City Commission - Regular Meeting

Again i'd like to call to order the monday june eighth twenty twenty six meeting of the market city commission here in commission chambers please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance 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 I apologize in advance for the froggy throat I've got a little bit of pollen outside if anybody else picked up on that it's what's going on here. City clerk will call please.

Commissioner Davis here. Commissioner Gottlieb here. Commissioner Hanley here. Commissioner Larson. Commissioner Mayer here. Mayor Pro Tem Ottaway here. Mayor Schlegel here.

Commissioners can I get a motion to excuse Commissioner Larson please. Commissioner Mayer.

I move to excuse Commissioner Larson for personal reasons.

Thank you. A second, please? Commissioner Hanley? I second. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All in favor, please say yes. Yes. Opposed, no. Motion passes 6-0. I don't have any announcements. So we'll bring us right into our boards and committees. We have an appointment. Mayor, I think you have to approve the agenda. What did I miss?

Approval. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. You're good.

I scratched the wrong 6-0. Motion to approve the agenda, please. Commissioner Mayer.

Your Honor, I move to approve the agenda with one amendment, adding item 7 under new business, local renter protections review.

Okay, with that being said, is there a second, please? Pro Tem?

I'll second.

Thank you, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say yes.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0.

Okay, now that gets us to our boards and committees. We have an appointment this evening. Is there a motion, please? Mr. Davis.

I move we approve, we appoint Jacqueline Stark to the Marquette County Solid Waste Management Authority as the city's representative for a term ending July 1st, 2029.

Thank you, second?

Commissioner Guthrie?

Second. Discussion? Commissioner Davis?

No, I'm just very happy that she is interested in doing this, and I look forward to her involvement. Thank you. Commissioner Gottlieb?

Anything else?

Great.

I'll echo the statement there. Thank you very much for getting involved. Moving to the vote. All in favor, please say yes. Yes. Opposed, no. Motion passes 6-0. Okay. That brings us to our first public comment. Kind of thin tonight, but public comment may not exceed three minutes per person. Please state your name and physical address when making your public comment up at the podium. Thank you.

Hello. Hello. I'm Barbara Balzai, 1324 North Front Street. Though I'm a volunteer and the chair of the Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee, I come speaking on my own opinion, and my opinion doesn't necessarily reflect the entire committee's. The TPAC committee, as you know, frequently makes recommendations around pedestrian safety and access, as well as promoting walkability. The committee, like the city, adopts the Complete Streets concept, which builds strong communities and boosts local commerce. TPAC, I don't know if you recall, had been advocating for a subcommittee of some sort regarding the e-bike issue for a couple of years already, even though the multi-use path itself falls under the jurisdiction of Parks and Recreation. The TPAC committee also provided volunteers for that task force, which met on an accelerated timeline and a condensed schedule. and then completed their work in November with the understanding that the timeline would allow the city some time to adopt some new measures for this upcoming summer. Finally, in May, after, it could be coincidental, a kind of a pot-stirring comment on Facebook that was actually in error about a new rule that only Type 1 bikes were allowed on the, what do you call it, multi-use path. There was sort of a flurry of activity, and then there was that special meeting that was scheduled now a couple weeks ago in order for the commission to review the e-bike task force recommendations. And of course next week you all know there is the required public hearing concerning the ordinance Now I just want to let you know that that is actually during the time that the traffic and parking Advisory Committee meets I'm not saying that that's deliberate. It just seems a little careless and, honestly, a little disrespectful. You know, there's always openings on city committees, and volunteering is encouraged and appreciated, and I'm pleased that our TPAC committee is fully staffed, but I worry that members get discouraged volunteering and feel like their recommendations aren't taken seriously. And I ask you, are these volunteers actually providing a service to our community? Or is this sort of a disingenuous attempt to engage civic participation or check the metaphorical box? I have other comments that I'll make during the second session. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else for public comment?

Margaret Brown, 404 East Magnetic Street. I bet you all thought I was going to walk straight up to the podium as soon as I walked in when he called for public comment. But no, I'm restrained. I waited. We are now in the middle of summer, which means the snow has melted and we can see what is left behind. And ladies and gentlemen, what is left behind is very worrisome. As you know, I have, for reasons I could not even begin to remember why I started it, been picking up cigarette butts and recycling them. We got a good program going with an outfit called TerraCycle. Whatever I put in a box and ship to them, shipping is free. It doesn't end up in our landfill. It doesn't end up in our lake. And we've had a tremendous amount of success in getting it out of our system. In fact, in the month of May, we shipped close to 20 pounds of cigarette butts. to TerraCycle, and if you have any idea, when I gave this speech in front of the county board, I actually had a pack of cigarettes. I'm not saying that somebody took it, but I am saying I haven't seen it since I passed it around to them so they knew how light it was. And next to that, I had one of my law textbooks, which was five pounds, and I said, you know, we had 20 pounds of cigarette butts that got shipped of Marquette, and that's a lot. But what I'm finding now is we're trying desperately to expand it to beyond just the city of Marquette. The townships, the Powell Township, Gwynn, you name it. I'm trying to get there. I used a quarter tank of a gas this weekend driving to Gwynn. And at the quick stop, is it the quick stop? Anyway, the gas station at the crossroads came across the first public health risk that I've not seen before. And you are leaders in the community, and maybe you can come up with a better idea than I can because I found a cigarette butt underneath the propane storage tanks at the gas station at the crossroads. I'm not talking about a cigarette butt that somebody thrown on the ground and scratched out with their heel, which is what we used to see when we were kids. I almost never see those. I'm talking about a fully intact cigarette butt underneath the propane. Because if you notice, those propane things are locked up, but that there's room underneath it. And I posted the picture and somebody said, you know, that's going to be a problem if that's leaking. And I went, yeah, that's going to be a problem if that's leaking. So I'm looking, you're good on public service campaigns. And I have never had any trouble reaching out to the fire department in the city of Marquette. Chief Davis is wonderfully responsive. And I sent the picture to him because I know he knows whatever fire department's responsible there. But what I'm looking for is a public service announcement, I can help you draft it, about the absolute necessity of not throwing cigarette butts on the ground. We are finding them everywhere and anywhere. The worst part is when they're two inches away from the lake, the drains that go into the lake. And it's not the most dramatic subject in the world, but they were under propane. I'll leave you with that thought. Thank you very much.

