City Council - Regular Meeting

truck sometimes. I used to live on it. Thank God I don't name that.

Look at you, you even made it.

That was impressive. Yeah, I think that might have been less than two minutes. He ran the whole way.

Hey, we're live and we can go, John.

I'm good.

He's out of breath. Just keep it.

He looks winded. American. Try asking. The paddle and bicycle, not the runway. Don't get one of the box after a run. I call the order for the city of Petoskey, the city council meeting for July 20th, 2026. I'll ask that all city council members, and if you're speaking at the mic, speak into the mic because I've had a couple of complaints. They can't hear us talking. So not here, up in the sky. I call the order. I ask that you rise with me to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

with liberty and justice for all.

We have a quorum.

Number four is consent agendas, July 6th, 2026, regular session and closed session city council meeting minutes.

as well as acknowledge the receipt of certain administrative transactions that have occurred since July 6th, 2026, as well as acknowledge the receipt of the June, 2026 revenue and expenditures report, along with acknowledge the receipt of the second quarter investment report. And I take it to council for questions, comments, additions, deletions, or if not, a motion. Council, do you have anything? Mr. Wilmot.

I move for acceptance of the consent agenda.

Support. I have a motion for Mr. Wilmot, second for Mr. Moore. I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

Wilmot.

Aye.

Moore. Aye. Walker. Aye. Propp. Aye. Murphy. Aye. Propp.

Yes. We have a pass of that five to zero. Next is public comment. This is your opportunity. Bring it back. They'll come back. This is your opportunity to speak to city council. Hang on. The deal is I need at least your first and last name. If you wish to add more to your title, et cetera, you may. When you come up and speak, I ask that you speak to council, not to the audience. If there is something on the agenda that is going to be discussed, if you can wait, That would probably be preferential to me or to us if possible. Otherwise, I'm going to open the floor to anybody that wishes to speak to this council. Is there anybody that wishes to speak? Sir, at the back.

It's on the agenda.

Can you wait or do you wish to speak and go? It's up to you. Okay, sir.

I'd like to speak on the proposal resolution granting the DTE temporary and permanent easement on the Zedon property.

That'll be coming up short order. Okay. Actually, it's the first old business, ma'am.

And I would like to speak also on DT.

For sure. And more if you wish. That's fine. DT is here present and excited to help assist with answers that we may not have or you may have questions of. Next, I go to the city manager's report. I'm going to turn it over to city manager Horne.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council. A few project updates this evening. We will be working, our contractor has worked on the dog park, getting ready for concrete later this week. We've started preparing for concrete, digging out the entrances to the dog park. So that work has transpired today. Concrete will hopefully be done later this week, similar to the bench along the Bay front that the art commission, um, authorized last year. So we're doing, we're preparing that piece with a section of sidewalk along the Bayfront that'll eventually stop at the new bench location. That'll kind of have the backdrop being the break wall. So kind of a nice photo opportunity for folks that are along the Bayfront. That is also getting prepared this week with concrete to follow later this week. So those two things are progressing. Carnegie building window rehabilitation has completed. We're doing our final walkthrough later this week to finalize any sort of punch list items that remain, but we're very pleased with how that looks. If you've not been by, I encourage you to stop by, take a look at it. CITY HALL ELEVATOR UPGRADES HAVE COMPLETED. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU AUTHORIZED IN OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. REALLY DIDN'T HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE. IT WAS MANDATED FOR US TO GO THROUGH THIS UPGRADE PROCESS. SO WE'VE HAD OTIS IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS DOING THE UPGRADE. WE'VE COMPLETED THAT. WE HAD OUR INSPECTION AND FINAL TESTING END OF LAST WEEK, I BELIEVE, WHICH WE PASSED. Happy to put that behind us as well. Marina repairs are also complete. This was repairs due to ice damage that we had over the winter that kind of pulled up pilings in some of our docks around the marina. So we had a contractor in just before the 4th of July, which is not a great time to do that work, as you can imagine working around some pretty expensive boats, but the folks in the marina were very accommodating and moved things around as needed to allow us to finish these repairs. So that work is also completed. Wanted to kind of bring your attention as well. Our early voting opportunity is coming up starting July 25th. That's Saturday through August 2nd. That'll be at the VFW Post 2051 on Conway Road. This will take place each day from 8.30 to 4.30 p.m. Again, starting July 25th. We have been obviously pushing out, have pushed out absentee ballots. I think Sarah just said we had 1,343 absentee ballots that were mailed out.

We're spending...

Quite a bit of time still going back with folks. These absentee ballots don't forward, so they get returned to us, which causes Sarah and our deputy clerk to do follow-up phone calls to make sure we can get ballots to people timely. So that's been a little time consuming for staff going through that process. We will be, the clerk's office will be open from 7 to 3 on Saturday, August 1st to issue any final and receive absentee voter ballots in advance of the August 4th primary election. So again, that would be Saturday, August 1st here at City Hall from 7 to 3 p.m. Few upcoming meetings. Tomorrow night, the downtown management board will meet for their regular monthly meeting. That's Tuesday, July 21st in the community room, starting at six o'clock. I wanted to also remind council due to the primary election on August 12th, Second, that's second, third, fourth. August 4th, just said that. We will move our regular meeting Monday to Thursday, August 6th. Again, as a reminder, same start time, six o'clock. I also want to remind council of our special, um, CIP joint meeting with the planning commission. This will take place at our normal second meeting of the month, which is Monday, August 17th, uh, at six o'clock. But again, that meeting will be dedicated only to, um, our special meeting with, um, looking at a CIP for the next six year period. So, um, we'll, we'll have some, um, likely some pizza or something to tide you over for a few hours as we go through this joint session. Wanted to also make council aware of our newest hire in public safety, Nicholas Newton. Nicholas was sworn in, Sarah sworn him in two weeks ago, I believe now. Nicholas comes to us from Greenfield, Wisconsin. He served in the Greenfield Police Department in Greenfield, Wisconsin. He's also a commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps Reserve. He currently serves as combat engineer, platoon commander, where he is responsible for leading Marines in training and operational readiness. His Marine service has provided him leadership experience, decision-making abilities, and a commitment to excellence that will benefit obviously our department and the community overall. So we're thrilled to have Nicholas join us as we hire one. Unfortunately, we got news last week that one of our, public safety officers is leaving us due to a relocation of her spouse. So Alexis Steele will be transitioning down into the Holland area as her husband was just recently hired by the Holland Public Safety Department. So Alexis has been a valued member of our team. Certainly wish them both well in their transitions. And then one final slide, just our next big event in town is our annual sidewalk sales coming up on July 31st and August 1st downtown. I know our downtown staff is preparing diligently for this. Over the weekend, we had our art in the park. The chamber staff did a wonderful job kind of organizing that. I think that was our 40th year of having that in Pennsylvania Park. So we did see a little bit. I think there were 10 or 12 folks that pulled out due to um air quality concerns and also some we had some uh weather in the morning that wasn't really conducive uh for that but it certainly cleared up uh was uh still well attended there's a lot of folks um around town uh walking through the displays so we thank the chamber and their team for again organizing uh that opportunity for our community Any questions for me at this time? So any questions? Miss Walker?

Thank you. Thanks, Shane. I noticed that the Howard Street reconstruction project is now off the slot of construction projects. So is that on hold until the fall? Or is that being concluded?

Um, yeah, I, I updated the last meeting. I didn't know if there was really enough to make another update, but that project is going from Fulton to Fulton to Jennings. That last stretch is, is underway. Um, trying to finish that. Our timeframe is October to get that done. So all property owners through there have been notified of the schedule. They're working on water and sewer infrastructure right now, storm as well. So that process will continue until October.

Thank you.

Mr. Knobtop. Yes, Shane, thanks. I have three questions. When I saw the public service ad in the Facebook for the city Facebook page, it reminded me that during our budget process, I thought we were in a debate for this year, whether we're gonna hire another public service, public safety officer, and we're gonna wait to mid-year and make some determination. Can you give any kind of an update on that?

Nicholas was our hire to bring in that extra personnel. Unfortunately, now we'll be back to where we were with Alexis leaving. So we're trying to hire another person, but we have filled that seat with Nicholas's position for that extra seat.

OK. I have another process question. When we had the meeting on just the policies and procedures, one of the things we agreed on, we were going to rotate the voting routine so that it isn't always the same motion, second, and then the three. When are we going to do that? Are we going to do that? What's the process?

Yeah, so we have to compile all the changes, have Laura and her team review the final document, and so it should be next meeting. We've had a lot on our plate, obviously, as we always do, but we're projecting that to be back in front of you for the next meeting for final consideration.

Okay, and then my last question, this is just my calendar, right? I had a meeting on August the 10th that was said was with a joint session, just said joint session. That's not it. We don't have a meeting on August 10th. It's the 17th.

It's the 17th. So hopefully that works for everybody. It does. I figured that was our normal meeting. Like that was a meeting that we would normally be here anyway. It didn't work. For the mayor. For Lockwood Park, I believe.

The Lockwood Park picnic is Monday, August 10th. That's why we rescheduled.

Okay. All right. Thanks.

Actually, I think you could call it the ward picnic because everybody in the ward pretty much gets invited.

Okay.

Anything else, council? Moving on to old business. The adoption of a proposed resolution granting DTE a permanent and temporary utility easement on city owned property on Crouse Road. Turn it over to city manager Horne. Public will be having an opportunity to speak. We're just gonna, you will speak, you have a chance.

Yeah, so in your packet are some red line changes. We tried to incorporate your changes from our last meeting. Want to give a lot of credit to Laura and her team at Foster Swift, as well as the DTE, Tyler and Chris have been very responsive. When I've emailed, they're on it and very responsive. That's really allowed us to kind of put this back in front of you for this meeting. But we tried to be responsive to your initial concerns, going back and forth from our legal staff to DTE. There were things that wasn't always agreed to, so we went back and forth a few times. So this is kind of the final document for your consideration. Obviously, we've changed out the compensation as as was discussed at the last meeting as well. So Laura is on the DTE team is here. So if we want to work through any remaining concerns or issues, we're certainly ready and capable to do that.

