City Council - Regular Meeting

Call to order this meeting of the Escanaba City Council, July 2nd, 2026. Mr. DeMay, please call roll.

Council Member Moore.

Here.

Council Member Beauchamp. Here. Council Member DeWard. Here. Council Member Flot.

Mayor Hamlin. Here. Mr. Mayor, looking to make a motion to excuse Mr. Flot's absence tonight.

I'll support.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

It is the rule of law for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

At this time, seeking approval and or corrections to the minutes of the regular meeting of June 18th, 2026. Motion to approve.

Support.

Discussion? All in favor? Aye. Thank you. At this time, seeking approval and or adjustments to the current agenda as written.

Move approval.

Support.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. This time, is there any conflict of interest needing to be declared by members of council pertaining to items on the agenda? Hearing none. At this time, we'll hear brief public comment pertaining to items on the agenda. If you wish to make comment, please approach the podium, state your name, place of residence, keep your comments to three minutes or less.

Hello. Gary Dubord from Sioux Hill Sanitation. Looking at item agenda three on the new business section of the agenda, we had looked at getting this property a few years ago, two and a half years ago, and there was just some unanswered questions, so we didn't finish going through. It was approved recently as of, 6-23 of this year, the last thing I was told is that they're still waiting on an appraisal. The assessor believes that it has gone up in value since the original approval from $23,000 to $26,070 as of June 4th of this year of Lot 8 Industrial Park. Concern with the rise in the price is that after review of the property, there's wetlands behind it. So even if the 1.58 acres is the actual size of the property, there's approximately only about one acre of usable land there. And that's if we include the ditch, which you gotta have drainage. So what I'm asking is if it can be, considered and approved at the original 23,000, which at this point after the survey of the land is probably more than what is usable there. But I would like to go forward based on that about an acre of the 1.58 acres is usable. So if that could be something discussed or approved further, we're ready to move forward and start to move the land around to get a building up as soon as possible and develop a hopefully long-term location for our business. That's all I have.

Thank you. Further public comment at this time? We currently have no public hearing scheduled. Moving on to unfinished business, item number one, approval, adoption of ordinance number 1319, an ordinance to amend chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances to establish the Escanaba Tree Advisory Board. City Manager.

Administration is requesting City Council to consider approval and adoption of ordinance number 1319, an ordinance to amend Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances to establish the Escanaba Tree Advisory Board. This had been brought for a public hearing previously and was brought back to this meeting today. Council has been provided with an alternative ordinance that Public Works Director Kent Dubord has drafted. He would like consideration of that ordinance to maybe replace the one that we already had the public earring on. Obviously, if council likes his ordinance, it needs to be prettied up a little bit and just sort of cleaned up. And that would have to then come for a first reading and a public hearing later before we could approve it. But he would like that to be considered as an option instead of the ordinance that is an unfinished business item.

So that would eliminate item two under unfinished business?

Not necessarily. No?

no item two is still item two would still have us working with conservation or i believe the conservation district in some some respects the description does say under item two including arborist consulting services if the city has its own

Right, so I don't think the ordinance itself, the one that is in the agenda and then the alternative option, I don't think either one of the ordinances specifically says that the arborist has to be a city employee or a non-city employee. I think it could go either way.

So for the record, could the differences in the one that we're talking about now and can't be explained?

I can tell you what the differences are, and then if there's any questions, he could certainly, I made some notes. So in the one that I provided late today, the one that Kent had, there's a difference in the number of members. The original ordinance has seven members and then two non-voting, and the one that Kent has has a total of seven members. The terms of office are different. It went from basically three-year terms to Kent is suggesting most of the positions or most of the members would be staff members or DBA and those positions he's suggesting would just be there until the staff changes over, which could certainly be changed. The duties and responsibilities appears to be missing the Tree City compliance, so I would want to add that one in there before we brought it back. And then Kent added, a schedule for the meetings to be at least semi-annually. There is no meeting schedule in the one in the agenda. And then he added a section on the relationship with the Department of Public Works that basically just says that, you know, Public Works has the authority to do their jobs regardless and that the board is an advisory board.

So the original ordinance here does say that they would meet quarterly for meetings.

I did not see that, but I trust you.

In my agenda packet, that's what I'm looking at.

Yeah, no, I just missed it probably. Oh, okay, that's fine. I'm just making sure.

I remember last time I was looking at the wrong thing.

That's right.

So, Mr. Duborder-Kent, I guess try to find your logic and reasoning for the changes. That's all I'm asking.

And a couple things I want to point out was, one, we've been awarded Tree City USA for 26 years. Nowhere in there does it say we have to have a board to be Tree City USA. There's four requirements. One is we must hold an Arbor Day celebration, which we do. Two is we must have a tree ordinance, which we already currently have. Three is we need to spend $2 per capita, which we currently do. Our tree budget's roughly a quarter million dollars, $300,000 annually. then number four is the board or department we have a department of public works that oversees our trees currently um that's why there's no specification on my end of the board that relates to tree city usa because we would have been denied every time that i fill out the application for the last four years that i've been in office position with the city um of tree city usa so It's more, to me, an advisory board so people can voice their opinions. But at the same time, whether it's an annual meeting or semi-annual meeting, we meet all the time and talk about trees and other related issues. So I think it's something that we could talk about more frequently if needed. And as far as departmental-wise, I think it's important for our staff to have opinions. Water, wastewater, and electric, In public works, there's already meetings that we have internally between tree plantings and cutting down trees and making sure we're on the same page. With sidewalks being impacted and infrastructure and other utilities being impacted, we've worked to make changes the last couple years. This kind of just puts it in writing. And I think it's important that staff has the say in what we're doing. Because the last thing we want is my guy up in a bucket and some guy painting a dot on this branch and this branch and drawing out the process of cutting down the tree. If it's dead or a hazard and needs to be trimmed, we'll address it. And then at these meetings, we could talk about any issues. But the last thing I want is marking every single tree in town and saying this, that, the next thing. Because to be honest with you, I mean, Trees are important, but on a day-to-day basis, it's kind of, right now we're working on Washington Avenue and Crosswalks. It's kind of what gets cut off the list when we're limited at times. And then we take advantage of it at times in the fall and in the winter and spring. to catch up on our list, which we've done in years past, but in the summertime, we really don't have the staff to put out every single day members to go to trees. And that's my fear. If it isn't internally, you know, this branch needs to be trimmed, this branch needs to be trimmed. Well, we have a list of those things that need to be addressed, but we also have to prioritize deadlines that we have to meet.