Anyone else for public comment? Seeing none, public comment is closed. That brings us to presentations. We are all awaiting the fiscal year 2025 audit by Mr. Gents and Anderson Tackman. Looking forward to it. Again.

So we can just ask questions. Does anybody have any questions? Do we want the long version or the short version? Well, we gotta start with the big one first, then we'll get to that one. We'll make it short, but if anybody has questions, please ask. Page 21 is the opinion, so you had an unmodified opinion. You complied with all the generally accepted accounting principles. It says they're your statements, not ours, and we take a sampling of transactions. We don't look at every single transaction. When we roll the city up in total looking at page 38 and 39 We ended up with a net position of just over a hundred million dollars Which is an increase of just under eight million dollars from the year before I 5.7 comes from water, sewer, storm water, and a couple of the other funds, which we'll get to in a minute. And then the rest of it's coming from the governmental funds. One of the things, kind of looking back on page 38, is the unrestricted equity portion of the governmental activities is $19 million deficit. But if we kind of come up the page, we have one big number, net pension liability, which is $33 million and change. When you take that into account, the numbers look okay. You're in the same boat. Everybody else is in with the pension going forward. What's good to see is that pension liability came down again this year, approximately $2 million from the year before, so that's good. You're doing what you could and it's just a matter of time going through the hourglass for that to keep getting paid off. Looking at page 45, just kind of looking at the utility funds quickly. In total, they had a net increase of about $5.7 million for the year, but what you gotta factor in, $3.2 million worth of debt payments have to be covered by that gain, which leaves a $2.5 million increase. And that's kind of spread between all the funds. So if you look at the funds a little bit, the water fund, and I'm just going to round numbers, had about a $1.5 million gain, but they had about a million dollars worth of debt payments that had to be covered. Sewage fund, 1.6 gain, another million dollars worth of debt payment there. The stormwater fund had a gain of about 2.5. That had about a million dollars worth of debt payments in it. So when you first look at the number, you're saying, oh yeah, we're doing really good. But once you back off the debt payments, and that doesn't include the restriction, restricted cash and requirements and stuff, that number comes down and it's not that far out of whack looking at those funds. Flipping back to page 42, looking at the governmental funds, The three big ones that changed this year is, I'm gonna hop kind of backwards a little bit, is the construction fund had a loss of over half a million dollars in the current year. Money goes in, it's all timing related to the projects that are going out with that. The other big one is the major street fund had a $900,000 loss for the year. There again, it's timing of the projects and what projects are happening from year to year on that. And when you kind of look at the expenses of the major street fund, you had about two and a half million dollars of expense. One and a half was current year construction, and a million dollars was debt payments in the year. And then we get to the general fund, which we'll kind of flip to page 131. allergies like everybody else Your original budget you budget a zero change your final budget you were Anticipating about an eighty thousand dollar loss and you actually came in a positive six hundred and eighty four thousand dollars for the year, which is good to see and a lot of that is Not one individual thing or project. It was just all over the place, a little bit here, a little bit there. Revenues came in about $274,000 better than what was anticipated. The big thing there was interest income came in about $100,000 more than what you had anticipated. And then expenses were $350,000 less than what you had budgeted. And there again, it was just little bits in all the departments slowly adds up over time. That's where we can switch to the other packet now, the one that everybody else likes to see. Looking at the first one is just looking at the general fund cash and fund equity. And you can see you're above the 60-day expense benchmark, you're above the 120-day benchmark. Cash has slowly been coming out of the general fund over time. The equity has kind of been bouncing around a little bit, but overall it's been fairly stable when you look at it overall over time. And that's where if you look at the revenues and transfers in from other funds, not a lot of significant change there. The big one is more property tax coming in, but Overall not a significant change over the last five years Looking at graph three this one kind of We tried something different. I don't think it quite quite worked out the way we wanted to but where's the money coming from the two big blue boxes are property taxes, so 69% of all the general fund revenue last year 68% the year before is all coming from property taxes. And then you're getting state sources, which is about 15%, charges for services was 12 versus 13, and then the rest is a little bit here and there. So not a lot of change, but it kind of shows taxes is the big revenue source in the general fund. That's where when you look at the fourth graph here, looking at five-year expenditures in the general fund, not a lot of volatility. It's gone up a little bit. The biggest one that changes around is transfers out to other funds. And that all depends on kind of they cover the shortfalls and all the other funds and debt payments and projects that's going on. So that kind of bounces around a little bit. But other than that, not a lot of change. And if you kind of compare the five-year revenue and the five-year expenses together, you know, they're going in sync. You don't have anything that's out of whack from one or the other. And that comes from good budgeting, starting with the finance department and up to the board and making good decisions with the budgets of here's the pot of money we have. How are we going to spend that pot? That's where looking at the fifth one here, looking at this year versus last year. Public safety, 44 versus 42, that's the big one. Public works, 24 versus 23. I'll be curious to see what next year's looks like after this winter. That might have a little swing in the chart here. But you can see the big one is transfers out. It was only 10% this year versus 14% the year before. So that always has a big impact on your general fund budget. And that's where if you look at the last one, those that are inclined, you can see where all the numbers are and actually trace them back to the audit report for those that want to do that. We provide those numbers there. Then you can kind of look at the last one where just kind of looking at the bottom of the transfers of, you know, looking at the last five years, 2.2, 4.6, 3.7, 3.4, 2.7. That's where that volatility in the general fund of where's the money going? And a lot of it has been the street funds is getting the bulk of that. over time, we're kind of supplementing it. And that's just par for the course everywhere, no matter where you go. Roads are expensive, surprisingly. That's the short version. If anybody wants to go into more detail anywhere, we can. I know there's excitement, everybody read it, they have all kinds of questions.