You saw the in red the changes that they proposed. Do you have any questions about those at this time? Council? This more

So it isn't a question, but under additional workspace, first of all, appreciate everything that was done here. It is very responsive to a number of the concerns that I raised under additional workspace, the final sentence, This temporary additional workspace expires when a pipeline commences operations on or in the easement. It was my recollection last time when you gentlemen were here, that you proposed something like to the extent that the temporary additional workspace would expire when the initial, what's deemed initial construction now expires. So I was just, again, this is just my perspective. It may not be the perspective of others and Laura's listening, but to me, that seemed like a more clear delineation of when that temporary additional workspace would end as opposed to when the pipeline commences operations. SO, AGAIN, I WOULD LET OTHERS SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL. IF IT'S ONLY MY CONCERN AND LAURA DISAGREES, THEN THE DIALOGUE. COULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

YES, OF COURSE. SO THE REASON WHY ‑‑ OH, I'M SORRY. TYLER, SENIOR LAND RAN FOR DTE. SO MY CONCERN WITH THE LANGUAGE OF WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE. This is almost a 14 mile pipeline. So we might have the construction complete on you all before, you know, a year before the entire construction is complete. At the end of construction of the pipeline, we have to test it. If we have any issues with the pipeline, we have to get back out there and dig it up, repair the issues, whether it's a weak weld or I don't know, I mean, Yeah, wrapping anything. So that's why I wanted to keep the temporary workspace active until the pipeline actually is in operation, because I didn't want to kind of pigeonhole ourselves into a situation where we'd have to come back and try to ask for temporary workspace again once the pipeline's actually constructed.

Do you have any estimate of time from start of construction to when those pipelines would be, when pipeline operations would commence?

Yeah, Chris Hackbarth, regional manager for DT. Yes, I think as we've testified before the various townships in the county, the expectation is this project, we will start acquiring equipment and getting prepped with our later on yard this fall. And then our goal is to have first quarter of 28 restoration complete. So the construction activities, again, all pending weather and things that are uncovered when you dig underground. know is through the course of 2027 with that first quarter of 28 being the final the final restoration work being done and that's another piece of this too in addition to the testing after construction coming in and doing that restoration work uh the salt we call it soft surface restoration uh the planting of grass seed or you know pollinators you know getting the ground re uh you know releveled, you know, all of that work being done, when is that taking place? You know, what is construction? What is that term? Is that the whole project construction? Is it just as parcel? So I think, again, if we have this, the, there is a very definitive point in time when the pipeline goes into service. And that was our, you know, there's an endpoint at that point.

I guess my concern is it gives a lot of discretion between end of construction and Pipeline operations. And so I understand what you're saying in terms of construction things and needing to be sure it's operating. But are there other reasons that commencement of the pipeline could be extended for significant periods of time? allowing that temporary workspace.

So your concern would be if we were to not have it go into service beyond first quarter of 28. There you go.

Five years later.

Right. There's no way we would be allowed to recover those costs from the Michigan Public Service Commission for our investment if it were go on that long. And we would have serious problems internally if that were the case. So no, I don't anticipate a situation where when we make this level of investment, we're going to stick to that timeline and very strict on our contractors as well.

Well, and also keep in mind that we're putting in this pipeline so that we can test our existing pipeline because we're being put under pressure to make sure that's tested so that we can maintain it. The existing pipeline's old. So that's our biggest goal here is to get that pipeline tested, which we can't test that until this new pipeline is in operation. Because again, that's the whole purpose for the new pipeline, right? Is to maintain gas service to the city of Petoskey.

Okay. I appreciate your responses. Thank you.

Questions? Mr. Wilmot, would you be more comfortable with a time-specific end date, like December of 28?

Unfortunately, I can't do that. I've worked on too many big pipeline projects to put an actual end date. I mean, we still have to go through so many processes before we can even start construction. To be honest with you, I think construction might be delayed a little bit. Um, I don't think we'll be starting in the beginning of 2027. So again, if I put an end date on there, we're going to be right back here later on asking for additional time.

It's not all bad, but, uh, city attorney or could you, uh, weigh in on this? Uh, do you see some way that you feel that city needs to be protected on this or. Are you comfortable with this and feel we should continue as is?

So I'm reviewed as well as my real estate law partner. Am I coming through sound wise okay tonight?

Yeah.

Yes. And we are comfortable with this language because it is actually a brighter line measure of when it expires. Construction ending is actually, I think, a little bit more likely. vague potentially because sort of to DTE's point, but there can always be needs for additional construction. Even if we think construction is done, they may not think construction is done. But once it's operational, that's an objective fact that gives us that timeline. So our team was comfortable with this language.

Thank you. Council, any other questions? Ms. Damore?

A same question to you, Laura, as far as this assignment and successor provision, you're comfortable or you recommend the language here that limits these assignment approvals to, it reads to me like it's limited to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Michigan Public Service Commission. You feel that that's broad enough?

the language that was negotiated. If we're talking about the same provision in terms of council originally wanting a lot of control over the assignment, we think we found a happy medium with that language and the agreement that is going to protect the city. This can't be assigned to John Doe down the street. So we are comfortable and recommend this language.

Thank you. Council, anything else? I asked public if you have a comment that you would like you guys to have a seat. Thank you. Thank you. Who would like to speak to council first? Come on forward, sir. Come on. Your full name, you don't have to say anything other than that address unless you wish to. Number two, it's the council and not to the audience. You have time, please. Push the button so it is green. Yes, it is. You're all set.

Sorry, how many minutes do I have to talk?

Five minutes. Okay.

Council members, thank you for bringing me along and giving this opportunity to speak publicly. My name is Mark Colbeta. I sent you several emails today regarding some photos that I took of surrounding areas that are having similar construction zones and potentially what this pipeline project might look like at the start of work, at the middle, and at a mature state based on the lands out by King Road and the crease location. I had a chance to review your contract and although I'm not a lawyer, I was asked some questions around it. I just thought that the contract placed your rights in the backseat. I thought the terms somewhat were wide open and poorly defined, leaving the repair details to a verbal agreement that maybe uh there would be no obligation by dte to actually complete at the minutes of the or the rewatch of the last week's two weeks ago meeting there was a discussion about having the um bicycle friendly and um you know red roses and a happy drive through your property um i saw that uh there was no terms to discuss the paving or how this is actually going to look. And if people were going to be safe or want to ride over that pipeline. There is a limited amount of information about the open space creation and the tree removal. Let's see here. No offense to your lawyer, but I did think that contract might have had some holes. I don't know if it mentioned there would be a possibility of a second pipeline in the future or exactly... what the terms would be for drilling wells or for having expansion paths in the future for people interested in the event that the city was to ever sell that property. So I thought they should consult with an eminent domain and land condemnation specialist. If you guys are familiar with I-75, as you drive southbound through Flint, it's a three-lane highway in each direction with a central cement wall and paved shoulders. That's about what a 75-foot-wide swath will look like. And that's a huge difference from the standard walking and bicycle trails that, I mean, new people would envision perhaps, or that many of our green spaces have. Once granted, by my understanding, is you're not allowed to place any future well taps for an additional 300 feet on either side of this 50-foot easement. And we'll find out more, I suppose, later on that. And then if they decided to add a second pipeline in 10 years, would that require another 25 foot work zone? Would that temporary space then become a permanent space and another 25 feet taken? And then would there be any additional reimbursement for that? So I guess the law says DTE is allowed to exploit this deal to the maximum extent allowed, but unforeseeable future construction or ideas could change in the future. You guys have a, fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Petoskey to make sure that you're making the best decisions for the use of city land. This is a permanent submission. The public trust requires you to consider all options for the future use of the property. Considering the Petoskey ZIP Code is one of the most expensive in the state and country now, I think your settlement value of $20,000 is significantly less than the fair market valuation not just for the land, but for the future value of land, as well as the trees that might sit upon it. They're obligated to pay you for the value of the trees and some cleanup. You could worry about the stumps. Most likely you'll have snowmobile people and other people trying to hit you. You hit a stump with a snowmobile at 30 miles an hour, you're going to the hospital. That's going to hurt. um it appeared your parcel had a significant vertical elevation clear cutting that path could lead to significant erosion with heavy rains or snow melt there could be deep craters and since the pipe's 36 inches deep some of it could be exposed on the top side so hopefully that'll be addressed for full disclosure i'm one of the 85 to 100 people affected along the 14 mile path last fall a land man came to my house knocked on the door said he had a great deal for me for the greater good And by spring, I discovered that many of those things represented were not actually accurate. I was told that the MPSC approval was already done and in the books. This was not true, that Eagle had rubber stamped it. I called Eagle in Gaylord and spoke to several people. They had never heard of it, that the Little Traverse Conservancy was on board as part of it goes through the Hankins Glen Conservancy just down the street from my house. which is not true. I was told that high powered rifle use was not a big problem because hunters hunt across these all across the state. However, by federal law, that could make me a terrorist for attacking a pipeline. If I should accidentally be hunting deer and strike that pipeline, it'd be very expensive repairs. I was told I was one of the last holdouts of seven people that I have known only one had signed and that was under duress as shady conditions. I was told DE paid top dollars. The offer made to me was insulting and I was told already threatened by the Petoskey Snowmobile Club that they wanted to have this too. So here I am left. You guys will be left with a new trail and I'll be left holding the bag.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate this opportunity to share our democracy. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak? Please come forward, sure.