Sure. So Mr. DuBord, sorry to cut you off. Would you have a problem with us if we just moved forward with the original ordinance of 1319? Are you really objecting to move towards yours? I'm trying to understand. I mean, I didn't see much changes. The only thing was it was really five voting members, and then it was two non-voting members in the original.

Yeah, I mean, I guess the biggest change in mind compared to that that I would like to see is that city arborist with the next topic kind of tied into it is that person being an internal member on staff that I think someone that we could utilize 40 hours a week, but it's also someone that we could have plowing roads or doing road construction projects. and be able to bounce over to an issue of hazard or something. Right.

No, I see what you're saying, but according to the original, I'm just saying, I'm just trying to understand if we just go with the original does say one certified arborist as designated by city council. So in the end, we don't, if we choose to go with internal, we can do that. If we choose to go to, you know, the conservation district, we can do that too. Nothing in the original prevents that just so we are aware.

Well, in my opinion, the the city arborist, whether it's internal or delta conservation on contract, it would still be the city arborist.

Yeah, correct. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yes, either agreement. Yeah, that we go with. So I'm just. To make it simple, I guess my reasoning is that we can move forward with this if the Council agrees to to move forward with the original ordinance 1319. IF WE WANT TO, IF COUNCIL WANTS TO DO THIS AMENDED ONE, WHICH I DON'T SEE MUCH BIG CHANGE IN IT, THEN WE HAVE TO DO ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN ON THIS.

WE WOULD NEED TWO.

YEAH, TWO.

WE WOULD NEED TWO, SO THIS WOULDN'T GET ADOPTED UNTIL AUGUST.

IS THAT THE ONLY CHANGE?

WELL, THE ONLY OTHER CHANGE HE DID IS THE ORIGINAL HAS TERMINATES. OH, OKAY. WHICH IT'S THREE-YEAR ROTATION OR TWO OR THREE-YEAR ROTATIONS.

And then the nine total members down to seven total members.

I. Oh yeah, I see what you're saying. So we reduce numbers because technically you have three residents. So yeah, seven voting members in two non voting members. You have nine in that board.

So. I'd like to go back to where you started with is regardless of what we do as well. Yeah, the original one has quarterly. i think we need to have at least a semblance of a schedule of meetings i mean at least semi-annually does not sound committed enough for us to pass an ordinance that's a we're passing an ordinance to think about talking about trees maybe once a year when we decide to invite the other people that aren't department heads. Because you guys do talk about it. You know every tree in the city. Whether you want to or not, you do. And you guys all know when you talk about it, but we do need to have designated times where these other people are included in that discussion. So they're not just silent. And when we have those meetings, their input has to have value. They can't be sidelined because they're not department heads, because they don't talk about it every week. They do need to have value. If we create this, this has to be a board where these people have a valid voice and their input needs to be heard.

In that regard, don't most of us, most of the boards, they say they meet quarterly or monthly. It doesn't say at least.

Correct.

So if we were to say semi-annually and they met once a year, no harm, no foul. I mean, there's times where meetings get canceled, lack of quorum. So technically they miss their monthly cycle or...

I would think maybe twice. I would guess you would want something in the spring and something.

I mean, there was a stretch this winter where we met about trees for five weeks in a row.

I think that maybe suggested four times a year. And then the board can always change things. But I think once or twice a year is not enough, because that's not going to address the problems that we're having. And I know that Public Works and electrical, they have their policies and they know things, but there was lots of issues that were, that's why basically it was me that started this because there was too many issues, too many people were coming to me, why are they doing this, why are they doing that, and there was not a specific answer. And I think that if they have an issue, then they have a place to go to a tree board to ask these questions and get scientific answers to their questions instead of complaining and to council members or public works or on social media, which just doesn't help at all. So I think that this four times a year I think is absolutely the minimum because that at least gives people a chance to voice their opinions.

Personally, I'm fine with moving forward with this. If we want to scratch at least and instead of semi-annually put in quarterly, instead of city arborist, just put arborist.

And also just to clarify too, Kent is right about the arborist. And not a requirement of the tree city, but it's a suggestion. It's a strong suggestion. So that's that's where that came from too.

So, I guess if counsel, are we good with keeping this? My next question for counsel is, do we want to keep the 9 member.

board or do we want to look at reduction because if we're good with the nine member i'm just going to make a motion to approve the original there's not a huge difference it's just quarterly there is term limit and we have nine members i think that we should keep the nine members because there's still going to be three members from the community i think that's important i agree i think because people are interested and i understand your point because you know too many people with opinions are sometimes a problem. But I think in this case, it's important that we We allow citizen participation in this committee.

So I would so who were the extra 2? I didn't bring the original.

