City Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah, that's the amendment.

All good. because otherwise you're ready. I'm ready. Bought six now. Ready. Council ready.

I call to order the city council meeting for February 16th, 2026. I ask that you rise with me for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. 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.

Miss Beck, would you please call roll for us? Present. Present. Ntrab here. Walker present. Murphy

present. Next is the consent agenda and it's a February 2nd 2026 regular session city council meeting minutes as well as acknowledge a receipt of certain administrative transactions that have occurred since February 2nd, 2026. Please also acknowledge a receipt of the January 2026 revenue and expenditures report. Also, uh, if you wish to have questions on this, we can take this out. Otherwise, leave it in. And it's the approval of the Bayfront Water Fireworks display permit for July 4th, 2026, as well as approve of private Bay Harbor Fireworks display permit for August 8th, 2026. Council, do you have questions, comments, or a motion? Mr. more.

I do have a constituent question relative to item E, the private Bay Harbor fireworks display. Okay. And you have a question? Sure. I didn't know if you wanted to bump it out of the cons agenda. Would you like to take it out of the consent agenda? It doesn't matter to me. I can present the question now. It's up to council if you wanted to pull it out, council. Huh?

Feel free to present it right now. Okay. Um, the constituent's question relative to E was, "Are there a yearly cap on private requests such as this or are these apps just granted as long as all requirements are met?" I think she's probably looking toward the potential where you could, I guess, be have a number of these requests. So, I'm going to ask city manager Horn to define what's what's involved with the private Bay Harbor fireworks display question. and uh how we handle permits. Thank you.

So, we haven't been consistent with this um on both sides. I think we finally have instructed uh Bay Harbor uh folks, the in at Bay Harbor uh Bay Harbor Company when there's a event that has commercial grade fireworks, we do need to sign off as uh the local municipality. So, they are aware of that now. I think going forward there should be no surprises. Um going forward we have to submit this on to the state. Uh the the local governing body, you know, signs off on that, approves it. As far as a cap, I don't know of any sort of cap. Uh that's really up to the discretion of of you all. If you wanted to um you know, not approve something if if it's getting a little too much. Um, I think we last year we only had one I believe and and maybe council member Noctra you can fill us in on on that but there was one that we did not get to permit which came out as a surprise. We our public safety went out um and we had a few complaints regarding that. So going forward I think we have a good mechanism now to make sure that that doesn't reoccur. Um yeah, but we would be responsible as the entity to to

fulfill any sort of no noise um ordinance violations. Obviously, Resort Township does the zoning for Bay Harbor. So, if there's any sort of special event permit, that would come from Resort Township. But ultimately, we would be responsible to to go out and address any sort of ordinance violations, noise. Um, you know, we we've had cases where the music at Bry was a little too loud and so we would get noise complaints. We handle those, public safety handles those. So, this would be very similar. As far as a cap, I don't really know how many to expect. Um, but we can kind of see how that proceeds.

What is the process if I want to have fireworks in my backyard? What do I have to do? Just fill out a sheet of paper and turn it in? I mean, is there a fee? Who monitors it? Is there a time schedule?

We get no, the city gets no fee on on this process. Um there's by ordinance you are allowed a certain number of days to shoot off fireworks. Obviously the reason why this is a a permitted process is because it's outside of those um those days and it's this is commercial grade um fireworks. So So this permit is a kind of a permit that's provided by the state. We we there's a section for us to fill out and so we sign that submit it on to the state and then this is a um a barge is involved. So the Coast Guard is also involved and permits that um as well in this case. So

again, so can I get a permit to do fireworks in my backyard? I mean is it permissible? I mean, if you're having like an event or just a party, not without us signing off on it. And how do we determine what we sign off for? That's this body's decision. That's what we need to make some decisions in the future, Mr. Moore. Yeah. Can I just ask a quick follow-up question, please?

And maybe Shane, um, with due respect, you you haven't been here any longer than I have, so I don't know. Maybe Sarah knows. We ever had a request like this before from a private entity for a commercial display?

Not not since I've been here. Obviously, there was one that shot off um we got a number had a number of complaints. So, we're trying to stay ahead of those this time so folks will know if this is approved and we can put it on our website or whatever. So folks with pets that um are prone to loud noises and things like that can can make sure that they're addressed sufficiently. But if this is approved, we can always put that on our website the night of I forgot the date, August 8th. Um fireworks will be going off between 9:30 and 10:30 or whatever the time frame is. So we can kind of let residents know about that. Mr. knob trap.

Uh, you know, I got a little bit involved in this from the the one that happened this summer. Um, and it was there's been some confusion. Uh, you know, I think one of the questions I have is when Tina asked about private, I mean, isn't aren't they all technically private? The city isn't actually doing it on the July 4th. Isn't it the application is under the Rotary Club or something? So, I'm I'm I'm wondering what the difference between public and private is. What's the difference between a wedding or the Bay the Bay Harbor Yach Club or I'm a little confused about that. But from what I've gathered this summer, there was some confusion as to who was reporting place to go because I I personally got involved in this a little bit and they didn't know that they were supposed to come to the city. They thought that was just a resort township. And then I got in when I saw this on the agenda for tonight, I got involved again to try to head this off so that nobody was complaining. And and there it's the same issue is that there are rules on this insurance. There's got to be insurance. There's got to be safe distances.

Putting in your backyard doesn't seem to be anything nearly as safe as putting it out in a barge somewhere properly done. Commercial people do it. These guys have been doing it for years and years. So it seems like there's rules already established on it. Yeah. But this time we're all following we in Bay Harbor. We we uh in Bay Harbor are trying to do it the right way. No one's trying to Are you a part of this? You say we are part. Is this part you? No, I meant because I tend to represent Bay Harbor a lot of times. And I know all the people. I know the the guy who's doing it for the wedding on August 8th. I knew the people who did it last year. It's a small little neighborhood over there. Mr. Moore. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Wnner. Go ahead,

Mr. Moore. Um, I personally don't have any problem moving this forward. I mean, I looked at their perimeter. Their perimeter is 450 ft. Ours in the city is 350. Um, they have shells that are a little bit bigger. 6 in are 5 in. Their bond is 5 million. Ours is 10 million. I don't have a problem moving this forward. I just want to kind of have it on our radar that if we're setting some kind of precedent that you know we just have that on our radar going forward should we receive

and hopefully the precedent is if you are going to shoot fireworks off commercial grade you need to go through us and so there's no no more of this you know Saturday night uh firework display without us knowing about it and without you all knowing about it and then we can notify residents of that as well. Um, same thing with July 3. Every year now they'll have to go through the same process and they're working on that right now. Um, what is the time on the Bay Harbor private one? They must have a time that they 9:30 p.m. Yeah, I think it's 9:30 start. Approximately 9:30 I think till 10 is what they listed. It was only like a half hour to 45 minutes.

Mr. Wilmont. Well, I was pretty shocked to see this request in here. Um, particularly shocked to see it in the consent agenda. And so, I went back and I looked at the ordinance, which was updated in 2019, as you may recall, Mr. Mayor. Uh, and the restrictions that are put on fireworks in the ordinance, I thought applied to all fireworks. In in point of fact, it only refers to retail fireworks shot off by individuals. Uh, and there are five dates, I believe five, maybe six, and time frames in which they're allowed to shoot off. And frankly, I was very content with that to be the limitation of fireworks displays. But there is another paragraph in the ordinance that says that associations or groups of individuals could submit an application to shred off commercial grade or actually they call it displaygrade fireworks uh with the local municipality. It's both a state uh law and it's also incorporated into the updated 2019 ordinance. So, I was surprised to see that and I think we are establishing a precedent that groups can decide to petition the city to shoot off fireworks at dates and times that are not previously authorized in the ordinance uh for individuals. And I have some concerns with that. uh and establishing that precedent uh with this request opens us up to a broad series of requests uh and that is in accordance with the way that the ordinance is currently written but again I want to register my concern of that

I don't know about precedence because city council can can determine different uh parameters individuals that can qual etc. We have the we have the ability to change any of that without worrying about precedents. I don't believe. Allow me to clarify. We're establishing a precedent that we are open to accepting these applications. Mr. Moore.

Well, and I would just say that when you say yes to one private party and there again we can talk about private versus public. um you do in a sense set up a precedent and it it depends. Yes, you're absolutely right. if they want to do it at 11:00 in the morning or something. Um, but I think it's important to again have on our radar going forward.

We can revisit this and we have the opportunity as city manager Horn stated, we as council have have the have the prerogative to set standards and to set up accept or what parameters that we feel we want to work with with with individuals. So, it's it's up to city council Mr. Knob Trap.

And I'm I'm great with all that. I I think having some standard of safety and and all that is is probably the most important thing. Uh noise is a consideration. I'm a little reluctant as I'm sensing that we can kind of pick and choose. It would seem to me that we ought to set up a policy regardless of where it is and who it is and what it is. If it's I mean fireworks are cool and and they're nice and as long as they're properly done in a safe manner, I don't see the big deal about it.

I think time constrictions uh restrictions of times I I think I know the one at Bay Harbor went on for an hour and I got calls from people and I could understand why when it was at the hours of the night that they were. So to say, you know, I think there is some concerns and I think city council should revisit this, set it up on the on the agenda for the future and take a look and decide what do we want for our citizens in the city of Paskki which includes Bay Harbor. Mr. Mr. Wilmont,

I would agree with that. Um and I would be reluctant uh to approve this at this time before consideration of that policy. Um because I do think we are if we if we approve this then we're saying we don't need a policy to approve these going forward. We already have a policy. I believe that's the process. Is that correct Mr. Horn? We already have a polish. No, no. I meant in terms of whether or not we would accept um applications for fireworks displays outside of the existing dates that are specified in the ordinance. Now I would

agree with you on some of that. I I believe what we've also what we have set for a presidents now should be respected until at which time it's changed. I I I feel you know I'm not thrilled about listening to fireworks on uh August 8th at 10:30 at night. But at the same point, if we have already have in place a measuring stick for this, I feel we need to honor it. If we want to come afterwards and change our parameters on this, then I think we should do that. But I think this one has been followed through with what we're supposed they're supposed to do. Like it or not, they've followed through and they're doing what they're supposed to do for this. And I I have trouble refusing it. knowing that we have already set up a policy and they've gone and did the homework. They've have the the uh Coast Guard, they have the involvement with Bay Harbor, with Resort Township, they've already been doing this to to meet what we asked for. I don't think it's fair to pull the rug out from whoever without having a better policy. Mr. Mr. Moore,

did I miss though what the policy is? I mean, I guess I was hearing we've got a a procedure that we follow. It's an ordinance. We have an ordinance. That's what you were referencing.

The ordinance doesn't specify the policy in terms of bonds and all of that kind of thing. What it says is that applications by associations or groups of individuals may be addressed to public safety for review. That's all the ordinance says. Well, they have a policy of following, I'm sure, on what the state fireworks ordinance is for size, uh, distance away from buildings, traffic. I know traffic and roadway is a is a situation with our Miss Mr. Wilmont.

Yeah. And I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but there are on the one hand a lot of people a lot of people love fireworks, but there are a lot of people that don't love fireworks. And in honor of some of those uh people that are veterans, for instance, that may have issues with fireworks going off and pet owners that have issues with fireworks going off. I would hate to get to a point where we're just saying anybody that wants to and can pay for a commercial display can submit their application to the city and arrange a date and a time to do it uh outside of the specific defined dates that are currently in the ordinance for normal individuals. So, um, I would suggest that

you and I think we should revisit this as city council. If we want to change the parameters on what we're looking for for fireworks, we should, but this falls within the parameters that were adopted. Um, Mr. Nobra, I I I agree with you, Mr. Mayor. Um, it it's for me it's about a a safety issue and if we want to revisit a policy or get it more defined, we ought to do that. I I see no reason not to go ahead with this application as presented and immediately if we're going to do any changes, let's immediately put that on the on a radar and and look at the policy.

I concur. Anybody else? Miss Walker? Um, other than maybe we should pull these out of the consent agenda and vote on them individually, both the city's requests for the fireworks display as well as the permit for the August 8th event. Do I have a motion to pull those two out of the consent agenda to put them on as a line item for uh under new business? Yes, I'll make a motion. Do I have a second? I support. So, I have a motion from Miss Walker, a second from Mr. Knobro to pull out. No,

sorry, Miss Mr. Wilmont. Uh, to pull out D and E, which is the Bayfront uh park fireworks display for July 4th, as well as the Bay Harbor fireworks display for August 8th. Then we'll move that uh if if supported we'll move that to new business which will come after what old business I guess after old business. Miss Walker mayor I have a question about um the check register.