Hi, my name is Brenda Kolbida. I'm Mark's wife. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I live in Bear Creek Township, and I'm asking you to vote no, please, on the adoption of a proposed resolution allowing DTE to place a pipeline on city property. Allowing DTE to use city property will green light progression onto and through our land in Bear Creek Township. This resolution affects at least 85 private land owners and the Hankins Glen Conservancy near Hoag Road. This DTE project is not, or seems to me to be not consistent with the city's commitment to conservation. Allowing DTE to clear a 75 foot wide path is not a sound decision in the name of promoting ecotourism. And I think I heard that mentioned at your last meeting where people come here because they want to get away from the noise and experience nature and don't necessarily need a 75 foot wide trail to do that. My children and I are members of the Sault Ste. Marie tribe of Chippewa Indians. I'm an elder in the tribe. I speak for my children, myself, and my ancestors. We are Anishinaabeg, the original people. We don't necessarily object to the pipeline being built. We do object to the process of building it and destruction that will occur on our land The pipeline's footprint will devastate the ecological and spiritual balance that exists in nature. Our land has been blessed by the creator. I've lived on this land in Petoskey for 26 years. We have living creek waters that join the headwaters of the Bear River, then eventually empty into Lake Michigan right here. Water is sacred to the Chippewa. Our property is home to species of owl, diverse, now this is just my land, diverse species of birds, deer, bear, coyote, fox, porcupine, squirrels, salamanders, raccoon, snakes, skunks, chipmunks, and rabbits. And I've seen these all. We have a little family of foxes now that live on our land. How are they going to be affected by this? We're stewards of their homes and we do our best to maintain it. My husband and I do so much outside, always trying to maintain the property. This will be destroyed along with hundreds of trees, including stands of maple, maple trees that historically have been considered sacred to my family and my tribe I grew up making maple syrup with my grandfather and these trees will be destroyed. And so please vote no, or at least consider voting no on adopting the proposed ETE pipeline project. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?

Sir, did you wanna speak?

Okay. Just wanted to make sure before I stop it. Does anybody in the public online wish to speak? There being none. I go back to city council for discussion or a possible motion. Ms. Damore.

So one question that I have, and this is for people that know more about trees than I do. I mean, last time when we talked about the amount of damages, we really didn't, I don't know the number of trees involved here. So I don't really know. I know that Shane sort of assigned these dollars

I don't know if Shane just signed them.

Well, that's my understanding. You'll pick those numbers.

I just used what dollar amounts you all wanted price per acre. And then the balance is in damages.

Well, let me clarify what I meant was you, you kind of assigned the 5,000 per acre fair and the 1,000 per temporary workspace and and then the balance to trees. And I don't know if that's appropriate or not. I don't know what is reimbursed per tree. I don't know how many trees there are. So I don't know.

May I clarify? Tyler, yes. So if you look on your exhibit A, the one that shows the aerial overview, you'll see that in this area, it's, I mean, yeah, there are trees out there, but it's not a heavily forested area by any means. It would be the second page of your exhibit A. It would look like this with an aerial overview. So it shows the center line of pipe, the limits of the permanent and temporary workspace. And you can see that, I mean, again, yes, there are trees out there, but it's not heavily forested by any means. And also keep in mind that it will be 50 foot permanent, not 75. So in that additional 25 feet, you can plant all the trees you'd like out there.

This is what you're talking about?

There you go. Yeah, that's the one. And also, just to clarify, not that I think that you all are going to allow anyone to be hunting out there on this, but we do allow people to hunt. When I worked out in southwest Pennsylvania, I had a guy, he wanted us to reseed with a special... He went to... I was at a college in West Virginia, right across the state line, and had some lab engineer a special feed or a special seed mix that would bring in wildlife. A couple years later, he sent me a picture of a huge trophy buck that he shot out there. Now, I won't agree to that ever again because of what it cost us to reseed. He had a mix that was like a certain percentage of clover, a certain percentage of this. I mean, it was just crazy. But we do allow people to hunt out there. The pipeline is very 36 inches deep. And I've not ever myself, I'm not saying it's never happened, but I've never heard of anyone striking a pipeline with a rifle bullet. So if those are valid concerns, I just wanted to kind of comment as to that.

I picked Mr. Knobtrop. I'm going to call him Mr. Knobtrop.

I just, what I recalled, I thought you would... So there's no tree replacement. If you take any down, there's no tree replacement anywhere. Is that right?

Or I was thinking that we don't replace the trees ourselves. That's why we pay you for tree damage and tree loss.

But you, you do put back. you do grass.

And yes, thank you for bringing that up.

You do in the end.

Yes. Thank you for bringing that up. So I wanted to touch on that as well under the damages restoration clause. It clearly States that, uh, we will pay for damages and also restore it back to its original condition or as reasonably practical. The reason why reasonably practical is in there is because we take down a hundred foot year old maple tree. We can't replace that. And so that's all we have is reasonable, practical, but I mean, we reseed it. We put down straw to make sure the seed will take, um, You know, I mean, again, you know, we can double ditch it for farm fields to where, you know, we take the top soil off and subsoil out and, you know, that way farmers can replant it and regrow crops and everything else. So we do restore it.

Mr. Wilmot.

Yeah, I'm a little confused. So the 50 foot wide swath where the pipeline goes, you're only replacing grasses.

Correct.

So any discussion of replacement of trees, which is our responsibility would be on the additional easement, which is the workspace.

Yes, that's correct. Yeah. We can't allow trees with that 50 foot wide swath because naturally tree roots.

Okay. It just with the conversation that was going on, I just wanted to make sure it was clear for the record that the 50 foot swath will be permanently grasses. or a small brush or whatever, but any replacement of trees will be the responsibility of the property owner on the workspace.

Correct.

Given the damages paid. At the end of the easement or the commencement of the easement.

Yes, that's correct. And then also just to address another concern, if there are any adjacent landowners that are worried about having a snowmobile path now cutting through their property as well as this, we've offered that we can put up gates. The gates we use are typically steel pipes with a really thick chain. What we do is we make the chain meet them well on the end. And we have a lock. We provide them a lock. We daisy chain those together so we have access if we ever need it and they have access as well. but there are thick chains that can't just be cut with bolt cutters for snowmobilers to keep down a path.

Another question. This is for council or city manager. We don't currently have any restriction on snowmobiles on this property, do we?

No. I would say no. Thank you.

Oh, and also we do grind all the stumps that are in the 50 foot wide easement area. So, I mean, they will be either ground or removed. I mean, obviously when you're trenching through, you'll remove stumps if you have to remove trees, but.

Only for the 50 foot wide area, not for the area that is used as workspace?

That's correct. We can grind those if needed.

If needed, what do you mean if needed?

Well, in a temporary workspace, typically we don't grind the sumps. I mean, I don't believe we do because typically people want to replant out there anyway. So you wouldn't have a whole lot of snowmobile traffic or ATV traffic going through there.

Farmers and we're not planning on replanting grains and crops and stuff. Okay.

What's that? I'm sorry.

We're not going to be replanting grains and we're not farming this area.

Correct.

But what he's just said is if there are stumps in the workspace that will be returned to us, they don't necessarily grind those stumps. Those are left.

But in this provision, it says that you guys shall replace the damaged area to its original condition as reasonably practicable. So wouldn't that include grinding those stumps down to the ground? I would think so.

Well, I mean, it's the original condition to have trees out there, not stumps.

You can't replace those.

I know, correct. But I mean, that's why I said it's reasonably practical. Again, if you all want the stumps ground in the temporary workspace, I'll be more than happy to put that in there, especially given the amount of trees that are out there. I don't think that would be an issue at all.

lack of yeah i i think they should be ground uh not because i'll tell you then that means you're not coming in with heavy equipment taking out trees again because as you know if you leave a stump you end up up north i don't know if you know but If you leave a stump, new trees grow off of a stump.

Well, but granted, though, in the temporary workspace, after commencement of operations of the pipeline, we won't have access to that temporary workspace anyway. So if new trees grew, I mean, that'd actually be to your all's benefit because now you have trees where there used to be trees.

You're good with that, guys. With what, sir? Are you okay with them not grinding the work area? Mr. Knobtop?

No, I guess, you know, having seen what stumps look like, I don't know. Part of this is I don't have a direct feel as to what it looks, how many trees are there to begin with. Sounds like there's not many. But it seems to me that all tree stumps ought to be removed, whether it's in the workspace area or not. It's going to look unsightly. It seems more... reasonable to me to get rid of them. And so then you don't have a hazard. You don't have any risk at all.

And we can certainly do that.

Is that what you wish, counsel? Yes. You got a response on that one. Next, anything else that you wish to respond to of the audience comments?

No, nothing to think of. I mean, unless you all had any questions that were raised during the

Lindsay, Ms. Walker. Thank you, Mayor. Could you give us, and do you have the picture of where the connection to TransCanada's pipeline will be along 75 and what bodies of water it traverses until it reaches its destination of the city of Petoskey?

I have the, if I'm at the science,

Yeah, I'm not sure about what bodies of water it crosses. We've done all of our environmental surveys on that to identify those.

Well, a person in the audience mentioned some of the tributaries of the Bear River. So I had heard that as well, that it's crossing several Bear River tributaries.

Anytime we do a pipeline, there are the state and federal regs that we have to go underneath. We've done that looking just, I think I mentioned the last time when we did the Pine River, we worked with EGLE and the federal government. uh especially since that's a navigable waterway we went down i think 100 120 feet uh below so way below there was never never any interaction with the water surface the the waters that's how we operate with with these pipelines we don't we don't want them impacted we don't want them in the water so we go we go below i can find i don't know that that would be the only kind of exception would be If we're crossing a waterway. Crossing water, but you're. We would go under.

Be six inches buried underneath.

It may even be further. It may even be further under that.

Okay.

Yeah, it's like, for instance, even where we're bordering roads, we go deeper than 36 inches. That's why the easement stays a minimum of 36 inches in depth, which is your typical plow depth.