Anything specific commissioners? Sure. Mayor Pro Tem?

Mike, thanks for taking the time, as usual. I love the graphs, which I think everyone here does because none of us are accountants like you. But when I see the transfers out and I look back and I remember where we were when we were having shortfalls back in 21, seeing those numbers kind of come to light here, as you've pointed out, and seeing that transfers out number kind of go from 15 to 11 over the span of a year, do you think that that kind of – is showing maybe a little bit better budgeting from the city standpoint. Ultimately, maybe having a little bit better knowledge of what to expect.

I think it's a couple things. I think that's part of it. I think finance does a good job of kind of coming and saying, okay, here's the pot. what do you want to do, and where do we want to spend the money, and coming from budgeting of, okay, the general fund only has X amount that can get moved over, so how can we fund it in the other funds without drawing that money out? So I think it's a combination of better planning, but also what projects you're doing and when you're doing it, so they kind of dovetail together. And I think with financing, explaining things of here's how everything rolls together. One other question, Mayor, if I can.

Does it seem like, because no one knows these numbers better than you do as far as expenditures, does it seem like Financially, as far as bond payments, that percentage is going down for us quite a bit at this point compared to, say, three, four, five years ago. Does it seem like we're getting back to a point where those bond repayments aren't killing our transfers as much?

I'm trying to remember. I think they're going down. Okay. Yeah. And that's a big thing is because when you look at the city's budget, And you got a couple big pieces that you're stuck with. The first one is your bond payments. It's hard to get out. You got to make those. The next is your MERS payments and paying that off. And then after that is OPEB, which isn't that big here, but those are the big three that always... you kind of start with that and then it drives everything from there. And I think that there's been, I've been doing this a few years now, is I can remember where bond payments were just being maxed out year after year. And then there was a concerted effort of let's start bringing those bond payments down and paying that off. And then things kind of got tight and then it's like, okay, now we got to bond more. And now it seems like, there's less bonding again going forward. So it's kind of an ebb and flow of the direction of the board and what's happening in the economy and every projects you're doing. It's a balance.

Thank you.

Yeah, Commissioner Mayer.

Yeah, I just had a couple quick comments. The fact that we have transfers out decreasing and then we still have, you know, Public safety and public works, I think were the two biggest ones that had increases. The transfers going out to catch up for the shortfalls, being able to reallocate that back to the actual public services that need to be funded, I think is a remarkable accomplishment of all of our departments and staff. Also looking though, 2021, the amount we had going to Lakeview Arena as a transfer out every year. compared to last year, $426,000 difference in the yearly spend there. The debt services, like you were asking about, just shy of a quarter of a million dollars less per year in debt services. Those are really, really awesome things. I remember my first year or two on the commission here, and financially, we were in a little bit of a hard spot. So this is really great news to be seeing this.

Thanks.

You know, just from my perspective, I guess it's really a compliment with what you're saying there, Commissioner Mayer, about the dedication that staff has put into really kind of tightening the belt as much as possible and getting us, righting the ship a little bit. That's really exciting to see. And I also want to thank the community members for their understanding in this process because, you know, we sit here and we get through a rough winter like this and we've got our overlay going on out here on many streets and potholes being filled and, you know, it... It's not to say that we could have really fixed a lot of that ahead of time, but it certainly is nice to have things going in the right direction, considering that we've got a lot of things out there that we need to be concerned about, and we're doing our best to take care of them. With that being said, Mike, thank you so much for the presentation, as usual. With that, we're all set. Okay. Have a great afternoon. For a second presentation, the presenter has not made it in yet tonight, so I guess what I would appreciate is if we could have a motion to postpone to a later date. Commissioner Hanley?

I move that we postpone the presentation from the BZA by Heather Dombrowski to a later date when they can schedule it in.

Thank you, second please.

Commissioner Mayer? I'll second the motion, Your Honor.

Thank you, any discussion? would say it's not unexpected but uh with that we'll vote all in favor please say yes yes opposed no motion passes 6-0 okay it gets us to our consent agenda uh yes commissioner hanley i move that we accept consent agenda as presented Thank you. Is there a second, please? Commissioner Davis? I'll second the motion. Thank you. Discussion? No. There's some good stuff on there. I would encourage people to look into it. With that being said, all in favor, please say yes. Yes.

Opposed, no. Motion passes 6-0.

Brings us to new business. New business first item is the Michigan Veteran Homes, DJ Jacobetti site. Oh, where did I miss it? I thought I got those two backwards, my bad. Thank you. First item of business, scheduled public hearing, multi-use path ordinance. City Clerk.

The City Commission has recently discussed the use of e-bikes and other electric mobility devices on city paths and sidewalks. Those discussions have included review of current Michigan law, enforcement challenges, accessibility considerations, and the practical realities of how residents and visitors are already using electric bicycles within the city. Under Michigan law, Class 1 electric bicycles are generally permitted on improved surface linear trails unless restricted by local authority. Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles, however, may be used on those trails only if authorized by local authority. State law also provides that before a local authority may authorize, prohibit, or regulate electric bicycle use in this context, the local authority must first hold a public hearing on the matter. Based on prior City Commission discussion and direction, staff has prepared a draft ordinance intended to address the Commission's stated concerns and requests. The proposed ordinance would update local regulations to clarify where electric bicycles and other low-powered electric devices may be used, establish local operating expectations, and provide a clear basis for education and enforcement. The draft is intended to focus on safe and predictable use of the City's multi-use path system while recognizing that electric mobility devices are increasingly common transportation and recreation devices. As noted, a public hearing is required prior to adopting the proposed ordinance. Due to the seasonal nature of the topic, staff is requesting that the City Commission hold a public hearing during a special meeting that would be held on Tuesday, June 16th, and following the public hearing, the Commission could consider adoption of the ordinance. Fiscal effect, none by this action. Recommendation, schedule a public hearing to be held during a special meeting at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16th to consider adoption of the proposed ordinance. Alternatives as determined by the Commission. Thank you, City Clerk.