That's okay. So it's actually, it's. 1, representative from public works, 1, from water, wastewater, 1, electric. 1, from DDA, and then 3 residents, and then we have 2 non voting, which is a liaison and the arborist.

And why do you prefer that just to have more? Residents.

Yes, I'm just looking at the original just to say for good. Just let's move forward with the original.

You do realize we have trouble filling boards as it is 100% correct.

In this case, I don't think there's going to be a problem.

Well, that's why I kind of left the seven wide open because I kind of figured I'd have to come back here twice anyway if we went that route and we could decide if it need to be seven voting members or five and with one person being DDA and with four being staff members, be easy to fill those last two seats. My biggest concern with this whole thing is we get three people on there that are our biggest complainers already in the town when it comes to trees. It's going to create more headaches every single day where people already have their input on whatever it is. If they call, if there's a concern, we address it and move forward. If there are three people that have whatever issues with our staff, we can figure out how to address whatever the issue might be. But the thing is, is people are so quick to call and they don't even know if it's a contractor cutting a tree, if it's Public Works, if it's electric, or who knows who it is. But it's easy to point the finger at Public Works because you see that we're the guys cutting the trees. I got a call today and it didn't have anything to do with us. So I think it's one of those things where we're not singling out anybody from the city from being on this board. even if they aren't on the board, they can feel free to call and we can talk about anything that needs to be addressed at any time.

I think that to address your concerns about people getting on the board, I mean, it's council approval to who we put on the board.

It's just an advisory board. And it's an advisory board. It's an advisory board.

I just, I understand exactly what you're saying, but I just...

I do think it would be our only board with nine members, which when it comes to quorums and all that sort of thing, it becomes a cluster.

But what makes it different is the board is composed of department heads and representatives from departments, and those people are going to be there. And most of our boards are composed of volunteers, of citizens, and those are the heart. There's only going to be three citizens on this one. And I think that that's important based on my experience with trying to get this done.

I'm just going to make a motion to move forward with the original ordinance number 1319.

Support.

Dare I ask it? Mr May, please call roll.

Yes, yes. No.

Yes. We can always go back and adjust this if it doesn't work. Moving on to unfinished business item number two approval Delta Conservation District agreement city manager.

Administration is seeking city council approval of an interlocal service agreement with the Delta Conservation District to support the city's urban forestry program and Tree City USA efforts, including arborist consulting services, certification support, and related project materials. The agreement also identifies direct contacts for each party and allows either party to withdraw with 30 days written notice. So this item is probably a bigger discussion than the one we just had, believe it or not. Kent has provided, and I provided to council, a proposal for city staff to get a licensed person on board and do this in-house. I am a big supporter of promoting people from within if we have qualified people to do these types of jobs or any job at all. It would provide us with an employee available 40 hours a week to deal with tree issues. The agreement with the conservation district I think provided for 10 hours a month. So there's a big difference there. The other cost for certification and software and, you know, different materials that are needed would come no matter which path we went. So Kent put together a nice proposal that was sent to everybody for your consideration as an alternative to disagreement with the conservation district.

so really what you're asking us to do is approve or deny this agreement with conservation district correct okay yes because it looks like reddit it's also a three-year term with them as well but we are going to utilize them as a resource or as well for the training or for

I don't think we would need to. I mean, you know, we would have to put the employee through, there's a specific certification that they would have to get. There's classes involved in testing and all of that. So my assumption is when the employee gets through and gets their certification that they have the knowledge to go and do the same things that the conservation district employee would do. Because part of the conservation district agreement is to pay for somebody to go through the exact same trainings.

Sure.

So I would imagine if we needed some additional assistance, I would find it hard to believe that we couldn't work out an agreement with them to assist us a little bit if needed. But yeah, I think it's a good thing if we can promote our people from within.

Agreed. Okay.

Just to also emphasize too there, like she said, they would take the same class. The only difference is The guy from the conservation district is a forester. The person that would be chosen from public works would be the one that has the most experience in that field. And that would be chosen by Public Works or the city manager. But they would take the same class. It's exactly the same thing. So there's no advantage to the conservation district. That's what I'm trying to say.

I'd like clarification on this position because I've heard it referenced both ways. But I heard something about 40 hours a week and plowing and doing things. So is this going to be considered a new position, a new hire that will be the arborist and do things?

Yes, so the position would basically kind of evolve. We currently have a position that is vacant, a senior foreman position. We are not going to fill that position. The plan from Kent is to put this arborist position as a new role that the employee would have additional duties besides that. You know, all of our foremen, are on the job doing work besides managing their teams. So this would be a very similar situation where this guy would still be out plowing in the winter, but at the same time, if there's some tree work that needs to be done, he's available for that. And that might be 40 hours this week, and it might be zero hours for the next two weeks. It just depends. But it's somebody on staff with the skills and the knowledge to be able to handle that.

So as the controller, your recommendation as far as our budget goes, this is a wise choice?

Yeah, I can tell you that we have the senior foreman budgeted in the current year, so we're not looking to fill it. So there isn't a negative impact to the budget at all. There would be some budgetary savings because we're shifting the wages from the highest position that we offer to a different level in the union pay scale.

Thank you.

I think there's a huge advantage to having somebody on staff that's there every day that can Know exactly what's going on with. An arborist duties if you will. Whereas somebody from the Conservation District 10 hours a month is kind of hard to keep up and hard to know what's going on. So I think in this case is this huge advantage that that we pursue the the public works employee to do to take this course.

I'm gonna make a motion to deny the Delta Conservation District degree.

Do we need to say deny and explore the...

Deny that we're going internally.