Wait, wait, wait. I need a motion to move that change the agenda. Any other comments or questions about moving that? So they already was Walker moved to pull them both out. Yes. Oh separately. Yes. To new visits and Wilmont second. Second motion to second. So could you do all in favor? Do a roll. Walker. Yes. Wilmont. Yes. Mr. Nay. Deore. Ian Murphy.

I me motion put passes for one. So we will pull that and put both of those D and E under following old business. Okay. Now I'm looking for a motion for A, B, and C, which is the uh administrative report, uh, council minutes and expenditures. I have a question before I make a decision. Thank you. Um, so on the check register on page 12, hang on. Let everybody get page 12. Okay.

And then there's another another line item further on page 15, but is it safe to assume that the $41,000 acred by Dungo Excavating is just for snow removal services from the downtown area to the Standish Road gas station dumping area. That depends on the account number it's being charged to. Dunle also helps us during um water mane breaks excavating uh for those but depends how it's how it's classed. Um it looks it does appear most of those are hauling of of snow whether it's parking lots downtown. Um,

do you want the accounts for you know what, Shane? I can follow up with a with Audrey with those numbers specifically to get my drill down answer. I'm I'm fine with that. Yeah, if you have a specific one, I do have the chart of accounts. So, if you have all the uh Yeah, the contracted services vary and it's there's many of them. So, I don't want to I just I noticed I did the tally and I was assuming it was for the removal of snow from downtown parking lots to the Standish A Avenue Oil. In fact, there's four or five counts. There's four count numbers.

Yeah. I mean, it's downtown, it's streets, it's um if it's obviously utilities, that's another line item. So, we can certainly get you all those breakdowns. But most of it likely is hauling snow. Thank you. And then can I ask another perpial question to that? And in terms of like how we budget for that annually, would that be snow removal services allotted to the downtown management board or to DPW depending on what pot of money those would come from.

Yeah. like if it's h if they're hauling downtown that's obviously charged to downtown management budget in their in their um um for their meeting tomorrow I was looking through their packet last year at this time they spent 63,000 this year it's 98,000 so that kind of tells you and we're seeing the same thing in the streets um it's it's obviously been more of a um maybe a little bit more than a traditional year from from that standpoint so It's yeah, a little heavier. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wilmont,

uh quick question. On page 18 of the tech register, uh there are three transactions totaling approximately uh uh $8,000 for Paskki Land and Cattle. And I'm curious to know the nature of those expenses. That was a duplicate tax payment. Um, let me see. Oops. Yeah, it was a refund for a tax overpayment. Thank you.

Y I move for acceptance of the content consent agenda as amended. Support most of Mr. Wilmont, second from Mr. De Moore. Any other comments council? I go to Miss Beck for roll. Wilmont. Yes. Moore. I. Walker. I. No. Trab I. Murphy.

I. Next is the opportunity for public comment. If there's something on the agenda that you feel you can stay for and present at that time or comments, that would be great. Otherwise, you have the opportunity to address council now. You'll go to the podium. Make sure it's on green. You'll have an opportunity to speak to council. Give us your first your full name. And the other part of it is is you're going to address council. You're not going to address the audience. Does anyone wish to speak? Please. I I can't stay for your next um discussion on this. Christine Gabard. There you go.

Christine Gabard, 618 East Mitchell Street. So, this is relative to the winter sports park and I just wanted to make my first comment to say um that I would not expect nor encourage the council to approve general funds for improvements at the winter sports park. Knowing the I shouldn't say general funds, fund balance. Um, as a retired CEO and knowing the importance of having a healthy fund balance, I would encourage you to save those dollars for unexpected expenditures. Um, the winter sports park is unique in that it is designed for winter sports. I know that now there is a daycare being held um at the Winter Sports Park and when people like myself go walking, we're told we can't walk there because of the daycare center. So, while daycare is an important um benefit that the city can provide, I think that access to a public park is really important for all citizens. Um, I think improving the park, um, adding the tow line, improving the hockey rink, um, improving the facility for ice skating and the bathrooms and and all of that is uh, a worthwhile endeavor for the city. But there are many parks for citizens to use throughout the community. Um, and it's nice to have this one park that is focused on winter activities. So, I would encourage you to think carefully about spending um three, four, $5 million to improve that for a year- round facility, especially if in that instance citizens are not allowed to go there in the summer because of the daycare center. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak counsel at this point?

My name is Jennifer Benbo. I am here representing my mother who is a Paskki resident. Um my mom is an Srigley. She's at 510 Harvey Street. She's a resident of Paskki for 50 years, an educator in the public schools of Paskki for 30 years. Her children, grandchildren, and students have enjoyed the winter sports park from sledding and skiing to speed skating and figure skating lessons. U it's a valuable community asset with its varied activities that should be preserved for future generations. Having said that, she doesn't believe that the elaborate planned upgrades are necessary to maintain the winter sports park's value for the community, particularly when we don't have $4 million to make these upgrades. The intended use of the city's emergency fund, she believes, is for unexpected emergency needs, such as the recovery activities from last year's ice storm. Maybe the city should revisit the results of the community survey, which seemingly was completed after the winter sports park plans were created, not before. Listen to what the community says it needs rather than wants for the winter sports park and develop an action plan for reasonable upgrades to the park such as a ski hill receiving bowl, a magic carpet to replace the tow rope, as well as accepting offers from knowledgeable, experienced community members such as Mr. Russell and Mr. Mson to continue to make it a valuable asset to the community that the city can afford without dipping into funds that weren't intended for that use. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak council?

We'll move on. I'm going to go to city manager reporting to city manager horn. Would you please take the lead? Thank you, mayor. Um, want to highlight a few meetings this week that are on our schedule tomorrow night in the community room. The downtown management board as well as the downtown development authority will have a a meeting that's in the community room tomorrow at 6:00. Uh, the planning commission also meets this week at their normal um date. Uh, be Wednesday at six o'clock in the community room as well. wanted to really highlight uh and thank all of our um staff that were part of our winter wonderland weekend. Uh Missy and Amy downtown. Um and then our our park staff, Ed and um Tyler and JT and Dave at the Winter Sports Park. Um just a wonderful weekend of activities. uh got to see the annual bump jumping competition which was really uh neat to see um as well as all the 40 or so uh ice sculptures around town. So I know that the sun um and ice the ice sculptures didn't uh go well together sometimes it uh prematurely melted in some cases but it was a wonderful event. I would encourage folks to go to our downtown management, our downtown Paskki Facebook page. All of the the sculptures are there. Um and just did a a great job. So, it was a wonderful weekend. Um my wife and I actually the mayor reached out to me uh yesterday and said, "You might want to run out to the break wall and and and see the form ice formation." So, my wife and I, that's the picture all the way to the right. um uh kind of took some pictures along the break wall and just the the neat ice formations

that were out there. That was really impressive. Um so just a a great weekend to really enjoy uh our winter season. Wanted to highlight and I know um Abbott is on the line I believe as well. Abbott McCartney. Um um he presented at our art commission meeting last week and and this is now a a something we can we can uh push out publicly. Um we will have a private um art display in front of the dancer professional building uh later this uh summer. Um the week of June 15th. We'll have a number of activities that week to highlight. Um this is a monument to the passenger pigeon and the history of the passenger pigeon in our region. Uh Abbott um is u installing this display. One of the the sculptor is Todd McGraine. He has an actual uh display at the Smithsonian in in Washington. So, we will have our own uh monument uh for the passenger pigeon in front of the dancer professional building as was presented to the art commission um last week. So, kind of look forward to the to the June 15th, the week of June 15th. The actual display will be um on June 19th will be un unveiled on Friday, June 19th. But that week, we'll have a number of activities around the community to talk about the history of the passenger pigeon in our region. So, uh, thank you Abbott for, um, for your, um, investment in our community, continued investment in our community. We're excited to see that move forward. Um we've had a at the winter sports park, our youth advisory uh council was uh present and provided

um some games for um folks to participate in a little photo booth um some face painting. Uh I don't know, Council Member Deore if you want to kind of pig piggyback on some of that those activities. I know you were there. Yeah, we also have two members that were there as well, Eliza Roger and Ana Peek. I think they're in some of the pictures. Um, so yeah, there was just a toss thing there to win suckers and face painting and a photo booth and uh they had quite a few customers. I think the assessment was that it went well and like to do it again next year. Am I right? Yes.

Yeah. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions at this time. He's walking. The question I really wanted to ask you, Shane, is did you ride a bump jumper? I did not. The the f the family that was there, I can't remember. They're they're the Mullers. Mullers. They were pros. They they'd all did a great job. I was very impressed. Um dropping off a bump jumper on to Lindell. It'll be time. There you go. Thank you.

Any other comments, questions? move right along and see for appointments consideration appointment to the planning commission forward to you. I've talked to several of you in the past bring to you Ted Paul. Uh he's has been on city council. He has been a past mayor. He's been on the planning commission in the past. I bring him forward if you have questions, comments. He's lived in Bataski 35 years. um who understands the diligence and the work needed to do a good job on planning commission. He's interested in continuing the future openings for the next year. This Mr. Wilmont,

I move for the acceptance of Ted Paul for nomination to the planning commission. Support have a motion from Mr. Wilmont, a second from Mr. De Mo. Any other discussion? Miss Walker? Yeah, it says here, mayor, for it's to fill a vacated term. Um, who vacated planning commission? Oh, got it. Thanks. I wish we wish we'd find more experienced people. Miss De Moore.

Yeah. I just want to say I very much appreciate I know Ted's sitting right in front of me, but very much appreciate your preparation and your commitment to this endeavor, the whole zoning thing and continuing on when you weren't on uh the planning commission. So, thank you. Any other discussion? I go to Miss Beck for roll. Wilmott, yes. Deore. Walker. No. Ntrav. I

Murphy. Motion passes four of one. Okay. Now, what we've all come here for old business for the discussion winter sports park master plan and possible adoption of the proposed resolution approving the plan. M. Walker, since you went to the public, I know I saw emails from you, I thought I would clarify a couple things. I know you made a statement that I did somehow didn't know what a master plan was, but I will read on numerous things on the show on internet that city council has the authority to reject, modify, or approve recommendations from a park and recreation committee regarding a master plan. There's multiple statements in the public um that help to identify that. Um, just as I know, Miss Walker, when we are going to be reviewing zoning, which are the recommendations from the planning commission, I have a feeling you're not going to be you may speak out against some of those and say that shouldn't be in the plan in the zoning. And it's kind of the same way. Planning commissions are give us the recommendations. parks and recck planning commission. They give the recommendations to the people that are elected to make the decisions and we have the right to modify, reject, addition or change which what's best for the city. And by that I can give you an example. Somebody could put in there that they want a a four seat uh chair lift going up the Washington up to the winter sports park. If that was in there, I'm sure most all of us would say that's not practical. No, you know, it would be removed if the council supported that. So, it's really up to the council to make decisions on

on recommendations that come from planning commission, cemetery, parks and wreck, all those age, all those groups of boards and commissions. So, I'll turn it over to Mr. horn for moving forward on this.

Thank you, mayor. This again is continued discussion. We we tried to capture your initial comments back on February 2nd and um the draft that's in your packet um hopefully captures some of that. Obviously, continued discussion will kind of continue to um to mold this plan, if you will. I will just preface that this is a plan. Um none none of this is cast in stone. The these items will maneuver into our capital improvement plan. There's no mechanism here financially to do any of these projects as we stand right now. Um so we're not writing a a $4 million check and going um and and going to do all these projects. That's not what this is about. This is a plan for the future. As as finances materialize, as things um come together, we will slowly merge these projects into our capital improvement plan. It'll come back before this body like like all capital improvement projects do and you'll be able to chime in um during that process. Obviously, those projects will get bid out and we'll see what true cost looks like. Um, so there's multiple times that you're going to have a chance to review any of these items going forward. Just because potentially we adopt this plan doesn't mean that we're going um tomorrow to do all these projects. So I just wanted to preface that um that comment. Um again, similar to a lot of other things, capital improvement plan is a plan. It's a it's a projection of potential projects going forward. This is very similar. Um we've we've tried to capture feedback on multiple um

community engagement efforts. Um and I I would just say there's there's different varying varying opinions on how we've done as far as community engagement goes. My hope is we can move forward and try to make this plan the best it can be going forward and not not look in the rearview mirror on on potentially how we got here, but how do we improve going forward? Kendall is here, our parks and recck director. Um, I'll have him come up and uh be available for your questions and and give his um input as our our parks and and recreation professional. Um, obviously the parks and and recreation commission has reviewed um the document as well. Um, I know we had some back and forth on some of the changes and if you wanted that to go back to parks and recck commission certainly that could happen if that's the desire of this body uh for the parks and recck commission to kind of review any sort of modifications or changes to this plan that they initially reviewed. Um, so I'll just kind of open up the floor for council to provide input. Kendall can come on up to the podium and and be available between uh to hopefully be able to answer questions and provide additional context.