Commissioners, is there a motion?

Commissioner Gottlieb? I move that the City Commission schedules a public hearing to be held during a special meeting at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16th, to consider adoption of the proposed ordinance.

Thank you. Say a second, please.

Commissioner Davis? I'll second the motion.

Discussion? I don't think any discussion is needed on my part, no. Mr. Davis?

Well, I agree. Not a lot of discussion needs to be said, but I do just once again want to recognize the work of the task force and the city staff in coming up with this proposed ordinance.

Thank you. Commissioner Mayer. Thank you, Your Honor. Looking over to staff here, as far as discussion on the proposed ordinance, is this the most appropriate time for us to do that, or is the public hearing?

Public hearing essentially but there you know We do have some presentation that we can go over if you would like us to run through the ordinance and the components of that for the public and for the Commission Pro Tem Staff could just discuss the process of choosing that date and time. I

Because I know it wasn't malicious in any way.

Oh gosh, no No, it was certainly not malicious and you know when we were working through this process state law actually Has a requirement that if there's any changes on Involving bicycles or use of your pathways or trails it does require a public hearing And because of the nature of this topic and many of the components that we're looking at and some of the issues we're seeing right now, we were looking to have a special meeting to move that before we would default to the second meeting in June, which would be, I think, June 29th. So we picked a date that we could get our commission that is available. It's certainly not any disrespect to our task force, or our advisory board, so we do apologize for that. But we are trying to work within the schedules for our city commission, city staff, and get this done as timely as possible.

Thank you. Commissioner Hanley?

I would really like to see the presentation, if you guys wouldn't mind.

Certainly.

I would as well.

I just wasn't sure if I was the only one. It will be incredibly brief. And the intent of it really is to just inform on what's in the ordinance and make sure that the public is prepared if you do choose to continue on with scheduling the public hearing at the proposed date. Really, tonight we're really presenting on this ordinance that's related to electric mobility devices that include e-bikes and other similar low-powered devices. So the purpose, again, of this presentation is to summarize the proposed ordinance, what it would do, and then clarify on those next steps required before the commission could decide or consider the adopting of the ordinance. So obviously this issue has been a hot topic of discussion because the use of e-bikes and the very significant increase that we have seen within the city and on our pathways, even during winter and all through spring and as we head into summer. So they are being used in many of our places here. So as that use really has increased, so has the need for clear Local rules that balance access, safety, and the practical realities of enforcement. So as we really evaluated many of the recommendations from the task force, that is something that really we're looking to address is that balance of all of those things. Knowing full well that we still have to depend on humans for good behavior. So as it mentioned, at the May 26th regular meeting, the city commission directed city manager to prepare an ordinance addressing electric mobility devices under or at that 750 watts limited to that as defined that direction really followed a longer policy discussion that began even prior to 2025 is as we had heard from an advisory board member but beginning in 2025 when the Commission really created the e-bike and multi-use path task force so the task force had several meetings, gathered that input, and developed recommendations that were presented to the city commission earlier this year, and then staff took that and reviewed the recommendations for feasibility and for legal consideration and other concerns before we drafted that ordinance that is presented before you. So creating that ordinance needed to consider that balance. And really trying to find how to balance that was incredibly challenging, which takes some time. But that also meant we really needed to incorporate the state law as well. And this is something we really kind of already know. But state law provides the broader legal framework for this, but they also define these classes. of electric mobility devices, and we really needed to take that into consideration and incorporate that into our ordinances, which is what you see in the proposed draft that we have. Then there's also this thing that state law also requires a public hearing before a local government can authorize, prohibit, or regulate any electrical bicycle use in that setting. So, something we kind of already know, and here's why we're here. So the draft ordinance would amend chapter 26 of the city code and a red line version was provided to the city commission for comparison. But in general, it really would clarify what certain electric mobility devices may be used, particularly on the multi-use path. And it would also establish those local operating expectations and provide that clear rule or rules that support both that education in informing the public and actual enforceable parts. So overall, the intent is to create a more predictable and understandable framework for users and the public. So getting to what was discussed at the City Commission work session and included in the directive. This covers those devices, and the ordinance applies to several categories of devices, including those traditional human powered wheel devices, and then those class one, two, and three e-bikes. And then also other electric personal mobility devices, such as those scooters, one wheels, and even segways.

We still have those.

But those are included in the classification and by definition. It also includes some other similar wheel devices that are powered by human power and an electric motor, again, not greater or at 750 watts or not greater than. The goal is to create that consistency amongst all of those devices that we're already seeing on the multi-use path and in other similar public spaces. So that's what's out there right now and existing and is incredibly difficult to differentiate between some of those levels or those classes of e-bikes. Safety and sidewalk rules that we talked about, key part of this is really adding those safety components to it and adding safety standards. It really would establish some expectations for safe and prudent operation, which we talked about, and prohibit that careless and reckless riding, regardless of what device type it is. So not limited to e-bikes. It is all types of devices. It would also revise the sidewalk rules by prohibiting those riding on sidewalks throughout much of that downtown development district. And those provisions really are intended to respond to some of those safety concerns that we've been seeing those pedestrian conflicts that we have and the need for some of those more enforceable standards which we discussed. A couple of other things that are included in the proposed ordinance are some other code cleanup and related items. So again, it's cleaning up some of that code. It removes some outdated skateboard related sections that are now redundant and would be covered under much of this. And it eliminates some other redundant penalty provisions that no longer fit with what we're looking to do here. So these changes really are meant to improve that clarity, consistency, and the overall usability of this chapter. So really that's what leaves us with this next step before an ordinance can be adopted. That state law requires the city hold a public hearing. So even though we've had several opportunities for public comment and public engagement on this, really thanks to the task force and having all of those meetings, this is still one more step for gathering that public comment on the draft ordinance and having that opportunity. So staff is requesting that the commission schedule that public hearing at a special meeting where this is the topic of discussion, and that proposed time is Tuesday, June 16th at 5 p.m. So following that public hearing, the commission then at that time really could consider adopting that ordinance and could even potentially even talk about making that something effective sooner than what would have been if we waited until the end of June. So again, this was really intended to address the city commission's direction and reflect the current use patterns that we see and provide that clear local guidance and standards for safety access and the recreation that we offer here. Happy to answer any questions.