Yeah. Do we have to put that in the motion that we have decided to go internally?

I don't think you have to. I think Kent can just do a request to me to do the position. Mr. Beauchamp.

That was a question I was going to ask as soon as it came to discussion. Is it de facto then the city?

I think if you deny the agreement, then we would look to do it the opposite route, yes. That would be the plan.

Meaning that's what we're deciding now, if we don't accept the... Well, I mean, Kent still has to get it past me. Okay, because I do have a few comments regarding the city's plan, internal plan. Do I speak now or forever keep my mouth shut?

I'd like to hear your input, but I would like us to try to make an attempt at following some sort of semblance of protocol here. We do have a motion. We don't have any support.

I will second the motion to not go with the conservation district.

All right, let's have it.

When the conservation district agreement popped up on our agenda a month or so ago and then it was pulled, reading through it at that time, I wasn't in favor of it simply because the city is spending our money to get an outsider licensed, credentialed, giving them whatever software that they need, and without restricting them to only use that software for city business. I'd be worried that this arborist is now moonlighting, what have you, on weekends. his own time using city resources. I would ask that if we do go the internal route, that whoever becomes the city arborist at city expense, it is clear to them that they are not to do this arborist stuff outside of whatever city business they're given.

Yeah, I think we have in our personnel policy and procedures, I think is what it's called, there's language in there that any employee that chooses to have outside employment outside of the city, that has to be approved by the city manager. So that would be something that would have to come to myself or the next person to get approval. So there is control over that for sure.

All right.

Do we have Laura on? Yeah, we do. Does she want to pipe in on that? Laura, do you have any input on this? Does she have an opinion on whether or not we need to put a clause?

I mean, this is basically a policy decision on which way you want to go on it. So I'm not sure if there's a specific legal question here.

I just didn't know if you had an opinion on whether or not you thought we should have a clause or if we just go with what Melissa just explained.

I reviewed the agreement. I'm sorry, which clause do you mean?

If we were to, we create this position in the city, we hire somebody, we train them, when they take this position, do we include a clause in their specific contract restricting their use of knowledge? Oh, of other employment?

Yeah. I mean, I think that's already in your employment policies. So if you're going to do an employment contract, you can incorporate that to the extent it's not already in your policies. Okay.

That was all. Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Nope, that's just fine. Further discussion on this item? Mr. DeMay, please call roll. Council Member Dewart? Yes. Council Member Beauchamp? Yes. Council Member Moore? Yes. Mayor Yang? Yes. Moving on to new business item number one, approval, 120 volt power for sample pumps, water.

Administration is requesting City Council approval to retain the services of Master Electric of Escanaba, Michigan for 120 volt power for sample pumps at the water plant as specified in the attached in an amount not to exceed $5,477. Money is available for the above work. This project is going to allow the water department to purchase more cost-effective pumps for their sampling system. I sent along a memo that Jeff had some more detailed information, and he's here if you have any further questions.

Move approval.

Support.

Discussion.

I'm curious, where are these sample pumps going? Second question, copper's expensive. Why not double the voltage and reduce the amperage?

The sample pumps are going to go where they're normally located. They're strategically located around the plant to draw from the sample source and then pump it up to the lab. And that is the number one thing about the 463 phase. It's a low current. It's a cheap energy source. that's why they did it but those pumps today are very pricey they're beefy sure they do last they are energy efficient but we're buying these taco pumps for 380 as opposed to 5 000 i cannot tell you the energy savings or loss i did not do that math i'd have to ask josh from from the electric department to run those numbers all right i assume they they run intermittently I know we turn them on every morning. When we come in, we turn them on. And while we're operating, they're sampling. They're running stuff up to the lab.

Thank you.

Is there a discussion?

Mr. Denae, please call the roll.

Council Member Moore?

Yes.

Council Member Beauchamp? Yes. Council Member DeWard? Yes. Mayor Randall?

Yes. New business item number two, approval antenna transmittal for garage doors, wastewater.

Administration is requesting City Council approval to retain the services of Delta Door Company of Gladstone, Michigan to hook all five doors to accept external antenna service at the wastewater plant as specified in the attached letter dated 6-9-2026 in an amount not to exceed $1,512.70. Money is available for the above work. Jeff can speak to this, but there's been problems with the openers for these garage doors ever since they were installed. And the antennas are intended to increase the reception of the remotes to eliminate those problems.

Motion to approve.

Support. Discussion?

Just a comment. I had a similar problem where I used to work years ago. The remotes, if you open them up, there's a little set screw inside. I don't know if it adjusts the gain or the frequency, but it does make a huge difference. Those remotes, when they crank them out on the assembly line, they just get them to work. But if you open them up, it'll...

Before we do this, we'll definitely look at that and try and tweak them.

But the antennas, external antennas, I want that row too, but yeah, definitely. Every time you put a new remote into service, open it up and give it a tweak. It's good advice. It'll double the range.

Excellent. I got my own at home are poor, so we'll look into that before we proceed with this. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

MR. DEMMAYE, PLEASE CALL ROLL.

COUNCILMAYOR DUBORG. YES. COUNCILMAYOR MOORE. YES. COUNCILMAYOR BOLSHOCK. YES. MAYOR HAMILTON.

YES. THANK YOU. NEW BUSINESS, ITEM NUMBER 3, APPROVAL CITY LAND SALE, LOT 8 OF THE WHITETAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK. CITY MANAGER.

