeting with edits to. Um, and, and some of us did. And so while completely understanding, like we don't, we all said we didn't have time for a special meeting. This is not the special meeting time slot that would have been appropriate to dig into discuss thoroughly and revise, because as most of us have said, coming into this, we have about 15 minutes and that would not be adequate. And, um, you know, thank you to everyone for making the time. this morning before our lives to be here. As I'm blinded, I'm sorry.

Would anyone else care to make some comments?

Sure, I'd love to comment. Yeah, good morning. I want to begin by reiterating something that I said in our last meeting because I think it's important. My no vote today should not be interpreted as an opposition to allowing residents to vote. I believe deeply in the democratic process, and when the city presents a clear, well-developed proposal, I absolutely believe our residents should have the opportunity to decide. Now, my concern has never been about the public's right to vote. My concern is whether we've reached to the point where we're ready to ask them to vote. And today's special meeting actually reinforces that concern. We're here because the ballot resolution adopted just a few days ago contained an error that now requires us to revisit it. Now mistakes happen and I appreciate staff's transparency and bringing this back so quickly, but it also illustrates my broad concern that we're moving faster than the information allows. There are still important questions that remain unanswered. Do the schools have the financial capacity to be an equal partner in this project? How will the students' safety and public access be managed in a shared parking structure? Will the operation design actually encourage students to use the structure or will they continue parking on the surrounding neighborhoods streets? And how do the recently added references to micromobility infrastructure fit into the overall project scope and the question we've been asking our residents to approve? These aren't minor details. They're fundamental questions that directly affect both the feasibility of the project and the value our taxpayers would receive. Before asking residents to authorize up to $9 million in public debt, I believe we have a responsibility to answer those questions first. If we do that work and we develop a clear proposal with a well-defined partnership, I would welcome putting that before our voters. But I don't believe we're there yet. For me, this isn't just a vote against parking structure. This isn't a vote against partnering with our schools, and it certainly isn't a vote against letting our residents decide. It's a vote for making sure that before we ask taxpayers to make an important financial decision, we've done the work necessary to give them a complete picture of what they're being asked to support. So for those reasons, that's why I said no. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Would anyone else care to comment? Commissioner Skaggs? Commissioner Burdick? Okay, then at this time we can open it up to public comment if anyone is here joining us to make public comments Now is the time to do so Miss Berman welcome Absolutely.

Well, hi, I'm Ann Berman. I live right near the high school and I know nine lakeside I'm opposed to this parking structure completely one the new school addition is on this end of the school and Two, we already have a parking issue on this end of the city that I hear about daily as the unique role that I also work here in the city. I also hear about people wondering how to lower our taxes as they pay them. And as a resident of 30 years who's deeply affected by the parking around the school on the streets, I live a half a block from the high school, You're going to have the kids coming in the front entrance. They're not going to park in a parking garage. Plenty of residents brought up other issues, safety. And with the homeless population encroaching on our community because they feel safe, that's a prime spot for them to take up residence. So I think that we don't even need to ask the taxpayers to vote. This is a bad idea. Thank you. Thank you.

Seeing as there's no one else here to make public comment, we will close public comment and this meeting is adjourned.