Commissioners, any questions? Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Your Honor.

I know we're going to discuss it at the public hearing, but I do have two questions on the red line version, if I could ask. One is, let's see here, we mentioned mobility devices on sidewalks, and it just states that no person shall use a mobility device on a sidewalk. Wouldn't a wheelchair be a mobility device? Are people not allowed to use that on a sidewalk? We don't actually list the definition of a mobility device other than MCL257.13C.

certainly the ada trumps anything i mean if if someone has a disability they're using electric wheelchair they're going to be allowed anywhere as long as it's an accom you know deemed a reasonable accommodation only other question i had is i see the penalties section was also crossed out do we have any any You know comment on that so the reason for that is as the clerk's office has been working diligently to revamp our ordinances In the past every single section had its own penalty provision But they were all mostly the same and in part of that revamping of the code There is now one blanket section that says that it is a municipal civil infraction and lays out the fines for everything unless the section specifically says otherwise so this falls under that i remember that yep thank you anything else

My only question was exactly that on the 80 compliance I would imagine that it would fall into the other verbiage that was included but wanted to make sure and if there is any way to Or you know I just like to see it in print So if it doesn't need to be there because you guys have it under control like I get it, but that's one of my buttons That being said Where are we here? We've got a motion. We got a second. I think we're ready to vote aren't me I Okay, all in favor, please say yes. Yes. Motion passes 6-0. All right, now on to number six. Michigan Veteran Homes DJ Jacobetti Site Use Resolution. Background please, City Clerk.

Thank you, Mayor. The City Commission held a work session on May 11, 2026 to discuss the future of the Michigan Veteran Homes DJ Jacobetti Site located in Marquette. The facility is anticipated to close in late 2027 due to the construction of a new facility in Marquette Township. Representatives of the state of Michigan have contacted the city manager's office regarding the interest, the city's interest in the site as the local unit of government. The city manager is seeking formal direction from the city commission in order to proceed with discussions and advocacy regarding the future use of the property. Fiscal effect, none. Recommendation, approve the resolution directing the city manager to pursue residential use of the Michigan Veteran Homes DJ Jacobetti site in Marquette. Alternatives as determined by the commission. Thank you, City Clerk.

Commissioners, is there a motion?

I move to approve the resolution directing the City Manager to pursue residential use of the Michigan Veteran Homes DJ Jacobetti site in Marquette.

Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Hanley?

I second. Discussion?

Yeah, we had a great conversation about this, as many might remember. From my angle, as we evaluate that site, the potential there is worth noting as potentially being the best opportunity the city of Marquette may have to really expand on its housing stock, at least from my point of view. And I think it's imperative that we do everything we can to obtain that piece of property to move us in that direction.

Thank you. Commissioner Hanley?

I fully agree. I think that making sure that we're moving forward to try and encourage a housing development there is the best step that we can take. And I kind of want to make Kyle read the resolution, but I won't.

Anyone else? Okay. thank you um i think that this is a great opportunity for the city of marquette to expand on its housing possibilities but at the same time it's a good chunk of land over there and i hope that any good and reasonable proposal will be considered. That being said, I'd like to move it to a vote. All in favor, please say yes. Oh, roll call. Thank you. City Clerk, roll call vote, please. I can read that.

Commissioner Davis?

Yes.

Commissioner Gottlieb?

Yes.

Commissioner Hanley?

Yes.

Commissioner Mayer? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Ottaway?

Yes.

And Mayor Schlegel?

Yes. Motion passes 6-0. That brings us to our new number seven. What was the title on that?

Local Render Protections Review. Thank you. I have a motion for you, Your Honor. I don't really have one other than me reading my motion and then just explaining what I'm thinking. Your Honor, I move to direct city staff to prepare an analysis of current renter protections and related ordinances and provide a list of options, if any, to the City Commission for consideration for protecting the health and safety of renters in the City of Marquette as allowable under the law.

Okay. There's a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. For the sake of discussion. Commissioner Gottlieb, thank you.

Appreciate that. Now I can actually explain. We've had, for the last several weeks now, I think, a rather large uptick, it feels like, in renters in our community coming and talking about issues or concerns they're having with their landlords or where they're living. And while we don't engage in... individual civil matters. When I first started on the city commission, looking out protecting renters was something I was very passionate about. Because I was very connected to it. I was a renter at the time. I've been a homeowner the last four years. So I've been kind of disconnected and detached from that reality that 53% of our community is, I mean, they are renters. And I don't imagine a lot of the issues I would have experienced six years ago have gone away. And, you know, we have more and more people reaching out about this, or at least I have a lot of people still contacting me about it. Maybe it's just because of my age. They assume maybe I'm still a renter. That's fair. But, you know, I think everyone on the commission here is a homeowner, but the majority of our city isn't. if there are ways that we can be doing better to look out for the health and safety of our residents and try to look into this request that keeps getting brought up I think it's maybe just good for us to do so and you know if the if the report we get back from city staff is we really don't have any options we can do you know at least we attempted to look into it it's kind of where my head's at with this but I think the You know asking staff to comment on it. You know, it was mentioned to me after our last meeting. I made a comment about that and People felt like I was dismissing being disingenuous. They didn't think this commission was taking them seriously with their concerns So that's partially where this is stemming from Thank You Commissioner Gatley

Mr. Mayor, is it okay if I ask the city administration to comment on this, as well as the city attorney, to see if there really is, in their opinion, what is needed?