Okay. So I think when in the, if I might approach, in this, what you got in your first cleaning of, It's kind of a look and feel, right? And then the third page here, this slide here, is the layout for the Mitchell Road interconnect. I don't have the, we could talk with you afterwards and show you where it is, the specific location on Google Earth. I don't know that we even have a design drawing done for it yet. I don't know that we're at that stage, but that's that location.

So just entertaining thoughts. So it starts connecting at 75. I'm assuming like on the east side or on the west side of 75. And so it's traversing, I'm assuming beyond Emmett County, there's some other counties.

It's not all the way over next to I-75.

Oh, okay.

It doesn't go that far.

Okay. So where is its place of origin? Springvale. Springvale. Okay. And off of East Mitchell.

Correct.

Okay. Got it. So it's starting there and then it's ending at the resort Pike Station. Correct. Thank you so much.

Anything else? Is there entertainment for a motion? You have the opportunity to make a motion.

Mr. Knoptop. I would be happy to. I think these guys have done a pretty good job of accommodating our request. I believe they're going to do it professionally. And with all the concerns that have been raised, I think it's fine. And I'd be happy to make the motion to approve the enclosed easement agreement that has been updated by Laura with the modification added with the grinding the trumps. It treats trumps everywhere.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Nob Traub. I have a motion from Mr. Nob Traub, a second from Mr. I'm sorry, Wilmot. Any other discussion, council? I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

Nob Traub.

Aye.

Wilmot.

Aye.

Damore. Aye. Walker. No. Murphy.

Aye. Motion passes 4-1. Next on the agenda is The second reading and possible adoption of a proposed ordinance amending chapter 15 concerning short-term rentals. I'd turn it over to city manager Horne.

Yes, we had a kind of a first reading a quick one last meeting can take a little take a little bit more time walking through the proposed changes the memo. I apologize for the memo location in your packet when we when we printed that off and got it to you. It looked like the memo was in the back of the document. So there is a memo in there. It's on page 95, but it should be obviously where we're talking about with the short-term rental. But Sarah kind of put the memo together that outlines the proposed amendments. to the document. Uh, we, we have gone back and forth with, with our legal folks, with Laura and her team, uh, making, um, uh, a final tweak. Um, even this morning, um, there was, uh, a slight modification that we would, I think would like to talk about, uh, this evening on section 15, four nine, which is page 59 of the document. There was a question that came up about, the transfer of licenses and how that looked. That was slightly revised based on feedback. Obviously, we can talk about that. You all can talk about that tonight to see if that's something you want to proceed with or if you're fine with how it's put together currently. And then again, section 15 five, the waiting list, um, section, which is page 59, um, was also slightly modified, adding, um, um, the underlying language, um, in the, uh, proposal. Um, so I guess at this point we can open things up for discussion with, uh, with staff and with our city attorney on any sort of, modifications you'd like to see to this document any sort of changes to in your mind tighten things up even more but that the whole idea of this change initially was to really more of a housekeeping effort to tighten things up we're getting some folks that were advertising short-term rentals that weren't license so to really Again, tighten it up. We wanted that modification and why we had the ordinance open for review. Foster Swift had a fresh set of eyes on it. They weren't involved initially when we put this together. So having a new set of eyes on things, they recommended some changes as well. So this kind of encompassed those changes, at least at this point. So happy to entertain questions, feedback. Council. Questions, comments, Mr. Moore.

So I just made two, I had two concerns and one was on page 59, section nine. And it was just that very last sentence, which to me lacked clarity about what happened upon the transfer of property. And so, Council redrafted that to make it clear. I don't know if you guys have the attachment that was provided by the city manager still today. But it just made it clear by saying upon transfer of the property, licensure lapped or revocation, of the short term rental license for property authorized under this subsection, the license shall be extinguished, at which point the property is no longer available for short term rental licensing. So to me, that change that they made, made it much more clear than what currently exists. And then on the same page 59 under section 15.5, there was just an addition in line three that said a licensee who loses the license or fails to timely renew its license will be placed at the bottom of the waiting list upon the filing of an application, except as set forth in that section we just read, because in that section, the license would be extinguished. So those were the two changes that I suggested or requested and as far as the way they're drafted, I think they are a big improvement. So I don't know if Laura wants to speak to that or not.

I'll ask her. Laura, do you have a comment for that?

We appreciated the feedback and glad we could address it with those updates.

Other questions? Mr. Wellman.

This being the second reading of this proposed ordinance change, I move that for acceptance of the ordinance as recently modified and edited.

I'll second the motion, Mayor.

Thank you.

Council, other discussions? The public wish to weigh in on this. There being none, I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

Wilmot?

Yes.

Walker? Aye. Moore? Aye. Naktrab?

Aye.

Murphy? Aye.

Motion passes 5-0. Second reading, possible adoption of proposed ordinance amending chapter 21 to authorize the immobilization and towing of vehicles for public safety and unpaid parking violations. Yeah.

So this is back on for second reading. We had a little bit of a pause. I'm trying to think when we had this back on first time, June, June ish. So this has been, discussed obviously for first reading this is a second reading kind of getting your feedback um looking at a kind of a two-prong approach with um immobilization uh using using a boot and and and towing if you will um so The parking team is here Amy and April certainly available to answer your questions to that you may have this evening, but this is something obviously that's been on our radar for quite a while I think they've gone back and revise things try to make it as streamlined as simple as possible, but certainly if there's other things that are not clearly delineated certainly are ready to make any sort of tweaks as needed.

Councilor, do you have any questions or comments or changes or deletions? Mr. Wilmot.

Yeah, just a couple of things. I'll get back to the process that you all developed. I really appreciate, but that'll probably require an exchange with the staff that's here. In this proposed ordinance changes on section one, Number three, violations B. It says a vehicle parked in violation. People get to it.

Yes. Where is it?

It's page 65 in your packet.

Now what section?

This is section one. One. Number three, violations B. Letter B. A vehicle parked in violation of this section may be towed to City of Petoskey. or it's designated at the expense of the is necessary for the interest of public safety because of fire, floods, storms, snow, natural manmade disaster or other emergency. So this is the intention here to extend beyond just violations? What is the reason for this language?

I believe that's the first section that's public safety. It's not in regards to the

I think that's existing language, right? Yes. Yeah, that's been in there. That's existing language? Yeah. OK. That was question number one. Thank you for the clarification. In terms of the process that you came up with, which I really appreciate, the flow chart that you gave. Yes, exactly. Beginning at the top, license plate has six unpaid tickets totaling 100. The vehicle owner gets a letter. but not until 250, does something get actually attached to the vehicle?

Correct.

Can you explain the rationale for that process?

Sure. At $100, then we find the license plate, the registration, the owner, and then we mail it to them. At 250, then we'll find that they're...

I understand that, but what is the rationale for not putting something on the vehicle sooner?

At $100? Yeah. We could.

To forewarn them, that at 2.50, they're in jeopardy.

It will have that on the letter.

On the letter.

To get mailed to them.

On the letter. But the vehicle operator and the owner of the vehicle may be. Different. Maybe different. That's, I was just, for your consideration, it doesn't really affect what we're doing here tonight. Okay. But for your consideration, I would consider communicating through the vehicle at an earlier stage.

Okay. Oh, that was, those are my questions. Yeah, sure.

Please, Laura.

So the, I just want to make sure that we're clear that proposed ordinance would amend that 21-39-3. And I think that is new language. That's why it's in this ordinance. The existing subsection three only dealt with civil and, you know, if there was a violation and a civil infraction, this makes clear that if there's an emergency and the city needs to tow it, it has the authority to do that.

So I guess that leaves the question of why do we need that language? I mean, I don't particularly object to it, but it doesn't really address the violation situation.

Do we not have something to address that at this point? If there's a fire downtown and there's a car sitting there, I take it, does this enable them to actually move the car? Right. But couldn't they anyway? Or is this just a safeguard to ensure letting the public know that that could happen?

I don't believe the prior ordinance provided for that. So this does make it clear within this that there's more, you know, yes, the tickets are one reason you might get towed, but if we need to move your car due to an emergency, we're going to tow it on that basis as well, if necessary.

Good counsel. Other questions? Mr. DeMoore.

Thank you. So my overarching question is why we need to have the 100 and the 250 thing. Why couldn't this just be more streamlined even still? Like, why do we need two levels?

I think, well, the first level is a person receiving the citation on their vehicle that they've been in violation. They owe a certain amount of money. Then the second one, when they reach a hundred, it's just a reminder. It could have sat somewhere. It could have blown off in the wind multiple times. This is a reminder that, Hey, you have an outstanding balance. And then at the point of an escalation of $250,

is to say okay this is serious you need to to pay you owe the city money but under this chart you provide for vehicle immobilization or towing with the hundred dollar violation if payments not completed within 10 days so you have the same tools at your you know available that's what it it's unclear to me it just seems like this makes it more complex maybe it's just me Can I add a quick comment?

Please. The ordinance says, the revised ordinance says, $100, we can tow. Period. The process is different. The process is what they're going to follow internally. The ordinance says, if you got $100 in tickets, we can tow you. Right. So why do we need the 250 level? Because of a courtesy for the people they're trying to communicate with.

they're communicating with them initially, theoretically by a letter sent. Anyway, it's fine if you, it just seems complex to me beyond necessity. And then my next question is at the intersection here, where if payment is not made within 48 hours, you have two options, you immobilize or you tow, what's the criteria there for which direction you go?

I think at this point, it would be working with the city manager to determine if we wanted to go with the immobilization or with towing of the vehicle. So at some point, as we all transition and change roles, that they will have a future strategic direction open to whatever tools are enabled at that point.