One of the things I came across in in research on master plans is uh should be a proposed ranking list of the projects based in in the plan. There should be a priority ranking list. And there is

also there should be this potential source for funding should be listed in there of what the funding sources would be. If there is a project that's above and beyond that the public wants high vision expensive high vision project that should be included in the parks and recck master plan but should generally be categorized as separate from the immediate priorities due to the long-term wish list of it and that could be a five and 10 year plan wish list but that anything that is

high vision the ultra expensive project should be listed separately because those have no funding for them. But I that's all I'm going to say about this and I'm going to turn over to Mr. Wilmont.

Thank you, Mayor. Um I I parks and wreck has done a great deal of work on this and my hats off to the process that they've been through and to the fine citizens on the parks and wreck and to staff. Um I know this has been somewhat of an arduous journey and I just want you to know that I I think the council shares uh their appreciation and the importance of Winter Sports Park and getting it right. Um that having been said and I see that you've made some modifications uh suggested activity sequencing um and I know you've pulled some things out because of the response by the um council pri previously and you've added a couple of things. Um so I I guess my my question is first of all I agree with the mayor that we need to be careful not to pipe dream. This is a visionary document, master plan, but everything in it should be practicable, practical and achievable. Otherwise, we end up getting a junkyard at the end of the CIP in seven years of projects that linger for years because they have no funding and there's no practical application for them. And we keep every year we keep going through those projects and kicking the can down the road. And I don't think that's the intention of parks and wreck and shouldn't be the intention of a master plan going forward. It should be doable, achievable. So in that regard, although we don't have funding in place, there should be a mindset toward the ability to fund these projects going forward, not total pipe dreams. Um that being said, I see that put back in snow making uh and uh maintenance for groom maintenance building for groomer, ice

making equipment and so forth. Uh I I guess what I what I like to know now is with these revisions is the parks and wreck com commission is this the plan that they are asking council to approve? It doesn't have a pavilion in it. that seems to be have been eliminated from from the list of potential projects. But is this not only the plan that parks and rec wants us to approve now, but is this this the priorities that as established here, these are the priorities they wish us to address in the CIP going forward? Thank you. Well, this sequencing and this component list is different from when it was originally presented to parks and wreck. However, in their resolution, they did understand that these that these items could change and the plan could change. So, what I will say is, you know, we have a five-year um park and recreation master plan. That's kind of our guiding document, right? Is it that in our 2025 needs assessment, the 5-year master plan is was um last approved uh in 2023 and it will need to be resubmitted to the state in 2028. So, next year we're going to be going through another process to um redo our our comprehensive park and recreation master plan. Okay. So, when I look at the the current approved parks and recreation master plan, the bulk of these items are part of our existing park and recreation master plan. the renovations to the building, um our

deck, accessibility improvements, the regrading of the hill, um the the you know, tow rope, the the hockey rink. Um all of those items are captured in our current 2025 or I'm sorry, our 2023 master plan. So what isn't in the master plan is you know snow making equipment and some of those big ticket items that that you referenced. So once this is, you know, once this is ultimately approved, next year, these items, whatever this version is, these items will be incorporated into our five-year as we go out for public input to um to upgrade our um our our parks and recreation master plan that's going to have to come before you in uh January of of 2028. So, does that make sense? like a lot of the stuff that's in here, we're already we we already have identified as as um items to focus on through the five-year master plan.

More I have a lot of questions because constituents who plan to be at the work session that we cancelled. So I will start with something and then I'll interject questions as other people want me to take a turn. But the first thing I want to talk about is what I see to be something important and missing. So, I see that under item 10, we've listed multi-purpose sports field. And I see on the drawing that there's an ice rink, but I don't see where we're designating that the rink that we will have there is the very popular and historically important part of the winter sports park that is the 250 meter oval. So my ask would be that it's my understanding it's the only remaining and people who know more than I do can pipe in on this but it's my understanding it's the only remaining outdoor 250 meter ice rink in Michigan. Um, I would like that size to be included as part of this master plan so that we know that that historical aspect of the park that means a lot to a lot of people will be maintained. Um, so I'm wondering if that would be something we could we could do.

Well, of course it would just have to weather permitting, of course. Um but but that would could be I mean that's

you know we could just redefine that number 10 as to the multi-purpose sports field slash um ice rink 250 meter ice however we want to to word it. Um but as I understood from the last meeting that was the intention of you know doing extra work in that in that skating area with improving um you know improving the drainage perhaps some elevation changes so we're we're able to manage that um you know that storm water a little bit or the the water that runs through there a little bit better. So that was just a that would just be a change that would easily fall into this.

Well, and I'm only one voice, so I'd have to have the concurrence of my colleagues, but that would be an ask that I have for the plan. Should I go ahead with some questions? Sure. Yes. Okay. Um, one of the questions I've had a lot is about the portable tow rope and kind of I'll just give you all the questions around that. like why wouldn't we just keep a stationary tow rope in the existing location? Do we have the human power needed to have a portable movable um tow rope? Does it only go half the way up? And why can't we just fix what we have? Those are the Okay. Well, I can repeat them when you need.

Um there really is no fixing what we have.

Okay. Um that tow rope system is I believe close to 70 years old. Um the the the motor it it doesn't work. There's a flywheel up on top that actually spins that spins the rope. Uh we we had our state inspector on site for an hour and a half uh this past fall and we couldn't even get it started. So there are some electrical issues that need to be defined. So, um I think it's best practice if we modernize our our you know tow rope system. The portable tow rope system is something that we um that we did stumble across. Boone has used it in the past. If it's good enough for Boone, it should be good enough for us. Um and there was also discussion pertaining to the location of the tow rope to be able to service the sledding side and the the the hillside. Whereas what we have now, you know, the the the tow rope will would essentially focus on the the larger hill which would be for skiing or snowboarding or tubing or whatever. So it gives us an opportunity to um kind of get the best of both worlds by there. There there will need to be some um some grading that will have to happen um to to the hill to try to get it more flat and funneled toward the um more closer to the parking lot because right now that hill does angle into the uh to the wooded area. So to do this the right way, I think that there's we have an opportunity just to reimagine that and we would have the ability to have um that tow rope go all the way up to the top. So it wouldn't be there. There might be two tow ropes. There might be

one to take you to the to the sledding hill and then you get off that one and you get on another one to take you to the top. That isn't uncommon. Um, so hopefully that answered your question pertaining to the tow ropes. The last one was like man or woman power.

Well, um, it'll it will require some more staff. Uh you you do need to have someone um no matter what type of u system you have, you it will require someone to be um at the top of of the rope with an emergency uh push button in the event that somebody, you know, has has some trouble. Is it is it something that we can overcome? I mean, I hope so. Um, you know, we, uh, you know, the Winter Sports Park, as great as it is, is is is certainly a it's a high maintenance property. Um, you know, we're we're often there from 7:00 in the morning to 10 11:00 at night. Um, but if if this is if this is an investment that the city's want that the city wants to make, we'll certainly find a way to get the appropriate staffing. At at one time in the past there was a rope toe where it is now and people rode up there for sledding as well as for skiing. There was a up at the top was a large rope that said skiing this way, sledding that way and you simply walked from the top. You walked along the side and sled down the hill on the side. that that seemed to work in the past years ago. I I know that was how the city did it years ago. So the roptoe went all the way up to where it is now and you got off. If you sled, you just walk down to the sliding hill and the skier skied. But they're just giving you some history.

Yeah, I mean we, you know, once we once we get some direction, we can configure it, you know, how we how we want. If it's if it's best to be put on on one side or the other, then we can certainly do that. Is it the cost of portable versus the po cost of just putting something in permanent in there where it used to be? What's the angles on that? I I don't we haven't done that cost analysis to put something back the way that we have it now. Okay. Um yeah, I I don't know. Um there aren't many skitoe manufacturers.

Um you know, so a lot of what you know, a lot of the skitoes that are out there are similar to the type of operation we have. So that's certainly research that we can do. Um, but I know the the the portable tow rope was just something that we felt um was a product that we could move if without, you know, without it being a huge undertaking. Um, but there certainly there there certainly could be some other options out there pertaining to that. Okay. Council, Mr. Knob.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I have a couple of questions. I I I had a little bit different approach. Um I um at the last meeting, February 2 meeting, I got a lot of conflicting messages from the presentation and from council and and I walked away really we're not feeling good about our credibility. So, what I ended up doing, and I'd like to at least share what I did the last couple weeks, um, I've changed my mind completely around on some things I put in an email communication to the council with the chain and I'd like to just explain that. Um, I went back and read all the minutes in from the fall of 24 up and including the 1216 24 um, meeting when we made the massive resolution to proceed with the bidding. I read all the articles and many articles in the Basky News that I could find um including a bunch of quotes from council members and staff about the cost to be 33 3.4 million and that the gap would be funded from um basically the fund balance in the electric fund. I sought in input from my ward three my my great ward three email list. I spent time at the water park um itself all weekend. Um, I had a a great meeting with Ward three. I see I saw thought I saw Yep. Um, and it was I sought their input. And lastly, but really the most important, at the suggestion of one of the council members here, I actually went back and and listened and watched the the video from the 1216 meeting. And and I have to say initially when I read the minutes, it was very obvious to me that this council decided 4 to one in spite of Tina's comments in the minutes in spite of all the all the pros and cons of everything that was discussed at that meeting that um you guys were going to

go proceed with this if it came close to the the 3 million five and the minutes seemed to kind of say that to me and I was saying why in the world would be switching ing now when it all came in. However, after watching the video and watching your presentation and all the comments, the minutes did not reflect what really happened at that meeting at all. And I came to a completely different conclusion. Uh from the outset, there was concern about why wouldn't the water the pavilion and the um um the chillers be put into the master plan, the public comment plan at the outset. Um, and the the other thing that was interesting to me is is that um um a lot of hesitation about the cost and and questions like Lindsay had there were wonderful questions and I thought that was very intriguing. It did not come in come through with that in in the in the minutes and the resolution itself. Um there was a comment made for sure that the that the um the pavilion and chillers would be included in the public option or the public input provision. That actually didn't happen, but it was clear that the the it was going to be based on what you what what you said at that at that meeting. And and I don't like to go back on the I don't want to go back either. I want to go forward. Um, but in reading this and then listening to this and watching it, I want to commend John for navigating through the discussion. There was a lot of really interesting discussions back and forth. Um, I want to also commend the the council members that were here, Tina and Lindsay, with the great questions on this and and somewhere along the way we got kind of screwed up and and if I had a little bit of a criticism on the process was the resolution that was passed that that I

anchored on did not really reflect what I sense strongly that everybody that were here voting was meant. It was it was way it was not right. And so I I I I feel like we really got to be careful on how we write how we do our resolutions uh and read it. Not just and I I'm not saying we're rubber stamping anything, but it was it was not the sense of of um that I thought we really were trying to do. Having said all that, um I do have a question on so we do not have the pavilion in this current plan. Correct.

And and the reason we deduct you deduct you took that out is there was no support. There was no support when it was when when it came to a vote of however many two meetings ago. Two. Okay. Yeah.

Um all right. So, I'm I'm personally um think the process got a little messed up. I I kind of flipped my mind. I think the pavilion should be part of the process of the discussion. I do believe that that should be part of it because I've heard through all the information, including everybody I listen to and everybody I listen to at the meetings that it probably should be at least considered. Not guaranteed, but um but that's it for now. Thank you. Who else? Mr. De Moore.