I'm going to actually have Suzanne speak on this first, because there's a lot more research that Suzanne would be looking at doing.

So there's a lot involved when you have landlord-tenant issues. This recent issue that's been brought to us, you know, we don't know all the facts. We don't know both sides. But the claims that we're hearing are related to construction that occurred, which does not involve us. That involves the county. I don't know if the county did what they were supposed to when that construction happened or not. but we can't enforce what the county does. Our rental safety code requires our rental inspector to inspect rental units every three years to make sure that they comply with the rental safety code that they have guardrails and smoke detectors and egress windows for bedrooms and no obvious hazards. I mean, there's like very specific things that they look for based on that code. Our rental inspector had done that with this property within the last three years because they have a current certificate. But it really is, behooves us to stick our nose into private disputes between landlords and tenants that's what the courts are for and We need to be really careful about that because we don't currently have resources to enforce whether the landlord's doing what the tenant wants or not, or whether the landlord or tenant are following through on things that, for example, a rental inspector recommends after a water issue like this. That's what they have the court system for. The judge can hear all the evidence from both sides, hear the entire story, and make a determination from that. That's not something really we can do. We can't put people under oath. you know, and question them and make determinations like that. So it is a little bit tricky. I mean, our rule really is limited at this point to our rental safety ordinance, which our rental inspector through the fire department takes seriously and does. Our rental inspector did go to this particular property after the complaint of the water was instituted and made some recommendations to the tenant um but then once the dispute ensued and it entered the court system really we got to be careful about staying out of it

Well, I was just gonna say, we have been doing some research, I think ever since this really has come up, and there have been some example cities that people have tossed our way. And so we do have some of that baseline research done and are happy to put that in a memo. But a full on evaluation or analysis might take a lot longer. So it's my understanding that this would be more of a higher level, you know, kind of baseline information on what we do right now with a little bit more summary of our life safety code, you know, checklist, let's say, and then what we would be looking at if we were to do a full blown you know, analysis on this, just providing some sort of update in the next couple of, you know, I would say June is going to be very busy and July is starting to get busy too, but in the next, you know, near term, I guess I would say I don't want to limit us to what date necessarily.

And just because I know I kept it pretty broad and vague in there I think it's something just like a higher level memo was completely appropriate And if if there is something possibly we could explore and the Commission wants to explore it Maybe at that point on that item we can go on a more in-depth aspect of it, but That's what I had in mind. Yes. I don't think we need one of these or anything Thank you Mayor Pro Tem

I do. First, I want to say I totally respect what Commissioner Mayer has to say about this. I mean, I think we do have a place in this to really hear our residents understand what their issues are. But I do think we also have to remember what the laws are and what we can do to enforce those laws. And I worry that this is overstepping. And I'm concerned, especially listening to the city attorney, that, you know, There's not much we would be able to do, even if we actually look into this. I think a memo, a deep level memo, I'm fully in support of. Anything beyond that, I'm really not, though, unless I hear evidence that there's something that the city can do, because it takes away resources that are intended for problems we can solve. So fully support the idea, fully support gathering that information and seeing where it goes. I don't think that ever hurts, and I appreciate him bringing it up. So thank you.

Do you want to go? Do you have something? I will start with you, Commissioner Davis.

Thank you, Commissioner Mayer, because I think that the community is kind of looking for us to address it in some way. And I always hear that 50% of our housing is rental, so I'm wondering, do we have an accurate figure on that? Is it 50%, 49%?

We can certainly get that for you.

But it's somewhere around there, right?

50 or over.

Yeah, and we have a good number of those rentals are college students. And I guess I could speak from the experience of a mother of a college student who I didn't appreciate his rental experience, that there are some concerns out there. So I'm not so sure that we want to do a full analysis, but maybe a presentation so that, and I don't know if it's even a memo, it'd be really nice to hear a presentation about what our rental safety inspections are. Are we up to date with them? Do we have enough staff to really look at them? And what happens when, what happens with those rental inspections? And I'm just curious about, you know, does the health department play a part in this? So maybe we need to be educated more about what the county's role is, what the state role is, if there's a health department role because of mice or rats or, you know, whatever bugs that they might have, and just what the city actually is doing and can do legally. That would help me respond to the community.

One comment I do want to make is that our rental inspector has to inspect a rental before it can get its new certificate to continue renting. So those certificates are good for three years. And my understanding is that we have one dedicated employee who does all of those. My understanding is that when those renewals come up, the holdup in getting that done is not him not being able to get the inspection done in time. Sometimes the landlords don't schedule the inspections or don't do it timely or things like that. But he does get that done pretty timely whenever those renewals come up. So it is up to the landlord to schedule that inspection and if they don't they no longer have a permit or a Rental certificate that allows them to continue renting it is revoked.

Okay.

Thank you Mr. Kelly, thank you.

I Can't I can't state it any better than Commissioner. How do I did? Do we have the resources to come up with such a memo that he suggested I

it will be probably again it will be very high level on the the direction that we would be looking at but it probably would not be incredibly thorough to have that kind of analysis i'll probably you know throw out some some examples things like that but i do feel that the direction um or the the direction that i think commissioner davis was talking about with the education component i think is really important uh and it's a really good exercise to inform everybody of looking at not just the city but saying okay these are the other things that we don't handle or that we rely on other entities to to take care of such as the health department i think that's a really good step and then i would say probably you know piggybacking off of that then would be leading into what would it look like if we were to do these things it would be not a very accurate memo um for cost wise but uh would be it would be very you know general is it doable within let's say four to six months oh yeah i i think we could absolutely and if you're looking for a presentation to the city commission we can certainly do that and then have a memo for that as well thank you go time

If we're going to make an educational piece, would it be possible to get the one employee that does the rental inspections to come in? Probably nobody knows better than he does.