So if the immobilization route is undertaken, Reading this, I'm understanding that the car is immobilized in its location for three days, 72 hours. I got to say, that makes absolutely no sense to me, respectfully. The next resolution on page 68, part of that resolution says, the fee structure is designed to encourage turnover parking on streets and heavily used parking lots. Yet here we're engaging a process to immobilize vehicles in place for three days, which seems in opposite to me, to the goal of the fee structure. So on that basis and on the basis that there were a tourist town, I just think this immobilization is ill-advised and I won't support this if immobilization is left in it. Thank you.

I think that mobilization can be an education for all the other drivers in Petoskey or coming to town. If you see one and you go, hmm, I guess I better make sure I put money in the meters. I guess I better pay my tickets. Sadly that it is. I have a question for the city attorney. Do we need certified or registered or et cetera letters when we send this stuff out? Does the court accept a letter that is for evidence that is just a letter sent or does it need some kind of documentation?

The process of law. So as long as we are providing notice, I'm not aware of anything that requires certified mail. And currently we've discussed different notification measures. Our goal is always going to be to make sure that the title owner has actual notice of the issue, both for due process and so they can pay the parking fines.

Yep. I just wanted to check with you.

Thank you.

Mr. Wilmot. Yeah, I just, again, I wanted to clarify that the ordinance changes that we're being asked to review and vote on in the second reading potentially vote on for the second reading really have nothing to do with this process. I mean, obviously the process, but what it says here is it says section 2140 towing and immobilization authority. It simply says, that after a hundred dollars of tickets, the vehicle will be towed at the expense of the last titled owner. So we don't actually, other than the word immobilization in the title, there is no specific process in this ordinance. It's a different subject. They're just asking for authority in the ordinance to tow. So if we want, to debate the process that they're gonna use to enforce the ordinance, it's a separate discussion. That's not what we're being asked to do tonight.

Mr. Moore, any other comments, questions?

I respectfully disagree with you, but we won't go there.

How's that? I'm fine with having a discussion. I would rather have discussion than somebody not being happy that things were not.

So again, I will just repeat what I said. I don't understand the necessity of this second level. You're absolutely right. Mr. Wilmot in the ordinance, it addresses the a hundred dollar level. Hence my question, why establish a procedure? that includes what's included in the ordinance, but then includes a whole nother level of, I mean, to me, the process should align with the ordinance. So I don't know why we need the 250, or you could just do it at 250 or 100. That's my perspective on this. But overall, either way, I just don't support immobilization. And did I understand you correctly to say that the city manager would be deciding if a vehicle would be immobilized or towed?

I think we would work with the city manager to determine if we want to go with towing versus immobilization.

Generally speaking.

In general speaking, yeah. At this point, we've talked about it, is that we are a tourist town. I know there was a lot of discussion about parking wars and the booting, but people come up here for the magic of our community. I don't necessarily think that in the summer people want to see a boot on a car. And we do. Every parking space is absolute gold. Right now, if anyone's trying to park downtown or was enjoying Saturday in the park, it's parking is really, really critical. We would not boot a car at that time.

So based on that, why do we have immobilization in here for the reasons you just provided? That would be my question.

But in, and again, it's strategically speaking, if there's new technology, that enables us to immobilize a vehicle without having a visible thing on it. Say you can disable it electronically. I'm not sure. But the way technology is advancing, it could be something that simple. So instead of putting a boot on it, it's just an electronic tracker that disables the vehicle until they've paid the tickets.

I'd like that to come before city council, before that's initiated.

That's not what you're anticipating now?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Knoptrop, to kind of go along with what you guys are talking about, this isn't the first time we have an ordinance that we don't exactly follow. And we have some selected enforcement, we might have some education. So it sounds to me like what Charlie's saying, what we can do is in the ordinance, what these guys are trying to do is develop a policy for education maybe that blows away, give them a little bit of leeway. So it seems to me it's not that much different than other things we do around here. I do want to make a comment because of the, I discounted the tourism and the optics And I agree with what the mayor said. It's a deterrent also. But as literally as I was reading this and preparing for the meeting, I got a text from someone who sets up tours, golf trips. for Northern Michigan. And he had 24 people here last week. And they had a blast. And I helped facilitate some tea time at the Bay Harbor Golf Club. That's how I was connected. But he gave me feedback and said, Harbor Springs is wonderful. No parking fees. It was great. It was a lovely town. The feedback he got from Petoskey, why the heck do they charge for parking And all these empty buildings, you can't even shop well. So the optics of our downtown is an important thing. And I'm supporting this whole thing, but it hit me how important optics, getting our downtown buildings rented, is a very important thing. When you get 24 people from Florida, that's their only comment back on their time at Petoskey. It's an interesting thing.

That's really disappointing that they came to Petoskey and that's all they got was this was a negativeness. It does. I guess maybe. Maybe they came to the wrong place, but I think the city offers a hell of a lot of stuff for 24 golfers. And I'm sorry, but I don't know what they want. Go to any other city in Michigan and you have parking meters. Okay, so Harbor Springs doesn't. Charlevoix now does. You realize that, that they just now put in meters. You know, this is a part of the way the world operates. This is how we pay for our parking lots. This is how we repave them. This is the curb and gutter. This is how we get cars to move from one time to another. And if you don't have a credit card and can't utilize a credit card to pay for the meter, then you probably, I don't know how you can pay for golf if you can't use a credit card to pay for a parking meters.

You know, I don't think you should get so defensive. I'm just providing you some feedback. these are guys who are, while they love their dinner downtown, they went to the, you know, I, the, the feedback I'm just giving you. Yeah. You shouldn't get so defensive when someone gives feedback like that.

I find it as negative feedback, which I, I guess I'm looking at the positive side, I guess, of life, Mr. Wilma.

Yeah. I'd like to move this forward as, as best we can. Um, cause I don't think, uh, there's any underlying objection to the changes that have been requested in the ordinance itself. The objections that have been registered have been with the underlying process that's been described in terms of implementation and communication. So the next opportunity, I mean, we could send this back for a redo of the process, and elimination of immobilization as an option out of the process immobilization, even though the word immobilization appears in the title, it isn't in the ordinance.

And so it is, excuse me, It is in the ordinance. The city manager or his, her designee may authorize the immobilization.

I stand. I stand corrected. Sorry. But if we eliminated immobilization and just put it for towing, can we get this thing through? Because the truth of the matter is the next opportunity for us to discuss this will not be until September.

If the question is for me, I'll support this if immobilization is removed from the ordinance.

And then we could have further discussions at some point in the future with regard to the process, if that is the request of council in terms of the process that the parking authority uses and any future immobilization techniques that may be warranted for further discussion.

Ms. Walker, could you weigh in on this?

Sure. I've always been a firm supporter of the downtown parking authority and and the intention of getting all of these chronic violators to conform or pay their past due parking tickets. I know that then in the background, it's a communication issue directly with the drivers that are violating. And I'm hopeful that the legal strategy in addition to the revampment of the ordinance itself can get us to that better position. I don't need to know the legal strategy, but I feel like that is an essential component to following up on all the court cases and really getting this under control. If you have over $300,000 and pass through parking tickets, that's really concerning to me. And I would love to see these really high ticket numbers come down. And it sounds like this is the closest like path we have. And so I am in support of passing the second reading and taking action on this tonight. And also we're going to have a discussion about the one month parking citation late fee reprieve, which I also think is like putting your best face forward parking department. And like, we really want to work with folks. We're going to give you a month, take advantage of this opportunity and let's get all this past two stuff paid. So I am very much in support of moving forward with this to allow the parking department to really, get these tickets paid and things moving forward. So thanks.

Mr. Nobtrop. I completely agree with what Lindsay said for all the reasons she said it. So it doesn't matter to me. I like the deterrent with that lockdown immobilization unit. I like that. But I'm OK as long as we do something, tow or get rid of them for the reasons that Lindsay said. Mr. Wilmot.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to accept the ordinance changes as submitted, but not including the policy, further consideration of the policy for how it will be implemented at this time.

I second the motion, Mayor. I have a second.

We'll read it over at second. Is there any other discussion? Before we do that, Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to council? Council, one more time, anything you want. I'm trying to make sure everybody that's processed, you guys are worried that people aren't going to speak. You have an opportunity. You're good. Okay, Ms. Beck, do you need this reiterated, or are you good with where we're at?

It's just adoption of the ordinance, because the process is not in the ordinance. So it's just adoption of the ordinance. Good? Yeah.

Please stop.

So Wilmot?

Aye.

Walker?

Aye.

Nachtrop?

Aye.

Moore? Nay. Murphy?

Aye. Motion passes 4-1. Moving right along. Adoption of a proposed resolution would authorize a one month parking citation late fee reprieve period. April, would you like to step forward?

Absolutely.

Please, thank you.

So what we would like to do is offer a one month time where the original citation would be available for the violator to pay and then remove all the late fees. So for instance, if someone owed something from five years ago and it's up to $230, but it was originally a $25 issued ticket, they would only owe $25. or if it was something even a few years ago or whatever it is, if they had a thousand tickets, they can only pay $10 per ticket if it was for an expired meter violation.

So we will waive all the late fees. How are you contacting these individuals?

We would post it online, press release, put it in our window.

But you're not contacting the individual?

Individual, no.

I don't know if I can support it without contacting the individuals.

Is there any way to do that?

To put it on the wall. Many of the people you're going to try to reach are not contacted through this process. It's a month. How many people do you have that would have to be contacted individually?

Anyone that has had a parking citation in the last six years.

How many people are on your list? Thousands. You have a thousand people on your list. So we won't even look up. Would it be more practical to. do this invite to a certain level? You have, I know you have a level of these.

At a hundred dollars.

There are a hundred of them that owe 90% of the money, right? Would it behoove us to contact those hundred with the sake of a letter to those hundred so that we can get them off of our list and you don't have, I'm just making a suggestion. That's what I would support is notify the big people and let's get them off the books.