Administration is seeking City Council approval of a request from Sioux Hill Sanitation to purchase 1.58 acres of city land known as Lot 8 of the Whitetail Industrial Park. The Planning Commission has recommended the sale based on the intended use. If approved, administration recommends an 18-month construction requirement. Crystal is here and she can answer questions about her valuation. We also had an appraisal done on this property. So initially Crystal had gone through and done her evaluation. She went back and took another look at it. She's got some different tables that she applies to things. Her assessed value is, or her assessor's opinion of value is between $28,000 and $30,000, $28,000 and $30,000. The appraisal came back at $31,600. So like I said, Crystal can answer any questions about her evaluation.

Well, I'll start off with the $26,000 value came from my vacant land study for this year. That goes for a period of sales from April 1st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. So we do a two year study period. So land value for this year is 16,500 for industrial. So that's where I came up with the $26,000 value that Mr. DuBois mentioned. When I'm looking at 2027 values, which is still a little bit early yet to set for next year, that's where the 28,000 to $30,000 range comes into play. Comes up to about 19,000 per acre. As he mentioned, the FEMA flood zone A is directly right behind it. But when Mr. Gilbert did his appraisal, he does walk the entire property. So ultimately, you know, it's up to council what you want to do with the price. The survey originally was done back in 2000. So the property's been for sale for a long time and we haven't had any money on it. Nothing's been built, so it would be really great to see something go up on that piece.

Is a true part of that acreage is wetland, like about a half acre?

It's hard to tell. It's near the rear end of it, right? Yeah.

Council did approve a sale. They did approve it, yeah. Well, I'm thinking the cul-de-sac not too long ago. Yeah. Did that, I don't recall, did we sell that at our asking price?

Is that on the North 48th Street one?

No, I think it's up in the Circle Drive, wasn't it, in the cul-de-sac? Or am I mistaken?

No.

I don't remember.

Yeah, we did. We did sell it.

I thought so. We did. I forgot what's going in there.

Wasn't there like a salvage yard or something in there?

Oh, you're talking on North 48th Street. Yes. Yeah, UP Towing bought that. Yeah, UP Towing, we did. He's going to be putting up a building this year. Yeah, I think his price was, I want to say it was close to $16,000.

Yeah, that's referenced in the chart. Around an acre, yeah.

Yeah, and it was one acre.

i mean my opinion he's ready to go right i'm okay with 23 if that's his offer i'd prefer to counter offer and split the difference okay because you're estimating 26. yeah that's my land value study for this year was 16.5 an acre um which was a little tiny bit over 26 000. so we're looking at what 24.5 for splitting it.

Even though the appraisal came in at 31?

Yeah, and my 2027 land value is, like I said, for setting it for next year. For next year. Yeah, and so those sales are based off of April 1st, 2025 to March 31st, 2026.

If we're going to counter, I would put it at 2026. It's not an unreasonable amount to cover.

I don't think so either.

Or we can just let it go the way it is.

Do you have a recommendation?

Oh, no, we cannot put her in that position. My goodness.

I would like to see a building go up.

That was a safe answer.

Yeah. Chris, do we know how many years that lot's been for?

It's the survey was done in 2000, so it's been a long time since it's been divided out and nobody's body yet.

Then I'm just going to make a motion to accept the offer of 23.

I'll support it.

Further discussion have they said what's what's being built there? I guess I'm just wondering, you know, the taxes and stuff.

I haven't been in the loop. Joey hasn't invited me to anything with that yet, but I plan on talking to him about it a little bit more, like to be included on potential projects.

The reason I bring it up is because we're typically told there'll be this or that. When Mr. McNeil was here, he was telling us the town homes on 3rd Avenue South would be priced at whatever amount and tax dollars would be coming in.

There is an impact. Yep.

can maybe help answer any questions for you. Gary DuBois, President, Sioux Hill Sanitation. Just to reiterate on that property, so the 1.58 acres that is actually listed, the property on the website for the City of Escanaba, it's listed for 14,000 per acre. I just came from the property before I came here today, probably carried some wood ticks with me, I'm sorry about that. Like I said, there's less than, one acre of actual usable land given the property line setback ordinances and that wetlands that is behind it. The assessor felt that it is worth currently 16,500 per acre, but with that being said, the real value of actually usable non-wetlands property is probably less than 16,500 because nothing can actually be done with that part. There's also a documented issue with caustic ash being buried on the property in the past. It has been for sale, like she had said, about at least 25 years. We were waiting for, I believe, an appraisal from an appraiser, but considering the lack of actual usable property being less than an acre, I think our offer of 23 is more than appropriate, probably more than what it actually should be for the usable land. We're interested in moving forward at the price of 23 to develop this property at a long-term location for soil sanitation. The towing company that was referenced is down on the cul-de-sac there. And the property that they're on, I'm not sure of what the sale price or anything with that was, but that is actual all highland over there and all sugar sand. So I don't know what their acreage price was. And they do have a building on it, actually. Our plans are to put a building up as soon as possible. preferably within the next two months for storage of our equipment and also to do something with the property, smooth it all out, make it a representable lot. It's pretty rough. I like the location because of its vicinity to the landfill. It's pretty ideal actually. So that was, we actually were looking more towards wells, but being that this is still there and it's not had any other interest in it, again, I feel that 23,000 is more than appropriate being that on the website for the City of Escanaba, it lists at 14,000 per acre. and being that there's less than an acre of usable land and our 23,000, I think is probably more than should offer, but we are very interested in the property and we'd like to put a building up there and hopefully bring in some more industrial processes there of adding to some of the recycling in the area that are COUNTY IS LACKING, UNFORTUNATELY, LIKE GLASS AND TIRE RECYCLING AND SUCH, AND THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WHEN I WAS HERE LAST TIME, AND THAT WAS APPROVED.