We will certainly look at that. That is something that actually I will say we go over in our Citizens Academy in one session, so there you go. Thank you.

We might want to do that during working hours so we don't have to ask that individual to work outside and he's not a salaried employee.

Mr.. Davis well Before we vote. I'm just wondering if the motion might need to change And if it doesn't I need to hear again what the motion is Commissioner Davis can you clarify?

What you maybe think needs to be changed I can read it again the deep analysis i just said prepare an analysis and analysis i didn't clarify the level of analysis

Could you read the motion again?

Yeah. The motion was to direct city staff to prepare an analysis of current renter protections and related ordinances and provide a list of options, if any, to the city commission for consideration for protecting the health and safety of renters in the city of Marquette as allowable under the law.

Okay. All set?

Great.

thank you for the discussion we'll vote all in favor of the motion please say yes yes post no motion passes six that brings us to our second public comment again public comment cannot exceed one of three minutes per person please state your name and physical address if you have not already done so at the podium

I really was getting to my feet.

I apologize.

Something brought out the competitor in me. Margaret Brum, 404 East Magnetic Street. After I was here the last time, and God knows when there was, I heard that the city didn't have anything to do with water in the basement. And then somebody mentioned sewage and the same general comment. was made, and I apologize if I misquote, it was a while ago. Well, that's wrong. If you have sewage in your basement, that is an immediate public health issue. I have posted on my personal Facebook page the name and the number of the person you call at the Marquette County Health Department. Especially in the spring when you have flooding, very, very common for sewage to mix in with the water in the basement. And that is a nasty public health issue because there's nothing more transmittable of disease than untreated sewage. which is why it's so important that you've invested so much money in the Marquette area wastewater plant, because during the worst of the storms we've had, and God knows we've had them a lot in the last year, Marquette was one of the few places in the Upper Peninsula that didn't exceed its permit by pumping untreated sewage into their discharge point. So the one thing I when you make your recommendations to renters, there is a difference between water and sewage. And even if you even think there's a hint of sewage in your basement or anywhere in your house, that's an immediate call to the Market County Health Department because that uh that has a potential for messing you up and messing the property up as well because uh the unfortunately i know way too much about the contents of human sewage and i don't want to mention it here because i want y'all to be able to sleep tonight but there's just nothing uh there's just nothing more uh transmittable of diseases And speaking of which, that's how we found COVID at the prison during the pandemic, is they analyzed the samples coming out of the prison, and that's how they found one of the epidemics there. So please, when you do your update, please make a distinction between water and sewage, because sewage takes it outside the realm of landlord-tenant and puts it into public health. And if you want to question this, just call the health department, because I questioned them at length about it. And it was Fred Benzie, the new guy in the county board, that directed me to the right person to talk about it. Getting back to cigarette butts, because I wasn't done. I'm almost never done. There is something that the city can do right now to decrease the amount of cigarette butts. When I was a young person and I went away to my first job at Dow Chemical, I didn't wear my seatbelt all the time. It wasn't a rule. I didn't wear it. I found out at Dow that if I was on company business without wearing my seatbelt and I got into a wreck, I lost my job. I switched my habits. I wore my seatbelt at work and I wore it all the time. You have many parking lots in the city that are city buildings. I know the Municipal Service Center is one that I visit regularly. It's full of cigarette butts. And before you tell me, as Mark O'Neill said, oh, it's all the visitors, I know where the employees park, and it's the employees. Could you please make an ordinance that employees are not to drop cigarette butts in their parking spots? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Brown.

She's done this before. She's pretty good at it.

So I just wanted to finish up. Barb, you don't need my name again. I don't believe that scheduling this meeting next week there was any malicious intent. I think it might have been considered careless or maybe insensitive, but not malicious. I'm not accusing it. But I also might point out that the May meeting that was scheduled to review the task force recommendations bumped the Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee annual presentation to some undetermined date. So I'm just kind of, you know, I'm not talking like the victim here. But anyway, but really now I just wanted to address this proposed ordinance, because I might not make it to that meeting, that's scheduled for next week. I'm disappointed that the ordinance doesn't prohibit e-bikes on all city sidewalks. As it's currently written, as you know, it strictly limits bikes in areas largely managed by the DDA. I really believe this is fundamentally a public safety issue. Sidewalks exist to provide a safe space for pedestrians, young children, seniors, people with disabilities, pet walkers who simply want to walk without being overtaken by a motorized vehicle. An e-bike is not a traditional bike, and it can travel at speeds that far exceed what pedestrians expect to encounter on a sidewalk. And when this is operated by an inexperienced rider, it increases the risk considerably. So we hear the argument about, well, where are people supposed to ride safely? This raises a very important question. If a child isn't mature enough or skilled enough to ride in the street, should they really be operating a heavy motorized bike capable of traveling 20 miles per hour in the first place? Parents have a responsibility when they purchase these e-bikes. We should expect that they would ensure that their kid understands the rules of the road and not to transfer that risk onto pedestrians. We say we want a walkable community, accessible and vibrant businesses. Allowing these fast moving and heavy bikes on sidewalks undermines these goals and places the burden to be constantly looking over your shoulder in an area that's specifically designed for safety. I would really urge the commission to include all city sidewalks and place the safety of those walking above the convenience of e-bike users. I understand the temptations to use the safe route, Verbatim, but I think it's been demonstrated even recently that the safe route is kind of an excuse I mean they didn't even necessarily keep the safe route open this winter forcing kids to walk into this walk in streets in lieu of Those sidewalks being plowed. So anyway, that's all I wanted to say.