Oh, absolutely. So it would be the folks that we already look up are a hundred dollars or more and that's why we have their letter. So we could send it to them at a $78 since Dan purchase went up again. So there's that. The other thing would be anyone on a payment plan, we would also call, I'll call and say, we're offering this for the one month period, come and save up. And that's why we're hoping it would be like August when most people have a lot more money right now in the service industry. And then go from there.

I was going to bring up the people on a payment plan. I think that's very admirable. I think that's fair because to allow these people to continue to pay, ad nauseum versus giving them an opportunity like you are the rest of these people. Mr. Knoptop.

I agree with you, Mr. Mayor, on some kind of notification, particularly on some of these large ones that we all got all been out of shape with when it seemed like we ought to make some effort. If someone has $1,000 or $5,000 or some of these really big ones, we should send a letter to the title owner or the owner of the vehicle.

Absolutely.

Well, Mr. Wilmot. When we contact them, let's say, how much does the typical scoff law owe? How many thousands of dollars?

There's not that many with thousands. The majority are a couple hundred. So I ran year to date, and we have... Approximately. 25 people with a balance due of $200 or more.

So when you send them the letter saying that this amnesty period is enacted, will it show the calculation for that specific person as to what they would owe versus what they're on the books for currently?

Yeah, we can print it out and send it to them.

Yeah, because that will bring it down to dollars and cents of what the opportunity is for them during this window. And the other question that I had was rather than a 30-day window, maybe a 60-day window, just belt and suspenders, but.

Ms. Damore.

So just so I understand, you're thinking that the criteria for outreach, which by the way, I support this individual outreach, would be people who owe what amount in one?

Well, we have the people that owe $100 or more already in our system. So to get down to the 1C, 2Cs requires us to look up their license information from the Secretary of State.

So it's doable to do the $100 and above?

Correct.

Do you have an idea about how many people that might be? Just rough estimate.

Probably 700. 2,700? 700. Okay.

But you've got to remember it's 78 cents, however, for how many of these people are going to pay.

Plus the letter, right? And then the staff to compile that, print it out, and then mail it.

Well, I'd be happy with $200,000. I would be too. It's a week-long project instead of a four-week-long project. So $200,000 is what you're saying?

I would be happy with $200,000. How many people over $200,000? Just count it, I'm sure.

Well, those are the folks from just the six months this year. So if we go back, because it's a rolling, we have six years, a rolling six-year time frame to make payment. And then civil infractions drop off. So we would go back to 2021.

So it would be more than that you have on that list. It would be more than 200.

Oh, yeah. That's where the estimate is probably 700. but if we go to 200 or something. But a lot of folks that we would have to look up all their new, like if they've moved, they were here, but they haven't had a ticket in three years, they've probably moved or something else has happened and they're not going to pay, just realistically.

Absolutely. Yes, I'm a little confused as to what do we want to do? What are you considering? I think we ought to proceed with the one month band or one month amnesty and it ought to be more like a $200 level, not the $100 level.

For notification?

For the notification. 202 months. Two months is fine. I think what we're trying to do is to get rid of all this one time and then go on with life and never come back here again. Please.

Agreed.

Never again. That's a long time. It is. I know. Can you live with that?

Absolutely.

Let me make a motion. Would you make a motion, Ms. DeMoore?

So I'll make the motion as set forth on page 68 with the addition that the time period would be 60 days and that there will be individual outreach by letter to offenders with accumulated balances of $200 or more.

Beautiful. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion from Mr. Moore, a second from Mr. Nobtraub. Public, do you wish to weigh in? Have to do this. Council, any other comments? I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

De Moore? Aye. Nobtraub?

Aye.

Walker?

Aye.

Wilmot?

Aye.

Murphy?

Aye. Passes 5-0.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. We have three more things, and then we're going to do a closed session. There will be no further business coming after that. This next one, it will discuss murals. It's the first reading of a proposed ordinance amending chapter eight concerning murals. I turn it over to City Manager Horne.

Thank you mayor. So going back a little bit, uh, city council adopted, uh, ordinance 804 back in August of 25, um, regulating murals. So essentially we took, uh, removed murals from the signed ordinance, placing, uh, the review and approval under the art commission, um, our commission and their review, um, suggested, uh, a change in section, um, in Article 10, Section 8, 402 , really looking at the use of murals in alleys. Using murals involving unpainted brick surfaces in alleys will be considered. That was a change that the Art Commission proposed under Section 8, 402. So that's, that's the change. And then, um, and then adding as well, the property owner, um, once, once they, the mural is approved, once the agreement is signed and received by the city, the city will provide a notice to the property owner that will be posted at the mural site or a period of 14 days in advance of starting the mural project. So this is kind of a amendment to that section eight, 402, and this is a recommendation passed on from the Art Commission.

Mr. Womack, what is the point of posting the agreement 14 days? I don't understand.

Well, it's, it's to give surrounding property owners the ability to, to chime in, I guess, and see if you're a property owner that's next door to location where a mural is proposed, you have now noticed, you have a notice that this is going on, you can obviously provide any sort of feedback that, that is a result of that notice. So it's just a, but in this case, the approval has already been given. The approval has been given, but as a, as a property owner that's nearby, you can kind of know what's going on. When you see people show up that they're going to be painting.

Oh, it's just know what's going on. It's not an opportunity to object.

I mean, there's always opportunities to object and an appeal, I guess. But the approval at that point would be done, yes.

But the opportunity to appeal is not outlined here.

Do we have a notification? To appeal to this body right here. It's on section eight, number two. An applicant may appeal a denial to city council within 30 days of the art commission's decision.

Not necessarily a neighbor who has concerns.

Could be.

I mean, all of our meetings are public meetings that anybody can come out and- Do we have notifications like we do with zoning changes? No. Mr. Moore?

Yeah, I agree with Mr. Wilmot here. I think that there should be, I mean, the appeal that is in 8402D2 is an applicant appealing a denial, but there should be an opportunity in advance of approval for

neighbors or I don't know anybody in the community that might want to give voice to we can go back and uh they can always appeal at at a public meeting that's that's why we have public meetings but they don't have enough knowledge that that's occurring like we have to give this 300 point of notice for activities

I'm just suggesting that the opportunity for the public to weigh in needs to be earlier in the process prior to the final decision of the commission, I would think.

Perhaps you have some notification of neighbors within 100 feet of a building or something like that. If that's what you're saying. Is that what you're talking about?

The goal is to try to to do more murals, obviously, in town. We don't want to create a process that becomes more bureaucratic and over-the-top cumbersome is a good word. We're trying to streamline this to create more opportunities for the public to enjoy these opportunities. But certainly we'll... Pivot and take the direction as usual.

What's your preference, Mr. Wilma? What are we doing with this one right now? Do you want changes on this?

Go ahead. Just thinking.

Yeah, I mean, I never think it's a bad thing to have input from the public. I think that's a good thing. I don't see it as a deterrent. respectfully. So yeah, I think it would be good for people to have notice in advance. In some way. So they have an opportunity to be heard.

But I asked a question to help us in drafting a revision, please. Are you anticipating or envisioning a true public hearing at the art commission where neighbors are mailed notice and something is published? Or is this just a public meeting that people may have knowledge of? And I just want to make sure that we craft it in the way that you want to see it.

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mr. Knob drop it.

This whole notice of notice is a little bothersome to me. We're delegating the application process to the Art Commission. And I would hate for us to be now pitted potentially against what the Art Commission is saying about a mural and public comment, and we have a room full of people. And it seemed like somewhere in the Art Commission ought to have a notification process. Agreed. and not, I don't want us to be in a position to be in conflict.

If you want art commissions to notify with process, then we need to have an ordinance of that. We need to have something just like this.

Understood. Now, this is... presumably this is citizenry in one form or another coming to the art commission and requesting that they do a mural. Yes. If that's the case, then I think it would be a perfectly appropriate for the art commission to have their discussion and their dialogue, and then have a schedule, a public meeting with notification of nearby neighbors or input before making a final decision.

Okay. All right.

Ms. DeMora, do you agree? Well, I was just going to say it also under 8402D1, it could be a part of that. They're reviewing the application and design. It could be a part of that. And in response to Council Member Nachtraub, I wasn't suggesting it would be us. I was suggesting that- The Art Commission. Yeah. Yes. Keep us out of it. I don't want to be in that.

Okay, then we'll do. We'll send this back.

Well, this is the first reading, correct? Yeah.

What? We'll send this back for rewriting.

And a second reading.

Laura, we can go to a second reading. We make those changes.

Sure.

I'm entirely clear still on how formal you want that. notice process to be at the arts commission.

So isn't it just this Walker, isn't it just covered in section eight, four Oh two D that prior to installing a mural, the property owner shall apply for review and approval from the city of Itasca art commission. Like it's, it's going to be in that process. So do you have to add any additional language?

It doesn't require any notice before that approval. The current ordinance only provides for that notice after it's been approved. So it's really truly a notification that it is happening rather than an opportunity to object before it is approved. So if council wants the art commission to provide notice to neighboring property owners before approval, we would need to add language to that effect. And my question is just, are we requiring that to be done by mail? Or is this a newspaper publication? Or is this a website publication?

I think newspaper is fine. I don't think it requires neighborhood letters, personally. I would agree with that.

The other question is... Some good faith effort to let people know that this is going to be on the Arts Commission's agenda. So a public notice on a website is fine with me.

Okay. The other possibility would be posting on the location in advance of the meeting that would say, we're going to meet on such and such a date of murals proposed on this site. I don't know if that's sufficient.

It is the art commission kind of geared up to do this kind of stuff.

Yeah.

They have public meetings.

We have public meetings every month.

Yep. Every month.

Okay. So this is not an added burden to them really. And there's public comment involved in every meeting.

I was just going to say, if you guys choose newspaper, since the newspaper is not local anymore, the deadlines are very tight. So depending on whatever language you guys choose in the ordinance, if it has to be in the paper X amount of days ahead of time, potentially we may not meet that because the deadlines for the paper are tight.