Sorry, I told you I had a lot of questions. Um, so if I'm looking at um number one, the component number one, and if I'm looking at page 31, there's a provision there for ADA access improvements, parking, and walkways. Wait, wait, wait. page. Have I got the wrong page? Yeah, you got it right. It's page seven of the capital budget of page 31. Okay, thank you. Tables, please.

Um, so here's my question. You've got an amount in there for $275,000. Now, in the previous iteration, number one was that plan for parking lot expansion, and that had an assigned cost of $143,314. And we said no in our initial discussion. Lindsay was not with us. Uh that we did not want that, but this kind of looks like the same thing as number one that we didn't want except the price tag is higher. So, I'm just trying to understand what what that is.

So, the accessibility around the rink and the the parking lot and the sidewalks leading to the rink and leading to the um to to the lodge are are they need to be up to current ADA standards and they they currently are not. So this represents if the rink is replaced, we would also in improve the accessibility to the rink to the lodge from the parking lot. So, not to put you on the spot. I mean that most sincerely, but I just I'm going to need further understanding about how this is different from number one before. And if it's different, how come you know the price is so much more?

Some of the differences is the glass replacement of the boards and glass. No, no. This is just a single entry of 200 88.

Yes. If you look at I I did on my research on uh benefits of a parks and recck master plan. One of the things that it listed as a key factors involved in prioritizing projects, it lists accessibility ADA compliance, upgrading facilities to meet accessibility standards. It's listed in a lot of places. when I I I did probably 10 different searches with I've got pages and pages of search stuff, but accessibility ADA compliance is is vitally important comes underneath safety for for individuals and I don't have a problem with the ADA accessible piece of improvements for the winter sports park to make it available to all people. Uh, obviously could you would you like to explain that to her maybe a little?

Well, I don't need I'm fully aware of what ADA compliance is and I'm No, no, no. But I'm I'm Do you want to know Do you want to know what parts of what what that curtails since it's uh over a quarter of a million dollars?

Do you want to know what they're going to do? What I want to know is that in the previous iteration, the parking lot expansion was portrayed as ADA compliance at a cost of $148,314. Now that it's been incorporated in the existing hockey rink description, which notes parking and walkways along with ADA access improvements, the price is now $275,000. So I'm trying to understand number one. Is this what we rejected before as number one now incorporated here? And if yes, why has the price gone up? And if no, what's more detail on what this is for $275,000? And again, I'm not trying to put Kendall on the spot. If you don't know all those details, it's not a problem, but it's something I would want to understand. I can I let me get that answered for you and follow up.

That'd be great. Thank you very much. Other questions you have. One of the overall questions I had was about the category along the way of design, engineering, and construction administration costs. Those are variously included throughout the detailed master plan capital budget estimates and throughout they total about 260 $261,000. What What are those?

You are you uh referring to the contingency? No, I think the general conditions are the contingency, aren't they, Kendall? That 10%. Well, you always allow for, you know, there's typically a percentage when you do um construction because particularly if you're if you're digging, you're likely going to find something that you didn't expect. Yeah. Um no, like Oh, I see. The design engineering. So, for certain projects where we would have to get bids and spec specs written,

there would need to be, you know, we would have to pay for that service to be done. Not all of these will require that. Um um but for the major, you know, the major um improvements, we would we would need to get an engineer or an architect um on board and those th that is where those design and engineering um and construction administration fees would be uh would be incorporated. So again, not my area of expertise, but it's in excess of a quarter of a million dollars, those fees here. So I, you know, some followup on that. I'd be interested to understand better. Um, I I think I do understand why it's in certain places and not others. You know, it's not by the fire pit because probably those are just pieces you come and lay in, but some of others of these uh require

um more. Yeah. But any any capital project that we do citywide, you know, is going to have a cost associated with those if we have to get bring in other um other professionals to um perform those services. Yeah. Okay. And of course those are very you know will vary with the project and and with the the cost of each of each project. Um what's the activity lawn? Is that like the same thing at that former event and display patio? Because there was that number eight event and display.

Yeah. No, this was kind of off to it. It was more of a summertime area. Um it's just it's a flatter area almost, you know, where that where the path comes down from from the um from Cal from Yeah. Sorry, Lake Street. it kind of dumps into that field down there. This this plan just has an area where it's just it's kind of a standalone flat space. Wouldn't affect any wintertime activities. Um that would just be a component where people could come they could play horseshoes or botchi ball or or whatever.

So that actually was my question too with the uh fire pits and the activity lawn. Um, now that we've interjected this measurement of a 250 meter oval, um, can those be accommodated with a 250 meter oval?

Well, the activity lawn wouldn't wouldn't affect the size because that would that's only a summertime um that's only a summertime space pertaining to the, you know, to the fire pits. Um you you know really the vision that I have for that deck is just to expand it basically to where the the existing ramp there's a ramp that leads people on to the ice rink is just kind of match that. Um, you know, if we expand that, we'll have a good activity space. We can put, if we choose to put fire pits out there, that would be a great spot. You have you have access to the restrooms. You have access to the, you know, to the building from that from that deck. So, that wouldn't that wouldn't go any farther than, you know, where the existing ramp is now and where we put the snow. I mean, we have snow we have large snow blowers. I mean, that's just an operating um that's just an operating task that we would we would find a spot to put, you know, to put that extra snow. But, um so the you know, the plan did have kind of an expanded deck and then in a more of an event space out there. I don't I I believe that we're able to accomplish what we want to accomplish with just expanding of of of our deck with the with with a footprint that we really already have.

That's why I think designating that 350 meter oval 2 we can't get 350 meters. It'll make it any prettier. Thank you for the backup. the 250 meter oval being specified in the plan will help that we don't have those kind of overlaps. Well, and you know, also consider depending on how we're able to engineer the regrading and the reddraining of that field, there might be some opportunity to even move farther back. I'm not saying that's what we're going to do, but I think we need to look at this, have get some engineers out there to take really a look to see what our footprint can be back there.

Mr. Wilbar, thank you, Mayor. Um, so the reason that the pavilion's not in here is because it didn't get any support at a previous meeting. Is that correct?

That's correct. Well, just for the record, I'd like to clarify that I think it didn't get support because of the order of resolutions that were presented and the unique characteristic of the resolutions outside of the total winter sports park plan. I'm not sure that you'd get that same uh response if it was an integrated part of this plan. You might, but I don't think you would. Um my question to you is the sentiment of the parks and recck committee. Do they believe that the pavilion would be an asset to this plan? And the second part of that question is you have added the snowmaking where it wasn't included in the first version of the plan. Is that to say that the parks and recck commission is now recommending no pavilion and they're recommending uh uh uh snow making equipment?

Well, I didn't add snowmaking equipment. The equipment this plan was updated based on the feedback given from I understand it. I'm asking a different question. What is parks and wrecks recommendation? You received it. They had you've received what they they sent us. So I'm going to suggest then that since we've received it and it's in our packet. Yeah. That parks and wreck is recommending against a pavilion and for snowmaking equipment. Is that correct? No, I don't think that was ever came. Did that ever come up in discussion?

That's my That's my point, Mr. Mayor. It it it it is it a part of the plan or isn't it a part of the plan? Is it just because the order of resolutions required us not to support it at that time that it got disqualified and should it be a part of the plan? You had two things. You were asking about the planning commission parks and w talking about it and that's correct because what he's telling me is that it's been modified by parks and wreck based on the feedback that they received from council. It's been modified by us by by staff. Okay. By st go back to to the parts and record. They have not met. Is that correct? Correct.

We met two weeks ago today and they met last week. They we didn't we didn't review this. It wasn't on their agenda.

That wasn't on our agenda. It it it wasn't it wasn't a directive that was given to take it back to parks and recck to to review. Now, park parks and wreck historically through resolutions of their own did support the pavilion project, but because it wasn't part included because it was not included with with this those are two separate two separate discussions. So, um, so that's, you know, that's where I think that's where a little bit of confusion lies.

This does not have a emergency need to be passed today or tomorrow, does it? Is there No, absolutely not.

I would like personally I would like the parks and wreck it, not the whole thing. I would like to send back to parks and wreck discussion on the pavilion and the chiller. Those are two things that we seem to not we have had different opinions on. As I stated before, expensive high vision projects that that are to be included can be categorized separately from immediate priorities. So, it'll be on a separate list more or less of of what is uh community wants. I guess I'd like to know if the community really wants is the community really wants a pavilion. Do they really want a chiller right now? I don't think that anybody has that true answer because it was not in a survey. But given whatever, send it back to parks and record, have them make recommendations on those two things and send it back to us. Mr. NRO,

Mayor, I think you you you've nailed it because to to go along with what what Charlie said, if it was taken off, if the pavilion or the cover was taken off because of the last meeting, I can understand that. But also, after I got more information, I'm a little confused on it and I got a sense that the the cover was probably more wanted than than you think. But we don't know. We don't know. We don't know. And and so I I love the notion of trying to push this back to parks and wreck to do a little bit more of an analysis to understand what does the public want because right now I think the the covered thing the cover is important. I'm not sure so sure the snow making is that important but that's just me but we don't know. Miss Walker.

Thank you mayor. Thank you um Pendle for sharing some um additional perspective. So this was exactly the reason why I had perceived that we were going to have a roundt discussion like we've previously had here with parks and recreation and the downtown management board a circular structure in the middle of this room where discussion happens and we horse trade and negotiate what that's going to look like. And I was told that that's not what the context of the Thursday meeting of last week was going to be. Hence, it was cancelled. And so, the way that we govern here, and I've been very patient and learning over my four terms of um serving on city council, it's been a total privilege. It's a learning experience, but the way that communication happens between the planning and um the planning department or the planning commission and parks and recreation and the downtown management board and the way the information flows here and then goes back for further revision if necessary and comes back this way. That's part of like a diplomatic public discourse. Those are appointed people. We are elected people. They are visionaries. We are visionaries. We are fiduciarily responsible for the annual budget. They are not. But that's okay. That's part of like what discourse looks and the public is invited to engage and participate. So, here we are again and now we're kicking the can further down the road. And I would like to make some decisions tonight. I would like to proceed forward with what's been out outlined here and move forward with our agenda accordingly. I feel really remiss that

we canled our meeting on Thursday night. I was prepared. I know that others were prepared. I know what a master plan is. I know what how you budget from year to year to year to year based on your priorities and based on public input. I'm really clear about that and I don't um we're going to send it back to parks and recreation. That's fine. They just had a meeting this past Monday. Um and we decided and we voted back on January the 26th, which was our last meeting where budgetarily we were told at the 11th hour in a public meeting that it wasn't $800,000 that would come out of our budget. It was actually 1.4 million. Oh, and it wasn't so much for the ICE improvements. It was another $1.5 million totaling 2.7 of a 4.7 million unrestricted fund. We've also gone back and forth. Parks and Recreation has had the risk management firm present to them on a millillage. Here we're sitting here and you've taken our temperature. Oh no, we're not going to present that to city council because they're going to vote no. So, it's just like been this back and forth thing that just feels nebulous and it causes confusion and it's not transparent and it makes people feel really bad.

So, relative to the pavilion project, this is for my colleagues. I submit you can't have it both ways. When Mr. Co Angelie was here last time. He said it was out of the master plan process of gathering community input because it was on a separate track. But now some folks are suggesting it should be in the master plan as a component part with a funding line item. I don't think you can have it both ways. If it's to be in the master plan, it needed to be included for community input with all the other options offered so that relative community preferences could be determined. That's my view of it.

How is sending it back to the plan to the parks and wreck? How is that not gaining the opportunity for them to get public input from whatever they need? if they need to do a survey, if they need to do some some contacting, that's that's where it should start. I'm not saying that the rest of this stuff should be sent back. I'm saying the stuff that we wanted to get information on, such as the pavilion, the chiller. I want them to go back and do their do homework on this and to come up with what does the public want? And it's not our job. It starts at the parks and wreck. I think they need to do and it might take a little while for this to happen, but I I'm suggesting it goes back to them.