THE REASON WE DIDN'T MOVE... MR. NEWAR, LET ME ASK YOU THEN. YES. I MEAN, THIS SOUNDS LIKE THIS COULD BE A RATHER LARGE BUILDING. I think that's what Mr. Beauchamp was curious about. Your vision, is it a one story, is it a two story, is it gonna be a shed that fits a canoe? Or we can store three garbage trucks and have some office space and something like that?

Our plan is to have a building similar to what Delta Disposal had just put up for truck storage and then have a small office inside there. We don't expect to have where customers would come to the property, make payments. Most of our payments are done online and auto draws. So mainly it would be for storing equipment inside, working on equipment, and then having the space outside to store other equipment, like our empty roll-off dumpsters and our backup trucks and stuff like that. So the building size, does anybody know how big of a building that we have to have because everything is about cost and if there's a building size that it has to be that was one of the unanswered questions that i had from before and i i was just told at that time that it just needs to be a building that has a door with the name of the business and also a contact number that was all that basically the needs were for the building size, but no, it wouldn't, we wouldn't plan on putting up a shed. We plan on putting up a building big enough to at least put trucks in, keep them out of the weather and such and keep them out of view if we're working on them.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.

Further discussion on the second. Mr. Demay, please call roll.

Council Member DeWolf? Yes. Mayor Hamill? Yes. Council Member Moore? Yes. Council Member Boscia? Yes.

Thank you.

New business item number four, discussion, city manager recruitment process, human resources.

Tonight we are supposed to review city manager applicants, develop a list of candidates to interview, and establish a date and time for interviews. Everybody received the list and all of the resumes. There were, I think there's 15 people that were applying for the position. So hopefully we can narrow that down to some people we wanna talk to today. That'd be awesome.

I'd like to start with dates. Let's get that part out of the way first. If we need to set up a date and time for interviews, let's work on that.

I should mention Frank is on the meeting tonight as well in case anybody has any questions or anything for him, he's available.

I guess I'm open to whatever.

I'm gonna guess that it's Thursday the 2nd. We should probably look at the week of the 13th to give people time to plan.

What does Frank recommend as far as how soon?

Well, let's have him pipe in.

Did you want me to go ahead, Mayor? Yes.

Yes.

Okay. Whatever the council decides. Typically after the council chooses if they want to move forward tonight, if they choose candidates tonight, usually the interviews are anywhere from 10 to 17 days following your selection date, which is tonight.

So the week of the 13th to the 17th would be a good week to go with.

I'm not sure who suggested that, but that's actually a very good week because some of the candidates that you may choose would be up at the managers conference in Boyne City, which is that week. And so they would be closer to you than if not.

How do we feel about Monday and Tuesday?

The 14th won't work for me.

Okay. Morning of the 13th or afternoon of the 15th I'd be fine with.

I can do 13th. Karen, how's the 13th for you?

It's okay.

Okay, so fill the 13th. Heather, the 13th will work for all of us. And then if we need to do the 15th, I can do the 15th also. Is Frank still with us? Frankie still with us?

I sure am just listening. Morning of the 13th.

So we're looking at the morning of the 13th and then the 15th as a extra slash backup date. Sounds good, OK? Thank you for that for now. We're looking at morning so. I think perhaps we can. I don't know, do we need to do a full 90-minute block for each one?

Well, that's another discussion item. How many interviews are we going to have? How many candidates are we going to bring in? The reason I question that is when we had two candidates in last time, it seemed to me that council was kind of petering out halfway through. The first one took 45 minutes. After about 20 minutes of questioning the second one, it seemed like To me, at least, the questions weren't forthcoming anymore. Correct. Not because of the candidate. I think just counsel was fatigued, what have you.

Frank, can you hear me still? I certainly can. Yeah, I can. Do you have a recommended ballpark figure for an interview length? Should we look at 30 minutes? Should we look at 45 minutes? What seems to work best for you? In your experience, what seems to be a good amount of time that you can get valuable information out without fatiguing the candidate or the council?

Anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour. Right in there is a really... great target to hit. Typically, you have around 16 questions or so, and you easily get through those in 45 minutes to an hour. And if you set the interviews an hour apart, you'll be good. Okay.

I appreciate that.

so my after reviewing all the candidates and applicants um i have three strong people that i would like to see interviewed i have a couple that's a strong maybe but i have three um that i would make a recommendation to look at interviewing is number nine number 15 and number 17.

Okay. My intent was to have all of us communicate our recommendations to Heather by 5 p.m. tomorrow as Todd is not here to make them in person anyhow. At that, at which point Heather can call it that. I'm assuming that council will be comfortable with creating that list of any candidates who have been repeated will make the list. And we go with that.

So what if it ends up being six?

Well, that's kind of what I brought up. How many are we going to limit it at? We should have a cap of what we're looking for.

Does there have to be at least how many council members suggesting the same person before they get an interview? I mean, if one of us suggests one person, is that person going to get an interview?

I would think they would need at least two, if not three. I would think we could limit the pool to four.

Four for interviews?

I was good with three.

I was going to say five.

Oh, really? I was thinking two, so maybe. Oh, boy. We're getting there. Well, like I said, we had two last time, and the second interview was cut in half compared to the first one.

Then at which point, I was being generous with four.

Candidate number five will get two questions, and okay, you're good.

I'm content with three if we need it.

Well, the issue before is.

If somehow there's three people that get three selections.

Excuse me. The issue before is that we didn't have as many qualified candidates, and now we do. And so it's kind of hard to decide.

True, but I do think there's going to be quite a bit of overlap because there are so many outstanding. And if, you know, I think one candidate or two candidates, we're all going to have at the top of our list.