Understood. So that might extend the decision deadline, the public, the scheduling of a public hearing by 30 days is what you're saying. But I also favor Tina's suggestion that some kind of notice be posted at the site of the, of the mural in advance of the final, in advance of the public meeting.

What's that Laura?

We can draft it that way.

You can draft that. Okay.

You're saying we can, we can move up F in higher into the process before it's approved that we're going to, we're going to post it at the mural site for a period of time. Yes. And is that sufficient? Is that sufficient? I would say that notices are also very expensive to put in.

I would say that that would be sufficient. Yeah.

Thank you. So notification at the site out on public right away.

If it's frankly, if that's all we did, that would be sufficient for me.

And it's going to be their neighbors. All we really want. I agree with you, Charlie. We don't need to over, over complicate this. Ms. The Moore.

Does the art commission have an agenda that they issue? So that would be available to, there could be a provision in there. Is there, there's provision for public comment?

There's a provision for public comment. If the, if the, if it's a mural, it'll state new business review of mural on 1027 Lake Street, or it'll, it'll actually, it's very spelled out in agendas such as this.

So I think the posting in advance served the purpose.

Yes. So how much in advance? 30 days? Mm-hmm.

It's 14.

14 days. Whatever. 14 days. 14 days prior to being discussed.

If I understand it correctly, that's the only public notice for Laura. That's the only public notice we're looking for is posting, not newspaper.

All right. I've got it. And it'll be in their agenda.

Yes. which is posted on city website, just as city council meetings are. You're good with having that set back? Will there be a first reading or a second reading, Laura?

Reading.

Thank you. I didn't hear her either. Yeah, can you repeat that? Second.

Sorry, that can still go to second reading. Those changes are not so substantial that we need a new first reading. Yeah.

Thank you. Next is the adoption of a proposed resolution adopting a mural policy and guidelines. Turn it over to city manager Horne.

Yeah, so the policy and guidelines go with, obviously with the ordinance. Laura and her team did a pretty deep dive on this over the last few weeks. So we're certainly again, open to your feedback and review at this point. Questions, Mr. Moore.

So Laura, would the notice provision that we just changed in the other need to be included in here as well? That's a great question. Let me pull the policy.

Cause I can't remember off hand.

I think so. Yeah, it wouldn't need to be. Yes, it would. Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, we could revise that along with the ordinance if you want, and then if there's any other changes as well, and bring that back.

I don't know if it's just me, but I'm having trouble hearing.

It's difficult, Laura, to hear you right now. It's very similar to what we had last Monday.

Yeah. There you are. I might need a new computer altogether is what I'm discovering. I've gone through multiple microphones. Can you hear me better now?

Yeah, a little bit. When you first come on, it's a little spotty.

Which computer is here in a minute? But yes, we can make that change to the policy. We probably then would want to bring that back next time if we need to rewrite part of it.

So we'll table this to the next meeting. Do I have a motion to table?

Anything else why we're doing any changes that you want to highlight? So I'm good. I was good with it.

Okay. Do I have a motion to table this?

So moved.

Second. Second from Mr. Who?

Wilmot.

Wilmot. Wasn't sure. Any other discussion? Public wish to weigh in? I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

Aye. Wilmot? Walker? Aye. Mottrub? Aye. Murphy?

Aye. All right, the next one is the adoption of the proposed resolution approving mural application fees. I move for acceptance of that resolution.

I'll second that resolution.

I have a motion from Mr. Wilmot, a second from Ms. Walker, discussion public, discussion council. Going to Ms. Beck for roll.

Wilmot.

Aye.

Walker. Aye. Aye. Nachtrop. Aye.

Aye.

Murphy?

Aye, motion passes 5-0. Moving to the last item for the public to share with us is the discussion, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Water Conservation Fund conversion concerning Turcotte fields, right? Go to city manager horn first, let him get us a summary of it first. Thank you, mayor.

So this is just a discussion. I really want to kind of get your feedback. This is a pretty involved process doing these conversions. So I don't want to start down a pathway and then, you know, expand staff time and resources and then not, not be on the same page as council. So, I really wanted to have this discussion about the proposal. Dr. Leslie's here. Thank you for being patient with us this evening. Dr. Leslie reached out to me. It's been a minute now, but inquiring about potential land swap of Turcotte Field, which obviously we own on the high school campus with Curtis Field, which is the Petoskey school system. owns and controls on Standish Avenue. There's some deed restrictions involved with Turcotte with the sale of the property from a conversion standpoint. And in your packet is the kind of the conversion process. Again, it's fairly detailed. We have gone through this process before. We need to find kind of like for like, if you will, making sure that we size-wise and value-wise work in the same ballpark. We, so we're familiar with this process, but again, I don't want to start down a certain road and then council again, not be on the same page. So before we spend a lot of staff time on this, you all are, I'm sure are aware of some of the the history of Curtis field and some of the maybe deed restrictions that are on there. I'm sure Dr. Leslie can speak to where, where his legal team is at on clearing, uh, the title and, and, or the deed restrictions, uh, currently, um, but that's something that they're moving forward with on their side, trying to do that. If council wants us to move forward with this, we would start the process working with Department of Natural Resources to start the conversion process on our side. And so I guess tonight it's just an open dialogue of any sort of questions you may have, concerns you may have with this sort of thing. And talking with Kendall and Kendall's staff, we think it's a good opportunity for us to pivot away from Turcotte Field. Right now, it's the high school baseball field. We do use it for some travel sports. In discussions with Dr. Leslie, that opportunity would continue. We'd still have the ability to use the field at times that are in between times where the high school is using it. When you look at Curtis Field, it's recreational opportunity for us to expand maybe the offerings from Riverbend Park and then kind of reimagine what that space could be used for. It's a well-utilized field currently, if you go there on a Saturday afternoon or just people walking the track on a daily basis. So we would certainly wanna maintain that to the high level that the school has done in the past. So we think it's a good win-win scenario on the city side of things. And so if there's questions, feedback, comments, I'm available, obviously Dr. Leslie is available as well. So hopefully coming out of tonight, we have clear direction on where you would like us to proceed from this point. Questions, comments?

Ms. Walker?

Yeah, I think it's on the surface, it feels like a pretty good, good swap. I frequent both facilities. I guess I'm just requesting a little bit more like historical information of the previous Turcotte Field that was located on Charlevoix Avenue. That facility was closed down. Was it purchased by McLaren?

That's right.

as, as part of like their expansion of their massive parking lot that never gets used ever.

I believe that sale was, I'm just going to throw out a round number, like $711, $711,000. We took that money and, and put it into the Turcotte Field location.

Did you have to bond for the construction of that ball field? Or how was the new Turcotte Field on Northman Drive funded? How did we, like, what did we pay?

We used that $711,000 to build out what's there. I think we got the property from the school for a dollar, I believe, so that there was no financial commitment to do that. So we put all those monies into building the stadium, if you will. Okay. I think there was stuff beyond that. I think, I don't know what the total amount ended up being, and I don't want to put you on the spot, Dr. Leslie, but I don't know if the school committed to a certain amount for restrooms or concession areas, or if that was all city. I mean, I can certainly get that question answered, but... Irregardless. Yeah. That maybe doesn't really even matter at this point, but the question is, is this a good deal for the city?

Yeah. As well as like who now, now it goes from city utilities to the, the Tuskegee public schools paying for those. So, you know, what, what are, what were the costs of water and electricity to the city of Petoskey previously that'll let now that'll get passed on to public schools and the running and the operations of the irrigation systems, the lights and whatnot. And then similar to what the costs of maintenance, I guess, are at Curtis field for the existent like electricity and irrigation.

Who handles the irrigation right now?

I think that the city, I think that's us. Yeah.

Yeah. That would transfer over to the schools. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Is that you've talked to your board. Yeah. And they're comfortable with this. Yeah. Please come on. Tell us who you are.

Dr. Leslie.

Microphone. There you go.

Good evening. First of all, we had our Patasky Education Foundation golf outing earlier today, and that's why I'm dressed like this coming to a city council meeting. Otherwise, that would not be the case. Yeah, because, I mean, ultimately, you know, kind of what we're looking to do is just provide better facilities for our, you know, predominantly our girls' softball team, you know, and then also our baseball team. that's kind of what was the driving force behind all this. I mean, our girls softball field that sits in that really low area, you know, and it's just, you know, the spring sports, they start practicing in March and then their game start is right after spring break. So our kids, they can't get on those fields until the first game at best. And then they look at the girls soccer and they, they look at lacrosse that are playing on the stadium turf and they're able to practice, you know, if it's 35 degrees, you know, you know, so they're kind of looking out the weight room window at these other kids. Well, man, I wish we had something like that where we could be actually be outside, you know, practicing and playing. Cause I mean, our fields like throughout April and May, it's like, you know, tapioca pudding out there. I mean, it's just so wet and it just stays that way. I mean, this time of year, I mean, like once our season's over, those fields are pretty nice, but you get the outfield or the baseball field. And then, you know, we put in some drain tile there at the softball field a couple of years ago. And I think that's helped, you know, but I'd rather have some kind of a long-term solution. So that's really kind of what we're, what we're trying to get here. And plus we don't use Curtis field, you know, we just don't. Yeah. The public does, but as a school district, yeah, I think every now and again, our middle school track kids, they might run down there. in practice and whatnot, but.

We'd work that out with you. Yeah. Correct. It's utilized. Just like we do on a lot of, I mean, once, twice a year, they'd use it for soccer and I take it. Right. The city was of course going to work. And so will you. Right. Correct. Mr. Wilmot, you have a question.

I think it's a terrific idea. I support it a hundred percent. I do want to know what, what we're getting out of this deal. Yeah. will all of the deed restrictions be removed or are we inheriting some baggage?