Pendle and Shane can work on

getting some kind of a public assessment on these two pieces. And it isn't going to affect whether we we don't have to have this passed today or tomorrow or next year or next week, excuse me, whatever. But right now, let's send it back and let's get some information to see. I personally I think it should go as a expensive high vision project that I have heard a lot of the people in the community stating they want a pavilion. Some of them say I don't know about the chiller, but what I want to do is get a temperature of the people that are are our constituents out there. I want to I want to get some kind of information like we had on the last poll. Mr. Wilmont,

I agree with you, Mr. Mayor. Uh but I would also add since it wasn't in the original master plan, they've added the snowmaking equipment here. You ought to add that to your list, too, because we would like the parks and wrecks recommendations based on the public input that they have received. If that includes an additional survey for these additional items, that's great. the more the more input that we have the marrier because right now it's kind of a jumbled up situation that can be easily straightened out. And with regard to uh uh council person uh Walker's request for a joint meeting, I think the joint meetings between parks and reckoning council and uh uh and uh planning commission and and council uh as an annual event before the CIP is a is a really important step. But perhaps now we can send this back as the mayor has requested for their input now and perhaps we can schedule those joint meetings in in the leadup to the CIP later this year,

which is where it goes. Yes. Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. Moore. So, I'm not at all clear what kind of survey you're talking about. I don't really

Can I finish, please? Thank you very much. We retained Beckett and Raider to conduct a survey, a data collection where you had various different options that people could assess together. Um, are we going to repay Beckett and Raider to redo the survey by putting these items in? I mean, I with due respect to the parks and recck commission, I don't think they're in the business of doing surveys. That's why we paid somebody to do it. So, if we're going to gather data, we need to do it in a way that's reliable. I have no objection. I love data. Um, but I don't understand

sending it back to them. I never put a a parame a restriction, a boundary on there of saying you have to do Beckett and Raider. I didn't say that you have to do a survey versus a poll. I didn't say anything like that. I said, "Send it back to them and have them make the decision along with Kendall and Shane on how they want to get us public information on those two things. Ultimately, if we ever go to a millillage, if those are ever included, I want to know some information now putting it into the wreck park and wreck master plan in the winter sports park, which is the baby part of this step. I want to have I want to get public information on those three things.

So, can I interject, please?

As I mentioned before, you know, next year we're going to go through a large public engagement exercise for our um our five-year master plan. Perhaps that's the time to re-engage the public with with some of these other some of these items. Again, most of these items right now are represented in our current five-year master plan. So ultimately of all the master plans that we do prior to renewing our five-year, we will we will include in the next five-year plan. Okay. So, if we're not in any big hurry at this point, I would I would uh like to throw out there that is that is an option that will, you know, obviously it'll take place next year along with all of our parks. We, you know, we fill the room um the community room with with different sharetses of our park. People provide input, their surveys. It's it it's it's a months and months long um engagement process. So I would I would recommend that we do have you know that that could be something that we could consider since it's already you know it's already on the the horizon.

Mr. Wilma. Well, I think that for a number of these items that we've been talking about and to be specific, snow making equipment, um a groomer, um and uh the chiller system, that's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. However, I'm feeling pressure on the question of pavilion based on uh the fundraising efforts that have already taken place that look shaky now based on our position with regard to the So, I'm a little uncomfortable postponing the question of the pavilion uh for the the 2028 uh master plan. So, that would be my concern. Mr. knob trial.

I I I tend to agree, you know, and and again, I'm trying to be as objective as possible on this. The it was clear that the we wanted public input on the pavilion and it it it's clear we did. We we didn't quite get it. I think it's reasonable what the mayor is trying to say and what Charlie's trying to say is is getting and I do also feel the pressure too on on getting it done. But

yeah, I I think you can the funding the grant funding is is gone. We're not going to we're not going to have that. So, you have to start in that mode of the the funds that were raised locally, the contributions by Rotary. You got to put that behind you because we don't we're not going to have that going forward. Um you have to understand that if you still want to do this, we're starting back at ground zero um square one. Um, and so if that changes your perspective, but that's reality. Miss Walker,

thanks. So, the um the pavilion was not part of the parks and recck master plan from 2021 to 2026. It was added later on. And now what you're saying Shane is that's the DNR grant is no longer available allotted to because it was very specific to that project and then the Rotary has since chosen another contribution to another project in the community. Yeah, they're working to to find another project to put their money into. Thank you,

Miss Walk. Miss Deore.

So I have a couple other questions from consing gears back. Um so it was interesting because I did look back um as far as survey responses for my part. I just looked at city of Baski taxpayers and for the playground it was like 57% of people supported that. But I've gotten a lot of constituent input um on two kind of lanes. one that it's not needed because there are so many other playgrounds in the city and two this issue that was raised earlier tonight by Miss Jeepart that you know this is something that while day camp is ongoing which I fully support it can't be accessed anyway. So I got quite a bit of push back against the idea of the playground. So I just wanted to put that out there uh for others

if you want to put that out there. I I believe the city's got to whatever the costs we go to the schools and we utilize the school playground even if we have to allow agree with them that one week it's this playground one week it's that I believe the winter sports park should be open to the public year round yeah let's not get bogged down with that we'll move our day camp somewhere else okay that's all there let's move that narrative

all right so that answers Miss Demor quoting on somebody that had a concern with it. I take it that the field that you talk about the uh playground, the uh park, the field, whatever it's called. Where is it? I take it that's right on it's it's not a it's not a new I'm sure I know what I'm talking on this. It's not a new field. It's simply going to go on the ice rink area. Correct. We need to improve that space back there. drainage. It's and it's going to go right on. It's going to go there. They're not going to be taking trees down and taking everything down and building a a sports field on the side. No,

just for clarif I know that, but I wanted to clarify because there was I heard some concerns about a sports field and it's going to be right on the ice skating rink during the summer time. Correct. Mr. more um under 18 neighborhood access trails. Um I just had somebody reach out to say that they supported this fully, but they didn't think that that funding would be sufficient because of the large dead trees along the brush and that sort of thing. So I don't know, just to put that on your radar. Large big trees where this is under 18

neighborhood access trails. It said there are multiple large dead trees along the brush. Once tree removal begins, they'll have a hard time stopping poor condition of the woods. It's not a complaint or anything. I'm just putting it on your radar that there were concerns that that funding there may not be sufficient to do what you were proposing to do relative to neighborhood access trails. Number 18. Okay. Okay. So, did I hear that you wanted this to go back to

to parks and recreation for parts of it or pieces of it? Yes. Answering pieces of it to see if there is community interest in a a pavilion project pavilion chiller chiller and snow making equip which includes the groomer which is whichill right I mean if you're going to do that miss the more I don't support this process unless there is a professional method of data collection again I love data again. Again,

Mr. Mayor, do you need a I can trust that our city parks and recck director and people on the parks and wreck are going to come up with a a plan to let us and will give us feedback on how they're going to assess this. Okay, this is not going to be a halfass deal. I can I I feel that they're going to use a professional approach to it and we'll get some data so we can get a temperature on the pavilion and on the icy. Would you make a motion, please?

Yes. Uh I'm I move that uh that the parks and wreck be asked to consider the pavilion project as a part of the master plan as well as the uh snow making groomer aspect, the high ticket items and collect data as they see fit and uh in and give us their recommendation and sequence of recommendations in terms of uh the overall mass master plan. And you want the chiller as part of that as well? Chiller as part of that. Yes. I have a second.

I should. So, do you want Sarah? Do you want to read back that what you got or do you want us to I can if you want me to. I got it though. But do you want me to read it back just so Thank you, sir. We're good. So there's a motion by council member Wilmont to have the parks commission consider the pavilion project as part of the overall master plan as well as snowmaking chiller rumor which these are all high ticket items and collect data as the commission sees fit and provide council recommendation their recommendations and sequence of recommendations

project sequences that's your talking about is there any priority sequence? Is there anything not included in that? Not that I can think of. Do I have other discussion by council? Please. I'll just say that given the amorphous nature of that resolution, I won't support it. Thank you. Does the public wish to weigh in on this? there's an opportunity for you to step up from what we are what we are proposing. Sir,

can I just make a one comment? I think it's going to be important if we're going to go through this process and this if this is going to be dead on arrival here, let's let's save our time and not go through that process. So, if that's the desire, we might be good to know that. Now, I don't know why it's dead on arrival. Are you I'll ask councel. I know, Mr. We know what the cost is. Are you interested in putting it on a master plan or are you interested in finding out the public interest in this, Miss Walker? Would I support the motion as it's been put on the table? Is that what you're asking?

Yes, I support getting the public's input on a on a pavilion and an ice chiller and snowmaking equipment, which is also included in here. Yes. Okay. And I have a motion. I have a second. Are you still I hear a second. We had a second from Mr. Knob. He seconded.

Just to comment on on Shane's and I and I recognize what Shane's trying to get to and and this is I'm I I think the way I'm understanding the master plan is a master plan. It doesn't say that we're spending the money. It doesn't put the priority. I I I have a strong sense that we need that information from from the the the public in any way we can. Yeah. So, yeah, I would want to do that and I don't think it's dead on arrival. It might not happen because we don't have the money. That that might happen.

Okay. So, there it's not debt. I I totally support both of those. If if we can find the funds to do it, you know, great. But I also wouldn't want it without the public input as well. I want to know what they feel. They say this is a crazy idea. We don't want it, then we'll get reports from them on that. But I I support it. Other people that wish to speak to council, please come forward. Full name, hit the green thing. It's on.

Thank you. Ted Paul, 603 East Lake Street. Um, I appreciate uh this discussion. I I've used a frequent use of the and supporter of the winter sports park project previously uh skater recreational hockey but not league and have been down there a lot in the past. Um, a couple comments I have. Um, I understand no one's there's some unhappiness with a process where we didn't get that in the survey, the pavilion and the chillers, but I I do I think you have to do the best you can. Um certainly we put out master plans and CIPs all the time and we don't get the opportunity to survey the public on those every year when we do those cycles. So maybe it's not perfect but um you have to do the best you can. I just have a question for your consideration as you move forward. My understanding of the ice situation down there and watching what has gone on previously is that the issue was uh on the hockey especially with um scheduled events and and league games and things uh no ice is a problem. You you can't play. Um recreational skating, I can't go down there and skate wait a couple weeks. Um so it's kind of a thing that way and I get that. I just wonder if when that pavilion started, the idea was to extend the ice. Um, which was a good idea. You know, originally wasn't going to cost money, but um my question is for Ken Clingelith, Parks and Rex, and you is the question I believe is extending the ice. I skated down state on uncovered ice that was chilled and it was an extensive season and it was always ice there. I hope your question will focus on what's the best way, the most cost-effective way to extend the ice. You're going to potentially spend in this plan $873,000 on the rink improvements, $139,000 of that is the concrete pad, which could have a chiller system in them. I just wonder uh and it'd be interesting to

talk to hockey people, curling people, anyone who would use that ice, would a chiller system ex if we had to make cost decisions, would that extend the ice in a good way with a a top being potentially added later? So, I I haven't heard that answer and I wonder about that. Which is more effective to extend the ice? I'm wondering if the pavilion idea was to extend the ice and then when people thought about it's like that's if it's 50° it's not going to there's not going to be any ice even if there's a roof on it. We need a chiller. So the question is do we need a chiller to extend the ice and maybe a roof later. So that was my question. I don't know the answer. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to council? Sir ma'am Lapens um city of Powaskki I printed off the master survey and I didn't see anything in regard to uh a pavilion or a chiller. So somehow that got put in when they made up this um you know I don't think the chiller or a pavilion cover that would be an extra 100 mill 1 million so you're doing $2 million along with everything else. our population is an older population and I think in millillage if you're going to be asking for millage and I personally would not pay for a millillage because of being a senior on a fixed income and most of the people around here are retirees. So, I I am listening to you and I am so totally confused about what's going on, trying to figure out what you're going to do. And when you are uh supposedly putting this plan into action, and again, you seem to be kicking this down the the proverbial alley, and the prices are going to be going up. So um I hope this this um uh comes to a conclusion. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak to council?