So obviously they would get called.

And after that, you know, if one out of five of us picks a candidate, I don't know.

Let's go back then. Is it agreed upon that it will take three votes per candidate to make the list? I don't know. If it only takes two, we could end up with, I don't know if Matthew was here, but we could end up with 20.

We can all send in our list and see what the results come back as.

We can try that. Heather can say, you guys, they're not good at this. Try again. Yeah.

Could I jump in?

Please do.

Sure. So I want to make sure I understand what you're talking through. I understand the concern is you don't have everyone there tonight. you're thinking some kind of like everybody submits their top ones. The only thing I want to make sure we avoid is putting staff in a position where they're having to kind of make a decision or choose anything outside of the meetings. That's not the goal here. I mean, is it possible for those of you who are here to select some candidates? And then I suppose if you're absent, sorry, you just have one absent member or two?

I can't see the whole.

Just one. Just one. Yeah. If you're absent council member, strongly feels that another one or two candidates should be interviewed, then, you know, they can let interim city manager know that. That might be a little bit easier than, you know, at least who some of your candidates are. I'm not saying the other way is impermissible, because it doesn't sound like you're asking staff to necessarily pick and choose, but just tally up. But at least then you'd have an idea of whether you do have overlap with the council members you do have there tonight.

I agree. I think some of us have looked at them to know where maybe our top ones are already at, kind of. And if we have the same ones, let's go for it.

But then again, we don't know how Mr. Flath's selections may change the results.

Well, if we have three of us or three of us that agree on the same candidate, we can move forward because it's three people already.

And what if we all pick one, one, one, one, one, one, one?

I think we'll be surprised. I think we have some of the same candidates. That's what I'm saying. And I'm thinking if we can do that, and then Todd can give his feedback to Melissa as well. But I think we can, let's just start discussing or talk about the candidates.

Did we ever say how many we're going to interview in the first place?

No, I was trying to get there, but we got off track.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE MOVING TOWARDS THREE, BUT, I MEAN, I'M GOOD WITH THREE.

I FEEL LIKE THREE IS A FAIR NUMBER. AGAIN, WITHOUT MR. FLOSS HERE TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT NUMBER HE WOULD LIKE, I MEAN, KAREN WANTED FIVE. YOU WANT TWO. I FEEL LIKE THREE IS KIND OF A REASONABLE NUMBER. And we might not even get to three. I don't think we're asking Heather to make any decisions. No, not at all. I had no intention of announcing candidates out loud this evening. I had every intention of emailing Heather.

She's basically, like Laura said, tallying.

That's the process that we used the last time. She would be.

She's tallying votes.

I think our process worked pretty well last time. We just didn't have the same. We didn't have people that we thought would fit.

I agree with you. I think our process last time dragged out a lot longer than I wanted it to, I guess, in my opinion, that I feel we're kind of dragging out again. And now we're going to do the same process. Everyone's going to submit an email. We're going to get it to Heather. Heather is going to send a response back to us. We're either going to counter it or say something else, and then we gotta wait till the next council meeting to even decide if we're moving forward with these people. I'm going to tell you a secret.

That's going to happen anyways because Mr. Foth is not here to give his recommendation, so we're still going to get an email from Heather after he emails her tomorrow.

The interviews would be scheduled before our next meeting.

Correct.

If everything runs smooth on this. That's what I'm saying. IT'S FINE. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. YOU GUYS ARE ALSO THE COMMITTEE. YOU GUYS ARE ALSO THE COMMITTEE.

YOU GUYS ARE ALSO THE COMMITTEE. SO... SO... SO...

IF WE HAD ALL FIVE OF US, IF WE HAD ALL FIVE OF US, IF WE HAD ALL FIVE OF US, THEN WE COULD DO THAT. THEN WE COULD DO THAT. THEN WE COULD DO THAT. BUT I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE BUT I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE BUT I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING THIS KIND OF DECISION MAKING THIS KIND OF DECISION MAKING THIS KIND OF DECISION AND COMPLETELY EXCLUDING

So just go back to what we were originally saying, is submit our top picks to Heather, and then three people pick the same person, and that's who gets interviewed. That includes Todd.

Guess what? That's a good idea. We're going to keep it to three top picks. Done.

I'm fine with that, I guess.

Three. Yes, Mr. Deming. Just a clarification. Are you going to be submitting your top three to HR, or is it like... Correct. Okay. So top three.

All right. Out of that... will require three selections from council for them for a candidate to make the interview list okay so can i i bet we get two ron so can so can we submit more than three and nope in hopes that one maybe the part where i said we only get three we only get two other votes from council we only get three This is how we want to go down. We can do three. I know you could pick three. There's no way you want five.

Well, the only thing that I'm worried about, though, let me just throw this at you. If we only pick three, then what happens if none of those, none of it, there's no candidate that gets three votes? Or there's not enough, there's not three that get three votes?

Heather can tell us and we'll deal with it then. But I think Mr. Dubord and I said the same thing. There are some outstanding candidates. There's going to be some overlapping. Yeah, I agree.

I think we'll be fine. We can bump it up to noon tomorrow. Heather can email us before 3. We'll all know. I was going to say, are you working tomorrow? I didn't think so.

You kept saying that like no one's here tomorrow.

I'm working tomorrow and Saturday. What is this?

So that would just be just being my cautious self here. So that would just be each of you sending an email only to Heather and not copying other council members when you send it, recognizing still, obviously those emails are public records subject to FOIA and all of that.

Correct. Correct. Do we know if Mr. Flath is going to be back anytime soon to send his in?