I think the only thing that we'd like to keep in place is the fact that it's designated a recreation. You know, I think that's kind of like, you were talking about Curtis field.

Yes.

You know, those are kind of the main stipulations that were given to us that it has to be used for recreation. And I think we'd like to, that to continue.

So, you know, You have, I don't know. I don't see anybody with problems with that. Mr. Knobtop.

I think it's a good idea too. Is there any downside? This is all we're talking positive, positive. Is there any downside to the city by doing this?

It's probably like some legal costs. I mean, because we've had to bear that too with Curtis Field of just kind of going through this process. You know, we've had to do that.

We'll have to go through the conversion process and figure that out. Obviously, they're doing the clearing the title and going through that process for Curtis field for Curtis. Yeah.

So we don't have an estimate yet as to what the cost might be for the city and going through this process.

No, likely we'll need to get a consultant to assist us with this effort. I don't anticipate it being substantial cost. We've been told it's maybe a six to nine month process to go through based on what we've done before, but.

Ms. DeMoore.

So overall, I agree with everybody. This is a good thing, but I have I have concerns from a legal perspective about the impact of this reverted clause. I remember from when I served on the school board many months ago, and I'm hearing kind of two different things. I'm hearing people talk about the title being cleared. And then I think I just heard you saying the reverted clause would still apply. So that's the only kind of sand in my oyster around this. I'm interested to get some clarity about the impact of that reverted clause. if that would still exist to burden the property with that requirement of recreational use. And I'm not putting you on the spot. I'm just kind of giving you an overview of what.

We really don't have any interest in getting that property back. So, I mean, if we were to swap with the city. So I don't know if I'm misunderstanding what you're asking.

I'm sorry. Let me be more specific. It's my understanding that there's a clause in that document that gave this Curtis Field to the school district that requires reversion back to the Curtis family in the event of a use that's not prescribed there.

That's correct. That's been researched. There are no direct living dollars.

There's no heirs remaining from that brand to the Curtis family.

But you're still working on it because it's being published in the news.

No, no. I mean, that part's been done. It's just our attorney said, Hey, you know, you need to publish that twice, you know, just before I think they go to the courts and say, look, here's everything that we've done. So I think that's just part of that legal process to get it free and clear.

To the best of your understanding, the property would no longer be burdened by that reverter clause?

Correct. Not back to the Curtis family. Okay.

As long as Laura says it's good, I'm good.

Yeah, because I think the last heir passed away in 2012, I think is what they discovered.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

The only other costs I can anticipate would be any improvements that we decide to make to the facility, but then that would be in conjunction with any improvements we make throughout the park system.

I see that as a long-term thing. Right now, it's usable by the public. Our burden will be to mow it, which is... big deal, they'll pick up the cost of, they're going to pick up the cost of Turcotte Field for water or electric.

Yeah, I mean, ultimately what, you know, I'll be honest with you, what I want to do is turf it, you know, so that, you know, our kids, they can start practicing on it in March and then build a comparable softball stadium or facility for the girls across the street. Cause we own the school district owns the property across the street from the, from, uh, Turk out there.

But I think about our, from a timing standpoint is we could incorporate Curtis field into our parks wide master plan, um, and get that feedback on, on that from a long-term planning standpoint. So from a timing standpoint, it really makes a lot of sense. Mr. Moore.

So along those lines, I'm just curious, are there thoughts already as to how it would be used or.

No, I think what the mayor said, there's nothing broken with it right now. I think we just continue to take care of it, maintain it, use it. Potentially we merge or remove some, the green arbovitas that are between. So there's a place where you can just walk to the bathrooms right there. Right now, you can still get to the bathrooms, but you gotta walk through a row of arbovitas or cedars or whatever they are. So we could open that up a little bit and create a kind of a more of a kind of a one part feel to it. But.

And Laura, of course, is going to have eyes on this whole river.

Yeah. Once we get to that point, obviously they'll go through our legal review. Any agreement obviously will be approved by this body as well as the school board. So once we get there, you'll, everybody will have their eyes on it.

Thank you. The questions. So I appreciate the discussion. This is a discussion. There's no motion. There's nothing going on. Keep working. All right.

Okay. Thanks for everything that y'all do. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Last on the comment. Oh, sir. Is that for this thing? You want to put up? Oh, come on down. Come on down.

My name is Jeff Weingart. I live in Petoskey. And, um, I've been in Petoskey since 1998. In the early 2000s, I started a running club, and the running club ran at Curtis Field. So I thought I'd come here and just tell you what I know, what I've seen. And I've spent an inordinate amount of time at Curtis Field. I was an assistant track coach, and I was an assistant cross-country coach. I've worked with, I know the coaches at St. Michael who use the track. The college uses the track. So overall, I'm just going to kind of parrot back what you guys have been saying, which I think has been great. Overall, the people that use that track are very, very creative. I've been to two birthday parties. I've been to a memorial service. And each had running associated with it. And it's not just running. I think running might be the thing that's done least there. So right now flag football is being played there by adults, by kids. I see other pickup games, football pickup games being played, Frisbee football being played. I see kids coming back from college, kicking field goals there. I've seen a guy who's playing for the Pittsburgh Penguins in the minor leagues doing sprints there I wish I had a clicker every time I see somebody at that track. I saw an instructor teaching kids how to box in the infield of that track. So walking's the biggest thing that goes on at that track. by far, and I know exactly why, and you know exactly why people walk on that track. It's the safest place in Petoskey to walk. It's a cushioned surface. It's easy on old legs, I know. I saw a week and a half ago, I even get emotional when I talk about this, We were walking on the track, getting ready to run. And there was an old gentleman and his wife walking on the track. And I went up and I talked to him and I said, how's everything going? And she had memory issues. And he grabbed her and he grabbed her by the arm and they walked down the track together. There's no other place that somebody can do that. I mean, you could go to the college and do that. But you can't do it in the summer, really. There's no better place in Petoskey to do this. And then you said something that I've learned, that Parks and Rec's going to do a plan. And with public input, you don't have to do anything right now. You just get the land and people are gonna figure out how to use it and they'll use it respectively. And I love it. It's the best. So I support you 100%. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time. Thank you for waiting.

Anything new?

I gotta say, i played football on there over 50 years ago probably a dozen touchdowns so uh can we find any of your teeth in the field chunk on my ears where's the video the other video thank you bye okay now moving right along I did tell you we'd be out of here in two and a half hours. So we're going to close session. I'm looking for adoption with proposed resolution that would authorize to adjourn to the closed session pursuant. MCL 15.2681E to consult with city attorney regarding trial and settlement strategies and connection with the pending litigation of Lowell versus the city of Petoskey U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan case number 125CV01027 for the reason that an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigation or the settlement position of the city. I entertain a motion.

So moved as set forth on page 97.

Second. A motion from Mr. Moore, second from Mr. Wilmot. I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

Mr. Moore. Aye. Wilmot.

Aye.

Walker. Aye.

Aye. There will be no further business to come before this council after this. So if you're here or online, we will do nothing but closing the meeting at following that after public comment by commissioners. Oh my goodness.

I think we're okay. I mean, it's saying it's still out there on YouTube. See? Reconvened at 8.32. Go ahead, John.

I call this session of city council back in order. I'm going to Ms. Walker for public comments.

Thank you, Mayor. Very disheartened and disappointed by the State of Michigan Eagles' decision to move forward with Enbridge's, a Canadian fossil fuel company, decision to support the tunnel. It's been many years of creating awareness around that, direct action, as well as with lots of tribal negotiations. So I know that this will be a continuing process. source of protecting our water and our land for many generations. So I'm a little disheartened by the whole thing, but I'm still keeping the faith because I love the place where I live. And I know that many of us are invested in protecting a legacy of clean water.

Board three, Mr. Knobtrop.

I attended the Curtis Park picnic this last week, and I much against my introvert tendencies, Um, and I, I, I overcame those slightly in with the encouragement of the mayor, helping me to, uh, introduce myself to these other people that were there. So I appreciate your support for this little old introvert.

Mr. Mr. Thank you for the comment, Mr. Wilmot word too.

Yeah. The only comment that I have is we, and then, and then, foreseeable future, we will be receiving from the planning commission, their recommendation for a new zoning ordinance. And last I heard the zoning ordinance in its, the new zoning ordinance draft zoning ordinance in its current form is nearly 150 pages long. And we have recently had experience with a 10-page document that took us multiple partial sessions plus a full session. And we need to be thinking about the process that we want to use to evaluate and consider what the Planning Commission is going to be recommending because it will be It will be cumbersome. And the question that I have is, will it take special meetings that we should be thinking about now? Or will we be able to integrate it into our already jam-packed agendas? Just a thought for future consideration.

Ward one, Ms. Damore.

I second Mr. Wilmot's thoughts and concerns. Just one request that as possible, we get updates from the city manager on the non-motorized plan effort updates as they occur. So the public will be aware of those as well. Thank you.

You know, you guys asked what, what's involved here with some of this stuff. Last week ago, Wednesday, I participated in the Declaration of Independence reading at Pennsylvania Park on a Wednesday at six o'clock. I introduced the speaker and gave a little spiel. That was done by over 1500, I believe, cities and municipalities across the country at that time at six o'clock. Yeah, Arts Commission meeting where we are working to formulate stuff to bring back to you. I participated, I went into the, to Saul Sheen. We're there at the Delray Hotel Ribbon Cutting. Participated and went to George Korthauer's Memorial. Attended the Curtis Park Picnic. It was great to see Councilman Knobtrop there as he interacted greatly, had great interactions with his constituents, participated in the negotiation with Dr. Lowe, with again, Mr. Knobtrop. There's more. Verse number six. Oh, I met with Brett Bolin with Shane. And I think that's about it. Yep, that's it. No further business coming for this council. I call this meeting adjourned.