Uh Mr. Mayor, city council. Uh, your name

Robert Wah Paskki. I grew up here and I literally grew up at the Winter Sports Park. My kids grew up at the Winter Sports Park and I went on to be the president of the hockey association. We had talked to George Cord tower about building a rink there and we talked to the county about building a rink out to the fairgrounds and we ended up building it out to M119. Uh we played I had three kids in hockey so we utilized the rink a lot and for us being an association we had to pay for everything so we had to fund everything and I saw things along the way that I thought were useful there's two rinks in the sue that they don't have refrigeration they just open the windows up and that's it. They have ice all the time in the in the winter. My thinking is when we talked to George, his concern was complaints about the noise. Chillers put out a lot of noise and they require a lot of upkeep and you turn them on and you can't turn them off. They have to run. We put our rink up by hand. We had volunteers. We had 155 families playing hockey with all their kids. We had speed skaters, figure skaters, um, men's hockey. We would we would have the rink sold out about 75 80 hours a week. So, it was under constant use here because you have to be part of MA to skate. You can't just have games. You have to be part of an association for liability insurance. So the thinking is is to try one thing and see how it works. The lowest cost thing to do would be to cover the rink so to keep the snow off it and the sun

off of it. We used to have to run down there at night and we bought a bunch of insulation that had foil on it and we had to put it along the boards so when the game started the refs could check the boards and make sure the ice was adequate for them to allow us to play. So cheers are expensive, maintenance is expensive. How many people play? Don't know. It doesn't seem like if they've got organized sports out to the rink now uh with Federer that there would be a big pull to put um skating uh hockey games down there. You would need qualified refs. There's a lot to it. So, if you put up a roof and and covered it just just the roof and see how that works and if there's a lot of use and there's a lot of interest then take it to the next step. It's a sizable investment to see that it's not as popular. I went down Thursday saw a lot of people using the sledding hill um walking up no one using the ski hill and that's where I learned how to ski. Dean Sharter came in with his uh uh teaching pros and they would have classes from the city parks and wreck and they were sold out all the time. That's how they did it. I I see they're doing it out to nubs now, but if you put some kind of a machine and I don't know what what would work the best. Um you can't put a pom lift in because they don't allow it for snowboarders, but you could put a tea bar in. You could put a you could put a a ski rope in and that would get skiers to the top of the hill and I think the use the ski would be used. Right now the kids are too small a lot of them to to take a tow rope up to the top of the hill. I'm talking like my grandson is four and I have another one who's seven or eight. The idea is is that a lot of families and I stood at the bottom of the hill watching my kids

go sliding. um they can't they would have a hard time going up on a rope toe, but a lot of them love sliding and it's not a long hill. I I went down Thursday and there was a lot of people using it. So, the biggest cost you're going to have is a chiller system and that's and you would have we pre-sold all the ice before we built it. We knew what we were getting into here. You're going to build it then find out if there's a following or an interest. It's a lot of risk. So, I would start with the roof and uh and see where that goes. I want to put sides on it, but I would extend it. And in the summertime, people that play pickle ball, all they do is complain when they play outside. And if it was a covered area, you could easily put three to five pickle ball courts inside the hockey rink and have it covered so they wouldn't get sunburned when they're playing pickle ball. Um, so I I think there's multiple uses and if I own something and you guys are so fortunate to be stewardship over and over a place like this in Mataski, I'd find as many uses as I could in the summer and in the winter and snow making equipment. We have times where you think about school getting out for for Christmas and all the kids are their parents are looking for something for them to do. If you could generate snow early like the ski resorts do, then when winter break comes, they have they can take advantage of it. And as far as the survey done, Resort Township would love to see it. Bear Creek would love to see it. I wonder what the level of interest is if they want to kick in some mills towards this process because their families are going to be using it as much as the city

of Paskki. So, why bear the cost alone? That's it. Thank you all for doing what you're doing. I know it's a lot of work and uh it's very much appreciated in the in the community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wall. Anyone else wish to speak to council at this time? Mr. Mson,

Keith Mson, 1034 Wakazoo. Uh, two weeks ago, uh, when we were talking about the same thing, I was advocating for keeping our full-size rank, uh, which is available for state speed skating competitions. And I would just like to, uh, add some more information for, uh, you to consider. I have a letter from uh Mark Ystreky. He is the uh club president of the West Michigan Speed Skating Club. Uh he says, "I'm pleased to speak on behalf of the 30 plus members of our ice speed skating club. Over the last three decades, our speed skating club members look forward uh to visits to the winter sports park for major competitions. Uh many of us stay overnight, go skiing at Boone, slide down the hill right next to the rink, make a day of shopping in your city. Uh Paskki is a very special place. We we others also know know that one little gem that helps make it that way is your truly breathtaking winter sports park. Uh this one is from Devlin Foley. He is the president of the Michigan Speed Skating Association. Uh and also he is the president of the Wolverine Speed Skating Club which is in the Detroit area. Uh the Paskki Speed Skating Club is the only Michigan Speed Skating Association member club that has the opportunity to host long track speed skating meets. Skaters from all over Michigan love to make the trek north to Paskki to skate on the longer ice and even in some of the most frigid weather just for the thrill of the sport. Not to mention that it offers a whole new

feeling of speed skating that you typically won't find at any other rink. Uh continuing, uh I skated at the winter sports park for the very first time in 2015. Uh the meet was so much fun that I made every effort to make it back. Uh the following year uh and uh I encouraged skaters from the Detroit area speed skating club to travel to Paskki. Because of my efforts, Paskky's had more skaters in town for the meet, not to mention uh theo the boost in Paskky's local economy. Okay. Um, so there are people interested in that. He mentioned 2019. I think that was our last time we hosted uh the Michigan Outdoor Speed Skating Championship. So, uh, I'm glad to hear that, uh, this is possible, but I also hear it's contingent on, uh, whether we can do all this drainage, uh, work and to make that possible. Well, okay. So, I'm wondering why since in the 30s have we been able to do this without spending all that money on this drainage work? So, I don't think it should be contingent on that. I think it should just be uh maintaining the full size of the rink. And you know, I'm not going to get up here and uh without mentioning the rope toe. So, uh I heard from Mr. Clingelith tonight that he went up and tried to start it. Well, it's been sitting there for a number of years. No wonder it wouldn't start. And then, oh,

they they stumbled upon uh this portable one. Well, if it's good enough for Boing, it's good enough for us. Well, guess what? Nub's Knob has a rope toe. So, why can't if it's good enough for Nub's Knob, why can't we have one where the current one is? Thank you. How many members do you have that are actually Mr. Mson? Yes. How many members do you have that are actually speed skating in tournaments now of Paskki Ski Skating Club? Um, I'm not an official member anymore. Uh, do you know how many members they have?

I would say uh six to eight. Okay. But we were we were the hosts for that meet. That was seven years. But that was seven years ago. Correct. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak to council? Is anybody online? Miss back? No. Okay. I go to Mr. Mayor. Go ahead, sir.

Uh good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members, we're on. All right. Um, my name is Cody Wilcox. I live at 1200 Willis Avenue uh with my wife and two young kids. I'm here uh this evening to speak in support of the winter sports park and the adoption of the winter sports park master plan, including the proposed allseason pavilion and hockey rink. I understand that this master plan is a framework, not a final design, but I strongly urge the council to move forward and take action. As a lifelong resident of Paskki, aside from my years at college, I have personally experienced what makes this park such a special place for so many in our community. As a child, I spent countless hours sledding, bump jumping, skating on the big rank, and playing youth hockey on the lower rank. Like many here tonight, I believe the Winter Sports Park is truly one of a kind. My memories there extend beyond winter. I played basketball in the parking lot, roller hockey in the lower rink, and soccer during the warmer months. Whether it was practice games, running hills, walking down with friends just to kick the ball around, or watching former Paskki stars compete in the men's division of the Paskki soccer tournament. Some of my most lasting friendships and memories were formed at this park. And while my experiences may center on soccer and skating, they are far from unique. Many in this community and in this room carry their own stories. The zoo, deer park, the alligators, fox chase, the tobagen run, winter carnival, and even bozo the skating mule all have shape generations of memories. While those attractions have changed with time, the spirit of the park has remained constant. Its rich history of skiing, figure skating, bump jumping, speed skating, and community gatherings continue to make this place special.

I'm not here to ask that we bring back the past. I'm here to ask that we invest in the future if improvements that allow future generations to create their own meaningful memories. Specifically, I urge the council to revisit the revised 2025 needs assessment, re-examine funding opportunities through the dollar gap loan fund balance, and the potential millillage that the council authorized a consulting agency to explore in December of 2024. Swan Lake City Park, Paskki City Park, the Pitaski City Zoo, Deer Park, or as we know it today, the Winter Sports Park. No matter the name or activity, this has been a special place for over 125 years. I respectfully ask you to help ensure it remains so for the next 125 years. Thank you for your time, your service to our community, and your thoughtful consideration.

Thank you. Anyone else with City Council?

Hi, I'm Peg Wilcox. Um, Cody's mom, and um I Well, I took him to the winter sports park, my daughter to the Winter Sports Park, our grandchildren to the winter sports park. Um, and I was on the hockey or the roller skates playing hockey um in the summertime as well. I would encourage you to do the chiller and or the pavilion because it would extend the time period that you could use the winter sports park as well as the uh um snow snow blower not blower snow maker. um it just would extend the park uh for longer hours because it seems like over the last few years, this has been a banner year for winter sports. But um over the past few years, the weather doesn't always allow for us um to have the winners like we did when my kids were little. Thank you for all of your time. I know how difficult it is to um try and fair it out how you're going to spend money or whether you will or not. But thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else want to speak to council? I go to Miss Beck for roll. Could I ask that the um resolution be read again? The motion?

Sure. Thank you. Motion by council member Wilmont to have the parks and parks and wreck commission consider the pavilion project as part of the winter sports park master plan as well as snow making chiller groomer since these are all high ticket items and collect data as they see fit and give council recommendations and priority sequences. is thank you. I go to Miss Beck for roll. Wilmont. Yes. No, I

Walker. I deore. No. Murphy.

I. Motion passes. 41. I want to thank the people that are on the parks and w commission as a anybody that serves any time on the our commissions. Thank you for what you guys do. Takes time out of your life. It's hard to find people to volunteer to give their time for the city. If you have interest in serving on a board, there's I I point with most of the approvals over 63 people are on boards and commissions. If you wish to participate and be a part of that, please give me a get a hold of me. I would love to meet with you, talk to you about what's openings are or what the future is and also what your skills and talents is can lead to to a good match. Next, we move on to advertising regulating hand bills. I turn it over to city manager Horn. I'm going to pass it on to our city clerk for any This is our second reading of this ordinance. Um she kind of Sarah kind of went through why why it's in front of you um or some minor modifications. So know Sarah if you have anything additional to add or

I don't unless you guys have questions but it's pretty straightforward. I would be happy to make the motion to approve it. Support. I have a motion from Mr. Knob second from Mr. Wilmont. Any other discussion? Does the public wish to speak on this? I go to Miss Beck for roll. No trap. I Wilmott I Walker I Moore I Murphy.

Motion passes 5 advertising regulate regulating bills. Now is a discussion on city council meeting preparation and procedures policy. I'm going to turn it over to city manager Horn.

Yeah. So, I I've received uh comments from I think believe three of you. We have the city attorney's comments intertwined into this um kind of redline document. Um document goes back quite a ways. It's been updated many times throughout the course of time. Obviously, with a new uh city council, I think it's it's a good time to review these uh council me preparation procedures. Some of the language is um obviously needs to be updated. Times need to be updated. We'll dive in as as deep as you would like to dive in and we can go at this slow. There's no there's no time constraints as far as getting this um complete from start to finish. If you want to just kind of bite this off into sections, that's per perfectly fine as well. And we'll continue to have this on an agenda. But um the city attorney is on the call. Um so if you have any legal uh questions, obviously this is mostly policy. Um so it's mostly in your uh lane, if you will. We certainly want to make sure that we're um not putting the city in any sort of legal um harm and we want to make sure we're consistent with the city charter. So that's the purpose of the city attorney. But most of this is business decisions of city council. So we can start mayor. I I'll just turn it back to you and you can kind of flow through this document um and we'll keep track of how we proceed.

We'll start at the beginning and go through this. I look at doing this for not a long long time. We have a closed session that we are going to be going into close session with the attorney uh after this. So business y'll hit the new business on that as well. But because of that uh I don't want to spend but a half hour on this really. Okay. Some of you may not want a half hour. too long. It's a half hour too long. So, we get two pages. That's two pages we didn't have.

Let's try two pages. How's that? Are you ready? Looking at you've got the first page, is there anything that anybody has to conserve on on the purpose of the scheduling of meetings? There a way that we can just say by based on the comments, my reference is on the ones that are read mind. Yep. Yep. Blue is Wilmont's, black is the moors, and the city attorneys are green. Looking at page 72, right? And I I would recommend that we start with number one. Yeah. Does Mr. Mr. Narr? Because that's easier.