If they don't have email where he is, I guess I can give him a call. Yeah. If you want, just talk to him and tell him this is what we talked about and this is the process.

All right.

Is that fair? So we can move things along. We'll have everything to you. Well, we can still email. Heather might not be working, but her email will be working. And she can have names in her email box by noon tomorrow. I know mine seems to work at 9 o'clock on Saturday night, or my phone Sunday at 8.30 PM. So I'm sure your email will work at noon. And that's it. for that one. We don't have a roll call or anything to do. It was good diligence, Phil.

Would that be considered a plan of action, though? Yes, I guess you are right.

All right. Make a motion for council to submit top three recommendations to our HR department no later than Friday by noon. It takes a three consistent acknowledgment from council to move forward with those candidates. IN ADDITION, ONCE THE TOP THREE ARE DECIDED UPON, WE WERE LOOKING AT DOING AN INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR AROUND JULY 13TH IN THE MORNING, AND IF NEED BE, A SUBSTITUTE DATE OF JULY 15TH FOR AN INTERVIEW, IF NEED BE.

I THINK THAT'S ALL OF IT.

BEFORE YOU VOTE, I HAVE A QUESTION.

YES.

I think there's a difference between top three vote getters because you could have a bunch of candidates who only get two votes and a candidate getting three votes. So which is the cutoff? What if nobody gets three and there's candidates that only get two votes? And what if there's a tie somehow?

The top three, if there's five, two and two, I'd say those three.

So just the top three. So amend my motion of just the top three. Okay.

Well, there could be.

If there's a tie, are you having more than three interviews? And I apologize for being . Nope.

There could be ties.

I think what they're saying is if there's five, two, two, two.

Yeah.

I see what you're saying.

What do you do then?

Okay. Good. Thank you for the clarity. Okay. That was my .

All right.

We'll go by the top three. If they're subject to a tie, HR will then notify us of a tie and then we would then, what's our process? Revote.

You'd then have to have another, you can't do anything outside of a meeting at that point. So HR would either need to schedule all of them for an interview or convene a special meeting to decide what you want to do.

Okay, so then the motion, can the motion include that if there are ties, then we would interview up to five if there are ties? I mean, I'm just looking to shorten the process here.

That's not going to help because what if there's seven?

Yeah. Or do we fall back? Not that I want another meeting to go to, but would we fall back and let the committee?

The hiring committee decide if there's a tie?

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm just throwing it out there. Not that I want to.

But that's going to have to still have another 2 hour meeting. It still has to be a public meeting. Yeah, it can't.

It's not going to be just you and me. Everybody's coming. Yep.

OK, then the motion going forward will be top three. If there are subject to ties there, therefore we would schedule a special meeting for Council to further decide and move forward. Does that work, attorney?

I think Frank had his hand up.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, just a suggestion. One thing you could do if you wanted to to make sure it moves along is you could send them in to the interim manager ranking them one, two, three, and then it would be a scoring system. You most likely would not have a tie at that point.

That kind of defeats our three minimum consensus, though.

Are we good with my motion or do I need to amend it again?

I'll second your motion.

And Laura, that sounded fine, the motion then with the adjustment.

My understanding is that you're going to interview, again, each council member is going to send an email just to Heather with their top three choices. The top three, we'll call them vote getters, although it's not a vote technically, would be scheduled for interviews. But if there's a tie such that there's more than three in that highest vote getting, then there will be a special meeting to decide how to proceed. Do I have that right?

That is correct.

I am good with that.

Thank you.

I still support, yes.

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.

MRS. DEMINI, PLEASE CO-ROLL. COUNCIL MEMBER DEWART? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BUSHMA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE? YES. MAYOR HAMILTON? YES.

MOVING ON TO APPOINTMENTS. We technically have no appointments, but we do have vacancies. On the Housing Commission, there's two. On the Planning Commission, there's one. On the Zoning Board of Appeals, there are two alternate vacancies. However, we have just created a brand new vacancy on the Tree Advisory Board, to which I will appoint Karen Moore as the liaison. Congratulations. More meetings for you. Moving on to board commissioning committee reports. So how's the treat board going, Karen?

I have nothing to report.

Top of the month, nothing.

I did attend the library board. Biggest discussion there was going through the job description for the library director who's leaving us. And then the board did go through the POLICIES, POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR THE DONATED PIANO AS WELL. SO THOSE ARE THE TOP TWO DISCUSSIONS DURING THE LIBRARY. VERY GOOD.

I HAVE NOTHING. THIS TIME WE'LL HEAR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU WISH TO MAKE COMMENT, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME, PLACE OF RESIDENCE. HEARING NONE, WE MOVE ON TO ANNOUNCEMENTS OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT IS INDEPENDENCE DAY ON SATURDAY. PLEASE BE SAFE AND CAREFUL WITH YOUR FIREWORKS AND YOUR BEVERAGES.

Yes, this afternoon it was brought to my attention that because Tomorrow, Friday the 3rd, the city is closed. And garbage pickup that would normally occur on Friday actually occurred yesterday. That's what I'm being told. And I understand that a notice may or may not have been sent out. But if you're expecting to put your garbage out tomorrow, don't bother. You have to sit on it another week, I believe. That's all I have.

And if you haven't heard, Enhance Escanaba was successful for their ice rink fundraiser. We made our goal on Wednesday. And so if everything goes the way it's supposed to go, we'll have an ice rink for this winter down in the park. So it's pretty exciting.

Excellent news. Please enjoy the festivities down in our beautiful Arrington Park. Enjoy your Escanaba City Band. And I believe the DDA is still putting on the polka party in the afternoon, so get your polka on.