Thanks Thank you anyone else for public comment I

Hey again, everybody. Bailey Quinn, 1402 Altamont. I do appreciate I caught the tail end of a convo and vote. I'll be following up on that. I like that you guys are hearing what we have to say. I'm here today to talk about the fire inspections done by our fabulous fire department. I have nothing but respect for Ben Gardner. But when Ben Gardner examined my house, he said he has no training or no knowledge of codes of Marquette. And I'm going to explain why that's a problem. Because we have this certificate here that says my house is in safety compliance. It's fire compliance with Marquette. It came with this slip here that says my house needs a certificate of compliance, which we all know my house doesn't have because it has a wall built over a drain. So this, according to the county of Marquette, this is a garage. Now, the problem here and why this is a safety issue with our fire inspections, this garage passed a fire inspection despite standing water under a heating appliance. And now a heating appliance, the cord is running right there. There was standing water on that cord. I was emailing our fire inspector, standing water under heating appliance. He declined to come out and examine my home saying I've already examined it and deemed it as fire safe. I don't understand how we have heating appliances installed in rooms that are not up to code. They are sitting in water. And our fire inspector is saying, I'm signing off on this as safe. Now, additional issues. I looked into the permit. The permit requirements for the county of Marquette say buildings, additions, alterations, remodel, replacement plumbing, mechanical or electrical systems. It also includes heating appliances like furnaces. This house is advertised online as having a wood-burning stove. This was the picture when I signed my lease of a wood-burning stove. That stove has been replaced by the current owners with no record of permits with a decorative unvented propane stove. They told us they did this because their insurance told them they had to. The county has no permit for this. They told us they would not leave this lit all season because they don't think it's safe. because it's unvented permit, unvented propane. I don't know if it's safe at all because they installed it without permits. On top of that, we've got two water heaters, one of which seems to be plugged into an extension cord that's dangling in between the two water heaters. Our fire safety inspector declined to come look at my house while there was water sitting under my heating appliance. Here is a series of back and forth emails between Ben Gardner, city manager Karen Kovacs, and myself, where I repeatedly say my landlords are turning on the heat. There is water under this heating appliance. This is not up to code. How did they pass this inspection? He declined to come out. He said they have passed the inspection. That is all. This is not safe. The market is city is stamping. This is safe. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Thank you anyone else for public comment this evening. Anyone else. Seeing none public comment is closed. That brings us to comments from the commission I will start with commissioner mayor on the end today.

I forgot one of the things I was going to talk about, but it's okay. I guess I just would like to say thank you to my fellow commissioners for hearing me out there on my last-minute agenda edition, as well as to city staff for acting pretty quick on the fly there for me. But other than that, I don't think I really have anything. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Davis?

I have no comments this evening.

Commissioner Gottlieb?

yes i'd just like to thank city administration city attorney for coming up with that ordinance uh on the uh multi-use path and the e-bikes as quickly as they did and uh i want to thank them for that i think it's boy do we need it i feel bad for the police when it's passed because they're going to have a lot of work out there thank you commissioner hamley nothing

Pro Tem, what do we?

Yeah, you know, tonight was a very important discussion about where we are financially. and really the person that's really responsible for that or big time responsible for that left earlier. Obviously Karen's really responsible for that over her, but Mary left and I think we certainly should recognize a lot of the hard work that she's done when it comes to really getting us in a better financial position and those same recognitions should go to Karen as well as the rest of their staff. I think it speaks volumes. The one thing I will say when it comes to budgetary and financial things, And I made the same comment last year after this presentation. While on paper it looks like things are writing, the things that are scary about budgets are always the unknowns. We'll be in a much better spot financially, not when the numbers show that we have a lot of money in the account, but when we can get more money. So when we're able to actually obtain a larger bond without any question, that tells me we're in a much better spot financially. So that's why I'll continue to ask the questions about the bonding and where we sit, because as everyone who knows the city of Marquette and continues to look around and We hear a lot of the big issues and concerns infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure and we can't do infrastructure without being able to bond so we have to continue to be as conservative as possible from a financial standpoint until we are able to. Ultimately be able to obtain a lot of money to make some proper repairs.

Thank you Thank you I just gonna go back to my usual spiel with the Summers here almost and we're gonna have a lot more people coming to town I've noticed the traffic habits have gotten a little bit worse the last A couple of weeks with some of the people are visiting and maybe not used to our our system here so please be careful watch for children watch for visitors it's very important when it comes to our multi use pathway ordinance I think this is a very very very good start. I went through and. Did a pretty heavy dive into our. revisions that have been done, and I'm really excited to see where they sit as of right now. There's a lot of other communities, I mean, all throughout the US that are dealing with the same thing. And I was able to run across a couple of different examples of larger communities that have just adopted theirs as of like June 4th. And then everybody's in the same boat. We're working through the same issues. And I think that what we're going to find with this is that we're going to have a solid best practice type of takeaway from these other communities. And if we need to incorporate something new, we can do that. In the future, if we need to make some changes, because we're, you know, for one reason or another, but, you know, this is going to be something that we're going to be working with continuously. So I think that this is a great, great start. I appreciate the work that staff has put into it. Chief Graham and the fire or police department, you know, you've got your hands full with staff and having to deal with this new nuisance, but. I really feel that when people start to realize that this is going to be enforced, that we're going to start to be a little bit more responsible, a little bit more mature about our actions and what we're doing out there and making sure that we're looking out for our neighbors. That being said, move to city manager for a comment.

Sure. Just a reminder that the approval was to schedule a special meeting for the public hearing on the 16th, so this coming Tuesday then, a week from tomorrow at 5 p.m. And if it does overlap with the Traffic Parking Advisory Committee, we're hoping that maybe some accommodations or adjustments can be made and they are able to attend here in lieu of their meeting or be able to... move things around at that point and maybe find some benefit and chiming in so with that thank you to staff for for really putting a lot of time and effort into this and trying to make it into terms where we all understand and the community will be able to understand this ordinance and the use of these rules so thank you with that we are adjourned at 7 14.