Yeah. So, I've got I got multiple copies of these where the lines are. This one is bad. Look in your pocket. Small and hard to read. Well, I'm okay to read. So, as an example, number one is to adjust the time to 6:00 on page number one. Nob brainer. Check. Yeah. Yep. You all good with that? Going down going down to two under holiday cancellations. Can I just chime in, please?

My own two cents here. um because I was not including my comments. But under the organizational meeting, uh it says traditionally in January, it's recognized as the organ organizational meeting at which the mayor elect and city council members elect received their oaths of offices following their elections in November. So yes, as in many years past, that is how it's been. But it was brought to our attention by our city attorney per the charter. Uh terms begin January 1. So, as you guys may recall, we did oaths in the last meeting in December, I believe. So, that was just a point of um clarification if you guys so choose that you want to reward that. I just wanted to note that

I think it would be best to put it at the end if we can denote that it would happen at the end of the at the last meeting in December rather than the start of the meeting because I feel that undermines the person that may be being replaced or retiring or etc. So I'd prefer I think it would look better if it was at the end of the December last meeting in December that well yeah I mean that's perfectly acceptable from my standpoint but also the swearing in doesn't have to happen at a council meeting. It could happen any time in December they can be sworn in but it's effective January 1st. So it really doesn't undermine the existing person except in format in in uh uh in presentation uh and and that can be done again after swearing in as a formal thing in the first council session the first of the year to uh to repeat that swearing in for the for the benefit of the public.

Yeah. But I, you know, frankly, you know, I could visit uh I could have visited Sarah's office and she could have sworn me in on December 2nd or whatever. Effective January 1st. I think there's something to be said to do it at a council meeting for the benefit of the public. I do too. But that could be done the first meeting of council in January after a private swearing in earlier. Yeah. I don't see that. Don't you have a second swearing in?

Well, that way unless if there was um an emergency where we needed to get together on January 2nd, but our meeting wasn't until January 6, you're already sworn in, you're ready to go. I've I've seen that in other locations I've worked in where they come into the office, we swear them in in the office, and then you do a ceremonial swearing in at a meeting, bring the family in um at a regular meeting, and but you've already kind of gone through the process. You're official. Um, but it a lot you can do it a lot of different ways.

I I would only say having having survived um service on city council, I don't think I'd be offended that somebody else was being sworn in during the meeting moving forward. So, I'd say keep it simple or anything Laura would advise um to comply with it being legal. Your your comments, Laura? Hold on. I didn't realize she was up here.

Her hands up. Yeah. There we go. All right. I was trying to unmute myself. Um, no, I think that's it's kind of a matter of how much detail you want to go into on this in terms of the swearing in. You could put in here that um some acknowledgement that they will be sworn in before January 1st. I think you can still have an organizational meeting, especially if you're going to select a prom mayor. Um, but otherwise, I agree with everything that's been said. You can, it doesn't have, they don't have to be sworn in in a meeting, but oftent times that's um desirable both for the public and for the family who want to come.

We just defer to Laura to draft it. Okay. With me. Yeah. Sure. That it defer to her. Okay. Turn the page. Number two is at the bottom of the page, sir. Number two. Oh my gosh. Number two is uh I'm okay with the deletion that Tina put in. That can be deleted. It's not needed. Great. Unless Laura wants to pipe in and say anything different. I I couldn't hear which part you said. I thought this is uh Deore's note number two at the bottom of page one.

It's holiday cancellations. I'm scrolling down to note two. and it's followed by meeting cancellations. The next paragraph,

well, I don't like the word occasionally. I don't know how occasionally the first meeting of July we're talking about. Yeah, I mean, you could combine them and just put holiday in the meeting cancellation section. delete the whole piece because the next paragraph talks about meeting cancellations. Yeah. And then maybe list holidays in that second section. City council can adopt their schedule each year at the start of the year. Yeah. Looking at meeting cancellations. There's a three there.

Yes. This is this is the one where I would take out it says city council generally should follow the polling of members. I think generally should come out and I'd suggest adding in what Mr. Wilmont has suggested there um at the end. Is that where it was? Yes. Requires an requiring an agreement of the majority of council members. Is that correct? Is that what you're agreeing to?

Um yeah. You say however such a call for the cancellation of res or rescheduling of a regular meeting requires agreement of the majority of council members. You suggested that be added at the end and I agree with that and taken out generally. I I have a I have a a question on that. How do you is it okay to the mayor would just pull people? I mean how would you cancel if you're not in a meeting? Was it just

I pulled that last meeting in the work study or work session that we had. I pulled each of you. So one person didn't call me back. I did pull. So just to let you know, Lindsay, I did poll and everybody was in agreement to postpone or to cancel meeting. I generally like the idea of a little bit of begance and and general so there's a little bit of flexibility for unusual things and I'm personally okay with the mayor at the mayor's discretion to pull or whatever. I don't know that it should be required required. I like the begness but that was that was my only thing

and and for my part I don't like that because then it makes it unclear what the process should be and the process should be a polling of members. So I don't know why generally would be in there.

I I think that the this is maybe this just difference of opinion you know is in these are just policies not absolutes and and whenever there's things with absolutes there's always weird things come up. So it it the policy is generally it is and if it isn't the mayor should be able to use his discretion or her discretion to to to cancel the meeting. And if you want to add that he will pull three people that's fine with me too. Frankly, I'm just wondering how do you how do you manage that? Unless it just you just say it is recommended or the mayor shall get an approval of three because if that's what you want, I mean that's fine to

your feedback, Laura.

Yeah, I polling is okay. I don't always love it. Um but when we're just talking about administratively cancelling a meeting, it it shouldn't be problematic. Otherwise, how you want to do it is up to you. I also tend to like a some generality because I have seen situations elsewhere where there's another issue and somebody will throw violation of policy in as some kind of claim against the city. So if there's a little bit of wiggle room, I'm not opposed to that. So, if I'm hearing what you're saying, Laura, that you've seen occasions where not having a little bit of general verbiage or vague verbiage can come back at us negatively.

Yeah. I've I've got a case now for another client where one of the arguments is that they it wasn't a council meeting policy. It was a different kind of policy. Wasn't an ordinance, wasn't a resolution, just a policy. and um the plainif has made a an independent claim that the the municipality did not follow their policy. So I'm not saying that claim has merit. I don't think it does. But um nonetheless, if we can avoid painting ourselves into any corners in a policy, that would be preferable. So for my part though, I think that a meeting shouldn't be cancelled without the consensus of a majority of city council members. I don't know how others feel, but to me that seems to be important and I don't think that says that here. So maybe that's a place to start. Does everybody think that for a meeting to be cancelled that the majority of city council should be in agreement with that? If yes, I think the language isn't clear. If no, then it's different. Well, the language as stated uh sorry, may I uh the language as stated does say shall uh follow the polling of members of city council. And uh in order to keep it, uh a little bit uh looser for the purpose of unforeseen circumstances,

I'm going to change my opinion and say I'm comfortable with the way it's currently stated. So here the way it's stated all members have to agree. So in other words, respectfully the practice follows that followed this week wouldn't wouldn't meet this criteria. Do you mean as drafted without the footnote three? I'm sorry. I I would support that. Yes.

Yes. As drafted without reference to footnote 3. It says generally. So I think that is wiggle room. If you've got if there's an emergency, there's a you know, god forbid natural disaster or some other thing going on in the city and you do not have time to or cannot reach everybody, do you want to leave some wiggle room where the the mayor can simply cancel the meeting? Yes. But um what what I think Councilman Deore was objecting to is it currently says the polling to determine if all members concur and she saying at least it should be a majority. I see. Yeah. I don't I don't have a problem with that. Yeah. And I'm not necessarily objecting. I'm kind of putting on everybody's radar to say

I I agree. I just just caught what you meant by that. Okay. Yeah. Instead of all because then if one person didn't want to, that's a you got the black ball, right? So having a majority makes sense. It's pretty burdensome for the mayor, too. I mean, can't always get a hold of all of us and otherwise if there's three of us saying yes, would would happen. So I know where you live. Okay, let's move on. It sounds like we have consensus on that. Majority changing to majority. Majority. Okay. Makes up meetings. I'm okay with Tina's edit on that one.

Scratching that whole paragraph out. Correct. No, just uh I was every it looked like the at least the people with written responses agreed to the yellow line out, but then since Laura gave us a note, I was wondering if you felt Laura that we needed to add something in there about the open meetings act or Well, I was going to bring that up when we get down to meeting calls because I think that okay

addresses that issue as well. And I'll just tell you my point is when we talk about three members calling it, if three members are talking to agree to something, that needs to be at a meeting. If we're talking about communications outside of a meeting, we do not want it to be a quorum. It's one thing when we're talking about a poll to cancel a meeting and polling doesn't violate the OMA, but when we're talking about people together making a decision, even if that decision is to have a special meeting, I'd rather that not be a quorum outside of a public meeting. Right. We're on makeup meetings now.

No, I understand. But the same Yep. same concern though because if you go if you jump two down, right? Special it's how you call those special session or how you call special session meetings. Makeup meetings is talking about special session meetings as well. But the the problem I shouldn't jump ahead here, but here I go. This is the one that's covered by section 4.6 of the charter.

Right. That's right. Yeah. So, we can't change that three members. Sorry guys, this is under meeting calls. Um, no, but I think it might be wise and I'm also jumping ahead to indicate that that is done at a meeting. We Sorry, we can go back to where we're actually at. Can we do it in both places? Yeah, and that's what I'm wondering as well. Right. And that was my question. you know, even though in a meeting it's three members because the charter requires it. My question here for you was, do we need an amendment regarding outside of a meeting in that circumstance for the open meetings act?

Yeah, I'm just pulling up that charter language again. I my bottom line is going to be regardless of what your charter said, you can't have a quorum making decisions outside an open meeting.

I got a little confused on this part. A little confused. Go back to numbers. So Laura, are you suggesting your note on uh note number four, rescheduled regular meetings must be noticed in accordance with the open meeting. Do you want to add that back into the makeup meetings paragraph?

Not necessarily. Again, I don't think it has to be spelled out exactly like that. So, I'm not sure I have a problem with saying that special session meetings can be set as a replacement. What I wanted to be careful of was somebody reading this and saying, "Okay, three of us can jump on the phone and talk about special meeting on some topic and that wouldn't be appropriate." Are you still talking about meeting cancellations, Laura, or are you someplace else? Uh, no. I'm talking about makeup meetings and then meeting calls because I don't think you can talk about You asked me about the open meetings that concern with makeup meetings.

Right. Right. Yep. Okay. So, what's wrong with the deletion? That nothing. I don't have a problem with that. I think that's good. Okay. So, let's Can't we move on? Yeah. Yep. Yep. Okay. So, four down. Four is good. We're moving down five. Does it say that so number seven that's staying for meeting calls? Well, this is the one that if you look at the comments number five, the attorney comments, she suggesting I would make this two members instead of three. But in followup with Laura,

I I looked at the charter and 4.6 requires three members, but that's in the context of a meeting. And I'm not going to speak for Laura. She could speak for herself, but her concern was if this was happening outside of a meeting, you wouldn't want three people. So my understanding was you were going to try to maybe draft something and delineate between the two. Well, I don't So what the charter says is special meetings of the city council shall be called by the city clerk on the written request of the mayor or of any three council members. Period. And what I was saying is you can't have three council members, like I said, jumping on the phone or sitting at the coffee shop and decide to have a special meeting. I think that's too risky in terms of the open meetings act. So, I'm not sure you can say it should just be two, which is how I typically would have you do it absent that charter provision, but you might need language that says too many tabs open here. Um, or by any three members of the city council during a meeting,

right? I love it. I'm okay with that. Otherwise, I'm okay with the mayor having discretion to call a special meeting, whatever. Yeah, the charter gives the mayor that power. So, um the mayor on on his or her own can do that. It also gives that power though to any three members. So, correct. Okay.

Mayor, may I mention something? And Laura, you can correct me if I'm wrong. under the meeting calls uh paragraph that we are discussing right now where it says notices of special session meetings must be provided at least 25 24 hours in advance. Can that just generically be comply with OMA because notices for any special meetings is 18 hours. I believe

it it is for the OMA but that same charter provision requires that notice be provided to council members 24 hours in advance. So the public notice can be 18, but 4.6 of the charter says written notice of the meeting shall be served personally to each council member or left at his place of residence no less than 24 hours before the time the meeting is to begin. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. So Laura, I'm just wondering as a side ask as we're going through this if you could maybe make some marks or asterisks or something where there's parts of our charter should we ever get to a charter revision um that we can have on our radar. Sure. I would think that that would be a separate undertaking by her in city council. Well, it it absolutely is, but as we're going through this, we're noting things along the way that

Okay. Six. Number six, joint meetings. Councilman De Moore's question was do we need anything regarding notice requirement for joint meetings or could it be incorporated elsewhere? Uh to to my way of thinking notice is standard standard public notice is something we follow in in every instance. I don't know that we necessarily need to add it here, but I don't see the harm either. I have

Well, and that's kind of to that point. You don't need a policy that says you can have joint meetings either. I mean, you just This is sort of stating a fact that regardless of whether this is in your policy, you can do this. So my question to you is just do you think we need it here or I don't see how it adds anything. I'm not sure it gives you direction on anything because you already can do that and you would have to comply with the notice requirements. But that's all just a matter of open meetings act law. So we don't need it in here.

I don't I don't see what it adds. it. The only reason I assume it was in here was in case you had members of council who didn't know they could have joint meetings and then you'd have this, hey, we can do this, right? But nothing about but you have the right whether it's there or not. Excuse me. Nothing. No, I mean we could you could you could have a whole document on how to conduct a joint meeting, but I don't know that you need to council policies. Okay, changes there. Moving on.

Maybe read seven. Yeah, joint action. My question was I really didn't understand what the first sentence meant. So, well, and this comment wasn't necessarily meant to go word into the policy. I think if I recall, it's been a little bit since I wrote this. Um, but again, if you take out the one above, I'm not sure you really need that either. Good. I'm sorry. Are you suggesting delete the whole joint action par?

Well, I guess I I'm not This is your policy and as as Shane said, a lot of these are business decisions, but I guess what I would ask is what does this add or what does this do that isn't just already a matter of what the city can do? It's kind of like saying, "Well, the city can adopt ordinances." Well, yes, you can, regardless of whether you have a policy that says so. Yeah. Right. And and you you agree that the meaning of the highlighted section is unclear. So, I'm never a fan of leaving something in that's unclear because really doesn't serve its purpose to inform people of anything. So, are you saying just delete it entirely? I think you can. Yes.

Is that what Laura is saying? Yeah. Yeah. I think you can. Again, it's up to you, but I don't see where again it's adding anything joint action just out close session and uh shall be followed be sought from the city attorney and followed. I love having something in writing that says you have to follow my advice, but I'm not sure that's actually correct. Well, generally speaking, I would not include that. Let me put that out there. I'm not happy with it there.

Well, if the city attorney tells us that it's not appropriate to go into a closed session, under what circumstances would we go into a closed session? This is not saying generally speaking we have to follow her advice, but it's saying concerning the appropriateness of conducting close session meetings of the city council. Much as I much either Yeah. Much as I joke that I love having that in writing. Um I'm not sure you can bind council to make a decision a certain way. So just take the and followed out and call it good. Right. Well, that was my suggested add. Yeah, the and followed was was Yeah,

it was my suggestion and followed is out paragraph stand. Are we meeting? We're going to do a little more there. Meeting agendas in minutes. Note number note number 10 on on agenda preparation. She just suggested we delete the word generally. Uh, I was okay with that and uh, Councilman Noctra said he didn't agree. Again, I like the wiggle room language. Generally seems okay to me, but Well, I think Laura Laura not going to put up a big fight about that, Elmo.

Well, I think Laura earlier said she liked it. Is that I like I do like wiggle room. Okay. Okay. Well, just for the reason again that let's say something slips through the crack and it's not provided. Is is somebody going to then use that as an additional basis to try to invalidate council action? Okay, leave it. Two pages. Are we keeping going? I wanted to get to the other two full pages. So, we will pick up We will pick up under inclusion request. How's that? Item 11. Okay.

Progress. Yes. Thank you all. Why don't you bring this stuff with us at the next meeting because it'll probably be on the agenda. It'll be a recurring agenda item. So, bring your stuff with you. All right. This is completed by 2030.

Well, or later. Now we're going back. Now we're going back to new business and that is approved Bayfront Fireworks display permit for July 4th, 2027. I move for acceptance of uh of this uh permit. Have a motion from Mr. Wilma, a second from Mr. Moore Rice. Okay. Discussion Mr. Mr. N.

I have a question. Is the basis for that for your motion strictly because that's the way it's in it's in the days in the ordinance. So we're we're saying it be are you saying okay because it's in the allowable days in the ordinance in part? Yes. But it's also the 4th of July and it's an appropriate celebration on the 4th of July. But it's also in the ordinance. It's in the That's the idea of the of the window. Absolutely.

Mr. Moore, just for clarity, you're making a motion on the July 4th. I thought we already had a motion on it. Apologies. No, we did not. We We had a motion to move it out of consent agenda and discussion of new business. You have a public comment on this. Do I have public comment on this? This the July 4th one? Yes. July July 4th. Not this. Any other discussion? Council public wish to weigh in on this? There being none, I go to Miss Becker, the city clerk for role. Wilmont. Yes. Moore. Hi. Walker. Hi. Mark Trob I Murphy

I motion for the Bayfront water fireworks passes 50. Next approve possible approval uh of a private Bay Harbor fireworks display permit for August 8, 2026. We wish to have questions, comments. What would you like to know about I feel what we need to do is probably as a council someplace in the future here put this on the agenda irregardless of what we have what we're doing with this but I think we should talk about it and that way everybody feels good about what's the plan is going for the future I have a motion

I just

okay So, I'm to a degree conflicted on this one because these folks did go through the existing process that we have. But the flip side is I do think to a degree it sets a precedent. So, for my part, as I'm thinking in real time, if we move this forward, I definitely want us to have a policy in place because um I think it'd be very difficult to kind of sus out which we say yes to and which we say no to if we don't have a policy in place. So, that's what I have. Is this one do you see in violation of the practice of that is set forth now that we are utilizing as a yard stick?

No. In fact, what I just said was it appears based on what the city manager has advised us that this has followed the process that's in place, right? But there is no policy in place. So I said it seems that this went forward executing with the process in place and appeared to have complied with the regulations that are in place, but I have concerns about this going forward. Okay, Mr. Nar,

you know, I agree rather strongly about creating the policy. I think that makes sense. Total makes sense. Um, and and I'm also a little conflicted about it at at the same time. I think if if it's been something that that they follow the rules, they're being professional about it. Um, I I I sometimes feel like we're worried about that when the what happened last summer, the with I would just mention almost mentioned the name with the uh the other ones that it caused a little bit of problem. Now we're just a little frustrated by it and and it and it seems to me that we ought to let them go with this one but immediately do the policy.

Will the fact that they uh followed a process for submitting an application does not require that uh it's automatic. It's still subject to our approval. The ordinance says may not shall. So the fact that they have submitted an application does not guarantee the acceptance of that application. That is up to council. And council is currently saying that without a policy in place for more closely uh administering any other exceptions outside of the dates in the currently listed in the ordinance. I think it's appropriate to table this until that policy is uh is in place.

This is the more Yeah. What about that idea? Since we're looking at August, there any reason we couldn't try to develop something timewise? I mean, I don't know timegard and DNR and stuff at a Yeah. I don't know what all those approvals, how long that takes and how long they need to have things scheduled out for, but would you like this to be on the next agenda? No. No, I'm not talking about this. I'm talking about the policy that we'll be looking at. Mr. N.

Uh, you know, when you say the the the process and just delay it, having been involved in the yach club fund our fireworks for many, many years. Um, the it the schedule is a big deal with these guys. So, if we're going to delay it and pull it and and and kind of push it down the table down the road, that's a big deal. It it's it's expensive and and the scheduling is is tough.

Um I'm hoping I'm not suggesting this. I'm hoping that we're not singling out Bay Harbor because they're the only ones. Let me just They're the only ones really have the space that actually could pull this off. You know, it's not a backyard thing. It's way out in the bay and they're they're way out there and it's so it's a very safe process um in the so I just hope that's not happening Mr. Not Mr. whoever you are.

Absolutely not. In my opinion, it's really more about the dates and when fireworks are appropriate to uh for the for the people who enjoy fireworks, that's great. For the people that find fireworks to be an inconvenience in their lives, we have a calendar of events. And uh personally, my vote is to stick to that calendar. Miss Walker,

I feel like because this is a Michigan state law and the permits that were filed pertain to the state of Michigan with the reference to the local municipality or jurisdiction. I'm perfectly fine with moving forward with this tonight. I'll ask the public. I don't ask them until after there's a motion. This council has a second discusses it. That's the way the process is supposed to. Mr.

I would like to make a motion to um approve this um fireworks on whatever date it is. August 8th. Um, provided that they have provided that they have complied with all our normal our normal requirements. Thank you. I'll second the motion. Mayor

motion, Mr. Nra, second from Miss Walker. Other discussions? Would you a question to those two that I know are not supporting this motion. I think I don't Are you would you be entertain the idea of the next this next month we review this policy or is that not

I'm happy to review the policy although I'm unlikely to vote against it if it's outside the dates that are currently established in the Laura, do you want to in on this at all? No, hold on. Hold on.

There we go. Yeah, I was just looking at the at the statute and it contemplates the local government authority ruling on the basically the competency and the qualifications, but it doesn't provide Am I I'm unmuted, right? Yeah. Okay. Um, it doesn't provide any more detailed parameters for how one does that. Um, so you certainly have the authority to approve this. You have the application and whatever other materials they submitted. I'll leave it up to council whether or when you want to adopt more specific guidelines. This fall within the legal legalities of the city fireworks at this point.

Yes, I think both your ordinance contemplates uh this as well as the state law. Other discussion council public comment after I think any other public any other council comments I go to the public for comment please come down

Kate Marshall 10:15 East Mitchell I didn't anticipate being here for this because I didn't know it was on the agenda but um I was on council when the new dates came out and everyone was relieved that there was some control as to when fireworks could actually happen because as Mr. Woman says, some people don't like them. Some people can't sleep. Some people's dogs go crazy. Some people just don't enjoy them in the way others do. So, it created at least containment for that experience. Um, if Bay Harbor is the only place that can do this, although I wonder, could we all get together and rent a barge and celebrate John's birthday out there? And then you might have to look at that. Well, of course, maybe that's a possibility. But if it's only Bay Harbor, then how many events can there be in Bay Harbor that go beyond the prescribed time? And you could just have multiple multiple multiple events. Um, so I I agree with um two of you, I think, who want to keep to the dates. I question whether or not you should be approving the current application before you've made a decision on everything else. And I don't know why there is the urgency to do that. Thank you. Good luck.

Anyone else wish to speak? Photo Respect for roll. Knock. I Walker. I Wilmont. No. Deore. Yay.

And Murphy. I'm going to say no with the understanding that this will be scheduled for review of of the practice. So within time so that if there there is a change on the city's uh city council there's time enough for this gentleman whoever he is have have uh times consider coming back city council with it. I'm going to ask city council, city manager to put this on the agenda in the month of March so that we can review this and make sure that we have a down path. Do we have a permit system in place that is usable by all? has prelim has guidelines that we can utilize this next proposed resolution that would authorize to adjourn to close session pursuant MCL 15.2681E to consult with attorney regarding uh trial or settlement strategies and connection with specific litigation. Uh low US District Court from the Western District of Michigan. Case number one 25 CV

01027 and MC 152 5818 to consider materials exempt from privileged written legal opinions. Turn it to city council and ask for motion. I'm happy to make a motion as set forth uh in the agenda. Motion from Mr. De Moore, second from Mr. Wilmont. Any other discussion? I go to Miss Beck for roll. I Wilmont I Nocttra I Walker Hi Murphy

we will be coming for adjournment after this but we there will be no further business I believe to come before this conference. Have a good evening to those at state.

Maybe a sleep dinner. It's cold by the sink. By the sink. My dinner's going to be full. Fine. I am hungry. Put a microwave. No, you don't access. Well, I can't. Are you not doing public comment? Well, I normally uh public comment uh comments. Uh Miss Walker, no comment there. Again, Mr. Nat, none tonight. Mr. Wilmont, I'm good. Miss None tonight.

Mayor has no comments, further no further business coming before this council. I call this meeting adjourned. Go home and spread the good